The polls were wrong, but they were wrong because they did not capture the sheer slaughter of Republicans across the country. Republicans held on to plenty of seats, but Democrats broke through in places that were supposed to be out of reach.

Democrats have won control of the House and Senate. With races still being counted, we’re waiting to see just how large those majorities will become.

Yesterday, I wrote that this election would be a litmus test. Would character matter? Would broken promises matter? Would people cross party lines when they had finally had enough?

This morning, we have an answer.

Ohio Showed Up

Ohio Democrats flipped the 7th and 15th Congressional Districts, with a third flip projected 10th.

Brian Poindexter defeated Max Miller. Don Leonard defeated Mike Carey. Kristina Knickerbocker declared victory over Mike Turner, with the Associated Press call still outstanding in the early-morning reporting.

Three Republican-held districts, with two flips called by AP and another projected by Decision Desk HQ. Think about that.

Marcy Kaptur also held on to her seat, despite Republicans redrawing her district to make it even harder for her to win. They made the district more Republican, and she survived anyway.

Amy Acton won the governor’s race. Sherrod Brown is heading back to the Senate. Democrats made gains down the ballot and into the Statehouse.

For everyone who has spent years being told that Ohio is hopeless, that these districts cannot be won, and that running in them is a waste of time, take a moment this morning.

Look at what happened. I definitely have more to say about this.

The Local Races Count, Too

The gains reached into our local races.

Megan Coy defeated Mike Dovilla, flipping Ohio House District 17. That is a Statehouse seat going from Republican to Democrat.

Courtney Scheff’s defeated Michael Gallagher the last Republican on the Cuyahoga County Council.

These races deserve attention alongside the congressional and statewide victories. Candidates, organizers, volunteers, and local parties put in the work in districts where winning was never guaranteed.

Congratulations to everyone who ran one of those hard races. You gave voters a choice, built an organization, and made Republicans defend seats they expected to keep.

This Was a Rejection of Trump

My read is straightforward: This was a mandate against Trump and his administration’s betrayal of the American people.

Lower costs were promised. No more forever wars were promised. Instead, people got higher fuel costs, another prolonged war, and an administration surrounded by corruption and the use of public office for personal gain.

Voters had the opportunity to respond. They did.

The rejection reached beyond one candidate or one state. Republicans lost seats in places where Trump had won comfortably just two years ago.

I’ll be writing more about what drove these results, what the polling missed, and what Democrats need to do with the power voters have handed them. There is plenty to examine.

But this morning, congratulations come first.

Congratulations, Brian

Finally, I want to say congratulations to Brian Poindexter for flipping Ohio’s Seventh District and kicking Max Miller out of Congress.

Brian was the right person, with the right team, at the right time.

His hard work, organization, and coalition building delivered. He put together the campaign that could win this district, and he won it.

Having run against Max twice myself, I know what goes into taking on that race. I know the work, the fundraising, and the challenge of convincing people that a district like this is worth fighting for.

Brian and his team got it done. They deserve this moment.

To everyone who won, everyone who volunteered, everyone who knocked doors, made calls, donated, and voted: Congratulations.

What a morning.

Stay Angry.

First things first: If you still need to find your polling location or see what is on your ballot, visit VOTE411, from the League of Women Voters. Enter your address to find your voting information. You can also check with your local Board of Elections.

Hopefully, you already have your plan. If you don’t, get it together and go vote.

Going into today, there are a couple of things on my mind that I want to pass along. This election, in my opinion, is a litmus test for much more than control of Congress.

It is about character. It is about promises. It is about whether people care more about their party or the people representing them.

And when the results come in, it will be about understanding what voters actually said.

Trump’s Promises Versus Reality

Donald Trump got a second chance as president of the United States. He made some bold promises, including two that people could easily understand: no more forever wars and lower costs.

Look at where we are.

The war with Iran has now lasted more than eight months. What was supposed to be a quick military operation has become another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, with American service members deployed overseas and families wondering what comes next.

Meanwhile, the war has driven up energy costs. You feel it at the pump. Businesses feel it buying diesel to transport goods. Those costs work their way into the prices you pay at the store.

Lower costs and no more forever wars. Those were the promises. But we have a different reality.

At the same time, Trump’s family businesses have generated billions from cryptocurrency ventures. His name is attached to everything from cell phones to digital assets and stablecoin ventures.

Bloomberg counted more securities trades by Trump or his money managers than by all of Congress combined.

People struggling to fill their gas tanks are watching a president whose business interests keep expanding.

Will voters who supported him in 2024 hold him accountable for that? Will they compare what he promised with what he delivered? Or does the party affiliation matter more?

Today, we find out.

Ohio’s Seventh District Is a Character Test

Here in Ohio’s Seventh District, we have another version of that question.

Max Miller is someone I know well. The domestic violence allegations surrounding him involve multiple women and accounts reaching back roughly two decades. Miller denies the allegations.

Some of the most shocking revelations came this summer amid the fallout from his divorce and child custody dispute.

The response reached his own party. Republican Senator Jon Husted called on Miller to resign and leave the race. Republican Senator Bernie Moreno said Miller was unfit to serve.

These are Ohio’s two Republican senators.

Now voters have to make their own decision.

In a district Trump carried by roughly 11 points in 2024, will Republicans and independents join Democrats in deciding that character matters more than keeping a Republican in the seat?

How much are people willing to overlook for their party? At what point do they say that the person asking to represent them has crossed a line?

That question is on the ballot, too.

The Polling Gets Its Test

Then there is the question I have been writing about throughout this election: Can we trust the information being put in front of us?

The polls. The headlines. The predictions. The confidence that a massive blue wave is coming.

Have pollsters accounted for the electorate correctly? Have the media explained the uncertainty, or have they turned close races into confident narratives? Are readers being shown the margin of error with the same enthusiasm as the favorable headline?

The president’s party usually loses House seats in a midterm election. History favors the opposition, but it does not guarantee a change in control. I expect Democrats to take the House. The Senate remains another major question.

If the enormous Democratic sweep people have been predicting fails to materialize, we need to go back and examine the information that shaped those expectations.

Who got it wrong? Why? Who repeated numbers without examining them? Who sold certainty where there was uncertainty?

And if Democrats win the House and Senate, great. Then we hold them accountable for what they do with that power.

Winning an election does not finish the job.

A Vote Against Trump Is Not Automatically a Vote for Democrats

A friend of mine voted Republican down the ballot in 2024. He told me he is voting entirely Democratic this time, out of spite.

He does not suddenly love the Democratic Party. No. He wants to get back at Trump.

It is a protest vote.

I have seen Republicans online say similar things. Other people I have spoken with say they are crossing party lines because they believe the other candidate has better character.

Those votes can produce the same result on election night while coming from very different places.

Democrats need to understand that distinction.

If someone votes for your candidate because they are furious with Trump, you have won their vote for this election. What happens after that is still an open question.

Will they stay? Will they return to voting Republican in the next presidential election? Have their policy preferences changed, or have they reached their limit with the people currently running the Republican Party?

A Democratic victory could reflect enthusiasm, rejection, or some combination of both. The party needs to figure out which.

What Are Voters More Afraid Of?

This is also a test of the Democratic Party’s competing visions.

There are establishment Democrats, progressive Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists of America. They have different ideas about what the party should become, and Republicans have spent plenty of money trying to make socialism the reason voters reject all of them.

Will that argument work?

Are voters more afraid of the word “socialism” than they are of high gas prices, another prolonged war, and uncertainty about what comes next?

Just before Election Day, Tucker Carlson claimed that the administration could be days away from launching a nuclear strike on Iran. That is an unverified claim, but it is the kind of warning now entering people’s conversations as they prepare to vote.

Think about that atmosphere.

People are weighing their bills, the economy, war, and the possibility of further escalation. At the same time, campaigns are telling them that the real threat is the other party’s ideology.

Which concern wins?

And if voters reject the Republican message today, what exactly are they embracing?

Are they moving toward Democratic policies? Are they rejecting Trump personally? Are they rejecting what his Republican Party has become?

Those questions matter long after the victory speeches.

What Today Will Tell Us

Here is how I sum it up.

Does character still matter? That is on the ballot.

Do promises matter? That is on the ballot.

Can we trust the polling and the information being sold to us? That gets tested today.

Are Democrats gaining support, or are Republicans losing it? That distinction is on the ballot, too.

I will be watching the results come in with you, breaking down the races and looking at what we can actually learn from them.

Go vote.

And to all the candidates of character asking for the opportunity to represent their communities: Good luck.

Stay Angry.

Guest Opinion: Representatives, Not Leaders

By Dani Pajak

The other day I came across a social media post from Eric Synenberg. He was pictured alongside Sherrod Brown and Scott DiMauro, and in the post he referred to them as leaders.

That one word stuck with me. Not because I dislike any of those individuals. Not because I oppose everything they stand for. It stuck with me because it highlighted something I’ve been noticing for years, especially in Ohio politics.

Too many elected officials today see themselves as leaders first and representatives second. That may sound like a small distinction, but in a representative democracy, it’s the difference between serving the public and directing it.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized this mindset may explain why so many people feel disconnected from government. Whether we’re talking about city councils, county government, the Statehouse, or Washington, more and more officials seem to view themselves as leaders with followers rather than representatives with constituents.

That’s a dangerous shift. Because in a representative democracy, the people are supposed to lead. The elected officials are supposed to follow.

What We Actually Elect

When someone runs for office, they aren’t applying to rule. They’re applying to represent. The title itself tells us what the job is supposed to be: represent us, listen to us, advocate for us, and vote on our behalf.

That’s the deal. We lend elected officials our authority for a limited time. We don’t surrender it permanently. Their power comes from us.

Too often, however, politicians begin acting as though the relationship works in reverse. Citizens are expected to support their agenda instead of the agenda reflecting the wishes of the citizens. That’s where trust starts to break down.

The Difference Between Representation and Leadership

A representative asks, “What do the people want?” A leader asks, “How do I get people to follow me?”

A representative understands they work for the voters. A leader can begin to believe voters should trust their judgment instead.

That distinction is more important than most people realize, because once politicians begin seeing themselves primarily as leaders, it becomes easier to justify ignoring the public when the public disagrees.

And we’ve all seen that happen.

Ohio Citizens Know the Routine

Residents attend meetings, send emails, sign petitions, testify at hearings, organize their neighbors, and vote. They participate in the process exactly as they’re told they should.

Then too often they hear the same response: “We hear your concerns.” “We value community feedback.” “We appreciate public participation.”

Followed by: “We’ve decided to move forward anyway.”

At some point, people stop believing they’re being heard. And honestly, can you blame them? If residents speak, vote, and participate only to be ignored, eventually many stop engaging altogether.

That’s not healthy for democracy.

The Euclid Example

I don’t have to look very far for an example. I live in Euclid.

Residents voted against joining RITA. The issue went before the voters, and the voters rejected it. In my view, that should have settled the matter. Instead, city officials ultimately moved forward despite the result.

Whether you support RITA or oppose it isn’t the point. The point is that voters spoke, and government decided it knew better. To me, that wasn’t representation. It was leadership. It was elected officials deciding that their judgment outweighed the decision made by the people they were elected to serve.

Two council members associated with that era of Euclid politics have since pursued higher office. Maria Jukic, a former Euclid council member, is now running for Congress. Christine McIntosh, also a former Euclid council member, is running for Cuyahoga County Council.

This is not about attacking either individual. It’s about asking a simple question: If voters explicitly say no, and elected officials find a way around that decision anyway, who is actually being represented?

Because it isn’t the people who cast those votes.

Who Gets Heard?

Every voter should ask themselves a simple question: When an elected official makes a decision, who are they really listening to? The residents? Or the donors, lobbyists, party organizations, consultants, and special interests with greater access and influence?

Most ordinary citizens have very little influence compared with organizations that have money, connections, and full-time political advocates.

A resident gets three minutes at a microphone. A special interest group gets a private meeting. A resident sends an email. A PAC writes a check.

That’s not how representative government is supposed to function.

Government should be most responsive to the people who live with the consequences of its decisions. Instead, too often it appears more responsive to those with the greatest resources and access.

That perception, whether fair or unfair, is fueling public frustration across Ohio.

The Rise of the Political Class

Part of the problem is that politics has become a career path. People move from one office to another, building networks, fundraising operations, and political alliances along the way. Eventually many become surrounded almost entirely by other political insiders.

The farther someone gets from everyday voters, the easier it becomes to believe they know better than the public they’re supposed to serve.

That’s when representatives begin to see themselves as leaders. And once that happens, the public becomes something to manage rather than something to represent.

Humility Is the Missing Ingredient

Good representation requires humility. It requires recognizing that holding public office doesn’t make someone wiser than the people who elected them. It requires accepting that citizens will sometimes disagree. It requires respecting those disagreements even when they’re inconvenient.

Most importantly, it requires remembering that the power belongs to the people.

Every council seat belongs to the people. Every county office belongs to the people. Every legislative district belongs to the people. Every congressional seat belongs to the people.

The politician is just renting it for a while. Too many have forgotten that.

Ohio Doesn’t Need More Leaders

Frankly, Ohio doesn’t suffer from a shortage of leaders. Every campaign promises leadership. Every consultant sells leadership. Every elected official celebrates leadership.

What we don’t have enough of is representation.

We need city council members who respect the will of their residents. We need county officials who remember who hired them. We need state legislators who spend more time listening than lecturing. We need members of Congress who remember they are public servants, not public managers.

Most importantly, we need elected officials who stop calling themselves leaders long enough to remember what they were elected to be.

Representatives.

Because representatives don’t ask people to follow them. They follow the people.

And if citizens have grown cynical about government, perhaps the problem isn’t the public. Perhaps it’s that too many elected officials have forgotten who they’re supposed to represent.

Ohio doesn’t need more leaders.

It needs more representatives.

Editor’s Response: We Need Actual Leadership

By Matt Diemer

I understand where Dani is coming from. “Representatives, not leaders” is a good slogan. It’s populist, and it speaks to something everybody wants in a democracy: to know that their voice matters.

People want somebody who goes to Congress, the Statehouse, or the governor’s office to act on their behalf. They want to be heard and taken seriously. And they are tired of a political class that congratulates itself while treating the public as an inconvenience.

The way political insiders talk about one another’s “leadership,” as though every person holding a microphone is George Washington crossing the Delaware, is cringeworthy. The self-congratulation and navel-gazing deserve an eye roll.

But I reach the opposite conclusion from Dani.

Right now, I don’t think representation is what we’re missing most. We need actual, bold leadership. And real leadership has real consequences.

Courage Requires Something to Lose

During my first campaign, I read Profiles in Courage, written by a young senator named John F. Kennedy.

What stayed with me was the idea of courage in the face of consequences. Political destruction. Financial loss. A career ending. Relationships breaking down.

The ideals took precedence. They were important enough that risking something substantial became necessary.

That is a very different thing from finding the position that will make the largest number of people happy with you.

Right now, I see too many people trying to get in line, convinced that fitting into the existing political structure is the only way forward. Being agreeable, building the right relationships, and becoming everybody’s best buddy get treated as qualifications for office.

But serious crises and complex problems require something much rarer.

They require somebody willing to make a decision, explain it, and accept the consequences of following it through.

What I Mean by Leadership

Before going further, I should define the word as I’m using it.

Leadership is having a vision, the conviction to pursue it, and the ability to communicate it well enough to build a coalition capable of achieving it.

The vision alone is insufficient. You have to develop a plan, bring people together, and execute it.

Only after that work has been done can we fully judge, in hindsight, whether the direction was correct. Leadership involves accepting that uncertainty and taking responsibility for the result.

That is why I disagree with the idea that an elected official’s central question should simply be, “What do the people want?”

In my view, representation framed entirely that way becomes populism. Find the majority position, adopt it, and follow the votes. If the majority already agrees with you, the political decision is easy. You have the people, you have the votes, and you have a path to winning.

Where is the courage required in that?

And is the most popular decision always the best decision?

Dani describes a representative who listens to the public and a leader who asks people to follow. But bringing people toward a vision requires more than demanding their trust. It requires explaining where you want to go, why you believe it is right, and what it will take to get there.

People then have something to evaluate beyond whether you have repeated their current preferences back to them.

What Happens When the Popular Becomes Unpopular?

The harder test comes after an election.

You win a majority behind an idea. You begin carrying it out. Then the transition becomes difficult.

The popular thing becomes unpopular. The inexpensive thing becomes costly. The changes people supported in principle become difficult in practice.

What happens then?

Do you abandon the vision because the public mood has shifted? Do you move to whatever position now has the easiest majority? Or do you have the clarity and conviction to explain the difficulty, keep the coalition together, and carry the work through?

Following a vision through turmoil takes courage. It takes the ability to communicate with people who are frustrated, uncertain, or beginning to lose faith in what they supported.

That, to me, is leadership.

The responsibility is to help bring people somewhere that will benefit the greatest number of them, even when getting there is strained and turbulent.

And the sacrifice required may be your own popularity, your position, or your political future.

That is a cost I want somebody seeking office to understand before asking for the job.

The People Calling Themselves Leaders Often Aren’t

Dani is right about the misuse of the title. Most of the people celebrating one another as leaders have done very little to earn it.

To be perfectly honest, some of them are not doing a particularly good job of representing people, either.

But their failure does not persuade me that we have too much leadership. It persuades me that we have too many people claiming the title without accepting the responsibility or the risk that comes with it.

I want people with convictions strong enough to withstand a difficult period. People who can build a coalition around a clear vision and keep working when the applause stops. People willing to risk their own careers for an outcome they believe will serve the public.

That is what I took from Profiles in Courage. And that is what I think we are missing.

Dani wants elected officials who remember whom they serve. I want people who can do that and still have the courage to set a direction, bring others along, and see it through.

We need the person willing to fall on the knife and, in hindsight, look at the scar and say it was worth it.

Stay Angry.

The Overton window has shifted, and I really need to talk about it again.

In my last article about political ethics, I wrote about Vivek Ramaswamy’s ad featuring Amy Acton’s estranged biological mother. The ad itself was disturbing. But watching people defend it as good politics or an acceptable campaign tactic showed how much our standards have changed.

We have shifted in our intellectual and moral honesty. Democrats are quick to call Republicans unethical, and Republicans do the same to Democrats. Yet when we talk about campaign tactics, we increasingly skip the question of whether something is right or wrong.

Instead, we ask: Did the other guy do it? Can we use it as a political talking point? If they did it, does that mean we can do it, too?

Somewhere in that conversation, we stopped asking whether we should.

The controversy surrounding Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign in Alaska is another example. And Democrats should be willing to call it out.

Two Dan Sullivans on the Ballot

Mary Peltola is a former Alaska congresswoman who lost her reelection campaign in 2024 and is now running for the U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan.

The New York Times reported that senior members of her campaign worked with Democratic operatives and personnel from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or DSCC, on a project to shape the ballot in her favor.

Part of that effort involved searching Alaska voter records for people named Dan Sullivan. Another Dan Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, ultimately entered the race and appeared on the general-election ballot alongside the incumbent.

The apparent strategy was to confuse at least some voters into selecting the wrong Sullivan.

The investigation described internal communications, recruitment efforts, and discussions involving campaign aides and DSCC personnel. Peltola’s former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, said Peltola was “definitely aware,” although she was not directly organizing the operation. Rios later tried to retract her statements, and the newspaper proceeded with its reporting.

Peltola denies knowing about the effort, and the DSCC denies involvement in recruiting the candidates. Those denials sit alongside the communications and accounts described in the investigation.

There is also money to account for. The pro-Peltola 49th State PAC reportedly paid approximately $87,000 to Wingspan Strategies, a consulting firm co-owned by an operative identified in the recruitment effort. The amount spent specifically on recruitment remains unresolved.

This was an organized effort to gain an electoral advantage by changing who appeared on the ballot. In the case of the second Sullivan, the shared name was the point.

“Just Read the Ballot” Is Not a Defense

The response from some Democrats has been that the ballot clearly distinguishes the candidates. Read it carefully, they say, and you can tell which Sullivan is which.

That does not change the practice.

Somebody commenting on my Facebook post treated it as something funny, a way to watch Republicans lose their minds. But deliberately trying to confuse people while they vote is not a joke.

Let’s say 99% of voters understand exactly what is happening. What about the other 1%?

The strategy does not require everybody to vote for the wrong candidate. It depends on enough people being distracted, rushing, or simply not paying close attention when they find the name they intended to select.

Alaska is a Republican-leaning state. For a Democrat challenging a Republican incumbent, small margins matter. One vote, two votes, a hundred votes. Campaigns fight over those numbers because they can change an election.

You can point to the middle initials, party labels, and other distinctions on the ballot all day. The ethical question remains: Why organize a search for somebody with your opponent’s name in the first place?

I think deliberately engineering that kind of confusion should be illegal. We should certainly be able to agree that it is unacceptable without waiting for a court to tell us what our standards are.

The Same Dirty Tricks in Ohio’s 7th

In Ohio’s 7th District, Congressman Max Miller has been attacking Brian Poindexter with claims about an extensive police record, including crack cocaine allegations and swallowing crack during a traffic stop.

But those drug allegations involved a different Brian Poindexter. The two men were born in the same year, but in different months. The other Brian Poindexter is also Black.

Miller put another man’s record in front of voters as though it belonged to his opponent. That is a sleazy, deceptive tactic that depends on people accepting the accusation without noticing that the records belong to somebody else.

Democrats are right to call that out. But those same Democrats should be willing to condemn the Alaska ballot scheme. You cannot be outraged when a Republican uses a shared name to mislead voters and then laugh it off as clever politics when Democratic operatives exploit a shared name to confuse them.

The standard has to apply even when your own party benefits.

Everybody Has an Excuse for Their Own Side

Republicans are furious about the Alaska story. Yet some of those same Republicans defended Ramaswamy’s decision to use Acton’s estranged mother against her, despite the documented history of childhood abuse and her mother remaining with the accused abuser.

Now some Democrats are defending the Alaska tactic with essentially the same argument: Get over it. We need to win.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

The objection disappears when the tactic becomes useful to our side. Suddenly, people who were demanding decency last week are explaining why decency is a luxury we cannot afford this week. Armchair moral justice warriors.

And there is always another example ready. Republicans did something similar somewhere else. Democrats have done worse. Somebody got away with it in the last election. The whataboutism that takes over the debate.

How does any of that answer whether we should be doing it now?

If every unethical act becomes permission for the other party to do the same thing, the standard can only keep getting worse. Each campaign inherits the last campaign’s worst behavior and treats it as the new starting point.

Then we act surprised when somebody pushes it further.

We Cannot Keep Moving the Line

We have to do better.

The Overton window cannot keep shifting until there are no rules, no standards, and no norms we are willing to uphold. Those things are part of what allows this country to function.

The United States cannot run indefinitely on the idea that whatever helps your party win is acceptable.

The tactics described in the reporting about Peltola’s campaign and Senate Democratic personnel deserve to be called out. So does Miller’s use of another Brian Poindexter’s record. So does Ramaswamy’s exploitation of Acton’s childhood trauma.

Our willingness to condemn bad campaigning cannot depend on which candidate benefits.

If we want people to trust elections, we cannot excuse attempts to confuse them when they vote. If we want campaigns to tell the truth, we cannot defend misleading attacks because we dislike the person being targeted. And if we want basic decency in politics, we have to demand it from the candidates we support.

Somebody has to say that a tactic is unacceptable before it becomes another precedent everyone points to next time.

Because the window is moving so drastically and so quickly that we can barely keep up. Every time we excuse it, we help move it again.

I’ll see you closer to election night to talk about where these races stand.

Stay Angry.

Ohio Deserves Better

Amy Acton will be our next governor. The Republican Party should never again promote Vivek Ramaswamy for any position. He is spending $4 million on a campaign promoting the idea that Amy Acton lied about her rape 40 years ago, and he is asking us to believe that Acton’s mother, who fled Ohio with her rapist husband and stayed with him until his death, did not lawfully lose custody of her children.

A man who promotes this sickening scenario should be governor of Ohio? Show him and his fellow Republicans you are better than this. None of the current Northeast Ohio Republican candidates, Jon Husted, David Joyce, or Max Miller, have denounced Ramaswamy’s behavior. Do not vote for them either.

The Statute of Limitations

In Ohio, it is estimated that one of every seven women will experience sexual assault in her lifetime. Ohio’s statute of limitations, 25 years, with a five-year extension for DNA evidence, is one of the most lenient in the country.

At an Ohio Senate hearing in 2020, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman John Eklund (currently a judge of the 11th District Court of Appeals) tabled Senate Bill 162, which asked for the statute of limitations to be lifted for rape. His rationale was that any trial after 25 years could lead to unfair trial conditions because witnesses’ recollections and evidence would be “dissipated.”

At least 28 states have overcome this concern and have no criminal statute of limitations for felony rape. Even if Amy Acton’s stepfather had been apprehended, he would only have been eligible to stand trial before she was 42 in the state of Ohio.

Amy Acton was brave to go public about her childhood abuse, though it is a matter of public record. She took actions recommended by health care professionals in seeking counseling and addressing her abuse head-on. Acton’s actions help open the discussion on sexual violence, prosecution, and treatment.

The Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that between 70% and 88% of childhood sexual assaults go unreported. Acton reported her stepfather’s crime, survived, and dedicated her life to public health. But she did not get the justice she deserved.

My Own Experience

I was not so brave. In 1975, I was raped by a masked gunman and his accomplice while studying at Tulane University. I reported the rape and endured a rape kit procedure. New Orleans police bungled the investigation. There was no follow-up. I graduated and pursued a career in public service: diplomacy.

I was determined not to let this soul-searing experience interfere with my dreams. I spent 30 years serving the public as a U.S. diplomat in some of the world’s most challenging environments. I served at the U.S. Embassy during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, traveled to Kosovo under martial law, and collected rape testimony from conservative Muslim women who had survived their Serbian assailants.

Though tempted, I never divulged my own experience with sexual violence. I only wanted them to see the American flag waving behind my head as I worked to bring them justice. Much of my reporting was used with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Many Serbian military officers were indicted; most walk freely on the streets of Bosnia-Herzegovina, facing their victims on a regular basis. Bosnian laws make prosecution at this late date rare.

While serving as Organization for Security and Cooperation Head of Mission in Moldova, I worked to address Europe’s highest incidences of domestic violence and sex trafficking. Again, speaking with survivors, I was tempted to share my experience but did not want to “dilute” my presence as a senior international diplomat.

For my own professional advancement, I kept my personal experience a secret. Would sharing have helped these women triumph over their traumatic experiences? I will never know, but it haunts me.

Fifty Years After the Crime

My post-retirement anger rose to a pitch during the 2018 Brett Kavanaugh hearings when respected Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault was dismissed.

Outraged, I wrote to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, singling out the Blasey Ford fiasco as proof of why so many women preferred to stay silent rather than endure the doubts and abuse the U.S. Senate dumped on Blasey Ford.

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2018/09/the_price_and_the_lure_of_rema.html

My op-ed caught the attention of then-Cuyahoga Sex Crimes Coordinator Rick Bell. I spoke to his unit about my then-45-year-old assault, and he offered to check on the status with his counterpart in New Orleans.

A few months later, I received the astonishing phone call that my rape kit had been recovered along with the DNA and that my attacker was alive and living in New Orleans. There was no statute of limitations in Louisiana. Neither my memory of the attack nor the evidence had “dissipated.”

After five years of pretrial proceedings, COVID, and a mistrial, my assailant finally was sentenced to life without parole in 2025, 50 years after the crime.

Did the assault scar me for life? Yes. Did it stop me? No.

Beneath Contempt

A survivor’s worst nightmare is to be judged and, worse, doubted. That is what Vivek Ramaswamy is doing to Amy Acton. It is beneath contempt for any human being. But for someone who wants to be governor of Ohio?

Subscribe now

If you’ve been following me, you know I don’t put much faith in polling. Look at the trends and the sentiment, but remember that the sentiment inside our own bubble can look very different from what is happening outside it.

Republicans expected a red wave in 2022. It failed to materialize the way they promised. Now Democrats are talking about a blue wave crashing over the country like Barack Obama’s victory in 2008.

There is real dissatisfaction in this country. I understand why Democrats see an opportunity. But I remain skeptical about the size of the victory people are expecting, especially in Ohio.

The discovery that polling operations were publishing fabricated surveys should give everybody a reason to slow down and look more closely.

The Numbers Were Made Up

Wedgewood Polls admitted that virtually all its published polling was fabricated after an investigation by FiftyPlusOne. Earlier this year, a separate operation, Median Strategies, also acknowledged releasing fake surveys.

FiftyPlusOne

FiftyPlusOne just caught a pollster faking data — and they copped to it

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, FiftyPlusOne reached out to Wedgewood Polls, a self-professed polling firm, with a request for comment on an investigation we had conducted into their alleged survey research. They did not respond to our request, but instead posted a…

Read more

10 days ago · 277 likes · 7 comments · Mary Radcliffe, G. Elliott Morris, Cooper Burton, and FiftyPlusOne

Median’s releases included a Wisconsin Democratic primary poll showing Francesca Hong with a substantial lead. Wedgewood published fabricated numbers involving Michigan’s Senate race, where Abdul El-Sayed ultimately became the Democratic nominee.

Mallory McMorrow described what happened after a fake Wedgewood survey showed her support collapsing: donations dried up, volunteers became discouraged, and reporters pressed her about dropping out.

Think about what that means for a campaign. A number gets published, becomes a headline, and starts shaping conversations with donors, volunteers, and voters. The candidate then has to respond to a supposed political reality that somebody invented.

By the time the fabrication is exposed, the fundraising calls, discouraging conversations, and damaging coverage have already happened.

Calling this a “social experiment,” as these operations have done, does not erase the consequences.

Ohio Was in the Mix

Subscribe now

Wedgewood’s fabricated Ohio releases claimed to survey likely voters from August 11 through August 13.

They showed Amy Acton leading Vivek Ramaswamy, 47% to 46%, and Sherrod Brown leading Jon Husted, 48% to 44%.

Those numbers appeared in election coverage and prediction-market commentary. They gave readers the impression that another independent survey was confirming Democratic momentum.

Legitimate surveys have also shown competitive Ohio races. But every fabricated poll added to the conversation creates a false sense of corroboration. Readers see several headlines pointing in the same direction and assume the evidence is getting stronger.

Meanwhile, Trump carried Ohio by about 11 points in 2024. Mike DeWine beat Nan Whaley by roughly 25 points in 2022.

That is the recent electoral history Democrats are working against. Candidates and circumstances change, but flipping this state requires a substantial shift in who votes and whom they support.

Polling, Betting, and the Feedback Loop

Subscribe now

An August analysis discussing Wedgewood’s Ohio Senate numbers reported roughly 277,000 Kalshi contracts traded on August 13.

That figure measures trading volume and fabricated survey results were being used in commentary about markets where people were wagering real money.

I have raised concerns about prediction markets before. In Someone Is Creating Prediction Markets for OH-7 Primary, an anonymous researcher helped examine a thinly traded Polymarket race and accounts apparently connected through a common funding source.

The Angry Ohioan

Someone Is Creating Prediction Markets for OH-7 Primary

Below is something I found interesting. The TLDR: On Polymarket a total of over $4000 in trading volume is manufacturing an 87% frontrunner…

Read more

6 months ago · 3 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

The concern was how relatively little money could produce an overwhelming-looking probability that voters might mistake for broad agreement about a candidate’s chances.

Put those systems together and you can see the problem. A poll feeds coverage. Traders react to information circulating around the race. Market odds become another headline, which people then share as further evidence of momentum.

How much independent information is actually underneath all that confidence?

Look at Who Paid for the Poll

The same scrutiny should apply to favorable polling in the Brian Poindexter–Max Miller race.

One Bedrock survey was commissioned by Iron Workers International and The Next 50, both supporting Poindexter. Poindexter is an ironworker.

Be skeptical when a poll showing you ahead is commissioned by the union you belong to. Ask who paid for it, how the survey was conducted, what questions came before the candidate matchup, and whether the full results are available.

The union commissioned the work; Bedrock conducted the poll. Readers deserve that distinction, along with the sponsorship disclosure.

We should demand the same transparency from a Republican-funded survey showing Miller ahead. Favorable numbers should invite examination, especially when the people paying for the poll have a stake in the outcome.

But in either case, where are the checks and balances? Too often, researchers, news outlets, and political commentators run with numbers that fit a narrative instead of checking the polling methodology, weighting, and who paid for the work. When fabricated polls can make it into coverage and polling averages, we have to ask who is checking any of this and who is held accountable when they get it wrong.

And now we’re getting that transparency less than two weeks before Election Day, after the numbers have circulated for months and early voting has already started. People have donated, volunteered, and cast ballots while fabricated polling was part of the coverage they were seeing. By the time the correction arrives, the damage may already be done.

What Does Margin of Error Mean?

Subscribe now

Even a legitimate poll can be presented with more certainty than it deserves.

A survey showing a Democrat at 42% and a Republican at 38%, with a four-point margin of error, does not establish a secure Democratic lead. Move the Democrat down four points and the Republican up four, and the result becomes 38% to 42%, reversing who is ahead. People see “up four” and overlook the uncertainty. That is a competitive race, not a guaranteed Democratic win.

That is my point: people see “up four” and treat it as a win while ignoring the uncertainty in the numbers. The margin of error for the difference between two candidates is larger than the margin reported for either candidate individually. A close poll is evidence of a competitive race, not a victory to celebrate.

Then you have undecided voters, turnout assumptions, and errors that the published margin does not capture.

People see their candidate ahead and mentally move the race into the win column. Enough of those assumptions become a wave narrative.

Gerrymandering adds another obstacle. A favorable national environment still has to translate into wins in districts drawn to favor one party. Enthusiasm across the country does not distribute itself neatly across the seats Democrats need.

What About the Rest of the Ballot?

I also want to know whether the enthusiasm around Brown and Acton extends to the rest of Ohio’s Democratic ticket.

What is happening in the races for secretary of state, auditor, and treasurer? Are voters broadly reconsidering Republican control, or responding to particular candidates?

That distinction changes how we should understand this election.

A Republican voter might hold their nose and vote for Sherrod Brown while supporting Republicans elsewhere. Brown strikes me as a particularly plausible candidate for that crossover support.

But voting for Brown, Acton, and a Democratic congressional candidate on the same ballot requires a broader set of choices. How many normally Republican voters are prepared to make them?

Some will cross over in one race. Others will leave contests blank or stay home. Democrats may bring out voters who skipped the last election.

Those are the mechanics of winning. They deserve more attention than the assumption that disliking Trump automatically produces a Democratic ballot from top to bottom.

I Want Evidence Before Celebration

Subscribe now

Most of my readers are Democrats. That is why I am bringing this conversation here.

We have confirmed fabrications, questions about verification, and political coverage that helped give invented numbers credibility. The evidence warrants scrutiny of the system.

Follow the money. Examine the methodology. Ask aggregators how they vetted these firms and news organizations whether they corrected the stories built around fabricated results.

Apply that scrutiny to the numbers you like.

Democrats have opportunities in Ohio. Winning them requires overcoming the state’s recent voting patterns, reaching people outside our bubble, and getting supporters to vote.

I would rather understand the uncertainty now than discover on election night that our confidence was built partly on information somebody made up.

I would rather have skepticism than hopium. No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.

Stay Angry.

Before we get started. Please think about donating or becoming a subscriber. (Venmo at bottom of article)

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign has put out an ad featuring Amy Acton’s estranged mother attacking her own daughter. I think it pushes the boundaries of what we should accept in American politics.

A mother appearing in a campaign ad to tell people not to vote for her child would be shocking enough. But understanding the backstory makes this much worse.

Acton has described a childhood marked by poverty, homelessness, and sexual abuse by her stepfather. Court records document the charges against him and the removal of Acton and her brother from their mother’s custody.

Her brother, Philip Stearns, has publicly supported her account. In his statement condemning the ad, he said their mother stayed married to the man who abused Amy until he died.

This is a family estrangement stretching back decades. Ramaswamy’s campaign decided to turn it into an attack ad.

That crosses a line I would hope Republicans and Democrats alike could recognize. But I do not see this slowing down. I see the boundaries getting pushed further, the behavior getting rewarded, and the next campaign learning that it can go even lower.

At what point are we living in Idiocracy, if we are not already there?

Trump Changed What a Debate Could Be

Shane Gillis has a stand-up bit about Trump’s effect on presidential debates. It is funny because you can recognize exactly what he is talking about.

Other candidates would show up prepared to explain their positions and defend their records. Trump could interrupt, insult somebody’s appearance, give them a nickname, and pull the entire conversation onto his terms.

We watched personal humiliation become part of the performance.

The 2015–2016 campaign brought attacks on opponents’ looks, spouses, and family members. Ted Cruz’s wife became material for a public insult. An unsupported story about Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald became part of the political conversation.

And Trump kept going.

Funny enough, I watched Bombshell yesterday. It brought me back to Megyn Kelly questioning Trump during that first Republican debate about how he talked about women, and the backlash she faced afterward.

That should have been a straightforward accountability question. Instead, the confrontation itself became another spectacle.

What might once have been treated as evidence that a candidate could not conduct himself appropriately became something supporters celebrated. He was fighting. He was unfiltered. He was saying what other people supposedly would not.

The question became less about whether the behavior was acceptable and more about whether the performance worked.

The Smaller Boundaries Shift, Too

This is not only about Trump, and it is not only about the most serious examples.

We have changed expectations about how elected officials talk, dress, conduct themselves, and treat other people. Those changes do not all carry the same moral weight, but they contribute to a broader question about what we expect from public office.

Take John Fetterman’s shorts and hoodie. The Senate briefly relaxed its dress expectations in 2023 before adopting a bipartisan requirement for business attire on the floor.

Obviously, wearing shorts is not comparable to exploiting somebody’s childhood abuse. But it is still an argument about institutional standards. Does conventions matter?

Profanity is another example. Personally, I do not have a problem with profanity. You read this newsletter. You know that.

But its role in politics has changed. A public F-bomb can now be presented as proof that a politician is passionate, authentic, or fed up just like you.

A word that might once have produced days of demands for an apology can become the clip somebody shares because they love how “real” the politician sounds.

I am not arguing that every old convention deserves to survive. I am asking whether we are consciously deciding which standards to change, or just accepting whatever gets the biggest reaction.

We Cannot Excuse It Because We Like the Person

Look at Jasmine Crockett’s confrontation with Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Greene insulted Crockett’s appearance. Crockett responded with the “bleach-blonde, bad-built, butch body” line. The exchange went viral, and Crockett announced merchandise built around it to benefit House Democrats.

Yes, Greene started the personal attack. I understand why people enjoyed seeing her get it back.

But if we are talking about the standards of Congress, we should also acknowledge what happened afterward. A congressional hearing produced a personal insult, the insult became entertainment, and the entertainment became a fundraising opportunity.

That is an incentive.

We cannot criticize the degradation of public office only when the person doing it belongs to the other party.

Then there was Greene displaying sexually explicit photographs of Hunter Biden during a congressional hearing. Whatever questions Congress wanted to investigate, putting those images in front of cameras was a choice about public humiliation.

Lauren Boebert was removed from a performance of Beetlejuice after disruptive behavior. Video showed vaping and apparent intimate touching. She later apologized and went on to win election in a different congressional district in 2024.

The incident did not end her career. That does not prove voters liked the conduct. It does show it was not disqualifying.

The standards are becoming difficult to identify because the consequences are so inconsistent.

Even Disgrace Can Become a Business Opportunity

George Santos actually was expelled from Congress.

So accountability has not disappeared completely. But even there, look at what followed.

He turned his notoriety into personalized videos on Cameo. By January 2025, prosecutors said he had earned approximately $400,000 from those appearances.

Getting thrown out of Congress helped create an audience willing to pay for a message from him.

That is a different kind of consequence from disappearing from public life in disgrace.

It also gets to something larger. A scandal can cost somebody a position while still increasing their commercial value. Public embarrassment can create a new audience. The person becomes a character, and people pay to keep watching.

Once that happens, how much deterrent does embarrassment really provide?

The Algorithm Does Not Need You to Approve

Social media has changed the incentives around all of this.

The recent movie The Social Reckoning brings attention back to Facebook and the decisions behind what people see. The term I was trying to remember is meaningful social interactions, or MSI.

Facebook announced that shift in 2018. It was about prioritizing interactions between people, including conversations and sharing, rather than simply putting content in front of someone to consume.

It was not literally a system where only shares mattered, and I am not claiming those historical rules describe every platform’s algorithm today.

But the broader problem is easy to recognize: Content can spread because people are furious about it.

You see an awful ad. You share it and say, “Can you believe this?”

Somebody else shares it because they think it is hilarious. Another person posts a response. A news outlet covers the backlash. A commentator makes a video about the news coverage.

Everybody has a different opinion. The ad keeps moving.

Your condemnation can help distribute the same material you want people to reject.

And I am part of that. I am writing about the Acton ad. I am showing examples of the behavior I think has gone too far. Calling something out does not stop me from contributing to its exposure.

A campaign does not need you to agree with its ad for the ad to dominate the conversation.

AI Lets Campaigns Manufacture the Performance

Artificial intelligence adds another level.

We are moving beyond choosing an embarrassing photograph or cutting a real quote in a misleading way. Campaigns can now manufacture a recognizable person appearing to do something that never happened.

Ken Paxton’s campaign used an AI-generated James Talarico in an ad involving a fictional Bible. It mixed actual remarks with missing context and a synthetic presentation.

Think about that. Instead of showing you the candidate’s actual appearance and explaining what is wrong with what he said, a campaign can construct its own version of him.

Through October 11, more than $137 million had reportedly been spent running 220 identified political ads containing AI-generated or AI-enhanced material.

That is spending to distribute those ads, not just the cost of making them.

We have already struggled to maintain standards when dealing with real footage. Now we are adding invented footage, artificial voices, and scenes created specifically to provoke a reaction.

The cost of producing more outrageous material is falling. The incentive to make it spread is still there.

A Song About Somebody’s Family Becomes the Ad

Look at the attack on Troy Jackson in Maine.

A Republican super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, put out a song targeting his relationship with his partner, who is reportedly his second cousin. The relationship is legal.

The ad turns it into a sexual joke, with the chorus: “If he’ll screw his own family, he’ll screw yours, too.”

Susan Collins’s campaign called for the ad to be taken down. It is important to identify who actually made it rather than attribute it to her campaign.

But somebody still decided this was worth producing and distributing.

It sounds like the kind of thing AI makes easier to churn out. Regardless of the production method, the decision to make somebody’s family relationship into a catchy sexual insult was human.

And people like it. Some people find it funny. They share it.

The audience can reward the very thing we say we wish campaigns would stop doing.

“Authentic” Can Mean Almost Anything Now

Drinking and campaigning offer another example of how perception can change.

Indiana local candidate Jaime West went viral after a televised forum. In a later interview with Piers Morgan, she acknowledged having three beers beforehand.

Some people saw an embarrassing lack of judgment. Others saw somebody speaking plainly and refusing to act like a conventional politician.

I have also heard the claim that attacks portraying Amy Acton as drinking too much were pulled because they made her seem more relatable.

My Tinfoil-Hat Theory About Political Scandal

Here is my own theory, and I am calling it a theory.

I increasingly wonder whether some controversies do less damage than we assume because the publicity itself becomes useful.

We should question the assumption that more exposure to something embarrassing automatically means less support.

Look at Max Miller’s divorce controversy. His campaign has incorporated the family difficulties into its own advertising and accused opponents of exploiting them.

That is an attempt to take negative coverage and turn it into a narrative the campaign can use.

Whether it works is another question. But the strategy recognizes that attention can be reframed.

A voter might reject an allegation, dislike the people making it, or interpret the criticism as proof that their candidate is being targeted. Someone who was already committed may simply stay committed.

So the controversy spreads and name recognition goes through the roof!

And Now We Are Using Childhood Trauma

Which brings me back to Amy Acton.

Her mother’s appearance in this ad is not a policy disagreement. It is an attempt to use a deeply painful family history to undermine her credibility.

The statement from Acton’s brother describes what happened to them and says their mother remained married to the man who abused Amy.

Knowing that history changes how you understand the ad. This is not simply a relative saying, “I disagree with her tax plan.”

And after the backlash, Ramaswamy’s campaign acknowledged producing it and announced plans to spend $4 million promoting it.

That is what makes this moment so disturbing to me. The criticism has not caused the campaign to step back. It is investing in getting the message in front of more people.

Maybe it believes the ad will persuade voters. Maybe the controversy itself provides useful exposure. We will not know the electoral result until people vote.

But I do not need an election result to decide that using this history in this way crosses a line.

If winning requires doing that, what exactly are you asking people to reward?

When Is Enough Enough?

There are big and small examples here. Clothing, profanity, personal insults, sexual humiliation, synthetic depictions, and childhood abuse are different things.

But across them, I keep coming back to the same concern: We are losing the ability, or the willingness, to say that public office requires standards that apply even when breaking them benefits our side.

An insult becomes merchandise. A scandal becomes a paid appearance. A cruel ad becomes national news.

The next campaign sees the attention and decides how much further it can go.

I do not see that slowing down on its own. I worry it will accelerate as the tools get cheaper and the rewards for provoking people get larger.

So where is the line? Have we already crossed it? What would someone have to do for their own party, donors, supporters, or voters to say, “Enough”?

Do we still expect more from our representatives, campaigns, and news media than whatever produces the most clicks and reshares?

I want to hear what you think. Does this get worse, or can we stop rewarding it?

Stay Angry.

Subscribe now

Please think about donating or becoming a subscriber.

Some people in the comments said, “Didn’t you see the STOP to opt out portion?”

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Yes. I saw it. That does not mean your number disappears from every other campaign, contractor, and fundraising database that already has it.

Other people objected because I used a message asking for money for Sherrod Brown, as though a Democrat we like cOuLd NoT pOsSiBlY be associated with the same fundraising tactics everybody complains about.

Come on.

I ran for Congress twice. I participated in this system. I paid for services, entered into fundraising arrangements, and hired people to send messages on my behalf.

So I want to explain how this works, where your information can come from, and why opting out of one message does not necessarily mean the messages stop.

First, You Turn Your Relationships Into a List

One of the first things people tell you when you run for office is to “Rolodex yourself.”

Write down everybody you know. Friends, family, former coworkers, business contacts. Pull all contacts from social media and emails. Then get on the phone or the keypad and ask them for money and support.

That becomes your first fundraising list.

It is valuable because these are people who know you, trust you, or might be willing to help you. Before you have a national audience or a professional fundraising operation, those relationships are what you have.

My next step was working with consultants and fundraising services. That involved uploading contact information so they could help manage the operation.

Maybe I got bamboozled. At the time, I was thinking about getting help running a campaign. I was not thinking through every possible future use of the information I was handing over.

I do not have proof that somebody took my friends’ numbers and sold them to another campaign.

But the experience made me ask a question I should have asked much earlier: What rights am I giving somebody else over this information?

Because to you, that is your phone number. Inside a fundraising operation, it’s MONEY BABY!!!!

Eventually, Your List Dries Up

You call the people you know. You email them. You ask again.

Eventually, you reach the limits of what that list can produce. So where do you find more people?

Other campaigns have lists. Fundraising companies have lists. Political organizations have lists.

Read more

Before we get into the numbers, take a look at my Ohio Congressional Campaign Finance Tracker. You can compare candidates, explore their campaign finances, and see the outside money coming into these races.

The latest financial reports have dropped. We are less than three weeks from the midterm elections, and while another reporting deadline is coming before Election Day, these third-quarter reports give us a substantial look at the money behind the campaigns.

These numbers cover July through September, with cash balances as of September 30.

And in Ohio’s 7th District, Brian Poindexter absolutely crushed Max Miller in fundraising.

Ohio’s 7th: Poindexter Raised Nearly 17 Times as Much

Brian Poindexter raised $2,461,285 in contributions during the third quarter.

Max Miller raised $145,525.

That is a difference of $2,315,760. Poindexter brought in nearly 17 times as much in contributions as Miller.

Miller also loaned his campaign $1 million of his own money. That pushed his total receipts to approximately $1.15 million, but we need to be clear about what that means. A personal loan does not represent people opening their wallets to support your campaign.

It represents you opening your own.

And the change from the previous quarter is striking.

Poindexter’s contributions increased from approximately $466,000 to $2.46 million, a 428% increase.

Miller’s fell from approximately $405,000 to $146,000, a 64% decline.

That is a dramatic shift in fundraising momentum.

The cash position is also very different from what I initially thought. They did not end the quarter with roughly the same amount available, and Miller was not ahead.

Poindexter ended September with $1,066,833 in cash. Miller had $122,835.

That put Poindexter ahead by approximately $944,000.

Miller spent heavily during the quarter, about $2.40 million, compared with Poindexter’s $1.72 million. So Miller outspent him by approximately $688,000 while ending with substantially less money available. Miller’s committee also reported approximately $1.965 million in debt.

The fundraising gap is enormous. The question now is how that translates into votes.

Small Contributions Tell Another Part of the Story

Looking at where the money came from, there is an interesting difference between percentages and actual dollars.

Among reported individual-contribution dollars, Miller received approximately $41,635 from unitemized contributions and itemized contribution entries of $200 or less.

Poindexter received approximately $659,863 in that same category.

That matters. A high small-contribution percentage can sound impressive until you look at the size of the fundraising base underneath it.

Poindexter also received approximately $981,619 in individual contribution entries of $2,000 or more, representing 43.4% of his individual-contribution dollars.

His fundraising surge included substantial money at both ends.

These categories measure contribution amounts, rather than each donor’s total giving. Somebody making repeated smaller contributions can ultimately give much more than $200.

Who Gave to Miller and Poindexter?

There are some recognizable names in these reports.

Selected individual contributions to Max Miller included:

• Daniel Loeb: $3,500. Founder and CEO of investment firm Third Point. The contribution was marked as earmarked through AIPAC.

• Gila Milstein: $3,500. Cofounder of the Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. Her contribution was also marked as earmarked through AIPAC.

• Keith Mardak: $1,000. Former Hal Leonard music-publishing executive and philanthropist.

• Michelle Primm: $1,000. Cascade Auto Group managing partner and a National Automobile Dealers Association board member.

Selected individual contributions to Brian Poindexter included:

• JB Pritzker: $3,500. The Illinois governor.

• Robert Rubin: $3,500. Former U.S. Treasury secretary.

• Penny Pritzker: $1,314.81. Former U.S. Commerce secretary.

• Allen Blue: $3,500 in technology services. The LinkedIn cofounder’s contribution was reported as in-kind.

• Phoebe Gates: $3,500. Phia cofounder and daughter of Bill Gates.

• Mark Clein: $7,000 across two contributions. Cofounder of Precision Medicine Group.

• Roger Altman: $3,500. Founder of investment bank Evercore.

• Blair Effron: $3,500. Cofounder of investment bank Centerview Partners.

• Marta Kauffman: $3,500. Cocreator of Friends.

• Don Henley: $3,500. The Eagles musician.

• Bonnie Raitt: $1,000. The singer-songwriter.

Those are individual contributions. Listing someone’s business background does not mean the business itself donated.

But the names show how much national attention this race is attracting.

The Outside Money Is Pouring Into Ohio’s 7th

Then there is the money being spent outside the campaigns.

These expenditures do not go into Miller’s or Poindexter’s campaign accounts. Outside organizations pay for their own advertising, canvassing, mail, and other activity supporting or opposing candidates.

The latest identified notices include approximately:

• Congressional Leadership Fund: $2.24 million opposing Poindexter. This is a major House Republican outside-spending organization.

• Your Community PAC: $1.98 million opposing Miller.

• House Majority PAC: $1.60 million opposing Miller. A major organization working to elect House Democrats.

• Ready for the Fight: $1.47 million opposing Miller. JB Pritzker serves as its honorary chair.

• Jobs & Prosperity PAC: $580,712 opposing Poindexter and $116,337 supporting Miller. A pro-Miller super PAC whose disclosed funders include Brian Colleran, RMS Investment Group, and members of the Haslam family.

• Retired Americans Action: $177,424 opposing Miller.

• Stand Up for Ohio: $140,280 supporting Poindexter and $66,450 opposing Miller.

• Progressive Turnout Project: $138,753 supporting Poindexter.

There are other notable interests involved, too.

Elon Musk-backed America PAC reported approximately $64,029 opposing Poindexter and $17,654 supporting Miller.

America First Agriculture Action, which has received cannabis-industry funding, reported approximately $54,895 opposing Poindexter and $51,502 supporting Miller.

SEIU COPE reported approximately $14,688 supporting Poindexter and another $14,688 opposing Miller.

Earlier processed spending also included approximately $570,204 supporting Poindexter from Jobs and Democracy PAC, associated with the Public First AI-policy network, and $198,019 from BDA PAC, Blue Dog Action’s political committee. Both of those amounts reflected primary spending.

That timing matters. Money spent to help someone win a primary should not be presented as though it all arrived for the general election.

The recent notices remain provisional because amendments, estimated costs, and reporting issues still need reconciliation. I am not adding them together and calling the result a verified grand total.

What is clear is that national party organizations, wealthy donors, labor, and industry interests are paying attention to Ohio’s 7th.

Where the Campaigns Are Spending

The campaigns themselves are putting substantial money into advertising.

Miller reported approximately $2.02 million to Strategic Media Placement for media buys.

Poindexter reported approximately $1.02 million to LC Media for advertising and video production, plus approximately $275,516 to Kinetic Strategies for advertising and digital fundraising.

Poindexter also reported approximately $81,109 to the Ohio Democratic Party for coordinated campaign, payroll-related, and administrative costs, along with $50,800 for polling.

These are campaign expenditures, separate from the outside spending above.

This is going to be a very interesting race. The fundraising momentum is clearly behind Poindexter, even in a district that has favored Republicans.

His union background, the concentration of organized labor in Cuyahoga County, and Miller’s high profile all help explain why this race is getting attention. Miller’s messy divorce has also been part of the public conversation.

Ohio’s 9th: The Iron Babushka Has the Advantage

Marcy Kaptur’s race against Derek Merrin is another one worth watching.

Kaptur raised $1,220,236 in contributions during Q3. Merrin raised $398,608.

That is approximately three times as much for Kaptur.

She also spent heavily: approximately $3.53 million, compared with Merrin’s $299,366.

At the end of September, Kaptur had $1,246,370 in cash, while Merrin had $787,056, giving her an advantage of approximately $459,000.

Democrat Marcy Kaptur represents a Republican-leaning district, yet she has faced numerous challengers over the years and has always come out on top.

Ohio’s 10th: Knickerbocker Out Raised Turner

In Ohio’s 10th District, Democrat Kristina Knickerbocker raised $509,992 in contributions, compared with Republican Mike Turner’s $338,385.

Knickerbocker outraised Turner by approximately $172,000, or about 51%.

Turner still had the cash advantage at the end of September: $588,342, compared with Knickerbocker’s $303,192.

That makes this a different financial picture from Ohio’s 7th. The Democratic challenger led in quarterly contributions, but the Republican incumbent retained more money.

This is another potential red-to-blue opportunity that deserves attention. I do not think it should get lost simply because the 7th has attracted a larger fundraising surge and a higher-profile political fight.

Ohio’s 14th: What Happens When Your Race Gets Less Attention

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 14th Congressional District: Maria Jukic vs. Dave Joyce

Hey, Angry Patriots…

Read more

2 months ago · 3 likes · 3 comments · The Angry Democrat

Ohio’s 14th shows a very different situation.

Republican Dave Joyce raised $243,219 in contributions during Q3. Democrat Maria Jukic raised $42,052.

Joyce ended September with approximately $2.33 million in cash. Jukic had approximately $25,141.

To me, this illustrates the power of national party attention and the fundraising networks that come with it. When your race becomes a priority, the resources can change dramatically. When it does not, raising enough money to compete can be a constant struggle.

I know what that feels like.

In my race against Miller, he raised around $3 million while I raised around $300,000. I spent days and nights on the phone trying to bring money in.

Then you see what happens when the party and national donors “decide” a race is worth investing in. The difference is startling.

Ohio’s 13th: The Opposite Picture

In Ohio’s 13th District, Democrat Emilia Sykes raised $719,122 in contributions during Q3.

Republican Carey Coleman raised $39,426.

Sykes ended September with $1,102,523 in cash. Coleman had $60,684.

Sykes had approximately 18 times as much in quarterly contributions and cash on hand.

My read is that Coleman is not attracting the financial support you would expect for a serious push to flip the seat. It looks like a race where Republicans are allowing their candidate to fall far behind.

The numbers alone do not prove a formal decision to abandon him. But financially, this is a dramatically lopsided contest.

Two Other Races Worth Noting

In Ohio’s 1st District, Democrat Greg Landsman raised $868,506 in contributions, compared with Republican Eric Conroy’s $455,107.

Landsman ended September with approximately $1.50 million in cash. Conroy had approximately $303,000.

In Ohio’s 11th District, Democrat Shontel Brown raised approximately $285,183 in contributions and ended September with approximately $1.20 million in cash. This is a very safe Democrat seat.

Follow the Money, Then Watch the Results

The biggest story in these reports is Ohio’s 7th.

Poindexter raised nearly $2.5 million in contributions. Miller raised approximately $145,000 and put another million dollars of his own money into the campaign.

That is a substantial difference in the support flowing into their campaign accounts.

Across Ohio, the reports also show where resources are concentrating and where candidates are being left to compete with much less.

I will be talking more about these races as we get closer to Election Day. In the meantime, explore the Ohio Congressional Campaign Finance Tracker and take a look at the money behind the candidates asking for your vote.

Stay Angry.

Trump just made a deal with Russia over diesel, and it has a lot of people confused. Democrats and Republicans are asking what we have been doing.

Russia invaded Ukraine. The United States and the European Union have been arming Ukraine to defend itself. We have sanctions on Russia. But now we’re opening the door to Russian diesel to try to lower our fuel prices.

Buying that fuel gives Russia more money while it continues its war against the country we have been helping defend.

And the initial amount? A little more than half a day’s worth of U.S. consumption.

So what is the strategy? Is this supposed to provide lasting relief, create a temporary price drop before the midterms, or pressure Zelenskyy into accepting a deal because we’re now helping both sides?

Those are the possibilities I want to talk about, because the amount of fuel alone does not explain this decision.

Understand the Scale of This War

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. On February 24, 2022, it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That invasion is now in its fifth year, and we still do not have peace.

Russian strikes are hitting Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Ukraine is striking Russian refineries and energy supply chains. We know this is happening, but I do not think enough people understand the scale.

The military death estimates are approximately 400,000 to 450,000 Russians and 125,000 to 150,000 Ukrainians. Combined military casualties, including those killed, wounded, or missing, were roughly two million.

That is more than half a million military deaths between the two countries.

And that does not include civilians. In Ukraine, July 2026 alone saw at least 437 civilians killed and 2,610 injured.

These are human beings. And when I think about the soldiers being sent into this, I think about ordinary people, poor people, people without the money or connections to insulate themselves from what their governments are doing.

The financial cost is astronomical, too. Russia’s military spending in 2025 was approximately $190 billion. Ukraine’s was about $84 billion. That is one year of military spending, not the entire cost of this war.

This is the scale we need to keep in mind when we talk about giving Russia another opportunity to earn money.

North Korea Is Trading Human Lives for Money

One part of this conflict that I do not think gets enough attention is North Korea’s involvement.

North Korea has been supplying Russia with troops, munitions, and missiles. I understand buying weapons from an ally. But the troops are what bother me.

In my opinion, this is an immoral trade of human life for money.

Russia needs more people to keep fighting. Another major mobilization carries the risk of unrest at home. North Korea can provide troops, and its government receives benefits for doing so.

To me, that amounts to treating people as a commodity. The government gets paid, and the soldiers get sent into a war.

North Korea’s economy has benefited from its relationship with Russia. But I cannot look at those benefits without thinking about the people being shipped off to fight and whether they have any meaningful choice in the matter.

There is also the military experience. Having a large military and having a military tested in modern combat are different things. These deployments give North Korea experience it can take home.

So there are consequences here that extend beyond Russia and Ukraine. Money is changing hands, people are dying, and militaries are learning.

The First Shipment Is Barely Half a Day’s Worth

Now look at what Trump announced.

The immediate supply is more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel. Then 500,000 tons in November, another million tons afterward, and an additional projected three million tons. The full announcement comes to approximately 4.8 million metric tons.

That sounds like a lot until you compare it with consumption.

Using a rounded U.S. consumption benchmark of about 526,000 metric tons per day for petroleum distillates, including diesel and heating oil:

• The initial 300,000 tons: About 14 hours of U.S. use.

• November’s 500,000 tons: About one day.

• The following million tons: About two days.

• The entire 4.8 million tons: About nine days.

And these announcements concern supply for U.S. and global markets. We cannot assume every ton is coming here.

This is why I keep coming back to the amount. We are easing restrictions on Russia for an initial shipment equivalent to a little more than half a day of American consumption.

Is that going to make a meaningful difference in our day-to-day lives? Is it going to provide lasting relief for fuel costs?

I am skeptical. The volume alone does not tell us exactly what prices will do, but it certainly makes me question the size of the benefit being promised.

Russia gets revenue from selling the fuel. What do we get, and for how long?

Is the Plan to Dump It Into the Market Before the Midterms?

Here is one possibility: Maybe lasting relief is not the point.

Maybe the point is to get as much of this fuel into the market as possible right before the midterms and hope prices fall long enough to help Republicans.

Think about the timing. The initial 300,000 tons plus November’s 500,000 tons would be approximately 800,000 tons. If those supplies became available before Election Day, could the administration try to concentrate the benefit into a very short window?

Could the goal be to push prices down for a few days, claim a victory, and get through the election?

I do not know whether that is the plan. But that is the strategy I am questioning.

There is a difference between fixing a supply problem and trying to produce a politically useful price drop at exactly the right moment. With quantities this limited, I can see why the timing might matter more to the administration than the long-term effect.

I am not claiming that releasing this amount would guarantee a dollar or two off the price. I am asking whether a short-lived reduction before people vote is what they are actually trying to achieve.

Is This About Making Zelenskyy Capitulate?

The other possibility is that this is about pressuring Zelenskyy into accepting a deal.

We have been helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia. Now we are making it easier for Russia to earn money that can help sustain the war.

Imagine looking at that from Ukraine’s position. You are already facing a larger country, years of destruction, and enormous losses. Now a country that has helped you defend yourself is opening another source of revenue for the country invading you.

Does that send the message that this could go on indefinitely unless you accept the terms being offered?

The message, as I see it, could be: We are going to help them, too. Give up the land they have taken, cut a deal, and call it a day.

That is my interpretation of a possible pressure tactic. I do not know that it is the administration’s actual plan. But it is one way to understand a decision that otherwise seems to contradict what we have been supporting.

Maybe Trump thinks a stalemate is the only realistic outcome and wants to force Zelenskyy to the table. If so, is the method to make Ukraine’s position worse until it capitulates?

That is a very different argument from telling Americans we are simply buying fuel to lower their costs.

The Sanctions Exception Makes the Contradiction Clear

On October 9, the Treasury Department issued General License 135, temporarily permitting specified Russian diesel transactions through April 7, 2027.

So restrictions that were supposed to limit Russia’s access to revenue are now being relaxed for this fuel.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has been attacking Russian refineries. Trump has pressed Ukraine to stop those attacks, and Zelenskyy has said Washington threatened consequences for intelligence sharing.

Russia continues attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, but we are trying to protect the flow of Russian diesel while helping Ukraine defend itself.

How does all of that fit together?

We also need clear answers about the transactions themselves. Who is buying the fuel? What is the price? How are payments being handled? How much will actually arrive, and when?

Who Is Winning Here?

American taxpayers have funded military assistance. When we send weapons from our stockpiles, we also have to consider the cost of replenishing them. European allies have committed money and weapons, too.

Russia is spending enormous sums. Ukraine is fighting for its survival. North Korea is benefiting from supplying weapons and troops.

And now we are creating another opportunity for Russia to sell fuel.

So who is winning in this situation?

Trump said he would end this war on day one. We are approaching two years into his term, and instead of an end to the fighting, we are discussing a diesel deal with the country that launched the invasion.

The war itself is also changing how militaries fight. Drones, AI integration, fiber-optic controls, and satellite communications are all part of that conversation. The consequences will last far beyond whatever happens to fuel prices this month.

That is why I want people to understand the scale. If we do not understand the scale, we cannot understand the importance of these decisions.

My concern is that we are being sold a fuel-price explanation for something that may really be about election timing, pressure on Ukraine, or both.

Do you agree with this deal?

Is a shipment equivalent to roughly half a day’s consumption worth easing restrictions on Russia?

And do you think the real goal is cheaper fuel, a political win before the midterms, or forcing Zelenskyy to accept a settlement?

Right now, it looks like we are playing both sides. I want to know what the strategy is.

Stay Angry.

What Are We Rewarding?

Politics in Ohio, like politics across America, has become increasingly centered on competition rather than cooperation.

We treat elections like sporting events.

Candidates are measured by who landed the best punch, who delivered the sharpest soundbite, and who walked away declared the winner of the latest debate.

While debates have an important place in democracy, they should not become the primary measure of a person’s ability to govern.

Recently, attention has focused on a gubernatorial candidate who performed well in a debate.

Opponents have seized on the fact that another candidate has been reluctant to participate in similar events. The assumption is that if someone avoids a debate, they must be hiding something or incapable of defending their ideas.

That may sometimes be true.

Public officials should be willing to answer tough questions and explain their positions to voters.

But there is another question worth asking: What exactly are we rewarding?

Debates are designed to produce winners and losers. Participants are given limited time to explain complex issues.

They are encouraged to respond quickly rather than thoughtfully.

The format rewards confidence, aggressiveness, and rhetorical skill. Those traits can be useful.

However, they are not necessarily the same qualities required to govern a state, manage a budget, improve schools, address addiction, or attract new jobs.

Debate and Deliberation Are Not the Same

The reality is that most meaningful progress in government does not happen through debate. It happens through deliberation.

Debate and deliberation are not the same thing. A debate is a contest. The goal is to defeat an opponent’s argument. Deliberation is a process. The goal is to understand a problem and work toward a solution. One focuses on victory. The other focuses on outcomes.

Unfortunately, modern politics has become dominated by debate while deliberation has largely disappeared.

Every issue is framed as a battle between two opposing sides. Every policy proposal becomes a contest of talking points.

Every disagreement is treated as a test of loyalty.

Politicians are pushed to defend their side rather than examine whether the other side may have a legitimate concern.

Ohio Problems Require Ohio Solutions

Ohio deserves better.

The challenges facing our state are not Republican problems or Democratic problems. They are Ohio problems.

Cuyahoga County faces concerns about public safety, affordable housing, economic development, infrastructure, and education.

Rural communities face concerns about healthcare access, workforce shortages, and population decline.

Families throughout the state worry about inflation, rising costs, and opportunities for their children.

None of these issues care about party affiliation.

A pothole does not ask whether the driver is conservative or liberal.

An empty manufacturing building does not vote.

A struggling school district does not care which party controls a legislative chamber.

The people affected by these problems want results, not political victories.

When Conflict Becomes the Goal

Yet our political culture often encourages exactly the opposite behavior.

Elected officials are rewarded for defeating opponents rather than solving problems.

Party activists celebrate ideological purity.

Television and social media amplify conflict because conflict generates attention.

In that environment, compromise is portrayed as weakness and cooperation is viewed with suspicion.

That is a dangerous direction for any democracy.

The founders of our country understood that disagreement was inevitable.

They created institutions designed to force people with different perspectives to work together. The expectation was never that one side would permanently defeat the other.

The expectation was negotiation, compromise, and gradual progress.

Somewhere along the way, we lost sight of that idea.

What Ohioans Want From Their Representatives

Today, many voters feel exhausted by politics.

They are tired of constant outrage.

They are tired of hearing why the other side is evil, incompetent, or beyond redemption.

They are tired of watching elected officials score points while basic challenges remain unresolved.

What many Ohioans want is much simpler.

They want representatives who listen. They want representatives who can explain their ideas without insulting those who disagree. They want representatives who are willing to sit in a room with political opponents and look for common ground.

That does not mean abandoning principles.

Strong representatives should have convictions. They should be willing to defend their beliefs and explain why they hold them.

Healthy debate remains an important part of democracy because it allows voters to evaluate competing visions and hold candidates accountable.

But debate should be the beginning of the process, not the end.

Governing Requires Something Different

Once an election is over, governing requires something different. It requires patience. It requires humility. It requires recognizing that no political party has a monopoly on good ideas.

Most importantly, it requires a commitment to solving real-world problems rather than winning endless political arguments.

Imagine if Ohio politics focused less on who won the latest debate and more on who could bring people together to address shared challenges.

Imagine if elected officials spent as much energy listening as they do campaigning. Imagine if disagreement was seen as an opportunity to learn rather than an invitation to fight.

That may sound idealistic. But it is also practical.

The issues facing Ohio are too significant to be solved through partisan warfare.

Economic growth requires cooperation among business leaders, labor organizations, educators, and government officials.

Public safety depends on trust between communities and institutions.

Educational success requires parents, teachers, administrators, and policymakers working toward common goals.

None of that resembles a debate stage.

It resembles deliberation.

After the Cameras Are Turned Off

As Ohio enters another election cycle, voters should certainly pay attention to candidate debates.

Public accountability matters. Transparency matters. Communication matters.

But we should be careful not to confuse performance with representation.

Winning a debate does not automatically make someone an effective governor.

Losing a debate does not automatically make someone unqualified.

The qualities that produce successful governance often look very different from the qualities that produce viral debate moments.

At a time when politics feels increasingly divided, perhaps the most important question is not who can defeat their opponent in a ninety-minute debate.

Perhaps the most important question is who can bring people together after the cameras are turned off.

Because Ohio does not need more winners and losers.

Ohio needs problem solvers.

Stay Angry.

Well, since we’re not having a debate and apparently getting two candidates on the same stage to answer questions for the people is too much to ask, this is the closest we have.

Below are the two interviews, followed by a comparison of the questions, their answers, and where their positions overlap or differ. You can watch them yourself or read through the topics that matter most to you.

Look, I know most of the people following this publication are Democrats. Max Miller was my opponent twice. I’m not making a case for him. But I do believe in democracy, and I believe giving people a chance to hear and compare the candidates is important.

These interviews were conducted separately. Some questions were nearly identical, while others covered similar subjects from different angles. I’ve grouped those answers together and noted where a topic wasn’t addressed in one of the interviews. These are summaries of what the candidates said, not independent verification of every claim they made.

Watch the Interviews

Brian Poindexter, Democratic challenger

Max Miller, Republican incumbent

At a Glance

1. Why Are You Running, and What Experience Would You Bring?

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Question being compared: What is your background, and why are you seeking this office?

Max Miller: Miller introduces himself as a Cleveland native, a Marine veteran, and a congressman approaching the end of his second term. He argues that his office has delivered for the district and that he wants to continue that work. He highlights infrastructure, police and fire funding, and his support for the Ukrainian community.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter introduces himself as a father of three, a union ironworker, and a Brook Park City Council member. He describes working in machine shops, factories, kitchens, and trucking before becoming an ironworker. He says he is running because people who work hard and do what they’re supposed to do are still falling behind, and Washington needs someone who understands that experience.

The comparison: Miller’s case is based on his record in Congress and continuing the work of his office. Poindexter’s case is based on his experience as a worker and local elected official, and his argument that Washington needs different representation.

Interview references: Miller, 0:40–2:02; Poindexter, 0:42–2:29.

2. What Are the Biggest Problems Congress Needs to Address?

Question being compared: What are the biggest issues facing Congress and the people you represent?

Max Miller: Miller identifies healthcare as Congress’s biggest issue. He says both parties have failed to deliver the results Americans need and argues that healthcare reform must improve care while addressing federal spending and revenue.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter identifies partisan division as a major problem in Congress. For district residents, he puts the cost of living first. He blames the war in Iran for higher gas prices, broad tariffs for increasing the cost of goods, and healthcare cuts for putting additional pressure on families.

The comparison: Both identify healthcare and household costs as important. Miller approaches the problem primarily through healthcare reform and federal finances. Poindexter emphasizes the immediate financial pressure on working families and the political division he believes prevents solutions.

Interview references: Miller, 4:40–5:27; Poindexter, 3:20–5:05.

3. How Would You Work Across Party Lines?

Question being compared: Can Congress work in a bipartisan way, and how would you help make that happen?

Max Miller: Miller says Congress is less combative behind the scenes than it appears on television. He describes good relationships with Democrats and says committee work involves negotiation over policies such as deductions and subsidies. He argues that being personable and working with members of the other party is how legislation gets enough votes to pass.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says Congress needs to make a more deliberate effort to work across the aisle. He points to his City Council experience as evidence that people can disagree while preserving relationships. He identifies border security and police support as areas of potential agreement. He also says he would work with Senator Bernie Moreno on lifting the Social Security taxable earnings cap, describing that as a position Moreno has expressed.

The comparison: Both say relationships matter and bipartisan cooperation is necessary. The difference is their diagnosis: Miller says cooperation already happens routinely, while Poindexter says Congress needs to do a much better job of it.

Interview references: Miller, 3:01–4:36; Poindexter, 3:36–4:24 and 5:09–6:39.

4. How Would You Stay Accessible to the District?

Question being compared: How do you balance work in Washington with the needs of constituents across the district?

Max Miller: Miller says listening to constituents guides his decisions, including his positions on Ukraine and an ACA extension. He describes making multiple community stops throughout the day and says his office is accessible. In his closing remarks, he points to offices in Medina and Parma.

He also highlights his staff’s help for constituents stranded overseas and says his office has brought more than $50 million back to the district for infrastructure, police, and fire services.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says he would be in Washington for votes and committee work, but otherwise would be back in the district. He argues that access to the congressional office is currently inadequate. He promises town halls and proposes smaller satellite offices so residents don’t have to travel as far for help with federal agencies and other concerns.

The comparison: Miller defends his existing accessibility and constituent-service record. Poindexter argues that access needs improvement and proposes a more geographically distributed office presence. These interviews present competing assessments of the current office, rather than resolving which assessment is correct.

Interview references: Miller, 2:02–2:52, 5:32–6:28, 7:31–8:12, and 21:45–22:57; Poindexter, 8:07–9:32.

5. What Should Happen With Data Centers?

Question being compared: What is your position on data-center development in Ohio?

Max Miller: Miller says data centers can be important, including for AI and competition with China, but development should proceed incrementally. His main concern is whether the electrical grid can support them without harming residents through higher utility costs.

He also argues that major companies moving into local communities should pay substantial amounts to those communities and do a better job explaining the projects. He raises concerns about farmland being converted to industrial use.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says it is time to “pump the brakes” on data centers. He supports construction and technological progress but argues that too many questions remain unanswered.

He explicitly opposes tax breaks for data centers and says communities should have a say in whether projects are built. He calls for environmental protections and safeguards for workers whose jobs could be displaced by the technology these facilities support.

The comparison: Neither gives data centers an unconditional endorsement. Both express concern about the effects on residents. Miller emphasizes grid capacity, utility costs, gradual development, and community compensation. Poindexter emphasizes local control, opposition to tax subsidies, environmental protections, and employment consequences.

Interview references: Miller, 9:46–11:27; Poindexter, 9:40–11:14.

6. How Should Congress Regulate AI?

Question being compared: What safeguards should Congress put in place as artificial intelligence develops?

Max Miller: Miller supports AI safeguards and explicitly distinguishes his position from what he describes as President Trump’s opposition to restrictions. His immediate priority is protecting children.

He discusses AI being used to remove watermarks and misuse images, as well as concerns involving copyrights and trademarks. He says his team has examined possible policies and that protection for vulnerable people should come first.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says Congress should bring in experts to help design safeguards. He emphasizes the possibility of large-scale job losses and says workers must be protected from displacement.

He also raises broader fears about AI systems and potentially catastrophic outcomes, citing reports he says he has read. He acknowledges that he is an ironworker, not an AI expert, and says he would rely on expert testimony.

The comparison: Both support federal safeguards. Miller’s answer centers on children, images, and misuse of creative material. Poindexter’s centers on workers, economic disruption, and broader technological risks. Neither lays out a complete regulatory framework in these interviews.

Interview references: Miller, 8:16–9:36; Poindexter, 9:58–10:38 and 11:20–12:37.

7. How Would You Help People Facing High Taxes?

Question being compared: What can be done about household tax burdens, and what happens if Ohio reduces property taxes?

Max Miller: Miller first notes that property taxes are a state issue. He then highlights federal tax provisions relating to tips, overtime, seniors, and car-loan interest as examples of relief Congress has pursued.

On Ohio property taxes, he says the state would need to replace lost revenue because it must balance its budget. He identifies sales taxes and taxes on products such as alcohol and nicotine as possible sources lawmakers would have to examine. He describes replacing that revenue as possible but difficult.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says people resent taxes when they don’t have enough left to pay their bills, disagree with how the money is spent, or believe wealthy people aren’t paying their share.

His main proposal in this answer is to raise wages so taxes become less burdensome. Drawing on City Council experience, he argues that higher earnings can also generate more revenue for public services without increasing an income-tax rate.

The comparison: Miller focuses on tax relief and the challenge of replacing revenue. Poindexter focuses on wages and tax fairness. Neither provides a detailed federal plan in these interviews to resolve Ohio’s property-tax problems.

Interview references: Miller, 18:39–21:24; Poindexter, 12:46–14:07.

8. What Is the Path to Better Jobs and Affordable Housing?

Question being compared: How would you help people enter the workforce, build a career, and afford a home?

Max Miller: Miller strongly supports technical education and skilled trades. He points to his financial support for local career centers and argues that trades can provide strong earnings without the debt associated with college. He also acknowledges that higher education remains necessary for professions such as medicine and teaching.

When asked about housing, Miller says removing tariffs on Canada would help lower costs. He identifies construction materials and manufacturing inputs as areas affected and argues that tariff relief would benefit housing and the broader economy.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter also argues that college should not be the only route to a stable career. He describes his own union trade as the foundation that allowed him to buy a house and support a family.

He supports more federal funding for trades programs and alternative career pathways. He points to the Polaris career training available to his daughters as an example of preparation that can begin before high school graduation.

The comparison: There is substantial agreement on the value of trades and alternatives to college debt. Miller gives a more direct answer on housing costs by calling for tariff relief. Poindexter focuses on job training and earnings as the route to being able to afford a home.

Poindexter also criticizes broad tariffs elsewhere in his interview, so tariff concerns are not limited to Miller, even though their housing answers emphasize different things.

Interview references: Miller, 11:35–14:32; Poindexter, 4:33–4:50 and 15:50–17:09.

9. What Immigration Changes Would You Support?

Question being compared: Is there a legal immigration pathway that would help meet workforce needs?

Max Miller: Miller says the country needs more legal immigration and argues that people too often conflate legal and illegal immigration.

He supports a merit-based approach involving vetting, paying taxes, obeying the law, and assimilation. He describes a potential route to citizenship after three to five years for people meeting those conditions.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter supports a strong border and says he would work with Republicans on border security. He also argues that immigration enforcement should not be cruel.

He focuses on people who have lived in the country for years, work, pay taxes, and contribute to their communities. He supports a better process and pathway to citizenship for those residents. He also calls for action against employers who exploit undocumented workers through low wages, lack of benefits, or threats involving immigration enforcement.

The comparison: Both support legal pathways and bipartisan reform. Miller emphasizes merit-based admission and conditions for citizenship. Poindexter emphasizes the treatment of established undocumented residents and protection against exploitation. Miller does not spell out in this answer how his proposal would apply to people already living here without legal status.

Interview references: Miller, 14:38–15:50; Poindexter, 17:17–18:40.

10. How Would You Make Healthcare More Affordable?

Question being compared: What healthcare changes would you pursue, and what would you want to accomplish during the next term?

Max Miller: Miller repeatedly identifies healthcare as a top priority. He argues that both parties have fallen short and that reform should improve care, increase revenue within the system, and make federal healthcare finances more sustainable.

He says he wants to introduce legislation that makes healthcare more affordable and produces better results than the current ACA system. Elsewhere, he points to his support for an ACA extension as an example of listening to constituents.

He does not describe a detailed replacement or overhaul plan in this interview.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter calls for restoring Medicaid funding and ACA subsidies. He argues that public subsidies are part of what makes coverage affordable for working families.

He says those measures are not a complete long-term solution and supports a broader overhaul. He also links healthcare affordability to stronger collective bargaining rights, arguing that workers should have more power to negotiate employer-provided benefits.

The comparison: Both say the system needs substantial improvement. Poindexter identifies specific near-term steps involving Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and workplace bargaining. Miller emphasizes affordability and fiscal reform but does not explain the detailed mechanism for his proposed overhaul.

Their answers also need to be distinguished from their claims about Miller’s record: Poindexter criticizes Miller’s healthcare votes, while Miller highlights a vote supporting an ACA extension. The interviews alone do not reconcile those different references.

Interview references: Miller, 2:36–2:52, 4:40–5:27, and 15:56–17:22; Poindexter, 18:47–20:07.

11. What Would Make Your Next Term a Success?

Question being compared: Two years from now, what would you want to say you accomplished?

Max Miller: Miller says he would be proud to deliver healthcare legislation that improves affordability and results while strengthening the system’s finances. In an earlier answer about a third term, he also names better energy policy as a priority.

Brian Poindexter: Poindexter says success would mean relief for working families through higher wages, lower costs, better healthcare, and a secure retirement. He also wants constituents to say he worked across party lines, listened to them, and brought their concerns to Congress.

One of his first legislative priorities would be supporting the PRO Act to strengthen workers’ collective bargaining rights.

The comparison: Miller identifies healthcare reform as his central measure of success. Poindexter offers a broader set of household economic goals, with organized labor and constituent representation central to his approach.

Interview references: Miller, 6:35–7:24 and 15:56–17:22; Poindexter, 6:42–8:02 and 20:16–20:55.

Topics That Did Not Get Equivalent Questions

Not every topic received the same treatment. These answers are worth including, but they should not be presented as a direct exchange between the candidates.

Social Security and Medicare

Poindexter’s answer: Asked how to make Social Security and Medicare sustainable, Poindexter focuses on Social Security. He supports lifting the taxable earnings cap so higher earners continue contributing on income above the current limit. He argues that doing so would strengthen the program and help retirees. He describes moving his retired parents into his home because their benefits left them struggling financially.

What is missing from the comparison: Miller is not asked an equivalent Social Security solvency question. His comments about tax relief for seniors do not establish his position on lifting the payroll-tax cap. Poindexter also does not give a separate Medicare sustainability plan in his answer.

Interview reference: Poindexter, 14:15–15:45.

Energy Policy

Miller’s answer: Miller supports a mix of energy sources, including solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, nuclear, and carbon sequestration. He says some subsidies for private companies are too generous, while speaking positively about several energy incentives. He argues that opening up the energy sector could lower costs.

What is missing from the comparison: Poindexter discusses gas prices and the economic effects of the Iran war but does not receive an equivalent question about his preferred energy mix or subsidies.

Interview references: Miller, 6:35–7:24; Poindexter, 4:33–4:41.

Libraries and School Vouchers

Miller’s answer: Miller describes libraries as important places for education, research, reading, and community connection. He does not offer a specific library-funding proposal.

The interviewer also mentions public schools and vouchers in an education question, but Miller’s answer focuses on technical and higher education. He does not state a voucher position in that response.

What is missing from the comparison: Poindexter is not asked a comparable library or school-voucher question. Neither candidate’s voucher position can be established from these interviews.

Interview references: Miller, 11:35–13:14 and 17:25–18:29.

Stay Angry.

https://www.andrey4congress.org/

“We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. The landmark Supreme Court case defended the press from being silenced by Southern officials who often used libel laws to silence newspapers for reporting on segregation.

Fast-forward a few decades, and we face another free-speech crisis in our nation. The current occupant of the Oval Office uses the power of the executive branch to silence media that he sees as opposing his viewpoints. Likewise, we see the Democratic Party using its influence to squash opponents of its agenda, most notably in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District.

Civic Engagement and Party Endorsements

Kamala Harris arrived in Cleveland, Ohio, in early February 2026 on her book tour to speak at Playhouse Square. I was in attendance, and what was most striking to me was the sheer amount of joy and happiness the audience members showed toward the former vice president. During her talk, she said that we need to raise a generation of civic-minded citizens.

I wholeheartedly agreed with that statement and acknowledge that doing this would take some time and a lot of elbow grease. However, the entity that represents Ms. Harris, the Democratic Party, is actively going against that very statement.

Earlier in the year, former OH-7 candidate Laura Rodriguez-Carbone reported on the antics of the Democratic Party in her article “The Endorsement Cartel.” It highlighted how the Democratic Party uses its influence to direct outcomes in a particular race. In this case, all support went to one candidate in the OH-7 race, Brian Poindexter.

It further highlighted the disparity between grassroots campaigns and institutional spending, along with how the party shuts out anti-establishment or alternative candidates by controlling local resources and endorsements. A few months after the primaries, I can wholeheartedly agree with Laura that there is a cartel against the people, and it’s the very establishment that claims it wants more civic-minded citizens.

Nursing Organizations and a Nurse’s Candidacy

Earlier in the year, I reached out to Nurses for America and the Ohio Nurses Association for possible endorsements and continued dialogue. I reached out to Kelli Hykes of the Ohio Nurses Association and Carol Roe of Nurses for America. There was some initial conversation, but after an initial response from each, I was never contacted again, even after touching base repeatedly.

Each organization claims to represent the best interests of nurses. However, ONA and NFA chose to endorse Poindexter, a person who has never worked at the bedside, has never taken care of dying patients for 12 to 16 hours at a time, and does not understand what it is to be a nurse.

I have worked with ONA on a particular project in Cleveland. Due to the sensitive nature of the work, I cannot openly disclose it. However, the work aligns exactly with Poindexter and what he always claims in his ads. Not being able to have an interview or a chance for consideration points back to Laura’s original point in her post.

Nurses for America, which highlights nurses running in local elections around the nation, chose NOT to endorse the nurse. An individual aligned with the aforementioned organizations told me that they could not endorse me because it would make a particular group of people in the county very, very upset, those individuals being the Democratic Party.

For two organizations that claim to support nurses and grassroots efforts by nurses, they have done anything BUT. Revisiting Kamala’s remarks on civic-mindedness, ONA and NFA have both failed to inspire and create civic-mindedness when their decisions are dictated by others rather than by the members who are part of them.

My message to both: DO BETTER. There are nurses around the country who want to run for office and create change. Don’t silence their voices. Uplift them, regardless of political affiliation, write-in status, or third-party candidacy. We need to support each other, not bring each other down. To create civic-minded individuals, we need to inspire the grassroots efforts of everyday citizens.

My Experience With the Working Families Party

The Working Families Party claims to be a “progressive, grassroots political organization.” It was something I chose to believe in when I first started researching the organization. Laura had her own experience with them during the primaries, as she highlighted in her article, and months later, I would have my own.

I originally applied for an endorsement earlier in the year, which I did not get. No harm, no foul. There were bigger fish at play in the OH-7 race at the time. Then, months later, I received an email from them titled “Elections as Resistance.”

When I first started this race, I said to myself that even if I lost, I wanted to have built working relationships with people. So I decided to apply to their event, which was to be held in Columbus in late September.

I then received a call from the WFP. We talked about the race, issues with hyperpartisanship, my own story of why I ran, and where I see myself in the future. I also talked about OH-7 and Laura’s article with them. I told them it was upsetting to see what they had done to her, but that would not preclude me from wanting to build a relationship with WFP.

I believe it is important to forge relationships to bring about the change we want to see in the world. I was told I would receive an invitation to attend. A few days later, I received an email that said quite the opposite.

Going back to what they “stand for,” WFP chose not to engage with me despite my message echoing what they have stated. I was going against the grain, running for something I believe in, and having the courage to run and stand between Miller and Poindexter. This is exactly the sort of movement they claim to support. However, they chose not to have me around in Columbus for their event.

I told them I stand with and support Laura for all her years of service and her guts to run for office, and I would not be silent about what they did to her. I am greatly disappointed in them and hope that any candidates seeking their endorsement understand their ethics. For the WFP, it is politics as usual.

Trying to Be Heard Outside the Two Parties

I have reached out to numerous outlets in Ohio. Between radio stations, newspapers, podcasts, and Republican and Democratic county committees, I have sought opportunities to speak or showcase myself. I have received many “no” answers, no answers at all, and even responses discouraging me from running. These individuals are on various DNC committees in Ohio and in various political activist groups in Northeast Ohio.

It is amazing to see how our nation has become so invested in the two-party political system that if you run as a third-party candidate or have write-in status, you are immediately discounted. One is almost forced to run in either party’s primary to ensure exposure and proper resources. I, however, prefer my own voice.

All of this does not discourage me from running again. Rather, I see it as empowerment to break the chain that has been choking our nation. I want to represent the people rather than a political establishment or groups of political committees.

The Forums That Never Happened

The League of Women Voters does an excellent job giving a voice to all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation. They hold candidate forums where voters can come in, ask questions, and have those questions heard.

OH-7 was supposed to have one on a few occasions. Brian Poindexter canceled each time. Max Miller and another write-in candidate did not respond to the LWV’s requests. However, I did, each time. I was eager to have my voice heard and stand toe-to-toe with Poindexter. He, however, chose to cancel each time.

In interviews, Poindexter stated he would debate anyone at any time, which was probably directed at Miller. However, when I entered the mix, he chickened out.

I would be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid. I was. I accepted each invitation and was nervous beyond belief, but I would sit down and write notes after a grueling 12-hour shift at the hospital to prepare to answer voters’ questions. To me, this says Poindexter is politics as usual and just another candidate who mimics Democratic sound bites.

I knew I was going to lose the race to either Miller or Poindexter, and during the LWV forum, I was expecting to get a question on unions and workers’ rights. I have my thoughts on the subject, but I was planning to yield my time, turn and look at Poindexter, and have a heartfelt moment that would hopefully have transcended politics.

I am a nurse and, as such, have insight into healthcare and the healthcare system here in Greater Cleveland. Nurses are treated like an afterthought. Dare I say, dogshit.

Given his position on unions, I would have turned to him and let him know exactly how nurses are treated: threatened with being reported to the Board of Nursing, threatened with termination, and other things. I would have asked for his assistance, if he won, to help transform the healthcare landscape in Cleveland. Because if we can do it in Cleveland, it’ll set off a domino effect and change things across our great nation.

I would have told him not to forget my name, because together we could have done great things.

Because Poindexter chose not to attend the forum, we could not have that moment. Poindexter chose to hide instead of standing by his word and debating anyone at any time.

Public Service Requires Showing Up

We are seeing a dangerous trend of politicians and candidates refusing to debate. Debates are the bedrock of our nation and political system. Having our opinions challenged and placed in the spotlight creates opportunities for growth and for our voices to be heard.

It should not matter what a politician’s past is or whether you are nervous or unprepared. Going into public service means going through uncomfortable situations to get the desired outcome. One needs to have grit, determination, willpower, and, most importantly, courage to stand up for what one believes in. It is important that anyone entering politics understands they are a servant of the people. Forums and debates are catalysts for people to learn who they are putting in office.

Matt Diemer and Jake Underwood both gave me a voice. I was someone unknown and new to politics. I appreciate them both greatly for taking a chance on me and highlighting my views and ideas. This is why we need to continue to support local and independent journalism.

This certainly won’t be my last race. Lessons were learned, and I hope to continue the good fight. In the words of Kamala Harris at the end of her talk in Cleveland: We have to fight, and fight, and fight, because when we fight, we win.

Stay Angry.

The Angry Ohioan welcomes submissions from local writers and community members who want to contribute thoughtful commentary on our democracy, public policy, and issues affecting Northeast Ohio and beyond. Interested in writing for us? Contact us at admin@theangrydem.com.

Today I want to talk about the telecommunications harassment case involving Ohio state Senator Jerry Cirino and , better known as . I was at the trial on day one and watched the livestream on day two. The Rooster was found guilty and received a $200 fine plus court costs.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I’m not going to explain every detail here. I covered both days over at my other publication, where I focus exclusively on Ohio news. You can read the two-day write-up here:

The Angry Ohioan

The Rooster Trial: Day One

Today was the first day of D.J. Byrnes’s The Rooster telecommunications harassment trial involving Ohio state Senator Jerry Cirino. Byrnes is better known as the Rooster, and I decided to show up at Willoughby Municipal Court in solidarity. This is my firsthand account…

Read more

20 days ago · 5 likes · 4 comments · The Angry Democrat

The Angry Ohioan

GUILTY. The Rooster Trial Day Two

The second and final day of D.J. Byrnes’s telecommunications harassment trial concluded with a guilty verdict. Byrnes, better known as the Rooster, was found guilty in the case involving Ohio state Senator Jerry Cirino and received a very minimal sentence: a $200 fine plus court costs…

Read more

19 days ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat and Matt Diemer

I think this case deserves a conversation in The Angry Democrat because it raises questions that go beyond Ohio. What text messages are acceptable to send to someone? Does the answer change when the recipient is a public official? Is this a freedom of speech and freedom of the press conversation, or is it harassment?

Before you read my take, keep three questions in mind:

1. Do you agree with the guilty verdict? Why or why not?

2. Would your answer change if the same image had been sent to a female elected official, whether the sender was a man or a woman?

3. Do you think this was a sitting state senator flexing his power against the media?

There is a lot of disagreement about this case. Some people are absolutely convinced this was protected speech. Others think it crossed the line. Here’s where I landed.

Read more

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Before getting into the arguments, I want to give a shout-out to Adam Dew, whose livestream I watched. I appreciate him doing this so I didn’t have to go back down to the courthouse. I spent the first day there in person, but for day two, I watched on my sofa.

It was the defense’s turn to call witnesses. They called two: a lobbyist who had provided a voicemail from Cirino, and the Rooster’s wife. In my opinion, the defense’s witnesses were pretty weak. But before getting into their testimony, there was another text message to discuss, this one sent by Cirino himself.

Cirino’s Text to the Lobbyist

At the start of the day, the attorneys discussed a text Cirino had sent to the lobbyist after the previous day’s proceedings. When the lobbyist took the stand, he testified that the message arrived at 5:21 p.m.

“You shared a voicemail with the Rooster? Seriously?”

The voicemail in question involved Cirino asking about campaign contributions. The lobbyist had provided it to the defense, and he testified that he regularly communicated with Cirino about Senate business on the senator’s cellphone.

The immediate question was whether Cirino was tampering with a witness. I’m not sure whether he actually knew the lobbyist was going to testify, but I can understand the idea of betrayal. Someone you have a professional relationship with turns over your voicemail to the Rooster, and you have a reaction to that.

The lobbyist said he was shocked by the text and did not respond. The defense introduced the message into evidence.

On cross-examination, the prosecution asked whether he had been with D.J. when the original message was sent or with Cirino when it was received. He had not been present for either.

The Rooster’s Wife Takes the Stand

The other witness was the Rooster’s wife (Hilltop Husband).

She described his work covering Ohio politics and then walked through what happened after his arrest at the Statehouse. She testified that she went to post his bond but initially couldn’t because he hadn’t appeared in the system yet.

She eventually paid the required $350, which was 10 percent of his $3,500 bond, that evening. Despite that, he remained in jail overnight. The next morning, she connected with another attorney who helped secure his release. According to her testimony, he was finally released around noon.

The prosecution’s questions focused on the different jurisdictions involved and her knowledge of the process. She is an attorney, but she explained that she does not practice criminal law. She also testified that D.J. had told her he was sending Cirino a message, but he hadn’t told her what it was.

Those were the defense’s two witnesses. D.J. did not testify.

What Each Side Argued

The defense asked the judge to acquit D.J. before presenting its witnesses and renewed that request after resting its case. Its attorneys argued that the messages were protected political speech and that the prosecution had not proven the necessary intent to harass. The judge denied those requests and allowed the jury to decide.

In closing, the defense emphasized the political context. The Rooster had been covering Cirino’s campaign to become Ohio Senate president, criticizing him and predicting that he would not win. The messages were sent on the day Cirino’s withdrawal became public.

The defense argued that this was a political commentator responding to a political development involving a powerful public official. They described the Shrek image as part of that commentary, making the point that Cirino had exposed himself by failing to win the presidency.

They also returned to the cellphone. This was the same number Cirino had used for about 25 years, including for Senate business, lobbyists, constituents, journalists, and fundraising. It had been published in newspaper articles. The defense argued that the jury needed to consider all of that when evaluating the exchange.

Their central point was that finding the image offensive did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that D.J.’s specific purpose was criminal harassment.

The prosecution argued that the defense was distracting the jury. The circumstances of the arrest, the overnight detention, the voicemail, and the publication of Cirino’s number were described as “white noise.” The prosecutor wanted the jury focused on the message itself and why D.J. sent it.

In the prosecution’s view, there was no legitimate purpose for sending an unsolicited image of Shrek masturbating directly to Cirino’s cellphone. It wasn’t a request for comment or a question about the Senate presidency. It was a taunt following a political defeat.

The prosecutor again compared it to scoring a touchdown and spiking the football in someone’s face. Their argument was that D.J. intended to annoy and harass Cirino, and that sending the image directly to his phone crossed the line.

The jury found him guilty.

The Final Day

The result was a guilty verdict and a $200 fine plus court costs. After two days of testimony, cross-examinations, and arguments about political speech and Shrek’s dick, that was how the trial ended.

All in all, I thought this was a very interesting proceeding. I’ll write more in , where I’ll bring my conclusions, thoughts, and everything together.

For now, that wraps up the second and final day of the Rooster trial.

Stay Angry.

My plan was to pop in, give him a fist bump, say good luck, and leave for physical therapy. I hurt my bad a couple weeks ago. Bad. Instead, I ended up staying the whole day.

When I walked up the stairs, the hallway was full of people I already knew. There were people from Lake County, including John T. Plecnik, whom I spoke with about property taxes. Former congressional canidate Carl Setzer was there, too. My understanding is that he and the Rooster became good friends during and after Carl’s congressional primary campaign. Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Bill O’Neill was also there, along with plenty of political insiders, Rooster supporters, and supporters of Cirino.

There was a lot of media, too: newsletter writers, bloggers, vloggers, the conservative outlet Ohio Political News, News 5, and myself. Carl and I had a funny exchange about whether I counted as media. He encouraged me to go in with the press for jury selection. I didn’t, and afterward I regretted it. Apparently, I’m still adjusting to being on this side of things.

Even The New York Times was there. Yes, The New York Times was watching this.

A Long Wait and a Comment That Put Things Into Perspective

I arrived at about 11:45 a.m. We weren’t let into the courtroom until around 2:30, after jury selection. By then, I counted nine people seated in the jury area: three men and six women, all of whom appeared caucasian. Most looked middle-aged to me, with a couple of women who appeared to be in their late 50s or 60s and one young man who looked to be in his mid-20s.

I saw D.J. walking around with his lawyer a couple of times. D.J. looked visibly stressed and concerned about how this was going to go. Rightfully so. If he weren’t nervous, I’d probably think he was a psychopath. I didn’t see Cirino until he came in to testify.

But before the opening statements, a woman I assumed was the bailiff said something that put the whole afternoon into perspective. She was directing people, explaining courtroom procedures, ushering jurors and spectators in and out, managing the media, and keeping order.

On my way in, I said, “Busy day today.”

Her response, as I remember it, we had a rape case earlier, but nobody seemed to show up for that one.

That hit me like a ton of bricks. I took it as a comment on the attention this case was getting compared with what had come before it.

Earlier, that courtroom had apparently been dealing with an allegation of rape, with the horrific events and life-changing consequences that involves. Now it was packed with political people and reporters for a misdemeanor case about a Shrek meme dick pic sent to a senator.

That was the contrast sitting in my head as we took our seats.

What the Prosecution and Defense Said

Opening statements began at around 2:45 p.m.

The prosecution argued that the Rooster had crossed the line from political criticism into criminal harassment. Their position was that he sent Cirino an unsolicited, sexually explicit image while the senator was at home, accompanied by a message mocking his unsuccessful campaign to become Ohio Senate president.

According to the prosecution, this wasn’t a request for comment or an attempt to gather information. It was a personal taunt intended to harass him. At one point, the prosecutor compared it to a football player spiking the ball after a touchdown.

The defense laid out the political context. The Rooster is an independent political journalist and commentator whose work includes satire, profanity, and blunt criticism of Ohio politicians. He had been covering Cirino’s effort to become Senate president, and the messages were sent on the same day Cirino’s withdrawal became public.

The defense argued that the exchange was political commentary about a newsworthy event, protected by the First Amendment. They also emphasized that this was a brief exchange on one day, with Cirino replying to the initial message and receiving a response.

That was the case each side put in front of the jury before the testimony began.

Cirino’s Phone Became a Major Part of the Testimony

The prosecution called Cirino as its first witness. Their questions took about ten minutes by my estimate. Then the defense began its cross-examination.

It was long. It was absolutely tedious at points. But they made their point.

To be perfectly honest, when I first sat there listening, my reaction was that sending Shrek’s dick to a senator’s personal phone was absolutely uncalled for. Then the defense started asking about that phone, and the picture changed.

Cirino testified that he had used the same number for about 25 years. It was his only cellphone, and he used it for just about everything.

Personal calls, yes. But also calls with constituents, lobbyists, and journalists. Campaign business. Call time to raise money from donors. This was a phone he used for his work as a state senator and for his political activities.

The defense also introduced newspaper articles in which that cellphone number had been published. Cirino acknowledged that it had appeared publicly.

So this was a do-everything phone number tied directly to his work as a public official. That was a significant part of what the defense spent all that time establishing, and it changed how I understood the initial description of someone sending an offensive image to his personal phone.

The defense also walked through the exchange itself. Cirino received the first message, replied, and received another response. He acknowledged that he had not told the sender to stop texting him and that the messages were part of one exchange on one day.

Another notable moment involved an email Cirino sent to Kirtland Police Chief Jamie Fisher asking for charges to be filed. Cirino initially explained that he wanted to understand what remedies were available and distinguished that from specifically asking for criminal charges. But when the defense brought him back to the wording of the email, he acknowledged that he had asked for charges.

The questioning also returned to the Senate presidency contest. The defense connected the timing of the messages to the public news that Cirino had withdrawn, placing the exchange within a political story the Rooster had already been covering.

That was the point of the lengthy cross-examination: establishing what this phone was used for, what the exchange consisted of, and what was happening politically when it occurred.

The Detective and the Investigation

We then heard from Detective Jake Scott of the Kirtland Police Department about how he investigated the messages and reached the conclusion that they supported a telecommunications harassment charge.

Scott described using phone information, online searches, and other investigative resources to connect the number to Byrnes. He reviewed the screenshots, prepared the paperwork, and sought an arrest warrant.

The defense’s cross-examination focused in part on how much of the political context he had investigated.

Scott had come across the Rooster’s reporting about Cirino, but he explained that he primarily used that material to help identify Byrnes. When questioned about whether he investigated the connection between the messages and the same-day news of Cirino’s withdrawal from the Senate presidency contest, he acknowledged that he had not pursued that.

The defense also questioned why police sought an arrest warrant for a misdemeanor rather than a summons requiring Byrnes to appear in court. Scott described pursuing arrest warrants as the department’s practice during his time there.

There was cross-examination and redirect, and by then we were approaching the end of the afternoon.

Day Two, and Trying to Keep It Together

A little before 5 p.m., Judge Michael Cicconetti adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning. He indicated that he expected the case to finish around noon. I assume we’ll hear from the defense’s witnesses as the proceedings continue.

I’m not going back in person tomorrow, but I plan to watch live. I believe Ohio Political News will be streaming again. If so, I’ll watch and write up my conclusions afterward. This was only day one.

If you watch their recording of today’s proceedings, I promise you’ll hear some giggling from the back. You’ll hear me and a couple of other people trying to keep it together every time the discussion returned to Shrek masturbating with a big green erection.

Trust me, it was hard to keep a straight face sometimes.

I went there expecting to give the Rooster a fist bump and head to physical therapy. Instead, I spent the afternoon listening to testimony about a senator’s cellphone, political commentary, a police investigation, and Shrek’s dick. And through all of it, that woman’s comment on the way into the courtroom stayed with me.

Stay Angry.

Okay, this might be my most controversial post since the Amy Acton post, which literally got me canceled. But you know what? I did not take that one down. I leaned into it because I thought I was morally right. There were good complementary arguments as well.

Whatever. I survived.

This post is going to highlight some of the coolest things I saw involving AI this week. It is also going to be a defense of AI because, if you have not figured it out already, I am an AI user, an AI defender, and an AI advocate.

I think this technology is cool. I think it is fun. I think it will be disruptive, complicated, and messy, but I also believe it will be an overall net positive.

Yes, I Am a “Tech Bro”

I have been into technology and futurism for basically my entire life. I love science fiction books, futuristic movies, emerging technology, and YouTube channels like Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur. Also the husband of Ohio State Representative Sarah Fowler Arthur

I leaned heavily into Bitcoin and blockchain. I bought a Tesla before they were everywhere. I supported SpaceX and Starlink. I still think Starlink is one of the best infrastructure inventions of the 21st century. The fact that we are still acting as though running fiber-optic cable over and under every mountain, valley, and rural area is the only possible solution is absolutely silly.

And no, I never put one of those “I bought this before Elon went crazy” stickers on my Tesla.

I like technology. I lean into it because it is fun, interesting, inspiring, and often useful.

So instead of writing another piece about how AI is going to destroy humanity, steal everybody’s job, ruin creativity, melt the electrical grid, and turn every piece of media into slop, I want to show you some of the genuinely useful and creative things I have seen just this week.

Temporary Jobs Are Still Jobs

One of the arguments against AI data centers is that the construction jobs are temporary. After the facility is completed, it may not employ a massive number of permanent workers relative to the amount of money invested in it.

You know what? That criticism is true.

These projects do not necessarily create enormous numbers of permanent jobs after construction. But where, exactly, is this mass employment for steelworkers, pipefitters, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, linemen, truck drivers, equipment operators, and everyone else involved in building these facilities supposed to come from?

Infrastructure construction happens in phases. Union workers already understand that. They move from one major project to another. These data centers are temporary projects, but those temporary jobs are still putting food on people’s tables.

A friend of mine owns Terra Group, a company that supplies aggregates and other materials for construction projects. He told me his company had been struggling for roughly four years. Construction had slowed down enough that he thought he might eventually have to close the business he had spent around a decade building.

Then data-center construction began expanding around him in Louisiana.

His company supplies materials such as limestone, sand, dirt, and other aggregates. It opened a 327-acre dirt pit near the project and uses its supply chain to bring contractors whatever materials they need. His description was basically that they operate like butlers, except the butlers have brokers, heavy equipment, and a bunch of dump trucks.

He told me:

“We were in a really bad place with this company over the past four years, but this data center really saved us and catapulted us into a new realm of reality.”

They also have a construction management software Terra Logic Suite.

https://www.terrausa.com/

He has rehired people, currently employs around 10 workers, and told me the company expects to add approximately 10 more while expanding with an office in Lima, Peru.

That is not a hypothetical economic model. That is a real business, owned by a real person I know, employing real people. AI infrastructure helped keep that business alive and gave it an opportunity to grow.

AI Is Giving Small Businesses Tools They Could Never Afford

Some of the best uses of AI are not flashy videos or fake celebrities. They are small-business owners using AI to do work they either could not afford to outsource or did not have the technical ability to complete themselves.

The margins for many small businesses are extremely thin. I know these people personally. They are doing everything they can to keep their companies running.

AI is helping them streamline operations, code websites, improve internal systems, manage data, build tools, and perform work that once would have required hiring a developer or consultant they could not afford.

My friend Jasson Farrier, whom you have probably seen me speak with on podcasts, runs Ohio Housing Nerd. He used AI-assisted coding to build a national housing-data website for his YouTube channel and his clients.

It is a genuinely useful project that he probably could not have built by himself before these tools became available.

https://jassonfarrier.com/national-housing-data

Another friend owns Subscription Comics in Indiana. He is a father of three and a small-business owner. His wife works full-time, and he takes care of the children during the day while running the shop. He has a little nursery and play area in the back, with a television, couches, and space where the kids can do homework, study, and spend time while he helps customers.

With AI, he has been able to improve his online store and back-end systems so he can keep track of inventory and operate the business more efficiently.

That makes his life easier. It saves him money. It gives him more time with his children.

https://subscriptioncomics.com/

This is what gets lost when every conversation about AI immediately becomes a debate about garbage images, job destruction, or whether somebody cheated by using ChatGPT.

Real people are using this technology to keep their businesses alive.

AI Is Helping Me Learn Piano Again

I recently got a new piano.

I played when I was a kid, and people told me I was pretty good. Honestly, I thought I wasn’t anything special, but I will happily accept the compliments and praise if they motivate me to begin playing again.

The problem is that I have not played in roughly 30 years. My hands do not move the way they used to. My finger independence, coordination, scales, and muscle memory all need to be rebuilt.

So I created a day-by-day piano program with AI.

Every day, I ask it to give me that day’s lesson. It progressively rebuilds my technique through scales, chords, fingering exercises, coordination work, and classical pieces. I am currently working my way back toward playing Bach Inventions.

Here is part of one of the warm-ups it created:

Today we’re keeping the two-octave C-major scale.

Right hand UP:
1-2-3 | 1-2-3-4 | 1-2-3 | 1-2-3-4-5

Right hand DOWN:
5-4-3-2-1 | 3-2-1 | 4-3-2-1 | 3-2-1

Left hand UP:
5-4-3-2-1 | 3-2-1 | 4-3-2-1 | 3-2-1

Left hand DOWN:
1-2-3-1 | 2-3-4-1 | 2-3-1 | 2-3-4-5

Do: 2× RH alone → 2× LH alone → 5× hands together.

Is that going to replace a great piano teacher? Probably not. But it gives me a structured practice plan every day. It remembers what I practiced, adjusts the next lesson, and keeps me moving forward instead of randomly playing scales for 10 minutes and giving up.

AI Is Helping Me Keep My Chinese

I lived in China for 13 years and Taiwan for two. I used to be fluent in Chinese, but I have slowly been losing it.

I do not think I will ever lose it completely, but I am definitely rusty. Sometimes I hear a word that I completely forgot and think, “Oh shit, I know that word.” Other times, I look at a character I recognize but cannot remember its pronunciation or tone.

My reading ability has diminished. My pronunciation is probably absolute dogshit now, complete with a horrible Northeast Ohio American accent. I fought that accent for years and never completely defeated it, and I can tell you that it is considerably worse now.

Finding the exact word I want to express a particular meaning is also becoming harder.

My Chinese practice tutor in ChatGPT helps me knock off some of that rust. It gives me a dedicated conversation partner who is not going to become frustrated and switch to English. It is not using me as a language exchange because it wants to practice its English. It does not require me to schedule and pay for an expensive private tutor every time I want to practice.

I can practice reading, pronunciation, vocabulary, tones, and conversation whenever I want.

At the very least, I am no longer simply watching a language I spent 15 years learning slowly disappear.

AI Is Letting People Put Their Imaginations on the Screen

I have also started experimenting with fan art for some of the books I am reading.

If you read fantasy or science fiction, you know what it is like to build a world in your head. You develop an idea of what the people, places, creatures, clothing, cities, and entire universe look like.

Then the book becomes a movie or television show, and sometimes it looks nothing like what you imagined.

One of my biggest disappointments was Netflix’s version of The Three-Body Problem. It did not look or feel the way I wanted it to. I thought the Chinese adaptation was considerably better in my opinion.

Now I can take the version that exists in my head and begin translating it into something visual.

I am not claiming to be a professional artist. I am experimenting. I sit down and spend a few hours during the week trying to pull something out of my imagination and put it on the screen.

The response from some people is that if I cannot draw, I should not make art. I should hire an artist, pay someone else, or spend years learning how to draw.

You know what? I have enough shit going on. I am not going to spend the next decade learning how to draw because I want to create concept art from a fantasy book.

If I can spend a few hours creating something that previously existed only in my head, I believe there is more benefit than detriment in that.

ARK-7 Shows What We Can Create With AI

Then there are the professional and semi-professional creative uses that are beginning to emerge.

One of the most impressive things I watched this week was ARK-7, Episode 1, an AI-created science-fiction series published on YouTube.

It looks great.

You can still see that it is AI. It is not going to fool everybody into believing a major studio spent $200 million producing it. But that is not the point.

The point is that a person can have an idea, write a script, develop a storyboard, sketch out a world, and actually put the result in front of an audience.

As someone who loves science fiction, I appreciate that. I am glad somebody made it, and I want to see where creators take these tools next.

Fan-Made Trailers Can Bring Books to Life

A friend also put a fan-made trailer for Sarah J. Maas’s Throne of Glass series on my radar.

It is absolutely amazing.

Someone loved a series of books, developed a visual interpretation of those books, and used AI to show other people what that interpretation looked like.

Yes, we need to have conversations about intellectual property. Do not steal someone else’s work and pretend it belongs to you.

But I also believe there is creative value in taking the vision inspired by a book and transforming it into a new visual form. Fan art has existed forever. Fan fiction has existed forever. Fans have always drawn characters, created costumes, written stories, edited videos, and built worlds inspired by the things they love.

AI gives more people the ability to participate in that culture.

I would rather discuss how we protect creators while allowing that kind of expression than simply declare that none of it should exist.

We Are Completely Cooked, Because the AI Song Is a Bop?

The next example is honestly incredible.

Mikirah Muse an AI-generated artist released and AI-generated music video & song called Reckless (live). The artist, song, performance, and visuals are AI-created.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1wy2rx0/reckless/

I can tell you right now: We are cooked.

It is also really good. The song is catchy. It is a pop song that makes your head move, which is basically what most people want from a pop song.

Sometimes you do not want the most complicated, artistic, emotionally devastating piece of music ever written. Sometimes you want the McDonald’s of music. You want something simple, immediate, manufactured, and reasonably enjoyable.

One comment summed up the cynical argument perfectly:

“To me there’s no real difference between AI pop and modern pop music or musicians anyway. They’re both completely fake and manufactured, with meaningless lyrics written by people who don’t sing the song and produced to follow a very specific formula made to make money. Nothing is lost here.”

That is harsh, but it is also funny because people have been making the same criticism of pop music for decades.

Whatever. The song is still a bop.

I Use AI Every Day

AI is already part of my daily life.

I use it to organize thoughts and notes. I use speech-to-text and AI cleanup for The Angry Democrat. I use it to clean transcripts from League of Women Voters forums. I use it to create outlines, analyze information, study issues, and turn scattered ideas into something coherent.

AI does not decide what I believe. It does not create my political opinions. It helps me organize what I am already trying to say.

The technology can be abused. It can be used to create slop, cheat in school, spread misinformation, steal work, eliminate jobs, or flood the internet with garbage.

But every tool can be used badly.

The existence of bad AI content does not erase the small business that stayed open, the workers who were rehired, the father who gained more time with his children, the person rebuilding a musical skill, the former “expat” maintaining a second language, or the independent creator finally putting an imagined world on the screen.

We Have Lost the Plot on AI

I think we have lost the plot when it comes to AI.

The conversation should be about how we use this technology to expand human ability.

Maybe you do not want children using AI to answer every question and complete every assignment. Neither do I.

But why should AI not become an extension of the teacher, the classroom, and the curriculum?

OpenAI, Anthropic, and other companies could work with schools to build education-focused systems. Students could have an AI tutor connected to their coursework, available when they get home and the teacher is no longer standing beside them.

If a student does not understand a math problem, the system could explain it five different ways. If a student learns better through conversation, audio, repetition, examples, or visualization, the lesson could adapt.

Audiobooks and podcasts were game changers for people who love learning but struggle to sit down and read a book. For some reason, people act as though AI cannot be an extension of that same idea.

People who have never been able to sit down and write an essay can dictate their thoughts.

People who love to build but never learned how to draw can visualize their designs.

People who are dreamers can begin putting those dreams into reality.

The Best Work Will Still Rise

There is going to be a lot of garbage.

For every musician who became popular through SoundCloud, there are probably 10,000 people uploading music that is absolute dog crap.

But that is okay. They are still creating something.

The best work sometimes breaks through. The most creative, influential, and genuinely talented people find ways to separate themselves. AI will not eliminate creativity. It will expand the number of people who are allowed to participate.

That means more bad work, but it also means more opportunities for something amazing to appear from somebody who never had access to a studio, development team, animation company, private teacher, professional programmer, or massive budget.

I am all for it.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

Stay Angry.

“We’re going to shove it up their a@#.”

“Dumbacrats are dumb sons of bitches, (sic).”

“Stranger things have happened… I’ll leave it at that.”
(Trump was responding to a proposal that he use emergency powers to impose voter ID, citizenship-documentation, and mail-ballot restrictions.)

“But I’m not going to help her (Ohio).”
(Trump said Republican officials could obtain federal help more easily and indicated he would be less accommodating if Democrats won.)

Sign up.

Become a Poll Observer

This is just since Trump’s October 3 speech in Vandalia, near Dayton.

We have seen Trump routinely violate election laws since his 2020 loss and had faced 12 felony counts for violating Georgia’s RICO laws while trying to rig the elections there. His rhetoric has only increased since then and leading up to the 2026 midterms.

He repeatedly has threatened to send ICE agents to guard the voting, and perhaps even seize the ballots after the voting.

This Year, Poll Observers Matter

The Ohio Democratic Party has always sponsored and organized Democratic Party poll observers, but no year has this been more important than this one.

The party will hold a series of online training sessions throughout the month of October; you can sign up through their Mobilize link:

Sign up for Poll Observer Training

This training takes an hour, after which the ODP will submit your name to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections and you will receive credentials to observe a polling station.

You will be asked to serve a six-hour shift.

The Solon Democratic Party is joining with Chagrin Gateway Democrats and Bedford Democrats to train jointly at the Solon Combined Campaign Office on October 24.

This request is not/not the same as working for a candidate or issue outside of the polling site, though we need those volunteers too.

We are hoping other nongovernmental organizations also will send trained poll observers.

Election Observation Is Part of Democracy

Poll observation by domestic and international organizations is a recognized component of democratic elections under the 1990 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Copenhagen Document, which states that observers can enhance the electoral process.

The United States has been participating in OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) elections observation missions since that time, and always notes the accessibility and presence of domestic and international observers.

This was a central part of my task as head of the ODIHR parliamentary elections observation mission to Mongolia in 2024.

For the First Time Since 1990

This year, for the first time since 1990, the United States refused to invite an observation mission for our midterm elections.

In terms of OSCE membership, we join just Belarus and Russia in refusing to invite an observation mission.

According to ODIHR:

“The decision not to invite the OSCE to observe the 2026 mid-term congressional elections in the United States is regrettable, particularly given the long-standing co-operation with the country in the field of election observation, leaders of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA).

The decision is not in line with the commitments undertaken by all OSCE participating States under the 1990 Copenhagen Document, which recognizes that the presence of international observers can enhance the electoral process, and commits all participating States to invite observers…”

The Trump Administration clearly does not want the eyes of the world watching his attempts to subvert, and eventually overturn, our midterm elections, if he does not like the results; and he will not like them.

I will let others describe how Trump brought this upon himself and how Republican candidates Jon Husted and Vivek Ramaswamy are complicit in election fraud by making the pilgrimage to Vandalia to kiss his ring.

What You Can Do

My goal is to show you what you can do to bear witness and stop the steal.

Sign up.

Become a Poll Observer

About the Author

Ambassador (retired) Jennifer Brush is a 30-year national and international diplomat with specialties in nuclear non-proliferation, the Balkans, Central Asia and Mongolia. She was born in Solon, where she currently resides, and is President of the Solon Democratic Club. In 2024, she led an ODIHR Elections Observation Mission to Mongolia.

Everybody keeps talking about a blue wave. But what would a blue wave actually mean, and what could Democrats realistically do if they won control of both the House and Senate?

For this discussion, I am not going to complicate things with every possible outcome. I am not talking about Democrats winning the House while Republicans keep the Senate. I am also not talking about some massive Democratic supermajority that fundamentally changes the rules.

I am talking about the simplest realistic scenario: Democrats win a narrow majority in the House and at least 51 seats in the Senate.

What happens then?

First, a Reality Check

Winning Congress would not mean Democrats could suddenly pass anything they wanted.

Most legislation can still be blocked by the Senate filibuster unless Democrats have 60 votes, use budget reconciliation or change Senate rules. Even if a bill passes both chambers, it would still go to Donald Trump’s desk. He could veto it, and overriding that veto would require two-thirds of both the House and Senate.

So let’s be honest about what a narrow Democratic majority would mean.

It would be much better at stopping Trump, investigating Trump and slowing down the administration than passing an enormous Democratic legislative agenda.

1. Block Trump’s Legislative Agenda

Right now, Republicans control the House, Senate and executive branch. That gives Trump considerable freedom to move legislation through Congress when Republicans remain united.

If Democrats control both chambers, that stops.

Whether Trump wants another artificial-intelligence bill, another round of tax cuts, another funding package or those $5,000 bribery checks, Democrats would control whether that legislation receives a vote and what ultimately reaches his desk.

The same would apply to legislation involving immigration, energy, healthcare, military funding and the federal budget.

Trump could no longer expect Congress to rubber-stamp everything he wants.

2. Use Government Funding as Leverage

This could be one of the Democrats’ most powerful tools.

There have been reductions affecting the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP benefits and federal support for state and local governments.

If Democrats control Congress, they would control the appropriations process. They could decide what gets funded, what does not get funded and what conditions are attached to that money.

If the White House wants money for one of its priorities, Democrats could demand the restoration of funding for healthcare, food assistance, state programs or other services that have been reduced.

3. Challenge Trump’s Use of Military Power

Congress also has constitutional authority over war funding and significant authority under the War Powers Resolution.

A Democratic Congress could vote to limit or terminate unauthorized military involvement, restrict funding for particular operations and force public votes on Trump’s military decisions.

That would become especially important with the war involving Iran.

The conflict has contributed to instability in the Middle East and higher oil and gas prices. It is also unpopular with portions of both the Democratic and Republican electorate.

Democrats could attempt to limit the administration’s ability to expand or continue the conflict without congressional authorization.

However, there is an important limitation. Trump could veto a war-powers resolution, and Democrats would need two-thirds of both chambers to override him.

I also do not automatically trust Democrats to oppose war simply because they control Congress.

Washington has an entire political and economic system built around military spending. Defense contractors make money. Politicians receive campaign contributions. Jobs and government contracts are spread across congressional districts.

I think people would be watching very closely to see which wars Democrats challenge, which ones they continue funding and where their actual priorities lie.

4. Challenge Foreign Arms Sales

Foreign arms sales are separate from whether Congress limits the president’s direct use of American military force.

A Democratic Congress could challenge or attempt to block weapons sales involving Israel, Ukraine or other countries preparing for or participating in conflicts around the world.

This would create an enormous argument inside the Democratic Party.

There is no unified Democratic position on Israel and Gaza. There is no unified position on how long the United States should continue supplying Ukraine. There would also be disagreements about arms sales involving Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and other American partners.

These votes would be less about military policy and more about political signals of what kind of Democratic Party we have heading into 2028.

5. Block Supreme Court and Judicial Nominees

This is one of the clearest powers Democrats would gain by controlling the Senate.

The Senate confirms Supreme Court justices, federal judges, Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and many other presidential appointments.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority.

If a liberal justice retired or died and Trump successfully replaced that justice with another conservative, the Court could become 7-2. If a conservative justice retired, Trump could replace that justice with someone younger and secure that seat for another generation.

A Democratic Senate could refuse to confirm that nominee.

It could also slow or block lower-court judges and other executive-branch appointments as Trump approaches the end of his term.

Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, during an election year. Nobody should pretend Democrats are somehow constitutionally obligated to move Trump’s nominees.

6. Launch Congressional Investigations

Trump and his family have extensive financial and business dealings involving cryptocurrency, meme coins, overseas investments and relationships with foreign governments and wealthy individuals.

There are also questions surrounding the Qatar jet, presidential pardons, access to the administration and whether businesses or foreign interests have attempted to purchase political influence through Trump-linked companies and investments.

A Democratic Congress could investigate those relationships.

Democrats could investigate Trump, members of his family, administration officials and anyone involved in those transactions.

They could also examine whether government decisions were influenced by personal financial relationships.

7. Use Committee and Subpoena Power

Winning Congress means winning committee control.

Democrats would control committee chairs, hearing schedules, investigative staff and subpoena authority.

They could demand documents from the administration. They could subpoena officials, corporate executives and other witnesses. They could compel testimony and create official records of what happened.

Of course, the administration could resist those subpoenas. Trump officials could assert executive privilege, refuse to comply or drag the disputes through court.

But Democrats would no longer be asking. They would be telling.

8. Hold Public Hearings

The investigations and subpoenas would lead directly to public hearings.

Democrats could place administration officials and corporate executives under oath and ask them questions in front of the American public.

They could hold hearings about Trump’s finances, cryptocurrency ventures, foreign investments, pardons, tariffs, artificial intelligence agreements, government contracts and the relationships between the White House and major technology companies.

There have been numerous meetings between the administration and executives from artificial intelligence, technology, energy and financial companies.

There have also been questions about which companies and countries receive favorable tariff treatment, government contracts or access to the president.

Congress could examine whether those decisions were based on legitimate public policy or influenced by political donations, personal relationships and investments connected to Trump’s businesses.

9. Investigate Corporations and Third Parties

Congressional investigations would not have to stop with Trump or his administration.

Democrats could investigate corporations, political committees, cryptocurrency projects, data-center companies, technology firms, defense contractors and foreign entities connected to government decisions.

They could examine whether companies received special treatment after investing in Trump-linked businesses, buying meme coins, sponsoring events, running advertisements or cultivating relationships with the administration.

10. Impeachment

Obviously, the elephant in the room is impeachment.

If Democrats win the House, they could impeach Trump for a third time with a simple majority vote.

Would they do it?

In my opinion, probably.

Would the Senate remove him from office?

That is much less likely.

Conviction and removal require two-thirds of the Senate, which means 67 votes if all senators participate. If Democrats held 51 seats, they would need 16 Republicans to join them.

I do not believe a narrow Democratic majority would produce enough Republican votes to remove Trump unless the evidence was overwhelming and his political support had completely collapsed.

Trump may have pissed off plenty of Republicans. The cost of living, inflation, gas prices and perpetual wars may have alienated portions of the MAGA constituency.

But getting 67 senators to convict a president is an extraordinarily high threshold.

11. Impeach Other Administration Officials

Trump would not be the only person potentially facing impeachment or congressional investigations.

Democrats have developed something of a boner for impeachment, and officials such as Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth or others inside the administration could end up on the chopping block.

The Constitution allows the House to impeach federal civil officers, not only presidents.

Some officials who have already left the administration may have seen the political writing on the wall before the midterms. Others could decide that resigning is preferable to spending months responding to subpoenas, document requests and televised hearings.

Even if Democrats do not impeach Trump again, that does not mean the rest of the administration would be off the hook.

What Would Actually Get Done?

Here is the less exciting truth.

Even if Democrats win both the House and Senate, I would prepare for two years in which very little major legislation gets done.

Trump would still control the executive branch.

The Supreme Court would still have a 6-3 conservative majority.

The Senate filibuster would still make most legislation require 60 votes unless Democrats changed the rules or used reconciliation.

Trump could veto Democratic legislation, and a narrow majority would not have enough votes to override him.

Congress also does not control the Federal Reserve. Interest rates and monetary policy would remain with the Fed.

Inflation could persist. Interest rates could remain high or rise. The wars could continue. Gas and household costs could remain painful.

I also do not have much confidence that Democrats would fundamentally challenge the war involving Iran or every other military conflict.

Congressional leaders receive classified briefings, they may learn information the public does not have. Their response could tell us whether there is a real threat that justifies the policy, or whether they are simply continuing Washington’s normal addiction to war.

The Real Power Would Be Accountability

A narrow Democratic majority would not create some progressive legislative paradise.

It would create a check on Trump.

Democrats could stop Republican legislation, control federal funding, block judicial nominees, force votes on military policy, challenge foreign arms sales, investigate the administration, subpoena documents, hold hearings and potentially impeach federal officials.

That is not nothing.

After years of watching Congress surrender power to the executive branch, having an actual opposition party control the legislature would be important.

But people should understand what they are voting for.

A blue wave would probably create gridlock, investigations and oversight more than sweeping new legislation.

Let me know in the comments: What do you think Democrats should do if they win the House and Senate?

Stay Angry.

First, I want to apologize that I have not been writing as much on The Angry Democrat. With the election right around the corner, I have been focusing heavily on local news, candidates, ballot issues, taxes, and government spending here in Ohio.

If you live in Ohio, please subscribe to The Angry Ohioan at:

The Angry Ohioan

An ANGRY Ohioan Patriot? This is your home for Ohio-specific political news and commentary.

By The Angry Democrat

That is where you will find my exclusively Ohio-focused news and political commentary.

I am trying to keep The Angry Democrat focused on overarching political ideas, national news, public policy, Democratic strategy, and my general political waxings and wanings so it does not become completely bogged down with Ohio politics.

However, if you think everything should be consolidated into one place, please let me know. I have been thinking about that too.

In the meantime, please stay subscribed and consider supporting what I do. There has been a lot happening in Ohio, and I have published quite a bit over the past couple of weeks.

Here is what you may have missed.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Metanoia Project Needs Our Help

The most important thing I wrote about was the Metanoia Project.

Metanoia has operated a seasonal winter shelter in Cleveland for approximately 20 years. It runs on a small budget but produces big results for people who might not use the traditional shelter system.

I volunteered there in 2019. I worked the showers, handed out towels, socks, underwear, and toiletries, and talked to people who used Metanoia as a springboard back into employment and stable housing.

Now the organization is struggling to raise enough money to open this winter.

This is the kind of project that communities should be supporting: a small budget, limited political theater, and real results. Please read the article, share it, and consider whether you know anyone who can help keep Metanoia open.

The Angry Ohioan

Cuyahoga County Should Not Let Metanoia Disappear Over $250,000

Hey, fellow Angry Ohioans…

Read more

a month ago · 20 likes · The Angry Democrat

My Cuyahoga County Ballot-Issue Recommendations

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party released its endorsements for Issues 3 and 10 through 14.

I wanted to offer my own recommendations and explain my reasoning because simply telling voters to vote yes or no is not enough.

Issue 3: Voter Identification

My recommendation: NO

Ohio already requires photo identification for in-person voting. Issue 3 would place that requirement into the Ohio Constitution, making it more difficult for the state to adapt if better, more secure, or more accessible identification technology becomes available.

The Angry Ohioan

Issue 3: Ohio Already Requires Photo ID, So Why Put It in the Constitution?

Hey, Angry Ohioans…

Read more

a month ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat

Issue 10: Developmental Disabilities Levy

My recommendation: NO

Issue 10 would add a new 2.25-mill property-tax levy for 10 years while the existing 3.9-mill continuing levy remains in place. I support services for people with developmental disabilities, but I do not believe county leaders have demonstrated enough fiscal responsibility or sufficiently explained why taxpayers should provide another approximately $99.7 million every year.

The Angry Ohioan

Issue 10: What the New 2.25-Mill Levy Would Cost Cuyahoga County Homeowners

Hey, fellow Angry Ohioans…

Read more

a month ago · 1 like · 5 comments · The Angry Democrat

Issue 11: Health and Human Services Levy

My recommendation: NO

Issue 11 combines two separate questions into one vote: whether to renew the existing 4.7-mill levy and whether to add another 2.5 mills. The existing levy remains authorized through 2028, and the proposed increase would raise substantially more than a reasonable adjustment for inflation.

Voters should be able to decide whether to continue the existing funding separately from whether the county needs another approximately $110.76 million annually. Combining those questions into one proposal is dishonest.

The Angry Ohioan

My Objection to Issue 11: With HB920 Included

My Objection to Issue 11…

Read more

a month ago · 3 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Issue 12: Council Confirmation of Board Removals

My recommendation: YES, with a caveat

Issue 12 would require County Council to confirm certain removals of board and commission members initiated by the County Executive. I support adding that check on executive power, but I also believe Council should have an appropriate mechanism for initiating removal proceedings instead of merely reacting when the executive decides to remove someone.

The Angry Ohioan

Yes on Issue 12

This is a continuation of my evaluation of the issues appearing on the November ballot…

Read more

a month ago · 1 like · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Issue 13: Division Between the Law Director and Prosecutor

My recommendation: NO

Issue 13 would divide legal responsibilities between the independently elected County Prosecutor and a Law Director who serves at the pleasure of the County Executive. I would rather have contracts, negotiations, legal advice, litigation, discovery, and institutional knowledge housed within one legal department under the elected Prosecutor, with Council receiving legal advice that is institutionally independent from the executive.

The Angry Ohioan

NO on Issue 13

This is a continuation of my evaluation of the issues appearing on the November ballot…

Read more

a month ago · 2 likes · 2 comments · The Angry Democrat

Issue 14: Charter Review Commission Appointments

My recommendation: YES, with caveats

Issue 14 would divide appointments to the Charter Review Commission between the County Executive and County Council instead of allowing every nomination to originate with the executive. I support distributing appointment power, but Council’s appointments are not guaranteed to provide minority-party, ideological, or geographic representation, and eight of the nine appointees would no longer receive cross-branch review.

The Angry Ohioan

Yes on Issue 14: Charter Review Commission Appointments

This is a continuation of my evaluation of the issues appearing on the November ballot…

Read more

a month ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat

Ohio’s 90-Day Gas-Tax Holiday

Ohio’s 90-day gas-tax holiday passed the General Assembly, and the entire thing was a convoluted political mess.

Amy Acton proposed a gas-tax holiday. Vivek Ramaswamy later supported the idea, Republicans called a special session, Democrats attacked the bill as a political stunt, and then several Democrats voted for it anyway.

Meanwhile, the state is creating a roughly $725 million hole without clearly explaining where the replacement money will come from.

People will save money at the pump, and some families will genuinely feel that relief. But the politics made no sense, the Democratic positioning was all over the place, and the bill created more questions than answers.

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 90-Day Gas-Tax Holiday Is a Convoluted Political Mess

Well, this is a roller coaster of uncertain Democratic policy, Republican coattail-riding, and absolutely no clear explanation for why people voted the way they did. It is a convoluted mess, and I have to talk about it…

Read more

a month ago · 2 likes · 2 comments · The Angry Democrat

Cuyahoga County Council District 5

The District 5 race between Mike Gallagher and Courtney Scheff came down to fiscal responsibility.

Gallagher made county spending, the jail, reserves, taxes, and executive overreach the center of his campaign. Scheff talked about responsible oversight but continued supporting many of the same services, programs, and priorities promoted by County Executive Chris Ronayne.

At a time when the county is approaching more than $1 billion in justice-system construction commitments and asking residents for additional taxes, Gallagher’s warning was the one I believed County Council most needed to hear.

The Angry Ohioan

Cuyahoga County Council District 5: Fiscal Responsibility or More of the Same?

Hey, everyone. Matt here The Angry Ohioan…

Read more

a month ago · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat and Matt Diemer

Cuyahoga County Council District 11

The District 11 forum between Democrat Christine McIntosh and Republican William McLaughlin was frustrating for a different reason.

Both candidates seemed well-intentioned, but neither demonstrated much innovation, creativity, or vision for the seat. McIntosh leaned heavily on her experience, collaboration, and knowledge of government processes, while McLaughlin repeatedly acknowledged problems without consistently presenting detailed solutions.

The Angry Ohioan

LWV Cuyahoga County Council District 11 Candidate Forum

Hey everyone, Matt the Angry Ohioan here…

Read more

a month ago · The Angry Democrat

Ohio Senate District 23

The Ohio Senate District 23 forum featured Republican Robert Dintaman and Democrat Bride Rose Sweeney.

Bride demonstrated why she is one of my favorite Ohio legislators. She was prepared, disciplined, specific, and able to explain both what she believes and what she has accomplished. Robert appeared well-intentioned and sincere about working across the aisle, but too many of his answers relied on generic promises about bipartisanship and talking to people instead of explaining what he would actually do.

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio Senate District 23 Candidate Forum

Hey everyone, Matt the Angry Ohioan here…

Read more

a month ago · The Angry Democrat

The Cleveland Browns and Our Addiction to Bad Leadership

I also wrote about how the Cleveland Browns have become a perfect proxy for politics.

The organization gives Northeast Ohio an expensive, dysfunctional product, makes bad decisions, asks taxpayers for more money, and still expects loyalty. Fans become angry, complain, and swear something has to change, but then they return, buy tickets, purchase merchandise, and hope next year will be different.

That sounds a lot like politics.

The Angry Ohioan

The Cleveland Browns and Our Addiction to Bad Leadership

The Cleveland Browns have plagued Northeast Ohio for a long time. The team has never even appeared in a Super Bowl. Sometimes they makes the playoffs. Occasionally, it gets close enough to convince us that everything is finally changing. Then the dysfunction returns…

Read more

2 months ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat

What Is Coming Next

I have a long list of topics I want to address over the next several weeks.

What would the next two years look like if Democrats take both the House and Senate? What happens if Republicans keep control of both chambers?

I also plan to write more about artificial intelligence, data centers, jobs, industry, political fundraising, and potential conflicts of interest.

The third fundraising quarter has closed, and new campaign-finance reports should begin appearing in about 12 days. Once those numbers are available, I want to look at who is raising money, where that money is coming from, and what those relationships may tell us.

Please stay subscribed, share these posts, and consider supporting the work.

Also, let me know whether you prefer keeping The Angry Democrats and The Angry Ohioan separate or whether you would rather see everything consolidated into one place.

Stay Angry.