Speaker 1: Hello there, I'm Chuck Todd. Welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast. Hey, just a quick little housekeeping note
Speaker 1: if you will, particularly if you listen to the Check
Speaker 1: podcast versus watching it on YouTube, although we'd love for
Speaker 1: you to go to the YouTube channel, subscribe, like and subscribe.
Speaker 1: You know all of these you know, you know my
Speaker 1: whining about algorithms. You know, I can whine all I want,
Speaker 1: but this is the system that we have. You know,
Speaker 1: as I joke, I cover politics as it is well
Speaker 1: in the information ecosystem. Just because I think it sucks
Speaker 1: doesn't mean I'm not going to participate in it as
Speaker 1: best I can. So would love that. But we're making
Speaker 1: a slight tweak on the audio front, really based on
Speaker 1: sort of our own sort of consumer demands, if you will,
Speaker 1: We're going to break the We're going to offer the
Speaker 1: podcast now in sort of two different ways. You can
Speaker 1: get the entire thing as one every episode and that
Speaker 1: regularly is somewhere two hours or less. Or we will
Speaker 1: also offer it so if you just do the audio feed,
Speaker 1: you may see one episode, you may get three beads.
Speaker 1: One is the entire thing, soup to nuts. One is
Speaker 1: just are just the feature interview for that episode. So today,
Speaker 1: for instance, it's Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's,
Speaker 1: and then one is just my thoughts for the day,
Speaker 1: coupled with the Q and A. So it's a way
Speaker 1: if you want to absorb in chunks or if you
Speaker 1: want to do it all at once. My feeling is,
Speaker 1: in this day and age, you know you're in charge
Speaker 1: is the consumer. We're putting all the content out there
Speaker 1: and we want it. We want you to be able
Speaker 1: to consume it anyway you want, not forcing you to
Speaker 1: consume it the way we want you to consume it
Speaker 1: for what it's worth. I do think of it as
Speaker 1: one one whole meal, sort of thoughts of the day,
Speaker 1: something you know that I've been thinking about, an interview
Speaker 1: on a topic that I think you should know more about,
Speaker 1: and then responding to your question. So I do think
Speaker 1: of it as sort of a complete meal. But I
Speaker 1: also know in this day and age, people you want
Speaker 1: to grab Hey, I'm curious of this, So that's an
Speaker 1: interesting interview, but I want to listen to that later
Speaker 1: totally get that. So we want to provide the opportunity
Speaker 1: to give you, to give you basically both options and
Speaker 1: of course if you want to watch, that's what YouTube
Speaker 1: is for as well. So we appreciate all the different ways.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing I've learned since going independent, which
Speaker 1: is I preached it all the time when I was
Speaker 1: at NBC. Platform neutral. Don't force consumers to take your
Speaker 1: content the way you want it. You got to sort
Speaker 1: of meet them where they are. And this is another
Speaker 1: attempt of me trying to meet you where you are.
Speaker 1: Speaking of that and the information ecosystem, there actually was
Speaker 1: a huge development and how you consume information that is
Speaker 1: going to have a gigantic impact on local news and
Speaker 1: it's probably a headline you had no idea. I was
Speaker 1: going to single out this morning about it, but I
Speaker 1: want to make a brief mention of it since I
Speaker 1: talk about local news all the time and how I think, really,
Speaker 1: we're not going to repair the reputation of national news
Speaker 1: until we clean up the local news ecosystem. But we're
Speaker 1: about to see another devastating blow to local news this morning.
Speaker 1: There's a merger that was announced next Star Media Group
Speaker 1: and Tegna essentially buying out Tegna merging. Of these these
Speaker 1: are the two largest at this point. Now this is
Speaker 1: going to be the largest single company that owns local affiliates.
Speaker 1: So your local channel four, channel ten, channel nine, channel seven,
Speaker 1: whatever market you live in some way, your single digit markets,
Speaker 1: your local ABC affiliate, your local NBC affiliate, your local
Speaker 1: Fox affiliate, your local CBS affiliate. These are not the
Speaker 1: O and os. Sometimes the networks we call them O
Speaker 1: and os owned and operated where the national network also
Speaker 1: owns the local news. If you live in New York
Speaker 1: and LA, for instance, those local channels KNBC, WNBC, WABC, KABC,
Speaker 1: those are owned by ABC and NBC. But if you live,
Speaker 1: say where I grew up in Miami, one of the
Speaker 1: affiliates is owned by by one of the big networks.
Speaker 1: The local NBC affiliate is owned and operated by NBC National,
Speaker 1: NBC Universal, but the other ones are not. Channel ten
Speaker 1: was the ABC affiliate, they've now they're now an independent channel.
Speaker 1: They have no network affiliation. Channel seven is the Fox affiliate.
Speaker 1: They now also are the ABC affiliate. And this is
Speaker 1: what I want to get to, this merging. We are
Speaker 1: going to see consolidation in the local TV sector, just
Speaker 1: in the same way we saw consolidation twenty years ago
Speaker 1: when it came to local newspapers, right, the morning papers
Speaker 1: and the afternoon papers that we used to have. Essentially
Speaker 1: that all collapsed the day of the internet. You didn't
Speaker 1: need the whole afternoon paper. And essentially we saw that
Speaker 1: sort of consolidation take place in the eighties and nineties
Speaker 1: and it has left us with the with the mess
Speaker 1: that we have today in the local newspaper news arena. Well,
Speaker 1: now we're going to see it on the TV side
Speaker 1: of things, this consolidation. You're going to have something that
Speaker 1: you're going to see show up in some of your
Speaker 1: markets now called doopolies. And what that means is one
Speaker 1: local affiliate will be the same place you go to
Speaker 1: for ABC programming and CBS programming, or for NBC in Miami,
Speaker 1: now it is ABC programming and Fox programming. The same
Speaker 1: local entity will be who serves you up that programming.
Speaker 1: And instead of now having two distinct local news organizations,
Speaker 1: you'll now have one. Right, That's what this consolidation is
Speaker 1: going to lead to. So we're going to a few
Speaker 1: local journalists. You know, in theory, you should mean you
Speaker 1: take one outlet and make it bigger, but that is
Speaker 1: never how this stuff works out right. It is simply
Speaker 1: the consolidation does not. You do not have take two
Speaker 1: entities and hope that then you take two hundred percent
Speaker 1: and say cut that in half, but you still have,
Speaker 1: say a greater amount of resources than one alone. That
Speaker 1: is not how this is going to work, sadly, and
Speaker 1: this is why I'm so obsessed with trying to reanimate
Speaker 1: and recreate the local news information ecosystem, community based news
Speaker 1: that is more platform neutral. I think you have everybody's
Speaker 1: in retreat right now. Resources are collapsing, just at a
Speaker 1: time when there's actually demand for more local information. So
Speaker 1: this this was something that was going to happen. The
Speaker 1: FCC is going to allow likely allow more and more
Speaker 1: looser regulatory decisions. The point is this is a big
Speaker 1: deal that's going to get very little coverage, but the
Speaker 1: impact on local communities fewer resources covering what's going on locally.
Speaker 1: It is only for me motivating me to try to
Speaker 1: figure out this larger idea that I really believe we've
Speaker 1: got to scale the expansion of local news, reanimate it.
Speaker 1: I believe youth sports and high school sports is maybe
Speaker 1: the connective tissue that can sort of bring trust back,
Speaker 1: unite different communities to do this. But This is a
Speaker 1: This is a transformative moment today and the impact on
Speaker 1: how you get local information is going to be dramatic.
Speaker 1: You may not notice it in the next six months,
Speaker 1: you certainly are going to notice it over the next
Speaker 1: eighteen months to two years. This has huge you know,
Speaker 1: this means fewer local entities to put on debates, fewer
Speaker 1: local entities to give candidates access to the public. So
Speaker 1: this has a lot of impact on our political communications,
Speaker 1: on how we campaign politics, all of those things, how
Speaker 1: you get basic information about your community. So this is
Speaker 1: a huge you know, as more developments happen, I obviously
Speaker 1: want to we'll be doing my best to surface this,
Speaker 1: but this gets it. This is this is the moment.
Speaker 1: This is why, oddly I actually think there's opportunity, right
Speaker 1: whenever there's consolidation, that's actually the opportunity, Right, You have
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of big entities that are in retreat,
Speaker 1: nothing like a little startup to show up and actually
Speaker 1: try to expand. And so it's something something I want
Speaker 1: to focus there. Obviously, one other big obviously, the other
Speaker 1: big actual political headline has to do with Zelenski's trip
Speaker 1: to Washington, d C. With with his super friends in
Speaker 1: this case, the super super European friends, right, the G
Speaker 1: seven Allies, the heads of Italy and France and the
Speaker 1: UK and Germany. And clearly, you know, everybody has figured
Speaker 1: out how to play kate Donald Trump, right, every thing
Speaker 1: is about placating him. And you know, whether I think
Speaker 1: somebody referred to the phrase tongue bathing Trump is what
Speaker 1: Zelensky's finally learned to do. Even showed up in a
Speaker 1: nice looking, very modern looking suit. Let me just tell
Speaker 1: you if I would hope that this becomes the model
Speaker 1: of what is considered dressing up in Washington because there
Speaker 1: was no tie, right, how great was that there was
Speaker 1: no tie? It looks looks sleek. You know, the all
Speaker 1: black look helps you look thinner. I need to look
Speaker 1: thinner these days. So hey, I endorse it. Let's see
Speaker 1: it come. But in all seriousness, you could see that
Speaker 1: this was a case where they were there, that the
Speaker 1: European Allies and Zelensky were hoping if they're the last
Speaker 1: person in the room and I you know, and as
Speaker 1: you could see, Trump seems to be vacillating. And it's
Speaker 1: interesting here that he sees himself more as a mediator
Speaker 1: between the two sides, rather than as an ally of
Speaker 1: the West. It is weirdly head scratching, right, He's the
Speaker 1: one that would leave the room and go talk, go
Speaker 1: talk to Putin for forty minutes to see what was possible,
Speaker 1: right he was, he was the go between. Now he
Speaker 1: does have the best relationship among the G seven leaders
Speaker 1: with Putin. Right before Trump, when Biden was in office,
Speaker 1: and even actually during the Biden assume me, the Obama years,
Speaker 1: and even the first Trump termam it was thought of
Speaker 1: his Merkle who had the best relationship with Putin, in
Speaker 1: part because he spoke German and so they seem to
Speaker 1: be able to communicate better than the other world leaders.
Speaker 1: These days, it really is Trump who apparently has the
Speaker 1: best relationship with Putin. So look, I think it all
Speaker 1: went it could have. I guess the best headline on
Speaker 1: all of this over the last ninety six hours is
Speaker 1: it could have been worse. Right. It wasn't Helsinki when
Speaker 1: it came to Putin, and it wasn't February when it
Speaker 1: came to Zelenski. And for that, I think everybody's grateful,
Speaker 1: and I think part of that is the effort the
Speaker 1: Europeans have made. I mean, in some ways, perhaps Trump
Speaker 1: deserves some credit for this, both in action and in action, right.
Speaker 1: The inaction has sort of forced the Europeans to start
Speaker 1: working more together, to start thinking about security, which actually
Speaker 1: is some of the rhetoric we've heard from some on
Speaker 1: the right who've said, hey, you know, you heard jd.
Speaker 1: Vance say that Europe has been a bit free. I
Speaker 1: think he'd referred to him as freeloaders at one point
Speaker 1: when it came to American security. And the fact is,
Speaker 1: if you know, this is not you know, I think
Speaker 1: what Trump's been a wake up call to Europe, right,
Speaker 1: which is the assumption that America was always going to
Speaker 1: be there. You never know which way America could turn,
Speaker 1: and suddenly now the instability of the partnership with America
Speaker 1: has forced Europe to to rethink how it conducts its alliances,
Speaker 1: rethink its continent security. And in that sense, if you're
Speaker 1: you know, if you're on the right of center and
Speaker 1: and wanted the US to have a smaller footprint when
Speaker 1: it came to our national security, our commitments, then this
Speaker 1: is a victory because it's Europe that's taking the lead
Speaker 1: on defending Zelenski. It'll be a European I'm trying to
Speaker 1: figure out, you know, how the Russians view you know,
Speaker 1: he you know, Putin's red line is no NATO troops
Speaker 1: in Ukraine to providing security. But if it's a collection
Speaker 1: of European troops, what's the difference if and if all
Speaker 1: those European countries are members of NATO? Is that is
Speaker 1: that a distinct different distinction without a difference or is
Speaker 1: that just enough to play Kate Putin? Right? I think
Speaker 1: that's going to be an important, an important moment, There's
Speaker 1: no doubt there's Look, politically, you're not gonna be able
Speaker 1: to sell in this country putting American troops in Ukraine. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this is not that that is off the table.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure there would be bipartisan support for that,
Speaker 1: to be honest. There is definitely an exult austion from
Speaker 1: American national security commitment still when it comes to Iraq
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan. So I don't think that there would be
Speaker 1: the political will in this country for that. The question
Speaker 1: is if it's an alliance of European countries that are
Speaker 1: providing it, you know those you know, how to me
Speaker 1: NATO and European countries are kind of one and the
Speaker 1: same thing is that the way Putin is going to
Speaker 1: see it, which sometimes he chooses to see it that
Speaker 1: way and sometimes he doesn't. So I think that's an
Speaker 1: important sticking point. But I want to get at one
Speaker 1: aspect to this that is still which to me and
Speaker 1: perhaps it's why Trump is still gettable by the West
Speaker 1: here for them to take their side. First of all,
Speaker 1: I think it is pretty clear that unlike most issues,
Speaker 1: there really is multiple points of view inside the West
Speaker 1: wing in Trump's here that unlike many other issues, there's
Speaker 1: a healthy debate internally about Ukraine that see Putin and
Speaker 1: Russia much more as a threat to the West than
Speaker 1: others see Putin and Russia. So I think the fact
Speaker 1: that there's that spirited debate inside the West wing and
Speaker 1: that Trump seems to vacillate a little bit is why
Speaker 1: we have this sort of weird sort of takeaways from
Speaker 1: this last ninety six hours, right, which I do think,
Speaker 1: and I think there's part of the more Europe flatters Trump.
Speaker 1: It clearly works right, just like it's worked for Putin.
Speaker 1: The Europeans have figured this out. Trump just wants respect, right.
Speaker 1: He may not have earned the respect, but he wants people.
Speaker 1: I was saying this before. He's in some ways desperate
Speaker 1: for it, right. It goes back to his complex about
Speaker 1: you know, being an outer Borough kid trying to make
Speaker 1: it in Manhattan. He's you know, at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, he's been wanting to be respected by the
Speaker 1: New York Times, respected by the elites. The less they
Speaker 1: give him respect, the angry or he gets, and the
Speaker 1: more it goes against the elites. But even as he
Speaker 1: goes against the elites and he tries to build his no,
Speaker 1: you know, if he's paid, you know, he still wants
Speaker 1: the elite awards. Right. If he doesn't actually care about
Speaker 1: the elites, why does he want to Nobel Peace Prize? Right?
Speaker 1: But in some ways it's he still craves it, right,
Speaker 1: And I think that that the Europeans have finally figured
Speaker 1: this out and are placating him in ways that you
Speaker 1: look at it and you may just shake your head
Speaker 1: kind of laugh that this kind of stuff works. But
Speaker 1: it does get me at one point, and a huge
Speaker 1: miscalculation by Putin. You know, I do think that Putin
Speaker 1: really has very low regard for Trump and thinks Trump
Speaker 1: is really easy to manipulate. Why do I say this
Speaker 1: because he's given Trump nothing and and you know, he
Speaker 1: pays him lip service. Right, he tells Trump what he
Speaker 1: wants to hear about mail in voting. You know what
Speaker 1: Trump wants to hear about whether the war would have
Speaker 1: started if Trump been president or not. But he never
Speaker 1: actually gives Trump a win that Trump is asking for. Right,
Speaker 1: the fact that Putin couldn't even give him a one
Speaker 1: week cease fire, couldn't even give him a ceasefire during
Speaker 1: the time that they were meeting in Alaska, couldn't give
Speaker 1: him a ceasefire just for the seventy two hours that
Speaker 1: he was playing Shuttle diplomacy between Putin and Zelenski, that is,
Speaker 1: that is total disrespect by Putin, right, It totally should
Speaker 1: undermine the idea that Putin wouldn't have launched this invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine and Trump had been president if he respected
Speaker 1: Trump so much? Why is any Why can't even give
Speaker 1: him a temporary ceasefire? And I think Putin thinks he
Speaker 1: can just pay lip service and not actually have to
Speaker 1: match the lip service with an action. I think he's messcalculating.
Speaker 1: I think this is success. I think over time Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, he has said it a few times. I
Speaker 1: think Putin's tappened me along. I remember he said that
Speaker 1: at one point, and the fact that you know, this
Speaker 1: is where Putin's never going to have. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: he has ambition that he's going to have an even
Speaker 1: more pro Russian, more pro Putin president after Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't know who that would be, but maybe he somehow
Speaker 1: fantasizes about that. But I think it's safe to say
Speaker 1: this is going to be the most friendly leader that
Speaker 1: he's ever going to have in the United States. So
Speaker 1: to not to not enhance his reputation at a time
Speaker 1: when he's desperate to enhance it, not to help him
Speaker 1: get his seaes Fire, get his Peace Prize, give him
Speaker 1: more credibility with the West, with the guy that you
Speaker 1: have influenced, really seems to be a mistake on Putin's part,
Speaker 1: and I think it's shorted. I think it tells me
Speaker 1: how myopic Putin is, how sheltered Putin is, how much
Speaker 1: he doesn't quite see the world very well, and the
Speaker 1: miscalculations he's making on this right, he thought he was
Speaker 1: going to roll over Ukraine. I mean, he is not
Speaker 1: getting very good intelligence. It's pretty if he was. He
Speaker 1: never would have probably done the invasion in the first place.
Speaker 1: They really thought this was going to be quick and easy,
Speaker 1: and they were wrong. And they continue to be wrong
Speaker 1: on some of the military capabilities of Ukraine. They continue
Speaker 1: to be wrong about the ability to divide Europe from
Speaker 1: the United States or to divide Europe amongst itself. And
Speaker 1: so I think he's done it again, and he had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to give Trump more leverage. Trump has more
Speaker 1: leverage over him than he refuses to choose. Right. I
Speaker 1: mean to me, it's a simple way to get him
Speaker 1: to get Putin here, just say, look, come out and say,
Speaker 1: you know, the more I think about it, I'm going
Speaker 1: to put Ukraine in NATO because I don't ever want
Speaker 1: to see another war again. It's pretty clear Putin won't
Speaker 1: touch a country that's a member of NATO. And see
Speaker 1: how fast Putin might suddenly retreat and talk about a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: But he's never used that leverage, right, Trump has not
Speaker 1: used the leverage that I think he has. But the
Speaker 1: same goes for Putin has an opportunity here to essentially
Speaker 1: give a few wins to Trump that would enhance his reputation,
Speaker 1: and only while still preserving that personal relationship he has
Speaker 1: with him. So again, you know a lot of times
Speaker 1: I really want to be dispassionate and looking at these
Speaker 1: things and just sort of like saying, hey, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: forget what you think is the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: Try to figure out why is any doing this? And
Speaker 1: this is a bit of a mystery to me, but
Speaker 1: I think it has to do with he's getting bad information,
Speaker 1: he's getting bad intelligence, or he thinks that little of Trump,
Speaker 1: that Trump has been so easy to manipulate with words,
Speaker 1: that he doesn't have to bother with an action or
Speaker 1: two to give to give Trump a win or two
Speaker 1: that would ironically strengthen him. It's in, which of course
Speaker 1: would be, but that would be long term thing, and
Speaker 1: normally Putin's usually thinking long term. He really is miscalculating
Speaker 1: this one, and I think he does leave it up
Speaker 1: for grabs, and you know it. I think the more
Speaker 1: you look at Putin's actions, you realize he is nothing
Speaker 1: but a thug who wants to take over a sovereign nation,
Speaker 1: and there's only one person that can stop the killing.
Speaker 1: It's him, right, Ukraine could put down arms tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: he's not going to stop the killing until he gets
Speaker 1: that country, so it is on him, and so it's
Speaker 1: a I think we need to ask ourselves that question.
Speaker 1: And there's certainly a question that I'd love to get
Speaker 1: more clarity from our Intel community, but I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how public any of that can be because it's so
Speaker 1: sensitive when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: But why is Putin sort of not giving Trump a
Speaker 1: little something here because it would actually help him both
Speaker 1: of them in the long term, which you would think, Again,
Speaker 1: I go back, Putin's never going to have a president
Speaker 1: who's this let's just say, supportive, probably in one hundred years,
Speaker 1: and if not even more maybe ever. So it is
Speaker 1: this is where I think Putin is making some strategic
Speaker 1: mistakes here, because he's now unified Europe in a way
Speaker 1: that Europe wasn't unified before the invasion. Right, it continues.
Speaker 1: He may have successfully, you know, cracked the American partnership
Speaker 1: with Europe thanks to Donald Trump, but in doing so,
Speaker 1: he's united Europe in a way that the US could
Speaker 1: have only dreamed about ten years ago. All Right. That
Speaker 1: takes me to my substat column this week, and it
Speaker 1: is in some ways it's more of the longer term
Speaker 1: exercise that that I've been using this podcast for and
Speaker 1: using my substack for, which is simply trying to explain
Speaker 1: how he got here and trying to offer up idea
Speaker 1: is to get us out of this mess? Right? What
Speaker 1: do I mean? Right? Well, let me put it this way.
Speaker 1: If there's a through line in the way I've been
Speaker 1: analyzing politics lately, it's this how we got here and
Speaker 1: how we get out? And what do I mean by here?
Speaker 1: I mean the politics of division, the politics where we
Speaker 1: emphasize what separates us, not what we share, Where every
Speaker 1: identity slice gets thinner, every disagreement gets sharper, and the
Speaker 1: incentive structure rewards conflict over consensus. It's not a new
Speaker 1: thought for me. You've heard me talk about this before,
Speaker 1: so I'm not naive. Politics has always had conflict, that's
Speaker 1: not the point, But it hasn't always been this polarized,
Speaker 1: this performative, this locked into division as the strategy itself.
Speaker 1: So today I want to walk you through two moments,
Speaker 1: two sort of forks in the road, if you will,
Speaker 1: that I think actually go a long way in explaining
Speaker 1: how we ended up here, and perhaps it actually by
Speaker 1: figuring out how we got here it's perhaps a half
Speaker 1: for a better politics than frankly for a potential future
Speaker 1: president to take advantage of. So here's FOURK one. It
Speaker 1: was two thousand and four in the age of micro targeting.
Speaker 1: Before two thousand and four, campaigns treated undecided voters as
Speaker 1: moderates centrist types, facillating between the two parties. That's why
Speaker 1: the closing TV ads of your youth used to sound
Speaker 1: so bipartisan. Democrats would brag about working with Republicans, Republicans
Speaker 1: like John McCain or Republicans like you know, Jim Bush
Speaker 1: or something like that. Republicans would point out deals that
Speaker 1: they cut with Democrats, Democrats like Ted Kennedy. You know,
Speaker 1: you'd pick the most you know, even the most ideological
Speaker 1: candidates in their final ads wanted to look like they
Speaker 1: knew how to be consensus builders. Right. You know, why
Speaker 1: did we find out about orn Hatch and Ted Kennedy
Speaker 1: Because the oarrn Hatch wanted it, brag about it. He
Speaker 1: thought it was good politics for him. By the way,
Speaker 1: Kennedy thought it was good politics for him to brag
Speaker 1: about his relationship with orn Hatch. Because the belief was simple,
Speaker 1: undecideds were wouable if you could sound more consensus oriented
Speaker 1: than the other guy. But two thousand and four changed that.
Speaker 1: Karl Rove and the Bush reelection campaign team pioneered what
Speaker 1: we called what we called then and what we still
Speaker 1: kind of call micro targeting. They built detailed voter files
Speaker 1: that told them exactly what church you went to, what
Speaker 1: magazines you subscribed to, Yes, magazines, now, of course it
Speaker 1: would be what subscriptions you have on the internet. But
Speaker 1: stay with me here, what causes you supported? And suddenly
Speaker 1: campaigns didn't have to guess about undecided They actually knew
Speaker 1: who they were. And the big discovery the undecideds weren't centrist,
Speaker 1: not at all. They were independent, but they were independents
Speaker 1: who didn't fit neatly into either party. But they had
Speaker 1: strong views on certain issues right, which kept them from
Speaker 1: being in one party or the other. But if you
Speaker 1: hit those pressure points, if you told them you agreed
Speaker 1: with them on that one issue, you could win them over.
Speaker 1: You might find an independent who was an economic populist
Speaker 1: but cared about gun ownership, or you might find a
Speaker 1: fiscal conservative that cared about planned parenthood. You see where
Speaker 1: I'm going here, right, So the strategy flipped instead of
Speaker 1: we're all in this together. A kind of campaigning started,
Speaker 1: sending surgical messages to activate one slice at a time.
Speaker 1: The Obama two thousand and eight campaign, in some ways
Speaker 1: took this to another level with digital tools, and yeah,
Speaker 1: Obama wrapped it up in some unity rhetoric. No red states,
Speaker 1: no blue state, and in fact that might explain why
Speaker 1: he's the only twenty first century presidential candidate to win
Speaker 1: by more than five percentage points, right, essentially to have
Speaker 1: a decisive victory an actual popular vote mandate. But by
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, and certainly by twenty sixteen, there was no
Speaker 1: attempt at a unity messaging. Right. It was all about
Speaker 1: slicing and dicing. That was the whole ballgame. And then,
Speaker 1: of course came the big accelerant social media. Right, this
Speaker 1: all seemed to fit together. Facebook were built on the
Speaker 1: same logic as micro targeting. Right. They came up, by
Speaker 1: the way, they start up just after the micro targeting
Speaker 1: boom of campaigns and four both of those entities. Right,
Speaker 1: So it was narrow casting engagement, slicing people into categories.
Speaker 1: Campaign ads fit perfectly into that system. Division onesn't just
Speaker 1: a campaign tactic anymore. It became a business model. And
Speaker 1: the uncomfortable truth is this, our politics were less divisive
Speaker 1: when campaigns actually knew less about us, about voters, once
Speaker 1: campaigns and these tech platforms started seeing us as fragments,
Speaker 1: learning about us and fragmented pieces, if you will, well,
Speaker 1: they treated us like fragments. And when all you see
Speaker 1: are things that divide you, then it's division that becomes
Speaker 1: your identity. And that takes me to the second fork
Speaker 1: in the road. And that was the total, complete misinterpretation
Speaker 1: of the twenty twelve election that I think is one
Speaker 1: of the original sins. If you will, to borrow a phrase,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, this reelection should have been much harder. The
Speaker 1: economy was sluggish, unemployment was high. History said he was
Speaker 1: more likely to lose than win because of that high unemployment.
Speaker 1: But he didn't why well, he reframed the question. It
Speaker 1: wasn't are you better off now than you were four
Speaker 1: years ago? Considering he took over during the Great Recession?
Speaker 1: That was never going to be a good way to
Speaker 1: talk to voters. Instead, he asked, will you be better
Speaker 1: off four years from now? And then he cast met
Speaker 1: Romney as the wrong answer, the out of touch boss
Speaker 1: who wasn't on your side. One of the best examples
Speaker 1: of this strategy came on Saturdays in the fall of
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. The Obama campaign bought up airtime on the
Speaker 1: Big ten network, something campaigns hadn't done before at the time,
Speaker 1: college football Saturdays, and they hammered Romney as a job
Speaker 1: outsourcered at China. These ad barely even mentioned Obama by name,
Speaker 1: basically just the Barack Obama and I paid for this.
Speaker 1: That was it. The entire thing was aimed squarely at
Speaker 1: working class voters in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, all
Speaker 1: five states Obama would carry in twenty twelve, by the way,
Speaker 1: and of course these are the very states that that
Speaker 1: working class coalition became the heart of Trump's mega coalition.
Speaker 1: But at its core, what Obama was appealing to was class,
Speaker 1: not identity. Obama won those voters by convincing them Romney
Speaker 1: didn't understand their lives, he was out of touch, He
Speaker 1: didn't get them. I'm with you, he's not right. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: I've always believed that's the most important question. You know,
Speaker 1: who's with you? Who do you think's with you? But
Speaker 1: it's not the lesson Democrats absorbed from that victory in
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. Instead, they convinced themselves Obama had won because
Speaker 1: of demographics, because of the so called coalition of the
Speaker 1: ascendant black voters, Latino voters, young people's, single women. They
Speaker 1: believe demographics were destiny. Ironically, Republicans at the time, pre
Speaker 1: Trump Republicans drew the same conclusion, just in reverse. They're
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen Autopsy said they needed to reach out to
Speaker 1: minority voters because identity was going to dominate future politics. Right,
Speaker 1: both parties embraced this what now looks like faulty conventional
Speaker 1: wisdom about what happened in twenty twelve. But what if
Speaker 1: that was the wrong lesson? I think it was. What
Speaker 1: if the real reason Obama won was class? What if
Speaker 1: the decisive blow was Romney's forty seven percent remark. If
Speaker 1: that's true, then Democrats spent the last decade chasing the
Speaker 1: wrong's strategy, doubling down in identity politics just as class
Speaker 1: was reasserting itself. Clinton leaned into the first woman president
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, break shattering the glass ceiling. While Trump
Speaker 1: talked about forgotten men and women, Biden tried to reclean
Speaker 1: some of the class frame in twenty twenty, but the
Speaker 1: party still treated identity as its foundation. Hence the promises
Speaker 1: he made about VP and about the Spring Court. Those
Speaker 1: were identity promises, not class promises. By twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: that coalition of the ascendant theory was exhausted and clearly
Speaker 1: not big enough to win in the irony here. Trump's populism,
Speaker 1: as cynical as it is at times, actually as more
Speaker 1: in common with Obama's twenty twelve message, even mon Dail's
Speaker 1: appeals back in nineteen eighty four to working class solidarity
Speaker 1: than with Reagan's or Bush's republicanism. And that's the thing
Speaker 1: you cannot ever forget right. The real divide of our
Speaker 1: era hasn't been race or cultural identity. It's been class. Right,
Speaker 1: It's what drove us in the twentieth century. So what
Speaker 1: are the consequences of basically these two forks in the row.
Speaker 1: Put them together micro targeting and the misreading of twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: and you get today's politics. Campaigns that no longer practice
Speaker 1: the muscle of unity, parties that organize themselves in identity silos.
Speaker 1: Social media amplifies it all, and it creates a self
Speaker 1: reinforcing cycle. Campaigns fragment us to win. Platforms reward division
Speaker 1: because division drives engagement. Voters consume difference and sort themselves
Speaker 1: more deeply into tribes, focusing on difference rather than on
Speaker 1: what unites us, and parties double down on identity appeals,
Speaker 1: treating consensus as weakness. Right, the result of politics that
Speaker 1: overvalues division at the expense of coalition. You know, be
Speaker 1: careful when somebody says, well, you got to stand for something. Well,
Speaker 1: the something can be to bring the country together. That's
Speaker 1: not a bullshit something. I think it's a good something.
Speaker 1: But it shows up not just in campaigns, now shows
Speaker 1: up in governing. Politicians who win by scraping fifty percent
Speaker 1: plus one feel no obligation to reach beyond that slice.
Speaker 1: Just look at how partisan lely both Greg Abbott and
Speaker 1: Rond De Santis govern the state of Texas. They do
Speaker 1: not govern the state of Texas as a whole or
Speaker 1: the state of Florida as a whole. They only govern
Speaker 1: the red parts. Right. They almost go to war with
Speaker 1: the blue cities if they can. They think that's good politics.
Speaker 1: But here's the irony. America's strength has always been the
Speaker 1: opposite We're not an ethnic nation, we're not a religious nation.
Speaker 1: We're a collection of people from everywhere are bound by
Speaker 1: an idea, and at our best moments, our politics reflects that.
Speaker 1: And here's where I want to leave you. It's worth
Speaker 1: remembering the public does respond to unity messages if they're
Speaker 1: delivered authentically. Right. Think back to Reagan's nineteen eighty four
Speaker 1: Morning in America ad. That wasn't a micro targeted message.
Speaker 1: It was a broad appeal to shared optimism, and it
Speaker 1: worked across party lines. Obama's twenty oh four keynote address
Speaker 1: really resonated. There is not a liberal America and a
Speaker 1: conservative America. There is the United States of America. Speech
Speaker 1: launched them nationally because people wanted to believe that messaging.
Speaker 1: The lesson isn't that unity is easy or that division
Speaker 1: will disappear. The lesson is that politicians still have a choice.
Speaker 1: You can be a fifty percent plus one leader and
Speaker 1: lead by division and survive politically by division. It's a
Speaker 1: way to win, it's a way to stay in office.
Speaker 1: It's not a way to be in the history books.
Speaker 1: Or you can claim to be a sixty percent consensus leader.
Speaker 1: One is arithmetic, the other is nation building. We haven't
Speaker 1: had a nation builder as president arguably since Obama this century,
Speaker 1: and you know we haven't. You know. The irony is
Speaker 1: that that that you know, and maybe that was the
Speaker 1: Cold War mentality that made us think we needed to
Speaker 1: think this one because Reagan and Clinton in many ways
Speaker 1: shared very similar rhetoric, even as they were of two
Speaker 1: different political parties. Because that was the twentieth century rewarded
Speaker 1: leaders who spoke to the whole. The twenty first century
Speaker 1: so far as rewarded those who narrow cast to the part,
Speaker 1: but pendulum swing and when the next leader comes along,
Speaker 1: who can authentically summon the politics of unity, not just
Speaker 1: say the words, but actually do it. Indeed, we're going
Speaker 1: to rediscover something important. Americans still want to hear this,
Speaker 1: they still want to believe this, and most importantly, I
Speaker 1: think they want to see US government that way. So
Speaker 1: with that, we'll sneak in a break. How are that?
Speaker 1: Let me take a few questions ask Chuck. First, one
Speaker 1: comes from John in Memphis and he says, I've really
Speaker 1: enjoyed how your new media venture lets you take off
Speaker 1: the gloves when analyzing the news. It's interesting that you
Speaker 1: put it that way. I feel like I've always been this,
Speaker 1: but I might I will confess to you maybe rounding
Speaker 1: the edges in order to please bosses at times. Right,
Speaker 1: as he said, it's been refreshing and insightful. For years,
Speaker 1: I've been trying to understand the mindset of those who
Speaker 1: took over the GOP and the Trump earrow, and your
Speaker 1: ability to cut through the contradictions is invaluable. My question
Speaker 1: is about the Republican diaspora. Do you think there's a
Speaker 1: sizeable group of classic Reagan Conservatives outside of the Cheneys
Speaker 1: and Kinsingers who are horrified by today's GOP but too
Speaker 1: quiet to see if so, have they given up or
Speaker 1: where are they? Well? I think that's the million dollar question, right.
Speaker 1: I think we found out how many of them show
Speaker 1: up to Republican primaries. Was what was Nikki Haley's vote total?
Speaker 1: Somewhere somewhere between twenty percent and maybe thirty five percent
Speaker 1: depending on the state. So it's about a third of
Speaker 1: the party, okay, And I think this is what's made
Speaker 1: the Democrats have a hard time figuring out how to
Speaker 1: talk to these folks and why in some ways they
Speaker 1: haven't won them over very well. Because the Democrats are
Speaker 1: in their own sort of what identity crisis, right, sort
Speaker 1: of pre you have the consensus Democrats versus probably the
Speaker 1: progressive Democrats, right, those that look at what the look
Speaker 1: at Trump's success and say, hey, he stood for something,
Speaker 1: and this gets it to my whole point. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: he did it through the politics of division and in
Speaker 1: some ways progressive. You know, to stand for something in
Speaker 1: progressive politics, you're also sort of embracing a form of
Speaker 1: that politics of division, because you know, it's an US
Speaker 1: and against you know, in some form or another. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if that can successfully woo that center
Speaker 1: right voter. Right that it's really the we used to
Speaker 1: call it the managerial class, right, This where the white
Speaker 1: collar workers, the ones that are homeowners, that were classically
Speaker 1: sort of Eisenhower Republicans, you know, I think of the
Speaker 1: happy days that used to be the first place where
Speaker 1: you saw that the kids were for Stevenson and the
Speaker 1: parents were for Eisenhower, that sort of mindset. So it is.
Speaker 1: I So I do think there is that the it's
Speaker 1: sort of the business class, right, the ones that want stability,
Speaker 1: that's really what they're craving. Stability. It's why I think
Speaker 1: some of these why Biden seems so appealing to this crowd, right?
Speaker 1: Do why John Kasick, John kay Sick, in some ways
Speaker 1: is probably the best avatar for the Republican you're asking
Speaker 1: me about. He left the party, he supported Biden, and
Speaker 1: he couldn't support him again. Right, He thought Biden was
Speaker 1: going to be a consensus Democrat and instead Biden govern
Speaker 1: more to the left, right, more progressive, sort of leaned
Speaker 1: in on that end of the spectrum. And I do
Speaker 1: think it turned off that group of Republicans. I don't
Speaker 1: know where they went. Right. Some of them, I think
Speaker 1: clearly voted for Trump more as an against vote. Some
Speaker 1: of them may have voted third party, or some of
Speaker 1: them may have skipped the ballot in the presidential a
Speaker 1: little bit. So I think we're going to the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight primary could tell us something, right, I guess
Speaker 1: the real question is if Trump is considered to be
Speaker 1: a failed president, and to me, it'll be how what
Speaker 1: does the economy look like in the fall of twenty
Speaker 1: seven when the presidential campaign is starting to kick in.
Speaker 1: Is his theory of the case right or wrong? Right?
Speaker 1: Did the tariffs work or are they considered a spectacular failure?
Speaker 1: And I think by the fall of twenty seven will
Speaker 1: have a clear answer on this. And if it's a failure,
Speaker 1: I think I think you will see this silent minority
Speaker 1: of Republicans begin to speak up. But if it's seen
Speaker 1: as semi successful, some of them may become like Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio and just acquiesce and move closer into that direction. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, the polling indicates if you look at
Speaker 1: the primary season in twenty four, it's somewhere in the
Speaker 1: twenty to thirty five. You know, I think it's about
Speaker 1: a third of the party that fits your definition there.
Speaker 1: The question is whether they're in many cases they're the
Speaker 1: donor class. That's the irony here, the big donor class.
Speaker 1: I don't think they liked this economic model that Trump
Speaker 1: is put together. Do they reassert them? So I think
Speaker 1: if it's seen as a collective failure in a couple
Speaker 1: of years, I think this this winging tries to reassert itself.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from a Receives Pallo from three es Day, Italy.
Speaker 1: Dear mister toddam an Italian engineer who has followed your
Speaker 1: work since twenty eighteen, and I appreciate how you called
Speaker 1: out health Secretary Kennedy and the Gang of ding Dong's
Speaker 1: for undermining the US health system. We faced a similar
Speaker 1: situation in Italy when two anti VAXX figures were appointed
Speaker 1: to our National Vaccine Council, until public pressure forced their removal.
Speaker 1: I've just finished Why the South Won the Civil War
Speaker 1: by Heather Cox Richardson, and I was struck by the
Speaker 1: parallels between the oligarchs of eighteen sixty fighting to preserve
Speaker 1: privilege in today's elites working to restore it, except now
Speaker 1: the president seems aligned with them. My question is, have
Speaker 1: you read the book and do you think history is
Speaker 1: repeating itself in this way. I've not read that book,
Speaker 1: and I actually I have a similar thesis, but it
Speaker 1: isn't it's less. I mean, there was some of that.
Speaker 1: I think it's I think the better comparison is really
Speaker 1: twenty years later and sort of what we saw the
Speaker 1: Republican Party of the late nineteenth century morph into, which
Speaker 1: did into sort of the you know, where they sort
Speaker 1: of align themselves with the industrialists if you will, And
Speaker 1: you know, there was you could argue that in eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty there were different you know, you had some that
Speaker 1: were making a business case against slavery and some that
Speaker 1: were making a business case against disrupting the Southern economy,
Speaker 1: which is one of the arguments that gets made about
Speaker 1: that period of time. I think it's just a clearer contrast.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's just all about what are you
Speaker 1: Are you comparing it to the essentially the eighteen fifties,
Speaker 1: or are you comparing it what I think we're sort
Speaker 1: of repeating, which is circa eighteen eighty to nineteen nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty eight, right, which you know culminated with the Great Depression,
Speaker 1: and that was a huge right and in that sense
Speaker 1: you had the Republican Party of that era align itself
Speaker 1: with the industrialists, and the protectionism was about protecting American
Speaker 1: business because back then trade seemed common implicated and if anything,
Speaker 1: we were always trying to protect our borders. It is
Speaker 1: you know, today's big business would prefer to be global.
Speaker 1: The industrialists of the eighteen nineties through the nineteen twenties
Speaker 1: they wanted they didn't they didn't see any money to
Speaker 1: be made overseas. They wanted to protect their investments here.
Speaker 1: And so that's where I think the brologarchs and the
Speaker 1: industrialists at that era sort of that that is where
Speaker 1: the commonality is. So I don't, like I said, I
Speaker 1: think there is. They definitely think that. I guess I'm
Speaker 1: more of post Civil war. Our post civil war politics
Speaker 1: is where what today feels like more so than the
Speaker 1: pre Civil war politics. But you know, from sixty thousand feet,
Speaker 1: her thesis and my thesis look more similar than different
Speaker 1: on that, so I do need it to I've read
Speaker 1: her columns on this, but I will She's not. She's
Speaker 1: not the first one to sort of frame that, right.
Speaker 1: You know, there's always been this idea that the South
Speaker 1: lost on the battlefield but won the culture right, and
Speaker 1: the longer we go right, they won the post war
Speaker 1: with the with with all the rise of the anti
Speaker 1: Bellum movement and all that business that they've they've done
Speaker 1: a better. You know. It's sort of like the Russians,
Speaker 1: right lost, the lost the Cold War, yet Putin has
Speaker 1: done a better job spinning things on Russia's behalf sometimes
Speaker 1: than the West has. And in this case, the South
Speaker 1: has done a better job spinning things and winning the
Speaker 1: culture even as they lost on the battlefield and lost
Speaker 1: in the at the battot box for a time. Next
Speaker 1: question comes from anonymous all Right, isn't anyone worried about
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump might be trying to take over
Speaker 1: the capital so that he can dictate the results of
Speaker 1: the next presidential election. He tried to do the same
Speaker 1: thing last time around, but the DC police stopped him.
Speaker 1: With Republican States sending the National Guard into DC, it
Speaker 1: would seem that the stage is being set for conflict
Speaker 1: between the red and blue states. Well, I am as
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's a you can look at
Speaker 1: things through one eye and say, Jesus, this is This
Speaker 1: goes back to a bit of this the last question.
Speaker 1: This is the eighteen fifties, and we're on our way
Speaker 1: to some sort of war between the states. Right. This
Speaker 1: redistricting battle between Texas and California is a proxy. Right,
Speaker 1: It's a war between the states. Right, The fight for
Speaker 1: political power of the country is being waged state by state.
Speaker 1: That's a similarity. That's a little bit uncomfortable think about.
Speaker 1: Look at this point, I still believe in the will
Speaker 1: of the voter to win out. But I do think
Speaker 1: it's obvious that Donald Trump is not a constitutionalist, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'm of the if we're going
Speaker 1: to sort ourselves right now, let's sort ourselves properly. Are
Speaker 1: you a constantitutionalists or aren't you? You don't have to
Speaker 1: be an ideological agreement on ideas on what to do
Speaker 1: with the economy, what to do with healthcare, things like that,
Speaker 1: to be on the same side when it comes to
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and it's clear he doesn't believe in it,
Speaker 1: he doesn't care about the separation of powers, that stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's frustrating to me when somebody
Speaker 1: is in that high of elective office and probably has
Speaker 1: never read a federalist paper. You know, I sort of
Speaker 1: look at this, you know, I want somebody who wants
Speaker 1: to be a senator or a member of Congress to
Speaker 1: know more about this stuff than I do. And it
Speaker 1: bugs the shit out of me when it's crystal clear
Speaker 1: these people hold offices are that only exists because of
Speaker 1: the Constitution, and yet they've never bothered to read the history.
Speaker 1: You know, when I join a company, I like to
Speaker 1: know the history of the company. How did it become
Speaker 1: what it is? Right? I like, you know it is.
Speaker 1: It is startling to me how few, how few folks
Speaker 1: really and truly understand right that the Constitution was a
Speaker 1: compromise right, the entire country was formed. The Republic was
Speaker 1: formed as a compromise because we didn't have consensus on
Speaker 1: what kind of breakoff country we should be, so we
Speaker 1: came up with the best way to create compromise anywhere
Speaker 1: we could find it. And when you see, you know,
Speaker 1: he just doesn't believe in these things, and so you know,
Speaker 1: I'm concerned he could use he could sort of use
Speaker 1: the will of the people in his head. You know, Hey,
Speaker 1: this is what they wanted. So I'm gonna abide by
Speaker 1: that as a way to break constitutional restrictions, like when
Speaker 1: it comes to the vote count, running for a third term,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I will say this, one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I'm less worked up about Trump running a fourth time,
Speaker 1: trying to get a third term, or whether he abides
Speaker 1: by the elections or not, frankly, is is he doesn't
Speaker 1: live a very healthy life. And he you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think you know, I just don't think he's I
Speaker 1: don't think he's going to be healthy enough to run
Speaker 1: for president again. And I think that's going to get
Speaker 1: clear and clear. All the time. We've seen some of
Speaker 1: the some of the symptoms that he seems to have,
Speaker 1: so he's he's going to have to. You know, Mother
Speaker 1: Nature and Father Time are both undefeated on that front.
Speaker 1: But you know, he certainly is feeling his oats and
Speaker 1: he is. There's no doubt that he has an information
Speaker 1: feedback loop that is really warped that he doesn't sort
Speaker 1: of understand how unpopular he actually is outside of his
Speaker 1: group of folks. But you know, I understand. Here's the thing.
Speaker 1: I always two years ago, I would have dismissed your
Speaker 1: comment as alarmist, and I'm not going to do that now.
Speaker 1: I just think we should be prepared for anything, and
Speaker 1: we should be prepared for anything. I still have faith
Speaker 1: in the American voter. I still have faith in over
Speaker 1: time we're going to get it right, and that the
Speaker 1: voter sentiment is going to win out, and that there
Speaker 1: are there's still there's still a there's still some good
Speaker 1: in Darth Vader, whoever you view as Darth Vader in
Speaker 1: this moment. I'm going to leave it at that. On
Speaker 1: that uplifting Darth Vader moment, Right, We've got to hope
Speaker 1: that maybe Star Wars shows the way just a little bit,
Speaker 1: just a little bit. There's always there's always someone who
Speaker 1: can't who can't truly you know, somebody is going to
Speaker 1: step up. I'll put it this way. It's something I
Speaker 1: said to them. I've said to my own family members
Speaker 1: over time. Be careful judging some people in the moment,
Speaker 1: because you never know when one of these people you
Speaker 1: don't like in the moment becomes the hero that stands
Speaker 1: in the breach. Think Mike Pence January sixth, Think Liz Cheney,
Speaker 1: I think John Bolton. These are people that I bet
Speaker 1: you some of you listening to circa twenty sixteen didn't
Speaker 1: have you didn't think much of them. What do you
Speaker 1: think about those people today? There's you know, I still
Speaker 1: think that that you sort of have to at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. Right, Democracy only thrives if the
Speaker 1: will of the people is respected and if the will
Speaker 1: of the people is noticed. And I guess I'd like
Speaker 1: to think that both of those things are still going
Speaker 1: to be true with just enough people to keep us
Speaker 1: from totally collapsing. But I can't dismiss your question and
Speaker 1: your concern that I can. All right, for that, We'll
Speaker 1: take a twenty for hour break until we upload again.