jim david adkisson

GOP donors roll their eyes as Trump official’s closed-door strategy leaks

A key piece of President Donald Trump's convention in Dallas, Texas, this week was getting GOP strategists in a room with big donors to explain why they should be dumping more money into campaigns analysts see as unwinnable.

Politico reported on Friday that big donors came together behind the scenes to discuss the president's new strategy for the 2026 midterm elections so everyone could be on the same message. That message is to attack Democrats and gin up fear, which didn't impress the donors who think the GOP needs to be doing much more.

Politico recalled that Senate Leadership Fund president Alex Latcham said in July, “This needs to be an election about fear.”

"As both sides continue to move resources into redder territory, turning out the GOP base with dire warnings about Democrats becomes more important," the report said. "In those states, the GOP may be able to stanch the bleeding simply by mobilizing their own voters in droves rather than persuading disaffected independents."

Senate leadership held an event Wednesday to discuss the fund that must be sent to red states like Texas and Iowa, which Trump won by double digits just two years ago. The report noted that Vice President JD Vance is heading to deep-red Kansas because, for the first time in 90 years, there's a chance that a Republican senator could be removed.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Ks.) is facing off against a church pastor and the race has become surprisingly competitive, particularly after Trump's trade war with Canada targeted a business jet manufacturer headquartered in Montreal with more than 1,200 jobs located in Kansas. Marshall complained to the White House. Marshall was told Republicans had to "own it."

A Politico reporter overheard a convention attendee from Kansas "bemoaning Marshall's situation." This week, a former two-term Republican governor of the state endorsed Marshall's democratic opponent.

Another meeting unfolded Thursday with Senate leadership attempting to "ease donors’ concerns about" Trump's policies and that they could lead to hefty losses in November. Two people in the room, who "granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting,' told Politico that, again, the plan was to attack Democrats. One of those who spoke to the site recorded the comments from Vance.

“We’ve got to nationalize this election. We’ve got to talk about all the crazy things Democrats are doing,” Vance claimed in the audio.

One top GOP House operative lamented that the party should make the election “a choice, not a referendum.” But a referendum on Trump's policies is exactly what the election has become as Americans face an affordability crisis and another Middle East war.

“Republicans would be well served to paint that choice in as clear terms as possible,” the operative said.

Bill Riggs, spokesperson for Americans for Prosperity Action, which is funded by the Koch brothers' fortune, told Politico, “The right strategy is not just to attack the other side and attack those policy proposals. You need to do that, but it’s not going to be enough. You also have to provide a credible alternative to voters that they trust. Driving that contrast is where we’re continuing to advocate."

Republicans have held the House, Senate and White House for two years, which could make it difficult for them to attack the other party's policies.

One main piece of the argument that is being promoted by the White House is aligning Democrats with the Democratic Socialists of America and socialism. That, however, shifted in a big way this week during the convention as Republicans changed their attacks on the left from socialist to communist. One reporter and author explained that history suggests the strategy will "backfire."

The biggest problem for Trump, however, is that while attacking socialism and communism, one of his new plans is to promise Americans $5,000 stimulus checks, which many said was an example of socialism itself.

"That drew private eyerolls from some Republicans who said the proposal directly clashes with their effort to paint the midterms as a choice between commonsense Republicans and socialist Democrats," Politico reported.

One House Republican official complained, “We’re supposed to be fighting socialism. This seems a lot like socialism.”

“It’s not enough just to defend,” said Michigan GOP candidate Mike Bouchard, who’s running in a battleground district. “We must advance, and to do that, we must have real solutions.”

Trump traps US in 'vicious cycle' as 'his power hemorrhages': DC insider

During Donald Trump's first presidency, many Never Trump conservatives attacked him as an "isolationist" who failed to understand the importance of the United States' leadership role in global politics. Trump, however, took a much more interventionist turn after returning to the White House roughly 19 and one-half months ago. But according to Democratic insider Sidney Blumenthal — a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton — Trump's "imperialism" is making the U.S. weaker, not stronger, around the world.

Blumenthal, in an op-ed for The Guardian, describes Trumpism as "the lowest stage of imperialism" — arguing that Trump showed how confused he is when he told members of the Alfalfa Club, "It's never been my intention to make Greenland the 51st state. I want to make Canada the 51st state. Greenland will be the 52nd state. Venezuela can be 53rd."

"Trump's imperialism of piracy and plunder is less of a system even than that of the earliest imperialism of 17th Century privateers raiding the Spanish Main, the divine right of kings, and monarchs dividing up the spoils as favors to create their lords and earls," Blumenthal writes. "His schemes of aggrandizement operating by threat and force are justified by no larger rationale, nothing as exalted as 'the white man’s burden' marauding wherever and however he can to seize resources. Describing his actions as some version of colonialism grants him a more orderly and coherent method than he possesses."

The Democratic insider adds, "His pillaging bears not the slightest resemblance to the highly organized administration of Queen Victoria's British empire. Trump's predation is calculated to wreck the long-established arrangements of international trade, law and cooperation created after the Second World War and the fall of colonial empires, whose guidelines he sees as obstructing his own profit and power."

Venezuela, according to Blumenthal, "became Trump's template for his piratical adventure."

"After swooping in on 3 January to capture its strongman, Nicolás Maduro, Trump promised a transition to democratic elections and that the U.S. would play a custodial role over Venezuelan oil for the benefit of its people," Blumenthal recalls. "Not long after Trump grabbed Maduro, he declared he needed to acquire Greenland and threatened a tariff war against Denmark and European allies to 'get Greenland, including right, title and ownership' … A month later, he bombed Iran."

Trump, according to Blumenthal, views himself "as omnipotent and omniscient" when, in reality, he is burning bridges with Canada and other valuable U.S. allies.

"When the world isn't pliable," Blumental says, "he must resort to greater force to reassure himself that the world acknowledges his self-image. The more he meets resistance to his fixed idea, the more pressure he must exert. He finds himself in a vicious cycle. His power hemorrhages, U.S. power dissipates and he spins in a whirlpool."

Security boots Epstein reporter from Trump’s Dallas convention

Independent journalist Tara Palmeri was at President Donald Trump's Dallas convention this week when she had her credentials revoked after asking congressional candidates about the files from the investigation around Jeffrey Epstein.

In a video on X, Palmeri explained that three of Epstein's survivors had guest passes to go inside the convention center.

"We were there for approximately 35 minutes," she said. "We were inside of the convention center at 2:05, and we walked toward the stage. And on our right was a gentleman, actually a very kind gentleman, who is running for Congress in the Boston area. He's a Republican. And we asked him about the Epstein files, and it was pretty up front from the beginning that this was a tough subject. I literally used the words, 'this is a tough subject.' The three survivors are with me and some of their faces are blurred."

The candidate she was speaking with is Robert Burke, who is running in Massachusetts’ 8th Congressional District.

“I’m with some survivors of Jeffrey Epstein," she told him.

“Okay, that’s a great topic,” Burke replied.

“Why is it a great topic?” Palmeri asked.

“We need to know what actually happened from the beginning,” he insisted.

Palmeri agreed, and the two discussed accountability and the release of all the files.

“I’m curious, I appreciate your support and your willingness to see how important this is because this is a human rights issue; this isn’t a political issue,” one survivor told him, according to Palmeri. “It’s about sexual exploitation of girls and young women.”

Ultimately, their conversation ended with a handshake. But eight minutes after the interview began, Palmeri said three security personnel approached the group.

One of the survivors, Marijke Chartouni, said that she saw a woman in plain clothes standing near them within earshot. At one point, she made a phone call during the interview. The three security people showed up shortly after.

They wanted to know if the survivors and Palmeri were "carrying signs."

"I told them we were not. I explained that I was a credentialed member of the media and that the people accompanying me had been admitted as guests. We were carrying clear bags, and I pointed them out to security," she wrote on her Substack, "The Red Letter."

The guard claimed that it wasn't where the media should be, but she explained that they were allowed to speak to the guests since that's why the media was there.

He complained, "You're making this more difficult than it has to be."

"I repeatedly asked why we were being removed. I was told that my media credential was revocable," she said.

They took her pass and walked her out, where she then tripped on the stairs and fell.

The exchange was filmed and Palmeri said that she'd be releasing videos on her YouTube page.

Pennsylvania candidate who called out Trump lies goes crawling back to MAGA

In Pennsylvania, Republican Jason Richey — who's running for lieutenant governor on the ticket headed by GOP gubernatorial nominee Stacey Garrity — has had a rollercoaster relationship with President Donald Trump. Richey has promoted Trump's conspiracy theories at times, distanced himself from them other times. Journalist Brendan Hartnett details that on-again/off-again relationship in a scathing article for the conservative website The Bulwark, describing it as a prime example of how "warped" Republicans can be when they're "kowtowing to Donald Trump."

Hartnett explains, "One of the top GOP candidates in Pennsylvania was an avid 2020 election denier before he abruptly turned on Donald Trump — only to flip back to MAGA as he sought statewide office this cycle … In a remarkable case of political flimflammery, Richey has had several incredible conversions about Trump and whether he believes the 2020 election was actually stolen, as an analysis by The Bulwark of his past statements reveals."

According to Hartnett, Richey "once regularly cast doubt on the 2020 election, promoting conspiracy theories about Democrats stealing elections."

"He specifically highlighted how important it would be for Republicans to win the governor's mansion in 2022 in order to control the office of the secretary of the commonwealth — a gubernatorial appointee tasked with certifying presidential election results," Hartnett recalls. "Five weeks after Trump sicced a mob on the Capitol on January 6th, Richey leaned into the stolen election conspiracy, posting on Facebook that Pennsylvania 'has work to do to ensure election integrity. I will lead on election integrity.'"

Hartnett continues, "Soon after, he launched his 2022 campaign for governor. He linked his decision to run to Donald Trump's Big Lie about the previous election, saying he 'rose up after the election in November 2020,' which had 'numerous problems associated with it.' Richey made election integrity a central issue of his campaign. At a January 2022 Berks County Patriots event headlined by Tom Homan, Trump's former acting ICE head and future border czar, Richey said that 'in November 2020, we had an election that was taken from us.'"

Richey, according to Hartnett, "continued to dog-whistle about election conspiracies until he suspended his campaign for governor in March 2022."

"But then Richey changed his mind," Richey notes. "After the November 2022 election, Richey turned against Trump. In a December 2022 interview, Richey conceded that there was no evidence whatsoever that the 2020 election was rigged."

Richey, after that flip-flop, said, "We cannot be doing this election denial anymore. That's gotta go … Trump's still talking about the 2020 election. That's over. Nobody wants to hear about that anymore … He's a narcissist that has problems accepting that he lost. And so, he can't get over that in his own head, and it's just killing him "

But according to Hartnett, Richey flip-flopped again when, in February 2025, he became chairman of the Allegheny County Republican Party in Western Pennsylvania — telling Trump, in an open letter, "You have done an excellent job in bringing billions in foreign investment to the United States in only the first 100 days of your term. Your business savvy has led to more foreign investment in this country than any other President in history."

Hartnett observes, "Inevitably, Richey has also returned to flirting with election conspiracies during his current campaign for lieutenant governor … If Trump doesn't stick his neck out and offer financial support to Garrity and Richey — despite Richey's colorful criticism of the president — it could be a death sentence for the floundering campaign that has been significantly outraised by Shapiro. In the meantime, if you want to see a portrait of the Republican Party, warped and kowtowing to Donald Trump and his conspiratorial imagination, look no further than Jason Richey."

The chaos-inducing illusion behind Trump’s new bribe

Donald Trump said during last night's "GOP midterm convention" that he would pay every adult American $5,000 if the Republicans keep control of the US Congress in November.

There are simple words for this: bribery and money laundering.

The president is calling it "the Trump Dividend," as if every taxpaying citizen were an investor in a publicly traded corporation. The Associated Press reported the cash payout would "likely cost more than $1 trillion and require congressional approval, and would further exacerbate the country’s nearly $1.8 trillion annual budget deficit and concerns about inflation."

Politico reported last night "GOP fiscal hawks" reacted coolly to the president's offer. "The payout ... would dwarf the amount distributed during the covid pandemic and likely explode the deficit," the news outlet said. "Trump did not detail how the checks would be financed — only that the money would be limited to citizens and required to be spent in the US."

The vice president didn't help matters when he suggested an hour later that the "dividend" would come from revenues collected from imports, ie, tariffs. The AP reported the "payment dwarfs what the US has taken in through the protectionist measures." Wherever it comes from, it would add to the national debt, which hit $40 trillion last month, the first time ever.

None of this is coherent, because it was not intended to be. The only way to make it make sense is by putting it in a larger pattern of behavior. Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to cut checks since the beginning of his second term. The Bulwark's Catherine Rampell reminded us last night the president promised "$5000 stimulus checks via 'DOGE dividend'; $2000 stimulus checks via a 'tariff dividend'; $1000-plus checks via 'savings' from expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies; [and] $5000 'dividend' if Republicans win the midterms."

"No checks have been issued," Rampell said.

Ingraham on $5k dividend: Why not just give the money now?

Trump: Because the Democrats can't do it. pic.twitter.com/ioeh7KyVXH
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 10, 2026

(The grift continued this morning. Donald Trump said he would give $500 to 1 million Americans in 30 states who bought their health insurance through Obamacare exchanges. The reason? He said the Biden administration "overcharged" them. He did not explain how it happened, only that his administration is "giving the money back to the people who were wrongly ripped off." On Wednesday, as the price of diesel was nearing $6 a gallon, the highest since 2022, he said don't worry about it. “Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward,” he said. “I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterm.”)

But set aside attempts to make sense of the nonsense to get to what's really going on. Donald Trump is trying to bribe the American people. Other presidents and presidential candidates have made promises to incentivize voters to support them or their parties, but no one in our lifetimes has been so explicit in offering fantastical cash payments for votes. The fact that they are fantastical does not undermine the allegation of vote-buying. It confirms it.

It gets worse, though. If JD Vance is right, and if the "dividend" comes out of tariffs revenues, that means the crime of bribery is compounded by the crime of money laundering.

Remember the nature of tariffs. They are a tax on imported goods. The federal government levies the fee. Importers pass the extra cost on to consumers. We are paying for Trump's tariffs, which means Trump's "dividend," if it's real, would be a kind of rebate. (If he really wanted to incentivize voters, he would drop all his tariffs, right now, but that would require admitting he was wrong, and a malignant narcissist like Donald Trump can't do that.)

But also remember that Trump's tariffs are illegal. The Supreme Court said so. That his administration is imposing a new round tariffs does not make them any more lawful than the last round. So by offering $5,000 drawn from ill-gotten gains to every adult citizen if the Republicans keep the Congress, Trump is offering the American people a piece of the action. If we accept, we will be complicit in what amounts to a gigantic money-laundering scheme.

I would like to believe the median voter has Donald Trump's number. He said he would release the Epstein files. He didn't. He said he would keep America out of wars. He didn't. He said he would bring down the cost of living. He didn't. With so many broken promises has come historic unpopularity. His approval is either on the floor or through it, depending on the poll. Majorities say the economy, inflation and "affordability" are priorities he has failed to address. All Trump can do now is lie. ("Food prices and almost every other item are rapidly going down," he said last night.) Or try to bribe us. (Why not give every American five grand right now? Laura Ingraham asked today. "Because the Democrats can't do it," Trump said.)

Does the median voter really have Trump's number? Again, I would like to believe so. But as Jesse Ventura noted, the American people made their choice. They could have picked the Constitution. Instead, they picked the criminal. Now he's squeezing them so hard they might give him another chance. After all, it's $5,000. Faith in Trump hasn't worked out yet but are voters who traded the rule of law for personal gain likely to learn from their mistakes?

I hope so.

The old order is dying as America faces a full-blown political reckoning

“The old order is dying and the new cannot yet be born; in this interregnum, monsters appear.” —paraphrase of Italian anti-fascist Antonio Gramsci

While Hakeem Jeffries revealed, as he trash-talked Medicare for All, that he doesn’t believe we’re in a full-blown populist moment in America, Trump, Bannon, and the neofascist tech bros and billionaires fully realize what’s going on — and are committed to making the most of it. As are Bernie Sanders, AOC, Mamdani, El-Sayed and hundreds of other Democratic candidates this year.

At its core, populism is a way of understanding politics as a struggle between ordinary people and a powerful elite that has stopped serving them. It’s not inherently left- or right-wing; it’s really a way political scientists describe a moment when the majority of a population has lost faith in the existing system and is looking for alternatives to it.

Arguably, the greatest failure of government in the past century was the Republican Great Depression, kicked off by Herbert Hoover with GOP tax cuts and tariffs in 1929 and lasting largely through the end of World War II. It created a populist moment that brought to power a Bernie-like populist in America named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It also brought to power a Trump-like populist in Germany named Adolf Hitler.

Because populist moments or eras typically evolve out of desperation — a third of Americans and Germans were unemployed in the 1930s — they open the door to people who offer solutions that radically depart from the norm. Breaking the old model and replacing it with a new one, in fact, is the essence of that populist pitch, be it coming from the fascist or the democratic socialist side.

And make no mistake: America is now being pulled in both directions by powerful movements from both sides. A recent Pew poll found that while almost 90 percent of Americans trusted our government to “do the right thing” for them in the Eisenhower/Kennedy 1960s, today that number sits at a shocking 17 percent.

The ground for a major, wrenching transformation of America has been seeded and the neofascist movement — which figured it out first — has, for the moment, captured control of our federal government along with about half of our states. But there’s also massive progressive pushback and dissatisfaction that, if anything, is amplifying the widespread populist sentiment.

So, which side will prevail?

The creation story of this moment is found when Reagan’s campaign cut a deal with the Iranian mullahs to hold onto their American hostages until after the election of 1980, thus destroying President Jimmy Carter’s chance at reelection. Reagan immediately began to execute a neofascist vision that had been presented to him by the billionaires who funded the Heritage Foundation with their 1981 “Mandate for Leadership,” that era’s version of Project 2025.

He destroyed the American union movement, slashed wages for working class people gutting the middle class, made it harder to retire on Social Security, made deep cuts to FDR’s social safety net, ended free college, killed Carter’s solar energy programs, gave trillions of tax dollars to billionaires while raising taxes on working people, slashed funding for our public schools, and repeatedly blamed the nation’s problems on Black people and “elites” in our universities.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton picked up Reagan’s neoliberal mantel and brought us “the end of the era of big government” and “the end of welfare as we know it” as Reagan’s draconian tax cuts — which no Democratic president since has seriously challenged — began the modern explosion of billionaires and monopolistic corporations.

President Obama, although he campaigned on the populist-sounding slogan of “hope and change,” continued the neoliberal plan, turning our healthcare system over to a handful of massive insurance companies and their billionaire executives.

Forty-five years of neoliberalism, as I document in detail in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America, have taken us from two-thirds of us being in the middle class with a single paycheck in 1981 down to a mere 41 percent of us claiming that status and having to have two full-time jobs to do it today.

Like the Republican Great Depression devastated average voters, so has this failed neoliberal experiment, bringing us to this second modern populist moment.

On the neofascist side, there’s a populist movement initially led by tech and fossil fuel billionaires that’s been joined by the over 200 billionaire families and foundations who spent nearly one in five of all dollars used in the 2024 election.

They’re aided daily in their efforts by propaganda operations run by Vladimir Putin (internet trolls), Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, and Benjamin Netanyahu (AIPAC), all committed to spreading strongman ethnonationalist movements across the world at the expense of democracy. And, of course, Donald Trump and his seizure of our federal government and police agencies.

Their most compelling weapon is their control of most of our media, particularly the powerful social media sites Facebook and X. As Peter Theil wrote in 2010, quoted in the opening of Gil Durand’s brilliant new book The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy:

“The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically overturn the monetary system of the world… the basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority… But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world—without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who were never going to agree with you—through technological means… technology is this incredible alternative to politics.”

On the side that still embraces democracy, the populist progressive movement has been led by Bernie Sanders for decades, although that mantle is increasingly being picked up across the Democratic Party as politicians recognized over the past decade this populist moment.

Multiple polls from 2016 showed that Bernie Sanders could’ve easily beat Trump, if the Democratic Party machine and the big donors Bill Clinton brought along hadn’t sabotaged Sanders. It was verified by Politifact. Populist voters were ready to elect a populist in that election, and the only one offered them was Trump.

They rejected the neoliberalism of Reagan and the Clintons alike, and those who vote for Democrats are clearly now opting for a reinvention of America along the social democracy lines pioneered by the Scandinavian nations.

In his book I Paid Hitler, 1930s steel baron Fritz Thyssen confesses that he was entranced by populist Hitler’s promise to “resurrect” Germany from the depths of the Depression and its loss in World War I. He organized the first seed money that got Hitler into power in 1933 and brought along many of his fabulously rich peers.

Today’s heir to Hitler’s authoritarian populist mantle is Trump (although Vance and Rubio, among others, are waiting for the king to fail so they can step into the vacuum).

During that same time, the plutocrat and former New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt turned his back on his own class and embraced a Bernie-like populist message, claiming that he could put America back together by taxing the morbidly rich at 90% and using government to meet workers’ needs.

Today’s heirs to FDR’s progressive populist mantle could well be billionaire Illinois Governor JB Pritzker or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (although there are numerous competitors).

On both sides, the message is similar:

“The elites and the government have failed us, feathered their own nests while ignoring us and ours, and they must be overthrown and replaced. We need radical change in the direction of our government and our culture.”

The only difference is that the Republicans are saying they’ll fix things by handing the reins of government to billionaires and the stability of society to armed, masked ICE agents while Democrats are saying we must reverse Reaganism, tax the rich, and use that money to restore our middle class with free healthcare, education, and housing supports.

We’ve been in this populist moment since the middle of the GW Bush administration, although it was a slow boil until the 2016 election. The first indication was Obama winning with a populist message, and the for-sure proof was Trump winning twice on purely populist messages. The Trump movement, however, figured out that this was where America was at long before it occurred to Democrats (other than Bernie), and Biden’s efforts, although valiant, were too little and too late.

So, here we are at this populist moment, and our country faces a binary choice: fascism or democratic socialism.

Republicans are universally lined up on the fascist side, backing Trump and ICE while feeding at the trough of their billionaire donors. That unanimity gives them tremendous power; their only problem is that they’ve failed to deliver for the people and voters know it.

Democrats are split, between those corrupt neoliberals like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and John Fetterman who are deeply in the pockets of corporate and wealthy interests, and a new and growing generation of politicians who often describe themselves as democratic socialists or social democrats.

This schism, a remnant of the Clinton years, is weakening the Democratic Party’s populist appeal as many believe the Perez-style Democrats will prevent the AOC- or Pritzker-style Democrats from actually accomplishing the transition to a social democracy that America needs.

Some doubt that this is the most important election in our lifetime, noting that every cycle we hear that kind of rhetoric. But, given the stakes and the boiling populist energy arrayed on both sides, it’s hard to imagine this isn’t the most critical one since 1932 America and 1933 Germany.

A secret code and a hidden rule threaten millions of votes

Donald Trump’s unconstitutional bid to turn the United States Postal Service into a weapon of voter suppression could determine the outcome of the midterm elections and the future of American democracy.

The president’s bid is now on the Supreme Court’s notorious shadow docket for a final showdown in two consolidated cases (U.S. Postal Service v. California and Trump v. League of Women Voters) that center on the final regulatory rule on mail-in voting that the Postal Service issued on Aug. 21. The rule — adopted in compliance with an executive order Trump promulgated in March to root out what he claims is fraudulent voting by noncitizens — requires state election officials to upload lists of mail-in voters’ names and addresses to an untested and secretly constructed USPS online portal and to redesign ballot envelopes to include bar codes that can be checked against the voter lists. If a state does not obtain envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, the USPS will not deliver ballots to voters.

For now, the rule has been blocked in both cases by preliminary injunctions issued by Boston-based Federal District Court Judge Indira Talwani. If the Supreme Court stays the injunctions and allows the new rule to be implemented, the impact will be devastating, especially for Democrats.

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail in 2024, including an estimated 37% of Democratic voters, but only 24% of Republicans. Five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington — hold elections almost entirely by mail. As the midterms approach, North Carolina has already begun mailing midterm ballots to some 260,000 voters. According to Democracy Docket, a host of others will follow suit in the coming weeks, including 5.1 million mailed ballots in Washington, 4 million in Colorado and 3.2 million in Arizona. Next month in California, election officials are slated to mail over 23 million ballots.

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail in 2024.

Even if the Postal Service’s new rule were warranted to prevent fraud — and studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud in the U.S. is extremely rare — the states do not have sufficient time to retool their ballot infrastructures to securely meet the rule’s demands and deadlines.

“With fewer than 60 days to go before the November election, there is not a shred of evidence that states could comply with it without disenfranchising voters who rely on mail ballots,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, in a statement to the media. “Put plainly, this administration is racing to the Supreme Court to demand the right to enforce a rule that has no purpose other than to create chaos, undermine election integrity, and rob eligible voters of their essential right to make their voices heard in our democracy.”

This is not the first time Trump’s new postal system rule has reached the Supreme Court. On Aug. 24, the six Republican sycophants on the high tribunal lifted earlier injunctions blocking the rule issued by Judge Talwani on procedural grounds, holding that the initial legal challenges to the rule were brought prematurely. Now that the rule has become final, that rationale no longer applies. This time, Chief Justice John Roberts and his GOP confederates will be forced to assess the rule’s legality.

As a matter of law, the issue is a true no-brainer. The Constitution’s “Elections Clause” (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1) gives states the authority to set the “times, places, and manner” of elections for House members and senators subject only to congressional oversight. Even under the strong version of the unitary executive theory that the Republican court majority has embraced, the president and the federal agencies under his control have no power to dictate how elections are run.

The new postal system rule also runs afoul of the statutory framework governing the USPS, which requires the agency to have as “its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people … [by means of] prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and … to all communities.”

In addition, the rule conflicts with the postal system’s history as an impartial institution operating in the national interest to support democracy. That history dates back to the colonial era when Benjamin Franklin and others worked to replace the primitive courier system controlled by the British crown with an integrated service designed to unite the 13 colonies. Those efforts paved the way for the formation of the legendary committees of correspondence and for the first official post office established by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, with Franklin as the first postmaster general. The Postal Service was formally organized under the Constitution, which granted Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.”

Sauer and his arguments deserve to be laughed straight out of court.

Unlike the founders, Trump sees the Postal Service as a vehicle to negate democracy and maintain his personal grip on power. In his first term in office, he tried to gut the service by backing Louis DeJoy, an obsequious campaign donor, to become postmaster general. Among other measures, DeJoy eliminated overtime pay for postal workers, banned late or additional trips to deliver mail and removed highly efficient mail-sorting machines from facilities throughout the country to impede mail-in voting. In May 2025, the Postal Service replaced DeJoy with another Trump loyalist, former FedEx board member David Steiner, who oversaw the adoption of the new mail-in voting rule.

In the Supreme Court, the administration is represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who gained Trump’s favor defending him in Trump v. United States, the landmark 2024 case on presidential immunity. In his brief to the court on mail-in balloting, Sauer argues that “the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail,” and that claims of voter disenfranchisement are overblown.

Sauer has likened mail-in ballots to the mailing of cremated remains and replica explosives, which the Postal Service can strictly regulate under federal law. He has also cited the service’s authority to reject unstamped mail and heavy parcels with insufficient postage, an argument that has nothing to do with the blanket prohibitions the new rule would impose.

Sauer and his arguments deserve to be laughed straight out of court.

But this is the Supreme Court of John Roberts, who has devoted his career to destroying the Voting Rights Act and conferring near-total immunity from criminal prosecution on Donald Trump. It is also the court of Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and Clarence Thomas, who has spent his career accepting unreported luxury vacations paid for by billionaire Republican donors. It is also the court of three Trump appointees — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett “I Like Beer” Kavanaugh. As recent history confirms, no argument is too absurd for this junta to embrace as long as it furthers the interests of Trump and the MAGA movement.

Trump lie about top general busted by Pentagon spokesman

The unprecedented two-day Republican Midterms Convention in Dallas concluded on Thursday, September 10. During the convention's first day, President Donald Trump claimed that U.S. Army Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was attending the event. But according to the Washington Post, that would have been physically impossible on Wednesday — as Caine was attending a different event.

Post reporter Dan Lamothe explains, "Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, instead spoke a few miles away at a 9/11 anniversary event at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, according to video and his spokesman, Joe Holstead. Trump, speaking at the political convention, said he wanted to thank Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Caine, and that they were both present."

Trump, at the 2026 GOP Midterms Convention, said, "Where is Gen. Caine? … They're here someplace."

Anna Kelly, a spokesperson for the Trump White House, told the Post that Trump "rightfully thanked Gen. Caine for all he has done to strengthen our military and make our homeland safer." But according to Lamothe, Kelly "did not address" Trump's "inaccurate statement about Caine's presence."

Lamothe points out that it would have been inappropriate for Caine, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to speak at an overtly "partisan" event like the GOP Midterms Convention in Dallas.

"Pentagon regulations prohibit U.S. troops from attending 'partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies,'" Lamothe notes. "Caine, speaking at the 9/11 event, recalled his own experience as an F-16 fighter pilot with the D.C. National Guard on 9/11. The day, he said, was tragic but 'also filled with beautiful examples of selfless courage, over and over again.'"

September 11, 2026 marks the 25th anniversary of al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon, which killed more than 3000 Americans that day.

The GOP Midterms Convention came at a time when Republicans are fighting to save their majorities in both houses of Congress. The speakers included Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who gave the keynote address, as well as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (a former Democrat), former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Donald Trump Jr. (the president's son).

Trump begs Dallas crowd not to use bathroom in humiliating day 2 speech

President Donald Trump followed up his flop-filled Wednesday speech at the 2026 Republican midterms convention with an equally blunder-brimming sequel on Thursday. Even as many of Trump's fellow Republicans urge him to stop focusing on himself during an election cycle when his approval ratings are under water by double digits, Trump's speech to the still-sparse crowd — which came on the heels of an overlong, deadline-bursting oration by Vice President JD Vance and an off-key rendition by musician Lee Greenwood of his song "God Bless The USA" — continued his habit of self-promoting regardless of either political expertise or objective numerical metrics.

The humiliating highlights included:

1. He falsely insisted the convention was "packed" just like it was "packed last night." The various images of empty seats on both occasions begged to differ. Later he claimed the "highest rafter" was packed and urged people to not go to the bathroom so the media could not capture as many images of empty seats. He went on to say the arena was "packed last night" with "thousands" waiting outside, then pointed to random parts of the arena that were supposedly full while ignoring areas that were empty. Later he admitted he shouldn't have looked "back there" at one section where he didn't like "the little bit of skin" showing in that section of the venue.

2. He coined the word "mutilization." First in the sentence "I ended the transgender mutilization of our beautiful children — no more of that," Trump repeatedly claimed that Democrats supported the "mutilization" of American children. Not only did this mischaracterize the reality of transgender medical treatment, but "mutilization" is not a word. He likely meant to say "mutilation."

3. Repeating a claim that was met with a notably tepid response on Wednesday, Trump insisted that he had ended the era in which America is a "laughingstock." Yet even as he claimed that America is more respected than ever, America is currently losing both its literal war against Iran and its trade war against Canada. In the former conflict, Trump is stuck in a quagmire because Iran has seized control of the Strait of Hormuz, raising prices on vital American goods such as oil and fertilizer; per the latter, Prime Minister Mark Carney has outmaneuvered Trump both economically and in the court of public opinion. As Dr. Richard Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told AlterNet earlier this month, "It's not just Mr. Carney, he is the expression of something that he knows as a politician is now a very popular view in Canada. He's not going to be held to blame because this or that difficulty happens. If he can show, as he often can, that the United States' hostility, tariff policy number one, is the root cause, then he gets a pass. The kind of anger that might often be addressed to a politician won't be, because they correctly perceive that the problem is something else. And so they appeal to the politician when he comes up with solutions or attempted solution to keep workers' needs in mind."

4. Shortly before his "laughingstock" line, Trump said that "in 19 months, I've delivered on every single promise I made, and I think I delivered on far more. Joe Biden and the radical Democrats created the worst inflation in American history." In addition to ignoring that Americans are spending on average $700 more due to inflation during Trump's second term, and that his approval rating on inflation is worse than Biden's ever was, in fact President Jimmy Carter had the worst year-to-year inflation of any president in American history. Speaking to Alternet in August, Dr. Robert J. Shapiro — an economist who worked for President Bill Clinton, who actually did preside over low inflation — broke down how Trump's various policies have raised inflation. These include his ongoing trade wars with nations like Canada, his war against Iran and his bullying of the Federal Reserve.

"Trump has been attacking the Fed for as long as he's been in office for not cutting interest rates," Shapiro wrote. "But you don't cut interest rates when inflation is rising, because cutting rates stimulates the economy — meaning you increase demand without increasing supply, so prices go up. Powell refused to cut rates because he said, in effect, 'We're in an inflationary period; once we contain inflation, we can cut rates.' Trump has made that much harder by increasing inflation through both the tariffs and the effects of the war on Iran. Even [Kevin] Warsh, Trump's handpicked successor to [Jerome] Powell, hasn't cut rates. But the market believes there's a significant possibility that he will, given the pressure Trump has been putting on him — and in anticipation of that, they've been driving long-term rates up."

5. Near the end he closed by forcing the crowd to pledge an allegiance not to America, not to God, but to "the greatest president" who loves them "so much he can't even breathe" to get out and vote for him, as well as get their personal networks to do likewise. He even said that if they don't go and vote, presumably for him, they will "go to hell."

Surely that will do much to disabuse the widespread perception that Trump is leading a cult.

MAGA’s deathgrip on Gen Z was severely overstated: report

There’s been plenty of attention on Gen Z voters since they swung right in 2024, but apparently assumptions were a little too premature, says Gen Z culture analyst Rachel Janfaza. They’re not the “red-pilled MAGA hardliners” they were sold to be.

“In 2020, as Gen Z voters came of age, the culture war was at its peak and it felt like every candidate, race and issue was a reflection of our values,” wrote Janfaza. “But today, young voters’ concerns are more material and far less ideological. There’s a common set of issues unifying Gen Zers across the political spectrum: the cost of living, inflation, AI, war, corruption.”

To get a sense of how young voters — including 8.5 million potential first-time voters — are feeling about the 2026 midterm elections, Janfaza and company spoke to them in a series of focus groups. And what interviews with 70 young people aged 17 to 33 in 28 states and Washington D.C. revealed was that they were not MAGA’s future as earlier reported.

“They care a lot less about being woke and a lot more about being able to get a job and pay their rent — let alone buy a home. And they’re looking for candidates who get that,” said Janfaza. “Gen Z voters really just want their politicians to be good, honest people, who work hard for their community and country. That means tackling the cost of living, working on government programs like SNAP and WIC, embracing social policies when it comes to healthcare, jobs, education, and regulating AI. It’s not that complicated. And it’s party agnostic.”

The generation doesn’t identify easily with the two political parties, but they certainly don’t identify with MAGA. In fact, according to interviews, when young voters support socialist candidates or say they favor socialism writ large, it’s really because they feel the status quo isn’t working.

“Life feels totally unaffordable, but young people believe that it doesn’t have to be this way. They want the government to provide Americans with a social safety net and endorse policies like universal or at least affordable health care, affordable housing, a higher minimum wage, affordable education, paid family leave, taxes on corporations, etc.,” Janfaza said.

And unlike other movements rotted in the past or worse, Gen Z appears to have “a hunger for forward looking policies.”

Call it “Hopemaxxing,” said Janfaza, but it means Gen Z wants to hear what a candidate’s plan is to fix the status quo, rather than preserve it. And don’t bother coming at them with the intent to “just blame the other side,” they say. This generation is “looking for candidates to inspire.”

Want to know how New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani cut inroads with the generation? He talked “pothole politics,” complete with on-the-ground repair policies for infrastructure and other endeavors.

And while MAGA isn’t about to benefit from this particular state of mind, Janfaza said Democrats shouldn’t rest easy on their laurels either. This is a results-minded generation.

“How people vote in the midterms will be all about the cost of living, but if young people don’t believe that any of the candidates can make a difference, they may not even show up,” she said.

JD Vance stuns America with series of forgettable platitudes

President Donald Trump's vice president, former Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), delivered a forgettable collection of platitudes during his speech on Thursday night to the Republicans' midterm convention.

Predictably, given that this is the one year anniversary of the assassination of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk, Vance said that "on September the 10th of last year, that good friend was taken from us when Charlie was assassinated. Now, Charlie left behind two children, two little kids. They were too young to fully understand."

He then added, "I hope that one day they will watch and they will know and they will understand what I'm trying to say to them tonight. Though they may not appreciate it today, history will record that your father was a great man!"

On another occasion, when describing his president's victory in the 2024 election, Vance proclaimed "all of us came together on November the 5th, and we sent the toughest SOB in American politics back to the White House, and we made Donald J. Trump the 47th president of the United States."

And of course he gave the characteristic vague description of Democrats as radicals and declared "the radicals in Washington, they could take much from us, but they couldn't take our will to FIGHT BACK."

Describing his recently-born fourth child, Vance offered the blisteringly unoriginal promise and statement that "we got a new kid around, I can't help but look at the future of this country through the eyes of the future of my son. And I can't help but think about what it is that we're fighting for and what it is that we want for all of our children."

If anything distinguished Vance's speech, it was his implicit put-down of Second Lady Usha Vance, who he stated would rather stay home and raise her children then deliver a political speech. Given Vance's history of arguing women should stay at home and raise children (a plan he recently offered to codify into a welfare law), this was perhaps the most notable moment of his speech. By contrast, him telling a protester waving a Mexican flag to "get your a - -" back there was typical MAGA bloviating. The crowd, to be sure, reacted with violent anger at the anti-Trump protester, and Vance tried to characterize the protester as emblematic of the Democratic Party.

"I will say that you should have been there when the organizers of the midterm RNC asked my wife—who had a two-week-old baby and three other kids that are very young—if she would come to Dallas, Texas to introduce her husband, and she said, 'Hell no, I got four kids to take care of,'" Vance told the cheering audience. "But she sends her love and I know she's watching at home."

Vance then contrasted this with what he claimed was Democrats' hate for nuclear families.

"In Michigan, one Democrat in particular—one candidate—has said, and I quote, 'F the nuclear family,"" Vance said. "F the nuclear family—what are you even talking about?"

He continued, "These hateful words come not from a loving country. They come not from a desire to serve you or our fellow Americans, but they come from a very deep emptiness in the soul. It is the nuclear family. It is inside of that nuclear family where I watched my four-year-old little girl, Little Mira, beg to feed a bottle to her new baby brother."

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.