Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and Senate Democrats have re elected Charles
Speaker 1: Schumer as their leader. We have such a great show
Speaker 1: for you today. The Atlantic's George Conway stops by to
Speaker 1: talk to us about his very smart take on presidential pardons.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to the dlcc's Heather Williams about what
Speaker 1: Democrats can do to reclaim the majority. But first the news.
Speaker 2: So, Molly, I'm going to shock you here. Mister Trump
Speaker 2: did not win a landslide. He didn't even get fifty
Speaker 2: percent of the popular vote, but he did get more
Speaker 2: votes than in the past. What are you seeing here?
Speaker 1: So Trump did win the popular vote, but he has
Speaker 1: now fallen to just below fifty percent in the popular vote.
Speaker 1: He has gotten more votes than in past elections, but
Speaker 1: it is not exactly the unprecedented and powerful mandate that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump claimed on election. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: story here more than anything, is that California takes too
Speaker 1: long to count its votes. Like we are weeks and
Speaker 1: weeks past his fucking election. It is goddamn December.
Speaker 2: But Molly, mister Trump says he's going to get paper ballots.
Speaker 2: Those are going to be so easy to count.
Speaker 1: Trump has, according to the Associated Press, forty nine point
Speaker 1: ninety seven percent to Harris's forty eight point thirty six percent.
Speaker 1: So I just want to say, like, this was a
Speaker 1: very close election, but it was also not a high
Speaker 1: turnet election.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: The numbers are seventy six million point nine that's for
Speaker 1: Trump and seventy four point four million for Harris. So
Speaker 1: it was a close election. But more importantly, like a
Speaker 1: lot of the Democratic base did not turn out for
Speaker 1: Vice President Harris for whatever reason, and if she had
Speaker 1: gotten the twenty twenty numbers that Biden had, she would
Speaker 1: have won. Also, California needs to count its votes faster.
Speaker 2: I think we should start branding Californians as lazy. Maybe
Speaker 2: that'll help.
Speaker 1: So South Korea, we got to talk about South Korea.
Speaker 1: I always tried not to talk about international foreign policy stuff,
Speaker 1: just because I know so little about it. But I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about this because it's a really good
Speaker 1: example of people pushing back on a government that has
Speaker 1: overreached too far. And look, I hope it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to happen here, but I think it's really important to
Speaker 1: talk about this. So South Korea's president said he will
Speaker 1: lift martial law. He had enacted martial law just a
Speaker 1: few hours earlier, late at night, so he was fighting
Speaker 1: with the Congress, their version of Congress, and he declared
Speaker 1: martial law. And in the end, people came out and protested,
Speaker 1: and Congress did the right thing. And some people, even
Speaker 1: like members of Congress, broke through the barricade and climbed
Speaker 1: fences to get inside the building and then vote. And
Speaker 1: so it's a really good example. And these had gathered
Speaker 1: outside of parliament to protest this sudden introduction of military rule.
Speaker 1: So I just want to point out, like this is
Speaker 1: a really good example of a situation where people save
Speaker 1: themselves from an authoritarian overreach. And I hope that never
Speaker 1: has to happen in America.
Speaker 2: Let us hope.
Speaker 1: Speaking of hope, let's.
Speaker 2: Introduce what hope is compared to twenty twelve of these days,
Speaker 2: we're hoping because Lindsey Graham is signaling something that things
Speaker 2: are going to go better than we thought.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about this because this is not
Speaker 1: about the American people making Republican senators and Democratic senators,
Speaker 1: but really Republicans in this one because there are fifty
Speaker 1: three Republican senators in the next Senate and forty seven
Speaker 1: Democratic senators. So the job of senators under this article two,
Speaker 1: section two is advice and consent. Right, as a United
Speaker 1: Said senator, you have to advise the president on his
Speaker 1: cabinet and consent to his nominees. I know that these
Speaker 1: Republicans don't like conflict and want Trump, mister Trump to
Speaker 1: have his people. But some of these nominations are bat shittery,
Speaker 1: you know. Some of these nominations are okay, you know,
Speaker 1: and normal, and some of them are completely insane. And
Speaker 1: so this is an opportunity. So Timothy Schneider talks about
Speaker 1: this idea of protecting institutions. So the first thing he
Speaker 1: says is don't obey in advance. The second thing he
Speaker 1: says in his rules of fighting against authoritarianism are to
Speaker 1: protect institutions. So these editors need to protect the institution
Speaker 1: of the United States federal government. And one of the
Speaker 1: ways they can do this is with advice and consent.
Speaker 1: And so I think it's really important that they do
Speaker 1: their jobs. And I just want to read this because
Speaker 1: this is a great example of someone not doing their job.
Speaker 1: Tom Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina who's actually up
Speaker 1: for a re election in twenty twenty six, said, I
Speaker 1: like Cash Betell's chances of getting confirmed. So this is
Speaker 1: a wildly inappropriate nominee for the FBI, and he is
Speaker 1: being touted as having a good chance of getting confirmed
Speaker 1: by Tom Tillis, who will literally be fighting for his
Speaker 1: political life in twenty twenty six. So Lindsey Graham has
Speaker 1: opposed to Tom Tillis, who is in you know, Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham is in South Carolina, much more red state, said
Speaker 1: of Tom Tillis to CBS, and this I think is
Speaker 1: really important because Lindsay Graham does actually really care which
Speaker 1: way the winds are blowing. He said. I think some
Speaker 1: of these articles are very disturbing. Graham told CBS News.
Speaker 1: Heg Sith obviously has a chance to defend himself here,
Speaker 1: but some of this stuff is going to be difficult,
Speaker 1: so we'll see what happens. Hegsath is is up for
Speaker 1: running the DoD that's a three million plus people full organization.
Speaker 1: Hegzeth characters himself as a heavy drinker. But you know,
Speaker 1: it certainly seems as if he's used the organization's funds
Speaker 1: for personal expenses Somali.
Speaker 2: One of the things I think that made cable news
Speaker 2: a little more smart was when we didn't have to
Speaker 2: hear from Chris Clomo on it anymore. But unfortunately we
Speaker 2: still have to hear from the news what are you
Speaker 2: seeing here?
Speaker 1: So, actually, you know what, I can talk about this
Speaker 1: because you know, when the news broke about the pardon,
Speaker 1: I took a minute. I was on television and I said,
Speaker 1: you know, I need a minute to think. I don't
Speaker 1: have a take. You'll have to come back to me.
Speaker 1: And I got numerous very stupid articles written about that,
Speaker 1: and I want to point out that, like it's okay
Speaker 1: not to have a take, especially about stuff you don't
Speaker 1: know about, Like I'm not a lawyer. I am not
Speaker 1: versed in pardons and how they're doled out, and you
Speaker 1: know what the ethical considerations are there. I really am not.
Speaker 1: And so the fact that we're you know, we're often
Speaker 1: asked to give hot takes, we really should pause and
Speaker 1: we don't necessarily always have to give that said oh
Speaker 1: my god. Chris Cuomo and Steven A. Smith joined together
Speaker 1: this week to urge President Joe Biden to give a
Speaker 1: pardon to President elect Donald Trump what they wanted.
Speaker 2: I'm so shocked that these two could come together for
Speaker 2: such a bad take. It's so out of character.
Speaker 1: It's I just want to point out, like, obviously Hunter
Speaker 1: was given a pardon by his dad because his dad
Speaker 1: felt that he had been prosecuted because and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of evidence to support the theory that the prosecutions
Speaker 1: of the gun charge, the tax fraud. You know, those
Speaker 1: are things that usually would not be risen to the
Speaker 1: level of seriousness that they were. They've been really kind
Speaker 1: of trumped up for you know, probably because of his
Speaker 1: close proximity. It was his father being president, so you
Speaker 1: could make that case. But Donald Trump actually did a
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff right, he did a bunch of stuff wrong,
Speaker 1: and he's gotten away with a lot of different things,
Speaker 1: and so you know, it's not really the same. And
Speaker 1: also what anyway, that is my two cent. George Conway
Speaker 1: is a contributor to The Atlantic. Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: My body, George Conway.
Speaker 3: I I'm like that, I'm like the filler guest. You
Speaker 3: are not the filler guest I was last week. It
Speaker 3: was like, can you go on the podcast in like
Speaker 3: thirty seconds and I didn't respond immediately, and I think
Speaker 3: he got mad at it. But it's like, it's like
Speaker 3: I'm always like the last person who asked to go
Speaker 3: on your podcast.
Speaker 1: It's so funny because actually that's not true.
Speaker 3: Everybody's out on vacation Thanksgiving, leaving the country political asylum.
Speaker 3: I get that I'm the frashest squad in football.
Speaker 1: I get that that could not be less true.
Speaker 3: Occasionally you need the fourth string free safety and youry
Speaker 3: you are monster.
Speaker 1: That is not true. But I want to point out
Speaker 1: I just want to take a minute here to say,
Speaker 1: have you noticed a lot of our Instagram friends seem
Speaker 1: to be taking vacations to Canada.
Speaker 3: I'm going to Canada soon.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, how many times can people post photos
Speaker 1: of like we're really enjoying our trip to Canada.
Speaker 3: But I like Canada. I think he is one of
Speaker 3: my favorite places with with hockey and Molson.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's great a country so great. Ninety percent of them.
Speaker 3: Live and I know how to speak the language. Eh,
Speaker 3: I'm not some kind of just this hoser coming across
Speaker 3: the border. You know, I know about Timphorton's I know
Speaker 3: the history of hockey basically, and so I think I
Speaker 3: should qualify.
Speaker 1: Can we talk for a minute about cash Betown? Again,
Speaker 1: I am not a lawyer. He does not seem to
Speaker 1: be well suited for the job of FBI director.
Speaker 3: Discuss Well, it depends on what your conception of the
Speaker 3: FBI director is. If you're if you want a neutral
Speaker 3: forcement officer, he's probably not your guy. But if you
Speaker 3: wanted someone who is going to basically undermine law enforcement
Speaker 3: and destroy the agency and seek vengeance upon your enemies,
Speaker 3: he's the perfect choice.
Speaker 1: And let's just go a step further with this. I personally,
Speaker 1: as someone whose grandfather was child by the FBI by
Speaker 1: an out of control FBI director named jadgarb.
Speaker 3: Your family has just a bunch of communists, right, You.
Speaker 1: Even admit that he was a communist because they were
Speaker 1: very you know, they were artists and bohemians who believed.
Speaker 3: Oh right, right, right, right right. You got to watch
Speaker 3: those artists. I mean, who who you know? There was
Speaker 3: this painter in Vienna, the whole lot of trouble ones.
Speaker 1: He was more he was more a dictator than a painter.
Speaker 1: But yes, so let's just talk about this a second.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like I was very I thought
Speaker 1: there was a chance that Republican senators. I didn't think
Speaker 1: there was a chance, but I hoped that the media
Speaker 1: could bully Republican senators into taking their advice and consent
Speaker 1: rale Article two, Section two. Seriously, it seems like that
Speaker 1: is unlikely.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I look, I mean, don't you can't tell with
Speaker 3: the largin in the Senate what it is. You can't
Speaker 3: really tell what's going to happen, because again, it only
Speaker 3: takes two or three people. Maybe somebody can't make it,
Speaker 3: the prim the poet. I don't know anything can happen here.
Speaker 3: I do think, as I've been saying repeatedly over the
Speaker 3: past few weeks, prompted by similar discussions about similarly situated nominees,
Speaker 3: some of whom have more baggage than others. But I
Speaker 3: hate Choli saying, I think that you cannot go broke
Speaker 3: Benning on the spinelessness of Republican senators. So I think
Speaker 3: the best that we're that the republic is going to
Speaker 3: get out of Republican senators in this season of insanely
Speaker 3: in a pro briate and unqualified nominees is that we're
Speaker 3: going to see a bunch of them get through, and
Speaker 3: a couple of them will be taken down like Gates already,
Speaker 3: and then the Republican centator to say, see, we fulfilled
Speaker 3: our advice and consent because this one was withdrawn or
Speaker 3: we didn't vote this one out of committee, and then
Speaker 3: they're just gan' to let most of them through. If
Speaker 3: you stand the line, if you are a Republican centator,
Speaker 3: donread hear either Makowski or Collins or all the Collins
Speaker 3: will just say these people will learn their lessons. If
Speaker 3: you basically vote like a normal human being on each
Speaker 3: one of these nominees separately, you basically would vote them
Speaker 3: all down. Nobody in the Republican Party is going to
Speaker 3: tolerate the political heat that they would get from the
Speaker 3: right and from Trump and the bashing that would occur
Speaker 3: if you vote them all down. So what they'll do
Speaker 3: is they'll pick a couple, they'll stick together on a
Speaker 3: couple maybe, and a couple of them will go down.
Speaker 3: We already I think we're already at least halfway to
Speaker 3: the quota with Gates going down and most of the
Speaker 3: people they might get through.
Speaker 1: This is the thing I'm always conflicted about with Trump world.
Speaker 1: You have cabinet members who are good at this and
Speaker 1: have a have been tasked with dismantling the administrative state,
Speaker 1: and are you know real project twenty twenty five guys
Speaker 1: like Russ Vaud Right, that guy really he is. You know,
Speaker 1: he's been at omb before. He's coming back.
Speaker 3: He's actually knows how to work his bureaucrausy, but he wants.
Speaker 1: To work the bureaucracy almost completely to help Trump.
Speaker 3: Right, he has his own agenda and he's using Trump
Speaker 3: for agenda, you know. I mean basically, the conservative project
Speaker 3: was always to reduce the size of government back.
Speaker 1: In the day drownded in the bathtub round it.
Speaker 3: Well, that's the extreme version of it. But it never
Speaker 3: really succeeded because it turns out people like expensive.
Speaker 1: Goud government. Right. I know this pains you.
Speaker 3: I know it pains me, but it's like, okay, that's fine.
Speaker 3: But now what happened was the right became very frustrated,
Speaker 3: or at least the more ideological parts of the right
Speaker 3: became frustrated, and this became sort of like a nihilistic
Speaker 3: effort basically destroy all institutions since trying to sort of
Speaker 3: cut them one by one easy have to take responsibility
Speaker 3: for cutting this program and cutting that program, and that a.
Speaker 3: They want to basically create so much chaos that the
Speaker 3: government collapses women and of itself. They want to destroy
Speaker 3: the government and then they'll just say, see they're not
Speaker 3: going to take responsibility for it, and they just see,
Speaker 3: look at how terrible a system we had.
Speaker 1: This sort of tugs at your heart strings a little
Speaker 1: bit because this is the ethos in which you used
Speaker 1: to believe.
Speaker 3: No, I didn't never believe in utter nihilistic destruction, but
Speaker 3: you know I wouldn't mind.
Speaker 1: Making the government smaller. I'm not criticizing you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, but this is sort of like, let's just
Speaker 3: jump off the bridge because I don't.
Speaker 1: Know, it's very chaotic.
Speaker 3: It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's
Speaker 3: a bad matter, No, but that's right. But basically it's
Speaker 3: become very very nihilist, stick and destructive. And you know,
Speaker 3: if you believe in a less powerful government, you're actually
Speaker 3: what you're going to get when you get this kind
Speaker 3: of chaos is you're going to get a war up
Speaker 3: Berntarian government and it's not going to be any smaller.
Speaker 3: That's the goal, right, Well, because they can't win in
Speaker 3: an election. I don't know what's going on in South Korea,
Speaker 3: but I read this morning that they declare martial law
Speaker 3: in South Korea, because I mean, this was the statement
Speaker 3: of the South Korean president that the opposition controls parliament
Speaker 3: and they rejected as budget proposed.
Speaker 1: Yeah that seems bad.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that seem great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's talk about that for another minute. That
Speaker 1: I think makes a lot of sense. But do you
Speaker 1: think they can do that? Yes?
Speaker 3: I think in the following sense, it is easier to
Speaker 3: nihilistically and randomly destroy things that it is to actually
Speaker 3: skuld They've just decided that the way that they're going
Speaker 3: to fix all the problems is by creating more darts.
Speaker 3: And they're good at this. This is one thing they
Speaker 3: could be actually good at because you don't have to
Speaker 3: be confident to drive a car off a cliff.
Speaker 1: And you think that sort of that's where this is going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we're headed toward chaos. And that's why
Speaker 3: I don't think he particularly cares. Trump cares about whether
Speaker 3: this nominee goes down or that nominee goes down, because
Speaker 3: it's not about it's OK, I got more.
Speaker 1: I think what's important here is that there are many
Speaker 1: fractions in this group, and what Trump wants and what
Speaker 1: Russ Vaught wants are two different things.
Speaker 3: That's probably true. Trump doesn't care about policy, okay. He
Speaker 3: cares about being in control and being in command and
Speaker 3: the adoration and to the extent that the people don't
Speaker 3: adore him, seeking revenge on those who don't adore him
Speaker 3: because they are the enemy. That's all he cares about.
Speaker 3: It's very, very simple, and there's never much thought. You
Speaker 3: can't think in more than one step, like if I
Speaker 3: do this, then I can do that. The man does
Speaker 3: not believe in plans because he's a sociopath, and sociopaths
Speaker 3: are the relentlessly impulsive. But people like law, they have plans,
Speaker 3: and they have specific plans that may end up creating
Speaker 3: political problems for Trump. But on the other hand, Trump
Speaker 3: is not money for anything. So that's a major that's
Speaker 3: a major, major difference between now and last time, because
Speaker 3: he's not running for anything because he's old and being
Speaker 3: you can make, you know, deep down industrially, you can
Speaker 3: become president of life. I think there is daylight ultimately
Speaker 3: between what the technocrat nihilists like want and Trump. But
Speaker 3: on the other hand, Trump doesn't care, because it's like
Speaker 3: he doesn't care. He almost doesn't care about his political standing.
Speaker 1: So there's going to be a cr in Congress, a
Speaker 1: spending bil that will take them till next year, when
Speaker 1: Republicans will then control the Senate, the House, and the President. Say,
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, Republicans had this same trifactor and they
Speaker 1: shut down the government. It is very possible we're going
Speaker 1: to head to that in January. It's possible won't, but
Speaker 1: it's very possibile we will. And I want you to
Speaker 1: talk about this sort of fractions because I see fractions
Speaker 1: in this Republican governing machine, right, like because you have
Speaker 1: the RFK. I mean even Trump he won with this
Speaker 1: tent that is almost untenable.
Speaker 3: Right But again, they're a nihilists and at the end,
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, they want confusion and chaos.
Speaker 3: And as long as everybody gets their own little piece
Speaker 3: of a pie and gets the display and get their
Speaker 3: own little grip, a lot of people are going to
Speaker 3: be happy. But yeah, you're right, there are factions. And
Speaker 3: I think what would have happened if Trump had lost
Speaker 3: is all these factions would have been at hrproats. I mean,
Speaker 3: one of the things I said over last year that
Speaker 3: I believe is, and I still believe it, is that
Speaker 3: if Trump had lost the election, the Republican Party we
Speaker 3: have been completely fractured because of all these factions trying
Speaker 3: to kill each other and take each other out. And
Speaker 3: we're still seeing a lot of that, I think in
Speaker 3: the State Party, but I don't see it now happening
Speaker 3: at the national level because basically they do have a
Speaker 3: way to take that energy and do something with it,
Speaker 3: which is to basically dismantle a government, try to undermine
Speaker 3: every which way.
Speaker 1: So again, democrats need to protect institutions and norms.
Speaker 3: Yes, I don't think there's democrats. I think anybody who
Speaker 3: actually knows how the world works and how our government
Speaker 3: works and how economy works has to try to prefer
Speaker 3: institution because that stability, even even if it's imperfect, which
Speaker 3: it is and there always will be, that stability is
Speaker 3: what enables us to be the most prosperous nation in
Speaker 3: the world where people, you know, in the nation where
Speaker 3: everybody wants to come instead of leaving to go to Canada.
Speaker 1: Right now, let's talk about the Hunter Biden part.
Speaker 3: I have very mixed feelings about the Hunter Biden part.
Speaker 3: I think it's a bad thing for the president to
Speaker 3: pardon a relative as a general proposition. I think it
Speaker 3: was wrong for Bill Clinton to do it with Roger.
Speaker 3: I think in other circumstances, I think the pardon power
Speaker 3: is one of the most abused presidential powers. There's no
Speaker 3: punch about there, and the Mark Rich Barden, you can
Speaker 3: name so many others over the years. I don't like it.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, I understand why he did it.
Speaker 3: I empathize with why he did it. I mean, there's
Speaker 3: no question in my mind, I think it made. The
Speaker 3: case has been made persuasively that but for his last name,
Speaker 3: he would not have been Hunter Biden would not have
Speaker 3: been charged, and none of this would have happened, and
Speaker 3: none of this would have happened if the Republicans weren't
Speaker 3: looking for some kind of a scapegoat to create a
Speaker 3: false equivalency and create the story that the Biden family
Speaker 3: is more corrupt than the Trunk family. All right, So
Speaker 3: I empathize and sympathize President, and I sympathize with Hunter Biden.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, he did come in acrome at
Speaker 3: least one crime, has been found guilty of that firearms offense,
Speaker 3: and the jury didn't seem to have like a problem
Speaker 3: with that. He did plead guilty to the tax charge,
Speaker 3: which is a minor charge, and I might have been
Speaker 3: okay with a pardon that covered offenses that he hasn't
Speaker 3: been found guilty of and hasn't pled to, because that,
Speaker 3: I think is the one justification that I can accept
Speaker 3: for this part, which would be that they're going to continue.
Speaker 3: This man has suffered enough, he has already been prosecuted,
Speaker 3: he was he is going to do time. At least
Speaker 3: he would have done time or or something, or serve
Speaker 3: some sentence or paid a fine, whatever is THEE would
Speaker 3: have done for to him. And I think the real
Speaker 3: justification for the part is that there's going to be
Speaker 3: future vindictive action by the next administration. And so that's
Speaker 3: why I would have had partner for any and all
Speaker 3: offenses other than the ones that he's already played to
Speaker 3: or that he's been convicted of by a jury. All
Speaker 3: that being said, I think it's just ridiculous to keep
Speaker 3: talking about because the more we talk about it, the
Speaker 3: more we play into the false equivalency between Trump and
Speaker 3: by everyone else, you know, and you were getting ragged
Speaker 3: about basically saying I have to process this. And the
Speaker 3: reason why that was the right position was it's not
Speaker 3: a black and white issue exactly, unless you just look
Speaker 3: at it very areas a black and white issue. Should
Speaker 3: president's pardon relatives? The answer is yes, black and white. No.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, is this a totally totally suey
Speaker 3: generous situation? And on the other hand, again it's like,
Speaker 3: is this even a nanometer compared to the light years
Speaker 3: of corruption that we've seen and are about to see
Speaker 3: from Trump. I can't get into this false equivalency, this
Speaker 3: double standard whereby a Democrat does something wrong, a Trump
Speaker 3: opponent does something wrong that you shouldn't have done, and
Speaker 3: therefore everybody gets to do bad things.
Speaker 1: Yep, I agree. I think that's exactly the answer. Thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. George Conway.
Speaker 3: Okay, that was it. That's it.
Speaker 1: Heather Williams is the president of the Democratic ledge Slative
Speaker 1: Campaign Committee. Welcome to Fast Politics, Heather, thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm happy to be here.
Speaker 1: So tell us what it is you exactly that you do.
Speaker 4: So we at DLCC are the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
Speaker 4: We are the Democratic Party's arm responsible for state legislatures,
Speaker 4: and our job is to build power in states, to
Speaker 4: create democratic majorities, to protect those majorities that we have
Speaker 4: all across the country. And I think every cycle we
Speaker 4: determined the battlefield, the playing field where the greatest opportunities
Speaker 4: are to build or protect power in the states.
Speaker 1: Let's do a quick post mortem. How did you guys
Speaker 1: do so?
Speaker 4: This is an interesting question, and it's interesting because when
Speaker 4: you look at what happened in state legislatures vis a VI,
Speaker 4: what happened at the top of the ticket, you would
Speaker 4: have expect Democrats to have our really rough night. What
Speaker 4: actually happened was we were able to prevent a red
Speaker 4: wave in the states. In twenty twenty three, we picked
Speaker 4: up the Virginia House, and in twenty twenty four, we
Speaker 4: were able to hold on to the Pennsylvania House by
Speaker 4: like one seat, by one seat. That's exactly right. We've
Speaker 4: defended that chamber so many times, and Pennsylvania obviously did
Speaker 4: not see the same results up and down the ballot,
Speaker 4: but we were able to hold on to that legislature.
Speaker 4: In Minnesota, we held on to the Minnesota Senate in
Speaker 4: a special election and we held on to a tie
Speaker 4: in the Minnesota House, preventing obviously Republicans from gaining full
Speaker 4: control there. And you know, the place that we did
Speaker 4: see a change in power was the Michigan House. But interestingly,
Speaker 4: it wasn't a landslide. We saw a shift of three seats.
Speaker 4: We had a one seat majority, so that state is
Speaker 4: still in play. And then I think one of the
Speaker 4: brightest sort of shining moments in twenty twenty four came
Speaker 4: in North Carolina where we broke the Republican super majority,
Speaker 4: ensuring that incoming Governor Josh Stein had the veto pen
Speaker 4: which is so important in that st date. And we
Speaker 4: picked up a bunch of seats in Wisconsin, and broadly,
Speaker 4: I think the good news is is all of these
Speaker 4: places remain very competitive as we move from the twenty
Speaker 4: twenty four cycle into the twenty twenty six cycle.
Speaker 1: One of the interesting things about this election, besides the
Speaker 1: fact that Americans have re elected a convicted felon who
Speaker 1: has got plans for an even worse second term than
Speaker 1: the first, is that they didn't necessarily vote Republican down
Speaker 1: the ballot. And I have a theory that I want
Speaker 1: you to talk about because I think it relates to
Speaker 1: these state legislatures too. It strikes me that the brand
Speaker 1: that is the most popular, at least was in the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four cycle, was Trump is on? Was Trump
Speaker 1: not necessarily Trump isn't even than Trump? And then below
Speaker 1: that was Democrats and then the Republicans like that the
Speaker 1: Democratic brand in itself is not necessarily bad.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I think one of the
Speaker 4: things that we really benefit from in our placement on
Speaker 4: the ballot and in the sort of electoral environment that
Speaker 4: we work in is that our elected officials and our
Speaker 4: candidates still live in their communities, and I think, to
Speaker 4: your exact point, they are able to tell the story
Speaker 4: of democratic leadership, of Democratic party values, of the things
Speaker 4: that Democrats are out there fighting for every single day
Speaker 4: in such an authentic and personal way. You know, they
Speaker 4: were able to bring to life things like the infrastructure
Speaker 4: Bill and talk about it in context of their community,
Speaker 4: in terms of good paying jobs, in terms of better
Speaker 4: infrastructure in their community, helping connect neighborhoods, or you know,
Speaker 4: fixing a bridge or whatever it may be. And there
Speaker 4: is something that, you know, just that allows them to
Speaker 4: bring these sort of wonky policies to life and to
Speaker 4: place them in voters backyard. And I agree. I think
Speaker 4: that Democrats had places where we were able to tell
Speaker 4: really strong stories about our you know, solutions for people's
Speaker 4: pocketbooks and how we were going to have an impact
Speaker 4: on ensuring that you know, we had equitable access to
Speaker 4: health care and that we had good access to reproductive
Speaker 4: health care, that our democracy was strong, and that we
Speaker 4: were fighting for you know, good public education for our kids.
Speaker 4: And there is something just really tangible about having the
Speaker 4: person delivering that message be a member of your community
Speaker 4: fabric and being able to tell that to you face
Speaker 4: to face on the doors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. First talk to me about what you guys
Speaker 1: can do right now to protect citizens from the uglier
Speaker 1: parts of Trumpism.
Speaker 4: Something interesting is, you know, this administration, as Trump administration,
Speaker 4: comes of course in with more knowledge than they did
Speaker 4: when they came into power in twenty seventeen. But we
Speaker 4: also have a much stronger firewall.
Speaker 1: In the states in twenty sixteen, and Democrats were really
Speaker 1: behind when it came to state legislatures. That's not as
Speaker 1: true anymore, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, listen, we still need a party strategy
Speaker 4: that considers the states as important as building power in
Speaker 4: our federal government right and in the White House. But
Speaker 4: while we continue right to work towards that and advocate
Speaker 4: for that, we have seen increased power and increased attention
Speaker 4: on the states, and the strength of our firewall in
Speaker 4: state legislatures has never been more important. We know that
Speaker 4: nearly half of Americans will continue to be protected by
Speaker 4: at least one Democratic majority in their state house.
Speaker 3: And when to your.
Speaker 4: Exact point, when Donald Trump won in twenty sixteen, there
Speaker 4: were just twenty nine Democratic majorities, and now we have
Speaker 4: at least thirty nine. So we've made progress, We've learned
Speaker 4: a lot, We've continued to build up this firewall, and
Speaker 4: we have really strong leaders in these states, candidly and
Speaker 4: honestly in both red and blue states, who are ready
Speaker 4: to fight for their community, who are ready to ensure
Speaker 4: that you know, we are our country that is still
Speaker 4: like rich in good quality public education, that we are
Speaker 4: still fighting for strong wages and a strong middle class,
Speaker 4: that we are still you know, working to ensure that
Speaker 4: we have equitable health care in this country, and we're
Speaker 4: going to continue to see that fight happen in the states.
Speaker 1: Yeah, talk to me about like for example, what the
Speaker 1: landscape now looks like going into twenty five, because twenty
Speaker 1: five has interesting off your elections.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, we are at a ballot level that sort
Speaker 4: of perpetually has elections, And in fact, before we even
Speaker 4: get to November of twenty twenty five, where Virginia will
Speaker 4: have really really critically important elections, we've got a string
Speaker 4: of special elections coming up, three of them in Virginia
Speaker 4: in fact, beginning of January January seventh, and one of
Speaker 4: those is in the House where we just have a
Speaker 4: one seat majority. So we're going to keep our eye
Speaker 4: on that and be able to tell the story of
Speaker 4: what those opportunities are and who those candidates are as
Speaker 4: we truly transition from twenty four into twenty five. After
Speaker 4: those special elections, we will continue to see lots of
Speaker 4: special elections in the states.
Speaker 3: We always do that.
Speaker 4: The real prize in twenty twenty five is ensuring that
Speaker 4: we hold the House Chamber in Virginia, and then we
Speaker 4: transition into twenty twenty six, where as we were just
Speaker 4: talking about a little bit earlier, we're back fighting in
Speaker 4: these battleground states in Minnesota and Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania,
Speaker 4: and doing some analysis on where other opportunities may be
Speaker 4: for Democrats as we move into these midterms.
Speaker 1: You're going to have a governor race in Virginia and
Speaker 1: also where else.
Speaker 4: The governor's race. I'll be in Virginia and we'll have
Speaker 4: that House Chamber to defend. In addition, we'll see races
Speaker 4: in New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's right. I want you to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about how do you legislate in a period like
Speaker 1: this where Republicans control all three branches of the federal government.
Speaker 4: That's an interesting question coming into this administration. I mean, one,
Speaker 4: we've been sort of sounding this alarm about state legislatures
Speaker 4: being on the forefront of shaping the agenda of the
Speaker 4: Democratic Party and really being the ones that can show
Speaker 4: people what is possible and the kind of, you know,
Speaker 4: communities that we're trying to create. I don't think that
Speaker 4: that has ever been more true. Now we're going to
Speaker 4: see this administration obviously move all kinds of stuff into
Speaker 4: the states. Project twenty twenty five is their agenda, and
Speaker 4: so much of what that does is push all kinds
Speaker 4: of decisions to the states. And we're going to continue
Speaker 4: to see fifty percent of Americans, nearly fifty percent of Americans.
Speaker 4: They're building resilient communities protecting their rights because Democrats are
Speaker 4: in charge, and we're going to continue to see, you know,
Speaker 4: Republicans in the states that they have power creator our
Speaker 4: communities and our rights. And I think as we think
Speaker 4: about where this administration's agenda is going, I mean, just
Speaker 4: if we talked about the Department of Education alone, that
Speaker 4: is going to be if they accomplish their goal, that
Speaker 4: is going to completely move into the states, and it
Speaker 4: is going to be our state legislators that are going
Speaker 4: to determine the funding that ensures that our schools, our
Speaker 4: public schools, are safe and equitable for all kids. That
Speaker 4: we're creating the kinds of opportunities and experiences that allow
Speaker 4: the future generations of this country to be well informed
Speaker 4: and really strong citizens and great leaders for what comes
Speaker 4: next in this country. And I feel like that's just
Speaker 4: one piece of the puzzle. So much of it is
Speaker 4: going to get pushed into the states, and you're going
Speaker 4: to see Democrats lead strongly, and you're going to continue
Speaker 4: to see Republicans maneuver their power for their own interests.
Speaker 1: State legislature is where some of the craziest legislation is born,
Speaker 1: at least on the Republican side. That's everything from heart
Speaker 1: beat bills to anti trans legislation to they threw up
Speaker 1: a lot of travel ins and qrazy ways. Republicans do
Speaker 1: that because they have things like ALEC. Right, they have
Speaker 1: Republican donor funded organizations. Is that rite legislation for them
Speaker 1: that helps them try to craft legislation to get these
Speaker 1: ideas going. Do Democrats have the same thing? And if
Speaker 1: it's not, why not?
Speaker 4: Your point is exactly right. And now as we head
Speaker 4: into twenty twenty five and in again to this new administration,
Speaker 4: not only do they have ALEC who will write and
Speaker 4: draft bills that can be used, but they have the
Speaker 4: full playbook in Project twenty twenty five on the internet right,
Speaker 4: like everyone knows what they're trying to accomplish, which in
Speaker 4: many ways arguably like makes ALEX work more visible and
Speaker 4: also gives them a direct place to go. You know,
Speaker 4: I don't think the story of Democrats looks exactly like that,
Speaker 4: and that I actually don't know that it should. Part
Speaker 4: of what we've experienced so much at this ballot level is,
Speaker 4: you know, Democrats going to their state capitals to advocate
Speaker 4: for what these communities need. And while we share in
Speaker 4: this country a set of challenges and opportunities, our communities
Speaker 4: all look different and they should. And what we see
Speaker 4: are you know, state legislators who are you know, representing
Speaker 4: rural or urban or ex surban or maybe they're representing
Speaker 4: a community that has some kind of business headquarters or
Speaker 4: they've got a you know, strong perk system or whatever
Speaker 4: it may be. They're going to their sit capital advocating
Speaker 4: for that community and trying to solve the problems and
Speaker 4: create opportunities that exist there. And I don't know that
Speaker 4: that is a perfect written bill that can be applied everywhere.
Speaker 4: Maybe that is too much of a like an optimistic
Speaker 4: way to look at it. But I think the thing
Speaker 4: that makes what happens in our state House is so
Speaker 4: important and in many ways like so honest and authentic,
Speaker 4: is that they really are advocating for their communities. And
Speaker 4: there's lots of different ways to do that, and they
Speaker 4: yet to you know, do that on their own. And
Speaker 4: it's not to say that we don't have of a
Speaker 4: great community infrastructure that helps to tell the story of
Speaker 4: issues and helps to try to find ways to solve it.
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you a hard time here. What
Speaker 1: if Democrats had the same kind of mechanism to do things. So,
Speaker 1: for example, let's talk about Mallory mcmorrow's in the state
Speaker 1: legislature in Michigan. Amazing, incredible, incredible legislator or everybody loves her,
Speaker 1: she's really a superstar. What if Mallory McMorrow had you know,
Speaker 1: what if these legislators had bills that were, you know,
Speaker 1: pre written the way an ALEC bill was. But you know,
Speaker 1: Mallory's not going to need it. But someone, you know,
Speaker 1: the one beleaguered State House Rep. In Huxatani, Pennsylvania, what
Speaker 1: if they had pre written bills that were like free
Speaker 1: breakfast for kindergarteners or protecting public education. Even though Democrats
Speaker 1: don't act like that and they're not craving like that,
Speaker 1: it's just more of a thought experiment. What if there
Speaker 1: was a place for that kind of cravenness, but to
Speaker 1: legislate for the good.
Speaker 4: Well, I would say two things. One, Senator McMorrow is
Speaker 4: also an incredible communicator, and she's able to tell the
Speaker 4: story of a moment or of an issue in such
Speaker 4: an incredible way. And there's a lot of power in
Speaker 4: that and that is I think it's both hard to
Speaker 4: replicate and it is a skill that is not universally shared.
Speaker 4: So I think she's got that ability to do that.
Speaker 1: But my idea is more just like should that mechanism exist?
Speaker 4: You know, I think you can make the argument that
Speaker 4: in some ways it does. Take the free school lunches,
Speaker 4: free food for kids at schools. We saw this past
Speaker 4: in Minnesota, we saw it pass in a number of
Speaker 4: other places. Our media environment, for all its challenges, also
Speaker 4: creates opportunity where you know that stuff isn't done in
Speaker 4: a vacuum, it's not done behind closed doors. And I
Speaker 4: think some of what Ali was able to do when
Speaker 4: it started was there just wasn't the amount of attention
Speaker 4: on legislatures that there is now, and so there need
Speaker 4: to create the kind of model policy had more value
Speaker 4: at that time than it does now because now I
Speaker 4: can access everything in a real way and we see
Speaker 4: issues move. And so we saw this the free food
Speaker 4: for kids, free lunches in breakfast like travel to a
Speaker 4: number of states. And I think that's a great example
Speaker 4: of sort of the system working in sort of an
Speaker 4: honest way where there's good ideas put into the world
Speaker 4: and someone moves forward with it and someone else is
Speaker 4: able to grab onto it.
Speaker 1: It's a really good point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, No. Malarie
Speaker 1: mcmaar was amazing. She was just an example of state
Speaker 1: legislator who has become through her own incredible ability to
Speaker 1: connect and real celebrity. This is so interesting. What do
Speaker 1: you just give us a last thing? If you're a
Speaker 1: person listening to this podcast and you're despairing, what should
Speaker 1: they do.
Speaker 4: I hope this is not come across as sort of
Speaker 4: out of touch, but I think we just can't give up.
Speaker 4: And the greatest thing about state legislatures and state legislative
Speaker 4: candidates is they're going to show up in their state capitals,
Speaker 4: in your backyard and in January when they go into session,
Speaker 4: and they are going to do good things and it's
Speaker 4: going to happen quickly because that is how the system
Speaker 4: is designed, and I think it's We definitely did not
Speaker 4: take the step forward that we had hoped in this election,
Speaker 4: but we are not completely in the dark place. There
Speaker 4: is hope and there is opportunity to continue to make
Speaker 4: progress on the things that we care about to ensure
Speaker 4: that we've got strong, resilient communities and to find a
Speaker 4: local candidate in your state or in your neighborhood who
Speaker 4: is raising their hand to run for office, or maybe
Speaker 4: it's you, and getting up and getting into your community,
Speaker 4: and knowing that there is still things that we can
Speaker 4: affect in our state legislatures. So all hope is not lost.
Speaker 4: It's going to take all of us sort of rising
Speaker 4: and falling at different times and feeling the impact and
Speaker 4: the weight of these results and holding space for that,
Speaker 4: but also knowing that there are people who are getting
Speaker 4: back up on the saddle and ready to fight once again,
Speaker 4: because that's how we continue to make progress.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 3: No moment.
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon, Ma.
Speaker 2: You know, we live in a country that is depressing
Speaker 2: when our bills are being written about conspiracy theories that
Speaker 2: are totally stupid. What are you seeing here?
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel like this is Florida man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is Florida man. Legislation so Florida Bill to ban
Speaker 1: weather modification introduced in response to conspiracies theories about government
Speaker 1: made hurricanes. It's very easy to ban things that don't happen,
Speaker 1: and this is part of the central tenet of MAGA
Speaker 1: is to create bills that ban things that aren't real.
Speaker 1: And now Florida is going to ban weather modification, which
Speaker 1: is not happening, at least not in Florida, and they
Speaker 1: don't want cloud seating to happen. And so it's I
Speaker 1: mean because of crazy conspiracy theories about government and made hurricanes.
Speaker 1: There are no government made hurricanes, and Florida is going
Speaker 1: to make sure her do. I mean, like there's you know,
Speaker 1: cloud seating has its own problems, but this is not
Speaker 1: what this is. This is just crazy nos.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I say, you google harp and get word Bolli. Jesus.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
Speaker 1: minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
Speaker 1: you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.