Summary: Ezra Klein and Nate Silver discuss whether Democrats could win both chambers in the upcoming midterms—and how much confidence to place in the polls.

The main argument: Silver sees a strong Democratic environment, driven by backlash against Trump, economic dissatisfaction, and strong candidates. But Senate control remains vulnerable to a modest polling error.

• The Senate has become unexpectedly competitive. In the interview, Silver puts Democrats’ chances above 70%. An estimated 11-point shift toward Democrats brings even states Trump won comfortably into contention.
• Candidate quality matters. Strong Democratic recruits and weaker Republican opponents could supply the few extra points needed in Republican states. Klein and Silver suggest moderate or independent candidates often perform better in difficult territory, though local appeal also matters.
• The House looks more secure. Silver gives Democrats a greater than 90% chance of winning it, with an average gain of roughly 22 seats. Redistricting and fewer competitive districts limit the potential size of a wave.
• Polling uncertainty cuts both ways. A shared three- or four-point error favoring Republicans could erase several Democratic Senate leads. However, polls have performed better in recent midterms than in presidential elections featuring Trump.
• Republican turnout is the biggest unresolved variable. Trump attracts disengaged voters when he is on the ballot; other Republicans may struggle to bring them out. Weak Republican participation could produce an even larger Democratic victory.
• They attribute Trump’s weakness chiefly to economic conditions: particularly gasoline prices, tariffs, and the Iran war, alongside fatigue with his presidency. They also identify opposition to AI data centers as a possible emerging electoral force.
• The results could shape Democrats’ next generation. Moderate-versus-progressive performance will influence party debates, while a younger group of politicians could become central to 2028.

Silver’s closing assessment is that the underlying conditions strongly favor Democrats. His main hesitation concerns whether individual state polls—especially in traditionally Republican states—are overstating their opportunities.

This summarizes the transcript’s claims and forecasts; it does not independently verify them.

https://youtu.be/uDqR4t5N84o?si=uuXnr1F7YtvDa-Z6

SS: Trump is suing at SCotUS to stop the count, Alaska is filing to dismiss the suit, more details in comments, but it primarily comes down to the name Dan Sullivan who is a senate candidate for the Republicans and Democrats.

An article detailing the close race between the 19 year Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponent Gadi Eisenkot.

Reports say that that almost 20% of eligible voters have cast their ballots making this the fastest turnout rate since the early 80's.

Netanyahu has been campaigning on being a leader that has won victories against Israel's neighbors while also being responsible for normalizing relations with many Arab states in the Middle East.

For Eisenkot, the campaign has been focused on accountability for the security failures leading up to Oct 7th as well as his failure to force Hamas out of Gaza in spite of the years long war and destruction.

It is said that Israel's Arab population are voting in unprecedent numbers, although neither Eisenkot or Netanyahu have sought their vote, sighting cultural differences and lack of shared vision.

The left wing Israeli parties continue to work to form a coalition as a check on either an Eisenkot or Netanyahu victory.

Currently neither party is expected to be a clear winner or be able to form a minority government and run the country if elected.

After Lula’s victory over Flávio Bolsonaro, high level American politicians, pundits and influencers have been strangely focused on the outcome. Trump even called the election "rigged" and "corrupt" while others are claiming that the Supreme Court's two hour extension of voting hours was a conspiracy.

Why has the MAGA movement invested so much political capital into the Bolsonaro family? Is this just about exporting their own election denial playbook, or is there a deeper geopolitical tie? What are your thoughts?

Former FBI Director Comey has been charged by the DOJ for a third time. The latest charges stem from knowingly disclosing national defense information, along with conspiring with others to share it.

According to the complaint, Comey directed an individual to “disclose national defense information to a reporter for a national news publication."

Note that this is a criminal information charge, not a criminal indictment by a grand jury. This comes as the statute of limitations is expiring.

Link to the indictment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297.1.0.pdf

Link to his motion to dismiss: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297/gov.uscourts.dcd.297297.6.0.pdf

An article addressing rumors that the secretary of defense is interested in the Tennessee governor race between the Republican incumbent Marsha Blackburn and Democrat Jerri Green.

Blackburn is currently a senator for Tennessee but a win in the governor race would leave that seat vacant and allow her to choose who fills it.

As cases against Secretary Hegseth from congress continue to mount and the odds of his impeachment increase it's suggested that he might be fishing for the job so that he can leave the Trump administration and avoid congressional oversight and investigations into his actions at the Pentagon.

https://www.reuters.com/live/brazil-election-live-lula-bolsonaro-face-off-presidential-runoff-2026-10-25/
Neutral Summary: Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won reelection on October 25, 2026, defeating Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in a closely watched presidential runoff. According to Brazil’s electoral authority, Lula received approximately 51.8% of the vote, winning by nearly 4.4 million votes. The result secures Lula a fourth, non-consecutive presidential term.

The election reflected competing political and economic priorities. Lula, a left-of-center leader, emphasized social welfare, democratic institutions, and Brazil’s independence in international affairs. Bolsonaro, a right-wing candidate and son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, campaigned on public security, lower taxes, and closer relations with the United States under President Donald Trump.

The election was complicated by a last-minute extension of voting hours. Both campaigns requested additional time, although for different reasons. Lula’s campaign cited public transportation disruptions in several areas, while Bolsonaro’s campaign pointed to heavy rainfall in southern Brazil. Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin ordered voting to be extended nationwide by two hours shortly before the scheduled closing time.

The ruling caused confusion at some polling stations, where voting machines had already been switched off or officials had begun closing procedures. The electoral authority paused the publication of results to accommodate the extension. Questions subsequently arose about how consistently the order was implemented across polling locations.

Following the announcement of Lula’s victory, Bolsonaro refused to concede and called for the election results to be annulled, arguing that the voting-hours extension was unacceptable. However, the president of Brazil’s electoral court stated that the extension had not affected the outcome. Legal experts cited by the Associated Press said that overturning the election would require evidence that the decision materially affected voters’ ability to express their will.

Summery

I don’t see many new posts. So I wondered if this sub has run out of steam.

A decent article sumerizing pretty much what everyone who follows politics in the US already knows.

The biggest factor on peoples minds is the weak economy the cause of which is directly linked with the failure of the Republican gamble of universal tariffs and the predicted trade wars that followed.

One of the critical weaknesses of the Republican strategy was it's decision to shut out congress and deny the full weight of the American government to executive orders which can be easily reversed by either the same president or their replacement.

The Republican economic plan was built on quicksand and foreign economies were savvy enough to avoid short or long term commitments, preferring instead to deceive Trump by flattering him to lower the tariff and then slow walk any legislation that would result in an actual trade deal.

The Republican plan to not use congress has also hurt Americas war strategy against Iran who has been preparing to repulse an invasion by the United States for half a century. Americas failed invasion has also been hamstrung by the poor preparation or planning by elected officials who fired or marginalized voices within their military structure who advised against the plan and were then replaced by unqualified yes men by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth who prioritized loyalty to the administration over qualifications or experience.

The article also references problems in virtually every economic sector with bankruptcies, supply line disruptions, and national central planning failures from the Whitehouse as it shut down free market agencies across the nation in favor of it's own decisions and small team.

The issues seem to be compounding for the struggling Republican party as it's members are paralyzed to respond to any crisis due to the monopoly of party funds by the Trump family as well as the threat of being the target of the President who has used the power of executive branch agencies to cancel any American citizen with the influence to threaten the President and the executive branch rule over the entire country.

A self authored post in this 'dying' subreddit on the eve of the midterms. #Vote

There comes a time in the life of every free nation when the inheritance of liberty must be defended by those who have known nothing but its blessings. When the peace of generations is broken, when the armies of tyranny gather upon the horizon, and when the institutions of free government tremble beneath the weight of fear, a question is put before the living: whether the courage of their fathers has passed from the earth, or whether it yet resides within the hearts of their children.

History is replete with examples.

This question was asked upon the fields of France, when her armies were broken and her government submitted to a foreign conqueror. It was asked in the occupied cities of Europe, where the instruments of oppression sought to extinguish the very memory of freedom. It was asked behind the Iron Curtain, where nations were made captive and generations were born beneath the shadow of governments they had never chosen. And it is asked again upon the bloodied plains of Ukraine, where a free people stand against an invader who would deny them the right to determine their own destiny.

In every age, the tyrant has believed that the answer might be settled by force of arms. That a nation defeated is a nation subdued. That a government overthrown is a people conquered. That the destruction of an army marks the destruction of the cause for which it fought.

And in every age, the tyrant has mistaken the instruments of liberty for liberty itself.

For freedom does not reside in the walls of a parliament, nor in the chambers of a president, nor even in the armies that stand guard upon a nation's frontiers. These are its defenders, its expressions, and its necessary instruments. But freedom itself resides in the hearts of the people, in their determination to govern themselves, and in their conviction that no man possesses by birth, by conquest, or by decree the right to rule another without his consent.

A government may capitulate. An army may be defeated. A capital may fall. But a people who have once tasted freedom cannot easily be persuaded that servitude is their natural condition.

France did not cease to be France when her government surrendered in 1940. Her sons and daughters who carried on the struggle, who risked their lives in fields and factories, who concealed the persecuted and sabotaged the occupier, who fought beneath foreign skies and upon their native soil, were no less French than those who had once commanded her armies. They preserved, through years of peril and sacrifice, the living claim of their nation to freedom.

And when liberation came, it was not the authority of those who had submitted that endured, but the legitimacy of those who had refused.

Thus we are reminded that a nation is not merely the government which commands it. It is the people who constitute it, the history which binds them, and the liberties which they resolve to preserve.

Yet there is a danger against which no army, however powerful, can alone provide protection.

A democracy may be conquered from without, but it may also be surrendered from within. Its institutions may be weakened by those sworn to preserve them. Its citizens may exchange their liberties for promises of security, their judgment for the comfort of obedience, and their sovereignty for the ambitions of a single man.

And so we come to the present hour, when the Republic which our fathers established, which our forebears defended upon distant battlefields, and which generations have preserved through civil war, depression, and the struggle against tyranny, faces a test not merely upon its borders, but within its own government.

For what shall we say when a President, entrusted with the defense of the Constitution, treats the rights of citizens as obstacles to his ambition? When the powers of government are employed not as instruments of public trust, but as weapons against those who dissent? When loyalty to one man is demanded above fidelity to the law, and when those charged with checking his authority instead lend their offices to its enlargement?

Shall we say that the people must endure whatever their rulers impose, until the next presidential election shall come? Shall we concede that a mandate to govern is a license to disregard the liberties of the governed?

No.

For the Constitution established no king, and the Republic recognizes no sovereign but the people themselves.

The President is not the nation. His party is not the Republic. His will is not the law.

And those who confuse these things have forgotten the first principle of American liberty: that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that those powers are held in trust.

We therefore approach the midterm elections not merely as another contest between parties, nor as another opportunity to reward one faction and punish another, but as an occasion for the American people to exercise the sovereign authority upon which their government rests.

For there is a remedy against the abuse of power which free societies possess and tyrannies deny.

It is the ballot.

Before the patriot is called to the battlefield, he is called to the polling place. Before the defense of liberty demands the sacrifice of life, it demands the exercise of citizenship. Before a people may rightly declare that their institutions have failed them, they must employ the constitutional means entrusted to their care.

And in exercising this power, the patriot fulfills his highest obligation. For patriotism is not obedience to the government. It is fidelity to the nation.

When a President tramples upon the rights of his fellow citizens, when his administration disregards the restraints of constitutional government, and when his party in Congress shields him from accountability, the people possess both the right and the responsibility to withdraw their consent.

Let the Republican majorities that have sustained President Trump be replaced by representatives prepared to exercise the independent judgment and constitutional oversight their offices require.

Let the people's representatives be reminded that their duty is not to the President, but to the Constitution they have sworn to defend.

Let those who have placed party above country discover that the country is greater than their party.

We must never forget that democracy possesses a strength which tyranny cannot imitate: the capacity to correct its own course without the shedding of blood.

The tyrant fears the ballot because it permits the governed to dismiss the governor. The patriot cherishes it because it affirms that no officeholder is indispensable, no party is entitled to power, and no man stands above the judgment of his fellow citizens.

The tyrant fights for himself. He seeks dominion, obedience, and the perpetuation of his own power. Though he may speak of national greatness, he measures that greatness by the authority which he commands. He regards the nation as the instrument of his ambition, its people as the servants of his will, and their lives as possessions to be spent in the pursuit of his glory.

The patriot fights for something greater than himself.

He fights not that he may command his country, but that his country may remain free. He fights not that his name may be remembered, but that his children may live without fear. He asks no inheritance of power, no throne, no dominion over his fellow citizens. His ambition is that those who follow him may possess the same liberties which he has enjoyed, and that those yet unborn may inherit a nation no less free than the one entrusted to his keeping.

He loves his country not merely for its ideals, but its people. He loves them in their differences, in their imperfections, in their disagreements, and in their common humanity. He knows that a nation is not made worthy of devotion by the absence of faults, but by the presence of something greater than those faults: a shared inheritance, a common destiny, and the enduring right of its people to seek a better future together.

We are not descended from fearful men.

Our fathers and mothers endured hardships that we have never known. They stood against empires, against dictators, against the machinery of oppression, and against the despair which whispers that resistance is futile. They were not without fear. They were not without doubt. Yet they discovered, when the hour demanded it, that duty could prevail over fear, that conviction could outlast suffering, and that the love of country could call ordinary people to extraordinary sacrifice.

Their courage is not a relic of a vanished age. It is an inheritance awaiting its summons.

Those who have forgotten will remember.

Those who have grown complacent will awaken.

Those who have mistaken the comfort of peace for the permanence of liberty will learn again that freedom is neither an accident of history nor a gift bestowed by the powerful, but an inheritance maintained by the vigilance and sacrifice of free people.

Ok, what values do you think are essential for a centrist in the time of hyper partisanship and AI?

Neutral summary: I was gaming with a friend and we talked about politics for a while. He is voting Red in the midterms while I'm split ticket voting this time around. He started talking about why he will always vote red and I listened. I wanted to hear what other centrist here thought of this.

Post:

To keep this short, one of the main examples given was that liberals support welfare programs all of which were argued hurts the growth and prosperity of the country. His reasoning was that these programs and government benefits encourage fathers to be left out of the home to qualify and promote single parent households. He cited that children that come from single parent households overall fair significantly worse than others.

The counter argument was that the right is helping America because they are trying to conserve the American family. From this perspective, supporting traditional family values shows a desire to do what’s best for the country. A strong family unit works together, raises their children to value hard work and responsibility, and contributes to the country’s growth while being less likely to be in poverty and need these "handouts" to begin with.

The conversation ended with the point that "The left thinks America is broken and things need to change but we are trying to bring America back to the time when it was most prosperous and it starts at home."

Thoughts?

Politics has always been extreme but i feel like ever since the early to mid 2010s it went to another level, do you ever think we're gonna reach a level social and economic ideology will become more logical and less extreme?.

Came across part of this recent interview Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson had with Dana Bash where he responds to how the USA needs to get out of the war with Iran in order to help stabilize fuel and oil prices.

Now I saw some Republicans criticize it because Jackson showed he was unqualified and didn’t know what he was talking about seeing how the Strait of Hormuz is open and oil prices are going down and that it would be foolish to withdraw and give them time to recuperate when we are winning the war against Iran.

Was therefore wondering what centrists, independents, moderates, and others thought about it.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Regardless of the outcome of the Nov. 3 election, a new AP-NORC poll shows voters from both major political parties want the next Congress to focus on making life more affordable and ending the war in Iran, while fewer are looking for an emphasis on President Donald Trump - whether it's investigating him or supporting his agenda.

The results suggest that voters are ready for Congress to tackle core issues, despite Trump's centrality in the midterm campaign.

About 8 in 10 registered voters, including a large majority of Republicans and Democrats, say lowering the cost of living should be one of the highest priorities for the session coming up, the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds.