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 Donald Trump is calling for the
Speaker 1: release of all the January sixth rioters. We have a
Speaker 1: fascinating show today. Activist actress movie star Jane Fonda stops
Speaker 1: by to talk to us about the candidates she's supporting
Speaker 1: and the mid terms. Then the Princeton Election Consortium's Sam
Speaker 1: Wang talks to us about what he's seeing in the polls.
Speaker 1: But first we have the author of kill Switch, Adam Gentlesen.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics. Adam Gentlesen. Hi, guys, Hi Molly.
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about Nevada first, because you
Speaker 1: worked for Harry Reid and this must just be making
Speaker 1: you nuts. But let's just talk about Nevada first. Let's
Speaker 1: do it's happening in Nevada. First thing I'll do is
Speaker 1: correct your your pronunciation Nevada. I'm sorry, what is happening Nevada.
Speaker 1: I'll be obnoxious about it. He had Cortez master on
Speaker 1: and she was like Nevada. When I worked for him,
Speaker 1: I had to be a stickler about it. So I
Speaker 1: don't work for him. Anymore, so I don't really care.
Speaker 1: But yes, what's happening to Vada is that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of folks will say, you know, it's always important
Speaker 1: to caveat looking at the early vote, and I think
Speaker 1: that's true for a lot of states. I think in
Speaker 1: most states the early vote doesn't tell you a lot
Speaker 1: because you never know how people's voting patterns change, and
Speaker 1: you know, the way people vote in a lot of
Speaker 1: different states change cycle to cycle. Novada is a little
Speaker 1: bit different because early voting has long been established there
Speaker 1: as his male and voting, and people are used to
Speaker 1: using it, and most of the state votes early in
Speaker 1: most election cycles, and so people have gotten very, very
Speaker 1: good at reading what the early vote means and and
Speaker 1: deciphering the tea leaves. Uh. And you've got great reporters
Speaker 1: out there like John Ralston who have sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: made a profession out of parsing these these tea leaves
Speaker 1: and drawing conclusions. And so all that is to say,
Speaker 1: it is probably one of the few states where I
Speaker 1: would I would say it is is actually worth looking
Speaker 1: at the early vote because you really can draw some
Speaker 1: firm conclusions, and the conclusions we can draw this time
Speaker 1: are sharky emoji. We don't know. Look, I I will
Speaker 1: say it's not as good for Democrats as it has
Speaker 1: been in the past. You know what they have in
Speaker 1: nevative We have this thing called the Clark Firewall. So
Speaker 1: Clark County is the is the most populous county. It's
Speaker 1: the county that include Las Vegas and suburbs. Typically, what
Speaker 1: happens during early vote is Democrats like to build up
Speaker 1: a substantial lead. Democrats are tend to be better at
Speaker 1: Republicans at banking early votes. Democrats generally tend to early
Speaker 1: vote more than Republicans. And so you know the sort
Speaker 1: of quote unquote read machine as it's known. Um. A
Speaker 1: big part of what it does is it banks a
Speaker 1: ton of early votes and tries to build a substantial
Speaker 1: lead so that on election Day, even if there's high
Speaker 1: Republican turnout, they've got a big lead to go on. Now,
Speaker 1: so that's that's what we know, is the and we
Speaker 1: call the Clark Firewall because most of that lead comes
Speaker 1: from Clark County. This year, it does not look like
Speaker 1: there's a very big fire all. Now, I will covey
Speaker 1: that by saying it changes literally hour to hour because
Speaker 1: these votes arrive in batches, and even someone who follows
Speaker 1: as closely as a guy like John Ralston will you know,
Speaker 1: put up a post in the middle in the afternoon,
Speaker 1: and then a few hours later another batch of votes
Speaker 1: will appear and have to update the post and say, oops,
Speaker 1: actually it turns out that it's better for Democrats than
Speaker 1: we thought. And so what's been happening over the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. It's not been looking great. And then
Speaker 1: new batches of votes have been appearing. And I don't
Speaker 1: want to imply anything nefarious. This is just how they're
Speaker 1: delivered by the postal service, and it shifts the analysis.
Speaker 1: Where things stand right now is that Democrats have a um,
Speaker 1: a bit of a lead. Is not as big as
Speaker 1: it has been in the past. Um, it might be
Speaker 1: enough for them to survive, but but we don't know,
Speaker 1: right But who knows? UM? So let's talk about what
Speaker 1: I actually wanted to have you here on. And Jesse
Speaker 1: just texted me about this because he is Actually my
Speaker 1: brain was what Democrats can do in the lame duck. Well,
Speaker 1: they can do anything they want, really, and they should
Speaker 1: they should sometimes in lame should they do in the
Speaker 1: lame duck more important life. Sometimes you get this sort
Speaker 1: of um, we don't give a funk anymore attitude in
Speaker 1: a lame duck, especially if you have lost in the election. Uh,
Speaker 1: if you've lost your majority, because you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of this sort of cautiousness that you had earlier in
Speaker 1: the year was because you were afraid to do things
Speaker 1: because you thought they might hurt you in the election. Well,
Speaker 1: now the election is over. If you've lost the majority,
Speaker 1: you know, this is your last gas in power, so
Speaker 1: you should do as much as you can. So what
Speaker 1: I think they should do is eliminate the debt ceiling.
Speaker 1: I think that the biggest thing they could do is
Speaker 1: to take that crisis off the table, because if they don't,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen is early next year. We don't
Speaker 1: know exactly when there will be a debt limit crisis,
Speaker 1: especially if Republicans take back at least the House. This,
Speaker 1: of course, is the you know, I'm sure your viewers
Speaker 1: are from your listeners are familiar with it. We have
Speaker 1: not had one of these debt limit crises where you've
Speaker 1: had a divided government since two thousand eleven, and it
Speaker 1: is an extremely dangerou this situation. I was there in
Speaker 1: even the last time we had one that really went
Speaker 1: down to the wire. This was when it really shook
Speaker 1: the markets. America's credit was downgraded as a result, even
Speaker 1: though we didn't quite breach it, we came right up
Speaker 1: to the edge. And there were a fair number of
Speaker 1: Republican members of Congress back in two thousand eleven who
Speaker 1: were perfectly willing to breach the limit and push the
Speaker 1: country into default. And their numbers have only grown and
Speaker 1: their power has only grown since then. And I am
Speaker 1: very much convinced that Republicans will be willing to push
Speaker 1: America into default once we reach that crisis. Even if
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy doesn't want to, he won't have the power
Speaker 1: to stop them. And so I think the most important
Speaker 1: thing that Democrats can do in the Lame Duck is
Speaker 1: to just take that off the table, whether it's by
Speaker 1: raising it a bunch um to push the crisis out
Speaker 1: several years, whether it's you know, minting the platinum coin
Speaker 1: that people talk about using the fourteenth Membment. I don't
Speaker 1: really care how they do it. I'm not a stickler
Speaker 1: on that thing, but I think they should do it somehow. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: were in a whole heap of trouble early next year. Also,
Speaker 1: now let's talk about there's more than that if Republicans
Speaker 1: take the House. I think it's important that we just
Speaker 1: say if they're going to do a lot of crazy ship.
Speaker 1: One of the other questions I had was can they
Speaker 1: do something to protect democracy? Can they do something to
Speaker 1: protect voting? Can you can they do something to protect
Speaker 1: the way votes are counted? I mean they can do
Speaker 1: anything they want. I mean they can pass HR one,
Speaker 1: you know, the bill that that failed in January UM
Speaker 1: and I think they should, but they'd have to get
Speaker 1: rid of the filibuster. For that, they would have to
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster, which I'm not sure you
Speaker 1: want to do right before you hand it over to
Speaker 1: someone else. We are now speaking theoretically here. Yeah, that's true,
Speaker 1: and I think there'll be a lot of hesitation to
Speaker 1: do that. You could also do pair down versions of
Speaker 1: those that you might be able to get fifty votes
Speaker 1: for within the caucus, or you know, they're they're voting
Speaker 1: rights can't be done through reconciliation. So if you're gonna
Speaker 1: do voting rights, you have to do it with either
Speaker 1: getting rid of the filibuster, or through a narrow exception,
Speaker 1: although I think exceptions are sort of um a fig leaf,
Speaker 1: and and Republicans won't consider it narrow they take over.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I've always said that the worst case
Speaker 1: scenario when it comes to the filibuster will be for
Speaker 1: Democrats to not do a bunch of things that they
Speaker 1: could have done when they were in power, because they
Speaker 1: left the filibuster in place, thinking that when they are
Speaker 1: in the minority they'll be able to use the filibuster
Speaker 1: to block Republicans from doing bad things. But then Republicans
Speaker 1: just get rid of the filibuster anyway or ignore it.
Speaker 1: Very likely scenario exactly. I think, unfortunately, we might be
Speaker 1: headed for that scenario. The one thing I would say
Speaker 1: about if you did get rid of the filibuster in
Speaker 1: the lame dock and you passed everything you know before
Speaker 1: you run out before the clock runs out on January three,
Speaker 1: and you lose the majority, if in fact they lose
Speaker 1: the majority, um, the one thing I'd say is you
Speaker 1: always have President Biden for the next two years to
Speaker 1: to veto. I mean, the Republicans could pass whatever they want,
Speaker 1: but as long as there's a Democrat in the White House,
Speaker 1: that's your backstop. I think the idea that the filibuster
Speaker 1: will provide a backstop is is not going to play out.
Speaker 1: I think Republicans won't let it block anything that they truly, deeply,
Speaker 1: really want to do. UM. So it's really about keeping
Speaker 1: at least one House of Congress and or the White House,
Speaker 1: and that's your backstop. What else can happen in the
Speaker 1: Lame Duck that like you think should happen besides the
Speaker 1: dead's heiling. What's gonna happen is that the Defense Bill
Speaker 1: is going to be the main vehicle and everything is
Speaker 1: going to ride on that. But you can stick whatever
Speaker 1: you want into the bill. There's they traditionally are what
Speaker 1: you know, what we call Christmas trees, even even when
Speaker 1: it's out of season, so you can put what everyone
Speaker 1: on it. One thing I think they're likely to do
Speaker 1: is bring back up this permitting reform bill UM that failed,
Speaker 1: which I think people have pretty strong views on both sides.
Speaker 1: I tend to fall on the side of of doing
Speaker 1: it UM. There are very reliable studies that show that
Speaker 1: most of the climate related gains in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: fighting climate change that that are to be realized from
Speaker 1: the pieces of legislation that we've passed in the last
Speaker 1: two years. Most of the need this permitting reform built
Speaker 1: to pass in order for those gains to be fully realized.
Speaker 1: Some environmentalists don't love it because it would involve some
Speaker 1: you know, fossil fuel production. Um. But I think on
Speaker 1: balance it is very Uh. It is a net positive
Speaker 1: when it comes to finding climate change, and a very
Speaker 1: big net positive. So that's one thing I think we'll see,
Speaker 1: um them do. Look you've got they could codify ROW again.
Speaker 1: That's a filibuster issue. They could pass some of the
Speaker 1: pieces that fell out of build back better, like the
Speaker 1: childcare tax credit. That can be done through reconciliation. You
Speaker 1: don't need to to reform the filibuster to do that.
Speaker 1: That's another big one. You know, when that was in place,
Speaker 1: it slash child poverty by around a third, and then
Speaker 1: it expired, um, and you know, child poverty is spiked.
Speaker 1: So I think they should pass it so that we
Speaker 1: can go back to reducing child poverty instead of increasing it. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, Joe Manchin was the one who killed that one,
Speaker 1: and I think there's probably a compromise that can be
Speaker 1: reached with him that would be a really great thing
Speaker 1: to do before the end of the year, especially in
Speaker 1: the holiday season, and you don't have to do that one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's let's children here, not a bad thing to do
Speaker 1: during the holidays. So I'm not sure there's any Republican
Speaker 1: appetite for that, because why would there by? Yeah, but
Speaker 1: that one you can do with just Democratic votes, and
Speaker 1: you can do it with a reconciliation vehicle that will
Speaker 1: still be available until the end of the year. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about sort of where we are
Speaker 1: right now and what you think Democrats should be doing it,
Speaker 1: and more importantly, how they should be messaging. I think
Speaker 1: that one of the things that Democrats should take away
Speaker 1: from this election is that we really do need a consistent, strong,
Speaker 1: and compelling economic message, and it has to be one
Speaker 1: that captures a lot of the anger that people feel
Speaker 1: right now, which is very valid. I think Democrats found
Speaker 1: themselves in the last year or so often in the
Speaker 1: in the you know, politically not advisable position of sort
Speaker 1: of telling voters that they should be less angry than
Speaker 1: they were, that they weren't appreciating all the great things
Speaker 1: we had passed. And I've been on the other side
Speaker 1: of that. I appreciate how frustrating it it is to
Speaker 1: pass a lot of you know, truly incredible legislation and
Speaker 1: not have voters know that you passed it um or
Speaker 1: you know, appreciate the benefits and but you know what,
Speaker 1: that's life and that's politics. We do tend to get
Speaker 1: caught up, as Democrats in this sort of laundry list
Speaker 1: style messaging where we list all the things we did,
Speaker 1: rather than speaking to people on an emotional gut level
Speaker 1: about how they view the world and how they see
Speaker 1: the economy as you know, an emotional issue and and
Speaker 1: that emotion that a lot of people feels anger and
Speaker 1: our our message too often comes across as telling people
Speaker 1: they shouldn't be angry, they shouldn't be upset, they shouldn't
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, their life is more disappointing than
Speaker 1: they wanted it to be, and they're looking for a
Speaker 1: you know, an explanation for that. We need to get
Speaker 1: better at explaining people why that is. Um. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of that has to test to run through,
Speaker 1: you know, a sort of populous message. That isn't that
Speaker 1: isn't you know, xenophobic, that isn't about excluding other people,
Speaker 1: but It is about talking of people who feel very
Speaker 1: angry right now about an economy where inequality is extraordinarily
Speaker 1: devastating fact of life for millions of people, where you know,
Speaker 1: corporations really have shifted from a model of you know,
Speaker 1: giving back to their community and having a bigger picture
Speaker 1: of prosperity in mind to just exclusively, you know, doing
Speaker 1: the bidding of their shareholders and maximizing profits for their shareholders.
Speaker 1: You know, these are true facts, and they have real
Speaker 1: impacts on people's lives, and we need to be more
Speaker 1: aggressive about articulating this to people because that does do
Speaker 1: something to capture this anger. If if we're out there,
Speaker 1: you know, talking to an angry population telling them not
Speaker 1: to be angry and that they should rather just appreciate
Speaker 1: all the great things we've done for them, that's just
Speaker 1: not going to be a winning message. This sounds to
Speaker 1: me like a sort of failure of Democrats to be
Speaker 1: able to bridge the gap between working people and unions.
Speaker 1: This is a question as much as anything. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think I think that's right, and you know, look, I
Speaker 1: also think sort of in the way this plays out
Speaker 1: in inter party conversations that it's it is often we
Speaker 1: have to stop fighting the primary as a party, you know,
Speaker 1: because a lot of what I when I say this
Speaker 1: to people, they're like, oh, you're a Bernie Sanders guy.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, I'm not a Bernie Sanders guy. I
Speaker 1: am a Democratic Party guy. I like everybody. I like
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. I also like Hillary Clinton, you know, I
Speaker 1: like Elizabeth Warren. I also like Joe Biden. Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: has a very strong economic message and if you can
Speaker 1: sort of you know, listen to the words and model
Speaker 1: the words, and you know, some people are turned off
Speaker 1: by the baggage that he has. You know, I think
Speaker 1: we should nevertheless really think about why his message was
Speaker 1: so powerful to so many people, including people who were
Speaker 1: sort of non traditional voters outside the Democratic Party, that
Speaker 1: we need to do better with No I agree. And
Speaker 1: I just want to say one other thing, which is
Speaker 1: I do feel like when we have this one party
Speaker 1: just not give a fuck about working people, right, they
Speaker 1: don't give a fuck. Like there's a reason that all
Speaker 1: these billionaires give millions and millions of dollars Republican Party,
Speaker 1: and its beak be cause of a state tax. I mean,
Speaker 1: even you know it's a state tax. It's taxation. And
Speaker 1: in fact, you're even seeing this more and more with
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, you know Ted Cruse, my my man Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: who always says the quiet part laud is like abolish
Speaker 1: the I R s right, abolished the this is what
Speaker 1: they know what that's what their donors want. So like
Speaker 1: the fact that Democrats can't explain that, like this is
Speaker 1: the party that wants to give rich people a break
Speaker 1: and Democrats that's the party that wants to help you
Speaker 1: working people, is like such a profound failure on the
Speaker 1: part of all of us, right right, And I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people right now are a little frustrated that,
Speaker 1: you know, voters aren't don't seem to be caring about
Speaker 1: the failure of our democracy per se, but you know,
Speaker 1: and that they're that voters prize the economy over this
Speaker 1: sort of more abstract thing of the failure of our democracy.
Speaker 1: But that's an opportunity for us. We shouldn't be frustrated
Speaker 1: about that. We should seize the opportunity to drive home
Speaker 1: are very strong economic message that also happens to be
Speaker 1: the truth, and rather than sort of be frustrated about it,
Speaker 1: we should say this is our economic message is so
Speaker 1: much more powerful than Republicans because we are actually the
Speaker 1: party of working people and they are actually the party
Speaker 1: of plutocrats and the very wealthy, and everything they do
Speaker 1: is done in order to give more benefits and shovel
Speaker 1: more money towards the people who are already wealthy. So
Speaker 1: rather than be frustrated by this, we should embrace it
Speaker 1: and just drive a mack truck through that opening, and
Speaker 1: you know, seize it as an opportunity and just really
Speaker 1: get get together and stop being divided in this sort
Speaker 1: of Bernie versus Hillary, you know, redux that we just
Speaker 1: get caught up in and and because I think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, we all believe the same things,
Speaker 1: and we really do believe this message. And sometimes you
Speaker 1: hear Joe Biden deliver it and it's it doesn't quite
Speaker 1: feel like he's his heart is really in it, but
Speaker 1: he is so good when he does it. And so
Speaker 1: that's where we need to just sort of go forward
Speaker 1: as a as a party and just fully embrace that
Speaker 1: and drive it forward. Obama has been doing it in
Speaker 1: his appearances lately for candidates and doing it very effectively,
Speaker 1: and I think that's something we can model. Who do
Speaker 1: you see if stars of this psite goal coming out.
Speaker 1: Anybody who wins, let's talk look environment, you know, but
Speaker 1: look Warnock, I think is is a massive star. I
Speaker 1: think if he wins, we should we should really be
Speaker 1: thinking about him for for bigger roles, for for national roles. Um.
Speaker 1: I think if John Federman pulls it off of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: you know, we should be thinking about what it is
Speaker 1: about him that allowed him to endure over a hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars worth of attack ads. I mean, people say,
Speaker 1: you know, Josh Sapiro will probably win by more, but
Speaker 1: Joshapiro had the only opponent in a statewide race who
Speaker 1: didn't spend basically any money against him. So, you know,
Speaker 1: Federman weather to a a hundred million dollars in attacks, and
Speaker 1: that's that's something. There's something there if if if he
Speaker 1: pulls it off folks like that, if if they win
Speaker 1: in a in a difficult national environment, having weathered you
Speaker 1: know so much incoming and Republican attacks, we should really
Speaker 1: ask them how they did it and and use them
Speaker 1: as models moving forward. Thank you so much, Adam, Absolutely great,
Speaker 1: great to start to you. Jane Fonda is an actress
Speaker 1: known for countless roles. And an act of and the
Speaker 1: founder of the Jane Fonda Climate Pack. Welcome to Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Jane Fonda, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: I'm so excited to have you. I have been wanting
Speaker 1: to have you for such a long time, since you
Speaker 1: started doing the fire drought protests. Can you talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about how you decided to do
Speaker 1: these fire droll protests or It was Labor Day of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, and I was very depressed because I knew
Speaker 1: I wasn't doing enough given that I have a big platform.
Speaker 1: And I decided that I wanted to go to Washington
Speaker 1: and camp out in front of the White House and
Speaker 1: protest for a year. And I called Annie Leonard, who
Speaker 1: is the executive director of Greenpeace USA, and I told
Speaker 1: her I wanted to do that, but I was concerned.
Speaker 1: I've done a lot of camping in the wilderness, but
Speaker 1: I was concerned about pooping in the city. How do
Speaker 1: you She said, don't to worry, because camping is now illegal.
Speaker 1: You can't do that, but there may be some other ideas.
Speaker 1: And the next day she arranged a conference call with herself,
Speaker 1: the author and activist Naomi Klein, and Bill mckibbon, founder
Speaker 1: of Three fifty Work, and we decided as a group
Speaker 1: to sort of copy what was done in the eighties
Speaker 1: as a protest against apartheid. There was actually that one
Speaker 1: was a daily civil disobedience in front of the South
Speaker 1: African Embassy. We decided to have it near the capitol
Speaker 1: and do it every Friday the way the students did.
Speaker 1: As long as the students approved that, I could also
Speaker 1: do something on Friday. And that's what we decided to do.
Speaker 1: And it became fired Drill Fridays, based on Greta Tunberg
Speaker 1: saying our houses on fire and this is not a drill,
Speaker 1: this is an emergency. And we decided to use civil
Speaker 1: disobedience because historically that's what's changed history, whether it was
Speaker 1: Gandhi and India, Martin Luther King and young activists in
Speaker 1: the South sitting in the lunch counters, the tea party
Speaker 1: in Boston, the beginning of our founding as a country,
Speaker 1: and so forth. And it worked. The first Friday, I
Speaker 1: think there were fourteen people arrested. In the last Friday,
Speaker 1: over nine hundred people were arrested. And the goal of
Speaker 1: fired Rille Fridays was to reach the seventy percent of
Speaker 1: Americans or who are concerned about climate but hadn't taken
Speaker 1: any action, and it worked. People began coming from all
Speaker 1: over the country to engage in civil disobedience with me.
Speaker 1: They've never done it before, and we when COVID hit,
Speaker 1: we took it online and a few weeks ago we
Speaker 1: had our eleven million viewer across all platforms. So it
Speaker 1: continues to be a successful program that is now part
Speaker 1: of Greenpeace, and we've trained people to how to call
Speaker 1: their elected officials, how to lobby, how to visit their
Speaker 1: elected officials in their home offices, writing letters, joining various
Speaker 1: campaigns to get out the vote. It's been good. But
Speaker 1: then we saw bill after bill, both both federally with
Speaker 1: the Build Back Better Bill, which was the bill that
Speaker 1: we needed to confront the climate crisis, and statewide here
Speaker 1: in California. There were so many climate bills that were
Speaker 1: so good that were killed by people in the legislature
Speaker 1: or Congress and the Senate who were taking money from
Speaker 1: the fossil fuel industry. I mean, the most egregious example
Speaker 1: is Joe Mansion, but there are many of others, and
Speaker 1: a lot of them are moderate Democrats, and so we
Speaker 1: decided that what we had to do was to elect
Speaker 1: climate champions signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge and
Speaker 1: try to get them elected to office and get the
Speaker 1: people who were obstructionists who were pro fossil fuels out,
Speaker 1: because somebody that's gonna take money from the fossil fuel
Speaker 1: industry right now, given what we know, is somebody who's
Speaker 1: probably also anti raised the mirimum wage and anti Joyce, etcetera.
Speaker 1: People who are standing up for the climate tend to
Speaker 1: be people who vote for a woman's right to choose
Speaker 1: whether or not to get pregnant a woman's They tend
Speaker 1: to be humanitarian generally across the board. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's right. I went to one of the climate change events. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was amazing and very moving. Those are in d C.
Speaker 1: In d C. When you were doing it in d C,
Speaker 1: which one it was, I can't remember who it was,
Speaker 1: who you had with you, but it was really interesting
Speaker 1: and moving and you got arrested five times, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I couldn't keep getting arrested because after a certain
Speaker 1: number of times then you get put in jail for
Speaker 1: many months. I got a contract to continue making Grace
Speaker 1: and Frankie, so I couldn't do that four months. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you've been this activist consistently throughout your life and your career.
Speaker 1: Doesn't it give you a certain like good feeling that
Speaker 1: you have been on the forefront of this for such
Speaker 1: a long time, or does it just frustrate you? Oh?
Speaker 1: I don't get frustrated. Really, I get I get angry,
Speaker 1: but I try to play the long game. I think
Speaker 1: what we're up against is a mindset that has developed
Speaker 1: over millennia and this is not going to be changed quickly.
Speaker 1: People often ask me, because I've been involved as an
Speaker 1: activist for a long time, well, is it any easier
Speaker 1: now that we have social media? And yes, it's easier
Speaker 1: to call a demonstration because you can reach so many
Speaker 1: people easily, But no, when it comes to building a movement,
Speaker 1: you can't build a movement with Twitter and Instagram. You
Speaker 1: you have to be on the ground year after year
Speaker 1: after year. And it takes a movement to change anything important.
Speaker 1: Things don't change quickly, and I just think young people
Speaker 1: tend to be more impatient to think it's going to
Speaker 1: happen faster, and those of us who have seen for
Speaker 1: decades things happen and then they move back, and then
Speaker 1: they move forward, and then what you think can never
Speaker 1: happen has in fact been growing under the radar and
Speaker 1: then suddenly sprouts and appears above the surface and seemed
Speaker 1: to be sudden, but it was really moving in that
Speaker 1: direction for a long time. So I try to understand,
Speaker 1: this is not even a marathon, it's a relay. I'll
Speaker 1: be gone soon and I'll pass the torch to younger people,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. So one of the things that
Speaker 1: you're doing is you're starting this pack. Will you explain
Speaker 1: to us what it is and what it does. Well,
Speaker 1: let's call the Jane Fonda Climate Pack, and what it
Speaker 1: does specifically. And in this it's very unusual. We're trying
Speaker 1: to break the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry has
Speaker 1: on our government, federal, state, and local governments. And we
Speaker 1: try to do that by electing climate champions to replace
Speaker 1: pro fossil fuel Republicans and Democrats, because moderate Democrats take
Speaker 1: money from fossil fuels just as much or more than
Speaker 1: Republicans do. I mean, Senator Joe mentioned has become a
Speaker 1: multi millionaire are off of coal, and that's why he
Speaker 1: fights so hard to maintain it and please the fossil
Speaker 1: fuel industry. A lot of very important green groups can't
Speaker 1: do this because they work with lobbyists, and they work
Speaker 1: with moderate Democrats, and and so they don't want to
Speaker 1: alienate anybody. Or maybe they have investors on their board
Speaker 1: who invest in fossil fuels, etcetera. But we're not part
Speaker 1: of a bigger organization. We have this sole focus. And
Speaker 1: because we're a new pack, we don't have a whole
Speaker 1: lot of money. We don't have enough money to make
Speaker 1: a difference in senate races, for example, or gubernatorial races
Speaker 1: necessarily much less presidential. But it's really great that we've
Speaker 1: been forced to support down ballot candidates, because what I'm
Speaker 1: discovering is that down ballot offices have tremendous power when
Speaker 1: it comes to the climate. I'll give you an example.
Speaker 1: In Texas, there's the Railroad Commission. It was originally created
Speaker 1: to regulate the railroad, but when tech, when Texas' main
Speaker 1: industry became oil and gas, the Railroad Commission got shifted
Speaker 1: to be overseeing and regulating the fossil fuel industry. But
Speaker 1: they didn't change the name, I think deliberately so that
Speaker 1: people wouldn't pay a lot of attention because historically the
Speaker 1: three commissioners on the Railroad Commission have worked for the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel industry. It's like the fox guarding the chicken coop,
Speaker 1: and consequently nothing much gets done. The anti flaring legislation
Speaker 1: passed by a Republican legislature in Texas is not enforced
Speaker 1: because of who is sitting on the Railroad Commission. They
Speaker 1: didn't weatherize the grill even after two years ago over
Speaker 1: seven people froze to death. But a young progressive Democrat
Speaker 1: is running to be a railroad commissioner. It can make
Speaker 1: all the difference in the world. That's just one example.
Speaker 1: The Public Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard in Mexico. She's
Speaker 1: signed a contract to bring the largest wind farm in
Speaker 1: the Western Hemisphere to New Mexico. And she's stay ending
Speaker 1: up to the fossil fuel industry and getting them to
Speaker 1: cap their orphan wells which can become very toxic, or
Speaker 1: pay and she's brought hundreds of millions of dollars into
Speaker 1: New Mexico that she's put into poor school districts and
Speaker 1: health clinics and things like that. So it's been a
Speaker 1: joy for me to travel to these states and work
Speaker 1: with these mostly very young and mostly women and very
Speaker 1: often Latina women who are the first the first woman,
Speaker 1: the first Latina to be this in this office or
Speaker 1: that office, or Dana Nesso first Attorney general, and who's
Speaker 1: a woman in Michigan. I mean, it's very exciting and
Speaker 1: it's filled me with hope. Yeah, I'll say I think
Speaker 1: that setting up a pack is a way that liberals
Speaker 1: can sort of fight Republicans on their turf, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it's important to know that we're we're we're trying
Speaker 1: to replace some of the Democrats who have prevented good
Speaker 1: legislation from passing. Yeah, exactly, not Republicans. You have actually
Speaker 1: a really good blog on your site which I was
Speaker 1: reading about, and you talk about going to Texas and
Speaker 1: have they really not fixed the grid in Texas at all?
Speaker 1: And this is the second time that the grid has
Speaker 1: collapsed because of extreme weather, and they didn't repair it
Speaker 1: the first time and they haven't done it this last time.
Speaker 1: And I met with a whole bunch a couple of
Speaker 1: dozen people in public housing who dot who have relatives
Speaker 1: who died, and whose apartments ceilings caved in, walls caved
Speaker 1: in when pipes burst and ice began to form in
Speaker 1: living rooms, and even still today these apartments, when you're
Speaker 1: poor and a person of color, they don't get help.
Speaker 1: The apartments still haven't been repaired, whereas on the other
Speaker 1: side of the tracks and the rich white community, they
Speaker 1: got their power back within hours, if not days. This
Speaker 1: is called environmental racism. And you write about that. So wow,
Speaker 1: and in such an interesting way. What are you looking
Speaker 1: at now? So you're looking at the grid in Texas
Speaker 1: and this railroad commission. You're talking two people in New Mexico.
Speaker 1: I mean New Mexico seems to me like to be
Speaker 1: a pretty promising state for democrats. I hope, So, I
Speaker 1: hope we can what we have. Yeah, yeah, And I'm
Speaker 1: just curious where else are you seeing like this sort
Speaker 1: of climate activism? Younger candidates that you're interested in involved with. Well, Michigan,
Speaker 1: the Attorney general there has a lot of power and
Speaker 1: has really been brave in terms of confronting the Mbridge
Speaker 1: oil pipeline that they want to put embed and rock
Speaker 1: at the bottom of the straits of Mackinac or Florida
Speaker 1: or Pennsylvania. I mean, there's a lot of places we're
Speaker 1: endorsing many, many scores of candidates all across the country
Speaker 1: who have signed the no Fossil Fuel Money Pledge and
Speaker 1: have taken a public, very courageous public stand. And when
Speaker 1: you're an elected official in an oil or gas producing state,
Speaker 1: it takes a lot of guts and it takes a
Speaker 1: lot of strategy to walk that fine line to keep
Speaker 1: getting elected, but also to keep standing up to the
Speaker 1: oil coume pannies. And that's what we have to what
Speaker 1: we have to support. We have little over seven years
Speaker 1: to cut our fossil fuel emissions in half, and we're
Speaker 1: moving in the wrong direction. And this country, the world
Speaker 1: can't become about how to be resilient in the face
Speaker 1: of climate catastrophe. I mean, we do have to do that,
Speaker 1: but it can't just be about resilience. It has to
Speaker 1: about being Hey, guys, let's if we're bailing out a
Speaker 1: sinking boat. We have to plug the hole. We can't
Speaker 1: just keep trying to bail out the water but not
Speaker 1: plug the hole. And that means no new fossil fuel
Speaker 1: infrastructure and phasing out gradually until mid century of the
Speaker 1: use of fossil fuels altogether. When when the green sustainable
Speaker 1: economy becomes at scale, then we can totally get off
Speaker 1: fossil fuel. That can't happen right away, but all of
Speaker 1: it has to be done what's called a just transition.
Speaker 1: We have to be sure that the fossil fuel workers
Speaker 1: it's not their fault that we're facing a climate crisis.
Speaker 1: They have to be ensured that they can transition from
Speaker 1: jobs in the fossil fuel industry to other jobs that
Speaker 1: they're training and paid equitably. The fossil fuel industry pays
Speaker 1: union wages for the most part, and the alternatives the
Speaker 1: green energy sector doesn't, and we have to change that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a really important point. And I think that your
Speaker 1: focus on equity is really It's so interesting to me
Speaker 1: because like when Russia invaded Ukraine, my first thought was like, okay,
Speaker 1: now we really have to focus on renewables, and this
Speaker 1: sort of media narrative was we gotta get more nuclear
Speaker 1: and I was like, and it is infuriating because it
Speaker 1: is small portable nuclear reactors are not as good as
Speaker 1: solution as a renewable and it's just crazy to me. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not somebody that's going to tout the value
Speaker 1: of any kind of nuclear energy. I'm being you remember
Speaker 1: the China syndrome that that said nuclear plants that already
Speaker 1: exist and that are shown to be safe should be
Speaker 1: allowed to continue because as they do, create a clean
Speaker 1: bridge clean if you don't think about the nuclear waste,
Speaker 1: which we is a problem, especially when the sea levels
Speaker 1: are rising and we have hurricanes and these nuclear plants
Speaker 1: that are close to the shore are in danger. But
Speaker 1: building new nuclear plants, no, I'm sorry. First of all,
Speaker 1: they take too long. We don't have time wait, but
Speaker 1: they always there's cost over runs and time over runs.
Speaker 1: They take years, and also they use so much water
Speaker 1: at a time when water is gold. We're running out
Speaker 1: of water. So let's not be profligate with our turn
Speaker 1: to nuclear energy. Let's just keep the ones online that
Speaker 1: are safe and already exists, but not spend a lot
Speaker 1: of money building new ones because they won't matter, they
Speaker 1: won't happen in time, and we need the water. So
Speaker 1: what are you doing next? Acting wise, I haven't a
Speaker 1: fuzzy rats ass, have no idea. I have no idea
Speaker 1: when I have three movies coming out. Last year I
Speaker 1: made three movies, so I kind of want to spend
Speaker 1: the next year or so with the climate activism. Then
Speaker 1: we're going back to d C live and in person
Speaker 1: on December two. Fantastic. Maybe I'll come down. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be great. It's gonna be okay, what did the
Speaker 1: election mean for the climate and what does climate activism
Speaker 1: look like in the next two years between between November
Speaker 1: and when we're going to elect the president and so
Speaker 1: it's going to be an important one. We're not going
Speaker 1: to engage in civil disobedience just because of the times
Speaker 1: when the concern and the January six stuff and the
Speaker 1: Capitol police and everything. But it's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of fun. We're going to have a New Orleans
Speaker 1: marching band performing and it'll be good. Fantastic. Jane, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. I'm so thrilled. We
Speaker 1: rarely have celebrities because this is a politics podcast, but
Speaker 1: you are, like just have been such an important activist
Speaker 1: and it is so it's just fantastic to have you
Speaker 1: and it's really an honor. So thank you, Thank you
Speaker 1: for existing. Sam Wang is a scientist at the Princeton
Speaker 1: Election Consortium. Welcome to Fast Politics, Sam Wang. Hey, they're fast.
Speaker 1: This is your first Fast Politics yes, I'm following you
Speaker 1: around first to your different platform. I joined Mastered on yesterday,
Speaker 1: so I'm following you all over the place. I'm like
Speaker 1: a deadhead. Tell us, just for those of us who
Speaker 1: are not as well versed, what you do. You're a
Speaker 1: scientist or Princeton and you run this thing called the
Speaker 1: Princeton Election Projects explained for us. Yeah, so over at
Speaker 1: election dot Princeton dot E d U. I'm a pole aggregator.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody does it now, I'm one of the
Speaker 1: ones who is not named Nate who does it. So
Speaker 1: there's Nate Silver, Nate Cone shawan trendy, there's all kinds
Speaker 1: of It's a whole industry now. But I've been doing
Speaker 1: it since I don't know, two thousand four. It's taking
Speaker 1: the polls, aggregating them, understanding the structure of modern politics,
Speaker 1: and taking a guess of where we are now. My
Speaker 1: flavor of it is I what I really like to
Speaker 1: do is translate that into understanding where voters are most
Speaker 1: powerful personally, like where on a per vote basis, where
Speaker 1: the most influential voters And you know, where would you
Speaker 1: want to drive people to the polls or where would
Speaker 1: you like to give money and so for me, it's
Speaker 1: this whole industry, but my version of it. Over at
Speaker 1: the Princeton Election Consortium is trying to find places where
Speaker 1: people can be powerful. You can actually tell our listeners
Speaker 1: what they should be doing right now. By the our
Speaker 1: listeners are Democrats. In case you're wondering who would like
Speaker 1: democracy to continue, which is most Democrats. I think those
Speaker 1: are not exactly the same people. There are people who
Speaker 1: are not Democrats who also like democracy. So like Liz Cheney,
Speaker 1: Adam Kinzigger, right, you can name them on one hand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but they're important. They're they're Americans and they like democracy. Listen,
Speaker 1: I love them. I wish there were more of them.
Speaker 1: People should find someplace near them where there's a competitive
Speaker 1: race and help get people out to vote. Here in
Speaker 1: New Jersey, there is a competitive district north of me.
Speaker 1: It's the seventh District where Tom Alonowski is trying to
Speaker 1: hang onto a seat. I'm not too far from Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: so over the river there's a Senate seat in case
Speaker 1: you haven't noticed that where Oprah has now laid down
Speaker 1: her marker. Right, So Oprah has abandoned her favorite doctor
Speaker 1: moment Oz and she's now endorsed John Fetterman, and that
Speaker 1: Senate race is going to be down to the wire
Speaker 1: and it could be the one that determines who controls
Speaker 1: the Senate. So people should be going out there and
Speaker 1: looking for places to make a difference. Last night I
Speaker 1: was thinking about Oprah, like lying in bed in our
Speaker 1: mansion in Montecito, going like, oh shit, I have to
Speaker 1: endorse Fetterman, right like you. I mean that must have
Speaker 1: been like I cannot have a doctor oz on my conscience.
Speaker 1: You know, he was so fun at the beginning, right,
Speaker 1: he was like this incredible heart surgeon who had like
Speaker 1: who let racky healers into the operating room. But he
Speaker 1: also developed the left of ventricular assist device that sounded
Speaker 1: pretty good. And then you know, and then he turned
Speaker 1: into a supplement seller and so just he's really he's
Speaker 1: he's changed a lot. Yeah. I mean, he operated my
Speaker 1: father in law, as I always listeners in this podcast
Speaker 1: will know, and was a mention until he wasn't talk
Speaker 1: to me about why all these polls are wrong all
Speaker 1: the time. They can't help it. So these posters are
Speaker 1: trying to do their best, and you've got nonpartisan polsters,
Speaker 1: you've got partisan posters. That's like trafalgar. Are the partisan posters? Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right trafalgar. But even the partisan posters are actually
Speaker 1: attempting to make a measurement. They're trying to do something.
Speaker 1: On average, they do better as a group than they
Speaker 1: do individually, but as a group they can still be off.
Speaker 1: And so the best we can say right now is
Speaker 1: it's possible to identify, um about seven races that are
Speaker 1: going to be within five points either way in the Senate,
Speaker 1: and so we know where they are. And those seven
Speaker 1: races are close to tide. Some of them aren't going
Speaker 1: to be that close to tide by the time the
Speaker 1: votes are counted, but we don't know which ones, and
Speaker 1: so the posters are doing their best. And uh, and
Speaker 1: if you think about how much power of voter has
Speaker 1: those seven states are where if you care about the
Speaker 1: Senate and you care about say judges, or you care
Speaker 1: about I don't know, government shutdowns or impeachment, these seven
Speaker 1: states are going to be important. New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Wisconsin. And that hasn't changed all season, even
Speaker 1: though the polls drift around a little bit it's still
Speaker 1: those half dozen states. So what are you seeing. The
Speaker 1: remarkable thing right now is that, right now, as of
Speaker 1: the moment that we're recording this, there are four races
Speaker 1: where the median margin between the two candidates is less
Speaker 1: than one point, which means that you know, it's not
Speaker 1: going to be within a point probably, But New Hampshire
Speaker 1: looks like a tie right now. Battle looks like a tie. Yeah,
Speaker 1: New Hampshire looks like a tie, which is not Sorry,
Speaker 1: I know you're not used to this, but yeah, here
Speaker 1: here here at Princeton, we we drow f bombs occasionally,
Speaker 1: but that was a good one. But yeah. So the
Speaker 1: thing is like Maggie Hassan and Dan Boldock are currently
Speaker 1: about tied, and so that's the race. It could go
Speaker 1: either way. And what this means is Democrats could end
Speaker 1: up with I would say, as few as forty six
Speaker 1: seats in the Senate. They could end up with as
Speaker 1: many as fifty four seats in the Senate. I think
Speaker 1: that any outcome in that range is possible at this moment. Wow,
Speaker 1: that is unbelievable. Arizona is close, and New Hampshire is close.
Speaker 1: Nevada is close. Um, but you know, on the other
Speaker 1: side of the point. Ohio and Pennsylvania are also close,
Speaker 1: and I think that people are watching this closely. We're
Speaker 1: not necessarily expecting Ohio to be that close. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I mean it does seem to me like Tim Ryan
Speaker 1: has run the kind of like perfect campaign that we
Speaker 1: dream of Democrats running in red states, like a campaign
Speaker 1: about kitchen table issues, a campaign that's not about the
Speaker 1: national Party like that, that kind of thing. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: and also just he speaks to people. He is a
Speaker 1: strong candidate. One thing about the Republican side is that
Speaker 1: they've run some kind of problematic candidates this year. Yeah,
Speaker 1: as Mitch mcconny al says, candidate quality, Yes, and if
Speaker 1: one conscious of the numbers, they appear to be running
Speaker 1: a few points behind where a generic Republican would be running.
Speaker 1: And so people like Jade Vance, Herschel Walker, Blake Masters, Mementos,
Speaker 1: Yeah they're yeah, Blake Masters, they're running a few points
Speaker 1: behind where a generic Republican could run, and so that's
Speaker 1: to their disadvantage. But then it you know, it looks
Speaker 1: like it's going to it should be a good Republican year.
Speaker 1: And so those are the two major forces, right, I mean, that.
Speaker 1: I think it's an important thing to go back to,
Speaker 1: which we're not talking about really enough when we talk
Speaker 1: about these mid terms, is like, ultimately this should be
Speaker 1: a Republican blowout. Democrats control the Senate, the House, the President,
Speaker 1: say the Biden's approval rating is low. Inflation is really
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a global problem, but it's certainly a
Speaker 1: problem here. Gas rights are high. Like the weather should
Speaker 1: be very bad for Democrats. So the fact that it's not,
Speaker 1: you know, if it if on Tuesday night, and we
Speaker 1: don't know right because of the polling, but if Tuesday
Speaker 1: night is not a total blood bath, we will have
Speaker 1: bucked a trend. That is true. That is true, I guess.
Speaker 1: So if you look at the political science models, political
Speaker 1: scientists are saying that it would be about par for
Speaker 1: Democrats to lose about I think forty seats in the
Speaker 1: House and to lose multiple seats in the Senate. And
Speaker 1: that could still happen. But if it doesn't happen, then
Speaker 1: that would be bucking a trend. Yeah. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: and I've seen I've seen thirty seats, I've seen twenty seats.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've seen endless machinations about what it's going
Speaker 1: to be. But let's just I want to like talk
Speaker 1: about this a little more. If we can't get polls
Speaker 1: to tell us what's going to happen, then why do
Speaker 1: we do them. Sorry to ask a really obnoxious question
Speaker 1: to you, but it is a good question. I think
Speaker 1: we expect a lot of clarity and precision out of polls.
Speaker 1: And because polling margins are in you know, integers, it's
Speaker 1: like one point two point three points margin between the candidates,
Speaker 1: we want that to be a clear answer. But the
Speaker 1: truth is, unless something gets out into the five point range,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a number that we can't really be
Speaker 1: sure about. And so when I look at polls, what
Speaker 1: I what I do is I look at and I say, okay,
Speaker 1: I look at the polling average, like I'll go over
Speaker 1: to five thirty eight, or I'll go over to my
Speaker 1: own site election dot Prince dot eu, and I'll say,
Speaker 1: if a race is within about three points or so
Speaker 1: in the in the aggregate, I say, well, that's a
Speaker 1: close race, and I don't know which way that one's
Speaker 1: going to go. So I think that people better get
Speaker 1: their fannies over there and work on that particular race.
Speaker 1: And so My feeling is that polls are good for
Speaker 1: helping us figure out where to put our efforts. Um
Speaker 1: and you know, if you look and furthermore, if you
Speaker 1: look per vote, I mean, gosh, there's all this stuff
Speaker 1: happening down ticket, same story. We can figure out where
Speaker 1: the where the dangerous spots are going to be and
Speaker 1: maybe not just the Senate next year, but democracy two
Speaker 1: years from now. I mean, that's that's what it seems
Speaker 1: like to me. So you would say, you you look
Speaker 1: at the polls for what's closed, and then you get
Speaker 1: going on that. Yeah, I mean right now, I gotta say,
Speaker 1: voters are have a lot of power right now in
Speaker 1: New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and some other states. It's
Speaker 1: just and there is a lot happening at the Senate
Speaker 1: and the House at the state level. I'm certain that
Speaker 1: you know a lot about that. You know, election deniers
Speaker 1: right like all these elections, like people like Mark Fincham
Speaker 1: and Jim Marshawn, Right, Mark Fincham is in Arizona, Jim
Speaker 1: Marshawn is right, mars Shahnson Nevada. That's right, so Nevada
Speaker 1: as they say no, they don't say Nevada. We say Nevada,
Speaker 1: they say Nevada. It's like Colorado. Yeah, I can't. It's
Speaker 1: like nuclear nuclear anyway. Um, but yes, so, yeah, these
Speaker 1: small races could really be where democracy lives and dies
Speaker 1: in twenty four. Oh yeah. The thing is all this
Speaker 1: stuff about election clear quitting their jobs are being hounded
Speaker 1: out in Nevada, like something like two thirds of the
Speaker 1: county clerks quit. There's all kinds of ideas that are
Speaker 1: percolating locally, like people saying, well, we should count all
Speaker 1: the ballots by hand, which is going to take forever.
Speaker 1: Stuff like that. It's under the radar, right because we're
Speaker 1: watching the national news and you know, maybe we care
Speaker 1: about Catherine Cortes Masto or or what have you. But meanwhile,
Speaker 1: these secretary of state races are going to determine who
Speaker 1: is in charge of counting votes and reporting results two
Speaker 1: years from now. That's the next Iceberg. We're all watching
Speaker 1: this iceberg, but behind it, there's another iceberg. Yeah no, no,
Speaker 1: I mean, I also think this is a controversial opinion here,
Speaker 1: but I think I'm right, which is he has got
Speaker 1: to do that, which is that I think that Democrats
Speaker 1: losing the House is not as big a deal as
Speaker 1: Democrats losing some of these governorships. Yes, losing the House
Speaker 1: can be fixed in two years, and the pendulum is
Speaker 1: likely to swing back two years from now, although we
Speaker 1: don't know, but right losing governor ships is serious, like
Speaker 1: losing Wisconsin governorship for Democrats would um the Republican Canada.
Speaker 1: There is now promising that Republicans will never lose another
Speaker 1: election to Wisconsin if he gets elected. Wow, dude, how
Speaker 1: do you promise that? And so and so that's a
Speaker 1: pretty inflammatory promise. So governorships, secretaries of state, all that
Speaker 1: downticket stuff that people forget about is super important. And
Speaker 1: you know, these these House seats. I mean, I'll say,
Speaker 1: my slightly contrarian thing, which is jerrymandering in some ways
Speaker 1: got worked out in some ways favorably at the national level.
Speaker 1: So that so that's a relatively level playing field in Congress.
Speaker 1: We're going to have to disagree there, but yes, we
Speaker 1: have disagreed on this before. I mean, there's there's a
Speaker 1: lot of local stuff, like Ohio is a problem, Wisconsin
Speaker 1: is a problem, but when you added up nationally is
Speaker 1: a problem. Sure, But when you added up nationally, it
Speaker 1: becomes less of a problem than it was ten years ago.
Speaker 1: The point being there is a possibility of either party
Speaker 1: controlling Congress two years from now, but whoever gets elected
Speaker 1: governor this time around is going to be in charge
Speaker 1: of state government two years from now at the time
Speaker 1: in the next presidential election. Right, we already know that
Speaker 1: Trump is waiting in the wings. Yes, he seems likely
Speaker 1: to run again, doesn't he know. Yeah, I mean it
Speaker 1: seems like the interesting tension, in my mind is that
Speaker 1: there's a fairly large section of Republicans who want him
Speaker 1: to wait as long as possible to announce, which is
Speaker 1: why the r n C has this deal where they're
Speaker 1: paying some of his legal bills, and when he announces,
Speaker 1: they're going to stop paying them. Oh yes, I think
Speaker 1: what in their minds they thought was a brilliant move.
Speaker 1: But I do think eventually he's just gonna stop paying that.
Speaker 1: In surveys of Republican voters, he's only pulling out about
Speaker 1: or so among Republicans for the nomination, which seems like
Speaker 1: it's not very good for somebody who is supposed to
Speaker 1: be so dominant in the party. Yeah, I mean, it
Speaker 1: does seem like there's a there's a window here for
Speaker 1: another candidate. But these are probab Blkans. They're so profoundly
Speaker 1: scared of Trump that we have to see what happens.
Speaker 1: It's not just him, though, there's this reactor fuel among
Speaker 1: Republican voters of anger, of paranoia about election results, of
Speaker 1: willingness to consider the other side to be not legitimate,
Speaker 1: and that engine is there with or without Trump. Yes,
Speaker 1: and I think Marjorie Taylor Green is a good sign
Speaker 1: that Trump is um actually does scale, I do think,
Speaker 1: and you see this because she does really well with
Speaker 1: small dollar donations, so that is where the Republican Party is.
Speaker 1: But I think it's quite an interesting and I think
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting to see what happened that. You know,
Speaker 1: you're seeing Republicans freak out because there, I think, or
Speaker 1: at least the base, it feels left behind, right. They
Speaker 1: feel like they didn't get the good stuff that the
Speaker 1: rest of us got and that this window is closing
Speaker 1: for them. But during this Biden administration, there's actually been
Speaker 1: a really big manufacturing boom in the United States, which
Speaker 1: I wonder if we see some movement with that, how
Speaker 1: long will it take for a regular person to see
Speaker 1: the benefits of that I don't know. I mean, like
Speaker 1: if I if I live in some industrial town, and
Speaker 1: how soon will I start seeing jobs? Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean I think that's going to be the question.
Speaker 1: I mean, we had mayor Pete on here yesterday and
Speaker 1: he was talking about or whenever, whatever day is anything,
Speaker 1: because I don't even know what day is. This like
Speaker 1: run up to the mid term has been like it's
Speaker 1: just such a like it's just like a misery of
Speaker 1: tunnel vision. Um. But I do think like there was
Speaker 1: a massive infrastructure bill that just got pasted, and so
Speaker 1: there is money flowing into these municipalities. I mean, the
Speaker 1: United States is finally investing in industrial policy on a
Speaker 1: smaller scale than China, but they but the United States
Speaker 1: is starting to invest in industrial policy and h and
Speaker 1: that is a move that could lead to more manufacturing
Speaker 1: in the United States. I think China is also trying
Speaker 1: to do that. It appears that these major powers are
Speaker 1: trying to move towards more self sufficiency, becoming less linked
Speaker 1: through trade. That might lead to more on showing right,
Speaker 1: I'll be really curious to see how it all plays out.
Speaker 1: Sam Waying, thank you so much for joining us. Thank
Speaker 1: you Molly. Great to not see you, but great to
Speaker 1: be with you, great to almost see you, almost close close,
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon, Molly, John Fast, Why do you seem so dan?
Speaker 1: Me and all the bag of idiots are gonna be
Speaker 1: able to call you a blue check anymore if you
Speaker 1: don't buy Elon Musk's blue check After the election when
Speaker 1: he puts them for sales, Elon Musk had to put
Speaker 1: off the Twitter checks. So there are verified people on
Speaker 1: Twitter and they are unverified people on Twitter, and Elon
Speaker 1: Musk had this brilliant plan to charge people eight dollars
Speaker 1: to become a verified person on Twitter. Unfortunately for Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: he laid off all the people he needed to do that.
Speaker 1: So now he has decided to put it off, and
Speaker 1: he also is going to unlay off some of those
Speaker 1: people to get them back so that they can give
Speaker 1: everyone blue checks, so that everyone can impersonate each other.
Speaker 1: That's why we call him a genius. What a man.
Speaker 1: That's right, That's how it is. Man. In other news,
Speaker 1: you know, we all say the one thing that's good
Speaker 1: about Trump is sometimes he comes with a good nickname.
Speaker 1: But he kind of had a miss this weekend again.
Speaker 1: I don't know that he had a miss I mean,
Speaker 1: it was just like a lot more intelligent than his
Speaker 1: usual nickname, and so it confused all of us. Usually
Speaker 1: you'll remember low energy Jeb, little Marco. He doesn't you know,
Speaker 1: he hits a nickname, but it tends not to be
Speaker 1: so intellectual. This time he gave Ron to say autists,
Speaker 1: who really is his only rival for the primary? The
Speaker 1: nickname Ron dis sanctimonious doesn't have a ring to it.
Speaker 1: I don't know Ron, I didn't know he knew a
Speaker 1: word that big. I saw people suggesting calling him Ron
Speaker 1: the Fascist. I think that would make the audience like
Speaker 1: him more. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to her the
Speaker 1: best minds in politics, makes sense of all this chaos.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
Speaker 1: a friend and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.