Speaker 1: Hello, They're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: The Chuck Podcast. Today's is somewhat a thematic day most Wednesdays.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be in the habit of doing a
Speaker 1: little bit of updating of what I'm seeing on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail, and frankly, my campaign notebook has been overflowing
Speaker 1: with things. Look and I'm going to be honest. This
Speaker 1: has been I always say when people use that phrase,
Speaker 1: I use it as a crutch. I'm gonna be honest
Speaker 1: as if I'm not being honest before. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: cure myself of using that crutch. But what I'm trying
Speaker 1: to say is is that I'm letting you in on
Speaker 1: sort of some personal feelings that I normally don't like
Speaker 1: to share, and that is I just feel rotten about
Speaker 1: the state of the country. I'm not sleeping very well
Speaker 1: about it. And because i don't see a path out
Speaker 1: of this right now, I'm long term optimistic, and I'm
Speaker 1: still going to be alone term optimistic. We've gone through
Speaker 1: a lot of bad things in this country and gotten
Speaker 1: out better each time. Each time we have formed a
Speaker 1: more perfect union, whether it was the scourge of slavery,
Speaker 1: whether it has been then giving civil rights and Jim Crow,
Speaker 1: whether it has been the internment of the Japanese, whether
Speaker 1: it was prohibition. The point is is that we've gone down.
Speaker 1: We've had a lot of the Red scare, which I'm
Speaker 1: bringing that up for a reason because I think we
Speaker 1: might be seeing a fervor, particularly on the right, that
Speaker 1: wants to try to essentially stain an entire political party
Speaker 1: with an ideological belief that I don't think the country shares,
Speaker 1: but one side of the aisle shares. I mean, the
Speaker 1: initial what folks around the president have been promising when
Speaker 1: it comes to retribution, going after the left, sort of
Speaker 1: being blind to the violent outbursts that have taken place
Speaker 1: that people have, you know, violence and murders that have
Speaker 1: been done in the name of a far right ideology.
Speaker 1: The fact of the matter is we have got a
Speaker 1: poisonous information ecosystem that can radicalize somebody on the left
Speaker 1: or somebody on the right to do bad things. Our
Speaker 1: system is rigged towards it. I spend my sub stack
Speaker 1: this week talking about this, and I know I've brought
Speaker 1: it up here before. In some ways, it's you know,
Speaker 1: some of you may be listening and going, oh, there's
Speaker 1: Chuck on his soapbox about big tech. But the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is, we know we have two problems. Right.
Speaker 1: We all know this is a problem, which is social
Speaker 1: media has completely screwed up our information ecosystem, and the
Speaker 1: tech companies, for some reason are getting no blame and
Speaker 1: not being held accountable for this their algorithms, and they're look,
Speaker 1: it's the efficiency of technologies. And I say this with
Speaker 1: sort of without sort of animus in this point. Right, technology,
Speaker 1: every time you know, we advance, you know, it creates
Speaker 1: an efficiency. And when it came to sharing information, we
Speaker 1: created an efficiency that it turns out is actually bad
Speaker 1: for public discourse and it's bad for democracies. And what
Speaker 1: is that efficiency. It's the efficiency of getting information, of
Speaker 1: boiling it down to the one thing that matters. It's
Speaker 1: the efficiency of being able to eliminate people that you
Speaker 1: don't want to hear from. It's the efficiency of only
Speaker 1: being able to see like minded people. And so that
Speaker 1: may make sense if you're a quilter and you just
Speaker 1: want information about quilting, or if you're a baseball card
Speaker 1: dealer and you just want information about trading baseball cards.
Speaker 1: But it's when it's on politics and you're only getting
Speaker 1: one side and these algorithms. You know, I don't want
Speaker 1: to sit here. I will. I've been trying to sort
Speaker 1: of right. I want to turn down the temperature too.
Speaker 1: I want big tech to participate in this. But I
Speaker 1: do believe the second an algorithm is created to curate
Speaker 1: how I see information that has made these companies publishers.
Speaker 1: And once you're a publisher, you should be held accountable
Speaker 1: for how the information you're curating is being used and manipulated.
Speaker 1: But ultimately it's going to take some leadership from Washington
Speaker 1: to do this. And you know, I look at what's
Speaker 1: happening in the state legislatures at the moment. Over the
Speaker 1: last two years, particularly post COVID, state legislatures have been
Speaker 1: passing have been very aggressive on two things. And it
Speaker 1: hasn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state.
Speaker 1: They've all been passing essentially the same laws, which is
Speaker 1: a tougher age verification to try to limit the exposure
Speaker 1: kids are getting to pronoc graphy and it is And
Speaker 1: guess what, the fact that the pornographers are complaining about
Speaker 1: this shows you that the just forcing age verification, which
Speaker 1: you have to do if you want to buy booze
Speaker 1: you're underage, or cigarettes or anything other vice you want
Speaker 1: to participate in. And you know, we've never the Internet's
Speaker 1: always been very loosey goosey on identification and forcing a
Speaker 1: tougher standard there. And we're suddenly seeing, oh, so you
Speaker 1: can put in some guard rails here that can do
Speaker 1: a better job of protecting young people from this extreme pornography.
Speaker 1: And the other thing that has been passing in state
Speaker 1: legislatures all over the country, whether it's in a red
Speaker 1: state or a blue state, is getting rid of cell
Speaker 1: phones and classrooms. Right. Private schools had been doing it earlier, Right,
Speaker 1: the public schools are now following suit. Look there, and
Speaker 1: I think we've discussed this before. I mean, I am
Speaker 1: empathetic to divorce parents who need to have want need
Speaker 1: to make sure they have access to their kid during
Speaker 1: the school day. But there are ways to do this, right,
Speaker 1: you put you know, you can look at your phone
Speaker 1: in between classes. You can have it in your backpack,
Speaker 1: in your locker, you can have it in a in
Speaker 1: a pad, but you don't have it while you're learning.
Speaker 1: You take one hundred percent attention to your teacher one
Speaker 1: hundred percent attention to what you're to what you're doing.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's our friend Spencer Cox and Uteh likes
Speaker 1: to say, you know, maybe touch grass every now and then,
Speaker 1: which is a kid touching grass is pretty important? But
Speaker 1: when you think about it, we're so worried about what
Speaker 1: social media and the and the tech companies are doing
Speaker 1: to our kids that we're trying to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Guess what if it's toxic for our kids, it means
Speaker 1: it's toxic for us too, isn't it. And so look,
Speaker 1: I'm a free speech absolutist. I am. I do think
Speaker 1: bad speech is fixed with good speech. But amplification is
Speaker 1: not free speech. Right, dialing up and dialing down what
Speaker 1: you see and what you hear, that's not free speech.
Speaker 1: That's curative speech, right, that's a campaign's that's that's something
Speaker 1: that that and it should be up to the user.
Speaker 1: If I want to curate my feed a certain way,
Speaker 1: it should be in my hands. I don't need the
Speaker 1: tech companies suggesting what I should be looking at a
Speaker 1: for you tab like our friends at X do, which
Speaker 1: is just nothing, but you know, it thinks it knows
Speaker 1: my interests. But it will always be the most incendiary
Speaker 1: thing about a topic I care about, even when it
Speaker 1: comes to Miami Hurricane football, Green Bay Packer football, or
Speaker 1: Washington Nationals baseball, let alone the various political things. You know,
Speaker 1: attacks on the media, sometimes personal attacks on me. They
Speaker 1: make sure it shows up in the for you tab.
Speaker 1: What does that accomplish? I didn't ask for this. In fact,
Speaker 1: I've gone out of my way to mute the idiots,
Speaker 1: and yet it's still you know, these things still show up.
Speaker 1: So you know, we we we are in that sense,
Speaker 1: we're powerless on this. And then you have the two
Speaker 1: parties who have been very reticent to write. You know,
Speaker 1: they talk a big game. Individual members talk a big
Speaker 1: game about regulating big tech, but they don't end up
Speaker 1: doing it. And part of the problem is I just
Speaker 1: was talking to a former US senator and you know,
Speaker 1: you'll you'll figure it out in a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: when you when you see the interview that pops up
Speaker 1: in a and when I when I do it. But
Speaker 1: I was talking to a US senator who said to me, ah,
Speaker 1: he said in passing that you know they you know,
Speaker 1: I think we have to do something about tech. And
Speaker 1: he said within two Within an hour he had he
Speaker 1: suddenly had Sheryl Sandberg and Jack Dorsey calling him to like,
Speaker 1: are you sure? What are you talking about? What are
Speaker 1: you concerned about? With what tech is doing? Tech, the
Speaker 1: big tech companies have really just sat your raided Washington
Speaker 1: with money left and right. They've hired up all sorts
Speaker 1: of strategists and former staffers left and right. It is
Speaker 1: frankly standard practice for a powerful industry. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: no different than big oil in the eighties and things
Speaker 1: like that. And so what you've seen is kid glove treatment. Right.
Speaker 1: We haven't had anything on maybe repealing Section two thirty.
Speaker 1: We haven't had anything remotely close to trying to have
Speaker 1: a digital bill of rights that protects our data, right
Speaker 1: rather than allows so many other entities to own and
Speaker 1: buy and sell our data. And you know they've done
Speaker 1: a good job with that. And so what you have
Speaker 1: now is twenty years of elected officials who don't know
Speaker 1: how to attain power without the tech tools, right, So
Speaker 1: that makes them hesitant. I mean, look, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to be labor point. I want the president to rise
Speaker 1: above his partisan instincts and meet this moment the way
Speaker 1: it needs to be met the way George Bush met
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, the way Barack Obama did Charleston, the
Speaker 1: way Bill Clinton handled Oklahoma City. We haven't gotten that
Speaker 1: from him yet. If anything, he views it, he's done.
Speaker 1: What about ism? You know, when he was questioned on
Speaker 1: Fox about extremists on the right, he essentially rationalized their extremism, saying, well,
Speaker 1: they care about they're upset about crime, I think, is
Speaker 1: what he said. And when you see these leading partisan
Speaker 1: politicians saying that they're going to investigate the left, that's
Speaker 1: red scare stuff, right. That's what happened in the fifties,
Speaker 1: and it was an ugly It was an ugly period
Speaker 1: in Washington where guilt by association was the coin of
Speaker 1: the realm. And that seems to be what's happening here
Speaker 1: is that you have a lot of folks here that
Speaker 1: see an opportunity right for political exploitation. But here's the
Speaker 1: other thing. If you attained power in this polarized era,
Speaker 1: you don't want it to change, do you. You don't
Speaker 1: want to go back to an era that might be
Speaker 1: a bit more unifying, a bit more bipartisan. By partisanship
Speaker 1: is not good for Donald Trump. Right by partisanship hasn't
Speaker 1: been you know, partisanship has been you know, the Democrats
Speaker 1: arguably have done better because of reactionary partisanship with Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, their brand has been problematic now arguably going
Speaker 1: back to the Hillary Clinton nomination, but their success has
Speaker 1: been due to polarization. Trump's ability to get a second
Speaker 1: term was due to polarization. And so you know, when
Speaker 1: you're sort of stuck, you know, the only way you
Speaker 1: know how to win is this way. Then the incentives
Speaker 1: are all. You know, our incentive structures are broken. And
Speaker 1: you've heard me use that phrase before. You've heard a
Speaker 1: lot of people say this. Okay, so how do we
Speaker 1: create better incentive structures? Well, the only way I think,
Speaker 1: which then fits the theme where I have today, which
Speaker 1: is the rise of the independence. The fastest growing political
Speaker 1: party in America is no party right. People are registering
Speaker 1: are you know if they were registered? A lot of
Speaker 1: former Republicans registered is independent because they don't like Trump.
Speaker 1: You now have a lot of former Democrats registering is
Speaker 1: independent because they don't like what's happened to the Democratic
Speaker 1: brand under Biden Harris, and you're starting to see that.
Speaker 1: We're seeing gen Z is sort of on the on
Speaker 1: the age front, you're seeing a lot more of registered independence.
Speaker 1: And you know, I always love I always love to
Speaker 1: go around. I mean, and we're up to I think
Speaker 1: half the states where non party or no party or
Speaker 1: registered independence outnumber at least one of the two major parties.
Speaker 1: And I believe it's in ten states where independents actually
Speaker 1: outnumber both major parties. So there's a huge constituency out
Speaker 1: there who don't like what's happened to the two parties. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I am I am done sitting here making the do
Speaker 1: I think in a perfect world, I think we should
Speaker 1: be a four party system. I think it would actually
Speaker 1: provide some relief, would force coalition politics. But I'm not
Speaker 1: going to go down that rabbit hole today because I do.
Speaker 1: I want to stick to topic here. What the two parties
Speaker 1: need is a time out, right, they both need to
Speaker 1: lose at the same time, or they both need to
Speaker 1: be punished, essentially in order to force an inward Look,
Speaker 1: you know, I railed on Monday about the fact that
Speaker 1: there is zero incentive to call out your own party.
Speaker 1: If anything, if you call out your own party for
Speaker 1: bad behavior, you're seen as a trader not as somebody
Speaker 1: looking out for the best interests of the country or
Speaker 1: the party. And if you're going to sort of get
Speaker 1: them out of their partisan rabbit holes, they're going to
Speaker 1: have to be set back at the same time or
Speaker 1: be under threat. And we've had an example of two
Speaker 1: independent presidential candidacies that didn't win, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Purot,
Speaker 1: but effectively forced both parties to reform themselves and forced,
Speaker 1: you know, forced an issue. You know, I look at
Speaker 1: a guy like Spencer Cox and he's decidedly on MAGA. Okay,
Speaker 1: in a in the pre Trump world, Spencer Cox would
Speaker 1: be already identified as a rising star in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: He has no chance right in the Maga Republican Party.
Speaker 1: But his voice and how in his north Star about
Speaker 1: what the tech companies have done to us and how
Speaker 1: this has happened. I kind of think because he he's
Speaker 1: a little bit younger than I am. He's in his forties,
Speaker 1: so's he's a millennial governor, and I think he's in
Speaker 1: some ways more digital native and under in his better
Speaker 1: he's just more conversant at explaining the harm. Right. It
Speaker 1: did interview with this this older senator and they've identified
Speaker 1: the harm, but they're not very conversant in explaining the harm.
Speaker 1: You know, Donald Trump doesn't really you know, he's not
Speaker 1: as conversant and couldn't explain it if he chose to. Right,
Speaker 1: that's just just in some ways he's he's he's just
Speaker 1: demographically out of touch. But it feels like we're in
Speaker 1: a moment that if we're going to force the two
Speaker 1: parties to sort of wait a minute, we've got to
Speaker 1: put the country first every now and then they have
Speaker 1: to be punished for their ways. And if the public
Speaker 1: wants to just like they're exhausted from this, it may
Speaker 1: be that that you need a third party scare. And
Speaker 1: whether it's a third party scare, can you know every
Speaker 1: every political party needs needs a check on itself, right,
Speaker 1: the whole point of checks and balances are good whether
Speaker 1: you're organizing a government or you're organizing policy, you're organizing
Speaker 1: a political party. You know, you a political party doesn't
Speaker 1: needs to have a check on its potential ideological excesses.
Speaker 1: There's nobody checking the maga wing of the party anymore.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of checks in the first term,
Speaker 1: there's not many checks this term. And we've seen fewer checks.
Speaker 1: You know, you had, you had your Joe Mansions and
Speaker 1: cinemas that were kind of the centrist check on the
Speaker 1: Democrats before they're both gone, and there really isn't a
Speaker 1: lot of space. I guess John Fetterman has suddenly sort
Speaker 1: of kind of adopted that role, but I don't think
Speaker 1: he has I don't think he has really the credibility
Speaker 1: yet to be that check with the middle of the
Speaker 1: road voter. Right. I think some on the right love
Speaker 1: what he's doing, but but I think only for owning
Speaker 1: the Lib's purposes, right, this whole trolley, this whole trolley mindset.
Speaker 1: So that's what's frustrating is that we do of a problem.
Speaker 1: We're going to have a part of it. Looks like
Speaker 1: partisans on the right want to just try to harass
Speaker 1: the left in under the name of trying to you know,
Speaker 1: root out political violence, but without it all sort of
Speaker 1: accepting the premise that hey, it's it's sadly a bipartisan affair,
Speaker 1: and that basically it's the Internet that radicalizes folks and
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter whether they come from stage left or
Speaker 1: stage right. The one thing that we haven't that we
Speaker 1: have in common here is the Internet has has been,
Speaker 1: has been what's radicalized them. And if we're not going
Speaker 1: to confront this problem this way right now, it is
Speaker 1: going to get worse. Okay, if you ratchet up a
Speaker 1: radical view of what you think the other side is doing,
Speaker 1: I promise you the other side is going to respond
Speaker 1: in a radical way, right and radicalism, reactionary radicalism. And
Speaker 1: here we are right and this is this escalatory polarization
Speaker 1: that we've been experiencing. I mean, you know, it's we've
Speaker 1: seen it in the US Senate with the absurdity of
Speaker 1: how we've destroyed the judiciary branch. And make no mistake,
Speaker 1: we've destroyed the judiciary branch with this, with this partisan
Speaker 1: gamesmanship in the Senate. And there's always this attempt to well,
Speaker 1: but they started it. It doesn't matter which side I
Speaker 1: of the alight talking about. But they started it. The
Speaker 1: right will scream foror the left will scream, will scream
Speaker 1: about Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Mark Garland. The fact is
Speaker 1: they they both chose punishing the other side without thinking
Speaker 1: about what it would do the judiciary itself. Right, we
Speaker 1: turned the judiciary into the freaking House of Representatives where
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of fifty percent plus one judges are
Speaker 1: out there, So you either have super liberal or super maga.
Speaker 1: There is there is no you have sixty sixty five votes,
Speaker 1: you would have this sort of moderate temperaments, you know,
Speaker 1: which is really what our politics could use. I'm not
Speaker 1: suggesting we all ideologically have to move to the center.
Speaker 1: You know where I stand. I'm an incrementalist, but what
Speaker 1: we need is moderate temperament to lead us. When you're
Speaker 1: trying to lead three hundred and fifty million people, a
Speaker 1: moderate temperament goes a long way. And our most successful
Speaker 1: presidents have been of moderate temperaments, regardless of how you know.
Speaker 1: Reagan and Obama pretty mainstream liberal Democrat, mainstream conservative Democrat,
Speaker 1: almost identical temperaments, and in many ways they had I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's some of you out there that have been
Speaker 1: voting long enough where you voted for both of them
Speaker 1: almost as much because of their temperament. You know, it's
Speaker 1: a huge factor with my vote. I want to know
Speaker 1: how this person's going to handle a crisis. I want
Speaker 1: to know how this person's going to handle you know,
Speaker 1: I certainly have issues, and there are you know, there
Speaker 1: are there are veto there are candidates, there are issues
Speaker 1: that I might veto at candidate on because the issue
Speaker 1: matters to me that much. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: I'm a character and temperament guy, and we could use
Speaker 1: a moderate temperament. But we have a we have an
Speaker 1: information ecosystem and a political and a political system that
Speaker 1: punishes moderation, not in ideology, which it does do that too,
Speaker 1: but even punishes it in style. I think it's what
Speaker 1: we would prefer as a body politic, but the way
Speaker 1: our information ecosystem works, it seems to it seems to
Speaker 1: almost force us into the exact opposite persona. There's a
Speaker 1: reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a
Speaker 1: reason Morgan and Morgan is a Maria because largest injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
Speaker 1: which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
Speaker 1: insurance company originally offered that original offer six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across
Speaker 1: the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
Speaker 1: If you're injured, you need a lawyer, You need somebody
Speaker 1: to get your back. Check out for Thepeople dot com
Speaker 1: Slash podcast, or dial pound Law Pound five to nine
Speaker 1: law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms
Speaker 1: are not the same, So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Speaker 1: Their fee is free unless they win. Just a few
Speaker 1: interesting updates on the campaign trail that you might have missed.
Speaker 1: We have the redistricting wars obviously, and one of the
Speaker 1: questions is going to be, you know, the big the
Speaker 1: big campaign fight on the ballot is going to be
Speaker 1: in California where essentially the maps are going to be
Speaker 1: on the ballot for this Novembers election up or down.
Speaker 1: You have a huge amount of money. There are now
Speaker 1: three different entities essentially trying to stop this remap. You
Speaker 1: have Charlie Munger Junior, who is the son of Charlie
Speaker 1: Munger longtime business partner to Warren Buffett back in the day.
Speaker 1: He's really been a political lately. He used to be
Speaker 1: a big Republican donor. I don't think he's a big
Speaker 1: trumpy is not as trumpy as some other Republicans. But
Speaker 1: he was a big supporter of the original redistricting commissions
Speaker 1: that are out there, so he wants to defend what
Speaker 1: he did. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he's going to campaign, but interestingly,
Speaker 1: it sounds like he's agreed to sort of not be
Speaker 1: the face of any of the movements. He's chosen not
Speaker 1: to work directly with Munger's group, he doesn't plan to
Speaker 1: work with Kevin McCarthy's group. He does seem to be
Speaker 1: focused on on keeping his independence. I think he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to look like he seems to be trying to
Speaker 1: find a way he wants to be. He wants to
Speaker 1: be pro reform, but not necessarily looking like he's help
Speaker 1: I don't think he wants to use the Republicans to
Speaker 1: help him get that message across. I think he's trying
Speaker 1: to have it. But that's a real challenge if you're
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom and the Democrats who are trying to get
Speaker 1: this referendum pass and that you have sort of you
Speaker 1: now have three different entities that are all trying to
Speaker 1: spend money to get those in different ways. Right, You're
Speaker 1: going to have now Arnold who is going to not
Speaker 1: associate himself with the Republican groups but sort of be
Speaker 1: talking straight to the independence you got. Charlie Munger's put
Speaker 1: a ton of money in there, Kevin McCarthy's got a
Speaker 1: hundred million to spend. We'll see. It's my understanding and
Speaker 1: focus groups that the surprising thing to my sources who
Speaker 1: I've been talking to about this are is how engaged
Speaker 1: voters are in California about it. They're pretty well educated,
Speaker 1: they get it, and those that believe they can get
Speaker 1: this map passed think that this is not a bank shot.
Speaker 1: That it is important to these voters if you want
Speaker 1: to get them to approve this map, they really have
Speaker 1: to believe it's temporary, and they have if they don't
Speaker 1: believe that this will revert back to the public process,
Speaker 1: the sort of the commission process for twenty thirty and
Speaker 1: beyond that. That's the key when a voter is is
Speaker 1: here's the message for it, and they believe that aspect
Speaker 1: of it that this is just temporary justify what Texas
Speaker 1: is doing. They think it's enough to get a majority.
Speaker 1: So I do think this is still a campaign and
Speaker 1: it's infant, but it is obviously in some ways may
Speaker 1: even you have Virginia governor, you have New Jersey governor,
Speaker 1: you have New York City mayor, it's you could argue
Speaker 1: this California referendum is suddenly the most important election this
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five, even as the Virginia and New
Speaker 1: Jersey are traditionally a little more high profile. And of
Speaker 1: course mayor of New York City. Speaking of the redistricting,
Speaker 1: watch Missouri very closely because Missouri did its map, but
Speaker 1: they have an interesting addendum to their constitution. So under
Speaker 1: state law, if a petition reaches roughly one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: signatures in six of eight congressional districts, the law that
Speaker 1: the Missouri legislature passed with this new redistricting proposal that
Speaker 1: would eliminate all but one Democratic leaning congressional district, basically
Speaker 1: getting rid of the Kansas City Democratic seat. The law
Speaker 1: would actually go before voters for an up or down vote,
Speaker 1: and it could get repealed, and the lines don't go
Speaker 1: into effect until that ballot referendum happens. So if they
Speaker 1: get it, the Missouri would potentially have to put a
Speaker 1: special election if they wanted to count for November twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, and they successfully have a challenge to the
Speaker 1: state law that qualifies for the ballot, we may have
Speaker 1: a special spring election in like March or April. Perhaps
Speaker 1: the August primary Missouri is in August primary state. Perhaps
Speaker 1: it goes on there, although that seems super late, right,
Speaker 1: because that's when congressional candidates got to know which district
Speaker 1: am I running in. So keep an eye out on
Speaker 1: whether and it's going to tell me how organized are
Speaker 1: the Democrats nationally? Right, The California Democrats turned out to
Speaker 1: be very organized. I mean, whatever you think of the idea,
Speaker 1: what Gavin Newsom has pulled off something that I was
Speaker 1: I was circumspect. I thought that with so many different stakeholders,
Speaker 1: so many different people wanting, caring about their district lines
Speaker 1: and all of this stuff, the fact that Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: got that whole party to row in the same place,
Speaker 1: it's just, you know, you got to admire the political
Speaker 1: leadership there. That is not an easy thing. He has
Speaker 1: pulled off is that him or is there a pretty
Speaker 1: strong national Democratic Party organization behind him. We're going to
Speaker 1: find out in Missouri, right whether there is a whether
Speaker 1: the Democrats are organized nationally is they clearly were in
Speaker 1: California to push back on this because there is a
Speaker 1: you know, essentially a plan B in Missouri to go
Speaker 1: to the voters and get an up or down there.
Speaker 1: I just think it'll be really telling. But I have
Speaker 1: to tell you there was an item in my old
Speaker 1: my old publication I worked at before NBC, the Hotline,
Speaker 1: and it was just a simple construction, which is what's
Speaker 1: always the beauty of the hotline, covering the coverage, right,
Speaker 1: and they note I'm just going to read you the
Speaker 1: item verbatim. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buotage will return to
Speaker 1: his old state this week and rally with the Indiana
Speaker 1: Democratic Party against redistricting. That came from a press release. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Hacking Jeffrey spent the weekend in California raising millions for
Speaker 1: Fournia Proposition fifty, the Democrats redistricting ballot initiative. This is
Speaker 1: the second trip Jeffries is made to California to support
Speaker 1: the redistricting effort. This is to me, the real sort
Speaker 1: of challenge for the Democrats. On one hand, they're trying
Speaker 1: to stop redistricting efforts, bringing in a national star to
Speaker 1: try to do it in Indiana. Simultaneously, they're going to
Speaker 1: California to raise money to try to support a re
Speaker 1: redistricting effort out there. You know, it doesn't take a
Speaker 1: communications genius to say you got a messaging problem. Right
Speaker 1: Gone are the days where you could message in isolation.
Speaker 1: You could somehow talk to one group over here, tell
Speaker 1: them something, talk to another group one hundred miles away,
Speaker 1: and somehow they wouldn't hear. You know, you promised that
Speaker 1: you were going to deal with this landfill issue in
Speaker 1: this county over here. You told them, don't worry, the
Speaker 1: landfill's not coming to your county. It'll stay there. And
Speaker 1: you know, back when when communication wasn't shared so quickly,
Speaker 1: you know, a politician could essentially talk out of both
Speaker 1: sides of their mouth and get away with it for
Speaker 1: a period of time until reporters over time shared information
Speaker 1: quick enough that you couldn't do that. And I think
Speaker 1: this is when I was reading this item, You're like,
Speaker 1: it just made my head hurt. On one hand, a
Speaker 1: major Democratic Party star is trying to stop a redistricting
Speaker 1: effort in Indiana. On the other hand, a major Democratic
Speaker 1: star is going out to California to raise money to
Speaker 1: help a redistricting effort in another state. I think it
Speaker 1: goes to why this is again, I understand the tactical
Speaker 1: decision that the Democrats made here. They feel as if, hey,
Speaker 1: look what they're doing. They had no choice. But it
Speaker 1: is a reminder of how complicated this effort is going
Speaker 1: to be. One other candidacy that I think you should
Speaker 1: keep an eye on. That sort of fits. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit more on which wing of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is more ascended, right, the progressive wing for the moderate
Speaker 1: peacemaking wing. The Georgia primary for the Georgia Democratic primary
Speaker 1: for governor is becoming fascinating. You now have a former
Speaker 1: Republican Lieutenant Governor, Jeff Duncan, right, who was an early
Speaker 1: Trump critic, was on a glide path. He was Brian
Speaker 1: Kemp's essentially, you know, on a you know, kind of
Speaker 1: running mate. I mean, you run for LG on your
Speaker 1: own in a primary, but you know, he was seen
Speaker 1: as potentially assumed her apparent to Kemp. Duncan became, you know,
Speaker 1: particularly after the attempt by Trump to essentially overturn the
Speaker 1: Georgia election, you know, twisting the arms of party operatives.
Speaker 1: Over time, became more and more of a Trump skeptic
Speaker 1: to the point where he is, you know, he he
Speaker 1: has now changed parties completely elected as a Republican in Georgia.
Speaker 1: So you're not a moderate Republican when you're winning a primary.
Speaker 1: You're pretty conventional conservative Republican as lieutenant governor in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen and now eight years later, hopes to be the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee for governor in twenty twenty six. Now, look,
Speaker 1: so he clearly is more in that super moderate lane.
Speaker 1: You now have a state Senator, Jason Stevies, your former
Speaker 1: Atlanta mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms who was worked for Biden
Speaker 1: state rep. And Derek Jackson, the chief executive Michael Thurman,
Speaker 1: who I believes run for state wide office. Before It's
Speaker 1: suddenly a pretty crowded primary. There's a lot of Atlanta
Speaker 1: Democrats in there, which could give Duncan an opportunity if
Speaker 1: there's enough vote outside, if all of that, all of
Speaker 1: this vote gets split up there. But it's a just
Speaker 1: like the Michigan Democratic primary for Senate. There's a handful
Speaker 1: of Democratic primaries that if they all go in the
Speaker 1: same direction right the progressive wins or the or the
Speaker 1: more center center left person wins, it may directionally tell
Speaker 1: us where where are rank and filed Democrats right? Are
Speaker 1: they angry and ready to go left? Or are they
Speaker 1: exhausted and frustrated and looking for what I call our
Speaker 1: peacemakers right, trying to trying to win win over the middle.
Speaker 1: But in particular now Georgia Democratic Primary for governor, Michigan
Speaker 1: Democratic primer percentate. Both of them feature candidates from all
Speaker 1: wings of the Democratic Party, so they're all going to
Speaker 1: be pretty good tests where the energy of the party is.
Speaker 1: A couple more things to talk about quickly. On twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, we're now seeing the real money is coming
Speaker 1: into both New Jersey and Virginia. There was some question
Speaker 1: with the National Republicans invest is heavily in Virginia as
Speaker 1: they did the last time. They now have and there's
Speaker 1: a real reason for that. Like it Ultimately in the
Speaker 1: Republicans I've talked to about the Virginia races, it's not
Speaker 1: that they're conceding the governor's race to Abigail Spamberger, but
Speaker 1: they're conceding that it's an uphill battle, but they don't
Speaker 1: want to get swept. And if there's one candidacy that
Speaker 1: they're trying to save, it is the Attorney General Jason Miaris,
Speaker 1: and I had a smart Democrat say that he thinks
Speaker 1: it's the single most important race to understand whether Democrats
Speaker 1: truly have a shot at the midterms or whether Republicans
Speaker 1: can hold off the flip. And it's because of the
Speaker 1: you know, you're seeing. You have a Republican incumbent with
Speaker 1: a lot of financial advantages. You have a Democratic challenger
Speaker 1: who's being painted as soft on crime, which is what
Speaker 1: both Republicans and Democrats tell me is likely to be
Speaker 1: among the bread and butter issues you see in the midterms,
Speaker 1: especially if the economy is not good. Republicans are going
Speaker 1: to be running against Democrats is sort of softened the border,
Speaker 1: soft on crime, soft on law and order stuff, especially
Speaker 1: if they can't run in the economy. And right now
Speaker 1: things don't look great with the economy. And by the way,
Speaker 1: it may not matter. Right the economy may be everything,
Speaker 1: and it may overwhelm that. But we're going to find
Speaker 1: out how effective can a law and order campaign overcome
Speaker 1: sort of momentum that autumn sort of sort of the
Speaker 1: momentum that the Democrats have as simply being the out party, right,
Speaker 1: you know, they have a few advantages going for them
Speaker 1: in these offier elections in Virginia, federal government workers being
Speaker 1: laid up, they have a lot of advantages. Can munt
Speaker 1: can the financial advantage they will have and the issue
Speaker 1: of law and order combat that right? That Virginia AG
Speaker 1: race this cycle could foreshadow what the mid terms look like.
Speaker 1: In particular, we're seeing a little bit in the governor's race,
Speaker 1: and don't get me wrong, I think there'll be some
Speaker 1: culture war type back and forth between the two governor's candidates.
Speaker 1: But in many ways, all that, you know, there's Spamberger's
Speaker 1: now up with a lot of negatives, almost just exclusively
Speaker 1: in northern Virginia, hitting win some earl sears on just
Speaker 1: simply being supportive of Trump, which ironically she doesn't have
Speaker 1: Trump's endorsement yet I think she'll get it because everything
Speaker 1: is about helping turn out for the pot of the
Speaker 1: ticket there the AG candidate, and if you don't have
Speaker 1: people enthused about the gubernatorial candidate. It's he's gonna you know,
Speaker 1: you're just gonna have a turnout issue that's going to
Speaker 1: trickle down and cost you down the ballot. So I
Speaker 1: suspect Trump comes in. It's why the RGA, I think,
Speaker 1: has come in with real money to help the top
Speaker 1: of the ticket, because ultimately the one they're trying to
Speaker 1: see can they save one of the three seeds that
Speaker 1: they currently hold in Virginia. As for New Jersey, you've
Speaker 1: seen the Republicans have also sort of equalized money there.
Speaker 1: We're going to have our first debates. They're going to
Speaker 1: have two debates. I want to watch those debates. I
Speaker 1: think that they may matter more than we fully appreciate.
Speaker 1: I think gubernatorial debates voters care a little bit more
Speaker 1: about than Senate debates. To be frank, I think Senate
Speaker 1: campaigns are always read versus blue again one of the
Speaker 1: challenges for these independent candidates. But governor's races, I think
Speaker 1: more often there are voters that will will we'll, we'll
Speaker 1: choose a person over a party if there's a specific
Speaker 1: issue that really animates them. And that's why I actually
Speaker 1: want to withhold judgment. I have a sneaking suspicion that
Speaker 1: New Jersey's going to be awfully closed. But let's see
Speaker 1: how the debates play out on that front. And then
Speaker 1: we've seen it looks like Donald Trump is conceding the
Speaker 1: New York City mayor's race to Mom Donnie. It is
Speaker 1: fascinating to watch these progressive pressure campaign on a Keem
Speaker 1: Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer, who have not yet endorsed Mom Donnie.
Speaker 1: The governor of New York did. But remember, everybody, you know,
Speaker 1: I talked about incentive structures at the top. Why does
Speaker 1: Kathy Hulkle have to endorse Mom Donnie because she's got
Speaker 1: a primary challenger from the left. Neither Jeffries or Schumer
Speaker 1: are worrying about that at the moment. Hokel has to
Speaker 1: worry about that in the very very near term. Her
Speaker 1: numbers aren't that great anyway. She can't afford a very
Speaker 1: competitive primary that would likely be negative, ugly, and only
Speaker 1: make her potential campaign against the least staphonic that much harder.
Speaker 1: So I look at the whocal endorsement as a she's
Speaker 1: got primary opponents, that's what she's worried about, and she
Speaker 1: can't afford to alienate the progressive flank as much. Jeffries
Speaker 1: has got a whole other problem. He's got a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of Democrats running all over the country who are
Speaker 1: don't want the future Speaker of the House looking like
Speaker 1: they endorse a socialists, And so I don't envy the
Speaker 1: situation Jeffries finds himself in. But I go back, Jeffries
Speaker 1: and Schumer should have been more hands on when Cuomo
Speaker 1: jumped into that race and basically screwed it all up
Speaker 1: for the for the for the mainstream wing of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. The fact that they sort of look the
Speaker 1: other way is arguably why they're in this situation they're in.
Speaker 1: But that's a tough that's a tough position he's in politically.
Speaker 1: I know. I'm guessing Jeffries will end up endorsing him
Speaker 1: or voting for him, not endorsing him. We'll see. But
Speaker 1: I do think this is as much about his branding.
Speaker 1: What happens to his branding as the guy who's essentially
Speaker 1: running to be Speaker of the House in the midterms.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of Democrats running in House races that
Speaker 1: are nervous that he gets painted as a socialist. So
Speaker 1: I do think that is what's, among other things, politically,
Speaker 1: what's making it very uncomfortable for Jefferson. All right, I
Speaker 1: hope you enjoyed that interview with those two independent candidates.
Speaker 1: So and in fact, my top five lists this week
Speaker 1: is on independence, and it's my top five list of
Speaker 1: states most likely to elect an independent to the Senate
Speaker 1: top top jest. Some of it is going to be
Speaker 1: based on history, some of it is going to be
Speaker 1: based on, you know, the electorate and just sort of
Speaker 1: how you know, do you have an electorate that thinks
Speaker 1: that is very partisan, Like you know, you take state
Speaker 1: of North Carolina, which is a very evenly divided state,
Speaker 1: but it's it's sort of divided by polls. It's a
Speaker 1: polarized electorate. It is basically forty five are forty five
Speaker 1: d in a very small size of independence versus a
Speaker 1: place like Alaska, which is sort of filled with sort
Speaker 1: of this sort of independent you know, a little left,
Speaker 1: little right, little libertarian, little of this, and it's just
Speaker 1: a more fluid electorate. It's not as it's not as partisan,
Speaker 1: it's not as hardcore. So my top five list of
Speaker 1: states most likely the elect and independent to the Senate, Well,
Speaker 1: obviously I got to start with two states that have
Speaker 1: done it. I don't count Bernie in this one. I know,
Speaker 1: although Vermont has arguably had two independent one that was
Speaker 1: independent that caucused with Republicans. Still he switched parties and
Speaker 1: caucus with Democrats and Jim Jeffords, and then you had Bernie.
Speaker 1: But in some ways, I don't put Vermont there anymore.
Speaker 1: I think it's decidedly I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: very difficult for somebody. You can get elected as an
Speaker 1: independent if you're further to the left of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if you can do that, you know,
Speaker 1: from the other way. So look, I think you have
Speaker 1: to put Alaska and Maine is one and two because
Speaker 1: they've done it, and there's their electorates are fluid enough
Speaker 1: that it's supportive. They've elected independence for governor, right, and
Speaker 1: I think that that is, you know, these are the
Speaker 1: states that are most righte for non major party candidates
Speaker 1: to have some success. Alaska and Maine obviously are too.
Speaker 1: The next state on my list, number three is Minnesota.
Speaker 1: In fact, you could argue now that if you're right
Speaker 1: of center in Minnesota and this is going to actually
Speaker 1: get I got some interesting feedback about my battleground state
Speaker 1: list and a little bit of pushback of having Minnesota
Speaker 1: ranked higher than New Hampshire of states on the Republican
Speaker 1: side most likely to make it into the battleground right
Speaker 1: blue states that Republicans might be able to contest, And
Speaker 1: the argument is that while Minnesota is always very close,
Speaker 1: Republicans never seem to be able to, you know, to
Speaker 1: crack the code that in twenty fourteen, for instance, Al
Speaker 1: Frankin's reelection year, he won by ten points and that
Speaker 1: was a great Republican year, So I Republicans couldn't make
Speaker 1: Franklin sweat in twenty fourteen. Then the argument goes that
Speaker 1: this is a this is a much harder state. You
Speaker 1: know that there's a hard ceiling on the Republicans, and
Speaker 1: I you know, it's an old hotline buddy that was
Speaker 1: pushing back on me. And I think my buddy Quinn
Speaker 1: is right. Quinn, I'm throwing I'm giving I'm throwing you
Speaker 1: this bone. I do agree New Hampshire probably it should
Speaker 1: be New Hampshire over Minnesota. I still think there's an
Speaker 1: opportunity there in Minnesota. But I think you're right. I
Speaker 1: think the track record of New Hampshire. Recently, they just
Speaker 1: elected a Republican governor. It's been a long time since
Speaker 1: Minnesota's elected a statewide Republican, has been at least over
Speaker 1: a decade. I think, I think you make a compelling
Speaker 1: case at New Hampshire should be ranked higher than Minnesota.
Speaker 1: So Alaska one, Main two, Minnesota three, and my next
Speaker 1: two are Sun Belt states. Arizona, who arguably had a
Speaker 1: couple of independent acting senators even though they didn't get
Speaker 1: elected as independents, and John McCain and Kirsten Cinema, And
Speaker 1: there's something about it's electorate, right, there's a there's a
Speaker 1: there's a it's a state that has a huge independent
Speaker 1: voter registration. And when you're a transient state, right that
Speaker 1: where a majority of the voters weren't born in that state,
Speaker 1: that means you don't have as strong a ties on
Speaker 1: partisanship as much. And I think, and so we should
Speaker 1: give away what my number five state is of a
Speaker 1: chance electing independent. That's Florida. Florida also is a huge,
Speaker 1: growing no party registration vote, and I think the opportunity
Speaker 1: and ballot access isn't very difficult. Ditto in Arizona, that
Speaker 1: also matters here, right, how difficult is ballid access to
Speaker 1: get on there? You know, Texas is extraordinarily hard to
Speaker 1: run as an independent. And even though you in theory
Speaker 1: Texas is the type of electorate that maybe could be
Speaker 1: supportive of it, I'm skeptical of it. So my top
Speaker 1: five this week, top five states most likely with electorates
Speaker 1: it would be open to electing an independent. And you
Speaker 1: could actually picture it happening. Two places they've already happened
Speaker 1: Alaska in Maine, right with Lisa Murkowski and and Angus
Speaker 1: King both did get elected as independence. Now they caut
Speaker 1: us with one side or the other, but they're I
Speaker 1: think in they both have elected independent governors, So I
Speaker 1: think there is a tradition there. Minnesota, right, they've had
Speaker 1: some You know, this is a party that even the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is not named. It's the Democratic Farm Labor Party.
Speaker 1: It was a coalition party. There used to be the
Speaker 1: Farm Labor and then the Democrats that they merged. And
Speaker 1: in fact that back in the day the Minnesota Republican
Speaker 1: Party was referred to as the Independent Republican Party. There
Speaker 1: was almost an over emphasis on the word independent and
Speaker 1: less so on Republican so Minnesota, number three, number four Arizona,
Speaker 1: and number five Florida. Other states that I contemplated. Nebraska,
Speaker 1: I do think the fact that they have a unit
Speaker 1: cameral legislature where you do not run or hold office
Speaker 1: by party, does create an electorate that is comfortable with
Speaker 1: candidates for office that don't associate with a major party.
Speaker 1: The fact that their unit cameral legislature works that way,
Speaker 1: I think does. I think it does help explain why
Speaker 1: Osborne dan oz Born, who's running again, has has gotten
Speaker 1: into the forties. On that front. Kansas, I think there's
Speaker 1: something there. I think the Democratic brand is probably not
Speaker 1: quite strong enough to elect a senator, but an independent
Speaker 1: that leaned to the left but had a few things
Speaker 1: that were appealing to right leaning independence, you could see it.
Speaker 1: I put Idaho, South Dakota down here as well, because
Speaker 1: we're going to find out right. I do think you're
Speaker 1: going to have a little better in general running against
Speaker 1: the two major parties, as there's usually a bit more
Speaker 1: of an appetite for it out west than there is
Speaker 1: out east here, particularly in some of the in some
Speaker 1: of the states that have been around a while that
Speaker 1: have of you know that have that have certainly have
Speaker 1: very very very strong state and local political parties. All right,
Speaker 1: so there's my top five lists. With that, let's do
Speaker 1: a few questions ask Chuck. All right. First question comes
Speaker 1: from Greg al and he writes, thanks for the show.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask about your call for a politician
Speaker 1: to run as a uniter. It's what the country needs.
Speaker 1: But is it possible as a moderate who has voted
Speaker 1: for both parties less presidential Canada? I recall running as
Speaker 1: a uniter is President Obama, who came to prominence with
Speaker 1: his unifying One America speech back in two thousand and four. However,
Speaker 1: we call family members who perceived Obama as a divisive
Speaker 1: radical who hated capitalists and Americans. In the Obama years,
Speaker 1: I also noticed that compromise and unity were tough promises
Speaker 1: to deliver on. Even if a politician followed through with concessions,
Speaker 1: the opposing party could force failure by refusing to cooperate,
Speaker 1: even when offered policies they previously supported. I hope you
Speaker 1: can share some optimism. Well, look, I mean this is
Speaker 1: why I don't think either either party. I think this
Speaker 1: has to this almost has to be a pirate type
Speaker 1: of situation where you just sort of where you have
Speaker 1: an independent calls time out. You know, you guys have
Speaker 1: lost your privileges to lead. You need to learn how
Speaker 1: to lead. It's sort of it's it was the It
Speaker 1: was how Jesse Ventura won his election in ninety eight.
Speaker 1: He basically turned the two parties into tweetled the and
Speaker 1: tweedled dumb, and it gained quick traction. It was it
Speaker 1: was actually a short campaign. He was He was polling
Speaker 1: in the high single digits, low double digits for the
Speaker 1: longest time they have a debate. He's an outsized charismatic figure.
Speaker 1: The two nominees, I think it was I think, if
Speaker 1: memory serves, it was Norm Coleman, future US senator, and
Speaker 1: Skip Humphrey, the son of Hubert Humphrey, And they just
Speaker 1: they came across a stale compared to the charismatic ex wrestler,
Speaker 1: right and former actor you know who's uttered one of
Speaker 1: my favorite movie lines of all time, I don't got
Speaker 1: time to bleed from the first predator, which I think
Speaker 1: he used in his campaign at and I think it
Speaker 1: was the title of his memoir, of his political memoir.
Speaker 1: But the point is is that he didn't run as
Speaker 1: saying this is you know, yes, it was sort of
Speaker 1: with the Pero Reformed Party at the time, but in
Speaker 1: some ways it was, Hey, I want to send a
Speaker 1: message these two parties and sober up. And I think
Speaker 1: what you outline here the inability for one party to
Speaker 1: concede anything to the other party right now, it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. If you want to know how nineteen
Speaker 1: nineties by partisanship happened. It happened because Ross Perot essentially
Speaker 1: threatened his candidacy, threatened the success of both parties at
Speaker 1: one point or another, and so it almost served as
Speaker 1: a force as a mechanism to force by partisanship. You know,
Speaker 1: the nineties recipe for bipartisanship also had one party controlling Congress,
Speaker 1: one party controlling the presidency. In the twenty first century,
Speaker 1: the handful of times we've had that it didn't, it didn't.
Speaker 1: It didn't lead to in many bipartisan successes. And in
Speaker 1: some ways I think this is thanks to the internet
Speaker 1: age to be fur filthy, Frank, I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: what I think has done it. I think that in
Speaker 1: the you know where anytime you quote helped the other party,
Speaker 1: it becomes a problem for the base, and they amplify it,
Speaker 1: and they get everybody fired up, and they threaten primary challenges,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, this wayward moderate R moderate
Speaker 1: D has been tamed by the outrages of the of
Speaker 1: the base. We saw a version of that on the
Speaker 1: Republican side with Joni Ernst and the confirmation of Pete
Speaker 1: Hegsea right, she was basically shamed and threatened and harassed
Speaker 1: until she agreed to do it. In the pre internet days,
Speaker 1: Haig Seth never makes it. Eg Seth probably doesn't even
Speaker 1: even get out of committee in the pre internet days,
Speaker 1: but essentially making it public and forcing it that way
Speaker 1: did so. I concur with you that it's not going
Speaker 1: to come from one of the two major parties and
Speaker 1: that they would successfully do it. I do think a
Speaker 1: term with an independent basically just highlighting the fact that
Speaker 1: both parties have failed us and have helped tear this
Speaker 1: country apart, would would could could serve as that a
Speaker 1: sort of return sort of Like I said, I refer
Speaker 1: to sobering up the two political parties. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Lincoln from Columbus, Ohio, but he makes it clear
Speaker 1: he's not a Buckeye fan. Well, That's why I'm taking
Speaker 1: your question. Lincoln. By the way, I love it, Lincoln
Speaker 1: from Columbus. Maybe I can meet Columbus from Lincoln anyway, Hey,
Speaker 1: Chuck la cheeserie if you know you know. I love
Speaker 1: the toodcast and appreciate the commentary, extended interviews and deep
Speaker 1: dives into all things politics and politics adjacent news stories.
Speaker 1: You're right, we need more in depth conversations in fewer
Speaker 1: sound bites. I have a question about Senate and House hearings.
Speaker 1: Do the people testifying have an idea of the questions
Speaker 1: in advance? Obviously this would be more partisan, because when
Speaker 1: RFK testified, I can't imagine Democrats would provide their questions,
Speaker 1: but I can see Republicans trying to curry favor with
Speaker 1: the White House, if not overtly providing questions in advance,
Speaker 1: perhaps in a meaning mentioning that a question like that
Speaker 1: may come up with a link and a no. Thanks
Speaker 1: for the work and information to look forward to the
Speaker 1: mornings when I see the pod drop, well, it's great
Speaker 1: to hear. Thanks Lincoln. Appreciate that. On hearings, you know,
Speaker 1: it depends. There's some people do mock hearings. A friendly hearing.
Speaker 1: Right your friendly side, you will know, you know, you
Speaker 1: might know they might have Hey, I'll uh, I know
Speaker 1: you're going to get attacked for this issue. I'll be
Speaker 1: able to ask you this question on a follow up.
Speaker 1: So the point is the answer is yes, okay, what
Speaker 1: you suspect is true partisan. You know, anybody that is
Speaker 1: that is favorable to the person testifying, if that person
Speaker 1: is in government and has a relationship that it likely
Speaker 1: means they have some sort of professional relationship with that senator,
Speaker 1: with that Senate staffer, with that House member, with that
Speaker 1: House staffer. So in that sense, yes, they're told, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask about this, this, and this if
Speaker 1: they're friendly. Obviously you don't you don't get the questions
Speaker 1: in advance of the others. But you know, if you
Speaker 1: don't know what's coming, you're not very good at your job,
Speaker 1: or you don't have a staff that's very bright about this.
Speaker 1: I've never watched one of these congressional hearings and been
Speaker 1: surprised by a question. Right, Sometimes you might get surprised
Speaker 1: if it's like arcane, it'll be like oh, and again,
Speaker 1: when you're surprised as the person testifying, it means your
Speaker 1: staffers blew it. You know, a good staffer should know, Hey,
Speaker 1: Senator Schmengi is obsessed with this one arcane issue. No
Speaker 1: one else is going to ask about it, but you
Speaker 1: may be asked about it from him or her. You
Speaker 1: better know it. But no, your suspicion on essentially partisans
Speaker 1: help helping the friendlies is one hundred percent trough. There's
Speaker 1: always by the way it happens in the White House
Speaker 1: press room, there are certain reporters that are essentially used
Speaker 1: by the person at the podium. Maybe they don't know
Speaker 1: the question that's going to be asked, but they know
Speaker 1: it's not going to be antagonistic, and they go to
Speaker 1: them as almost like a break if they're if they're
Speaker 1: if they're getting attacked. And you know every press secretary
Speaker 1: has had those in their back pocket. This one has
Speaker 1: more friendlies than most that I've noticed. Next question, boy,
Speaker 1: you absolutely nail it in your nine to fifteen commentary.
Speaker 1: Politics should be about I believe in A and you
Speaker 1: believe in Z, and we meet somewhere around L M
Speaker 1: N O P. But Congress now seems allergic to compromise,
Speaker 1: acting as a blank check for Trump's agenda. I also
Speaker 1: agree that social media fuels division. I even deactivated my
Speaker 1: own accounts after hearing every network link the latest shooting
Speaker 1: to online extremism. Podcasts can be similarly insular, Yes they can,
Speaker 1: though yours stands out for presenting multiple viewpoints, which I
Speaker 1: really appreciate. Michael C. From Douglasville, Georgia, Well, I appreciate
Speaker 1: you noticing that it's what I'm trying to do. That's
Speaker 1: a frustration of the sort of the architecture that the
Speaker 1: tech companies have created for those of us in this
Speaker 1: independent space. I you know, I appreciate substack. You can
Speaker 1: sort of curate yourself. They don't feel I don't feel
Speaker 1: like they use algorithms to push stuff on me. It's
Speaker 1: you're you only get pushed stuff from the actual publisher
Speaker 1: of the content or people that you know. If you
Speaker 1: decide to subscribe, then you're asked to to to spread
Speaker 1: the word. It's a it's a it's a healthier way
Speaker 1: to do it on that front. But the you know,
Speaker 1: that's the problem, right, And you see, I don't want
Speaker 1: to build an audience where I feel like I'm captured
Speaker 1: by the audience. Now, I just I am a podcast
Speaker 1: listener because I'm trying to get more information. I sort
Speaker 1: of listened to three types of podcasts. One is deep
Speaker 1: dives on history, one is on economic and a bunch
Speaker 1: of sports. Not gonna lie, maybe one or two in
Speaker 1: sports gambling, a few in sports cards, but quite a
Speaker 1: few on history on that stuff. And I want information
Speaker 1: over commentary. Right, I don't necessarily want left right commentary.
Speaker 1: I can read the left right commentary on that front,
Speaker 1: but I do think that, you know, I'm very mindful.
Speaker 1: I don't want I don't want to I don't want
Speaker 1: an audience. I don't want to feel like I've been
Speaker 1: capped stured by my subscribers or my audience, or however
Speaker 1: you want to look at it. I think that you've
Speaker 1: seen that. I feel like I see that in the
Speaker 1: New York Times, you know, when when they chased away
Speaker 1: James Bennett from being editorial page editor of the opinion section.
Speaker 1: He didn't do anything wrong, he didn't he didn't do
Speaker 1: anything fireable by the editors, but there was a revolt
Speaker 1: among subscribers, and there they were concerned about losing subscribers
Speaker 1: and losing it, and it seems like he was sacrificed
Speaker 1: for that. Well, when you make a decision based on
Speaker 1: viewership or who's watching. Look, I don't want to get
Speaker 1: into too many details, but you know, these were these
Speaker 1: were some of the struggles when when when I was
Speaker 1: trying to do a a a non ideological partisan show
Speaker 1: on politics on a cable channel that had a history
Speaker 1: of being partisan, and it was the audience. The audience
Speaker 1: was uncomfortable with it. They didn't like when I would
Speaker 1: put Republicans on and it would become a thing, and
Speaker 1: I didn't like that I was being used by the
Speaker 1: right at times to try to do it was just
Speaker 1: a mess. But it's what happens when you have audience capture,
Speaker 1: and it is something I'm trying really hard not to
Speaker 1: have audience capture. I appreciate you noticing it, and I'm
Speaker 1: trying so thank you, and we'll spread the word. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna sneak in at least one more question here.
Speaker 1: I've got a little I'm on the clock before taping,
Speaker 1: so I want to see how many can get in.
Speaker 1: James E writes, is it me or does it seem
Speaker 1: like the right are being opportunity to utilizing their friend's
Speaker 1: death as a reason to go after the left. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's just you. If you hear my commentary top,
Speaker 1: that's I think exactly what's happening. Seems like such an
Speaker 1: odd time to go on the attack rather than to
Speaker 1: mourn a supposed friend. Have there been other instances in
Speaker 1: the past of a political death or assassination being used
Speaker 1: to attack the other side so soon after the incident. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. In the Internet era, we see it all,
Speaker 1: you know, and it gets It's something that I think
Speaker 1: social media also provides us with that. God. This is
Speaker 1: why I think it's an experiment gone haywire on our brains.
Speaker 1: I can't remember if I shared this earlier with you
Speaker 1: guys or with my friend Chrystaliza on the weekly podcast
Speaker 1: I do for his feed. But John pot Horitz, who's
Speaker 1: an editor at Commentary magazine. He's a conservative commentator, had
Speaker 1: a fascinating thread over the weekend about how the real
Speaker 1: issue with social media is that too many good people
Speaker 1: have allowed too much of their of their inner thoughts
Speaker 1: go public. And what he was saying is that look,
Speaker 1: in any given second, if our thought, if every thought
Speaker 1: that was in our head, do this exercise and think
Speaker 1: about everything you may have thought about for a split second,
Speaker 1: involving your life, anything about it, right, relationships, you name it.
Speaker 1: If all those thoughts were broadcast on social media, do
Speaker 1: you think you'd have any friends left? Would you still
Speaker 1: be married, would you still be in relationships? Would you
Speaker 1: be seen as a madman? Would you be seen as crazy? Right?
Speaker 1: I think you sort of get what I'm saying, or
Speaker 1: maybe I'm the weirdo that is admitting that you know
Speaker 1: you get. There's plenty of things you think that you
Speaker 1: don't say, and somehow social media. Like I was reading,
Speaker 1: I was reading a quote from somebody who was who oh,
Speaker 1: I know what it was. It was an elected official
Speaker 1: down in my hometown in South Florida, in Miami Palmetto Bay,
Speaker 1: one of these invented towns in Dade County, I say invented.
Speaker 1: When I was growing up, there were thirty one municipalities.
Speaker 1: I think we're up the thirty six down there in
Speaker 1: Miami Dade County. Palmetto Bay is now one of them.
Speaker 1: It all used to be unincorporated Dade County, so we
Speaker 1: all wrote miamis our is our address? Which is I
Speaker 1: grew up an unincorporated Dade County. Otherwise I describe it
Speaker 1: as East Kendall if you're if you're scoring at home,
Speaker 1: but an elected official went out there and said something
Speaker 1: really you know, said something really not good about Charlie Kirkstaff.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact things. I'm hesitant to characterize
Speaker 1: it other than it was inappropriate, and certainly the timing
Speaker 1: was inappropriate. And the guy had said he goes he
Speaker 1: woke up the next morning and regretted sending it, right,
Speaker 1: it was heat of the moment. I bring this up
Speaker 1: because I think that that's where we've let why social
Speaker 1: media is so so toxic and and so bad for
Speaker 1: our brains. Right, there's no there, there's no uh, there's
Speaker 1: no sort of It should sit in drafts, right, Like
Speaker 1: you know, if you're worried about your inner id saying
Speaker 1: something that you'll regret in the morning, It's almost like
Speaker 1: you should be able to put a small g governor
Speaker 1: and your Twitter feed and just say send all tweets
Speaker 1: to draft, and then the next morning reread them and
Speaker 1: see if you want to send them. But of course,
Speaker 1: you know, nobody wants to do that because they want
Speaker 1: to be in the moment. You want to see if
Speaker 1: you go viral or whatever. Right, and so I just
Speaker 1: bring that up because I have a feeling in the
Speaker 1: pre social media world there were plenty of people who
Speaker 1: had unpopular opinions about political attacks or assassinations that if
Speaker 1: they shared them, and if there had been social media
Speaker 1: at the time, would have probably gotten them, you know, canceled,
Speaker 1: and maybe in some cases deservedly. So I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: even I don't want to sit here and defend that idea,
Speaker 1: but I think this is where social media is just
Speaker 1: it incentivizes stupidity, and it sometimes you know, remember the
Speaker 1: advice I assume everybody has heard this advice, if you
Speaker 1: don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Speaker 1: It's certainly a rule of thumb I have about people
Speaker 1: that die in politics. You know, if you know you,
Speaker 1: you certainly if you've got a disagreement, you want to highlight.
Speaker 1: Maybe wait, let the family mourn, have some grace, right,
Speaker 1: whatever it is. And for some reason social media has
Speaker 1: made us think that the rules of decorum don't apply
Speaker 1: when how would you behave in you know, if you
Speaker 1: were face to face with that person, if you if
Speaker 1: you were trying, if you put yourself saying, if I
Speaker 1: was face to face how would I say this? It
Speaker 1: probably would make Twitter less interesting. But maybe that's a
Speaker 1: good thing on this front. But I'm really worried about
Speaker 1: a sort of red scare vibe, as I said at
Speaker 1: the top here, and a disingenuous attack on this that
Speaker 1: this is just trying to do guilt by association, which
Speaker 1: is you know, it's a very dangerous. It's you know,
Speaker 1: it's our polarization is bad. Are the increase in political
Speaker 1: violence that we've been experiencing is bad, and scapegoating and
Speaker 1: guilt by association is only going to make all of
Speaker 1: these things worse. All right, On that happy note, I
Speaker 1: think I'm going to pause here for twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: This was, like I said, I wanted to make it
Speaker 1: a little canpaigin heavier episode. But look, we're living in
Speaker 1: a rough period, and if we don't have the leaders
Speaker 1: to get us out of this rough period, do little
Speaker 1: things on your own, right, you know, just say thank you,
Speaker 1: say hi to somebody you don't know, acknowledge somebody's existence
Speaker 1: when you walk by them, you know, on a street corner.
Speaker 1: And Spencer Cox said, touch grass, right, but turn it off,
Speaker 1: you know, I have I all the time try to
Speaker 1: do better when it comes to I'm a news junkie,
Speaker 1: I'm an information junkie, so I'm always looking for more information.
Speaker 1: But I have found different ways now to get information
Speaker 1: without using social media. Not totally gone. I'm not totally
Speaker 1: kicked the habit. You know, I might be smoking one
Speaker 1: cigarette a day, but I'm not smoking twenty and I
Speaker 1: think that's the I think if everybody took that advice,
Speaker 1: you know, wean themselves off, we might have a better
Speaker 1: digital atmosphere. So with that, I'll take a break until
Speaker 1: we upload again. See in twenty four hours. Hey,