Speaker 1: Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
Speaker 1: personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
Speaker 1: We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
Speaker 1: the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
Speaker 1: sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
Speaker 1: pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
Speaker 1: one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
Speaker 1: but it was important at the time, and it's why
Speaker 1: I was able to go to college. Little did he
Speaker 1: know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
Speaker 1: about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
Speaker 1: mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
Speaker 1: comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes
Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
Speaker 1: your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
Speaker 1: process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
Speaker 1: exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
Speaker 1: You can get a quote and it's a little ten minutes,
Speaker 1: and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
Speaker 1: your home. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies start as low as two
Speaker 1: dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
Speaker 1: one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
Speaker 1: your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
Speaker 1: quoted Ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the
Speaker 1: rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life
Speaker 1: insurance is something you should really think about it, especially
Speaker 1: if you've got a growing family. Hello, they're happy Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. Well,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite sayings used to be, if it
Speaker 1: was Tuesday, somebody's voting somewhere, which means, if it's Wednesday,
Speaker 1: we have some election results. And this happens to be
Speaker 1: no ordinary Wednesday. It's a day after a special election.
Speaker 1: I know the most devoted of your time podcast subscribers
Speaker 1: and listeners caught our live stream or I hope caught
Speaker 1: our live stream election show and partnership with Decision Desk
Speaker 1: HQ and Chris Solisa. We were essentially watching the returns
Speaker 1: with those that chose to watch with us, and we
Speaker 1: had another huge turnout. We are overwhelmed by the response
Speaker 1: we've been getting for these election night specials. Let's just say,
Speaker 1: you're you're only encouraging us to do this more and more.
Speaker 1: But in some ways, this is one of those special
Speaker 1: elections where both parties are going to take something away
Speaker 1: that they feel better about. Both parties are going to
Speaker 1: look at this and say what could have been for
Speaker 1: different rays, And in another way you look at it
Speaker 1: is in some ways it changes nothing. It taught us
Speaker 1: nothing we didn't already know. So I'm gonna start with
Speaker 1: that part right. In some ways, this special election went
Speaker 1: as expected.
Speaker 2: What do I mean by that?
Speaker 1: Well, as Jeffrey Scaling said there at the end, it's
Speaker 1: like the final margin of victory looks like to be
Speaker 1: somewhere around, you know, somewhere between four and six percentage points,
Speaker 1: which means you're looking at it at approximately a sixteen
Speaker 1: to eighteen point Democratic over performance based on the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four results, which is exactly pretty much in line
Speaker 1: with what we've seen with various special elections. We've had
Speaker 1: some special congressional elections. Two that happened in Florida one
Speaker 1: had a sixteen point over performance, another one actually had
Speaker 1: a twenty three point over performance for Democrats. Both were
Speaker 1: still Republican victories like this one, but there was this
Speaker 1: over performance right super red districts that suddenly got much
Speaker 1: closer in a special election. In some Democratic victories, their
Speaker 1: over performance has been in the sixteen to eighteen point range.
Speaker 1: Why do I keep using this number sixteen to eighteen
Speaker 1: And no, I'm not saying six seven. I'm not participating
Speaker 1: in that nonsense. But the importance of that sixteen to
Speaker 1: eighteen point range is that it's about the same number
Speaker 1: that we saw in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen special
Speaker 1: elections going into that mid cycle, where that over performance
Speaker 1: did end up translating to a good Democratic Knight. But
Speaker 1: of course the question is is twenty twenty six going
Speaker 1: to be another twenty eighteen or it's twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: going to be something bigger, something akin to what Republican
Speaker 1: You know, Republicans nineteen ninety four they swept both the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate, or Democrats two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: where they swept both the House and the Senate. When
Speaker 1: you have a to me at this point, a wave
Speaker 1: is when you're the party out of power, you're not
Speaker 1: holding either of the House and Senate, and after the
Speaker 1: wave hits, you end up controlling both the House and
Speaker 1: the Senate. And I think the question we're all looking
Speaker 1: for is, is this in a political environment that is
Speaker 1: developing into a wave for the Democrats right to You know,
Speaker 1: we love our weather metaphors as political prognosticator types, and
Speaker 1: there's clearly a storm brewing, and the question is is
Speaker 1: this going to be you know, to use hurricane terms,
Speaker 1: a Cat two, a Cat three, a Cat four, a
Speaker 1: Cat five. Right, if it's a Cat one, Republicans probably
Speaker 1: can hold both the House and the Senate. If it's
Speaker 1: simply a Cat two or a Cat three type of storm,
Speaker 1: where it's a bigger Democratic turnout than Republican turnout, more
Speaker 1: enthusiasm on the left than the right, but the money's
Speaker 1: kind of equal, the candidate performance is kind of equal.
Speaker 1: You know, that's an environment that the Democrats probably wouldn't
Speaker 1: control the House.
Speaker 2: But come up short in the Senate.
Speaker 1: This thing gets bigger than that and it becomes where
Speaker 1: they can win both the House and the Senate, where
Speaker 1: you start to have more retirements, and you have lopsided
Speaker 1: candidate issues. And that's what we were watching for tonight, Right,
Speaker 1: was the bottom going to fall out for Republicans. It's
Speaker 1: been a rough couple of months for Republicans in general,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump specifically.
Speaker 2: The narrative is not going well. The headlines aren't going well.
Speaker 1: Right, you look at the MAGA coalition and there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of cracks in that coalition. Marjorie Taylor Green.
Speaker 1: The Jeffrey Epstein files created cracks. What's happening in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: in Israel, in Ukraine has created some cracks. And it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's a reminder, you know, Trump Trump put
Speaker 1: together this coalition that doesn't really share any sort of
Speaker 1: ideological values other than they don't like the left right.
Speaker 1: There's a cultural bind that keeps this coalition together, but
Speaker 1: there's not really an issue bind that keeps this coalition together,
Speaker 1: you know, And so if you start to see fracture,
Speaker 1: it's fracture that may be really hard to put back together.
Speaker 1: And I think the fear Republicans had about this special
Speaker 1: election in Tennessee that a loss would essentially lead to
Speaker 1: the bottom falling out. And what does the bottom falling
Speaker 1: out look like for Republicans, another ten to fifteen House
Speaker 1: members deciding to retire and not seek reelection, maybe a
Speaker 1: senator or two. That you don't that Republicans thought we're
Speaker 1: going to seek reelection. That says, you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: out of here. I'm not going to do this. I'm gonna.
Speaker 2: I don't want to.
Speaker 1: Either be in the minority or worse risk losing my seat.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go out that way. And a
Speaker 1: loss in this special election would have been that, but
Speaker 1: that didn't happen, right, So I think what we have
Speaker 1: is you have Republicans feeling as if, Okay, there's a
Speaker 1: way to survive these midterms. They can survive the storm
Speaker 1: that's coming. It's not going to be pretty. They may
Speaker 1: lose some windows, they may lose a piece of their roof.
Speaker 1: That's the equivalent of losing House seats and losing control
Speaker 1: of the House. Maybe the Senate goes from a three
Speaker 1: seat advantage down to a one seat advantage, but they
Speaker 1: hang on to some power in Congress, and it's not
Speaker 1: a total loss if you're Donald Trump, and if you
Speaker 1: look at and I think that that's what each party's
Speaker 1: going to take away from this, right, I think the
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to look and say, look, we got
Speaker 1: an enthusiasm advantage. Voters are ready to walk on broken
Speaker 1: glass to show up. The turnout in this special election
Speaker 1: was was very high, but it also meant it engaged
Speaker 1: the other side too. I think a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to whisper today that hey there, you know,
Speaker 1: imagine if they had a candidate that ideologically fit the
Speaker 1: district better. Right this If you remember the famous Connor
Speaker 1: Lamb special election of twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen, that
Speaker 1: was sort of the first big, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: tea leaf that when Connor Lamb won a district that
Speaker 1: had been a double digit Republican district and he won
Speaker 1: that special election, that was like whoa. And I remember
Speaker 1: at the time Republicans were going, well, Democrats won't find
Speaker 1: candidates like that in all these races. But it was
Speaker 1: an acknowledgment that the Democrats had found almost the perfect
Speaker 1: candidate to run in that district. That is not Aftenban, Right,
Speaker 1: she was definitely the progressive in the primary. She was
Speaker 1: outspent in the primary by more establishment candidates, and you know,
Speaker 1: she was the more democratic socialist leaning candidate, if you will,
Speaker 1: I think even you know had some kind things to
Speaker 1: say about it. Let's just say anything she had said
Speaker 1: positively about democratic socialism or progressive politics. Republicans found and
Speaker 1: used it in their at and she ended up being,
Speaker 1: in some ways the referendum in this race, right. It
Speaker 1: was Republicans wanted this to be a referendum on her
Speaker 1: and left wing politics. Democrats were hoping this would be
Speaker 1: a referendum on prices, the economy, and Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter is they both succeeded.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Democrats succeeded in getting a turnout that made this race
Speaker 1: incredibly competitive, fairly close, probably as close as they realistically
Speaker 1: could have gotten it given the makeup of this district.
Speaker 1: But Republicans got the nominee they wanted, right, And I
Speaker 1: think that's what Democrats are going to ask themselves the
Speaker 1: special had they had a Jim Cooper like Democrat. And
Speaker 1: for those of you who are familiar with old Tennessee politics,
Speaker 1: Jim Cooper was sort of an old school blue dog Democrat,
Speaker 1: which was code for more you know, he was closer
Speaker 1: to Joe Manchin on the ideological scale than even say
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer. Okay, I'm not even saying, you know, going
Speaker 1: to AOC definitely was more center left than just mainstream liberal.
Speaker 1: And I think that's going to be a fair, a
Speaker 1: fair piece of analysis that you know, would that have
Speaker 1: would that have been the difference? Right? A couple of
Speaker 1: points been harder to paint, you know, somebody like a
Speaker 1: Jim Cooper as a radical. But then you got to
Speaker 1: ask yourself, if you're Republicans, can you do this in
Speaker 1: forty races? Can you do this for thirty districts that
Speaker 1: you've got to defend? Because it's going to be somewhere. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, anything that is our anything that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: won by say twelve to fifteen points, I think now
Speaker 1: is a house seat. Realistically, the Democrats, that they find
Speaker 1: the right candidate can potentially put in play. So, you know,
Speaker 1: can they run the kind of camp essentially emergency triage
Speaker 1: campaign that Republicans came in and ran. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they deserve credit for this because you know, failing to
Speaker 1: answer the bell on these warning signs and losing this
Speaker 1: would have led to a total catastrophe. So doing the
Speaker 1: triage sort of bought them some time and probably saved
Speaker 1: a handful of retirements on this front, But can they
Speaker 1: scale this right? You know, you might be able to
Speaker 1: save a race here or a race there in this game,
Speaker 1: but you're not going to be able to hope that
Speaker 1: you get Democratic nominees that don't fit the district across
Speaker 1: the country. Now, do I think Republicans are going to
Speaker 1: get into the habit now of trying to actually play
Speaker 1: in Democratic primaries, because that's been the biggest That's the
Speaker 1: other difference between the twenty eighteen cycle and the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six cycle. In twenty eighteen, the Democratic leadership and
Speaker 1: at that time, you know, and yes that included Schumer
Speaker 1: and Pelosi, But back then they had a little more juice.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party had a little more credibility with its
Speaker 1: own voters and donors that when they squeezed people out
Speaker 1: of a primary, they listened and they said, hey, this
Speaker 1: is who we were supporting, this is who the national
Speaker 1: party wants. They could clear a primary field and they
Speaker 1: could sort of minimize the number of nominees that we're
Speaker 1: going to be too far to the left to win
Speaker 1: general elections. They don't have that credibility this cycle. While
Speaker 1: I think a bit more enthusiasm for Democrats. You also
Speaker 1: have a national party that can't sit here and say
Speaker 1: we're going to squeeze out this candidate, and the Michigan
Speaker 1: Senate primary squeeze out and in some ways, an endorsement
Speaker 1: from the national party for in certain primaries maybe a
Speaker 1: kiss of death that it puts the scarlet e on
Speaker 1: your coat for establishment right and in these days, being
Speaker 1: part being seen as part of the political establishment, whether
Speaker 1: you're on the left or the right, is not a
Speaker 1: good place to be politically.
Speaker 2: So, you know.
Speaker 1: I think that the challenge the Democrats have is they
Speaker 1: have a great environment building. In fact, if you look
Speaker 1: at my latest substack, I kind of think we're I
Speaker 1: think we're sort of underrating what is growing here. I
Speaker 1: think this is when you look at it, Yes, things
Speaker 1: look very similar as twenty eighteen, but I sense that
Speaker 1: Trump's script on his own party is loosening a little bit.
Speaker 1: And ask yourself over the next five months, what good
Speaker 1: headlines are going to help a Republican that's going to
Speaker 1: be on the ballot in twenty six Right, they're having
Speaker 1: this argument over extending the Obamacare subsidies. In fact, I
Speaker 1: believe that had Ashton Bain won this special had the
Speaker 1: Democrat pulled the upset. I think you've seen those subsidy
Speaker 1: extensions like happen within forty eight hours. I still think
Speaker 1: they're going to happen because I think Trump is going
Speaker 1: to flip a switch in his polster who's been warning
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans that healthcare could be the issue
Speaker 1: that takes down the Republican majorities in both chambers. That
Speaker 1: Trump will end up weighing in and doing a one
Speaker 1: year or two year extension because he just wants to
Speaker 1: get that. They want to mitigate the damage. Not extending
Speaker 1: these healthcare subsidies would do so. But the point is
Speaker 1: just that fight alone, there's not positive headlines being created.
Speaker 1: Those are negative. That's defensive headlines. Then you've got we've
Speaker 1: got a Terra ruling that's coming. Well, no matter what
Speaker 1: the ruling is, it's a bad I think.
Speaker 2: It's a bad headline for the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Right if if the Supreme Court upholds Trump's authority, well,
Speaker 1: the market's going to go haywire. It means these tariffs
Speaker 1: stay in place and the uneven economy continues, right, and
Speaker 1: we have prices continue to rise, We continue to have
Speaker 1: inflationary pressures, and we've weakened the global economy. And when
Speaker 1: the global economy gets weaker, our economy can't get as strong.
Speaker 1: You know, we might you know, I saw somebody cheering
Speaker 1: on that that we you know Japan, you know, the
Speaker 1: tariffs have really slowed down Japan's economy. That's not good
Speaker 1: for America. Of Japan's economy, it goes into recession. That's
Speaker 1: not anything to cheer. That's only going to hurt our economy.
Speaker 1: Economies are too interconnected. So this is the naivete of
Speaker 1: this whole teriff regime. But the more nationalistic we go
Speaker 1: with our economic policy, the more nationalistic everybody else is
Speaker 1: going to go with their economic policy. And that is
Speaker 1: bad for prices, and that is bad for GDP growth
Speaker 1: around the world, And it doesn't solve the income inequality problem,
Speaker 1: and it just puts a sort of a wet blanket
Speaker 1: over any economic growth. But you still have inflationary pressures, right,
Speaker 1: Costs still go up because of these consumer taxes. We
Speaker 1: call them tariffs, but they're nothing more than an additional tax, essentially,
Speaker 1: a form of almost like a vat tax that Trump
Speaker 1: has tried to institute here. But that's not going to
Speaker 1: be a great headline. You've got what's happening in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: where where you know, is this war even legal? Have
Speaker 1: any of the you know, it's possible. Nothing is legal here, right,
Speaker 1: There's been no congressional authority that you know is clear
Speaker 1: to me that has given the president the authority to
Speaker 1: do this. This definition of narco terrorism to me, is
Speaker 1: a It is not something that's been tested in the courts,
Speaker 1: whether you can truly I go to war and if
Speaker 1: this is you know, is this a regular crime or
Speaker 1: is it a homicide or a war crime. But either way,
Speaker 1: the second strike attacking those that survived the first strike
Speaker 1: in that first attack on the alleged Venezuelan and cocaine traffickers,
Speaker 1: either one creates a congressional inquiry that again, this is
Speaker 1: not a positive headline for the Republican Party and anybody
Speaker 1: running for office. It is a headline that puts you
Speaker 1: on the defensive at best, and if anything, may put
Speaker 1: some Republicans in a place where they feel like they've
Speaker 1: got a distance themselves from Donald Trump. Do you hate hangovers?
Speaker 1: We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of office gives you
Speaker 1: the social buzz without the next day regret. Their best
Speaker 1: selling out of office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
Speaker 1: relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.
Speaker 1: With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
Speaker 1: fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
Speaker 1: micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a
Speaker 1: more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
Speaker 1: mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
Speaker 1: don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THHD
Speaker 1: and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
Speaker 1: simply help you unwine so if you struggle to switch
Speaker 1: off at night, Soul also has a variety of products
Speaker 1: specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a
Speaker 1: fan favorite for d restorative sleep, So bring on the
Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: So go to get sold dot com use the promo
Speaker 1: code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's get sold dot
Speaker 1: Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 2: You know, the more.
Speaker 1: Unpopular Trump is growing and his approval rating, his disapproval
Speaker 1: rating continues to rise, and his his approval ratings floating downward.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say it's diving downward, but it continues to
Speaker 1: float downward. You put all that together and you're going
Speaker 1: to have in comment Republicans looking for ways to subtly
Speaker 1: distance themselves from Trump. In fact, we saw it in
Speaker 1: the special election. The most remarkable thing about the Matt
Speaker 1: Van epsads is that they didn't use Donald Trump. Yes,
Speaker 1: he phoned into a rally, right you know, and the
Speaker 1: national media covered that rally, but you know that was
Speaker 1: they did not want a picture of Donald Trump with
Speaker 1: this candidate. He never used Trump's name, you know. He
Speaker 1: certainly said I will fight for America first, and used radicals,
Speaker 1: used different buzzwords that are very familiar buzzwords in maga circles.
Speaker 1: But there was no use of Trump, and there are
Speaker 1: going to be other Republicans are going to be looking
Speaker 1: for specific places to start splitting from Trump. They may
Speaker 1: do it on tariffs, they may do it on Venezuela,
Speaker 1: they may do it on healthcare subsidies. But the point
Speaker 1: is all of the near term events that are going
Speaker 1: to impact this political environment, they all seem like negative
Speaker 1: headlines right now for the Republicans. What is going to
Speaker 1: be a positive headline that's coming up. Are we suddenly
Speaker 1: going to see prices fall and saving these accounts grow
Speaker 1: over the next six months. That doesn't seem likely. And
Speaker 1: then there's the intangible here of Donald Trump and Trump fatigue.
Speaker 1: Don't I think we underestimate the length of the you know,
Speaker 1: of the hold he's had on our politics. Right it's
Speaker 1: been now over ten years that he's essentially dominated politics.
Speaker 1: His movements about ten years old. And if you look
Speaker 1: at the history of modern political campaigns, at modern politics,
Speaker 1: which I defined modern politics as essentially the end of
Speaker 1: World War two to now, you know, these runs, these
Speaker 1: sort of cult We've basically had a series of cult
Speaker 1: to personalities. It's not that parties have have runs. It's
Speaker 1: almost like political personalities have run, right. You know, Eisenhower
Speaker 1: had himself of basically an eight to ten year run,
Speaker 1: and Kennedy Johnson had eight to ten years, and Nixon
Speaker 1: had his ten year period. You know, Carter was sort
Speaker 1: of a four year interlude, and Reagan Bush dominated about
Speaker 1: ten to twelve years, and Clinton had his eight to
Speaker 1: ten years, and George W. Bush and then Barack Obama
Speaker 1: and then we're in the air of Donald Trump. The
Speaker 1: point is is that it's really hard to extend this
Speaker 1: to eleven and twelve years successfully. Right by the ninety midterms,
Speaker 1: everything was petering out for the Reagan coalition. By the
Speaker 1: twenty oh two midterms, the Clinton or Clinton coalition was
Speaker 1: completely gone. By twenty sixteen, we saw the Obama coalition
Speaker 1: already fracturing. It kind of got put back together during
Speaker 1: COVID for Biden, but that might have been a bit
Speaker 1: of a COVID effect than anything else. So I don't
Speaker 1: think we fully appreciate that we're at the end. We're
Speaker 1: at the end stages here of the Trump era. Is
Speaker 1: it going to go out with a whimper? Is it
Speaker 1: going to go out with a bang? Is it going
Speaker 1: to be escorted out by the voters or sort of
Speaker 1: fade away. I think that's the only unknown here, right,
Speaker 1: and it being escorted out by the voters is a
Speaker 1: wipeout in.
Speaker 2: The twenty twenty six midterms.
Speaker 1: Fading away is you know, losing the House, holding the
Speaker 1: Senate and staying competitive in twenty in twenty twenty eight
Speaker 1: and so you know, I think that I am sort
Speaker 1: of think I believe we're underestimating the sort of the
Speaker 1: intangible Trump fatigue here. And the fact is, when this
Speaker 1: economy sucks and the economy member did not suck in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, that's a big difference between twenty eighteen and now.
Speaker 1: You had a people felt pretty good about that economy
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, and Democrats still won the House though
Speaker 1: they lost two sentences. You're now going to have a
Speaker 1: similar enthusiastic democratic environment, but with an economy that a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't like. And I always say that
Speaker 1: because you know, the stock market looks good, but the
Speaker 1: real world looks uncomfortable and bad, right, And I think
Speaker 1: it's because the issue of costs is really starting to pinch.
Speaker 2: And you know, now you've.
Speaker 1: Got the high cost of electric bills and that's starting
Speaker 1: to hit and that's being connected to these a ideals.
Speaker 1: And I just think that Trump Trump now instead of
Speaker 1: being teflon don, he's now wearing some beltcrow and whether
Speaker 1: it's his weekly pardons that become less and less defensible,
Speaker 1: particularly this one of the former Honduran presidential cocaine trafficker.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, on.
Speaker 1: One breath, Donald Trump is going after Venezuela because of
Speaker 1: cocaine distribution, and in the next breath he's pardoning somebody
Speaker 1: who's responsible for my massive cocaine distribution into this country.
Speaker 1: Is the only difference that Roger Stone got paid for
Speaker 1: one and didn't get paid for the other. I mean
Speaker 1: that that is an uncomfortable thing. And there's not many
Speaker 1: elected Republicans that want to have to defend that pardon.
Speaker 1: And Trump's doing this almost on a weekly basis. Where
Speaker 1: there's some pardon that you're like, oh, BOYD, does that stink?
Speaker 1: That's impossible to defend. In a normal political environment, there
Speaker 1: might be borderline impeachable offense. We're obviously not going to
Speaker 1: head in that territory. But the point is is that
Speaker 1: not only are the macro is the macro environment pretty
Speaker 1: bleak right now? If you're an elected Republican and the
Speaker 1: headlines that you know are coming, there's sort of the
Speaker 1: what Trump is doing to you? And you know Trump
Speaker 1: is not thinking about the Republican Party at all. Trump
Speaker 1: never has right. It is about himself and whether it's
Speaker 1: these pardons, whether it's these personal business deals that he
Speaker 1: cuts on behalf of his son, the weird business relationships
Speaker 1: that is chief envoy in these negotiations Steve Woodcoff is
Speaker 1: involved with, and the mixing of all this, none of
Speaker 1: that's defensible. And when people don't, if people are unhappy
Speaker 1: about the economy, that stuff will then really irritate them.
Speaker 1: They overlooked it the first four years. They overlooked it
Speaker 1: maybe during the Biden presidency, but if they don't like
Speaker 1: their current situation, they're really not going to like you
Speaker 1: benefiting Donald Trump while they're in this tough situation. So
Speaker 1: that's why I'm a bit more bearish on Republican chances
Speaker 1: of holding each chamber. And I think that the for
Speaker 1: those that follow these political prediction markets, I think everybody
Speaker 1: is under under rating Democratic chances of winning the Senate.
Speaker 1: There have been you know, since there have only been
Speaker 1: six times six midterm elections, the first was eighteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: but six midterm elections where the party not in power
Speaker 1: in the White House won both the House and the
Speaker 1: Senate in a midterm, It's only actually happened six times.
Speaker 1: The last time was two thousand and six. On election day,
Speaker 1: Republicans held both the House and Senate. By the time
Speaker 1: all the votes are counted, Democrats had flipped both the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate. The Republicans did flip them both
Speaker 1: in ninety four. Then it happened again in the fifties,
Speaker 1: and it happened again in the forties. The first time
Speaker 1: it happened was eighteen ninety four, and it was Grover
Speaker 1: Cleveland's second presidential term. In the midterm of that election,
Speaker 1: and he was dealing with the depression of eighteen ninety three.
Speaker 1: Republicans sweep the midterms in eighteen ninety four, and that
Speaker 1: second non consecutive term. Is that familiar to anybody? Are
Speaker 1: we dealing with a president in his second non consecutive term.
Speaker 1: The out party sweeps in eighteen ninety four, and it
Speaker 1: foreshadows a big Republican sweep in eighteen ninety six, which
Speaker 1: leads to sixteen straight years of Republicans holding the presidency
Speaker 1: until Woodrow Wilson's victory in nineteen twelve, so that's the
Speaker 1: first time it happened. Here's what was interesting that we've
Speaker 1: had thirty three midterm elections since eighteen ninety four, and
Speaker 1: in twenty one of the thirty three the out party
Speaker 1: picked up Senate seats, and in eighteen of those twenty
Speaker 1: one instances the pickup was four or more Senate seats. Well,
Speaker 1: Democrats only need four Senate seats to win control of
Speaker 1: the Senate. I know the map's not great for them
Speaker 1: when you're you know, and this is sometimes I question
Speaker 1: whether Democrats are truly a national party because they don't.
Speaker 1: They barely contest elections in a third of the states,
Speaker 1: and I think that's why they may have a hard
Speaker 1: time putting enough Senate seats in play with this particular
Speaker 1: map that they have to run on. But if history
Speaker 1: is any guide, the likelihood of them winning at least
Speaker 1: four Senate seats is actually quite high. And so that's
Speaker 1: why I think the bar I think people are underestimating
Speaker 1: democratic chances here. Look, they still have a lot of
Speaker 1: recruiting to do and finding a cannon in Kansas, finding
Speaker 1: a ralling around a canad in Mississippi seeing if they
Speaker 1: can target places like Kentucky or Alaska or Iowa. But
Speaker 1: they've got to put a lot more races in play.
Speaker 1: But history says they actually have a pretty good shot
Speaker 1: at doing it, which leads me to the rest of
Speaker 1: the rundown of this episode. I'm going to wrap things
Speaker 1: up here in a second. Got a top five list
Speaker 1: that actually goes well with what we're talking about tonight,
Speaker 1: which is top five center races that Democrats if they
Speaker 1: actually can put the Senate in play in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: then of my top five list, one of them, at
Speaker 1: least one of them has to be a single digit
Speaker 1: race and very competitive by October if that's going to
Speaker 1: become realistic.
Speaker 2: I'll let you.
Speaker 1: Get to the list before I tease which states are
Speaker 1: in that. Of course, I have some Q and A,
Speaker 1: so with that, Yes, I have a lot to say
Speaker 1: about the College Football ESPN Invitational and all that nonsense,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to save that for twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Get my thoughts together. I've poured my heart out about
Speaker 1: all things Tennessee seven. I'd rather let that settle, let
Speaker 1: that simmer, and I'll see in twenty four hours with
Speaker 1: the hottest of hot takes, not just on the world
Speaker 1: of politics, but on the ESPN Invitational and the.
Speaker 2: Leadership or lack thereof, inside the ACC So go Caines.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening. Let's sneak in a break.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Waldgrain. Waldgrain is the first Bake from Frozen subscription
Speaker 1: box for arteasaal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas, plus
Speaker 1: all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less.
Speaker 1: Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
Speaker 1: you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can
Speaker 1: be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Speaker 1: Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal
Speaker 1: and limited tibing products for you to enjoy. In addition
Speaker 1: to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free
Speaker 1: box and a plant based box.
Speaker 2: I checked out the.
Speaker 1: Gluten free box and let me tell you they have
Speaker 1: a gluten free sour dough bread.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: We got two loads of it and we've done one
Speaker 1: loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sour dough bread.
Speaker 1: It's like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except
Speaker 1: it's not raisin.
Speaker 2: It's great. You're gonna love this.
Speaker 1: You know it's in or miss if you mess around
Speaker 1: in the gluten free bread world.
Speaker 2: This is a hit.
Speaker 1: Seriously, I was impressed. So look for a limited time,
Speaker 1: Wild Grain is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your
Speaker 1: first box plus free croissants in every box when you
Speaker 1: go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription,
Speaker 1: follow these instructions. Free croissants in every box, thirty dollars
Speaker 1: off your first box when you go to wildgrain dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. That's wild grain dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: Or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. Always
Speaker 1: use the code, get the discount.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent bread.
Speaker 1: So with that, I want to transition a bit. Look,
Speaker 1: given what happened in Tennessee, I thought it would be
Speaker 1: worth focusing my top five list before I get to
Speaker 1: the ass check segment. I thought it would be worth
Speaker 1: focusing the top five list this week on five Senate
Speaker 1: races that are not competitive at the moment. They're Republican
Speaker 1: health seats. But what I would call is blue WaveWatch
Speaker 1: Senate seats top five, top top The five I'm going
Speaker 1: to give you are or my five nominees for what
Speaker 1: happens in an actual wave, is that a Senate race
Speaker 1: that was not on the map a year out ends
Speaker 1: up flipping. In two thousand and six, there were sort
Speaker 1: of three candidates. There were arguably four candidates for that.
Speaker 1: Three candidates really for that, For that idea, you had
Speaker 1: Virginia Senate at the time, a Democrat had n't want to,
Speaker 1: you know, had Chuck rob But it was the sense
Speaker 1: that Virginia was still a Republican state. George Bush carried
Speaker 1: Virginia in two thousand and four. Democrat had and carried
Speaker 1: carried in a presidential race since Carter in seventy six.
Speaker 1: So the perception of Virginia was that it was a
Speaker 1: tough place. So and Jim Webb was an unusual candidate.
Speaker 1: George Allen was a prospective presidential candidate. It was a
Speaker 1: race that developed late and popped on the radar late,
Speaker 1: and then it was a flip. And then it turned
Speaker 1: out to be a canary in the coal mine. It
Speaker 1: turned out to foreshadow it was a growing shift of
Speaker 1: Virginia from light red to now light blue. But each
Speaker 1: one of those cycles, there's always a seat or two
Speaker 1: that you're like, well, how did that happen? Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: a special election win in the Senate side. Scott Brown's
Speaker 1: victory in Massachusetts, it was it a seat that could
Speaker 1: hold on his own in twenty twelve. Nope, that's what
Speaker 1: gave us Elizabeth Warren. But in that unique environment, in
Speaker 1: that moment in time, that's how much the ground had
Speaker 1: shifted underneath Democrats when it came to the issue of
Speaker 1: health care, and it certainly foreshadowed what was not a
Speaker 1: very good mid term. So, with that caveats out of
Speaker 1: the side, here are my nominees of the five you know,
Speaker 1: and like I believe, I think all five of these
Speaker 1: Senate seats have a chance to become shockingly competitive, and
Speaker 1: I'll explain the unique circumstance for each of them, but
Speaker 1: they are ones that have been written off right, And
Speaker 1: I'm not even talking about Alaska. Texas don't make this
Speaker 1: list because or or even Nebraska, because they're already seen
Speaker 1: as quasi competitive at the moment. Right Alaska, especially if
Speaker 1: Democrats get Mary Patello, Texas looks like it's going to
Speaker 1: be competitive, no matter what part of it is demographics.
Speaker 1: Part of it is Explain to me how John Corny
Speaker 1: gets out of that gets fifty percent plus one after
Speaker 1: a runoff. Really hard to see that, and without him
Speaker 1: as the nominee, suddenly that becomes a winnable race. Although
Speaker 1: the Democratic primary is a mess there. It's a topic
Speaker 1: for another day. But these don't count those races to me.
Speaker 1: You know, it's the job of the Democratic Party to
Speaker 1: put those races in play because they're competitive enough sort
Speaker 1: of on paper.
Speaker 2: Then then it.
Speaker 1: Becomes, hey, you should be able to find candidates, you
Speaker 1: should be able to target those races. The five states
Speaker 1: I'm going to be emphasizing here are not obvious. A
Speaker 1: couple of them would have been ten years ago, but
Speaker 1: they're not obvious at all. And what I would theorize
Speaker 1: for you is that if Democrats, you know, if I
Speaker 1: go into a coma and I wake up the day
Speaker 1: after the mid terms and you tell me Democrats flip
Speaker 1: the send, I'm going to guess one of these five
Speaker 1: races was either actually flipped or was one of the
Speaker 1: final was one of the six or seven Senate races
Speaker 1: in the country that was decided by five points or less.
Speaker 1: So here are my candidates for that, and I'll put
Speaker 1: in an order of least likely to end up on
Speaker 1: that last minute competitive slate to most likely. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to start with my home state of Florida. I
Speaker 1: think there's still a competitive nature to the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: I think there's definitely some sort of Republican fatigue in general.
Speaker 2: I think the.
Speaker 1: Governor's race still has a shot at getting competitive. There's
Speaker 1: a couple of quality candidates on the Democratic side. We're
Speaker 1: not seeing the same level of energy or interest on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side on the Senate race as much. Ashley Moody,
Speaker 1: of course, is running to fill out the rest of
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio's term after he left to become Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor, Head of the Archives, etc. All the
Speaker 1: different jobs that he still holds. So he does hold
Speaker 1: all three of those that I just mentioned. And you know,
Speaker 1: it just it's a very expensive state. So the work
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party nationally has done a terrible job
Speaker 1: at incubating the state of Florida. They don't help the
Speaker 1: state party. The state party doesn't help itself very well.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a variety of reasons why Florida sort
Speaker 1: of under punches. It's voters, right, This is a state
Speaker 1: that you know is still probably a fifty three forty
Speaker 1: seven state if both parties were equally funded. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a leaner. I think I still think Florida's light red,
Speaker 1: not dark red yet, but you know, the incompetence of
Speaker 1: the state Democratic Party makes it seem like it's dark red.
Speaker 1: So that's why I put it in the fifth slot here,
Speaker 1: because I do think the political environment could shift in
Speaker 1: such a way where we could see and Ashley Moody
Speaker 1: is not a household name and it is an appointed senator.
Speaker 1: If you told me in October fifteenth, twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: you had a poll showing that race forty five forty
Speaker 1: with the Democratic nominee in Moody in a political environment
Speaker 1: that looks like a growing blue wave, which at the
Speaker 1: moment to me, it looks like that. That's what's happening.
Speaker 1: Florida gets more competitive. It's just inevitable that you would
Speaker 1: see that. So Florida's fifth on my list. But I'm
Speaker 1: not yet impressed with the Canaid. I almost think it's
Speaker 1: too expensive to put in this category. To actually take
Speaker 1: it from from could we make it competitive to look,
Speaker 1: it's kind of competitive to actually competitive. Fourth on the
Speaker 1: list of Kentucky, it's an open seat. This is the
Speaker 1: Mitch mcconnal'syat. There's actually we've interviewed one of the Kentucky candidates,
Speaker 1: Amy McGrath is running again.
Speaker 2: There is you know, the.
Speaker 1: Republican Party in Kentucky is pretty divided, right because it's
Speaker 1: there's some pretty strong anti Trump Republicans in the state
Speaker 1: of Kentucky. The retiring Senator Mitch McConnell ran Paul Thomas Massey.
Speaker 1: The potential for the Republican primer to turn into a
Speaker 1: bloody mess, it's already kind of that way, right. Look,
Speaker 1: I think Andy Barr if he's the nominee, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult to be. But I also think Daniel Cameron would
Speaker 1: be a pretty you know, a strong potential Senate nominee
Speaker 1: as well. But what if one of them aren't the
Speaker 1: nominee and it is, like I said, it is nasty.
Speaker 1: The primary campaign is heated up. There is a sense
Speaker 1: on the Republican side that it doesn't matter what happens,
Speaker 1: it can be as bloody as you want. Sometimes that
Speaker 1: mindset might leave a potential nominee weaker than they should be.
Speaker 1: We saw that with Jade Vance out of his Ohio primary,
Speaker 1: which was a bloody mess and ended up creating a
Speaker 1: much more competitive general than was necessary. All the ingredients
Speaker 1: are there in Kentucky for that. So it's I tell you,
Speaker 1: this is one of those things that if there were
Speaker 1: a more if the Democratic Party had a slightly better
Speaker 1: brand and slightly better leadership, Andy Basheer would be the
Speaker 1: Senate nominee in that campaign and we'd be talking about
Speaker 1: Kentucky Senate.
Speaker 2: A lot differently.
Speaker 1: But the fact that that's not even on the table,
Speaker 1: and there wasn't and there wasn't anybody with the heft
Speaker 1: to go to Andy Basheer and sort of beg him
Speaker 1: and twist his arm in a way that could talk
Speaker 1: him into it. I think it just shows you how
Speaker 1: weak the party is. And I think Andy Basheer certainly
Speaker 1: has his eye. I think he thinks his skills translate
Speaker 1: better to a potential presidential campaign. But again, all the
Speaker 1: ingredients of there in Kentucky for something late to surge.
Speaker 1: If the Republican primaries as messy it is, again, I'm
Speaker 1: assuming only if this environment continues to be as poor
Speaker 1: as it appears to be for the party that's currently
Speaker 1: in power. Number three on this list for me is
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham in South Carolina. I know we've been here
Speaker 1: before them with the with Jamie Harrison and all that
Speaker 1: waste money, just like with Amy McGrath and that wasted money.
Speaker 1: But I would argue that six years ago the political
Speaker 1: environment wasn't as weak for Republicans. It was a very
Speaker 1: competitive environment. What does that Senate race look like in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six without Trump on the ballot? Is Lindsay
Speaker 1: Graham wearing out as welcome? Does the mess that is
Speaker 1: the South Carolina Governor's race sort of put an entire
Speaker 1: pall over the South Carolina Republican brand? Look, South Carolina
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is very similar to the Florida Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: They really underperformed their potential. You know, there is a
Speaker 1: stronger floor in South Carolina.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: South Carolina is surrounded by competitive states Georgia to the south,
Speaker 1: North Carolina to the north. They just had they've had
Speaker 1: bad leadership in the state party week voter registration campaigns.
Speaker 1: It is South Carolina and Mississippi are the two. And
Speaker 1: I've just previewed the next Senate race on my list.
Speaker 1: But these are two places where if the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: invested serious resources and voter registration campaigns and sort of
Speaker 1: had a better message for rural blacks in South Carolina
Speaker 1: and Mississippi in general. But it's a problem they have
Speaker 1: across the black belt in the South. Is Democrats underperform
Speaker 1: among in all rural communities, not just rural white communities
Speaker 1: and but a rural Latino communities and rural black communities.
Speaker 1: It has been a it is it has been a
Speaker 1: nagging problem for them, and they've done very little to
Speaker 1: fix it, very little investment. And this gets it to,
Speaker 1: you know, is the you know, does the party see
Speaker 1: the opportunity that's staring them in the face or have
Speaker 1: they Is it being run by a frankly, a bunch
Speaker 1: of people who live on the coasts and and just
Speaker 1: have written off and assume all rural America is white
Speaker 1: when in the South, not all rural America is white.
Speaker 1: And I think that's been a huge missed opportunity, uh
Speaker 1: in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia
Speaker 1: in general, I mean, the only reason they throw money
Speaker 1: at Georgia is do the Atlanta growth of the Atlanta suburbs.
Speaker 2: They're not.
Speaker 1: They're not doing as good of a job in the
Speaker 1: rural black communities as they could be. So anyway, I again,
Speaker 1: South Carolina's another one of those there's a mess. You know,
Speaker 1: yes it's in the governor's race, but that it's just
Speaker 1: creating a bad juju if you will. And you know,
Speaker 1: Lindsay's his own worst enemy at times, and his mouth
Speaker 1: can certainly inspire donors to give money to candidates in
Speaker 1: ways that that that he may and he may have
Speaker 1: tied himself too much to Trump in ways that are
Speaker 1: not you know, you know, Lindsay's problem is is I
Speaker 1: think that there are there is this center right voter
Speaker 1: in South Carolina that assume Lindsay was one of them.
Speaker 1: And I think they still think Lindsay is one of them.
Speaker 1: But he's so desperate to stay in Trump's good graces
Speaker 1: that he he sort of does some retort gymnastics that's
Speaker 1: embarrassing to some voters. They just have not had the
Speaker 1: right Democrat to to to sort of expose that side
Speaker 1: of Lindsay. But you look this is a guy Lindsay
Speaker 1: reminds me of Chuck Schumer in this respect. These are
Speaker 1: two two politicians who've had a really impressive career who
Speaker 1: are probably here a term too long. Had they left
Speaker 1: a term sooner they'd be they'd have they'd have been lying.
Speaker 1: They literally would have been treated as lions of the Senate,
Speaker 1: you know, if they had left on their own terms.
Speaker 1: And yes, you could say they're going to be leaving
Speaker 1: on their own terms. But in some ways, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's they're they're they they're kind of here past
Speaker 1: their cell by date, and the longer they're here, I
Speaker 1: think the smaller they've become in some ways, And and
Speaker 1: I think that's the danger here for Lindsay. Uh, on
Speaker 1: this one. And that's why again I put it in here.
Speaker 1: I think that it's it's another political environment, right, you know,
Speaker 1: you me how South Carolina working class voters are going
Speaker 1: to benefit from high tariffs and things like that. So, uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's it's again. I'm not saying it's
Speaker 1: going to happen, but it's if if it does happen.
Speaker 1: It's one of the five races I would put in there.
Speaker 1: Number two on my list is Mississippi, as I previewed,
Speaker 1: almost the identical situation uh as South Carolina. But you
Speaker 1: also have an incumbent who's just not hasn't left a
Speaker 1: heavy footprint yet in the state, Cindy Hyde Smith. You know,
Speaker 1: Roger Wicker is definitely more of the senior senator and
Speaker 1: he's on the higher profile committees. He's sort of involved
Speaker 1: in the higher profile issues. I don't think Cindy Hyde
Speaker 1: Smith has the same hold over over her voters or
Speaker 1: her seat that are previous senators from Mississippi have have
Speaker 1: had on their Senate seats. So look, she's you know
Speaker 1: it is. This is actually her campaign for a second
Speaker 1: full term. She got she got appointed there two years
Speaker 1: and then second full term. So look that the Democrats
Speaker 1: have an interesting candidate here in somebody that was put
Speaker 1: up for a judicial nomination rejected.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 1: Mississippi a state we've seen it in the governor's races.
Speaker 1: It can be a competitive state. Takes a little bit
Speaker 1: of work, but this is one of those where come October,
Speaker 1: I fully expect a poll show in forty five forty
Speaker 1: Sydney hind Smith and where there's a striking distance, where
Speaker 1: there is a debate about whether how all in should
Speaker 1: Democrats go on Mississippi Senate. And then number one on
Speaker 1: my list of the of the five is actually Montana.
Speaker 1: You know, Montana is an R plus ten state. It
Speaker 1: is you know, in some ways not having a high
Speaker 1: profile challenger this time like Steve Danes had the last time.
Speaker 2: But the thing is, might might.
Speaker 1: Be more beneficial right when when John Tester ran the
Speaker 1: first time, he was kind of the outsider. When Brian
Speaker 1: Schweitzer ran the first time, the outsider, Steve Bullock, you know,
Speaker 1: was seen as as an outsider. So I think Dane's
Speaker 1: a pretty savvy politician. So I don't think he's going
Speaker 1: to get caught napping maybe the way some of these
Speaker 1: other incumbents could get caught napping. But Montana's also not
Speaker 1: a hard right state, and they're going to be pretty sensitive,
Speaker 1: especially if corruption starts to pop. Montana voters are a
Speaker 1: bit more sensitive to corruption issues I think in general,
Speaker 1: and a bit less tolerant of it no matter whose
Speaker 1: side is doing it. And if that becomes you know,
Speaker 1: sort of gets into the ecosystem in the campaign ecosystem,
Speaker 1: what Trump's been doing with pardons and the self enrichment
Speaker 1: and all of that. You know, I think there's a reason.
Speaker 1: If you've noticed Steve Danes keeps a pretty low profile,
Speaker 1: he does not want to necessarily pop his head up
Speaker 1: on this front. It is Look, Montana is a populist,
Speaker 1: it's a right leaning state, but there's a it's a
Speaker 1: populous state, and it is one of those you can
Speaker 1: get on the wrong side, and the Democrats are well
Speaker 1: organized in the state. So the point is is that
Speaker 1: I think these are five races nobody's talking about at
Speaker 1: the moment. Nobody believes are going to be competitive. Nobody
Speaker 1: believes maybe nobody at the d SEC is even looking
Speaker 1: at it. But I promise you, if this is as
Speaker 1: as bad of a political environment as it looks like
Speaker 1: it's growing into for Republicans, one of these five, if
Speaker 1: not more of them, but one of those five Florida, Kentucky,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, Mississippi, Montana will be a seriously targeted race
Speaker 1: and might actually flip come election Day twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: If this trajectory of where the political environment is going
Speaker 1: stays on the same trajectory, there's a reason results matter
Speaker 1: more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and
Speaker 1: Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the last
Speaker 1: thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
Speaker 1: more than half a million clients. It includes cases where
Speaker 1: insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get
Speaker 1: away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan
Speaker 1: fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
Speaker 1: a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
Speaker 1: originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,
Speaker 1: they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer, You need somebody to get your back.
Speaker 1: Check out for Thepeople dot Com, Slash podcast, or dial
Speaker 1: pound Law Pound five to nine law on your cell phone.
Speaker 1: And remember all law firms are not the same, So
Speaker 1: check out Morgan and Morgan.
Speaker 2: Their fee is free.
Speaker 1: Unless they win, all right, So with that, let's get
Speaker 1: to semester as check. My first question comes.
Speaker 2: From Nate Nate's in Yorkville, Illinois.
Speaker 1: Nate confesses I almost skipped the Clay Travis episode, but
Speaker 1: I'm glad I gave it a listen. It was a guest.
Speaker 1: It was a great conversation. He came across as thoughtful
Speaker 1: and engaging. Thanks for pushing us outside our bubbles and
Speaker 1: featuring voices we might not normally hear. I also fully
Speaker 1: agree with your Thanksgiving take best holiday by far and
Speaker 1: your Turkey Day top five a spot on, especially the
Speaker 1: pumpkin pie thoughts Nate podcast fan since the nineteen forty
Speaker 1: seven days.
Speaker 2: That's super old school. Appreciate it, Nate.
Speaker 1: Thanks for saying that, Like, that's what I'm trying to do,
Speaker 1: And in some ways, I hope Matt Higgins is a
Speaker 1: similar type of conversation, trying to expose people, to expose lists,
Speaker 1: expose you know that this is I just look at
Speaker 1: it this way. These are people I'm trying to learn
Speaker 1: something from, trying to understand better, and if it's helping
Speaker 1: me understand something better, I'm assuming it's.
Speaker 2: Going to help you understand something better.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of the way I just view myself
Speaker 1: as sort of what helps me sort of get smarter
Speaker 1: about both sides of the aisle, understanding the as I
Speaker 1: call myself a political anthropologist. You know, I want to
Speaker 1: understand folks that live in a variety of bubbles, and
Speaker 1: I don't. I'm not going to presume we just have
Speaker 1: two bubbles in this country. I think we have quite
Speaker 1: a few. So I appreciate that. And I left out,
Speaker 1: by the way my numbers, I left out the single
Speaker 1: most important thing I do every Thanksgiving, and that is
Speaker 1: I make this turkey chili with the leftover turkey. And
Speaker 1: the real question is how long? The question is how
Speaker 1: long is it? Is it okay to keep around? Because
Speaker 1: it is one of those chili's it gets better every
Speaker 1: day for a period of time. Then there's the point
Speaker 1: then everything starts to taste old, right, But there's something
Speaker 1: about putting all the flavors together. You know. Today, certainly
Speaker 1: I'm taping here on a Tuesday. I had it a
Speaker 1: lunch again for lunch today. It's we're still in peak.
Speaker 1: I think we're still in it's it's in peak mode.
Speaker 1: But I'm probably now on the other side of the hill.
Speaker 1: Is it worth freezing or not? Would you freeze leftover
Speaker 1: at chilling? I am probably not going to do it,
Speaker 1: but I'm contemplating it. So I would love I'd love
Speaker 1: your thoughts on that, if any of you want to
Speaker 1: chime in that. All right, next question comes from Dan.
Speaker 1: He says, Hey, Chuck, what is the public to make
Speaker 1: of all the recent attempted censures in the House of Representatives?
Speaker 1: Some of it is dem on dem and GOP and gop.
Speaker 2: Is it based in a.
Speaker 1: Sense of morality, opportunistic acts, grinding or both? Dan, you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, Dan. I talked to Mike Turner about this
Speaker 1: on my new sphere show. He brought this up to
Speaker 1: me as a Republican from Ohio. But he noted how
Speaker 1: at the time of our interview, sort of this he
Speaker 1: had was sort of almost a similar observation that you did,
Speaker 1: which is like, what the hell is this? What is it?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know where it is. But it was
Speaker 1: his way of pointing out of what a terrible place
Speaker 1: it is to work right now.
Speaker 2: He chalked it up.
Speaker 1: To being up away from Washington for over a month.
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson's decision to keep the House out of DC
Speaker 1: during the shutdown just drove members crazy, and so it
Speaker 1: was like, you know, it's like you kink da hoose
Speaker 1: and then young kinked it and whoom right, and when
Speaker 1: people came back to Washington, they came back ready to go.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So you had Marie Glusen Camper's going, what the hell's
Speaker 1: Chewy Garciado? Right? That was the dem On dem one
Speaker 1: where she's like, that was an underhanded move. If we
Speaker 1: think Trump's regging an election, that's no different. We should
Speaker 1: denounce it. By the way, I think MGP is right,
Speaker 1: I am. I think Marie Glusen camp Perez is one
Speaker 1: of the If I would to say, who the if
Speaker 1: I were to do my best Barbara Walters and who's
Speaker 1: the five most interesting Democrats right now to talk to,
Speaker 1: she'd be in my top five list on that one.
Speaker 1: She's she's fascinating to me, and I think that there's
Speaker 1: a there's a populist honesty to her that I think
Speaker 1: is infectious and fascinating and you know, definitely worth Uh.
Speaker 1: She's trust me. I'm trying to book her. I'm going
Speaker 1: to bring her to you as soon as we can
Speaker 1: get her to say, agree to agree to an interview.
Speaker 1: So some of it is the members blame on that,
Speaker 1: but I think some of it is just simply the
Speaker 1: current political environment, right, think about it. The Democrats are
Speaker 1: unhappy with their leadership, and they're unhappy with what they're
Speaker 1: having to deal with Donald Trump, and they're really mad
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden still, so it's just a cranky group
Speaker 1: of Democrats. Republicans feel as if they've been pushed aside,
Speaker 1: particularly after the shutdown. They feel as if they do
Speaker 1: nothing but to you know, go back to Marjorie Taylor
Speaker 1: Green statement, they feel as if they do nothing but
Speaker 1: defend Trump and all they get is grief and return
Speaker 1: or they get set aside, or they get dealt out.
Speaker 1: So even though in some ways this is a Republican
Speaker 1: governing renaissance, in theory could be right. You have controlled
Speaker 1: the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and the president
Speaker 1: has control of his party in a way that no
Speaker 1: president has had. Frankly, you know, Obama didn't have a
Speaker 1: grip like this under Democrats, and maybe for a temporary
Speaker 1: period Bush had a grip on the Republicans like this
Speaker 1: after nine to eleven, but not.
Speaker 2: Not like this.
Speaker 1: And so in theory it should be a golden age
Speaker 1: for legislating, and yet it hasn't. Right, instead, Trump wants
Speaker 1: to sign executive orders. He doesn't want to bother watching
Speaker 1: letting the sausage be made. So I think it's that
Speaker 1: nobody's happy, right. House Republicans aren't happy that they don't
Speaker 1: get to govern, and House Democrats are unhappy at their
Speaker 1: position and are pissed off at all their leaders for
Speaker 1: they believe putting them in this place. So you put
Speaker 1: it all together, and it's just think about your own
Speaker 1: bad day. I think about this, and I I will
Speaker 1: you know, I've been this way as a boss. I've
Speaker 1: been this way as a parent. Right, you've had a
Speaker 1: bad day and then somebody does something that's just slightly annoying,
Speaker 1: might be an employee, might be a kid. Isn't worth
Speaker 1: you losing your cool about, But you lose you're cool
Speaker 1: because you're already upset about sixteen other things. That's the
Speaker 1: equivalent of I think the situation that the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives is feeling these days, And I just think that's
Speaker 1: the way anybody in elective politics feels this way right now.
Speaker 1: Everybody feels like they're all out, that they all are
Speaker 1: out for themselves, not because they want to be, because
Speaker 1: they don't think they have any other choice because they
Speaker 1: really don't trust anybody else to look out for themselves.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Randall van der Vahal from Lighten, Netherlands.
Speaker 1: I hope leading or lighten my apologies, he says, as
Speaker 1: a listener from the Netherlands, I struggle to understand how
Speaker 1: so many still support leaders who behave irresponsibly and unpredictably.
Speaker 1: It feels like both Europe and the US are losing
Speaker 1: a shared sense of purpose with real leadership and short supply.
Speaker 1: I agree Europe should take more responsibility for its own security,
Speaker 1: but we need leaders who think beyond themselves. How do
Speaker 1: we get accountable, responsible leaders into power again? And what
Speaker 1: needs to change in our democracies to make that possible.
Speaker 1: So this is where I think populism and nationalism gets contagious,
Speaker 1: and it's the wrong type of contagious. And as leader
Speaker 1: of the free world the United States, how you know
Speaker 1: we set an example right whatever whatever posture we take
Speaker 1: are when we're leaning in as as leader of the
Speaker 1: free world in a more internationalists posture, say in the
Speaker 1: era of Frankly from Eisenhower to Obama, in general, right
Speaker 1: we viewed we did every president between Eisenhower and Obama
Speaker 1: came into office believing America was leader of the free world,
Speaker 1: and we put that in quotes there. Free world, believe
Speaker 1: that the relationship with Europe was second to none, that
Speaker 1: it was the single most important relationship there was, and
Speaker 1: that democracy was the ultimate goal. Freedom and democracy was
Speaker 1: the ultimate goal.
Speaker 2: The media that that was going to be.
Speaker 1: Our number one export over time. But in many ways
Speaker 1: we set an example. So how we behave is how
Speaker 1: other countries think it's okay to behave. And as we
Speaker 1: sort of became more nationalistic, other countries get more nationalistic.
Speaker 1: When we decide to direct tariff barriers.
Speaker 2: Other countries decide to erect tariff barriers.
Speaker 1: And so you end up it. And so this is
Speaker 1: a case where I think the United States and yeah,
Speaker 1: you could say Brexit was sort of a sort of
Speaker 1: a starting gun that was fired on this movement towards nationalism,
Speaker 1: but that the collective move towards nationalism. And this is
Speaker 1: you know, the last time we were in a position
Speaker 1: like this. You know, we ended up in a couple
Speaker 1: of world wars. You know, we had forms of nationalism, arguably,
Speaker 1: or how we got into World War One, and certainly
Speaker 1: how we got into World War two. So I think
Speaker 1: that's I think that is at the root of all this.
Speaker 1: Right the more when when America becomes more isolationists, more protectionists,
Speaker 1: well so does everybody else, because it's you know, you're
Speaker 1: you're going to behave like the you know, like the
Speaker 1: big dog is going to behave And so I think
Speaker 1: that has a huge part of it.
Speaker 2: I think that.
Speaker 1: We do. We are in the middle of an economic transition,
Speaker 1: and this is a major one. We haven't had an
Speaker 1: economic transition like this in over one hundred years, and
Speaker 1: the last time we had it when we went from
Speaker 1: an a grarian to industrial. Think about all the revolutions
Speaker 1: that happened across the globe. Right, we had the Russian Revolution,
Speaker 1: we had the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we had
Speaker 1: the First World basically the First Great War we called it,
Speaker 1: where it felt like the entire globe was fighting each other.
Speaker 1: But in some ways that was due to fear of
Speaker 1: what was coming next. Right, the Teutonic place were shifting
Speaker 1: in geopolitics, the United States was becoming a world power,
Speaker 1: and the powers that were the dominant powers of the
Speaker 1: eighteenth and nineteenth century we're trying to hang onto power, right,
Speaker 1: So we are in the middle, and I think we
Speaker 1: can't underestimate we are in the middle of this great
Speaker 1: transition from an industrial to whatever this new economy is
Speaker 1: going to look like, this tech driven, service driven AI
Speaker 1: driven Right, we know this is going to dramatically change
Speaker 1: the nature of work, and ultimately, over time it's probably
Speaker 1: going to be to the benefit of humanity. But the
Speaker 1: transition is going to be awful, just like the Industrial
Speaker 1: Revolution was to the overall benefit of humanity when you
Speaker 1: look at it through one hundred year prism. But the
Speaker 1: first twenty years of the end utual revolution was terrible
Speaker 1: if you look at it in terms of livelihoods lost
Speaker 1: and things like that. So this is where I play
Speaker 1: sort of amateur historian, and I said, let's take a
Speaker 1: step back and realize, this is a moment in time. Now,
Speaker 1: why are we in this moment in time? I try
Speaker 1: to comfort myself by sort of trying to at least
Speaker 1: understand how we got here, and we kind of know
Speaker 1: how we're going to get out. The question is can
Speaker 1: we get out without a world war? Can we get
Speaker 1: out without internal civil wars, without dramatic sort of ideological revolutions? Right,
Speaker 1: will the transition be smoother than it was between the industry,
Speaker 1: between the agrarian and the industrial. You know, that was
Speaker 1: a very violent transition when when you look at it
Speaker 1: in hindsight, we don't we don't necessarily always cover it
Speaker 1: that way. We just sort of like, ah, and then
Speaker 1: the industrial revolution began, and yeah, we had some child
Speaker 1: labor laws, we had something to that, right. You know,
Speaker 1: it is like when we were in the moment. I
Speaker 1: don't think people felt like, oh, some man, this is
Speaker 1: gonna be great. Everybody's gonna have electricity, and everybody's gonna
Speaker 1: have We're all gonna someday just sit on couches and
Speaker 1: watch stuff picture, moving pictures on video screens. Right. You know,
Speaker 1: people didn't know what their lives were going to look
Speaker 1: like thirty years later. Then they had no clue what
Speaker 1: their life was going to be like thirty years later
Speaker 1: because that unknown was because it was unknown, it was
Speaker 1: all fear. So I think that here's here's why I
Speaker 1: always say, trust the voters. The voters eventually figured out.
Speaker 1: I think the voters are starting to figure it out
Speaker 1: in Europe. I think the voters are figuring it will
Speaker 1: continue to figure it out in this country.
Speaker 2: And in stability.
Speaker 1: You know, there's always a a bias towards stability, okay,
Speaker 1: whatever that is. And at some point, you know, we're
Speaker 1: gonna we're going to get there. But I think we're
Speaker 1: in the middle of something that is just simply we're
Speaker 1: in the middle of a rocking you know, vote and
Speaker 1: choppy waters and it's just going to be a while
Speaker 1: to the water settle. I know that wasn't the best answer,
Speaker 1: but I think that that's the larger reason why we're here.
Speaker 1: But I also think that, you know, ultimately, people vote
Speaker 1: based on their own livelihoods, and there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of promises made by many of these nationalists and many
Speaker 1: of these popularis and they're not being able to fulfill them.
Speaker 1: And I think and instead it looks like there's just
Speaker 1: been nothing but grift and graft. I think that's going
Speaker 1: to be how these movements end. That's usually how many
Speaker 1: a political movement ends. It ends in corruption. That's what
Speaker 1: this one feels like, at least in this country. Next question,
Speaker 1: I love it you signed it your champ. It's pretty
Speaker 1: neat to end up with the nickname champ. I hope
Speaker 1: you're a champ in something. But anyway, this next question
Speaker 1: is just from Champ, you better have won something that
Speaker 1: got you the nickname, and I kind of think it's
Speaker 1: got to be at least high school championship are above Like,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna come at me with a middle school championship,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's worthy of the Champ nickname.
Speaker 2: That's just my opinion.
Speaker 1: But what am I doing insulting my listeners like this?
Speaker 1: So no insult Champ. You know, I'm just let me
Speaker 1: know what you want.
Speaker 2: Hey check.
Speaker 1: I'm curious about why President Biden seems to be facing
Speaker 1: challenges with donor support first presidential library, especially compared to
Speaker 1: past presidents like Clinton or Obama, who secured major deals
Speaker 1: in funding post being in office. Reports suggests donors are
Speaker 1: hesitant due to the twenty twenty four election outcome, concerns
Speaker 1: over Biden's South, then fear of Trump error retaliation. Why
Speaker 1: do you think these post presidency opportunities are so different
Speaker 1: for Biden? And why might donors be so reluctant despite
Speaker 1: having the right to support him. So, look, I think
Speaker 1: it's just donor anger at the moment. And these weren't
Speaker 1: Biden donors, right, These were Democratic Party donors who always
Speaker 1: donated to who the Democratic nominee was, right, so they
Speaker 1: were their loyalty was to the party before it was
Speaker 1: loyalty to Biden. So I think there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of that, and it goes back to this has been
Speaker 1: a problem Biden's always had, right his his his loyal
Speaker 1: set of supporters have been very small. It's always been
Speaker 1: at small, tight circle. But there weren't you know, he
Speaker 1: was never a prolific fundraiser before he became president, so
Speaker 1: he didn't have like a donor network that akin to
Speaker 1: what most presidents have. And when you have a donor
Speaker 1: network like that, it's easy to tap into them for
Speaker 1: the library. Obama had a devoted donor network that was
Speaker 1: the Obama donor network. It wasn't one that belonged to
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party more than it belonged to him.
Speaker 2: This is also true of Trump. This is also true
Speaker 2: of Bush. It's also true of Clinton. It's also true.
Speaker 1: Both Bush, Bushes, Reagan. I can keep going on and on.
Speaker 1: It is you know, even Carter had his set of
Speaker 1: his set of donors. I'm surprised that Biden doesn't have
Speaker 1: more folks in Delaware and in Philadelphia chipping in right,
Speaker 1: that was always his sort of community was the Philadelphia
Speaker 1: business community and the banking sort of the banking industry
Speaker 1: of Delaware or you know, because of the incorporation rules
Speaker 1: that they have in Delaware that there was certainly a
Speaker 1: lot of He never had any trouble raising pac money
Speaker 1: as a senator put it that way, but he was
Speaker 1: never the most prolific. So but I think so, I
Speaker 1: think you have the main you have Democratic donors who
Speaker 1: donated to Biden but never considered themselves Biden donors, still
Speaker 1: pretty angry at him, And so I don't think there's
Speaker 1: so you have that issue. You know, he could use
Speaker 1: a sugar daddy, like one big donor that might be,
Speaker 1: you know that might really want to have a presidential
Speaker 1: library at the University of Delaware, might really want to
Speaker 1: see something like that, or if they wanted to see
Speaker 1: it at Penn. Yeah, it's definitely supposed to be in Delaware.
Speaker 1: He announced that in September. Here's my guess, and what
Speaker 1: usually is the secret to finding presidential donors? Wealthy foreigners
Speaker 1: and so uh in that sense, I do wonder if
Speaker 1: Trump does scare off, if you know, if he's gonna
Speaker 1: raise money anonymously but I don't think that's in Biden's nature,
Speaker 1: and that would make people uncomfortable. I do think there
Speaker 1: is some concern by some major donors that they don't
Speaker 1: want to. They don't want to, they don't want to
Speaker 1: that they they believe, but donating to Biden in a
Speaker 1: public way in the Biden library would put a target
Speaker 1: on their back for the Trump administration. I think that
Speaker 1: fear is real, and I don't think it's unfounded in
Speaker 1: in defense here, but I do think, uh, the biggest
Speaker 1: reason why he's had so much trouble is.
Speaker 2: His anger. All right. Next question comes from Adam Shlip.
Speaker 2: I hope I pronounced that correctly.
Speaker 1: Hey, listen to your episode on MTG, and Trump reminded
Speaker 1: me of Benedict Arnold, specifically how he flipped not for
Speaker 1: ideology but for vanity and money. Trump, like Arnold, seems
Speaker 1: to have no real convictions, just a price. Even the
Speaker 1: British Canadians eventually rejected Arnold because no one trusts someone
Speaker 1: who sells out their own cause. Could Trump's legacy follow
Speaker 1: a similar arc if the true believers eventually walk away?
Speaker 1: You know, Adam, I think that's quite possible, right, you know,
Speaker 1: I have said that, I think the biggest problem Republicans
Speaker 1: face in general over the next two years is I
Speaker 1: don't think Donald Trump cares about the future of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. He didn't care about the Republican Party before
Speaker 1: he got into it. In fact, when he got there,
Speaker 1: he said, you know, all he did was criticize the party.
Speaker 1: All he said is what a terrible party it had been.
Speaker 1: They'd had stupid ideas or stupid people, you know, the
Speaker 1: typical Trump word and analysis. And if you told me
Speaker 1: in ten years Republicans hadn't elected, hadn't gotten control of
Speaker 1: the House, or the Senator, hadn't elected a president, whether
Speaker 1: Trump would be happy or sad about that if it
Speaker 1: were deemed that, you know, boy, only Trump seems to
Speaker 1: be the only Republican that can win elections. That's the
Speaker 1: legacy Trump would actually like the most, not that he helped.
Speaker 1: You know, if there were four straight presidents under the
Speaker 1: umbrella of MAGA post Trump, would that make them happy
Speaker 1: or would it make them happier if nobody could win
Speaker 1: that didn't have the last name of Trump? Right, I
Speaker 1: think we all know the answer to this, and I
Speaker 1: think deep down most Republicans know this too. He does
Speaker 1: not care about the future of the party. He cares
Speaker 1: about him, and that's the stuff in the last two
Speaker 1: years of a presidency and why these midterms, and this
Speaker 1: is why I think that some people are really hesitant
Speaker 1: about this redistricting gambit because they're trying This is all
Speaker 1: about Trump staving off lame ducks status for about six months,
Speaker 1: which is all it would do if he somehow holds
Speaker 1: the House. But he's just trying to preserve his own
Speaker 1: status at the expense perhaps of making Republicans more vulnerable
Speaker 1: in the long term. I think that's why you're seeing
Speaker 1: pushback in the places that I would expect it. Indiana
Speaker 1: is one of those kind of states that they're Republicans
Speaker 1: before they're Trump people. And you know, Utah's another one,
Speaker 1: but it's a It's certainly a place that I would
Speaker 1: and I'm not surprised to see this. But I also
Speaker 1: think that there's there's a little bit the I think
Speaker 1: there's the average Indiana Republican I think thinks that there's
Speaker 1: thinks about the world beyond Trump, and I think that
Speaker 1: that's that's what you be seeing this. I you know,
Speaker 1: I happen to think that the I will go this
Speaker 1: way as One of my favorite movie lines to use
Speaker 1: when talking about the industry of television is from the
Speaker 1: movie Cocktail. Everything else, everything ends badly, or else it
Speaker 1: wouldn't end. It's kind of how I feel about the Trump,
Speaker 1: how Trump's ten ure is going to end. And by
Speaker 1: the way, this is you know his you know, he
Speaker 1: was a disaster for Atlantic City. He eventually had his
Speaker 1: TV show canceled due to low ratings. Right, everything in
Speaker 1: Trump's life, every sort of six or seven year cycle
Speaker 1: has ended badly or else it wouldn't have ended. I
Speaker 1: suspect his political career is it's hard to imagine that's
Speaker 1: a legacy that's going to get better rather than worse.
Speaker 1: All right, last question for this episode. It comes from
Speaker 1: Andy from Indy speaking of Indiana. Hey, Chuck, as a
Speaker 1: millennial ouf and here from my peers that the political
Speaker 1: system feels broken and any honest critique tends to spiral
Speaker 1: into both parties are bad. The constant partisan battling has
Speaker 1: left many of us exhausted in dissillusion. While a viable
Speaker 1: third party seems unlikely anytime soon, do you think we
Speaker 1: could see a mixed party presidential ticket, say a Democrat
Speaker 1: with a Republican VP. Would love to hear your take
Speaker 1: on any combos you think could actually work. Andy from Indy.
Speaker 1: You know, look my old mentor, the late Doug Bailey,
Speaker 1: he had a vision in two thousand and eight. He
Speaker 1: thought he feared that a presidential election between which if
Speaker 1: starting in two thousand and five, the two front runners
Speaker 1: were loosely Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Right, this is
Speaker 1: before McCain didn't seem like as where the Republicans were
Speaker 1: going to go, and he thought that was going to
Speaker 1: be an opportunity for a bipartisan ticket, that Rudy v. Hillary,
Speaker 1: that Rudy v. Hillary would be so divisive that it
Speaker 1: would open the door for.
Speaker 2: A potential unity ticket.
Speaker 1: You know, think boy in two thousand and eight, I
Speaker 1: think I think he had a vision. He hoped it
Speaker 1: would be an Obama McCain or McCain Obama right like
Speaker 1: type of mindset. Or I think John Huntsman as sort
Speaker 1: of a Republican on one end, or a I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think of another Democrat at the time, maybe Mark Pryor,
Speaker 1: who was a conservative Democrat from from from Arkansas, but
Speaker 1: something under that category. You know, I think the only
Speaker 1: here's where I think that you know, I look at
Speaker 1: we've had three major our three major third party candidates
Speaker 1: for president in the last say one hundred and twenty years. Right,
Speaker 1: one was Teddy Roosevelt in nineteen twelve, one was George
Speaker 1: Wallace nineteen sixty eight, and one was Ross pro.
Speaker 2: In nineteen ninety two.
Speaker 1: And they did sort of help tip the election right,
Speaker 1: and they certainly influenced right Wallace's success, which nearly handed
Speaker 1: the election to Humphrey even though he was winning some
Speaker 1: of these But it certainly motivated Nixon to pursue a
Speaker 1: Southern strategy for the Republican Party and led to the
Speaker 1: eventual sort of Republicanization of the South. It sort of
Speaker 1: convinced Nixon to shift the Republican Party to the South
Speaker 1: for the future. Obviously, Teddy Roosevelt handing the presidency to
Speaker 1: the Democrats led to a different outcome on a variety
Speaker 1: of things, but sort of was an attempt to sort
Speaker 1: of reform both parties. I don't know if it fully did,
Speaker 1: to be honest, because a very corrupt Republican Party followed
Speaker 1: Wilson in the twenties, and so in some ways Teddy
Speaker 1: failed to do what he was trying to do, which
Speaker 1: form the Republican Party. We didn't get that version of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party really until Eisenhower. And I would argue
Speaker 1: that Perode had an impact on both parties fairly positively, right,
Speaker 1: got Republicans not being so reflexively free trade, and got
Speaker 1: Democrats to be a bit more concerned about the debt
Speaker 1: and deficit and more into fiscally responsible things.
Speaker 2: So I could picture eate.
Speaker 1: You know, we have sort of we have a trust
Speaker 1: deficit in this country, and that's where a bipartisan ticket
Speaker 1: could help restore that. If we're trying to restore trust
Speaker 1: in some institutions, if we're trying to reform institutions, doing
Speaker 1: it on a bipartisan level is about the only way
Speaker 1: you're going to get collected buy in. And if you know,
Speaker 1: if we feel as it, you know, to me, if
Speaker 1: the country, I think we need.
Speaker 2: By something like this, some.
Speaker 1: Sort of third party or to sort of to sort
Speaker 1: of force both parties to think of themselves in broader terms.
Speaker 2: Right, I don't think either party.
Speaker 1: I feel like they're both in retreat as far as
Speaker 1: they're you know, not thinking about creating broad majorities. But
Speaker 1: thinking about creating deep majority deep majorities, but more.
Speaker 2: Narrow and.
Speaker 1: So you know, you look out there. I will tell
Speaker 1: you this if you you know Wes Moore, uh, Spencer
Speaker 1: Cox right, And I don't care what order you.
Speaker 2: Give it to me.
Speaker 1: If we're looking for a pair of leaders, a bipartisan
Speaker 1: set of leaders who who who singular goal was to
Speaker 1: be pastors for patriotism, to sort of restore the idea
Speaker 1: of America before country before party, I think that would
Speaker 1: be your best ticket. And I don't care which order
Speaker 1: you put it in, but I think I think both
Speaker 1: of those gentlemen do govern thinking about their state before
Speaker 1: thinking about their party. And you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: how many I don't know how many elected officials i'd
Speaker 1: put in that category, but they're you know, they're two people,
Speaker 1: Mark Kelly, John Curtis, another Utah politician, John Curtis as
Speaker 1: a senator, you know Rafael Warnock and James Langford, the
Speaker 1: two ordained pastors in the Senate. That would be an
Speaker 1: interesting pairing to me. It's all about what moment are
Speaker 1: we trying to meet right at the time that you're
Speaker 1: trying to put this together. Is it to restore trust
Speaker 1: in government. Is it to restore faith in the country,
Speaker 1: is it to heal the country? Is it to try
Speaker 1: to unify the country? Right, I think it there's you know,
Speaker 1: I think there's different skill sets. But when I start
Speaker 1: to think about certain people who I think have the
Speaker 1: ability to because it would in order to work, in
Speaker 1: order to pair up with somebody on the other side
Speaker 1: of that, you got to leave your party. So who
Speaker 1: who could I picture being comfortable leaving their party under
Speaker 1: a circumstance like that. And you know, look, I could
Speaker 1: you know, I'll give you another odd pair that you
Speaker 1: would say, what are you talking about? But you know,
Speaker 1: I could see Ran Paul and a John Tester, you know,
Speaker 1: type of type of pairing when you're looking for bipartisan
Speaker 1: pairs that I think could work together again depending on
Speaker 1: you know, if they were depending on what problem you
Speaker 1: were trying to solve. But I you know, Mark Kelly
Speaker 1: is in that category, John Curtis, Lisa Rakowski, I'd probably
Speaker 1: put I'd have put a John Cornyn in that category.
Speaker 1: I had to put a Build Cassidy. We know Builcassidy
Speaker 1: actually showed some interest in the no labels. In the
Speaker 1: no label situation when no Labels was seeing if they
Speaker 1: could recruit a bipartisan ticket.
Speaker 2: You know, I think they.
Speaker 1: They were dreaming of a of a mansion Hogan ticket,
Speaker 1: Joe Manchin and Larry Hogan. So you know, look, I
Speaker 1: love these fantasy conversations, but I am am de size
Speaker 1: the word fantasy.
Speaker 2: A lot of times.
Speaker 1: It's very hard for these guys to leave their party.
Speaker 1: It's so hard for them to leave their party. They
Speaker 1: have a hard time doing it. And you have to
Speaker 1: leave your party to do something like this, you have
Speaker 1: to be done, and it's so you know, and for
Speaker 1: this to succeed, it requires both parties going to their extremes,
Speaker 1: and usually we don't have that right. When one party
Speaker 1: goes too far one way, usually the other party then
Speaker 1: tries to become the party for the center right, tries
Speaker 1: to absorb the center and so which is Frankly, I
Speaker 1: think it been a very effective way to create a
Speaker 1: check and balance in our country between the two parties.
Speaker 1: It's when it's in those weird moments when both parties
Speaker 1: split apart. Maybe we're oncoming to one of those moments,
Speaker 1: and if we do, then perhaps there is room for
Speaker 1: this yere. But I ultimately don't think we're going to
Speaker 1: be there, and obviously my dog Kelly, she is ready
Speaker 1: for this podcast to end. So with that, I will
Speaker 1: see you in twenty four hours