On election night, Tuesday, November 3, at 10 p.m. ET, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi go live for Freed Up to react to the midterm results as they roll in. Expect the same smart, unserious, happily unhinged riffing Freed Up is known for, with plenty of roasting, a few real debates, and no shortage of jokes at the politicians' expense. Skip the doomscrolling and spend the night with two libertarians who'd rather laugh than panic.

Watch here: https://youtube.com/live/yBFGLqfumrw

The post <em>Freed Up</em>: Live Midterm Reactions appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Early voting is still ongoing in Washington, D.C.'s elections, but everyone already knows who the winner of the mayoral race is going to be. 

In June, Councilmember Janeese Lewis George won a commanding 54 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. In one of the bluest cities in America, that all but assures she'll be the next mayor. 

She will replace retiring three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has developed a reputation for a go-along-to-get-along administration, neither a bold good-government reformer nor a progressive activist. 

Her successor is more ambitious. Lewis George is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America in the mold of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (whose endorsement she sought). Her campaign platform called for more childcare subsidies, more housing subsidies, more rent control, more taxes, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a more confrontational approach to President Donald Trump. 

For the past several months, District politicos have been furiously trying to read the tea leaves on what a Lewis George administration will look like in practice. 

Will D.C.'s precarious fiscal situation and tense relationship with the Trump administration force her to moderate? Or will she stick to her ideological guns come hell or budget crisis and federal takeover of the city? 

Budget Blues

When it comes to spending, Lewis George has the biggest ambitions and the least room to maneuver. 

As D.C.'s Democratic mayoral primary was wrapping up, the District was also in the midst of a bloody fight over its FY 2027 budget. 

Bowser had proposed some $450 million in cuts to bring the budget into balance as required by law. The D.C. Council, with Lewis George's enthusiastic support, rejected those cuts and filled the gap by tapping one-time revenues and the city's fiscal reserves. 

Bowser let the budget bill become law without her signature in late June, warning in a letter that the council's rejection of her cuts would leave an $837 million fiscal cliff come the next budget cycle. 

Lewis George, by now the presumptive mayor, clapped back with her own statement calling Bowser's proposed cuts "devastating" and "irresponsible." 

In the run-up to the general election, she's promised to balance the budget and enact her new spending programs without having to raise taxes on working and middle-class residents. 

This will allegedly be accomplished through "forensic" audits of government departments to identify inefficient spending.  

As we learned with DOGE, however, the fraud, waste, and abuse fairly often fails to deliver the money needed to cover new permanent spending programs or tax cuts. 

In this way, Lewis George's position is similar to that of fellow DSAer Mamdani in New York, who came into office with grand spending pledges, fiscal gaps to close, and only so much room and power to raise taxes. 

Mamdani, at least, has a relatively friendly partner in the form of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who's assented to some new taxes and state aid to the city's budget. 

Lewis George is likely to benefit from a Democratic takeover of Congress, which will be more likely to assent to local tax increases. But for her first two years in office, she'll still be left dealing with a Republican president who's proven remarkably willing to interfere with local D.C. policy. 

The Trump Question

The most thankless task a D.C. mayor can have is appeasing a Republican president. In his second term, Trump has made this task more thankless still. 

In August 2025, he surged federal law enforcement personnel and National Guard members onto D.C. city streets and placed the city's Metropolitan Police Department under federal control as part of a showy anti-crime crackdown in the District. 

Under the Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s elected municipal government, Trump was well within his rights to federalize MPD for a period of 30 days. But the president made a number of comments about how he might try to extend his control over the police department for longer still. 

The move outraged the liberal city. Protests were held. Sandwiches were thrown. Stickers and yard signs demanding the feds back off appeared everywhere. 

Bowser, whose control of MPD was being usurped, largely tried to calm everybody down. At a press conference on the day that Trump announced federalization of the police, she described the move as "unsettling and unprecedented."

But she also vowed to cooperate with the administration and even said that increased police presence in some areas could be a "positive." 

Her "tenor will be appropriate for what I think will be appropriate for the District," she said at that August press conference. 

If the goal was to avoid prolonged federal control of MPD, the mayor's tenor worked. After 30 days, the mayor regained control of the department. 

But that even-handed approach was not what the city's left wanted to hear. 

Lewis George called it an "outrageous action" and vowed to fight the "weaponization" of Home Rule. 

In a Democratic primary in which voters were eager to vent their frustration at the new administration, this undoubtedly helped her. 

In the days before the primary, Trump threatened an end to Home Rule if Lewis George won the election. "Residents said to me, 'If Trump doesn't like you, I love you,'" she told a reporter in response. 

Here too, there remains an open question whether Lewis George will continue to play the role of Trump foil once in office. Fighting the administration at every turn would cause the new mayor a lot of headaches. It was also, to a large degree, what she was elected to do. 

Thus far, Lewis George has been somewhat cryptic about what her posture toward the White House will be. 

"I'm willing to work with this administration to the benefit of D.C. residents, and I'm willing to stand up to this administration when it comes to just that," she told Fox 5 in late October. 

View From the Top 

Mayor of D.C. is generally not a great job to have for a left-wing ideologue to have. You have to balance your budget. You can't print money. Taxpayers and capitalists can escape your redistributive schemes by moving a couple of metro stops away. We don't even have any agricultural land to collectivize. 

Bowser, like her last couple of predecessors, understood that paying for a large city government required keeping economic growth up and keeping the occupant of the White House happy. 

Neither will be an easy task for the next mayor. 

The city's economy is already in a slump. Unemployment is up. Housing development is down. And Trump has threatened time and again to end D.C.'s Home Rule and run the federal government directly. 

One would hardly choose a DSA member with a long list of expensive new programs to fund and an eagerness to "fight" as the ideal mayor for the moment. 

A potentially telling moment came in October, when Lewis George called for delaying consideration of a bill that would have eventually allowed autonomous Waymo taxies onto city streets. The jobs of existing drivers were too important, she said. 

People who are already nervous about a left-wing mayor saw in the announcement a signal that she would not bow to reality and sensibly moderate once in office. 

For an already troubled city, that would spell more trouble ahead.

The post After 11 Years of Muriel Bowser, D.C. Readies Itself for Its First Socialist Mayor appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In any election cycle, it’s common for candidates, officials and party leaders to save their strongest message for what’s known as a “closing argument” — a phrase the political world borrows from trial lawyers. After months of speeches, debates, advertisements, interviews and countless interactions with voters, this is the final opportunity for political players to put their best foot forward and summarize why they deserve the public’s support.

Donald Trump has spent quite a bit of time on the campaign trail lately, and I’ve heard his closing message several times. And while I’m certain the president wants voters to know something as they cast their ballots, I’m not at all sure what that is.

The Atlantic’s Jonathan Lemire summarized the problem this way:

Modern political history offers few examples of closing arguments that appear more out of touch, self-defeating, or downright bizarre than what Donald Trump has offered his fellow Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections.

The Democratic message, as articulated by Barack Obama among others, is relatively straightforward: Trump and Republicans took power and made things worse. A Democratic-led Congress can serve as a check on White House abuses, hold the corrupt accountable and push policies that would help get the country back on track.

Trump’s message is … harder to nail down.

After watching his final-week rallies and reading his social media messages, it’s clear that the president cares a great deal about Republican Sen. Jon Husted’s buttocks. And cognitive tests. And the oil industry’s profits. And golf courses in Washington, D.C. And his weird attempts to give artificial intelligence a new name.

It’s equally clear that Trump desperately wants Americans to hate Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and fear transgender Muslim immigrants who believe in communism, and who apparently want to take hamburgers away.

Does the Republican president have any policy priorities or a vision for the final two years of his term? Well, no, but he has a lot of thoughts about Bill Maher (the target of Trump’s single longest online post since launching his own social media platform), White House renovations and why it would be awesome if New Mexico changed its name.

“Many Republicans, and even some in Trump’s orbit, don’t quite get it,” The Atlantic’s Lemire added. “What has happened, they ask, to the instincts of the man who authored two of the most improbable victories in American political history?

“Trump’s superpower was his intuitive understanding of what motivated his supporters. Many Republicans privately tell me that he’s lost that feel. Trump now lives, they think, in a gilded bubble, palling around with billionaires, oblivious to — and, even worse, uncaring about — the problems facing so many voters,” he said.

There’s already ample speculation about whom the White House will blame if Democrats fare well next week. Whether Trump is prepared to acknowledge his own role in crisscrossing the nation, peddling weird absurdities that only he seems to care about, remains to be seen.

The post At the finish line, Trump’s closing argument in the midterms is a muddled mess appeared first on MS NOW.

“With the DOJ bringing frivolous lawsuits against the states and election boards that are clearly an attempt to interfere with the election, can these attorneys be disbarred?” — Karen

Hi Karen,

Yes, they can be.

Lawyers have faced bar discipline stemming from their support of President Donald Trump’s failed effort to overturn the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden. The final word on those disciplinary proceedings is still unfolding, including with John Eastman’s pending Supreme Court petition challenging his California disbarment. I mention that timing factor to underscore that these cases can take years to resolve.

With that in mind, there is an effort to sanction Justice Department lawyers who sued to intervene in Alaska’s U.S. Senate contest just ahead of Election Day. Their Oct. 22 complaint seeks to make a federal case out of the concern that GOP Sen. Dan S. Sullivan could lose a key race to Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, due to the presence on the ballot of Daniel J. Sullivan, whom the DOJ accused of running “with the intention of misleading supporters of Senator Sullivan into voting for him.”

The lawsuit, which attempts to block the state from certifying the results if the Republican incumbent loses, has been uniformly panned by election law experts. An amicus brief from University of California at Los Angeles law professor Richard Hasen collects quotes from scholars across the political spectrum who have called the Justice Department’s legal argument “one of the worst I have ever seen,” “completely meritless,” “scraping the bottom of the barrel,” a “desperation play” that has “zero basis in the law,” “one of the weakest lawsuits I’ve ever seen,” “uniquely embarrassing, likely filed only because Trump himself insisted on it” and “unconstitutional and unprecedented.”

Hasen, who directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project, said in his brief that the federal government’s “error-filled complaint seeks to derail Alaska’s normal and constitutionally protected processes for certifying election results, and it includes the preposterous argument that the preamble to a federal voter registration statute mentioning ‘integrity’ grants the federal government vast powers to interfere with state election certification processes (and who knows what else).”

A motion from a group led by the League of Women Voters argued that the judge presiding over the case, Obama appointee Sharon Gleason, should not only dismiss the “frivolous, election-eve lawsuit,” but also sanction the lawyers who brought it. The voting rights coalition said the court “would do American democracy and the rule of law a further service by considering Rule 11 sanctions against the attorneys who signed the Complaint in the name of the United States Department of Justice.” Rule 11 is the federal civil procedure rule that governs frivolous and dishonest court filings and sanctions for bringing them.

The DOJ’s complaint was signed by Stanley Woodward, a high-ranking government lawyer in Trump’s second term who has been pressing the president’s priorities in court and previously represented various Trump-aligned figures while in private practice, and Alaska-based prosecutor E. Bryan Wilson.

Woodward and Wilson filed an amended complaint on Thursday that cited this week’s reporting from The New York Times that said the Peltola campaign worked with people trying to recruit the other Sullivan to run. The new complaint does not quote the Times’ caveat that “Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska.”

Whatever the political effect of the Times’ reporting, it doesn’t retroactively make the DOJ’s suit more legally meritorious, nor does it retroactively make the filing of that suit more ethical.

We don’t know yet how Gleason will rule (or what will happen on any appeal), or whether she will impose sanctions. Even if she does, that wouldn’t necessarily endanger the attorneys’ law licenses. Whether that happens is up to the state bars and courts where they are licensed.

Earlier this year, watchdog group Campaign for Accountability filed a bar complaint against Woodward in the District of Columbia, where he is licensed, asking the authorities there to investigate potential ethics violations over his involvement in the “anti-weaponization fund,” which the group said would compensate “the same January 6 defendants and Trump associates he previously represented as a private defense attorney.” Attorney General Todd Blanche said the DOJ wasn’t moving forward with the fund, but pardoned Jan. 6 defendants, including Woodward’s former clients, are still pressing compensation claims.

At a hearing Friday in the protracted litigation over the East Potomac golf course, with Woodward representing the government, the Washington, D.C., judge handling that contentious case reportedly began by reading the D.C. bar’s rule about candor to the court.

Keep in mind that disbarment is the most extreme form of attorney discipline. Other options range from reprimand to suspension. Again, whether any discipline comes from current events could take years to know.

Please submit “Ask Jordan” questions through this form for a chance to have your question featured in a future edition of the Deadline: Legal newsletter.

The post Ask Jordan: Can Trump DOJ lawyers be disbarred for election interference? appeared first on MS NOW.

Ninety years ago, on Oct. 31, 1936, Literary Digest, which had correctly forecast presidential election winners since 1916, predicted that Alf Landon would beat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the upcoming election.

Roosevelt won handily. The Digest’s poll surveyed 10 million people via postcard, using telephone books and car registration lists for the information. Even though almost 2.4 million people responded — an impressive response rate — the misleading sample provided inaccurate results. Literary Digest folded shortly afterward.

Two years later, in 1938, Gallup started tracking presidential approval ratings. Even so, polls remained far from perfect. In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune’s embarrassing front-page declaration "Dewey Defeats Truman" stemmed in part from a misuse of polling. The paper relied on earlier polls that did not reflect the Election Day reality in making its prediction.

As the science of polling improved over time, campaign pros began to rely on pollsters. John F. Kennedy was the first president to be strongly associated with a polling firm, as he used Lou Harris and the Harris organization's polls in his 1960 campaign for president.

LEE CARTER: AMERICA IS ANGRY AT EVERYONE — BUT WHO WILL ACTUALLY VOTE?

In the 1970s, we witnessed the rise of the celebrity pollsters: Pat Caddell for Jimmy Carter, Richard Wirthlin for Ronald Reagan, and Stan Greeberg and Dick Morris for Bill Clinton. These pollsters were successful but not infallible.

Caddell, for instance, was largely responsible for Carter's 1979 "Crisis of Confidence" speech. He misjudged the public mood, and Carter’s "malaise speech" became one of the most disastrous presidential speeches of all time.

Morris, for his part, had a tempestuous relationship with Bill Clinton. They once reportedly came to blows while Morris was advising Clinton during his time as governor of Arkansas.

Morris was initially on the outs and Greenberg in charge of polls when Clinton won the 1992 election. But Morris secretly came back and started advising Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 "Republican Revolution." Morris even had a code name — "Charlie" — to keep his identity secret from the more liberal White House staff, which resented Morris’ pushing of Clinton to the center.

Morris would poll everything, even where Clinton should go on vacation. When Clinton left office after two terms in 2000, he had survived the Monica Lewinsky scandal — despite polls showing that Americans strongly disapproved of Clinton's behavior. The most important number for Clinton was the Gallup approval rating. He left office at 66%, one of the highest outgoing figures in history.

21st-century presidents would be thrilled to get approval ratings anywhere near Clinton's final number. George W. Bush hit 86% after the 9/11 terror attacks, but that did not last. For the most part, the "low and steady" phenomenon has meant that presidents in this century have struggled to get about 50% approval.

TRUMP VS HISTORY: HOW PRESIDENT'S POLL NUMBERS COMPARE TO BIDEN, OBAMA, BUSH AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

Still, the polling mishaps have continued. In 2004, exit polls predicted a win for John Kerry over George W. Bush. Campaign adviser Bob Shrum even said to Kerry on Election Day, "Can I be the first to call you, Mr. President?" The exit polls were wrong, and Bush won a second term.

In 2012, Mitt Romney’s campaign wrongly thought it was headed for victory when its pollster made overly optimistic weighting assumptions. The turnout model incorrectly assumed that Barack Obama would not generate the same level of youth and minority turnout that he had in 2008.

LIZ PEEK: FIVE REASONS REPUBLICANS COULD DEFY THE POLLS AND SHOCK DEMOCRATS ON ELECTION DAY

Polling took another big hit in 2016, when pollsters confidently predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump. She didn't, and the pollsters’ justification that they had the popular vote right but got the election result wrong did not help matters.

In our current midterm elections, we have seen a new wrinkle. Partisan polls overstated progressive support in the primaries, skewing the results and causing some candidates to drop out in the face of the inaccurate data. This latest mishap reinforces the lesson that polling often fails, although rarely in the same way twice.

DEMOCRATS FURIOUS AFTER POLLSTER BOOSTING FAR-LEFT CANDIDATES ADMITS FABRICATING SURVEYS: ‘ABSOLUTE SCUMBAGS’

While technology and the science of polling are much better today than in 1936, the improvements complicate matters further. While nearly everyone has a phone, they also have caller ID and don't answer calls from unfamiliar numbers. Response rates shrink, increasing the size of the "silent majority."

In this new environment, human modeling decisions ironically become more, not less, important. Polling errors come not from new techniques or technologies but from imperfect human decisions about how to deploy the new technologies. In making those decisions, pollsters can overreact to what went wrong beforehand. In this, pollsters are like generals, often fighting the last war.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

In the end, polls are more accurate as snapshots of opinion rather than predictors of behavior, specifically, who will actually submit a ballot. This means that whatever the polls say, the public should be wary. To borrow from the Psalms, put not your trust in polls, and get out and vote.

Republicans are losing ground in a state where Democrats are seeking to retain Senate seats and win the governor’s race.

Less than a week before the midterm elections, polls predict that voters in Georgia are not leaning toward Republicans in a state that plays a decisive role in U.S. politics and gave Donald Trump a narrow victory in the 2024 presidential election.

RELATED:

More Than 26.6 Million Have Voted Early in U.S. Midterms

“Republicans are disappointed. Trump promised he would lower prices, and obviously, it was a scam,” said David, a Democratic volunteer who goes door to door in neighborhoods across the city of Macon to make sure no progressive vote is lost.

Polls point to a likely victory for Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is seeking reelection against Republican Mike Collins and could even become a presidential candidate in 2028.

Democrats need to hold on to their seats in Georgia and Michigan and flip four Republican-held seats in swing states to win a Senate majority.

They are also hoping to make Keisha Lance Bottoms the first woman and first African American to serve as governor of Georgia, although polls show a dead heat with Republican Rick Jackson.

🇺🇸 Obama blasts Trump’s ‘chaos and cruelty’ ahead of US midterms

Former US president Barack Obama delivered scathing criticisms of current leader Donald Trump at a rally in Georgia to support Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. pic.twitter.com/CyTKSsO8up

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) October 30, 2026

A Divided Battleground State

In Georgia, every vote counts. Trump defeated Harris in 2024 by 115,000 votes, while Joe Biden won in 2020 by just 12,000 votes, a margin Trump unsuccessfully challenged with allegations of fraud.

Few states embody the electoral pendulum as well as Georgia, where a population boom and decades of economic growth have transformed a Republican stronghold in the South into a state where either party can win.

While the Atlanta metropolitan area, home to Coca-Cola, CNN and Delta Air Lines, is a major source of Democratic votes, the state’s iconic peach orchards, by contrast, are turning Republican red.

💙 GEORGIA VOTE BLUE UPDATE:

With ONE day of early voting left, Democratic voters are still showing up strong, outpacing red counties relative to 2024!

Over 2.5 million ballots have been cast statewide—let’s keep expanding our lead! 🗳️✨

📍 Cast your early ballot today and… pic.twitter.com/eVxIZbSiB9

— Seth Taylor (@SethTaylor1991) October 30, 2026

The Battle for the African American Vote

The birthplace of Martin Luther King Jr. and the cradle of the civil rights movement, Georgia also has an African American population of more than 30%, above the national average.

Mobilizing those voters was one of Obama’s goals when he chose Atlanta for his final major campaign rally last Wednesday. “Obama represents hope, faith and class. He is the best of the best; what we have now is garbage,” said Patricia, an African American voter who attended the event.

So far, voter turnout in the Southern state has already broken records, with more than 2.3 million people casting early ballots, surpassing the previous high set during the 2022 midterm elections.

Although early voting figures cannot predict the outcome, some indicators favor Democrats, with higher turnout in urban centers and more moderate participation in rural areas.

trump’s net approval across all 50 states w/ less than one week until midterms

(only 10 states rate the president net positively, and approval is underwater in most states with key races)

maine: -29
michigan: -25
georgia: -24
iowa: -20
texas: -19
ohio: -19
alaska: -13
south… pic.twitter.com/CfeTa2I2Uv

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) October 29, 2026

The Cost of Living at the Center of the Campaign

Aware of what is at stake, Trump has visited Georgia twice in two weeks, most recently last Saturday, when he announced a multibillion-dollar investment by Audi to build a plant that would bring thousands of jobs, according to him.

The economy dominates a campaign shaped by public frustration over the high cost of living and rising gasoline prices amid the war in Iran.

“Women voters in counties across the Atlanta metropolitan area tend to be decisive. Gasoline and food prices are the main issues,” political scientist Kerwin Swint said.

Obama has tapped into the frustration of Americans struggling to make ends meet with a viral joke that has angered Trump: He compared the White House’s gold decor to the tacky aesthetic of The Cheesecake Factory restaurants.

Outside his rally, a man was selling T-shirts depicting the White House transformed into one of those restaurants. He said they sold out in the blink of an eye. Tuesday will show whether that is a reflection of what will happen at the ballot box.

teleSUR/ JF

Source: EFE

Flávio, un cascarón vacío, puede haber perdido unas elecciones. Sin embargo, la máquina infernal que lo respalda nunca se dará por vencida.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

No significa nada si no tiene ese ritmo brasileño. Lo que está en juego no podría ser más alto: es una cuestión de vida o muerte. Así que los brasileños salieron a las calles —y a las casillas electorales— y lograron salir adelante.

No hicieron nada menos que domar a la Madre de Todas las Guerras Híbridas y derrotar, aunque fuera momentáneamente, a una coalición poderosa y tóxica que incluía toda la fuerza de la administración de la «Doctrina Donroe»; el tecnofeudalismo de Silicon Valley, especialmente impulsado por Meta; Wall Street y la Diosa del Mercado; los múltiples tentáculos de Zionism Inc.; las viejas élites reaccionarias —y sus medios de comunicación—; las nuevas élites ostentosas; la demencia evangélica; y, por último, pero no menos importante, una mediocre dinastía neofascista empeñada en convertir a Brasil en una neocolonia extractivista en beneficio de «La Voz de Su Amo».

El efecto —tranquilizador— es similar al de un himno de bossa nova de Antônio Carlos Jobim cantado por Frank Sinatra.

Sí, Brasil es demasiado grande —y demasiado indómito— para ser el patio trasero de nadie. Y qué giro tan radical, en lo que respecta a Lula personalmente: la geopolítica no ha visto un regreso como este desde la Batalla de Stalingrado.

Perdimos: así que la elección estuvo «amañada»

El día de las elecciones amaneció en un clima de gran tensión —pero con Flávio Bolsonaro aún con un 82 % de posibilidades de ganar, según Polymarket, los favoritos de la DARPA. Es como si el Estado profundo supiera el resultado de antemano —tal como en la primera ronda de votación—.

Sin embargo, al final Lula ganó por 4.4 millones de votos. No sin mucho drama. Justo antes de que cerraran las urnas, un juez de la Corte Suprema —quien anteriormente había sido el abogado personal de Lula durante el caso de corrupción «Lava Jato»— extendió el horario de votación en todo el país por dos horas.

El tribunal electoral debería haber tomado una decisión al respecto. No lo hizo porque otro juez de la Corte Suprema —nombrado por Bolsonaro— estaba demorando el proceso.

La prórroga fue vital, porque para entonces ya se había demostrado que los alcaldes bolsonaristas estaban obstaculizando deliberadamente el transporte público, especialmente los autobuses, en bastiones de Lula como Salvador, en Bahía: una táctica sacada directamente del manual de sabotaje oligárquico, utilizada para suprimir el voto popular.

El dato clave es que ambas campañas habían solicitado una extensión del horario de votación. Y eso desmiente por completo las afirmaciones de los imbéciles bolsonaristas y vinculados al movimiento MAGA de que la elección estuvo «amañada».

Como era de esperarse, Flávio Bolsonaro se niega a reconocer la derrota y quiere que se anule la elección. Eso no sucederá —según el mismo juez designado por Bolsonaro que, para empezar, estaba dando largas al asunto—.

En la segunda vuelta, Lula aumentó su total de votos en más de 10.1 millones, mientras que Bolsonaro solo obtuvo 3.6 millones más. A eso se suma algo casi improbable: hubo más de 1.8 millones menos (cursiva mía) votos nulos y nulos en comparación con la primera vuelta —y la abrumadora mayoría fue para Lula.

Varias razones explican el desempeño del «niño del regreso» —o del «abuelo»—. Empezando por una movilización popular masiva: la abstención bajó del 21,08 % al 19,21 %. Casi 3 millones de personas más acudieron a las urnas.

Lula amplió sus márgenes donde era fuerte —en el noreste— y redujo sus pérdidas en el acaudalado sureste.

La campaña de Lula llevó a cabo una importante autocorrección: en lugar de enfocarse en el pasado —los resultados concretos de su gobierno—, comenzó a hablar de la cruda realidad actual: la economía familiar; los enormes niveles de endeudamiento; el costo de vida; los salarios; e incluso presentó propuestas concretas para los próximos cuatro años.

La campaña de movilización digital fue digna de atención, con un arma letal desatada en WhatsApp: el canal «El Ejército de Lula», que pasó de unos 50 000 seguidores a la impresionante cifra de 10 millones en menos de tres semanas: una infantería digital de facto. Brasil es una de las naciones más conectadas del planeta.

Encabezada por el recién elegido diputado André Janones, la campaña demostró cómo Lula venció al hegemón tecno-feudalista Meta en su propio terreno: la estrategia será estudiada en los anales de la ciencia política por generaciones.

Y luego está la asombrosa incompetencia de Flávio Bolsonaro: una mezcla letal de arrogancia e ignorancia que simplemente no se podía vender como una alternativa moderada.

Apenas dos días antes de la segunda vuelta, durante el último y crucial debate, Bolsonaro, en vivo, frente a toda la nación y a millones de votantes indecisos, llamó a Lula «el de los nueve dedos», burlándose de su discapacidad física.

Lula preparó la respuesta en tiempo real como una cobra. Recordó cómo perdió su dedo meñique a los 19 años en una prensa de metal, víctima de la precariedad y la falta de seguridad que sufren millones de trabajadores en Brasil: «Algo muy diferente a ti, Bolsonaro, que nunca has trabajado».

Eso lo selló todo: el dedo meñique perdido como el símbolo definitivo de la dignidad frente al privilegio.

Esto se va a poner muy feo

Gobernar Brasil será una tarea sisífica para el cuarto mandato de Lula. El Senado (81 escaños) está controlado por la extrema derecha (48 escaños): una mayoría absoluta. En el Congreso, la extrema derecha cuenta con 303 escaños (muy por encima de la mayoría, que es de 257), el centro tiene 86 escaños y la izquierda solo 124. Cualquier reforma, presupuesto o ley se enfrentará a un muro de hierro.

Podría decirse que la mejor definición de Lula la ofreció en su momento el difunto y gran El Comandante, Fidel Castro:

Nunca fue un extremista de izquierda, ni alcanzó el estatus de revolucionario desde posiciones filosóficas, sino desde las de un trabajador de origen muy humilde y fe cristiana, que trabajó duro creando plusvalía para otros.

Lula, ahora en sus ochenta, parece haber recuperado esa chispa. No hay duda de que sabe muy bien cómo esta derrota masiva para Trump, el MAGA y la Doctrina Monroe lo obligará a movilizar todas sus fuerzas: para organizar a Brasil mientras contiene la furia descontrolada del Imperio.

Sean cuales sean los resultados de las elecciones intermedias de EE. UU. la próxima semana, Trump inevitablemente intensificará las sanciones y/o los aranceles contra Brasil y seguirá haciendo todo lo posible y lanzando operaciones sucias para desestabilizar al país.

La CIA y el Estado profundo están profundamente enredados en la realidad brasileña y son capaces de desatar un sinfín de trucos sucios.

Lula lo sabe: esto se pondrá muy feo.

En resumen, se podría decir que Lula personifica un Brasil católico, tradicional, lusófono, mestizo y progresista.

Esto entra en un choque frontal con el eje reaccionario, evangélico, neopentecostal y sionista angloamericano. Después de todo, los neopentecostales defienden la lunática teología del Fin de los Tiempos que dio forma al sionismo cristiano angloamericano.

Flávio Bolsonaro —como todos los miembros del clan— prometió trasladar la embajada de Brasil a Jerusalén; desestimó al BRICS calificándolo de «altamente ideológico»; y atacó la relación de Lula con Irán (también miembro del BRICS).

Flávio, un cascarón vacío, puede haber perdido unas elecciones. Sin embargo, la máquina infernal que lo respalda nunca se dará por vencida.

Traducción:  Observatorio de trabajador@s en lucha

American-born Pope Leo XIV has become the first pope ever to vote in a U.S. election.

The Holy See Press Office confirmed to Fox News Digital on Friday that Leo, born Robert Francis Prevost and the first American-born pope in the Catholic Church's more than 2,000-year history, submitted a mail-in ballot in Illinois.

"Pope Leo XIV has exercised his right to vote as a United States citizen, whenever he was eligible to do so," the Holy See Press Office said. "The Holy See Press Office confirms that in keeping with this long-standing practice of civic participation, he has submitted his mail-in ballot in Chicago."

"The Holy Father has also confirmed that, during his years of residence in Peru he exercised his right to vote whenever he was eligible to do so," the press office added. "The Holy Father expresses his belief in the right and the duty of citizens to participate in democratic processes."

CHICAGO'S 12-LANGUAGE BALLOTS MAKE ELECTIONS 'HARDER TO MONITOR,' ILLINOIS GOP CHAIR WARNS

The Will County clerk’s office told the Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday that Leo requested a mail-in ballot on Oct. 3, while the Vatican separately confirmed that the pontiff had submitted his ballot.

"Robert Francis Prevost is on the list of individuals who requested a vote by mail ballot for the upcoming election," Kim Fladhammer, Will County clerk’s office chief of staff, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Among the races on Illinois' ballot is the contest for governor, where incumbent Democrat J.B. Pritzker is seeking a third term against Republican Darren Bailey and independent candidate Collin Corbett.

The Will County clerk’s office and Pritzker's campaign each did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment.

POPE LEO XIV SEEN FOR FIRST TIME SINCE LUNG CANCER SURGERY AMID MAJOR RECOVERY MILESTONE

"There is no such thing as an absentee ballot in Illinois law anymore. So anyone can vote by mail if they so choose. There is also a law called UOCAVA, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act that is mostly for the military, but it’s also for U.S. citizens who are overseas," Illinois State Board of Elections spokesman Matt Dietrich told the Chicago Sun-Times. "... Any Illinois registered voter can vote by mail."

"Until 2010, it was considered absentee, and you had to have an excuse," Dietrich added. "But that’s all gone away. So that’s obviously what he’s doing."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Vatican announced on Oct. 13 that Leo underwent a procedure at Agostino Gemelli University Hospital in Rome to remove a small tumor on his right lung. Leo’s doctors later confirmed on Oct. 21 that no further cancer treatment is necessary after the pontiff’s lung tumor was removed.

Early voting is continuing to significantly outpace the last midterm election, with millions more Americans casting ballots in advance and particularly sharp increases in states hosting competitive Senate races, according to an Associated Press analysis of voting data five days before Election Day.

Israel's final election count has confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc has lost its parliamentary majority, but whether opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot can assemble a government to replace him remains an open question as negotiations begin behind closed doors.

The completed count, published early Friday by Israel's Central Elections Committee, gave Netanyahu's bloc 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for Eisenkot's opposition alliance. The two predominantly Arab parties secured a historic 19 seats, placing them in a potentially decisive position.

Netanyahu's Likud emerged as the largest individual party with 27 seats, followed by Eisenkot's Yashar with 21 and former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's Beyachad with 12. Final voter turnout reached 77.9%, according to the Central Elections Committee results.

ISRAEL HEADS INTO DEEPLY DIVIDED ELECTION AS OCT. 7 RECKONING LOOMS: WHAT TO KNOW

But the numbers leave neither major bloc with the 61 seats required for a majority, opening a complex political struggle involving potential partnerships with Arab parties, ultra-Orthodox lawmakers or a unity government bringing together longtime rivals.

A source familiar with opposition discussions, who spoke to Fox News Digital on condition of anonymity, described the outcome as a "bitter stalemate," but not an impossible political situation.

The source said opposition leaders are approaching coalition negotiations with patience and experience rather than treating the inconclusive results as a defeat, arguing that the next government could depend on their ability to forge partnerships that previously seemed unlikely.

FORMER ISRAELI ARMY CHIEF GADI EISENKOT EMERGES AS NETANYAHU’S LEADING ELECTION CHALLENGER

Ultra-Orthodox allies explore a break with Netanyahu

In a potentially significant development Friday, Israeli journalist Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat reported that Rabbi Dov Lando, a leading ultra-Orthodox religious authority, had instructed lawmakers from Degel HaTorah, part of United Torah Judaism, to open discussions with the opposition.

According to the report, the objective is to reach an arrangement protecting the status of yeshiva students amid the longstanding dispute over mandatory military service.

Channel 12 reported that figures within the ultra-Orthodox party were considering allowing an Eisenkot-led minority government to survive through outside parliamentary support, potentially breaking with Netanyahu.

"Our votes are not in Netanyahu's pocket," party figures told Channel 12, according to a translation of the Hebrew-language report.

However, the office of United Torah Judaism Chairman Yaakov Asher denied that any instruction to begin negotiations had been issued.

Such an arrangement would represent a significant shift from the party's longstanding alliance with Netanyahu. Eisenkot's pledge to expand military conscription among ultra-Orthodox men remains a major obstacle, although Channel 12 reported that party figures were willing to consider a compromise on the issue.

The source familiar with opposition discussions told Fox News Digital that Eisenkot's camp had been preparing for the possibility of cooperation with ultra-Orthodox parties well before the election, suggesting that some of the options now being discussed had already been under consideration behind the scenes.

According to the source, such an arrangement could require compromises over military service and potentially outside parliamentary support from Arab lawmakers, bringing together political factions whose positions appeared irreconcilable during the campaign.

FORMER ISRAELI PM EMERGES AS WILD CARD IN HIGH-STAKES ELECTION WITH MIDDLE EAST'S FUTURE AT STAKE

Arab parties signal flexibility, but obstacles remain

Another possibility rests with the Arab parties, which nearly doubled their parliamentary representation from 10 to 19 seats following a surge in turnout.

But the prospects of an Arab-backed government have drawn conflicting assessments.

Channel 12 reported Thursday that Ra'am leader Mansour Abbas had expressed deep skepticism about the possibility of establishing an Eisenkot-led minority government supported by Arab lawmakers.

Israeli political commentator Amit Segal also argued that the available options had narrowed considerably, identifying a Netanyahu-Eisenkot unity government or another election as the two principal remaining possibilities.

Mohammed Majadla, head of the news division at Radio Nas and a Channel 12 political commentator, offered a different assessment in an interview with Fox News Digital, arguing that both Ra'am and the Joint List were prepared to use their parliamentary influence to prevent Netanyahu from returning to power.

"The two Arab lists agree on two things," Majadla said in the Hebrew-language interview. "First, they are prepared to do everything within the political process to ensure Netanyahu does not return to power."

According to Majadla, that could include joining a coalition, providing outside parliamentary support or abstaining from key votes.

He said their second shared priority was avoiding another election, which Arab political leaders fear could reverse their gains.

"The ball is now in Eisenkot's court, not in the Arab parties' court," Majadla said. "As far as the Arab parties are concerned, I can tell you they are truly prepared to do everything to make this happen."

Majadla suggested that public declarations should not necessarily be treated as final positions, particularly as parties seek leverage during coalition negotiations.

The difficulties extend beyond the Arab parties. Eisenkot's potential partners include politicians who strongly oppose cooperation with ultra-Orthodox factions, while several opposition leaders campaigned against relying on Arab lawmakers to govern.

NETANYAHU FIGHTS FOR POLITICAL FUTURE AS ISRAEL HEADS TO POLLS WITH IRAN THREAT LOOMING

Unity government or another election?

A national unity government involving Likud and Yashar would offer a more straightforward mathematical route to a majority, but would require Eisenkot to reconsider his campaign pledge not to join a Netanyahu-led government.

For Netanyahu, the lengthy coalition formation process could provide additional opportunities. If Eisenkot receives the mandate to form a government but fails, President Isaac Herzog could assign the task to another candidate, potentially giving Netanyahu another chance to assemble a coalition. If successive efforts fail, Israel could face another election.

Despite the obstacles, the source familiar with opposition discussions pointed to Bennett and Lapid's experience navigating complex coalition negotiations as an important asset.

"They've both played this game many times. They know it, and they're not rattled," the source said, according to a translation of the Hebrew-language conversation.

The source suggested that Bennett's experience working with Netanyahu gives him a particular understanding of the prime minister's negotiating tactics, while Lapid brings additional experience in coalition-building.

Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, one of the opposition's senior figures, acknowledged Friday that forming a government would be considerably more difficult than campaigning against Netanyahu.

"Now comes the truly hard part: trying to form a government," Lapid wrote on X, urging supporters to remain patient.

"It takes place in small rooms, slowly, away from the cameras," he wrote, according to a translation of his Hebrew-language statement, emphasizing the importance of negotiations conducted out of public view.

The negotiations will also unfold against the backdrop of the Trump administration's Middle East agenda.

The source familiar with opposition discussions said understanding Washington's regional priorities could become an important consideration in shaping a future government, although no specific American role in coalition negotiations has been confirmed.

The election results are scheduled to be formally submitted to President Herzog on November 4, following remaining verification procedures. The new Knesset is expected to be sworn in November 10.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

For now, the election has settled the question of how Israelis voted, but not who will govern them. A source familiar with the negotiations concluded: "Whoever manages to forge new partnerships will move forward. Whoever doesn't will remain stuck."

Support for Édouard Philippe, the leading candidate from the centrist bloc, has eroded, while his far-right and far-left rivals benefit.

© Sebastien Salom-Gomis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The evacuation of civilians from Russian-occupied Oleshky offers a rare humanitarian breakthrough in a war that has produced precious few. Yet behind the diplomatic congratulations and carefully managed publicity lies a striking contradiction: Moscow is receiving international recognition for helping rescue people whose suffering is inseparable from its own occupation. For Vladimir Putin, it is an opportunity to appear conciliatory without changing his military objectives. For Donald Trump, it is a diplomatic achievement conveniently timed ahead of the American congressional elections.

In Oleshky, the humanitarian convoys have finally arrived. So have the television cameras. After more than four years of Russian occupation, hunger and isolation, the surviving inhabitants of this devastated Ukrainian town have suddenly found themselves at the centre of international diplomacy.

Their predicament has acquired a political significance extending far beyond the immediate question of how to get food into Oleshky and its people out.

On Friday, 30 October, Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Presidential Office, confirmed that humanitarian assistance had reached the town and transport was ready for residents wishing to evacuate to Ukrainian-controlled territory.

Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, is coordinating the operation. Twenty-five buses, capable of transporting 750 passengers, together with ambulances for vulnerable residents, have been prepared.

The temporary ceasefire, which began on 27 October, is scheduled to expire on 1 November.

The number of evacuees remains uncertain. Ukraine’s prime minister withdrew an earlier estimate, explaining that the figures were changing and that premature disclosures could compromise the mission.

For civilians who have endured years of occupation, the operation offers something considerably more valuable than diplomatic recognition: a chance to survive.

For the governments involved, however, the calculations are rather different.

The concession that costs Putin remarkably little

The White House announced the agreement on 23 October, crediting Melania Trump with securing the humanitarian ceasefire.

It was an unusual intervention by an American First Lady, and one that Ukrainian officials have publicly welcomed.

But the limited scope of the arrangement deserves attention.

Moscow has agreed to suspend hostilities temporarily, permit humanitarian deliveries and facilitate civilian evacuations. It has not agreed to withdraw its forces, reconsider its territorial demands or substantially alter its conduct of the wider war.

The political return, meanwhile, could be considerable.

Russia can demonstrate cooperation with Washington. The Trump administration can point to a negotiated outcome. The First Lady receives international recognition for a humanitarian initiative.

All this comes just days before the American congressional elections on 3 November, offering the White House a visible diplomatic success without requiring the Kremlin to sacrifice anything strategically important.

Whether the operation will actually deliver Republican votes is another matter. There is no evidence that it will materially influence electoral preferences.

But the publicity value is unmistakable.

For Putin, the arrangement offers something perhaps more useful than an electoral favour to Trump: an opportunity to cultivate the image of a reasonable negotiating partner while preserving Russia’s freedom of military action.

The occupying power as humanitarian benefactor

There is a deeper irony in Russia’s new role as a partner in Oleshky’s rescue.

Before the invasion, approximately 24,000 people lived in the town. Today, an estimated 1,700–2,000 remain.

The survivors have endured Russian occupation since 2022, widespread destruction, restrictions on movement and severe shortages of basic necessities. The catastrophic flooding following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 compounded their predicament.

Yet Moscow can now present itself as a participant in relieving the humanitarian catastrophe.

The transformation is politically convenient.

Images of Russian officials accompanying aid convoys may help construct a narrative of humanitarian responsibility, particularly for international audiences unfamiliar with the town’s recent history.

Facilitating an evacuation does not, however, absolve an occupying power of its obligations towards civilians.

Nor should cooperation on a single humanitarian operation be mistaken for evidence that Moscow has reconsidered the policies that produced the crisis.

When survivors become instruments of propaganda

The information campaign surrounding Oleshky is particularly revealing.

On 7 October, Ukraine’s Security Service warned that Russian military personnel were allegedly preparing interviews in which residents would blame Ukrainian forces for their suffering while praising Russian troops.

These allegations require independent scrutiny. But they raise an uncomfortable question: how much weight should be attached to political declarations made by people emerging from years of occupation?

Fear can produce silence. It can also produce conformity.

Civilians dependent upon the authorities controlling their territory may repeat the language of those authorities, whether from conviction, intimidation or self-preservation.

Some residents may genuinely support Russia. That does not make them less entitled to humanitarian assistance.

There is a fundamental distinction between holding pro-Russian political opinions and actively collaborating in crimes against Ukraine.

A state defending its sovereignty need not demand ideological conformity from citizens it seeks to protect.

Indeed, rescuing them irrespective of their political sympathies is a more meaningful demonstration of democratic principles than any carefully staged declaration of gratitude.

Melania Trump and the choreography of compassion

The American dimension introduces its own peculiarities.

The White House has portrayed the ceasefire as an achievement of the First Lady’s personal diplomacy. Yet Washington was not the only party attempting to secure an agreement.

On 16 October, a week before the White House announcement, Pope Leo XIV appealed directly to Putin for a ceasefire in Oleshky to permit food deliveries, medical assistance and voluntary evacuations.

Three days later, the pontiff raised the same issue with Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Vatican’s documented intervention does not negate Melania Trump’s involvement, which Ukrainian and Russian officials have acknowledged. It does, however, complicate the suggestion that the breakthrough was exclusively an American diplomatic achievement.

In the meantime, the publicity surrounding the operation has assumed a conspicuous political character.

On 29 October, Melania Trump announced that four journalists from Newsmax, a broadcaster closely associated with Trump’s conservative constituency, would accompany the mission as neutral observers.

The broadcaster’s involvement was also welcomed by Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s special representative for international economic cooperation.

The interests converge rather neatly.

Washington obtains images of successful humanitarian diplomacy. Moscow gains an opportunity to appear cooperative before an American audience. The First Lady receives recognition for an initiative that has produced tangible results where much broader diplomatic efforts have struggled.

None of this diminishes the importance of saving civilians. But the political presentation risks becoming an achievement in its own right, potentially obscuring the question of why those civilians required rescuing in the first place.

The ceasefire ends at Oleshky

The military reality provides a rather less reassuring picture.

Oleshky lies on the Russian-controlled eastern bank of the Dnipro, opposite Ukrainian-held Kherson.

According to reporting by Le Monde, Ukrainian officials fear that Russian forces could exploit the temporary pause to replenish supplies and prepare further operations around Kherson.

Such concerns do not establish that a new offensive is imminent. Nevertheless, they highlight the distinction between a local humanitarian agreement and a genuine reduction in military confrontation.

The evacuation route reflects these security sensitivities.

Rather than crossing the Dnipro directly, residents wishing to reach Ukrainian-controlled territory are expected to travel through Russia and Belarus.

The arrangement avoids an immediate frontline crossing but creates separate concerns about possible coercion, screening and freedom of movement.

Meanwhile, Russia has made clear that its willingness to negotiate humanitarian pauses does not imply a willingness to suspend its broader offensive.

The distinction is critical. Moscow can cooperate over evacuation buses while continuing to launch missiles elsewhere in Ukraine.

What Europe should take from Oleshky

For European governments, the danger lies in confusing limited cooperation with strategic change.

The Kremlin has demonstrated that it can make a carefully circumscribed humanitarian concession, receive international recognition and retain its fundamental negotiating position.

The wider implications are significant.

A diplomatic process that rewards Moscow for temporary gestures while leaving its military objectives untouched risks producing the appearance of progress rather than progress itself.

Europe’s interest is not merely in securing occasional humanitarian agreements, valuable though they are. It is in ensuring that negotiations lead towards a settlement that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and does not leave the continent facing an emboldened Russia.

For now, Oleshky offers no evidence that Moscow has moved substantially closer to such an outcome.

The humanitarian mission may save hundreds of Ukrainian lives. If it succeeds, those who negotiated and implemented it deserve recognition.

But political recognition should not become historical absolution.

The occupying power has agreed to help evacuate civilians from a town it continues to occupy. Washington has secured a diplomatic achievement that places few constraints on Russia’s military ambitions.

The cameras will eventually leave Oleshky. The temporary ceasefire will expire.

And unless something more substantial changes, Russia’s occupation — and the war that made the evacuation necessary — will continue.

From France to Brazil, voters are railing against the status quo, even as the politics of disenchantment make lasting change nearly impossible.

With a contentious midterm election less than a week away, one cause has unified voters and candidates across the political spectrum: slowing down AI. 

A friend of mine who directs tens of millions of dollars in midterm election spending says he's never seen voter salience of an issue—AI, broadly—increase so quickly. In July, Gallup found that 39 percent of Americans thought AI does more harm than good, up from 31 percent in 2025. Only 9 percent of Americans, meanwhile, thought the technology did more good than harm (down from 12 percent last year). 

Public sentiment has since soured even more. An October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of Americans think AI is bad for society, while a staggering 66 percent said they opposed new data center construction in the United States.

Politicians on the left and right have seized on this political sentiment and offered their own data center stiff-arm policy du jour. However, even a full e-brake on data center construction would do little to stop AI progress. 

In August, Arvind Narayanan, director of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy and co-author of AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference, claimed that a data center moratorium would basically not slow AI development at all. 

Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, he concluded (under some reasonable assumptions) that a one-year data center moratorium in a "typical U.S. state" would slow down AI progress nationally by only five to 10 hours. Assuming that at least half of data center developers would avoid a moratorium by building their facilities elsewhere, a one-year freeze on construction in larger states like New York would set AI in America back by less than one day, according to Narayanan. 

My own modeling of this question reaches essentially the same conclusion as Narayanan's, but rather than assuming computing power will continue growing at its current rate, it treats future growth as dependent on how much computing capacity gets built. I considered three theoretical policy regimes: a full stop on new data center construction and on replacement of depreciated graphics processing units (GPUs); a full stop on new data center construction only; and no restrictions whatsoever. 

The point is that, as a federal policy, standing athwart data centers yelling "Stop!" doesn't accomplish the outcomes that moratorium-ites claim to want. And, while some local policies could slightly impede center growth, the only way to hamper the progress of frontier models would be to enact an extremely draconian policy regime—one that goes beyond moratoriums for new data centers and prohibits GPU upgrades in existing facilities—which no one is actually proposing or close to implementing. 

What does this all tell us about where advocates of any stripe should put their efforts? 

For those in favor of accelerating AI, on the one hand, it provides comfort in that data center construction, even in the extreme, is not a binding constraint to AI advancement. But on the other hand, the political energy currently concentrated on mobilizing the backlash won't stay focused there forever; an issue where more than two-thirds of people are even tangentially opposed to your "side" is not one that easily disappears.

For doomers, it means if the goal is a "pause" of some sort on the ability of AI technology to, say, replace you in your job, targeting data center construction isn't the best way to go about it. It may be a useful galvanizing node in the broader policy fight, but don't expect it to cause any meaningful change in the current trajectory—whatever you believe that to be. 

The ineffectiveness of data center moratoriums doesn't make the policy on its own more or less optimal. But if the data center protests are a proxy for broader AI-induced anxiety about large language models crowding out human pursuits, causing unemployment, or destroying the environment, protestors will need to find another leverage point.

The post Data Center Bans Won't Stop AI. They'll Barely Slow It Down. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A decade ago, 54 percent of Massachusetts voters said yes to Question 4, a ballot initiative that legalized possession, home cultivation, and commercial distribution of recreational marijuana. Judging from recent surveys, voters are not inclined to reverse that decision by approving Question 8, an initiative on next Tuesday's ballot.

Question 8, a.k.a. the Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative, would permit adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis. But they would have to get it from the black market, since Question 8 would not allow them to grow it or buy it from state-licensed retailers.

The initiative "would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal, and stop commercial marijuana stores," its supporters say. They allege that legalization has impaired "productivity" and led to increases in "fatal car accidents," "workplace injuries," "healthcare costs," "crime (like DUI's)," "ER visits," and "mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults."

Voters do not seem impressed by those arguments. In eight polls between mid-February and mid-October, support for Question 8 ranged from 20 percent to 41 percent. In the most recent survey, conducted by The Boston Globe, 71 percent of respondents said they planned to vote no on Question 8, which suggests that experience with legalization has substantially increased opposition to pot prohibition in Massachusetts.

Question 8's sponsor, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). As of October 20, the Virginia-based group had spent $3.7 million on the project, compared to $2.8 million in spending by the opposition, which includes several marijuana businesses.

SAM's co-founder, Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, says he was motivated by the concerns of Massachusetts residents who approached him. "Many of them voted for this initiative 10 years ago and feel betrayed," Sabet told WGBH, an NPR station in Boston. If so, the polls indicate such converts are far outnumbered by former Question 4 opponents who have traveled that road in the opposite direction.

"We're under no illusions that the bluest state in the country is going to pass this easily with flying colors," Sabet told WBUR, another Boston NPR station, a few weeks ago. "But we want to have that conversation."

The conversation clearly is not going the way Sabet hoped. Massachusetts, which was the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana, is now one of two dozen, which together account for most of the U.S. population. In October 2025, Gallup put nationwide support for marijuana legalization at 64 percent, which was down a bit from the peak of 70 percent recorded in 2023 but still 16 points higher than in 2012, when Colorado and Washington started this ball rolling.

Public support for legalizing recreational marijuana tends to be even higher in states that have done it. In Civiqs surveys last December, support in 15 states where voters had approved legalization ranged from 62 percent in Missouri to 77 percent in Oregon. It had increased since legalization in every state but New Jersey, where it was down one point from the 67 percent of voters who approved Public Question 1 in 2020. In Massachusetts, support had risen from 54 percent to 76 percent.

The fate of two other drug policy initiatives that voters will consider next week is less clear. As far as I can tell, pollsters have not asked voters about them.

Colorado's Proposition 132 would make manufacturing or distributing any amount of illicit fentanyl a Level 1 drug felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years. Under current law, the penalties vary depending on the amount of fentanyl involved.

In Idaho, House Joint Resolution 4, a proposed constitutional amendment, would strip voters of the power to legalize marijuana or any other psychoactive substance. If the initiative passes, which requires approval by a simple majority, that power will be reserved to the state legislature.

The post Massachusetts Voters Don't Seem Inclined To Repeal Marijuana Legalization Next Week appeared first on Reason Magazine.

With time running out in the election cycle, JD Vance participated in a primetime town hall on Fox News, which was largely unremarkable except for one unexpected exchange.

A local college student told the vice president that the right routinely tells young people to get married and have children but that conservatives have failed to acknowledge how financially difficult this is for many. She asked, “So my question is, how does the right, and yourself, expect us to start families young when the average price of a home in America now costs more than $415,000, which just feels out of reach for us?”

It’s worth emphasizing for context that the question came from a young woman who identified herself as the vice president of her university’s Turning Point USA chapter. That is, Vance wasn’t confronting a political opponent; the question came from someone inclined to agree with the Trump White House.

Almost immediately, the Ohio Republican demonstrated the kind of political instincts that have made him famous.

Q: How do you expect us to start families young when the average price of a home feels out of reach?JD VANCE: I want to point out that I've only gotten one question about Jon Husted's ass

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-30T01:28:44.964Z

“I want to point out that I think that I have been asked four or maybe five questions by my count,” the vice president began. “I have only been asked one question about [Republican Sen.] Jon Husted’s ass — and it was by [Fox News’] Jesse Watters.”

So, during a nationally televised event, a young conservative voter asked a sincere question about one of the most pressing issues facing her generation, and Vance’s first thought was to make a joke about a senator’s backside.

It’s impossible to say just how many young voters watching at home were amused by this clumsy attempt at humor, but it seems likely the number was small.

It only got worse when Vance actually tried to answer the question with some substance.

“I think we have to take stock of the fact that the reason why housing exploded in the United States of America is in part because we allowed 20 million illegal aliens into our country to buy homes that ought, by right, go to American citizens,” the vice president argued.

Except that’s absurd. Vance’s statistic is wildly inflated and totally at odds with actual data — the idea that 20 million undocumented immigrants have the resources to buy up American real estate is nonsensical. (Last fall, he similarly complained to Fox News about importing “more and more low-wage servants” from other countries. How “low-wage servants” can afford to purchase homes has never been clear.)

The vice president went on to say, “Another reason why housing got too expensive in this country is because we allowed homes to be bought up by Wall Street and foreign investors.”

Unlike the rest of his response, this actually made some sense, though it touched on a problem Vance neglected to mention: Congress approved a bipartisan housing bill earlier this year that was designed to address the very problem he referred to. President Donald Trump, however, refused to sign it as part of a tantrum over a voter suppression proposal that he wanted but couldn’t have. (The housing bill, thankfully, became law anyway.)

This exchange didn’t have to be so politically messy for the vice president, but his unerring political instincts won out in the end anyway.

The post Pressed on affordability at town hall, JD Vance says all the wrong things appeared first on MS NOW.

Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola denied Thursday that she knew anything about an effort to put another candidate on the Alaska ballot with the same name as the Republican incumbent as the Justice Department escalated a criminal investigation with new grand jury subpoenas.

DALLAS — Democrats see a rare opening in Texas, and James Talarico is giving them their clearest shot in years at turning the state blue. If he pulls off the upset, the former teacher and Presbyterian seminarian could knock the first brick loose in Texas’ red wall.

The polling and fundraising figures help explain why Democrats see that possibility.

To put it in perspective, Talarico’s polling leads are wider than those recorded against Ted Cruz in 2018, when Beto O’Rourke came closer than any Democrat in decades to winning a Texas Senate race. And the enthusiasm on the ground from those who spoke with Fox News Digital backs up the numbers.

DEEP IN TRUMP COUNTRY, A NEW GENERATION REVEALS THE DIVIDE BEHIND TEXAS’ TIGHT SENATE RACE

What's more, Talarico’s campaign raised $64 million from July through September, more than three times Trump-backed candidate Ken Paxton’s $18 million haul over the same period. Since launching his campaign, Talarico has raised more than $146 million.

But Paxton, currently the state's attorney general, has enjoyed Republican outside groups pouring more than $200 million into Texas to support him, nearly all of it bankrolled by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man. Additionally, MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump’s principal super PAC, has spent another $33.7 million on ads backing Paxton, according to AdImpact.

At his Dallas rally on Thursday, Talarico underscored that divide by casting the race as a David and Goliath fight, telling supporters they were his weapon against powerful interests.

"David wasn’t as big or as strong as Goliath. He didn’t have as many weapons, but he had hope. He had faith, and he had a slingshot," he said. "Dallas, you are my slingshot. The people of Texas are my slingshot."

Talarico's momentum has also shown up on the campaign trail.

'That’s a lot of Talafreakos in one room'

Earlier this week, Talarico hopscotched across Texas, stopping in El Paso before holding events in Midland and Amarillo and drawing a larger-than-expected crowd in deep-red Lubbock on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Trump campaigned with Paxton about four miles away that same night, shifting his rally time so it overlapped with Talarico’s event.

The dueling rallies put the race’s divide on display. Talarico’s campaign said more than 4,000 people signed up for his Lubbock rally, prompting a move to a larger venue.

"I know that we’re not the only show in town tonight, and I appreciate all 4,000 of you that showed up here this evening," Talarico said at the Fiesta Center in Lubbock on Oct. 27. "That’s a lot of Talafreakos in one room."

The Democratic candidate and his supporters have embraced the moniker "Talafreako," a nickname first given to him as a derogatory dig by Republicans and President Trump.

Voters at Talarico’s rallies in Lubbock told Fox News Digital that Trump’s repeated Texas visits signaled Republican anxiety, while Paxton backers remained confident the state would stay red after a costly and contentious primary that saw Republicans divided over Paxton and sitting Sen. John Cornyn, who was ultimately ousted in the May runoff.

"Trump’s in Lubbock? Trump’s in Lubbock, Texas? He’s scared, he is scared," one supporter told Fox News Digital.

Natalie, from Friona, called Trump’s same-day rally a sign Republicans were "nervous."

"I think it’s performative, like to come the exact same day as he is here," she said.

Jenny, from Brownsville, told Fox News Digital outside Trump and Paxton's rally that the race was "not close" and she predicted that "Paxton will wipe the floor" with Talarico.

DUELING RALLIES THRUST DEEP-RED LONE STAR TOWN INTO THE CENTER OF THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE

Beyond the rally crowds, some Talarico supporters in Dallas and Lubbock said Paxton’s past legal controversies and impeachment by the Texas House shaped their views of the Republican nominee.

"We’re here in support of honesty, decency and integrity," Lori, a Dallas voter who has voted Republican in the past, told Fox News Digital. "That’s what we like to see in a candidate, and we think Talarico is all that in one."

George, a lifelong Texan at the Dallas rally, said years of watching Texas politics had become "heartbreaking" and called Talarico "a breath of fresh air."

In Lubbock, Georgia cited several of Talarico’s policies and called him "authentic." She also said his lack of an indictment was a plus, contrasting him with Paxton.

MEET THE VOTERS WHO COULD BREAK THE GOP’S DECADES-LONG GRIP ON A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD

Elias, a nurse from Lubbock, described Paxton as a weak leader.

"He had a chance to kind of redeem himself despite his ugly past, but he’s not a man, he can’t stand up for himself. He needs daddy Trump to come and support him."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

With Election Day on Nov. 3, the question is whether Talarico can turn rally crowds and a polling lead into a historic win. A victory would crack the GOP’s decades-long grip on Texas. A loss would leave Democrats still searching for a path to turn the state blue.

After months of speculation about Democrats recruiting retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan in Alaska, The New York Times uncovered credible evidence to suggest that the allegations have merit.

To put it mildly, the GOP reactions have fallen somewhere between hair-on-fire apoplexy and unbridled rage. Donald Trump, in particular, has spent recent days in total hysterics, demanding that former Rep. Mary Peltola be, among other things, prosecuted for crimes the president failed to identify. (Peltola on Thursday again denied having had knowledge of the alleged scheme, saying she’s “not interested in tricking voters.”)

But of particular interest was the reaction from Gov. Mike Dunleavy. On Wednesday, the Alaska Republican announced that he had ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties, and on Thursday he went even further. Axios reported:

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) suggested Thursday the state could withhold certification of the U.S. Senate election results if Democrat Mary Peltola wins.

Withholding certification could complicate Peltola’s path to the Senate, as Republicans investigate allegations that Democrats recruited a candidate with the same name as GOP incumbent Dan Sullivan.

During a NewsNation interview, the governor hedged when asked if he was prepared to certify the results, even if his preferred candidate loses. “We’re going to ensure that we aren’t going to send a scam to Washington,” Dunleavy said.

In other words, with only a handful of days remaining before Election Day, the state’s sitting governor publicly declared that even if Alaskans back the former congresswoman, he may not be prepared to accept the will of the voters.

That, in and of itself, is a radical move that puts a thumb on the scale. Governors are not supposed to effectively tell their state’s electorate, “Vote how you want, but the results might not count.”

But just as notable is the fact that the partisan outrage is wildly inconsistent with the alleged offense.

It’s more than fair to argue that ballot-stacking is underhanded campaign mischief. But it’s equally fair to note that it’s a common tactic, employed by both parties, going back generations.

As for the legality, the Times also reported, “Ballot-stacking strategies are common in politics and generally considered legal, if misleading. Republicans engaged in the tactic in Alaska this year, too, trying to prop up Democratic candidates in the Senate primary to siphon votes from Ms. Peltola.”

What we’re left with is a story in which Republicans appear to be engaging in performative outrage, not in response to a genuine scandal, but in response to polls showing them behind.

The post Alaska governor floats radical new threat in response to ballot-stacking allegations appeared first on MS NOW.

Americans may not much care who holds power in Jerusalem, but they should.