Speaker 1: Hello, They're happy Thursday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast, our third for the week. Yes, I
Speaker 1: am wrapping up my visit to the financial capital of
Speaker 1: the world here in New York City. Gotten quite a
Speaker 1: bit done, learned quite a bit at these various industry
Speaker 1: summits that I'm learning both on digital media and in
Speaker 1: the world of investment, in the world of the media space.
Speaker 1: Just wanted to be a bit transparent about what I'm
Speaker 1: up to here. I actually have a notebook of items
Speaker 1: I want to get to sort of I'm gonna sit
Speaker 1: here and say, have one giant theme to me, it's
Speaker 1: stuff that I want to alert you guys to that
Speaker 1: I want to surface sort of things that I think
Speaker 1: are percolating, that are coming around the corner. But we're
Speaker 1: going to go ahead and start with a quick update
Speaker 1: on the shutdown. And I say that because I don't,
Speaker 1: you know, there's really nothing to update. As my friend
Speaker 1: and Brendan Buck tweeted our early on Wednesday, he said,
Speaker 1: there was not a single story I think it was
Speaker 1: in the Wall Street Journal of the Washington Post about
Speaker 1: any update on the shutdown, and it was just it's
Speaker 1: it is not having a impact in the larger media space.
Speaker 1: And again it goes back to one reason. You know,
Speaker 1: we are now organized. Whether that's good or I'd saying
Speaker 1: this is a good thing, this is just the reality.
Speaker 1: But the entire political media ecosystem is really organized around Trump,
Speaker 1: and Trump's just not engaged at all in this shutdown.
Speaker 1: My friend George Conden, who works over at National Journal,
Speaker 1: he's been there a long time, long enough that he
Speaker 1: and I were colleagues at National Journal before I left
Speaker 1: to go to NBC. He did some terrific analysis on
Speaker 1: sort of the lack of engagement by this president on
Speaker 1: the shutdown issue, and he compared it to the big
Speaker 1: shutdown that happened in his first term and how engaged
Speaker 1: he was in there. So I want to read a
Speaker 1: little bit from Condon's story here in National Journal this week.
Speaker 1: Since the current shutdown began in October one, Condon rights
Speaker 1: Trump has met in the Oval Office with the leaders
Speaker 1: of Canada and Finland. He's traveled to Israel in Egypt,
Speaker 1: and he's meeting this week with the presidents of Argentina
Speaker 1: and Ukraine. He has not met with any Democratic Party leaders.
Speaker 1: While the trip Israel in Egypt made a lot of
Speaker 1: sense no matter what. It is worth noting that Trump
Speaker 1: is also planning later this month to go to Malaysia,
Speaker 1: South Korea, and Japan. These are more routine trips. Their
Speaker 1: meetings with these various international associations at the United States
Speaker 1: dabbles in the Asia Pacific Economic Conference APEK. It's known
Speaker 1: as the Association of Southeasts Asian Nations. These are all
Speaker 1: places that the United States likes to be a part of.
Speaker 1: They're basically collections of Asian countries that want to put
Speaker 1: a check on China in some form or another. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is that these summits always take place around this
Speaker 1: time of year, and if we were in a government shutdown,
Speaker 1: both Bill Clinton Barack Obama didn't go to these events.
Speaker 1: If they were in the middle of a shutdown. Both
Speaker 1: of them thought it was a bad political look if
Speaker 1: they were continuing the business of the country overseas, spending
Speaker 1: money overseas while people weren't getting paid there. And Donald
Speaker 1: Trump himself during and this is where Condon did some
Speaker 1: terrific analysis. In the thirty five days between December twenty second,
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen and the reopening of the government on January
Speaker 1: twenty fifth, twenty nineteen, Donald Trump tweeted. Back then he
Speaker 1: was tweeting there was no truth Social. He hadn't been
Speaker 1: deplatformed from Twitter yet. He tweeted thirty seven times about
Speaker 1: the shutdown, and the post projected a mix of frustration
Speaker 1: and sense of urgency. That was the thirty five days.
Speaker 1: So far, we've been in this shutdown for fourteen days.
Speaker 1: Trump has posted only seven times on the shutdown on
Speaker 1: truth Social, and he's only posted twice since the second day,
Speaker 1: so twelve of those were in the first essentially thirty
Speaker 1: six hours. But since then he has posted thirty two
Speaker 1: times on foreign policy, sixteen times in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: five times on the Nobel Peace Prize, eleven times on
Speaker 1: his grievances with the FBI, the Russia probe, and Jim Comy.
Speaker 1: It goes back to what I've said now for I
Speaker 1: don't know three straight podcast openings, which is this is
Speaker 1: going nowhere until Democrats find a way to engage Trump.
Speaker 1: The congressional Republicans cannot negotiate without Trump in the room.
Speaker 1: They have no standing, right. Mike Johnson has no He
Speaker 1: cannot do this without Donald Trump. He has never been
Speaker 1: able to pass a vote without the help of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump among House Republicans. So there is you know, the
Speaker 1: only entity to negotiate with is the White House, and
Speaker 1: the fact that Democrats can't get Trump to engage. Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't want to engage. Whatever it is. This and again,
Speaker 1: and I will say the same thing that I said
Speaker 1: twenty four hours ago. Every day now that this goes
Speaker 1: is one day less that this becomes politically. You know,
Speaker 1: I know that Democrats think they've won something out of
Speaker 1: this so far, and I think that you can. I
Speaker 1: think it's clear that they've made healthcare a bit more
Speaker 1: front and center on the mines, and we're now seeing
Speaker 1: other reasons why healthcare. You're going to see the premium
Speaker 1: notices go out on November first. That will get some attention.
Speaker 1: It's why I think actually that the Democrats probably made
Speaker 1: a tactical mistake in triggering this shutdown when they did.
Speaker 1: I think they would have been better off triggering the
Speaker 1: shutdown after those premium hike notices went out of November first,
Speaker 1: not before. But the problem they have now is every
Speaker 1: day this goes on, more damage is done to the
Speaker 1: federal government. Russell Voyd fires more people, targets more blue areas,
Speaker 1: I want to get to that in a minute, and
Speaker 1: Creds may start to lose sort of the momentum that
Speaker 1: they believe they were getting on the healthcare issue. Again,
Speaker 1: Democrats are terrible about declaring victory. They don't know how
Speaker 1: to ever act like they've won something and when they're
Speaker 1: actually they're actually winning this argument. But the longer they
Speaker 1: go they will not They will lose whatever they've gained here,
Speaker 1: and you can kind of tell they're kind of flailing here.
Speaker 1: I don't think Schumer knows how to get Trump in
Speaker 1: the room. That's clearly a problem. Jeffreys doesn't. So if
Speaker 1: they're the two lead negotiators here, it's in that sense,
Speaker 1: if you can't get in the room to negotiate with
Speaker 1: the person you have to negotiate, you're not doing a
Speaker 1: very good job leading here. So this is I don't
Speaker 1: think this is going to age. Well, we'll see, but
Speaker 1: again Trump's not engaged. That's a huge issue. But I
Speaker 1: want to point out something this sort of the way
Speaker 1: that Trump administration is targeting things and and sort of
Speaker 1: how stuff their math is. So we've seen that Russell
Speaker 1: Voyd omb he's trying to essentially cut programs or cancel
Speaker 1: funding or suspend funding. And it's targeting blue areas, right,
Speaker 1: They're targeting the Democratic agencies, the Democratic this prominent geographic
Speaker 1: areas they've targeted, or you know, funding for things in
Speaker 1: and around LA County, funding for things in and around Chicago,
Speaker 1: and funding for things in and around New York. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the things I'd love to remind and I
Speaker 1: and I just did a data deep dive on this.
Speaker 1: So Donald Trump received one point one eight nine million
Speaker 1: votes in LA County. Okay, Yes, Kamala Harris got one
Speaker 1: point three million more than him. Okay, it is a
Speaker 1: blue county. But the raw number of Republican votes that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump received in LA County one point one eight
Speaker 1: nine million. That is more raw vote than he received
Speaker 1: in fifty states that he carried Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Speaker 1: North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Speaker 1: There are more Trump voters that they're punishing in LA
Speaker 1: County than any of those fifteen states that I talked about.
Speaker 1: This administration's inability to understand that they're supposed to be
Speaker 1: the president of the entire country. When they start nitpicking
Speaker 1: at quote unquote blue areas or blue states, they're punishing
Speaker 1: a lot of people that supported them, a lot of
Speaker 1: their own supporters who have it comes across as if
Speaker 1: they have no respect for the system and no respect
Speaker 1: for some of their own voters. And by the way,
Speaker 1: in Cook County he received over five one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty thousand votes. Well, in case you're wondering, that's more
Speaker 1: raw vote, all right, he got crushed in Cook County.
Speaker 1: It is a blue county, but total was more than
Speaker 1: the raw votes he got out of Alaska, out of Idaho,
Speaker 1: out of Montana, out of Nebraska, out of North Dakota,
Speaker 1: out of South Dakota, out of Utah, and out of Wyoming.
Speaker 1: That's eight states. It's it is, it is sort of.
Speaker 1: It really is a bit self defeating. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you want to add more states to that. He received
Speaker 1: over eight hundred thousand votes in the five boroughs of
Speaker 1: New York City. When you put that together, and that
Speaker 1: would mean more votes than what he got in Alaska,
Speaker 1: more votes than what he got in Kansas, more votes
Speaker 1: and what he got in Mississippi, more votes than what
Speaker 1: he got in West Virginia. So you see the point
Speaker 1: I'm making here, This sort of what they think the
Speaker 1: own the Libs move is right, They're just attacking hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of their own voters. Now maybe they think, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this will teach those Trump voters from living in these
Speaker 1: blue areas, I guess. Or maybe they're trying to punish
Speaker 1: the Democratic voters and get whatever whatever they think they're accomplishing.
Speaker 1: They're not accomplishing with this. So it is this is
Speaker 1: this may unfortunately end up motivating Democrats to keep sticking
Speaker 1: this out because they are it is triggering the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to do a lot of dumb things. Here the
Speaker 1: House Republicans are behaving bizarrely. Here Mike Johnson's inability to
Speaker 1: swear in a duly elected member of Congress in a
Speaker 1: now certified election down from Arizona at Alita Grialva, the
Speaker 1: daughter of Raoul Garalva, who passed away a few months ago.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you I am not the quickest
Speaker 1: person to jump down a conspiracy theory hole. Don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong. I'll let me a good conspiracy theory. But
Speaker 1: it's hard to now now I understand why all the
Speaker 1: Epstein folks are saying, Hey, what are they afraid of?
Speaker 1: Are they really afraid of seeing this vote forced? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a it's a headst Obviously, Mike Johnson's trying to
Speaker 1: prevent putting Republicans on the record on these Epstein files, right,
Speaker 1: they don't. And that's there's no doubt there's something here
Speaker 1: where Republican leadership is petrified of forcing because guess what
Speaker 1: this If the Epstein vote does hit the floor of
Speaker 1: the House, it's going to get four hundred votes because
Speaker 1: you're gonna have all the Democrats vote for it, and
Speaker 1: you're going to have at least one hundred if not more,
Speaker 1: Republicans vote for it because they don't want to be
Speaker 1: on the record. It's somehow not voting it. And it's
Speaker 1: actually a safe vote because the Senate isn't ever going
Speaker 1: to you know, this is just simply a vote in
Speaker 1: the House. So it is the only motivation I can
Speaker 1: see if Epstein really is the motive, And I don't
Speaker 1: know any other reason other than Epstein at this point, right,
Speaker 1: Johnson is really sort of losing his rationale. He keeps
Speaker 1: changing his rationale, so it's making it's making even the
Speaker 1: biggest skeptic like me think, wow, you guys are this
Speaker 1: paranoid about the Epstein files vote. Unbelievable? So what is
Speaker 1: the paranoia. It is about a whole bunch of Republicans
Speaker 1: not wanting to upset Donald Trump who doesn't want this
Speaker 1: vote to happen. That's pretty clear. And we know many
Speaker 1: of these House Republicans have been so public in their
Speaker 1: demand for the Epstein files to be released that they
Speaker 1: that they cannot go back to there. They're afraid of
Speaker 1: going back to their constituents and not having to do that.
Speaker 1: So it is a it is It is fascinating to
Speaker 1: watch this. I do think this is what happens right
Speaker 1: the shutdowns. It's sort of like when you may think
Speaker 1: you know how to start one, but nobody it is
Speaker 1: amazing how hard it is to end one, even though
Speaker 1: logic lee. And again this goes back to a rant
Speaker 1: from two weeks ago. The government should never be allowed
Speaker 1: to be put in this situation. And the fact that
Speaker 1: the government just decides that it is going to abide
Speaker 1: by this absurdity that we somehow aren't going to pay
Speaker 1: our bills if there's a funding dispute in Congress is
Speaker 1: no way to run It's no way to run a country,
Speaker 1: it's no way to run a company, it's no way
Speaker 1: to run a household. No rational person would behave this way,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately Washington is filled with the irrational. The big thing,
Speaker 1: one of the big moments this weekend we're going to
Speaker 1: learn a lot, a little bit about sort of language
Speaker 1: and all this stuff is the No King's protest. There's
Speaker 1: been some really disgusting language. The Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson, described the planned protests. I don't think it
Speaker 1: will end before the Hate America Rally on the ball
Speaker 1: on Saturday, where all the Marxist and Antifa people and
Speaker 1: all the people who hate Trump and hate America will
Speaker 1: be there. This idea that if you don't, if you
Speaker 1: protest something Donald Trump does, you hate America is the
Speaker 1: single most undemocratic thing you can actually accuse a fellow
Speaker 1: American of doing. The whole point of being in America
Speaker 1: is the right to disagree. We founded this country on
Speaker 1: a fuck you Britain man. Yes, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: apologize for it, but this is one of those that
Speaker 1: this is who we are. We have the right to
Speaker 1: flip the bird at people. We have the right to protest.
Speaker 1: It is smack dab in the First Amendment. And one
Speaker 1: of the dumber arguments that you hear people say is
Speaker 1: well somebody paid for a protest, Well, who gives a shit? Sorry,
Speaker 1: I get and this stuff. It's it's just this is
Speaker 1: do you know nothing about the founding of this country
Speaker 1: When you sit here and and essentially accuse anybody of
Speaker 1: protesting their government as being on a American It is
Speaker 1: the most American thing you can do, the most patriotic
Speaker 1: thing you can do, is to protest your government, because
Speaker 1: in this country it is it is a right, not
Speaker 1: a privilege. It is a right written into our constitution.
Speaker 1: So the behavior I'm old enough to remember when these
Speaker 1: were the free free speech absolutionists, right, which then brings
Speaker 1: me to the JD Vance defense of those awful telegram
Speaker 1: chat techs that were released on from the young Republicans.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is such a weird story. I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, it is this, Here's what's troubling, right
Speaker 1: that these young Republicans believe there's a they've been given
Speaker 1: a permission slip by the MAGA movement in Trump to
Speaker 1: just casually talk about gas chambers and Nazis and all
Speaker 1: all this hateful rhetoric. What's really troubling is that these
Speaker 1: young Republicans think that this is this is okay in
Speaker 1: the new Trump dominated Republican Party. We are in this
Speaker 1: moment right and I connected back to the incredibly rude
Speaker 1: behavior of the golf fans at best page Black. This
Speaker 1: is we are culturally. Donald Trump has culturally changed us,
Speaker 1: and there are many people who think the best way
Speaker 1: to become Trump is to behave like these hooligans did.
Speaker 1: What's interesting here is how they're all there's this weird
Speaker 1: Apparently one of the guys involved says, this is part
Speaker 1: of a long conspiracy theory. This is what the political
Speaker 1: article noted, and this gets it to the bizarre world
Speaker 1: of MAGA and this I think you know how the
Speaker 1: whole lower lumer nonsense works. So one of the young
Speaker 1: Republicans claim that the release of the chat is part
Speaker 1: of a quote highly coordinated, year long character assassination led
Speaker 1: by a guy named Gavin Wax and the New York
Speaker 1: City Republican Club. Everything is always a conspiracy and people
Speaker 1: sort of a grievance against them and all of this
Speaker 1: it is it really is sort of it to me,
Speaker 1: is emblematic of the culture that has been created in
Speaker 1: this young mega movement. And what's interesting is the lack
Speaker 1: of consistency among those that try to champion speech and
Speaker 1: free speech right. This in some ways is you know,
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to be anti woke, apparently
Speaker 1: it's become a permission slip to say whatever the hell
Speaker 1: you want about anybody, right, That is what's anti woke.
Speaker 1: What's fascinating, though, is to watch people like JD Vance
Speaker 1: trying to apologize for these for these folks, but say
Speaker 1: that these awful things that are being said by these
Speaker 1: young Republicans, hey it's just nothing but a college group chat.
Speaker 1: But the leaked text from the former Virginia delegate who's
Speaker 1: running for attorney general in Virginia, J Jones, you know
Speaker 1: that those are much worse. Here's the thing. If you
Speaker 1: believe that there should be no speech police at all,
Speaker 1: which is what the mag of movement and Jade Vance
Speaker 1: campaigned on and Donald Trump campaigned on. Jade Vance went
Speaker 1: to Europe to lecture Europeans on speech. But there's and
Speaker 1: he's always willing when somebody on his side of the
Speaker 1: aisle says something stupid, They should be forgiven. When somebody
Speaker 1: he doesn't like says something stupid, they should be prosecuted. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is somebody who does not understand the Constitution. I
Speaker 1: know JD. Van's Vance went to Yale Law School. I
Speaker 1: assume Yale's going to ask for their law for their
Speaker 1: degree back because he does not understated. He clearly didn't
Speaker 1: pass constitutional law with with what he's doing here. But
Speaker 1: what's really frustrating here is the fact is both are shameful.
Speaker 1: The fact that Jay Jones fantasized about what he did
Speaker 1: shameful and disqualifying. And the fact that these young Republicans
Speaker 1: behave this way is incredibly disqualifying. And those that are
Speaker 1: losing their jobs deserve to lose their jobs. Okay, they
Speaker 1: need to make they do need to pay a penalty
Speaker 1: for what they did. It's free speech, but nobody says
Speaker 1: there aren't consequences for your behavior and for your speech.
Speaker 1: But the fact that JD. Vance does not understand that
Speaker 1: this is a culture that's being created on the right
Speaker 1: that's celebrating the anti woke has turned into permission to
Speaker 1: say anything and a celebration of hateful rhetoric. If you
Speaker 1: don't like hateful rhetoric thrown at you, then you should
Speaker 1: denounce hateful rhetoric that's thrown at others. And if you're
Speaker 1: uncapable of doing that, then you're incapable of being a
Speaker 1: leader in the United States of America. I know I'm
Speaker 1: sort of preaching to people who understand this and those
Speaker 1: of you that listeners sort of you guys are coming
Speaker 1: from the rationally frustrat I assume uh is most of
Speaker 1: most of the folks. But I have found all this
Speaker 1: and I'm really concerned about what we may see from
Speaker 1: the right in an attempt to weaponize what's said or
Speaker 1: what's done on these protest in these protests, do I
Speaker 1: think you know the thing is politically to me, I
Speaker 1: think the more the Trump administration tries to denounce these protests,
Speaker 1: the more energy they're going to give to them, the
Speaker 1: more attention they're going to receive, and the more politically
Speaker 1: problematic they're going to become. That's the irony here. The
Speaker 1: more they the more they go after this, the the
Speaker 1: worse off they're gonna that this, the more impactful that
Speaker 1: they have a potential chance to be here. But it's
Speaker 1: to just the lack of consistency, and I know nothing
Speaker 1: matters anymore, right, consistency doesn't matter. Principles have been thrown
Speaker 1: out the window. But particularly JD. Vance, who does sort
Speaker 1: of play and intellectual, his incredible lack of consistency on
Speaker 1: his belief system is startling and the lack of self
Speaker 1: awareness about it is something. There's a reason results matter
Speaker 1: more than promises, just like there's a reason. Morgan and
Speaker 1: Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the last
Speaker 1: thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
Speaker 1: more than half a million clients. It includes cases where
Speaker 1: insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get
Speaker 1: away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan
Speaker 1: fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
Speaker 1: a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
Speaker 1: originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So with more than a thousand lawyers across the country,
Speaker 1: they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
Speaker 1: you need a lawyer. You need somebody to get your back.
Speaker 1: Check out for the People dot com, Slash podcast or
Speaker 1: now Pound Law, Pound five two nine law on your
Speaker 1: cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same,
Speaker 1: So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free
Speaker 1: unless they win a few of the notes I want
Speaker 1: to hit the Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: argument today. I know there's a lot of concern on
Speaker 1: the left, a lot of concern among Democrats that the essentially,
Speaker 1: if the rest of the Voting Rights Act gets gutted,
Speaker 1: that this is going to be an automatic win for
Speaker 1: Republicans in a sort of remapping of congressional seats, and
Speaker 1: an automatic loss for Democrats. I'm not so sure. I'm
Speaker 1: old enough. My first professional year covering American politics was
Speaker 1: the ninety two campaign. That was a year of brand
Speaker 1: new districts, and at the time, the Bush forty one
Speaker 1: Justice Department worked pretty closely with the Congressional Black Caucus
Speaker 1: to interpret the Voting Rights Act in such a way
Speaker 1: to essentially try to create as many majority African American
Speaker 1: seats as they could in the South. And the reason
Speaker 1: this was one of those the Congressional Black Caucus wanted
Speaker 1: to increase its ranks, and the Bush forty one Justice
Speaker 1: Department wanted to pack more Democrats into pack more Democrats
Speaker 1: into fewer districts. What would that do? So one of
Speaker 1: my favorite examples at the time, there was eleven congressional
Speaker 1: districts in Georgia at the time in nineteen ninety Democrats
Speaker 1: had eight Democratic House seats and Republicans had three by
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two. In January of ninety three, I believe
Speaker 1: it went from eight. It literally was eight three again,
Speaker 1: eight Republican seats and three Democratic seats, and I believe
Speaker 1: all three Democratic seats were African Geordie, African American or
Speaker 1: at least plurality African American. So I'm not so sure
Speaker 1: that this. You know, again, everybody thinks they understand how
Speaker 1: easily they can pack, crack and pack districts, do the
Speaker 1: hub and spoke model as we've seen, you know, But
Speaker 1: if this idea that if if you don't have to
Speaker 1: do a majority African American district, that this is automatically
Speaker 1: going to help. If more Democratic vote gets dispersed to
Speaker 1: more congressional districts in a given geographic area, you may
Speaker 1: see a lot more swing seats in the in the sunbought.
Speaker 1: This may be a lot harder to Jerrymander than many
Speaker 1: folks are thinking today. So look a few things to
Speaker 1: keep in mind with this Supreme Court argument. It does
Speaker 1: seem as if Roberts and Kavanaugh are looking to put
Speaker 1: an end date to the Voting Rights Act on Section two.
Speaker 1: What does that end date look like. It's at the
Speaker 1: end of this decade, aid right, is it a review
Speaker 1: in another four years? Is it throwing it back to
Speaker 1: Congress to come up with an end date. That's something else.
Speaker 1: They're very good at punting, particularly Roberts in capitall. They
Speaker 1: do like to sort of see if they can come
Speaker 1: up with an extraordinarily narrow ruling. I can tell you this,
Speaker 1: I don't think John Roberts wants to be make feeling
Speaker 1: as if he is deciding the midterm elections. So I
Speaker 1: anticipate this is going to be narrow. But another thing
Speaker 1: to keep in mind. If this ruling comes out when
Speaker 1: most Supreme Court rulings come out, which is late June
Speaker 1: early July, and it does have these dramatic changes into it,
Speaker 1: it's not going to impact twenty twenty six, it's just
Speaker 1: too so there'll be too many filing deadlines will have passed,
Speaker 1: you won't be able to see that this probably is
Speaker 1: more likely to impact twenty twenty eight, and frankly is
Speaker 1: more likely. I could even you could even see in
Speaker 1: that this will apply to the next census, to the
Speaker 1: next reapportionment, which would take place census in twenty thirty
Speaker 1: in the next reapportionment in twenty thirty one. So keep
Speaker 1: in mind those deadlines. And do you know, I, like
Speaker 1: I said, I'm not as I'm not as convinced that
Speaker 1: this is as clean of a political victory for the right. Now.
Speaker 1: There may be other issues. Representation may go down, you know,
Speaker 1: those are some our serious issues that we need to
Speaker 1: have a conversation about. But if you're just playing a
Speaker 1: numbers game here, I'm not sure this is going to
Speaker 1: be as damaging to the Democrats or as helpful to
Speaker 1: the Republicans as a lot of what I would say,
Speaker 1: the cheap commentary has come. You know, there's just a
Speaker 1: lot of so much of our reporting and commentary just
Speaker 1: comes from does this help the left, does it hurt
Speaker 1: the left? Does its help the right? Doesn't hurt the right,
Speaker 1: and you know, sometimes you just don't know. You can
Speaker 1: have a larger conversation about whether do we need this anymore?
Speaker 1: Do we not be this? We're going to have disenfranchisement
Speaker 1: of African American voters and of African American representation, which
Speaker 1: was the whole point of the Voting Rights Act. That
Speaker 1: needs to be the conversation that's had. Everybody is trying
Speaker 1: to apply it to gerrymandering and redistricting. It's why, I
Speaker 1: tell you, if you just looked at it through the
Speaker 1: data lens, this isn't as clean as the commentary is
Speaker 1: making it seem. The other interesting news over the last
Speaker 1: twenty four hours so yesterday I made it. At least
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, I made a bit of a deal about
Speaker 1: the main Senate primary, Graham Platner, the Oyster farmer, Janet Mills,
Speaker 1: the sitting governor. For what it's worth, the DSCC claims
Speaker 1: that they have not endorsed in the primary, but they
Speaker 1: set up a joint fundraising committee with Janet Mills. Now
Speaker 1: they've set up joint fundraising committees in the past with
Speaker 1: multiple primary candidates. I'll be curious to watch the d
Speaker 1: SCC here do they set up a joint fundraising committee
Speaker 1: with Graham Platner, do they offer to send one to
Speaker 1: actually put some uh to make the case that they're
Speaker 1: not taking sides, or maybe they want donors to think, no,
Speaker 1: we have a preference here and this is how it's
Speaker 1: going to work. How are they going to operate in Minnesota?
Speaker 1: How are they going to operate in Michigan. I'm curious
Speaker 1: with both of those primaries where they we'll see, well,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen in Iowa, what's going to happen
Speaker 1: in these senate races in the Texas Senate race. So
Speaker 1: I am curious to see if, if if the d
Speaker 1: SEC is serious about making it clear they're not endorsing
Speaker 1: Mills in this primary, because they're operating as if she's
Speaker 1: their preferred candidate. But then Kirsten Jelburn, who is the
Speaker 1: d SEC chair, said said that they that they would
Speaker 1: not do an official endorsement. Look, Platner is already on
Speaker 1: the air, the U a W has already taken sides
Speaker 1: and isn't sing Platner in this one. And I also
Speaker 1: think the fact that another New England state is going
Speaker 1: to have another sort of generational primary and the big
Speaker 1: one is Seth Moulten, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts deciding the
Speaker 1: primary Ed Marquis. This is actually the second time Ed
Speaker 1: Markey's had to deal with a Democratic primary that was
Speaker 1: more or less more of a generational argument, and he
Speaker 1: turned it into an ideological argument. In his initial race
Speaker 1: for the Sea against Joe Kennedy the third Joe Kennedy
Speaker 1: was making a he was making a generational argument, and
Speaker 1: essentially Marky Randa Kennedy's left had the backing of AOC.
Speaker 1: In particular, he had become sort of a big champion
Speaker 1: of the Green New Deal, and I think he's counting
Speaker 1: on that this time. Seth Moulton comes from a bit
Speaker 1: more of the of the middle, I don't know what
Speaker 1: you call mainstream liberal versus or you know, sort of
Speaker 1: a closer to the center than Markie is. So it's
Speaker 1: going to be an interesting test of so Platner and Mills. Platner,
Speaker 1: I think, arguably presents himself as is more populous, more
Speaker 1: progressive than Janet Mills. In the case though, of Molten
Speaker 1: and Markey, it's Markey that is going to make the
Speaker 1: case he's more progressive, but he's going to be on
Speaker 1: the older side, So it's gonna be interesting. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of democratic groups out there calling for generational change.
Speaker 1: The question is is it generational or is it ideological?
Speaker 1: The Markey Molten primary is going to test how many
Speaker 1: of these young groups are actually more focused on ideological
Speaker 1: purity than generational change. If Molten gets the same support
Speaker 1: that Platner gets from many of these groups, then maybe
Speaker 1: it really is generational. But if Markey and Platner have
Speaker 1: more endorsements in common then than than than Molten, uh,
Speaker 1: then then if you know, if it's it's sort of
Speaker 1: sort of if Moulten and Mills have sort of more
Speaker 1: of the same endorsements than Platner and Markey or whatever
Speaker 1: that works out, then you'll know that this is more ideological.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be fascinating to watch to watch
Speaker 1: that Molten candidacy. There two other nuggets I want to
Speaker 1: mention before letting the weekend go. One is back in
Speaker 1: Virginia a G two. Both are having to do with
Speaker 1: TV ads that I really would like you guys to
Speaker 1: take a look at. One is a new ad from
Speaker 1: the Republican Attorney General in Virginia, Jason Mires addressing Abigail
Speaker 1: Spaanberger voters. And what's interesting here is so in the
Speaker 1: Virginia Governor's race, Winston Earl Sars, who's basically thrown spaghetti
Speaker 1: at the wall to try to make to try to
Speaker 1: pick up ground on Spamburger, has been desperately trying to
Speaker 1: use the texting controversy of the AG's race to try
Speaker 1: to make look like Spamberger is somehow supportive, won't denounce
Speaker 1: Jones enough. But guess what. The Mira's campaign has obviously
Speaker 1: decided Spamberger's already has got this race in the back.
Speaker 1: So they've got an ad out that essentially says, hey, look,
Speaker 1: Spanberger refuses to endorse j Jones, and they play clips
Speaker 1: from the debate where she will not reiterate her endorsement
Speaker 1: for Jay Jones. She's asked multiple times during the debate,
Speaker 1: and she will not. She says it is up to
Speaker 1: everyone's individual decision on how they're going to vote in
Speaker 1: that race. Essentially, it was Spanberger giving her permission slip, going,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm not vouching for this guy. I'm
Speaker 1: certainly not going to put my campaign in jeopardy to
Speaker 1: help out this guy. And she made that clear during
Speaker 1: the debate. She didn't say don't vote for him, but
Speaker 1: she didn't say to vote for him. Now you got Winston.
Speaker 1: Merl Sears' campaign is trying to say, aha, it means
Speaker 1: she secretly supports them. Jason Miaris Republican Attorney Jay are
Speaker 1: going aha, See she doesn't. She's giving you a permission slip.
Speaker 1: The ad is addressed to Spanburger voters, essentially saying, look,
Speaker 1: she's giving you she may not be voting for him.
Speaker 1: She's not comfortable with it. You don't have to be
Speaker 1: comfortable with it either. It's a fascinating ad. It is
Speaker 1: a subtle way of Mirs throwing winsome Earl Sears under
Speaker 1: the bus, going look, we know she can't win. We
Speaker 1: know who the next governor's going to be. So hey,
Speaker 1: Abigail Spamberger, voters, are you sure you want this guy?
Speaker 1: J Jones is the chief law enforcement officer anyway. A
Speaker 1: fascinating development in that race, and frankly kind of predictable
Speaker 1: because it did seem it some I've said this before.
Speaker 1: If the governor's race were closer, Spamberger would have called
Speaker 1: for him to get out of the race. I think
Speaker 1: the fact that it isn't closer. She's trying to not
Speaker 1: engage in that issue, or engage in it as little
Speaker 1: as she possibly can. And now in some ways Mirs
Speaker 1: has just inoculated her because he's going to be up
Speaker 1: with an ad that's probably going to have more money
Speaker 1: behind it than what Winston Earl Series is. If you're
Speaker 1: the in Earl Series campaign, you hate this ad. You're
Speaker 1: frustrated because it is essentially me are is giving Spamberger
Speaker 1: a pass and in some ways inadvertently praising the fact
Speaker 1: that she refuses to endorse j Jones. So it really
Speaker 1: does undermine whatever last minute strategy the Winston Earl Series
Speaker 1: campaign thought was going to work for them. And then
Speaker 1: one other ad I want to alert you to because
Speaker 1: it it is, and yes it's you know, I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that if somebody wanted to develop a drinking
Speaker 1: contest with my podcast, it would be how often he
Speaker 1: mentions Florida. Well, I'm about to mention Florida, So drink.
Speaker 1: There is a new Senate candidate that jumped in the race,
Speaker 1: a gentleman by the name of Hector Muhika. He is Venezuela.
Speaker 1: He has worked with Google in the past, and it's
Speaker 1: he's got this personal video that he's put out and
Speaker 1: he's an and what's interesting to me. I think his
Speaker 1: background potentially is interesting and we'll see if he can
Speaker 1: get traction. And he's been he was a Google he
Speaker 1: worked in Google phil philanthropy for a while, handing out
Speaker 1: Google money. My guess is he must have some of
Speaker 1: his own. We'll see if he's going to use some
Speaker 1: of his own. But what I wanted to alert you
Speaker 1: were sort of two policy hits that were AI related
Speaker 1: that he used in this. As you know, a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago, I said, I have a feeling that come
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, the most animating issue that you're not
Speaker 1: going to be able to run for president and not
Speaker 1: have a some sort of answer to a voter concern
Speaker 1: about AI job displacement. Right, fear of AI job displacement,
Speaker 1: whether it's a real thing or not by twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight won't matter. The fear of it is going to
Speaker 1: be an issue. Well, this Muhika announcement video touches on
Speaker 1: it in a couple of ways that I hadn't seen.
Speaker 1: So he attacks Ashley Moody, who's currently who is the
Speaker 1: appointed senator to replace Marco Rubio, who, of course has
Speaker 1: been who's the Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, head
Speaker 1: of the Archives, and maybe the chief dog walker two.
Speaker 1: I'm not quite sure what other jobs that Trump has
Speaker 1: made him have on that front. But when he could
Speaker 1: hit her and said she is basically on the side
Speaker 1: of the AI. You know that she cheered on the
Speaker 1: federal job cuts which put clean water and all this
Speaker 1: stuff in danger. She is for using AI to get
Speaker 1: rid of human jobs. She is for AI to set
Speaker 1: medicare pricing. I found it to be an interesting hit,
Speaker 1: and it was clearly here's the Google exec using fear
Speaker 1: of AI as an attack. I don't think he got
Speaker 1: it quite right. For what it's worth, I think AI
Speaker 1: using AI itself is sort of a double edged sword.
Speaker 1: I think those who know know what AI is are
Speaker 1: sort of are a sort of tech optimists, and you
Speaker 1: don't want to be seen as the candidate not on
Speaker 1: the side of progress a more. But I do think
Speaker 1: an older electorates are going to be a bit skeptical
Speaker 1: and fearful of AI. And the smarter way to probably
Speaker 1: go about this is to say, do you want a
Speaker 1: computer deciding what you're what the pricing is on medicare
Speaker 1: or do you think you know or do you think
Speaker 1: that you know human beings should be involved in those decisions.
Speaker 1: Do you want a computer deciding whether your insurance covers this,
Speaker 1: or do you think human beings ought to be involved
Speaker 1: in that decision. I think talking about it as a
Speaker 1: computer rather than using the phrase AI probably will make
Speaker 1: it more effective. But the real reason I'm learning to
Speaker 1: this ad is I think this is this is my canarios.
Speaker 1: It's the first one I've seen in a Senate race
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six to start to put AI in
Speaker 1: the mainstream political conversation and fuse it with healthcare pricing,
Speaker 1: fuse it with job displacement. I have a feeling he
Speaker 1: will be the first that this is. He's not going
Speaker 1: to be alone in using AI this way. So again,
Speaker 1: take a look at it, see how he did it.
Speaker 1: I Like I said, I think if you're a political
Speaker 1: strategist here trying to trying to figure out how do
Speaker 1: you talk about AI without sounding anti progress, there are
Speaker 1: probably ways to do it that just talk in the
Speaker 1: form do you want a computer deciding these things? Or
Speaker 1: do you want a human being who understands the impact
Speaker 1: on your life making these decisions. That is a conversation
Speaker 1: that I think voters do want to have. And I
Speaker 1: go back, I think that in a larger sense, I
Speaker 1: think the big the release of the Sora video app. Right,
Speaker 1: We're already two weeks into it, and it feels like
Speaker 1: you can't trust any video now that you see on
Speaker 1: social media. It is going to put a premium on
Speaker 1: human interaction, live in person interaction, and even perhaps in
Speaker 1: the digital realm, being at least live streaming at any
Speaker 1: one time, but the premium. I did this when I
Speaker 1: was doing this talk at this industry conference earlier this week.
Speaker 1: I asked for a show of hands, how many of
Speaker 1: you would pay extra if you knew you could get
Speaker 1: a human customer service rep. And literally two thirds, This
Speaker 1: is a crowd of about five hundred people. Two thirds
Speaker 1: of people put their hands up. It is I do
Speaker 1: think this is why I'm weirdly optimistic about all about Right,
Speaker 1: the unintended consequence of AI advancement may be reminding people
Speaker 1: the importance of human connectivity. And if that ends up
Speaker 1: being the unintended consequence of the rise of AI, is
Speaker 1: that so bad? If we end up deciding, hey, the
Speaker 1: human element is more valuable than ever that, my friends
Speaker 1: would be serious progress. Well, I hope you enjoyed that
Speaker 1: tour of the world with my friend Mike McFall, and
Speaker 1: do get the book. Yes it's a readable book. Yes
Speaker 1: it's a big book. Okay, both things can be true.
Speaker 1: And it's a good long holiday weekend set of reading.
Speaker 1: So maybe it's something you think about for either your
Speaker 1: the Turkey week or the end of the year holidays.
Speaker 1: All right, let's do some questions and then I'll do
Speaker 1: my little college football preview for the week as Chuck.
Speaker 1: This comes from Chase c Little Rock, Arkansas. Anyways. Well
Speaker 1: after another derailed Arkansas Razorback football season. Sigh, my uncle
Speaker 1: Joe concur, I've shifted my attention to the new season
Speaker 1: of The Morning Show. Giving your experience in the industry,
Speaker 1: I'm curious how closely does the show reflect the inner
Speaker 1: workings of a real network news operation. Is it anywhere
Speaker 1: near reality? Pure dramatized fiction. Would love to hear your take.
Speaker 1: Oh man, all right, you're gonna get my whininess about
Speaker 1: this stuff. It is. It is more fiction than real.
Speaker 1: Do they get you know? I would argue in the
Speaker 1: first season you know, and look, I'm never, never a
Speaker 1: fan of these shows as much that involve things that
Speaker 1: involve entities that I've actually been a part of or
Speaker 1: have covered. Right, you know, the West Wing used to
Speaker 1: frustrate me because it is just not how Washington worked.
Speaker 1: It is. It is Veep right, that is more likely,
Speaker 1: certainly at least how the how, the how, how how
Speaker 1: Washington politicians behave and how they really are. Veep is
Speaker 1: more accurate. And it doesn't matter the party of the person.
Speaker 1: The sort of the lack of self awareness, the the
Speaker 1: narcissism that Julia Louis Dreyfus's character emits is all very
Speaker 1: much in line. You talk to any political operative left
Speaker 1: and right and they would say, oh, yeah, Veep is
Speaker 1: much closer. So, you know, I used to because I
Speaker 1: do think some people watch it and think this is
Speaker 1: the way it should be, and I just would argue,
Speaker 1: the West Wing has never been that way. It is
Speaker 1: literally a utopian version of how life works, or actually
Speaker 1: life never has worked, at least in the political sense.
Speaker 1: And I would argue with the you know, I felt
Speaker 1: a lot of the Sorkin work, which I love, Right,
Speaker 1: It's just like I love a few good men. But
Speaker 1: I don't know the jag world that well, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure it doesn't work that way in real life, right
Speaker 1: that Tom Cruise is going to, you know, bendering away
Speaker 1: at Colonel Jessop and all of that. So I just
Speaker 1: I'm just, you know, I'm suspect on the Morning Show.
Speaker 1: It is based loosely in a book that was written
Speaker 1: by Brian Stelter about the Morning Show Wars. So what
Speaker 1: I would say is that there was a time when
Speaker 1: there was these outsized personalities. There were the executives behind
Speaker 1: the scenes who felt that they were star makers. We
Speaker 1: will designate you an anchor and you must leave, you know,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. And there was some truthiness that
Speaker 1: that is the way it is, but it is really
Speaker 1: more of a twentieth century phenomenon. It led into the
Speaker 1: twenty first century. I mean the I to this day
Speaker 1: don't know if Matt Lauer made the amount of money
Speaker 1: that was reported about him. For those of us even
Speaker 1: within it was a shocking amount, and it certainly made
Speaker 1: a lot of people related to me assume that I
Speaker 1: was far wealthier than than I am, or I made
Speaker 1: far more money than I actually did. It was always
Speaker 1: an I'll be honest, it was a bit uncomfortable. How
Speaker 1: often it's like, what am I going to do? Go
Speaker 1: out there and say, no, that's just you know. I
Speaker 1: did get a piece of advice once from somebody that said,
Speaker 1: if you never want, if you never want your how
Speaker 1: much you make to leak in the public, don't tell
Speaker 1: anybody because the minute you tell one person somebody is
Speaker 1: you know, outside your basically immediate family, it's going to
Speaker 1: get out. And the fact is, nobody's ever accurately had
Speaker 1: my ever had because I've never told anybody. I refuse.
Speaker 1: I don't tell any extended family member, Nobody, nobody's business,
Speaker 1: nobody should. These larger contracts, a lot of times there
Speaker 1: are people that want to brag that they were able
Speaker 1: to get that amount of money for somebody. So maybe
Speaker 1: it's an agent, maybe it's a lawyer, maybe it's whatever.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's the principle themselves think that it somehow makes
Speaker 1: them a bigger star if they're seen as being worth
Speaker 1: a certain amount of money. So I would say what
Speaker 1: the Morning Show captures sort of what that world was
Speaker 1: like when I first entered it in twenty eight, twenty
Speaker 1: oh seven, twenty eight and twenty oh nine. But literally,
Speaker 1: by the time of the end of the Great Recession
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve and twenty thirteen, the place stopped. You know,
Speaker 1: it was sort of it is, you know, you stopped
Speaker 1: having the larger than life anchors who could get executives fired.
Speaker 1: I did see that in my early days. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the way to watch the morning show is this is
Speaker 1: the way that this world worked for about the first
Speaker 1: decade of the twenty first century. This is not how
Speaker 1: the world of Today's show works or Good Morning America.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not saying that there isn't some attempt
Speaker 1: in the world of Page six and some of these
Speaker 1: other gossip columns to try to create drama where there
Speaker 1: isn't any, but it has doesn't have near the amount
Speaker 1: of drama because frankly, the stakes have never been lower. Right,
Speaker 1: everybody's losing audience. The fight for exclusives isn't the same anymore.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you were asked me, when is
Speaker 1: the morning show sort of peak? Sort of the zeitgeist
Speaker 1: of it that it's trying to capture in reality is
Speaker 1: somewhere Serkha, I would basically say the peak morning show
Speaker 1: power was probably mid nineties to twenty to twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: and in that sense that that culture which the Morning
Speaker 1: Show still seems to lean on is that. But I
Speaker 1: will make a confession I won't watch it. I watch
Speaker 1: enough to understand where they're going, because I don't even
Speaker 1: want to see how they're trying to portray people that
Speaker 1: I know and they're not portraying them correctly. I don't
Speaker 1: even want to get into that game, and so it
Speaker 1: is kind of why I kind of I'm not a
Speaker 1: viewer of the show anyway. All right, next question comes
Speaker 1: from mattam. Hey love the new podcast. I come for
Speaker 1: the political analysis and stay for the college football talk.
Speaker 1: I appreciate saying that there's more college football is coming up.
Speaker 1: In a few minutes. You mentioned how the new rules
Speaker 1: have made FBS football feel more like the NFL. But
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on fcs and Division two and
Speaker 1: three programs as the truer representation of college athletics. My
Speaker 1: alma mater, Presbyterian College is a great example. For years
Speaker 1: of struggle, they've turned things around and are now six
Speaker 1: and oh, proving that good leadership and love of the
Speaker 1: game still matter. Matt, m Look, I do think you're
Speaker 1: going to see. It's going to be interesting about the
Speaker 1: way D three works and actually how D three could
Speaker 1: end up being sort of for the love of the
Speaker 1: game division on that front, and obviously with some D
Speaker 1: two in that. But I emphasize D three because my
Speaker 1: beloved University Miami Hurricanes won the D three hockey championship
Speaker 1: and they're a W REC team. They never actually are.
Speaker 1: They don't play, they're not a Division one team. They
Speaker 1: don't have an on site facility to practice in or
Speaker 1: anything like that. I think the I think there will
Speaker 1: be somewhere something in between REC and this professionalized minor
Speaker 1: league football that's being created, right which will you know,
Speaker 1: I think you're going to see a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: Division I schools go down to D three. There won't
Speaker 1: be scholarships, and so it will be more of the
Speaker 1: for the love of the game type of stuff, and
Speaker 1: I you know, in that look, sports is still important
Speaker 1: to alumni. Sports is still I'm very friendly with the
Speaker 1: president of GW where I went. She's new president, Ellen Gramberg.
Speaker 1: I'm biased. I think she's terrific. I think she's been
Speaker 1: a breath of fresh air for the university. She views
Speaker 1: sports as a way to build community. It's look, it's
Speaker 1: there's a financial cost to it if you want to
Speaker 1: be competing on that division IE level, and there's always
Speaker 1: some set of donors that want to do that. But
Speaker 1: she also believes that there's you know, wouldn't be a
Speaker 1: surprise if you see a lot of the mid major
Speaker 1: conferences sort of get cut in half because schools decide
Speaker 1: they don't want to try to keep up financially to
Speaker 1: try to be you know, even just mid level relevant
Speaker 1: and Division I college basketball, for instance, and instead drop
Speaker 1: down to D three and if you can still keep
Speaker 1: a culture, I mean, because that sports does create community
Speaker 1: on college campuses and content and that is part of
Speaker 1: the student experience and it's becoming an important part of
Speaker 1: recruiting students to apply to schools. So I'm hopeful. I
Speaker 1: want it to be that. I want to have that nostalgia,
Speaker 1: But I wonder if we start to see something that's
Speaker 1: a little more that you have. And I'd love to
Speaker 1: see the NCAA change these rules. I think every school
Speaker 1: should be able to find something their Division one in
Speaker 1: and right now, I think you can be Division one
Speaker 1: in one sport and then and then Division three and
Speaker 1: everything else. I think you have that in hockey, there's
Speaker 1: a I think Colorado College is one of those, if
Speaker 1: I if I'm not mistaken, I'd like to see that
Speaker 1: more loosened up a little bit where you pick and
Speaker 1: shows it. You know, because you're you're going to have
Speaker 1: certain sports that maybe you have the alumni financial network
Speaker 1: to support to be Division one, and then certain sports
Speaker 1: that you don't, but you still want to have students
Speaker 1: feel as if there's something to play for and compete
Speaker 1: with and have in the world of Division three. I'd
Speaker 1: love to see a little more flexibility there. I think
Speaker 1: it's a way to sort of keep up the spirit
Speaker 1: of amateur athletics and at the same time embrace this
Speaker 1: new world that's going to that is the reality of
Speaker 1: of of the revenues, the revenues generating sports in college.
Speaker 1: All right, next question. Two part question here comes from
Speaker 1: John from Frisco, Texas. I'm learning more about Frisco, another
Speaker 1: one of these growing ex serb suburbs of the Dallas
Speaker 1: area of the Metroplex. Anyway, two part question. Love the
Speaker 1: show and have followed the podcast from your Meet the
Speaker 1: Press days. Given Greg Abbot's enthusiasm for supporting the Trump
Speaker 1: administration by sending the Texas guard to Chicago. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the Texas governor is using the national notoriety
Speaker 1: as a launching point towards twenty twenty eight in the
Speaker 1: Republican nomination. You've mentioned that members of the administration maybe
Speaker 1: I'm twenty twenty eight, but may not have as much
Speaker 1: of a resume to run on. Would Abbot be more
Speaker 1: formidable in the primary? Also, what sorts of other non
Speaker 1: political podcasts do you listen to? I think you mentioned
Speaker 1: some economics ones. Would you name some of them here? Thanks?
Speaker 1: Love the show. Go Caines John from Frisco, Texas. So, look,
Speaker 1: I think Abbot wants to be would like to try
Speaker 1: to run for president. I think Dave Carney, his chief
Speaker 1: political advisor, who I've known forever, one of the savvier
Speaker 1: republic strategists out there, has some unique New Hampshire ties,
Speaker 1: and he could certainly help Abbot there. I just don't
Speaker 1: know if Abbot's going to be able to be I
Speaker 1: don't know what his lane is, right. You know, one
Speaker 1: of the stories that I meant to bring up at
Speaker 1: the start of this podcast that I didn't get to
Speaker 1: was the story about how Christy Nomes government paid ad
Speaker 1: campaign praising you know, sort of praising President Trump for
Speaker 1: the elevated deportations. It's funny the coverage of it is
Speaker 1: being portrayed as you know, this ad campaign to support
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I look at it as a taxpayer
Speaker 1: funded ad campaign to promote Christy Nome for president in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. The point is is that you have
Speaker 1: Christy Nome wanting to run for president, Tulsey Gabbert wants
Speaker 1: to run for president, RFK Junior wants to run for president,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio wants to do it. Maybe he joins as
Speaker 1: a ticket with JD Vance. What what do Donald Trump
Speaker 1: Junior Eric Trump end up doing? I think they both
Speaker 1: have some interesting ambition. Is twenty eighth the year that
Speaker 1: they try to execute it? The point is is that
Speaker 1: and then you have Rand Paul and Glenn Younkin who
Speaker 1: are clearly going to not run as MAGA candidates. All
Speaker 1: these other candidates I mentioned are all going to try
Speaker 1: to be in the Magaline. What is Abbot going to do? Right?
Speaker 1: Abbott in some ways has succeeded in Texas politics because
Speaker 1: he's been He's been somebody that hasn't been seen as
Speaker 1: on one side or the other in this intra party
Speaker 1: war that is happening in Texas. Right, Cornyn v. Paxton
Speaker 1: in the Senate primary is actually more than about John
Speaker 1: Cornyn and more than you know, sort of a maga
Speaker 1: versus the rhinos, whatever you want to to describe that.
Speaker 1: If you're if you're on the snarky right, you know,
Speaker 1: it was it was a Republican controlled House of State
Speaker 1: House or representatives in tech is that impeached Ken Paxton, Right,
Speaker 1: it was. This has been a bipartisan effort, but it's
Speaker 1: really been sort of a divide inside the Texas Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And Abbott you know, is at times nervous about the
Speaker 1: Ken Paxton and Dan Patrick wing. Dan Patrick the lieutenant governor,
Speaker 1: and in Texas, the lieutenant governor in some ways has
Speaker 1: more actual policy power than the governor, being the president
Speaker 1: of the Senate and really sort of very much has
Speaker 1: has a lot more influence at times on the legislature
Speaker 1: than the governor does. But Patrick's clearly to Habbit's right,
Speaker 1: Paxton clearly Tobbits right. Abbott definitely you know, came up
Speaker 1: more through was an ag during the Rick Perry came
Speaker 1: up through sort of the Bush and Perry years of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, and Perry, all you might say, is
Speaker 1: slightly more conservative than w I mean, you know, Perry
Speaker 1: is never you know, this is the guy that once
Speaker 1: called Donald Trump a cancer on conservatism. We used to
Speaker 1: run these clips so often. I used to know them
Speaker 1: cancer on conservatism that he said multiple times the day
Speaker 1: he dropped out of the race, and an attempt to
Speaker 1: consolidate an anti Trump candidate back in the twenty sixteen race,
Speaker 1: remember he ran twice. He was a front runner for
Speaker 1: about two days until he couldn't figure out which which
Speaker 1: of the three agencies he wanted to eliminate, and that
Speaker 1: sort of went the campaign went south there. So I
Speaker 1: just don't know if Abbot has a as a as
Speaker 1: an easy lane. I think Abbot only becomes a viable
Speaker 1: candidate if MAGA is seen as a broken ideology or
Speaker 1: as a as a net negative in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty eight. What's the likelihood of that, right?
Speaker 1: I think, I definitely think Abbot's itching to do something
Speaker 1: else and he wants to run for president. But I
Speaker 1: you know, I just I don't know what he doesn't.
Speaker 1: He's not comfortably mega. He tries to be Mega adjacent,
Speaker 1: but he's also you know, he does. He does end up.
Speaker 1: I think he's a closet Chamber of Commerce Republican who
Speaker 1: is trying to play mega and every once in a
Speaker 1: while that comes through. So I don't see it. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean he won't try. He's going to want to
Speaker 1: do it. You know, he would be the third straight
Speaker 1: Texas governor to try to do this. W did it.
Speaker 1: Perry ran twice and it didn't go well, and you'd
Speaker 1: have Abbot there. Abbitt's on the verge of Actually, Rick
Speaker 1: Perry's the longest serving governor, and now Abbot, if he
Speaker 1: wins this reelection, is going to end up surpassing that mark.
Speaker 1: So I'm a I'm I'm a bit I'm a bit
Speaker 1: more skeptical. So you're asking me my podcasts, how much
Speaker 1: do I confess trying to see here? How much do
Speaker 1: I confess to my some of these gambling podcasts that
Speaker 1: I listened to, But you're asking what I listened to.
Speaker 1: So I listened to Simmons, I listened to Kornheiser. Their
Speaker 1: pals during football season. There's a couple of I like
Speaker 1: the guys at the Action Network. Their football previews some
Speaker 1: of the best. There's I can't even I keep forgetting
Speaker 1: the guys. He goes by his last name his last
Speaker 1: name only. I'm drawing a blank on it. I think
Speaker 1: it's Sharky or Stucky. Excuse me. Sharky's another friend of mine,
Speaker 1: a guy named Stucky. I enjoy his football previews. I
Speaker 1: think they're very good. Other podcasts that I enjoy I
Speaker 1: listened to something the White House sixteen hundred Sessions. This
Speaker 1: is basically the White House Historical Association. They always have
Speaker 1: some fun sort of history nuggets about presidents. They have
Speaker 1: one unpresidential Pets that I have found myself enjoying. The
Speaker 1: Acquired podcast. These are these huge, long deep dives on
Speaker 1: like how did Google become Google? And it's almost like
Speaker 1: a like a biography of a company. They did one
Speaker 1: on JP Morgan and had an hour long interview with
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond that I felt found just super fascinating. And
Speaker 1: you know, look, their podcasts are commitments, so sometimes you know,
Speaker 1: they only put the big ones out once a month
Speaker 1: because it takes almost a month to do that. I
Speaker 1: enjoy the Bulwarks Hollywood podcast Sunny Bunch as sort of
Speaker 1: an an entertainment culture that you know, talks a little
Speaker 1: culture stuff in the media world I enjoy. I enjoy
Speaker 1: both the Ben Smith podcast on Semaphore and Dylan Byers
Speaker 1: on Puck. It's funny. I don't listen to many political podcasts.
Speaker 1: I listened to sort of media podcasts on that front.
Speaker 1: I'll listen to some issue specific stuff on foreign policy
Speaker 1: and on domestic policy, and then I just grab highlights
Speaker 1: of some of the other political podcasts out there that
Speaker 1: I know have have that but as far as my
Speaker 1: own personal those those are the ones that do and
Speaker 1: I should. There's there's also there's one baseball card podcast
Speaker 1: I consistently listen to. It's it's called There Is No
Speaker 1: Off Season, I believe, is what it's called, and they
Speaker 1: do a pretty good job of sort of assessing the
Speaker 1: market for sports cards. So there, I probably revealed too
Speaker 1: much about my habits, but you asked, and I thought
Speaker 1: i'd chair. I'm gonna take one more question here and
Speaker 1: do my little college football preview here. This comes from
Speaker 1: Aaron from Skokie, Illinois Wire Conservatives attacking Bad Bunny's citizenship.
Speaker 1: It's hard to believe they don't know he's an American citizen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, Puerto Rico is one of those. Apparently that's
Speaker 1: one of those trick questions on the test right, just
Speaker 1: feels like a blatant display of racism. If they were
Speaker 1: honest and said they simply don't like that the Super
Speaker 1: Bowl halftime show will be in Spanish, they might actually
Speaker 1: find more agreement than they expect. I'm a Mexican American
Speaker 1: but don't speak Spanish and his music isn't really my
Speaker 1: style yet now, because of his backlash, even people like
Speaker 1: me feel compelled to watch just to push back against
Speaker 1: the hate. The idea of replacing him with Lee Greenwood
Speaker 1: is laughable. There's zero chance that happens, right, pr Nightmare,
Speaker 1: thanks for the show. Look, Aaron, you're you're not wrong,
Speaker 1: and you know I'm now of the age that I
Speaker 1: expect whoever's picked is somebody that isn't appealing to me.
Speaker 1: You know, I know what the NFL is up to.
Speaker 1: They're trying to appeal to a younger demographic, and they're
Speaker 1: really trying to appeal to a more Latino demographic. The
Speaker 1: the single, by the way, the single most streamed. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw what was it? Ronda Santis attack Bad Bunny's like,
Speaker 1: I don't you know, I don't know who this guy is. Well,
Speaker 1: he was only the most streamed artist in the state
Speaker 1: of Florida according to Spotify in calendar year twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So a lot of Ron DeSantis' constituents seem to know
Speaker 1: who Bad Funny is. But whenever you're picking any genre
Speaker 1: of music, you're gonna alienate people who don't like that
Speaker 1: genre of music. It, you know, I'm sure a lot
Speaker 1: of when they did the Who, there were a lot
Speaker 1: of people going, why are they doing old people music? Right?
Speaker 1: So it's a it's obvious to me this is it's
Speaker 1: almost always the halftime show feels like an attempt to
Speaker 1: talk to a demographic that the NFL feels like that
Speaker 1: they don't know how to talk to, and they use
Speaker 1: an artist to try to do that, and frankly, they're
Speaker 1: pretty smart about it. The NFL continues to grow its
Speaker 1: fan base. They're the most you know, the thing that
Speaker 1: everybody ought to respect here in the NFL. I think
Speaker 1: has learned this, you know, sort of figuring out how
Speaker 1: to try to get above the culture wars, right. Colin
Speaker 1: Kaeperne put them knee deep into the culture wars between really,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump suck them into the culture wars more than anything.
Speaker 1: But when you look at the demographics of football fans,
Speaker 1: it looks like the demographics of the country right when
Speaker 1: I mean football is the single most sort of honest
Speaker 1: representation of the It is literally something like thirty seven
Speaker 1: percent Republican, thirty seven percent Democrat right, and everybody else independent.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like the actual presidential electorate is represented.
Speaker 1: You know amongst football fans, most other sports have have
Speaker 1: a lean right. Baseball fans it leans right, golf fans
Speaker 1: it leans right, NBA fans lean left, NHL fans lean
Speaker 1: right like WNBA fans lean left. So you see, there's
Speaker 1: some of the sports you kind of like you could
Speaker 1: look you just look at the crowd when you see
Speaker 1: go to a game and you have an idea of
Speaker 1: the because our politics is in some ways is so
Speaker 1: identity based right now, But I would caution everybody be careful.
Speaker 1: I mean, the NFL is America. It is a tapestry.
Speaker 1: It is the NFL fan base is the complicated picture
Speaker 1: of America that is an asset for the NFL. And
Speaker 1: I do think when it comes to their attempts to
Speaker 1: do more outreach, particularly in the Western hemisphere. They've now
Speaker 1: had back to back years of games in Brazil. There's
Speaker 1: no doubt in my mind that I think Mexico City,
Speaker 1: at some point or Monterey, one of the two is
Speaker 1: going to have a major league sports franchise, and maybe
Speaker 1: it's an NFL team first, although the Dallas Cowboys, who
Speaker 1: have the largest number of fans in Mexico, actually don't
Speaker 1: want to see a Mexico City team because for the
Speaker 1: same reason they that they don't want a team in Austin,
Speaker 1: Texas either, even though that's a metro a metro area
Speaker 1: that actually could support one, because they want to have
Speaker 1: they want to have the demographic to themselves. They want
Speaker 1: to make uh, they want to make money off of
Speaker 1: off of that demographic. So I find the whole thing
Speaker 1: it's just a pretty closed minded way of thinking. I
Speaker 1: look at this, when I see these decisions, I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: I need to understand that this lad of the NFL
Speaker 1: is not picking somebody that isn't popular, Okay, So and
Speaker 1: I know that this is you know what, to me,
Speaker 1: the most amazing fact about what the NFL does is
Speaker 1: that they never pay the halftime they know, they like
Speaker 1: they basically say, if you you're going to make so
Speaker 1: much money becoming the halftime entertainment, we don't have to
Speaker 1: pay you. That is extraordinary. How powerful that that that
Speaker 1: the NFL has that kind of power. So this is
Speaker 1: the first of what are going to be a series
Speaker 1: of games for my beloved Miami Hurricanes where they're supposed
Speaker 1: to win, and they're going to face a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of teams and they get the big target on their back.
Speaker 1: And if you want to make a name for yourself,
Speaker 1: you've got a shot at doing it. I am petrified
Speaker 1: of this Louisville game. I'm glad it's first of all.
Speaker 1: These standalone games on Thursday and Friday are just always,
Speaker 1: you know, feel like traps. You know, my wife's beloved
Speaker 1: Florida State Seminoles lost them this Friday night game at Charlottesville. Now,
Speaker 1: if this game we're at Louisville, I'd be a lot
Speaker 1: more nervous. In fact, Miami's been through tough games. Louisville
Speaker 1: has always seen Miami as an aspirational rival, is what
Speaker 1: I would call it. Miami. You know, like Louisville is
Speaker 1: you know, right. They they had Howard celiber as a
Speaker 1: coach after Miami. They recruit sort of, you know, they
Speaker 1: try to recruit anybody that Miami rejects down in Miami.
Speaker 1: That you look at their roster, it's filled with a
Speaker 1: lot of South Florida guys. They actually won one of
Speaker 1: the bigger recruiting battles that I can remember about ten
Speaker 1: years ago, when they got Teddy Bridgewater. Teddy Bridgewaters should
Speaker 1: have been a University of Miami quarterback. We had a
Speaker 1: guy named Jacorey Harris at the time. Teddy Bridgewater was
Speaker 1: actually his replacement at the same high school that Jacorey
Speaker 1: Harris played at, Jack Cary. Harris was a full four
Speaker 1: year starter, very good. Bridgewater was better. Bridgewater didn't want
Speaker 1: to sit behind Jacorey for two or three years, which
Speaker 1: is why I ended up going to Louisville. I'm convinced
Speaker 1: had Bridgewaters come to Miami sat behind Harris would have
Speaker 1: ended up probably having well. It certainly would have helped
Speaker 1: Miami's football program in the early teens. But look, I'm
Speaker 1: nervous about it. You know, right now, it's Miami against
Speaker 1: themselves for the rest of their schedule. On paper, if
Speaker 1: you look at it analytically, they're going to be double
Speaker 1: digit favorites in every game they have left. To me,
Speaker 1: the nervous the games that I'm nervous about going forward
Speaker 1: for Miami. One is this Louisville game Friday night. And
Speaker 1: my daughter will tell you, traffic to hard Rock is
Speaker 1: our you know, it sucks on a Saturday. It really
Speaker 1: sucks on a Friday evening. So I'm nervous about the
Speaker 1: crowd attendance though this year Man Miami fans have turned
Speaker 1: out even for sort of the you know, the games
Speaker 1: that don't that aren't on the marquee, so I'm pretty
Speaker 1: pleased about that. But that game has me nervous. The
Speaker 1: game at SMU Road game that'll be for Miami's first
Speaker 1: road game outside of the state of Florida on November first,
Speaker 1: And then of course the Pit game. That's the last game,
Speaker 1: that's our last regular season game of the year, and
Speaker 1: it's at Pit. We've struggled that Pit before when we
Speaker 1: were we blew a Pit game in twenty seventeen. We
Speaker 1: were on our way to and were already qualified for
Speaker 1: the a SEC title game, so it didn't really matter,
Speaker 1: except it was the beginning of sort of we lose
Speaker 1: to pit then we get pummeled by Clemson, and then
Speaker 1: it was like, oh, Miami was a mirage. We were
Speaker 1: a ten and oh start and then we turned into
Speaker 1: a mirage. So we don't have Georgia Tech on our schedule, thankfully,
Speaker 1: which is the other nemesis in Miami. So obviously Friday night,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of you will end up watching
Speaker 1: that game. I hope it's not a game by the
Speaker 1: second half. We shall see a couple of other games
Speaker 1: of note this weekend. You know, Brian Kelly will find
Speaker 1: out the Brian Kelly hot seat. You know how hot
Speaker 1: will his seat get in LSU? Well, he LSU's going
Speaker 1: to Vanderbilt. LSU's an underdog at Vanderbilt, right, And I'd
Speaker 1: love to know every week there's a new stat not
Speaker 1: since the nineteen forties is a ranked Vanderbilt team played
Speaker 1: another ranked team or not since the nineteen forties, has YadA,
Speaker 1: YadA YadA happened? Right with Vanderbilt, this is a hugely
Speaker 1: important game for both teams. If either team basically winners
Speaker 1: winner is this is a playoff elimination game, They're both
Speaker 1: five and one second loss for either one of them,
Speaker 1: I think puts them on a path to not make
Speaker 1: the playoff. And in l s Hu's case, it probably
Speaker 1: puts Brian Kelly on the hot seat Unloster Vanderbilt, so
Speaker 1: that'll be a big deal. Duke Georgia Tech. This has
Speaker 1: Georgia Tech upset. I think they should be an upset alert.
Speaker 1: Duke's actually the favorite. It's a home game for Duke.
Speaker 1: If Georgia Tech loses before you know, loses before the
Speaker 1: end of their see, this is probably their toughest game
Speaker 1: left on their acc schedule. A little of course, play
Speaker 1: Georgia at the end of the year and their and
Speaker 1: their annual rivalry game. But this is probably the game
Speaker 1: I'm going to be putting in one of my four
Speaker 1: boxes at noon on Saturday. I would have put Ohio
Speaker 1: Wisconsin on this. I can't believe Luke Fickle still got
Speaker 1: a job. The embarrassment of getting shut out by Iowa
Speaker 1: after they supposedly did push ups, being embarrassed that they
Speaker 1: gave up forty two points to Iowa the year before,
Speaker 1: and they were this focused on the Iowa game that
Speaker 1: I guess this time they only gave up thirty seven
Speaker 1: points instead of forty two points. Something ain't right in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: I hate that Wisconsin football all of a sudden looks
Speaker 1: like they did in the eighties. Right. Wisconsin football was
Speaker 1: a doormat in the eighties until they finally Frankly, it
Speaker 1: was the leadership with Dona Shalela, who spent more money
Speaker 1: hiring when she was the chancellor in the University of Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: She deserves a lot of credit for getting sort of
Speaker 1: both Wisconsin football and Wisconsin basketball sort of back off
Speaker 1: the mat into the sort of higher tier of Big
Speaker 1: Ten football. It's just something's wrong that Wisconsin. This isn't working.
Speaker 1: I you know, I can't imagine that they're going to
Speaker 1: get up for this Ohio State game, but you know
Speaker 1: it might be the only shot Thickle has to give
Speaker 1: himself one more year. One other game that I think
Speaker 1: a couple other games Texas A and M at Arkansas
Speaker 1: is it. Did Bobby Patrino give Arkansas a sort of
Speaker 1: one game dead cat bounced type of focus or does
Speaker 1: the Patrino difference carry over in a second week? And
Speaker 1: if it does, this is a dangerous game for A
Speaker 1: and M on the road at Arkansas it's you know,
Speaker 1: you saw the game with Tennessee the one thing about
Speaker 1: Patrino he wants you know he's playing for this job.
Speaker 1: I think it's an absolute non starter. I cannot believe
Speaker 1: he's in a candidate to be coach again, considering all
Speaker 1: the drama there's a the athletic that are terrific sort
Speaker 1: of rundown of all the ways that he's been an
Speaker 1: untrustworthy person to hire, whether it was in his flirtations
Speaker 1: to go to other schools, let alone the infamous motorcycle
Speaker 1: incident at Arkansas, et cetera. But if he starts winning
Speaker 1: football games, as we know, winning changes everything, right, Winning
Speaker 1: cures a lot of concerns among donors or administrators. Upsetting
Speaker 1: Texas A and M would go a long way. So
Speaker 1: I don't think Arkansas is going to quit in this game.
Speaker 1: Katrino's going to keep throwing, going to keep trying to
Speaker 1: do trick plays, going to do all sorts of things.
Speaker 1: If I were an A and M fan, because I
Speaker 1: think A and M's best team in the SEC, I'd
Speaker 1: be really This game would really have me nervous, the
Speaker 1: way I'm nervous about Loloivlle. I think it's that time
Speaker 1: of game and them should win. But if you told
Speaker 1: me this were a field goal game in the fourth quarter,
Speaker 1: wouldn't surprise me. And then, of course, the best story
Speaker 1: in the SEC this year is the is the new
Speaker 1: quarterback for old myth? Let me get his name right.
Speaker 1: I read a terrific story about him, Trinidad Chambliss. It's
Speaker 1: a It was for the Trinity. If he had been
Speaker 1: a girl, he was going to be Trinity. They decided
Speaker 1: to do Trinidad. It's been it's this guy is a
Speaker 1: as a marvel. And the fact that they couldn't believe
Speaker 1: what they saw his story. He was sort of a
Speaker 1: multi sport athlete, was was focused more on basketball, ended
Speaker 1: up playing D two football. Folks didn't realize how good
Speaker 1: he was at it, and lo and behold, he's quite
Speaker 1: the story. We'll find out. I don't know if either
Speaker 1: Georgia or Ole Miss is playoff quality, right, I you know,
Speaker 1: the Old Miss barely getting by Washington State last week.
Speaker 1: Maybe there was a look I had spot with Georgia.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm fine with that, but Georgia needs to sort
Speaker 1: of have something to prove as well here. This is
Speaker 1: one of those It's not an eliminator for Ole Miss
Speaker 1: if they lose, but it is if Georgia loses. So
Speaker 1: this is an important in some way. It's a more
Speaker 1: important game for Georgia than anybody else after that. Alabama Tennessee.
Speaker 1: I know, Alabama Tennessee. This one also might be an
Speaker 1: elimination game, right not every two loss team in the
Speaker 1: SEC is going to make it, and the loser of
Speaker 1: this will have their second loss, so it's Alabama's of
Speaker 1: course doesn't have only this would be their first conference loss,
Speaker 1: so that is a bit of advantage here for them.
Speaker 1: Tennessee cares about the Alabama rivalry more than I think
Speaker 1: Alabama cares about the Tennessee rivalry. That's one of those
Speaker 1: big brother little brother games. I'm more of a believer
Speaker 1: in Alabama this one. I'm curious if they can get
Speaker 1: margin here. I expect them to get some margin. If
Speaker 1: they don't, maybe that tells us maybe maybe I'm not not.
Speaker 1: So that's all right about that. Notre Dame is this week.
Speaker 1: That's one of these great rivalries. My wife's got no
Speaker 1: attend one of those games at Notre Dame. It's one
Speaker 1: of those i'd like to I'd like to see. It's
Speaker 1: an important game for both teams. Obviously, every game is
Speaker 1: an elimination game for Notre Dame now with their two losses.
Speaker 1: As long as Texas A and M and Miami keep winning,
Speaker 1: Notre Dame is going to make it into the playoff
Speaker 1: as a ten and two team. They will not make
Speaker 1: it to the playoff as a nine to three team.
Speaker 1: This is the toughest game remaining on their schedule, hands
Speaker 1: down the toughest game remaining on their schedule. So a
Speaker 1: pretty important game. And then I realized I should not
Speaker 1: be remiss. One of my favorite rivalry names is the
Speaker 1: Utah BYU game, The Holy War. I don't know is
Speaker 1: it politically correct to say the Holy War or not.
Speaker 1: Either way, it's one of the great names for a
Speaker 1: rivalry game. This one's at BYU, and this one also
Speaker 1: actually has some playoff implications, big twelve implications. Don't sleep
Speaker 1: on BYU. They're still undefeated, the undefeated, all right, enjoy
Speaker 1: your weekend in college football. Hopefully, depending on how Friday
Speaker 1: Night goes, I get to do the same. And with that,
Speaker 1: I'll see you next week.