If you have money to give and want to beat Republicans, I suggest my friend Sarah Trone Garriott in Iowa against Zach Nunn. I can’t speak highly enough about Sarah, her character, and her electability in an R+3 seat. It’s a very winnable race with the right nominee secure.actblue.com/donate/stg-w...

One week in. I do not plan on ending this experiment, barring events like election nights. I'm sleeping a lot better, haven't lost track of the news (anything important shows up on the NY Times anyways), and really don't miss arguing with socially maladjusted weirdos.

Democrats have made no headway in the polls despite a wide swath of the public believing Trump was involved in one of the biggest scandals in modern memory: Jeffrey Epstein. Why? Our survey at The Argument offers some clues. (Free article!) www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-epstei...

A lot of you really need to sit down and think about how easily you believed a huge, obvious pack of lies about this, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, just because you heard it repeated a lot and found it ideologically validating. Barely distinguishable from MAGA conspiracy nonsense.

The authoritarian moves coming from the Trump administration have masked the fact that their policies are also just really stupid. www.theargumentmag.com/p/no-mr-pres...

Began an experiment. - Deleted X, Bluesky etc from my phone (so now I'll have to access it via browser if I need to, where the interface sucks). - Set app limits of 1 hr for all social media, even on web. Idea is to limit doomscrolling (posting takes less time lol). Let's see!

Glad that I block extremely aggressively on here because I think some of you literally just want to be miserable all the time.

No. If you have made multiple suicide attempts while serving in elected office and mistreat your staffers in the process, you should not be sent back to Congress. It is not due to the "stigmatization of mental health issues". You do not belong in Congress if you pose a threat to yourself and others.

Of note: people keep talking about how Democrats being mad at each other is going to simply ensure that we can't match the GOP's turnout. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest that's wrong, and that this is mostly an online phenomenon. If you want to filter by enthusiasm, Democratic leads swell.

Everyone hates the Democrats. They’ll probably still win in 2026. When Democrats all disapprove of each other, you just get funny favorability polls. www.theargumentmag.com/p/democrats-...

the radicals on the right were the ones who executed the overwhelming majority of the acts of political violence in America.

Eh, I've kind of accepted that the deranged section of this website just thinks I'm a Republican. The one comfort for me is that I have as strong of a Democratic voting record as any of them do, and that I've raised (and will raise) far more money for Democrats than 99% of them will ever do.

Charlie Kirk's murder was reprehensible. The shooting and the resulting response from Trump are huge threats to liberalism as we know it, and we should be clear-eyed about it. The outcome that follows societal unrest from elites fearing murder is fascism. www.theargumentmag.com/p/charlie-ki...

This is a common retort I get. But in practice, authoritarians are still beholden to the will of the people. Political violence generally stirs up unrest in society, which makes citizens at large more much amenable to more draconian measures from governments. That's a big reason this is so dangerous

Lot of reasons that the killing of Charlie Kirk should horrify you even beyond the obvious (murder and political violence over free speech are awful). Like: if you’re concerned about rising authoritarianism, these things give the fascists another excuse. www.theargumentmag.com/p/a-man-was-...

Mentally ill people should not own guns. Actually, nobody should own guns without an extremely high bar — you're more likely to kill yourself through owning a gun than you are to do anything productive with it, and that's especially true for those who suffer from mental health issues.

Yes.

It is not. I can scroll X for 30 seconds and find 30 of the same posts. I do not like most of my interactions here, but this is just not true. My entire feed is just terrified for what this means. On X, I have a ton of angry left-wingers with watermelon emojis celebrating his death.

I checked in today because I was curious about whether it was true that Bluesky was celebrating it. Overwhelmingly, this seems false. My feed has not been celebrating the shooting. Everyone I follow is basically horrified by it. A cluster of antisocial freaks, though, are celebrating.

Why is this statement turning out to be so extraordinarily controversial? It's extremely neutral and objectively correct. Violence is bad. (And in a lot of online spaces right now, Bluesky is the place getting tagged as a site where people are celebrating Kirk's shooting.)

Charlie Kirk being gunned down in cold blood is horrifying and the worst possible road for society to go down. We make it way too easy for mentally ill people to get guns. Combine that with a rise in political violence and a woefully inadequate mental health system, and you get *very* bad outcomes.

Yet another piece of evidence that the most unimaginably selfish Democratic administration (and president) in modern memory basically set their own VP up to fail. It was never about protecting the country from Trump — it was about protecting Biden from Harris. www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...

Today for The Argument, I wrote about something that worries me. It’s becoming way harder for Americans — and especially young Americans, across ideologies — to talk to the other side. That also makes it harder to positively persuade others on liberal values. www.theargumentmag.com/p/were-not-a...

Overturning Citizens United is important for long-term health but keeping it in place is something that doesn't have as much of an impact as people think it does at the moment. Dems get plenty of dark money and coordinated IE spending as well.

Defeating Susan Collins is going to be hard. If you're inclined to do anything and have money to spare, I urge you to consider donating to *COMPETITIVE* races rather than safe-state heroes with national ambition. Here's one: Graham Platner in Maine, against Susan Collins. www.grahamforsenate.com

Will try to write about this, but split is driven by young Dems vs young Rs. The divide narrows heavily with age and is way too wide to be explained purely by sexual orientation. For voters under 30 re: "would you cut family off for opposing political views"... GOP: 77-23 "No" Dems: 74-26 "Yes"

Tbh I feel like I have a perfectly fine time on here criticizing the Democratic party, and the issue really is that the entire moderate wing of Bluesky is Dem Juche so moderates who want to criticize the party (often for the same reasons!) end up with more pushback from their more moderate audience

An underrated factor in politics is the power of personal relationships. Friends being like "hey dude the Trump bill puts my Medicaid at risk" hits different than an ad saying that it's going to take away Medicaid from millions of people.

I love the discussion, and I'm going to earnestly try and engage more on here because I want people to understand what we're talking about. So let me address some responses. Interact with whomever you want. Your life, your choice. That's good. But knowing how others view politics is important.

Like I said, I don't think that bloc of Harris voters is wrong for making the decision in that way. As I said in the piece, it's completely understandable and very, very logical. It's just worthwhile to understand that we're very different from most of America. www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-ameri...

Sharing this finding: Harris voters are the only group of people remotely likely to say it's OK to cut off friends/family for political views. I don't think they're *wrong* — again, it's a question of identity. But we're very different from most of America. www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-ameri...

Our first survey at The Argument is out. What kind of free speech are Americans actually okay with, and how does it vary by party? How does it differ in public vs private? Also: Trump underwater by 12, but Democrats lead the generic ballot by just 1. www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-ameri...

One more note: this whole argument is really stupid, but because I’m still getting questions about my affiliation, I guess it’s kind of weird to see a “Republican” fundraising for Democratic candidates, isn’t it? Gosh, people are really stupid here.

Republican is when you vote straight ticket Democrat in every election you've ever been eligible to vote in, but you still think party leadership is ineffective and that Ruben Gallego's approach is a bit better than AOC's. Learn something new every day, I guess.

coming to your gdpolitics.com feed later: @lakshya.splitticket.org and i go to war over WAR (in a nice way)

Here's what we have planned for The Argument's polling vertical: a commitment to transparency and rigor in an effort to understand how Americans think, using one of the only good tools we really have. www.theargumentmag.com/p/polling-is...

Some news. Split Ticket has agreed to a partnership with The Argument. With that, I'm also their new Head of Political Data. I'm so proud of what we built, and I'm even more excited by what's in store at The Argument. Coming soon: a lot of surveys and a lot of data. Join us! www.theargumentmag.com

Deconstructing WAR in great detail, and addressing some questions from the past couple of days: split-ticket.org/2025/08/15/d...

One of the things nobody tells you about cancer is how helpful it is to see someone else detail their experience, so you know what to expect. We've watched @hankgreen.bsky.social's videos dozens of times by now over the last six months and it's been so, so useful to hear his experience.

"Trump’s rise has generated much commentary on the evolving nature of the Republican base," @lakshya.splitticket.org and Harrison Lavelle write. "Less discussed are the dramatic ways that the Democratic Party has changed over the same period, partly in response."

An underrated part of the divide between Dem leadership and the Dem base: over the last 8 years, Democratic voters have slowly become more and more liberal, but the leaders haven’t followed suit in Trump v2. Our final piece for the Washington Post: wapo.st/4mu6AMR

Democrats are extremely likely to flip the House and the question is "what is the scale of the gains". The GOP gerrymandering Texas/Indiana/Missouri to high hell means that 10 new R+20 seats are very likely out of reach (they didn't flip even in 2018). But Dems only need a few flips to win the House

"There’s strong evidence that voters whom President Donald Trump brought into the Republican Party over his three presidential runs will be especially affected by the proposed funding changes to health care." The latest from Split Ticket's @lakshya.splitticket.org and Harrison Lavelle:

Actually, the best thing to do with election denial nonsense is to not even amplify it to debunk. Just remember that when you see anyone claim "this precinct that gave Harris 0 votes gave the Democrat 90% of the votes!" it's just them discovering bloc voting by Jewish voters.

Why are we celebrating traitors that fired upon US soldiers in a bid to keep people enslaved?

I will be damned if I allow a bunch of Confederate-waving January 6th apologists give the American people a lecture on flag waving. There is ZERO reason to enter an argument about patriotism with people who still worship traitors to America 150+ years later. They. Are. Breaking. The. Law.

I find this kind of response truly baffling. Yes, it will be hard & they’re gonna fuck around - but if you really believe there won’t be elections, what are you doing just, uh, posting? And what if you’re wrong? Then what?

Not sure any state is going to get a more massive upgrade in same-party governance this cycle than New Jersey will if they swap Phil Murphy with Mikie Sherrill.

my guess is that trump will overreach on law enforcement against these protests and be punished for it, particularly if they are peaceful www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/o...

Extremely obvious outcome: Sherrill was, by *far*, the most well-known nominee and had the deepest establishment support with the best fundraising. She'll probably be just fine. She's consistently a good campaigner/candidate. NJ Gov begins at likely Democratic and is closer to safe than Lean.