Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has concluded it's absolutely magnificent term with
Speaker 1: a major blow to the deep state. So now we
Speaker 1: are in the dog days of summer and we are
Speaker 1: looking ahead, looking ahead to the midterm elections. This is
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now,
Speaker 1: the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we
Speaker 1: can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of
Speaker 1: gas is way up, the price of housing is up,
Speaker 1: the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the way that our current administration prints money and
Speaker 1: spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation
Speaker 1: going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money,
Speaker 1: your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence,
Speaker 1: Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and
Speaker 1: American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your
Speaker 1: hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of
Speaker 1: your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy
Speaker 1: to get started. All it takes is a short phone
Speaker 1: call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered
Speaker 1: right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your
Speaker 1: four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy.
Speaker 1: If you call them right now, then they will give
Speaker 1: you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on
Speaker 1: your first order. So don't wait, call them right now.
Speaker 1: Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three.
Speaker 1: Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word
Speaker 1: cactus to six five five three two. Again, the phone
Speaker 1: number is eight five five seven six eight one eight
Speaker 1: eight three, or text the word cactus to six five
Speaker 1: five three two. Welcome back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: I am Michael Knowles, so pleased to be joined by
Speaker 1: the Senator who is on vacation, but there is no
Speaker 1: vacation when it comes to verdict So a Senator, thank
Speaker 1: you for jumping off the beach for a few moments
Speaker 1: to join us on the show. Well, happy fourth of July,
Speaker 1: and it's great to celebrate our nation's birth and independent
Speaker 1: and it's great to do that with the family at
Speaker 1: the beach, but sometimes you got to come back and
Speaker 1: address major issues that have come up. One of them
Speaker 1: is we've covered so much of this Supreme Court term,
Speaker 1: which seems to me certainly the greatest Supreme Court term
Speaker 1: in my lifetime, perhaps in American history. With the overruling
Speaker 1: of Row, you had the major win for Second Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: major win for religious liberty, major win for education freedom,
Speaker 1: and now in West Virginia versus EPA, a major blow
Speaker 1: for the administrative state. But this case, probably more than
Speaker 1: any of the others, is pretty complex. I don't know
Speaker 1: all the nuances of it, and I've really tried to
Speaker 1: dig into it. The case does not overrule what is
Speaker 1: called Chevron deference, which is a major source of power
Speaker 1: for the administrative state, but it does beef up the
Speaker 1: Major Questions doctrine, which is to protect the power of
Speaker 1: the people to make their voices heard against the administrative
Speaker 1: agencies of the executive What does this case do so,
Speaker 1: cutting to the bottom line, I think this case is
Speaker 1: an important victory A for democracy, for actually having control
Speaker 1: of policy, b in the democratically elected branches of government,
Speaker 1: and B for jobs and our ability to pay our bills.
Speaker 1: So what this concerned was under the Obama administration, they
Speaker 1: rolled out what they called their Clean Power Plan, and
Speaker 1: it was the EPA. It was a massive power grab
Speaker 1: to essentially shut down coal fired power plants across the country,
Speaker 1: and force a transition to natural gas and wind and solar.
Speaker 1: And to do so, the EPA itself admitted that its plan,
Speaker 1: the Obama EPA, would cost billions of dollars in the economy,
Speaker 1: would destroy tens of thousands of jobs, this was their
Speaker 1: own estimate, and would drive up everyone's cost of energy.
Speaker 1: So that that was the Obama administration's big present to America. Now,
Speaker 1: the plan has been litigated ever since the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Under Trump, they rescinded the rule. Under Biden, they rescinded
Speaker 1: the decision. In other words, they potentially teed it up again.
Speaker 1: Just when we've got five dollar gasoline and electricity prices
Speaker 1: going through the roof. The Biden EPA was threatening to
Speaker 1: put yet more regulatory burdens driving up the cost of energy.
Speaker 1: And what the Supreme Court did has struck it down.
Speaker 1: It was a six three decision. Chief Justice Roberts wrote
Speaker 1: the opinion. And what Chief Justice Roberts relied on, as
Speaker 1: you mentioned it there, it's called the Major Questions doctrine.
Speaker 1: The Major Questions doctrine essentially says that if there is
Speaker 1: a regulatory decision that is a big deal that has
Speaker 1: big consequences, economically, politically, that Congress has to have been
Speaker 1: very clear in giving the agency the authority to do it,
Speaker 1: that the Court is not going to read in some vague,
Speaker 1: ambiguous language. In this case, the Obama EPA was relying
Speaker 1: on language that had been on the books for decades,
Speaker 1: had never been applied to have such a massive power grab.
Speaker 1: And the Supreme Court said, look, if if you're looking
Speaker 1: at a regulation that is going to have a massive
Speaker 1: economic impact, you can do that. But Congress has to
Speaker 1: be really clear that it wants to give the agency
Speaker 1: that authority that we're not going to read in just
Speaker 1: through vague and ambiguous language. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: an important decision. One of the things the Court relied
Speaker 1: on quite a bit is the fact that that Congress
Speaker 1: had repeatedly debated cap and trade, had debated putting a
Speaker 1: tax on carbon, had debated a lot of these policies,
Speaker 1: and had rejected it over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: And the Court said, look, if Congress, when they try
Speaker 1: to vote on it, can't decide this is a good idea,
Speaker 1: we're not going to read into ambiguous language the ability
Speaker 1: for the agency to just circumvent Congress. So this is
Speaker 1: a big win for the conservative who wanted to deal
Speaker 1: the conservatives who have for a long time wanted to
Speaker 1: deal a blow against the administrative state and against the
Speaker 1: EPA in particular. We're Goodness takes the epas the villain
Speaker 1: and ghostbusters. They've been in our cross here is for
Speaker 1: a very long time. But it doesn't seem to go
Speaker 1: all the way that many libertarians and conservatives have wanted
Speaker 1: the Court to go, which is to overrule Chevron deference
Speaker 1: at which comes out of a Supreme Court decision that
Speaker 1: gives a lot of authority to the agencies to regulate themselves.
Speaker 1: Is that right? That's right? And look, I think it's
Speaker 1: entirely possible that this Court will overrule Chevron Deference in
Speaker 1: a subsequent case. The Court didn't need to go there
Speaker 1: in this case because the Major Questions Doctrine resolved the
Speaker 1: matter and resolved it actively, and so it was unnecessary
Speaker 1: to consider Chevron deference and decide it on that basis.
Speaker 1: You know what I would say? So a legislative proposal
Speaker 1: that I've long been in a proponent of is something
Speaker 1: called the Rains Act, and I'm a co sponsor the
Speaker 1: Rains Act. The Rains Act provides that any regulation that
Speaker 1: imposes an economic cost of one hundred million dollars or
Speaker 1: more requires an updown vote from Congress before going into effect,
Speaker 1: and the Rains Act hasn't passed. I have fought hard
Speaker 1: to try to get it passed, and we haven't gotten
Speaker 1: it done yet. I tried very hard with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration for them to make it a priority, and the
Speaker 1: Trump White House that it just wasn't a priority for them.
Speaker 1: I think it would have been the most significant regulatory
Speaker 1: reform we could do to create an environment where jobs
Speaker 1: are plentiful. This Supreme Court decision is a step in
Speaker 1: that direction because it is saying the way they laid
Speaker 1: out the major questions doctrine, they said, if it has
Speaker 1: a big economic impact. Now, they didn't quantify what a
Speaker 1: big economic impact was. And here the Obama administration's own
Speaker 1: estimate is that they were destroying tens of thousands of jobs,
Speaker 1: so that they were readily admitting that they were they
Speaker 1: were having a big, big economic impact. But this decision
Speaker 1: I think is positive for limiting executive power absent congressional authorization,
Speaker 1: and I think that's that's important for part of the
Speaker 1: reason why you see regulations that are really harmful to
Speaker 1: the to jobs and businesses coming from the executive branch
Speaker 1: is because bureacrats are unaccountable. They don't have to face
Speaker 1: the people. And there's a power to having elected officials
Speaker 1: vote on it, because look, if you're a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: it's not an easy vote to cast a vote to
Speaker 1: destroy tens of thousands of jobs. You tend to have
Speaker 1: the people whose jobs you're destroying get really ticked off
Speaker 1: at you and show up at town halls and yell
Speaker 1: at you. And so there's a reason even Democrats at look,
Speaker 1: some of the crazies don't mind voting that way, but
Speaker 1: even Democrats get nervous about directly voting to destroy a
Speaker 1: lot of jobs. That democratic accountability, I think is good
Speaker 1: for economic freedom because if you have people who vote
Speaker 1: for it, it lets the voters in the next election
Speaker 1: step up and throw the bums out. Now, you mentioned
Speaker 1: crazy Democrats, and this brings up a completely unrelated issue,
Speaker 1: only related in the sense that unaccountable people are passing
Speaker 1: lots of insane regulations right now. But I do have
Speaker 1: to get your take on it, because it has somehow
Speaker 1: come to dominate a lot of the political conversation over
Speaker 1: the past few days Jordan Peterson and Dave Ruben. You're
Speaker 1: just thrown off of Twitter. They've been suspended Jordan for
Speaker 1: making a comment and then Dave for reposting is comment.
Speaker 1: And the comment, WHI is that Ellen Page the actress?
Speaker 1: Is Ellen Page the actress? That was essentially the comment
Speaker 1: Jordan referred to Ellen Page, who's the girl from Juno
Speaker 1: who now identifies as a man and calls herself Elliott.
Speaker 1: He just called her Ellen and didn't disparage her really
Speaker 1: in anyway, just pointed out that you had gone through
Speaker 1: this gender transition and use the female pronounces. He was
Speaker 1: thrown off for that. Dave was then thrown off the
Speaker 1: internet for that. Have we really descended this far where
Speaker 1: if you call a celebrity, very well known woman by
Speaker 1: the name that she was known by for most of
Speaker 1: her career, that you can now be thrown out of
Speaker 1: the public square with basically no way to fight back. Look,
Speaker 1: it is true insanity and the woke rules are changing
Speaker 1: so fast you need a guide to reference it. So
Speaker 1: apparently you're not allowed to say the words Ellen Page.
Speaker 1: Are you allowed to say the words Ellen Page age?
Speaker 1: With reference to when Ellen was going by Ellen and
Speaker 1: starring in movies with the names Ellen Page on them.
Speaker 1: Are you allowed to say that? Are you allowed to
Speaker 1: say that Bruce Jenner was on the cover of Wheaties
Speaker 1: or was that Caitlyn Jenner? And we didn't know it
Speaker 1: even though it had the words Bruce Jenner printed on
Speaker 1: the cover on the outside of the Wheati's box, there's
Speaker 1: a level of you know, the term Orwellian gets tossed
Speaker 1: around a lot, but it really is big, big tech
Speaker 1: trying to erase we're at war with Eurasia. We've always
Speaker 1: been at war with Eurasia. Anyone who says to the
Speaker 1: contrary shall be disappeared. Now, look, if Ellen or Elliot
Speaker 1: or whoever wants to go by whatever name they want
Speaker 1: to go, fine, let go by whatever name you want.
Speaker 1: That that's but to say no one is allowed to
Speaker 1: say anything different. It's the opposite of liberty. It's totalitarian.
Speaker 1: Is I think Ellen or Elliott or whatever name tomorrow
Speaker 1: you want to go by Moon Unit, I don't care, Like,
Speaker 1: call yourself whatever you want, that's fine, But nobody has
Speaker 1: the right to silence others and to see Twitter just
Speaker 1: so casually flicked Jordan Peterson off Twitter, so casually flicked
Speaker 1: Dave Rubin off Twitter. I think is one of the
Speaker 1: reasons we've talked about it a lot. I very much
Speaker 1: hope Elon Musk goes through with this purchase. I think
Speaker 1: it may be the most important development for free speech
Speaker 1: in decades, and hopefully if and when Musk buys Twitter,
Speaker 1: this sort of garbage will stop, because it is idiocy.
Speaker 1: There's a kind of irony here too, because before Allen
Speaker 1: started identifying as Elliott, she was gay, married to a
Speaker 1: woman to a woman who identifies as a lesbian. This
Speaker 1: was after same sex marriage became a cultural phenomenon, but
Speaker 1: sort of before transgenderism became a cultural phenomenon. And it
Speaker 1: occurred to me that to affirm Ellen, who now goes
Speaker 1: by Elliot's gender identity, is to deny her lesbian partners
Speaker 1: sexual orientation. I'm trying to see if I can keep
Speaker 1: that straight, which is to say, we cannot simultaneously affirm
Speaker 1: so many contradictory things. And you mentioned it's Oceania being
Speaker 1: at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at
Speaker 1: war with East Asia. The rules are changing so constantly.
Speaker 1: I think what is really scary for Americans who aren't
Speaker 1: keeping up and who don't really care. What Ellen Page
Speaker 1: does is that you can be ostracized, You can be
Speaker 1: censored and removed from the town square because Twitter and
Speaker 1: Google and Facebook, those are the town square now for
Speaker 1: simply saying the thing that every single person believed until
Speaker 1: about five minutes ago. If Twitter now holds that you
Speaker 1: cannot call a woman who identifies as a man a woman, well,
Speaker 1: then effectively are aren't they prohibiting any disagreement with transgenderism?
Speaker 1: The vast majority of Americans who I suspect do not
Speaker 1: go along with a radical transgender kind of worldview. Does
Speaker 1: that mean that now the people who control the public square,
Speaker 1: the flow of ninety percent of information around the Internet, Google, Facebook,
Speaker 1: and Twitter, we're just not allowed to express our opinions. Look,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it means that they want to silence dissent.
Speaker 1: You know. I will say back in twenty sixteen, I
Speaker 1: actually had a person who identified herself to me as
Speaker 1: Ellen Page confront me an Iowan. So I was at
Speaker 1: the Iowa State Fair. I was actually cooking pork chops
Speaker 1: at the Iowa State Fair, and this young woman walked
Speaker 1: up to me and began questioning me on I don't
Speaker 1: remember exactly. It was gay marriage, gay lesbian issues. I
Speaker 1: had no idea who she was, but that conversation with her,
Speaker 1: it was filmed and put out there, and at the
Speaker 1: time she had later identified herself as actors Ellen Page.
Speaker 1: I am I allowed to say that. That's what she
Speaker 1: told her name was when she was questioning me, and
Speaker 1: that's what she said online. Maybe I was being questioned
Speaker 1: by Elliott. I didn't know it like it. There is
Speaker 1: a level of this gets pitched and it's like through
Speaker 1: the looking that glass where they say this is all
Speaker 1: about I guess the phrase is dead name him. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't have a right to control what other people say.
Speaker 1: You know, if Michael you want to go by Michelle,
Speaker 1: knock yourself out. But but you don't have the right.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like the old phrase, my freedom to
Speaker 1: swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Speaker 1: You have all the liberty you want to say what
Speaker 1: you want, but that doesn't extend to silencing someone else
Speaker 1: saying something that you don't like. And today's left doesn't
Speaker 1: believe that. Part of it is they're rules on things
Speaker 1: like like gender, and I don't know how many one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty seven genders. I can't keep up with
Speaker 1: the latest, the latest, fantastical distinctions. Their rules make so
Speaker 1: little sense that I think they realize they must silence
Speaker 1: anyone questioning them because they can't defend them on the merits.
Speaker 1: And that does fundamentally reflect and acknowledging a weakness on
Speaker 1: their part. It also does seem to go along with
Speaker 1: the broad broader leftist ethos, which is a rejection of
Speaker 1: the past. Actually, if you read some of the literature
Speaker 1: around the phenomenon of dead naming, this phrase only cropped
Speaker 1: up about ten years ago on the Internet to refer
Speaker 1: to the names that people have gone by their whole
Speaker 1: lives until they decide to identify as the opposite sex.
Speaker 1: A lot of the literature around that will discuss it
Speaker 1: as a rejection of the past. It didn't happen. Ellen
Speaker 1: was never Ellen. Ellen was always Elliott. Your Oceani was
Speaker 1: always at war with East Asia. As you say, well,
Speaker 1: and let me ask you a question. Let me ask
Speaker 1: a question on this, Michael. And this is this is
Speaker 1: where you're you're good at Theoretical navel gazing is the
Speaker 1: current theory of transgenderism. Let's take it that Ellen was
Speaker 1: always Elliott. And if that's the case, that does that
Speaker 1: imply that there actually is objective truth that Ellen was
Speaker 1: in fact Elliott. And isn't that in contradiction with the
Speaker 1: other left wing tenant that you can change whatever the
Speaker 1: hell you are right now, you can become a woman,
Speaker 1: a man, and a chipmunk, all in the course of
Speaker 1: this podcast, Like is their objective truth or not? And
Speaker 1: what I don't know is do the leftist activist do
Speaker 1: they distinguish like, dude, are they willing to say, well,
Speaker 1: Ellen may have been a woman in twenty sixteen when
Speaker 1: she introduced herself as Ellen and said she was a woman,
Speaker 1: but now she's a man? Or do they maintain that
Speaker 1: what is today was yesterday too and she didn't change anything?
Speaker 1: And how do you tell the difference? Is there like
Speaker 1: a guide some people say they change and some didn't
Speaker 1: like what's the what is the reasoning behind this? The
Speaker 1: current view held by the people who promote this kind
Speaker 1: of ideology is that Ellen is now and always was Elliott,
Speaker 1: even when she was in that movie about being pregnant
Speaker 1: and possibly having an abortion, when she was in Juno,
Speaker 1: even then she was really a man. But what if
Speaker 1: Elliott believes that she was Ellen? Then like like, is
Speaker 1: she allowed or he allowed? Well, this I think is
Speaker 1: the key. Is that an acceptable? This is the key
Speaker 1: because you know on Wikipedia, if you look at Ellen
Speaker 1: Page or Bruce Jenner or any really prominent person who
Speaker 1: identifies as transgender, the way that that person will be
Speaker 1: described will always be with the pronouns that they are
Speaker 1: now using, including going back to the very moment of birth.
Speaker 1: But your question is such an important one because you're saying, well,
Speaker 1: what decides if Ellen wakes up tomorrow and says I'm
Speaker 1: Ellen again, I'm as she again, and people have done
Speaker 1: that plenty of times, then is she is she again?
Speaker 1: And I think that's the case. I think what this
Speaker 1: ultimately comes down to is not that there is objective truth.
Speaker 1: For the obviously there is objective truth. But I don't
Speaker 1: think the contention of the left and the transgender ideology
Speaker 1: is that there is objective truth. I think what it
Speaker 1: comes down to is the primacy of the will. Whatever
Speaker 1: Ellen says is true, even if what Ellen says contradicts
Speaker 1: what Allen said yesterday. And so politics devolves from a
Speaker 1: reasoned debate that you constantly hear conservatives and old school
Speaker 1: liberals lamenting the loss of reasoned civil dialogue. Well that
Speaker 1: has to go away. If politics really only comes down
Speaker 1: to my will versus your will, and my interest versus
Speaker 1: your interest, well then we can't talk to each other.
Speaker 1: Then then we really can't even communicate. It's just all
Speaker 1: a bunch of sounds and pronouns and new noises that
Speaker 1: don't really have any coherence to them. Well unless they're
Speaker 1: connect to divorce, and you will be fired, you will
Speaker 1: be silenced, you will be blocked, you will be canceled
Speaker 1: if you don't comply with what I demand. And that's
Speaker 1: the call of the left, you know, on these names.
Speaker 1: I also all it's also seems to me that the
Speaker 1: names are intentionally provocative. You know, there are plenty of
Speaker 1: names that are androgynous and ambiguous. I don't know Taylor,
Speaker 1: Skylar Madison, you know. But when it comes down to
Speaker 1: this question of someone who's obviously a woman going by
Speaker 1: I don't know, Hank or something that seems a little
Speaker 1: little crazy as well. And I think this issue keeps
Speaker 1: getting so much play in large part because ordinary people
Speaker 1: who are not engaging in all this kind of ideological
Speaker 1: naval gazing who are not very online or marching with
Speaker 1: the radical leftists in the streets, who are just kind
Speaker 1: of conducting their ordinary lives. They're looking at this and
Speaker 1: they're saying, I know this is obviously wrong. Well, I
Speaker 1: will say, so, I'm on a plane an awful lot,
Speaker 1: and so I download lots and lots of shows, streaming shows,
Speaker 1: and one of the shows that I've watched on Netflix
Speaker 1: is something called Umbrella Academy about these students who have
Speaker 1: sort of superhero type powers. And for the first two seasons,
Speaker 1: Umbrella Academy starred Ellen Page and the third season, which
Speaker 1: I just finished watching it now, stars Elliot Page. And
Speaker 1: what's interesting is the character in the Netflix series has
Speaker 1: the same transition that Ellen slash Elliot has had, and
Speaker 1: in fact, the beginning of season three, the character is
Speaker 1: a woman, although the credits say it's Elliott Page playing
Speaker 1: a woman, and then the character decides that she is
Speaker 1: a heat And part of how Hollywood does this is
Speaker 1: every single person immediately just this is reality and and
Speaker 1: and it was an interesting example because when I started
Speaker 1: watching season three, I was kind of curious how they
Speaker 1: were going to handle this issue, and so they made
Speaker 1: the character completely mirror what the actor was going through
Speaker 1: as well, which which I just thought was an interesting wrinkle.
Speaker 1: It's a total failure of imagination, it seems. Also, it
Speaker 1: seems that it used to be that acting was when
Speaker 1: you pretended to be someone that you were not. Now
Speaker 1: we're told that unless you're gay, you can't play a
Speaker 1: gay character, unless you're this specific sub race of a
Speaker 1: group of p you can't play a person of that
Speaker 1: group unless you know what. Whatever happened to playing pretend,
Speaker 1: whatever happened to the imagination that that seems to be
Speaker 1: out the window right now, Michael, That's exactly right. The
Speaker 1: concept of acting has has just gone away. I mean
Speaker 1: now in order to play Michael Knowles, one must be
Speaker 1: a Catholic conservative attack Sicilian, and nobody other than Michael
Speaker 1: Knowles can play up Michael Knowles. That's right, and the
Speaker 1: whole concept of acting has gone. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a famous story of when Sir Lawrence Olivier was
Speaker 1: doing a movie along with Dustin Hoffman, and you know,
Speaker 1: Hoffman is famously a method actor, and in the scene
Speaker 1: he was required to be very, very tired, so he
Speaker 1: stayed up all night and he was exhausted, and for
Speaker 1: some reason there was a problem shooting and they weren't
Speaker 1: able to fill in the scene, and Hoffman got upset
Speaker 1: and uh and and and you know, I was like, look,
Speaker 1: I stayed up all night. I was like getting ready,
Speaker 1: now we're not going to shoot the scene. And Sir
Speaker 1: Lawrence Olivier uh famously quipped to him, he said, my
Speaker 1: dear boy, why don't you try right right? And then
Speaker 1: the sort of meta's story on top of that, Uh,
Speaker 1: did you ever see the movie Hook? Yeah? Oh years ago,
Speaker 1: but yes, you know, it's a great movie with Robin
Speaker 1: Williams and Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams plays a grown
Speaker 1: up Peter Pan and Dustin Hoffman plays Captain Hook. And
Speaker 1: apparently while they were filming Hook, Robin Williams would make
Speaker 1: fun of of of Hoffman and he would, you know,
Speaker 1: he'd make the voice of a parrot and he go, caw,
Speaker 1: try acting, try acting, And apparently there is no acting anymore. No,
Speaker 1: no acting is over. I do want to clarify for
Speaker 1: people too, if you do want to play me, not
Speaker 1: just any Italian will do not. I don't want any
Speaker 1: northern Itali. It's got to be from the town in
Speaker 1: Sicily where my family comes from. That's how particular we're
Speaker 1: we're going to get now that you know they say
Speaker 1: that politics is show business for ugly people, and speaking
Speaker 1: of particularity, I want to get Ninian. Thank you, Michael.
Speaker 1: I take that personally, so thank you very much, with
Speaker 1: notable exceptions of course, of course obviously for the people
Speaker 1: on this podcast. But you know, when we're looking ahead
Speaker 1: to the midterms, we got a whole lot of seats,
Speaker 1: we got all of those hundreds of congressional seats, We've
Speaker 1: got a whole bunch of Senate seats up to say
Speaker 1: nothing about the state houses. So since you're much more
Speaker 1: focused on the ground, on the nitty gritty, know the
Speaker 1: players very closely. What should conservatives be looking at, where
Speaker 1: should we be looking what races should we be focused on,
Speaker 1: and how by what margin are we going to win?
Speaker 1: So I'm very optimistic for November. I think it is
Speaker 1: going to be an historic victory. I think the chances
Speaker 1: of our taking the House are are approaching one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: I think it is virtually a certainty that will take
Speaker 1: the House. I think the real question is how big
Speaker 1: of a margin? And I think the chances are good
Speaker 1: that will take the Senate. I'd probably handicap the Senate
Speaker 1: at sixty five thirty five on the House side. Some
Speaker 1: of the reason why I'm so optimistic, let me give
Speaker 1: you just some of the specific data, because the two
Speaker 1: best predictors for elections historically have been the generic congressional ballot,
Speaker 1: which is just asking people in the upcoming congressional election,
Speaker 1: do you intend to vote Republican or Democrats, So without
Speaker 1: a name of a candidate that is measured every year,
Speaker 1: that's a very good predictor for what's going to happen
Speaker 1: in November. And then the presidential approval or disapproval. And
Speaker 1: consistently those two together had been very good predictors. So
Speaker 1: if you look at you look at for example, twenty ten,
Speaker 1: which was an historic year. In that election, the generic
Speaker 1: ballot was Republican plus nine point four, so it was
Speaker 1: really strong generic ballot. Presidential approval was actually not too bad,
Speaker 1: it was point five, so it was just the disapproval
Speaker 1: was just slightly above approval, and we ended up picking
Speaker 1: up sixty three seats, getting to a majority of two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty two seats. Likewise, twenty fourteen, the generic
Speaker 1: was our plus two point four. Presidential approval was ten
Speaker 1: point four, and we got to two hundred and forty
Speaker 1: seven seats. Now, if you look at where we are
Speaker 1: today in twenty twenty two, the generic congressional is R
Speaker 1: plus three point three, So that means by a three
Speaker 1: point three percent people say they're going to vote Republican
Speaker 1: instead of Democrat. That's better than it was in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: although not as good as it was in twenty ten.
Speaker 1: But the presidential approval is minus eleven point five, which
Speaker 1: is by far the worst, much much worse than twenty ten,
Speaker 1: much much worse than twenty fourteen. Let me give you
Speaker 1: another stat that is a very interesting predictor, which is
Speaker 1: the enthusiasm gap. If you ask voters, are you very
Speaker 1: excited to vote in November, it's a really good predictor
Speaker 1: of what's going to happen. And if you go back
Speaker 1: and look at it. In two thousand and six, Democrats
Speaker 1: who were very interested in voting in November sixty nine percent,
Speaker 1: Republicans fifty six percent. So the Democrats had a thirteen
Speaker 1: percentage advantage on enthusiasm. They picked up thirty seats twenty
Speaker 1: ten Democrats who were very interested was forty nine percent,
Speaker 1: Republicans was sixty six percent, So Republicans had a seventeen
Speaker 1: percent advantage. We picked up sixty three twenty fourteen, the
Speaker 1: differential was eleven percent. We picked up thirteen seats. Twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: the differential Democrats who were interested was sixty six percent,
Speaker 1: Republicans fifty seven. So Democrats had a nine point advantage
Speaker 1: and enthusiasm. They picked up forty seats. And then if
Speaker 1: you go and look to March of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Democrats fifty percent of very interested in voting. In November,
Speaker 1: Republicans sixty seven percent, so we've got a seventeen percent advantage.
Speaker 1: All of that is suggesting that we could see a
Speaker 1: Republican victory in the House with potentially a pickup anywhere
Speaker 1: from thirty to sixty seats. I think that's the spread
Speaker 1: that's in play, which is a whole lot of seats.
Speaker 1: What we're seeing is congressional seats that are say a
Speaker 1: D plus six or a D plus eight are right
Speaker 1: now polling tie. If you look at Virginia, Virginia last year,
Speaker 1: as you know, elected Glenn Younkin. Biden won Virginia by
Speaker 1: ten points, So Virginia was a D plus ten and
Speaker 1: an election day last year it went Republican. If we're
Speaker 1: winning D plus ten congressional seats, we're looking at sixty
Speaker 1: plus pickups in the House. So I think it's going
Speaker 1: to be a big, big deal, And I think how
Speaker 1: the Senate is too. So there are far too many
Speaker 1: congressional House seats to track. In terms of the Senate races,
Speaker 1: You've got some big celebrity candidates. Jdevans has made a
Speaker 1: huge splash in Ohio. The yours is already a celebrity
Speaker 1: and has been for a long time in Pennsylvania. What
Speaker 1: are the races that we should really be looking at,
Speaker 1: whether because they're bellweathers, you know, they're they're gonna tell
Speaker 1: us which way the winds are blowing, or just because
Speaker 1: they're so crucial for Republicans to pick. Sure, So the
Speaker 1: reason the Senate is far less certain than the House
Speaker 1: is that we don't have a great map this year.
Speaker 1: So Republicans are defending more vulnerable seats than Democrats are.
Speaker 1: And that just as luck of the draw of who
Speaker 1: happens to be up, because in the Senate only the
Speaker 1: third of the senators are up. Every two years. If
Speaker 1: you look at Republican pickup opportunities, the fourmost natural are Georgia, Arizona, Nevada,
Speaker 1: and New Hampshire. Georgia and Arizona have historically been read states.
Speaker 1: Just a couple of years ago, they had both had
Speaker 1: two two Republican senators. Now both Georgia and Arizona have
Speaker 1: two Democrats senators. In Georgia, you've got Herschel Walker running um.
Speaker 1: I think I think Walker's got a good shot at
Speaker 1: winning that race. I think Georgia is still fundamentally a
Speaker 1: red state. Uh the special elections or the runoff elections
Speaker 1: that that happened in in twenty twenty one, Republican turnout
Speaker 1: was depressed. It was right after the election. I was
Speaker 1: on the ground. I saw it that that that our
Speaker 1: base was demoralized and didn't show up in that special election.
Speaker 1: And if if your guys stay home and the other
Speaker 1: guys show up, that's that's a recipe for losing. So
Speaker 1: I think Georgia is a real pickup opportunity. Arizona is
Speaker 1: a real pickup opportunity. That's got a messy primary right now.
Speaker 1: There's several candidates slugging it out in that primary, so
Speaker 1: it's not clear who the Republican nominee is going to be.
Speaker 1: Mark Kelly is the incumbent Democrat, and he is. He's formidable,
Speaker 1: He's an astronaut um. His temperament seems moderate. I do
Speaker 1: think Kelly has been really, really hurt by Kirsten Cinema,
Speaker 1: the other Democrat senator from Arizona, because Cinema, on a
Speaker 1: number of issues, most notably the filibuster, has stood up
Speaker 1: to party leadership and has has tacked a more moderate course,
Speaker 1: and it's made Kelly. It's revealed him. His voting record
Speaker 1: is in many ways indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders, and I
Speaker 1: think that even though he cultivates a persona being a moderate,
Speaker 1: his voting record now does not match up with that.
Speaker 1: I think Arizona we got a good pickup opportunity Nevada.
Speaker 1: Adam Laxalt won the primary. I endorsed Adam, I campaigned
Speaker 1: with him. I think Adam is a great pickup opportunity
Speaker 1: if I were. In fact, I think Nevada Adam is
Speaker 1: the most likely Republican pickup this cycle because I think
Speaker 1: he's done a good job of unifying the party. I
Speaker 1: think he's running a good campaign. I think we're gonna win.
Speaker 1: In Nevada. New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan is on the ballot.
Speaker 1: Her she's underwater. Her disapproval is greater than her approval.
Speaker 1: I think she's vulnerable. It's not clear who the Republican
Speaker 1: is going to be and if we're going to have
Speaker 1: a strong candidate. I hope we do. If we have
Speaker 1: a strong candidate, I think New Hampshire is winnable, but
Speaker 1: we've got to get someone who is able to raise
Speaker 1: the money and be competitive. If the governor of New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: Chris Sinunu, had run, I think he would have won easily.
Speaker 1: He decided not to run, and so New Hampshire is
Speaker 1: a state where we just got to wait and see
Speaker 1: if we're going to have a candidate that can be competitive.
Speaker 1: Those are the four best pickup opportunities. There are other
Speaker 1: pickup opportunities that are more of a long shot. Colorado
Speaker 1: Michael Bennett I think is vulnerable. He doesn't have great
Speaker 1: name idee, he hasn't accomplished much of anything in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Colorado is a bluish state that in a really good
Speaker 1: year could conceivably go red. So I think Colorado is
Speaker 1: a possible pickup Washington State. Right now, the polling in
Speaker 1: Washington State is showing the Republican within just a couple
Speaker 1: of points of Patty Murray, the incumbent Democrat. I'll give
Speaker 1: you a long shot. Vermont. So Pat Lahey is retiring.
Speaker 1: Pat Lahe is actually the only Democrat in the history
Speaker 1: of Vermont elected to the Senate, which is really quite remarkable.
Speaker 1: The other senator is Bernie Sanders. Is not a Democrat.
Speaker 1: He's a socialist, right, He's not a member of the
Speaker 1: Democrat party. You know, there's a former US attorney running
Speaker 1: in Vermont, a woman who I think is in a
Speaker 1: really good year, has a shot at that race. So
Speaker 1: there are, depending on how good a year there is,
Speaker 1: there are four natural pickup opportunities, and then I think
Speaker 1: several more. Now, where are we on defense? We're on
Speaker 1: defense number one in Pennsylvania, as you noted, So Pat
Speaker 1: Toomey is the incumbent, he's a Republican, he's retiring. Doctor
Speaker 1: Oz is the Republican nominee. I think doctor Oz can win. Uh.
Speaker 1: He just went through a tough primary. But between him
Speaker 1: and Dave McCormick, who was another very strong candidate, but
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic that that that Oz's numbers are not terrific
Speaker 1: right now, but he just came out of the primary.
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic that's a winnable seat, but we need to
Speaker 1: hold Pennsylvania. UM. Wisconsin, Ron Johnson is the incumbent Republican.
Speaker 1: He probably is faces the greatest threat for any incumbent Republican.
Speaker 1: Wisconsin's a historically purple state. I think Ron will win
Speaker 1: this year. UM. I was just out in Milwaukee and
Speaker 1: and supporting him in campaigning for him. I think he'll
Speaker 1: win this year, but history history teaches that race is
Speaker 1: likely to be close. UM. You mentioned Ohio. Rob Portman,
Speaker 1: a Republican, is retiring. Jade Vance's the nominee. I think
Speaker 1: I think Jade will win that race. But Ohio has
Speaker 1: certainly historically been a swing seat. Uh. Missouri, You've got
Speaker 1: Roy Blunt who's retiring. There, You've got a crowdy and
Speaker 1: messy primary. The candidate I've supported, Eric Schmidt, who's the
Speaker 1: attorney general, I think is the strongest conservative that can win.
Speaker 1: But whether that race is competitive will depend on what
Speaker 1: happens in the primary. One of the candidates in the primary,
Speaker 1: Eric Gryten's the former governor resigned in scandal. I think
Speaker 1: if Gryton's wins the primary, you'll see Democrats invest a
Speaker 1: lot of money in Missouri. I think they'll think that
Speaker 1: that's a seat they can steal. If Gryton's wins the nomination.
Speaker 1: You know another state that could get bumpy as Alaska.
Speaker 1: So Alaska, you've got Lisa Murkowski, who's the incumbent, She's
Speaker 1: the Republican. Donald Trump has endorsed against her, he's campaigning
Speaker 1: against her. Alaska also has a weird system of voting
Speaker 1: of ranked choice voting, where you vote for multiple candidates
Speaker 1: and then you eliminate the lowest vote and reallocate those votes.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what will happen there. But anytime
Speaker 1: you have Republicans divided, in this case, you got Trump
Speaker 1: on one side and the incumbent Republican on the other,
Speaker 1: it's messy. And you know, when I got to the
Speaker 1: Senate ten years ago, Alaska had a Democrat, Mark Baggett
Speaker 1: in it. I mean, Alaska is in a Senate race.
Speaker 1: It's more purple than you might think. So I think
Speaker 1: we will probably hold on to Alaska, but it's not impossible.
Speaker 1: That we lose that state. So put all of that together,
Speaker 1: put it in the blender. My guests, right now, if
Speaker 1: the election were today, we'd win something like fifty three
Speaker 1: seats altogether. But I think the plus minus is anywhere
Speaker 1: from forty nine if things just go spectacularly bad to
Speaker 1: fifty six if they go phenomenally and we win some
Speaker 1: seats like like a Vermont or a Washington state. If
Speaker 1: it's that good a year, we could get up in
Speaker 1: the fifty five fifty six range. So then you're if
Speaker 1: you're looking at retaking the House, and especially if you're
Speaker 1: also looking at retaking the Senate, then you're setting the
Speaker 1: stage for two years of stopping Biden, slowing down Biden.
Speaker 1: It's hard to slow down Biden. Biden's pretty slow as
Speaker 1: it is right now. But you you you stop the administration,
Speaker 1: and then you look ahead to twenty twenty four. Is
Speaker 1: there is there anything that you're seeing right now that
Speaker 1: you think in twenty twenty two will help to determine
Speaker 1: the shape of the twenty twenty four field. Oh? Sure,
Speaker 1: Number one. I think it's important that we win in
Speaker 1: twenty two. But then when we had majorities, we got
Speaker 1: to do something with it, and you know, that's just
Speaker 1: the beginning of the battle to win the majorities. And
Speaker 1: if we get to January twenty twenty three with majorities
Speaker 1: in both houses, if Republican leadership decides to play a
Speaker 1: prevent defense and do nothing and be risk averse, which
Speaker 1: is often leadership's instinct, I think that will demoralize a
Speaker 1: lot of voters. If you elect a bunch of squishes,
Speaker 1: you can't just go blaming leadership when they push squishy policies.
Speaker 1: The leadership is one trying to herd cats, but but two,
Speaker 1: they are taking cues from their members. You know, they're
Speaker 1: they're trying to operate levers of power within the confines
Speaker 1: of reality. So I love this idea. You got to
Speaker 1: go out there, You got to go elect the most right,
Speaker 1: viable candidates, and then you're going to have a much
Speaker 1: better shot of encouraging leadership to actually stand up and fight. Now,
Speaker 1: there is much more to talk about, Senator, before you
Speaker 1: return to your lovely family vacation that we have rudely interrupted.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more to talk about on the cloakroom
Speaker 1: with our friend Liz Wheeler. Hi, Senator, Hi is it Michelle.
Speaker 1: I've been waiting in the wings, and I just overheard
Speaker 1: that that perhaps you're identifying as Michelle. Now, okay, well
Speaker 1: I just want to so I was told I just
Speaker 1: want to be the one to note that this is
Speaker 1: breaking national news. We have a great topic that we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about on the Cloakroom today. We are
Speaker 1: going to talk the about a very highly reported piece
Speaker 1: of the dabb's decision. This is, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: who said, in future cases, we should reconsider all of
Speaker 1: this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Albergefell.
Speaker 1: So we're going to talk about these cases and whether
Speaker 1: they should be overturned, and if they were to be overturned,
Speaker 1: how that would be done. You can join us on
Speaker 1: the Cloakroom. It's on Verdict plus. Go to Verdict with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruise dot com slash plus. If you use my
Speaker 1: promo code, which is of course Cloakroom, you can get
Speaker 1: your first month free on your annual subscription. It is
Speaker 1: Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com slash Plus. I cannot wait.
Speaker 1: You were looking at the Clarence Thomas Nashville Fan Club
Speaker 1: over here, President and chairman. Can't wait to hear that
Speaker 1: discussion of why we need to get rid of substantive
Speaker 1: due process. All right, that's enough for me. I'm out
Speaker 1: of here. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought
Speaker 1: to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political
Speaker 1: action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates
Speaker 1: across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and
Speaker 1: Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for
Speaker 1: Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.