Sexts, Autopsies, and Primary Chaos

Why Right-Wing Populism Hasn’t Taken Off In Ireland

While I was in Dublin recently, I sat down with Hugh Linehan of The Irish Times’ Inside Politics [https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/inside-politics-with-hugh-linehan/id794389685] podcast to talk about Irish and American politics. We start with a question that gets asked frequently about Ireland: Why hasn’t right-wing populism taken off there? Across much of Europe and the English-speaking world, the populist right has become a major political force. Donald Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the United States. Brexit transformed British politics. Marine Le Pen’s party has become a central player in France. Far-right or right-populist parties have broken through in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and elsewhere. Ireland, so far, has been different. There are anti-immigration activists, small right-wing parties and some independent politicians trying to occupy that space. But Ireland has not had the kind of durable, mass right-populist breakthrough that has become familiar elsewhere. Hugh and I talk through some of the possible reasons why. Ireland is not living through the same kind of decline narrative that has fueled populism in other countries. In many ways, the country is more prosperous and globally successful than it has ever been. Its experience with immigration is also more recent and distinct from countries like the United States, Britain, and France. And Sinn Féin may occupy some of the political terrain that, in other countries, has been claimed by the populist right: nationalist, anti-establishment, rooted in working-class and rural communities — but on the left. From there, we get into the bigger Irish story: the country’s remarkable economic rise, its dependence on a small number of large American companies for corporate tax revenue, the strange politics of neutrality and defense, and what it means for a small country to rely so heavily on the kindness, or at least the continued cooperation, of larger powers. Then Hugh turns the tables and asks me about the United States: gerrymandering, the Voting Rights Act, the two-party system, primaries, Trump, and where the root of America’s political dysfunction lies. It was a fun and wide-ranging conversation about two very different countries that share some important history. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Is Iowa The New Maine For Democrats?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com [https://www.gdpolitics.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7] The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here [https://www.gdpolitics.com/listen]. Democrats entered the 2026 cycle with a difficult Senate map and a familiar hope: maybe Maine would be the race that helped them claw their way toward a majority. But after this week, that picture is getting more complicated. Iowa, a state Donald Trump won by double digits, is suddenly demanding more attention. And Maine, a state Kamala Harris carried comfortably, is looking messier than Democrats would like. On this installment of the podcast, I’m joined by Mary Radcliffe of 50+1 and Jacob Rubashkin of Inside Elections to react to the June 2 primaries in Iowa, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota. In Iowa, Democrats got their preferred Senate nominee. Josh Turek, a state representative and Paralympic gold medalist, beat Zach Wahls by a wide margin. Turek will now face Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson in what could become one of the most important Senate races of the cycle. The state has moved sharply right in recent years, but Democrats have reason to think the political environment could put it back on the map. Rob Sand, the Democratic nominee for governor, has led in the limited polling we have. And on the Republican side of the governor’s race, the GOP primary produced a surprise: Trump-backed Rep. Randy Feenstra lost narrowly to MAHA-aligned businessman Zach Lahn, who was a major investor in — depending on your level of generosity — either a medical technology company or a sex-toy company. We also check in on California, where slow vote-counting means several major races are still unresolved; Montana, where Democrats are trying to navigate an independent Senate bid; New Jersey, where a key House race is taking shape amid Rep. Tom Kean Jr.’s continued absence from public view; and South Dakota, where Republicans are headed to a historically unusual gubernatorial runoff. Lastly, we circle back to Maine, where Graham Platner’s steady drip of controversies has some Democrats asking whether Iowa might now be a cleaner, more promising part of the Senate map.

Sexts, Autopsies, and Primary Chaos

On today’s podcast, I’m back from vacation and joined by Mary Radcliffe of 50+1 and Jacob Rubashkin of Inside Elections to catch up on everything I missed while I was away. We start in Maine, where Graham Platner’s Senate campaign is disputing the number of women he sexted with — a dozen or half a dozen? Platner has already weathered a series of damaging stories about his past, and so far, Democratic primary voters do not seem especially moved. But it’s unclear how the broader electorate will react to the steady drip of scandal. Then we turn to Texas, where Ken Paxton is officially the Republican nominee for Senate against Democrat James Talarico. Paxton comes with his own baggage and a much weaker fundraising operation, though a hotly contested primary against John Cornyn may be suppressing his current polling against Talarico. We’re waiting for the dust to settle. We also discuss the DNC’s unfinished 2024 autopsy report, which was both incomplete and revealing. The report omitted some of the biggest questions about the 2024 campaign: Joe Biden’s age, the debate, the way Kamala Harris became the nominee, Gaza, and the broader failures of Biden’s presidency. So, does the Democratic Party actually want to understand what went wrong? Then we preview Tuesday’s primaries for California governor and L.A. mayor, both of which have three candidates polling in the twenties. Given the state’s top-two system, it’s unclear who will advance to the general election: one Democrat and one Republican, or two Democrats? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

The Dollar’s Strange, Fragile Power

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com [https://www.gdpolitics.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_7] The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here [https://www.gdpolitics.com/listen]. Jerome Powell’s tenure at the Federal Reserve is over. His eight-year run included the COVID crash, emergency monetary rescue, the return of serious inflation, the fastest rate hikes in decades and a long political fight over the Fed’s independence. With Fed leadership in transition, it’s a good time to ask a much bigger question: Who really controls the U.S. dollar? And how almighty is it? Brendan Greeley’s new book, The Almighty Dollar: 500 Years of the World’s Most Powerful Money [https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/634502/the-almighty-dollar-by-brendan-greeley/], argues that the dollar is older and less American than most Americans realize. The United States didn’t really invent it. And, in some important ways, it has never fully controlled it. That may sound heady. But these are live questions right now. The U.S. is dealing with renewed inflation pressure, global frustration with American power, the rise of alternative currencies, and a China that would very much like a world less dependent on U.S. money. Brendan joins the podcast to talk about the past, present and future of the dollar: why so many dollars are created outside the United States, how America’s ability to borrow almost without limit has shaped our politics, and whether dollar dominance is actually good for the country.

How Partisan Is The Supreme Court, Really?

To some eyes, the Supreme Court faces a legitimacy crisis. Favorable views of the court are hovering around historic lows. Just 40-some percent of Americans have a positive view of the institution, down from 60 percent or more in 2020. And views by party are, predictably, sharply divided, with Democratic approval in the 20s. As the country has become more polarized, and the court has become more decidedly dominated by Republican appointees, there is an increasing sense that a branch that describes itself as above politics is, in fact, plenty political — and aligned with Republicans. This has led to suggestions, largely on the left, but not exclusively, for changing the court: packing it with more members, instituting term limits, or establishing an enforceable code of ethics. But today’s guest argues that folks should slow their roll. She argues that the court isn’t as partisan as it’s made out to be, and that it’s in fact the only branch of government that the Founders would have any hope of recognizing today. Sarah Isgur makes the case in her new book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court. She joins the podcast to argue that the court is less partisan, more functional and more constitutionally recognizable than its critics allow. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe [https://www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]