Bobby Gould retweeted
“Among gang leaders like General Barbecue there is a real concern about Bukele's no-nonsense approach to gang leaders like General Barbecue"
Bobby Gould retweeted
JUST IN: Economic analysis of 64 countries finds that nations with more billionaires per capita tend to have fewer people living in poverty.
Bobby Gould retweeted
WSH decided to punt to LAR from the LAR 40* on 4th & 6* with 8:21 remaining in the 4th while losing 13 to 20.
With a Surrender Index of 123.03, this punt ranks at the 100th percentile of cowardly punts of the 2026 season, and the 99.9th percentile of all punts since 1999.
Bobby Gould retweeted
Which receivers are winning most of their routes?
Data: @FantasyPtsData, min. 120 routes
(% of routes with a positive separation score)
Bobby Gould retweeted
As it turns out, the case for war with Iran had, in fact, been made, and it was clear and necessary. You were lied to about it, repeatedly, by smart people who knew they were lying, on Iran's behalf, against Trump, dear American conservatives.
Bobby Gould retweeted
BREAKING:
The Washington Commanders have credible interest in acquiring talented young offensive lineman Jackson Powers-Johnson from the Raiders, per @DMVCommanders
Top-25 trade candidates:
Kirk Cousins
Jonathan Taylor
Tony Pollard
Brian Thomas Jr.
Chris Godwin
Jauan Jennings
Jerry Jeudy
Josh Downs
Quentin Johnston
Rashod Bateman
Cesar Ruiz
Jackson Powers-Johnson
Landon Dickerson
Jermaine Johnson II
Josh Sweat
Khalil Mack
Shemar Stewart
Yaya Diaby
A'Shawn Robinson
Daron Payne
Patrick Queen
Alontae Taylor
Donte Jackson
Riq Woolen
Budda Baker
(per @MattBowen41 and @JFowlerESPN)
Bobby Gould retweeted
.@POTUS: "I think it's largely true because it drove the gasoline up... At the same time, if I had to do it again, I'd have to do it again because long-term, it's the only answer. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon."
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.
Bobby Gould retweeted
I've always liked you, Matt, but as a Korean, in a country where China's influence runs deep, I find this point very disturbing.
“Pointless war"? Follow the oil.
China buys more than 80% of Iran's shipped oil.
That's 1.38 million barrels a day in 2025, per Kpler.
Nearly every barrel Tehran sells under sanctions goes to Beijing.
Add Venezuela.
More than half of its oil exports went to China too.
Together, Iran and Venezuela supplied about 15-17% of China's crude imports.
Much of it was cheap, sanctioned oil, relabeled "Malaysian" to hide where it came from.
Now Greenland.
China controls about 60% of the world's rare earth mining and over 90% of the processing.
Those minerals go into missiles, fighter jets, EVs and chips. Greenland sits on the Arctic shipping routes Beijing calls the "Polar Silk Road."
So what connects Iran, Venezuela and Greenland?
They're three pillars of China's cheap energy and supply chain. Cut them and you raise the cost of Beijing's military buildup without firing a shot at China.
That is America First.
China is the only rival big enough to replace the U.S.
Letting it fuel up on discount oil from America's enemies is not "restraint."
It's surrender on the installment plan.
Gas prices hurt.
I get it.
But if Beijing runs the world's energy and minerals, groceries won't be the worst thing you can't afford.
Think one move ahead.
Having apparently lost Congress, Trump now has about 12 months to see Iran through to completion. The political cost will have been worth it.
3
3
646
Bobby Gould retweeted
Just over 10 years ago, this was an SNL skit. Now it's real-life in Michigan.
What's strange is that one political side is all in on it.
Bobby Gould retweeted
🚨 BREAKING: Greenland's parliament just voted to RATIFY the security pact with the United States, giving Trump a major Arctic WIN 🇬🇱🇺🇸
Here's when Trump signed it in-person 🔥
Not a single lawmaker voted no. It passed 16-0, with 7 abstaining
The deal clears the way for two NEW U.S. military bases on the island and for Trump's Golden Dome missile defense system!
TRUMP REALLY DID IT.
Bobby Gould retweeted
After comparing taxes in all 50 states, researchers with Self Financial concluded the average Maryland taxpayer will pay $1.1 million in taxes over a lifetime.
That is the same amount of taxes a California resident would pay over a lifetime, according to the research. bit.ly/4A9qL9I
Bobby Gould retweeted
“If there is one element in my ethical philosophy that’s predominant, it is that the ultimate unit is a human being, the individual.”
— Milton Friedman
Bobby Gould retweeted
Guys-- the Democrats are salivating at the thought of repudiating the GOP tomorrow and going back to the days of open borders, anti-White racism, and big government.
All you have to do to crush their hopes and dreams is get off the couch and vote.
Bobby Gould retweeted
1. More billionaires are associated with less poverty.
2. Increasing billionaires per capita by ten fold lowers poverty by 43 percentage points.
3. Sweden has more billionaires per 10M people than the U.S. (34 vs 30)
4. Correlation is fairly strong (R-squared of 0.6 for two variable cross-section data)
4. Since the graph is only a correlation, what do you think is the cause?
🔗in🧵
Bobby Gould retweeted
“If you ever want to know what people prefer, the surest sign is how they vote with their feet.”
— Milton Friedman





























