Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Ethos and what Ethos does is it helps you
Speaker 1: find life insurance. Let me tell you why life insurance
Speaker 1: bailed me out. My father died when I was sixteen.
Speaker 1: We didn't have a lot of money when it happened,
Speaker 1: and we were in a pretty tough financial spot after
Speaker 1: it happened. I'm an only child. Suddenly my mother's single,
Speaker 1: single mother. She had a job, suddenly lost a job,
Speaker 1: looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know,
Speaker 1: my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation,
Speaker 1: but he did make one purchase. He bought a life
Speaker 1: insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it
Speaker 1: was enough when we found it. And when I say
Speaker 1: we found it, meaning we went through his desk and
Speaker 1: we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's
Speaker 1: anything here. And it helped us out at a time
Speaker 1: that we really needed it. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: it's important that if you can, especially if you have
Speaker 1: young children, if you can get life insurance, you should
Speaker 1: get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen.
Speaker 1: It is an extra bit of security, something you can
Speaker 1: leave and help out at a time when you're not
Speaker 1: you're not there to help. So what does Ethos do well.
Speaker 1: Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds,
Speaker 1: you can apply in minutes, and you can get same
Speaker 1: day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's
Speaker 1: no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health
Speaker 1: questions online. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty
Speaker 1: dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from
Speaker 1: their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to
Speaker 1: get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your
Speaker 1: free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck. That is
Speaker 1: ETOs dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and
Speaker 1: rates may vary. Hello there, Welcome to the Wednesday edition
Speaker 1: of the Chuck Podcast. If it's Wednesday, it means somebody
Speaker 1: voted somewhere on Tuesday. And you know, for a lot
Speaker 1: of Wednesdays between now and November, I'm going to be
Speaker 1: leading with the campaign because they'll be an important primary
Speaker 1: night or an important Tuesday election, and you know we've
Speaker 1: only had a couple of important primary nights so far,
Speaker 1: Texas and Illinois being a big one. But we had
Speaker 1: a big one, and it was a special election, in
Speaker 1: this case, a special referendum. It's in Virginia. I've talked
Speaker 1: a lot about this Virginia referendum, those of you who've forwarded, No,
Speaker 1: this is you know the state. I live in the state.
Speaker 1: I'm a resident in the state I'm voting in. I
Speaker 1: still consider myself a Floridian. First, you know where you're
Speaker 1: born and raised, you know always where you're from. Virginia
Speaker 1: is where I live. The irony of courses, I have
Speaker 1: now lived longer in Arlington and in Virginia than I
Speaker 1: have any other state in the Union. So and yet
Speaker 1: I still consider myself a Floridian. And I'm probably not
Speaker 1: alone here in northern Virginia. But look the big news,
Speaker 1: and it would have been arguably bigger news had this
Speaker 1: referendum not passed. But I do think we have this
Speaker 1: sort of I do want to lay a few things
Speaker 1: out here. So Look, it's a it's a it's a
Speaker 1: big win for Democrats in this respect. Look when Republicans
Speaker 1: started this in Texas and then Indiana and Missouri, and
Speaker 1: we saw in some of these places, I think there
Speaker 1: were real question marks about whether you whether Democrats could
Speaker 1: unite enough, even in some of their blue estates to
Speaker 1: do something like this, And they had to create a
Speaker 1: in two of the states actually get referendum on the
Speaker 1: ballot basically to create a constitutional legitimacy in the state
Speaker 1: constitutions of California and Virginia and to pull this off.
Speaker 1: And they did it. Okay, they did it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it shows you the power, right, the power
Speaker 1: of of the of the Trump resistance is extraordinary. If
Speaker 1: it wasn't extraordinary, you wouldn't have California and Virginia successfully
Speaker 1: essentially creating special referendum, special elections, constitutional amendments to temporarily
Speaker 1: change how they do things in order to jerry rig
Speaker 1: a map in Democratics favor, in order to balance out
Speaker 1: what happened in Texas. So tactically, for a party that
Speaker 1: regularly brings knives to gunfights, I get that there's a
Speaker 1: feeling of satisfaction among some partisan Democrats this morning that
Speaker 1: like they that they fought fire with fire. Now, what
Speaker 1: I've been warning about, and I still think is a
Speaker 1: medium term issue for the party going forward is. I
Speaker 1: do think the strength of the Democratic Party in the
Speaker 1: Trump era has been there seen as the party that
Speaker 1: doesn't want to break the rules, that they're seen as
Speaker 1: the party that are rule followers, that they're seen as
Speaker 1: the party of fair districts. Right. This is a party
Speaker 1: that has spent the last fifteen years of which many
Speaker 1: of US Virginia saw plenty of TV ads showing clips
Speaker 1: of Barack Obama lamenting jerrymandering, which the no referendum side
Speaker 1: amplified quite a bit in the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: I think it was so successful that the Yes side
Speaker 1: had to sort of redo some of their Obama driven
Speaker 1: at campaigns. And I think the fact that that they
Speaker 1: don't have this benefit of the doubt with the independent
Speaker 1: voter right now, right, that's what this is. Where you
Speaker 1: know they're playing partisan games. We know that that's what
Speaker 1: they're doing. Wait a minute, now, you're going to do
Speaker 1: this too. And so while I get the short term benefit,
Speaker 1: I get the near term you know help that this
Speaker 1: will give. And you know, I question how helpful this
Speaker 1: will be. I think you could argue, and I've made
Speaker 1: this argument, You've heard it here before. I think you
Speaker 1: could argue that if Virginia didn't touch its map there,
Speaker 1: we're going to pick up two congressional districts in this
Speaker 1: the essentially the old first and the old second. The
Speaker 1: second is Virginia Beach. The first is this Northern Neck area,
Speaker 1: which is sort of a a as the Northern Virginia
Speaker 1: suburbs continue to grow. Right, this is a place where,
Speaker 1: in some ways it was going to be an uphill campaign.
Speaker 1: But with the wind at the backs of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and particularly in Northern Virginia, I think there was a
Speaker 1: path to them getting an eight to three advantage with
Speaker 1: the with the map pre referendum, and so now they're
Speaker 1: going to have a map that in theory allows them
Speaker 1: to go ten to one. But there is all of
Speaker 1: a sudden now a whole bunch of Democratic primaries, and
Speaker 1: you know, just like what we've seen with the Republicans,
Speaker 1: right Democrats could overperform in Republican leaning districts if the
Speaker 1: quote unquote wrong person won the primary. You know, if
Speaker 1: it was two MAGA or two Tea party ish, that
Speaker 1: could happen. But on the left side of the aisle
Speaker 1: right two progressive, two left leaning of a nominee and
Speaker 1: then suddenly it opens the door. There are a couple
Speaker 1: of these districts that are you know, democratic advantage, but
Speaker 1: we're talking, you know, under five points when it comes
Speaker 1: to democratic advantage. So I'm not going to sit here
Speaker 1: and say this is a total success for the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party unless it is ten to one for sure, or
Speaker 1: if they'd only the only way they win the House
Speaker 1: is on the backs of these remaps in California and Virginia.
Speaker 1: And when you start to just look at the three
Speaker 1: states that have done the most gerrymandering, right, Texas went
Speaker 1: to try to find a net of five seats, California
Speaker 1: basically try to erase the five and and Virginia is
Speaker 1: trying to do four. So if the Democratic majority is
Speaker 1: in the single digits, they win the control of the House.
Speaker 1: But it's in the single digits, well, then you're going
Speaker 1: to have to you you are going to have to
Speaker 1: point to these referendums in Virginia and in California as
Speaker 1: the difference that without it, it doesn't happen. If Democrats
Speaker 1: win the House and they're up to two hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty five members, which means they've netted somewhere between seventeen
Speaker 1: eighteen ninety somewhere in the twenty you know, around basically
Speaker 1: between seventeen and twenty five districts. Then I I'm going
Speaker 1: to look at these maps as sort of wasted money.
Speaker 1: These referendums is wasted money because it means they would
Speaker 1: have won the House regardless of these remaps, regardless of
Speaker 1: these referendum changes. And so the lingering question I have
Speaker 1: in my mind about all of this is not whether
Speaker 1: this is going to help them with the House. Look
Speaker 1: it is it is going to help Democrats are closer
Speaker 1: to taking control of the House today than they were yesterday.
Speaker 1: Simply call these referendums. I'm not discounting that, but at
Speaker 1: what cost. Just take in the state of Virginia, you know,
Speaker 1: Governor Abigail Spamberg, after winning by double digits, looking like
Speaker 1: sort of you know what the what the future of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party could look like, has found herself dragged
Speaker 1: into becoming a very partisan looking governor, very unlike the
Speaker 1: Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and Ralph Northam models of governing.
Speaker 1: Even Terry McAuliffe, who you know as a former National
Speaker 1: Party chairman, I don't think anybody saw him at first
Speaker 1: as a honor, but he very much governed from the center.
Speaker 1: You know, he was he was you know, he may
Speaker 1: be a thought of as a longtime partisan Democrat because
Speaker 1: he was the chairman of the DNC, and you know,
Speaker 1: and it's so close to the Clintons, and the Clintons
Speaker 1: are certainly synonymous with the Democratic Party, but it is
Speaker 1: of a different wing of the Democratic Party, right, much
Speaker 1: more of the quote pro business wing of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So when you look at sort of the four Democratic
Speaker 1: governors that have most recently preceded Abigail Spamberger, Terry mccauliffe,
Speaker 1: Ralph Northam, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine, they either governed
Speaker 1: they all four tried to govern more from the center.
Speaker 1: I still think Governor Spamberger wants to govern from the center,
Speaker 1: but she had to begin her term immediately as a
Speaker 1: partisan warrior, right, because the first thing on the agenda
Speaker 1: was getting this through the legislature. Then getting this you know,
Speaker 1: and by the way, this is not done done. There
Speaker 1: is still a court case, there's still this is likely
Speaker 1: to reach the State Supreme Court. The assumption is the
Speaker 1: courts will end up ruling in favor of the yes
Speaker 1: side on this, but there's the there's it's not an
Speaker 1: unreasonable ruling if they decide nope, they violated specific pieces
Speaker 1: of how this should get done. You know, perhaps you know,
Speaker 1: you could see a hybrid situation where they say, you
Speaker 1: know these maps, you got to redo this again if
Speaker 1: you and you can make this constitutional going into twenty eight,
Speaker 1: but you can't do it for twenty six. Right, there's
Speaker 1: all sorts of scenarios that are still left. But I
Speaker 1: will tell you, like there's a bit of pandemonium now
Speaker 1: in how this election cycle works. So this map passes,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, we have these brand new districts
Speaker 1: that in theory are only now in law starting today, right,
Speaker 1: because the passage of this referendum as soon as it's certified,
Speaker 1: essentially puts these officially, So the new paps take a
Speaker 1: fact immediately when this referendum becomes law. So as soon
Speaker 1: as it's certified, and it sometime today, maybe it's tomorrow
Speaker 1: that it's certified. So guess what the filing deadline is
Speaker 1: for the now new August fourth primary. Virginia has never
Speaker 1: had August primaries in recent history. Frankly, primaries are fairly
Speaker 1: new this century. There used to be a state that
Speaker 1: did more of its nomination nominating process via conventions and
Speaker 1: county caucuses and things like that. The shift towards primaries
Speaker 1: really began in the nineties. So now there's gonna be
Speaker 1: an August primary for these federal races, and the filing
Speaker 1: deadline is Friday, as in this coming Friday. So we
Speaker 1: may see some Republican incumbents retire. Whitman, the incumbent and
Speaker 1: the current first congressional district, he's kind of politically homeless
Speaker 1: in the remap. He may decide not to file, but
Speaker 1: there may be pressure on all of these incumbents to
Speaker 1: go ahead and file if they're thinking about retirement, because
Speaker 1: you know they're in theory. There's still this court case
Speaker 1: that that could end up disqualifying this referendum. So the
Speaker 1: nightmare scenario for the state and the Department of Elections
Speaker 1: is if the yes vote, if the state, if the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court later decides that the legislative process to put
Speaker 1: this referendum in place was unconstitution intitutional, then you would
Speaker 1: have candidates who filed for the districts under the new
Speaker 1: map suddenly running in a district that no longer exists.
Speaker 1: You could see the August fourth primary pushback again, you
Speaker 1: could see a refiling period, so you know this is
Speaker 1: likely to be what the new map is, but nothing
Speaker 1: is concrete yet. Right the court, there is still a
Speaker 1: challenge to the constitutionality of this referendum and of what's
Speaker 1: been done. It is still going through state courts. This
Speaker 1: is not something that would make itself to the US
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. This would be a Virginia decision within the
Speaker 1: Virginia court system. So it's probably you know, going to
Speaker 1: get implemented. But even after this vote, we still have
Speaker 1: a bit of uncertainty. But big picture, the price that
Speaker 1: Democrats are paying to essentially stay what they believe is
Speaker 1: stay competitive in this House map, which again I don't
Speaker 1: think this was as dire as the picture that they
Speaker 1: were painting. And yes, we'll probably get another redistricting attempt
Speaker 1: now to counter Virginia in Florida, but there's only so
Speaker 1: much they can do in Florida. They also have a
Speaker 1: referendum that's in the constitution that well, that sort of
Speaker 1: they've got to be careful not to do this via
Speaker 1: partisan gain. If it looks like partisan gain, then they
Speaker 1: have constitutional problems. I think there's only so much they
Speaker 1: can do. Now we saw I'm you know, I'm stunned
Speaker 1: at how this ten to one map looks that they
Speaker 1: took essentially northern Virginia and essentially did what Illinois did
Speaker 1: to maximize congressional seats there for Democrats, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: have as many districts touched the Chicago land as possible. Well,
Speaker 1: in Virginias, have as many districts touch northern Virginia as possible,
Speaker 1: and then you sort of sprout out like a like
Speaker 1: sort of a one sided octopus, if you would, on
Speaker 1: that front. Well, in Florida, where they think they can
Speaker 1: make gains is to take those southeastern Democratic health districts
Speaker 1: and Broward and Palm Beach and parts of Dade County,
Speaker 1: Miami Dade County and essentially create slices of bacon from
Speaker 1: the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf coast and essentially bring
Speaker 1: in more Republicans into some of these East Coast Broward
Speaker 1: County and Palm Beach congressional districts and get Republicans from
Speaker 1: the southwest part of the state your Naples, your Sarasota,
Speaker 1: is your Fort Myers, etc. And that they can The
Speaker 1: problem with that, though, is that they're going to make
Speaker 1: a lot of light red districts, and in a bad
Speaker 1: Republican year, light red districts can get flipped. So the
Speaker 1: possibility of a dummy mander for Florida messing around there
Speaker 1: is probably a bat higher than I think folks fully appreciate.
Speaker 1: But look in the long run, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the biggest loss for Democrats here is this brand issue
Speaker 1: that they're no longer seen as the party of honest reform.
Speaker 1: I think Donald Trump and the Republicans were not seen
Speaker 1: as a party that was interested in fairness or fair elections.
Speaker 1: And who am I speaking with the I'm talking about
Speaker 1: voters that are these independent, these unaffiliated voters that are
Speaker 1: not hard partisans. And when you look at when Democrats
Speaker 1: the successful election cycles for Democrats in the Trump era
Speaker 1: eighteen twenty in particular, they would over index with those
Speaker 1: voters in the middle who saw them as sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, that even slightly center right voter. I think
Speaker 1: this is going to linger. I think this is going
Speaker 1: to leave a bad taste. And this is what's going
Speaker 1: to you know, the unintended there's always unintended consequences. I
Speaker 1: think the biggest unintended consequence of all of this gerrymandering
Speaker 1: that we've seen in all of this sort of hard
Speaker 1: partisanship in the States is that I think it only
Speaker 1: is going to increase demand for a third alternative now
Speaker 1: is it an independent, is alternative party, whatever you want
Speaker 1: to look at it. I just think that it only
Speaker 1: increases the appetite for that and it is you know,
Speaker 1: I will say this, I don't think the Democrats are
Speaker 1: improving their brand on this. They may make the base happy,
Speaker 1: it may fire them up, and Donald Trump is an
Speaker 1: amazing elixir here for the Democratic coalition. In fact, you know,
Speaker 1: NOE appeared to have a little bit of momentum. I
Speaker 1: think the worst thing that the No side did in
Speaker 1: Virginia was at Donald Trump to do a teletown hall
Speaker 1: the night before the election. And I get what they
Speaker 1: were trying to do, right, This is the trap of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump swing voters to test them, but base voters
Speaker 1: only get motivated by them. And so you know, the
Speaker 1: more you bring Trump involved in your campaign, the more
Speaker 1: you probably fire up queasy northern Virginia voters who maybe
Speaker 1: don't like this are a little bit uncomfortable with this,
Speaker 1: and then they see Trump and figure it out screw
Speaker 1: that guy. Right, So here we are, and I guess
Speaker 1: at this point, if you know, I already sort of
Speaker 1: believed the cake was already baked with the house, I
Speaker 1: think now Virginia might be icing. But it's all of
Speaker 1: those unintended consequences that that may not rear its head
Speaker 1: here this cycle, but may rear its ugly head in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. And in the meantime, frankly may have
Speaker 1: done some long term you know, it may be that
Speaker 1: an Abigail Spamberger never fully recovers from starting being seen
Speaker 1: by the voting elector at aar in Virginia as seeing
Speaker 1: is more partisan than they expected her to be, and
Speaker 1: does that sort of hover over her term in a
Speaker 1: way that she never gets never gets out of. Look
Speaker 1: still a long way to go, and there may be
Speaker 1: moments where she decides to push back at her party
Speaker 1: in a more high profile ways. Now that this referendums
Speaker 1: out of the way, I'll be curious to see if
Speaker 1: she sort of starts to push back at the speaker,
Speaker 1: Louise Lucas, the sort of the most influential state senator
Speaker 1: there who right now look like they're the ones leading
Speaker 1: the party, while Governor Spamberger is sort of writing Shotgun.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Toddcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Soul. So if you love that end of the
Speaker 1: day unwined, but hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office
Speaker 1: is for you. These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give
Speaker 1: you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without
Speaker 1: the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness
Speaker 1: brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.
Speaker 1: Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCHC and CBD products
Speaker 1: designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their
Speaker 1: best selling out of Office Gummies were designed to provide
Speaker 1: a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity
Speaker 1: and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the
Speaker 1: dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety
Speaker 1: of products specifically designed to help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan
Speaker 1: favorite for deep, restorous sleep. Look. I have made no secret,
Speaker 1: I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis and
Speaker 1: hemp derived. I do not partake in alcohol for the
Speaker 1: most part, I think this stuff is a lot safer
Speaker 1: than alcohol, a lot less dative of an alcohol. And yes,
Speaker 1: I have to say I love these drinks. It is
Speaker 1: the glass of wine and you know after work, that's
Speaker 1: what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories
Speaker 1: like this. I'm a big fan. So bring on the
Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to sold today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: Go to getsol dot com and use the word todcast.
Speaker 1: That's getsol dot com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 1: And yes, I too, am a customer. The other big
Speaker 1: news of the day, of course, was something that I
Speaker 1: told you was going to happen here forty eight hours ago,
Speaker 1: that even if they didn't negotiate, that they were going
Speaker 1: to find a way to extend the ceasefire. And Donald
Speaker 1: Trump unilaterally extended the ceasefire with iron if he hadn't singled,
Speaker 1: If you needed yet another signal that he does not
Speaker 1: want to restart the wore, we got it in spades
Speaker 1: on Tuesday night. Everything he asked Iran to do, they
Speaker 1: didn't do. And yet he agreed to extend a ceasefire anyway,
Speaker 1: and he called it an indefinite extension. Right. He didn't
Speaker 1: want to He didn't want to have to do this
Speaker 1: in another week, do this in another three days, do
Speaker 1: this in another two weeks. So Iran has essentially won
Speaker 1: the second round of negotiations by not showing up, and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump agreed to extend the ceasefire anyway. That's quite
Speaker 1: the capitulation by him, and it's quite an acknowledgment of
Speaker 1: the current situation. And this gets back to the to
Speaker 1: the trap that he put himself in because he's now
Speaker 1: found a way to start a war with Iran and
Speaker 1: somehow strengthen Iran's position in the region. And that's what
Speaker 1: this looks like at the moment, and the only way
Speaker 1: to undo it is to add and he doesn't have
Speaker 1: the stomach for it. And we know this because he's
Speaker 1: choosing not to do it already. Now. There is one
Speaker 1: thing that I think will eventually get the Iranians back
Speaker 1: to the table, and they's going to be the Chinese, right,
Speaker 1: They're only going to have so much patience for this
Speaker 1: strait of hormones to be closed. They're not going to
Speaker 1: be interested in having a confrontation with the United States.
Speaker 1: They want to have good relations with the United States.
Speaker 1: Their economy needs the United States. So at some point
Speaker 1: I think the Chinese are going to put a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure in the Iranians to get to the table
Speaker 1: and find an exit ramp, you know, get the straight
Speaker 1: open and find an exit ramp here. But think about
Speaker 1: what I just said, right, We're now waiting in the
Speaker 1: Chinese to put pressure in Iran because the United States
Speaker 1: couldn't do it. The United States couldn't make them do this.
Speaker 1: And don't start a war you're not prepared to finish.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump started a war. He's not prepared to finish.
Speaker 1: He thought he could essentially blow hard his way uh
Speaker 1: and and get the Iranians to do his bidding without
Speaker 1: without without it being difficult. Right. He clearly thought the
Speaker 1: Venezuela example was going to work here, and it didn't.
Speaker 1: And I guess the good news is, if you're worried
Speaker 1: about us getting into a long, years long quagmire, he
Speaker 1: isn't going to do it. That's a I think that's
Speaker 1: a good thing for our troops. I think that's a
Speaker 1: good thing for a lot of Iranians. And so a
Speaker 1: lot of people are going to live instead of die.
Speaker 1: But strategically, this, if this is the scenario we're staring at,
Speaker 1: then this has been a strategic disaster. This is in
Speaker 1: some ways worse than you know, it's much worse in
Speaker 1: a rack, right, I mean, we got a better outcome
Speaker 1: out of Iraq than we're getting out of this. It's
Speaker 1: as bad as Vietnam. I mean, again, it's not worse
Speaker 1: than Vietnam because we're not doing this for a decade
Speaker 1: and we're not you know, seeing thousands of American troops die.
Speaker 1: But what a strategic I mean, just this is an
Speaker 1: epic foreign policy failure now, and it is hard to
Speaker 1: see that whatever deal eventually gets cut here does anything
Speaker 1: other than oddly enhance the position of the Iranians. I mean,
Speaker 1: we'll be lucky to get the Iran Nuclear Deal two
Speaker 1: point zero at this point, and it's probably going to
Speaker 1: be something like that with the Strait having to be
Speaker 1: a part of this. But this is I know, Trump's erratic,
Speaker 1: and maybe you know, there's always a possibility he could
Speaker 1: do X, Y and Z, but he clearly doesn't want
Speaker 1: to do it. He clearly doesn't have the stomach for it.
Speaker 1: He sees what this has done to our economy and
Speaker 1: it's not going to get better. He is desperate to
Speaker 1: try to get this economy healing as fast as possible.
Speaker 1: That's why you extend the ceasefire indefinitely. That's why you
Speaker 1: go ahead and do this unilaterally even if the Iranians
Speaker 1: aren't there, because he is signaling the Iranians I want
Speaker 1: to cut a deal. Please, I want to cut a deal.
Speaker 1: Will you hurry up and cut a deal with US? So?
Speaker 1: And you know, the Iranians are good negotiators and they
Speaker 1: pay attention. As I told you on Monday, I think
Speaker 1: they can sniff out the fact that Trump wants a
Speaker 1: deal too badly. And they sniffed that out. They played
Speaker 1: they basically called his bluff, and he extended the ceasefire. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we got a long way to go. I know all
Speaker 1: the time I can sit here and talk about, you
Speaker 1: know how bad the decision isn't Iran? Did I tell
Speaker 1: you how bad this decision is? Now? Do you? We?
Speaker 1: You know, as if more people needed convincing, Why so
Speaker 1: many US presidents said this is a bad idea? Why
Speaker 1: so many US presidents told bb Netanya who to stand down?
Speaker 1: But hey, this one leads with his gut. This one,
Speaker 1: you know, he doesn't need to take the advice of
Speaker 1: the people around him. And I do think, are you
Speaker 1: know the folks in you know, we're we're going to
Speaker 1: get a lot of whispers that you know, I wasn't
Speaker 1: for this, or I wasn't for this, I wasn't. You
Speaker 1: could have said something more definitive and louder at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Now maybe it wouldn't have mattered, Right, he heard what
Speaker 1: he wanted to hear out of BB and he doesn't
Speaker 1: trust his own intelligence agencies because it goes back to
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election, and even before then, he thinks
Speaker 1: all the ever, all the rank and file intel people
Speaker 1: are just against him. So he's not going to ever
Speaker 1: buy into any of that. But it's it's h this
Speaker 1: is this is this is a big blunder. You know.
Speaker 1: I think this is something that will leave a huge
Speaker 1: mark on Marco Rubio and his president future. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how A Jed E. Vance ducks getting sort
Speaker 1: of tainted with this, but you know, it is hard
Speaker 1: to imagine that this that any deal that is cut
Speaker 1: here at the end is going to make this a
Speaker 1: ran war seem like a good idea in hindsight, especially
Speaker 1: since we know that the economic ramifications, the negative consequences
Speaker 1: to this are are going to linger, and they're going
Speaker 1: to linger for months, not weeks. So you want to
Speaker 1: take these two things together, and it is in some
Speaker 1: ways a pretty disastrous night for the Republicans in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. You know, I certainly have my opinion about
Speaker 1: the long term impact on the Democratic Party brand for being,
Speaker 1: you know, for deciding to fight partisan fire with partisan fire.
Speaker 1: But if you want to just look at the cold
Speaker 1: hard calculus of campaign twenty twenty six, the events of
Speaker 1: Tuesday have moved Democrats a lot closer to winning both
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate. With this Iran war getting
Speaker 1: no closer to ending, it is more and more likely
Speaker 1: we are going to have a very unpopular economy. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to sit here and predict brother in a
Speaker 1: recession or not. It's just going to be an unpopular
Speaker 1: economy come November. And that means the Senate is now
Speaker 1: fully in play. And we've seen I'll tell you, you know,
Speaker 1: it's April, and you know, you usually know right, and
Speaker 1: to me, there have to be a black swan event
Speaker 1: for the trajectory of this campaign season to change. But
Speaker 1: you're starting to see it's always you know, it's in
Speaker 1: April that you start to see hints at certain states.
Speaker 1: You're let go on, huh, how about that? And there
Speaker 1: was some polling that came out of Kansas a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago that showed the independent candidate leading the
Speaker 1: incumbent senator there, Roger Marshall, showed lesser known Democrats within
Speaker 1: striking range and keeping the incumbent senator there under fifty.
Speaker 1: And you're like, huh, And Kansas has been hit hard
Speaker 1: on tariffs, right, all of these Midwestern EG states have
Speaker 1: you know, it's a double whammy, right, the Ran war
Speaker 1: is not going to be popular. They're getting impacted directly
Speaker 1: because of the cost of energy and fertilizer. But these
Speaker 1: were already this was the egg industry was already an
Speaker 1: industry that had been taking on water and taking a
Speaker 1: lot of pain from the tariffs. So when I see
Speaker 1: a political environment where you have, again a small sample
Speaker 1: poll in Iowa that had Rob sand already up double digits,
Speaker 1: had the state had both Democratic candidates essentially dead, even
Speaker 1: with the likely Republican nominee there you've got what we've
Speaker 1: seen in Kansas. We've already seen that Nebraska is already
Speaker 1: super competitive. There is not a data point I've seen
Speaker 1: that has been that is somehow going to that counters
Speaker 1: what appears to be democratic momentum going into the fall
Speaker 1: of twenty six. All of the little tea leaves that
Speaker 1: you put together to start reading, right, I mean, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: there's a new poll out of Texas indicating that Paxton
Speaker 1: is more likely to win that runoff than Cornyn. Right,
Speaker 1: It's like that only puts all of those Texas seats
Speaker 1: more in play. It is all of the developments right
Speaker 1: now are only helping one side and only hurting the other.
Speaker 1: About the only thing the Team Red has going for
Speaker 1: right now is this massive financial disparity in the super
Speaker 1: PACs and this massive financial advantage that they have between
Speaker 1: the rn C and the DNC. But here's the unknown
Speaker 1: on those Donald Trump controls some of that money, and
Speaker 1: he's weird cheap, and he doesn't always smartly spend it.
Speaker 1: He withholds they didn't spend near hardly any of that
Speaker 1: money in Virginia on the NO side right there, So
Speaker 1: you know, I you know, I think he is definitely
Speaker 1: going to spend it to try to defeat Thomas Massey.
Speaker 1: But you know, he he, he exerts more ownership over
Speaker 1: that money in a way that he uses his not
Speaker 1: belonging to the Republican Party or the Republican campaign. So
Speaker 1: you know, one day does not begin or end a
Speaker 1: campaign season. But boy was this just when you look
Speaker 1: at the impact on our camp on Campaign twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: Tuesday was a really good day for Team Blue and
Speaker 1: a really bad day for Team mat This episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Toddcast is brought to you by Wild Grain.
Speaker 1: Well Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box
Speaker 1: for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus
Speaker 1: all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less.
Speaker 1: Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple
Speaker 1: ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that
Speaker 1: can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut
Speaker 1: health there right, and richer in nutrients antioxidants. There's also
Speaker 1: no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are
Speaker 1: fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have
Speaker 1: a gluten free box, a vegan box and a new
Speaker 1: protein box. I will tell you I have done the
Speaker 1: gluten free box. I have done it a second time.
Speaker 1: I have also used the code, the todcast code. If
Speaker 1: you use the promo code podcast at checkout, you get
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift
Speaker 1: to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard
Speaker 1: to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They
Speaker 1: give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your
Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
Speaker 1: meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly recommend it. It
Speaker 1: is worth giving wild Green to try. Right now, Wildgrain
Speaker 1: is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box
Speaker 1: plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go
Speaker 1: to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today.
Speaker 1: That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants
Speaker 1: for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast,
Speaker 1: or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This
Speaker 1: is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna keep with the Obviously, it's Wednesday, which means
Speaker 1: I have a new top five list top five toppaztop
Speaker 1: and this is for the second week in a row.
Speaker 1: I've got a reader inspired top five and that is
Speaker 1: top five overlooked races this cycle. And what do I mean?
Speaker 1: What is the definition? It's it's it's races that the
Speaker 1: parties are not prioritizing that maybe those of us that
Speaker 1: are observing of our surprise that they're not prioritizing because
Speaker 1: we think that with a little TLC they can be
Speaker 1: competitive and potentially flippable. So these are five on my
Speaker 1: list of five. I've got three Demo Republican health seats
Speaker 1: and two Democrat account seats on this So that is
Speaker 1: this top five. I'll talk to you about some other
Speaker 1: races that I that I contemplated in this top five.
Speaker 1: But fifth on the list of my top five of
Speaker 1: races that the parties that I think the party out
Speaker 1: of power and said race is not prioritizing and is
Speaker 1: making a mistake. So number five in the list, I'm
Speaker 1: going to go backwards here, five down to one. Five
Speaker 1: on the list is Florida governor. Look, I see the math,
Speaker 1: I see the trend lines. I know that the general
Speaker 1: direction right now looks like boy, that's a you know,
Speaker 1: Republicans have just beaten the daylights out of Democrats and
Speaker 1: voter registration over the last four years. DeSantis has taken
Speaker 1: what was a victory by a fingernail in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: had a blowout by twenty twenty two, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: It appears to not be a one off, right You
Speaker 1: sort of see, you know, Trump won Florida more comfortably
Speaker 1: than a Republican has won really going back thirty years
Speaker 1: on a presidential level. So you look at it from
Speaker 1: a macro level and you think, Okay, I get it.
Speaker 1: I get why Democrats are underrating Florida governor or are
Speaker 1: deciding to essentially walk away from them, not taking Florida
Speaker 1: seriously either. The the the semi open Senate race, I
Speaker 1: say it's semi open because there's a uh, there's there's
Speaker 1: an appointee uh there. But it's the Rubio seat. But
Speaker 1: it is an open governor's race. And that's the key.
Speaker 1: When a party does not target an open seat, that
Speaker 1: is not just conceding that election cycle, that is conceding
Speaker 1: a decade of an election cycle in a given state.
Speaker 1: So you'll see here in some ways, I think that though,
Speaker 1: when you concede not trying to make an open seat competitive,
Speaker 1: I think it's just a gigantic waving of the white
Speaker 1: flag that sends a larger message internally in that state
Speaker 1: and sends a pretty negative message if you if you
Speaker 1: think you would like to start to plant the seeds
Speaker 1: to become more competitive, and said state, I get it. Byron,
Speaker 1: Donald's has a truckload of money. The early endorsement by
Speaker 1: Trump seemed to clear the field. The Santa would love
Speaker 1: to find an alternative to Donalds and has really struggled
Speaker 1: to do that because it is Donald Trump's Republican Party,
Speaker 1: at least financially in the state of Florida. I'm not
Speaker 1: as convinced that he has the iron grip with the
Speaker 1: voters that it is as iron iron clad as they behave,
Speaker 1: but it is financially, there's no doubt. Right Trump sent
Speaker 1: the signal and all the money followed, So there's a
Speaker 1: giant financial advantage of iron Donald's gonna have. But he's
Speaker 1: really being treated almost as a governor in waiting and
Speaker 1: you know, look, the history of Florida on open governor's
Speaker 1: races are usually highly competitive and you usually have you know,
Speaker 1: pretty you know, the Floridians, there's always a new you know,
Speaker 1: every two years there's half a million new residents that
Speaker 1: are voting in that state for the very first time
Speaker 1: and aren't just you know, gonna likely knee jerk just
Speaker 1: a one party and so you know, it's pretty clear
Speaker 1: that you know, donors have been told don't bother with Florida.
Speaker 1: Now the center race, Vinman, Alex Vinman, the brother of
Speaker 1: Eugene Vinman, who's already a sitting member of Congress in Virginia.
Speaker 1: He raised a ton of money and he does well
Speaker 1: in that sort of act blue circuit raising money, you know,
Speaker 1: in the online left. And he certainly in that sense
Speaker 1: had you know, thanks to the impeachment emails over the years,
Speaker 1: has a pretty effective list on the in the governor's
Speaker 1: race there with those two Democrats, David Jolly Jerry Demmings,
Speaker 1: neither one of them, although Jerry Demings has valed Demings
Speaker 1: list when she ran against Rubio, and that was an
Speaker 1: incredibly successful fundraising apparatus that again was sort of wasted
Speaker 1: by National Democrats and Florida Democrats. So there is I
Speaker 1: think walking away not taking this race seriously, not trying
Speaker 1: to prioritize Florida in general. You're not just walking away
Speaker 1: from one race. I think the National Party is walking
Speaker 1: away from the state for a decad and it's it's
Speaker 1: just a it's a huge miscalculation. But this look that
Speaker 1: there are larger problems right that. You know, both parties
Speaker 1: are kind of a mess strategically. The Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: more of a mess. They really have. They've botched Florida
Speaker 1: from six ways from Sunday, uh and they've and there's
Speaker 1: another state on here that that I'll be highlighting where
Speaker 1: they've they've really missed. They've really not put the effort
Speaker 1: in that if they had been making efforts over a decade,
Speaker 1: this would be the cycle they could actually see see
Speaker 1: it come to fruition. So fifth on the list is
Speaker 1: Florida Gov. This is one where I think the Democrats
Speaker 1: are not prioritizing it. I think the race will be
Speaker 1: it'll end up being more competitive, it'll end up being
Speaker 1: a single digit race despite the lack of prioritizing or
Speaker 1: national interests. Number four on the list for me is
Speaker 1: a is a Democratic health seats Oregon governor. Now Oregon
Speaker 1: governor has been sort of a little bit of a
Speaker 1: of a of a lower profile version of Charlie Brown
Speaker 1: in the football that New Jersey has had become over
Speaker 1: the years. For Republicans on the East coast, Oregon is
Speaker 1: always much more competitive than its reputation, right, you know,
Speaker 1: Oregon sandwich between Washington and California. It's certainly had a
Speaker 1: long streak of Democratic governor. So it's been a long
Speaker 1: time since Republicans. I don't think they've won to They
Speaker 1: haven't had a Senate seat a newly elected senator since
Speaker 1: the mid nineties with Gordon Smith, but they've come quite
Speaker 1: close before. Right, this is not a seventy to thirty
Speaker 1: blue state. This really is a fifty five to forty five,
Speaker 1: you know, on a good day for Democrats. Now the
Speaker 1: national right, you know, Oregon is a place that Republicans
Speaker 1: are only going to be more competitive in good Republican
Speaker 1: years nationally, I think that there's so I understand why
Speaker 1: you haven't seen too much here. And there's also a
Speaker 1: sitting governor for reelection, Tina Kotech. But they and arguably
Speaker 1: their lat the Republicans, the three way race messed up
Speaker 1: their chances perhaps of winning Oregon GOV. Back in twenty
Speaker 1: or two, I had been just a two way race,
Speaker 1: and the third party candidate might have decided not to run.
Speaker 1: The sort of the Phil Knight candidates, as I called her.
Speaker 1: She was a former Democrat, became a became an independent,
Speaker 1: but she not been in that race and had been
Speaker 1: co tech and a sort of a sort of mainstream Republican,
Speaker 1: sort of non maga Republican. I think that's a winnable
Speaker 1: race for Republicans. So look, twenty two was the year
Speaker 1: that they could have done this, but they, you know
Speaker 1: it is. It's funny Oregon. Again, it is similar to
Speaker 1: what Democrats have done in Florida. Republicans could be more
Speaker 1: competitive Oregon if they just spent some time there, if
Speaker 1: they just and they've had some luck targeting a few
Speaker 1: house seats. They flipped the house seat or two that
Speaker 1: some people didn't think they could flip. So it's clear
Speaker 1: it's on the ground. There's certainly questions about how Portland's
Speaker 1: been governed, which have sort of I think made the
Speaker 1: suburbs of Portland a bit more competitive potentially now part
Speaker 1: of it is I think MAGA doesn't sell an organ
Speaker 1: and it's possible that Oregon comes back into the semi
Speaker 1: competitive list of states. And I say semi competitive there
Speaker 1: the light red, light blue states that right now that
Speaker 1: may have an allergy to Trump in particular, but in general,
Speaker 1: I feel like the Republican Party doesn't know how to
Speaker 1: prioritize Oregon very well. Certainly this version of the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: which just you know, the Maga, the MAGA stuff just
Speaker 1: doesn't play on the coasts. We've seen this. It just
Speaker 1: really doesn't play on the coast and that may be
Speaker 1: part of the problem. But I definitely think it's a
Speaker 1: it's a race that's under prioritized in a state that's
Speaker 1: under number three on the list. For me is Alabama
Speaker 1: governor now Doug Jones is running and Tommy Tupperville's the
Speaker 1: likely Republican nominee. Tommy Tupperville there were questions about whether
Speaker 1: he's even qualified to be governor and did he meet
Speaker 1: the seventh the six year residency requirement. There's some questions
Speaker 1: about that. You don't need the you don't need to
Speaker 1: be a resident for you could literally, you know, run
Speaker 1: for US Senate anywhere, just established residency for a day
Speaker 1: and and you're as long as you're a citizen and
Speaker 1: thirty years old, you could you could run and win
Speaker 1: a Senate seat. That's most states have hard and hard
Speaker 1: and fast residency requirements for governor. They take that a
Speaker 1: lot more seriously. So you have a candidate who's, you know,
Speaker 1: not seen as very sort of conversant on how Congress works,
Speaker 1: and they spent a term there doing it hasn't been
Speaker 1: seen as somebody. You know, most people want their governors
Speaker 1: to sort of be less partisan. You know, they certainly
Speaker 1: expect them to be, you know, maybe in Alabama a
Speaker 1: small sea conservative, but they don't necessarily. We usually don't
Speaker 1: want partisan warriors as governor. We usually if we elect
Speaker 1: a partisan warrior, we'll do that for a legislative seat.
Speaker 1: We're usually a little less comfortable collectively as voters doing
Speaker 1: that for a governor seat. And you know, so I
Speaker 1: think there's a case where Doug Jones and you're more
Speaker 1: likely if you're a Republican running in a blue state
Speaker 1: or a Democrat running in a red state, you're going
Speaker 1: to have a better chance at winning statewide running for
Speaker 1: governor than you are for Senate and this isn't a
Speaker 1: bad Democratic gear. It looks like it's building into one.
Speaker 1: So I've not seen the evidence that the National Party
Speaker 1: is putting Alabama governor in play, is making a real effort. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe you know, they might argue, well, we're going to
Speaker 1: help Doug Jones when he's there, but we don't want
Speaker 1: to bring a lot of attention to it because the
Speaker 1: sooner they think he's a viable candidate. The I don't
Speaker 1: buy that, right. He's a former US senator, he got
Speaker 1: elected not that long ago, ironically running for governor. Now
Speaker 1: he's going to be facing Tommy Tupperville for a second time.
Speaker 1: He lost to him. Tupperville defeat defeated Doug Jones to
Speaker 1: win that Senate seat six years ago, and now they'll
Speaker 1: be facing off again for this governor's race. But I
Speaker 1: think Democrats have not given this the priority compared to
Speaker 1: I think that the chances they have to win. I
Speaker 1: think their chances are much higher here. And you know,
Speaker 1: then most people think, and you know, this is another
Speaker 1: one that's gonna If you're telling me this is a
Speaker 1: race that's decided by five points or less, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise me, and if it is, there'll be a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about you know, hey, did they not pay
Speaker 1: attention to this race soon enough? Number two on my
Speaker 1: list is Texas Governor. I think this is one where
Speaker 1: again this goes you know, it's funny. Democrats are pretty
Speaker 1: fun focused on the center race, but to me, the
Speaker 1: governor's race, and this is where I thought. So I
Speaker 1: thought Taller Rico would have could have been a more
Speaker 1: effective candidate for governor. He was in the state legislature.
Speaker 1: He's more conversant on state issues, but he wanted the
Speaker 1: easier path. He thought, you know, facing Ken Paxton might
Speaker 1: be easier to win, and look, facing an incumbent governor
Speaker 1: who's trying to become the longest serving governor in Texas history.
Speaker 1: And you know, Abbot, I will give you know, Abbot
Speaker 1: deserves I think a lot of credit for he is somehow,
Speaker 1: he has somehow walk this tightrope in Texas between the
Speaker 1: Maga wing and the non Mago wing, and he's not
Speaker 1: really a comfortable member of either. Right, he's not really
Speaker 1: a Bush Republican, although he sort of was more Bush
Speaker 1: Republican at the beginning of his career. But he's not
Speaker 1: really a Trump Republican either, right, he is. He is
Speaker 1: something in between, right. He's not as much of a
Speaker 1: firebrand as the Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is, but he's
Speaker 1: never wanted Dan Patrick to get traction on his right,
Speaker 1: so he sort of tries to manage that from afar.
Speaker 1: You know, regardless of what you think of as politics personally,
Speaker 1: I'm impressed with how Abbot has navigated this over a
Speaker 1: couple of cycles. You know, this could have We've seen
Speaker 1: other Republicans try to play this game where they kind
Speaker 1: of like kind of you know, they kind of are
Speaker 1: a chameleon, right, and they're almost a and they just
Speaker 1: sort of they seem and part of it is is
Speaker 1: Abbot has a good relationship with the donor community in general,
Speaker 1: and that seems to be I think what keeps him
Speaker 1: keeps his head above water. But you know, I look
Speaker 1: at the history of just you know, people trying to
Speaker 1: run for third and fourth and terms as governor and
Speaker 1: and that's when fatigue kicks in. You know, we saw
Speaker 1: it with the cuomos plural in both with Mario and
Speaker 1: Andrew over the years. And I think that fatigue issue
Speaker 1: is potentially ripe in Texas. We've already seen. And what's
Speaker 1: been interesting is the Democratic nominee gene you know, so
Speaker 1: I've not yet to see a poll where this where
Speaker 1: the race wasn't already in single digits. It's pretty clear
Speaker 1: Abbit has a hard ceiling. What he's done on school
Speaker 1: choice is not as popular among some pockets inside Republican
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, as as he believes. There's been in
Speaker 1: some ways a Republican civil war that he has helped
Speaker 1: fund inside the party, you know, getting rid of folks
Speaker 1: that stood in his way on some of his agendas.
Speaker 1: So the point is is that when you've done that,
Speaker 1: you've made yourself a share of uh political enemies that
Speaker 1: could come back to haunt And I look at his
Speaker 1: I look at his numbers. Overall, they look like somebody
Speaker 1: who is who is at the tail end of their career,
Speaker 1: not necessarily continuing to build momentum. But I don't see
Speaker 1: the commitment by the National Party. You don't see the
Speaker 1: money coming into you know's campaign that would allow her
Speaker 1: to take what is going to be a you know,
Speaker 1: sitting at a six or seven point range for the
Speaker 1: most part, and you know, you might have a tail
Speaker 1: wind from all the money that comes in for the
Speaker 1: Senate race of Paxton ends up winning the runoff, and
Speaker 1: who knows, maybe this changes here, but I think the
Speaker 1: lack of focus and attention to this race is a
Speaker 1: real missed opportunity because if you're trying to build a
Speaker 1: party infrastructure in a state that you'd like to make competitive,
Speaker 1: winning a governor's race is much get you much further
Speaker 1: down the road of building the infrastructure you need to
Speaker 1: make a state party competitive than winning a Senate seed does. Right,
Speaker 1: And this is you know, it's another reminder that there's
Speaker 1: just too much Washington thinking. Inside of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: It is way too concentrated and what's best for the
Speaker 1: national party. In the Washington Party, they this is a
Speaker 1: party that has just stopped thinking about party building in
Speaker 1: the states, and you can feel it. Part of it is,
Speaker 1: you know what's in front of them, right, you know,
Speaker 1: they help out certain people if they think they can win,
Speaker 1: see Rob sand in Iowa. But you don't get the
Speaker 1: sense this is a national party thinking about, Hey, what's
Speaker 1: this map going to look like after the census in
Speaker 1: twenty thirty and what do they need to do to
Speaker 1: be prepared in twenty thirty two? And watching them not
Speaker 1: prioritize either Texas or Florida in any way at all,
Speaker 1: is I think putting them in a bad position for
Speaker 1: the next decade when it comes to the electoral College
Speaker 1: once we see these numbers change after the twenty thirty census.
Speaker 1: So Texas governor number two and number one on my
Speaker 1: list is a Democratic health seat, and it's the open
Speaker 1: seat in Minnesota Senate. It's it's Minnesota Senate, and it's
Speaker 1: with the Republicans. They have just not prioritized Minnesota. And
Speaker 1: it's surprising to me. You have a divisive Democratic primary,
Speaker 1: you have basically a left versus pragmatist fight between Peggy
Speaker 1: Flanagan and Angie Craig. You've gotten You've got an unpopular
Speaker 1: governor sitting that is choosing not to seek reelection. Tim Walls. Yes,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party's sort of best political joke going not
Speaker 1: in the state. Amy Klobe Shar is now going to
Speaker 1: be at the top of the ticket running for governor.
Speaker 1: And it probably does save the Democrats in that state
Speaker 1: from from what was becoming a political problem with Walls.
Speaker 1: And so I'm not going to sit here and say
Speaker 1: that that that if the Republicans spent a little gave,
Speaker 1: gave a little more attention to Minnesota. They they'd win
Speaker 1: the Senate. See but when I look at how much
Speaker 1: they put more effort in trying to win New Hampshire
Speaker 1: the Minnesota, and if I would, I think they have
Speaker 1: a better chance of winning Minnesota than the New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: You don't have a divisive Democratic primary in New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: You have a Chris Pappis who's as a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: is not seen as a as a hard left winger.
Speaker 1: If anything, there's a in the in the little item
Speaker 1: I featured earlier in this podcast about bridge grades and
Speaker 1: this new metric. Pappis is somebody who's seen as a
Speaker 1: regular works across the aisle. So he fits the New
Speaker 1: Hampshire profile in a way that in a way that
Speaker 1: maybe some other Democrats wouldn't fit as well. So yes,
Speaker 1: they have you know, two now two former senators running
Speaker 1: in that Republican primary. But it does seem as if
Speaker 1: that nationally the Republicans have prioritized New Hampshire over Minnesota,
Speaker 1: which you know, again a head scratcher. Now look, the
Speaker 1: ice killings in Minnesota have certainly put the Republican Party
Speaker 1: in a in a hole there in Minnesota. That and
Speaker 1: maybe when Trump's not on the not in power, that
Speaker 1: will provide an opening. But and this could very well,
Speaker 1: Michelle Tafoya could be running a race where she learns
Speaker 1: a few lessons and then runs again in two years
Speaker 1: for the a in a special election to fill out
Speaker 1: the rest of Amy clobe Shark's term, which will pop
Speaker 1: up in twenty twenty eight, assuming Clobshar went to the
Speaker 1: governor's race, and you will, and they'll prioritize it more.
Speaker 1: But it's funny. Minnesota has been teetering on the edge
Speaker 1: of the competitive battleground for the presidential race for a
Speaker 1: few cycles now, not not prioritizing the Senate race. I
Speaker 1: think it's been a head scratcher to me and another
Speaker 1: potential missed opportunity there. So there you have it. My
Speaker 1: top five sort of overlooked races where I think the
Speaker 1: out party is you would be would actually have a
Speaker 1: reasonable chance at being competitive and possibly pulling an upset
Speaker 1: if they actually put some effort into it. So my
Speaker 1: order again, Number one Minnesota Senate, so dinging the Republicans
Speaker 1: there for their lack of interest. Number two Texas governor
Speaker 1: digging the Democrats for their lack of interest. Number three
Speaker 1: Alabama governor dinging the Democrats there, Number four Oregon governor
Speaker 1: dinging the Republicans there, and number five Florida Governor digging
Speaker 1: the Democrats on that one. So really appreciate the reader's
Speaker 1: suggestion on these top five lists. Two weeks in a
Speaker 1: row where we've done a top five list, so last
Speaker 1: week it was doing the six through ten list on
Speaker 1: our Senate flips, which the reader correctly pointed out as
Speaker 1: probably a more volatile list than our five most likely
Speaker 1: to flip. And in this case, how about five overlooked
Speaker 1: races that the parties are whipping on. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. Ask Chuck h Right a little question time.
Speaker 1: This one comes from Travis from Charlottesville, and he asked,
Speaker 1: after going back and forth on the redistioning issue, I
Speaker 1: finally decided to vote yes, mainly for two reasons. One
Speaker 1: there is little else I can do that may get
Speaker 1: the attention of elected officials, and two to help Spamberger
Speaker 1: gain back a little bit of her political capital. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: it be worse for a governor to expend all this
Speaker 1: energy and money if it resulted as a loss in
Speaker 1: hearing your opinion on the second. Thanks Travis. Well, we
Speaker 1: actually now know the result on this front. But it's
Speaker 1: an interesting thesis here. It's like, what's worse? You know,
Speaker 1: I I could I could see Spamberger spinning a loss
Speaker 1: by saying I knew it. I wanted to be a
Speaker 1: team player here and this this was happening before I
Speaker 1: took office, and this was already in the works. You know,
Speaker 1: this is not how we're going to go forth, you know,
Speaker 1: you know I so I guess I'm not. I get
Speaker 1: your line of thinking that, you know, and certainly it
Speaker 1: helps her in the party right, But to me, Spanberger
Speaker 1: didn't have a party issue. Spanberger has a has a
Speaker 1: sort of governing issue now a little bit. But you know,
Speaker 1: I still look at this whole thing and all this energy,
Speaker 1: all this political capital. Again, if the map doesn't change
Speaker 1: one bit, Democrats likely pick up one for sure, Virginia two,
Speaker 1: and likely a second Virginia one. So all of this
Speaker 1: political capital has expended for hope, they're hoping two more
Speaker 1: seats ten to one. I say hoping. Look, if one
Speaker 1: of these primaries it's too far to the left and
Speaker 1: the Republicans don't have somebody who's too maga on the
Speaker 1: other side. You know, this thing could easily end up
Speaker 1: a nine to two map rather than a ten to one,
Speaker 1: and then you're talking nine to two to eighth when
Speaker 1: when you looked at it from the big picture, this
Speaker 1: was you know, especially now if this, you know, if
Speaker 1: this triggers more redistricting going forward. So it's I understand
Speaker 1: that line of thinking, and maybe that's right. But I
Speaker 1: could make an argument that she could been a loss
Speaker 1: and make essentially the legislative Dems own that, and she
Speaker 1: could separate herself from that if necessary. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Pallo in Italy. All right, I love when we
Speaker 1: get some questions from Europe. I've been thinking about the
Speaker 1: phrase kem deuce volts perdre prius dementat whom God wishes
Speaker 1: to destroy, he first makes mad in the context of
Speaker 1: recent political discussions around the twenty fifth end minute, Kendall
Speaker 1: Hi the bar is in Congress, who would realistically be
Speaker 1: willing to support such a move And is there any
Speaker 1: scenario where the kind of bipartisan agreement exists. More importantly,
Speaker 1: even if it were possible, would the country necessarily be
Speaker 1: better off with the alternative. In Italian, we say something
Speaker 1: the effective, beware of what you wish for, it might
Speaker 1: come true. Best regards Palo in Italy. Well, I'll just say,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think any of these mechanisms that
Speaker 1: avoid the ballot box to turn the page on Trump
Speaker 1: are going to be effective. I think anything that gets
Speaker 1: Trump out of office that isn't voters directed and voter specific,
Speaker 1: risks turning him into a martyr, that becomes weaponized politically
Speaker 1: and could actually make things worse, not better. So that's
Speaker 1: why I'm not a you know, look, the twenty fifth Amendment,
Speaker 1: why did we have it? We had it because there
Speaker 1: was this concern after Kennedy was shot, what if he
Speaker 1: had lived but was a vegetable, right, what if he
Speaker 1: were the physical you know, but he really couldn't you know,
Speaker 1: but there wasn't a lot of brain function, so he
Speaker 1: were alive, but he really could, you know. Ultimately, that
Speaker 1: is why the twenty fifth Amendment. That was the thinking
Speaker 1: behind the twenty fifth amendment, Right, that was the motivation.
Speaker 1: And I always think it's important, like why does an
Speaker 1: amendment happen? Right? Why did they do it? I think
Speaker 1: it is always an It is important to understand the
Speaker 1: context of the twenty fifth Amendment. It is one of
Speaker 1: I think it really is like pornography. Will know when
Speaker 1: we see it, right, when you could realize, oh, there's
Speaker 1: they're not functioning at all. But remember it has to
Speaker 1: come from inside the cabinet, right, So I guess in theory,
Speaker 1: if the cabinet did it, then then you know they're
Speaker 1: more They're only going to this cabinet, right, which is
Speaker 1: filled with people who are you know, who wouldn't get
Speaker 1: the job if they weren't willing to be sick of
Speaker 1: fans of sorts. If somehow this cabinet did it, it's
Speaker 1: probably it probably is such a deterioration onhealth or mental
Speaker 1: capacity that it would be weird if they didn't do it, right, So,
Speaker 1: you know, and it only happens if both Rubio and
Speaker 1: Advance think it should happen. Right. That's a case where
Speaker 1: the two of them, the two of them together said hey,
Speaker 1: this needs to happen. It would happen. I just think
Speaker 1: the likelihood of that, you know, again, a guy who
Speaker 1: got into office by running against the so called deep
Speaker 1: stay not sure. It's not sure it's the healthiest thing
Speaker 1: to do to out said person through and through a
Speaker 1: mechanism that isn't voters centric. But it's funny you say that,
Speaker 1: I I do. I say some similar things when those
Speaker 1: that you know think about Trump Trump singularly, you know,
Speaker 1: and fantasize about him sort of leaving office early. And
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, are you you prepared for advanced presidency?
Speaker 1: Are you aware of how how close he is too?
Speaker 1: One of the more out there tech people in Peter
Speaker 1: Teel Right, So I I I also be careful. What
Speaker 1: you wish for is is H is a form of
Speaker 1: a similar form of warning that I have issued to
Speaker 1: others when I'm asked about that specific question. All right,
Speaker 1: next place. Next question comes from Lincoln C. Who calls
Speaker 1: himself a displaced New Englander in Columbus, Ohio. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, we got it down. You like to refer
Speaker 1: to political athletes when describing politicians. What do you think
Speaker 1: about vance and how important do you think being a
Speaker 1: good political athlete will be in twenty twenty eight on
Speaker 1: the Republican side, when I assume Trump will have an
Speaker 1: outsizeed hand in picking the nominee, or maybe Trump's influence
Speaker 1: will have waned in political athleticism will be even more
Speaker 1: important as the eventual nominee will need to thread a
Speaker 1: narrow needle of staying close to Trump to get the
Speaker 1: nomination and then aggressively trying to appeal to the middle
Speaker 1: after the convention. Look, I'm not impressed with Jade Vance
Speaker 1: and as a political athlete, right. This has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the individual. It doesn't mean he doesn't have
Speaker 1: the potential. But I look at the campaign he ran
Speaker 1: for Senate. It's an atrocious campaign one despite himself, right,
Speaker 1: he was dragged across the finish line by Peter Thiel's
Speaker 1: money and eventually by Mitch McConnell's super pack. He you know,
Speaker 1: was not gonna win a primary campaign if Trump hadn't
Speaker 1: come in late to essentially rescue him. In that primary campaign,
Speaker 1: I think at one point almost came to fisticuffs with
Speaker 1: Bernie Marino during Remember Bernie Marino ran in the ran
Speaker 1: in the in that primary in twenty two before he
Speaker 1: became the consensus candidate in twenty four and knocked off
Speaker 1: Shared Brown. So you know, the one campaign that Vance
Speaker 1: has been involved with that was his campaign right on
Speaker 1: his own, was not good at all. I mean, he
Speaker 1: he underperformed across the board, right, he underperformed you know
Speaker 1: what his numbers should have been, arguably, and you know
Speaker 1: that would have you know, look at how Mike DeWine
Speaker 1: did versus how Jade Vance did in Ohio in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. So I you know, I'm and I don't
Speaker 1: think we can say he navigated the primary very well
Speaker 1: when you realize that he kind of needed Trump to
Speaker 1: come in at the last minute to secure this. So
Speaker 1: it is a so needless to say. I think of
Speaker 1: the two, I think Rubio is the much better political
Speaker 1: athlete because he is one tough races and he's you know,
Speaker 1: one competitive primaries. In some ways, he was you know,
Speaker 1: he was he was a disruptor inside the Republican Party
Speaker 1: before Trump in twenty ten when he essentially challenged Charlie
Speaker 1: Crist from the right, when Charlie Crist was the sitting
Speaker 1: Republican governor wanting to run for the Senate. Marco Rubia
Speaker 1: wanted that he and he went in and it, you know,
Speaker 1: he basically drove Charlie Crist out of the party. Right.
Speaker 1: So I think when you look at just in terms
Speaker 1: of comparing the two of them as political athletes. It's
Speaker 1: not a close call. One's a blue chipper and ones
Speaker 1: a an undrafted free agent, you know, And and you know,
Speaker 1: maybe as as advance, you know, gets gets more practice,
Speaker 1: you know, in the national spotlight at Republican dinners, maybe
Speaker 1: he gets better at this. But you know, look, I
Speaker 1: think twenty eight is going to be who can you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's highly unlikely a Republican's going to win
Speaker 1: the presidency in twenty eight, right, We Doug Sosnik and
Speaker 1: I were having this conversation, right, it is hard to fathom.
Speaker 1: And and you know it is we've we've we're more
Speaker 1: likely and we're no matter what, going to have our
Speaker 1: fourth straight one term president. You know, we'll see if
Speaker 1: they end up a one term for sure. We know
Speaker 1: we have three and you know we're gonna have a
Speaker 1: fourth straight. And the question is is it can that
Speaker 1: person win reelection? But it's hard to imagine that Trump's somehow,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess anything is possible, but it's hard
Speaker 1: to imagine that that he his presidency in lame duck
Speaker 1: status after the midterms, is somehow going to age better
Speaker 1: than at any other point, and he is going to
Speaker 1: be you know, more involved in the campaign than other
Speaker 1: outgoing presidents. Right, Obama was was was less involved in
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton wanted to be more involved in Gore but wasn't.
Speaker 1: Bush wasn't involved with McCain. So I Trump's not going
Speaker 1: to be that way. Trump's going to try to insert
Speaker 1: himself and be very involved. If it's somebody that's you know,
Speaker 1: if it's not Vance, then whoever, then whoever beats Vance.
Speaker 1: It's got to be a pretty good plue. It means
Speaker 1: they've navigated. They've somehow become the the the most acceptable
Speaker 1: candidate of the non MAGA wing while not being will
Speaker 1: also being acceptable to the MAGA wing. Right, that's not
Speaker 1: easy to do. I'm not sure it's possible, right I
Speaker 1: did you know? I never would have said Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: could pull that off before serving with Trump. Maybe that
Speaker 1: is something he can do now, you know, maybe that
Speaker 1: is improved and we shall see. But I do think
Speaker 1: that if you're the Republicans, you can't you can't just
Speaker 1: go totally non MAGA at all. Right, your your entire
Speaker 1: coalition crumbles. But if you're trying to put together a
Speaker 1: durable coalition that might survive post Trump and post MAGA,
Speaker 1: it has to be you know, somebody who's appealing to
Speaker 1: the non MAGA wing as Nikki Haley was right, but
Speaker 1: is not as negative towards the mega community as as
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley was. So that's the sweet spot. I don't
Speaker 1: know if anybody can meet it. And the only person
Speaker 1: I see out there that might be able to walk
Speaker 1: that line like that is Marco Rubio. And you know
Speaker 1: one other person I'd put out there who's done it,
Speaker 1: I just don't know if he's got the charisma to
Speaker 1: be a national party leader. Is the Governor of Texas,
Speaker 1: Craig Abbott. Next question comes from Mike in Honolulu. I
Speaker 1: think I've had you chime in before, Mike, and he says,
Speaker 1: what are the longer term impacts to the US if
Speaker 1: the administration really pulls out of NATO? For example, would
Speaker 1: Norrad be crippled as we rely on the UK and
Speaker 1: Norway capabilities? Also Canada. By the way, fun fact traveling
Speaker 1: in Asia this week and the podcast downloads without ads
Speaker 1: except for the ones you deliver. How about a quince
Speaker 1: quarter zip for the five timers? Kidding of course, Thanks
Speaker 1: Mike and Alalu, Hey, thanks for letting our ad folks
Speaker 1: know about this, right, we can have special European rates
Speaker 1: for those that you know, that's the extra bonus for
Speaker 1: our ad sales team. So listen up, guys, right when
Speaker 1: you go overseas, you know, the ads that matter the
Speaker 1: most are the ones that that I'm reading. How about that,
Speaker 1: let's the European premium, it's coming. Appreciate that little Look
Speaker 1: this is this should be of concern to us. And
Speaker 1: you know Canada, Canada's cooper all of this cooperation with
Speaker 1: the United States, right, we have this is generational. I
Speaker 1: don't think we've fully you know, We're not going to
Speaker 1: realize how much damage Trump has done to our international
Speaker 1: alliances until we need them again, right, really need them.
Speaker 1: And we haven't hit a moment where but it's going
Speaker 1: to happen, right, it's inevitable. And when that becomes more
Speaker 1: front and center, and Claire, you know, my guess is
Speaker 1: you'll see voters demand better cooperation going on, we better
Speaker 1: fix that relationship. I think that the next president is
Speaker 1: going to have a hard time winning over the trust
Speaker 1: of some of these a lot broken alliances. But I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're we're between the tariffs, the erratic
Speaker 1: security behavior, right, you know, we help Ukraine. No, we
Speaker 1: don't help Ukraine. We help Ukraine, We're not going to
Speaker 1: help Ukraine. The the disruption that the United States alone
Speaker 1: has caused the world by doing by poorly executing this
Speaker 1: war in Iran. Yeah, it's gonna frail lot. It's gonna
Speaker 1: it's gonna take a lot more than just a so
Speaker 1: called apology tour, which some of the right accused Barack
Speaker 1: Obama on. But Barack Obama had to repair some relationships
Speaker 1: who were who who were frustrated with the Bush led
Speaker 1: the United States. But they, you know, they at least felt,
Speaker 1: you know, he didn't try to blow NATO up and
Speaker 1: things like that. It's, uh, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a real challenge for the next president and regardless of
Speaker 1: party on this one. Uh. It's why Frank I think
Speaker 1: the fastest way to repair our alliances is if we
Speaker 1: end up electing somebody who's not a member of either
Speaker 1: of the two major parties, because then that would send
Speaker 1: the message to the world that hey, we didn't like
Speaker 1: this either, and we're trying to chart a new course.
Speaker 1: And if we make a statement that we're truly trying
Speaker 1: to chart a new course, the world's likely to have
Speaker 1: more of an open hand for us than if we're
Speaker 1: continue to look like we're in this seesaw. Because if
Speaker 1: we're in the seesaw, even if you think, oh, this
Speaker 1: administration is better than the previous one, but it won't last.
Speaker 1: We know we know what's going to happen because we've
Speaker 1: we've been watching this movie over the last decade. So
Speaker 1: I think that's that's going to be that medium to
Speaker 1: long term challenger. All right, let me uh, next one
Speaker 1: comes from Steva. I hope I got that right. It
Speaker 1: is a Stevam instead of a Stefan. Stevan. Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I hope this mess just find you well. Love the podcast,
Speaker 1: been listening since episode one from your time at NBC
Speaker 1: right on back in the old nineteen forty seven days.
Speaker 1: In your opinion, which piece of Republican legislation democrats misunderstand
Speaker 1: the most? Which piece of democratic legislation to Republicans misunderstand
Speaker 1: the most? Love to get your commentary on this. Thank
Speaker 1: you for all you doing. Best of luck moving forward.
Speaker 1: Hm that they misunderstand huh, misunderstand? I think the I
Speaker 1: mean the easy the first thing I thought of, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to stick with that for now. The first
Speaker 1: thing I sought of was the border security stuff and
Speaker 1: the border security proposals, and I think in this case
Speaker 1: it's Democrats have always just sort of miss you know,
Speaker 1: you can agree to some similar legislation, you don't have
Speaker 1: to use the same rhetoric. And I think Democrats, you know,
Speaker 1: there's nothing wrong with having rules for the border, and
Speaker 1: why Democrats don't say, no, we have to have borders,
Speaker 1: And you're starting to see more more sort of pragmatic
Speaker 1: Democrats express that that, no, there should be borders, there
Speaker 1: should be rules. You know, I think the I think
Speaker 1: I would put the border security Look, I think asylum
Speaker 1: policy is different, and immigration policy is different. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I think I think I think the Republicans intentionally mislead
Speaker 1: on immigration policy because most immigration policy is about trying
Speaker 1: to fill the gaps, you know where. It's the biggest
Speaker 1: bizarre myth out there that somehow the Democrats immigration stance
Speaker 1: has to do with finding new voters. The math there's
Speaker 1: no data that supports this accusation, and it is something
Speaker 1: that like the prime time of some of these far
Speaker 1: right news organizations have been dining out on that Democrats
Speaker 1: are opening the borders looking for new voters when there's
Speaker 1: just no evidence that first generation immigrants, you know, somehow
Speaker 1: favor the Democrats over the Republicans, and they somehow even vote.
Speaker 1: And then how often you know, it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: it's basically an unconfirmed myth, right, there's not even a
Speaker 1: grain of truth to it, And that's probably now is it? Is? It?
Speaker 1: Is it? You know? I think I do think Republicans,
Speaker 1: whether they intentionally want to not understand what why Democrats
Speaker 1: are for, are are certainly pro sort of immigration, if
Speaker 1: you will. It's frankly the history of this country, right,
Speaker 1: and now we as we as a nation, we love
Speaker 1: the mythology that we're a nation of immigrants, and yet
Speaker 1: we have fought every immigrant wave that this country has
Speaker 1: benefited from. Right in the middle of that wave, we've
Speaker 1: been anti immigrant, and then once they're here, we become
Speaker 1: we like to celebrate, but we usually don't celebrate an
Speaker 1: immigrant population till the second generation that that immigrant population
Speaker 1: has taken hold in this country. So I think, you know,
Speaker 1: in both cases, I'd probably go with immigration. And the
Speaker 1: only question I don't know, and I'm always careful with motive,
Speaker 1: is whether how intentional it is. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think that I don't think Democrats understand that their messaging
Speaker 1: on borders is comes across as if that they don't
Speaker 1: think borders matter. And I just think that, you know, hey,
Speaker 1: it matters to be an American versus being a Mexican,
Speaker 1: or versus being a Canadian, and so in order to
Speaker 1: have that distinction, you have to have predictable borders, and
Speaker 1: you have to have secure borders. And I think when
Speaker 1: it comes to the motivation of the left or of
Speaker 1: Democrats to be pro immigration, this isn't about importing new voters.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence that that works. I mean, you know, look,
Speaker 1: you know, every new Cuban voter is a Republican and
Speaker 1: every new Venezuelan is a Republican, right, I mean, you
Speaker 1: know it, it is that stuff. First of all, it
Speaker 1: changes a lot. You know, where first generation immigrant groups
Speaker 1: vote versus the party they end up supporting by the
Speaker 1: third generation almost always changes, you know, usually diversifies. So
Speaker 1: it is a I find that to be a disingenuous
Speaker 1: pushback that somehow Democrats are pro immigration because they're looking
Speaker 1: for new voters. There's just there's this is the most
Speaker 1: of all the bullshit that's out there that gets pushed
Speaker 1: around on immigration. I think that's the biggest piece of it.
Speaker 1: I think that's the largest piece of bs that circulates
Speaker 1: that doesn't get enough pushback. There's just nothing there, There
Speaker 1: is no there there, Right, what we need immigration to
Speaker 1: fill jobs that Americans won't do, and it has been
Speaker 1: sort of what has kept this nation relatively young, has
Speaker 1: kept our birth rate up. You know, if we want
Speaker 1: to essentially screw up social Security, screw up the funding
Speaker 1: of Medicare, screw up the sort of the future economic
Speaker 1: prosperity of this country, sure, shut the borders, stop bringing
Speaker 1: in immigrants. That's how, that's how, that's how we would
Speaker 1: become Japan. And Japan has had thirty years of sort
Speaker 1: of of just of just sort of muddling along. Right,
Speaker 1: It's an aging population. They've been muddling along. They've let
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other economies surpass them. That is
Speaker 1: what we'll do if we stick to this isolationist nationalists,
Speaker 1: build the walls as high as they can possibly go mindset.
Speaker 1: I hope that helped, but it was a challenging question.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate that one. All right, I'm gonna do.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do one more and then we'll call it
Speaker 1: so NASA. We got through question six. Hey, Jack, I
Speaker 1: have a daughter that is an International relations China major
Speaker 1: at University of Maryland going to China and study abroad. Congrats,
Speaker 1: Deansless Sorry, Dad is proud. You should be congrats. I
Speaker 1: pay a lot of attention to politics, and I'm surprised
Speaker 1: at what she teaches me about Chinese politics. Do you
Speaker 1: think as a whole our elected officials actually understand China?
Speaker 1: Seems like we always get them wrong. Man, I one
Speaker 1: hundred percent agree. I don't feel like I know enough.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why if you've seen over the last year,
Speaker 1: whenever I've had a chance to sort of showcase an
Speaker 1: author writing about, you know, a little bit of trying
Speaker 1: to understand how the Chinese system works or how she thinks,
Speaker 1: like this profile of she's father, you know, I had
Speaker 1: that author on a few months ago because I don't
Speaker 1: think we fully understand how the Chinese system works, right,
Speaker 1: just like I think, you know, our system is easier
Speaker 1: for people to learn because we're so open. That system
Speaker 1: is really hard for people to learn because it's so closed.
Speaker 1: So no, I don't think we fully understand it. I
Speaker 1: think we all could get better at it, and you
Speaker 1: remind me that I need to do more on this.
Speaker 1: I don't you know, and I don't think you know
Speaker 1: one of the things right now, as I worry pretty
Speaker 1: high up in our national security apparatus, we're not fully
Speaker 1: we don't fully understand why she purged his military right.
Speaker 1: We have an idea of why he's purged all his
Speaker 1: military leaders recently, but we're not one hundred percent sure
Speaker 1: of why he's done it. The fact that we're not
Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure shows, you know, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: our intelligence on the ground isn't as good as it
Speaker 1: could be, whatever it is. I do get the sense
Speaker 1: that both in the private sector we don't understand the
Speaker 1: Chinese system enough and government to government that we don't,
Speaker 1: and certainly people to people that we don't. And I
Speaker 1: think it would behove all of us to get to
Speaker 1: get smarter about Chinese history. I will tell you there's
Speaker 1: one thing we do a terrible job of when we're
Speaker 1: teaching the history of civilizations of this globe. We over
Speaker 1: index on all things Europe, and we under index on
Speaker 1: all things Africa and Asia. And we certainly under index
Speaker 1: on China, and that is something that I think we
Speaker 1: all ought to have a goal of changing. And with that,
Speaker 1: I will put a pin in this episode. Appreciate it
Speaker 1: as you know, I'll becoming this is. We had quite
Speaker 1: a day. You have no idea the day I had.
Speaker 1: I've taped multiple podcasts today, including one of the Sports
Speaker 1: Variety that hasn't hit yet, and so I don't want
Speaker 1: to give it away too much, but it has been
Speaker 1: a day and the good news is in twenty four
Speaker 1: hours I'll have a brand new episode for you to download.
Speaker 1: So enjoy this one. Thanks for listening, don't forget to
Speaker 1: like and subscribe. Tell your friends I'll take I'll take
Speaker 1: some five star reviews in the Apple podcast section. Always helpful,
Speaker 1: Always helpful in Spotify. Thank you and we'll see you
Speaker 1: so