Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

If purple’s the color of viable democracy reform, this new roster of tossup states matters

The realists strategizing to make our democracy work better understand our nation's close but emphatic partisan divide – and that big changes to the system will require buy-in from plenty in both parties. Given that, it makes sense for avowed "democracy reformers" to keep a close eye on places where the dominant ideology is neither solidly liberal nor unalterably conservative.

Now there's a new map of those Purple States of America, and it's a little different from the usual roster of perennial presidential battlegrounds.


Editor Nathan Gonzales of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan forecaster of congressional and gubernatorial races, spent much of last year crunching the results of every statewide and House election in the country this decade. The resulting numbers reflect the share of the vote that each party can count on securing in all 50 states.

The difference between those Republican and Democratic baselines, in turn, becomes a solid reflection of the degree of statewide competitiveness. Wyoming, for example, is the darkest red state by this measure because the GOP baseline is 68 percent and the Democratic baseline just under 27 percent – a difference of 41 percentage points. All the elections between 2012 and last fall in Hawaii come in at the other extreme, yielding a 38-point advantage for the Democrats.

And then there are the 11 states where, over the course of this decade, neither party's baseline advantage has become greater than 5 points. (And in Wisconsin it's a dead heat, with each party claiming a base vote of 49 percent of the statewide electorate.)

Wisconsin: EVEN
North Carolina: R +1
Nevada: R +2
Maine: D +3
Colorado: D +3
New Hampshire: D + 3
Florida: R +4
Iowa: R +4
Michigan: D +4
Arizona: R +5
Virginia: D +5

At a time of such national polarization, the political behavior in these places suggests that cross-partisan policymaking and appeals to the ideological center just might have a shot at success.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less