Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Chuck’s Commentary - The Circus In The Senate Judiciary Committee + Vouchers Failed… How To Really Fix Public Schools

Transcript

Chuck’s Commentary - The Circus In The Senate Judiciary Committee + Vouchers Failed… How To Really Fix Public Schools · The Chuck ToddCast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: you by Chapter. Now, almost everything you hear about Medicare
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: is somebody quietly trying to steer you somewhere. And you're
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: skeptical of that, as you should be. I get it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a federal lawsuit going on right now
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: over exactly this. Companies that branded themselves as unbiased while
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: allegedly pointing people toward whatever would pay them the most
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: as some sort of broker. So if your default is
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: to distrust everyone in this space, honestly, I get it.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: I'm a bit distrustful these days myself. That's the whole
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: reason I want to tell you about Chapter. They're independent
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Medicare advisors whose entire model is that their advisors are
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: not paid to push any one plan. They're just trying
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to help. Yes, there's compensation that goes with it. but
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: it's across the board is what they're trying to do.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: At the end of the day, they're advocating for you.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: They're not the insurance companies themselves. They're an actual person
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: who actually goes through your doctors, your prescriptions, your needs,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and then compares them to every single plan available to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: find the best one that will work for you and
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: hopefully save you a couple dollars too. And here's the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: part that sets chapter apart. They don't disappear once you've
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: been in They will keep advocating for you. They're kind
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: of like almost like a concierge service. You're just there.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I need help. You're like customer service. You know, the plan,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: you know, help me navigate this again. So you ever
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: get hit with a wrongful medical bill, they'll help you
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: fight it. They want to stay an advocate for you
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: even after you've done this. So look, I get it.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: I think there's all sorts of space. You see a
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: lot of people are throwing themselves in this healthcare space.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: What I like about these chapter folks, I've spent time
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: with them. This is a very transparent organization. It is
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Medicare and all of its affiliated stuff can be very confusing.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: The whole point of this is to make this easier
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and less confusing. Okay, so look, take the skepticism you
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: already have in all of this, point it at your
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: own plan for 20 minutes. It's free. There's no pressure.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: And then call chapter today at 980-734-4255. Hello there and
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: welcome to another episode of the Chuck Todd cast. I
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: am the namesake of said show. I've got something a
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: tiny bit new I'm going to try later in the
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: podcast today, something I'm calling Wednesday's Issue. Those of you
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: of a certain age who grew up watching local TV,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: because nothing else was on when you got home from school,
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: you may remember Wednesday's Child. It was sort of a
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: focus on somebody doing something unique or whatever in the community. Well,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: think of this as Wednesday's issue, if you will. The
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: idea is pretty simple. Once a week, I hope, I
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: want to take one of these problems that everybody in
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: politics is very good at complaining about, but we rarely
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: actually spend enough time actually trying to solve the actual
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: problem and do a bit of a deep dive on
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: said problem. What is the problem? What have we tried?
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: What have we learned? Why didn't it work? And if
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: we were actually serious about making things better, what might
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: we try next? So I don't expect to have the
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: answer every Wednesday. In fact, if I claim I do,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: you should probably stop listening. I swear I'm not going
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: to be one of those arrogant podcasters. I alone can
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: fix it and know everything. But I do think we
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: need more political conversations that don't end with, and here's
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: why the other side sucks, or here's why everything sucks.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: kind of like a Jon Stewart segment or something like that.
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: But before I dive into my Wednesday issue in full,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: and I'm going to end up starting with that crazy
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee hearing with Jack Smith, and a reminder that
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: we don't have a shared reality. And when you don't
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: have a shared reality, boy, can you go down some
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: horrendous paths. Speaking of Mr. Stewart, by the way, apparently
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: I was a punchline for him last night. And we
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: can keep going back even further, like when candidate Trump
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: attacked John McCain's military service in 2015. I do think
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: it's the beginning of the end of the marriage between
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: It's not!
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: He's still standing, you're not!
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: He's not dead.
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: He was just fired. For God's sakes. John, John, John, listen,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: I understand you've got to go back 15 years to
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: look for punchlines, or I guess 11 years and all
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: this stuff. You might want to update your files a
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: little bit. I make fun of myself for all the
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: times that I say that, hey, this is it. Now
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Republicans are finally going to break from Trump and It
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: is absolutely worth mocking at times. And at the same time,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: you know, don't be totally ignorant about it because the
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: fact of the matter is Trump continues to lose Republican
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: supporters every year. It just never goes as fast as
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: you or anybody else wants to see. But dude, I
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: wasn't fired. Some of us actually choose to leave. Have
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: you been fired yet? You know the difference. Anyway, but
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: thank you for making me a punchline and hopefully For
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: those of you that are now here wondering if I
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: was dead or alive, welcome to the Chuck Todd cast.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Stewart, for reminding people that I have
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: not died. But I tease. But look, I want to
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: also thank the New York Times for paying attention to
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: a segment that was our lead segment on Super Tuesday
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: with Chris Eliza and I. And it was this idea.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: Would you want Trump to campaign for you? And if so,
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: which states? Well, the Times helpfully actually talked to nine
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: different Republican Senate nominees, some incumbents, obviously, some challengers, and
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: asked them, do they want Trump to campaign for them?
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: And what was telling is who said yes. And you
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: can kind of imagine it sort of went in line
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: to what Chris and I were saying yesterday. And I
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: just thought Sullivan said yes. And indeed, Trump is going
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: to try to get out there because there are pockets
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: of of base voters in Alaska that perhaps, look, presidents
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: don't visit Alaska very often, so I can see why
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Dan Sullivan, who needs an improved base turnout, is interested
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: in having him there, because it brings some, it's a
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: convening event in a state that is hard to have
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: one event that sort of convenes the eyeballs of the
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: whole state. Not surprisingly, Michael Whatley in North Carolina, because hey,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: when you're behind, you'll take any help you can get.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: John Husted, that given the registration advantage of Republicans have
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: over Democrats in Ohio, they're gonna bring him, apparently he's coming,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: and he's coming to a town a little bit north
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: of Dayton. It's probably the area I would pick if
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: you were in, there's no doubt that they were trying
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: to micro-target that a little bit. But the problem with
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: bringing Trump is it's hard to hide him, right? And
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: if you don't want voters in other parts of the
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: states to see your full attachment to him. That could
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: be tricky. And the other thing that, you know, why it's,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: I think, a double-edged sword for Husted is that he
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: successfully got some people thinking Sherrod Brown is the incumbent.
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: The more he hangs with Trump, the more it may
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: remind people he's the incumbent. And of course, Ken Paxton,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: which was the one person that I thought was the
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: only one really that could benefit from him. What was interesting,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: the two no's were John Sununu and Susan Collins. Not
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: surprising there. I don't think anybody in New England, I
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: don't think many New England Republicans that think they have
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: a chance to win would want Trump to campaign for him.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: And the unclear no comments came from Roger Marshall, Ashley
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: Hinson of Iowa and Roger Marshall of Kansas and Mike
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Rogers of Michigan. And in all those cases, it certainly
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: makes sense to me why they don't want to show
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: enthusiasm for it. The problem all three has is Trump
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: comes and I think Trump's definitely going to go to Iowa.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: We'll see if he goes because he's going to go
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: to the third district in Nebraska, which to me makes
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: a lot of sense if you're Todd Ricketts, excuse me,
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Pete Ricketts. Todd Ricketts is the Cubs owner. Pete Ricketts
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: is the senator. That would make some sense to me,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: if you will. But we've already seen Ashley Hinson somehow
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: had something else to do when Vance came to the state.
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: Marshall has campaigned with Vance, so we'll see. But anyway,
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: I just thought it was interesting. What the campaigns, the
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: campaigns that were willing to say yes on the record,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: the campaigns that were willing to say no on the record,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: and then the three that didn't want to do it.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Axios also, one other quick update before I get to
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: sort of the heart of what I want to talk
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: about today. Axios is an update about Trump and his
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: propaganda ads. It is essentially, you know, some stories, you
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: know exactly what the story is, and then you just
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: get confirmation. And I'm about to go off on confirmation
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: bias in a minute. But sometimes the Trump White House
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: is so predictable, you can sort of have an idea
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: of exactly how this plays out. And according to Axios,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: it played out exactly how we had laid it out,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: which is he himself wants these ads. He himself is
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: designing these ads. He's picking and choosing. He's finding the
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: ways to do it. They're now hope they're now hoping
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: this gets more media attention. Would you compare it to
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: the amount of money they're spending in the actual political advertising?
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: It is chump change. But that just the idea, right,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: what he's doing is breaking a norm, taxpayer dollars for
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: government propaganda. And you can argue anything taxpayer dollars pay
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: for that promotes something government wants promoted. I guess if
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: you disagree with it, you can claim it's propaganda. But
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: this when you're when you're when this self-serving, it isn't
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: really promoting the idea of vaccinations or seatbelt wearing. The
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: type of taxpayer-funded PSAs that at least in theory are
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: going to the public good Promoting Donald Trump doesn't necessarily
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: go to the public good or doesn't help people in
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: their own lives. But it's interesting that the White House
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: now says, oh, we love the media attention because the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: more media attention it gets, the more the more. So
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: it's clear they don't have that big of a budget
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: for these ads. And in some ways it is designed,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: at least the White House is claiming it is designed
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: for maximized attention. mainstream media outrage and maximized outrage from
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the political class. Well, I guess congratulations. It is maximized
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: outrage from the political class. All right. Before I get
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: to my Wednesday issue and my deep dive on sort
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: of on public education, which we're going to do, I
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: will have a fun little top five list. It's very 2026-ish.
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: And I'll take some questions. But let me begin, before
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: I get into my big issue, I have to talk
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: about what happened yesterday. at that Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: that featured Jack Smith. I guess we'll call it Jack
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: Smith and the Atlanta Hawkeyes. The former special counsel, Jack Smith,
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: went before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday. And I suspect
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: the one thing most people are going to remember from
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: this hearing going forward is the moment Missouri Republican Senator
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: Eric Schmidt thought he caught Jack Smith committing perjury. And
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: he had his Perry Mason moment all ready to go, right?
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: And even had it scripted out. He had sent previews
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: to various conservative amplifiers that were ready, influencers that were
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: ready to just pounce because they already know the story
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: of Jack Smith, right? They've already decided. Schmidt had apparently
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: obtained some text messages that referred to Jack Smith attending
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: a basketball game in February of 2024. Well, Schmidt had
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: a theory. He suggested that Smith had attended an Atlanta
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: Hawks game. And you might think, why would Smith Why
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: would Schmidt want to put Jack Smith at an Atlanta
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: Hawks game, right? Perhaps Smith could have secretly met with
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis, who, of course, was
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: investigating and trying to prosecute Trump. Remember, there's this theory
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: that Trump has manufactured that there's this grand conspiracy and
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: all these people have been working together and There was
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: this hidden hand of the Biden Justice Department behind Fannie Willis,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: hidden hand going on in New York and Jack Smith.
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: And there was just this elaborate, you know, you know,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: tentacles of an octopus. Right. It was in all these
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: different places. So Schmidt's got what he thinks is he's
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: got him. Right. He is going to set him up.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: And Schmidt's asking, you know, these questions of Smith and
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Smith is acting pretty confused. He said, he goes, you know,
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: I don't think I attended an Atlanta Hawks game. And
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: Schmidt kept pushing. And he essentially told Smith, be careful
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: here because I've got the evidence. And then Schmidt announced
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: that Smith may have just perjured himself before Congress. And
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: then just for good measure, Schmidt decided to call him
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: a dirtbag. I mean, it was just such a really
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: kind of a sad, pathetic performance, especially when you realize
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: he didn't have the goods. Um, Jack Smith never had
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: been to Atlanta Hawks basketball game. He had gone to
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: see the Iowa Hawkeyes, and it was the women's basketball team.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: It was Caitlin Clark's Iowa Hawkeyes. And he went to
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: a game in College Park, Maryland, where Iowa was visiting
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Big Ten matchup against the University of Maryland. He was
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: not in Atlanta. It was not the Hawks. It was
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: the Hawkeyes. Well, Amy Klobuchar figured out what apparently neither
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: Senator Schmidt nor anybody on his staff had figured out.
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: before Schmidt publicly accused a former federal prosecutor of committing
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: a crime. The basketball game was in Maryland. Look, people
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: make mistakes. Senators make mistakes. Journalists make mistakes. I've made mistakes. Prosecutors,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: Eric Schmidt talked about what a great prosecutor he was.
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: He makes mistakes. But it wasn't the most revealing part
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: of this because after it became clear what had happened,
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Schmidt didn't say, you know what? I screwed it up.
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: I messed up. Sorry about that. He didn't apologize to Schmidt.
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: He didn't retract the accusation. He stood by calling him
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: a dirtbag. And this is the part that should matter here,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: because the mistake itself is almost a perfect illustration of
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: confirmation bias. You begin with a conclusion. Jack Smith was
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: part of a grand conspiracy against Donald Trump. Fannie Willis
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: was part of that grand conspiracy, too. Therefore, if I
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: can put Jack Smith in Atlanta. You know, small town, right?
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: You know, just, by the way, as if just him
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: being in Atlanta would have proven the conspiracy, but he
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: couldn't even place him in Atlanta, right? Perhaps I can
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: connect these two pieces of the conspiracy. Hey, he's just
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: asking questions. Well, then somebody finds text saying Smith was
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: going to a basketball game. Hawkeyes becomes Hawks. Basketball becomes Atlanta.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: Atlanta becomes Fannie Willis. And suddenly a United States senator
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: is publicly accusing somebody of perjury. You're not following the
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: evidence to see where it takes you, Mr. Prosecutor. You're
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: taking the evidence and trying to make it take you
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: where you've already decided you want to go. And here's
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: the irony to what Eric Schmidt did. The entire Republican
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: critique of Jack Smith is that this is precisely what
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: Jack Smith was doing to Donald Trump, that he started
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: with a conclusion, Trump is guilty, and then went looking
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: for the evidence to prove the crime. So in the
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: process of trying to prove Jack Smith suffered from confirmation bias,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: Eric Smith gave us one of the most extraordinary demonstrations
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: of confirmation bias that I've seen in quite some time.
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: And then he wouldn't admit it, right? This is what
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: is just so wrong, particularly with Trump's Republican Party. People
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: think because Trump never backs down, sticks to his lies,
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: that they will look weak if they admit that they
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: messed up, right? And you gotta remember, Eric Schmidt is
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: sort of a product of Trump's Republican Party, not one
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: that was ever grounded in truth. The pre-Trump Republican Party,
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: a guy like Eric Schmidt probably doesn't get a Senate nomination,
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: but he was able to succeed in Trump's Republican Party.
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: And therefore, this is the world sort of that he
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: lives in. And that's the bigger problem, because if evidence
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: that confirms your worldview matters, but evidence disproving your worldview
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: doesn't change anything, then evidence doesn't really matter to you.
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: And by the way, there was a pretty amazing bit
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: of timing to all of this. Axios published a story
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: Tuesday morning saying Schmidt is increasingly being taken seriously as
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: a possible running mate for JD Vance in 2028. Axios
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: reported that Vance considers Schmidt trustworthy, intelligent, articulate, and here's
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: the best part, a deft political operator. And then a
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: few hours later, the deft political operator gave us the
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: Atlanta Hawkeyes. Heck of a job, Schmitty, right? I guess
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: Schmidt happens here. But there's something else about this hearing
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: that bothers me a lot more than just Eric Schmidt
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: embarrassing himself. What Jack Smith actually investigated has been completely lost.
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: So a little reminder on what Jack Smith was investigating.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: Listening to parts of this hearing, you could come away
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: thinking Jack Smith simply woke up one morning, decided he
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: didn't like Donald Trump and launched a couple of criminal investigations.
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: As we all know, that is not what happened. This
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to you
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: by Kalshi. It's an exchange where you can trade on
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: what you actually think is going to happen. Sports, politics, culture,
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: whatever's on your mind. For example, one market, of course,
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: that I'm monitoring very closely is the U.S. Senate and
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: control of the U.S. Senate. As recently as September 10th,
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Republicans were favored to retain control. Fifty two percent right
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: to to to buy a share of Republicans retain control
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: is going to cost you fifty two cents. would have
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: only cost you 48 cents to buy essentially a share
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: of the prediction that Democrats would win control. But boy,
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: have things changed in two weeks, right? Democrats are now favored,
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: according to the markets, the market to buy Democratic control
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: is up to 62 cents. The market for Republican control
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: is 38 cents. So it's the Democrats' high watermark so
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: far of the cycle, And so far, the number is
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: growing by the day. And so you know what that means.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: If you're confident, you think this number is only going
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: to grow, then you better hurry up and get in
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: now if you believe the Democrats are going to do this.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: And if you look at this and go, hey, I
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: think the Republicans are going to retain. And in fact,
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: whether they retain or not, I think we're going to
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: see some polls. There'll be the natural tightening of October.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: I better get in on this, get a piece of
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: this Republican number before it goes back up. And, you know,
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: either way, you can make a couple of bucks. So
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: it's fascinating. And depending on how you view the next
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: three weeks are going to go, not necessarily election day,
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: but the narrative of the next three weeks may impact
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: which side of that equation you want to purchase. So
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: here's what you need to know about CalSheet. You're going
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: up against other traders directly. There's no house setting the odds,
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: just people putting their own opinions and predictions on the line.
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: So if you trade $ 25 and you use the code
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: Chuck Todd, they'll throw in another $ 25 instantly. As always,
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: please remember to trade responsibly. Thank you. Smith was appointed
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: in late 2022 to oversee investigations that were already underway
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: because Donald Trump chose to hurry up and launch his
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: campaign for president to force the Justice Department to appoint
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: a special prosecutor. The whole reason he announced in November
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: of 2022 was to derail the legitimate investigations that were
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: taking place into his behavior and what he did on
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: January 6th, and then what he did after leaving office
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: with classified documents, right? So one of the investigations was
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: about Donald Trump's handling of classified documents and the government's
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: efforts to recover those documents and his alleged attempts to
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: essentially obstruct the process. And of course, the other one
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: was about what was he doing to try to to
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: try to essentially prevent the inauguration of Joe Biden. So
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: there were investigations of allegations of fraud and then came
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: the effort to prevent or delay the certification. This is
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: what Jack Smith was investigating. And that's why phone records
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: of members of Congress became relevant, right? Smith's investigators wanted
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: to know about calls coming from the White House and
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: Trump's orbit to members of Congress during the effort to
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: delay certifications. Who called whom? When? For how long? The
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: records at issue did not contain the contents of those conversations.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: Smith testified that obtaining the records was relevant to determining
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: Trump's intent and the scope of the effort to delay certification. Now,
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: there are legitimate questions about this, and Mike Lee raised
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: one of them. How much protection should members of Congress
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: receive under the speech or debate clause? When should prosecutors
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: be allowed to prevent a phone company from notifying somebody
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: that their records have been subpoenaed? Lee and Democrat Chris
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: Coons have actually worked together on legislation dealing with stronger
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: safeguards surrounding these types of gag orders. That's a good thing.
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: Have that argument. That's congressional oversight. But don't erase why
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: prosecutors were looking for those records in the first place.
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: They weren't investigating whether it was a crime to be
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: a Republican. They were investigating the unprecedented effort by a
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: sitting president to remain in power after he lost an
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: election fair and square. And the same thing happens when
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: we talk about the classified documents case. It gets reduced
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: to Trump had classified documents. Biden had classified documents. Other
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: presidents had them. Everybody does it. Except Smith's case wasn't
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: simply about possessing documents. It included allegations of obstruction. And again,
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: I want to emphasize the word allegations because the case
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: never went to trial. And that gets us to something
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump has become incredibly successful at doing. He makes
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: the investigation itself seem like a scandal. Trump loves to
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: remind everybody how many times he's been investigated, which to
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: me would be embarrassing because the more you're, most investigations
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: aren't just kangaroo courts, although apparently Donald Trump would like
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: to create them. He's been investigated for Russia. for Ukraine,
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: January 6th, classified documents, the Georgia case, the New York case,
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: over and over. And he uses the number of investigations
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: as evidence that the investigations themselves must have been illegitimate.
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: Look how many times they've come after me. But that's
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: not an answer to the evidence in any one of
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: those investigations. And there's a pattern here, attack the investigator,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: attack the institution, challenge legitimacy, litigate, delay. He will never
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: do anything the first time he's asked. Turned cooperation with
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: an investigation into a political question. And of course, ultimately
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: convince your supporters that the real scandal isn't whatever conduct
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: was being investigated. The investigation is the scandal. Why are
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: they trying to stop me? They're afraid of me. That's
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: why they're coming after me. And if they're coming after me,
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: they're really coming after you. Russia, of course, is the
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: best example. You can believe there were serious mistakes surrounding
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: the Russia investigation. You can believe people got ahead of
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: the evidence. Some did. But Russia did interfere in the
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: 2016 election. The Mueller investigation documented that very well. Mueller
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: also examined multiple episodes involving potential obstruction by Trump. And politically,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: Trump was extraordinarily successful at turning that entire thing around
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: until the argument became almost entirely about the people investigating it.
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: And Jack Smith became another great example of this. Neither
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: federal case against Trump ever reached a trial on the
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: merits before Trump returned to office. The election case ended
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: after Trump's 2024 victory because Justice Department policy bars prosecution
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: of a sitting president. So now the political shorthand becomes, see,
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: they never proved anything. Well, wait a minute. There is
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: a rather large difference between being acquitted after the evidence
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: is presented and the evidence never being adjudicated at trial.
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: Neither one proves guilt, but the second one sure as
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: hell doesn't prove innocence either. And that's what got lost yesterday. Instead,
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: we got John Kennedy telling Smith he made him want
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: to throw up in his mouth. We got Ted Cruz
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: shouting ridiculous political theatrics, Eric Schmidt calling him a dirt bag,
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: and then we got the Atlanta Hawkeyes. Their hearing was
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: supposed to expose Jack Smith instead It gave us a
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: pretty good demonstration of what happens when everybody arrives with
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: the story already written. The conclusion comes first. Then we
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: go shopping for the facts. Can we have enough of that?
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: Aren't we done with this? It almost feels as if, right,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: you know, if it's true, right, if the break's actually happening, right,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: as Jon Stewart is mocking so many of us political
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: analysts who say, hey, this break is coming. But this
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: is sort of the, you know, is this where the
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: cult gets, you know, you start to see it. You see,
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: and it's not the cult of the elected officials who
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: are just finger in the wind going wherever they can go.
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: It's the voters themselves who are just not moving anymore.
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: And they're just going, you know, are just not persuaded
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: by Trump anymore. We'll see. We got five weeks to
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: find out for sure. But something tells me that that's
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: the direction. We're headed. All right. Let me pivot to
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: a little bit of, I know when I first started
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: this podcast, I said one of the things I wanted
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: to be was in the solutions business. A lot of
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: people use independent media and influencer platforms to get a
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: point of view out there. I'm trying to see if
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: we can create convening to do some repair and restoration
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: of the American experiment. Whether it's constitutional amendments we need,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: whether it's right-sizing the democracy, Or this one, revitalizing American
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: public education. And this is my deep dive for today.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: This is the Wednesday issue. American public education was one
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: of this country's incredible competitive advantages. We decided that educating
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: people wasn't simply a private benefit for the child or
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: the family. We decided that education was a public good.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: We decided that the country would benefit if everybody could read.
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: The country would be better if everybody had some basic
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: understanding of math and science and history. that the country
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: would benefit having a literate population. And that's one reason
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: I think that public education is to me akin, I
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: think of it the same way I think about the
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: postal service. If you design the postal service purely as
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: a business, there are plenty of places in America where
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: you'd simply stop delivering mail. It's too expensive. The economics
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: don't work. That's not the mission. We decided there was
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: value in giving everybody access to a delivery mechanism to
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: share information. It was the country's first information network. And
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: that's what public education in some ways was supposed to be,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: a public good, no admission fee. This isn't supposed to
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: be some profitability test. The point is to educate everybody.
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: And yet we're looking at an education system at the
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: moment that isn't producing the results we need. Everybody has
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: a theory about why. Some blame teachers' unions, parents, COVID recently,
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: phones in schools, partisan school boards. not enough adequate funding.
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: We don't do enough testing. We do too much testing,
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: culture wars, bad teachers, bad administrators. Take your pick. Education
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: is a little bit like healthcare. Everybody's been to a doctor,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: so everybody thinks they understand healthcare. And everybody went to school,
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: so everybody thinks they are an expert at how the
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: education system should work, right? We are all experts in
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: the system we personally experienced. That's not the same thing
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: as understanding the system though. So rather than start with blame,
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: I'd like to start somewhere else. What have we actually
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: learned in this 25-year experiment that we've had in trying
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: to reform the public education system? Because that's what we've
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: done the last 25 years. We've experimented. Charter schools, no
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: child left behind, increased accountability. At one point, we had
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: more testing. Then we pivoted to less testing or no testing.
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: We've tried smaller classes. We've tried more money, increased technology.
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: And now we're talking about less technology and increasingly vouchers.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: And the voucher argument was seductive. And it still is.
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: Your neighborhood public school isn't working. Well, why should your
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: child be trapped there? Because you don't have enough money
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: to move or pay for private school tuition. Give the
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: parents the education dollars. Let them choose. It's a really
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: hard thing to push back on, right? Empowering parents, right?
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: And the It's, you know, we're a free market country
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: in theory, right? So the idea that competition will force
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: schools to improve really does sound like a no-brainer. Except
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: we've now been doing versions of this for long enough
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: that we can ask, where's the transformation? And that should
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: be the question. The question shouldn't be, can you find
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: a kid who benefited from a voucher? Of course you can.
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: There's plenty of individual examples, but that's not the question.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: The question is whether vouchers improve the education system. which
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: is how they were sold. Did they create better educational
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: outcomes across communities? Did competition produce the great improvement in
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: public schools that this theory promised? Because if we're going
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: to take public dollars and fundamentally change how education is financed,
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: that ought to be the standard we use to see
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: if it works. And this week, thanks to our friends
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: at the New York Times, there was a There was
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: a fascinating exercise involving 37 different academics and researchers who
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: study education and outcomes in the United States. And they
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: were asked to evaluate 30 different ideas for improving student achievement,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: effectiveness and cost. And what's interesting is that the results,
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: they're not going to conform very well to everybody's ideological
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: wish list. OK. You know, it isn't going to make
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: the right very happy. And trust me, it isn't going
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: to make the left very happy. So small group tutoring
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: did extremely well. Focusing on the science of reading, phonics,
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: that did well. Universal pre-K, more learning time, high quality curriculum,
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: teacher coaching, expanded access to advanced classes, targeted incentives to
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: get good teachers into high poverty school districts. None of
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: those are ideological ideas. In fact, they're kind of boring. Meanwhile,
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: Private school vouchers finished 28th out of 30th in proven effectiveness.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: And they weren't cheap. It came with a huge cost.
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: So minimal effectiveness and giant cost. Researchers pointed to some
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: of the problems we've seen now. A substantial amount of
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: voucher money can go to families whose kids were already
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: attending private schools. The subsidy then contributes to higher tuition.
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: And sometimes the voucher doesn't come close to covering the
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: full tuition anyway. Meaning some of the private schools a
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: lower income family might most like to access remain out
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: of reach. It doesn't do what they promised it would do.
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: And then you have a lot of grifters in this
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: space who see, oh, look, there's available tax dollars to
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: grift from. I'll start a private school. I'll start a
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: charter school. I'll start this because I want a piece
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: of this action. It's guaranteed money. And then they, you know,
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: essentially they price in the cost of the voucher and
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: then try to find profit on the upside. So you
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: end up creating a private education industry that simply, it's
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: almost like private equity. It absorbs public money without solving
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: the public education crisis. But the education left, those on
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: the left on this issue, don't spike the football here
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: as I'm dismantling vouchers. The smaller class size didn't do
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: particularly well either, especially when researchers considered the cost. Across
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: the board, teacher pay increases also weren't especially impressive either.
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: This idea that you got to do this merit-based. You
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: can't just give bad teachers the same raises that you're
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: giving good teachers. Targeted high pay for teachers working in
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: high poverty schools. Now that had real impact. So everybody
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: on any ideological side of this argument had a finding
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: that hopefully made their point of view a bit uncomfortable.
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: And to me, that's where education reform ought to begin.
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: Because perhaps we've spent a generation now arguing about the
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: structure of education when we really should have been spending
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: more time thinking about the mechanics of learning. And perhaps
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: we've spent too much time searching for the answer, the
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: one big reform that's just going to fix public education.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: Look at places like Mississippi and Louisiana. They didn't discover
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: a miracle cure. They combined a few things, reading instruction, curriculum, accountability,
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: a few other interventions, and they just simply stuck with them.
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: So there isn't really one answer, and that's the answer.
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: And I think this is another question we need to
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: ask about public education. What should be a service and
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: what should be an industry? And this is the larger
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: question that vouchers raise for me. There are things markets
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: do incredibly well with, right? But markets don't necessarily guarantee
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: universal anything. Education is one of those places where universality
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: matters a lot. It's not that I simply want my
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: kid educated. I have a stake in your kid being
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: educated as well. We all do. I want the person
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: who's going to repair my airplane in 20 years to
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: be educated. I want the person who's going to become
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: my nurse educated. I want the person voting in an
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: election educated, right? I want members of this American democracy educated, right?
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: This is national infrastructure. So instead of spending another decade
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: figuring out new ways to allow people to escape public
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: educations and escape the system, maybe it's time to spend
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: that energy figuring out how to improve this system. And
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: here's where I'm beginning to think we may be trying
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: to solve too much at once. Let's just start with
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: pre-K through third grade.
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: That should be the initial focus first. And then we
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: start and then we can, you know, it's sort of
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: like how do you eat an elephant one bite at
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: a time? Well, in this in this debate about what
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: to do about public education and how to evolve it
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: and how to remodel it and how to reform it.
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: Let's start with with some with the part that we
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: have more agreement about, which is pre-K through third grade.
• 36:04
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: If we get that right first. If we make those
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: years the national project, by the end of third grade,
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: let's try to make sure a child can read, that
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: they have foundations for math, that they know how to learn,
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: and that they become curious, and that they've learned how
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: to function around other kids. And then we've begun to
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: understand something equally important. How does this particular child learn?
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: Because our education system is still largely organized around one
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: fairly arbitrary characteristic, age. Now that makes sense up till
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: about the second or third grade. And in this age
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: of AI, right? It's gonna be a lot easier to
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: convince everybody, keep the technology out of here, pre-K through three.
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: And creating those foundations becomes easier to teach, easier to
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: put those foundations in. And then when you introduce artificial
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: intelligence and you introduce the technology tools that can then
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: enhance and then personalize strengths and weaknesses in your ability
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: to learn, then you might be onto something and then
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: we may be onto the next great way that we
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: create a public education system. But it is, I think
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: it's that mindset that we need to sort of reorient
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: ourselves around. Because it's pretty clear people learn at different speeds, right?
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: And yet we keep grouping people by age. And I
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: think that this is where we run into a problem,
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: especially as we transition from second or third grade to
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: sort of the real learning years, right? Where education really,
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: where the work really sort of kicks into another gear,
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: which is fourth, fifth, and sixth grade. And I do
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: think when everybody, when you're trying to put everybody in
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: age groups like this, Everybody in that room is supposed
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: to move through roughly the same material, roughly the same pace.
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: We now know kids just learn at different speeds. The
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: same child can learn different things at different speeds, right?
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: A kid can fly through math and still struggle with reading.
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: We know there are numbers kids, there are words kids, right?
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: Some kids are great readers, really struggle with numbers, right?
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: And this is the type, we really haven't had a
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: system flexible enough to handle that in parents' simply get
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: frustrated with the public school system and just immediately sometimes
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: go to private in that situation. When maybe we need
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: to sort of modernize, because we have learned a lot, right?
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: We really have learned a lot about how children learn
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: and how important the earliest part of learning really is.
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: And I think third grade really is a hint, right?
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: This is where I think third grade can become an
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: important sort of fork in the road in your education
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: and your path to wherever your end point ends up being.
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: And it's not because there's some magical biological transformation at
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: the end of third grade, right? There isn't. But by
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: then we've had several years to get to know the child.
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: We know how they learn. We've identified where they're struggling
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: and where they're thriving. We've seen what engages them. Hopefully,
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: if we've done pre-K through third grade correctly, we've given
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: them the basic tools they need to start becoming more
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: independent learners. So after third grade, you can change the
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: architecture of the education. You can get those that need acceleration,
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: then you can accelerate them. Those that need deceleration, give
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: them more time. Hey, this episode of the Chuck Todd
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: cast is brought to you by Ethos. Look, let me
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: tell you about life insurance. As you know, Ethos is
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: an incredible portal for helping you find the right life
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: insurance policy. I'm a huge believer in life insurance. I
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: wouldn't have gotten to college in Washington, D.C. without life insurance.
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: My father had a policy buried somewhere that we discovered,
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: and it wasn't a lot of money, but it was
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: an important bucket of money at a time that my mother,
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: newly widowed, single mom, Me, I'm 16. It was of enormous,
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: enormous help at that time. And this is why I
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: believe in life insurance. You don't know what could happen
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: to you on any given day. This is literally an
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: insurance policy for that. So let me tell you a
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: little bit about Ethos. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: and easy. It's 100% online. You get a quote in seconds.
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: You apply in minutes and you can get coverage the
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: same day you begin this process. There's no medical exam.
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: You just answer a few simple health questions. You can
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: get up to $ 3 million in coverage. Some policies are
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: as low as $ 30 a month. And you'll get your
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. Ethos has
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: gotten 4.9 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot with over
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: 5,500 reviews. So take 10 minutes to get covered today.
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: Life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: slash chuck. That is E-T-H-O-S dot com slash chuck. Application
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: times may vary. The rates may vary. That Trustpilot rating
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: was as of August of 2026. So, and it needs
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: to be fluid, right? You might be accelerated in math
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: and need small group tutoring and reading. Six months later,
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: maybe you're ready to move. Then you move. If you
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: need another six months, give them another six months. Maybe
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: the kid who looked average in math at nine suddenly
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: takes off at 11. Maybe somebody discovers an aptitude for
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: writing at 13 that nobody saw at 10. The group
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: adapts to the kid rather than demanding that the kid
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: adapts to the group. And as children get older, interest
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: ought to become more important too, because aptitude and interest
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: aren't necessarily the same thing. You could be really good
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: at something and hate it. You can struggle initially with
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: something and then become fascinated by it. So school should
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: be helping kids discover both of those things. both of
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: those trajectories. What am I good at? What do I
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: love doing? What am I curious about? Where do I
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: need help? And the more we learn about the brain
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: and learning, the better we've gotten at figuring this out.
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: AI is likely going to help us do this probably
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: quite well. Now, there's one enormous caveat in all this,
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: and I think the biggest challenge in trying to create,
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: because I do think pre-K through three, right, arguably socialization
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: is as important as everything else. But socialization also matters
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: the older you get too, right? I don't want to
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: create a school where every kid sits alone in front
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: of a screen working through some personalized, perfected curriculum. So
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: you do need the socialization part. Learning how to deal
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: with somebody who annoys you is education. Working with somebody
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: who doesn't like you is an education. Learning to lose,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: learning to be on a team is an education. Perhaps
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: playing in the band, right? getting up in front of
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: the class. All of those things are part of education.
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: So you want to preserve some of the age-based activities, right?
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: You want to preserve it in sports, preserve it in
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: the arts, in music, civics, at lunch, physical education, still
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: have clubs and projects, and still portions of academics. Because
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: you don't want to replace one overly rigid system with another.
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: And I certainly don't want to replace the classroom with
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: a collection of kids wearing headphones, staring at personalized screens
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: all So the goal ought to be a system that
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: recognizes two things can be true at once. Children benefit
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: from being educated together and children don't all learn the
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: same things at the same speed. Those shouldn't be contradictory ideas.
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: We can preserve the social commons of school while making
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: the academic experience much more responsive to the individual kid.
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: And if you preserve some of those social commons, And actually,
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: you might create a better community, right? And that's what
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: I fear about us sort of essentially destroying public education
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: one voucher at a time. Public school is one of
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: the few remaining places in American life where you don't
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: get to curate everybody around you. You don't pick every
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: kid in your fourth grade class, right? You don't pick
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: everybody that travels on your bus. You don't get to
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: pick everybody who shows up in the cafeteria. This is
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: all part of living in a society like America. The
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: grand American experiment, well, the public school system is sort
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: of the first place you sort of experience this unique
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: American experiment. Let's not get rid of this because we're
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: then essentially getting rid of one of the building blocks
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: of this country. So here's my starting point. Let's stop
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: trying to reform all 13 years of education all at once.
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: Let's make pre-K through third grade the national project for
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: the next four to six years. Take what we already
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: know works, reading instruction, tutoring, high quality curriculum, early intervention.
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: Let's get that foundation right. Universal pre-K ought to be
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: a thing, not universal daycare. Really needs to be pre-K,
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: needs to have a curriculum. And then we start building
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: a more flexible system on top of it, right? creating
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: realistic pathways, involving parents in the decision-making process, involving teachers
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: in the decision-making process, acceleration when a kid is ready,
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: deceleration when a kid needs it, and more consideration of
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: aptitude and interest as they get older, all while preserving
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: the social part of school. Because educating a child isn't
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: simply filling a brain with facts or information. It's teaching
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: children a human being, how to function around other human beings.
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: And in this country, it's an introduction to pluralism, learning
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: to work, live, eat, play with people who don't always
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: look like you, people who didn't grow up with what
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: you had. But you start to learn that as a
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: kid and you're going to be a better citizen as
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: an adult. Now, this brings me back to vouchers. And
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: this is ultimately why I think the voucher era of
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: the education reform movement has probably reached its intellectual dead end.
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: It doesn't mean we're going to abolish every existing voucher
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: program tomorrow. And I know it doesn't mean I know
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: there are individual stories where children have benefited. But that
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: wasn't the big promise of this voucher system. It was
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: supposed to improve the public education system. That competition and
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: choice would force the system to improve. Public education is
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: not a marketplace and it never should be. Again, if
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: we did this to the postal service, nobody would get
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: mail in Alaska. And we've had a quarter century now
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: of watching versions of this voucher experiment. Where's the transformed
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: public school system anywhere? Actually, it's been transformed, all of
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: it badly. The more an area uses vouchers, the shittier
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: the public education system has become. And the more frustrated
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: parents have become, by the way. We're spending substantial amounts
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: of public money subsidizing families who are already sending their
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: kids to private schools anyway. And then we've created a
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: private education industry, but we have not improved the public
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: education system. That's a problem. Politically, by the way, I
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: think Republicans are realizing that that vouchers are not delivering.
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: Look at the fights over schools in Iowa. One of
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: the reasons Rob Sand has traction, what Kim Reynolds did
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: to the public schools and the voucherizations of everything. Rural Iowans,
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: there's not a lot of school choice out there. The
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: messing with the funding system in Kansas is why the
• 48:24
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party got life in Kansas. And I really think
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: the reason Greg Abbott might lose, he's still the favorite
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: to win, but he might lose. Yes, it's a bad
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: year to be a Republican. Yes, the economy is not
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: going up well. And yes, data centers have had an impact.
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: But ultimately, you know, I told you about the January
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: 6th rally goer who was supporting Gina Inouye instead of Abbott.
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: It's over schools and it's over the school funding. Vouchers
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: were supposed to settle the education debate for conservatives. And instead,
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: voters continue to be angry about their public schools even
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: after these voucher programs get implemented. And it really has
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: impacted communities where the public school isn't simply a school,
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: it's the school. There's no marketplace of seven private alternatives
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: sitting 10 minutes away in many of these rural counties.
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: And you can't keep telling parents you've fixed education if
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: they keep telling you their school isn't fixed. So perhaps
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: this should be seen as an opportunity. Declare the 25-year
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: search for an escape hatch over. Vouchers were, you know,
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: it felt like in some ways vouchers were potato chips here, right?
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: They were empty calories. It made it feel like you
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: were trying to do something, but instead you were actually
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: making the problem worse. And all you were doing was
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: making a lobbyist happy for some private education system. So
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: let's have a real national argument about making the institution better.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: I know public schools aren't perfect. They're never going to be.
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: Nothing's perfect if humans run it. The whole point of
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: this segment is that I know they're not perfect. But
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: because educating everybody is something a country, especially this country,
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: has to do and should do. Our future depends on
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: a well-educated population. And I don't think we should accept
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: the idea that because fixing the institution is hard, the
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: answer is simply to give up on it and just
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: hand people the tax dollars we were going to use
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: for public schools and let them use it for whatever
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: they want to use it for. So look, I'd like
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: to hear from you guys on this. I'm sitting behind
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: a microphone proposing changes to a system that millions of teachers, principals, administrators,
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: and parents continue to have to navigate every day. I'm
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: done navigating it. So tell me where I'm wrong. Tell
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: me what I'm missing. Tell me what else I should
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: be including here. But I do think we need to
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: go tackle this bite-sized. And the number one thing we
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: can do and enhance and we know this has enormous
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: impacts on long-term outcomes, is focus our national priority on
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: universalizing and improving pre-K through the third grade. We do that.
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: than everything else, building on top of that. Going this
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: magnet school route is a good idea. Taking the idea
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: that charters, some that have done well, merging it back
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: into the public education system, maybe even invite some of
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: these better private schools to be a part of it
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: as well. And then we can have multiple paths that
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: these well-educated in the public school system, pre-K through third grade,
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: where what best works for each one of these kids.
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: This doesn't strike me as a very partisan, something that's
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: going to be ideologically divisive. It just takes a little
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: bit of leadership, a little bit of political will, but
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: you're going to have to put your talking points to
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: the side and you're going to have to take your
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: ideological glasses off and be serious about what's your goal.
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: If you don't want a good public education system, then
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: stop lying that vouchers are going to improve it and
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: just say, no, I don't think we should have a
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: public education system. Then advocate for that and make that argument.
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: But don't, you know, don't pretend you care about the
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: public education system and then advocate for a system that
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: just takes tax dollars away from it and creates a,
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: a private grift. One more thing about kids in school
• 52:59
  Speaker 1: before I get to my interview with Dana Bash. Alabama,
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: the state of Alabama just got TikTok to change the
• 53:05
  Speaker 1: way its product works for teenagers. And I'm a little
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: bit surprised that this hasn't gotten a lot more attention
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: because the way this happened is almost as interesting as
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: the settlement that TikTok had with the state itself. Alabama
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: did not pass some sweeping new law regulating algorithms. Congress
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: didn't finally get its act together on behalf of Alabama
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: for some reason. Here's what happened. The Alabama Attorney General
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: sued TikTok and ByteDance last year using the state's existing
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: consumer protection laws. The state's allegation was essentially that TikTok
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: had designed a product extraordinarily effective at keeping young people engaged,
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: including features Alabama argued encouraged compulsive use while misleading parents
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: and consumers about the risks and about the effectiveness of
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: its protections for younger users. TikTok denied wrongdoing. This thing
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: was headed to court. In fact, Alabama was about to
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: become the first state to take this type of case
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: against TikTok before a jury. Jury selection was supposed to
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: start Monday. TikTok settled Friday. And this isn't simply a check.
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: TikTok basically accepted the premise of the lawsuit. They agreed
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: to pay Alabama at least $ 100 million. but it also
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: agreed to actual changes affecting teenage users. The two-hour daily limit,
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: interruptions after prolonged use, restrictions on use between midnight and
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: six in the morning, stronger parental controls and age verification,
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: restrictions during school hours, no cosmetic procedure filters for teenagers,
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: an option for a non-personalized feed. You don't have to
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: have an algorithm. Now, look, we don't know how effective
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: all of this is going to be, But I was
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: told these social media companies couldn't do these things before
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: and that none of this was having such a huge impact.
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: And we know that teenagers have been figuring out ways
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: around rules invented by adults since, you know, the beginning
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: of teenagers. But think about this in the context of
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: everything we just discussed. We're asking a teacher to stand
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: in front of a classroom and get a 12-year-old interested
• 55:14
  Speaker 1: in fractions or the Civil War or to kill a mockingbird.
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: And sitting in the kid's pocket is perhaps the most
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: sophisticated attention capture device ever invented. backed by an algorithm
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: that never gets tired, never has a bad day, never
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: has 29 other kids demanding its attention, and has been
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: optimized for one purpose, keep looking at me. Then we
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: look at the teacher and say, why can't you keep
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: these kids engaged? Now, maybe it's not entirely a fair fight.
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: And for years, we've treated this terminology almost like the weather.
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: What are you going to do? Kids have phones. Well,
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: Alabama demonstrated that government isn't completely powerless here if you
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: use the tools of government. And what's particularly interesting to
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: me is how they did it. They didn't wait for Washington.
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: They used consumer protection law already on the books. And
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: there are plenty of laws on the books now, right?
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: And this wasn't California or New York or Elizabeth Warren.
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: This was Alabama. This is a conservative state. They used
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: existing law. And they forced one of the largest tech
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: platforms in the world to negotiate over how its product
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: interacts with kids. We'll see if the restrictions work. Some
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: of them might, some of them might not. But protecting
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: kids from technology designed to monopolize their attention doesn't have
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: to become another red-blue fight, right? And if we're serious
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: about revitalizing public education, maybe we should stop asking schools
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: to solve every problem. that we've allowed the rest of
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: society to create for the school system. Anyway, the other
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: part of the Alabama TikTok story is these tech companies,
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: the fact that they settled and didn't go to jury,
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: and the fact that they can implement the things they
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: promised to implement, we know what they've been really doing.
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: They studied behavior, And they optimize their product to take
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: advantage of our weaknesses. And this is why we invented
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: consumer protection to begin with. And this is just another
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: way to protect the consumer. So good for the state
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: of Alabama to figure out how to protect young consumers
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: from the menace that is some of these algorithms.
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: All right, it's time for my top five list, and
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: this week it's my top five 2026 results.
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: That will have an outsized impact on 2028. Some of
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: it's on the presidential level and some of it is
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: on the issue level. So number five on my list
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: is the independent experiment. Does one of them break through? Nebraska, Montana, Idaho,
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: South Dakota. We have variations of this experiment. Democrats have
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: essentially stepped aside for independence in those four states I've
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: talked about. Seth Bodnar in Montana, Ryan Bangs in South Dakota,
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: Dan Osborne in Nebraska, Todd Achilles in Idaho. Look, I
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: don't expect all of them to win, but if one wins,
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: one or two, but just one win, I think it
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: has an outsized impact on how parties start to think
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: about challenging aging incumbents in one-party states, right? Because if
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: one breaks through, then every state party that has become
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: functionally non-competitive is going to look at it and ask, huh,
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: why are we insisting on putting our damaged party label
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: on the ballot? Democrats will ask the question in more
• 59:03
  Speaker 1: places outside of Nebraska, Idaho, and South, right? They might
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: start saying, hmm, maybe this is a way to try
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: to compete in Wyoming. Maybe it's a way to try
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: to compete in Utah. Maybe it's a way to try
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: to compete in North Dakota. But Republicans could eventually ask
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: the same question about say Massachusetts or Connecticut. One independent
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: Senate win this cycle could turn this experiment into a
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: strategy in this supposed rigid states, right? In the dark
• 59:35
  Speaker 1: blue or dark red state, is there suddenly a different
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: path to create competition? One of these independents winning will
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: accelerate this experimentation in other one-party states. So that's number five.
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: Number four on my list of 2026 races that will
• 59:53
  Speaker 1: have outsized impact almost no matter what the result is.
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: By the way, in the other way, if none of
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: these independents break through, I think there's going to be
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 1: some questions about is there a path? Is there truly
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: a path for independent senators, for independent? And what would
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: that path look like? Number four on my list, California's
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 1: wealth tax. Can the left win this argument, right? It's California.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: Prop 40, it's a pretty extraordinary test. A one-time tax
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: of up to 5% of wealth above a billion dollars.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: with most of the money intended to go to healthcare.
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: So let's forget California for a moment. Think about the
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: Democratic presidential primary in 2028. If a billionaire wealth tax
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: loses in California, opponents of the idea are gonna have
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: a pretty powerful response when somebody proposes taking it national.
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: You couldn't even pass this in California. But if it passes,
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: particularly if it passes comfortably, boy, you're gonna hear about
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: this result constantly not just from the economic populist swing
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, probably from every candidate on that stage,
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: nobody's gonna wanna be against it. So we'll see. Now, look,
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: I know there's competing props, right? Props 41 and 42
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: could effectively negate Prop 40, even if voters approve it.
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 1: So it's possible that we get a convoluted message, but
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: if the basic message is you can sell this in California,
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 1: but more importantly, I really think it's the reverse. If
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: this fails, I do think this takes a big wind
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: out of the sails. And, you know, you've heard me
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: on this. Why can't we just make our stop adding
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: loopholes and weird things to our tax code if we
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: just got rid of some of these write offs and
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: just kept it the progressive tax code it was always
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: intended to be? Those who make a lot of money
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: would pay a lot of taxes and those who don't
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: make a lot of money wouldn't pay a lot of taxes.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: Isn't that how it should work? All right. But I digress.
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: Number three on my list is Texas Senate. And the
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: basic premise is this. If Democrats can't win a Texas
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: Senate seat against Ken Paxton in this cycle, when are
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 1: they ever going to win in the state of Texas, right?
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 1: It is the ultimate Texas test. This has been Charlie
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: Brown in the football and Lucy and all that business, right?
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: And the circumstances have never been better for, maybe you
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: could argue that Tallarico could be slightly more closer to
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: the center ideologically, although he really has pivoted, right? He
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: has tried to run away from some of his more
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: culturally left things that he has said, right? But in
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: this cycle, right? In this political environment against this nominee, right?
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: If Democrats come up short now in Texas, we're probably
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 1: looking at another decade before you'll see national donors invest
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: in Texas again. Now, I say all that, and number
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: two on my list is another Texas race. It's Texas governor,
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 1: and it actually fits into what I call, I think
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: this is the voucher election, right? I think, and this
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: is more than just, boy, if Democrats win more than
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: one race in Texas, right? I happen to think they're
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: going to beat Paxton. My guess is they come up
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: a little short with Abbott, but let's say Abbott loses.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: I think it has an outsized effect on the perception
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: of whether vouchers are a good political idea or a
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 1: bad political idea, right? Greg Abbott made school vouchers a
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: signature achievement. And Gina Hinojosa has made public education and
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: opposition to vouchers central to her campaign. And we're in
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: the first year of this Texas Voucher Program, and it
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: is polarizing. It is unpopular in some places. And if
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 1: Abbott loses, I think it radically changes this national debate
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: over vouchers. I've told you, wherever this has been implemented,
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: it has not improved the perception of education in that state.
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: It is only raised more concerns. It is only made
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: more parents unhappy. It is only outraged, particularly really frustrated
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: and outraged rural communities in particular who just don't have
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 1: the schools to pick from. And oh, by the way,
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 1: they thought their public school was good. What are you
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: doing to it? Why are you cutting funding, right? Just
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: to appease a private education industry. So I know I
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: have two, and it's true, right? These Texas races, I think,
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: will have outsized impact in 2028 and beyond, right? If
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: Tallarico can't win under these circumstances, it will take a
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: decade before Democrats return to Texas. And if somehow Abbott
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: loses in addition, I think it transforms the perception of
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: the voucher issue in particular. And number one on my
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: list of 2026 results results that will have an outsized
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: 2020 impact. Impacted, of course, is Michigan Senate and Abdul El-Sayed.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: And it's not just whether he wins. To me, it's
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: whether he gets over 50%, right? Because I think this
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 1: is the result that produces the biggest argument inside the
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party in 2028, right? In many ways, El-Sayed has
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: become a test case for the progressive wing of the party, right?
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: AOC and Mamdani can win in New York City. But
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: if Abdul El-Sayed wins at Michigan, A battleground state, a
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 1: state Donald Trump carried twice. And if he gets over 50%, look,
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: if he wins but gets under 50%, I think the
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: progressive argument is weaker, right? But him getting over 50%
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: and the progressive wing of the party can say, hey,
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: why shouldn't we be the leading faction of the party?
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: Why shouldn't the Democratic nominee in 2028 come from our
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: wing of the party? Instead of finding the candidate from
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: the center left wing of the party, who can most
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 1: appeal to progressives, find the progressive that can most appeal
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: to the center left, right? It's that dynamic, right? Which
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: part of the party has the lead argument here? This
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: Michigan Senate race is gonna have outsized impact on that.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: So it's a different type of top five. I'm trying
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: to shake it up so that we can make this
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: a more dynamic list than just saying, well, here's where
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: I have the main Senate race this week. Or here's
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: where I think Florida Gov might be going next week
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: and things like that. I think there are different, you know,
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: we forget sometimes there will be some results in 2026
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: that have a bigger impact on the future than they
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: do actually in the moment that we see that result.
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: And this was my attempt to find those five elections
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: and the outsized impact. If a result goes a certain way,
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: those elections could have.
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: Ask Chuck.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: Dave, on U Street in D.C. See, they don't have
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: a congressional district yet, but it eventually, I think, will
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: be part of D.C. 's second congressional district. Because I
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: do think if D.C. becomes a state, they'll at least
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 1: get two. You've talked about the Blue Mirage and Blue Tsunami,
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: but what about an electoral mega tsunami?
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: Like the Meg, like, you know, there's sharks, there's great
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: white sharks, and then there's the Meg, right? Is that
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: where you're going here? Plausibility aside, if an election produced
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: something as lopsided as a 90-10 Senate or 400 to
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 1: 35 House, how would committee assignments work when the minority
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: simply doesn't have enough members to cover everything? Would members
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: just serve on significantly more committees? Thanks for indulging our curiosity.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 1: Sometimes the mechanics of policy are just as interesting as
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: the policy itself. I hope to see you at a
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: Revs game, Dave, on U Street. You will see me
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: at a Revs game, definitely. And I'm looking forward to that.
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: That's a great question. I mean, yes, look, in both cases,
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: I think if you had a result like that, so
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: the House and the Senate write new rules at the
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: start of each Congress. And literally, you know what the
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: rules of the next House are? Here are all the
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: official rules for the next House. It's a blank sheet
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 1: of paper at the moment. So if you have this result,
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: literally the new majority can write a set of rules.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: I'm you know, there would certainly be some ranking. But
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: I have no doubt, you know, in a situation like that,
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 1: you and look, the the minority party would have no
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: leg to stand on. So it would just be all
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: the majority party trying to figure out. Right. And something
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: like that. You'd still have factions within the party.
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 1: You have a result like that. You're going to get,
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: you know, you're going to get some accident, a ton
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: of accidental members in all of those things. So it is–
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: but what you're talking about, you wouldn't have– literally the
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: two chambers can write a new set of rules to
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: basically respond to the results that came through in this election.
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: I fear humoring you even more on this issue to see,
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: but that would be the base. And on committees, I
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: think you would. I don't think you'd have, I think
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: you'd still have, everybody would still be on the same
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 1: amount of committees, right? The question is, what would the
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: number be in that scenario, right? What would your advantage
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: be in each committee? And then it would really be
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: up to the party in power to decide how much
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: power they wanted to give which faction of their party,
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: depending on which committee they were dealing with, right? You
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: could see oversight being a little bit more ideological members,
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: but maybe on finance, you might have a different set,
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: or maybe on the ag committee, you'd make sure it
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: came from You'd have a lot more geographic dominance there,
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: particularly with the– because if you won under a scenario
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: like that. But if you got something like that, you'd
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: get a brand-new president. I think you would see– I mean, essentially,
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: a result– my interpretation of a result like this, it's
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: a vote of no confidence in the current structure of
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: who's in charge of government. And I think you'd have
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: wholesale impeachments because guess what? you'd have the votes to
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: both indict and convict. So it probably leads to mass resignations,
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: but that's a pretty chaotic result. But if you get
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: a result like that and a repudiation like that, I
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: would argue the mandate is that you're basically asking for
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 1: a new president. And I have a feeling that's what
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: it would be. You might have a situation in a
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: weird way that would, because a result like that is
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: a massive vote of no confidence, right? That's a massive
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 1: vote of no confidence. So in some ways you're incentivized
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: to do that. So I know you wanted to get
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: into the mechanics of impeachment, but I did want to,
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: if that really were the result, and we don't see
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: evidence that we're anywhere near that, that's, you know, I
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: think that's what voters essentially would be demanding. I tell
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 1: you this, though, a result like that and Donald Trump
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: would beg to become a Democrat. All right. Kyle writes in,
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: he goes, he's writing from Washington's fourth congressional district where
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: he's currently running for state for the state legislature in
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: a district where the math is, let's say, not exactly encouraging. Well,
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: the fourth district is a is a complicated district there.
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 1: Is there value in running these uphill races beyond winning?
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: Building a bench, forcing the other side to defend the ideas,
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: giving voters a choice, and slowly changing what's politically possible?
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 1: Or are some of us just doing our civic duty
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: with a side of public humiliation? So, no, I mean, look,
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of ways that further down
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: the ballot, you're in some ways, if you do align
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 1: with the national mood and the national election, you're the
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: local representative of the movement, right? That's number one. And
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: if you're trying to run in a community that leans
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: politically another way, well, it's a way you're suddenly you're
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: the representative of the party that they're skeptical of. So
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: it's an opportunity. Look, if we don't have political competition,
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: you're going to get political corruption, right? The lack, you know,
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: political corruption thrives in areas where there's very little competition.
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: One party rule always ends up being a grift after
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: about eight to 10 years. I think that that's why
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: you have, you're seeing what appears to be almost more
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: anger in the red states at Republicans than you're seeing necessarily, right?
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 1: There's only so much anger left in some of these
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: blue states or purple states, but in some of these
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: red states where there's no Democrats to blame, right? There's
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 1: only been one party in charge. And I think that
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 1: in those communities, you know, if you have a healthy
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: political party, again, it goes back to, you know, if
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 1: you're a member of another party, democratic party, libertarian party,
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: forward party, um, you know, Republican party, whatever party you're
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: running in and you're, you're sort of running uphill, uh,
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 1: in what you're doing. I don't want to presume which
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: party you're running in. Um, look, I also think you have,
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: you have trickle up effect. Um, The more candidates you
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 1: have on the ballot, the better usually that party does.
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: There's another, you know, I've given you two correlations. There's
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: where primary turnout, the party that does better turning out
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: its voters in a midterm year in the primaries, it
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: almost universally translates into that party winning more seats in
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: the general. Well, the party that fills out its ballot
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: more completely with nominees is is usually the party that
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: has this advantage statewide. Because in some, and if it,
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's kind of logical, right? If you've filled
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: out the ballot, then in theory, you have more people
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: knocking on doors, more people asking people to vote, more
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: people trying to get them to come out and vote.
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: You know, maybe it's your race that you're going to
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: encourage somebody to vote in. And if you get them
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: to come vote for you, well, you've suddenly helped other,
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: perhaps other candidates, You definitely have helped other candidates on
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: the ballot, and it might be you've helped other candidates
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: of the party you're a member of on the ballot.
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: So I get it. I get the feeling that you
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: may be having. But I'll tell you, to me, the
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: door-to-door campaigning, at least it's instant gratification, right? You know
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: immediately whether you've connected or not. But this is sort
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: of how the democracy started. It was hand-to-hand voting. Voter combat, right?
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: And the smaller the election, the more you have that.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: And the more you have that, I usually has a
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: trickle up effect. So yeah, I wouldn't feel like you're
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 1: wasting your time. Forcing, I can't, you know, forcing competition.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 1: You're only, you know, ever so in your own way,
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: you're hopefully preventing corruption, right? the more competition that shows up.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: And then you're also, if you care about your political party,
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: if you care about your political movement, you're serving as
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: a surrogate to possibly getting somebody out that might not
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 1: have come out for any other reason other than you
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 1: being the only candidate that came to knock on their door.
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: And that's where, and I think that's where you have
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 1: more of an impact than perhaps is appreciated. All right.
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: Shane comes in here. This is Shane hailing proudly from
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: Missouri's controversial 5th District. Well, which 5th District? New or old?
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: I ask. After the midterms, do you think Republicans who
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: have been reluctant to challenge Trump will become more independent
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: as his time in office winds down and his influence
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: over primary races potentially changes? We're already seeing some Republicans
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: distance themselves, but do you think that could translate into
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: meaningful action and greater willingness to hold the administration accountable?
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 1: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Go Tigers, M-I-Z. Oh, interesting.
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: The Mizzou Tigers. You know, I saw your M-I-Z, and
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 1: I'm thinking, is this a Brewers fan? And you were
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: talking about the Miz, meaning Mizorowski. But in this case,
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: you're talking about the Missouri Tigers. Big game this week.
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: You know, can you deflate the excitement of Florida Gators fans? Well,
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: we shall see, Shane.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: I think it really depends on the size of the result. Obviously,
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: the bigger, you know, if Democrats come up short in
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: the Senate, win control of the House, but it's not
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: a big majority, I don't think Republicans are going to
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: bolt from Trump in a hard and fast way. If
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: this is, you know, Democrats win both Texas statewide, you know,
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: won the big two in Texas, both Gov and Senate,
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 1: Let's say when Kansas and Iowa and Alaska, maybe maybe
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 1: one of those independent races, Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska comes
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 1: through and it's just a clean sweep like that. And
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: it's 30, 30 House seats in this in this gerrymandered map. Yeah.
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: You know, then you may have some Republicans who are like, hey.
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: Finger in the wind, they're reading the tea leaves, especially.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: Senators who weren't on the ballot in twenty six. but
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: hail from states where their party didn't do so well.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: Those would be the first senators I would check out
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 1: and see. Obviously, look, any House Republican that survives this
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 1: isn't going to feel that same pull unless they wanna
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: run statewide. It's those that aren't on the ballot this
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: cycle and how they behave. They're the ones that I
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: could see at least in the Senate, changing their behavior
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 1: based on if the results go decidedly against Republicans. Next
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 1: question comes from Angie. First time, long time from Lincoln, Nebraska.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: And I still miss you on MTP every Sunday. Well,
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: I appreciate you saying that, but I have to admit,
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: I don't miss being there every Sunday. With an independent
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: candidate here campaigning on not coxing with either party, I
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 1: started wondering if enough independents won that neither Republicans nor
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: Democrats held an outright majority and those independents refused to
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: caucus with either side. Who would actually control the House
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: or Senate? How would leadership be determined? And could one
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: party technically retain control despite not holding a majority of
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: the seats? Thanks, Angie. Yes, yes, and yes. And welcome
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: to what my friends in the independent movement and at
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: the forward party call the fulcrum strategy. The idea being
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: if you get just enough independence, right? So take the
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: House of Representatives. Let's say, you know, let's say the
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 1: majority is going to be in single digits, right? This
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: only works if you're in this single digit. And you've
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: got a commitment from, say, 10 to 12, a dozen
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: House members that basically want a specific set of rules
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: and they withhold their vote. Nobody can get to a
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: majority for the Speaker. The Freedom Caucus gave every faction
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 1: the blueprint of how to hold a Speaker vote hostage
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: to get something. And so If the Freedom Caucus can
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: do it for what they want, why couldn't those that
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: just want to get shit done do it? And you
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: could create a fulcrum caucus like that. Or in the Senate, right?
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 1: You know, I've always thought if just six senators, you know,
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: you already had them there, right? With, you know, you
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: got Lisa Murkowski and Angus King are sort of there.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: And you had before you had Sinema and Manchin. you know,
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: maybe you want to throw in a couple more that
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: might be a member, but you could essentially cut a deal,
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 1: you know, with your, what is it, you know, if
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: you want to guarantee equal representation on committees or, you know,
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: there's fewer things that are probably worth asking for. Maybe
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: you want a specific promise on how the filibuster works, right?
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: Which would all be a part of a Senate rules
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: package that you would do at the top. So the
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: answer is yes. I think that this is ultimately what
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: I'd like to see lawmakers do, which is, you know,
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: if we're going to, if we're going to be in
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: this polarized stalemate, why can't a handful of lawmakers decide
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: to become the fulcrum? And if you're the fulcrum, you
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: can decide, you know, all right, we're going to give you, maybe,
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: maybe these senators say, you know what? We don't want
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: either party to run the Senate both years of this Congress.
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: So we're going to, Let the Democrats have it first
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: and then the Republicans have it second or vice versa,
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: whichever makes the most sense. And you might want to
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: do that as sort of a check, right? You get
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 1: to retain some power there. So look, I think there
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 1: are a lot of ways that if you have enough
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: like-minded elected lawmakers who care more about getting shit done
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: than appeasing an ideological base... or being good standing dues
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: paying members of the DCCC of the NRCC, right? If
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 1: your first thought in going to Congress is how do
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: I get shit done rather than how do I become
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: a committee chair and how do I use this as
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: a stepping stone to be a US Senator and President,
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: then yeah, I think there's, the opportunity is there. You
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: need enough like-minded sort of independent acting electeds. It doesn't
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 1: mean they have to be independents. They could be Republicans
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: who behave independently or Democrat, you know, think Marie Glussenkamp
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: Perez on the left or John Curtis on the right,
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: or Lisa Murkowski on the right, or Jared Golden on
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: the left. I think in this case, you might see
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 1: people like Dan Osborne said, I'm not gonna caucus with
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: either party. Good, right? If you're truly making a case,
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 1: Maybe he says, I'm going to just caucus with whichever
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 1: party's in the majority. And maybe the deal you cut
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: is I'll be in the majority with either side. That's
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 1: the deal I'm cutting for my constituents. And I'm going
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 1: to withhold my vote until the two leaders agree. One
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: will be majority leader for one year of the congressional session,
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: and the other party will be the majority leader of
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: the other session. The point is, is that, yes, there
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: is power here. If you have enough people where you
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 1: can impact the margin. And that's the key.
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: Paul S. writes, Olivia and I really enjoyed interviewing you
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 1: back in April 2025 for our Sports Untold podcast. Oh, well,
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: thank you, Paul. And I continue to listen to the
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: podcast and your Super Tuesday episodes with Chris. A few
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 1: questions I didn't get to ask then. What are your
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: favorite sports? And favorite underrated sports movies? And what's your
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 1: favorite political movie? And finally, looking back at Trump's 2021 impeachment,
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: do you think the articles should have been broader, potentially
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 1: including allegations of reckless endangerment, election interference, or obstruction of Congress?
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: And could a different approach have changed the Senate vote?
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: Have a good weekend. Sincerely, Paul S. All right. So
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 1: one of my favorite and favorite underrated sports movies. So look,
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: my I think baseball movies are the best movies, right?
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: Make the best movies. And I think, right, the slowness
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: of baseball allows for you. I'm a sucker for so
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: many baseball movies. I love Kevin Costner in A Perfect
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 1: Game where he's just making the last great, you know,
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: I was thinking about that the other day when Justin
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: Verlander was doing his final start and Max Scherzer maybe
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: was doing his final start. I was thinking a lot
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: of that Kevin Costner movie and he's, you know, using,
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 1: you know, pitching the final game of his life and
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: he's pitching the game of his life, right? Um, so I, uh, uh, I'm,
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: I'm a sucker for most of them, but look, field
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: of dreams. I mean, just look, it is, I love
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: that it's in Iowa. I've got my own Iowa connections
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: and Iowa roots, and I've spent a lot of time
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 1: with it. And I love the contradiction. My favorite thing about,
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: I used to be a huge Kevin Costner fan, just
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: in general. Um, I felt like I, I, you know,
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: I felt like he was, if he was in a movie,
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: I saw it and I wanted to see it. And
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 1: it goes all the way back to Fandango. which is
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: actually an underrated road trip movie. You know, high school
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: kids getting ready for college or the war, depending on
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: which way they were going. And there was like one
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 1: guy who was always passed out drunk was sort of
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 1: the one gag of that movie. But yeah, I'm a
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: field of dreams and I'm a sucker for Major League.
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: You know, Willie Mays Hayes here. I mean, there's just
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: so many. It's just it's the anchorman of sports movies
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 1: because there's just so many great quotes, right? Caddyshack and
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 1: Major League. Just a bit outside, right? There's just so
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: many of those. And an underrated sports movie and one
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 1: that I enjoyed, and I also read the book and
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 1: enjoyed that, North Dallas 40. There's a couple of good
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: football movies that don't get enough any given Sunday in
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 1: North Dallas 40. And both did a better than average
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: job of capturing both the physical toll football can take,
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: but also the sense of team. And just the, you know,
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 1: and any given Sunday might have the best scripted speech
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: ever by a coach. That inch, you're fighting for that inch.
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: And now Pacino. Political movies. So I think the most underrated,
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 1: I'll give you the most underrated political movie. It will not,
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: you will look at every list of all time great movies,
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 1: funny political movies. great political satire. And this movie won't
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 1: go on there. And I promise you, if you go
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 1: watch it right now, you'll be like, oh my God,
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: this movie's brilliant. It's Eddie Murphy in Distinguished Gentleman. He's
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: Jeff Jones, the name you know. The whole premise of
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: the movie. What's funny, why I love the movie is
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: when it first came out, the point was to be
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: absurd and it was a little over the top, except
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: it's not over the top. It is a really good
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: satirical way of explaining how way too many members of
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 1: Congress work. Way too many members work the way, distinguished
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: gentleman points it out. But essentially the premise is there's
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: a gray panther party, a congressman dies, Eddie Murphy decides
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 1: the greatest grift of all would be at a politician, right?
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 1: And that's the whole thing, right? He's playing sort of
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: a con artist and he think it'll be hilarious if
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: he could con this South Florida congressional district into electing him.
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: His middle name is Jefferson, and he decides to shorten
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: it to Jeff. And he's got the same last name
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 1: as the congressman. And basically, they want to use name
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: ID to sort of sneak in. Of course, it's a
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: special election. It works. Jeff Jones, the name you know,
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 1: was sort of his campaign punchline, which I love. But then,
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: of course, Eddie Murphy gets there. He goes, oh, my God,
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: I thought I was the con artist. This is the
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 1: greatest con of them all. And it just goes through
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: all of it. All the people that are bought off
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: in this committee and this committee and And oh, leadership packs. Oh,
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: this is another. I mean, it is it does it.
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: It is the it is the only movie that is
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 1: correctly captured the absurdity of the campaign finance system. And
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 1: this sucker was written in like 1989. And the thing is,
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: you could watch it and it is as appropriate to
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: today's Congress than ever before, except the dollar figures. The
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 1: only thing that dates the movie is the size of
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: the checks. That's the only thing that dates the movie.
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: Others that I think are underrated in the political space
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: are Bullworth. Holds up better. It actually holds, I think,
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 1: pretty well. And Primary Colors is another one that ages well.
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 1: When it first came out, by the time Clinton left office.
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 1: It felt more accurate than, than, than we thought. And
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 1: perhaps the movie aged well because it came out before Lewinsky.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 1: And then when you watched it after Lewinsky, the movie
• 1:29:06
  Speaker 1: made more sense. Um, and I remember when the movie
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: came out, John Travolta's Bill Clinton. And yet John Travolta's
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 1: Bill Clinton. Wasn't that bad. So, uh, anyway, hope that
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: works for you. Um, These days, my favorite political show
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: is coming back in a couple of weeks. Diplomat. That's
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 1: so of all the political thrillers that have been out there.
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: I think this does politics as well as any of them.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 1: It's a little more realistic than than than so far.
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 1: You know, obviously outsized exaggeration, but I love how the
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 1: diplomat has handled the Trump era. and who was Trump
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 1: and who wasn't and all this stuff. So I have
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: to say, I'm anxiously looking forward to the new season,
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 1: which starts, I believe, in about a week or two.
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: And what was your last part of your question was
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: Trump's 2021 impeachment. I think the only thing I'd love to,
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 1: if you wanted to change things, the only thing to
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: change would have been calling McConnell's bluff and immediately sending
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: over the articles. And I understood the need to, you know,
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 1: there was this concern Everything just went too slow. So
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 1: rather than, yes, you could have had different articles. It
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 1: wasn't the articles. I do think I and maybe if
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 1: it wasn't the issue of delayed delay in sending over
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 1: the articles, you know, just if I think it should
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 1: have been seen as a national emergency and everything should
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: have been and boom, boom, boom, boom. And in some ways,
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: trying to let Biden, you know, get inaugurated. Look, I
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 1: do think it screwed up the Biden presidency.
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: There was it really was a mess. And which, of course,
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 1: was the feature, which is what that was Trump's intent.
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: Figuring no matter what, he screws up the start of
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: his presidency. And that in itself is a political victory
• 1:31:02
  Speaker 1: for Trump. But I would if you're asking me if
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 1: I could go back into a time machine and redo something,
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: it would be as soon as the House passed the
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: articles of impeachment, they immediately triggered the Senate trial and
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 1: sent it immediately to McConnell. Because remember, McConnell's lone reason
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 1: for voting not to convict was the delay, right? And
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: starting the trial before Trump left office, yes, that's what
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: I would have liked to have seen, an acceleration of that.
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 1: There's no reason why that couldn't have been. And the
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: only reason it didn't happen was out of deference to
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 1: Joe Biden, which, of course, in hindsight was just a
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: gigantic mistake. All right. We are one day away from
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: the best sports month that we have, which is October.
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 1: We got playoff baseball. We got the start of hockey.
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: You get the start of the NBA coming up later
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 1: in the month. College basketball practices have begun. We know
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: that season kicks off. There's this thing called the NFL.
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 1: There's my obsession called college football. Welcome to sports Nirvana time.
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: And for political junkies who are also sports fans, right?
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 1: It's the last four weeks of the midterms. It don't
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: get any better than this. So don't tell me there's
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 1: nothing to watch on TV because I know there's plenty
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 1: to see, whether it's a handful of debates that are
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 1: still happening on C-SPAN or playoff baseball or college football.
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: It's all happening. So enjoy. I'll see you tomorrow.
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 2: Thank you.