For the ninety seconds when members of the media were diving under tables at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, watching as politicians and cabinet members were yanked from the room by security, you have to wonder how many had the honest thought: did we do this?
The repeated media normalization of assassination fantasies on the American left hasn&#8217;t been a quiet trend. A decade after Kathy Griffin posed with Donald Trump&#8217;s severed head, their attitude is the same as Steve Schmidt&#8217;s in the immediate aftermath of this latest attempt: to the extent anyone is to blame for repeated attempts at Trump&#8217;s assassination, it&#8217;s the man himself — and then maybe his supporters for having the audacity to elect Orange Hitler twice.
Remember the Rutgers study that found more than half of Left-of-center respondents said it would be at least somewhat justified to murder Donald Trump? When the &#8220;radical Left&#8221; describes such a vast portion of the Democratic electorate on the question &#8220;should the president be unalived,” believe them.
The legacy media has declared who they want dead. They continue to platform the Left&#8217;s voices who urge his death. They rely on the violent Left&#8217;s bark being worse than their bite — even as those who bay for blood continually show their eagerness for the exact outcome that motivates the president&#8217;s would-be murderers.
Hasan Piker&#8217;s call to murder capitalists and drench the streets with their blood gets the New York Times and Conde Nast imprimatur. &#8220;Your cool murderous communist message is such a song of the summer vibe, tell me more, lol.&#8221; That casual endorsement of bloodshed isn’t fringe — it’s increasingly mainstream by the same people who claim democracy dies in darkness. Well, it almost died in the sun in Butler and West Palm and the bowels of the Washington Hilton. How many more cracks does the media want their psychotic fellow travelers to take at this? How long will they stand by Senate Democrats who have blocked security funding in the midst of war and blatant terror threats? Or should we just get used to a political reality where we refuse to treat violent rhetoric as the incitement it is?
The WHCD attack was not an isolated incident of random violence. It was the predictable outcome of years of rhetoric, glorified in newsrooms, popularized on campuses, featured on podcasts, and given serious, intoned consideration in the pages of glossy magazines by the same people who claim to be standing against hate. The Left’s open celebration of political murder did this, and it will continue to do it, fueled by a legacy media that knows a click is a click, no matter the motivation.

“No Kings” Protest In San Francisco

The Legacy Media Is Complicit In America’s Assassination Vibes

assassination attempt

DW Opinion

Legacy Media

Political Violence

White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Virginia was taken over by partisan Democrats in a radical act of disenfranchisement and gerrymandering last night, in a snap election where Fairfax County — populated by bureaucrats, contractors, lobbyists, and other people who contribute absolutely nothing enduring to society decided that the Commonwealth, the mother of presidents, should be ruled by Karen in her Emerald Subaru from the Potomac to the Shenandoah.
Abigail Spanberger, the CIA vet avatar of these Karens who, nonetheless, is wise enough to understand that people really, really hate her, was in the New York Times the morning of the vote, spinning the idea that oh, woe is me, this was a gerrymander thrust upon me by forces outside of my control. She can see her potential as a Gavin Newsom running mate slipping away and she is doing her best to reframe herself as the moderate she pretended to be before she forced a plethora of illegal immigrant murderers back on the streets. No one likes your new outfit, Abigail. It&#8217;s not working for you.
Meanwhile, the GOP flavor of the month, who used to be the darling of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, utterly flamed out. How much of his personal money — not PAC money, his own, he has a ton of it! — did Glenn Youngkin devote to the effort to block the most obscene gerrymander in the history of the nation? Was it less than the cost of his car? If it was, why should he get the time of day from Republican voters for any position he desires in the future?
The general impression of national Republicans for months has been that Virginia was a total screwup, a situation where bad consultants didn&#8217;t know what they were doing and a contest that could&#8217;ve been won was instead ignored by national Republican donors. That take doesn&#8217;t always turn out to be correct, but it sure looks like it was this time, with the margin coming in far lower than many had predicted. What could&#8217;ve happened if Republicans found someone to just match a third of what the Soros family poured into the Commonwealth? We&#8217;ll never know. Instead, for the foreseeable future, Virginia will be a state that Democrats win by 3-5 points while taking 10 out of 11 congressional districts.
The only hope the GOP has is legal recourse. There is some basis for this — the referendum was written with clearly biased language, at odds with constitutional requirements, and the special session was clearly inappropriate in terms of the timing of its decision. But do you really expect a court system larded with Democrats to produce a different outcome than the one the party wants? This isn&#8217;t a democracy; it&#8217;s rule by the Country Club Democrat and their favorite president, Barack Obama. Remember when he was supposed to be a figure who ended partisan divides? That was a fun five minutes. Now he&#8217;s just the rampant partisan with the butt-ugly museum you have to spend the cost of a good dinner to tour. He&#8217;s publicly celebrating the vote today, as are the wonderful likes of Adam Kinzinger, Bill Kristol, and the gamut of hosts at MSNOW. It turns out the defenders of democracy are only interested in defending it if they cheat for an edge.
What Republicans need to understand after this vote is that they have, without question, lost the House of Representatives. The question now is whether Democrats get a more than 20 vote margin — and the trend certainly looks closer to 25-30. Such a hole will take years to climb out of, thanks in part to a lackadaisical approach that ignored local warnings and embraced the hubris of a nationalized election in a midterm year. Democrats are now set to rule a purple state by a 10-1 margin. The questions to Republicans should be: Do you think what you&#8217;re doing is working? Why?

Early Voting Nears End For Virginia’s Redistricting Referendum

In Virginia, Republicans Wuss Out And Democrats Grab Power

2026 elections

gerrymandering

Virginia

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
It’s a common conversation among millennial parents, so common that it isn’t worth remarking on beyond the brief acknowledgement of shared pain. A writer colleague on a trip together broke the ice with a mention.
“Yes, we’ve got three at home, and my husband has them; he’s very capable. Grandma is there, too,” she said with a long sigh. “She actually makes things harder. I just wish she could, you know, help? I don’t get it. She always wanted grandkids, she always told me she wants grandkids, but now it’s like, ‘It’s Tuesday. I have pilates.’”
The Baby Boomer generation is the greatest generation in only one measure: in terms of the redistribution of wealth to itself. No other American generation comes close, thanks to the timing of the Great Society, the expansion of old-age benefits, the timing of Wall Street booms, and a real estate market Boomers continue to dominate. They are the largest group of homeowners by far, despite being just 20% of the population; in 2025, they were also the largest group of home buyers, typically with cash. Empty nest boomers own <a href="https://www.redfin.com/news/empty-nest-large-homes-2026/">a third</a> of all three-bedroom homes in America. They own double the percentage of homes millennials do, and according to a 2025 <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/61-boomers-never-plan-sell-123100288.html">survey</a>, 61% of boomer homeowners say they never plan to sell their homes.
Those homes are often the epicenter of family moves. Because millennials rent when their parents bought, they are the ones who have to move when they have kids, proximity to grandma and grandpa being a presumed benefit offering free childcare and occasional help. Three-quarters of millennials say it’s important to live near their parents after having kids, and depending on the survey, approximately a third say they’ve relocated or already made a point of living near their parents because of the kid factor. But when it comes to delivering on that help, Boomers are sorely lacking: Just one out of five millennial parents says parents help with regular childcare. The anecdotes are ubiquitous, and they are not flattering.
“We moved 15 minutes away from my parents after we had our second,” a friend tells me. “Since we had a boy, I thought my dad would want to spend time with him. We’ve lived here a year, and he’s seen him four times. He held him once.”
The Boomer drive-by seems to be the most common interaction: a momentary disruptive pause in the day when kids are taken to do some activity that could conceivably give you enough time to run a few errands, get the car serviced, or spend actual time picking out a steak. But it turns out that something happens, or the kids were rowdy, or grandpa forgot he has to do something, and they’re back on your doorstep 45 minutes later, somehow still hungry. Or there’s one level worse: the drive-by for social media, where grandma is just in the house long enough to snap a picture for her friends on The Facebook.
“My brother had kids 10 years before I did, and he got ‘grandma weekends,’ the kids staying over at their house for two to three days,” another friend tells me. “I didn’t get married till a decade later, and I’m lucky to get ‘grandma lunch.’ She’s in Europe for a month. He played golf at Spyglass; I’m lucky to get a Costco run in.”
Anecdote isn&#8217;t the plural of data, but the conversation around this topic has been widespread and only goes in one direction: toward Grandboomers who are consistently more interested in fun than in<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/millennials-feel-abandoned-parents-available-help-raise-grandkids-busy"> helping out</a> with the grandbabies. It&#8217;s fine if the elders are just deciding that taking care of a toddler isn&#8217;t &#8220;living their best life,&#8221; but they can&#8217;t expect to escape criticism for it. As one beleaguered mom whose complaints went viral<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/millennials-thinks-boomers-worst-grandparents-ever-2068439"> told</a> Newsweek last year, &#8220;It definitely triggered guilty boomers who were irritated and said they&#8217;re not going to raise our kids, but that&#8217;s not what we&#8217;re asking for. I have gotten so many messages from millennials saying they felt heard and less alone. They thought it was only their issue, and they had no idea that others dealt with this.&#8221; Believe me, if you talk to your fellow millennial parents, you absolutely know.
You can ascribe this social trend to any Boomer aspect of your choosing: permanent main character syndrome, an abiding aversion to any reminder of their aging nature, belief that they “did their time” changing diapers and shouldn’t have to do another run, or just a rejection of the parenting styles of millennials as being too demanding, too helicopter for their tastes. But it is an undeniable trend, one that virtually every millennial parent knows all too well.
“My mom changed our diapers growing up, and she says she’s done enough for her life,” yet another friend tells me. “But it sure would be nice if she was willing to do it just for one Friday a month.”
You can dismiss this development as just a generation that has lived longer enjoying life to the fullest. You can describe it as irrelevant because millennials should figure out ways to pay for childcare and take care of it themselves. But the hard fact is that an underlying reason for the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/people-arent-having-kids-and-one-reason-keeps-coming-up">decline in American population</a> that we see so regularly reported, year after year, is this Boomer attitude.
It is a simple binary: In the absence of date nights, without a break from the kids, millennial parents simply do not have time to make more kids. If that’s something America wants to change, it’s going to have to bring back shame for our elders. Help your kids, or get used to fewer grandkids. You&#8217;re the product of a Baby Boom, but you seem completely uninterested in creating another one. That’s the reality. Change starts with you.

GettyImages-1766623890

America’s Birth Rate Problem Might Start At Grandma’s House

Birth Rates

family

kids

Millennials

Upstream

The attempted <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/why-the-vatican-and-the-white-house">hit piece</a> on one of J.D. Vance&#8217;s closest allies in the administration fell apart in a day.
Let&#8217;s take a step back to understand the context. For years, Elbridge Colby — currently the Undersecretary of War for Policy at the Pentagon, a prominent and respected realist thinker on national security — has been the target of attacks from those seeking to undermine his status within the policy community. These attacks have come primarily from neoconservatives seeking to undermine someone who has the resume of a future secretary of state or the like.
Now, as with so many other disputes, Colby has come to serve as a proxy for the true target of criticism: Vice President J.D. Vance, who purportedly shares many of his foreign policy views.
The latest assault originated in the The Free Press, which published a freelance writer who made audacious, unsourced claims about conversations that occurred within a January meeting with representatives of the Catholic Church. Concerning a meeting between Pentagon officials and the Apostolic Nuncio Christophe Cardinal Pierre — preceding any critique by the Pope of the current conflict in Iran — The Free Press published claims that read like they were designed by AI to offend Catholics everywhere.
Describing the confab as &#8220;a bitter lecture warning that the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants—and that the Church had better take its side,&#8221; it included the hair-on-fire claim that in the meeting, Pentagon officials — presumably including Colby — &#8220;went so far as to invoke the Avignon Papacy, the period in the 1300s when the French Crown leveraged its military power to dominate the papal authority.&#8221;
The claim was echoed by the ideologically incoherent band of Trump administration critics, in this case including The Atlantic&#8217;s David French, Pod Save America&#8217;s Jon Favreau, and noted resident of the furthest reaches of the galaxy Candace Owens. Bro podcaster Shawn Ryan <a href="https://x.com/ShawnRyan762/status/2041990673222570488">suggested</a> that the Trump administration was literally threatening to bomb the Vatican.
The report led to this question on the tarmac in Hungary of Vance, who was clearly blindsided by the claims:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="JD Vance Reacts to Report US Official Issued Threat to Vatican Ambassador" width="422" height="750" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7DJc5jCOYT4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The only problem with this report is that everyone in the room has said that&#8217;s not what happened. This comment in response from Brian Burch, Ambassador to the Holy See, related the views of Cardinal Christophe Pierre, who retired as the Apostolic Nuncio following his 80th birthday:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I was pleased to speak today with His Eminence, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. As expected, he confirmed that recent media characterizations of his meeting with Undersecretary Colby are “fabrications” that were “just invented.” Given the intelligence and seriousness of Mr. Colby, I… <a href="https://t.co/R2ogLy2HAf">https://t.co/R2ogLy2HAf</a>
— Ambassador Brian Burch (@BrianBurchUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrianBurchUSA/status/2042307511504519366?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I was pleased to speak today with His Eminence, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. As expected, he confirmed that recent media characterizations of his meeting with Undersecretary Colby are &#8216;fabrication&#8217; that were &#8216;just invented.&#8217; Given the intelligence and seriousness of Mr. Colby, I was likewise not surprised when His Eminence acknowledged there were no threats of any kind in the meeting. &#8216;It was a frank and cordial meeting that took place two months ago.&#8217; Threat of Avignon? &#8216;None.'&#8221;
In fairness, the participants were smiling an awful lot for just getting threatened with Dresden on the Tiber.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby <a href="https://twitter.com/USWPColby?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@USWPColby</a> had a substantive, respectful, and professional meeting with Cardinal Pierre, the then-Papal Nuncio, and his team on January 22, 2026. During the cordial meeting, they discussed a range of topics, including issues of… <a href="https://t.co/McI0sB2wKC">pic.twitter.com/McI0sB2wKC</a>
— DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) <a href="https://twitter.com/DOWResponse/status/2042300020494418303?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Vatican release this morning is as definitive as it gets, reading in full:
<blockquote>
As confirmed by His Excellency Christophe Pierre, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, his meeting with Mr. Elbridge Andrew Colby was part of the Pontifical Representative’s regular duties and provided an opportunity for an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest. The account offered by certain media outlets regarding this meeting does not correspond to the truth in any way.
</blockquote>
There are denials, and then there are vociferous denials, and then there are unequivocal denials. The Free Press piece remains published, with only an editor&#8217;s note giving comment from the Pentagon. The question we should be asking is this: Why would anyone run such a thinly sourced piece attacking the prominently Catholic vice president unless there was an underlying agenda?

Pope Leo XIV Meets With JD Vance And Marco Rubio, The Day After Inauguration Mass

Don’t Fall Prey To Claims The Trump Administration Wants To Bomb The Vatican

Catholics

JD Vance

Trump Administration

The ceasefire being trumpeted across the world today looks less like a two-week agreement toward the end of the current U.S.-Israel war on Iran’s regime and more like a break so President Donald Trump can watch Master’s golf undisturbed.
The reported details laid out in Iran’s ten point response to negotiation talks represent, on multiple points, a risky series of steps that are either impossible to maintain or aren’t even being reported the same to both sides – with a depiction in Farsi of agreed allowance for the continued enrichment of uranium.
That should be a non-negotiable point for a president who has derided Barack Obama’s Iran deal ad nauseam, regardless of his reluctance to extend the current conflict into the summer.
Here’s the reality of the proposed deal if accepted on its face:
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1">Iran still has its nuclear materials, and without immediate extraction, will now sprint to enrich the uranium in its possession and construct a nuclear weapon.</li>
<li class="li1">Iran’s regime has now, despite the loss of dozens of leaders and the utter destruction of missile and other capabilities, survived both internal rebellion and external attack.</li>
<li class="li1">Iran has shown that it can and will control the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore the world economy, at will – without even inspiring Europe to clear the mines, one of the last things its military is good at.</li>
<li class="li1">If not defeat, Iran has shown it can at minimum deter the United States Navy at the strategic level.</li>
<li class="li1">Iran has shown that no wartime coalition will coalesce against it, even when it directly attacks over a dozen neighboring countries, and even when it demonstrates the ability to lob missiles into central Europe.</li>
</ul>
None of this is good.
The more fundamental problem for the United States, beyond President Trump’s tenure, is that America will have shown an inability to plan and win at the strategic level, and furthermore has shown itself to be without effective wartime allies beyond Israel.
The markets are speaking, and their shaky nature means they’re optimistic about this deal. But it’s a bad one, short- and long-term, for an America First policy perspective. It’s certainly satisfying to swipe the chessboard clear of a bunch of bad guys. It’s another to expend significant resources to create a scenario in which the takeaways all speak to Iran’s ability to stand up to the Great Satan and survive, and to the advantages going forward for China that are impossible to fully estimate at this point.
The Trump approach to foreign policy and national security has, time and again, proven his critics wrong. He has ridden a hot hand repeatedly, to the great benefit of the American people. But he’s often done so by gambling and winning, often facing long odds. Eventually those odds may prove too long. Eventually the table goes cold. Or sometimes, you just need a break to go off tilt.
We’ll see which situation this is for the president in short order.

Trump visit to Scotland

Trump Takes A Break From Bombing Iran For The Master’s

America First

Donald Trump

Foreign Policy

Iran

We have, in this recess of the United States Senate, been gifted an extraordinary vision of perfection, the apex example of a social phenomenon long observed but rarely embodied with such an apotheosis of type: The Sad Childless Disney Adult, as <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2026/03/30/lindsey-graham-enjoys-disney-ride-during-government-shutdown/">embodied</a> in the person of one Lindsey Graham.
The longtime strongman ruler of South Carolina politics — peace be upon him — decided upon dismissal from the swamps of D.C. and the uncomfortable couches of many a green room to take respite from long days of agitating for wars and causing international kerfuffles to indulge in the joys of what is, for his money, the best kingdom of them all, the Magic one, where birds sing, princesses flit, and bubble wands can be purchased on every corner. Make sure you get the ones that let you replace the batteries — you don&#8217;t want them to run out when you take them home.
(They have not yet committed to sending arms to battle the Houthis, but he has a co-del meeting with Buzz Lightyear later to run that down.)
The things you must know about navigating Disney as a childless adult is that you are their ideal customer: trapped by nostalgia, burdened with a crippling lack of childhood maturation, and desperate for figures who can fill the obvious and manifold emotional gaps in your life. So, in the absence of the figures who contribute to a healthy life, one turns to that old comfortable friend, the fellow with an ear to lend and a &#8220;ha HA!&#8221; to give: M-I-C, K-E-Y — he&#8217;s always there for you with a hug and a waffle shaped like his head. No judgment here, just a land where wishes come true.
<div id="attachment_1069163" style="width: 777px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1069163" class="size-large wp-image-1069163" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Disney-tmz-767x576.jpg" alt="Credit: TMZ" width="767" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Disney-tmz-767x576.jpg 767w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Disney-tmz-300x225.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Disney-tmz-768x577.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Disney-tmz.jpg 977w" sizes=" (max-width: 767px) 100vw, 767px" />Credit: TMZ</div>
The other thing you must know is that you have to download the app to skip the lines, because damn if those &#8220;affordability&#8221; people don&#8217;t have a point about how much it costs to be a dedicated Disney adult in the land of lines and upsells. Though, in fairness, the filet mignon at <a href="https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/dining/magic-kingdom/cinderella-royal-table/menus/dinner/">Cinderella&#8217;s Royal Table</a> is the best steak you&#8217;ll ever have. And don&#8217;t sleep on the Floating Island, it has strawberry meringue. Delectable!
You&#8217;re in cycle? There&#8217;s a co-del? There&#8217;s a primary? Who cares, that&#8217;s not important. This is a personal wellness journey, holding space for the future we are manifesting. The problems of tomorrow disappear when you&#8217;re in this special place. Oh look, it&#8217;s Space Mountain! We went to space, we&#8217;ll do it again — we&#8217;re America, dammit.
People complain too much. Iran is fine. TSA will get paid. Gas prices are a distraction. The important thing is there is a live performance coming up soon, and picking between which character you want a selfie with is always the hardest part. Wish Lindsey luck!

LG_Disney

Meet Senator Lindsey Graham, The Saddest Disney Adult

Congress

Disney World

Humor

Lindsey Graham

Opinion

Satire

U.S. Senate

<div class="gmail_default">
This week&#8217;s scheduled debate at USC between the plethora of Democrats vying for the California gubernatorial nomination had to be<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/peak-california-usc-backs-out-of-gov-debate-over-lack-of-diversity"> canceled</a>. Not for any of the normal reasons debates get canceled — disputes about rules, moderators, venue, or the metrics used to determine candidate eligibility — all those were in order and agreed upon in advance. No, it had to be canceled for a more<a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-23/california-leaders-call-to-boycott-debate-if-other-candidates-not-included"> basic reason</a>: all the candidates who qualified were noticeably, inconveniently, white. 
In an announcement, the university acknowledged that it canceled the debate because its selection criteria had “created a significant distraction from the issues that matter to voters.” That selection criteria was based on a combination of polling and fundraising, a fairly standard measure of potential success. Unfortunately for Democrats who want to project an image of diversity (even if all their leading candidates in this race are white), this effectively excluded former HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and former State Controller Betty Yee from the debate. That&#8217;s racist, criteria! Bad criteria, bad.
The hue and cry that followed blamed a USC election professor for coming up with the racist popularity + money = viability metric, which has never previously been applied to politics, as each candidate demanded to be included and the university was afraid of saying no. Think of it as similar to California&#8217;s inability to pick a single state nut — it currently has almonds, pistachios, walnuts and pecans all occupying the same vaunted role. “[W]e have four state nuts, nobody wanted to be left behind,” Alex Vassar, the communications manager for the California State Library,<a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2026/03/26/the-professor-at-the-center-of-the-debate-debacle-00845901"> told Politico</a> this week. Only four California nuts? Have you seen the debate stage? It has Eric Swalwell, Katie Porter, AND Tom Steyer — there have to be more than four.
</div>
<div>
<div id="attachment_1066875" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1066875" class="size-large wp-image-1066875" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2258201958-864x576.jpg" alt="PASADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 28: (L-R) Eric Swalwell, Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, Katie Porter, Louise Bedsworth, Sammy Roth and Mary Creasman attend &quot;Our Climate Future: A Forum with California's Next Governor&quot; on January 28, 2026 in Pasadena, California. (Photo by Matei Horvath/Getty Images for California Environmental Voters)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2258201958-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2258201958-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2258201958-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2258201958.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Matei Horvath/Getty Images for California Environmental Voters</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class="gmail_default"></div>
<div>The problem that faced California Democrats presages the racial challenge they&#8217;re going to face in 2028, when their debate stage will almost certainly be dominated by white candidates. California&#8217;s own Gavin Newsom, former Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly all routinely rank in the top ten candidates in early polling for 2028. The only non-white candidates who share the same status are &#8220;falling out of a coconut tree&#8221; 2024 disaster Kamala Harris and Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe if Jasmine Crockett had more of an opportunity in Texas, she&#8217;d sneak into the top ten — but no, the party chose another bland-looking white guy because they think that&#8217;s what dumb voters want.</div>
<div>
Republicans would be wise to recognize the opportunity here. Having built an elitist left coalition overwhelmingly dependent on identity politics above all else — while offering minority voters nothing of substance when they hold power — Democrats are ripe to correct for Kamala in 2028 and nominate some white guy who they think is &#8220;safe&#8221; from a pool of candidates who all have to wear SPF 70 and above. When all the left has to offer is checking a racial box, it leaves an opening for the right to build on Donald Trump&#8217;s success in attracting voters who are tired of the visual pandering California Democrats think is more important than actual policy. If what they have to offer in 2028 connects with what people actually care about, maybe they can even do it with a white guy from Ohio. And as Kamala Harris showed us, play stupid DEI games, win stupid DEI prizes.
</div>
</div>

California Governor Gavin Newsom Continues Book Tour In San Francisco

2028 So White: Why California’s Canceled Debate Shows Democrats’ Incoming Race Problem

2028 So White: Why California's Canceled Debate Shows Democrats' Incoming Race Problem

California

Democratic Debate

Democrats

Gavin Newsom

Kamala Harris

As early voting rolls along, Virginia Democrats are nervous about their ludicrous gerrymander of the Commonwealth. But they have help from the state election board thanks to a recommendation that prevents voters from even seeing the bizarrely drawn map before they cast their ballots.
According to documents provided to the Daily Wire thanks to a freedom of information act request, a “Redistricting Webinar FAQ,” provided by the General Registrars and Elections Office staff recommends that the proposed map not even be publicly posted by Virginia&#8217;s 133 localities:

<div id="attachment_1065357" style="width: 792px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1065357" class="wp-image-1065357 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections." width="782" height="147" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg 782w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-300x56.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-768x144.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 782px) 100vw, 782px" />Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections.</div>
Among the Congress-critters benefiting from the new map is longtime Democrat Rep. Don Beyer, who stands to see a dramatically redrawn district — more than half of voters in it are new to him — and admitted this week that the map looks “unfair.”
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/not-done-deal-democrats-start-sweat-virginias-redistricting-referendum-rcna263726">NBC News</a>. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
“It’s unfair, sure, but Trump” has been the Democrats’ argument for the absurdly redrawn districts, designed to turn a 6-5 majority delegation into a 10-1 blue slate. The fact that voters will be unable to see how ridiculous it is that five Democratic reps could live in Northern Virginia while representing most of the state is one of the best things they have going for them. They&#8217;re counting on voters to stay ignorant of the truth.

Virginia Marked on Map

Democrat Admits To ‘Unfair’ Map — While Keeping Voters In The Dark

Top Democrat Admits Virginia Gerrymander Is 'Unfair', But Don’t You Dare Let Voters See The Map

Elections

U.S. House of Representatives

Virginia&#8217;s most popular Republican is AWOL on the most ludicrous redistricting in the nation.
The Commonwealth of Virginia now stands exactly a month away from an April 21st vote that would approve the most partisan Democrat gerrymander in the nation, and Republicans are nowhere to be found.
Governor Abigail Spanberger (&#8220;Moderate&#8221; &#8211; The Wall Street Journal) rubber stamped the 10-1 redistricting attempt by octogenarian radical leftist Louise Lucas — who actually runs the Richmond legislature — sending a bizarrely shaped map to Virginia voters which amounts to a blatant power grab, allowing for five Democrat majority seats all based within a stone&#8217;s throw of Washington, D.C. to govern the entire state. With zero acknowledgement that Virginia&#8217;s electorate had a Republican governor just months ago, and a 6-5 Democrat majority in the current Congressional representation, it&#8217;s an obscene approach to destroying local representation that short-circuits districts approved by a bipartisan commission on a decade-long basis.
The question on the minds of conservative Virginians through all of this is clear: Where is Glenn Youngkin?
Youngkin, the most popular Republican politician in Virginia, criticized this attempt in its early days. But when Virginians tune in to March Madness, they aren&#8217;t seeing a single ad featuring the former governor. Instead, they&#8217;re barraged with Democrat ads featuring Donald Trump and decrying the current map (where they already have a majority) as racist, unfair, and corrupt.
The deluge is unending, and funded primarily from out of state Democratic entities.
The amount in question is upwards of <a href="https://x.com/apublictrust/status/2031813155807019222">$22 million</a> in ad spending — closer to $30 million according to some consultants — and one of its biggest funders is, you guessed it, George Soros to the tune of <a href="https://x.com/MSchmidtRVA/status/2034295507833454607">$5 million</a>.
By comparison, the Virginia Republican-aligned pushback in defense of the current map is essentially nonexistent. There is no major ad campaign pointing out the false narrative Democrats are advancing. With Youngkin apparently unwilling to expend significant political capital fighting this effort, only former Attorney General Jason Miyares has stepped into the breach — and unlike the former governor, he lacks the donor class connections to bring major resources to the fight.
What&#8217;s particularly maddening for conservatives in the Commonwealth is that even Democrats admit the April referendum is a close-run thing, well within the margin despite their recent sweep of the Old Dominion&#8217;s top three jobs. With a winnable situation sitting right in front of them, though, Republicans seem to be throwing up their hands — or hoping that the Virginia Courts will bail them out and render the map unacceptable. But this question won&#8217;t even be heard <a href="https://wtop.com/virginia/2026/03/virginias-redistricting-referendum-still-sparking-fierce-partisan-debate/">until after the vote</a>.
Glenn Youngkin seems to have a mindset that having had a successful four-year tenure as governor, his time engaged in partisan politics is at a comfortable lull. He&#8217;s happy to wait a couple of years and just run for president if he&#8217;s in the mood. But if this blatantly partisan Democrat redistricting wins in April, Republicans — and not just those in Virginia — should absolutely blame him for the loss, and for the ludicrously skewed gerrymander that will end up with five Democrat Congressmen representing most of the state while comfortably living within driving distance of the best country clubs in Northern Virginia.

Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Winsome Earle-Sears Closing Campaign Rally

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Glenn Youngkin — He’s Just Not Around To Fight Gerrymanders

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Glenn Youngkin — He's Just Not Around To Fight Gerrymanders

Glenn Youngkin

Leftists

Voting

In the immediate aftermath of an attempted terrorist attack by young supporters of radical Islam outside Gracie Mansion, Mayor Zohran Mamdani chose to tell the world which side he’s on. And it’s definitely not on the side of the cops and protesters who would’ve died in an explosion the young radicals hoped would cause death and destruction &#8220;even bigger&#8221; than the Boston Marathon bombing. No – it’s on the side of radical Islam, the kind supported by his virulent anti-Israel activist friend Mahmoud Khalil.
“Last night, as we marked the one year anniversary of his detention, Rama and I were honored to welcome Mahmoud, Noor, and their son Deen to Gracie Mansion to break our fast together,” Mamdani posted. 
The mayor <a href="https://x.com/NYCMayor/status/2031185185002164590">attached a picture</a> of he and his wife welcoming the activist who led the anti-Jewish protests at Columbia University, including illegal occupations of buildings which caused the Trump Administration to detain him over support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and lying on his original visa form.
The mayor, who chose to condemn the twenty participants in the “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City” protest as white supremacists but slow-rolled his condemnation of the would-be Islamist terrorists, was deliberately sending a signal that is impossible to ignore. Zohran Mamdani won’t endorse the violent young radicals outright – that would be a bridge too far – but he wants everyone to know where his heart lies.
It’d be less disturbing if, as so many legacy media organizations declare, Mamdani is a fringe character in the Democratic Party, a TikTok friendly accidental mayor thanks to the fluke of a rash of bad candidates undone by scandals present and past. But Mamdani doesn’t do things by accident, especially when it comes to social media: he sent a message by hosting Khalil, and he wanted young Democrats to see it. And for New York City’s Jewish population to see it, too.
The reason why is made clear by new polling data from the Manhattan Institute, which <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/do-democrats-want-to-be-normal-survey-analysis-of-todays-democratic-coalition">surveyed</a> the current Democratic coalition on numerous questions related to policy. MI’s overall takeaway is that the Democratic Party has opinions that are much more moderate than those of Mayor Mamdani or New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But digging into the survey’s details illustrate a younger radical fringe which doesn’t have a problem with Khalil, and probably doesn’t have much of a problem with the attempted bombers, either.
According to MI’s polling, a quarter or more of 18–29 year-old Democrats view Israel essentially the same way as Nick Fuentes. “One in four (26%) of these younger Democrats believe that Israel is a colonial apartheid state that must be dismantled and that Israel bears responsibility for any and all violence since its founding,” writes MI vice president Jesse Arm. And of that same cohort, 38% claim the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel was either an “inside job” or a “false flag operation”, allowed or created whole cloth by Israel as a pretext for war in Gaza. And of course they would think that – 24% of them told MI’s pollsters that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews was either greatly exaggerated, or did not happen at all.
There’s no real separation between these Democrats and Mayor Mamdani – he simply represents an elevated luxury version of these beliefs, one that calls for the end of billionaires while hanging with Alex Soros and Huma Abedin in their tricked out penthouse duplex overlooking the city. The Gracie Mansion Khalil féte is a drab return to the Seventies era of “That Party at Lenny’s,” when Leonard Bernstein hosted the Black Panthers and the doyennes of the city hoped to leave their society friends behind as one of “the few attuned souls” to the new Radical Chic. 
As Tom Wolfe <a href="https://nymag.com/article/tom-wolfe-radical-chic-that-party-at-lennys.html">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>They had to be morally avant-garde, able to articulate the luxury opinions fashionable at that exact moment. They had to perform all these inversions—rising to the social stratosphere by ostentatiously demonstrating their solidarity with the oppressed, securing their place atop the structures of power by striking radical poses, and pretending to support tearing those structures down.</blockquote>
Of course, Democrats and their legacy media allies will dismiss this development as an exaggeration. It’s just a dinner, after all. What’s to worry about a bit of light terrorism among friends? And there were probably Nazis there, what do you expect? His wife&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mamdani-makes-excuse-for-wife-oct-7-likes-but-paper-trail-doesnt-add-up">Instagram likes</a>, who cares about those, she&#8217;s a private citizen! Chuck and Hakeem, they’re still the leaders of the party last we checked.
The aging neoliberal Democrats still fancy themselves in charge of the situation. They still have their hands on the wheel, and the youngsters will learn their place in time. With the rise of Mamdani and his cohort, that grip will be tested like it has not been in half a century. Do not be surprised when it fails.

New York Is Not For Sale Rally In NYC

Mamdani Heralds The Rise Of The New Radical Chic

Democratic Socialism

New York City

Radical Islam

Zohran Mamdani

The national narrative about the result of last night&#8217;s Texas Senate Democratic primary is that the party dodged a bullet. Picking Austin state representative James Talarico over Dallas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett was the savvy move, ensuring a competitive statewide race that will, at worst, be a drag on Republican dollars in the upcoming midterms, and at best could finally fulfill leftist dreams of turning the state blue.
It&#8217;s possible this national narrative is right, and Talarico will make it a race against embattled incumbent Senator John Cornyn or, Democrats hope, controversial Attorney General Ken Paxton. There&#8217;s plenty of investment by the donor class and the party establishment in this effort. The dutiful legacy media complex, from Stephen Colbert to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/03/02/james-talarico-profile" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New Yorker</a>, is already building up Talarico as that rare thing, a Christian of the Left who can win over centrist voters. They are already giving him the serious &#8220;young man looking into the middle distance thinking about noble stuff&#8221; profile already done to death for fellow Ivy League grads Beto O&#8217;Rourke and Pete Buttigieg (to no avail). Expect more of the same in the months ahead.
Despite Kamala Harris&#8217;s endorsement, Crockett faced a deluge of Democratic donor opposition for her Senate effort, as billionaire lefties went all out for Talarico — and paid for all the dirty political attacks he claims to demur from. As the Washington Free Beacon <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/mess-in-texas-billionaire-backed-talarico-shrugs-off-racism-scandal-to-steal-senate-nod-from-jasmine-crockett/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Meanwhile, a billionaire-funded super PAC linked to Talarico—who repeatedly assailed the influence of billionaire-funded super PACs—relentlessly attacked Crockett on the airwaves. The Lone Star Rising PAC, started by a longtime friend of Talarico just days before the candidate launched his Senate campaign, spent millions on negative ads against Crockett over the past few weeks. LinkedIn founder and Jeffrey Epstein pal Reid Hoffman was among the billionaires who bankrolled the super PAC, along with hedge fund titans Stephen Mandel and Mark Heising. The group also received millions via the same &#8220;dark money&#8221; networks Talarico had promised to ban via ‘anti-corruption’ legislation.</blockquote>
The irony here is that while Democrats might have wanted Talarico because he could make Texas competitive, they ended up picking a guy who — for all his invocations of Scripture — is actually further left than Crockett. Her record isn&#8217;t moderate, but it&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/upshot/crockett-talarico-texas-senate-election.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more moderate</a> than you&#8217;d think given her fiery social media persona. And her appeal was to a broad ethnically diverse camp that tends to grade as more moderate, while Talarico actually performed best in multiple polls with liberals. There&#8217;s a reason that white voters in Austin were his greatest center of support, and it&#8217;s not because he name-checks the Magnificat while making the case for abortion.
Texas Democrats may ultimately regret this decision. Crockett would&#8217;ve had a tougher path to victory, but she could&#8217;ve made inroads into the communities that Democrats need to peel back from Donald Trump&#8217;s coalition. With Talarico, it looks like Beto all over again — a guy who&#8217;s further left than the media will ever acknowledge trying to fake out moderate voters just until Election Day. In case you missed it, this was their favored approach just last year to win statewide in Virginia and New Jersey with two new governors who even got described as moderates by the Wall Street Journal, and instantly revealed they were nothing of the kind.
So watch out, Texas. You&#8217;re about to get the nice young man junior Bible camp version of Abigail Spanberger. Don&#8217;t fall for it.

Texas State Representative Talarico Campaigns Ahead Of Primary Election

Will James Talarico Flip Texas Blue? Don’t Be So Sure.

James Talarico

Jasmine Crockett

John Cornyn

Ken Paxton

Texas

Donald Trump understands something fundamental about foreign policy that most politicians don’t — including ones who have been active in this space for a very long time.
In the run-up to Operation Epic Fury, the critique circling on Capitol Hill wasn’t quiet. Republicans were concerned that, given the risk factors involved in a major regime change war — even one that was undertaken overwhelmingly by air and sea, not Army boots on the ground — the president had done little or nothing to warn the American people of the potential losses inherent in any attack.
Unlike the precision strikes Trump has used in the past — amazing feats of military technological capability, yes, but with lower potential loss of American lives — going after the Iranians meant inevitably setting off a barrage of missiles and drones that could attack all America’s forces in the Middle East, as well as our allies and regional partners.
Exfiltrating Nicolás Maduro and his wife without the loss of a single American life was an incredible achievement, one that was only possible thanks to the bravery and commitment of a terribly wounded helicopter pilot. Things could’ve gone sideways very quickly. Instead, the American forces under Trump pulled it off without one death. Assign it to good fortune, good planning, or the grace of God, but this is not the way such missions are expected to go.
The line from one old military hand to me in the run-up to the Iran strike was simple: How long can the old man keep going back to the table and coming up aces?
That risk, for a normal politician, would require advance mitigation. Think back to the lengthy effort George W. Bush and his associates put into making the case for war in Iraq. The many briefings, public speeches, presentations before the United Nations, and an open effort on television and in op-ed pages to make the case for war were meant to warn people of the potential loss of life and materiel. The message was clear: Steel yourselves for the worst, but understand we’re doing this because we think it needs doing. Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction require it.
Of course, after the WMD turned out to be a pittance of what was expected, and Hussein’s threats turned out to be the actions of a blowhard maintaining his hold on power, the Bush administration was forced into an uncomfortable pivot toward a war built on positive vibes and spreading democracy. The whole prewar case turned out to be built on falsehoods, albeit falsehoods every intelligence service in the West purportedly believed.
Trump became, like so many Americans, an outspoken critic of this war after the fact, as it dragged on interminably and descended into chaos that cost American lives and resources. He took the lesson, as did many politicians in the rising generation, that boots-on-the-ground regime-change wars without clear goals in mind are a pointless and expensive exercise.
But Trump seems to have taken another lesson from it, too: that the messaging build up to such action is unwise and unnecessary.
So, if the political critique of President Trump’s approach in Iran is that he didn’t make the case to the American people, it’s true — he didn’t. He understands that he doesn’t need to.
Americans assess foreign policy and national security not as ever-running aspects of their daily lives, but as a binary: success, or failure. We like to win. We hate to lose.
What Trump has done is show that he knows more about the reality of these issues politically than any longstanding politician, consultant, or commentator. He understands the importance of unpredictability. He makes his decisions in his own time and believes Americans will judge him only if his effort is unsuccessful. And if it is a failure, no amount of prior argument — readying the ground with an awareness of risk, detailing the potential benefits to energy markets or a destabilized China — will make a difference anyway.
It’s a fundamental change in the way an administration conducts foreign policy. It’s in keeping with Trump’s roll the dice approach. And it’s also based on enormous confidence in what the United States military is capable of when you ask them to blow something up instead of changing hearts and minds.
Donald Trump understands the old Vince Lombardi dictum applies here: Winning isn’t everything — it’s the only thing.

Untitled design – 2026-03-02T095935.961

Trump Didn’t Sell America on War in Iran. He Doesn’t Need To.

George W. Bush

Iraq War

Menu

Ben Domenech