Twenty-five million people voted by mail and more than thirty-two million voted in-person early vote. And in states like Maine, South Carolina, and Texas, early turnout is closer to what it was for the 2024 presidential election. Keep in mind that during midterms, we typically see turnout significantly depressed lower than during presidential elections. So that’s really significant.

In Texas, the most Hispanic counties showed the highest turnout. This is according to a New York Times analysis that reported that seven of the eight counties in Texas where turnout is higher than it was for 2024 totals, are more than 70% Hispanic.

That’s not surprising. What we’ve seen over the last two years has been an all-out absolute assault on the Hispanic community by this administration using the issue of immigration as an excuse to try to intimidate and weaken their voices. What the Republican majority forgot, though, is that 80% of Hispanics in the U.S. are already U.S. citizens. A Latino U.S. citizen turns 18 every 30 seconds. Statistically speaking, of course, that’s about a million a year.

I’m out canvassing and what I’m hearing from people is that they want change. One woman told us this mess needs to end. I’ve worked a lot of election days and I can tell you the Democratic staff across the country are fired up. What I’m hearing is there’s tremendous energy, there’s tremendous enthusiasm.

And a lot of campaign staff are exhausted, but they’re running through this finish line and they’re feeling good about where they are. It’s really great to see!

Of course, there’s been a lot of speculation about the possibility of election interference with federal agents being deployed around the country. Note that the threat of interference itself could be an intimidating factor and the law prohibits that, too.

Here’s what people need to know. If you’re a U.S. citizen and you’re registered to vote, you cannot be denied your right to vote. In some states, there’s even same-day voter registration. So check with your local county election officials and find out the details if you’re not sure.

There are also teams of lawyers out in force today. Democrats have actually established a voter protection hotline at 1-833-DEM-VOTE. That’s 1-833-336-8683. Nonpartisan organizations have stood up easily the biggest election protection effort that they’ve ever done across several organizations. They also have a hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE, 866-687-8683, or for Spanish speakers, 888-VE-Y-VOTA, 888-839-8682. The best thing people can do is to encourage voters to feel confident in their ability to cast their ballot, to exercise their right to vote.

Now, if your name isn’t on the list, don’t leave. Ask for a provisional ballot. If you’re in line when polls close, stay in line because you have the right to vote. They’re going to have to let you in.

So, what comes next? Donald Trump’s remarks at the reflecting pool yesterday really said it all with so little. He didn’t even talk about the midterms until easily 20 minutes in. It was a strange message to close out the campaign on. What he did was to repeat false claims about vandalism at the reflecting pool that his own Department of Justice have already dismissed. He sounded dejected.

He actually said, “we gave this a very strong shot.” Take the cue from that. If Democrats win big today, there’s not much that I think will come from it. They’re just not going to be able to argue. If there are a lot of races that are close, then expect the opposite.

Now, the Supreme Court last night rejected the Trump DOJ’s effort to force California to set aside more than 20 ,000 ballots, choosing not to intervene and letting the district court judge’s ruling stand. And that’s important because the courts have been making clear consistently that anything that might disenfranchise voters is just not what the law intended.

So expect that the administration and their allies in Congress will look at any opportunity that they have to try to retain power. But again, if turnout is significant, if the results are resounding enough, it limits what they can do to try to manipulate, or any kind of dirty trick or martial law, which some of Trump supporters have urged. What the California case does is that it also reminds us is that the Constitution clearly gives control over federal elections to the states and Congress, but not the president. The Brennan Center published a good analysis recently, noting that “national emergency declarations are not blank checks to suspend laws or create constitutional carve outs.” The Brennan Center noted that rather they unlock specific powers, they give presidents broad authority over communications, over transportation and economic transactions, but not a single one of them gives the president any kind of authority over manipulating the elections.

So today should be about sending a strong message that this is still a government of, by, and for the American people. Polls show an increasingly good dynamic for Democrats but ultimately voters have the say, so turnout is the key.

Get out to vote, get your friends to go with you!

-Luis

Aquí prometemos expertos, no influencers, y también nos acompaña Carl Meacham, ex-funcionario senior republicano en el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado de los Estados Unidos. Comenzamos con la realidad de que el contexto sudamericano es sumamente complejo: países clave como Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Perú, Ecuador y Paraguay han experimentado giros hacia la derecha o mantienen liderazgos conservadores. Al mismo tiempo, Estados Unidos busca ejercer presión en la región para tener mayor influencia en el contexto de su lucha geopolítica con China. Los puntos mas destacados del episodio y del análisis de Thiago son los siguientes:

¿Aislamiento diplomático o dependencia económica real?

Las reacciones de los líderes latinoamericanos ante el triunfo de Lula han sido variadas: mientras José Antonio Kast en Chile y Daniel Noboa en Ecuador enviaron felicitaciones, Abelardo de la Espriella en Colombia reconoció el resultado sin felicitar explícitamente a Lula, y Javier Milei en Argentina guardó silencio.

¿Se encuentra Lula aislado en su propio vecindario? Thiago de Aragão ofrece una perspectiva matizada:

• La fuerza del comercio: Aunque pueda haber aislamiento en los micrófonos y en las narrativas públicas, países como Paraguay y Argentina son increíblemente dependientes del comercio con Brasil.

• El factor Argentina: Brasil es el principal socio comercial de Argentina. Para el gobierno de Milei es técnicamente imposible darle la espalda al gigante sudamericano durante los próximos cuatro años, independientemente de las diferencias ideológicas.

“Pueden estar verbalmente aislando más a Brasil, pero no se pueden dar ese lujo por el tamaño de la economía brasileña.”

— Thiago de Aragão

Trump, los aranceles y la geopolítica de los minerales críticos

Frente a iniciativas de seguridad hemisférica promovidas desde Washington como el Shield of the Americas (12 países) y Pax Silica (26 países, incluyendo a Argentina, Chile y Paraguay), la posición de Brasil es singular:

• Cooperación estratégica profunda: Brasil y EE. UU. mantienen los acuerdos de contrainteligencia y seguridad más avanzados de la región entre la Policía Federal y el FBI, particularmente en la Triple Frontera. Si EE. UU. ejerciera una presión desmedida, Brasil podría considerar suspender dichos convenios, lo que representaría un costo altísimo para Washington. Puede ser por eso que luego de que grabamos este episodio, Washington le permitió visa a Flavio Bolsonaro para huir de Brasil debido al proceso legal que enfrenta aparte de las elecciones.

• El efecto bumerán de los aranceles: Los aranceles comerciales impuestos por la administración Trump solo afectaban entre el 4% y 5% de las exportaciones brasileñas. Lejos de perjudicar a Lula, le brindaron una narrativa perfecta para fortalecer su perfil político interno y desafiar a Washington.

• El “hedge” de los minerales raros: Brasil posee la segunda reserva de minerales raros y críticos más grande del mundo, solo detrás de China. Donald Trump evitó intervenir directamente en las elecciones brasileñas consciente de que la industria tecnológica y de defensa estadounidense necesitará inevitablemente estos recursos.

• La paradoja Trump-Lula: Aunque están en polos ideológicos opuestos, en el trato personal cara a cara ambos líderes operan de forma funcional y pragmática entre ellos.

Anatomía de la victoria: Minas Gerais y el mito del fraude

Sobre la política interna brasileña y las denuncias del bolsonarismo respecto a la jornada electoral, Thiago de Aragão aclaró datos clave:

• El impacto marginal de la extensión de votación: La extensión de dos horas en la jornada electoral afectó a menos de 100,000 votos, mientras que la diferencia final a favor de Lula fue de más de 4.2 millones de votos. Incluso magistrados aliados al bolsonarismo, como Kássio Nunes, confirmaron que no afectó el resultado.

• Minas Gerais, el estado decisivo: Minas Gerais es el clásico swing state de Brasil. El gobernador bolsonarista del estado decidió mantenerse neutral en la segunda vuelta para no arriesgar la renegociación de la deuda de su estado con el gobierno federal, un cambio notable de la primera vuelta. Esto permitió que Lula revirtiera una desventaja de 600,000 votos en la primera vuelta para terminar ganando por más de 200,000 en la segunda.

• Gobernabilidad tensionada: Lula gobernará con un Congreso dominado por la oposición (uno de los legislativos más fuertes de América Latina) y con niveles de rechazo y polarización elevados.

Relaciones con China y la reacción de los mercados

Ante la inquietud del sector financiero sobre la política fiscal del nuevo gobierno, el análisis destaca:

• Líneas rojas con Pekín: A pesar de la dependencia comercial con China (especialmente en el sector agropecuario brasileño), el gobierno de Lula no comprará equipamiento militar a Pekín ni aceptará endeudamiento directo con el gobierno chino. La influencia china seguirá acotada al ámbito comercial.

• Señales al mercado: La tranquilidad financiera dependerá del envío de señales claras a favor de una reforma fiscal y de la designación de figuras moderadas con capacidad de diálogo técnico en el gabinete económico.

Estados Unidos, los Midterms y la crisis en Venezuela

El episodio cerró abordando dos temas clave para la política exterior de la región:

• Los Midterms en EE. UU.: La posibilidad de que el Partido Demócrata retome el control de una o ambas cámaras del Congreso en los comicios de la próxima semana obligaría al presidente Trump a un contexto muy distinto en su política interna, ofreciendo a Lula un argumento narrativo sobre un cambio de rumbo político en el hemisferio.

• El retorno de María Corina Machado: El regreso de la líder opositora a Venezuela ocurrió tras una fuerte presión política ejercida desde Miami por los congresistas cubano-americanos que enfrentan un panorama electoral complicado la semana entrante. El retorno de MCM no era algo que ni Trump ni Rubio favorecieran, pero fue necesario bajo esa presión, que muestra la preocupación que existe entre los votantes del Sur de la Florida sobre el alineamiento entre Washington y la estructura existente liderada por Delcy Rodríguez que da continuidad al regimen Chavista.

La reelección de Lula demuestra que la política latinoamericana no responde a esquemas simplistas. Entre la fuerte interdependencia económica, la disputa global por minerales críticos y la polarización interna, los próximos años exigirán un pragmatismo absoluto en las relaciones entre Brasilia y Washington.

¿Qué opinas sobre el panorama político en Sudamérica?

Déjanos tu comentario, haz Restack en Substack y comparte este análisis con tus contactos.

-Luis.

With one week to go until the midterm elections on Tuesday, November 3, Carl Meacham is back for a bipartisan breakdown of where things stand—from kitchen-table economic angst and unprecedented threats to election infrastructure, to what Brazil’s surprise election outcome teaches us about turnout and expectations. But first, political risk analyst Thiago de Aragão, an expert on Brazil, stopped by to unpack how Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pulled off his second-round victory in Brazil and what it means for Washington.

Here are the highlights:

Inside Brazil’s Election with Thiago de Aragão

So how did incumbent president Lula recover after falling behind in the first round of voting a few weeks ago in a race against Flávio Bolsonaro, son of disgraced former president Jair Bolsonaro? Thiago de Aragão, CEO of Arko International tells us how Lula modernized his outreach to voters, and focused on bringing out the key demographics he needed who abstained in the first round:

• Analog to Digital: Lula’s team shifted from an overly analog first round (focused on T-shirts and stickers) to an aggressive digital strategy in the second round led by former congressman André Janones.

• Targeting Abstentions: By focusing on non-voters among 16-to-18-year-olds and voters over 60, Lula drove overall voter abstention down from 21% to 16–17%, picking up 11 million new votes overall

Donald Trump certainly isn’t happy about the results, but Bolsonaro got the message that the U.S. won’t get involved and has now conceded. So what happens next in U.S.-Brazil relations? Thiago notes that Lula certainly will not automatically align with Washington and enjoys having a political nemesis, but tells us that Lula and Trump maintain personal mutual respect behind the scenes and the public rhetoric. Still, moving forward, Washington will need a far more organized strategy and diplomatic “seduction” to secure regional agreements, particularly regarding critical minerals they want in the context of geopolitical competition with China.

You can hear a more extensive discussion on Brazil with Thiago in our Spanish-language podcast, Al Centro!

So what’s the lesson from Brazil for Democrats seeking midterm victories? Campaign like you’re five points down.

The Midterm Countdown & The Limits of Polling

While polling suggests Democrats have a strong chance to regain at least one if not both chambers of Congress, anyone who has spent time in the campaign trenches knows polling can be wrong. At the end of the day, elections are a turnout game and plenty of races sit at or close to the margin of error.

Economic pressures—frustration over grocery prices and costs at the gas pump—along with ongoing international conflicts are trending in favor of Democrats, putting key Senate seats like Maine and Michigan squarely in play.

Now is not the time to ease up. If Democrats want to win, they have to run through the finish line, and push for the kind of turnout that floods any dirty trick or outright assault on voter integrity that we already know are coming. More on that later.

Florida, the Latino and Cuban Vote, and Venezuela

Latino voters are getting extra notice this election but discussing them as a monolith ignores the reality on the ground: Latinos are like other voters around them. This year that means they are frustrated by inflation, gas prices, and healthcare costs, just like their neighbors. That said, of course, they also feel uniquely targeted by aggressive immigration enforcement.

Stories like the New York Times’ report calling them the new swing voters miss some of that nuance. The Times does capture the reach, noting that “Hispanic voters make up at least 20 percent of registered voters in nearly two dozen highly competitive House races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas…could also prove decisive in several Senate races” and could even play a critical role flipping traditionally Republican states.

Florida could become a fascinating case study. A traditional Republican stronghold in Miami is showing signs of volatility. Representatives like María Elvira Salazar were already vulnerable, but could someone like Mario Díaz-Balart in a solidly Republican district be vulnerable?

Diaz-Balart’s district is 73% Latino, one of the highest in the nation, and the Trump-ordered redistricting resulted in the 26th District losing conservative parts of Collier County and adding a chunk of Southwest Broward. That’s an area where Venezuelans in particular, along with other Hispanics, have been feeling the economic impact of Trump’s policies, but also the destructive effect of Trump-Miller’s harsh enforcement actions. Cuban Americans, a vital population in the District’s Miami-Dade portion, are also increasingly wary as more recent Cuban arrivals have been deported in big numbers, including to parts of Africa where they had never set foot and where the cases of the spouses of Trump voters being deported have garnered significant attention. Combined with a lack of action on Cuba itself, the pressure is palpable, and self-inflicted. The Cuban American Republican members of Congress have been fiercely supportive of the Trump agenda, and even backed Governor Ron DeSantis’s inhumane facility called the “Alligator Alcatraz.” Maria Elvira Salazar broke with the Trump Administration late in the race, but only as her re-election chances dimmed. Whether or not voters saw it as sincere will be made clear on November 3rrd. Diaz Balart, who has sat in Congress for 20 years, is in a much more Republican district for which very little data exists outside the campaigns themselves, but Nicole Locklin, a dynamic 38-year-old attorney challenging him on the Democratic side, might be closer than people think. In a three-way race that includes an independent candidate, Diaz Balart is still likely to survive, but the results could tell us a lot about how badly the dam has broken.

The political pressure on the Republican members of Congress from South Florida also forced a bit of a stand-off this past weekend. The White House and Marco Rubio’s State Department finally gave in and allowed the return of Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado to Venezuela, because the political damage to their allies in South Florida had they blocked her would have been significant. Let’s be clear, this is something neither Trump nor Rubio wanted to do. While they did kick off a three-phase process in Venezuela that contemplates a return to democracy in the future, they’ve largely aligned with deposed dictator Nicolas Maduro’s number two, Delcy Rodriguez and helped what’s left of his regime consolidate control. Corina Machado won’t change anything immediately, but her presence adds to the growing sense of frustration over Washington’s management of Caracas.

Preemptive Attacks on Election Integrity

The most alarming dynamic heading into election day is the administration’s aggressive posture toward election administration:

• The administration has weakened the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and reportedly instructed officials to withhold specific details about voting machine vulnerabilities rather than sharing them with manufacturers to fix them.

• ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents have been dispatched door-to-door to 20,000 households to question voter registration and citizenship status.

• The Department of Justice is suing Alaska in an attempt to block state officials from certifying election results if their preferred candidate does not win.

Local election supervisors, Republicans and Democrats alike, are deeply concerned that the federal government could try to supplant their authority. Look, election challenges are nothing new. I worked on the Al Gore campaign in 2000, and the results were challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. That said, what we are seeing now, and the preemptive use of federal forces to interfere, is unprecedented.

Setting Expectations for a Democratic Congress

If Democrats win control of Congress next week, expectation management will be vital:

• Donald Trump will remain in the White House. Even if Democrats win both chambers, any majority in the Senate will fall far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters. Some victories could come through negotiation on must-pass funding bills, but a failure to set expectations could make 2028 very difficult with voters.

• Focus on Oversight: What Democrats can do with a win, is to ensure that Congress fulfills its Article I duty by conducting rigorous oversight into the administration, ending the gutting of our government, and investigating corruption.

• Offer Solutions: As Carl points out, to earn long-term trust, Democrats must also present clear, practical alternatives on everyday economic priorities and can no longer rely solely on anti-Trump messaging.

Keep the conversation going! Listen to the episode, restack on Substack, and share on social media! Thank you for tuning in!

-Luis.

Pero comenzamos con los desastres naturales sucedidos en Chile por aluvión, y en Panamá por terremotos.

Robert explica el atípico sistema frontal de lluvias en pleno mes de octubre que causo desastre en Santiago de Chile y sus alrededores. Intensas lluvias atribuibles al fenómeno de El Niño se combinaron con los efectos de un voraz incendio forestal estival que hace poco había consumido miles de hectáreas de vegetación en la precordillera. Al llover copiosamente, la falta de vegetación desestabilizó el terreno, provocando un aluvión masivo de barro y rocas por las vías principales del barrio alto de Santiago.

Aunque afectó a muchas viviendas y fue registrado en impresionantes videos de vehículos arrastrados, afortunadamente no se registraron pérdidas humanas. Pero el evento reabre discusiones de fondo sobre la regulación urbana en zonas expuestas al cambio climático y las implicaciones políticas de como se percibirá la respuesta de ayuda en sectores afectados ya que son de altos ingresos. No habiendo superado una catástrofe pasamos a otra con la noticia de un potente sismo de magnitud 7.7 en Panamá, con epicentro en la península de Azuero, seguido de una réplica de 6.5 y mas de una docena de réplicas adicionales.

Carlos destacó que, a diferencia de tragedias sísmicas recientes en Colombia o Venezuela, en Panamá no se reportaron víctimas mortales, limitándose los daños a heridos leves y pérdidas materiales en zonas de playa e infraestructura del interior. La moderna normativa de construcción y la reciente calidad arquitectónica de los rascacielos de la capital y puentes emblemáticos permitieron soportar el fuerte remezón. No obstante, enfatizó la urgencia de que el Estado lleve a cabo una auditoría estructural profunda para reforzar infraestructuras públicas y privadas. Seguiremos de cerca ambas noticias.

Otro tiroteo de ICE, esta vez en el Bronx: Mamdani pide abolir a ICE

Una vez mas agentes del Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas (conocido como ICE por sus siglas en ingles) dispararon hacia un vehículo, esta vez en Nueva York en el barrio del Bronx. Video del incidente en redes sociales muestra a agentes de ICE vestidos de civiles acercándose al auto y disparando sin claramente identificarse como agentes federales. El vehículo manejado por un ciudadano dominicano fue balaceado a pesar de que un niño de apenas 5 años iba de pasajero.

Carlos aseveró que disparar contra un vehículo con un menor presente carece de toda justificación operativa o moral. Sin embargo, cuestionó la reacción inmediata del alcalde Zohran Mamdani exigiendo “abolir ICE”, señalando que convertir un fallo grave de política pública en un eslogan partidista ahuyenta al votante moderado de centro.

No obstante, el uso desmedido de la fuerza o la falta de rigor operativo terminan deslegitimando a las agencias federales, influyendo directamente en el clima político nacional a pocos días de los comicios. A mi opinion personal habiendo trabajado dentro del departamento de seguridad nacional (DHS por sus siglas en ingles), el problema con la conducta de estas agencias es que parecen estar buscando intimidar a comunidades a lo largo del país, inmigrantes o no, con un fin político que va mas allá del reto del sistema fallido de inmigración que usan como excusa. Ninguno de los agentes involucrados en los incidentes de tiroteos que mas han llamado atención publica eran nuevos reclutas y el agente en el Bronx era un supervisor. La intención verdadera detrás de estas burlas de la ley nos deben preocupar a todos.

Recta final hacia las elecciones de medio término

A pocas semanas de las elecciones de medio término, la preferencia genérica al Congreso muestra una ventaja de entre 7 y 11 puntos a favor de los demócratas. Los datos reflejan el descontento del electorado con la gestión económica, la inflación y la desconexión comunicacional del gobierno republicano. Sin embargo, Carlos y Robert coinciden en advertir que las encuestas genéricas no garantizan el control de la Cámara debido al gerrymandering y a la falta de un mensaje económico detallado por parte de la oposición, y creen que a los republicanos les podría ir mejor de lo que muestran las encuestas. Pero ya varios estados han cerrado sus plazos para registrar nuevos votantes, y boletas por correo ya se han distribuido en estados como Arizona mientras que Carolina del Norte esta comenzando votación anticipada esta semana, factores que indican que la posibilidad que el partido Republicano pueda dar vuelta a la ola que se les viene encima es cada día menos probable. Eso dicho, hay que recordar también que las encuestas muestran un momento especifico, y que durante la ultima década no han logrado predecir con absoluta certeza los resultados. Incluso en el 2026 hemos visto cambios dramáticos durante las primarias entre lo que mostraban las encuestas y los resultados finales.

El discurso de Marco Rubio en Atenas

Con las elecciones de medio termino llegando cerca a su conclusión, la campaña presidencial del 2028 ya esta empezando a cobrar forma. El Secretario de Estado de Trump, Marco Rubio, estuvo en Atenas donde pronunció un discurso de marcado tono filosófico en defensa de la civilización occidental. Mientras Carlos lo interpretó como una jugada maestra de posicionamiento de largo plazo, Robert y yo coincidimos en criticar no tanto el mensaje del discurso, mas la incoherencia entre ese discurso y una política exterior dispuesta a pactar con regímenes autoritarios o transigir en derechos humanos. Para mi, Rubio buscaba comenzar su distanciamiento de Trump, pero él mismo ha sido figura clave en algunas de las políticas mas controvertidas y anti-democraticas del gobierno Trump 47. De hecho, ya han tenido que despedir a la embajadora de estados unidos a Grecia basado en textos filtrados que muestran posible corrupción de la ex-comprometida del hijo de Trump. La retorica idealista de Rubio tiene que primero superar la realidad de que los votantes están cada día mas preocupados por lo que ven como corrupción extensa en el gobierno estadounidense.

Concluimos con las elecciones presidenciales en Brasil, donde la candidatura del hijo de Jair Bolsonaro muestra gran arrastre popular y donde se espera que probablemente gane la segunda vuelta. El panel reflexionó sobre la crisis del progresismo latinoamericano, criticando la falta de renovación de liderazgos y la incapacidad de la izquierda regional para ofrecer soluciones concretas en materia de seguridad, corrupción y crecimiento económico. La región ha girado marcadamente de tener gobiernos de izquierda a una derecha que comparte mas con el Maga-ismo de Trump que con el movimiento conservador del siglo pasado. Tambien refleja una inconsistencia entre votantes que estamos viendo en toda la region y el mundo, regidos no por un eje izquierda-derecha, sino por querer cambios rápidos y dramáticos. Seguiremos de cerca lo que viene.

¿Te gustó el análisis de este episodio?

Ayúdanos a seguir generando conversaciones profundas con expertos, no influencers. ¡Haz clic en Restack, deja tu comentario y comparte esta publicación en Substack!

-Luis

La realidad de la calle vs. las expectativas de Washington

Al pisar nuevamente suelo venezolano, Leo pudo contrastar el análisis a la distancia con la vivencia del ciudadano de a pie:

• La economía como prioridad absoluta: Según la última encuesta realizada por el CDDA junto a DatinCorp, la principal preocupación del venezolano común es la recuperación de su economía personal y familiar, relegando el debate político a un segundo plano de urgencia inmediata.

• Expectativas infladas frente a anuncios millonarios: Aunque se anuncien acuerdos petroleros proyectados en $100.000 millones en inversiones y $200.000 millones en ingresos fiscales a 25 años, la gente en la calle tiende a asumir erróneamente que esos recursos llegarán en cuestión de días o semanas.

• La crisis diaria de los servicios públicos: Fuera de la capital, la infraestructura sigue por el piso. Ciudades como Valencia, a solo dos horas de Caracas, sufren apagones diarios de hasta 8 horas para quienes no cuentan con plantas eléctricas privadas.

• Un poder adquisitivo asfixiado: El ingreso medio del venezolano ronda apenas los $240 dólares mensuales, mientras que la canasta alimentaria supera los $600 dólares en medio de una constante devaluación del bolívar.

• El rol vital de las remesas de la diáspora: Existen más de 8 millones de venezolanos en el exterior. Millones de hogares sobreviven gracias al dinero enviado por familiares en España o Estados Unidos. Por ello, interrumpir la estabilidad migratoria de los venezolanos en EE. UU. (negándoles el TPS o un beneficio temporal) cortaría este flujo financiero indispensable antes de que las oportunidades de empleo locales se materialicen.

La paradoja de la “Ley Antibloqueo” y la opacidad en los negocios

Uno de los puntos más agudos de nuestra conversación fue la paradoja jurídica sobre la cual se está montando la apertura económica:

• De herramienta antisanciones a vehículo de adjudicación directa: La Ley Antibloqueo —aprobada originalmente por el régimen de Nicolás Maduro para otorgar contratos sin licitación pública frente a las sanciones de EE. UU.— es hoy el instrumento legal que utiliza el gobierno encargado de Delcy Rodríguez para adjudicar contratos discrecionales.

• El aval de Washington: Estos contratos se otorgan de manera directa a empresas que consiguen una licencia de la OFAC dictaminada por la Casa Blanca.

• Aceptación pragmática: Pese a la opacidad del proceso y la falta de procesos competitivos, la ciudadanía percibe la llegada de capitales extranjeros a los sectores energético, minero y eléctrico como una dinamización deseada e importante para el país, pero no se reconoce ampliamente que pueden tardar años en lograr esas inversiones mucho menos el desarrollo adjunto.

La transición institucional: ¿Es viable el modelo chileno?

Robert Funk planteó un dilema fundamental: ¿cómo conciliar un modelo económico basado en la discrecionalidad con una segunda fase de democratización e institucionalidad formal?

Al revisar la experiencia de transiciones latinoamericanas, como la chilena en los años 80, Leo destacó los retos y negociaciones actuales:

• Tensiones internas en el oficialismo: La coalición gobernante cuenta con un respaldo popular reducido (entre 15% y 25%) y vive fricciones internas. La apertura a la inversión privada choca de frente con el discurso histórico del chavismo, creando tensiones entre figuras clave como Delcy Rodríguez, Jorge Rodríguez, Diosdado Cabello y el sector militar.

• Negociaciones políticas entre dos Asambleas: Delegaciones de la Asamblea Nacional electa en 2015 y la Asamblea de 2026 (presidida por Jorge Rodríguez) avanzan en una agenda de negociación auspiciada por EE. UU.

• Reformas institucionales clave: Las discusiones incluyen la reestructuración del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (especialmente las salas Electoral y Constitucional), la designación de un nuevo Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE), la legalización de los partidos opositores y el acceso equitativo a los medios.

• La deuda pendiente con los derechos humanos: A pesar de los diálogos, aún permanecen más de 300 presos políticos en las cárceles venezolanas —en su mayoría militares y civiles no amparados por la ley de amnistía—, lo cual sigue siendo una herida abierta.

La letra pequeña del megacuerdo petrolero y el rol del Pentágono

Discutimos también el alcance del plan energético firmado en las últimas semanas:

• Retorno de gigantes globales: Transnacionales como Chevron, Repsol, Eni y Shell han suscrito acuerdos y memorandos para operar sobre un portafolio sólido de pozos petroleros.

• El caso NABEP y el Departamento de Defensa: En un hecho sin precedentes, la empresa de capital venezolano North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) concretó una alianza donde la Oficina de Capital Estratégico del Departamento de Defensa de EE. UU. adquirió el 35% de la compañía y el poder de veto sobre su junta directiva.

• Suministro para la Reserva Estratégica de EE. UU.: Con 17 campos asignados mediante contratos de producción compartida con PDVSA, la meta es elevar la producción de NABEP de 200.000 a entre 1,5 y 2 millones de barriles diarios. Estados Unidos se reserva el derecho de comprar el 20% de dicha producción “a costo” para su Reserva Estratégica de Petróleo (SPR). No obstante, persisten dudas legales sobre el mecanismo fiscal que garantizará la recaudación de impuestos de la República sobre dicho volumen.

Construyendo una estrategia bipartidista en Washington

En el plano político estadounidense, Leo argumentó que la causa venezolana no puede quedar atrapada en la polarización de Washington:

• Uso constructivo del control parlamentario (oversight): Ante un eventual cambio de mayorías en el Congreso de EE. UU., los demócratas deben emplear su facultad de supervisión no para desmantelar lo avanzado, sino para exigir transparencia, rendición de cuentas y avances democráticos concretos.

• Garantías electorales y liberación total de presos: La estabilidad económica será frágil si no se fija un cronograma electoral claro, negociado y aceptado por todas las partes, acompañado del levantamiento definitivo de sanciones y la liberación de todos los prisioneros políticos.

Escucha el episodio completo

¿Qué opinas sobre este proceso de estabilización acelerada en Venezuela? ¿Crees que las reformas económicas lograrán abrirle paso a la democracia? Déjanos tu comentario abajo.

Si te gustó este episodio de Al Centro, no olvides hacer clic en Subscribe, darle un Restack y compartir esta publicación con tus contactos.

-Luis.

The Searchlight Institute recently released a new report authored by Daniel and another former DHS colleague Blas Nuñez-Neto titled “What Swing Voters Actually Want to Hear from Democrats on Immigration.” It’s a follow-up to an earlier report, “No More Backdoors: Recapturing the Public’s Trust on Immigration” from March of this year and adds important context on how swing voters view potential policy proposals on this thorny subject.

Here’s why it matters: Democrats are still not sure how to talk about this issue. The excesses of the Trump Administration’s egregious ICE-led enforcement have turned the issue into a liability for Trump, but that doesn’t mean Democrats have proposed a serious alternative yet. For far too long, Democrats have ceded this ground to Republicans, leaving candidates in a reactionary mode that loses the narrative.

So the Searchlight Institute polled 1,500 voters across 66 battleground districts—including persuadable swing voters open to voting for either party and the report’s findings provide a commonsense roadmap for candidate messaging ahead of upcoming elections both in the midterms and heading into the 2028 presidential cycle.

Here are the highlights from our conversation:

1. The Myth of the False Choice
   While cost of living remains the top issue on voters’ minds—with nearly two-thirds identifying affordability as their primary concern—immigration and border security ranks as a crucial third priority across battleground districts.
   
   Notably, voters are deeply exhausted by the chaos. They have watched the political pendulum swing wildly from administration to administration through executive action, largely because Congress hasn’t meaningfully updated our immigration laws since the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. With global migration and displacement at levels unseen since World War II, our system is fundamentally broken and incapable of handling current realities.
   
   Voters reject the false choice between total chaos at the border and cruel, overzealous enforcement in our communities. When asked how they would define an ideal immigration system, Democrats and persuadable voters overwhelmingly selected three core words: humane, fair, and consistent. In fact, four out of ten persuadable voters and a quarter of Republicans agreed that a humane system is achievable.

2. Balancing Firmness with Legal Pathways
   Voters want a system that rewards individuals who follow the rules, work hard, and come through the “front door”. But they also want firm, predictable, and humane enforcement.
   
   The current approach of throwing endless billions at enforcement agencies like ICE while starving USCIS of resources is backfiring:

   1. Skyrocketing Backlogs: It shouldn’t take years to process asylum applications or legal claims, yet USCIS backlogs continue to grow because of a lack of operational support.

   2. Creation of More Undocumented Immigrants: Stripping away long-standing legal protections—such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—has actually resulted in *more* undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. today than when Donald Trump first took office.

   3. Economic Self-Harm: Cutting off legal pathways severely hurts critical sectors of our economy. Healthcare relies heavily on Haitian TPS holders to care for an aging population; tech companies need skilled talent; and international students completing U.S. degrees are forced to leave immediately rather than contribute to our workforce.

   As we often say: people aren’t crossing the border to sit poolside—they are coming to work and fill labor market demands.

3. What Resonates with Persuadable Voters

   Searchlight’s message testing revealed that aggressive, extreme tropes favored by the right—such as claims of an “invasion” or accusations of “cutting in line”—are actually falling flat with persuadable voters. Recent polling, including NYT/Siena data, confirms that voters are turning their backs on this hyperbolic framing.
   

   At the same time, voters reject slogans like “Abolish ICE”. This is consistent with research from organizations like Equis we’ve discussed in the past. Their polling shows that even among Hispanic U.S. citizens, only a tiny fraction (around 5%) support abolishing ICE altogether, though disapproval for overzealous and inhumane enforcement is high.

   
   Voters understand that law enforcement is necessary. However, they want ICE held accountable and focused on actual public safety threats—not running through Home Depot parking lots or dragging away long-term neighbors and grandmothers who have lived peacefully in the U.S. for decades.

4. Concrete Policy Changes Needed for the Future

   Moving into the final stretch of the midterm elections and into a major presidential campaign cycle, candidates must move beyond simple talking points and advocate for real legislative solutions:

   1. Fixing the Asylum System: Raise the credible fear standard and process claims in weeks, not years. Closing this processing loophole deprives transnational cartels of the multi-billion-dollar market they exploit by selling border access to migrants.

   2. Passing Bipartisan Reform: Revisit comprehensive frameworks like the 2024 Lankford-Sinema bipartisan bill, which offered real solutions before being blocked by Republicans for political leverage.

5. Earned Pathways to Citizenship:
   Provide a lawful pathway for the millions of long-term undocumented residents who have raised families and contributed to our communities for decades.

The Bottom Line

Democrats cannot afford to stay silent or hide from border security and immigration. Voters will not punish candidates for insisting on firm enforcement—provided that enforcement is fair, humane, accountable, and paired with working legal pathways.

To dive deeper into the data and policy proposals, check out the Searchlight Institute’s full reports: “What Swing Voters Actually Want to Hear from Democrats on Immigration” and “No More Backdoors.”

If you enjoyed this conversation, please hit subscribe, restack, and keep tuning in! We’ll see you next time.

-Luis

Here’s a recap of what we discussed:

Electoral Interference and the Reality of Voter Anger

• Recent whistleblower revelations show a disturbing push by the administration to deploy aggressive tactics, including floated proposals of ICE operating near or even in polling sites.

• Having served at DHS, I have deep concern over these intimidation efforts, though Albert notes that voter anger—fueled by daily footage of U.S. citizens being detained—is becoming a primary driver for turnout rather than a deterrent.

• These voter suppression tactics aren’t new; Albert recalled seeing fraudulent flyers warning voters about unpaid utility bills in Mississippi back in 2003 during the Musgrove-Barbour gubernatorial race, as a cautionary tale to listeners that suppression tactics can have an effect.

• With mail-in voting under pressure, campaigns must be prepared to educate voters on alternatives, such as utilizing secure county drop boxes to remove uncertainty from the process if it comes to that.

Why Texas is In Play

Current polling shows James Talarico in a dead heat or even leading Ken Paxton in the Senate race, while Gina Hinojosa remains very close in her campaign for Governor.

• Local outrage over industrial data centers in rural Texas is fracturing the Republican base, putting unexpected pressure on Greg Abbott, while Ken Paxton is so dislikeable that even Donald Trump talks about how much he doesn’t like his look when complimenting him.

• Democrats are only 14 seats shy of taking the Texas House of Representatives, where a 3-6% surge in turnout could net 25 to 27 seats and block further gerrymandering schemes.

• Talarico’s ability to speak directly to Texans of all backgrounds by grounding his platform in scripture contrasts sharply with Ken Paxton’s personal scandals.

The Shifting Latino Electorate & Media Strategy

• Texas holds over 2 million registered Hispanic voters with no vote history and another 1.5 million eligible but unregistered, presenting a massive untapped electorate.

• The Latino electorate has evolved significantly beyond Spanish-dominant voters, requiring dedicated civics education and modern digital outreach beyond traditional networks.

• Since Televisa acquired Univision, coverage on major Spanish-language TV has drifted to the center-right, making it critical for Democrats to actively compete on these networks and digital platforms.

Intra-Party Politics and Accountability

“I’ve been a member of the Democratic Party all my life. And every four years, I’m reminded that it takes all these crazies on the left, those on the center, and those of us that are a bit center-right to make up the family that we are.” - Albert Morales

• Albert highlighted that while the media focuses on 7 to 9 DSA-aligned House members, the real legislative paralysis happens on the right, where 40 Freedom Caucus members routinely derail House leadership.

• The divide is real, though, and Albert reminds us of Bernie Sanders’s legacy of helping kill the 2007 McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill that set back systemic reform for decades.

• While Hakeem Jeffries faces critique from the left for meeting with Jared Kushner to discuss future oversight, pragmatic dialogue remains necessary when preparing for divided government.

Check it out, comment, share, and hit that subscribe button! Enjoy the long weekend!

-Luis.

En nuestro nuevo episodio abordamos una coyuntura realmente compleja que abarca desde una escalada comercial inédita entre Washington y Ottawa, pasando por las crecientes presiones geopolíticas en el hemisferio tras los ejercicios Panamax, hasta llegar a la intensa batalla legal y política en Estados Unidos por el control de las reglas electorales de cara a las elecciones de medio termino.

Para desmenuzar esta tormenta perfecta, contamos con dos analistas de primer nivel: Carl Meacham, exasesor principal republicano en el Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado estadounidense; y Robert Funk, analista político y profesor de la Universidad de Chile.

Aquí les comparto las reflexiones clave que dejó nuestro debate.

La “guerra comercial” menos pensada: Estados Unidos vs. Canadá

Si algo no estaba en el libreto de la diplomacia norteamericana era un enfrentamiento abierto con Ottawa. Sin embargo, Canadá decidió levantarse de la mesa de negociación tras exigencias impuestas por la administración de Donald Trump que atentaban directamente contra su soberanía.

Robert Funk nos detalló los dos puntos de quiebre expuestos por el primer ministro canadiense, Mark Carney:

• Soberanía arancelaria y comercial: La exigencia de que Canadá replicara de manera obligatoria cualquier arancel impuesto por Washington a terceros países, despojándolo de la capacidad de negociar sus propios acuerdos bilaterales.

• Identidad cultural y lingüística: La demanda de eliminar los requisitos legales de etiquetado en inglés y francés, tocando la fibra más sensible de la política interna canadiense e ignorando la histórica realidad de Quebec.

“Exigir eso no solamente afecta la soberanía de Canadá, sino que apunta a temas muy sensibles... Hubiera sido un ‘non-starter’. Es imposible que un primer ministro canadiense aceptara algo así”, destacó Robert, señalando además que este movimiento unió a la derecha, a la izquierda y a las distintas provincias canadienses en un rechazo unánime hacia las presiones de Washington.

Por su parte, Carl Meacham analizó la incomodidad que este escenario genera en las filas conservadoras. Aunque el Partido Republicano actual responda al liderazgo de Trump, los estados de la frontera norte sufren un impacto directo en el turismo y en cadenas de suministro interconectadas desde hace décadas (como la industria automotriz y el sector energético). Si la disputa golpea el bolsillo de los votantes antes de noviembre, podríamos ver un distanciamiento de varios legisladores respecto a la Casa Blanca.

El trasfondo de esto es aún más profundo: Canadá ha comprendido que la impredecibilidad de Washington no es un fenómeno pasajero de una administración, sino un cambio estructural. Por ello, ya avanza en la diversificación de sus relaciones económicas y en planes de cooperación en defensa con Europa (como el proyecto SAFE) e incluso abriendo espacio al ingreso de vehículos chinos.

Hegemonía, transaccionalismo y el nuevo orden regional

Tras la conclusión de los ejercicios militares Panamax, la administración Trump dio un paso agresivo al exigir a sus aliados de la región desconectarse de la jurisdicción de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI).

La respuesta no fue la sumisión automática. Incluso en Chile, bajo el gobierno de José Antonio Kast —donde muchos anticipaban un alineamiento ideológico automático con Trump—, las autoridades han marcado límites firmes.

En el programa debatimos si estamos ante los límites de esta política de imposición de la fuerza:

• El trato a los aliados: Carl recordó que Estados Unidos solía tratar a Chile de forma diferenciada, como el “alumno mateo” de la región por su estabilidad institucional. Hoy, bajo un esquema de esferas de influencia, Washington pretende tratarlo “como a cualquier otro” e imponer un acatamiento directo.

• El dilema de la negociación: Robert planteó la gran incógnita: ¿qué busca realmente Trump? ¿Se conforma con ajustes arancelarios o gestos geopolíticos (como el reciente cierre de la embajada chilena en Irán), o simplemente exige la aceptación incondicional de un nuevo orden transaccional?

El alineamiento ideológico de derecha ya no garantiza un trato preferencial. Washington está priorizando la obediencia sobre la afinidad, lo que coloca en una postura extremadamente incómoda a sus socios históricos en la región.

La batalla por las reglas electorales en EE. UU. y la crisis de la democracia

En el plano interno estadounidense, la situación es crítica. El presidente ha alcanzado niveles de desaprobación del 65% y una aprobación de apenas el 33% en la reciente encuesta Reuters/Ipsos. No obstante, de cara a los midterms, las elecciones de medio termino, el panorama legislativo no está totalmente dicho debido a las profundas divisiones en el Partido Demócrata y a la reconfiguración agresiva del mapa electoral por parte de gobernadores republicanos.

A esto se suma la decisión de la Corte Suprema que dio vía libre temporal a la orden ejecutiva de la Casa Blanca, la cual busca:

1. Requerir que las listas de votantes sean revisadas y filtradas por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS por sus siglas en ingles).

2. Modificar las normativas del Servicio Postal para dificultar la entrega de boletas no aprobadas por el DHS.

Usar al DHS para administrar la elegibilidad de los votantes es una maniobra peligrosa de supresión de voto que atenta contra las tradiciones de privacidad y libertades locales que el propio conservadurismo antes defendía. Además, criminalizar a los funcionarios electorales locales bajo la amenaza de persecución del Departamento de Justicia sienta un precedente nefasto.

Frente a la pregunta de cómo esta erosión afecta la credibilidad del país en el exterior, Robert enfatizó que los problemas de legitimidad institucional son hoy globales. Sin embargo, la lección más clara la aporta América Latina: la gente solo termina de valorar la democracia cuando la pierde.

En fin…

Estamos ante un cambio de época en el que se están redefiniendo tanto el comercio norteamericano como la propia arquitectura democrática de Estados Unidos. La obligación de la oposición demócrata y de los defensores de las instituciones no es solo resistir las reglas del juego impuestas de forma arbitraria, sino educar a la ciudadanía y movilizarla para proteger el derecho al voto.

Les invito a escuchar el episodio completo de Al Centro para profundizar en cada uno de estos temas y acompañarnos en la conversación.

¿Qué opinan ustedes sobre la reacción del nuevo transaccionalismo de Washington? Los leo en los comentarios.

-Luis

I met Paul in 2004 on the John Kerry for President campaign where he served as Political Director. Though we largely lost touch over the years, I know Paul is no political novice and I believed there was more to the story. Sure enough, last week Paul published the updated version of his report and a webpage to host it, titled “Blue By 2032: Designing Plans for and Pathways to Sustainable Democratic Majorities.” I wanted to get his take on what happened and how we got here and, frankly, to put him on the hot seat. With everyday Americans struggling under Donald Trump’s inflation-inducing tariffs and gas prices sticking higher due to the conflict in Iran, why are we still fighting over an autopsy of 2024? As the New York Times story on Paul’s updated report noted last week, Paul said the DNC omitted a key “What Happened” chapter that questioned President Biden’s decision to seek re-election, that analyzed the party’s loses among base voters in the Hispanic, Black, Asian American, and Native communities, and that claimed senior Democratic strategists had lost touch with the challenges facing many Americans. Ken Martin, who brought Paul Rivera to the DNC with him when he was elected, disputed that account.

Now here’s where it gets really interesting. Paul has full faith in Ken Martin, and says he is doing a great job -- and his intention with putting out this report is to stir a conversation on structural changes that Democrats still need to make regardless of the DNC’s day to day functions.

Here are the key takeaways from our conversation:

1. The DNC Autopsy Wasn’t About Biden—It Was About Systemic Failure

Despite the fact Paul is pointing to an omitted chapter that included the question of Biden seeking reelection, Paul makes a crucial distinction: he says it was never supposed to be a piece on individual decision-making.

“People have written the books about that... We want them to focus on systems, because at the end of the day, the Democratic Party should be strong enough to elect anyone—even the proverbial ham sandwich, because the Republicans have proven they can elect a felon.” — Paul Rivera

He notes that the core issue isn’t a 107-day campaign; it’s decades of systemic drift. Between 2009 and 2025, Democrats lost:

• 13 Senate seats

• 41 House seats

• 5 governorships

• 832 state legislative seats

• 22 state trifectas handed over to Republicans

Then, in 2023 and 2024, Democrats and the broader progressive ecosystem raised $8.6 billion, nearly $2.5 billion more than Republicans and their allied groups, and still lost handily. Money, Paul argues, is masking structural decay that must be addressed. His publication of the Blue by 2032 report is not about the DNC, it’s about that broader structural shift he believes is necessary.

Fans of this podcast know I’ve often pointed out that the DNC’s role is regularly misunderstood or misrepresented. We touch on a little of that, after all, if the same people who insisted in 2016 that the DNC should not put its thumb on the scale are the same people saying the DNC should have told Biden not to run again, then clearly there’s something else afoot.

2. High Costs, Low Returns, and the “Oligopoly”

Where did all that money go? A significant chunk went right back into a tightly-knit consulting ecosystem—what Paul dubbed the “oligopoly.” Much of the Democratic digital spend, he says, is burnt on antiquated digital fundraising that does very little on persuasion and that bombards voters towards the end of elections. Meanwhile, right-wing groups keep an “always-on” approach focused on long-tail persuasion.

• The Bot Threat: Citing a Cloudflare report, Paul noted that 53% of all internet traffic is now driven by bots. If we are measuring success by digital “impressions” and clicks, we are throwing millions of dollars into a void where humans aren’t even watching.

• Stale Tactics: Spamming voters with late door-knocking, endless text messages, and phone calls annoys voters more than it mobilizes them. We need to bring back organizing as a hopeful, community-driven experience.

We didn’t have time to delve too deeply into the oligopoly, but one of the key frustrations expressed by progressives challenging establishment candidates is certainly rooted in what they perceive as an unwillingness of those establishment firms to include different perspectives. This has been a particularly long-running gripe among the party’s base groups, which are often excluded from decision-making and get a far smaller piece of the pie. The way the Democratic party structures base outreach is a huge challenge, but one that would need multiple episodes to dissect.

3. Defending Ken Martin and the DNC’s Strategy

There’s been plenty of press coverage about the DNC’s financial strains—including taking out a line of credit using its own headquarters as collateral—and lingering debt inherited from the 2024 presidential campaign. Paul pushed back hard against the critics. Putting up collateral for a line of credit is a routine economic function for party committees, he notes. Furthermore, Ken Martin has taken heat for investing heavily in state parties via the State Party Partnership (SPP), which is a return to the Howard Dean-style 50-state strategy, and if the 2005 to 2009 Chairmanship of Howard Dean is any indication, the investment in state parties is worth it.

Pauls says that rather than hoarding cash in D.C. for last-minute TV ad buys, the DNC is sending dollars directly to the states. You don’t flip places like Iowa from D.C.; you build local infrastructure so you can actually contest House, Senate, and gubernatorial seats down the road. Paul said that Ken Martin has raised more money than anyone before him as DNC Chair in a midterm cycle. We fact checked it, and here’s the TL;DR. Looking at historical DNC fundraising data going back to 2003, the DNC pulled in a record $306.8 million during the 2022 midterm cycle (up from $170M in 2018 and far beyond any prior cycle). On a trajectory basis halfway through the current cycle, current fundraising is on pace with those record-setting 2022 levels. So Paul’s claim holds up. That said, the heavy criticism has taken its toll, and the party has seen significant turnover. The jury on Martin’s overall tenure is still out.

4. Electoral Sabotage vs. Election Protection

Looking toward the midterms, the threat isn’t just standard long lines at a polling place; it’s systemic electoral sabotage and driven by the party in power.

While the Democratic party has active voter protection programs in 31 states (and growing), according to Paul, there is increasing concern about the steps that this Administration could still take to try to undermine the ability of Americans to cast a ballot. Paul insists there are broader efforts underway to protect the right to vote, which he says Democrats will not telegraph, but that more importantly, it’s vital that Democrats insist on the importance of not letting any excuse come up that interferes with the normal elections process. Paul notes that America held elections during the Civil War, right after 9/11, and through world wars. That we will hold them now and no excuse can be made to stop them.

After we spoke, the DNC filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice to press further on the DOJ’s unwillingness to share information on their planning ahead of the midterms. It’s an important lawsuit that seeks to uncover potential planning, and follows the DOJ’s recent seizure of archived ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. This is the kind of thing the DNC SHOULD be doing, using every legal lever available to guarantee a fair playing field. Just this week the New York Times published an editorial assessing that the country continues to move further towards autocracy, so these are all relevant debates.

Paul insists that differences should be put aside now as we focus on the midterm elections that will decide between electing or re-electing the very people who have been enabling the Trump Administration’s extreme agenda with zero oversight or voting in people who will reassert checks and balances. I still think we have an obligation to challenge the extreme elements within our party, lest we find ourselves like Republicans with a MAGA wing controlling the party. We won’t settle that disagreement on this episode, but we agree we need to elect people who stand up to Trump’s excesses and restore Congress’s function as the Article I branch.

I didn’t expect to hear Paul standing by Ken Martin’s leadership, but there you have it. It’s easy to feel outraged about the way the DNC handled this autopsy, after action, hot wash, whatever you want to call it. As GAIN’s Amy Pritchard wrote recently on her Substack, both Paul Rivera and Ken Martin are smart, strategic, and care deeply about the party. Wherever you stand on the matter, Paul’s report includes key insights into the Democratic ecosystems structure that should be debated and addressed. That can happen, even as Democrats coalesce around the winners of primaries and build momentum towards November.

What do you think about Paul Rivera’s blueprint for the party? How do you see Ken Martin’s state-level investments paying off in your state? Let us know in the comments below!

-Luis.

Before we dive into the interview with Ken, though, you’ll also hear my perspective on where we stand as we approach the end of primary season.

Naturally, the Washington punditocracy is engaged in its usual hand-wringing. People are asking: Are Democrats in the middle of a civil war? Are the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) taking over or will the establishment retain control? Look, it’s too early to tell. Keep in mind that Francesca Hong did lose -- by a razor-thin margin to David Crowley. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed did win his primary against Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who ran from the center of the party, but he won by a narrower margin than many anticipated.

So here it is: what is happening inside the Democratic Party today closely resembles what played out among Republicans from the early 2000s through 2010. Back then, the Republican base grew deeply frustrated with its establishment. That internal backlash gave birth to a populist wave on the right that resulted in MAGA. Today, we are seeing a similar dynamic play out within the Democratic base. However, Democrats are nowhere near where Republicans are today. The GOP has been completely co-opted by its extreme MAGA wing. Extremists now control the White House, the Senate, and the House, carrying out an agenda that falls far outside the American mainstream. Voters are facing the fallout: Trump’s economic failures, rising gas prices driven by conflict in Iran, tariffs costing the average household over $2,000 extra this year, and millions losing healthcare coverage because of the monstrous One Big Beautiful Bill.

Democrats, by contrast, remain a functional party debating internally. Our challenge isn’t that extremists have taken over—it’s learning how to navigate internal debates constructively. That doesn’t mean shutting out DSA voters. It means understanding why voters are turning to candidates who promise reform on issues that have become genuinely unacceptable to working families, such as healthcare. We also need to distinguish between true socialist ideology and pragmatic populism. Take Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. Abdul is not DSA. He is someone who deeply loves this country and fundamentally believes in the American Dream— which by definition, is rooted in capitalism and democracy working together. If you watch his 2007 commencement speech, his message echoes Barack Obama’s early campaign rhetoric: an expression of gratitude for an American story that wouldn’t be possible anywhere else in the world. That core belief puts him squarely at odds with the anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist framework of the DSA.

Abdul is also a remarkably effective and creative campaigner. Former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer recently tried to mock a video Abdul posted explaining how to fill out a mail-in ballot in the style of Blue’s Clues. Spicer completely missed the point. For a whole generation of busy voters, that video was engaging, funny, and effective at cutting through the noise -- and they loved Blues Clues (not to mention the parents forced to watch with them).

That said, Abdul needs to stop campaigning with figures like Hasan Piker, who is by all accounts on the fringes. And look, where DSA types and MAGA coincide is that they often insist on their way or the highway, but that’s not what has made America work. The fundamental democratic principle that has fueled our success is that people are allowed to disagree, there are protections for those with minority opinions. That’s the genius of America, and it’s worth defending, but it’s also why taking on DSA isn’t about confrontation, it’s about appealing to voters who are swaying in that direction based on the issues where we can agree -- and taking those concerns seriously.

With roughly 80 days until the general election, the real battle in November remains protecting our democratic institutions against an administration actively attempting to make voting harder for eligible citizens. So we’ll be keeping an eye on that too.

Now, let’s turn to my conversation with someone who knows firsthand what it takes for a Democrat to win in a red state and build coalitions across ideological divides: Ken Salazar. Check out excerpts of the Q&A below or listen to the episode to find out, is Ken running for President?

The Interview: Ken Salazar on ‘Borderlands’ and Building an Inclusive America

Luis Miranda:

I thought it was a terrific book where the first half of the book really is telling your broader story of the how you fought for inclusivity as attorney general throughout your career, the things that shaped you, but also that personal story, story of families like yours that has been in Colorado for hundreds of years, even before the Mayflower arrived. And so it really lays out a narrative in a way that makes me ask that question. Are you running for president, sir?

Ken Salazar:

...I’m meeting with a lot of people who do want to be president. And I’m saying this is a way forward. You need to embrace a new North American alliance. You need to understand that it’s much more than just a border in crisis. And we need to do a lot of fixing, but we need to have a lot of courage. And that’s for Democrats. It’s also very true for Republicans. Republicans approach it from the point of view of using the border and migrants as a political weapon. Democrats need to look to the south...if we’re going to create durable solutions for the people here in the United States.

Luis Miranda:

I really love the line that you had in the book about how politicians get focused on what they call identity politics. It’s a divisive term, and what you would rather call it is a unity agenda...but talk to us about how a North American alliance could work...how do we get to a point where we can transform this moment into something that looks more like an alliance?

Ken Salazar:

We need a new way forward in a bold and courageous way that gets us to real solutions. The only way we’re going to do that is if we look beyond just the border itself and the political weapon that it has become for Republicans. And it’s become, for this president, it’s become the defining issue. But it’s not only this guy. It is presidents of the past, both Republicans and Democrats, because they really have not prioritized la mirada al sur, the look to the south. Understanding that we are 500 million souls here in North America, and that doesn’t include the people in Central America or South. And JFK was really the last of the presidents who really spoke to a new alliance for progress in the 1960s. It died for a lot of reasons, including President Nixon and Vice President Rockefeller. But the reality of it is that now is that time. And I think in these urgent times of crisis where the U.S. and our people and our voters are in desperate times.

I have never in my life, in the different positions that I’ve served, at least, ever seen our country trembling, our democracy trembling. And so we need to find some real solutions, get beyond the political acrimony of what’s defined immigration, the border for so long. I speak to the book about President Joe Biden. George W. Bush and our work along the border and trying to get immigration reform passed and bringing people out of the shadows to the United States. Well, it worked in the U.S. Senate. We had the support of the Republican president, but then the Republicans, Dennis Hastert, killed and that’s why Donald Trump won in 2016. And that’s, in my view, what he won again in 2024. We need to change that.

Luis Miranda:

You do talk about ...your political career how when as attorney general, there was an expectation that a Mexican-American couldn’t even win that position. But you went in there, you did it, you won statewide. And then also the idea that you had to work across party lines and you had to work with all kinds of different people to win in a state like Colorado. I thought it was fascinating that you told a story that, as Attorney General, you reached out to former President Gerald Ford, a Republican who took over after Nixon, precisely because of an op-ed that he had written defending affirmative action... how do we get back to a point where we get past that divisiveness that’s dominating right now?

Ken Salazar:

It’s about our own borderlands here in the United States. We are a very divided country, rural versus urban, minority versus non-minority, a whole host of things. And that can’t stand for very long. You know, Lincoln said it best in the Civil War where he said a house divided cannot stand. And that’s basically where we are. We’re teetering right now. And so to your question, as you, in the earlier question, identity politics, well, everybody has a right to know who they are, their history, their culture. That’s a beautiful thing, but it’s for everybody. If you look at the role models in my own life and people that I have worked with, yes, a Republican white president, Gerald R. Ford from Michigan. You know, a German descent governor in Colorado, Roy Romer. They’ve been the champions for me on diversity in the sense of an inclusive America. That’s what we need more of.

And unfortunately, in this day, you have fewer and fewer people in the Republican Party who are embracing that agenda of an inclusive America and being champions for diversity for everybody. On the Democratic side, there needs to be more of a push on that. And this is true even for people who are in leadership in the Democratic Party. If you look at diversity in the U.S. Senate, for example, on staff, there are big issues there. So we need to embark on a new era. And now is the time because diversity and inclusion is so much under attack. Everywhere across all the institutions, corporate America, higher education, and it’s all driven by the White House and Trump’s project of erasure. That has to stop. And it’s the purpose of Borderlands to really stop that project and to embrace this sense that we are in this together. We’re stronger. We’re an inclusive America. And that’s the future of this country.

Luis Miranda:

There’s certainly been an attack, DEI has been caricatured, and the Republican Party continues to try to emphasize those divisions. But what about the problems that we have on the left, where sometimes DEI becomes kind of the excuse to marginalize people within our own party? So if you’re Black now, you’re only going to speak to Black constituents. If you’re Latino or Hispanic, they’re going to give you jobs that have Latino or Hispanic in the title, or and so how do we reconcile that DEI should be about integration and opportunity as opposed to fragmentation and balkanization of different groups?

Ken Salazar:

I think it’s wrong. I think that when you compartmentalize yourself in that form of identity politics, you lose the richness of having everybody else at the table. President Obama and I, in my time as Secretary of Interior, we formed what we used to call at Interior, the Obama-Salazar Dream Team. It was the epitome of diversity. You watched that. The White House watched it. It was amazing, Luis. We had Native American, African American. We had white American, Anglo males. That’s part of the equation. We got to talk about it. They have to be very much at the table. It’s no different than a Gerald R. Ford standing up for diversity or Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado saying this is the right thing or Ralph Carr here in Colorado saying, no, the Japanese internment camps are not the way we are as Americans.

So people just need to stand up. Now, the fact is, I think the Democrats, so you compartmentalize African Americans, Black Americans, Latinos, Hispanics. It’s okay for people to have their organizations because that’s part of who you are. You need to understand our history, the struggle, because it’s different. But at the end of the day, you come together with the politics of what I call a united America. It’s an inclusive America. Everybody has to be at the table.

That’s what Barack Obama and I, during my time in my role as the Secretary of the Interior, that’s what we fought for. And that’s, for me, an unending fight. And the Democratic Party has to embrace it. The Republican Party should embrace it. And instead, many of them, including the current president, essentially demonize it, which is really the wrong way to go. And if that continues to be the case under this administration, we’re going to sacrifice the national security of the United States. We’re going to sacrifice the economic prosperity of this country. There are 70 million Latinos, for example. How you’re not going to have them at the table, include all communities at the table. And so by not moving forward with a united approach where you bring everybody together, what ends up happening is you compromise the very national security of the United States. You compromise its economy and prosperity for all people and you shatter the underpinnings of democracy through the democratic participation of all.

Luis Miranda:

There’s also something to be said about reaching out beyond your base and beyond people you may be comfortable speaking to...we have to talk to people who are different from us and who don’t hear from us often. Do you think ...what you’re seeing now from the Democratic Party, that what you were able to do as Attorney General and for the US Senate, Democrats are positioned to be able to do that? Or are you concerned with some of the news about sort of infighting...?

Ken Salazar:

I hope that the lessons of 2024 are in the minds and the hearts of the Democratic Party leadership. And that’s everybody. That’s the committee and everybody else. You know, what’s happened is we have created an America that’s more divided than ever, red states and blue states. You know, all four when we were on the Kerry campaign. You remember Obama in Boston basically saying there are no red states or blue states, only one United States of America. When you were here with John Kerry, we were campaigning for his presidency, and I was campaigning for the U.S. Senate. They left out Colorado at the end, and they lost, something that John Kerry regrets to this day. And on the other hand, we plowed ahead. We said, we’re going to unite this state, and we did. And we won by five points in a place where nobody, not President Bush, not anybody thought that we’d be able to win. So there’s a formula there. We did it. But you got to stand up for what you believe. If you say racism, you got to denounce it. If you see people who are being deliberately excluded and not sharing at the table of ideas, the table of prosperity, you got to say it’s wrong.

Luis Miranda:

I wanted to touch on something else where I know that you and I have both had frustrations...the fear that kind of gripped the [Biden] White House and its inability to message on border security and immigration in a way that really failed to allow us to capitalize on the things that we were actually doing...even as Donald Trump is losing ground because his enforcement has been so gross and gruesome and just un-American in the way that it’s been handled. And then, of course, putting law enforcement entities like U.S. Customs and Border Protection and ICE -- He’s done tremendous damage to them. And so you see the American people walking away from him, but Democrats still not really embracing a narrative that [reconciles border security and immigration...]

Ken Salazar:

...And part of it, I think, has to do is that they were trapped by the same old paradigm that’s been around for 100 years. You know, it’s just there. The border’s there. Mexico’s there. Migration’s there. It’s not even a secondary issue. And so everything. Everything else in the world becomes a high priority.

Ken Salazar’s new book, Borderlands: My Fight for an Inclusive America, is available now at kensalazar.com and wherever books are sold.

Don’t forget to hit the Subscribe button, comment, and share this episode with a friend!

-Luis.

• Conflicto interno en el Partido Demócrata: La apretada victoria de Abdul El-Sayed en la primaria senatorial de Michigan expone una fractura generacional e ideológica comparable al surgimiento del Tea Party en el Partido Republicano.

• La paradoja del “comunismo” trumpista: Mientras Donald Trump etiqueta a la oposición como “comunista”, sus políticas de intervención corporativa, despliegue de fuerzas policiales secretas y enriquecimiento desde el poder replican prácticas autoritarias.

• Investidura bajo alerta en Colombia: La toma de posesión de Abelardo de la Espriella en Cali revela el giro de prioridades de Washington hacia el combate al narcotráfico, los minerales críticos y la contención geopolítica de China.

• El “Gran Juego” en Venezuela: A ocho meses de la extracción de Nicolás Maduro, la transición entra en una fase dominada por el pragmatismo económico, la reconstrucción energética y la atracción de capital privado bajo la órbita de Washington.

Hola y gracias por seguirnos y escuchar el programa!

Comenzamos hoy con el conflicto interno en el Partido Demócrata: El mapa político norteamericano vive horas de redefinición ideológica. La reciente victoria del candidato progresista Abdul El-Sayed en la primaria demócrata al Senado por el estado clave de Michigan ha encendido las alarmas del establecimiento del partido. Con un margen de apenas 14,000 votos sobre Haley Stevens —y en una contienda donde una tercera candidatura acumuló 60,000 sufragios—, la elección demuestra que la izquierda del partido ha dejado de ser un fenómeno insular limitado a distritos urbanos de Nueva York o Denver para proyectarse en estados battleground decisivos para las presidenciales. El Partido Demócrata enfrenta un dilema análogo al que atravesaron los republicanos hace 15 años con el surgimiento del Tea Party y el movimiento MAGA.

Eso si, el candidato tiene mucho talento y se presenta mucho mas moderado que la ala izquierda. El-Sayed centra su mensaje público en tres ejes populares: el costo de vida, el acceso universal a la salud (Medicare para todos) y la eliminación de los intereses especiales en la política (”dinero fuera de la política, dinero dentro de sus bolsillos”). Además, El-Sayed se distancia del populismo anti-occidental al arraigar su discurso en el “sueño americano”, respaldado en su historia como hijo de un inmigrante egipcio graduado de la Universidad de Michigan. No obstante, el panel coincidió en que el candidato deberá distanciarse de extremistas digitales (como el streamer Hassan Piker) si aspira a captar el voto independiente necesario para ganar el escaño senatorial. Para nuestros panelistas, el peligro del conflicto interno del partido Demócrata puede tener fuertes consecuencias.

Carlos Ruiz Hernández advirtió sobre los peligros de exportar el “modelo Mamdani” de política de identidad urbana a contiendas senatoriales de un swing state como Michigan. Para Ruiz Hernández, someter una carrera crucial para el balance de poder en el Congreso a la política de identidad pone en riesgo la competitividad del partido en la elección general frente al republicano Mike Rogers.

Para Robert Funk, este choque refleja un conflicto generacional e identitario de escala global con marcados paralelismos en América Latina, recordando el ascenso del socialismo democrático en Chile con Gabriel Boric. Sin embargo, Funk señala que sectores progresistas con frecuencia apelan a causas internacionales —como el conflicto en Gaza— o a disputas identitarias como una forma de marcar territorio político, compensando la falta de soluciones estructurales para las demandas económicas de la clase trabajadora.

La banda Republicana tiene sus propios conflictos, y seguimos con la paradoja del “Comunismo” de Trump y su espectáculo político. La retórica política en Washington ha alcanzado niveles extremos de polarización, donde Trump tacha rutinariamente a los demócratas de “comunistas”, mientras la izquierda acusa a la derecha de “fascismo”. Pero es importante desmontar la narrativa de la Casa Blanca señalando las profundas contradicciones entre la retórica anticomunista de Trump y sus políticas ejecutivas:

• Represión y control estatal: El despliegue de fuerzas policiales federales enmascaradas para sofocar manifestaciones y catalogar a los disidentes como enemigos del Estado.

• Intervención en el sector privado: La exigencia de que el gobierno federal obtenga participaciones accionarias y un porcentaje de las ganancias de empresas privadas.

• Uso punitivo de las instituciones: La utilización del Departamento de Justicia para enjuiciar a opositores políticos como Jim Comey.

• Enriquecimiento desde el poder: Un crecimiento patrimonial personal y familiar calculado entre $2,000 y $4,000 millones de dólares durante su paso por la presidencia.

Frente a estas contradicciones, Carlos Ruiz Hernández y Carl Meacham recordaron la célebre máxima de Otto von Bismarck: “La política es el arte de lo posible”. En el ecosistema político actual, la etiqueta de “comunismo” no busca exactitud doctrinaria, sino activar estigmas históricos que movilizan al electorado conservador. El impacto de esta presión institucional quedó ejemplificado en la confirmación senatorial de Todd Blanche —abogado personal de Trump— como nuevo Fiscal General de los Estados Unidos, una votación marcada por el extraño llanto del senador republicano Bill Cassidy tras ceder a las exigencias de la Casa Blanca. Asimismo, el panel analizó cómo la desconfianza ciudadana hacia la clase política se alimenta del malestar ético generado por las inversiones bursátiles de legisladores de ambos bandos, un flanco que Trump explota eficazmente para presentarse como el único antídoto frente a un sistema corroído, pero a mi opinion no compara a la corrupción que se ha visto por parte de Trump.

Pasando al ámbito internacional, discutimos la investidura en Colombia de Abelardo de la Espriella: El momento refleja el rediseño de las prioridades de EE.UU. en América Latina y marca un hito en las relaciones bilaterales. La decisión de celebrar la ceremonia en Cali —en lugar de Bogotá— bajo extremas medidas de seguridad evidencia el clima de cambio institucional en el país andino. Para mi, la ausencia del Secretario de Estado Marco Rubio en la delegación norteamericana envia un fuerte mensaje. Carlos Ruiz Hernández, en cambio, opina que no responde a un enfriamiento diplomático, ya que el equipo del presidente electo y el vicepresidente Restrepo sostuvieron nutridas reuniones previas en Washington con Marco Rubio, el Secretario de Defensa Pete Hegseth y altos mandos de la Casa Blanca.

Ademas, opina Carl Meacham, “la inclusión del congresista Mario Díaz-Balart —presidente de un subcomité clave de Apropiaciones— envía una señal pragmática sobre los recursos presupuestarios reales que Washington asignará a la agenda bilateral.” Carl identificó una clara reconfiguración de la jerarquía diplomática de Estados Unidos en el hemisferio. Colombia ha dejado de ser el aliado estratégico exclusivo en Sudamérica; hoy, la prioridad prioritaria de la Casa Blanca se desplaza hacia la Argentina de Javier Milei en el sur, y hacia Nayib Bukele en Centroamérica. La relación con Bogotá queda supeditada a prioridades de la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU. y específicamente el combate al narcotráfico. Además, refleja el énfasis de el gobierno trump sobre la competencia geopolítica que busca diluir la influencia china en la región, y el enfoque sobre asegurar recursos estratégicos, cadenas de suministro de minerales críticos como el litio y el cobre.

Concluimos con el comienzo de lo podría resultar en transición política en Venezuela. A ya ocho meses de la operación militar que extrajo a Nicolás Maduro de su residencia, el escenario político venezolano entra en una etapa de reordenamiento estructural guiada por Washington. El panel coincidió en que, tras la remoción del liderazgo dictatorial, la prioridad del gobierno estadounidense no es la aceleración de comicios inmediatos, sino el control del entorno económico y la estabilización del mercado energético.

“La clave de este momento no es solo el proceso político,” nos dijo Robert Funk, “sino hasta qué punto Estados Unidos puede controlar el proceso económico: la reinserción de empresas privadas, la inversión corporativa y la reconstrucción de la infraestructura energética.”

Carlos Ruiz Hernández señaló que el proceso de transición avanza mediante un esquema pragmático orientado a garantizar la reconstrucción tras años de colapso. Esta nueva etapa incluye la reincorporación de Venezuela a la comunidad internacional, evidenciada en el restablecimiento de nexos diplomáticos con Israel y la reapertura de representaciones consulares de países de la región, como Chile. Sin embargo, los analistas concluyeron que la transición hacia una democracia plena será un proceso de largo aliento, donde la seguridad energética y la atracción de capital privado marcarán el ritmo de las transformaciones políticas.

Gracias por escuchar, y pulsen subscribe!

-Luis.

Comenzamos con la terrible situación en Venezuela. La capital fue sacudida por dos terremotos consecutivos de magnitud 7,2 y 7,5 con apenas segundos de diferencia, provocando una destrucción masiva. Mientras los equipos internacionales de rescate —incluidos especialistas de respuesta rápida de Fairfax, Virginia— buscan sobrevivientes entre los escombros, la tragedia desnuda una cruda realidad institucional. Décadas de abandono y corrupción bajo Chávez y Maduro dejaron al país sin infraestructura básica para gestionar emergencias. Adicionalmente, la respuesta estadounidense sin duda se ha visto afectada por la falta de la Agencia para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID) desmantelada por la administración Trump el año pasado, agencia que jugaba un papel central en este tipo de ayuda humanitaria.

Este desastre natural ocurre también mientras el país vive una transición gubernamental frágil, con Delcy Rodríguez buscando consolidar su posición en el poder. Discutimos la manera en que el involucramiento cercano del Secretario de Estado Marco Rubio puede ser un momento positivo luego del arresto de Nicolas Maduro, con un Estados Unidos mas comprometido a la misión humanitaria. Además, Carlos nos cuenta de lo que vio de países representados en la OEA que se reunían en Panama cuando sucedió la catástrofe. Venezuela necesitara de la comunidad internacional, y hasta ahora están mostrando ese apoyo. Para quienes quieran contribuir a los esfuerzos, recomendamos las siguientes organizaciones internacionales:

• Catholic Relief Services

• UNICEF

Luego pasamos a los terremotos políticos, comenzando con el viraje electoral en Colombia. En comicios presidenciales sumamente polarizados, el candidato de extrema derecha Abelardo de la Espriella venció estrechamente al sucesor de Gustavo Petro, Ivan Cepeda. De la Espriella usó retórica de campaña agresiva, prometiendo “dar de baja” a enemigos del pueblo y de expulsar a migrantes que no contribuyan. Pero Carlos ofrece un contrapunto de que durante su discurso de victoria, de la Espriella fue inesperadamente conciliador. No queda claro que camino tomará, que tipo de orden busca establecer de la Espriella, y contra quien lo llevara a cabo.

Robert nos ofreció un análisis importante de la diferencia que se ven en toda la region, aseverando que no debemos cometer el error de agrupar mecánicamente este triunfo a una supuesta “ola derechista.” Este fenómeno responde a intereses locales, o quizás a que el electorado colombiano simplemente se agotó del estilo impredecible y caótico de Petro.

No obstante, este viraje en Colombia como los que se vieron en Argentina, Chile, y ahora Peru con Keiko Fujimori, se conectan de forma directa con la disputa global entre las grandes potencias por el control tecnológico. El gobierno Trump promueve activamente la iniciativa Pax Silica, una estrategia amparada en la Ley CHIPS (CHIPS Act) para asegurar las cadenas de suministro de semiconductores indispensables para la inteligencia artificial y así restar posicionamiento a China en la región.

Carlos destacó un punto importante: Pax Silica representa una reapropiación ideológica y un cambio de marca del concepto de friend-shoring (o nearshoring) promovido originalmente por la administración demócrata anterior. Para distanciarse de Biden, la actual Casa Blanca reformuló estas políticas comerciales bajo una narrativa de seguridad nacional y competencia dura.

Países como Panamá, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina y Costa Rica ya firmaron este acuerdo conceptual. Sin embargo, Robert introdujo un realismo crítico indispensable: el término Pax es engañoso, pues la iniciativa en realidad empuja al hemisferio hacia una rígida dinámica de Guerra Fría comercial. Desvincularse económicamente de China es una tarea titánica cuando este país controla cerca del 70% de la producción de materiales críticos como el silicio. Exigir lealtades ideológicas rígidas sobre politiza las relaciones internacionales; si Washington desea un alineamiento real, debe pasar urgentemente de la teoría a inversiones privadas concretas.

Finalmente, el debate se enriqueció con el informe de Carlos sobre lo ocurrido en los márgenes de la reunion de la OEA con presión de China exigiendo a Panamá “corregir sus errores” después de que la Corte Suprema panameña declarara inconstitucional importantes concesiones portuaria previamente otorgadas a una empresa estatal china en el Canal. Nos cuenta que la respuesta del canciller panameño fue un punto a destacar por su firmeza y coherencia: sostuvo soberanamente que Panamá es un Estado de derecho y una democracia sólida cuyos fallos judiciales independientes se respetan de forma sagrada.

También hablamos sobre el terremoto político en Nueva York, donde elecciones primarias del partido Demócrata resultaron en perdidas de candidatos del establecimiento, con tres candidatos socialistas logrando captar suficientes votos en sus distritos para tumbar a figuras como Dan Goldman y Adriano Espaillat. Muestra una gira fuerte dentro del partido Demócrata que va en contra de apoyo a Israel, pero no necesariamente refleja un cambio nacional, pues Demócratas que han ganado primarias en otros estados como Texas son mucho mas moderados.

Discutimos el posible impacto político, que a mi parecer se ve cancelado por las acciones de Donald Trump, quien ha perdido apoyo por el resultado incoherente y desastroso de la guerra con Irán y que en la última semana se negó a promulgar un proyecto de ley para reducir el costo de la vivienda prefiriendo presionar por un proyecto de ley para limitar el acceso de votantes a las urnas.

En el tema de Irán, hasta votantes MAGA ven el resultado como una perdida para Estados Unidos. Iran esta en proceso de lograr mayor control sobre el estrecho de Ormuz además de $300 mil millones que Estados Unidos se compromete a conseguirles para la reconstrucción. Es una perdida no solo para Trump, sino para el país entero que vivirá con las consecuencias por generaciones.

Las consecuencias políticas mas inmediatas no se sabrán hasta noviembre. Escuchen, compartan, y sigan el podcast!

Gracias por acompañarnos una semana más.

-Luis.

For decades, Rubin argues, the Democratic foreign policy apparatus has operated like a closed loop with the same institutional players continually rotating through administrations, think tanks, and foundations, speaking a shared jargon that completely alienates the broad middle of the country. Rubin defines himself as a Washington insider but says he has consciously avoided becoming “of the swamp,” vital in his point of view to avoiding the herd mentality that is insulated from the public.

The hope, Rubin told us, lies in a new generation of primary candidates who can act as magnets for fresh ideas, bypassing old gatekeepers who lack even a modern communications presence.

What Trump Got Right: Populism and Patriotism

One of the hardest truths for Democrats to accept is that the populist MAGA movement succeeded because it diagnosed real blind spots in the establishment. Rubin unpacked this through his “Three Ps” framework: foreign policy must be patriotic, populist, and pragmatic. Trump understood that the public craves a proud, pro-American narrative, while Democratic rhetoric has frequently defaulted to an explanatory, scolding tone. “The Democratic voice... seemed to explain how we’re just doing things badly and we’re just wrong,” Rubin observed. It’s seen as a depressing posture that naturally repels voters.

The current administration’s flaws are glaring and exemplified by Trump having his son with him on his trip to China, but also by his obvious weakness in the face of flattery. Rubin noted that even Senator Lindsey Graham seemed nervous that Trump would be flattered into obsequiousness by a dictatorship commanding thousands of children to jump up and down. Yet, reading international realities correctly means nothing if you misread your domestic political landscape. Barack Obama, for example, had incredibly important achievements quickly torn up by Trump, including the Iran nuclear deal known as the JCPOA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with 45 facing no consequences from an American public that had never been fully sold on either. The domestic politics matter as much as the foreign policy itself.

Fractures and Cancel Culture

Of course, the book also arrives as the Democratic Party faces an internal struggle. Rubin unreservedly defended the Biden administration’s historic decision to stand by Israel following the horrific attacks of October 7th, asserting that a failure to do so would have left the state in mortal danger. However, he admitted that Democrats have completely “lost the train” on the issue internally with the party’s own base.

The resulting vacuum has been filled by a toxic “cancel culture” targeting dedicated public servants like Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Jon Finer. Rubin warned that an activist-driven purge of anyone expressing historical support for a strategic regional partner is incredibly self-destructive. It represents a complete surrender to “base capture,” which sacrifices the sustainable majorities needed to govern in favor of placating the loudest voices in the primary base.

Moving Beyond the “Before Times”

Of course, it will be presidential candidates who define what direction the party takes as they adapt their campaigns in 2027 and 2028 to the political realities of the campaign trail. As Carl Meacham points out, though, Democrats must resist the urge to simply return to the “before times”—restoring an idealized pre-Trump status quo that the electorate has already rejected. Our panel largely agrees that the world has changed permanently.

The path forward requires building a compelling alternative anchored in core principles: a fierce opposition to corruption, a clear defense of democracy, and a re-engineered bureaucracy that responds rapidly to modern threats. Ultimately, Rubin’s thesis is a reminder to trust the intelligence of ordinary citizens. Democrats must stop over-explaining failures and present clean, unambiguous ideas to the broad middle of the country. Global leadership cannot be sustained by a country acting like a political pinball machine that reverses its foreign policy every four years. By marrying unapologetic patriotism with pragmatic domestic politics, the Democratic Party can stop playing defense and finally lead again.

It’s a great conversation, we hope you enjoy it! Thanks for listening and hit that subscribe button!

-Luis.

#foreignpolicy #America #WhiteHouse #Congress #Elections #Primaries #InternationalRelations #Trump #Democrats #Republicans

Our conversation also takes place as primaries approach in several states, with voter registration deadlines next week in New Jersey and South Carolina, and early vote already underway in Montana and California.

“The environment makes it just even more important that everyone registers to vote and have their voice heard,” Andrea told us for our latest episode of the CenterD podcast. Vote.org has seen 170,000 individuals use their tools to register this cycle—the highest for a midterm year in the organization’s history and a three-fold increase over the last midterm election. Perhaps most striking is the demographic makeup: 40% of those registrants are 18 years old, and a staggering 82% are under the age of 35. For Andrea, this isn’t just a data point; it’s a sign that the next generation understands exactly what is at stake for their future.

The challenges, however, are real. Andrea points to the so-called SAVE America Act as a prime example of an “authoritarian mindset” that seeks to “divorce the people from their voice at the ballot box”. While framed as a measure for election integrity, Andrea notes that the act’s requirements—such as matching identification to birth certificates—would effectively disenfranchise millions of women who have changed their last names.

Importantly, she emphasizes that this is not a partisan issue. “It affects Republican women. It affects Democrat women. It doesn’t really matter which side of the aisle you’re on,” Andrea explains, noting that Republican women are statistically more likely to change their names after marriage. By moving past “right versus left” thinking, Andrea argues that Americans can see these efforts for what they are: a concerted effort to wipe out large swaths of the population from the democratic process.

This trend isn’t limited to federal legislation. While the federal SAVE Act stalled, versions of it are passing at the state level in places like Florida, where its effects will be felt in upcoming elections. Andrea views these maneuvers as part of a broader tactic that relies on isolation, fear, and exhaustion.

“The way to defeat all of that is optimism, excitement, and bringing more people to the table,” she told us.

Of course, we also covered AI, and how the threat of misinformation is a very real issue. Whatever you think of AI, though, it’s here and we have to engage to counter any potential negative impact, or better yet, leverage its power to help voters.

Defending the “Grandmothers of Democracy”

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current environment is the intimidation of election workers. These individuals—often nonpartisan volunteers or low-paid public servants—have become targets of federal raids and social media attacks in states like Arizona and Georgia.

“Election workers are our neighbors and our friends and our grandmothers and grandfathers who want to participate and be part of civic society,” Andrea says. She argues that when these vital members of our community are bullied, the only effective response is for the community to “circle around” them. The goal of intimidation is to make people afraid to show up, but Andrea insists that the antidote to fear is a renewed commitment to the mechanisms of democracy, including encouraging a new generation to step into these roles.

The Local Stakes: 100,000 Micro-Elections

While the media often focuses on the “personalities” and “fevered” atmosphere of presidential races, Andrea and her team are working to remind voters that the midterms are also where the “daily lived experience” will be decided. There are over 100,000 local elections happening across the country this year, ranging from school boards and judicial races to mayoral offices.

“Show me your budget and I’ll show you your priorities,” Andrea remarks, pointing out that local officials decide how city and state money is spent. Whether it’s the quality of a local school or the fairness of a court, these local positions have a direct impact on families that federal offices often lack.

She also highlights the importance of defending those who defend democracy, regardless of their party. In Indiana, Andrea’s home state, Republican state legislators recently stood up against late-cycle gerrymandering efforts. “Hoosiers don’t really like being bullied,” she said, noting that these legislators are facing primary challenges and outside spending as “punishment” for their stance. For Andrea, the lesson is clear: democracy requires a “10 toes down” defense from everyone, across the political spectrum.

Meeting Voters Where They Live

To combat the dynamic and ever-changing rules of the modern election cycle, Vote.org has moved beyond traditional outreach. They are meeting people in the “places and spaces where they already are”. This includes partnerships with athletes and micro-influencers who can speak to their audiences about the importance of showing up on Election Day.

In one of their most innovative programs, Vote.org partners with Fresh EBT. When individuals check their food stamp balances on the app, they receive a prompt to register to vote. Once in the system, these voters receive election alerts and updates—critical information about polling place changes or extended hours resulting from a judge’s ruling.

“I believe armed with that information, easily accessible, people will participate,” she told us.

As the general election approaches, Andrea’s message is one of radical optimism and individual agency. She encourages everyone to move beyond just voting themselves and to become “vote captains” for their own social circles.

“It’s one thing when I tell people to go vote,” she notes. “It’s a whole ‘nother thing when someone’s best friend tells them to vote”.

Vote.org offers a suite of free tools that can be embedded into any website or social media profile, allowing individuals to help their audience register to vote, verify their registration status, and find their polling locations. In an environment where some seek to make the process difficult, Andrea believes the solution is simple, if demanding: show up in numbers so overwhelming that no amount of interference can change the outcome. Vote.org is encouraging others in the electoral space to put their voter engagement plans together now, not at the last minute.

A free society where opinions are voiced at the ballot box is still ours to own. As Andrea put it:

“The antidote to would-be authoritarianism is always increasing the response to what is going on,” she concludes. “The way to defeat all of that is optimism, excitement, and bringing more people to the table”.

Check out the episode, share, and hit that subscribe button! Thank you for listening!

-Luis

P.S. - check out Vote.org’s tools on their website, everything from “What’s on your ballot,” to locating your polling place, and of course checking your registration or registering. So don’t forget to vote!

#voting #votingrights #votingrightsact #vra #Tennessee #Texas #Florida #California #NewYork #gerrymander #WhiteHoue #Congress #Democrats #Republicans

Comenzamos siguiendo con el tema de la creciente inestabilidad en Cuba bajo la presión de los Estados Unidos y la posibilidad de acción militar. Ricardo fue quien lideró las negociaciones hace mas de una década entre Estados Unidos y Cuba que lograron reestablecer relaciones diplomáticas después de 54 años .

En este episodio dedicamos enfoque adicional al complejo panorama geopolítico actual, marcado por la fragmentación de las instituciones tradicionales y la falta de la diplomacia de “poder blando”.

Ricardo destaca el momento de tensión extrema y deterioro masivo en las condiciones sociales y económicas que atraviesa la isla. Accion militar o no, que nos acercamos al fin del modelo Cubano que ya ha estado agonizando mas de una década, no está en duda. Pero no podemos predecir lo que tarde, ni lo que pueda hacer el regimen para sobrevivir, o si la estrategia del gobierno Trump — sin poner tropas en terreno — pueda realmente lograr una transición total.

Históricamente, Cuba dependía del respaldo de potencias como Rusia, China y Venezuela, pero ese apoyo se ha desvanecido. En Washington la posibilidad de acción militar aumenta tras el bloqueo esta semana en el Senado de una medida que buscaba limitar el poder de Donald Trump para atacar la isla sin permiso del Congreso. Además, Trump aseveró que se tomará a Cuba luego de terminar con Irán, y por el camino de regreso. Por supuesto que lo que pueda tardar un fin en Irán no está nada claro. (Asi que nos disculpamos, pero no podemos ayudar a nuestra audiencia con sus apuestas en Polymarket por ahora.)

Pero Ricardo nos recuerda que Cuba es un estado consolidado con 67 años de control total, lo que hace que una transición o cambio de regimen sea sumamente difícil. Además, la falta de una tradición democrática, ausencia de partidos políticos y falta de una sociedad civil organizada son obstáculos fuertes. Cualquier intento de remover al líder actual podría resultar simplemente en la instauración de otro régimen personalista en lugar de una democracia funcional.

Para poner en contexto la importancia de la diplomacia, del “poder blando,” y de la necesidad de involucrar aliados regionales, conversamos sobre lo que mostró la visita del Rey Charles de Inglaterra esta semana a Washington en el marco del 250° aniversario de la independencia de los Estados Unidos. Sin duda fue una “clase magistral” de diplomacia que forzó a Republicanos en el Congreso a reconocer su deber de balancear al poder ejecutivo y de la importancia del estado de derecho, puso a Demócratas ha aplaudir a un rey, y forzó a Trump a celebrar los nexos entre Estados Unidos y sus aliados en la OTAN.

Robert destaca que el gobierno británico entendió que Trump se proyecta a sí mismo como una figura cuasi monárquica. Al enviar al Rey, utilizaron el poder blando para resonar con la visión del presidente, logrando que este validara la importancia de las alianzas internacionales en un ambiente de cordialidad.

Sin duda el Reino Unido enfrenta sus propios problemas internos, incluyendo ataques políticos en Londres y una profunda división en el partido gobernante, pero funcionó bien para el momento.

Dicho todo eso, abordamos una realidad preocupante: la percepción de los Estados Unidos como un actor cada vez más impredecible y, en ciertos aspectos, institucionalmente degradado e incluso corrupto.

En países como Panamá, Colombia y Brasil, existe la percepción de que Estados Unidos está dispuesto a utilizar la fuerza militar en condiciones que antes serían impensables. Ricardo relata cómo oficiales en la región han llegado a preguntar si las maniobras navales estadounidenses estaban dirigidas contra sus propios canales o territorios.

Muchos actores internacionales ahora ven una “corrupción enorme” en Washington y han aprendido a navegar este nuevo modelo transaccional. La política ya no se mueve a través de los canales tradicionales del Congreso, sino a través de intercambios directos con la Casa Blanca, y eso permite que exista una avenida por la que se pueden aprovechar gobiernos u otros actores internacionales del mandatorio actual.

Escuchen el episodio entero, y comenten sus opiniones.

Le agradecemos a Ricardo su flexibilidad en grabar episodios en inglés y en español, pues ese toque individualizado es importante para nuestras audiencias, tal como lo fue en el espacio diplomático que ocupo tan exitosamente nuestro invitado durante tanto tiempo.

Gracias por escuchar! Por favor compartan, y pulsen subscribe!

-Luis.

#Cuba #Venezuela #EEUU #CasaBlanca #Habana #Congreso #Democratas #Republicanos #PoliticaExterior #Americas #HemisferioOccidental #Diplomacia

You’ll have to listen to hear his response.

Carl Meacham and Carlos Ruiz-Hernandez joined for this great conversation. Carl served as senior Republican staff on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Carlos served at different times as Ambassador to the United Nations and as Deputy Foreign Minister for Panama.

Last month Ricardo wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled, “Trump isn’t taking Cuba. He’s starving it.” In it he argued that “Cuba is hurtling not toward socialism or capitalism but toward ruin,” critiqued the lack of a plan, and noted that the “hostile status quo has done nothing to advance American interests…only deepened the hardship faced by ordinary Cubans.”

We asked Ricardo about his sobering assessment that “Even absent a U.S. invasion, a Cuba left to suffocate under stiff American sanctions could veer toward chaos rather than reform” and “prompt a R**sian-style political transition, with Cuba’s oligarchy mutating into a permanent kleptocratic elite” that becomes “a magnet for transnational gangs.”

The Trap of False Equivalencies: Cuba is Not Venezuela

One of the most persistent tropes in Washington is the attempt to frame Cuba through the lens of other states like Iran or Venezuela. Ricardo was quick to dismantle this, noting that Cuba and Iran both have a “consolidated regime” structure built up during decades-long stability, and that it lacks the fragmentation that eventually weakened the Venezuelan government. More provocatively, Zuniga argued that Cuban leadership lacks what he called the “flexibility or the opportunism gene” found in certain Venezuelan circles. Ricardo believes the rigidity of those in power in Cuba is a double-edged sword: it has helped keep them in power but also prevented them from adopting the very reforms (like those in China or Vietnam) that might have saved their failing economy.

Obama’s “Trojan Horse”

In a revealing part of the conversation, Ricardo reflects on why the Obama-era rapprochement didn’t lead to more lasting internal change in Cuba. The opening was *too* successful, and the Cuban regime viewed the Obama administration’s push as a “Trojan horse.” They realized that a more open, democratic model was becoming “very popular” among the Cuban population, touching off aspirations the state could not control.

Foreign Policy by Whim: The “Disjointed” Reality of Current Strategy

Ricardo has worked throughout the Americas and Europe, holding important posts in Sao Paolo, Havana, and Madrid, among others, so we also asked for his perspective on the Trump Administration’s broader approach to the region. Ricardo was a career diplomat who served presidents of both parties. His stinging critique of the “improvised approach” currently governing regional relations carries a lot of weight. The “disjointed effort” underway undermines the credibility of U.S. security policy, and is often driven by the President’s personal, “fixed” ideas from decades ago. Rather than a coherent strategy, Ricardo lays out that what we are seeing is a series of “countervailing efforts” that prioritize short-term political victories over long-term regional stability. It also suggests that the region will not play the role it should in helping stabilize Cuba if and when there is a transition. Traditional multilateral bodies in the region have been minimized, and the recent SHIELD of the Americas collaboration Trump announced in Miami just isn’t it.

Check out today’s full episode and let us know what you think. This is the first of two… Ricardo indulged us in participating in a bilingual experiment. The next episode with Ricardo, in Spanish for our Al Centro podcast and featuring political analyst Robert Funk, will publish tomorrow!

Thanks for listening, reading, and make sure to hit that subscribe button!

-Luis.

#RicardoZuniga #DinamicaAmericas #podcast #news #trump #whitehouse #Cuba #havana #washington #foreignpolicy #wha #americas #theamericas #Delcy #Iran #Venezuela #congress #democrats #republicans

Let’s start with 2 really important points: 1) violence should never be the answer. The attacker was wrong and misguided. 2) Conspiracy theories and misinformation are definitely a major problem on social media.

On the other hand, Eugene and Anna were too quick to reject the idea that this could be a false flag, or staged attack.

No one should doubt that the reactions of the people in that ballroom were genuine – their concern, outrage, and even fear was real. Their sense of wanting to coalesce around something tangible comes from a good place. But that’s exactly what a false flag is intended to take advantage of. Remember, just a month ago, the Washington Post reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – a Trump ally who JD Vance campaigned for - was advised by R**sian allies on “a gamechanger… a staged ass*ssin*tion attempt to stir supporters,” according to the Post.

Reporters should be able to objectively consider those things before outright dismissing them just because they were in the room. Everyone expected Oz Pearlman, the mentalist entertainer for the evening, to pull some sleight of hand… that doesn’t mean there weren’t other tricksters around.

As early as 2016, when a jackass rushed the stage at a Trump rally and the Secret Service had to quickly surround the podium, it only made Trump look presidential long before a majority of Americans saw him that way. The attack in Butler Pennsylvania in late 2024 tragically cost the life of one Trump supporter and left two others injured. NO evidence has come to light since to suggest that was anything other than what it appeared to be, a radicalized and disturbed lone wolf. But the favorable reaction among the public was palpable and Trump ordered a painting that immortalized that moment to be hung up in the White House.

So with his numbers tanking, and the American public rejecting his whole agenda, Trump certainly needed a change of fortune. Plus, let’s not forget that Trump has long expressed admiration for political dirty tricksters and even pardoned one of his favorites not long ago.

So was it a false flag? Secret Service acted heroically but the security footage released by the administration raises questions about who actually shot one agent in the chest. JD Vance was taken away from the dais well before Trump. Then you had Karoline Leavitt saying in an interview just before the dinner that shots would be “fired here tonight” in what seemed a metaphor but looked a lot worse after Fox News lost the connection with a correspondent telling a story about how Leavitt’s husband told her she needed to be safe just before the dinner. She said he looked around the room before telling her more, but that’s when the line cut out.

Donald Trump seemed unusually calm. Then there’s the coordinated response. Republicans quickly coalesced around a narrative that this justifies Trump’s calls for an unpopular ballroom at the White House where the East Wing once stood. Kash Patel delivered an awkward line essentially suggesting that the Secret Service would have done a worse job for someone else. The follow up media calls Trump made to the press on Sunday. Seemingly coordinated calls to use the incident to justify DHS funding without guardrails on ICE and CBP.

Back to Saturday night, though, the hotel where it all took place is referred to as the Hinckley Hilton for the perpetrator who shot Ronald Reagan in 1981 to impress actor Jodi Foster. You can see a plaque that marks that moment there and a small carport that was built afterwards precisely to ensure that Presidents could get in safely. It’s a reminder that the seriousness of what happened is not in question. However, if there’s any Administration that has given the press a reason to ask, it’s this one.

Was security lax? The street with the carport was not accessible by foot and was closed to vehicle traffic. The President himself was never outside a very secure perimeter with plenty of federal agents around him. Still, this is a hotel, and nothing shuts off traffic entirely, especially from anyone staying there. The attacker Saturday night had allegedly gotten a room in the hotel. Although the President could come in via that carport, the rest of the guests spend a big chunk of their time well outside the mags that secure the ballroom – including at plenty of receptions.

Security and access protocols are going to have to have to be tighter going forward for this annual event. DHS has a Special Event Assessment Rating they should have used, particularly since so many Cabinet officials are often expected at these dinners. The entire line of succession just shouldn’t be in one place. So if a President is attending, others shouldn’t. Ultimately, though, this event is about celebrating the First Amendment including freedom of speech, press, and freedom of assembly. The idea that this event should be locked down in a ballroom at the White House, that’s just Donald Trump wanting more control, and I can’t think of a worse result. We should not lose the spirit of openness this event is all about.

Look, a lot of protesters yelled at me as I was walking towards the hotel entrance – and I’m a huge critic of Trump’s. Some of what they shouted reflected the polarized environment we’re in. Some of what they yelled is true, though. Trump and his administration have attacked the First Amendment at every turn, and undermined or flouted plenty of constitutional norms and fundamental rights. Even while courting reporters this weekend, Trump insulted the CBS reporter calling her “horrible people” for asking him about the attacker’s manifesto.

Of course we need to lower the temperature, and violence is never acceptable. That doesn’t mean we need to stop asking difficult questions.

I don’t agree with Trump on much of anything at all, but the White House Correspondents’ Association was right to invite him. Trump has always wanted conflict. He thrives off of tensions because they drive what he loves most: ratings. When he is forced to the table, it’s actually a reminder that democracy can still win. When we sit down and talk, break bread from time to time, we strengthen the very institutions this president wants to weaken. That’s democracy, that’s what was being celebrated.

So no, it does not seem this was a false flag at all at this point, but the question had to be asked.

-Luis

#whcd #whitehouse #whitehousecorrespondentsdinner #congress #dhs #democrats #republicans #falseflag

• First, an Equis Research poll shows only 5 percent of Registered Hispanic voters want immigration enforcement to stop, and that’s slightly lower among non-Latino respondents.

• Then a Miami Herald poll showed a majority of Cuban Americans in South Florida disapprove of Trump’s aggressive deportations.

• And a Florida International University Latino Public Opinion poll shows 85.5 percent of Latino respondents nationally support a pathway to citizenship, with more than 3 out of 4 supporting at least legal status.

There’s no contradiction, though, and this is what Democrats need to understand as they fine tune their messaging ahead of the midterms.

The key finding from Equis, although they buried it in what they published, is that most Americans, including Latinos, want to see meaningful changes to how ICE operates, but NOT an end to immigration enforcement. That means that “Abolish ICE” is not a credible position – even with Latinos. The Equis research shows that 85% of Hispanics and 82% of non-Hispanics who believe ICE should be abolished actually want to redirect ICE funds to other agencies or for a new immigration enforcement agency. So even among those who say abolish ICE, only 14% actually say there should no longer be any form of immigration enforcement – and when you zoom out and look at the total, that’s roughly 5 percent.

There’s bad news for Donald Trump. Strong majorities, roughly 6 out of 10 in the Equis poll, believe that Trump is trying to Deport as many immigrants as possible regardless of their criminal background, 65 percent of Latinos think he has gone too far. Strong majorities of Latinos and Non-Latinos (64 and 65 percent respectively) agree on language that emphasizes getting back to basics, that America has always been a land of opportunity, and that the focus of enforcement should be on criminal and serious threats.

The Miami Herald’s poll adds great context for South Florida. Conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International and the Tarrance Group, it shows 68% of Cubans and Cuban Americans strongly or somewhat disapprove of the Trump Administration’s increased deportations of Cubans without criminal records, and that 81% support allowing Cubans to legally immigrate to the United States. It might seem a bit of a contradiction given that 67% back Donald Trump’s handling of U.S. policy towards Cuba broadly, but it shows there’s room for nuance even as Trump and Rubio consider or hint at the possibility of military intervention.

Another interesting detail is that they overwhelmingly support military intervention in Cuba (79%) and reject the Trump Administration’s negotiations with the communist regime (78%) – if it doesn’t result in regime change. On top of that, among those 18-34, a majority (53%) strongly or somewhat disapprove of Trump’s handling of U.S. policy towards Cuba.

Finally, a national survey of Latino voters conducted by Florida International University’s Latino Public Opinion Forum shows more than two-thirds now disapprove of Trump and believe the country is on the wrong track. This poll shows that nearly 7 out of 10 oppose ICE tactics, while more than 85% support a pathway to citizenship. It also shows that on the generic congressional ballot, Latinos favor Democrats 58.9% to just 29.4%. While the FIU poll shows 7 out of 10 Cubans saying they support Trump’s deportation campaign (with 55% of Florida Latinos overall), that portion of their poll is a much, much smaller sample than the Miami Herald poll, which focused exclusively on Cubans and Cuban Americans. Also, while FIU focused on voters, the Miami Herald poll captured Cubans and Cuban Americans living South Florida broadly so that speaks to some of those differences.

So, what’s the bottom line? There’s significant vulnerability for the Trump Administration over their approach to immigration enforcement – to the way Hispanics have been broadly targeted, indiscriminately – but there has to be a responsible approach to immigration, not an end to enforcement writ large. And keep an eye on Cuba. Cuban American members of Congress have struggled to deal with the Trump Administration’s negotiations with the communist regime. If it comes to pass in a similar way to Venezuela, it could prove demoralizing to a community so invested against negotiations with the existing regime. As the Herald reported, even among those who support military intervention, that doesn’t mean they want to see bloodshed on the island, so it’s complicated. Finally, cost of living and economic concerns remain prominent, and in the Equis poll, economic concerns have jumped from being a top issue for about a third, to now nearly half of respondents, 35% to 44% now.

One final note. None of the polls address a key question that is going to have to be addressed before the November midterms. As we saw with the random and last second deployment of ICE to help TSA recently, Trump might see ICE as a police force that he can deploy at will for whatever he wants. There have been plenty of statements from him and those close to him to suggest ICE could be used at or near polling sites. At some point, that needs to be part of the conversation. If Democrats fail to correctly diagnose that as a potential problem, they may miss their chance to block it, and to make sure the public understands the threat it poses that is entirely separate and distinct from anything to do with immigration.

Thanks for listening! Hit that subscribe button and share this post.

-Luis.

#podcast #poll #polling #equis #FIU #MiamiHerald #BendixenAmandi #latino #latinovote #midterm #elections #vote #immigration #immigrationenforcement #trump #whitehouse #congress #democrats #republicans

Fue muy conmovedor ver el viaje y el retorno exitoso de la tripulación del Artemis II, pero rápidamente volvemos a lo geopolítico -- a lo que nos divide. Robert comienza explicando que en el ámbito internacional existe escepticismo sobre si el momento de la misión fue planificado para desviar la atención de los conflictos bélicos actuales. Se discute la competencia tecnológica entre Estados Unidos y el bloque de China y Rusia, recordando que, aunque Rusia lideró inicialmente la carrera espacial con el primer satélite y el primer hombre en el espacio, la misión Artemis demuestra que Estados Unidos mantiene una capacidad de innovación tecnológica de larga data que muchos creían desaparecida.

Pero bien, el tema mas preocupante de la semana fue la volátil situación con Irán. Fue una semana de tensiones extremas que culminó en un cese al fuego interpretado en gran parte como un fracaso, y que en el resto del mundo se ha visto como una rendición por parte de Estados Unidos. Por supuesto, no es unánime la opinion.

El comportamiento de Donald Trump en sus redes sociales, especialmente sus mensajes enviados el domingo de Pascua donde, en lugar de un mensaje de paz o fe, amenazó con destruir infraestructura vital y puentes en Irán, y luego su amenaza de destruir una civilización entera, fueron demasiado hasta para muchos Republicanos. Pero Carlos ofrece otra perspectiva, que el conflicto no se puede analizar por los métodos tradicionales, ya que Trump actuó como el “negociador” que describe en su libro *The Art of the Deal*, y que jamás esperaba una victoria total. Eso nos lleva a un debate si Trump es simplemente es un “ludópata” que gusta de apostar y arriesgar sin una estrategia clara. Lo cierto es que Irán, por su parte, ha presentado condiciones maximalistas para las negociaciones, incluyendo el control absoluto del estrecho de Ormuz, la retirada de todas las tropas estadounidenses de Medio Oriente y el levantamiento de sanciones para liberar fondos congelados. Si bien, hubo una “decapitación” del liderazgo del régimen iraní que no tiene precedentes en casi 50 años, y se degrado su capacidad militar, pero Irán sigue demostrando fuerza al disparar misiles y drones que se creían destruidos, y que el régimen simplemente está pasando el poder a una nueva generación.

Eso si, vale la pena destacar que Iran si ha sido una amenaza durante las ultimas cinco décadas, y Robert opina que hasta Netanyahu -- quien ha perdido mucha credibilidad -- ha tenido razón sobre la necesidad de frenar esas amenazas provenientes de Irán no solo para su país sino para el occidente. Que Netanyahu ha perdido credibilidad no es secreto, pues incluso entre los asesores de Trump, como Marco Rubio y J.D. Vance, ya están filtrando sus diferencias a los medios y calificaron el análisis de Netanyahu en el que convenció a Trump de entrar en este conflicto como “basura” (bullshit).

Esas amenazas se vieron mas en relieve esta semana cuando salió noticia que Iran y Venezuela en el 2020 llegaron mucho mas lejos en negociaciones para instalar misiles balísticos iraníes en suelo venezolano de lo que se sabia. Carlos comparte una experiencia personal trabajando en el gobierno Panameno, donde fue víctima de un hackeo por parte de una célula iraní operando en Venezuela, lo que subraya la naturaleza asimétrica y cibernética de la amenaza actual. Además de la violencia a través de *proxies* como Hezbollah y Hamas, se destaca la efectividad de las campañas de desinformación iraníes a nivel global.

Trump no se da por vencido. Internamente busca manipular las elecciones de noviembre, emitiendo una orden ejecutiva que nacionalizaría los votos por correo. Esencialmente, forzaría al U.S. Postal Service, el correo estadounidense, a no entregar boletas electorales que ellos no aprueben con una lista preparada por el DHS (la agencia matriz de ICE). Es un paso mas en su esfuerzo por ganar a toda costa, pero igual que una orden ejecutiva similar en el 2025, ya hay demandas, y es probable que las cortes frenen esa nacionalización de la autoridad de llevar a cabo elecciones que la misma Constitución le deja a los estados.

En otras acciones difíciles de entender, hablamos de la llegada de la temporada de incendios forestales que se acerca mientras Trump avanza con desmantelar el Servicio Forestal de los Estados Unidos. No hay lógica.

Seguiremos siguiendo, debatiendo, e informando!

Gracias por escuchar! Pulsen ‘subscribe!’

-Luis

After the overnight raid that captured Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the Trump Administration increased pressure on Cuba which was left without its main source of oil. That has led to fuel shortages, power outages, blackouts, and even unrest. Recently, it was confirmed that the Cuban government is, in fact, negotiating with the Trump Administration and with Cuban American Secretary of State Marco Rubio playing an outsized role.

I’ve known Joe now for 26 years, and his insights have always been informative, on point, and colorful. For decades, Cuba policy has been at the whims of domestic electoral politics, with foreign policy and pragmatism taking a back seat. I asked Joe to give us his sense of the current landscape with regards to those negotiations, given that many Cuban Americans could feel betrayed by a negotiation we now know is likely to lead to the Castros remaining in control — just as the Chavista regime (other than Maduro) remains in Control of Venezuela. The Cuban American members of Congress in South Florida have been surprised by developments in both Venezuela and Cuba that they would have never tolerated from a Democrat, but that are now being precipitated by their friend and former colleague Marco Rubio.

As a former Member of Congress and political operative, I also wanted Joe’s take on the electoral landscape in Florida, where a key Senate race could be a toss-up, and several weak Cuban American members of Congress may be vulnerable to strong Democratic candidates. Now, when I say Joe’s commentary is colorful, it’s that he brings both tremendous depth and historical context, stories, and comparisons that breathe life into sometimes complex debates. Here are some of the highlights:

On the historical context of Cuban political power

“…even to this day, it’s one of those third rail issues…you touch it at your own peril. To such an extent, that I think one of the great errors..Joe Biden didn’t want to mention the word Cuba, even though there has not been a president that has been more generous with the Cuban-American community…”

“I think our good friend Mayorkas didn’t know how to deal with it, and in many respects…right now we’re paying that price across the board because I think a lot of the work that was done in Homeland Security was…quite good…”

“We as Democrats, when we see something’s not working, we tend to not talk about it, and then when something’s working about it, we don’t want to engage it.”

“to end up with Donald Trump, which right now wants to, just in the Cuban community alone, if you take his numbers, it’s about 550,000 people that are facing a deportation…”

“If Joe Biden would have said, ‘I’m dialoguing…talking with the Castros…it would have been unthinkable…dialogue is a bad word in Miami.”

“Imagine you as a policy person at the ripe old age of 35 would walk into the chief executive office, in this case, Kennedy’s office, and you would say, Mr. President, here’s how we beat these communist bearded bastards in Havana. We do an embargo. And if we keep it in place for 67 years, we’ll get it. They would have taken you, thrown you out the window. Nonetheless, we’ve taken this incredibly inefficient policy that has not garnered any of what we wanted. But it’s the only thing we have. And so people hold on to it…”

“I think in many respects, we started defending things that people didn’t understand, and we weren’t fighting for things they needed. And so the middle class — we didn’t hollow out the middle class, the Republicans did, but they blamed our programs for doing it, which of course was what created the middle class in the first place.”

On the Trump-Rubio negotiations with the Castros

“I certainly don’t agree with this administration’s foreign policy. But you know what Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. And on this, Marco Rubio represents, by and large, the ethic and the feeling in many respects of the Cuban American community. Now, he may not represent everything about that, but he represents the idea that we have to find a solution because the Cuban people have suffered for far too long with what I believe has been an ineffective, ineffectual and broken system that has violated the human rights of many of its citizens…”

“Now, what he’s promising to do and what he’s going to get are two different things…He’s promising the world. He wants to get rid of the regime. They have to have capitalism. Political prisoners are going to be freed. We’re going to have democracy…That’s just the start. He’s going to pay American debtors, pay Cuban debtors. And you know what? The sun’s always going to shine and the grass is always going to be green. And you well know, right, the fantasy that our community is on this topic. And I have been...I helped create it to some degree, so I have as much fault as anyone…I think, to his credit, Marco is trying to find a solution…is he going to get everything he wants? No, of course not.”

“When Obama’s State Department, Homeland Security people got together with the Cubans to try to, after they’d come to an agreement, to try to forge a better future. And so the U.S. delegation, the U.S. experts were sitting across from their Cuban counterparts. And they kept telling, well, we can do this and we can do that. And the Cubans would sit there and say, you can’t do that because that’s in...such-and-such presidential directive that doesn’t allow you to do that. You can’t do that because that’s in the Torricelli bill. You can’t do that because that’s in Helms-Burton legislation. And, of course, they were right, right? We have put so many sanctions on them …so there are these absurd rules that have been put in place by Cubans.”

“I think we have a tremendous opportunity…the other day, someone told me…Gavin Newsom said, look, if it gets rid of the Castros I think it’s a good policy. And I got a call from a Cuban Democrat. Why would Gavin Newsom say that? Because Gavin Newsom is a good politician. He knows that the Castros have no votes in Hialeah, right? But you can get votes in Hialeah, as Obama demonstrated.”

“Obama didn’t have the power in the United States Congress to lift the embargo. Cuban Americans had the power to do that. And Obama did not buy us in to get us to lift the embargo. Well, Donald Trump tomorrow could put it on the floor of the House and the Senate and he could get the embargo lifted. And I think that the Cubans need to negotiate, the Cubans on island need to negotiate knowing full well that this guy can lift the embargo. And I think most Democrats would go along with it if we get …amnesty for the political prisoners if we get participation and civil rights and human rights for the cuban people and some pathway towards democracy, I think you’re going to see overwhelming support and the last thing you want to do is leave the embargo in place…”

“The Cuban government feels that if they can get to November, they’re going to get a better deal from the Democrats. And I said, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”

“Greek plays end with deus ex machina…God steps in and fixes everyone and everyone lives happily ever after. It just doesn’t work that way. The politics, as you well know, is a contact sport. It’s a hard thing.”

“Barack Obama was trying to have a natural birth through time and gravity. Donald Trump is having an induced labor and he’s using forceps. But regardless, the baby’s got to be born. And what we can’t do is keep waiting…I think in many respects, yeah, there’s a million better ways to do this.”

On electoral politics in Florida

“Some of these millionaires that are very close to Donald Trump literally became millionaires selling Obamacare, right? and so and now they’re republicans so you know they’ve lost all their health insurance they’ve lost all this and i think the economy turning south the economy slowing down to some degree south florida is still doing well but I think …Maria Elvira, Carlos Gimenez, they’re vulnerable but they’re not vulnerable because of Cuba or Venezuela”

“So you’re going to see, I think we’re going to see some surprises…when you look at the president’s number in areas where he won overwhelmingly, particularly Hispanic, Miami, Cuban, Colombian, Venezuelan, you’re going to see a lot of slippage because of the social policy issues...the bread and butter issues, they’re clearly going south. Affordability, health care. A family’s access to a better life is very limited in South Florida at a time where wealth is just pouring over our community.

Thank you for listening! Comment, share, and hit that subscribe button!

-Luis.