Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Incognate. You know, one of the things we talk
Speaker 1: a lot about on this podcast is trust, who deserves
Speaker 1: it and who doesn't. And lately I've been thinking about
Speaker 1: how much of our personal information is just floating around online.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about phone numbers, home addresses, emails, even information
Speaker 1: about your family, all sitting on websites you've probably never
Speaker 1: heard of. In the scary part, that information can be
Speaker 1: used by scammers and identity thieves to piece together enough
Speaker 1: details to impersonate you, target you, or worse. That's where
Speaker 1: incognate comes in. Incognate works behind the scenes to track
Speaker 1: down and remove your personal data from hundreds of websites,
Speaker 1: things like online directories, people search sites, and even commercial
Speaker 1: databases that collect and sell your data without your consent.
Speaker 1: The process is automated, and because data can pop back
Speaker 1: up again, incognit keeps monitoring and removing it for you.
Speaker 1: And one feature I really like its custom removals. If
Speaker 1: you find something about yourself online that you want eliminated,
Speaker 1: it's a listing, an old record, or something you just
Speaker 1: don't want publicly available, you can send incognit the link
Speaker 1: and a dedicated privacy expert handles the removal for you.
Speaker 1: It's a great way to reduce your digital footprint and
Speaker 1: protect yourself from scams and identity theft. Right now, you
Speaker 1: can get sixty percent off an annual incognyplan. Just go
Speaker 1: to incognit dot com slash Chuck podcast and use the
Speaker 1: code Chuck podcast. Use the code you get a discal again,
Speaker 1: that's in cogni dot com slash chucktodcast and use the
Speaker 1: code Chuck podcast to get sixty percent off and start
Speaker 1: taking control of your personal data today. Trust me, I'm
Speaker 1: constantly working on this for years myself, and here's an
Speaker 1: opportunity for you to take matters into your own hands
Speaker 1: as well. Hello thereon, Welcome to the Wednesday episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast. So on Monday, I left you with
Speaker 1: a little bit of a cliffhanger, right, I said I
Speaker 1: had a new announcement coming and involved sports history, and
Speaker 1: of course the minute it loaded, it turned out my
Speaker 1: friends at Variety were dropping their story on Monday, not Tuesday,
Speaker 1: and I was not trying to hide it from anybody.
Speaker 1: I thought it was all hitting on Tuesday, so I
Speaker 1: was trying to respect the embargoes that I'd done with
Speaker 1: some coverage. But yes, I've teamed up with longtime sports
Speaker 1: journalists Ja Donde. You may know Ja from his work
Speaker 1: at the Washington Post or his work at the LA Times.
Speaker 1: That's where I first got to know him and read them.
Speaker 1: As a Dodger fan, I would consume anything Ja wrote
Speaker 1: about the Dodgers, but would also follow his other work
Speaker 1: as well, and then, of course, as part of the
Speaker 1: hour long must see TV for the longest period of
Speaker 1: time on ESPN when he had Around the Horn at
Speaker 1: five pm Eastern and PTI at five thirty pm Eastern.
Speaker 1: Around the Horn is no longer with us. Ja's been
Speaker 1: He also is at the Medill's School and has been
Speaker 1: doing that at Midill at Northwestern, teaching sports journalism for
Speaker 1: I think it goes back to about twenty seventeen. So look,
Speaker 1: we've teamed up to do recall it dynastic, and basically
Speaker 1: what it is is every month Jay and I are
Speaker 1: going to do a deep dive on a franchise, whether
Speaker 1: it's a professional sports franchise or a college sports program
Speaker 1: that is gone to another level. Right, there's sort of
Speaker 1: there's that where they become iconic right, what makes a
Speaker 1: team or a program go from simply successful to that
Speaker 1: next level to become iconic? And we will make no bones.
Speaker 1: We are absolutely inspired by our friends over at Acquired
Speaker 1: what they've done for the business world, long form storytelling
Speaker 1: about how the great institutions in the business world were built.
Speaker 1: You know, they've done Google and JP Morgan Chase. They've
Speaker 1: even dabbled and talked about the NFL and F one
Speaker 1: Is businesses And honestly, we're you know, great ideas like
Speaker 1: why not do this for sports? And we're applying the
Speaker 1: same approach to sports franchises and programs. We want to
Speaker 1: discuss the key people in the history of that franchise,
Speaker 1: the decisions of turning points of forks on the road.
Speaker 1: So our first episode dropped Tuesday. You may have gotten
Speaker 1: it in the feed already, you may going, what the
Speaker 1: hell is this? And our first franchise that we're doing
Speaker 1: a deep dive is the Dodgers, the La Dodgers. It's
Speaker 1: a franchise that has spent decades chasing the Yankees in
Speaker 1: prestige in World Series Championships. Right, you know, in many
Speaker 1: ways it was always that's the measuring stick. But along
Speaker 1: the way in order to chase the Yankees, they ended
Speaker 1: up becoming probably arguably the most innovative sports organization in
Speaker 1: all of sports history, regardless of sport that you pick.
Speaker 1: In order to catch the Yankees, they had to be
Speaker 1: the innovators, and usually that's what happens, right. Necessity is
Speaker 1: the mother of all invention, right. And of course the
Speaker 1: story doesn't start there. The story begins in this little
Speaker 1: borough before it even became a borough of New York City, Brooklyn,
Speaker 1: New York. Eighteen eighty three is when the franchise was born.
Speaker 1: Happened to be the same year that the Brooklyn Bridge opened,
Speaker 1: and within six or seven years Brooklyn itself would become
Speaker 1: part of New York City. But that's sort of how
Speaker 1: we're going to go through this, and Jay and I
Speaker 1: are both get involved with the research, and it really
Speaker 1: is sort of are we're making the argument. That's sort
Speaker 1: of like we're making the case why this franchise X
Speaker 1: is iconic. So every month we're going to take a
Speaker 1: deep dive into an iconic franchise. So this month it's
Speaker 1: the Dodgers. It'll be from teams you love, in teams
Speaker 1: you hate, and everyone in between. The curious those that
Speaker 1: you're curious about. So the Dodgers this month, we're going
Speaker 1: to tackle the Pittsburgh Steelers in April. They will be
Speaker 1: the franchise that hosts the NFL Draft, so we thought
Speaker 1: that would the timing of that will be good. We're
Speaker 1: going to do these every month. In between each episode
Speaker 1: sort of again borrowing a you know, we're not trying
Speaker 1: to reinvent the wheel here, borrowing a page from our
Speaker 1: friends that acquired We'll also have a have an episode
Speaker 1: with somebody who can sort of talk about the franchise
Speaker 1: in more personal terms. Look, we're doing this independently. We
Speaker 1: have no patron for any time we do this. So
Speaker 1: I think as much as we know there are plenty
Speaker 1: of sports documentaries out there and episodic you know sort
Speaker 1: of takes on you know, various individual players part of
Speaker 1: a franchise, we are not taking our cues from anybody.
Speaker 1: We are simply doing it. Really, I look at it
Speaker 1: through the eyes of a of a want to be
Speaker 1: a historian, Right, I'm a history junkie, and I think
Speaker 1: what I love about Jaa and our partnership is that
Speaker 1: he you know, he's not he's as interested in the
Speaker 1: off the field stuff as he is in the on
Speaker 1: the field stuff just like I am. And in that sense,
Speaker 1: I think this is why this partnership is already working.
Speaker 1: I'd like to think. So take a listen. It's a
Speaker 1: couple takes more than it's more than two hours, right,
Speaker 1: you can't you know you're telling the story. It takes
Speaker 1: more than a thirty minute episode. But we don't expect
Speaker 1: you to listen to it in one listening. We know
Speaker 1: that you know it may be that's why we're going
Speaker 1: to do one of these a month and not try
Speaker 1: to make you consume this here. But it's a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. It's a labor of love for me, and
Speaker 1: it's just been amazing to get to know Ja and
Speaker 1: to work with him. Special shout out to the sort
Speaker 1: of the godfather of this idea, the third partner in
Speaker 1: this my longtime friend and colleague Steve Hall as well.
Speaker 1: So I hope you give it a chance. It's called Dynastics.
Speaker 1: Subscribe today wherever you get to all your podcasts me on,
Speaker 1: iHeart already it's being syndicated there. And look, each episode
Speaker 1: we come up with a we're both Jay and I
Speaker 1: have a mount rushmore of the four most iconic people
Speaker 1: associated with that franchise Hard Stop. You know, I will
Speaker 1: argue for more than you know, multiple amount rushmores that
Speaker 1: we could come up with, but we decided to lean
Speaker 1: into that gimmick. And we know it's a fun gimmick,
Speaker 1: and yes it's a gimmick, but it to just narrow
Speaker 1: it down to four creates fun little debates. So we'd
Speaker 1: love to hear from you. Don't be shy about giving
Speaker 1: us your opinion on this. Trust me, in the world
Speaker 1: of sports. The only place where people are more opinionated
Speaker 1: in the world of sports is of course, in the
Speaker 1: world of politics. So I hope you'll check it out.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the patients in this feed that I've added
Speaker 1: to it. As for this episode, we got a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of interesting nuggets on all things having
Speaker 1: to do aroun. I have a little bit of a
Speaker 1: campaign twenty twenty six update, including a fascinating new top
Speaker 1: five list, a unique take on my top five this week,
Speaker 1: which is top five most likely state wide incumbents to
Speaker 1: lose to not return to office, so slightly different it
Speaker 1: would be either gov or sitting governors or sitting senators,
Speaker 1: but the five most vulnerable of those. I thought it
Speaker 1: would be a different way to slice that idea. Going forward,
Speaker 1: We'll take some questions, but obviously, in the world of politics,
Speaker 1: it is still we are still living in one story
Speaker 1: that is going to continue and will continue to dominate,
Speaker 1: and that is all things Iran. It is as as
Speaker 1: has been foreshadowed on this podcast, and I've said in
Speaker 1: other places, Donald Trump was not going to have a
Speaker 1: lot of patience and he was going to look for
Speaker 1: an exit ramp. And he is certainly trying to talk
Speaker 1: talk his way into getting out of this war that
Speaker 1: he got himself into. And it's clear he is struggling
Speaker 1: with the political pain is causing because remember, as I
Speaker 1: reminded you on Monday, the people feeling the immediate tax
Speaker 1: hike from this war, and in this case, the tax
Speaker 1: height is the rise in gas prices. It is more
Speaker 1: folks who supported him, right, this is this gap. When
Speaker 1: gas prices go up, it is folks in rural and
Speaker 1: exurban America who are hit hardest. Well, that is geographically
Speaker 1: the heart of the Trump political base. So this is
Speaker 1: having a huge impact on his side politically, which is
Speaker 1: why he knows and is so desperate to find his
Speaker 1: way out, But what does victory actually look like. It's
Speaker 1: a question that Donald Trump is trying to He's like,
Speaker 1: if we can they pledged never to have a nuclear bomb,
Speaker 1: which they had actually pledged to do before, or if
Speaker 1: they get we destroyed their navy, he's saying, and we're
Speaker 1: able to get them from doing a state sponsor of terrorism.
Speaker 1: But and he's trying to say, and there's gonna be
Speaker 1: new people in the regime, so it's kind of like
Speaker 1: regime change. Yeah, but it's not regime change, right, And
Speaker 1: that's the problem. He's trying to spitball how he would
Speaker 1: sell victory in this, But this is the problem he's in,
Speaker 1: is that there is no easy way out of here,
Speaker 1: and there's not a good answer because there might not.
Speaker 1: There's no victory he can declare in the next four
Speaker 1: to six weeks. And at this point they kind of
Speaker 1: know it. And it looks like he is desperate to
Speaker 1: get out of this energy crisis that he's helped create.
Speaker 1: So we've arrived at one of those moments in American
Speaker 1: form policy where every path forward carries risks. And this
Speaker 1: is I've said up before, he boxed himself in. He
Speaker 1: boxed the country in You know, no matter your political persuasions,
Speaker 1: your political feelings about Donald Trump, America's prestige is on
Speaker 1: the line here and that's a huge problem. So what
Speaker 1: are the options that are facing it. It's clear that militarily,
Speaker 1: he's being given the option to escalate. Right, we continue
Speaker 1: to send more troops who look like they would be
Speaker 1: the first troops on the boots on the ground for
Speaker 1: some sort of ground incursion. Maybe it's just simply to
Speaker 1: keep this straight of horn moves open. But the type
Speaker 1: of resources we're sending over there now is in case
Speaker 1: the President makes the decision and gives the green light
Speaker 1: to putting actual American troops on the ground in Iran.
Speaker 1: But of course that's an escalation. And if you do that,
Speaker 1: that risks a wider regional war and more energy shocks
Speaker 1: and a long term commitment with no clear endgame. If
Speaker 1: you're doing what he's doing now, he's trying to hurry
Speaker 1: up and de escalate, okay, but he risks something that's
Speaker 1: potentially just as dangerous, handing Iran a strategic victory without
Speaker 1: ever formally admitting it. Right, the Jemes survived who won this?
Speaker 1: For Yes, we've absolutely eviscerated their military, and we've certainly
Speaker 1: degraded their ability to cause problems for the United States.
Speaker 1: What about for the region itself? And any circumstance that
Speaker 1: he's negotiating at the moment continues to keep. And this
Speaker 1: is where geography is Iran's best weapon. Here they're going
Speaker 1: to have a large say over who gets to travel
Speaker 1: through the Straight of Hormones. So former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis,
Speaker 1: who was the Defense secretary for Donald Trump in his
Speaker 1: first term, and he's no Iran dove, trust me on this,
Speaker 1: but he put it as bluntly as anyone has. Earlier
Speaker 1: this week, he said, the United States declares victory and
Speaker 1: steps back. Now, Iran will effectively claim control of the
Speaker 1: Strait of Horn moves. And we know what that means.
Speaker 1: It means that any moment in time they can essentially
Speaker 1: create an energy problem for the United States and the world,
Speaker 1: but it's a political problem for the US and is
Speaker 1: you know, he had his own warning here was even
Speaker 1: more vivid because he expects that under any scenario, they're
Speaker 1: going to start to charge basically charging attacks on global
Speaker 1: shipping to go through the Strait of ormentors because if
Speaker 1: you were then, you know, Israel wants regime change. How
Speaker 1: do you know that they've set it? Prime Minister that
Speaker 1: now who's said it? So they're not going to feel secure.
Speaker 1: Is the United States is going to guarantee that the
Speaker 1: US would somehow prevent Israel from attacking them? Again? Are
Speaker 1: we going to do that? Is Israel going to sign
Speaker 1: off on that? I'm skeptical. So here we are, we're
Speaker 1: going to be in a situation where the Iranians will
Speaker 1: control the strait, this regime will control the straight. I mean,
Speaker 1: still roughly twenty percent of the world's oil passes through
Speaker 1: this narrow passage, and that continues to give the Arminians
Speaker 1: leverage over the global economy. So it's hard to imagine that.
Speaker 1: First of all, they didn't have this much. You know,
Speaker 1: they arguably always kind of had this leverage if they
Speaker 1: chose to use it, but there was an uneasy piece
Speaker 1: that was there. But now by engaging in this, they
Speaker 1: know and what is their incentive not to continue to
Speaker 1: cause disruptions because they know their days are numbered if
Speaker 1: they just sort of stand pat So it's hard to
Speaker 1: it's hard to see how we get an uneasy cease
Speaker 1: fire here that somehow is attainable in sticks. I hope
Speaker 1: I'm wrong. I don't think any of us want to
Speaker 1: see a war that escalates where we have American young
Speaker 1: American men and women coming home in body bags fighting
Speaker 1: a war of choice. Yes, aron's a menace, but it
Speaker 1: would be a war of choice. Is this the time
Speaker 1: to have this war? I think we know what the
Speaker 1: answer to that is, and certainly President Trump has created
Speaker 1: a situation with our allies that makes it where we're
Speaker 1: going in alone on this. I'm going to get to
Speaker 1: more on that in a minute. But Mattis is warning
Speaker 1: becomes something bigger than just a military assessment, because militarily,
Speaker 1: you know, it's both the military has had massive strategic
Speaker 1: victory here and at the same time, there's only so
Speaker 1: much the military can do. Mattis said one other thing
Speaker 1: in his interview. He said, you know, we're in a
Speaker 1: tough spot. Now. This goes back to being boxed in.
Speaker 1: I can't identify a lot of options. This is coming
Speaker 1: from Jem Mattis. This isn't coming from some left wing blogger, okay,
Speaker 1: because that's the reality. There's no clear path forward here,
Speaker 1: and it's clear they didn't think this through at the
Speaker 1: White House. They really believed, or the President believed that
Speaker 1: this was going to be just like Venezuelan and that
Speaker 1: the incentive to survive would somehow. You know, he doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to acknowledge that this regime has kept power for
Speaker 1: forty seven years, which means there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are devoted to this regime and they're not going
Speaker 1: to go away quietly because their livelihood depends on the
Speaker 1: regime staying in power. You would think Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: understand when you have kind of that kind of loyalty, right,
Speaker 1: It's the type of loyalty he tries. He wants people
Speaker 1: loyal to him, not because they like him, loyal to
Speaker 1: him because they need them. Well, that's the type of
Speaker 1: loyalty this regime is created. They're not going easily. This
Speaker 1: episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Soul.
Speaker 1: So if you love that end of the day unwined
Speaker 1: but hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office is for you.
Speaker 1: These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give you the same
Speaker 1: relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and
Speaker 1: without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes
Speaker 1: feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
Speaker 1: delicious hemp derived THCHC, and CBD products designed to boost
Speaker 1: your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out
Speaker 1: of office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz,
Speaker 1: boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five
Speaker 1: different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe.
Speaker 1: So also has a variety of products specifically designed to
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's rest, including their top
Speaker 1: selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep. Look,
Speaker 1: I have made no secret. I am a believer in
Speaker 1: this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not
Speaker 1: partake an alcohol. For the most part, I think this
Speaker 1: stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less
Speaker 1: addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I
Speaker 1: love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and
Speaker 1: you know after work, that's what this is. So no
Speaker 1: hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan.
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Sold today, right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order. Go to getsoul dot com
Speaker 1: and use the word toodcast. That's getsold dot com promo
Speaker 1: code podcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I too,
Speaker 1: am a customer. And there's another reality that's hard to ignore.
Speaker 1: Airpower alan doesn't change regimes. History continues to show this
Speaker 1: again and again. So even after weeks of strikes, even
Speaker 1: after the damage to all these Iranian military targets, we're
Speaker 1: still left in a position where we've demonstrated force and
Speaker 1: we haven't secured the outcome, and are how are more
Speaker 1: you know, more rats sort of fall on deaf ears
Speaker 1: to those that have survived, just surviving, what more is
Speaker 1: there for us to destroy? And again this is asymmetric.
Speaker 1: Just the regime surviving is victory for them. So we're stuck.
Speaker 1: Neither side can force the other to change course, neither
Speaker 1: side can claim a decisive when, And the longer that continues,
Speaker 1: the more this becomes about perception and who looks like
Speaker 1: they held firm and who looks like they blinked, And
Speaker 1: let's just say Donald Trump is blinking lot. So this
Speaker 1: isn't just about Iran. This has got second order effects
Speaker 1: already in motion among the Iranian diaspora menary who hope
Speaker 1: this would be a turning point. Now that hope fades
Speaker 1: right among the Gulf States, the question becomes is the
Speaker 1: United States still the security partner of choice? And if
Speaker 1: the answer becomes even slightly uncertain, they don't walk away,
Speaker 1: but they're going to hedge. That's where China comes in.
Speaker 1: There'll be regional arrangements, There'll be a lot of self preservation.
Speaker 1: Because alliances don't break overnight. They hollow out. And this
Speaker 1: is yet another uncomfortable part of this. We didn't just
Speaker 1: stumble into this moment. Donald Trump helped create this moment.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the hardest thing is to say in politics are
Speaker 1: the most obvious ones that because they're complicated, but because
Speaker 1: they're so basic, you assume one doesn't need to even
Speaker 1: say it. It doesn't need to be said. But if you
Speaker 1: hollow out expertise, you get worse decisions. If you surround
Speaker 1: yourself with people who agree with you, you make more mistakes,
Speaker 1: and if you alienate your allies, you end up alone
Speaker 1: when it matters. This is an advanced political science. This
Speaker 1: is organizational leadership one oh one. Yet here we are right.
Speaker 1: How did he hollow out the expertise, He gutted the
Speaker 1: National Security Council, He surrounded himself with a bunch of secofans.
Speaker 1: Right there is no gym Matis at the Defense at
Speaker 1: the Pentagon right now offering, say e questionable advice. There's
Speaker 1: Pete Hags who, let's just say, couldn't carry Jymnatis's jockstrap.
Speaker 1: So you've got a Secretary state in theory that I
Speaker 1: think is sort of reality based. But his political future
Speaker 1: hinges on whether Donald Trump thinks he's the heir apparent.
Speaker 1: So we know what kind of limited pushback. And notice
Speaker 1: when you get all of the the fact that JD.
Speaker 1: Vans and Telsea Gabbert have both used the same spin
Speaker 1: while the President came to this conclusion, and Marco Ruby,
Speaker 1: while the President decided there was an imminent threat, and
Speaker 1: the President decided right by the way talk about CYA.
Speaker 1: None of them want to own this. They're making it
Speaker 1: clear this is a Donald Trump decision all the way through.
Speaker 1: They somehow think that they don't have it, that this
Speaker 1: is just sustain and not a tattoo. But we shall see.
Speaker 1: So here we are. He has spent the last year here.
Speaker 1: In a couple of months berating our allies, using tariffs
Speaker 1: to bludgeon our allies, and ad tacks, creating all sorts
Speaker 1: of uncomfortable alliances, making NATO, you know, threat with the
Speaker 1: threat on Greenland, shaking the confidence of our NATO allies.
Speaker 1: So that's how we spent twenty twenty five as a nation.
Speaker 1: And then he's boxed himself in and on this Iaran decision.
Speaker 1: Could use some allies to help us out with the
Speaker 1: straight of Oar moves, and they're all like, hey, good luck, brother,
Speaker 1: you're on your own now. You can sit here and complain.
Speaker 1: Where are our allies? Well, you alienated them. You made
Speaker 1: it a lot harder for them to stick by us,
Speaker 1: because sticking by the United States is suddenly politically unpopular
Speaker 1: in places like the UK, Germany, France and Italy let
Speaker 1: me repeat myself, or Japan. Can you believe that standing
Speaker 1: on the side of the United States is unpopular in
Speaker 1: those countries? That's a problem. Ironically, Donald Trump had in
Speaker 1: theory diverse voices in the room. He had a national
Speaker 1: security team that looked like it did represent a range
Speaker 1: of perspectives, from a dove like Tulsea Gabbert to a
Speaker 1: hawk like Marco Rubio. But here's the difference between theory
Speaker 1: and practice. No one appeared willing or able to tell
Speaker 1: the President something he didn't want to hear. General Kine
Speaker 1: came the closest, but he even did that through proxies,
Speaker 1: right through interviews with the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post,
Speaker 1: New York Times. And that distinction matters a lot here
Speaker 1: because dissent isn't about having different resumes in the room.
Speaker 1: It's about whether anyone feels empowered to challenge the decision
Speaker 1: that's already been made. And if they don't, then what
Speaker 1: you have is in a debate, it's a performance. And
Speaker 1: we spent all this time beating up our testing all
Speaker 1: of our alliances. We treated them as transactional people, even
Speaker 1: publicly lecturing them. The Vice President lectured Europe about the
Speaker 1: their internal values. When I thought the whole point was
Speaker 1: real politique. You do you, we do we? And it
Speaker 1: raised a simple question, if you knew you might be
Speaker 1: heading into a conflict that could disrupt global energy markets,
Speaker 1: would you spend the previous year making it politically harder
Speaker 1: for your allies to stand with you, or would you
Speaker 1: be strengthening those relationships. Because what we're seeing right now
Speaker 1: isn't a collapse of alliances. It's something more subtle. It's hesitation,
Speaker 1: it's hedging. It's a quieter kind of distance. They're not
Speaker 1: saying they won't help, but like, wrap up this war
Speaker 1: and then we'll see what we can do. And then
Speaker 1: this is where it all connects. When you narrow the
Speaker 1: circle of advice, when you prioritize loyalty over challenge, when
Speaker 1: you weaken alliances, you don't just change the environment around
Speaker 1: a decision, you actually change the decision itself. The risks
Speaker 1: look smaller they weren't. The timeline looks shorter, it wasn't.
Speaker 1: The outcome feels more manageable. Well, this hain't been as well. Now.
Speaker 1: It's interesting here is that polling is showing this war
Speaker 1: is unpopular, Okay, not surprising, and that's a huge issue
Speaker 1: for him, and I think he's very aware. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the problem here, right. He knee jerked his way
Speaker 1: into this, and now he's going to knee jerk his
Speaker 1: way out of this. And it ain't going to be
Speaker 1: that clean. I know he thinks it could be, and
Speaker 1: he has you know, rolled the dice before on Middle
Speaker 1: East decisions, and he's not and it hasn't hurt him
Speaker 1: yet until now, and I think he still thinks in
Speaker 1: his head that if they can somehow wrap this up,
Speaker 1: he can declare some sort of victory and somehow the
Speaker 1: markets will write themselves sooner rather than later. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt this global economy and the American economy has been resilient.
Speaker 1: But at some point it ain't going to be this resilient,
Speaker 1: and more importantly, everybody's going to start hedging all over
Speaker 1: the place. What's been interesting is what we're watching among
Speaker 1: independence in the polling. They don't like Democrats, they don't
Speaker 1: like Republicans, but they particularly don't like Donald Trump and Mega.
Speaker 1: So that is why independents look like they're supporting Democrats,
Speaker 1: because what they're voting against is Trump and MAGA is Trump.
Speaker 1: Trump is Mega support among independences that sit in the
Speaker 1: low twenties. That is a huge problem here. Wherever independence
Speaker 1: go in Chunk is usually when that party wins. Something
Speaker 1: else that's popped up in the polls that I kind
Speaker 1: of want people to pay attention to. Marquette is out,
Speaker 1: and what's interesting is that they did fave on favor
Speaker 1: ratings for Democratic Party, Republican Party and then MEGA believe
Speaker 1: it or not, the Republican Party are the best ratings
Speaker 1: of those three entities. Democratic Party they had the lowest
Speaker 1: rating of those three entities. But MAGA was looked closer
Speaker 1: to being as unpopular as the Democrats were, and certainly
Speaker 1: more unpopular than Republicans. And now there's always been a
Speaker 1: distinction between those that call themselves Republicans and those that
Speaker 1: call themselves MAGA, and of course anything MAGA is always
Speaker 1: more loyal to the President on everything like this. Around war,
Speaker 1: we've seen some polling showed like ninety nine percent support
Speaker 1: among MEGA voters, but among those that consider themselves more
Speaker 1: Republican than MEGA, it's been like fifty five to forty.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not been a clean break, you see.
Speaker 1: And I know, I know MEGA influencers are more anti
Speaker 1: war than the rank and file of MEGA, right, but
Speaker 1: it tells you how bad the MEGA brand has become.
Speaker 1: Where the Republican brand is in better shape with voters
Speaker 1: than the MAGA brand. If you're a Republican on the ballot,
Speaker 1: you should be relieved that this is true. I think
Speaker 1: the great fear among some Republicans is that Trump and
Speaker 1: MAGA was going to drag. The republic can brand with it.
Speaker 1: If you've got voters willing to distinguish between the two,
Speaker 1: this should be the time to go rush and grab it.
Speaker 1: Except guess what this Republican Party and Jerryman. It's made
Speaker 1: primaries so important that Republicans can't distance themselves fast enough
Speaker 1: from Trump because if they do, they won't win primaries.
Speaker 1: This is the trap that John cornyns, right, So it's
Speaker 1: a it's it's it's interesting here none of this is
Speaker 1: yet benefiting the Democrats brand, even as it benefits them
Speaker 1: in binary choices when you do those head to head tests.
Speaker 1: But the fact that this is really and in some
Speaker 1: ways you know, this Iran war could be the death
Speaker 1: knell for the MEGA brand, right because even though the
Speaker 1: influencers want the MAGA brand to be something else, as
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has always said, Mega is whatever he says
Speaker 1: it is. And it turns out the voters are look
Speaker 1: at MAGA through the prism of Trump, and maga's numbers
Speaker 1: are as bad as Trump's numbers. But the fact that
Speaker 1: the Republican Party's numbers are actually slightly better than MAGA
Speaker 1: and Trump in theories an opportunity for the Republican Party
Speaker 1: to find its way away out of the wilderness, away
Speaker 1: from Trump, if they so choose. What that really tells
Speaker 1: you is that independent voters, because that's where these numbers
Speaker 1: are coming from. Independence, have a better view of Republicans
Speaker 1: in general, the Republican Party when it's not associated with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I'll be curious to see what that means
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty eight and does the unpopularity of Trump's
Speaker 1: on pot you know, if this isn't recoverable, and there
Speaker 1: are always points and second terms where once it's gone,
Speaker 1: it's gone. He's bounced back a few other times, there's
Speaker 1: going to be a point he stops bouncing back. This
Speaker 1: might be the time he stops bound back, which means
Speaker 1: there's an opening. And what's interesting, there's one there's one
Speaker 1: person I'm keeping an eye on, closest when it comes
Speaker 1: to somebody who would run as a sort of a
Speaker 1: non maga but maybe mega call it, you know, not
Speaker 1: anti this, and it's Brian Kemp in Georgia. And guess
Speaker 1: what state is the only state so far to do
Speaker 1: a gas tax holiday. Brian camp in Georgia. Feels like
Speaker 1: an easy way for Brian Kemp presidential candidate to distinguish
Speaker 1: himself from a JD. Vance or Marco Rubio in the primary.
Speaker 1: So not lost on me that Camp you know, already
Speaker 1: has that feather in his twenty twenty eight cap should
Speaker 1: he need it, and you're starting to see polling conformed
Speaker 1: to that. Look, this is just early days of this,
Speaker 1: but I think this is going to be worth keeping
Speaker 1: tracking a which is, how can does the Republican brand
Speaker 1: start improving in the mind of some independent voters simply
Speaker 1: because Trump and MAGA have become so dominant, and what
Speaker 1: Republican office holders find a way? Hear that? All right?
Speaker 1: With that, I had a few more political items I
Speaker 1: want to get to. I think I'm gonna punt. We're
Speaker 1: going to do that. We'll do that with tomorrow's episode,
Speaker 1: including this bizarre sort of Chuck Schumer sort of attempt
Speaker 1: to sort of quell the There is clearly a growing
Speaker 1: band of senator Democratic senators that want Schimmer to go.
Speaker 1: He did a crazy interview with the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: where I think he sort of exposed himself as either
Speaker 1: being a bit out of touch or not fully on
Speaker 1: top of what is happening here, and at the same
Speaker 1: same time, you know, one can understand what he's tried
Speaker 1: to do, and so if Chuck Schumer doesn't want progress
Speaker 1: to look like Progressives have defeated him, he may want
Speaker 1: to go out on his terms rather than test the
Speaker 1: premise whether he could survive a vote himself come December,
Speaker 1: should Democrats end up with the majority of the Senate.
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna get more than that tomorrow. Will do
Speaker 1: a little bit more on the democratic side of things.
Speaker 1: But considering where we are at the run, it is,
Speaker 1: as I've said before, there is only one story impacting
Speaker 1: American politics until until it is no longer front and center,
Speaker 1: it's going to be hard to focus on anything else.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: Frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisanal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code, the
Speaker 1: todcast code. If you use the promo code podcast at
Speaker 1: check out, you get thirty dollars off. I've already used
Speaker 1: it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread.
Speaker 1: It is hard to find good gluten free bread. It
Speaker 1: is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I
Speaker 1: really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesian
Speaker 1: bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill.
Speaker 1: Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy
Speaker 1: some comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly
Speaker 1: recommend it. It is worth giving Wild Grain to try.
Speaker 1: Right now. Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off
Speaker 1: your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on
Speaker 1: when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to
Speaker 1: start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first
Speaker 1: box and free Croissants for life when you visit wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, or simply use the promo code
Speaker 1: podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace,
Speaker 1: so use that code. Top five top top jest top
Speaker 1: all right, this week I got a unique take on
Speaker 1: the top five list. I've been giving you my top
Speaker 1: five most you send it, seats most likely to flip,
Speaker 1: your top five governor seats most likely to flip. I've
Speaker 1: done some historical top five lists, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: keep that going. But I thought i'd do a slightly
Speaker 1: different take on on something, because which is the top
Speaker 1: five right now? My top five most vulnerable state wide
Speaker 1: incumbents Because in some cases, you know, like the case
Speaker 1: in Louisiana or Rhode Island, where there's a state wide
Speaker 1: incumbent who's going to lose, but they're the same party
Speaker 1: is going to end up with the seats, so they
Speaker 1: don't doesn't make my top five most likely to flip, right,
Speaker 1: whether it's in the senate races with Louisiana or the
Speaker 1: governor's races with Rhode Island. So that's why I thought
Speaker 1: we do a little bit of a take on that,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to give you right now, who I
Speaker 1: think are the five most vulnerable state wide office holders
Speaker 1: who are more at this point, four of the five
Speaker 1: are more likely to lose than win given the situation
Speaker 1: that they're currently in literally for them underwater. One arguably
Speaker 1: has still got a slight advantage here and it is
Speaker 1: in my fifth slot. So number one on the list
Speaker 1: of most vulnerable incumbent is John Cornet, right, He's already
Speaker 1: been forced into a run on off. We will find
Speaker 1: out after Memorial Day whether that'll happen. A new pole
Speaker 1: came out a couple of days ago showed him down eight.
Speaker 1: He's sort of the forty one percent, you know, he
Speaker 1: basically the number he got in the primaries, the number
Speaker 1: he's sitting on the runoff. Paxston looks like he's got
Speaker 1: the you know, the more likely. You know, this runoff
Speaker 1: is going to probably be lower turnout, and that is
Speaker 1: likely to advantage Paxton on this front. Trump is clearly
Speaker 1: not decided whether to endorse. I think in some ways
Speaker 1: he was probably he doesn't like being smoked out and
Speaker 1: the corn and people were trying corning in Thune. We're
Speaker 1: trying so hard to corner him into an endorsement within
Speaker 1: that first forty eight hours after the Texas primary, and
Speaker 1: when it didn't happen, then they knew others were going
Speaker 1: to get to him. And that's exactly what's happened. Others
Speaker 1: have gotten to Trump. So I think we're at the
Speaker 1: point now where I don't know if he gets if
Speaker 1: he gets comfortable endorsing, I just don't buy it. Not
Speaker 1: if poles continue to show corn And losing, and he
Speaker 1: does not like tobacco loser. You know he does not.
Speaker 1: He will back somebody trailing in the polls if it's
Speaker 1: early in a primary and he thinks and he knows
Speaker 1: that it will flip. He doesn't like doing it late
Speaker 1: because he does it want to. He hates being with
Speaker 1: the losing candidate. And if he can't be convinced that
Speaker 1: Corny could win, I don't think that solo endorsement is coming.
Speaker 1: So Cornn's in the one slot. In the number two
Speaker 1: slot is somebody that I haven't been mentioning. But it's
Speaker 1: like not even a close call. Dan McKee, who's the
Speaker 1: current governor of Rhode Island. He ended up replacing Gina
Speaker 1: Romundo and as governor back in twenty twenty two. He
Speaker 1: has just been in a hole for it feels like months.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's got a job approval rating that at
Speaker 1: times has been in the twenties. There was a primary
Speaker 1: University of New Hampshire poll that had him at eighteen percent.
Speaker 1: He's likely his main rival is actually the niece of
Speaker 1: Chris Dodd for those of you keeping score at home,
Speaker 1: Helena Folks. He's a former executive from CVS the pharmacy,
Speaker 1: which is headquartered in Rhode Island, so they have that
Speaker 1: is that is not a net negative being a former
Speaker 1: CVS executive. Being a former CVS executive is mostly a
Speaker 1: net positive there. And look there's the you know Rhode Island,
Speaker 1: it's a very strong democratic state in general, so the
Speaker 1: primary is where all the action is. And you see
Speaker 1: these labor and business divides, like all the normal divides
Speaker 1: you normally see in a general election in Rhode Island
Speaker 1: always takes place in the primary, kind of like what
Speaker 1: we saw in Illinois, right where interest groups know that
Speaker 1: there's only what it's a one party state, so you
Speaker 1: start to see that, Well, Dan McKee is just it.
Speaker 1: I you know, it's unusual for a governor to lose primary,
Speaker 1: but it happens. It is happened. Frank Murkowski, Lisa Murkowski's father,
Speaker 1: basically over appointing his daughter of the Senate seat, among
Speaker 1: other things, lost to primary back in twenty Back in
Speaker 1: twenty oh six, this woman named Sarah Palin ended up
Speaker 1: primary in him and she became She became governor and
Speaker 1: I think kind of made a name for herself there
Speaker 1: for a few years. But this is why I wanted
Speaker 1: to do this top five lists. I haven't been able
Speaker 1: to get this on the table. So Dan McKee number two.
Speaker 1: It is hard to see a path. You could make
Speaker 1: an argument that McKee should be in the one slot
Speaker 1: most likely to lose, Cornyn in the two. The only
Speaker 1: reason I'm putting corn in first is he's already been
Speaker 1: through round one of a primary and now the runoff.
Speaker 1: I mean it is sitting out there in theory mcke's
Speaker 1: that primary is not un till September, and so he's
Speaker 1: in theory got five more months to fix himself. So
Speaker 1: just because he's got more time, he's number two. Corning's
Speaker 1: number one. In my third slot is Bill Cassidy, another
Speaker 1: one who's more likely to lose in a primary than
Speaker 1: in general. He appears slightly more competitive in a multi
Speaker 1: candidate primary as Julia Letlow, who is basically the unofficial
Speaker 1: official endorsed challenger of Cassidy in some form. Right, these
Speaker 1: are the getting let Low in. This is where Trump
Speaker 1: wants to be. It's likely who he's gonna end up supporting.
Speaker 1: We'll see how heavily he comes in. But there are
Speaker 1: multiple candidates in the race, and the more crowded this
Speaker 1: primary is, in theory, the better for Cassidy. But it
Speaker 1: would end up in a runoff as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: they remember the state of Louisiana changed its rules basically
Speaker 1: just so that Bill Cassidy could be primary because of
Speaker 1: his impeachment vote pure and simple, right, Louisiana used to
Speaker 1: be a jungle primary state, all parties on one ballot.
Speaker 1: If nobody gets fifty, top two face off. Well, the
Speaker 1: fear this would have been Cassidy's opportunity, he would have.
Speaker 1: Cassidy would be winning reelection under the ole the rules
Speaker 1: of Louisiana's election system that they had the first time
Speaker 1: he ran. I promise you there is, and he would
Speaker 1: probably be running a different race. Now maybe there isn't
Speaker 1: you know, Maybe he's somehow done. He has figured out
Speaker 1: how to alienate the left over with his playing footsie
Speaker 1: with RFK Junior and the right by it voting to
Speaker 1: convict Donald Trump. And maybe there's no coming back from that,
Speaker 1: and because of that squeeze, there really isn't There isn't
Speaker 1: you know, he's so alienated both that nobody wants to
Speaker 1: see him succeed either way. He's easily number three on
Speaker 1: the list, but he he's not dead yet. And I
Speaker 1: just think that that is you know, I it is
Speaker 1: you know, I keep waiting. You know, I just don't
Speaker 1: know if he ends up benefiting when Bobby Kennedy messes up,
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, even though he's
Speaker 1: been a critic now of what Kennedy's doing, he's still
Speaker 1: the guy that got Kennedy into that job. And we
Speaker 1: kind of and I think we all know why he
Speaker 1: did it. He thought this is if he thought, this
Speaker 1: is what it would take to get Trump's endorsement. And
Speaker 1: we know what the Trump White House did, well, they said, well,
Speaker 1: certainly it will help. He was never going to he
Speaker 1: was never going to flip. He was never going to
Speaker 1: do it. That's something I don't know why Cassidy misread
Speaker 1: that situation Number four on the list, Susan Collins. She
Speaker 1: trails both Mills and Platner and polling and I've seen
Speaker 1: she is now benefiting that Mills and Platner are going
Speaker 1: after each other. Mills is up with another attack ad
Speaker 1: on Platner. And we're going to find out, right, how
Speaker 1: much do voters in Maine care about this stuff? You know,
Speaker 1: how powerful is the Donald Trump effect on Democratic primary voters?
Speaker 1: We already know that Republican primary voters that the you know,
Speaker 1: the personal character issues just are not what they used
Speaker 1: to be, not at all. Right, Donald Trump is is
Speaker 1: sort of you know, is sort of almost like pardoned
Speaker 1: anybody running for office on the Republican side on character.
Speaker 1: And there's clear a lot of Democrats think, hey, they
Speaker 1: they shouldn't be as picky either. I think this is generational.
Speaker 1: I think those that have grown up mostly living online
Speaker 1: know that a lot of dumb stuff gets said. So
Speaker 1: I think they're going to be a younger voter is
Speaker 1: going to be more forgiving for what Platner did, and
Speaker 1: an older voter is going to be less forgiving. Right,
Speaker 1: And in Maine, Maine is the oldest state, oldest electorate
Speaker 1: in the country, the single oldest electorate in the country.
Speaker 1: So I do think we underrate Mills's chance to get
Speaker 1: to win this primary this way and death by a
Speaker 1: thousand cuts then I think, you know, I know, the
Speaker 1: energy feels like it's with Platner. What don't underestimate sort
Speaker 1: of the main electorate, which is again not a young electorate.
Speaker 1: Just something to think about there. As for Susan Collins,
Speaker 1: I think she's you know, I think she's in. I
Speaker 1: don't see a way out of this for her because
Speaker 1: independence have turned on her and I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's going to be any moment where she can show
Speaker 1: her independence again. And if anything, it's you know, she's
Speaker 1: had those opportunities and she's chosen partisanship over independence. Right.
Speaker 1: If you think about Lisa Murkowski's is and Collins, who
Speaker 1: both essentially have a similar electorate, you know, cranky independence,
Speaker 1: that's the Alaska that's the Alaska voter arguably, and that's
Speaker 1: the main voter. Collins tries to always find herself on
Speaker 1: the side of Republicans. Murkowski always seems more likely to
Speaker 1: find her side herself on the side of not being
Speaker 1: there with the Republicans. Being more independent or sometimes voting
Speaker 1: against them. And I think Murkowski's displayed independence more credibly
Speaker 1: than Collins has. And that's why I think this time
Speaker 1: it's hard. So when I say the first four on
Speaker 1: my list are all underwater, all trailing at the moment,
Speaker 1: Corny and McKay, Cassidy, Collins, that is true. Number five
Speaker 1: on the list is somebody who's not trailing. And I
Speaker 1: have to say, here are the people I had to
Speaker 1: choose from who I think are all vulnerable incumbents at
Speaker 1: the moment. You have the governor of Nevada, Joe Lombardo,
Speaker 1: being a Republican and a dem leaning state. You know,
Speaker 1: he knocked off a one term incumbent. He's going to
Speaker 1: be facing a wealth on the challenger. Nevada is as
Speaker 1: swinging of a state as there is. I think he's
Speaker 1: holding up as well as you could under the circumstances,
Speaker 1: but he is the wind is decidedly blowing against him.
Speaker 1: And the Governor Arizona in this case, I think she's
Speaker 1: got the wind at her back a little bit Katie Hobbs,
Speaker 1: but and she you know, if Andy Biggs is the nominee,
Speaker 1: I think she's in better shape than if Schwikert, David
Speaker 1: Schwikert is the nominee there, so there, that's a nominee
Speaker 1: for the fifth slot. See Katie Hobbs, Joe Lombardo, Dan
Speaker 1: Sulivon Alaska, John Ossoff and Georgia and Pete Ricketts. And
Speaker 1: I have to tell you right now, at the moment,
Speaker 1: I think that the incumbent and that right now is
Speaker 1: in the toughest shape. Who has who has the most
Speaker 1: well formed challenger is Pete Ricketts in Nebraska. Look, he's
Speaker 1: still favorite, It's still Nebraska. But man, it is fascinating
Speaker 1: to watch how well how resilient Osborne is. He's already
Speaker 1: taken a bunch of incoming claiming he's a Democrat in
Speaker 1: independent clothing, and it hasn't really budged his numbers. So,
Speaker 1: you know, while I'm still you know, let's see he
Speaker 1: can get to fifty. I think the path to forty
Speaker 1: seven is pretty clear for him, somewhere between forty five
Speaker 1: and forty seven. But can he get to fifty? But
Speaker 1: right now, right now, I think Ricketts more so than Slomon,
Speaker 1: more so than John Houston in Ohio, another candidate for
Speaker 1: my incumbent list here, And you could make a strong case,
Speaker 1: although I'd argue John Houston's an appointed so he doesn't
Speaker 1: count as a real incumbent in that front. So my
Speaker 1: fifth slote a little bit of a Husker surprise, just
Speaker 1: like they've been to me. I know they're a four seed,
Speaker 1: but I still think of Nebraska basketball as a bit
Speaker 1: of a dark horse here, which translation means I'm probably
Speaker 1: betting on Iowa. But there you go. There's the top
Speaker 1: five most vulnerable statewide incumbents in the country. John Cornett,
Speaker 1: Dan McKee, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Pete Rippons. We'll
Speaker 1: update the list again next month. Ass chuck. All right,
Speaker 1: let's do a little last chuck. Cue the music. Hey,
Speaker 1: this has been from Colorado. I saw recently that John
Speaker 1: Hickenlooper dropped out of the caucus assembly process because he
Speaker 1: was not getting the support that he needed to show
Speaker 1: up on the primary ballot. I also saw some pulling
Speaker 1: that he is trailing fairly significant the primary right now
Speaker 1: to his challenger, Julie Gonzalez. If he loses, he would
Speaker 1: be the third single term Senator in a row in
Speaker 1: the last two Senate seat from Colorado. How about that,
Speaker 1: I guess You're right that has been the case. Have
Speaker 1: there been other cases where this has happened in the Senate? Thanks? Ben? Actually, yes, Ben,
Speaker 1: here's your answer, because it is the So I guess
Speaker 1: it would say I love that you identified it as
Speaker 1: Class two. This would be the Class three seat in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Okay, So let me give you this this
Speaker 1: run of one term senators. So you had Robert Morgan
Speaker 1: elected in seventy four, lost reelection in eighty John East
Speaker 1: elected in eighty he ends up dying, it's vacant. There's
Speaker 1: an appointment Jim Broyhill. Then you have in eighty six
Speaker 1: Terry Sandford is a Democrat, is elected, He's a one termer.
Speaker 1: Locke Faircloth is elected in ninety two, defeats him, defeats
Speaker 1: Terry Stanford, he's a one termer. He loses to John Edwards.
Speaker 1: John Edwards decides not to see reelection. And then that's
Speaker 1: when Richard Berwin's that seat in two thousand and four.
Speaker 1: And that was two terms. So here we you have
Speaker 1: Edward's one term, Faircloth one term, Sanford one term. So
Speaker 1: there's your three in a row. Really, you could argue
Speaker 1: four in a row because East got one term Morgan
Speaker 1: five in a row, so basically after sam Irvin, right,
Speaker 1: sam Irvin resigns early in his seat. After sam Irvin,
Speaker 1: the most famous you know, and you know doing the
Speaker 1: Watergate hearings, that North Carolina Class three seat had five
Speaker 1: straight one term senators. Some of them lost reelections, some
Speaker 1: of them chose not to run, one died, So you
Speaker 1: had a death presidential candidacy and incumbents losing twice. What
Speaker 1: a fun question. But like I said, I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are more than that. But if I found a five
Speaker 1: spot for you, I think and look, you know, for
Speaker 1: folks may not realize, Colorado has got an interesting little
Speaker 1: system you can if you go through the cock you
Speaker 1: can go through the essentially the state convention process, and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get into the details here, where
Speaker 1: you can qualify for a primary for the primary ballot
Speaker 1: without having to do petition signatures. You can just get
Speaker 1: it and you can try to get the endorsement. But
Speaker 1: the obviously, the party apparatus these days are dominated by
Speaker 1: the by the base voters, right base progressives with Democrats
Speaker 1: based mago for Republicans. So if you're sort of a
Speaker 1: center left or a center right politician, You're not going
Speaker 1: to be able to win an endorsement from your state
Speaker 1: conventions these days, no matter where you are, particularly in
Speaker 1: a place like Colorado. So I understand why he's going
Speaker 1: to try to go in primary his way. Here, my
Speaker 1: guess is, once he starts spending money, he's going to
Speaker 1: be quote unquote okay, especially because you'll you should expect
Speaker 1: to see a very large primary turnout. There's an open
Speaker 1: seat for Governor Michael Bennett, the other senator from the
Speaker 1: state is the sitting Attorney general or running against each
Speaker 1: other in the primary, So there should be a large turnout,
Speaker 1: and I imagine Hickenloopers should be okay in a large turnout.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the fireable offense is, and if
Speaker 1: the fireable offense is he's not progressive enough. I don't
Speaker 1: know if there's enough enough voters to knock him off.
Speaker 1: But we shall see, you know, he certainly. I've said
Speaker 1: this before. I think being an incumbent on the ballot
Speaker 1: that's vulnerable this year hard stop. Obviously, some vulnerabilities are
Speaker 1: greater than others, but I would keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: Next question, Matt Minneapolis, Hey, as a horse race election guy,
Speaker 1: elections guy, I've really been enjoying the primary night live streams. Nice.
Speaker 1: Please keep them coming. We will. Next one is going
Speaker 1: to be for the Virginia special referendum, by the way,
Speaker 1: in on April twenty first. Then we'll do all the
Speaker 1: May primaries. May. He's going to be a huge primary month,
Speaker 1: so mark your calendars. Recently, you said that if Antonin
Speaker 1: Scalia had lived, Trump wouldn't have been elected, which seems
Speaker 1: to apply. Hillary would have won in twenty sixteen. But
Speaker 1: you also said the year it said the year you
Speaker 1: thought she could have won was four. I do believe that.
Speaker 1: Can you explain what you meant? Also, with and I
Speaker 1: owe money and the transfer portal changing college basketball, do
Speaker 1: you think limiting players to one transfer could help fix
Speaker 1: some of the current issues and restore more team continuity?
Speaker 1: Matt in Minneapolis, Go Gophers? All right, you got three
Speaker 1: questions here, so yes, I think ultimately, I do believe
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's best shot at the presidency was actually two
Speaker 1: thousand and four, the year she didn't run, you know,
Speaker 1: not OA in not sixteen. What do I mean? Why
Speaker 1: do I say, oh, four more than any others? And
Speaker 1: I did this as a what if exercise, By the
Speaker 1: way of alternative history, she was the front runner. She
Speaker 1: had very high favorable ratings at the time, probably was
Speaker 1: higher favorable ratings than John Carrey did at the time
Speaker 1: or even Al Gore. But that would happen with Hillary,
Speaker 1: right like you know, when she was in the middle
Speaker 1: of a political campaign, then all the negatives would negative
Speaker 1: negativity would come and it would lower her numbers. But still, look,
Speaker 1: we were in the middle of a war right after
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. I just think that being the former
Speaker 1: first lady with another president sort of with a former
Speaker 1: president as the first gentleman, would have probably been enough
Speaker 1: to convince that slice of voter who didn't want to
Speaker 1: change horses in midstream during a war. And we were
Speaker 1: at ward twenty oh four. So that's why I believe
Speaker 1: the only Democrat that could have won maybe Al Gore
Speaker 1: as a sitting former sitting vice president, former vice president,
Speaker 1: But I actually think that would have been the moment.
Speaker 1: I think Hillary would have been seen as hawkish enough,
Speaker 1: and frankly, those voters that might be a little hesitant
Speaker 1: about electing a woman president might have been reassured by
Speaker 1: the fact that there's a former president who she happened
Speaker 1: to be married to I just think when you're changing,
Speaker 1: if you're asking voters to change commander in chiefs, they're
Speaker 1: going to want more familiarity. And that's a case where
Speaker 1: I think this is where by point, this is where
Speaker 1: her her being tied to a former president was an asset,
Speaker 1: and I think a four would the only time was
Speaker 1: an asset. Right, it was a liability in no A
Speaker 1: because it didn't signify change, and by sixteen it was
Speaker 1: a liability frankly for the same reason. Now, yes, do
Speaker 1: I think that she ends up winning, I think she's
Speaker 1: only a one term or if she does in sixteen,
Speaker 1: if Scalia lives, I do because I do think Trump
Speaker 1: had been disqualified and I think the only thing that
Speaker 1: brought many Republicans back to hold their nose and instead
Speaker 1: of voting Gary Johnson as a as a protest vote,
Speaker 1: but when ahead to vote to Trump was the fact
Speaker 1: that there was an open seat that was going to
Speaker 1: be that could change literally change ideological hands depending on
Speaker 1: the election of the president. And I do not I
Speaker 1: think if Scalia is alive, I do not think. I
Speaker 1: think you have more of those events, those people that
Speaker 1: didn't like his character, who weren't ready to come aboard
Speaker 1: the Trump train, probably end up in the Gary Johnson column,
Speaker 1: and Gary Johnson probably ends up closer to ten percent,
Speaker 1: which would have been the decisive figure for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: So there's my explanation of that. All right, let me
Speaker 1: take one more question here, because I went long on
Speaker 1: both of those. This comes from Patrick in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: He goes the talk of I five and I ninety
Speaker 1: five and political party messaging made me think of one
Speaker 1: of my favorite pop culture quotes that unintentionally sums up
Speaker 1: a lot of American politics. You see Homer meaning Homer Simpson.
Speaker 1: You see Homer. There's a place between New York and
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. We call it America. Do you have any
Speaker 1: pop culture quotes or moments that unintentionally carry weight politically,
Speaker 1: Patrick and Los Angeles, I'll tell you one that I
Speaker 1: use all the time. I always say my favorite political
Speaker 1: pundit is Buffalo Springfield, which of course is a group,
Speaker 1: not an individual, but some people think it Buffalo Springfield
Speaker 1: sounds like an individual. But there's a there's a great
Speaker 1: Buffalo Springfield song. So the song title this is a
Speaker 1: Buffalo Springfield song. The song title is for what It's worth.
Speaker 1: It was written by Steven Stills. But it's but I
Speaker 1: always say, you know, I think the most important, the
Speaker 1: smartest political pundit we've ever had in handicapping elections as
Speaker 1: Buffalo Springfield. Because and this goes back, and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you the origin of why I became obsessed with this quote.
Speaker 1: The quote goes, there's something happening here. What it is
Speaker 1: ain't exactly clear, and it's that first half. Now, the
Speaker 1: rest of the stanza goes, there's a man with a
Speaker 1: gun over there telling me I gotta beware, So I
Speaker 1: leave the gun line out. But there's something happening here
Speaker 1: and what it is ain't exactly clear. It is my
Speaker 1: favorite cop out political punditry quote. And the first person
Speaker 1: I ever saw use it was actually Stan Greenberg. He
Speaker 1: was Bill Clinton's polster in ninety two. We made it
Speaker 1: our quote of the day in the Hotline, and it
Speaker 1: was just I just thought it was the funniest thing ever,
Speaker 1: because it was like, it was clear to me that
Speaker 1: the reporter who was quoting Greenberg thought they were taking
Speaker 1: a serious quote from the polster, going well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's something happening out here, but what it is ain't
Speaker 1: exactly clear. Didn't say he was quoting somebody, so the
Speaker 1: reporter was sort of oblivious to the fact that he
Speaker 1: was doing a lyric, you know. And so I've always
Speaker 1: just thought, I mean, you know, when you're a political reporter,
Speaker 1: the weirdest things crack you up, and this one always
Speaker 1: cracked me up. So it's always actually been my go to,
Speaker 1: Hey whenever I you know, if I've been asked for
Speaker 1: the empteeenth time, which way are things going? You know?
Speaker 1: What did this poll mean? Well? You know, you know, Leicester,
Speaker 1: there's something happening out of here, and what it is
Speaker 1: ain't exactly clear. You gotta stop. Hey, what's that anyway?
Speaker 1: So with that, I will leave you here. I've got
Speaker 1: a real great rant to come on the Wizards and Nationals.
Speaker 1: I do believe, and I challenge you, my listeners, to
Speaker 1: to prove me wrong. Of all the form. If you
Speaker 1: want to count NHL as your fourth major sport, NFL, NBA,
Speaker 1: MLB and NHL, is there a four major sports city
Speaker 1: in worst shape than right here in Washington. I don't
Speaker 1: think there is another for sport, major city, major league
Speaker 1: city who doesn't have at least one team can actually
Speaker 1: contending for a title. The best we got is sort
Speaker 1: of the Caps and OV who you just had and
Speaker 1: can't ever count them out, and who knows, right hockey playoffs,
Speaker 1: anything can happen. But let's be honest, it's kind of
Speaker 1: weak tea, right, It's aging. You know, it's a mess here.
Speaker 1: The Wizards and Nats are embarrassing, embarrassing their fan bases.
Speaker 1: And I have a lot more to say about this
Speaker 1: tanking thing, but I've got to wrap up this broadcast,
Speaker 1: so with that, I'll see in twenty four hours.