Adam Bonica

@adambonica.bsky.social

30403 Followers 1246 Following

Professor of Political Science at Stanford | Exploring money in politics, campaigns and elections, ideology, the courts, and inequality | Author of The Judicial Tug of War cup.org/2LEoMrs | https://data4democracy.substack.com

Bar chart titled "Voter fraud among Republican politicians vastly exceeds the public's. That rate is still just 1 in 850." The chart shows that 0.118% of Republican politicians (17 out of 14,442 DIME candidates from 2016–2026) have been credibly implicated in voter fraud. This rate is represented by a tall red bar that dwarfs the microscopic rates for the general electorate, making the politicians' rate 50x to 38,000x higher than the documented rates for everyone else.
Bar chart from Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,019 U.S. adults, Sept. 19–21, 2025, asking which party has a better plan on 11 issues. Republicans lead on crime (40% vs. 20%), immigration (40% vs. 22%), foreign conflicts (35% vs. 23%), U.S. economy (34% vs. 24%), gun control (32% vs. 28%), political extremism (30% vs. 26%), and corruption (27% vs. 21%). Democrats lead on respect for democracy (31% vs. 29%), healthcare (34% vs. 25%), women’s rights (38% vs. 25%), and environment (37% vs. 23%). Margin of error ±3 points; third-party and non-responses excluded.
Bar chart titled “Please indicate if the following are examples of corruption,” showing the share of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who said each item counts as “very” or “somewhat” corrupt, from a Brennan Center poll of 2,000 registered voters (April 28–May 6, 2026). Results are consistently high and closely aligned across parties: a government official using their position for personal gain (98% Democrat, 96% Independent, 96% Republican); prioritizing billionaires and big corporations over the public (97%, 94%, 91%); bending the rule of law (96%, 95%, 94%); lying to the public (94%, 94%, 94%); billionaires and corporations having an easier time being heard than the public (94%, 90%, 83%); taxpayer dollars spent on programs that don’t benefit the public (90%, 88%, 94%); Congress not focusing on the public’s problems (82%, 77%, 80%); and an official unresponsive to constituents (78%, 75%, 76%).
Live updates: Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's Restrctions
A New York Times diagram showing financial connections in a Kazakhstan mining deal. At the top, President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. A note states the U.S. government is considering up to $1.6 billion in financing for the deal, flowing to a company called Kaz Resources. At the bottom, Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric are tied via Dominari Securities, where they were investors in the deal, and Lutnick’s sons Kyle and Brandon are tied via Cantor Fitzgerald and ASP Isotopes, whose subsidiary also invests in the deal. Lines labeled “Family ties” connect the fathers at the top to their sons at the bottom, forming a closed loop.
Here’s alt text for the chart: Two scatterplots titled “What Drives Democratic Success in House Elections? Analysis of U.S. House Elections (2006-2024).” Each plots the Democratic share of the two-party vote (ranging from about 46% to 56%) for individual election years, with blue points marking years Democrats won a House majority and red points marking Republican-majority years. The left panel, “Closing the Partisan Turnout Gap,” plots vote share against the Democratic-to-Republican turnout ratio. The points trend upward: as Democratic turnout approaches Republican levels (ratio nearing 1.0), Democratic vote share rises. 2008 sits highest at the top right (ratio ~1.0, ~55.5%), while 2010 and 2014 sit low and left (ratio ~0.91, ~46-47%). All years show a ratio below 1.0, indicating Democrats consistently turned out at lower rates than Republicans. (2006 and 2024 are excluded for lack of turnout data.) The right panel, “Strategic Party-level Ideological Positioning,” plots vote share against party positioning on a liberal-conservative scale. The points trend downward: Democrats performed better when positioned further left. 2008, 2006, and 2018 cluster at the upper left (more liberal, ~54-55.5%), while 2010, 2022, and 2024 fall to the lower right (more conservative, ~46-49%). A note beneath the panels explains the turnout ratio is drawn from L2 voter files and that ideology is measured with a composite of established scores (CFscores, DW-NOMINATE, DW-DIME, Hall-Snyder, GGUM, Shor-McCarty), citing Bonica, Rhee, and Studen (2025).
A horizontal stacked bar chart from YouGov titled "How Serious a Problem is Corruption?" showing the percentage of U.S. adults and their views on the seriousness of corruption among different political groups, conducted August 22–24, 2025. Responses are categorized into "Very Serious" (orange), "Somewhat Serious" (yellow), "Minor Problem" (light yellow), "Not a Problem" (dark grey), and "Not Sure" (light grey). It evaluates groups including Democratic and Republican U.S. Presidents, Members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, and Supreme Court appointees. The data shows high concern across the board. Republican Presidents (43%) and Republican Members of Congress (41%) received the highest "Very Serious" ratings. However, Democratic equivalents also face high "Very Serious" ratings (33% for both Presidents and Members of Congress). At the state and local levels, perceptions of corruption are nearly tied between the parties.
Screenshot of a news article. Category label reads ‘SUPREME COURT.’ Headline: ‘Chief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as “political actors.”’ Subhead: ‘In remarks at a judicial conference, Roberts bemoaned what he characterized as the American public’s misconceptions about the Supreme Court.’ Below the text is a photograph of Chief Justice John Roberts in his black judicial robe, mouth turned down in a pinched, sour expression.
The conservative majority has learned to use anti-discrimination language as the vehicle for preserving discrimination. Justice Kavanaugh’s suggestion that remedies for racism must have an “end point” inverts the logic of the Reconstruction Amendments. They were written to empower Congress to act against racial domination, not to set an expiration date on equality. This will be the Roberts Court’s legacy: using the Constitution not to expand freedom, but to protect established hierarchies. The Court has simply found a new minority to protect—not racial or religious minorities, but a political party whose power endures through structural advantage, even when it commands fewer votes.
This pattern holds a crucial lesson for America’s current moment. As democratic norms erode and elections become increasingly tilted, anti-corruption movements offer what partisan politics cannot: the moral authority to unite society against a rigged system. When traditional opposition fails, these movements succeed because they transcend party lines, mobilizing citizens around a cause larger than any candidate: the fundamental fairness of the system itself. Research shows that in polarized societies, the most effective opposition doesn’t fight on the traditional left-right battlefield where positions are entrenched. Instead, it creates an entirely new axis of conflict.1 Framing the stakes as clean versus corrupt shifts debate from rigid ideological divisions to a universally resonant moral question: are you on the side of the people or a corrupt elite?
Table of Hungarian parliamentary seat projections from various pollsters, published between 22 Feb and 8 Apr 2026. Columns show publication date, polling date, projection source, pollster, and projected seats for each party, ending with majority size. Across every row, Péter Magyar’s Tisza Párt is projected to win a large majority — ranging from 106 to 141 seats — while Orbán’s Fidesz trails badly with between 52 and 87 seats. Most other parties (DK, MSZP, Zöldek, LMP, Mi Hazánk, etc.) are projected to win zero seats, with Mi Hazánk (MH) picking up 4–7. Tisza’s projected majority ranges from 7 to 42 seats. The most recent poll (Medián, 8 Apr 2026) shows the widest gap: Tisza 141, Fidesz 52, for a 42-seat majority.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Horizontal bar chart showing new first-time Gen Z donors (under 30) by campaign, through 2025. Abughazaleh leads with 3,164, followed by the DSCC (1,880), DCCC (734), Jeffries (273), Biss (17), Fine (7), and Schumer (3). Abughazaleh's bar is highlighted in blue; all others are gray.
President Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, with Perkins among those witnessing the signing (third from right) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Signing_Of_The_Social_Security_Act.jpg
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Institutions & Justice,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They show: 51 million more Americans participating in elections (U.S. voting-age participation about 51% vs OECD 70%); $14.9 billion less spent per election cycle, with U.S. elections costing far more per vote than peers; public trust in government increasing by 15 percentage points; 60 more women serving in Congress, making it more representative of the population; the average age of elected leaders falling by 12 years (U.S. average about 59 vs OECD 47); 1.4 million fewer Americans behind bars; $300 billion less in annual litigation costs; and per capita carbon emissions reduced by 47%, nearly cut in half. Each card lists the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Survival & Safety,” showing how outcomes would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. figures to peer democracies. They indicate: life expectancy at birth would increase by 4.1 years (U.S. 78.4 vs OECD 82.5); about 10,000 fewer infant deaths per year (roughly a 45% reduction); maternal deaths in childbirth would fall by 76%; opioid overdose deaths would drop by about 85,000 per year; gun deaths would fall by roughly 35,000 annually (an 81% reduction); school shooting incidents would decline by 99%, effectively disappearing compared to peers; traffic fatalities would decrease by about 25,000 per year; and deaths from police use of force would drop by about 1,000 annually. Each card shows the U.S. rate alongside the OECD average.
Screenshot of a data visualization section titled “Family & Livelihood,” showing what would change if the United States matched the OECD average. Eight cards compare U.S. outcomes to OECD norms. They show: +25 weeks of guaranteed paid parental leave (U.S. 0 vs OECD ~25); +27 days of guaranteed paid time off (U.S. 0 vs OECD 27); 231 fewer annual hours worked per worker (U.S. 1811 vs OECD 1580); childcare costs 60% lower as a share of wages (U.S. 32% vs OECD 13%); 5 million fewer children living in poverty; 15 million fewer workers in poverty-wage jobs; 180,000 fewer unsheltered homeless people; and 500,000 fewer medical bankruptcies per year (common in the U.S., effectively zero in peer countries). Each card lists the U.S. figure alongside the OECD average.
Screenshot of a data visualization titled “The Cost of American Exceptionalism,” subtitled “What would change if the U.S. matched the OECD average?” The page explains that each card shows how outcomes would change if the U.S. matched the average of 31 peer democracies. Below, a section labeled “Economy & Inequality” displays eight cards comparing U.S. figures to OECD averages. Highlights include: +$19K per household per year in redistributed income and +$96K in redistributed wealth if the top 1% matched OECD shares; a 71% lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio (from 354× to 101×); 50 million more workers with union coverage; 26 million more people with health insurance; $2.1 trillion saved annually in healthcare spending; $691 less per person per year in prescription drug costs; and intergenerational economic mobility being twice as high. Each card shows the U.S. value alongside the OECD average.
Recruitment-style image showing a lone rider on horseback in a wide, empty desert landscape at dusk. Above the horizon, a dark military aircraft silhouette flies overhead. Large text reads, “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.” The overall tone is stark and militarized, evoking frontier imagery and national restoration.
Four Venezuelan SEBIN officers in tactical gear seated in the back of a vehicle. They wear black/gray camouflage uniforms, ballistic helmets, face masks concealing their identities, and carry automatic weapons. Venezuelan flag patches visible on uniforms.
YouGov Survey crosstabs from October 8-12, 2025 showing ICE approval ratings. Overall: 39% approve, 53% disapprove. By party: Democrats 12-85, Independents 25-62, Republicans 80-13. By age: 18-29 year olds 21-69, 65+ 46-50. By race: White 48-46, Black 12-75, Hispanic 26-68. By 2024 vote: Harris voters 9-86, Trump voters 80-14.
Bar chart comparing ICE’s $37.5 billion budget to world military spending (SIPRI 2024 data). The U.S. leads at $997B, followed by China ($314B), Russia ($149B), Germany ($88.5B), and others. ICE’s budget (shown in red) exceeds Poland ($38B), Italy ($38B), Australia ($33.8B), and Canada ($29.3B). Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.
Two Truth Social posts by Donald J. Trump from June 21, 2025. • Top Post (12:21 PM): A text-only rant criticizing "GREEN TAX CREDITS" as a "SCAM." He specifically attacks "Windmills" as "JUNK," claiming they are "inefficient," "destroying the beauty of the environment," and "made in China." • Bottom Post (4:50 PM): A text-only announcement stating that the U.S. has "completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran" (Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan). He confirms "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped," congratulates the military, and declares "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!"
Infographic from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation comparing global military spending. A tall red bar shows U.S. defense spending at $877 billion, labeled “United States.” Next to it, a stacked bar totaling $849 billion represents the combined defense spending of the next 10 countries: China (largest segment), followed by Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine. The headline reads, “The United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.” Source cited as SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 2023.
A vertically stacked infographic containing two horizontal bar charts visualizing data on Donald Trump's anti-windmill rhetoric from 2012–2025. The top chart, titled "The Vocabulary of Vilification," ranks the specific names and descriptors used. "Ugly/Unsightly" is the most frequent term (appearing over 14 times), followed by "Disaster," "Monstrosities/Monsters," "Hoax/Scam," and hyperbolic terms like "Killing Field" and "Bird Cemetery." The bottom chart, titled "Trump's Accusations Against Windmills," ranks specific claims of wrongdoing. "Kill birds/eagles" is the dominant accusation (nearly 20 instances), followed by economic complaints like "Too expensive" and "Ruin landscape." The list also includes specific bizarre claims including "Kill whales" and "Cause cancer."
Line chart showing Trump's attacks on windmills from 2012 to 2025. Activity starts at 6 attacks in 2012, drops to near zero in the mid-2010s, rises slightly around 2019, then spikes to over 23 attacks in 2025.
Bloomberg Billionaires Index table showing the top 5 richest people: Elon Musk ($638B, +$205B YTD), Larry Page ($270B), Jeff Bezos ($255B), Larry Ellison ($252B), and Sergey Brin ($251B).
NYtimes headline: “Vance Refuses to Take Sides in G.O.P. Fight Over Bigotry The vice president's plea for a big-tent coalition at an annual conservative gathering belied the cracks in his party over antisemitism, racism and conspiracy theories.”
Table titled “Illinois 6th Congressional District General Election, 2024” listing results by party, candidate, votes, and percentage. Democrat Sean Casten, the incumbent, received 196,647 votes (54.2%). Republican Niki Conforti received 166,116 votes (45.8%). Write-in candidates received 86 votes (0.0%). Total votes cast were 362,849 (100%).
Bar chart titled “Who’s Really Blocking California Development?” showing the share of CEQA lawsuits by plaintiff type. HOAs and NIMBY groups account for the majority at 54%. Business and commercial plaintiffs file 20% of cases, government entities 13%, environmental groups 8%, tribal or cultural groups 4%, and labor unions 2%. The chart notes the analysis is based on 1,234 CEQA court opinions from 1973–2025 using CourtListener data, with HOAs/NIMBYs defined as homeowner associations, neighborhood groups, and ad hoc project-opposition groups.
Table listing the five richest people in the world with their net worth and daily gains. Elon Musk ranks first with a net worth of $644 billion and a one-day gain of $11.6 billion. Larry Page ($260B, +$4.23B), Jeff Bezos ($249B, +$4.57B), Sergey Brin ($242B, +$3.88B), and Mark Zuckerberg ($234B, +$5.08B) each gained several billion dollars in a single day.
Bar chart showing Democratic House and Senate candidates raised $418 million from individuals in the 2025–26 cycle. Fifty-seven percent ($242 million) is labeled “fundraising and consulting,” while 43% ($176 million) is labeled “available for campaigns.”
Infographic titled “2025 Billionaire Gains vs. Grocery Spending.” On the left, a large gold square shows that the top 100 richest Americans gained $995 billion in wealth in 2025, about $7,595 per U.S. household, representing wealth gains for just 100 individuals. On the right, a slightly smaller green square shows total U.S. grocery spending of $775 billion, about $5,916 per household, covering roughly 131 million households. A callout at the bottom reads “The Scale of Inequality,” noting that billionaire wealth gains exceeded national grocery spending by $220 billion. Sources listed: Bloomberg Billionaire Index and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Massive nighttime protest in Sofia, Bulgaria, with thousands holding up phone lights outside the parliament building. NYT headline: “Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Resigns in the Face of Mass Protests.”
A screenshot of a quote from a joint statement by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. The text reads: "Impeachment is a sacred constitutional vehicle designed to hold a corrupt executive accountable for abuse of power, breaking the law and violating the public trust. The effort traditionally requires a comprehensive investigative process, the collection and review of thousands of documents, an exacting scrutiny of the facts, the examination of dozens of key witnesses, Congressional hearings, sustained public organizing and the marshaling of the forces of democracy to build a broad national consensus. None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda."
A horizontal bar chart titled “WelcomePAC Funding Sources” showing $11.29M in total funding from FEC data. The largest share comes from “Billionaires & Heirs” at $6.01M, represented by a long purple bar. Next is “Hedge Funds/VC/Private Equity” at $2.50M, also in purple. “Corporate Executives” show $0.30M and “Corporate Entity” $0.25M, each with very small purple bars. “Americans Together” is listed at $1.02M with an orange bar, and “Other” is $1.22M with a gray bar. The graphic emphasizes that most funding—over half—comes from billionaires and heirs, with additional significant contributions from finance and private equity. Source: Federal Election Commission.
Two word-cloud charts from the Yale Youth Poll showing how voters ages 18–34 answer “Who do you think each party is fighting for?” Republican Party cloud (red): Dominated by the words “rich,” “billionaires,” “corporate,” “wealthy,” and “Trump,” with other prominent terms including “donors,” “white,” “Christian,” “money,” “power,” and “control.” Class-based groups like workers or the middle class are largely absent. Democratic Party cloud (blue): Centered on “rights,” “immigrants,” “working class,” “middle class,” “healthcare,” “equality,” “women,” “LGBTQ,” and “minorities,” but also includes smaller references to elite influence such as “donors,” “corporate,” and “rich.” Survey of 3,426 registered voters conducted Oct 29–Nov 11, 2025, with an oversample among ages 18–34.
Hungarian polling trends 2023-2026 showing Fidesz (orange line) declining from ~55% to ~40% while TISZA party (dark red line) rises from near 0% in early 2024 to ~44% by late 2025, surpassing Fidesz. Other opposition parties (DK, MM, Jobbik, etc.) remain below 10% throughout the period.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
Data visualization titled “Even Trump’s Own Judicial Appointees Rule Against His Administration Nearly Half the Time.” Top section shows 81 rulings against (49.1%) vs 84 for (50.9%) among Trump appointees. Middle section compares rulings by appointing party: Democratic appointees ruled against Trump 752 times vs 169 for; Republican appointees 232 against vs 126 for. Bottom section shows historical comparison - how other presidents’ appointees ruled on Trump cases: Biden appointees 252 against/46 for, Obama 368/91, Bush 62/23, Clinton 125/22, Reagan 88/19. Source: Federal Court Dockets from Courtlistener.com. Data from Jan 21, 2025 through Nov 11, 2025, lower federal courts only, Supreme Court not included.
A horizontal bar chart titled “Generational Turnout: From 2020 to 2024 Rates” shows turnout rate changes among registered voters by generation and party affiliation. The chart includes four generational groups—Gen Z, Millennial, Gen X, and Boomer—and tracks changes from 2020 (dot) to 2024 (arrow tip), with Democratic turnout in blue and Republican turnout in red. Key trends: • Gen Z: Democratic turnout dropped by 13.7 percentage points (pp); Republican turnout dropped by 7.9pp. • Millennials: Democratic turnout fell by 5.6pp; Republican turnout fell by 0.3pp. • Gen X: Democratic turnout dropped 4.2pp; Republican turnout dropped 0.8pp. • Boomers: Democratic turnout declined 3.2pp; Republican turnout declined 1.4pp. A note below the chart explains that all groups saw turnout declines, but Democratic voters dropped off more steeply. A boxed summary highlights the consistent pattern: Republicans started from higher turnout and maintained more of their base, while Democrats experienced longer arrows (larger drop-offs) across all generations.
Racial Resentment Among White Americans by Age and Party A single line chart showing racial resentment scores for White Americans by birth year (1940–2000) split by party identification: Republican (orange), Independent (yellow), and Democrat (blue). Y-axis shows resentment levels; X-axis shows birth year and approximate ages. Republicans have the highest resentment across all cohorts, with scores increasing sharply among older generations and stabilizing at high levels. Independents occupy the middle, with a steady rise from younger to older cohorts. Democrats remain lowest, rising gradually among older birth years but maintaining a wide gap from Republicans and Independents. Shaded confidence bands widen for older cohorts.
Racial Resentment Among Hispanic and Asian Americans by Birth Year and Demographics This figure contains four line charts showing racial resentment scores (standardized 2-item scale) across birth years from 1940 to 2000 among Hispanic and Asian Americans, with separate trendlines for demographic subgroups. Y-axis ranges from low to high resentment; X-axis shows birth year with approximate ages. Education panel: Two lines show that non-college individuals consistently report higher racial resentment than college-educated individuals. Both groups trend upward from younger to older cohorts, with the gap largest among older generations. Gender panel: Male and female lines rise gradually with older cohorts. Males show slightly higher resentment than females across most cohorts, though the gap narrows among older groups. Geography panel: Four regional lines (South, West, Midwest, Northeast) show modest differences. The South and Midwest trend slightly higher than the West and Northeast, and all regions show increasing resentment among older cohorts. Religion panel: Protestants display the highest resentment levels, followed by Catholics. Non-affiliated respondents have the lowest and flattest trend, with little increase across cohorts. Protestants show the steepest age-related rise. At the bottom, the source notes this is from the 2024 Cooperative Election Study (CES) using GAM-smoothed trendlines.
Racial Resentment Among White Americans by Birth Year and Demographics This figure presents the same four-panel layout (education, gender, geography, religion) but for White Americans from birth years 1940 to 2000. Education panel: A pronounced divide shows non-college Whites with substantially higher resentment across all cohorts, increasing sharply for older birth years. College-educated Whites rise more modestly but remain distinctly lower, especially among younger cohorts. Gender panel: Male and female trendlines rise together, with women slightly higher in mid-century cohorts. Younger cohorts of both genders start lower and climb with age. Geography panel: Regional lines separate clearly: the South is highest in resentment, followed by the Midwest. The West and Northeast show lower levels, with the Northeast consistently at the bottom. All regions slope upward toward older cohorts. Religion panel: Protestants show the highest resentment, peaking among mid-century cohorts. Catholics sit in the middle. Non-affiliated Whites show the lowest resentment, especially among younger respondents, with a small rise among mid-century generations. The figure notes CES 2024 data with GAM-smoothed trendlines.
Table showing the five richest men in the U.S from Bloombergs billionaire list ., all in technology. Elon Musk tops the list with a net worth of $461B and a year-to-date gain of $28.2B. Larry Ellison is second at $300B with a $107B YTD gain. Jeff Bezos has $268B (+$29.5B YTD), Larry Page $250B (+$81.9B YTD), and Sergey Brin $234B (+$75.5B YTD). Each row also lists last-day change, country (all United States), and industry (all Technology).
Screenshot of a Politico article. At the top, the Politico logo appears in red. Below it is a photo showing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaking to reporters in a hallway, raising one finger while surrounded by microphones and journalists. The headline reads: “Jeffries backs Schumer amid fierce Democratic backlash to shutdown deal.” A timestamp says “41 mins ago.” The subheadline quotes Jeffries saying “Yes and yes,” in response to whether Schumer was effective and should keep his job.
A horizontal stacked bar chart titled “Favorability – 2026 2nd Congressional District Candidates – CD2 Residents – October 2025.” It displays ratings for Paul LePage, Matthew Dunlap, and Jared Golden. LePage is 41 percent favorable, 6 percent neutral, 51 percent unfavorable, and 3 percent “don’t know enough.” Dunlap is 18 percent favorable, 23 percent neutral, 16 percent unfavorable, and 44 percent “don’t know enough.” Golden is 16 percent favorable, 40 percent neutral, 41 percent unfavorable, and 3 percent “don’t know enough.”
A horizontal bar chart titled “WelcomePAC Funding Sources” showing $11.29M in total funding from FEC data. The largest share comes from “Billionaires & Heirs” at $6.01M, represented by a long purple bar. Next is “Hedge Funds/VC/Private Equity” at $2.50M, also in purple. “Corporate Executives” show $0.30M and “Corporate Entity” $0.25M, each with very small purple bars. “Americans Together” is listed at $1.02M with an orange bar, and “Other” is $1.22M with a gray bar. The graphic emphasizes that most funding—over half—comes from billionaires and heirs, with additional significant contributions from finance and private equity. Source: Federal Election Commission.
Screenshot of a New York Times article excerpt. Text reads: ‘In an executive order, Mr. Trump put the power and resources of the federal government to work examining whether some of Mr. Biden’s presidential actions were legally invalid because his aides had enacted those policies without his knowledge. The executive order came after Mr. Trump shared a social media post over the weekend that claimed Mr. Biden had been “executed in 2020” and replaced by a robotic clone, following a pattern of suggestions by the president and his allies that Mr. Biden was a mortally incapacitated.’ The phrases ‘executed in 2020’ and ‘replaced by a robotic clone’ are highlighted in blue, indicating user selection.
“Americans for Tax Fairness” shows the explosive growth in billionaire wealth in the United States from December 30, 2017, to October 27, 2025. It reports that the number of billionaires increased from 551 to 916, and their total wealth grew from $2.9 trillion to $8.0 trillion—an increase of $5.1 trillion or 176%. The table lists the top 20 billionaires, including Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and others, with each person’s net worth in 2017, their net worth in 2025, and the dollar and percentage growth over the period. Elon Musk’s wealth grew the most in dollar terms (from $20 billion to $490 billion, a 2,305% increase). At the bottom, a highlighted row shows the top 20 billionaires gained $2.45 trillion (a 286.6% increase), while all other billionaires combined gained $2.7 trillion (a 133.2% increase).
A horizontal bar chart titled “The ‘Progressive Advantage’ Using the Same Method” shows two bars comparing electoral overperformance relative to presidential vote share. The subtitle explains that the NYTimes method groups candidates with no PAC support into the “non-progressive” category, which lowers their average performance. • The top bar, labeled Progressive, extends to the right in purple, indicating +1.4 percentage points, showing overperformance. • The bottom bar, labeled Non-Progressive, extends slightly to the left in gold, indicating –0.4 percentage points, showing underperformance. • The x-axis is labeled “Percentage Point Overperformance vs. Presidential Vote” and ranges from –2% to +2%. • The chart visually demonstrates that when applying the same NYTimes coding logic, “progressives” appear to perform better than “non-progressives,” underscoring the flaw in their categorization approach.
Horizontal bar chart titled “The NYT’s ‘Non-Moderate’ Group Is a Biased Comparison.” The subtitle explains that the New York Times combines well-funded non-moderate PAC-endorsed candidates with unfunded “No PAC Funding” candidates, skewing results. Three horizontal bars represent percentage point overperformance relative to presidential vote: • Moderate (PAC Funded): purple bar extending right to +1.3 percentage points. • Non-Moderate (PAC Funded): purple bar extending right to +0.4 points. • No PAC Funding: large orange bar extending left to –1.9 points. A bracket on the right groups the two purple bars, labeled “NYT ‘Non-Moderate’ Group (Combines these two categories).” X-axis shows percentage point overperformance from –2% to +2%. The chart visually highlights that the NYT’s “Non-Moderate” category includes both viable PAC-funded non-moderates and noncompetitive unfunded candidates, creating a misleading average.
A photo of former President Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office, holding up a large architectural rendering of an opulent ballroom interior. He is looking at the image seriously. The background features ornate gold decor. Below the image, a news article headline reads “White House releases list of donors for Trump’s multi-million-dollar ballroom,” and highlighted text names major companies such as Apple, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Google, Coinbase, Comcast, and Meta as donors for the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom.
Former President Donald Trump speaks from behind the Oval Office lectern while turning toward three senior officials standing beside him. The officials—identified as Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel—stand in front of FBI and DOJ briefing posters. All appear serious as Trump gestures mid-sentence, emphasizing a point during the press event.
A two-panel horizontal bar chart titled “Electoral Effects of Ideological Moderation vs. Incumbency.” The top panel, labeled “Effect of Being the Incumbent,” shows large positive estimated vote share effects (between roughly +2% and +4%) across seven different measures of ideology. All bars are to the right of zero, indicating a strong and statistically significant advantage for incumbents. The bottom panel, labeled “Effect of Moving to the Center,” shows estimated vote effects when candidates shift ideologically toward the center. Across the same seven ideology measures, the horizontal bars cluster around zero, with confidence intervals that cross zero—indicating no statistically significant electoral benefit from moving to the center. The chart visually contrasts the strong, consistent incumbency advantage against the negligible and statistically insignificant effect of ideological moderation. The note clarifies that moderation refers to shifting a candidate’s ideology toward the 95th percentile of centrist positioning.
A table titled “Analysis of Democratic Candidate Performance in Competitive Districts (2016–2024)” comparing outcomes for Democratic candidates categorized as “More Moderate” or “More Progressive” across three types: Incumbents, Open Seat candidates, and Challengers. • Incumbents: • Moderates: 21 lost, 107 won, success rate 83.6% • Progressives: 1 lost, 14 won, success rate 93.3% • Open Seats: • Moderates: 12 lost, 15 won, success rate 55.6% • Progressives: 1 lost, 2 won, success rate 66.7% • Challengers: • Moderates: 99 lost, 33 won, success rate 25.0% • Progressives: 61 lost, 11 won, success rate 15.3% A note explains the analysis includes Democratic candidates in districts where the presidential vote share was between 46% and 54%. Candidates are classified based on whether their composite ideology scores fall to the right or left of the median Democrat.
A large word cloud answering the question “What one word or phrase would you use to describe American government?” The word “Corrupt” appears overwhelmingly largest at the center, dominating the image. Surrounding it are many smaller negative terms such as “Broken,” “Chaotic,” “Dysfunctional,” “Bloated,” “Divided,” “Bullshit,” “Shit,” “Crap,” “Clueless,” “Weird,” “Hijacked,” and “Unconstitutional.” A few neutral or positive words appear in much smaller text, but the overall visual impression is one of intense negativity and distrust toward government. The source at the bottom reads: Berkeley Democracy Policy Lab/Ipsos.
The only effective opposition is through the language of morality and documented harm—not legal technicalities that can be swept away with a 6–3 vote.” The text is centered on a neutral background, with “morality” and “documented harm” slightly emphasized to underscore the moral and empirical contrast with “legal technicalities.”
Scatterplot of federal agencies showing furlough rates vs ideological leaning. Liberal agencies (EPA, Dept. of Education) have high furloughs; conservative ones (DOD, DHS) nearly none. Rules structurally protect GOP priorities.
statement titled “Leader Jeffries Statement on Mayor Eric L. Adams.” It says Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries thanked Adams for decades of service as an NYPD officer, state senator, Brooklyn Borough President, and New York City’s 110th mayor. The statement highlights achievements under Adams, including reduced violent crime, more affordable housing, and recovery from COVID-19. Jeffries acknowledges ongoing challenges like the high cost of living but says meaningful progress was made. He thanks Adams for his service and says that in the coming days his focus will shift to Republican healthcare and government funding issues, and that he will comment on the remaining mayoral candidates before early voting begins.