Speaker 1: Show, here's something that's popular and punditory, keep your eye
Speaker 1: out for it, because it happens all the time, and
Speaker 1: it's it's something stupid that has occurred in the last
Speaker 1: couple of years. So pundits on cable news or even
Speaker 1: on the networks on Sunday morning, they'll they'll put out
Speaker 1: a hypothetical that is quite unlikely, in some cases very unlikely,
Speaker 1: and then discuss it seriously for fifteen minutes. So they
Speaker 1: throw out a what if Trump, you know, did do this,
Speaker 1: and then discuss it for fifteen Well, there's no evidence
Speaker 1: that what are we what are we talking about this for?
Speaker 1: And I have thought that conversation around Hillary Clinton has
Speaker 1: been that for quite some time, throughout what if Hillary
Speaker 1: gott race? And then discussed it for fifteen minutes. Well,
Speaker 1: there's there's no chance that's gonna happen. Until this week.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, I think things changed this week. I think
Speaker 1: it's a real conversation now. That New York Times article
Speaker 1: with all the powerbrokers in the Democratic Party saying, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're looking elsewhere and she's on the list.
Speaker 1: Our guest is Lani Chen David and Diane Steffy, Research
Speaker 1: fellow too Over Institution Director Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford
Speaker 1: University lan he how are you. I'm doing well, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: how are you? What is that? It's the spirit of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton haunting the Democratic Party. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you're familiar with this line here you probably are. One
Speaker 1: of my favorite quotes from H. L. Menkin, which I
Speaker 1: can never find. She's describing how unsuccessful presidential candidates ought
Speaker 1: to be thrown off the top of the Washington Monument
Speaker 1: because once they lose, all they do is wander the
Speaker 1: countryside spreading bitterness. Yeah, so what of Hillary in the
Speaker 1: current state of things? Well, this is the you know
Speaker 1: some of this. I think there's two reasons you're hearing
Speaker 1: all this speculation. By the way, you're absolutely right about
Speaker 1: the hypothetical on cable news. I mean, if if there
Speaker 1: weren't hypotheticals, we'd only have like two hours of cable
Speaker 1: news programming a day. But but you know, the Hillary thing,
Speaker 1: I think is an outgrowth of two things. First of all,
Speaker 1: I do think there is a genuine concern in a
Speaker 1: lot of Democratic Party circles, particularly amongst the more establishment Democrats,
Speaker 1: that they're not going to have a candidate who's going
Speaker 1: to be able to compete with Donald Trump when it
Speaker 1: comes to the general election. So there is a sincere
Speaker 1: concern that someone like Elizabeth Warren is just too far
Speaker 1: to the left. Her policies are too far to the left.
Speaker 1: She's not going to be a sailable asset when when
Speaker 1: the time comes during the general election. The other thing is,
Speaker 1: in every presidential primary, as long as I can remember,
Speaker 1: certainly everyone I've worked on, there is always this yearning
Speaker 1: for somebody else to come in the race. I remember
Speaker 1: in two thousand twelve when I was working for Mitt Romney,
Speaker 1: it was all about Chris Christie. You know, is Chris
Speaker 1: Christie going to get in the race. Then it was
Speaker 1: Mitch Daniels. Is Mitch daniel is going to get in
Speaker 1: the race. Then it was you know, fill in the blank.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and sixteen Republican primary, you know, the
Speaker 1: tables returned, it was, you know, will Mitt Romney get
Speaker 1: into the primary and compete against Jeff Bush? And and
Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary that year, similarly, there was you know,
Speaker 1: Mike Bloomberg, is he going to get in? So a
Speaker 1: lot of what we're hearing now about Hillary and the
Speaker 1: and the ghost of Hillary, the spirit of Hillary kind
Speaker 1: of pervading over all the entire field. Some of that
Speaker 1: is natural, and I think you're gonna find that in
Speaker 1: a presidential primary, regardless of the year, regardless of the candidate.
Speaker 1: The only thing that I think is is different about
Speaker 1: it is um. I saw some of the people from
Speaker 1: Hillary Land or from Clinton Land on the various cable
Speaker 1: news shows this weekend, and they didn't knock it down
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, they spent their time on the
Speaker 1: TV explaining why she would be a good candidate, which
Speaker 1: I thought was pretty interesting. Well, they're trying to keep
Speaker 1: her relevant, because otherwise, why do you care about Hillary Clinton?
Speaker 1: You know, why do you care what Hillary Clinton thinks?
Speaker 1: I mean, the answer is you don't care anyway, but
Speaker 1: the people and I certainly don't and I never have.
Speaker 1: But but the reality is that if you don't make
Speaker 1: it seem like it's some stability, then that talk goes
Speaker 1: away and she goes back to, you know, making millions
Speaker 1: at the Clinton Foundation. You're You're absolutely right. The moment
Speaker 1: anybody says no, she's not interested in running, she's completely
Speaker 1: done on the on the national stage, it's over. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she has no platform she's not an elected official. She
Speaker 1: doesn't have, you know, anything she's involved in that keeps
Speaker 1: her in the public eye, and so this is their
Speaker 1: way of trying to keep people interested in her. But
Speaker 1: I don't seriously think that she's going to run. I mean,
Speaker 1: losing the way she did to Donald Trump in is
Speaker 1: quite enough. I would think lan he Chan on the line,
Speaker 1: change the topic, Lawn. He's the impeach O meter. Is
Speaker 1: it pointing more toward impeachment and removal than say a
Speaker 1: week ago less? What's your take? I think it's I mean,
Speaker 1: I've always thought that it was, you know, pretty much
Speaker 1: a hundred percent likelihood he gets impeached because you know,
Speaker 1: the House is democratically controlled and they have to they
Speaker 1: have to take that vote for a variety of different reasons.
Speaker 1: On on the Senate side, I suppose you can argue
Speaker 1: that the that the meter is ever so slightly tacking
Speaker 1: higher in terms of likelihood of removal, I mean still
Speaker 1: a really low number. I still think the likelihood of
Speaker 1: removal is somewhere around you know, eight to nine. So
Speaker 1: it's the low number. But the evidence this week are
Speaker 1: the the leaks around the Bill Taylor testimony, UM the
Speaker 1: Ukraine ambassador's testimony. Uh, that was damaging to the president.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way to spin that, Folks
Speaker 1: super into it. Why do you say that, Well, just
Speaker 1: because you know, it presents sort of evidence of somebody
Speaker 1: who was involved in the relationship between the US and
Speaker 1: Ukraine at the time in a very serious way, who
Speaker 1: who has been a career diplomat, who has been you know,
Speaker 1: well well regarded and generally credible, doesn't seem to have
Speaker 1: a whole lot of political leaning one way or the other. Uh,
Speaker 1: for him to say, look, you know, I was concerned
Speaker 1: about what the president wanted, and he read it as
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo. I mean, those those kinds of
Speaker 1: pieces of evidence of people who were involved in the
Speaker 1: process at the time and who don't seem to have
Speaker 1: an ax to grind that that that seems to me
Speaker 1: to be to be more credible than not. And so
Speaker 1: that's why I think, you know, people sort of pause
Speaker 1: and say, well, that's an interesting piece of evidence. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't know that it changes anybody's mind at this point,
Speaker 1: but I do think a lot of this is a
Speaker 1: question of when does the Jenga tower collapse, and and
Speaker 1: and what you know what peace causes it to collapse?
Speaker 1: And I think that's the question we got to ask.
Speaker 1: Chen has a podcast called Crossing Lines with lan Hea Chen,
Speaker 1: and I was listening to another podcast the other day
Speaker 1: with Johnah Goldberg and somebody else on it, and they
Speaker 1: were discussing, um, maybe things were better. They believe things
Speaker 1: were better back when it was smoke filled rooms picking
Speaker 1: candidates for the parties instead of the process we got now,
Speaker 1: and there was more of an emphasis on the party platform.
Speaker 1: You knew what each party stood for. They they announced
Speaker 1: their platform, and it was more about the platform than
Speaker 1: the person as opposed to now it's more about the personality,
Speaker 1: and nobody knows that the platform is of either party.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on that as a guy who
Speaker 1: thinks about this sort of stuff. Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that's absolutely right. Having having worked on the party platform,
Speaker 1: you know, the last couple of cycles, I can tell
Speaker 1: you it really is a posturing document that nobody actually
Speaker 1: reads anymore, and it is about, by the way, what
Speaker 1: goes into the platform is entirely what the nominee of
Speaker 1: the party wants in terms of the policy that he
Speaker 1: or she comes up with. Yeah, and and and and so,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you go back to the premise that
Speaker 1: things were better before, I do think there's a certain
Speaker 1: truth to that, because what happened in the old days
Speaker 1: is parties were forced to think about things like general election, electability,
Speaker 1: ability to govern, experience, and and you know, to me,
Speaker 1: at least, those are important factors. Now to a lot
Speaker 1: of people, they're not. And that's why we've migrated towards
Speaker 1: the system we have now. And that's why you end
Speaker 1: up with not a nominee like Donald Trump, somebody who
Speaker 1: didn't have any prior experience in politics, but who people
Speaker 1: thought was going to shake things up and do something
Speaker 1: different that was a more important value to them than
Speaker 1: the other values that were around, you know, years ago. Well,
Speaker 1: in a counter argument to your point of view, which
Speaker 1: I actually on one level agree with, and I think
Speaker 1: we've got like ninety seconds left. But at the point
Speaker 1: that the federal government becomes so enormous and bloated and
Speaker 1: profitable for those in it, and the Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: are clearly cooperating with each other, nobody shrinks the government.
Speaker 1: It just grows and grows and grows. At that point,
Speaker 1: you can't trust the party elders, and you need a
Speaker 1: fire brand, You need to chuck a grenade, as they say,
Speaker 1: and you know, whether it's Donald Trump or or somebody
Speaker 1: like that. Yeah, I mean, and that That's the other
Speaker 1: problem is when you've got this sort of industrial complex
Speaker 1: that arises around lobbying and influenced politics in Washington. You know,
Speaker 1: people do want an outsider, and that's a perfectly understandable need.
Speaker 1: But how do you balance that with the desire to have,
Speaker 1: you know, a nominee of the party who can actually govern,
Speaker 1: who can actually command the middle of the country, which
Speaker 1: is what you want. I think ultimately you want someone
Speaker 1: who governs from the middle, because that ends up creating
Speaker 1: a situation where you've got less inflame passion and people
Speaker 1: on either side at least hopefully can say, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know what, I can get on board with this guy.
Speaker 1: He Chen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Crossing
Speaker 1: Lines with Linha Chen the excellent podcast Lani. I hope
Speaker 1: the good folks listening enjoy the chats, because we sure
Speaker 1: do every time. Thanks a million, Okay, thanks for having me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just think I like the idea of it being
Speaker 1: about the platform rather than the personality right, and and
Speaker 1: and then they pick somebody that's going to act their platform.
Speaker 1: If you don't like that platform, you go to the
Speaker 1: other side. Or a third party comes up that challenges
Speaker 1: those two platforms as opposed to the right personality to
Speaker 1: to challenge the other personalities, which isn't happening obviously hasn't
Speaker 1: gotten off the ground. And or the party elders get
Speaker 1: the word that listen, we have got to change or
Speaker 1: we will get no votes. We need to shake things up.
Speaker 1: We can't continue to, you know, scratch the Democrats back say, well,
Speaker 1: you know they scratch ours or vice versa, depending on
Speaker 1: which way you swing. I don't know. This is such
Speaker 1: an interesting question to me. Democracy can't possibly work. It's
Speaker 1: been a lovely try, though, crossing lines with lan Hea
Speaker 1: Chen is his podcast. I don't know how everybody I
Speaker 1: know people who seemed to take in endless podcasts, newspaper articles,
Speaker 1: latest hit TV shows and movies. I don't know how
Speaker 1: y'all do it. No, I don't either. When do you
Speaker 1: sleep or eat or shoot? Most other responsibilities in my
Speaker 1: life from other There's that's one plan. It would be
Speaker 1: easier without children, no doubt, But Uh, I don't know
Speaker 1: how people do want to find all this suff and
Speaker 1: there's certainly plenty of content out there right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: how many friends do you have to say? Oh, you man,
Speaker 1: you gotta listen to this podcast's grace three hours and
Speaker 1: forty five minutes long. When what What What? Am I
Speaker 1: driving to Fairbanks at some point this week? Come on
Speaker 1: much content Armstrong and Getty m