SVP, PGM-Energy risk mgmt, derivatives execution. Info+ideas, not advice. John Hopkins SAIS #OOTT Opinions are mine. Earnest, Pro-human race. Ad gloriam Dei
New York
Joined March 2009
- Tweets25.3K
- Following2K
- Followers8.8K
- Likes38.8K
Notes from the bunker.
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
2
445
It is 8:57 pm. I have gotten 33 Democratic fundraising texts since this morning. Is this the best way to raise money? Democrats are desperate to raise money as they trail behind Republicans in cash but it’s overwhelming. If you give via Act Blue, they’ve got your number!
2
533
First up was Mark Wayne Mullen defending ICE’s shooting of an undocumented suspect in a car in NYC sitting next to his 5 yr old. Okay. Next up, Sen Barrasso defending the deal to now buy Russian diesel, which would be defying a Congressional prohibition. Last week Rep Salazar….
1
3
290
was slobbering with praise for Trump while trying to soft pedal criticisms of Trump’s widespread harassment of Latinos. What does it do to a person to get up and shamelessly defend the indefensible? What does it take?
#too_tired_to_yell_at_the_TV
1
2
208
Every Sunday, out of a sense of civic responsibility, I watch Face the Nation. And in full compliance with showing “both sides“, CBS gives a platform to the most mind-frying, off-the-wall commentary from the nations political representatives.
Listening to R Congresswoman Salazar from Miami on Face the Nation. Unreal attempt on her part to criticize Trump’s policies while flowing with slobbery praise. This is the reality for House Republicans. So pathetic .#yelling_at_the_TV
1
7
722
My deep thought for the day……why the @#%* does Trump have to show up at MSG tonight to pollute the pure joy New Yorkers are feeling about the Knicks, bringing his crazy, creepy self and all kinds of other crazies?
3
6
1,037
Inflation in the NY area continues to outpace the rest of the US at 4.6% for the last 12 mo, vs US CPI of 3.8%. Maintaining residential bldgs, landlords in NYC face 5.3% inflation during the same period. Very tough for everybody, especially landlords (now the black hats!)
5
465
Do you use Perplexity Pro? For research, sources, general knowledge? Have you noticed a switcheroo in the quality and amount of access? Have you ever been shut off, hitting a mysterious, unannounced wall? You have company. consumerrights.wiki/w/Perple…
2
2
424
I just prepared a well thought out but (though satiric post) about 8 things I think Trump will say in his Iran speech. I got a message back from X that the "Content is invalid" omg. what a clown show.
2
6
746
💥💥💥#OOTT
A coalition of 32 countries plans to release 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves in response to the Iran war, the largest ever and the first such coordinated action since 2022, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. nytimes.com/live/2026/03/11/…
2
1,024
Margaret Brennan pins down Chis Wright on FTN. She skewers his solution for Asian oil tightness - buy floating Russian oil. “She says “ but wait, doesn’t that $ fund its war effort? And hasn’t Russia supported Iran With drones etc?” And military intel? Humina…humina
3
731
It’s happened. Finally.
The use of IEEPA in setting tariffs frames their use as a national security issue, allowing POTUS to make lightning impulsive, decisions outside of traditional statutes which address fair trade issues. When will SCOTUS decide on the constitutionality of its use in this way?
3
741
The use of IEEPA in setting tariffs frames their use as a national security issue, allowing POTUS to make lightning impulsive, decisions outside of traditional statutes which address fair trade issues. When will SCOTUS decide on the constitutionality of its use in this way?
Patricia A Hemsworth retweeted
Fixing the Venezuelan oil industry will take time, money, and—most importantly—institutional change
Francisco Monaldi
Director of the Latin American Energy Program, Rice University’s Baker Institute
In the short term, Venezuela’s oil industry will have a limited impact on global markets. The country currently accounts for less than one percent of world oil production. Over the medium and long term, however, a sustained recovery in Venezuelan output could make a meaningful difference. From a purely technical standpoint, Venezuela could produce four to five times its current level of roughly one million barrels per day. Achieving that outcome, however, would require more than a decade of consistent effort and investments exceeding $100 billion dollars.
Geology is not Venezuela’s problem. The country possesses vast reserves, faces relatively low geological risks, and enjoys moderate extraction costs. Under an appropriate contractual and tax regime, oil production would be profitable even at prices as low as $25–30 per barrel. The real obstacles to investment are not found below ground but above it. They are political, regulatory, and institutional in nature.
Over the past quarter century of chavismo in power, the Venezuelan state has repeatedly reneged on its agreements with foreign investors. Resource nationalism has restricted the role that international oil companies can play, undermining confidence and discouraging long-term commitments. The national oil company, PDVSA, is now effectively bankrupt and lacks the operational and financial capacity to lead a recovery on its own. Any significant increase in production would therefore have to be driven largely by foreign firms.
For that to happen, several conditions must align. Venezuela would need stable and constructive relations with the United States and Europe, along with the permanent removal of oil sanctions. Investors would also need to perceive a minimum degree of political stability and, critically, a durable consensus among the country’s political leadership in favor of reopening the oil sector to foreign participation. Finally, a credible and competitive legal framework would need to be approved by a legitimate legislature and enforced by a legitimate executive.
Some argue that sanctions relief alone could unleash a rapid influx of investment. In reality, sanctions relief is necessary but far from sufficient. Without firm legal protections, policy continuity, and political legitimacy, large-scale investments with long development horizons will not materialize.
In the absence of genuine institutional change, Venezuela may still attract limited “low-hanging fruit” investments—projects with high short-term returns and fast cost recovery. While these could generate modest gains, they would do little to rebuild the industry or restore the country’s production capacity over the long run. Major projects requiring substantial capital and long maturities will remain out of reach.
The central problem facing Venezuela’s oil sector is therefore not technical or geological. It is political and institutional. These realities are often obscured by wishful thinking or by actors seeking quick profits. A meaningful recovery is possible, but only if it is grounded in durable political change, credible institutions, and a long-term commitment to restoring investor confidence.
Trump is now focused on affordability and inflation he says. He’s trying to shape the midterm narrative. Help me. I living in a chronic state of cognitive dissonance. Does he think tariffs might be contributing?
1
1
458
We will never forget. We will never forget the loss of friends, colleagues and the landscape of our youth. And we will never forget how we came together with love and support for one another as Americans and human beings. Thank you always to the First Responders.
