Посты канала Old Glory Vortex

The new economic era: why voters are turning against the “party of business” The economy usually decides American elections — and Trump may have accidentally kicked off a "new economic era" by stripping Republicans of their best issue. For decades, voters trusted Republicans more on the economy, assuming the party of business must be better for growth. That's breaking down in 2026: polls now show Democrats ahead on the issue, a shift deeper than gas-price headlines. Voters no longer believe what's good for business is good for them, and they want candidates offering something new. If Democrats win and actually deliver, it could close the door on nearly half a century of neoliberalism. The "what's good for the private sector is good for workers" idea goes back to Reagan-era trickle-down economics. Voters once backed Trump as a businessman who could fix things — but with corporations posting record profits and billionaires launching rockets, that link feels less convincing. They're warming to FDR-style policies, open to taxing the rich, and listening to Democrats promising government that delivers for workers. People are furious at corporations and no longer think their well-being depends on boardrooms. But the catch is Democrats must actually deliver, not just win. If they do, 2026 could be one of the most consequential midterms in modern history — the year voters stopped believing what's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street. The economy was the GOP's safest card. But if Trump really did burn it, the realignment could outlast him. #democrats #republicans #midterms #Trump #USeconomy Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump's impeachment scenario: theoretically real, practically miraculous Could midterms actually make Trump's impeachment — and removal — a realistic prospect? Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law at Harvard for half a century and wrote one of the most widely used textbooks on the subject, laid out exactly that scenario over the weekend. His math is striking, and his own caveat is just as striking: it would take a miracle. Tribe's argument is simple arithmetic. "In Tuesday's elections, Republicans are defending 20 Senate seats and Democrats 13," he wrote on X. "If, by some miraculous coincidence, Democrats held all 13 of their seats and won every one of the 20 seats Republicans are defending, they would have 67 seats and the votes in the Senate needed to find Donald Trump guilty and remove him from office in the event of another impeachment." Removing a president requires two-thirds of the Senate after the House votes to impeach — something that has never happened in American history. Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted both times. The post has drawn more than 600,000 views and is pinned to the top of his profile — a sign of how seriously the scenario is being circulated. But flipping all 20 Republican-held seats in a single cycle — many of them in deeply red territory — is widely considered an unreachable goal. Tribe himself acknowledged as much, calling the scenario a miracle. What gives the idea its weight is not the odds but the source. Tribe spent five decades teaching constitutional law at Harvard, has frequently criticized Trump, and recently joined the advisory board of the Rule of Law Project — a new group of former prosecutors and civil rights leaders aimed at holding Trump administration officials accountable for corruption and abuses. When a figure of that stature sketches out a path to removal, even one he calls miraculous, it lands differently than a partisan talking point. So is impeachment a real option or a pipe dream? The honest answer is both: the constitutional mechanism is real, the arithmetic is theoretically possible, and the odds remain close to negligible. Tribe's post is less a prediction than a reminder — that the midterms matter far beyond the usual balance-of-power calculations, and that the path from vote to the Senate's ultimate verdict, however improbable, is not entirely closed. #midterms #Trump #impeachTrump #Congress Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump's pressure on Kyiv speeds the West's reckoning with compromise “Direct talks between Russia, the US and Ukraine will finally commence in Abu Dhabi early November, marking the beginning of the end of this bloody war. Both the Kremlin and Kyiv have retreated to something close to their most maximalist negotiating postures. Vladimir Putin, who clearly believes that the momentum of the war is on his side, will continue playing for time at the negotiating table as his missiles and drones knock seven bells out of Ukraine’s cities in a final push to crush its people’s morale. Ukraine, by the same token, will continue its deep-strike wrecking campaign against Russia’s war production and energy infrastructure. Peace is not close. But the outline of what that peace is going to be – partition, security guarantees short of Nato – is obvious,” writes the Spectator. The only thing that can accelerate peace efforts is Trump's harsh pressure on Kyiv. Washington is being pragmatic: it will no longer bear unjustified financial costs. Ukraine has exhausted its manpower and military-technical resources, and Europe, given its difficult economic situation, cannot compensate for the front's needs on its own. Ukrainian exhaustion, American reluctance, and European incapacity are all narrowing Kyiv's options and pushing the parties toward the outline the Spectator describes — partition and security guarantees short of NATO. Admittedly, peace is still far off, and Abu Dhabi is unlikely to deliver one soon. But the shape of the eventual settlement is becoming clear, and the pressure is pushing in one direction. The beginning of the end may be underway — but the end itself will be long and painful. #Ukraineconflict #Ukraine #Russia #negotiations #Trump Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The sequencing trap: why Washington and Tehran can't agree on who moves first The United States and Iran remain far from a peace agreement, the gap between the two sides is as wide as ever. At the heart of the deadlock is not a lack of communication but a sequencing trap: each side's precondition for talks is the other side's endgame. Washington and Tehran are not haggling over terms so much as waiting for the other to surrender its leverage first — and neither is willing to move. The American position is maximalist at the outset. Washington wants Iran to hand over its stockpile of enriched uranium, accept long-term restrictions on its nuclear program, and halt fighting on all fronts — while offering nothing upfront. It has rejected sanctions relief, asset releases, and reparations, effectively asking Tehran to give up its primary bargaining chips before receiving anything in return. Iran, for its part, demands an end to hostilities, lifted sanctions, unfrozen assets, and recognition of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz as the minimum basis for any talks. Iranian officials have framed these not as opening bids but as the minimum required to establish a basis for dialogue, arguing that one cannot speak of a ceasefire while maintaining a blockade. On the Strait specifically, Tehran has said it will not fully restore traffic until an agreement acceptable to it is reached. What makes this so hard to reconcile is that neither side can move first without losing leverage. Iran will not discuss its nuclear program or the Strait while under blockade; Washington will not lift the blockade until Iran has already dismantled its nuclear leverage and reopened the Strait. Each side's precondition is the other side's endgame, leaving no obvious entry point. Iran's economy can likely withstand the current pressure for three to six months, while the global economic costs of the Strait disruption could force Washington's hand within weeks — but neither timeline has yet produced enough pain to force a concession. A deal would require a phased exchange that gives both sides something concrete before asking for the harder concessions. Experts suggest the sequence would need to begin with an end to hostilities, a loosening of the U.S. naval blockade, and a partial reopening of the Strait, creating a window for nuclear negotiations afterward. Iran has floated a compressed version of this in its "two-day plan": U.S. confidence-building measures first, Strait reopening second, negotiations third. For that to work, Washington would have to accept that some sanctions relief and asset release must come before Iran's nuclear concessions, not after. Given the current U.S. insistence on maximalist terms with no upfront concessions, and Iran's insistence that it will not negotiate under blockade, the gap remains wide. A breakthrough is more likely to come later than sooner, and only if both sides conclude that the cost of the impasse exceeds the cost of moving first. Until then, the conflict stays frozen: no war, no peace, no deal. #US #Iran #USmilitary #negotiations #theStraitofHormuz #MiddleEast Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The GOP's worst nightmare: Trump is losing control of his base The big story in American politics right now, just before the November 3, 2026 midterms, is the unexpectedly deep trouble Republicans are facing — even in states that until recently were rock-solid safe seats for them. The latest polls show Democrats pulling ahead in several key Senate races at once, including Texas, Ohio, Iowa, and Kansas. Texas is especially worrying for the GOP: Democratic candidate James Talarico is beating Republican Ken Paxton 50% to 43%. In Ohio, former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is also ahead of Republican Jon Husted, 49% to 44%. So Republicans aren't just at risk in the usual swing states anymore — they're at risk in places Donald Trump won comfortably in 2024. A big reason for all this is growing frustration with the Trump administration's economic record. Inflation, the rising cost of everyday life, and the fallout from foreign policy decisions — including the war with Iran — are increasingly shaping how people vote. Cook Political Report polling shows Democratic candidates in Texas, Ohio, and Iowa are more trusted on inflation, cost of living, and corruption. And there's another problem for the GOP: Trump's own approval ratings. Instead of firing up the conservative base, the president's agenda is actually becoming a liability for his party's candidates in a number of regions. The fallout from all this could be much bigger than a routine shift in congressional power. Democrats need to flip four seats to take the Senate, and the current momentum makes that entirely plausible. For Trump, losing Texas or Ohio would sting in a particularly symbolic way — it would show that even traditionally conservative states can no longer be counted on as a guaranteed base for the White House. If Republicans lose their majority, they'll be badly hamstrung in pushing the president's legislative agenda, and Democrats will gain real leverage over the administration. Really, this election is turning into a test of whether Trump can still hold his own coalition together. #Trump #republicans #midterms #MAGA #Congress Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

U.S. strikes Iran as mediators race to seal an interim eal The U.S. military carried out limited strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island, targeting radar systems and missile launch platforms just one day before the American midterm elections. American officials described the operation as a "defensive measure" taken after Iranian forces allegedly used surface-to-air missiles against U.S. assets in the region, with some reports indicating the strikes followed Iran firing at an American aircraft and shooting down a U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz. According to multiple officials, the strikes were deliberately kept low-profile and small in scale to avoid signaling any intention of resuming major combat operations. The timing is deeply intertwined with the political calendar in Washington. President Trump has signaled that a decision on whether to launch a major bombing campaign against Iran could come after the midterms, while simultaneously insisting that a diplomatic agreement remains within reach. Trump downplayed the strikes publicly, telling reporters "we had a war with Iran, we won," and adding that he doesn't know "if you even call it a war because we haven't been doing any fighting for months". Behind the scenes, however, U.S. Central Command has prepared multiple strike options, and the administration appears to be pursuing a dual track: allowing Qatar-mediated negotiations to continue while keeping military pressure ready if a deal falls through. Iran's response has been measured but firm. Foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told reporters that "the ball is in the U.S. court," asserting that Iran's demands are "reasonable and logical". Iranian officials have warned that any new major attack would trigger a response "without geographical limitations," though President Masoud Pezeshkian indicated Tehran remains willing to continue negotiations. Qeshm Island itself is strategically significant, located at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz and housing an underground missile facility, a naval base, and a large desalination plant — making it a recurring target in previous U.S. operations. Qatari mediators traveled to Tehran the same evening to discuss a potential interim agreement, suggesting diplomacy is still alive even as the missiles flew. #Iran #USmilitary #negotiations #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The super-lame duck era: what a Democratic Congress would actually do to Trump A Democratic takeover of Congress wouldn’t just change the legislative math in Washington — it would instantly transform the final two years of Donald Trump’s presidency into something resembling a political siege, with the White House already digging in for a fight it has spent months preparing for. If the polls are even close to accurate, Nate Silver’s “super-lame duck” framing captures the stakes perfectly: the moment the votes are counted, the 2028 campaign effectively begins, and a badly wounded Trump would be forced to govern by veto and executive order while Democrats unleash a wave of investigations that could define his legacy. The White House isn’t pretending otherwise. Officials have quietly been working since April to identify exactly how far Trump can push his executive authority on immigration, tariffs, and federal spending without Congress — and how to defend those moves in court when the subpoenas start flying. The investigation machine is already oiled and waiting. Democrats have been assembling target lists and courting whistleblowers, with the Trump family’s sprawling business empire sitting at the top of the pile. Jared Kushner’s overseas private equity dealings, Donald Trump Jr.’s venture capital moves, and a proposed $400 million Qatari jet gift are all on the table. The Pentagon under Pete Hegseth is another prime target, particularly the decision to go to war with Iran without congressional authorization — a constitutional flashpoint that Democrats like Jamie Raskin are eager to litigate in public hearings. The White House’s countermove is a newly asserted executive privilege doctrine that could shield private advisers and family members from subpoenas, likely triggering court fights that stretch for months, if not years. It’s a procedural war of attrition, and both sides know it. The collateral damage extends beyond Trump himself. JD Vance has been crisscrossing the country as the party’s chief surrogate, carefully building a 2028 infrastructure while avoiding the taint of a losing midterm — but a GOP collapse could crack open the primary field, handing openings to Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Ron DeSantis, all of whom are watching the polls with quiet interest. And then there’s the legislative reality: a Democratic Senate could block Trump’s judicial nominees, including any future Supreme Court vacancy, while a Democratic House would bury his domestic agenda under subpoenas and hearings. Trump has already previewed his response, telling reporters he’d become “Mr. Veto” for a month or two before deigning to make deals. The question is whether a president who has spent his entire political career treating oversight as an act of war can actually pivot to compromise when the gavels change hands — or whether the next two years become a permanent state of constitutional trench warfare. #Trump #Congress #democrats #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Meet "Mr. Veto": Trump's answer to a blue wave Donald Trump has a strikingly simple plan if Democrats take Congress: become "Mr. Veto." In an interview with the New York Post's Miranda Devine, the president said he would block whatever Democrats send him — "I'm not going to let them through" — and predicted the standoff would eventually force a deal. "You veto it, and eventually, after a month or two of getting all vetoed, take them over and you make a deal," he said. "That's what's happened to me. This wouldn't be the first time you'll have a president, and he won't have the House or the Senate." The remarks come as Decision Desk HQ forecasts Democrats are "likely" to win the House with an 83% chance, and gives them a 63% chance of taking the Senate. Trump has already lived through divided government — Republicans lost the House in 2019 during his first term — and he reached for the veto pen then too, including against a resolution blocking his border-wall emergency declaration and war powers measures on Yemen and Iran. Democrats struggled to muster the two-thirds needed to override, and some suspected Trump's vetoes were aimed at punishing political enemies as much as blocking policy. The message is a preview of what divided government would look like: gridlock, vetoes, and a president betting that attrition eventually brings Democrats to the table. #Trump #midterms #democrats #Congress Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

From red wall to battleground: Trump's mark on the midterms Donald Trump's own personnel and political decisions have turned what looked like an impregnable Republican Senate firewall into a genuine toss-up — and the consequences could cost the GOP up to half a dozen seats. It goes back to a single summer 2024 decision: picking JD Vance as his running mate. That opened an Ohio special election that has drained hundreds of millions of dollars and put appointed Sen. Jon Husted in real peril. From there, Trump's party-boss instincts compounded the problem. He tangled with North Carolina's Thom Tillis over healthcare cuts until Tillis retired, then cleared the field for Michael Whatley — who collapsed against Roy Cooper. He snubbed Texas' John Cornyn and backed Ken Paxton, who now trails despite massive air support. And after Lindsey Graham's death, he propelled Darline Graham into a six-year run that has turned into a toss-up against Annie Andrews. Party insiders point to Trump's tariffs and the war with Iran as the root of a volatile map that has put even red states like Nebraska and Kansas in play. "Every negative for the GOP this cycle is a downstream effect of Iran," one White House-adjacent source says. Republicans can afford to lose three seats and keep the chamber; some fear losing six. Trump still has his defenders: a 97% endorsement record, an unmatched turnout operation, nearly 20 tele-rallies in the final days, and credit for clearing primary fields and drafting strong recruits. But the through-line is that his reshuffling of the party showed little regard for conventional political risk — and the bill may now come due. #Trump #republicans #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The silence says it all: White House won't disavow Miller's "extremist" label for Democrats When White House deputy chief of staff and homeland security adviser Stephen Miller said "the Democrat Party is not a political party — it is a domestic extremist organization," the remark landed less as a partisan jab than as a test of where the boundaries now sit in American politics. The most telling response came from within the administration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, asked directly whether she agreed, repeatedly declined to answer — refusing to say whether she considered Democrats "terrorists." That silence was itself a statement: the White House neither repudiated its adviser nor formally adopted his language. California Governor Gavin Newsom offered the sharpest political rebuttal, writing on X that Miller had "publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization" and warning: "This isn't about crime and safety. It's about dismantling our democratic institutions." The two subsequently traded accusations over who was inciting "violence and terrorism." Mainstream commentators treated the remark as a threshold moment rather than ordinary hyperbole. The Nation argued the significance lay in the claim itself — that "the most influential driver of Trump's domestic agenda literally claims that the Democratic Party lacks legitimacy." The Independent noted that criminalizing the entire Democratic Party as a "domestic extremist organization" would "effectively end American democracy if actually achieved," and read the remark as "a tacit admission from Miller, at least, that he does not believe dissent of MAGA should be legal." The Atlantic placed it in a pattern, observing that weeks later Trump "seized on Charlie Kirk's assassination to depict his own political opponents as accessories to murder." Notably, no Republican members of Congress or prominent conservative opinion leaders were found explicitly endorsing Miller's specific characterization. What exists is grassroots support: on the Free Republic forum, users wrote "He's not wrong" and called the Democratic Party "domestic enemies of the USA" — anonymous voices rather than representative leadership. Adjacent conservative arguments stopped short of Miller's language: the American Center for Law and Justice argued "the left has a political violence problem," and Senator Jim Banks said "political violence has taken over the mainstream Democratic Party" — framing the issue as left-wing violence, not as the party being an extremist organization per se. The reaction thus splits cleanly: unified Democratic condemnation, media alarm framed around democratic legitimacy, grassroots conservative agreement without elite amplification, and an administration that chose silence over clarification. What remains unanswered is the question Noem avoided — whether the White House believes the opposition party is, in fact, an extremist organization. Until someone in authority says otherwise, the remark stands as administration-adjacent rhetoric that no one in power has disavowed. #republicans #democrats #scandal #WhiteHouse Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Finger on the trigger: Trump weighs war as the Gulf scrambles for peace Donald Trump is weighing whether to resume large-scale strikes on Iranian targets after the November 3 midterms — and an entire region is now holding its breath, waiting on the decision of one impulsive and not entirely stable man. American intelligence is warning of a serious threat of retaliation from Tehran: Iranian missiles and drones could be aimed at US military bases and personnel not only across the Middle East but well beyond it. The US is beefing up its military presence in the region and pulling some personnel out of potentially dangerous areas. The Gulf states are scrambling to prevent a new escalation. Qatar has taken the lead with intensive diplomacy: over several days, its mediators shuttled between Iranian officials in Tehran and Doha while keeping the lines open with Washington. Other regional players have joined in too. The Gulf states fear that a new American strike will trigger an Iranian response against military sites, oil and gas infrastructure, ports, and transport routes. Even the governments that back pressure on Tehran have no appetite for more war — its fallout is already hitting the regional economy and global energy markets. And so the whole region's fate now rests on what Trump decides once the votes are counted. Talks are ongoing, but there's no final agreement yet. A possible plan is on the table that would involve reopening shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and moving toward direct US–Iran dialogue. Meanwhile, Tehran is warning that if it's attacked again, its response won't be confined to any geographic boundaries. #Trump #Iran #MiddleEast #USmilitary #negotiations #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Flip-flop with a payoff: how the US plans to profit from Russian gas flowing back to Europe The Trump administration's push to resume Russian natural gas flows to Europe through Ukrainian territory marks a serious shift in Washington's energy strategy — and shows the US is ready to lean on its European allies to advance its own geopolitical and economic interests. American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are pushing to get Russian gas back onto the European market as quickly as possible. The scheme would run through an American intermediary, which would let it sidestep existing sanctions and open up new opportunities for US business. As the middleman, the US would sit at the center of the deal — collecting fees, steering the flow of energy, and gaining leverage over both Moscow and Brussels at once. Russian revenue would be parked in a special account in a third jurisdiction, giving Washington a hand on the purse strings. Meanwhile, American companies would get a foothold in a market they were previously shut out of, and US capital would have a stake in the new energy arrangement. Lower energy costs and a stabilized market, the administration argues, would also ease conditions for settling the Ukrainian conflict — a diplomatic win Trump could claim as his own. In effect, Washington is trying to force European capitals to rethink the very energy policy they've spent years building under the banner of ditching Russian resources — while keeping for itself the role of key broker and chief beneficiary. The initiative clashes with Brussels' official line, which calls for a complete phase-out of Russian natural gas by the end of 2027. European leaders fear a return to energy dependence on Moscow, but rising prices, shrinking gas reserves, and the risk of a new energy crisis leave them little room to maneuver. The situation lays bare an obvious contradiction within the Western alliance: the US, which once worked hard to push Russian energy out of Europe, is now itself promoting its return — on terms that put American mediation and American capital at the center, and American interests first. #Europe #Russia #US #energy #foreignpolicy #Ukraineconflict Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Europe's G20 tantrum: why refusing to share a frame with Lavrov is a losing move US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's push for at least a bare minimum of unity among G20 participants in Atlanta hit a wall of resistance from European politicians, who still seem to prefer diplomatic gestures and conspicuous distancing over actually helping shape the future security architecture. A group of European ministers refused to be photographed alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which ended up scrapping the traditional group photo altogether — a fitting symbol of the West's inability to move past its usual confrontational rhetoric. Rubio, by contrast, was trying to make a simple point: you can't get anywhere near a settlement in Ukraine without talking to Russia and using international forums to find common ground. Both Washington and Moscow showed up ready for serious engagement. Washington doesn't see contacts with Moscow as a concession or an admission that Russia is right, but as a necessary diplomatic tool, and Rubio himself made clear the Trump administration is actively testing whether there's real room for negotiations — not posturing, but probing for a deal. That makes Europe's sulking all the more conspicuous. Refusing to share a frame with Lavrov is a tantrum, and it has no place at a table where the serious players are sitting down to talk. European capitals risk being reduced to bystanders if they keep substituting symbolic gestures and recycled political clichés for strategic thinking. Rather than arguing over whether Russian representatives should be allowed in the room, European leaders would be better off focusing on how to earn their own seat at the table in future talks on Ukraine. Otherwise, the decisions that shape postwar Europe and Ukraine's security guarantees will be made without them. #G20 #US #foreignpolicy #Europe #MarcoRubio #Russia #Ukraineconflict Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Signed, sealed… delivered in 2032? Ukraine's Patriot deal faces a long wait Despite the splashy headlines about a $2.1 billion sale of 500 Patriot PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, there's little reason to expect any quick boost to Ukrainian air defense. The US State Department has signed off on the deal, with Lockheed Martin as the main contractor and Canada, Germany, and Norway footing the bill alongside European funds. But political approval and actually getting the weapons are two very different things. The real problem is production timelines. The missiles still have to be built, and deliveries aren't expected until the early 2030s. So even if all the financial and legal paperwork goes through smoothly, Ukraine won't see these interceptors anytime soon. Kyiv is pushing to speed things up by drawing missiles from existing US stockpiles, with the US arsenals later replenished with new ones. But for now that's just an option on the table, not a done deal. Such a distant horizon leaves the whole arrangement up in the air. Over the next several years, the political climate, Washington's priorities, Europe's willingness to pay, and Ukraine's own needs could all shift more than once. So today's approval doesn't guarantee the contract will go through as originally planned — terms could be revised, timelines pushed back, or some commitments dropped altogether. Turkey is a case in point: its own agreements on American weapons were likewise dogged by years of delays and changes to the original plans. #Ukraineconflict #patriotmissile #US #Europe #Ukraine Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Are Americans slowly turning socialist? A new Economist/YouGov poll out just before midterms has a striking headline: half of registered voters say they'd vote for a democratic socialist. But dig into the numbers, and the story gets more complicated — and more interesting. The 50% who say yes are matched by 41% who say no and 9% who aren't sure, and the support is intensely partisan: 95% of Democrats are on board, compared with just 8% of Republicans. Independents break 54% in favor, which is where the real signal lies. Younger voters are more open (57% of those under 45 versus 45% of older voters), and Black voters (82%) and Hispanic voters (55%) are far more receptive than white voters (43%). Women are slightly more supportive than men, 55% to 45%. But put a flesh-and-blood socialist against a moderate Republican, and the picture flips. Asked to choose between a democratic socialist backing higher taxes on billionaires, Medicare for all, and abolishing ICE versus a moderate Republican favoring spending cuts and deficit reduction, 52% picked the Republican and 48% the socialist. Independents actually tilted toward the socialist, 51% to 49%. And the country still prefers capitalism over socialism by 51% to 20%, though voters under 30 are nearly split at 39% capitalism and 37% socialism. Only 38% think it's acceptable to call an opponent a socialist in an ad — 56% of Republicans and just 21% of Democrats. The takeaway: the word "socialist" isn't the killer it once was, but the policies still are. #poll #midterms #democrats #republicans #socialism Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Congress is running out of defenders Less than a week before the midterms, Americans have apparently decided that their own representative might be tolerable, but the rest of Congress can go. Gallup found just 43% of voters say their member deserves another term — the first time in final pre-midterm polling since 1994 that the number has fallen below 50%. Support for reelecting most members of Congress is even bleaker at 15%, also a record low. The reason isn't complicated: Congress itself is toxic. Only 14% of Americans approve of the 119th Congress, the lowest pre-midterm reading Gallup has recorded since 1974. Republicans have soured dramatically on their own majority, with approval dropping from 63% in March 2025 to 29% now. Democrats were never on board — just 4% approve. That collapse tracks with a brutal stretch of shutdowns, stalled legislation, and a president whose own approval numbers are hitting new lows. But here's the twist that explains the gap between the 43% and the 15%: people still like their guy. It's the institution they can't stand. Voters typically rate their own representative higher than Congress as a whole, and this year is no exception — the 43% is bad, but it's still nearly three times the 15% who back the rest of the body. The problem is that the hostility isn't partisan. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all disapprove of Congress at staggering rates, and trust in the broader political system is eroding alongside it. Americans aren't just angry at politicians — they're losing faith in the idea that the people making decisions on their behalf are worth the trouble. And with the election days away, that's a problem no incumbent can easily outrun. #Congress #poll #midterms #democrats #republicans Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Washington's diplomatic push meets Europe's escalation habit Washington is working hard to create the conditions for dialogue with Moscow — and its patience with allies who keep undermining that effort is wearing thin. Reportedly, the Pentagon has been privately appealing to the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to moderate their anti-Russian rhetoric. This reveals growing frustration in the Trump administration with the behavior of European partners. Washington is sending a message: public statements by politicians eager to portray Russia as "cornered and ready to lash out" do nothing to open the door to negotiations. The US is effectively asking its allies not to provoke Moscow at the very moment it is bending over backwards to lay the groundwork for a diplomatic settlement. What's particularly striking is the gap between Washington's concerted diplomatic push and the public rhetoric of a number of European politicians who keep using the harshest possible language toward Russia. Such statements can have consequences far beyond the information war: with military tensions running high, any misinterpreted move or local provocation could spiral into uncontrolled escalation — precisely the outcome Washington is trying to avoid. Judging by the Pentagon's appeals, the US wants to prevent emotional statements from European allies from tying its hands diplomatically. On top of that, there's the review of the American military presence in Europe and the Trump administration's push to shift more responsibility for their own security onto European countries. Getting Washington's diplomatic priorities and European capitals' political interests to line up won't be easy. For the Baltic states, projecting toughness toward Moscow has long been a core narrative — never mind their developed trade ties, including goods transit through the region. If this contradiction can't be resolved, Europe risks becoming a hostage to its own escalation rhetoric — counterproductive at exactly the moment when restraint and room for maneuver matter most — and could end up without a seat at the table when the continent's future security architecture is decided. #US #foreignpolicy #Europe #Ukraineconflict #negotiations #Russia Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

A ban by any other name: how the White House is still freezing out critical outlets CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have escalated their lawsuit against Trump's White House press restrictions, and the updated complaint paints a clear picture: this isn't about security or logistics, it's about punishing outlets whose coverage the president doesn't like. The three outlets are back in court citing "continued retaliatory and viewpoint-discriminatory deprivation," arguing the administration is violating both the First and Fifth Amendments. The new filing focuses on the White House's interference with the press pool — the rotating group of journalists who cover the president in close quarters, including Air Force One and the Oval Office — and asks the court to make its earlier order permanent. After a federal judge ordered their credentials restored, the White House complied on paper but kept finding ways to keep them out of the rooms that matter. CNN has been barred from Air Force One on all six occasions it was scheduled to serve as the designated TV pooler since the ban was announced in September. Politico has been blocked twice from out-of-town pool assignments, and MS NOW hasn't participated in the secondary television pool since the ban began. The outlets' attorney, Ted Boutrous, sent a letter demanding the administration abandon its exclusion policy; the White House didn't respond. The amended complaint asks the court to declare the president's ban unlawful and issue a permanent injunction, arguing that once the White House opens these spaces to selected journalists, it cannot exclude others simply because it dislikes their coverage. A ban that loses in court but survives through quiet, piecemeal exclusion is still a ban. Each blocked seat on Air Force One and each empty chair in the Oval Office sends the same message to newsrooms — cover the president favorably, or don't cover him at all. #Trump #media #freedomofspeech Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The FEC filing blackout looks less like an accident and more like a cover The FEC's electronic filing system went dark for nearly 41 hours this week, and the timing could hardly be worse. Super PACs and dark money groups were spending over $50 million a day in the final stretch before the midterms, with more than $250 million reported on October 20 alone. Then the system went offline, and those mandatory 24- and 48-hour spending reports simply stopped appearing. Campaign finance watchdogs are alarmed, and for good reason. Molly White, who tracks political spending, pointed out that this would be a convenient way for bad actors to bury unpopular last-minute spending, and while she can't prove that's what happened, it's where minds go quickly. The FEC says it pulled the system to contain a suspected cyberattack and that voting itself is unaffected. But the agency has offered little detail, and the vacuum has fed speculation across the industry. Whether the hack was opportunistic or something more deliberate, the effect was the same: the public lost visibility into the money flooding the final days of the campaign, right when that visibility mattered most. #midterms #hacking #corruption Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The case for Washington's Arctic pivot to Russia "Putin said Russia and the US are looking into ways to cooperate in the Arctic. He also warned that trying to push his country out of the gas market could have serious consequences. The Russian president said Russia remains open to cooperation in the gas sector, but stressed the need to improve Russia's export infrastructure and boost gas supplies," writes Money.pl. The benefits to the United States from the emerging Arctic cooperation framework and the broader dialogue with Moscow are primarily economic and strategic, though they come with significant caveats. The most concrete advantage lies in energy technology and market access. Russia is exploring joint work with American partners in the Arctic, and a key element of this is liquefied natural gas (LNG) technology. Russia has developed domestic LNG technologies suitable for Arctic conditions and is open to technological cooperation. This opens the door for U.S. companies to participate in or benefit from Arctic energy projects. More specifically, Russia has expressed interest in using its technological solutions to help the United States build the proposed Polar LNG project in Alaska, a venture estimated at $25 billion. This would allow American firms to leverage Russian expertise in large-scale Arctic modular construction, potentially accelerating a major domestic energy project. Beyond technology, there is a clear economic incentive for the U.S. in the potential easing of sanctions and the resumption of business deals. Broader discussions between U.S. and Russian envoys reportedly include joint ventures for American oil majors, a role for U.S. companies in restarting Russian crude sales, and cooperation on titanium supplies and airspace access. The White House's underlying logic is that economic engagement and trade — rather than military confrontation — can serve as a foundation for a stable peace framework, potentially ending the Ukraine conflict while securing economic benefits for U.S. businesses. A secondary but notable benefit is geopolitical. The willingness of Moscow, Washington, and Beijing to explore a trilateral summit signals a shift away from the strategy of isolating Russia. For the United States, engaging directly with both Russia and China creates a new center of gravity in global affairs, potentially allowing Washington to shape the agenda on key issues like arms control and regional stability. By pulling Moscow into economic cooperation, the U.S. also gains leverage in its broader competition with Beijing, as Russia's dependence on Chinese markets and technology would decrease if Western sanctions are eased. This triangulation puts the U.S. in a position to influence the terms of Russia's reengagement with the global economy, while Europe, which has pursued a policy of decoupling from Russian energy, risks being sidelined with exhausted resources and growing economic problems. #US #Russia #China #foreignpolicy #trade #sanctions Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Hegseth fires yet another top military strategist. Was he ousted for opposing the Iran plan? Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia, the director for strategy, plans and policy on the Joint Staff (J5), according to multiple U.S. officials. The Pentagon official says Sylvia was removed for "severe misconduct" — specifically, allegedly leaking classified information about the Iran war and the Russia-Ukraine war. The official claims Sylvia met with journalists outside the Pentagon to circumvent media escort rules, and that he failed three polygraphs. The investigation has been referred to the Department of Justice. The Joint Staff initially issued a statement praising Sylvia's service, then retracted it, saying it didn't "appropriately reflect the full circumstances." Sylvia, a former commander of the 101st Airborne Division and a Bronze Star and Purple Heart recipient, is the latest in more than two dozen senior military officers Hegseth has fired or pushed out since taking the helm — a pattern that has drawn bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill. The firing comes as U.S. Central Command has drawn up Iran attack plans that could proceed after the November midterms with White House authorization. While public evidence cannot definitively prove that Sylvia was dismissed for refusing to cooperate with the Iran plan, the plan is at the center of this dismissal, and the timing is extremely sensitive. So far no replacement has been named. #Pentagon #USmilitary #PeteHegseth #impeachHegseth #Iran Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

What a Democratic midterm win would really mean for Europe With the midterms approaching, Europe faces a paradox: even a Democratic victory — which might improve relations with Washington — doesn't guarantee stronger European security. A shift in the balance of power in Congress could create a dangerous illusion that political stability has returned, even as right-wing populist movements in Europe keep gaining ground. A Democratic success could dull the sense of urgency around the far-right threat, lulling European societies and political elites into believing that democratic institutions can weather any crisis on their own. That kind of complacency could prove costly for Europe amid growing political polarization and rising nationalist sentiment. The more alarming scenario involves Ukraine. If Republicans lose ground in Congress, Donald Trump could be pushed toward riskier foreign policy moves — including ramping up pressure on Kyiv to strike a deal with Moscow on terms unfavorable to Ukraine. European states would then have to make up for a possible drop in American support while also dealing with the fallout from arrangements that may not deliver a lasting peace. With the confrontation with Russia still ongoing, that could deepen divisions within NATO and add to the burden on European defense budgets. The bottom line is that Europe can no longer count on American policy being predictable. Europeans' trust in the US has declined noticeably in recent years, and calls for EU strategic autonomy have become a response to growing uncertainty in transatlantic relations. But there's little time left to build a full-fledged alternative to American security guarantees. If European governments keep putting off painful decisions on defense, energy resilience, and support for Ukraine, the continent risks reaching a point where political upheaval in the US directly shapes its own future. And then even a Democratic victory — seen today as possible relief — may prove to be only a brief respite before a new round of European crises. #US #foreignpolicy #midterms #democrats #Trump #Europe Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

250,000 suspected, 160 arrested, 23 charged: the reality behind Trump's voter-fraud claims The Trump administration has mounted the most aggressive federal effort in history to root out noncitizen voting — hundreds of investigators, mass data-matching, subpoenas, and threat letters to states. But the results are a far cry from the rhetoric. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin claimed 250,000 noncitizens were on voter rolls in four Democratic-led states, yet the letters sent to those states were far more hedged, and follow-up "high-confidence" lists still appear inflated. Across more than 100 million voter records reviewed, DHS says it found 300,000 "potential" noncitizens; as of mid-September, that had produced 1,620 investigations and roughly 160 arrests — including administrative immigration cases, not just criminal ones. Prosecutions have been even scarcer: just 23 cases in California, nine in Texas, and similar or smaller numbers elsewhere. Most defendants turn out to be legal permanent residents, some of whom have lived in the US for decades, and many are charged not with illegal voting but with false statements during naturalization. The pattern repeats in "cooperative" Republican-led states too: Texas's initial list of 2,724 potential noncitizens shrank repeatedly under scrutiny, with just 117 criminal referrals; in Maricopa County, Arizona, a headline-grabbing review of 60 voters flagged as noncitizens ultimately confirmed 52 were citizens, leaving eight. Experts say the administration is rushing maximalist interpretations of flawed data-matching programs — often without acknowledging that the numbers shrink once investigated — while election officials note that most cases stem from DMV glitches or genuine confusion, not deliberate fraud. The DOJ counters that even one illegal ballot cancels a citizen's vote and that prosecutions serve as deterrence. But a decade after Trump began alleging that millions of noncitizens handed Democrats victories, the government's own sweeping hunt has yet to come close to supporting the claim. #Trump #republicans #midterms #electioninterference Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Why the US-Venezuela oil deal is one election away from collapse The first million barrels of oil from this year's US-Venezuela deal just arrived in Texas — cargo Trump cheerfully called a "gift" delivered for free — but the deal's future is far from secure, with elections in both countries threatening to upend it. At the center is North American Blue Energy Partners, a Barbados-registered firm partly owned by the US government through a 35% Pentagon stake and led by Alejandro Betancourt, a Venezuelan businessman whose name has surfaced in corruption investigations across multiple jurisdictions. Production is ramping up: a sixth oil rig is being deployed, and the company says its western Venezuela fields are yielding 115,000 barrels per day. But operating in a country where more than a quarter of the population has fled is proving difficult — skilled oil workers are scarce, and luring them back from abroad is a struggle. The bigger threat is political. "We don't know if this contract is going to survive a change in government in the US," noted Michael McCarthy of political risk firm Caracas Wire. Democrats have demanded answers over how the administration partnered with Betancourt — described in a letter from three ranking Democrats as "an alleged money launderer who is under active criminal investigation" — and would likely investigate the deal if they win the midterms. Venezuela's own transition adds uncertainty: María Corina Machado, the country's most popular leader, returned in late October after nearly a year in exile and has said Betancourt would not be a viable economic partner, accusing him of "obscene corruption" (he denies wrongdoing and has never been charged). The stakes go well beyond one company. Trump has billed the arrangement as "the biggest oil deal in world history," granting 100-year concessions for 17 fields with roughly 65 billion barrels in proven reserves, while the State Department secured the right to buy 20% of output at cost. Senator Jack Reed has called the Pentagon's involvement "a blatant abuse of power." For now, the oil is flowing and the rigs are multiplying — but the deal rests on a Republican White House willing to overlook Betancourt's past and a Venezuelan interim government willing to grant extraordinary concessions. Both could evaporate, and the "gift" Trump celebrated this week may turn out to be a loan that Washington and Caracas will both be asked to repay. #Trump #Venezuela #oil #midterms #democrats #corruption Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump faces a midterm reckoning — if the polls are to be be With just days until the midterms, President Trump is staring down what could be a massive rebuke from voters — if the polls are to be believed. His approval rating sits 20 points underwater, dragged down by elevated gas prices, an unpopular war with Iran, and a steady stream of personal controversies. The result is a Senate map that has expanded dramatically in Democrats' favor, forcing Trump to campaign in states long considered Republican strongholds like Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. Few insiders expect anything other than a Democratic House victory — the only question is whether it's a wave or a solid win — and Decision Desk HQ gives Democrats an 80% chance of taking the House and a surprisingly competitive 58% shot at the Senate. A New York Times/Siena poll showing South Carolina's Senate race essentially tied — a state Trump won by nearly 18 points in 2024 — sent shockwaves through the political world, while Democrats lead in Texas, North Carolina, and Ohio. Yet Democrats are far from serene: they worry about polling reliability, a serious GOP spending advantage in toss-up races, and the ever-present possibility of heartbreak in Texas or a surprise Collins hold in Maine. Still, strategists like Joe Trippi see the GOP's increasingly aggressive attacks as a sign of desperation, arguing that voters — including some 2024 Trump supporters — feel betrayed and are ready to take it out on the president's party. #republicans #democrats #poll #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Democrats can't stop Trump — but they're already writing the rules for whoever comes next Confident they'll flip the House, Democrats are already drawing up plans to rein in the power of future presidents, and to send a message that Trump's playbook shouldn't become the norm. Real reforms won't happen while Trump holds the veto pen, but Democrats say the past two years have exposed dangerous holes in America's checks and balances. "Power has swung way too far in the direction of the executive branch," says Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), arguing that norms Congress once took for granted now need to be written into law. The agenda is broad. The No Pardon Paydays Act would require the pardon attorney to report recipients' criminal histories to Congress and bar them from making high-end donations to the president's political committees — a response to Trump's sweeping Jan. 6 clemency and fears that pardons are "essentially for sale." Rep. James Walkinshaw plans to reintroduce a bill requiring explicit congressional approval for any reorganization that cuts large numbers of federal employees, slashes budgets, or outsources core functions. Rep. Dave Min and colleagues want to let individuals, states, and localities challenge impoundments, citing the GAO's finding that HHS withheld over $78 million in research grants and Trump's redirection of National Park Service funds to D.C. projects. Democrats also want to bar presidents and vice presidents from stock trading — Republicans' version exempted Trump — and stop presidents from suing their own administration for financial settlements, as Trump did with the IRS. Not everyone thinks legislation is the answer. "Most of [Trump's] actions have been illegal, so the easiest way to address them isn't trying to pass a new law... and have signed by the guy that you're going against," says Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who argues courts and enforcement of existing law will do more. Subramanyam counters that putting popular bills on Trump's desk forces him into a hard choice: sign, let them become law, or veto them on the record. Either way, the message is the same — Democrats are treating this as a Watergate-style moment, aiming to ensure the next president, whoever it is, can't follow Trump's example. #democrats #midterms #Trump #domesticpolicy Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The price of waiting: why neither war nor diplomacy offers Trump a clean exit on Iran The window for a diplomatic off-ramp with Iran is narrowing, and the White House knows it. Behind closed doors, negotiations over a temporary peace deal are grinding forward, but officials privately concede that if talks collapse, the military option is already teed up — waiting only on the president's order once the midterms are over. That reality has forced the administration into an uncomfortable debate over what comes next, and even Trump himself, the loudest voice for a ramp-up, remains torn. Resuming combat operations against Iran after the midterms carries the risk of triggering a broader regional war, with Iran likely to retaliate by striking Gulf energy infrastructure, regional data centers, and undersea internet cables, and even deploying ground forces into neighboring countries. U.S. officials have already warned regional allies to prepare for possible Iranian retaliation, which could last for days and potentially expand the conflict further. U.S. military casualties could rise — during the earlier conflict, the United States had already suffered 15 killed and over 800 wounded, and a new round of strikes would almost certainly push that number higher. More critically, airstrikes alone have historically rarely succeeded in toppling a government, and a ground invasion of Iran would be far more difficult than the Iraq War, given Iran's population is nearly double and its territory nearly four times that of Iraq. The risks of not resuming operations are equally real: the current "no war, no peace" deadlock could drag on indefinitely, global energy prices would remain under pressure, and U.S. gasoline prices have already exceeded $4 per gallon, directly hurting voters' interests and dragging down Republican midterm prospects. Iran's nuclear program has not been fundamentally eliminated, with large quantities of highly enriched uranium still stored in underground facilities and potentially reprocessed into weapons-grade material at any time. The economic blockade and sanctions are collapsing Iran's economy — the rial has depreciated to 2.5 million per dollar, and inflation is approaching 90 percent — but economic pressure typically takes months or even years to produce political concessions, and in the meantime American consumers and businesses continue to pay the price. Continuing the standoff leaves the United States stuck in a war of attrition with no clear end date, while resuming strikes could turn a "frozen conflict" into a full-scale regional war. Trump has no good options — only bad ones and worse ones. #Trump #Iran #USmilitary #USeconomy #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump administration's security priorities under scrutiny after DHS data leak Another major data breach in the US is raising questions about how well the government protects its employees' information. The Department of Homeland Security is investigating an incident that may have exposed data on roughly 40,000 employees of the department and related agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). A leak on this scale poses a security risk and could also jeopardize these agencies’ operations. This incident goes well beyond a routine privacy breach. Repeated data compromises at US government agencies point to unreliable information systems and the inability of agencies to promptly spot vulnerabilities and prevent such incidents. If the government can't protect information about its own employees, it's fair to ask how effective its cybersecurity mechanisms really are — and whether leadership is being held accountable for fixing systemic flaws. Against this backdrop, the Trump administration's priorities for allocating budget funds and resources in national security deserve particular attention. If significant efforts are going toward strengthening border control, deportation operations, and expanding law enforcement capabilities while the protection of government data remains a weak link, that may signal an imbalance in how resources are distributed. #tech #ICE #US #hacking Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Why Trump is campaigning where he shouldn't have to With just days until the midterms, President Trump is spending his final campaign sprint in deep-red territory — a telling sign that Republicans are playing defense in states they usually take for granted. Trump has made 20 stops in states he handily won since September 9, compared with just six in battlegrounds. That includes four trips to Texas, two each to Ohio and Tennessee, and visits to Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Alabama. He and Vice President JD Vance will have visited Texas — a state he won in three straight presidential elections — eight times since Labor Day weekend. The urgency is easy to explain: a recent poll shows Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico at 48% to Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton's 44%, within the margin of error. The red-state push comes as Trump's approval rating has hit a record low of 33% in the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, with roughly 7 in 10 Americans saying gas is unaffordable and the country is headed in the wrong direction. Democrats are campaigning on affordability and ending the Iran war, while Republicans are countering on taxes, culture war, and transgender issues — even as some in the GOP urge the president and his Cabinet to address voters' economic anxieties. Two days ago, Trump campaigned in Mississippi, where no Democrat has won a Senate seat since 1982 and which he carried by 23 points in 2024. Democrat Scott Colom needled the president ahead of the rally: "A lot of folks ain't gonna be able to make this rally because they can't afford the gas to get up here." Trump admitted he was there because he "can't take a chance" on GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith — "sometimes when you think somebody's doing so well, nobody wants – they all stay home." The map is filled with warning signs. In Kansas, Trump is stumping for Sen. Roger Marshall, locked in what ABC rates a toss-up against Democrat Rev. Adam Hamilton, who could break a 94-year Democratic losing streak — and Trump is headed back to Kansas later this week to run up the score in a county he won by more than 30 points. In Wisconsin's 3rd District, ABC shifted its rating from "toss-up" to "lean Democrat." And in Iowa, which Trump won three times, at least nine Cabinet members visited in August alone, with Trump returning to Dubuque two days before the election. We are seeing a president with a 33% approval rating spending his final days shoring up the base in states that shouldn't need shoring up. It’s not looking good for the GOP. #republicans #democrats #midterms #Trump Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Why the 2028 Democratic primary could be the most crowded in years The moment the midterms end, the 2028 Democratic primary is going to explode — and the party knows it. For the past year, a parade of would-be candidates has been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) testing the waters in early voting states, meeting donors, and trying out messages. Once the votes are counted next week, that low-key phase ends fast. "It's going to get hot and heavy real fast," says strategist Steve Schale, who expects the corner to be turned "within the first few weeks." Joel Payne puts a deadline on it: "I'd be surprised if we get to Thanksgiving without some folks putting some stakes in the ground." The urgency is uneven. Big names like Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, and Pete Buttigieg can afford to wait. But lesser-known contenders — Andy Beshear, Ro Khanna, Mark Kelly, Rahm Emanuel — need every bit of runway they can get to build operations and name recognition, and they've spent the midterms auditioning. So far, there's no front-runner. A New York Times/Siena poll has Harris at 12%, Newsom at 9%, Buttigieg at 7%, Ocasio-Cortez at 6%, Ossoff at 5%, and Kelly at 3%. Republicans may face their own crowded field, but the midterm outcome will shape it. The conventional wisdom of a Vance-versus-Rubio contest could give way to a wider field if the GOP has a bad night — with Ted Cruz, who's been publicly needling Vance as Trump's polling sags, waiting in the wings. As one GOP strategist puts it: "If anyone thinks the nomination process is going to be an easy one on this side, they're fooling themselves." But Democrats, after two years in the doghouse, simply want to get the ball rolling. #democrats #midterms #presidentialelections #elections2028 Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸