Martin De Luca

This is an interesting and actually pretty bold move by Vance. Don’t know any VP (since Henry Wallace?) has tried to do something like this. We’re in uncharted waters in so many ways over the next two years…

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.

LAWYER UP.

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.

🇺🇦 BREAKING! NABU has detained SBU General Sergey Duka, Ukrainian media report. Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP), the agencies that investigate and prosecute high-level corruption, have struck at the SBU, with NABU detaining General Sergey Duka, Ukrainian media report. According to NABU and SAP, the group had 12 members. It was founded by "Criminal," reportedly SBU-linked Andrey Osipov, and its leaders included "Mexican," reportedly drug lord Yegor Burkin, founder of the Khimprom cartel. Its alleged protectors included "Akim," an SBU major general, "Price," a senior police strategic investigations official, and "Consultant," a deputy department head in Kiev region's criminal investigations division. NABU confirms that SBU officers involved in the attempt to strip Ukraine's anti-corruption agencies of their independence in summer 2025 are part of the case. NABU claims protection cost $7,000 a month per call center, across 52 offices scamming people in Ukraine and abroad. One crypto payment reached $352,800. When payments ran into trouble, offices were raided, and if cases reached court, judges had to be paid too. NABU also claims SBU and police officers helped the group kidnap, beat and torture people in Ukraine and Europe, including in Vienna. An officer from the SBU's department for protecting national statehood allegedly provided access to surveillance cameras, while "Consultant" promised to muddy the investigation. The criminals allegedly received police database information and search materials, tracked victims in real time, and quickly obtained photos from a European law enforcement meeting on their case. One payment to officials allegedly reached $1.3 million in crypto, and "Akim" allegedly called the gang members "brothers." The group is also accused of selling "legal drugs" through U420 stores and printing fake euros in 2026 under the protection of "Consultant." In recordings, "Criminal" and "Mexican" say the drug scheme brings in "three a day," with 700 clear for themselves, and they hope to reach "five" by summer. They also discuss attacking some journalists covering U420 and bribing others to shift attention. The two men discuss bribing "Comrade K" and "Arakh," and needing to reach a deal with Health Minister "L." Ukrainian media read these as Interior Minister Igor Klimenko, ruling party leader David Arakhamia and Health Minister Viktor Lyashko. None of the three is heard on the tapes. Ukrainian media see the case as an attack on Zelensky's control of the security services, which rests on the Prosecutor General's Office and the SBU. The first phase forced out Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, one of Zelensky's main tools against NABU. Now the target is the SBU under acting chief Aleksandr Poklad, the man NABU's supporters fear would go after the heads of NABU and SAP if Zelensky gave the order. The wider aim, according to this analysis, is to force Zelensky to accept laws that would let international experts appointed by Ukraine's Western backers choose the country's top law enforcement officials. That would strip him of real control over them. Democratic wins in the US Congress could increase the pressure.

🚨What happens if Trump loses the House and Senate? Clinton & Obama already set precedent. They weren't done at all in their last 2 years. Victor Davis Hanson explains: Clinton fell to 37% approval but left office at about 66%. In between, he was impeached but not convicted and bombed Serbia for 78 days without Congress. Obama's approval fell to 38% and still left office near 60%. He bombed Libya in 2011 without Congress, ran hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and started bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria in 2014 without a new vote. He said "I've got a pen and I've got a phone," and skipped the Senate on the Iran deal and Paris. Low approval and a hostile Congress didn't finish them. For both, it was the best thing that ever happened to them in some ways.

Argentina’s former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who is serving six years under house arrest for corruption, sat down with The Post for her first interview with an international outlet since her sentencing last year. wapo.st/4ixXEG4

A Communist Retaking Power In Brazil Will Increase Anti-American Foreign Influence Ops thefederalist.com/2026/11/02…