Latest / Pod Save America / Trump: "I've Won Affordability"

Transcript

Trump: "I've Won Affordability" · Pod Save America

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. As a Pod
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Save America listener, you know as well as us the
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: dark chapter we're not just stepping into. We're in the chapter.
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: We've been fucking wallowing in it.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: But no matter what happens outside your four walls, your
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: home should always provide a safe sanctuary for your family.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: SimpliSafe can help provide peace of mind with proactive protection
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: that helps to stop threats before they even have a
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: chance to break in. I set up a SimpliSafe, incredibly
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: easy to do. The customer support was great.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: It provided peace of mind, and it was really easy
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: to set up.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Traditional security systems only take action after someone has already
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: broken in.
• 0:30
  Speaker 3: That's too late.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: SimpliSafe's active guard outdoor protection can help prevent break-ins before
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: they happen. AI-powered cameras backed up by live professional monitoring
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: agents monitor your property and detect suspicious activity. If someone's
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: lurking around or acting suspiciously, those agents see and talk
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: to them in real time, activate spotlights, and even contact
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: the police all before they have a chance to get
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: inside your home. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: plans start affordably at around $ 1 per day. 60-day satisfaction
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: guarantee to your money back. Named best home security system
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: by U.S. News & World Report five years in a row.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Ranked number one in customer service among home security providers
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: by both Newsweek and USA Today. And right now, our
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: listeners can get 50% off their new SimpliSafe system with
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: professional monitoring in their first month free at simplisafe.com slash crooked.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: That's simplisafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Welcome to pod save america i'm john favreau i'm dan
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: pfeiffer we're back we're back in the states we were
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: we were just visiting we were just visiting we made
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: it back they let us in they let us in
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: how are you feeling.
• 1:50
  Speaker 3: So I've been back one day longer than you. And
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: the first day, the day I got back, I was
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: incredibly tired because I do that thing where you live
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: Tuesday twice, jump off at 2 p.m., land at 8.45 a.m.
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: on the same day. Yesterday felt pretty good. Today I've
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: been quite tired. My body has not yet adjusted. In
• 2:06
  Speaker 3: the morning, it really thinks it should still be sleeping.
• 2:10
  Speaker 4: I know.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Only sleeping three or four hours on the 14-hour flight
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: home and then having it be first thing Wednesday morning
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: when I land it. It was rough.
• 2:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a hard way to go through life.
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: I did sleep from 8 to 5.30 last night, Wednesday night.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: So I'm hoping that I don't end up like you
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: on the next day. Tomorrow's going to be the tough one.
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: But it was a great, great trip. Thank you to
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: everyone in Australia and New Zealand who came out. The
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: shows were so fun. Thank you to.
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: Our team who put the trip together and the people
• 2:43
  Speaker 3: back here who held it all together while we were
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: gone and put the podcast out.
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: Seriously. And Sophie, our fearless tour manager, Adrian Reed Austin,
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: who traveled with us, and then everyone back here who
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: held down the fort, just did an incredible job. So
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: we're really lucky. On today's show, now that we're back,
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: we're going to talk about Trump's Board of Peace and
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: his plans for war with Iran, his affordability event in Georgia,
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: where he again complained about having to talk about affordability.
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: We'll also get into the messy Texas Senate primary and
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: the dust-up over Stephen Colbert's cancelled interview with James Tallarico,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: and what even the threat of pressure from the FCC
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: might mean for talk shows heading into 2028. And finally,
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: we bid farewell to one of my all-time favorite Trump
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: administration officials, DHS spokesperson Trish McLaughlin. Quick note before we start,
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: just want to ask everyone to think about becoming a subscriber,
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: becoming a Friend of the Pod subscriber. We have... I
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: think we have a new Polar Coaster out this week.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: It's a subscriber-only show that Dan Pfeiffer hosts. What's on
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: Polar Coaster this week?
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: People say it's the best show that Crooked puts out.
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: Most people are in my family, but it is true.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: It's an excellent show. I never miss it, except so
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: far I haven't listened to it because it's only been
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: out for 24 hours and I've been asleep for most
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: of them. But it's excellent, I hear.
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: It's a great episode.
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: Do you want to talk about it? Yeah, go ahead.
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: We were turning these organic plugs very organic because we're
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: just doing it off the cuff. We talked about a
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: lot of things, John, but we dug into a shocking
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: new poll that shows that the 2024 election was redone
• 4:18
  Speaker 3: right now. Kamala Harris would beat Donald Trump by eight points.
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: How's that sound to you?
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: I guess it sounds pretty good.
• 4:27
  Speaker 3: Well, we do not have time machines, so we cannot
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: fix this problem, but it does tell us a lot
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: about the political environment. And we're going into the midterms
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: and some things Democrats should be thinking about as we
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: try to retake the House and the Senate.
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: So here's the thing. You're going to want to listen
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: to Polar Coaster. You're going to want to listen to
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: our new episode of Pod Save America that's now subscriber
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: only called Only Friends, aptly. and we also have this
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: growing number of Substack newsletters that you can access as well.
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: You're going to get ad-free episodes of Pod Save America,
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: Pod Save the World, Offline, all your favorite Crooked shows.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: All you have to do is subscribe to Friends of
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: the Pod at crooked.com slash friends, and you'll get the
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: confidence to know that you are supporting independent pro-democracy media.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: So what are you waiting for? Go subscribe. Friends of
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: the Pod. All right, let's get to the news. FIFA
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: Peace Prize winner Donald Trump has assembled what the Wall
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: Street Journal says is the, quote, greatest amount of air
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: power in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: As the president inches closer to war with Iran, which
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: would be the seventh military attack against another country in
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: the last year. And what better place to make the
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: case for war than at the Donald J. Trump Institute
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: of Peace, which on Thursday hosted the first real meeting
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: of Donald Trump's Board of Peace. which is a kind
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: of fake UN made up of corrupt oligarchs, tin pot dictators,
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: human rights abusers, and other global also-rans who are deeply
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: committed to Jared Kushner's vision of turning Gaza into the
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: West Palm Beach of the Middle East. Here's some of
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: what the board's chair for life, Donald Trump, had to
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: say at the event. Thank you. Does everybody.
• 6:08
  Speaker 4: Like the music?
• 6:09
  Speaker 5: These are the greatest world leaders. Almost everybody's accepted, and
• 6:13
  Speaker 5: the ones that haven't will be. Some are playing a
• 6:16
  Speaker 5: little cute. It doesn't work. You can't play cute with me.
• 6:19
  Speaker 5: This building was built for peace, and nobody knew what
• 6:22
  Speaker 5: to name it. And then Marco named it after me.
• 6:24
  Speaker 5: I had nothing to do with it. I swear I didn't.
• 6:27
  Speaker 5: I swear. I had no idea. They said, there's a
• 6:30
  Speaker 5: surprise coming. I didn't know there was a surprise. I
• 6:32
  Speaker 5: thought they were going to give me a lot of
• 6:33
  Speaker 5: money or something, maybe cash. Can always use some extra cash.
• 6:37
  Speaker 5: I want to thank Johnny and FIFA for all of
• 6:41
  Speaker 5: the wonderful things they did and are doing. They gave
• 6:45
  Speaker 5: me their first peace prize. They gave me a peace prize.
• 6:48
  Speaker 5: I think they saw that I got screwed by Norway
• 6:51
  Speaker 5: and they said, let's give them a peace prize. I mean,
• 6:53
  Speaker 5: very good.
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: Thank you, Johnny.
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: I appreciate it. In case you didn't catch that, they
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: were swaying to Guns N' Roses, November rain. Then the
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: president threatened any invitee to the Board of Peace that
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: has not accepted yet. I guess that includes the Pope,
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: who has not accepted. You know, and then he just
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: talked about the Peace Prize, the fake Peace Prize he
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: got from FIFA. And the fake Institute of Peace that
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: was fake naming for him, that he was hoping for cash. Well,
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: he took that instead.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: As he always is.
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: As he always is. As he always is. Also, good news, Dan.
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: Trump generously committed at this event to giving the board...
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: $ 10 billion of our tax dollars, which is both about
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: $ 10 billion more than I'd like to pay and wildly unconstitutional.
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: But maybe I'm missing something.
• 7:45
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous and embarrassing for everyone involved,
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: particularly United States, that we felt the need to pull
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: together an entirely fake thing so that Donald Trump could
• 7:55
  Speaker 3: live out his model UN dreams for everyone to see.
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: And you've mentioned the chairman for life, but I just
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: want to dig in on that in case people miss this.
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: The Board of Peace is not part of the US government.
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: This is a separate organization. Donald Trump is the chairman
• 8:10
  Speaker 3: for life. It's in the charter that he stays as chairman.
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: Whatever years he may have left.
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: Up until he resigns or passes on to the next life,
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: to the great model you had in the sky. And
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: so this $ 10 billion, which if the United States were
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: to give it, I presume Congress would have to Send
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: it to, they'd have to authorize this, presuming we still
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: believe in the power of the purse. I'm not entirely sure.
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: That is what the Constitution says, if we still abide
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: by that.
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: I would assume that to be the case. But either way,
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: Donald Trump will control that money. So the next Democratic,
• 8:45
  Speaker 3: the next president is a Democrat, let's say, God willing.
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: That person is not in charge of the Board of Peace.
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: That person has no say over the $ 10 billion we
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: just gave Trump to control. The most the next president
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: can do is appoint the U.S. representative to the Board
• 8:57
  Speaker 3: of Peace.
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: Hmm.
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: Who has equal footing with the representative of whatever dictator
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: is also on the board at that point. It could
• 9:05
  Speaker 3: not be more ridiculous, embarrassing, and corrupt.
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: Just remember that they completely dismantled USAID and now thousands,
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: if not millions of people around the world, many of
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: them children, will die. Starvation and disease easily preventable because
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: we apparently didn't have enough money for the small amount
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: we pay in foreign aid. But $ 10 billion is going
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: to the Board of Peace that is ostensibly going to
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: rebuild Gaza, but no actual plans for that. And there's
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: no kind of oversight that can help us check whether
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: that actually happens or not.
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: And the entire Gaza plan that Jared Kushner did a
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: PowerPoint on a few weeks ago or months ago, whenever
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: that was, was basically just like had only dealt with
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: the building of buildings and not all of the very
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: complicated political and governance questions that involve Gaza. And so
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: there is no plan. This is just money that is
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: going into a slush fund. for Donald Trump for whatever reason.
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: Shocked that the Pope hasn't said yes yet. It's only
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: a matter of time, John. Right. Unfortunately for peace lovers everywhere,
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: Trump only briefly touched on the war he may soon
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: launch against Iran, noting only that we'll know the outcome
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: of the ongoing talks with Tehran in the next 10
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: days or so. And if there's no deal, quote, bad
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: things happen. He did get a question about this on
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: the plane later in the day. Take a listen.
• 10:28
  Speaker 6: Today on Iran, bad.
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: Things will happen if Iran doesn't make a deal.
• 10:31
  Speaker 5: Really bad things.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: What will that mean?
• 10:33
  Speaker 5: I'm not going to talk to you about that.
• 10:37
  Speaker 7: Naturally, the president has been making a vigorous case for war.
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: To the American public and our representatives in Congress, right? No,
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: that hasn't been happening at all, has it?
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: No, there's been no discussion, no national debate, no congressional debate,
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: no presentation of the specific threat that Iran poses to
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: the United States, no discussion of how this is in
• 11:24
  Speaker 3: the U.S. interest to do this, what were to come next.
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: Because in the discussion about this in the run-up involving
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: the protests and when Trump's red line that he's let
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: Iran jump over repeatedly, was that this would be unlike
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: the strikes last year to try to take out the
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: nuclear program.
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: This was- To try to take out? We were told
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: it was obliterated.
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: Well, there's dust remaining, if you remember, dust. And to
• 11:54
  Speaker 3: try to take it out, because there's very little evidence
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: that that actually happened, because if it did, we'd probably
• 11:58
  Speaker 3: be in a different place right now. But that this
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: would be a war or an attack for regime change
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: in Iran. which has incredible consequences for the region, for
• 12:09
  Speaker 3: what happens if Iran becomes a failed state. Who takes
• 12:12
  Speaker 3: over if they take out the current regime? Are they
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: going to try to make it a democracy? What role
• 12:17
  Speaker 3: do U.S. ground troops play in this? Where is the
• 12:19
  Speaker 3: international coalition? Maybe it's just the people who are on
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: the Board of Peace will get involved in this. It's
• 12:25
  Speaker 3: truly stunning that we could be, by the time you
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: listen to this, at war with Iran, and there's been
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: zero discussion with the American people about what that means
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: or why we're doing it.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: I mean, the optimistic take here is that Trump frequently
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: uses the threat of military action to sort of force concessions,
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: to force a deal. And that even when he does
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: make good on those threats, like he did with the
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: first strike on Iran's nuclear program, or most recently in
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: Venezuela with the capture of Maduro, the military action is
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: relatively quick and limited. Unfortunately, I'm not high or jet
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: lagged enough to be that optimistic. What do you think?
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: I saw right before we recorded in the Wall Street
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: Journal that it's reported that they are thinking of an
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: initial strike that might be more limited to sort of
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: pave the way for a bigger deal, kind of like
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: a first course appetizer strike.
• 13:19
  Speaker 3: That seems to me a scam by the people who've
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: been trying to go to war with Iran for decades
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: to get Trump to start this process. Because I think
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: he probably is skeptical of an Iraq-like invasion of Iran.
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: But if they could just start the hostilities, maybe they
• 13:36
  Speaker 3: could get what they want. It seems incredibly poorly thought out.
• 13:40
  Speaker 3: And this is not Venezuela, right? Maybe you could attack Iran,
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: you could do some bombing, and they will not respond
• 13:46
  Speaker 3: as happened last year. But there are incredible consequences if
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: the regime falls and Iran becomes a failed state. What
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: could happen there? What happens to millions of Iranians who
• 14:00
  Speaker 3: flee Iran as refugees? Where do they go? How does
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: that change the world? It's just like this is one
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: of those things that could have huge global implications for
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: the world, for the region, for the United States, for
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: the global economy. And there's no evidence that this has
• 14:18
  Speaker 3: been thought about in any sophisticated way as possible, and
• 14:21
  Speaker 3: certainly no discussion with the public about it. So it
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: is Like, it's just, it's incredibly, it's insane that we
• 14:27
  Speaker 3: could be on the precipice of war with Iran and just,
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: it's not even being discussed. And honestly, Democrats are not
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: being loud enough about this. I think because we are,
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: get very twisted around the axle of, around questions of
• 14:38
  Speaker 3: national security and war, and particularly national security of war
• 14:40
  Speaker 3: when it involves Iran. And they're afraid of being on
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: the wrong, like, they tend to look at this and say,
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: what is the best case scenario for Trump action? And
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: how do we ensure we're not on the wrong side
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: of that?
• 14:53
  Speaker 6: Right?
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: We saw this with all of the, and the hemming
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: and hawing around the strikes last year. And I'm worried
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: that that is happening again. It's just like some people
• 15:02
  Speaker 3: are talking about it, but more people should be talking
• 15:03
  Speaker 3: about it.
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: And, you know, I'm no expert on this, but.
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: But we are friends with Tommy and Ben.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: We are friends with Tommy and Ben, right. But I
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: don't think that you're going to change the regime with
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: just like limited airstrikes alone without sending troops. And I
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: don't think you'd be able to like just send in
• 15:20
  Speaker 2: a quick SEAL team like they did with Maduro here.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: So I don't know what their regime change plans are,
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: but I don't think it's going to be as neat
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: as anyone might think or even as Trump might think. Also, Iran,
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: it's a country of 93 million people. It is a huge,
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: huge fucking country. And the idea that we are just
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: like sending over there more forces and military buildup than
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: we have any time since Iraq, it is insane. It
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: is insane that this is happening right now. And it's
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: just like one of the many... And we're like, well,
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: we'll see what he does. 10 to 15 days, he's
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: going to make up his mind. That's what Trump said.
• 15:55
  Speaker 3: And you remember from the last time we struck Iran,
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: he said, remember he put a delay of a few
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: weeks on it?
• 16:03
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: And he said, I'm going to sign the next two weeks.
• 16:05
  Speaker 3: And then he struck like two days later.
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: I was going to say, that's how you always know
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: it's about to happen.
• 16:20
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: So Trump spent the rest of Thursday in Georgia for
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: a message event on his least favorite issue, but one
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: that the White House and Republicans in Congress keep begging
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: him to focus on affordability. Apparently, Susie Wiles and her deputy,
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: James Blair, convened a big White House strategy session on
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: the midterms earlier in the week that included a bunch
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: of cabinet secretaries. I'm sure they were all helpful, according
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: to journalist Mark Halpern, who got a readout from someone
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: in the room. Blair, quote, acknowledged that Donald Trump will
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: do what he wants to do, say what he wants
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: to say, not be data-driven. Everyone else has to stay
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: on message and be driven by the data. In effect,
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: two separate but related campaigns, end quote. Here's how the
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: Trump part of the separate but related strategy sounded today
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: during his visit to Marjorie Taylor Greene's former district in Georgia.
• 17:10
  Speaker 6: And then I have to listen to the fake news
• 17:13
  Speaker 6: talking about affordability, affordability. You notice, what word have you
• 17:19
  Speaker 6: not heard over the last two weeks?
• 17:21
  Speaker 5: Affordability. Because I've won. I've won affordability.
• 17:26
  Speaker 6: I had to go out and talk about it.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: He won. He won affordability. He later said, we got
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: things that are happening that are as good as what
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: you've heard. I don't know if they can get better,
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: to be honest. He doesn't know if things, it's not,
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: are you better off? It used to be, are you
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: better off than you were four years ago? Are you
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: better off than you were last year? Now it's, personally,
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: I don't think things could possibly get any better. The
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: way you are living right now is the best possible
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: way you could live in this country. It is the best.
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: Hottest country in the world.
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: Hottest country in the world. What do you think? Good
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: midterm message? You think this was what they landed on
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: in that midterm strategy session?
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: So a lot of thoughts on this. One, When Trump
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: says you haven't heard the word affordability in weeks, he's
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: not talking to voters because he would hear it if
• 18:15
  Speaker 3: he talked to them. But it's also because everyone's been
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: talking about the massive cover-up of his relationship with a
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: child sex trafficker. So what I posit to you, John,
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: is what if the Epstein files were a distraction from inflation?
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: Possibly, possibly.
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: Hadn't thought about that, had you?
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: It's all a distraction, Dan. It's all a distraction.
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: But the strategy is idiotic and doomed to fail for
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: two reasons. The first reason is you cannot have the
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: president of the United States, the person with the largest megaphone,
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: and especially a president like Donald Trump, who gets more
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: attention than any president in history, saying something that is
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: not on the talking points and then think the campaign's
• 18:54
  Speaker 3: going to work because Scott Bessett is using the talking
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: points at a press event in Iowa 1. It cannot work.
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: You got to have your best soybean farmers out there.
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, he has a personal connection to soybean farmers,
• 19:06
  Speaker 3: but that in and of itself will not be enough
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: to deal with the fact that Trump is out there saying,
• 19:11
  Speaker 3: inflation is solved, prices are down, what you were seeing
• 19:15
  Speaker 3: in your bank account, in your grocery receipts is wrong,
• 19:19
  Speaker 3: everything is perfect. Oh, and by the way, the Dow's
• 19:22
  Speaker 3: at 50,000. And something you and I know from our
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: time working for our president during a tough economy is
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: literally nothing. makes voters angrier than using the stock market
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: to tell them that the economy is going great. It'll
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: cause them to flip over the table in a focus group.
• 19:39
  Speaker 3: It makes them so mad. It is a message designed
• 19:42
  Speaker 3: to lose. The second problem is their talking points are
• 19:47
  Speaker 3: a strategy that you may remember from the Biden White
• 19:49
  Speaker 3: House's strategy for selling the economy, which is focus on
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: your accomplishments, focus on what you've done. In the reporting
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: on that from Sophia Kai from Politico, she talks about
• 20:01
  Speaker 3: how the big thing they're all supposed to emphasize is
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: is their efforts to lower prescription drug costs, which is
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: literally the exact same thing the Biden White House tried
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: to do. And it's a good accomplishment, especially for the
• 20:12
  Speaker 3: Biden folks, because that was a bigger deal. But at
• 20:14
  Speaker 3: the end of the day, you can't tell people who
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: are mad about high prices that you lowered their prices.
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: That does not work. You have to make an argument
• 20:23
  Speaker 3: about how you are going to do a better job
• 20:24
  Speaker 3: of lowering their prices going forward, and the other side
• 20:26
  Speaker 3: is going to raise them. And they can't have that
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: argument because Donald Trump will not let them have that
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: argument because it implies that they have failed to lower prices.
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: So they have to exist within the reality that he
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: has created. And that is a reality that voters do
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: not see. It sounds delusional to them.
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah. You didn't hear much in the speech today about
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: how he's planning on lowering prices or doing anything to
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: cut costs in the coming months at all. Nothing. Nothing
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: about that.
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: Just think about the context for this. is this is
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: happening on a day where he pledged $ 10 billion to
• 21:01
  Speaker 3: a personal slush fund that's ostensibly going to Gaza for
• 21:05
  Speaker 3: Jared Kushner to develop condos there. He is– He's talking
• 21:08
  Speaker 3: about a war. Starting a war in the Middle East.
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: It is the exact opposite. And one of the things
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: that– this wasn't really in this meeting, but the Trump
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: folks have sort of acknowledged on background reporters is In
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: the first year, they spent too much time doing foreign
• 21:25
  Speaker 3: policy stuff. And so that's why they have cut the
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: press out of all their foreign leader meetings because those
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: always were dominant. But on the day of the big
• 21:34
  Speaker 3: affordability event, he's doing his foreign policy slush fund event
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: and threatening a war. It's fucking– we have the dumbest
• 21:43
  Speaker 3: people running this country right now.
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: He also is– his whole thing on tariffs, he talked
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: about tariffs a lot during the speech. He's really tied
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: himself to the tariffs in a way that has surprised
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: even me. So he spent a ton of time in
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: the speech just like bitching about how the Supreme Court
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: has not handed down a ruling on his tariffs yet.
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: And they might do it tomorrow. And they may do
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: it tomorrow. You might be listening to this.
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: The tariffs might be gone by the time you listen
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: to this.
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: We're recording this Thursday afternoon, as most of you know,
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: until you're probably listening to it Friday. So he's yelling
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: about the Supreme Court. And he's saying tariffs are the
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: most important thing in the world. At one point he says,
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: everyone in the country would be bankrupt without these tariffs. Now,
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: he has walked back a good chunk of the tariffs
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: at this point already. In part, I presume, because all
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: of his political advisors and economic advisors are like, hey,
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: these tariffs are fucking killing us. They're probably hurting your polls.
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: They're one of his least popular issues, along with immigration
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: and the cost of living. And they are just... a
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: tax on a bunch of goods that people are just paying.
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: I think there was just a report that it's about $ 1, 000
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: a family that people are paying because of the tariffs.
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: And yet, even if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: and lets him off the hook, he's just going to
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: double down and try to just put them back on
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: through some other method and then say that they're still important. Like,
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: it's just wild. You got to hand it to the guy.
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: He genuinely believes in the tariffs. Genuinely believes in the tariffs.
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: Because he's an idiot. But you're exactly right. Like our
• 23:16
  Speaker 3: friends at Navigator Research often do these word clouds where
• 23:19
  Speaker 3: they ask people about either negative information they've heard about
• 23:21
  Speaker 3: Trump or reasons why you disapprove of whatever else. And
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: tariffs is always a giant thing in the middle. And
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: he talks about tariffs more than tariffs are actually in
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: place now.
• 23:32
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: And so what he's done, which is really impressive, which
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: he has made his tariffs the reason for all high
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: prices in people's minds.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, which is really impressive.
• 23:43
  Speaker 3: And even American-made goods, people have their higher prices. People
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: think it's because of the tariffs, because he keeps saying, tariff, tariff, tariff.
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: It's my favorite word, tariff. He says it all the time.
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: I have to say it's honestly impressively stupid.
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: So we're having too much fun here, too optimistic. So
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: just to rain on our parade a little bit, one
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: thing I noticed while we were gone last week is
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: that the Most recent economic data has been better than expected.
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: Job growth in January was twice as high as expected.
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: The inflation reading was better. Inflation slowed down a bit.
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: We're not seeing any evidence yet that voters are feeling
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: any differently about the cost of living than they have been.
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: But what do you think about the recent economic news
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: and what do you think Democrats should be planning for?
• 24:31
  Speaker 3: There's not much you can plan here for. And the
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: economic news has been a little bit all over the map.
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: You sort of get a good jobs number, and then
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: you get a bad jobs number, and then some downward
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: revisions of the previous number. So it's hard to say
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: what is actually happening. And inflation is down a little bit,
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: but we still have inflation. And that is the problem
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: for Trump. And the ultimate problem is he cannot– look,
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: if the economy gets better on the margins, it probably
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: helps them. But The fundamental problem is Donald Trump didn't
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: promise to slow inflation, which is what this report indicated.
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: What Donald Trump promised to do was to lower your prices,
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: which he has not done, cannot do, and actually made
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: worse with his tariffs. And so there is not a world,
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: unless we hit a deflationary cycle, which would be quite
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: bad for the economy, unless the economy goes into recession
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: and we have a collapse, but voters are not going
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: to see lower prices for food, housing, goods, they may
• 25:30
  Speaker 3: just see a slower rate of increase. And that's not
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: something I expect Republicans to be rewarded for come November.
• 25:36
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: I think Trump making things worse is the key there because,
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: you know, there's a debate like, oh, when the economy
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: is bad, does the president get too much blame more
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: than the president deserves? When the economy is good, does
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: the president get more credit than the president deserves? Like
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: how much is just the president presiding over the economy?
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: How much does that really matter? You know? And This
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: is a different situation where the guy literally gave a
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: trillion dollar tax cut to billionaires paid for by health
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: care cuts that made your premiums increase and then put
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: tariffs on all the shit that you buy, which has
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: made it more expensive. And that doesn't change. Right. Like
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: even if the economy slightly improves, like the fact that
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: he made life more expensive is. So that rich people
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: could get a break is just the facts of his
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: first several years in office.
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: And the thing that is different than with previous presidents
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: is a majority of voters only a year into his
• 26:39
  Speaker 3: term blame Trump for the current state of the economy.
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: Normally voters– As they should because he took all the
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: credit for the tariffs. But normally presidents get years when
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: they inherit it. Like Obama– people were still blaming Bush
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: more than Obama for the state of the economy in
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: 2012 and running for re-election. they understood what happened. People
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: believe correctly that Trump has made problems much, much worse
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: through action in the tariffs in inaction, because he's focused
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: on so many things other than actual, the economy and affordability.
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: And that, that is the problem for him, which is
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: why marginal improvements in the economy would not help him
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: as much as they would help another president who was
• 27:15
  Speaker 3: not being specifically blamed for things being bad.
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean like think of the Obama's first couple
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: of years. Um, We know that with the Affordable Care Act,
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: taxes were only increased on the wealthiest Americans and that
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: through the Recovery Act, everyone else got tax cuts, right?
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: And still, Obama shouldered the blame for the job loss
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: that came from the Great Recession and just people's economic well-being,
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: which was not very good. Now imagine Obama had actually
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: raised taxes on everyone. and raise their health care costs
• 27:50
  Speaker 2: all in the first two years as the economy was
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: already bad. That's basically what you have with Donald Trump. Relatedly,
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: Axios had a story on Thursday about how Republican strategists
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: are starting to get nervous about Democrats' bigger-than-expected wins in
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: special elections over the past few months. One anonymous Republican
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: strategist said, quote, the pattern is clear that there is
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: at least a current 10-point Democratic overperformance from Trump 2024
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: over And it's built on a fired up Democratic base
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: and a sleepy Republican base. A 10-point Democratic overperformance. Are
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: you as bullish as that Republican is nervous?
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm a pretty superstitious guy, John.
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: You know you are.
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: I've got a long way to the election. I'm not
• 28:32
  Speaker 3: cocky about this in any way, shape, or form. And
• 28:35
  Speaker 3: I do believe that that gap is going to narrow some.
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: Republicans will... Democrats are going to stay fired up. I'm
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: very confident about that. Republicans will get more fired up
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: as we get closer to the election. This happens... Every cycle.
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: And if we're being sort of brutally honest about it,
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: Democrats had a 13-point overperformance in 2025. It's been 10%. Here,
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: some of that has to do with the races that
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: have happened in this short period of time this year.
• 29:00
  Speaker 3: But it's obviously going to narrow. And just to put
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: that in perspective, the final Democratic popular vote margin in
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: the 2018 House races was 8.6%.
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: Hmm.
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: And we picked up 41 seats in that one. Now,
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: the map is different. Democrats are not picking up 41
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: seats at an 8.6% popular vote margin. But at 10 points,
• 29:21
  Speaker 3: certainly the House is very much in good hands and
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: the Senate is in play. The things that are keeping
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: the Republican base deflated aren't really going to change a ton.
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: I think their core voters are going to turn out
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: more just because it's an actual midterm, not a special,
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: and our voters are more trained to turn out specials.
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: But the base is divided. There is, in polling, 15%
• 29:45
  Speaker 3: of Trump voters who regret or have concerns about their
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: vote in 2024. You have, in the races we've had before,
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: 7% to 10% of Trump voters coming over to vote
• 29:56
  Speaker 3: for Democrats. There are, you know, a quarter, you know,
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: a fifth to a quarter of Trump voters who are
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: unhappy with what ICE is doing. You have large swaths
• 30:05
  Speaker 3: of Trump voters who are unhappy with what Trump's done
• 30:08
  Speaker 3: on the economy. And so those sort of structural problems
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: are not going to change in a dramatic way in
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: the next nine months, I wouldn't imagine.
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, what I keep looking at is Trump's approval rating
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: in Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, which are, you know, we'd
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: need two of those four states to take back the Senate.
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: Because I think that like if Trump's under 50 in
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: those states, Republican candidate in this polarized era, probably not
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: going to get much higher than Trump's approval rating in
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: those states. And so, you know, Trump's sitting at 48
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: or 49 even in Iowa, in Texas, in Ohio, like
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: I think those candidates, especially like Sherrod Brown in Ohio,
• 30:53
  Speaker 2: I think they have a pretty good chance. But I
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: don't know. What do you think?
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: They do. It has to be a candidate who can
• 30:59
  Speaker 3: win over Trump voters because there will be people who
• 31:03
  Speaker 3: are unhappy with Trump but think the Democrat is too
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: far to the left or whatever else.
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 31:09
  Speaker 3: I would put it this way. The environment is suggestive
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: of a path to Democratic victory if Trump's under 50.
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: It's going to depend on how the campaign is waged
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: and also who the Republican candidate candidate is as well.
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: Speaking of the midterms, one midterm race that's been getting
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: a ton of national attention lately is the Texas Senate race,
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: particularly the Democratic primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Tallarico,
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: whose appearance on Stephen Colbert's show this week caused quite
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: a stir. In case you haven't followed this story, here's
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: what happened. On Monday, the Colbert told his audience that, quote,
• 31:53
  Speaker 2: we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: lawyers who called us directly that we could not have
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: Tallarico on the broadcast. Apparently, CBS's lawyers were concerned that
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: having Tallarico on might prompt legal action from the FCC
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: based on new guidance that Chairman Brendan Carr issued in
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: January about the commission's longstanding equal time rule, which requires...
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: broadcast television and radio shows to give candidates equal time
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: if they have their opponent on as a guest. Now,
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: there has always been an exemption, at least as far back,
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: I believe since 2006, for talk shows like Colbert's. Daytime
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: talk shows, late night talk shows. But in this guidance
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: in January, Carr said that he was considering getting rid
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: of that exemption. And sure enough, the FCC recently launched
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: an enforcement action against ABC and The View for exactly that.
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: The View had Tallarico on without also having Jasmine Crockett
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: on or their primary opponent on or Ken Paxton or
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: John Cornyn. Colbert interviewed Tallarico anyway, put the segment on
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: YouTube and told his CBS audience what happened. CBS then
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: put out a statement on Tuesday denying Colbert's version of
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: events and saying the late show was not, quote, prohibited
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: from airing the interview, only, quote, provided legal guidance. Here's
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: how Colbert responded on his show on Tuesday night and
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: the tough questions Carr got from Laura Ingram on Fox
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: News on Wednesday.
• 33:32
  Speaker 7: Between the monologue I did last night and before I
• 33:35
  Speaker 7: did the second act talking about this issue, I had
• 33:38
  Speaker 7: to go backstage. I got called backstage to get more
• 33:42
  Speaker 7: notes from these lawyers, something that had never, ever happened before.
• 33:46
  Speaker 7: And they told us the language they wanted me to
• 33:49
  Speaker 7: use to describe that equal time exception. And I used
• 33:53
  Speaker 7: that language.
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: So... I don't know what this is about.
• 33:58
  Speaker 7: I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would
• 34:02
  Speaker 7: not stand up to these bullies.
• 34:04
  Speaker 2: I don't even know what to do with this crap.
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: Hold on. Would you have gone after them for violating
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: the equal time rule, as Colbert said?
• 34:20
  Speaker 7: What we've said, as we've been very clear, is that
• 34:22
  Speaker 7: broadcasters have a unique right and privilege, a license.
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: And one thing they have to do is comply with
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: the equal time rules.
• 34:29
  Speaker 6: But complying with equal time would have meant.
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: When has that been enforced?
• 34:32
  Speaker 7: When's the last time that's been enforced?
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: In case you're just listening, the audience cheered when Colbert
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: decided to crumble up the statement from his company's own
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: lawyers and put it in a dog poop bag. Dan,
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: what do you make of all this?
• 34:50
  Speaker 3: What's interesting is how the FCC got onto this because
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: it's been a well-established principle for a very long time
• 34:56
  Speaker 3: that while news shows are exempt from equal time laws,
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: like if you have to interview a candidate or put
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: a president on, that you're not then forced to give
• 35:04
  Speaker 3: exact equal time to their opponent. And they then for
• 35:08
  Speaker 3: a long time had exemptions for interview shows like the
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: talk shows, The View, Colbert. The reason why Brendan Carr
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: has taken this on is– And I had forgotten this,
• 35:21
  Speaker 3: I think, because my brain was protecting me from trauma.
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: But in 2024, Trump got very mad that Kamala Harris
• 35:27
  Speaker 3: went on The View and he did not. So his
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: campaign filed a complaint with the FCC. The FCC chair
• 35:34
  Speaker 3: was a Biden nominee. She obviously did not act on this.
• 35:36
  Speaker 3: So Brennan Carr, in his never-ending quest to appease Trump
• 35:38
  Speaker 3: and be a hero of the MAGA right, has decided
• 35:40
  Speaker 3: to take on The View and now Colbert. And this
• 35:44
  Speaker 3: really does have– I mean, it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's
• 35:47
  Speaker 3: pretty stupid. It has real– implications just for how the
• 35:52
  Speaker 3: 2028 campaign is going to be covered? Like no Democratic,
• 35:55
  Speaker 3: if this is the rule, no Democratic candidate will be
• 35:58
  Speaker 3: able to go on any broadcast talk show in that
• 36:03
  Speaker 3: campaign because no talk show is going to agree to
• 36:06
  Speaker 3: do equal interviews with all 27 Democratic candidates or whatever.
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: And by the way, Republican candidates.
• 36:13
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: Because I saw a lot of people be like, well,
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: this isn't really about like a Republican-Democratic thing because it
• 36:19
  Speaker 2: was about he needed to give equal time to Jasmine
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: Crockett as well. Well, yes, on Crockett, but also Paxton
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: and Cornyn and Wesley Hunt in the other side of
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: the primary because if you look at the actual law,
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: it just says all of the candidates running for that
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: given office. So it's not just a primary. It's a
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: lot of candidates that you would have to have on.
• 36:41
  Speaker 3: And the rule is so arbitrary and stupid in its
• 36:45
  Speaker 3: application that John Ossoff, who is running for re-election in Georgia,
• 36:49
  Speaker 3: was on Colbert the next night, but he has not
• 36:53
  Speaker 3: officially filed a statement of candidacy, so he's not officially
• 36:56
  Speaker 3: a candidate yet. So therefore, CBS's attorneys, the Paramount attorneys,
• 37:04
  Speaker 3: did not think it triggered the law. This is an
• 37:08
  Speaker 3: idiotic– this is also so stupid because– In this day
• 37:13
  Speaker 3: and age, most of what happens in media is outside
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: of the FCC's purview because the FCC is only in
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: charge of what happens on the actual broadcast networks. We
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: think of The View as a cable show, but it
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: airs on ABC in a lot of markets. So therefore,
• 37:27
  Speaker 3: the FCC has regulation. But anything that happens on podcasts,
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: YouTube shows, cable TV is outside of the purview of
• 37:32
  Speaker 3: the FCC for these purposes.
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: And by the way, Carr has been asked before whether
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: he feels the same way about right-wing talk radio and
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: said that right-wing talk radio is not a target. of
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: the equal time new guidance that he has issued.
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: Yes, it was the changing, like all of right-wing radio.
• 37:48
  Speaker 3: Of course. All of right-wing radio rose up because of
• 37:52
  Speaker 3: a very specific change made by Ronald Reagan's FCC to
• 37:56
  Speaker 3: allow there to be right-wing radio and not enforce the
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: equal time on radio stations.
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: It is also just like, my first instinct was, Well,
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: the people who screwed Colbert the most were his own
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: lawyers because they should have just fought it because who
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: knows if Brendan Carr would have done anything anyway. Clearly,
• 38:16
  Speaker 2: he would have if he told Laura Ingraham. Clearly, he
• 38:19
  Speaker 2: did or is investigating The View for the exact same thing.
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: So the lawyers did have good reason to believe that
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: Carr would act. Now, if they were lawyers at a company...
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: that wasn't hoping the administration wouldn't get involved in, say,
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: a purchase they wanted to make of, say, Warner Brothers Discovery,
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: which they're still trying to buy at Paramount Plus, then
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: perhaps the lawyers would have said, fuck Brendan Carr, we'll
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: fight this.
• 38:50
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: I mean, we have no evidence, explicit evidence that the
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: Paramount lawyers did this as part as an effort to
• 39:00
  Speaker 3: curry favor with Trump. What we do know is the
• 39:03
  Speaker 3: larger pattern in practice with Paramount and David Ellison, who
• 39:07
  Speaker 3: runs Paramount Skydance in particular, is to do things to
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: win favor with Trump, to kiss up to him. And
• 39:15
  Speaker 3: there are numerous examples. There is the $ 16 million that
• 39:20
  Speaker 3: Paramount paid to settle a ridiculous lawsuit around 60 Minutes.
• 39:25
  Speaker 3: There is the putting of Barry Weiss over at CBS.
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: There is David Ellison telling Trump reportedly, according to several reports,
• 39:34
  Speaker 3: that if he were to get his hands on CNN,
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, which Paramount is
• 39:39
  Speaker 3: trying to buy, he would make major changes there with
• 39:42
  Speaker 3: the implication being Trump would like those changes. And so
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: when something is– the entire relationship between Paramount Ellison and
• 39:51
  Speaker 3: the Trump administration is one that reeks of corruption. And therefore,
• 39:54
  Speaker 3: the burden of proof on whether this was done out
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: of legal caution or out of a way to avoid
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: pissing off Trump while you were trying... Well, one of
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: the selling points that Paramount is making to the Warner
• 40:06
  Speaker 3: Brothers Discovery shareholders is that they, because of David Ellison
• 40:10
  Speaker 3: and Larry Ellison, who's a big Trump donor and one
• 40:12
  Speaker 3: of the richest men in the world, one of their
• 40:14
  Speaker 3: close relationships with Trump and the Trump administration means they
• 40:17
  Speaker 3: are more likely to get regulatory approval for the purchase
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: of Warner Brothers Discovery than Netflix, which is run by
• 40:24
  Speaker 3: people who have donated to Democrats in the past.
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: And as for the dispute between Colbert and CBS, Paramount
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: and the lawyers, over what they actually said to Colbert,
• 40:36
  Speaker 2: because they released a statement basically saying, no, we just
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: gave guidance. We didn't tell him not to air it.
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: Colbert did make the point that the lawyers, as they
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: always do, read every single word of the script and
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: approved it before he said it. And what he said
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: that night was that they told him in no uncertain
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: terms that he could not air the Tallarico interview. So
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: in case you're wondering if anyone's not telling the truth
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: here or who's not telling the truth. So Colbert's interview
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: with Tallarico drew millions of views on YouTube. The whole
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: thing backfired as it did with Kimmel, as it always does.
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: Millions of views on YouTube. It also helped James Tallarico
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: quite a bit, netted his campaign over $ 2 million of
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: fundraising in 24 hours. Understandably, Jasmine Crockett isn't thrilled about
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: any of this, though Colbert did note on Tuesday that
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: she has been a guest on The Late Show twice.
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: I think the last time was like May of 2025,
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: I looked, so not since the race is heated up,
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: but she has been on twice. This has been and
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: is getting to be more of a very messy and
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: negative primary between Tallarico and Crockett. The press conference where
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: Crockett responded to the Colbert thing sounded mostly like this.
• 41:41
  Speaker 4: You know, we've all seen the attack ads that have
• 41:43
  Speaker 4: come on behalf of my primary opponent supposedly wants to
• 41:47
  Speaker 4: get rid of super PACs yet doesn't have anything to
• 41:49
  Speaker 4: say about the negative ads, the ads that are darkening
• 41:52
  Speaker 4: my skin. And this continual kind of if she wins,
• 41:56
  Speaker 4: we lose. It's not even undertones right now. It is
• 41:59
  Speaker 4: straight up racist.
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: Early voting is now underway. The primary is March 3rd.
• 42:04
  Speaker 2: Where do you think the race stands right now?
• 42:08
  Speaker 3: The polls have been a little bit all over the map.
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: And not many of them, I feel like.
• 42:12
  Speaker 3: There have not been a ton of them. The most
• 42:13
  Speaker 3: recent ones have had Crockett up a little bit on Tallarico,
• 42:18
  Speaker 3: but there have also been some polls showing Tallarico up.
• 42:19
  Speaker 3: A lot of the polls we've seen are either from
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: groups affiliated with one of the two candidates, either their
• 42:26
  Speaker 3: super PACs or their campaigns, or from– Less well-known polling outlets.
• 42:32
  Speaker 3: We have not yet got a New York Times, CNN poll,
• 42:36
  Speaker 3: or a Wall Street Journal poll, or a CNN poll.
• 42:38
  Speaker 3: Kind of the polls that we can judge. They're likely
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: from local Texas polls, so it's hard to say. Early
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: voting is through the roof. Over the first couple of
• 42:47
  Speaker 3: days of early voting, there have been twice as many
• 42:49
  Speaker 3: votes cast as there were over the same period in 2022.
• 42:53
  Speaker 3: And a quarter of all the early votes cast in
• 42:55
  Speaker 3: 2022 have been cast in the first two days of
• 42:57
  Speaker 3: early voting.
• 42:58
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 42:58
  Speaker 3: It seems to be up everywhere. It does also seem
• 43:00
  Speaker 3: to be up particularly high in parts of Jasmine Crockett's district,
• 43:06
  Speaker 3: which may be a positive sign for her, but hard
• 43:08
  Speaker 3: to say in this early stage. So it's anyone's guess
• 43:11
  Speaker 3: who's going to win this primary. There's not enough to
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: tell us how it exactly stands.
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: What do you think about how contentious it's gotten as
• 43:18
  Speaker 2: a race?
• 43:19
  Speaker 3: It makes my stomach hurt. It really makes my stomach
• 43:21
  Speaker 3: hurt when I think about the 2028 Democratic presidential primary.
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: I know. In this context.
• 43:26
  Speaker 3: That, you know, this is, it doesn't have to be
• 43:29
  Speaker 3: this negative. It's been this negative. the Tallarico super PAC
• 43:33
  Speaker 3: started the negativity by say, they running a very explicit
• 43:37
  Speaker 3: ad saying that if Crockett wins the primary, we lose
• 43:40
  Speaker 3: the general election. Electability is hanging over this, which is
• 43:43
  Speaker 3: what's going to hang over the 2028 primary. And we
• 43:46
  Speaker 3: can talk maybe a little bit about that in a
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: second here, but that conversation is always heated and freighted
• 43:53
  Speaker 3: with a lot of racial and gender tropes and a
• 43:56
  Speaker 3: lot of myths about politics and everything. And so it's,
• 43:58
  Speaker 3: quite messy. It's counterproductive and it doesn't... We'll see what
• 44:03
  Speaker 3: happens in some of these other primaries like Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota,
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: and Maine, whether they get heated like this as they
• 44:12
  Speaker 3: get closer because all those primaries have a fairly long
• 44:14
  Speaker 3: distance before people actually start voting. This is the first
• 44:16
  Speaker 3: one where we're down to the wire and it's gotten
• 44:19
  Speaker 3: nasty quickly.
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: We've obviously had both candidates on the show, even though
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: the FCC can't make us. So it's tough, right? Their
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: policy positions are very similar, almost identical. And I think
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: there hasn't been a ton of polling in the race.
• 44:38
  Speaker 2: And even if there were, I think we both know
• 44:41
  Speaker 2: that figuring out which candidate gives Democrats a better chance
• 44:44
  Speaker 2: of flipping Texas is like... Electability is always going to
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: be at least somewhat of a subjective exercise, right? It's
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: purely theoretical. What do you think about it in this
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: context of this race?
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: Well, so.
• 44:59
  Speaker 3: Electability is purely theoretical. The only way to prove electability
• 45:02
  Speaker 3: is to win.
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: It's also a very fair question to ask here. We
• 45:07
  Speaker 3: kind of need to win this Senate race. And when
• 45:09
  Speaker 3: you have two candidates who are both very well-liked by Democrats,
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: who have ideologically very similar profiles, I don't blame voters
• 45:16
  Speaker 3: for saying, I like them both. Which one is more
• 45:19
  Speaker 3: likely to win? That's what I care about. And since
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: electability is so theoretical– Perhaps the only data point you
• 45:27
  Speaker 3: can bring to bear in such a conversation, and it's
• 45:30
  Speaker 3: a very imperfect one, is does this candidate have a
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: history of winning tough races, winning Republican voters, winning over
• 45:37
  Speaker 3: swing voters? You know, like Andy Beshear can come to
• 45:41
  Speaker 3: voters and say, look at all these Republicans, and whatever.
• 45:42
  Speaker 3: Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer can say, or Ruben Gallego
• 45:45
  Speaker 3: and John Ossoff can say, look at these swing states
• 45:47
  Speaker 3: that I have a history of winning. Does that translate
• 45:49
  Speaker 3: to a presidential? Maybe, maybe not, but it's an argument
• 45:52
  Speaker 3: to make. In this situation, neither candidate has a particularly
• 45:56
  Speaker 3: long documented history of winning over Republican or swing voters
• 46:00
  Speaker 3: or dramatically outperforming how a typical Democrat or typical Republican
• 46:05
  Speaker 3: would do. Tallarico's first race was in a pretty purple district.
• 46:08
  Speaker 3: He won narrowly.
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: It was a Trump district, right, that he flipped?
• 46:12
  Speaker 3: Yeah, a barely Trump district, but then it's become– since then,
• 46:16
  Speaker 3: it's been a Democratic district in how it's been redrawn.
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: He's won easily. Crockett has represented a very, very Democratic district.
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: She's performed as you would expect a Democrat to do there.
• 46:27
  Speaker 3: And so you can't make that point. So the only
• 46:29
  Speaker 3: thing you can evaluate here is what is their stated
• 46:33
  Speaker 3: strategies for winning the race. And I will stipulate that
• 46:38
  Speaker 3: both of these strategies are overly simplistic because you kind
• 46:40
  Speaker 3: of have to do both, but it's where have they
• 46:42
  Speaker 3: put their emphasis. Tallarico has said he is focused on
• 46:46
  Speaker 3: trying to win over Republican voters, that he can appeal
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: to folks who voted for Trump, disenchanted with Trump, Republican voters.
• 46:56
  Speaker 3: Crockett has taken a different approach. She has said that
• 46:58
  Speaker 3: her path to victory comes from her ability to excite
• 47:01
  Speaker 3: the Democratic base, to turn out people in Texas who
• 47:06
  Speaker 3: are not typical participants in the political process, that she
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: can mobilize voters. Like I said, neither of them have
• 47:13
  Speaker 3: a record of doing either of those things per se.
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: I mean, there's anecdotal examples, but it's not like manifest
• 47:19
  Speaker 3: in their and their histories. If you ask me which
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: strategy on its face is more likely to succeed, I
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: would tell you Tallarico's strategy. Now, whether he can implement
• 47:32
  Speaker 3: that strategy better than Crockett can implement hers, I don't
• 47:35
  Speaker 3: know the answer to that, and I don't think anyone does.
• 47:37
  Speaker 3: But this is a state that Donald Trump won by
• 47:39
  Speaker 3: double digits. There is no path to victory without winning
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: over a significant slice of people who voted for Trump
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: and traditionally vote for Republicans. That is just the math
• 47:48
  Speaker 3: of winning in Texas. And he is emphasizing that. And
• 47:51
  Speaker 3: Crockett is emphasizing the opposite. And I think there is
• 47:54
  Speaker 3: not a lot of history that mobilization in and of
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: itself would be sufficient to win in a state like Texas.
• 48:02
  Speaker 3: And that is just the fact of the matter. Now,
• 48:05
  Speaker 3: I think both of them are being oversimplistic in their approach.
• 48:08
  Speaker 3: I can't imagine that if either of them becomes the nominee,
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: they will not then try to do both. Because if
• 48:14
  Speaker 3: you win over 6% of Republicans, but you don't turn
• 48:16
  Speaker 3: out the full, the Democratic base at a high level,
• 48:19
  Speaker 3: you're not going to win. If you turn out the
• 48:21
  Speaker 3: Democratic base, like it's never been turned out before, but
• 48:22
  Speaker 3: you can't win over 6% to 6% to 7% or
• 48:25
  Speaker 3: 8% of Republicans, then you're also going to lose. But
• 48:28
  Speaker 3: like that's, I had a long conversation with Caroline about
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: this on Polar Coaster, which you can listen to if
• 48:32
  Speaker 3: you subscribe to Crooked.com. And I'm going to write about
• 48:35
  Speaker 3: this in message box, I think the next couple of
• 48:36
  Speaker 3: days or a more, a deeper analysis of it. But
• 48:39
  Speaker 3: that's sort of my initial takeaway is if you like,
• 48:42
  Speaker 3: If you want to come at this from the perspective
• 48:43
  Speaker 3: of electability, look, if you like Tallarico or you like
• 48:46
  Speaker 3: Jasmine Crockett, just go vote for that person, right? If
• 48:48
  Speaker 3: that's who you like more. But if you are bringing
• 48:50
  Speaker 3: an electability lens to it, then that's sort of how
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: I would frame the analysis of it.
• 48:55
  Speaker 2: I also think you and I have talked about this
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: in the context of, I don't know, every election since
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: we've been doing this, which is this idea that a
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: person who doesn't vote– or who has voted in the
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: past but decides not to vote in some election is
• 49:16
  Speaker 2: so much different in their politics and political beliefs than
• 49:20
  Speaker 2: someone who sometimes votes for Democrats and sometimes votes for Republicans.
• 49:25
  Speaker 2: It doesn't really play out like that. Like there is
• 49:28
  Speaker 2: this view, there's this traditional view that I think we
• 49:30
  Speaker 2: had prior to the Trump era that the voter who
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: stays on the couch, the voter who stays home is
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: like a liberal or progressive and just hasn't been activated
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: by a Democratic candidate who's exciting enough or progressive enough
• 49:43
  Speaker 2: or liberal enough. And that someone who has voted Democrat
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: in the past or hasn't even voted in the past,
• 49:50
  Speaker 2: but then votes for Donald Trump and votes for Republican
• 49:53
  Speaker 2: is just as a conservative voter. And that's it, we've
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: lost them. And the truth is, after an election, when
• 49:59
  Speaker 2: you go interview these voters or even during an election,
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: you go talk to them in focus groups, you realize
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: that a lot of these voters who either switch parties
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: or sometimes stay home altogether are just have very complicated views.
• 50:12
  Speaker 2: You could call them maybe moderate, but on some issues,
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: they're quite liberal. On some issues, they could be quite
• 50:16
  Speaker 2: conservative and they just have this real mix of political beliefs.
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: And so it really hasn't panned out that the non-voter
• 50:25
  Speaker 2: is just like a liberal sitting home waiting to be
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: activated by an exciting candidate. And I do think what
• 50:30
  Speaker 2: keeps people from voting and keeps people from, unless obviously
• 50:34
  Speaker 2: voter suppression keeps people from voting, but if you are
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: making up your mind about whether to vote or not
• 50:38
  Speaker 2: and making up your mind about whether to vote for
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: a Democrat or Republican, what's keeping people from doing so,
• 50:43
  Speaker 2: from casting that ballot, is just cynicism in this system
• 50:48
  Speaker 2: and a belief that politics isn't going to really make
• 50:51
  Speaker 2: a difference in their lives and a belief that both
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: parties are too similar and that once everyone gets to Washington,
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: all they do is just yell at each other and
• 50:59
  Speaker 2: nothing gets done and the whole thing is hopeless and
• 51:01
  Speaker 2: everyone's corrupt. Like that is the, if there is a
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: typical belief of someone who switches parties or just switches
• 51:09
  Speaker 2: between voting and non-voting, it's that political profile. And so
• 51:13
  Speaker 2: I do think that's one thing for people to keep
• 51:14
  Speaker 2: in mind as you think about who you like, not
• 51:17
  Speaker 2: just in this primary, but in other primaries. I will
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: just say for me personally, I have been impressed with
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: James Tallarico like long before he was ever a Senate candidate.
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: And I like that he is running a populist campaign.
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: I like that he doesn't take corporate PAC money. I
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: like that he says the real divide in the country
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: isn't between left and right, but between top and bottom.
• 51:39
  Speaker 2: I think that you and I have talked about this
• 51:41
  Speaker 2: as well, that like a Democrat who can both sort
• 51:45
  Speaker 2: of run against a corrupt system and corrupt special interests
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: and the billionaire class. And someone who could also reach
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: out to voters who were disillusioned with the political system
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: is probably like the best kind of Democrat and one
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: that we think would have a good chance. And I
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: think that that's Tallarico. I also like that he is
• 52:06
  Speaker 2: not making this campaign about himself or about Jasmine Crockett
• 52:11
  Speaker 2: or about Ken Paxton or John Cornyn or even Donald Trump.
• 52:14
  Speaker 2: He's like trying to make it in some ways bigger
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: than politics itself. He talks about how the most important
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: thing is to love your neighbor. And yes, that very
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: much comes from his faith, but this idea that you
• 52:25
  Speaker 2: should reach out and love your neighbor, no matter what
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: they look like, where they come from, what they believe,
• 52:30
  Speaker 2: how they pray. I think that's a pretty good political
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: philosophy for someone who wants to be in government, regardless
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: of where you come from and what race you're running in.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: And so I do think that Tallarico sort of not
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: only will appeal to more people with that philosophy, but
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: it's just a really good philosophy and a public servant.
• 52:48
  Speaker 5: So.
• 52:49
  Speaker 3: I have really, you and I talked about this a
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: little bit in the many, many hours we spent together
• 52:53
  Speaker 3: last week. And I've really wrestled with this because I
• 52:57
  Speaker 3: do find the conversations about electability to be exhausting and
• 53:02
  Speaker 3: complicated and freighted with all kinds of racial and gender tropes. And,
• 53:09
  Speaker 3: you know, we dealt with like, this was such an
• 53:11
  Speaker 3: overhang in 2020 and there was a tax on candidates
• 53:15
  Speaker 3: of color and women candidates in that race, um, that
• 53:19
  Speaker 3: really affected the entire debate. And also like James Tallarico, he,
• 53:25
  Speaker 3: I'm not saying he's a message box subscriber, but he's
• 53:28
  Speaker 3: a message box candidate. Like he is, he is on like,
• 53:31
  Speaker 3: like that is what I like advocate for and how
• 53:34
  Speaker 3: he's running his campaign. So I obviously like that a lot.
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: I also honestly have really liked Jasmine Crockett. Cause she's
• 53:40
  Speaker 3: like the other end of the message box candidate is
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: the candidate who's out there, like knows how to get
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: attention is out there doing things. Um, I really enjoyed
• 53:47
  Speaker 3: interviewing her in DC. And if the net result of
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: this is she's not in Congress, I think that's a
• 53:52
  Speaker 3: loss for the Democratic caucus because we just have so
• 53:54
  Speaker 3: few people who can communicate in a modern fashion. So
• 53:58
  Speaker 3: that's why I sort of default to the strategy question,
• 54:01
  Speaker 3: like which strategy is the one, which approach for winning
• 54:03
  Speaker 3: that I think is more likely to succeed on its face.
• 54:06
  Speaker 3: We don't know whether the candidate is the right, can
• 54:08
  Speaker 3: actually execute on that in what is a very hard
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: state to begin with. I don't know, but it's how
• 54:12
  Speaker 3: like a Tallarico strategy in terms of like voter outreach
• 54:15
  Speaker 3: is makes more sense to me as a strategy that
• 54:17
  Speaker 3: can win Texas. But I'll say I've been wrong many
• 54:20
  Speaker 3: times before, so this wouldn't be the first.
• 54:22
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I feel bad for being so positive about
• 54:25
  Speaker 2: James Tallarico because that probably means he's not going to win.
• 54:28
  Speaker 2: But I will say, like, I think it is unfortunate.
• 54:32
  Speaker 3: Maybe we should just... I'll endorse Crockett right now, so
• 54:35
  Speaker 3: at least we'll pick one. We'll get one more. Who's
• 54:37
  Speaker 3: that third candidate who also wants to get on Colbert?
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, good question. I think it is unfortunate that Maybe inevitable,
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: but unfortunate that race and identity has become such a
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: big issue, at least in the online conversation. And now
• 54:51
  Speaker 2: I guess in the campaign itself, judging by the ads
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: and the candidate statements, or at least listening to Crockett
• 54:56
  Speaker 2: right there. And one of the reasons I think it's
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: unfortunate is because when I think of what is appealing
• 55:01
  Speaker 2: to me about Tallarico's message and strategy and the way
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: he's approaching the campaign, it reminds me of Barack Obama.
• 55:09
  Speaker 2: It reminds me of AOC. It reminds me of Stacey
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: Abrams in Georgia when she came close to unseating Kemp.
• 55:15
  Speaker 2: It reminds me of Ruben Gallego in Arizona. So I
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: don't think that this is, to me at least, what
• 55:22
  Speaker 2: is appealing about Tallarico has anything to do with identity.
• 55:25
  Speaker 2: And so I just I think that to have this
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: sort of populist style where you're also trying to reach
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: out to bring in voters who haven't always been with
• 55:36
  Speaker 2: the Democratic Party is I don't think that is endemic
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: to any specific identity or area or geography. I think
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: that anyone can do it. And I think that people
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: of different races in different parts of the country have
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: done it in the past to great success.
• 55:51
  Speaker 3: I think two things about this is, one, it would
• 55:58
  Speaker 3: be great if people could lower the temperature over the
• 55:59
  Speaker 3: last two weeks. And obviously, if I looked to see
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: if I could find any reporting or comment from the
• 56:06
  Speaker 3: Talladega Super Pack about the accusation about darkening skin. Obviously,
• 56:09
  Speaker 3: if that's true, that is horrendous and that should be
• 56:11
  Speaker 3: disavowed immediately. Yeah, of course. But I think the two
• 56:16
  Speaker 3: things that would help lower the temperature would be the
• 56:22
  Speaker 3: idea that Jasmine Crockett cannot win. I think is an
• 56:25
  Speaker 3: unfair accusation. You can argue that Tallarico may be more
• 56:28
  Speaker 3: likely to win, but we all should bring a little
• 56:30
  Speaker 3: more humility.
• 56:30
  Speaker 2: To- Yeah, we shouldn't be throwing out can't wins for anyone.
• 56:33
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: So that's one. And two, and this isn't coming, I
• 56:36
  Speaker 3: haven't heard Crockett or her campaign say this, because it's
• 56:38
  Speaker 3: from a lot of online supporters, this idea that because
• 56:41
  Speaker 3: Tallarico wants to reach out to Republicans, that he is
• 56:44
  Speaker 3: some sort of Fetterman. You heard this about Plattner too,
• 56:48
  Speaker 3: that he's going to be like, Fetterman is going to
• 56:49
  Speaker 3: get to the Senate. and he's going to become a
• 56:51
  Speaker 3: Republican and a Democrat name only and side with the Republicans.
• 56:54
  Speaker 3: There is no evidence to suggest that. He has been
• 56:56
  Speaker 3: a very down the line.
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: If you don't get Republican votes, we're never winning the
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: presidency again. We're never winning the Senate again. It's just
• 57:04
  Speaker 2: fucking math, people. Come on.
• 57:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah. And so if we could just stop with those
• 57:09
  Speaker 3: two accusations and just try to have a good final
• 57:11
  Speaker 3: two weeks here, because If Tallarico wins the primary, he's
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: going to need Crockett's support to win the general. And
• 57:16
  Speaker 3: if Crockett wins the primary, she's going to need Tallarico's
• 57:19
  Speaker 3: support to win the general. And so we got to
• 57:21
  Speaker 3: run a primary where we can put this back together
• 57:23
  Speaker 3: again in two weeks.
• 57:24
  Speaker 2: Totally agree. One last thing before we go. On Tuesday,
• 57:38
  Speaker 2: it was widely reported that Tricia McLaughlin, the Department of
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: Homeland Security's top spokesperson, is leaving the Trump administration. McLaughlin
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: was one of the Trump administration's most consistent and ineffective liars,
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: which is quite a feat in that administration. Her accomplishments
• 57:51
  Speaker 2: include justifying the torture of the innocent people our government
• 57:54
  Speaker 2: sent to a torture prison in El Salvador, slandering the
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: two Americans our government killed as, quote, domestic terrorists, and
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: initially blaming an infant's parents for ICE nearly killing their
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: baby in with tear gas. This was in Chicago. Her husband,
• 58:09
  Speaker 2: a Republican strategist, was also the beneficiary of a $ 200
• 58:12
  Speaker 2: million no-bid contract from the agency she works at for
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: an anti-immigration ad campaign. Dan, is it too much to
• 58:21
  Speaker 2: hope that her potential future employers may not want to
• 58:24
  Speaker 2: hire someone who's not just a liar, but an ineffective
• 58:27
  Speaker 2: one at that? Immigration has gone from Trump's best issue
• 58:31
  Speaker 2: to now one of his worst issues. Most Americans don't
• 58:35
  Speaker 2: believe a word the Department of Homeland Security says or
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: the government. I think ICE has a 20-30% approval rating
• 58:41
  Speaker 2: at this point. Or is she going to end up
• 58:44
  Speaker 2: a Fox pundit or the next White House press secretary?
• 58:47
  Speaker 3: Well, two things. One, there's a lot of failing up
• 58:49
  Speaker 3: in Republican politics, so it's very possible she will end
• 58:52
  Speaker 3: up on Fox or what is basically big on Fox,
• 58:54
  Speaker 3: which is White House press secretary. But I kind of
• 58:56
  Speaker 3: want to clear out here because... You have been yelling about,
• 59:00
  Speaker 3: podcasting about, tweeting about Trisha McLaughlin for a year now.
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: I can't remember, were you on the plane? Was it
• 59:07
  Speaker 3: during your day off in Sydney from the beach were
• 59:09
  Speaker 3: you tweeting about this or was it on the plane?
• 59:11
  Speaker 3: I cannot remember, but I saw the news and I
• 59:13
  Speaker 3: was shocked to get like a extensive Twitter thread from
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: you celebrating her departure and documenting some of her lies
• 59:21
  Speaker 3: from Australia.
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: I have to be honest, I wasn't even celebrating. Because,
• 59:26
  Speaker 2: first of all, it's not like she got fired. She
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: may have started planning to leave in December, apparently. So
• 59:32
  Speaker 2: she's just leaving.
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: A likely story from a liar, John.
• 59:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that is true. That is true. She did tell
• 59:38
  Speaker 2: the Cincinnati Inquirer where she's from. I think she's moving
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: back to Cincinnati with her family. And she did say
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: that she can't rule out... I know.
• 59:45
  Speaker 5: I know.
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: Your wife's hometown.
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: I know.
• 59:47
  Speaker 2: And she said that she can't rule out running for
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: office in the future. Which, if you're running against her,
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: sign me up. But mostly... Mostly, it just, like, it just...
• 59:58
  Speaker 2: It got me angrier. And look, it's... It is her
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 2: because she is the face of the administration, but it's, like,
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: you know, my anger and rage towards Kristi Noem, Corey Lewandowski,
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: fucking Greg Bovino, Stephen Miller, as you know, J.D.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 7: Vance.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: J.D.
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 3: Vance.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: Obviously Trump, but, like, all of them over what they
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: have done and what they are continuing to do on
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 2: immigration is just... It is so intense. Like, did you find.
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: I.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 2: Skipped reading this for a while because I knew it
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 2: would get me both angry and sad. But did you
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 2: end up reading the ProPublica story about all the kids
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 2: in Dilley Detention Center?
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 3: I did. And I just want you to know, John,
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 3: I did not put it in.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 3: Are many group chats together for this specific purpose that
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 3: I felt like you should find it organically and I shouldn't,
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 3: whatever you were doing at the moment, I shouldn't ruin
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 3: your day with it.
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: Well, I had found it, but I was like, okay,
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 2: to what end am I going to read this and
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: just be like so angry and everyone's tweeting about it.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 2: Like I don't need to tweet about it too. There's
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: been enough tweets, but then I was, I like caught
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: it like today. Um, is it just preparing for the pod?
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: Because there was a story pulled out of it. There
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 2: was in a Miami paper about, um, this nine year
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 2: old girl, um, Maria Antonia Guerra. And so wild story, right?
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 2: She lives in Columbia with her grandmother and her mother
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: lives in New York, I believe. And her mother had
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 2: overstayed her visa, but then married a U.S. citizen and
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: is applying for a green card. So like in the
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 2: application process, everything legal. And they had met, right? The
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: daughter and the mother, um, in Florida to go to
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 2: Disney world. And so they went to Disney world once
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 2: in the summer, I think, and they had so much
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 2: fun at Disney world. They're like, let's go back in
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 2: October for Halloween and we'll meet there. And so the
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: nine-year-old flies from Columbia where she lives with the grandmother
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: to Miami to meet the mother, um, who's there with her.
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: And when she meets up with the mother, instead of
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 2: like leaving the airport and going to Disney world, going
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 2: back to Disney world, they're detained by immigration. Don't tell
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 2: them why they're detained. Don't tell them why that either
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: of them shouldn't legally be in the country. They are
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: detained in the airport for 42 hours straight, and then
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: they are sent to Dilley in Texas, where they were
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 2: held for four fucking months. This girl was like, everyone's like, oh, well,
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 2: deport her. She lives in Columbia. She is a citizen
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: of Columbia. And they still, we just held her in
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 2: jail for four months. And The reporter who wrote the
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 2: ProPublica story, which everyone should go read, she got all
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 2: these letters. She asked for letters from a lot of
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: the kids who were held in these detention centers. And
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 2: she writes of this letter. She said, in one letter,
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: decorated with small hand-drawn hearts, rainbows, and sad faces, alongside
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 2: a sketch of Maria and her mother in government-issued sweatsuits,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 2: the girl wrote that she felt like, quote, being here
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 2: was my fault. I only want it to be on
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 2: vacation like a normal family. I'm in jail and I
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 2: am sad and I fainted two times here inside. When
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 2: I arrived every night, I cried and now I don't
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 2: sleep well. I don't eat well. There's no good education
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 2: and I miss my best friend, Julieta, and my grandmother
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: and my school. I just really want my house. And
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 2: it's like, you read that and then you read the
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: statement from the Department of Homeland Security about Dilley and
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: the conditions at Dilley and it just is this fucking
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: anodyne statement that says, all detainees are being provided with
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 2: proper medical care and all are provided with three meals
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: a day, clean water, clothing, bedding, showers, soap, and toiletries,
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 2: and that they have certified dieticians evaluate the meals and
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: everything is great. So it's like, you know what? That's
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 2: your legacy, Tricia McLaughlin. Whatever other job you want, that's
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: your legacy. Christine Ohms, Stephen Millers, J.D. Vance's, all the
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 2: rest of them. They are keeping these children locked up
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 2: in a detention center in horrible conditions, who are getting
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 2: sick and who are going to have fucking trauma for
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 2: the rest of their lives for what? For absolutely fucking nothing.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 3: It just requires you to be such an empty, soulless
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 3: human to encounter a child in distress and not do
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 3: everything you possibly can to help that child be in
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 3: a better situation.
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 2: Yep.
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 3: To err on the side of detention, not on the
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 3: side of what is best for the child, whether this
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: is Liam or... from Minnesota, whether it's this girl, whether
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 3: it's all the kids in that story. It's just, like,
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: I don't even understand how, like, as a human being,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 3: you could approach this situation that way.
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: And they will say, and I know J.D. Vance said
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: this about Liam, he's like, what are we supposed to do?
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 2: So if people who are eligible for deportation have children,
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 2: are you never supposed to deport the child with the parent?
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 2: I thought we didn't want family separation. I am not saying,
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: I don't think any of us are saying that there
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 2: are not going to ever be situations where like a
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: horrible thing happens. And because a family was here illegally
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 2: and has to be deported, that the children of that
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 2: family are also have to be deported and they have
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: to spend some time. We're not saying that like, like
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 2: exceptions like that, bad things happen. And it is not
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 2: the fault of, of children, but sometimes they pay the price.
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 2: Like this, this happens in the world. We're not fucking
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 2: naive to that, but, There is a law in place, right?
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 2: Or at least the court's interpretation of the law, the
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 2: Flores Act, which says that children are not supposed to
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: spend more than 20 days in detention. The Trump administration
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: has decided that that no longer applies, that they don't
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 2: care about the fucking Flores Declaration, that they can just
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: have kids in there for months at a time under
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: these horrific conditions. So no, this is not just, oh,
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: we can't deport anyone who has children. This is like
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 2: you are locking up children and ruining the lives of
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: children for nothing because you couldn't get your fucking act
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 2: together because you wanted to perform cruelty, whatever the reason is.
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, the Liam example is a perfect one, which
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 3: is there was a different option, which was send him
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 3: home to his mother.
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 3: But they would rather keep a small child in a
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 3: de facto prison camp that admit they are wrong or
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 3: do something that suggests weakness. Is it, but it's not
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 3: like being kind to children is not weakness. That's just
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 3: being a basic fucking human.
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 2: Proven by the fact that in this case too, with Maria,
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 2: after four months, suddenly one day they opened up Dilly
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 2: and they let out 200 people, including her. Just let
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 2: her out. And like, how long are these children going
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: to be traumatized? How, like how many of them have
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 2: had to go through just fucking hell for nothing, but
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 2: it took them 200 days to hold them in a jail.
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 2: That's more than a, like almost a year of a
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: child's life in like critical developmental phases. Fuck these people, man.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: Fuck these people. Anyway, that's why I'm not- Goodbye, Trisha McLaughlin.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: Not celebrating. I want it to be a fun, lighthearted
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 2: thing when I said it, but then I read that story.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 2: I'm like, no, I'm just angry. I'm still angry.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 3: I would say in the outline, this was referred to
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 3: as dessert.
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 2: It's not, no. This is not dessert, no. Look, we
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 2: could have done RFK and- Who did he do the
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 2: exercises with? Kid Rock. Oh, Kid Rock. Yeah, we could
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: have done shirtless RFK and Kid Rock. Didn't do that.
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 3: Well, we couldn't. There are no words in it. It
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 3: doesn't work in a podcast. That was the problem. We
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 3: looked very seriously at it, but it's just music.
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: There's poop in the water in DC. That's another one,
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: but I don't know.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 3: Is poop in the water ever funny, John? No, I
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 3: don't think so. You have small children who take baths.
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 3: It's never funny.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: Oh, God. Don't jinx it. Anyway, Dan, hopefully next time
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: we meet, you and I will be Less jet lagged.
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 3: We will be together on Tuesday.
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: Oh, my God. Talk about getting... Yes. All right, everyone. Yeah,
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 2: Tuesday is going to be the State of the Union.
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: But even before that, Lovett's going to be back in
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: the feed with a new show on Sunday. Lucky him.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: And lucky you.
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 3: Lucky you.
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: Bye, everyone.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: Have a good weekend. If you want to listen to
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts,
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube,
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 2: or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review.
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: That helps boost this episode and everything we do here
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 2: at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari.
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 2: Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics.
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 2: The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 2: Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroat is our head of production.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 2: Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team,
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hefcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Pelleve,
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: David Tolles, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 2: unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.