Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game podcast with Ryan Gardeski,
Speaker 1: and I'm your host. Happy Monday. I hope you all
Speaker 1: had a wonderful weekend. Right now, in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats are very busy actively recruiting candidates for
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty six US Senate election. Democrats have to
Speaker 1: defend two Senate seats in states that Trump won Georgia
Speaker 1: and Michigan, as well as a handful of states that
Speaker 1: we're closer than expected in places like New Hampshire, Minnesota,
Speaker 1: New Mexico, Virginia, and New Jersey. Republicans, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: have to only defend one incumbent in a blue state.
Speaker 1: That's Susan Collins and Maine. The only other Republican even
Speaker 1: running in a swing state is Tom Tillis North Carolina.
Speaker 1: And remember that's the state that Trump won three times.
Speaker 1: Every other state where Democrats have to try to compete
Speaker 1: in is basically a long shot. Iowa, Florida, and Texas.
Speaker 1: Democrats have a very slim road to the majority in
Speaker 1: the Senate. And it's not just this year. See and
Speaker 1: I want to go back in history for a second.
Speaker 1: I want to show you how difficult it is for
Speaker 1: Democrats to win majorities and large majorities. In twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Republicans really screwed up and they fell a little short.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four. They nominated bad candidates, They were
Speaker 1: caught flat foot and an abortion, They were outspent and outgunned,
Speaker 1: and voters in Arizona fell in love with the crazy
Speaker 1: con artists named Carry Lake two too many times. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, Republicans lost Senate seats in five competitive races,
Speaker 1: six if you count the special election in Georgia. Had
Speaker 1: they won those races, it would have taken the Republican
Speaker 1: up to fifty five Senate seats. Now, in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Republicans did do better. They happened to win four seats,
Speaker 1: but they came within just a few points of picking
Speaker 1: up four more in states that Trump won Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: and Michigan. Had they won those four plus the five
Speaker 1: that they should have won in twenty twenty two in
Speaker 1: a competitive year for Republicans, it would have given them
Speaker 1: a filler buster proof majority, something that they have not had.
Speaker 1: Republicans have not had a fillbustproof majority since nineteen twenty one.
Speaker 1: Those are all states that are within reach. Those are
Speaker 1: all states that Republicans compete in for the presidency. These
Speaker 1: aren't long shot elections that they'd have to win, not
Speaker 1: like when they won the Senate seat in Massachusetts in
Speaker 1: two thousand and nine, for the Senate states in Illinois
Speaker 1: or Colorado in twenty ten. Now it's been one hundred
Speaker 1: and four years since Republicans won a Senate supermajority. That's
Speaker 1: not the case for Democrats. Since nineteen twenty one, Democrats
Speaker 1: have held the super majority in the Senate fifteen times
Speaker 1: or thirty years. Thirty years out of one hundred a
Speaker 1: third has not only had a Democrat majority, but a
Speaker 1: Democrat super majority. The Senate has essentially always been a
Speaker 1: Democrat institution because they were able to win with a
Speaker 1: grand coalition of Democrats. They had Prairie populace, they had
Speaker 1: Southern Conservatives, they had New Deal Democrats in the north West, East,
Speaker 1: Progressives in the Northwest and in the Midwest. But as
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans, to be fair, both became more ideologically rigid,
Speaker 1: they were electoral map in the Senate and the White
Speaker 1: House changed, and for Democrats it became smaller and smaller.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, it was the very first time
Speaker 1: in one hundred years that Republicans controlled every Senate seat
Speaker 1: in a state where the Republican presidential nominee won by
Speaker 1: double digits. That's twenty four states, or in forty eight
Speaker 1: Senate seats. The other five that Republicans hold four in
Speaker 1: swing seats seats, one in Pennsylvania, one in Wisconsin, two
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, and won the blue state of Maine
Speaker 1: with Susan Collins. But as long as Republicans hold on
Speaker 1: to every state that Trump won by double digits, it
Speaker 1: means that their basement number is forty eight. For a
Speaker 1: comparison to Democrats, if they just hold on to every
Speaker 1: Senate seat in the state that Harris won by double digits,
Speaker 1: they only have twenty six. That's why Democrats are demanding
Speaker 1: they massively reformed the Senate because they can no longer
Speaker 1: use the same winning playbook they've had for the last century.
Speaker 1: Think about it, not many Democrats were very upset that
Speaker 1: North and South Dakota had as many senators as California
Speaker 1: when most of those senators from the Dakotas were Democrats,
Speaker 1: which Democrats by the way controlled most of the US
Speaker 1: Senate seats in the Dakotas from nineteen eighty eight to
Speaker 1: twenty ten. Democrats are also facing a similar structure to
Speaker 1: the electoral College in twenty thirty two going into the
Speaker 1: future looking forward. Even before COVID Democrats were seeing exodus
Speaker 1: from blue states, but the pandemic exacerbated those trends substantially.
Speaker 1: The Brennan Center, which is a fairly left wing organizational,
Speaker 1: oother nonpartisan, but they have a left leaning to them.
Speaker 1: They estimate that states that voted for Kamala Harris are
Speaker 1: set to lose ten electoral College seats, while Republicans states
Speaker 1: regarded states they voted for Trump are set to gain ten.
Speaker 1: Most of those are concentrated in the South. States like
Speaker 1: Texas and Florida are going to gain four each, while
Speaker 1: California and New York are going to lose six, four
Speaker 1: from California and two from now New York. Think of this.
Speaker 1: Had Harris won all the Blue Wall states Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: she did when Minnesota, don't know why I said that,
Speaker 1: but Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would have won the presidency.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and seventy to two hundred and sixty eight
Speaker 1: electoral College votes. Now take away the twelve electoral college votes,
Speaker 1: ten that the Democrat states are losing, and the two
Speaker 1: that the Midwestern states that are swing states Pennsylvania and
Speaker 1: Wisconsin are said to lose, and even had she won
Speaker 1: the Blue Wall, she would have still lost the presidency
Speaker 1: two hundred and eighty seats to electoral College votes to
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty eight. That's with the entire Blue
Speaker 1: Wall enacted. That means for the next decade, for the
Speaker 1: twenty thirty decade, Democrats have to recapture the White House
Speaker 1: by basically winning the entire Blue Wall plus Georgia and Nevada.
Speaker 1: It becomes very very difficult. Maybe that will happen, but
Speaker 1: it becomes much harder where essentially they can't rest in
Speaker 1: their laurels institutional support among these historic blue states. And
Speaker 1: it means unless the sun belts switches in any capacity,
Speaker 1: which it's moving to the right. With the exception of Georgia,
Speaker 1: everything kind of relies on Georgia. For Democrats, there's really
Speaker 1: no path to the White House, and there's certainly no
Speaker 1: path to a super majority in the Senate. The coalition
Speaker 1: that every Democrat has basically count on since FDR all
Speaker 1: the way to Obama and even Joe Biden to a
Speaker 1: certain extent, is gone. And that speaks volumes of trouble
Speaker 1: for the Democratic Party, especially now as they recruit to
Speaker 1: claw back any chance that they have at winning the
Speaker 1: US Senate going forward. We have a writer on the
Speaker 1: show coming up to who talks about and writes about
Speaker 1: how the Democrats are trying to claw back their majority
Speaker 1: in the US Senate if they have a chance, and
Speaker 1: what would it take for Republicans to finally break through
Speaker 1: and win a supermajority for the first time in over
Speaker 1: a century. Coming up next with me this week is
Speaker 1: Arman Thomas. He is a writer for a great website
Speaker 1: called split ticket dot org, a split hyphen ticket dot
Speaker 1: org great website on electoral politics. They had a super
Speaker 1: interesting article called the real reason Democrats can't compete for
Speaker 1: sixty Senate seats. Arman, thank you for being here.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ryan, it's a pleasure to be on the
Speaker 2: podcast with you.
Speaker 1: So armand now you look like a fairly young guy.
Speaker 1: When I was growing up, Democrats would regularly have seats
Speaker 1: in the Dakota's West Virginia. Obviously there were prairie, populous
Speaker 1: and Midwestern Democrats that would would be winning in states
Speaker 1: that went for Ronald Reagan and for George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: That doesn't happen with the exception of Susan Collins, right.
Speaker 1: Tell us why Democrats can't compete in places they used
Speaker 1: to anymore.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's a couple of factors. The first
Speaker 2: is simply the ideological positioning of the Democratic Party. Ever
Speaker 2: since the you know, the decline of the New Deal
Speaker 2: Coalition in you know, the sixty seventies, eighties, you know,
Speaker 2: the Democrats have been searching for a solution for who
Speaker 2: is someone who can bring together a winning you know,
Speaker 2: array of voters. And in the eighties Democrats got the
Speaker 2: clocks cleaned, you know, every election that happened. And in
Speaker 2: the nineteen nineties, you know, Bill Clinton and the Democratic
Speaker 2: Legislative Council made the decision to kind of triangulate and
Speaker 2: moderate and focus on winning you know, socially liberal suburbanites
Speaker 2: and you know, educated white people, and you know, you
Speaker 2: still saw enough of that more conservative rural, you know,
Speaker 2: Southern Dixie heritage that we used to be in the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party. Because Bill Clinton was a Southerner from Hope, Arkansas. However,
Speaker 2: all of this really started to take its current shape
Speaker 2: in two thousand when Al Gore was the nominee. Right,
Speaker 2: he was a Senator from Tennessee. He was Clinton's vice president,
Speaker 2: but he very much, you know, cast off a lot
Speaker 2: of his old southern heritage and his record that he
Speaker 2: ran on in favor of you know, big government, you know,
Speaker 2: Northeastern style liberalism. And that's kind of the where the
Speaker 2: party has been for the past twenty odd years.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And you know, West Virginia, which is a stal ward
Speaker 2: of the Democratic Party, voted against Gore in two thousand.
Speaker 2: You know, if he didn't you know, take policies that
Speaker 2: alienated his voters, he would have been president. And you know,
Speaker 2: every at every juncture the party has had an opportunity
Speaker 2: to make decisions about what ideology it wants. The side
Speaker 2: that has won out has always been the social cultural liberalism,
Speaker 2: you know, based in race and identity.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Obama beat Hillary in two thousand and eight, Hillary beat
Speaker 2: Bernie in twentyeen, Right. And so what that leads to
Speaker 2: is just, you know, this is where the party is,
Speaker 2: and people who have voted Democratic, their whole lives. They
Speaker 2: were Democrats because it stood for one thing, right, whether
Speaker 2: that's faith, a family and a country, or the unions.
Speaker 2: It doesn't stand for that anymore, and you know, so
Speaker 2: this kind of sorting is bound to happen. I think
Speaker 2: related to it is also the rise of you know,
Speaker 2: people just being more politically aware of what, you know,
Speaker 2: issues are actually going on. Right in the eighties, it
Speaker 2: was only really in the nineties that the top radio
Speaker 2: and cable news and Fox and all of this, you know,
Speaker 2: all of these things to keep people politically plugged in
Speaker 2: really became a huge thing, right, And in the nineteen
Speaker 2: nineties you saw the first wave of you know, working
Speaker 2: class you know, for lack of a better word, non
Speaker 2: cosmopolitan Democrats fall right in the South, in the interior West.
Speaker 2: You fast forward to twenty ten, you see a lot
Speaker 2: more of that happen. And now especially you're seeing a
Speaker 2: lot of those same shifts happen with non white Americans too,
Speaker 2: And so I think it's just a combination of people
Speaker 2: becoming more aware of what the parties actually stand for,
Speaker 2: right because in the old days you could vote liberally,
Speaker 2: but because there was a lack you know, there was
Speaker 2: an information gap. People didn't know about it as much
Speaker 2: because people don't pay as much attention.
Speaker 1: Well, there also used to be more. There used to
Speaker 1: be Democrats that really fit the uniform of their state, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and in a lot of ways that is rare now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And so that's that's what I'm going to get
Speaker 2: into as well, which is that, you know, we talked
Speaker 2: about the choices that the parties have made ideologically, We've
Speaker 2: talked about the fact that people are just more aware
Speaker 2: of what's going on. Right. You know, people like Ken
Speaker 2: Conrad and Byron Dorgan, who were senators from the Dakotas,
Speaker 2: we're not that conservative, you know, relative that, I mean,
Speaker 2: they were more conservative, but not that conservative. It was
Speaker 2: still well to the left of the Median Republican on
Speaker 2: a lot of issues. It just matters now that a
Speaker 2: lot of people realized, Hey, I can actually see that
Speaker 2: this Democrat, even if he's a North Dakota Democrat, is
Speaker 2: liberal and I don't like that liberalism. And then the
Speaker 2: third thing is right with respect to education. Right up
Speaker 2: until about twenty twenty, the divide was very much urban
Speaker 2: versus rural, white versus non white. Right, that was a
Speaker 2: pretty useful heuristic for understanding where the parties were going.
Speaker 2: And it's why up until about twenty twenty, Democrats had
Speaker 2: a lot of hope for places like Florida, for places
Speaker 2: like Texas, you know, for you know, even the idea
Speaker 2: that you know, the rising tide of diversity was going
Speaker 2: to lift them up and you know, kind of cause
Speaker 2: Republicans to go extinct in their current.
Speaker 1: There was the Obama coalition.
Speaker 2: Right and well, now again because now what we're seeing
Speaker 2: is the choices that Democrats have made coalitionally have been
Speaker 2: to prioritize college educated white Democrats you know, over everyone else. Right,
Speaker 2: that that's the big cleavage and democratic politics today. You're
Speaker 2: seeing it a play out in the New York mayoral race
Speaker 2: as well. You know, that's why you're seeing the coalitions
Speaker 2: that you saw now. Right, If you went back to
Speaker 2: twenty twelve or twenty sixteen and told someone, hey, you know,
Speaker 2: Texas is going to go, you know, shift, you know,
Speaker 2: eight points to the right while Ohio basically barely budgets
Speaker 2: relative to the national environment, you'd be told, you know,
Speaker 2: everyone would.
Speaker 1: Think you're crazy.
Speaker 2: Now, when you talk about Democrats who fit their state,
Speaker 2: that was a lot more common, right, and I think
Speaker 2: that has to do with, you know, primarily point two
Speaker 2: of what I talked about with respect to the awareness piece.
Speaker 2: Right people, activists, the groups, as you know everybody on
Speaker 2: Twitter likes to talk about, they have a lot more
Speaker 2: influenced in terms of shaping a national discourse. Right, A
Speaker 2: Democrat from Alabama in the nineteen eighties or the ninety
Speaker 2: nineties could realistically get away with, you know, being pro life,
Speaker 2: pro gun, you know, anti abortion, anti gay, I mean,
Speaker 2: transgender stuff was not really a thing back then as
Speaker 2: a political issue. But you would assume that if it
Speaker 2: was Alabama, Democrats that could win statewide would not support
Speaker 2: that in any meaningful way. However, it's a combination of
Speaker 2: the fact that the Democratic Party's organizing muscle is often
Speaker 2: rented out to ideologically captured groups that do it, and
Speaker 2: so they have an incentive in making sure that what
Speaker 2: they want is featured.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, they're not Harman. Can I can I ask
Speaker 1: you one thing about that is you write you guys
Speaker 1: write this on split ticket dot org. Polarization has caused
Speaker 1: the ban of plausible outcomes to shrink for any given race.
Speaker 1: Fourteen of the fifteen elections with candidates effects of twenty
Speaker 1: plus points. Those are people who outran their party. Tw
Speaker 1: points happened in twenty sixteen and twenty eighteen, and the
Speaker 1: remaining one happened in twenty twenty. Since then, no election
Speaker 1: is seen a candidate quality yield a twenty point electoral effect.
Speaker 1: And basically, what you guys say is that candidate quality,
Speaker 1: a candidate who really matched their state really didn't matter
Speaker 1: where you could outrun the presidential candidate by twenty points.
Speaker 1: You guys were in twenty sixteen that there were fifty
Speaker 1: nine candidates. I'm guessing this is house on cent fifty
Speaker 1: nine candidates that outran their They outran their party's presidentially
Speaker 1: by fifty nine, fifty or fifty nine by ten points.
Speaker 2: Not the presidential lean, but the expected result because oh, sorry,
Speaker 2: expect the result. Placement score accounts for down ballot lag.
Speaker 1: Okay, my missing fifty nine out round expected results by
Speaker 1: ten points, twenty four by fifteen points, and eight by
Speaker 1: twenty points. By twenty twenty four, that number had shrunk
Speaker 1: from fifty nine to thirteen from for ten points above
Speaker 1: twenty four to three by fifteen points, and eight to
Speaker 1: zero for twenty points. Does counter quality really matter at all, so, I.
Speaker 2: Think it absolutely does. I think there's two reasons why
Speaker 2: this decline has happened. The first is just the nationalization
Speaker 2: of everything, right in the age of the Internet, in
Speaker 2: the age of social media, right to more extent, you know,
Speaker 2: to a greater extent for the Democrats, but even for
Speaker 2: Republicans too as well. You can't really run as independent
Speaker 2: of a campaign anymore because everybody has the Internet. You know,
Speaker 2: if you're a Democrat running with a D next to
Speaker 2: your name and you're trying to flip a seat in
Speaker 2: you know, I don't know Wyoming you're gonna have, You're
Speaker 2: gonna still be tired with the same brush as the
Speaker 2: insurrection rioters in Los Angeles right now. You know, I
Speaker 2: don't even know if the Democrats or not, but everyone
Speaker 2: is associating them with the Democratic Party, right, And the
Speaker 2: same is true for Republicans, right because look at someone
Speaker 2: like Larry Hogan, objectively a very very qualified public servant
Speaker 2: who's won elections in Maryland before, but people associate him
Speaker 2: with Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz and other Republicans, and
Speaker 2: the median voter in Maryland has died in the world,
Speaker 2: liberal Democrat and even if they liked his low tax policy,
Speaker 2: they're just not going to vote for someone who will
Speaker 2: vote for Republicans.
Speaker 1: He did very well, I mean he outperformed substantially, so, right.
Speaker 2: He still was a great candidate. The problem is if
Speaker 2: he ran in two thousand, he probably would have won
Speaker 2: the election because polarization was just not as vague as so.
Speaker 2: That's the first thing, right, It is just people are
Speaker 2: more aware of what ideology actually means, and they're much
Speaker 2: more able to connect that to whether or not that
Speaker 2: lines up or goes against their own values. That's the first.
Speaker 2: The second is that because of the incentive structure for
Speaker 2: the parties and who's going to fund them, the types
Speaker 2: of people who would be able to generate those kinds
Speaker 2: of overperformances are less likely to actually be drawn to run. Right,
Speaker 2: I'll start with the Republicans. Right, If you look in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen on the massive overperformance side, right, it was
Speaker 2: you know John Katko, Tom Price, you know Bob Dold. Right,
Speaker 2: these are all very moderate Republicans whose whole shtick was,
Speaker 2: you know, I am a Republican, but I am you know, independent,
Speaker 2: and I have my own brand which is just you know,
Speaker 2: I am not all about doing whatever Donald Trump wants, right,
Speaker 2: you like it or not. That's what the GOP is
Speaker 2: is whatever Donald Trump wants. This is what everyone is
Speaker 2: going to support. Right. The only Republican today who really
Speaker 2: still has that kind of brand around is Susan Collins.
Speaker 1: Right, what about Thomas masseying?
Speaker 2: I mean, I can check, so Thomas Massey is independent
Speaker 2: from Trump, but from the other direction.
Speaker 1: Which yeah, is so much more right wing. Yeah, okay, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I agree. Susan Collins does have the brand of being
Speaker 1: at Susan she marches the beat of her own drum,
Speaker 1: and I think that she is unique. I think Cinema
Speaker 1: would have been there if she could have held on,
Speaker 1: but she couldn't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, And you see it more with Democrats, just
Speaker 2: because the nature of the way the electoral map, with
Speaker 2: the Senate bias and all is is that Democrats have
Speaker 2: to find more right wing people relative to the party
Speaker 2: who run to be competitive. But still, just because of
Speaker 2: how ideologically polarized everything is gone, you wouldn't be able
Speaker 2: to get pro oil, pro gun, anti abortion, anti gay,
Speaker 2: anti trans Democrats, you know, elected, right. I don't know
Speaker 2: if you remember there was a guy called Charles Graham
Speaker 2: from North Carolina. He was a Lumbee, Indian state representative
Speaker 2: from North Carolina. He was a Democrat, and the Lumbies
Speaker 2: are conservative leaning group of voters, and historically they've been very,
Speaker 2: very Democratic, but now because of Trump, they've gone towards
Speaker 2: the Republicans. And Graham was their state representative for a
Speaker 2: long time. And when he was in the House, in
Speaker 2: the state House, when they were doing all of the
Speaker 2: bathroom bill stuff, I think he was one of two
Speaker 2: Democrats to vote for that anti transgender bill. Naturally, as
Speaker 2: you would expect, you know, when you're trying to get
Speaker 2: national donor money, he had to repudiate a lot of
Speaker 2: those votes that he took which were representing, you know,
Speaker 2: the authentic beliefs of his community. And so that just
Speaker 2: goes to show you that, you know, there are some
Speaker 2: things that no matter where it is, the Democratic Party,
Speaker 2: I mean, both parties have things that you that they
Speaker 2: just will not compromise on. Yeah, the Republicans it's fealty
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump and for Democrats it's you.
Speaker 1: Know, children is I'm just kidding about that, Yeah, what
Speaker 1: you said, But the main thing transing children.
Speaker 2: But the reason for being in the Democratic Party is
Speaker 2: that Democrats view themselves as the party that will expand
Speaker 2: civil rights right right, since nineteen sixty four and all
Speaker 2: that when they started to lose the white vote. That's
Speaker 2: kind of been the whole thing is we're going to
Speaker 2: expand the moral arc of the universe bends towards right.
Speaker 2: You taught when you see this debate now, right, whenever
Speaker 2: there's people who say we need to moderate on some
Speaker 2: social and cultural issues, the go to response is, who
Speaker 2: do you want to throw under the bus? Right, because
Speaker 2: the idea that you can make a strategic retreat on
Speaker 2: anything is viewed as retreating from civil rights.
Speaker 1: That's a great point. That's a greeting on.
Speaker 2: Civil rights is anathema to you know, the religion of politics.
Speaker 2: That is how Democrats view everything.
Speaker 1: That's very well put. And I actually want to go
Speaker 1: up one little history lesson before that. There was a
Speaker 1: guy named Bob Connelly and he ran the the US
Speaker 1: and in South Carolina against Lindsey Graham in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight. South Carolina was not as deep a red
Speaker 1: state in two thousand and eight as it is today,
Speaker 1: but Bob Connelly was a conservative Southern Democrat more right
Speaker 1: wing than he was more right wing than Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party of South Carolina endorsed Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: for reelection over the conservative Democrat. But I want to
Speaker 1: go into the article back for one second. You mentioned
Speaker 1: something that was really interesting. Democrats since twenty sixteen have
Speaker 1: done a better job with quality flips. They've won more
Speaker 1: quality flips than Republicans have. What is it about Republicans where?
Speaker 1: And if you look at a map right of super
Speaker 1: Republican states, states that Trump won by ten points are greater.
Speaker 1: There are twenty four states. They all have two Republican senators.
Speaker 1: For the first time in one hundred years that every
Speaker 1: state that elected the Republican nominee for president by double
Speaker 1: dig just has two Republican senators. That's forty eight. There's
Speaker 1: only fifty three Republicans. So in all the swing states,
Speaker 1: which there are a number, they've only elected five. Why
Speaker 1: are Republicans and two come from North Carolina, which is
Speaker 1: vote a regularly Republican for a long time? Now it
Speaker 1: why do Republicans have such a hard time winning senates?
Speaker 1: Getting the Senate seats in Nevada or Michigan or New
Speaker 1: Hampshire or all these other places that are purple states,
Speaker 1: and Democrats almost can typically rely on that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I think it comes down to a
Speaker 2: few things. The first is incumbency, right, So a lot
Speaker 2: of there's just a lot of Democratic incumbents, and while
Speaker 2: candidate quality is not as much as it used to be,
Speaker 2: it's still something. Right. So it might not get a
Speaker 2: Democrat like John Tesla to win a state that Trump
Speaker 2: won by sixteen points, but a state like Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Speaker 2: that Trump won by two you know, if you have
Speaker 2: an incumbent that's well like, Yeah, that is the difference
Speaker 2: between you know, winning and low for a Democrats. That's
Speaker 2: the first. The second is that well, I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: Lacia has said this a little bit in stronger terms
Speaker 2: than me, but frankly, a lot of Republican candidates come
Speaker 2: across as crazy people. If you look at the war scores,
Speaker 2: voters are practically begging what is war explans the reason
Speaker 2: wit above replacements?
Speaker 1: Okay, Right, voters are.
Speaker 2: Practically begging for Republicans to nominate people that demonstrate some
Speaker 2: amount of independence and likeability. Right. When they do, it's
Speaker 2: basically impossible for them to lose. Right, If you look
Speaker 2: at John Katco in twenty.
Speaker 1: John Kaco is a congressman from New York by the way.
Speaker 2: From the Syracuse area. In twenty sixteen, he did twenty
Speaker 2: two points better than the average Republican would have been
Speaker 2: expected to and Democrats tried for years to beat him
Speaker 2: and they never did.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It's it's a similar effect with Susan Collins right on
Speaker 2: paid it's a very blue district, right, the district state right,
Speaker 2: and the median voter is a Democrat. But if they
Speaker 2: like you for reasons that go beyond ideology, because at
Speaker 2: that point you're voting against what you believe values twise,
Speaker 2: you're saying, I think this is a good person, I'm
Speaker 2: going to vote for them. It's very difficult. It's very
Speaker 2: difficult to find someone who can break that permission structure, right,
Speaker 2: And it's why someone like Larry Hogan did really, really,
Speaker 2: really well. Like if you go down the list of
Speaker 2: you know, right, Republican overperformances for war, right, there's plenty
Speaker 2: of Republicans who are like, you know, just you know,
Speaker 2: bog standard. I support Trump, but I'm going to be
Speaker 2: kind of quiet about it. Republicans, there are plenty of
Speaker 2: those who do well. But you would be very very
Speaker 2: hard pressed to talk about somebody like Matt Gates or
Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Green. But you know, the people that a
Speaker 2: lot of people you know, identify as avatars of the
Speaker 2: Republican movement who are going to get more votes because
Speaker 2: of their you know, for lack of a better word,
Speaker 2: slavish devotion to Donald Trump. And these are the types
Speaker 2: of people that increasingly get selected for in Republican primaries.
Speaker 1: What about so name for a name for people, some
Speaker 1: Democrats and some Republicans who besides Susan Collins, who are
Speaker 1: just extraordinarily likable to the point that they can vastly
Speaker 1: outperform their district. Someone who comes, in my mind is
Speaker 1: like Brian Fitzpatrick, who represents Bucks County, Pennsylvania, easily overperforms
Speaker 1: Frump by fifteen points in every election.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Fitzpatrick is a good example because Fitzpatrick is
Speaker 2: not even particularly moderate, right.
Speaker 1: Like, he's pretty liberal from my standards, He's very liberal.
Speaker 2: But okay, yeah, at the very least he's not Susan
Speaker 2: Collins like he represents that Trump one district. Now, at
Speaker 2: least on policy he votes mostly the same way. And
Speaker 2: even if he hashes out some moderate versus conservative policy
Speaker 2: differences in committee. Right, he certainly no, he's certainly know
Speaker 2: Larry Hogan at least I write that way. And just
Speaker 2: because of the fact that his whole brand, he's had
Speaker 2: a brand in the area, which is that, you know,
Speaker 2: I represent a historically blue leading district. I'm not gonna
Speaker 2: just come out loud and say I support Donald Trump
Speaker 2: on everything, you know, and he's been able to do
Speaker 2: that in a way that's not off putting and not ideolgical.
Speaker 2: That makes things very easy for you know, Democrats, especially
Speaker 2: not you know, died in the wool on Twitter, blue
Speaker 2: Sky Democrats right to say, oh yeah, like I'm going
Speaker 2: to vote for Biden, but you know, I'm an independent guy.
Speaker 2: This Fitzpatrick dude seems like he's got some smart ideas.
Speaker 2: I'll send him back to DC. Right, So Fitzpatrick is
Speaker 2: another person like that. Let's see, I actually have the
Speaker 2: database right here, we can look.
Speaker 1: Okay, so name like, name the top three Republicans and
Speaker 1: top three Democrats Susan Collins and Brian Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 2: Aside, so from the twenty twenty four cycles, let's actually
Speaker 2: look at this because John Hoven won insanely large margins.
Speaker 1: He's the Senator from North Dako. Former governor then turned
Speaker 1: senator from North Dakota.
Speaker 2: Ilhan Omar also is terrible as candidate. For some reason,
Speaker 2: it's unclear.
Speaker 1: She underperforms. Elizabeth Warren is a terrible candidate. She under
Speaker 1: performs if they were not. You know, the funny thing is,
Speaker 1: and this is the frustrating thing for Republicans while you
Speaker 1: look it up. Republicans have these deep red states like Wyoming,
Speaker 1: North Dakota where they elect these very moderate middle of
Speaker 1: the Republicans, and then Democrats will have these blue, deep
Speaker 1: blue states where they will have foaming at the mouth
Speaker 1: progressives and will run our most right wing candidate in
Speaker 1: swing states and lose, and they'll run moderates in swing
Speaker 1: states and win. And that's always been the frustrational Republican
Speaker 1: Republicans is why aren't conservatives actually representing Republicans super conservative districts?
Speaker 2: Well, it's fair, Okay, So I got your answer here. Okay,
Speaker 2: So four leaving a side, Larry Hogan and ilhan Omar
Speaker 2: and Prime Ila Japaul and all the other You're in
Speaker 2: a really blue district, but you're you know, you're a communist,
Speaker 2: so you're gonna underperform by like twenty points, right. Okay,
Speaker 2: So Michael Bombgardner from Washington, Right, you know.
Speaker 1: Her name on the on the tip of everyone's mouth,
Speaker 1: Michael Bombard.
Speaker 2: I don't know much about him, but I couldn't.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't knowhim if they hit him in the car.
Speaker 2: I don't know much about him, but I remember when
Speaker 2: he won. He was very much seen as right wing,
Speaker 2: but not you know, like a die hard far right
Speaker 2: pariety alg right. He did what was it, like, nine
Speaker 2: points better than average, Brian Fitzpatrick nine points better than average? Right?
Speaker 2: If you look at Mike Turner nine points better than average.
Speaker 1: He's from Ohio.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Mike Turner is someone who's definitely like known
Speaker 2: for being a little bit more moderate than the Median Republic.
Speaker 2: You know, Jamie Herrera Butler is well back when she
Speaker 2: was in Congress Washington moderate. Dan Newhouse not a moderate.
Speaker 2: He just decided to impeach Trump and.
Speaker 1: He's he's You and I have very different terms the
Speaker 1: word moderate.
Speaker 2: But at the very least Dan Newhouse is what would
Speaker 2: have been before the Trump era. He would have been
Speaker 2: considered a.
Speaker 1: Concert typical Republican yeah what. Okay, So who are some
Speaker 1: Democrats who very well overperform expectations.
Speaker 2: Okay, well let's go through this so Democrats okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: this list? I okay, So Joe Manchin obviously obviously, yeah right, okay,
Speaker 2: Doug Jones, Well that's because he ran against Roy Moore. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so Colin Peterson even when he lost in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: There's the sugar beet farmer from Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Then let's see in terms of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm talking about the last election.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Dan Osborne, right, not really a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Oh he's in Nebraska. He ran as an independent with
Speaker 1: the Democrats support in Nebraska.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, so not really a Democrat, but everybody got
Speaker 2: the message that he's not a Republican, he's anti immigration,
Speaker 2: he's not exactly a woke guy, because he's basically told
Speaker 2: the Nebraska Democratic Party that, you know, to f off right,
Speaker 2: you know, so that that that was the highest one
Speaker 2: for them. Then if we look here ed Case and Hawaii,
Speaker 2: who aggressive really disliked. One because he's a white man
Speaker 2: in a majority Asian district. That does not go over
Speaker 2: well with them, but two because he's very much a
Speaker 2: blue dog right, very he's a very old school blue
Speaker 2: dog Democrat.
Speaker 1: He voted for I think the Lake and Riley Act
Speaker 1: and other stuff. He does have some surprising votes at case.
Speaker 1: I think he would have for that one. But he
Speaker 1: votes for some legislation.
Speaker 2: He's a very moderate person relative to the area. He represents.
Speaker 2: Brian Shatz in Hawaii, but that was twenty two.
Speaker 1: Let's see, he's a Senator for Hawaii.
Speaker 2: Okay, So yeah, Jill Takuda from Hawaii as well. I
Speaker 2: don't know what's in the water in Hawaii.
Speaker 1: I don't. Yeah, I couldn't they Maybe it's the heat.
Speaker 1: I don't know. So that's in. That's all very interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: So Hawaii, you liked a lot of people that were
Speaker 1: more moderate than than the party than they would have
Speaker 1: represent otherwise. And for Republicans it seems like it's I mean,
Speaker 1: Hawaii is a very blue state, although it's moved to
Speaker 1: the right substantially.
Speaker 2: But to be fair, there's some more the Hawaii is
Speaker 2: like four people, but like Steven Lynch is here right in. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the old school Irish white guy Democrat that you know,
Speaker 2: the progressive wing in Boston has been trying to get
Speaker 2: rid of for years. Let's see Cleo Fields, right, you
Speaker 2: know establishment.
Speaker 1: I don't even know who she is. Who is she?
Speaker 1: He is? He is?
Speaker 2: He was in Congress in one of those majority black
Speaker 2: districts in Louisiana. You know they redrew so he came
Speaker 2: back to run. He's very much, you know, a main stream,
Speaker 2: middle of the road, you know, black candidate with you know,
Speaker 2: established in the area. John tested ten points better than
Speaker 2: average this this cycle, right, Angus King is an independence,
Speaker 2: so that one doesn't. It's kind of weird. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 2: Mary Peltol she lost, but she was nine points better
Speaker 2: than average.
Speaker 1: She represented Alaska, the whole state of Alaska and the
Speaker 1: House representatives. And wait one more, one more for the road.
Speaker 2: Are we talking? Incumbents are just people in general?
Speaker 1: Just people in general?
Speaker 2: Oh well, then Lauren Bobert, Scott Perry, and Marjorie Taylor Greens.
Speaker 1: Those are all people who didn't terrible. I mean, Lauren
Speaker 1: Bobert almost lost in twenty teen. Scott Perry, I can
Speaker 1: I tell you. I'll tell you something really interesting. I
Speaker 1: never said this on my podcast. I'll give you guys
Speaker 1: a little scoop. I was in a meeting with some
Speaker 1: NRCC and RNC people. This is a few months ago,
Speaker 1: and there's this one congressman, I forget who it is.
Speaker 1: In Pennsylvania. He represents like an R plus forty C,
Speaker 1: like a super Republican seat, and he's allegedly considering running
Speaker 1: for governor, so he would have to vacate the seat.
Speaker 2: What Dan Music?
Speaker 1: Yes, Dan Music is considering leaving the seat to go
Speaker 1: run for governor.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I said to Dan, RCC and the RNC, ask
Speaker 1: Perry to switch districts, ask him to run another southern
Speaker 1: state where he won't be able to lose.
Speaker 2: Does he live there?
Speaker 1: Does anyone live anywhere in Congress? They all live in Washington.
Speaker 2: Okay, see, I would say that, but remember the last
Speaker 2: time Republicans tried running someone in Pennsylvania who didn't live
Speaker 2: in the place.
Speaker 1: He lives in the state of Pennsylvania. It's the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. It's not he doesn't, he's he lives in Pennsylvania. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I pressed very heavily. Lauren Bobert moved across the state
Speaker 1: of Colorado run for reelection. I pressed very heavily.
Speaker 2: Like eight points worse than she should have.
Speaker 1: But she did. But she won because she wouldn't have won,
Speaker 1: probably in her old district. But I insisted, like, hey,
Speaker 1: do that and have him run in a seat that
Speaker 1: he can't lose. I mean, any glass of water with
Speaker 1: an R behind their name is going to win. And
Speaker 1: hit that kind of a seat in the User seat
Speaker 1: and the Perry seat. It's very like it's Harrisburg area.
Speaker 1: It's getting bluer and bluer and bluer. And I said,
Speaker 1: you know, get Scott Perry to switch seats. And he apparently.
Speaker 2: Perry was not Scott Perry. He would not have any
Speaker 2: problem winning it. You could put a replacement Republican and
Speaker 2: they'd probably.
Speaker 1: Right, but they probably would win, right, all right, But
Speaker 1: Scott Perry's took up anyway. The point is I said
Speaker 1: this to them. Someone relayed the message to Perry that
Speaker 1: this was an idea, and Perry said, f off, I've
Speaker 1: always won the seat and I always will. I think
Speaker 1: he won by half a point last time, very very close.
Speaker 1: We'll see. So anyway, okay, Arman, you've been a fantastic guest.
Speaker 1: We have to get going. Where can you read your
Speaker 1: stuff and read more about split ticket?
Speaker 2: So obviously you know we're on Twitter. I think it's
Speaker 2: at split Ticket Underscore. Our website is split dashticket dot org.
Speaker 2: And you know we have articles that come out in
Speaker 2: the Washington Post. You know, we have stuff in the
Speaker 2: New York Times, you know, so you know when.
Speaker 1: You're slumming it with me today. So it's really exactly no.
Speaker 2: I love talking honestly.
Speaker 1: All right, man, this has been so great. Everyone check
Speaker 1: out split ticket for more stuff. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for coming on my podcast.
Speaker 2: Of course, hope to be back soon.
Speaker 1: You're listening to It's a Numbers Game with Ryan Grodowsky,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back all right now for the ask
Speaker 1: Me Anything segment of the show. I love this segment.
Speaker 1: I love getting questions from you guys. Email me if
Speaker 1: you have a question for me to answer. Ryan at
Speaker 1: Numbers Game Podcast dot com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural
Speaker 1: Numbers Game Podcast dot com. Okay, this one comes from Mike. Ryan,
Speaker 1: I have a suggestion for a future podcast. One of
Speaker 1: the most interesting things you have mentioned on your past
Speaker 1: podcast is you're feeling that Elon was not in doged
Speaker 1: to save money, but alternative motives. Playing off of this,
Speaker 1: why not do a podcast on Doge's successes. The Real
Speaker 1: Numbers it's future and who will lead it going forward?
Speaker 1: For instance, what was the real deal with the VEC leaving?
Speaker 1: What were Elon's real motives? I don't want to get
Speaker 1: you banned from X. That's very nice that you, Mike.
Speaker 1: And what about all the high level people Elon Burdon's
Speaker 1: a Doge with big balls, continue to work for the government.
Speaker 1: How can we get DOGE or the Doge principles integrated
Speaker 1: in our government process permanently. Thank you, Mike for that
Speaker 1: wonderful question. I don't know if it warrants an entire
Speaker 1: show episode. So here's the thing with the numbers. The
Speaker 1: problem with trying to figure out the numbers of how
Speaker 1: much DOGE has saved is a lot of it is
Speaker 1: estimates that Elon has come out with with very little
Speaker 1: hard numbers attached to it. So he has said he
Speaker 1: saved on one hundred and fifty billion dollars. Other estimates
Speaker 1: have it to thirty nine billion dollars, and they're already
Speaker 1: doing some other rehiring. So I don't, I can't. It's
Speaker 1: hard for me to put an exact figure on what
Speaker 1: they actually saved. As far as you know, pen to paper.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the books and really see a deep
Speaker 1: dive into you know, what the actual costs were. I
Speaker 1: think the problem with DOGE has always been people are
Speaker 1: looking for easy, painless solutions to very complex and sometimes
Speaker 1: painful problems. And I was on the Megan McCain show
Speaker 1: a couple of maybe a week ago, and someone came
Speaker 1: on and his nonprofit was being cut and funding and
Speaker 1: his wife worked for a head start, and YadA, YadA, YadA,
Speaker 1: and youep was saying, these are free services they send of,
Speaker 1: these are tax payer funded services, and should they receive
Speaker 1: some cuts. Probably if we're concerned with our budget deficit
Speaker 1: and our debt, as we should be, because you go
Speaker 1: back to two thousand when I was a kid and
Speaker 1: we had a balanced budget. They were saying we're going
Speaker 1: to pay down the entire debt by twenty twelve. That's
Speaker 1: what they said in two thousand. That's inconceivable now inconceivable.
Speaker 1: But if we're going to have a hard conversation, which
Speaker 1: we'll have to involve Denmark as well, because you can't
Speaker 1: get through this with just a one party vote, and
Speaker 1: you sit there and say, hey, how do we balance
Speaker 1: the budget and reduce the deficit ultimately eliminate the deficit
Speaker 1: over a ten year period. That will involve Medicare, Medicaid,
Speaker 1: social Security, and the military and tax increases. Like you're
Speaker 1: going to have to go all in on everything. Everyone
Speaker 1: will have to hold a hand together and say, I'll
Speaker 1: give you this if you give me that. What's something
Speaker 1: you're willing to give in too. And maybe it won't
Speaker 1: start with a ten trillion dollar cut. Maybe it starts
Speaker 1: with a five hundred billion dollar cut. Maybe it starts
Speaker 1: with just saving Social Security, which is really not that
Speaker 1: hard to do. To reform Social Security, it's a fairly easy,
Speaker 1: simple plan. Medicaid and medicare get very very difficult. The
Speaker 1: military is very difficult. Servicing the debt is very difficult.
Speaker 1: It's hard to work these other parts of the budget out.
Speaker 1: But republic I mean, listen, Donald Trump put on and
Speaker 1: offer a couple of times closed the carry just loophole.
Speaker 1: Increase taxes for people who make five million dollars a year.
Speaker 1: That's probably very and I know it's not probably that
Speaker 1: is politically popular. Saving social Security, if they frame it
Speaker 1: in a certain way that's bipartisan, would be probably very popular.
Speaker 1: Looking into the waste for an abuse from the Pentagon
Speaker 1: would be popular, although it's hard because a lot of
Speaker 1: congressional districts have servicing the Pentagon as part of their economy.
Speaker 1: But still that's very very important. Medicare and Medicaid gets
Speaker 1: really really really tough, really really really difficult, and I
Speaker 1: think that cutting illegal aliens off to Medicare and Medicaid
Speaker 1: is a good start to saving the programs. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to put everything on the table,
Speaker 1: and we're still not willing to have that conversation. And
Speaker 1: the only way you incorporate doge into the government is
Speaker 1: you either change Congress or you get Congress to have
Speaker 1: serious players, or you passing little individual bills which allow
Speaker 1: a presidential linemind in Vedo, and you make a president
Speaker 1: like Trump who is not running for reelection unless they
Speaker 1: change the constitution, make him the bad guy because Congress
Speaker 1: hates doing their job, and have him do line on
Speaker 1: and vetoms to reduce spending one way or the other.
Speaker 1: But they're not due. Congress is not taking this job seriously.
Speaker 1: For Republicans, does was a branding issue and and that
Speaker 1: was it. As far as vek Vivec is just annoying.
Speaker 1: No one likes Veak, absolutely, no one can stand him.
Speaker 1: He's a complete I already said Connor artist once in
Speaker 1: the show. But allegedly con artists look up to his
Speaker 1: look up. Look up his mother's connection to his healthcare
Speaker 1: company and how and how she helped him make a
Speaker 1: billion dollar business. You will be very surprised. Look out
Speaker 1: how he moved his companies to Texas before announcing that
Speaker 1: he was running for governor of Ohio. He's just oh,
Speaker 1: he's horrible. But I mean, basically, lo and behold. What
Speaker 1: I had heard, and this is alleged, was that the
Speaker 1: vech was creating his own plans for doge out of Ohio.
Speaker 1: He had his own Ohio team separate from the Elon team.
Speaker 1: Elon basically caught wind of all this and was just
Speaker 1: very dismissive over Elon over a vek and thought of
Speaker 1: him as a joke, which is true he is, and
Speaker 1: said to him something to the effective like, you can't
Speaker 1: run for office. If you're using this to run for office,
Speaker 1: then just run for office and just like get out
Speaker 1: of our hair. And then he ran to the governor or.
Speaker 1: His team ran to the governor asking for the appointment
Speaker 1: in the US Senate, which he did not received, and
Speaker 1: so he's now running for governor of the state. I
Speaker 1: wish the state of Ohio best because he's very likely
Speaker 1: the Republican nominee. Unfortunately, but that's what happened. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Vek war on everybody that was around him, because
Speaker 1: that's who Vivek Ramaswami is. He wears on everybody. So
Speaker 1: I think that's all your questions. I hope it was.
Speaker 1: If there's information on numbers, like a really bring you
Speaker 1: once it comes out. But as of right now, everything
Speaker 1: with Doge is very complicated because the numbers are a
Speaker 1: lot of he said he said in the White House
Speaker 1: right now. So when there's hard numbers, I'll give it
Speaker 1: to you. And as far as wanting to reduce spending
Speaker 1: and reduce the debt and balance the budget, it's all Congress, baby,
Speaker 1: gotta get Congress get more serious about it. Anyway, thank
Speaker 1: you again for listening to this Monday episode of my podcast.
Speaker 1: Follow me on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcast. If you like this show and the
Speaker 1: work that I'm doing, please give me a five star
Speaker 1: review and give me a like or a follow. It
Speaker 1: really means a lot to get the show out there.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you all. I'll be back on Thursday. Thank you.