<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>View from the Gallery</title>
    <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com</link>
    <description>We check the facts in viral political posts, rule on them plainly, then lay out the real disagreement underneath, fairly, without picking a side.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>Republicans kept 85% of Trump's share. That isn't evidence of fraud.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/fifteen-percent-band</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/fifteen-percent-band</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The post's math checks out for its 30 Senate races. Republicans kept about 85% of Trump's 2024 share, a rule that explains 89% of the variation. But races ran from 71% to 101%, and the same test explains 92% of 2022's results and 73% of 2018's. Nothing in the data points to switched votes.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trump shared a post saying one formula, 0.85 times his 2024 share, explains Republicans' midterm losses in 59 races, and that a pattern this even demands hand counts. We rebuilt the data from state and Decision Desk HQ counts and ran the same test on 2018 and 2022. The average is real. What it means is the question.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> One formula fits all of it: Republican 2026 = 0.85 × Trump 2024, and it explains 88% of the variation.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> It didn't matter how red the state was: the same 15% decrease almost everywhere.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> Any state where Trump got under about 58.5% fell below 50%: Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, SC and NC all flipped.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> As @WallStreetApes spread it: &quot;For every 1000 Trump votes, 150 are algorithmically switched to Dems.&quot;</li></ul><p>The post's math checks out for its 30 Senate races. Republicans kept about 85% of Trump's 2024 share, a rule that explains 89% of the variation. But races ran from 71% to 101%, and the same test explains 92% of 2022's results and 73% of 2018's. Nothing in the data points to switched votes.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/fifteen-percent-band">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A missed memory card did flip a Georgia House race. No sign of fraud.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/georgia-memory-card</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/georgia-memory-card</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The post is right that a Seminole County memory card holding several hundred Election Day votes was never uploaded, and adding it put Republican Gerald Greene ahead by 262. It wasn't the exact number needed. Greene netted 320. The state caught the gap by matching check-ins to ballots, and nothing shows fraud. Results aren't certified yet.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three days after the election, Georgia's secretary of state's office spotted a gap that led Seminole County to a memory card it had never uploaded, and adding it flipped the lead in a state House race. The story soon had millions of views and people asking whether it was fraud. We checked what the card was, what it changed and what it didn't.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Officials found a missing memory card with 388 uncounted votes that flipped a Georgia House race to the Republican.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The card held the exact number of votes needed to change the result.</li><li><strong>Unsupported:</strong> A forgotten card that flips a race after Election Day suggests fraud, and other races may be missing cards too.</li></ul><p>The post is right that a Seminole County memory card holding several hundred Election Day votes was never uploaded, and adding it put Republican Gerald Greene ahead by 262. It wasn't the exact number needed. Greene netted 320. The state caught the gap by matching check-ins to ballots, and nothing shows fraud. Results aren't certified yet.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/georgia-memory-card">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Montana voters passed a corporate spending ban. It isn't in force yet.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/montana-corporate-ban</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/montana-corporate-ban</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Montana voters approved I-194 on Nov. 3, about 65 percent to 35. Starting Jan. 1, it would strip corporations, nonprofits, unions and other entities of the power to spend on Montana elections. The state Republican Party and four conservative nonprofits have sued to block it. The real fight is over Citizens United: whether groups' election spending is protected speech.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Montana voters approved a broad limit on election spending this week, and a federal lawsuit was filed the same night. A viral post says the ban is already done. It isn't in force yet, and whether it ever is depends on how courts read Citizens United.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Montana has now completely banned corporate spending in politics.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Republicans are now suing to reverse it.</li></ul><p>Montana voters approved I-194 on Nov. 3, about 65 percent to 35. Starting Jan. 1, it would strip corporations, nonprofits, unions and other entities of the power to spend on Montana elections. The state Republican Party and four conservative nonprofits have sued to block it. The real fight is over Citizens United: whether groups' election spending is protected speech.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/montana-corporate-ban">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>California's races ran close, not identical. No sign of an algorithm.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/california-identical-results</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/california-identical-results</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Five of California's six party races stood within 0.2 points of each other as of Nov. 6, and secretary of state ran about a point ahead. The court races were yes-or-no votes with no party. That spread is tighter than in recent years, but party-line voting keeps races close, and nothing points to an algorithm.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Five of California's statewide races stood within a fraction of a point of each other as of Nov. 6, and a post calling them &quot;EXACT SAME&quot; and computer-made drew about half a million views on X. The near-tie is real. The rest of the post doesn't hold up, and underneath it is a real argument about how California counts.</p><ul><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> California's major races all came out at the exact same percentages: 64% for the Democrat, 35% for the Republican.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The two Supreme Court races came out 72% (D) vs 28% (R).</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Results this close don't look like real elections. They look like a computer algorithm, so the election is fake.</li></ul><p>Five of California's six party races stood within 0.2 points of each other as of Nov. 6, and secretary of state ran about a point ahead. The court races were yes-or-no votes with no party. That spread is tighter than in recent years, but party-line voting keeps races close, and nothing points to an algorithm.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/california-identical-results">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 20 million registrations add up. The noncitizen inference doesn't.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/registrations-20-million</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/registrations-20-million</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The 20 million adds up. We count about 20.5 million new registrations in those 37 states, including people who moved. The 37-state split uses today's laws, most of which weren't in force in 2022–24. Applicants everywhere swear they're citizens. DHS checks of 68 million records flagged about 28,000 as noncitizens. Utah confirmed 27 in 2 million.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benny Johnson's post about 20 million voter registrations was viewed about half a million times this week. The SAVE America Act he faults Republicans for hasn't passed. The number is mostly real. It also counts people who moved, and the 37-state map uses today's laws, most of which came later or never took effect.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> There were 20 million new voter registrations between 2022 and 2024 in 37 states.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> These registrations came in under 37 states' rules without proof-of-citizenship requirements.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Registering without documents has let noncitizens onto the rolls in numbers big enough to cost us the country.</li></ul><p>The 20 million adds up. We count about 20.5 million new registrations in those 37 states, including people who moved. The 37-state split uses today's laws, most of which weren't in force in 2022–24. Applicants everywhere swear they're citizens. DHS checks of 68 million records flagged about 28,000 as noncitizens. Utah confirmed 27 in 2 million.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/registrations-20-million">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Republican was charged in a ballot fraud case. Not in the midterms.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/rowan-ballot-fraud</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/rowan-ballot-fraud</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Aidan Rowan, 25, a Rockland County, N.Y., Republican activist and paid campaign consultant, was arrested and faces 12 felony counts. He is presumed innocent. The charges concern a June 23 primary he ran in for local Republican committee seats. The midterm general election was Nov. 3. The real argument is what one case says about how much fraud there is.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A post seen about 640,000 times said a Republican operative was arrested for ballot fraud in the midterms. The arrest is real. The election is the wrong one.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Republican operative Aidan Rowan was arrested on ballot fraud charges.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The alleged ballot fraud was in the 2026 midterms.</li></ul><p>Aidan Rowan, 25, a Rockland County, N.Y., Republican activist and paid campaign consultant, was arrested and faces 12 felony counts. He is presumed innocent. The charges concern a June 23 primary he ran in for local Republican committee seats. The midterm general election was Nov. 3. The real argument is what one case says about how much fraud there is.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/rowan-ballot-fraud">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sanders's Iran war numbers mostly hold up. His troop count is stale.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-iran-war</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-iran-war</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Pentagon counts 23 U.S. dead, not 19, and 11 of them died from hostile action. Iran's Health Ministry counted 2,362 civilians killed through April, and independent groups counted fewer. The Pentagon puts the cost at $47.1 billion. Fuel prices jumped with the war, remain far above prewar levels and have eased since September.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sanders wants the new Democratic majority to defund the Iran war, and he backed it with four numbers. Two check out, one needs context, and the troop toll is out of date in a way that understates his own point. We checked each, and laid out the best case for cutting the money and for keeping it.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> 19 American troops have died in the Iran war.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Thousands of innocent people have been killed.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> The war has cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Gas and diesel prices are skyrocketing.</li></ul><p>The Pentagon counts 23 U.S. dead, not 19, and 11 of them died from hostile action. Iran's Health Ministry counted 2,362 civilians killed through April, and independent groups counted fewer. The Pentagon puts the cost at $47.1 billion. Fuel prices jumped with the war, remain far above prewar levels and have eased since September.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-iran-war">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Democrats' House gain looks closer to 15 million than 20</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/house-vote-20-million</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/house-vote-20-million</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>So far, Democrats have about 10.8 million more House votes than in 2022, and Republicans about 6 million fewer. Our projection from turnout estimates puts the final Democratic gain near 15 million. The chart's 20 million rested on an 85%-counted premise that implies more House votes than ballots cast. Exit polls trace the swing mostly to 2024 voters.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two days after the midterms, a chart claiming Democrats &quot;materialized&quot; 20 million new House votes passed 2.9 million views. We checked it against the count and turnout estimates, and looked at the proof-of-citizenship fight the posts raised.</p><ul><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> Republican House votes &quot;stayed the same&quot; as in 2022.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Democrats got about 20 million more House votes than in 2022.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The extra Democratic votes &quot;materialized.&quot;</li></ul><p>So far, Democrats have about 10.8 million more House votes than in 2022, and Republicans about 6 million fewer. Our projection from turnout estimates puts the final Democratic gain near 15 million. The chart's 20 million rested on an 85%-counted premise that implies more House votes than ballots cast. Exit polls trace the swing mostly to 2024 voters.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/house-vote-20-million">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stocks' worst day since April 2025, not one of the worst in history</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/market-crash-democrats</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/market-crash-democrats</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The S&amp;P 500's 4.4% drop Thursday was its worst since April 2025. The Dow fell 3.4%, against 22.6% in 1987. Analysts tied the slide to fears Democrats will curb data centers. Stocks had jumped on the same results a day earlier, and tech stocks were already in a correction. The S&amp;P is still up 7.4% this year.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two days after Democrats swept the midterms, stocks had their worst day in 19 months, and President Trump blamed Democrats. We checked how bad the day really was and whether the election explains it.</p><ul><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> The stock market &quot;suffered one of the Worst Days in History&quot; on Nov. 5.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The drop was &quot;based on the results of the Election&quot;: &quot;it wasn't Republicans, it was Dumocrats.&quot;</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> &quot;Your 401(k)s have, therefore, dropped.&quot;</li></ul><p>The S&amp;P 500's 4.4% drop Thursday was its worst since April 2025. The Dow fell 3.4%, against 22.6% in 1987. Analysts tied the slide to fears Democrats will curb data centers. Stocks had jumped on the same results a day earlier, and tech stocks were already in a correction. The S&amp;P is still up 7.4% this year.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/market-crash-democrats">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sanders' wage and billionaire numbers hold up, with context</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-billionaire-wealth</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-billionaire-wealth</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>All four numbers hold up. The federal minimum has been $7.25 since July 2009 and buys about 35% less now, though 30 states and DC set higher floors. Billionaire wealth went from $1.27 trillion, Forbes's 2009 tally, to roughly $9 trillion. The open question is whether a wealth tax and a $20 floor would help.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bernie Sanders set the frozen $7.25 minimum wage next to a sevenfold jump in billionaire wealth since 2009 (about 4.7-fold after inflation). His numbers hold up, though the 2009 figure is a crash-year count of the Forbes 400, and 30 states and DC set minimums above $7.25. Underneath is an argument over whether a wealth tax and a $20 floor would help or backfire.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> The federal minimum wage was $7.25 an hour in 2009 and is still $7.25 in 2026.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> U.S. billionaire wealth in 2009 was $1.27 trillion.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> U.S. billionaire wealth in 2026 is $9.15 trillion.</li></ul><p>All four numbers hold up. The federal minimum has been $7.25 since July 2009 and buys about 35% less now, though 30 states and DC set higher floors. Billionaire wealth went from $1.27 trillion, Forbes's 2009 tally, to roughly $9 trillion. The open question is whether a wealth tax and a $20 floor would help.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/sanders-billionaire-wealth">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Wisconsin doesn't have 7 million voters. It has 3.6 million active.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/wisconsin-7-million-voters</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/wisconsin-7-million-voters</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Wisconsin had about 3.6 million active voters on Nov. 1, not 7 million. The 7 million was a 2022 count of every database record, including inactive ones that can't vote without registering again. Adult citizens number about 4.5 million, not 4. Ballots have stayed well below the adult population. The fight is over how fast to prune the active list.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This claim has circulated since at least 2022, and it came back two days after the election with a clip from a legislative hearing. One number in it is a real database count, read as something it isn't, and the other is about half a million low. We checked what Wisconsin's voter list holds and what the rolls debate is really about.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Wisconsin has 7 million registered voters.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Wisconsin has only 4 million voting-age citizens.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> These numbers show mass voter fraud in Wisconsin.</li></ul><p>Wisconsin had about 3.6 million active voters on Nov. 1, not 7 million. The 7 million was a 2022 count of every database record, including inactive ones that can't vote without registering again. Adult citizens number about 4.5 million, not 4. Ballots have stayed well below the adult population. The fight is over how fast to prune the active list.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/wisconsin-7-million-voters">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Medicaid work rules start in January. No Democrat voted for the law.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/big-bill-january</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/big-bill-january</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The law's biggest coverage change, Medicaid work requirements, starts by Jan. 1, 2027, along with six-month eligibility checks. Much of the rest has already started or comes later. No Democrat voted for it, and Democrats can't undo it without the president's signature or a veto-proof majority. The real fight is whether work rules are a fair condition for coverage.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A post with nearly 2 million views reminded people that when the &quot;Big Ugly Bill&quot; starts in January, Democrats didn't pass it. The votes back that up. The dates are messier: the biggest Medicaid changes do land by Jan. 1, but a lot of the law is already running.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The &quot;Big Ugly Bill&quot; (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) starts in January.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> &quot;It was not the Democrats&quot; who passed the law.</li></ul><p>The law's biggest coverage change, Medicaid work requirements, starts by Jan. 1, 2027, along with six-month eligibility checks. Much of the rest has already started or comes later. No Democrat voted for it, and Democrats can't undo it without the president's signature or a veto-proof majority. The real fight is whether work rules are a fair condition for coverage.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/big-bill-january">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 272 math works, but none of those states has joined the compact</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/popular-vote-compact</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/popular-vote-compact</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Democrats will control Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada in January, and their 50 electoral votes plus the compact's 222 make 272. But none of those states has passed it, and Nevada's previous Democratic governor vetoed it. A lawsuit is all but certain. The Electoral College has tilted toward each party this century.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The morning after Democrats' midterm sweep, a viral post said they now control enough states to let the national popular vote pick the president. The arithmetic checks out. What it leaves out is everything between control and a law that survives court.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Democrats now control enough states to bring the compact to 272 electoral votes, maybe 283.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The compact would &quot;effectively abolish the Electoral College&quot; in time for the 2028 election.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The Electoral College favors Republicans, because a vote in Wyoming counts 3.8 times as much as one in California.</li></ul><p>Democrats will control Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Nevada in January, and their 50 electoral votes plus the compact's 222 make 272. But none of those states has passed it, and Nevada's previous Democratic governor vetoed it. A lawsuit is all but certain. The Electoral College has tilted toward each party this century.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/popular-vote-compact">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Minority voters didn't flip Texas alone. White voters swung too.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-newcomers</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-newcomers</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Texas exit polls don't show the GOP's losses came almost only from minority voters. White voters swung too, about 4 in 10 points of the shift. H-1B workers can't vote, and no 2026 data shows how newcomers voted. The lasting argument is over how much immigration Texas should want.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A viral post blamed Abbott's loss on minority voters and the H-1B workers he courted. The exit polls show white voters swung too, and H-1B workers can't vote. The argument underneath, about how much immigration Texas should want, is a real one.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Texas exit polling shows the GOP's losses were driven &quot;almost exclusively&quot; by minority voters.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Abbott's recruiting brought in H-1B workers, mostly from India, and they voted him out.</li><li><strong>Unsupported:</strong> The people Abbott &quot;brought into Texas&quot; are the ones who voted him out.</li></ul><p>Texas exit polls don't show the GOP's losses came almost only from minority voters. White voters swung too, about 4 in 10 points of the shift. H-1B workers can't vote, and no 2026 data shows how newcomers voted. The lasting argument is over how much immigration Texas should want.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-newcomers">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>El-Sayed beat AIPAC twice. Filings so far show $31.5M of his $42M.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/aipac-42-million</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/aipac-42-million</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>El-Sayed beat AIPAC's super PAC in the primary and the general. Its FEC filings show about $31.5 million against him or for his opponents. Getting to $42 million takes an ad tracker's higher primary estimate plus a reported transfer of up to $9 million to a pro-Rogers group, which won't be on file until December.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Abdul El-Sayed's victory speech had a pointed line for AIPAC: thanks for spending &quot;$42 million against us,&quot; and for the chance to beat it twice. We checked the money against FEC filings. The wins are real, and most of the number is on record. December's reports will show whether the reported $9 million moved.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> AIPAC spent $42 million against El-Sayed.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> El-Sayed beat AIPAC twice, in the Democratic primary and in the general election.</li></ul><p>El-Sayed beat AIPAC's super PAC in the primary and the general. Its FEC filings show about $31.5 million against him or for his opponents. Getting to $42 million takes an ad tracker's higher primary estimate plus a reported transfer of up to $9 million to a pro-Rogers group, which won't be on file until December.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/aipac-42-million">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The GOP Congress didn't do &quot;nothing.&quot; It did pass unusually few laws.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/gop-congress-nothing</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/gop-congress-nothing</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Walsh is wrong that the Republican Congress did nothing. It passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which made the 2017 individual tax rates permanent and added Medicaid work requirements. His real point holds up better. It enacted the second-fewest laws in 40 years at this stage, and much of the agenda ran through executive action instead.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Overnight, as Democrats won Congress, Matt Walsh said the outgoing Republican majority &quot;did precisely zero.&quot; The record says otherwise, and it also shows why the complaint landed. We look at what it passed and the fight over what a majority owes its voters.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The Republican Congress achieved nothing with the mandate voters gave it.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> This Congress passed far fewer laws than usual.</li></ul><p>Walsh is wrong that the Republican Congress did nothing. It passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which made the 2017 individual tax rates permanent and added Medicaid work requirements. His real point holds up better. It enacted the second-fewest laws in 40 years at this stage, and much of the agenda ran through executive action instead.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/gop-congress-nothing">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Musk's &quot;nearly half a billion&quot; checks out. So does &quot;no return.&quot;</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/musk-half-billion</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/musk-half-billion</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Glasser is right on both counts. Federal filings show Musk gave $445.6 million this cycle through Oct. 14, by our count, and the New York Times counts $474 million. He spent to keep Republicans in charge of Congress. Democrats won both chambers, and Ken Paxton, whom he backed with more than $200 million in Texas, lost.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On election night, Susan Glasser posted that Elon Musk would have dropped nearly half a billion dollars on the midterms for nothing. We checked the federal filings and the overnight results. Here's what his money went to, how those races went, and the real argument over what big donors get even when they lose.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Elon Musk spent nearly half a billion dollars on the 2026 midterm elections.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Musk's spending on the midterms bought him no return.</li></ul><p>Glasser is right on both counts. Federal filings show Musk gave $445.6 million this cycle through Oct. 14, by our count, and the New York Times counts $474 million. He spent to keep Republicans in charge of Congress. Democrats won both chambers, and Ken Paxton, whom he backed with more than $200 million in Texas, lost.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/musk-half-billion">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Talarico won Texas by about 12, not 30. We found no sign of fraud.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-swing-fraud</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-swing-fraud</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Texas backed Trump by 13.7 points and Cruz by 8.5 in 2024. But Talarico wasn't up 30 when the post went up. That was the swing since 2024. He led by about 16 then and about 12 by morning. Paxton and Gov. Abbott, who both lost, conceded. Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina swung 17 to 22 points toward Democrats.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Texas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1988, and before the race was even called, a viral post said Talarico was &quot;+30&quot; and called it fraud. The number came from a results page, and it measured something else. We checked the math and the fraud claim.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Texas was +8% for Cruz and +13% for Trump in 2024.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Texas is now &quot;nearly +30%&quot; for Talarico.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> A swing this big is &quot;exactly what fraud looks like.&quot;</li></ul><p>Texas backed Trump by 13.7 points and Cruz by 8.5 in 2024. But Talarico wasn't up 30 when the post went up. That was the swing since 2024. He led by about 16 then and about 12 by morning. Paxton and Gov. Abbott, who both lost, conceded. Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina swung 17 to 22 points toward Democrats.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/texas-swing-fraud">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Trump claimed no massive fraud that night and said he'd accept results</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-election-night-fraud</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-election-night-fraud</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Trump didn't say it. His last public words before the 8:45 p.m. ET post were a 7 p.m. post about Fox News's ratings. Before the post, his fraud claims came that morning. Around 10:30 p.m. he said he was &quot;absolutely willing to accept those results.&quot; The poster, whose previous post was a joke, hasn't said whether this one was.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On election night, a post seen nearly a million times said Trump was claiming massive nationwide fraud. We went through his posts and interviews from the whole day to see what he said, and when. The harder question is how much his record should shape how people read him.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> On election night, Trump said there is massive election fraud happening nationwide right now.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Trump was disputing the midterm results as they came in.</li></ul><p>Trump didn't say it. His last public words before the 8:45 p.m. ET post were a 7 p.m. post about Fox News's ratings. Before the post, his fraud claims came that morning. Around 10:30 p.m. he said he was &quot;absolutely willing to accept those results.&quot; The poster, whose previous post was a joke, hasn't said whether this one was.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-election-night-fraud">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Oliver's &quot;0 for 27&quot; checks out. DOJ's voter-roll suits keep losing.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/doj-voter-roll-suits</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/doj-voter-roll-suits</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Oliver's count is right. Courts have thrown out all 27 of the Justice Department's voter-roll suits they've decided on the merits, and the one appeals court to rule upheld a loss. A Trump-appointed judge ruled against it too. But most of the dismissals are on appeal, and some appellate judges wanted the question reheard.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Midway through his pre-election show, John Oliver offered a scorecard: the Justice Department is 0 for 27 in court in its push for states' voter rolls. The number holds up, and the &quot;0-27&quot; on screen came from a Republican official in Utah. Here's what's still on appeal, and the real argument over who should hold voter data.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> The Justice Department is 0 for 27 in court in its lawsuits for states' voter rolls.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The Justice Department's lawsuits to seize states' voter rolls are baseless.</li></ul><p>Oliver's count is right. Courts have thrown out all 27 of the Justice Department's voter-roll suits they've decided on the merits, and the one appeals court to rule upheld a loss. A Trump-appointed judge ruled against it too. But most of the dismissals are on appeal, and some appellate judges wanted the question reheard.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/doj-voter-roll-suits">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Election Day failures were real. The cheating claims are wrong.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/election-day-glitches</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/election-day-glitches</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Both failures were real. Westchester's Election Day scanners couldn't read ballots after a late programming update, and Broward's check-ins froze for about 20 minutes. Nothing shows intent. Westchester's ballots are bagged under bipartisan control, and the Republican incumbent says it doesn't appear intentional. Both places lean Democratic, so the failures most likely slowed more Democrats than Republicans.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two counties had voting equipment fail this morning, and within hours big accounts were calling it Democrats cheating. We checked what actually broke in Westchester and Broward, and who it slowed down. The story is still moving as Westchester counts its bagged ballots.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Broken ballot machines in Westchester County show Democrats trying to steal the election in New York.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Broward's machines &quot;accidentally&quot; shut down as a Democratic election fraud trick.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> Republicans outnumber Democrats 2 to 1 among Election Day voters.</li></ul><p>Both failures were real. Westchester's Election Day scanners couldn't read ballots after a late programming update, and Broward's check-ins froze for about 20 minutes. Nothing shows intent. Westchester's ballots are bagged under bipartisan control, and the Republican incumbent says it doesn't appear intentional. Both places lean Democratic, so the failures most likely slowed more Democrats than Republicans.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/election-day-glitches">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Trump's $4 billion for Israel checks out. A year-end cutoff isn't set.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/israel-aid-cutoff</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/israel-aid-cutoff</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The $4 billion is about right: $3.8 billion a year under a 2016 agreement, about $4 billion in fiscal 2026 with extras, mostly spent on U.S. weapons. Netanyahu has pitched ending the aid, but no deal to stop it this year has surfaced. Congress appropriates the money, and the House voted in July to keep it for fiscal 2027.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Election Day morning, Trump told Fox &amp; Friends that U.S. aid to Israel ends this year, by a deal with Netanyahu. Israeli officials said they were caught off guard by the timing. We checked the money, the deal and who controls the date.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> The U.S. gives Israel about $4 billion a year in &quot;things and money.&quot;</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Israel doesn't need U.S. military aid.</li><li><strong>Unsupported:</strong> Netanyahu approached Trump, and they made a deal months ago to stop the aid.</li><li><strong>Unsupported:</strong> U.S. aid to Israel gets cut off at the end of this year.</li></ul><p>The $4 billion is about right: $3.8 billion a year under a 2016 agreement, about $4 billion in fiscal 2026 with extras, mostly spent on U.S. weapons. Netanyahu has pitched ending the aid, but no deal to stop it this year has surfaced. Congress appropriates the money, and the House voted in July to keep it for fiscal 2027.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/israel-aid-cutoff">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Johnson's clip lacks &quot;committed crimes,&quot; but warns of investigations.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/johnson-committed-crimes</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/johnson-committed-crimes</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The video is real, but &quot;the rest of you who have committed crimes&quot; isn't in it. Johnson said Democrats would go after the president's family, cabinet, donors and friends, and that &quot;half of you in this room will be targeted. I run the protection program.&quot; Democrats have said they will investigate the Trump family and administration officials.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A real clip of House Speaker Mike Johnson is circulating again with a quote that doesn't match it: that Democrats will go after &quot;the rest of you who have committed crimes.&quot; The real remarks, from June, did warn of Democratic investigations. Here's what he said, what Democrats have said, and the argument underneath.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Johnson said Democrats will go after &quot;the rest of you who have committed crimes.&quot;</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Democrats will go after the president's family, the cabinet, his donors and friends.</li></ul><p>The video is real, but &quot;the rest of you who have committed crimes&quot; isn't in it. Johnson said Democrats would go after the president's family, cabinet, donors and friends, and that &quot;half of you in this room will be targeted. I run the protection program.&quot; Democrats have said they will investigate the Trump family and administration officials.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/johnson-committed-crimes">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Workers' share hit record lows on key measures. Pay has still grown.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/labor-share-record</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/labor-share-record</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>BLS and gross-income measures hit record lows in the latest quarters, back to 1947. Employee pay's share of national income was lower in 1948 and 1950, unless proprietors count. &quot;Share of capital&quot; is wrong. Real hourly compensation, benefits included, is up 25.6% since 2000 by our calculation, and rose 1.0% over the past year. How much is accounting remains disputed.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The record-low number going around holds on BLS and gross-income data, but not on every official measure. The argument is over what it measures, and what a shrinking share says about pay that grew, then slowed.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Workers' share of America's income is at a record low.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> U.S. workers took home their &quot;smallest share of capital&quot; (a different Fortune headline).</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> A falling share &quot;has got to be either falling earnings or falling numbers of people.&quot;</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Corporate profits' share is &quot;the highest it's been since 1950&quot; (Robert Reich, Sept. 7).</li></ul><p>BLS and gross-income measures hit record lows in the latest quarters, back to 1947. Employee pay's share of national income was lower in 1948 and 1950, unless proprietors count. &quot;Share of capital&quot; is wrong. Real hourly compensation, benefits included, is up 25.6% since 2000 by our calculation, and rose 1.0% over the past year. How much is accounting remains disputed.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/labor-share-record">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Obama's 26,000 bombs are real. &quot;No approval&quot; is the shaky part</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/obama-deportations-bombs</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/obama-deportations-bombs</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The bomb count checks out: 26,172 in 2016 alone. The Reddit version's 3 million removals holds, with caveats on counting. &quot;No approval&quot; is misleading: Congress authorized the fight with al-Qaeda, and the ISIS campaign rests on a contested reading of old laws. Obama did draw criticism. The real fight is whether his record excuses or indicts today.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A claim comparing Obama's bombing with newer military actions, around since at least 2025, is circulating again, now with a deportation figure added. The numbers hold up better than the word &quot;authorization&quot; does, and the evidence on who stayed quiet is mixed.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven countries.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> He did it &quot;without Congressional Approval&quot; (X), or &quot;without approval or authorization by Congress&quot; (Reddit).</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The Reddit version: Obama deported 3,000,000 people in the country illegally.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The outrage is selective: Obama's bombs drew no media meltdown or comparable anger.</li></ul><p>The bomb count checks out: 26,172 in 2016 alone. The Reddit version's 3 million removals holds, with caveats on counting. &quot;No approval&quot; is misleading: Congress authorized the fight with al-Qaeda, and the ISIS campaign rests on a contested reading of old laws. Obama did draw criticism. The real fight is whether his record excuses or indicts today.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/obama-deportations-bombs">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Trump's WSJ suit was dismissed again. &quot;Never won&quot; skips ABC's $16M.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-defamation-record</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-defamation-record</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Journal part checks out: a judge dismissed it with prejudice on Oct. 31, and Trump plans to appeal. We found no court judgment for Trump in a defamation suit he brought. But ABC paid $16 million to end one, and a pageant company he co-owned won a $5 million arbitration award. His Times, BBC and Pulitzer suits are live.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A judge ended Trump's $10 billion suit against the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, and he plans to appeal. A Reddit post goes further: he has never won a defamation suit at all. We found no court judgment for him, but the record includes a $16 million settlement.</p><ul><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit as a plaintiff.</li><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> A judge threw out Trump's $10 billion defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal with prejudice.</li></ul><p>The Journal part checks out: a judge dismissed it with prejudice on Oct. 31, and Trump plans to appeal. We found no court judgment for Trump in a defamation suit he brought. But ABC paid $16 million to end one, and a pageant company he co-owned won a $5 million arbitration award. His Times, BBC and Pulitzer suits are live.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/trump-defamation-record">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>There's no data center mandate. Your bill depends on your grid</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/data-center-bills</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/data-center-bills</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>We found no federal rule making data centers generate their own power, and the nearest thing, a pledge, is voluntary. Do they raise your bill? On the PJM grid, yes, by available estimates. Elsewhere, studies conflict and other costs loom larger. Brown's Ohio ad has the direction right. Talarico's Texas ad claims a cause we couldn't find measured on bills.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Data centers have become a closing argument for both parties. Trump says he has mandated a fix, and Democratic ads say the problem is already on your bill. We checked both against the same data.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> New and large data centers &quot;are mandated by me to make their own electricity&quot; and give or sell any excess.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> So &quot;there is electric price increase&quot; (apparently meaning no increase), and &quot;could be a substantial decrease.&quot;</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> Not in the post. Brown's Ohio ad: &quot;no one here is getting a damn thing from it except higher electric bills.&quot;</li><li><strong>Unsupported:</strong> Not in the post. Talarico's Texas ad: data centers mean Texans are &quot;paying the price with skyrocketing utility bills.&quot;</li></ul><p>We found no federal rule making data centers generate their own power, and the nearest thing, a pledge, is voluntary. Do they raise your bill? On the PJM grid, yes, by available estimates. Elsewhere, studies conflict and other costs loom larger. Brown's Ohio ad has the direction right. Talarico's Texas ad claims a cause we couldn't find measured on bills.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/data-center-bills">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Tulare's duplicate ballots are real. They don't show cheating.</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/duplicate-ballots</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/duplicate-ballots</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A printer's error, the registrar says, sent 7,791 voters a second ballot, about 23% of the city of Tulare's registered voters. Nothing we found shows cheating, and the county says a barcode check flags a second ballot. Places where voters must request mail ballots sent duplicates too. We found no measure of whether universal mailing makes it more common.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These posts are about two weeks old, but the question comes back when counting starts. If counties report how many duplicates came back and were rejected, those numbers can be read as fraud caught or as the checks working. We looked at what the Tulare error does and doesn't show, and at the duplicates sent elsewhere.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> Nearly one in five registered voters in Tulare, California, got two mail ballots for the same election.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The county's fix is a postcard telling voters to &quot;securely destroy&quot; the extra ballot.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The duplicate ballots in Tulare are a sign of cheating (&quot;Stop the cheat!&quot;).</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> This is the mess mass mail-in voting creates.</li></ul><p>A printer's error, the registrar says, sent 7,791 voters a second ballot, about 23% of the city of Tulare's registered voters. Nothing we found shows cheating, and the county says a barcode check flags a second ballot. Places where voters must request mail ballots sent duplicates too. We found no measure of whether universal mailing makes it more common.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/duplicate-ballots">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Democratic presidents meme: right on FDR, wrong on health care</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/democratic-presidents-meme</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/democratic-presidents-meme</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Franklin Roosevelt was president for the whole climb out of the Depression. Child poverty did fall about half under Biden, for one year. Clinton's surpluses came with a Republican Congress. The health care line is wrong: George W. Bush created Medicare's drug benefit. The real fight is how much a party's past presidents should decide your vote.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A viral post credits Democratic presidents with every big fix since the Depression. One of its four claims checks out and one is wrong. The other two leave out how briefly the child poverty drop lasted and the Republican Congress behind Clinton's surpluses.</p><ul><li><strong>Checks out:</strong> The President who got us out of the Great Depression was a Democrat.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The President who lifted 50% of kids out of poverty was a Democrat.</li><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> The only President to expand healthcare was a Democrat.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> The only President in modern times that balanced the budget was a Democrat.</li></ul><p>Franklin Roosevelt was president for the whole climb out of the Depression. Child poverty did fall about half under Biden, for one year. Clinton's surpluses came with a Republican Congress. The health care line is wrong: George W. Bush created Medicare's drug benefit. The real fight is how much a party's past presidents should decide your vote.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/democratic-presidents-meme">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hitler wasn't a left-wing socialist, but his party used the word</title>
      <link>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/hitler-left-wing</link>
      <guid>https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/hitler-left-wing</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2026 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Hitler called himself a socialist, and his party's name said so. But he took power with the conservative right and jailed the left first. Most industry stayed private, under tight state control. Major history institutions place Nazism on the far right. The real fight is over what left and right measure: state power, or equality.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elon Musk has said more than once that Hitler was a socialist. The party's name said &quot;socialist,&quot; and some of its early program was anti-capitalist. We checked what the regime did in power, and laid out the real argument over what left and right mean.</p><ul><li><strong>Wrong:</strong> Hitler was a left-wing socialist.</li><li><strong>Misleading:</strong> His party's name, National Socialist German Workers' Party, shows Hitler was a socialist.</li><li><strong>Missing context:</strong> In power, Hitler's regime ran a socialist economy.</li></ul><p>Hitler called himself a socialist, and his party's name said so. But he took power with the conservative right and jailed the left first. Most industry stayed private, under tight state control. Major history institutions place Nazism on the far right. The real fight is over what left and right measure: state power, or equality.</p><p><a href="https://viewfromthegallery.com/breakdown/hitler-left-wing">Read the full breakdown</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
