Soooo.... is Graham just winging it? No debate prep to even trot out a canned answer? She might as well just answer every question with, "I will vote as I'm told."
That admission that she didn't know something - in a REPUBLICAN politician - was almost breathtaking to me. Instead of bluffing and bullshitting like all Repubs everywhere do! I predict she therefore has a very limited future in MAGAworld.
When you elevate Darline Graham to the US Senate, it's amazing you still run as the anti-DEI party and roughly half of the electorate takes you seriously. Kind of like when you repeatedly tank the economy and Democrats get stuck cleaning up your mess, and yet half the electorate still sees you as the party of fiscal responsibility. When these people vote for Republicans because they think the Democrats have contempt for them, it would be nice if they tried at least a little bit not to be so contemptible. There are serious issues in this country and the world that responsible people need to address, and too many voters are making it impossible.
Sonny: "ABC’s entire complaint is worth reading. It’s a chilling catalogue of governmental efforts to restrict speech at the behest of the president and a reminder why Trump has such a healthy friendship with dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un: Like them, he does not believe in freedom of speech. He believes only in obeisance and obedience."
This is correct, but only half of the story. Witness Stephen Cheung's attack on Jon Ossoff the other day after Ossoff cleverly referenced Natalie Harp in a speech (hello, Streisand Effect) . The MAGAe believe that they, and they alone, are entitled to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and that the rest of us have no choice but to accept it.
You are so right on that. When I debate MAGAs including friends of mine...they come off as if they own the country and everybody should just FO because this is what they want. They've turned a narrow victory into a landslide and mandate for them. Bizarre and frustrating.
Very good article in today's Guardian about Brendan Carr's collusion with interested parties.
The Guardian's Jeremy Barr observes,
"Between 12 March 2025 and 11 February 2026, Carr attended at least eight meetings at the White House, according to the records, and had at least three scheduled calls with administration officials, including two conversations with chief of staff Susie Wiles. He also spoke by phone with administration officials such as controversial health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.
In addition, the files provide insight into Carr’s media strategy, including communications with producers at Fox News, and make public previously undisclosed meetings he has held with media titans such as Fox Corp chief executive Lachlan Murdoch and Sinclair Broadcast Group chair David Smith.
“These records show a remarkable breadth of access to FCC leadership for this administration’s political allies, conservative media figures, and powerful industry interests, including companies and organizations with business before the commission,” said Dan McGrath, special counsel, oversight at Democracy Forward. “This raises serious questions about whether the FCC is operating as an independent regulator, or whether political relationships and industry influence have become too intertwined with its decision-making.”
Also worth looking into is the Trump BBC defamation case where the BBC, unlike American broadcasters, cannot just settle the case. The BBC has apparently had to go to court in order to try and subpoena the Trump children regarding January 6. As part of discovery in the case the BBC wants to know what his children knew about the events of January 6. The Trump children and Jared are, apparently, not keen on the idea and when they tried to subpoena them in person both local law enforcement and the secret service blocked the delivery. So now the BBC is asking the court of other ways to deliver the subpoenas. I would like to see Andrew and Sarah dig into this story.
I believe the BBC lawsuit is also why it came out that Capital One had closed 300 of Trump associated accounts due to suspicious activity. That lawsuit may end up being his biggest mistake.
Interesting connection, though I believe that is tied rather to his suits of the banks specifically and their need to prove de-banking him was not politically motivated, but due to shady business practices. His legal overreach on multiple fronts may bring him down.
"10.5 percent supporting groyper shock jock James Fishback"
While that's scary, it's also great news for David Jolly, because that 10.5 percent of Republican voters is NOT going to vote for a black man. This is essentially the KKK wing of the Florida GOP. They won't vote for Jolly, but they won't vote for Donalds either.
In addition, I haven't seen any billboards or signage with Donalds' face pictured. With the massive ignorance and apathy of MAGA nation, I wonder how many automatic R voters here in Florida even know he's black?
Good point. Look at the candidate who lost to a guy who dropped out of the race because his name wasn't 'Murican enough. If his name was John Smith he would've won and the magats would wonder how they got a Black candidate. (Sorry, I can't remember which state the race was in).
While all we hear about is the walking, talking disaster they call Darline Graham—let’s not forget that this is the same group of southern voters who elected Tommy TurDville (Alabama/S Carolina; six of one, half dozen….) Need I say more????…:)
On the richter scale of Republican candidates, Darline Graham seems pretty harmless. I’ll take her over a number of the GOP’s more *serous* candidates.
I think Florida just nominated the first Statewide DSA candidate. Vindman was a strong centrist in a swing state. I fear Dems have shot themselves in the foot on this one.
I wouldn't characterize Florida as a swing state. I think either Nixon or Vindman likely are getting blown out there. Vindman is a great man and a true patriot, but he ignited the first Trump impeachment with his testimony before Congress, and that's not going to fly in a statewide election in Florida. His testimony was brave and valuable, but it was not a start on a path to elected office statewide in Florida.
What you're saying is that Vindman was not "electable" in Florida which (a) sounds right to me and (b) makes the point that "electability" is about more than being labeled a "socialist." It is very fact & circumstance dependent.
I live in NC and my take would be that people have repeatedly considered us a swing state and we’ve just reliably been a disappointment, at least when it comes to federal elections. Cooper is winning this year, though.
Having lived in NC 20+ years (yes, I'm a "Damn Yankee". IYKYK) and I agree with you. We get glimmers of hope and then remember who our Senators are and who's running the state legislature.
Was Vindman AIPAC funded? There's a backlash (by both the right and left) against those politicians being bribed to put Israel's interests above our own country's.
I don't think most voters care about AIPAC funding and their final voting decisions are much more influenced by other factors. The only people who REALLY care are antisocial media influencers and Jew-haters. They of course have a lot more impact on primary elections.
Come the general election Joe-Sixpack voters won't give two shits about money from AIPAC because most of them support Israel generally and are totally ignorant about international relations.
Obviously you don't know the difference between, how you so eloquently put it, "Jew-haters" (they're called anti-Semites) and people who are against Zionism and Israel interfering in our elections (my Jewish family members included in being against Israel's actions).
If he was funded by them, he should have "read the room" of the country and refused/returned their donation. AIPAC funded candidates are losing. People are pissed that we're in another forever war in the ME because trump does what Bibi tells him to do. If he took their money he was a dumbass to do so. A lot of voters are 1 or 2 issue voters. That's how we got trump twice. Having Vindman lose that race, in that state, tells you a lot about his campaign. Maybe they focused on the wrong issues or not enough on the right ones.
"British law, especially on libel, already allows far more suppression of speech than American law." For now. If there isn't a Blue Wave in the midterms the 1st Amendment will be just another quaint memory from our country's past.
I'm more than a bit sad to see Alex Vindman didn't make it through. I've not been following his campaign, but just from what I knew about him before the election, he was clearly someone willing to stand up to Trump, and he seemed like he had the ability to see things clearly.
"At a time when a right-wing administration would love nothing more than to gut the First Amendment, progressive sympathy for censorship is not only wrong but grotesquely self-sabotaging."
Copy that.
This is not new. It is one aspect of the mind set that historically leads to left wing authoritarianism because the "good guys" think that their self-proclaimed moral superiority is more persuasive than more conventional ideas of right v. wrong, principle and morality within the western liberal tradition.
That's the horseshoe effect. Far right wing and far left wing authoritarianism have much more in common with each other than with other ideologies that at times you can't tell them apart. Really their only difference is who they want oppressing them.
I must take exception to Sonny’s characterization of Jimmy Kimmel’s comment on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Sonny writes that Kimmel’s made “a crass joke … about Charlie Kirk in the wake of the young pundit’s assassination.”
Kimmel did not make a “crass” joke about Kirk. Kimmel’s comment was not directed at Kirk, or about Kirk. It was directed at those trying to use his death to score political points. Kimmel’s said this: (from a KTLA article)
“Thank you for joining us from Los Angeles, the second-largest city in our bitterly divided nation, where, like the rest of the country, we’re still trying to wrap our heads around the senseless murder of the popular podcaster and conservative activist Charlie Kirk yesterday, whose death has amplified our anger, our differences,” Kimmel said. “I’ve seen a lot of extraordinarily vile responses to this from both sides of the political spectrum. Some people are cheering this, which is something I won’t ever understand.”
“With all these terrible things happening, you would think that our president would at least make an attempt to bring us together, but he didn’t. President Obama did. President Biden did. Presidents Bush and Clinton did,” he said, while showing screenshots of former presidents’ social media statements. “President Trump did not. Instead, he blamed Democrats for their rhetoric.”
Kimmel then continued with his usual comedic commentary on President Trump and other political figures.”
Hardly a crass joke. Even at the the time people were wondering what all the fuss was about. It was not about what he actually said, of course, but a fabricated outrage used by Trump and his FCC, as a cudgel to have Kimmel removed from TV.
Please do not mischaracterize what Kimmel said. Doing so provides cover for the people your article identifies as a threat to free speech and improper wielding of government power.
Came to the comments looking for this, and I completely agree. Kimmel's statements around Kirk's death were neither crass, nor a joke, nor really about Charlie Kirk.
I’m no expert on Florida politics, but I think Vindman would have had a much better chance of beating Moody than the DSA candidate who won the primary. Florida is not a blue state and is barely purple. It could’ve been a pick up opportunity in a wave year. Probably not now.
The silver lining of Vindman losing is that the DSCC will no longer be spending $100 million in Florida on a quixotic effort to flip that seat. That money will be better spent in states like Alaska, Ohio, and Iowa.
Floridian here. Florida is not purple. At this time it would be miraculous (and I don't believe in miracles) for a Democrat to win a statewide election. The Democrats need to rebuild their district, county and local parties and start seriously challenging Republicans at the grass roots.
Do you think Jolly has a shot at Governor? I’m Lucy with the football here and think he’s got hope. He’s about the strongest candidate Dems could have hoped for against a weak candidate. Sort of a Talarico v Paxton thing.
If you want to mobilize your base, you have to run a candidate your base is willing to support. And you cannot win any race without a mobilized base. The democratic base is sick to death of hardline pro genocide Lockheed Martin Democrats, and the party needs to absorb that lesson. Vindman would not win a general without the base outright eager to support him.
You also need to win independents. In a competitive race, you don't get to pick, you have to do both. It's often a hard line to tread, but the good news is that independent voters are very non-ideological. They're not looking for a committed ideological moderate, in fact, those guys and gals are generally seen as dishonest establishment types. Independents hate the establishment! Dems could embrace that dynamic if the party wasn't run by elderly establishment figures trying to protect their own rank and position above all else.
I was an independent Florida voter for years, but it’s been more than a decade since I left. I would vote for a moderate Republican over a DSA candidate, and in my many years of voting, I have voted for more Democrats than Republicans. But I do not like this vile new flavor, which I think is as distasteful as the MAGA turd in the Republican punch bowl.
As a conservative-leaning Independent voter, the only reason I would vote for the DSA candidate over a conservative Republican candidate is because I want to flush the Republicans of the MAGA dickheads. I sure hope other Independent voters are more attuned to a DSA candidate and don't just abstain or go with the flow of the Republican candidate.
Soooo.... is Graham just winging it? No debate prep to even trot out a canned answer? She might as well just answer every question with, "I will vote as I'm told."
At least she'll be telling the truth.
That admission that she didn't know something - in a REPUBLICAN politician - was almost breathtaking to me. Instead of bluffing and bullshitting like all Repubs everywhere do! I predict she therefore has a very limited future in MAGAworld.
Honesty, check...No bullshitting, check... not abusive, check...You have no future with us! MAGA
...female...
Agreed. I think for now she's just a "place holder" for that seat.
She doesn't need to know anything, Republicans in Congress aren't supposed to think anymore. As long as she does whatever Trump wants she'll be fine.
Sorta sounds like Trump circa ... well FOREVER
I was just going to say her boss wings it all tbe time.
One of the best headlines ever!
When you elevate Darline Graham to the US Senate, it's amazing you still run as the anti-DEI party and roughly half of the electorate takes you seriously. Kind of like when you repeatedly tank the economy and Democrats get stuck cleaning up your mess, and yet half the electorate still sees you as the party of fiscal responsibility. When these people vote for Republicans because they think the Democrats have contempt for them, it would be nice if they tried at least a little bit not to be so contemptible. There are serious issues in this country and the world that responsible people need to address, and too many voters are making it impossible.
To quote Arrested Development: You are not serious people!
Sonny: "ABC’s entire complaint is worth reading. It’s a chilling catalogue of governmental efforts to restrict speech at the behest of the president and a reminder why Trump has such a healthy friendship with dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un: Like them, he does not believe in freedom of speech. He believes only in obeisance and obedience."
This is correct, but only half of the story. Witness Stephen Cheung's attack on Jon Ossoff the other day after Ossoff cleverly referenced Natalie Harp in a speech (hello, Streisand Effect) . The MAGAe believe that they, and they alone, are entitled to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and that the rest of us have no choice but to accept it.
There's only one response to that.
🖕
You are so right on that. When I debate MAGAs including friends of mine...they come off as if they own the country and everybody should just FO because this is what they want. They've turned a narrow victory into a landslide and mandate for them. Bizarre and frustrating.
It is another variation of the law for thee, not for me.
Very good article in today's Guardian about Brendan Carr's collusion with interested parties.
The Guardian's Jeremy Barr observes,
"Between 12 March 2025 and 11 February 2026, Carr attended at least eight meetings at the White House, according to the records, and had at least three scheduled calls with administration officials, including two conversations with chief of staff Susie Wiles. He also spoke by phone with administration officials such as controversial health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr.
In addition, the files provide insight into Carr’s media strategy, including communications with producers at Fox News, and make public previously undisclosed meetings he has held with media titans such as Fox Corp chief executive Lachlan Murdoch and Sinclair Broadcast Group chair David Smith.
“These records show a remarkable breadth of access to FCC leadership for this administration’s political allies, conservative media figures, and powerful industry interests, including companies and organizations with business before the commission,” said Dan McGrath, special counsel, oversight at Democracy Forward. “This raises serious questions about whether the FCC is operating as an independent regulator, or whether political relationships and industry influence have become too intertwined with its decision-making.”
Serious questions? I'll say!
https://www.theguardian.com/media/ng-interactive/2026/aug/19/brendan-carr-fcc-white-house-exclusive
Also worth looking into is the Trump BBC defamation case where the BBC, unlike American broadcasters, cannot just settle the case. The BBC has apparently had to go to court in order to try and subpoena the Trump children regarding January 6. As part of discovery in the case the BBC wants to know what his children knew about the events of January 6. The Trump children and Jared are, apparently, not keen on the idea and when they tried to subpoena them in person both local law enforcement and the secret service blocked the delivery. So now the BBC is asking the court of other ways to deliver the subpoenas. I would like to see Andrew and Sarah dig into this story.
I believe the BBC lawsuit is also why it came out that Capital One had closed 300 of Trump associated accounts due to suspicious activity. That lawsuit may end up being his biggest mistake.
Interesting connection, though I believe that is tied rather to his suits of the banks specifically and their need to prove de-banking him was not politically motivated, but due to shady business practices. His legal overreach on multiple fronts may bring him down.
I am not sure this matters anymore since the Supreme Court has essentially eliminated the functional viability of independent regulation.
"10.5 percent supporting groyper shock jock James Fishback"
While that's scary, it's also great news for David Jolly, because that 10.5 percent of Republican voters is NOT going to vote for a black man. This is essentially the KKK wing of the Florida GOP. They won't vote for Jolly, but they won't vote for Donalds either.
In addition, I haven't seen any billboards or signage with Donalds' face pictured. With the massive ignorance and apathy of MAGA nation, I wonder how many automatic R voters here in Florida even know he's black?
Good point. Look at the candidate who lost to a guy who dropped out of the race because his name wasn't 'Murican enough. If his name was John Smith he would've won and the magats would wonder how they got a Black candidate. (Sorry, I can't remember which state the race was in).
Tom Johnson defeated Amir Hassan in MI-8.
Yes, thank you. I thought it was Michigan. I should have used the Google machine. LOL!
That's a great observation.
I’m hoping that’s the sort of number (10%) of John Cornyn primary voters who decide not to vote in the Texas senate race.
Those are not law suits. They are legal bribes.
Whoever wrote that headline deserves a big raise! That is hilarious!
While all we hear about is the walking, talking disaster they call Darline Graham—let’s not forget that this is the same group of southern voters who elected Tommy TurDville (Alabama/S Carolina; six of one, half dozen….) Need I say more????…:)
Tuberville doesn’t even live in the state he represents, but he won an SEC championship there, so that’s what matters to these dingbats.
Very true, talk about carpetbaggers…:)
On the richter scale of Republican candidates, Darline Graham seems pretty harmless. I’ll take her over a number of the GOP’s more *serous* candidates.
It’s always the most benign and innocuous that does the most harm….:)
Exactly!
I think Florida just nominated the first Statewide DSA candidate. Vindman was a strong centrist in a swing state. I fear Dems have shot themselves in the foot on this one.
I wouldn't characterize Florida as a swing state. I think either Nixon or Vindman likely are getting blown out there. Vindman is a great man and a true patriot, but he ignited the first Trump impeachment with his testimony before Congress, and that's not going to fly in a statewide election in Florida. His testimony was brave and valuable, but it was not a start on a path to elected office statewide in Florida.
What you're saying is that Vindman was not "electable" in Florida which (a) sounds right to me and (b) makes the point that "electability" is about more than being labeled a "socialist." It is very fact & circumstance dependent.
I'd say under this extraordinary failed President, swing states are increasing. No one thought North Carolina was one until fairly recently.
I live in NC and my take would be that people have repeatedly considered us a swing state and we’ve just reliably been a disappointment, at least when it comes to federal elections. Cooper is winning this year, though.
Having lived in NC 20+ years (yes, I'm a "Damn Yankee". IYKYK) and I agree with you. We get glimmers of hope and then remember who our Senators are and who's running the state legislature.
Thanks. Always love hearing from someone who lives there. The national media gives a different slant sometimes.
Agree but that being said I'm not sure conservative swing voters will vote for a DSA candidate over someone like Vindman had he won.
I don't think they would've voted for him either.
Vindman would have forced the GOP to spend a little bit of money here. But he would have lost by 5-10, and now Nixon will get curb stomped.
And he got his ass handed to him. Not even close.
Was Vindman AIPAC funded? There's a backlash (by both the right and left) against those politicians being bribed to put Israel's interests above our own country's.
I don't think most voters care about AIPAC funding and their final voting decisions are much more influenced by other factors. The only people who REALLY care are antisocial media influencers and Jew-haters. They of course have a lot more impact on primary elections.
Come the general election Joe-Sixpack voters won't give two shits about money from AIPAC because most of them support Israel generally and are totally ignorant about international relations.
Obviously you don't know the difference between, how you so eloquently put it, "Jew-haters" (they're called anti-Semites) and people who are against Zionism and Israel interfering in our elections (my Jewish family members included in being against Israel's actions).
AIPAC funded or not, still a dumbass decision.
If he was funded by them, he should have "read the room" of the country and refused/returned their donation. AIPAC funded candidates are losing. People are pissed that we're in another forever war in the ME because trump does what Bibi tells him to do. If he took their money he was a dumbass to do so. A lot of voters are 1 or 2 issue voters. That's how we got trump twice. Having Vindman lose that race, in that state, tells you a lot about his campaign. Maybe they focused on the wrong issues or not enough on the right ones.
Can't disagree with that. Definitely a tactical error on Vindman's part.
With his name recognition alone it should've been a landslide. I like the guy, he stood up for what's right.
"British law, especially on libel, already allows far more suppression of speech than American law." For now. If there isn't a Blue Wave in the midterms the 1st Amendment will be just another quaint memory from our country's past.
I'm more than a bit sad to see Alex Vindman didn't make it through. I've not been following his campaign, but just from what I knew about him before the election, he was clearly someone willing to stand up to Trump, and he seemed like he had the ability to see things clearly.
As a Floridian I don't think either would have beaten Ashley Moody.
"At a time when a right-wing administration would love nothing more than to gut the First Amendment, progressive sympathy for censorship is not only wrong but grotesquely self-sabotaging."
Copy that.
This is not new. It is one aspect of the mind set that historically leads to left wing authoritarianism because the "good guys" think that their self-proclaimed moral superiority is more persuasive than more conventional ideas of right v. wrong, principle and morality within the western liberal tradition.
That's the horseshoe effect. Far right wing and far left wing authoritarianism have much more in common with each other than with other ideologies that at times you can't tell them apart. Really their only difference is who they want oppressing them.
I must take exception to Sonny’s characterization of Jimmy Kimmel’s comment on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Sonny writes that Kimmel’s made “a crass joke … about Charlie Kirk in the wake of the young pundit’s assassination.”
Kimmel did not make a “crass” joke about Kirk. Kimmel’s comment was not directed at Kirk, or about Kirk. It was directed at those trying to use his death to score political points. Kimmel’s said this: (from a KTLA article)
“Thank you for joining us from Los Angeles, the second-largest city in our bitterly divided nation, where, like the rest of the country, we’re still trying to wrap our heads around the senseless murder of the popular podcaster and conservative activist Charlie Kirk yesterday, whose death has amplified our anger, our differences,” Kimmel said. “I’ve seen a lot of extraordinarily vile responses to this from both sides of the political spectrum. Some people are cheering this, which is something I won’t ever understand.”
“With all these terrible things happening, you would think that our president would at least make an attempt to bring us together, but he didn’t. President Obama did. President Biden did. Presidents Bush and Clinton did,” he said, while showing screenshots of former presidents’ social media statements. “President Trump did not. Instead, he blamed Democrats for their rhetoric.”
Kimmel then continued with his usual comedic commentary on President Trump and other political figures.”
Hardly a crass joke. Even at the the time people were wondering what all the fuss was about. It was not about what he actually said, of course, but a fabricated outrage used by Trump and his FCC, as a cudgel to have Kimmel removed from TV.
Please do not mischaracterize what Kimmel said. Doing so provides cover for the people your article identifies as a threat to free speech and improper wielding of government power.
Came to the comments looking for this, and I completely agree. Kimmel's statements around Kirk's death were neither crass, nor a joke, nor really about Charlie Kirk.
I’m no expert on Florida politics, but I think Vindman would have had a much better chance of beating Moody than the DSA candidate who won the primary. Florida is not a blue state and is barely purple. It could’ve been a pick up opportunity in a wave year. Probably not now.
The silver lining of Vindman losing is that the DSCC will no longer be spending $100 million in Florida on a quixotic effort to flip that seat. That money will be better spent in states like Alaska, Ohio, and Iowa.
Floridian here. Florida is not purple. At this time it would be miraculous (and I don't believe in miracles) for a Democrat to win a statewide election. The Democrats need to rebuild their district, county and local parties and start seriously challenging Republicans at the grass roots.
Do you think Jolly has a shot at Governor? I’m Lucy with the football here and think he’s got hope. He’s about the strongest candidate Dems could have hoped for against a weak candidate. Sort of a Talarico v Paxton thing.
If you want to mobilize your base, you have to run a candidate your base is willing to support. And you cannot win any race without a mobilized base. The democratic base is sick to death of hardline pro genocide Lockheed Martin Democrats, and the party needs to absorb that lesson. Vindman would not win a general without the base outright eager to support him.
You also need to win independents. In a competitive race, you don't get to pick, you have to do both. It's often a hard line to tread, but the good news is that independent voters are very non-ideological. They're not looking for a committed ideological moderate, in fact, those guys and gals are generally seen as dishonest establishment types. Independents hate the establishment! Dems could embrace that dynamic if the party wasn't run by elderly establishment figures trying to protect their own rank and position above all else.
I was an independent Florida voter for years, but it’s been more than a decade since I left. I would vote for a moderate Republican over a DSA candidate, and in my many years of voting, I have voted for more Democrats than Republicans. But I do not like this vile new flavor, which I think is as distasteful as the MAGA turd in the Republican punch bowl.
As a conservative-leaning Independent voter, the only reason I would vote for the DSA candidate over a conservative Republican candidate is because I want to flush the Republicans of the MAGA dickheads. I sure hope other Independent voters are more attuned to a DSA candidate and don't just abstain or go with the flow of the Republican candidate.
This headline wins the internet today.