Speaker 1: I figured it might be a good opportunity for me
Speaker 1: to sort of give you how I'm watching all of
Speaker 1: these campaign cycles, develop campaign this calendar year, campaign twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, what we think we're learning nationally about what's
Speaker 1: going on directionally with the Democratic Party Republican Party? Is
Speaker 1: Trump a drag? If so, how much that is? I
Speaker 1: think you have to ask both questions there. How do
Speaker 1: things look in twenty twenty six? So I just want
Speaker 1: to update. I know I do. I try to once
Speaker 1: a week do sort of updates and key developments, but
Speaker 1: this is more of a bigger picture, and I think
Speaker 1: we're at an interesting I want you to watch for
Speaker 1: something over the next thirty days. So this is the
Speaker 1: last two weeks have been an intense partisan political debate
Speaker 1: right about districting and the Texas issue, in the California issue.
Speaker 1: If you're politically engaged, you've been totally wired in on this,
Speaker 1: and I also understand that this is August and there
Speaker 1: were If you're not sort of a political junkie, you
Speaker 1: haven't been engaged in this. But this is why it's
Speaker 1: important to follow the next thirty days to see what
Speaker 1: is the fallout from this intense partisan debate over redistricting
Speaker 1: in Texas and California, where partisans just are ready to fight, like,
Speaker 1: let's pick up arms, let's do this. Is this going
Speaker 1: to inspire more candidates to run for office? Is it
Speaker 1: going to inspire more donations to one party or the other?
Speaker 1: And that's the follow on effect that I'm curious to
Speaker 1: watch out for at this point. Look, I've let you
Speaker 1: know my feelings about where I think this redistricting, you know,
Speaker 1: the long term negative impact and consequences that we could
Speaker 1: be dealing with. But I'm very curious what is this
Speaker 1: doing to a couple levels of enthusiam. What is this doing.
Speaker 1: Let's look on the Democratic side, what is this doing
Speaker 1: to democratic donor enthusiasm. It's not been a good year
Speaker 1: so far fundraising. You haven't seen there's something in the
Speaker 1: news cycle you haven't seen. Sometimes when you don't see headlines,
Speaker 1: that's news. You know. There haven't been a lot of
Speaker 1: headlines that hey, Democratic candidate X, you know, raised x
Speaker 1: amount of money in the first twenty four hours of
Speaker 1: their candidacy, their announcement video garnered this many donations. You
Speaker 1: know why I haven't heard many of that because there
Speaker 1: hasn't been any of these big moments. Remember in twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen and there was this special election in Georgia and
Speaker 1: John Ossoff was that time, the now senator from Georgia
Speaker 1: was a House candidate then and he was breaking all
Speaker 1: sorts of records with these money bombs and how fired
Speaker 1: up based donors were to give money to this. I've
Speaker 1: not seen any evidence so far. And like I said,
Speaker 1: it is a vacation month right before the start of school,
Speaker 1: so there certainly are plenty of reasons why maybe there
Speaker 1: aren't as many people paying attention. But I've not since
Speaker 1: any sort of bump yet that this fight that Gavin
Speaker 1: Newsom has been leading for the party in this national
Speaker 1: fight over redistricting in the state of Texas has had
Speaker 1: this you know, has had an impact financially or has
Speaker 1: had an impact on more candidates going, you know what,
Speaker 1: I want to run for office. This time, you had
Speaker 1: a record amount of candidates that wanted to run for
Speaker 1: office right after the twenty sixteen election. There was a
Speaker 1: real response to that, like, hey, you know, I need
Speaker 1: to jump into this. I need to do my part.
Speaker 1: In some places, you're seeing a bunch of candidates get
Speaker 1: in Iowa, Senate, right, they can't seem to. They finally
Speaker 1: a fifth candidate jumped into that race, and finally somebody
Speaker 1: decided to get out and endorse that new candidate in
Speaker 1: the race. But still you sort of take that away
Speaker 1: and you're not you're not seeing it yet. And that's
Speaker 1: the thing. I don't want to say that this is
Speaker 1: definitive of anything. Yet. If a party out of power
Speaker 1: is starting to gain momentum into a midterm election, you
Speaker 1: do start to see certain things. You start to see
Speaker 1: an advantage in fundraising. So far, we've not seen any
Speaker 1: advantages on fundraising. If anything, the story is about how
Speaker 1: a bunch of Democratic donors appear to be sitting on
Speaker 1: their hands at least when it comes to the major committees,
Speaker 1: and we know that seems to be that could be
Speaker 1: just more about a lack of confidence in the leadership
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party and they don't want to give
Speaker 1: it to the official committees. But it's not like we're
Speaker 1: seeing candidates below the doors off in fundraising just yet.
Speaker 1: I think Roy Cooper had a pretty good opening bid
Speaker 1: fundraiser when he jumped into the North Carolina Center race.
Speaker 1: But again, you know it doesn't fit. We're not yet
Speaker 1: looking at twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, which was right, which
Speaker 1: was sort of peak sort of United Democratic Party fired up, donors,
Speaker 1: fired up everything, right. So my point is things you
Speaker 1: want to watch them. So we're not quite seeing that.
Speaker 1: Are we seeing a whole bunch of candidates jump in races? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I was looking at it, and while you
Speaker 1: are seeing it in sporadic places, it's not like you're
Speaker 1: seeing there's such enthusiasm to jump in that things are
Speaker 1: going to look so good for Democrats, that they've got
Speaker 1: a viable candidate, say in an open seat in Kentucky,
Speaker 1: you know, six years ago. You know, every six years,
Speaker 1: it seems as if that they're you you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying Kentucky should be what you measure. The ability
Speaker 1: of whether or not Democrats can find a viable candidate
Speaker 1: for Kentucky Senate should be a measure about whether the
Speaker 1: party's going to do well in the midterms. I don't
Speaker 1: expect them to win that race, but the fact that
Speaker 1: really isn't a candidate of note yet into that one
Speaker 1: and in just in you know, it's you know, you
Speaker 1: don't have candidates like rushing to the filing deadlines just yet,
Speaker 1: perhaps this will come perhaps right, and you know, one
Speaker 1: could argue the official starting Gun four campaign twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six as usually Labor Day twenty twenty five. But there's
Speaker 1: just it's an intangible when you've been doing this a
Speaker 1: long time, you know, it's sort of like what the
Speaker 1: kids like to say today, when you know, you know,
Speaker 1: this is one of those that feels like there's something
Speaker 1: happening here and it's just not developing in the same
Speaker 1: way that we saw, for instance, during the first Trump midterm.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean things could change. You heard that interview
Speaker 1: with Mark Zandi many of you, you know, the economy
Speaker 1: in the spring of twenty six. That may matter more
Speaker 1: than anything I'm talking about right now than the disappointing
Speaker 1: early fundraising or the not quite gangbuster candidate recruitment that
Speaker 1: we've seen. It's been good, not great. What's interesting is
Speaker 1: Democrats have actually still done a little bit better on
Speaker 1: the candidate recruitment front than Republicans. For instance, Republicans still
Speaker 1: don't have a sort of an agreed upon viable candidate
Speaker 1: in the open Minnesota center race. And so there, you know,
Speaker 1: it's almost as if there's this weird pause over things
Speaker 1: because again it's it's not like things are that much
Speaker 1: better on the Republican side. They're doing better on money, right,
Speaker 1: there's more unity around Trump, but it isn't translating quite
Speaker 1: like it's not like it's helping their candidate in Virginia.
Speaker 1: And that's if anything, and you're not you know, to me,
Speaker 1: what's interesting by campaign twenty twenty five, there's there is
Speaker 1: sort of one swing race, but it's not Virginia this cycle,
Speaker 1: and it's not New York City. It's New Jersey governor.
Speaker 1: In the point in that it's gonna of all the
Speaker 1: races this cycle, it's probably going to tell me the
Speaker 1: most about what twenty twenty six could look like. It is.
Speaker 1: You know, New Jersey is a very suburban state, right,
Speaker 1: so if the suburbs or are they going to be
Speaker 1: turning against Trump? Or did he those inroads he made
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, are those sustained even when he's
Speaker 1: not on the ballot, Right, he really improved Republican standing
Speaker 1: in New Jersey, New Jersey, Illinois, those are two of
Speaker 1: those states where Trump did dramatically better in losing them
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four that he did in either twenty
Speaker 1: twenty or twenty sixteen. Was that a blip? Was that
Speaker 1: an outlier? Or is there are we still in the
Speaker 1: middle of some form of a realignment in some of
Speaker 1: these other places. So the New Jersey governor's race, it's
Speaker 1: an open governor's race. Republicans, haven't you know, this is
Speaker 1: one of those states that it does sort of vacillate, right,
Speaker 1: It's one of those that doesn't like to have any
Speaker 1: party usually get more than eight to twelve years at
Speaker 1: a time on this front. So the Republican candidate Chidarelli
Speaker 1: does sort of have a little bit he just feels Jersey.
Speaker 1: You just sort of again like Phil Murphy feels Jersey, right,
Speaker 1: Chris Christy feels Jersey. I say, this is a good
Speaker 1: way sort of like do you feel like they're representative
Speaker 1: of Jersey. I'm not saying Mikey Cheryl isn't the case.
Speaker 1: It doesn't you know, the same thing. But there's something
Speaker 1: I don't know. You see it. And he's running a
Speaker 1: second time that you know, he's the second time candidates
Speaker 1: in these governors races. Actually, there's a pretty decent track
Speaker 1: record when you're nominee twice in a row. Jeb Bush
Speaker 1: lost the first time he ran for governor, learned some
Speaker 1: lessons got better the second time. Mikey Cheryl sort of
Speaker 1: stumbled on the Mom Donnie question and that and that's
Speaker 1: going to be something that I'm very curious about New Jersey,
Speaker 1: which is, I don't think Mom Donnield is going to
Speaker 1: be an issue for voters. But if Mikey Cheryl loses
Speaker 1: or comes really close to losing, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a perception that, hey, this may have been an overhang,
Speaker 1: this may have been a problem, and it's going to
Speaker 1: spook the party, if you will. It was interesting that
Speaker 1: she was on air when she was first asked and
Speaker 1: she said she was likely she couldn't imagine not supporting
Speaker 1: The Democratic nominee Chidarelli campaign has been hitting her saying,
Speaker 1: hey see she supports Mom Donnie. Meanwhile, the Cheryl campaign
Speaker 1: is saying no, no, no, no. She hasn't officially endorsed. You know.
Speaker 1: It's one of those where you say, you know, if
Speaker 1: she were, if you're a bit more nimble. When she
Speaker 1: was first asked the question, the easy answer is, I
Speaker 1: don't think New Yorkers want a New Jersey person telling
Speaker 1: them who to vote for And I certainly don't want
Speaker 1: New Yorkers telling New Jersey who they should be electing
Speaker 1: as governor, you know, something along those lines. And I
Speaker 1: think it just shows you this is happening to a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats. Nobody's quite sure how progressive is the
Speaker 1: Democratic base. Will you get punished if you sort of
Speaker 1: aren't seen as as sort of progressive enough? Is it
Speaker 1: overrated or underrated? And I think I've sensed that quite
Speaker 1: a few Democratic candidates aren't sure right because the people
Speaker 1: that show up to the fundraisers, the people that show
Speaker 1: up to the events, they're very progressive. But is that
Speaker 1: what you need? Are they not going to show up
Speaker 1: if you sort of tack to the center. And I
Speaker 1: think that New Jersey's going to be an interesting test
Speaker 1: of this, of all the three races that we're all
Speaker 1: going to be watching very closely on election night twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, and I'm going to be watching a handful
Speaker 1: of other mayor's races too. As I've pointed out, quite
Speaker 1: a few incumbent mayors are struggling. The incumbent mayor of
Speaker 1: Seattle ended up being the number two vote get or
Speaker 1: in that all party primary, or that non party primary
Speaker 1: basically that Washington State holds. We've already seen the mayor
Speaker 1: of Pittsburgh lose a primary, so there's definitely I think
Speaker 1: there's in you know, it's not great to be an incumbent, right,
Speaker 1: This is like one of those which is also so
Speaker 1: something else. You know, Mikey Cheryl has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Phil Murphy's administration, and yet it's a Democrat trying
Speaker 1: to replace a Democrat. So in some ways, she's kind
Speaker 1: of defending an incumbent administration where Abigail Spamberger, right, she's
Speaker 1: not only gets the benefit of sort of running against
Speaker 1: the White House in northern Virginia, but also it's a
Speaker 1: Republican governor, and there's a sense of, you know, she
Speaker 1: gets to sort of run as the outsider. And I
Speaker 1: think we're more in an anti incumbent environment than any
Speaker 1: sort of anti party environment. So that's one of those
Speaker 1: cases where it could hurt the Democrat in New Jersey
Speaker 1: but help the Democrat even more in Virginia. But the
Speaker 1: point is is that there's this I don't think we
Speaker 1: can barely say we really know if twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: is really tilting in one direction or the other. Right,
Speaker 1: history says it should already be tilting towards the Democrats.
Speaker 1: There's certainly plenty of underlying numbers showing that you'd probably
Speaker 1: rather be a Democrat on the ballot in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six than a Republican. But it's not as this doesn't
Speaker 1: look like twenty eighteen. That doesn't mean it won't develop
Speaker 1: that way. Could. Like I said, I think the biggest
Speaker 1: uncertainty we have here is not what happens to a
Speaker 1: candidate in New York City, or what happens in New
Speaker 1: Year's e governor, or which candidates get recruited, or whether
Speaker 1: Democrats can put more Senate seats in play. You know,
Speaker 1: can they put Florida in play? Can they put a
Speaker 1: Mississippi in play? Can they put a Kansas in play?
Speaker 1: Can they put an Eyewa in play? You know, if
Speaker 1: they're not putting two or three of those states that
Speaker 1: I just ticked off there, they're not really going to
Speaker 1: be able to make a viable case I could win
Speaker 1: the majority the Senate. So then it all goes to
Speaker 1: the House. Well, these redistricting fights, maybe that's also delaying
Speaker 1: candidate interest, right, that doesn't help, And all of that
Speaker 1: just sort of delays delays. That said, if the economy
Speaker 1: is as is as bad as some people fear, it's
Speaker 1: going to be in the spring of twenty six, right,
Speaker 1: and what is bad is bad sort of rising unemployment
Speaker 1: and rising inflation. Right, are we in this stagflation moment
Speaker 1: that folks are worried about? Or is it better than
Speaker 1: you think? And then that could change the conversation quite
Speaker 1: a bit. So right now you don't see the same
Speaker 1: level where this anti Trump antagonism is supercharging financial enthusiasm
Speaker 1: and other enthusiasm for the Democrats. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: the big uncertainty, of course, is still going to be
Speaker 1: the shape of the economy in the spring of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. So that said, we are living in an
Speaker 1: era of tumult, We are living in an era that
Speaker 1: we vote more against than what we're four. And it's
Speaker 1: that set up that probably works best in describing the
Speaker 1: conversation that Charlie Cook and I have coming up. We'll
Speaker 1: sneak at a break here and when we come back,
Speaker 1: Charlie Cook, all right, let's do a little lass Chuck
Speaker 1: ask Chuck. I'm really fired up. I really like the
Speaker 1: expanded overseas questions we're getting this one comes from another one.
Speaker 1: I think this is our second one from the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: I hope we can get a Dutch question at some point,
Speaker 1: maybe holler at somebody from Holland will send one. See
Speaker 1: if any of you get that joke. But let's see here.
Speaker 1: This is Randall V. From Leiden, the Netherlands, and he writes,
Speaker 1: with the recent developments between President Trump and Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: another meeting with no real results but clear advantages for Putin.
Speaker 1: I left deeply frustrated. How is it possible that wealthy
Speaker 1: democracies like the US and EU keep allowing him to
Speaker 1: get what he wants time and again? Was so little pushback?
Speaker 1: As someone from Leiden, this city the Pilgrims once left
Speaker 1: in search of liberty, I feel a deep historical connection
Speaker 1: to the United States, but it's hard to reconcile that
Speaker 1: legacy with today's seeming powerlessness in the face of authoritarianism
Speaker 1: authoritarian aggression. Have we reached the limits of democracy or
Speaker 1: are we simply two divided and distracted to act? More
Speaker 1: regards Randall, you know, I've thought about this question in
Speaker 1: a few ways because it actually applies to and I
Speaker 1: know you're going to find this at first odd, but
Speaker 1: it sort of applies to why why folks aren't taking
Speaker 1: this measles outbreak more seriously for instance, And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm glad to see that the Texans feel like they're
Speaker 1: finally getting this under control. You know, there's a point where,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole point of history is where you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't learn it, you're deemed to repeat it.
Speaker 1: But it turns out we forget it in civilizations time
Speaker 1: and time again. And it feels like about, you know,
Speaker 1: once once something faded into third or fourth generation, it's
Speaker 1: almost like we have to repeat it because I can
Speaker 1: tell you with what we're going through. One of the
Speaker 1: reasons and you've heard me say this why I'm long
Speaker 1: term optimistic but short term pessimistic about sort of where
Speaker 1: this democracy is going is that we've done this. We
Speaker 1: do this. We've done it a few times where we
Speaker 1: have veered into some undemocratic you know lanes here, and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden we correct ourselves. It's like
Speaker 1: it's like we're about to swerve off the road and
Speaker 1: we somehow, just before we go into the ditch, we
Speaker 1: get back on the straight and narrow so there's a
Speaker 1: part of me that wonders if it's if just Hitler's
Speaker 1: too far away. What happened in Europe is too far away.
Speaker 1: You know, my grandfather who fought has been dead for
Speaker 1: forty five years, right, So here was a first person
Speaker 1: account that I'm no longer right, which means my kids
Speaker 1: are getting second hand, third hand. So maybe it's that
Speaker 1: I'm not you know, I'm just throwing that idea out
Speaker 1: there that sometimes we have to. You know, there's an
Speaker 1: expression in this country this second you know, there's no
Speaker 1: new intelligence has learned from a second kick into the
Speaker 1: head from a mule, meaning you know, once you've learned
Speaker 1: the way mules kick, you're going to sort of stay
Speaker 1: out of their way. I don't know about that. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I think our country needs a kick in the head
Speaker 1: about every eighty years, where we will go through an
Speaker 1: existential crisis or two. You know, where we were in
Speaker 1: the eighteen fifties and where we were in the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 1: and that was more global than just here, and then
Speaker 1: here we are again arguably right, you know, now we're
Speaker 1: just under one hundred years later, about eighty you know,
Speaker 1: somewhere between eighty and ninety years later. So there's it
Speaker 1: may simply be that, as John m John McCain used
Speaker 1: to joke, it's always darker, you know, he used to
Speaker 1: quote Mause saying, it's always darkest before it turns really black.
Speaker 1: But I do think that that that some of this
Speaker 1: is just is some sort of it's not a it's
Speaker 1: not that we forget what happened. We just can't imagine
Speaker 1: that our modern society we would allow the same things
Speaker 1: to happen that happened in the thirties. And yet now
Speaker 1: we're all finding out, Oh, this is how Germany might
Speaker 1: have happened. Right, So look, I'm surprised you're not more
Speaker 1: optimistic about Europe's response. I've been impressed with how United
Speaker 1: Europe is stuck with Ukraine, and in some ways I
Speaker 1: think it's it may be in the long term better
Speaker 1: for the EU, better for the continent as a whole,
Speaker 1: that that there was the possibility that the United States
Speaker 1: wouldn't be that you ally anymore for one reason or
Speaker 1: the other. I'd like to think that will still never happen.
Speaker 1: But the fact that you know, you see everybody in
Speaker 1: your pivoting to collective security, I think that's it sort of.
Speaker 1: It gives me some hope that, hey, there are you
Speaker 1: know it. Obviously, the closer the war is to you,
Speaker 1: the more serious you take the threat. This war's on
Speaker 1: the other side of an ocean for us, and then
Speaker 1: on the other side of a continent there right, it
Speaker 1: is not for you. So perhaps we should take the
Speaker 1: fact that Europeans seemed to be a bit more united
Speaker 1: have been. Look, I was extraordinarily impressed with how Europe's
Speaker 1: responded to Trump two point out, and I think that
Speaker 1: that maybe that's you might feel a bit more ouptate,
Speaker 1: mystic if you focus on how's your respondent? I mean, look,
Speaker 1: trust me, I don't like that the United States is
Speaker 1: not interested in being leader of the free world. I
Speaker 1: did not know we'd ever have an American president that
Speaker 1: didn't want to be leader of the free world, that
Speaker 1: didn't want to be the chief promoter of liberty and
Speaker 1: democracy around the world. That's a big change for a
Speaker 1: lot of us. Many of us hope it's temporary, all right.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Nate, a longtime listener viewer, and
Speaker 1: understand your passion for baseball. I'm a gen xer like
Speaker 1: you and a lifelong brewer. Fan. I fun little trivia
Speaker 1: question out there for you folks. Can you name the
Speaker 1: original home of the Milwaukee Brewers. Of course I don't.
Speaker 1: It's not like I'm going to be having like seventh
Speaker 1: Caller get surprize. But I always love having to teach
Speaker 1: my son that they were originally the Seattle Pilots. Anyway,
Speaker 1: lifelong Brewer fan, so I do I am curious? Nate,
Speaker 1: let us know, were you ever a Seattle Pilot fan?
Speaker 1: And do you collect Seattle Pilot's paraphernalia as sort of
Speaker 1: an homage to the Brewers? Okay, any rights, I may
Speaker 1: be living in an alternative universe because it seems my
Speaker 1: Brewers are not only the best team in the majors currently,
Speaker 1: but also reportedly have the top farm system as well.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how it all happened, but does this
Speaker 1: give some hope for baseball competitiveness long term? Or is
Speaker 1: this just a blip and we'll be back to the
Speaker 1: Dodgers and Yankees' usual domination by the end of the year.
Speaker 1: What can other organizations like your Nats learned from them
Speaker 1: that can be replicated to maintain some semblance of competition?
Speaker 1: Keep up the excellent work. Look I mean, the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is the baseball playoffs are the great equalizer, right.
Speaker 1: The one thing that baseball has to equalize things is
Speaker 1: the five game series. Right, You get two hot pitchers
Speaker 1: in a five game series and you can beat the
Speaker 1: best team in baseball. You know, I've you know, I remember,
Speaker 1: I remember when the Gnats were going to be the
Speaker 1: wild card and I was telling them in son, I'm like, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we want we want it this way. We don't want
Speaker 1: to win the division. We win the division, we won't
Speaker 1: get to face if we face the Dodgers, it's in
Speaker 1: a seven game. If we do it the wild card,
Speaker 1: we get the Dodgers in the five game, and sure
Speaker 1: enough we got them in the five game and we
Speaker 1: can meet them in a five game. So I do
Speaker 1: think the playoffs, right like the playoffs in the NBA
Speaker 1: are are not an equalizer, right, it almost you know,
Speaker 1: you have to be deep, you have to be you know,
Speaker 1: there isn't you know. There was a brief period where
Speaker 1: the NBA. There was one year the Lakers got eliminated
Speaker 1: in the first round in a best two out of three,
Speaker 1: right like, So they tinkered early and then they went
Speaker 1: all seven games. I would love to see the NBA
Speaker 1: go to a first round five game because it would
Speaker 1: it would create upsets, right, you know, a five game,
Speaker 1: you cannot an eight seed will be to a one
Speaker 1: seed more often than in a seven game. Is an
Speaker 1: eight s going to be to one seed? I think
Speaker 1: it's ups the entertainment value, but it may not be
Speaker 1: what the league wants right that. You know, if the
Speaker 1: best players hurt for a game, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you're down two oh, and then it's one more game
Speaker 1: and it's over. Right, So I I understand why the
Speaker 1: league went to just full seven slates across the board
Speaker 1: because it does almost always guarantee you're going to get,
Speaker 1: you know, two of the five best teams. I mean,
Speaker 1: I get the best two teams, but you're going to
Speaker 1: get two of the five, five or six best teams.
Speaker 1: So baseball does already have a great equalizer in its playoffs.
Speaker 1: I'd like to know how the Brewers do it. You know,
Speaker 1: did the Ceiling you know, did the Ceilings family just
Speaker 1: sort of figured like leave, did he like learn some
Speaker 1: secret code as commissioner Baseball and left it when they
Speaker 1: sold the team to the next I have kid, but
Speaker 1: it seems that there are ways to do this, and
Speaker 1: you watch how the you know, they're just they're just
Speaker 1: very careful about their money. You decide is this worth
Speaker 1: an eight game an eight year contract or not? Try this?
Speaker 1: Try that, you know you've got to. It's almost like
Speaker 1: being making money as a poker player. You're going to
Speaker 1: have to have a high tolerance for risk. It was
Speaker 1: a risk to let Corbyn Burns go right not pay
Speaker 1: the money, but they decided not to do that. They
Speaker 1: knew what they had in their farm system. So if
Speaker 1: you manage it right right, you can always sort of
Speaker 1: have something coming up in the farm system just as
Speaker 1: you're trading off somebody you can't afford to sign. I say,
Speaker 1: the Braves are sort of run very similarly, So you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right the raise or the arguably the model franchise
Speaker 1: for this. But that's what's so disappointing is that that
Speaker 1: there's plenty of role models out there for the Nats
Speaker 1: to emulate, and they're just choosing not to emulate it.
Speaker 1: You know, look, I understand that the finances, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm in more of of what the you guys have
Speaker 1: pulled off, because you also have that horrible TV contract
Speaker 1: with I think you're one of those poor diamonds sports teams,
Speaker 1: which is just you know, unclear whether the revenue is
Speaker 1: going to be there. So, you know, Baseball's challenges. They're
Speaker 1: just going to have to figure out how to share
Speaker 1: some revenue, right are you know, are the bigger market
Speaker 1: teams committed to supporting a full league of thirty teams
Speaker 1: and in order to do that, you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: have more revenue sharing, you know, And I could argue that,
Speaker 1: you know, the Dodgers aren't nearly as valuable without twenty
Speaker 1: nine other clubs coming to play them, right, rather than
Speaker 1: just eighteen other clubs or sixteen other clubs. You know,
Speaker 1: So if you don't do that, you're facing you're facing
Speaker 1: then you should contract so that you at least it's
Speaker 1: all competitive. But that's that's no way to grow sport.
Speaker 1: So I guess I'm hopeful that they can figure out
Speaker 1: some revenue sharing, some sort of you know, I think
Speaker 1: you can create market, you know, sort of the NBA
Speaker 1: showed with the second Apron business that you can sort
Speaker 1: of incentivize ways to limit how much money is spent
Speaker 1: and then also raise the floor of minimum salaries to
Speaker 1: sort of force some better salary competitiveness. So I want
Speaker 1: to be somewhat optimistic, but it is worth noting that
Speaker 1: quite Let's just say, word has it many a baseball
Speaker 1: franchise is pitching season tickleholders to renew by saying there
Speaker 1: may not be baseball in twenty seven. And that's a
Speaker 1: real bummer to me. All right. Next one comes from
Speaker 1: Matt and he writes first and enjoying the pod Monsie
Speaker 1: and meet the press, but enjoying your new endeavor. In
Speaker 1: your podcast with Colin Cowherd, you mentioned the shift from
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, moving from Reagan Republicanism to the Maga Party. Second,
Speaker 1: my question, as a former Pennsylvanian now Floridian for the
Speaker 1: last twenty five years, what would have happened to Florida
Speaker 1: politics if Alex Sink had defeated Rick Scott in twenty ten.
Speaker 1: It's not as if that was a huge majority, and
Speaker 1: the same was true in twenty fourteen against Charlie crist
Speaker 1: Met And he says, go Phillies like a typical Florida transplant, right,
Speaker 1: They bring their fandom from another state, and that's why
Speaker 1: the poor Marlins and the Rays can't develop real fan bases, right, Actually,
Speaker 1: you don't have to go that. I go back even
Speaker 1: you know, Sandrew Gillham won the Democratic primary by three
Speaker 1: percentage points thirty four thirty one. A week earlier, he
Speaker 1: was trailing by ten. He had a bunch of momentum
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and George Soros dropped in a couple of
Speaker 1: late bits of money just when he needed it. But
Speaker 1: you know, Gwen Graham was facing attack ads from another
Speaker 1: candidate named Jeff Green, a Marl Lago member who was
Speaker 1: sort of a DEM donor but cranky, and he just
Speaker 1: was running these attack ads on her, just trying to
Speaker 1: take her out. So she didn't, you know, but she
Speaker 1: was definitely more of a center left candidate. She beats
Speaker 1: to Santas that race, I mean to say to almost
Speaker 1: be Gillam. I mean, you see me, Guillam almost won
Speaker 1: that race. It was decided by less than a percentage point.
Speaker 1: You know, both if you recall both the governor's race
Speaker 1: and that Senate race almost went into I think one
Speaker 1: of them went to auto recount, and they almost both
Speaker 1: did because it was less than a percentage point that that'
Speaker 1: split on. But Gwen Graham wins that race. So you know,
Speaker 1: forget the Rick Scott Alex Sink race, right, I can,
Speaker 1: I can just you can go back to even more recently,
Speaker 1: which of course makes it it's such a head scratcher
Speaker 1: that the Democratic Parties abandoned the state nationally, right, they've
Speaker 1: just they've walked away. Biden only lost the state by
Speaker 1: three points, and then they just but they treat it
Speaker 1: as if it's turned into Idaho. And then when you
Speaker 1: don't compete, then you stop behaving like a national party
Speaker 1: on this front. So, you know, I think it again,
Speaker 1: I think when you have you know, I think the
Speaker 1: part the Democratic Party has not been helped that they
Speaker 1: have not been able to succeed in some of these
Speaker 1: very purple states or sort of center right states, because
Speaker 1: those candidates would when they win, are able to sort
Speaker 1: of be a bit of a bulwark within the party
Speaker 1: when there's sort of a movement to sort of move
Speaker 1: things closer to the base, and we like, whoa, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: this is why this doesn't work here, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you know, you don't want to lose.
Speaker 1: So I think the lack of those voices winning, you know,
Speaker 1: you say, how does it change things? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: the second the Democrats ever elect somebody governor, that person
Speaker 1: is going to be immediately in the shortlist for the
Speaker 1: national ticket, right like when you when you if you
Speaker 1: have a Democrat winning in a state like that, you're
Speaker 1: going to quickly look at that person. They immediately get
Speaker 1: some national attention, get national following, and and can potentially
Speaker 1: rebrand the party a bit, you know, a bit closer
Speaker 1: to the to the middle than maybe where where the
Speaker 1: perception of the brand is today. So you know, that's
Speaker 1: that's what perhaps a victory by Alex I think would
Speaker 1: eventual was definitely very much more of of a center
Speaker 1: left candidate, not necessarily from the progressive base. So it's
Speaker 1: it's it's a head scratcher. Why the why these Again?
Speaker 1: You go back and you look at the results of
Speaker 1: basically every state wide race in Florida from two thousand
Speaker 1: to twenty eighteen, twenty to twenty twenty, and then I
Speaker 1: show you the lack of investment and energy from in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two in twenty twenty four, and you're really like,
Speaker 1: why do they do that? And you know, I do
Speaker 1: think the National Democratic Party is going to have to
Speaker 1: take a look at what what the what the map's
Speaker 1: going to look like in the twenty thirties, and ask
Speaker 1: themselves if they continue to sort of retreat into what
Speaker 1: they believe are safe blue states, they're just dropped. They're
Speaker 1: they're not going to get they're not going to have
Speaker 1: a competitive chance at majorities. And you know, if they
Speaker 1: don't figure out how to become competitive in Florida and
Speaker 1: in techs, look Florida, Texas, Ohio. They can't write all
Speaker 1: three of those states off. They got to get the
Speaker 1: I think they got to try the goal out to
Speaker 1: be competitive in all three. But right now they're sort
Speaker 1: of right in retreat in all three. And until the
Speaker 1: party cracks that code, I don't know if they're going
Speaker 1: to crack a code nationally. And that might be one
Speaker 1: way to follow this and one way to keep track
Speaker 1: of this. All right, let's see here next question another
Speaker 1: Pennsylvanian in here. No, a Misschigander who claims to be
Speaker 1: a Penn and State fan. Good luck with that anyway.
Speaker 1: This comes from Mark for an arbor An. He writes,
Speaker 1: even if research funding cuts are eventually restored, the damage
Speaker 1: in the interim is so significant that alternative funding solutions
Speaker 1: should be considered stage could issue bonds and relan the
Speaker 1: proceeds to research institution, which would cover the interest and
Speaker 1: repay the bonds through future grants or fundraising. While not
Speaker 1: a complete replacement, this approached smiler to conduit issuances used
Speaker 1: in infrastructure could help mitigate the harm. What say you,
Speaker 1: that's an interesting thought that you you would do this
Speaker 1: uh as as a as bond proposals. I mean, perhaps
Speaker 1: this will You're right, we do it for school construction
Speaker 1: funding all the time in the county I live in,
Speaker 1: or you know, it's you know where they basically have
Speaker 1: to ask for permission to borrow money. But they do,
Speaker 1: and and and they get these low interest loans and
Speaker 1: and the taxpayers are barely in our LinkedIn, I feel
Speaker 1: like we get our money's worth from from what we pay.
Speaker 1: That's an interesting I hope we don't have to resort
Speaker 1: to that. But this is one of those questions whether
Speaker 1: if this is you know, in in our in our
Speaker 1: in our NBC poll our posters used to say, wait
Speaker 1: till you see a trend for a second straight poll
Speaker 1: before you make note of it amongst a demographic group.
Speaker 1: And I might say the same thing about presidential terms. Right,
Speaker 1: if we get another president who's this you know, who
Speaker 1: decides to politicize scientific research like this and create a
Speaker 1: political litmus test for research grants, and this is sort
Speaker 1: of the place we go down. Well, I think all
Speaker 1: this gets privatized in some form or another. And maybe
Speaker 1: what you're describing, maybe this is you know, maybe you know,
Speaker 1: if we go down this road, I think we're going
Speaker 1: to be more of a the states may behave more
Speaker 1: as a more of a loose confederation. And then suddenly,
Speaker 1: and then so I could picture your idea, you know,
Speaker 1: take Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, you know, Illinois all sort of
Speaker 1: agree to put something like it, and it's sort of
Speaker 1: a regional research initiative where they all put and pull
Speaker 1: it because ultimately, right, the more the more money you
Speaker 1: can pull, the more you can scale some of this research.
Speaker 1: So my guess is that is probably what would happen
Speaker 1: if we if we can we continue on this road
Speaker 1: of having an unreliable federal government when it comes to
Speaker 1: scientific data, economic data, then you may see some consortiums,
Speaker 1: public private compacts, things like that that try to try
Speaker 1: to be bridges right of some sort or a new
Speaker 1: form of a public utility, and maybe they are state based.
Speaker 1: I guess, I am man. I hope we don't have
Speaker 1: to go down that road. I hope there's some. I
Speaker 1: hope there's I hope this is a low point on
Speaker 1: that front. You know, speaking of research, there's a the
Speaker 1: CDC director who was appointed CDC director by Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: and who stayed in office for three years of Ronald Reagan. Okay,
Speaker 1: meaning that's how non political the CDC job used to
Speaker 1: be seen at He just wrote an op ed in
Speaker 1: Stat magazine, which is a healthcare journal. I'm going to
Speaker 1: read you this quote. It's it's an unbelievable qute. Because
Speaker 1: many of you have made note that I'm pretty tough
Speaker 1: on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. H And I am because
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm alarmed at the lack of alarm at
Speaker 1: the direct You know how much how much pain he's
Speaker 1: causing this country already and physical pain that he's that
Speaker 1: he's doing. But this is not my way. You know,
Speaker 1: if you thought I have been tough on him, let
Speaker 1: me read you what. William Foge, the former CDC director,
Speaker 1: again appointed by Carter, served through three years of Reagan.
Speaker 1: So not a not not not an era where we
Speaker 1: were politicizing the CDC. He wrote that Kennedy would be
Speaker 1: less hazardous if he decided to do cardiac surgery. Then
Speaker 1: he would kill people only one at a time, rather
Speaker 1: than his current ability to kill by the thousands. It's
Speaker 1: a pretty tough op, ed the headline in this again
Speaker 1: it's in stat I encourage you to go to take
Speaker 1: a look at it. How public health can fight back
Speaker 1: in a time of dangerous nonsense. Look, there's not a
Speaker 1: mainstream public health official in an America, former or current
Speaker 1: that isn't fully fully alarmed about the situation we're dealing
Speaker 1: with anyway. Like I said, I certainly hope folks sober
Speaker 1: up on this one on the right. All right, last question,
Speaker 1: then we'll wrap things up here. This comes from CW
Speaker 1: from Central New York or any elect Democrats actively calling
Speaker 1: for a constitutional convention. Frankly, I think the DNC is
Speaker 1: guarding its power and has not yet come to terms
Speaker 1: with its failure since twenty sixteen. As you have said,
Speaker 1: they haven't lost badly enough yet. I believe both parties
Speaker 1: have reasons to be hesitant about a constitutional convention. I
Speaker 1: think your idea to have a convention focusing on one
Speaker 1: or two issues would be a good way to start.
Speaker 1: What issues do you think are ripe for amendments? Which
Speaker 1: amendment issues do you think could do the most to
Speaker 1: move the country in a positive direction? Would you consider
Speaker 1: doing an episode on how a constitutional convention might unfold?
Speaker 1: Thank you, CW. I like that idea about trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, see how one would work and how one
Speaker 1: might unfold if you will, And you know you asked me,
Speaker 1: I guess I look at it this way. It's sort
Speaker 1: of like what a successful constitutional convention is going to
Speaker 1: have to be a give and take between the left
Speaker 1: and the right. I think a balanced budget amendment is
Speaker 1: It's sort of like what what is what is the most?
Speaker 1: What is the most? I guess is confirmable the word
Speaker 1: that you would use for an amendment? Right, you know
Speaker 1: which amendment that comes from team right has the best
Speaker 1: shot at getting the seventy five percent that you need?
Speaker 1: All of those markers to me, it's the balance budget amendment.
Speaker 1: Those that on the left, which are the ones? I
Speaker 1: think it would be campaign finance reform, right, So you know,
Speaker 1: those are the two issues. I think you have term
Speaker 1: limits and age limits. I think it's campaign money, and
Speaker 1: I think it's public debt, right, you know, those sort
Speaker 1: of three entities, because I think ultimately right the convendor,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we need like a good I
Speaker 1: think we need Netflix to do an eight episode series
Speaker 1: called The Continental Congress. Will Benjamin Franklin, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: just try to maybe we could dramatize them omens and
Speaker 1: you have these cliffhangers. What are they going to do
Speaker 1: about this? How are they going to balance? The small
Speaker 1: states are mad at Virginia and Massachusetts. What are they
Speaker 1: going to do? You know? Are they going to pull
Speaker 1: out of this new country? Right? Maybe that would grab
Speaker 1: people's attention and they could learn how the whole thing
Speaker 1: worked so and then then that would then trigger. But
Speaker 1: the point is the original Continental Congress, right, the original
Speaker 1: Constitutional Convention was a series of compromises. Before we got
Speaker 1: our constitution, we had the failed Articles of Confederation. So
Speaker 1: it's one of those that goes back to Charlie Cook's
Speaker 1: frustration that we are civics education that particularly sort of
Speaker 1: the rationale behind why our government is a republic, why
Speaker 1: we're formed the way we're formed, et cetera. I certainly
Speaker 1: would want the entire country to understand that before we
Speaker 1: went into one. But if you're looking for a way
Speaker 1: to have a successful constitutional convention, I think the three
Speaker 1: I think the three topics really are public debt, age
Speaker 1: in term limits, and campaign money. Right. I think you
Speaker 1: find ways to deal with those three. I think everything
Speaker 1: else is probably problematic. You know, you might have people
Speaker 1: that want to put a right privacy or a right.
Speaker 1: Maybe the Equal Rights Amendment get sort of does officially
Speaker 1: get put in. There's some that argue that that that
Speaker 1: that clock is still running. I think that's a I
Speaker 1: I certainly wouldn't. That's probably not the best way for
Speaker 1: that amendment to get ratified. I think you'd want to
Speaker 1: have it to be more more a more modern vote
Speaker 1: on that one. But I think if you started there,
Speaker 1: you could deal with a lot of a lot of issues, right.
Speaker 1: I think if we could figure out a way to
Speaker 1: constitutionally limit money without it being seen as limiting speech,
Speaker 1: I do think we would, you know, we would, We could.
Speaker 1: We could deal with a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: problems that have sort of perverted our politics a little bit.
Speaker 1: And I've not always been you know, for the longest time,
Speaker 1: it always felt like well, you know, money's always going
Speaker 1: to find a way. But but but boy, we've gotten
Speaker 1: really you know, it's gotten too easy to hide, it's
Speaker 1: gotten too easy to you know, all of those things.
Speaker 1: So I think that I think those would be the
Speaker 1: topics that you would most likely have have success at
Speaker 1: getting past. But you know, I would love a constitutional
Speaker 1: convention simply for the educational aspect. You know. Again, you know,
Speaker 1: when I had Lindsay Shravinsky on my Newsphere show not
Speaker 1: too long ago, if you have a chance to check
Speaker 1: it out, I asked her how the Founders would be
Speaker 1: handling this moment. She said, you know, there's always one
Speaker 1: thing that jumped out at me that that she says
Speaker 1: that she says, you know, the founders didn't think the
Speaker 1: Constitution would last more than a generation. That the biggest
Speaker 1: thing that there are two things that would shock the
Speaker 1: Founders that they came back today. One is that it's
Speaker 1: still going, that we didn't rip it up and have
Speaker 1: a new one. A lot of democracies do that. The
Speaker 1: second is that it only has twenty eight amendments. They
Speaker 1: thought there'd be a lot more amendments. And that goes
Speaker 1: back to something I shared with you before. You know,
Speaker 1: one of the great observations to topful mate about the
Speaker 1: strength of our democracy is sort of how into politics
Speaker 1: we were at the local level. That seems to have
Speaker 1: gone away, right, So maybe a constitutional convention will sort
Speaker 1: of renew our renew our commitment to our citizenship and
Speaker 1: realize that, you know, there is some responsibility that comes
Speaker 1: with it. You know, if we want the benefits that
Speaker 1: come with it, and we want good stuff to happen,
Speaker 1: you know, we can't just sit here and complain. We
Speaker 1: got to participate, right, Sometimes participation is just just being
Speaker 1: knowledgeable and voting. You know, if you just do that,
Speaker 1: you're doing your job as a citizen. I think we've
Speaker 1: got plenty of people voting, and I fear we have
Speaker 1: plenty of people who think they're knowledgeable. But we have
Speaker 1: a lot of garbage information out there. And you know
Speaker 1: that's that gets it to the bigger thing that we've
Speaker 1: got to fix, right. You know, it is tough to
Speaker 1: get a country of three hundred and fifty million people
Speaker 1: to row in the same direction. If if if we're
Speaker 1: siloed in you know, six hundred different if we're in
Speaker 1: six hundred different silos and have no idea what everybody
Speaker 1: else is seeing, hearing, or reading. So with that, when
Speaker 1: I see you next time, I will have tried to
Speaker 1: figure out what's in this empty nest. Do I redesign
Speaker 1: my kids' bedrooms immediately right? Or we wait a few
Speaker 1: more years until until I do that. But either way,
Speaker 1: I will end this one here and we will see
Speaker 1: you after a long weekend until we upload again.