Speaker 1: Hello there, Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast.
Speaker 1: We are coming up on the end of July, and
Speaker 1: there's another aspect that I want to get into today.
Speaker 2: My guest is Dave Wygel.
Speaker 1: He's sort of the chief political correspondent, certainly the campaign
Speaker 1: guru these days over at Semaphore. I first got to
Speaker 1: note Dave Weigel at a few of the other stops,
Speaker 1: if you will, most recently before that, the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: He is sort of my type of campaign reporter. He
Speaker 1: likes to get out of Washington. He goes to these events.
Speaker 1: He spends a lot of time. He goes to these.
Speaker 1: You know, if there's an event where candidates are showing up.
Speaker 1: There's a state picnic of some sort in Kentucky, they'll
Speaker 1: call it Fancy Farm, and you know it's the Iowa
Speaker 1: State Fair in Iowa where political candidates get together. There's
Speaker 1: all these different things. Someday I'll give you a whole tour.
Speaker 1: I actually would love to sell a podcast series where
Speaker 1: I just go from a political event to political event
Speaker 1: where they you know, sometimes you've got to go eat
Speaker 1: bad fried fish with the local political leaders to showcase
Speaker 1: your wares and this or that.
Speaker 2: But anyway.
Speaker 1: But Dave Weigel's that kind of guy, and he was
Speaker 1: a perfect guy to do.
Speaker 2: What I think is, you know.
Speaker 1: If you look at the midterm calendar and you divide
Speaker 1: it up into four quarters, there's basically, you know, we
Speaker 1: are at the end of the first quarter of this
Speaker 1: midterm cycle with November of twenty twenty six. Basically we're
Speaker 1: at with the first quarter poll if you want to
Speaker 1: talk about it as you're a racing fan, either cars
Speaker 1: or horses, end of the first.
Speaker 2: Quarter, if you want to talk about it.
Speaker 1: As far as splitting things up that way. And there's
Speaker 1: a few things that I get into deep with Dave about,
Speaker 1: you know, what are the similarities between the political environment
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five and the political environment in the
Speaker 1: first year of one point zero and twenty seventeen. We
Speaker 1: get into all of that and sort of the different
Speaker 1: sort of historical factor, sort of near term history that
Speaker 1: favors one party versus the near term history that may
Speaker 1: favor another.
Speaker 2: So it is this is.
Speaker 1: A political junkie day, and as you know, most Wednesdays
Speaker 1: I do try to reserve sort of for my my
Speaker 1: campaign midterm updates, and so that's what my substack focus
Speaker 1: is this week. It is on sort of where are
Speaker 1: we in the midterms after the first quarter, And the
Speaker 1: way I put it is, we're in a coin flip situation.
Speaker 1: What you know, if you'd asked me six months ago
Speaker 1: what is the most likely result for the midterm elections,
Speaker 1: I'd have said, well, Democrats are going to win the House.
Speaker 1: The question is can they put the Senate in play?
Speaker 1: Here we are six months in. I still think the
Speaker 1: Democrats are favored to win the House, but I don't
Speaker 1: have the same kind of certainty about it as I
Speaker 1: felt six months ago. Part of that is to do
Speaker 1: with redistricting and what may happen, the fact that we
Speaker 1: are going to redo all these maps, and I think
Speaker 1: it does sort of put a bit of paralysis over
Speaker 1: the House map, especially when you look at four states
Speaker 1: that may all try to remap their congressional districts before
Speaker 1: the November elections. Texas, Ohio, California, New York. All of
Speaker 1: four of those states have talked about a Missouri might,
Speaker 1: Florida might as well. So the fact that you may
Speaker 1: just take those first four states I mentioned, Texas, California,
Speaker 1: New York, Ohio. Boy, there's approximately over a dozen swing
Speaker 1: districts just there. So those four states alone could decide
Speaker 1: this majority. Because you know, one of the ironies about
Speaker 1: this reapportionment map, the one that we did right after
Speaker 1: the census in twenty twenty, the map that was put
Speaker 1: into place in twenty twenty two, is I would argue
Speaker 1: it's the most competitive map, ie map that we've had.
Speaker 1: I can go in individual states and say this is
Speaker 1: an unfair map in favor of the Republicans, this is
Speaker 1: an unfair map in favor of the Democrats. But when
Speaker 1: you actually look at it from a wider lens through
Speaker 1: all fifty states, you're like, oh, it's basically two and ten.
Speaker 1: You know, two hundred and five sure bets for the Republicans,
Speaker 1: two hundred and five sure bets for the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: oh another twenty eight that are going to be the
Speaker 1: actual battleground, right we what both parties have successfully done
Speaker 1: is shrunk the battleground. Now, what could happen with all
Speaker 1: of this attempt at redistricting in this mid decade attempt here,
Speaker 1: as particularly as Republicans try to try to safeguard their
Speaker 1: very narrow house majority, is it might actually expand the
Speaker 1: number of swing districts they could actually open up. And
Speaker 1: this is what I think could be the unintended consequence
Speaker 1: of all this. If California Democrats are looking to find
Speaker 1: more create more opportunities for Democratic seats, what it's going
Speaker 1: to take for them to do it might weaken some
Speaker 1: Democratic seats and put them more in play. Ditto for
Speaker 1: what could happen in Texas as they try to strengthen
Speaker 1: some Democratic seats to make them more Republican leaning. The
Speaker 1: Republicans they put in those districts are going to come
Speaker 1: from say, solid red districts that suddenly become lean Republican
Speaker 1: and potentially competitive if Democrats find a compelling candidate. So
Speaker 1: but at this you know, this is why you know
Speaker 1: the fact that they're going through this process. You know,
Speaker 1: someone like me looks like it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I hate jerrymandering. I hate how each state does it,
Speaker 1: you know, but the results seem to be uneasy equilibrium,
Speaker 1: which is probably better long term for the country.
Speaker 2: So here we are.
Speaker 1: So look, the House map I think is a bit uncertain,
Speaker 1: but there are certain things that still favor the Democrats
Speaker 1: in the mid terms. One is their their voting coalition.
Speaker 1: They've become the coalition. They've they've acquired suburban voters as
Speaker 1: part of their coalition, and suburban voters of the reliable
Speaker 1: voters they vote in every election. Twenty and thirty years ago,
Speaker 1: suburban voters leaned Republican, which is why Republicans used to
Speaker 1: overperform in special elections. Republicans used to overperform in the midterms.
Speaker 1: It was Democrats that needed the presidential turnout years to
Speaker 1: improve their standing, you know, as recently as two thousand.
Speaker 1: You know, Republicans over indexed in the midterms in ninety eight,
Speaker 1: and Democrats over index in the presidential vote, which allowed
Speaker 1: them to pick up four Senate seats in a presidential year.
Speaker 1: It really wasn't until the advent of Trump when he
Speaker 1: sort of shifted the party away from its Chamber of
Speaker 1: Commerce routes to these more populous routes. They basically traded
Speaker 1: a bigger pool of potential voters in presidential years, which
Speaker 1: has helped Trump, but they've traded it for less reliable
Speaker 1: voters in midterm years, where the Democrats have the more
Speaker 1: reliable voters. Now that's why you see them over performing
Speaker 1: in in special elections and why so many Why for instance,
Speaker 1: I believe, and you'll learn this in the day, Wigle,
Speaker 1: that there's probably going to be a special election in
Speaker 1: December and Tennessee. That is close enough that I'll start
Speaker 1: talking about it on this podcast. You can hold me
Speaker 1: to it if it happened. If it doesn't happen, I
Speaker 1: will happily admit I'm wrong on that one. But this
Speaker 1: is that special election Mark Green who just resigned his
Speaker 1: seat in Congress, and it's got a bit of the
Speaker 1: suburbs of Nashville. It's got the makings of a potential,
Speaker 1: you know, low turnout election. The people paying attention lean left,
Speaker 1: the people paying less attention. There may and then that's
Speaker 1: another aspect of the midterms of why the Democrats might
Speaker 1: be favored is that the out party is already showing
Speaker 1: signs of being more motivated to vote in the mid
Speaker 1: terms than the end party. You know, it could very
Speaker 1: well be that MAGA is tired of winning and doesn't
Speaker 1: see a need to get out there and vote. This
Speaker 1: is obviously a mindset that's Trump. White House is trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how to change because it has been
Speaker 1: a hallmark of the Trump era that in the midterms,
Speaker 1: Republicans underperform.
Speaker 2: Specifically, Trump voters don't show up.
Speaker 1: However, as the atmospherics favor the Democrats, you do see
Speaker 1: problems for the Democrats, right, you have a brand that
Speaker 1: is unpopular. I rattled through that Wall Street Journal poll
Speaker 1: a couple of days ago that told you that showed
Speaker 1: you that Congressional Republicans are favored on a lion's share
Speaker 1: of the major issues that can turn Americans about. The
Speaker 1: only ones that they're not favored on are healthcare, which
Speaker 1: is not an insignificant one.
Speaker 2: And they were even with.
Speaker 1: Looking out for the middle class, which is normally something
Speaker 1: that the Democrats had a much bigger advantage on and
Speaker 1: they don't at the moment. And there's one other thing
Speaker 1: that's going in favor of the Republicans, which is why
Speaker 1: in my sub stack I said, hey, this is a
Speaker 1: midterm cycle where there's you can't say either party is
Speaker 1: favored yet, and that is the republic Party is more
Speaker 1: unified than it's been in any midterm yet in the
Speaker 1: Trump era. You know, in both twenty eighteen and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, the two midterms were Republicans lost the eighteen
Speaker 1: midterms and essentially underperformed in their narrow House victory in
Speaker 1: twenty two, Mitch McConnell run in the Senate campaign army,
Speaker 1: and even on the House Republican side, they were constantly
Speaker 1: looking for candidates in these swind districts that had some
Speaker 1: distance from Trump.
Speaker 2: They didn't want. They wanted candidates.
Speaker 1: That Trump wasn't going to destroy and hate, but they
Speaker 1: didn't weren't necessarily looking for MAGA. They were looking for
Speaker 1: MAGA acceptable, not necessarily MAGA excited, and that would create
Speaker 1: some problems.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We saw multiple primaries in both twenty eighteen and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two in the Republican Party where essentially it was
Speaker 1: McConnell versus MAGA or the establishment versus Trump, and it didn't.
Speaker 2: Matter who won or lost. It it hurt, it harmed
Speaker 2: the party in the general.
Speaker 1: It created an op for the Democrats this cycle, it
Speaker 1: appears really only the Texas mess is a Republican primary
Speaker 1: that could actually create an opportunity for Democrats if things
Speaker 1: go the wrong way. But look at out quickly Republicans
Speaker 1: have cleared the field and rallied around a canadate in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Cleared the field and rallied around a canadate
Speaker 1: in Michigan. These are things that they have not been
Speaker 1: able to do in previous midterms. So you have a
Speaker 1: Republican party more unified, you could say more. You know,
Speaker 1: it's Trump's party now, right. McConnell was still fighting, was
Speaker 1: still swimming against that current. And even at times Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy went hot and cold at swimming against that current.
Speaker 1: You know, he kind of would be with Trump, then
Speaker 1: he'd be against him and on camp you know, so,
Speaker 1: but either way, there's none of that now, right, Mike
Speaker 1: Johnson always swims with Trump, and John Thune has made
Speaker 1: the decision, even though he's not always seeing eye to
Speaker 1: eye with him, he is not he is not going
Speaker 1: to operate that way as far as running the Senate
Speaker 1: Republican campaign arms. So this is a more are in
Speaker 1: sync Republican party and that should in theory put them
Speaker 1: in better positions in some of these primaries. And then
Speaker 1: there's one other aspect that unity on the Republican side
Speaker 1: has also improved their financial aspect. For the first time, frankly,
Speaker 1: in about a decade, the House Republicans collectively in the
Speaker 1: swing in the in the in the most vulnerable districts,
Speaker 1: seem to outraise the House Democratic incumbents in their most
Speaker 1: vulnerable districts. This had not been the case for multiple cycles.
Speaker 1: Democrats had been really good about raising early money fortifying
Speaker 1: their more vulnerable members. It seemed as if this time
Speaker 1: the Republicans finally got their act together.
Speaker 2: Now there's a few reasons potentially for this one.
Speaker 1: As I said, I think it's the unity inside where
Speaker 1: this is Trump's party now and everybody's operating in the
Speaker 1: same way, so there's no competing finance, financial factions, things
Speaker 1: like that. The second is, I do think some Democratic
Speaker 1: downers are sitting on their hands, So I do think
Speaker 1: that there was some There was some money that Democrats
Speaker 1: successfully raised before in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen and
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two that is
Speaker 1: not there right now in this cycle.
Speaker 2: It may come back.
Speaker 1: You know, these donors are just disappointed. Maybe they're angry
Speaker 1: at Biden, maybe they're angry at the Democratic leadership, maybe
Speaker 1: they just lost faith.
Speaker 2: Whatever it is.
Speaker 1: Now they may come back and that money will show
Speaker 1: up in the spring of twenty six and suddenly the
Speaker 1: financial advantage that many House Democrats had been enjoying Overhouse
Speaker 1: Republicans comes back. But that is yet another reason, right
Speaker 1: you have you know, the Republican Party of twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: that was in such you know, that was basically fighting
Speaker 1: with itself, helped give And it was the Democrats that
Speaker 1: were in the United Party after the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 1: not the Republicans, right, and that unity gave them the
Speaker 1: opportunity to win forty seats in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: There's just obviously a lot less.
Speaker 1: Unity in the Democratic side at this point in time.
Speaker 1: The atmospheric still favor the Democrats. That's the who you know.
Speaker 1: Usually people that are unhappy are more likely to vote
Speaker 1: than people that are satisfied. The magabase may feel satisfied,
Speaker 1: and that's why I think Republicans are fearing if they
Speaker 1: don't have a negative message to use to motivate their voters.
Speaker 1: I think they fear they won't have a motivating message.
Speaker 1: It is hard to get a voter to say, aren't
Speaker 1: you happy about this tax cut? Come out and vote,
Speaker 1: aren't you happy about these deportations? Come out and vote
Speaker 1: versus So they got to create fear. I know that
Speaker 1: they're talking about trying to use the threat of impeachment
Speaker 1: if Democrats win the House, they'll impeach. I would be
Speaker 1: surprised if voters buy into that. You know, maybe someone
Speaker 1: there in the base will, but you know, you know,
Speaker 1: outside of al Green, you don't hear a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats talking impeachment right now in the.
Speaker 2: Real world because they're just not having the votes.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's credibility there, and I think that
Speaker 1: there's an exhaustion, right I think it would be you know,
Speaker 1: if anybody campaigned on there's one thing about being a
Speaker 1: check on Donald Trump and and working within the system
Speaker 1: that I think is going to be quite appealing to voters.
Speaker 1: And that's another thing that could be advantaged to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Here's one other trend line that I picked up on
Speaker 1: as I was doing my dive into the first quarter
Speaker 1: of the midterms. It's interesting, since nineteen ninety, every time
Speaker 1: the Democrats have won the midterms, so that would be
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety, that would be arguably two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. Those three times the win in the midterms
Speaker 1: led to winning the presidential Two years later nineteen ninety,
Speaker 1: they gained seats in both the House and the Senate.
Speaker 1: They already have the majorities, but the gain seats in
Speaker 1: both the House and the Senate. They won the presidency
Speaker 1: in ninety two. In two thousand and six, they won
Speaker 1: both the House and the Senate, and at the time
Speaker 1: the Senate was a bit of an upset. In what
Speaker 1: happened in eight they win the presidency and won even
Speaker 1: more House and Senate s. It's added to both majorities
Speaker 1: on that front. Eighteen they win the House. While they
Speaker 1: didn't get weren't able to pick up the Senate, it
Speaker 1: did foreshadow the ability to win the presidency. The last
Speaker 1: time Democrats won the midterms but lost the presidency the
Speaker 1: following two years was actually eighty six.
Speaker 2: That was a year they win the Senate.
Speaker 1: Back in eighty six, they already had the House majority,
Speaker 1: and then they go on to lose the presidential in
Speaker 1: a landslide in eighty eight. And I bring up the
Speaker 1: eighty six midterms because I think if I were looking
Speaker 1: for a model that I think the current landscape supports
Speaker 1: the best, it's potentially that where I can see the
Speaker 1: Democrats doing well more as a reactionary response to Trump.
Speaker 1: But come twenty twenty eight, all that baggage that the
Speaker 1: Democrats are carrying right now about their brand, about their
Speaker 1: what are they as a party. They're having a generational fight,
Speaker 1: they're having an ideological fights. Sometimes those two things aligned,
Speaker 1: sometimes they don't. You know, has the part already lost
Speaker 1: enough in order to do the soul searching that needs
Speaker 1: to be done? You know? How much should the party
Speaker 1: be focused on policy and democracy versus culture?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I think that's the if I had somebody asked me
Speaker 1: this question on my sub stack, what's the soul searching
Speaker 1: that needs to be done? It's sort of like, you know,
Speaker 1: what is how do they denote that they will fight
Speaker 1: for the underdog without taking up every fight for every
Speaker 1: underdog identity group?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: How do you shift away from identity politics without abandoning
Speaker 1: those very voters.
Speaker 2: That were with you because they felt like you were
Speaker 2: looking out for them.
Speaker 1: I think these I think these challenges inside the party
Speaker 1: they haven't fully figured out. Look that stuff usually doesn't
Speaker 1: get sorted out until you have a north star of
Speaker 1: a presidential nominee. And that is why I think both
Speaker 1: things could be true here. This is a party that well,
Speaker 1: there will be some ideological fights and maybe some primaries
Speaker 1: produce some nominees that can't win generals for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: But in essence, the larger momentum of the atmospherics may
Speaker 1: favor them, and they may do well in the midterms,
Speaker 1: but it may be meaning, you know, it may it
Speaker 1: may not foreshadow success in twenty eight, because twenty eight
Speaker 1: may truly be the actual fight for the soul of
Speaker 1: the party. Which direction should it go? Right, That's what happened.
Speaker 1: That's what happened after ninety.
Speaker 2: You know, ninety took place, and then there was.
Speaker 1: This a bit of a back and forth which direction
Speaker 1: should the party go? And Bill Clinton ended up winning
Speaker 1: that argument, and the center left coalition became became the
Speaker 1: majority coalition on the Democratic side. So this is why
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating in this respect, Republicans in the
Speaker 1: Trump era have never been in as good of a
Speaker 1: position before midterm. Yet doesn't mean they'll have success. It
Speaker 1: just simply means Democrats aren't going to get handed easy
Speaker 1: opportun tunities thanks to own goals by the Republicans right
Speaker 1: that benefited them quite a bit in eighteen, twenty and
Speaker 1: twenty two. In these down ballot races, I do think
Speaker 1: you will see fewer own goals on the R side
Speaker 1: than we've seen, and the question is are there going
Speaker 1: to be own goals?
Speaker 2: On the Democratic side?
Speaker 1: Is the is the the concern about the direction of
Speaker 1: the party. Does that how much does that hurt Democrats
Speaker 1: in the midterms. History says it may not hurt them
Speaker 1: that much. What will really hurt them, I mean is
Speaker 1: is the debate that may take place after the midterms.
Speaker 1: But like I said, this is a check in in
Speaker 1: the first quarter. There's plenty of examples where one thing
Speaker 1: looks like it's going one way after one quarter and
Speaker 1: then literally, you know, you know the expression a week
Speaker 1: is a lifetime in politics, Well, imagine what three more six.
Speaker 2: Month periods are in a midterm cycle. And we still
Speaker 2: have that to go.
Speaker 1: So with that, enjoy my conversation and you're sort of
Speaker 1: deep dive into the where the two parties stand at
Speaker 1: the moment and where directionally they may be headed in
Speaker 1: the next eighteen months.
Speaker 2: All right, Joining me now is well, I will I
Speaker 2: will let.
Speaker 1: Him tell what his official title is with Semaphore, But
Speaker 1: he's basically the political guy, is the way I look
Speaker 1: at it. He's the campaign guy. And Dave Weigel is
Speaker 1: somebody that I've never worked with. And if I were
Speaker 1: in Hotline today, I'd like to think Dave Wygel would
Speaker 1: have been somebody we'd have got out, have coerced into
Speaker 1: coming to the hotline. He's wired like a cook Report guy,
Speaker 1: hotline guy Chris Sliza.
Speaker 2: So, mister Wigle, it's good to see you, good to
Speaker 2: talk with you. No, it's great to be here. Thank
Speaker 2: you for saying that I am such an original hotline
Speaker 2: follower that I used to. I think I had to
Speaker 2: download the old hotline videos you did in the you.
Speaker 1: Say download first of all the videos that was such
Speaker 1: a that was a separate that was like John mccuriy
Speaker 1: and I, you know, totally going, you know, doing a
Speaker 1: total ripoff of PTI, and we were doing YouTube throwing
Speaker 1: them up there. My old friend of mine, Dan Manette,
Speaker 1: his dad is Chuck Manette, the late Chuck Manatte In
Speaker 1: case wondering, Dan Manatt's a documentarian. It was his idea
Speaker 1: and they still live on YouTube. Nothing goes away on YouTube.
Speaker 1: It sits there forever.
Speaker 2: Oh. I remember there was a nine to eleven tribute
Speaker 2: video episode that you released with that I had YouTube's
Speaker 2: Peace on Earth was the soundtrack. I have the memory
Speaker 2: that that my memory that recalls congressional district names and
Speaker 2: stuff is very spotty. I can't remember what time meetings start,
Speaker 2: but I can't remember that, right, So big fan. Good
Speaker 2: to be here. So it's good to talk with you.
Speaker 2: And it's sort of where.
Speaker 1: Look, we're talking on a Monday, July twenty eighth, a
Speaker 1: big sort of midterm news of the day as the
Speaker 1: Roy Cooper announcement in there, But I kind of want
Speaker 1: to tackle things. We're going to start sixty thousand feet
Speaker 1: and then we're going to travel the country a little bit.
Speaker 1: Twenty seventeen versus twenty twenty five at this moment in time.
Speaker 1: In twenty seventeen, we had the beginning of some well
Speaker 1: there's some special election over performances. Democrats hadn't really won
Speaker 1: anything yet, but it was starting to look I don't
Speaker 1: think we had had the Connor Lamb special just yet,
Speaker 1: but it was the Mike Pompeo Special. There was a
Speaker 1: couple of others, and hey, is there something happening out here.
Speaker 1: You also had a divided Republican Party and a unified
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Eight years later, some of this looks similar.
Speaker 1: We've had some special elections, there's been some over performance
Speaker 1: by Democrats. But you have a unified Republican party for
Speaker 1: the most part, arguably, and it's a divided Democratic party.
Speaker 1: What are you taking away so far in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five and how would you compare it to twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: I like that setup, and that was one of my
Speaker 2: jobs at the Post in twenty seventeen was going to
Speaker 2: all these these districts for the election being held and
Speaker 2: Democrats kept coming right up to the end of the race,
Speaker 2: getting a couple points short of winning. This took me
Speaker 2: to Montana and to rock Hill, South Carolina, and yeah,
Speaker 2: there are a bunch of single digit races and Safety's Republicans.
Speaker 2: The only repetition of history sort of with these Lara
Speaker 2: races that got out of hand were Democrats raised a
Speaker 2: ton of money that really not performed by much. The
Speaker 2: parties are very different than they were eight years ago.
Speaker 2: I was just talking to colleagues about Eric Schmidt, and
Speaker 2: I was saying, well, he's won. In the many lists
Speaker 2: at Missouri Center of Republicans who hold seats that sometimes
Speaker 2: Trump critics used to hold, there are very few left.
Speaker 2: We were down to the point where Tom Massey is
Speaker 2: the most visible Trump critic and that is a huge
Speaker 2: shift of the window of what's acceptable in the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: We all in the media the universe changes, but we
Speaker 2: use the same terms like centrist and moderate and pragmat
Speaker 2: et cetera to define the party. And a modern rep
Speaker 2: look in at this point is somebody who doesn't really
Speaker 2: criticize Trump, but maybia votes against some of his nominees sometimes,
Speaker 2: and eight years ago it was somebody like Bob Corker
Speaker 2: who is trying to slow the agenda down or voting
Speaker 2: against it. So they're there, and they also have a
Speaker 2: vision of governments, which there are still lots of liberals
Speaker 2: I think who criticize it and say it's all based
Speaker 2: on Trump's adjuta and what his biases were from twenty
Speaker 2: years ago. He's obsessed with Japan and the trade deficit.
Speaker 2: They're all in on it, and they also have a
Speaker 2: vision of the country that is understandable. I could sum up, Okay,
Speaker 2: if Republicans get everything they want, total stopped, integration, prices
Speaker 2: go down for zero some reasons. I'm not saying that's right.
Speaker 2: I'm saying that's what the vision is. A smaller welfare state.
Speaker 2: You have to work harder to be part of a
Speaker 2: foreign policy. We're paying more attention to the Western hemisphere
Speaker 2: than the rest of the world, except when you want
Speaker 2: to know about these prize and you need to bomb Ran.
Speaker 2: But the Democratic vision, and for all the burbiage they
Speaker 2: spent about this, their problem is for the first time
Speaker 2: since nineteen eighty, they had a failed presidency and they
Speaker 2: had a chance to try out their version of how
Speaker 2: the world should work, their vision of what America is.
Speaker 2: People didn't like it. I don't think they've made peace
Speaker 2: with that, and I don't think they have a coherent
Speaker 2: vision that makes sense to people because it's not credible.
Speaker 2: They just had Joe Biden. Theyve American people, They had
Speaker 2: a president try kinesy and stimulus in the economy. It
Speaker 2: led to some inflation. They don't like it, you know,
Speaker 2: need to overcomplicate. I think just that this is the
Speaker 2: least credible Democrats have been on a number of areas.
Speaker 2: And it's not even like whack the mall. They have
Speaker 2: a whackable board. They're like hitting even the mallet to
Speaker 2: hit the headboard instead of the moles. They're really not
Speaker 2: attacking any of the problems they had because it would
Speaker 2: start with saying, like Trump said in twenty fifteen, Hey,
Speaker 2: the Republican Party is terrible and it's screwed up, and
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna apologize. I'm just going to make fun
Speaker 2: of them, say here's a different vision. They don't add that.
Speaker 2: They don't have anyone doing that. No.
Speaker 1: I was talking with Solissa earlier today in our weekly pod,
Speaker 1: and I compared it to because you know, when you
Speaker 1: look at the Wall Street Journal poll that I've sort
Speaker 1: of gone inside out of and just sort of, yeah,
Speaker 1: crawled in every nook and cranny of it, what I
Speaker 1: see is where two things can be true at the
Speaker 1: same time, which is the Trump agenda is baggage for
Speaker 1: the Republican Party hard stop. A Democratic party is even
Speaker 1: more unpopular than the Republican Party right now. What does
Speaker 1: that mean for the midterms? Well, I go back and
Speaker 1: I'm going to go in the way back machine, and
Speaker 1: my apologies for that, but I'm gonna go back to
Speaker 1: the eighty six midterms.
Speaker 2: I love the machine. Let's hang out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, the eighty six midterms are like, are
Speaker 1: exactly the potential model for Democrats where they have this success,
Speaker 1: they win the Senate back at the time it was
Speaker 1: the Senate that was what they thought they could win back.
Speaker 1: They already had the House that was back during the
Speaker 1: middle of their forty year run, so the Senate was
Speaker 1: really what the midterms were about. And you know, they
Speaker 1: had a front runner presidential candidate at the time and
Speaker 1: Gary Hart, so that it looked like.
Speaker 2: They were on the march.
Speaker 1: Right, they win the Senate, hearts, candidacy collapses, it turns
Speaker 1: into a free for all, and the Democratic Party gets
Speaker 1: whacked again right by eighty eight, And I could easily
Speaker 1: see both things happening. Democrats narrowly sort of winning the midterms, right,
Speaker 1: getting the House, maybe netting a Senate seat, you know,
Speaker 1: not quite winning the Senate, but sort of looking like
Speaker 1: they moved, you know, they moved the ball forward, only
Speaker 1: to see the divides in the party just totally unravel
Speaker 1: them in twenty eight. So that's a model that I've
Speaker 1: been you know, is it You could picture the Democrats
Speaker 1: learning the wrong lessons that their success When when you
Speaker 1: look at that Wall Street Journal poll, you had a
Speaker 1: huge majority saying that they don't think Congress is pushing
Speaker 1: back hard enough on the president. You have unpopularity there,
Speaker 1: So you see how you can run an anti campaign
Speaker 1: and win in the midterms, but it doesn't do anything
Speaker 1: to improve the Democratic brand going into twenty eight.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I was just talking about how that brand
Speaker 2: is affected by the actual record of the party. I
Speaker 2: don't think the Democrats like hearing that because they'll say, well,
Speaker 2: what was the Trump record in twenty twenty. We just
Speaker 2: had we had a we had a pandemic and budget
Speaker 2: and he got fired. Yes, like that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Like the public didn't like it. You're right, and guess
Speaker 1: what they didn't like you either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Trump came up with something I think basically unrepeatable,
Speaker 2: which is, well, I was stinnied as president and the
Speaker 2: deep state stopped me from doing what I really would
Speaker 2: have done, and I could have fixed it. And I'm
Speaker 2: still a little bit to run again. So life pull
Speaker 2: this off. And yes, in theory, Bill, I suppose Joe
Speaker 2: Biden isn't only living Democratic to try that. Give me,
Speaker 2: give me one more shot this that's not going to happen. No, really,
Speaker 2: they they Italy holler bien. Yeah, but that's I start
Speaker 2: with the Democrats problems because yeah, I've done my way
Speaker 2: back machine visit was I read Outcrum's memoir of creating
Speaker 2: the Democratic Leadership Council, which when I started out reporting,
Speaker 2: which really was writing my own stories two thousand and
Speaker 2: four ars or dous and five.
Speaker 1: Oh, that was at the peak anti DLC craz Yes,
Speaker 1: a the beginning of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the mindset at the time, And a lot
Speaker 2: of this comes from this Democrat the democrats belief in
Speaker 2: democratic demographic destiny, which they stopped believing in, was why
Speaker 2: do we have to do that. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: you know, J. K. Chesterton's fence, the old analogy, if
Speaker 2: there's a if there's an offense somewhere, you don't know
Speaker 2: the reason. If you understand why it was put up,
Speaker 2: you can't just tear it down. There must have been
Speaker 2: some reason. That's what happened with the DLCs. A lot
Speaker 2: of Democrats came into the process at the end of
Speaker 2: the Bush years and said this, this is a disaster.
Speaker 2: There's all these wimpy moderate Democrats or conservative Democrats who
Speaker 2: voted for the disaster, voting for George W. Bush's war.
Speaker 2: Why do we do that in the first place, we
Speaker 2: can build a new majority. Then Brock Obama did it,
Speaker 2: and it's ten years of let's repeat the Obama experiment,
Speaker 2: the experiment, let's repeat the Obama map. We can, we
Speaker 2: can do it, we can. We can lose by attrition
Speaker 2: working class voters because they're being replaced over time. That
Speaker 2: doesn't end not to get into the entirest to last
Speaker 2: a couple of years. That's what happened to the DLC.
Speaker 2: That book's useful because they were doing things that wouldn't
Speaker 2: work anymore. They It was a very media focused narrative.
Speaker 2: Focus the narrative, and by narrative, I mean it was
Speaker 2: built for a time when Americans read basically, if they
Speaker 2: didn't read or watch the same news outlets, it was
Speaker 2: understood those new dead let's had the power to shape
Speaker 2: the storylines.
Speaker 1: And so the deal news magazines had they were I
Speaker 1: always said they were the social media of our time.
Speaker 1: Who was on the cover of Time and Newsweeks and
Speaker 1: even US News.
Speaker 2: Meant something both pop culturally and politically. Yeah, and I
Speaker 2: guess I'm I'm in the media, so everything I think
Speaker 2: the media is important. But but no, it's is every
Speaker 2: Democrats trying to figure out how to live in this
Speaker 2: environment where you can get the most glowing profile of
Speaker 2: what you did in Time magazine and it doesn't matter
Speaker 2: because you looked really embarrassing in an online video that
Speaker 2: got shared a lot of times. So the DLC would
Speaker 2: have these meetings around the country and say, Okay, we've
Speaker 2: got Bill Clinton, We've got Bruce Babbott, we've got Mike
Speaker 2: Dukakkas Speed part of some of these meet these young
Speaker 2: future Democrats who have new ideas and reporters would come
Speaker 2: to them and they meet the Democrats. Donors would come.
Speaker 2: There was just you could build a momentum through this discourse.
Speaker 2: And that discourse has shattered. We're on a podcast. That's
Speaker 2: another example of how all you could do. Actually going
Speaker 2: to go back, if you really wanted to do this,
Speaker 2: go to your go research every David brodercolumn and then
Speaker 2: from nineteen eighty five to nineteen ninety and it would
Speaker 2: be a parade of new kind of Democrat, new kind
Speaker 2: of democrat, new kind of democrat.
Speaker 1: You know, And it was all about that, you know.
Speaker 1: It was all these governors, right, and the Southern governors.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I always say Bill Clinton's presidency was supposed to be
Speaker 1: Chuck Robb's presidency, right. It was all the entire the
Speaker 1: entire delegate selection process, the creation of super delegates, right,
Speaker 1: the Stop Jesse Jackson movement. It was all designed to
Speaker 1: help the southern governors. And at the time it was
Speaker 1: lbj son in law Chuck Rob governor of Virginia, that
Speaker 1: everybody assumed would be the great beneficiary.
Speaker 2: Why because Chuck Rob lived in the Washington DC media market,
Speaker 2: is what I always say.
Speaker 1: So it gave him this sort of perceived leg up
Speaker 1: on perception, and then of course he turned out not
Speaker 1: to be a very good politician. This is pre scandal forget.
Speaker 1: He just wasn't that good at this. He was a
Speaker 1: great he was a resume guy. But Bill Clinton and
Speaker 1: frankly Michael Dukakas in eighty eight both benefited from the
Speaker 1: Super Tuesday organization, which was a total DLC. You know,
Speaker 1: the DLC was also tactical. They knew that if they
Speaker 1: created Southern Super Tuesday, it was a way to insulate
Speaker 1: them from a super lefty becoming the nominee.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that infrastructure obviously is completely different, and the
Speaker 2: media they're operating is completely different. The fractal I've been
Speaker 2: paying attention to to just see how different this is.
Speaker 2: It's isolate. One thing Democrats are trying to do. There
Speaker 2: is a very stop start conversation they're having about, let's
Speaker 2: just call it the Biden administration's position on gender and
Speaker 2: transgender rights and the sword version, which i nick The
Speaker 2: New York Times had had a very very long piece
Speaker 2: based on scrimmitting decisions outcome that gets into this history.
Speaker 2: But basically Trump Biden says trans right to be a
Speaker 2: civil rights station of our time. He reverses a lot
Speaker 2: of the Obama Sorry, Obama starts to be more accepting
Speaker 2: of trans people. Gender is a septacritical working sex. Trump
Speaker 2: undoes it. Biden puts it back into effect. Trump unwinds
Speaker 2: it all, and there's this very stop start conversation about
Speaker 2: did Democrats was that a mistake? Did Democrats need to
Speaker 2: rethink this? The way it's being done is that occasionally
Speaker 2: a Democrat will get asked a question about some aspect
Speaker 2: of this issue, not the every Biden executive order, but
Speaker 2: the sports aspect of the issue, and a Senator or
Speaker 2: a Congressman We'll get asked and they'll say what they think.
Speaker 2: They'll get piled on by tre be majority, but just
Speaker 2: every every group in this space, human rights campaign. I'm
Speaker 2: glad the new groups like Christopher Street Project will come
Speaker 2: in and say this person is betraying our movement. No
Speaker 2: one can lead our party. And also what fort lab
Speaker 2: They'll say, and they're weak. This is weakness. This is
Speaker 2: the Democrat who is responding to defeat by abandoning a
Speaker 2: section of party. Won't they abandon? What is next? And
Speaker 2: they're they I've not seen people respond to that by
Speaker 2: saying I was I was wrong. We're giving a new
Speaker 2: interview and saying I was completely right. They just don't
Speaker 2: come at again. Ruby Guyego went through this, the Santra Arizona,
Speaker 2: Seth Molton went through this. Massachusetts, there's the there's a
Speaker 2: very good reporter, Oreana Gonzalez that notice, who's been doing
Speaker 2: iterative stories about House Democrats trying to come up with
Speaker 2: some position, but they're not having the conversation in public.
Speaker 2: And the DLC had a lot of conversations in public.
Speaker 2: And this is the hardest one because they are just
Speaker 2: parents every day affected by this issue. I'd bring up
Speaker 2: the hardest one because it's the one that I've seen
Speaker 2: Democrats touch the stove and pull it away from the vassist.
Speaker 2: But you could say the same for immigration. Immigration is
Speaker 2: even stranger because now today Nearri Canna has an article
Speaker 2: in the Wall Street Journal about how they're going forward.
Speaker 2: But there's no Democrat who's come out and said very clearly,
Speaker 2: here's I'm giving a speech and a place where reporters
Speaker 2: will be. Biden was a disaster. He let our party down,
Speaker 2: and he was wrong on immigration, and instead here is
Speaker 2: an immigration position that is going to piss off people
Speaker 2: who thought that who believed in one thing, and to
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty, who believed that, for example, that asylum
Speaker 2: is the human rights which is a sign that a
Speaker 2: lot of Democrats campaign behind. Literally, they're not doing that.
Speaker 2: I'm going to float something in Interview'm going to float
Speaker 2: into the pod. They would notice, Well, hopefully some people notice.
Speaker 2: It is very hesitant and odd, and you can trust
Speaker 2: that with Republicans and Trump, Trump can say something and
Speaker 2: then there is a discourse around when Trump is saying,
Speaker 2: do you Republicans agree with Trump? And they not agree
Speaker 2: with him. He just put out our new position on
Speaker 2: trade or on whatever it is, or whatever it is,
Speaker 2: and it's not like I didn't go off in question
Speaker 2: gets asked, oh, well, who's the leader of the party.
Speaker 2: That's the same of the DLC. You know, need a leader,
Speaker 2: You needed just some sort of coherent network that was
Speaker 2: having a conversation that people understood was a conversation about
Speaker 2: the party. You also had the progressive of the Jesse Jackson.
Speaker 2: I'm saying, here's our conversation, here's our populism. It's just
Speaker 2: this very anomized selection of groups. And I say this
Speaker 2: in the reporters. I've just had to build charts of
Speaker 2: which group says which. Because news stories still exists and
Speaker 2: TV's story still exists, you can only quote so many people.
Speaker 2: But it's this total post Tower of Babel cacophony of
Speaker 2: who stands for what in the party and very unclear
Speaker 2: what their position is on anything, because they're not starting with, hey,
Speaker 2: Biden was wrong, here's why he was wrong. I'm willing
Speaker 2: to have Mike Donaldan tell me, I'm i stink. I'm
Speaker 2: willing to have hundred to buy meal. Let me who cares.
Speaker 2: They're not doing that, They're not confronting that they had
Speaker 2: a failed presidency.
Speaker 1: It's a great point and it really gets it. And
Speaker 1: that's the question I've had this conversation. Have the Democrats
Speaker 1: lost enough yet to realize they have to change right.
Speaker 2: Eighty four and.
Speaker 1: Eighty eight, you know, they they tried to make changes,
Speaker 1: and yet they didn't say Carter was a failed presidency
Speaker 1: going in eighty four. How could they They nominated the
Speaker 1: vice president, right, And that was back when Labor really
Speaker 1: was controlling the party.
Speaker 2: Right. Labor was sort of the.
Speaker 1: The They were the bridge, right, they were the force
Speaker 1: that sort of brought factions together because they had the money, right,
Speaker 1: they had the money, and then they could certainly impact primaries.
Speaker 1: And then the DLC is born basically in ninety five
Speaker 1: after the Mondale shellaking. To sort of stay with your
Speaker 1: timeline there and whether if Hart stays who was easily
Speaker 1: sort of the deals Arguably he was DLC ish right,
Speaker 1: because he had both right. He was seen as the
Speaker 1: guy who ran McGovern's campaign in seventy two, who was
Speaker 1: an interventionist and who was like, you know, he was
Speaker 1: not easily and he was this sort of Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: like figure.
Speaker 2: Before Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: It looked like he had the ability to bridge the
Speaker 1: union part of the party and this sort of Western
Speaker 1: sort of Hey, he's he's a bit cool, right, he's
Speaker 1: warn Baby's friend, you know, and then he collapses and
Speaker 1: then it was then all the factions came back. Labor
Speaker 1: decided to you know, get behind, get part eighty eight
Speaker 1: and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: And it took him. You know, it took two presidential
Speaker 2: shellackings for them to get religion. And arguably they didn't
Speaker 2: even think ninety you know, most of the major figures
Speaker 2: of the party conceded ninety two early on, thinking that
Speaker 2: that was a useless exercise to try to knock off
Speaker 2: the sitting president. And then lo and behold, Bill Clinton
Speaker 2: showed that there was a way to do this. I
Speaker 2: want to pick up on something on immigration because the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal poll and I think this is the
Speaker 2: you why is Trump's numbers starting to go upside down
Speaker 2: on immigration?
Speaker 1: Because there really is two distinct features of the issue.
Speaker 1: Border security is what people wanted, and that was the
Speaker 1: massive failure of the Biden administration, and that has been
Speaker 1: the initial success and what people wanted from Trump when
Speaker 1: you ask and I saw that the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: did a split sample asking Trump's job rating on immigration,
Speaker 1: and then they did half sample Trump's job rating on
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. His numbers were better in dealing with illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: His numbers were worse when it was just immigration. It
Speaker 1: turns out what the country wanted was they didn't like
Speaker 1: the chaos at the border. Yeah, they didn't mean they
Speaker 1: wanted to get rid of every migrant in the country.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's the opening here. And ironically,
Speaker 1: that was the Democratic position under Obama. Tough on the ball, order,
Speaker 1: lenient on my and fought pathway to citizenship for people
Speaker 1: already here. And it turned out that's a fifty five
Speaker 1: to sixty percent agreement message. And for some reason, I
Speaker 1: go back, it's a debate I moderated. I go back
Speaker 1: to that first debate where they decriminalize, where everybody on
Speaker 1: stage but Joe Biden and one other wanted to decriminalize
Speaker 1: the border, and You're like, oh my god.
Speaker 2: It was like they were all high in their own
Speaker 2: supply in that moment. Yeah, I think that that's the
Speaker 2: immigration just conversation I'm talking about. It was try's so
Speaker 2: fourth and how that's gotten further. It's been interesting to
Speaker 2: watch Frank Sherry, who was at Family's USA for a
Speaker 2: long time, say, yeah, the movement got over its skis
Speaker 2: on this and this is one of Trump's strengths and
Speaker 2: I'm trying to put it in the right way. Is
Speaker 2: sometimes you do something and it's unpopular and it's extreme,
Speaker 2: and it backfires and you're just credit. No one does
Speaker 2: it again. This is Sam brown Back in Kansas. A
Speaker 2: Reblicans still can't win a governor Grace in Kansas because
Speaker 2: it is tax plant sage disaster. Trump has done some
Speaker 2: things that I think it's the third pause. Nobody's going
Speaker 2: to like Obamacare. It can be hacked away at, but
Speaker 2: nobody's running out your failing anymore. But he's also done
Speaker 2: some things where he his response is so angering to progressive,
Speaker 2: attacked so many of their political no just I would
Speaker 2: say what they think is American period, that they will
Speaker 2: overreact and with immigration, that's what happened is there's a
Speaker 2: lot of Democrats and the thing you said about two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight, the Democrats in this space the sort
Speaker 2: of way to share a Metagalasius types. They often will say,
Speaker 2: just go back to two as an eight twenty twelve
Speaker 2: Obama he said things that Democrats don't say anymore, and
Speaker 2: they were popular and Democrats voted for offense. Right, you
Speaker 2: could call it a wall. It is a defense. Is
Speaker 2: a wall? Yo, Read the language and the platform, because
Speaker 2: I've talked to some people are in the democratic polling
Speaker 2: and data space who've just gone back and looked a
Speaker 2: platforn You can look at a platform language with somebody
Speaker 2: with a time to just do regression and say what
Speaker 2: words drop out out, what words come in the party
Speaker 2: just gets much more optimistic about its future and cannot
Speaker 2: imagine a backsliding which has already happened to something that is,
Speaker 2: let's say, backsliding to a right wing country. I'm trying
Speaker 2: not to try to overegg what I'm saying now. The
Speaker 2: Trump thing on immigration is he's president. He starting to
Speaker 2: tries to build a wall. There's a Republican division on that,
Speaker 2: and Tom Tillis, who's retiring when the Republicans wh complains
Speaker 2: about a moving military money to fund the wall. He
Speaker 2: has very visible deportation facilities. Those are unpopular. There's actually
Speaker 2: the whole remain in Mexico policy in part comes from
Speaker 2: not wanting that imagery of camps because American sea camps
Speaker 2: and they have associations. They don't like to thank that
Speaker 2: the deeps in other countries there's less cameras exactly, and
Speaker 2: then that keeps going. I'm covering the twenty nineteen Democratic
Speaker 2: primary at this point, and that poll will Braves hand Its.
Speaker 2: It is such a great question for Democrats comes from
Speaker 2: this discourse saying how do we prevent this from ever
Speaker 2: happening again? Well, instead of deportation being a criminal, it's
Speaker 2: already a civil ALTI what if it's something even less.
Speaker 2: What if you're just you're allowed to show up and
Speaker 2: say I'm I'm demanding asylum because look at how terrible
Speaker 2: Trump is. This is not America, m E. Lazarus, Poem, etcetera, etc.
Speaker 2: That we need to make sure that no Trump can
Speaker 2: ever happen again. And that's a lot of the Biden
Speaker 2: premise in twenty twenty. I'm going to run Trump will
Speaker 2: be an aberration, This will never happen again. Part of
Speaker 2: that never happened again agenda. Everyone deserves asylum. And so
Speaker 2: they got themselves into a very humanitarian, emotional immigration position
Speaker 2: that they cannot defend. And the result. I mentioned those
Speaker 2: camps because one thing that Trump is doing in this
Speaker 2: term unthinkable last term, going to them, just going to
Speaker 2: the sending Christine home to Salvador, personally, going to Aliger
Speaker 2: Ralpatraz in Florida with this confidence that the country has
Speaker 2: moved so far towards him on immigration and deportation that
Speaker 2: they're going to buy and I have some people merchandise
Speaker 2: from the detention camps. So how did Democrats get in
Speaker 2: that position? They did overreact to Trump and they didn't
Speaker 2: come up with their own coherent immigration policy. That was
Speaker 2: what they were skipping. There was a coherent you're affording
Speaker 2: to it. There was a coherent Obama policy to on order, security, lenient,
Speaker 2: on pathway to citizenship. A question I like to ask
Speaker 2: the Democrats I talked to, like the ones who are
Speaker 2: running for Andy Basher I talked to last week, and
Speaker 2: I'm editing something is I'll ask who deserves to be here?
Speaker 2: Like beyond if you're born in America, you're on the
Speaker 2: process right now getting naturalized. Who else deserves to be
Speaker 2: an American? And the answers have been not. Bascher's answer
Speaker 2: was involving well, you know, it's about the workforce. Well
Speaker 2: even that, that's how they're saying. In twenty nineteen there
Speaker 2: were Democrats and I was saying, we need immigrants here
Speaker 2: for the workforce, and that's it. They were saying, Hey,
Speaker 2: if there are people seeking asylum somewhere. I remember Democrats
Speaker 2: having Trudeau envy because they were watching Justin Trudeau in
Speaker 2: Canada personally welcome Syrian refugees and saying, what if this
Speaker 2: country was like that? What if this country was taking
Speaker 2: in more refugees. We used to be like that. We
Speaker 2: used to be like that during the gerald Ford operation
Speaker 2: that brought people from Vietnam. The country's moved so far
Speaker 2: right because of the backlash to Biden, and the backlash
Speaker 2: was engendered by Fox News et cetera coverage of the border,
Speaker 2: what other areas, So the Democrats not realize that the
Speaker 2: country has moved away from them, because I do think
Speaker 2: both parties storytelling of a lot of politics. But I
Speaker 2: wrote a callum out this Kawisco. In Democrats' minds, the
Speaker 2: way history moves is that something outrageous happens and people
Speaker 2: get up in the streets and protests, and then the
Speaker 2: people who were defending outrageous thing crack down the protesters,
Speaker 2: and the whole country looks at that and says that
Speaker 2: can't happen, and they move on. It never happens again.
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to impugne Democrats or say that
Speaker 2: just in covering them, listening to the rhetoric a lot
Speaker 2: of their rhetoric assumes that there's going to be a
Speaker 2: selma for the outrage. There's going to this is what
Speaker 2: happened immigration hundred from what happened under this policy, and
Speaker 2: this refugee policy, this is what's going to happen under
Speaker 2: for gender based rights, trans rights, LGBTQ rights. And when
Speaker 2: it doesn't, they seem to be They seem not to
Speaker 2: know what to do with a Republican party that's very
Speaker 2: comfortable saying things that make fun of human suffering. I
Speaker 2: mentioned the detention camps, but there there is a level
Speaker 2: of mockery for the Trump administration that I think borders
Speaker 2: or maybe has gotten on the border of eu bris.
Speaker 2: They definitely look like a Republican party that can't imagine
Speaker 2: losing ever again, which is how you get into trouble.
Speaker 2: They might go back and regret some of the gladness
Speaker 2: with which they talk about these issues. But Democrats, I
Speaker 2: think we're just not ready for a cultural shift away
Speaker 2: from them, and they're looking at these polls and saying
Speaker 2: this poll says that Trump's some unpopular immigration, But what
Speaker 2: does that mean when you come back, it's who deserves
Speaker 2: to be in the country. Correct? When it comes to
Speaker 2: who does what does ender mean in the law, There
Speaker 2: are these tough questions. They just punted because they said, well,
Speaker 2: from it's unpopular, we're going to go I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to ramb I'm just trying to bring things together. Same
Speaker 2: thing with gender happened. A lot of the movement on
Speaker 2: people's acceptance of trans rights was not a lot some
Speaker 2: of it was driven by Trump, by people saying, why
Speaker 2: is he being so cruel to people who are trans
Speaker 2: and just want to live their lives? Sert of a
Speaker 2: military the.
Speaker 1: Libertarian look, we are Americans are libertarian. Americans are always
Speaker 1: been libertarian on social issues, like even no matter when
Speaker 1: you push it, both on the right and the left,
Speaker 1: so that ultimately say hey, don't be cruel to people.
Speaker 2: Live and let live.
Speaker 1: There's live and let live is mostly usually one out
Speaker 1: over time. Right, the ark of cultural stuff is always
Speaker 1: bent towards that. And you know, it's sort of like,
Speaker 1: why is Caitlin General a Republican? I think people need
Speaker 1: like Democrats not ask themselves. Why is Caitlyn Jener a Republican?
Speaker 2: You know, the live and.
Speaker 1: Let live part, But she's not asking to compete in
Speaker 1: women's sports, Right, Like, there's this is the line the
Speaker 1: country's at, which is, hey, you live your life, how
Speaker 1: you live your life. But right, that seems to be
Speaker 1: where the majority position is. I wonder is this the
Speaker 1: so famously Bill Clinton was pro death penalty at a
Speaker 1: time when the party was not, and he of course
Speaker 1: infamously put somebody to death. Went back Ricky Rector I
Speaker 1: think was his name. My memory serves Rectory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and it's a very I think it was
Speaker 2: a explosive because he didn't need to go back to Arkansas,
Speaker 2: but he did decide he did. He wanted everybody to
Speaker 2: see what he was doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm going to go out. It was this was
Speaker 1: to me, this was Sister Soldier times one hundred. If
Speaker 1: you actually think about it, Sister Soldier gets the sort
Speaker 1: of the moniker, if you will. This was actually the
Speaker 1: moment that sort of said, look, I am a different
Speaker 1: type of Democrat, right, you are not.
Speaker 2: I am not soft? Right?
Speaker 1: And that was the fear, right, our democrats too soft
Speaker 1: to lead? Are they too soft to be the leader
Speaker 1: of the country? You know, Reagan was tough, all those
Speaker 1: all that, all that mindset.
Speaker 2: Jimmy Carter was too soft, right, that was the red
Speaker 2: dukakas seen soft mondale sy whatever that is to people,
Speaker 2: but there was a softness to them. And and Bill
Speaker 2: is transgender?
Speaker 1: That issue that is that how a Democrat is going
Speaker 1: to try to exploit the stereotype of the left. And
Speaker 1: is that where we expect, which I know is what
Speaker 1: the trans community fears that they're going to be the
Speaker 1: currency to distance for a Democrat to rebrand themselves or
Speaker 1: the party to rebrand themselves.
Speaker 2: Well, this is a this is a very active conversation
Speaker 2: among Democrats that is mostly underground. Again, w I talked
Speaker 2: about the discos.
Speaker 1: I used to call them conversations, right, like the Biden issue,
Speaker 1: the Biden issue that was the loudest nonversation for the
Speaker 1: entire four years.
Speaker 2: Is Kamala Harris really going to be that this? You know?
Speaker 2: Why is there no trust there? And all this?
Speaker 1: The conversation was concern about Harris and concerned about Biden, right,
Speaker 1: and yet it wasn't It wasn't happening in public enough.
Speaker 1: But you and I were having these conversations almost on
Speaker 1: a daily basis with sources, but nobody was talking about
Speaker 1: it right in public. It was the conversation. So what
Speaker 1: you're saying, is this is today's conversation.
Speaker 2: Yes, And the way that I've heard it from people
Speaker 2: in the democratic ideas space, and I'm talking about the
Speaker 2: sorts that they go to donor conferences, they present, they
Speaker 2: present data, they some of them write columns about it. Again,
Speaker 2: I rich to Sharon John Judis are still are still
Speaker 2: doing this. They had a book that got less intention
Speaker 2: than the Emerging Democrat Majority that came out in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, and it's funny life to merge. The Democrat
Speaker 2: majority comes out before Democrats are able to win something.
Speaker 2: Their second what comes outhen Democrats have a pretty good
Speaker 2: min term, so they keep the people get missing missing
Speaker 2: what they're saying.
Speaker 1: By the way, that there's fine reading for my how
Speaker 1: Washington works is Roy to Shay's books, because as when
Speaker 1: my students said, oh my god, I wish i'd read
Speaker 1: this before the twenty four election.
Speaker 2: I would have seen this coming, you know, absolutely, But
Speaker 2: there are this conversation when I was saying, the Democrats
Speaker 2: are kind of talking, coming out and saying something and
Speaker 2: then not saying any something again. Behind the scene, they're
Speaker 2: talking about this a lot, and I don't so I'll
Speaker 2: separate the two things. Immigration will be more important because
Speaker 2: that it turns out that Trump has forced a conversation
Speaker 2: on who deserves to be in the country, what does
Speaker 2: the country mean, what do borders mean? And there are
Speaker 2: Democrats now saying you can't have a country without borders.
Speaker 2: Just he has shifted the conversation his direction on what
Speaker 2: that means.
Speaker 1: It's like the great line of what Bill Clinton said, Hey, yeah,
Speaker 1: the air big government is over. Democrats are saying we
Speaker 1: need a nation with borders.
Speaker 2: Yes, And just one of the Democrats' problems for how
Speaker 2: do you convince the swing voter vunning bee does not
Speaker 2: mean the border is wide open and Anglan come in.
Speaker 2: That has become a problem for them that I think
Speaker 2: is existential for what the aready stands for. I should
Speaker 2: that because it's happened everywhere, like look around the world.
Speaker 2: That has been that has been fatal to center left
Speaker 2: social democratic parties in Europe. Uh, it is in Canada.
Speaker 2: David Cameron.
Speaker 1: We came to the States and said get tougher on migrants. Trust, yes,
Speaker 1: I have first stand experience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, or you lose the conversation and the far
Speaker 2: right takes advantage. That is the warning on the left.
Speaker 2: They called this choice socialism or barbarism, which is just
Speaker 2: a good phrase. But what anyone is very different than
Speaker 2: what demmigrants are running on. And that's the problem that
Speaker 2: they if and I say they sell that problem, I
Speaker 2: mean they just need to come up with something that's
Speaker 2: going to have some groups say you guys are terrible
Speaker 2: racists and you're supporting Trump. Urben Guano Arizona has kind
Speaker 2: of led with his chin on this. And as I'm
Speaker 2: a son of Columbia immigrants, I voted for the Lake
Speaker 2: and Riley Act. I don't regret voting for it. Some
Speaker 2: people who are in the country don't deserve to be here.
Speaker 2: Come at me, But what does that mean as a
Speaker 2: full policy? Still bring that out on the gender stuff
Speaker 2: that that has become, that has been more complicated because
Speaker 2: the way that they look into this. If I can
Speaker 2: just quickly, I always I'm sorry I summarize it without
Speaker 2: being blase about what happened. But gay marriage, which was
Speaker 2: the fight for gay marriage, which we were both covering
Speaker 2: for years, was very incremental inch by inch. A lot
Speaker 2: of Democrats not even in committing to endorseing gay marriage,
Speaker 2: like Barack Obama until twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: And Human Rights Campaign's board was divided about Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: after the shellacking that gay marriage took at the ballot
Speaker 1: box and four, there was a real there was a
Speaker 1: divide inside HRC among some of its big donors. Hey,
Speaker 1: should we sort of hold back on marriage and instead
Speaker 1: focus on gay rights protections, you know in the workplace,
Speaker 1: civil unions. Let's go down that road. People seem to
Speaker 1: be good with that. Like, there was a real and
Speaker 1: it was a fifty one proposition about how much to
Speaker 1: go into the no fight for same sex marriage now
Speaker 1: versus fight for same sex marriage later, right, And that
Speaker 1: was a divide, by the way, similar divide on trans
Speaker 1: issues inside HRC, though I see that they've they've moved
Speaker 1: past that debate a little bit.
Speaker 2: They have all you can still walk past HRC headquarters
Speaker 2: in in DC, and it has they has the big
Speaker 2: signs that are that are that are about trans rights,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But just I'm slowly walking through the way
Speaker 2: that they felt this was Democrats had it was Trench
Speaker 2: Warford Democrats and the groups there were defeats and one
Speaker 2: they have asked conservatives who on the trans issue, the
Speaker 2: ones who believe that they are winning this they can
Speaker 2: went on everywhere is why why didn't you guys try
Speaker 2: to put on the ballot in some states? Hey, this
Speaker 2: state now defines genders as two sexiest man in female.
Speaker 2: Well that's a great question. Why has it that happened? Well,
Speaker 2: the one thing is that they they think just even
Speaker 2: some of them are too younger. Remember two thousand and
Speaker 2: four when it wouldn't be a perish a referenda. But
Speaker 2: they they assumed they'd be they'd be outspent on these.
Speaker 2: They assumed they would not win as many as they did.
Speaker 2: They also had trouble convincing the party that it mattered.
Speaker 2: And the story of the right on this up to
Speaker 2: twenty twenty was that their donors didn't understand why this
Speaker 2: was such a big deal. The Caitlyn Jenner coming out
Speaker 2: in twenty fifteen in the context of a twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: Republican race. You can find Republican at the time like
Speaker 2: Rick Santorum saying, well, Kaitlyn Jenner says, she's a woman,
Speaker 2: She's a woman. Sure they didn't understand. They end their
Speaker 2: family was also Republican. There was a weird part of that.
Speaker 2: You wonder if she had been a high profile Democrat.
Speaker 2: If the conversation would have been the same, just maybe maybe,
Speaker 2: but just the way it was seen as a libertarian issue,
Speaker 2: It's like, why do you want the republic the Republican
Speaker 2: party that just got killed on gay marriage after and
Speaker 2: you can't even talk anymore, why do he wants to
Speaker 2: get involved in this? Regrets had the same set of facts, Well,
Speaker 2: we may gain marriage, move so slowly that now we're
Speaker 2: kind of embarrassed that we moved so slowly. There was
Speaker 2: a very brief news cycle in twenty fifteen because Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton had been Secretary of State and wasn't taking political positions.
Speaker 2: How come she had endoorse gay marriage yet and the
Speaker 2: Trump campaign had some fun with Donald Trump endorse gay
Speaker 2: marriage before Ellary Clinton did so. The trans issues, the
Speaker 2: history quite complicated. I recommend reading Susan Striker's book on
Speaker 2: transgender history to catch up on this stuff. They are
Speaker 2: different movements that are interlocking. They're there and they fight,
Speaker 2: they they've boon different things. But the way that this
Speaker 2: has gotten the bomb Minstration of biderministration said well, no,
Speaker 2: these are these are human rights. Weren't forcing them, and
Speaker 2: we're changing the way that the code the government's code
Speaker 2: talks about gender. We are changing the way that healthcare
Speaker 2: plans cover gender medicine. We're doing that. There's not going
Speaker 2: to be a debate, there's not going to be referendums
Speaker 2: in the States, it's not going to all to take forever.
Speaker 2: We're just doing it because this is right. And then
Speaker 2: the backlash later. I mean, so it's imagine if because
Speaker 2: what happened with game marriage is sometimes a court would
Speaker 2: legalize it and there'd be a voter backlash. But imagine
Speaker 2: if instead Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety nine says change
Speaker 2: the legal code. Marriage now means whatever, No, he didn't,
Speaker 2: he did, Delma. And so the way the trans rights
Speaker 2: have played out politically, I think has been again traumatized
Speaker 2: to people who are who are progressive, who believe in this,
Speaker 2: to trans people, because the recent experience is that human
Speaker 2: rights moves in one direction, and that actually was the
Speaker 2: trench forefare of gay marriage was not repeated for trans rights,
Speaker 2: it was handled differently. Your party really fully understood the implications.
Speaker 2: Now they've got a good understanding implications. There are people
Speaker 2: trying to find a way through. But instand what you're
Speaker 2: seeing is because it wasn't just America, UK, European countries
Speaker 2: still have the same thing. All right. We have a
Speaker 2: new understanding of what gender is. It's enforced in the code.
Speaker 2: And the backlash came after that, This progressive dealing with
Speaker 2: a with a right wing backlash for a lot because
Speaker 2: people are cycling through the political process just because of
Speaker 2: mortality who don't remember things. I find this in the report.
Speaker 2: People who do not remember Barack Obama being elected. Certainly
Speaker 2: they don't remember purely when gay marriage was unpopular. There
Speaker 2: are a lot of people in political activism, in democratic
Speaker 2: powery politics, and their story is, look, the country is
Speaker 2: becoming more progressive. Why would you ever question rights for
Speaker 2: all people, something that's good for all people. Why would
Speaker 2: you ever do that? How could the Democrats sell people
Speaker 2: out by saying maybe it's going too fast? Republicans say,
Speaker 2: I think they're snake bit by gay marriage, and now
Speaker 2: the degree they moved from we're not sure if we
Speaker 2: should run on this issue too. We're going to attack
Speaker 2: every Democrat over it. Again. I think seems eu briistic
Speaker 2: because in those spaces I'm talking about, the democratic donor
Speaker 2: space was one thing they're saying is courts might take
Speaker 2: care of this, and that's like a very if you
Speaker 2: know what you mean by that, your life, right, another
Speaker 2: thing of your life. That's a little hard to hear,
Speaker 2: the saying, look, scremedi happened, there's going to be another.
Speaker 2: There are there any more cases before a six to
Speaker 2: three Supreme Court. The next time the Democrats is going
Speaker 2: to run for office, a Republicans say this is hey,
Speaker 2: they're going to do this, They'll say no, it's all illegal.
Speaker 2: That's terrible to hear. If you're progressive, that's like saying,
Speaker 2: well the ports and handle every wade. Stop running on
Speaker 2: abortion in Texas. It's over you. Just what's your what's
Speaker 2: your frame of ressent reference as a progressive or if
Speaker 2: looks that one, we're never going to get it back.
Speaker 1: If you have to solve one, if you have to
Speaker 1: sort of run against the party on, you have to
Speaker 1: pick one of those two issues to run against the
Speaker 1: party on. Hard My sense is immigration's the one that
Speaker 1: voters care about more. Yes, a trans issue is sort
Speaker 1: of like an exclamation point, and they're in favor of
Speaker 1: or and they're this right like, and you can weather
Speaker 1: that if that's your only merit, you can say, look,
Speaker 1: how pathetic my opponent is being he's obsessed with looking
Speaker 1: under people's skirts. If that is your only quote unquote
Speaker 1: violation to the cultural center right, I don't think you
Speaker 1: could be tough on trans folks and soft on immigration
Speaker 1: and think that's going to solve your problems. If you're
Speaker 1: going to pick one of these cultural hot button issues
Speaker 1: to run against the party on. It feels like immigration
Speaker 1: is the probably the smarter play if you're just playing.
Speaker 2: Tactical and it. I agree with that. I also, for
Speaker 2: all the reason we just talked about it, for the
Speaker 2: Waite courts are going to handle it. It's also, like
Speaker 2: I was saying, within the party and the polyglot of
Speaker 2: influences it has right now, if you come out and say, look,
Speaker 2: I'm for some deep I'm for deporting people who committed
Speaker 2: a crime, you don't get the same backlash as you
Speaker 2: do if you say I mean I was a I
Speaker 2: mean basher, Andy basher. Another thing I asked him was
Speaker 2: about the Trump's orders on gender medicine for miners, and
Speaker 2: he said, well, I'm against surgeries on minors, and I
Speaker 2: always had it been, and I guess that didn't get
Speaker 2: reaction anymore. But it's the what also affects more people's lives.
Speaker 2: I think this is this is this is going. That's
Speaker 2: exactly right. It's a part of it, yeah, versus you know,
Speaker 2: thirty percent of the country. But I I I I vote. Sorry,
Speaker 2: you're the host, and I keep, I keep, I keep. No,
Speaker 2: no, no no, I think this is a no no no.
Speaker 2: We spent a good chuck here. That was the big picture.
Speaker 2: You know, Democrats like need to figure out what they
Speaker 2: believe and talk about it, as opposed to say, and
Speaker 2: where we believe is moving this way and I'll get
Speaker 2: right with history. They just need to say, why do
Speaker 2: I believe this?
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk about where we're going to see some
Speaker 1: of these fights play out, right, like at the ballot
Speaker 1: box in some of these primaries. Look, we can have
Speaker 1: a mom Donnie conversation.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm of.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that there is a long history
Speaker 1: of urban voters willing to flirt. Was so because there's
Speaker 1: a demand for cities to for there always is more
Speaker 1: of an expectation and a demand for city services than
Speaker 1: there is for state or federal right that there is
Speaker 1: this sort of so like, you know, the fact is,
Speaker 1: when have we elected socialists in this country. Most of
Speaker 1: the elections have taken place in mayor's races, whether it's
Speaker 1: the mayor of Burlington, the mayor of Milwaukee. We may
Speaker 1: have a mayor of Minneapolis, and you know, the mayor
Speaker 1: of New York City. So I am skeptical that's this
Speaker 1: transferable into the rest of the party. And I expect
Speaker 1: most of the party to feel comfortable distancing themselves from
Speaker 1: mom Donnie, you know, in some sort of Oh, I
Speaker 1: like him, he's a good campaigner, but that's not what
Speaker 1: I'm for or hostile, but it will be some form
Speaker 1: of that. You concur with that, or do you think
Speaker 1: they could it could have more legs.
Speaker 2: I I concur I think Republicans are very quick to
Speaker 2: say we're going to tie every Democrat to mom Donnie.
Speaker 2: But this rang hollow because Eric Adams was supposed to
Speaker 2: be the savior of Democrats brand in cities and Republicans
Speaker 2: swept all these New York suburban seats or anything against
Speaker 2: Eric Adams anyway, So that's also I try to play
Speaker 2: it straight. And if everyone agrees that Democrats need to
Speaker 2: run for something, not against something, I'm not convinced that
Speaker 2: a midterm message for the incumbent party that runs everything
Speaker 2: will be Hey, look at that guy in New York.
Speaker 2: Now I talked to I've known mam Day for a while.
Speaker 2: I talked to him in the race for mayor, but
Speaker 2: I met him when he was running for State Senate
Speaker 2: in New York. The rise of DSA New York, the
Speaker 2: story of socialists until Mamdani over the last couple of
Speaker 2: years that they were losing brown. They were losing ground
Speaker 2: votes for the reasons that a lot of left wing
Speaker 2: or groups lose round infighting and people quit and people
Speaker 2: lob accusations at each other. But also they were getting
Speaker 2: blamed for a lot of policies that they advanced, like
Speaker 2: bail reform, more of the criminal policies, socialist criminal justice. Yes,
Speaker 2: but socials were not getting dinged for their economic ideas.
Speaker 2: They were getting hurt for the other ideas about remaking
Speaker 2: remaking society. Prison abolition, police abolition, defunding police is downstream
Speaker 2: from that. And Mam Donnie didn't run on that. Remind
Speaker 2: ran on affordability. So I feel the one way I
Speaker 2: view what he did is more he's like the Howard
Speaker 2: Jarvis of of a browsing a portability Howard Jarvis, you know,
Speaker 2: passes this doll initiative in California in the seventies on
Speaker 2: tax limitation that free defines the state, but Democrats don't
Speaker 2: see Prop thirteen. But Democrats don't see it coming because
Speaker 2: they they thought they were being responsible stewards of this
Speaker 2: exparis money and saving up for a big surplus and
Speaker 2: not refunding people's money with taxes. And in New York
Speaker 2: there was a lot of denial like, well, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: the housing thing is slow, but we need to work
Speaker 2: through these groups and we're going to build this housing.
Speaker 2: But this donor's opposed to it, and Mam Donnie. There's
Speaker 2: been this fight for who owns this agenda between more
Speaker 2: moderate Democrats and Progresses because they do want to be
Speaker 2: the party of affordability. It just needs different stuff in
Speaker 2: different places. I mean, you mentioned Minneapolis and housing affordability
Speaker 2: is less of an issue in Minneapolis because it's not
Speaker 2: as expensive. It's society spent to lived there. New York
Speaker 2: has been New York Los Angeles. I mean you can
Speaker 2: really start that there. DC area are just if you're
Speaker 2: in when you're done with this podcast, go look up
Speaker 2: Zillo and look up what it costs to have a
Speaker 2: big family home in those places, You're not going to
Speaker 2: have the same issues outside of urban areas. So he
Speaker 2: is he is for urban democrats, like a Howard Jermans
Speaker 2: figures saying, look, if you don't deal with this, voters
Speaker 2: are going to react and make you deal with it.
Speaker 2: And I look more housing etctera, go ahead. My test
Speaker 2: on Mom Donnie is Mikey Cheryl. If somehow she loses,
Speaker 2: I think there will be this idea that there's a
Speaker 2: Mom Donnie effect and that hurt her in the Northern
Speaker 2: Jersey suburbs, right, Like, that's the scenario. I had an
Speaker 2: interview with Rama Manuel a couple of weeks ago, and
Speaker 2: that was his paranoia that does Mom Donnie become a problem?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Can the can Chitdarelli and New Jersey weaponized Mom Donnie
Speaker 1: and weaponize New York City essentially against Mikey Chryl and
Speaker 1: make her own that a little bit. I'll watch and see, right,
Speaker 1: I don't you know, we'll find out. I think I'm
Speaker 1: fascinated with New Jersey governor because I think it's the
Speaker 1: only I don't think Virginia is going to be because
Speaker 1: of the federal worker issue really more than anything else,
Speaker 1: is such a such a problem for Republicans. You know,
Speaker 1: they can complain all they want around the lieutenant governor's campaign. Please,
Speaker 1: it's Donald Trump and the land Doge that is the
Speaker 1: that is going to put Abigail Spamberger in Richmond.
Speaker 2: There.
Speaker 1: So let's move to twenty sixteen, and if you had
Speaker 1: a I'm going to answer it first. And I'm curious
Speaker 1: if there's any other state that you I think the
Speaker 1: most interesting state to understand where the country is headed,
Speaker 1: where the Democratic Party is headed, is the state of Michigan.
Speaker 1: You have a Democratic primary and Senate that is going
Speaker 1: to pit sort of establishment DC versus sort of younger
Speaker 1: outsider state senator right and Molly McMorrow versus Haley Stevens.
Speaker 1: And then you have the three way race for governor,
Speaker 1: which is going to test sort of where is the middle?
Speaker 2: You know, can you know what is what.
Speaker 1: Is mainstream left versus the center versus Frankly John James
Speaker 1: being mainstream right.
Speaker 2: I mean I find it, you know, and whether there is.
Speaker 1: A a centrist or a sort of non major party
Speaker 1: movement that can actually get traction right beyond that. So
Speaker 1: I look at the state of Michigan and it both
Speaker 1: the governor's race and the Senate race, and I just
Speaker 1: see it as having all of the national storylines. We're
Speaker 1: trying to figure out the future of the Democrats, what's
Speaker 1: going on with this sort of continued ten year rise
Speaker 1: of people not aligning with either party, particularly among voters
Speaker 1: under forty five, and that Michigan.
Speaker 2: Has it all.
Speaker 1: I know you coulccur about Michigan being important. Is it
Speaker 1: the be all end all? Do you see it that
Speaker 1: same way? Is there other states that you would put
Speaker 1: in that category for the for twenty twenty six?
Speaker 2: It's sort of being.
Speaker 1: Nearly the most intriguing and most important potential ways to
Speaker 1: sort of decipher what might happen in twenty eight.
Speaker 2: No, I like that as the focal point. I would
Speaker 2: not There is not any sort of I would say
Speaker 2: Nevada is going to be interesting because as a test
Speaker 2: of how Fluky and Texas, Texas and Babiel pinterting is
Speaker 2: the text of whether to move towards Trump by Latino
Speaker 2: voters with situational for twenty twenty four or whether it
Speaker 2: represents something long term and just that's not as much
Speaker 2: of a factor in Michigan. It's both of them. I'm
Speaker 2: why have you said that too? Because I think I
Speaker 2: unless something changes, I'm going to Michigan on Saturday. So
Speaker 2: I'm glad it's important, But I mean it's got era.
Speaker 1: I mean I've been there already myself, and it's like
Speaker 1: I I every time, I'm like, man, boy, this is
Speaker 1: where I'd open a bureau here.
Speaker 2: If I were the hotline, you know, type of thing
Speaker 2: that important, I'd ben she theres a third candidate in
Speaker 2: the in the the four candidates in the Senate race,
Speaker 2: Abdul Elsi ed who Bernie Sanders and Doris day One.
Speaker 2: That's right, I forgot about it, yeah, yes, And and
Speaker 2: Joe Tate, the former Speaker of the of the State House,
Speaker 2: who's interesting. He's also kind of as a storytelling figure,
Speaker 2: sort of interesting because he was the first black Democrats
Speaker 2: speaker of the State House in Michigan, and Michigan Democrats
Speaker 2: finally won this trifecta in twenty a twenty two, and
Speaker 2: then they didn't do as much as other Democrats did
Speaker 2: with their trifecta. And there's not real metrics, not much
Speaker 2: excitement around Joe Tate because where was the agenda. Where
Speaker 2: was the great Whitmer agenda that she could compare to
Speaker 2: what Tim Walls did in Minnesota or what Kathie Hochel
Speaker 2: did in New York, et cetera. Uh. And so Tate
Speaker 2: has not gotten much much momentum. Abdul has gotten some
Speaker 2: of that progressive in christ And yes more is running
Speaker 2: more as an anti I agree with you because the
Speaker 2: stories they're all telling are very interesting. The reason that
Speaker 2: the more of people's theory of the case is he
Speaker 2: is at the leading edge of the suburban state Michigan
Speaker 2: revival from the suburbs of Detroit. The subject froid big place. Uh.
Speaker 2: And she's been doing this work in Michigan, not in
Speaker 2: d C. Their theory is just being connected to DC
Speaker 2: and Democrats flopping around failing. Uh is not going to
Speaker 2: be a winner for Haley Stevens the Stephens. The Stephens
Speaker 2: theory is more that she gets things done, she can
Speaker 2: work with both parties. Is that still the wait get ahead? Yeah,
Speaker 2: that she's Ferry Peters or she's a lista slock into
Speaker 2: an extent and I'll do the saed l sa Ed
Speaker 2: theory is Democrats were not inspiring enough. They're not straightforward
Speaker 2: enough of what they believe, say what they think, call
Speaker 2: out for I mean day waned how I interviewed him
Speaker 2: and he calls what happening, what's happening Israel and Gaza genocide?
Speaker 2: Do that his theory, and that's that's a very powerful
Speaker 2: strain of progressive thinking. The note for true progressives have
Speaker 2: not been tried. They the democratic establishment never let Bernie
Speaker 2: get the nominations, so we've never got to see out
Speaker 2: put him progressive in there, and you're gonna wake up
Speaker 2: correct Bernie's was Bernie won Michigan primaries twice, right, No,
Speaker 2: he won the first one and he got he got
Speaker 2: smoked in pointy twenty uh.
Speaker 1: Which twenty he did not win. Because that's because Michigan
Speaker 1: has in the past. Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary
Speaker 1: back in the day. There's always been this interesting, weird
Speaker 1: progressive and part of it is there's no party registration.
Speaker 1: I think you can go on either side, so you
Speaker 1: can sort of momentum candidates can grab, can can pull
Speaker 1: up sets in Michigan in ways that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is one of my favorite unkillables the party
Speaker 2: is because because Bernie never never got the nomination. Uh,
Speaker 2: who was the Bernie voter and how how much could
Speaker 2: he have been a Bernie instead of a Trump voter?
Speaker 2: And they never got a chance to prove it. They
Speaker 2: never will, But in Michigan is one of those places.
Speaker 2: New Hampshire primary was the first place where this started
Speaker 2: to pop up. Because Bernie kills Hillary in the New
Speaker 2: Hampshire biggest landslide and they through the primary. He runs
Speaker 2: four years later, he's better known. He does much worse.
Speaker 2: He wins the primary, but barely because it turns out
Speaker 2: a lot of his voters just like, no, I'm an
Speaker 2: independent and I hate Hillary. Same thing happened to Michigan.
Speaker 2: He Biden wins every county in the state because a
Speaker 2: lot of the Bernie voters just they hated Hillary. How
Speaker 2: many of them would have come out for Bernie had
Speaker 2: he been the nominee. How many of the voted for Trump?
Speaker 2: We don't know. And I think it's very fair to
Speaker 2: progressives to say that's right, you never have to test
Speaker 2: that particular campaign. And the abdulah l said theory is,
Speaker 2: I'll do it. I'm going to test this campaign. I'm
Speaker 2: going to run as a Bernie populist in Michigan. And
Speaker 2: the mcmorro theory is more I'm going to run as
Speaker 2: the Buddha Judge generational change outsider candidate, and the Stevens
Speaker 2: Camp theory is look, Gary Peters won, I can win
Speaker 2: and so yeah, very different theories of how how the party,
Speaker 2: how the party works. And I needed to spend time
Speaker 2: out with them because the thing in common is they're
Speaker 2: really not attracting new people. They're not finding those voters
Speaker 2: who got disaffected by Democrats in the in the last
Speaker 2: few years and now have found somebody inspiring. And I
Speaker 2: think that does come down to policy. And I think
Speaker 2: it was a non more immigration than anything else, because
Speaker 2: that's one thing you hear a lot talking to the
Speaker 2: non white voters who were Democrats and voted for Obama
Speaker 2: and then voted for Trump. A thing that comes up
Speaker 2: very frequently is I work for what I have. And
Speaker 2: then the Democrats gave free hotels to all the elie
Speaker 2: immigrants boom once. How much did it hurt the party
Speaker 2: that they were seeing as the party not just of
Speaker 2: not giving things, not giving things away to people, Because
Speaker 2: this was the we're trying to the eighties, this is
Speaker 2: the crisis the eighties. The Democrats of the party of
Speaker 2: handing out welfare and taking the economy. How much of
Speaker 2: this and it's over?
Speaker 1: You know, the welfare queen image of the eighties became
Speaker 1: the migrant free migrant hotel guys in New York in yeah,
Speaker 1: twenty two.
Speaker 2: And how much is it? I think that's less of
Speaker 2: a factor in Michigan. But I did hear some of
Speaker 2: that in the Detroit area, is it? Yeah? I look
Speaker 2: for the Democrats, but they never do anything for us.
Speaker 2: It seems like all they care about is a legal immigrant.
Speaker 2: What's let's if Mike Duggan wins the governorship, what does
Speaker 2: that mean? Uh? Yeah, that would be so that would
Speaker 2: I think be a victory for he will have beaten
Speaker 2: the Democratic Republican candidates most very good, I mean very good. One.
Speaker 1: This is not a case usually when the third party
Speaker 1: candidate has a shot, there's a flawed nominee. But there's
Speaker 1: no obvious flaw in Joscelyn Benson among Democrats. There's no
Speaker 1: obvious flaw among John James. If anything, both of them,
Speaker 1: you know, Benson feels like a rightful heir to Whitmer,
Speaker 1: and John James feels like the new Republican Party that
Speaker 1: they're trying to sell, right, you know. And and here
Speaker 1: comes Mike Duggan, sort of rumpily rumpty, old white guy
Speaker 1: mayor of Detroit, right and sort of I'm going to
Speaker 1: turn your street lights on and fill your potholes kind
Speaker 1: of guy, sort of technocraty, right, sort of Bloomberg without
Speaker 1: the nice suits. And that's I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: going to work outside of the Detroit metro area, which
Speaker 1: is my curiosity. He does really well in in his
Speaker 1: media market. He's much less known obviously in the rest
Speaker 1: of the state. But that's my curiosity is if he wins,
Speaker 1: what does it mean and what does it mean for
Speaker 1: Democrats more so than it is for Republicans, because to me,
Speaker 1: this would be more of a of a statement against
Speaker 1: the against the Democrats than it would be because one
Speaker 1: would assume by the general Whitmer's out there trying to
Speaker 1: help Jocelyn Benson be the heir apparent.
Speaker 2: Yes, that is that is an under That's another reason
Speaker 2: Michigan's worth watching, because Democrats have their map and their
Speaker 2: theory of what's going to happen across the kind tree
Speaker 2: and where where does this fit in? Where where does
Speaker 2: where does it fit in that they because why do
Speaker 2: play it out like if they lose the Michigan UH
Speaker 2: governor's mansion to John James. He's an instantly favorite for
Speaker 2: vice president in twenty twenty eight president at some point
Speaker 2: without doing anything, maybe just being in that position. He
Speaker 2: ran for senidate twice and lost. With that theory, as
Speaker 2: soon as we going state a black elected Republican, he's
Speaker 2: he's going to be. He's going to be in the
Speaker 2: mets with later in Black Bowl.
Speaker 1: It's like Reuben Diego's wingst Hispanic Democrat. He's going to
Speaker 1: be on every lip.
Speaker 2: So there will intense Democratic interest in stopping that from happening.
Speaker 2: And the most recent experiency you have of this is
Speaker 2: Democrats is trying to shut down the third party candidate
Speaker 2: and deny them support, deny them consultants, et cetera. Dougan's
Speaker 2: been polling pretty well. And the thing that I think
Speaker 2: this havn't panicked yet because in polling Benson has still
Speaker 2: been winning. James is not a runaway favorite. He's never
Speaker 2: he's he's done, he's done, he's out performed when I
Speaker 2: think he ran it behind Trump and twenty twenty yes,
Speaker 2: hand Trump joined my eighteen, but the stated not on
Speaker 2: fire for John James and being a Republican House member
Speaker 2: is the least effective part of it. If I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: Republicans haven't been able to win statewide in Michigan fourteen
Speaker 2: I mean, right, Rick Schnyder, that's the last one. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean Democrats. The Democrats have swept everything except the
Speaker 2: presidential in twenty twenty sixteen, twenty sixteen, and twenty two.
Speaker 2: Those are big ifs, and those are big butt forst
Speaker 2: But really it's yeah, Democrats what they can't win any
Speaker 2: of the state wide races republicly in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: and Democrats win every state supreme court race every time.
Speaker 2: It's not Trump on the ballot Democrats. Sweet, you're right, Well,
Speaker 2: what's interesting about what's going on?
Speaker 1: And this was and I know we're getting up on
Speaker 1: an hour, and I'm very I'm very mindful of that,
Speaker 1: but I have a feeling we could go on for
Speaker 1: a long time. But it it is interesting about the difference.
Speaker 1: And this was another theme I wanted to hit with
Speaker 1: you on the midterms that I think what makes eighteen different,
Speaker 1: what makes twenty twenty six potentially different? Twenty eighteen is
Speaker 1: you have a more unified Republican Party. So Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: was not interested in the same candidates that Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: team was interested in for Senate races. This time, John
Speaker 1: Thune and the Trump team are working in tandem and
Speaker 1: they're really The only disagreement going right now, arguably is Georgia.
Speaker 1: And we can have a conversation about Louisiana, but that's
Speaker 1: a separate issue in Texas.
Speaker 2: Those are sort of unique to the incumbents.
Speaker 1: But as far as the essentially and it's really Brian
Speaker 1: Kemp and the DC folks that are in disagreement about Georgia.
Speaker 1: Look at howt quickly everybody's shut down primaries in Michigan.
Speaker 1: Look howt quickly a primary was shut down in North Carolina,
Speaker 1: Look out quickly, But like this is a quickly a
Speaker 1: primary was shut down in Florida for that Senate seat.
Speaker 1: It does you know, I see a Republican Party for
Speaker 1: the first time in the Trump era rowing in the
Speaker 1: same direction as far as tactic tactics are concerned.
Speaker 2: That's worth something. And you know Democrats have overperformed thanks
Speaker 2: to Republican infighting. That may not be there in twenty
Speaker 2: six that's worth what five seats in the House? Is
Speaker 2: that worth a Senate seat or two? What's your sense
Speaker 2: on that it would have been in the past, because
Speaker 2: sometimes Trump just chooses worse candidates even despite the infighting
Speaker 2: and almost out of it. Really touched the hot stove,
Speaker 2: don't touch it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna sleep on the hot stove,
Speaker 1: forget touching.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But it's the point is getting people who have
Speaker 2: his vision. The jd Vance example in Ohio is definitive
Speaker 2: obviously because where he ended up is would they have
Speaker 2: Would Mike Dolan have won more easily than jd Vance
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two? Yeah? Probably? What would that have
Speaker 2: gotten Trump though, just a a conservative senator who breaks
Speaker 2: them on Ukraine and doesn't in terriff like yeah, tariffs
Speaker 2: and no, he got somebody who already had a Rob Portman.
Speaker 2: He didn't want another Rob Portman. He got a zealous
Speaker 2: convert who's with him on everything. So is it worth?
Speaker 2: I mean Jim de Mint had this quote especially. I
Speaker 2: think this quote got blown up because this was the
Speaker 2: at the height of the Mitch McConnell Senate warriers where
Speaker 2: he wanted to discredit Jim Dimitt and the Conservatives. But
Speaker 2: the men said, I'd rather have you know, uh, He'd
Speaker 2: rather have a thirty yeah like man and senators than
Speaker 2: sixty WinPY Republicans. And they said that's a loser mentality.
Speaker 2: We don't want thirty. But it turns out, what's uh
Speaker 2: fifty three Republicans of whom two of them want want
Speaker 2: to break with Trump on some things, turns out to
Speaker 2: get you everything you want. You have, you can still
Speaker 2: get your Mitch McConnell gets to vote against nominees and
Speaker 2: give a statement about it. And Tom Tillis gets to
Speaker 2: do his interviews where he says he has a problem
Speaker 2: with Trump, but you mostly get what you want. It
Speaker 2: turns out, and this is the experience Democrats had. It
Speaker 2: turns out, I mean had had really had like Al Cunningham,
Speaker 2: she just kept in his pants in twenty twenty and
Speaker 2: they had one more Senate seat in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2: Trillions more dollars could have passed, and not because it
Speaker 2: didn't require building party just May didn't need Roy. How
Speaker 2: bad it would do you need Joe Mansion's vote? Right?
Speaker 1: Yes, Donald Trump doesn't need Asa Murkowski's vote and doesn't
Speaker 1: need Susan Collins's vote, right, he has put himself at
Speaker 1: a position where the swing votes are now Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: and Tom Tillis and Bill Cassidy.
Speaker 2: He'll take that of the week. Yeah, so he But
Speaker 2: will he involved lest because for really their osoff is
Speaker 2: it osof is the only Democrat running for election to
Speaker 2: the Senate in Michigan. He's been pretty successful. Man. He
Speaker 2: didn't people think he cleared he cleared the field for
Speaker 2: Mike Rodgers in twenty twenty two four. Rather he didn't quite.
Speaker 2: There's still were people who kept run against Bike Rodgers
Speaker 2: just didn't matter because Trump endorsed him. So he will
Speaker 2: get the candidates he wants. And it's really those kind
Speaker 2: of rogers, guys who genuflect to Trump and are willing
Speaker 2: to support whatever he does, even if they but they
Speaker 2: have some other appeal beyond Trump. That's the sweet spot.
Speaker 2: They're going to find some of those. They have not
Speaker 2: found one in North Carolina. They have not found one
Speaker 2: in Georgia. I don't know who they could and I'm
Speaker 2: not just going down the entire list of people in George.
Speaker 2: But they did get very fixated on Brian camp and
Speaker 2: once he decided not to do it. Can they find
Speaker 2: somebody whose brand is independent of independent of Trump, but
Speaker 2: also endorse by Trump. They don't have somebody, obviously, And I.
Speaker 1: Am surprised, and I think Brian Kemp is too, that
Speaker 1: the Trump folks are not as interested in Derek Dooley.
Speaker 1: I think Derek Dooley is a smart idea because I
Speaker 1: think being an incumbent is a demerit r ord this year,
Speaker 1: and more importantly, being a congressman isn't it is a
Speaker 1: demerit And if I were John Assoff, I'd love to
Speaker 1: run against somebody whose first name is congressman versus somebody
Speaker 1: whose first name is coach.
Speaker 2: Okay, like it's congressman who's the son of a congressman,
Speaker 2: Like I can write that that's yeah, no.
Speaker 1: And so I am surprised that the Chris Lasovitaz and
Speaker 1: and the Tony Fabrizios, who right now do have the
Speaker 1: presidency here on some of these things, and and uh
Speaker 1: is it? And Blair the political director don't see the
Speaker 1: value in coach Duley versus Congressman Collins.
Speaker 2: You know, on that front, it's it's the most the
Speaker 2: best intro, the best bio for candidates. I'm an independent
Speaker 2: businessman and like Donald Trump, I'm fed up with the
Speaker 2: establishment and I'm it to Washington. Absolutely. And there are
Speaker 2: those people throughout these states. It's just who of them?
Speaker 2: Who of them can? Cause you know, podcasts actually good
Speaker 2: training for some of the guys who can go on
Speaker 2: and kind of riff for an hour. In terms of
Speaker 2: you knows, all right, those guys I think always need
Speaker 2: to be in the mix. Hey, you're the NBC all
Speaker 2: the time. He might run for sent Yes, I'm.
Speaker 1: Gonna push my elvelope here a little bit, but let's
Speaker 1: do I'm gonna try to do lightning around. Let's try
Speaker 1: to finish up in seven minutes. Tennessee special in December.
Speaker 1: Percentage chains that becomes a special election we all carry
Speaker 1: care about come December. Second, because it may show something.
Speaker 1: This is a little bit of suburbs of Nashville. It
Speaker 1: has all the makings. I look at it as if
Speaker 1: Democrats can't make it interesting. I actually see that as
Speaker 1: a yellow flag for the midterm. What say you am
Speaker 1: I overranke rating it?
Speaker 2: Do you want it a chance? I'd say fifty percent chance.
Speaker 2: I think that's another state where Republicans have run it
Speaker 2: for so long and they're so euburistic. And Andy Ogoles
Speaker 2: is the guy who won the other safe seat they
Speaker 2: drew at a go when they carved it up Nashville,
Speaker 2: and he's mediocre. If they get a mediocre candidate, Democrats
Speaker 2: will have a good one. Yeah, that's it's say fifty
Speaker 2: to fifty that beat. I could see that becoming like
Speaker 2: a five point race. And everybody's like, whoa, right, Like,
Speaker 2: I don't expect Democrats to win it. I'm talking about that.
Speaker 1: It's a you're like, uh oh, they've got to send
Speaker 1: they got to do something. Second thing is other than
Speaker 1: Ran Paul and Glenn Youngkin. Have you seen anybody else
Speaker 1: on the.
Speaker 2: Republican twenty twenty eight presidential primary trail?
Speaker 1: Like I said, Paul's out there, he's decided. It's pretty
Speaker 1: clear to me he's decided he's running. And Youngkin obviously
Speaker 1: went to Iowa. And then of course there's Christy Nomes
Speaker 1: obvious campaign on Cosplay primary. But in you know, there's
Speaker 1: this sub primary of the Trump cabinet right vance Rubyo Nome,
Speaker 1: you know, and I throw Howard Lutnik in there.
Speaker 2: I think he's gonna I think he's got an ego
Speaker 2: that is just only going to grow. But who else?
Speaker 2: Have you seen anybody else that you know? I haven't, Like,
Speaker 2: I expect Josh Holly to run for president, but I
Speaker 2: haven't seen him do the things that somebody would be
Speaker 2: doing right now to run for president. No, there was
Speaker 2: a float around Mike Brown, who just got elected Governor
Speaker 2: Van Diama. He shot it down pretty fast, didn't He
Speaker 2: shot it down very quickly. I've not seen anyone else
Speaker 2: getting into that that mix. Even the Trump kids, they'll
Speaker 2: get pulled. Not really. I feel that it's not because
Speaker 2: they're afraid of Trump stepping in and defending Dadie Vance
Speaker 2: and attacking them. I just haven't seen it yet. No,
Speaker 2: you're not missing anything. I've not seen a Republican that
Speaker 2: we've not heard of get in and put himself out
Speaker 2: as a as somebody that donors might want to be
Speaker 2: interested in. They might be underplaying it because it's it's
Speaker 2: I think Vance is a strong vice president in that position,
Speaker 2: but not invincible and does not have the independent appeal
Speaker 2: of Trump so young can. I mean not surprising that
Speaker 2: the former Carlisle is being entrepreneurial, but nobody else yet.
Speaker 1: No, I mean it's like I could picture a primary
Speaker 1: field that looked a lot like twenty sixteen Democrats, like
Speaker 1: four or five people, only an obvious front runner, and
Speaker 1: then somebody that catches fire that you don't expect. Right,
Speaker 1: if you told me Vance Paul was a really close primary,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be totally blown away. I'd be more surprised
Speaker 1: if it were Vance Youngkin having a dueling it out.
Speaker 1: I guess Youngkin is such an on paper candidate and
Speaker 1: that and we've seen I've seen those guys implode in
Speaker 1: the past. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not. I'm not
Speaker 1: as sold into Paul. I never underestimate I never underestimate
Speaker 1: the Paul family. They have a following that's durable.
Speaker 2: And I will see the conditions are. But look how
Speaker 2: much how much are Repulican voters actually gonna care about
Speaker 2: the debt in twenty twenty eight after another future You're
Speaker 2: thrown onto it, right, I see openings for him. I
Speaker 2: don't know the foreign policy situation. Trump overpromised what he
Speaker 2: was going to get done. I've see some openings, But
Speaker 2: you're really in a world where Trump won the midterms
Speaker 2: partly for the detective jerry mandering, harder to see in
Speaker 2: a world where Trump and Dvance are on defense from
Speaker 2: for the next two years. I mean, go back to
Speaker 2: George Bush and eighty eight, who really had trumple luck
Speaker 2: in that nomination down when he was there to a
Speaker 2: very popular president, right, but.
Speaker 1: He was always going to get the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: He was still Ronald Reagan's vice president and Bob Ble
Speaker 1: wasn't He was still Ronald Reagan's vice president and Jack
Speaker 1: Kemp wasn't.
Speaker 2: Right. I've always said that should have been Jack Kemp's nomination.
Speaker 1: He was the true Ara apparent to the Reagan If
Speaker 1: you talk to anybody that worked in the Reagan White House,
Speaker 1: they viewed campus that true Ara parent. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you can voters voters see the words vice president and think, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm okay with that on and let me get you
Speaker 1: out of here on this because I think it has
Speaker 1: to do potentially, why do you think there's so many
Speaker 1: interested Democrats in running for Iowa Senate, Like of all
Speaker 1: places where we're seeing and they're all what's interesting about
Speaker 1: the four candidates three are already in one is pondering.
Speaker 2: They're all kind of the same candidate. They're running as
Speaker 2: new types of Democrats. They're on the younger side.
Speaker 1: They're culturally less progressive and liberal, right, you know, it's
Speaker 1: fascinating to me, And you're like, guys, you know, shouldn't
Speaker 1: one of you run for state treasury and one of
Speaker 1: you run for the attorney general or run of you
Speaker 1: what for a House an open house seat in the
Speaker 1: fourth or whatever it is.
Speaker 2: What do you make of that? Is that all?
Speaker 1: Because, like I do, since Republican fatigue in the governor's mansion, right,
Speaker 1: I think sans Rob Saon has all the markings of
Speaker 1: Charlie Baker in Massachusetts, or Laura Kelly in Kansas right where, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's sort of or ADYE. Basher in Kentucky. Yeah, hey,
Speaker 1: that guy's you know, not too liberal. He's not one
Speaker 1: of those national Democrats. Let's let him govern things.
Speaker 2: I don't like this education policy that that the you know,
Speaker 2: it's education that I think is the real sort of
Speaker 2: the issue that if Rob.
Speaker 1: Sayon wins, that's why he ends up winning. But I'm
Speaker 1: it's a head scratcher to me about the Senate race,
Speaker 1: other than I assume they think that she's not running.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they that's safe. Although most Democrats i've talked to,
Speaker 2: and this includes the Senate candidates. Do think she was
Speaker 2: a She was a more clear target than Ashley Henson,
Speaker 2: who they expect would run against run from the seat,
Speaker 2: the former former tv TV she runs to the seat.
Speaker 1: I bet you one or two of those Senate Democratic
Speaker 1: candidates jump in the nationally instancy for what it's worth.
Speaker 2: Uh, I think does he live? I'm thinking because Walsall
Speaker 2: was in Iowa City, I think he's in. He's in
Speaker 2: Miller Meets's Well, yeah, I'm you know, love that does
Speaker 2: Let's end on an exciting redistricting conversation. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 2: always city goes back and forth between whether it's in
Speaker 2: the first of the second, you know, depending on who's
Speaker 2: who got those short straw. On the Republican remander, I
Speaker 2: think it's it's one of a faction, a factor of
Speaker 2: the party at the party decline and there's no one
Speaker 2: in the party who can say run for this, not
Speaker 2: that too the man that's the Sands factor, because the
Speaker 2: sand Reublicans really said, I mean, if if he does
Speaker 2: run and when it will be. Remind me a bit
Speaker 2: when Republicans jerrymandered out Joe Connolly and forced to run
Speaker 2: for Senate, which he with Donnelly, would you, which he
Speaker 2: won Indiana because Republicans went on to terrors taking away
Speaker 2: rob Sand's powers and he said, it's nothing for me
Speaker 2: to run for his auto anymore. It's a run for governor.
Speaker 1: Oh and he's been using fiscal conservatism arguments. They are
Speaker 1: I mean, he's he's running on a mess that Ram
Speaker 1: Emmanuel would have been with Champion back in oh six.
Speaker 1: Run on corruption, run on you know, saving people money,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of run on sort of bread and
Speaker 1: butter issues to get you know, that's what's available to them.
Speaker 1: And then you throw in the fact that you know
Speaker 1: Kim Reynolds. You know, it's funny she's so I assume
Speaker 1: she's not running because she made Maga so mad by
Speaker 1: endorsing Desanta's And that is still a hangover inside the
Speaker 1: Republican Party in Iowa a little bit. But it is
Speaker 1: fascinating to me. You're just like, Wow, Democrats are struggling
Speaker 1: as a party, but somehow they have four reasonably decent
Speaker 1: Senate candidates showing up in Iowa. All of them are
Speaker 1: interesting on paper candidates. The guy and Council bluffs, the
Speaker 1: Chamber of Commerce guy, the baseball player, right, like they
Speaker 1: all have interesting one I think a Republican seat and
Speaker 1: a special so they all have their story. They're like
Speaker 1: four Molly mcmorrows, if you will out of there. So
Speaker 1: it's just a it's it is an other one where
Speaker 1: it makes me want to go to the state fair
Speaker 1: this year, and you know state fairs in about a week.
Speaker 2: And it was a diego stopping by no I I think.
Speaker 2: So remember Iowa has that rule where nobody gets more
Speaker 2: than thirty five percent in the primary. They oh convention.
Speaker 2: I think that's going to be if all they stay in.
Speaker 2: That is the irony is that it will be a
Speaker 2: bunch of insiders that decide this problem. Somebody might be
Speaker 2: convinced that they would be better off running because I
Speaker 2: think an agg was one that Democrats come close on before.
Speaker 2: But how do you sand is the kind of now
Speaker 2: he didn't in twenty twenty two, but the Santus brought
Speaker 2: this up. But Iowa and Florida were this archipelago of
Speaker 2: states where there was a red wave and that was
Speaker 2: in part because Democrats just gave up on Iowa and they.
Speaker 1: Gave up and Democrats gave up on Florida. Right, It
Speaker 1: was it was. It was more of surrender than it
Speaker 1: was accomplishment.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so this will be the first time they
Speaker 2: will head since Fred Hubble in twenty eighteen. A real
Speaker 2: candidate with real sources, and unlike Fred Hubble, who is
Speaker 2: running at a very culturally liberal, let's protect abortion candidate,
Speaker 2: sand is very different in ways you set up. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're going to compete for it. Uh, there's also a
Speaker 2: little bit of this is their last their last chance
Speaker 2: to convince Democrats to maybe give them back a caucus. Oh,
Speaker 2: I think it's a little harder.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, I think if sand wins I was
Speaker 1: first on the nation again, I do, and I think
Speaker 1: I think the Democratic Party I think there they were
Speaker 1: idiots to get out of Iowa because when you look
Speaker 1: at the problem the party has talking to rural voters, well,
Speaker 1: making all your candidates learn how to talk to royal
Speaker 1: voters might be a good idea.
Speaker 2: In your first in the first president of primary state.
Speaker 2: Although it ended up happening. Is the one thing that
Speaker 2: cooled them on it was who was turning up for
Speaker 2: the caucuses was the most progressive Democrats. So they said, hey,
Speaker 2: was it a good idea? They have to go around
Speaker 2: here and promise to stop deportations, because that's what they
Speaker 2: yell that area. When I was in the city.
Speaker 1: Their best messenger, a guy named Pete Bootajid, was the
Speaker 1: only one that was campaigning in eastern Iowa. And he
Speaker 1: arguably we can debate on who won Iowa, but he
Speaker 1: basically got there because he went to places that Democrats
Speaker 1: had stopped going to.
Speaker 2: I think I heard Bernie Sanders day enough times the
Speaker 2: winner the popular vote in Iowa. So he won the
Speaker 2: popular vote. Let's give him that, Yes.
Speaker 1: Dead Weigel, what is your favorite state fair food? You're
Speaker 1: you're one of the fewer campaign reporters that truly travels
Speaker 1: the country a lot. You've probably been to more than
Speaker 1: just the Iowa State Fair. Iowa State Fair, Minnesota, Minnesota
Speaker 1: State Fair. You know that that's a big rivalry, Indiana
Speaker 1: State Fair. The three of them think they have the
Speaker 1: best best state fairs.
Speaker 2: Have you been to all three? I've been to Iowa
Speaker 2: and Minnesota, and Minnesota's like to say, actually, you political
Speaker 2: reporteris don't realize that we have the best state fair.
Speaker 2: And I'll say, no, you do. And I've definitely the Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Wherever I go, right wherever I go, I will say
Speaker 1: it's the best state fair. You know, I'll suck up
Speaker 1: to the locals. Don't get me wrong. But you've been
Speaker 1: to both. Which one is it Minnesota or Iowa?
Speaker 2: I'd say Minnesota. Also remember like, no, we're disrespect to
Speaker 2: Iowa food. But Minnesota has that Andrew Zimmern tradition and
Speaker 2: they will always have not just the experimental fair food
Speaker 2: and the fair experimental fair food that you're eat like
Speaker 2: you would order it on menu anywhere. So I've like
Speaker 2: this the fusion Somalian like sorts of food that you
Speaker 2: need to do not expect. Yeah, Minnesota, that's fun. They
Speaker 2: change when they change the fair. They change every year.
Speaker 2: I will always get some cheese curds because I try
Speaker 2: to avoid fried stuff, but that that hot cheese curd
Speaker 2: in fresh brine oil unbeatable. But that's boring and there's
Speaker 2: usually more more exciting one once you get there. That
Speaker 2: competition that they had every year for the for the
Speaker 2: best new experimental food, just Minnesota is in. It is
Speaker 2: a thousand years ahead of everybody.
Speaker 1: So if you're a foodie, if you're a foodie, Minnesota
Speaker 1: is the call is with ne Minnesota is the one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh man, all right, I'm gonna I'm I'll be very curious.
Speaker 2: This is the weird type of thing that'll get a
Speaker 2: lot of feedback about. Right. We won't get any feedback
Speaker 2: about that, you know, all the conversation we had about
Speaker 2: trans issues. No, no, no no, the state Fair conversation. People
Speaker 2: will be more passionate about that. But I love it
Speaker 2: for a foodie.
Speaker 1: And you can go on YouTube if anybody really wants
Speaker 1: to see I did one year at the Iowa State Fair.
Speaker 1: I try one of everything. We did an experiment and
Speaker 1: I put it on YouTube. If your stomach can hack it,
Speaker 1: you can take a look at that. Dave Weigel, if
Speaker 1: you don't subscribe to his newsletter as I did with
Speaker 1: Ben Smith, I think the Semaphore newsletters number one.
Speaker 2: They don't make you pay. They're all free, thank you.
Speaker 1: Like for us independent media operations, we don't like to
Speaker 1: spend too much subscription money. We spend subscription money. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I subscribe to a lot of papers, don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, but it's free.
Speaker 2: It's fantastic.
Speaker 1: And as I said, you know, Dave, the fact that
Speaker 1: we've never worked together is a bummer to me.
Speaker 2: But I appreciate you coming on the pod. Well this counts.
Speaker 2: This is a podcast collaboration, so we find here you go, Well,
Speaker 2: I'm going to bring it back because that you know,
Speaker 2: there's political reporters who travel, and there's political reporters you know,
Speaker 2: and you travel, I know you're on the.
Speaker 1: Ground, and you bring a lot of nuanced to your reporting,
Speaker 1: which I think, frankly, strategists on both sides of the
Speaker 1: aisle respect a ton.
Speaker 2: Uh and that matters a lot. So good for Thanks
Speaker 2: so much, it's real pleasure to do this. Thanks.
Speaker 3: I'm glad we can make it work. Yeah, you got
Speaker 3: a brother. Thanks well.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Dave. I know
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it because you know this is this is
Speaker 1: my bread and butter. I love I can go deep
Speaker 1: on any campaigns that you want to go.
Speaker 2: I love this stuff. And one thing and you heard
Speaker 2: me there.
Speaker 1: I do think there is one state that will rise
Speaker 1: above the rest as far as importance in the midterms,
Speaker 1: and it is the state of Michigan. And let me
Speaker 1: just say, I promise you will get I'm going to
Speaker 1: if you want to be as informed and as ready
Speaker 1: for these midterm elections.
Speaker 2: As you want to be stay with me on this.
Speaker 1: I promise you I'll get you educated in all the
Speaker 1: key places and we're going to be doing some deep
Speaker 1: diving on Michigan in the extremely near future. But let
Speaker 1: me take a few questions here a little ask Chuck.
Speaker 2: Ask Chuck, Hello, Chuck.
Speaker 1: I used to teach this comes from Brian Drake. Cutt
Speaker 1: it Brian f from track It, Massachusetts. Maybe it's track It.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know this town. Hopefully I pronounced it correctly.
Speaker 1: My apologies if I.
Speaker 2: Did not, and he asked U, Hi, Chuck.
Speaker 1: I used to teach ap government and politics, and my
Speaker 1: class would watch MPTP every Sunday and we would devote
Speaker 1: Monday's class to discuss in the topics. Always appreciated your
Speaker 1: insider analysis and love to have the chance to listen
Speaker 1: to you without the restrictions of the sixty minute show,
Speaker 1: actually forty four minutes. I just read a book called
Speaker 1: Lucky Loser, in which the author's journalists for The York
Speaker 1: Times exposed Trump's solution of success. I was floored by
Speaker 1: how much of his life has been built on live scams,
Speaker 1: and wonder how so many people have been duped by him.
Speaker 1: Will there ever be a Toto who will pull away
Speaker 1: the curtain?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: This was you get at something, Brian that I think
Speaker 1: was the greatest disconnect of the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 2: And you know when.
Speaker 1: People talk about did we properly? When I say we
Speaker 1: the collective, we did the media properly vet Trump? And
Speaker 1: there was always this aspect of Trump where I think
Speaker 1: we all assumed everybody knew the story. This was a
Speaker 1: fairly famous peep you know, don't you know he bankrupted
Speaker 1: three casinos, don't you know he did this? And all
Speaker 1: of his businesses were failures. And there was certainly plenty
Speaker 1: of stories done about how not had they simply let
Speaker 1: his inheritance just accumulate interest and dividends in the stock market,
Speaker 1: that he'd have more money today than he did when
Speaker 1: he used his inheritance to try to try his hand
Speaker 1: at real estate development.
Speaker 2: And it has always been, you know, he's he's it's.
Speaker 1: All been, it's all been smoking mirrors with him, right
Speaker 1: Atlantic City was smoking mirrors. Trump Airlines was spoken mirrors.
Speaker 1: You know, the Apprentice, it was always he always found
Speaker 1: other He always found other people to finance his investments
Speaker 1: and stuff. Now he's not alone and of doing this.
Speaker 1: And you know, I did the first interview I did
Speaker 1: with him.
Speaker 2: One of the.
Speaker 1: Pre interview transcripts that I became obsessed with was an
Speaker 1: interview he gave in nineteen ninety to Playboy magazine. It
Speaker 1: was for a reporter writing for Playboy, obviously freelance reporter.
Speaker 2: But it was It was a fascinating interview because it
Speaker 2: was as revealing as Trump ever was about sort of
Speaker 2: the what was sort of referred to as the Trump Show.
Speaker 1: This is in nineteen ninety, before there's an apprentice, right
Speaker 1: before there's any of this stuff, right, And I remember,
Speaker 1: you know, I even repeated what I said. You know,
Speaker 1: the reporter asked you. I went to Trump, I said,
Speaker 1: the reporter asked you about you know, the yacht, the planes,
Speaker 1: the girls, what is all this? And he called it
Speaker 1: props for the This was in the ninety interview, props
Speaker 1: for the show. And in the interview, Trump's answer was,
Speaker 1: and it's been sold out every day. And I said,
Speaker 1: props for the show, and he goes, yeah, And I said,
Speaker 1: and I remember asking him, you've been compared to P. T. Barnum,
Speaker 1: Do you take that as a compliment, he said, I do,
Speaker 1: and I thought that was the as revealing of a
Speaker 1: moment as you could have had with them, right, Speaking
Speaker 1: of revealing moments, I do, I do believe that. You know,
Speaker 1: there's always the pictures worth a thousand words and sometimes
Speaker 1: videos worth a million. If you just needed one video
Speaker 1: to explain Donald Trump's presidency, what it likely was like,
Speaker 1: what was it like to work for Donald Trump? And
Speaker 1: what kind of person is Donald Trump? The video of
Speaker 1: the staffer dropping the golf ball and supposedly searching for
Speaker 1: the golf ball and then dropping in to make it
Speaker 1: easy for the president to find. I don't think you
Speaker 1: need anything else. I think it is one of those
Speaker 1: need you say more? What else do you need to
Speaker 1: know about him? And I remember, actually, of all people,
Speaker 1: it was Rush Limbaugh who once said, by the way,
Speaker 1: that golf golf will tell you more about a person's
Speaker 1: character than anything, right, because you score yourself. It's all
Speaker 1: the honor system. Did you find your ball?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, I found my ball? Did you or did
Speaker 2: you not? Right?
Speaker 1: It's all self reporting. Oh that's why we're always impressed
Speaker 1: when a golfer penalizes themselves. No one saw it but
Speaker 1: of course with cameras today, there's always a chance somebody
Speaker 1: saw it, and so you find out who wants to
Speaker 1: be seen as honest before being caught, and who wants
Speaker 1: to only be honest after getting caught. Right, And golf
Speaker 1: is one of those very much reveals who you really are,
Speaker 1: right essentially, are you willing the cut corners? Are you
Speaker 1: somebody that has a foot wedge? I always say ironically
Speaker 1: it was Russe Limbaugh, because look, I mean there's stories
Speaker 1: of Bill Clinton was a cheater at golf supposedly, right,
Speaker 1: you'd hear these stories, So it's a I think it's
Speaker 1: an incredibly revealing moment. But to go back to the
Speaker 1: basis of your question, when I think about all these
Speaker 1: I don't think you know think I don't think we
Speaker 1: realized that the country needed more of an education his
Speaker 1: business background. I think there was this weird assumption first
Speaker 1: when he first got in, there wasn't the typical coverage
Speaker 1: you get of who is Donald Trump? Do you really
Speaker 1: know Donald Trump? Because nobody took the candidacy seriously. It
Speaker 1: felt like a publicity stunt. Because most of what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's done his whole life is aublicity stunt. And in fact,
Speaker 1: to those of us that have had to cover Donald
Speaker 1: Trump off and on, he was viewed as kind of
Speaker 1: he was viewed as that person. Oh god, I mean
Speaker 1: in twenty eleven, when he was floating the idea of
Speaker 1: running for president, it felt like we were all being
Speaker 1: used for just a publicity stunt for.
Speaker 4: Him to to to try to get NBC to pony
Speaker 4: up more money to renew The Apprentice.
Speaker 1: I remember getting a call one time, just sort of
Speaker 1: you know, putting him on speaker and on mute and go,
Speaker 1: I can't believe this guy is spending what does he
Speaker 1: have to do all day? Sitting here yelling at myself
Speaker 1: and Savannah Guthrie for thirty minutes. It's about why we
Speaker 1: should take them more seriously as a presidential candidate. Now, obviously,
Speaker 1: in hindsight, yeah, we should have. You know, what we
Speaker 1: should have taken seriously was not Trump, but it was
Speaker 1: the appeal of Donald Trump, right. That was that That's
Speaker 1: been you know to me, that's the that's disconnect number one.
Speaker 1: But disconnect number two is we did not we made
Speaker 1: too many assumptions that the what we we kind of
Speaker 1: knew Trump was was sort.
Speaker 2: Of this.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you want to call him, P T.
Speaker 1: Barnum phony, and we just assumed everybody else did too.
Speaker 1: And I think that if we had treated him as
Speaker 1: if he were Donald Smith, you know, a self proclaimed
Speaker 1: billionaire that people don't know a lot about, and you
Speaker 1: sort of were uncovering here's here was, here's how this
Speaker 1: deal really worked, and his this deal really worked. Perhaps
Speaker 1: voters see this version of him, you know, perhaps you
Speaker 1: don't need to pray for Toto to come in. But
Speaker 1: there's also a part of me that thinks that that
Speaker 1: this is something that maybe not that it will be
Speaker 1: like the Wizard of Oz. It'll be the end of
Speaker 1: the story when people finally all figure it out. But
Speaker 1: I often wonder if we collectively had sort of treated
Speaker 1: him as a candidate, that we didn't assume everybody knew,
Speaker 1: that we had dug into his background, as if we
Speaker 1: assumed the voters didn't know him. Maybe some of these
Speaker 1: stories hit differently, hit sooner, but you know, hindsight, right,
Speaker 1: what do they say? Twenty twenty next question comes from
Speaker 1: Jim parts unknown perhaps, and he asked us, why does
Speaker 1: the USA give such unconditional support to israel? I perceive
Speaker 1: nat Yah who's having more sway over Trump than vice versa.
Speaker 1: Why does the tail wag the dog here? People are suffering, starving,
Speaker 1: and no matter what Israel does, it seems they have
Speaker 1: our unconditional support. Why aren't we the one dictating the terms?
Speaker 1: You're asking a question that Jim Baker once asked of
Speaker 1: George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton's asked that question, Barack Obamas asked that question.
Speaker 1: Here's the irony is that Bibi Netanyaho individually has always
Speaker 1: been the one that's never understood that he that he's
Speaker 1: supposed to.
Speaker 2: Be the little brother in the relationship, not the big brother.
Speaker 1: He always has treated the American presidents as if they
Speaker 1: work for him, not vice versa. So you're not wrong
Speaker 1: about that relationship. And what's interesting is, you know, Jim Baker,
Speaker 1: this is George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State famously
Speaker 1: barred net Yahoo from the State Department. This is before
Speaker 1: he was ever Prime minister, but it was sort of
Speaker 1: Bbe has a way of wearing out his welcome with everybody.
Speaker 1: Ward is welcome with Bill Clinton, Water is welcome with
Speaker 1: George W. Bush, Wata is welcome with Barack Obama. Warld
Speaker 1: is welcome with with with Donald Trump, what is welcome
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden, and yes, even Donald Trump, right like,
Speaker 1: you know, because of the posture he takes.
Speaker 2: So you're not wrong.
Speaker 1: I do think this is catching up with him, right.
Speaker 1: You now have a Biparson coalition growing in the House
Speaker 1: and then the Senate that that can't support you know,
Speaker 1: that supports Israel, but can't support everything Israel is doing
Speaker 1: militarily right now in Kasa.
Speaker 2: It's you know, when you know, it's funny.
Speaker 1: When the tide turns, it really turns. I think the
Speaker 1: reason why so many American presidents stood by for so
Speaker 1: long is it Israel. Is Israel has been the only
Speaker 1: democracy in the midleaus right, true democracy in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: And so if we're not going to stand by them,
Speaker 1: you know, when aren't we?
Speaker 2: You know, why why wouldn't we do that?
Speaker 1: Obviously bbi's tactics and sort of you know, what he's
Speaker 1: done to try to change in judiciary is even sort
Speaker 1: of challenging, you know, sort of what democracy is and
Speaker 1: looks like in the in the state of Israel. You know,
Speaker 1: I do think that he's he's misplayed his lever whatever
Speaker 1: average he believed he had over many American politicians he
Speaker 1: is starting.
Speaker 2: I think he overplayed his hand.
Speaker 1: I think he's gotten he's and the problem, I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear what the problem is. He is so
Speaker 1: worried about his own legal peril that he's afraid of
Speaker 1: losing power. Right the minute he loses power, the legal
Speaker 1: peril immediately comes back. Right, what protects him from legal
Speaker 1: trouble staying in power?
Speaker 2: What has that done?
Speaker 1: It is as he's alienated more and more centrists and
Speaker 1: then center right folks right, and he's coalitions, he's had
Speaker 1: to lean more heavily on far right coalitions, and his
Speaker 1: far right members are very radical.
Speaker 2: They're anti Palestinian. They have never been for the two
Speaker 2: state solution. I'm old enough to remember when Biebe was
Speaker 2: for the two state solution, and he'd never put gold
Speaker 2: in a coalition with anybody that wasn't for it. And
Speaker 2: over time, for political survival is he has partnered with
Speaker 2: coalition further and further to the right that in many
Speaker 2: ways will punish him if he isn't aggressive against Hamas,
Speaker 2: if he doesn't continue to expand the settlements I mean settlements. Look, Trump,
Speaker 2: that was one thing.
Speaker 1: Trump just let him have cart Blatch And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump found common cause with net Yahoo because
Speaker 1: Yahoo became anti Obama. Right, So, you know, the way
Speaker 1: Trump is is very binary. The enemy of my enemy
Speaker 1: is my ally. Oh you don't like Obama? You know,
Speaker 1: it's just like, why did he suck up to Putin?
Speaker 1: Putin didn't like Hillary? You know that it may be
Speaker 1: the you know, maybe he's on Putin's payroll, but maybe
Speaker 1: he simply played favorites with Putin because Putin didn't like
Speaker 1: Hillary and he didn't like Hillary. And there's there's a
Speaker 1: part of Trump that's just very binary in his thinking
Speaker 1: that way. So, but I think he now realizes because
Speaker 1: I do think you know, Trump seemed Trump. Trump is
Speaker 1: moved by pictures, right, we know this, right, He believes
Speaker 1: in the visual. He understands visual. I think I've shared
Speaker 1: with you that he one time wanted to rewatch an
Speaker 1: interview I conducted with him without sound before, you know,
Speaker 1: just wanted to see what the lighting look like, see
Speaker 1: what he looked like.
Speaker 2: And you know.
Speaker 1: He's he cares about the visual. That's why he dresses
Speaker 1: exactly the same way.
Speaker 2: All the time. Right.
Speaker 1: He he believes the visual is a brand and it
Speaker 1: says something and the visuals coming out of Gaza are
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, look at how he responded to
Speaker 1: one of the questions. You know, I don't I know
Speaker 1: what the Israeli government says, and I know what I see.
Speaker 1: So he is moved by visuals almost more than many
Speaker 1: people are moved by visuals, and so it's you know,
Speaker 1: I don't I I you know, I think we we
Speaker 1: there's a lot of cynicism about Trump, and it's earned cynicism.
Speaker 1: I think he truly is is doesn't like being associated
Speaker 1: with this at all. Now, I have to tell you
Speaker 1: there's a there's another part of me that thinks, I
Speaker 1: where the United States of freaking America. Why can't we
Speaker 1: go in there and say, God, damn it, Hamas, We're
Speaker 1: coming in and we're feeding everybody, every fucking person. We're
Speaker 1: feeding everybody in Gaza, and what are you going to
Speaker 1: do about it? And we come in there like the
Speaker 1: mighty United States government and we're there to make sure
Speaker 1: everybody eats and everybody's got access to food. Who's going
Speaker 1: to stop us? So there's there's a part of me
Speaker 1: that thinks that if we want, you know, if we
Speaker 1: wanted to, we.
Speaker 2: Could could we we be putting some soldiers in harms.
Speaker 1: Way we might be, and that's not something that perhaps
Speaker 1: we have the stomach for, or perhaps the administration doesn't
Speaker 1: want to do. So there is a part of me
Speaker 1: that thinks that way about this, that like, you know what,
Speaker 1: you know, let's just push BB aside. We'll do it
Speaker 1: if he won't, you know. And that's who we are
Speaker 1: right where the United States, freaking America, and we're not
Speaker 1: going to let somebody start.
Speaker 2: We're not letting a population start.
Speaker 1: But I do think that BB has really damaged the
Speaker 1: politics of Israel in America. He's alienated half the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party by getting blatantly partisan during the Obama years. You know,
Speaker 1: he should be thank you very you know, he tried.
Speaker 1: He realized his mistake with Obama when he became the
Speaker 1: first world leader to congratulate Biden after his victory. He
Speaker 1: was he realized that he had You know, he's not stupid. Okay,
Speaker 1: BB's not stupid at all. He knows he made a
Speaker 1: political mistake. That the reason there's a rising anti Israel
Speaker 1: sentiment in the Democratic Party is directly because of how
Speaker 1: Biebe drove a wedge and sort of became a partisan,
Speaker 1: got involved against Obama and against Democrats in our country, right,
Speaker 1: got involved in politics, in partisan politics on the side
Speaker 1: during during the Romney campaign, and that was that did
Speaker 1: some real damage. In fact, I get into this with
Speaker 1: Richie torresm my Newsphere episode this week. If you go
Speaker 1: check out my interview with Richie where we talk about
Speaker 1: that and the damage, the long term damage politically BB
Speaker 1: did to Israel's standing.
Speaker 2: In the United States Congress.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, when I first started covering politics,
Speaker 1: it was the Republican Party that had more Israel skeptics
Speaker 1: than the Democratic Party. Pat Buchanan was the one of
Speaker 1: the leading and Bob Novak two conservative columnists who were
Speaker 1: both skeptical of the of this sort of unchecked support
Speaker 1: for Israel. Now it is interesting to see that that
Speaker 1: that that faction exists, and there's sort of the roots
Speaker 1: of MAGA I think are very Israel skeptic a little
Speaker 1: bit due to sort of more in the isolation is upfront,
Speaker 1: but you know, so this is and then the Republican
Speaker 1: Party became, thanks to the evangelicals, more pro Israel than
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. It's possible we're starting to see this
Speaker 1: coalition sort of reshape itself yet again. But look, you know,
Speaker 1: the future of Israel's standing with the United States, I
Speaker 1: think depends largely on how long beating that now, who
Speaker 1: stays in power?
Speaker 2: All right? This one comes from Daniel from Fairfax. His
Speaker 2: question is this. In your interview with.
Speaker 1: Jim and Marjorie, you discussed the long history of Massachusetts
Speaker 1: politicians having powerful national presence with presidential potential. As a
Speaker 1: lifelong Virginia made me realize we haven't had a politician
Speaker 1: with such a profile in my lifetime. I know in
Speaker 1: Virginia used to be the home of presidents. Right, It's
Speaker 1: still I think second to Ohio in elected presidents, but
Speaker 1: hasn't had a president since Wilson anyway. Do you think
Speaker 1: that is a product of governors having a single four
Speaker 1: year term referring to Virginia. Is it because the Commonwealth's
Speaker 1: politics have been dominated by birds and warners, with the
Speaker 1: occasional rob Kine thrown in since the post war air
Speaker 1: thus making it hard for newcomers to break through, or
Speaker 1: given the relatively stable state wide economy, Jinay, governors not
Speaker 1: make lasting national impressions provided they stay out of legal trouble.
Speaker 2: I love the new podcast. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Well, look, I mean, you know, Chuck Rob was supposed
Speaker 1: to be the next Virginian to become president. Right, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, with the leadership of Governor Chuck Rob at
Speaker 1: the time, created Southern Super Tuesday, you know for the
Speaker 1: eighty four election, which ended up benefiting Walter. It ended
Speaker 1: up becoming sort of it did eventually benefit of Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton right come ninety two, but it was actually designed
Speaker 1: to help one of these Southern governors and the southern
Speaker 1: governor that the party, the people in the party that
Speaker 1: pushed for this primary calendar change and was orchestrating this
Speaker 1: sort of one of the first sort of races to
Speaker 1: early up primaries and create is the Southern Democratic governors.
Speaker 1: They wanted to create a primary day Super Tuesday. This
Speaker 1: is the original Super Tuesday was just Southern states, and
Speaker 1: it was the goal was to elect one of these
Speaker 1: Southern Democratic governors, whether it was Rubin Ascue a you know,
Speaker 1: you had Jimmy Carter before them, but you had a
Speaker 1: Rubin Ascue in Florida or Bob Graham later, you had
Speaker 1: a Zel Miller, you had Chuck Rob, you had Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: you had Dick Riley in South Carolina.
Speaker 2: There was a whole series of these reform and they
Speaker 2: were reform governors. They were considered were from Jim Hunt
Speaker 2: in North Carolina, and they were all working on education policy.
Speaker 1: They were sort of staying at of cultural issues. And
Speaker 1: so Chuck Rob was that whole thing was. It was
Speaker 1: Chuck Rob lbj son in law that was seen as
Speaker 1: the future of that. And you know, in ninety two,
Speaker 1: Doug Wilder ran for president himself. Now he was in
Speaker 1: the middle of that feud with Chuck Robb, which I think,
Speaker 1: I do think the Chuck Rob Doug Wilder feud of
Speaker 1: ninety one ninety two, which by the way, is just
Speaker 1: a young political reporter. I mean, that's how I got
Speaker 1: to know Mike Allen. Mike Allen of Axio's Fame, Playbook Fame.
Speaker 1: He was a young cub reporter for the Richmond Times
Speaker 1: Dispatch and man, this was his beat. He had the
Speaker 1: feud the Warner they excuse me, the the Rob Wilder feud.
Speaker 1: One of the great inter party fights ever.
Speaker 2: I mean, if we.
Speaker 1: Had had an Internet era then, I mean there was
Speaker 1: secret taping, tape recordings of each other. There was a
Speaker 1: nude massage thrown in. I mean, if you really want
Speaker 1: to go down those rabbit holes. It's a it actually
Speaker 1: might be. You know, I've always tried to sell a
Speaker 1: thirty for thirty for politics. You know, this is one
Speaker 1: of those What if I told you that two Democratic governors,
Speaker 1: one who was the lieutenant governor at one point to
Speaker 1: the Democratic governor got into the type of fight that
Speaker 1: started secret tape recordings, secret you know, nude massages and
Speaker 1: how it, you know, upended the future of Virginia's democratic
Speaker 1: politics and presidential politics. So look, and Mark Warner was
Speaker 1: going to run for president, and then a guy named
Speaker 1: Barack Obama started to He was going to be the
Speaker 1: new media guy. He was the tech guy that was
Speaker 1: going to be able to talk to this new Internet
Speaker 1: community in six seven. Look, if Obama doesn't run, Mark
Speaker 1: Warner may have been that and had been a Virginian.
Speaker 1: So I do think some of it recently has been timing.
Speaker 1: Glenn Youngkin, I think is going to run in twenty eight,
Speaker 1: so there's another opportunity. But you know, I've never met
Speaker 1: a Virginia governor who liked the one term lament. They
Speaker 1: all think it should be, you know, and you don't. Obviously,
Speaker 1: you can serve non consecutively. Terry mcculloff wanted to do it.
Speaker 1: He just lost to Youngkin and couldn't pull it off.
Speaker 1: Terry mcaloff was going to run for president. He wanted
Speaker 1: to run for president in twenty twenty had Joe Biden
Speaker 1: not run, and I think had Biden not run, TERR
Speaker 1: mccallff would have jumped in to try to be the
Speaker 1: centrist candidate in that lane. So I look at and
Speaker 1: and Tim Kaine was Hillary. Let's not forget Tim Kane
Speaker 1: was Hillary Clinton's running mate, right, So I think there
Speaker 1: was certainly opportunities that just sort of you know, for
Speaker 1: a variety of reasons, specific specific folks. Look George Allen,
Speaker 1: you know, I profiled him early on in a Washingtonian piece.
Speaker 1: I remember I went to a NASCAR track with George
Speaker 1: Allen as he was starting to prepare for a presidential
Speaker 1: candidate in two thousand and eight. This was in two
Speaker 1: thousand and five. But he had to get through a
Speaker 1: reelection that most people thought was going.
Speaker 2: To be a cakewalk.
Speaker 1: Well, one Makaka moment later and he loses reelection to
Speaker 1: O six, to Jim Webb. And yet there's another Virginia
Speaker 1: politician whose presidential ambitions went up and smoked. So I
Speaker 1: guess what I'm telling you is, I don't think Virginian
Speaker 1: politicians have lost their ambition to be president.
Speaker 2: I just think that they for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 1: The timing, and that might be the argument you'd make
Speaker 1: is that the timing of the election calendar actually might
Speaker 1: be what has made it difficult for these potentially nationally
Speaker 1: interesting candidates to get traction in a year, you know,
Speaker 1: and be able to because if you think about it,
Speaker 1: the year before the actual presidential race is the midterm
Speaker 1: election year in the state of Virginia, And if you're
Speaker 1: a sitting governor, you got to worry about your own
Speaker 1: mid terms if you want to keep if you want
Speaker 1: to have a governing majority, or at least a non
Speaker 1: hostile legislature. So I think there's plenty that want to
Speaker 1: add their name to the list. But you know, there
Speaker 1: was a time, you know, I think I think, especially
Speaker 1: now with Jade Vance being in in the in the
Speaker 1: catbird seat to be the next nominee the Republican Party, Ohio's,
Speaker 1: Ohio's got a better chance of electing a new president
Speaker 1: than Virginia does.
Speaker 2: In that race between those two states. All right.
Speaker 1: Next question, speaking of Ohio, comes from Aaron Kay and Cincinnati,
Speaker 1: and she writes this, I may have missed this because
Speaker 1: I am behind a few episodes, but I thought we
Speaker 1: were taught growing up that redistricting was tied to the
Speaker 1: census every ten years and has only done once every decade,
Speaker 1: a year or so after the census. If that is
Speaker 1: the case, why can each state call a redistricting at
Speaker 1: whim or did they set new precedence?
Speaker 2: Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: You know, it turns out these were just norms, right.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a few places where it's written into
Speaker 1: the constitution that you can only redraw maps once a decade,
Speaker 1: but in most places it's not written to the state constitution.
Speaker 1: So then it becomes, you know, the assumption we went
Speaker 1: through this because you'd have a jerrymander and then a
Speaker 1: court would reorder a new map, right, So then you'd
Speaker 1: have a court order that forced this. Sometimes that's exactly
Speaker 1: what a legislature was intending. They wanted to force a
Speaker 1: court order so that they could open up the map.
Speaker 1: But I think that's the issue. There's nothing in the constitution.
Speaker 1: The constitution simply leaves it to state legislatures to decide
Speaker 1: the lines. They don't say how this state legislatures should
Speaker 1: decide the lines. Which is why if you want to
Speaker 1: use an outside commission to draw the lines, and then
Speaker 1: the legislature approves, you want to have the legislature draw it,
Speaker 1: so be it. But it's however the legislature deems the
Speaker 1: way to do it in state in said state acts.
Speaker 1: But look, this is the hallmark of the Trump bears.
Speaker 1: There was a whole bunch of things that we thought
Speaker 1: were there's a whole bunch of norms that we all
Speaker 1: treated as law, and it turns out nope, they were
Speaker 1: just they were just traditions we all agreed to abide
Speaker 1: to abide by until apparently we didn't. And I kind
Speaker 1: of think that's where we are in redistricting. And it's
Speaker 1: certainly a fear that I have, which is this tip
Speaker 1: for tat. I understand it strategically right.
Speaker 2: You know, the.
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to argue if they're going to do it,
Speaker 1: we're going to do it. But when you set a
Speaker 1: precedent of doing it, that's what you've just done. You've
Speaker 1: set a precedent and you've made it easier for the
Speaker 1: next legislature to say, well, if they did it, why
Speaker 1: can't we do it? And then once another party says yeah,
Speaker 1: we're going to do it too, well, then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, we have you know, we have no rules, right,
Speaker 1: we don't have a rules based system at all. And
Speaker 1: then you don't have trustworthy elections. Right if you get
Speaker 1: to decide who your voters are, is it a democracy anymore?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 1: Look, this is this is why if you heard my
Speaker 1: friend Larry Lessig a couple a couple episodes ago where
Speaker 1: he and I are advocating it might be time for
Speaker 1: a constitutional convention where we deal with things like this,
Speaker 1: and that you have a constitutional amendment that is a
Speaker 1: bit explicit that says, you know, either create either create
Speaker 1: an equation for redistricting itself. Like I actually think you
Speaker 1: can have an equation. You know, no district should be
Speaker 1: more than more than ten points ten percentage points more
Speaker 1: Republican or Democrat than the average percentage of what a
Speaker 1: Democrat has gotten over a decade in the last two
Speaker 1: governors races and presidential races. You sort of average those numbers.
Speaker 1: I know I'm sitting here describing some easy math to
Speaker 1: go by, but I would take sort of give me
Speaker 1: the average democratic statewide vote among governor's races and presidential races.
Speaker 2: Give it the.
Speaker 1: Average Republican vote, and then you basically say, no district
Speaker 1: could be ten points more Republican or less or more democratic.
Speaker 1: You know, in any district you draw, you know something
Speaker 1: like that that you create some parameters to at least
Speaker 1: minimize the shenanigans.
Speaker 2: That are played here with redistrict. All right, I'll make
Speaker 2: this my last question. It comes from Los Alamos, New Mexico,
Speaker 2: home of the.
Speaker 1: Nuclear bomb and mister Oppenheimer and at all. So this
Speaker 1: comes from Pete d. Los Alamos, New Mexico, and he
Speaker 1: writes this, my biggest fear if there was a constitutional
Speaker 1: convention would be the death of the most important part
Speaker 1: of the Constitution, the First Amendment. How can we protect
Speaker 1: the freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and most importantly, the
Speaker 1: separation of church and state in a constitutional convention. I
Speaker 1: do not trust my fellow citizens to keep that and
Speaker 1: certainly not to strength it back to the founder's intent.
Speaker 2: Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: I guess I just look at it as that it's
Speaker 1: the way, you know, you still would have the same
Speaker 1: rules of it would take, you know, supermajorities to approve
Speaker 1: an amendment, supermajorities to get this done, so I think
Speaker 1: there would be compromises. I just don't think the first
Speaker 1: amendment would get messed with. I really don't. I think realistically,
Speaker 1: I think you get a balanced budget amendment, which would
Speaker 1: wreak some havoc at first on our budget, but I
Speaker 1: think that would I think that would get in there.
Speaker 1: I think you might get a campaign finance law in there.
Speaker 1: I think you would get term limits or age Actually,
Speaker 1: I think what's more likely is age limits. Right, since
Speaker 1: age minimums are already in the constitution, I think it
Speaker 1: makes it easier to sell age limits in the constitution.
Speaker 1: So maybe we would have it for the judiciary, for
Speaker 1: the Senate, for the House, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But I just.
Speaker 1: I hate the idea that you can't trust your fellow citizens.
Speaker 1: If we can't trust each other at a constitutional convention,
Speaker 1: then aren't we Isn't the Republic already lost? So I
Speaker 1: guess I'm I'm That's where I'm ultimately, I'm betting I'm
Speaker 1: the better angel.
Speaker 2: I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying you're not wrong and you're concerned. I'm
Speaker 1: betting on the process itself. I think I will say this.
Speaker 1: I think our fellow citizens, I think we all are
Speaker 1: more are are our patriots, you know when we're when
Speaker 1: we're put If we were put into a situation like that,
Speaker 1: I think we would be capital p patriots.
Speaker 2: I do. And I think that that that you know.
Speaker 1: The constitution, you know, now, maybe we would need to
Speaker 1: make sure everybody that showed up the Constitutional Convention read
Speaker 1: up on the actual Constitutional Convention of seventeen eighty nine
Speaker 1: and realize that, hey, this is going to be a
Speaker 1: compromise document. This isn't going to be the be all
Speaker 1: end all, This isn't going to favor one side or
Speaker 1: the other. This is going to sift out what do
Speaker 1: we need to update the infrastructure of our republic. So look,
Speaker 1: a lot of it would depend on leadership, but I
Speaker 1: think you can't. I guess I'm going to put my faith.
Speaker 1: Let me put it in another way. I trust the voters.
Speaker 1: There's always something to learn from the voters, even if
Speaker 1: I disagree with their decision, and I think our I
Speaker 1: think ultimately voters eventually get it right. We have two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty eight years with this republic. So far
Speaker 1: because when we've gotten it wrong, we've eventually gotten it right.
Speaker 1: Do we elect the McCarthy, We do, and then we
Speaker 1: eventually move on from McCarthy.
Speaker 2: So I think you have to.
Speaker 1: If you can't trust your fellow citizens in a constitutional convention,
Speaker 1: then I might argue the republic is more fragile than
Speaker 1: we thought. So on that uplifting note, I think I
Speaker 1: will end the end the mailbag portion for this episode.
Speaker 2: As always, I appreciate you listening, and I believe and
Speaker 2: this is one right.
Speaker 1: This is Wednesday episode, So guess what I'm going to
Speaker 1: see you in twenty four hours and with that until
Speaker 1: I upload down