Speaker 1: Hello, they're happy Thursday. I know I've hit you three
Speaker 1: straight days, but as I told you, it's a you know,
Speaker 1: it's the.
Speaker 2: Second new year.
Speaker 1: It's the sort of the second new year, as I
Speaker 1: like to call it, where we're sort of getting things started.
Speaker 1: Washington is sort of gearing back up for business. Congress
Speaker 1: had a really tough week this week. I think they
Speaker 1: had had to work for two and a half whole
Speaker 1: days here in Washington before getting getting.
Speaker 2: To fly out.
Speaker 1: How is your two and a half day work week?
Speaker 1: If I could go that to you? They But in
Speaker 1: all seriousness, I think Congress will certainly have to take
Speaker 1: a more starring role, won't be there's no There's only
Speaker 1: room for one star in Washington right now, and that's
Speaker 1: the occupant of the Oval Office. But Congress has a
Speaker 1: lot of ways to insert itself into the story, from
Speaker 1: the Epstein files, from we've got government funding coming up.
Speaker 1: That was obviously the focus of my lead yesterday with
Speaker 1: excuse me on Wednesday, I say yesterday, I don't want
Speaker 1: to assume when you guys are I know you're listening
Speaker 1: the second in uploads right, of course, But for those
Speaker 1: of you that are listening a little late, nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with that. But in the previous podcast I talked about
Speaker 1: sort of when you start.
Speaker 2: To look at the political.
Speaker 1: Situation of the Democrats nationally, being uncooperative on the budget
Speaker 1: might be better politics for them. I e. Now, we've never
Speaker 1: seen a situation like that. But I want to start
Speaker 1: with sort of what's going on here, this anti vaccine
Speaker 1: zeal that's taking place, and with the announcement the Florida
Speaker 1: this is the state I grew up in. In fact,
Speaker 1: I remember they just announced that they're not going to
Speaker 1: have they're going to drop the vaccine mandate for kids
Speaker 1: in schools. You talk too many health experts and they
Speaker 1: will tell you the vaccine mandates for public schools and frankly,
Speaker 1: for most schools. It's not just public schools. Most private
Speaker 1: schools also have a manday essentially follows state law, whatever
Speaker 1: the state law is. And so the Florida Surgeon General,
Speaker 1: who's somebody that many in the scientific community would say
Speaker 1: isn't really a believer in mainstream science and mainstream theories
Speaker 1: of healthcare. You know, he's been the one that you know,
Speaker 1: has been telling people not to take mRNA vaccines and
Speaker 1: has pushed against the COVID stuff. And it's pretty much
Speaker 1: an anti vaxxer. And what's interesting is that Ronda Santis
Speaker 1: is not somebody who came across as an anti vaxxer
Speaker 1: when he ran for governor in twenty eighteen, and even
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two didn't. And in fact, when the
Speaker 1: vaccine was rolling out, his office was very aggressive at
Speaker 1: making sure everybody sixty five plus could get it and
Speaker 1: all of those things. So to see the turn here, right,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, politically, what's been successful for him
Speaker 1: was keeping Florida open. But the idea that you'd be
Speaker 1: anti vaccine to keep Florida open has sort of been
Speaker 1: an odd mix here in an odd marriage. But in
Speaker 1: some ways that that's what's been going on. Right, And
Speaker 1: you sit there and I'll tell you when I saw this,
Speaker 1: I actually remember I was one of those kids. I
Speaker 1: remember I was not allowed to start school. I think
Speaker 1: it was before third grade. I can't remember second grade
Speaker 1: or third grade or fourth grade, but it was it
Speaker 1: was in elementary school. And my doctor, you know who,
Speaker 1: to vouch for my vaccine schedule only put the month
Speaker 1: in the year, and the bureaucrats that Dade County said
Speaker 1: that wasn't good enough, and because the day of the
Speaker 1: week wasn't put in there what day it was, I was,
Speaker 1: I was, you know, not allowed to not allowed to
Speaker 1: come to school. And it turned into this standoff between
Speaker 1: my parents and them a little bit nothing. But at
Speaker 1: some point my doctor just said, all right, we'll just
Speaker 1: say it happened on this day and we just put
Speaker 1: a date and then it was done right. It didn't matter,
Speaker 1: didn't have to verify it for sure, but the fact
Speaker 1: that the form didn't have that was what this became.
Speaker 1: And you know, my let's just say, my father thought
Speaker 1: it was a bit absurd, and I remember he said,
Speaker 1: I want you to take this note to your teacher
Speaker 1: to apologize that you weren't there. And I think in
Speaker 1: the note I remember reading it, it was like the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy of Dade County Public Schools, you know, forced this,
Speaker 1: and we're sorry that he couldn't be there, and this
Speaker 1: is not how we are as parents. We were very
Speaker 1: respectful to teachers. Blah blah blah. It was interesting how
Speaker 1: he did it on that front. My father was a character.
Speaker 1: I miss him. I miss him dearly and often wonder
Speaker 1: I lost him. In nineteen eighty eight, I often wonder,
Speaker 1: because I got my love of politics from him, I
Speaker 1: often wonder what.
Speaker 2: He would think of today's politics.
Speaker 1: I have the luxury to believe one thing, and I'll
Speaker 1: just leave it at that on that front. But what
Speaker 1: it gets me too is trying to figure out. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how the hell did Florida lose
Speaker 1: its mind? And I don't think it's the residence of Florida, Like,
Speaker 1: how did we get how did this kooky anti vax
Speaker 1: stuff go mainstream? And I've been looking for an historical parallel,
Speaker 1: like when have we lost our minds before as a
Speaker 1: society and got like weird fervor this an anti something further,
Speaker 1: and I think we're experiencing something that's very similar to prohibition.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting if you think about the timing of
Speaker 1: the of the prohibition movement and the war on alcohol
Speaker 1: and the anti vax movement, and when did sort of
Speaker 1: the war on alcohol see its greatest success and when
Speaker 1: has the anti vax movement seen its greatest success? Well,
Speaker 1: you had the pandemic in nineteen seventeen and eighteen, and
Speaker 1: World War One had a huge cultural impact on society,
Speaker 1: and there was an anti alcohol movement before the world
Speaker 1: World War One and before that pandemic of nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: in eighteen, and it's certainly raised anxieties. The pandemic and
Speaker 1: World War One back then raised anxieties about morality and
Speaker 1: public health and the anti alcohol movement which had existed.
Speaker 1: If you're a watcher of the Gilded Age, Cynthia Nixon's
Speaker 1: character hosts meetings of the Temperance movement. This was the
Speaker 1: beginnings of the anti So this was like a twenty
Speaker 1: year movement, just like the anti vaxx movement, right, has
Speaker 1: been around a long time. It took a long time
Speaker 1: for them to get traction. Covid allowed them, gave them
Speaker 1: their moment, and the vaccine mandates, right, that was the opening, Right,
Speaker 1: it was the mandate that became the opening for the
Speaker 1: entire thing. And it wasn't just about a COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: Right now we're getting rid of mandates on mumps and
Speaker 1: measles and hepatitis B and all these things, which is
Speaker 1: really quite concerning. Well, in some ways, the pandemic of
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen and World War One and the anti German
Speaker 1: mindset that the country had, which also meant anti beer, right,
Speaker 1: The biggest brewers at that time in America were Germans,
Speaker 1: so it became so they took advantage of a moment. Okay, Now,
Speaker 1: the anti alcohol movement was framed sort of as a
Speaker 1: moral crusade. It was a moral failing, was the argument, right, sin, corruption,
Speaker 1: family destruction. The German American brewers were the villains here, right,
Speaker 1: We just fought them, you know, the Europeans had to
Speaker 1: fight them War one. They're bad people and they're the
Speaker 1: ones pushing alcohol on us.
Speaker 2: And then the.
Speaker 1: Dry reformers at the time said that abstinence, you know,
Speaker 1: in some ways was a civic duty. Well, think about
Speaker 1: the anti VAXX movement, right, it's been framed as sort
Speaker 1: of a personal rights issue. Farmer companies, public health officials,
Speaker 1: and globalists are the villains here, and the choice being
Speaker 1: able to have a choice. It's being framed it's patrio.
Speaker 1: It's your patriotic duty to resist this coersion, right, that's
Speaker 1: not what a free society allowed to you. So that
Speaker 1: was it helped them get a hold. So then you
Speaker 1: have sort of you know, how did they you know,
Speaker 1: move forward?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: The eighteenth Amendment, the Volstead Act banned even mild beer
Speaker 1: and wine, sweeping, federal intervention in a daily life when
Speaker 1: it came to alcohol. All of this, right, all of
Speaker 1: this happening right after right right nineteen nineteen, nineteen twenty,
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty one. Well, the vaccine mandates for workplaces, schools,
Speaker 1: military court battles over OSHA, and federal contractors. Do they
Speaker 1: have to abide by the mandate sweeping requirements?
Speaker 2: What did it do?
Speaker 1: It hardened opposition that actually might have faded it had
Speaker 1: been left to being voluntary. If there is a mistake
Speaker 1: here that the scientific community made and that the government
Speaker 1: officials made, was the mandate aspect of this, right, you know,
Speaker 1: you tell somebody they have to do it, and then
Speaker 1: they go, well, why are you making me do it?
Speaker 1: You tell somebody that it's voluntary. But here's why we
Speaker 1: think you should do it. You're going to get eighty twenty.
Speaker 1: You'll probably get eighty twenty in either case. The question
Speaker 1: is is, you know, does the eighty become an advocate
Speaker 1: or do they become do they become a quick questioning?
Speaker 1: Now think about you know, and look what happened here.
Speaker 1: The concern about alcohol was frankly like, was the hard stuff.
Speaker 1: But then when they banned baar and wine. It started
Speaker 1: to get get at people and what we're doing here,
Speaker 1: anti vaxx, anti COVID vaccine, that was one thing. Now
Speaker 1: this is turning into anti all vaccines. So what happened
Speaker 1: with alcohol? Well, so what happens We ban alcohol and
Speaker 1: then basically we create crime gangs, Right, we create an
Speaker 1: entire criminal industrial complex.
Speaker 2: That actually exists to this day.
Speaker 1: Number one, right, black market, Lickner, and then the irony
Speaker 1: was poisonings and debt. Here, the anti alcohol movement was
Speaker 1: supposed to be about making you healthier. It was supposed
Speaker 1: to make society better. So what did it do? It
Speaker 1: increased crime and more people died from bad alcohol, essentially
Speaker 1: bootlegged alcohol, you know, the homemade stuff that people unregulated
Speaker 1: and it was killing people. Well, the anti vaxx movement, right,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, now it is spread beyond covid.
Speaker 1: No more vaccines from measles, polio, HPV, these diseases were contained,
Speaker 1: and now we've already seen a measle's outbreak. Lord only
Speaker 1: knows what's going to come in Florida without this vaccine mandate.
Speaker 1: You know, it's sadly, it's not going to be an
Speaker 1: if something breaks out, it's a win, so not another parallel.
Speaker 1: Then there was the political fallout right, Prohibition became a symbol.
Speaker 1: It turned into a symbol of government overreach and eroded trust,
Speaker 1: fueled cynicism about reform, and eventually it does get repealed,
Speaker 1: but not until there's one of the most catas you know,
Speaker 1: the nineteen twenties were incredibly disruptive in American society in
Speaker 1: all sorts of pipe leads to the Great Depression. It
Speaker 1: also leads to the party behind all of this, right
Speaker 1: ends up getting just eviscerated in nineteen thirty two. Immediately
Speaker 1: prohibition is repealed. Why at the time the economy was terrible.
Speaker 1: It was pitched as a way to potentially create jobs.
Speaker 1: If you legalize alcohol and get it back on the
Speaker 1: streets the making of it, you know, you might create jobs.
Speaker 1: And it was also was going to make the working
Speaker 1: class a little bit happier as you were trying to
Speaker 1: keep society from falling out. Well, the anti VAXX movement right,
Speaker 1: it's reshaping politics of the right. It's embedding now distrust
Speaker 1: into public health. It's going to be long term party
Speaker 1: identity now for real, anti government, anti institution, but it's
Speaker 1: going to erode compliance for a while. And the question
Speaker 1: is going to be when you could sort of see
Speaker 1: it here, right, it is at some point the public's
Speaker 1: going to figure out this made us less healthy, this
Speaker 1: put us more at risk. And in fact, I think
Speaker 1: the state of Florida is you know, wrongful death lawsuits
Speaker 1: are gonna skyrocket if people die from getting a disease
Speaker 1: that could have been stopped with a vaccine. And I
Speaker 1: think it's the government itself, right, that is going to
Speaker 1: They're supposed to be shields for this, right, government is
Speaker 1: supposed to be shielded a bit from this that ultimately.
Speaker 2: It's the people.
Speaker 1: But this is an intentional act too. How are they
Speaker 1: trying to do harm? You know, you could argue that
Speaker 1: the motivation is not to do harm, but they are knowing,
Speaker 1: you know, all the evidence is they know the potential
Speaker 1: harm that can be done from this decision, and they
Speaker 1: did it anyway. So look, it's not a perfect analogy
Speaker 1: sort of the prohibition movement, but it is a reminder
Speaker 1: we lost our minds as a society and somehow this
Speaker 1: took hold and nobody really wanted it, but nobody knew
Speaker 1: how to stop it, and it took sort of It
Speaker 1: took people dying. It took the rise of criminal gangs
Speaker 1: and the mob and all of these stuff to get
Speaker 1: people to realize, yeah, this is this wasn't the right way.
Speaker 2: To do it.
Speaker 1: So the question is is it when when you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody thinks not getting vaccines is a
Speaker 1: good idea. When I say anybody, obviously there's some people
Speaker 1: they're in power. But I think this is a seventy
Speaker 1: thirty issue. I don't think this is a fifty to
Speaker 1: fifty issue.
Speaker 2: I guess we have to go.
Speaker 1: Polling on it more directly than ever before. I now
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting. Is we need some better polling data.
Speaker 1: And I think we're you know, I know what I'd
Speaker 1: be doing if I were running the NBC News poll
Speaker 1: right now, creating a battery of tests on this. I
Speaker 1: think on public health, I think we we're all making
Speaker 1: assumptions that we know how. I assume it'll be pretty generational.
Speaker 1: I think the older you are and the memories you
Speaker 1: have of quarantines, of having people you knew in your
Speaker 1: life die of the measles and mumps, which was not
Speaker 1: a rare thing in the forties, thirties, forties and fifties,
Speaker 1: that the memory of those things is you know, means that,
Speaker 1: my guess is the older you are, the more pro
Speaker 1: vaccine you are, and perhaps the further away you are
Speaker 1: from this, the more quote open you are to personal
Speaker 1: freedom on this front. But look, I'm throwing it out there.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this is a definitive comparison. I'd love
Speaker 1: your feedback on this. What do you think is the
Speaker 1: is this anti vaxx movement that's starting to take hold.
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of parallels here to prohibition, right,
Speaker 1: which in some ways right, it took almost one hundred
Speaker 1: years to get rid of dry counties. There's still a
Speaker 1: handful of dry counties. I've watched my in my state
Speaker 1: of Florida. Over time, the dry counties in the last
Speaker 1: twenty years have finally gone away. So it took nearly
Speaker 1: one hundred years for this for the entire sort of
Speaker 1: war on alcohol to be fully repealed or to be
Speaker 1: you know, fully surrender. So this may and this is
Speaker 1: a reminder we may have set ourselves back on the
Speaker 1: on the vaccination front and on public health for one
Speaker 1: hundred years, that it may take that long for smaller
Speaker 1: communities to realize this was a mistake. Now again, I
Speaker 1: think there are lessons learned here from those that want
Speaker 1: more vaccine compliance, and that is mandates don't work, right,
Speaker 1: it's the mandates. You know, you can implement certain mandates
Speaker 1: right school children, yes, kids, And by the way, this
Speaker 1: is the real vulnerability here, I think politically in the
Speaker 1: short term, I have no idea whether the Democrats are
Speaker 1: capable of a message like this.
Speaker 2: But if I were.
Speaker 1: Advising a bil cassidy right now, I'd say, look, you're
Speaker 1: looking for a way to sort of get out of
Speaker 1: this box that you've put yourself in. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: do you want to be on the side of of
Speaker 1: more children and more healthy children or you want to
Speaker 1: be on the side of less healthy children? Right, because
Speaker 1: right now the Republican Party is accumulating a record that
Speaker 1: is putting kids, is making kids less healthy, is making
Speaker 1: their outcomes less healthy. Whether it's on you know, not
Speaker 1: mandating vaccines. To look at the state of Texas and
Speaker 1: it's inability to have a warning system with the floods
Speaker 1: that put those kids at risk. Obviously, it's with what's
Speaker 1: happening at schools and the inability to protect kids from
Speaker 1: guns there that you know, there's a record here piling
Speaker 1: up the medicaid cuts. Who gets hurt the most? It's
Speaker 1: kids the deportations, who gets hurt the most? The kids
Speaker 1: that are born here, right, there's this. The most vulnerable
Speaker 1: to all of these radical policy changes that we've been
Speaker 1: experiencing over the last six months are those under the
Speaker 1: age of eighteen in various ways. I again, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I've not seen a messaging component out of the Democratic
Speaker 1: side that knows how to do this and and sort
Speaker 1: of simplify.
Speaker 2: The closest I've seen.
Speaker 1: Is Ram Emmanuel, who sort of tried to look at
Speaker 1: this kitchen you know, sort of start at the kitchen
Speaker 1: table and work your way back, rather than to start
Speaker 1: with a political argument.
Speaker 2: And work your way towards the kitchen table.
Speaker 1: And I think on this vaccine stuff, you've got to
Speaker 1: step away from the political side as much as that's
Speaker 1: where you know, this is a Kennedy problem and it's
Speaker 1: all of this. But in some ways, the more you
Speaker 1: focus it there it probably is the less people hear it,
Speaker 1: and the more you go as to, hey, are people
Speaker 1: looking out for your kids anymore? Because nobody's seen they're
Speaker 1: not doing that in Washington, and here's how I think
Speaker 1: that's where the vulnerability lies politically. But we shall see so.
Speaker 1: But i'd love your feedback the next couple of rounds
Speaker 1: of asked Chucks. I will if you just send comments.
Speaker 1: You know, you know your take, what you know. If
Speaker 1: you've got a way to strengthen my comparison, I'd love
Speaker 1: to hear it. If there's more holes in it, I'd
Speaker 1: love to hear that too, So bring it on and
Speaker 1: h later in an ass Chuck, we will respond to that.
Speaker 1: Just a few other intriguing notes and political developments over
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours that I thought were worth mentioning.
Speaker 1: One is that it looks like the Trump administration is
Speaker 1: aggressively trying to figure out ways to help Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: get a one on one with on Mam Donnie and
Speaker 1: the mayor's race. New York Times broke the story, saying
Speaker 1: that they're looking for they're seeing if there's we've seen
Speaker 1: already this right. The independent candidate dropped out on Wednesday. Walden,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's looking for possible job opportunities for Carlos Sliwa.
Speaker 1: They Republican nominee the Guardian Angel Guy and for Eric Adams,
Speaker 1: and if they get out, then you get a one
Speaker 1: on one between Cuomo and Mamdanni.
Speaker 2: The question is is that enough for Cuomo? Right?
Speaker 1: He couldn't win on one basically couldn't end up winning
Speaker 1: a one on one because mom Donnie turned it into
Speaker 1: a one on one in some ways, right, knowing how
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting worked, by the way it just in aside,
Speaker 1: Come on, New York City, why is that ranked choice
Speaker 1: voting is only good for the Democratic primary but not
Speaker 1: good for the electorate.
Speaker 2: As a whole.
Speaker 1: I actually think that's an unfair way to do it.
Speaker 1: If you're not going to have ranked choice voting for
Speaker 1: the general, then it shouldn't be allowed for the primary
Speaker 1: and vice versa. Right, it should you know, either have
Speaker 1: one way that you're doing the office or not. This
Speaker 1: idea that it was ranked choice voting for the primary,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't. You know, if it had been, then
Speaker 1: you could have had this dynamic five way race that
Speaker 1: might have made it different, and all sorts of interesting
Speaker 1: calculations and different duopolies or partnerships or whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call them could have been formed. But anyway, so
Speaker 1: I should. You know, I kind of think the you're
Speaker 1: either doing it one way.
Speaker 2: Or you're doing it the other way.
Speaker 1: This idea that it's one way in the primary and
Speaker 1: one way in the general, I think is not fair,
Speaker 1: not fair to the voters whichever it's. It's not fair
Speaker 1: to primary voters that they had to do the rank
Speaker 1: choice voting but they don't get to do it there
Speaker 1: and vice versa. Personally, I'd love to have seen it
Speaker 1: all toy thing. But the point I want to make here,
Speaker 1: so if that happens and it looks like there's a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, this is one of those things
Speaker 1: that you know, when it's in the leaking out stage,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a couple of reasons something gets leaked
Speaker 1: like this. One is to kill it, or one is
Speaker 1: to sort of use it as a trial balloon. So
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know the Times reporting, but that's
Speaker 1: one of two reasons why something like this leaks. It's
Speaker 1: a trial balloon to see how see how it works,
Speaker 1: or it's a it's somebody trying to kill it and
Speaker 1: putting the idea out there could do that. But let's
Speaker 1: say it happens. And the reason I say it's because
Speaker 1: it's going to set up an inch interesting off year
Speaker 1: messaging test, because then you're going to have a New
Speaker 1: York City mayor's race that is going to be all
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump, Right, Mam Donnie is going to try
Speaker 1: to tie Cuomo to Trump and say this is Trump's candidate.
Speaker 1: He orchestrated everything to do there, right, So I think
Speaker 1: this is the This is to me the risk here
Speaker 1: Cuomo's making like he's getting what he needs here, which
Speaker 1: is cleared the field, and the only way the field
Speaker 1: could get cleared was with Trump's help. So it's a
Speaker 1: it's a it's an interesting it's an interesting situation that
Speaker 1: he's in. Well, on the other side of the country,
Speaker 1: you're going to have a campaign that's going to be
Speaker 1: a referendum campaign for the gerrymandering right, for the new map.
Speaker 2: Right. Gaven Newsom's gonna be.
Speaker 1: Out there basically to beg the voters to, hey, we
Speaker 1: want to temporarily do this, but we have to get
Speaker 1: your permission to do it because of the Constitutional Amendment
Speaker 1: on civilian redistricting And what do you think the primary
Speaker 1: foil is going to be for the map, right, It's
Speaker 1: going to be Donald Trump. So you're going to have
Speaker 1: gap and run an anti Trump campaign in order to
Speaker 1: sell his maps, because look, this is a you know,
Speaker 1: if the campaign for those maps and we just uh
Speaker 1: is about fairness, right, that amendment could go down and
Speaker 1: Newsom could lose if he can flood the zone, and
Speaker 1: it gets turned into hey, Donald Trump, you know this
Speaker 1: is this is this is about checking Donald Trump. Then
Speaker 1: you get those anti Trump independents more likely to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll vote for this temporarily even if I don't like
Speaker 1: it because because of Trump. So then we're going to
Speaker 1: have basically two Trump referendums in different ways, and two
Speaker 1: of the bluest areas in the country, New York City
Speaker 1: and California. Now you'd say, well, that means mom, Donnie's
Speaker 1: going to be mayor and Newsom's going to get his remap. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's probably likely. But what if they don't both go
Speaker 1: that way. What if the law and Oregon Order are
Speaker 1: wins the day in New York and the fear of
Speaker 1: socialism becomes a real thing and you do split and
Speaker 1: wedge the Democratic vote there and in California. Right if
Speaker 1: the counter to make it a referendum on Trump gets
Speaker 1: turned into making a referendum on Newsome. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: his job approval rating has been very polarizing in California,
Speaker 1: and it's not been that healthy.
Speaker 2: He's not a.
Speaker 1: Governor that sits in the sixties. In fact, during campaign
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, he was in the mid forties. You know,
Speaker 1: I had a couple of sources telling me that Kevin
Speaker 1: was was basically looking for congressional races to help, and
Speaker 1: they were like, please don't come, We don't you know.
Speaker 2: And it was not personal.
Speaker 1: It was business, meaning they didn't want to introduce, you know,
Speaker 1: somebody who's right now was polarizing the electorate. So it
Speaker 1: just look, the stakes every election now, the stakes are
Speaker 1: higher than ever before, right each one of them. I
Speaker 1: don't know where this is, just this is a fascinating
Speaker 1: development that by mid October, somehow the off off year
Speaker 1: elections may end up being a full fledged referendum on Trump.
Speaker 2: We're already seeing.
Speaker 1: It's interesting even in the Jersey governor's race, in the
Speaker 1: Virginia governor's race, right you look, the Republican candidate in
Speaker 1: Virginia governor, she's been running with Glenn Youngkin, and Glenn Youngkin.
Speaker 2: Is the spokesperson for the campaign.
Speaker 1: You see Glenn Youngkin in the TV ads, You don't
Speaker 1: hear any mention of Trump.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is read a poll in
Speaker 1: Virginia and understand why. Meanwhile, what is Abigail Spaanberger doing.
Speaker 1: She is trying to tie Winston merleseares to Trump, particularly
Speaker 1: with the with the doze cuts and the federal government
Speaker 1: workers and all of that, and it's going there. So
Speaker 1: you certainly have a Democrat in Virginia that wants Trump.
Speaker 1: Then you have sort of a cookie cutter campaign anti
Speaker 1: Trump campaign that's being run now by mikey Ryl, the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee for New Jersey governor, where Chidarelli, who used
Speaker 1: the Trump endorsement to sort of make sure everybody knew
Speaker 1: he was the Republican to vote for. Suddenly he says, hey,
Speaker 1: this is not a race about Trump. She's the one
Speaker 1: that's obsessed with Trump, you know, and with Washington. I'm
Speaker 1: here obsessed about New Jersey, right, which is an interesting
Speaker 1: counter message. The point is is now we've got four
Speaker 1: different races where some form of Trump is being used
Speaker 1: as a referendum, and I think we're all curious, what
Speaker 1: is the appetite for that in the electorate. Does that
Speaker 1: motivate independence one way or the other. Is there an
Speaker 1: exhaustion from it? Or are his actions turning voters off?
Speaker 2: Does it end.
Speaker 1: Up the more you talk about Trump, do you activate
Speaker 1: the Trump only voters that seem to just show up
Speaker 1: in presidentials but decide they have to get his back?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Point is a lot of what ifs here. This entire
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five campaign, which felt semi local, eye right
Speaker 1: in various ways. You know, you knew that Trump would
Speaker 1: be used, you know, to push certain constituency group buttons.
Speaker 1: But we're starting to see it may take more center
Speaker 1: stage because Trump himself's right. Look at how much he's
Speaker 1: intervening in New York City mayor and I'll be fascinated
Speaker 1: to see whether, you know, how how he tries to
Speaker 1: get involved in California, because I think he will, and
Speaker 1: how he tries to get involved in New Jersey. I
Speaker 1: do think he stays out of Virginia. I think in
Speaker 1: some ways the Youngkin experience in love It and the
Speaker 1: fact that Winson Earl Sears has made the decision I'm
Speaker 1: running I'm going to try to run Youngkin's reelection it's
Speaker 1: her only path.
Speaker 2: It's probably a long shot.
Speaker 1: But looking at the numbers, I see why I think
Speaker 1: I'd be doing the same thing. The problem she's got
Speaker 1: is Youngkin's approval numbers. While better than Trump's in Virginia,
Speaker 1: they're not awesome, right, And that's h and that's ultimately
Speaker 1: I think the probably the hurdle with that strategy.
Speaker 2: All right, and now let's load up. Let's do some questions,
Speaker 2: ask Chuck. But I think I actually have.
Speaker 1: Given that this is the last episode for the week.
Speaker 1: I'm going to try to let this go a little
Speaker 1: bit here and get through. Let me see if I
Speaker 1: can get through. My goal is seven questions. See if
Speaker 1: I can do seven, maybe eight and thirty minutes. All right,
Speaker 1: let's give it a shot. This one comes from David
Speaker 1: from Oviado, Florida. I think it's Oviato, but if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: he will let me know.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So I'm a long time listener, going back to your
Speaker 1: MTP days. I'm also a Florida boy, though a bit
Speaker 1: north from you Someminal County. I think I remember you
Speaker 1: once saying you have some relatives in Longwood. Yes, I've
Speaker 1: listened to your complaints about Dems in regard to be
Speaker 1: distingu which made it amusing when you also said we
Speaker 1: have to deal with the world as it is, not
Speaker 1: as we'd like it to be. Touche, Isn't that exactly
Speaker 1: what DEM's pushing aggressive maps are doing. Not to get
Speaker 1: too nerdy, but think of it like the old Star
Speaker 1: Trek episode of Private Little War. The Klingons arm one side,
Speaker 1: so the Federation arms the other to keep balance. It's messy,
Speaker 1: but if Dems don't play by the same rules, they
Speaker 1: may never control the House again in our lifetimes. What
Speaker 1: say you, no, David, this is this is a fair question.
Speaker 1: You're not alone in this pushback. One of my closest friends,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody that I'll be arguing with, mostly about
Speaker 1: Dodger baseball, but also about politics. He's a Angelino, he's
Speaker 1: a Californian, and he and I were arguing about this,
Speaker 1: and on one hand we both agree that this is terrible.
Speaker 2: And yet what he says is, what's your alternative, you know?
Speaker 1: And my alternative is run a campaign, right, And that's
Speaker 1: the problem, right, is that there's no when your you know,
Speaker 1: it all depends on how you view Trump and Trump
Speaker 1: is do you think it is such a threat that
Speaker 1: it is irreversible if some things happen, or is it
Speaker 1: reversible if you stick to your guns, and eventually the
Speaker 1: public's going to reward you for being right. And I
Speaker 1: think it's sort of a combination of the two. I
Speaker 1: will say this, I think the fact that Newsome has
Speaker 1: to go to the voters cleans it up for me. Right,
Speaker 1: It's like, look, it's he wants to fight this, but
Speaker 1: he's got to get voter permission to do it. I
Speaker 1: think it makes it more righteous than what Abbott did
Speaker 1: in Texas. Right, He's not going to the voters to
Speaker 1: ask this decision. So in that sense, I think I
Speaker 1: think Gavin he gets better higher marks on the democra
Speaker 1: tests than Abbott does. But this is, you know, if
Speaker 1: you take it to its logical conclusion, we don't have
Speaker 1: you know, we go it's almost like we've repealed the
Speaker 1: amendment that allowed for Senate elections, you know, up until
Speaker 1: essentially the mid nineteen teens, right, I think it was
Speaker 1: by nineteen eighteen all senators were finally elected by the
Speaker 1: people instead of state legislatures. Well, then we're literally reversing
Speaker 1: what the founders wanted. We're going to be electing members
Speaker 1: of Congress via the state legislatures and how they draw
Speaker 1: the maps, and it's the senators that are the ones
Speaker 1: that are actually more responsive to the actual people. So
Speaker 1: I think when you throw to that to you really
Speaker 1: have sort of you have taken the people out of
Speaker 1: the people's house, right, So again I get it. There's
Speaker 1: not a I don't have an answer of well, how
Speaker 1: do you win this on the high ground? How do
Speaker 1: you win this righteously? How do you win this principally?
Speaker 1: You know, there's so many mistakes that Democrats have made
Speaker 1: and how it treated Florida in Texas that you know,
Speaker 1: you reap what you sew. You know, they're getting bullied
Speaker 1: by the majority party in both states. Why because they surrendered.
Speaker 1: The National Party surrendered in Florida and never you know,
Speaker 1: only talked a good game in Texas, never actually backed
Speaker 1: it up with resources and investment. And I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about investments for one election or for six months. I'm
Speaker 1: talking the long term, right, These are ten year projects.
Speaker 1: And now, guess what, twenty thirty two is going to
Speaker 1: be a disaster for the Democrats and that first presidential
Speaker 1: election after reapportionment with Texas gaining more electoral votes, Florida
Speaker 1: gaining more electoral votes, Idaho gaining.
Speaker 2: More electoral votes. Big, big problem.
Speaker 1: It's going to make Georgia North Carolina Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to have to win both states every time, plus those
Speaker 1: three Midwestern states and oh, by the way, that are
Speaker 1: shrinking in importance than still very competitive deal with and
Speaker 1: probably you're going to throw in a Minnesota, which is
Speaker 1: going to which continues to creep closer and closer into
Speaker 1: swing state status. So look, this, this is this is
Speaker 1: on the You know, the Democrats are in this situation
Speaker 1: because of their their inability to be a national party
Speaker 1: right and their decision to pull out of Florida and
Speaker 1: Texas and concede it all, and their focus on the
Speaker 1: presidency and obsession with only when the Senate and the presidency.
Speaker 1: Terrible investment into state legislative races. Really, I'll say this,
Speaker 1: it has really improved over the last I'd say six years.
Speaker 1: There's been a real effort to do better in these
Speaker 1: state elections. So there's there there. They have played ketch up.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party and the conservative movement has been so
Speaker 1: much more focused on grassroots elections than the than the
Speaker 1: progressive movement or the or the Democrats. You're seeing more
Speaker 1: of them now look that way, But look at school boards,
Speaker 1: look at you know in particular, is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of where the conservative movement tapped into some grassroots and
Speaker 1: got there and really were able to develop. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I get it. You're not the first person that I've
Speaker 1: had this debate with and I don't have a then
Speaker 1: what should they?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Okay, this is a bad idea, is you know every
Speaker 1: other one is worse?
Speaker 2: And maybe that's so? All right?
Speaker 1: Next question, this comes from at ten. He says, Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I'm at ten and I'm a longtime Canadian fan here
Speaker 1: all right, thank you got a lot of Canadian pen pals.
Speaker 1: I love you guys from the suburbs of Montreal and
Speaker 1: Leah Spofan.
Speaker 2: I hope. My question is kind of simple.
Speaker 1: Do you think all of the maneuvers Trump is doing
Speaker 1: about the mail and vote registration and identification hurdles he's
Speaker 1: trying to put in place are a tactic to be
Speaker 1: able to contest or even not recognize the results of
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty six midterms. Thanks a lot, ps, I
Speaker 1: cannot be become a fan of the Nationals as they
Speaker 1: were stolen from US.
Speaker 2: I totally understand that, but just so.
Speaker 1: You know, I have become a Montreal Exposed collector of
Speaker 1: sorts as a way of my homage to the Nationals.
Speaker 1: It kind of helps that the Exposed team of both
Speaker 1: eighty one and ninety four are very familiar to me.
Speaker 1: I was a Dodger fan back in the day, and
Speaker 1: particularly the eighty one team the Dodgers. The biggest hurdle
Speaker 1: of the Dodgers face before facing the Yankees in the
Speaker 1: World Series was that tremendous Expo the second best Expo
Speaker 1: team of all time, the best one being, of course,
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety fourteen.
Speaker 2: So I get it.
Speaker 1: You should know in our Ring of Honor in Nationals Park,
Speaker 1: all of the Expos Hall of Famers are in there.
Speaker 1: Gary Carter, Tim Rains, Andre Dawson. So I will give
Speaker 1: the Nationals credit. They do try, even though I think
Speaker 1: the original owner of the Exposers screwed it up go
Speaker 1: handed the mar which I always felt as some sort
Speaker 1: of personal affront to me. Right, I took it very personally.
Speaker 1: The jeweler, the jeweler who screwed up the expos then
Speaker 1: came down to the Marlins and somehow messed it up
Speaker 1: even more and got a free baseball team to boot.
Speaker 2: But I digress. Let me get to your basic your
Speaker 2: question here. It's an interesting thesis.
Speaker 1: You know, what does he does he need all of
Speaker 1: this to contest the results of election?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I think if he doesn't like the results, he's going
Speaker 1: to contest it regardless of this. Now, let me get
Speaker 1: to the specifics of what he's trying to do. If
Speaker 1: I were the Democrats, I'd agree to do this. And
Speaker 1: here's why the Democratic Party right now, it's voters follow
Speaker 1: all the rules, know all the rules, are aware of
Speaker 1: what you need to vote. They're the ones that show
Speaker 1: up in every special election. Why do Democrats continue to
Speaker 1: overperform in any special election, whether it's in the suburbs
Speaker 1: of Orlando, the suburbs of Des Moines, you name it, right,
Speaker 1: They're overperforming everywhere because the suburban sort of super voter
Speaker 1: has gone from leaning right to leaning left. They're not
Speaker 1: all registered Democrats, that a lot of them moved from
Speaker 1: being registered Republicans registered independence. But it is why this
Speaker 1: suburban vote and why in the midterms in particular, Democrats
Speaker 1: now have a built in advantage.
Speaker 2: The folks who.
Speaker 1: Don't necessarily follow the specifics of voting all the time.
Speaker 1: The non super voters are more likely to support Trump.
Speaker 1: And so if you did voter ID laws, I think
Speaker 1: it's more Trump voters would end up not being qualified
Speaker 1: to get to the polls. You get rid of mail
Speaker 1: in balloting, and you do early in person, it's more
Speaker 1: likely the casual voter is a Trump voter. The casual
Speaker 1: voter leans right these days. So the more impediments you
Speaker 1: put into voting ten years ago that was going to
Speaker 1: hurt the Democrats, now it's going to hurt the Republicans.
Speaker 1: So if you want to totally play game theory here,
Speaker 1: I believe it was. Matthew Iglesias in the last week
Speaker 1: did a really good dive on this where he said,
Speaker 1: you know, if Democrats get the House, this should be
Speaker 1: that in exchange for basically funding early more early in
Speaker 1: person voting, that Democrats ought to make the compromise voter
Speaker 1: ID and getting rid of mail in voting for everybody
Speaker 1: except the military. Because all of it, all of these
Speaker 1: if you look at the demographics of each party, all
Speaker 1: of these impediments that Trump wants to introduce are going
Speaker 1: to impact Republicans a lot more these.
Speaker 2: Days than it impacts Democrats. Just something that you want.
Speaker 1: I am not Tony Korneisers who I do not have
Speaker 1: my maple leaf flag, but maybe I ought to acquire
Speaker 1: one from my Canadian friends. So anyway, I hope you
Speaker 1: will at least not be a NAT's hater. By the way,
Speaker 1: all right, next question comes from John in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Just a quick question in comment your substeck this week
Speaker 1: feels spot on regarding Democrats fighting for something, but also
Speaker 1: feels a little in conflict with your perspective on dem
Speaker 1: state Texas state legislatures fleeing the special session last month.
Speaker 1: Is there a line for you where fighting will always
Speaker 1: be the wrong move? Maybe these are not conflicting opinions
Speaker 1: at all. Thanks again for everything. Let's go mets it. Look,
Speaker 1: it's the question, is you know if you're going to
Speaker 1: pro You know, most protests fail in the moment, but
Speaker 1: a protest movement that fails in the moment builds support
Speaker 1: and can succeed in.
Speaker 2: The long term.
Speaker 1: Right, So it just it's all about do you have
Speaker 1: an endgame and do you have an exit strategy? I
Speaker 1: think I think what Texas Democrats did was within the
Speaker 1: To me, I had no issue with what they did.
Speaker 1: If you actually saw, I thought what they were doing
Speaker 1: was within that's what you should be doing. Hey, we're
Speaker 1: gonna deny a quorum. Okay, they said, fine, we're gonna
Speaker 1: get They were looking to see were there any Republicans
Speaker 1: that were going to be saying, you know what, maybe
Speaker 1: they're right, So it was it was worth trying to see.
Speaker 1: So I was never critical of what they were doing.
Speaker 1: My criticism is for essentially is going to other states
Speaker 1: and disenfranchising voters there in the name of competing with Texas.
Speaker 1: Who's disenfranchising voters there? Right, That's that's what I'm I
Speaker 1: think it's it's more of the principle. But you know,
Speaker 1: to me, I actually think the Texas Democrats sort of
Speaker 1: they did what they did it they denied the quorum
Speaker 1: and left, and I think it was it was all
Speaker 1: about testing the will of them of the right. We
Speaker 1: you know, we had all heard the whispers you're gonna
Speaker 1: and if you just listened to the conversation, hopefully you
Speaker 1: just heard the conversation with Jake and Anna, where Jake
Speaker 1: spoke of an anonymous Texas Republican who said, I just
Speaker 1: got to know this district, now you're making me learn
Speaker 1: another one. There were no Republicans that wanted this in
Speaker 1: Texas except I don't think there was any Textan that
Speaker 1: wanted It was Donald Trump, and nobody wants to say
Speaker 1: no to Trump.
Speaker 2: So I think what they did.
Speaker 1: You leave the state and you basically see, you know,
Speaker 1: if we kill one special session, will they you know,
Speaker 1: will they concede? And the answer was no. They called
Speaker 1: another one, will they fold?
Speaker 2: The answer was no.
Speaker 1: So at some point, you know and what And I
Speaker 1: would argue that actually what the Texas Democratic legislators did
Speaker 1: was successful.
Speaker 2: In this respect.
Speaker 1: They got national attention, It brought into focus this issue.
Speaker 1: Now it may have triggered this nationwide redistricting war, but
Speaker 1: ultimately it gave Democrats something to fight for for the
Speaker 1: first time, and they are fighting and I and to me,
Speaker 1: it's that response that I see happening with Newsome that
Speaker 1: makes me think that. Look and again, when you're arguing
Speaker 1: over our budget, you know, you know we've I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've ever bought a car, but the most
Speaker 1: the greatest feeling I've ever had is walking away from
Speaker 1: a purchase right. I've done it only once.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Most of the time when I've gone to buy a car,
Speaker 1: I knew what I wanted. I kind of knew the
Speaker 1: price range. I'm like, if they just hit this, and
Speaker 1: I've never had an issue. But one time I ran
Speaker 1: into an issue and I thought, no, they're playing games.
Speaker 1: I'm out, And sure enough it worked. I literally had
Speaker 1: to leave and it wasn't until the next day that
Speaker 1: they called. But I was like, vindication is mine. I
Speaker 1: did my own little you know, Chevrolet shutdown.
Speaker 2: It was for a Chevrolet.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say the dealership because I actually
Speaker 1: liked the dealership that I deal with over there. So
Speaker 1: it is empowering, but it's a to me legitimate It's
Speaker 1: a legitimate moment when you're doing dealing with the budget
Speaker 1: and spending and all of that. To not agree to
Speaker 1: the deal, right, you've got skin in the game. So
Speaker 1: but what I do think the Democrats have to do
Speaker 1: is know what your exit strategy is. What are you willing,
Speaker 1: what are you fighting for? Have a specific goal in mind,
Speaker 1: And that's what I was laying out. If you're going
Speaker 1: to do this, is it for Obama? You know what
Speaker 1: will bring you to the table. Obamacare subsidies. I ultimately
Speaker 1: think that's a pretty good thing to fight for. Healthcare
Speaker 1: is the better the best issue Democrat. Democrats have proven
Speaker 1: to be better about fighting for that issue than any
Speaker 1: other over the last decade, and voters are moved by it.
Speaker 2: So that would be something.
Speaker 1: Is it for demanding a vote on the tariffs? That's
Speaker 1: something to do, right, you know, But but have a
Speaker 1: demand that is semi realistic to be met so that
Speaker 1: you have an exit strategy and then when it's not
Speaker 1: met you you can come across as the reasonable one.
Speaker 1: Right there, the Republican deal is likely to be fully clean,
Speaker 1: you know, continuing resolution.
Speaker 2: Is it really going to be fully clean? Right?
Speaker 1: That's going to be one test, But that's how they're
Speaker 1: going to try to have the high ground. So you
Speaker 1: know it is I think it's a legitimate moment to
Speaker 1: do this, but you better know you better have a
Speaker 1: clear vision of why you're doing it and a clear
Speaker 1: explanation to the voters for why you're doing it. And
Speaker 1: if you know, we know it's because you don't trust
Speaker 1: Trump with spending, that's fine, but be specific on what
Speaker 1: you're looking for, Like, look, we don't trust him, But
Speaker 1: can we at least get the Obama tax credits here?
Speaker 1: Because guess who also wants that. There's quite a few
Speaker 1: Republican senators who don't like the Medicaid cuts, who would
Speaker 1: like to throw a bone at their constituents and that
Speaker 1: not also take away the subsidies on Obamacare. So you know,
Speaker 1: I actually think it's a reasonable thing to do, and
Speaker 1: at this point you might as well get on the
Speaker 1: side of being getting credit for that rather than have
Speaker 1: Republicans do it, and Trump tries to take credit for it,
Speaker 1: which he's very good at doing. All right. Next question
Speaker 1: comes from an anonymous person from Granite Falls, North Carolina,
Speaker 1: but he's not too anonymous because he starts with la Chiesai.
Speaker 1: And for those of you that know, you know, I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. I hope you heard my picks this week
Speaker 1: on Tony I listened to your podcasts and many other
Speaker 1: political and business podcasts. Why doesn't anyone mention that President
Speaker 1: Trump was found to have fraudulently filled out loan documents
Speaker 1: in a civil case. That such a point, there's always
Speaker 1: a Trump issue, let alone a Trump tweet.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The Lisa Cook issues is all about filling out loan documents.
Speaker 1: If she can't be trusted to a fed governor ship,
Speaker 1: why should the president be trusted to be the president?
Speaker 1: You know, it's it all goes back to the original
Speaker 1: campaign against Donald Trump that Democrats. You know, look, yes,
Speaker 1: you're right about all of this, and there are so
Speaker 1: there is such a laundry list of terrible business practices
Speaker 1: and terrible character traits that Trump has accumulated over four
Speaker 1: decades that you know how often Republicans that ran against
Speaker 1: him in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, and how often
Speaker 1: Democrats and Hillary Clinton who ran against him in twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen and twenty sixteen. You know how often they did
Speaker 1: that campaign against him? It was practically nothing, okay, And
Speaker 1: I remember it being and this was the biggest mistake
Speaker 1: that everybody made. There was an assumption that everybody knew
Speaker 1: the bad stuff about Trump, that because you knew Trump,
Speaker 1: that you knew at all the good and the bad.
Speaker 1: And I think there was a presumption I can tell
Speaker 1: you this, I had a presumption.
Speaker 2: I'll just speak for myself that I'm like, well.
Speaker 1: We all know this guy's like always full of shit
Speaker 1: in New York, right, Like nobody thinks he's a real developer.
Speaker 1: You know, it's always sort of a phony thing. This
Speaker 1: like Trump branded stuff is always phony. Everybody gets it right,
Speaker 1: that this is all a griff, that it's all sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, a show that it isn't there's really no
Speaker 1: substance that there's really no Trump business beyond owning that building,
Speaker 1: That there was no there there, that his golf courses
Speaker 1: were all leveraged and everything was leveraged, and it was
Speaker 1: a lot more of o PM other people's money that
Speaker 1: he leased his name to buildings. He wasn't even an
Speaker 1: owner of these properties. He was just licensing his brand.
Speaker 1: But nobody did, you know when you think about the
Speaker 1: campaign against Mitt Romney, which took every business deal he
Speaker 1: ever did at Bain and educated the public with it
Speaker 1: and made direct comparisons right now, because most because political
Speaker 1: opponents of Romney, both on the Republican primary and in
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, were like, hey, I don't think the
Speaker 1: voters know this, or they want to educate the voters
Speaker 1: and see if they really want this sort of very
Speaker 1: you know, this businessman in charge of the government. That
Speaker 1: that campaign was never run against Trump, right, Jeb Bush
Speaker 1: spent more money trying to damage Marco Rubio.
Speaker 2: Than he did. Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And Hillary Clinton kept doing the character things, kept going
Speaker 1: to the Russia thing rather than frankly, if you did
Speaker 1: the methodical f you just did the bankruptcies, and you
Speaker 1: just did the financial funny business, and you just did
Speaker 1: the grift that early on as sort of you may think,
Speaker 1: you know Donald Trump and he's a fun guy in
Speaker 1: this and this.
Speaker 2: Did you know?
Speaker 1: They never did that? And now it is too late.
Speaker 1: Now it's all baked in. Now you know, now he
Speaker 1: actually is wealthy. He wasn't a real billionaire. Now he
Speaker 1: is on paper thanks to these bitcoin scams that he's
Speaker 1: gotten himself involved in. It's you know, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we've all learned apparently if you're
Speaker 1: just a criminal and plain sight, no one cares. Right,
Speaker 1: the cover up is the it we you know, it
Speaker 1: always is. The cover up is worse than a crime,
Speaker 1: forget it. The cover up is the only crime that
Speaker 1: we seem to you know, we're all always outraged about
Speaker 1: cover ups, Right, what's everybody's upset?
Speaker 2: Uh? The cover up of the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: But he's been accused of sexual assault and has actually
Speaker 1: been held liable in a civil court. But that's out
Speaker 1: in public, that's not covered up. It's so you're right
Speaker 1: about the least of the comparisons, like, let's look at
Speaker 1: all the mortgage loans that Donald Trump and all the
Speaker 1: artificial I mean, one of the one of the ways
Speaker 1: that they were trying to uh that they convicted Trump
Speaker 1: was over the falsification of loan documents in New York.
Speaker 1: That was that was sort of the angle that Leticia
Speaker 1: James took. Look you go through these LLCs that he
Speaker 1: creates for every golf course he acquires, and I promise
Speaker 1: you look at those loan documents and the assessments that
Speaker 1: they you know, the the they somehow, you know, he
Speaker 1: very cleverly always seems to get sort of too two
Speaker 1: different inspections. One that lowers the price so he pays
Speaker 1: low property taxes, and then one that overvalues the price
Speaker 1: so we can borrow extra money on the on the
Speaker 1: equity line and use that over there.
Speaker 2: You know, you're going to.
Speaker 1: Tell me that that that those forms that the same.
Speaker 1: He's filed two sets of forms with two sets of values,
Speaker 1: all are in government documents that would all be loan
Speaker 1: you know, mortgage fraud. We already went down that road
Speaker 1: with him. But anyway, again, I go back to the
Speaker 1: original sin on Trump was not was was was assuming
Speaker 1: everybody knew everything about him? And that was I think
Speaker 1: the original sin. All right, next question comes from pure Illinois.
Speaker 1: Back in the day, it used to be how's a
Speaker 1: plane in Peoria? That was the I think there was
Speaker 1: an LBJ. What LBJ care about? Evert dirksin people like that.
Speaker 1: But anyway, let's let's go here. I'm at number five.
Speaker 1: I think I might do it. We might get eight
Speaker 1: and a half hour. We shall see Greg W. From
Speaker 1: Pure Illinois. Hey, Chuck, my question focus is on redistricting.
Speaker 1: I agree it's shortsighted to fight fire with fire. So
Speaker 1: how long and difficult would it be for the DNC
Speaker 1: to find viable candidates and build the support in the
Speaker 1: groundwork in the weaker red districts, especially since the DNC
Speaker 1: has spent two years de investing in red states. Thank
Speaker 1: you for also giving something for my son and I
Speaker 1: to listen to and talk about sports and politics.
Speaker 2: There you go. I'm by the way.
Speaker 1: I'm slowly my son list loves to talk about sports.
Speaker 1: He's slowly but surely getting more interested in politics, But
Speaker 1: I understand why he's it's you know, when you grow
Speaker 1: up in a political town, it's it's sometimes want the distraction.
Speaker 1: So we spend a lot more time talking about sports.
Speaker 1: But my son did text me over the weekend going, hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on with Trump? Is he dead or alive?
Speaker 1: Which tells you what his feed was feeding him there.
Speaker 1: You know, I think this is where I think the
Speaker 1: the attention that the State House Democrats gave to the
Speaker 1: issue in theory should help with candidate recruiting. But you've
Speaker 1: got to you know, you know, I'm curious if the
Speaker 1: DNC or the d Triple C we're serious about this,
Speaker 1: they'd say, you know, they'd start a fund, right, which
Speaker 1: is like you know, the Dummy Mander fund or something,
Speaker 1: and like we're we're you know, looking for and they
Speaker 1: are trying to recruit. But I almost would put a
Speaker 1: knee on sign up and say, you know, do you
Speaker 1: not like this? Are you an independent voter that's frustrated
Speaker 1: by this? You know, we're looking for candidates to run
Speaker 1: in these states and we'll support your bid whether you're
Speaker 1: an independent Democrat whatever, and even run on the platform that, hey,
Speaker 1: if we get control of Congress, we're going to want
Speaker 1: to put limits on redissecting. And by the way, maybe
Speaker 1: you make it this this goes. You know, you have
Speaker 1: a more realistic political and voting reform bill that you
Speaker 1: try to get bipartisans support for, and you get rid
Speaker 1: of mail in voting for Trump, and you add voter
Speaker 1: I D in and at the same time you put
Speaker 1: a a restriction of any state you know, not being
Speaker 1: able to you know, without a federal court order having
Speaker 1: a redistrict or something like that. But they ought to
Speaker 1: have a have a Texas fund to look for candidates,
Speaker 1: you know, just like if I were the Republicans in California,
Speaker 1: California fund right now they're spending the money to try
Speaker 1: to stop it.
Speaker 2: But if they don't, you.
Speaker 1: Know, then they only have you know, the trick for
Speaker 1: the Republicans, they only have like a week a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks before filing deadline hits in California to do
Speaker 1: that versus and in Texas the same thing to wait.
Speaker 1: You know, they ought to start looking for it right now.
Speaker 1: It might be a little late, but you know it's funny,
Speaker 1: is the best candidates for Democrats to be recruiting are
Speaker 1: people that have never run before, So in some ways
Speaker 1: it's the new that they should be looking for.
Speaker 2: I'd be looking for military veterans if I were them.
Speaker 2: But is it possible?
Speaker 1: Look, if you're willing to invest, it's always possible, you know.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's the world Beto Rourke plays if he doesn't
Speaker 1: run for any office himself, where he becomes sort of
Speaker 1: the rain maker to try to raise money, raise awareness,
Speaker 1: and recruit candidates. Next question comes from Angela from Moreo, Louisiana.
Speaker 1: She says she's Angel Hope on substack. Good to know, Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I just stumbled on the idea that Texas redistricting could
Speaker 1: backfire into a dummy mandering snaffo, potentially putting up to
Speaker 1: ten districts in play. It's fascinating ripple effect and I'm
Speaker 1: curious how this dynamic plays not just in Texas, but
Speaker 1: also in California and other states considering mid decade redistricting
Speaker 1: as a way to fight fire with fire. Could Democrats
Speaker 1: be walking into the same trap? And does an endlist
Speaker 1: hit for tet ultimately even the score? And how did
Speaker 1: mid decade redistricting even become normalized? Wasn't it supposed to
Speaker 1: be tied to the census. Thanks for keeping the analysis sharp.
Speaker 1: I'd love to hear your take on this. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I mean we got to this point because and it
Speaker 1: was really Texas has pioneered this right. Texas did a
Speaker 1: mid redistricting map tolm delay back in the day, about
Speaker 1: twenty years ago did this. I think it was in
Speaker 1: two thousand and three, the first time we had sort
Speaker 1: of a mid map redistricting. It was a big fight.
Speaker 1: I think that was something you know, back then, it
Speaker 1: was the same thing and what you have, you know,
Speaker 1: it's funny and in the twenty ten census and the
Speaker 1: reapportionment after twenty ten is a perfect example. So the
Speaker 1: Republicans controlled the twenty you know, twenty eleven reapportionment. Other
Speaker 1: than that, you had the Obama Justice Department certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: in charge of the voting rights. It was the first
Speaker 1: time there was a democratic justice department overseeing reapportionment in
Speaker 1: some thirty years, because in two thousand and one it
Speaker 1: was the Bush Justice Department. In nineteen ninety one, it
Speaker 1: was the other Bush Justice Department, nineteen eighty one, it
Speaker 1: was the Reagan Justice Department. In nineteen seventy one, it
Speaker 1: was the Nixon Justice Department. So it wasn't in you know,
Speaker 1: it's nineteen fifty one, sixty one, and we didn't have
Speaker 1: a Voting Rights Ack then, right, this is the first one.
Speaker 1: So this was a first time a Democrat in the
Speaker 1: era of the Voting Rights Act that was passing sixty
Speaker 1: five was sort of overseeing reapportionment.
Speaker 2: But for mo.
Speaker 1: Inside the states, it was mostly Republicans that were in
Speaker 1: charge of the map, and they had a big advantage
Speaker 1: right the twenty twenty ten you know, and they were
Speaker 1: able to protect that and got their house reelected in
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, got some seats that they lost in twelve,
Speaker 1: got a.
Speaker 2: Back in fourteen.
Speaker 1: But what happened in that sense in the you know,
Speaker 1: by twenty eighteen, you know, the suburban districts became less
Speaker 1: republican Trump sort of the light bush Republicans became less Republican.
Speaker 1: And then you know, so that you know, every reapportionment eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, you grow out of what you think the
Speaker 1: the D versus are breakdown's going to be. It's always
Speaker 1: interesting to me if you look at the if you
Speaker 1: look at sort of the last house, you know, mid
Speaker 1: term before if you ever look at the last mid
Speaker 1: term before the next reapportionment, you know, and how different
Speaker 1: it is from the first mid term after the reapportionment.
Speaker 2: You can you can really see how far off it goes.
Speaker 1: So I do think if you go down this road,
Speaker 1: what it really has done is there's only going to
Speaker 1: be say thirty seats that are with that where the
Speaker 1: where the majority party has fifty five percent or less.
Speaker 1: Back in my old hotline days, that the number the
Speaker 1: agreed upon numbers. Any in any member of Congress that
Speaker 1: got fifty five percent or less automatically got put on
Speaker 1: my watch list back in the day, Right, that's always
Speaker 1: the marker I've used fifty five percent. And then you know,
Speaker 1: you know, and then you sort of anybody in the
Speaker 1: fifty six fifty seven to fifty eight range, you know,
Speaker 1: you look at it if it's you know, how consistent,
Speaker 1: you know, how often is that district in that range? Right,
Speaker 1: is it a district that is fifty four to fifty
Speaker 1: eight or is it a district that is fifty eight
Speaker 1: to sixty two?
Speaker 2: Right for that for that party.
Speaker 1: So so you generally look at it that way, we're
Speaker 1: going to have fewer seats than ever, that are going
Speaker 1: to be in the fifty five and less range, right,
Speaker 1: that'll be five essentially where the where the largest spread
Speaker 1: is single digits, not double digits between the most likely
Speaker 1: two parties split. And under that scenario, it just narrows.
Speaker 1: It just means, you know, in some ways, we'll have
Speaker 1: more we'll have as many competitive Senate races as we
Speaker 1: do house races. You know, I was just thinking about
Speaker 1: this earlier today. With the state of Iowa. We're going
Speaker 1: to have a competitive governor's race, a competitive senate race,
Speaker 1: and we now have two. They have four house seats.
Speaker 1: Two of them are open. Now one is not competitive
Speaker 1: for both parties. That one open seat will be a
Speaker 1: really competitive Republican primary. That's in the fourth. Then you'll
Speaker 1: have the open seat of Ashley Henson seat and that'll
Speaker 1: be very competitive because it's a pretty fifty to fifty district.
Speaker 1: Maryann Miller Meeks has been She's Landside Meeks, right, she
Speaker 1: never wins by more than a point or two. That
Speaker 1: will be extraordinarily competitive, by the way iowas a commission state.
Speaker 1: And then the third district, this is Des Moines. The
Speaker 1: metro area is always a fifty to fifty district, Democrats
Speaker 1: usually perform best in midterms, and Republicans in that district
Speaker 1: usually performed best in presidentials. So if there are only
Speaker 1: say fifteen swing districts up for grabs after all of
Speaker 1: this tit for tat reapportionment, IOA may have twenty percent
Speaker 1: of those competitive races, right, three of the five, three
Speaker 1: of the fifteen.
Speaker 2: But I digress.
Speaker 1: The point is is that, look, I think this goes
Speaker 1: back to an earlier answer I gave. I do think
Speaker 1: we are somehow taking away the people from what was
Speaker 1: supposed to be the people's House.
Speaker 2: And the irony is that.
Speaker 1: The Senate, which originally was a body that was whose
Speaker 1: members were elected by state legislatures, well we're now actually
Speaker 1: flipping it, right. We are now about to have four
Speaker 1: hundred out of four hundred and thirty five House members
Speaker 1: essentially be elected by state legislators. What do you think
Speaker 1: the founders would have said to that? What do we
Speaker 1: think James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton would
Speaker 1: have said to that?
Speaker 2: It didn't make any sense? Right?
Speaker 1: So that to me is the absurdity of where this
Speaker 1: is gone, which is we've literally now taken the right.
Speaker 1: The dumbest idea we had was having state legislatures elect
Speaker 1: Washington representatives in the first place.
Speaker 2: I know some there are.
Speaker 1: I've got some good friends who are in the who
Speaker 1: are super old school conservative, who would argue for going
Speaker 1: back to that way of the Senate. Usually these are
Speaker 1: friends of mine on the right side of the aisle,
Speaker 1: they have more state legislatures. I understand why they would
Speaker 1: prefer that, but I don't think it's very representative, and
Speaker 1: it's certainly not small d democratic. So that's to me,
Speaker 1: what's why it's so bad?
Speaker 2: All Right? That was six questions.
Speaker 1: I hit the half hour mark, and this next question
Speaker 1: it deserves a longer answer, and I don't.
Speaker 2: Want to short shrift it.
Speaker 1: So with that, Danny from Dublin, I promise you I'm
Speaker 1: going to answer your question on the next episode with
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast, and with that until we upload again
Speaker 1: during the weekend.