Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds, and Empty G's anti trans rally drew
Speaker 1: a whole twelve people. We have a wild show today
Speaker 1: the Daily Beasts. Zach Petrizo tells us about the race
Speaker 1: to be Donald Trump's vice president, fascinating because many of
Speaker 1: us didn't know he was running. Then Megan Handle and
Speaker 1: Aaron Murphy tell us the surprising strategy they used to
Speaker 1: turn the Minnesota Statehouse blue. But first we have former
Speaker 1: Congressman Max Rose. Welcome to Fast Politics, Max Rose, what's up.
Speaker 1: Very excited to have you. And one of my favorite
Speaker 1: parts of this is before you came on, I said,
Speaker 1: now you're not in Congress anymore, so you can be
Speaker 1: a normal person, basically not running, not in total normalcy. Yea.
Speaker 1: By the way, let's just talk about what the fund
Speaker 1: is happening in Congress right now, because it's like nude
Speaker 1: Ingridge on steroids. It blew me away for a few reasons. One,
Speaker 1: so they went through fifteen votes, they had two months
Speaker 1: to prepare. I'm sure what they were doing for those
Speaker 1: two months, Like none of this should have taken him
Speaker 1: by surprise, right, Like Ken McCarthy knew he needed votes?
Speaker 1: What the hell was he doing? What you doing? I
Speaker 1: don't I don't get it, Like how was he spending Christmas? Right? Like?
Speaker 1: Was he not talking to Matt Gates? Like, Hey, how
Speaker 1: do I avoid public embarrassment? But the other really interesting
Speaker 1: thing is it it appeared like it was only twenty
Speaker 1: members of the Republican caucus that realized that they could
Speaker 1: be assholes. And I'm actually like, it's astounding that it
Speaker 1: was the extremest wing of the Republican Party that did this,
Speaker 1: and the moderates everyone totally fell in love, Like there
Speaker 1: are eighteen Republicans that hold Biden districts, and they were
Speaker 1: just like, yeah, I don't give a fuck, like whatever
Speaker 1: you guys want to do, Like I'm just happy to
Speaker 1: be here, like they like do like for for five days,
Speaker 1: let's just have our branding sent around extremism. I'm cool.
Speaker 1: It was just like I was like dumbfounded by the
Speaker 1: whole thing. One of the things that happened in these
Speaker 1: mid terms is that the Democratic Party in New York
Speaker 1: and in Florida really fucked up, thus opening the door
Speaker 1: for Republicans to. I mean, ultimately take districts that really aren't.
Speaker 1: There's looking at you, George, Everyone's favorite, the talented Mr Santos.
Speaker 1: So my my question for you is, like I think
Speaker 1: it is, like really shows how cowardly that this Republican
Speaker 1: Party is that none of the moderates had any sort
Speaker 1: of desire to like push back at all. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, we could just talk about Mr Santos for
Speaker 1: a moment. I do. I do think it's remarkable and
Speaker 1: this is a sign of progress for the Jewish people
Speaker 1: that people are now lying and saying that they are
Speaker 1: Jewish now, It's true. It's a big win for our people.
Speaker 1: Not too long ago people are rying and saying exactly
Speaker 1: the opposite. You know, we're moving on up. Everyone wants
Speaker 1: to be us. Everyone wants to be Jewish now, at
Speaker 1: least if you're running from Congress in Nassau County. By
Speaker 1: the way, do you have any desire to move to
Speaker 1: Nassau County and run because there's certainly that just chant
Speaker 1: just check, no shot. Every single Republican in Congress was
Speaker 1: at a fork in the road, right and the fork
Speaker 1: in the road was very simple, Do I carry your
Speaker 1: favor with Kevin McCarthy by getting on early, or do
Speaker 1: I utilize this Really it's it's a it's a singular
Speaker 1: moment of leverage then every single member of Congress has
Speaker 1: during the speaker vote, because you know, you can negotiate
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot. What every single moderate decided was,
Speaker 1: or purported moderate decided, was I'm just gonna get on
Speaker 1: board really easy, give up all my leverage, and hopefully
Speaker 1: they like me down the road. Now that's in stark contrast.
Speaker 1: That's actually the exact opposite of what happened for Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi during about where it was principally the people, the
Speaker 1: Centrists in trump Ish Republican Ish districts that put their
Speaker 1: foot down and said no, no, no, I'm gonna try
Speaker 1: to use this as an opportunity for negotiation. Now, Pelosi
Speaker 1: did smack the ship out of every single one of them,
Speaker 1: myself included. So it's not as if you know, there
Speaker 1: wasn't some like great victory that came of that, but
Speaker 1: the dynamics, the dynamics were monumentally different than than what
Speaker 1: we just saw. The biggest mistake that I think we're
Speaker 1: all making here is we're looking at this as like
Speaker 1: this singular moment of political conflict. Right, the extreme is
Speaker 1: for is this other wing of the Republican Party that's
Speaker 1: just about who's going to be speaker and just about
Speaker 1: a rules package. Oh, this week alone, the Republican Party
Speaker 1: said what do we want to focus on? They focused
Speaker 1: on removing a woman's right to our attempting to remove
Speaker 1: a woman's right to make our own healthcare decisions, something
Speaker 1: that Nancy Mace, a Republican in Congress, said was idiotic
Speaker 1: and would stand no chance of being passed by the
Speaker 1: Senate or being side by the president or we talked
Speaker 1: about like the weaponization of law enforcement. So the Party
Speaker 1: of Freedom and the Party of Law Enforcement decided to
Speaker 1: spend their first week in power in Congress going against
Speaker 1: a woman's right to make our own healthcare decisions and
Speaker 1: against law enforcement. It was very weird. It was a
Speaker 1: very weird week. Yeah, fucking say, so, let's just go
Speaker 1: on with this which is here we are, we have
Speaker 1: these Republicans. I feel like the lesson we're seeing more
Speaker 1: and more as the Republicans are refusing to take any
Speaker 1: lessons from the midterms, right, Like, one of the mid
Speaker 1: term lessons was that most voters don't like this anti
Speaker 1: choice stuff. They don't like it. Whatever. The people that
Speaker 1: you want to pick up that you need to pick
Speaker 1: up in the Republican Party do not like this anti
Speaker 1: choice stuff. So what do these Republicans do immediately a
Speaker 1: big anti choice beell. It reminds me a little bit
Speaker 1: of I mean, there's just weird stuff happens in politics
Speaker 1: that there are separate wings of parties, and you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes one side wins and the other side loses. This
Speaker 1: week was particularly idiotic on the part of the Republicans, right,
Speaker 1: like eighteen Biden districts, a bunch of other seats that
Speaker 1: are super close to being Biden districts. Why are you
Speaker 1: playing around with these weird cultural issues? Why are you
Speaker 1: in the first you're talking all about budget you know, normalcy, Right,
Speaker 1: we need to finally look at the budget weed to
Speaker 1: finally be fiscally conservative and fistically disciplined, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that you didn't talk about that at all when Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was president. And the first thing that you want
Speaker 1: to do is reduced the power of the I R S,
Speaker 1: which is going to have monumental consequences to increase the deficit.
Speaker 1: This is theater and it's nothing else. Eventually they will
Speaker 1: hopefully start talking about ways that they can improve people's
Speaker 1: lives and not what was found near Joe Biden's corvette.
Speaker 1: I locked my garage, thanks Joe. So I want to
Speaker 1: I just wanna talk about that for a second. Because
Speaker 1: they can spend all their time passing bills that will
Speaker 1: go nowhere. They can spend all their time, you know,
Speaker 1: making pronouncements that will do nothing. But the thing that
Speaker 1: they're really going to do is Benghazi at the funk up,
Speaker 1: and I want to talk to you about that. We
Speaker 1: saw these chairmen. They kept a few normals in, but
Speaker 1: they went really very Freedom Caucus. Yeah no, I mean
Speaker 1: the biggest victory of the Freedom Caucus during these negotiations
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with the rules package. Before I
Speaker 1: was elected to Congress, I've never heard of a rules package.
Speaker 1: No one knows about House rules, No one cares. This
Speaker 1: is all kind of ridiculous. They won the committee assignments,
Speaker 1: they won the chairmanships, Jim Jordan's, they had also the
Speaker 1: head of the Oversight Committee. And these individuals are going
Speaker 1: to be hyper focused on for the next two years
Speaker 1: weakening Democrats and weakening Joe Biden politically. All with the
Speaker 1: intent of trying to win the presidency. Perhaps Kevin McCarthy's
Speaker 1: one moment of honesty to the press was when he
Speaker 1: said post Benghazi hearing, he said, look, we significantly weakened
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, and that was our intent. They're gonna go
Speaker 1: after everything in the kitchen sink, and they think that
Speaker 1: will be to their political advantage. I think it would
Speaker 1: be incredibly immoral through and through. I don't think it
Speaker 1: will be with an eye towards improving people's lives, which
Speaker 1: is what all of this should be focused on. And
Speaker 1: they're going to think that, oh, that's the that's what
Speaker 1: the Democrats did to us. So now an I for an,
Speaker 1: i I'm sorry, Like, we have to get away from
Speaker 1: this weird thing in politics where with one side of
Speaker 1: the House uphold standards, the other side gets to say, well,
Speaker 1: now we're going to funk your guys up too. So
Speaker 1: you think it'll just be hearing upon hearing upon hearing,
Speaker 1: I think that that will be it. I think that
Speaker 1: there will be a few moments with the Republican Party
Speaker 1: realizes that if they want to earn the respect of
Speaker 1: the American people, prove that they can govern and actually
Speaker 1: hold onto these Biden districts, like some of these are
Speaker 1: Biden plus ten. They're gonna have to do something here. Now,
Speaker 1: the Speaker's greatest power is the ability to decide what
Speaker 1: gets a vote and what does not. So there will
Speaker 1: moments under the best of circumstances. Right, this is a
Speaker 1: new story. Kevin McCarthy is gonna say, I'll put something
Speaker 1: on the floor of the House that the vast majority
Speaker 1: of my own caucus will not vote for. That I
Speaker 1: will advocate that they don't vote for. But I want
Speaker 1: to throw a bone too, you know, ten fifteen members
Speaker 1: of my own caucus. That's the That's the first moment.
Speaker 1: The second moment, though, is with this debt ceiling and
Speaker 1: this I gotta tell you men like it pisces me off,
Speaker 1: like it kind of upsets me, like when I am
Speaker 1: like reminded that I have to take the garbage out
Speaker 1: by my wife. It will have another conversation ut whether
Speaker 1: or I'm doing a good job at that. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're amazing at yours. It was infuriating. It is infuriating
Speaker 1: to think that we are going to have a grand
Speaker 1: debate about whether or not we should pay the bills
Speaker 1: for ship that we have already spent money up what
Speaker 1: I mean that. The other thing which I feel like
Speaker 1: we should talk about is that while Nancy Pelosi was
Speaker 1: and you could like her, you could not like her.
Speaker 1: But she was very well respected, have been for a
Speaker 1: long time. Was a master vote whipper right, that was
Speaker 1: like her thing, and in fact, there are many articles
Speaker 1: written about how she would kill herself to make sure
Speaker 1: he had she had the votes. She would never bring
Speaker 1: things up unless she knew where they were going. You know.
Speaker 1: She was very meticulous and respected. And you might not
Speaker 1: agree with her politically or the stock trading stuff, which
Speaker 1: I am not a fan of, but she was focused
Speaker 1: and organized and exactly what you want in a leader.
Speaker 1: We have Kevin McCarthy, who cannot do math, and also
Speaker 1: a lot of his caucus thinks he's an idiot. There's
Speaker 1: a chance that the next two years will be the
Speaker 1: greatest boom for Nancy Pelosi's legacy. Right, No, I mean
Speaker 1: use every picture of her as like her being like
Speaker 1: l O L Yes, I mean like and this is
Speaker 1: the way these things work, right, Like. She made the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act look easy, She made the path with
Speaker 1: the Infrastructure Build Chips Bill, the gun bill, legalization of
Speaker 1: same sex marriage, all of these things, over the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan, all of these things
Speaker 1: she made look easy in a very very small with
Speaker 1: a very very small margin, and now we're seeing the
Speaker 1: other side deal with an equally sized margin, and there's
Speaker 1: an element of total political disarray, and we've got to
Speaker 1: see her being like, you know what you'll think now right,
Speaker 1: like really fascinating to see. There is going to be
Speaker 1: a really significant amount of political pressure on the Republican
Speaker 1: House Caucus to get something done, to show to to
Speaker 1: what degree they are normal. I still do believe that,
Speaker 1: particularly in swing states and swing districts, like we're dealing
Speaker 1: with a relatively conservative group of people here that do
Speaker 1: not like theatric like they don't like all of this bullshit,
Speaker 1: and that's clear in the polling data. They're gonna be
Speaker 1: cognizant of it. And Joe Biden, for all of his weaknesses,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, there's a teflon quality to this guy. How
Speaker 1: often he stutters, no matter what's down next to his corvette,
Speaker 1: no matter what you know occurs in his family, he
Speaker 1: does maintain the trust of the American people and is
Speaker 1: viewed kind of above. You know a lot of this crap.
Speaker 1: I mean, Donald Trump had a certain element of this,
Speaker 1: much to all of our frustration. Put the hell out
Speaker 1: of me out how to battle this? Okay, So now
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one of the things Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy is most excited about is trying not to see
Speaker 1: Eric il Hahn and Adam Chef for various and sundry reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I understand what is happening, which is
Speaker 1: that McCarthy wants a false equivalency. But I mean, do
Speaker 1: you think he goes through with it? And what do
Speaker 1: you go? He will absolutely go through with it. It
Speaker 1: is guaranteed from their perspective. Right what they're saying is
Speaker 1: is you upset house norms eye for an eye, right like,
Speaker 1: exactly the opposite of what we teach our children, right like,
Speaker 1: they're doing that. But again, you are also correct that
Speaker 1: that it's based around this incredible false equivalence. Like the
Speaker 1: one of the people whose committee, the Republicans whose committee
Speaker 1: assignments we removed, the Democrats removed literally put out a
Speaker 1: video trying to where he like fantasized about killing or
Speaker 1: I don't know, like hate fucking like a member of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Caucus. Right, it was like all types of
Speaker 1: weird and completely it was totally warranted. It is really
Speaker 1: really scary if we go down this road where every
Speaker 1: side that's in power gets to just randomly remove people
Speaker 1: from their committees. It becomes like this is like what
Speaker 1: like ww like political WWF Like it's the it is
Speaker 1: the strangest, weirdest thing. I hate it because like I
Speaker 1: really actually I don't want to see people go through this.
Speaker 1: I really hope this is the end of this era
Speaker 1: or this use of this as a political tool. We
Speaker 1: got to figure out another way to engage in political
Speaker 1: combat rather than just like kicking people out of the room.
Speaker 1: It is really really really horrible, really horrible. You know, look, man,
Speaker 1: you want honesty. Though the people that got kicked off,
Speaker 1: maybe they're not on the Intelligence Committee, their status just
Speaker 1: rose even more. They're raising even money, so I'm not
Speaker 1: even fucking share. They're upset about it. Like that's what's
Speaker 1: so crazy about all of it, you know, right right, right,
Speaker 1: right right, we're in this weird traine whatever is pitical celebrity.
Speaker 1: Like it's like they're all they're all auditioning to do
Speaker 1: something else or monetize what they currently have. They don't care.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a reason why back in the day, right,
Speaker 1: look at these twenty extremist Republicans. Back in the day.
Speaker 1: What would happen is the speaker or the person who
Speaker 1: wants to be speaker would say, all right, man, like,
Speaker 1: you want fifteen million for a hospital you want? Can?
Speaker 1: I can? I I'll give you fifty million dollars to
Speaker 1: build whatever that park that you want to build, and
Speaker 1: we can do a ribbon cutting. I think Matt Gates
Speaker 1: gives a fuck about a park. No, he wants more followers.
Speaker 1: He wants to be in the limelight. He wants to
Speaker 1: be the you know, the central ringleader of the circus
Speaker 1: because there's money there, and and there's exposure there, and
Speaker 1: there's like endorphins and ego boost there. Real housewives of
Speaker 1: the long Worth building. Yeah, you can just imagine it now,
Speaker 1: right right. I mean it's completely crazy. Max Rose, So good?
Speaker 1: Did I do better about the text message I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get from me today? You know, by the way, reviewers
Speaker 1: aware of like your fashion choices during your podcast Sweatshirt Listen,
Speaker 1: this is not the worst I've looked today. I'm just still.
Speaker 1: I think you looked phenomenal. I think you looked great.
Speaker 1: You're a fashion forward. Zach Petrizzo is a political reporter
Speaker 1: at The Daily Beast. Welcome back, Too Fast Politics, Zach Petriso,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for having me back, Molly, very exciting.
Speaker 1: All right, first thing, first, we have to talk about
Speaker 1: yesterday one Matt Gates, who is theoretically a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: was subbing in interviewing George Santos, who was also theoretically
Speaker 1: a member of Congress, while he said that Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: was on special assignment. What was Steve Bannon special assignment?
Speaker 1: Zach Petrizzo, It's funny you say, yeah, it's yesterday. You know,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates is, you know, filling in for Steve Bannon.
Speaker 1: And literally, at the start of the show, I was
Speaker 1: watching the show, Matt, he trans kind of cover Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon's tracks and says, Steve Bannon is on quote unquote
Speaker 1: on assignment. And I found this really interesting because of course,
Speaker 1: we know, you know, as a as a Steve Bannon
Speaker 1: watcher if you will, that you know he's not just
Speaker 1: on assignment. He's not just covering another news story. No,
Speaker 1: he's in uh, you know, a criminal court in Manhattan
Speaker 1: and before a judge. And so while you know Gates
Speaker 1: is kind of trying to mundy the waters here who
Speaker 1: his own listeners, the truth is, you know, he's in
Speaker 1: front of a judge over this we build a wall,
Speaker 1: we build the Wall scam. And that dates back to
Speaker 1: the allegations that he basically kind of shimmied off money
Speaker 1: off the top and defrauded people that had contributed to
Speaker 1: this this this pro Trump kind of building the wall effort. Yes,
Speaker 1: we build the wall, because I mean, the one thing
Speaker 1: about this crime is like, honestly, I mean, a few
Speaker 1: people could deserve to be defrauded more. But yes, again
Speaker 1: it is still he did still commit the allegation is
Speaker 1: still a crime. Yeah. And and in court yesterday, you know,
Speaker 1: we saw Steve Bennon trying to delay, delay, delay, um.
Speaker 1: At one point he even tried to delay the court
Speaker 1: with these with with a motion that you know, it
Speaker 1: wasn't even kind of allowed, that wasn't even so he
Speaker 1: had a really bad day in court. And then on
Speaker 1: top of that, you know, you know he's not even
Speaker 1: talking to his own lawyers now, so he has until
Speaker 1: I believe it's the end of February to find new lawyers.
Speaker 1: So the whole case is kind off to a really
Speaker 1: bad start for for Bannon. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people, especially in bandon world, are pretty
Speaker 1: worried about this one because great Frankly could land him
Speaker 1: in jail for for for a serious at the time.
Speaker 1: But he did get pardoned. This does not cover because
Speaker 1: this is federal or state. This is a state crime.
Speaker 1: So this is out of New York. And yeah, my understanding,
Speaker 1: My understanding is this wasn't this wasn't protected by the pardon,
Speaker 1: and and it could you know, from kind of a
Speaker 1: bandoned the world, it could really land him in some
Speaker 1: serious trouble here. The thing I love is like, imagine
Speaker 1: you get a pardon, but you still have all these
Speaker 1: other legal cases, like incredible stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And
Speaker 1: even one of his lawyers, for example, you know, said
Speaker 1: to the effect of Mr Bannon and his lawyers don't
Speaker 1: communicate about this case directly. The lawyers said, there's a
Speaker 1: direct breakdown in communication. So this is the type of
Speaker 1: stuff that, of course, when your lawyers and you aren't talking,
Speaker 1: pretty bad news, pretty bad stuff. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: So we have this Donald J. Trump, he is running
Speaker 1: for president, even though for some reason, no one it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem like he is. He has is already sort
Speaker 1: of shopping for vps. Wow. Yeah, So in Trump World,
Speaker 1: you know, there are a lot of kind of trial
Speaker 1: balloons that Trump World and his aids and his confidence
Speaker 1: kind of set up into the in the sky and
Speaker 1: hoped that by floating different things, perhaps you know, the
Speaker 1: MAGA based kind of response, and they get some feedback,
Speaker 1: and you know, it is interesting because Donald Trump's has
Speaker 1: this very uncharacteristically kind of tired, sleepy rundown campaign, and
Speaker 1: the Daily Beast, you know, kind of talked with a
Speaker 1: bunch of folks in Trump World and and gathered some
Speaker 1: things from tragists and confidence and others um. And you know,
Speaker 1: they gave us a couple of names. And some of
Speaker 1: these names include Alistaponic, who of course was kind of
Speaker 1: never Trump at one point and then turned all the
Speaker 1: way over to being really really pro Trump. And then
Speaker 1: we have we have Matt Marjorie Taylor Green, who of
Speaker 1: course is a MAGA favor and you know clearly is
Speaker 1: starting to talk with Trump and has a closer relationship
Speaker 1: with Trump these days. According to our recording. And then
Speaker 1: of course we have Tulsi Gabber, who is really kind
Speaker 1: of you know, got kind of a negative reaction from
Speaker 1: some people in Trump world, despite you know, Trump kind
Speaker 1: of seeing her all the time on TV on Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson Show. Wait, people don't like her because she's a
Speaker 1: or was a Democrat or why don't they like her?
Speaker 1: That's the main complaint. The main complaint that we had
Speaker 1: heard is it she doesn't even belong to the same
Speaker 1: party really exactly, that she's just you know, we're giving
Speaker 1: away all the farm if we if we tapped Ulsea Gabbert.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, look, you know
Speaker 1: Trump watches a lot of Fox News, as we know,
Speaker 1: and in his post presidential days he seemed Keelsea Gabbert
Speaker 1: a lot on Tucker Corllege from the show and just
Speaker 1: thinks that she's really smart. And I think Trump probably
Speaker 1: sees it as look, you know, she's saying all the
Speaker 1: right things type of thing and doesn't really understand all
Speaker 1: the other mago grievances that are kind of being tossed
Speaker 1: around on Twitter. And also he doesn't if she's pretty
Speaker 1: and she's unboxed, then I mean, isn't that basically his
Speaker 1: political belief ultimately? Yeah, I mean I think I think
Speaker 1: one thing we saw through this whole thing is like
Speaker 1: it seems as though Trump's really leaning towards a woman
Speaker 1: vice presidential candidate. You know, I don't know kind of
Speaker 1: all the reasoning or thinking behind that, but it was
Speaker 1: kind of a common thread and all these people and
Speaker 1: even down to people like Carrie Lake for example, right,
Speaker 1: another person that's kind of been tossing to the mix.
Speaker 1: And and one thing we had heard from kind of
Speaker 1: the folks we talk to was, look, she's great. She
Speaker 1: really gets along with Trump because she'll say, oh, you know, man,
Speaker 1: I love that it's raining outside. Did you hear about
Speaker 1: this voter fraud? Every since into something about voter fraud.
Speaker 1: But the other thing we heard were some people in
Speaker 1: Trump world saying, look, this might be a horrible idea
Speaker 1: because she doesn't have Kinada's general electability and and and
Speaker 1: isn't able to kind of speak to these these broader
Speaker 1: issues besides just talking about voter fraud. So there was
Speaker 1: some concern there. Yeah, she doesn't have much of anything
Speaker 1: except Trump was right. I mean, God forbid, we worry
Speaker 1: about what voters like, but voters tend not to love
Speaker 1: all this January sixth, you know style rhetoric. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: and of course she comes from Arizona, which and she
Speaker 1: couldn't win. I mean, she doesn't come from like one
Speaker 1: of the states that's like really kind of would be
Speaker 1: key or or something like that to kind of the
Speaker 1: early you know primaries if you would either right, like
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe you would get someone like Glenn
Speaker 1: young Can, who of course Trump hats but you know,
Speaker 1: at least he's like in in you know, a state
Speaker 1: by certain margins and has the backing of kind of
Speaker 1: all the factions of the GOP. To a certain extent,
Speaker 1: it seems like Trump, at least from our reporting, he
Speaker 1: keeps turning into these you know, more Trump and impulses
Speaker 1: where he sees someone like Marjorie Taylor Green as the
Speaker 1: Trump and heels and someone who won't kind of you know,
Speaker 1: turn her back on him like like Pence did quite frankly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and but turn his back on him, he means, won't
Speaker 1: destroy the Constitution and override the election for him precisely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is important. He wants someone that's really really loyal
Speaker 1: to MAGA, which is. I also think White Tulsi, you know,
Speaker 1: in the end, probably wouldn't work because I think she
Speaker 1: probably has some varying perspectives on war and things like that.
Speaker 1: So he wants someone that you know, is really really
Speaker 1: close with the MAGA base, someone like at Leastaphonic or
Speaker 1: a margin Tard Green. I think is is definitely a possibility. Yeah,
Speaker 1: seems like, I mean, such an interesting and also yikes,
Speaker 1: So tell me a little bit about what's happening right
Speaker 1: now in Maga world. Because you follow Maga world really
Speaker 1: even more than I do. What do you think is
Speaker 1: happening there? Well, yeah, I think it's a really interesting question.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of divides going on right now.
Speaker 1: Right so you have, you know, after the speakership race, naturally,
Speaker 1: I think on Capitol Hill there were a lot of
Speaker 1: divides among the Maga set, if you would, right, So
Speaker 1: we saw Representative Matt Gates kind of take him and
Speaker 1: Lauren Boebert and some others with him. But then on
Speaker 1: this other side you have people like Margor Taylor Green
Speaker 1: and and and other kind of Maga folks that are saying, look,
Speaker 1: let's let's stick with Trump and Carthy and let's do
Speaker 1: this and and I'll get along. So I see these
Speaker 1: kind of rivaling factions that are ultimately kind of you know,
Speaker 1: taking name at each other almost secretively, right like, accusing
Speaker 1: each other of not being anti Ukraine enough. Um is
Speaker 1: one of the favorites that I've been hearing. So you know,
Speaker 1: we have that kind of developing. And then of course
Speaker 1: in right wing media, we have people turning against Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green for for backing someone like Kevin mc arthy.
Speaker 1: So you see her and Trump pultimately taking arrows from
Speaker 1: these far right media entities, from these these right wing
Speaker 1: you know shot jocks like Stuke Peters for example, over
Speaker 1: her you know, McCarthy vote and over her backing on that.
Speaker 1: So we really see kind of a bubbling up civil
Speaker 1: war between these kind of two factions. Who is a
Speaker 1: queen of Maga, Now it's a great question. It's Bobert v.
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, right, Yeah, So that's that's kind of
Speaker 1: where the riff is now, especially with you know, Trump
Speaker 1: not an office. But I don't know who would be
Speaker 1: the queen of MAGA. I would say, look, our Gailly
Speaker 1: Bees reporting showed that Marjorie Taylor Green was quote unquote
Speaker 1: on the phone with Trump all the time. She clearly
Speaker 1: has a line, as we saw in the House floor
Speaker 1: to Trump, and they speak rather often. I know, when
Speaker 1: we saw the Biden documents come out, you know, Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green, you know, we had heard that she spoke
Speaker 1: with Trump quote unquote multiple times after those documents came out.
Speaker 1: So there definitely kind of testing the waters, and Trump
Speaker 1: is definitely kind of thinking about who is my closest,
Speaker 1: most loyal, kind of lieutenant to be my vice president
Speaker 1: right now? Is there a world in which MAGA because remember,
Speaker 1: like true, MAGA hates McCarthy right because they think McCarthy
Speaker 1: is swamp right, So is there a world in which
Speaker 1: MAGA Republicans turn on McCarthy, which they already have Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green and Trump. So I think there's definitely this
Speaker 1: this possibility that happens, I think with with ultimately Trump
Speaker 1: coming in behind McCarthy, I think that's probably less likely
Speaker 1: because you know, anytime these magat heads out there, a
Speaker 1: lot of them, you know, will criticize people like Marjorie
Speaker 1: Tayler Green right. For example, as we noted, Sebastian Gorka
Speaker 1: has been retweeting these sexists insults aimed at Marjorie Tayler Green,
Speaker 1: suggesting that she and mccarthur in some sort of sexual relationship,
Speaker 1: which is a lot to unpack. But beyond that, you know,
Speaker 1: these Magga characters feel like worka won't necessarily criticize Trump
Speaker 1: and instead it's like, oh, you know, Trump really didn't
Speaker 1: endorse McCarthy. It's like a game in nine D chess.
Speaker 1: Trump didn't really endorse McCarthy. It's his it's his deep
Speaker 1: state kind of cohort confidence around him saying to endorse McCarthy. Right,
Speaker 1: So I think in that sense, Trump can never do
Speaker 1: any wrong. Yeah, whereas you know, someone like marjor Taylor
Speaker 1: Green is ultimately just kind of toss underneath the magabus. Right.
Speaker 1: You think Trump survives this McCarthy thing, but Marjorie Taylor
Speaker 1: Green doesn't. I want to ask you about this match
Speaker 1: lap thing. Match lap ping of Sea Pack may not
Speaker 1: be so interesting to our listeners because he's not that famous,
Speaker 1: but he is very much a part of MAGA world.
Speaker 1: To talk to me about these allegations, and do you
Speaker 1: think like the slaps are able to keep Sea Pack
Speaker 1: despite the allegations. Yeah, so this story was broken by
Speaker 1: a colleague of mine, Roger Solenberger over at the Daily Beast,
Speaker 1: and the story kind of lays out the case of
Speaker 1: how you know herschel Walker staffer was was, you know,
Speaker 1: match Lapp had taken a herschel Walker staffer out to
Speaker 1: a bar and ultimately inappropriately kind of groped the male
Speaker 1: staff or the male herschel Walker staffers Genitalia, and then
Speaker 1: you know, the story kind of lays out this anonymous
Speaker 1: staffers account. Since then, since the story, of course, we've
Speaker 1: seen that the a c U and board members have
Speaker 1: come out and said, you know, the parenting body that
Speaker 1: owns governed Sepack says, look, you know, we we stand
Speaker 1: by match Lap. Now what happens kind of as we
Speaker 1: keep going, I think, you know, possibly there's more out
Speaker 1: there who really knows. But you know, if if something
Speaker 1: like this happens once, it's hard to think that it
Speaker 1: hasn't happened other times. Right, So I haven't seen other
Speaker 1: calls from like more MAGA people. I think, Look, I
Speaker 1: think sea Pack was once kind of this Republican party
Speaker 1: hot spot, need to stop by sea Pack. I think
Speaker 1: it shifted a lot, you know, since it's kind of
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen days now it's just Trump Pack, right,
Speaker 1: I mean you know that from going there, Molly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't go anymore, thank god. But yeah, it's such
Speaker 1: an important part of Maga world. I wonder if it
Speaker 1: gets displaced now. It's kind of hard to know, but
Speaker 1: I do think to a certain extent, Tea Pack has
Speaker 1: become so pro Trumpian and so Trumpian that ultimately it
Speaker 1: kind of loses some of its power in terms of
Speaker 1: having to have all these Republicans of all different stripes
Speaker 1: kind of come before and bow before them and say,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm the candidate that should be the big dog,
Speaker 1: so to speak. You know, whereas in years past it
Speaker 1: was more everyone come. Now it's Trump Pack. It loses
Speaker 1: its power, and I think Matt's ultimately, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of losing his power to a certain extent. He's been
Speaker 1: on Fox here and there. But I don't think they
Speaker 1: have the power they want to did quite frankly, but
Speaker 1: they still rule that conference. Yeah, I think, so what
Speaker 1: is it? It's now down to Florida, it's not up
Speaker 1: here at the Gaylord Hotel in Washington, d C. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, last year had less media cover it. I
Speaker 1: think media still covers it. You know, when it was
Speaker 1: up here, everyone would attend it, you know, now not
Speaker 1: as much. I guess we'll say, what do you think
Speaker 1: about Christie Gnome as a possible dark horse candidate? Yeah? No,
Speaker 1: I think that's another one. So in our in our reporting,
Speaker 1: we had we had added her to I think she's
Speaker 1: really you know, I saw Trump interacting with her things
Speaker 1: on Truth Social last night. I think she's definitely one
Speaker 1: of those characters just like at least Dephonic that you know,
Speaker 1: is really kind of in the magi camp and is
Speaker 1: already kind of taking you know, different shots at many
Speaker 1: Trump voes, like Ron Santas for example. Right, And that's
Speaker 1: basically what what Trump wants to see right now. It's
Speaker 1: a time where these people are ultimately showing their their
Speaker 1: their loyalty to Trump. Right. We saw last night, for example,
Speaker 1: Carrie Lake out a tweet about a corvette and Trump
Speaker 1: in the corvette. Yeah, that was pretty stupid, exactly, But
Speaker 1: it's just even for her, it's the level of like simping,
Speaker 1: it's the level of like just this pure desperation, right
Speaker 1: of wanting to be just that confidante to Trump. And
Speaker 1: being his pick. And it's just I mean, they're so thirsty.
Speaker 1: They're just out there just posting these very cringe meetings
Speaker 1: and stuff, so kind of funny to watch. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean seriously, thank you so much, Zach. I hope you'll
Speaker 1: come back. Thank you so much for having me. I
Speaker 1: know you, our dear listeners are very busy and you
Speaker 1: don't have time to sort through the hundreds of pieces
Speaker 1: of pundentry each week. This is why every week I
Speaker 1: put together a newsletter of my five favorite articles on politics.
Speaker 1: If you enjoy the podcast, you will love having this
Speaker 1: in your inbox every Friday. So sign up at Fast
Speaker 1: Politics pod dot com and click the tab to join
Speaker 1: our mailing list. That's fast politics pod dot com. Aaron
Speaker 1: Murphy is a Minnesota state senator and Megan Hondall is
Speaker 1: the head of Minnesota's DFL campaign. Welcome too, Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Thank you so. First we're going to talk to Megan.
Speaker 1: Will you explain to us your Minnesota bona fides. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my name's Megan. I grew up in Minnesota, but I'm
Speaker 1: a campaign staffer who's been working across the country and
Speaker 1: in two i ran the sun a DFL campaign. Can
Speaker 1: you explain what DFL is. Oh, yeah, so a fun
Speaker 1: Minnesota tidbit. We do not have a Democratic Party. We
Speaker 1: have a Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Oh very interesting, all right,
Speaker 1: and then we have Hi. There. I'm Aaron Murphy. I
Speaker 1: am a registered nurse, and I serve in the Minnesota Senate,
Speaker 1: having served in the House for twelve years, and I
Speaker 1: love campaigning. Campaigning is a prelude to governing, and that's
Speaker 1: why we're here. Tell me exactly how you did it.
Speaker 1: How did you flip your state house? Let's hear the story.
Speaker 1: So Minesota, I think traditionally folks view it as a
Speaker 1: blue state because we go blue in presidentials, but on
Speaker 1: the state legislature level that is quite different. For a while,
Speaker 1: we were the only split government in the country. Our
Speaker 1: state Senate was controlled by Republicans, and in two we
Speaker 1: flipped the Minnesota State Senate, which was not expected by
Speaker 1: a lot of folks. Wait, why Megan is understating, like
Speaker 1: almost no one believed that we could win. Even though
Speaker 1: you're a blue state, we're not really, We're more of
Speaker 1: a purple state. On the state ledge level. We haven't
Speaker 1: had a Democratic trifecta in about a decade, and we
Speaker 1: got new maps like everybody else. And while we could
Speaker 1: see a path to victory in that new map, it
Speaker 1: was a very competitive map, and that it was a
Speaker 1: mid term and people were sure that Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: going to be a dragon. The ticket said to those
Speaker 1: who look at elections and make an early declaration, there's
Speaker 1: no way you can win a majority. But both Megan
Speaker 1: and I believe we could do it. So what do
Speaker 1: you do? We did four things. Actually, one, we invested early.
Speaker 1: I think in campaigns you can almost always raise more money,
Speaker 1: but you can't go back in time and hire more staff.
Speaker 1: Come September. You're not going to be able to just
Speaker 1: put in an army of well trained door knockers wherever
Speaker 1: you want. But if you hire those people before other campaigns,
Speaker 1: hire um, before anyone else gets to them, keep them
Speaker 1: on staff, you are able to make that early investment count.
Speaker 1: And we did that. We began raising money almost immediately
Speaker 1: after Megan was hired into this position and I was
Speaker 1: elected as the chair of the Caucus pampaign. We knew
Speaker 1: we needed to raise significant money and we needed to
Speaker 1: do it early in order to fund the program that
Speaker 1: we wanted to build. To win the selection and how
Speaker 1: did you do it? So we really updated our playbook,
Speaker 1: which is what I think campaigns should do every single cycle.
Speaker 1: You can't assume every cycle is like the last one, right,
Speaker 1: was so different from two was a whole new beast.
Speaker 1: So we made a couple very strategic decisions that we
Speaker 1: had never done before. For folks listening, it might not
Speaker 1: sound like a big deal, but we switched away from
Speaker 1: cable and we invested in broadcast, which was a three
Speaker 1: and a half million dollar decision, which was scary to do. Wait,
Speaker 1: you've invested in that's so counter on tunitenove you know,
Speaker 1: you actually think that, but it's not. You have to
Speaker 1: meet the voters where they are, and a lot of
Speaker 1: times they're at home watching the news, right, So it
Speaker 1: was sort of you invest in local news. Really yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we invested in a lot of TV, but we also
Speaker 1: invested in mail and digital and a lot of staff.
Speaker 1: And another thing we did which was really different is
Speaker 1: if we decided to spend in a race, we went
Speaker 1: all out. So it can be easy to have these
Speaker 1: incredible candidates across the state who are really worthy of
Speaker 1: some investment, but then you wind up sprinkling your dollars
Speaker 1: all across, when what you really need to do in
Speaker 1: cycles is you need to pick your districts in your path.
Speaker 1: And we really only had six and we had to
Speaker 1: win five out of six, and you have to go
Speaker 1: all out in those districts and spend all of your
Speaker 1: money there, which was a whole new approach for us,
Speaker 1: and I think different than how a lot of state
Speaker 1: caucuses run. So we made that change and I think
Speaker 1: it was one of the most crucial changes that we
Speaker 1: made the cycle. And I will say that the Senate
Speaker 1: and I'm newer to the Minnesota Senate. I've I've been
Speaker 1: part of caucus campaigns but in the House, but they
Speaker 1: have relied on a similar playbook cycle after cycle. And
Speaker 1: having served now for it had been six years in
Speaker 1: the minority, there was a lot of appetite to make change,
Speaker 1: but not a lot of clarity about what that meant.
Speaker 1: And so with a new team and with a new focus,
Speaker 1: we did choose very early to invest early, to raise
Speaker 1: and invest early in high quality staff, to recruit early,
Speaker 1: really really strong candidates. I want to give a lot
Speaker 1: of praise to Megan for the very strategic approach to
Speaker 1: this race. We tested ourselves in every measure, so we
Speaker 1: didn't just pick because of, you know, a decent candidate someplace.
Speaker 1: We didn't pick because we wanted a place in the past.
Speaker 1: We looked very deeply into the data in each of
Speaker 1: the races where we thought we could win, to challenge
Speaker 1: ourselves to make sure we were on the right path.
Speaker 1: And probably one of the hardest jobs that we faced
Speaker 1: and encountered through the course of this race was making
Speaker 1: sure that we didn't get pushed by other elected officials
Speaker 1: or donors or others who had a favorite in the
Speaker 1: race or an ankling in the race to try and
Speaker 1: take us off the path. We knew we had a
Speaker 1: narrow path and we needed to stick to it, and
Speaker 1: we had the data to back ourselves up, and we
Speaker 1: used that data and those proof points to get people
Speaker 1: to buy into the program so they would support us.
Speaker 1: And we were right. And up until the day before
Speaker 1: the race, there were still people saying there's no way
Speaker 1: you're gonna win. But we had done the work, We
Speaker 1: had recruited incredible candidates, they had done the work. We
Speaker 1: spent our time in the field on the doors, and
Speaker 1: we won by a narrow majority, but we won again decisively.
Speaker 1: So what would you tell their state parties? I would
Speaker 1: tell them to knock more doors. And you think you
Speaker 1: need to write and that is not only candidate should
Speaker 1: knock more doors, but staff needs to knock doors. No
Speaker 1: matter what department you are in, you need to be
Speaker 1: on the doors. I think as Democrats we can get
Speaker 1: so caught up in crafting the perfect talking points. YEA, clearly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You take it to the voters and you knock on
Speaker 1: their door and you say you're beautiful talking point, and
Speaker 1: they're like, what the heck? When sometimes the best talking
Speaker 1: points happen when you're on the doors with folks. You're
Speaker 1: listening to their stories, you're understanding what they think about
Speaker 1: day to day, and you're meeting them where they are.
Speaker 1: So if you think you're knocking enough doors, you're not.
Speaker 1: You need to knock more, no matter who you are.
Speaker 1: I think we have to remember that every election is
Speaker 1: the next chapter in our work, and that we should
Speaker 1: take lessons from our past. But we have to plan
Speaker 1: for what we're what we're heading into, investing early in
Speaker 1: in high quality staff, in a culture that supports them,
Speaker 1: and in candidates and their ability to run the campaign
Speaker 1: that they want to that they're proud of. Were strategic
Speaker 1: choices that we made that really paid off while we knew,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think about a year ago and
Speaker 1: the early polling that we did that there were issues
Speaker 1: like public safety and inflation that we're going to be issued.
Speaker 1: Through the course of this campaign, issues like reproductive freedom
Speaker 1: and protecting our democracy emerged and mostly emerged first at
Speaker 1: the doors, where people were telling us what they were
Speaker 1: worried about, and our candidates were able to incorporate that
Speaker 1: into their message, and it became the foundation for a
Speaker 1: lot of the message messaging that we did through the
Speaker 1: course of the campaign. So this is interesting because it
Speaker 1: is like you kind of had, Like, for example, I
Speaker 1: saw so many times that polling was wrong. I mean
Speaker 1: a great example is like Lauren Bobert ran against the
Speaker 1: Sky Adam Fresh. We had him on the podcast Everyone
Speaker 1: and You're crazy. He won't ever win. He lost by
Speaker 1: seven votes. So there were many many races like this
Speaker 1: where the polling was just way way off and you know,
Speaker 1: and certain people lost when they could have won. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think of Mandela Barnes is another great example. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was very type. You know, it turned out that
Speaker 1: he wasn't ahead by seven points or whatever. So you're
Speaker 1: saying that you can actually that you that the exposure
Speaker 1: you had with voters actually informed in ways that the
Speaker 1: polling did not. Yeah, definitely. I also think you have
Speaker 1: to take polling as a little piece of the puzzle
Speaker 1: and not the whole thing, right, So much of this
Speaker 1: is really dependent upon the candidate, the district and everything.
Speaker 1: We won. In a couple of districts that Trump won,
Speaker 1: we outperformed the top of the ticket, which I think
Speaker 1: nationally Democrats don't really view that is happening, right. They
Speaker 1: think that the top of the ticket has coat tails,
Speaker 1: and however long those coat tails are, are your odds
Speaker 1: of getting this majority on the state ledge level, and
Speaker 1: that's really not the case. We really treated these as
Speaker 1: individual races, and we took polling really seriously. We took
Speaker 1: data really seriously. But when it comes to state ledge
Speaker 1: level polling, you're never going to get the amount of
Speaker 1: data that you need. So you really do have to
Speaker 1: rely on actually knocking on doors and listening to what
Speaker 1: your candidate is saying is happening in their district. Yes,
Speaker 1: and I think that's a really good point. I mean, again,
Speaker 1: it is, you know, one of these things where I mean,
Speaker 1: if you look at the two elections, you can see
Speaker 1: that there were certain states where the state party really
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna curse now, so I know you guys
Speaker 1: are from Minnesota, so I don't want to like, but no,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding where the state party really fucked up
Speaker 1: and places where the state party really delivered. And I
Speaker 1: mean places the state party really funked up New York, Florida,
Speaker 1: places where they really delivered Wisconsin. I mean Tony Iver's
Speaker 1: four points. That's like, that's a landside for Wisconsin. So
Speaker 1: what your story is really about is about working on
Speaker 1: the state level, right, Yeah. I think Democrats are finally
Speaker 1: starting to realize that this new post Row era, we're
Speaker 1: either going to lose our rights at the state level
Speaker 1: or protect them at the state level, so the investments
Speaker 1: we make are crucial. They also decide how redistricting goes,
Speaker 1: which affects the federal level, so we can't ignore them
Speaker 1: any longer. Megan mentioned at the start here about the
Speaker 1: goal of raising money early and early investment, and we
Speaker 1: were making a really strong argument with donors and allies
Speaker 1: and partners and with candidates about the shape of this race.
Speaker 1: But it is really important at this moment to underscore
Speaker 1: the discipline of this election and the discipline that Megan
Speaker 1: brought to this election, whether it was on the data
Speaker 1: front and making sure that we were really clear about
Speaker 1: our path and our way to get there, about informing
Speaker 1: our decisions so that when they were made, we were
Speaker 1: clear about why we were doing them and making a
Speaker 1: really really clear choice. And that I think is counterintuitive
Speaker 1: as well when you think about state parties, because we
Speaker 1: didn't go off the regular playbook, and there were plenty
Speaker 1: of people, including some of my elected colleagues, who were
Speaker 1: raising their eyebrows and saying, why are you doing X,
Speaker 1: Y or Z. But we always had the data to
Speaker 1: back up our decision making, and in a close race,
Speaker 1: those decisions are consequential. And I just can't say enough
Speaker 1: about the you know, the credit I want to give
Speaker 1: to Megan into the team that she built to bring
Speaker 1: us through a really tough election and into a victory
Speaker 1: that was largely one in the field. And for all
Speaker 1: of the decision making that drove us to that great outcome,
Speaker 1: what were the things that raised eyebrows were pretty mean
Speaker 1: when it came to our TV ads, we were not
Speaker 1: Minnesota nice. No listen, I mean, I want to know
Speaker 1: how you want. That's what we're talking about here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we had an ad that they tried to get
Speaker 1: pulled off TV for it being inappropriate maybe in some
Speaker 1: of the language. We're pretty vicious though, right, you have
Speaker 1: to show voters who these elected officials could be or
Speaker 1: who they are. And as much as voters say they
Speaker 1: hate negative campaigning, it does work and sometimes you have
Speaker 1: to be okay, you know, showing showing voters who your
Speaker 1: candidates are, and that was one of the things that
Speaker 1: we really changed. And then on the flip side, we
Speaker 1: also had these incredible candidates who were distant from the
Speaker 1: negative ads, who knocked on so many doors, who had
Speaker 1: these incredible races and these incredible teams. Everyone talks about
Speaker 1: these grassroots movements, and I don't think people really understand
Speaker 1: how important it is to have people who are just
Speaker 1: knocking doors day in and day out, because that makes
Speaker 1: one of the biggest differences. I know that sounds like
Speaker 1: it contradicts each other, but really those are two ways
Speaker 1: that we want. We had incredible candidates in districts that
Speaker 1: we're going to be hard for us to win. And
Speaker 1: so there were questions about why aren't you doing more
Speaker 1: in District X, Y or Z, because look how strong
Speaker 1: this candidate is, how much money they've raised, how many
Speaker 1: doors that they're knocking, and that sirens song have have
Speaker 1: spread yourself out, maybe we can win some more. Things
Speaker 1: is a danger and we were very disciplined about making
Speaker 1: sure that we understood our path. Also, we wanted to
Speaker 1: make sure that the candidates understood that every one of them,
Speaker 1: every one of our sixty four candidates, contributed to our victories.
Speaker 1: So even in the hardest races, when we did our
Speaker 1: post campaign evaluation, we had candidates talking about how they
Speaker 1: didn't win, but they contributed to the victory for the
Speaker 1: attorney general and to our majority, and that that pays
Speaker 1: dividends as well going forward for us. So that's like
Speaker 1: the argument like in North Dakota, they didn't Democrats didn't
Speaker 1: run for some of these congressional seats because they knew
Speaker 1: it was, you know, in our plus forty. But this
Speaker 1: makes the case and I and we've had people on
Speaker 1: this podcast before we've talked we've talked about this, especially
Speaker 1: from Run for Something that if you run candidates even
Speaker 1: in districts where you know you may lose, you know
Speaker 1: in our plus twenty in our post that actually it
Speaker 1: helps other candidates nearby. I mean, I don't know what
Speaker 1: the causality there is, but that is what it does, right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And those districts, especially in those excerpts too, they might
Speaker 1: be our plus ten right now, but in four years,
Speaker 1: eight years, twelve years, they're not going to be. And
Speaker 1: you can't just start from nothing unexpect to flip a seat.
Speaker 1: So you have to have voters and volunteers who are
Speaker 1: engaged and ready to go. So if you run good
Speaker 1: candidates across a state, it really does make a difference
Speaker 1: in that cycle and in future cycles too. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: I mean, and I think that's a really good point.
Speaker 1: Now that you guys have flipped your state House, where
Speaker 1: do you go from here? You know, we're at the
Speaker 1: very beginning of what I believe will be a very
Speaker 1: productive two years for the state of Minnesota in following
Speaker 1: through and the commitments that we've made to the people
Speaker 1: of Minnesota. So we're gonna, of course enshrine reproductive freedom,
Speaker 1: do paid family leave, We're going to invest in our schools,
Speaker 1: We're going to do the things that we said we
Speaker 1: were going to do for the people of Minnesota. They
Speaker 1: expect us to do those things, and for me, who
Speaker 1: is a practitioner and a hopeful, joyful kind of politics.
Speaker 1: When we ask the voters for support and we don't
Speaker 1: follow through, when we break our word, we contribute to
Speaker 1: the cynicism that really undermines our fundamental democracy. And then
Speaker 1: I am already looking at Megan here. We're already talking
Speaker 1: about the next election, which is just four years away,
Speaker 1: and preparing the groundwork now so that we can compete
Speaker 1: in the next one in the terms and conditions of
Speaker 1: that race and expand their majority. That all sounds great.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys, so much, Thank you, Thank you, Molly
Speaker 1: John Fast, Jesse Cannon. So, Kathy Hokold, newly elected by
Speaker 1: a little less than everybody thought she'd get elected by,
Speaker 1: for some reason, is imitating Andrew Cuomo's governing tactics, which
Speaker 1: no one wants. Yeah, I think this is a really
Speaker 1: important case. Kathy hoko was a previous guest of ours.
Speaker 1: Um she has sort of decided that she has to
Speaker 1: have this can't this judge Hector Lassalle, and she wants
Speaker 1: to put him on the highest court and he he sucks.
Speaker 1: He's an anti choice, he's andre labor union. Nobody wants him.
Speaker 1: He's been rejected by progressives everywhere. And she is not
Speaker 1: backing down, and she is just super hot to get
Speaker 1: this guy on the court. And you know, as we know,
Speaker 1: part of the reason that Democrats lost the House was
Speaker 1: because Cuomo cut this redistricting deal in twelve which kicked
Speaker 1: the can down too and had this nonpartisan redistricting which
Speaker 1: gave Republicans a bunch of safe seeds. And so now
Speaker 1: we have Hoco who's basically doing exactly the same thing,
Speaker 1: and she's also supporting this really terrible uh the head
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party of New York, a guy called
Speaker 1: j Acobs, who also has just done a terrible job
Speaker 1: with the to election and needs to resign. You know,
Speaker 1: we try not to get involved in like inter parties squabbles,
Speaker 1: but this is really bad and Kathy Hokel needs to
Speaker 1: get it together. She represents people of New York. The
Speaker 1: people of New York elected a Democrat. They do not
Speaker 1: want a Republican taking the highest court. That's it for
Speaker 1: this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and Friday to your the best minds, and politics makes
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.