Polls and pundits alike are widely — if sometimes cautiously — predicting a blue wave in the midterm elections on November 3. But there’s an important caveat to predictions of a Democratic triumph: Republicans have far more cash at their disposal.

President Donald Trump’s super PAC alone had around $400 million on hand earlier this fall, and Elon Musk has personally pumped hundreds of millions into critical races, including $158 million for Texas alone. 

Democrats, by contrast, have lagged far behind, especially relative to their performance in past cycles, with the party’s candidates propped up more by small-money donors than deep-pocketed institutional players.

Shane Goldmacher, a national political reporter for the New York Times, has extensively covered the role of money in American electoral politics. He spoke with America, Actually host Astead Herndon about where that money is coming from, how the GOP is spending it, and the effect that it might have on the coming elections. 

They also discuss the races that aren’t getting funded — and what current fundraising patterns might tell us about the candidates who could be in the mix in the next presidential campaign cycle. 

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

A couple of weeks ago we asked, “What is the GOP strategy to try to win?” And one of the answers we got is they simply have more dollars than Democrats. Everyone’s talking about this GOP money advantage, but how big is it really, and where is it coming from?

It’s bigger than I’ve basically seen in the last 20 years, and it’s almost entirely coming from big donors. President Trump has a super PAC. It had about $400 million in it at the beginning of September, and there was no Democratic counterpart.

And then the Republican National Committee, which is functionally controlled by Trump, had another $130 million. More than Democrats, because the DNC has literally more debts than cash. That’s a half a billion dollars.

You’re saying this is a historic edge.

In 2024, Kamala Harris outspent Donald Trump significantly in the general election. In 2020, Joe Biden significantly outspent Donald Trump in the general. In 2016, Hillary Clinton. And in the midterms along the way, same story. 

This is a switch, and when you talk about how many seats can the Democrats gain, given how unpopular Trump is, the Republican money is seen as a real limiter on Democratic chances.

Do we know anything specific about the people putting in money to the Trump super PAC and the RNC to give them such a lead?

Most of these folks are disclosed. And Trump has been pretty open about raising money from the very moment that he won. He’s been pretty clear that he is in business to help people who are helping him. And so there are big crypto industries that are giving money that are expecting or hoping for favorable regulation from the administration.

So it’s a lot of big businesses. It’s a lot of wealthy Republicans who generally support him anyway, and there are industry groups that see benefit to being in favor.

I will never forget, obviously, the scene from Trump’s second inauguration when he had the Zuckerbergs and the Bezoses and Elon Musk behind him. Is that how I should think about the people funding this donor advantage? Is it tech oligarchs? Is it tech forward?

There’s a lot of tech. I wouldn’t say it’s exclusively [tech]. And Musk, by the way, is like an extra pot of money. Musk, the world’s richest person, is said to be spending at least $200 million. So that’s a bigger chunk. He has given some money directly to the Trump super PAC. He’s given some money to these congressional super PACs. 

Is this just quid pro quo? Is this just a group of businesses who think, “Hey, no matter how unpopular this guy is, it is worth investing in him and his party because they’re gonna, regulate or not regulate in a way that’s favorable for us”?

It’s not quite just that. He raised a ton of this money when he was not so unpopular. If you want to say something smart that he did, it was that. Throughout 2025 he was raising all of this money.

And I don’t want to overstate the Republican advantage. A lot of these Democratic candidates are raising a ton of money. James Talarico stands out as maybe the peak example of this.

The Texas Senate race is the most expensive race in the country right now, and Republicans are pouring $200 million to save the nominee there. So a big chunk of that advantage is going to Texas. And the Democrats have put very little money from outside groups into Texas. 

Talarico has captured the imagination of these small Democratic donors, and he’s raised tens and tens of millions of dollars. I would be shocked if he doesn’t hit $100 million by the end of the cycle. 

You reported that the GOP’s pulling back in North Carolina. What should we take from that in terms of how the GOP sees its own landscape when it comes to the federal races?

Where have Republicans put that money? They put it into South Carolina right next door to protect a seat that was once thought, on the Senate front, to be safe for Republicans. This is the former Lindsey Graham seat that his sister is now running in. And then even more of it has gone to Kansas. This is a state that has not elected a [Democrat] to the Senate for nearly 100 years. 

If you’re the Republican Party and you’re pulling money out of a state like North Carolina that hasn’t elected a Democrat since 2008, and then putting it into a place that hasn’t elected one since 1932, that tells you where the, the bar is moving.

I think the concern for Democrats right now is there might be a wave, but Kansas has a big red wall. It’s hard to beat that kind of institutional advantage for the Republican Party.

Considering how close we are to Election Day, like, what are they actually spending this money on? Is it just more ads? Is it just more mailers?

I was in Pennsylvania this month, and I was trying to watch political ads on YouTube for various races. And I was getting pre-roll of three political ads before I watched the political ad I was trying to watch. So much about our elections is being decided now by people who are actively trying not to consume political news. It costs more money to reach people who are avoiding it on purpose.

There are some organizing things that happen, but most of the money is various versions of advertising.

On the Democratic side, considering this GOP edge, what are the races that you currently describe as underfunded? Where do the Democrats wish they had more money?

Number one is governors’ races, actually. When you look at where Democratic donors swoon, it’s Senate races. There are no candidates for governor who have made people swoon like this in recent years. 

[James] Talarico is raising all this money, but in Texas also, Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic candidate for governor, does not have that kind of money, and she’s running against Greg Abbott, who had $100 million.

What should we ascribe that to?

I think there’s actually a pretty simple answer, which is, if you don’t live in the state, it doesn’t impact you. If you’re a small donor and you live in California, you can be excited about a Senate candidate because you want Democrats to control the Senate. Are you as excited about a Democratic governor of Georgia?

It’s hard to argue that the governors of these key presidential battlegrounds aren’t some of the most important races on the ballot this year.

By the way, a problem with both parties. Republican national donors and these super PACs also don’t fund these governor’s races at the same level. So it’s not just a Democratic issue, but it’s more acute [for them] because Democrats are so well-funded at the small-donor level.

Fundraising is a huge part of what sets the presidential candidates apart from one another. The money game among those candidates has already started. Is there anyone who’s quietly built some donor network that’s worth thinking about? Is there someone who stood out as a particularly effective fundraiser when we think about the 2028 crowd?

Let me give you my favorite stat from the last Democratic primary, which is that Mike Bloomberg spent twice as much as Tom Steyer, who spent twice as much as Bernie Sanders, who spent twice as much as Joe Biden, who became the Democratic nominee. And so money isn’t gonna determine who wins the next Democratic presidential primary.

One person who has unlimited money, functionally, is JB Pritzker. He’s a billionaire, the governor of Illinois, and he is spending his money now to help other Democrats, which is a good way to make friends.

My last question is an open one. What’s an underexplored story that we should be following going forward when it comes to campaign cash or both parties’ relationship with money?

One of my big questions is what happens to Republican small-dollar fundraising in that post-Trump era. Because there have basically not been any other Republicans who have excited donors for a decade.

Not JD Vance? 

I have not seen evidence. JD Vance was not a good fundraiser before he [joined] the ticket with Donald Trump. When he ran for Senate, his primary run was funded chiefly by Peter Thiel through a super PAC.

There are candidates who’ve raised some money, but nothing on the scale of what these Democratic candidates have been able to raise online. When you talk about that Trump era [ending] at some point, are there others who are going to get Republican small donors excited? We don’t know. We haven’t seen it yet.

RJ Mitte, the actor best known for portraying Walter White Jr. on Breaking Bad, has passed away. The nature of his death has not been officially disclosed.

“It is with profound sadness that we share the tragic passing of beloved actor, philanthropist, and passionate disability rights advocate RJ Mitte,” read a statement shared with PEOPLE by one of Mitte’s reps.

“RJ Mitte was best known for his role as Walter ‘Flynn’ White Jr. on AMC’s critically acclaimed, award-winning series Breaking Bad,” the statement added. “Drawing from his own experience living with cerebral palsy, Mitte brought authenticity to the role and built a platform on disability awareness and inclusion.”

“Beyond entertaining friends and family around the world, he served as an ambassador for United Cerebral Palsy and Shriners Children’s,” Mitte’s reps continued. “He also served as president of The Mitte Foundation, supporting philanthropic efforts and community initiatives, while using his platform to challenge stereotypes and promote greater representation for people with disabilities.”

RJ Mitte was 34 years old at the time of his death

Their statement concluded: “At this time, we ask people to respect the privacy of RJ Mitte’s family and close ones.”

While he was best known for his role on Breaking Bad, Mitte also starred in many other TV shows and movies. His most recent project was the 2025 indie drama film Westhampton.

Additionally, Mitte made appearances in a number of music videos by artists like Hollywood Undead and The Voice contestant Kameron Marlowe. Scroll down to see five of Mitte’s most memorable music video appearances.

“Dead Bite” by Hollywood Undead (2013)

First up, we have “Dead Bite” by rap-rock stalwarts Hollywood Undead. For this song, the band put together a dark music video with a bunch of adult film stars in its supporting cast.

It stars Mitte as a guy who winds up in an Eyes Wide Shut-esque party, complete with masked partygoers in a salacious environment.

“Party Like Tomorrow Is The End Of The World” by Steel Panther (2013)

Mitte’s second music video of 2013 was a cameo in Steel Panther’s “Party Like Tomorrow Is The End Of The World”.

Essentially, it’s the glam-metal band having a backyard party where all bets are off because The Devil (comedian/actor Rob Riggle) told them the world was ending and they aren’t allowed in Hell.

“If I Get High” by Nothing But Thieves (2016)

A few years after his first two music videos, Mitte appeared in one for Nothing But Thieves: “If I Get High”. The narrative follows a young man trying to deal with the loss of his mother while doing his best to survive an abusive father

All art is up for interpretation, but this story seems to end with Mitte’s character dying in some manner and going on to be with his mother in the afterlife.

“In The Dark” by 3 Doors Down (2016)

Also in 2016, Mitte starred in the music video for 3 Doors Down’s “In The Dark”. Directed by Magnus Jonsson and Martin Landgreve, Mitte plays a man in over his head with a fiery woman who’s hell-bent on wrecking his life. But, just maybe, it’s all a dream?

“Never Really Know” by Kameron Marlowe (2024)

Last, and by far the most emotional and devastating, is Kameron Marliow’s “Never Really Know”. A beautiful and haunting track, the song is about how we’re all going through things that others can’t see.

In the music video, Mitte portrays a man with substance abuse who is having a hard time finding a job. Ultimately, his addiction claims his life.

Photo by Beth Gwinn/Getty Images

The post Beyond ‘Breaking Bad’: 5 Music Videos Featuring the Late RJ Mitte appeared first on VICE.

💾

The Wisconsin gubernatorial race was one of the most closely watched Democratic primaries in the country this year, pitting a democratic socialist, state Rep. Francesca Hong, against Milwaukee Democrat David Crowley, who received the endorsement of the state’s sitting Democratic governor, Tony Evers.

Hong lost the race, setting up Crowley to face Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany in the general election this fall. But she’s already back on the campaign trail, this time trying to help Democrats win a trifecta in the state: the governor’s race and both legislative chambers.

Unifying the state’s voters to achieve that won’t be easy, though. Hong spoke with America, Actually host Astead Herndon about her own loss, Evers’s role in it, and whether or not the voters who felt so passionate about her own campaign would find enough to love in Crowley’s campaign — in particular on the increasingly important issue of data centers. 

Astead and Hong also talked about what Wisconsin means for the Democrats nationally, and what lessons the party should take from her race, including her loss.

“I said this, and I will continue to say it — the person who is most electable is the person who ended up getting the most votes, and that was Crowley this time around,” Hong said. “But I think there’s a disservice when you have the most powerful Democrat in the state choosing to ignore a lot of voters and people who were inspired and energized and coming out to participate in politics for the first time through our campaign. I think it was shortsighted to use electability almost as a fear tactic.”

Below is an excerpt of Astead’s conversation with Hong, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

Part of the reason we wanted to come here was because we saw you were getting back on the campaign trail, and specifically around that idea of energizing Wisconsin toward a trifecta.

Now, just tell me the difference in terms of the importance of Democrats winning it all — not only the governor’s mansion, but both houses of the state legislature — versus just the governor’s mansion. How does that change the possibilities of what the party could do?

For the last 16 years, a Republican majority in the state legislature has meant that passing the types of policies that we know can drastically improve the lives of everyday folks here in Wisconsin stalled. And we have a historic opportunity to flip the assembly and the state Senate and hold the governor’s mansion and the entire executive branch to a Democratic majority, meaning the opportunity to pass the policies that the majority of our state supports — things like increasing minimum wage, things like legalizing marijuana, codifying abortion. 

We also need to repeal Act 10 [which dramatically restricted collective bargaining rights for public-sector employees]. Wisconsin is where workers’ rights, things like unemployment insurance, Social Security were born, and we moved backwards with the Republican majority. That’s all on the table with the Democratic trifecta.

It also, though, raises the political standard of what Democrats would have to do to achieve that, and some of it goes through these more rural communities.

Why do we think the party has fallen behind in more rural communities, and what could be done to reverse that?

I think it’s important to look at what’s happened in the rural communities when we’ve seen manufacturing jobs leave the state, when we’ve seen fewer and fewer supports for our small farmers.

And so much of this — what connects it — is actually the growth of massive wealth and corporate control and corporate greed, and more people feeling the impacts of that. There’s an opportunity right now to say, ‘Hey, Republicans have been in the legislature, they’ve been in power, and things have not improved for you or your community … Now’s the opportunity to make sure that we’re actually able to see our shared Wisconsin values of working hard and taking care of our kids be reflected back in Madison through laws.’

So much of your campaign was focused on data centers, stopping data centers. Should I think of that as a rural issue?

I think the issue around data centers is an everyone issue. It’s a democracy issue. It’s people wanting to feel like there are folks who care about what happens to communities, and that they have control and an actual say in what happens in their communities.

To that point, is it a mistake for David Crowley, the Democratic nominee, to have not gone as far as you did and say, “We won’t be building more data centers for a period of time”?

He’s fighting for communities and community control when it comes to data centers.

But it’s not a moratorium.

But it’s not a moratorium. It isn’t, but he’s also committed to 100 percent renewable energy, clean energy to power data centers.

And achieving that is going to be incredibly difficult, and it is going to be the developers having to pay their own way, and these are things that he’s committed to that we know can slow down the growth and development of data centers. 

Have you had time to reflect on your primary loss? If you had to diagnose, why do you think you lost?

I’m still doing a lot of reflection. But I think that I want to continue to look forward. And what I’ve learned from our election is that it’s so important to continue to stay grounded in becoming accessible to people. I think that as an organizer and an elected official, it’s my responsibility to continue to go to the people and remain very in touch with what’s going on on the ground.

I have a couple more questions about the nature of the loss. Evers’s endorsement changed that race, so much so that your opponent David Crowley was able even to win in some smaller communities, like places where you were pitching yourself as the voice of more rural communities.

Does that disprove any of this thesis around, say, data centers? If that was the top priority for Wisconsin voters, wouldn’t you be the nominee?

I think it wasn’t all rural communities. It wasn’t all suburban communities. We saw certain demographics but also ZIP codes where we outperformed David significantly.

And I think that where the governor’s endorsement played a bigger role was areas where he was also more popular. 

Did it surprise you when Evers endorsed Crowley?

I was disappointed.

Why?

I was disappointed because I was getting a lot of feedback from folks who hadn’t committed to any candidate yet that this felt like the governor was putting his thumb on the scale.

I wanted to ask about electability, because it seemed as if Evers’s endorsement was about a fear that maybe you couldn’t win in November.

So much of the primary concern was around the DSA label, even campaigning with folks like Hasan Piker. In retrospect, was any of that a mistake?

We knew going in that we would have to encourage new voters to come out, folks who typically do not come out for primaries, quote-unquote low-propensity voters. And we knew that we would have to campaign in places where folks weren’t expecting to see a gubernatorial candidate. And those included Twitch streams.

Those also included going to dive bars and bowling alleys and making sure that we were accessible and shaping our policies based on what the people were telling us they wanted to see happen and also what they wanted to see out of their governor. I think electability… I said this, and I will continue to say it — the person who is most electable is the person who ended up getting the most votes, and that was Crowley this time around.

But I think there’s a disservice when you have the most powerful Democrat in the state choosing to ignore a lot of voters and people who were inspired and energized and coming out to participate in politics for the first time through our campaign.

I think it was shortsighted to use electability almost as a fear tactic, when Democrats need to be inspiring and project a vision where everyone can see themselves in it as everyday working-class folks.

When you’ve got a party that has struggled with elitism to then cave to an establishment narrative … being more afraid of labels when I’m hearing from people on the ground that they’re interested in solutions and solving problems, maybe somebody who knows the hustle of the service industry and running restaurants and has worked across the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation. There are ways that we can maneuver around labels and what the loudest narrative might be.

I wish our governor hadn’t fed into that.

To be fair, to your point, the establishment label doesn’t fully fit even someone like Crowley, who comes from a working-class background. But am I hearing that you think Evers’s move made your life in the general election more difficult?

Is it harder to re-inspire if young people who are invested in the Hong campaign think that the establishment squashed them out?

We still had over 300,000 votes. We lost by fewer than 4,000 votes. I had more votes than Evers did during his primary. That’s not squashing our voices.

We’re still here, and it’s so important that people find avenues to continue to exercise their voice and their new organizing power. And I’m definitely going to continue to work to make sure that we get results and that we win the trifecta, and that’s the most important thing we should be focusing on right now.

I hear why a trifecta matters in the state context, particularly the state policy.

If I’m someone, though, who’s not in Wisconsin, who’s just worried about Donald Trump running amok in Washington, why should I care if Democrats win the governor’s mansion and the state legislature? Does that matter for folks outside of the state?

Because we will start to see that when you feel government actually working and you see change happening in your lives, these are then voters who are going to continue to come out and vote for Democrats.

We’re a pivotal state when it comes to the federal elections as well. We’re actually in a swing district right now. 

We have an opportunity, through Wisconsin, to actually start improving the brand for Democrats. And if we do that here, this trickles out to the rest of the country.

The premise being that delivering creates a connection for Democrats that is helpful in the presidential election, and it’s helpful in all these other ways too.

Yeah. We’re not going to be fighting every single midterm and presidential for our lives based on what’s happening in just one state.

But I think if we can start showing durable power for Democrats in a state like ours because of the policies that we’re prioritizing, and you have more folks coming out to vote for Democrats, that’s good for the health of democracy.

Instead of helping marketers manage and optimize ad spend, the company is focusing on building the tools that generate the creative assets and campaigns.

Non-Amazon Prime subscribers will be able to watch the awards show on the platform.

Horse racing can be an unusually dangerous profession for both the jockey and the horse: Riding a half-ton animal at nearly 40 miles per hour means your fate depends on the health and performance of both athletes. And the horse can be at risk of catastrophic injury if the jockey doesn’t have the required physical fitness to maintain proper technique and lightning-quick reflexes. 

But new wearable technology and advances in sports medicine are enabling everyone involved in the sport of horse racing to identify risks earlier and prevent injuries to horses and jockeys alike.

In order to find out more about both of these athletes, I took a trip to Belmont Park, to watch competitive horses train and to speak with Dr. Sara Langsam, an equine veterinarian and chair of the American Association of Equine Practitioners Racing Committee. And to learn about the jockey side of the equation, I talked to Michaela Keener, a jockey health researcher at University of Kentucky, and ReyLu Gutiérrez, a jockey who has started in over 6,000 races.

Read more about horse racing safety and health:

• Article about wearable biometric sensors as a horse injury detection system
• “Physiological Demands and Muscle Activity of Jockeys in Trial and Race Riding”
• New York Racing Authority’s page on equine safety
• Horseracing Wrongs, a nonprofit committed to ending the horse-racing industry for reasons of animal welfare
• Information about the new Belmont Park racetrack, including details on its new, technologically advanced surfaces

This video is presented by Colgate. Colgate doesn’t have a say in our editorial decisions, but they make videos like this one possible.

With the 2026 midterm elections fast approaching, polling increasingly suggests that the GOP is in for a bad time. As the Iran war drives up inflation and fuel prices, Republicans are on the back foot not just in swing states like Michigan, but in redder parts of the map: Iowa, Texas, and maybe even Kansas, among others. (Not to mention Georgia and North Carolina.) 

It’s shaping up to be a Democratic wave, in other words, and a major repudiation of President Donald Trump. According to Sarah Longwell, the publisher of political news site the Bulwark, there’s a clear reason why this is the cycle that things seem to be falling apart for Trump, who has dodged scandals and bad poll numbers before. “The average person is often voting on instinctual things,” she explains, “and those instincts are a lot of your animalistic desires for things to be okay materially.” And for many voters right now, things are not okay materially.

Longwell would know: She regularly speaks with voters for her podcast, The Focus Group, and she’s the author of the new book How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time. 

Longwell talked with Vox’s Astead Herndon for a special live recording of the America, Actually podcast at the Texas Tribune Festival earlier this month about why voters are both more and less complicated than punditry sometimes suggests, what the future holds for the Republican Party post-Trump, and the lesson Democrats need to learn to capitalize on their wins.

Below is an excerpt of Astead’s conversation with Longwell, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

One of the themes in the book is to talk to voters like real adults. What does that mean? 

There was a long period of time in our history where the artifice of politics was part of the performance of politics.

You could give a good speech. You’d do a debate. Those are not the rules of politics in this communications environment anymore. Every single one of you, if you’re a Bulwark person, you interact with me. I am in your ear, and we’re having a conversation.

We have a parasocial relationship. I walked in here and met a bunch of people, and they were like, “I feel like I know you.” And people want to feel like that about their political leaders now. And so they want to know what makes you tick. Are you a real person? And so the artifice of a debate on CNN is starting to feel really stupid, no offense to CNN.

People demand more now. And a lot of it is just that artifice is falling away for voters. Donald Trump understood that as a person who had been in people’s living rooms as a performer. Democratic politicians still have not figured it out. 

One of the things that comes through in both the book and I think the work that we both do is how voters don’t always fit into those neat ideological boxes.

I always tell the story about when I was at the Iowa caucuses, and I remember in 2019 in the Democratic primary, someone telling me they were stuck between Bernie [Sanders] and [former New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg, and asking, “How did you get there?”

And what was the answer? 

I think the short answer was they liked a strong guy where they knew what he believed in. And they did not care which side of that coin that was, as long as it felt consistent and something they could put their hands around.

If ideology is not the controlling paradigm for voters, how should we think about the different ways people are sorting themselves right now? 

My answer is genuinely not to sort them as much. This is the reason people say things like, “It’s the economy, stupid,” and then everybody gets bored with that answer, and they want to talk about 10 other things because they’re like, “Well, that’s so straightforward.”

But I try in the book to say it really is about improving people’s material well-being and ensuring their safety. So you go back to: What are the most human things that people want? They want to be able to afford gas. They want a job. They want a job [where] they think that they can go up the ladder. 

They want their kids to get a good education. Then they want to be safe. They want to know that they’re safe in their community. They want to know they’re safe in the places that they go. And Donald Trump and Republicans really do understand: People vote with weird animal instincts. 

Now, I bet a lot of the people in this room are college-educated suburban voters, but the average voter in a general election is a 55-year-old white guy without a college degree.

The average person is often voting on instinctual things, and those instincts are a lot of your animalistic desires for things to be okay materially — your cost of health care, and then for you to be safe. And so if you think about those base-level desires and then think about what Democrats spend most of their time talking about, you’re like, “Is that the thing that captures all these people?”

When I watch Democrats as somebody who’s an immigrant into the Democratic ecosystem, there’s a lot of, like, “And you get a policy, and you get a policy, and you get a policy.” And I don’t really understand that because everybody needs cheaper gas.

Everybody needs groceries that they can afford. And so talking about the things that unite us or that everybody needs, to me, is the secret sauce for how Democrats should think about policy. 

Three years ago, Democrats thought that being against January 6th was a thing that united everybody. There was a belief that pro-democracy arguments were going to unite people across ideology. Why did that fail in 2024? 

I’ve been thinking about this a lot as Trump gets terrible poll after terrible poll, and this is my point.

The coup, all of the horrible things he said about women, all of the lawsuits — I mean, he told everybody an election was stolen. Why is he underwater right now? Because of gas prices, because of a war in Iran, because the negative personal consequences of his policies are hitting people.

I know that it frustrates people. I’m so aware of the frustration where people are like, “Why are people so selfish? Why don’t they think about the bigger picture of democracy?” And one of the things I try not to do is magic words — consultant stuff, because a lot of consultants do that. They’re like, “Say freedom,” and “Say affordability.”

There’s nothing to back it up. But the one magic word I do think that Democrats should start using is “America,” and swap it in for “democracy.” And the reason is, voters practice democracy in America by its individual things.

They practice free speech. They like rule of law. They like checks and balances. So they like the elements of democracy, but they don’t think about them up here as democracy. And also the word democracy now is very polarized, right? Republicans think that Democrats are a threat to democracy because they stole the 2020 election. And Democrats think Republicans are a threat to democracy because they lied about the election being stolen and then tried to overturn the entire government.

I think one side of that equation is more right than the other. But I think that’s why it didn’t work. 

I want to look ahead. Our show focuses on building a roadmap for American politics without Trump, and part of that question has been about Republicans.

They have made themselves into a new kind of America First-esque party. But what does that mean without Trump at the center of it? When you’re in your focus groups, is it clear what values or principles Republicans believe in besides what Donald Trump says to them?

Absolutely not. They don’t have anything. This is why I wrote the book. I wrote the book because we have 2026, we have 2028, and we have 2032. 

By 2032, there’s going to be a new census, and things are going to get worse for Democrats. Hear me on this. People are not grokking this yet. The map — people are leaving California for Texas, people are leaving New York for Florida, and it’s just going to get harder for Democrats to win if this same trajectory that we’re currently on holds.

But there is a generational opportunity right now, and it’s why I desperately wanted to bring this book and get it out there. The Republican Party at this moment is as hollowed out as … Donald Trump is going to leave it in shambles. There is no Trump heir who can do what Trump does, who has the longstanding parasocial relationship with voters where they give him this blank check that other people don’t get.

But my concern is that 2026 will go really well and that Democrats will say, “See? It’s fine. Everybody likes us.” They don’t.

This was the big mistake in 2022. The midterms were extrapolated [to signal] Biden’s re-election, and those were not the same thing.

They are not the same thing. And again, the average voter is a 55-year-old white man without a college degree. And you can just hold that in your head and picture that guy and say, “Do we have candidates who can appeal to that guy?” 

I was being annoying when I was flying here, tweeting things, and there’s a new poll out for [Pennsylvania Gov.] Josh Shapiro. He is beating his Republican opponent by 21 points in the poll right now. This is the largest swing state in the country, and Democrats hate Josh Shapiro.

Hate feels a little strong. I think the left doesn’t like Josh Shapiro. I don’t think that’s the whole party.

That’s a good point.

I’ll just say, as a slight Josh Shapiro stan, perhaps I feel more than most people’s antipathy to the idea of Josh Shapiro running. I get a lot of people just being like, “Absolutely not. He’s a corporate centrist. We would never consider him. And also he’s Jewish slash Zionist.”

And a lot of this is Twitter discourse, but it feels like he doesn’t get the same buzz or interest, which seems insane to me when you’ve got somebody that popular in such a big, important state that Trump was able to win twice. 

The electoral argument for the Josh Shapiros of the world is clear.

Twenty-one points in Pennsylvania at any rate is impressive, but let’s use him as an example, because I do think it speaks to where some Democrats have gone in the last couple years. The polling will tell you that the majority of Democrats want to see their party reshift its relationship with Israel and want to see things like an arms embargo.

Polling would tell you that the majority of Democrats believe that they shouldn’t be taking corporate money, or that things like AIPAC money are bad. How does a Josh Shapiro — let’s use him as an avatar. … Is that compatible with where the Democratic base is right now, even if it’s clearly compatible with Pennsylvania?

The way that you just said it doesn’t sound compatible. But I don’t think that it’s incompatible. 

This is a book about what the voters think, and the voters want a new relationship with Israel, hands down. Without question. They want America to reevaluate our relationship with Israel. And the next Democratic presidential candidate is going to have to do that.

And I have a theory about this. I do think that the 2028 nominee is very likely to be a Jewish person who is highly critical of Israel, because I think that it helps to heal the deep divide right now on this issue within the Democratic Party.

Now, do I think it’s more likely that that is the very handsome Jon Ossoff? I kind of do. But I just … a big part of this book is, “Don’t you want to win? Don’t you guys want to win?” Like, do you want to win more than you want to be right about everything?

Auralnaut's reimagined Star Wars series is both more fun than plain ol' Star Wars and makes a lot more sense. Obi-Wan "Larry" Kenobi takes the fan-favorite character and turns him up about 300 notches.

The tension between Anakin and Obi-Wan is far more believable in Auralnauts work. — Read the rest

The post Auralnauts' "Star Wars: Larry" abridged version now available on the YouTubes appeared first on Boing Boing.

Hier ist das diesmalige Heftblättern – unter erschwerten Umständen (Messelärm…), aber mit großem Enthusiasmus aufgenommen von unserem Autoren Stephan Freundorfer und Jörg Langer. Dass wir ein, zwei “Regieanweisungen” aus dem laufenden Interview heraus drin gelassen haben, ist kein Versehen, sondern Teil der Atmosphäre…

Wie üblich bei diesem Format, besprechen wir das aktuelle Heft (hier erhältlich) und lassen auch die eine oder andere Anekdote unserem Gehirnarchiv entspringen. Viel Spaß!

William Lawrence is a Democrat running to represent Michigan’s Lansing-area Seventh Congressional District with a campaign that largely focuses on data centers and affordability. It’s not an unusual story in 2026 — but not long ago, Lawrence was cutting his teeth in progressive politics as a co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, primarily focused on organizing around the climate crisis.

His arc, from progressive activist to politician, is emblematic of a bigger trend, as a wave of millennial progressives in midterm races across the country try to lean into issues that have broader, more immediate appeal with voters.

But that arc also raises big questions about the left’s changing priorities. In a recent interview for Vox’s podcast and video series America, Actually, host Astead Herndon spoke with Lawrence about his past activism and how he has pivoted. “It can sometimes feel like…folks hop from issue to issue, whether it’s climate, even anti-AI right now, without those things being solved,” Herndon told Lawrence. 

According to Lawrence, “that’s the reality of the time. It seems like everything is unraveling, and it is because the whole social, economic, political compact is being renegotiated, not just in this country, but on a global stage.” Still, Lawrence said, that earlier organizing shapes how he sees different challenges today.

The two also discussed whether opposition to data centers and AI has wide, regular-voter appeal in places like Michigan and how Lawrence went from hopeless and disengaged to regaining a sense of agency through organizing.

Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

You started in Sunrise and were at the forefront of a young progressive movement that was aligned at that time — in 2018, 2019, and I think still — with progressive members of Congress like Rashida Tlaib or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I remember reporting about Sunrise at the time. The goal was to elect a Bernie Sanders, but the other goal was to have the party largely embrace things like a Green New Deal. How would you grade the efforts of the climate movement of that time, looking back?

I think we did some things very well.

We put climate jobs and justice at the top of the agenda for the incoming Biden administration. I think the Bernie-Biden task force is an often overlooked but very important chapter of that whole story, where Bernie and Biden both understood they had to bring their people to the table.

And that’s how Build Back Better got negotiated. We fought hard for Build Back Better, and ultimately came up two votes shy in the United States Senate.

Do you see that as a success or a failure of the climate movement?

I think Build Back Better was a success in coming to the table and negotiating, from the Green New Deal to Build Back Better, and then what we ended up with was the Inflation Reduction Act after it passed the final filter, which was Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. At the time, now, how I felt about it was, this is historic. This is the largest investment in green jobs and infrastructure in United States history. I know how hard it was to get here. I’m tremendously proud of the work that I did and so many others did.

Just in my district alone, we’ve delivered $26 billion in investment for manufacturing and sustainability because of the Inflation Reduction Act. But at the time, we knew that this is maybe 5 percent or 10 percent of what we need in scope. And now we’re experiencing the consequences of that.

Obviously, we still have a very volatile economy. We still lack energy security because we now have closed the Strait of Hormuz. We’re still too dependent on a global oil market, and we could use many more investments in solar and other kinds of renewable energy than we have now.

And ultimately, it wasn’t enough for the Biden-Harris administration to be able to win reelection, because people didn’t feel it enough in their pocketbooks.

Why do you think Democrats are talking less about climate?

I think it’s the intensity of the crises that we face. It feels like we’re falling through midair, after the end of all of the constitutional protections, the rule of law, and the economic security that people had previously enjoyed. 

There are a lot of very acute and urgent crises, and I think that that has bumped climate, which is a super massive but also somewhat slow-moving crisis, a little bit lower on the priority list just in terms of what comes up for people on the Hill.

You went back to Michigan to focus on housing and advocacy. Did that make you think a little differently about the national work you were doing?

I think it’s fair to say that when I was younger, I got very focused on this climate issue, and I was very focused on it because it is this existential crisis we all face.

But it was after the pandemic that I wanted to bring my work closer to home. I wanted to do the work of putting down roots in the place that had raised me and make my life there. And in seeking to organize there, it was clear that we needed an in to organize that was more immediate.

“I believe in the agency of regular people taking charge of our own lives and working together to build a better future.”

More immediate than the Green New Deal.

Than the Green New Deal or than the looming climate crisis. People know that that’s an issue, but they’re like, “I’ve gotta pay rent at the end of the month.” And as an organizer, I believe that you have to listen to people, you have to hear what’s going on for them, and then work on issues that have the potential to bring people together.

Housing is one of those issues. Whether you’re in the city of Lansing, whether you’re in small towns, urban, rural, suburban, young or old, everybody can agree that the rent is too damn high and it’s too hard to buy a home anymore.

Were you surprised Trump won the state in 2024? 

No.

Why not? 

Because I saw it all unfold. We hoped to deliver more through the Biden-Harris administration than we ultimately did through Build Back Better. We didn’t deliver as much to relieve the economic anxiety that people were feeling. And then I do believe that the war and the genocide in Gaza and our blank check to allow that to happen with our money and our tax dollars destroyed the Democratic coalition that had been assembled from 2017 through 2020 for the purpose of beating Trump.

I just saw that unfolding over the course of the whole year, just like a slow-motion train wreck.

I want to ask locally, what do you think is most important in this race: housing, data centers, or pushing back against Donald Trump?

If I had to choose, I’d say data centers because that’s where people in the district are finding some common ground across the spectrum — in fighting back against the concentrated power in Silicon Valley, which has been fully enabled by [incumbent Rep.] Tom Barrett and Donald Trump.

So you’re saying that’s the issue that allows you to create cross-ideological coalitions?

Yeah.

Our last question is, just thinking through the scope of your career and the kind of progressive work: It can sometimes feel like folks hop from issue to issue, whether it’s climate, even anti-AI right now, without those things being solved, right?

Like, we still have a climate crisis. The rent is still too high. All of these things are still happening. How am I to trust that AI is the crisis of our time when I’ve heard so many crises of our time?

Some have called it a polycrisis — overlapping crises.

That’s the reality of the time. It seems like everything is unraveling, and it is because the whole social, economic, political compact is being renegotiated, not just in this country, but on a global stage. I don’t think it serves us to lie about that. I mean, here’s the reality, folks.

Everything is up in the air. Does it feel like you’re falling through midair? It’s because we are. All the old protections, all the old agreements have been chopped up. So we have got to come together. This is what I believe in more than anything, if there is a through line…I believe in the agency of regular people taking charge of our own lives and working together to build a better future. 

That’s what I learned as an organizer, and that’s what gave me hope actually, at a time when I was doomer-ing in my younger years. And I told you, I wanted to just drop out of society and all that. It was seeing that regular people have come together before, and they’ve won a better future for their kids and grandkids, that gave me a path to follow in.

It does feel like a powerless time, I have to tell you. And a lot of this AI revolution, to your point about control or about agency. We’ve talked to so many people who just think that these things are happening to them, rather than feeling that they are participating in the changes afoot.

But you’re telling a kinda hopeful story. 

I’m a hopeful guy. I was angry too, even when I got into this race. I was angry especially about the wars. But then in campaigning, I’ve met so many people across the district, old friends, new friends, and they give me a lot of hope because you just see the way that people are already performing miracles on a daily basis.

This week on the popular theme park podcast Disney Dish with Len Testa and Jim Hill, Disney historian Jim Hill tells the story of The Walt Disney Transportation Company and its one achievement: installing a PeopleMover in what was then called The Houston Intercontinental Airport (now The George Bush Intercontinental Airport). — Read the rest

The post Disney built a subway inside Houston's airport appeared first on Boing Boing.

Rarely is a "trivia about a movie you love" video worth the watch, but this one is packed with awesome stories about Dino De Laurentiis' Flash Gordon.

Brian Blessed's Hawkman remains one of the best characters ever to take to the skies. — Read the rest

The post The Flash Gordon you remember may not be the one you actually saw appeared first on Boing Boing.

A month ago, a "Time Warp" parody would have been an easy tribute to Tim Curry. However, Britain's new Patriot Platform has been sending groups of masked, black-clad anti-immigration "activists" into the streets. Hundreds of these bigots blockaded Dover, demonstrators confronted the RNLI in Portsmouth, and the group's leader later marched masked followers into the Daily Mail's offices. — Read the rest

The post A timely Time Warp tribute in memory of Tim Curry appeared first on Boing Boing.

In 2024, Donald Trump’s victory was powered in large part by massive gains with Latino voters. He won 48 percent of those voters that year, up from 36 percent in 2020 and 28 percent in 2016. But now, that support is plummeting; Trump’s approval rating among Latinos who voted for him recently fell from 93 percent to 66 percent, where it was at the beginning of his second term.

Why? It has a lot to do, as with everything these days, with the economy. 

It was the same in 2024. During that election, voters were experiencing rising costs and stagnant wages — the same trend that has continued until today. In 2024, though, Joe Biden and his administration — which also meant Vice President Kamala Harris — took the blame from all voters, and particularly Latinos. Today, the blame is falling on Trump. 

America, Actually host Astead Herndon caught up with Stephanie Valencia, who co-founded Equis Research, a political research firm that specializes in Latino voters, to unpack some of these recent shifts and explain them. 

“I think one important data point to understand about the Latino voter is Latinos make up more of the wage workforce than any other part or any other racial subgroup,” she said on the podcast. “And so what that means is when wages are down and inflation is high, Latinos feel it more.” 

That’s why, when the economy is bad, this group is primed to be a “swinging giant” in US politics, Valencia explains — and right now, it appears to be swinging hard against Trump. 

Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

Equis has called Latinos one of the last great wild cards in American politics. Is that because of some of the double-digit swings that we’ve seen among this voting group over the past few elections?

Yes, it absolutely has to do with that. Latinos often get given the title the “sleeping giant,” which I just want to get rid of from everybody’s vocabulary. 

We should be called the “swinging giant” based on how much shift we have seen election to election. A third of Latinos consider themselves kind of independent or apolitical, and that swinging middle really is deciding every single election.

Your playbook gets into messengers and particularly how we reach folks where they are. It makes a Spanish-Spanglish distinction talking about the different types of media that Latino voters consume. 

I wanted to ask, in that vein, what’s the single biggest mistake campaigns make in terms of not reaching folks where they are?

Oh man, how long do we have so I can tell you how many mistakes? They’re really simple unforced errors. I’m going to give a very concrete and simple example that I think illustrates that. 

Look, I’m Latina. I grew up speaking mostly English, but I listen to Spanish-language radio. I watch a lot of YouTube, and on YouTube I’m watching people like Karol G and Carin León. A lot of people — a lot of Latino swing voters — have the same media consumption habits that I do.

The first problem or challenge that a lot of candidates make is they just simply translate their English ad into Spanish. And that is, to me, one of the biggest mistakes because there are a lot of things that people want to be communicating in Spanish that don’t translate word for word. There are sayings in Spanish that don’t translate directly from English or more direct ways you can communicate.

I’m sure it immediately reads Google Translate rather than an original message for said community.

Exactly. So that’s mistake No. 1. Mistake No. 2 is when they’re deploying that ad digitally, as a proxy for talking to people, they’re going to use Spanish-language browser settings. So they say, “We don’t want people who speak English to see the Spanish-language ad.”

So the way they find that set of voters is just by going to people who have Spanish-language browser settings. 

Like I said, I don’t have a Spanish-language browser setting. Everything I consume online is set in English on Chrome, but I still watch a lot of content in Spanish on YouTube.

So you’re missing a voter like me who’s going to see a Spanish language ad from a James Talarico or a Manny Rutinel and be turned on by it because I’m going to say, “Hey, that candidate’s speaking to our community. That candidate has enough respect to develop a Spanish-language ad.” 

We did some testing a couple of years ago that showed that over 70 percent of Latinos who see an ad in Spanish think that party or candidate cares more about Latinos. It matters that much.

Let’s stay in 2024 for a second longer. Your research found that Project 2025 and Trump’s mass deportation plans were not top of mind for most people, and that they were thinking about the economy. I wanted to ask about that because I remember the RNC signs at the convention saying, “Mass deportations now.” One number says that 62 percent of Latinos now think that Trump wants to deport undocumented immigrants broadly. 

Why did it take till post-election to realize those threats of mass deportation were real considering they were so front and center during his campaign?

I think this is really important for us as avid news consumers to understand the kind of news that the average voter, and especially that voter who’s coming in and out of elections, is consuming.

What they were seeing on mainstream media, perhaps even Fox News at the time, was a focus on people or Trump surrogates who said he was going to focus on serious criminals, securing the border, and violent criminals.

And so that’s what people bought. Fast-forward to 2026; the people who feel most regretful who voted for Trump in 2024 are most regretful because of immigration. They feel like there was a broken promise there. 

They were told he was going to focus on the border, which everybody agreed was chaos, and he was going to focus on violent criminals and serious threats, and at the end of the day, he has not complied with that.

And then add that to the litany of broken promises.

I’m hearing a distinction between a focus on the border, which Republicans did try to prioritize rather than the interior deportations that may have been more attributed to Stephen Miller than Donald Trump. But we have certainly seen that be a focus of the administration once they came back into office.

You mentioned the shift that has happened since 2024, and that’s really important, of course. Trump’s approval rating with Latinos is now worse than with non-Latinos, a stunning reversal in 18 months. 

You mentioned the factors that have contributed there, but is this really just the economy?

It’s the economy, it’s the war, and it’s immigration. It’s those three things. 

One thing that is really interesting to note about Trump’s approval, other than that it’s at basement levels — and he’s very much pulled down the GOP with him broadly and with Latino voters — is that in Trump 1.0, his approval on the economy and the cost of living was actually better than his everyday approval on his total job.

And he has been underwater with Latinos almost this entire term so far on the cost of living and the economy. It’s almost been a complete and total reversal.

Listen, you tell people you’re going to fix egg prices and gas is going to go down, and then you do the opposite, and we’re hearing that story universally across different electorate groups. 

You’re saying that’s still the main story when it comes to Latinos also?

Yes, it’s still the main story. I think one important data point to understand about the Latino voter is Latinos make up more of the wage workforce than any other part or any other racial subgroup. What that means is when wages are down and inflation is high, Latinos feel it more. 

We have less savings. We have lower rates of home ownership. So the safety nets that other people might have, we just don’t have. 

That really has exacerbated the kind of impact that people are feeling right now as they’re trying to make ends meet.

You mentioned the exponential growth in the terms of people who now regret or are disappointed with their vote for Donald Trump. Does that mean a preference for Democrats? How should we think about the binary choice between D and R versus what is a clear story about a backlash to Donald Trump’s actions?

I think it is a huge mistake for Democrats to rest on their laurels and think that because of what people are feeling about Trump and Republicans and the sense of disappointment and promises broken that that is automatically going to translate for them as a party and as a brand.

Right now, the Democratic brand has suffered a repeated set of blows among Latino voters. Twenty years of comprehensive immigration reform hasn’t been delivered. It’s a thing that comes up in almost every focus group. 

And part of what the build-up to 2024 was, was not only 20 years of a promise undelivered; it was the chaos at the border, it was feeling like Democrats were focused on everything but Latinos and their families, or everyday Americans and their families, and that they had lost that thread.

In 2019, Durham, North Carolina's Can Opener Bridge, formerly with 11 feet, 8 inches of clearance, was raised to 12 feet, 4 inches, reducing but not eliminating the entertaining and completely preventable shearing off of roofs and air conditioning units. — Read the rest

The post Durham's can opener bridge has a new rival in Ohio appeared first on Boing Boing.

I kind of like magic shows, but I really like finding out how magician's tricks are done. For me, it's almost all the fun. It's not in the magician's best interest to have their tricks revealed, and they have a code (among themselves) to keep their secrets secret. — Read the rest

The post How a real mentalist secretly rigs his mind-reading act appeared first on Boing Boing.

Maybe you learned that thousands of years ago, a now-extinct species of cheetah sped across the plains of North America. New genetic evidence shows that these animals weren't cheetahs, but were more closely related to American pumas. Paleontologists had been fooled by the animal's morphological similarity to African cheetahs, but it turns out that similarity was just an instance of convergent evolution. — Read the rest

The post Ancient DNA shows the extinct American cheetah was really a puma appeared first on Boing Boing.

Last month, Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon won the state’s Democratic Senate nomination in a major upset over her better-funded opponent, retired Army Lt. Col. Alex Vindman. Her victory was quickly slotted into a narrative about the Democratic Party’s insurgent progressive movement, which has triumphed in House and Senate primaries in Michigan, Colorado, New York, and elsewhere. 

But while Nixon supports progressive policies, she argues there’s more to the story than a simple progressive-versus-centrist tale. She says that she out-worked and out-organized her opponent — and that Floridians across the political spectrum are hungry for change. 

Vox’s Astead Herndon invited Nixon on a special pop-up episode of America, Actually to break down how she won the nomination, why she thinks there’s a path to victory in what many analysts believe is a solidly red state, and what she wants to get done as a senator if she prevails in November.

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

Why do you think your victory took so many by surprise?

It took so many by surprise because people both tend to underestimate a Black woman — especially a progressive Black woman in politics — and then one who wasn’t able to raise as much money. But as a former single mom for 12 years, I know how to make a dollar stretch.

This win is attributed to good old-fashioned grassroots organizing. I am a former union organizer. I am a community organizer, and I know the importance of people power and talking to people and getting them energized about why they should vote and why they should see themselves in this country.

How much would you ascribe your win to the type of politics that you’re describing here versus the progressive policies that you championed? Should we take this as a sign that Medicare-for-all and “abolish ICE” have strong support in Florida?

It’s all of it, right? It is the hard work that we put into this race to raise awareness about who I am and the policies and positions that I stand for, which are policies and positions that the majority of hardworking, everyday people stand for. 

Just because we want access to quality healthcare and affordable housing and fully funded public schools, they try to fear-monger and make it seem as though we are communist and we’re not.

We are not communist. We are people who want to put hardworking, everyday people in power so that they can determine and shape what our communities look like and what our economies look like. There’s nothing radical or extreme about that.

Democrats are still dismissing your chances to win a general election. Prominent pundits have said that Democrats should not invest in Florida, and that would amount to wasted money. Political forecasters moved the race in the Republican direction after your primary victory, arguing that the progressive politics makes it easier for Republicans to win in a state like Florida.

I wanted to ask about electability. Can you give me the case for how you can win a statewide race amongst such skepticism? 

The same way that I was able to win a primary being outspent and out-raised 18 to 1. I am building a very unique, diverse coalition of people. We’ve had Republicans and independents that crossed over in the primary to vote for me in the primary. They also volunteer in our campaign. They’ve made donations. 

We literally have a bunch of Republicans and libertarians who have been stating that they are voting for me because they like that I am no-nonsense. They appreciate that I am trying to put a check on what is coming out of Washington, DC, all of the cruelty and the corruption, and that is the winning message.

Look, we’re up against a woman, [incumbent Republican Sen. Ashley Moody], who allowed the theft of $10 million. She allowed money to be stolen from medically needy and low-income kids, to be diverted toward two citizen-led ballot initiatives that actually caused us to not have better health in our communities. 

People are frustrated, and that’s all Ashley Moody has done — just look out for herself, her campaign donors and these billionaires. People are ready for elected officials to stop bailing out these big businesses [and] actually look out for everyday people.

In November 2023, you introduced a resolution to the Florida House calling for “the immediate de-escalation and ceasefire…in Israel and occupied Palestine.” It was rejected 104 to 2. And it earned you some bad blood with some of the members of the Florida Jewish Caucus. The chair actually said that the resolution was born out of ignorance and antisemitism.

Obviously, the Democratic Party base has shifted on that issue over the last several years. There’s been an open discussion about whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did themselves damage in the 2024 election by not breaking more explicitly with Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Do you think that was a mistake for Democrats?

I would say yes. I would say that we have to have really uncomfortable conversations amongst our different communities and we just have to talk. But I feel that they did do a disservice in regards to just going along with the AIPAC lobby.

You had mentioned that you don’t support sending any money or any weapons to Israel at this moment, but I also wanted to ask about things like BDS, the movement to boycott, divest, or sanction Israel. Is that something you support?

It is. I’m a Black woman who is a descendant of slaves, and who is the descendant of people from the civil rights movement, and I know how we used boycotts and we used protest to gain our civil rights for our community. So I’m fully supportive of that.

You repeatedly said that you don’t support defunding the police on your website. It says that you support demilitarizing the police. And that “real safety comes from good jobs, strong schools, affordable housing, and healthcare for all — not from more cameras, more cages, and more agents.”

What is the difference between that and defunding?

Whatever folks think the difference is. I’m not going to box myself in because I understand how they’ll try to cut and clip things with me saying certain words.

But doesn’t that sound a little bit like lessening the resources that go to police to focus on other things? I mean, that sounds a little like the same thing.

It sounds like I know that is my position. I want to defund Flock cameras because bad cops are stalking their ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends. And so to-may-toe, to-mah-toe. I literally said this before and that is what I am for. I’m not trying to get clipped in any kind of way.

Let me ask you this way. I appreciate the focus on root causes, and I think you’ve laid that out that that’s where you want the energy to go — that real public safety comes from focusing on the things that cause people to commit crimes in the first place, but those often take a long time to show effect.

If we’re talking about the root causes of crime, what is the message to someone whose community is unsafe right now that does not include policing?

What I would say is, making sure that we invest in making sure people have more jobs and we invest in community control of the police. I totally believe in civil review boards and that type of thing, but I believe in making sure that people’s most basic needs are met. 

One of the things that I believe could help that right off the bat is things like universal healthcare, or at a minimum, extending the ACA subsidies so that we can drive down these healthcare premium costs. Or fully funding these programs that allow people to have access to first-time homebuyer programs. 

I was a single mom for 12 years, and I took part in the first-time homebuyer program that was funded from the federal government. That trickled down to the state and then to the local government. That helped me with down payment assistance as well as closing costs and those types of programs. We need to put policies in place that are allowing people to be good.

We need to push for universal child care. For every $1 that is invested by the government, it puts $3 back into the economy so parents can get to work. They can be able to make sure that they have money to put their children in different programs. We need to invest in programs to keep our children off the streets.

There’s been so much effort to put you in one of the boxes that have defined the Democratic ideological battles — DSA versus establishment. I hear in this interview how that doesn’t neatly fit with what it seems like you’ve done in Florida. 

Where do you think this campaign fits into the ongoing question of where do Democrats go next?

We’re coalition builders, we’re aggregators. Folks should know, I was a vice chair of a local Democratic Party. I was also the field director and the political director with the state party. I have never fit in a box. I was a union member and I also led a statewide organization that was straight-up progressive.

We need all these things to fight back against this Donald Trump regime. Look, this man is not going to leave willingly in 2028. He’s created a paramilitary force in the form of ICE that is getting away with shooting people and slaughtering them on camera while they’re masked without any accountability. They’re pushing to see how far they can go.

Granted, Black people have been getting slaughtered on camera without accountability for a while, but now they are doing it to people who aren’t just Black, who aren’t just Latino. They are banking on us being normalized with what’s happening.

First lady Michelle Obama says, “They go low, we go high.” I’m saying, “We get loud, we push back. We organize stronger and harder so that we can win and change this country and build a new vision for the next 250 years, where we have a Florida and an America for all.”

Retro-Gamer-Autorin Nina Schild begann schon in frühen Jahren, Adventures zu spielen – sie lernte Lesen mit Maniac Mansion und fing an, nackte Frauen zu malen, nachdem sie als kleines Kind Leisure Suit Larry spielte. Ihr Mann erteilt ihr beim gemeinsamen Adventure-Spielen Redeverbot, da sie sonst selbst die abstrusesten Rätsel in Rekordzeit löst und ihm den Spaß kaputtmacht. Diese und etliche mehr Enthüllungen findet ihr in Hardy Heßdörers Gespräch mit Nina auf der Gamescom 2026:

After 12 years of dominating American politics — either as president, as a candidate, or from the sidelines — Donald Trump will finally exit the stage in 2028, and it’s anybody’s guess what will come next. But one thing we do know is that Gen Z, many of whom were children during Trump’s first campaign, will play a large role in shaping that future.

What’s less clear is what direction they might choose or what their politics are in the first place.

We do know a few things, thanks to a Vox collaboration with the polling firm Murmuration. For one, they’re highly independent: Almost 30 percent answered “none of the above” when they were asked to choose their political label in Murmuration’s survey. They’re an economically insecure cohort, at least for now; Murmuration found that only 28 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 30 said they could cover an unexpected expense of $500. And they had the largest gender gap of any age group when it came to supporting the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024 — women preferred Kamala Harris by 17 percentage points over men.

To find out more, Vox’s Astead Herndon spoke with Gen Z researcher Rachel Janfaza for a recent episode of America, Actually. They discussed the group’s political identities, preferences, and top issues, and what that all could mean for politics going forward. They discussed an important distinction between two versions of Gen Z, and whether its infamous gender gap is shifting. They also touched on how, contrary to seemingly everyone else, Gen Z is hope-maxxing.

Below is an excerpt of Astead’s conversation with Janfaza, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full show, so listen to America, Actually wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on Vox’s YouTube channel.

You’ve done a lot of work around the different Gen Zs. I’ve heard you talk about Gen Z 1 versus Gen Z 2. How would we describe those differences?

I call this the theory of the two Gen Zs. I really started to cultivate it doing focus groups with young people in 2022, hearing the way that high school students at the time and college students at the time just had a different outlook, and I realized that those who had graduated high school before the start of the pandemic, those Gen Z-ers, just had a different worldview than the younger half of Gen Z, who were still in high school at the time that the pandemic hit.

And that is because of the taste of independence that people on the older cusp of Gen Z had prior to the lockdown situation. Anyone who is between roughly 29 and 22, I would say, is Gen Z 1.0, and anyone younger than that would be Gen Z 2.0.

And there’s no official end date to Gen Z right now. Like, it’s sort of 1997 to 2012, so it’s not very clear yet.

Can you just name for me what the difference was between the generations? How did that shape a different form of politics?

Gen Z 1.0 really came of age during Trump’s first term in office. This was a new phenomenon. He was breaking down past barriers, and we saw a lot of youth-led activism in response to actions or inaction from the first Trump administration.

You saw things like the March for Our Lives and climate strikes and the Black Lives Matter movement. And there was this very real sense that, you know, if we protest and demand change, perhaps there could be a difference.

Whereas Gen Z 2.0 came of age during the Biden era. This was a post-Covid sort of upbringing. And they really grew resistant to authority because they saw Democrats in charge during the time when kids went back to school and when there were things like mask mandates and vaccine mandates, especially in blue areas across the country where Democrats were handling the way that schools were reopening.

Young people whose lives and childhoods were on the line felt like they were guinea pigs in an experiment that they didn’t sign up for, and I think this is when we saw a movement away from Democrats. I don’t necessarily think that was toward Republicans.

Trump capitalized on this in 2024. Broadly speaking, Gen Z 2.0 is far less trusting of authority and institutions, far more independent. They hate labels, and this isn’t just political. They hate labels when it comes to gender, their relationships. No one wants to be boxed in. I hear this all the time in my focus groups, and so they just moved away from both parties writ large.

I also want to ask a couple of questions specifically about the gender divide, because that was such a big topic in the 2024 election.

We heard at that time, and I reported on, the change among young men that we saw manifested in that race. There was a 17-point gap between the votes of Gen Z men and Gen Z women. Before we get to where we are now, what do you think drove that gap?

No. The easy thing to say is it’s the algorithm, but that’s not the whole picture. I think a lot of young women felt like their bodily autonomy, freedom, rights were on the line. And a lot of young men care about that, but when I asked them, “What’s the top issue in the 2024 election?” few said abortion. They were like, “I care about that, but that’s not an issue that personally affects me.” And so I think that’s sort of what it came down to.

Women literally felt like it was their futures that were in question. And when you talk about the gender gap, you noted that young men shifted to the right, and that’s of course true.

Young women, since 2017, have remarkably moved to the left. And there have been a number of different causes to that, but every time there’s been a social wedge issue, whether it was early with immigration during Trump’s first term, the MeToo movement, the conversation about reproductive healthcare access and the fall of Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs decision … there have been so many examples of things that have pushed women further to the left, and then also a frustration with the way that Trump talks about women or accusations that have been made against him.

This is part of what I think makes this political period for Gen Z so fascinating. The Trump era will shape history across every generation, but Gen Z are the ones whose ideology was forming. And so there was this real sisterhood that emerged between young women during this time, where both on social media and in person, they were finding camaraderie around this shared fear for their future, but also appreciation of their individual rights and freedoms.

And young men didn’t see that same sort of bonding happening. And we talked a lot in 2024 about how Democrats had a problem with young men because they weren’t actively reaching out to young men. I’m the first person to say that Democrats really screwed that up, and that was a problem. But I think that there were not shared spaces for young men to come together in that way as there were for young women. I think that was part of what has driven this gap as well.

Should we update our thinking, though, of that gender divide from then to now? Like, are we still seeing the same big gaps between voting and political behavior from Gen Z men and women?

No. So largely, when I ask young people about the gender gap, they acknowledge that it exists, but they don’t like it. They don’t want to be stuck in this divide. Gen Z wants out of the gender war. They do.

We’re also now seeing a generation unite around a new set of issues that are pretty communal, that everyone can kind of agree upon. There’s a new shared set of issues that are less gendered and more affecting everybody.

AI? What are you talking about?

AI and the economy. Gen Z now agrees that the two main issues are AI and the economy. And obviously those are related.

I see this. You’re saying the gender gap among young people was at its peak because the parties were positioning themselves on gendered lines as well. And now, because of the consensus about issues that touch everyone, mainly the economy and AI, it’s a little bit of a permission structure to put the knives down in the gender fight because everyone’s lives are affected by this.

I think a lot of the gender war in the first place was kind of manufactured by people who were talking about Gen Z and not to them. You had the main candidates for president playing into that, too, and it was a man versus a woman, and it was kind of like, “These are your two options.” And we’re far past that.

I’ve talked about how Gen Z is hope-maxxing. You can say, “Oh, like it’s giving Obama,” but they really are looking for something to feel excited about. It’s enough of the doom and gloom. Growing up in this era has been exhausting.

The division and the vitriol isn’t fun for anyone. And maybe it’s the hopeless optimist in me, but I think that there is a real appetite for a post-Trumpian era of politics that is just less toxic. And that feels more hopeful and gives you something to rally around and unite around, rather than to be divided.