Kentucky’s Republican primary out of its 4th District has turned into the most expensive House primary in American history, and it doesn’t take a detective to tell where the money went. No, not into field operations. Not into policy. Not even into persuasion. It went into some of the most deranged political advertisements I have ever seen. Thirty-two million dollars dumped into a district where basically all the ad spending is concentrated around Cincinnati media buys, and the result is a nonstop fever dream where every commercial break feels like somebody slipped hallucinogens into the broadcast feed.

At the center of all this is Thomas Massie, who has spent years building a reputation as the libertarian conscience of the Republican Party. He’s the guy who votes no on spending bills, needles leadership, pushes Epstein file transparency, and generally treats party discipline like a disease. Normally that kind of anti-establishment energy would mesh perfectly with Trumpism. Instead, Trump absolutely hates him. Massie crossed him too many times, and now removing him from Congress has become a personal project for the president.

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

The actual challenger, Ed Gallrein, barely matters as a political figure in his own race. His campaign’s main qualification is basically “Donald Trump likes me more than the other guy.” That’s enough. The first ads are almost normal by comparison. One of them goes after Massie for abandoning his old support for term limits. Another features Massie literally walking alongside a CGI elephant wearing a MAGA hat and Trump hair while talking about how he and Trump are aligned after all. It’s less “principled constitutional conservative” and more “please stop yelling at me, sir.”

Then the campaign fully leaves Earth’s atmosphere. One anti-Gallrein ad argues that the real force behind the race is some kind of shadowy gay liberal conspiracy, complete with rainbow lighting effects and a parade of terrifyingly unflattering images of trans women like the editor accidentally imported a folder labeled “Fox News Facebook comments.” In other words, on’t be fooled by Trump endorsing Gallrein — the real people backing him are THE GAYS. It feels less like a campaign commercial and more like a local-access panic attack.

And then came the AI ad. One PAC generated fake footage of Thomas Massie romantically wandering around Washington with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. Hand-holding. Walking together. Getting into cars. Ending at a hotel room with a “Do Not Disturb” sign hanging on the door. The implication is obviously that Massie is not merely politically disloyal, but sexually and emotionally aligned with the Democratic left in some kind of forbidden MSNBC throuple. This is the sort of nonsense that 32 million dollars will buy you in 2026.

The craziest part is that this stuff probably works. Maybe not the specifics, but the overall environment absolutely does. If you live in Kentucky right now, these ads are your atmosphere. You cannot escape them. Basketball game? Ads. Baseball? Ads. YouTube? Ads. Streaming? Ads. Every available surface is screaming about Thomas Massie, Donald Trump, transgender conspiracies, and AI-generated hotel hookups. National media tends to treat Massie like an interesting ideological dissenter, but Republican primaries are not decided by cable-news admiration. They’re decided by highly motivated Republican voters who really, really care whether Donald Trump wants somebody gone.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:33 - Kentucky Primary Ads

00:13:51 - Interview with Ryan McBeth

00:42:30 - $1 Billion Ballroom

00:45:58 - IRS Lawsuit

00:49:49 - Trump’s Bad Polls

00:54:08 - Interview with Ryan McBeth, con’t

01:32:40 - Wrap-up

The obsession with a hypothetical JD Vance versus Marco Rubio showdown for 2028 says a lot more about the Republican fascination with palace intrigue than it does about actual political reality. Trump himself clearly enjoys stirring the pot, whether he’s privately asking allies which one they prefer or turning a public event into a literal applause contest. To be fair, both men have handled the awkwardness well. Vance joked that it’d be very unlike Donald Trump to hold a televised competition to decide his successor, while Rubio has mostly brushed the drama off. But the deeper point is that this chatter only really matters if Trump’s presidency ends in a very specific way — something it’s looking increasingly unlikely to do.

If Trump rebounds politically and leaves office on a high note with Republicans, the conversation is basically over before it starts. JD Vance is the vice president, he’s fully aligned with the administration, and there’s no obvious reason he’d lose his grip on the base. Republican politics has become so intensely loyalty-driven that there are very few examples of major figures breaking away successfully. In that world, Vance is simply the heir apparent because continuity becomes the safest and easiest path for the party.

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

The only scenario where Rubio really becomes a viable alternative is if the administration collapses politically by the end of the term. But that creates a massive “Catch-22,” because if things go south, Rubio is one of the people most likely to absorb the damage. Iran is the perfect example. Trump may ultimately get blamed for rising gas prices and economic frustration, but Rubio, as Secretary of State, would almost certainly carry the bag for the foreign policy side of the equation. If the administration’s biggest weakness becomes a war that spirals, Rubio is standing much closer to the blast radius than Vance is.

That’s what makes the whole “Vance vs. Rubio” framing feel pretty silly right now: the conditions that would make Rubio a serious alternative are probably the exact same conditions that would weaken him the most. Still, the fact that people are even entertaining the idea says something important about Rubio himself. Back in 2016, he often looked overwhelmed trying to compete with Trump’s brand of politics. Now, he comes across as far sharper, calmer, and more comfortable in his own skin. Years in the Senate clearly helped, but so did surviving the wreckage of his first presidential campaign.

The version of Rubio inside this administration is a much more polished figure than the one Republicans watched a decade ago. He’s become more confident in interviews, more effective in hearings, and more naturally presidential in public settings. Just look at a recent exchange in the White House press briefing room, where Rubio gave a thoughtful answer about what it means to be an American. It’s exactly the kind of moment that reminds people why he was once viewed as the party’s “golden boy” in the first place. He feels less like a nervous young senator trying to prove himself and more like someone who finally understands how the levers of power actually work.

But there’s still a ceiling on how independent anyone in Trump’s orbit can really become. Rubio may be more charismatic and politically mature than he was before, but Republican politics still revolves around Trump’s approval in a way that can change in a heartbeat. One bad Truth Social post can instantly transform an ally into a target. Rubio already learned the hard way that MAGA voters were skeptical of him, especially given his reputation as a more traditional hawk. That skepticism hasn’t fully evaporated. So while he’s certainly more compelling today than he was in 2016, there’s a real chance this is the most comfortable position he’ll ever occupy: close enough to the sun to feel the warmth, but still not quite part of the inner circle.

And that path doesn’t put you in the Oval Office, friends.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:37 - Why Vance vs. Rubio Doesn’t Matter

00:15:21 - Trump’s Trip to China

00:20:52 - Democrats Get Aggressive

00:23:53 - Fireworks!!!

00:26:46 - Interview with Katie Harbath

01:02:16 - Wrap-up and Odyssey Controversy Thoughts

Trump’s trip to China is happening at the exact moment his most persistent political vulnerability is becoming impossible to ignore: the economy.

Inflation has ticked up to 3.8% year over year, gas prices are rising again, and the White House is leaning on a familiar argument — to the Biden administration, at least — that the pressure is temporary. At the same time, instability in the Strait of Hormuz keeps energy markets on edge, with the potential for sudden price shocks baked into the background.

The administration’s framing is that this is the cost of a broader strategic shift: a tougher posture toward Iran and a reordering of global trade in America’s favor. The issue is that voters don’t experience macro strategy as macro strategy. They experience it as prices at the pump, at the grocery store, and in monthly bills.

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

That gap is widening in housing. The spring buying season, usually a reliable indicator of economic momentum, is unusually subdued. Mortgage rates and uncertainty are keeping buyers out of the market, reinforcing a sense that affordability is slipping out of reach even when headline indicators are mixed.

This is where the politics get sticky. Economic perception tends to lock in emotionally before it ever becomes analytical. Once recurring costs start to feel consistently painful, the economy stops being a set of statistics and becomes a daily irritant. At that point, presidential approval on the economy becomes hard to unwind, even if conditions later improve.

Against that backdrop, the China trip is unusually high stakes. The administration is trying to sell it as a potential economic pivot point, with talk of Chinese investment in U.S. manufacturing and a broader reset in relations. But the negotiating environment is constrained by simultaneous pressures: Middle East volatility, energy market sensitivity, and domestic inflation concerns.

China is not approaching that dynamic passively. The more pressure Iran-related instability puts on oil markets, the more leverage Beijing has in shaping the terms of any broader economic or geopolitical understanding. Stability itself becomes a bargaining chip.

And then, of course, behind all of this is the Taiwan question, which remains structurally unresolved regardless of public messaging. Any movement toward cooperation on Iran or energy stability would likely be accompanied by implicit tradeoffs elsewhere in the system. The concern in Washington is not an explicit Taiwan deal, but incremental shifts in positioning that accumulate over time. Given Taiwan’s central role in global semiconductor supply chains, even marginal changes in its status would ripple quickly through the technology and manufacturing sectors.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:05:47 - Inflation

00:20:30 - Virginia

00:26:22 - Cuba

00:29:42 - Iran

00:40:15 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou

01:12:23 - Wrap-up