Late last night, the news finally came in: the Liberal Party of Canada pulled off the upset and held onto parliamentary power. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t dominant. But they survived — and a few months ago, that seemed almost impossible. They had everything working against them: more than a decade in power, a deeply unpopular former prime minister they had to jettison, and an electorate that looked ready for change. Yet when the votes were counted, the Liberals were still standing.

And you can’t tell this story without talking about Donald Trump. Trump has been a thorn in Canada’s side since his first term — publicly antagonizing Justin Trudeau, calling Canada the "51st state," and slapping brutal tariffs on Canadian goods. That lingering resentment became part of the political terrain in Canada. The Liberal candidate, Mark Carney, didn’t just have to run against Peter Poilievre and the Conservative Party — he got to run against the memory of Trump, and against the uncertainty that conservatives couldn't fully distance themselves from.

Poilievre never figured out how to adapt. He spent too much time running a traditional opposition campaign and not enough time answering the deeper question a lot of Canadian voters were asking: would a Conservative government just invite more chaos with Trump? Carney seized on that. He didn’t have to make it the centerpiece of his campaign, but it was always there in the background. Steady hand versus risk. Familiarity versus volatility.

And while some Conservatives are already spinning this as a "moral victory" because of how tight the race was, that’s not how elections work. A win is a win. In a parliamentary system, survival is everything. The Liberals get to control the agenda, pick the cabinet, and frame the narrative going into the next few years. That’s not moral victory — that’s real, tangible power. And for a party that looked like it was about to lose everything, it’s a remarkable political save.

Now, the Liberals may still need a coalition with the NDP to govern effectively. It’s razor-thin. But that’s a separate conversation. The scoreboard is the scoreboard. And right now, the score says the Liberals survived. Trump’s shadow loomed large over this race — and in the end, it helped save the very people he’s spent years antagonizing.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:28 - WHCA Substack Party

00:11:27 - Interview with Kevin Ryan

00:28:46 - Update

00:29:08 - Canadian Election Results

00:31:38 - Big Beautiful Bill’s July 4th Deadline

00:35:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t

00:57:28 - Wrap-up

David Hogg, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced he’s spending $20 million through his group, Leaders We Deserve, to primary sitting Democratic incumbents. He’s targeting safe-seat veterans, mostly older members, and it’s kicking off a full-blown internal fight.

DNC chair Ken Martin isn’t having it. He’s proposing a rule that would ban DNC leaders from participating in partisan primaries — meaning Hogg would either have to step down or drop the activist role. The rule’s set to be debated at the DNC’s August meeting, and Hogg’s already digging in, saying he’ll fight to stay. Martin’s also announced a $1 million-a-month allocation to state parties, saying the DNC needs to decentralize. The real translation? Tension is so high they’re trying to buy unity.

But here’s the thing — I actually think Hogg is right. The Democratic Party would benefit from some turnover. There are plenty of incumbents who have grown comfortable, complacent, and maybe even a little out of step. At the same time, that’s only half the issue. Because the problem with tossing out incumbents is you need to replace them with winners. These older Democrats have won election after election, and that’s not something you just replicate by parachuting in a 24-year-old with a TikTok following and a podcast. Safe seats aren’t invincible. Primaries can backfire. And while I’m all for change, I’m also for winning.

The larger problem here is that you can’t be both the referee and the quarterback. If you’re helping to write the rules for how the party operates, you don’t get to break them for your own political goals. It’s not about silencing voices — it's about basic conflict of interest. If the DNC is supposed to be the governing body that creates a level playing field, its leaders can’t be in the middle of bloodying that field themselves.

Hogg was already a controversial pick. He’s got detractors inside and outside the party. He’s drawn criticism not just from Republicans or centrists, but even from fellow gun control activists. The fact that this move feels more like a campaign than a strategic plan doesn’t help. It feels loud. It feels disruptive. And in a moment when Democrats are trying to project unity — especially heading into an election where every House seat could make or break their control — it feels reckless.

The reality is that American politics is in a narrow-band era. Gerrymandering, polarization, and party-line voting mean that major swings are less likely. Which makes every seat even more valuable. We’re not in a 60-seat blowout environment anymore. We’re in a +5, -5, maybe +15 cycle. That means replacing a proven vote-getter with someone untested — even in a “safe” district — can be dangerous.

So yeah, I think Hogg is right that the party needs to evolve. But I also think he’s wrong to do it this way. Because if it leads to chaos, to even a few avoidable losses, he’s not just risking some outdated Democrats — he’s risking the whole agenda. And if he’s not willing to see that, then maybe Ken Martin’s rule isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Check out Gabe’s reporting at The Free Press!

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:55 - DNC Confusion

00:05:43 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky

00:25:39 - Update

00:25:58 - Ukraine Peace Deal

00:29:42 - Voter ID

00:31:24 - Canadian Election

00:36:40 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky, continued

01:03:33 - Wrap-up

There’s a civil war happening inside the MAGA coalition, and unless you’re really in the weeds, you probably haven’t heard much about it. It’s not being covered seriously, either by the traditional media or the independent press. And that’s a shame — because it pits two foundational visions of conservatism against each other. On one side, you have Grover Norquist and his ironclad “no new taxes” pledge. On the other, you have Steve Bannon and his populist charge to eat the rich.

Norquist has spent decades making sure no Republican dares raise taxes. His philosophy is clear: low taxes are good for everyone, rich or poor, and raising them is political suicide. He’s survived every GOP iteration — from neocon war hawks to MAGA populists — by keeping that line firm. But now, Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” may include a tax hike on the wealthy. Norquist is sounding the alarm, warning that breaking this promise would be as foolish as George H.W. Bush’s infamous “read my lips” moment.

Meanwhile, Bannon doesn’t just want to raise taxes — he wants to send a message. He sees MAGA as a working-class movement, and taxing the rich is part of proving that Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the GOP’s old donor class no longer control the party. It’s the clearest philosophical fault line we’ve seen on the right in years. If the GOP embraces even a modest tax hike on the wealthy, it could mark the end of a Reagan-era consensus that has defined Republican politics for half a century.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

And yet, barely anyone is talking about it. Not because it isn’t interesting, not because it isn’t important, but because media — mainstream and independent — is stuck on one setting: “trouble for Trump.” It’s a framing device. Every Trump story must either confirm that he’s a danger to democracy or a bumbling fool. Anything else? Not interesting enough to cover.

Steve Bannon, who’s all over mainstream shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith’s podcast, is out here advocating a radical repositioning of the Republican tax platform — and the headlines are all about whether Trump should run for a third term. And I get it, that’s the clickier angle. But it’s also lazy. We’re watching tectonic plates shift, and we’re still playing with bumper stickers.

That’s not just a mainstream media problem, by the way. It’s an independent media problem too. There are great voices on Substack and elsewhere that have done real work to break free from traditional narratives. And yet, over the last few weeks, I’ve seen far too much content boil down to one question: “Is this an outrage? Yes or no?” And when the answer is always “yes,” you’re not informing anymore — you’re reinforcing.

My goal isn’t to register my opinion on every current thing. My goal is to give you something that still feels relevant five years from now. Something you can remember discovering here before it hit the mainstream. I’m not always going to say the thing that fits into someone’s ideological slot. That’s going to disappoint people sometimes. I get that. But I hope the tradeoff is worth it. Because if you’re giving me your time and maybe even your money, I owe you something rare. Something original.

Something honest.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:58 - MAGA’s Secret Civil War

00:19:35 - Update

00:21:05 - Signalgate 2.0

00:27:14 - Pope Francis

00:30:51 - Student Loan Debt Collection

00:34:50 - Interview with Dave Leventhal

01:13:34 - Canadian Election with Evan Scrimshaw

01:27:11 - Wrap-up