Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Ryan Grudowski. Thank
Speaker 1: you for being here for another week. Very excited. This
Speaker 1: is a jam packed week with news. You have the
Speaker 1: Pope's funeral over the weekend, the Canadian federal election today.
Speaker 1: My birthday is tomorrow, if he wants to shout that out.
Speaker 1: And Trump's one hundredth day in office is on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: So a very busy week, a very exciting week to do,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk to you about the pinnacle
Speaker 1: of Wednesday. About Trump's first one hundred days in office.
Speaker 1: Technically it's his second one hundred first days in office
Speaker 1: because it's, you know, the first non consecutive presidence in
Speaker 1: scuover Cleveland. I don't know what you call it, but
Speaker 1: that's what it is. Going into his second term, many
Speaker 1: in the media expected Trump to be a lame duck
Speaker 1: president that they couldn't do very much because he only
Speaker 1: had one term to serve unless they change the constitution
Speaker 1: and he can run for a third term, which I'm
Speaker 1: going to guess is unlikely. So here are some numbers
Speaker 1: behind Trump's second one hundred days. He has so far
Speaker 1: issued one hundred and thirty seven executive order, a record
Speaker 1: breaking number, signed five billion to law and stated that
Speaker 1: he would put tariffs of over eleven percent on fifty
Speaker 1: seven countries. Now always passed relatively few laws, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and Georgie of b Bush signed seven during their first
Speaker 1: one hundred days. Barack Obama signed eleven bill Clinton had
Speaker 1: twenty one, and actually Trump's in his first terms first
Speaker 1: first one hundred days signed the most, a twenty four
Speaker 1: according to the UK and Dependent. I think when you
Speaker 1: look down and you boil downs for Trump's first one
Speaker 1: hundred days of his second term, you come down to
Speaker 1: three big issues. The three issues that have defined these
Speaker 1: last one hundred days defined it, especially in the eyes of
Speaker 1: the media. They are DOGE, immigration and trade. So let's
Speaker 1: start with DOGE. At the behest of the president, Elon
Speaker 1: Musk began working to slash spending and make the federal
Speaker 1: government more efficient. He announced the last week. Elon Musk
Speaker 1: announced last week rather that he's going to step away
Speaker 1: slightly from the role as I guess he's not head
Speaker 1: of DOGE but overseeing consulting DOGE, but the team he's
Speaker 1: created it will still be in charge of the federal
Speaker 1: agency's dog is set to sunset on July fourth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. So I guess for the next fourteen months
Speaker 1: they'll continue. Now, while the group received a lot of
Speaker 1: praise from conservatives who cheered that he's going to end
Speaker 1: and he's ended contracts and useless federal agencies and programs
Speaker 1: like USAID because he gutted that one, musk has claimed
Speaker 1: that dog has saved taxpayers one hundred and fifty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of money. Heck, I think when you've
Speaker 1: deficits this high, anything in the billions as far as
Speaker 1: cutting is a lot of money. But the one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollar claim is just fifteen percent of
Speaker 1: what Trump promised. When it comes to waste for ant abuse,
Speaker 1: I remember he originally promised two trillion dollars in cuts,
Speaker 1: and then when he president came into office, it was
Speaker 1: one trillion. Now it's got to me it was one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty billion. When the New York Times looked
Speaker 1: at the numbers, it gets a little murkier. According to
Speaker 1: the New York Times, sixty percent or ninety two point
Speaker 1: two billion of that one hundred and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 1: came from uniemized savings things that are very hard to prove.
Speaker 1: The savings that are easy to prove, that they can
Speaker 1: justifiably prove is thirty two point five billion in itemized grants,
Speaker 1: twenty four point eight billion in itemized contracts, and three
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety seven million in itemized leases. Basically empty
Speaker 1: offices of the building that the government was wasting money
Speaker 1: on it empty offices and buildings across DC. So from
Speaker 1: what we can itemize from savings, dough just save tax
Speaker 1: payers that we know of. Definitely that we know of
Speaker 1: fifty eight billion dollars. Now that's not nothing. I believed
Speaker 1: in order to balance a budget, you need to cut
Speaker 1: anywhere you possibly can. I'm all for cutting wasteful spending
Speaker 1: and to do whatever they can. And it's important for
Speaker 1: Trump because he needs to sit there in quote unquote
Speaker 1: pay for tax cuts. He needs to sit there and
Speaker 1: try to balance the budget. It's part of his campaign
Speaker 1: from US. But DOGE as a whole came with a
Speaker 1: lot of attacks on both Trump and Elon Musk. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's negative numbers have increased substantially during his time at DOGE,
Speaker 1: and we saw a series of lawsuits over whether who
Speaker 1: we could fire, what contracts he could end, and what
Speaker 1: happened to any sensitive federal data he access was the
Speaker 1: apple worth the bite. I guess we'll see, but Doge
Speaker 1: hasn't seen the level of spending cuts that they hoped for.
Speaker 1: But I guess stories on Doge seem so thirty days
Speaker 1: ago in this administration. The current crisis the media is
Speaker 1: really obsessing over is Trump's handling of mass deportations. So
Speaker 1: let's get some numbers on that. The numbers of illegal
Speaker 1: aliens who were apprehended our southern border in both February
Speaker 1: and March of twenty twenty five were twenty two thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred and twenty six. That's according to the Border Patrol.
Speaker 1: Those are both during months that Trump was fully president,
Speaker 1: so he was fully in charged. Twenty two thousand, seven
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty six aliens apprehended at the border, with
Speaker 1: very very very few being released. In the year prior
Speaker 1: February and March twenty twenty four, when Biden was still president,
Speaker 1: seventy two illegal aliens came to our southern border, with
Speaker 1: many being released into the interior of the United States.
Speaker 1: So just by enforcement the law already in the books,
Speaker 1: but Trump did not get any new laws. When it
Speaker 1: comes to the border, you just use the laws that
Speaker 1: are currently on the books. President Trump has saw a
Speaker 1: ninety four percent reduction of border crossings over a one
Speaker 1: year period. It is truly remarkable. He proved we did
Speaker 1: not need new laws, We just needed a president and
Speaker 1: political will power to s that they're enforced the current laws. Now,
Speaker 1: we signed a number of executive orders on I leege immigration,
Speaker 1: most notably ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and temporary
Speaker 1: visa holders, DNA testing of illegal aliens to say third
Speaker 1: country agreements remain in Mexico, ending catcher release holding refugee resettlement,
Speaker 1: canceling Joe Biden's absolutely ridiculous CHNV program, which would have
Speaker 1: protected migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela from being
Speaker 1: deported while they applied for asylum, and he used the
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members and send them
Speaker 1: to a maximum security prison in Al Salvador. Now, most
Speaker 1: of these executive orders are tied up in litigation with
Speaker 1: district court judges giving an unprecedented amount of nationwide injunctions,
Speaker 1: more than any president in history, and I believe actually
Speaker 1: almost as many if not more than all the nationwide
Speaker 1: injunctions among every president in history combined. Very few have
Speaker 1: made their way up to the Supreme Court so far.
Speaker 1: Some are slowly making their way. The executive order over birthright,
Speaker 1: citizenship or arguments begin or in mid May, so we'll
Speaker 1: have to wait and see. We'll see how many of
Speaker 1: these executive orders are given the green light by SCOTUS,
Speaker 1: how President Trump handles the decision, how he continues to
Speaker 1: execute his executive authority. Definitely, Stephen Miller has shown that
Speaker 1: he's committed to the project of mass deportation, which Trump
Speaker 1: promised during the campaign, and he's using every available law
Speaker 1: at his disposal.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: While it's difficult to get an exact reading of how
Speaker 1: many illegal aliens currently are in the country, that in
Speaker 1: the country that we're currently deported, these are called removals
Speaker 1: by ICE. As of March nineteenth, which is the last
Speaker 1: available day that they gave a hard number, they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be another one in the next few days as
Speaker 1: of this recording, but President Trump removed twenty eight thousand
Speaker 1: illegal aliens from the interior of the United States from
Speaker 1: his time in office on January twentieth until March nineteenth.
Speaker 1: Here's where the data gets tricky. Donald Trump is outpacing
Speaker 1: Joe Biden when it comes to removals people that are
Speaker 1: in the country that he is arresting with ICE and
Speaker 1: deporting that are leaving the country. But the media can
Speaker 1: categorize it and has categorized it by saying that actually
Speaker 1: he lacks Biden because but ICE also is responsible for
Speaker 1: removing illegal aliens detained at the border. Well, as I
Speaker 1: said before, Trump's law enforcing the laws on the books
Speaker 1: has caused border crossings to drop by ninety four percent,
Speaker 1: so there are fewer illegal aliens to remove crossing the
Speaker 1: border to begin with. You could make the argument that
Speaker 1: Biden deported more people. It's a argument not based completely
Speaker 1: in truth. It's an argument used to push a narrative.
Speaker 1: But I mean, there's there are some facts into it.
Speaker 1: But when you really have to look is interior deportations.
Speaker 1: Interior deportations, and when it comes to interior deportations, Trump
Speaker 1: is absolutely outpacing Joe Biden. In the first seven weeks,
Speaker 1: ICE also arrested forty eight thousand illegal aliens living in
Speaker 1: the interior of the United States and put them into
Speaker 1: tention centers that is a thirty percent increase compared to
Speaker 1: the year prior. So no matter what the media says,
Speaker 1: interior deportations interior enforcement under President Trump are up compared
Speaker 1: to his predecessor. And lastly, let's talk about trade. Just
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago, President Trump announced that it was
Speaker 1: Liberation Day from the Rose Garden and that he announced
Speaker 1: tariffs on dozens of countries as well as a blanket
Speaker 1: ten percent tariff on all products entering the United States.
Speaker 1: And to say it went less well than expected as
Speaker 1: an understatement. Now, of all the issues Trump has campaigned
Speaker 1: on over the last decade, nothing means more to him
Speaker 1: than trade and balances and the trade deficit. He has
Speaker 1: spoken about this going back to before I was born.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's talked about this for decades, that he
Speaker 1: wants to rebalance how we do trade. So here he is,
Speaker 1: during his second term, doing exactly what he's always wanted
Speaker 1: to do. Ten percent tariff on all important goods, increased
Speaker 1: tariffs on some countries that have tariffs on American goods
Speaker 1: they're called retaliatory tariffs. And at one hundred and forty
Speaker 1: five percent tariff on all goods from China. I've talked
Speaker 1: a lot on this podcast of why I think it's
Speaker 1: important to try to reshore American manufacturing. I can't understand
Speaker 1: how did the administration only tackle remasturing manufacturing from just
Speaker 1: the tariff perspective. I've said constantly, I've wrote about this,
Speaker 1: how federal contracts are a really important part of the
Speaker 1: narrative that I don't think the administration is used enough of.
Speaker 1: It's also daunting to try to understand and find the
Speaker 1: reasoning and the end goal behind these tariffs. Depending on
Speaker 1: who you're listening to, whether it be Peter Navarro or
Speaker 1: Commerce Secretary Lutnik or Treasury Secretary best Set, you're hearing
Speaker 1: different things. If anything, the biggest problem of the latter
Speaker 1: part of the Trump's one hundred days of this administration
Speaker 1: is that they haven't been on the same page of times,
Speaker 1: leading into complicating and sometimes worrying effects in the economy.
Speaker 1: The tariffs have caused a lot of volatility, with the
Speaker 1: value of the dollar decreasing, the Dow Jones, the NASDAK,
Speaker 1: and the S and P five hundred all losing about
Speaker 1: ten percent of their value since the day that Trump
Speaker 1: was sworn into office. Now, the volatility and the fear
Speaker 1: of tariffs have also worked in Trump's favor. This sort
Speaker 1: of sort of Madman approach to economic policy was successful
Speaker 1: in getting some companies to announced that they're bringing manufacturing back.
Speaker 1: According to CBS News, Johnson and Johnson Abbott Laboratories, Apple, Shabani,
Speaker 1: Crazy Art, Honda, Hondai, Roachi, Navidia, and TSMC all announced
Speaker 1: multi billion dollar plans to bring manufacturing back into the
Speaker 1: United States because the fear of tariffs, so they're going
Speaker 1: to start making some stuff in America. That part is
Speaker 1: a win, even though it's been very messy and the
Speaker 1: stock market has been veried down and sellectible. You know,
Speaker 1: tons of bad stories with this administration. Now. While I
Speaker 1: think trade, immigration, does are the biggest parts of his
Speaker 1: first one hundred days, they're the issues that define it
Speaker 1: in the media and to a lot of voters, they're
Speaker 1: not the only things he's tackles. He's improved military recruitment
Speaker 1: and retention rates. He's been working on this piece deal
Speaker 1: with Ukraine and Russia. Let's see where that goes. He's
Speaker 1: pushed Arnato allies to increase more spending and defense, and
Speaker 1: he's working on his tax policy. It's probably going to
Speaker 1: be the most significant piece of legislation during his term
Speaker 1: in office is this new tax till he's working on,
Speaker 1: no tax on tips, and no tax on social Security,
Speaker 1: possibly a millionaire's tax. I mean, who knows. If there's
Speaker 1: anything though that I've been surprised by in Trump's first
Speaker 1: one hundred days is He's made actually no judicial appointments.
Speaker 1: He's not a single one. Remember during first Trump's first term,
Speaker 1: he was breaking numbers, breaking records as far as judicial appointments,
Speaker 1: and so far he has appointed exactly zero people to
Speaker 1: the federal judiciary, despite there being forty five vacancies on
Speaker 1: federal courts, three in the appellate court, and forty two
Speaker 1: in district courts. So, with all this information I just
Speaker 1: gave you, how does this affect him in the eyes
Speaker 1: of voters? How does this affect him in the polls?
Speaker 1: According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Trump's approval
Speaker 1: writing in April from April seventh to April twenty third
Speaker 1: stands at forty six point one percent, while his disapproval
Speaker 1: number is at fifty one point six percent. Of course,
Speaker 1: not all polls are created equally, and I'm looking only
Speaker 1: at certain high quality pollings that give their cross tabs
Speaker 1: or the crosstabs available to the public. That's really important
Speaker 1: to me. I'm looking primarily at Signal, Pew Research, Fox News, Atlas, Intel,
Speaker 1: and CBS. The narrative is basically the same. Americans are
Speaker 1: pretty mixed on Doge. They're very unhappy about tariffs, they're
Speaker 1: very work with the economy, and they are very much
Speaker 1: giving him the thumbs up when it comes to immigration,
Speaker 1: although they do want him to listen to court orders
Speaker 1: when it comes to people who are deported under stranger
Speaker 1: circumstances or there's a lot of litigation over it, but
Speaker 1: overall the port mass deportation. But among these major polishers
Speaker 1: with cross taps open, Trump has a forty five percent
Speaker 1: of crole rating. It stands at fifty percent with men,
Speaker 1: forty percent with women fifty percent, with white voters twenty
Speaker 1: one percent, with black voters forty percent, with Latinos forty
Speaker 1: six percent, with seniors thirty seven percent, with voters under thirty,
Speaker 1: forty three percent among voters with a college degree, forty
Speaker 1: eight percent of those without a college degree, and thirty
Speaker 1: six percent among independents. That isn't wonderful when it comes
Speaker 1: to swing voters, especially for Republicans going to the next
Speaker 1: year's midterm. He's going to have to increase those numbers
Speaker 1: big time and try to get some stability in the
Speaker 1: economy and get the economy growing again. That will be
Speaker 1: a major point of contention for congressional Republicans going into
Speaker 1: the midterms and President Trump now once once again, they
Speaker 1: aren't great numbers with swing voters, but among Trump's base,
Speaker 1: they are extremely loyal. Almost no Trump voters are sitting
Speaker 1: there and saying I made a mistake. It's very, very
Speaker 1: high retention among his base, which Trump has kept. He's
Speaker 1: kept that for almost a decade at this point. He's
Speaker 1: kept his base together through thick and thin, and that
Speaker 1: is enough to keep him in office and to wield
Speaker 1: significant influence over the party. And when it comes to
Speaker 1: keeping the promises he made to those voters, Trump's done
Speaker 1: a pretty good job in the first one hundred days.
Speaker 1: Mark Puto, a brilliant journalist from Axios, is my guess
Speaker 1: he's up next. We're going to talk about the first
Speaker 1: one hundred days, what these policies mean, and what it's
Speaker 1: looking like in Trump's first one hundred days, his legacy
Speaker 1: and the upcoming midterms, Stay tuned. Our guest this week
Speaker 1: is my buddy Mark Puto. He is a brilliant reporter
Speaker 1: from Axios. Mark, thank you for being on.
Speaker 2: Owe you money for that kind introduction.
Speaker 1: Now, Mark, you are one of the best in the business.
Speaker 1: So April thirtieth is Trump's one hundredth day in office.
Speaker 1: How would you characterize his first one hundred days.
Speaker 2: I would divide it in half. There was and I
Speaker 2: should count the number of days to have a better
Speaker 2: specific answer, But there was the Trump administration up until
Speaker 2: Liberation Day, and then there was Liberation Day. On Liberation
Speaker 2: Day being that period where he's like okay, tariff time
Speaker 2: and that's where things got really chopd well.
Speaker 1: I say it's over three issues. Has been the first
Speaker 1: one hundred days. There was the doge, which was the first,
Speaker 1: which was the first apocalypsecorning the media. Then there was
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement, which is the second, and then the tariffs
Speaker 1: were the third. That's the three headed apocalypse of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's first one hundred days. Some more successful than
Speaker 1: the others. Doge it looks like when they have hard
Speaker 1: numbers of what actually saved save about fifty seven billion dollars,
Speaker 1: not a small amount in my opinion, but far less
Speaker 1: than what everyone was saying was going to happen.
Speaker 2: Like Elon Musk talking about two trillion trillion and one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty billion. Yeah, yeah, that's that's most.
Speaker 1: Most hundred billion is un itemized deductions that they don't
Speaker 1: know where he's talking about it from. So, but fifty
Speaker 1: seven billion is a hard number. He is announced on
Speaker 1: Tuesday he's stepping away from the daily data day activities.
Speaker 1: Dose is supposed to sunset in July fourth, twenty twenty six. Overall,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's if it's left the impression
Speaker 1: the legacy it was supposed to do, and I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's an overwhelming success. I kind of are
Speaker 1: on the side of it's probably more more or less not.
Speaker 2: It has all of the quality of over promising and
Speaker 2: under delivering, right with an added dose of sort of
Speaker 2: kind of the chaos on top of it. Well, when
Speaker 2: you talk about the three headed monster, I mean two
Speaker 2: of those I generally kind of ignore because to your point,
Speaker 2: those were sort of mainstream media freak ass, right, they
Speaker 2: didn't really get into the public mind, to the public pocketbook.
Speaker 2: When the stock markets started going sort of haywire with
Speaker 2: the Trump tariffs and the mixed messaging and the two
Speaker 2: steps forward, one step back, another step to the side
Speaker 2: that was different up until that point. One of the
Speaker 2: folks at the White House I had spoken to talked
Speaker 2: about how they kept a calendar and they were happy,
Speaker 2: and they said, every day, you know, I put either
Speaker 2: a W you know when, loss or a draw. And
Speaker 2: at first it was just all WS. Now I haven't
Speaker 2: spoken to them again, but there have been far fewer
Speaker 2: wus since the tariff situation in drama has taken over.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say that dose is kind of I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess fifty seven billions thirty seven billion is not
Speaker 1: a loss, but it's not what they promised. On immigration,
Speaker 1: interior deportations far exceed Joe Biden's thirty percent increase of
Speaker 1: people detained. When they say that the deportations were higher
Speaker 1: under Biden, they're including people who were returned away at
Speaker 1: the border. Will Since there's been a ninety six percent
Speaker 1: reduction of border apprehensions, which is the actual amount of
Speaker 1: it was like ninety five point nine percent reduction, there
Speaker 1: are less people to turn away at the border. Therefore,
Speaker 1: if you look at just interior enforcement, that number is
Speaker 1: up significantly. What I and we'll see what happens when
Speaker 1: it comes to the actual deportations of all these executive orders,
Speaker 1: and the big gem, in my opinion, the big big prize,
Speaker 1: if he could get, is the Supreme Court ruling on
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship for non citizens, for illegal aliens and temporary
Speaker 1: vise holders. That will be the if he can get that.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he will be able to, but
Speaker 1: if he can, it will be the biggest victory I
Speaker 1: think on the right when it comes to immigration. And
Speaker 1: I don't even know since Eisenhower, it's a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I find it hard to believe. I'm not a
Speaker 2: constitutional scholar, but when I read the plane language the
Speaker 2: fourteenth Amendment, it's hard for me to see how the
Speaker 2: Court is going to side with the president. I understand
Speaker 2: there are these other are these historical readings, historic historical
Speaker 2: or historical historical? That is, at the time they were
Speaker 2: talking about slaves, they weren't talking about immigrants. Today's immigration
Speaker 2: is different now than it was then. Essentially didn't exist
Speaker 2: back then. But to the degree the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: a political body, and I think all bodies are political
Speaker 2: bodies to a degree when they have human beings on them,
Speaker 2: especially those in the government process. Trump's legal team and
Speaker 2: his administration have increasingly sort of picked fights with the
Speaker 2: courts that it might not needed to have picked. And
Speaker 2: so I think it's fair to say that if and
Speaker 2: I'm using a lot of weasel words, if there was
Speaker 2: sort of some goodwill before where it's like, oh, let's
Speaker 2: give them the benefit of the doubt, I think some
Speaker 2: of that's exhausted with all but the really hardcore conservatives
Speaker 2: on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Why is it because of the not listening to the
Speaker 1: lower course decisions on border on deportations.
Speaker 2: I think so. Yeah, And remember Roberts. Justice Roberts took
Speaker 2: that sort of extraordinary step of kind of rebuke might
Speaker 2: be too strong a verb, but you know, sort of
Speaker 2: telling Trump like, hey, you know, back off criticizing these
Speaker 2: judges just for doing their jobs. I think that that
Speaker 2: was notable. That having been said, I do think that
Speaker 2: they are going to be able to get a number
Speaker 2: of victories out of the court on immigration. Regarding you know,
Speaker 2: the big case Kilmar Abrigo Garcia. The the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: has already signified its discomfort in telling having the judicial
Speaker 2: branch tell the executive branch, Hey, uh, we're going to
Speaker 2: tell you how to conduct foreign policy now that this
Speaker 2: guy is overseas. It's a really messy case. My conspiracy
Speaker 2: minded hat and when I wear it makes me think
Speaker 2: that maybe they chose this case for a reason, but
Speaker 2: it's probably a little more organic. My guess is there
Speaker 2: was an Ice agent in Maryland, in the Baltimore area
Speaker 2: who knew Kilmar, who wanted to get him. And now
Speaker 2: that there's you know, the.
Speaker 3: Trump regime, the Trump administration's back, they're like, okay, buddy,
Speaker 3: we're gonna get you.
Speaker 2: And so they got him. They got Killmar in the system.
Speaker 2: Now it's a question did someone actually know that there
Speaker 2: was a deep a withhold on deporting him to El
Speaker 2: Salvador or not. I'm not sure. But the bottom line
Speaker 2: is is that he was deported to El Salvador unlawfully
Speaker 2: or in violation of court order. And now here we
Speaker 2: are right.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just and this is I guess it's
Speaker 1: a bigger conversation then we can afford. And I'm not
Speaker 1: a legal brain either, but I just I think that
Speaker 1: I think when they give the courts give these temporary
Speaker 1: protections from deportation out of fear or intimidation, and then
Speaker 1: that that that what would have caused fear for your
Speaker 1: life has has ended. In the case of of of this,
Speaker 1: of the of the Maryland man is this rival gang?
Speaker 1: The rival gang doesn't exist anymore, So what is your
Speaker 1: fear at a deportation anymore? And that's I mean predates this.
Speaker 1: There were cases like in Honduras where there was an
Speaker 1: earthquake and people were here for twenty something years out
Speaker 1: of fear for their life, or an earthquake on a
Speaker 1: temporary protector.
Speaker 2: So earthquaker was a hurricane Mitch.
Speaker 1: I was Hurricane Mitch. That was it? Yeah, but it
Speaker 1: was twenty something years ago and they were still here
Speaker 1: on a temporary protecting status over a hurricane from twenty
Speaker 1: years ago, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just goes to show that a lot
Speaker 2: of things, once once they're called temporary, really aren't temporary.
Speaker 2: There is, of course, the media coverage angle of this.
Speaker 2: The the a lot of people in mainstream media are
Speaker 2: elighting some of the more complicating aspects of a Brago
Speaker 2: Garcia's story. If the reports out of Tennessee are true,
Speaker 2: where he was stopped driving a vehicle of a guy
Speaker 2: who had been busted for human smuggling, and he had
Speaker 2: a bunch of people in the car he wasn't related to,
Speaker 2: who all gave the same address that he did. Like, well,
Speaker 2: maybe we should look at whether or not the Fed's
Speaker 2: got it right that this guy was engaged in.
Speaker 4: Unlawful activities if you, I mean, by the left making
Speaker 4: him the face the poster boy of the perfect illegal
Speaker 4: immigant who should never have been deported.
Speaker 1: If it goes left and there is you know, a
Speaker 1: literal or figurative body in the closet, it's a real
Speaker 1: problem for Democrats. It kind of undermines their entire argument
Speaker 1: for any stopping any future deportations under President Trump. So
Speaker 1: but overall, on illegal immigration, Trump has been more a
Speaker 1: pretty big win overall successful by far.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's delivering on by large on what he said.
Speaker 2: I haven't even said. I do understand that the civil
Speaker 2: libertarian argument that you know, a court order is a
Speaker 2: court order and you shouldn't violate it, even if I'm.
Speaker 1: Not yeah, I'm not I'm not making I'm not giving
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. I'm saying as far as promises to voters,
Speaker 1: go I think on immigration is probably one of the
Speaker 1: biggest runaway successes. Inflation has certainly gone down. Despite what
Speaker 1: I mean. You should live in the media. There's breadlines
Speaker 1: out of everyone's door. Now let's go to tariff. Tariffs
Speaker 1: are problem. Tariffs are what I don't understand, Mark, and
Speaker 1: you are you. I pay attention to the news, but
Speaker 1: you write the news. So maybe you can understand if
Speaker 1: you listen to Peter Navarro, if you listen to the
Speaker 1: Secretary of Commerce, and if you look at the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Treasury, they all have different reasons of why we're
Speaker 1: doing these tariffs. They all have different end goals for
Speaker 1: why we're doing these tariffs. Okay, so if you listen
Speaker 1: to and maybe I'm wrong, so correct me wrong. Record
Speaker 1: of the Peter Navarro story is we're going to basically
Speaker 1: a neoliberalism as we know it, and change the way
Speaker 1: we do international economics and become named meticulals mercantile, mercantile
Speaker 1: nation in one way or the other. If you listened
Speaker 1: to best set the Secretary of the Treasury, it's to
Speaker 1: end all these opposing tariffs on us. We'll have real
Speaker 1: free trade except for China. China is its own thing,
Speaker 1: and then if you listen to the Commerce Secretary, it's
Speaker 1: somewhere in between, but his own kind of thing that
Speaker 1: he's doing on his own. Why hasn't the administration seemed
Speaker 1: to have one single narrative for the last three weeks?
Speaker 2: I touched on this to plug my own story in Axios,
Speaker 2: in a story called Trump's Tariff Brain, Inside Trump's Tariff Brain.
Speaker 2: The answer is all of the above. Donald Trump he
Speaker 2: wants to do lots of things with tariffs. And if
Speaker 2: you understand that, Donald Trump has been talking about other
Speaker 2: countries have ripped us off for you know years. I
Speaker 2: mean first he first gave us in a speech in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty seven, thirty eight years ago. Boy, now I
Speaker 2: feel rilled he gave this.
Speaker 3: So he gave the speech at nineteen eighty seven, we're
Speaker 3: talking about other nations are ripping us off. He didn't
Speaker 3: quite say tariffs, but that's what he's talking about, negotiating
Speaker 3: better trade deals.
Speaker 2: Understanding that, look at Trump as a guy who is
Speaker 2: often or more often directionally right than his critics give
Speaker 2: him credit for. Okay, So it's a very kind of
Speaker 2: a very specific phrase I'm using there. And if you understand,
Speaker 2: like the direction he wants to go. He wants to
Speaker 2: go in the direction of more manufacturing. He wants to
Speaker 2: go in the direction of a different trade deficit, a
Speaker 2: more balanced trade deficit with other nations. He wants to
Speaker 2: go in the direction of Ian government revenue from this
Speaker 2: in part to pay for the tax cuts, so to speak,
Speaker 2: pay for that he wants to extend. He wants to
Speaker 2: have more manufacturing in the country. Those are all things
Speaker 2: he wants to do. So all of those guys who
Speaker 2: are out there speaking are sort of different avatars of him.
Speaker 2: And the reality says Donald Trump hasn't made up his mind.
Speaker 2: And Donald Trump has last guy in the room syndrome
Speaker 2: as well. So he frequently falls victim to analysis paralysis
Speaker 2: because he surrounds himself. And this is perhaps to his credit.
Speaker 2: It certainly is the credit if you believe in like
Speaker 2: open minded epistemology, like get acquiring information. That is, he
Speaker 2: gets everyone's opinion in the room. The thing is, he
Speaker 2: doesn't know when to stop and right or it takes
Speaker 2: a while for him to kind of arrive at them.
Speaker 2: So that's one. And then there's the last guy in
Speaker 2: the room syndrome.
Speaker 3: So He's got all these different advisors who have these
Speaker 3: different faces of sort of the tear and what they
Speaker 3: could do, and he likes all of them.
Speaker 2: So I don't know this for a fact, but generally
Speaker 2: I can totally see it where Howard Lutnik is in
Speaker 2: there like hey, here's what we gotta do, like, oh yeah, great,
Speaker 2: go out there, and he says it, and then that's true,
Speaker 2: and then best's in They're like, hey, here's what we
Speaker 2: gotta do, Like great, you go out there and you
Speaker 2: do that. And this is what we're seeing. For those
Speaker 2: of us who are accustomed.
Speaker 3: To Donald Trump and the sort of you know, are
Speaker 3: able to understand that there's always gonna be a lot
Speaker 3: of noise and you just have to focus on the
Speaker 3: directional signal.
Speaker 2: It makes a lot more sense. The thing is is
Speaker 2: the stock market doesn't work that way, right. He's approaching
Speaker 2: this like a political campaign where he's never quite clear.
Speaker 2: He likes to have leverage. It's all the sort of
Speaker 2: now you see me, now you don't stuff. It's asymmetry
Speaker 2: very good at that stock market hates that shit. And
Speaker 2: so here we are.
Speaker 1: What I don't understand is and I send a message
Speaker 1: song on you in the White House, and I said, this,
Speaker 1: manufacturing is your main goal, and and it's important, it's
Speaker 1: an important effort that we should be undertaking as a country,
Speaker 1: but it is your main goal. There are there is
Speaker 1: a lot of different hammers to use to nail that,
Speaker 1: to nail that into the wall well, And I mentioned
Speaker 1: this on this podcast. I wrote about this federal like
Speaker 1: federal contracts. Make sure federal contracts are focused on restoring
Speaker 1: like pharmaceuticals or military equipment or whatever. That part hasn't happened,
Speaker 1: Like there's no, they're not. It's not a full uh
Speaker 1: you know, full court press on to faces on every front.
Speaker 1: It seems like it's just tariffs, and that makes it
Speaker 1: confusing and people worrysome and also allowing people who have
Speaker 1: stocks and in companies that are way overvalued to sit
Speaker 1: there and deplete their stocks and to sell them and
Speaker 1: to make sure that you know, blame the terrists for
Speaker 1: it instead of some crappy companies that are well up
Speaker 1: too much money on their hands and whatever. That's that's
Speaker 1: whether their stocks are revalue, I should say to us.
Speaker 1: But their stocks are revalued. That is all happening. And
Speaker 1: he's allowing himself to do it, and it just seems
Speaker 1: like it's a mess. And I saw that he wants
Speaker 1: to reduce tariffs in China. Where is he right now?
Speaker 1: Do we have tariffs on any country as there is there?
Speaker 2: We have the ten percent across the board tark. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that we do have, and and technically we have one
Speaker 2: hundred and forty five percent tariff on goods from China,
Speaker 2: which is effectively, as one of the folks in his
Speaker 2: economic team has pointed out to me, this is not
Speaker 2: tariffs really we're talking about right now, this is a
Speaker 2: trade embargo.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal had an interesting story with an anecdote
Speaker 2: as their lead, like there was this I didn't realize
Speaker 2: that people import that we import eyelashes, And there's like
Speaker 2: China sends us eyelashes. Now god knows where they came from.
Speaker 2: But you know, someone.
Speaker 3: Spoke against President g and is now you know, an
Speaker 3: eyelash donor or whatever.
Speaker 2: But there's this truck of eyelashes that's like stuck at
Speaker 2: the Mexico border. Like we are, in effectively for a
Speaker 2: lot of these goods, a trade embargo like zero trade.
Speaker 2: I had reported the other day on Tuesday that when
Speaker 2: Donald Trump met Monday with the heads of Walmart, Home
Speaker 2: Depot and Target that what they privately told him was, hey,
Speaker 2: we're looking at some empty shelves in as early as
Speaker 2: two weeks. So there are these different messages they're getting
Speaker 2: to him, and he is sort of reacting to it.
Speaker 2: But generally speaking, here I'm sort of scooping myself. One
Speaker 2: of the people I'd spoken to who who's spoken to
Speaker 2: Trump with some regularity, you know, when the stock market
Speaker 2: was doing all this stuff, I asked him like, well,
Speaker 2: what's what's the present's mindset.
Speaker 3: They're like, oh, he's having a great time. I said yeah,
Speaker 3: and I said yeah. He just keeps talking about the
Speaker 3: deals they're gonna do. He's like Japan's coming in and yeah,
Speaker 3: knobs coming in.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't believe what's going to happen with South Korea.
Speaker 2: So he's sort of on cloud nine. And the portrayal
Speaker 2: there is a little bit of a disconnect between what
Speaker 2: a lot of people are seeing and certainly you know,
Speaker 2: those people who have money in the stock market, but
Speaker 2: his general sense right now is still again, actually this
Speaker 2: way and we're in this you know, this is Trump's world.
Speaker 2: We're all living in it right now. Where he's going
Speaker 2: to be kind of fine tuning and real time testing
Speaker 2: this stuff. But I think there's a long roundabout answer
Speaker 2: to I think it was a question you posed, which
Speaker 2: is this wasn't necessarily very well thought out in the implementation.
Speaker 2: And I think this is an old man in a hurry.
Speaker 2: He's wanted to do this since nineteen eighty seven at least. Okay,
Speaker 2: he is now president for his second and final term.
Speaker 2: And let's ignore Steve Man and saying he's gonna get
Speaker 2: their term. Yeah, you know, he's almost eighty years old,
Speaker 2: so he wants to do this stuff now.
Speaker 3: And let's face it, when I said he was more
Speaker 3: often directionally right than his critics, you have him credit
Speaker 3: for he's the only guy who's really come out and
Speaker 3: made free trade an issue and said, hey, a lot
Speaker 3: of the free trade has been bad as hollowed out
Speaker 3: or manufacturing sector.
Speaker 2: You really didn't hear that in the Republican Party before
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, right, you just didn't. And he's the he's
Speaker 2: the guy, right, Yeah, the good point. Yeah, there's a
Speaker 2: great political.
Speaker 1: Six But since nineteen ninety six in Buchanan ran, it's
Speaker 1: been though twenty or sixteen to twenty nineteen ninety six
Speaker 1: to twenty sixteen was twenty years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and he is the only guy, the only president
Speaker 3: who's like, Okay, fuck it, you know you're talking about you.
Speaker 2: Know, the problem of the hammer or everything looks like
Speaker 2: a nail. I mean, he just hit the glass. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So we're there now. Whether it's going to work or not,
Speaker 2: it is a big experiment and it is kind of
Speaker 2: a shock to the system. But the reality is he
Speaker 2: is the only present who's really given voice to this
Speaker 2: problem and the only president who's really tried to solve it.
Speaker 2: The question is is is solution Is the cure worse
Speaker 2: than the sickness because one of the things his advisors
Speaker 2: have said, and sorry, I'm I'll get this out, is
Speaker 2: is that they view the American economy as a sick
Speaker 2: patient and and it's in and it is in bad
Speaker 2: need of medicine. And I in one of my conversations
Speaker 2: with one of these people, said, well, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2: But you know, if you have cancer, they give you
Speaker 2: a chemo very often, and chemotherapy is basically poison. That
Speaker 2: boils down to this, you either are going to kill
Speaker 2: the cancer or kill yourself. And so you have to
Speaker 2: be careful administering the medicine of the poison in chemotherapy.
Speaker 2: And what I wonder here is is did Trump just
Speaker 2: come in and just inject a whole bunch of I
Speaker 2: don't know, rat poison or whatever into this and we're
Speaker 2: going to see or maybe not?
Speaker 1: Uhh, I mean, I mean, and you have some headlines
Speaker 1: with some companies and and they're reassuring jobs in America.
Speaker 1: There's a lots to live on for those headlines. To
Speaker 1: Let's ask two questions. One, what is this? What does
Speaker 1: this do for Republicans looking at twenty twenty six?
Speaker 2: How you're looking tough? I have not been talking to
Speaker 2: Republicans much, but man, in our in our elections are
Speaker 2: our elections generally break on the fault line of a
Speaker 2: division of desire and terror right right and anger and love.
Speaker 2: There's not a lot of love out there, so let's
Speaker 2: just throw that out. So the gasoline that powers the
Speaker 2: engines of our elections is anger, and the left is angry.
Speaker 2: They're out there protesting Tesla, you know. So I see
Speaker 2: more energy, and I understand, with respect to Saint Paul,
Speaker 2: that I see through a glass darkly that I don't
Speaker 2: understand the tire picture on Donald the whole nation, but
Speaker 2: the energy looks like it's on on the left when
Speaker 2: you look at the fact that the stock market is
Speaker 2: not doing so well, the dollar is deflating, is devaluing,
Speaker 2: the IMF is cutting growth rate forecasts of the United States.
Speaker 2: Home sales are starting to decline. And Donald Trump, through
Speaker 2: implementing these tariffs in such a way, made this his economy.
Speaker 2: It's really gonna be difficult for him to sit around
Speaker 2: and blame Biden.
Speaker 1: All the Republicans have well blue pass expectations on fundraising numbers,
Speaker 1: and there were was good economic indicators before Liberation Day.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we'll see.
Speaker 2: I mean the market, the market really wants. The market
Speaker 2: is almost like, uh, you know, an abused person who
Speaker 2: just wants a little bit of good news.
Speaker 3: Like literally, where Donald Trump gives a little bit of
Speaker 3: good news, it's like and the market shoots back and
Speaker 3: then it comes back down. So uh, I don't know
Speaker 3: how long that's gonna last, but there is still some
Speaker 3: sort of pent up goodwill in the market. Where if
Speaker 3: there is a more I think, if there's a more cohesive, intelligible, predictable,
Speaker 3: reliable presentation of where we're going to go and how
Speaker 3: we're going to get there that if you were to
Speaker 3: ask me this question of how Republicans are feeling, my
Speaker 3: answer might change. But right now I think things favor
Speaker 3: Democrats more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, okay, in terms of prompt My last question,
Speaker 1: in terms of promises to his voters, things he campaigned on,
Speaker 1: and what he's achieved. How would you grade Trump's first
Speaker 1: one hundred days, not solely on the success or how
Speaker 1: it's looking, but what he promised and then what he's
Speaker 1: been delivered.
Speaker 2: I mean, from all the supporters I know of his
Speaker 2: and the people who didn't vote for him, who support him,
Speaker 2: they're very happy, like because, as they pointed out, there's
Speaker 2: a possibility that a majority or a plurality of his
Speaker 2: voters aren't real stock market people. So I don't really
Speaker 2: give a shit about a lot of stuff I just
Speaker 2: talked about there. They voted for him because of immigration
Speaker 2: and attitude and.
Speaker 1: Demograph poles is eighteen to twenty one year olds.
Speaker 2: What's that.
Speaker 1: Trump's best demographic in the latest Yale poll is eighteen
Speaker 1: to twenty one year olds.
Speaker 2: The Harvard David Sure found too. That's the Harvard poll
Speaker 2: that John Delavelpie had released showed that he was hamorrhaging
Speaker 2: support of younger people.
Speaker 1: That was the Harvard Harris pol I think, so, I
Speaker 1: know it's Harvard.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's Harvard Harris.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Harvard Harris poles are terrible. And I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: tell you like but no, no, no, I take polsters like
Speaker 1: ignore Harvard Harris is a joke of bolster, just my
Speaker 1: own personal opinion. I never listened to them. But the
Speaker 1: Yale poll, I think is back. They are. They're a
Speaker 1: joke of pual So they do a terrible job each
Speaker 1: and every time. The Yale poll is decent. The Pew
Speaker 1: Pearl poll is very good, it's very thorough, but it's
Speaker 1: I mean, it's terrible for Trump. It was his worst
Speaker 1: poll by far. The NBC NBC Post pole that was good,
Speaker 1: The Washington Post pole was decent. So he's had some
Speaker 1: decent ones. I think that none of time is settled
Speaker 1: to really see what the tariff situation is looking like.
Speaker 1: But the problem we have a Trump as far as
Speaker 1: as far as like the Democrats have with Trump is
Speaker 1: there's such a little elasticity, like he's never going to
Speaker 1: get to Joe Biden or George W. Bush numbers into
Speaker 1: the twenties because he can't because his base that loves
Speaker 1: him is so fervently committed, and the.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like a thirty five percent floor. Basically,
Speaker 2: it's like, yeah.
Speaker 1: It's in the mid thirties percent floor and the ceiling
Speaker 1: is fifty two percent, and we just live in that
Speaker 1: fifteen percent range. Wherever we go. He'll never be never
Speaker 1: have Joe Biden positive numbers, He'll never have Joe Biden
Speaker 1: negative numbers, will never have Bush positive numbers, and have
Speaker 1: Bush negative numbers. And so we live in this world
Speaker 1: where he's just kind of stuck and everyone has a
Speaker 1: strong opinion of him. But the fact that eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty one year olds and both the David Short data
Speaker 1: on the election and then the NBA and then the
Speaker 1: Yale pole is pretty wild. And it might be because
Speaker 1: one they don't have stocks and two because it's you know,
Speaker 1: I like the attitude.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I think it's a big part of it.
Speaker 2: I don't think the the left has really helped its case,
Speaker 2: especially among young men, that that horse has been beaten
Speaker 2: and kicked to death. The other issue, I think that
Speaker 2: Republicans need to think about, which you saw a play
Speaker 2: out in Wisconsin, is that the Trump machine without Trump
Speaker 2: is not much of a machine, like he activates certain
Speaker 2: voters right.
Speaker 1: Well, seniors are increasingly becoming democratic as baby boomer like
Speaker 1: you time when they're like, what happened to seniors? Because
Speaker 1: the seniors that live in your head have died, Like
Speaker 1: you're not willing to admit that, but you're thinking of
Speaker 1: your grandparents who aren't alive anymore, and you're not understanding,
Speaker 1: like Archie Bunker is not the senior citizen, he's dead.
Speaker 1: Meathead is the senior citizen. Jane Fond is a senior citizen,
Speaker 1: Like these are the senior citizens. Rosie o'donald is a
Speaker 1: senior A meathead? No, but those are, But those are
Speaker 1: senior citizens now. They are not the British generation or
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's generation. I mean there are a few of
Speaker 1: those left people up, but not many. They are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: the counter culture.
Speaker 2: Yeah, as a Florida based guy, we experienced that quite clearly.
Speaker 2: We used to have, especially in South Florida, Southeast Florida,
Speaker 2: what we would call the condo commandos. These are these
Speaker 2: older FDR voters who were just reliably blue, and it's
Speaker 2: what kept Florida bloom at first, and then with the
Speaker 2: wave of more Republicans, we kept at purple. Now we're
Speaker 2: just importing Republican super voters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I really where we have to go.
Speaker 1: But on a really quick story, my grandfather grew up
Speaker 1: from from Lowie side of Manhattan and Brooklyn. His whole life,
Speaker 1: almost all his friends were Jewish, and those typical New
Speaker 1: York Liberal Democratic Jewish like almost like a cartoon of
Speaker 1: what a Jewish voter from New York's politics are like.
Speaker 1: And I remember the Bloomberg election at five, is my
Speaker 1: first election I could get vote in earsthing and I said,
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, yeah, I'm voting for Bloomberg, you know,
Speaker 1: as a Republican. And his friends said, oh, I voted
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg as a Democrat. And I said, no, you didn't.
Speaker 1: You voted No, he's not a Democrat as a Republican.
Speaker 1: Literally twenty minutes screaming over the dining room table. This man,
Speaker 1: He's like, I never voted for a Republican in my life.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't vote. I voted for him as a Democrat.
Speaker 1: I'm like he would not admit to his own self
Speaker 1: that it was possibly could vote for a Republican. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I know those voters very well. But most of them
Speaker 1: have suns, you know, gone to their great rust. So
Speaker 1: that is the eternal rust. So that is what Uh,
Speaker 1: that's what people do. Mark, thank you so much. We're
Speaker 1: gonna end up. Mark, thank you for being on this podcast.
Speaker 2: Note yes, yes, sir, that was great.
Speaker 1: Where people go to read your stuff.
Speaker 2: Axidos dot com. Uh, and I'm on Twitter at Mark A. Caputo.
Speaker 2: It's Mark with the C marc Antonio. Now, Mark tell
Speaker 2: you Mark Antonio is technically my first name. Okay, one word.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you so much. Mark. I'll speak to you soon.
Speaker 2: Appreciate you. Man.
Speaker 1: You're listening to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Grodowsky.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. This is the ask Me Anything
Speaker 1: segment of the podcast, where you guys can send me
Speaker 1: any kinds of questions you want and I'm depending on
Speaker 1: those questions. Send them my way and let me I'll
Speaker 1: tell you if I can find out any information and
Speaker 1: give you the data behind what you're worried about. You
Speaker 1: could email me at ryanat Numbers Game podcast dot com
Speaker 1: numbers is plural. Ryan at Numbers gamepodcast dot com question
Speaker 1: this week, do we think that AOC will be the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee in twenty twenty eight? I don't know, is
Speaker 1: the simple short of it. No one knows. I will
Speaker 1: say two things. One, she's raising a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and she has her face in the media. And that's
Speaker 1: what a lot of people assume is the answer is
Speaker 1: who they've seen the most. Like Gavin Newsom's face is
Speaker 1: always in the media, you will assume it means he
Speaker 1: must be the nominee. What you need to look at, though,
Speaker 1: and what a smart analysis of elections look like, is
Speaker 1: where is the primary process going to begin in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. If it begins in Iowa and New Hampshire
Speaker 1: as it had for one hundred years, they are more
Speaker 1: open to more progressive candidates. They help Barack Obama, they
Speaker 1: help Bernie Sanders, those kinds of states. If the election
Speaker 1: begins in South Carolina, that is a much more and
Speaker 1: we're a different electorate. It's black primarily, but it's a
Speaker 1: majority of black and the Democratic primary and it is
Speaker 1: much more conservative both socially and economically. They are not
Speaker 1: down hardcore progressive voters. So if the party primary starts
Speaker 1: in the Deep South and in specially in South Carolina,
Speaker 1: it's a primary process looking to try to nominate a moderate,
Speaker 1: and that's what we'll probably see. Anyway, we're three years away,
Speaker 1: so we'll find out. Ben Thank you Social listeners podcast.
Speaker 1: Please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio Apple podcast. Wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your podcast, give me a five star
Speaker 1: review if you feel generous, Thank you so much. Listen
Speaker 1: on Thursday and see it later this week.