Adam Bonica
@adambonica.bsky.social
Professor of Political Science at Stanford | Exploring money in politics, campaigns and elections, ideology, the courts, and inequality | Author of The Judicial Tug of War cup.org/2LEoMrs | https://data4democracy.substack.com
Perhaps it would by the current Supreme Court. But at least then they would take ownership of the decision. And that wouldn’t make it “correct.” It would be a fascinating (and telling) decision, given this Court’s extraordinary deference to Trump’s claims of unilateral spending authority.
November 7, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Perhaps it would by the current Supreme Court. But at least then they would take ownership of the decision. And that wouldn’t make it “correct.” It would be a fascinating (and telling) decision, given this Court’s extraordinary deference to Trump’s claims of unilateral spending authority.
Thank you @adamkinzinger.substack.com for your inspiring keynote at Stanford's Democracy Day. Your courage was on full display, your advice for the students was wonderful, and we're glad to have you as part of the pro-democracy movement.
'We’re here to create a democracy together': Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger gives keynote speech at Democracy Day
Democracy Day keynote speaker and former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger spoke to students about extremism, bipartisanship, Jan. 6 and civic engagement in his address.
stanforddaily.com
November 5, 2025 at 11:15 PM
Thank you @adamkinzinger.substack.com for your inspiring keynote at Stanford's Democracy Day. Your courage was on full display, your advice for the students was wonderful, and we're glad to have you as part of the pro-democracy movement.
Reposted by Adam Bonica
if democrats want to win in places like ohio, iowa, and texas, they need to run on new dimensions of conflict that break right-leaning voters out of their usual patterns
October 29, 2025 at 8:22 PM
if democrats want to win in places like ohio, iowa, and texas, they need to run on new dimensions of conflict that break right-leaning voters out of their usual patterns
This context likely explains why the report's polling:
1. Didn't ask a single question about campaign finance reform or corruption.
2. Did ask about taxing the rich, but framed it using the obscure "stepped-up basis,” a loophole well-known to these specific donors, but not to 99.9% of the public.
1. Didn't ask a single question about campaign finance reform or corruption.
2. Did ask about taxing the rich, but framed it using the obscure "stepped-up basis,” a loophole well-known to these specific donors, but not to 99.9% of the public.
October 30, 2025 at 10:27 PM
This context likely explains why the report's polling:
1. Didn't ask a single question about campaign finance reform or corruption.
2. Did ask about taxing the rich, but framed it using the obscure "stepped-up basis,” a loophole well-known to these specific donors, but not to 99.9% of the public.
1. Didn't ask a single question about campaign finance reform or corruption.
2. Did ask about taxing the rich, but framed it using the obscure "stepped-up basis,” a loophole well-known to these specific donors, but not to 99.9% of the public.
Reposted by Adam Bonica
My main takeaway on the “moderation” debate is that Democrats would be better served by other debates besides left-right positioning, like how to develop new valence issues (corruption!) as wedge issues, and how to get attention for their policy proposals in the first place
October 28, 2025 at 1:16 AM
My main takeaway on the “moderation” debate is that Democrats would be better served by other debates besides left-right positioning, like how to develop new valence issues (corruption!) as wedge issues, and how to get attention for their policy proposals in the first place