Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kanakova.
Speaker 2: And I'm Nate Silver. Today on the show, it's a
Speaker 2: politics focused episode. We're going to talk about the story
Speaker 2: we think we have to talk about, at least a
Speaker 2: little bit, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer,
Speaker 2: a tragic and scary event, and we're going to carefully
Speaker 2: have a little bit of a heart to heart about it,
Speaker 2: and then we're going to talk about more pedestrian politics,
Speaker 2: talk about the potential looming government shut down in Washington
Speaker 2: and what both parties might be strategizing about for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think this is going to be an interesting episode,
Speaker 1: a really interesting conversation. And also for our listener, this
Speaker 1: is going to be the first week where we are
Speaker 1: going to a twice weekly schedule of Risky Business, so
Speaker 1: we will now be in your feed twice a week.
Speaker 1: And yeah, we hope you enjoy that, and we'd love
Speaker 1: to hear your feedback about how you think it's going.
Speaker 1: On that note, Nate, let's turn too. You know what
Speaker 1: is I think on the I mean on the more
Speaker 1: serious side of topics period, but in terms of the
Speaker 1: types of things we talk about at Risky Business. It's
Speaker 1: definitely on the very serious end of that, which is
Speaker 1: the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And you had actually met Charlie, right, Nate.
Speaker 2: I never met Charlie.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: I think he sent me a DM once and invited
Speaker 2: me on his show when it said something that riled
Speaker 2: up Democrats, and I ignore most invites if we're being honest,
Speaker 2: it was nothing personal. But yeah, I'm sure. Look, I
Speaker 2: wrote a piece at my sub stack about this, which
Speaker 2: is kind of how, you know, you don't have to
Speaker 2: say anything. Why don't people just kind of be more restrained?
Speaker 2: And maybe we're violating that here. I'm not sure. Look,
Speaker 2: I do think that there is I called it like
Speaker 2: an implicit fraternity, I guess a slightly gendered term, but
Speaker 2: an ocur about like people who comment about politics for
Speaker 2: a living right and people who are in the public
Speaker 2: eye and obviously you go on Twitter or Blue Sky
Speaker 2: whatever else. Right, there's a lot of debate about what
Speaker 2: type of political citizen Charlie Kirk was. But but still,
Speaker 2: when somebody is assassinate and I mean, you know, I
Speaker 2: spoke at a in an open public forum in ames Ioweat.
Speaker 2: I was at university two days after Kirk was killed,
Speaker 2: So I mean, it's not not in my head to
Speaker 2: be looking out at the crowd. And you know, when
Speaker 2: you get the weird questions later after the show, it's like, Okay,
Speaker 2: what's going on here? And you know, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know. I've certainly gotten death threats before. But but
Speaker 2: I mean, Charlie Kirk is also a little bit hard
Speaker 2: to characterize, right. I was struggling with whether to call
Speaker 2: him an activist or an organizer or a provocateur, or
Speaker 2: an intellectual or a media personality, right or what exactly.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure it is actually a perfectly comparable figure
Speaker 2: on the left, because the left and right are asymmetric,
Speaker 2: but like someone who was very influential right, who kind
Speaker 2: of like bridged the gap between when he was friends
Speaker 2: I think, just not friendly, but I think Trump would
Speaker 2: call him a friend with Trump himself right, and had
Speaker 2: like a quite large audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think whatever we call him, Nate. What I
Speaker 1: would like to stress is he was someone who exercised
Speaker 1: his First Amendment right incredibly well, eloquently and freely, as
Speaker 1: he should have been able to do. And I do
Speaker 1: want to stress a truly important point, which is that
Speaker 1: we can't conflate speech violence right like people love to
Speaker 1: say that, oh, speech can be violence. No violence is violence.
Speaker 1: Whether or not you agree with Charlie Kirk or you
Speaker 1: disagree with him, he was practicing free speech. He was
Speaker 1: engaging in debate. And that's something that you know, we
Speaker 1: should be doing in a democracy, right. We should be
Speaker 1: talking to people we agree with, we should be talking
Speaker 1: to people we disagree with, we should be having conversations.
Speaker 1: That's the backbone of critical thinking, that's the backbone of progress,
Speaker 1: that's a backbone of society. And the fact that someone
Speaker 1: can be assassinated for exercising free speech is something that
Speaker 1: should absolutely never happen. And as you say, nay, you
Speaker 1: were doing an event right afterwards, and it definitely I
Speaker 1: think as someone you know we both do public events,
Speaker 1: we both do public speaking, I think it changes your
Speaker 1: kind of risk calculus, risk framing when you see, oh
Speaker 1: my god, have we gotten to the point in a
Speaker 1: society where people think that this is okay, that this
Speaker 1: is a legitimate response, that if I disagree with someone,
Speaker 1: you know, violence is okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there's also a chilling absolutely right, huge chilling
Speaker 2: people with what they say and also whether they get invited.
Speaker 2: I mean, one case with some questionable similarities, but Sam
Speaker 2: and Reshti was attacked at a big festival in rural
Speaker 2: New York a couple of years ago. There was a
Speaker 2: flat blaw against him, and I suppose that was of
Speaker 2: a chilly partly fulfilled, right, and.
Speaker 1: He almost died. By the way, he was incredibly lucky
Speaker 1: to survive. People thought he was going to die. He
Speaker 1: has lost vision and what I it was. You know,
Speaker 1: it was a very very close call, but that could
Speaker 1: have very easily gone the other way.
Speaker 2: But you know, part of the joy, I guess of
Speaker 2: doing an event in a community, particularly a smaller community,
Speaker 2: is that the doors are open, right, you know, I
Speaker 2: have have you been to a political convention like the
Speaker 2: Democratic Republican convention before?
Speaker 1: I never have, No.
Speaker 2: I mean, the security is incredible, Like it takes an
Speaker 2: hour to get in there, it takes twenty minutes to
Speaker 2: get out of there, right there is it's very cumbersome
Speaker 2: and in some ways it's like not very conducive to
Speaker 2: political protests or political speech, right, And of course parties
Speaker 2: that want to suppress political protests often use threats of
Speaker 2: violence as an excuse to say, Okay, we don't want
Speaker 2: you people protesting about Gaza or Bernie Sanders or whatever
Speaker 2: else in the convention halls, so we can't let you
Speaker 2: in for security reasons. But yeah, I mean, look, in
Speaker 2: some ways, there's not that much to say about if
Speaker 2: you don't know him, about Charlie Kirk, the you know
Speaker 2: what I mean, Like I don't there's this whole game
Speaker 2: about like using this as a positioning exercise for where
Speaker 2: people fit into the discourse. And I don't know. It's
Speaker 2: I was fucking shot like on a university. Get this
Speaker 2: in cold blood, right, It's like you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: I you know, no one even has the pretense anymore
Speaker 2: of Oh, let's quote unquote not politicize this. And by definition,
Speaker 2: although there's a little bit of ambiguity still, and like
Speaker 2: the shooter's motivations, I wouldn't say that much necessarily, but
Speaker 2: some right, by definition, and an assassination is a a
Speaker 2: political act, right, And you know, I think this is
Speaker 2: becoming more common. There's something to beat about that fact, right,
Speaker 2: But like, you know, I don't know. I mean, it
Speaker 2: was just last year when when Trump cat shot and
Speaker 2: I'm going to be a little joking about it because
Speaker 2: he survived, and that was kind of the mood about it, right,
Speaker 2: he had that that, you know, I had just busted
Speaker 2: out of a tournament poker tournament Balted's poker. I'm like, Maria,
Speaker 2: I won't see you for dinner because I busted out,
Speaker 2: and I think somebody just shut Trump. But immediately it
Speaker 2: was clear that Trump hadn't survived and had this triumphant moment,
Speaker 2: and so it was almost you know, I was kind
Speaker 2: of out wandering around on the strip getting a sad
Speaker 2: little dinner with the other people who busted out, and
Speaker 2: people there were kind of excited, right, It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: that's cool, he survived, right, And that kind of detracted
Speaker 2: from the magnitude of what that event had been and
Speaker 2: how scary that could have been. And I think you're
Speaker 2: you're seeing now, yeah, what happens when you create somebody
Speaker 2: who can be a martyr potentially.
Speaker 1: And I'll go a step further, and Nate, I think
Speaker 1: that that was a precursor to another moment that people
Speaker 1: made light of, which was the December assassination of Brian Thompson,
Speaker 1: the CEO of United Healthcare. Right where people actually made
Speaker 1: Luigima Joon into kind of this hero, right folk hero, like, yes,
Speaker 1: you went after the bad guys, and we talked about
Speaker 1: it on the pod back then, where like, holy shit, guys,
Speaker 1: this is a horrible reaction, like this is not what
Speaker 1: you should be I don't care what you think about
Speaker 1: you know, healthcare in America or what you think about
Speaker 1: United or all of these things. This is not the answer,
Speaker 1: right violence that like, this is not okay, This is
Speaker 1: never something to be celebrated, and yet people were celebrating it.
Speaker 1: So I think that we've seen kind of this progression
Speaker 1: that in some ways has led us to this moment
Speaker 1: where you think, oh, you know, first of all, this
Speaker 1: is the right way to solve it, and secondly, like
Speaker 1: I could even be a hero right for killing someone
Speaker 1: who you know, people disagreed with or thought they did
Speaker 1: something bad. And it's just so profoundly fucked up to
Speaker 1: think in those terms and to think that this is
Speaker 1: just something you do. Right. This is why we have society,
Speaker 1: This is why we have laws, This is why we
Speaker 1: have norms of behavior, This is why we live, you know,
Speaker 1: in a civilization and not in the wild West, where
Speaker 1: the way that you solve things was to duke it
Speaker 1: out with guns.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look the way I kind of look at civilization.
Speaker 2: Like again, it's amazing that you're in New York and
Speaker 2: it's a city of eight billion people and everyone has
Speaker 2: different objectives on their mind, and there is lots of
Speaker 2: petty crime from day to day and other things, and
Speaker 2: yet the kind of center holds, right, But the center
Speaker 2: holds I think some narrowly right where you have a
Speaker 2: lot of I'm going to confuse centrifugal and centripetal. Right,
Speaker 2: you have a lot of forces pulling out into chaos.
Speaker 2: Then you have forces holding people together, including policing, including
Speaker 2: common decency, including common sense, right, and kind of everything
Speaker 2: in between, and like it might not take that much
Speaker 2: for things to fall out of equilibrium. And maybe and
Speaker 2: maybe social media is that. And you know, I don't
Speaker 2: think things have calmed down very much on Twitter, right,
Speaker 2: I've covered a lot of news stories and like five
Speaker 2: days no matter what the story is of things not
Speaker 2: calming down, it's a little unusual, right. You know, you
Speaker 2: also have people who are getting fired for saying thoughtless
Speaker 2: or I was gonna say un pc which is I mean,
Speaker 2: I think it is kind of like a political correctness issue,
Speaker 2: right if people fired for saying things that in some
Speaker 2: cases are I think stupid and tone.
Speaker 1: Deaf, but like still a fireable effects, like yeah, look in.
Speaker 2: Some of them. You know, Matthew Dowd is my former
Speaker 2: ABC News colleague, and I think Matthew Dowd's a lowheart
Speaker 2: and an idiot, But I think you should be fired
Speaker 2: for being a low heart and an idiot in general
Speaker 2: about almost every issue that he weighs in on, and
Speaker 2: not on a short preparation TV hit when it wasn't
Speaker 2: clear what had happened about saying Okay, well, this guy
Speaker 2: was kind of encouraging what I mean. You know, I
Speaker 2: don't think his comment is correct, but it's also like
Speaker 2: it's within the realm of free speech that I think
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk is relatively not hit theocritical about free speech
Speaker 2: and would have wanted right to support absolutely absolutely.
Speaker 1: And this goes back to what you said at the
Speaker 1: beginning night, which I think we should just stress a
Speaker 1: little bit more, which is the chilling effect of this right,
Speaker 1: the effect that this has on free speech more broadly,
Speaker 1: on what both feel like they can and can't say,
Speaker 1: and the fact that there are now these like very
Speaker 1: strong repercussions for rights that you should have right and
Speaker 1: even going a step further. So there was a piece
Speaker 1: in New York Times that pointed out that defend Secretary
Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth had said that the agency was monitoring and
Speaker 1: tracking any military personnel who celebrated or mocked Kirk's death,
Speaker 1: and Christopher Landau, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that
Speaker 1: the administration would be stripping visas from any individuals who
Speaker 1: celebrated Kirk's death. So you know, this is like it's
Speaker 1: going further and further right from oh, you might be
Speaker 1: fired to you might have your visa taken away, and
Speaker 1: I've I mean, that's frightening. Everything about this moment is frightening.
Speaker 1: I want to also point out something that you mentioned
Speaker 1: about New York and like the fact that New York
Speaker 1: functions and sometimes you think, oh, how precarious is that?
Speaker 1: There's actually a lot of work in psychology that shows
Speaker 1: that it is quite precarious. Right, Social norms are per careus,
Speaker 1: that norms of behavior are precarious, that we are often
Speaker 1: kind of walking on a razor's edge where it can
Speaker 1: go in one direction or another, depending on what prominent
Speaker 1: people say, you know, depending on what people think that
Speaker 1: these things do shift and can shift very rapidly. So
Speaker 1: I think we should just remember that, you know, social
Speaker 1: norms that we take for granted, we shouldn't take for
Speaker 1: granted they they do need to be protected, or we
Speaker 1: might end up devolving, which is what I think we're
Speaker 1: witnessing right now speaking about, you know, the increased political
Speaker 1: violence security, I think this is a good moment to
Speaker 1: shift gears a little bit and talk about the potential
Speaker 1: government shut down and funding because one of the things
Speaker 1: that is happening is that the White House has requested
Speaker 1: fifty eight million dollars in security funding for both the
Speaker 1: executive and the judicial branches after Charlie Kirk's assassination. And
Speaker 1: this is basically they're trying to insert this as part
Speaker 1: of the stop gap bill to prevent a government shutdown,
Speaker 1: which is looming on October first. So this is clearly
Speaker 1: something that is being used. I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: being used as a pretext or if this is actually
Speaker 1: something that they should be doing, but it's interesting that
Speaker 1: this is making its way from something that happened last
Speaker 1: week to something that is a key provision in a
Speaker 1: bill that can prevent the shutting down of the government, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, night, I feel like we have an
Speaker 1: impending government shutdown. So frequently these days.
Speaker 2: Should I get a quick background or for I have
Speaker 2: a story place down? So like in the spring, was
Speaker 2: it March or whatever? In the spring, Republicans had to
Speaker 2: pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open. People
Speaker 2: thought that bill might get stimied in the House with
Speaker 2: the gup he has a very narrow majority, and they
Speaker 2: passed it party line vote, I think, with one exception
Speaker 2: on each side. It went to the Senate, where for
Speaker 2: that type of legislation the filibuster is still under the
Speaker 2: rules of the Senate. So ultimately Democrats debated to shut down.
Speaker 2: Public commentators debate a shutdown. I actually wrote a post
Speaker 2: I guess it was after they didn't, after Schumer had
Speaker 2: conceded it was about to concede, saying Democrats should have
Speaker 2: had a shutdown. I thought it was good opportunity. I
Speaker 2: thought they could highlight dough spending cuts and take advantage
Speaker 2: of Elam Musk's on popularity. But Schumer and what was it,
Speaker 2: you know, seven or so other Democrats voted for cloture
Speaker 2: to and a filibuster, and so therefore the bill passed. However,
Speaker 2: that resolution was for six months, and it expires at
Speaker 2: the end of this month, September. Say, thirty first, I
Speaker 2: think this how many days this is? Had?
Speaker 1: Have?
Speaker 2: Thirty September thirtieth.
Speaker 1: I remember night. I think I told you about my
Speaker 1: little uh the little thing that you can use.
Speaker 2: I know, yeah, you know. September feels like a thirty
Speaker 2: one though, right, it's a pretty fucking important month. September
Speaker 2: might be the best month.
Speaker 1: It is an important month. It's such a great weather month,
Speaker 1: back to school month. I love September. But it's a
Speaker 1: thirty day month. Unfortunately, good things never last night, good things.
Speaker 2: Never last Okay, uh, sorry I lost Okay, So anyway,
Speaker 2: this time though, it's Democrats October one.
Speaker 1: October one is when the government would shut down.
Speaker 2: This time though, it's Democrats who seem to want to
Speaker 2: shut down. So Chuck Schumer indicated late last week that
Speaker 2: he had canvassed his caucus and they are inclined.
Speaker 1: That sounds really inappropriate. Well, you canvass my caucus. Sorry, sorry, guys,
Speaker 1: this is important. Oh all right, So he'd canvassed his caucus.
Speaker 2: Yes, and there was appetite in the credit caucus to
Speaker 2: make demands. I suppose about healthcare, they want to extend
Speaker 2: Obamacare subsidies in Medicaid and restore Medicaid cuts that were
Speaker 2: made in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act not my
Speaker 2: term for it, the official piece they have the legislation.
Speaker 2: And meanwhile, lots of center and left of center commentators,
Speaker 2: from as Reclined to Robert Wright to everybody else's been saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: we need a fight. Democrats can't concede to this, although
Speaker 2: they don't really agree on the whys or the what's
Speaker 2: exactly right, but there's agreement that something must be done.
Speaker 2: That Schumer was so much of a pushover last time
Speaker 2: that this is one of the few points Democrats have leverage.
Speaker 2: I when you want to cash that in for like
Speaker 2: a big media moment or for actual concessions, that you
Speaker 2: have to it's time to do something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think that Schumer learned his lesson
Speaker 1: a little too well from the last time, when he
Speaker 1: got such horrible coverage, such horrible press for making the
Speaker 1: deal right where he said, look, I'm just I'm doing
Speaker 1: what needs to be done, and he came off looking terrible.
Speaker 1: But I think that the other strategic moment, and I'm
Speaker 1: not writing a piece about this night, so please, you know,
Speaker 1: feel free to chime in, is I think that Democrats
Speaker 1: are seeing this as a moment where they can really
Speaker 1: start creating kind of new messaging for mid term elections
Speaker 1: and for you know, for presidential elections moving forward, to
Speaker 1: say that, you know, we are the true party that's
Speaker 1: protecting the people. Right. The reason that we're doing this
Speaker 1: is we want you to have your healthcare, your medicare.
Speaker 1: We want it not to be cut. You know, we
Speaker 1: want all of these benefits that are being lost with
Speaker 1: rural communities for the working man of America. We want
Speaker 1: to protect this and that's what we're trying to fight for.
Speaker 1: And I think that's also part of the messaging and
Speaker 1: part of the things that they are trying to make
Speaker 1: sure get changed in the reconciliation before the bill moves forward.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are different theories, right, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: partly it's like are yousing there with like the chest
Speaker 2: tern slugs zugs wing. I don't know how to say it,
Speaker 2: and yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Have read it, but let's explain it. Because my familiarity
Speaker 1: is very passing, to the point where I too, Nate,
Speaker 1: do not know how to pronounce it.
Speaker 2: It's a situation where every move you make is worse
Speaker 2: than no move, right, that you would prefer that it
Speaker 2: was your opponent's turn. And like so, like let's say
Speaker 2: Democrats supplied the votes for the Continuing Resolution, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, and try to de escalate this. I mean
Speaker 2: you know, I mean they would look like pushovers. Schumer
Speaker 2: in particular. I mean, first of all, he is up
Speaker 2: for reelection, not next year, but in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: You have a lot of people coming after Schumer. Right,
Speaker 2: there are lots of you know, to state obvious names,
Speaker 2: AOC she doesn't run for president, for example, or Zaren
Speaker 2: who knows, right, can't be president because he was born
Speaker 2: U gone it, but he could run for Senate, right,
Speaker 2: But a lot of talented and all the MSNBC loving Democrats. Right,
Speaker 2: But there's gonna be a lot of demand for Chuck
Speaker 2: Schumer's seat, right, and as well as if he survives electorally,
Speaker 2: then maybe his role as majority leader and so he
Speaker 2: kind of I think has to do something right. And
Speaker 2: the kind of Ezra Cline argument is that if you
Speaker 2: supply votes for this continuing resolution. Are you not tacitly
Speaker 2: endorsing this government that you say is authoritarian and acting
Speaker 2: in bad faith and corrupt even before you get to
Speaker 2: the fact that they are evscerating a lot of priorities
Speaker 2: that Democrats hold deer and I kind of buy that.
Speaker 2: I kind of buy that as a default in politics,
Speaker 2: that doing the thing that you believe in and or
Speaker 2: is consistent with your overall messaging. Right. I think that's worthwhile,
Speaker 2: and we've seen I think repeatedly that like Democrats, sometimes
Speaker 2: the rhetoric exceeds that they're actually willing to do. Right.
Speaker 2: I think we've talked about so many times, don't have
Speaker 2: to draw on it anymore. I think if they have
Speaker 2: really regarded Trump two point zero was an essential threat,
Speaker 2: they might have thought more carefully about about how fit
Speaker 2: Biden was to run for a second term. They might
Speaker 2: have thought more carefully about whe Kamala Harris was the
Speaker 2: optimal person to replace him, and so to sound whatever,
Speaker 2: might have thought more carefully about We've been through all
Speaker 2: that on this program before, Right, But like you know, so,
Speaker 2: I support the notion that like put your money where
Speaker 2: your mouth is. On the other hand, there's like not
Speaker 2: really a good endgame for democrats here. I don't think
Speaker 2: it's not clear what endgame they want, right, because on
Speaker 2: the one hand, I think that Ezra Calase is more
Speaker 2: like we just want to have change the narrative, change
Speaker 2: the discords. And by the way, Trumps approval rating is
Speaker 2: not really moving very much, right, So like it's like
Speaker 2: not like he's in some stings. It's about a net
Speaker 2: negative seven negative eight, right, So it's like, you know whatever,
Speaker 2: forty three percent approved, fifty one percent disapprove, somewhere in
Speaker 2: that range, right, And it's not really moved. It has
Speaker 2: not moved because of Jeffrey Epstein. That has not moved
Speaker 2: because of of of whatever scandals there are. Right, we
Speaker 2: don't have any data yet. We'll be affected by the
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk the first segment, right, But like it did
Speaker 2: seem to move for tariffs about three months ago or
Speaker 2: excuse me, six months ago during Liberation Day was a
Speaker 2: big drop in April, and it's been steady since then.
Speaker 2: And so like, you know, there is a notion of
Speaker 2: increasing variants for democrats, I think, and kind of changing
Speaker 2: the discourse, changing the dialogue. But you know, here's the issue.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you offer a deal on healthcare, the
Speaker 2: problem is it's kind of a deal that like might
Speaker 2: be good for the GOP, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: where like all these swing state representatives might say, yeah, actually,
Speaker 2: I'm pretty uncomfortable with these Medicaid cuts, right, and Okay,
Speaker 2: I'll take the I'll take the deal, right.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I don't know if Trump would sign it, but.
Speaker 1: Like now, I think I think some of the biggest
Speaker 1: losses in medical coverage are happening in states like Arizona.
Speaker 1: We're somewhere around like three hundred thousand people are set
Speaker 1: to lose coverage under the big beautiful bill come October first,
Speaker 1: of changes aren't made, and Arizona is obviously a state
Speaker 1: that's you know, very important for Republicans, so there are
Speaker 1: I think this is a this is an issue that
Speaker 1: could be bipartisan in the sense that it's something that
Speaker 1: Democrats care about, but it's actually something that can help Republicans.
Speaker 1: And I think that if they're thinking about if the
Speaker 1: GOP is thinking of midterm elections, right, if they're thinking about, okay,
Speaker 1: which seats are up, then they might start realizing, hey,
Speaker 1: like if this bill passes as is right. If these
Speaker 1: cuts actually pass, if all of my constituents suddenly realize that, oops,
Speaker 1: like where's my medical coverage? Like what just happened? Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get reelected, Like maybe I'm not
Speaker 1: going to look at as good. And you wonder why
Speaker 1: they didn't think about this before when they were passing
Speaker 1: the big, beautiful bill, but you'd be I've been shocked
Speaker 1: at how many people have been like, oh, well, I
Speaker 1: didn't really read that part of it, you know, I
Speaker 1: didn't really I didn't really realize that that was in here.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, wait, I'm sorry, what, Like, isn't that
Speaker 1: your entire job? Or you have aids to do it
Speaker 1: and to summarize it for you so that you don't
Speaker 1: have to read it, but like, come on, like what
Speaker 1: kind of a.
Speaker 2: If we talked about the change to the text treatment
Speaker 2: of gambling laws, right, that also.
Speaker 1: Was kind of in so we actually we actually haven't
Speaker 1: talked about that on the show.
Speaker 2: So I think that's that's something that we call Until
Speaker 2: gambling conductions are fully restored, I will not be there's authoritarian.
Speaker 1: Menace and we'll be back right after this.
Speaker 2: You know what I would do if I were shimmer,
Speaker 2: what would you do? I would demand concessions on tariffs,
Speaker 2: little little funky interesting more So, there are a couple
Speaker 2: of reasons, right. One is that, I mean, look, Republicans people,
Speaker 2: congressmen are stupid, right, so like the fact that like
Speaker 2: this would be they're fucking stupid, Like why aren't you
Speaker 2: going to Congress if you had, like honestly, like why
Speaker 2: are you in Congress if you had like real talent
Speaker 2: to contribute? I know, I guess I know some Congress
Speaker 2: when I take I take that back.
Speaker 1: But like Nate, Nate, Nate, okay, and my co host
Speaker 1: has gone on the record that has say that congressmen are.
Speaker 2: If I ever testify, no, but like I mean, okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: just take the deal. It's a good deal. It's the
Speaker 2: Luca Docich trade. Like, let me just take the deal.
Speaker 2: You're gonna get something that like it will actually soft
Speaker 2: in Trump's image and help you be re elected. Right,
Speaker 2: And Democrats can say, oh, we held up, we were
Speaker 2: so tough. Right, It's like, okay, deal, it's done.
Speaker 1: But now talk about tariffs. Why do we think that
Speaker 1: they should also be pushing for tariffs?
Speaker 2: So for one thing, like again, I do am a
Speaker 2: buyer of the EZRA argument that like, you might want
Speaker 2: to pick something that is more abnormal, and the terrorists
Speaker 2: are abnormal, both in the sense that we haven't had
Speaker 2: these tariffs almost one hundred years and the fact that, like,
Speaker 2: you know, you're abrogating Congress's role to regulate taxes and
Speaker 2: collection of spending in BacT. The case will be litigated
Speaker 2: by the Supreme Court, so it might become a point eventually.
Speaker 2: But like, but like you know, I think that is
Speaker 2: more of a pain point between Trump and the GOP.
Speaker 2: I think highlighting, you know, the economic news is worthwhile
Speaker 2: for Democrats. We've had bad jobs reports lately. We also
Speaker 2: had a revision that covered Biden's last year and Trump's
Speaker 2: first half year, right where like, actually we've been overestimating
Speaker 2: the number of jobs that were created. Maybe a little
Speaker 2: bit easier to understand now. People were fed up economy
Speaker 2: last year. But but like, I think terrorists are a
Speaker 2: better pain point. I think I think they're a hard
Speaker 2: deal for the GOP to take. They're the one issue
Speaker 2: that's improven to hurt Trump's popularity, and they get a
Speaker 2: little bit at the lack of at the extra legs,
Speaker 2: shall we say, constitutionality, right, not respecting traditional norms where
Speaker 2: it's like you could have the healthcare fight with Mitt
Speaker 2: Romney or Nikki Haley as you're as your president, right.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that they should pick something that is
Speaker 1: that really seems to be out of the ordinary, that
Speaker 1: is like something that we're it's I don't know if
Speaker 1: out of them, but like that has surpassed all of
Speaker 1: the norms and is really.
Speaker 2: It's it's hard because like if you laundry live, I
Speaker 2: mean the thing, you know, a lot of things that
Speaker 2: are out of the ordinary, are totally non germane to budgeting,
Speaker 2: are obscure, or are unpopular, right, I mean, like you.
Speaker 1: Know, but Tariff's is something that can be a point
Speaker 1: around which you can actually coalesce, and it is something
Speaker 1: that is more i wouldn't say popular, but more in
Speaker 1: the popular mind because there are these downstream effects that
Speaker 1: are starting to be felt by the way. We haven't
Speaker 1: really talked about, you know, the FED that much on
Speaker 1: the show, but this is all tied up right with
Speaker 1: the FED rate cuts, you know what's going to be
Speaker 1: happening there, Like this is a much broader conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean, look if you had things like, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: Trump shouldn't fire try to fire Lisa Cook, one of
Speaker 2: the chairmen on the board of the Federal Reserve. Sure, women, right,
Speaker 2: it seems like this mortgage stuff has been trumped up
Speaker 2: in her case, or he shouldn't have fire to the
Speaker 2: BLS commissiony like, those things might appeal to someone like me,
Speaker 2: but they're pretty freaking esoteric to like the average person.
Speaker 2: Whereas terraffs, you have a little bit of everything right.
Speaker 2: You have a message about how the economy is not
Speaker 2: doing very well, you have a message about like Trump
Speaker 2: overstepping his bounds, and that still gives you a legible
Speaker 2: cause to find this is one of the most unpopular
Speaker 2: things that he's done.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they would have a shot if
Speaker 1: they actually pushed the tariff stuff? Because I think you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right, like, this is genuinely unpopular, and before it
Speaker 1: was passed, a lot of Republicans were like, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: wo he's not actually going to do this, right, we
Speaker 1: know that this is terrible. It's terrible economics, terrible policy,
Speaker 1: terrible for the country, terrible for all of this. But
Speaker 1: then everyone just completely fell in line. As with everything
Speaker 1: basically that Trump has done and stood behind him. So
Speaker 1: what do we do You actually think that this is
Speaker 1: plausible that they could win on this.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not sure you want to win, you know
Speaker 2: what I mean. I mean, look, at some point they
Speaker 2: shutdown will end, right And by the way, the way
Speaker 2: it might end Democrats be prepared for this, right is,
Speaker 2: Republicans might say, Okay, we are going to get rid
Speaker 2: of the filibuster for passing bugetary leixlation as they've already
Speaker 2: gotten rid of it, or Democrats in some cases too,
Speaker 2: for almost everything, right, I mean, just this past week,
Speaker 2: Republicans plan to change the Senate rules to make it
Speaker 2: easier to like nominate Trump appointees in batches, right, And
Speaker 2: so if you're not gonna like have it for that stuff,
Speaker 2: and I who fucking cares about the nothing the budget
Speaker 2: stuff isn't important, but like it's such a thin ree
Speaker 2: that like, okay, look, you have a trifecta, you run
Speaker 2: the government, pass your fucking bill, right, you got to
Speaker 2: change the rules. Don't respect rules in the first place, right,
Speaker 2: who cares about the fucking filibuster? And by the way,
Speaker 2: we're not gonna use a filibuster, We're happing to win
Speaker 2: back a triffecta in Congress in twenty twenty eight. We're
Speaker 2: not gonna use aucking filibuster, right, There's gonna be so
Speaker 2: much damage that you did that we're gonna have to
Speaker 2: have a day one agenda of getting all this stuff undone.
Speaker 2: Now it sound like Evin Newsommer something like that, right,
Speaker 2: But like, yeah, the endgame is that probably Republicans nuke
Speaker 2: the filibuster and then pass their bill and Democrats have
Speaker 2: this comprotational moment. Maybe it goes well, maybe it goes
Speaker 2: not so well, right, but like it, you know, changes
Speaker 2: the vibe at a time when the vibe is I
Speaker 2: would argue, not going that great for Democrats.
Speaker 1: So let me ask a very naive question, because I
Speaker 1: think it's one that people kind of reflexively don't even
Speaker 1: think to ask. Why, you know, why are we always
Speaker 1: talking about, like trying to avoid a government shutdown? What
Speaker 1: actually happens if this doesn't happen and the government shuts down?
Speaker 1: How does that affect us?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Do we? How bad is it? How bad is it so?
Speaker 2: Services that are deemed in essential can get shut down?
Speaker 2: I mean examples people point to is national parks can
Speaker 2: get shut down that you have less tsa staffing, for example,
Speaker 2: government facilities of different types of clothes, certain types of
Speaker 2: checks don't go out. I mean, now you also.
Speaker 1: Basically the same shits that's already happening.
Speaker 2: Why like the doge pinging it to doge, right, because
Speaker 2: then they want to turn a bunch of stuff off
Speaker 2: and see what happened. I guess kind of opt of
Speaker 2: like throw a bunch of shit the well, it's like,
Speaker 2: turn a bunch of switches off and see what breaks.
Speaker 1: And so a lot of stuff started breaking.
Speaker 2: Any shutdowns would have been disguised in that, you know here.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, Trump will have a lot of power
Speaker 2: to to determine to both interpret the rules liberally Yen
Speaker 2: color outside the lines quite a bit, right, and I
Speaker 2: think he will in ways that could be advantageous to him.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is kind of one of the you know,
Speaker 2: friend of the pod Matt Glassman wrote a post about
Speaker 2: how actually this is probably a bad idea of the
Speaker 2: shutdown because like, when you're not the party in power,
Speaker 2: you don't have a lot of power, right, and like
Speaker 2: the advantage of like you need to use the poker tern,
Speaker 2: you're kind of always in position if you're right, you
Speaker 2: get to see. And also this has been telegraphed, right,
Speaker 2: you know, Republicans are aware. They can read the New
Speaker 2: York Times too, they can read Ezra's piece, and they
Speaker 2: can read what Chuck Schumer says to the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure they've prepped messaging and a strategy and
Speaker 2: and that makes it harder.
Speaker 1: But like, but yeah, yeah, no, I think I think
Speaker 1: these are all all important things to consider. I think
Speaker 1: this is an interesting take. Let's see, let's see what
Speaker 1: ends up happening, and if we end up using tariffs
Speaker 1: as well. I do think that even though it's good
Speaker 1: for Republicans, I'm glad that the Democrats are pushing for
Speaker 1: healthcare as well, because that's also pretty damn important. But
Speaker 1: let's get tariffs in there. I think that's a great
Speaker 1: idea and hopefully we can avoid the more serious consequences
Speaker 1: of a shutdown. On that note, Nate, are you are
Speaker 1: you going to be playing any poker doing anything interesting
Speaker 1: in those lines this week? Or are we are we
Speaker 1: just all politics now? For now?
Speaker 2: I think I'm coming to the napt in Vegas and November. No,
Speaker 2: this is going to be like a I do finely.
Speaker 2: The AMPT like a four month break in between poker
Speaker 2: tournaments I play. I play Cash Influence twice a month.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I'll be I'll be fresh for that, Maria,
Speaker 2: I'll put it like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I will also be fresh for the napt in November,
Speaker 1: the Poker Stares event that I'll be playing, and we
Speaker 1: stay tuned, guys, we might end up doing a risky
Speaker 1: business meetup at that point, so we'll we'll let you
Speaker 1: know if we have plans of that.
Speaker 2: And a reminder, there will be a new episode in
Speaker 2: the feed on Saturday. Having two episodes a week now,
Speaker 2: and like Saturdays, I feel like Saturday is a good
Speaker 2: day to listen to podcasts. No one has fucking episodes
Speaker 2: on Saturdays. Right, you're jogging, you're doing a little drive
Speaker 2: out in Hudson Valley or what else. You're gardening, Right,
Speaker 2: you got a lot of time on your hands. No
Speaker 2: fucking new episodes on Saturday. But we're gonna have this
Speaker 2: episode on Saturday. It's an interview with Ellie Honig about
Speaker 2: his new book, When You Come at the King, which
Speaker 2: is all about special counsels and what it takes to
Speaker 2: prosecute the president.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and from here on out, you can expect that
Speaker 1: double drop schedule from us every single week. So now
Speaker 1: you know what you're going to be doing Saturday morning.
Speaker 1: Congratulations everyone, I'm so glad. Congratulations be a part of
Speaker 1: your routine. Let us know what you think of the show.
Speaker 1: Reach out to us at Risky Business at pushkin dot Fm.
Speaker 1: Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kanakova and.
Speaker 2: By me Nate Silver. The show was a cool production
Speaker 2: of Pushing Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by
Speaker 2: I at Carter. Our associate producer is Sonia Gerwit Lydia,
Speaker 2: Jean Kott and Daphne Chen are our editors, and our
Speaker 2: executive producer is Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruguer.
Speaker 1: If you like the show, please rate and review us
Speaker 1: so other people can find us too, But once again,
Speaker 1: only if you like us. We don't want those bad
Speaker 1: reviews out there. Thanks for tuning in.