Speaker 1: Hello there, Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast.
Speaker 1: Full disclosure because you're seeing that, Hey, you're not in
Speaker 1: your normal studio. No, I am not. I'm on the
Speaker 1: lovely campus of the University of Southern California, or as
Speaker 1: my friends in Columbia, South Carolina would say, the USC
Speaker 1: of the West. I am out here. I got to
Speaker 1: participate in a meeting of the Big Ten government relations staff.
Speaker 1: That's right, if you forgot the USC is in the
Speaker 1: Big Ten, and so we got the host SUSPENI. It
Speaker 1: was actually quite interesting, quite fun, and I got to
Speaker 1: give a shout out to the Big Ten more so
Speaker 1: than the other conferences. Though I'm not saying the other
Speaker 1: conferences aren't trying to create non athletic sort of collaborative
Speaker 1: efforts here, but the Big Ten does seem to be
Speaker 1: more aggressive and better at having non athletic collaboration between
Speaker 1: the schools and it only you know, it's sort of
Speaker 1: if you're going to create these super conferences, you know,
Speaker 1: figure out ways to take advantage. I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: the ACC. Hey, guys, you got some incredible elite universities
Speaker 1: from Duke to Miami to Georgia Tech to Stanford to
Speaker 1: cal to SMU and ton in between. These are this
Speaker 1: is an opportunity. Bcs are another rising school. Syracuse is great.
Speaker 1: You know, take a page from how the Big ten
Speaker 1: is operating. SEC could could benefit in the same way.
Speaker 1: My understanding the Big twelve is trying to figure out
Speaker 1: how to how to create some sort of some sort
Speaker 1: of collaboration. So, as many of you know, I teach
Speaker 1: adjunct and the scholar in residence at the USC DC campus.
Speaker 1: So it does afford me the opportunity to come out
Speaker 1: to La once or twice a year for some of
Speaker 1: my USC duties. And so that's where we're coming from today.
Speaker 1: As you know, most Wednesdays, I want to lean more
Speaker 1: into my campaign roots, my political junkie roots. So I'll
Speaker 1: have a later in this broadcast the top five list
Speaker 1: on the top five most likely governor seats to flip
Speaker 1: that I'm going to. It's both twenty five and twenty six.
Speaker 1: It will include the two races talking about now, and
Speaker 1: I yes, I will have a lot more to say
Speaker 1: about Virginia like I did on Monday there. I think
Speaker 1: there's definitely a lot more to say there. But I thought, look,
Speaker 1: I want a few words on what we're dealing with
Speaker 1: right now. The shutdown is still here. I told you
Speaker 1: at the beginning of this shutdown debate that perhaps the
Speaker 1: entity that had the most power to end this shutdown
Speaker 1: might be the air traffic controllers and TSA agents and will.
Speaker 1: Already we're seeing the impact of an increasing number of
Speaker 1: air traffic controllers whose next paycheck is in jeopardy on
Speaker 1: October fourteenth. Sickouts are already slightly up a bit at
Speaker 1: a faster pace. I was out here in California, it
Speaker 1: was a big breaking news alert on all the TVs
Speaker 1: when I was in the wonderful Annenberg Journalism School newsroom.
Speaker 1: They have a terrific sort of hub newsroom looks looks
Speaker 1: like any major TV network that you would walk into.
Speaker 1: And the big breaking news on the local California news
Speaker 1: stations was the Burbank Airport was suddenly going to have
Speaker 1: major flight delays due to air traffic control issues. There's
Speaker 1: if you go on social media now you know that
Speaker 1: Nashville is experiencing this. We've seen Newark, which seems to
Speaker 1: have constant issues with that as well. So while I'm
Speaker 1: not going to sit here and tell you the you know,
Speaker 1: I was, I was sort of I'm going to stick
Speaker 1: to my initial prediction that we wouldn't that this shutdown
Speaker 1: would likely end by this weekend. But let's just say
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I have a winning ticket on that
Speaker 1: bet right now, because I do think both sides have
Speaker 1: convinced themselves thanks mostly to their you know, the fact
Speaker 1: that we have a siloed information ecosystem that they're making
Speaker 1: that somehow they're winning and somehow this is working for
Speaker 1: them and they're not losing anything on this so until
Speaker 1: there's real pain, and I do think the air traffic
Speaker 1: controller issue is something that likely will penetrate both information ecosystems,
Speaker 1: the left wing one and the right wing one, because
Speaker 1: everybody travels. And this gets back to my initial rant
Speaker 1: on how this is a ridiculous feature of the US system.
Speaker 1: There is no constitutional amendment that says appropriations no longer
Speaker 1: can be used to pay people if Congress can't meet
Speaker 1: a deadline. This is no way to run a company,
Speaker 1: let alone a country. Okay, the fact that we are
Speaker 1: putting the lives of thousands in danger travel around air
Speaker 1: let alone being just simply disruptive to their lives, screwing
Speaker 1: up people's job interviews, screwing up people's emergency visits to
Speaker 1: sick relatives, maybe they miss a funeral, all because of
Speaker 1: this political theater. This stuff's important, what they're debating. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to deny that. But the idea that we
Speaker 1: simply shut down the government to have these debates is
Speaker 1: just ridiculous. It shouldn't. This is not about who triggered
Speaker 1: the shutdown. The shutdown shouldn't be allowed to happen, and
Speaker 1: it is something that only Congress can easily stop this.
Speaker 1: They have chosen, both parties have chosen not to allow
Speaker 1: this to happen. And once again, by the way, the
Speaker 1: power to open up the government is actually solely in
Speaker 1: the hands of Republican senators. They waive the filibuster. Government
Speaker 1: opens the second they finished voting. So do keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. Now. I think it's arguably potentially a good
Speaker 1: thing when it comes to I think to fill buster
Speaker 1: not as it's used today, but the idea of one
Speaker 1: is still something that that should be a feature of
Speaker 1: the United States Senate. There's a better way to use it,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. But again, Republicans could open the government tomorrow.
Speaker 1: All they got to do is get rid of the philibuster.
Speaker 1: They have the votes on their own to do it. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the Democrats also have the power with their with just
Speaker 1: handing over five vote five more Senate votes to do that.
Speaker 1: But either way, I'm sorry. When you're disrupting people's lives,
Speaker 1: you're not winning anything. I do think Democrats have certainly
Speaker 1: gotten the attention of Republicans on the issue of healthcare.
Speaker 1: But Republicans knew already that they were vulnerable on healthcare.
Speaker 1: And you know it's possible. Here's the iordy to this.
Speaker 1: If if, if this shut down a complic gives the
Speaker 1: Democrats the ability, gives the Republicans the ability to say, oh,
Speaker 1: they fixed healthcare in this compromise. The irony is that
Speaker 1: the Democrats may have taken away one of their best
Speaker 1: issues to use in the midterms. But I digress. But
Speaker 1: before I get to a campaign update, I do think
Speaker 1: I've been talked about the potential final end. I'm taping
Speaker 1: on October seventh, so it seemed to be a good
Speaker 1: time to check in on There's a lot of polling
Speaker 1: that's been out there on Israel, not just in the
Speaker 1: United States, but it's some polling in Israel, and it's
Speaker 1: the polling in Israel, and I think a lot of
Speaker 1: people haven't seen or heard about, so I thought I
Speaker 1: would get there discuss a little bit of the polling
Speaker 1: on how Israel has lost it's standing in the United
Speaker 1: States and it's really starting Jewey roade across the board.
Speaker 1: It certainly Israel still has more support on the right
Speaker 1: than the left in this country, but it is eroding
Speaker 1: generally more. It's really bb Well unpopularity is growing. He's
Speaker 1: never been a popular guy here, but his unpopularity is growing.
Speaker 1: But what's striking is how unpopular he is in the
Speaker 1: state of Israel. And I will get to that, but
Speaker 1: I do think it's you know, what have we learned
Speaker 1: about Israel over the last two years. What's been the
Speaker 1: sort of fallout from all of this? And I think
Speaker 1: what's interesting is on the US relationship with Israel. I
Speaker 1: want to associate myself with some comments that Ian bremer
Speaker 1: Maide in his newsletter because I thought it was really smart.
Speaker 1: You know, it's an interesting conundrum that Israel's in right now.
Speaker 1: Israel under BB's leadership has never looked as powerful or
Speaker 1: as alone. So many Western governments have embraced the idea
Speaker 1: of Palestinian statehood, and there's in some ways, Israel has
Speaker 1: one friend, the United States. That's it. It makes the
Speaker 1: relationship with the United States that much more important to
Speaker 1: any current or future prime minister of Israel. And it
Speaker 1: gives the United States more leverage and arguably more global
Speaker 1: responsibility for managing, if you will, or influencing or however
Speaker 1: you want to put it, or the belief that they
Speaker 1: have influence over Israel. But the is the Israeli government
Speaker 1: has never been more tied and more in need of
Speaker 1: US support and more lena. They have no other allies
Speaker 1: like the United States nowhere even close. Not saying they
Speaker 1: don't have other friends out there, but it's only due
Speaker 1: to the United States that they have some Sunni Arab
Speaker 1: states that are friends. But it's sort of like their
Speaker 1: friends because of the United States. Whether they'd be friends
Speaker 1: with Israel on their own as a whole other story.
Speaker 1: But I thought that was an interesting piece of analysis
Speaker 1: by In. You know, I like to frequently bring onto
Speaker 1: the podcast as my international expert, one of the just
Speaker 1: smarter global political scientists that are out there. But it's
Speaker 1: true because as a military power, Israel now is the
Speaker 1: power of the there's no there's no there's no, there's
Speaker 1: no close second. It's Israel and everybody else. So they
Speaker 1: have power. They're feared in the Middle East, and yet
Speaker 1: it's out of fear, there's not there's less respect around
Speaker 1: the world because of BB's leadership too. Anyway, let me
Speaker 1: get into some of the polling, because I think some
Speaker 1: of this is interesting and worth taking a look at.
Speaker 1: So look, there's still giant this is first. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about America's views of Israel in general, big part of
Speaker 1: some split seventy percent. This is a Pew poll by
Speaker 1: the way that I'm citing Q came out last week,
Speaker 1: and there's this all this polling on on this side.
Speaker 1: This is just the Americans. The pole of Israeli citizens
Speaker 1: is by the Israeli Democracy Institute. Was conducted by the way,
Speaker 1: in Arabic and in Hebrew, because they also mean there's
Speaker 1: a lot of Israeli Arabs in the is Israeli population
Speaker 1: as well. It was a large minority in the State
Speaker 1: of Israel. But let me start with the US public opinion.
Speaker 1: So first, the sort of predictable the Partisans split seventy
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats or Democratic leaning independents view the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people favorably. Just thirty seven percent of Republicans or Republican
Speaker 1: leaners all those same views. The Israeli government is viewed
Speaker 1: positively by fifty five percent of Republicans. Only eighteen percent
Speaker 1: of Democrats view the Israeli government positively. On the Israeli people,
Speaker 1: Democrats are evenly divided forty eight to forty eight favorable
Speaker 1: unfavorable on the Israeli people. Republicans a much higher favorable
Speaker 1: view of the Israeli people sixty seven percent. Eighty two
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans and fifty six percent of Democrats view
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authority unfavorably. So while there are fewer Democrats
Speaker 1: that view An unfavorable, majorities of both parties view the
Speaker 1: Palestinian authority unfavorably, and eight and ten Republicans and eight
Speaker 1: and ten Democrats view AMAS unfavorably. But what's also interesting
Speaker 1: is there is growing skepticism of Israel's operation in Gaza
Speaker 1: over time. Thirty nine percent now say Israel has gone
Speaker 1: too far in its military operation against Hamas. That's up
Speaker 1: from thirty one percent at this same time in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, and it was twenty seven percent in late
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, just after Hamas took those hostages on
Speaker 1: October seven. And overall the Israeli government, which really is
Speaker 1: bbe right, but the Israeli government, fifty nine percent of
Speaker 1: America of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: That is up from fifty one percent of last year. Look,
Speaker 1: you can't get to fifty nine percent of Americans on
Speaker 1: anything without having essentially pieces of all three of America's
Speaker 1: sort of political tribes right, the left, center, and right.
Speaker 1: And that is definitely the case there. Now let me
Speaker 1: move to what we learned about the Israeli people, because
Speaker 1: I think some of these numbers will surprise people, and
Speaker 1: I think it's I say this as an American Jew,
Speaker 1: you know we in some cases, I think folks that
Speaker 1: are not familiar, you know, with there's plenty of diversity
Speaker 1: of thought inside the American Jewish community, plenty of diversity
Speaker 1: of thought among American Jews. On bb the individual or
Speaker 1: the Israeli government of the Palestinian people, that nuance gets lost,
Speaker 1: frankly in a lot of the conversation that takes place online,
Speaker 1: which is as an American jew very frustrating to many
Speaker 1: of us. Many of us and look, we disagree amongst ourselves.
Speaker 1: We have plenty of debates in the Jewish community ourselves,
Speaker 1: but we're pretty good at debating. We like debating, I
Speaker 1: will tell you that. But this to me, I think
Speaker 1: won't surprise American Jews, but this will surprise people who
Speaker 1: are not familiar as familiar. Sixty six percent of Israelis
Speaker 1: say it's time to end the war in Gaza. Sixty
Speaker 1: six percent of Israelis folks. Okay, that is up thirteen
Speaker 1: points from a year ago at this time, and another
Speaker 1: the same essentially sixty six percent two thirds of the
Speaker 1: country think Prime Minister Beating that Yahoo should take responsibility
Speaker 1: for the security failures that led to the October seventh
Speaker 1: attacks and resign. Okay, Now to split up that number
Speaker 1: just so you know, it's about forty five percent who
Speaker 1: believed he should resign immediately. Now there's a whole chunk
Speaker 1: of Israelis that think that that BB. You know, it
Speaker 1: was a security failure and he should take responsibility for this.
Speaker 1: He's never taken responsibility for the lack of smart security
Speaker 1: around October seventh. And then there's another fifteen percent who
Speaker 1: believed that he should resign after the war is over,
Speaker 1: finish the military operation and then resign. But it's pretty
Speaker 1: clear two thirds sixty basically sixty six percent of the
Speaker 1: population thing it is time for BB to leave the stage.
Speaker 1: He's got to go. And I think it's I think
Speaker 1: there is a belief and this happens in any wartime situation.
Speaker 1: You know, this is not unique to Israel. Zelenski is
Speaker 1: going to be facing the same thing. There's going to
Speaker 1: be fatigue the population. There's going to be a belief
Speaker 1: the population that in some ways there's going to be
Speaker 1: too much scar tissue with that leader, and they're never
Speaker 1: you know, and frankly, they may be so warped that
Speaker 1: they see everything as something they got to go to
Speaker 1: war to. And so just in general, you'll see there'll
Speaker 1: be a similar situation in Ukraine where there'll be people
Speaker 1: think it's time Brazilenski to go now. They may say
Speaker 1: let's wait till after the war, don't change horses in
Speaker 1: midstream type of mindset, which is something that many a
Speaker 1: democracy goes through. But I just think in general, I
Speaker 1: think it's I know this, I knew he was more
Speaker 1: unpopular than popular in Israel. I was surprised that the
Speaker 1: number would would be that high. This is worth in
Speaker 1: a question again of the Israeli public. A majority of
Speaker 1: the public believes that israel standing in the international arena
Speaker 1: is worse today than it was before October seventh. Seventy
Speaker 1: three percent of the overall sample believes this. And this
Speaker 1: is across the board. Among Israeli Jews it's seventy six percent,
Speaker 1: and among Israeli Arabs it is sixty percent. This is
Speaker 1: also the view of the majority of each of the
Speaker 1: three political camps within Israel. Those on the left, ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of those in the Israeli left believe Israel's
Speaker 1: international standing is worse today, eighty seven percent in the
Speaker 1: political center, and even sixty nine percent in the political right.
Speaker 1: And what is the main goal of this war right,
Speaker 1: There's been, frankly a debate inside Israel what should the goal?
Speaker 1: Is the goal to get all the hostages home or
Speaker 1: is the goal to eradicate Hamas? Well. We've heard what
Speaker 1: Biebe says, and certainly what his right wing government says.
Speaker 1: They want to make it about Hamas, but that is
Speaker 1: not where a majority of the Israeli public is sixty
Speaker 1: five percent of the Israeli public believe the main goal
Speaker 1: of the war in Godza today should only be bringing
Speaker 1: the hostages home, hard stop, hard stop. And the share,
Speaker 1: by the way of people that old those views has
Speaker 1: actually grown since January of twenty twenty four among both
Speaker 1: Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. And it's really not surprising.
Speaker 1: There's fatigue, there's concern that they're frankly never going to
Speaker 1: get home in time on that front. But it's I
Speaker 1: just think here on this October seventh, we should reflect,
Speaker 1: let's be hopeful that this is that we are potentially
Speaker 1: at the end here. And you know, for all the
Speaker 1: grief everybody, this is a case where Donald I don't
Speaker 1: know if if another American president could be putting BB
Speaker 1: in his place on this a little bit. This is
Speaker 1: a case where Trump's using his sort of unique ability
Speaker 1: to bully for good. In a certain sense, this is
Speaker 1: not very good politics in general, it's not very good
Speaker 1: diplomacy in general. But sometimes you know, BB and Trump
Speaker 1: are very similar guys. They're clinging to power to avoid accountability, right,
Speaker 1: They share a lot in common. They have gotten power
Speaker 1: without having a majority support, which is easier to explain
Speaker 1: in a parliamentary system a little harder to explain in
Speaker 1: our system. The two of them do have a lot
Speaker 1: in common, but it also means Trump knows how to
Speaker 1: Trump knows how to bully BB because he knows who
Speaker 1: BB is. So at this point, let's just hope we
Speaker 1: can turn the page, stop the killing, start the rebuilding,
Speaker 1: and see if the page came truly get turned. In
Speaker 1: the Middle East, there's a reason results matter more than promises,
Speaker 1: just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's
Speaker 1: largest injury law firm. For the last thirty five years,
Speaker 1: they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half
Speaker 1: a million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered
Speaker 1: next to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying
Speaker 1: as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended
Speaker 1: up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was
Speaker 1: awarded twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty
Speaker 1: times the amount that the insurance company originally offered that
Speaker 1: original ofw for six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty
Speaker 1: six million, six hundred fifty thousand dollars. So with more
Speaker 1: than one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how
Speaker 1: to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured, you need
Speaker 1: a lawyer, you need somebody to get your back. Check
Speaker 1: out for the People dot com, Slash podcast, or dial
Speaker 1: Pound Law Pound five to nine law on your cell phone.
Speaker 1: And remember all law firms are not the same. So
Speaker 1: check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless
Speaker 1: they win. Look, the issue of Israel whould still end
Speaker 1: up being a huge player inside, particularly inside Democratic primary politics,
Speaker 1: and I do want to make note before I get
Speaker 1: it full fledged in my sort of political briefing of
Speaker 1: the week. There's already an attack ad against a presidential
Speaker 1: candidate twenty twenty eight potential presidential candidate airing in the
Speaker 1: state of New Hampshire. The Pro Palestinian group im EU
Speaker 1: Policy Project has a new ad on TV in New
Speaker 1: Hampshire criticizing Kentucky Governor Andy Bashir. The ad hits Bashir
Speaker 1: for declining to tell Politico in August whether he would
Speaker 1: support blocking certain weapons sales to Israel. This has become
Speaker 1: more and more Democrats have gotten on board this idea
Speaker 1: of essentially blocking the sale of some military equipment and
Speaker 1: some arms to Israel by the US government, and it
Speaker 1: also attacks him for calling Israel a critical ally. In
Speaker 1: a July Vogue interview, for what It's worth, the Bashir
Speaker 1: it was interesting how Bashir is. What Bashir's spokespersonun told Politico,
Speaker 1: President Trump can and should provide aid to address starvation
Speaker 1: and suffering in Gaza, and he should do so in
Speaker 1: a way that does not compromise the safety of the
Speaker 1: Israeli people. I think what this is an interesting sort
Speaker 1: of shot, political shot, if you will. Where I do
Speaker 1: think there are there is a movement on the left
Speaker 1: that wants to make this a litmus test issue inside
Speaker 1: democratic primary politics. So they're going after This is the
Speaker 1: case where Basher's probably already seen as the most they've
Speaker 1: been gone after Shapiro, but Basher and Shapiro probably the
Speaker 1: most pro Israel. They had a had they had a
Speaker 1: way to you know, they had a specific news story
Speaker 1: to cling to on this, and it I don't know
Speaker 1: how salient it will be in a Democratic primary, right,
Speaker 1: there are certain issues and this is where I think
Speaker 1: polling doesn't always tell you this story. There are certain
Speaker 1: issues that will pull a certain way, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily motivate a voter. And the question is whether a
Speaker 1: stance on Israel is a voting issue for a Democratic
Speaker 1: primary voting for president or is it on the list
Speaker 1: of things you'd like? But it is not a deal breaker,
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to sit here and tell you
Speaker 1: I think I know the answer of which way that leans.
Speaker 1: We're going to learn a little something of Michigan Center
Speaker 1: primary is going to be fascinating. I think on that issue,
Speaker 1: Abdul say Ed clearly calls it genocide of what Israel does.
Speaker 1: Molly mcmarrow has decided to also use that word genocide
Speaker 1: in there. That is not something Hailey Stevens, the establishment
Speaker 1: favorite in that primary, has used. So I think that's
Speaker 1: an open question. How much of a voting issue is
Speaker 1: a Democrats position on Israel? Is it a voting motivator?
Speaker 1: You know, it can be a financial motivator, either to
Speaker 1: give or not to give, etc. But is it an
Speaker 1: activator when it comes to voting? It is it if
Speaker 1: you agree with something on everything else? How many voters
Speaker 1: are out there that are only voting on this issue?
Speaker 1: How many single issue voters on it? You can probably
Speaker 1: tell I'm skeptical that there are many on this for
Speaker 1: what it's worth. But this leads me into sort of
Speaker 1: my briefing of the week, my twenty twenty six briefing
Speaker 1: that I want to do, and the focus I did
Speaker 1: on my substack column, which is up and to be
Speaker 1: read right now and always free on Substack. I am
Speaker 1: not charging a subscription there right now. I view it
Speaker 1: as a way to bring some attention to this podcast
Speaker 1: and vice versa, how the podcast bring some attention to
Speaker 1: the column on this front. But it is we're seeing
Speaker 1: a role reversal between the two parties. Essentially, the Republicans
Speaker 1: are clearing primary fields all over the country, I mean,
Speaker 1: with the large exception of the lone Star state. And
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens in the state of Louisiana, although
Speaker 1: primary hasn't popped up just yet for Bill Cassidy. But
Speaker 1: outside of the John Cornyn mess with Ken Paxton and
Speaker 1: now Wesley Hunt, and that is a mess, don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong. And if you know, if Cornyn is the nominee,
Speaker 1: you take the race off the map. If Ken Paxson
Speaker 1: is the nominee, Democrats have a legitimate shot at winning
Speaker 1: control of the US side. That's how that's what's at
Speaker 1: stake in that primary. Because I don't have a fourth
Speaker 1: I really don't see a viable path for four pickups
Speaker 1: for the Democrats on their best stack. But if Ken
Speaker 1: Paxson's a Republican nominee in Texas, then there's a viable
Speaker 1: path for four. Suddenly you can see it. You know,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Maine, you know one, you know, one of
Speaker 1: those Midwestern states maybe right, you know with Ohio shared Brown,
Speaker 1: maybe in Iowa open seat. What's going on in Nebraska, Alaska? Okay,
Speaker 1: I could, I could. You could see one of those
Speaker 1: coming in, right, It's hard to see two of those
Speaker 1: coming in, but I could see one of those coming in.
Speaker 1: Then you throw in Texas and you start that pot.
Speaker 1: But overall, in general, there's no primary for the open
Speaker 1: seat in Iowa. Republicans have successfully rallied everybody around Ashley Henson.
Speaker 1: You know, we know in twenty twenty two, this would
Speaker 1: have been there'd have been a mega candidate, a McConnell candidate,
Speaker 1: all sorts of colorful characters jumping into that race in Iowa.
Speaker 1: In Michigan, Mike Rodgers had to deal with the primary
Speaker 1: last time, there is no primary. This time, primaries were
Speaker 1: a problem in the Republican side, arguably cost them a
Speaker 1: chance at a governor's at a governor's seat, certainly made
Speaker 1: the Senate seat a bit harder. This time, they got
Speaker 1: Mike Rogers without having a primary. Meanwhile, there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a hugely messy and potentially nasty primary on the Democratic side.
Speaker 1: On that front, they don't have a primary in North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Now they do in Georgia, and we'll see if they
Speaker 1: end up with a primary in New Hampshire. I think
Speaker 1: if they get and Trump probably leans on Scott Brown successfully.
Speaker 1: And that's really what Republicans have done is John Thune
Speaker 1: is working hand in hand with the White House and
Speaker 1: they're doing their best to essentially agree on tann It's
Speaker 1: McConnell kind of tried that, but there was the disaster
Speaker 1: of herschel Walker, right, that was just a debacle where
Speaker 1: everybody knew that was a bad idea, but he chose
Speaker 1: to give the president that And well, that's why there
Speaker 1: are two Democratic senators in the state of Georgia. But
Speaker 1: it is and in fact, Dune, according to an article
Speaker 1: on Political Early this Week, has done has made a
Speaker 1: huge effort and has successfully convinced the White House, don't
Speaker 1: harass Susan Tollins, don't find some maga person to go
Speaker 1: primary her. And she is the only person that can
Speaker 1: win that Senate seat if it's winnable, and I don't
Speaker 1: know if it is this time, not going to have
Speaker 1: a rule out Susan Tollins's ability to win that race,
Speaker 1: but she does have the highest unfavorable rating she's ever
Speaker 1: had going into it, going into one of these re elections.
Speaker 1: But this, you know, contrasts that, right this was the
Speaker 1: hallmark of the Democrats. Chuck Schumer was extraordinarily and Harry
Speaker 1: Reid all throughout sort of starting in late Obama years,
Speaker 1: going through of avoiding messy ideological primary fights, figuring out
Speaker 1: how to you know, settle on somebody early, recruit them
Speaker 1: and clear the primary field. John Hickenlooper got a Senate
Speaker 1: seat this way, and King got a Senate seat this way.
Speaker 1: You know, Steve Bullock lost a Senate seat, but he,
Speaker 1: you know, it was able to have a clear primary
Speaker 1: field when he chose to run. Look, they got that
Speaker 1: in shared brown right now, but he still actually is
Speaker 1: facing a primary. It looks like there will won't be
Speaker 1: a significant primary in the New Hampshire open seat, which
Speaker 1: is a small win there, but that's going to be
Speaker 1: a tough race either way. And certainly Roy Cooper has
Speaker 1: has is sort of the model of you know, they
Speaker 1: just not many Roy Hooper's out there, but look at
Speaker 1: the State of Man. You know, it looks like they've
Speaker 1: got the governor to run, but you've got all these
Speaker 1: other candidates that keep jumping in and feel as if
Speaker 1: and it's sort of understandable. I think you have a
Speaker 1: you have a pent up set of you have a
Speaker 1: pent up party, right, a party that's been told to
Speaker 1: suck it up and support Hillary Clinton, suck it up
Speaker 1: and support Joe Biden, suck it up and support Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris without without going through a primary process. So I
Speaker 1: do think there's fatigue with being told what to do
Speaker 1: by an establishment that doesn't seem to have many wins
Speaker 1: anymore to tout. And but look, as we saw the
Speaker 1: Republican side, a primary goes the wrong way, the ideology
Speaker 1: gets ugly. Somebody may win but be totally bruised. Somebody
Speaker 1: may win but despite some awful opposition research that surfaces,
Speaker 1: and while they can survive the primary, they can't survive
Speaker 1: the general. That's what primaries. You know, primaries. Primaries increase
Speaker 1: the unexpected, right, they increase the unintended when you don't
Speaker 1: have primaries. Now, look, I could argue primaries could be
Speaker 1: healthy to the party. Democrats need to have a good
Speaker 1: fight to figure out their direction because I think they
Speaker 1: don't know. They're pretty paralyzed right now, and where's to go.
Speaker 1: There's a fear there's a divide between progressives who think, hey,
Speaker 1: emulate the Mega movement a little bit here right. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of the Establishment of Republicans said MAGA is
Speaker 1: a loser. It turns out Mega has given Republicans more
Speaker 1: power than they've gotten in a generation. And I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of progressives who say, what's wrong
Speaker 1: with emulating a model like that. Let's paint in brighter colors,
Speaker 1: let's have more conviction, let's be bolder and lean out there.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's where the swing voter is right,
Speaker 1: and I've made the argument you've got the adult in
Speaker 1: the room voter that I do think is leaned to
Speaker 1: the left over the last in the Trump era, I
Speaker 1: think the adult in the room voter Lates, But I
Speaker 1: think that that has been an important constituent. See it's
Speaker 1: not a huge constituency, and it doesn't have much of
Speaker 1: a constituency in a primary. These are mostly general election voters.
Speaker 1: But I bring up the adult in the room party
Speaker 1: when it comes to the situation in Virginia right now.
Speaker 1: And let's be honest. If this, if these techs had
Speaker 1: surfaced on J. Jones, the attorney general nominee for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: a month ago, he'd be out already because they would
Speaker 1: have had time to replace him as the nominee. It
Speaker 1: really appears that the only reason they're not doing this
Speaker 1: is they don't want to. They don't want to lose
Speaker 1: the race. There's got to be other ways around this,
Speaker 1: right The one I've come up with, and why somebody
Speaker 1: hasn't suggested, is if you convince him that if he
Speaker 1: if he gets elected, he agrees to resign, he should
Speaker 1: not hold an office, a law enforcement position. If he
Speaker 1: had been a deputy AG as an appointee or a
Speaker 1: deputy US Attorney, an a DA or something, and that
Speaker 1: he'd have been fired. No government, uh legal entity would
Speaker 1: want that. Those text message you know, have somebody prosecuting
Speaker 1: the case, who has whose text messages saying, you know,
Speaker 1: making threats like that to public officials. You just you
Speaker 1: just couldn't do it. It would it would get rid of
Speaker 1: you know, it would cost you credibility in any case
Speaker 1: that person would prosecute. So it's it's it looks like
Speaker 1: and I get it right. Trump never apologizes, never surrenders.
Speaker 1: And I know that there's some that think, hey, you know, well,
Speaker 1: if you know they do it, why can't we do it?
Speaker 1: But the honorable thing is to agree that if he
Speaker 1: if you're if he's elected, he'll resign and then, according
Speaker 1: to the the Virginia Constitution, the General Assembly would elect
Speaker 1: the would essentially elect the replacement on this. And look,
Speaker 1: if you want to just play partisan politics here, it's
Speaker 1: most likely a general Assembly is going to be democratic.
Speaker 1: We'll see what the final results are. But doing this
Speaker 1: dance of condemning what he said but agreeing to vote
Speaker 1: for him and allow, you know, I think the Democrats
Speaker 1: need to be conducting what I refer to as civil
Speaker 1: war surgery, where sometimes you had to cut off a
Speaker 1: limb to save the body. There's a month. Do I
Speaker 1: think this costs Abigail's Fanburg or the race. I do
Speaker 1: not this cost her three or four points? Maybe could
Speaker 1: it cost them the LG race? Good? Right, it's it
Speaker 1: feels like this is that that there are that this
Speaker 1: is sort of the what Trump has done. This is
Speaker 1: sort of everybody's got Trump brain. And right, just because
Speaker 1: Trump survives these things doesn't mean it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. And again I just sort
Speaker 1: of asked the question. The results will tell me, the
Speaker 1: voters will tell us the answer to this. But like
Speaker 1: I said, I believe that that that Democrats have benefited
Speaker 1: being the adult in the room. Party. You don't behave
Speaker 1: as the adult in the room on this on this
Speaker 1: part of the conversation. What do you lose long term?
Speaker 1: You know, maybe maybe you end up maybe rallying around
Speaker 1: the troops here, you know, and you get them elected.
Speaker 1: But what if you do win with him? Zach got
Speaker 1: to call him to question all of his moves. Is
Speaker 1: he a paralyzed office holder? As it is? You know,
Speaker 1: I it is. This is never going to go away
Speaker 1: with him, you know, And it wasn't. I tell you
Speaker 1: what sort of really bothers me about this is it's
Speaker 1: not the It's sort of like the text themselves were Jesus,
Speaker 1: what what do you? Why are you putting this in writing?
Speaker 1: But it was the second part of the story where
Speaker 1: the lawmaker was like, what are you saying this for?
Speaker 1: And he sort of doubled down on it in a
Speaker 1: verbal conversation. Right, It was more it wasn't you know
Speaker 1: you can? You can? You could forgive somebody in a
Speaker 1: heat of the moment, right, you know, nobody wants their
Speaker 1: And if every thought that went through all of our
Speaker 1: heads were broadcaster or or verbalized, and by the way,
Speaker 1: these neurotransplants right could start doing that, I don't think
Speaker 1: any of us would want that public. Okay, everybody has
Speaker 1: a stray thought, even if it's a hypothetical whatever. Okay,
Speaker 1: but good grief, we're not George orwell. Right, So there's
Speaker 1: a there's certainly lines here, but the fact that wasn't
Speaker 1: heat of the moment. And again it's the office he's
Speaker 1: running for, turning genmor right, that's a law enforcement office.
Speaker 1: So anyway, I think the Democrats are playing with some
Speaker 1: political fire here, and they'd probably be in a better
Speaker 1: place if they were calling for his immediate resignation upon election.
Speaker 1: You know, that could be the compromise since it's too
Speaker 1: late to get his name off the ballot. All right.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but it's like this entire
Speaker 1: I mean, that was just outrage, and I think I
Speaker 1: shared this story about the source of mind that sort
Speaker 1: of what drove them away from leaving the r n
Speaker 1: C when they got got that letter that this panicked
Speaker 1: woman said, my social Security check doesn't come for another week?
Speaker 1: Is it okay? If I wait? You know, and if
Speaker 1: you think about it, how these the way fundraise, the
Speaker 1: way this online fundraising world works, which again I think,
Speaker 1: as Adam has put it, feels like glorified you know,
Speaker 1: targeting of just you know, abusing the elderly here. But
Speaker 1: in some ways it's it's it's the incentive structure of
Speaker 1: our information ecosystem in general. Right, You've got to have
Speaker 1: these sort of blaring, sort of urgent, urgent headlines to
Speaker 1: grab the attention of readers. It sort of you know,
Speaker 1: makes everything seem as if it's a it's you know,
Speaker 1: you know, we started with cable news making everything breaking news, right,
Speaker 1: and eventually if everything's breaking news, then what's just news? Right?
Speaker 1: You know, what's just it? And it's in some ways
Speaker 1: This is sort of what we've done to political fundraising,
Speaker 1: what we've done to news consumption. How the algorithms prioritize
Speaker 1: again the incentives, right, it prioritizes this, and it really
Speaker 1: has warped our brains. Ten years of this kind of
Speaker 1: of this kind of nonsense is I think, you know,
Speaker 1: helps explain why we're in the why we're in the
Speaker 1: uncomfortable position we're in when it comes to our information ecosystem.
Speaker 1: All right, it is Wednesday. It's my top five, top five,
Speaker 1: top top. Last week was my top five Senate seats
Speaker 1: for the month of most likely to flip. Well, today
Speaker 1: I'm going to do my top five governor seats most
Speaker 1: likely to flip between now and November of twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Why do I say between now and November of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, because we have two governor's races coming up
Speaker 1: this November, one in Virginia and one in New Jersey,
Speaker 1: and well one of them is in my top five list.
Speaker 1: And what it is, it's most likely to change parties. Right,
Speaker 1: This is why it's doesn't mean I'm saying it's it's
Speaker 1: going to be the closest race, the most top but
Speaker 1: it's most likely. So the number one seat most likely
Speaker 1: to change parties, well, right now, it's Virginia, right, it's
Speaker 1: a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin Abigail Spamberger's got anywhere from
Speaker 1: an eight to twelve point lead depending on the polls.
Speaker 1: We haven't had any good polling since the controversy involving
Speaker 1: the ag nominee and those horrific texts that were made public.
Speaker 1: I would imagine it only has a small if any.
Speaker 1: I do feel like it is not. We'll see, all right,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it does if they they
Speaker 1: sort of continue this dance and allow it to sort
Speaker 1: of dominate the next three or four weeks. It could
Speaker 1: cost for a couple of points, but I don't think
Speaker 1: it costs he a race. So I think she's definitely
Speaker 1: number one. It's the number one most likely to flip
Speaker 1: to change parties. Again, that's how my top five works.
Speaker 1: So the next four and I will tell you, look,
Speaker 1: New Jersey is going to be close. I sort of
Speaker 1: refer to New Jersey. It's sort of like the Miami
Speaker 1: Florida state game. I knew that was going to get
Speaker 1: close at the end, no matter what happened, because the
Speaker 1: Miami Florida State games. They always do if it is
Speaker 1: it is a rivalry games, so they always both teams
Speaker 1: have had a history of coming back from keep deficits
Speaker 1: and making games close at the end. And so I
Speaker 1: put New Jersey, I put Chittarelli in there as Florida State.
Speaker 1: There's it's not a remote chance that he wins. There's
Speaker 1: a pretty good chance. And in fact, if you created
Speaker 1: a point spread and the points spread were three with
Speaker 1: Mikey Cheryl, you know, basically being a three point favorite,
Speaker 1: I'd take the underdog. I think this is going to
Speaker 1: be a one or two point race. I think got
Speaker 1: election night, we're waiting a little bit. It's not something
Speaker 1: that gets called right away. We're going to say, have
Speaker 1: to see a lot of data, all but various vote
Speaker 1: counting entities, and we'll do that. So I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be awfully close on that front. But it's
Speaker 1: not cracking my top five just yet. And and and
Speaker 1: but it's right there. You could say it's it's it's six.
Speaker 1: It's really close. So it's gonna be a lot of
Speaker 1: competitive governors races. That's really what it means. But I
Speaker 1: think when you slotted in, you know, and I look
Speaker 1: at it as sort of where I think the race
Speaker 1: will be, not necessarily where the race is at, and
Speaker 1: think when it's slotted in. So I still make sure
Speaker 1: all this slight favored, because I do think the overall
Speaker 1: political environment favors Democrats right now because of the unpopularity
Speaker 1: of the president. And I think that's probably the difference
Speaker 1: between winning and losing in a state like New Jersey
Speaker 1: right now. But we'll say, certainly going to be closer
Speaker 1: than Virginia, that's for sure. But number two right there
Speaker 1: for me is Kansas. Right you have Laura Kelly is
Speaker 1: not running again. She's term limited. The Democratic Democratic governor
Speaker 1: of Kansas. Kansas is a Here's a couple of rules
Speaker 1: on governors, Okay. Number one, The hardest thing to do
Speaker 1: is to deny a sitting governor a second term. It
Speaker 1: is harder than denying a senator, a second term House
Speaker 1: member of second term, a president a second term. Defeeding
Speaker 1: and incumbent governor is very difficult. It's a little bit
Speaker 1: easier when you're trying to when you're trying to if
Speaker 1: they're running for a third or a fourth term. Some
Speaker 1: states allow it, some don't. Kansas, it is just two
Speaker 1: and that's it. They have a two term limit there.
Speaker 1: And Kansas has shown a pattern I mean literally was
Speaker 1: you had eight years of Kathleen Sibilius and you had
Speaker 1: eight years of Republican governor and eight years of Lord Kelly.
Speaker 1: So there's a bit of a pattern there. So you
Speaker 1: got to make the Republicans a favor, and I think
Speaker 1: overall is sort of the same way. For you know,
Speaker 1: Virginia has been sitting in this number one slot. If
Speaker 1: I had been doing it for the last year, it
Speaker 1: had been sitting there the whole time. Because again with
Speaker 1: an open governor's race, it is open seat races that
Speaker 1: are most likely to flip party than sitting governors. Okay,
Speaker 1: defeating And here's a hint, there's not going to be
Speaker 1: a single race in my top five that features a
Speaker 1: sitting government. I'll get to I think it's the most
Speaker 1: vulnerable sitting governor in the country after I do my
Speaker 1: top five list. So number one is Virginia, Number two
Speaker 1: is Kansas. Number three and four could easily be could
Speaker 1: easily flip. And since I was just at the Big
Speaker 1: ten government relations, it means they're both Big ten states
Speaker 1: and it actually is this state or this state? Is
Speaker 1: it this state or is this state? Do you see
Speaker 1: what I'm doing here? Anyway, it's the hand thing. Michigan Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: I put Wisconsin number three, Michigan number four. You told
Speaker 1: me it should be Michigan number three, Wisconsin number four.
Speaker 1: You know, I probably should. You know, I could argue
Speaker 1: Michigan three because of the three way race, you know,
Speaker 1: if you know doug In, certainly I think it. I
Speaker 1: think the path were a Republican for John James is
Speaker 1: probably slightly easier in Michigan than Wisconsin. So Michigan, you
Speaker 1: could say, is three A and and Wisconsin would be
Speaker 1: just below that. So as I'm talking this out, I'm
Speaker 1: realizing it's Michigan that's in the third slot. But it's
Speaker 1: because of that three way race with the independent dug In.
Speaker 1: It's it's the math. It may simply become a math
Speaker 1: problem for Democrats unless Dougan wins right, or unless Duggan
Speaker 1: gets you know, or or he fades hard right. But
Speaker 1: the problem is, if he's down as a five to
Speaker 1: ten percent candidate, he most likely takes more from the
Speaker 1: Democrat than the Republicans. So I think you have to
Speaker 1: put John James uh As slightly ahead and put Michigan
Speaker 1: three the open seat in Wisconsin. This is going to
Speaker 1: be an extraordinarily close race Wiscoont. Let's see how the
Speaker 1: primary goes Wiscont. You know, when when Wisconsin goes too
Speaker 1: far to the right, that's when they struggle to win
Speaker 1: statewide races. They've had more success with businessmen at times
Speaker 1: in some of these primaries. We'll see, But I will
Speaker 1: tell you this, I hope, I hope my man Tommy
Speaker 1: Thompson gets into this race. Eighty five year old Tommy Thompson,
Speaker 1: who was a four term governor back in the nineties,
Speaker 1: indicated he'd like to run again. He ran for Senate
Speaker 1: a cycle or so ago and got and got trounced
Speaker 1: by Tammy Baldwin. He doesn't have his fastball, but he's
Speaker 1: probably more with it than other eighty year old politicians,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that. And he certainly would be entertaining
Speaker 1: in the primary and would make it an even more
Speaker 1: fun race to cover. But overall, let's see how that
Speaker 1: primary goes, which which really is another reason to keep
Speaker 1: it in the fore slot. The Lieutenant Governor Tony Evers
Speaker 1: is a running mate is the most likely demonominee, but
Speaker 1: we'll see. I think that's still early there. And then
Speaker 1: the fifth slot. Right now, I put Iowa in Rob
Speaker 1: sand This is as he's been in the race a while,
Speaker 1: He's accumulated a ton of money. The Republican it is
Speaker 1: going to be a pretty competitive Republican primary. There is
Speaker 1: no there is no nobody's been really coronated just yet.
Speaker 1: That could happen, and I think Randy Finstruf he gets
Speaker 1: the nomination, is going to be a really really strong
Speaker 1: Republican nominee. Sam's gonna have a ton of money. He
Speaker 1: has been a proven he won even in a tough
Speaker 1: Democratic year. He won re election as state auditor, so
Speaker 1: his track record's pretty strong. He's been running a very
Speaker 1: centrist campaign. Remember, those of you that have been listening
Speaker 1: to my podcast from the very beginning, know that Rob
Speaker 1: Sam was on this race, and he was He basically said,
Speaker 1: the only reason he's running as a Democrats is that
Speaker 1: it's too hard to run as an independent. So point
Speaker 1: is is you could see the type of race he's
Speaker 1: tried to run. He is not He is not going
Speaker 1: to want to get tagged as a national Democrat. We'll
Speaker 1: see if we'll see if he's successful at that. If
Speaker 1: he is, he's going to be there. Look, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of other competitive governatorial races this year. I think
Speaker 1: Ohio is going to be competitive, but I think Romas
Speaker 1: he's going to be the favorite, so the Republicans therefore
Speaker 1: going to be favorite. I think Tim Walls. I think Georgia,
Speaker 1: the open zing in Georgia is going to be competitive there,
Speaker 1: but I think it's got a long way to go
Speaker 1: before we know which way that wind is blowing. And
Speaker 1: it's been along, you know, it's been since Roy Barnes
Speaker 1: want a term as governor in nineteen ninety eight, since
Speaker 1: Democrats been able to win a governor's race. I think
Speaker 1: the most right now vulnerable incumbent in the country is
Speaker 1: Katie Hobbs for the Democratic side in Arizona. UH and
Speaker 1: Dave Schwikert, a swing state member of Congress. There's been
Speaker 1: swing district who's constantly had to deal with very tough
Speaker 1: congressional races. He's the He's jumped in up primary that
Speaker 1: already has two MAGA Trump endorsed candidates in it. Schwikert said, nominee.
Speaker 1: I think Hobbs is in deep, deep trouble. Her best
Speaker 1: way past the victory is if one of if it
Speaker 1: if it's somebody that's a bit too conservative, that that's
Speaker 1: sort of been the past in an Arizona politics for
Speaker 1: some time. Democratic success goes hand in hand with Republicans
Speaker 1: nominating folks too far from the center. You know, Arizona
Speaker 1: really is a sort of center right but much more
Speaker 1: libertarian state, and I think some of that Maga stuff
Speaker 1: doesn't quite play as well there. There's a large Mormon
Speaker 1: population in Arizona that doesn't like the low character style
Speaker 1: of mega politics either. That is also provided an opening
Speaker 1: for moderate Democrats to win statewide there as well. So
Speaker 1: you know, she won very narrowly against the second most
Speaker 1: unpopular or a second arguably the second most unqualified person
Speaker 1: to run for governor in Kerry Lake. And so I think,
Speaker 1: I think anybody that's slightly more mainstream than Kerry Lake,
Speaker 1: you've gotta you've got to give. So she's probably the
Speaker 1: most vulnerable incumbent. And then on the Republican side, it's
Speaker 1: it's Joe Lombardo Nevada, probably the most vulnerable Democratic Republican incumbent.
Speaker 1: But again the hardest thing to do in politics is
Speaker 1: to deny a governor second term. It just doesn't happen
Speaker 1: very often. All right, here's my top five for the week. Now,
Speaker 1: let's do a couple of questions. We'll get you out
Speaker 1: of here, little last Chuck, ask Chuck. All right, it's
Speaker 1: question time. Let's start. We'll start with Aaron W. He says, Hello, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I'm so sick of seeing money and special interest ruling politicians.
Speaker 1: I fully believe they will never vote to band stock
Speaker 1: trading of elected officials or vote to fund their own
Speaker 1: healthcare out of pocket like normal working people. However, would
Speaker 1: there ever be a snowballs chance in hell of a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment danning stock trading or cutting off perks like
Speaker 1: top of the line healthcare. Probably not, but one can dream, right, thanks,
Speaker 1: Aaron W. Well, look here's where I do think. Look
Speaker 1: I am, I really do believe we're going to have
Speaker 1: some form of a constitutional convention in the next decade
Speaker 1: or so. I think we're much better. And again, when
Speaker 1: you look at other periods of tumult that are similar
Speaker 1: to the period of political tumult that we're experiencing. It
Speaker 1: was followed by a robust movement of adding important constitutional amendments. Right,
Speaker 1: if you look, we basically had three periods where we
Speaker 1: as a country, you know, past quite a few constitutional amendments.
Speaker 1: One was, of course, you know, at the founding, The
Speaker 1: second was after the Civil War and during the Civil War,
Speaker 1: and the third was in this period. And then from
Speaker 1: about you know, nineteen ten through about nineteen thirty five,
Speaker 1: where we did quite a bit of amending you know,
Speaker 1: direct election of senators, women's right to vote, they prohibition,
Speaker 1: and then repealing prohibition, et cetera. So, and I think
Speaker 1: it turns out that the emolument's clause for the presidency
Speaker 1: wasn't enough, that we may have to be more direct
Speaker 1: about elected office and business interests and financial interests. So
Speaker 1: I am bullish that if we get to that point
Speaker 1: of a constant where there's some agreement about, hey, we
Speaker 1: need to you know, we need to look at some
Speaker 1: at some refreshing of our democracy, and we can't let
Speaker 1: another president do that. In order to perhaps get a
Speaker 1: broader coalition supportive of a constitutional amendment, that it may
Speaker 1: I could see it being written in such a way
Speaker 1: to impact all federal elected office holders, not just the
Speaker 1: president and the vice president. So whether it's stock trading.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you'd get to stock trading, but
Speaker 1: it is certainly going to be an you know, to
Speaker 1: put some constitutional guardrails in to prevent using office to
Speaker 1: gain wealth in at least trying to minimize, trying to
Speaker 1: make it harder, trying to erect a real, actual constitutional
Speaker 1: guardrail rather than a quote unquote norm or ethical guideline
Speaker 1: or something something like that. And look, part of the
Speaker 1: reason it's it's the separation of powers make it hard
Speaker 1: for the legislative branch to put policies on the executive branch,
Speaker 1: the elected leaders of that. So just you know, the
Speaker 1: cleanest way to do this is via constitutional amendment. Our
Speaker 1: next question comes from Chrispy. It's a check, longtime fan
Speaker 1: from the Meat Press days and now your podcast. Thank you, Chris,
Speaker 1: appreciate it. My question comment regarding the shutdown is that
Speaker 1: it plays right into Trump's plan with the economy. Government
Speaker 1: shutdown means no BLS reports, which will give Trump cover
Speaker 1: for the increasingly vad economic numbers. You'll blame the Democrats
Speaker 1: for the bad economic numbers once the shutdown end, because
Speaker 1: you really think the American people will believe another lie
Speaker 1: or misinformation. Chris I don't because I think, you know,
Speaker 1: lived experience always trumps the misinformation. Right. Look, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was out there and the Democrats were telling, you know,
Speaker 1: the economy's fined, and people said, well, that's not what
Speaker 1: i'm feeling. Right, So if it didn't work for Biden,
Speaker 1: and perhaps they weren't as good at it is as
Speaker 1: Trump is at times, I just don't think it's gonna
Speaker 1: work for your Lived experience is what you're gonna vote on. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know you're gonna believe me or you're lying eyes
Speaker 1: right that that expression. But in all seriousness, I do
Speaker 1: think lived experience Trump's Trump's anything. Trump will try to
Speaker 1: spend on us, and so we'll say, look, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of disagreement. I'm gonna have market any comeback pretty soon.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of disagreement here. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: this is you know, I do think that we're going
Speaker 1: to have another sort of messy interpretation of the economy.
Speaker 1: You know, the stock market can continue to do gangbusters
Speaker 1: while people feel like this economy sucks. Right, And I've
Speaker 1: always said that you know the number, if you look
Speaker 1: at the economic numbers, it's just you know, if you're
Speaker 1: not if you're not. It's just sort of like it
Speaker 1: takes money to make money. But if you don't have
Speaker 1: the money, you can't take advantage of the situation we're
Speaker 1: in with the stock market. And then it feels like
Speaker 1: you can never get ahead. They can never catch up,
Speaker 1: let alone get ahead. So I think this is a
Speaker 1: really crappy economy if you don't already have a savings
Speaker 1: or you don't already have a house. And so no
Speaker 1: amount of numbers is going to mask the feeling people
Speaker 1: have the inability to move up the economic ladder, the
Speaker 1: inability to get out of one house and get into
Speaker 1: one that's slightly bigger and sort of move up, you know,
Speaker 1: you sort of participate in what the American dream is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. So and I think twenty six, I
Speaker 1: think we're going to have sort of a stock market
Speaker 1: that may give one perception of the economy. And then
Speaker 1: the cost to live, you know, higher healthcare premiums, higher,
Speaker 1: you know, prices on every little good because of tariffs,
Speaker 1: are electric bills, and I look, I think the anti
Speaker 1: data stuff, the AI data farms are going to start
Speaker 1: becoming political targets and get blamed in some places it's
Speaker 1: fair some places, it may not be fair for increasing
Speaker 1: the cost of power. It's possible Trump takes some heat
Speaker 1: for not embracing on all of the above energy policy,
Speaker 1: which could lower our power bills over time instead of
Speaker 1: increasing them. So I do think the cost to live
Speaker 1: is not going away as an issue, even if the
Speaker 1: sort of the numbers of the economy will look pretty
Speaker 1: good if you look at it a certain way, particularly
Speaker 1: if you have some wealth versus what the numbers will
Speaker 1: look like to those that can't break into that part
Speaker 1: of the economy. And so I have a feeling that's
Speaker 1: what things are going to look like in twenty six
Speaker 1: and that's maybe the best case scenario for economic outlook.
Speaker 1: All right. Next question comes from Roger L. Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I've been listening to your podcast for a year, all right,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate your deep political insight. I have shallow
Speaker 1: political insight too. I promise I can go to the
Speaker 1: deep end, but I'll get shallo. If you want you
Speaker 1: want to do some Paul fine Bomb, I just have
Speaker 1: one piece of advice for Paul fine Bomb, by the way,
Speaker 1: to do some shallow hot take political analysis that an
Speaker 1: ESPN person will understand everybody who says they love you.
Speaker 1: Now just wait till you jump into politics. Brother, Okay,
Speaker 1: none of your word You think your words get scrutinized
Speaker 1: now by SEC fans. You ain't see nothing yet, and
Speaker 1: he already has sort of gotten a high hard one
Speaker 1: by his you know where somebody dug up something he
Speaker 1: said about Trump in twenty seventeen. Look, if Trump gets
Speaker 1: you the endorsement, then you're right. You'll be able to
Speaker 1: skate by, and it makes everything you said about him
Speaker 1: forgivable to the Mago world. I'm not so convinced you're
Speaker 1: gonna get Trump on your side, mister Finebaum, but we
Speaker 1: shall say. All right, Sorry, just thought i'd provide you
Speaker 1: a little shallow political announcement set up the deep political insight,
Speaker 1: he goes. You've often noted the Democrats struggled to find
Speaker 1: themselves beyond being not Trump, even as you discuss issues
Speaker 1: like democracy and equality in the rule of law. Truck
Speaker 1: me that while Republicans have Project twenty twenty five as
Speaker 1: a roadmap, Democrats could use their own Project twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight or twenty twenty nine to outline concrete, broadly supported reforms.
Speaker 1: When I give voters a clear vision of change. Roger,
Speaker 1: I am increasingly somebody else has written something similar to this,
Speaker 1: and I'm increasingly thinking that it is something democrats ought
Speaker 1: to do because you know what, it's actually been done before,
Speaker 1: and it's worked. You know, the Contract with America ninety
Speaker 1: four worked. I think the public, you know, a cynic
Speaker 1: like me may say it's a bunch of hogwash, only
Speaker 1: about two or three items and their real priorities. But
Speaker 1: voters want to know you're going to get something done right.
Speaker 1: And I think that and there in some ways, you know,
Speaker 1: like in the movie Tommy Boy, they want to guarantee
Speaker 1: on the box. You know, he wants it right there
Speaker 1: on the box. It's smiling at you, it's looking at you, right.
Speaker 1: But in all seriousness, I do think that there's something
Speaker 1: to it. I think the lack of trust in politicians
Speaker 1: these days means you got to put it in writing.
Speaker 1: So I actually think if you, if you, you know,
Speaker 1: we're all so accustomed to believe that you can't really
Speaker 1: believe that a politician isn't gonna do what they say
Speaker 1: and say what they do, right, So I think it
Speaker 1: would be healthy. I mean, look, the downside to it
Speaker 1: is the downside. Why the Trump campaign ran away from it,
Speaker 1: not towards it, even though it was a governing blueprint.
Speaker 1: That's because some of the things that we're gonna do
Speaker 1: and we're gonna turn off swing voters, and that's the danger. Right.
Speaker 1: It all depends on how big your coalition is. But
Speaker 1: I think generally voters do want to see something in writing.
Speaker 1: I do so I think there's something to it. But
Speaker 1: don't you know, I think the problem with Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five is that was written to a love letter
Speaker 1: to Maga, which is why it was politically unpopular with
Speaker 1: what they were doing. If somebody has an agenda that
Speaker 1: is sort of more of a broad agenda that's designed
Speaker 1: to benefit as many Americans as possible, not just members
Speaker 1: of your side, I think putting it in writing could
Speaker 1: be very very effective. All right, I'm just thinking one
Speaker 1: more question here. This one comes from Brian said, I
Speaker 1: would you handle the bad faith arguments of misinformation that
Speaker 1: republics are using influence government shutdown debate? Well, look, I
Speaker 1: guess I would you know. This is where I tactically
Speaker 1: think I would have I go back. I don't think
Speaker 1: I would have made this my moment of truth. I
Speaker 1: think I would have taken the clean CR and taken
Speaker 1: this to November and then made November the be all
Speaker 1: and all on healthcare. I still think it's a good argument.
Speaker 1: I still think it's a it's a it's it's certainly look,
Speaker 1: if this were just about healthcare, they'd already have opened
Speaker 1: the government. It's obviously not just about healthcare. I do
Speaker 1: think plenty of Democrats inside, that's inside those elected Senate
Speaker 1: and House conferences say Jesus, he's running rough shot over
Speaker 1: the Constitution. We've got to show some spine. You've got
Speaker 1: to stand up to him on somebody. We've got to
Speaker 1: provide a road, if not a roadblock, at least a
Speaker 1: speed bump, make it harder for him to do these things,
Speaker 1: not easier. Right, So the problem is that is not
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of voters, you know, the
Speaker 1: the democracy arguments haven't worked. They work with the bay
Speaker 1: but they don't work with swing voters. What does work
Speaker 1: with swing voters is stuff that impacts them cost of living,
Speaker 1: healthcare subsidies. Right. That's so, I understand the choice of
Speaker 1: the issue is correct politically, but they're in a you know,
Speaker 1: they lost some high ground and quote unquote clean cr
Speaker 1: I get it. Trump is totally and completely an unreliable
Speaker 1: partner to negotiate with because of what he did on recisions.
Speaker 1: But just look at the word recisions. It is not
Speaker 1: something that is in the everyday lexicon. And you're like,
Speaker 1: what the recisions? Seventy percent of the country's going, wait,
Speaker 1: what are you recissoring? What are you talking about? And
Speaker 1: so I think the real motivation here is that, hey,
Speaker 1: this guy's running rough shot and not following the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But that's been an incredibly hard argument to get mass
Speaker 1: appeal for. You could say maybe that that's the principle
Speaker 1: worth standing standing on it. I don't. I don't disagree,
Speaker 1: but and I certainly think this. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: asking me what I would do with this undocumented you know,
Speaker 1: the idea of they want health care for the undocumented,
Speaker 1: I would continue to ask the rhetorical question, so should
Speaker 1: emergency rooms reject anybody who isn't a citizen? Has any
Speaker 1: anybody who heard of the hippocratic oath? Right? No doctor
Speaker 1: is going to do that, And that is not what
Speaker 1: America does. We're the United States, a fucking America. Pardon
Speaker 1: my French here, Actually, you know, I'm speaking American here.
Speaker 1: We don't do that. We don't leave people to die
Speaker 1: in our country just because of what country they're from.
Speaker 1: That's not what we supposedly are holding ourselves up for
Speaker 1: as a role model for the world. So if you're
Speaker 1: asking me how I would push back on that aspect
Speaker 1: of the debate, I'd say, why do you want people
Speaker 1: to die in emergency rooms? If you're there going to
Speaker 1: be disingenuous? You fight back with you take a kernel
Speaker 1: of truth? Do you want to rescind the law that
Speaker 1: says emergency rooms do get reimbursed for treating anybody that
Speaker 1: comes in, regardless of their nationality or their citizenship. I
Speaker 1: promise you that wouldn't be popular. We're religious enough in
Speaker 1: America to still think that we ought to take care
Speaker 1: of somebody regardless, you know, no matter their hurt. Now, look,
Speaker 1: if somebody committed a crime, we patch them up, then
Speaker 1: we arrest them, right. Mark Sanchez found out about that
Speaker 1: in Indianapolis over the weekend for football fans at Paula
Speaker 1: Bet that story. If you need more on that, just
Speaker 1: go google it. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna get
Speaker 1: into it. But the point is do you ask me
Speaker 1: about how to deal with that. That's how we deal
Speaker 1: with it. But I do think that the shutdown politics
Speaker 1: are complicated because the real reason Democrats are drawn a
Speaker 1: line in the same of the ear is not about healthcare, right,
Speaker 1: It's about the entire process of working with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and how he has not you know, why should Democrats
Speaker 1: provide sixty votes for appropriations when they will use fifty
Speaker 1: votes on a parting line two to rescind some of
Speaker 1: any appropriation they don't like, which they've already done. So
Speaker 1: I think that that's the that's where this is. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a you can't you can't trust the negotiation.
Speaker 1: It's a fair gripe, and it's one that is it's
Speaker 1: it's like, who's to say they would do this, They've
Speaker 1: already done it, right, So, but that is a tough
Speaker 1: one to galvanize the public on. That's the problem. The
Speaker 1: specific issue of healthcare is something that the public will
Speaker 1: galvanize about. And I have to say Republicans are fumbling
Speaker 1: this healthcare conversation. Right when Marjorie Taylor Green is the
Speaker 1: one out there leading the charge of, Hey, we got
Speaker 1: to get these healthcare stuff. What are we doing to people?
Speaker 1: If you notice she went out there and said that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump started to say, hey, we're gonna provide good healthcare.
Speaker 1: You can quite say, how right, But he's sensitive, he's
Speaker 1: nervous about this issue. So in that sense, the Democrats
Speaker 1: have made some gains on the shutdown simply getting that
Speaker 1: issue more front center, because look, it is hard to
Speaker 1: break through on anything these days in the world of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. All right, with that, I will call it
Speaker 1: a podcast. Appreciate you listening. Thank you as always. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes I'm my old man yelling at cloud, and you guys,
Speaker 1: I see by the numbers I am not, so I
Speaker 1: appreciate that there's a lot of a lot of people
Speaker 1: joining me in yelling at the cloud. And with that,
Speaker 1: I'll see him for twenty four hours until we upload again.
Speaker 1: M