Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Chuck’s Commentary - Could Democrats Actually Win 270+ House Seats? + The Scott Bessent Mess At The Treasury

Transcript

Chuck’s Commentary - Could Democrats Actually Win 270+ House Seats? + The Scott Bessent Mess At The Treasury · The Chuck ToddCast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: you by Chapter. Now, almost everything you hear about Medicare
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: is somebody quietly trying to steer you somewhere. And you're
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: skeptical of that, as you should be. I get it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a federal lawsuit going on right now
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: over exactly this. Companies that branded themselves as unbiased while
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: allegedly pointing people toward whatever would pay them the most
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: as some sort of broker. So if your default is
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: to distrust everyone in this space, honestly, I get it.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: I'm a bit distrustful these days myself. That's the whole
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: reason I want to tell you about Chapter. They're independent
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Medicare advisors whose entire model is that their advisors are
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: not paid to push any one plan. They're just trying
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to help. Yes, there's compensation that goes with it. but
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: it's across the board is what they're trying to do.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: At the end of the day, they're advocating for you.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: They're not the insurance companies themselves. They're an actual person
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: who actually goes through your doctors, your prescriptions, your needs,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and then compares them to every single plan available to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: find the best one that will work for you and
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: hopefully save you a couple dollars too. And here's the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: part that sets chapter apart. They don't disappear once you've
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: been in They will keep advocating for you. They're kind
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: of like almost like a concierge service. You're just there.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I need help. You're like customer service. The plan, help
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: me navigate this again. So you ever get hit with
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: a wrongful medical bill, they'll help you fight it. They
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: want to stay an advocate for you even after you've
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: done this. So look, I get it. I think there's
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: all sorts of space. You see a lot of people
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: are throwing themselves in this health care space. What I
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: like about these chapter folks, I've spent time with them.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: This is a very transparent organization. It is Medicare and
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: all of its affiliated stuff can be very confusing. The
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: whole point of this is to make this easier and
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: less confusing. OK, so look, take the skepticism you already
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: have in all of this, point it at your own
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: plan for 20 minutes. It's free. There's no pressure. And
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: then call chapter. today at 980-734-3985. Hello there, I'm Chuck Todd.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the Thursday episode of the Chuck Toddcast. I
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: got a loaded up one for you today. This is Thursday,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: which means we've got a huge weekend of college football
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: for me to preview. I want to get into that.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: I have to say, I'm almost over dosed right now
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: on both my two great passions, which is politics and sports.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: This is October is just, you know, the greatest month
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: of the year for sports, baseball playoffs, which are God,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: these five game series have just been tremendous. I love
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the five game series. I really hope baseball never gets
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: rid of it. I think the five game series is
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: just long enough. Um, to create drama and for momentum
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: to go back and forth, right? A three-game series is
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: almost too short for that. But it's short enough where
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: upsets can happen, right? It is very hard to beat
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the Dodgers in a seven game, but you might be
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: able to beat them in a five game. Probably very
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: hard to beat the Brewers in a five game. In
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: a seven game, but a little bit easier in a
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: five game. Anyway, I mean, every single one of these
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: division series have been terrific. As you know, I am
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: on the White Sox bandwagon. I got enough family ties
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: with it. And they're the ultimate underdog. You want to
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: talk about maybe the most popular international World Series matchup
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: you could have, which would be Murakami's Chicago White Sox
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: versus Otani's Los Angeles Dodgers. That would be something else.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: But White Sox-Dodgers, a rematch of the 1959 World Series.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Let's just say that would be among the outcomes that
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: would please me. But so would the Brewers making it
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: in here. I'd love to see the Brewers, frankly, if
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: we could get the Brewers in the Rays, we guarantee,
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: guarantee that we will have somebody who has never won
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: a World Series before. And it's always good to get
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: the monkey off the back of a team. But needless
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: to say, I'm ODing on sports. I'm ODing on politics.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: And I'm having, so guess what? I feel like I'm
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: a little bit behind my sports. I can tell because
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: I'm just getting killed in all my fantasy teams. I'm
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: just not as focused as I normally am because there
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: is so much incoming in the political space, so much
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: to focus on there. And I know that that's why
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: you come here. You may enjoy the football talk. You
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: may enjoy my baseball rants. But I know why you're here.
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: You're here for the politics. And I got a good
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: one for you today. So I've got a few things
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: I want to get to. before I'm going to dive
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: into the main topic I want to talk about, which
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: is something I've been wrestling with for the last few days. Frankly,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure I've come to a big time conclusion
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: just yet, but we're going to go on this journey together, right?
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: Everybody in the political handicapping business, and I include myself here,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: is getting increasingly bullish about Democratic chances of winning the
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: Senate and not just narrowly winning the Senate, but maybe
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: winning six, seven, eight seats, right? We're looking at polls
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: and Kansas and Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, even places like South
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: Carolina and Mississippi are receiving some national money. And suddenly
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: races that we wouldn't have spent much time talking about
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: a year ago are getting some serious attention. So there
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: are some good reasons for that. The political environment for
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: Republicans seems to be deteriorating by the hour. The president
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: is There's unpopular and there's really unpopular. We're getting to really,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: really unpopular points for him. Voters are clearly frustrated with
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: this economy, with the war in Iran, which is impacting
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the economy. And there are Republican candidates who are now
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: a little late in the process, if you ask me,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: but who are starting to realize that they need its
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: survival of the fittest and they may need to cut
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: their ties to Trump. But an old friend of mine
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: from my hotline days sent me an interesting exercise that
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: that has forced me to reconsider just how far this
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Democratic wave can actually reach. Because if the Senate polls
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: are right, then I think one of three things is happening.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Either we're getting a little carried away about the Senate,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: and some of these polls are giving us a misleading picture,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: or we're underestimating just how big the Democratic wave is
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: going to be in the House. That's something I'm as
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: concerned about as overestimating the Senate is underestimating the House.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: Or this is This is the possibility I find most intriguing.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Something unusual is happening in red states that isn't necessarily
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: showing up in the national numbers. And we're watching just
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: a total collapse of the Trump Republican coalition. Maybe we're
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: seeing the beginnings of a massive political realignment in the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: red states. Maybe we're seeing candidates outperform their party in
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: ways that don't fit our usual assumptions. Or maybe we're
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: just looking at an election where a lot of the
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: conventional rules are going to get tested in ways we
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: haven't seen before. So I'm going to spend some time
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: today trying to talk myself out of my own increasingly
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: bullish assessments of the Democratic Party's chances in both the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: House and the Senate. These are healthy exercises, right? You
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: want to sort of always want to check yourself. And
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: that's something I want to do. So I'm going to
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: do it by looking at some history, looking at the math.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: and at what previous wave elections actually produced. How often
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: do you get outlier results even in wave elections? Let
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: me give you a little hint here. Fewer times than
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: you think. But first, let's get through a few items
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: in the news that I want to get to and
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: give you my medium warm to hot take on that,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: because they do help explain why we're even having this
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: conversation in the first place. So I'm going to start
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: with a piece that I've been meaning to sort of
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: share with you for a few days, and that is
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: a profile of the Treasury Secretary Scott Besson in the
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal. And remember, the Wall Street Journal, this
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: is a Rupert Murdoch-owned paper. This is, you know, this
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: is not somebody that you can accuse of having a
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: liberal agenda to just go after the Trump administration. This
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: is Rupert Murdoch's paper, okay? It wasn't a very flattering
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: portrait of Besson. And it really sort of focused on
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: Besson and his management style at Treasury. And it was,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: you know, sounds like he's sounds like he's a crappy boss. OK,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: but as I was reading it, I kept thinking you
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: could have written the same version of this story about
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon. You probably could have written
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: a similar story about what's happening with Todd Blanche and
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And you certainly could write this story
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: about Bobby Kennedy Jr. and HHS. Right. These are all
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: different departments, certainly different individuals. But there is a familiar
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: pattern here. Right. And the journal describes the Treasury Department
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: was with with its extraordinary turnover. Right. Scott Besson just
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: chases people out. A secretary who has developed a reputation
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: for losing his temper at the drop of a hat.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: a growing reliance on a relatively small circle of trusted
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: advisors and some pretty significant vacancies in positions that you
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: would think are essential to running perhaps one of the
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: most important departments in all of the federal government. So
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: how significant is this turnover? Well, according to the folks
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: at the Partnership for Public Service, seven Senate-confirmed Treasury officials
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: have left by the end of August. They haven't even
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: served two years. In the previous four administrations, okay, including
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Trump's first, the comparable number was somewhere between zero and two.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: So this is an outline and it's a Besant effect.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Clearly the guy drives people away. He drives people out
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: and people feel like they want to walk away. Seven,
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: all right, versus the norm of zero to two if
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: you go back 20 years. And only one of those
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: vacancies has been filled by another Senate-confirmed official at the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: time of the journal's reporting. Treasury does not have a
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Senate-confirmed general counsel, which is probably just the way the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: Trump administration wants it. They would rather get their legal
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: advice from somebody that doesn't have to be subpoenaed by
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the House or the Senate, doesn't have a Senate-confirmed leadership
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: overseeing domestic finance or tax policy. And the IRS has
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: been cycling through acting commissioners because he manufactured a CEO
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: policy leadership structure that is designed to get around congressional oversight.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: Kind of troubling that the IRS is getting sort of
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: unilaterally taking control over. The journal has some rather colorful
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: anecdotes about Besson's management style, including an alleged confrontation with
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: one of his senior officials and another incident involving a
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: briefing binder he supposedly threw against the wall. But we've
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: heard these stories before. He's threatened to kick people's ass
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: and he's, you know, supposedly, you know, he's got this
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: A manufactured tough guy image. I mean, I have to say,
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: I just think the guy comes across like a clown.
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: I don't know him very well. I'm sorry that he
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: feels like he's got to have this weird image that
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: he's got to convey because everything, he's a pretty bright guy.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: He seems to know what he's doing. So why bother
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: with all this silly machismo garbage? Well, I think we
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: know the reason. Um, and I'm really not that look,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: is Scott Besson a pleasant boss? Hey, look, we've all
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: had asshole bosses. Um, there's probably people that have worked
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: for me who thought I was an a-hole boss at
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: times or two when I was younger. Um, yeah, I
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: probably did have, uh, uh, you know, might be quicker
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: with a temper here or there and you're quicker to
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: lose things and you feel the pressure over time. You mature.
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: Apparently Scott Besson, who's I think older than I am
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: has yet to mature, but that's on him. But forget that.
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: Fact is, that's not unique that he has a temper.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: Washington has had plenty of demanding cabinet secretaries. Bill Clinton
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: had a temper. Plenty of people, left and right, have
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: had tempers. Some of them are effective, some aren't, whatever.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: But of course, there's a difference between being demanding and
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: creating an environment where people with institutional knowledge just simply
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: don't want to work there. And that's what's troubling here,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: is that when you lose a bunch of senior officers,
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: when you're unable to fill important positions, And when the
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: decision-making gets concentrated among a relatively small group of people
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: whose personal relationships may matter more than what they care,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: than their devotion to the taxpayer, eventually you are going
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: to have to wonder whether you're making the institution stronger
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: or simply making it more dependent on the people currently
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: running it. And of course, the economic results make this
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: even more interesting. Besson has talked about his 3-3-3 plan
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: that he got Trump to buy into. 3% economic growth,
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: a budget deficit down to 3% of GDP, and 3
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: million additional barrels of oil production a day. Well, according
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: to the Journal, growth has been closer to 2%. The
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: deficit remains above 6% of GDP, and oil production hasn't
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: come close to the promised increase. So Besson's economic goals
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: have not been met at all. Meanwhile, the national debt
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: has crossed $ 40 trillion. Borrowing costs have become an enormous problem,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: and Americans are still struggling with affordability. And what has
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Trump done? He's given Besant more responsibility. He's now deeply
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: involved in trying to use economic sanctions to end the
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: Iran war. He's involved in China policy, artificial intelligence policy,
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: and he's been advising the president on how to interact
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: with the Federal Reserve. And it's sort of a strange
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: decision by Trump, right? Apparently, when you're struggling to achieve
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: your original goals, the answer is to give you several
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: more enormous problems to solve, even though you haven't fulfilled
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: the part of the job you promised to do. Now,
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: Besson's defenders will argue he's demanding, he's results-oriented, and that
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: he's helped stabilize some difficult situations. Perhaps that's true, right?
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: Navigating Trump's Washington and the international order that Trump has
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: created is not easy. That's an argument worth hearing. But
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: this is what interests me. This is supposed to be
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: a government of institutions, right? The Treasury Department is not
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: Scott Besson's hedge fund, but he's treating it that way.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: The Pentagon is not Pete Hegs' personal Christian nationalist organization
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: that he wants to play with. The Justice Department is
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: not supposed to be the president's private law firm. And
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: public health is not supposed to be decided on the
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: whims of a guy who has told us he's not
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: He's a bit unstable, right? If you claim to have
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: a worm eating your brain, you're not a stable individual.
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: But you look at all this. This is not these
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: individual guys. This is Trump's presidency, right? Trump has done
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: these things. So really, this is monkey see, monkey do.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: How Trump has organized the presidency, how Trump has tried
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: to essentially get rid of congressional oversight. doesn't care whether
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: people are Senate confirmed, would prefer to have, remember he
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: talks about, I love the actings, right? So is it
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: a shock that every cabinet secretary is essentially copying the
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: leadership style of their leader? It's not saying these are
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: good things to do. And I think in all of
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: these cases, they've done serious damage, right? There's real credibility
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: issues at Treasury with the bond market and with the IRS.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: There's real credibility with the rule of law at the
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Justice Department. Can't really trust what comes out of the FBI. Pentagon.
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: We have no idea. Do we even have enough munitions?
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: Nothing is clear. And of course, public health is a
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: complete and utter disaster as we have one of the
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: worst measles outbreaks we've had. And again, causation or correlation,
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: thank you, Bobby Kennedy Jr. But it is just another
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: reminder of the totality of the damage being done to
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: these institutions by this administration. And it is Trump's leadership.
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: We can sit here and say, Oh, Scott Besson. So
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: they wouldn't be there and they wouldn't be doing what
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: they're doing if this isn't the way Trump wanted things
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: to be done. And I think that as much as,
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: you know, the journalist trying to expose Scott Besson a
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: little bit, maybe it helps curtail him a little bit.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: But what's interesting is that many of these cabinet secretaries
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: have basically just emulated Trump and they become little mini Trumps. Right.
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: And they have their own little mini minions and they
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: try to operate in the same way. But what's the lesson, right?
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: There's only one Trump. And I think we're pretty exhausted
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: from dealing with the one Trump. Copycats. Nobody likes a copycat.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: And the copycats, you know, don't get, you know, Trump
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: is getting respect because at least he gets voters to
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: vote him into office. The copycat cabinet secretaries are just
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: coming across as buffoons whose reputations are going to be
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: in tatters when they leave. Yes, that includes you, Mr.
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: Scott Bessett. I think you kind of know it, which
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: probably is why you keep losing your temper. Hey, this
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to you
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: by Ethos. Look, let me tell you about life insurance.
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: As you know, Ethos is an incredible portal for helping
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: you find the right life insurance policy. I'm a huge
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: believer in life insurance. I wouldn't have gotten to college
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: in Washington, D.C. without life insurance. My father had a
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: policy buried somewhere that we discovered and it wasn't a
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: lot of money, but it was an important bucket of
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: money at a time that my mother, newly widowed, single mom, me,
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: I'm 16. It was of enormous, enormous help at that time.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: And this is why I believe in life insurance. You
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: don't know what could happen to you on any given day.
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: This is literally an insurance policy for that. So let
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: me tell you a little bit about ethos. Ethos makes
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy. It's 100% online. You
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: get a quote in seconds, you apply in minutes, and
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: you can get coverage the same day you begin this process.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: health questions. You can get up to $ 3 million in coverage.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: Some policies are as low as $ 30 a month, and
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: Ethos has gotten 4.9 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: with over 5,500 reviews. So Take 10 minutes to get
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: covered today. Life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: at ethos.com slash Chuck. That is E-T-H-O-S dot com slash Chuck.
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: Application times may vary. The rates may vary. That Trustpilot
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: rating was as of August of 2026. Let's go to Texas.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: Because I don't know who recorded Ken Paxton at his
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: DC fundraiser, but whoever it is apparently has decided to...
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: do a little drip, drip, drip, death by a thousand cuts,
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: and is just wanting to, frankly, just knife Paxton's candidacy.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, we've now had multiple leaked recordings of this
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: one Senate candidate, this one fundraiser, and it's been selectively
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: released at a variety of different news organizations. And every
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: time another one drops, we learn a little bit more
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: about what Republicans are saying, or at least about what
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Ken Paxton is saying about what they think, you know,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: when they think Donald Trump isn't listening. Right. So in
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: this latest recording, it has Paxton complaining about the Iran war,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: gas prices and affordability. Look, I've said this before. Donald
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: Trump is an absolute anchor on every Republican in the country,
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: Ken Paxton included. But Ken Paxton is vulnerable because of
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: Ken Paxton. And you want to talk about a dude
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: living in denial, blaming Donald Trump for Ken Paxton's problems
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: is a dude living in denial. Still, to hear him
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: complain about things is a recitation of all the damage
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: that Trump's policies have done politically to his party. Right.
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: Paxton's talking about diesel costing more than six dollars a gallon,
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: food prices, everything else. And he's essentially acknowledging that these
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: are the biggest problems facing his campaign, not his personal
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: ethics issues. OK, still. There's no doubt he might be
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: able to overcome the ethics issue if people felt better
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: about the economy. It's pretty clear the guy's gotten elected
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: before by Republicans. He probably didn't like him. He's always
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: he's kind of underperformed the ticket the last couple of times.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: I mean, I George P. Bush challenged him in a
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: primary as mainstream Republicans were looking for different ways to
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: get rid of him. He's been impeached, right? The Texas
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: Republican Party knows he's a problem and they've been trying
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: to get rid of him in a variety of ways
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: and have failed. And instead, Donald Trump elevated him. And
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: now Ken Paxton may take down the entire Texas Republican Party.
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: Although I think that it's more than just Ken Paxton,
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: but in some ways, Paxton is the straw. right? This
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: nomination is the straw that may break the Texas Republican back.
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: I mean, the anecdotes coming out of state Senate races
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: in Texas, yes, the knives are out for Paxton, but
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: I think it, look, I put on my tinfoil hat
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: the other day. If I were trying to create the
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: predicate of pulling out of the Texas Senate race and
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: moving all that money, if I were running a Republican
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: super PAC, and I was looking to create the conditions
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: to walk away without feeling guilty about it or getting
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: pressure from some Republicans that I was walking away, I
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: might drip, drip, drip these recordings and say, see, this
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: guy is unsalvageable. He's ungrateful. Let's walk away and go
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: save the Kansas Senate seat, go save Nebraska, go save Iowa.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: It certainly looks to me that it's that way. And
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: I have to tell you, just on another quick aside, the,
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: And I'm going to get to something bigger here in
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: a minute that focuses a little bit more on Kansas
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: and a little less on Texas. But Texas, something's happening here.
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: I think it's clear Texas is on its way to
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: becoming a purple state this cycle and that this isn't
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: going to be a one off. Right. You know, Paxton
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: losing is a one off. Paxton and Abbott losing probably
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: means a lot more Republican statewide candidates are going to
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: lose than we think in Texas. What we're seeing in
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: Texas is sort of emblematic. There's this great quote that
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: attributed to the journalist Eric Hoffer. And the quote is this.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business,
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: and eventually degenerates into a racket. And the Texas Republican
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: Party in particular, right, the Ken Paxton's, the Dan Patrick's,
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: and a lot of the donors and consultants in and
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: around Greg Abbott and perhaps Abbott himself They kind of
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: feel like they've turned into an aging political machine that
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: has forgotten why they got power in the first place.
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: You know, it was a movement. They were able to
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: overtake the establishment Bush wing of the Republican Party. They thought,
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: you know, and they enacted some of their goals like
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: vouchers and a few other things. But now it's just
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: been a get-rich-quick scheme for all these guys. whether you're
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: Dan Patrick, whether you're Ken Paxton, whether you're Greg Abbott,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: whether you're the consultants in and around that, and you
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: kind of can feel the rot, right, inside that party.
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: And I think that's what we're seeing. I think that's
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: what we're seeing there. What is interesting is I think
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: Republicans are ready to walk, right? One Republican involved in
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: the effort to save Paxton told Politico that Paxton was
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: welcome to raise his own money and say whatever he
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: wanted and suggested if Paxton actually did those things, Republicans
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: wouldn't have to spend so much money trying to help him.
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: You know, because Paxton's complaining about Washington and complaining about this.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: And there's only one reason all these people are trying
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: to rescue his campaign is because he's a terrible candidate
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: and he's a lazy candidate and he's an unpopular candidate.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: Other than that, he's doing terrific. So I think it
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: tells you just how frustrated Republicans have become with this candidacy.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: And look, like I said, these leaked recordings has the
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: whiff of of a disgruntled Republican who's just trying to
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: like just pull the plug on this guy. It's not
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: worth having the Senate majority of Ken Paxton's in the Senate.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: And I bet you if you did a secret ballot
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: of Republican senators, probably 80 to 90 percent would agree
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: with that statement. So we'll see. Meanwhile, Trump's coming to
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: Texas to campaign for him because Trump, I think, realizes that, A,
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: Paxton has been loyal to him. And I think Trump
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: knows that if Paxton loses, it's a stain on Trump
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: and that it could become a permission slip for a
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: lot of Republicans to say, you know what, Trump has
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: screwed up the party and that Paxton will become the
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: symbol of that. It may explain why Trump is showing
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: up there now. He'll keep showing up there. But what's
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: interesting is. Nobody in Texas wants Trump to come, right?
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: Paxton's kind of made it clear. Greg Abbott already said
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: he wasn't going to attend Trump's most recent rally. And
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: what's interesting is Abbott is no longer the only Republican, right,
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: who seems to have discovered that he has something else
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: to do when President Trump comes to town. We're seeing
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: an increase in Republicans starting to do that. I wrote
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: my column about how I still think it's strange how
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: few Republicans have publicly broken with Trump. I'm surprised more haven't.
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: But look, Abbott's in a real race. And speaking of that,
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: his opponent finally got some outside national help to chip in.
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: But it's right now only pennies on the dollar because
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: we're talking Texas. If you recall, a couple of weeks ago,
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: I talked about how it was surprising to me that
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: Andy Beshear's Democratic Governors Association, Andy Beshear's the chair of
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: the DGA this year. He wants to run for president.
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: His premise is, hey, there's a you know, there's a,
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: you can, a Democrat can win in a red state. Well,
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: here's a Democrat trying to win in a red state.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: And Bashir had been, um, hadn't yet come in with
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: extra money for Gina, you know, so no matter how
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: many polls showed her either even narrowly behind, or even
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: now more polls show her narrowly ahead. Well, a lot
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: of Latino groups have been putting pressure on Bashir, reminding
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: him that it would be remembered during the presidential primary season. And, uh,
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: The DGA finally kicked in. Now, it's a million bucks,
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: not a ton. And it came on the same day
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: that another governor who wants to run for president, J.B. Pritzker,
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: wrote his own million dollar check to Hinojosa. So Andy
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: Beshear's DGA gave a million. J.B. Pritzker on his own
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: gave a million. I can't help but wonder, did the
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: DGA cough up a million after they found out Pritzker
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: was writing his own check? Is that what happened here?
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: And it was like, oh, no, we got to do this.
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: And why just a million? If Pritzker himself was willing
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: to write a million, how are you not kicking in, say,
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: a 5X match there, Mr. Beshear? So the point is,
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: is that I do think the political message has been
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: received that Latino voters are going to remember who helped
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: Hinojosa and who didn't. But this money right now is
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: not enough to truly help. Doesn't hurt. It's more than
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: chump change. But this is Texas and a million dollars,
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: you know, that's a day or two worth of of
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: paid advertising. Let me emphasize, a day or two. So
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: I'm not sure Bashir's going to get the credit that
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: he could have gotten as DGA chair if he had
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: sort of been early with a little bit of money
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: for her. But hey, there's still time. And maybe he's
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: going to shake the money tree and find more of
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: his donors who are willing to put their money where
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: their mouth is to help out. But I think it's
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: a hugely missed opportunity if he doesn't. And Pritzker, I
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: tell you, I think he's an underrated presidential candidate. If
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: AOC doesn't run, he could very well be the progressive
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: alternative and he could lead that progressive wing. He seems
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: to be tipping in that direction. So interesting ally that Mr.
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: Pritzker could be. could be building there. So score one
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: for him, for those of you keeping track of 2028. Now,
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: another Republican candidate who is discovering the political consequences of
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: the president's policies is Mike Rogers in Michigan. Rogers here
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: debuted a new ad on Wednesday in which he breaks
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: with Trump over trade with Canada. He's holding a Labatt beer,
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: Canadian beer, and making the point that Canada isn't Michigan's enemy,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: that Michigan's economy depends on that trade relationship and that
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: the tariff war needs to end. I have to admit,
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: my first reaction is, what took you so long? Shouldn't
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: you have done this instead of going to Trump's midterm
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: convention in Dallas, Mr. Rogers? Look, I'm shocked that this
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: didn't happen sooner. And it might be too little too late.
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: But if you're asking me, what's the path for Rogers
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: to win this Senate race? It was breaking with Trump
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: and figuring out a way to appeal to Democrats who
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: were a little nervous about Abdul El-Sayed. For whatever reason,
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: this Rogers campaign has not been nimble. They've been very slow.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: I think they this is, you know, they're they're where
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: they should be if you're trying to do this. But
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: I think this is a little late and it may
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: come across as desperate when it comes comes as, oh,
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: now you're now you're opposing Trump when everybody else is
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: already opposing Trump. Right. If he was running, the whole
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: idea of him is that he was going to be
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: more like a Susan Collins, like Republican, somebody that was
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: supposedly going to be a different type of Republican, not
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: a Trump Republican. but Rogers waited a very long time
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: before he ever broke. And I don't know if it's
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: going to have the impact he hopes it has, but
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: it's just another reminder. Trump's toxic. Wherever you go, this
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: trade war, I mean, he has on his own made
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: his party's candidates more vulnerable than they need to be.
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: And this trade war with Canada and what he's done
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: to both Susan Collins and Mike Rogers, frankly, any Republican
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: running in a state that has important trade relationships with Canada,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: Trump's put them put them in a tough spot. So
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: I maybe the ad works. Maybe voters appreciate hearing a
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: Republican willing to say publicly that Trump's gotten something wrong.
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: But I keep coming back to I think he waited
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: too long. Right. If you're a voter who's been frustrated
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: with the trade war for months and you've been waiting
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: from somebody in your own party to acknowledge this happening
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: and you literally wait till October to say so. Where
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: were you when this all started? Right. So now this
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: is the second. It is interesting. He broke with Trump
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: on the war a few weeks ago, but that's another one.
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: He seemed to wait until Chuck Grassley and Ashley Hinson
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: complained about diesel fuels, and then he jumped on that bag.
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: I mean, he has just never looked like a leader
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: on this issue. So clearly there's a political calculation here.
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: And that's the question I have. Are voters going to
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: see this as a genuine move or simply a candidate
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: trying to find some daylight from an unpopular president at
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: the last possible moment? That brings me to some interesting
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: polling from Politico. Among Democratic midterm voters, 46 percent say
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: they're voting primarily to oppose Trump, compared with 37 percent
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: who say they're voting primarily to support the candidate in
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: their own region. Half of Democratic midterm voters believe that
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: if Democrats win Congress, Trump's actions will be the principal reason, right?
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: Once again, red undertow, not blue wave. But what I
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: found more interesting was the divide among Republican voters. Among
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: Trump voters who do not identify with MAGA, there's a
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: greater willingness to blame Trump himself if Republicans lose Congress.
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: Among MAGA voters, the Trump base is The instinct is
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: much more to blame the Republican candidates and their campaigns.
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: They weren't Trumpy enough, right? They didn't embrace the president enough.
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: They didn't pass the SAVE Act, right? You can picture
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: the MAGA rationalizations coming if things go as bad as
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: the polls indicate that they're going. So I think we
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: are getting a preview of the argument Republicans are going
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: to have after this election if things go as badly
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: as the polls indicate. MAGA win will say that candidates
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: weren't loyal enough, the whole SAVE Act business, right? Other
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: Republicans are going to look at the Iran war, the tariffs,
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: cost of living, and ask how they were supposed to
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: win in an environment like that, right? And of course,
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: the Paxton recordings and the Rogers ad are all interesting
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: because there are two different versions of the same political reality.
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: Paxton is saying it privately, or at least he thought
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: he was saying it privately. Rogers is now saying it publicly,
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: and Trump is still insisting that the solution is more Trump, right?
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: More rallies, more appearances, more reminders to voters to the president.
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: Here's the thing. It's driving Trump crazy that people like
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: me and others are saying he's the problem. These rallies
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: aren't working. Nobody wants to hear the greatest hits anymore.
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: He's less relevant. Now, he might be more relevant to
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: people that don't like him, but he's becoming less relevant
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: to the people that used to like him. And we
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: know that bothers him. We know he can't handle this.
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: They don't. What is it? What is the great? What's
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: the Sally Field line from the movies? They like me.
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: They really, really like me. They don't like you. They really,
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: really don't like you, Mr. President. I don't know why
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: you don't fully appreciate this, but this is who you are.
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: And if you weren't this person, maybe you never would
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: have gotten there twice to begin with. But the only
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: person that wants to see more Trump cowbell is Trump.
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: There aren't many Republicans who want to see that. Hey,
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: this episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: you by Kalshi. It's an exchange where you can trade
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: on what you actually think is going to happen. Sports, politics, culture,
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: whatever's on your mind, whatever you believe you're an expert at.
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: So I'm taking a look at the Democratic presidential nominee
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: for 2028, where we have John Ossoff as the favorite
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: at 17. It's basically 17 cents on the dollar. Gavin
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: Newsom sits at 14, AOC at 13. It's actually been
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: a remarkable run for Asaf as he wasn't even on
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: the board in April and was only at 1% at
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: the end of May. Others on the board include Kamala
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: Harris at about $ 0. 08 a share, Andy Beshear at about
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: a nickel, Pete Buttigieg at a nickel. I'll just tell
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: you right off the bat, I think that folks are
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: way over their skis on Asaf and Gavin. I do.
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: I've said it before. Look, if you believe they're going
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: to be the nominees, then go ahead and get in.
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: But I actually think you can wait to get into
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: those markets, right? I think Asaf, after he wins re-election,
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: when others start to jump in, you'll see that number
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: go down. So if you're interested in Asaf or you're
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: interested in Gavin, I think both are likely to go
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: down before they go up again. Of everybody on this
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: board right now, I think it's Buttigieg who's the underpriced
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: and might be the current bargain on the board. All right,
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: here's what you need to know about CalSheet. You're going
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: up against other traders directly. There's no house that sets
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: the odds here. It's just people putting their own opinions
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: on the line. Trade $ 25 with the code ChuckTodd, and
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: they'll throw in another $ 25 instantly. Now, please, trade responsibly.
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: All right, now I want to get to my big sentence.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: exploration here. Because everything we've just been talking about helps
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: explain why Republicans are in deep trouble. The Paxton recordings,
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: we now see Rogers trying to break with Trump, the polling,
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: President's apparent frustration that Republican candidates don't want to be
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: campaigning with him. All of these are signs of a
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: party struggling with the political consequences of this administration. But
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: there's a difference between Republicans having a bad election night
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: and Democrats winning Senate seats in states that Trump carried
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: by double digits. And that's what I want to spend
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: a few minutes exploring here. So I'm going to start
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: with a confession. I've been getting increasingly bullish about Democratic
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: chances of winning the Senate. Right. I think arguably, you know,
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: I was among the first people who said, you know what,
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: I think Kansas is going to end up becoming a
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: better option for Democrats than even I. But I'm hardly
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: alone now. You talk to people in the handicap elections
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: for a living and people who follow the polling, people
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: who talk to campaigns. And there's a growing sense left
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: and right that Democrats have a real opportunity to to
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: do something that would have seemed almost impossible a year ago.
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: Look at this map. Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska. We're even
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: now talking about South Carolina and Mississippi, right? We thought
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: that this was going to be a battleground to see,
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: can Ohio get competitive again? Is this going to be
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: about Ohio, Michigan, Maine, North Carolina, Georgia? We're not talking
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: about those states anymore, right? We're talking about Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska,
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: and South Carolina, Mississippi. This is like the battleground because
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: it's almost like everything else is settled. It's not. Sherrod Browns,
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: not a done deal. Susan Collins and Troy Jackson. I
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: think both candidates ought to be happy. I know the
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: Jackson people think that they owned Collins with the road
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: salt comment. I think the Collins people think that Jackson
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: came across a little out of his league, if you will,
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: a little bit. I think both things can be true.
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: And I don't know if three more debates are going
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: to help either one of these campaigns, but either way. Still,
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: let's talk about these six very red states. These are
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: states Donald Trump carried comfortably in 2024, in most cases
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: by double digits. And yet we've got polling suggesting that Democrats,
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: or in Nebraska's case, an independent, are competitive in places
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: where Republicans normally don't have to spend time worrying about
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: Senate elections. Now, do I believe these polls are wrong?
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: Not at all. I think the political environment's lousy for Republicans.
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: And I've been arguing for months that we may be
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: underestimating just how frustrated voters are with Trump. I think
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: it's just as possible we are underestimating the size of
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: this wave as we are overestimating it. But there's something
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: about the Senate map that doesn't quite fit the larger math,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: if you will. An old friend of mine from my
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: hotline days sent me an interesting exercise that he did
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: that I wanted to share with you. He doesn't want
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: his name used. He's doing other work, and I want
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: to protect him there. But his math is worth examining
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: because it forces us to all ask a question that
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: I don't think enough of us are asking. If Democrats
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: really are competitive in Kansas, Iowa, and Texas, well, what
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: does that tell us about the rest of the country?
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: So here's what my old friend did. He took all
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: 435 congressional districts, and he lined them up based on
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: their presidential vote in 2024. from the most Democratic to
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: the most Republican. Then he looked for the congressional district
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: whose presidential vote most closely matched the state of Kansas.
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: Kansas voted for Trump by about 16 points. And the
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: congressional district that most closely matches Kansas is actually a
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: district represented by Republican Beth Van Dyne outside of Dallas,
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: a Texas Republican, right? So here's where this exercise gets interesting.
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: If Democrats were to win every House district that voted
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: as Democratic as Kansas, right, if you assume they win
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: the D plus 16 and they win the Kansas Senate race,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: and they win every House seat that is D plus
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: 16 or less, then the math would say the Democrats
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: would end up with 276 House seats. Let me repeat. 276.
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: That would be an enormous majority. Now, nobody in this
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: business right now is forecasting that kind of House election.
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: Even some of the most optimistic Democratic scenarios have generally
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: been in the 240s. Okay, right? 218 is your majority.
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: We've all been looking at somewhere like 230 to 235
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: is the sort of really good night, even wavish. 240
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: is a really good night with these maps. But if
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: it's D plus 16, that'd be 276. So we'll see. Now,
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: before everybody starts the amendment, yes, I know. A Senate
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: race is not a House race. I know candidates matter.
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: Scandals can matter. Voters don't necessarily vote the same way
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: for Senator as they may do for their member of
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: Congress in their district. But that's not the point. The
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: point is to just Look at the history here a minute.
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: And I'm not predicting that if a Democrat wins Kansas,
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: it means we've underestimated the House by some 40 pickups, okay?
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: But it is a way of measuring just how far
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: outside the normal national political environment a Democratic victory in
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: Kansas would be. And that number is pretty striking. Now
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: let's do the same exercise for the state of Texas.
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: Trump carried Texas by about 14 points in 2024. The
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: congressional district that most closely resembles Texas is represented By
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: Vern Buchanan in Florida. Now Buchanan's retiring. He's down there
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: in Southwest Florida. So if Democrats won every district that
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: was as least as Democratic as a victory in Texas
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: would be for them, D plus 14, they'd end up
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: with roughly 257 House seats. Still a pretty big Democratic election.
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: Not quite as unimaginable as 276. And you could argue
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: 257 is in the outer edges of the range that
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: the most bullish forecasters are saying. So that's a pretty
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: big number. Now, we're looking at Senate polls in these
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: states and treating them as though they're just another sign
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: of a Democratic wave. But if the national political environment
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: is strong enough to make Kansas a Democratic state for
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: at least one election, shouldn't we be seeing evidence of
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: that in a whole lot of other places? And are we? Well,
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: that's the question. Here's another way to think about it.
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: Let's say Democrats have a seven-point advantage in the generic
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: congressional ballot. It's about where we're sitting at right now.
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: Maybe it's eight, maybe it's not. It's a big advantage.
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: It's the kind of national environment that ordinarily produces significant
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: Democratic gains in the House and probably brings North Carolina, Ohio,
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: certainly Georgia, Michigan, Maine. You know, Alaska is kind of weird.
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: We'll get to that. But, you know, D plus seven,
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: eight or nine probably gets the Democrats the Senate, definitely
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: gets them the House. But it's a close call in
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: the Senate. Kansas voted for Trump by 16 points. So
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: even if you assume a uniform seven-point movement towards Democrats
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: in all 50 states, Kansas Democrats would still come up
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: short in Kansas by about roughly nine points, say like
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: a 54.5 to a 45.5. Now that's before we get
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: into the difference between the national popular vote, the generic
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: congressional ballot. None of that is precisely the same thing.
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: There's a third party candidate on the ballot. Right. We
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: know there's there's a lot of variables here that could
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: take a D plus nine environment and translate it into
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: a victory in one state. OK. So but it does
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: tell us that for a Democrat to win in Kansas,
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: something else has to be happening. And there's a few
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: different things that could be happening. And maybe some of
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: these things are happening all at once. Right. Either the
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: national environment is considerably more democratic than we think. Or
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: the Democratic Senate candidate is dramatically overperforming the national party.
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: Or maybe the political assumptions we're making about Kansas are
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: simply outdated. And that's all of the different possibilities I'd
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: like to explore here, because I have multiple explanations for
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: what we're seeing here. The first is that it's possible
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: we're overestimating Democratic chances in the Senate. Some of these
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: polls are simply too optimistic and the election eventually settles
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: into a more familiar pattern. Maybe a whole bunch of
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: Republicans just aren't responding to pollsters and they'll show up
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: at the end. And all of these and sort of
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: everything will revert to a norm, you know, with an
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: enthusiastic Democratic turnout, less enthusiastic Republican turnout, and we'll be
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: in this D plus A environment. And Democrats come up
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: short in Kansas, in Texas, in Iowa. But maybe they
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: win Texas because of the scandal penalty I've told you
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: about before. There's a second scenario we may be And
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: that is we're underestimating the size of the House Democratic wave.
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: Maybe the national environment isn't seven points Democratic. Maybe it
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: is closer to 10, 12 or even more. Well, if
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: that's true, the House results are going to be considerably
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: bigger than most people are expecting. And it's possible that
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: the House guys, because of the limited resources, the aggressive
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: redistricting that happened, there's like a failure of imagination here,
• 46:32
  Speaker 1: both in the defensive side for Republicans and the offensive
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: side for Democrats. It's possible. And I think it's equally possible.
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: That's my point here. I do wonder if we're underestimating
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: the House number here, because we sit there and like,
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: there's no way it can get to the 40s. No way?
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: There's a third explanation. And it's something unusual is happening
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: specifically in these red states. I think this is also
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: very plausible. Something that's allowing Democratic Senate candidates to overperform
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: the National Democratic Party by extraordinary margins. That third possibility
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: is the one that could have the most interesting implications
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: for the future. Before we get there, let me walk
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: you through a little bit of history. Because one of
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: the things I've learned covering elections for more than three
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: decades is that whenever everybody starts convincing themselves that something
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: extraordinary is about to happen, It's often worth asking how
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: often that extraordinary thing has actually happened before. So I
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: want to start with Senate outliers. I went back and
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: looked at the big Senate wave elections of the modern era. Okay. Um,
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: basically you can go, Oh, 2006, 2014, uh, are pretty
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: good ones, but even, even arguably, um, Some of the
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: early ones of 2008 was its own version of a
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: wave year, right? So I went back and looked at
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: the big Senate wave elections. You had 06, you had 8,
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: you had 10, and you had 14. Some of them
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: actually flipped the Senate. 06 and 14 did. 08 and
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: 10 had a lot of movements, and they matter here
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: and there. Those are four elections in which one party
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: gained at least six Senate seats. So I wanted to
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: know how often a party managed to win a Senate
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: race in a state that was substantially more favorable to
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: the other party than the actual national political environment for
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: that election would suggest. In other words, how often did
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: somebody win a race that the wave itself shouldn't have
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: been able to reach? But here's what struck me when
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: I went back and looked at those four wave years.
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: There weren't very many. Now, it depends on how often
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: and how you want to define outlier, right? There isn't
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: an official political science definition that gives you a universally
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: accepted definition of this, right? But when you look at
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: the clearest examples of candidates winning well beyond the normal
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: reach of the national environment, there's a pattern here. And
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: it's a pretty interesting one, right? No six. Democrats had
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: a very good year. They took control of both the
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: House and the Senate. Bush was deeply unpopular. Iraq war
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: was going badly. Republicans also had a series of scandals.
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: There was the Page scandal, for instance. And Democrats won
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: a Senate race in Montana. That was the biggest outlier one.
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: Tester defeated Republican Conrad Burns. Now, Montana had voted for
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: Bush in 2004 by 20 points. So it was not
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: a state you would ordinarily expect Democrats to win in
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: a federal election. But Burns was caught up in the
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. He had become a damaged incumbent.
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: Tester was a candidate who just fit Montana considerably better
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: than the national brand. Adam Hamilton, Kansas, see where I'm
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: going here, Roger Marshall, right? Tester won, but he barely
• 49:47
  Speaker 1: won by about a point. 2008, after an enormous Democratic year,
• 49:52
  Speaker 1: Barack Obama wins the presidency, Democrats expand the House majority,
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: and they made some major gains in the Senate. In Alaska,
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: Democrat Mark Begich defeated a Republican incumbent, Ted Stevens. Now
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: at the time, There was something rather unusual happening in
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: that race. Stevens had been convicted on federal corruption charges
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: just eight days before the election. Okay. And even with
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: that extraordinary development, baggage won by less than two points. Now,
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: those convictions were subsequently set aside because of prosecutorial misconduct.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: That's an important part of the historical record, by the way.
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: But politically, the damage had already been done by election day.
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: Then there's 2010. Huge Republican wave. Tea Party election. Republicans
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: win 63 House seats, take control of the House, make
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: significant gains in the Senate. And in Illinois, Barack Obama's
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: home state, a Republican, Mark Kirk, wins Obama's old Senate seat. Illinois,
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: heavily Democratic. But the seat had become entangled in the
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: Rob Blagojevich scandal. The Democratic nominee, Alexei Janoulias, had his
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: own political vulnerabilities. So Kirk won very narrowly. Now, Illinois
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: in 2010, isn't quite the same kind of outlier as
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: Montana in 2006 or Alaska in 2008 because Republicans were
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: having an extraordinarily strong national election. But it's a useful
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: example of a candidate winning in a state that ordinarily
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: leaned strongly toward the other party. And what connects these races?
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: Candidate-specific problems on the other side. Scandal, controversy, damaged opponent.
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: The national wave created the opportunity, but something different particular
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: to the race, helped push the candidate over the finish line.
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: And even then, they were really close elections. Because sometimes
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: when we talk about a wave, we imagine this enormous
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: force sweeping across the country, carrying candidates to victory in
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: places where their party normally has no business winning. But
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: that's not how usually it works. Waves have limits. And
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: the further you get from the national political center of
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: the wave, the eye of the storm, the more a
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: candidate needs something beyond the wave itself. And I think
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: races that didn't work out are just as instructive. So
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: take 2006. There was a few races Democrats came up short.
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: Harold Ford Jr. ran a very competitive Senate race against
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: Tennessee Republican Bob Corker. There was a period in October
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: when people genuinely thought Ford could win. Tennessee was still
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: a state where Democrats had some residual strength from the
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: Al Gore days. Ford was a pretty strong candidate. National
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: environment was very favorable to Democrats, but he still lost.
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: Arizona that same year. A Democrat named Jim Peterson ran
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: a very competitive race against the recently deceased Republican Senator
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: John Kyle. Again, strong Democratic year, well-funded candidate, a race
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: that got attention, but Kyle hung on. 2008. Jim Martin
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: in Georgia is running against Saxby Chambliss. Bruce Lunsford in
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: Kentucky is running against Mitch McConnell. Both races became pretty
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: interesting in a year where Democrats were winning almost everywhere
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: they needed to win. but they came up short in
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: those two races. In 2010, Dino Rossi challenged Patty Murray
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: in Washington Senate. It was a very competitive race. Republicans
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: had enormous advantages nationally that year. Murray was running in
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: a state that was more democratic than the country as
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: a whole, but Rossi had come very close to winning
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: a governor's race a few cycles earlier. He was a
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: very credible Republican candidate, but Murray survived. Now, I don't
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: want to suggest that these five races constitute some comprehensive
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: statistical study, okay? I know that. but they're reminders of
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: something that tends to get lost when we start talking
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: about waves. A favorable national environment can make a race
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: competitive without necessarily making it winnable. And there's a big difference.
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: And that's a distinction we need to keep in mind
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: when we look at Kansas and Iowa in particular, because
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: it's one thing to see a poll showing a Democrat
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: tied in a state that Trump won by double digits.
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: It's another thing to actually win that state. And as
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: we know, history suggests that last step is awfully difficult. Now,
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: There's one more historical pattern that I think is even
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: more relevant to this year's Senate map. And it has
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: to do with something that makes Senate elections different from
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: House elections, right? The six-year terms, which means that every
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: Senate election is in some ways a referendum on the
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: political environment that existed six years earlier. Let me walk
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: you through it. If one party had an enormous election
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: and wins a bunch of Senate seats, It wouldn't normally win.
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: Six years later, those senators have to defend those seats.
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: And the political environment is usually very different. And you
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: end up with sort of target races that I will
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: classify as low-hanging fruit. Senators who are elected in a
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: favorable environment for their party and then have to face
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: voters in a much less favorable one. 1986 is a
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: great example. Reagan won an enormous victory in 1980. Republicans...
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: rode the wave, won 12 Senate seats in 1980. Six
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: years later, Democrats came back and picked off a bunch
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: of those Republican, one-term Republican senators. They were one-term winners.
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: My state, it was a woman named Paula Hawkins, right?
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: 2008 was another one. Democrats were able to defeat Republicans
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: who had won in the political environment following September 11th,
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: when George W. Bush and the Republican Party were benefiting
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: from a very different national mood, right? So Democrats picked
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: up even more seats in 08, just like they did
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: in 06. But then six years after 08 came the
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: 2014 Republican wave. Republicans defeated a number of Democrats who
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: had been elected during Obama's first presidential victory. Those senators
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: had originally won with the benefit of a favorable Democratic environment.
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: Six years later, the political environment had changed dramatically and
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: Republicans took advantage. You can even see this pattern in
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: elections that weren't necessarily enormous waves. You look at the
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: Republican class of 94 in the 94 wave, the Gingrich revolutions, Well,
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: they elected a number of senators in states where Democrats
• 55:51
  Speaker 1: had traditionally been competitive. Well, six years later in 2000,
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: Democrats started picking off members of that class. In 2000,
• 55:58
  Speaker 1: they defeated Spencer Abraham, Rod Grimes, John Ashcroft, the one-term wonders, right?
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: Ashcroft story is one of the more weirder ones. That
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: was the Mel Carnahan death. He died in a plane crash.
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: Voters knew Carnahan had died. They knew his name was
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: still on the ballot. And they voted, enough of them
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: voted for him anyway. Ashcroft loses. Governor appoints Mel Carnahan's widow,
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: et cetera. But that's how strong the reaction against that
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: Republican Senate class had become. Even a dead Democrat could win.
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: Then six years after that, in 2006, Democrats picked off
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: more Republicans who originally won in that 94 wave. Santorum
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, DeWine in Ohio. Now, here's why all of
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: that matters in 2026. Most of the Republican senators up
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: for reelection this year last-face voters in 2020. And 2020
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: was not an enormous Republican wave. Donald Trump lost the presidency.
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: Republicans had some success down ballot, particularly in the House.
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: But this wasn't a year when Republicans were sweeping into
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: Senate seats. They had no business winning. So we're not
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: looking at a Senate map that's loaded with Republicans who
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: arrived in Washington on the strength of some enormous wave
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: six years earlier. It's a different kind of map. Some
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: of these senators have been around a long time. Some
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: were elected in 2020. Some have already demonstrated an ability
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: to win in difficult environments. And that means Democrats don't
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: have the same kind of obvious low-hanging fruit that parties
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: have enjoyed in some previous wave elections. Again, does not
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: mean Democrats won't win six or more Senate seats, and
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: it does not mean Republicans can lose even more than that.
• 57:39
  Speaker 1: But it does mean that if Democrats start winning multiple
• 57:42
  Speaker 1: Senate seats in states that Trump carried by double digits,
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: We're going to be looking at something that doesn't fit
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: neatly into any historical pattern that I've lived through. So
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: when you look at the individual races that we're talking
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: about here, these six, let's go through them really quickly. Texas,
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: it fits this historical pattern, right? Texas is one that
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: most closely resembles some of those historical outliers. And the
• 58:08
  Speaker 1: reason is Ken Paxton. We've talked about this a number
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: of times, right? Ken Paxton is kind of like the
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: Ted Stevens example in Alaska. The Conrad Burns example in Montana. Now,
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: Texas is not Montana in 2006. Paxton's controversies are not identical,
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: but you see the larger point. If Democrats are going
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: to win a Senate race in a state that voted
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: for Trump by 14 points, they probably need more than
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: just a favorable national environment. And in Texas, they have it, right?
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: They need a Republican candidate who's having difficulty keeping his
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: coalition together. They need a state party that is suddenly
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: on the defensive, as we have here with Abbott and
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: vouchers and things like that. This is why I'm a
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: believer that the Republican frustration with Paxton is is going
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: to lead to them pulling out of this. Right. It's
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: just there's there's a million ways this thing is going
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. So. Texas is one place where
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: I can construct an historical argument for a Democratic victory
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: that does not require 276 House seats, right? It's all
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: about the candidate. Now let's look at Nebraska. Nebraska is
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: interesting for an entirely different reason. Dan Osborne is running
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: as an independent. And that's important because when we're talking
• 59:29
  Speaker 1: about how far a Democratic wave can reach, Osborne doesn't
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: fit neatly into that discussion. He's not running as the
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: Democratic nominee. He's trying to build a coalition that includes Democrats, independents,
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: and a few Republicans. And we've already seen evidence that
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: he can run well ahead of the normal Democratic performance
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: in Nebraska. He just did it in 2024. Now, he
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: didn't win that election, but he demonstrated that there's an
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: electorate in Nebraska willing to consider him as an independent.
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: Even in a presidential year when the state voted overwhelmingly Republican.
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: So Nebraska, I don't think is necessarily a test of
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: how far the Democratic wave has to reach for Osborne
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: to win. In this case, this is a test whether
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: an independent candidate can construct the coalition that behaves differently
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: from a normal partisan electorate. Osborne may be building his
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: own brand, a la Tester in Montana, a la Susan
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: Collins in Montana. And so explaining his win in a
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: D plus nine environment is actually Quite logical. Now, how
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: about South Carolina? It's interesting for another reason. The death
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: of Lindsey Graham created an unusual political situation. We have
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: an appointed senator in Darlene Grant who's trying to hold
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: the seat. And appointed senators have historically faced challenges when
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: they first have to stand before voters. The numbers are not,
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 1: you know, best. According to my friends at the Crystal Ball,
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: 62 of 117 appointed senators who ran to keep their
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 1: seats won. That's only a 53% winning percentage. Compare that
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: with a much higher reelection rate for elected incumbents. So again,
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: if she loses, there's a plausible explanation that isn't, hey,
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: Democrats had to win, had to be in a D
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: plus 10, D plus 12 environment. By the way, Republicans
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: are starting to dump some money there. Something's afoot. We'll see.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: It's still South Carolina, and I think Lucy and the
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: football have been in that state before. The real test, though,
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: to this is Iowa and Kansas. These are the two
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: races that I think present the biggest challenge to the
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: conventional wave theory, right? These are two races that frankly
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: got me thinking about this entire exercise. So we'll start
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: with Iowa. Used to be a generally competitive state. Obama
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: won it twice, right? Harkin and Grassley sort of split
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: that state for decades. But we know Iowa's changed in
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: the last decade. It's become considerably more Republican, particularly in
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: smaller towns, rural counties that used to be a source
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: of sort of union Democratic strength. But Trump carried the
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: state by 13 points in 2024. And yet here we
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 1: are looking at Senate polling that suggests Democrats might be
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: able to pull this off. Now you've got the governor's
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: race that the Democrats seems to be winning by a
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 1: fairly substantial margin. Rob Sand has been put together a
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: coalition that's, you know, basically he's portrayed himself as a
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: reluctant Democrat who wants to instead be an independent Democrat,
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: you know, is trying to be a unifier. And he's
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: running substantially ahead of the Democratic nominee for Senate. So
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: it's possible to sand create a broader Democratic turnout operation
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: that allows Turk to overperform, maybe. But we also know
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: voters are perfectly capable of splitting their tickets. And we
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 1: kind of think that that might happen. In fact, there's
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: a state that it happens in quite a bit that
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: we're about to talk about, Kansas. Laura Kelly has been
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: elected governor twice as a Democrat, but Kansas hasn't elected
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: a Democrat to the United States Senate since 1932. So
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: when you look at Kansas Senate polling, I have to
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: remind myself there's a difference between a state being willing
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: to elect a Democrat as governor and and being willing
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 1: to send somebody wearing a blue jersey to Washington. Now,
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: I don't think Roger Marshall is the best candidate, but
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: he's also not scandal plagued. And so I don't know
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: what kind of penalty that brings down. And in a
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: year when voters are frustrated with Republicans nationally, maybe he
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: just sinks due to that. So what exactly gets a
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 1: Democrat over the finish line in Kansas? If the national
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: Democratic advantage is seven points and Kansas is roughly 15
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: or 16 points more Republican than the country, then the
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: Democratic candidate has to outperform the national environment by a
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: considerable margin. Is it impossible? No. But it's a big
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: ask and it doesn't happen very often. Right? So if
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: we're talking about Kansas and Iowa both electing Democratic senators
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: in the same election while Texas is also electing a
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: Democratic senator, then we really have to ask ourselves whether
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: we're looking at something that's much bigger than a conventional
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: blue wave. Because those states aren't politically identical, okay? And
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 1: Kansas has been moving gradually towards the Democrats. Iowa has
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: been moving in the other direction. And yet the polling
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: is suggesting that Democrats have about the same chance at
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: winning both races. That's what makes all of this not
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: easy to interpret, right? Are we looking at a national
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: way that's strong enough to overwhelm those differences? Are we
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: looking at individual candidates creating their own opportunities? Adam Hamilton,
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: just a different type of Democrat. It could be. Are
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: the polls simply giving us a rosier picture that won't
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: survive on election day when Republicans show up to vote,
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: even if they don't show up in the polls? So
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: this is what made this exercise, I think, very compelling
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: to me. Because I think, ultimately, I think you can
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: make an... I think there's... Here are the plausible explanations.
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: There's one possibility here that I think we need to
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 1: spend some time on. The national Democratic ban, as we know,
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: is not very popular. We've seen polling showing voters who
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: think the Democratic Party is too far to the left,
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 1: but they don't think some of these Democratic candidates in
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: these red states are like a conventional national Democrat. That's
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: good news for Democrats running in those states. It suggests
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 1: that some of these Democratic candidates have succeeded in separating themselves.
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: And that may be the answer as to why a
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: Democrat can win in Kansas and in Iowa, Texas, and
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: and an independent in Nebraska. It's possible. But a voter
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: might not want Democrats controlling Washington. They might not particularly
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: like the National Democratic Party, and they may have voted
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: for Trump in 2024, but they may be simply just
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: super frustrated with how Washington works right now. And maybe
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: they see a Democratic Senate candidate who's convinced them, huh, okay, fine.
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: It's not impossible. We've seen this plenty of times in
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: gubernatorial elections. Susan Collins is somebody who's pulled this off
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: as a Republican for decades. Jon Tester managed to win
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: three Senate elections in Montana before finally losing in 2024.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: Manchin survived for years in red-leaning West Virginia. So it's
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: possible candidates can create their own brand. That may be
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: what Dan Osborne's doing. It may be what Adam Hamilton
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: is doing. Now, what if Democrats win Senate races in Kansas? Texas,
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: while the Democratic House candidates in those same states perform
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: much more like Democrats normally do. Is it possible the
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: Senate Democrats are just running better? Well, that would be
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: an extraordinary result. And it would tell us something about
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 1: the national environment that we've never seen before, because it
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: would suggest voters are making distinctions between candidates and offices
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: in ways that are increasingly nationalized politics have actually made
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: less common. I mean, it's something I would love to see, right?
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: We would love to see a more scrambled electorate that
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: voters are looking at candidates before they're looking at party.
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: It's not something that normally happens. Now, look, it's also
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 1: possible that we're seeing a red state undertow, right? That
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: the anger and frustration in the red states is so
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: great that there is a total collapse in the Trump
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 1: Republican coalition that doesn't quite hit other parts of the country.
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: So it doesn't really hit the House, but it has
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 1: a magnifying effect because of knocking off incumbents for Senate
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 1: races in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Texas. That's also possible.
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 1: But the whole point of this exercise was to make
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: it clear that We're seeing something unusual. Look, there's also
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: another simpler explanation in Kansas. It isn't a D plus
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: 16 state. It is now really a D plus eight
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: or nine state. And Kansas is just moving. One of
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 1: the things I keep reminding people is when political, we
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: always look at political realignments from election to election, and
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: we somehow pretend nothing happens in between them, right? It's
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: not as if the election happens and a political realignment
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: suddenly halts. the realignment can continue. The shift can continue.
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: You're just waiting for the next election that's worthy to
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 1: show you how much things have shifted, right? In 2006,
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: there was an assumption that Jim Webb was an unusual candidate.
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: George Allen was a really bad candidate, and they took
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 1: a lean red state and pulled an upset in Virginia Senate. Actually,
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 1: as it turned out, Jim Webb was the beneficiary of
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: a shifting electorate in the state of Virginia. And within
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: a couple of years, it was going to become a
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 1: blue state. I think that is what's happening in Kansas.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: I don't think that's what's happening in Iowa. I think
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: Iowa and Texas are uniquely... states where there is a
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: specific issue bothering the Republican electorate or specific issues. In
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 1: both Iowa and Texas, vouchers are an issue in the
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: gubernatorial races and education funding. And in both states, the
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 1: tariffs and the war in Iran is doing real damage
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: in the rural economies of both states. So it's possible
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: those are all the explanations. But the point was, my
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: old colleague, I thought, did a good job of helping
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: me which I hope is helping you, look at the
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: counterfactual here. Perhaps this is candidate-driven. Perhaps this is state-driven.
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: But if this is environment-driven, then we're doing one of
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: two things. We're overestimating Democratic chances in the Senate, or
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: we're underestimating Democratic chances in the House. For what it's worth,
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 1: I think either outcome is a possibility. And I'm not
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: saying like an 80% possibility in one place, 20. I
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 1: think there's a fairly equal chance we are underestimating this
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 1: wave as much as there is a chance that many
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: Republicans think we are overestimating this wave. All right. I've
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 1: rambled on enough. I'm giving you a lot to chew on.
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: I can't wait for the questions that come with this
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: set of scenarios that I've laid out here. Ask Chuck.
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 1: All right, let's do a few questions. Mario writes in.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: Hola from Mexico City, Chuck. Mario here, longtime listener and
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: Ask Chuck second timer. What are your top three no guts,
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: no glory surprise outcomes for this election cycle? Races that
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 1: aren't on most people's radar but could defy conventional wisdom.
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 1: Thanks for all you do. Well, I guess Kansas Senate
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: doesn't count anymore. If Kansas Senate is now in toss
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: up with basically a month to go before election day.
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: I don't think you can call it a surprise anymore.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: I think I would go with Mississippi Senate and South
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: Carolina Senate would be two. And I'm going to go
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: ahead and say Texas governor. Now, of my three sort
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: of surprise outcomes, I still think Democrats winning Texas governor
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 1: is a bigger deal than Democrats winning control of the Senate.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 1: So I think it's an enormous victory if Democrats pull
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: that off. More important than Tallarico beating Paxton. That's easy.
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: Gina Inosa beating Abbott is a game changer. It means
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: Texas is in play. It is transformational to the political map.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: So I think it is the biggest sort of enchilada
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: on the board here. Although I guess, right, California is
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: the big enchilada. I guess Texas is the big pile
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: of mole. I don't know how we, how we would
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: do that. I don't, I don't, I don't want to
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 1: say something stupid here and get myself in trouble, but
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: it is, it is, I think, so I would do,
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 1: you asked for three, those would be my three. But
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 1: I think, I think we, you know, it's funny. We're
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 1: all now used to Texas governor being in play, but
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: I don't think anybody can actually envision Abbott losing. But
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: if he lost, Gina Hinojosa, the first Latina governor in
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: the country on the Democratic side. We've had a Latina
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: governor on the Republican side, Susana Martinez, in New Mexico.
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 1: But it would be a big deal. And she becomes
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 1: a huge, huge future force in the Democratic Party. All right.
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: Next question comes from Cynthia H. in Louisville, Kentucky. Hey, Chuck.
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: Thank you for having Marcia Chatelain on the show. It
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: was obvious how much you enjoyed her intelligence and perspective.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: And I hope you'll have her back on again and again.
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: I'd listen to her read a shopping list. Yeah, no,
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Cynthia, I'm glad that was your
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: reaction too. It's just, you know, sometimes it's like, you know,
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 1: you're just having a great meal and that just felt
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: like a great brain meal, right? And I will have
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 1: her on again and I can't wait to find different
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: reasons to have her on again because, you know, when
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 1: you have a meal that feeds your brain that well,
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: you're like, I want to try that again. I got
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: to go back. So yes, you will hear from Marsha again,
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: I promise. Tyler H., Michigan's 5th District, writes in, he goes,
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 1: hey there, you recently mentioned that some members of Congress
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: might vote differently on certain issues if they were voting blind.
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: Is there any precedent for anonymous or secret votes in Congress?
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: And would that even be legal? If it is possible,
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: would allowing blind votes ever be a good idea or
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: would it create more problems than it solves? Thanks so
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: much for all the content, Tyler H. So I think
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: it would on legislation, right? I mean, there's just The
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: transparency matters here. Where you do see a few secret
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: ballots is for leadership elections. And I think that that
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: is a, you know, I think leadership elections, secret ballot
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: are appropriate. And, you know, trust me, the only people
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 1: that don't want leadership elections to, you know, the people
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: that want it public, right, the speaker election is public,
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: but the other elections are not. per se. And I
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: think that that is healthy. I think if you made
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: those votes public, you'd have a lot more machine politics
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: than you even have right now in how congressional elections
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: are run. So no, I don't think it's a good idea.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: I really don't. But it is a reminder, I think,
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: what that tells you, right? I mean, what Tom Tillis
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: has been saying, that there are 30 senators who quietly
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: don't like this or don't like that. Yeah, that's nice.
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: you know, it's too bad that you view your Senate
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: seat as belonging more to the president than to yourself
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: or your party. But I digress. All right. Max W.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: in Virginia's eighth congressional district comes in. Obie Chuck Kenobi,
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: he writes, you've been adamant that Trump eventually turns on
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: everyone close to him once they reach a line he's
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: reach a line he's willing to cross, do you think
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: that's true for Stephen Miller too? And if so, what
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: on earth would that line be? What could Trump actually
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: do that you'd consider turning on Miller? I'll hang up
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: and listen. I don't know. It would probably be disrupting
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 1: his personal life. You're asking what would the line be
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 1: for either Stephen Miller to walk or for Trump to
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: walk away from Miller? I do think Trump would more
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: likely walk away from Miller than Miller would walk away
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: from Trump. How's that? I think there would be things
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: that Trump would want to, if he felt were so,
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: that he might blame Miller for and push Miller out
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: for it. But I think Stephen Miller is self-aware enough
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: to know that he would essentially have none of the
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: perceived power, none of the opportunity that he's gotten without
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump and not a single other president of any
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: party would have ever given him the opportunity. So I
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: can't imagine a single circumstance where Miller would turn on
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: Trump unless it involved his personal life. That would be
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: my only assumption. I would like to think that he
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: would put a line there, but I think it's more
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 1: likely that Trump would conveniently blame Miller for a policy
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: debacle or a policy failure and throw Miller under the bus.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: The fact that he hasn't for as long as this
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: gone tells you how much Trump values Miller or is
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: Miller one of the few people that Trump is afraid of.
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: Something I've thought about at times myself. All right. Last
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: question before we get into my big college football preview
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: of the weekend. It's a good one, right? You know,
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: I got the red river rivalry because I'm not allowed
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: to call it the red river shootout. And, uh, the
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: border war of Georgia and Alabama. Anyway, Stephen Ayer from
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 1: South Carolina's second, the infamous you lie guys district. I
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: like that. Hey, you lie son is about to become
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: the next governor of South Carolina. Anyway, what's your read
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: on Henry McMaster's decision to appoint Darlene Graham to her brother,
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham's seat and her subsequent decision to run for it?
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: Was he following Trump's wishes? Did Republicans assume they could
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: nominate anyone in a reliably red state? Or is there
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: something else I'm missing also? I'll take any good streaming
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: recommendations you have because as a lifelong Gamecock and Dolphins fan,
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 1: I suddenly have more free time on my fall weekends
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: than I expected Stephen in South Carolina's second. So look,
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: McMaster did not want to appoint, did not want her
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 1: to run for a full term. This was all Trump's doing.
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: This was all Trump's idea. But you got to remember,
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 1: Henry McMaster is not governor without Donald Trump. If Donald
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: Trump doesn't give Nikki Haley an ambassadorship to the UN.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: Henry McMaster doesn't get elevated to the governorship. Now, why
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 1: does this matter? I've always believed that Trump appointed Haley,
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: not because he liked Haley, but because he wanted to
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: reward McMaster. and because Nikki Haley left for the ambassadorship
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: to the UN. You left the governor's office for that.
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: I've always thought that was a weird decision. Now, maybe
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 1: she thought it would be a good stepping stone for her.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know to this day, you know, getting a
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: little foreign policy credential never hurts if you really want
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 1: to run for president. I've never understood that move by
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: her because she was, remember, she was a Rubio person.
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: She endorsed Rubio in the 2016 primaries, not Trump. McMaster
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: was with Trump. So Trump appointed Nikki Haley not to
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: reward Haley, but it was to reward McMaster. I point
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: out that history because McMaster did owe his political success, right?
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: He had tried to become governor before and failed a
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: million times. Donald Trump's the only reason he got there. So-
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: I think, look, I credit the governor for realizing that,
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: you know, hey, for better or for worse. And here's
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: the thing. I'm sure Trump reminded Governor McMaster of this
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: all the time. So he was going to have to acquiesce.
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: But every source I have in South Carolina says nobody
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 1: wanted her to run for the full term. Nobody quite
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: knew what they were getting. And I think that, you know,
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: they're in this situation. This is another one, right? There's
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: a handful of races that if they go south on
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: the Republicans, there is only one person to blame, and
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: it's Donald Trump. Ken Paxton is Donald Trump's creation and
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump's fault if he doesn't win. Darlene Graham is
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump's creation. Therefore, it's Donald Trump's fault if he
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: doesn't win. Pure and simple. You can't really say that about.
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, Donald Trump's, you know, candidates already.
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: He forced the Republicans into a bad situation in Georgia.
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: He forced the party into a bad situation in North Carolina.
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: the first two races the National Party had to pull
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: out of. So Trump is really, I mean, he's already
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: cost Republicans two Senate seats, North Carolina and Georgia. He's
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: likely to cost them a third in Texas, as you
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 1: know from my Senate ratings. And Darlene Graham is on
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 1: Trump because there is nobody else in the state of
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 1: South Carolina in the Republican Party that thought this was
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: a good idea. And judging by how it's playing out, look,
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know her. I knew Lindsey Graham pretty well.
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: He's hard not to like. I'm sure she's a very
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 1: nice person as well. But you can just sort of
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: tell people that aren't ready. You know, you're just like, oh,
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: my God, what are you doing? Don't put her out there.
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 1: She can't handle NFL defenses, right, type of thing, right?
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: It's like watching that poor Jalen Daniels quarterback, the Buccaneers.
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: I hope, you know, we'll see what that looks like
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: later tonight against the Cowboys. But I think Jalen... I
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: think Jalen Daniels might be the darling Graham of, of,
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 1: of backup quarterbacks, uh, in the NFL, but Hey, Jalen
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: Daniels wins and I'll eat some crow. And maybe we,
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: we will have a full term Senator darling Graham, but
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: you know, it's funny. I'm I I've, this is my
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: first week that I've included her into, into my full
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 1: fledged competitive list. It, all the ingredients for a Graham
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 1: loss are there. Um, You know, it is history. Everything
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: is there for a Graham loss. The only doubt I
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: have in my head is I don't know if Annie
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: Andrews is well-funded enough to do this. I think there's
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 1: definitely doubt in the minds of the National Party, given
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 1: what happened to Jamie Harrison when they thought a bunch
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 1: of money would help. But, you know, I think I've
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: appointed senators. Usually, you know, she's going to run a
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 1: couple points worse. Then her brother ran and her brother
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 1: wasn't getting 55. So, you know, she's going to I
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: think the appointed senator penalty puts her ceiling at 51
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: or 52. That's a ceiling. So I it goes back
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 1: to the first question I was asked of what what
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: are what are some what are some under the radar
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: races that we're not paying enough attention to? You know,
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: now that now that the world's focused on Kansas, I
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: think I'm going to spend the next couple of weeks
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: getting the world focused on South Carolina Senate. because I
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: think something's afoot there for all of the reasons we
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: just discussed. All right. Let's get to my college football preview.
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 1: And it is, this is the most relaxing weekend I'm
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: going to have. And by the way, I had planned
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 1: to go to the Florida State-Louisville game in Louisville on
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: Friday night. And unfortunately, we have that hurricane that's coming up.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: and that it's likely to hit. I've got some family
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: in the direct cone there that were going to meet
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 1: us there. And then it looks like the remnants of
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: it are going to be in Louisville by Saturday morning.
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: I don't know if we were going to get caught.
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 1: So unfortunately, we had to postpone that idea. My late
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 1: father-in-law was a quarterback at Louisville. Obviously, my wife went
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: to Florida State. So we were going to have a
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: fun little sort of dual reason to to go and enjoy.
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: None of us had been to a football game at
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 1: that stadium, the so-called Papa John's Stadium. But I really
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: wanted to enjoy that environment. But we're going to get
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 1: back there. So to my friends in the Louisville Athletic Department,
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: we're coming back. We can't wait. We can't wait to
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: honor one of your great quarterbacks in Louisville history, the late,
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: great Benny Russell. Um, so that was going to be
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: my college football weekend, but Hey, I get a relaxation weekend.
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: Miami's on a bi-week, which means I, you know, I get,
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: it doesn't mean I got, I'm going to have, you know,
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: three football games and a baseball game. That's, I love
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 1: this YouTube TV box. In case you guys are wondering
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 1: how I do this. I usually have, I have the
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 1: four box on the TV with YouTube TV. And then
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: there's always like one game that YouTube TV doesn't have
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: that I got to find. And I'll put that on
• 1:24:52
  Speaker 1: an iPad, you know, to get my, get my multiple
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: screens here. So look, there's the two big games, obviously,
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 1: are Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama. Let's start with Texas, Oklahoma,
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: because if Oklahoma gets blown out, if it's something like
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: a 38 to three, which is I think that's more
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: likely than any result. Maybe I know this is a
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: rivalry game. Anything can happen. But One thing that, you know,
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 1: the Texas defense has shown up every game. And John
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 1: Mateer has struggled against good defenses. What's he going to
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 1: do against what I think is a great defense? I
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: think they're going to try a bunch of things. This
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: is a kitchen sink game for Oklahoma. This is one
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: of those because a blowout loss and you start to
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: have people questioning Venables. You have people questioning the AD's
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: decision to extend Venables. You're going to have you might
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 1: have players start talking to agents, thinking about the portal, right?
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: This is, this is that weekend where you have teams
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: at the, that had playoff expectations, signed players with playoff expectations.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 1: And if suddenly that's not there. And if suddenly they think, Oh,
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: my path to the NFL draft is no good here anymore.
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 1: You know, they start talking, they start talking to their,
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 1: their agent. So very curious there. And look, it's a, it's,
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 1: Every game, poor Arch Manning. I think that a million
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: people have said this. This is not new information. But
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 1: I think if he were Arch Smith, we wouldn't be
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: talking about him as much. He's sort of been forced
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 1: into the spotlight. I hope he stays in college another year.
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 1: He's an incredible athlete. He's got a lot of gifts.
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 1: He needs to put it all together. And I'll say
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: what I said. I'm not sure Sark's the best coach
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: for Arch Manning. I can tell you, I'd love to
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: see what my man Shannon Dawson could do with Arch
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 1: Manning next year. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. Peyton, Cooper,
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 1: have you met my man Shannon Dawson? I know what
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: some of you are thinking. Man, when did you become
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: so bullish on your Miami coaching staff? I'll take a
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: run to the national title with Carson Beck as quarterback
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 1: for a thousand, Alex. So yeah, I'm pretty bullish on there. Obviously,
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 1: the massive game in some ways is Georgia-Alabama, but is it?
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 1: The losers? going to still make the college football playoff
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: unless there's some sort of debacle we don't expect. Um,
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: this really is a game to decide who, which one
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 1: in Georgia, Alabama, you know, there's four teams that get
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: up essentially that, that don't have to play in the
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: first round of the college football playoff in the 12
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: team format. Um, feels like winter gets the buy losers
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 1: going to have to host a game at home. And
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 1: I think that that's, uh, what we're seeing there. I, uh,
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: I don't trust that Alabama defense, and I trust the
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: Georgia defense. I know that if you made me bet
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 1: on this game, and I don't know if I will.
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 1: I certainly enjoy a little wagering here or there. It
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 1: would be Georgia and nothing for me. I just don't
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 1: trust the Alabama defense. They've given up a lot of
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 1: points to a lot of teams. And Georgia's, I think,
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 1: got a good enough offense to keep up, but a
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: much better defense to slow down. Slow down, Alabama. So
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 1: those are the two big ones. Other games that I'm
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 1: going to be intrigued by, Iowa State at BYU. BYU
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: has Notre Dame coming to Provo, I think, next week.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 1: I believe that's their next game. Are they going to
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 1: be looking ahead? Is Iowa State capable of pulling an
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 1: upset there? You know, Iowa State has sort of played
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 1: up to it. I feel like they play up to
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 1: competition and play down to competition. Provo is not an
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 1: easy place to play. And this game's late on a
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 1: Friday night. But Friday night games are weird. Friday night
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 1: games are super weird. So if you're looking for a
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: top 10 upset alert, that's one I'm intrigued about. Another
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 1: underrated game, 5-0 Indiana travels to 5-0 Nebraska. Who's the
• 1:29:13
  Speaker 1: real big red? Big red Indiana, big red Nebraska. This
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: is a big opportunity for Matt Rule, you know. It's
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: funny about Nebraska. Rule doesn't have a signature win yet.
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: This is easily his best start. 5-0 there. They haven't
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: really beaten anybody yet. This is a test for both teams. Indiana,
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: the first Big Ten opponent they had was Northwestern, and
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: they got a fight. This one is going to be
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: a fight. I think if I'm Indiana, I'm glad this
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: is a noon game and not a night game. South
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: Carolina at Florida. Is Shane Beamer playing for his job?
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 1: Will Florida bounce back? I think that Florida, pretender or contender,
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: we'll find out in this game. Do they get right
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 1: against South Carolina, get the offense rolling again, or was
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: the Ole Miss victory, the outlier, and the Missouri game
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: a little bit more representative of who Florida is? That's
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: a question I have. Another under-the-radar game that I'm going
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 1: to spend a lot of time watching is UCLA traveling
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 1: up to Oregon. First of all, I'm in a college
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: fantasy football league, and I have both Nico and Wayne
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 1: Knight as starters on my team. So I got crushed
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: last week when they were on a bye. I need
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 1: some performance here by Nico and Wayne Knight to get
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 1: back on the good side of things. So I have
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: my own reasons why. to be rooting for UCLA against Oregon.
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: But this is a big game for both teams. Is
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 1: UCLA for real? Winning in Oregon would say they're for real.
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 1: This would be a good win for Oregon just to
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 1: survive this game. I mean, look, here's the intriguing part
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 1: of this. The coach at UCLA, Bob Chesney, he was
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: the coach of JMU who traveled to Oregon for that
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: playoff game. So he has prepared for this Oregon team right?
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 1: He pretty much has already scouted it. Now he's got
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: arguably better players. Some of the players he brought with
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: him from JMU to UCLA. So there's not going to be,
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 1: they're not going to feel overwhelmed traveling, uh, up to
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: Autzen stadium there. So I, I, I will, uh, and,
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: and don't forget Chesney, the Chesney coach, James Madison team,
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: I believe covered that spread. It was late, but they
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: covered at the end and that playoff game. Um, That's
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 1: a good one. That's a fun one. And it's a,
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 1: it's a, this might very well, this certainly is a
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: playoff game for Oregon. Lose, they're out. Other than that,
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: the only other, I don't know, there's a loserly, is
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 1: USC Penn State a loserly town game? You could argue
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: it might be. LSU, Kentucky. right? Is this a, is
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: this an elimination game for Kentucky? Kentucky's at home. I
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 1: assume Lane Kiffin goes up there, they're prepared and they win.
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: But if they don't, then we've all underestimated Kentucky and
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: we've all overrated LSU. So I do think LSU at Kentucky's, uh, uh,
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 1: an elimination game on the playoff. So, so that's, um,
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: That's the short version of that. And like I said,
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 1: Miami being on a bye week means I get to
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 1: relax a little bit. I get to watch these other teams.
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: And I'm just looking forward to a great day of
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 1: college football. Bummed that I don't get to watch that
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 1: Florida State-Louisville game in person, but I look forward to
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 1: getting back to Louisville to see a Cardinals game. I
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 1: don't know if I want to watch my Miami team
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: go up to Louisville the next time we go up there.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: It's a scary environment for traveling teams. They have a
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: pretty good home field up there. But I look forward
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 1: to that. Anyway, enjoy the weekend. Enjoy the playoff baseball.
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: Enjoy the slew of polling that I promise will be
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 1: coming over the weekend. And I will have ready to
• 1:33:22
  Speaker 1: deliver to you on Monday morning. And with that, I'll
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: see you on Monday. Thanks for watching, listening, and of course,
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 1: liking and subscribing.