MMN Editor

“Michigan Choices,” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator on Nov. 2, 2026.

Generic polls give generic results; they do not give specific outcomes. Obvious as this may seem, it bears remembering that each race is different and those differences matter. We may wake up on Wednesday to find these individual differences yielded an outcome very different from what we have been hearing for months.
By now everyone has heard that Democrats hold a big lead in generic polling going into Tuesday’s midterm elections. As of Oct. 30, Real Clear Politics’ average of national generic congressional polling showed Democrats are ahead by 8.2 percentage points. It has routinely been in this range since mid-September.
This is regularly reported as though the election’s outcome is a foregone conclusion, with the only question being how high the blue wave will crest. It is therefore worthwhile to step back and look at just how “generic” a generic congressional ballot question is. The latest Harvard CAPS/Harris poll’s generic ballot question to likely voters reads: “If the congressional election were held today would you be more likely to vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress?” (RELATED: The Weirdo Factor Quells the Blue Wave)
Again, rather straightforward. The problem comes when you also look at the 11 Senate and 11 gubernatorial races that RCP is featuring on their homepage: Few of these show margins reflecting the national generic polling average.
According to RCP’s Oct. 30 average of the top 11 Senate races, only one, Georgia’s Senate race, equals or exceeds the 8.2 percentage point national generic average. In RCP’s top 11 gubernatorial races (I substituted RCP’s Oct. 29 Nevada tie for RCP’s Oct. 30 inclusion of New York), only one equals or exceeds the 8.2 percentage point national generic average.
Do respondents have one response to a generic question about party preference, and then another when it comes to their specific member of Congress?
The specific races assumed to be the newsworthy show results very different from the generic polling.
Of course, the national generic polling average is not a universal outcome, where Democrats lead every race by 8.2 percentage points. It needs to be applied to a local baseline of some sort to have greater predictive value.
The most recent national election was the 2024 presidential election. While a presidential election is not a perfect comparison (presidential election turnout is far higher and driven by the nominees at the top of the ballot), it gives some semblance of a localized baseline against which to apply the national generic polling margin. Still, applying the national generic margin to 2024’s localized 2024 presidential margins produces interesting results.
To get a semblance of each state’s most recent political terrain, we use each state’s 2024 presidential margin and add the 8.2 national generic margin to it.
Taking Texas as an example, in 2024, Trump won the state by 13.6 percentage points; adding Democrats’ 8.2 percentage-point generic lead to this, and we get a projection that Democrats should be running at a 5.4 percentage-point deficit. Instead, RCP’s latest polling average has Republican Paxton trailing the Democrat Talarico by 1.8 percentage points: In the Texas Senate race, Democrats are polling ahead of what we could have expected.
According to RCP’s averages in the top 11 Senate races, Democrats are running ahead of where 2024’s presidential election results and the 8.2 national generic ballot margin would predict in six of the top 11 Senate races. In the top 11 gubernatorial races, Democrats are also running ahead in six.
Within this relatively even split, though, is a great divergence from the impression of a large Democratic lead. In RCP’s 11 top Senate races, Democrats’ average lead is 2.4 percentage points. In RCP’s top gubernatorial races, Democrats’ average lead is 1 percentage point.
This divergence raises another possibility for today’s generic polling. Do respondents have one response to a generic question about party preference, and then another when it comes to their specific member of Congress? Hard to believe as this may seem to be, it is a very common condition in voter behavior.
According to Gallup polling, overall approval of Congress is just 14 percent, and only 15 percent believe most members of Congress deserve reelection. Yet 43 percent of respondents believe their Member of Congress deserves reelection.
This dichotomy is not new. When asked about term limits, U.S. voters overwhelmingly back them. Yet at the same time, incumbent members of Congress overwhelmingly win reelection, and in that figure are many long-time members of Congress.
The same dichotomy of generic preferences and specific races appears to be occurring in today’s midterms.
Today’s average of generic ballot national polling is not a particularly good predictor of the polling that we see in specific races’ polls. It is not because the specific political terrain and the specific candidates contesting on it matter — they matter to the voters, and they therefore matter in our assumptions about what could occur in Tuesday’s actual outcomes. And those outcomes may be quite different from what many are now being led to expect.
READ MORE from J.T. Young:
What Happened to John Cleese Isn’t Funny
Philly Fraud: What Woke Wrought
The Left’s Victimhood Is About Strategy not Sympathy
J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing.  Follow him on Substack.  

Democrats are absolutely furious that Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers and made known her opposition to the hatred and antisemitism emanating from Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went so far as to call Stevens’ endorsement of Rogers a “despicable betrayal,” and a large number of Democrats are trying to kick her out of the caucus. The Michigan Democratic Party even removed her from its website and said she is no longer a member.
But many Democrats are going much further, alleging that Stevens turned against Abdul El-Sayed not because she has a mind of her own and made a decision about the danger El-Sayed presents for the state of Michigan, but because she is controlled by her fiancé, disability rights lawyer Jason Turkish.
Former Democrat Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard said in an interview with Gongwer News Service that he believes Turkish manipulated Stevens into turning against El-Sayed.
In the minds of Democrats, Haley Stevens became a mindless damsel controlled by her romantic partner the second she turned against one radical Democrat…
“[Turkish] was working her over. The way he was saying it was, ‘Everyone is disappointed in you, they did everything they could to help you and then immediately after you lose the primary, you endorsed him,’” Blanchard theorized.
Turkish, said Blanchard, was “strung out” over El-Sayed, and then Stevens had a “sudden change.” Blanchard said, “This is not the Haley I know…. Something snapped in her. And it snapped in 24 hours.”
The allegation is that, since Jason Turkish is Jewish, he carried out a manipulation campaign on Haley Stevens to convince her that El-Sayed represents a threat to Michigan’s Jewish community, and that it worked. (RELATED: Michigan AG Dana Nessel to Jewish Democrats: Sacrifice Yourself for the Cause)
Democrats have come to this conclusion about Stevens’ supposed lack of agency in part because she recently revealed in interviews that she is considering converting to Judaism ahead of her summer 2027 wedding to Turkish.
But Stevens, a sitting U.S. representative, has been clear in interviews that she is her own woman and that she has come to her own conclusion on Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign. She told the New York Times last week that what began her realization that El-Sayed had gone off the rails was El-Sayed’s refusal to state whether Iran or Israel posed a bigger threat to the United States in his debate with Mike Rogers. At this point, Stevens stood up out of her chair in shock.
She told the New York Times of this moment, “He’s an orator. He is gifted. Then how does that happen? Come on!”
Stevens further explained why she “felt compelled to speak out for Jewish constituents who are scared of the prospect of Dr. El-Sayed in the Senate.” (RELATED: 10 Times Abdul El-Sayed Was Absolutely Wacked Out)
“Someone in the Jewish community said — six months ago, it was during the primary — safety is our affordability issue because of attacks on Jewish elected officials’ homes, attacks to their lives, attacks on the synagogues,” Stevens explained.
Stevens even responded directly to the allegation that she is being puppeteered by her fiancé.
“I think I’ve changed his opinion,” Stevens said. “He goes, ‘You’re more Jewish than me.’”
There you have it: Haley Stevens said she is the one who convinced her longtime Democrat fiancé to be concerned about Abdul El-Sayed’s posture toward the Jewish state and Jewish Michiganders, and he followed suit.
But more and more Democrats are coming out to say that Turkish is the brains and force behind all of her decisions.
University of Michigan regent Jordan Acker, a Democrat, alleged that Turkish was controlling Stevens to the extent that he confiscated her phone from her like she is a child.
“Her fiancé took her phone away,” Acker wrote on X.
Turkish has denied this allegation, saying that Stevens turned off her own phone because of the large volume of communications she was receiving after endorsing Rogers.
Acker stated his theory that Turkish is controlling Stevens in the clearest of terms.
“It is painful to watch someone you care about go through something like this,” said Acker of Stevens. “It is even more painful to worry about the influence of those closest to her,” he said, in reference to Turkish.
Former Democratic Rep. Susan Wild has also joined those suggesting Haley Stevens has lost her agency because of her Jewish fiancé.
“So many people in the Democratic Party have shown so much support to Haley over the years, and she has betrayed them all. If this is because of her new relationship (about which many of us were so happy for her after she lost the primary), all I can say is that any woman who abandons her friends when a new guy comes along is no friend at all,” Wild said on X Monday.
Additionally, Caitlin Legacki, a former spokesperson for Stevens, said Turkish was the reason Stevens lost her primary. Legacki alleged that Turkish had asked her to be more vocal in her defense of Israel and had wielded too much influence over her campaign.
“Jason is vaporizing Haley’s future so that he can be a main character in this moment and it is sad to watch her participate in that. He was an extraordinarily toxic presence, was verbally abusive to staff and had some of the worst political instincts I’ve ever witnessed,” Legacki said on X.
Of course, Haley Stevens is 100 percent correct in her concerns about El-Sayed. As explained by the American Jewish Congress: “El-Sayed said he would withdraw both offensive and defensive U.S. military aid to Israel, characterized the Israeli government as being as evil as Hamas, described Israeli policy as apartheid, and rebuffed the premise that Israel has a right to exist specifically as a Jewish state, arguing that such a definition is incompatible with equal rights.”
In the minds of Democrats, Haley Stevens became a mindless damsel controlled by her romantic partner the second she turned against one radical Democrat, who already happens to be at the center of a Democrat civil war over his extreme stance on Israel.
The misogyny — and antisemitism — starts as soon as you don’t do everything Democrats want you to do.
The control is coming from the party, not Haley Stevens’s romantic relationship.
READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes:
Pete Buttigieg Wants to Be the Democrats’ Radical Man
Snopes Determines That Claim Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother Is ‘Unfounded’
Tim Walz Turns Against Kamala and Embraces This Candidate

Last Friday, I published the final installment of The Five Black Pills, a series on the tools of civilizational destruction and societal demoralization that the post-Soviet Left has unleashed on the world.
If you’ve got the time, I suggest reading them all. They can be found here…

The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 1 — Feminism
The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 2 — Islam, Islamization, and Third-Worldism
The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 3 — The Burgeoning Illegitimacy of the Managerial Elite
The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 4 — The Left Weaponized the Weather to Bring Down the West
The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 5 — What You Hate About AI Is Not Really About AI

In the series, I tried to get across the fact that our cultural and political institutions, dominated by the globalist international leftists, perhaps best personified by the corrupt elitists of the World Economic Forum in Davos and at our supposedly elite institutions of learning like Harvard and Yale, have engaged in a project of tearing down traditional Western society. This is, of course, nothing new; they’ve been at it since before World War I. (RELATED: The West Is a Superior Civilization (And I Don’t Care If That Offends You))
What’s new, at least somewhat, are the tools which have been refined to create the demoralization they need in order to bring down the West.
I didn’t talk about race, per se, though the important parts of the race conversation can be found in Part 2, which discusses third-world identity politics. I didn’t include a racial category for a specific reason — race isn’t what matters. Culture is what matters. Democrats want to make everything about race not because it’s about race, but because race is a good mask for the things they’re actually doing, and it’s bad for business when those are the things that are out in the open.
So, no — race is only a black pill if you let it be one, and you letting it be one is a reflection of the culture you choose.
And the culture the Left is inflicting on this and all the other Western countries is utterly poisonous.
Take Michigan, for example. This is what happens when Turning Point USA goes to college campuses not named Hillsdale in that state (warning, the language here is awfully salty)…

At the University of Michigan, a woman confronted students at a Turning Point USA debate table, demanding to see their permit before slapping one of them across the face on camera.
Campus police tackled and handcuffed her moments later. As she was led away, she shouted, “I should have killed you while I had the chance.”
— Semper Raw ™️ (@SemperRaw) November 2, 2026

If you watch that video all the way to the end, you’ll hear one of the onlookers tell that nose-ringed Chinese Cultural Revolution reject (I’m not saying that because of her ethnicity; I’m saying it because she’s the classic indoctrinated psychopathic young female that the Cultural Revolution weaponized against its victims) that she ought to be in a mental institution, and as she’s being stuffed into a police car after physically attacking two different people, she responds, proudly, that she’s already been in one.
How do you get into, and stay in, the University of Michigan if you’re an institutionalized lunatic? That’s a question which didn’t bring laughter not so long ago.
But it’s where we are.
You probably saw this, from another Turning Point campus appearance, this one at the University of Texas, San Antonio…

At @UTSA for Pick Up the Mic, a student read a poem celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk with such glee, then told me I was brave to be out here without my neck covered.
I told her I’d pray for her.
This is the climate. We pick up the mic anyway. https://t.co/ZfipQsosaF
— Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) October 27, 2026

The perpetrator of that outrage is the daughter of Brazilian immigrants, and after the internet made her famous, she posted a decidedly insincere apology meant to stave off the consequences of what she’d done on camera.

🇧🇷🇺🇸🚨 AGORA: Isa Casahuga (Isabela Casahuga-Lemgruber), estudante da UTSA, é brasileira. Filha de Paula Lemgruber Casahuga, nascida no Rio de Janeiro, e de pai espanhol. A família é de origem brasileira e viveu em vários países.
Num evento do Turning Point USA na universidade, ela se apresentou como socialista de esquerda e leu um poema zombando do assassinato de Charlie Kirk.
O texto falava de “Kirkiversary” e de “a shot to the neck” um tiro no pescoço. Ela ainda disse ao organizador Christian Collins que ele era “corajoso” por estar ali sem proteção no pescoço e se apresentou como “Pamper Baby”.
Agora ela gravou um vídeo de desculpas se declarando cristã e que tudo não passou de um equívoco.
No vídeo, pede desculpas à família de Charlie Kirk, a Christian Collins e a todos que se sentiram ofendidos.
— Conservatism And Elegance 🇺🇲 (@ThayzzySmith) November 1, 2026

This is the world the Left has made. When Shout Your Institutionalization! is married to an open embrace of political violence (at least, until the adults notice and you have to squeeze out the crocodile tears for a few minutes), and then put into the service of feminism, Third-Worldism with a Muslim face (and it doesn’t matter that this is incompatible with feminism; they’ll figure that out later), a commanded obeisance to a corrupt managerial elite, the fraud of anthropogenic global warming used as a brake on capitalistic economic growth, and finally the fear of technological progress spread through technological means, what you have is a turbocharged mass psychosis disguised as a political movement. (RELATED: The French Revolution of the 21st Century: From the Guillotine to the Suicide Vest)
Queers For Palestine, meet Abdul El-Sayed, your nominee for the U.S. Senate in Michigan.

🚨 OMG. Abdul El Sayed just embroiled himself in national scandal by saying we should let girls see men in their locker room because they can SEE IT ANYWAY on the internet
“The notion somehow that you are going to prevent your child from being exposed to something that you may find disagreeable… is so profoundly outdated.”
“The most important thing you can do is not try to protect a person from seeing a thing.”
This is the 3RD WORLDER talking!
This is batsht crazy…he wants men in girls bathrooms 🤯
Abdul thinks it’s outdated to say men should not be around little girls in the bathroom
Tomorrow, Michigan gets to tell him what it thinks by voting red! https://t.co/6bqMOqV3Pp
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 2, 2026

Well, that’s very inclusive, isn’t it? Except El-Sayed isn’t so inclusive, it turns out…

Haley Stevens was going to do a Democratic unity rally with Abdul El-Sayed and James Clyburn where she was going to encourage her supporters, many of whom have serious reservations about El-Sayed, to vote for him.
This was very important for El-Sayed, because Stevens is popular among Jewish and black Michigan Democrats and Clyburn is an icon among black voters nationwide. El-Sayed has weakness with both of these groups and needs to shore them up going into election day.
Stevens’s condition was that he make an unambiguous, unqualified condemnation of the antisemitic rhetoric his friends, supporters and surrogates have been using, including in ads run in Michigan.
El-Sayed refused to do this, and instead asked Stevens not to appear at the event. At that point, Stevens realized that he was not interested in unity with her or her supporters and that she could no longer support him for Senate.
El-Sayed is an antisemite. He is friends with antisemites Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur. He will not condemn them. He will not condemn the awful things they say.
He has had multiple opportunities to condemn their hateful rhetoric, and he always says: “He is not part of a campaign, nobody speaks for me but me, and I’m not here to talk about that.”
That’s not good enough. If that is how a Republican talked about Nick Fuentes or Richard Spencer, it would be the biggest controversy in the race. The fact that so many Democrats are willing to tolerate this from Abdul El-Sayed is an indictment of the entire party.
There is no coalition that can include both the Jewish Democratic members of Temple Israel and supporters of the Hezbollah terrorist who tried to murder their preschool children. Abdul El-Sayed made a decision about who he wanted in his tent.
Haley Stevens was late to realize it, but it is admirable that she finally decided to be an upstander instead of a bystander. No Nazis in the US Senate.
— Daniel Friedman (@DanFriedman81) November 1, 2026

The key piece to this is under the fold…
Stevens’s condition was that he make an unambiguous, unqualified condemnation of the antisemitic rhetoric his friends, supporters and surrogates have been using, including in ads run in Michigan.
El-Sayed refused to do this, and instead asked Stevens not to appear at the event. At that point, Stevens realized that he was not interested in unity with her or her supporters and that she could no longer support him for Senate.
Which led to…

I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate today. https://t.co/pQgfSBuhOJ
— Haley Stevens (@HaleyforMI) November 1, 2026

And that led to…

Haley Stevens should have no future in the Democratic Party https://t.co/iGTloOj3vC
— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) November 1, 2026

El-Sayed’s friends would throw Harry Sisson off a building if they got a chance, but that’s neither here nor there. More important was this…

Haley Stevens turned her back on Michigan families, her supposed values and all Americans who are in desperate need of a Senate majority who will fight to lower costs rather than surrender to Donald Trump.
Democrats are united behind Abdul El-Sayed, the leader Michigan deserves. https://t.co/VIOLtepXav
— Tammy Duckworth (@TammyDuckworth) November 1, 2026

And this…

@abdulelsayed has spent decades fighting for communities of color, for black people in this country, to have equitable access to healthcare. Now we have Democrat leaders who claim to care about the future of our democracy going on TV to spread lies about him. What Haley Stevens has done is unforgivable. And it won’t work.
— Pramila Jayapal (@PramilaJayapal) November 1, 2026

Plus this…

Rep. Haley Stevens’ staff is right to resign in disgust. They understand that the election in Michigan is far more important than Haley’s fragile ego and that all of us must stand together to elect Abdul, defeat Rogers and end the Republican rubber-stamp control of the Senate.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 1, 2026

Not to mention this…

Carville is having an unhinged crash out over Haley Stevens:
“If you think that these Republicans are going to treat you as anything other than what they view you as…a used condom. The Democrats don’t even think you’re worth a used condom.”
They’re coming completely unglued. https://t.co/HnT96m0k20
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 1, 2026

And especially this…

Congresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future.
— Curtis Hertel (@CurtisHertelJr) November 1, 2026

That’s the chair of the Michigan Democrat Party.
Now, we don’t need to go overboard here. When Republican politicians jump overboard to endorse Democrats like a few of the NeverTrumpers did — though you might notice that most of those people tried to preserve their standing in the party by trashing President Trump without going fully over to the other side — it’s commonplace for them to get thrown off the island. What’s happening to Haley Stevens isn’t shocking or surprising, regardless of what side of the aisle it happens on. (RELATED: Black Enthusiasm Gap Haunts Far Left Democrats)
But the level of vitriol, and particularly from people who are supposed to be sober, responsible leaders on the national stage, is notable.
Because it’s so performative.
It comes off as fear. Better stay in the collective. And if that means participating in the collective’s Two Minute Hate against Haley Stevens, then by all means you’d better do it.
Forget about the fact that a Jewish woman who’s very nervous about publicly supporting somebody who won’t distance himself from Hasan Piker couldn’t get a single consideration from El-Sayed in return for his endorsement. She refused to surrender to the collective, and for that she must be annihilated. (RELATED: Hasan Piker and the Democrats Who Embrace His Violent Rhetoric)
Just like John Fetterman must be annihilated. And Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were annihilated.
A lot of that is partisan politics. But this is not the partisan politics you’re used to. These Democrats are not just the flip side of the GOP within the same basic political alignment. The partisan politics of old was about who got to sit at the levers of the machinery, whose friends got to rake off the contracts and the grant money, and whose pet projects would take priority.
This is about swallowing all five of the black pills, and willing yourself not to vomit them back up, in order to make the world into what history refused to make of it in the last century.
It requires a kind of political discipline which is not matched by the personal discipline of its followers. The kind of political discipline which can only come from groupthink and mass hysteria.
That crazy noseringed woman in Ann Arbor was made that way through medication and indoctrination. Very few people allow themselves to be triggered into violence at the mere suggestion of a differing political opinion. As we’ve noted, there is a full-on campaign to create as many people like her as possible on those college campuses.
And while the people at Turning Point USA are perhaps the best of all Americans for doing what they can to counter the mass psychosis being spread in our cultural institutions, they aren’t winning, and they don’t have enough muscle behind them. This is sadly quite correct…

@kaukosaataja You have to think in caveman terms. These debates are two tribes recruiting allies. TPUSA’s argument is “The other tribe is mean.” The other tribe’s argument is “We outnumber them. We’re organizing to kill them. We tell them to their face and they do nothing.” Who’d you join?
— Roman Helmet Guy (@romanhelmetguy) October 29, 2026

We want the traditional approach to work. We want to reason with people and change their minds through logic and persuasion and rationality.
But views not formed through reason and rational thought will not be dispelled through reason and rationality alone. Remember what we’re dealing with…

@C_3C_3 56% of liberal women 29-18 yr formally diagnosed with mental illness.
43% of liberal women under 40 diagnosed with mental illness.
34% of ALL liberal women diagnosed with mental illness.
29% of liberal women are medicated due to mental illness. https://t.co/7SrNjEWRQv
— Fibonacci112358 (@DaVinci132134) September 4, 2026

The Left disciplines their people harshly through ostracism and worse. Haley Stevens is almost certainly under multiple credible death threats today. Supposed leaders on the Left won’t even speak out against political violence for fear of what the collective might do should they stray too far. (RELATED: Why So Many Political Pyromaniacs, Assassins, and Other Scary Types?)
Devon Eriksen explained how we got here…

Working at Oculus would have been an utter waste of my time except for one thing.
While I was there, I realized what’s wrong with leftists.
Not that they have been programmed, that’s obvious. Not why they have been programmed. For power, that’s obvious, too.
But how they have been programmed.
The exact method that their moral compass has been destroyed works like this:
Target a bunch of people with very few deeds and accomplishments, such as young people or incompetent people, or incompetent young people.
Create for them an environment where they are rewarded with moral approval, not for what they do, but for believing certain ideas.
The ideas don’t have to be outrageous, or absurd, or have anything to do with what you actually need them to believe. In fact, it’s better to start with something innocuous.
Why? Because the goal isn’t to install those beliefs at all. The goal is to repeat this process until you create a person who measures his moral worth by what he believes, not what he does.
Keep at this until you have created a mass of people who not only reward themselves with a feeling of moral superiority for believing the right things, but who will reward each other for believing orthodox things, and who will compete with each other, not to do the most good, but to have the most orthodox beliefs.
Now, change one of the propositions you have programmed them with to a slightly more radical version of itself, and hold this up as a more correct version of the old belief, which has been newly discovered by scholarly investigations into culture and moral philosophy.
Sit back, watch, and give them a few weeks to compete with each other to adopt the new belief, and to condemn the “evil” of anyone who believes the old belief, the very thing they believed last month.
Repeat this process until they are used to rapidly changing their entire belief system in response to an external cue.
Congratulations, you have a population of entirely programmable people whose moral compass is not just broken, but entirely non-existent.
They don’t care what any person in front of them actually does. Only that he believe the orthodox thing, which they just learned about in last week’s memo.
They are willing to do anything, so long as it is done in support of their current belief system, which can be replaced whenever it’s convenient to do so.
They are willing to burn down an entire city with no qualms whatsoever if they are doing it in support of the idea that black lives matter.
They are willing to murder a man in front of his children, and it doesn’t matter if his actions were entirely peaceful and good, because all that matters to them is whether he believes the correct things or not.
And a man who builds cheap spaceflight for the human race, develops viable electric cars to save the environment, restores voices to the voiceless, and plans, for his next trick, to heal the blind… well, all those are deeds, so none of them matter. The only thing that matters is that he told people to vote republican once, which is wrongthink.
So what you have a horde of communist zombies, who can be steered to shuffle in any direction and attack the living, eat their brains, and turn them into more zombies.
Once someone becomes one of the zombies, you can’t cure him, because a moral compass can only be repaired by understanding the consequences of actions in a new way… and they don’t care about actions or consequences. They only care about beliefs, and not about consequences at all.
Their moral compasses aren’t just broken. They are absent. There’s nothing to repair.
You have to understand that the zombies are zombies now.
— Devon Eriksen (@Devon_Eriksen_) November 1, 2026

The crux…
Target a bunch of people with very few deeds and accomplishments, such as young people or incompetent people, or incompetent young people.
Create for them an environment where they are rewarded with moral approval, not for what they do, but for believing certain ideas.
The ideas don’t have to be outrageous, or absurd, or have anything to do with what you actually need them to believe. In fact, it’s better to start with something innocuous.
Why? Because the goal isn’t to install those beliefs at all. The goal is to repeat this process until you create a person who measures his moral worth by what he believes, not what he does.
Keep at this until you have created a mass of people who not only reward themselves with a feeling of moral superiority for believing the right things, but who will reward each other for believing orthodox things, and who will compete with each other, not to do the most good, but to have the most orthodox beliefs.
Now, change one of the propositions you have programmed them with to a slightly more radical version of itself, and hold this up as a more correct version of the old belief, which has been newly discovered by scholarly investigations into culture and moral philosophy.
Sit back, watch, and give them a few weeks to compete with each other to adopt the new belief, and to condemn the “evil” of anyone who believes the old belief, the very thing they believed last month.
That’s the indoctrination. It’s how you go from “safe, legal and rare” to “Shout Your Abortion!” It’s how you go from outrage over Abu Ghraib to openly rooting for the IRGC. It’s how you go from “affordable health care” to “Medicare for all.”
And it’s how you go from presenting center-left politics as Jesus’s teachings made into public policy to claiming Abdul El-Sayed, spawn of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the candidate of the U.S. Constitution. (RELATED: Abdul El-Sayed: A Muslim Brotherhood Puppet and a Grave National Security Threat)
You can choose to believe the polls, and you can worry over the midterm election. Those are all items worthy of debate. But they aren’t the fundamental issue.
The fundamental issue is that we have a political movement which has fully embraced not just revolutionary Marxism as a foundational political ideology but has manufactured and weaponized mental illness as an activating factor.
And the Right has not yet internalized this, nor has it settled on an appropriate response it’s willing to buy into.
This is a problem a lot bigger than a midterm cycle which can be reversed in two years. It had better be tackled, and soon.
READ MORE from Scott McKay:
The Left Is Jealous of Elon’s Success
The 5QT Presents: The Five Black Pills, Part 5 — What You Hate About AI Is Not Really About AI
The Spookiest Interview in American Political History