Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds and Marjorie Taylor Green now sits on
Speaker 1: the Homeland Security Committee. We have a very interesting show
Speaker 1: for you today. Representative Eric Swawell from California stops by
Speaker 1: to update us on the mass that is the United
Speaker 1: States Congress. Then we'll talk to Alex Theodorna's about how
Speaker 1: Republicans are ignoring all polling about their lack of popularity.
Speaker 1: But first we have the host of the time of Monsters,
Speaker 1: the Nation's get here. Welcome back to Fast Politics. Get here.
Speaker 1: It's good to be here, so happy to have you America.
Speaker 1: We pride ourselves on our ridiculousness, but I feel like
Speaker 1: we may have hit a new low or high. And
Speaker 1: I kind of think there's like a the photos of
Speaker 1: people in the house trying to beat each other up.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that was something, although I mean to maybe
Speaker 1: offer a reassurance not quite recivil war level yet, because
Speaker 1: of course, famously before the Civil War there was like
Speaker 1: a senator from our congressman I think from either South
Speaker 1: Carolina or Mississippi, who beat up an abolitionist on the
Speaker 1: floor of the house. You know, we're not quite there yet,
Speaker 1: but violence, you know, parliament is never good. I think
Speaker 1: they're good this as an interim Republican right Republican and
Speaker 1: Republican violence. Yeah, Republican on Republican violence is well, you know,
Speaker 1: I say, let them sort of them. I mean it
Speaker 1: does remind me of this sort of civil war. Didn't
Speaker 1: you have standartors caning each other on the floor. Yeah, no, famously, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a very famous incident and people you know,
Speaker 1: challenging each other duels and yes, yes that's right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I don't think we're quite at the civil
Speaker 1: war stage hip. But on the other hand, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean I have to like always do a check.
Speaker 1: I think you probably saw the story this morning of
Speaker 1: from New Mexico of the failed candidate Toloman Pena I
Speaker 1: believe is his name, and he was trying to shoot
Speaker 1: up Democrats and hiring people to shoot up Democrats as Yeah,
Speaker 1: as someone who spends a lot of time in New Mexico,
Speaker 1: I will say there was an important caveat in the art.
Speaker 1: In one of the first reported articles, which I think
Speaker 1: was from a local newspaper which said something effective like, well,
Speaker 1: not entirely clear, because, as you know, New Mexico is
Speaker 1: very high murder and shooting, right, they had to make
Speaker 1: sure that this was not just like random. Sure. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I think we kind of have you know,
Speaker 1: that provides Oh and I think that were periods in
Speaker 1: American history were political violence was much higher than now.
Speaker 1: I'm actually think, you know, like the eighteen fifties, like
Speaker 1: you know, there was like actually a lot of violence,
Speaker 1: things like Bleeding Kansas, and even in the nineteen sixties
Speaker 1: and nineteen seventies, when you look at the number of
Speaker 1: bombings and um tutings and assassinations most famously, it was
Speaker 1: like at a higher level that we have now. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, I don't think we should be complacent, Right,
Speaker 1: there's a kind of you know, new political violence. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think one way to think about it is, I
Speaker 1: think Trump didn't really ever create anything, but he's created
Speaker 1: new permission structors for people to open up some of
Speaker 1: that bottled anger that they have inside of them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think we're seeing the consequences of some of that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I think I think it's
Speaker 1: worrying I've been talking to a little bit more optimistic.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think we've had three elections since, right,
Speaker 1: like two, and I think the Democrats are getting better
Speaker 1: actually over time, like you know, foregrounding the problems with
Speaker 1: Republican extremism and using it for its advantages. And I
Speaker 1: think that like in a lot of places, it's worked
Speaker 1: to their advantage. I mean, and honestly, like if the
Speaker 1: New York State Democratic Party weren't this like amazing contraption
Speaker 1: of ineptness and corruption, think I think that could still
Speaker 1: be speaker or Kim Jeffreys could be speaker. It was
Speaker 1: pretty close. Yeah, No, I think that's right. And I
Speaker 1: mean I also think that it's like a situation where
Speaker 1: you have the FBI has gotten much better at stopping
Speaker 1: some of these crimes, right, so you know, like with
Speaker 1: Governor Gretchen Whitmer, you're seeing, you know, like that could
Speaker 1: have really gotten to be a very messy and ugly
Speaker 1: situation where she and they foiled the kidnapping. So I
Speaker 1: do think it's sort of interesting. And then you have
Speaker 1: the far right super mad at the FBI and saying
Speaker 1: like the FBI is like this tool of the woke
Speaker 1: globalist establishment. I mean, so we are. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone on the left thinks that the FBI
Speaker 1: is on their side famously. U yeah, I know. I
Speaker 1: mean it was interesting I figure out what it was.
Speaker 1: But Trump had a sort of acronym for the FBI,
Speaker 1: like you know, forever barging interthing reminded me of you know,
Speaker 1: there's some MAFI also's thinking that maybe gaudy family who
Speaker 1: said FBI is forever bothering Italian so tump. So it's
Speaker 1: funny because I once Pete Strick explained to me the
Speaker 1: sort of how trumpy all of these law enforcement agencies are.
Speaker 1: And he had been at the FBI, and he had
Speaker 1: actually been very involved in training a lot of FBI agents,
Speaker 1: and he said that sort of the most trumpy was
Speaker 1: the Secret Service and the Border Control. You know, those
Speaker 1: people are like very trumpy. And then you have you know,
Speaker 1: sort of lesser degree. You know, as you sort of
Speaker 1: get to be more of a kind of I don't
Speaker 1: want to sound like a snob here, but as you
Speaker 1: it to be people who are like, you know, more trained,
Speaker 1: they get sort of less and less trumpy. I just
Speaker 1: thought that was pretty interesting that, yeah, yeah, I know.
Speaker 1: I mean we weren't talk enough about the Secret Service.
Speaker 1: I mean there's a couple of things. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: like reporting out there that Biden is, you know, concerned
Speaker 1: about the Secret Service and doesn't quite trust them, which
Speaker 1: as well, I mean would you I would not? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that's a big thing. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, there was that thing without January six where
Speaker 1: I think the exact details maybe you can remember them,
Speaker 1: but like they seemed to be like Pence was worried
Speaker 1: about the Secret Service as well well. And also Pence
Speaker 1: remember they wanted him to get in that car and
Speaker 1: he wouldn't get in the car. I mean that's what
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about. Yea. There were so many machinations. Again,
Speaker 1: like we don't want to sound conspiratorial, certainly not, but
Speaker 1: there were a lot of a lot of things that
Speaker 1: the January six Committee was unable to thread the needle on.
Speaker 1: But had any of them been proven, they would have
Speaker 1: been pretty shocking. I mean, there's a reported evidence out
Speaker 1: there that suggests at least part of the Secret Services compromised,
Speaker 1: and and that there are people, you know, um, including
Speaker 1: pens and Biden, who are a bit concerned about that's
Speaker 1: an area of concern. So none of it is good
Speaker 1: within limits. I think that some of the political response
Speaker 1: has been good. I mean, I think one thing one
Speaker 1: can sort of talk about is the January six Report.
Speaker 1: In January six, I mean, I think that the January
Speaker 1: six Commission was very important, and I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: and I was something somebody who was kind of a
Speaker 1: bit cautious and concerned about it because I wasn't sure that,
Speaker 1: you know, this would actually win people over. But I
Speaker 1: think that in some ways that a lot of a
Speaker 1: Republican election denialist losing in the mid terms was due
Speaker 1: to the January six Commission keeping this issue in the
Speaker 1: four ground, keeping it alive in people. And yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean one can have concerns or critiques, you know, like
Speaker 1: The New Yorker has a big critique from Jillapur, a
Speaker 1: very distinguished his story and about you know how the
Speaker 1: January six report doesn't like quite go into all the
Speaker 1: background in detail, and you know, I mean I think
Speaker 1: that's fair. I mean, I think it's very much designed
Speaker 1: to be a sort of prosecutorial brief. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think other people can take up, you know, the
Speaker 1: slack of what's missing in the January six commission. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean I would urge listeners to
Speaker 1: like resist the you know, giving in to pessimism on
Speaker 1: all this time. Like, I think it's a much more
Speaker 1: mixed record. I mean, certainly the problem is any sort
Speaker 1: of like law enforcement solution to this is only a
Speaker 1: partial solution. And that's for two reasons, one of which
Speaker 1: is that I think the GOP can always weaponize partisanship
Speaker 1: and both sides of them, and they can take like,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, of course, you know Trump took secret documents,
Speaker 1: but you know Biden have documents in his garage. Do
Speaker 1: that's all they need? I mean, like, I know, we
Speaker 1: can point out all the differences between Biden and Trump,
Speaker 1: but like they have their talking point now, right, they
Speaker 1: have the point that can politically neutralize this issue. And
Speaker 1: the other thing with like law enforcement solutions is that
Speaker 1: they don't get to the sort of political issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: the political issue is, you know, Trump has activated this
Speaker 1: far right element which has existed for decades, which has
Speaker 1: existed you know, going back to Reagan and the John
Speaker 1: going back to the John Bridge Society, you know, going
Speaker 1: back to McCarthy's MS as you know from your family history.
Speaker 1: Trump has activated that and has made it much more
Speaker 1: powerful than the Republican Party. And that's the set up
Speaker 1: a problem. And I think there are limits, you know,
Speaker 1: you know when once the investigating crimes and potential assassination attempts.
Speaker 1: But there's you know, like I would insist that, like
Speaker 1: a law enforcement solution is only a partial solution, and
Speaker 1: ultimately there's a political solution, which is you know, Democrats
Speaker 1: have to keep for grounding this stuff and using it
Speaker 1: as a weapon to defeat Republicans. Yeah, oh, no question,
Speaker 1: And I mean, I that is a really good point.
Speaker 1: I mean, Republicans have been so brilliant about for example,
Speaker 1: like this. They've been continually saying and I don't mean
Speaker 1: brilliant because this is not a compliment, but you know,
Speaker 1: they've said things like the army is very woke, the
Speaker 1: army is to woke, the army is all woke PC
Speaker 1: And what they're doing is not that they think the
Speaker 1: army is woke, or maybe they do, but more likely
Speaker 1: than not they don't. But it's more of a way
Speaker 1: of trying to push back against any kind of sensitivity
Speaker 1: that the army maybe you know, being trained to have.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like I wonder with a lot of
Speaker 1: these Republican talking points, they're almost as if they're sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, they see a possible in and so there's
Speaker 1: a kind of pushback before there's even something to push
Speaker 1: back against. Yeah, I wouldn't think a little bit further
Speaker 1: than that. I mean, I think this whole issue of
Speaker 1: the army being walked goes back to a very specific thing,
Speaker 1: which is after January six, even before them, but it
Speaker 1: really became an issue after January six. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of concern about infiltration in the American military of
Speaker 1: having you know, these mega Trump best in the military,
Speaker 1: and we know Trump tried to put his own people
Speaker 1: in the Pentagon, including people who are very much part
Speaker 1: of January six. And there was a perfectly justified concern,
Speaker 1: you know, not only among Democrats in the Biding administration,
Speaker 1: but within depending on itself about this. And there was
Speaker 1: like a sort of concernative effort to find these people
Speaker 1: into purchase, like you cannot have people who would be
Speaker 1: on board with a coup uh in military positions. Um.
Speaker 1: And I think that people like Tucker Carlson, you know,
Speaker 1: took up the woke military stuff as a way of
Speaker 1: arguing against that as this is a way of trying
Speaker 1: to resist any attempt to keep the army non political
Speaker 1: and to keep you know, these kind of pro coup
Speaker 1: ideas out of the military. I mean, I think that's
Speaker 1: that's my understanding of it. And I think if one
Speaker 1: looks back at like Winn Tucker Carlson really started talking
Speaker 1: about this stuff, and also some of the people he
Speaker 1: was quoting, which are people who are basically let go
Speaker 1: over the military, discharge from the military because they had
Speaker 1: procu sentiments. I think that's the issue with stick there.
Speaker 1: And I mean I think the Biden mesisasion has done
Speaker 1: it more low key than say Bosonnaro in Brazil. I
Speaker 1: mean I was actually just about to bring up Brazil,
Speaker 1: but yes, go on in Brazil. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: listener should understand has a much more They're much more
Speaker 1: cool friendly. Yes, yeah, yeah, I mean they have they
Speaker 1: have any democratic prison Brazil I think has to worry
Speaker 1: more about because they had military dictatorship, you know, in
Speaker 1: living memory in the nineteen eighties, and they've had a
Speaker 1: military that's been willing to intervene, uh sometimes with the
Speaker 1: green lighting of the United States they've had a military
Speaker 1: that has been willing to overthrow democratic governments. So you know,
Speaker 1: Bostonnaro has gone pretty hard in terms of like you know,
Speaker 1: preaching the pro coup back in the military, which definitely
Speaker 1: in Brazil there was I think those are the kind
Speaker 1: of stakes here. I mean, I think in America it's
Speaker 1: a little bit we're not quite at the Brazil situation yet,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a little bit low key. The
Speaker 1: other aspect I would kind of put out sociologically that's
Speaker 1: kind of worth thinking about, is the average age of
Speaker 1: like people coming into the military is always going to
Speaker 1: be around twenty one, right, Like, like the soldiers that
Speaker 1: you're getting in that you're wanting to be played there
Speaker 1: work and be very young, right, And so the people
Speaker 1: that are coming in the military were all born in
Speaker 1: this century, terrifying, and we're voted after nine eleven, right
Speaker 1: like and so like, and if you'd like, you know,
Speaker 1: talk to like, you know, people that are born in
Speaker 1: the century, then their all view you know on some
Speaker 1: of our Republicans, but their all view of social issues.
Speaker 1: You know, trans stop of gay stop is very different
Speaker 1: than Fox News viewership, which is like so so of
Speaker 1: course if you're like, you know, Fox News viewer er
Speaker 1: Carlson catered to those viewers that, yeah, you know, there's
Speaker 1: something where the military, you know, just for recruiting purposes,
Speaker 1: just for like you know, like trying to have to
Speaker 1: get people join the Mosary is going to put up
Speaker 1: ads and have a different discourse and dialogue then you
Speaker 1: know Fox News is it's just literally like party to
Speaker 1: fifty year difference between the people who joined the army
Speaker 1: and the people watch Fox News. It is interesting to
Speaker 1: me though, that in Brazil they really they didn't funk around.
Speaker 1: They just arrested everyone. I'm not saying that the Brazilian
Speaker 1: law enforcement was right and the American law enforcement was wrong,
Speaker 1: but it's an interesting data point. And if you think
Speaker 1: about all the times we've seen since during the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: people with long guns and a R fifteens going into
Speaker 1: state I mean, and you saw that in Michigan they
Speaker 1: all went into the state house. I do wonder how
Speaker 1: much of this had to do with just the worried
Speaker 1: that a lot of these people had guns. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think there's a worry that they have guns. There's also
Speaker 1: I mean in America, you know your point earlier about
Speaker 1: you know how trumpy various law enforcements could be, and
Speaker 1: you know, like how you can enforce it. I mean
Speaker 1: the Illinois gun law. I think it's a kind of
Speaker 1: interesting you know, data pointed as well, like just in
Speaker 1: terms of you could pass a you know, gun law,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna be sheriffs in rural areas that won't
Speaker 1: enforce it. And I think some of the same issues
Speaker 1: come up here, like you know, like do you fully
Speaker 1: have all of law enforcement on board? He was worrying.
Speaker 1: I think Lula in Brazil took the right approach. You know,
Speaker 1: they have he has legitimate worries. And there was like
Speaker 1: you know, like even before the coup, like leaving up
Speaker 1: to the election, they were like you know, pro bowlts,
Speaker 1: scenarrow law enforcement and army. They were trying to prevent
Speaker 1: people from voting right, And I think that's one reason
Speaker 1: why the election was as close as it was. I
Speaker 1: think it's a real issue and a real critique that's
Speaker 1: playing out in the Double Credit Party. Is the biding
Speaker 1: inversation doing enough? Is someone like Merck Garland, does he
Speaker 1: like you know, too afraid to like take some of
Speaker 1: the tough stances against Trump and against the sort of
Speaker 1: insurrectionist that one might need. I mean, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: those are all open questions. I put it in the
Speaker 1: political context again, boy, I do want to say that
Speaker 1: I do think that there's a majority out there that
Speaker 1: is like horrified at the idea of insurrection and coups.
Speaker 1: And as as you know, as long as you can
Speaker 1: keep hammering that point over, I think that you know,
Speaker 1: that's to me, the road to get to the right,
Speaker 1: good place. That's the road to get the right to
Speaker 1: get back to normal. But do you think I mean
Speaker 1: normal was not exactly you know, but yes to maybe
Speaker 1: on that go back to you because if you're not,
Speaker 1: you don't want to go back. But I mean to
Speaker 1: get to a good place, to get to like a
Speaker 1: better better position, uh, to get to like a marginalization, yeah,
Speaker 1: to sort of get out of this trumpy anti democracy stuff.
Speaker 1: But I just want to ask you, as we find
Speaker 1: ourselves in this how much of you know, this coup
Speaker 1: talk and this election was rigged It didn't work this time,
Speaker 1: But how much of this is like what we're talking
Speaker 1: about with the military sort of preemptive strike to help
Speaker 1: have a coup next time? Yeah? I mean I think
Speaker 1: that's the more worrisome thing. And I think that the
Speaker 1: political reality is what one would hope that is our
Speaker 1: Hopkins Party having lost in twenty and you know, like
Speaker 1: not lost, but having a very disappointing would moderate and
Speaker 1: so far that is really not happening, you know, and
Speaker 1: once sees it in sort of Kevin McCarthy and all
Speaker 1: this sort of the farce of his speakership and the
Speaker 1: way that he's like, you know, really empowered. You know,
Speaker 1: people were asking you to the right of Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's what you do. We understood that, like
Speaker 1: the battle over the McCarthy speakership was not like moderates
Speaker 1: versus the far right, as a lot of the media
Speaker 1: presentative that's absurd, Like McCarthy is on board with Margie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green. I know, it was like the Trump is right,
Speaker 1: the Trump is right of McCarthy. People who think that,
Speaker 1: yet the ultra McCarthy, you know, is an expression more
Speaker 1: Catholic than the Pope right, the altre Montaigne Trumps who
Speaker 1: are like Trump doesn't go far enough. Oh joke about
Speaker 1: like you know, finding Hitler in Brazil and says, you know,
Speaker 1: well would you what would you regret? He said? Next time,
Speaker 1: no more, Mr nice guy, right exactly. I mean I
Speaker 1: don't want to laugh because it is actually just thank
Speaker 1: you so much cheat here. I hope you will come back.
Speaker 1: It's always a pleasure to be here. Eric Swallwhile represents
Speaker 1: California's fourteenth district. Welcome to Fast Politics. Rswow, Hey Mollett,
Speaker 1: how are you good? Yeah? Crazy times here in Washington.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about this new Congress. Some committee assignments
Speaker 1: have come out. Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the
Speaker 1: House for now. If it was a law from it
Speaker 1: be called insurrection LLC. You know, they're here to defend
Speaker 1: your rights if you were held accountable to capital. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like a you know, one of those uh
Speaker 1: TV commercials. I think they're creating committees to defend their
Speaker 1: own rights because many of them are under an investigation.
Speaker 1: And if you happen to be one of the eighteen
Speaker 1: Republicans who represent a Biden district, I think Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: and his corrupt bargain to become speaker has written your
Speaker 1: political death certificate. Because you're gonna have to vote to
Speaker 1: defund the troops. You're gonna learn everything about what was
Speaker 1: inside Hunter Biden's laptop, and you're gonna do absolutely zero
Speaker 1: to take on the issues you ran on, you know,
Speaker 1: bringing down the cost of healthcare, groceries, gas, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about motion to VAKA because
Speaker 1: one of the many things that Kevin McCarthy did to
Speaker 1: get this job that he may not have very long.
Speaker 1: It's a motion to v K. Used to be under
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi was you had to be in leadership. Then
Speaker 1: it was five people. Now it's a one person motion.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that anyone at any time can
Speaker 1: call a new speakership race. Yes. My prediction, Molly, is
Speaker 1: that you're gonna see Marjorie Taylor Green be the one
Speaker 1: who does it first. Okay, not in the prediction business,
Speaker 1: but it just feels like we're hurtling towards that direction
Speaker 1: because she, you know, has closely aligned herself with Speaker
Speaker 1: McCarthy so she can give her committee assignments back. But
Speaker 1: she's also promising everybody that Joe Biden and Secretary of
Speaker 1: Anarchists are all going to be impeached. And I think
Speaker 1: McCarthy is gonna find pretty quickly that those eighteen Republicans
Speaker 1: aren't going to want to go in that direct action,
Speaker 1: and I can just see it now. So that's where
Speaker 1: the Republican I think the House, you know, so poperable,
Speaker 1: will take us. You have stunned me. I'm rarely stunned,
Speaker 1: but you have stunned me. We see all these pictures
Speaker 1: of Marjorie Taylor Green practically making out with Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: and now you're saying she is going to be the judas.
Speaker 1: That's my prediction. Again, like who knows who she's loyal to.
Speaker 1: But if you if you follow everything she's saying. She's
Speaker 1: saying that they're impeaching Biden, and they're in peaching you know,
Speaker 1: my orchist. They're gonna expunge Trump, you know, for his impeachments.
Speaker 1: And I think you're gonna start to see these eighteen
Speaker 1: Biden Republicans pumped the brakes. They started to suggest, you know,
Speaker 1: even with the rules package that they passed at that
Speaker 1: was going to be too far for them. A Republican
Speaker 1: from a deep deep red district in Texas actually voted
Speaker 1: against the rules package because it was too far for
Speaker 1: him because of the troops defunding. So no, I I
Speaker 1: see that that's where this is going to be headed soon.
Speaker 1: And and frankly, Molly, the contrast I think most Americans
Speaker 1: are seen is perhaps we should not have given these
Speaker 1: guys the majority because we just had two years coming
Speaker 1: after on the heels of the Trump administration. Democrats delivered
Speaker 1: and showed confidence and Republicans are just bringing chaos that
Speaker 1: that seems to be the state of play right now.
Speaker 1: So I want to get back into this. The committee
Speaker 1: assignments are sort of slowly rolling out. These guys are
Speaker 1: super into targeting. You can you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about what happened last week with McCarthy. Yeah, and McCarthy
Speaker 1: loves to, you know, reheat the leftovers when it comes
Speaker 1: to me. And just for your reviewer's sake, what he
Speaker 1: is referencing is that back in President Obama's first term,
Speaker 1: a volunteer on our campaign in a district of Asian
Speaker 1: Americans turned out not to be who they represented they were.
Speaker 1: The FBI told me that we worked with the FBI
Speaker 1: to help get rid of this person, and Speaker Bayner,
Speaker 1: who was the Speaker at the time when the FBI
Speaker 1: told me this was read in on my cooperation. And
Speaker 1: this individual, Devin Nounez, who was the chair of the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, was read in on my cooperation, and then
Speaker 1: only because a Trump official, you know, tried to suggest
Speaker 1: that this was something else and leaked my cooperation. Has
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy, you know, out of political vengeance, targeted me,
Speaker 1: but Molly Donald Trump had access to more classified information
Speaker 1: than anybody in the world, and if he could have
Speaker 1: embarrassed me or shown any wrongdoing, he would have done it.
Speaker 1: And and and the FBI and three different statements when Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy started targeting me, have said there was no wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: only cooperation. And because we removed Marjorie Taylor Green and
Speaker 1: Paul Cosar, you know, for the small infraction of threatening
Speaker 1: to kill Speaker Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Alexandria Costo Ortez,
Speaker 1: they want to remove me, shift and Omar out of
Speaker 1: just pure political vengeance. And and so again it's as
Speaker 1: I said, he's going back to something that was in
Speaker 1: President Obama's first term, where the FBI repeatedly that I
Speaker 1: did everything you're supposed to do and using it for
Speaker 1: political vengeance. I don't Again, I don't think that's why
Speaker 1: they were put in the majority. But he seems to
Speaker 1: not be able to resist so let's talk about this
Speaker 1: because I just want to drill down on this a
Speaker 1: little bit. It seemed like McCarthy was saying, though, that
Speaker 1: he wasn't going to put you guys on certain committees,
Speaker 1: and that it wasn't going to be taking off of
Speaker 1: all committees. So he has said for me, the Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee and Homeland Security, for shift the Intelligence Committee, and
Speaker 1: and for ilhant Omar Foreign Affairs, and so you know what,
Speaker 1: we'll see again his his members have come out and
Speaker 1: said there's a number of them who have said they're
Speaker 1: uncomfortable with him doing this because I think it it
Speaker 1: does set a precedent. Because if the standard was don't
Speaker 1: commit political violence or threatened political violence, or you'll be
Speaker 1: removing your committees. And now he's expanding it to just
Speaker 1: using it against his political enemies, well there's no end
Speaker 1: to that. And you know, I think every Republican in
Speaker 1: his conference should worry that if they're in the minority
Speaker 1: next Congress, that they could just be picked off the
Speaker 1: committees under the new McCarthy standards. Right, no, no question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I also think it's super interesting that, um,
Speaker 1: that you have this sort of very delicate I mean
Speaker 1: McCarthy sort of one being pro Trump, but he was
Speaker 1: still you know, the people who were against him were
Speaker 1: also pro Trump, that's right, And he gave away, you know,
Speaker 1: the shop to get their votes. And again he's allowing
Speaker 1: them to with just one remember, take down the speakership. Again,
Speaker 1: he's promised to defund the troops. He has promised, you know,
Speaker 1: to leverage raising the dead ceiling to get cuts to
Speaker 1: Social Security and Medicare and benefits of Americans count. And
Speaker 1: so again he is I would say speaker light. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't call them speaker I think speaker light is more fit.
Speaker 1: When you're in the House, everyone just pretends everything is normal, right, No,
Speaker 1: I mean they nearly had a fist fight, you know, well, yes,
Speaker 1: during the Yes but that was Republican on Republican violence.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I'm just saying, molly. They they bizarrely,
Speaker 1: one of their members stood up and accused us of
Speaker 1: drinking on the House floor, which again it's one of
Speaker 1: the social chairs of the House Democratic Caucus. I can
Speaker 1: promise you if there was drinking, I would have known about. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's no drinking. Zero. But again, what we later would
Speaker 1: find out was they were projecting what they were doing,
Speaker 1: because the people who were in the fight admitted that
Speaker 1: want that Mike Rogers, who went over to pick a
Speaker 1: fight with Matt Gates, had been drinking. And so again
Speaker 1: it's it's chaos. It's just chaos on their side. And
Speaker 1: c spans season two is definitely gonna get renewed. So
Speaker 1: what are we not seeing because you are on the
Speaker 1: floor and you are there and you're in it. What
Speaker 1: are not seeing as people who are on the outside
Speaker 1: the news is on smaller issues because the big stuff
Speaker 1: we have to do is fund the government, extend the
Speaker 1: debt ceiling, keep Ukraine in the fight. That's all three
Speaker 1: of those are gonna be challenged because you know, they're
Speaker 1: the chaos agents on their side. I'm still the chair
Speaker 1: of the Rare Earth Elements Caucus with a Republican from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: I'm still the chair of the Precision Medicine Caucus with
Speaker 1: you know, a Republican colleague to reduce rare diseases and
Speaker 1: detect them earlier. So on the small stuff, there's there's
Speaker 1: still friendships and working relationships and that will, like I think, continue.
Speaker 1: But on the committee side, you know the majority of
Speaker 1: their committee chairs voted to desertify the election. Right. So
Speaker 1: again that's why it looks like a law firm for
Speaker 1: the insurrectionists when you put all their pictures up, because
Speaker 1: they were pro insurrection and now they have gabbles and
Speaker 1: subpoena power and will litigate the grievances of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: for the next two years. Who do you think it
Speaker 1: ends up being the next speaker? Republicans have this very
Speaker 1: very narrow majority. I mean, if things get crazy enough,
Speaker 1: there could be or am I just being way to
Speaker 1: west winging here? A unity candidate look like the Unity
Speaker 1: candidate was Hockeyen Jeffreys, right, because he never lost a vote.
Speaker 1: And you know there there were Republicans who were, you know,
Speaker 1: talking to us moderate Republicans about possibly switching over or
Speaker 1: you're reaching out through kind of emissaries. In one case,
Speaker 1: somebody approached me about two different Republicans who were interested,
Speaker 1: and so I think they'll continue to flirt with that.
Speaker 1: But the reality, Molly is is again Kevin McCarthy struck
Speaker 1: this correct bargain with chaos agents who have threatened political violence.
Speaker 1: And so if you strap late that out, if you're
Speaker 1: a moderate Republican thinking about supporting a unity candidate, What
Speaker 1: do you think Margery Taylor Green or Paul goos are
Speaker 1: is going to say about you and aim at you? Right?
Speaker 1: So I'm afraid that when it comes to actually crossing
Speaker 1: the rubicon, they look at Liz Cheney and Adam Kinziger
Speaker 1: and you know, the security apparatus around them, and they think,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't want to be that. So they
Speaker 1: just keep their head down. And again they they're the
Speaker 1: ones that will pay the price because they're the ones
Speaker 1: that are in the Biden districts. Right, You're going to
Speaker 1: continually have this tension, which is these people can win
Speaker 1: a primary but can't win a general. That's right. We're
Speaker 1: here for that because we look at the courts, right,
Speaker 1: So the Republicans in Alabama, in Ohio and Florida, you
Speaker 1: know they drew uh these are egregious gerrymandered maps where
Speaker 1: the courts said, yes, these are illegal. We're not going
Speaker 1: to overturn maps, but we're gonna look at them in advance.
Speaker 1: So we expect there's probably three or four seats that
Speaker 1: come back to us. So in a plus four or
Speaker 1: five majority where they are right now, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: three or four back and then, as I said, there's
Speaker 1: those eighteen Biden districts. You know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: George Santos will run from a rio jail, but knows
Speaker 1: when that takes us. With Marjorie Taylor Green sitting next
Speaker 1: to him, it doesn't she get that that could theoretically
Speaker 1: not be a great look for her. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no no. This is this is him pledging for
Speaker 1: their fraternity, right like this, That's what that was. I mean,
Speaker 1: amazing stuff. Everything he said and the fact that he
Speaker 1: digs in with his lies that makes him more qualified
Speaker 1: to be in their crew. Been less right, That's that's
Speaker 1: what they believe in, is that you you know, it's
Speaker 1: the access Hollywood one, right, you never resigned, no matter
Speaker 1: what you do. I want to ask you about this
Speaker 1: Senate race from California. Already we have one or two candidates.
Speaker 1: Dify has not said what she's going to do though
Speaker 1: she is eighty nine, so she would be when her
Speaker 1: next term ends, which would be quite old. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think it's going to be a huge field?
Speaker 1: And also just tell us a little bit about running
Speaker 1: in Kewlifornia and what that looks like because it is
Speaker 1: the fifth largest economy in the world. You probably don't
Speaker 1: remember this, but I did run for president. Lasted a
Speaker 1: little bit longer than a cup of coffee, probably a gronde,
Speaker 1: but not event team. I feel like Brittany may have
Speaker 1: mentioned this. Yeah, yes, that's right, tour therapist. Now, yeah, kid.
Speaker 1: One of our pollsters told me when we were thinking
Speaker 1: about running for president. He's he choked, he said, I
Speaker 1: actually he told me. He said, it's probably easier for
Speaker 1: you to be president than to be senator from California,
Speaker 1: because to be president you just have to, you know,
Speaker 1: win the first four states, you know, Iowa, New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, and Nevada. And he said, if you add
Speaker 1: all of those states together, that's still not even half
Speaker 1: the size of California. So like, California is a state
Speaker 1: of forty million people, and you know, geographically, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's just you know, it's so difficult to you know,
Speaker 1: traverse the state. Um, you know, fifty eight counties. I
Speaker 1: believe it's just a big state. It's an expensive state.
Speaker 1: You have you know, um, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento,
Speaker 1: and San Francisco Bay area media markets. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's so expensive to run ads, so expensive to you know,
Speaker 1: reach voters, and so, you know what, it doesn't surprise
Speaker 1: me that, you know, two of the people who are
Speaker 1: being talked about to run, Katie Porter, who's announced, and
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff, who it looks like may run already start
Speaker 1: with you know, millions of dollars into the bank, because
Speaker 1: that that's what it takes. And that's why you often
Speaker 1: see billionaires run UH in California because they know that
Speaker 1: it's so expensive that it's real. It really does make
Speaker 1: a difference and gives them an edge. Um. Now, all
Speaker 1: of that said, I've I've got you know, I'm friends
Speaker 1: with Katie Porter, Barbara Lee Rocana, Adams Schiff, and you
Speaker 1: know most of us right now are focused on the storms,
Speaker 1: and once you get out of that, you know, we'll
Speaker 1: start thinking about you know, statewide candidates. Adam Schiff, I've
Speaker 1: worked the closest with. I don't have to tell you about.
Speaker 1: You know, how fearless he was during the Russia investigation
Speaker 1: and impeachment. And I think his words will be repeated
Speaker 1: for centuries as far as you know what he warned
Speaker 1: about and how you know apprecient he was on the
Speaker 1: Senate floor talking about you know, the duties of the
Speaker 1: president and Trump's portrayal. I'll wait to make any endorsements
Speaker 1: until after, you know, the storm season. I mean because
Speaker 1: California is one of those states where the primary vote
Speaker 1: is really it right. They don't have really you know,
Speaker 1: broad generals the way you do in swing states. So
Speaker 1: I mean, how do California primary voters tend to vote?
Speaker 1: So I'll couch it this way. It could be two
Speaker 1: different elections. And first remember it's a top two primary,
Speaker 1: and in one six team Kamala Harris in the general
Speaker 1: election faced off against Labretta Sanchez, another Democrats. So it
Speaker 1: is very likely that you could see two Democrats in
Speaker 1: the general election. That's not unlikely at all. If there's
Speaker 1: multiple Republicans running and a number of well known Democrats running,
Speaker 1: you can see two Democrats getting through. That's what happened
Speaker 1: in However, the primary in is a late primary. It's
Speaker 1: in June, and so if there is no contested Democratic
Speaker 1: presidential primary, the voter turnout will be relatively low. That
Speaker 1: is one factor. If there is a Democratic presidential primary,
Speaker 1: the turnout would be incredibly high. So I'm sure candidates
Speaker 1: are thinking about that. If it's low turnout, excuse, I
Speaker 1: would say more progressive voters are the words who turn out.
Speaker 1: If it's a presidential primary, then you're drawing really a
Speaker 1: broad base of voters. But I would not be surprised
Speaker 1: at all if there were two Democrats who make it
Speaker 1: to the general in this primary, because well funded candidates.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, that is wild stuff. So this Democratic California
Speaker 1: Senate race could go on and on and on and on,
Speaker 1: just like the mayoral did an lle It will be
Speaker 1: one of the most expensive I think senate races in
Speaker 1: the country. So interesting. Eric Swallwell, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. I hope you'll come back pleasure. Thanks,
Speaker 1: of course, I know you, our dear listeners are very
Speaker 1: busy and you don't have time to sort through the
Speaker 1: hundreds of pieces of pundentry each week. This is why
Speaker 1: every week I put together a newsletter of my five
Speaker 1: favorite articles on politics. If you enjoy the podcast, you
Speaker 1: will love having this in your inbox every Friday. So
Speaker 1: sign up at Fast Politics pod dot com and click
Speaker 1: the tab to join our mailing list. That's fast politics
Speaker 1: pod dot com. Alex Theodortas is an associate professor at
Speaker 1: you Mass, amherst and co director of the U Mass
Speaker 1: Polling Center. Welcome to Fast Politics, Alex Theodoretis. You know
Speaker 1: you sent me something. You work at you Mass, you
Speaker 1: do polling, that's your raison, Detrah, And he sent me
Speaker 1: a poll that kind of blew my mind because it
Speaker 1: was something I've been thinking a lot about. Can we
Speaker 1: talk about that? Yeah, so, you know we so at
Speaker 1: the UMS poll We we run poles periodically. This is
Speaker 1: not the golden era of doing survey research. But you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things we're always trying to get a
Speaker 1: sense of that I think surveys really can still do
Speaker 1: for us is give us a sense within certain pockets
Speaker 1: of which way things are moving, how things are looking.
Speaker 1: And obviously, the narrative coming out of the mid term
Speaker 1: certainly has been of a Republican Party that's sort of
Speaker 1: quitting Donald Trump, that has now seen him, you know,
Speaker 1: all these other things that he did. You know that
Speaker 1: those those were not enough to kind of to kind
Speaker 1: of leave him in the dust. But costing an election,
Speaker 1: which by the way, this wasn't the first election he
Speaker 1: cost them, right, it's the third, right, right, But costing
Speaker 1: an election, that's that's crossing a line, and so you know,
Speaker 1: you're hearing that elite narrative. I've been sort of suspicious
Speaker 1: of that. So we wanted to see just how much
Speaker 1: the rank and file have received this memo that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is in the rear view mirror, you know, and
Speaker 1: and there's some mixed stuff in there, but generally speaking,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not a party where the average
Speaker 1: voter is giving a stiff arm to Donald Trump. He's
Speaker 1: not personna on grata among the Republican rank and file.
Speaker 1: He still leads if you look at the way too
Speaker 1: early numbers, you know, he still gets the most first
Speaker 1: place votes. What's remarkable there is that Rhonda Santis seems
Speaker 1: to have become the non Trump alternative. All caveat that
Speaker 1: by saying that very few people probably know very much
Speaker 1: honestly about Rhonda Santis at this point. But he's he's
Speaker 1: in a dead heat with Trump still getting more first
Speaker 1: place votes and them being essentially tied and a head
Speaker 1: to head. But if you look at other things, and
Speaker 1: certainly it's not the case that most Republican voters are
Speaker 1: unwilling to have Donald Trump on the ballot. He's still
Speaker 1: a top three choice for he gets the most first
Speaker 1: place votes. He's a top three choice for most Republicans
Speaker 1: if you ask them, you know why, we give him
Speaker 1: a bunch of possible reasons why Republicans underperformed, UH, in
Speaker 1: the two midterm elections. Donald Trump only gets ten percent
Speaker 1: among Republicans. He's only ten percent think he's the reason.
Speaker 1: So what do they think is a reason? They think
Speaker 1: the reasons are the sort of old UH, stand by
Speaker 1: the greatest hits of rationalizations, media bias thirty so the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, and then you know, said voter fraud. Right,
Speaker 1: So we've got over half of the Republicans, you know,
Speaker 1: already choosing these things that are basically central to Trump's
Speaker 1: talking points. The vast majority of Republicans still tell you
Speaker 1: that Biden's election was not legitimate. After all the work
Speaker 1: the January six Committee did, the vast majority of Republicans
Speaker 1: are still not placing blame for January six at the
Speaker 1: feet of Donald Trump. Instead, they point to Capitol Police,
Speaker 1: they point to the Democratic Party and tifa's in the
Speaker 1: mix there. Um. They do not think Donald Trump should
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for his involvement in in January six. They
Speaker 1: continue to believe the narrative that January six was a protest.
Speaker 1: That's how they describe those events, and that's how they
Speaker 1: describe the participants as protesters. Interesting they are they have
Speaker 1: learned nothing from this election. You know. The truth is
Speaker 1: it usually takes a long time for parties to learn
Speaker 1: things because parties are not an it there they there's
Speaker 1: a big collective action problem, right and you know Republicans
Speaker 1: are dealing with that right now. I mean they, first
Speaker 1: of all, they created this. Republican elites created this by
Speaker 1: even before Donald Trump sort of cow towing to conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 1: you know, being being way way too willing to just
Speaker 1: allow these kind of conspiracy theories about Obama to build
Speaker 1: led up and fester. And then and then Donald Trump
Speaker 1: seized on that. Uh. And then obviously they just bowed
Speaker 1: down to Donald Trump for four years and have continued
Speaker 1: too largely. This is the problem is now you have
Speaker 1: this situation where it's going to take a long time
Speaker 1: for the Republican electorate to catch up to this message,
Speaker 1: if they ever do. I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: are anxious that this is sort of setting the stage
Speaker 1: for a Republican party that will not accept election results.
Speaker 1: This is the great tragedy of Donald Trump. And this
Speaker 1: is something that that for people like me. I mean
Speaker 1: I do polling, but as a as a scholar, my
Speaker 1: focus is on partisan polarization. And this is what people
Speaker 1: like me are afraid of. When you talk about partisan polarization.
Speaker 1: I say partisan polarization because it's distinct from polarization along
Speaker 1: other lines in this particular way. And and and I mean,
Speaker 1: as you know, we've been polarized as a country for forever,
Speaker 1: for decades, there's there was huge polarization. You know, your
Speaker 1: mom faced polarization with her books. We were polarized, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the feminist movement, of civil rights movement,
Speaker 1: in terms of Vietnam. There have been massive, massive divides.
Speaker 1: These divides, until recently, have not fallen along party lines.
Speaker 1: And that's a key distinction. And what happens when when
Speaker 1: polarization falls along party lines is that elections and democracy
Speaker 1: become the battlefield. And when that's the case, the greatest
Speaker 1: fear is that one side or the other will decide
Speaker 1: to not recognize the results of an election. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what we've seen here. It's terrifying. There's a there's
Speaker 1: a big incentive to do that. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that's largely what happened leading to the Civil War. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think we're on the verge of a civil war,
Speaker 1: but I do think we may be on a on
Speaker 1: the verge of a gradual movement of democratic backsliding caused
Speaker 1: by this election denialism that Donald Trump has inserted into
Speaker 1: our body politics. It's interesting though, I mean, these Republicans
Speaker 1: are sort of in denial, right. They don't believe that
Speaker 1: anything that's happening is real, right. They don't believe that
Speaker 1: they're losing because of Trump. They believe they're losing because
Speaker 1: of election fraud and the media and this and that.
Speaker 1: So and I feel like it harkens back to this
Speaker 1: idea that Trump, you know, Trump would say, don't do
Speaker 1: male and voting. But it was ultimately hurting Trump and
Speaker 1: his people. And I mean we saw that in Florida,
Speaker 1: so a lot of us were worried that this would
Speaker 1: undermine democracy, but largely mostly undermine Trump Ino and his people.
Speaker 1: I do think that their attacks on democracy were important
Speaker 1: in mobilizing democrats more than anything else. I also wouldn't
Speaker 1: dismiss I think there's there's been too much willingness to
Speaker 1: dismiss related thing, which is the which is the Dobbs decision.
Speaker 1: I think that had a big impact, especially among young voters,
Speaker 1: young Democratic voters, in terms of terms of mobilizing them.
Speaker 1: I think that yes, on the margins, people choosing not
Speaker 1: to use mail in ballots probably stifled some of the
Speaker 1: turnout among Republicans. But to me, the much larger concern
Speaker 1: is the fact that you now have a massive part
Speaker 1: of the American electorate concentrated in one party that that
Speaker 1: you know, just has been convinced that they shouldn't necessarily
Speaker 1: trust elections, and if it's in their interest and if
Speaker 1: it's in the elite interest to deny the results of
Speaker 1: an election, they do it. We look at January six,
Speaker 1: the events of January six, those were horrific. The much
Speaker 1: more consequential thing I think that was happening is that
Speaker 1: essentially we had a president with a tacit at least
Speaker 1: support of his party um and his supporters just sitting
Speaker 1: back there pulling on threads, trying to figure out if
Speaker 1: there was a thread that would let them stay in power,
Speaker 1: and this time there wasn't. But I don't really want
Speaker 1: to live in America where if there is such a threat,
Speaker 1: if they did control the House of Representatives, if some
Speaker 1: of these mechanations that they were trying to put into
Speaker 1: place actually had the potential to work where somebody does
Speaker 1: stay in power because they have the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: as a final backstop, or because as an even further
Speaker 1: final backstop. You know, what is the military think? Right,
Speaker 1: what do they have to say about this? Right? All right?
Speaker 1: You never want to get to that place. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: that's and and that's what worries me, right, that we
Speaker 1: move in a direction where a lot of Republicans would
Speaker 1: have been okay with that, A lot of Republicans wouldn't
Speaker 1: have said anything about that. That to me is what's
Speaker 1: scary about January six and the whole big lie. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, that's the underlying anxiety that we
Speaker 1: all operate under. But it is interesting to me seeing
Speaker 1: this polling, and I want to ask you abortion because
Speaker 1: the Jobs decision, we saw a lot of Democrats over
Speaker 1: performing in special elections, and we saw all of these
Speaker 1: bow in initiatives passing broadly that were pro choice or
Speaker 1: anti anti choice. But Republicans in Congress, one of the
Speaker 1: first things they did make another anti choice bill, and
Speaker 1: again it has no chance of passing. It's merely theatrical.
Speaker 1: But it does strike me that in order to get
Speaker 1: the they really have hit a point where, in order
Speaker 1: to keep the base engaged, they have to do things
Speaker 1: that alienate the mainstream. Yeah, I mean, and this gives
Speaker 1: you a window on some of the pressures that Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy and everybody else have to deal with. In our
Speaker 1: latest poll, we asked what the Republican House should do,
Speaker 1: and this is, you know, again, after mediocre showing at
Speaker 1: best in the mid terms and having a very arrow
Speaker 1: margin obviously in the House, and Republican voters in massive
Speaker 1: numbers want them to impeach Joe Biden, and not only that,
Speaker 1: but expect that they will. More than half. They want
Speaker 1: them to investigate Hunter Biden obviously, investigate the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Invest I mean we're talking about in the eighties and nineties. Numbers,
Speaker 1: investigate the dealing with the southern border, and similar numbers
Speaker 1: want them to pass legislation that has no chance of
Speaker 1: becoming law just for the sake of passing that legislation.
Speaker 1: Only only about half said that they should also pass
Speaker 1: some compromise with Democrats and Joe Biden in order to
Speaker 1: actually pass things. It's so incredibly insane. Obviously, it's not
Speaker 1: the legacy of Trump. It's the legacy of of Reagan,
Speaker 1: you know, of Watergate, of nix It. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is you know, the Southern strategy. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: but it is like Trump was like, why are we
Speaker 1: disavowing white supremacists when we can just go along with
Speaker 1: them and that will increase our voters. And I think, like,
Speaker 1: we're seeing why you don't want to do that. Trump
Speaker 1: basically did away with the dog whistle. You can just
Speaker 1: say it and and and hopefully that's not the lesson
Speaker 1: that Republicans have taken. But I fear it is that
Speaker 1: a lot of Republican elites have sort of learned from
Speaker 1: Trump's example that you know, there are no consequences. And
Speaker 1: by the way, that is another thing that polarization and
Speaker 1: hyper polarization brings us. You know, you're not dealing. It
Speaker 1: makes accountability much more difficult. If voters are so divided
Speaker 1: into these into these party silos, and they're hearing different
Speaker 1: media and exposed to a completely different universe of people,
Speaker 1: it makes it very hard to to break through, you
Speaker 1: really get like an event horizon in terms of UH,
Speaker 1: in terms of trying to communicate, It's like the Santos thing.
Speaker 1: You know, people are saying, well, why should he resign
Speaker 1: in all politicians, you know, instead of saying like this
Speaker 1: person is morally corrupt or you know, it's he's our
Speaker 1: guy and I'd rather have our guy than you know.
Speaker 1: It is curious to me as we're talking about this
Speaker 1: that I mean, it seems to me like Republicans are
Speaker 1: just unwilling to take the pain they would need to
Speaker 1: take in order to pivot back to center. It's very
Speaker 1: hard once you push a party in this direction. They've
Speaker 1: gone very far in this direction, right, They've purged most
Speaker 1: of the people who would want to do that, and
Speaker 1: then you have this group that their whole purpose is
Speaker 1: not to legislate or anything else, it's to push this
Speaker 1: It's basically to serve as as trolls of the left.
Speaker 1: It's extremely hard. And you know, this whole narrative thing,
Speaker 1: this this notion that somehow the party was going to
Speaker 1: pivot because of one clear loss that could be attributed
Speaker 1: to Trump serving as an albatross around the neck of
Speaker 1: Republicans and their electoral fortunes. You know that that's asking
Speaker 1: a lot. It takes a long time. It took a
Speaker 1: long time in the eighties, for example, for Democrats to
Speaker 1: sort of switch course. And the reason for that is
Speaker 1: that these these narratives post election tend to very much
Speaker 1: be a roar shock test. As you said, you know,
Speaker 1: everybody kind and and all of us do it. There's
Speaker 1: always an argument. I mean, Bernie Sanders supporters are still
Speaker 1: talking about ways in which he would have beaten Trump,
Speaker 1: and there's this strong impulse to engage in motivated reasoning,
Speaker 1: to rationalize the thing that you already believed. And so
Speaker 1: it's very easy to do that in a world where
Speaker 1: we're only seeing one reality and we have we don't
Speaker 1: see all the counter factuals, and so it's very easy
Speaker 1: to say, okay, well, in this counterfactual that I preferred,
Speaker 1: we would have ended up in this, in this blissful place, right. Interesting, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I mean that's what happens if you have no
Speaker 1: sense of like what the mainstream world is like, you
Speaker 1: just have these sideloed right wing media ecosystem. Can you
Speaker 1: explain a little bit about how you guys are are
Speaker 1: you working on changing polling to reflect better our new world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, one thing we really want to do is
Speaker 1: change what we ask of polls more than anything else.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a big part of the problem.
Speaker 1: You know, a poll can't tell you who's going to
Speaker 1: win a one or two percentage point election. What I
Speaker 1: always tell people is that it is sort of remarkable
Speaker 1: in this day and age that polling is as good
Speaker 1: as it is because the challenges are incredible. You know.
Speaker 1: I tell my students that there are two art forms
Speaker 1: that have really been challenged by cell phones and call
Speaker 1: our idea, and one of them is prank phone calling,
Speaker 1: you know, which was a big thing when I was
Speaker 1: a kid. May it rest in peace, and you can't
Speaker 1: do it anymore, and and pulling. People just don't answer
Speaker 1: their phones. It used to be you could in the
Speaker 1: eighties you could draw a simple random sample by randomly
Speaker 1: choosing phone numbers and most people answered and you had
Speaker 1: a really good picture. Now there's so much work you
Speaker 1: have to do, and it's made harder by polarization. It's
Speaker 1: made harder by turnout differentials and things like that. So
Speaker 1: there's just a lot of work that goes in that
Speaker 1: creates variability on polls, but they still can answer a
Speaker 1: lot of questions in terms of big movements in opinion. Right,
Speaker 1: is it most of Republicans who believe that the election
Speaker 1: was stolen? Not so much? Is it fifty one? Or
Speaker 1: that such and such a candidate is going to receive
Speaker 1: And also there are things that we can learn about
Speaker 1: the internal workings of political cognition and political psychology. And
Speaker 1: so we try to bring the things that we've learned
Speaker 1: as scholars, which tend to be very different from what's
Speaker 1: just of interest to the kind of polling groups out
Speaker 1: there that are doing these horse race polls, you know,
Speaker 1: experiments and and certain batteries of questions to really get
Speaker 1: a little deeper while still making it accessible into political thinking,
Speaker 1: political behavior, political political cognition. And I think that's what
Speaker 1: we think of at the UMS poll as our comparative advantage.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Very interesting, my pleasure. Jesse Cannon, Molly,
Speaker 1: John Fast, George Santos, George Sans got another layer of
Speaker 1: the onion today. Where did the money come from? Where
Speaker 1: did the money come from? The ponzi scheme that employed
Speaker 1: repped George Santos for nearly a year has deeper ties
Speaker 1: to the shadowy world of the former Soviet Union, not
Speaker 1: yugoslavin the former Soviet Union that previously understood. Is anyone
Speaker 1: surprised by this? That would not be me being surprised.
Speaker 1: I feel like the the Santos thing has gone on
Speaker 1: and on. But now the question is where did the
Speaker 1: money come from? Spartacus wants to know where the money
Speaker 1: came from? Who among us? You know, it's not all
Speaker 1: tracked down yet, but it certainly sounds like the guy
Speaker 1: had no money. And then all of a sudden, he's
Speaker 1: donating seven thousand dollars to his campaign, sending money over
Speaker 1: to Russia, sending money over to Russia, involved in all
Speaker 1: sorts of sketchy shit, and for that he is and
Speaker 1: make continue to be the recipient of our moment of funckery.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds
Speaker 1: and politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.