Cause otherwise midterms discussion will be scattered around a bunch of separate Culture War thread posts. And it's nice to have more off-the-cuff rapid reactions in a dedicated megathread.
The first thing I've noticed so far: if the exit polls are correct, Americans are very pessimistic about AI.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://x.com/JDVance/status/2118004988433641835
How will the “Israel is our ally” crowd handle this admission from the VP? By the results, Israel is only the ally of the Democrats: they handed the country over to them by instigating a stupid war through the ears and advisors of Trump. They chose their own petty Middle Eastern feud over what’s good for America and American conservatism.
Joe Kent, as the Chief of Staff at the DNI in 2025 and early 2026, was one of only a dozen or so Americans with access to the totality of America’s intelligence across all 18 agencies. He knows things we have never and will never hear of. He resigned from his role in order to call out this dynamic:
Further,
And…
I know a lot of people here still consider Israel an “ally” or at least a neutral country in the grand scheme of things. Do these midterm results change your opinion? Do they shift you toward seeing Israel as a dangerous “enemy within”?
Announcing that I voted democrat because I didn't like this or that, maybe I was told that I shouldn't like this or that - simplified, I know, but...
We all should know what is good for our lives, the lives of our families, neighborhoods, communities. We should know right now what we should be voting for next election, and the next, and the next. Doing the ultimate cut-your-nose-off to spite your face is unintelligent and should not be allowed.
I declared that there ought to be an intelligence test for US voters back in 2010.
Hypotenuse, harmony, harpy, hiccup. If you need to look up more than one of these words to either spell it correctly or to get its definition, then you should not be voting.
You appear to believe that outcomes you don't agree with should be against the rules. It is hard to imagine a less productive concept of politics, particularly where you have no rule-making or -enforcing power.
Trump ran on no foreign wars, and then started a stupid, destructive foreign war. Republicans prominently mocked the idea of using government power to help the objectively most disadvantaged and most loyal constituency they had. You think they should be rewarded for these actions?
What is this referring to?
Young white men, the $20 burrito affordability question, prominent Republicans pretending that they're going to balance the budget and that's why intervention in the economy just can't be done.
Can you tell me what policy could have helped the white men? Removing labor market competition they tried to do and was partially successful at. They did a solid job at hitting DEI which removed some roadblocks to jobs. Cutting food stamps and other UBIs in the economy would help with inflation and they should ramp that up.
But for 2 years in power they an ok jump at the “help the white man” levers.
Looting the treasury to give them money directly would have been a pretty good option. Serious retaliation toward the institutions that had been targeting them wouldn't have been bad. But actively mocking them and their concerns was a very bad idea, and a lot of Republicans chose to do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is why young white men refused to fight in the civil war-by-proxy.
There’s plenty of room for other nations to pick up the 100 dollars on the ground, at least. Ironically, a successful reform party seeking that demographic should probably be female; at least that way you’d have a leader that is at least attracted to the idea they exist.
(Glances at Alberta.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link