The Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, and Trump is the reason. The bill failed a Senate cloture vote, 49–50, with one senator not voting. It needed 60 votes to advance to the floor for debate, and it did not even come close.

The crypto industry was looking forward to this bill because it would have created rules of the road for cryptocurrency. It would have established which digital assets, tokens, commodities and securities fell under the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and which fell under the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Instead, the bill did not move. For now, it is dead, and we need to talk about why.

TL:DR: The Democrats brilliantly maneuvered to make the Republicans admit Trump administration is corrupt. And they did it through the Clarity Act.

What the CLARITY Act Was Supposed to Do

The CLARITY Act was supposed to create clearer divisions between the SEC and CFTC.

If you remember what happened in 2017, 2018 and 2019, as well as throughout the Biden administration, Gary Gensler and the SEC fought with crypto companies over which agency had jurisdiction. The SEC was essentially regulating through enforcement actions.

Companies would argue that they fell under the CFTC for one reason or another, and the SEC would come in and say, “No, no, no. We are the ones who are supposed to regulate you.”

We needed a clear division.

We needed more durable rules for exchanges, tokens, token issuers, decentralized finance, developers and American investment products. Companies need to know the rules before they build products, not after the SEC files a lawsuit against them.

Critics opposed the Senate draft for several reasons. Some lawmakers said the ethics provisions were too weak. That had everything to do with Trump and his crypto businesses, including World Liberty Financial, USD1, the Trump token and the Melania token.

Banks also objected to stablecoin reward structures because they were worried those rewards could pull deposits away from traditional banks.

If you hold a stablecoin instead of dollars in a bank, Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini or another company holding those tokens could pay you a yield. The banks looked at that and said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. We cannot let people take their dollars, put them somewhere else and make money from them. We have to keep that money here.”

They created all kinds of rules and excuses for why that was supposedly necessary.

Some lawmakers also wanted tougher anti-money-laundering rules, consumer protections and enforcement language.

The Vote

The cloture vote failed, 49–50, with one senator not voting. The legislation needed 60 votes to advance to the floor for debate.

Forty-nine Republicans voted yes. Forty-four Democrats and both independents voted no. Several Republicans also voted no, including Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran and Thom Tillis.

Collins opposed advancing the bill and raised concerns about bank deposits and what she described as a moving target. Hawley raised similar concerns about stablecoin rewards and the possibility that deposits could move from traditional banks into stablecoins held through companies such as Coinbase and Kraken.

The argument was that banks might not have enough deposits available for lending, potentially creating a serious problem for community banks.

There was also concern that the legislation had changed too many times. Just days before the vote, Republicans said they had accepted 126 Democratic additions or changes, including provisions governing ethics within the cryptocurrency industry and restrictions involving the president, his family and their companies.

Questions about whether Trump should divest, use a blind trust or face restrictions involving his family’s businesses were all part of the negotiations led by Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego.

Tillis voted no for procedural reasons so the bill could potentially be reconsidered later. Moran’s reasoning was less public, so I am going to assume there were political calculations involved there as well.

Independents Angus King and Bernie Sanders both voted no. Chris Coons did not vote.

Trump Killed the CLARITY Act

Why did the CLARITY Act fail?

The biggest reason was Trump.

Dennis Porter put it best:

“Hot take: Trump coin, World Liberty, USD1 and Melania coin are why CLARITY failed.”

Trump and his family have reportedly made approximately $1.3 billion from their cryptocurrency businesses. That is more than all previous United States presidents made during their terms combined.

Here is what happened: Republicans handed Democrats a hammer to use against the Trump administration.

When Trump returned to office, his sons already had World Liberty Financial. Trump could say it was a separate company and had nothing to do with him, but his family was making money from it.

Trump launched his own token. Melania launched a token. Trump’s family also has a stablecoin through which people around the world can exchange dollars for a digital representation of those dollars.

Yes, holders can theoretically exchange that digital representation back into dollars. But they are still giving Trump’s organization cash in exchange for the digital token. That is what is happening.

When the ethics issue came up, Democrats pointed to the corruption, bribery concerns, potential extortion and the broader monetization of the White House for Trump’s personal benefit and his family’s gain.

Republicans initially responded by saying none of that was happening.

Democrats then said they were not passing the bill without ethics provisions.

During the final negotiations, Republicans accepted 126 Democratic changes or additions. Basically, Democrats forced Republicans to acknowledge that there might be ethical problems involving Trump’s crypto interests.

It is difficult to argue that there is no problem while the president and his family are making approximately $1.3 billion from crypto businesses and his administration is writing the rules governing those businesses.

Republicans then turned around and said, “Maybe we do have a problem here. Maybe we need provisions requiring divestment. Maybe we need restrictions involving the president, his family and his children.”

Now Democrats can respond, “Wait a minute. We thought you said there was no problem. It looks like there is an ethics and corruption problem inside the White House. You just admitted it by agreeing to put restrictions into the legislation.”

Republicans Handed Democrats the Evidence

Senator Cynthia Lummis said Democrats did not negotiate in good faith and never intended to pass the bill.

Of course they didn’t.

Republicans gave Democrats a complete rubber stamp of approval for the argument that there is corruption inside the White House. It is absolutely amazing what happened here.

Ethics concerns involving Trump’s crypto ties dominated the final negotiations. Democrats said the talks ended before those concerns were fully resolved.

I do not think that is what happened.

I think the talks ended when Democrats had enough of an admission from Republicans, written directly into the bill, that there were serious ethical problems involving the Trump administration.

The Democrats were handed a hammer to beat the hell out of Trump’s administration.

If I were in the Senate, I would look at this and say it is political gold. Trump is exploiting the White House for personal and family gain, and Democrats just got Republicans to acknowledge the problem by negotiating ethics restrictions.

This is how you do it.

Now Democrats can beat Republicans over the head with it through November. If Democrats win the House and Senate, they can continue beating them over the head with it until 2028.

This is a political gift from the Trump administration.

The Banks Do Not Want Competition

Banks and some Republicans are also worried that stablecoin rewards could drain deposits from community banks.

I think that is fearmongering.

The banks need competition. If a stablecoin company is properly regulated and required to maintain one-to-one reserves, meaning one dollar goes in and one digital representation of that dollar goes out, then that should be enough.

Those companies should be able to pay interest or yield on the money they are holding.

Most people with traditional bank savings accounts receive almost no interest. Some banks pay practically zero. If you do not maintain enough money in your account, the bank may start charging you simply for having the account.

That is completely messed up, and I think it should be illegal.

The stablecoin industry, along with exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken, has created a system in which companies can hold that money, earn interest from it and pay customers for providing the capital.

Banks make a lot of money from the money sitting in your account. They do not want to pay you more because doing so cuts into their bottom line.

That is what we should be focused on here.

The bill had other sticking points, including illicit-finance rules, the treatment of DeFi, enforcement authority and consumer protections. But none of those issues changes the central political story surrounding this vote.

The Crypto Industry Has a Lot of Money

The other part of this story is the money behind the crypto industry.

Billionaires run cryptocurrency exchanges, token projects, DeFi protocols and other companies throughout the industry. They created super PACs to support crypto-friendly candidates.

Those organizations used to operate in a more bipartisan way. If you were a Republican or Democrat and said you supported cryptocurrency, they were willing to support you.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was a major proponent of this legislation. She worked alongside Cynthia Lummis to push it forward, but she ultimately voted no. From the Republican perspective, she pulled the rug out from under them.

Fairshake and other crypto groups are now looking at this as a Republican-versus-Democratic issue. They are threatening to stop donating to Democrats because Democrats opposed what the industry considered its bill.

In August, crypto executives met with Trump in the Oval Office. My interpretation is that the meeting was basically a shakedown.

Imagine the conversation:

“Mr. President, we created a PAC. We spent a lot of money helping your candidates get into office because we wanted rules of the road that would allow our businesses to flourish. Now the midterms are approaching. If Democrats take control and this bill does not pass, we are not going to get what we thought we paid for.”

Trump reassured them that the bill would reach the floor, with a vote scheduled for September 15.

That did not solve the problem because Democrats were still raising ethics concerns behind the scenes. Republicans eventually handed Democrats a political gift by accepting changes that effectively said, “You are right. We may have a serious corruption problem here.”

Stand With Crypto and Fairshake have said the CLARITY Act votes will be included in their public scorecards.

That means they will be looking at individual races and deciding where to spend money against candidates who voted no.

I do not know whether that targeting will happen during the 2026 midterms or continue into 2028, but Fairshake has approximately $112 million in cash available. It would not surprise me to see some of that money used in contentious races.

Susan Collins voted no in Maine. Could she face $10 million or $20 million in negative advertising because of it? Maybe. The Democratic candidate might not be any better for the crypto industry, but Fairshake could still decide to hurt Collins simply to punish her and send a signal to the Democrat.

If there are races where outside spending could determine whether a Democrat or Republican wins, I could see this money being used there. I could also see renewed investment from crypto executives and companies that want Fairshake to target the senators who voted no.

The big strategic question is whether these crypto groups punish every no vote or distinguish between opposition based on ethics concerns and opposition to cryptocurrency itself.

I do not think they will make that distinction.

They wanted this bill. They spent money trying to buy this legislation two years ago, and it still did not pass. They are angry, and they have a lot of money.

Expect more targeted spending from crypto PACs.

Where This Leaves the CLARITY Act

That is the CLARITY Act in a nutshell.

The crypto industry wanted clarity. It wanted to know whether the SEC or CFTC controlled particular assets. It wanted clear rules for DeFi, stablecoins, yields, exchanges and token issuers.

Democrats wanted stronger ethics provisions and pointed directly at the president of the United States, who reportedly made approximately $1.3 billion from his crypto businesses over the past two years.

I believe Trump made more profit from crypto than Coinbase, which is literally a registered cryptocurrency company that does not sit inside the White House.

The bill failed, but the political consequences are just beginning.

The midterms are coming, and we are going to see the fallout.

What do you think? How do you think this is going to play out? What are your thoughts about the CLARITY Act and the Senate vote?

Put your thoughts in the comments. I would love to read what you have to say.

Stay Angry.

Welcome back to another Angry Files. I’ve been quiet this week because I hurt my back at the gym a couple of weeks ago. I’ve spent more time than I would like stuck on the sofa, nursing it and going to physical therapy.

Don’t cry for me, Argentina. I did it to myself.

This week, I finally started getting out and doing things again, which distracted me from sitting down and writing. But plenty has been on my radar, and I want to get into it.

Don’t forget to follow, share this with somebody and check out for more of what is happening here at home.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

AI Companies Can Slow Down If They Wanted To

Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic blew up this week. The post you’ve probably seen has nearly 170 million impressions. Coxon says he spent three years doing pretraining research at OpenAI and Anthropic, and he accused both companies of racing toward self-improving superintelligence and “gambling with our lives.”

There is always a possibility that a technology goes wrong. But I am not convinced that the catastrophic future being described is where we are right now, and I am especially skeptical of what the companies building this technology want the government to do about it.

My concern is regulatory capture. I suspect the biggest companies see an opportunity to use fear to help build a system that protects their position, limits competition and makes it harder for open-source alternatives to survive.

That is not just about money. It is about political power, access to technology and control over the infrastructure everybody else would depend on. If only a couple of companies get to supply the most capable systems, they would have enormous influence over businesses, governments and the public.

David Sacks made the point I keep coming back to: if these companies believe their own products are becoming too dangerous, they can slow down themselves. They don’t need the government to tell them what to do.

As he put it:

“The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it.”

Maybe they have built something that genuinely scares them. Fine. Then limit it. Stop the training run. Delay the release. You control your own product.

It would be like Apple warning everybody that putting a fourth camera on an iPhone could be dangerous, then demanding a new regulatory system before agreeing not to install it. Just don’t put another camera on the phone.

I do not see why accepting a company’s preferred regulatory framework should become the price of that company acting responsibly. That is what makes me suspicious.

I also want people to remember the other side of this. If this technology becomes as powerful and economically important as its developers claim, falling behind would carry serious consequences too. I do not want fear to become the justification for giving a handful of companies permanent control over who gets to build and use it.

I’m working on more about historical technology panics. We have plenty of frightening images in our heads, from The Terminator to HAL 9000. But a frightening future scenario is not the same thing as proof that we should hand the companies describing it the power to write the rules.

Anonymity for Jurors is Paramount

The media scrutiny of the holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s trial bothers me. My concern is what happens to jury independence when disagreeing with the other jurors means becoming the next person whose life gets picked apart in public.

I am not asking whether you like his position. I am not asking whether you believe Clancy should have been convicted or acquitted. I am asking what message this sends to the next person sitting in a jury box. Or even if we can get anyone to sit in that box again? OR, if we do get people to sit in the juror’s box, then what kind of people are they considering they now will have to be masochistic.

We expect jurors to decide a case based on the evidence and the judge’s instructions. We tell them not to research the case, follow the coverage or let outside opinions influence them. Then, after a controversial outcome, we have jurors giving interviews about deliberations while the person who disagreed becomes the focus of another round of coverage.

Massachusetts’s own Trial Juror’s Handbook says dismissed jurors may discuss their service, but advises them to avoid revealing other jurors’ names, their votes or what was discussed during deliberations. That speaks directly to the concern I am raising.

My criticism is also about the media’s business model. I think the incentive is to keep the story going. A guilty verdict can generate attention. An acquittal can generate attention. A deadlocked jury and a fight among jurors can generate even more. I worry that protecting the jury process becomes secondary to finding the next clickable development.

I posted that concern on Facebook, and the comment breakdown was interesting.

The comments supporting my concern generally described the scrutiny as unfair, intimidating or potentially harmful to future jurors. Those defending it pointed to questions about the juror’s questionnaire, past allegations or whether he followed the law.

Watch Yemen and the Expanding Pressure on Energy

The Houthi advances within Yemen are another thing I’m watching. I believe we may already be in a wider war , maybe a world war, that is developing gradually, simmering and expanding instead of arriving as one clearly defined event.

What concerns me is how an economic shock or an energy crisis could push things further.

Reuters reported new attacks affecting Saudi oil infrastructure and regional shipping, alongside the Houthi capture of Perim Island near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. These are developments around routes that matter to the movement of energy and goods.

The combination of fighting, damaged infrastructure and pressure on shipping is worth paying attention to.

My concern is that we keep watching these developments individually while the overall situation becomes more dangerous. I think an energy or economic crisis could become the catalyst for something much bigger.

The Iran conflict, Israel/Gaza, Russia/Ukraine are all part of the same geopolitical conflict even if doesn’t appear to be on the surface. China, North Korea, South Korea, are involved too even though we do not hear much about them. The sharing of intelligence and arms movement between nations points to something bigger is brewing. Oh, not to mention the frothy stock market, and the surging bond market.

Amy Acton and the Canfield Fair Coverage

Moving to Ohio, Amy Acton continues to disappoint me.

An legally armed person charging toward a candidate is an alarming description. Of course people were concerned. But the sheriff’s office said the weapons were never brandished or removed from their holsters. Later, a prosecutor said the man wanted to ask Acton questions and was recording, which the Acton campaign said he was not allowed to do (weird and really shitty). Authorities found no threats on his cellphone.

It was also alleged that he knocked people down and caused injuries. The video doesn’t show that. I am waiting for more video and hopefully one from his angle.

He pleaded not guilty to charges including assault, disorderly conduct and inducing panic. Carrying weapons, brandishing them and intending to attack a candidate are different things.

This whole incident, in my opinion, is a cover-up for the horrible display onstage with her and Pete Buttigieg. The negative press surrounding that speech quickly faded as the campaign and media overamplified an incident involving someone who wanted access. The fact that they said “no cameras” while she was campaigning is absolutely crazy and, in my opinion, should be considered a violation of the basic expectations of campaigning.

My broader frustration is with access. If you are walking around in public with a campaign staff wearing your name, questions, comments and pictures are part of what you are there to do.

I want candidates to be accessible. I want them answering questions, including questions they do not particularly like.

Democrats cannot keep saying we want openness and communication while becoming defensive whenever that access something we don’t like. I criticized the same tendency around Chris Ronayne, and I am not going to stop criticizing it because another Democrat is involved.

Chris Ronayne’s Spend Spend Spend

That brings me to Chris Ronayne and the county’s finances.

His State of the County address laid out a vision for growth and prosperity. But according to News 5, the speech did not directly address the county’s significant budget problems. The report identified a projected $19 million general-fund deficit and an $18 million shortfall in the Health and Human Services levy fund.

The county is seeking 3.3 percent spending reductions from general-fund departments and 8 percent reductions in 2027 spending from departments supported by the HHS levy. Ronayne said the HHS cuts would be rolled back if voters approved the November levy. Sounds like extortion to me.

A small-business owner asked him to pledge against supporting additional tax increases during his second term.

His response:

“I can’t pledge to not support any tax increase in the future because I do believe there are things worth paying for.”

And that is where the frustration is. People are paying too much for everything right now and big ticket items are being passed by this county council with no accountability and it falls on the people of the county to pay for it. The possibility of another tax increase remains on the table while the county is already dealing with substantial shortfalls. Irresponsible!

Calling something an investment does not make is fiscally responsible. Announcing cuts does not answer the question about how the county got here. Lying to voters then spending billions is, IMO, fraud.

Looking around the audience, I recognized plenty of elected officials and political insiders. The audience seemed to be half filled with his Cuyahoga political buds, all sitting there loving more taxes. That is why these events feel so performative. The people already involved in the political system are there just rubbing each other’s rhubarb while the people are not in attendance. The pictures come out to make it look like it is a packed house.

The public has responsibility here too. We cannot keep leaving these conversations to the same people and then act surprised when they dominate the decisions.

I want less performance, more direct discussion of the bills and more residents showing up before those bills become another tax proposal.

It is also frustrating to see Chris Ronayne block reporters from attending fundraisers, even after they received invitations, while using his own campaign funds and holding fundraisers for candidates who are not speaking out against these budgets. These candidates appear ready to toe the line, abandon fiscal responsibility and serve as rubber stamps for whatever Ronayne wants to do. This is something we must pay attention to.

A Quick Note: Brian Poindexter

On a more positive note, Brian Poindexter has an upcoming fundraiser in Rocky River involving my old friend Michael O’Shea.

I wanted to pass that along because I encourage people to support Brian in his campaign against Max Miller. I have shared the invitation on my page so people can check the event information directly.

Apple Finally Folds. I’m Still Gonna Wait.

Finally, something completely different: Apple’s new phones.

Apple announced the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max, along with its first folding phone, the iPhone Duo. The Pro models are scheduled to become available September 18, while the Duo arrives October 23.

To be perfectly honest, I think the folding phone looks really good.

Apple has often let other companies introduce a product or innovation, and work through some of the awkward early versions before making its own. Samsung and other manufacturers have already spent years refining folding phones, from book-style devices to smaller flip designs. Apple certainly did not rush to be first.

What interests me is whether that patience produces a better first attempt. From the presentation, I think the Duo looks promising. But I still want to see the reviews and hear from people who have actually used it.

That has generally been my attitude toward first-generation Apple products. I can appreciate the idea without wanting to be the person paying to discover all the compromises.

The original Apple Watch interested me, but later versions became just better. I felt similarly about the move from the original iPhone ( which didn’t have cope paste functions) to the iPhone 3G. And while I liked the iPhone Air’s design, I was less enthusiastic about the trade-offs.

The Pro and Pro Max look like continued refinement of a product Apple already knows how to make very well. That is not as exciting as a phone that folds, but refinement is not a bad thing when you are buying something you use all day.

The Duo looks like a strong first shot. I’m interested. I want to see how it performs. But my instinct is still to wait for gen 2.

Especially when we are talking about roughly $2,000 for a phone. Thats insane. But so is $4.50/gal gas.

Stay Angry.

Welcome to The Angry Files, the politics on my radar this week.
This week, I’m looking at the national debt, New York City’s AI policy, paid political propaganda, Amy Acton’s refusal to debate, Cuyahoga County’s absurdly expensive jail, one of the best campaign ads I have seen this year and the third season of Silo.

Let’s get into it.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Washington Is Losing Control of the Debt

Any member of Congress who is not talking seriously about the national debt and annual deficit is committing a dereliction of duty. Congress controls the power of the purse. Presidents propose budgets and sign legislation, but Congress decides what the federal government taxes, borrows and spends.

The national debt is the total amount the federal government owes after decades of borrowing. It has now crossed $40 trillion. The deficit is the amount the government spends beyond what it collects during a single year. The Congressional Budget Office originally projected a $1.9 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2026, while updated estimates have placed it closer to $2.1 trillion. Every annual deficit adds to the debt.

The bond market determines how expensive that borrowing becomes. When the federal government sells Treasury securities, investors are lending it money. As of September 4, the 10-year Treasury yield was around 4.8 percent, while the 30-year yield was approximately 5.27 percent. Inflation, Federal Reserve policy, economic growth and global demand all affect the yield rate.

The government is already spending approximately $1 trillion annually on net interest. As trillions of dollars in existing debt mature and are refinanced at higher rates, that burden grows. A one-percentage-point increase on $10 trillion of refinanced debt eventually means approximately another $100 billion in annual interest.

We are paying one credit card with another credit card!

There are only a few options for Congress:

• Reduce deficit spending while growing the economy. Bring annual deficits under control while expanding the economic base that supports the debt.

• Produce budget surpluses and pay down the debt. Go beyond reducing deficits by taking in more than the government spends and using those surpluses to actually lower the outstanding debt.

• Inflate away the debt. Allow inflation to make yesterday’s debt easier to repay with tomorrow’s less valuable dollars. This last option quietly destroys everyone’s purchasing power.

Congress keeps treating this like a problem for the next election cycle. The bond market may eventually decide that Washington has run out of time.

Banning AI From Schools Is Only Half the Solution

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a one-year moratorium on student-facing generative AI for students from prekindergarten through eighth grade. The policy affects nearly 600,000 students.

My initial reaction is that this is both a good idea and a bad idea.

Children need to learn how to write an essay, construct an outline, solve arithmetic and algebra problems, think critically and interact with other children. They should not be able to type a homework assignment into ChatGPT and submit whatever comes back. An AI system should not replace teachers, parents, reading, handwriting, problem-solving or the uncomfortable process of figuring something out.

On that point, Mamdani is right to hit pause.

However, New York City should be asking OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies to build protected systems specifically for students.

Imagine an AI tutor that does not provide the answer.

It asks the child questions, identifies where the child became confused and walks through the problem one step at a time. It could adjust explanations to the student’s reading level, help a teacher identify patterns across a classroom and give a child extra practice at home. It would function as an extension of the teacher, not a replacement.

Nobody would object to every child having access to a responsible tutor after school. The issue is whether the technology is designed to teach or designed to complete the assignment.

South Korea is already moving toward treating AI access as public infrastructure, with plans to provide its citizens free access to premium-level domestic AI services. The United States cannot respond to this technological change by teaching wealthy children how to use AI privately while banning poorer children from encountering it in public schools.

Pause the current tools. Protect children’s privacy and cognitive development.

But build, like right now, better tools. Simply banning AI and pretending it will disappear is not an education policy.

Your Political Feed Is Being Manufactured

The Atlantic published a disturbing investigation into a political clipping operation called Elephant Clipping. A clipper takes a longer video, chops it into short pieces and posts those pieces across TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts.

According to The Atlantic, Elephant Clipping was run through a company in Latvia and recruited subcontractors, many apparently outside the United States, to post pro-Republican material. Participants could submit favorable conservative clips for payment through a reported $300,000 monthly campaign budget, receiving approximately $300 for every million views.

The investigation found instructions telling participants to use American proxy servers and hide their locations. The clips were posted through accounts designed to resemble ordinary Americans independently supporting Republican ideas. Some campaigns offered additional money for favorable Vivek Ramaswamy content. The identities of the ultimate funders were not disclosed. The Atlantic

This caught my attention because of the coordinated online attack against Brian Poindexter, the Democratic candidate in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District. Multiple conservative and Daily Wire-aligned accounts appeared to push essentially the same framing at roughly the same time.

I cannot prove that those specific posts came from Elephant Clipping or any paid operation. What I can say is that the timing looked more like a coordinated distribution strategy than several people independently discovering the same supposedly important story.

This happens on both sides. Democrats use influencers, consultants, friendly publications and coordinated messaging too. The larger problem is that most people scrolling through social media cannot tell whether they are seeing journalism, advertising, campaign material or an overseas contractor being paid for views.

The media environment is bought, organized and manipulated. Your feed is not a neutral reflection of what people care about. Money decides and messages appear organic.

Amy Acton Still Owes Ohioans a Debate

Amy Acton has declined to debate Vivek Ramaswamy, and I understand the campaign strategy. Her campaign says Ramaswamy and his billionaire supporters have spent more than $50 million on inaccurate and disgusting attacks against Acton and her family, including AI-generated material portraying her as having a substance-abuse problem.

The Angry Ohioan

The Debate Format Is Broken. Walking Away From Voters Is Not the Answer.

Hey, Angry Patriots…

Read more

17 days ago · 3 likes · 4 comments · The Angry Democrat

I understand why she does not want to reward that conduct with a statewide stage.

I still think her decision is wrong.

Neither Acton nor Ramaswamy faced a primary that forced them to defend their ideas before their own parties. Republican leaders lined up behind Ramaswamy early, while Democratic power players helped clear the field for Acton whether anyone wants to call that an endorsement or not. Ohioans were left with two nominees who have never held legislative office and no voting records showing how either would govern.

Now we may not get a debate either.

The Ohio Democratic Party condemned Mike DeWine for refusing to debate Nan Whaley in 2022. It called debates “the equivalent of a job interview” and said candidates should not avoid scrutiny, fact-checking or difficult questions because they are leading in the polls.

That principle cannot change because the Democrat is now the candidate who sees more political risk than reward.

This is part of a larger retreat from public access.

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party discouraged judicial candidates from participating in Judge4Yourself.

Some Republicans refuse editorial-board interviews with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.

Candidates (Mike Dovilla) skip League of Women Voters forums.

Former Senator Sherrod Brown and his opponent Senator Jon Husted seemingly will not debate.

Members of Congress replace actual town halls with telephone events where questions can be screened in advance.

The public increasingly receives only campaign advertisements, curated events and consultant-approved communication.

I agree that the traditional debate format is broken. It rewards interruptions, lies and made-for-TikTok insults. Change the format. Control the microphones. Give candidates the topics beforehand. Crowdsource questions from Ohioans and fact-check claims in real time.

But do not eliminate the debate. Acton does not owe Ramaswamy a performance opportunity. She owes Ohioans the chance to compare both candidates under the same conditions.

Stop Spending Money on This Damn Jail

Cuyahoga County’s proposed Central Services Campus has become one of the most expensive correctional projects I could find anywhere in the developed world.

The Angry Ohioan

Cuyahoga County’s Nearly Billion-Dollar Jail Makes No Damn Sense

Hey, Angry Patriots…

Read more

18 days ago · 1 like · The Angry Democrat

The current estimate is approximately $889 million for 1,886 beds, or roughly $471,000 per bed. That is about what it costs to build a very nice three- or four-bedroom suburban house for every person the jail is designed to hold.

Where the fuck is the money going?

Franklin County’s completed corrections center cost approximately $280,000 per rated bed. It includes medical care, mental-health treatment, behavioral programming, addiction services, direct supervision and reentry support. Cuyahoga is proposing many of the same modern features at a cost approximately 68 percent higher per bed.

Recent facilities in the United Kingdom, France and Japan have also been built for substantially less per bed. These are not cages without medical treatment, ventilation or rehabilitation services. They are modern facilities in wealthy countries.

Cuyahoga’s HVAC estimate alone is approximately $85.8 million for 872,000 square feet, or around $98 per square foot. That is nearly twice the reported per-square-foot mechanical cost of the Coyote Ridge correctional facility and Somerset County Jail. It even exceeds the per-square-foot cost of a broader hospital mechanical package that included HVAC, plumbing and medical gas.

Yet too many Democrats would rather turn a blind eye than hold their own people accountable. They excuse bad decisions, accept mediocre governance and demand so little from the people around them because they refuse to hold themselves or their political allies to any meaningful standard.

Bullshit.

Cancel it if necessary. Pay a cancellation penalty.

I would rather lose millions stopping a financially indefensible project than obligate taxpayers to more than a billion dollars because political insiders are afraid to admit they lost control.

Brian Poindexter Made One of the Best Ads of 2026

Brian Poindexter released one of the best campaign advertisements I have seen in a long time.

The advertisement features his daughters making fun of him, from the enormous phone clipped to his belt to the little generational idiosyncrasies that start appearing when a man reaches his mid-40s and becomes fully comfortable being a goofy dad.

The ad was obviously planned and scripted, but it did not feel artificial. That is what made it work.

His daughters appeared comfortable, funny and proud of their father. Brian was willing to be the joke. The entire family seemed to understand the plot without a consultant instructing them to be a “normal” family for the camera.

That is incredibly difficult to manufacture.

Political advertising usually fails when candidates attempt to sand away everything unusual about themselves. Consultants take a real person, remove the quirks, replace normal language with approved phrases and produce another video of someone walking through a factory while pretending to listen to a worker.

Poindexter went in the opposite direction. He let voters see the oversized phone, the awkwardness and the dad humor. He made his personality part of the message.

The result also creates an unavoidable contrast with incumbent Congressman Max Miller. Miller is going through an extremely public divorce and custody battle ex-wife. She has made serious allegations against him, which Miller denies, and the legal battle has generated thousands of pages of court docs and media coverage.

Poindexter did not need to mention any of that. He showed a warm, relaxed relationship with his daughters, and voters will recognize the contrast themselves.

The best political advertisements do not tell us that a candidate is authentic. They allow us to see enough of the candidate to decide for ourselves.

Brian’s ad did that.

Silo Was Disappointing, and I’m Still Watching

Finally, the third season of Apple TV’s Silo has ended.

Silo feels like someone put Snowpiercer, The Platform, Cube and the underground city of Zion from The Matrix into a blender. It is a dystopian mystery built around class, information control, rebellion, surveillance and the question of who gets to decide what people are allowed to know.

For two seasons, it has been a good show to watch for 45 minutes at the end of the night. It is entertaining enough to keep me interested and mysterious enough to make me return for the next episode.

Season three, however, was a chore.

The story moved SOOOOOOO slow. The writing became tedious, the political parallels were painfully on the nose, and several supposedly dramatic developments were predictable. Political allegory works when it deepens a story. Here, the show sometimes appeared to stop telling its own story and started playing into Elon Musk haters.

What made the experience stranger was reading reviews that barely discussed those obvious parallels. When a show is this politically on the nose and so little of the published conversation acknowledges it, I start questioning how organic that conversation really is.

The absence of the most obvious criticism (Elon parallel) made the online discussion feel carefully managed.

I watched every episode and I will watch season fourth and final (thankfully) season.

Apparently, my disappointment has limits.

Let me know what was on your radar this week.

Stay Angry.

The city has lost about 60 percent of its population since its peak, but it still occupies roughly the same 78 square miles.

One thing I have watched over the years, living and growing up around Cleveland, is suburban sprawl. It is the movement from the city to the suburbs, then to the outer suburbs, and then even farther out.

I paid attention to it because I was part of it.

I grew up in Slavic Village. Then I moved to Bedford. From there, I moved farther out to Geauga County and Solon, with some stints in Twinsburg and Streetsboro. My brother now lives in Macedonia. My mom lives in Streetsboro. My dad lives in Solon.

I have watched people hop from the inner city to the inner suburbs, from the inner suburbs to the outer suburbs, and then farther and farther away.

There are understandable reasons people do it. They want newer homes, newer schools, newer roads, more space, less crime, or a fresh start. Sometimes an older house costs $150,000 or $200,000 but still needs another $100,000 worth of work. It might need new electrical wiring, grounded outlets, plumbing, HVAC, windows, roofing, asbestos removal, lead remediation, or a completely updated interior.

Then a builder offers a new house farther out for $280,000 or $300,000. Stretch the budget a little more and everything is new.

I understand that decision.

But every time we move farther out, we do not pick up the roads, sewers, water lines, schools, streetlights, police stations and fire stations we left behind.

Those remain.

We build another set farther away.

That has led me to a hypothesis I have been working through: the modern American suburban development pattern may not be financially sustainable over the long term.

This is a hypothesis and a thought experiment. I am not claiming that every suburb is bankrupt or that nobody should own a single-family home. I am asking whether cities with relatively low population density can collect enough revenue to maintain all the infrastructure and services spread across their physical footprint.

The evidence suggests that the lower the density, the more infrastructure each taxpayer is being asked to support.

More Northeast Ohio, but Not More Northeast Ohioans

Cleveland’s population peaked in 1950 and since then the city has lost about 60 percent of its population, but it still occupies roughly the same 78 square miles.

The roads still need to be maintained. The sewers still need to work. The streetlights still need to stay on. Police, fire and emergency services still have to cover the city. Schools still have to be operated or replaced. Bridges still have to be repaired.

A water main does not become 60 percent cheaper because fewer people live above it. Actually, because of inflation that water main becomes more and more expensive.

The population did not simply disappear. Much of it moved.

The Cleveland Planning Commission found that developed property in Cuyahoga County covered more than twice as much land in 2000 as it did in 1950, even though the county’s population was nearly identical in those two years.

There were more individual households because families became smaller, but the general pattern is still clear. We spread roughly the same population across dramatically more land.

We built more roads, more subdivisions, more sewer lines, more schools, more commercial developments and more emergency-service territory without bringing a comparable number of new people into the region.

Regional planners have been warning about this for years. In 2013, Vibrant NEO 2040 modeled what could happen if Northeast Ohio continued with business as usual. It projected only 2.4 percent regional population growth from 2010 through 2040 while adding 92,500 acres of new development and abandoning 77,100 acres of existing property.

That was a projection, not a final count of what has happened. But it described the pattern I have watched my entire life.

If Cleveland loses 10,000 people and Streetsboro gains 10,000 people, Northeast Ohio did not gain 10,000 taxpayers.

But the region may now have the streets those people left behind plus the new streets built for them. It may have the old sewer system plus new sewer extensions. It may have old school buildings plus new school buildings. Police and fire departments still have to cover the older communities while new departments and facilities cover the expanding outer suburbs.

That is the question underneath my hypothesis.

Are we actually growing, or are we spreading the same population across a larger and more expensive and costly system. And… do we need to rethink how we live in America?

Bedford as a Thought Experiment

I lived in Bedford for six years when I was young, so I am going to use Bedford as an example.

Again, this is a thought experiment. I am not arguing that every financial problem in Bedford was caused by suburban sprawl.

Bedford had 17,552 residents in 1970. The Census Bureau now estimates approximately 12,723 residents. The city’s current median household income is about $57,300. Which is down from over $70k average salary (adjusted for infltation) in the 1970’s.

Bedford still has the streets, schools and public infrastructure of a community built during a different economic and demographic era. It has fewer people helping to support much of that infrastructure.

Glendale Primary School is a prime example of what an aging system can look like.

In 2026, a broken sewer pipe in an upstairs boys bathroom leaked into the school kitchen. The kitchen closed, meals were prepared elsewhere, and approximately 300 children ate in the gym. After the first pipe was repaired and the kitchen reopened, a second leak from the girls bathroom forced it to close again.

The building is nearly 100 years old.

The Bedford City School District passed a $161 million construction bond and is replacing several aging facilities, including building a new primary school, middle school and high school. The district’s facilities plan calls for demolishing Glendale and other old buildings.

Passing that bond was probably necessary. Children cannot continue attending school under leaking sewer lines.

Bonds are not inherently bad, either. A school will be used for generations, so spreading the cost across generations can make financial sense.

But the bond is still debt, and somebody has to repay it.

The question is whether communities with declining populations, stagnant or declining wages and aging infrastructure can continue to meet these replacement costs without continually raising taxes, taking on more debt, or depending on money from outside the community.

Bedford is not alone.

Across NOACA’s five-county region, the agency tracks approximately 3,300 centerline miles of major roads, 3,100 bridges and five transit agencies. NOACA estimated accumulated maintenance costs from 2020 through 2024 at $380 million for roads, $240 million for bridges and $340 million for transit.

That is approximately $960 million across only those three categories.

It does not include every local residential street, water line, sewer, stormwater system, school building, fire station, police department, sidewalk, park or streetlight.

The region already relies on outside funding to help maintain and improve this system. NOACA receives approximately $51 million annually from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Ohio Department of Transportation to allocate to projects across its five counties.

That does not prove that every individual city is insolvent. State and federal governments normally help finance infrastructure.

It does show that the system is not maintained entirely through the taxes collected by each city from its own residents.

Density Changes the Math

The basic math is not complicated.

Imagine a street that is 1,000 or 2,000 feet long. It has 60 detached houses and perhaps 120 people living on it.

That street needs pavement, snow removal, drainage, water, sewer, streetlights, police protection, fire protection and emergency medical coverage.

Now imagine that same street with duplexes, triplexes, apartments, townhouses, small businesses or mixed-use buildings. Instead of 120 people, it might have several hundred people living and working along the same stretch of infrastructure.

The city still has to maintain the road and pipes, but the cost is now spread across more households, more businesses and more economic activity.

A national analysis of compact development estimated that controlled growth could save approximately $110 billion in road construction and $12.6 billion in water and sewer infrastructure.

Fire protection provides another example. A Charlotte case study summarized by the Environmental Protection Agency found that a fire station in a connected, compact neighborhood could cover 4.5 times as many addresses as a station serving a sprawling neighborhood. The estimated annualized cost was $159 per person in the compact area compared with $740 in the lower-density area.

It is the same basic public service. Density allows the cost of the station, equipment and firefighters to be spread across more people.

Schools work somewhat differently because Ohio’s school-funding system is complicated and school districts do not always follow municipal boundaries. But density still affects transportation.

Ohio’s school transportation formula uses both students and miles driven and defines density as riders per square mile. A lower-density district may have to send buses farther to reach fewer children.

Police and emergency services face the same geographic problem. A department has to cover the entire physical area of a community regardless of whether that area contains 5,000 residents or 50,000 residents.

The farther people spread out, the longer the network becomes.

There are more roads, longer bus routes, more sewer extensions and a larger area for police, fire and ambulances to cover.

Then, in 20, 30 or 50 years, all of it begins to age.

Why People Keep Moving Outward

This is not just a government-budget problem. Housing plays a major role.

Older communities often have older housing stock. The houses may have been built in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. Some have outdated floor plans, old wiring, old plumbing, aging HVAC systems, lead paint, asbestos or foundations that need serious work.

People look at a house selling for $150,000 or $200,000 and then realize it needs another $50,000 or $100,000 in repairs.

Farther out, a builder is selling a new home for $280,000 or $300,000.

Why buy the old house?

The newer house has a modern floor plan, grounded electrical outlets, a new roof, new plumbing, a new furnace and fewer immediate repair expenses. The roads and surrounding infrastructure are also newer.

The individual buyer is making a rational decision based on what is best for that household.

But the regional effect is that people continue moving outward. The older home and older infrastructure remain behind. New homes and new infrastructure are added farther away.

Eventually the new community will face the same problem. The roads will age. The schools will age. The sewer lines will age. The houses will need major repairs.

Then another development may be built even farther out.

Ohio’s Other Cities Show the Same Pattern

The Cleveland numbers become even more revealing when we compare them with Ohio’s other major metropolitan areas. Special thank you to for collecting the data. Check his You Tube here.

According to an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey housing data, the Cleveland metropolitan area added 17,544 housing units from 2011 through 2024. That sounds like growth until you look at where the housing was built.

Cuyahoga County lost 6,876 housing units while every surrounding county gained. Geauga added 1,262. Lake added 5,509. Medina added 7,547. Lorain added 10,102.

In other words, the region added housing, but the county containing its largest city lost housing while development continued moving outward.

The five ZIP codes losing the most single-family homes were all in Cleveland or East Cleveland. The five gaining the most were in North Ridgeville, Medina, Avon, Painesville and Avon Lake.

This data does not literally track a family moving from one particular Cleveland house into one particular Medina County subdivision. Housing units can disappear through demolition, conversion or abandonment. But it shows where the region is investing and where its housing stock is disappearing.

We are building outward while allowing parts of the existing core to hollow out.

Cincinnati shows a similar pattern. Hamilton County, which contains Cincinnati, added 3,241 housing units between 2011 and 2024. Warren County added 16,046, nearly five times as many. Clermont County added 8,154 and Butler County added 7,614.

Cincinnati’s core is not collapsing like Cleveland’s, but the direction is similar. The city ZIP codes losing the most single-family homes are inside Cincinnati, while places such as Mason, West Chester and Loveland are adding thousands.

Akron shows how this can happen even when countywide numbers look healthy. Summit County added 3,107 housing units and neighboring Portage County added 4,098. Neither county shrank.

But inside Akron, ZIP code 44304 lost 59 percent of its single-family homes between 2011 and 2024. Several older Akron ZIP codes lost hundreds of homes while Aurora, Stow, Twinsburg and Streetsboro added housing.

That is not simply city versus suburb. Parts of Akron are gaining while other neighborhoods a few miles away are collapsing. It is the same underlying problem happening at a smaller geographic level. New housing and investment flow toward the communities and neighborhoods with newer roads, newer schools and newer infrastructure while older areas are left with fewer homes and taxpayers supporting systems built for more people.

The real question is whether Northeast Ohio can keep building new versions of itself farther outward while expecting every older community left behind to maintain infrastructure designed for a larger population and tax base.

At some point, we are not creating growth. We are setting ourselves up for high taxes and financial strain.

We Have to Rethink How Cities Are Built

If the hypothesis is correct, then continually raising property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and fees will not fix the underlying problem.

The problem is not only how much revenue the city collects. It is how much infrastructure that revenue must support.

Cities that have lost population need to consider whether their zoning laws are preventing them from adding enough residents and businesses to use the infrastructure they already have.

Large areas are still zoned around an idealized 1950s lifestyle: one detached house, one yard, one garage, one car in the driveway and several children.

But household demographics have changed. More people live alone. People marry later. Some couples do not have children. People are having children in their late thirties and forties. Not everybody needs or wants the same kind of house.

Cities should allow more duplexes, triplexes, multifamily buildings, mixed-use buildings and, where appropriate, tiny homes. Property owners should have more freedom to add households to existing lots.

Instead of receiving revenue from one household on a lot, a city could receive revenue connected to two, three or four households using the same street, sewer and water line.

That does not mean every neighborhood has to become a collection of high-rises. It means cities should stop assuming that detached single-family housing must be the only legal option across enormous portions of their land.

Transportation also has to be part of the discussion.

Cleveland has too many damn parking lots, too much land dedicated to roads and parking, and not enough useful public transportation. RTA should have been redesigned a long time ago.

Cities should be willing to reconsider parking requirements, buses, rail, bike infrastructure, ride sharing and other ways people can move without requiring every person to own and park a car everywhere they go.

We may also need to ask difficult questions about city limits and the number of separate governments managing shared infrastructure. Should boundaries expand? Should services be shared differently? Should some areas operate separately?

I do not know the answer. I am asking whether the current arrangement makes sense when roads, sewers, jobs and transportation systems cross all these municipal boundaries anyway.

Is the American Suburban Lifestyle Sustainable?

This is the real question. 👆🏽

Can cities maintain roads, bridges, sewers, schools, police departments, fire departments and public transportation when their populations are spread across low-density neighborhoods and their tax bases are not growing fast enough to cover replacement costs?

Can Northeast Ohio continue moving from Cleveland to Bedford and Maple Heights, then to Solon, Northfield and Macedonia, and then to Canal Fulton and beyond, while still expecting every community left behind to maintain what was already built?

Or do we have to rethink the way we live?

Again, this is a hypothesis. But the population numbers, land-development patterns and infrastructure costs suggest that it is a question worth taking seriously.

The American ideal of a detached house on a large lot, with a driveway, a garage and all the infrastructure needed to support it, may not be financially sustainable everywhere forever.

If we want older cities to survive, we may need higher-density housing, walkable neighborhoods, better public transportation and zoning laws that allow more people and economic activity to use the infrastructure we already have.

Yes, cities might have to just say do what you want on your land and build housing and business.

We cannot keep moving farther out, building another version of the same city and expecting the old one to maintain itself with fewer people.

At some point, the replacement bill arrives.

Stay Angry.

We already did the list of people I think could run for president on the Republican side, and I put them into a tier list. Now we are going to do the same thing for the Democrats.

The criteria are the same:

• Can they win a primary?

• Can they win a general election?

• Can they raise the money and build the infrastructure needed for a national campaign?

• And do they have the charisma and personality to go out there and actually woo people?

We have not even made it to the 2026 midterms. We do not know who is going to control the House or the Senate. But right after those midterms, people are going to start coming out of the woodwork and saying they are running for president.

So why speculate this early?

Because it is fun!

The Republican field could shrink quickly if Donald Trump immediately endorses JD Vance or somebody else. A lot of Republicans probably would not go against the grain. If Trump holds his endorsement until later in the primaries, though, that field could remain huge.

Democrats do not have a succession plan because they are not the party in power. That means everybody with a little money, a little name recognition, and a little ambition is going to look in the mirror and see a future POTUS.

I could see more than 20 people entering this thing. I have 31 names on my list, so let’s get into it.

The Unicorn Tier

Michelle Obama

She is not running.

Michelle Obama has repeatedly said she does not want to run for president, but everybody always says the same thing: “If Michelle ran…”

If she did run, she would be an S-tier candidate. She would rally the troops, raise a ridiculous amount of money, immediately have national political clout, and go very, very far in the primary.

Personally, I think she would win the primary and the general election. She could be the next president of the United States.

But she is not doing it.

That is why Michelle Obama belongs in the unicorn tier.

D Tier

Kirsten Gillibrand, Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, Sheryl Sandberg

All of these people have different problems. Some are accomplished politicians. Some come from the business world. All of them would have to make a serious case for why Democratic voters should care about their candidacies.

Most of them are not particularly well known nationally.

Tom Steyer is the exception. He ran for president in 2020 and then spent an enormous amount of his own money running for governor of California in 2026. He received about 23 percent of the primary vote but failed to advance to the general election.

Does he decide that this is finally his time to be POTUS? Maybe. He certainly has the money. I could also see him deciding that he is done running for office.

If Steyer entered the presidential race using the same economic and affordability messaging he used in California, he could start in D tier and slowly work his way up until he was one of the last people standing on a debate stage.

Everybody else has a massive hill to climb when it comes to fundraising and name recognition.

C Tier

Ritchie Torres, Abigail Spanberger, Jasmine Crockett, Mark Cuban, Amy Klobuchar

These people are better known, but their politics, personal baggage, and position inside the Democratic Party put them at a disadvantage.

Most of them would struggle to raise enough money to remain competitive, with the possible exceptions of Mark Cuban. Cuban is rich.

Cuban has already said that he is not running for president in 2028. He has also suggested that, if he ever did run, he might do it as a Republican because he does not believe he could win a Democratic primary.

Maybe I should have put him on the Republican list. Then again, I do not really think he is running as a Republican, either.

Everyone in this tier has work to do in almost every category.

Jasmine Crockett’s charisma and social media presence could propel her into the later stages of a primary.

Everybody else? Eh.

I think Democratic voters are probably tired of Amy Klobuchar and some of the other familiar names.

B Tier

Chris Murphy, Ro Khanna, Ruben Gallego, Cory Booker, Elissa Slotkin, Rahm Emanuel, and Tim Walz

These are all people with political clout and at least some fundraising ability. Some have more personality than others, but almost everyone in this group could be compelling on a debate stage.

Ro Khanna is one of the B-tier candidates I could see remaining in the race through the later primaries. I could also see Chris Murphy sticking around.

I do not personally like as a presidential candidate, and in general, but I can see how he could shape his campaign to win over Democratic primary voters. The problem is that I am not convinced he could win a general election.

That is the dichotomy inside the Democratic Party. What appeals to the progressive base during a primary does not always square with what swing voters and independents want in November.

People like Tim Walz, Elissa Slotkin, and Cory Booker could fall off quickly.

Rahm Emanuel is a Democrat from a different time. He has plenty of name recognition, and he is already making the rounds, but this is not his Democratic Party anymore.

A Tier

Mark Kelly

Mark Kelly is an American hero.

He is the kind of old-school Democrat I remember. He is a retired Navy captain, combat pilot, NASA astronaut, and United States senator. Think John Glenn.

He also has the emotional story of standing beside his wife, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after she was shot during a constituent event in 2011.

In my opinion, Kelly was unfairly passed over for Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024. He should have been the nominee for vice president.

Looking at this list, Mark Kelly would probably get my early primary vote until somebody convinced me otherwise. I personally long for that kind of old-school Democratic candidate.

However, he does not have much charisma. I do not know if progressive primary voters would choose him.

If Kelly could get through the primary, I think he could win a general election. I am just not convinced he can get through the primary.

The Governors: Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, J.B. Pritzker, and Gretchen Whitmer

I am putting these governors together because, while they all possess different qualities, I see them landing in roughly the same place.

Wes Moore has charisma and could become the surprise candidate. I think he would initially raise a modest amount of money, but he has the ability to build something bigger if voters respond to him.

Andy Beshear could also raise serious money. He has won statewide elections as a Democrat in Kentucky, and that will be a major part of his case to voters.

J.B. Pritzker has the money. We do not have to wonder if he could finance a campaign.

Gretchen Whitmer initially said she would not run in 2028, but she walked that statement back later the same day, saying, “Never say never.”

Big Gretch could be compelling. If she entered, she would shake up the top tier immediately. Even if she did not win, I could see her becoming a serious contender for a cabinet position.

The problem for all these governors is that none of them feels overwhelmingly exciting right now. They have résumés. They have political networks. Some will raise more money than others.

But can any of them take over the race?

Raphael Warnock

Senator and Reverend Raphael Warnock has been fighting and winning difficult elections in Georgia. His fellow Georgia senator, Jon Ossoff, is coming up in the S tier.

Warnock would kill it on the debate stage, be prepared, focused, and sharp. He would raise a hell of a lot of money, but in a field this crowded, Democratic donors will have to decide where they are putting their money.

Will they put it behind Raphael Warnock? I am not sure.

I think his presence and who he is as a person could propel him very far. I do not know if he could win a primary, but I believe he could win a general election.

I can also already see him serving in a future Democratic administration if he does not win the nomination.

S Tier

Jon Ossoff

Jon Ossoff says he has “zero interest” in running for president in 2028.

Fine.

I am still putting him in S tier because, if he changes his mind, he has already shown us what the campaign would look like.

Everybody is talking about Ossoff. He is taking on Trump, making the comments, making the rounds, and showing that he knows how to capture attention on social media and in the news.

He is a disciplined and polished politician. He understands what he looks like, what he sounds like, and where he wants to go.

He would raise a shit ton of money and immediately become formidable.

Can he win a primary? I think so.

Can he win a general election? I also think so.

The real question is whether Ossoff could build a national ground game comparable to the organizations behind some of the other candidates. That remains to be seen.

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris starts in S tier because she was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.

Will she raise money? Yes.

Will she begin the race as one of the best-known candidates? Absolutely. In fact, current early polling generally has her at or near the front of the hypothetical field.

Do I believe she can win another primary and then win the general election? No.

Harris will start in S tier because everybody will talk about her. Then I think she will slowly slip down the list.

She is not good on the debate stage. She is not good at unscripted public appearances. She is not good on social media, and she often comes across as fake.

Has the 107 Days book tour made her more comfortable being herself onstage? Can she finally talk the way she wants to talk? Or will she still sound like a scripted consultant puppet?

I think it may still be the latter.

A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouths and will not want to risk another election on her.

It could be hers to lose right out of the gate. I have no confidence that she can hold it.

Josh Shapiro

Josh Shapiro is slick, and he can do a hell of a Barack Obama impression.

Actually, I think he tries to be Barack Obama. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but can it win a Democratic primary?

Shapiro will rally a lot of support. I think he could compete in a general election against JD Vance, Marco Rubio, or whoever else Republicans nominate.

But can he survive the Democratic primary?

That is where I am not sure.

Shapiro seems like a great vice presidential pick or cabinet member. He will be great on television. He will be good on the debate stage, and he will eat some of the lower-tier candidates for breakfast.

The Democratic primary is a very strange place, though. I am not sure he will be the person who mobilizes more voters than everybody else.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Now is AOC’s time.

She is leading early national primary polls, and she has significant name recognition, popularity within the party, and an enormous fundraising potential. Her campaign raised $9.6 million in the first three months of 2025, largely from small-dollar donors.

I think she could become the front-runner.

She is the candidate who will rally the troops. In my opinion, she could raise more money than anybody else. She will be louder on social media, receive more media attention, and have a ground game that is off the charts.

That ground game is the key.

Moderate Democratic voters and volunteers could be divided among Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, and several other candidates. Progressives are much less likely to divide themselves evenly between AOC and Ro Khanna.

Khanna could be propelled by AOC’s momentum, only to drop out later and become somebody discussed for a position in an AOC administration.

I think AOC can win the primary.

I am not sure she can win the general election because she is so polarizing.

That is where her vice presidential choice would become extremely important. She could not make the kind of mistake Kamala Harris made by choosing Tim Walz.

Would AOC choose Jon Ossoff? Mark Kelly? Josh Shapiro?

An AOC-Shapiro ticket could round things out pretty nicely and become compelling.

AOC could make it all the way to the finish line. I think her biggest obstacle would be moderate independent voters in the general election.

Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg will do what Pete Buttigieg always does.

Everybody likes the way he talks. He is absolutely a smart person. He will be the candidate everybody else copies policy from.

Pete will be sitting at the front of the class taking the test while everybody else looks over his shoulder and copies the answers.

He knows how to deliver a line on a debate stage or during an interview. He says something, and it sticks.

He will raise money. He is connected. He will make a name for himself throughout the race.

I am still not convinced he will ultimately win, but his intelligence, fundraising ability, connections, and communication skills put him in S tier at the beginning.

Gavin Newsom

I am not sure Gavin Newsom belongs in S tier. Maybe I want to move him down to A. Maybe B. He peaked too early.

I put him here because everybody is still talking about him.

Will he raise money? Yes.

Can he win the primary? Maybe.

Can he win the general election? Maybe.

Newsom will have to carry the stigma of California through both the Democratic primary and the general election. He has been trying to recalibrate his image through his podcast and by presenting himself as more moderate on certain issues.

He is playing some kind of rebranding game, but I am not sure Democratic primary voters will care.

Could he be a vice presidential candidate? Sure.

Can he win the entire thing on his own? I do not know.

If he succeeds, I think a lot of people will be more interested in his good looks and cool hair than his policies.

Democrats will attack him over California’s policies, his flip-flopping, his rebranding, and his gaffes.

If he survives the primary, Republicans will beat him over the head with all of it.

They will also bring up the French Laundry dinner during the COVID restrictions, when Newsom attended a gathering with friends despite urging Californians to avoid similar events. It was hypocritical and, honestly, kind of disgusting.

Newsom will start in S tier. It would not surprise me if he failed to make it very far.

That is my list.

Maybe I put too many people in S tier. Maybe I put somebody too low. Hell, we will see how everything shapes up once the midterms are over and people start officially jumping into the race.

What do you think? Who did I rank too high, and who did I rank too low?

Stay Angry.

The midterm elections are not even here yet. We have no idea who will control the House or Senate. But apparently, it is time to start speculating about who will run for president in 2028

I want to start with the Republicans.

I am ranking the potential candidates from D tier to S tier, with D being the worst and S sitting above A as the best. I am judging them on four basic questions:

Can they win a Republican primary? Can they defeat the Democratic nominee? Can they build and finance a national campaign? Do they have the charisma and media skills required to run for president?

Those categories are weighted evenly because this is not scientific. It is speculation, and, well… who the hell knows.

But I am going to do it anyway.

D Tier

Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley has national name recognition. He is a sitting senator, reasonably telegenic and capable of raising money.

But I do not think he has the political power or charisma to break through a serious Republican presidential primary.

Hawley is still the guy who raised his fist toward protesters outside the Capitol on January 6 and was later shown running through the Capitol as the attack unfolded. Fairly or unfairly, that image made him look like a little bitch to a lot of people.

He may believe being an incumbent senator gives him enough clout to run. Incumbents normally win reelection, and senators naturally begin imagining themselves as presidents.

I do not see it.

More likely, Hawley positions himself for a future cabinet appointment or uses a presidential campaign to increase his influence within the party.

That puts him in D tier.

Tim Scott

Tim Scott has more political connections than people give him credit for. He can raise money, and he knows how to move around a debate stage without completely embarrassing himself.

I simply do not think he projects the political backbone people expect from a presidential candidate. He does not come across as somebody who will take control of the party, define the race and make voters believe he should be president.

He has connections. He has donors. He has experience.

I do not think he has the gumption.

D tier.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy created plenty of attention during the 2024 Republican primary. That campaign helped him get selected to help lead the original Department of Government Efficiency effort with Elon Musk, although he “left” before the project formally began.

He is now the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio.

Vivek has money, national recognition and media skills. But I think the more people get to know him, the less they like him. He was passed over for the U.S. Senate appointment, passed over for vice president and never received a Senate-confirmed cabinet position. No one wants him anywhere.

Now he is running for governor.

If he wins and immediately turns around to run for president, people are going to ask why he wanted the governor’s office in the first place. Ohioans would have every right to tell him to stay here and do the damn job.

If he loses the governor’s race, that creates a different problem for a presidential campaign.

Either way, I have him in D tier.

Pete Hegseth

Pete Hegseth is currently the secretary of defense, and his recent political travel to Iowa has already generated speculation about a possible 2028 campaign.

I do not know where Hegseth’s political future goes.

I could see him trying to stay in Republican politics, campaigning for other candidates or positioning himself for another administration job. I could even see his name being floated as a running mate.

But as a presidential candidate, I do not see a strong fundraising organization, broad coalition or convincing general-election profile.

People are talking about him, so he belongs on the list.

He also belongs in D tier.

C Tier

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a loyal Trump ally, the governor of Arkansas and a known national figure because of her time as White House press secretary.

I considered putting her in B tier.

She could raise a respectable amount of money. She has political connections, and I think some moderate Republicans could convince themselves that she offers a calmer version of Trump’s politics.

She has also clearly been working on her presentation and political profile as governor.

But I still do not think she generates enough excitement or has enough charisma to take control of a national primary.

My reaction is basically: meh.

That puts her in C tier.

Greg Abbott

Greg Abbott is a powerful Republican governor with national name recognition and deep connections inside the party.

But I do not think he has the charisma to win a presidential campaign.

American presidential politics is also obviously ableist. Voters and the media tend to favor candidates who are taller, conventionally attractive and physically commanding on television. Abbott’s use of a wheelchair should not affect his qualifications, but I think the political system would unfairly make it part of the campaign.

Even beyond that, I do not think he has the presence to take over a crowded Republican field.

C tier.

Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard is an odd political figure.

She was a Democratic member of Congress and a Democratic presidential candidate. She became a Republican, joined Trump’s administration as director of national intelligence and resigned in 2026, publicly citing her husband’s serious health problems.

I still wonder whether leaving the administration also preserves her ability to begin preparing for 2028.

Tulsi has charisma. She has a strong media presence. She can raise money, and she would probably perform well on a debate stage.

Her problem is trust.

Many Republicans still do not trust her because she spent years as a prominent Democrat. Democrats do not trust her because she joined Trump and became a Republican.

That leaves her in a strange political limbo.

I could imagine her fitting into some kind of Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene political movement. I could even imagine a third-party campaign designed to disrupt the general election.

As the Republican nominee, though, I do not see it.

C tier.

Byron Donalds

Byron Donalds just won the Republican nomination for governor of Florida. He will face former Republican congressman and now Democrat David Jolly in the November general election.

Donalds is generally liked within the Republican Party. Like Gabbard and Ramaswamy, he was previously a Democrat, but he does not carry the same political baggage from that transition.

He can raise money. He is comfortable on television, and I think he would perform well on a presidential debate stage.

His problem is timing.

If Donalds wins the governorship and immediately begins campaigning for president, Florida voters may reasonably ask why he ran for governor. If you win the job, do the job.

Would he really leave the Florida governor’s office for a cabinet appointment? I would not.

He has potential, but 2028 may be too soon.

C tier.

B Tier

Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis still has political power, donor connections and the ability to build a serious national campaign.

But his 2024 presidential campaign showed all of his weaknesses.

He did not look confident. His messaging never came together. His attempts to compete with Trump felt forced. The more voters saw him campaign, the less they seemed to like him.

The lifts in his shoes, the awkwardness and the constant effort to manufacture a personality gave people the ick.

Republican voters saw that campaign. They are not going to forget it simply because four years have passed.

DeSantis could raise money and build an organization, which keeps him out of the lower tiers. And maybe he learned a lot from the first race. So… second times a charm?

I do not think he wins the primary or the general election.

B tier.

Spencer Pratt

Spencer Pratt jumped into the political conversation when he ran for mayor of Los Angeles in 2026.

He did not advance to the general election, but he came much closer than most people expected. Pratt finished third with 25.8 percent of the vote, behind Karen Bass and Nithya Raman.

Pratt is an interesting character. I do not think he has any real political clout nationwide, and I do not know if he could build the kind of traditional organization normally required to run for president.

But Spencer Pratt is completely online.

He understands social media, short-form videos, viral moments and how to keep people watching. During his mayoral campaign, just five of his posts on X reportedly generated more than 46 million views. His TikTok account had approximately 2.5 million followers, and his campaign raised a significant amount of money in a relatively short period.

That does not mean internet attention automatically turns into votes. His mayoral campaign proved that when he fell from second place in the early count to third as more ballots were counted.

But it also proved that an online personality can enter a serious political race, raise money, mobilize supporters and compete against experienced elected officials.

I could see Pratt going much farther in a Republican presidential primary than political professionals would expect. He might end up standing on a debate stage next to governors, senators and cabinet officials, probably wondering how the hell he got there.

The rest of us would know exactly how he got there.

Social media.

I do not think he could win the nomination or build a complete national campaign. But I think he could raise money, generate attention and survive longer than candidates with far more conventional political experience.

That puts Spencer Pratt in B tier.

Brian Kemp

Brian Kemp is my sleeper candidate.

He is well known inside Republican politics without being completely defined in the minds of national voters. He has built a powerful political organization in Georgia, can raise serious money and has enough charisma to handle a national campaign.

Kemp is the type of candidate people could overlook while focusing on other national figures.

Then he starts raising money, hires an excellent campaign staff and slowly moves up through the field. Suddenly, he is one of the last candidates standing on the debate stage.

I could see Kemp doing well enough that another candidate has to negotiate with him, offer him a cabinet position or find some other way to get him out of the race before he splits an important part of the Republican vote.

He could become the black swan of the Republican primary.

B tier, with the potential to move higher.

Glenn Youngkin

Glenn Youngkin is almost the opposite of Kemp.

Youngkin could enter the race with a large amount of money, strong institutional support and immediate media attention. He could quickly look like one of the front-runners.

But I think the more voters saw him, the less interesting he would become.

Could he win the primary? Maybe.

Could he win the general election? I am not convinced.

I see Youngkin beginning the race around the A or B-tier level and then gradually falling into obscurity as voters become more familiar with him. Meanwhile, a candidate such as Kemp could move in the opposite direction.

B tier.

The Trump Family

I am grouping Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and anybody else from that immediate political circle together.

The Trump name would create an automatic advantage.

They would have access to donors, campaign infrastructure, media attention and the remaining power of the Trump political brand. With Donald Trump’s endorsement, one of them could probably dominate a large portion of the Republican primary.

The primary would be theirs to lose.

The general election would be another story.

The Republican establishment outside the immediate MAGA circle would understand that Donald Trump’s family members are not Donald Trump. They cannot recreate his political instincts, charisma or connection with his voters simply because they share his name or worked in his administration.

You cannot reproduce Donald Trump’s lightning in a bottle through nepotism.

Still, a Trump family candidate would command so much attention and money that the possibility cannot be dismissed.

B tier.

Palmer Luckey

Palmer Luckey is one of my most interesting names on this list.

Luckey founded Oculus VR and helped push modern virtual reality into the mainstream before selling the company to Facebook. He later founded Anduril, which has become a major defense-technology company focused on autonomous systems, drones and military hardware.

Luckey was born in September 1992, so he would be 35 by Election Day in 2028.

He is connected to wealthy donors, technology executives, defense interests and important Republican political figures. He could raise an enormous amount of money.

He also has the kind of personality and ideas that could help Republicans build a political identity beyond Trump. He is smart, eccentric, media-friendly and genuinely different from the normal politicians running for president.

I think he could create a cult following.

I do not think he could win the primary or general election.

He would still be only 35. His clothing, personality, statements and political beliefs would make him extremely polarizing. He could create excitement, but I do not think enough voters would see him as president.

B tier.

A Tier

Nikki Haley

Nimarata “Nikki” Randhawa Haley ran a strong primary campaign against Donald Trump in 2024, which is not an easy thing to do. She ultimately lost, but she proved she could raise money, build a national campaign, and remain on the stage after almost everyone else had dropped out.

Haley can also present herself as a more common-sense Republican capable of reaching moderates who are not part of the MAGA camp. Could she defeat JD Vance or Marco Rubio in a Republican primary? I am not sure. These divisive primaries tend to bring out the most committed voters on the right and left, making it difficult for anyone trying to move toward the middle.

Still, I think Haley would be one of the last candidates standing. She is experienced, capable, and already battle-tested. If she survived the primary, she could be every bit as competitive in a general election as Rubio or Vance.

Nikki Haley gets A tier.

J.D. Vance

Vice President J.D. Vance.

Could Vance win the Republican primary? Absolutely.

He would begin with the power of the vice presidency, the support of much of the Trump movement and his own national profile.

Could he raise enough money? My goodness, yes.

Vance rose from the Senate to the vice presidency with support from Peter Thiel, the Pay Pal Mafia, and a powerful network of Silicon Valley donors. That fundraising system is already operating.

In June, Vance raised $4.2 million for the Republican Party at a Silicon Valley event hosted by Chamath Palihapitiya. In August, another event brought in more than $5 million, with contributions reaching $100,000 for the reception and $250,000 for the dinner.

He is building the donor network for a presidential campaign whether he officially calls it that or not.

Could he win the general election? Yes.

Vance is smart enough and disciplined enough to run a serious campaign. But he still carries the stench of Trump, Peter Thiel and the PayPal Mafia.

He has improved in front of cameras, but he can still seem awkward and overly rehearsed. Put him onstage against somebody with substantial charisma, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mark Cuban or Gavin Newsom, and I think Vance could look boring.

Not stupid. Not unqualified.

Boring, intelligent and slightly awkward.

That keeps him out of S tier.

S Tier

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio is currently the strongest potential Republican candidate for 2028.

Rubio is secretary of state and national security adviser. He has worked closely with Trump and remains connected to the administration, but he does not carry the same Trump stench as Vance or members of Trump’s family.

If an administration policy becomes unpopular, Rubio can argue that he was executing the president’s agenda and navigating the responsibilities of his office. He has enough connection to Trump to appeal to MAGA voters but enough distance to present himself as something new.

Rubio can raise money. He has a national donor network, experienced political allies and decades of campaign experience.

He is also charismatic and would perform well on a debate stage.

His recent interview with his wife Jeanette, where they talked about marriage, family, Tupac and his love of Pop-Tarts, showed something politically useful.

Rubio can appear normal.

He can sit in front of a camera and have a natural conversation without looking as though every sentence was written by a consultant.

He is a competent and respected statesman. The memes about Rubio taking over every job whenever somebody leaves the Trump administration have reinforced that image.

Most importantly, Rubio could bring together different parts of the Republican coalition.

He has enough loyalty to Trump to keep MAGA voters engaged. He has enough traditional Republican credibility to attract moderate Republicans. He could also appeal to right-leaning independents who might be exhausted by Trump but are not ready to vote for a Democrat.

Rubio could present himself as a new version of the Republican Party without completely rejecting the old one.

That is why Marco Rubio is my S-tier Republican candidate for 2028.

This is all speculation. The midterms have not happened, the field has not formed, and four years is an eternity in politics.

But if Republicans had to choose their strongest candidate today, I think it would be Marco Rubio.

What do you think? Who did I rank too high, who did I rank too low, and who did I leave off?

Stay Angry.

But let’s be honest. Thirst trap politics is not a Democratic invention. Republicans have been doing this too. In fact, politicians around the world have been using their looks, clothing, bodies, fitness, and sexuality for attention long before anyone knew what a thirst trap was.

What has changed is the intent, the delivery system, and who controls the picture.

A politician being attractive is not automatically a thirst trap. A politician being sexualized by the media is not the same as a politician intentionally posting sexualized content. There are levels to this, and if we are going to talk about thirst trap politics, we should at least define what we are talking about.

Merriam-Webster defines a thirst trap as a photograph or video shared for the purpose of attracting attention or desire.

The important word is purpose.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Level One: You Are Hot and Other People Notice

The first level is not really thirst trapping at all. It is simply being an attractive person in public life and having the media, paparazzi, or internet sexualize you.

John F. Kennedy would be the historical example. He was young, attractive, athletic, wealthy, and surrounded by an entire political mythology built around youth, vigor, and Camelot. Pictures of him sailing, swimming, or sitting shirtless on a boat became part of his public image regardless of the purpose of those pictures .

Barack Obama experienced the modern version of that in 2008. While he was vacationing in Hawaii after the election, paparazzi positioned themselves on the beach with long lenses and photographed him shirtless. Obama was not standing there taking a mirror selfie and asking America what it thought of his abs. He was existing on a beach while attractive, and the media did the rest.

The same thing happens to women, although usually with a much nastier double standard.

AOC can wear a dress, put on red lipstick, or show up at an event looking good, and the internet immediately turns her into either a sex symbol or the subject of some weird conservative fantasy. There have even been digitally altered pictures created to make her clothing look more revealing.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern once sat for an interview in which the male interviewer described her as young and attractive, then started asking about when her child was conceived. The interview was widely criticized as sexist and creepy.

Former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin was sexualized constantly because she was young, attractive, and liked to go out with her friends. Private videos of her dancing were leaked, and suddenly the world was debating whether a prime minister was allowed to party.

That is not thirst trapping.

That is other people seeing an attractive politician and deciding to thirst over them. The politician may benefit from the attention, but they did not create or release the image.

There is a difference between setting a trap and having the internet decide that you are the trap.

Level Two: The Political Flex

The second level is the flex.

This is when politicians intentionally display their bodies, athleticism, or physical conditioning, but the primary message is supposed to be health, strength, vitality, discipline, or power.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a perfect example.

Kennedy is now 72 years old, is obviously in very good shape, and clearly wants everyone to know it. He posts workout videos. He does pull-ups in jeans. Earlier this year, he and Kid Rock released a 90-second video in which they exercised, flexed shirtless, played pickleball, took a cold plunge, and drank whole milk.

The stated message was to get active and eat real food. It fit directly into Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again brand.

But come on, man.

RFK Jr. knows he looks good for 72. He knows the video will get attention. He knows people will talk about his body. That is part of the message. His physical condition is presented as evidence that his health philosophy works.

It is a flex, but it is a political flex.

Vladimir Putin used the same idea differently. His shirtless horseback pictures were not primarily about making people want to get thirsty. They were about projecting masculinity, dominance, strength, and control. The picture became an extension of the political brand.

American politicians have done softer versions of this for decades. Bill Clinton went jogging. George W. Bush was photographed exercising and clearing brush. Pete Buttigieg goes running. Politicians throw baseballs, shoot baskets, ride bicycles, lift weights, and perform whatever physical activity makes them look healthy enough to survive four years in office.

Sometimes the flex is connected to policy. Sometimes it is supposed to communicate strength.

It is image-conscious, and it can be intentionally attractive, but it is not a thirst trap.

Level Three: I Know I Look Good, and I Know What You Will Do With This

Subscribe now

The third level is where plausible deniability tapers off.

The politician is not necessarily posting an openly thirsty picture, but they know what the clothing, camera angle, or presentation will do. They know the internet will sexualize it, and they are counting on everybody else to complete the transaction.

Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign uniform is a good current example.

El-Sayed campaigned across Michigan in a fitted black V-neck T-shirt and jeans. It was a simple look, but it also made sure you noticed that he goes to the gym. Even Fox News repeatedly called him “gym boy,” talked about his pecs, and asked his Republican opponent whether he planned to compete with El-Sayed’s tight shirts.

El-Sayed did not take his shirt off. He did not release a bikini calendar. He wore a fitted shirt that supported his anti-establishment, ready-to-fight image and also happened to show his arms.

He knew.

That does not make it a full thirst trap. It makes it a very deliberate flex that allows everyone else to do the thirst trapping for him.

Former Republican Congressman Aaron Schock took it further. In 2011, Schock appeared shirtless on the cover of Men’s Health, where he was promoted as “America’s Fittest Congressman.”

The official explanation was health. Schock was promoting fitness and talking about the cost of diabetes, heart disease, and other preventable conditions.

Okay.

He was also a 29-year-old congressman with a six-pack, standing shirtless on a national magazine cover. He knew exactly what kind of attention that would create. The health campaign made the picture politically defensible, but the abs did the marketing.

Lauren Boebert sits somewhere around this category too. A bikini photo showing her large side tattoo was recirculated in 2024 by Ginger Gaetz, who praised “confident, healthy, patriotic women.” It was unclear when the original picture was taken, and Boebert was not the person who republished it.

That distinction is important. Boebert appearing in a bikini does not automatically make the picture a thirst trap. People wear bathing suits at the beach. But once the political ecosystem deliberately recirculates that picture as part of “Hot Girl Summer” celebration of conservative women, it becomes political marketing through thirst.

The politician gets the attention without necessarily having to admit that attention was the point.

Level Four: This Is Absolutely a Thirst Trap

Subscribe now

Then we arrive at the real thing.

This is when the politician or political figure deliberately releases sexualized content because they know people will look, share, comment, joke, and thirst.

Nancy Mace has entered this category.

After losing her run for governor, the outgoing Republican congresswoman launched a YouTube show called Get Maced. The opening montage includes Mace showing off her new tattoos, walking out of the ocean with a surfboard, firing guns, and lounging in a black bikini.

Mace has explained that the tattoos have personal meaning and were connected to trauma, pain, and reclaiming her body. That explanation is sincere.

But she also deliberately put the bikini footage in the opening montage of her new media show.

Nobody accidentally edits a poolside bikini selfie into the introduction of a political YouTube program. That is a branding decision.

That is a thirst trap.

Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently posted a shirtless picture of himself in his kitchen holding an extra-large cucumber in one hand and a red pepper in the other. He said the post was about healthy eating and being in the best shape of his life at 65.

I am sure that was the message.

I am also sure that Eric Adams knew exactly what the internet would do with a shirtless picture of him holding an enormous cucumber.

That picture crossed the border from health flex to thirst trap the moment he selected the cucumber.

Then there is Brian Sims, the former Pennsylvania state representative, LGBTQ+ activist, and what at least one publication has called a “certified DILF.”

Sims posted a shirtless selfie with the caption, “Shirts?!? In this economy?” He later celebrated Pride with a professional photo shoot featuring him shirtless and posing in Calvin Klein underwear.

Sims has connected those pictures to queer visibility, confidence, and political resistance. That political meaning can be genuine.

They are also thirst traps.

Both things can be true.

Has Sex Appeal Become Political Currency

Politicians have always been performers.

Their voices, clothing, hair, spouses, families, physical health, and personal stories have always been part of the product. JFK understood television. Reagan understood performance. Obama understood social media. Trump understands spectacle.

What is different now is that politicians can publish directly to millions of people without a newspaper editor, television producer, or campaign reporter standing between them and the audience.

They can see immediately which pictures generate attention. They know which shirt gets more views. They know which angle creates fan edits. They know when a picture ends up in group chats, TikTok montages, reaction videos, and cable news segments.

The algorithm does not care whether you have a ten-point housing plan.

It cares whether people stop scrolling.

Sex makes people stop scrolling.

That attention can become followers. Followers can become small-dollar donors, volunteers, media appearances, fan communities, and sometimes votes. A candidate does not necessarily need people to understand the entire policy platform if enough people already feel some kind of personal attachment to the candidate.

That attachment might be ideological.

It might also be that they think Senator “My Boo” is hot.

This is not automatically bad. Attractive people are allowed to run for office. Politicians are allowed to wear bathing suits, go to the gym, have tattoos, pose for pictures, and feel good about their bodies.

There is a difference between sexualizing someone who was simply existing and a politician deliberately using sexual attention as part of a political brand. There is also a difference between demonstrating physical fitness and posting content specifically designed to make people “thirsty.”

Does Any of This Actually Win Elections?

The other question is whether thirst trapping works.

It definitely creates attention. That does not mean it creates votes.

Nancy Mace’s bikini montage did not save her gubernatorial campaign. Brian Sims’ internet popularity did not win him the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor. Aaron Schock’s abs did not protect him from the scandals that ended his congressional career. Eric Adams’ cucumber is unlikely to create a political comeback by itself.

A person can go viral while remaining politically irrelevant. People can share a politician’s picture, call them hot, make jokes, and never register to vote for them.

But political thirst trapping is not disappearing. Campaigns have discovered another tool, and politicians who are young, attractive, fit, or simply shameless enough to participate are going to use it.

We have moved from attractive politicians being sexualized by the media, to politicians flexing their health and strength, to candidates wearing exactly the right shirt so other people will sexualize them, to politicians openly creating content designed to generate thirst.

We now have political MILFs and DILFs.

The only question left is when we get the first political OnlyFans.

At this rate, the press release will explain that the monthly subscription is about transparency, democracy, and grassroots fundraising.

Stay Angry.

The county gets paid. The investor gets the right to collect the debt, charge interest, and potentially foreclose on your home.

You can start with a property-tax bill you cannot afford and end up fighting to keep the roof over your head while a private company makes money from your hardship.

That is what is happening in Ohio.

I recently spoke with Jasson Farrier, the Ohio Housing Nerd, about Ohio’s property-tax crisis and the private companies buying delinquent tax certificates from county governments.

Jasson is a realtor and real-estate investor who has spent months investigating property-tax delinquencies across Ohio. He is trying to answer a basic question: If so many Ohioans are falling behind on their property taxes, where are all the tax foreclosures?

The answer, at least in some counties, is that the county has already been paid.

The homeowner’s debt has been sold.

The County Gets Paid. The Homeowner Gets a Private Collector.

When a homeowner falls behind on property taxes, the county still needs that revenue. Property taxes fund schools, social services, public safety, and other local government operations.

Ohio law gives counties several ways to collect delinquent taxes. One of those options is selling tax certificates to private investors.

Under Ohio Revised Code Section 5721.32, county treasurers may sell tax certificates individually or in massive blocks. Once the investor pays the county, the state’s superior lien for those unpaid taxes is transferred to the certificate holder.

To be clear, the company does not immediately receive the deed to the house. It receives the tax lien and the legal right to collect the debt. If the homeowner does not redeem the certificate or comply with a payment plan, the certificate holder can eventually initiate foreclosure proceedings.

In a public tax-certificate auction, bidding begins at an interest rate of 18 percent and moves downward, with the certificate going to the bidder offering the lowest rate. Counties can also negotiate bulk sales under separate provisions of Ohio law.

In June 2026, Cuyahoga County sold approximately $18 million in delinquent property-tax debt to NAR Solutions, a company based in Omaha, Nebraska. Cuyahoga County’s own tax-certificate website directs homeowners whose certificates were sold in 2026 to contact NAR Ohio.

This happened under County Executive Chris Ronayne’s administration after Cuyahoga County had gone years without conducting one of these bulk sales.

From the county’s perspective, the appeal is obvious. The county converts delinquent accounts into immediate revenue. The taxing districts get paid, and the county no longer has to wait for thousands of individual homeowners to catch up.

But the debt does not disappear.

It changes hands.

The struggling homeowner is now dealing with a private company whose financial interest is not merely collecting the original taxes. The company purchased an investment, and it expects a return.

A Small Tax Debt Can Become an Impossible Bill

Cuyahoga County already imposes a 10 percent late-payment penalty, along with annual interest that the county currently lists at 12 percent.

When a tax certificate is sold, Ohio law permits certificate interest rates reaching as high as 18 percent. Interest is only part of the problem. A foreclosure can bring attorney fees, court costs, administrative charges, and other expenses.

Meanwhile, the homeowner continues receiving new property-tax bills.

That is how a manageable delinquency can become an impossible debt.

Jasson ran a hypothetical example involving a homeowner who initially fell behind by $2,000. Depending on the penalties, interest, additional taxes, and foreclosure expenses, he estimated that the amount could grow beyond $7,000.

That is an illustration, not a universal calculation. The exact amount depends on the county, the certificate terms, the length of the delinquency, and whether a foreclosure is filed. But the underlying danger is real.

Jasson has seen it personally.

Years ago, he sat in the living room of a woman who contacted him about selling her house. Her tax debt had been acquired by TaxEase, another company involved in Ohio tax-certificate sales. According to the documents she showed him, her debt had grown to approximately $28,000 on a house worth around $80,000 at the time.

She told him she could not pay it.

She was prepared to walk away.

It is easy to call these “delinquent accounts” when they are presented in a spreadsheet containing thousands of properties. It is harder when you are sitting across from a person who has concluded that there is no way to save her home.

How Many Ohioans Are Behind?

Jasson used PropStream, a proprietary real-estate data service, to estimate the number of Ohio properties with delinquent taxes.

His most recent statewide search returned approximately 569,000 properties.

That number requires an important qualification. It is not an official statewide count produced by the Ohio Department of Taxation, and PropStream does not provide Jasson with a reliable historical series showing the same data over previous years.

His May search returned approximately 350,000 properties. The number jumped above 500,000 in June and remained near that level in July. That abrupt increase could reflect tax-payment schedules, reporting delays, changes in the underlying records, or a genuine increase in delinquency.

We do not have enough information yet to know.

Jasson is now recording the results every month so he can build a consistent history. Until that history exists, 569,000 should be understood as a snapshot from a private database, not a verified count of individual Ohio homeowners facing immediate foreclosure.

Even with that limitation, we know the problem is growing.

In Cuyahoga County, delinquent property-tax balances increased by $60.6 million following the countywide property reappraisal. County officials projected that unpaid taxes could create a $20 million hole in Health and Human Services levy reserves.

That creates a real budget problem.

But selling the debt to a private investor does not solve the homeowner’s financial crisis. It simply gives the county its money and moves the collection problem somewhere else.

The Supreme Court Just Put More Home Equity at Risk

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in a case involving a Michigan family that owed $2,241.93 in property taxes.

Isabella County foreclosed on the family’s home. The property, which had been assessed at $194,400 for tax purposes, sold at a public auction for $76,008.

In Pung v. Isabella County, the homeowners argued that compensation should reflect the home’s fair market value, not merely the amount generated at the tax auction.

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument.

The Court ruled that when a tax-foreclosed property is sold through a fairly conducted auction, the former homeowner is generally entitled to the surplus remaining from the auction proceeds after the taxes and allowable expenses are paid. The Constitution does not automatically require the government to compensate the homeowner based on a separate estimate of fair market value.

The Court did not say that a government can secretly dump a house for any price it wants. The auction must still be conducted fairly, and the justices sent the case back to the lower courts for further consideration of that issue.

But the practical result remains disturbing.

A government can assess a home at nearly $200,000 for taxation, sell it for $76,008 through a tax auction, collect what it is owed, and calculate the homeowner’s remaining equity from the auction price rather than the government’s own valuation.

Who benefits from the difference?

The purchaser who acquired the property at auction.

There was also an important error in our original conversation that needs to be corrected. We said Ohio tax-foreclosure auctions generally must begin at two-thirds of the property’s appraised value. That is not universally true for tax foreclosures.

Under Ohio Revised Code Section 5721.19, a court may order a tax-delinquent parcel sold without an appraisal. The minimum can be based on the lesser of the county auditor’s fair-market valuation plus costs or the total taxes, penalties, interest, charges, and foreclosure costs owed.

In other words, Ohio law does not guarantee that every tax-foreclosed home will begin at two-thirds of its appraised value.

That makes this problem even more serious.

The Investor Does Not Automatically Get the House

There is another distinction worth making.

Buying a tax certificate does not mean a company immediately receives a house for pennies on the dollar. The company purchases the lien. If the homeowner does not pay, the certificate holder may request foreclosure under Ohio Revised Code Section 5721.37.

For most private certificate holders, a foreclosure request may be filed beginning one year after the certificate was sold, subject to the certificate’s terms and other legal requirements.

The foreclosure can ultimately result in the property being sold or, in certain proceedings, title being vested in the certificate holder or another purchaser.

That distinction matters because we should describe this system accurately.

It does not make the system acceptable.

A private company may not receive the deed on the day it buys the certificate, but it receives a superior lien backed by the power to pursue foreclosure. That is an extraordinarily powerful investment instrument, especially when the person on the other side is already financially distressed.

Is This a Government-Facilitated Land Grab?

During our conversation, I put on what I called my tinfoil hat.

If private companies are buying millions of dollars in government-controlled liens, collecting substantial interest, and gaining the ability to initiate foreclosures, could the system be manipulated by politically connected investors or local insiders?

Jasson investigated the ownership of several tax-certificate companies. He did not find evidence connecting the companies he researched to government insiders.

Neither of us has evidence of a secret arrangement involving Chris Ronayne, county officials, NAR Solutions, or other investors.

That needs to be stated clearly.

Concern about the possibility of abuse is not proof that abuse has occurred.

But a system involving bulk financial transactions, distressed homeowners, complicated LLC structures, foreclosure rights, and limited public understanding deserves aggressive oversight and transparency.

The solution is not to invent corruption we cannot prove. The solution is to make the sales, contracts, buyers, interest rates, fees, foreclosures, and final property dispositions easy for the public to examine.

If the government is going to transfer its superior lien on someone’s home to a private company, every part of that transaction should be visible.

HB 493 Could Restrict These Sales

Ohio lawmakers are considering a bipartisan bill that would restrict this practice.

House Bill 493, introduced by Republican Rep. David Thomas and Democratic Rep. Daniel Troy, was originally written to end new delinquent property-tax certificate sales beginning January 1, 2027.

The bill has not passed the Ohio House or moved to the Senate, as we mistakenly said during the interview.

As of August 2026, it remains in the House Local Government Committee. A substitute version was accepted during committee hearings.

According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s analysis, the substitute proposal is narrower than the original bill. It would generally prohibit new certificate sales involving owner-occupied residential and certain agricultural properties after 2026 unless the property owner consents. It would not necessarily eliminate every tax-certificate sale involving commercial or other types of property.

I support ending these private sales involving people’s homes.

If a homeowner owes taxes, the county should collect those taxes, offer realistic payment plans, provide notice, and use the legal remedies already available to the government.

We do not need to convert a family’s financial crisis into an investment opportunity carrying interest as high as 18 percent.

But Jasson raised a legitimate trade-off.

If counties can no longer sell thousands of delinquent accounts in bulk, they will still need to collect the taxes. They may need more employees, more legal resources, and more money to administer payment plans and foreclosures. Counties already facing large delinquent balances could experience serious budget pressure.

That is not a reason to preserve a predatory system.

It is a reason for lawmakers to replace it with something workable instead of merely prohibiting one collection method and pretending the unpaid taxes will disappear.

The Larger Property-Tax Problem

This entire debate exists because more Ohioans are struggling to afford their property taxes.

Home values have increased dramatically in many communities. That does not mean property taxes always rise by the same percentage. Ohio’s reduction factors, voted levies, exemptions, and overlapping taxing districts make the system more complicated than that.

For example, Axios calculated that a 32 percent valuation increase on one hypothetical Cuyahoga County home would have produced a 3.8 percent tax increase, not a 32 percent increase.

But even a smaller percentage increase can break a household budget when the cost of groceries, utilities, insurance, health care, and everything else is rising at the same time.

Jasson’s larger argument is that government budgets should not automatically expand simply because the paper value of people’s homes has increased.

He would like counties and local governments to use something closer to zero-based budgeting. Instead of beginning with last year’s spending and automatically building upward, governments would begin at zero, establish what services actually cost, and justify each new expense.

That comes with trade-offs too.

One Ohioan’s “waste” is another Ohioan’s school, fire department, addiction-treatment program, library, senior service, or child-protection worker. Cutting government spending sounds easy until somebody has to identify which services disappear.

There may not be one clean solution.

But attaching an ever-growing tax bill to an unrealized increase in a home’s value, then selling that debt to a private company when the homeowner cannot keep up, is not a morally defensible answer.

At the end of the day, most people are not falling behind on property taxes because they decided it would be fun to stop paying.

They are making choices.

Food or taxes.

Electricity or taxes.

Medication or taxes.

Keeping the car running so they can get to work or paying the entire tax bill on time.

Then the county sells that debt, the private company charges interest, the legal expenses begin, and the family’s home is placed under the threat of foreclosure.

The county gets its money.

The investor gets its return.

The homeowner gets crushed between them.

That is not right.

Stay Angry.

The people working there had in-depth knowledge of the products they sold or the skills they provided. You felt confident that you were going to get exactly what you wanted. Customization and talking through decisions were expected.

“Service with a smile,” as they used to say.

“The customer is always right.”

Those little things helped small businesses and even major corporations succeed and gain loyal customers. It was something we all understood.

More and more, my friends and I find ourselves asking the same question: What the hell happened to service?

We Don’t Get Service Anymore

Maybe this is another lament from a middle-aged man, but it is a common theme among my friends in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Service is not the same.

Customer-service calls have been exported to call centers. You press one for English and two for Español. Then you hear the familiar recording: “Please listen carefully because our menu options have recently changed.”

You spend the next five minutes trying to determine whether you should press four for sales, five for office hours, or repeatedly smash zero while screaming, “Representative,” into your phone.

Then there is restaurant service. A 20% tip used to represent great service that exceeded expectations. Now, 20% feels like the standard, almost mandatory amount because we have been guilted into accepting that this is simply how workers get paid.

You do not even need to receive actual service anymore. Someone spins a computer screen around and passively says, “The screen is going to ask you a few questions,” as if neither of you knows what the question will be.

Money, please.

The strange part is that this may be one of the only times you will hear me say this with “complete confidence:” I may be getting old.

And I am starting to wonder whether the idea of good service has fundamentally changed.

What If We Are the Ones Who Don’t Understand?

More and more people order through apps. They order online or through their phones. Even when they physically visit a business, they may order ahead and simply pick something up.

The Starbucks app is a prime example.

You can order a customized drink with all your choices already selected, drive to the store, walk inside, avoid eye contact with everyone, grab a drink with your name on it, and leave without talking to anybody.

You can even use the drive-through, say that you have a mobile order, grab your coffee, and go with almost no interaction.

The other day, I was getting a haircut, and my hairdresser was talking about some of her younger customers. She said they come in and do not know how to make small talk. They do not make eye contact and sometimes seem rude.

People have started calling this the “Gen Z stare,” the awkward reaction some younger people have when they are unexpectedly required to interact with another human being.

To Gen Xers and millennials, it can feel strange and uncomfortable.

But what if we are the ones getting old?

What if service has not disappeared? What if the definition of good service has changed?

Maybe good service now means no unnecessary interaction and no mistakes.

It means high customization without having to talk to anybody.

Frictionless Service Is Still Service

When you order through the Starbucks app, you have already told the business exactly what you want. Your drink should be waiting when you arrive. It should be made exactly how you ordered it and completed within the promised time.

The customer’s responsibility is to order correctly and pick it up before the ice melts or the coffee gets cold. The business’s responsibility is to provide enough customization options, prepare everything correctly, finish it on time, and send a notification when it is ready.

If all of that happens, younger customers may consider it excellent service.

The same thing happens at Chipotle. If you want a chicken bowl with white rice, black beans, and extra guac, every option is listed clearly. You order online, walk in, grab the bag, and leave.

That is good service now.

Good service is no longer necessarily about being talked to, coached, finessed, or told about different products. People can learn about products online. They have TikTok, influencers, customer reviews, restaurant reviews, food creators, YouTubers, and thousands of strangers explaining what they should order.

The salesperson has already been replaced by the internet.

The marketing happened before the customer walked through the door. The decision was already made.

The business’s new obligation is to let the customer order from a phone, walk inside, grab exactly what was ordered, and leave.

Good service is becoming less about personal attention and more about how frictionless the experience can be. Can you receive a quality product that meets your expectations, remains consistent, and requires as little effort as possible?

I personally believe this is what newer generations want. They do not necessarily want a lengthy conversation with somebody inside a restaurant. That helps explain why more restaurants are using QR codes, online ordering, and menus that customers access through their phones.

Many restaurants opening today simply plug into DoorDash or another ordering platform. Customers can place a takeout order before they even arrive.

There is a Filipino https://parilyacle.com/ restaurant near me that I really like. I have probably been there 20 or 30 times.

I walk inside, they ask if I have a pickup order, and I give them my name. They hand me a bag, and I sit down at one of their tables to eat. There may be a “please” or “thank you” somewhere in the transaction, but I do not know anyone’s name, and they do not know mine.

Under the old definition, that might not sound like good service.

Honestly, though, it is.

The food is consistent. It is always hot. The options are clearly listed on the menu. I receive a text when my order is finished. Because I know how far away I am, I can time my arrival. I walk in, grab my food, eat it, and leave satisfied.

What else was the service supposed to accomplish?

The Hairdresser of the Future

I think we are moving toward a place where service and customer expectations will be fundamentally different.

Consider how this could eventually work at a hair salon.

You take a few selfies showing your face and hair. You upload pictures of hairstyles you like, perhaps from celebrities, influencers, TikTokers, or YouTubers. Artificial intelligence generates composite images showing your face with those different hairstyles.

You make adjustments, compare the results, and select exactly what you want. You send that selection to your hairdresser before the appointment.

Then you walk in, sit down, and the hairdresser already knows what to do.

You do not need to explain cultural references. You do not need to bring magazine pictures or struggle to describe how much length you want removed. You do not really need to talk at all.

You sit there, scroll through your phone, get the haircut you selected, say thank you, and leave.

If the haircut looks exactly like the image you submitted, that would be considered great service.

It just would not be the service I grew up with.

Is This Better?

The moral of the story is that I believe service has fundamentally changed. The expectations people place on businesses are different.

Is this the world I remember? No.

Is it the world I want to live in? Mostly, no. Some days I like it, but mostly, no.

But is this where service is going? I think so.

I still appreciate walking into a place where someone knows my name. I like talking to people who understand what they sell. I like the small interactions that make a business feel like part of a community instead of a distribution center.

But I also appreciate ordering exactly what I want, receiving a notification when it is ready, walking inside, and leaving without a problem.

Maybe those two ideas of service can coexist. Maybe some businesses will continue offering personal relationships while others compete by making human interaction almost completely unnecessary.

Or maybe the service I remember will slowly disappear because the next generation does not consider it valuable.

Is that bad? I do not know.

Is it good? Again, I do not know.

What do you think? Has customer service gotten worse, or has the definition of good service simply changed?

Stay Angry.

A local resident had posted a video complaining about a pothole. The video went viral, so Bass responded by showing up with city employees, work trucks, cameras, and an apparent plan to demonstrate that city government was listening.

There was only one problem.

A car was parked directly over the pothole.

The crew could not fix it. Bass showed up, stood around the blocked pothole, and then released the video anyway. The mayor’s official account proudly told the resident, “We got you,” even though the pothole remained exactly where it was.

The video went viral for all the wrong reasons.

Almost anybody watching it could see the incompetence. City government mobilized employees, trucks, communications staff, and a camera crew but failed to check whether the pothole was accessible before everybody arrived.

Then whatever gatekeeping process exists inside the mayor’s office failed, too. Nobody stopped and said, “Maybe we shouldn’t publish a video of ourselves not fixing the pothole.”

It became a perfect little microcosm of government at its worst. It assembled a large group of people, produced a lot of activity, accomplished nothing, and then issued a public-relations video congratulating itself.

The intentions may have been good. The result was still fucking ridiculous.

But there is a reason Karen Bass is suddenly making videos like this.

Zohran Mamdani changed political campaigning.

Mamdani Changed the Campaign Playbook

The rise of Zohran Mamdani has been incredible to watch.

He went from being a relatively unknown state assemblymember to the mayor of New York City, the largest city in the United States and one of the most important cities in the world.

He did not accomplish that purely through short-form videos. His campaign also built an enormous field organization with tens of thousands of volunteers knocking on doors and making calls. His victory came from combining online attention with actual organizing, fundraising, policy, and voter contact.

But his videos introduced him to millions of people and gave the entire campaign its personality.

They were funny, self-aware, relentlessly on message, and directly tailored to the way people consume information online. He used them to explain policies, introduce himself, mobilize volunteers, reach different communities, and occasionally make fun of himself.

They looked good, but they were not just random content. Almost every video returned to the same basic message about affordability and the cost of living.

Mamdani understood the internet because he was already part of its culture. He understood the memes, references, editing styles, humor, music, and language. He was not an older politician asking a 24-year-old staffer to explain TikTok to him.

He was not trying to become online. He was online.

It probably also did not hurt that Mamdani grew up around performance and storytelling. His mother, Mira Nair, is an acclaimed filmmaker who directed movies including Mississippi Masala, Monsoon Wedding, and The Namesake. He grew up in a family that understood film, culture, performance, and how stories reach people.

Most politicians do not have that background.

Mamdani also has something that cannot be manufactured by an editing team. When it is time to say “action,” he can flip a switch and become incredibly charismatic. He can speak to the camera as if he is talking to a friend he has known for 20 years.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, that is a real political talent.

We have seen this kind of transformation before.

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign did not invent social media, but it was one of the first presidential campaigns to make social networking and digital organizing central to its operation. His campaign used the internet not only for advertising, but also to raise money, recruit volunteers, organize communities, and communicate directly with supporters.

After Obama won, social media stopped being an optional campaign experiment. It became part of the basic toolkit.

People also started copying Obama himself. They copied his cadence, his pauses, his voice, and his style of speaking. Everybody wanted to sound like Barack Obama because the Barack Obama template had worked.

The problem was that most of those people were not Barack Obama.

Now everybody wants to be Zohran Mamdani.

The same problem has returned.

You Cannot Copy and Paste Charisma

More and more mayors, governors, members of Congress, and candidates are trying to campaign in TikTok format.

Karen Bass is doing it. Chuck Schumer has tried it. Abdul El-Sayed has done everything from playful campaign videos to a Blue’s Clues parody. Politicians across the ideological spectrum are producing short clips, scripted jokes, staged confrontations, thirst traps, memes, and supposedly relatable behind-the-scenes content.

They are all trying to capture the lightning that Mamdani put in a bottle.

It is not working for most of them.

The first problem is what we call the performance face.

When the camera turns on, most candidates stop acting like themselves. Their faces change. Their voices change. They suddenly become a carefully rehearsed version of what they think a normal person sounds like.

It feels fake because it is fake.

They look like someone reading a script while desperately trying to pretend they are not reading a script. Their communications team may have studied the latest trend and reproduced all the technical elements correctly, but the person in the video does not understand why the original worked.

Mamdani does not merely repeat internet culture. He lives inside it. When he is not following the culture, he is occasionally helping create it.

Other politicians are being handed memes by staffers five days after the meme was funny.

Some of these politicians are also genuinely unpleasant people, and video makes that obvious. They succeeded through fundraising, party relationships, policy knowledge, or years of working inside political institutions. None of that means they can look into a camera and connect with another human being.

That is not necessarily a character flaw. Some people are simply not performers.

But the attempt to manufacture charisma often produces something worse than boring. It produces cringe.

Abdul El-Sayed’s videos are a useful example, although they also complicate my argument. His Blue’s Clues-style voting video was mocked after resurfacing online, but El-Sayed still won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.

So an awkward video does not automatically destroy a candidate. It also does not prove the video helped him win.

That distinction is important. Viral mockery can create attention, but attention is not always persuasion. Sometimes people are just laughing at you.

Internet Points Are Not Votes

Spencer Pratt may be the clearest recent example of the limits of social-media campaigning.

Pratt entered the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral race with a massive online following and decades of experience as a reality television personality. He understood performance. His videos generated millions of views. His TikTok account had approximately 2.5 million followers and more than 92 million cumulative likes by the end of the primary.

He also raised millions of dollars.

Then he finished third.

Pratt received approximately 25.5% of the vote, behind Karen Bass and Nithya Raman, and failed to advance to the general election. An analysis of the race found that Pratt’s enormous online reach did not translate into enough support among the voters who actually decided the primary. TargetSmart’s post-election analysis compared Pratt’s massive digital audience with his third-place finish.

The internet helped him raise money, gain attention, and become a serious candidate. It did not win the election.

Kat Abughazaleh offers another example.

Abughazaleh entered the Democratic primary for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District with a large online following and an established identity as a political influencer. She understood internet culture far better than most of the people running against her. Her campaign raised money, attracted national attention, and turned her into one of the most recognizable candidates in the race.

She still lost to Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who received about 29.6% of the vote to her 25.9%. Again, going viral is not the same as winning.

Internet points may translate into small-dollar donations. They may generate media coverage. They may help a candidate who was previously unknown become viable.

But the people liking, sharing, and commenting on a video may not live in the candidate’s district. They may not be registered to vote. They may not know anything else about the campaign. They may not even like the candidate.

Some of them may be watching because the video is a train wreck.

The internet can giveth, and the internet can taketh away.

Karen Bass wanted to show that she was responding to a constituent and fixing a basic city problem. Instead, thousands of creators, commentators, and ordinary users took the video, ripped it apart, and turned it into evidence that she could not manage a pothole repair.

Once a politician posts something, the campaign no longer controls it.

Politics Is Becoming Slopulism

The larger problem is not simply that politicians are bad at making videos.

The problem is what short-form video is doing to campaigns.

Political arguments are increasingly reduced to whatever can fit inside a 30-second or 60-second clip. Complicated policies become slogans. Every issue is flattened into one simple promise designed to survive the algorithm.

Freeze the rent.

Make the buses free.

Fix the pothole.

Lower the prices.

Regardless of the merits of any individual proposal, complicated questions about funding, implementation, legal authority, trade-offs, and unintended consequences rarely make it into the video.

The politician points at a problem, announces a solution, inserts a trending sound, and waits for the views.

Call it slopulism.

It is politics reduced to algorithm-friendly content. It is endless simplistic videos created in the hope that one of them goes viral. It rewards the person who can perform a solution more effectively than the person who can implement one.

That is really fucked up.

Campaigns have always involved performance. Candidates have always delivered rehearsed speeches, staged photo opportunities, kissed babies, visited diners, and pretended to enjoy county-fair food.

But I do not think political campaigning has ever been reduced to this level of simplicity and stupidity.

If this becomes the dominant way campaigns operate, we may end up selecting candidates based on their ability to make short-form videos. People who are serious, thoughtful, nuanced, and maybe a little boring could become less competitive because they cannot perform for the camera.

Some of those boring people might be better leaders.

They might understand government. They might be able to think through complicated problems. They might be willing to admit that a policy has costs, limitations, or trade-offs.

They might be able to fix the pothole without filming themselves standing beside it.

Mamdani’s Actual Lesson

Mamdani’s victory does not prove that every politician needs to imitate Mamdani.

It proves that authenticity, clear messaging, digital communication, and actual organizing can reinforce one another when the right candidate brings them together.

His videos worked because they matched the person, the campaign, the message, and the political moment. They were part of a much larger operation that eventually mobilized an extraordinary number of volunteers and voters.

Copying the editing style without understanding the substance is not campaigning.

It is cosplay.

I do not think most lifelong politicians can suddenly transform themselves into charismatic, video-friendly personalities. They are not theater kids. They did not grow up around performance. They cannot simply turn on a camera and become someone else.

Maybe that is the one upside.

Maybe most of these imitations will fail because voters can still recognize when someone is faking it. Maybe online attention will continue helping candidates raise money and become known without completely replacing the parts of campaigning that require real organization, real voters, and an actual message.

Mamdani changed political campaigning, just as Obama did before him.

But the lesson is not that everybody should talk like Obama or make videos like Mamdani.

The lesson is that when a rare political talent changes the game, copying the surface of what worked is not the same as understanding why it worked.

And if all your video proves is that you brought an entire city crew to a pothole and still could not fix it, maybe do not post the fucking video.

Stay Angry.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Democratic Party is seeing this with the Democratic Socialists of America, or the DSA. A lot of people have been in the Democratic Party for many years, even decades, running on certain beliefs, ideas, and policies that have yet to come to fruition.

So what is the Democratic Party to do? What is this talent left to do?

When you look at how businesses acquire talent, how competition emerges, and how new products get formed, maybe what we are seeing here is the emergence of a new Democratic Party being created from within.

We have seen this play out in business over and over again. Once the need for a product/idea/policy begins to emerge, a company has to make a choice. It can allow a new product/idea/policy to develop from within lead by it’s talent. It can let the people behind that product leave and become the competition. Or it can fire the employees, lock the product in the basement, and pretend it never existed.

The Democratic Party is facing that choice with the DSA right now.

Below, I’m playing with an idea about what we can learn from business, how it compares to the modern Democratic Party and the DSA, and what we can expect in the future.

What do you think about the DSA? What do you think about the relationship between the Democratic Party and the DSA?

Tying Up Talent

Tying up talent is a common business practice. When a company wants to corner an emerging industry and stifle competition, one of the first things it does is capture the best talent.

We have seen this after World War II with the development of nuclear technology. We saw it during the Cold War with rockets and engineering. We are seeing it again with artificial intelligence and programming.

Companies will pay astronomical amounts of money to make sure the best and brightest people are working for them.

At first, those people actually help develop the technology. They build the company, create its products, and give it an identity that sets it apart from the competition. That helps the company establish itself and lock in its market.

Eventually, though, the shareholders, profit margins, and safety become the top priorities. Why rock the boat in calm weather?

That does not change the engineers or their passion for what they are doing. The massive salaries and stock options may allow them to live comfortably and put some money in the bank, but that does not mean their ambitions are being fulfilled.

Eventually, they go to the company and say, “I want to start doing X, Y, and Z. I want to work on something new. I want to keep pushing the boundaries of this industry.”

The company tells them no. Just do your job.

So they go back to plugging away at some menial task. They are still collecting a great salary, but they feel empty. They know they can do more. They know the technology can do more. They know their ideas could improve the company, but they are not allowed to pursue them.

At that point, they have a choice.

Leave or Innovate From Within

The first choice is to leave the company and become the competition.

That happens more often than people think. Large companies develop or employ people with important ideas, fail to recognize what those ideas can become, and then watch someone else make money from them.

Xerox PARC developed technology that helped shape modern personal computing, including major elements of the graphical user interface. Xerox did attempt to commercialize some of that technology, but it never took advantage of it the way Apple and Microsoft eventually did. Steve Jobs saw what Xerox had and understood where personal computing was heading.

The other choice is to start a small rebellion inside the company.

That is closer to what happened with Sony and the PlayStation.

Sony was not a video game company. Ken Kutaragi was an engineer inside Sony who believed the company should enter the gaming business. He faced plenty of resistance and ridicule from people who thought gaming was a waste of Sony’s time, money, and resources.

But the idea survived. Sony’s leadership eventually allowed it to move forward, and the PlayStation became one of the defining products in the company’s history.

This is what I see happening inside the Democratic Party.

It took me a little while to get here, but I think the Democratic Party has created the same problem.

Gen X, millennials, and now Gen Z grew up inside the Democratic Party. They heard about what the future could look like. They decided to work toward it. They invested their time, their money, and, in many cases, their livelihoods into building the Democratic Party into what it is today.

Then, at some point, the party told them it was no longer interested in pushing the boundaries.

We are not going to grow. We are not going to pursue real political innovation. We are going to maintain the status quo and become a reflection of the competition.

It reminds me of Apple’s iPhone and Samsung’s Galaxy phones. They go back and forth, slowly improving their products but rarely changing too much. One year, the Galaxy may be better. The next year, the iPhone catches up.

They know their customers. They have a pretty good idea of how many phones they will sell and who will buy them. Why take a huge risk with a product they already know will sell?

Democrats and Republicans have fallen into a similar pattern. They know their voters. They know who is likely to support them. They know that many people will stay with them because they are afraid of what the other party will do.

So there is very little reason to change the product.

But eventually, the frustration sets in.

The people who joined the Democratic Party because they wanted to create change have been told no too many times. Just like the engineers inside a company, they now have the same basic choices.

They can leave and build something new, or they can innovate from within.

Why Not Just Start Another Party?

We have watched people try to leave and start something new with different levels of success.

The Green Party is one example, or what Tucker Carlson is trying now leaving MAGA. My personal favorite is The Forward Party. ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. After seeing what he believed was the party’s inability to hear new voices and accept new ideas, he helped create a new political party.

That is the hardest path because you have to create your own market share.

Trying to build a new political party is like trying to release a new phone that competes with Apple and Samsung or a new video game system that competes with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

Even if the product is good, capturing any relevant share of the market is almost impossible. Very few companies manage to do it. When they do, it takes years of convincing people, one by one, why they should leave the product they already know.

Politics is no different.

A new party has to convince voters that it can win. It has to build infrastructure, raise money, gain ballot access, find candidates, and overcome the belief that voting for it will only help elect the party those voters dislike the most.

Sometimes the better option is to innovate from within. You take what everyone knows is needed and build it yourself because the company is too afraid to do it.

The company does not want to upset its shareholders. It does not want to rock the boat. Most importantly, it does not want to interfere with the money-printing machine.

On the flip side, Coca-Cola thought New Coke was going to be the best thing. By the mid-1980s, Pepsi was taking market share in part because of its sweeter taste profile. Coca-Cola said, “We can compete. We have the brand name, and we’re going to formulate a new Coca-Cola that can compete with Pepsi.”

In blind taste tests, many people preferred New Coke over the old Coke and Pepsi. So Coca-Cola rolled it out thinking it was going to win the game.

But loyal Coca-Cola drinkers did not want New Coke. It did not matter that it performed well in taste tests or that some people preferred it. The established Coca-Cola drinkers wanted the product they grew up with and were used to. Any change or deviation from it was a veto for them.

That is where the DSA comes in.

The Rogue Product

The DSA is not literally a product created or owned by the Democratic Party. It is an independent political organization.

But it operates like a rogue product using the Democratic Party’s distribution system.

That distribution system is the Democratic ballot line. Instead of trying to create an entirely new political party, DSA-backed candidates can run in Democratic primaries. They can reach voters who already identify as Democrats and gain a realistic path to public office.

They do not have to leave the Democratic Party to challenge the Democratic Party.

The DSA is effectively saying: We have been part of this coalition. We have wanted to change the party and create new product offerings within it. In many cases, these are products the party already talks about. We just want to promote them more, refine them, and actually run on them.

Those products are their issues, policies, and values.

Eventually, being told no was no longer an acceptable answer. Instead of continuing to ask for permission, the DSA began recruiting and supporting its own candidates.

It created something resembling a company within a company. It aligned itself with the Democratic brand, used the Democratic ballot access, and began offering voters a different product.

Now we are finding out whether people want to buy it.

When I have used this analogy with people, some have said it does not work because the PlayStation became incredibly popular.

But nobody knew the PlayStation would become popular before Sony released it. That was the risk.

The DSA is taking a risk too. Its candidates may win. They may lose. Its political product may become more popular, or voters may ultimately reject it. Policies could fail.

At the same time, the Democratic Party has to decide what this product represents.

Is it one part of the larger Democratic coalition? Is it a separate ideological offering within the party? Or is it slowly redefining what the Democratic Party is?

The Talent Was Already There

Steve Jobs is often credited with saying that you do not hire smart people so you can tell them what to do. You hire smart people so they can tell you what to do.

That is one of the things the Democratic Party forgot.

The talent was already hanging around the party. The people with ideas were already there. The party should have been listening to them, folding their ideas into the larger organization, and using their talent to build something better.

Instead, the party treated them like engineers it wanted to keep away from the competition.

It wanted their work, their votes, and their energy. It just did not want their ideas changing the product.

You cannot bring talented people inside, push them away from the decision-making process, and then act surprised when they begin building something of their own.

That is what companies do when they are more concerned about controlling talent than using it.

Cannibalize Your Own Product

The other idea often associated with Steve Jobs is that if one of your products is going to be cannibalized, you might as well do it yourself.

If you already sell one product and know somebody else is going to create something that eats into your sales, why not create it first?

Apple understood that the iPhone would eat into iPod sales because the iPhone could do many of the same things. It did not matter. Apple would still be the company selling the new product.

The Democratic Party now has to ask itself the same question.

Is the DSA something that will caucus with Democrats, compete with establishment candidates, and cannibalize some of their votes while still helping the party maintain political power?

Or is it a product the Democratic Party wants absolutely nothing to do with?

Companies deal with this problem by creating separate brands for different parts of the market. Sometimes consumers do not even realize that two competing products belong to the same parent company.

The products do not have to be identical. They do not have to appeal to the same people. They just have to allow the larger company to reach different parts of the market.

The Democratic Party could decide that the DSA is another offering within a larger coalition. That does not mean the DSA controls the entire party. It does not mean every Democrat has to become a democratic socialist.

It means there is room for another product that appeals to people the existing Democratic product is failing to reach.

Of course, there is always the third option.

You can fire the employees, lock the product in the basement, and make sure it is never seen again.

The Democratic Party can try to force the DSA out. It can spend money defeating its candidates, shut its members out of the party, and make it clear that its ideas are not welcome.

But if the party does that, it will not make the demand for those ideas disappear. It may only force the people behind them to become actual competition.

None of this is new. We can look at the Republicans, the Whigs, and other political parties that changed, divided, or disappeared when new factions and ideas emerged. We can also look at companies that acquired talent, allowed that talent to flourish, suppressed it, or eventually lost it.

The Democratic Party now has to make the same decision.

Does it let the talent build something inside the party? Does it invite that talent to become the competition? Or does it lock the product in the basement and hope nobody ever asks what happened to it?

Stay Angry.

• BTW. This is a video podcast. Click above to watch. But below is the write up about what we spoke about.

The first is about money. The Democratic National Committee mortgaged its headquarters to help finance elections and is now entering the final stretch of the midterms with more debt than cash.

The second is about democracy. The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee has proposed putting South Carolina first in the 2028 presidential primary calendar, followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia.

These may look like separate issues, but both come back to trust.

Democrats need people to believe the party will spend their contributions responsibly. They also need voters to believe that they will be allowed to choose candidates without party leaders deciding the outcome in advance.

The good news is that neither problem is impossible to fix. Democrats still have an enormous coalition, millions of motivated voters, and a genuine opportunity to win the House in 2026. But the party has to start treating trust as something it earns, not something it is automatically owed.

We are the Democratic Party. Our processes should be democratic.

Become a paid subscriber to read the full podcast newsletter. But you can watch for free above.

Read more

Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary this morning, 48.5% to 47.5%, with 99% of the vote counted. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out weeks ago, still pulled 4%. It was close, but El-Sayed beat Haley Stevens, Chuck Schumer’s preferred candidate. Call it El-Sayed’s win if you want, but its implications are bigger than that. It is a real blow to Schumer’s waning power as Senate Minority Leader.

AdImpact clocked $98.2 million in ads and reserved air through the end of July, the third most expensive Senate primary in American history. Most of it was aimed at one man. It was money lost.

Schumer was already the least popular leader his party has. His approval sits at 28% approve to 47% disapprove, the worst net rating of any leader in Congress. Michigan is what that weakness looks like spent out in the open. A leader this unpopular, who loses this expensively with this much of the party’s money, has run out of the one thing leadership requires. He should step down.

Democrats Tried to Control This Outcome

Subscribe now

Read more

Rep. Max Miller went live this morning at 10 a.m. to beat the allegations against him, explain away the allegations made by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, and tell everyone why he should remain in Congress.

Get 20% off for 1 year

It did not go well.

Actually, that is being generous. It was an absolute political malpractice masterclass. Miller released a video and a treasure trove of documents, recordings, and text messages for his political opposition to spend the next three months cutting apart.

Max MIller Documents

It showed that he has absolutely no common fucking sense and no clue what the hell he is doing.

This is not going to end well for Max Miller.

And it shouldn’t.

Before getting into this, I want to be clear about something: these are allegations. Miller denies abusing his ex-wife or daughter. He has not been convicted of these accusations, and the child-services investigation into his daughter’s broken collarbone was reportedly unsubstantiated, meaning investigators did not find enough evidence to establish neglect or abuse.

Allegations are not proof. Pictures of red skin and bruising are not, by themselves, proof of how those injuries occurred.

But due diligence does not mean ignoring a pattern of accusations spanning nearly two decades. It means looking at what has been alleged, what has been documented, what Miller admits, what he denies, and whether this person is capable of representing Ohio’s 7th Congressional District while his personal life is exploding all over the internet.

These Allegations Are Nothing New

Get 20% off for 1 year

The accusations surrounding Max Miller did not begin with his divorce.

Politico reported in 2021 that three people said Miller pushed a girl out of his room while in high school after she resisted his attempts to touch her, causing her to fall down a flight of stairs. Miller categorically denied that happened. When Mother Jones contacted the woman years later, she called it “one of the more traumatic nights” of her life.

Former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham also accused Miller of becoming physically abusive during their relationship. According to reporting at the time, she alleged that Miller pushed her against a wall and slapped her after she confronted him about cheating.

Miller denied Grisham’s accusations and sued her for defamation. The lawsuit was later dropped after the two reached a confidential settlement. Grisham has since filed another lawsuit alleging Miller violated that agreement with his more recent public comments.

Grisham also wrote that she told people around Donald Trump that the relationship had become abusive and that they did not seem to care. As she wrote in The Washington Post, the Trumps knew when the relationship had turned abusive and “didn’t seem to care.”

I reached out to Grisham myself. She told me she could not speak on the record because of the legal restrictions surrounding the case, although she did speak with me privately.

Now we have accusations from Emily Moreno, Miller’s ex-wife and the daughter of Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno.

Emily has accused Miller of throwing hot water at her, shoving her into a wall, putting a loaded gun to her head, using drugs, and engaging in aggressive and demeaning behavior. Their two-year-old daughter later suffered a broken collarbone under circumstances neither parent could explain. Emily reportedly told police that her daughter had said, “Daddy’s house is scary.”

Again, Miller denies the allegations. The cause of the child’s broken collarbone has not been established. Nobody should say Miller broke his daughter’s collarbone as if a court has proven that he did.

But what the actual fuck are we doing here?

We now have multiple women, across different periods of Miller’s life, describing accusations of aggressive or violent behavior. Due diligence does not require us to convict Miller ourselves. It does require us to ask whether this pattern is acceptable in someone serving in Congress.

Miller’s Own Water Recording Makes Him Look Worse

Miller released audio that he apparently believes clears him.

It does not.

In one recording, Emily says Miller poured steaming hot water on her. Miller does not respond by saying nothing involving water ever happened. Instead, he argues about intent, temperature, and whether the incident was playful.

“It was never done to hurt you, and you know that.”

He says the faucet could not produce boiling water and compares it to standing under a hot shower. He says he and his attorneys tested the water temperature because he anticipated that she would raise the allegation.

Gaslighting 101!

Miller’s defense appears to just be that something involving hot water happened, it simply was not intended to hurt her.

That is not the clean denial Miller seems to believe it is.

He calls it a “playful incident.” She says it was not playful.

The question is no longer only whether an incident happened. It is what happened, how hot the water was, why it happened, whether she was injured, and whether Miller is minimizing something serious by calling it playful.

That is not exoneration. That is a fucking evidentiary argument over the temperature of the water.

But She Cooked Me Dinner

Get 20% off for 1 year

Another part of Miller’s defense is that Emily continued interacting with him after an alleged assault.

Miller says Ring doorbell footage shows Emily leaving his home calmly with their daughter. He says she did not immediately call police or go to the hospital. He says she went to a child’s birthday party, spoke with him about their daughter’s medical procedure, offered to cook him empanadas six days later, invited him and his girlfriend to a playground, and wrote that they were in a “friendlier place.”

Then he asks:

“If I had assaulted her, would she have offered to cook me dinner six days later?”

I do not know, Max. Maybe.

People remain in contact with former partners after alleged abuse all the time, especially when they share custody of a two-year-old child. People act normally because they are scared, confused, trying to de-escalate a situation, trying to co-parent, or trying to keep their lives from completely exploding.

Her making empanadas does not prove an assault happened. It also does not prove that one did not happen.

The fact that Emily cooked dinner six days later is not the Perry Mason moment Max thinks it is.

“What do you mean I assaulted her? She made me empanadas.”

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Then There Are the Needles

Get 20% off for 1 year

Miller also released an audio recording involving allegations of drug use.

In the recording, Emily says she went into his backpack because she believed he had a drug problem. She says it began with weed and that she later found needles near his bed or in a bedroom drawer.

Miller denies that the needles belonged to him. He repeatedly says he has never had needles in his bedroom drawer and offers to be tested for drugs.

That is his denial, and it should be included.

But the recording does not establish whose needles they were, whether the photograph Emily says she took exists, or whether Miller was using injectable drugs. It captures one person making an allegation and Miller denying it.

Once again, releasing it publicly does not resolve anything. It simply gives voters another disturbing argument between a congressman and his former wife to listen to on the internet.

Max apparently looked at this recording and thought, “Yes, this will help.”

Political malpractice.

Bernie Moreno Finally Found His Balls

For years, SENATOR Bernie Moreno remained publicly silent while allegations involving his daughter and former son-in-law continued piling up.

When I was running for Congress in 2024, I wondered whether Bernie would eventually throw Miller under the bus.

He did not.

Why?

Because Bernie Moreno was a complete fucking wuss.

But after watching Miller’s unhinged livestream, Bernie finally found his balls.

Maybe they (his balls) were at the house of whoever created that old Adult Friend Finder profile using his work email. The Associated Press confirmed that somebody with access to Moreno’s account created a profile seeking encounters with men. And by encounters I mean sex. And by with men, I mean Bernie Moreno having sex with men. Moreno’s lawyer said an intern created it as a prank, and the AP could not independently determine who actually made it.

Fine. Maybe it was the intern. Maybe it was Bernie. Maybe it was Batman.

I do not care.

And Bernie, let me extend an olive branch here: Democrats do not care if somebody is gay, straight, bisexual, or anything else. Nobody is going to burn in hell for rubbing another man’s Johnson.

What I care about is that it took you this long to speak publicly while your daughter was making allegations this serious.

After Miller’s livestream, Moreno released a blistering statement saying the past two years had been “pure hell” for his family. He accused Miller of “increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior,” said Miller needs “serious psychological help,” called him a danger to his daughter, and said he holds his breath whenever Miller has custody of his granddaughter.

Moreno concluded:

“If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them. He should not serve in the House of Representatives.”

Bernie Moreno is not some liberal activist. He is a Republican senator, a Trump ally, Miller’s former father-in-law, and the grandfather of the child at the center of this nightmare. He is now publicly calling on Miller to leave Congress.

That does not legally prove Emily’s allegations.

But holy shit, it should get everyone’s attention.

Republicans Are Politically Insane if They Keep Him

Get 20% off for 1 year

If Donald Trump and Republican leaders do not call for Miller’s immediate resignation, then they are either completely abhorrent in what they are willing to tolerate or too politically stupid to understand what is happening.

Maybe both.

A Republican-commissioned poll conducted July 29 and 30 reportedly showed Democratic challenger Brian Poindexter leading Miller 44 percent to 39 percent, with 16 percent unsure. Miller’s favorability was reportedly just 25 percent, while 41 percent viewed him unfavorably.

Yes, that is Republican polling.

A previous Democratic internal poll had Miller leading by only one point, 44 percent to 43 percent. That was already a statistical tie in a district Trump won by double digits in 2024.

Now the Republican poll has Max losing by five.

What a crash and burn.

For comparison, Miller’s favorability in that Republican poll is significantly worse than Trump’s approval in the district. Max Miller has somehow managed to become less popular than Donald Trump in a Republican-leaning district.

That takes work. Real hard work. I said “hard”… calm down Senator Moreno

From a purely partisan Democratic perspective, we should want Max to remain in the race. Keep him right there. Put him on every television station. Let him keep releasing recordings. Let him hold another livestream. Maybe next time he can bring a whiteboard and diagram the exact temperature of his kitchen faucet.

This is a flippable district. Always has been.

But from the standpoint of responsible government, basic ethics, and the dignity of Congress, Miller should have been gone yesterday.

Republicans still have an opportunity to replace him with a normal Republican who could probably retain the seat. If Trump cares about keeping control of the House, this should be a simple political decision.

Call Max and tell him to get the fuck out.

Max Miller Has Barely Represented Us Anyway

Get 20% off for 1 year

These allegations and the legal battles surrounding them are now an enormous distraction.

Miller is fighting his ex-wife, his former father-in-law, Stephanie Grisham, attorneys, reporters, political opponents, and apparently anyone else who walks within ten feet of an Ohio courthouse.

I do not believe anyone can be fully focused on legislation, constituents, and the geopolitical disaster unfolding around us while doing all of that.

To be perfectly honest, I have been criticizing Miller for barely showing up for constituents long before this.

He has avoided traditional town halls. He has often blamed security concerns and antisemitism, which is absolutely on the rise and should be taken seriously. But he also seems terrified of standing in front of ordinary Republicans, Democrats, and independents and answering for his record.

We see him occasionally at a homecoming festival or community event when reelection comes around. Spotting Max Miller in the district is like Punxsutawney Phil seeing his shadow.

He crawls out of his hole, sees his shadow, shakes a few hands, and announces two more years of elected office.

Then he disappears again.

Now he is even more distracted. Instead of discussing legislation, healthcare, inflation, war, immigration, the economy, or what he has actually accomplished, he is publicly arguing that his faucet does not get hot enough to burn someone.

This is not representation.

Think About the Child

There is also a two-year-old girl trapped in the middle of all of this.

Nobody wants to grow up knowing the entire internet can search for recordings, allegations, photographs, police reports, court documents, and public accusations about their parents.

That shit never disappears.

Miller says he is defending himself. Emily says she is protecting herself and her daughter. Bernie says he is speaking out because he fears for his family.

Whatever the adults believe they are accomplishing, the child will eventually inherit every ugly piece of it.

By making this as public as it has become, there is almost no way for this to be healthy for her later.

That alone should cause everyone involved to step back and ask what the fuck they are doing.

Go Be Rich, Max

Get 20% off for 1 year

Max Miller needs to resign.

Not because it is the politically best outcome for Democrats. It is not. The politically best outcome for Democrats is for Max to remain on the ballot, keep imploding, and hand Brian Poindexter a Republican district.

He should resign because it is the right thing for Congress, the district, the country, and his daughter.

And as The Rooster says, Just Go be rich, Max.

Seriously.

One current estimate places Miller’s net worth at roughly $12 million. He has trusts, investments, and valuable property. He does not need this job.

Max's Finances

118KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Go drive around the country. Camp a little. Smoke some weed, assuming it is legal where you are. Have a few drinks, preferably after handing over the car keys. Get on Adult Friend Finder with Bernie and go get wild with the boys. Maybe the two of you can finally reconnect over something.

I do not know.

But politics is not for you.

You make bad choices. You exercise terrible political judgment. Your personal life is completely messed up, and now you are dragging your family, your constituents, and the institution of Congress through it.

Go get help.

Go take care of your family.

Go get your shit together.

And Go be rich, brother.

Stay Angry.

For Max, in the words of Tay Tay. “It’s me. Hi! I’m the problem it’s me.”

Welcome to another week of The Angry Files, where we take the stories and ideas that have been on our minds throughout the week and put them together in one place.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

This feels like the first week when the midterm elections are actually beginning to ramp up. We are now fewer than 100 days from Election Day. I do not think the real crunch begins until the end of August or sometime in September, but the direction of these races is starting to become clearer.

Here is what has been on my mind this week.

Amy Acton and a Primary Process That Failed Ohio Democrats

Erin In The Morning

Dem. Ohio Gov Candidate Amy Acton Scheduled a Meeting With LGBTQ+ Advocates, Didn't Show Up, And Kicked Out Trans People Who Did

Read more

2 months ago · 564 likes · 66 comments · Erin Reed

The first story is Amy Acton and the growing conflict between her campaign and Ohio’s LGBTQIA+ community. What interests me most about this controversy is what it reveals about our broken political process.

I have been ranting about this for a long time: Democrats do not seem to like democracy nearly as much as they claim.

Amy Acton became the Democratic nominee for governor without having to survive a real primary. Other people considered running. Potential candidates were pushed aside. Party leaders, donors, elected officials, and political organizations put their thumbs on the scale because they decided Acton should be the nominee.

That meant Democratic voters never got a meaningful campaign in which candidates were forced to explain their ideas, defend their records, show their character, and tell Ohioans what they would actually do as governor.

Now, fewer than 100 days before the general election, we are still learning basic things about both candidates.

Vivek Ramaswamy flying around in a private jet, spending substantial time outside Ohio, saying crazy things, and blaming ordinary people for their failures while he lives as a multi-billionaire is ridiculous. But Ramaswamy being ridiculous does not take responsibility from Amy Acton.

Acton’s short, pithy plans and lack of detailed policy have already frustrated some voters and members of the media. Her recent comments about transgender athletes have now created a much deeper problem.

Acton endorsed restrictions on transgender participation in sports and referred to transgender girls as “boys.” Members of Ohio’s LGBTQIA+ community wanted an apology, a clarification, or some indication that she understood why they were angry. Her campaign scheduled what was presented as a listening session with LGBTQIA+ advocates.

Acton did not attend.

According to reporting by Erin Reed, the situation became worse from there. Arienne Childrey, vice chair of the Ohio Democratic Party Pride Caucus, a transgender candidate for the Ohio House, and Ohio’s first openly transgender city council member, was reportedly barred from entering the Zoom meeting. Advocate Ciara Keeton was removed after asking why Childrey had been excluded. Kim McCarthy, chair of the Progressive Caucus, was reportedly left in the waiting room for the entire session.

Childrey said she was eventually able to speak only because Pride Caucus Chair Kyle Herman called her personal phone and put her on speakerphone inside the meeting.

The meeting opened with Equality Ohio rescinding Acton’s “A” rating on its LGBTQIA+ candidate scorecard. When participants pressed campaign manager Philip Stein about why certain advocates had been excluded, he reportedly said the event was “mostly a space we want to listen to the folks that we picked here.” At the end, the campaign offered no retraction, no specific next step, and no commitment that Acton would meet directly with the people who had been excluded.

Here is the point: this may simply be what Amy Acton believes.

People are demanding that she make amends or say something different, but she may genuinely believe transgender athletes should not compete in sports associated with their gender identity. I am not making a value judgment on that position in this article. I am saying Democratic voters should have learned about it during a competitive primary, when Acton could have been questioned, challenged, and compared with other candidates.

Instead, party leaders avoided that debate. Now the ideological disagreement is exploding fewer than 100 days before an election that Democrats describe as an existential fight for democracy.

Ideas should have been fleshed out. Candidates should have debated. Democratic voters should have been allowed to decide whether Amy Acton represented them before the party effectively handed her the nomination.

This should never have gotten this far.

“Daddy’s House Is Scary” and the Allegations Against Max Miller

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The second story is the continuing implosion of Rep. Max Miller’s personal life.

I want to be precise about this: these are allegations. Allegations are not proof, and repeating an accusation does not make it true.

As of Friday, July 31, the allegations involving Miller and his ex-wife, Emily Moreno Miller, had not been proven in court. Photographs reportedly showing red skin on her stomach do not, by themselves, prove her allegation that Miller threw boiling water on her. The involvement of child-services agencies or other authorities also does not establish that abuse occurred.

We should not pretend otherwise.

But we also should not ignore the pattern of accusations surrounding Miller. His ex-wife has alleged that he threw boiling water at her, assaulted and bruised her, held a gun to her head, pushed her against a wall, and slapped her. Their daughter reportedly suffered a broken collarbone and allegedly told her mother, “Daddy’s house is scary.” Miller has denied allegations of abuse.

These are not the first accusations involving his behavior. Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote that Miller slapped her during their relationship. A former college classmate accused him of assaulting her during what she described as one of the most traumatic nights of her life. Other allegations about aggressive behavior have followed him since he was young.

Again, none of that means every allegation is true. But when accusations involving similar behavior emerge from multiple people across more than a decade, voters are allowed to take the pattern seriously.

Maybe the correct response is for Max Miller to step away, deal with his personal life, and get his shit together while somebody else represents Ohio’s 7th District in Congress.

The district’s Republican lean does not require voters to give Miller a safe seat. Character still counts. Voters show their own character through the behavior they are willing to accept from the people they elect.

If the accusations are false and Miller is ultimately exonerated, he can make that case publicly and run again. But while allegations this serious remain unresolved, Ohioans are not obligated to act as if nothing happened.

America Is Losing Its Greatest Minds

Subscribe now

Another thing on my mind this week was a video from Neil deGrasse Tyson’s StarTalk about America losing some of its greatest minds.

The argument itself is not new. The United States has weakened the incentives for young people to enter science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and research. We have reduced funding, attacked the credibility of scientists, and forgotten how discoveries in one field can transform industries that appear completely unrelated.

Cuts to scientific and medical research do not remain isolated inside a university or government agency. Work supported through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NASA, and other institutions feeds into medicine, manufacturing, national security, technology, communications, and the broader economy.

We often seem willing to invest in science only when the government wants to flex American power. We fund a race to the Moon, a military objective, or some high-profile national goal. What we have failed to maintain is the larger ecosystem that allows researchers to pursue ideas before anyone knows exactly where those ideas will lead.

This is becoming more than a research problem. It is a cultural problem.

The United States increasingly imports instead of creates. We manufacture abroad and import the goods. We weaken our own scientific pipeline and then rely on researchers and scientists trained in other countries to fill the gaps here.

Bringing talented people to the United States is not the problem. America has always benefited from attracting smart, ambitious people from around the world. The problem is that we are failing to cultivate enough of that talent ourselves.

If we keep moving in this direction, the only thing Americans will be expected to do is scroll, consume, and purchase while other countries innovate, research, create, and manufacture.

That is not an economy capable of leading the world.

The DNC Is Mortgaging Its Future

Subscribe now

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone wrote this week about the Democratic National Committee mortgaging its headquarters while trying to pay for elections. Her article examines the growing financial gap between the DNC, the Republican National Committee, and Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC as we approach the midterms.

The Whisper Campaign

DNC Mortgages Building to Pay for Races

A few months ago, I wrote about widespread concerns within the DNC about fundraising and we are now getting a clearer look at how bad the party’s financial picture actually is…

Read more

2 months ago · 2 likes · Laura Rodriguez-Carbone

Democratic leaders continue to tell us this election is all or nothing. If Democrats lose, they warn, American democracy itself may not survive.

If that is true, it seems strange that the Democratic Party is entering the fight millions of dollars in debt.

But this is not new. Democratic organizations have repeatedly operated in the hole and managed their money poorly. We see versions of the same problem in county parties, state parties, and the DNC.

Read Laura’s full article for the details. But the basic question is simple: if party leaders genuinely believe democracy is on the line, why have they managed the institution responsible for defending it so badly?

Chris Ronayne, Courtney Scheff, and an Obvious Conflict

Moving closer to home, a conflict has emerged in the Cuyahoga County Council District 5 race between Democrat Courtney Scheff and Republican incumbent Michael Gallagher.

County Executive Chris Ronayne’s campaign committee contributed $5,000 to Scheff’s campaign. Ronayne is also hosting a fundraiser for her that could bring in thousands more.

None of this appears to be illegal. Elected officials routinely use campaign funds to support other candidates. But legality is not the only standard we should apply to political conduct.

I have written about this race multiple times and said many positive things about Courtney. She is intelligent, accomplished, and has an impressive background. I have spoken with her several times. I have also said positive things about Gallagher’s role as a check on the county executive.

The Angry Ohioans

Cuyahoga County Council District 5: Courtney Scheff vs. Michael Gallagher

Edit: Mike Gallagher made a website a couple weeks after this article came out. You can find his and Courtney’s websites linked by their names below…

Read more

2 months ago · The Angry Democrat, Matt Diemer, and Laura Rodriguez-Carbone

That check is exactly what concerns me.

The county executive is helping finance the campaign of someone who, if elected, will sit on the council responsible for overseeing his administration. Ronayne may call it coalition building. I see an executive helping elect a potential rubber stamp.

If Ronayne’s money and political network help Scheff win, how much meaningful pushback will she be willing to give him once she is on council? That does not mean she will vote with him on everything. It means voters have a legitimate reason to question the relationship.

I think Scheff is favored to win. Strongsville remains Gallagher’s strongest Republican base, while Democratic turnout across the rest of the district could carry her comfortably.

But I am bothered by the conflict, and I am more bothered that so few people appear willing to acknowledge it. A county council member should provide oversight of the executive branch, not owe her election to it.

East Cleveland Will Not Tell the Public How Many Police Officers It Has

Subscribe now

The final political story on my mind is East Cleveland.

Online reports claimed the city was down to four active patrol officers and one detective. East Cleveland officials denied those numbers, but then refused to tell the public how many officers the department actually employs.

Mayor Sandra Morgan and Law Director Ken Myers said the city could not disclose “specific tactical staffing numbers” for security reasons. But according to the Ohio Attorney General’s 2026 Sunshine Laws Manual, public offices are required to maintain a public database or list containing the names of their officials and employees.

Officials cannot dismiss public reporting as false while refusing to provide the number they claim is correct.

Ideastream reported that News 5 Cleveland had identified six active-duty patrol officers, which would amount to roughly two officers per shift. Ideastream said one of its own sources had heard the same number. The Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department is providing limited weekend support, but the county says its deputies are not the primary agency responding to 911 calls and do not replace East Cleveland’s patrol function.

The mayor later reportedly said the department had 16 officers. Even if that number is accurate, two were reportedly on sick leave and another was involved in a legal matter, leaving approximately 13 available. That is still an alarmingly small force for a city that requires coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The administration’s response has been deflection followed by non-transparency. First, officials said the online numbers were wrong. Then they refused to release the actual number. Then a larger number was offered without acknowledging that even this staffing level appears dangerously inadequate.

You can find the discussion in the below podcast by Cleveland dot com. Around the 31 minute mark.

This comes after years of scandal inside the department. More than a dozen East Cleveland officers have been convicted of crimes including bribery, assault, and robbery during the past five years. Former Police Chief Kenneth Lundy is facing 31 criminal charges. The city’s finances are under state control through receivership, and the state auditor previously cited East Cleveland’s failure to produce records needed to complete audits.

This is not one isolated staffing shortage inherited by a new administration. It is a systemic collapse in governance, accountability, public safety, and trust.

When officials refuse to provide basic information, people will speculate. That is not the public’s fault. It is the predictable result of a government that demands trust while refusing transparency.

Shame on you, Mayor Morgan. Shame on you.

What I Watched This Week

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

As you know, I love movies. I try to watch two or three each week, although I usually watch them the way most people watch television. I stop after an hour, go to bed, and finish them over the next day or two.

The first movie this week was Mortal Kombat II.

As someone who grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, Mortal Kombat is legendary. The video game is a classic, but we have still never received a truly great movie adaptation. The previous movie was decent and finally put some of our favorite characters on screen. The sequel gives us even more of that.

It is hokey. It is bad. But if you want to see the characters you remember from the games, it does a decent job.

I give it a 5 out of 10…. uuuhhhhgggg maybe 4.5/10.

I also watched Masters of the Universe, another piece of 1980s nostalgia.

Again, it was horrible. The dialogue was bad. The action was bad. The jokes and the entire script was a script and formula we has seen 100 times already.

But it had the nostalgia. It included the characters, and from what I remember of the cartoon, many of them looked pretty good. I wish they had included Man-E-Faces, the character whose face rotates among different identities. He always reminded of the Face Dancers from Dune.

Jared Leto was also fun as Skeletor. He played him as a quirky, narcissistic egomaniac, which worked better than most of the movie around him.

Still, I give it a 5 out of 10. Maybe less.

Both movies sucked, but I powered through them. Took me about 2 days each.

Those are the stories and ideas that were on my mind this week. Leave your thoughts below and tell us what you believed was the most important story of the week.

Stay Angry.

I just got back from seeing Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey, and I have a lot to say about it.

Get 20% off for 1 year

This review contains spoilers. If you have not seen the movie, close this article, go watch it, and come back. I do not want to hear anybody complaining that I spoiled it for them.

I would also recommend learning the basic story of The Odyssey before watching the movie. You do not need to read Homer’s entire epic, but a quick overview will make the characters, mythology, and structure much easier to follow.

I am going to do three things here:

First, explain the basic story.

Second, talk about the political backlash surrounding the movie.

Finally, explain why I think Nolan’s The Odyssey is a 9 out of 10 epic about war, masculinity, addiction, leadership, and what happens when the norms holding a society together begin to collapse.

What Is The Odyssey?

Get 20% off for 1 year

The Odyssey is Homer’s ancient Greek epic about Odysseus, king of Ithaca, and his attempt to return home after the Trojan War.

Odysseus is married to Penelope, and they have a son named Telemachus. He leaves Ithaca to fight at Troy when Telemachus is still an infant. The war lasts ten years, and Odysseus’s journey home takes another ten. By the time he returns, he has been gone for twenty years.

Odysseus is not the biggest or strongest warrior in Greek mythology. His strength is his mind. He is a strategist, a manipulator, a liar when necessary, and the man traditionally credited with devising the Trojan Horse.

Christopher Nolan’s movie expands beyond the events of Homer’s Odyssey to show the end of the Trojan War. Greek soldiers hide inside the horse while Sinon, played by Elliot Page, helps deceive the Trojans into believing it is an offering. The Trojans bring it through the city’s walls, allowing the Greeks to attack Troy from inside.

But winning the war is only the beginning of Odysseus’s real story.

Back in Ithaca, Penelope has spent twenty years protecting her family and holding together what remains of Odysseus’s household. Telemachus has grown into a young man without his father. Suitors have flooded into their home, consuming their food, abusing their hospitality, corrupting people around them, and pressuring Penelope to choose a new husband.

The suitors are not merely obnoxious guests. They are exploiting xenia, the sacred Greek law of hospitality associated with Zeus. People were expected to welcome strangers and treat guests properly because they never knew when a god might arrive in disguise.

The suitors take that sacred obligation and weaponize it. They use a custom meant to create trust as permission to consume Odysseus’s household from within.

Meanwhile, Odysseus is trying to return home through gods, monsters, temptations, grief, bad decisions, and the consequences of war. His journey is not only physical. It is mental, emotional, spiritual, and strategic. He is not simply trying to reach Ithaca. He is trying to figure out whether the man who left Ithaca twenty years earlier still exists.

The Movie Was Declared Woke Before Anyone Saw It

Get 20% off for 1 year

The political backlash started months before the movie was released.

People attacked Elliot Page’s casting, often while falsely claiming he was playing Achilles or some massive Spartan warrior. Page actually plays Sinon, a smaller and more vulnerable figure whose importance comes from deception and sacrifice, not physical dominance.

Lupita Nyong’o’s casting as Helen of Troy created even more outrage. She is Black, rather than the blonde, white version of Helen that many people have come to expect from Western paintings and previous movies.

Suddenly, half the internet became experts on Bronze Age Greece. People were debating armor, ships, ethnicity, masculinity, historical accuracy, Greek mythology, and the supposed destruction of Western civilization.

The backlash reached the point where people were saying Nolan had lost the plot. They claimed he had sold out to woke Hollywood, intentionally disrespected Western culture, and made casting decisions to appease some imaginary DEI committee at the Academy Awards.

Matt Walsh joined the pile-on before the movie was released and continued afterward. He called the casting “atrocious” and described Odysseus as an “anachronistic whiney, solemn shell of a man” plagued by trauma and guilt. According to Walsh, Nolan had taken one of history’s great warriors and transformed him into a modern victim.

Honestly, some of it almost got to me.

I watched the videos. I read the arguments. I listened to people confidently explain why this movie was going to be a disaster. I went into the theater wondering whether Christopher Nolan had finally made a massive mistake.

He did not.

Christopher Nolan Understood the Assignment

Get 20% off for 1 year

This movie is absolutely epic.

Is the cast diverse? Yes.

Does that damage the story? No. Actually, it might be more accurate.

The ancient Mediterranean was not an isolated neighborhood where nobody ever encountered people from somewhere else. It was a center of trade, migration, conquest, slavery, commerce, and travel. More importantly, this is a mythological adaptation involving gods, monsters, prophecies, and divine intervention.

Casting still has to make sense within a story. I do not believe every actor automatically fits every role. Physicality matters when the story requires physicality.

But that is precisely why Page’s casting works. Sinon is not presented as an unstoppable warrior beating men twice his size. He is smaller, vulnerable, expendable, and essential to Odysseus’s plan. The character demonstrates that wars are not won only through strength. They are also won through deception, sacrifice, strategy, and the willingness to use human beings as pieces on a board.

The scenes inside the Trojan Horse are brutal. The men are packed together, drowning as the tide rises, pissing and shitting on one another, waiting for the slightest opportunity to escape and open the gates.

There is nothing glamorous about it. Nolan does not present war as a beautiful procession of muscular men marching heroically into battle. He shows what victory costs and what leaders sometimes ask other people to endure in order to achieve it.

Nyong’o’s Helen does not destroy the story either. Her casting changes nothing about the deception, betrayal, heartbreak, or consequences surrounding Troy. Her relatively limited role also becomes important to Odysseus because her experience helps him think through how he might return to Ithaca without immediately revealing himself.

This Is a Story About Masculinity

Get 20% off for 1 year

I do not understand the argument that showing Odysseus wrestling with trauma somehow demasculates him.

If anything, that is what makes his masculinity believable.

This is not an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where the hero kills everyone, delivers a one-liner, and walks away untouched. Odysseus spends ten years at war and another ten trying to return home. He watches men die. He sends some of them to their deaths. He makes impossible choices, loses people he loves, and carries the responsibility of leadership long after the glory of victory disappears.

That changes him.

Strength is not the absence of grief, guilt, doubt, or fear. Strength is carrying those things without allowing them to completely destroy you. It is finding a reason to continue when the mission that once defined you is over and the person you were before the war no longer exists.

That is the deeper question behind Odysseus’s journey. Winning the war does not mean he knows how to come home. Victory gives him glory, but it does not give him peace. He still has to decide whether he wants to remain a warrior forever or return to being a husband, father, and king.

That is not a weak man. That is a man being forced to confront the full consequences of what he has done and what has been done to him.

Leadership Does Not Mean Control

Get 20% off for 1 year

The movie also understands something important about leadership: being responsible for people does not mean you can control them.

Odysseus can warn his men. He can plan for them. He can try to protect them. He can understand the consequences better than they do. But he cannot make every decision for them.

His men slaughter the sacred cattle of Helios after being explicitly warned not to touch them. Odysseus does not choose that outcome, but he still has to live with the consequences.

That is one of the hardest parts of leadership. You can know the danger. You can explain it clearly. You can see exactly where a decision will lead, and people can still make it anyway.

Foreknowledge is not control.

Odysseus also has to decide who will be placed in danger and who may have to die. Leaders can pretend every person will come home, but that is not true. Sometimes every available choice is terrible. Sometimes there is no heroic answer that leaves everyone alive and morally clean.

The scenes involving the Underworld and the people Odysseus lost are powerful because they force him to confront the human cost behind his own choices. History may remember the victory. He remembers the faces.

Glory is temporary. The burden is not.

Addiction, Comfort, and the Temptation to Stop Moving

Get 20% off for 1 year

The movie also made me think about addiction.

The lotus and Calypso are separate parts of Odysseus’s journey, but both represent different versions of the temptation to stop moving forward. The lotus offers forgetfulness. Calypso offers comfort, pleasure, and escape.

After everything Odysseus has endured, that temptation makes complete sense.

It made me think about soldiers who return from war and drink too much, use drugs, or find some other way to numb themselves. Not because they are weak, but because forgetting can feel easier than living with the people they lost and the choices they made.

Addiction can become its own island. You are no longer trapped by a monster or a god. You are trapped by the comfort of not having to remember.

Odysseus cannot return home until he is willing to leave that comfort and face his past. He has to remember his family, accept what happened to his crew, and resume the journey knowing that returning home will not erase what came before.

He cannot become the person he was before the war. He can only decide what kind of person he will be after it.

We Are Being Fed Our Opinions

Get 20% off for 1 year

The response to this movie made me think about something larger than The Odyssey.

We are being given our opinions before we are given the facts.

We see a clip, headline, screenshot, meme, AI-generated image, or reaction video. Someone packages an argument into a sound bite, and people repeat it to prove they are informed and on the correct team.

I see it constantly on Substack and Facebook. People respond to something I wrote with an argument that has almost nothing to do with what I said because they are not responding to me. They are responding with a prepackaged set of talking points somebody else gave them.

It almost worked on me with this movie.

The outrage was repeated so confidently and so often that I entered the theater wondering whether the movie might be an intentional attack on Western culture. Millions of people reached conclusions about the film before they had watched it or even knew which characters the actors were playing.

Sometimes I think that we are living in a simulation and that some massive artificial intelligence took control of the algorithms around the COVID era. I do not know if there is one person or force controlling it. But I do know what the incentives are producing.

The algorithms reward anger, certainty, humiliation, tribalism, and the quickest possible reaction. They do not reward thoughtfulness, restraint, curiosity, or admitting that you do not have enough information yet.

We are living in a post-truth society where the person who tells the most emotionally satisfying story often beats the person who has the facts.

The reaction to The Odyssey allowed me to watch that process unfold on a compressed timeline. A narrative was created. People repeated it. The movie came out. The narrative was contradicted, and many people simply refused to reconsider it.

Admitting you were wrong is apparently no longer an option. Shit even Ben Shapiro liked it!

When Norms Collapse, Darkness Gets In

The most political part of The Odyssey may not be its casting. It may be what the story says about the collapse of norms.

Odysseus is gone for twenty years, ten years fighting at Troy and ten years trying to return. The darkness that spreads during that absence is not caused only by war, monsters, tragedy, and the anger of the gods.

It is also caused by people abandoning the laws and customs that hold society together.

The suitors understand the rules of hospitality. They exploit those rules while violating their purpose. They technically arrive as guests, but then consume the household, threaten Telemachus, pressure Penelope, corrupt the servants, and turn hospitality into occupation.

That is what makes their behavior so corrosive. They are not attacking the system from outside. They are hollowing it out from within.

A functioning society cannot survive through written law alone. There must also be shared standards about honesty, dignity, restraint, loyalty, hospitality, and acceptable behavior. There will always be things people can legally do that still destroy trust and weaken the culture around them.

In Homer’s world, those standards are connected to Zeus and the gods. In another culture, they might be described as religious or biblical principles. But you do not have to believe in Zeus or belong to any religion to understand why they are necessary.

Over the past decade, we have watched social media push our culture toward the lowest possible denominator. The most dishonest, cruel, humiliating, degenerate, and attention-seeking behavior gets rewarded. The person willing to break the norm gets the attention, and everyone else begins lowering their own standards because they do not want to compete at a disadvantage.

Then comes the whataboutism.

Why should we tell the truth when the other side lies? Why should we follow the rules when they break them? Why should we maintain standards when they have already stooped lower?

Eventually, nobody is defending the norm. Everyone is only explaining why the other side forced them to abandon it.

That is how a culture collapses. Not necessarily through one dramatic event, but through millions of smaller choices where people decide that truth is optional and rules only matter when they can be used against someone else.

The consequences eventually reach everyone. That is the warning running beneath The Odyssey. When shared rules disappear, brute strength, deception, revenge, and violence rush in to replace them.

My Review

Get 20% off for 1 year

I give Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey a 9 out of 10.

It is not perfect. Every movie has flaws if you look hard enough. People will debate the historical inaccuracies, changes to Homer, characters Nolan added, elements he removed, the costumes, ships, accents, casting, and everything else.

Fine.

But I walked out thinking, this is exactly why I still pay to see a movie in a theater.

It is visually stunning, thoughtful, violent, emotional, and much deeper than the culture-war argument surrounding it. It does not demasculate Odysseus. It gives masculinity weight. It shows that being a man is not about being untouched by war, grief, or failure. Crying because you miss you family. Praying for your fellow soldiers. Struck by fear to make a wrong choice. It is about how you carry those things and whether you can still find your way home.

It is a story about leadership without complete control, victory without peace, addiction as escape, family as purpose, and the terrible cost of decisions that cannot be undone.

It is also a warning about what happens when the shared laws, customs, and expectations holding a society together become nothing more than loopholes for selfish people to exploit.

Christopher Nolan understood the assignment.

Go see it.

Stay Angry.

p.s. Read my review of Andor as well.

We’re trying a new article format inspired by a few Substacks we follow, including The Rooster and its Mailbag series. We’re calling ours The Angry Files.

These are stories, ideas, and updates that we want to put in front of you but may not need an individual email. Instead, we’ll collect them into one larger post covering several things we’ve been watching and thinking about over the past week.

Once we get rolling, we plan to publish The Angry Files a couple of times each month.

I hope you enjoy it.

Stay Angry.

Get 20% off for 1 year

wrote an article arguing that the Democratic Party & new effort to win back men is mostly vibes. Even the candidate said so.

There has been plenty of pushback online. People called her bitter and tried to turn the whole thing into a personal grievance. But what Laura wrote was also something we saw firsthand during the primary.

Laura was 100% right to write that article.

We are not going to keep rehashing the same arguments or replying to every person online, so you will not get every back-and-forth in your inbox. But if you want to know what I think about the Democratic Party’s inauthentic push to win back white men, or men generally, read this.

The Whisper Campaign

The Democratic Party’s Bro Pivot Is Just More Identity Politics

The other day, The Atlantic published an article about Brian Poindexter, the Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 7th District. The title was “The Return of the Democratic Manly Man,” and the subtitle announced that the party has a new campaign strategy: masculinity…

Read more

2 months ago · The Angry Democrat and Matt Diemer

Election Fraud?

Donald Trump said there was election fraud and outside interference in the 2020 election. He recently released declassified intelligence documents from agencies including the CIA, NSA, and ODNI that he says support those claims. I uploaded the documents from the White House so anyone can read them and come to their own conclusions.

Some of the broad themes that appear throughout the documents include:

• Intelligence reporting discusses foreign influence efforts by countries including China, Russia, and Iran aimed at shaping U.S. politics and public opinion.

• Several documents reference concerns over foreign access to voter registration data and other sensitive election-related information.

• Internal emails show disagreements among intelligence officials over how foreign election-related activity should be analyzed and described in official assessments.

• The released material includes intelligence assessments, internal emails, and heavily redacted reports, but much of the underlying evidence remains redacted or unavailable for independent verification.

With extraordinary claims comes extraordinary evidence.

Download White House Files

I’m not going to dismiss this because it’s Donald Trump. I’m also not going to embrace it because it is Donald Trump.

Words on a page are not enough. Redacted intelligence reports are not enough.

I want digital fingerprints. Digital evidence. I want independent cybersecurity experts and third-party investigators, working separately, arriving at the same conclusions.

Until then, I’m staying agnostic. Open-minded. Cautious. Paying attention. Head on a swivel. But I’m not jumping to either side without evidence.

What are your thoughts?

When Debate Dies

Get 20% off for 1 year

This next piece comes from

One thing Dani and I have talked about at length is the nonstop whataboutism coming from every side of every political argument. Instead of substance, constructive thought, or even a real understanding of the issue, we get people screaming about what the other side did first or did worse.

That does not move anything forward. It just keeps us stuck blaming the other team while lowering our own ethical, moral, and behavioral standards because they stooped to a new low.

At some point, we have to ask: What do we actually believe? What are we willing to defend? And what would incremental improvement even look like?

What are your thoughts on Dani’s article?

The Rooster

is one of my daily go-tos when I want to see what is happening in other parts of Ohio. He occasionally covers Northeast Ohio too, which I always appreciate.

Check out his Mailbag, where he puts several different thoughts and updates into one post.

I especially wanted to point out his coverage of races around the state, where he highlights the candidates, the race, and the Democrat on the ticket.

Always worth a read.

The Rooster

The Rooster's July Mailbag

WARREN COUNTY — I saw The Odyssey last night. I had never considered that Odysseus might have felt bad for tricking the Trojans like that…

Read more

2 months ago · 14 likes · 5 comments · D.J. Byrnes

This next piece comes from Andrey J. Martinichin, a write-in congressional candidate in Ohio’s 7th District.

Andrey takes a hard look at private equity’s growing role in nursing education, including how for-profit schools can load aspiring nurses with massive debt while offering programs that may leave them with limited options afterward. It is a sharp piece on what happens when Wall Street sees people trying to better their lives as a business opportunity.

The Angry Ohioans

Private Equity Is Breaking Nursing Before Nurses Ever Reach the Bedside

U.S. healthcare is a sprawling mess, and there’s no clean place to point and say “this is where it broke.” So I picked a starting point that made sense to me: the classroom, where most healthcare careers begin. My background is in nursing, so that’s the lens I’ll use — and what I found is a system where private equity is quietly reshaping, and warping, …

Read more

2 months ago · The Angry Democrat and Andrey J. Martinichin

Flock No?

Get 20% off for 1 year

This week, Cleveland City Council voted 9-6 to keep the city’s Flock license-plate reader cameras for another six months.

The problem is not that Cleveland wants to reduce crime. Cleveland has real crime problems, and residents deserve safety. The problem is handing over more of our privacy to a private surveillance company that collects and stores data about where people drive and when.

Council did add restrictions, including cutting off the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center’s access to Cleveland’s Flock data. But this still deserves serious scrutiny. We should not casually accept a future where private companies build searchable databases of our movements and call it public safety.

Read the Cleveland.com story: Cleveland to Keep Flock Cameras After City Council Vote.

Voted yes to extend Flock

• Joseph T. Jones, Ward 1: 216-664-4944

• Kevin L. Bishop, Ward 2: 216-664-4945

• Deborah Gray, Ward 3: 216-664-4941

• Richard A. Starr, Ward 5: 216-664-2309

• Blaine A. Griffin, Ward 6: 216-664-4234

• Kevin Conwell, Ward 9: 216-664-4252

• Michael D. Polensek, Ward 10: 216-664-4236

• Brian Kazy, Ward 13: 216-664-2942

• Charles J. Slife, Ward 15: 216-664-4239

Voted no on the extension

• Kris Harsh, Ward 4: 216-664-2943

• Austin N. Davis, Ward 7: 216-664-2691

• Stephanie D. Howse-Jones, Ward 8: 216-664-2908

• Nikki Hudson, Ward 11: 216-664-4235

• Tanmay Shah, Ward 12: 216-664-4233

• Jasmin Santana, Ward 14: 216-664-4238

Contact the council members. Tell them what you think about how they voted. Holding them accountable matters.

What I’m Watching

Get 20% off for 1 year

I used to write a lot more about movies, television, and media. I may start doing that again, especially because so much of it eventually connects back to politics, culture, and how we think through the world.

There are two shows and one movie on my mind right now.

First, watch The Orville.

It is not officially a Star Trek spinoff, but let’s be honest, it is a full-on love letter to what made Star Trek great. Episodic stories. Characters you get to know. Ethical dilemmas where there is no clean answer and both choices can be awful in their own way. The trolly problem!

That was the brilliance of the original series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager. The best episodes did not lecture you. They gave you a problem, showed you multiple perspectives, and let you walk away thinking about it. Ten people could watch the same episode and have ten different opinions afterward.

That is what The Orville does well. Season one starts out more comedic, but by season three it becomes a serious, thoughtful science-fiction show. If you love old-school Star Trek, you should watch it. In my opinion, it is modern Star Trek, more than modern Star Trek.

The second is For All Mankind. It asks a simple question: What if the space race never really ended? What if we kept pushing human exploration, science, and technological advancement through all the political conflict, mistakes, costs, and human drama?

The show can drift into more drama than I personally want at times, but the bigger idea is worth it. It gives you hope and wonder about what humanity might be capable of if we actually decided to put our minds and resources toward exploration. It does not feel like some impossible warp-speed fantasy. Much of it feels close enough to reality that it makes you ask why we stopped dreaming that big.

And finally, Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey comes out this week.

There has already been plenty of online chatter trying to tear it down over casting and everything else people can find to fight about. But Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors of our generation, and, in my opinion, one of the best ever. His movies are not perfect. No movie is if you look hard enough. But the early reactions have me hopeful that this is going to be the epic people have been waiting for.

We (Laura and I) are seeing it this weekend. We will report back.

What Laura’s Listening To

I’m an audiophile, play multiple instruments (guitar, piano, drums), and am surprised I am not in a band at this point. But here’s what’s spinning on my record player:

The Guest List — on heavy rotation

A young Manchester five-piece who came up through TikTok and turned out to be the real thing. Their EP When The Lights Are Out is out now, with a debut album, Something Real, due this year. Frontman Cai Alty writes straight at the modern world — climate dread, mental health, male suicide, the low hum of everyone’s rage — over guitars that earn the Arctic Monkeys and Sam Fender comparisons without hiding behind them. Rolling Stone UK called the title track “reminiscent of Humbug-era Arctic Monkeys.” If you like a band that still believes a song can mean something, start here. If you were an Oasis fan or like the Smiths or Morrissey, this music is melodic and relatable.

Start with: “Something Real,” “Weatherman,” “Ruine” Listen: Spotify

The Airborne Toxic Event — my new-old discovery

How I slept on this LA band for this long, I can’t tell you. “Sometime Around Midnight” is the gateway — a slow-building, string-laced crescendo gut-punch about seeing an ex across a bar that goes exactly where you’re afraid it will. Behind it is a whole catalog, from 2008’s self-titled debut through 2024’s Glory, with literate, big-hearted rock led by Mikel Jollett (also worth knowing as the author of the memoir Hollywood Park). Come for the one song everyone knows; stay for the four you’ll wish you’d found sooner.

Start with: “Sometime Around Midnight,” “All I Ever Wanted,” “Faithless,” “Wishing Well” Listen: Spotify — “Sometime Around Midnight”

Brandon Flowers — Thrasher — listening with one eyebrow raised

Full disclosure: I’m not a country fan. I am a Killers diehard who’ll argue they’re the best rock band of the last twenty-five years. So this one’s a test of faith. Flowers’ first solo record in eleven years (out August 21) is a full country-western turn — cut at Nashville’s historic RCA Studio A with pedal steel, harmonica, and the ghosts of Johnny Cash and Waylon Jennings, songs about family, loss, and small-town Utah. The lead single “Plans” is out now. I’m going in skeptical and hopeful in equal measure. Report to follow.

Start with: “Plans” (before you judge) Listen: Spotify — “Plans”

I hope you enjoyed this format instead of getting blasted with a separate email for every story.

Take your time, bookmark the pieces that interest you, and read through them when you can. We would love your feedback. Email us at admin@theangrydem.com, or email me directly at matt@theangrydem.com.

And, of course, please support our work. We spend hours every week, and honestly most of my day, looking into stories, talking to people, and figuring out how to cover more Northeast Ohio politics.

Thank you for supporting us and for being an Angry Democrat.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Stay Angry.

The following is an op-ed from Dani Pajak, who has written for The Angry Ohioans before.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

I wanted to highlight this piece because what Dani says below reflects something I have felt for a long time. Honestly, it is one of the main reasons I started The Angry Democrats, why I reached out to Laura, and why people like Dani and others have found this platform as a place to voice their dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party.

We all want to make this nation better. We deeply love the United States. We believe the Democratic Party is still the last real avenue of political power that can hopefully protect democracy and create change for the betterment of everyone in this country.

But some of the party’s shortcomings have become so glaringly anti-democratic, anti-transparency, and opposed to the very principles we should hold dear that we cannot simply stand by and let them happen.

Otherwise, what are we doing?

That is not democracy.

To have a strong democracy, we have to practice democracy. That means debate, speech, open conversation, finding our voices, and finding others who are willing to speak with us.

Dani’s opinions below echo how I felt after 2024.

I remember getting on the phone with a close colleague and saying Joe Biden had to drop out of the race. I was told to shut up and accept what the Democratic Party gave me.

I later put out a statement calling for Biden to step aside, in lockstep with Sherrod Brown when he made the same request.

Then Kamala Harris was anointed without a primary. I protested that too. I said this was not what we should be standing for, and I was shut down again.

After Kamala was chosen, I never supported her publicly. I did not put up a yard sign. I did not talk about her on the campaign trail.

To me, the Democratic Party had done one of the most undemocratic things imaginable. It simply picked someone, told us to shut up, fall in line, and vote for her.

So I am glad to see that Dani and others agree with me on something fundamental.

To uphold democracy, we have to practice democracy. We have to model it. We have to defend open speech and debate inside our own party.

Thank you, Dani, for being brave enough to speak out.

- Matt

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Guest Writer: Dani Pajak is a local Angry Ohioan and guest contributor. In this piece, Dani argues that the Democratic Party has replaced open debate with candidate anointment, trigger words, and “what-about-isms,” leaving independent-minded voters feeling dismissed, unheard, and taken for granted.

American politics used to be a contest of ideas, with debate at the center of the process.

Today, especially within the Democratic Party, debate feels like from another era.

What has replaced it is a defensive reflex built on trigger words, accusations, and a kind of rhetorical sleight of hand I call “what‑about‑isms.”

Instead of addressing criticism, the response is often to point at the opposing party and say, “Well, what about them?” It’s a tactic meant to shut down conversation rather than open it. I’ve watched this shift happen over years, but the last presidential election made it impossible to ignore.

I wasn’t on board with Kamala Harris, and I felt my voice was taken away when the primary offered no real choice. I was open‑minded to independent candidates like Bobby Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, and others.

But the moment I told someone I didn’t support Harris, the assumption was immediate: I must be MAGA. I must be a Trump lover. The nuance of being an independent voter, someone who evaluates candidates individually, was erased.

When I asked people why I should vote for Harris, the answer was always the same: “Because she’s not Trump.” That was the entire pitch. Not her policies, not her leadership, not her vision. Just her opposition to one man. And nothing seemed to anger staunch Democrats more than hearing that I was open to someone other than Trump and Kamala. The only thing both parties seemed to hate more was me considering the Green Party or Libertarians.

This wasn’t new for me. Back when I campaigned for Bernie Sanders, I watched him get boxed out for Hillary Clinton. I was infuriated. And when Bernie jumped on the bandwagon afterward, I felt betrayed. I lost respect for him because it felt like he abandoned the movement he inspired. And because of all that, of course Trump won.

To call Hillary Clinton a liberal is laughable. When she labeled anyone who didn’t support her as sexist, racist, or a “basket of deplorables,” she alienated millions of voters who weren’t any of those things.

Some were, most weren’t. But her campaign acted like disagreement itself was bigotry.

Kamala Harris followed the same pattern. She offered nothing meaningful, and when she lost, Democrats seemed shocked that celebrity endorsements weren’t enough.

When Joe Biden went on The Breakfast Club and said, “If you don’t vote for me, you’re not Black,” it was another example of how disconnected Democratic leadership had become from real people. I’ve watched debates where the Democratic candidate’s entire platform was anti‑Trump. That’s not a platform.

The “what‑about‑isms” don’t work. And somehow the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to understand that.

The Meaning of Debate: What We Lost

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

A debate is not supposed to be a performance. It’s not a collection of sound bites crafted by consultants. A debate is a public test of ideas. It’s a moment where a politician must stand alone, without the shield of their party, and defend their beliefs with clarity, logic, and conviction. A real debate is a form of respect, respect for the audience, respect for the opponent, and respect for the democratic process.

Once upon a time, debates were meaningful. Watching John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was like watching two visions of America collide. They disagreed deeply, but they shared a fundamental belief, that the American people deserved to hear their reasoning. They spoke in full thoughts, not fragments. They explained, they justified, they persuaded. They didn’t rely on trigger words or accusations. They didn’t assume that calling the other side names would be enough to win.

Debate used to be a way for voters to understand how politicians thought, not just what they thought. It revealed character. It revealed priorities. It revealed whether someone could handle pressure, complexity, and scrutiny.

Today, debates feel more like staged media events where candidates recite pre‑approved lines designed to avoid risk. The art of thinking out loud, the courage to engage honestly, has been replaced by fear of saying anything that might offend the party’s base.

When debate dies, democracy weakens.

Because democracy depends on disagreement. It depends on the clash of ideas. It depends on leaders who can articulate more than insults.

The Party of Anointment

The Democratic Party has developed a habit of anointing candidates instead of letting voters choose them. Kamala Harris was hoisted up the same way Hillary Clinton was. The same way others have been. The voice of the people gets replaced by the voice of party insiders who decide who the nominee “should” be. And then they expect everyone to fall in line.

This isn’t just a federal problem. It happens right here in Euclid, where I live.

Local politics mirror national politics, candidates are selected behind closed doors, and the public is expected to accept it.

Debate is minimized. Dissent is treated as disloyalty.

And anyone who questions the chosen candidate is labeled with whatever trigger word is convenient.

The result is predictable, people feel unheard. People feel dismissed. People feel like their vote is being taken for granted. And when voters feel ignored long enough, they stop supporting the party that ignores them.

The Cost of Losing Debate

When a party stops debating, it stops evolving. It stops listening. It stops learning. It becomes defensive instead of visionary. It becomes reactive instead of proactive. It becomes a party defined by what it hates rather than what it hopes for.

Trigger words like “fascist,” “racist,” “sexist,” and “Nazi” are used so casually now that they’ve lost meaning.

They’re used as shields, not arguments. They’re used to silence, not persuade.

And when every criticism is met with a “what‑about‑ism,” nothing gets solved. Accountability disappears.

Debate forces clarity. Debate forces honesty. Debate forces growth.

Without it, politics becomes a performance instead of a conversation.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

A Final Thought

I use the word “coup” because that’s what it felt like, a takeover of the Democratic Party by people who no longer trust voters to choose.

I didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I didn’t support her. And I won’t pretend that being told “vote for her because she’s not Trump” was enough.

Debate matters. Ideas matter. Choice matters.

And until the Democratic Party remembers that, they will continue to lose the voters who once believed in them.

Guest Writer: This article was contributed by a local Angry Patriot.

The Angry Democrat welcomes submissions from local writers and community members who want to contribute thoughtful commentary on the Democratic Party, our democracy, public policy, and issues affecting Northeast Ohio and beyond.

Interested in writing for us? Contact us at admin@theangrydem.com.

Subscribe now

Our argument was straightforward. Khanna is trying to rebrand himself as an anti-billionaire, anti-oligarch, working-class progressive while positioning himself for a possible presidential campaign. He travels around the country endorsing union workers, democratic socialists, and anti-establishment candidates, collecting the exact political relationships and photographs that help build that image.

Meanwhile, his household continues reporting thousands of stock trades worth tens of millions of dollars while he supports legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from trading individual stocks.

That was the article.

responded with a 2,500-word Substack post claiming that our “real grievance” was his criticism of Israel and his trip to the West Bank.

There is one big fucking problem.

Our article did not mention Israel.

Not one word.

Ro Khanna's Substack

Two Decades of a Clear and Progressive Record

Matt Diemer published an attack on my record the day I arrived home from the West Bank. He has said for years that America must cherish its relationship with Israel. That is his real grievance. So here is my record…

Read more

2 months ago · 351 likes · 74 comments · Ro Khanna

Israel Was a Deflection

Subscribe now

Khanna pulled a quote from my 2022 congressional campaign. I told the Cleveland Jewish News that the United States should “uphold and cherish” its relationship with Israel.

Yes, I said that.

Supporting a relationship between two countries does not mean supporting every decision made by either government. More importantly, it had absolutely nothing to do with what Laura and I wrote.

We wrote about stock trading. We wrote about Khanna’s family wealth. We wrote about his national endorsement strategy. We wrote about a politician supporting a congressional stock-trading ban while thousands of trades continue appearing in his household’s financial disclosures.

Khanna came home from the West Bank with a story that was politically useful for his brand. He then attached our article to it and manufactured a fight about Israel that we never started.

That is the grift.

Khanna did not defend his actions. He changed the subject to something he is currently trying to establish himself as a national champion for. He turned our reporting into an attack on his West Bank trip because that was easier than answering questions about his portfolio.

Then he gave us his résumé.

Iraq. Yemen. Bernie Sanders. The CHIPS Act. The Epstein files. Medicare for All. A $25 minimum wage. His books.

None of it answers the question.

It is easy to introduce legislation, support proposals, and talk about what you believe, especially when you know a bill has little chance of becoming law. The real test is whether you are willing to live under the standard you are selling to everyone else.

Just Stop Trading

Get 20% off for 1 year

Khanna says he does not personally buy or sell stocks. He says neither he nor his wife directs the trades. According to him, the investments are held in trusts established by his in-laws and managed by an independent third-party trustee.

The precise description is that Khanna’s congressional disclosures reported thousands of transactions involving his household’s trusts. Common Cause attributed 3,923 trades totaling approximately $55.7 million to Khanna in its 2025.

Ro Khanna's Money

We are not alleging insider trading. We do not need to prove insider trading to make the ethical argument.

The trades should not be happening at all.

Khanna supports the TRUST in Congress Act, which would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from trading individual stocks.

Then stop trading.

I do not care whether Khanna personally clicks the button, his wife chooses the stocks, or an independent trustee manages the account. His household reported thousands of individual stock trades while he was a sitting member of Congress.

There is no version of that I find ethically acceptable.

Members of Congress receive classified briefings. They regulate industries, approve federal contracts, investigate corporations, and make decisions that can move entire markets. Their households should not be actively trading individual companies while they hold that power.

We should not need hundreds of pages of financial disclosures, trust attorneys, forensic accountants, or explanations about which family member technically owns which asset.

Khanna says the trust underperformed the S&P 500. I do not give a shit. Losing to the market does not make thousands of trades ethical. A conflict or the appearance of a conflict does not disappear because the investment performed poorly.

Khanna does not need to wait for Congress to pass his bill. Sell the individual stocks. Move the money into diversified index funds, Treasury securities, or something that does not require thousands of individual trades while he serves in Congress.

Stand on business.

Live under the standard you are selling to everyone else.

Apparently Losing Only Counts When We Do It

Get 20% off for 1 year

Instead of answering that argument, Khanna looked up our election histories.

Laura ran against Brian Poindexter in the May 5 Democratic primary for Ohio’s 7th Congressional District and lost. I ran for the same congressional seat in 2022 and 2024 and lost.

Those are facts.

What Khanna left out is that Ohio’s 7th District was deliberately drawn to favor Republicans. It is difficult to run there as a Democrat, but somebody still has to stand up and do it. Candidates in difficult districts build local organizations, engage voters, recruit volunteers, raise money, and make sure Democrats have somebody on the ballot.

Khanna should understand that.

He lost his first two congressional campaigns. In his response, he presented his failed 2004 primary campaign as proof that he had the courage to challenge an entrenched incumbent.

Apparently, losing demonstrated courage when Ro Khanna did it. When Laura and I did it, our losses became opposition research.

Laura also brought more to her campaign than the one sentence Khanna gave her. She served for more than two decades across multiple federal agencies, working on healthcare, civil rights, emergency response, and public service. She ran for Congress using approximately $12,000 of her savings and rejected corporate PAC money.

Brian Poindexter benefited from at least $570,204 in outside spending from Jobs and Democracy PAC, according to FEC-based tracking. That super PAC operates within a political network heavily funded by interests connected to the artificial intelligence industry.

Khanna did not call Laura before endorsing. He did not examine her record or ask why outside money was pouring into an eight-person Democratic primary.

Khanna can endorse whoever he wants. But he cannot spend years criticizing the Democratic establishment for putting its thumb on the scale, enter an Ohio primary and add his thumb to the pile, and then dismiss Laura as a sore loser when she questions his hypocrisy.

Do Not Use Brian Poindexter as a Shield

Subscribe now

Our original article was not an attack on Brian Poindexter.

It was about what Khanna receives from endorsing candidates like him.

Brian gives Khanna a union ironworker in working-class Ohio. Other endorsements give him democratic socialists, rural candidates, Midwestern relationships, and access to local political networks far outside Silicon Valley.

Khanna receives photographs, relationships, fundraising opportunities, labor credibility, email lists, and a national story about how a wealthy congressman from Silicon Valley understands working people across America.

That is extremely useful for somebody thinking about running for president.

Instead of addressing that strategy, Khanna placed Brian between himself and our criticism. He turned questions about his own political ambition into an alleged attack on a union worker.

Do not borrow a worker’s credibility and then hide behind him when somebody asks what you are getting from the relationship.

And do not use Brian’s biography to protect Ro Khanna’s portfolio.

Why Did He Choose Us?

Subscribe now

Khanna has faced questions about his household’s trading from researchers, national publications, political opponents, and people with audiences numbering in the millions.

But he chose to write 2,500 words about two former congressional candidates publishing a small newsletter in Ohio.

Maybe we looked like the easiest targets.

Khanna could point to our election losses and dismiss us as bitter. He could use my four-year-old quote about Israel to invent a secret motive. He could make himself look like a fighter without directly engaging the people filing complaints or publishing detailed financial analyses.

He could not make the financial disclosures disappear.

But maybe he thought he could discredit us.

So, genuinely, thank you for the attention, Congressman Khanna. Thank you for tagging The Angry Democrats and putting our criticism in front of your audience.

But next time, respond to the article we actually wrote.

A Warning to Candidates

Candidates receiving Khanna’s attention should understand that the relationship is not one-sided.

Maybe Khanna sincerely believes in you. We hope he does.

But he is also using your campaign to build his political image. Your background gives him credibility. Your supporters become part of his network. Your campaign becomes evidence that a wealthy Silicon Valley congressman understands labor, rural America, democratic socialism, or whatever political lane he is trying to enter that week.

Do not confuse national attention with friendship.

Do not allow your biography, campaign, or working-class credibility to become somebody else’s political costume.

And pay attention to what Khanna did when his own record was questioned. He placed Brian Poindexter between himself and criticism that had nothing to do with Brian.

Ro Khanna knows how to use people.

Make sure you are not next.

Stay Angry.

Every dollar funds coverage you can read and the worked needed to curate the stories, strategy, and analysis to bring you the information you need to know.

Give once. Then hold us to it.

So our next race is the 2026 Ohio governor’s race between Amy Acton and Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton is the Democratic nominee, Ramaswamy is the Republican nominee, and this is one of the clearest contrasts Ohio voters are going to see on the ballot.

This is part of the larger work of The Angry Ohioans: comparing races around Ohio, looking at who is running, what they have done, what they say they will do, and who is funding them. The goal is not to give candidates a free pass because of the letter next to their name. The goal is to look clearly at who wants power, what they say they will do with it, and whether voters have a real way to hold them accountable after Election Day.

Please support The Angry Democrats. We are trying to build something to bring accountability to our party.

Please Support

Please Support

Amy Acton

Amy Acton is a 60-year-old Youngstown-born physician and public health leader who served as Director of the Ohio Department of Health under Governor Mike DeWine. She grew up through poverty and instability, worked her way through college and medical school, trained in pediatrics and preventive medicine, earned a master’s in public health, and built much of her career around children’s health, maternal health, public health, and community wellness.

Before running for governor, Acton worked in public health, taught at Ohio State, served with the Columbus Foundation, led health-focused community initiatives, and became one of Ohio’s most visible public officials during the COVID pandemic. She currently lives in Bexley, Ohio, with her husband, Eric, a teacher and coach, and they have a blended family of six children.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy is a 40-year-old Cincinnati-born entrepreneur, author, and Republican political figure who made his money in biotech, finance, and anti-woke media politics. He founded Roivant Sciences, a biotech company built around developing and commercializing drugs, later co-founded Strive Asset Management, went to Harvard and Yale, and became nationally known during his 2024 Republican presidential campaign.

Vivek is not a traditional Ohio politician who worked his way up through local government. His background is business, venture capital, biotech, national media, and Republican movement politics. He now lives in the greater Columbus area with his wife, Dr. Apoorva Ramaswamy, a throat surgeon at Ohio State, and their three children.

Campaign Finance Through the 2026 Post-Primary Reports

Both Amy Acton and Vivek Ramaswamy are raising real money, but they are not raising it the same way.

Amy Acton Reports

Where Amy Acton’s Money Comes From

Amy Acton raised another $5.38 million in her 2026 post-primary report. Combined with her earlier reports, Acton has now raised approximately $15.93 million since entering the race, including $10.58 million in 2026.

The biggest thing that stands out is that Acton’s campaign remains heavily rooted in Ohio. About $3.67 million, or 68.3% of the money in her latest report, came from Ohio addresses. Ohio donors also accounted for roughly 51.6% of the individual contribution entries in the report.

Acton’s campaign is also still built around a massive number of small donations. Of the 88,029 contribution entries in the new report, more than 65,000 were $25 or less. Those small contributions added up to roughly $774,000. Another 18,898 contributions fell between $26 and $100, bringing in approximately $1.17 million.

But this is not purely a grassroots campaign. The single largest identifiable block in the new file came from the Ohio Democratic Party, whose Columbus address was attached to four contributions totaling $370,000. That included contributions of $200,000, $100,000, $50,000, and $20,000. So while Acton has a broad small-dollar base, the state party is also putting serious institutional money behind her.

Other large-dollar contributions were heavily concentrated among attorneys, executives, investors, consultants, and business owners, with numerous donors reaching or approaching Ohio’s contribution limit of roughly $16,615. David Pepper, Acton’s running mate, is also listed through his employer information with $12,000 in contributions during the post-primary period.

Ramaswamy Reports

Where Vivek Ramaswamy’s Money Comes From

Vivek Ramaswamy raised another $4.

75 million in his post-primary report. His contribution records now total approximately $30.31 million, including $10.30 million in 2026.

That number still does not tell the full story because Ramaswamy previously loaned his campaign at least $25 million of his own money. When his donor contributions and personal financing are combined, his campaign has had access to roughly $55 million, subject to any repayments or additional loans not reflected in these contribution exports.

Ramaswamy’s campaign remains far more national than Acton’s. Ohio addresses produced approximately $2.93 million, or 61.7% of the dollars in his newest report, but Ohioans represented only 16.5% of the contribution entries. That means he is receiving an enormous number of smaller contributions from outside Ohio, even though large Ohio donors still account for much of the money.

His report contained 68,034 contribution entries. Nearly 47,000 were $25 or less, but those donations produced only about $453,000. By contrast, just 453 contributions above $1,000 generated approximately $2.83 million. That is the clearest picture of his fundraising operation: huge national donor volume at the bottom, backed by a relatively small number of very large donors at the top.

The largest identifiable professional groups in the new report included executives and owners connected to Twins Buick, Quasar Energy Group, Brennan Manna & Diamond, Process Technology, AndHealth, Edwards Companies, Oberer Homes, Cardinal Health, Standard Wellness, Ohio CAT, and World Liberty Financial. Numerous donors gave approximately $16,615, effectively maxing out to the campaign.

The Elon Musk and V-PAC Money

The biggest development is not inside Ramaswamy’s campaign account. It is the outside money being spent on his behalf.

Elon Musk gave $5 million to V-PAC, the super PAC supporting Ramaswamy, according to a filing released July 15. That money did not go directly into Ramaswamy’s campaign account. V-PAC is legally separate and can raise and spend unlimited money independently to help elect him.

And V-PAC is not planning to sit on the money. The group announced a $25 million summer advertising campaign supporting Ramaswamy and attacking Acton. That is outside spending on top of Ramaswamy’s roughly $55 million campaign operation.

So this is no longer simply Amy Acton versus Vivek Ramaswamy. Financially, it is Amy Acton and the Ohio Democratic Party against Ramaswamy’s donor operation, his personal fortune, and a super PAC with a $25 million advertising plan that now includes $5 million from Elon Musk.

Spending

The previous reports showed Ramaswamy spending $21.2 million, compared with Acton’s $5.5 million. Public reporting also found that Ramaswamy’s campaign had placed more than $500,000 on campaign credit cards, including nearly $281,000 on an American Express card over a relatively short period, without the filings fully disclosing the underlying purchases.

On the Issues

Get 20% off for 1 year

Policy count from their websites: Acton 10, Ramaswamy 4.

Amy Acton: Issues From Her Website

Reducing Costs for Ohio Families: Acton says she would lower everyday costs by targeting housing, health care, energy bills, child care, drug prices, property taxes, medical debt, and food costs. Her plan includes free school lunch, an expanded child tax credit, expanding the homestead tax exemption, cracking down on price gouging, fighting wage theft, reducing prescription drug costs, pushing hospital and insurance transparency, stopping surprise medical bills, and creating partnerships to erase medical debt.

Matt’s Take: This reads like a grocery list of things people want to hear, with every cost issue added in to reach some demographic, but not enough of a real actionable plan behind it. I get the strategy, because acknowledging these problems matters and getting lost in policy minutia may not win elections, but anyone paying attention should want to know how she plans to lower all these costs with a Republican supermajority, a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, and without gouging Ohioans in taxes.

Laura’s Take: Acton frames this as help for “775,000 working families,” but the credit she’s building on has a ceiling most working families blow past long before six figures. The federal EITC, and Ohio’s version rides on top of it, phases out completely at $68,675 for a married couple with three or more kids, and far lower than that for smaller families or single filers (IRS). A family earning $75,000, $85,000, or anywhere close to $100,000 gets nothing from it today. Acton’s plan implies she wants to expand it. Fine. How? Does she raise Ohio’s state match percentage, push to change who qualifies at the state level, or does this require Washington to move the federal thresholds first, in which case it’s a promise she can’t keep alone?

Read more