The Gospel According to Mark says:

"Do you believe that leaders have a responsibility to challenge the extremist views within their own religion?" Sara Haines's question to the first Muslim senator on The View today. When was the last time you saw Chuck Schumer asked to challenge extremist Jews, or Ted Cruz asked to challenge extremist Christians? This is what an Islamophobic double standard looks like.

Bernie Sanders is on one tonight 😆

this is absolutely revolting - surely one for the bar standards council

Anybody wanna watch Ben Shapiro be super duper completely wrong about how the election was going to go?

“No more military aid to the extremist government in Israel… what they’ve done to the Palestinians is genocidal…” Bernie Sanders tells BBC Newsnight. The presenter is quick to interject that “the Israeli government would deny they’re extremist…” Why are we still doing this?

We're in a new era of communication, and only one side seems to be living in it. The old guard consultant class is about to be relegated to the dustbin of history. If you think that high prices lost the election for the right, you don't understand marketing. Humans have no problem paying a premium for a good quality brand. Notice the word "brand", not "product". Are Nikes better than New Balance? Nope. But the brand is better. And notice what happened when they tinkered with the brand and screwed their core narrative? Nike stock fell through the basement. Did the product change? Nope. The brand did. It's not the product, it's the brand. Results don't sell the product, the storytelling does. Will these newly-elected commies lower prices? Of course not. Are they gonna get you free healthcare? No, your insurance is gonna get even worse, just like it did the last time they tried socialized medicine. They're not going to do anything they've sold you, but...like Saul Goodman said: if you're committed enough, you can make any story work. The committed storytelling of a couple insane podcasters was enough to fracture an entire political coalition from their own side in less than 2 years...they have zero power, zero credibility, they've never actually governed anything nor produced any results, but...they're good storytellers, and that's all that matters. Are they telling a good story? No, it's atrocious, but they're telling their atrocious story effectively and compellingly. It is 100% true that everything's too damn expensive, and we all know that inflated prices are always sticky. Does anyone know that it's entirely the result of shutting down the global economy over the flu and (both naive republicans and democrats) printing infinity dollars for several years? Nope...because nobody has effectively told that story, and it's an unsexy story to tell. "Free stuff!" is a VERY easy story to tell, and when everyone's gotta take out a second mortgage just to pay their insurance premiums, "free healthcare" is an unbeatable story. It doesn't matter that "free healthcare" doesn't exist and socialized medicine is a terrible product...it's not the product, it's the brand. And "FREE!" is a great brand. You can't get mad at people for having the financial literacy of a 9 year old. I mean, you can, but they outnumber you a million to one, so it's not going to be productive. You need to figure out how to make an unsexy story sexy, or else the "free stuff!" crowd is going to eat your lunch every time. If you give people a choice between earning a six pack on a treadmill or taking Ozempic, they're gonna choose Ozempic...they don't care about the side effects. If you give people a choice between fiscal discipline or free stuff...guess what they'll pick? They don't care about the side effects. With projected growth of 5%, the economy right now is stronger than it's been in generations. Is that the story you hear? Nope. Is that the vibe you feel? Absolutely not, especially when every time you fill up your gas tank, it feels like a diesel enema. It's not the product, it's the brand. A great product can fall into oblivion with bad messaging...a single bad review from one effective storyteller can tank a restaurant. The "influencer economy" is lucrative for a reason; everybody inherently understands the importance of effective storytelling...except the right. Zohran Mamdani gets it...he has an army of influencers on staff. In a perfect metaphor of this transitional phase of old guard vs new wave political messaging, Zohran nuked the Vice President into oblivion with maybe the biggest ratio in the history of the internet. By simply posting the subway assistant meme, Mamdani got 2 MILLION likes, quoting a post from the VP that had only 10K likes. If you're reading that sentence thinking "this is fucking ridiculous, you're talking about social media likes as political analysis now?"...you are the problem. Yes, this stuff matters. Rizz matters. The President did a masterful job of this kind of retail politics in his historic 2024 campaign...you can be angry that this is what politics has been reduced to, but you can either adapt or die. "No the problem is, you didn't deliver enough for the American people!" Are you a moron? Since when does anybody care about that? What have democrats delivered for Californians in the last 20 years? Unmitigated wildfires, homeless drug zombies everywhere, roads that look like Fallujah in 2004...people don't care about results. They think they care about results. That want you to believe they care about results, just as Nike wants you to believe their shoes are better than New Balance...but at the end of the day, all people really care about is the swoosh. Adapt or die.

Gimme three months and his golf buddies in Florida wouldn’t even vote for him. I’ll smoke him by 7. Bet on it.

One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up. So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us." Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026. There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true. But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone. Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were: 1) End the war 2) Focus on cost of living/inflation 3) Put America First 4) Change our relationship to Israel Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.) In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you. The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there. I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.

Which state are Joe Rogan and Elon Musk going to move to next?

JUST IN: Atlanta strip club Magic City announces election night watch party — "From the Polls to the Poles”

Power is Power The chart below shows electricity prices in Europe just now, priced per MWh. Just horrific and economically ruinous for any modern economy. The world spends about $4.2 trillion on electricity and this is split between: • Generation (2/3 • Transmission & Distribution (1/3) The world spends around $1.5 trillion on capex and $2.7 trillion on opex. The $1.5 trillion capex gets you 1-2% capacity growth each year. So a rough rule of thumb is that every 1% of GDP you spend on power infrastructure gets you 1-2% more electricity. If you wanted to grow your power supply by eg 8%, you might expect that to cost 6% of GDP. Nobody has the supply chain to do that, if you want to grow this particular supply chain it will cost you more GDP points on second order things. Now… Demand for power around the world is booming, because of 3 big technology trends. 1. Air Conditioning (yes still) +20% consumption 2. Electric Vehicles +80% consumption 3. AI Data Centers +XYZ% consumption Different regions have different progress on these three trends. US has a lot of AC, little EV and a lot of DC, Europe has little AC, lots of EV little DC. China has a lot of AC and EV. Now generation splits into fixed costs for the generator plant (site and technology specific) and variable costs for fuel. Dispatchable Power Cost, by Fuel Type 1. $6 / MWh - Uranium 2. $19 / MWh - Nat Gas 🇺🇸 3. $22 / MWh - Coal 🇺🇸 4. $40 / MWh - Coal 🇨🇳 5. $90 / MWh - LNG 6. $130 / MWh - Biomass 7. $160 / MWh - Nat Gas 🇪🇺 🇯🇵 8. $200 / MWh - Oil Fracking has given the US a structural energy cost advantage. If you talk to people in China about what is the most impressive thing the US has done they say “fracking”. The challenge with US Nat Gas is that it’s now fully developed and expansion is sort of tapped out. What the 21st Century demands is a lot of power, you either have it or you don’t. When you look at planetary scale energy and compute trends you see myriad gigantic arbitrage opportunities. Interesting times!