© Scott McIntyre for The New York Times
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump hosted trick-or-treaters for the annual Halloween bash on Thursday at the White House, with photos and videos showing the colorful festivities.
The post WATCH — President Trump and First Lady Welcome 6,000 Guests for Halloween at the White House: ‘No Tricks, Just Treats’ appeared first on Breitbart.
You may have heard that Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together,” or that “Democrats [are] struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed,” or that “El-Sayed faces resistance from some voters who would ordinarily be inclined to support a Democrat,” or that “Democratic divisions could hurt El-Sayed.” It’s a prominent narrative that is driving political discourse in the closing weeks of the tight Michigan Senate race.
There’s only one problem with this narrative: It has zero empirical basis. It’s a total confection of US media and the pro-Israel lobby that isn’t supported by any data whatsoever. Two recent polls, one from Marist and one from RedBox Research, make it clear that El-Sayed’s support among Democratic voters in Michigan is both extremely high (95%) and the exact same percentage as Republican candidate Mike Rogers’ support with Republicans. And a new poll from Mitchell Research CBS complicates the narrative even further, finding that support for El-Sayed among Democrats is, in fact, 3 points higher than Rogers is among Republicans, at 94% versus 91%, respectively.
If El-Sayed and Rogers have the exact same percent of party dissent—or, as is the case in the CBS Detroit poll, Rogers has more—then why are there countless stories highlighting, handwringing, and scandalizing the trivially small dissent for only one of the candidates? Where are the breathless profiles of Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the NPR and CNN segments focusing on “Republican divisions”?
There, of course, aren’t any, because this narrative wouldn’t advance an ideological agenda.
The “Michigan Democrats are divided” narrative has been pushed by local and national media alike, from Bridge Michigan to Reuters to Michigan Advocate to the New York Times, who reported Thursday (again, falsely), “Democrats in Michigan… remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election.” The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell said on Wednesday that El-Sayed is “having a lot of trouble putting [the Democratic] coalition back together again” after his defeat of Hayley Stevens in the Democratic primary in August. The AP insisted that “Democrats are still struggling to unite behind El-Sayed” which, again, is outright false: El-Sayed has the support of 95%of Democrats.
An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1. Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over?
For another point of reference, El-Sayed’s support among Democrats of 95% is higher than other high-profile centrist Democrats, including Roy Cooper of North Carolina (94%), Sherrod Brown of Ohio (93%), Kathy Hochul of New York (85%), and even with Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. El-Sayed is even doing better with top Democrats in his own state, with Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson winning only 91.8% of Democrats versus El-Sayed’s 93.1%, according to a Michigan State Department of Political Science survey published on Thursday. Yet one is hard pressed to find any “divided Democrats” stories about any of these candidates.
The theme of “Democratic divisions” in Michigan, like the attendant assertion that Israel is “dividing Demcorats” more broadly, is a wholly concocted media narrative, pushed by the pro-Israel lobby and its media allies to create tensions and the appearance of a meaningful split where none exists. As I noted in the Intercept in June, the percentage of Democrats who have a positive view of Israel, 13%, is lower than the percent of Democrats who believe in young earth creationism or those who back a full abortion ban or Christian prayer in public schools. Yet these traditionally right-wing views are never said to be “dividing Democrats” because, by and large, they clearly are not.
Just the same, Israel doesn’t really “divide” Michigan Democrats either. An April IMEU poll found that Michigan Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza 66%to 14%, at a ratio of almost 5-to-1. Does this seem like an issue Michigan democrats are “divided” over? If it is, there are dozens of other traditionally 5-to-1 issues—from marriage equality to climate change to prayer in school—that they are also technically “divided” over, but they are never discussed in these terms because they are fringe opinions among liberals.
The myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist.
That’s because it’s a playbook––a PR tactic––not an actual reflection of political reality. In this playbook, our media obsesses over a trivially small percent of anti-El-Sayed Democrats in Michigan while never mentioning Republicans disillusioned with Rogers despite their polls being statistically equal. As Michael Arria at Mondowiess notes in his analysis of this manufactured “division,” polls consistently “upend the narrative that Democratic voters are split on El-Sayed.” So why does it persist?
It persists because the myth of widespread liberal zionism among Democrats is too big to fail, so it continues in zombie form, propped up by an elite liberal class that simply needs it to exist so they can appear humanitarian, worldly, and sophisticated while continuing to back—albeit with the occasional wristslap—a genocidal state currently experiencing political paralysis because their nominal liberal wing is simply too racist to give Arab parties any power whatsoever.
The rebellion against El-Sayed in Michigan, such as it exists in reality, is largely driven by ideologically motivated donors and party elites, namely those whose primary issue is bipartisan support for Israel. But it’s tacky to point this out, to note that this opposition is largely coming from a small number of actual voters and is being amplified way beyond its objective news value because influential zionist advocacy groups are pushing it to media organizations and their internal allies. This is awkward and uncomfortable to discuss, so, like with the nonexistent “Democratic divisions over Israel,” it has to be reframed as some organic dissent among “voters” or “Democrats” when, in reality, the number of El-Sayed holdouts is statistically trivial. This isn’t to say media cannot focus on issues that matter to a small number of voters. What gives the game away is that this is literally not being done for Rogers, or other high-profile centrist Democrats, despite party dissent for these candidates being greater or roughly the same.
So where are the articles profiling angry Republicans refusing to vote for Rogers? Where are the countless CNN and PBS segments detailing their grievances and pundits demanding Rogers “reach out” to them? Where are the glib, unsourced throwaway lines in the New York Times about how “Republicans in Michigan remain far more divided than party leaders had hoped to be going into the election”—since, again, this is statistically just as true for the GOP as it is for El-Sayed? There aren’t any, because this angle doesn’t discipline Israel critics and drive up the negatives on a candidate most media elites clearly want to see underperform or, if at all possible, outright lose.
h/t Brian Tashman for exquisite poll watching.
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?
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 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.
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.
Scraping copyrighted material from internet could ‘potentially’ amount to acquisition of property by government, Anne Twomey says
Get our daily political email, free app or daily news podcast
Altering copyright law to allow AI companies to scrape music, books and journalism could trigger a constitutional breach, Coalition senators and the recording industry have warned, as they raise new fears it could open Australia to massive legal action and compensation claims from rights holders worldwide.
The attorney general’s department admitted it was “extremely alive” to the issue, and Australia’s leading constitutional expert, Anne Twomey, agreed there was “potentially” a concern – depending how legislation was drafted – that granting AI companies permission to scrape copyrighted material from the internet could amount to an acquisition of property by the government.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
© Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
© Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
Former West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin criticized what he sees as his former party's embrace of the progressive left, warning that Democratic socialists are gaining ground while longtime Democrats largely remain silent.
"That's why I'm an independent," Manchin said on the "Hang Out with Sean Hannity" podcast.
"[Members of the Democratic Party] went from liberal to progressives to DSA. It just keeps going on that trend," he added.
KYRSTEN SINEMA QUESTIONS WHETHER MODERATES STILL HAVE A PLACE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Manchin left the Democratic Party after frequently breaking with fellow Democrats while serving in Congress. The longtime moderate registered as an independent in May 2024.
In a statement announcing his departure, Manchin criticized extremism on both the left and right, saying he had "seen both the Democrat and Republican parties leave West Virginia and our country behind for partisan extremism while jeopardizing our democracy."
Manchin also argued that neither party was willing to "find common ground" or "put country before party."
During his conversation with Hannity, Manchin expressed disbelief that many Democrats appear unwilling to challenge the Democratic Socialists of America's (DSA) growing influence within the party.
"That's beyond me," he said, suggesting that some longtime Democrats may be afraid to challenge the party's more progressive wing.
"The bottom line is ... let's look at the elections coming up. If the House changes ... if it flips over to Democrat control, a lot of the flipping is going to happen in kind of a purple area, not a hard blue area. [A] hard blue area is where they're going to maybe flip to DSA."
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Manchin's comments come as progressive and Democratic socialist candidates seek to gain seats in Congress.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is among the Democratic socialists who have won high-profile elections, underscoring the movement's electoral gains.
Fox News' Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report.
On Thursday’s edition of CBS’s “The Takeout,” host and CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett stated that he doesn’t hear a lot about what Democrats’ actual agenda is. While speaking with Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA), Garrett asked, “Is this
The post CBS’s Garrett: ‘I Don’t Hear Much About the Agenda’ for Dems appeared first on Breitbart.
With Republicans likely headed for a good ol' fashioned ass kicking in next week's midterm election, it doesn't seem too premature to ask the next big question: What are the Democrats going to do once they have a congressional majority?
The New York Times reports that Democrats will move quickly on four items that are "consensus items among their members that are basic enough to bypass time-consuming committee consideration and go straight to the floor."
Two of those items are really good ideas: ending President Donald Trump's tariffs and ending the war in Iran (or ordering Trump to "seek authorization from Congress to continue it"). Both would restore proper congressional authority in areas where Trump has expanded executive power, with terrible results.
The other priorities, however, include reversing Medicaid spending cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and extending some Affordable Care Act health care subsidies that expired last year. Both would require higher spending at a time when the federal government is already running $2 trillion annual deficits and the national debt is at a record high.
But that's probably a pretty good summary of what Democratic control of Congress for the next few years will look like: a mix of critically important reforms to combat Trump's big-government agenda and, well, the Democrats' own big-government agenda.
Over at National Review, John Puri has an extensive list of "truly frightening" policies Democrats could pursue after the midterms, including stuff like bypassing the filibuster to borrow more heavily, arbitrarily restricting commerce, handing out taxpayer money to political allies, and promising "free" money for everyone. Gosh, I sure hope none of that happens (again).
More seriously, there are also likely to be some major investigations into corruption and other executive branch misdeeds. Trump's family and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are likely to be among the main targets. Hegseth could "face impeachment—which would make him just the third Cabinet secretary in history to face such a sanction," The Atlantic reports.
No wonder Hegseth is reportedly looking for an exit strategy.
Of course, there are plenty of caveats to this. Most importantly, Trump will still be the president—and will be able to veto anything the Democrats pass through Congress. There's also the Senate's filibuster rules. Even the biggest of blue waves is highly unlikely to deliver a 60-seat majority.
Though they may dream big, Democrats will face some serious constraints on their policymaking agenda. They will face fewer obstacles in blocking, unwinding, and investigating Trump's unlawful and corrupt actions—and that's where I, for one, hope they will spend their efforts.
Scenes from Washington, D.C.: "On Sept. 16, Leo J. Terrell threatened to choke a Justice Department intern with a computer charger."
So begins The Harvard Crimson's scathing and deeply reported takedown of Terrell, the former talk radio host and Fox News contributor who is now the senior Justice Department official running the Trump administration's crackdown on elite universities (which is ostensibly an effort to police antisemitism but seems more like an excuse to use federal taxpayer dollars to fight a culture war).
The computer cord incident "was one of a series of episodes described by Billa and three other interns, all Jewish," the Crimson reports. "Terrell isolated them from the rest of the Justice Department, berated them over minor mistakes, and repeatedly threatened their jobs or careers."
When he's not harassing his staffers, Terrell seems to be overcome with delusions of grandeur. A planned 15-city media tour in advance of the midterms "was supposed to be the centerpiece of Terrell's work" and would have put him on stage with singers, comedians, and professional athletes. One event has been held so far: "an Oct. 14 gathering at a synagogue in Southfield, Mich. with Terrell as the keynote speaker."
In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to:
Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Fund https://t.co/luC5CdcWDy
Alzheimer's Foundation of America Caregiver Resources https://t.co/zvNptfyuNdPhoto Credit: Tommy Garcia pic.twitter.com/XNncEVq56X
— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) October 29, 2026
The post What Will Democrats Do? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Luke Piotrowski/The New York Times
© Doug Mills/The New York Times
© Win Mcnamee/Getty Images
© The New York Times
What lit a fire under billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk this midterm cycle?
He’s given more than $445 million to Republican candidates and causes this year, making him the single biggest disclosed donor in the 2026 midterms — and the biggest single donor in a midterm cycle ever.
According to the most recent data, he’s given:
REPUBLICAN CAVALRY ARRIVES FOR KEN PAXTON AS BIG-BUCKS TEXAS OFFENSIVE OPENS CASH FLOODGATES
SENATE CONTROL IS A COIN FLIP — AND DEMOCRATS’ PATH RUNS THROUGH TRUMP COUNTRY
All this makes the $288 million Musk gave to help elect President Donald Trump and Republicans in 2024 look miserly.
Why so much more? Because Musk realizes that keeping the Republican majority in Congress has become crucial to America’s secure and prosperous future.
On his social media platform, Musk shared a post last week agreeing that Democrats "must lose" the midterms. Critics claim he’s doing this because he fears investigations by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The truth is, he understands what it takes to build a strong America and what threatens to tear it down.
He’s not alone. He’s been joined by other tech and financial billionaires who are spending tens of millions to protect America’s future from the Democrats.
WARREN GETS DEFENSIVE WHEN PRESSED ON DEMOCRATS ACCEPTING BILLIONAIRE DONATIONS
Tech entrepreneurs and venture capital giants Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz are major contributors to Trump’s MAGA, Inc.
Citadel’s Ken Griffin has spent at least $40 million to support Republican candidates.
Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman and his wife Christine have put up almost $32 million to Republican-affiliated political organizations and super PACs this election cycle.
It’s not just tech billionaires who’ve opened their wallets to the GOP. Uline founders Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein have reportedly put up $124 million for their own Restoration of America PAC, and roofing company ABC Supply Chairman Diane Hendricks has given $25 million to MAGA, Inc.
'DARK MONEY’ GROUP ACCUSED OF 'SCHEME' TO TIP ELECTION IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRATS, MANIPULATE GOP VOTERS
In 2025, we saw the denizens of America’s high-tech sector — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook and key Google executives — paying out millions for Trump’s inauguration festivities. Bezos, Cook, Zuckerberg and OpenAI’s Sam Altman even attended the inauguration in person — as did Elon Musk.
What did they understand about Trump and the GOP that the media didn’t?
This midterm cycle, according to The Washington Post, total Republican-leaning mega-donors have contributed $1.7 billion this cycle with Musk leading the way, compared to $832 million from Democratic-leaning givers.
Critics dismiss these donors as superrich oligarchs and robber barons trying to protect their ill-gotten money. Critics are wrong, tragically wrong. The truth is, the key stewards of our private sector economy are taking bold action to protect America’s future.
That’s because they see two possible paths to the future, and only two. One makes America strong, prosperous and secure, with tax cuts, investment, energy dominance and a strong, unequaled military.
One deals finally with the Iran that has destabilized the Middle East and killed thousands around the world, including American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, for four decades.
One sees the need to cut what the GAO says could be as much as $500 billion of fraud from the federal budget — the cause that rallied Elon Musk to the DOGE agenda in the first place.
One sees American AI dominance as key to protecting our freedom.
One sees restoring America’s manufacturing and industrial base as key to protecting prosperity.
All that stands on one side. On the other is a party that makes unsustainable policy promises like "Medicare for All."
A party that will give back the uncontrolled government spending spree that drove cumulative inflation up 21% during the Biden years.
A party cradled in corruption, waste and fraud, as exposed first by DOGE and now by Vice President JD Vance’s anti-fraud task force.
A party that has consistently presented weakness and prevarication to America’s foes, whether it’s Iran or China or the Muslim Brotherhood.
Finally, a party that threatens to mobilize the same radical forces that have turned the streets of France and European cities into battlegrounds.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The choice is clear to Elon Musk, and our private sector’s best and brightest founders and entrepreneurs. Those 77 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 now face the same choice. It is either to return to the voting booth in order to protect America’s safe and prosperous future or hand Congress over to those who want to bring back a bankrupt and discredited past.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The choice seems easy. It will be America’s tragedy, and ours, if we don’t take it together.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ARTHUR HERMAN
The Cyprus Animal Party has urged the education ministry to promote healthier food in schools and reconsider events such as Tsiknopempti, which are associated with meat consumption.
In a statement marking World Vegan Day on November 1, the party said schools should practise the healthy eating habits they teach pupils, rather than promote excessive meat consumption.
It cited findings presented to parliament on October 29 concerning meals provided to National Guard soldiers.
Meat is served seven times a week in military kitchens, eight times in frozen meals and nine times through catering, it said.
The party said it was not seeking to abolish traditions or impose vegan diets, but wanted more plant-based options, highlighting Cyprus’ locally available legumes and other plant foods.
It also called for greater emphasis on health, animal welfare and the environment.
Login