Speaker 1: Well, welcome to the first full week of May. Here's
Speaker 1: the most important thing you need to know about this week.
Speaker 1: Sunday is Mother's Day, sons and husband's Sunday is Mother's Day.
Speaker 1: You know what that means. You still got time to
Speaker 1: do all the delivery type things when you're hearing this podcast.
Speaker 1: This is a public service message for myself, my son,
Speaker 1: and all the husbands and sons out there who can't
Speaker 1: wait till Saturday or Friday night to try to pull
Speaker 1: this off. For the mothers, the grandmother's, Hi mom, and
Speaker 1: all the other special moms of all sorts in your life.
Speaker 1: So keep that in mind. I look forward to President
Speaker 1: Trump going on truth social and wishing all the mothers,
Speaker 1: even the losers, loser mothers, and the hater mothers, happy
Speaker 1: Mother's Day. I'm sure that will be coming coming quite soon.
Speaker 1: But I thought, if I can do anything for you
Speaker 1: as a public service, it is that it is Actually
Speaker 1: took a bit of a quick weekend respite. So what
Speaker 1: did that really mean. It meant I got to navigate
Speaker 1: Newark Airport. And if you followed my x feed at all,
Speaker 1: you will know this. In the entire Northeast corridor, here
Speaker 1: is the bottom line, all of the tri state leaders
Speaker 1: need to get together. This is a mess. The train
Speaker 1: situation is a mess. The Newark situation is a mess.
Speaker 1: This is as big of a travel corridor as there is.
Speaker 1: This is what makes people either trust government or not
Speaker 1: trust government. Get this stuff right and they're amazed and impressed.
Speaker 1: Get this stuff wrong, and this is what sort of
Speaker 1: can leave a mark. And let's just say, look, there
Speaker 1: has definitely been I think the Northeast Corridor has a
Speaker 1: few disadvantages. Politically, it is considered a bluer area. It
Speaker 1: is made getting sometimes Republican support for various transportation projects
Speaker 1: that would be helpful in the Northeast corridor not necessarily
Speaker 1: helpful in other parts of the country. It is tough
Speaker 1: to get bipartisan support for this sometime. But look, this
Speaker 1: is an important economic engine. The Northeast Corridor is the
Speaker 1: gateway to this country when people come in. So it
Speaker 1: is something everybody and of course it's really important when
Speaker 1: it affects me, right, because that's what that's why we've
Speaker 1: all started podcasts in order to get our own grievances
Speaker 1: out of the way. So what grinds my gears is
Speaker 1: that I semits. But the point is it is a
Speaker 1: reminder of how government leaves an impression on the average person.
Speaker 1: You may not be paying attention to politics, but you
Speaker 1: pay attention when you can't get from point A to
Speaker 1: point B. And this is the type of stuff. When
Speaker 1: people are paying attention to government not working, it means
Speaker 1: you have somehow interrupted their lives. Right. There's sort of
Speaker 1: two types of voters, those that pay attention and those
Speaker 1: that tune in on election day. And if you're disrupting
Speaker 1: those that tune in on election day, they're the ones
Speaker 1: that can turn election days into blue waves or red waves,
Speaker 1: depending on who is in power. And that brings me
Speaker 1: a little bit. As much as I'd like to wax
Speaker 1: eloquently about the Alcatraz decision, I will just say one
Speaker 1: thing about Alcatraz and the movie business. This idea of
Speaker 1: tifying all movies that come from overseas note when they
Speaker 1: came out. I don't think Donald Trump thought as Meet
Speaker 1: the Press interview went very well. I think two things
Speaker 1: really stayed sticky and I think will stick to him
Speaker 1: from that interview. In particular, asked about following the Constitution,
Speaker 1: I don't know, even though he actually takes an oath
Speaker 1: of office that says he promised he's going to defend
Speaker 1: and protect the Constitution. He said, I don't know to
Speaker 1: that when it came to following the Constitution. And then
Speaker 1: he continues to double down in this idea that he's
Speaker 1: going to play mister Scrooge and well, you know, two
Speaker 1: dollars is enough. Well what about the person that can't
Speaker 1: even afford the two dollars? What about that family? And
Speaker 1: what's he going to say to them? It is an
Speaker 1: unusual and watching sort of former Republicans who do not
Speaker 1: like the idea of government deciding how many of anything
Speaker 1: you can have, you can you know, sort of this idea,
Speaker 1: this is this is what communism is about. Let's limit
Speaker 1: the resources. You will hold back, you will decide, you know,
Speaker 1: hoard and and you know, you get two pieces, two
Speaker 1: loaves of bread for this family of six, but a
Speaker 1: family of four gets one loaf of bread because that's
Speaker 1: the rules from central from the central government. It is
Speaker 1: a really weird place for President Trump to be going,
Speaker 1: and it only I think invites more problems for the
Speaker 1: Republicans as a whole in general. And again it continues
Speaker 1: this uncomfortable ideological realignment that's taking place inside what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to call our conservative party. But we've been going
Speaker 1: through this. What is a conservative right? I always, you know,
Speaker 1: the first word matters here conserve, which is less government,
Speaker 1: you conserve the amount of And in some ways, sure,
Speaker 1: he's trying to whack government with the sort of the
Speaker 1: chainsaw and doge, but he also wants to use weaponize
Speaker 1: government when it suits him. He wants to strengthen government
Speaker 1: when it suits him. Decide who gets a doll and
Speaker 1: who doesn't get a doll, Decide when there's a military
Speaker 1: parade for his birthday, and things like that. So what
Speaker 1: I would point out is I think it is not
Speaker 1: an accident that by Sunday evening he needed a couple
Speaker 1: of shiny metal object type of stories, and Alcatraz is
Speaker 1: one of those shiny metal object stories as well as
Speaker 1: somehow attacking Hollywood that would feed his base. And at
Speaker 1: the same time, perhaps you know, do his little Jedi
Speaker 1: mind trick on the news cycle. Pay no attention to
Speaker 1: what I said about the Constitution, pay no attention to
Speaker 1: what I said about about restricting the amount of toys
Speaker 1: that come for Christmas. Instead, look over here, look over there,
Speaker 1: welcome to the rock. So for me, I look at
Speaker 1: the Alcatraz float and the and the movie business as
Speaker 1: simply distraction items. And this is what he's quite good at, right,
Speaker 1: this is what makes him. He's so wired for a
Speaker 1: short attention span world. He has sort of built. I
Speaker 1: always said this, He's been built this way his whole life.
Speaker 1: Our media environment just caught up to his short attention span.
Speaker 1: And now he is what his mainstream fits right into
Speaker 1: Trump's mindset. So he sort of the moment the moment
Speaker 1: grew to him. He didn't meet the moment the moment
Speaker 1: met him, and here we are. So that's the way
Speaker 1: I sort of compartmentalize those two. And look, this isn't
Speaker 1: easy the decision. How do you cover an now Alcatraze.
Speaker 1: It's a ridiculous story. It's too small. Anything on an
Speaker 1: island is a big you know, going to cost a
Speaker 1: lot of money. This is you know, I have no
Speaker 1: doubt in his head. He's just excited by the idea
Speaker 1: of America's worst criminals being, you know, just a few
Speaker 1: miles off the coast of San Francisco, his favorite city,
Speaker 1: wink wink. But I thought I would focus before my
Speaker 1: guests on this episode's gonna be Jay Insley. In fact,
Speaker 1: the next couple of days, I'm gonna have governors from
Speaker 1: both sides of the Ay. I've got Jay Insley coming up,
Speaker 1: got John Kasick coming up to sort of two guys
Speaker 1: that have run for president, two guys that have were successful,
Speaker 1: won a three term governor, won a two term governor.
Speaker 1: You know there was it wasn't when I first started
Speaker 1: covering politics, Washington State was a swing state. It has
Speaker 1: moved sharply. A lot of the coast have moved sharply.
Speaker 1: Back to nineteen ninety two, California was a swing state,
Speaker 1: was considered a swing state. But what Jay Insley did
Speaker 1: three terms in a row, I believe Washington State right
Speaker 1: now has the longest streak of one part rule for
Speaker 1: governor going He had certainly had a very consequential twelve years.
Speaker 1: Ran for president on a single issue, climate change. It's
Speaker 1: an interesting conversation and he certainly has his belief on
Speaker 1: the role that the Democratic Party and government ought to
Speaker 1: play in this issue of climate change. And he certainly
Speaker 1: has some strong feelings about Donald Trump. I won't tease
Speaker 1: the John Kasik interview. That'll be coming up later in
Speaker 1: the week. But because I have a couple of governors
Speaker 1: who are very camp you know, sort of political guys,
Speaker 1: I thought this would be a good time to sort
Speaker 1: of take the temperature of campaign twenty twenty six, if
Speaker 1: you will. As you know, the last time we chatted,
Speaker 1: I threw in a couple of other Democrats that had
Speaker 1: a very strong first hundred days, in particular Abigail Spaanbergert,
Speaker 1: who is now the clear favorite to be the next
Speaker 1: governor of Virginia. And there's a variety of reasons for that.
Speaker 1: One is I think she ideologically fits. She's in the
Speaker 1: much closer to the center, which is I think in
Speaker 1: these light blue and light red states is where the
Speaker 1: Democrats have to be if they are going to have
Speaker 1: a chance to successfully win statewide. Number one and number two,
Speaker 1: government workers are just really ticked off at this administration.
Speaker 1: Whenever government workers are fired up to vote, that's usually
Speaker 1: bad news for Republicans in the state of Virginia, and
Speaker 1: so that was obviously one of the reasons there. Look
Speaker 1: right now in campaign twenty twenty six, the biggest news
Speaker 1: over the last ninety six hours was another recruiting failure
Speaker 1: for the Republicans when it came to some key Senate races,
Speaker 1: specifically what's going on in Georgia where the governor there,
Speaker 1: Brian Kemp, passed on a bid to take on incumbent
Speaker 1: Democratic Senator John Ossa. And I think Kemp's decision when
Speaker 1: you couple it with the decision of now former governor
Speaker 1: Chris Sununu in New Hampshire deciding an open seat, not
Speaker 1: even having to challenge the sitting incumbent. This would be
Speaker 1: an open seat race for him, he'd likely be the
Speaker 1: front runner right away, but he decided not to. And
Speaker 1: I think there's there's a couple of reasons. One is,
Speaker 1: and this is something that I've experienced over the years.
Speaker 1: Any of the senators that used to be governors, the
Speaker 1: path from governor to senator. You talk to any former
Speaker 1: governor who's serving in the Senate and you ask them
Speaker 1: which job they like better. None of them hesitate. They
Speaker 1: in fact now they hate the Senate. The way the
Speaker 1: Senate works, it's dysfunctional. It's not bipartisan anymore. It's still
Speaker 1: more bipartisan in the House, but it's less bipartisan than
Speaker 1: it ever was. It's hard to get stuff done because
Speaker 1: the party leadership runs the Senate. Now, committee chairs don't
Speaker 1: have the power they used to have. The Senate is
Speaker 1: a terrible is a terrible place to be compared to
Speaker 1: what it was just twenty years ago, thirty years ago.
Speaker 1: It is not the same place. It is not a
Speaker 1: deliberative body. They don't deliberate squat anymore. Yes, you might
Speaker 1: occasionally get an interesting day long filibuster, it's about the
Speaker 1: only time you see any deliberation. If there is any,
Speaker 1: you don't see real debate. That would be kind of nice.
Speaker 1: There was a time that actually happened in the Senate,
Speaker 1: even in my lifetime. But this isn't This isn't the
Speaker 1: way it is. So it is not surprising to me
Speaker 1: if Brian Kemp calls up any former Senators that he
Speaker 1: knows or current senators that he knows, what do you
Speaker 1: think of the place, they are going to tell them
Speaker 1: it stinks. Ask the current list of governors will complain
Speaker 1: about the place. Mark Warner missus being governor, John Hickenlooper
Speaker 1: missus being governor, Mike Bround's missus being governor. So and
Speaker 1: none of those guys will tell you that the Senate
Speaker 1: is a better job than that. So I don't want
Speaker 1: to sit here and just simply say these are a
Speaker 1: couple of Republican governors who assess the political landscape and
Speaker 1: it's a bad year to run. Even if it were
Speaker 1: a good year to run, the Senate doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: it's going to be a great place to be. But
Speaker 1: the second thing that I is going on, here's the
Speaker 1: political landscape. I mean, if you're you know, it's pretty
Speaker 1: If recent history is any guide, twenty twenty six is
Speaker 1: going to be advantage de rats. The question is how
Speaker 1: big of an advantage is it a small advantage? You know,
Speaker 1: the way it was in the in some races sort
Speaker 1: of in twenty twenty two, it was sort of a
Speaker 1: mixed bag with a slight advantage of the Republicans. They
Speaker 1: always had a little more wind at the back. That's
Speaker 1: why they won the won the House, but they couldn't
Speaker 1: pull off the Senate, mostly due to bad nominees sort
Speaker 1: of trumpet trumpet candidates that were just too trumpy when
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't on the ballot. And that's the other thing.
Speaker 1: With Trump not on the ballot, we've seen a couple
Speaker 1: of midterms when that happens, Republican performance goes down, Democratic
Speaker 1: performance seems to grow, So you have to assess the
Speaker 1: situation that way, So you know it is it is
Speaker 1: all of a sudden if you're a Republican challenger, but
Speaker 1: you have to behave like the incumbent because it's really
Speaker 1: an election about the party and the White House. So
Speaker 1: I understand why it's not appealing to quote unquote be
Speaker 1: a challenger but have to behave or get treated by
Speaker 1: the by the electorate as an incumbent. And that's what
Speaker 1: both Chris Nuknew and Brian him would be walking into there. Now, look,
Speaker 1: the Senate map is not great. Not only do they
Speaker 1: have to win four seats in order to take the Senate,
Speaker 1: they have to defend four open seats plus the Georgia
Speaker 1: Senate seat with John ast Off, which is going to
Speaker 1: be noisy feat. So you're essentially looking at five races.
Speaker 1: The four opens Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Illinois. And look,
Speaker 1: do I think Illinois is going to be that competitive
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. Probably not, But it's
Speaker 1: an open seat and it's going to be a really
Speaker 1: crowded Democratic primary, and what if the Democrats nominate somebody
Speaker 1: too far to the left that gives an opening to somebody,
Speaker 1: It's unlikely, considering that MAGA seems to be the more
Speaker 1: dominant force in Republican primaries. Rarely does do moderate Republicans
Speaker 1: get through. I guess Glenn Younkins sort of kind of
Speaker 1: was at least less MAGA E than most, which is
Speaker 1: why he was able to, I think, perform, you know,
Speaker 1: pull off the upset that he did in Virginia governor
Speaker 1: back in twenty twenty one. So you look at that,
Speaker 1: and that's a tough An area. And then you look
Speaker 1: at the Republican seats in theory that are in the
Speaker 1: competitive states. Right you have Maine and North Carolina are
Speaker 1: really the only two Republican health seats that jump out
Speaker 1: at you. And so then the question is what are
Speaker 1: the ones that can put into play? Well, this is
Speaker 1: where I think if you're the Democrats, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's a plausible path yet to the majority. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing it has The path for the Democrats has
Speaker 1: gotten better than it was one hundred days ago. Right, Yes,
Speaker 1: they've got these open seat problems, but they don't have
Speaker 1: major challengers, good challengers and Republican candidates. I think they
Speaker 1: didn't get the best candidate they could have gotten in
Speaker 1: Michigan Senate. I think John James would have been better
Speaker 1: than Mike Rodgers. There. They're not getting their strongest candidate.
Speaker 1: In New Hampshire, They're not getting their strongest candidate in Georgia.
Speaker 1: It is Minnesota is just a mess of a situation
Speaker 1: for the Republican Party there. And then I, you know,
Speaker 1: do I are there some modern Republicans you know, on
Speaker 1: a previous on Earth too? Adam Kinsinger is running for
Speaker 1: the US Senate in Illinois and would have a boxer's
Speaker 1: chance in a off year like this. But Adam Kinsinger's
Speaker 1: no Republican anymore. And I think we all know that
Speaker 1: that ship has sailed a long time ago. You know,
Speaker 1: I could have seen a Darren Lehood put that race
Speaker 1: in play again in a non trumpy atmosphere, but I
Speaker 1: can't imagine it. So you have that situation. Then you
Speaker 1: have these primary challengers to sitting Republican incumbents in Louisiana,
Speaker 1: in Texas and North Carolina. Well, I do think Texas
Speaker 1: can get put into play if Ken Paxton knocks off
Speaker 1: Cornan in the primary. I don't think Cornyn is beatable
Speaker 1: in a general election at all by any Democrat. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of Democrats could be Ken Paxton. I
Speaker 1: think he's that polarizing and I think he becomes that
Speaker 1: problematic for the Republicans if he gets there. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how corn beats him, I really don't, but
Speaker 1: we'll see. And I'll tell you this, Cornyn will not
Speaker 1: be out and he'll not be outworked. And I think,
Speaker 1: and in some ways having he personally clearly doesn't like
Speaker 1: Ken Paxton has no respect for his character, I imagine he's motivated.
Speaker 1: You throw the fact that there are two appointed senators
Speaker 1: having to seek election on their own for the first time,
Speaker 1: one in Florida in the Rubio seat. Ashley Moody is
Speaker 1: going to be sitting in that one. And then of
Speaker 1: course you have the Ohio situation, which is a special
Speaker 1: where we have John Houston filling that seat. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you it's Ohio. You know, if shared Brown runs again,
Speaker 1: that puts potentially that seat in place. So again, what's
Speaker 1: the path look like? They got to somehow win get
Speaker 1: North carolinagain. They're going to need a governor to act
Speaker 1: a former governor who want to run on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: Roy Cooper, so they have to win North Carolina, they'd
Speaker 1: have to go win Maine. The governor there, Janet Mills,
Speaker 1: is pondering that race against Susan Collins. I'm one of
Speaker 1: those folks who thinks, you know, if you follow sort
Speaker 1: of New England Republican politics closely, there was a time
Speaker 1: when and the Chafees were impossible to beat in Rhode
Speaker 1: Island until finally a mid term happened in twenty oh
Speaker 1: six and Sheldon white House knocked off a Chafee and
Speaker 1: it's the last time a Republican held a Senate seat
Speaker 1: in Rhode Island. I have a feeling that could be
Speaker 1: what happens to Susan Collins. She's still probably the only
Speaker 1: Republican that can hold that seat, but eventually her party
Speaker 1: ID may be the reason she loses. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you this, if Paula Page being on the ballot just
Speaker 1: in one House race, I think that's actually a net
Speaker 1: negative for the Republican ticket. He's polarizing, He will bring
Speaker 1: out the wrong type of voter if you're a Republican.
Speaker 1: I think this really hurts Susan Collins. With PAULA Page
Speaker 1: sitting there and frankly, I'm I'm not one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: If you told me by the end of the summer
Speaker 1: she's announced that she's not going to run again, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't completely blow me away. I still think it's a
Speaker 1: little early in the calendar and that's still possible. So again,
Speaker 1: I got to find my math here, right. So they
Speaker 1: need four seats. They have to win North Carolina, win Maine,
Speaker 1: hold all their vulnerable seats, seats I told you about,
Speaker 1: and I'm actually pretty confident, barring in debacle here, they
Speaker 1: could do that. That's now more realistic than ever, especially
Speaker 1: when they've had Sonunu and Kemp pass. So then you're
Speaker 1: looking like, where do they find two more seats? Maybe
Speaker 1: there's Texas. I'm skeptical on Florida, and I'm somewhat skeptical
Speaker 1: about Ohio. I always say somewhat. I think if the
Speaker 1: ticket is Ramaswami at the top for governor, I think
Speaker 1: he's pretty polarizing and I think he's he's more like
Speaker 1: Vance and he'll underperform an average Republican. Does he underperform
Speaker 1: enough to bring down the ticket and to give a
Speaker 1: shared Brown a shot? Maybe maybe we'll see, And I also,
Speaker 1: But here's another sort of counter counterfactual there in Ohio.
Speaker 1: Shared Brown may be quite supportive of some of these
Speaker 1: tariffs of Trump and can he message can Hess? Can
Speaker 1: he somehow walk that line in Ohio? I don't know.
Speaker 1: So the thing that I would watch out for is,
Speaker 1: I do think if Democrats want a path, they need
Speaker 1: one more. They need to put at least one or
Speaker 1: two more Senate seats in play. I'm going to give
Speaker 1: you four states where I think they're going to attempt
Speaker 1: to try to put two of these foreign play. Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska,
Speaker 1: and Kansas. The farm states. I've talked to you about
Speaker 1: this before. Between the tariffs and the AID funding cut off,
Speaker 1: farmers have been hit hard. Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa are
Speaker 1: going to pay a price for the Trump economy that's
Speaker 1: steeper than most other states. Does that harm incumbents there?
Speaker 1: And I'll throw one other thing at you. There's been
Speaker 1: interesting speculation that if win Donald Trump finally gives up
Speaker 1: on Pete hag Set and the smart money in DC
Speaker 1: is when, not if He's going to do it on
Speaker 1: his timeline, not on the media's timeline. But we saw
Speaker 1: it already with Mike Waltz. The backup candidates probably Jony
Speaker 1: Ernst more than Tom Cotton. I know Cotton wants it.
Speaker 1: I think Laura Lumer has Cotton, has got Cotton in
Speaker 1: her crosshairs, and I think Cotton becomes an on starter
Speaker 1: for some of MAGA world. That's not the case with
Speaker 1: Joony Ernst, who sort of tries to find her way
Speaker 1: a little bit closer, you know, a little more MAGA adjacent,
Speaker 1: I think than Cotton is. And I think the there's
Speaker 1: always a I think MAGA would love to be able
Speaker 1: to say a Republican woman was the first woman head
Speaker 1: of the Pentagon. So the point is, then, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you have appointment. Why is this speculation up
Speaker 1: and running? Will Zach Nunn, who is a Republican member
Speaker 1: of Congress in the third district in Iowa. It is
Speaker 1: the swingiest of districts, it is. Frankly, he's probably the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable Republican in Iowa if he runs for reelection.
Speaker 1: Decided not to run for the open governor's race in
Speaker 1: that state, which a lot of people thought he would
Speaker 1: jump into that and didn't say right away he's running
Speaker 1: for reelection. So look, there's a lot of chatter here
Speaker 1: about Ernest Pentagon. Maybe she's not running it. Who knows,
Speaker 1: is none holding out for that. It's just something keep
Speaker 1: an eye on. Look, it's not that long ago that
Speaker 1: Iowa elected Democrats statewide, but you know, but in the
Speaker 1: Trump era, it's been a lot tougher for them. But again,
Speaker 1: without Trump on the ballot, these are places. So as
Speaker 1: you can see here, I'm trying to create the best
Speaker 1: possible path here I can come up with their Democrats,
Speaker 1: and they're still probably a seat or too short, and
Speaker 1: that's why we're not there yet. But if they get
Speaker 1: competitive candidates in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, if they can
Speaker 1: put two of those four realistically in play, then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the path is there still a long shot.
Speaker 1: You're still looking at the you know, it's about I
Speaker 1: think the Indiana Pacers have a better shot at winning
Speaker 1: the NBA title than the Democrats do of winning the Senate.
Speaker 1: But I think the Indiana Pacers have a boxer's chance
Speaker 1: to win the NBA title. So it's not out of
Speaker 1: the realm, and it is slowly building. And you got
Speaker 1: to remember what this political environment is about. This is
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump these days and the House. Meanwhile, our
Speaker 1: friends at Down Ballot, I love this the Down Ballot.
Speaker 1: If you don't subscribe to it, you should. It's a
Speaker 1: great newsletter. They have a great podcast. These are folks
Speaker 1: that they are. They live and breathe data, They live
Speaker 1: and brief politics. Yes they come from stage left, but
Speaker 1: their reporting and data is just facts only. They did
Speaker 1: the presidential vote by house district. They had the first
Speaker 1: list of that out before anybody else. And what's fascinating
Speaker 1: here is that you had one hundred and sixteen. Let
Speaker 1: me get this right, make sure I have this right
Speaker 1: here in my numbers. I went through and basically it's races.
Speaker 1: Here's what it was, one hundred and sixteen congressional districts
Speaker 1: where the presidentill vote was fifty five or lower. There
Speaker 1: were seventy nine additional districts where the number was between
Speaker 1: fifty six and fifty nine. Why do I point that out?
Speaker 1: So out of foreigner in thirty five, right out of
Speaker 1: foreigner in thirty five congressional districts less than two hundred,
Speaker 1: Less than two hundred had a presidential vote of fifty
Speaker 1: nine percent or less for either of the presidential candidate.
Speaker 1: That is the most generous definition of competitive you can
Speaker 1: come up with. So you have just under two hundred
Speaker 1: districts that are at least going to be decided by
Speaker 1: twenty by less than twenty points, the spread between DNR
Speaker 1: will be by less than twenty points. There are more
Speaker 1: Democratic seats than Republican seats on this list. Now there's
Speaker 1: a reason for that. Democrats really the Democrat you know,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris really underperformed in the Blue states, and that
Speaker 1: underperformance trickled down a lot of Democratic incumbents won by
Speaker 1: their lowest vote margins that they've won in a long
Speaker 1: time in places like Illinois, New Jersey, California. And so
Speaker 1: while on paper it looks competitive, in theory, it's not
Speaker 1: going to be as competitive because Donald Trump is going
Speaker 1: to be on the ballot. But here's all you need
Speaker 1: to know. There are forty two Republican districts where Donald
Speaker 1: Trump got less than fifty five percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: If you assume there's a three to four point bump
Speaker 1: when Trump's on the ballot for Republicans in general, that
Speaker 1: just shows you how easily that if there is a
Speaker 1: dem way. First of all, the ceiling is going to
Speaker 1: be no more than thirty to thirty five seats, Max,
Speaker 1: and I think that's being generous. But the path is there,
Speaker 1: and the path that winning the House for the Democrats
Speaker 1: is quite clear. It's quite easy, and in fact, not
Speaker 1: winning the House would be catastrophic for the party at
Speaker 1: this point, barring some unforeseen event that rallies the troops.
Speaker 1: So there's my early picture there. It's been a good
Speaker 1: first hundred days for the Blue team when it comes
Speaker 1: to preparing for twenty twenty six, even though they've had
Speaker 1: more retirements, the lack of good recruiting on the Publican
Speaker 1: side and the intra party fights that are already developing
Speaker 1: on the Republican Senate side, I think, do put do
Speaker 1: suddenly give the Democrats a glimmer of hope that they
Speaker 1: can somehow put the Senate in plane in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Still a long shot, but it's like Indiana Pacers winning
Speaker 1: the title long shot, all right. So with that, it's
Speaker 1: a nice long open for you political junkies out there.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed this one. I will try to
Speaker 1: do this every couple of weeks where we just go
Speaker 1: deep into my brain when it comes to comes to
Speaker 1: the Senate and gub and House races. But with that
Speaker 1: staking a break, Governor j Insley on the other side,
Speaker 1: you've only been retired now, I don't know. I guess
Speaker 1: it's one hundred days. So right, what do we about
Speaker 1: at one hundred and fifteen days? How does it feel?
Speaker 2: Well, the last one hundred days of the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: it actually feels like a thousand days. So I feel
Speaker 2: like I've had a thousand days under my shirt.
Speaker 1: Listen, but you must miss a lot of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you did it for three terms. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was three terms and then seventeen years in
Speaker 2: Congress and foreign state legislatures. So I had three good
Speaker 2: decades of public service. But I must, I must push
Speaker 2: back against Shusan and retired. I really do not want
Speaker 2: to retire. I'm still in the game. I'm working with
Speaker 2: Climate Power to let people know about the science of climate.
Speaker 2: I'm working on some gun safety issue with the Alliance
Speaker 2: for Gun Responsibility. I'm trying to stir the masses. I
Speaker 2: just had a piece in the Guardian I printed saying
Speaker 2: we got to wake up and smell the roses to
Speaker 2: push back. So I really feel the same degree of
Speaker 2: lust for the fight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me let me put it another way. Then,
Speaker 1: do you feel in some ways being in office can
Speaker 1: can constrain you. I'm not saying you were constrained in
Speaker 1: what you said. You've got things you have to do.
Speaker 1: You know, when you're a governor, there's stuff you have.
Speaker 1: There's the have to dos and the want to dos,
Speaker 1: and sometimes you don't. You can't do. The want to
Speaker 1: do is because of the have to dos. You know.
Speaker 2: Well, I was a bit of a rebel as governor.
Speaker 2: I kind of did what I wanted to do because
Speaker 2: it was in the interest in Washingtonians. So I really
Speaker 2: did not feel constrained. And I think, actually, to some
Speaker 2: degree that was a little bit of the strength that
Speaker 2: I brought to the table, because I was willing to
Speaker 2: push boundaries and you know, on issues like health care
Speaker 2: and climate change and a more progressive tax system. And
Speaker 2: we had a lot of positive change in twelve years
Speaker 2: because I didn't approach the job as feeling constrained. I
Speaker 2: always felt it was my job to raise the state's
Speaker 2: ambitions and not be constrained by forces of the status
Speaker 2: quo or economic power. And so no, I'm mind constrained now.
Speaker 2: I was fairly unconstrained then, and some people were not
Speaker 2: happy with that by the way you call it.
Speaker 1: You know, I will say this consequent whatever you You know,
Speaker 1: if you're trying to make everybody happy, you're probably going
Speaker 1: to make nobody happy. Right, There is this fine line.
Speaker 1: I do believe in incrementalism personally, I do believe in
Speaker 1: building coalitions from the from the middle out. But there
Speaker 1: is something to be said. If you're trying to placate everybody,
Speaker 1: you're actually not going to make any progress. There is
Speaker 1: sometimes you've got to You've got to be willing. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm going over here and these people are going to
Speaker 1: be unhappy, but that's so be it.
Speaker 2: Well. I do think executives have a couple of different approaches.
Speaker 2: Some say, look, I'm just going to try to bank
Speaker 2: as much political capital as I can and not ruffle
Speaker 2: the waters as little as I can, and that's my
Speaker 2: route to popularity. That was not my route. I always
Speaker 2: felt that I wanted to push the envelope a positive change,
Speaker 2: And when you mentioned incrementalism, I think it is interesting.
Speaker 2: I think we did reach the right we did reach
Speaker 2: the right pace of that. As evidence, we had three
Speaker 2: of my major advances were challenged at the ballot box
Speaker 2: last November with and with a referendum to repeal them.
Speaker 2: Best climate change policies in the country are capital gains
Speaker 2: tax and our first in the nation long term care plan,
Speaker 2: which you were very proud of. Were actually the first
Speaker 2: state that have long term care plan for people. We
Speaker 2: know the silver tsunami is coming, and there was an
Speaker 2: effort by the forces of reaction to repeal all of those,
Speaker 2: and we won those going away, like sixty thirty eight,
Speaker 2: how much healthier?
Speaker 1: You know, I'm want to pause there a minute, because
Speaker 1: I actually think that can make government in some ways
Speaker 1: more trustworthy and healthier. Meaning, look, you did something that
Speaker 1: some you know that that at first may have looked
Speaker 1: like it was a fifty five to forty five decision, right,
Speaker 1: getting the voters to affirm something the legislature the governor
Speaker 1: did usually strengthens that law into sticking, right, Like you know,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a reason why in Washington, this Washington
Speaker 1: the other Washington you always want a little bipartisanship for
Speaker 1: big bills because you don't want to you know, you
Speaker 1: don't want to give whiplash, you don't want to be
Speaker 1: unbringing it every four years. In some ways, is it
Speaker 1: better that you were challenged and that you wanted the
Speaker 1: ballot box rather than never being challenged at all? With
Speaker 1: those loss.
Speaker 2: Certainly it is if you win. Sure, So if you win,
Speaker 2: then it is much better. No, these were resounding victories,
Speaker 2: you know, like our Climate Commitment Act has raised several
Speaker 2: billion dollars, it restrains carbon and we won sixty two
Speaker 2: to thirty eight. That was you know, that's a big margin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it puts anything over sixty these days is huge.
Speaker 2: That's a big landslide. And so that made sure there
Speaker 2: were no attacks in the legislature that lash question. Even
Speaker 2: though there were fiscal strains on the state, there were
Speaker 2: no attacks to siphon that money off or degrade the
Speaker 2: revenue associated with it. Same with our long term care plans,
Speaker 2: same with our capital gains tax. So yes, it did
Speaker 2: solidify them, and you know it was I guess out
Speaker 2: is you're right, you have to pick a pace of change. Fortunately,
Speaker 2: I think we picked the right pace. We're with in
Speaker 2: tune with the hearts of Washington State, and I hope
Speaker 2: other states will follow us.
Speaker 1: Well, you couldn't I want to go to that. You
Speaker 1: had a constituency that wanted this change. I mean, in
Speaker 1: some ways, you couldn't have forced this change if you
Speaker 1: had a constituency that was going to fight you.
Speaker 2: Of course not no, that's of course not. But you know,
Speaker 2: people sometimes will not get involved in the charge unless
Speaker 2: there is a bugle blown. And we blew the bugle
Speaker 2: said here's a way to identify these issues. And I
Speaker 2: think what we found if you look at the history
Speaker 2: of last since I've been alive, these things are so
Speaker 2: incredibly contentious until the day after they're resolved and people
Speaker 2: start to see the benefits. So our Climate Commitment Act,
Speaker 2: you know, it was very contentious when we passed it
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen twenty.
Speaker 1: Tell me how it works. To explain people how works.
Speaker 2: I mean, what it does. It stands up a provision
Speaker 2: that will help meet our carbon reduction goals. We have
Speaker 2: a goal of one hundred percent clean electricity that's in law,
Speaker 2: and this creates a mechanism to assure that we reduce
Speaker 2: carbon both in our utility grid and in our transportation
Speaker 2: and in our industrial sector. So what it does is
Speaker 2: it sets an absolute cap, an absolute limit on pollution
Speaker 2: of these toxic materials in the state of Washington, and
Speaker 2: it forces the polluting industries to purchase a credit against
Speaker 2: that total amount, and we only sell enough credits to
Speaker 2: go to that total amount, So they have to pay
Speaker 2: to pollute. The first principle of it, the polluters have
Speaker 2: to pay for their pollution. And that's a very important
Speaker 2: concept because you know, when you go to the garbage dump,
Speaker 2: you got to pay you fifteen bucks, twenty bucks to
Speaker 2: dump your garbage for.
Speaker 1: The right to do that. Yeah, well right to do
Speaker 1: a lot of communities you've got to pay people to
Speaker 1: just pick up your trash exactly.
Speaker 2: Well, for too long though, we've allowed polluting industries to
Speaker 2: treat the atmosphere like a big garbage dump for free.
Speaker 2: Well guess what if it's for free, guess what people do?
Speaker 2: They dump their garbage and our only atmosphere that is
Speaker 2: now putting a blanket of carbon dioxide around the earth.
Speaker 2: So let me take that money goes back to citizens.
Speaker 1: What how do you prevent so you know, you have
Speaker 1: a power grid surge and all of this, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, there's always these are the fears that get
Speaker 1: thrown at people about these policies that if you put
Speaker 1: this cap on carbon either one of two things going
Speaker 1: to happen. The cost of energy is going to go
Speaker 1: up because there's a limited amount of potential supply, or
Speaker 1: there just won't be enough when there's a surge, whether
Speaker 1: there's a heat wave or a cold wave or something
Speaker 1: like this. Explain to me the provisions that I'm sure
Speaker 1: are in this bill that you have that sort of
Speaker 1: deal with sort of outsized events that that could cause
Speaker 1: surges and cost or surges and power use.
Speaker 2: Well, the best answer to those concerns is experience, and
Speaker 2: our experience has been wholly positive in that regard. We
Speaker 2: are building clean energy jobs like crazy in Washington State.
Speaker 2: I've permitted the probably the biggest wind turbine farm in
Speaker 2: the Western United States. I've permitted quite a number of
Speaker 2: solar farms we're building. We have two of the most
Speaker 2: advanced battery companies in the world today. Where are you
Speaker 2: on nukes?
Speaker 1: You know, it depends on the climate change activists you
Speaker 1: talk to when it comes to nukes.
Speaker 2: Well, just talk about which nukes we're talking about, because
Speaker 2: it's an important distinction. All nukes are not created equal.
Speaker 2: Number one, I'm very excited about fusion energy. As you know,
Speaker 2: fusion energy is not fission energy. It has essentially no
Speaker 2: nuclear waste. It just used water. It's a limited supply
Speaker 2: and one of the first fifty megawatt plants in the
Speaker 2: world may start construction Washington State if things go well
Speaker 2: next year. Now that's not a guarantee technology. There's still
Speaker 2: a lot of work to be done on that. But
Speaker 2: they're actually starting potentially construction next year. That is an
Speaker 2: amazing achievement. If fusion pays off, pays off, that's like
Speaker 2: the Holy grand Is. A lot of people have skepticism
Speaker 2: about it, but I'll tell you there's some really good
Speaker 2: investors who are investing in this, and I'm glad we're
Speaker 2: moving forward on small modular reactors. The question is can
Speaker 2: they be built to reduce the amount the risk of
Speaker 2: any problem at at at a reasonable price. That's a
Speaker 2: question that remains to be seen. We did have a
Speaker 2: proposal here. It fell apart just because of cost, not
Speaker 2: because it's nothing on it, but just the supply chain.
Speaker 1: You can sort of prove safety and prove that there's
Speaker 1: if you can improve.
Speaker 2: Safety, if there's a and if we if if we
Speaker 2: actually find a waste disposal side of the nation, which
Speaker 2: we do not I yet so there's three things that
Speaker 2: stand in the way of what we call SMRs from
Speaker 2: moving forward. But I think we should be open to
Speaker 2: these potentials of anything that's that's non carbon omitting. But
Speaker 2: coming back to your central question, Look, the best argument
Speaker 2: is success and that's what we're experiencing here with the
Speaker 2: clean energy economy. And that's been so maddening about Trump
Speaker 2: because he's trying to kill all of this economic growth
Speaker 2: for low cost energy. That's the other thing that I
Speaker 2: want to point out. This energy is the least expensive
Speaker 2: in ninety percent of America now solar and wind and
Speaker 2: advanced battery storage are less expensive than coal. But he
Speaker 2: wants to get rid of the less expensive and that's
Speaker 2: why we've had some utility bills go up since he's
Speaker 2: been president.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why people are against more options, like
Speaker 1: why do we do want fewer options? And this is
Speaker 1: something where this has been a head scratcher for me.
Speaker 1: I thought of conservative government, at least when I grew up,
Speaker 1: as having less involvement in picking winners and losers. And
Speaker 1: this is a case where the government's coming in and saying, no,
Speaker 1: we're going to impact the market. We're going to warp
Speaker 1: the market, if you will, in favor of one part
Speaker 1: of the industry over another. And of course that's been
Speaker 1: the mind boggling thing to me, and I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: probably thought about this too, which is, where are the
Speaker 1: small government people? Where are the free marketeers, you know,
Speaker 1: just sort of let let let the market decide on
Speaker 1: these things. And they're not there, and I'm I'm wondering
Speaker 1: where that constituency has gone.
Speaker 2: Well. I have two theories about why Donald Trump wants
Speaker 2: to kill clean energy jobs, you know, because he says
Speaker 2: the wind term has caused cancer. We know they just
Speaker 2: caused jobs. One, when he was four years old, he
Speaker 2: was frightened by wind, a wind turbine that was going
Speaker 2: around and he sees so now he's got a phobia.
Speaker 2: Or Two he just didn't like him because they're taller
Speaker 2: than he is. He's the only two thing that explains
Speaker 2: his phobia of the cleanest, cheapest, cheapest, I want capital
Speaker 2: ch cheapest electricity in America. And it also cuts against
Speaker 2: his sort of vision of the dominant America. You know,
Speaker 2: dominance is his number one verb. He worships the gods
Speaker 2: of dominance, so he wants energy dominance. Well, if you
Speaker 2: want to be energy dominant, why are you killing domestic
Speaker 2: sources of energy? This is homegrown, all American energy, red, white,
Speaker 2: and blue spinning wind turbines and solar panels in advanced electricity. Uh,
Speaker 2: this is all American. So this cuts against virtually everything
Speaker 2: he told citizens he wanted to do when he ran
Speaker 2: for office. Hey, he said he wanted to reduce inflation.
Speaker 2: These actions by him of killing these clean energy industries
Speaker 2: is increasing inflation. Number two, he said he wanted to
Speaker 2: be American, to be dominant. Well, he's actually shooting us
Speaker 2: in the foot and giving these markets to China. And
Speaker 2: that's not a winning message. So he's you know, I wouldn't.
Speaker 2: You've asked to be judged against a rational position. I've
Speaker 2: given up.
Speaker 1: My uh at my meetings with might meet the press staff. Remember,
Speaker 1: logic has been banned or banning logic because lot if
Speaker 1: you if you look at this administration or you look
Speaker 1: at his governance through a lot, there is none. I mean,
Speaker 1: the only the only through line is his quote unquote gut.
Speaker 1: But let me that gets me to to another point
Speaker 1: and that you wrote in the Guardian in your op ed,
Speaker 1: because it I've had this question the question you opened
Speaker 1: your op ed with I've had with I've had from
Speaker 1: a friend of mine that lives overseas, and he's essentially,
Speaker 1: why aren't people in the streets that's been like the
Speaker 1: probably of the non political people just sort of these
Speaker 1: are not super highly charged, but people that live overseas
Speaker 1: that pay attention obviously pay more attention than than the
Speaker 1: average global citizen. And my explanation is exhaustion. I say,
Speaker 1: you know, the best explanation I have is is there
Speaker 1: are some people who think, well, we tried that the
Speaker 1: first time and he came back. Now I would argue, well,
Speaker 1: and that's why he didn't win a second term, and
Speaker 1: that's why all those things. But that is my best explanation. Exhaustion.
Speaker 1: What's your explanation?
Speaker 2: A couple of things. Number One, we are the victim
Speaker 2: of two hundred years plus of successful democracy except for
Speaker 2: the Civil War in America. So we've been a victim
Speaker 2: of being lucky never to experience what the continent of
Speaker 2: Europe or South America or Asia has experienced.
Speaker 1: So we don't imagine there there are some people that
Speaker 1: believe our democracy is only about sixty years old, that
Speaker 1: it wasn't really until the Civil Rights Tech that everybody
Speaker 1: got to participate.
Speaker 2: You that's a good argument, and I will I will
Speaker 2: not argue the point.
Speaker 1: No I may, I hear you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but at least during those sixty years, we just can't.
Speaker 2: This is the failure of imagination. It's very difficult even
Speaker 2: today to wrap your heads around a guy. You know,
Speaker 2: I grew up in the fifties and you know, say,
Speaker 2: doing the Pledge of Allegiance every day and worshiping the president,
Speaker 2: being united during the Cuban missile crisis, and you know,
Speaker 2: I grew up with that all American conatitude. And to
Speaker 2: think to have to imagine an American president facially ignoring
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court, it takes the powers of imagination
Speaker 2: because we've never experienced that in the United States. Hungary
Speaker 2: has experienced it, Germany has experienced it, Argentina has experienced
Speaker 2: We never have. So I think part of it is
Speaker 2: we don't we have to imagine this because we've never experienced.
Speaker 2: But I do believe there's some exhaustion. But I'll tell you,
Speaker 2: people are waking up. So I spoke to twenty thousand
Speaker 2: people on a Sunday day in Seattle. A couple of
Speaker 2: weekends ago. On my street corner up here in Bambridge Island.
Speaker 2: Every day there's two dozen people standing out there and
Speaker 2: they're not in the New York Times or on your show,
Speaker 2: but they're just out there. People are waking up. I
Speaker 2: wrote this piece in the Guardian you refer to about
Speaker 2: a month ago, and there has been some marginal waking
Speaker 2: up that's happening. So I'm very pleased by that because
Speaker 2: people are starting to feel the ramifications, because he is
Speaker 2: capable of totally ripping apart every law, on every constitutional
Speaker 2: privilege if we don't get out there. So I'm glad.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that we are, and everybody's got a stake
Speaker 2: in this. You know, there's gonna be report released tomorrow
Speaker 2: a couple of days after this, by Climate Power. I
Speaker 2: work with a group called.
Speaker 1: So just letting people know we're taping on Tuesday, April
Speaker 1: twenty ninth, because I always like the time stamp. So
Speaker 1: on April thirtieth.
Speaker 2: Report, it's going to talk about the incredible tens of
Speaker 2: thousands of jobs loss that we've already lost because of
Speaker 2: his tackle on clean energy. I guess what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is the assault on democracy has real term ramifications for
Speaker 2: your economic conditions of your family. It's not just kind
Speaker 2: of Ivory Tower constitutional law. It means you're going to
Speaker 2: pay more for utility, your kid's gonna lose their jobs,
Speaker 2: and your prices are going to go off. Those are
Speaker 2: the real term ramifications of losing democracy, not just pointy
Speaker 2: headed things for constitutional lawyers at the law schools.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny you put it those terms. I
Speaker 1: have a friend of mine who is an Ivory Tower guy,
Speaker 1: teaches it UMass Amherst has been paranoid about America becoming
Speaker 1: hungry right until Liberation Day. And he goes, you know,
Speaker 1: he goes, I'm now finally feeling better. And I said,
Speaker 1: why is that you must not have any money invested
Speaker 1: in the stock market. He goes, no, no, no, because
Speaker 1: it's not that he goes, because I know how we
Speaker 1: stop authoritarianism in this country make people poor again. Like
Speaker 1: you know that the economy if he if he's mismanaging
Speaker 1: the economy, he's not going to be able to get
Speaker 1: away with everything else. I mean, that's sort of a
Speaker 1: a dark way of trying to find optimism. But do
Speaker 1: you do you concur with that conclusion that that once
Speaker 1: people feel the economic impact, then suddenly they'll start, you know,
Speaker 1: putting all this together.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to answer that question with this caveat.
Speaker 2: I want to make sure you don't report that I
Speaker 2: am favoring a recession.
Speaker 1: Okay, no, I I and that's that it's the worst
Speaker 1: part of this right now.
Speaker 2: But that's the worst partner. I mean, I hate.
Speaker 1: Feeling you sit there. Look, I hope he's right. I
Speaker 1: hope he can bring manufacturing and they'd be great to
Speaker 1: see all these jobs and oh yes, but I don't
Speaker 1: know if he understands how civilizations work, like this tube
Speaker 1: paste is out of the tube. Globalization, I mean, this
Speaker 1: has been the greatest eighty year run in the in
Speaker 1: the in the in human history, more people brought out
Speaker 1: of poverty around the globe. I mean, I sit here
Speaker 1: and it's like, you're never putting this back. The small
Speaker 1: business owner in Nigeria who can export to the United
Speaker 1: States or the EU and make money is never going
Speaker 1: to say, oh, I guess now I got to go
Speaker 1: to economic nationalism and sell people here. That isn't how
Speaker 1: it's going to work.
Speaker 2: Well, an an answer to your question, if you look
Speaker 2: at his you know absolutely creatoring approval numbers. The substantial
Speaker 2: part of that is because people do know that terrorists
Speaker 2: are going to increase their costs and within about five
Speaker 2: to six weeks, I mean, they can't get stuff because
Speaker 2: the shelves are going to be missing a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff they've had. We already have twenty to thirty percent
Speaker 2: reduction ships coming into Seattle Harbor.
Speaker 1: For me, you're one of the what sized port are you, guys?
Speaker 1: I mean you're one of the biggest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're maybe second on the Puget soun. I mean
Speaker 2: we've already experienced twenty to thirty percent reduction already even
Speaker 2: before the terrorists kick in. So Americans know they're going
Speaker 2: to get hurt big time by this. He's totally failed
Speaker 2: trying to tell them otherwise. And yes, that does weaken
Speaker 2: his ability to tear up the US Constitution. There's no
Speaker 2: question about it. It's not the preferred way to keep
Speaker 2: our constitution intact. The preferred way is for people who
Speaker 2: get out on the street in peaceful protests, and college
Speaker 2: presidents saying I'm not going to deal with you, and
Speaker 2: law firms saying I'll see you court and school district
Speaker 2: administrators teaching their kids on this subject. That's what's going
Speaker 2: to ultimately restrain restrain this situation.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny you bring up those three entities,
Speaker 1: and I would throw in the heads of traditional media
Speaker 1: companies who have not stood by the associated when it
Speaker 1: was a latent First Amendment violation, right, and everybody is
Speaker 1: using the same excuse. Well, you know it's not going
Speaker 1: to mean anything. And you know the guy Paul Weiss said,
Speaker 1: people were trying to poach our clients. You know, you
Speaker 1: do have universities going, well, have you looked at them?
Speaker 1: Don't look at us? It's this weird. It's like, now
Speaker 1: we all, I frankly have a better understanding of how
Speaker 1: things happened in Berlin and Munich in the thirties. Right,
Speaker 1: it was fear and survival kick in, and sometimes people
Speaker 1: get selfish, right, and it's like I've got to survive
Speaker 1: and my surviv if I have to sacrifice you to survive,
Speaker 1: at least I stay in the room and maybe I
Speaker 1: can fix it later. I mean, that's a that's I
Speaker 1: feel like what we're watching, at least in the legal community,
Speaker 1: the media community, in the university community.
Speaker 2: So this is a movie that has been played quite
Speaker 2: a number of places around the world before. How this
Speaker 2: movie turns out, we don't know yet, but it's a
Speaker 2: movie that will turn out very badly if individual organizations
Speaker 2: and individual people decide to feed the crocodile. Here's what
Speaker 2: I mean. Winston Churchill, as fascism was raising in Germany,
Speaker 2: and everybody's saying, well, he's okay, you know, we'll go
Speaker 2: along with this guy with a mustache for a while.
Speaker 2: His name I won't mention, And Churchill said, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a really bad strategy to feed a crocodile in
Speaker 2: the hopes that he will eat you last. And I
Speaker 2: think that just defines why these decisions have been so
Speaker 2: damaging to democracy and ultimately to these institutions, because I'll
Speaker 2: tell you what, Blackmailer's extortionists never get done with the
Speaker 2: first bite. They come back. You've already seen him coming
Speaker 2: back and want more from Columbia and these law for him.
Speaker 2: You're already seeing him coming back for that, and so
Speaker 2: surrender is not an option here if we want to
Speaker 2: keep a democracy. And I think these you were starting again,
Speaker 2: You're starting to see this tide turn a little bit.
Speaker 2: You're starting to see people waking up in these c streets,
Speaker 2: c suites. Now, if I may in the media, I
Speaker 2: wouldn't saw George Clooney's play that Good Luck about edwar Armurrell,
Speaker 2: a proud Washington State University graduate by the way, who
Speaker 2: is such a great friend of demogracy. Yeah, and the
Speaker 2: whole play was about management of the media at that time,
Speaker 2: CBS trying to lean on Edgar Murrell to lighten up
Speaker 2: on his attacks on Joseph McCarthy. That day, same day,
Speaker 2: in the same studio, the executive producer of sixty Minutes
Speaker 2: had it quick because management was leaning on him, because
Speaker 2: Trump was leaning on him. And I'm going, like, this
Speaker 2: play is when we're living this play, it's a real thing.
Speaker 2: It's not just on the stage. We're living it at
Speaker 2: this moment. Well, yes, we hope the voices in the
Speaker 2: media can do the same thing. We know some have
Speaker 2: capitulated and some are standing up. But if there's ever
Speaker 2: a moment to stand up, you know, and I've appealed.
Speaker 2: I've tried to make this on a very personal basis.
Speaker 2: So I've called my agents of the University of Washington
Speaker 2: to talk to him about this subject, and they've expressed
Speaker 2: some of the same concerns you have research dollars, he's
Speaker 2: going to attack us, blah blah blah. And what I've
Speaker 2: tried to say is that look, imagine you're the region
Speaker 2: of the University of Heidelberg in May nineteen thirty three
Speaker 2: and you're told by the new chancellor that you won't
Speaker 2: you can no longer admit Jewish students, or he's going
Speaker 2: to cut your research budget in half. And I've asked
Speaker 2: these reagents, what would you do? You're being tested and
Speaker 2: you get to decide what you really believe in. And
Speaker 2: I've tried to appeal people on a personal level with
Speaker 2: that type of issue because I do believe that's the
Speaker 2: same scenario. I really do, because we have seen this happens.
Speaker 1: Anating hypothetical question to ask.
Speaker 2: It's an important one because I can recognize the fear
Speaker 2: that people have. I get it, it's rational, it's human.
Speaker 2: But things your treasure. Sometimes you've just got to stand
Speaker 2: up for. And you know us my seat voting for
Speaker 2: an assault weapon band, so you know I know what
Speaker 2: it means to sacrifice.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, you know I want to actually because you
Speaker 1: know that's correct me. If I'm wrong, did you do
Speaker 1: your NAFTA vote that year too, did you vote, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you voted.
Speaker 2: For it, correct, Yes, I was a favorite NAFTA.
Speaker 1: That's right, because you were part of it. And this
Speaker 1: is what I want to get at trade, because this
Speaker 1: is the uncomfortable truth about open markets and free trade.
Speaker 1: Our country is so big and diverse that there are
Speaker 1: regions that are saw immediate wins, and there are regions
Speaker 1: that saw immediate losses, and we can talk about what
Speaker 1: we could have done better to help in different regions.
Speaker 1: But when I think about the trade situation and the
Speaker 1: issue with tariffs, and you know, the Sun Belt has
Speaker 1: become a financial juggernaut, right and a manufacturing juggernaut, and
Speaker 1: that's due to arguably these open trade deals that have
Speaker 1: allowed foreign manufacturers to build plants in the United States
Speaker 1: and things like that. So when I think about the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party's debate about sort of how to win back
Speaker 1: working class voters, and certainly the issues in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Speaker 1: I'm bringing up some former swing states and as well
Speaker 1: as potential swing state you know where they lost. Washington gained,
Speaker 1: Nevada gained, Texas gained, Arizona gained, right, the Sunbelt gain
Speaker 1: how do you have that conversation with the American public. Right,
Speaker 1: it was a net positive, NAFTA was a net positive,
Speaker 1: but there were people that lost.
Speaker 2: Well, first off, this is I'm glad we have this discussion,
Speaker 2: but it needs to be nuanced because there's no black
Speaker 2: or white.
Speaker 1: Well, that's why you have to do it on a podcast.
Speaker 1: I mean, I hate to say this. I couldn't do
Speaker 1: this in our eight minute interviews and meet the press, governor, right,
Speaker 1: you know, because you can't have this and this is
Speaker 1: the beauty of this format. But it's also the I
Speaker 1: think why our political debate is such garbage.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, the first thing I would say is, look,
Speaker 2: there's all kinds of arguments on this tariff, how it
Speaker 2: should be, etc. And you can fashion all kinds argue
Speaker 2: about every single tariff. But the thing you should not
Speaker 2: have is a president who is grossly incompetent, who has
Speaker 2: created so much uncertainty that he has even unintentionally started
Speaker 2: trade wars that has now resulted. You want to talk
Speaker 2: about manufacturing, a lot of these manufacturing companies are not
Speaker 2: going to be able to do their job at all
Speaker 2: because they're not going to be able to get the
Speaker 2: rare earth they need from China, and the magnets of today,
Speaker 2: the ninety percent of the rare earth comes from China
Speaker 2: that's getting shut off. That's a consequence of these tariffs.
Speaker 2: So when you have a grossly incompetent person who wants
Speaker 2: to cause chaos and nobody knows what his real plan is,
Speaker 2: and he has caused the damage to the image of
Speaker 2: the United States because he's been a buffoon. You know,
Speaker 2: he says, I'm going to do one hundred and forty
Speaker 2: five percent tariff on China. He says, they're going to
Speaker 2: back down, they're talking to me, They're going to surrender
Speaker 2: the next day. Gee says, forget it. But I'm not even.
Speaker 1: Taking your phone, Governor. I mean, he's handled his leverage.
Speaker 1: Whatever leverage the United States did have, he handed it
Speaker 1: away to everybody. So, I mean the guy in India,
Speaker 1: India sitting there going, oh, how badly do you need
Speaker 1: a trade deal?
Speaker 3: Donald Trump? Oh you need to trail that bad He
Speaker 3: has been both chaotic, uncertain. He has squandered our national
Speaker 3: treasure of credibility because he's folded. He folded on this.
Speaker 3: But now Trada won't let them even fold. They won't
Speaker 3: take his.
Speaker 1: Phone calls, right, they won't.
Speaker 2: He can't even fold.
Speaker 1: We'll get to cash out there, Donnie.
Speaker 2: So I would love to think eventually China will show
Speaker 2: a little mercy to him and eventually work something out.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I mean, I guess the first thing I
Speaker 2: ask you about trade is the way he's going about
Speaker 2: it is so injuriously.
Speaker 1: Get that, but balance out. Look, you were in Iowa,
Speaker 1: you campaigned to Iowa. You know, all those towns used
Speaker 1: to be may Tag, used to be this, used to
Speaker 1: be that. You know, my dad's sister lived in Monroe, Michigan.
Speaker 1: Used to be lazy Boy, used to be Monroe shock absorbers, right, right,
Speaker 1: But Washington State's benefited quite a bit from increased exports
Speaker 1: around the world, right, So you know, Look, part of
Speaker 1: me thinks people should have just moved out of the
Speaker 1: Midwest more and we should probably have more domestic migration.
Speaker 1: But but set that aside. There's still a you know,
Speaker 1: that constituency wants one thing, and that's how you win
Speaker 1: presidential elections.
Speaker 2: So how do you want I'll tell you what my
Speaker 2: general thinking. I think generally tariffs are not productive for
Speaker 2: economic growth on either side of a border. They restrict
Speaker 2: people's ability to do business with one another. That's basically
Speaker 2: what the what they do. Generally speaking, I think economies
Speaker 2: grow when people can do what they do best. And
Speaker 2: if they group bananas and you know, and in Panama
Speaker 2: and we can't and we should be willing to buy
Speaker 2: bananas even though we have a trade deficit with them,
Speaker 2: and to make us pay more for bananas or restrict
Speaker 2: the ability of our ability to get bananas general doesn't
Speaker 2: make a lot of sense. So I'm in general, I
Speaker 2: don't think tariffs make a lot of sense, except they
Speaker 2: are useful obviously for national security purposes, so you can
Speaker 2: protect your national security assets. They are useful if you
Speaker 2: are being abused, for instance, with issues of intellectual property,
Speaker 2: and there has been some abuse of our intellectual property,
Speaker 2: so as a mechanism to force compliance within national standards,
Speaker 2: there's some reason in that regard and when we do
Speaker 2: do them. And if I was going to criticize NAFTA
Speaker 2: for a moment, I think the pace of change when
Speaker 2: you are having new technologies coming on, as with these
Speaker 2: huge new technological advances, we should pay more attention to
Speaker 2: the pace of change. And the pace of change was
Speaker 2: more disruptive than anyone would watch.
Speaker 1: How could you have slowed down? I mean, change is
Speaker 1: hard to you know. This is the problem with trying
Speaker 1: to control a free market, right, that you can't always
Speaker 1: control your hockey stick moment.
Speaker 2: Right, you know, if you're going to run the tape backwards.
Speaker 2: I would have slowed down the rate of opening up
Speaker 2: some of these markets that happened in NAFTA because it
Speaker 2: was just so disruptive to a lot of states in
Speaker 2: the Midwest. So that would help, and to some degree
Speaker 2: that did improve in subsequent trade negotiations at subsequent presidents
Speaker 2: negotiated and now being ripped up. But the one thing
Speaker 2: I tell you, I'm for sure nance there's no nuance
Speaker 2: on this. The way this guy's going is creatoring the
Speaker 2: US economy. And it's interesting to me how even though
Speaker 2: tariffs and not everybody gonna get a major economics right.
Speaker 2: So I got around for SATAN for four years and
Speaker 2: argue this issue with professors one way or another. Not
Speaker 2: everybody had that privilege. Yet Americans have a deep understanding
Speaker 2: that this guy's going to cost him more money for
Speaker 2: everything they buy, practically bluting utility bills because he's refusing
Speaker 2: to let us have access to good, clean so learn
Speaker 2: win energy. So Americans get this and it you know,
Speaker 2: it's principal reason as numbers or are just creating.
Speaker 1: Let me talk about climate change. You made it the
Speaker 1: centerpiece of your presidential campaign. In some ways, you were
Speaker 1: the only one that really grounded your campaign in a
Speaker 1: substantive issue. And maybe that was given the moment we
Speaker 1: were living in with Trump and all that stuff that
Speaker 1: in some ways I found it noble, But maybe you
Speaker 1: were swimming upstream. And yet I would argue it probably
Speaker 1: gave you even more momentum to do some things in
Speaker 1: your state. But what did you learn from trying to
Speaker 1: from trying to create an urgency around this issue that
Speaker 1: government should be involved in the solution. What did you
Speaker 1: learn in your conversations with voters that says, you know,
Speaker 1: when you talk about these issues, talking about them this
Speaker 1: way not that way? Or what advice would you give
Speaker 1: to other politicians who want to get voters to understand
Speaker 1: the urgency better on their terms, not necessarily on my
Speaker 1: terms or your terms, but on on their terms. What
Speaker 1: what have you found to be most effective?
Speaker 2: So I'm going to tell you a story. It doesn't
Speaker 2: really match the script. I'm going to tell you a
Speaker 2: story because it's your Paul. You appreciate campaign stories, right.
Speaker 1: Story, and I love a good campaign story.
Speaker 2: You're pulling it. So I'll tell you part of my
Speaker 2: learning experience. So I went to Hamburg, Iowa. It is
Speaker 2: my very first event, and we were going to focus
Speaker 2: on climate change because there's been a.
Speaker 1: Right first event, you're like, first event.
Speaker 2: In Iowa, and because there's been a horrendous flood swept
Speaker 2: through town that it was a magnificently choreographed event. We
Speaker 2: had a guy who actually was out Gore's advisor, whose
Speaker 2: mother's house was destroyed in the flood. We could go
Speaker 2: through and we had you know, eight or nine cameras
Speaker 2: and the whole radio and everybody was there. It was
Speaker 2: a wonderful event. We could see where the water had
Speaker 2: come up halfway up the windowsills. There were all these
Speaker 2: silos that had collapsed in the flood. So all this
Speaker 2: week we're just laying out all over the ground. I mean,
Speaker 2: it was it was a very good graphic illustration and
Speaker 2: these and that place had never seen a flood before.
Speaker 2: It had been there for one hundred and fifty years,
Speaker 2: and that tout had never seen a flood before, so
Speaker 2: this was a perfect example of climate cause disasters that
Speaker 2: we are now are experiencing. And the thing was going well.
Speaker 2: I talked to a lot of people there. They all
Speaker 2: thought that we should do something about climate change, and
Speaker 2: it was really a great visit. And as I was
Speaker 2: going to get in the car, my young staff for
Speaker 2: who I didn't know very well, says, you got to
Speaker 2: come over here, guv, you got to meet Henry over
Speaker 2: here at the auto body shop. And I go, no, no,
Speaker 2: we're done. We got to here. He said, no, you
Speaker 2: have to come see Henry. Everybody knows Henry in town.
Speaker 2: I said, no, no, we're done. He says, look, you got
Speaker 2: to come. I said, okay. So we walk across town.
Speaker 2: We go on to Henry's shop, auto body shop, and
Speaker 2: there's NRA posters and Dixie flags and I said, no,
Speaker 2: this is not a place. I wanted to be.
Speaker 1: Sure I'm at the right spot for a Caucass stower. Huh,
Speaker 1: new caucas Captain.
Speaker 2: Nice to meet you, Henry, but we have to be going.
Speaker 2: And the press noticed that I was a little reticent
Speaker 2: to talk to him. So the press came to him
Speaker 2: and said, Henry, what do you think of this climate
Speaker 2: change that the governors talk about. He says, Oh, that's
Speaker 2: a bunch of malarkey. That flood was just because the
Speaker 2: core of engineers found it up. And the first lesson
Speaker 2: I learned is this is a tough business that we're in.
Speaker 2: So that's a little campaign story. So here's what I've
Speaker 2: learned is that that you have to talk to people
Speaker 2: about this issue where they live. You can't lecture people obviously,
Speaker 2: you need to talk to them about where they live.
Speaker 2: You need to find out what they care about, what
Speaker 2: do you care about, what's important to you and your family,
Speaker 2: And that's the first part of any discussion. And then
Speaker 2: once you find that out, to talk to them about
Speaker 2: possibly they might be interested in this question. If it's
Speaker 2: a job for their kid coming out of college, we
Speaker 2: got good ways to say, hey, here's a good reason
Speaker 2: your child may have a good career. If it's your
Speaker 2: crop that you're trying to sell, well, we sure hope
Speaker 2: that your crop isn't one of those silos that is
Speaker 2: being washed away. If you have a child with asthma,
Speaker 2: you say, you know, you know it's making your child.
Speaker 2: Because we have an epidemic of asthma right now. So
Speaker 2: the first thing I've learned is to just meet people
Speaker 2: where they are and talk to them about their personal
Speaker 2: ambitions and fears, and that's the way to move forward. Well,
Speaker 2: I'll mentioned weather thing though, Okay, Americans still don't understand
Speaker 2: this phenomena. Only one out of five Americans know there's
Speaker 2: a scientific consensus about this, that we're wrapping the Earth
Speaker 2: in a blanket of carbon dioxide, and that there is
Speaker 2: a scientific consensus about this. So there's still a lot
Speaker 2: of basic information that we need to share with Americans.
Speaker 2: It's one of the reasons I like the Climate Power
Speaker 2: Accountability Group holding Trump accountable so we can share of
Speaker 2: this scientific information with people.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I've wondered about that I'd
Speaker 1: like to see more politicians lean into, particularly locally, is
Speaker 1: the adaptation issue, right which is, no matter what happens,
Speaker 1: rather than debate whose fault it is, we all have
Speaker 1: to live with this new environment. We all have to
Speaker 1: survive and hopefully thrive in it. Have you found if
Speaker 1: you start with sort of hey, are you are? Are
Speaker 1: you tired of the high cost of insurance for your
Speaker 1: home because you live this close to a body of water, Well,
Speaker 1: here's why it costs more to live this close to
Speaker 1: a body of water. I mean it, And this is
Speaker 1: why maybe we need to build a barrier or maybe
Speaker 1: we need to do this. Is is that a better
Speaker 1: way in with some people?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: It's like my daughter did a she's a marine science major.
Speaker 1: She did an internship in Scambia County, which is in
Speaker 1: the Panandle, Florida. It's a pretty conservative area, and they
Speaker 1: told them never to use the frame climate change. Talk
Speaker 1: about fishing, talk about conservation, talk about making sure you
Speaker 1: have plenty of good places to fish. Why do people
Speaker 1: move to Florida, you know, for the outdoors figuring out
Speaker 1: how to speak essentially native languages no matter where you
Speaker 1: are in the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that kind of comes back to what I
Speaker 2: was saying, is you talk about the specific things in
Speaker 2: people's lives, including fish. We've had all the kilp disappeared.
Speaker 2: I live on Bamberg, John Washington. All the boat kelp
Speaker 2: have disappeared. We used to be ringed with boat kelp
Speaker 2: these forests, and that's what the salmon depend on. So
Speaker 2: if you like to go fishing, it's a big deal.
Speaker 2: So yes to that part of your question. But I haven't.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the insurance thing is so profound,
Speaker 2: I mean, you can't. You're not going to be able
Speaker 2: to get insurance.
Speaker 1: And the insurance industry is going to force force government's
Speaker 1: hand here, rightment.
Speaker 2: Governments choice. Government's going to have to step into the
Speaker 2: role of the insurance industry. It's going to be extremely costly.
Speaker 1: Your favorage. This is a you know, a nice place
Speaker 1: to live where you are. I'm going to guess that
Speaker 1: the insurance is higher than any property tax you pay.
Speaker 2: I can't tell you for sure that's true, but whatever
Speaker 2: it is, it's going to go up because we've had
Speaker 2: fires even in the western you know, we're the Evergreen State,
Speaker 2: have little rain here, but we're having fires on the
Speaker 2: western side of Washington State. Now I've had two whole
Speaker 2: towns burned down. Of course Trump denied this emergency relief
Speaker 2: from that. But coming back from your central question, I
Speaker 2: agree that you want to talk to people. If they're
Speaker 2: fishermen or fisher you talk about fish. If there's asthma
Speaker 2: in their family, you talk about asthma. You talk about
Speaker 2: those issues, not the global crisis. Right, It's not the
Speaker 2: planet this problem, it's your life. I haven't found though
Speaker 2: that that. You know, on occasion, you'll get a Republican
Speaker 2: say yes, I'm willing to finance a new dyke right
Speaker 2: to protect the town. You're getting some of that, but
Speaker 2: that is not translated to them saying and by the way,
Speaker 2: I want to do something about fossil fuels destroying and
Speaker 2: causing this problem in the first place. It's been so
Speaker 2: disappointing that we have not been able to find Republicans
Speaker 2: in office to be able to help us on this.
Speaker 2: And I keep hoping that's going to change, but it
Speaker 2: is not. The only Republicans really helping us the ones
Speaker 2: that are out of office. So right now we've got
Speaker 2: to replace them.
Speaker 1: Well, look what Lisa Murkowski said, there is a culture
Speaker 1: of fear among Republicans that speaking out. I mean, retribution
Speaker 1: is real.
Speaker 2: You could sense that in her tone of voice.
Speaker 1: I mean the people that got the people that got that.
Speaker 1: Laura Lumer went into his office. It was like anybody
Speaker 1: who had any who had worked with Mike Pompey or
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton were essentially escorted out of the Pentagon. Just
Speaker 1: what do they worked for? I mean, that's right out
Speaker 1: of I mean, come up with your hypothetical from Europe
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties. That's right there, we're just doing
Speaker 1: a purge. You're associated with my political enemies. Get out
Speaker 1: of here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I agree that there's pressure for potential primaries for
Speaker 2: Republican office holders. There's no question about this. But why
Speaker 2: the hell are you in office if you're not going
Speaker 2: to do some basic things. You know, probably thirty four
Speaker 2: percent of the Republicans in Congress, no climate change is
Speaker 2: potentially devastating to us. They know that, they don't publicly
Speaker 2: express it. They know it, but they won't lift a
Speaker 2: damn finger to help us out because they're afraid of that.
Speaker 2: I'm just going like, you don't deserve to be in office,
Speaker 2: and we're going to retire you from private life.
Speaker 1: But you know, this dawned on me. Actually, you did lose,
Speaker 1: And I wonder if losing made you a better representative
Speaker 1: later and a better governor later because you were willing
Speaker 1: you almost the fear of losing, well, you'd already experienced it.
Speaker 1: So what's the fear?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: How much do you think that gave you more confidence
Speaker 1: in staking out a little more aggressive positions governing.
Speaker 2: It's a really interesting question. I should think about that
Speaker 2: before I answer it, because it's a hell of a
Speaker 2: thing to lose. It's painful losing car in DC, and
Speaker 2: I'd staked everything I had to get elected and I
Speaker 2: wanted to upset. You know, It's very painful. But I
Speaker 2: would just tell you the one thing I can tell
Speaker 2: you for sure. I have never regretted my vote for
Speaker 2: the assault weapon bill for one second, even though I
Speaker 2: lost something that was very dear to me, because I
Speaker 2: just believe that public service is such a blessing that
Speaker 2: you have. It's bestowed on you by so many thousands
Speaker 2: of people. To not follow your convictions and the real
Speaker 2: best interests. Just you're abusing this great gift that is
Speaker 2: given to you. And when these Republicans know climate change,
Speaker 2: because these are smart people, right, you're dentists or doctor,
Speaker 2: they know this is eatness alive. They understand chemistry, they
Speaker 2: understand physics. But when you refuse to do that because
Speaker 2: you're afraid of Donald Trump, you're abusing your office. This
Speaker 2: is a great gift that has been given to you.
Speaker 2: And so I feel very strongly about this. As you
Speaker 2: can tell, when people are afraid of their own damn skins,
Speaker 2: it won't stand up for their constituents. There's too much
Speaker 2: of that going on. And I will just tell you,
Speaker 2: even though I lost, I never regret of it because
Speaker 2: I felt so passionately about my obligation of my constituents.
Speaker 1: No, it's just something that I've just sort of done
Speaker 1: on me. Think it here because you you did go
Speaker 1: places frankly that I think other statewide governors would have.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Let me get my second term. Maybe I'll try it
Speaker 1: to my second term. Maybe I'll try to like I.
Speaker 1: You know you and I know plenty of those politicians
Speaker 1: you know on both sides of the aisle where there.
Speaker 1: You're right, it's the accumulation. But there's something about losing
Speaker 1: and then winning again that's gotta It's like bungee jumping
Speaker 1: the first time or skydiving the first time. If you
Speaker 1: didn't die, you're not afraid of it.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe that's it. And I appreciate you trying to
Speaker 2: think that. I'm you know, it was like mildly courageous,
Speaker 2: But I actually would think it's a different thing. Maybe
Speaker 2: I have more confidence in my citizens than some of
Speaker 2: the politicians. I just have more confidence that people will
Speaker 2: be able to understand the science of climate change, and
Speaker 2: they'd be willing to do modest things to improve the situation.
Speaker 2: That's why we passed this Climate I could havement Act.
Speaker 2: And it turns out my confidence and citizens was fulfilled
Speaker 2: because we won sixty two to thirty eight. So I
Speaker 2: think part of it is that that I'm willing to
Speaker 2: ask for more change because I trust people that they'll
Speaker 2: be able to figure it out, take some work that
Speaker 2: they get.
Speaker 1: All right, let me let you everybody wants a debate
Speaker 1: about what the Democratic Party should be doing right now?
Speaker 1: Way in for me, what would you? What would you be?
Speaker 1: Would you be looking for new leadership? Are you looking
Speaker 1: for new leadership? Are you looking for the current leadership
Speaker 1: to step up? What's your preference?
Speaker 2: Well, my working rule is everything everywhere, all the time.
Speaker 2: That's number one.
Speaker 1: And the leaders side for a movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it could be the leadership we need right now.
Speaker 2: We actually are finding and that's common ordinary citizens who
Speaker 2: are standing up, sometimes on a street corner, sometimes marching
Speaker 2: on a sidewalk, sometimes emailing the congress person, sometimes talking
Speaker 2: to their cranky uncle at dinner time. We have that
Speaker 2: leadership and it's a rising right now, big time. And
Speaker 2: so I'm pleased about the leadership. We're happy, which isn't
Speaker 2: necessary to have some sort of flag bearer because we're
Speaker 2: not going to have one for a year nominae.
Speaker 1: I mean that's just true both party.
Speaker 2: Everybody says, well, where is your leadership? I said, the
Speaker 2: leadership isn't our people, and they're standing up on their
Speaker 2: hind legs. And we have that. We have that leadership
Speaker 2: that we really need, and we got a great, deep bench.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have a great nominee. We got a lot
Speaker 2: of people with a lot of talent. I love here
Speaker 2: and JB. Prisker the other day saying, you know we're
Speaker 2: gonna we're gonna go after him on the soapbox and
Speaker 2: beat him at the ballot box. I loved Core with
Speaker 2: what he did. I love Jen Mills standing up at
Speaker 2: the White House to this bully. So we got we
Speaker 2: had a lot of voices. I'm confident we're gonna have
Speaker 2: a good nominee because there's a lot of talent.
Speaker 1: What did you learn from Canada? I find it because
Speaker 1: here's something I've I took. I don't want to overlearn,
Speaker 1: but I'm intrigued about Mark Carney is kind of a technocrat, right.
Speaker 1: You know, this is a central banker. You know, he
Speaker 1: wouldn't be somebody even six months ago you would have
Speaker 1: designed in a lab to say this is the next
Speaker 1: leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. And you know,
Speaker 1: especially we see this picture of Trudeau, who was just
Speaker 1: a very charismatic figure. Certainly he had got polarizing at
Speaker 1: the end and unpopular. And you know, I'm I'm one
Speaker 1: of those people who believes that we the American voter
Speaker 1: usually picks a new president based on you know, that
Speaker 1: has the characteristic that the last president didn't have, whatever
Speaker 1: that is, you know, and from Obama to Trump, right
Speaker 1: that I would always say, it's a little bit of
Speaker 1: the showmanship. Right. They thought Obama was almost too nuanced.
Speaker 1: They want it, they wanted everything's black and white and
Speaker 1: binary and a little bit of that. Obama was different
Speaker 1: from Bush. Bush was sort of black and white, good
Speaker 1: and evil. He was mister Gray, right. But Bush was
Speaker 1: a you know, he had a distinction with Clinton having
Speaker 1: to do with the personal character issues and people didn't
Speaker 1: like that, right, So hw Bush couldn't feel your pain,
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton could. My point is is that we do
Speaker 1: seem to do that. So what do you imagine is
Speaker 1: the characteristic this country is going to want to have
Speaker 1: post Trump? What's the big one? Is it empathy? Is
Speaker 1: it technocratic expertise? What do you imagine three years from
Speaker 1: now that that sort of forget issues. What's that characteristic
Speaker 1: that hey, we need this kind of president this time.
Speaker 2: First of all, I got a comment on Canada. This
Speaker 2: wasn't about Trudeau. It's all about Trump, right, one hundred days.
Speaker 1: Look, I have to say I've never seen somebody you
Speaker 1: can't say he's not had an impactful under days. No
Speaker 1: even to ownership of this economy politically, it's just stupid.
Speaker 1: He could have been blaming Biden for this economy for
Speaker 1: another six months, to be totally cynical about it. But
Speaker 1: he said no, no, no, I'm going to make it
Speaker 1: my economy.
Speaker 2: But you, David Brooks David Brooks were on a piece
Speaker 2: and said, well, you know, Trump has been brilliant in
Speaker 2: one way, and he's extremely energetic and active. And I'm
Speaker 2: going like, yeah, Charles Mansen was a brilliant, homicidal man
Speaker 2: maniac dude, David, But that's the way.
Speaker 1: But I'm on a boat, you know what I don't
Speaker 1: like on a boat. But it's extremely active because I'm
Speaker 1: probably yacking over the side.
Speaker 2: Sorry, anyway, I wasn't happy about David's article in that regard. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, it's interesting. I really haven't given a huge
Speaker 2: amount of thought to that ideal candidate issue. I'm just
Speaker 2: going to share with you. I'm just really optimistic about
Speaker 2: where my party is right now. I know that sounds
Speaker 2: totally there.
Speaker 1: I was just going to say that a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of you're You're actually in the minority, I
Speaker 1: think at your party.
Speaker 2: I'm optimistic. Number one, I know a lot of these
Speaker 2: people that are going to be in the mix for
Speaker 2: our next candidate, and I related some of them, and
Speaker 2: I've debated them, I've worked with them as governors. Got
Speaker 2: I just there's a lot of talent there. So I'm
Speaker 2: really confident we're going to find the right candidate for
Speaker 2: whatever reason. And Number two, I do believe that our
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four experience were largely one offs that will
Speaker 2: not be replicated. Inflation which we got hit with every
Speaker 2: country in the world and blamed for a president of
Speaker 2: extreme age, an eventual candidate only at eighty nine days
Speaker 2: to campaign, an immigration crisis that was not handled as
Speaker 2: well as it could have been. That's on us to
Speaker 2: some degree. Those were all one offs that I don't
Speaker 2: believe we're going to be replicated. So what happened in
Speaker 2: a narrow win in twenty twenty four, I don't believe,
Speaker 2: well any reason I believe is going to happen in
Speaker 2: the next go round. So I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic about
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty six cycle. I think there is a
Speaker 2: I'm kind of sarcastic on occasion, but I gave you
Speaker 2: some advice to my Republican colleagues in the House. Don't
Speaker 2: sign any long term leases, fellas, ladies, because there's fifty
Speaker 2: or sixty of you that are on in great, great
Speaker 2: danger right now. And I saw where change elections can
Speaker 2: be in nineteen ninety four. I've seen it, and there's
Speaker 2: every reason to believe that's what we're going to experience again.
Speaker 2: And something changes, because I kind of tell you the
Speaker 2: anger that's out there right now is so deep, so profound,
Speaker 2: and for so many different reasons that how they're going
Speaker 2: to pull out of this nosedive.
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, before I let you go,
Speaker 1: I'm obsessed with fine. I think there's some structural updating.
Speaker 1: You know, in the same way we had an infrastructure
Speaker 1: build because we needed to update roads and bridges. I
Speaker 1: do think we have to update the democracy to meet
Speaker 1: the needs of the twenty first century.
Speaker 2: Paul Brother Right.
Speaker 1: So one of the things that I'm I just did
Speaker 1: a Ted talk on this. I'm obsessed with this. You
Speaker 1: served to Congress. I'm curious what you think. I kind
Speaker 1: of think we need to uncap the House. I think
Speaker 1: the House there's too much distance between the House and
Speaker 1: the people. At eight hundred thousand per congressional district, do
Speaker 1: you know that that would that the fourteenth largest city
Speaker 1: in America is Austin, and it doesn't even have a
Speaker 1: population of eight hundred thousand. I don't think we should
Speaker 1: have four hundred and thirty five major cities as congressional districts,
Speaker 1: which is essentially what we've done. But I've had plenty
Speaker 1: of people say to me, Yeah, but why do I
Speaker 1: want twice as many members of Congress running around Washington?
Speaker 1: Why do I want to have that? Now? I think
Speaker 1: it would bring democracy a bit more local have people
Speaker 1: would be a little bit more connected. They might actually
Speaker 1: know their member of Congress or know somebody who knows them.
Speaker 1: You know, that's one thing. That's one thing I'm at.
Speaker 1: You know, I'd like to get rid of partisan primaries.
Speaker 1: I like what you guys do in Washington State. I
Speaker 1: like with California. There's different ways to do it. I
Speaker 1: think it's a very I think you have more people
Speaker 1: participating in primaries because of the way you guys do it.
Speaker 1: What are some structural changes you'd like to see.
Speaker 2: Well, that's an interesting one. I'm so pleased that you
Speaker 2: want more members of Congress. That is a minority position.
Speaker 2: You love it.
Speaker 1: I know as a speech, I know it is, but
Speaker 1: I really believe it. I mean, it is what the
Speaker 1: founders intended. They wanted. They wanted a House of Representatives
Speaker 1: that was nurses, that was labor day laborers. They weren't
Speaker 1: interested in it being now it's a club, it's a
Speaker 1: country club. You need ten million dollars in cash to
Speaker 1: get there, you know, either access to it or have
Speaker 1: it on your own. That's that's not the people's house.
Speaker 2: I think there's good reason to think that would be
Speaker 2: an improvement of the House Represents. But I believe there's
Speaker 2: free or four things ahead of it in mine that are.
Speaker 1: By the way. It would fix the electoral college too,
Speaker 1: without constitutional amendment. I mean that is one of my
Speaker 1: that is one of my benefits of this is that
Speaker 1: you would actually make it. It would make the electoral college.
Speaker 1: It would take Wyoming's advantage on voting for president and
Speaker 1: would cut it by two thirds. For what it's worth, I.
Speaker 2: Guess there is a percentage changed in that. So that's
Speaker 2: helpful six times to two and a half times. I
Speaker 2: like to get I'd like to get rid of the
Speaker 2: electoral college. I think that their point, obviously, if we
Speaker 2: could ever achieved that. I think Jerry Mannering is just
Speaker 2: such a moral blot on us and it has been
Speaker 2: such a such worse than when I started in politics.
Speaker 2: That Jerry Mannering has been so much more acute because
Speaker 2: of algorithms and computers have now allowed it to be
Speaker 2: diced and sliced like.
Speaker 1: Any too easy to find your voter, too easy.
Speaker 2: To find out. Now we're picking up there's only you know,
Speaker 2: twenty seats that are even contested in the United States,
Speaker 2: except in a big year like this, okay, which I
Speaker 2: believe where you might.
Speaker 1: Can open it up the aperture a little bit.
Speaker 2: Ye twenty twenty six. I think those are the two
Speaker 2: biggest things. The the what you're I'm trying to think
Speaker 2: what you've proposed, I don't think is would solve the
Speaker 2: one of the biggest problems as a structural problem, and
Speaker 2: I think you've talked about this before, is the self
Speaker 2: segregation of the constituent into polarized communities. So now there
Speaker 2: are half as many zip codes in America that have
Speaker 2: a fifty to fifty or purple split as there were
Speaker 2: when I started politics, half as many. So there's been
Speaker 2: a structural demographic shift that has made this business of
Speaker 2: democracy much more difficult because the people geographically are so segregated.
Speaker 1: Well, they've self sorted, you know, it's self sorted. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'm always hesitant to say you got to get rid
Speaker 1: of jerrymandering. I'm like, hang on, we might need a
Speaker 1: jerrymander competitive districts like that.
Speaker 2: You know that I can I can testify to you
Speaker 2: that it makes the business of consensus building so much
Speaker 2: more difficult. And if we can find it, I don't
Speaker 2: know what you can do about that, but that has
Speaker 2: been a real problem. Then we have the threats to voting,
Speaker 2: and Trump and the Republicans do want to restrict the vote,
Speaker 2: and they're taking so many actions to reduce and make
Speaker 2: it much more difficult to vote. There's something like nine
Speaker 2: million voters who don't have access. They're citizens, but they
Speaker 2: don't have access to the first piece of paper that
Speaker 2: they need, even though everybody knows they're citizens. So that's
Speaker 2: a threat as well to make it much more difficult.
Speaker 2: And the fact that we have people standing in lines
Speaker 2: for hours to vote is insane. So we have all
Speaker 2: mail voting here. You do it from your kitchen table.
Speaker 2: You got two weeks to do it, and we got
Speaker 2: a high voter participation. I see these people stand in
Speaker 2: line in the South and there's one hundred and five
Speaker 2: degrees and they made it illegal to give them water.
Speaker 2: That's how much Republicans hate people when they vote. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is a threat, and going to all mail voter
Speaker 2: really makes sense, not to big people suffer to vote.
Speaker 2: I think there's things we can do. You might have
Speaker 2: two day voting periods, for instance, if you don't have
Speaker 2: no mail voting. So there's a lot of things we
Speaker 2: can do to make it easier to have access, but
Speaker 2: we need some work. But the first is they have
Speaker 2: the first the first is to expect the president to
Speaker 2: follow the damn law. That's the first thing that we need.
Speaker 1: You know, we got It's a mighty fine constitution.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I sit here, I look at that thing, and it's like,
Speaker 1: we the founders had a lot of a lot of problems.
Speaker 1: We know this, but boy, it was a pretty good blueprint.
Speaker 1: All we have to do is follow it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And you know the thing that this experiment democracy,
Speaker 2: it is a blessing and it is unique. It's a miracle.
Speaker 2: They pulled it off back in the eighteenth century, and
Speaker 2: here we are at risk in relatively you know, prosperous
Speaker 2: times and relatively peaceful times. To think of abandoning this
Speaker 2: because of one narcissistic social path is disturbing. That's why
Speaker 2: I hope anybody who listening to the show will find
Speaker 2: a way to express themselves in.
Speaker 1: This self sorted I think the only problem I fear
Speaker 1: is that, you know, the people listening to us already
Speaker 1: are aware. It's like, how do we inform those that
Speaker 1: are busy lives, you know?
Speaker 2: And well, for another him, I'm very serious. When I
Speaker 2: talk to people, I encourage him to talk to their
Speaker 2: family first. Really, I'm very serious. About that, and we
Speaker 2: need to talk to each other about these things. You
Speaker 2: don't have to be a senator to influence this debate.
Speaker 2: You can just do it in your own family. Great man,
Speaker 2: So that's where I encourage people to start. Then run
Speaker 2: for senator.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll go to Jay Insley's house and have
Speaker 1: a raucous Thanksgiving. Come on over, hey, it's great to
Speaker 1: talk with you. Great to catch up, sir.
Speaker 2: Thank you for caring about democracy.
Speaker 1: Keep talking, all right, and let's get those SuperSonics back
Speaker 1: in Seattle.
Speaker 2: I'm working on it.
Speaker 1: I know it's got to happen.
Speaker 2: It got it, It does. Okay, be lucky.
Speaker 1: You got it. Well. I hope you enjoyed that interview
Speaker 1: with Jay Insley. Something tells me, did you get the
Speaker 1: impression he's still going to run for I did. I
Speaker 1: don't know what that's. Something is, who knows. Maybe there's
Speaker 1: a senate race in his future. Maybe he's ready to
Speaker 1: be a cabinet secretary. If there's another administration that leans
Speaker 1: to the left, we shall see. But he didn't strike
Speaker 1: me as somebody that was that was retired, as you
Speaker 1: could tell in that conversation. All right, let me get
Speaker 1: through a few ask Chucks.
Speaker 2: Ask Chuck.
Speaker 1: All right, first one, I'm curious to get your take
Speaker 1: this one. Let me read the name here comes from
Speaker 1: a fellow, Todd Todd Corning, Todd Jay of Corning, New York, Corning,
Speaker 1: the home of corningwhere all that stuff. Here's his question.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to get your take on the impact that
Speaker 1: registered independence play in our current political divide. As a
Speaker 1: left of center pragmatist or incrementalists, take your pick. I
Speaker 1: switched from D to an I as a protest against
Speaker 1: what I saw as a left word lurch within the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. By the way, I think you're not alone.
Speaker 1: I think the increase of the last four years and
Speaker 1: the independent numbers come almost exclusively from stage left. The
Speaker 1: first in the first Trump term, it most exclusively came
Speaker 1: from stage why. But here's what he asked Lately, I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if this was a mistake. I suspect that many
Speaker 1: newly minted independents that switch parties for similar reasons, and
Speaker 1: that in states with close primaries, such as my home
Speaker 1: state of New York, switching parties has only made it
Speaker 1: more likely than an ideologically extreme candidate becomes the nominee.
Speaker 1: Ding Ding ding Ding. I'm wondering what you think of
Speaker 1: the best way forward would be both for me as
Speaker 1: a voter and our nation as a whole when it
Speaker 1: comes to nominating more moderate candidates who could better bridge
Speaker 1: our political chasm. By the way, love what you're doing
Speaker 1: and I never miss an episode Keep it up. PS.
Speaker 1: I think Todd makes a better last name than a
Speaker 1: first name, appreciated as somebody who has lived with two
Speaker 1: first names. Of course, we used to joke at NBC
Speaker 1: that we were the home of the two first name
Speaker 1: of the two first name personalities Chris Matthews, Brian Williams,
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd, David Gregory. Right, a bunch of us had
Speaker 1: first and last names that could be interchangeable. Look, this
Speaker 1: is I think. I think partisan primaries are a virus
Speaker 1: in the country. I think partisan primaries are why we
Speaker 1: have too much polarization in Congress. Essentially, the average Democratic
Speaker 1: voter is much closer to the center than the average
Speaker 1: Democratic elected official, and the average Republican voter is much
Speaker 1: closer to the center than the average Republican elected official.
Speaker 1: Why is that? Because our primary system essentially tries to
Speaker 1: keep you Todd Jay from actually voting. They don't want
Speaker 1: you voting, They want you independence voting right, they want
Speaker 1: hard partisans voting only. I think it's a huge problem.
Speaker 1: I'm I think one of the bigger changes we need
Speaker 1: to make is to open the voting to all. We
Speaker 1: need to have I'd like to have more predictable times
Speaker 1: when primaries are held. Look, state should be able to
Speaker 1: hold when they want to hold them. But maybe we
Speaker 1: create sort of quarterly national primary days where if you're
Speaker 1: going to hold a primary in April, you're going to
Speaker 1: do it in this second Tuesday. If you're going to
Speaker 1: hold a primary in May, you'll do it in this
Speaker 1: second Tuesday of May. You know, some sort of predictability
Speaker 1: of schedules so people remember when they's voting, they're not shocked.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've had such a mess over the last
Speaker 1: four years in New York State. You know, the year
Speaker 1: AOC won her primary, it was the first time that
Speaker 1: they had ever held they separated the state primaries from
Speaker 1: the congressional primaries. There were actually two different primary days
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, and so she won in a much
Speaker 1: much lower turnout situation. In fact, I don't know if
Speaker 1: she wins that primary. If AOC's ever in Congress had
Speaker 1: New York held its primaries normally combined, where the state
Speaker 1: offices and the federal offices shared the same primary date.
Speaker 1: For some ludicrous reason that cycle, they did not. And
Speaker 1: you know it's I always say, butterfly effects of history, right,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the most you know, dynamic and
Speaker 1: interesting and most consequential new members of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: one arguably thanks to a fluky decision to split the
Speaker 1: calendar in some weird way that New York did to
Speaker 1: create the primary system that they created. So, look, you're
Speaker 1: not wrong. I think that the more people that vote
Speaker 1: in primaries, the less ideological winners you will have, because
Speaker 1: most people are not ideologues. Most people are where you are.
Speaker 1: You may have a preference of left versus right. You
Speaker 1: may consider yourself more of a social liberal or a
Speaker 1: fiscal conservative, however you want to look at it, But
Speaker 1: you're somewhere between the thirty yard lines. There are not
Speaker 1: many people between the zero and the thirty on the left,
Speaker 1: and ditto on the right. So you know, I do
Speaker 1: think we need to get rid of partisan primaries. I
Speaker 1: think that is just a massive decision. And yes, I'm
Speaker 1: a strategic voter, I'm lucky. In the state of Virginia,
Speaker 1: there are no there is no party registration, and I
Speaker 1: get you know, I can't if both parties are holding
Speaker 1: a primary for the same election, I have to pick
Speaker 1: a side. But for the next election, I can pick
Speaker 1: the other side. You don't ever have to. So I
Speaker 1: always vote in the most competitive primary, hard stop right.
Speaker 1: I want my vote to count, I want my vote
Speaker 1: to matter, and so I vote in primaries left and right,
Speaker 1: depending on what's the competitive primary in a given cycle,
Speaker 1: in a given year. So it's a I feel lucky
Speaker 1: that way. I would hate. I think New York State
Speaker 1: is the most undemocratic state, especially for supposed blue state.
Speaker 1: The ridiculous rules that still take place, the petition signatures
Speaker 1: that are necessary to get on the ballot, it is.
Speaker 1: It is a bit arcane the way New York does
Speaker 1: holds its elections in general. So look, you're not wrong
Speaker 1: on that, but it's a system I think that that
Speaker 1: needs needs to be changed. And and I understand, and
Speaker 1: I think you're not wrong in how you're thinking that.
Speaker 1: If you want to say, it's like, for instance, living
Speaker 1: in the district, if you live in Washington, DC, whether
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat or not. You almost have no choice.
Speaker 1: But the register is a Democrat if you want to
Speaker 1: have any say of who's going to hold office. That's
Speaker 1: true in Idaho. If you're a Republican, there's no use
Speaker 1: registering as a Democrat because all the primaries are going
Speaker 1: to basically decide in the Republican primary. So I think
Speaker 1: you have to I do think sometimes as a voter
Speaker 1: you have to be strategic in your voter registration. Second
Speaker 1: question here, as an Arlingtonian, thank you for the local
Speaker 1: political shout out here. What do you think will be
Speaker 1: Governor jenkins legacy? He made such a splash when he
Speaker 1: was elected, but it's seeing he hasn't accomplished much in Richmond.
Speaker 1: His failure to bring a major sports franchise to Virginia
Speaker 1: exemplified his lack of understanding of local politics. Also, what
Speaker 1: is having the commanders moved back into DC mean for
Speaker 1: the city? Do you think Mayor Bowser and the DC
Speaker 1: City Council can pull it off? Go? Ohs Douglas. So
Speaker 1: he's a sneaky Marylander, you know, Douglas? Are you one
Speaker 1: of those guys that still tries to say oh's during
Speaker 1: the Star Spangled banner, you know, that was that was
Speaker 1: a big When I first moved to DC, the only
Speaker 1: baseball team in the area was the Orioles. This was
Speaker 1: in the nineties, and I remember the first time I
Speaker 1: heard that. You do the national anthem ins oh the Home,
Speaker 1: and whenever you hear the oh the Home and then
Speaker 1: it's Oh's, there would always be this big o's, just
Speaker 1: like in Atlanta. You know, at the Home of the Brave,
Speaker 1: you're braves, you know, they get all excited. Well, the
Speaker 1: best thing that has happened about the downfall of the
Speaker 1: o's over the last twenty years and the rise of
Speaker 1: the Nationals in general, and sort of the dcification, the
Speaker 1: DMV really becoming its own identity. I go to DC
Speaker 1: sporting events now and I rarely hear somebody saying oh
Speaker 1: during the Star Spangle banner. Anyway, just thought i'd get
Speaker 1: that rant out of the way. Look, I think Youngkin's
Speaker 1: legacy was winning. Was winning, right, That's that's the legacy
Speaker 1: that he was able to show that Virginia still is
Speaker 1: a competitive state. If you're not a Maga Republican, but
Speaker 1: you're right. I think his his big goals, he's not
Speaker 1: been able to achieve it's some of it is you
Speaker 1: could say it's his fault. Some of it is the
Speaker 1: fault of the national atmosphere. I think he'd probably govern
Speaker 1: a bit more centrist if he didn't also have one
Speaker 1: eye on running for president someday and still wants to
Speaker 1: be sort of Maga adjacent. He certainly was flirting with
Speaker 1: being Trump's running mate, so I think he kept a
Speaker 1: bit more of a conservative. You know, it's funny. The
Speaker 1: last Republican governor before him was Bob McDonald, But Mob
Speaker 1: McDonald wanted to be the running mate and acting more
Speaker 1: moderate was the way to do that, and I think
Speaker 1: and he got well, he got a big transportation deal done,
Speaker 1: something that hadn't been done in a couple of decades.
Speaker 1: That was a big deal, So he had a legacy. Obviously,
Speaker 1: he ended up getting sort of a taint on him,
Speaker 1: having to do with some personal graft issues with some
Speaker 1: donors in the use of the governor's mansion. But he
Speaker 1: did he did get something big done, but he was
Speaker 1: sort of incentivized to move to the middle a little bit.
Speaker 1: He ran more as a conservative and ended up governing
Speaker 1: as a middle Younkin ran more as a moderate and
Speaker 1: he ended up drifting a little bit more to the
Speaker 1: right because I think he's still hoping to have a
Speaker 1: future in the Republican Party. So I think his decision
Speaker 1: to keep one eye on running for president someday in
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's Republican Party has probably constrained him from I think,
Speaker 1: having a bigger legacy as a governor here. But hey,
Speaker 1: guess what, the election ain't over yet. I mean, his
Speaker 1: term isn't over yet. He still got one, arguably one
Speaker 1: more year to do that, all right, But thank you Douglas,
Speaker 1: and I'm rooting for the O's. But if I were you,
Speaker 1: are you mad at Rubinstein? My buddy Jason Lockham Forth,
Speaker 1: a man guy, is on fire when it comes to
Speaker 1: his anger at how the O's have not spent money
Speaker 1: on free agents and unpitching. But I digress. Last question
Speaker 1: I will take for now is from Jack Vista. Jack
Speaker 1: a from Vista, California, and he writes, Hey, Chuck, despite
Speaker 1: not being a Catholic, I'm always fascinated by the conclave
Speaker 1: you and me both brother. Over the years, I've enjoyed
Speaker 1: your interviews with George Wigele. Whenever some big news out
Speaker 1: of the Vatican came and was wondering if you might
Speaker 1: have him on All Things Pope politics interview, whether it's
Speaker 1: before or after the White Smoke, I'd devour it. Jack.
Speaker 1: I am ashamed to admit that I hadn't thought about
Speaker 1: Wigel until you wrote. So. I want to give you
Speaker 1: all the credit in the world. George, if you're listening,
Speaker 1: we're coming at booking. I'd love to have you. He's right,
Speaker 1: George has got a unique understanding of the politics of
Speaker 1: the College of Cardinals. And let me just say here, Yes,
Speaker 1: I saw the movie Conclave, and I thought the ending
Speaker 1: was stupid, and I'll just leave it at that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I was so that movie was eighty percent awesome, and
Speaker 1: you know I did. I get what they were trying
Speaker 1: to do, and they thought it was an interesting twist.
Speaker 1: It just left a weird taste in my mouth. I
Speaker 1: don't know how to put it. I don't want to
Speaker 1: be a spoiler. I know a lot of people are
Speaker 1: watching it, but it was so good and it captured
Speaker 1: what I look I still this is my dream is
Speaker 1: to be, you know, to watch this happen, to watch
Speaker 1: the politics of the College of Cardinals. I've always envisioned
Speaker 1: it like the Iowa caucuses, where there's people like, we'll
Speaker 1: go in certain groups and then they have these little
Speaker 1: conversations and then they vote again. And here's this So
Speaker 1: I in my head, I've treated it sort of like
Speaker 1: the Vatican caucuses, you know, if you will. But here's
Speaker 1: something that I've learned from all of all of the
Speaker 1: experts I've spoken with over the years since I got
Speaker 1: to cover two conclaves as a professional journalist, is that
Speaker 1: nobody knows anything. This is one of those things that
Speaker 1: the conclave works its will, and you know it is
Speaker 1: you know, these are these are things that I feel like,
Speaker 1: forty years from now, we'll learn about what happened in
Speaker 1: this conclave that is about to begin any day now.
Speaker 1: So I look forward to Wigel. I'm sorry for those
Speaker 1: of you that love the movie Conclave that I that
Speaker 1: I'm giving it my you know, it's a two and
Speaker 1: a half stars for me because I love the concept,
Speaker 1: loved eighty percent of it. Thought the twist was worthless,
Speaker 1: didn't need it, wasn't necessary, could have done it one
Speaker 1: hundred other different ways. But the twist really sort of
Speaker 1: is like what really We're going there, and it's like Anyway, again,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be respectful of not being a spoiler
Speaker 1: on this, but let's just say I was bummed because
Speaker 1: I thought it's like having this incredible flight and then
Speaker 1: you just sort of land without wheels and you just
Speaker 1: sort of crash land. And that felt like a movie
Speaker 1: that crash landed for me. All Right, I'm gonna take
Speaker 1: at least a twenty four hour break the next time
Speaker 1: we update this pod. I hope you will have devoured
Speaker 1: this episode and I'll have another one right behind it
Speaker 1: ready for you to listen to. I was always like,
Speaker 1: and subscribe, We appreciate it. Tell your friends, subscribe everywhere.
Speaker 1: Subscribe on Apple, Spotify podcasts, subscribe to YouTube channel. And
Speaker 1: coming soon, we'll have a couple of other announcements coming,
Speaker 1: including a couple of other places where you'll be able
Speaker 1: to find content by yours truly with that until we
Speaker 1: upload a down