After the Indiana primary elections and results in favor of Trump-endorsed candidates, CNN's This Morning discussed the results as frequent panelist and Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright called the voters in the primary “MAGA extremists.” But even host Audie Cornish did not echo Seawright’s comments as she said the voters made their own decision and they were “committed to Trump.” Cornish introduced the segment as Trump’s “revenge” on a state senator who did not approve of plans to redistrict Indiana’s congressional map amid the new redistricting war. The host also explained how politicos and journalists thought the primaries may show a slip in Trump’s hold of the party, which it did not: (...) There was a lot of political writing that was like, “cracks in the coalition?” This is people writing. People really thought, " Look at this. It means something.” I don't know if it did.   After the Indiana Primary Election results favored Trump-aligned candidates, CNN This Morning guest Anjuan Seawright labeled the primary voters as "MAGA extremists" who "hijacked" the party. pic.twitter.com/YvPxbDsTm6 — Nick (@nspin310) May 6, 2026   CNN contributor and editor-in-chief of The Dispatch, Jonah Goldberg, said the result signaled “Trump still has a chokehold on the party” and that “he’s not going to be a lame duck. He also said, “even if he loses - even if Republicans lose the House, you better not cross him because he could still screw you.” Tal Kopan of The Boston Globe echoed Goldberg and called Trump a “chokehold” on the party due to his hold of primary voters. But then Seawright upped the rhetoric as he started to call Trump-aligned voters in Indiana “MAGA extremists” who “hijacked” the party.” Seawright continued, “But I think we have to understand who votes in primaries. Some of the most extreme members, particularly on the Republican side, tend to participate more in Republican primaries.” The democrat strategist also said there were fewer “traditional Republicans voting in Republican primaries,” and instead vote in the general elections: “They do not have to be politically associated with the MAGA extremists who now make up the majority of the Republican Party.” As Seawright just essentially likened Trump-aligned voters to domestic terrorists, Cornish stepped back at Seawright's comments and did not like the language Seawright used about voters and what they want: I'm also going to use slightly different language, like when we're saying hijack and chokehold. My thing with that is that these are voters. They have made a decision. They are committed to Trump and they feel that commitment supersedes all other issues. And I don't feel like they don't know what they're doing. You know what I mean? Like this is what they want.   Host Audie Cornish gave some pushback to Seawright's along with other panelists' use of the term 'chokehold': "I'm also going to use slightly different language, like when we're saying hijack and chokehold. My thing with that is that these are voters. They have made a decision." pic.twitter.com/12dARD5jvs — Nick (@nspin310) May 6, 2026   Goldberg ended with a call to end the primary system as a whole, as he called it a system that’s “really hobbled American politics” and has become “Trump’s superpower.” Seawright’s label of Republican primary voters as extremists on the airwaves of CNN was just another example of the raised rhetoric against conservative voters in the age of Trump. Amid examples of violence against conservatives, the labeling of voters as extremists expanded that threat level, as voices like Seawright have been constantly platformed on CNN and MS NOW. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning May 6, 2026 6:13:42 AM Eastern (...) AUDIE CORNISH: So, it looks like President Trump got his revenge in Tuesday's Indiana primaries and it is proving that it's still his Republican Party.  Last night, at least five of the seven Trump- endorsed challengers defeated incumbent GOP state senators in Indiana, and these are the ones who had broken with the president and voted against the redistricting plan. Indiana Senator Jim Banks wrote on Twitter, “Big night for MAGA in Indiana, proud to have helped elect more conservative Republicans to the Indiana State Senate.” I wanted to follow up on this. It's a coda to a story, because back in December, when Indiana was looking at its redistricting maps, and I want to put up the map for you, this is the map that Trump wanted, that Republicans wanted in this redistricting battle, okay? Like, the goal was to get rid of those little blue spots there. And a couple of people pushed back. In the end, the Republicans didn't go for it, and there was a lot of political writing that was like, “cracks in the coalition?” This is people writing. People really thought, look at this. It means something. I don't know if it did. JONAH GOLDBERG: Well, no, I think it meant something, but the blowback also means something, right CORNISH: Yeah. GOLDBERG: You know, Mitch Daniels and a bunch of sort of normie Republicans working behind the scenes. CORNISH: I love that you call them normie. [Laughter] GOLDBERG: Yeah, At least he's not a closet normie. CORNISH: Yeah, He's out and proud. GOLDBERG: He's out and open about his normies. But the - you know, part of the reason why a lot of those state senators didn't want to do the redistricting has to do with not wanting to be part of Indianapolis. I mean, it was like real local stuff. CORNISH: It was state politics, yeah, which arguably is the whole point of the redistricting conversation. GOLDBERG: And the revenge stuff has nothing to do with state politics. It is purely to signal that Trump still has a chokehold on the party. That he's not going to be a lame duck, and that even if he loses - even if Republicans lose the House, you better not cross him because he could still screw you. TAL KOPAN: It's a chokehold on the Republican base, right? So, this is the thing. Primary elections are your most activated, your sort of most true party members. And this certainly is a declaration to anyone in Washington who sort of wants to have some daylight with the president heading into the midterms.  But we can also see Trump is underwater with sort of the overall electorate. And it really puts Republicans in a bind because you know that if you have to face - I mean, we've got Bill Cassidy's election coming up in Louisiana very soon. They're facing a situation where if they cross Trump, if they cross the base, they're at very real risk of losing their primary, even with local, you know, elections. ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT: No doubt the MAGA extremists have hijacked the Republican Party and they make up the majority. We see that in Washington, we see that downstream. But I think we have to understand who votes in primaries. Some of the most extreme members, particularly on the Republican side, tend to participate more in Republican primaries. That's been true since Donald Trump came onto the scene in 2016. I will also note that more and more people are becoming independent thinkers and independent voters. So, that means you have less traditional Republicans voting in Republican primaries. Instead, they're saving their vote for the general elections where they do not have to be politically associated with the MAGA extremists who now make up the majority of the Republican Party. KOPAN: But how does a politician navigate that? CORNISH: Yeah. KOPAN: You can't win the general if you lose your primary. CORNISH: I'm also going to use slightly different language, like when we're saying hijack and chokehold. My thing with that is that these are voters. They have made a decision. They are committed to Trump and they feel that commitment supersedes all other issues. And I don't feel like they don't know what they're doing. You know what I mean? Like this is what they want. GOLDBERG: They have agency. But look, I mean, I'm someone who thinks we made a grave mistake adopting the primary system to begin with. And it's really hobbled American politics. But we have it. And - but there's a lot of political science on this. A lot of primary voters don't so much vote for their own parties, they vote against the other party. And the problem - the reason why this is Trump's superpower is that, particularly in low-turnout primaries, this is the only place where incumbents are vulnerable. CORNISH: Right. GOLDBERG: If all of these guys had won their primaries, they would be re-elected. If Cassidy gets the nomination, he will be re-elected. The threat to Republicans in very red states and the threat to Democrats in very blue states and districts is the primaries, not the general election. (...)

On last night’s edition of CNN’s NewsNight with Abby Phillip, known around these parts as the “ThunderDome”, the panel discussed NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push for a tax on pied-a-terres. What viewers inadvertently caught was a bizarre downplay of a virulently racist term. Take a look at host Abby Phillip’s strange new redefinition of “from the River to the Sea”: According to Abby Phillip: "From the River to the Sea" is a pro-Palestinian slogan, and not a call for the elimination of Jews. pic.twitter.com/VnYNGDG5Y4 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 7, 2026 ABBY PHILLIP: New York real estate titan Stephen Roth went even further saying, quote, "I consider the phrase tax the rich when spit out with anger and contempt by politicians both here and across the country to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs and even the phrase 'From the river to the sea,'" he's referring there to a controversial pro-Palestinian slogan. I don't know about the racial slur piece.  Of course, “from the River to the Sea” is much more than a “controversial pro-Palesinian slogan.” It is a call for the outright elimination of Jews between the River (Jordan) and the Sea (Mediterranean). This is the chant that terrified many Jewish college students, as it was uttered across countless pro-Hamas marches across hundreds of college campuses in the wake of the medieval October 7th attack against Israel. Phillip probably knows better, or at least SHOULD know better, having covered these marches on the show that bears her name. Her glib downplay of the eliminationist slogan raises questions about what exactly passes for standards at CNN. How does this pass muster, when it wasn’t that long ago that Ryan Girdusky got thrown off the show for cracking a beeper joke at MSNBC castoff Mehdi Hassan? As our own Curtis Houck recounted at the time, Phillip clutched her pearls and offered apologies and reiterated that Girdusky’s joke was beyond the pale. Phillip’s downplay of a terror mantra was a throwaway line ahead of a thoughtful segment on Zohran Mamdani’s class warfare and its potential for far-left violence.  It should also stand as a reminder of the need to maintain consistent standards. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN’s NewsNight with Abby Phillip on Wednesday, May 6th, 2025: CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP 5/6/26 10:37 PM (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ZOHRAN MAMDANI: When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich. Well, today, we're taxing the rich. I'm thrilled to announce we've secured a pied-a-terre tax, the first in New York's history. This is an annual fee on luxury properties worth more than $5 million whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million. (END VIDEO CLIP) ABBY PHILLIP: That was New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announcing his plan to tax wealthy residents' second homes as he stood outside of Citadel CEO Ken Griffin's multi-million-dollar penthouse. But that video didn't sit well with two of the city's richest, including Griffin, who had this to say about it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KEN GRIFFIN, CITADEL CEO: I actually had to see it a second time because the first time I couldn't believe what I was watching. And I'll tell you, it took a moment to digest what I was watching. What really upset me about the video was the fact that it put me in harm's way to turn me into a political puppet was just in poor taste, really poor taste. (END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: New York real estate titan Stephen Roth went even further saying, quote, "I consider the phrase tax the rich when spit out with anger and contempt by politicians both here and across the country to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs and even the phrase 'From the river to the sea,'" he's referring there to a controversial pro-Palestinian slogan. I don't know about the racial slur piece. I do think Ken Griffin's discomfort with somebody being outside of his home is very reasonable. ANA NAVARRO, CNN DR. POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Mamdani really screwed up there. I think it's boneheaded and short-sighted. Listen, Ken Griffin has now moved to Miami. We know because we live in Miami, Ken Griffin has single-handedly changed the face of philanthropy in Miami. He's giving to everything. But we just saw it in that clip. We didn't see it in the clip of Ken Griffin, but he alludes to the assassination of the CEO of the health insurance company by Luigi Mangione last year and the fact that this puts him in the crosshairs. I think Mamdani did this for clicks, I don't think he needed to do this. In Florida and I think in a lot of states, people who have homestead there who are permanent residents usually pay or have some tax loops that somebody who has a pied-a-terre or has a second home has to pay higher taxes than I do as a person in Florida who's got a homestead exemption because I'm a permanent resident. So I don't know why he's got to do this entire show. I do think he put Ken Griffin in harm's way -- Ken Griffin's children in harm's way. I just think it was stupid and I think Mamdani should have the humility to accept that and to apologize because this is a city that is the financial center of the world and if people like Ken Griffin start leaving and deciding not to buy second homes here and not to have their businesses here, New York City is going to be in a world of harm's way. PHILLIP: There's that extreme and then there's the other extreme of Stephen Roth saying that this is like a racial slur. When people hear that, they're like, that doesn't make any sense. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: People can make their own determination for that, but I want to pick up where Ana was leading to. She's right, 1.6 percent of the wealthiest people in this city pay nearly half of the taxes. If those folks leave, to Ana's point, you're going to have a financial crisis of magnitude of which Mamdani does not understand. You think about everyday things that people utilize, public transit, safety, education, all of the taxes that go to provide for all of those things for poor people in this city, what in the hell are they going to do if 44 percent of those dollars all of a sudden disappear overnight? And this is a short-sighted... PHILLIP: I think it's your right to have that debate about what the impact is going to be on the city. But I will say that you also have to keep in mind that New York City has continuously increased their tax rate and they've done so and not decreased the number of extreme wealthy people in the city. In fact, the number of extremely wealthy people in the city has increased. BAKARI SELLERS: I think Ana's point about being in front of someone's home, for all of us, I'm assuming, and if I'm wrongfully assuming, God bless you, but all of us have been through threats or having law enforcement in front of our house. I mean, me and you and Donna Brazile talk about that all the time, just the different type of threats that we deal with, I know Scott deals with it as well. That is beyond the pale of politics and something that you should have the humility to recognize and the political wherewithal to correct that. So let's say that first. SCOTT JENNINGS: What about the impulse to do it in the first place? SELLERS: The second part, the impulse to do it, or the reasoning behind it is the messaging. And no one is leaving New York because of tax the rich. NAVARRO: That's not true. SELLERS: The statistics don't bear that out, but also let's just say this. And while there is this inordinate attention that we're paying to people who are beyond wealthy, because we're not talking about people who are making $1 million or $10 million. JENNINGS: That's still a very small percentage of American people, even at $1 million. That's my point exactly. I think one of the things, and I'm not a Zohran Mamdani fan by any stretch of the imagination, but one of the things that has occurred in New York City since he has been elected is that people are paying attention to the class warfare that's happening in this country. And listen, we're not just talking about the rich and them being uncomfortable because I simply say tax the rich. In fact, that's not anything on my top 10 policy initiatives. However, when we're having this discussion, there are people in this country that are literally starving. There are people in this country -- I'm not finished. There are people in this country who literally cannot, they're the working poor, who work 40, 60 hours a week and cannot afford health care. There are people in this country who are going through these things. And so I totally get Zohran Mamdani highlighting the plight of the working poor in this country, distasteful as it may be. PHILLIP: Hold on Kevin, let Shermichael-- SINGLETON: I'm in agreement with you morally about the plight of working class people. I'm not going to ignore that. Everybody at this table, we have people in our own families that are working class. I'm never going to dismiss that. But the short-sighted nature of the mayor to go after what I would argue success. Because at some point, maybe you go after the top 1 percent and when you tax the hell out of them, then you go after the group that's beneath the top 1 percent. And at some point, everybody at this damn table will be next because of our income levels. So what message does that signal to younger people, to hard-working people in New York City, across the country? Should they not attempt to be successful? Should they not attempt to make a shot at earning a significant amount of money? PHILLIP: We're going to take a quick break and we're going to come back on the other side. And Kevin, you'll have your say. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: Let's pick up where we left off. KEVIN O'LEARY: I just wanted to take the emotion out of it and talk about the policy. Think about this. Wouldn't you want more people to come to New York that spend over $5 million construction jobs making their pied-a-terre? And then they have to pay the maintenance on it. Then they pay the property tax on it. But they put no financial burden on the city because they're not here. So why would you disincentivize the incremental person to do that by taxing them more? Why not say to them, if you don't use the city's services at all, and you spend all this money on taxes and construction jobs and maintenance and doorman and everything, let's get more of these people. Let's get hundreds of thousands more of them. NAVARRO: So my friend Bakari Sellers has asked me to explain pied-a- terre. SELLERS: Yes, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're using these French words, I thought it was a sandwich. I thought it was a sandwich with ham and extra slices. PHILLIP: To your point, just to your point. O'LEARY: I want you to tell us something about that actual video, 60 million views within four days. And I asked one of my social media editors, how did they produce that? And he said, by the way, we think that tap on the window, that's post. It's genius what that guy is doing. He's got a team making social media. NAVARRO: No, it's genius if what you want is to get clicks. But it is not genius if what you want is for Ken Griffin to continue building his project. PHILLIP: Hold on one second. Just to Kevin's point about what Mamdani is trying to do. Just look at this chart. Low, middle, and upper middle class wages have been growing at, let's call it 10 percent in this country. The top 3 percent or not in this country, New York City, the top 3 percent, their wages have been growing by 34 percent, that's the imbalance. That is the imbalance that Zohran Mamdani was elected to address. SELLERS: And that's what most of the people are. PHILLIP: So I guess what I'm saying is if you want to understand why he's doing what he's doing, it's because there are millions of regular New Yorkers who say the rich people are fine. We don't need to be worrying about them or catering to them. Who's going to worry about us? I mean that's a basic principle of populism that he is enacting as mayor. JENNINGS: And look, it's a powerful branding that he's tapping into. He's hardly the only one. Most major Democrats are tapping. But this whole idea of demonizing people who have been successful, it's a powerful thing right now. But I think one unacknowledged point, and it extends Ana's point, which I think was very well stated and I agree with you 100 percent, there's a dark undercurrent of rage and violence that comes with this. You look at the Luigi killing of the United Healthcare CEO, the guy who burned down the Palisades in L.A., he told the police he was doing it to get back at the billionaires. They arrested a guy in Pennsylvania who was a political candidate for leaving threatening messages for members of Congress, he threatened to kill Donald Trump. You listen to the transcripts. He's saying we're going to surround all the rich people in the country and we're going to slit their throats. I think the unacknowledged undercurrent here of violence and radicalism is going on. The Democrats are playing with fire and it needs to be discussed. A lot of violence. PHILLIP: We do have to leave it there. Everyone, thank you very much for being here tonight.  

Results of a POLITICO poll reported Thursday show strong support for key elements of Republicans’ voter integrity bill, the SAVE America Act. According to the POLITICO survey conducted by Public First, U.S. adults support, rather than oppose, both requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote (58%-18%) and requiring a photo ID to vote by mail (51%-18%) by a three-to-one margin. By more than two-to-one (48%-21%), U.S. adults support, rather than oppose, “Imposing stricter photo ID requirements at the polling station that demonstrate citizenship, not just identity.” Likewise, nearly half (47%) support “Requiring states to more aggressively remove names from voter rolls if they cannot confirm citizenship status,” while just one in five (21%) oppose the prerequisite. Counter to the liberal, legacy media’s narrative, POLITICO’s poll shows that the SAVE America Act’s voter identification requirements would not present a significant roadblock to either registering to vote or casting a ballot. In one question, the POLITICO poll asked U.S. adults if they “currently have access to any of the following forms of ID with your current name?” providing 11 response choices and instructing them to “Select all that apply.” Curiously, POLITICO’s article reporting on the survey results does not mention the findings of this question. Only five percent of the adults replied that they possess “none of the above” nine forms of identification listed. Fully 57% said they have access to a certified birth certificate. Half (50%) said they have a government-issued photo ID (e.g. driver’s license) that does not indicate citizenship, which could be used in conjunction with citizenship documentation to prove eligibility to register and vote. Ten percent reported that they “Don’t know” whether they have any of the nine forms of identification. Because the question allowed multiple responses, the sum of the nine choices exceeds 100%. POLITICO’s headline, titled “Poll: Voters aren’t so sure about Trump’s sweeping election bill,” is also misleading, since the text of the article reveals that the survey polled “U.S. adults” – not “voters” or “citizens.” Thus, POLITICO’s claim that the poll shows that “voters” aren’t so sure about the SAVE America Act is inaccurate. Since the poll’s only requirement for participation is that survey respondents be adults residing in the U.S., survey results may be influenced by the opinions and other answers provided by nonvoters – such as illegal aliens and noncitizens. Additionally, the wording of some survey questions may have biased results. In a question asking U.S. adults to provide their level of support for the SAVE America Act, the survey defines the bill only as being “proposed legislation that would change rules for voting in America” – omitting the bill’s goal of preventing illegal voting, for example Even with the excessively vague, and potentially ominous-sounding, description of the bill, only 21% of respondents said they oppose the Act. Similarly, only about one in five actually said they oppose requiring photo ID (18%), making photo ID requirements stricter (21%), requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to vote by mail (18%) and requiring states to more aggressively clean up their voter rolls. Throughout the survey, about one in five U.S. adults said they had no opinion on the issues polled, with those reporting that they “neither support nor oppose” the various elements of the SAVE America Act ranging from 17% to 21%.

CBS senior White House and national correspondent Ed O’Keefe traveled to Alabama on Thursday for CBS Mornings to cover that state’s redistricting efforts after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on majority-minority districts. According to O’Keefe, the battle was between those who are fighting to maintain the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and power-hungry Republicans. Co-host Gayle King introduced O’Keefe by declaring, “This morning Alabama is set to become the latest state to redraw congressional districts in favor of Republicans following a landmark Supreme Court ruling. Last week's decision makes it much harder for states to create districts favoring minority candidates.” No, it does not make it harder for minority candidates. It means Democrats can’t argue their districts are actually mandated by law. As it was, O’Keefe began by responding, “Gayle, good to see you. The fight over who ultimately controls the House of Representatives next year is playing out in the Deep South. This isn't just about partisan power plays we have seen in other big states. Down here it's also about the decades-long fight over who ultimately represents mostly black communities.”   CBS reporter Ed O'Keefe portrays Alabama redistricting after the Supreme Court's VRA ruling as the legacy of the "the modern Civil Rights Movement" versus a "a Republican power grab." He also passes off a progressive activist as a generic voter who "don't want the area redrawn… pic.twitter.com/iZg9PbK6wc — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 7, 2026   In a voiceover, O’Keefe reported how “Alabama Democratic Congressman Shomari Figures may soon be out of a job, not because he loses an election but because his district could be drawn off the map.” Figures then fearmongered that Alabama is close to relapsing to the dark days of the past, “People are not happy with the idea of this state legislature trying to take us back to a place where we have been before.” O’Keefe then added, “Figures represents most of Montgomery, Alabama: the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. His constituents don't want the area redrawn into Republican-held congressional districts.” According to CBS’s chyron, Rachel Turner is simply an “Alabama Voter,” and she was also shown freaking out, “I just felt like I have been hit by a ton of bricks. So, many people gave their actual lives in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” Turner is actually a member of the Alabama Resistors' chapter of Indivisible, a progressive activist group that protests all things Trump. Moving on to the other side of the aisle, O’Keefe introduced state Attorney General Steve Marshall, who wants “the Supreme Court to reverse previous federal court rulings requiring his state to create two districts with mostly black voters.” Interviewing Marshall, O’Keefe suddenly got interested in the realities of political hardball, “Is this a Republican power grab?” Marshall replied, “No, I think what it is, is the legislature in Alabama being able to exercise their authority.” O’Keefe then teed up another clip of Marshall, “Unlike new maps in other states, after President Trump asked Texas to come up with more Republican seats, Alabama plus Tennessee and Louisiana are moving quickly in response to last week's Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the Voting Rights Act. Now any state can redraw boundaries with less accounting for race. And Marshall, who is also running for U.S. Senate, argues Alabama's map should better reflect the state's Republican tilt.” Marshall urged everyone to remember that what Alabama wants to do is not unique, “All our constitutional officers are from the Republican Party. It's no different than what you see in New England, for example, having a whole slate of Democratic representatives.” Back live, O’Keefe concluded, “So, Alabama is still waiting for court rulings on whether it can move ahead. A ruling can come as soon as today or tomorrow. Tennessee can act as soon as today to redraw a Democratic, mostly black district around the city of Memphis. Louisiana’s going to act in the coming days as well. Lots of moving parts, Nate, with just 180 days to go until Election Day.” Nobody’s right to vote is being taken away, but Figures and Turner’s “right” to win is. If King and O’Keefe don’t like that, they should ask New England Republicans how they have been dealing with such a system of years on end. Here is a transcript for the May 7 show: CBS Mornings 5/6/2026 8:14 AM ET GAYLE KING: This morning Alabama is set to become the latest state to redraw congressional districts in favor of Republicans following a landmark Supreme Court ruling. Last week's decision makes it much harder for states to create districts favoring minority candidates. Ed O'Keefe is in Montgomery, the state capitol, with the latest on this. Ed, good morning. What can you tell us? ED O’KEEFE: Gayle, good to see you. The fight over who ultimately controls the House of Representatives next year is playing out in the Deep South. This isn't just about partisan power plays we have seen in other big states. Down here it's also about the decades-long fight over who ultimately represents mostly black communities. Alabama Democratic Congressman Shomari Figures may soon be out of a job, not because he loses an election but because his district could be drawn off the map. SHOMARI FIGURES: People are not happy with the idea of this state legislature trying to take us back to a place where we have been before. O’KEEFE: Figures represents most of Montgomery, Alabama: the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. His constituents don't want the area redrawn into Republican-held congressional districts. RACHEL TURNER: I just felt like I have been hit by a ton of bricks. So, many people gave their actual lives in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote. O’KEEFE: Alabama Republicans like Attorney General Steve Marshall want the Supreme Court to reverse previous federal court rulings requiring his state to create two districts with mostly black voters. Is this a Republican power grab? STEVE MARSHALL: No, I think what it is, is the legislature in Alabama being able to exercise their authority. O’KEEFE: Unlike new maps in other states, after President Trump asked Texas to come up with more Republican seats, Alabama plus Tennessee and Louisiana are moving quickly in response to last week's Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the Voting Rights Act. Now any state can redraw boundaries with less accounting for race. And Marshall, who is also running for U.S. Senate, argues Alabama's map should better reflect the state's Republican tilt. MARSHALL: All our constitutional officers are from the Republican Party. It's no different than what you see in New England, for example, having a whole slate of Democratic representatives. O’KEEFE: So, Alabama is still waiting for court rulings on whether it can move ahead. A ruling can come as soon as today or tomorrow. Tennessee can act as soon as today to redraw a Democratic, mostly black district around the city of Memphis. Louisiana’s going to act in the coming days as well. Lots of moving parts, Nate, with just 180 days to go until Election Day. NATE BRULESON: You are right about that.

In one universe — the one inhabited by Nicolle Wallace and her Deadline White House on MS NOW— Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s lengthy, high-energy White House press briefing was an embarrassing disaster. Within 90 minutes, President Trump supposedly turned him into a “liar or fool,” a “jackass,” and the “loser of the day.” In the universe the rest of America watched, Rubio delivered a commanding, substantive, and at times inspirational performance that drew praise across the board for its policy depth, wit, and poise. This is the latest example of liberal media’s parallel reality—one where routine Trump administration policy adjustments are spun as humiliating clown shows, and competent conservative officials are preemptively torn down. On May 5, 2026, Rubio stepped into the White House briefing room (standing in for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt) and held court for more than 50 minutes. Rubio fielded questions in multiple languages, mixed in humor, navigated complex policy topics, and closed with an optimistic vision of America’s role in the world and hope for the country. Even The Hill noted that on Iran, Rubio “sounded presidential.” Multiple outlets and observers highlighted how he commanded the room with clear, firm answers, balanced tone, and engaging delivery. Just one day later, on May 6, host Nicolle Wallace and MS NOW analyst Tim Miller offered an entirely different take on the very same event. Here are some of the lowlights from the transcript: Wallace: “Within ninety minutes, Trump undercut and turned Rubio into a liar or fool... It did not take Donald Trump ninety minutes to render him a jackass... Marco Rubio is the loser of the day.” Wallace: “What is Marco Rubio’s calculation today if Trump asks him to go do it again tomorrow?” Miller: “He’ll do it. If Trump asked him to bark, he’s gonna woof [Wallace found that hilarious: see screencap.] That’s the deal. And it’s humiliating. I think he’s enjoying it. People can take from that what they want.” Nicolle Wallace Calls Rubio a "Jackass" and "Loser" — While Rubio's Briefing Draws Widespread Praise pic.twitter.com/79cyy3LmpM — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 7, 2026 Miller went further, dismissing Rubio’s rising profile as the potential MAGA “heir apparent” and betting against his long-term prospects. The segment featured heavy personal mockery of Rubio, including Miller’s strange suggestion that Rubio was somehow deriving enjoyment from the supposed humiliation — a bizarre bit of armchair psychoanalysis that painted the Secretary of State as something of a masochist. What prompted the mockery? Hours after Rubio’s briefing, President Trump announced a short pause in Project Freedom operations, citing “great progress” toward a potential deal with Iran. The blockade remained in place. This is standard foreign policy fluidity — adjust when leverage produces results. The intensity of the mockery raises the question: are some on the left already viewing Rubio as a potential 2028 threat? After years spent trying to kneecap JD Vance, some in the liberal media appear to have shifted targets. Looks like MS NOW has gone into preemptive attack mode. In the real world, Rubio’s briefing earned praise for substance and presidential poise. In the MS NOW bubble, it was an instant humiliation worthy of juvenile insults. Readers can judge for themselves which universe is detached from reality. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Deadline White House 5/6/26 4:27 pm EDT NICOLLE WALLACE: Ostensibly, a journalist covering the war would think that Marco Rubio or Pete Hegseth were, actually, Hegseth is a different example, let's stick with Rubio, a credible source. I mean, certainly both the turnout and the length of the press conference would suggest that the press was there consuming information they thought was credible.  Within ninety minutes, Trump undercut and turned Rubio into a liar or fool. . . .  Tim Miller, Marco Rubio has two jobs. He is the country's Secretary of State. He's also Donald Trump's National Security Advisor. Marco Rubio would like to be set apart from the clown show. He would like to be taken seriously, and all things are relative. Maybe some people view him as a part, I don't know. But Marco Rubio is the loser of the day. Marco Rubio stood before at least five, six dozen journalists for an on-camera briefing yesterday. He seemed to enjoy it. He stayed a long time. He, like, picked up energy. You saw him going to reporters more quickly and more comfortably, a lot of pointing.  He acted, and again, I don't know what's in his mind, he acted like he had authority to say the things he said, and it did not take Donald Trump ninety minutes to render him a jackass, to go back on what he was sent out there to say, to contradict him, and to make a fool of him. Now, I have no dog in the fight in terms of who takes over MAGA. But what is Marco Rubio's calculation today if Trump asks him to go do it again tomorrow? TIM MILLER: Well, he'll do it [Wallace bursts out laughing.] You know, if Trump asked him to bark, he's gonna woof. That's the deal. And it's humiliating. It's humiliating, but I think he's enjoying it. People can take from that what they want. But I agree with you -- WALLACE: But nobody believes him.  MILLER: Yeah, I think that, because it's such a clown show around him, I think that people in his circle think, think him credible. And I know that that seems crazy to us, you know, if you're a journalist that is looking at this, or just a viewer, and you're like, "The guy went out there and said that we're pushing forward on Project Freedom, and then two hours later we stopped," like, "He has no juice." That's obviously the objective thing. But I think that a lot of people who are either supporters of the war or supporters of Trump are looking around at the other people in the administration, and they're like: well, Trump might have pulled the rug out from under this guy, but at least he's borderline competent.  And that's why you're getting a lot of buzz for Marco now being the heir apparent. And I just, I'm a single person, I'm just a pundit, so mark this down for whatever you want, but I'm against the conventional wisdom on this entirely.  He's making a bet that being the competent Mr. Fix-it for Trump is going to pay off for him. I'm glad he's enjoying hiself now, because I don't really see it working out for him in the future. But we'll see.