WEBVTT - Chuck’s Commentary - Algorithms Are Destroying Our Brains & Democracy + California’s Redistricting Fight Heats Up + Top 5 States That Could Elect An Independent Senator

0:00:04.920 --> 0:00:07.360
<v Speaker 1>Hello, They're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of

0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 1>The Chuck Podcast. Today's is somewhat a thematic day most Wednesdays.

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:13.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm trying to be in the habit of doing a

0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 1>little bit of updating of what I'm seeing on the

0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:19.320
<v Speaker 1>campaign trail, and frankly, my campaign notebook has been overflowing

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:26.639
<v Speaker 1>with things. Look and I'm going to be honest. This

0:00:26.680 --> 0:00:31.040
<v Speaker 1>has been I always say when people use that phrase,

0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:32.600
<v Speaker 1>I use it as a crutch. I'm gonna be honest

0:00:32.640 --> 0:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>as if I'm not being honest before. I'm trying to

0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>cure myself of using that crutch. But what I'm trying

0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:41.000
<v Speaker 1>to say is is that I'm letting you in on

0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.239
<v Speaker 1>sort of some personal feelings that I normally don't like

0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:46.320
<v Speaker 1>to share, and that is I just feel rotten about

0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 1>the state of the country. I'm not sleeping very well

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>about it. And because i don't see a path out

0:00:54.480 --> 0:00:59.240
<v Speaker 1>of this right now, I'm long term optimistic, and I'm

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:02.440
<v Speaker 1>still going to be alone term optimistic. We've gone through

0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:04.680
<v Speaker 1>a lot of bad things in this country and gotten

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:07.840
<v Speaker 1>out better each time. Each time we have formed a

0:01:07.840 --> 0:01:12.200
<v Speaker 1>more perfect union, whether it was the scourge of slavery,

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.479
<v Speaker 1>whether it has been then giving civil rights and Jim Crow,

0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:20.760
<v Speaker 1>whether it has been the internment of the Japanese, whether

0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:24.600
<v Speaker 1>it was prohibition. The point is is that we've gone down.

0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:28.920
<v Speaker 1>We've had a lot of the Red scare, which I'm

0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>bringing that up for a reason because I think we

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:36.840
<v Speaker 1>might be seeing a fervor, particularly on the right, that

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:43.760
<v Speaker 1>wants to try to essentially stain an entire political party

0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>with an ideological belief that I don't think the country shares,

0:01:50.760 --> 0:01:54.760
<v Speaker 1>but one side of the aisle shares. I mean, the

0:01:55.280 --> 0:02:00.120
<v Speaker 1>initial what folks around the president have been promising when

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>it comes to retribution, going after the left, sort of

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 1>being blind to the violent outbursts that have taken place

0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>that people have, you know, violence and murders that have

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:15.080
<v Speaker 1>been done in the name of a far right ideology.

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:17.400
<v Speaker 1>The fact of the matter is we have got a

0:02:17.560 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 1>poisonous information ecosystem that can radicalize somebody on the left

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:27.919
<v Speaker 1>or somebody on the right to do bad things. Our

0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:32.720
<v Speaker 1>system is rigged towards it. I spend my sub stack

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 1>this week talking about this, and I know I've brought

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 1>it up here before. In some ways, it's you know,

0:02:38.400 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 1>some of you may be listening and going, oh, there's

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>Chuck on his soapbox about big tech. But the fact

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>of the matter is, we know we have two problems. Right.

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:50.520
<v Speaker 1>We all know this is a problem, which is social

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:55.880
<v Speaker 1>media has completely screwed up our information ecosystem, and the

0:02:55.919 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>tech companies, for some reason are getting no blame and

0:02:59.600 --> 0:03:03.560
<v Speaker 1>not being held accountable for this their algorithms, and they're look,

0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>it's the efficiency of technologies. And I say this with

0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:11.320
<v Speaker 1>sort of without sort of animus in this point. Right, technology,

0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 1>every time you know, we advance, you know, it creates

0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:17.640
<v Speaker 1>an efficiency. And when it came to sharing information, we

0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>created an efficiency that it turns out is actually bad

0:03:21.360 --> 0:03:25.720
<v Speaker 1>for public discourse and it's bad for democracies. And what

0:03:25.880 --> 0:03:30.079
<v Speaker 1>is that efficiency. It's the efficiency of getting information, of

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:33.320
<v Speaker 1>boiling it down to the one thing that matters. It's

0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.520
<v Speaker 1>the efficiency of being able to eliminate people that you

0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:41.400
<v Speaker 1>don't want to hear from. It's the efficiency of only

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:45.520
<v Speaker 1>being able to see like minded people. And so that

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:48.920
<v Speaker 1>may make sense if you're a quilter and you just

0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:52.880
<v Speaker 1>want information about quilting, or if you're a baseball card

0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:57.240
<v Speaker 1>dealer and you just want information about trading baseball cards.

0:03:57.800 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>But it's when it's on politics and you're only getting

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 1>one side and these algorithms. You know, I don't want

0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 1>to sit here. I will. I've been trying to sort

0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:10.400
<v Speaker 1>of right. I want to turn down the temperature too.

0:04:10.440 --> 0:04:13.560
<v Speaker 1>I want big tech to participate in this. But I

0:04:13.600 --> 0:04:17.760
<v Speaker 1>do believe the second an algorithm is created to curate

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:21.560
<v Speaker 1>how I see information that has made these companies publishers.

0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 1>And once you're a publisher, you should be held accountable

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 1>for how the information you're curating is being used and manipulated.

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:34.200
<v Speaker 1>But ultimately it's going to take some leadership from Washington

0:04:34.320 --> 0:04:37.080
<v Speaker 1>to do this. And you know, I look at what's

0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:39.599
<v Speaker 1>happening in the state legislatures at the moment. Over the

0:04:39.640 --> 0:04:45.800
<v Speaker 1>last two years, particularly post COVID, state legislatures have been

0:04:45.839 --> 0:04:48.039
<v Speaker 1>passing have been very aggressive on two things. And it

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:50.480
<v Speaker 1>hasn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state.

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.520
<v Speaker 1>They've all been passing essentially the same laws, which is

0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>a tougher age verification to try to limit the exposure

0:04:59.000 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 1>kids are getting to pronoc graphy and it is And

0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:05.200
<v Speaker 1>guess what, the fact that the pornographers are complaining about

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:10.160
<v Speaker 1>this shows you that the just forcing age verification, which

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:11.880
<v Speaker 1>you have to do if you want to buy booze

0:05:11.960 --> 0:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>you're underage, or cigarettes or anything other vice you want

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>to participate in. And you know, we've never the Internet's

0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:22.719
<v Speaker 1>always been very loosey goosey on identification and forcing a

0:05:22.760 --> 0:05:25.440
<v Speaker 1>tougher standard there. And we're suddenly seeing, oh, so you

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:31.600
<v Speaker 1>can put in some guard rails here that can do

0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:36.640
<v Speaker 1>a better job of protecting young people from this extreme pornography.

0:05:37.480 --> 0:05:39.680
<v Speaker 1>And the other thing that has been passing in state

0:05:39.760 --> 0:05:41.880
<v Speaker 1>legislatures all over the country, whether it's in a red

0:05:41.920 --> 0:05:44.839
<v Speaker 1>state or a blue state, is getting rid of cell

0:05:44.839 --> 0:05:49.480
<v Speaker 1>phones and classrooms. Right. Private schools had been doing it earlier, Right,

0:05:49.560 --> 0:05:52.680
<v Speaker 1>the public schools are now following suit. Look there, and

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>I think we've discussed this before. I mean, I am

0:05:57.000 --> 0:06:02.840
<v Speaker 1>empathetic to divorce parents who need to have want need

0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:04.560
<v Speaker 1>to make sure they have access to their kid during

0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:07.560
<v Speaker 1>the school day. But there are ways to do this, right,

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:10.400
<v Speaker 1>you put you know, you can look at your phone

0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:13.440
<v Speaker 1>in between classes. You can have it in your backpack,

0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:15.680
<v Speaker 1>in your locker, you can have it in a in

0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:17.880
<v Speaker 1>a pad, but you don't have it while you're learning.

0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:20.200
<v Speaker 1>You take one hundred percent attention to your teacher one

0:06:20.240 --> 0:06:24.239
<v Speaker 1>hundred percent attention to what you're to what you're doing.

0:06:25.480 --> 0:06:28.080
<v Speaker 1>And maybe it's our friend Spencer Cox and Uteh likes

0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:30.160
<v Speaker 1>to say, you know, maybe touch grass every now and then,

0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:35.479
<v Speaker 1>which is a kid touching grass is pretty important? But

0:06:35.560 --> 0:06:38.880
<v Speaker 1>when you think about it, we're so worried about what

0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:41.400
<v Speaker 1>social media and the and the tech companies are doing

0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:43.800
<v Speaker 1>to our kids that we're trying to do something about it.

0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:48.120
<v Speaker 1>Guess what if it's toxic for our kids, it means

0:06:48.120 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>it's toxic for us too, isn't it. And so look,

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm a free speech absolutist. I am. I do think

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:01.560
<v Speaker 1>bad speech is fixed with good speech. But amplification is

0:07:01.600 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>not free speech. Right, dialing up and dialing down what

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 1>you see and what you hear, that's not free speech.

0:07:10.000 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 1>That's curative speech, right, that's a campaign's that's that's something

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:18.280
<v Speaker 1>that that and it should be up to the user.

0:07:18.960 --> 0:07:21.920
<v Speaker 1>If I want to curate my feed a certain way,

0:07:22.200 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 1>it should be in my hands. I don't need the

0:07:25.280 --> 0:07:27.920
<v Speaker 1>tech companies suggesting what I should be looking at a

0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>for you tab like our friends at X do, which

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:34.440
<v Speaker 1>is just nothing, but you know, it thinks it knows

0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:37.160
<v Speaker 1>my interests. But it will always be the most incendiary

0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:39.160
<v Speaker 1>thing about a topic I care about, even when it

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:42.880
<v Speaker 1>comes to Miami Hurricane football, Green Bay Packer football, or

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>Washington Nationals baseball, let alone the various political things. You know,

0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:51.200
<v Speaker 1>attacks on the media, sometimes personal attacks on me. They

0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:53.880
<v Speaker 1>make sure it shows up in the for you tab.

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:57.520
<v Speaker 1>What does that accomplish? I didn't ask for this. In fact,

0:07:57.560 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 1>I've gone out of my way to mute the idiots,

0:08:00.080 --> 0:08:02.920
<v Speaker 1>and yet it's still you know, these things still show up.

0:08:02.960 --> 0:08:06.600
<v Speaker 1>So you know, we we we are in that sense,

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 1>we're powerless on this. And then you have the two

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:12.720
<v Speaker 1>parties who have been very reticent to write. You know,

0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:15.280
<v Speaker 1>they talk a big game. Individual members talk a big

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.600
<v Speaker 1>game about regulating big tech, but they don't end up

0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:20.320
<v Speaker 1>doing it. And part of the problem is I just

0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:25.040
<v Speaker 1>was talking to a former US senator and you know,

0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:26.840
<v Speaker 1>you'll you'll figure it out in a couple of weeks

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:28.720
<v Speaker 1>when you when you see the interview that pops up

0:08:28.760 --> 0:08:30.600
<v Speaker 1>in a and when I when I do it. But

0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 1>I was talking to a US senator who said to me, ah,

0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:40.000
<v Speaker 1>he said in passing that you know they you know,

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I think we have to do something about tech. And

0:08:42.200 --> 0:08:46.320
<v Speaker 1>he said within two Within an hour he had he

0:08:46.400 --> 0:08:51.760
<v Speaker 1>suddenly had Sheryl Sandberg and Jack Dorsey calling him to like,

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:53.840
<v Speaker 1>are you sure? What are you talking about? What are

0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.800
<v Speaker 1>you concerned about? With what tech is doing? Tech, the

0:08:56.800 --> 0:09:00.880
<v Speaker 1>big tech companies have really just sat your raided Washington

0:09:00.920 --> 0:09:05.440
<v Speaker 1>with money left and right. They've hired up all sorts

0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:09.520
<v Speaker 1>of strategists and former staffers left and right. It is

0:09:09.840 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>frankly standard practice for a powerful industry. Okay, this is

0:09:13.559 --> 0:09:15.920
<v Speaker 1>no different than big oil in the eighties and things

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:21.800
<v Speaker 1>like that. And so what you've seen is kid glove treatment. Right.

0:09:21.840 --> 0:09:26.199
<v Speaker 1>We haven't had anything on maybe repealing Section two thirty.

0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>We haven't had anything remotely close to trying to have

0:09:29.320 --> 0:09:34.880
<v Speaker 1>a digital bill of rights that protects our data, right

0:09:35.920 --> 0:09:39.520
<v Speaker 1>rather than allows so many other entities to own and

0:09:39.679 --> 0:09:43.199
<v Speaker 1>buy and sell our data. And you know they've done

0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 1>a good job with that. And so what you have

0:09:45.000 --> 0:09:48.920
<v Speaker 1>now is twenty years of elected officials who don't know

0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>how to attain power without the tech tools, right, So

0:09:54.400 --> 0:09:59.360
<v Speaker 1>that makes them hesitant. I mean, look, I'm not going

0:09:59.400 --> 0:10:03.560
<v Speaker 1>to be labor point. I want the president to rise

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:07.360
<v Speaker 1>above his partisan instincts and meet this moment the way

0:10:07.360 --> 0:10:09.319
<v Speaker 1>it needs to be met the way George Bush met

0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:11.719
<v Speaker 1>nine to eleven, the way Barack Obama did Charleston, the

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 1>way Bill Clinton handled Oklahoma City. We haven't gotten that

0:10:16.440 --> 0:10:20.880
<v Speaker 1>from him yet. If anything, he views it, he's done.

0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:24.200
<v Speaker 1>What about ism? You know, when he was questioned on

0:10:24.280 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Fox about extremists on the right, he essentially rationalized their extremism, saying, well,

0:10:30.800 --> 0:10:34.000
<v Speaker 1>they care about they're upset about crime, I think, is

0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:39.280
<v Speaker 1>what he said. And when you see these leading partisan

0:10:39.280 --> 0:10:43.880
<v Speaker 1>politicians saying that they're going to investigate the left, that's

0:10:43.960 --> 0:10:46.840
<v Speaker 1>red scare stuff, right. That's what happened in the fifties,

0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:50.520
<v Speaker 1>and it was an ugly It was an ugly period

0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:56.960
<v Speaker 1>in Washington where guilt by association was the coin of

0:10:57.000 --> 0:11:01.160
<v Speaker 1>the realm. And that seems to be what's happening here

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:04.640
<v Speaker 1>is that you have a lot of folks here that

0:11:04.880 --> 0:11:08.400
<v Speaker 1>see an opportunity right for political exploitation. But here's the

0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:12.280
<v Speaker 1>other thing. If you attained power in this polarized era,

0:11:12.840 --> 0:11:15.080
<v Speaker 1>you don't want it to change, do you. You don't

0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:18.000
<v Speaker 1>want to go back to an era that might be

0:11:18.200 --> 0:11:21.840
<v Speaker 1>a bit more unifying, a bit more bipartisan. By partisanship

0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 1>is not good for Donald Trump. Right by partisanship hasn't

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:28.679
<v Speaker 1>been you know, partisanship has been you know, the Democrats

0:11:28.760 --> 0:11:33.800
<v Speaker 1>arguably have done better because of reactionary partisanship with Trump.

0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.880
<v Speaker 1>You know, their brand has been problematic now arguably going

0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:41.439
<v Speaker 1>back to the Hillary Clinton nomination, but their success has

0:11:41.480 --> 0:11:46.760
<v Speaker 1>been due to polarization. Trump's ability to get a second

0:11:46.840 --> 0:11:49.559
<v Speaker 1>term was due to polarization. And so you know, when

0:11:49.559 --> 0:11:51.400
<v Speaker 1>you're sort of stuck, you know, the only way you

0:11:51.440 --> 0:11:54.640
<v Speaker 1>know how to win is this way. Then the incentives

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:56.839
<v Speaker 1>are all. You know, our incentive structures are broken. And

0:11:56.880 --> 0:11:58.760
<v Speaker 1>you've heard me use that phrase before. You've heard a

0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:00.840
<v Speaker 1>lot of people say this. Okay, so how do we

0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:05.000
<v Speaker 1>create better incentive structures? Well, the only way I think,

0:12:05.040 --> 0:12:07.800
<v Speaker 1>which then fits the theme where I have today, which

0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:12.520
<v Speaker 1>is the rise of the independence. The fastest growing political

0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 1>party in America is no party right. People are registering

0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:19.040
<v Speaker 1>are you know if they were registered? A lot of

0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:22.600
<v Speaker 1>former Republicans registered is independent because they don't like Trump.

0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:25.000
<v Speaker 1>You now have a lot of former Democrats registering is

0:12:25.000 --> 0:12:27.240
<v Speaker 1>independent because they don't like what's happened to the Democratic

0:12:27.240 --> 0:12:30.240
<v Speaker 1>brand under Biden Harris, and you're starting to see that.

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:34.400
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing gen Z is sort of on the on

0:12:34.520 --> 0:12:38.400
<v Speaker 1>the age front, you're seeing a lot more of registered independence.

0:12:38.440 --> 0:12:40.400
<v Speaker 1>And you know, I always love I always love to

0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:42.360
<v Speaker 1>go around. I mean, and we're up to I think

0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:46.920
<v Speaker 1>half the states where non party or no party or

0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.439
<v Speaker 1>registered independence outnumber at least one of the two major parties.

0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:53.559
<v Speaker 1>And I believe it's in ten states where independents actually

0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:59.199
<v Speaker 1>outnumber both major parties. So there's a huge constituency out

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 1>there who don't like what's happened to the two parties. Now, look,

0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:07.680
<v Speaker 1>I am I am done sitting here making the do

0:13:07.760 --> 0:13:09.959
<v Speaker 1>I think in a perfect world, I think we should

0:13:09.960 --> 0:13:12.319
<v Speaker 1>be a four party system. I think it would actually

0:13:12.360 --> 0:13:14.880
<v Speaker 1>provide some relief, would force coalition politics. But I'm not

0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.880
<v Speaker 1>going to go down that rabbit hole today because I do.

0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:23.240
<v Speaker 1>I want to stick to topic here. What the two parties

0:13:23.240 --> 0:13:26.760
<v Speaker 1>need is a time out, right, they both need to

0:13:26.800 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 1>lose at the same time, or they both need to

0:13:28.880 --> 0:13:33.480
<v Speaker 1>be punished, essentially in order to force an inward Look,

0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, I railed on Monday about the fact that

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:39.880
<v Speaker 1>there is zero incentive to call out your own party.

0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:41.800
<v Speaker 1>If anything, if you call out your own party for

0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:45.080
<v Speaker 1>bad behavior, you're seen as a trader not as somebody

0:13:45.080 --> 0:13:46.719
<v Speaker 1>looking out for the best interests of the country or

0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the party. And if you're going to sort of get

0:13:51.520 --> 0:13:58.480
<v Speaker 1>them out of their partisan rabbit holes, they're going to

0:13:58.559 --> 0:14:00.880
<v Speaker 1>have to be set back at the same time or

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:04.600
<v Speaker 1>be under threat. And we've had an example of two

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:08.679
<v Speaker 1>independent presidential candidacies that didn't win, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Purot,

0:14:09.600 --> 0:14:14.520
<v Speaker 1>but effectively forced both parties to reform themselves and forced,

0:14:14.559 --> 0:14:18.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, forced an issue. You know, I look at

0:14:18.240 --> 0:14:23.080
<v Speaker 1>a guy like Spencer Cox and he's decidedly on MAGA. Okay,

0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:26.760
<v Speaker 1>in a in the pre Trump world, Spencer Cox would

0:14:26.760 --> 0:14:30.320
<v Speaker 1>be already identified as a rising star in the Republican Party.

0:14:30.440 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 1>He has no chance right in the Maga Republican Party.

0:14:35.800 --> 0:14:39.480
<v Speaker 1>But his voice and how in his north Star about

0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:43.240
<v Speaker 1>what the tech companies have done to us and how

0:14:43.280 --> 0:14:45.840
<v Speaker 1>this has happened. I kind of think because he he's

0:14:45.840 --> 0:14:47.600
<v Speaker 1>a little bit younger than I am. He's in his forties,

0:14:47.600 --> 0:14:50.480
<v Speaker 1>so's he's a millennial governor, and I think he's in

0:14:50.520 --> 0:14:53.520
<v Speaker 1>some ways more digital native and under in his better

0:14:53.920 --> 0:14:59.080
<v Speaker 1>he's just more conversant at explaining the harm. Right. It

0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:04.080
<v Speaker 1>did interview with this this older senator and they've identified

0:15:04.080 --> 0:15:07.560
<v Speaker 1>the harm, but they're not very conversant in explaining the harm.

0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:11.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, Donald Trump doesn't really you know, he's not

0:15:11.960 --> 0:15:14.760
<v Speaker 1>as conversant and couldn't explain it if he chose to. Right,

0:15:14.880 --> 0:15:18.120
<v Speaker 1>that's just just in some ways he's he's he's just

0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:22.720
<v Speaker 1>demographically out of touch. But it feels like we're in

0:15:22.760 --> 0:15:24.840
<v Speaker 1>a moment that if we're going to force the two

0:15:24.880 --> 0:15:27.440
<v Speaker 1>parties to sort of wait a minute, we've got to

0:15:27.480 --> 0:15:30.720
<v Speaker 1>put the country first every now and then they have

0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:34.480
<v Speaker 1>to be punished for their ways. And if the public

0:15:34.560 --> 0:15:40.160
<v Speaker 1>wants to just like they're exhausted from this, it may

0:15:40.200 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 1>be that that you need a third party scare. And

0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:50.400
<v Speaker 1>whether it's a third party scare, can you know every

0:15:50.520 --> 0:15:53.280
<v Speaker 1>every political party needs needs a check on itself, right,

0:15:53.560 --> 0:15:56.480
<v Speaker 1>the whole point of checks and balances are good whether

0:15:56.520 --> 0:16:00.000
<v Speaker 1>you're organizing a government or you're organizing policy, you're organizing

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:03.560
<v Speaker 1>a political party. You know, you a political party doesn't

0:16:03.600 --> 0:16:06.960
<v Speaker 1>needs to have a check on its potential ideological excesses.

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:11.560
<v Speaker 1>There's nobody checking the maga wing of the party anymore.

0:16:11.600 --> 0:16:13.960
<v Speaker 1>There was a lot of checks in the first term,

0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:17.680
<v Speaker 1>there's not many checks this term. And we've seen fewer checks.

0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:19.680
<v Speaker 1>You know, you had, you had your Joe Mansions and

0:16:19.680 --> 0:16:22.360
<v Speaker 1>cinemas that were kind of the centrist check on the

0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:26.240
<v Speaker 1>Democrats before they're both gone, and there really isn't a

0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:29.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of space. I guess John Fetterman has suddenly sort

0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:31.040
<v Speaker 1>of kind of adopted that role, but I don't think

0:16:31.040 --> 0:16:34.480
<v Speaker 1>he has I don't think he has really the credibility

0:16:35.040 --> 0:16:39.720
<v Speaker 1>yet to be that check with the middle of the

0:16:39.800 --> 0:16:42.440
<v Speaker 1>road voter. Right. I think some on the right love

0:16:42.480 --> 0:16:46.320
<v Speaker 1>what he's doing, but but I think only for owning

0:16:46.360 --> 0:16:50.640
<v Speaker 1>the Lib's purposes, right, this whole trolley, this whole trolley mindset.

0:16:50.800 --> 0:17:00.720
<v Speaker 1>So that's what's frustrating is that we do of a problem.

0:17:01.000 --> 0:17:04.159
<v Speaker 1>We're going to have a part of it. Looks like

0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.320
<v Speaker 1>partisans on the right want to just try to harass

0:17:09.080 --> 0:17:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the left in under the name of trying to you know,

0:17:13.119 --> 0:17:17.639
<v Speaker 1>root out political violence, but without it all sort of

0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:24.199
<v Speaker 1>accepting the premise that hey, it's it's sadly a bipartisan affair,

0:17:24.400 --> 0:17:28.680
<v Speaker 1>and that basically it's the Internet that radicalizes folks and

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:30.960
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't matter whether they come from stage left or

0:17:30.960 --> 0:17:33.919
<v Speaker 1>stage right. The one thing that we haven't that we

0:17:33.960 --> 0:17:37.480
<v Speaker 1>have in common here is the Internet has has been,

0:17:38.040 --> 0:17:41.600
<v Speaker 1>has been what's radicalized them. And if we're not going

0:17:41.680 --> 0:17:44.119
<v Speaker 1>to confront this problem this way right now, it is

0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:48.480
<v Speaker 1>going to get worse. Okay, if you ratchet up a

0:17:48.600 --> 0:17:51.160
<v Speaker 1>radical view of what you think the other side is doing,

0:17:51.200 --> 0:17:53.520
<v Speaker 1>I promise you the other side is going to respond

0:17:54.320 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>in a radical way, right and radicalism, reactionary radicalism. And

0:18:00.480 --> 0:18:04.840
<v Speaker 1>here we are right and this is this escalatory polarization

0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:08.280
<v Speaker 1>that we've been experiencing. I mean, you know, it's we've

0:18:08.359 --> 0:18:10.639
<v Speaker 1>seen it in the US Senate with the absurdity of

0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:14.359
<v Speaker 1>how we've destroyed the judiciary branch. And make no mistake,

0:18:14.400 --> 0:18:17.960
<v Speaker 1>we've destroyed the judiciary branch with this, with this partisan

0:18:18.000 --> 0:18:21.679
<v Speaker 1>gamesmanship in the Senate. And there's always this attempt to well,

0:18:21.800 --> 0:18:24.639
<v Speaker 1>but they started it. It doesn't matter which side I

0:18:24.720 --> 0:18:26.840
<v Speaker 1>of the alight talking about. But they started it. The

0:18:26.920 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 1>right will scream foror the left will scream, will scream

0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:33.320
<v Speaker 1>about Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Mark Garland. The fact is

0:18:34.000 --> 0:18:40.720
<v Speaker 1>they they both chose punishing the other side without thinking

0:18:40.720 --> 0:18:44.359
<v Speaker 1>about what it would do the judiciary itself. Right, we

0:18:44.480 --> 0:18:48.200
<v Speaker 1>turned the judiciary into the freaking House of Representatives where

0:18:48.240 --> 0:18:50.520
<v Speaker 1>a whole bunch of fifty percent plus one judges are

0:18:50.520 --> 0:18:53.480
<v Speaker 1>out there, So you either have super liberal or super maga.

0:18:55.000 --> 0:18:58.879
<v Speaker 1>There is there is no you have sixty sixty five votes,

0:18:58.920 --> 0:19:03.040
<v Speaker 1>you would have this sort of moderate temperaments, you know,

0:19:05.160 --> 0:19:07.359
<v Speaker 1>which is really what our politics could use. I'm not

0:19:07.640 --> 0:19:10.879
<v Speaker 1>suggesting we all ideologically have to move to the center.

0:19:11.080 --> 0:19:13.399
<v Speaker 1>You know where I stand. I'm an incrementalist, but what

0:19:13.480 --> 0:19:16.280
<v Speaker 1>we need is moderate temperament to lead us. When you're

0:19:16.280 --> 0:19:18.000
<v Speaker 1>trying to lead three hundred and fifty million people, a

0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:22.880
<v Speaker 1>moderate temperament goes a long way. And our most successful

0:19:23.040 --> 0:19:28.560
<v Speaker 1>presidents have been of moderate temperaments, regardless of how you know.

0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:36.520
<v Speaker 1>Reagan and Obama pretty mainstream liberal Democrat, mainstream conservative Democrat,

0:19:37.840 --> 0:19:43.760
<v Speaker 1>almost identical temperaments, and in many ways they had I'm

0:19:43.800 --> 0:19:46.080
<v Speaker 1>sure there's some of you out there that have been

0:19:46.160 --> 0:19:49.200
<v Speaker 1>voting long enough where you voted for both of them

0:19:49.240 --> 0:19:54.800
<v Speaker 1>almost as much because of their temperament. You know, it's

0:19:54.840 --> 0:19:57.240
<v Speaker 1>a huge factor with my vote. I want to know

0:19:57.280 --> 0:19:59.840
<v Speaker 1>how this person's going to handle a crisis. I want

0:19:59.880 --> 0:20:01.679
<v Speaker 1>to know how this person's going to handle you know,

0:20:02.640 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 1>I certainly have issues, and there are you know, there

0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:08.080
<v Speaker 1>are there are veto there are candidates, there are issues

0:20:08.080 --> 0:20:11.000
<v Speaker 1>that I might veto at candidate on because the issue

0:20:11.040 --> 0:20:13.480
<v Speaker 1>matters to me that much. But for the most part,

0:20:13.520 --> 0:20:17.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm a character and temperament guy, and we could use

0:20:17.080 --> 0:20:19.239
<v Speaker 1>a moderate temperament. But we have a we have an

0:20:19.240 --> 0:20:23.320
<v Speaker 1>information ecosystem and a political and a political system that

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:30.200
<v Speaker 1>punishes moderation, not in ideology, which it does do that too,

0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:38.440
<v Speaker 1>but even punishes it in style. I think it's what

0:20:38.480 --> 0:20:42.440
<v Speaker 1>we would prefer as a body politic, but the way

0:20:42.640 --> 0:20:46.720
<v Speaker 1>our information ecosystem works, it seems to it seems to

0:20:46.800 --> 0:20:55.560
<v Speaker 1>almost force us into the exact opposite persona. There's a

0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:58.639
<v Speaker 1>reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a

0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:01.480
<v Speaker 1>reason Morgan and Morgan is a Maria because largest injury

0:21:01.560 --> 0:21:04.320
<v Speaker 1>law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered

0:21:04.440 --> 0:21:07.600
<v Speaker 1>twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.

0:21:08.160 --> 0:21:11.720
<v Speaker 1>It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,

0:21:12.000 --> 0:21:14.800
<v Speaker 1>just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.

0:21:14.880 --> 0:21:17.960
<v Speaker 1>Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,

0:21:18.040 --> 0:21:21.160
<v Speaker 1>in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,

0:21:21.640 --> 0:21:24.679
<v Speaker 1>which was a staggering forty times the amount that the

0:21:24.680 --> 0:21:28.000
<v Speaker 1>insurance company originally offered that original offer six hundred and

0:21:28.000 --> 0:21:31.000
<v Speaker 1>fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty

0:21:31.040 --> 0:21:33.240
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across

0:21:33.280 --> 0:21:35.720
<v Speaker 1>the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.

0:21:35.800 --> 0:21:38.520
<v Speaker 1>If you're injured, you need a lawyer, You need somebody

0:21:38.520 --> 0:21:41.080
<v Speaker 1>to get your back. Check out for Thepeople dot com

0:21:41.119 --> 0:21:46.280
<v Speaker 1>Slash podcast, or dial pound Law Pound five to nine

0:21:46.480 --> 0:21:49.960
<v Speaker 1>law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms

0:21:50.000 --> 0:21:51.879
<v Speaker 1>are not the same, So check out Morgan and Morgan.

0:21:51.920 --> 0:22:00.800
<v Speaker 1>Their fee is free unless they win. Just a few

0:22:00.880 --> 0:22:04.040
<v Speaker 1>interesting updates on the campaign trail that you might have missed.

0:22:04.040 --> 0:22:07.399
<v Speaker 1>We have the redistricting wars obviously, and one of the

0:22:07.880 --> 0:22:10.359
<v Speaker 1>questions is going to be, you know, the big the

0:22:10.359 --> 0:22:14.399
<v Speaker 1>big campaign fight on the ballot is going to be

0:22:14.440 --> 0:22:16.560
<v Speaker 1>in California where essentially the maps are going to be

0:22:16.560 --> 0:22:20.199
<v Speaker 1>on the ballot for this Novembers election up or down.

0:22:20.520 --> 0:22:23.280
<v Speaker 1>You have a huge amount of money. There are now

0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:27.960
<v Speaker 1>three different entities essentially trying to stop this remap. You

0:22:28.040 --> 0:22:31.639
<v Speaker 1>have Charlie Munger Junior, who is the son of Charlie

0:22:31.680 --> 0:22:35.440
<v Speaker 1>Munger longtime business partner to Warren Buffett back in the day.

0:22:35.760 --> 0:22:38.480
<v Speaker 1>He's really been a political lately. He used to be

0:22:38.520 --> 0:22:40.400
<v Speaker 1>a big Republican donor. I don't think he's a big

0:22:40.440 --> 0:22:46.520
<v Speaker 1>trumpy is not as trumpy as some other Republicans. But

0:22:46.600 --> 0:22:49.960
<v Speaker 1>he was a big supporter of the original redistricting commissions

0:22:49.960 --> 0:22:51.320
<v Speaker 1>that are out there, so he wants to defend what

0:22:51.359 --> 0:22:54.560
<v Speaker 1>he did. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he's going to campaign, but interestingly,

0:22:56.440 --> 0:22:58.800
<v Speaker 1>it sounds like he's agreed to sort of not be

0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:01.560
<v Speaker 1>the face of any of the movements. He's chosen not

0:23:01.680 --> 0:23:04.399
<v Speaker 1>to work directly with Munger's group, he doesn't plan to

0:23:04.440 --> 0:23:06.600
<v Speaker 1>work with Kevin McCarthy's group. He does seem to be

0:23:07.080 --> 0:23:11.119
<v Speaker 1>focused on on keeping his independence. I think he doesn't

0:23:11.119 --> 0:23:14.639
<v Speaker 1>want to look like he seems to be trying to

0:23:14.680 --> 0:23:16.960
<v Speaker 1>find a way he wants to be. He wants to

0:23:17.000 --> 0:23:24.000
<v Speaker 1>be pro reform, but not necessarily looking like he's help

0:23:24.280 --> 0:23:27.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't think he wants to use the Republicans to

0:23:27.760 --> 0:23:30.160
<v Speaker 1>help him get that message across. I think he's trying

0:23:30.200 --> 0:23:32.719
<v Speaker 1>to have it. But that's a real challenge if you're

0:23:32.760 --> 0:23:34.760
<v Speaker 1>Gavin Newsom and the Democrats who are trying to get

0:23:34.760 --> 0:23:37.119
<v Speaker 1>this referendum pass and that you have sort of you

0:23:37.160 --> 0:23:40.760
<v Speaker 1>now have three different entities that are all trying to

0:23:40.840 --> 0:23:44.000
<v Speaker 1>spend money to get those in different ways. Right, You're

0:23:44.040 --> 0:23:46.359
<v Speaker 1>going to have now Arnold who is going to not

0:23:46.440 --> 0:23:49.280
<v Speaker 1>associate himself with the Republican groups but sort of be

0:23:49.320 --> 0:23:52.240
<v Speaker 1>talking straight to the independence you got. Charlie Munger's put

0:23:52.240 --> 0:23:54.200
<v Speaker 1>a ton of money in there, Kevin McCarthy's got a

0:23:54.280 --> 0:23:59.760
<v Speaker 1>hundred million to spend. We'll see. It's my understanding and

0:23:59.760 --> 0:24:05.359
<v Speaker 1>focus groups that the surprising thing to my sources who

0:24:05.359 --> 0:24:08.160
<v Speaker 1>I've been talking to about this are is how engaged

0:24:08.359 --> 0:24:12.040
<v Speaker 1>voters are in California about it. They're pretty well educated,

0:24:12.080 --> 0:24:15.240
<v Speaker 1>they get it, and those that believe they can get

0:24:15.240 --> 0:24:18.359
<v Speaker 1>this map passed think that this is not a bank shot.

0:24:18.400 --> 0:24:23.080
<v Speaker 1>That it is important to these voters if you want

0:24:23.119 --> 0:24:26.399
<v Speaker 1>to get them to approve this map, they really have

0:24:26.480 --> 0:24:30.560
<v Speaker 1>to believe it's temporary, and they have if they don't

0:24:30.600 --> 0:24:34.920
<v Speaker 1>believe that this will revert back to the public process,

0:24:35.000 --> 0:24:37.959
<v Speaker 1>the sort of the commission process for twenty thirty and

0:24:38.040 --> 0:24:43.720
<v Speaker 1>beyond that. That's the key when a voter is is

0:24:44.000 --> 0:24:48.800
<v Speaker 1>here's the message for it, and they believe that aspect

0:24:48.800 --> 0:24:53.720
<v Speaker 1>of it that this is just temporary justify what Texas

0:24:53.800 --> 0:24:57.000
<v Speaker 1>is doing. They think it's enough to get a majority.

0:24:57.080 --> 0:24:59.280
<v Speaker 1>So I do think this is still a campaign and

0:24:59.320 --> 0:25:03.480
<v Speaker 1>it's infant, but it is obviously in some ways may

0:25:03.520 --> 0:25:06.639
<v Speaker 1>even you have Virginia governor, you have New Jersey governor,

0:25:06.640 --> 0:25:09.920
<v Speaker 1>you have New York City mayor, it's you could argue

0:25:09.920 --> 0:25:13.679
<v Speaker 1>this California referendum is suddenly the most important election this

0:25:14.400 --> 0:25:19.240
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty five, even as the Virginia and New

0:25:19.280 --> 0:25:22.159
<v Speaker 1>Jersey are traditionally a little more high profile. And of

0:25:22.160 --> 0:25:27.320
<v Speaker 1>course mayor of New York City. Speaking of the redistricting,

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:32.159
<v Speaker 1>watch Missouri very closely because Missouri did its map, but

0:25:32.240 --> 0:25:38.879
<v Speaker 1>they have an interesting addendum to their constitution. So under

0:25:38.880 --> 0:25:42.040
<v Speaker 1>state law, if a petition reaches roughly one hundred thousand

0:25:42.040 --> 0:25:46.199
<v Speaker 1>signatures in six of eight congressional districts, the law that

0:25:46.240 --> 0:25:50.520
<v Speaker 1>the Missouri legislature passed with this new redistricting proposal that

0:25:50.560 --> 0:25:55.760
<v Speaker 1>would eliminate all but one Democratic leaning congressional district, basically

0:25:55.800 --> 0:26:00.280
<v Speaker 1>getting rid of the Kansas City Democratic seat. The law

0:26:00.280 --> 0:26:03.360
<v Speaker 1>would actually go before voters for an up or down vote,

0:26:03.440 --> 0:26:07.720
<v Speaker 1>and it could get repealed, and the lines don't go

0:26:07.800 --> 0:26:12.360
<v Speaker 1>into effect until that ballot referendum happens. So if they

0:26:12.440 --> 0:26:16.320
<v Speaker 1>get it, the Missouri would potentially have to put a

0:26:16.359 --> 0:26:19.040
<v Speaker 1>special election if they wanted to count for November twenty

0:26:19.040 --> 0:26:23.760
<v Speaker 1>twenty six, and they successfully have a challenge to the

0:26:23.760 --> 0:26:26.800
<v Speaker 1>state law that qualifies for the ballot, we may have

0:26:26.840 --> 0:26:31.400
<v Speaker 1>a special spring election in like March or April. Perhaps

0:26:31.480 --> 0:26:34.959
<v Speaker 1>the August primary Missouri is in August primary state. Perhaps

0:26:35.000 --> 0:26:37.679
<v Speaker 1>it goes on there, although that seems super late, right,

0:26:37.720 --> 0:26:40.679
<v Speaker 1>because that's when congressional candidates got to know which district

0:26:40.720 --> 0:26:43.679
<v Speaker 1>am I running in. So keep an eye out on

0:26:43.840 --> 0:26:47.479
<v Speaker 1>whether and it's going to tell me how organized are

0:26:47.520 --> 0:26:53.000
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats nationally? Right, The California Democrats turned out to

0:26:53.000 --> 0:26:57.360
<v Speaker 1>be very organized. I mean, whatever you think of the idea,

0:26:58.280 --> 0:27:00.959
<v Speaker 1>what Gavin Newsom has pulled off something that I was

0:27:01.359 --> 0:27:04.920
<v Speaker 1>I was circumspect. I thought that with so many different stakeholders,

0:27:05.080 --> 0:27:08.359
<v Speaker 1>so many different people wanting, caring about their district lines

0:27:08.400 --> 0:27:10.919
<v Speaker 1>and all of this stuff, the fact that Gavin Newsom

0:27:11.119 --> 0:27:13.479
<v Speaker 1>got that whole party to row in the same place,

0:27:15.119 --> 0:27:17.920
<v Speaker 1>it's just, you know, you got to admire the political

0:27:18.000 --> 0:27:21.439
<v Speaker 1>leadership there. That is not an easy thing. He has

0:27:21.520 --> 0:27:26.760
<v Speaker 1>pulled off is that him or is there a pretty

0:27:26.840 --> 0:27:30.920
<v Speaker 1>strong national Democratic Party organization behind him. We're going to

0:27:30.960 --> 0:27:34.000
<v Speaker 1>find out in Missouri, right whether there is a whether

0:27:34.040 --> 0:27:38.560
<v Speaker 1>the Democrats are organized nationally is they clearly were in

0:27:38.560 --> 0:27:42.280
<v Speaker 1>California to push back on this because there is a

0:27:42.440 --> 0:27:46.840
<v Speaker 1>you know, essentially a plan B in Missouri to go

0:27:46.880 --> 0:27:49.240
<v Speaker 1>to the voters and get an up or down there.

0:27:50.320 --> 0:27:52.199
<v Speaker 1>I just think it'll be really telling. But I have

0:27:52.240 --> 0:27:54.600
<v Speaker 1>to tell you there was an item in my old

0:27:55.920 --> 0:28:00.080
<v Speaker 1>my old publication I worked at before NBC, the Hotline,

0:28:00.200 --> 0:28:03.600
<v Speaker 1>and it was just a simple construction, which is what's

0:28:03.640 --> 0:28:06.000
<v Speaker 1>always the beauty of the hotline, covering the coverage, right,

0:28:07.040 --> 0:28:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and they note I'm just going to read you the

0:28:09.840 --> 0:28:14.760
<v Speaker 1>item verbatim. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buotage will return to

0:28:14.800 --> 0:28:17.600
<v Speaker 1>his old state this week and rally with the Indiana

0:28:17.640 --> 0:28:23.040
<v Speaker 1>Democratic Party against redistricting. That came from a press release. Meanwhile,

0:28:23.200 --> 0:28:26.119
<v Speaker 1>Hacking Jeffrey spent the weekend in California raising millions for

0:28:26.800 --> 0:28:31.040
<v Speaker 1>Fournia Proposition fifty, the Democrats redistricting ballot initiative. This is

0:28:31.080 --> 0:28:33.479
<v Speaker 1>the second trip Jeffries is made to California to support

0:28:33.520 --> 0:28:38.400
<v Speaker 1>the redistricting effort. This is to me, the real sort

0:28:38.440 --> 0:28:41.400
<v Speaker 1>of challenge for the Democrats. On one hand, they're trying

0:28:41.480 --> 0:28:45.200
<v Speaker 1>to stop redistricting efforts, bringing in a national star to

0:28:45.240 --> 0:28:50.400
<v Speaker 1>try to do it in Indiana. Simultaneously, they're going to

0:28:50.440 --> 0:28:53.200
<v Speaker 1>California to raise money to try to support a re

0:28:53.200 --> 0:28:58.480
<v Speaker 1>redistricting effort out there. You know, it doesn't take a

0:28:58.520 --> 0:29:03.080
<v Speaker 1>communications genius to say you got a messaging problem. Right

0:29:04.320 --> 0:29:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Gone are the days where you could message in isolation.

0:29:07.760 --> 0:29:10.520
<v Speaker 1>You could somehow talk to one group over here, tell

0:29:10.560 --> 0:29:14.400
<v Speaker 1>them something, talk to another group one hundred miles away,

0:29:15.360 --> 0:29:18.840
<v Speaker 1>and somehow they wouldn't hear. You know, you promised that

0:29:18.880 --> 0:29:21.120
<v Speaker 1>you were going to deal with this landfill issue in

0:29:21.120 --> 0:29:23.880
<v Speaker 1>this county over here. You told them, don't worry, the

0:29:23.920 --> 0:29:27.000
<v Speaker 1>landfill's not coming to your county. It'll stay there. And

0:29:27.160 --> 0:29:31.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, back when when communication wasn't shared so quickly,

0:29:32.120 --> 0:29:34.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, a politician could essentially talk out of both

0:29:34.520 --> 0:29:36.000
<v Speaker 1>sides of their mouth and get away with it for

0:29:36.040 --> 0:29:39.880
<v Speaker 1>a period of time until reporters over time shared information

0:29:40.000 --> 0:29:44.480
<v Speaker 1>quick enough that you couldn't do that. And I think

0:29:44.520 --> 0:29:47.960
<v Speaker 1>this is when I was reading this item, You're like,

0:29:48.680 --> 0:29:53.040
<v Speaker 1>it just made my head hurt. On one hand, a

0:29:53.080 --> 0:29:56.240
<v Speaker 1>major Democratic Party star is trying to stop a redistricting

0:29:56.240 --> 0:29:59.280
<v Speaker 1>effort in Indiana. On the other hand, a major Democratic

0:29:59.320 --> 0:30:01.440
<v Speaker 1>star is going out to California to raise money to

0:30:01.480 --> 0:30:05.320
<v Speaker 1>help a redistricting effort in another state. I think it

0:30:05.360 --> 0:30:10.360
<v Speaker 1>goes to why this is again, I understand the tactical

0:30:10.400 --> 0:30:13.760
<v Speaker 1>decision that the Democrats made here. They feel as if, hey,

0:30:13.760 --> 0:30:18.080
<v Speaker 1>look what they're doing. They had no choice. But it

0:30:18.160 --> 0:30:24.120
<v Speaker 1>is a reminder of how complicated this effort is going

0:30:24.160 --> 0:30:27.680
<v Speaker 1>to be. One other candidacy that I think you should

0:30:27.760 --> 0:30:32.600
<v Speaker 1>keep an eye on. That sort of fits. It's a

0:30:32.600 --> 0:30:37.880
<v Speaker 1>little bit more on which wing of the Democratic Party

0:30:37.960 --> 0:30:42.920
<v Speaker 1>is more ascended, right, the progressive wing for the moderate

0:30:43.400 --> 0:30:49.280
<v Speaker 1>peacemaking wing. The Georgia primary for the Georgia Democratic primary

0:30:49.320 --> 0:30:52.760
<v Speaker 1>for governor is becoming fascinating. You now have a former

0:30:52.880 --> 0:30:56.600
<v Speaker 1>Republican Lieutenant Governor, Jeff Duncan, right, who was an early

0:30:56.640 --> 0:31:00.960
<v Speaker 1>Trump critic, was on a glide path. He was Brian

0:31:01.080 --> 0:31:03.880
<v Speaker 1>Kemp's essentially, you know, on a you know, kind of

0:31:03.960 --> 0:31:05.920
<v Speaker 1>running mate. I mean, you run for LG on your

0:31:05.960 --> 0:31:10.200
<v Speaker 1>own in a primary, but you know, he was seen

0:31:10.240 --> 0:31:15.760
<v Speaker 1>as potentially assumed her apparent to Kemp. Duncan became, you know,

0:31:15.880 --> 0:31:20.480
<v Speaker 1>particularly after the attempt by Trump to essentially overturn the

0:31:20.480 --> 0:31:25.200
<v Speaker 1>Georgia election, you know, twisting the arms of party operatives.

0:31:26.600 --> 0:31:29.040
<v Speaker 1>Over time, became more and more of a Trump skeptic

0:31:29.080 --> 0:31:31.800
<v Speaker 1>to the point where he is, you know, he he

0:31:31.880 --> 0:31:38.240
<v Speaker 1>has now changed parties completely elected as a Republican in Georgia.

0:31:38.360 --> 0:31:41.480
<v Speaker 1>So you're not a moderate Republican when you're winning a primary.

0:31:41.520 --> 0:31:46.120
<v Speaker 1>You're pretty conventional conservative Republican as lieutenant governor in twenty

0:31:46.160 --> 0:31:48.880
<v Speaker 1>eighteen and now eight years later, hopes to be the

0:31:48.880 --> 0:31:52.400
<v Speaker 1>Democratic nominee for governor in twenty twenty six. Now, look,

0:31:52.440 --> 0:31:56.640
<v Speaker 1>so he clearly is more in that super moderate lane.

0:31:57.080 --> 0:31:59.960
<v Speaker 1>You now have a state Senator, Jason Stevies, your former

0:32:00.000 --> 0:32:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Atlanta mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms who was worked for Biden

0:32:03.920 --> 0:32:08.280
<v Speaker 1>state rep. And Derek Jackson, the chief executive Michael Thurman,

0:32:08.360 --> 0:32:11.120
<v Speaker 1>who I believes run for state wide office. Before It's

0:32:11.120 --> 0:32:14.080
<v Speaker 1>suddenly a pretty crowded primary. There's a lot of Atlanta

0:32:14.160 --> 0:32:18.720
<v Speaker 1>Democrats in there, which could give Duncan an opportunity if

0:32:18.720 --> 0:32:21.040
<v Speaker 1>there's enough vote outside, if all of that, all of

0:32:21.080 --> 0:32:26.720
<v Speaker 1>this vote gets split up there. But it's a just

0:32:26.760 --> 0:32:29.680
<v Speaker 1>like the Michigan Democratic primary for Senate. There's a handful

0:32:29.720 --> 0:32:33.560
<v Speaker 1>of Democratic primaries that if they all go in the

0:32:33.600 --> 0:32:36.600
<v Speaker 1>same direction right the progressive wins or the or the

0:32:36.640 --> 0:32:40.440
<v Speaker 1>more center center left person wins, it may directionally tell

0:32:40.520 --> 0:32:43.480
<v Speaker 1>us where where are rank and filed Democrats right? Are

0:32:43.480 --> 0:32:45.520
<v Speaker 1>they angry and ready to go left? Or are they

0:32:46.760 --> 0:32:49.719
<v Speaker 1>exhausted and frustrated and looking for what I call our

0:32:49.800 --> 0:32:54.280
<v Speaker 1>peacemakers right, trying to trying to win win over the middle.

0:32:55.280 --> 0:33:00.440
<v Speaker 1>But in particular now Georgia Democratic Primary for governor, Michigan

0:33:00.440 --> 0:33:07.800
<v Speaker 1>Democratic primer percentate. Both of them feature candidates from all

0:33:07.800 --> 0:33:10.960
<v Speaker 1>wings of the Democratic Party, so they're all going to

0:33:10.960 --> 0:33:15.400
<v Speaker 1>be pretty good tests where the energy of the party is.

0:33:15.840 --> 0:33:18.520
<v Speaker 1>A couple more things to talk about quickly. On twenty

0:33:18.520 --> 0:33:22.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty five, we're now seeing the real money is coming

0:33:22.600 --> 0:33:25.080
<v Speaker 1>into both New Jersey and Virginia. There was some question

0:33:25.240 --> 0:33:29.360
<v Speaker 1>with the National Republicans invest is heavily in Virginia as

0:33:29.360 --> 0:33:31.640
<v Speaker 1>they did the last time. They now have and there's

0:33:31.640 --> 0:33:35.160
<v Speaker 1>a real reason for that. Like it Ultimately in the

0:33:35.160 --> 0:33:40.360
<v Speaker 1>Republicans I've talked to about the Virginia races, it's not

0:33:40.440 --> 0:33:43.200
<v Speaker 1>that they're conceding the governor's race to Abigail Spamberger, but

0:33:43.200 --> 0:33:46.760
<v Speaker 1>they're conceding that it's an uphill battle, but they don't

0:33:46.800 --> 0:33:51.440
<v Speaker 1>want to get swept. And if there's one candidacy that

0:33:51.480 --> 0:33:55.080
<v Speaker 1>they're trying to save, it is the Attorney General Jason Miaris,

0:33:56.760 --> 0:33:58.720
<v Speaker 1>and I had a smart Democrat say that he thinks

0:33:58.800 --> 0:34:04.040
<v Speaker 1>it's the single most important race to understand whether Democrats

0:34:04.120 --> 0:34:06.960
<v Speaker 1>truly have a shot at the midterms or whether Republicans

0:34:06.960 --> 0:34:11.000
<v Speaker 1>can hold off the flip. And it's because of the

0:34:11.160 --> 0:34:15.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, you're seeing. You have a Republican incumbent with

0:34:15.239 --> 0:34:19.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of financial advantages. You have a Democratic challenger

0:34:19.600 --> 0:34:23.319
<v Speaker 1>who's being painted as soft on crime, which is what

0:34:24.400 --> 0:34:27.520
<v Speaker 1>both Republicans and Democrats tell me is likely to be

0:34:27.840 --> 0:34:30.920
<v Speaker 1>among the bread and butter issues you see in the midterms,

0:34:32.440 --> 0:34:34.759
<v Speaker 1>especially if the economy is not good. Republicans are going

0:34:34.800 --> 0:34:37.720
<v Speaker 1>to be running against Democrats is sort of softened the border,

0:34:37.760 --> 0:34:40.640
<v Speaker 1>soft on crime, soft on law and order stuff, especially

0:34:40.760 --> 0:34:43.320
<v Speaker 1>if they can't run in the economy. And right now

0:34:43.800 --> 0:34:47.040
<v Speaker 1>things don't look great with the economy. And by the way,

0:34:47.280 --> 0:34:49.680
<v Speaker 1>it may not matter. Right the economy may be everything,

0:34:49.680 --> 0:34:53.600
<v Speaker 1>and it may overwhelm that. But we're going to find

0:34:53.600 --> 0:34:57.759
<v Speaker 1>out how effective can a law and order campaign overcome

0:34:58.440 --> 0:35:02.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of momentum that autumn sort of sort of the

0:35:02.320 --> 0:35:06.040
<v Speaker 1>momentum that the Democrats have as simply being the out party, right,

0:35:06.400 --> 0:35:08.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, they have a few advantages going for them

0:35:08.480 --> 0:35:12.680
<v Speaker 1>in these offier elections in Virginia, federal government workers being

0:35:12.760 --> 0:35:15.920
<v Speaker 1>laid up, they have a lot of advantages. Can munt

0:35:15.960 --> 0:35:18.560
<v Speaker 1>can the financial advantage they will have and the issue

0:35:18.600 --> 0:35:22.439
<v Speaker 1>of law and order combat that right? That Virginia AG

0:35:22.680 --> 0:35:29.000
<v Speaker 1>race this cycle could foreshadow what the mid terms look like.

0:35:29.520 --> 0:35:33.000
<v Speaker 1>In particular, we're seeing a little bit in the governor's race,

0:35:33.040 --> 0:35:34.680
<v Speaker 1>and don't get me wrong, I think there'll be some

0:35:34.880 --> 0:35:38.480
<v Speaker 1>culture war type back and forth between the two governor's candidates.

0:35:38.880 --> 0:35:41.960
<v Speaker 1>But in many ways, all that, you know, there's Spamberger's

0:35:41.960 --> 0:35:44.640
<v Speaker 1>now up with a lot of negatives, almost just exclusively

0:35:45.040 --> 0:35:47.640
<v Speaker 1>in northern Virginia, hitting win some earl sears on just

0:35:47.719 --> 0:35:50.440
<v Speaker 1>simply being supportive of Trump, which ironically she doesn't have

0:35:50.480 --> 0:35:54.120
<v Speaker 1>Trump's endorsement yet I think she'll get it because everything

0:35:54.160 --> 0:35:58.120
<v Speaker 1>is about helping turn out for the pot of the

0:35:58.120 --> 0:36:01.200
<v Speaker 1>ticket there the AG candidate, and if you don't have

0:36:01.320 --> 0:36:05.600
<v Speaker 1>people enthused about the gubernatorial candidate. It's he's gonna you know,

0:36:05.760 --> 0:36:07.520
<v Speaker 1>you're just gonna have a turnout issue that's going to

0:36:07.560 --> 0:36:10.400
<v Speaker 1>trickle down and cost you down the ballot. So I

0:36:10.480 --> 0:36:12.920
<v Speaker 1>suspect Trump comes in. It's why the RGA, I think,

0:36:12.960 --> 0:36:14.719
<v Speaker 1>has come in with real money to help the top

0:36:14.760 --> 0:36:17.600
<v Speaker 1>of the ticket, because ultimately the one they're trying to

0:36:17.600 --> 0:36:20.320
<v Speaker 1>see can they save one of the three seeds that

0:36:20.360 --> 0:36:23.440
<v Speaker 1>they currently hold in Virginia. As for New Jersey, you've

0:36:23.440 --> 0:36:26.000
<v Speaker 1>seen the Republicans have also sort of equalized money there.

0:36:28.640 --> 0:36:30.320
<v Speaker 1>We're going to have our first debates. They're going to

0:36:30.400 --> 0:36:34.520
<v Speaker 1>have two debates. I want to watch those debates. I

0:36:34.560 --> 0:36:37.520
<v Speaker 1>think that they may matter more than we fully appreciate.

0:36:37.840 --> 0:36:40.480
<v Speaker 1>I think gubernatorial debates voters care a little bit more

0:36:40.520 --> 0:36:43.320
<v Speaker 1>about than Senate debates. To be frank, I think Senate

0:36:43.360 --> 0:36:46.400
<v Speaker 1>campaigns are always read versus blue again one of the

0:36:46.480 --> 0:36:49.560
<v Speaker 1>challenges for these independent candidates. But governor's races, I think

0:36:49.600 --> 0:36:52.839
<v Speaker 1>more often there are voters that will will we'll, we'll

0:36:52.880 --> 0:36:55.920
<v Speaker 1>choose a person over a party if there's a specific

0:36:55.960 --> 0:37:00.360
<v Speaker 1>issue that really animates them. And that's why I actually

0:37:00.360 --> 0:37:03.040
<v Speaker 1>want to withhold judgment. I have a sneaking suspicion that

0:37:03.080 --> 0:37:05.560
<v Speaker 1>New Jersey's going to be awfully closed. But let's see

0:37:05.560 --> 0:37:08.120
<v Speaker 1>how the debates play out on that front. And then

0:37:08.160 --> 0:37:10.400
<v Speaker 1>we've seen it looks like Donald Trump is conceding the

0:37:10.480 --> 0:37:13.640
<v Speaker 1>New York City mayor's race to Mom Donnie. It is

0:37:13.719 --> 0:37:17.879
<v Speaker 1>fascinating to watch these progressive pressure campaign on a Keem

0:37:17.960 --> 0:37:20.760
<v Speaker 1>Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer, who have not yet endorsed Mom Donnie.

0:37:20.840 --> 0:37:25.160
<v Speaker 1>The governor of New York did. But remember, everybody, you know,

0:37:25.400 --> 0:37:30.359
<v Speaker 1>I talked about incentive structures at the top. Why does

0:37:30.480 --> 0:37:33.200
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Hulkle have to endorse Mom Donnie because she's got

0:37:33.200 --> 0:37:37.200
<v Speaker 1>a primary challenger from the left. Neither Jeffries or Schumer

0:37:37.680 --> 0:37:40.520
<v Speaker 1>are worrying about that at the moment. Hokel has to

0:37:40.560 --> 0:37:43.759
<v Speaker 1>worry about that in the very very near term. Her

0:37:43.800 --> 0:37:48.120
<v Speaker 1>numbers aren't that great anyway. She can't afford a very

0:37:48.120 --> 0:37:51.800
<v Speaker 1>competitive primary that would likely be negative, ugly, and only

0:37:51.840 --> 0:37:57.080
<v Speaker 1>make her potential campaign against the least staphonic that much harder.

0:37:57.960 --> 0:38:02.120
<v Speaker 1>So I look at the whocal endorsement as a she's

0:38:02.160 --> 0:38:05.279
<v Speaker 1>got primary opponents, that's what she's worried about, and she

0:38:05.360 --> 0:38:11.240
<v Speaker 1>can't afford to alienate the progressive flank as much. Jeffries

0:38:11.280 --> 0:38:13.480
<v Speaker 1>has got a whole other problem. He's got a whole

0:38:13.520 --> 0:38:17.359
<v Speaker 1>bunch of Democrats running all over the country who are

0:38:17.680 --> 0:38:20.239
<v Speaker 1>don't want the future Speaker of the House looking like

0:38:20.280 --> 0:38:23.840
<v Speaker 1>they endorse a socialists, And so I don't envy the

0:38:23.880 --> 0:38:27.560
<v Speaker 1>situation Jeffries finds himself in. But I go back, Jeffries

0:38:27.600 --> 0:38:31.800
<v Speaker 1>and Schumer should have been more hands on when Cuomo

0:38:31.880 --> 0:38:34.319
<v Speaker 1>jumped into that race and basically screwed it all up

0:38:34.360 --> 0:38:36.120
<v Speaker 1>for the for the for the mainstream wing of the

0:38:36.120 --> 0:38:39.640
<v Speaker 1>Democratic Party. The fact that they sort of look the

0:38:39.680 --> 0:38:44.960
<v Speaker 1>other way is arguably why they're in this situation they're in.

0:38:45.520 --> 0:38:48.160
<v Speaker 1>But that's a tough that's a tough position he's in politically.

0:38:51.800 --> 0:38:54.840
<v Speaker 1>I know. I'm guessing Jeffries will end up endorsing him

0:38:55.320 --> 0:38:59.360
<v Speaker 1>or voting for him, not endorsing him. We'll see. But

0:38:59.480 --> 0:39:04.279
<v Speaker 1>I do think this is as much about his branding.

0:39:04.480 --> 0:39:07.320
<v Speaker 1>What happens to his branding as the guy who's essentially

0:39:07.400 --> 0:39:10.640
<v Speaker 1>running to be Speaker of the House in the midterms.

0:39:11.120 --> 0:39:14.560
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of Democrats running in House races that

0:39:14.640 --> 0:39:19.040
<v Speaker 1>are nervous that he gets painted as a socialist. So

0:39:19.120 --> 0:39:22.480
<v Speaker 1>I do think that is what's, among other things, politically,

0:39:22.600 --> 0:39:39.520
<v Speaker 1>what's making it very uncomfortable for Jefferson. All right, I

0:39:39.520 --> 0:39:42.560
<v Speaker 1>hope you enjoyed that interview with those two independent candidates.

0:39:42.640 --> 0:39:44.840
<v Speaker 1>So and in fact, my top five lists this week

0:39:46.120 --> 0:39:48.880
<v Speaker 1>is on independence, and it's my top five list of

0:39:48.960 --> 0:39:53.960
<v Speaker 1>states most likely to elect an independent to the Senate

0:39:54.440 --> 0:40:04.160
<v Speaker 1>top top jest. Some of it is going to be

0:40:04.200 --> 0:40:06.279
<v Speaker 1>based on history, some of it is going to be

0:40:06.320 --> 0:40:10.480
<v Speaker 1>based on, you know, the electorate and just sort of

0:40:10.480 --> 0:40:14.040
<v Speaker 1>how you know, do you have an electorate that thinks

0:40:14.440 --> 0:40:17.319
<v Speaker 1>that is very partisan, Like you know, you take state

0:40:17.360 --> 0:40:20.000
<v Speaker 1>of North Carolina, which is a very evenly divided state,

0:40:20.640 --> 0:40:23.640
<v Speaker 1>but it's it's sort of divided by polls. It's a

0:40:23.680 --> 0:40:29.640
<v Speaker 1>polarized electorate. It is basically forty five are forty five

0:40:29.760 --> 0:40:33.239
<v Speaker 1>d in a very small size of independence versus a

0:40:33.280 --> 0:40:37.160
<v Speaker 1>place like Alaska, which is sort of filled with sort

0:40:37.200 --> 0:40:39.839
<v Speaker 1>of this sort of independent you know, a little left,

0:40:39.840 --> 0:40:43.480
<v Speaker 1>little right, little libertarian, little of this, and it's just

0:40:43.520 --> 0:40:46.760
<v Speaker 1>a more fluid electorate. It's not as it's not as partisan,

0:40:46.800 --> 0:40:49.840
<v Speaker 1>it's not as hardcore. So my top five list of

0:40:50.120 --> 0:40:52.759
<v Speaker 1>states most likely the elect and independent to the Senate, Well,

0:40:52.800 --> 0:40:58.480
<v Speaker 1>obviously I got to start with two states that have

0:40:58.600 --> 0:41:02.279
<v Speaker 1>done it. I don't count Bernie in this one. I know,

0:41:03.760 --> 0:41:07.320
<v Speaker 1>although Vermont has arguably had two independent one that was

0:41:07.400 --> 0:41:10.680
<v Speaker 1>independent that caucused with Republicans. Still he switched parties and

0:41:10.719 --> 0:41:14.640
<v Speaker 1>caucus with Democrats and Jim Jeffords, and then you had Bernie.

0:41:15.040 --> 0:41:17.080
<v Speaker 1>But in some ways, I don't put Vermont there anymore.

0:41:17.080 --> 0:41:18.759
<v Speaker 1>I think it's decidedly I think it's going to be

0:41:18.880 --> 0:41:23.279
<v Speaker 1>very difficult for somebody. You can get elected as an

0:41:23.280 --> 0:41:25.919
<v Speaker 1>independent if you're further to the left of the Democratic Party,

0:41:25.960 --> 0:41:28.000
<v Speaker 1>but I don't know if you can do that, you know,

0:41:28.040 --> 0:41:30.080
<v Speaker 1>from the other way. So look, I think you have

0:41:30.120 --> 0:41:32.080
<v Speaker 1>to put Alaska and Maine is one and two because

0:41:32.080 --> 0:41:39.360
<v Speaker 1>they've done it, and there's their electorates are fluid enough

0:41:40.160 --> 0:41:45.440
<v Speaker 1>that it's supportive. They've elected independence for governor, right, and

0:41:45.520 --> 0:41:47.600
<v Speaker 1>I think that that is, you know, these are the

0:41:47.640 --> 0:41:51.840
<v Speaker 1>states that are most righte for non major party candidates

0:41:51.840 --> 0:41:55.560
<v Speaker 1>to have some success. Alaska and Maine obviously are too.

0:41:55.680 --> 0:41:57.960
<v Speaker 1>The next state on my list, number three is Minnesota.

0:42:00.000 --> 0:42:01.600
<v Speaker 1>In fact, you could argue now that if you're right

0:42:01.640 --> 0:42:04.240
<v Speaker 1>of center in Minnesota and this is going to actually

0:42:04.239 --> 0:42:07.040
<v Speaker 1>get I got some interesting feedback about my battleground state

0:42:07.080 --> 0:42:10.680
<v Speaker 1>list and a little bit of pushback of having Minnesota

0:42:10.719 --> 0:42:14.880
<v Speaker 1>ranked higher than New Hampshire of states on the Republican

0:42:14.920 --> 0:42:17.080
<v Speaker 1>side most likely to make it into the battleground right

0:42:17.840 --> 0:42:21.040
<v Speaker 1>blue states that Republicans might be able to contest, And

0:42:21.080 --> 0:42:24.240
<v Speaker 1>the argument is that while Minnesota is always very close,

0:42:24.360 --> 0:42:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Republicans never seem to be able to, you know, to

0:42:28.800 --> 0:42:32.560
<v Speaker 1>crack the code that in twenty fourteen, for instance, Al

0:42:32.600 --> 0:42:34.840
<v Speaker 1>Frankin's reelection year, he won by ten points and that

0:42:34.960 --> 0:42:38.160
<v Speaker 1>was a great Republican year, So I Republicans couldn't make

0:42:38.239 --> 0:42:43.680
<v Speaker 1>Franklin sweat in twenty fourteen. Then the argument goes that

0:42:43.719 --> 0:42:45.680
<v Speaker 1>this is a this is a much harder state. You

0:42:45.680 --> 0:42:48.960
<v Speaker 1>know that there's a hard ceiling on the Republicans, and

0:42:49.120 --> 0:42:52.360
<v Speaker 1>I you know, it's an old hotline buddy that was

0:42:52.360 --> 0:42:54.520
<v Speaker 1>pushing back on me. And I think my buddy Quinn

0:42:54.600 --> 0:42:57.200
<v Speaker 1>is right. Quinn, I'm throwing I'm giving I'm throwing you

0:42:57.280 --> 0:43:01.360
<v Speaker 1>this bone. I do agree New Hampshire probably it should

0:43:01.360 --> 0:43:03.680
<v Speaker 1>be New Hampshire over Minnesota. I still think there's an

0:43:03.719 --> 0:43:06.440
<v Speaker 1>opportunity there in Minnesota. But I think you're right. I

0:43:06.440 --> 0:43:08.799
<v Speaker 1>think the track record of New Hampshire. Recently, they just

0:43:08.840 --> 0:43:11.919
<v Speaker 1>elected a Republican governor. It's been a long time since

0:43:12.040 --> 0:43:15.560
<v Speaker 1>Minnesota's elected a statewide Republican, has been at least over

0:43:15.600 --> 0:43:20.080
<v Speaker 1>a decade. I think, I think you make a compelling

0:43:20.080 --> 0:43:22.320
<v Speaker 1>case at New Hampshire should be ranked higher than Minnesota.

0:43:22.400 --> 0:43:26.640
<v Speaker 1>So Alaska one, Main two, Minnesota three, and my next

0:43:26.640 --> 0:43:32.239
<v Speaker 1>two are Sun Belt states. Arizona, who arguably had a

0:43:32.280 --> 0:43:35.480
<v Speaker 1>couple of independent acting senators even though they didn't get

0:43:35.480 --> 0:43:39.640
<v Speaker 1>elected as independents, and John McCain and Kirsten Cinema, And

0:43:39.680 --> 0:43:42.040
<v Speaker 1>there's something about it's electorate, right, there's a there's a

0:43:42.280 --> 0:43:45.480
<v Speaker 1>there's a it's a state that has a huge independent

0:43:45.560 --> 0:43:50.480
<v Speaker 1>voter registration. And when you're a transient state, right that

0:43:51.480 --> 0:43:54.600
<v Speaker 1>where a majority of the voters weren't born in that state,

0:43:56.239 --> 0:43:58.080
<v Speaker 1>that means you don't have as strong a ties on

0:43:58.200 --> 0:44:02.560
<v Speaker 1>partisanship as much. And I think, and so we should

0:44:02.560 --> 0:44:05.520
<v Speaker 1>give away what my number five state is of a

0:44:05.600 --> 0:44:08.960
<v Speaker 1>chance electing independent. That's Florida. Florida also is a huge,

0:44:09.080 --> 0:44:15.919
<v Speaker 1>growing no party registration vote, and I think the opportunity

0:44:15.960 --> 0:44:19.400
<v Speaker 1>and ballot access isn't very difficult. Ditto in Arizona, that

0:44:19.480 --> 0:44:22.680
<v Speaker 1>also matters here, right, how difficult is ballid access to

0:44:22.680 --> 0:44:25.920
<v Speaker 1>get on there? You know, Texas is extraordinarily hard to

0:44:26.000 --> 0:44:30.200
<v Speaker 1>run as an independent. And even though you in theory

0:44:32.040 --> 0:44:34.040
<v Speaker 1>Texas is the type of electorate that maybe could be

0:44:34.080 --> 0:44:37.399
<v Speaker 1>supportive of it, I'm skeptical of it. So my top

0:44:37.440 --> 0:44:42.200
<v Speaker 1>five this week, top five states most likely with electorates

0:44:42.200 --> 0:44:45.080
<v Speaker 1>it would be open to electing an independent. And you

0:44:45.080 --> 0:44:48.400
<v Speaker 1>could actually picture it happening. Two places they've already happened

0:44:48.400 --> 0:44:53.320
<v Speaker 1>Alaska in Maine, right with Lisa Murkowski and and Angus

0:44:53.400 --> 0:44:56.520
<v Speaker 1>King both did get elected as independence. Now they caut

0:44:56.560 --> 0:44:59.279
<v Speaker 1>us with one side or the other, but they're I

0:44:59.320 --> 0:45:02.160
<v Speaker 1>think in they both have elected independent governors, So I

0:45:02.200 --> 0:45:06.920
<v Speaker 1>think there is a tradition there. Minnesota, right, they've had

0:45:07.000 --> 0:45:09.400
<v Speaker 1>some You know, this is a party that even the

0:45:09.400 --> 0:45:13.520
<v Speaker 1>Democratic Party is not named. It's the Democratic Farm Labor Party.

0:45:13.520 --> 0:45:15.160
<v Speaker 1>It was a coalition party. There used to be the

0:45:15.200 --> 0:45:18.040
<v Speaker 1>Farm Labor and then the Democrats that they merged. And

0:45:18.040 --> 0:45:20.200
<v Speaker 1>in fact that back in the day the Minnesota Republican

0:45:20.200 --> 0:45:23.640
<v Speaker 1>Party was referred to as the Independent Republican Party. There

0:45:23.640 --> 0:45:26.520
<v Speaker 1>was almost an over emphasis on the word independent and

0:45:27.360 --> 0:45:31.920
<v Speaker 1>less so on Republican so Minnesota, number three, number four Arizona,

0:45:32.520 --> 0:45:38.879
<v Speaker 1>and number five Florida. Other states that I contemplated. Nebraska,

0:45:39.400 --> 0:45:42.279
<v Speaker 1>I do think the fact that they have a unit

0:45:42.280 --> 0:45:45.120
<v Speaker 1>cameral legislature where you do not run or hold office

0:45:45.160 --> 0:45:49.920
<v Speaker 1>by party, does create an electorate that is comfortable with

0:45:50.120 --> 0:45:52.840
<v Speaker 1>candidates for office that don't associate with a major party.

0:45:53.600 --> 0:45:56.000
<v Speaker 1>The fact that their unit cameral legislature works that way,

0:45:56.000 --> 0:45:58.279
<v Speaker 1>I think does. I think it does help explain why

0:45:58.320 --> 0:46:03.520
<v Speaker 1>Osborne dan oz Born, who's running again, has has gotten

0:46:03.520 --> 0:46:08.240
<v Speaker 1>into the forties. On that front. Kansas, I think there's

0:46:08.320 --> 0:46:11.440
<v Speaker 1>something there. I think the Democratic brand is probably not

0:46:11.520 --> 0:46:14.839
<v Speaker 1>quite strong enough to elect a senator, but an independent

0:46:14.880 --> 0:46:18.680
<v Speaker 1>that leaned to the left but had a few things

0:46:18.760 --> 0:46:21.920
<v Speaker 1>that were appealing to right leaning independence, you could see it.

0:46:22.719 --> 0:46:26.120
<v Speaker 1>I put Idaho, South Dakota down here as well, because

0:46:26.120 --> 0:46:29.560
<v Speaker 1>we're going to find out right. I do think you're

0:46:29.600 --> 0:46:34.160
<v Speaker 1>going to have a little better in general running against

0:46:34.200 --> 0:46:36.759
<v Speaker 1>the two major parties, as there's usually a bit more

0:46:36.800 --> 0:46:39.839
<v Speaker 1>of an appetite for it out west than there is

0:46:40.880 --> 0:46:45.480
<v Speaker 1>out east here, particularly in some of the in some

0:46:45.560 --> 0:46:47.520
<v Speaker 1>of the states that have been around a while that

0:46:47.600 --> 0:46:53.040
<v Speaker 1>have of you know that have that have certainly have

0:46:53.400 --> 0:46:59.680
<v Speaker 1>very very very strong state and local political parties. All right,

0:46:59.760 --> 0:47:01.719
<v Speaker 1>so there's my top five lists. With that, let's do

0:47:01.760 --> 0:47:10.000
<v Speaker 1>a few questions ask Chuck. All right. First question comes

0:47:10.040 --> 0:47:11.759
<v Speaker 1>from Greg al and he writes, thanks for the show.

0:47:11.840 --> 0:47:13.719
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to ask about your call for a politician

0:47:13.760 --> 0:47:16.480
<v Speaker 1>to run as a uniter. It's what the country needs.

0:47:16.520 --> 0:47:18.600
<v Speaker 1>But is it possible as a moderate who has voted

0:47:18.600 --> 0:47:21.120
<v Speaker 1>for both parties less presidential Canada? I recall running as

0:47:21.160 --> 0:47:24.200
<v Speaker 1>a uniter is President Obama, who came to prominence with

0:47:24.320 --> 0:47:27.640
<v Speaker 1>his unifying One America speech back in two thousand and four. However,

0:47:27.760 --> 0:47:29.960
<v Speaker 1>we call family members who perceived Obama as a divisive

0:47:30.000 --> 0:47:33.000
<v Speaker 1>radical who hated capitalists and Americans. In the Obama years,

0:47:33.000 --> 0:47:36.360
<v Speaker 1>I also noticed that compromise and unity were tough promises

0:47:36.400 --> 0:47:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to deliver on. Even if a politician followed through with concessions,

0:47:39.360 --> 0:47:42.360
<v Speaker 1>the opposing party could force failure by refusing to cooperate,

0:47:42.440 --> 0:47:46.239
<v Speaker 1>even when offered policies they previously supported. I hope you

0:47:46.239 --> 0:47:49.600
<v Speaker 1>can share some optimism. Well, look, I mean this is

0:47:49.600 --> 0:47:52.360
<v Speaker 1>why I don't think either either party. I think this

0:47:52.440 --> 0:47:55.960
<v Speaker 1>has to this almost has to be a pirate type

0:47:55.960 --> 0:47:58.640
<v Speaker 1>of situation where you just sort of where you have

0:47:59.040 --> 0:48:02.000
<v Speaker 1>an independent calls time out. You know, you guys have

0:48:02.080 --> 0:48:04.520
<v Speaker 1>lost your privileges to lead. You need to learn how

0:48:04.600 --> 0:48:07.759
<v Speaker 1>to lead. It's sort of it's it was the It

0:48:07.800 --> 0:48:10.279
<v Speaker 1>was how Jesse Ventura won his election in ninety eight.

0:48:10.680 --> 0:48:14.080
<v Speaker 1>He basically turned the two parties into tweetled the and

0:48:14.080 --> 0:48:18.799
<v Speaker 1>tweedled dumb, and it gained quick traction. It was it

0:48:18.840 --> 0:48:21.160
<v Speaker 1>was actually a short campaign. He was He was polling

0:48:21.200 --> 0:48:23.520
<v Speaker 1>in the high single digits, low double digits for the

0:48:23.600 --> 0:48:28.080
<v Speaker 1>longest time they have a debate. He's an outsized charismatic figure.

0:48:28.719 --> 0:48:31.480
<v Speaker 1>The two nominees, I think it was I think, if

0:48:31.840 --> 0:48:36.799
<v Speaker 1>memory serves, it was Norm Coleman, future US senator, and

0:48:36.960 --> 0:48:42.160
<v Speaker 1>Skip Humphrey, the son of Hubert Humphrey, And they just

0:48:43.320 --> 0:48:46.920
<v Speaker 1>they came across a stale compared to the charismatic ex wrestler,

0:48:47.040 --> 0:48:51.799
<v Speaker 1>right and former actor you know who's uttered one of

0:48:51.800 --> 0:48:54.359
<v Speaker 1>my favorite movie lines of all time, I don't got

0:48:54.400 --> 0:48:58.759
<v Speaker 1>time to bleed from the first predator, which I think

0:48:58.760 --> 0:49:01.600
<v Speaker 1>he used in his campaign at and I think it

0:49:01.640 --> 0:49:04.440
<v Speaker 1>was the title of his memoir, of his political memoir.

0:49:04.960 --> 0:49:08.279
<v Speaker 1>But the point is is that he didn't run as

0:49:08.320 --> 0:49:10.319
<v Speaker 1>saying this is you know, yes, it was sort of

0:49:10.360 --> 0:49:13.440
<v Speaker 1>with the Pero Reformed Party at the time, but in

0:49:13.520 --> 0:49:16.120
<v Speaker 1>some ways it was, Hey, I want to send a

0:49:16.160 --> 0:49:21.080
<v Speaker 1>message these two parties and sober up. And I think

0:49:21.120 --> 0:49:24.759
<v Speaker 1>what you outline here the inability for one party to

0:49:24.800 --> 0:49:27.560
<v Speaker 1>concede anything to the other party right now, it's not

0:49:27.760 --> 0:49:29.760
<v Speaker 1>going to happen. If you want to know how nineteen

0:49:29.840 --> 0:49:33.880
<v Speaker 1>nineties by partisanship happened. It happened because Ross Perot essentially

0:49:33.960 --> 0:49:39.560
<v Speaker 1>threatened his candidacy, threatened the success of both parties at

0:49:39.600 --> 0:49:45.120
<v Speaker 1>one point or another, and so it almost served as

0:49:45.239 --> 0:49:56.080
<v Speaker 1>a force as a mechanism to force by partisanship. You know,

0:49:56.120 --> 0:50:02.160
<v Speaker 1>the nineties recipe for bipartisanship also had one party controlling Congress,

0:50:02.160 --> 0:50:05.400
<v Speaker 1>one party controlling the presidency. In the twenty first century,

0:50:05.440 --> 0:50:08.280
<v Speaker 1>the handful of times we've had that it didn't, it didn't.

0:50:09.160 --> 0:50:13.319
<v Speaker 1>It didn't lead to in many bipartisan successes. And in

0:50:13.360 --> 0:50:15.920
<v Speaker 1>some ways I think this is thanks to the internet

0:50:15.960 --> 0:50:20.520
<v Speaker 1>age to be fur filthy, Frank, I mean, that's that's

0:50:20.520 --> 0:50:22.239
<v Speaker 1>what I think has done it. I think that in

0:50:22.320 --> 0:50:26.720
<v Speaker 1>the you know where anytime you quote helped the other party,

0:50:27.120 --> 0:50:31.359
<v Speaker 1>it becomes a problem for the base, and they amplify it,

0:50:31.480 --> 0:50:34.480
<v Speaker 1>and they get everybody fired up, and they threaten primary challenges,

0:50:34.520 --> 0:50:41.480
<v Speaker 1>and all of a sudden, this wayward moderate R moderate

0:50:41.560 --> 0:50:45.880
<v Speaker 1>D has been tamed by the outrages of the of

0:50:45.920 --> 0:50:47.759
<v Speaker 1>the base. We saw a version of that on the

0:50:47.760 --> 0:50:50.879
<v Speaker 1>Republican side with Joni Ernst and the confirmation of Pete

0:50:50.880 --> 0:50:57.359
<v Speaker 1>Hegsea right, she was basically shamed and threatened and harassed

0:50:57.480 --> 0:51:02.120
<v Speaker 1>until she agreed to do it. In the pre internet days,

0:51:02.160 --> 0:51:04.879
<v Speaker 1>Haig Seth never makes it. Eg Seth probably doesn't even

0:51:04.880 --> 0:51:07.680
<v Speaker 1>even get out of committee in the pre internet days,

0:51:08.200 --> 0:51:12.879
<v Speaker 1>but essentially making it public and forcing it that way

0:51:12.960 --> 0:51:16.440
<v Speaker 1>did so. I concur with you that it's not going

0:51:16.480 --> 0:51:18.600
<v Speaker 1>to come from one of the two major parties and

0:51:18.920 --> 0:51:21.000
<v Speaker 1>that they would successfully do it. I do think a

0:51:21.280 --> 0:51:30.360
<v Speaker 1>term with an independent basically just highlighting the fact that

0:51:30.400 --> 0:51:33.279
<v Speaker 1>both parties have failed us and have helped tear this

0:51:33.320 --> 0:51:40.840
<v Speaker 1>country apart, would would could could serve as that a

0:51:41.000 --> 0:51:43.520
<v Speaker 1>sort of return sort of Like I said, I refer

0:51:43.600 --> 0:51:49.800
<v Speaker 1>to sobering up the two political parties. Next question comes

0:51:49.840 --> 0:51:52.759
<v Speaker 1>from Lincoln from Columbus, Ohio, but he makes it clear

0:51:52.840 --> 0:51:55.280
<v Speaker 1>he's not a Buckeye fan. Well, That's why I'm taking

0:51:55.280 --> 0:51:59.640
<v Speaker 1>your question. Lincoln. By the way, I love it, Lincoln

0:51:59.640 --> 0:52:04.359
<v Speaker 1>from Columbus. Maybe I can meet Columbus from Lincoln anyway, Hey,

0:52:04.480 --> 0:52:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Chuck la cheeserie if you know you know. I love

0:52:08.239 --> 0:52:10.759
<v Speaker 1>the toodcast and appreciate the commentary, extended interviews and deep

0:52:10.840 --> 0:52:13.200
<v Speaker 1>dives into all things politics and politics adjacent news stories.

0:52:13.200 --> 0:52:15.520
<v Speaker 1>You're right, we need more in depth conversations in fewer

0:52:15.560 --> 0:52:17.680
<v Speaker 1>sound bites. I have a question about Senate and House hearings.

0:52:18.680 --> 0:52:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Do the people testifying have an idea of the questions

0:52:21.440 --> 0:52:23.960
<v Speaker 1>in advance? Obviously this would be more partisan, because when

0:52:24.040 --> 0:52:26.960
<v Speaker 1>RFK testified, I can't imagine Democrats would provide their questions,

0:52:27.239 --> 0:52:29.400
<v Speaker 1>but I can see Republicans trying to curry favor with

0:52:29.440 --> 0:52:31.880
<v Speaker 1>the White House, if not overtly providing questions in advance,

0:52:32.880 --> 0:52:35.560
<v Speaker 1>perhaps in a meaning mentioning that a question like that

0:52:35.640 --> 0:52:37.520
<v Speaker 1>may come up with a link and a no. Thanks

0:52:37.520 --> 0:52:39.040
<v Speaker 1>for the work and information to look forward to the

0:52:39.040 --> 0:52:41.000
<v Speaker 1>mornings when I see the pod drop, well, it's great

0:52:41.000 --> 0:52:46.600
<v Speaker 1>to hear. Thanks Lincoln. Appreciate that. On hearings, you know,

0:52:46.760 --> 0:52:55.840
<v Speaker 1>it depends. There's some people do mock hearings. A friendly hearing.

0:52:56.000 --> 0:52:59.480
<v Speaker 1>Right your friendly side, you will know, you know, you

0:52:59.560 --> 0:53:03.719
<v Speaker 1>might know they might have Hey, I'll uh, I know

0:53:03.800 --> 0:53:05.759
<v Speaker 1>you're going to get attacked for this issue. I'll be

0:53:05.760 --> 0:53:07.440
<v Speaker 1>able to ask you this question on a follow up.

0:53:07.520 --> 0:53:11.440
<v Speaker 1>So the point is the answer is yes, okay, what

0:53:11.520 --> 0:53:16.319
<v Speaker 1>you suspect is true partisan. You know, anybody that is

0:53:16.440 --> 0:53:20.680
<v Speaker 1>that is favorable to the person testifying, if that person

0:53:20.960 --> 0:53:24.280
<v Speaker 1>is in government and has a relationship that it likely

0:53:24.280 --> 0:53:27.800
<v Speaker 1>means they have some sort of professional relationship with that senator,

0:53:27.800 --> 0:53:29.880
<v Speaker 1>with that Senate staffer, with that House member, with that

0:53:29.920 --> 0:53:34.520
<v Speaker 1>House staffer. So in that sense, yes, they're told, hey,

0:53:34.560 --> 0:53:36.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to ask about this, this, and this if

0:53:36.160 --> 0:53:38.880
<v Speaker 1>they're friendly. Obviously you don't you don't get the questions

0:53:38.880 --> 0:53:43.120
<v Speaker 1>in advance of the others. But you know, if you

0:53:43.200 --> 0:53:45.520
<v Speaker 1>don't know what's coming, you're not very good at your job,

0:53:46.600 --> 0:53:49.200
<v Speaker 1>or you don't have a staff that's very bright about this.

0:53:51.000 --> 0:53:53.359
<v Speaker 1>I've never watched one of these congressional hearings and been

0:53:53.400 --> 0:53:57.560
<v Speaker 1>surprised by a question. Right, Sometimes you might get surprised

0:53:57.560 --> 0:54:00.760
<v Speaker 1>if it's like arcane, it'll be like oh, and again,

0:54:01.280 --> 0:54:03.680
<v Speaker 1>when you're surprised as the person testifying, it means your

0:54:03.680 --> 0:54:07.080
<v Speaker 1>staffers blew it. You know, a good staffer should know, Hey,

0:54:07.120 --> 0:54:10.520
<v Speaker 1>Senator Schmengi is obsessed with this one arcane issue. No

0:54:10.520 --> 0:54:12.440
<v Speaker 1>one else is going to ask about it, but you

0:54:12.520 --> 0:54:14.920
<v Speaker 1>may be asked about it from him or her. You

0:54:15.000 --> 0:54:21.600
<v Speaker 1>better know it. But no, your suspicion on essentially partisans

0:54:21.600 --> 0:54:26.359
<v Speaker 1>help helping the friendlies is one hundred percent trough. There's

0:54:26.400 --> 0:54:28.160
<v Speaker 1>always by the way it happens in the White House

0:54:28.160 --> 0:54:31.800
<v Speaker 1>press room, there are certain reporters that are essentially used

0:54:31.840 --> 0:54:35.360
<v Speaker 1>by the person at the podium. Maybe they don't know

0:54:35.400 --> 0:54:36.880
<v Speaker 1>the question that's going to be asked, but they know

0:54:36.920 --> 0:54:38.719
<v Speaker 1>it's not going to be antagonistic, and they go to

0:54:38.760 --> 0:54:41.239
<v Speaker 1>them as almost like a break if they're if they're

0:54:42.560 --> 0:54:46.400
<v Speaker 1>if they're getting attacked. And you know every press secretary

0:54:46.440 --> 0:54:50.680
<v Speaker 1>has had those in their back pocket. This one has

0:54:50.960 --> 0:54:56.359
<v Speaker 1>more friendlies than most that I've noticed. Next question, boy,

0:54:56.360 --> 0:54:58.680
<v Speaker 1>you absolutely nail it in your nine to fifteen commentary.

0:54:59.040 --> 0:55:00.960
<v Speaker 1>Politics should be about I believe in A and you

0:55:01.000 --> 0:55:03.080
<v Speaker 1>believe in Z, and we meet somewhere around L M

0:55:03.239 --> 0:55:06.360
<v Speaker 1>N O P. But Congress now seems allergic to compromise,

0:55:06.360 --> 0:55:08.560
<v Speaker 1>acting as a blank check for Trump's agenda. I also

0:55:08.560 --> 0:55:10.880
<v Speaker 1>agree that social media fuels division. I even deactivated my

0:55:10.920 --> 0:55:14.080
<v Speaker 1>own accounts after hearing every network link the latest shooting

0:55:14.080 --> 0:55:17.719
<v Speaker 1>to online extremism. Podcasts can be similarly insular, Yes they can,

0:55:18.040 --> 0:55:21.279
<v Speaker 1>though yours stands out for presenting multiple viewpoints, which I

0:55:21.280 --> 0:55:24.000
<v Speaker 1>really appreciate. Michael C. From Douglasville, Georgia, Well, I appreciate

0:55:24.040 --> 0:55:28.799
<v Speaker 1>you noticing that it's what I'm trying to do. That's

0:55:28.960 --> 0:55:32.319
<v Speaker 1>a frustration of the sort of the architecture that the

0:55:32.320 --> 0:55:34.799
<v Speaker 1>tech companies have created for those of us in this

0:55:34.880 --> 0:55:41.440
<v Speaker 1>independent space. I you know, I appreciate substack. You can

0:55:41.480 --> 0:55:44.239
<v Speaker 1>sort of curate yourself. They don't feel I don't feel

0:55:44.280 --> 0:55:46.520
<v Speaker 1>like they use algorithms to push stuff on me. It's

0:55:46.640 --> 0:55:50.560
<v Speaker 1>you're you only get pushed stuff from the actual publisher

0:55:50.719 --> 0:55:53.880
<v Speaker 1>of the content or people that you know. If you

0:55:53.960 --> 0:55:57.280
<v Speaker 1>decide to subscribe, then you're asked to to to spread

0:55:57.320 --> 0:56:00.719
<v Speaker 1>the word. It's a it's a it's a healthier way

0:56:00.840 --> 0:56:06.120
<v Speaker 1>to do it on that front. But the you know,

0:56:06.200 --> 0:56:10.120
<v Speaker 1>that's the problem, right, And you see, I don't want

0:56:10.120 --> 0:56:13.840
<v Speaker 1>to build an audience where I feel like I'm captured

0:56:13.840 --> 0:56:19.400
<v Speaker 1>by the audience. Now, I just I am a podcast

0:56:19.440 --> 0:56:24.399
<v Speaker 1>listener because I'm trying to get more information. I sort

0:56:24.400 --> 0:56:26.680
<v Speaker 1>of listened to three types of podcasts. One is deep

0:56:26.719 --> 0:56:30.399
<v Speaker 1>dives on history, one is on economic and a bunch

0:56:30.520 --> 0:56:33.680
<v Speaker 1>of sports. Not gonna lie, maybe one or two in

0:56:33.800 --> 0:56:39.120
<v Speaker 1>sports gambling, a few in sports cards, but quite a

0:56:39.120 --> 0:56:42.640
<v Speaker 1>few on history on that stuff. And I want information

0:56:42.760 --> 0:56:48.040
<v Speaker 1>over commentary. Right, I don't necessarily want left right commentary.

0:56:48.040 --> 0:56:51.160
<v Speaker 1>I can read the left right commentary on that front,

0:56:51.680 --> 0:56:54.960
<v Speaker 1>but I do think that, you know, I'm very mindful.

0:56:55.040 --> 0:56:57.799
<v Speaker 1>I don't want I don't want to I don't want

0:56:57.800 --> 0:56:59.759
<v Speaker 1>an audience. I don't want to feel like I've been

0:56:59.760 --> 0:57:02.879
<v Speaker 1>capped stured by my subscribers or my audience, or however

0:57:02.880 --> 0:57:04.719
<v Speaker 1>you want to look at it. I think that you've

0:57:04.760 --> 0:57:06.520
<v Speaker 1>seen that. I feel like I see that in the

0:57:06.520 --> 0:57:09.640
<v Speaker 1>New York Times, you know, when when they chased away

0:57:09.760 --> 0:57:12.680
<v Speaker 1>James Bennett from being editorial page editor of the opinion section.

0:57:14.680 --> 0:57:16.880
<v Speaker 1>He didn't do anything wrong, he didn't he didn't do

0:57:16.920 --> 0:57:19.880
<v Speaker 1>anything fireable by the editors, but there was a revolt

0:57:19.880 --> 0:57:23.280
<v Speaker 1>among subscribers, and there they were concerned about losing subscribers

0:57:23.280 --> 0:57:26.000
<v Speaker 1>and losing it, and it seems like he was sacrificed

0:57:26.360 --> 0:57:30.440
<v Speaker 1>for that. Well, when you make a decision based on

0:57:30.560 --> 0:57:34.920
<v Speaker 1>viewership or who's watching. Look, I don't want to get

0:57:34.920 --> 0:57:42.480
<v Speaker 1>into too many details, but you know, these were these

0:57:42.480 --> 0:57:45.200
<v Speaker 1>were some of the struggles when when when I was

0:57:45.240 --> 0:57:52.040
<v Speaker 1>trying to do a a a non ideological partisan show

0:57:52.080 --> 0:57:55.240
<v Speaker 1>on politics on a cable channel that had a history

0:57:55.240 --> 0:57:59.880
<v Speaker 1>of being partisan, and it was the audience. The audience

0:58:00.080 --> 0:58:01.960
<v Speaker 1>was uncomfortable with it. They didn't like when I would

0:58:01.960 --> 0:58:04.240
<v Speaker 1>put Republicans on and it would become a thing, and

0:58:05.640 --> 0:58:07.280
<v Speaker 1>I didn't like that I was being used by the

0:58:07.400 --> 0:58:09.320
<v Speaker 1>right at times to try to do it was just

0:58:09.360 --> 0:58:12.800
<v Speaker 1>a mess. But it's what happens when you have audience capture,

0:58:13.320 --> 0:58:15.280
<v Speaker 1>and it is something I'm trying really hard not to

0:58:15.320 --> 0:58:18.560
<v Speaker 1>have audience capture. I appreciate you noticing it, and I'm

0:58:18.560 --> 0:58:23.760
<v Speaker 1>trying so thank you, and we'll spread the word. All right,

0:58:23.800 --> 0:58:26.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna sneak in at least one more question here.

0:58:26.680 --> 0:58:30.880
<v Speaker 1>I've got a little I'm on the clock before taping,

0:58:30.880 --> 0:58:31.960
<v Speaker 1>so I want to see how many can get in.

0:58:32.280 --> 0:58:34.000
<v Speaker 1>James E writes, is it me or does it seem

0:58:34.040 --> 0:58:37.200
<v Speaker 1>like the right are being opportunity to utilizing their friend's

0:58:37.240 --> 0:58:40.000
<v Speaker 1>death as a reason to go after the left. I

0:58:40.000 --> 0:58:43.720
<v Speaker 1>don't think it's just you. If you hear my commentary top,

0:58:44.240 --> 0:58:46.880
<v Speaker 1>that's I think exactly what's happening. Seems like such an

0:58:46.880 --> 0:58:48.440
<v Speaker 1>odd time to go on the attack rather than to

0:58:48.480 --> 0:58:51.200
<v Speaker 1>mourn a supposed friend. Have there been other instances in

0:58:51.240 --> 0:58:53.480
<v Speaker 1>the past of a political death or assassination being used

0:58:53.520 --> 0:58:57.120
<v Speaker 1>to attack the other side so soon after the incident. Well,

0:58:57.160 --> 0:59:01.560
<v Speaker 1>here's the thing. In the Internet era, we see it all,

0:59:02.440 --> 0:59:07.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, and it gets It's something that I think

0:59:07.120 --> 0:59:11.960
<v Speaker 1>social media also provides us with that. God. This is

0:59:12.000 --> 0:59:17.000
<v Speaker 1>why I think it's an experiment gone haywire on our brains.

0:59:18.320 --> 0:59:20.440
<v Speaker 1>I can't remember if I shared this earlier with you

0:59:20.440 --> 0:59:23.520
<v Speaker 1>guys or with my friend Chrystaliza on the weekly podcast

0:59:23.560 --> 0:59:27.919
<v Speaker 1>I do for his feed. But John pot Horitz, who's

0:59:27.920 --> 0:59:33.320
<v Speaker 1>an editor at Commentary magazine. He's a conservative commentator, had

0:59:33.320 --> 0:59:39.080
<v Speaker 1>a fascinating thread over the weekend about how the real

0:59:39.120 --> 0:59:42.400
<v Speaker 1>issue with social media is that too many good people

0:59:42.520 --> 0:59:46.200
<v Speaker 1>have allowed too much of their of their inner thoughts

0:59:46.280 --> 0:59:49.360
<v Speaker 1>go public. And what he was saying is that look,

0:59:49.680 --> 0:59:53.160
<v Speaker 1>in any given second, if our thought, if every thought

0:59:53.240 --> 0:59:56.040
<v Speaker 1>that was in our head, do this exercise and think

0:59:56.040 --> 0:59:59.600
<v Speaker 1>about everything you may have thought about for a split second,

1:00:00.160 --> 1:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>involving your life, anything about it, right, relationships, you name it.

1:00:08.120 --> 1:00:12.960
<v Speaker 1>If all those thoughts were broadcast on social media, do

1:00:13.000 --> 1:00:14.959
<v Speaker 1>you think you'd have any friends left? Would you still

1:00:14.960 --> 1:00:18.240
<v Speaker 1>be married, would you still be in relationships? Would you

1:00:18.280 --> 1:00:21.360
<v Speaker 1>be seen as a madman? Would you be seen as crazy? Right?

1:00:22.040 --> 1:00:23.800
<v Speaker 1>I think you sort of get what I'm saying, or

1:00:23.840 --> 1:00:27.760
<v Speaker 1>maybe I'm the weirdo that is admitting that you know

1:00:27.800 --> 1:00:30.200
<v Speaker 1>you get. There's plenty of things you think that you

1:00:30.280 --> 1:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>don't say, and somehow social media. Like I was reading,

1:00:35.160 --> 1:00:40.320
<v Speaker 1>I was reading a quote from somebody who was who oh,

1:00:40.920 --> 1:00:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I know what it was. It was an elected official

1:00:46.520 --> 1:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>down in my hometown in South Florida, in Miami Palmetto Bay,

1:00:49.720 --> 1:00:53.520
<v Speaker 1>one of these invented towns in Dade County, I say invented.

1:00:55.280 --> 1:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>When I was growing up, there were thirty one municipalities.

1:00:57.760 --> 1:00:59.240
<v Speaker 1>I think we're up the thirty six down there in

1:00:59.240 --> 1:01:02.200
<v Speaker 1>Miami Dade County. Palmetto Bay is now one of them.

1:01:02.240 --> 1:01:04.720
<v Speaker 1>It all used to be unincorporated Dade County, so we

1:01:04.760 --> 1:01:07.640
<v Speaker 1>all wrote miamis our is our address? Which is I

1:01:07.640 --> 1:01:13.080
<v Speaker 1>grew up an unincorporated Dade County. Otherwise I describe it

1:01:13.080 --> 1:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>as East Kendall if you're if you're scoring at home,

1:01:17.600 --> 1:01:21.280
<v Speaker 1>but an elected official went out there and said something

1:01:21.320 --> 1:01:28.000
<v Speaker 1>really you know, said something really not good about Charlie Kirkstaff.

1:01:28.680 --> 1:01:31.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember the exact things. I'm hesitant to characterize

1:01:31.840 --> 1:01:35.680
<v Speaker 1>it other than it was inappropriate, and certainly the timing

1:01:35.720 --> 1:01:39.120
<v Speaker 1>was inappropriate. And the guy had said he goes he

1:01:39.160 --> 1:01:42.080
<v Speaker 1>woke up the next morning and regretted sending it, right,

1:01:42.160 --> 1:01:45.680
<v Speaker 1>it was heat of the moment. I bring this up

1:01:45.760 --> 1:01:52.640
<v Speaker 1>because I think that that's where we've let why social

1:01:52.680 --> 1:01:56.720
<v Speaker 1>media is so so toxic and and so bad for

1:01:56.800 --> 1:02:03.160
<v Speaker 1>our brains. Right, there's no there, there's no uh, there's

1:02:03.200 --> 1:02:07.080
<v Speaker 1>no sort of It should sit in drafts, right, Like

1:02:07.160 --> 1:02:10.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, if you're worried about your inner id saying

1:02:10.840 --> 1:02:13.880
<v Speaker 1>something that you'll regret in the morning, It's almost like

1:02:14.280 --> 1:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>you should be able to put a small g governor

1:02:16.680 --> 1:02:19.440
<v Speaker 1>and your Twitter feed and just say send all tweets

1:02:19.480 --> 1:02:22.040
<v Speaker 1>to draft, and then the next morning reread them and

1:02:22.080 --> 1:02:24.280
<v Speaker 1>see if you want to send them. But of course,

1:02:24.400 --> 1:02:26.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, nobody wants to do that because they want

1:02:26.600 --> 1:02:28.120
<v Speaker 1>to be in the moment. You want to see if

1:02:28.120 --> 1:02:31.320
<v Speaker 1>you go viral or whatever. Right, and so I just

1:02:31.320 --> 1:02:35.880
<v Speaker 1>bring that up because I have a feeling in the

1:02:35.880 --> 1:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>pre social media world there were plenty of people who

1:02:38.840 --> 1:02:45.480
<v Speaker 1>had unpopular opinions about political attacks or assassinations that if

1:02:45.520 --> 1:02:47.600
<v Speaker 1>they shared them, and if there had been social media

1:02:47.640 --> 1:02:51.000
<v Speaker 1>at the time, would have probably gotten them, you know, canceled,

1:02:52.240 --> 1:02:54.360
<v Speaker 1>and maybe in some cases deservedly. So I'm not gonna

1:02:54.360 --> 1:02:56.440
<v Speaker 1>even I don't want to sit here and defend that idea,

1:02:58.120 --> 1:03:01.000
<v Speaker 1>but I think this is where social media is just

1:03:01.240 --> 1:03:06.920
<v Speaker 1>it incentivizes stupidity, and it sometimes you know, remember the

1:03:06.960 --> 1:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>advice I assume everybody has heard this advice, if you

1:03:10.720 --> 1:03:13.040
<v Speaker 1>don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

1:03:13.720 --> 1:03:16.880
<v Speaker 1>It's certainly a rule of thumb I have about people

1:03:16.920 --> 1:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>that die in politics. You know, if you know you,

1:03:21.480 --> 1:03:26.080
<v Speaker 1>you certainly if you've got a disagreement, you want to highlight.

1:03:26.160 --> 1:03:29.360
<v Speaker 1>Maybe wait, let the family mourn, have some grace, right,

1:03:29.440 --> 1:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>whatever it is. And for some reason social media has

1:03:36.040 --> 1:03:38.960
<v Speaker 1>made us think that the rules of decorum don't apply

1:03:39.840 --> 1:03:41.840
<v Speaker 1>when how would you behave in you know, if you

1:03:41.880 --> 1:03:46.000
<v Speaker 1>were face to face with that person, if you if

1:03:46.000 --> 1:03:48.320
<v Speaker 1>you were trying, if you put yourself saying, if I

1:03:48.360 --> 1:03:51.880
<v Speaker 1>was face to face how would I say this? It

1:03:51.960 --> 1:03:57.200
<v Speaker 1>probably would make Twitter less interesting. But maybe that's a

1:03:57.240 --> 1:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>good thing on this front. But I'm really worried about

1:04:00.720 --> 1:04:03.760
<v Speaker 1>a sort of red scare vibe, as I said at

1:04:03.800 --> 1:04:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the top here, and a disingenuous attack on this that

1:04:09.320 --> 1:04:13.040
<v Speaker 1>this is just trying to do guilt by association, which

1:04:13.080 --> 1:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>is you know, it's a very dangerous. It's you know,

1:04:17.560 --> 1:04:24.160
<v Speaker 1>it's our polarization is bad. Are the increase in political

1:04:24.240 --> 1:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>violence that we've been experiencing is bad, and scapegoating and

1:04:28.360 --> 1:04:30.640
<v Speaker 1>guilt by association is only going to make all of

1:04:30.640 --> 1:04:36.800
<v Speaker 1>these things worse. All right, On that happy note, I

1:04:36.840 --> 1:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>think I'm going to pause here for twenty four hours.

1:04:41.640 --> 1:04:43.040
<v Speaker 1>This was, like I said, I wanted to make it

1:04:43.080 --> 1:04:47.480
<v Speaker 1>a little canpaigin heavier episode. But look, we're living in

1:04:47.920 --> 1:04:52.160
<v Speaker 1>a rough period, and if we don't have the leaders

1:04:52.160 --> 1:04:53.920
<v Speaker 1>to get us out of this rough period, do little

1:04:53.920 --> 1:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>things on your own, right, you know, just say thank you,

1:05:02.680 --> 1:05:06.440
<v Speaker 1>say hi to somebody you don't know, acknowledge somebody's existence

1:05:06.440 --> 1:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>when you walk by them, you know, on a street corner.

1:05:13.880 --> 1:05:17.640
<v Speaker 1>And Spencer Cox said, touch grass, right, but turn it off,

1:05:18.040 --> 1:05:21.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, I have I all the time try to

1:05:22.000 --> 1:05:25.680
<v Speaker 1>do better when it comes to I'm a news junkie,

1:05:25.680 --> 1:05:28.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm an information junkie, so I'm always looking for more information.

1:05:29.040 --> 1:05:32.360
<v Speaker 1>But I have found different ways now to get information

1:05:32.480 --> 1:05:36.919
<v Speaker 1>without using social media. Not totally gone. I'm not totally

1:05:37.000 --> 1:05:39.520
<v Speaker 1>kicked the habit. You know, I might be smoking one

1:05:39.560 --> 1:05:43.600
<v Speaker 1>cigarette a day, but I'm not smoking twenty and I

1:05:43.640 --> 1:05:47.160
<v Speaker 1>think that's the I think if everybody took that advice,

1:05:47.360 --> 1:05:51.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, wean themselves off, we might have a better

1:05:52.080 --> 1:05:57.120
<v Speaker 1>digital atmosphere. So with that, I'll take a break until

1:05:57.120 --> 1:06:02.840
<v Speaker 1>we upload again. See in twenty four hours. Hey,