Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Full Episode - There’s No Evidence That Disproves The Blue Wave + The “Packers Model” For Local Development?

Transcript

Full Episode - There’s No Evidence That Disproves The Blue Wave + The “Packers Model” For Local Development? · The Chuck ToddCast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: you by Chapter. Now, almost everything you hear about Medicare
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: is somebody quietly trying to steer you somewhere. And you're
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: skeptical of that, as you should be. I get it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a federal lawsuit going on right now
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: over exactly this. Companies that branded themselves as unbiased while
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: allegedly pointing people toward whatever would pay them the most
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: as some sort of broker. So if your default is
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: to distrust everyone in this space, honestly, I get it.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: I'm a bit distrustful these days myself. That's the whole
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: reason I want to tell you about Chapter. They're independent
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Medicare advisors whose entire model is that their advisors are
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: not paid to push any one plan. They're just trying
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to help. Yes, there's compensation that goes with it. but
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: it's across the board is what they're trying to do.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: At the end of the day, they're advocating for you.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: They're not the insurance companies themselves. They're an actual person
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: who actually goes through your doctors, your prescriptions, your needs,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and then compares them to every single plan available to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: find the best one that will work for you and
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: hopefully save you a couple dollars too. And here's the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: part that sets chapter apart. They don't disappear once you've
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: been in They will keep advocating for you. They're kind
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: of like almost like a concierge service. You're just there.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I need help. You're like customer service. You know, the plan,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: you know, help me navigate this again. So you ever
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: get hit with a wrongful medical bill, they'll help you
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: fight it. They want to stay an advocate for you
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: even after you've done this. So look, I get it.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: I think there's all sorts of space. You see a
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: lot of people are throwing themselves in this healthcare space.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: What I like about these chapter folks, I've spent time
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: with them. This is a very transparent organization. It is
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Medicare and all of its affiliated stuff can be very confusing.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: The whole point of this is to make this easier
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and less confusing. OK, so look, take the skepticism you
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: already have in all of this, point it at your
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: own plan for 20 minutes. It's free. There's no pressure.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: And then call chapter today at 980-734-4200. Hello there. Happy
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Monday and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Todd cast.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Eight days out. I have been on the road. Some
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: of you know that I was part of a helped
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: host a brand new industry conference on prediction markets as
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: a new and fledgling industry. Incredibly well attended. It was
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: in New York City. It's a reminder of how young
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: this industry is, both in terms of how how new
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: some of the companies are, but also the youth of
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: the folks most interested in it. But it was very
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: substantive and you sort of get a better idea of
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: where this is going. And the fact is, look, there's
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: going to be growing pains. There's things about this I.
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: I hear from plenty of you, very nervous, very skeptical
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: of what this is going to do to our politics
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: and this or that. Sometimes there are plenty of things
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: that get developed that you're like, this is going to
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: cause heartburn and headaches. That is true. The question is,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: What do you do to create new safeguards, right? You know,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: the mistake we made with social media was not doing safeguards.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: The mistake we're making with AI is not getting in
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: and around the regulatory challenges sooner rather than later. I
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: actually think, and part of this is thanks to all
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: the regulatory structure that exists for Wall Street and for casinos,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: that in general, there's at least more of an openness
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: and an acknowledgement that you have to figure out some safeguards.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: What are they? And look, I'm bullish on it. I'm
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: bullish on it because I think it's a, anytime you
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: get more people involved in things, I'm a believer in
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: crowds and things like that. So I learned a lot.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: There's certainly some things that I'm concerned about, but I'm
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: going to be very transparent about it. And yes, I
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: know I've got some sponsors that dabble in the world
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: of prediction markets. And so you may think, oh, my
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: defense of them has to do with that. Well, I
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: don't I don't know what it is. It have to
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: do with that. I defend them if it didn't exist.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: I think that's why they advertise is that I'm not
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: there bashing. But that's you know, I'm one of these
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: very annoying people is that I refuse to be in
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: an extreme position on many things. You know, you look
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: at something. I'm pretty neutral on new technologies. There are
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: good people and bad people. I worry about bad people
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: abusing new technologies. That's the thing you constantly have to
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: be on the lookout for. I also spent the weekend
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: in Texas, and boy, I was drinking from a fire
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: hose on Texas politics and also a little college football,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: as you know. I think I told you I had
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: the pleasure of both watching SMU pound Cal, and they
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: looked terrific, particularly in the second half. First time SMU
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: to me looked like they were playoff worthy, particularly the
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: second half of them. So Kudos to them. And I
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: can't wait for the big SMU Wake Forest showdown, which
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: if it were in the SEC, ESPN would already be
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: hyping up. But because ESPN only believes that conference games
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: in the SEC are tough and conference losses prove that
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: a conference is difficult with the ACC, it's proof that
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: somehow the ACC is bad because a team that doesn't
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: have the same brand name background wins. that LSU or
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Alabama has, your SMUs and your Wake Forest don't get
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: that kind of credit. I'm certainly happy that Miami gets
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: a little bit of that benefit of doubt, but they
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: did earn it. They earned it over decades. But it
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: is frustrating to watch the dismissiveness of the other conferences.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Just look at it now. Competitiveness in the Big 12
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: is being written off as proof the Big 12 should
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: only have one, maybe two teams winning. uh, uh, that
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: they get invited to the college football playoff competitiveness. And
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: the sec is proof that they should have 7,000 teams
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: in the, um, in the college football playoff. It's just very,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: all I would ask my sec friends is, um, imagine
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: if your competitiveness were treated the same way as the
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: competitiveness of the week 12 is treated. Um, would make
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: you awfully frustrated now, wouldn't it? So I welcome intellectual
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: honesty if we can find it somewhere over there. But yes,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: I enjoyed listening to the Miami game in an AirPod. Yes,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: it drove my son crazy that I was doing that.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: And it was really bugging him that even when Miami
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: hit 50 points, I was still keeping my AirPod in
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: because I had to hear what the backups were doing.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: But needless to say, look, I've got to don't worry
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: for those of you going, when are you going to
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: get to the politics? When are you going to do
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the election? We're eight days away. I'm going to get there. But,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: you know, I just literally I'm taping this just after
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: I landed. I've been doing a lot of traveling over
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: the last five days and I wanted to get all
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: this get all this off off of my chest. But
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: I will just say it's a pleasure to watch Malachi
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Tony play football on my new favorite Heisman vote is
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: for Darian Tony. or Malachi Mensah, meaning it's very difficult
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: to sit here and ignore what Darian Mensah is doing
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: as well. But Tony is something else. Tony feels once
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: in a generation, except for that guy in Ohio State,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: Jeremiah Smith, right? But I think it's fascinating that the
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: two guys at the top of the odds boards right
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: now for the Heisman are both wide receivers. It's also
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: a testament in how we've taken a lot of the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: middle of the field violence out of the game. and
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: allowed for more athletic ability to show itself off, uh,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: particularly at the wide receiver position. I mean, let's be honest,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: maybe 30 years ago with, uh, the just take their
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: head off type of tackling that, uh, was encouraged and
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: sometimes celebrated. I don't know whether a Malachi Tony, uh,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: would have, uh, the same opportunities that he's having today,
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: or maybe he'd just be seen as a kick returner
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: or he'd have to play running back and things like that.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: And so, um, This has been one of the things
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: that the world of football has lucked into as they've
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: taken some of the worst types of tackling out of
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: the game. They've actually allowed athletic ability to show itself
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: off even more. And it also means, unless you're Indiana
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: and Michigan, you score a lot more points. I thought
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: it was amazing. You know, sometimes teams wear throwback uniforms.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I thought it was amazing that in Ann Arbor last Saturday,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: they actually had throwback teams. That was pretty neat. I
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: think people need to see just how methodical and bludgeoning
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: football was in the 1920s. To say that a 13-6
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: game that included overtime might have set football back a
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: thousand years is an understatement. But I will say this.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: We know Indiana has a championship caliber defense. And by
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: the way, what Indiana reminds me a little bit of.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Florida State the year after they won the national title
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: with Jameis. They went undefeated that season until they lost
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: to Oregon in the first year of the 14 playoff.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: But every game was a nail-biter. I think they trailed
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: in multiple second halves. Jameis was pulling you-know-what's out of
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: his you-know-wheres and constantly figuring out how to win games
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: that pull rabbits out of his hat. And we're watching
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Indiana do the same thing. Eventually, the gig will be
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: up for Indiana on this. They've already lost once to
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Ohio State. So we'll see how far they can take it.
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: This.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: But it was quite the lack of an offensive performance
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: up there. So I'm minimizing my football. That's the most
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: I'm going to give you today. I'll have a lot
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: more to say later in the week on football. But
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: let's get to why you are here. Let me lament
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: one more thing before I get into my larger points today.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: We got a lot to get to today. Ohio fallout,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: Alaska fallout, Donald Trump losing his mind fallout, plenty of
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: stuff we're going to get to here in a minute.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: The threat of Elon Musk to society, you know, just
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: small little things that I want to address here. But here,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: there's been a remarkable development, and all my news junkies
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: and political junkies will know what I'm talking about here. Traditionally,
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: The second to last Sunday before Election Day, particularly in
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: a midterm year, but usually presidential years and midterm years,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: would be a year that pretty much every local news organization,
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: if they didn't conduct a poll earlier in the year,
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: they certainly paid for one to be released, that sort
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: of thing. second Sunday, because nobody wanted to do it
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: at the last Sunday before the election. So that was
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: always the second to last weekend was the weekend that
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: you just saw an explosion of data all over the place.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: Some of it good, some of it bad, but just
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: a ton of data. Almost nothing this weekend on the
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: polling front. There's been some polls. But if you wanted
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: to see, you know, what happens when you gut news organizations,
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: what happens when you get rid of local news? Well,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: you get rid of all of these outlets who were
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: constantly hopeful and wanted to find out what did their
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: regions think? What did their local voters think? But these
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: news organizations have been gutted. The cost of good polling
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: has skyrocketed. You can do a cheap poll and you're
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: going to get what you pay for. And so the
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: good news is we're seeing fewer people fall for the
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: cheap poll nonsense that had been going around and which
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: had sort of given polling a bad name. But we
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: have a dearth and we don't have much out there
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: this weekend, which may be another reason why you should
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: be careful of all those polling averages that you will see.
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: That said, I know we will see some good polling.
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: I got to think we'll see some more AARPs coming up.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: We'll hopefully see one or two more Cook Report polls
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: come out. Those are good ones. Fox News does some
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: good ones. And I imagine we'll see a couple more
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: of those. And then The Hart-McIntyre final NBC News poll
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: will be one that I care about a lot. I
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: know how that poll works, and it will give me
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: a hint of where things are headed. And I'm sure
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Time Sienna's got a few more. They brought out some
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: House polls in Pennsylvania that seem to just confirm where
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: things are. But I wanted to start with the lack
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: of polling because it gets to another issue that I've noticed,
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: which is eight days out, there are a lot of
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: people who don't quite believe the polls that we have seen.
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: maybe more accurately, is there are a lot of people
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: who see the possibility of a significant democratic wave, maybe
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: even something approaching a political tsunami. And they've decided that
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: the polls must be wrong. If you've seen the SNL skit,
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: please do. I choose to believe the polls this time.
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: It's very funny. But what's interesting is how much, and
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: this is particularly pervasive on the Elon Musk algorithmically broken
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: X machine that he is perverted to his to his
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: messaging narratives. But there's a big argument. A lot of
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: my Republican friends and some nonbelievers of what this of
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: what this moment seems to look like are are hanging
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: their hat on two words, polling error. So I'm going
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: to get that. I've been covering elections for a long time.
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: I know plenty of polling errors have existed. But what
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: fascinates me about this particular attempted argument here is the
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: assumption that polling error is somehow now a permanent feature
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: of the political landscape, that it always works in the
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: same direction, and that because Donald Trump was underestimated in
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: certain elections, Republicans are automatically going to be underestimated again.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: What's the proof of this? Why would we assume that?
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump isn't even on the ballot this year. Polling
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: firms all over have been desperate to not make sure
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: they don't make that polling error again. It's a significant
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: point here a minute. And oh, by the way, the
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: political environment is completely different. Republicans are the party in
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: power completely. They're defending an unpopular administration, an unpopular economy
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: and an unpopular president. The issues dominating this election are
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: not necessarily the same issues that have dominated previous elections.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: Yet somehow we're supposed to assume the polls are going
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: to miss in precisely the same direction in the same way.
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: First of all, I've seen polling errors. There were massive
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: polling errors in 2000 in the direction of the Republicans.
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: Democrats were underestimated left and right. Nobody saw them picking
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: up four Senate seats. They picked up four Senate seats.
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: Nobody saw Al Gore was gonna win the popular vote,
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: let alone doing what he did. So polling error happens
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: in both directions and there are significant recent campaigns in
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: our history where we've seen this. I mean, the way,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: if you follow some people, on social media, it's almost
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: as if they've decided that polling error is now a
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: Republican birthright. But here's the part that I think is
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: getting overlooked. What if there is polling error and it
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: goes the other way? What if the polls are underestimating
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: the Democratic vote or overestimating Republican turnout? That's the polling
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: error I'm most concerned about, actually. I think the likelihood
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: of polling error underestimating Democrats and overestimating Republican performance is
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: more likely because I know how hard so many of
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the good pollsters are working to make sure they don't
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: underestimate Republican vote anymore. And the waiting that goes into
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: that and making sure and, you know, one of the
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: things when you especially because of the difficulty of putting
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: together a good poll is you come up, you get
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: so committed to certain weightings that you have to do
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: that sometimes you end up missing something that the raw
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: vote shows you. This is why I think a lot
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: of pollsters should say, hey, show me what you got
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: before you weighted, show me how you weighted to 2022,
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: then show me how you weighted to 2018 and show me.
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: I think more pollsters should put out more results based
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: on the various scenarios that they're contemplating. But that's, you know,
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: that would do something like having truth in polling and
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: admitting that polling is directional. It is not something that
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: is supposed to be accurate to a nose. It's why
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: we say there's a margin of error usually no smaller
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: than about three percentage points. But if we do have
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: polling error that underestimates the Democrats, then that's what turns
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: this likely Democratic wave that we're seeing And that's where
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: I believe we are right now. I think I've said
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: this before. I think I think those thinking mirage is coming. No, no,
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: it's there's going to be a wave. The question is,
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: how big is the wave? And is it going to
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: be enough to to do to get to the to
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: where we border on realignment, where the conversation is about
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: realignment and the conversation is about, oh, my God, the
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: Republican Party needs a new direction. You could have the
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: type of Democratic wave where they win the House and Senate.
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: But there's not a debate or a conversation about taking
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: the party in a new direction. Instead, it's about simply
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump was the problem. But you get the type
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: of election result that elects Democratic governors, say, in Texas
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: and Iowa, and you pull upsets in Mississippi and South Carolina. Well,
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: then you got to ask yourself, is there a is
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: there something bigger here going on than just unpopularity about
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump?
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: Because the other thing is we're actually seeing more clues
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: that indicate the likelihood that we might already be underestimating
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: Democratic support. I want to tell you about some fascinating
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: numbers out of the analysis of the early vote coming
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: out of Texas. Tom Bonior of Target Smart, it's a
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: Democratic voter data company. He's been tracking the early vote there.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: And as Texas approaches three million votes cast already, the
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: number of Hispanic voters participating has already surpassed the number
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: who had voted at this same point in time in
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: the 2024 presidential election. Think about that. That's remarkable, okay?
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: To have, this is not a presidential year. Midterm years,
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: turnout is always lower than presidential years. But we're already
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: seeing an uptick in Latino participation that is over and
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: above this same point in time that we were in
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: in 2024. It's amazing. But there's one more reason why
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: it's remarkable. the biggest increase in participation is coming from
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: younger Hispanic voters. According to Bonior's analysis, Hispanic voters under
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: 30 have nearly doubled their participation compared with this same
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: point in time in 2024. And among Hispanic voters modeled
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: as Democrats, participation is even more than twice what it
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: was at this point two years ago. And that gets
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: at something that I've been preaching about for a while.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: And I think now this has now become, I used
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: to describe The things that I would preach a lot
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: about before it became mainstream, I call it wisdom before
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: it's conventional. I think it's starting to become conventional wisdom,
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: but it's this statement. We have to stop treating Hispanic
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: voters as though they're permanently an attached constituency of either
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: political party. This is a large enough demographic group. It's
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: like saying whites are part of one political group. party.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: It is just not the case. And Hispanic voters are
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: are like white voters. There are conservative Hispanics, the liberal Hispanics,
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: wealthy Hispanics. I mean, it's just you get my point here.
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: And so I often think we just overgeneralize this vote
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: way too often. And I think it's frankly, the Democrats
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: made this huge mistake for the last couple of cycles.
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: And assuming it was this permanent part of this coalition,
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: because it was a little sturdier during the Obama years
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: with the Democrats. But it's a mistake that the Republicans made.
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: you by Quince. You know, the best pieces in your
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: closet are the ones you can count on, whether you're
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: heading to work, going out or keeping things a bit casual.
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: And this time of year, Quince makes finding something great
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: for everyone else just as easy. The holiday season is coming.
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: That's right. It's we're under 90 days, folks. It's where
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: I'm shopping for myself and everyone else on my list
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: because I know Quince delivers. Nobody's ever disappointed in stuff
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: they get from Quince. Why? Quince focuses on high-quality staples
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, 14-karat gold,
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: and Italian leather. Their cashmere sweaters start at just $ 60.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: And the lineup doesn't stop there. They have premium down jackets,
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: wool outerwear, cashmere accessories, everything you and your loved ones
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: need to stay warm and look put together all season
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: long without breaking the bank. Everything at Quince is priced 50%
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: to 80% less than similar brands. How do they do this? Well,
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: they work directly with factories and not just any factories,
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: ethical factories. They cut out the middleman or the middle person.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: And so you can kind of get in your sort
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: of luxury quality pieces without paying that luxury price tag.
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: You know, it sounds like ad copy, but Quince is
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: responsible for sort of the stuff I just grab and go,
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: the stuff that I know I can just throw on.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: works well. I got these two pairs of shorts from Quince.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: And the shorts are both warm. They're kind of khaki,
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: but they're kind of not. They're just easy to wear.
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: I'm wearing a pair of those shorts right now as
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: I'm taping this podcast. So when it comes to gifting,
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: Quince is a lot more than clothing too. By the way,
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: they've got fine jewelry, leather bags, hotel quality bedding, chef-grade cookware.
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: People love a nice piece of equipment to play with
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: in the kitchen these days. Five-star luggage, plenty of ways
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: to find something special for everyone on your list. So
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com. You
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: get free shipping on your order, 365-day returns, Now available
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: where you heard about them, please let them know it
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: was the Chuck Todd cast. It's the best way to
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: support the show and the best way to make sure
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: you're getting every discount. Now, as you know, I believe
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: there are two types of swing voters. And this is true,
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: whether I'm talking about white voters or Latino voters. There
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: are voters who swing between the two parties. They vote
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: for one party in one election. then vote for the
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: other party in the next election. Usually, they're pocketbook voters.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: These are voters that are very sensitive to economic changes
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: and do hold political parties accountable for that. And then
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: there are voters who swing between voting and not voting.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: They participate when they feel motivated. They stay home when
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: they don't. And one thing we do know, what motivates voters,
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: positive affirmation or being pissed off? I think we know
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: the answer to that. It's always the pissed off voters.
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: And the Hispanic electorate, I think is very upset at
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: a variety of things, but in particular, a few, right?
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: The Hispanic electorate captures both kinds of swing voters this
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: year better than almost any other demographic group. There are
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Hispanic voters who voted against Democrats in 24 because they
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: were unhappy with the economy, unhappy with immigration policy, and
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: unhappy with the direction of the country. Now, two years later,
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: some of those same voters appear to be ready to
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: vote against Republicans for many of the same reasons. These
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: were never ideological voters. That was the mistake folks made.
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: These are accountability voters. And there's one other issue that
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: we shouldn't underestimate, and that is ICE. The aggressive immigration
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: enforcement we've seen under this administration has gone well beyond
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: what many voters thought they were endorsing when they voted
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: for tougher border security. It is, look, this goes to
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: a larger pattern we've seen from both political parties. They overreact.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: By the way, quick aside, I had somebody ask me
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: on Sunday, hey, you don't seem to be as focused
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: on the Minnesota Senate race. Why? Because Flanagan's pretty liberal.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: Tafoya's pretty moderate. This should be, you know, polls have
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: shown it close. And I'm like, in any other campaign year,
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: I think it would be in our, you know, eight
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: to 10 most competitive elections. And I certainly think it's
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: going to be a closer vote than any other Democrat
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: would have done. Look, she is probably too liberal for Minnesota,
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: Peggy Flanagan. But Um, I think to FOIA, the, the,
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: the entire direction of the state changed on two things, right?
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: One was Amy Klobuchar, but two was ice killing two
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: Americans in Minnesota. It just completely erased the, the fraud
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: scandal that was engrossing the governor, uh, who decided not
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: to run because it was so bad. Um, that was
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: one thing. And then that obviously helped Peggy Flanagan, the
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: Lieutenant governor sort of sever ties a little bit with
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: the walls administration. Um, But it sort of changed the conversation.
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: Do I think that under almost any other political environment,
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: Michelle Tafoya has a good chance of getting elected? I do.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: It's just, look, if she wins, it just shows you
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: how bad of a candidate Flanagan might be or how
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: out of the mainstream she may be considered. But it
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: is interesting to me that the three states that Democrats
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: are the most nervous about right now, it's really two,
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: Michigan and Maine, but I could throw Minnesota in there.
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: In all three cases, had they had less progressive nominees,
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: they'd be in much better shape. Just something to think about.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: But I digress. Let me go back to my larger
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: point here. Look, this goes back to the immigration issue.
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: Voters have told us they don't want open borders. And
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: Republicans decided that that meant voters want immigration agents terrorizing communities. No,
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: that isn't what they wanted. They didn't want people harassed
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: on roofs while they were doing work. just because they
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: looked Hispanic or just because their last name ended in Z. No,
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: that's not what folks wanted either. Voters don't want open
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: borders and they don't want ICE killing people. And they
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: don't want somebody whose last name ends in Z treated.
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: As a suspect.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: By the way, these are not contradictory positions. But our
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: political parties keep behaving as though every election victory is
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: a mandate to take the most extreme version of whatever
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: position they think helped them win. And then there's shock
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: when voters turn against them two years later. Right. Anyway,
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: that's why these Hispanic early vote in Texas is so
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: interesting to me. Could be telling us something about how
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: voters are responding to the last two years of Republican governance.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: But I do think the bigger story here is age,
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: young voters, because one of the most consistent findings in
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: the polling has been just how negative younger voters are,
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: have become towards Donald Trump and the Republican Party, and
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: in particular, this economy. Polls have picked it up. The
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: question is whether the likely voter models have fully captured
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: how many of those younger voters are actually going to participate.
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: A likely voter model is usually based on previous election returns.
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: Younger voters are the hardest ones to figure out their
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: voting habits because they're still developing their voting habits. And
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: if younger voters become a larger share of the electorate
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: than pollsters expect, right now they expect it to be
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: about 13%. If it's 15 or 16, holy shit, it's
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: a much different election. And that would be one place
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: where polling error could come from in the direction that
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: helps the Democrats. I still I'm still skeptical that there's
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: some mysterious hidden Republican vote because the political environment would
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: tell us it was there in 16. There were plenty
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: of tea leaves to read in the polls to show
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: us the hidden Republican vote was there.
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: The biggest one was, oh. among voters who didn't like
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: both Clinton and Trump, Trump was leading. That was the
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: single most important thing that was in our final NBC
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: News poll. And none of us, myself included, our pollsters,
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: all of us failed to make that a bigger headline
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: in that poll. It was there. We reported it. But
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: it turned out to be the single most important tea
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: leaf to read in there. There is nothing like that
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: about hidden Republican vote that I'm finding. Maybe we'll see
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: it in the last eight days, but I'm not seeing
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: And by the way, if younger voters come out in
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: bigger numbers than expected, I think there are three states
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: where this has a bigger impact than in others. Michigan, Texas,
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: and Florida. Michigan being the most interesting of the three
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: because Abdul El-Sayed sent a campaign. I've said for a while,
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: El-Sayed probably needs an unusually strong youth turnout to win
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: that race. It's what he got. It's how he hung
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: on for dear life in the primary. He killed it
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: in the college towns. And that was in early August
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: when not everybody was there. So his appeal is particularly
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: strong among younger voters. And if those voters participate at
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: higher rates than expected, that's how he is able to
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: win in an environment that perhaps he couldn't win if
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: this were any different. And then if Texas, were seeing
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: these extraordinary Hispanic early vote numbers, and both Florida and
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: Texas being large states and just very transient, a larger,
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: younger vote showing up can have massive impact, I think,
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: on those places. Florida is also fascinating for a different reason.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: One of my favorite substacks right now is Michael McDonald No,
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: we're not talking about the Doobie Brothers, Michael McDonald. We
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: are talking about University of Florida political scientist, Michael McDonald. Sorry,
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: I didn't mean to scare you. If you like the
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Doobie Brothers, I have one of them. Sorry, it's one
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: of my favorite old Simpsons jokes, but I digress. Michael
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: McDonald has been terrific on all of the early vote
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: analysis throughout the country, but he had some interesting– he
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: had an interesting– take on Florida and a reminder. He's
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: been examining the early vote in Florida and the patterns.
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: And he noted there's a big complication this year that
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: makes the numbers very hard to compare with previous years,
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: but they actually are now more interesting because of that fact.
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: Florida changed its mail ballot request rules from what it
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: was four years ago. Previously, a voter could request a
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: mail ballot and have that request carry over through multiple
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: general elections. Now voters have to renew that request pretty
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: much every election cycle. The consequence is that mail ballot
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: requests are way down. And because Democrats have traditionally relied
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: more heavily on mail voting, the assumption was that this
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: change would hurt Democrats. In fact, that appeared to be
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: part of the motivation of the legislature to do these
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: rules changes. They thought, ah, we got them now, right?
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: But here's what's happening. Democrats are making up ground through
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: in-person early voting. Independents are doing the same thing. And Republicans,
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: despite their substantial gains in voter registration in the state
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: of Florida over the last several years, they are not
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: matching the relative enthusiasm that we're seeing among Democrats and
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: unaffiliated voters. In fact, according to McDonald's analysis, he has
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: Democratic in-person early voting up 91% over the comparable point
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: in 2022. Republican in-person voting is up just 23%. Unaffiliated
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: voters are up 80%. Now, I have a theory on this.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: Republicans may have inadvertently created a bigger problem for themselves
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: than they anticipated. In fact, it's why Donald Trump has
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: been bragging he's going to vote early in person, because
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: I think he's trying desperately to see if voters just
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: aren't aware of the rules change.
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: We know this.
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: Democratic voters are anxious about this election. They're paying attention.
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: They're highly motivated. And if you make it harder for
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: them to vote by mail, fine, they'll find another way
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: to vote. You change where they have to vote, they'll
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: figure out where to go vote. That's how pissed off
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: a big chunk of the electorate is. Meanwhile, Republican voters
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: are not feeling that same urgency. That's what you're seeing here,
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: I think. And that could mean that a change intended
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: to disadvantage the Democrats ends up having a much smaller
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: impact on Democrats and a much bigger impact on Republicans.
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: Where suddenly, Their turnout is down because the habitual nature
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: of voting got disrupted. And if you're already not thinking
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: about it, ignoring it or feeling depressed about it, perhaps
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: you're not figuring that out. Just saying yet another. I
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: look at all these early vote analysis as different tea
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: leaves to read. So I've given you some tea leaves
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: in Texas. I've given you some tea leaves in Florida.
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: They change the rules and Democrats are already overperforming. Now
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: let's go to another state, Virginia. Chas Netticombe, many of
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: you follow him on social media. I do. He's terrific.
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: He's been working on this project called State Navigate, trying
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: to essentially get better surveys out there. And they've been
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: doing a good job. He's got a new survey out
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: that shows Democrats leading the generic congressional ballot in Virginia
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: by 20 points. It's massive. He did the same. This
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: is a similar poll he did a year ago. And
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: the early vote numbers as well are also particularly striking. 36%
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: of likely voters in the survey say they've already voted.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: We still got eight more days. By the way, I
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: haven't voted yet, and I'm a Virginian. Those voters are
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: backing Democrats 72-28. About that enthusiasm advantage? Yeah. Now Virginia
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: has become a more Democratic state that we know over
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: the years. But a 20-point generic ballot advantage? That's something
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: else entirely. Survey find one more thing. about the broader
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: political environment. Among voters who supported Trump in 2024, but
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: now disapprove of his performance, these are my somewhat disapprovers
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: that I've been telling you about, a quarter say they're
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: voting Democrat for Congress. That's not a huge share of
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: the entire electorate, but it's exactly the kind of movement
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: that can turn close Republican districts into Democratic districts. And
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: when you combine all of this together, about the younger electorate,
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: stronger Democratic enthusiasm and independence breaking against the president, you
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: begin to see how a wave could become something considerably larger.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: Just in Virginia, look, we're going to have small, medium,
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: and large to test this out. Virginia's second congressional district
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: is the big swing district. That's Virginia Beach. I think
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: almost in any, whatever party's having the slight advantage usually
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: wins that district. Virginia won. It's slightly more Republican than that.
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: A good Democratic year. Democrats should be able to pull
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: that off. I'd probably make them the favorite there. Then
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: there's Virginia 5. It's got Charlottesville in it, but it's
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: got a lot of some Republican areas and some red areas.
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: It's a Republican district. Democrats pull that one off. That's
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: the one where former Congressman Tom Perriello is winning. That's
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: bottom falling out territory. That's what this poll is potentially
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: painting for. as more probable than just possible. I get it.
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: Just being careful here. These are all teeth. You know,
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: we talk about reading the tea leaves. This, whenever you
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: hear that phrase, what does that mean? It's people like
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: me doing this, looking at these early vote analysis, looking
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: at this turnout, burying our heads in demographic, looking at
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: these trend lines, comparing it with previous elections, right? It
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: isn't just like, you know, taking out the tarot cards
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: and going, ooh, look, the card of death. We now
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: know where this is headed. That's why it's hard. And again,
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: I'm I am searching for tea leaves to be counter.
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: I'm trying. I don't want to miss that number I
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: told you about from 2016, where it was staring us
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: in the face. Voters who didn't like either presidential candidate
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: preferred Trump by I think it was 10 points. It
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: was staring us in the face. And we didn't make
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: a big enough deal about it. I am certain. I'm
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: just trying to tell you I am trying to find
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: counterfactual information to what I'm reading. And I'm not just
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: going to just smoke the hopium pipe of the right
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: and say, polling error, when I can't find a lot
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: of evidence for it just yet. So the early voting
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: patterns are pointing one way. And the behavior of the
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: two political parties in the final days of the campaign
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: is pointing one way as well. It brings me to
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: something else I find impossible to understand. Republicans can see
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: the same numbers I'm seeing. They can see the president's
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: approval ratings and they can see what voters are saying
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: about the economy and they can see the dissatisfaction with
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: the war in Iran and with the administration's immigration policies.
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: And yet instead of addressing reasons voters are unhappy with
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: the people running the country, they're spending the final days
• 37:12
  Speaker 1: of this campaign trying to convince voters to be afraid
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: of the people who aren't running the country on policy
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: ideas that were being debated two years ago or four
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: years ago. And nobody seems more disconnected from the political
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: moment than Donald Trump himself. And I've been thinking a
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: lot about a little thought experiment. What would candidate Trump
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: say about President Trump at the moment? Let's just say
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: I think candidate Trump would destroy President Trump. Imagine Donald Trump,
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: the candidate from 2016 and 2024, running against Donald Trump,
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: the president of 2026. What would candidate Trump say about
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: this experiment? failed presidency. He'd have a field day. Call
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: him a loser. Look at those approval ratings. Nobody likes him.
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: He'd say he's the worst negotiator in American history. Every
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: deal he's negotiated has been for shit for the American economy.
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: He'd say Putin is eating his lunch. He'd say Canada's
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: eating his lunch. Everybody's eating Trump's lunch. The only good
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: out of that is that maybe it would let him
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: lose some weight. He'd probably make a fat joke about him. Again,
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: candidate Trump, President Trump. He'd say this president doesn't know
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: how to make a deal. He'd say he'd been played
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: by the Russians, played by the Chinese, played by the Canadians.
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: The entire world is laughing at us. He'd say this
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: president promised us peace and gave us war. And remember
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: what Trump said in 2024 about Kamala Harris. He warned
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: if you elected her, we would end up in World
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: War III or war with Iran. Well, guess what? We
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: ended up with a war with Iran and fears of
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: World War III. Oh, and a guy named Donald Trump
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: is the president. Can you imagine what candidate Trump would
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: say about a president who made that promise and then
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: did exactly what he warned his opponent would do? Candidate
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: Trump would be absolutely merciless on this person. He'd be saying,
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: I told you this would happen. I told you these
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: people don't know what they're doing. I told you they
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: were going to get us into another stupid war in
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: the Middle East. And he'd be saying it every single day.
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: Now let's talk about the economy. because this is where
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: the contrast becomes almost comical. Remember Donald Trump in 2024,
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: he was working the drive-through at McDonald's. He climbed into
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: a garbage truck. He was doing these elaborate campaign stunts
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: designed to reinforce the idea that he actually understood what
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: ordinary Americans were going through and the types of jobs
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: that they do to keep this country going. And you
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: know what? Politically in 2024, those things worked. He fooled. Look,
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: I laughed at him. We knew it was bullshit. But
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: as a political tactician, he knew what he was doing.
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: They were memorable, got attention, reinforced his message. He understood
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: that voters were angry about the cost of living, and
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: he knew how to turn that anger into a political weapon.
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: Now look at him. Gas prices are up. Diesel prices
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: are up. People are angry about grocery bills and energy costs.
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: And what's the president's response at one of his rallies
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: over the weekend? He's bragging about how much money the
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: country is making, which is really just the wealthiest 10%.
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: He actually said, let me quote him, we're making money
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: like we've never made before. And then he anticipated the
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: obvious criticism that people are suffering at the pump while
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: he's bragging about all his money. And his response, I
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: don't give a damn. We're making a freaking fortune.
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: Imagine candidate Trump hearing President Trump say that. He'd run
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: the clip in every commercial. Democrats will. He'd play it
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: at every rally. Democrats will. He'd have the entire crowd chanting,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: I don't give a damn. He'd say this guy doesn't
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: care about you. He doesn't care about what you're paying
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: for gasoline. He doesn't care about what you're paying for groceries.
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: He only cares about how much money he's making. And
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: what's amazing here is that President Trump practically wrote the
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: attack ad himself. He said the quiet part out loud.
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: He even anticipated the criticism and then dismissed it. And
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: here's what's so strange about this. You know, it's funny
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: to watch if there is sort of been two Trumps
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: in this last 10 years. Trump was actually a pretty
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: disciplined presidential candidate when it mattered. In 2016, he understood
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: the electorate was angry with the political establishment. He understood
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: that voters thought Washington was making terrible deals and that
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: both parties had failed them. And he leaned into that.
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: In 2024, he understood voters were frustrated with inflation, immigration.
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: They thought Biden just was feeble and weak. And he
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: used all of that. He didn't need a sophisticated economic argument.
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: He just needed to convince voters that the people in
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: charge were incompetent. And he was very good at that. Well,
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: now he's the guy in charge. Now he's the incompetent one.
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: And boy, is he incompetent, right? He seems to be
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: completely incapable of accepting that the electorate might be unhappy
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: with him. He just told– I think it was Byron
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: York in an interview with the Washington Examiner. He didn't
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: believe his– it was fake news, all the polls that
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: have his job rating in the low, mid, high 30s.
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: You can pick your poll, but they're all in the 30s,
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: his job rating these days, right? And he said– and
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: they'd ask him, what do you think it is? He said, oh,
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: I think it's in the 60s.
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: Man.
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: It's almost as if he can't process the idea that
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: he's unpopular and that he's now the incumbent defending the
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: status quo. And this is to me where the Republican
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: Party's closing message is so revealing, right? Again, I was
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: in Texas over the last few days and after the
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: game I was in in person at, we went and watched,
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, UCF, BYU, we watched Iowa, Minnesota, we watched,
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: then of course it flowed into Ole Miss and Texas,
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: but what it meant was I saw a bunch of
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: Texas attack ads. I saw a bunch of Iowa attack ads.
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: So was able, you know, because as we've all learned,
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: college football has become a magnet now, even on the
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: national level for the super PACs. So it gives you
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: an idea of what these closing arguments have become. And
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: what struck me is how little of it seems designed
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: to address the issues that voters say are bothering them
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: the most. Republicans are completely ignoring what's bothering voters. Instead,
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: It's some familiar Republican attack ads from like 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022.
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: Democrats are weak on crime or Democrats are going to
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: raise your taxes. Those were the hits that Tallarico and
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: Gina Hinojosa were on the receiving end in a lot.
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: Democrats are too liberal. That was, you know, there's the
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: trans stuff, obsessed with transgender issues. There's a Josh Turek
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: notably had his own ad pushing back on that and
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: making it clear where he stands that he doesn't believe
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: that trans women should participate in youth sports, women's sports,
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: excuse me. But it's interesting. I think I've seen more
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: Republican ads attacking Democrats over transgender issues than I've seen
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: ads offering a convincing, frankly, any explanation, not even convincing,
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: for why voters should be happy with this economy. But
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: here's the problem. The Republicans are running against the Democratic
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: Party of Joe Biden. That's two years ago, which might
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: as well, for the way time moves these days, might
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: as well be two decades ago. Voters are living in
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: the America of 2026, not the one in 2024. They're
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: not asking Republicans to remind them why they were unhappy
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They already know. They
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: kicked them out. They're asking why the people who promised
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: to fix everything not only haven't fixed it, but made
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: it all worse. Inflation is worse than it was under Biden.
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: This economy is worse than it was under Biden. The
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: world is more unstable today than it was under Biden.
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: These wars are worse under Trump than it was under Biden.
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: I get it. They're trying to remind voters what they
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: don't like about Democrats. But it's like tax is crime.
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: It's stuff so baked in, it doesn't break through. Voters
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: already know what they don't like about the Democrats. That's
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: why Republicans won the last election. Question now is what
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: voters don't like about Republicans. And Republicans seem determined not
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: even to try to answer the criticism, not even try
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: to assuage the issues. Take this comment. This was an
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: interesting comment. Republican Congressman Brandon Gill was talking about diesel prices,
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: and he wrote this on X. The solution to bringing
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: down the price of diesel is not to vote for
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: the party that supports transitioning America off fossil fuels entirely. Hmm, okay.
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: I understand what he's trying to say with that tweet,
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: but who's in charge of the country right now? You
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: know what he didn't talk about? Why diesel prices are
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: up in the first place. Who controls the White House?
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: Who controls Congress? Who promised energy dominance? Who promised to
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: bring prices down? Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. And instead
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: of explaining why diesel prices are high under Republican leadership,
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: Gill is warning voters, about what Democrats might do if
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: they get power. They might diversify. Watch out. They may
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: diversify our energy sources. Oh, wait a minute. That could
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: actually bring prices down. Oops. Point is, this is not
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: a closing argument. Republicans don't have one. It's just an
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: attempt to change the subject. And it's a misunderstanding of
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: their own voters. They think they're owning the libs is
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: somehow going to surge base turnout. And I think we're
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: learning that ain't working. Just spend 10 minutes on Marjorie
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: Taylor Greene's XFeed and you'll see what I'm talking about.
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: And it actually brings me to one of the more
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: fascinating developments of the last few days. The administration is
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: now trying to ease some of its tariffs on Canadian products,
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: particularly agricultural and forestry products, in an effort to help
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: Susan Collins and other northern Republicans facing difficult reelection campaigns
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: thanks to Donald Trump's ridiculous trade war with Canada. Now,
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: think about what that decision tells us. For months, Trump
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: has insisted his tariff policies are so brilliant. They're helping
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: just this golden age of the economy. They're making America
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: rich and they're strengthening the economy. And now, listen, two
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: weeks before Election Day, his administration is acknowledging that those
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: same tariffs are hurting businesses and consumers in Maine. So
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: what's the solution? Ease the tariffs? But apparently only where
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: there's a competitive Senate race that they have a tiny
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: shot at winning. I mean, what are we doing here?
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: If the tariffs are hurting Maine businesses, aren't they also
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: hurting businesses everywhere? Narrator jumps in here and says, yes.
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: It's reducing tariffs is good economic policy in Maine. Why
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: isn't it good economic policy nationally? It's almost as if
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: somebody walked into the Oval Office and said, Mr. President,
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: Susan Collins actually could win if you stop doing this
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: one thing that's hurting her and her state. And Trump said, OK, fine,
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: we'll stop doing it there. It's not an economic strategy.
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: It's political triage. It's just weird that he seems unwilling
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: to apply the same logic nationally, because doing so, though,
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: would do what? It would mean acknowledging that his trade
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: policy has been an economic disaster for the country. And
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: he can't do that. He can't admit that he caused
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: the problem. He can't admit that his policies made things
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: more expensive. He can't admit that the economy he's presiding
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: over isn't the economic miracle he keeps describing. And this
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: is where candidate Trump would be absolutely brutal on this
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: President Trump. He'd say, look at this guy. He puts
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: tariffs on everybody, makes everything more expensive, and then takes
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: the tariffs off when he realizes he's going to lose
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: an election. What a terrible dealmaker he is. What an
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: incompetent negotiator. He doesn't even know what he's doing. And
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: that's before we get to Putin. Because candidate Trump would
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: look at what's happening with Russia and Ukraine and say,
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: this president is getting played. He'd say Putin knows exactly
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: how to manipulate him. He'd say we're giving the Russians
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: everything they want and we're getting nothing in return. Well,
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: maybe he wouldn't. Maybe he's got a different issue with Putin. Sorry,
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: tinfoil hat came on my head for a second. Let
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: me take it off. But let's imagine candidate Trump would
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: say the president is so desperate to announce a deal
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: that he's willing to give away the store, which is
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: what he did with the Russians. Sound familiar? This is
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: actually the kind of attack. I didn't make up these attacks.
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: I went and got some from 2012 and 2016 from
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: actual candidate Donald Trump. And he used to use this
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: attack on Barack Obama all the time. He didn't know
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: how to make a deal. He's terrible at it. Look,
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump was an effective candidate when he could make
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: himself the voice of voter dissatisfaction. He was good at
• 49:52
  Speaker 1: identifying what people were angry about and attaching that anger
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: to whoever happened to be in charge. Now he's in charge.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: And instead of acknowledging any dissatisfaction, he's arguing with it.
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: He's telling voters they're wrong about the economy. He's telling
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: voters they should be happy. Go look at your 401ks,
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: he screams. He's telling voters that the country's making a fortune.
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: And when somebody points out that they're suffering at the pump,
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: his response is he doesn't give a damn. I don't
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: know how you construct a worse closing argument than that.
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: And I think it's one of the reasons Republicans are
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: in such serious trouble with eight days to go. Because
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: a president isn't merely failing to help his party. He's
• 50:28
  Speaker 1: reminding voters almost every day why they're unhappy with it.
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: And as we'll see in Ohio, That political tone is
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: filtering down into some of the most important races in
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: the country. So let's go to Ohio. Because I think
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: what's happening in the Ohio governor's race could become one
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: of the defining stories of this election. It's certainly adding
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: to the disastrous closing argument that Republicans are making about themselves.
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: It actually reminds me of something that happened 20 years
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: ago in another year that became a surprisingly large blue wave,
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: larger than anybody expected, 2006. Remember George Allen in Virginia
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: and Makaka? Back then, Virginia was considered a red state.
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: They hadn't voted for Democratic presidential candidates since 76. They
• 51:17
  Speaker 1: had certainly had some Democratic governors and had a Democratic
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: senator in Chuck Robb, but who had gotten defeated in 2000.
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: And Allen was actually being seen as, once he won
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: his reelection, he'd start running for president in 08. He
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: was somebody who was supposed to have a relatively comfortable reelection.
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: In fact, Democrats didn't really target him. Jim Webb ran
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: because he was upset about the Iraq war and decided
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: to come. No Democrat recruited him. Trust me, if you
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: know Jim Webb, if Democrats had recruited him, he might
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: have given him the finger. Now, what Vivek Ramaswamy has
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: done in Ohio is a very different matter. It's actually
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: much worse and it's much more disturbing. The comparison isn't
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: about the acts themselves, and I want to make that clear.
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: It's about what happens when an incident late in a
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: campaign becomes symbolic of something much larger. The Allen incident
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: didn't create the democratic wave of 2006. Iraq war was
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: already unpopular. Bush was unpopular. The economy was becoming unpopular.
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: But it became a symbol of a little bit of
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: Republican arrogance and insensitivity at precisely the moment voters were
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: increasingly unhappy with the party itself. And that's what I'm
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: wondering here, is whether the controversy surrounding Ramaswamy's attack on
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: Amy Acton could be something similar in Ohio. Because what
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: Ramaswamy's campaign has done is extraordinarily repugnant. I've said my
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: piece about him, but I actually have not. I have
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: more to say, and I'm saying it here. His campaign
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: put out an ad featuring Acton's estranged birth mother attacking
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: her own daughter, calling her a liar, and questioning her character. Now,
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: that might sound like an unusual but potentially effective piece
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: of opposition research until you learn the rest of the story.
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: Acton says she hasn't seen her birth mother since she
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: was 12 years old, 1978. She says she and her
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: brother experienced years of extreme abuse and neglect at the
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: hands of her mother and stepfather. And she says her
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: mother currently is not well. In fact, apparently her mother
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: doesn't really live anywhere. She lives in her car. And
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: the Ramaswami campaign found her in a car. But I digress.
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: So think about it. You're running for governor. You're Amy Acton.
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: You've built a life and career after an extraordinarily difficult childhood.
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: You've moved on from experiences no child should have to endure.
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: And then your political opponent decides to turn that childhood
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: trauma into a campaign ad. Not because it has anything
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: to do with your record of public service. Not because
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: it tells voters anything about your economic policies or even
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: your character. But because somebody decided that putting your estranged
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: mother on television to attack you might be an effective
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: way to win an election. It's morally repugnant. And the
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: more I think about it, the worse it gets. Let me,
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: stick with me here a minute. What message does this
• 54:08
  Speaker 1: send to people who have survived abuse like this or
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: have endured abuse like this? That no matter how much
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: you've overcome, no matter how successful you've become, no matter
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: how much distance you've put between yourself and what happened
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: to you, somebody can always drag it back into the
• 54:25
  Speaker 1: public square and use it against you. And then they
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: tell you it's all just politics. Man, I mean, that's
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: what J.D. Vance seems to think, man. F you, man.
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: That's terrible to think that. Not everything is just politics.
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: Is it any wonder victims of abuse are reluctant to
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: come forward at all? If this is how they're going
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: to be treated, not believed, or even if they're believed,
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: it gets weaponized against them someday? Is it any wonder
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: people spend years trying to keep these things private? We
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: say we want victims to speak out so we can
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: get the bad actors. But there's another layer of hypocrisy
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: here that I can't get past. It's the political movement
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: that has spent an enormous amount of time talking about
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, demanding accountability and insisting that victims of sexual
• 55:15
  Speaker 1: abuse deserve to be heard. They're right. And then one
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: of its most prominent candidates decides to exploit another person's
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: history of childhood abuse because they're desperate to see if
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: they can win an election. I mean, To call Ramaswami
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: unprincipled is an understatement. Where's the basic human decency? You know,
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: what's interesting is that Ramaswami had a chance here to
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: basically walk this back. And the fact that he didn't
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: take the chance is even more telling. And it's more disgusting.
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: Ohio's Republican Governor Mike DeWine suggested, you know, Ramaswami should
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: take that attack. And he was doing it in the
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: very Mike DeWine way. This guy's not a bomb thrower.
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: He doesn't like to, he just, that isn't who he is.
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: You know, he's got a lot of respect for Amy Acton,
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: who was his right-hand person on COVID. I've probably said
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: this joke one too many times. DeWine may have endorsed Ramaswamy,
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean he's going to vote for him. But that
• 56:21
  Speaker 1: moment was an opportunity for Ramaswamy to quickly course correct.
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: He could have acknowledged the criticism and withdrawn it, been
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: respectful to the extraordinarily popular two-term governor. Instead, Donald Trump
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: jumped into the controversy and defended the ad. And then
• 56:35
  Speaker 1: he attacked DeWine for criticizing it. He went after Acton personally,
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: calling her defective, dishonest, and incapable. He actually described the
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: ad as hitting paydirt. Donald Trump hitting paydirt. How gross. Again,
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: all part of Donald Trump's incredible closing messaging that he's
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: created for the Republican Party. The president of the United
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: States described a campaign ad featuring a woman attacking the
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: daughter who says, who suffered sexual abuse to this woman's
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: dead husband. Put her kid in a tent, was so
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: neglectful of her kids, they were taken away from her.
• 57:10
  Speaker 1: And the president didn't merely defend it. He seemed to
• 57:12
  Speaker 1: delight in it. Ask yourself a political question. Who's that
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: supposed to persuade? I go back to something I said before.
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: Think about how little respect Trump had and Ramaswamy have
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: for their own base of support. They think this is
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: good politics. I mean, they won Donald Trump's political movement
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: won office by correctly noting that the left-wing elitists talk
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: down to working people. But you're doing something worse. You're assuming...
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: Your base is as morally repugnant, apparently, as you are,
• 57:50
  Speaker 1: Vivek Ramaswamy. Who's the undecided Ohio voter who's worried about
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: the economy, worried about health care, worried about the cost
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: of living? He sees the commercial and says, oh, now
• 58:00
  Speaker 1: I know which candidate understands my problems. By the way,
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: the controversy certainly attracted attention. Shane Goldmacher on his ex-feed
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: reported that Acton became the top Democratic gubernatorial fundraiser on
• 58:14
  Speaker 1: ActBlue over the preceding week. And it's a top Democratic
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: candidate overall. First time a candidate for governor occupied that
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: position since April. I actually think it's possible this controversy
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: becomes bigger than the governor's race. Ohio Republicans have dominated
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: state politics for years. They have a veto-proof supermajority in
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: the statehouse. And Democrats have been trying to break that supermajority.
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: And Ramaswamy may have just handed the Democrats an opportunity
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: to do that. Republicans currently hold 65 of the 99
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: House seats. Democrats hold 34. Democrats need a net gain
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: of six to deprive Republicans of that supermajority. Six seats.
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: State Senate's a bit tougher for them because of which
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: seats happen to be up this cycle. But the House
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: is generally worth watching. This is what it will tell
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: you whether this was that catastrophic of a mistake by Ramaswamy.
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: Individuals can become evidence of a larger problem. Mark Foley
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: didn't create the Democratic wave either, and neither did Makaka.
• 59:17
  Speaker 1: But the wave was already building. It reinforced the impression
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: Republicans have become arrogant, out of touch, and unaccountable. And
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: sometimes the closing argument in a campaign isn't the one
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: the party intended to make. Sometimes it's the one the
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: party makes accidentally. There's one more reason I think this
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: Ohio story could become symbolic of this election. It has
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: to do with who Vivek Ramaswamy is. Remember, Ramaswamy isn't
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: some traditional Republican politician who spent 20 years working his
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: way through the state legislature in Ohio to become the
• 59:53
  Speaker 1: nominee for governor. He's a wealthy biotech entrepreneur. He made
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: an enormous amount of money in a business that most
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: Americans probably couldn't begin to explain. And there have been
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: questions about how much actual value some of the businesses
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: he's created beyond generating wealth for the people who own them,
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 1: he's created. He built businesses that were intended to help
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: with cures, but it's not clear they ever did. Now,
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: that's not to say he didn't build legitimate businesses, but
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: I do think there's a growing skepticism in this country
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: about a certain type of wealthy tech entrepreneur that sort
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 1: of makes money without making a thing. the guy who
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: gets extraordinarily rich through a series of complicated financial transactions,
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: who then decides that his success in business means he's
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: smart enough to run the government. And I think voters
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: have become increasingly suspicious of that entire group of people,
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: particularly as they watch what artificial intelligence is doing to
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: the workplace, what technology companies are doing with their personal information,
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: what data centers are doing to local communities, and what
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 1: some of the wealthiest people in this country are doing
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: with their political influences. And here comes Ramaswamy, already representing
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: a kind of wealth and privilege that is becoming less
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: popular and the country's more skeptical of, deciding that the
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: best way to win over voters is to exploit childhood
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: trauma of his opponent. What an extraordinary political choice. And
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: I wonder whether this becomes one of those moments that
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 1: actually symbolizes this entire election. Ramaswamy, the bullshit tech entrepreneur
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: who bullshitted his way to wealth, then showed up into
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: politics and thought he was a know-it-all, thought he knew everything,
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 1: thought this was, you know, saw two Trump rallies and thought,
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 1: this is how you conduct politics. And then comes in here,
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 1: just comes across like a complete asshole, right? I don't
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: know what else. I'm sorry. I don't, but what else, right?
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: Just everything we don't like about the tech industry, politicians,
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: And this, all wrapped up in one. So acting could
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 1: become a symbol of a Republican Party that seems increasingly comfortable,
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: allowing wealthy, powerful people to behave as though ordinary standards
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: of decency don't apply to them. Of course, what makes
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: this so interesting is that Ramaswamy may have already been
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: vulnerable to a growing backlash against the tech billionaire class.
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: And that brings me to Elon Musk. Because as I said,
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 1: if Vivek Ramaswamy represents one version of the growing public
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: frustration with wealthy tech entrepreneurs, Musk represents something much bigger
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 1: and potentially much more dangerous and consequential. So let's get
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: to the politics part first. According to Politico, Musk has
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: poured another $ 76 million into... into the sort of Senate
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: efforts now, both in Texas and Ohio. He's now given
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: at least $ 442 million for the cycle, but he may
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: end up being a billion dollar donor when we find
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: out at the end of the day, because we always
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: find this stuff out on a delayed basis. All of
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: it is an extraordinary amount of money. I know we
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: say half a billion and hundreds of billions and, you know,
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: a billion here and a billion there, and eventually it
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 1: all sounds like real money, but In all seriousness, this
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: is an extraordinary amount of money, even by the standards
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: of modern politics. Musk has made himself a very public
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: participant in this election, which means Republicans are getting both
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: the benefit of his money and an increasingly hefty size
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: and political baggage that now comes with him. Because I
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: think the larger story here is about power. Not simply
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: political influence, but the power that comes from controlling things
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 1: that governments and the rest of society have become dependent upon.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: And the latest controversy involving Starlink in Ukraine is a
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: perfect illustration. Musk acknowledged that his company had restricted Ukraine's
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: ability to use Starlink for offensive drone operations against Russia.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: His explanation was that Starlink is a civilian commercial service
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: and that Ukraine had violated its terms of service. Terms
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: of service. What a bullshitter, right? Imagine Imagine if Apple
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 1: started doing that. But anyway, we're talking about a war
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: involving a country fighting for its survival and the person
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: controlling a critical part of its communications infrastructure is explaining
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: a decision with enormous consequences by invoking the terms of service.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: They click yes. Now, Musk distinguishes Starlink from Starship, the
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: system operated for the American government. Fine. There are contractual
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: and operational differences. But those differences don't answer the fundamental
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: question of why one private businessman should have this much
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: influence over the military capabilities of an American ally. And
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: then Musk said something even more revealing. He claimed that
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: if Starlink were turned off, the Ukrainian front line would
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: collapse immediately. He, of course, insisted that wasn't a threat,
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: merely a statement of fact. Well, whatever he intended, he
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: was advertising to the entire world, including Vladimir Putin, just
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: how much leverage he alone possesses. That's what concerns me,
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: and it should concern, honestly, every voter left and right.
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 1: every single American, that this one man can do all
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: of this. Starlink was enormously important in helping Ukraine resist
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: the Russian invasion, particularly in the early days of the war.
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: But its success has created a dependency. And the owner
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: of the company providing that service has decided to exploit
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: that dependency, right? What an immoral thing to do, but
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: he has. And the owner of the company providing that
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: service is making decisions that can impact the battlefield while
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: simultaneously becoming one of the most important donors to one
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: political party in the history of this country. Again, imagine
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: if the chief executive of Apple or Google were behaving
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: this way. Tim Cook were publicly announcing restrictions on technology
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: being used by a political party or by an American ally,
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: you know, messing around with when you can update an
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: app and when you couldn't. And then also spending hundreds
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: of millions of dollars to keep only one political party
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: in power. Conservatives would be furious. They never, you know,
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: especially if it were one side, or liberals would be
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: furious if it were on the other side. And I
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: know some conservatives somehow believe Apple and Google have already
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: abused their influence over political speech and access to their platforms.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: It's an argument worth having. I don't think the evidence
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: is actually there, but it's an argument you can have.
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: But if you care about that, you should really care
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: about what Musk is doing. Musk gives us a very
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: concrete example of the larger problem because he's openly acknowledging
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: that the decisions his company is making and the leverage
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: those decisions give him. He does not care about anybody
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: but himself and his self-enrichment and power. And the power
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: he's accumulating doesn't stop with Starlink. SpaceX has become central
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: to the American space programs. and an important provider of
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: national security services. X is both a social media platform
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 1: and a significant means of distributing news and information. His
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: businesses span artificial intelligence, communications, and transportation. Now comes reporting
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: from Semaphore and the Hollywood Reporter that Musk is considering
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: a billion dollar investment in David Ellison's Skydance operation, with
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: John Malone suggesting that a much larger investment involving SpaceX
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: could eventually follow. The figures being discussed ranged as high
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: as $ 8 to $ 10 billion. And it's speculation for now.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: But think about what that would mean. Musk could have
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: significant financial interest in a company controlling major television networks,
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: film studios, streaming services, sports rights, news organizations, while already
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 1: controlling one of the most important platforms on which content
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 1: is distributed. The pipes in the content, potentially under the
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 1: influence of the same person. And we also have space
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: and the ability to even communicate. So this isn't a
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 1: question of what shows might end up streaming on X.
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: It's about the influence a major investor can exercise over
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: the companies producing journalism and entertainment. In fact, consider CNN
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: or HBO. Consider the journalists and documentary filmmakers who have
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: made Musk himself the subject of their work. There's an
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: irony here because HBO is scheduled to air Alex Gibney's
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: documentary about Musk. I've interviewed him. You can catch that interview.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: I did it on Newsphere. I've interviewed Gibney here before.
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: I've watched this Musk documentary. It peels back the curtain. Basically,
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: this guy's just an effective investor and bully. He is
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: no genius, though. He's not Thomas Edison. But Think about
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: the fact that Musk is exploring an investment that could
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: give him financial influence over the company, distributing a very
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: critical documentary about him. You don't need an owner to
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 1: call a newsroom and order a story killed by ownership
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: to matter. Executives understand the interests of their investors. Editors
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: understand the pressures facing their companies. I've worked at one
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: of these publicly traded companies. I hear it. You feel it.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: You don't have to say anything. Sometimes people anticipate what
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: the person with the money might want without ever having
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: to say it. So when the investor also controls a
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: major distribution platform with potential leverage becomes even greater. We've
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: had laws governing media concentration for decades, but those laws
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: were designed around newspapers, radio stations, television networks, and telecommunications companies.
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: They weren't designed for a world where one individual could
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: simultaneously have major interests in satellite communications, space launches, social media,
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, and entertainment content. I know news as well.
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: If this investment moves forward, it ought to trigger a
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 1: serious examination of whether our ownership and antitrust rules are
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: adequate for the modern communications economy. And I'd like that
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: examination to be bipartisan. It needs to be. This can't
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: be a partisan witch hunt. Elon Musk is worthy of
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 1: a witch hunt. I get it, okay? He's a terrible
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: human being. The guy, or maybe he's a good human
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: being who's got a mental health breakdown and is on
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: too much ketamine. I'm open to that explanation. But this
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: isn't about his politics. It's about whether any private individual
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: should accumulate so much control over infrastructure that the government
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 1: itself has trouble functioning without his cooperation. That's Bond villain-esque, okay?
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: Which brings me to Russia. One of the things Vladimir
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: Putin has understood better than most political leaders is how
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 1: to use the relationship between private wealth and government power.
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 1: His system has made enormous fortunes dependent on access to
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 1: the state while using those fortunes to reinforce political authority.
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: It is one of the most successful kleptocracies in world history.
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: It's a model in which business and government become so
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: intertwined that it's difficult to separate national interests from the
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: financial interests of the people making the decisions. In fact,
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: some of the reporting about the Trump administration's negotiations with
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: Trump raises questions about whether we're allowing business opportunities to
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: become entangled with American foreign policy in ways that deserve
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: a lot more scrutiny. New York Times is a fascinating
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 1: investigation into a proposed natural gas project in Alaska involving
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: a company called Polar LNG. The company wants to develop
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: natural gas resources on Alaska's North Slope using technology supplied
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: by Novatek, a major Russian energy company subject to American sanctions.
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: But according to The Times, the project has also received
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: financing secretly connected to Novatek. The company's former chief executive
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 1: says he was misled about the source of the money,
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: and Novatek has acknowledged that it is seeking an ownership stake. Now,
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: the project is far from becoming reality, faces significant technological, financial,
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 1: and regulatory obstacles. But that's not the most interesting part
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: of the story. project has been discussed in the context
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: of the administration's negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine. And it
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: isn't the only business arrangement being discussed. The Times also
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: reported conversations involving Russian oil assets, potential American investors, including
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: some with business connections to guess who? Steve Witkoff and
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 1: Jared Kushner. The reporting doesn't establish that Witkoff and Kushner
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 1: knew about the hidden financing behind Polar LNG, but it
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 1: does show how business opportunities have become part of the
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: diplomatic conversation. This is what Putin keeps dangling in front
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 1: of Trump. Oh, we got all these business deals, so
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: we can just, you know, get rid of this Ukraine guy.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: This is what Congress ought to be do. We've had
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: literally a neutered Congress, okay? It's been castrated. We're negotiating
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: with a country that invaded its neighbor, a country we've
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: sanctioned precisely because of that aggression. And now we're discussing
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: arrangement that could give sanctioned Russian companies access to American
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 1: energy projects? And new sources of revenue? So how much
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 1: of this is about ending the war and how much
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: of it is about creating more business opportunities for Trump
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: and his cronies? I don't know the answer, but I
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: know Putin understands how to use financial incentives to essentially
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: coerce and co-op people. And whether he's got Trump knowingly
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: under his thumb or unknowingly under his thumb, he's done it.
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: The possibility that business interests could influence American diplomacy is
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: something we should be investigating, not dismissing. especially when you
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 1: look at all the contradictions inside the administration's own Russian policy.
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: The Atlantic is a terrific piece about CIA Director John Ratcliffe,
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 1: and it's pretty revealing. On the one hand, you have
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump publicly attacking Zelensky, describing him as more difficult
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: to deal with than Vladimir Putin and accusing him of
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: prolonging the war. On the other hand, you have American
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 1: intelligence professionals continuing to help Ukraine defend itself and conduct
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: operations against Russian targets. According to The Atlantic, some of
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 1: those CIA-supported operations have become more aggressive under Ratcliffe, actually,
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 1: than they did under the Biden administration. Good for you,
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: John Ratcliffe. It's fascinating, isn't it? It suggests that the
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: professionals responsible for assessing the Russian threat are operating with
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: a very different understanding of the war from the one
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: the president sometimes conveys publicly. And Ratcliffe is a Trump loyalist.
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: He's close to the president. He's retained his confidence, one
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 1: of the few people to retain his confidence over two terms.
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: But the reporting describes him as someone who understands the
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: actual threat Russia imposes and who has maintained a productive
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: relationship with Ukrainian intelligence officials. Marco Rubio understood that threat
• 1:14:26
  Speaker 1: long before he joined the administration. Remember when Rubio called
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: Putin a gangster and a thug when he was running
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: for president? There are people inside this administration that get
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: what Russia is up to. They understand that Putin believes
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: he can win this war by simply exhausting Ukraine and
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: its Western supporters, even if his military can't actually win
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: this war. Yet they serve a president who keeps directing
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: much of his public frustration at Zelensky. We know. Look,
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: I'll put the tinfoil back on. If he's not a
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: Russian asset, he certainly behaves like one. Ratcliffe reportedly traveled
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: to Moscow. I'm taking the hat back off now. in
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: August to meet with Russian intelligence officials through an established
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: intelligence channel. His message was essentially that neither side was
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 1: winning decisively and the continuing war wasn't producing the breakthrough
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: Putin wanted. It was a way to try to communicate
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: our actual intelligence assessment directly to Moscow, away from the rhetoric.
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: But there's a limit to what Ratcliffe can do without
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: Trump cooperating. He can advise him, but if the president
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 1: decides to suspend intelligence support for Ukraine, Ratcliffe will have
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 1: to carry out that decision. And we've seen this happen once.
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: following Trump's first confrontation with Zelensky in the Oval Office
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: last year. The Atlantic also reports that Ukraine recently experienced
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: disruptions involving Starlink, we know that, with the early warning
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: systems during Russian missile attacks. We're still in a fight over,
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 1: you know, was it Musk? Did Trump order it? Did
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: Musk order it? But the episode illustrates just how dependent
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 1: Ukraine is on the United States, which brings me back
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Musk. We have an American intelligence community helping
• 1:16:06
  Speaker 1: Ukraine resist Russia, a president publicly pressuring Ukraine to change
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 1: its military approach, and a private businessman controlling communications technology
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: that Ukraine regards as indispensable. Meanwhile, we have American negotiators
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: discussing potential energy deal with Russian interests. It's a lot
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: of competing interests, folks. So what ought to transcend the part?
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: This is why this should transcend this partisan argument. Who
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: is ultimately responsible for making sure American national security policy
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: serves American national security interests? Because when private companies become
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 1: indispensable to military operations and private financial opportunities become the
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: part of diplomatic negotiations, man, we are cooked. This becomes
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: a full-on American kleptocracy. And of course, while we're examining
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: those lines, we shouldn't overlook the president's own financial interests. Forbes,
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: has an investigation into Trump's use of conservation easement tax
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: deductions that deserves a lot more attention than it's going
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: to get, particularly because of the amounts of money involved. Basically,
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: Trump just creates these environmental easement tax breaks for his
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: golf courses, okay? This is according to Forbes. So for instance,
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: Trump earned $ 1. 4 billion from cryptocurrency in 2025, another $ 200
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 1: million in real estate, And it was a projected tax
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: liability of $ 500 million. But Donald Trump, he don't pay taxes, right?
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: He's gangster, right? He doesn't pay taxes. So his business
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 1: pursued another conservation easement deduction involving his golf course in Jupiter, Florida. Essentially,
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: the Trump organization donated certain development rights to a conservation
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: nonprofit while retaining ownership and continuing to operate the golf club.
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: Guess how much the potential tax deduction, according to Forbes, was?
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 1: it could approach $ 825 million, more than enough to cover
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: his tax liability from the cryptocurrency money that he made
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 1: off of being president. Conservation easements are a legitimate part
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 1: of the tax code, but the valuation of those development
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: rights can be enormously consequential. And Trump's just making shit
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: up here just to cover his tax bill. Of course,
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 1: let's remember what's A little bit unusual here is the
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: relationship between the president and the agencies responsible for enforcing
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 1: the tax laws. Remember, Trump sued the IRS, and then
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: he got a settlement signed by his own Justice Department
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: that had his own personal lawyer as AG, and it
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: contained broad language concerning potential claims against him. So he's basically...
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: made up a tax deduction to avoid paying taxes on, frankly,
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: ill-begotten funds that he made as president. And he's not
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: going to pay taxes on his questionable wealth. And nobody
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: can do anything about it because he's been given this
• 1:19:12
  Speaker 1: blanket immunity with this tax deal that Todd Blanche put together.
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 1: President has a private financial interest potentially worth hundreds of
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: millions of dollars, while his administration oversees the agencies responsible
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: for determining whether any laws having to do with that
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 1: decision get enforced. So this is in the same category
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: as what I was talking about with the Russian business deals,
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: energy deals, and Musk's expanding business empire. Putin's political system
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: isn't simply authoritarian because he suppresses opposition or controls elections.
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: It's also a system in which private wealth depends on
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: political access and political power, and it's reinforced by the
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: fortunes who benefit from it. The United States, as an
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: actual democracy, has historically tried to maintain a distinction between
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: private enterprise and public authority. It's not always been perfect,
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: and when it hasn't, we've done something about it. Government
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: officials are supposed to act in the public interest. Private
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: companies can compete for government business, but they don't get
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: determined foreign policy. Elected leaders are supposed to be accountable
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: for decisions that impact the country, not merely their pocketbook.
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 1: You get the combination of Musk corporate power, the financial
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: arrangements being discussed with Russia, and the president's own business interests,
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 1: raising questions about whether those distinctions are being adequately protected.
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: And you wonder why corruption has creeped up into one
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 1: of the top issues of this election. Look, we have
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: to examine our antitrust laws, media ownership restrictions, government contracting rules,
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: conflict of interest protections, all of these things, because the
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: next person to accumulate this kind of power might have
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 1: an entirely different political view from Elon Musk. This is
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: why the right should care about this as much as
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 1: the left. The next president might have an entirely different
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: set of priorities from Donald Trump. The point of having
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: rules is that they don't depend on whether we like
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 1: the people exercising power. But there's another aspect of this
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: story that brings us directly back to the election. For
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: all the attention being paid to private business deals, the
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: tech influence of Musk, financial interests of the people around
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: the president, voters are still telling pollsters that they're worried
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: about the cost of living. They're worried about energy prices.
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 1: But instead of addressing the dissatisfaction, Trump is spending his
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: final days of his campaign increasingly focused on the possibility
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: that an election might produce results he doesn't like. In Alaska,
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: his Justice Department has gone to court over a Senate
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: ballot that includes two candidates with similar names. In California,
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 1: the administration is pursuing allegations about non-citizens on voter rolls.
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: And those stories raise an entirely different question about the
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: use of presidential power. And that's probably the most consequential
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: story of the week right now with eight days to go.
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: Let's start with Alaska. Dan Sullivan's in a competitive reelection
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: against former Democratic Congresswoman Mary Patella. There's another candidate on
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: the ballot to opt for advance. Two of the four
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 1: guys are named Dan Sullivan. By the way, there's a
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: third Dan Sullivan who is mayor of Anchorage who's endorsed
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: the Senator Dan Sullivan, but he's not on the ballot.
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: We could have had three Dan Sullivans. But the Republicans
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: are arguing that the similarity in names could confuse voters
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 1: and potentially cost the incumbent votes. It's been litigated in
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 1: state court. Now, the Trump Justice Department has gone to
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 1: federal court asking that the election not be certified under
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 1: certain circumstances, but only if Sullivan loses. Think about that.
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: Eleven days before the election, Donald Trump's government is asking
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 1: a court to contemplate blocking certification of the Senate race
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: only if the Republican incumbent loses. And that because votes
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: for the other Sullivan might have changed the outcome. But
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to understand how this works. I'd argue, actually,
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: isn't ranked choice voting actually a way to make sure
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: that doesn't happen? How would you determine which voters intended
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: to vote for which Sullivan? That's why we have secret ballots.
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: You can't go back afterward and ask voters which candidate
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: they really meant to support. Again, I actually think you
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: could argue this would be a problem in other states,
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 1: but again, ranked choice voting. So if you're not sure
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 1: which Sullivan, you rank them both one and two, just
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: say it. So the whole point of ranked choice voting
• 1:23:37
  Speaker 1: is to reduce this issue, which it will. Obviously it
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: doesn't eliminate some source of confusion, but actually provides a
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: mechanism that protects the voters from doing something incorrectly. And again,
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 1: The Constitution gives states the authority of elections, not Trump's
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 1: Justice Department or anybody else. What's amazing here, of course,
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: he did that. And Lisa Murkowski said it was a
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: mistake and criticized the Justice Department's involvement. And what does
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 1: Trump do? He responds by calling her the worst Republican
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: senator ever, attacking ranked choice voting and accusing her of
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: wanting Democrats to stay in the election. Less than two
• 1:24:14
  Speaker 1: weeks before the election. You know what Dan Sullivan is thinking?
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: Jesus effing criminy. Don't attack the most popular politician in
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 1: the state. But Donald Trump did just that. What an idiot.
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: Your party's trying to hold a Senate seat in a
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: state where independent minor voters have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: to reject national Republican demands and your closing strategies to
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: attack one of the state's most prominent independent-leaning Republicans? Imagine
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: if Chuck Schumer started attacking John Fetterman right now the
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: way some on the left do. It'd be a strategic mistake.
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: You're trying to get control of the Senate. This is
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 1: stupid politics. You know, I've said this before. I don't
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: think it's a given Lisa Murkowski chooses to caucus with
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: the Republicans. I think this is a giant mistake. This
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: intervention probably has already cost Sullivan the election. I think
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: he was an uphill battle anyway. But this probably cemented it.
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 1: And there's an irony here to this Alaska controversy. If
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 1: the president wants to talk about political parties using confusing
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: candidates to influence election outcomes, he ought to take a
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 1: look at Florida. Because Florida Republicans have a history here.
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: They had a 2020 state Senate race involving a Democrat
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: named Jose Javier Rodriguez. So the Republicans recruited somebody to
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: run as a third party candidate named Alex Rodriguez. The
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: independent candidate receives thousands of votes and the Democrat lost
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: a very close election to a Republican named Ileana Garcia.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 1: The episode became the subject of a criminal investigation and
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: a former Republican state Senator, Frank Artilles, was convicted in
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: connection with the scheme to recruit and pay the third
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: party candidates. That's not speculation of what might happen. That actually,
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 1: that was an actual case of a confusing candidate, closely
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 1: contested election. And it happened in the president's adopted home
• 1:26:02
  Speaker 1: state by his party. So if we're suddenly going to
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 1: have a national conversation about deceptive candidates and election integrity,
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: perhaps we ought to start with the places where there
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 1: is documented evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, this administration is making
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: an assumption. They don't have the goods and they're doing
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: it before the election's even over. And then he attacks
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 1: Murkowski anyway. And California presents another version of the same problem.
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: The Justice Department has alleged that roughly 20,000 people in
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 1: California's voter rolls may be non-citizens. And it has sought
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: to have their ballots set aside. Now, the administration has
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 1: every right to investigate credible evidence of illegal voting. That's
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 1: the job of law enforcement. But the burden is on
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: the government to demonstrate that the allegations are accurate. And
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: the record of these voter roll investigations ought to make
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: everybody skeptical of these sweeping claims. As Bart Gellman, my friend,
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: a longtime colleague, his wife and I worked together for
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: a long time at NBC. He's a remarkable piece in
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: The New Yorker that's out right now about the Trump
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: administration's effort to pressure state elections officials all over the country.
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: And one of the most revealing examples involves Nevada. The
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: administration alleged that nearly 16,000 non-citizens were on Nevada's voter rolls.
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 1: It provided a list of 185 people that it said
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: it had manually verified were non-citizens. And when state officials
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: checked those names, all 185 were American citizens. All of them.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: That's not a minor error. It's a reminder of why
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: we have legal safeguards governing voter eligibility and the removal
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: of names from registration rolls. The right to vote is
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: not something the government should be able to take away
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 1: based on a flawed database match. or a political assumption
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 1: because somebody's last name ends in Z. And we know, look,
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: why is Trump obsessed with California on this? It all
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: goes back to this craziness in 2016, where he couldn't
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: accept the premise that he lost the popular vote. So
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 1: he manufactured this evidence that if illegal, if folks who
• 1:28:10
  Speaker 1: were here illegal hadn't voted, he would have won the
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 1: popular vote too and carried California. So it's like, So
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: it's this man, you know, manufacturer. I know I've said
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: I'm not as concerned that he's going to try to
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: delegitimize the results of this election. And unfortunately, what he's
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: doing in Alaska and California do feel like a guy
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: testing the electric fence to see what he can get
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: away with. So it's disturbing. These things have no– I mean,
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: these things are going to just die in the courts
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: like that. Constant. clear states run elections presidents don't so
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 1: i think he's going to get beaten up on this
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: don't get me wrong um but i don't think this
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 1: is uh I don't think it's going to go anywhere.
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 1: And in fact, I think what he's done is done
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 1: nothing but motivate people who don't like them to show
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: up and vote. And this brings me to sort of
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 1: where I began. So let's land this plane where I began.
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: We're eight days out. Donald Trump's president of the United States.
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: His party controls the federal government. Voters are telling pollsters
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: they're worried about the economy. They're worried about the cost
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: of living, the war, the direction of the country. And
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: the president is arguing about whether the election he hasn't
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 1: even lost yet might be rigged. It's quite a disconnect.
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: We see this. I think there's been a fundamental misunderstanding
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 1: at the heart of the Republican campaign right now. Republicans
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: keep acting as though voters are making a choice between
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: the Republican Party and some hypothetical Democratic administration that does
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 1: not exist at the moment. That's not the choice voters
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: are looking at. They're judging the government they have. They're
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 1: judging the people who are actually in charge. And what
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: makes this moment so intriguing is that the Republican Party
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: seems unable to accept that basic reality. What is this
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 1: closing argument? I'm sure it's not the one many normal
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: Republican strategist friends of mine wish it were making. This
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: is the one they're actually making. Think about the final
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: days of the campaign. Donald Trump is consumed by his
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: own grievances. He's attacking Barack Obama. He's attacking Lisa Murkowski.
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: He's defending a crazy, terrible, morally repugnant ad in Ohio.
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: His Justice Department is inserting itself in Alaska and California.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: Republican Party is running ads, worrying about what voters, what
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: Democrats might do with power, ignoring the concerns of voters
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 1: about how Republicans have handled power. I just don't see
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: how it's going to work. And all of the tea
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: leaves that we've been reading and I've been presenting, I think,
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: make this that much harder. So the scandals, the controversy,
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 1: extraordinary behavior, the final two weeks, to me, reinforce the
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: impression to a lot of voters that Republicans look like
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 1: they've become arrogant and disconnected from ordinary voters. And if
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 1: that is the picture that many voters see, it's what
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: it looks like. It's being painted to me. They only
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 1: have Donald Trump and to a lesser extent, Vivek Ramaswamy
• 1:31:17
  Speaker 1: and Elon Musk, those three guys, this three headed monster.
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 1: There's your face of Donald Trump's Republican Party. Throw in
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 1: a little Vladimir Putin to boot. And that's one pretty
• 1:31:31
  Speaker 1: stupid and bad closing argument for the Republican Party. So
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 1: this is not a question about whether Democrats are going
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 1: to have a good election night. To me, it's a
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: question about whether the electorate is about to deliver a
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 1: message considerably louder. And I wonder if it'll be loud
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 1: enough for... for some members of the Republican Party to
• 1:31:53
  Speaker 1: actually allow itself to hear what voters are trying to say.
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: It's a primal scream. All right, so with that, let's
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 1: sneak in a break. My interview today is with Thomas Nelson.
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: He's a former candidate for office. He's held office, county
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: elective office. He's a longtime Democrat. He wrote a book
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 1: about the Green Bay Packers called The Green and Gold Standard.
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 1: It's not a book about football. It's a book about.
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 1: Sort of how the Packers were able to survive and
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 1: become who they are, how they survived as a member
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: of the community. And I think in many ways, our
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: conversation is about, you know, what could tech companies learn
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: and what could local governments learn from the success of
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: the city of Green Bay and the franchise that I
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: hold near and dear to my heart, the Green Bay Packers. Well,
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 1: joining me now is somebody who reached out to me
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 1: after we did our big Green Bay Packers dynastic profile.
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 1: It's the author of a book called The People's History
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: of the Green Bay Packers, The Green and Gold Standard
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: by Thomas And Thomas is unique here. He's been an
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: author of a couple of books, but he's also served
• 1:33:12
  Speaker 1: in politics. He served in elective office as well. And
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: this is an opportunity to have the conversation about the
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 1: Packers that's beyond sports. And I've hinted at Thomas here,
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: but many of you know that as I've talked about
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: how do we rebuild local news, I'm skeptical of going
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 1: all things nonprofit, but there's something about the way the
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 1: Packers structure works for sports that might apply to a
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: lot of other important things that are important to communities
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 1: that you don't necessarily want owned by hedge funds. So
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 1: with that, Mr. Nelson joins me now. Thomas, first of all,
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 1: it's nice to meet you.
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 2: Great. Good to meet you too. This is wonderful. Thanks
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 2: for having me on.
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 1: So look, tell me how you ended up writing a
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 1: book about the Green Bay Packers.
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 2: Well, as a Packers fan, and having written a couple
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: other books, I actually approached this, given my background in politics,
• 1:34:10
  Speaker 2: a lot along the lines that you just mentioned, Chuck,
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 2: about using the Packers model for other aspects of industry.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 2: In your case, talking about a newsroom. I want to
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 2: do the same thing, too. Why is it that there's
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 2: this anomaly, not just in sports, though, but in the
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 2: economy in general? And so I had pitched this idea
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 2: to a few publishers. They liked it. But then there
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 2: was a publisher that says, why don't you just write
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 2: a history of the Green Bay Packers? I'm like, I'm
• 1:34:38
  Speaker 2: not going to write a hundred books about that. And
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: they'll say, well, yes and no. There's a lot on coaches.
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 2: There's a lot on eras. But there isn't a complete
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 2: art history. And so knowing just how unique the story
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 2: is and how compelling, and then really how even Packer
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 2: fans can't really articulate what is it that makes the
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 2: Packers so neat? What is it? And so I wanted
• 1:34:59
  Speaker 2: to write a book that tried to explain that, to
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 2: answer the question, what is it that makes the Packers
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 2: so special?
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, no, look, it was what Jay Adande and I,
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: who do this dynastic sports series, it is, you know, what...
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: You couldn't have the the the Packers wouldn't be the
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: Packers without the without their unique ownership structure, because if
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: they didn't have that unique ownership structure, they'd probably be
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: the Milwaukee Packers.
• 1:35:26
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 1: You know, and that is and I think that that is.
• 1:35:30
  Speaker 1: And now, of course, it's become so ingrained into the
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: history of football that now Green Bay is a tourist destination.
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: Which is the ultimate thing. But before we get to this,
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 1: give me a brief history of politics for you. You
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 1: were in the legislature. I know that. You've been in
• 1:35:46
  Speaker 1: county politics. Walk me through that.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 2: I was elected to the state assembly here in Wisconsin
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 2: in 2004 for three terms, served as majority leader for
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 2: one term, and then shortly after ran for county executive.
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 2: And so for those listeners who are from states with
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 2: county executives. Basically, a county executive is a mayor of
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 2: the county. I've been in this post now for about
• 1:36:10
  Speaker 2: 15 years.
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 1: And out of economy, how do I say it? How
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: do we say it? Out of gaming. Out of gaming.
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 1: Out of gaming.
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: But you are exactly right, though, because that is the
• 1:36:19
  Speaker 2: phonetic pronunciation is actually out of gaming. But we all
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 2: call it out of gaming because here in Wisconsin, we
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 2: love our long A's.
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 1: Fair enough. There's a part of me that wants to
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 1: go down. I've gone down a rabbit holes about I
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: always say that, you know, Wisconsin was ground zero for
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 1: political polarization. Before America got polarized, Wisconsin was. I could
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 1: go into it. Brown County is one of those that
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: I'm obsessed with because of what happened. But I'm not
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 1: going in that direction. I want to go here with
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 1: the Packers. So let's start. My cousin was telling me
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: who does a lot of corporate, you know, about people
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 1: when they start up LLCs and they start up small businesses.
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: sometimes don't put a lot of thought into how you
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: want your shares split. How do shares get sold? What
• 1:37:09
  Speaker 1: saved the Packers, because the Packers weren't the first football
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: team to sell shares, but they were the one that
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: didn't have where somebody couldn't buy it out. So what
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: was it about the Packers corporate structure that was different
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 1: from from, I believe it was the team that eventually
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: would become the Detroit Lions, for instance, where somebody just
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 1: sort of bought up the shares. The team that is
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 1: now the Lions isn't community owned because of their corporate structure,
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 1: but Green Bay is.
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 2: People talk about how unique it is for the Packers
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 2: to have this and how they're community-owned. It goes back
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 2: to 1922. The Packers had six stock issuances, but it's
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 2: the first three for which they faced an existential crisis. 1922,
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 2: that was their fourth season. And they were part of
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 2: the NFL or the precursor to the NFL. And they
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 2: were doing well. They were always a great football team
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: because Green Bay was always a football city. And they
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 2: just couldn't make it go to the finances. And it
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 2: was this rain-soaked Thanksgiving day. They had an exhibition game.
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 2: And they did that to try to raise money. And
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 2: once again, it rained. And they work in a play,
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 2: but then a guy by the name of Andrew Turnbull,
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 2: who was from the Green Bay Press Gazette, said, look,
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 2: you have to play. And I will cover the visiting
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 2: team's fee If you play, and then more importantly, we
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 2: will put together a sustainable model to make sure that
• 1:38:44
  Speaker 2: you've got the finances covered and you can continue to play.
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 2: And Curly Lambeau is great. Sounds good. I mean, Curly
• 1:38:50
  Speaker 2: Lambeau didn't really care how the team was owned or organized.
• 1:38:55
  Speaker 2: He just wanted to play football.
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, at the beginning.
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let's say he did care.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah, he did care towards the end when the board
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: said no. But yes, at the beginning.
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 2: So he just, I mean, that was just, it just
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: turned out that that was the kind of structure that
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 2: was going to work in Green Bay because it wasn't
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 2: a profitable enterprise. There were, you know, small town, Green
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 2: Bay was not the exception back there. In the 1920s,
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 2: there were at least a dozen of these small towns
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 2: around the Midwest that and New England that had teams.
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 2: But they were all falling to the wayside because they
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 2: couldn't make a run of it. And it was the
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 2: Packers and Andrew Turnbull that had this idea. Let's have
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 2: a stock issuance that wasn't going to make money. So
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 2: they incorporated as a nonprofit corporation.
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 1: So the other thing they did was you couldn't sell shares.
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 1: And that was the unique thing. Look, I'm a shareholder.
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: I'm sure you're a shareholder. We can't sell our shares.
• 1:39:55
  Speaker 1: I mean, I guess somebody could buy the certificate that's
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 1: been issued to me. I might be able to sell
• 1:40:01
  Speaker 1: that on eBay or something like that. But it's not
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 1: as if it gives you any rights at all or
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: any sort of value. That was an important part of
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 1: the structure early on was that you couldn't sell the shares.
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 2: Right. So it was not just– there really wasn't– I mean,
• 1:40:20
  Speaker 2: there really wasn't incentive to sell in the first place
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 2: just because they weren't worth anything. At the time, it
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 2: was going to be worth anything. Yeah, right. And so
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 2: the important thing is they wanted to have something that
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 2: was going to be an organizational structure, that it wasn't
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 2: simply a volunteer basis where past the hat, which is
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 2: the model they started out with. But they wanted to
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 2: have this corporate structure. They wanted to have articles of incorporation,
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 2: some legal structure. And so there wasn't going to be
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: an opportunity for anyone to make money off of it.
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 2: But this was going to be the vehicle by which
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 2: Green Bay and the city was going to come together
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 2: and have a football team and have one for years
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 2: to come.
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: The thing that strikes me about this, and I think
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: about sports owners- And I am somebody who believes that,
• 1:41:09
  Speaker 1: you know, the sports owner doesn't own, you know, they
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 1: don't own the community. They may own the franchise, but
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 1: the franchise only has value if the community buys into it.
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 2: That's exactly right.
• 1:41:22
  Speaker 1: I don't understand why the Packers are the only major
• 1:41:26
  Speaker 1: league sports franchise that it's tied itself to the community
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 1: like this so that you're not held hostage by owners.
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 1: You're not held hostage by private equity. Now, part of
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 1: it in the NFL is the NFL banned this. They
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 1: won't let another team do this ever again, which I
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 1: think tells you where the owners are on this structure, right?
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 1: But I'm surprised more communities haven't demanded this in exchange
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: for taxpayer funding of a stadium, for instance.
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 2: Well, they probably should have. I mean, that's obviously when
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 2: you're putting, you know, I think Cleveland had put together
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 2: a package of about $ 800, $ 900 million. Indiana has put
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 2: up a billion dollars. There is this ridiculous package that's
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 2: being put together in Buffalo. And you would think that
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 2: there would be some legislators who would come together and say, wait,
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 2: we can get more for this. But they haven't done that.
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 2: But you had mentioned something too, Chuck, about private equity.
• 1:42:23
  Speaker 2: And while the Packers faced existential threats in 1922, in
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 2: the early 1930s, and again in 1950, What the Packers
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 2: are facing right now through the private equity rule is
• 1:42:36
  Speaker 2: an existential crisis that they have never, ever faced before.
• 1:42:41
  Speaker 2: And you can see when you're talking about how, where
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 2: are the NFL owners on this? The NFL owners, it
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 2: drives them nuts that here's this nonprofit team that is
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 2: leaving billions on the table. They can't believe that no
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 2: one's making money off the Packers when it is, when
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 2: it would be very profitable. And so I believe the
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 2: private equity rule was put in place two years ago
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 2: to deal with, from an ownership standpoint, what will no
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 2: doubt be guaranteed contracts. That's issue number one when the
• 1:43:12
  Speaker 2: collective bargaining agreement comes up in a few years. But
• 1:43:16
  Speaker 2: the Packers are now at an approximately $ 900 million disadvantage
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 2: for every team in the NFL. I mean, you would
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 2: have to have, you know, like 150 Luke Combs concerts
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 2: or Taylor Swift concerts at Lambeau Field to make a
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 2: bad difference. It's only a matter of time before the
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 2: Packers are going to be at the kind disadvantage that
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 2: the NFL is going to have to step up, do
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 2: something to make them whole, or who knows what's going
• 1:43:47
  Speaker 2: to happen. So I don't think that this nonprofit community
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 2: model is something that will forever, ever be the case,
• 1:43:53
  Speaker 2: because I think that that is a serious issue, and
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 2: one that's not getting much attention at all.
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 1: Well, you bring up a good point, because you're right.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 1: They introduced this. There's a cap, right? Is it 10%?
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 1: What's the cap on private equity?
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 2: 10%. So it gets off to 10%. Right. But that's
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 2: for now. Correct.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's interesting when you look at what the
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 1: Big Ten- was negotiating, I believe it was with the
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 1: UC system, I want to say, if I'm not mistaken,
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 1: and forgive me here. But the idea was, I think
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 1: that sort of public entity, I think it was the
• 1:44:28
  Speaker 1: UC pension system was going to be the private equity,
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: was going to get a piece of the Big Ten.
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 1: And I guess it would have been, they would have
• 1:44:37
  Speaker 1: bought into essentially Big Ten merchandising. I'm shorthanding this a
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 1: little bit. So if we were to fast forward and
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 1: try to figure out, all right, how would the Packers board,
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 1: you know, look, they knew they had to create more revenue.
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 1: So they did what they did with Lambeau Field, right?
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 1: And they created Titletown and they've created a destination and
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 1: they've got that beautiful hotel and they probably need to
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 1: build more hotels to continue to create this. There's a
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 1: part of me that thinks that Canton ought to move
• 1:45:07
  Speaker 1: to Green Bank. And I might, you know, that if
• 1:45:09
  Speaker 1: you're the NFL, if you want to save, if you
• 1:45:12
  Speaker 1: want to add a tourist stop for the Packers, keep
• 1:45:15
  Speaker 1: its nonprofit model, then, you know, frankly, the Packers, you know,
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 1: are as much the foundation of the NFL as anything
• 1:45:25
  Speaker 1: in professional football. You might give them the Hall of Fame.
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 1: That could be a stopgap. But, you know, if they
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: were willing to monetize the stadium and do what they
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: did with Lambeau, My guess is they're going to be
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 1: willing to figure out how to maybe peel off the merchandising,
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: peel off something and do sell that to private equity.
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 1: Is that your suspicion?
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 2: Well, right now, I mean, the Packers' organizational structure is
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 2: such that they're not going to be able to sell
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 2: to private equity. I mean, they would have to go
• 1:45:58
  Speaker 2: in and open in its articles of incorporation. Once you
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 2: start doing that, you're going down a road that's only
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 2: a matter of time before it's going to be for profit.
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 2: So I think what the NFL has to do is
• 1:46:10
  Speaker 2: they need to figure out, OK, how do we make
• 1:46:12
  Speaker 2: the Packers whole? 31 of 32 teams have a $ 900
• 1:46:13
  Speaker 2: million portfolio. advantage against one team, just one team. If
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 2: you think of how much these firms will charge transactions, 2%
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 2: or 3% when you're selling a private equity, if you
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 2: did 2% or 3% and gave that to the Packers,
• 1:46:34
  Speaker 2: for example, now they're beginning to make them whole.
• 1:46:39
  Speaker 1: It's also- You're asking the owners to give the Packers
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 1: quite the subsidy there.
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, but they're spending 2% or 3% when
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 2: they're selling for– but look, I mean, that's how– I mean,
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 2: think of how much mileage, how many times the NFL
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 2: uses the Packers for cover. The NFL is the most expensive, lucrative, richest–
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 2: sports league in the world. And they always go back, well,
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 2: not all like that. Here it is, tiny Green Bay,
• 1:47:06
  Speaker 2: tiny Buffalo. And the people own it. I mean, they
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 2: use it. They milk that dry. OK, think of, you know,
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 2: if you were to monetize that, how much PR they're
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 2: getting from that, I am sure that they can come
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 2: up with a few hundred million dollars to at least
• 1:47:18
  Speaker 2: begin to make the Packers whole. And what really what
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 2: this also shows is it also shows where the center
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 2: of gravity of has gone among the owners, that it's
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 2: with the Glazers, it's with Jerry Jones. Right now, the
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 2: families of the Roonies, the Maras, the Halases, these are
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 2: the folks that need to step up and stand up
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 2: for the Packers, because I can guarantee you.
• 1:47:42
  Speaker 1: Well, they've done it before. Yeah, exactly.
• 1:47:46
  Speaker 2: When old man Halas was there and Rooney, I'll tell
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 2: you what, I can guarantee you they would never have
• 1:47:51
  Speaker 2: adjourned that meeting back in 2024 if they did not
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 2: come out with a resolution to keep the Packers whole.
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 2: And where are their kids and grandkids? They were born
• 1:48:00
  Speaker 2: with an NFL franchise. They owe it to their own
• 1:48:04
  Speaker 2: teams and their family's legacy to make the Packers whole.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but then you've got like Kroenke, right, who is,
• 1:48:11
  Speaker 1: you know, finance that massive stadium and so far.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 1: He's looking to maximize everything on this. And I don't
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 1: think he's alone. I think Stephen Ross down in Miami,
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 1: you know, you're right. It's sort of new owner versus
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 1: old owner. And with Jerry is sort of the hinge.
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 1: down in Dallas because he came in and said, hey,
• 1:48:32
  Speaker 1: how come individual teams aren't monetizing their own values here, right?
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 1: He decided, hey, I can sell an American Express sponsorship
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 1: even though the NFL is Visa. I should be able
• 1:48:43
  Speaker 1: to do that. I think that's what he ended up
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 1: successfully suing the league over, if I recall. Then everybody
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: in the league got to do their own individual deals.
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 1: I wonder, is there any models as you're watching college
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 1: sports that you think, hmm, maybe that is how the
• 1:49:01
  Speaker 1: Packers will get out of this as we're watching, whether
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 1: it's the Big Ten, ACC? Look, I just came from
• 1:49:07
  Speaker 1: a Miami-Florida State game. We're taping here on a Tuesday.
• 1:49:11
  Speaker 1: I was, and part of this is my old sports
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: business background, I couldn't believe the number of corporate brands
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 1: I saw on the scoreboard at any given time. And
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: I understood why they were doing it. And they're not alone. Right.
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 1: Every university who is trying to meet a 40 million
• 1:49:27
  Speaker 1: dollar payroll for their football teams is looking for cash
• 1:49:32
  Speaker 1: any way they can find it. Is that what the
• 1:49:35
  Speaker 1: Packers are going to be forced to do here?
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 2: I mean, they're going to be forced to do that,
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 2: and they are doing that. They've been having a lot
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: of events using the stadium for concerts and an exhibition
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 2: game there, soccer. They're going to keep doing that. But
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 2: back in the end of all math, when they do
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: those events, you're talking maybe $ 4 million or $ 5 million.
• 1:49:53
  Speaker 2: You go back to $ 900 million. Now, where things could
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 2: really get bad and can begin to capsize is if
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 2: the NFL goes in direction of guaranteed contracts, and this
• 1:50:06
  Speaker 2: is the only professional sport that does not have guaranteed
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 2: contracts like Major League Baseball and the NBA.
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 1: And at some point, the union is, there's just too
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 1: much injury, too much. Look at Jalen Hurts, right? Look
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 1: at that situation right now with the blood clots. You know,
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 1: there's just too many health risks to the game where
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 1: the owners, it's just turning into a really bad look
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 1: that they don't guarantee contracts in the most violent sport.
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 1: That's right. That's right.
• 1:50:31
  Speaker 2: No, no. And they should have that. The problem is,
• 1:50:34
  Speaker 2: is the funding rule that calls for money to go
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 2: in escrow. If you sign a $ 200 million contract, $ 50
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 2: million a year, you pay them $ 50 million, but now
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 2: you have to, as the team, you have to put
• 1:50:42
  Speaker 2: $ 150 million in escrow, and you cannot touch that money.
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 2: That's where the private equity money is going to come in.
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 2: and give the owners some cushion, because I think that's
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 2: going to be one of the top issues for collective bargaining.
• 1:51:02
  Speaker 2: When push comes to shove, every team, except for the Packers,
• 1:51:05
  Speaker 2: will be able to afford that. So maybe there could
• 1:51:08
  Speaker 2: be a calming cause during the CBA negotiations where the
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 2: union and the Packers figure out something, because they're both
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 2: going to be in a pretty tough situation. So it's
• 1:51:18
  Speaker 2: when things fall through, fall through on the other side
• 1:51:20
  Speaker 2: of the ledger, and you're going to have these major
• 1:51:23
  Speaker 2: issues um demands with putting money into escrow and when
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 2: money goes into escrow the team cannot touch it You know,
• 1:51:38
  Speaker 2: it's interesting.
• 1:51:39
  Speaker 1: Every time I think the Packers are so stable, they're untouchable.
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 1: You have a new it does feel as if this
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 1: has been a pattern.
• 1:51:47
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:51:47
  Speaker 1: Every time it looks like they get stability, something else
• 1:51:50
  Speaker 1: enters the larger picture of the business of football. And
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 1: suddenly Green Bay is behind again.
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: I do think it's apparent now that when you look
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 1: at the lull of the 70s and 80s and really
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 1: it's the 80s, it is hard not to see that
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: that's when they started to fall behind financially. And that
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: is why they couldn't, you know, they weren't as competitive
• 1:52:10
  Speaker 1: on contracts and things like this. They figure out how
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: to monetize the stadium, you know, and they have another
• 1:52:18
  Speaker 1: 25 year run and that's been going well. It looked
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: like they've created a destination. They've got a field of
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 1: dreams like situation now where they don't feel as if
• 1:52:30
  Speaker 1: they have to go to another city. They, you know,
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 1: it is Lambeau is a destination. Even if you're not
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 1: a Packers fan, You now want to it's Lambo's become
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 1: Wrigley field. I've got to see it. I've got to
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 1: experience this. That's a huge, and that's a, there's, there's,
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 1: there's money involved in that, right. In making it an
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: experience and creating all of that. Um, Is there other
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 1: things the Packers ought to invest in that could create
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 1: more revenue for them on the outside?
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that there are. But I think you're
• 1:53:02
  Speaker 2: just nibbling around the edges. If you have a Taylor
• 1:53:04
  Speaker 2: Swift concert, I mean, they can clear like $ 5 or
• 1:53:06
  Speaker 2: $ 6 million. You can build another hotel. You have a
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 2: lease arrangement there. I mean, that's big money, $ 4 or
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 2: $ 5 million. But think about it, it's absolutely staggering, $ 900 million.
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 2: And this is just 10%. If you have a single
• 1:53:20
  Speaker 2: family that's owning a team, you could sell up to 49%
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 2: and still have complete control. So if you are a
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 2: single owner, a family, and your franchise is worth $ 10 billion,
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 2: you could sell, if the league allowed them, sell 49%
• 1:53:37
  Speaker 2: of private equity, you would still have control, and you
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 2: would have an extra $ 5 billion in cash. I think
• 1:53:44
  Speaker 2: what makes this borderline insurmountable is is just the staggering
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 2: figures that are coming with this, $ 900 million. How are
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 2: they going to make that up? And then when the
• 1:53:56
  Speaker 2: rest of these teams see, wow, this is great, this
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 2: is easy money, and they go to an owner's meeting,
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 2: and they're like, hey, let's all get more money, let's
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 2: move the 10% to 15% or 20%, you can have
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 2: another 31 to 1 vote to pass that, adopt that.
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 2: Although I will say this, when it was passed in 2024,
• 1:54:16
  Speaker 2: it passed 31 to 1. Guess who the no vote was?
• 1:54:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it wasn't Green Bay, was it?
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 2: It wasn't. It was Cincinnati. He's so cheap, right?
• 1:54:30
  Speaker 1: That's pretty funny. And yet not surprising. Only if Al
• 1:54:34
  Speaker 1: Davis were alive, might you see something like that. So-
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 1: Let's get back to, I want to, and particularly your
• 1:54:44
  Speaker 1: experience as a county exec, because I've thought about the
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 1: Packers model. Obviously, I brought up about local news and
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 1: community news and the idea that ultimately, you know, my
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 1: theory of the case about polarization is when we gutted
• 1:55:00
  Speaker 1: local news and all politics became national, right? We sort
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 1: of lost a glue that allowed us to be part
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 1: of a community that wasn't defined by politics, but was
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 1: defined by geography. And once we got rid of that,
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 1: this is the situation we're in. But I wonder about
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 1: data centers. And is there a, and I know that
• 1:55:29
  Speaker 1: in some cases, some of these companies are offering some
• 1:55:34
  Speaker 1: piece of this to the county or to the state
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 1: or to the local government. What makes sense to you
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 1: on that? What could you imagine making sense as a
• 1:55:45
  Speaker 1: county executive working with a tech company? Is it shares?
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 1: Is that something that you imagine entertaining and you think
• 1:55:56
  Speaker 1: might be the answer here as we figure out how
• 1:55:59
  Speaker 1: to how to build out this, the tools we need
• 1:56:03
  Speaker 1: to sort of advance here technologically?
• 1:56:07
  Speaker 2: I think for a lot of counties, and speaking of
• 1:56:10
  Speaker 2: Rodney County, we have had on the books, you know,
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 2: these very specific zoning restrictions. And so we had data centers,
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 2: we had a couple of companies contact us a year ago, August,
• 1:56:22
  Speaker 2: and we just said, okay, well, our zoning says X, Y,
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 2: and Z. There isn't a variance option for a data center.
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 2: We're sorry. And they just left us alone. So I
• 1:56:33
  Speaker 2: don't know if there is, in fact, enough demand that
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 2: there are counties that are saying, we need the money,
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 2: or they don't see the disadvantages, and they go along
• 1:56:42
  Speaker 2: with it. So for any county, I mean, I've talked
• 1:56:45
  Speaker 2: to my colleagues about this, which is if you just
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 2: do your due diligence, You have zoning rules and regulations
• 1:56:52
  Speaker 2: that allow you to have some sort of economic control
• 1:56:56
  Speaker 2: over your resources. It shouldn't be a problem. So maybe
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 2: this is the exception to the rule, but that's how
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 2: we've dealt with the issue.
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 1: Do you see a Packers model, though, that does make
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 1: sense for development going forward? Is this something more or
• 1:57:12
  Speaker 1: do you think this should be limited to sports? Because
• 1:57:14
  Speaker 1: sports is sort of part of the community, the fabric
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 1: of the community.
• 1:57:19
  Speaker 2: So you're talking specifically how you would apply a nonprofit
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 2: corporate model. Yeah, there's just really not a lot of examples. And,
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 2: you know, I think. A way to get into this
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 2: would be a local government that strikes a deal with
• 1:57:38
  Speaker 2: a data center company and say, okay, this is how
• 1:57:41
  Speaker 2: we're going to do. We're going to be able to
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 2: have a standard center. It's going to give you the
• 1:57:46
  Speaker 2: bandwidth you need to run your operation. But we need
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 2: to have built into it, we need to have self-shares.
• 1:57:55
  Speaker 2: I don't know how you would do that because this
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 2: is very lucrative. The reason why the packets were established
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 2: in the first place is that it was not lucrative.
• 1:58:04
  Speaker 2: For data centers, for these big companies that are relying
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 2: on data centers, it's it's not the same circumstance. And
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 2: I think we have to remember, too, As much as
• 1:58:16
  Speaker 2: we love the Packers being community-owned, it did not begin
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 2: that way because they said, we want a community-owned. No
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 2: one else was stepping up. How we keep football, they
• 1:58:26
  Speaker 2: just didn't care. They just, OK, Andrew Turnbull and some
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 2: friends would go knocking on doors, selling coupons, shares. Fine.
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 2: That's what kept the lights on.
• 1:58:37
  Speaker 1: Well, let me ask the alternative. What if they decide
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 1: to allow shares to be sold on the open market?
• 1:58:45
  Speaker 2: I think the Packers cease to be who they are today.
• 1:58:50
  Speaker 2: Maybe this is what's been holding us together. Part of
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 2: my book was trying to answer the question, what is
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 2: it exactly that makes this team so special? And the
• 1:58:59
  Speaker 2: way that it is organized, not the organization itself per se,
• 1:59:04
  Speaker 2: but what it allows for, that you can say that
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 2: this is community-owned, that there is no scenario, as long
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 2: as it keeps its nonprofit structure, that it could ever move.
• 1:59:16
  Speaker 2: um think of the bears i mean the bears are
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 2: actually considering moving to indiana i mean george talus he's
• 1:59:22
  Speaker 2: like so what if we're gonna get a billion dollars
• 1:59:24
  Speaker 2: for indiana this is the bears they belong in chicago
• 1:59:27
  Speaker 2: i i and so.
• 1:59:28
  Speaker 1: His grandkids aren't let i know it really bothers me
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 1: and at the same time how many other cities has
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 1: this happened in where they i mean look at the
• 1:59:36
  Speaker 1: kansas city chiefs have decided to go from the missouri
• 1:59:39
  Speaker 1: side to the kansas side yeah You know, I've seen
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 1: it here with the Washington football team. First, they went
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 1: to Maryland. They were going to go to Virginia. Now
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 1: they're back in D.C. The Dolphins used to be in
• 1:59:52
  Speaker 1: the city of Miami. Then they basically moved to the Broward,
• 1:59:56
  Speaker 1: Dade Broward County line and, you know, went ahead and
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 1: created Miami Gardens. But it is, you know, it's funny.
• 2:00:06
  Speaker 1: I don't know if the fans care as much as
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 1: they should.
• 2:00:10
  Speaker 2: No, you know, right, right. And I think the Packers
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 2: are a really good example. I talk about the private
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 2: equity issue, and there are very few fans that understand
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 2: what's going on. I mean, even talking to sportscasters and
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 2: people that follow the football side, I mean, most people do.
• 2:00:25
  Speaker 2: I think it's kind of neat that, and you too, Chuck,
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 2: about being a civic institution. But as I said in
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 2: my book, in my introduction, you know, people don't like
• 2:00:32
  Speaker 2: the Packers because it's a civic institution. There's just something
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 2: about it. They love football. And this is just the
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 2: means by which We get together. And one of the
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 2: very few things, he said from the beginning, how Wisconsin,
• 2:00:43
  Speaker 2: before the country was polarized, Wisconsin was polarized. And this
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 2: part of the state is the bullseye of a battleground.
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 2: But football has been what has kept us together. A
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 2: lot of times, you're talking four out of five television
• 2:01:01
  Speaker 2: sets in the Green Bay, Foxville, and Market is tuned
• 2:01:04
  Speaker 2: to the Packers game. That doesn't happen anywhere else. I mean,
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 2: there were 50 sitcoms like I Love Lucy didn't have
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 2: a share as high as that. It really is amazing.
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 1: No, and you're right. It begs the question, if the
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 1: Packers had been the Cardinals, the Cardinals have been around
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 1: almost as long as the Packers. pretty much as unsuccessful
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 1: of a franchise for the length of time the Cardinals
• 2:01:32
  Speaker 1: have been in the NFL, from Chicago to St. Louis
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 1: to Phoenix, where they are today, would there be this
• 2:01:42
  Speaker 1: love affair, right? Like, does the fact that the Packers
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 1: have been successful– Is that the secret sauce that makes
• 2:01:49
  Speaker 1: everybody say, and they're a unique ownership structure. But if
• 2:01:53
  Speaker 1: they weren't successful, everybody would point to this ownership structure
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: and say, well, that's why they're not successful.
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 2: Right, right. You know, I was thinking about the same
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 2: question watching the Packers. against the Cowboys, destroy the Cowboys.
• 2:02:05
  Speaker 2: And I looked at this, I'm like, they win year in,
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 2: year out. What is it? Do they just happen to
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 2: have the right players and the right positions and the
• 2:02:12
  Speaker 2: right coach and the right coaching staff? You know, this
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 2: is just, we have this culture of, you know, we
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 2: have a culture of winning. That there's just an expectation,
• 2:02:21
  Speaker 2: more so than any other team, that when you come
• 2:02:22
  Speaker 2: to Green Bay, okay, you know, look around you. Those
• 2:02:26
  Speaker 2: are all your owners, okay? This is not about the
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 2: one person up in the skybox. This is the real deal.
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 2: This is football as it was when you were in
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 2: Pop Warner, when you were in high school. So I
• 2:02:39
  Speaker 2: think one of the reasons why they are so successful
• 2:02:42
  Speaker 2: is because of this community bond. And even though the
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 2: Cardinals being the oldest, oldest in the NFL, they just
• 2:02:48
  Speaker 2: don't have that because they were able to move from
• 2:02:51
  Speaker 2: Chicago to St. Louis to to Arizona and the Raiders
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 2: and how storied of an institution the Al Davis family is.
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 2: I mean, synonymous with Oakland. He went from Oakland to
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 2: Los Angeles to Oakland and now to Las Vegas. It
• 2:03:09
  Speaker 2: has happened so many times that if the Packers did
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: not have this unique organizational model, they would be the
• 2:03:16
  Speaker 2: Milwaukee Packers. Or they would be the St. Louis Packers
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 2: now because St. Louis doesn't have them. Or they could
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 2: have been the Los Angeles Packers. I mean, Curly Lambeau,
• 2:03:26
  Speaker 2: for several years, wanted to move. the Packers to Los Angeles.
• 2:03:32
  Speaker 2: You know, I have a chapter saying, you know, the
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 2: Earl of Hollywood going Hollywood. And he wanted that. So
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 2: that's an example, too. Yeah. I mean, if he would
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 2: have if he would have taken the reins back in 1922,
• 2:03:44
  Speaker 2: the Packers could very well been Los Angeles for the
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 2: last eight decades.
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 1: Well, and not and frankly, be as important to the
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 1: history of the NFL as the Arizona Cardinals are. Yep. Right.
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 2: And that's right.
• 2:03:59
  Speaker 1: You know, I think that there's something to that. I'm
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: curious in writing your book. You know, I've had this
• 2:04:06
  Speaker 1: my son and I have had this debate, you know,
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: about the Aaron Rodgers drama and the debate versus the
• 2:04:15
  Speaker 1: drama the Packers had with Aaron Rodgers versus the drama
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: the Patriots had with Tom Brady. And in the Tom
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 1: Brady situation, right, when Belichick and Brady weren't getting along,
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 1: the owner stepped in. and the owner managed Brady, right?
• 2:04:28
  Speaker 1: And the owner handed Brady the plane, and the owner
• 2:04:31
  Speaker 1: gave Brady, and it was sort of as a way
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: to diffuse the problem. And there was always a part of,
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: you know, we would debate, boy, if the Packers had
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 1: an individual owner, could that personal relationship, could they have
• 2:04:44
  Speaker 1: managed Rodgers better, that it was harder to manage Rodgers
• 2:04:47
  Speaker 1: in that case? Or is it the other way around?
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 1: Do players like that there isn't a singular person they
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 1: have to please? And I'm just curious about, And you're
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 1: writing the of not having one owner, not having that
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 1: that point person. And certainly it's possible that policy is
• 2:05:05
  Speaker 1: going to be a little bit more hands on than
• 2:05:08
  Speaker 1: Murphy was when it comes to player decisions and things
• 2:05:11
  Speaker 1: like that. Was there did players prefer it? Do they
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 1: miss having an owner or do they like not having
• 2:05:18
  Speaker 1: an individual owner?
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 2: I would think in the case of the Packers, if
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 2: you have a president that is empowered by the board,
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 2: and by and large, the Green Bay Packers board of directors,
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is something that you give to local
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 2: leaders and business leaders as kind of like, I mean,
• 2:05:38
  Speaker 2: this is like a pretty big deal.
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 1: What does it take to get on the board? Like,
• 2:05:41
  Speaker 1: you know, Chuck Todd here would love to be on
• 2:05:43
  Speaker 1: the Packers board. What would it take me to get
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 1: on the board?
• 2:05:46
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think call Ed Policy's office. I'm sure
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 2: that they would love to have Chuck Todd.
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 1: Who knows?
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 2: But there's dozens of them. So as long as you
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 2: have a board that empowers the president and lets the
• 2:06:00
  Speaker 2: president do president things and let the GM do GM things,
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 2: they're going to do fine. And I think if you
• 2:06:06
  Speaker 2: have a forthright, strong personality, that can take the place
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 2: of an owner. This is the reason why you kind
• 2:06:16
  Speaker 2: of touched on this about the 1980s. The reason the
• 2:06:19
  Speaker 2: Packers struggled so much in the 50s, 70s, in the
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 2: 80s is, and Bob Harlan liked to talk about how
• 2:06:25
  Speaker 2: you had hardware store owners And realtors that were wanting this,
• 2:06:31
  Speaker 2: that they didn't know what they didn't know. And how
• 2:06:33
  Speaker 2: things change with Bob Harlan is you got to put
• 2:06:35
  Speaker 2: them in their place. Like, okay, look, guys, you really
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 2: don't know football. Look at, you know, Judge Perrins, who
• 2:06:40
  Speaker 2: is here for the 70s and the 80s, okay? Let
• 2:06:44
  Speaker 2: the football people do the football thing. So if you
• 2:06:47
  Speaker 2: have leadership that can empower the people that are supposed
• 2:06:50
  Speaker 2: to do their job, you're going to be fine. And
• 2:06:52
  Speaker 2: that's one of the big reasons why the Packers were
• 2:06:55
  Speaker 2: not successful until Bob Harlan came in there, hired Ron Wolfe,
• 2:07:00
  Speaker 2: and empowered Ron Wolfe to be the general manager and
• 2:07:03
  Speaker 2: never questioned him. One of the biggest... most consequential moves
• 2:07:07
  Speaker 2: that Ron Wolf made was hiring, was getting the Brett
• 2:07:11
  Speaker 2: Favre trade. Everyone said, oh my gosh, you were just crazy.
• 2:07:13
  Speaker 2: That was a time for Bob Harlan to step in.
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 2: If he would have done that, you would never have
• 2:07:18
  Speaker 2: the Packers who they are today.
• 2:07:22
  Speaker 1: It's funny when we were noting this, and it was
• 2:07:24
  Speaker 1: one of the reasons why we wanted to talk with
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 1: Kevin Harlan on this, is that it does feel as
• 2:07:28
  Speaker 1: if you had Curly Lambeau, you had Lombardi, And I
• 2:07:34
  Speaker 1: think you would argue that Harlan is the, you know,
• 2:07:37
  Speaker 1: this era, this amazing 30 year run, which we don't
• 2:07:41
  Speaker 1: have nearly the number of Superbowl appearances or wins that
• 2:07:44
  Speaker 1: you would think we would have for the run we've
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 1: been on. But that's, that's for, as, as my, my friend,
• 2:07:51
  Speaker 1: the Buffalo Bills fan likes to say, it's, oh yeah,
• 2:07:53
  Speaker 1: try being a Bills fan since 1990. But I take
• 2:07:56
  Speaker 1: your point. At least we've got a couple. But Bob
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 1: Harlan really is the father of this 30-year run, isn't he?
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is– and I break the book down into
• 2:08:07
  Speaker 2: three parts. As you said before, the Lambeau era, the
• 2:08:11
  Speaker 2: Lombardi era, and the Harlan era.
• 2:08:13
  Speaker 1: And you contend we're still in the Harlan era, wouldn't
• 2:08:16
  Speaker 1: you argue?
• 2:08:17
  Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. No, I mean you can take–
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 2: goodness goes back. I mean where they are right now,
• 2:08:24
  Speaker 2: the Packer management, operational side, that all goes back. to
• 2:08:29
  Speaker 2: Bob Harlan. So he has everything to do with this.
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 2: And if you think about it, he knew how to
• 2:08:36
  Speaker 2: be an executive. He knew, look, I'm the leader. I'm
• 2:08:38
  Speaker 2: going to point us in the right direction. And that
• 2:08:41
  Speaker 2: direction was getting a smart football mind, Ron Wolfe, and
• 2:08:44
  Speaker 2: let Ron Wolfe do his job. And then Ron Wolfe
• 2:08:47
  Speaker 2: hired the people that he had Holmgren, then Brett Favre,
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 2: then Reggie White. And we had those three people in place.
• 2:08:55
  Speaker 2: It was just now time before we got the Super Bowl.
• 2:09:07
  Speaker 1: I want to go back to this, the money gap issue.
• 2:09:10
  Speaker 1: Where is, is, do you think that if this is
• 2:09:14
  Speaker 1: going to be, if, if 31 team, other teams have
• 2:09:18
  Speaker 1: essentially an extra billion dollars in cash, is this how
• 2:09:23
  Speaker 1: they deal with, is this being it's signing bonus money
• 2:09:27
  Speaker 1: that the Packers are going to be lack of income?
• 2:09:29
  Speaker 1: Where is this going to impact on the roster?
• 2:09:33
  Speaker 2: It's not going to impact the roster simply because the
• 2:09:36
  Speaker 2: salary cap is a salary cap. You need to have,
• 2:09:39
  Speaker 2: it's going to come down to cash flow, and it's
• 2:09:41
  Speaker 2: going to come down to related to that, how much
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 2: money they have sitting in escrow. It's not like there
• 2:09:48
  Speaker 2: are no salary caps and you just need money, money, money,
• 2:09:52
  Speaker 2: like is the case with Major League Baseball. In this instance,
• 2:09:55
  Speaker 2: it doesn't come down to salary as much as it
• 2:09:57
  Speaker 2: comes down to cash flow, operating income. And then how
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 2: much you have set aside to pay for guaranteed contracts.
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 2: I'll be the first to say, yes, I mean, these
• 2:10:06
  Speaker 2: workers need to be paid, especially high impact and how
• 2:10:09
  Speaker 2: much injury it is. When you sign for X dollars,
• 2:10:13
  Speaker 2: you should get X dollars. The problem is when a
• 2:10:18
  Speaker 2: team is at a disadvantage and cannot fund it in
• 2:10:21
  Speaker 2: such a way, not because they're cheap, but simply because
• 2:10:24
  Speaker 2: they don't have the means. 31 of 32 teams will
• 2:10:28
  Speaker 2: have it. The Packers will not. So if it comes
• 2:10:31
  Speaker 2: to the point where the funding rule stays in place
• 2:10:34
  Speaker 2: and you need to put every year but the year
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 2: that they're playing for a contract, the Packers are not
• 2:10:42
  Speaker 2: going to be able to keep up with that.
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 1: And they're just going to have a hard time having, what,
• 2:10:47
  Speaker 1: extended scouting stuff. I mean, where do you think that
• 2:10:50
  Speaker 1: that really has an impact financially on the team?
• 2:10:52
  Speaker 2: Well, I think they're going to have to come. I mean,
• 2:10:54
  Speaker 2: at some point, they're going to show their books. I'm like,
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 2: we don't have any cash, OK? We have $ 800 million
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 2: in escrow that is covering these obligations, right? And we
• 2:11:07
  Speaker 2: don't have anything. What are you going.
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 1: Teams.
• 2:11:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, this isn't like half of us are in
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 2: this boat, like you have left us out. And you
• 2:11:15
  Speaker 2: knew that this was going to be a problem. So
• 2:11:17
  Speaker 2: here we are, the nonprofit Packers, you got us, uncle,
• 2:11:20
  Speaker 2: you can take us out. And this is when the
• 2:11:22
  Speaker 2: Halases and the Maras, you know, they need to step up.
• 2:11:26
  Speaker 2: This is wrong because the Packers are the NFL. The
• 2:11:30
  Speaker 2: NFL is because of the Packers. We are doing it
• 2:11:32
  Speaker 2: to ourselves.
• 2:11:34
  Speaker 1: All right. Let me land the plane here by talking
• 2:11:36
  Speaker 1: a little bit about Wisconsin politics, because in some ways,
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 1: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
• 2:11:46
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin is a unique state to me because there's no
• 2:11:48
  Speaker 1: swing counties anymore. 25 years ago, Brown County was a
• 2:11:52
  Speaker 1: swing county. How Brown County went, so went the state.
• 2:11:55
  Speaker 1: Brown County in 2000, 2004, 1996, Brown County was a
• 2:12:00
  Speaker 1: swing county. It is not a swing county. There really
• 2:12:02
  Speaker 1: aren't any swing counties. There's certainly swing voters, but it
• 2:12:05
  Speaker 1: really is a state that is pretty evenly divided in
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 1: but there's no one area where you would say this
• 2:12:12
  Speaker 1: is your 50-50 fulcrum. You've seen Wisconsin both ways, and
• 2:12:21
  Speaker 1: yet it's still a 50-50 state. It was a swing
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 1: state the other way, and now it's a swing state now.
• 2:12:28
  Speaker 1: How did it both change and stay the same politically
• 2:12:31
  Speaker 1: from the macro level?
• 2:12:34
  Speaker 2: From the macro level, I would break it down not
• 2:12:36
  Speaker 2: by counties, but by regions. I think if you start
• 2:12:39
  Speaker 2: looking at regions, you do see some that are flipping
• 2:12:43
  Speaker 2: back and forth. And one part of the state that
• 2:12:50
  Speaker 2: folks really honed in on, and I think you talked
• 2:12:52
  Speaker 2: about this too at one point, from 2016 onwards, I'm sorry,
• 2:12:57
  Speaker 2: from 2012 to 2016, the western side of the state,
• 2:13:01
  Speaker 2: the rural counties there for years and years were maintained
• 2:13:05
  Speaker 2: that they were always democratic.
• 2:13:08
  Speaker 1: They're just old union counties.
• 2:13:10
  Speaker 2: Right, right. The Farmers Union, that was a really big
• 2:13:15
  Speaker 2: part there. You had, I don't know. I mean, it
• 2:13:19
  Speaker 2: was the exception, not the rule. So there was something
• 2:13:21
  Speaker 2: unique about it. But then that switch. And once that switch,
• 2:13:24
  Speaker 2: then Trump won in 2016. And you didn't see that
• 2:13:25
  Speaker 2: part of Trump. the state as it had been. But
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 2: when the state does go democratic, you will see a
• 2:13:37
  Speaker 2: few things. You will see that the southwest corner of
• 2:13:41
  Speaker 2: the state is going either pink or light blue. And
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 2: then up here in northeast Wisconsin, you'll see Winnebago County
• 2:13:49
  Speaker 2: either go just slightly democratic And then the suburbs and
• 2:13:54
  Speaker 2: the exurbs around Milwaukee, that will I mean, that has
• 2:13:58
  Speaker 2: gotten more and more so-called.
• 2:13:59
  Speaker 1: Wow. The so-called wow counties. Right.
• 2:14:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So they're still Republican, but they're not
• 2:14:05
  Speaker 2: like they were back in 2010 when Tom and I
• 2:14:08
  Speaker 2: were running for governor, lieutenant governor. And, you know, Scott
• 2:14:11
  Speaker 2: Walker won like three to one, four to one. You know,
• 2:14:13
  Speaker 2: we weren't going to win that.
• 2:14:17
  Speaker 1: How is it that Wisconsin is one of the handful
• 2:14:19
  Speaker 1: of states that has a senator from each party? How
• 2:14:23
  Speaker 1: does Tammy, you know, because it's funny to me, Ron
• 2:14:25
  Speaker 1: Johnson and Tammy Baldwin are frankly what we used to
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 1: say about Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin. And they lasted
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 1: a generation together, right? And some of it was dumb luck.
• 2:14:35
  Speaker 1: It's like Tammy Baldwin is like, She she's you know,
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 1: the first two times she ran good Obama year and
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 1: 12 good, you know, anti, you know, anti Washington year
• 2:14:47
  Speaker 1: for her to run in an 18. But her 24
• 2:14:49
  Speaker 1: victory is still pretty remarkable.
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 1: Trump is a state and she she holds on. What's
• 2:14:56
  Speaker 1: your explanation of how that happened?
• 2:14:58
  Speaker 2: Well, she did that in 2012. Keep in mind that
• 2:15:01
  Speaker 2: Walker won the recall election in 2012, and that was
• 2:15:03
  Speaker 2: Tammy's first election. And she ran against Tommy Thompson, who
• 2:15:07
  Speaker 2: was a very strong candidate, had really strong ballot, had
• 2:15:11
  Speaker 2: intense ballot strength. And so that was... really formidable, but
• 2:15:14
  Speaker 2: you're right about just having to be, I mean, in
• 2:15:17
  Speaker 2: some places it is being on the right cycle. If
• 2:15:20
  Speaker 2: you look at Ron Johnson, you have 2022, before you
• 2:15:23
  Speaker 2: have 2016, good Republican year, 2010. Yeah, yeah, 2010.
• 2:15:28
  Speaker 1: He's had good cycles too, right.
• 2:15:30
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And then for years and years, You know, there
• 2:15:33
  Speaker 2: was like this six year cycle. So the Senate cycle
• 2:15:37
  Speaker 2: really matches up with, I think, how the pendulum goes
• 2:15:42
  Speaker 2: back and forth nationally. And we see that here in Wisconsin.
• 2:15:46
  Speaker 2: My guess would be not having studied this, though. But
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 2: there are probably a lot more examples, too. And it
• 2:15:52
  Speaker 2: has a lot to do with the cycle.
• 2:15:56
  Speaker 1: If David Crowley comes up short, what would be your explanation?
• 2:16:00
  Speaker 2: I'm outspent. I mean, I think right now it's like
• 2:16:03
  Speaker 2: two and a half to one to three to one.
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 2: In today's day and age, you can survive two and
• 2:16:09
  Speaker 2: a half to one, three to one. But once it
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 2: gets like crazy, like five to one or six to one,
• 2:16:13
  Speaker 2: if you've got the right message. But there's one thing
• 2:16:17
  Speaker 2: I pick up in politics is that anger wanes. And
• 2:16:20
  Speaker 2: because this is so much of a referendum on Donald Trump,
• 2:16:24
  Speaker 2: there's basically three words that David Crowley's team has got
• 2:16:29
  Speaker 2: to articulate again and again, and that is Tom, Tiffany, Trump. Tom, Tiffany, Trump.
• 2:16:34
  Speaker 2: over and over and over again. If you remind people
• 2:16:38
  Speaker 2: why they are so upset, Trump, and you attach it, Tom, Tiffany, Tom, Tiffany, Trump,
• 2:16:44
  Speaker 2: that should work out for David. But if it comes
• 2:16:46
  Speaker 2: down to being outspent three to one or four to one,
• 2:16:48
  Speaker 2: maybe data centers will make a difference. I don't know.
• 2:16:51
  Speaker 2: But the more and more you look at it, it
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 2: seems like it's just going to be a straight up
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 2: referendum on Trump.
• 2:16:58
  Speaker 1: What did you learn from Crowley's amazing comeback? I mean,
• 2:17:05
  Speaker 1: It is. I certainly have a theory of how he
• 2:17:09
  Speaker 1: was able to do it. But what did you learn
• 2:17:10
  Speaker 1: from that? And what do you think this means? Because, look,
• 2:17:14
  Speaker 1: I think Wisconsin's I think the Democratic Party, I think
• 2:17:17
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin and Michigan. Show us that the Democratic Party is
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 1: divided in half on this.
• 2:17:22
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:17:23
  Speaker 1: There's about half the party is is leaning on the
• 2:17:26
  Speaker 1: progressive slash socialist adjacent side. And about half the party
• 2:17:30
  Speaker 1: is on the right. call it the pro-capitalists, call it
• 2:17:33
  Speaker 1: the safe capitalism side of the party. Is it a
• 2:17:39
  Speaker 1: pretty even split here? Is the progressive side a bit
• 2:17:44
  Speaker 1: smaller and Hong just had a you know just sort
• 2:17:48
  Speaker 1: of had a pretty good campaign until until she sort
• 2:17:50
  Speaker 1: of hit a wall.
• 2:17:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think two things. Number one, what I saw,
• 2:17:55
  Speaker 2: what we saw will not happen again for a million years.
• 2:17:58
  Speaker 2: I mean, how everything had to line up, how one
• 2:18:01
  Speaker 2: candidate drops out, the other one happens to have this
• 2:18:03
  Speaker 2: horrible problem, mismanagement with the campaign, then they drop out,
• 2:18:07
  Speaker 2: and then the other person comes back in, and the
• 2:18:10
  Speaker 2: governor says, I don't think it's too late. I think
• 2:18:12
  Speaker 2: he can win, even though- Had.
• 2:18:13
  Speaker 1: You been called for the race, by the way, too?
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, they were pretty much calling up whoever was left, right?
• 2:18:17
  Speaker 1: They were like, I know, I know.
• 2:18:19
  Speaker 2: It was just, I mean, it was just absolutely bizarre.
• 2:18:21
  Speaker 2: So I would say, you know, that this is something
• 2:18:24
  Speaker 2: that is not going to happen again for a long time.
• 2:18:27
  Speaker 2: But specifically, I think what happened here is everything went
• 2:18:32
  Speaker 2: right for David and everything went wrong for Fran. And
• 2:18:36
  Speaker 2: you see that?
• 2:18:37
  Speaker 1: Could she have done something different to win that?
• 2:18:40
  Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: Or is socialism very hard? I mean, look, I think
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 1: the whole Thanksgiving thing did her in because it broke through.
• 2:18:48
  Speaker 1: I agree.
• 2:18:49
  Speaker 2: I agree. I think things like that broke through. There
• 2:18:51
  Speaker 2: was also a moment, too, when there was the police
• 2:18:54
  Speaker 2: shooting in Madison and she grabbed the bullhorn during one
• 2:18:57
  Speaker 2: of these protests and people were furious and rightfully so.
• 2:19:02
  Speaker 2: And I think she said some things that looking back,
• 2:19:04
  Speaker 2: she probably should not have said. And people look at
• 2:19:06
  Speaker 2: him like, you know, I disagree with what happened there
• 2:19:10
  Speaker 2: with how things turn out, though. But I don't think
• 2:19:11
  Speaker 2: that's gubernatorial like to go out and say that this
• 2:19:15
  Speaker 2: was a state sanctions execution. So I think that those
• 2:19:19
  Speaker 2: things happened. I think those things together made a big difference.
• 2:19:22
  Speaker 2: But really, it was a coin flip. It came down
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 2: to thirty five hundred votes.
• 2:19:27
  Speaker 1: It's it's still remarkable that gap that was made up.
• 2:19:30
  Speaker 1: All right. before I let you go. At four and two,
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 1: as we're speaking right now, maybe we all need to
• 2:19:39
  Speaker 1: shut up and stop complaining. But as you know, Packer
• 2:19:42
  Speaker 1: fans have been cranky. I am, I defend LaFleur and
• 2:19:47
  Speaker 1: get crankier at Gutenkust or, you know, a Knights group
• 2:19:50
  Speaker 1: saying his name. You know, I don't understand why we
• 2:19:54
  Speaker 1: didn't spend more of our off season focus on rebuilding
• 2:19:57
  Speaker 1: the offensive line, but that's where my, that's where I
• 2:19:59
  Speaker 1: come down. Where do you come down?
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 2: I think what's gonna make a big difference is the
• 2:20:07
  Speaker 2: 2025 team was put together with Micah Parsons and he left.
• 2:20:12
  Speaker 2: And if you go back to where they were at
• 2:20:15
  Speaker 2: before he went out, I mean, they were in a
• 2:20:17
  Speaker 2: really good spot. And, you know, Josh Jacobs is coming
• 2:20:21
  Speaker 2: back and Micah Parsons is going to be not this week,
• 2:20:24
  Speaker 2: but the week after. And I think they have figured
• 2:20:27
  Speaker 2: out quite a few things with the offensive line. But
• 2:20:30
  Speaker 2: I think Josh Jacobs is going to be the test
• 2:20:33
  Speaker 2: that you finally have a good running back. And it's
• 2:20:36
  Speaker 2: going to test to see how good the offensive line is.
• 2:20:39
  Speaker 2: Is it just a matter of putting up a brick
• 2:20:40
  Speaker 2: wall to give Jordan Love an extra one or two
• 2:20:43
  Speaker 2: seconds to throw it off? Or are they going to
• 2:20:46
  Speaker 2: be able to manipulate the defensive line so you can
• 2:20:48
  Speaker 2: get a good running back through that? So I think
• 2:20:51
  Speaker 2: that'll be a big test. If they pass it... You know,
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 2: Packers are going to go into the playoffs.
• 2:20:56
  Speaker 1: You're ducking the question. Well, I'm a politician.
• 2:21:00
  Speaker 2: I've got a lot of practice doing this.
• 2:21:02
  Speaker 1: I see that. I'm not going to be like Ron Johnson.
• 2:21:05
  Speaker 2: I'm not going.
• 2:21:06
  Speaker 1: To start lying to you. I know all the stats
• 2:21:10
  Speaker 1: that if you don't win a Super Bowl by, what
• 2:21:13
  Speaker 1: is it, your fifth or sixth year as a coach,
• 2:21:15
  Speaker 1: it doesn't happen. It's very rare that it happens. I
• 2:21:17
  Speaker 1: think Pete Carroll is one of the few. that has
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 1: won a super bowl and Andy Reed sort of after
• 2:21:22
  Speaker 1: coaching in the NFL for, for six or seven years. But, um,
• 2:21:27
  Speaker 1: you know, I, I, he's adjusted the game. I, I
• 2:21:30
  Speaker 1: thought his play calling and I thought the play designs,
• 2:21:33
  Speaker 1: you know, sort of figuring out how to, how to
• 2:21:36
  Speaker 1: get through this patchwork offensive line. It looked like, uh,
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 1: he made some nice adjustments.
• 2:21:42
  Speaker 2: I think he needs to win at least two games
• 2:21:44
  Speaker 2: into the playoffs to keep going again.
• 2:21:47
  Speaker 1: We know.
• 2:21:47
  Speaker 2: Bart Starr, this will be LeFleur's ninth season. And Bart
• 2:21:51
  Speaker 2: Starr had nine seasons. And in the ninth season, 1983,
• 2:21:55
  Speaker 2: they had a solid offense. They were like number two
• 2:21:58
  Speaker 2: and number three in the league, and they let him go.
• 2:22:00
  Speaker 2: And people were like, you know, you can't leave and
• 2:22:03
  Speaker 2: let go of Bart Starr. But they were like, look,
• 2:22:06
  Speaker 2: he had nine years. And I think if Matt does
• 2:22:09
  Speaker 2: not get deep into the playoffs, they're going to say, Sorry,
• 2:22:12
  Speaker 2: he had nine years. And they will shake hands and
• 2:22:15
  Speaker 2: part ways. That's my guess.
• 2:22:16
  Speaker 1: I'm guessing you'd see Ed policy very similar. He seems
• 2:22:19
  Speaker 1: a bit more hands-on. He's going to do something a
• 2:22:22
  Speaker 1: year too soon. Mark Murphy arguably would do things about
• 2:22:26
  Speaker 1: a year later than you might wanted him to do,
• 2:22:29
  Speaker 1: which I was OK with. Big picture, it's worked out.
• 2:22:33
  Speaker 1: Feels like policy is more likely to do something a
• 2:22:35
  Speaker 1: year too soon.
• 2:22:36
  Speaker 2: I think Ed Policy is the right president for the
• 2:22:39
  Speaker 2: right time. I mean, he comes from NFL royalty. He's
• 2:22:42
  Speaker 2: current policy's kid. You know, he grew up with the DeBartolos.
• 2:22:45
  Speaker 2: If there's someone that's going to understand the business side,
• 2:22:48
  Speaker 2: and they need to. Look, I think it's important for
• 2:22:50
  Speaker 2: Micah Parsons to be healthy. I think it's important to
• 2:22:54
  Speaker 2: have a better offensive line, though. But I also think
• 2:22:56
  Speaker 2: it is absolutely critical, crucial. to figure out this private
• 2:23:01
  Speaker 2: equity problem. I've come back to this again and again,
• 2:23:03
  Speaker 2: but this is an existential threat. And a lot of
• 2:23:08
  Speaker 2: the owners know Carmen. They know the DeBartolos, for better
• 2:23:10
  Speaker 2: or for worse. And I think if there's someone who
• 2:23:13
  Speaker 2: understands that angle of politics, it's going to be Ed Policy.
• 2:23:18
  Speaker 1: Thomas, this was great. Really appreciate the time. Really enjoyed
• 2:23:22
  Speaker 1: I enjoyed the book. I'm going to hold it up.
• 2:23:24
  Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
• 2:23:24
  Speaker 1: Let's let's make sure I get the good prop here
• 2:23:27
  Speaker 1: for you.
• 2:23:27
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:23:30
  Speaker 1: It's good stuff. And are you a are you a
• 2:23:33
  Speaker 1: season ticket holder?
• 2:23:34
  Speaker 2: I'm not. I'm not playing.
• 2:23:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Where are you on the wait list?
• 2:23:38
  Speaker 2: Right. I'm not on the wait list. I've got, um,
• 2:23:42
  Speaker 2: I love going to games. I don't love going to
• 2:23:44
  Speaker 2: him as much as I did, but maybe when I
• 2:23:45
  Speaker 2: was in college, because they're getting old. I'm getting old.
• 2:23:51
  Speaker 2: I got a half hour to go.
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 1: It's travel. It is. It is. But, uh, my son
• 2:23:57
  Speaker 1: was bugging me. It's been two years since we've been
• 2:23:59
  Speaker 1: to Lambeau. That's for him two years too long. So
• 2:24:02
  Speaker 1: we got to get back there. Um, I love the book.
• 2:24:05
  Speaker 1: Thank you. More importantly, great to meet you. Great chatting
• 2:24:08
  Speaker 1: with you.
• 2:24:08
  Speaker 2: Appreciate it. Thanks for the time.
• 2:24:23
  Speaker 1: All right, it's now time to go into the time
• 2:24:25
  Speaker 1: machine and a little confession this week. This is the
• 2:24:28
  Speaker 1: closing segment of this episode. I'm going to save up
• 2:24:31
  Speaker 1: some questions and do a lot more in the Wednesday episode,
• 2:24:36
  Speaker 1: particularly going to be focused on election-related questions. I'm going
• 2:24:39
  Speaker 1: to get everything out there. I've got a massive election
• 2:24:42
  Speaker 1: notebook I'm already putting together. I know I had a
• 2:24:45
  Speaker 1: lot to say today. You wouldn't believe the stuff that
• 2:24:48
  Speaker 1: I'm saving for later in the week. But let me
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 1: jump into the time machine. It's campaign related. That's why
• 2:24:55
  Speaker 1: I think it fits. This week, we're going back exactly
• 2:24:57
  Speaker 1: 62 years to Tuesday, October 27th, 1964. And it's even
• 2:25:02
  Speaker 1: more fitting this year since October 27th, 2026 is also
• 2:25:05
  Speaker 1: a Tuesday. Lyndon Johnson was president. Barry Goldwater was the
• 2:25:11
  Speaker 1: Republican nominee. And Republicans were headed toward what would become
• 2:25:14
  Speaker 1: one of the biggest presidential defeats in American history. But
• 2:25:19
  Speaker 1: one week before that election that was taking place on
• 2:25:22
  Speaker 1: November 3rd, A former Hollywood actor appeared on national television
• 2:25:25
  Speaker 1: and delivered a speech that would help change the future
• 2:25:27
  Speaker 1: of the Republican Party. His name, of course, was Ronald Reagan.
• 2:25:31
  Speaker 1: He'd never held elective office. He'd spent years working in Hollywood,
• 2:25:34
  Speaker 1: hosting a television program for General Electric, and traveling around
• 2:25:38
  Speaker 1: the country giving speeches to GE employees and other civic groups.
• 2:25:42
  Speaker 1: And on this particular Tuesday night, he delivered a half-hour
• 2:25:45
  Speaker 1: address that would eventually become known as a speech entitled
• 2:25:49
  Speaker 1: A Time for Choosing. Now, I think this is a
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 1: particularly interesting moment to revisit as we head into our
• 2:25:54
  Speaker 1: own election day, 2026, because there's a difference between losing
• 2:25:58
  Speaker 1: an election and losing the argument over where the country
• 2:26:00
  Speaker 1: ought to go. In 1964, Republicans were about to lose
• 2:26:04
  Speaker 1: an election by an enormous margin. But the conservative movement
• 2:26:07
  Speaker 1: that had nominated Barry Goldwater had developed an identity that
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 1: would survive the defeat. And Reagan was about to demonstrate
• 2:26:13
  Speaker 1: that it had found somebody who could explain that identity
• 2:26:16
  Speaker 1: to Americans who weren't necessarily part of the movement. That's
• 2:26:19
  Speaker 1: what makes this story worth retelling. Because one of the
• 2:26:22
  Speaker 1: things I've been thinking about in our current politics is
• 2:26:24
  Speaker 1: how much energy both parties spend trying to find the
• 2:26:27
  Speaker 1: next great political messenger and how difficult it's become to
• 2:26:31
  Speaker 1: explain what larger governing philosophy that messenger is supposed to represent.
• 2:26:36
  Speaker 1: We have plenty of people who know how to perform
• 2:26:38
  Speaker 1: really good on a Fox interview or something like that.
• 2:26:41
  Speaker 1: Really good on an MS interview. I'm not convinced, though,
• 2:26:44
  Speaker 1: we're spending nearly as much time figuring out what they're
• 2:26:47
  Speaker 1: supposed to be performing. And the Reagan story offers an
• 2:26:51
  Speaker 1: interesting contrast. But first, let's go back to that day
• 2:26:54
  Speaker 1: in 1964. Barry Goldwater was not the kind of Republican
• 2:26:58
  Speaker 1: presidential nominee the party establishment had grown accustomed to. The
• 2:27:02
  Speaker 1: Republican Party of the 1950s had been led by Dwight Eisenhower,
• 2:27:05
  Speaker 1: who accepted much of the basic architecture of the New Deal.
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 1: Eisenhower wasn't interested in dismantling Social Security, and he wasn't
• 2:27:11
  Speaker 1: trying to return the federal government to its pre-Depression size
• 2:27:14
  Speaker 1: or responsibilities. There were plenty of Republicans who thought the
• 2:27:17
  Speaker 1: party had become too comfortable with that arrangement. There was
• 2:27:20
  Speaker 1: a whole wing of this party. They believed Washington had
• 2:27:24
  Speaker 1: accumulated too much power, that federal spending and regulation were
• 2:27:27
  Speaker 1: undermining individual freedom, and that the United States needed a
• 2:27:30
  Speaker 1: much more confrontational approach towards the Soviet Union. So Goldwater
• 2:27:34
  Speaker 1: was the vehicle for that movement. He was a senator
• 2:27:37
  Speaker 1: from Arizona, a conservative who had become increased influential among
• 2:27:41
  Speaker 1: grassroots Republicans. He was the author of a book called
• 2:27:44
  Speaker 1: The Conscious of a Conservative, a book that helped give
• 2:27:46
  Speaker 1: this emerging movement an ideological spine. Now, Goldwater didn't create
• 2:27:51
  Speaker 1: all of these ideas, conservative intellectuals, business organizations, anti-communist activists.
• 2:27:57
  Speaker 1: And Republican organizers have been developing some of them for years.
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 1: But he became their national champion. And his nomination in
• 2:28:04
  Speaker 1: 64 represented a real victory over the then Republican establishment.
• 2:28:09
  Speaker 1: Nelson Rockefeller was the face of that establishment. The governor
• 2:28:12
  Speaker 1: of New York, he represented the more moderate wing of
• 2:28:14
  Speaker 1: the party. And the fight between Rockefeller and Goldwater was bitter.
• 2:28:19
  Speaker 1: By the time the Republicans met in San Francisco that summer,
• 2:28:21
  Speaker 1: Goldwater supporters had taken control of the convention. And Goldwater
• 2:28:25
  Speaker 1: gave them a line that would define his campaign negatively.
• 2:28:29
  Speaker 1: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Now,
• 2:28:33
  Speaker 1: if you're trying to reassure skeptical voters that you're not
• 2:28:36
  Speaker 1: an extremist, that's probably not the sentence your campaign ought
• 2:28:38
  Speaker 1: to be uttering. And it became a huge political problem.
• 2:28:42
  Speaker 1: Johnson's campaign was already portraying Goldwater as dangerously outside the
• 2:28:46
  Speaker 1: American mainstream, particularly on nuclear weapons and the possibility of
• 2:28:50
  Speaker 1: war with the Soviets. The daisy ad is what came
• 2:28:53
  Speaker 1: out of all this. You know, one, 10, not you
• 2:28:59
  Speaker 1: get where I'm going. Message was clear. Let Goldwater, you
• 2:29:02
  Speaker 1: could risk nuclear war. I know the ad never even
• 2:29:05
  Speaker 1: mentions Goldwater by name. It didn't have to. Goldwater also
• 2:29:10
  Speaker 1: faced a serious problem over civil rights. He had supported
• 2:29:14
  Speaker 1: earlier civil rights legislation, but he voted against the Civil
• 2:29:17
  Speaker 1: Rights Act of 64 because at the time he argued
• 2:29:19
  Speaker 1: that important provisions exceeded the federal government's constitutional authority. Can
• 2:29:23
  Speaker 1: I just tell you, I always wondered if Goldwater had
• 2:29:26
  Speaker 1: never done this, if the conservative movement would be in
• 2:29:29
  Speaker 1: a better place on race today. But he did. And
• 2:29:34
  Speaker 1: it's taken decades because his conservatism came synonymous with somehow
• 2:29:41
  Speaker 1: being anti-civil rights. But whatever his constitutional reasoning was, the
• 2:29:46
  Speaker 1: political effect, as I said, was enormous. So Goldwater wasn't
• 2:29:51
  Speaker 1: simply losing because he wasn't a particularly polished television performer.
• 2:29:55
  Speaker 1: There were some substantive reasons voters disagreed with him. And
• 2:29:58
  Speaker 1: there were deep divisions inside the GOP at the time.
• 2:30:02
  Speaker 1: But the conservative movement that nominated him had accomplished something important.
• 2:30:05
  Speaker 1: They had organized and built a constituency. And they developed
• 2:30:09
  Speaker 1: an argument about what they thought the federal government ought
• 2:30:12
  Speaker 1: to be. and what it ought to stop doing. And
• 2:30:17
  Speaker 1: they were hoping that that argument wouldn't disappear simply because
• 2:30:20
  Speaker 1: Barry Goldwater lost, which brings us to Ronald Reagan. And
• 2:30:24
  Speaker 1: here's something that people seem to forget about Reagan. We
• 2:30:27
  Speaker 1: tend to think of him as an actor who discovered
• 2:30:31
  Speaker 1: that he had a talent for politics. But by 1964,
• 2:30:34
  Speaker 1: Reagan had actually spent years developing a political philosophy, and
• 2:30:38
  Speaker 1: he was learning how to communicate. He'd grown up as
• 2:30:40
  Speaker 1: a Democrat, admired FDR, and served as president of the
• 2:30:43
  Speaker 1: Screen Actors Guild during some of Hollywood's most contentious labor
• 2:30:47
  Speaker 1: and anti-communist battles. He even endorsed the candidate who Richard
• 2:30:52
  Speaker 1: Nixon defeated in a 1950 Senate race, Helen Gahagan Douglas,
• 2:30:57
  Speaker 1: an actor. He endorsed her over Nixon. But over time,
• 2:31:01
  Speaker 1: as politics moved to the right, one of the most
• 2:31:03
  Speaker 1: important experiences in that evolution was his relationship with General Electric.
• 2:31:07
  Speaker 1: Beginning in the 50s, Reagan hosted something called General Electric Theater,
• 2:31:10
  Speaker 1: which was on television, NBC. But he also traveled around
• 2:31:13
  Speaker 1: the country speaking at GE plants and to employees and
• 2:31:16
  Speaker 1: civic organizations. And this is probably a bit underappreciated part
• 2:31:20
  Speaker 1: of the Reagan story. He was getting his own education
• 2:31:22
  Speaker 1: in American politics outside of Washington. He was talking to
• 2:31:26
  Speaker 1: workers and he was talking to executives, meeting people in
• 2:31:28
  Speaker 1: different parts of the country, honing his messages, right? He'd
• 2:31:33
  Speaker 1: give a speech, see which parts work, revise it, try
• 2:31:35
  Speaker 1: another version. over and over again. Did it for years.
• 2:31:39
  Speaker 1: By 62, though, the relationship with GE had ended. Television
• 2:31:43
  Speaker 1: program was canceled, partly due to Reagan's increasingly outspoken conservatism,
• 2:31:47
  Speaker 1: which was becoming a larger part of his public identity.
• 2:31:50
  Speaker 1: So when Reagan eventually delivers a time for choosing in 64,
• 2:31:53
  Speaker 1: he's not simply reading a speech somebody in the Goldwater
• 2:31:56
  Speaker 1: campaign wrote for him. He was delivering an argument he
• 2:31:59
  Speaker 1: had spent years developing. So the performance certainly mattered. Don't
• 2:32:05
  Speaker 1: get me wrong. But his performance had substance behind it.
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 1: What's interesting is the circumstances around the speech, how it
• 2:32:13
  Speaker 1: got on television is quite interesting. There were some wealthy
• 2:32:16
  Speaker 1: California conservatives, including Holmes Tuttle and Henry Salvatore, who had
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 1: been really impressed with Reagan's speaking ability. And so they
• 2:32:24
  Speaker 1: actually helped finance this national broadcast. But not everybody inside
• 2:32:29
  Speaker 1: the Goldwater campaign thought this was a good idea. In fact,
• 2:32:31
  Speaker 1: some of Goldwater's own advisors were worried about parts of
• 2:32:34
  Speaker 1: Reagan's speech, particularly what he was saying about Social Security. And,
• 2:32:39
  Speaker 1: you know, they were nervous about what impact this could
• 2:32:42
  Speaker 1: have in the last week. Goldwater is already being portrayed
• 2:32:45
  Speaker 1: by Johnson as somebody who wants to dismantle other popular
• 2:32:48
  Speaker 1: federal programs. His campaign was desperately trying to reassure voters
• 2:32:51
  Speaker 1: that he was not as extreme as Johnson was claiming.
• 2:32:54
  Speaker 1: Now along comes an actor with a half-hour speech that
• 2:32:56
  Speaker 1: some of Goldwater's Advisors think it's going to make the
• 2:32:59
  Speaker 1: problem worse. So there was a serious effort to stop
• 2:33:02
  Speaker 1: the broadcast. But Goldwater himself listened to the speech on
• 2:33:06
  Speaker 1: tape before it aired and didn't object to it, and
• 2:33:08
  Speaker 1: it went on the air. And that tells you a
• 2:33:12
  Speaker 1: little something about him. Donald Trump wouldn't let somebody else
• 2:33:15
  Speaker 1: speak for him. Woody. The conservative movement had produced a
• 2:33:18
  Speaker 1: messenger who was capable of explaining its philosophy to a
• 2:33:21
  Speaker 1: national audience, and the political professionals running the campaign nearly
• 2:33:24
  Speaker 1: prevented him from doing it. They were just thinking about
• 2:33:28
  Speaker 1: how to survive the week. Reagan was making an argument
• 2:33:30
  Speaker 1: that would help define a movement for the next generation.
• 2:33:34
  Speaker 1: So October 27th, he gets his national audience. Reagan opens
• 2:33:38
  Speaker 1: by explaining he's been allowed to choose his own words
• 2:33:41
  Speaker 1: and ideas. He quickly, basically, that was important to the
• 2:33:44
  Speaker 1: Goldwater folks. They wanted that line in there to make sure,
• 2:33:48
  Speaker 1: this is Reagan words. We're not endorsing every single word.
• 2:33:52
  Speaker 1: But he makes another point. That I think is essential
• 2:33:55
  Speaker 1: to understanding why his political appeal eventually reached beyond traditional conservatives.
• 2:34:02
  Speaker 1: He starts by saying he started, he tells the audience
• 2:34:04
  Speaker 1: that he'd spent most of his life as a Democrat.
• 2:34:08
  Speaker 1: He wasn't claiming he was born a Republican conservative. He
• 2:34:11
  Speaker 1: was explaining that he changed his mind. And then he
• 2:34:14
  Speaker 1: makes the case that the questions facing the country cross
• 2:34:16
  Speaker 1: party lines. It's a pretty good tactic. He's inviting people
• 2:34:22
  Speaker 1: who don't already agree with him to consider the possibility
• 2:34:25
  Speaker 1: that they might have something in common. He's not simply
• 2:34:28
  Speaker 1: telling conservatives that they're right and everybody else is wrong.
• 2:34:30
  Speaker 1: Own the libs. Nothing like that. He actually tried to
• 2:34:33
  Speaker 1: persuade people who may have voted for Democrats that they
• 2:34:36
  Speaker 1: ought to reconsider what they believe the size of government
• 2:34:38
  Speaker 1: ought to be. Now, the speech was a full-throated conservative argument.
• 2:34:42
  Speaker 1: He attacked federal spending, taxation, bureaucracy. He criticized things. He
• 2:34:47
  Speaker 1: makes an aggressive Cold War argument. Okay. He defends Goldwater
• 2:34:51
  Speaker 1: personally against the suggestion that the Republican nominee is reckless
• 2:34:54
  Speaker 1: or indifferent to the consequences of war. And there's plenty
• 2:34:57
  Speaker 1: of stuff in that speech that liberals strongly disagreed with
• 2:35:01
  Speaker 1: then and would disagree with now. And some of Reagan's statistics,
• 2:35:05
  Speaker 1: like a lot of other Reagan's speeches and examples, were
• 2:35:08
  Speaker 1: disputed even at the time. So I'm not going to
• 2:35:11
  Speaker 1: hold this up as some flawless exercise in political reasoning
• 2:35:15
  Speaker 1: and rhetoric. But there was coherence to the argument. He
• 2:35:18
  Speaker 1: was telling Americans what he believes. what principles ought to
• 2:35:22
  Speaker 1: guide it, and why those principles should matter to ordinary people.
• 2:35:26
  Speaker 1: And he did it in language that sounded conversational. He
• 2:35:29
  Speaker 1: didn't sound like he was lecturing. He sounded like he
• 2:35:33
  Speaker 1: was coming across the table explaining why he came to
• 2:35:35
  Speaker 1: believe what he believes. Look, it's a political skill that
• 2:35:39
  Speaker 1: is much harder than it looks. But there's something else
• 2:35:44
  Speaker 1: we need to remember. Kennedy demonstrated in 60 that television
• 2:35:47
  Speaker 1: could change politics. Reagan took the lesson, though, somewhere else.
• 2:35:51
  Speaker 1: He demonstrated that somebody who understood television could become the
• 2:35:53
  Speaker 1: national voice of a political movement without ever having held
• 2:35:56
  Speaker 1: elective office. He hadn't yet. And he also understood you
• 2:36:02
  Speaker 1: don't have to shout to sound passionate. You don't have
• 2:36:05
  Speaker 1: to sound angry to communicate urgency. You don't have to
• 2:36:08
  Speaker 1: turn every disagreement into a personal attack to make a
• 2:36:11
  Speaker 1: strong argument. He could be sharply critical of opponents. But
• 2:36:16
  Speaker 1: he also understood how to make his audience feel that
• 2:36:18
  Speaker 1: he was inviting them into a conversation rather than simply
• 2:36:22
  Speaker 1: demanding their agreement. Look, the speech didn't change anything. Goldwater
• 2:36:28
  Speaker 1: wins just six states. Southern states. He became way... His
• 2:36:34
  Speaker 1: conservatism became basically the excuse for segregationists to still fight
• 2:36:38
  Speaker 1: for segregation. It's one of the great mistakes I think
• 2:36:42
  Speaker 1: Goldwater made. I've heard the argument, but for a guy...
• 2:36:51
  Speaker 1: who believed in freedom and libertarianism, he could have easily
• 2:36:57
  Speaker 1: found himself on the side of the civil rights activists,
• 2:36:59
  Speaker 1: and he didn't. But something else happened after the Reagan speech.
• 2:37:05
  Speaker 1: The Goldwater campaign received a surge in contributions. Conservative activists
• 2:37:08
  Speaker 1: began talking about Reagan as a future candidate. Two years later,
• 2:37:11
  Speaker 1: he'd become governor of California. 16 years after the speech,
• 2:37:15
  Speaker 1: he becomes president of the United States. So Goldwater lost
• 2:37:24
  Speaker 1: the election, but the movement that had nominated him had
• 2:37:26
  Speaker 1: enough of an identity to survive the defeat. And it
• 2:37:29
  Speaker 1: found a new messenger. Now I want to bring this
• 2:37:32
  Speaker 1: back to our politics now, because I think there's something
• 2:37:34
  Speaker 1: about this story that helps explain a problem both parties
• 2:37:37
  Speaker 1: are confronting at the moment. We spend an enormous amount
• 2:37:39
  Speaker 1: of time looking for political personalities. Who's the next Reagan?
• 2:37:42
  Speaker 1: Who's the next Obama? Who's got the charisma? Who can
• 2:37:44
  Speaker 1: talk on TV, podcast, you name it.
• 2:37:47
  Speaker 2: That matters.
• 2:37:48
  Speaker 1: Performance matters. But it shouldn't matter without substance. We've become
• 2:37:54
  Speaker 1: so focused on finding the right messenger that we've lost
• 2:37:56
  Speaker 1: sight of the importance of having a message that can
• 2:37:58
  Speaker 1: survive the messenger. And that's why I actually put Reagan
• 2:38:03
  Speaker 1: and Obama in a similar category. Because I would argue
• 2:38:06
  Speaker 1: neither party has ever found, neither party has found their
• 2:38:10
  Speaker 1: heir apparent to either one of them.
• 2:38:13
  Speaker 2: Right?
• 2:38:13
  Speaker 1: Ideologically, they're two different presidents. One believed in government as
• 2:38:17
  Speaker 1: part of the solution. One always was looking to keep
• 2:38:20
  Speaker 1: government out of the solution. but they were very effective
• 2:38:23
  Speaker 1: at connecting a broader governing philosophy to the everyday concerns
• 2:38:27
  Speaker 1: of people who weren't necessarily committed to their party. Reagan
• 2:38:32
  Speaker 1: could make conservatism sound like an argument about opportunity, freedom,
• 2:38:35
  Speaker 1: and national renewal. Obama could make liberalism sound like an
• 2:38:39
  Speaker 1: argument about opportunity, fairness, and the country's capacity to improve itself.
• 2:38:44
  Speaker 1: They both understood performance, but the performance was connected to
• 2:38:49
  Speaker 1: a set of beliefs that were coherent. Both were trying
• 2:38:53
  Speaker 1: to persuade people who didn't necessarily begin by agreeing with them.
• 2:38:57
  Speaker 1: Clinton had this ability at times. He was particularly good
• 2:39:00
  Speaker 1: at explaining policy and language that connected to everyday experiences.
• 2:39:04
  Speaker 1: He was also ideologically flexible, and he turned that flexibility
• 2:39:10
  Speaker 1: into what sounded like pragmatism. Donald Trump demonstrated an ability
• 2:39:13
  Speaker 1: at times to command attention, and he was good at
• 2:39:16
  Speaker 1: communicating directly with voters who felt ignored. But there's a
• 2:39:21
  Speaker 1: difference between building a political movement around a governing philosophy
• 2:39:24
  Speaker 1: and building one around a personality. That's the question Republicans
• 2:39:29
  Speaker 1: are going to have to confront as the Trump era
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 1: begins to end. MAGA has an identifiable set of positions
• 2:39:35
  Speaker 1: on immigration, trade, executive power, cultural issues, and America's role
• 2:39:38
  Speaker 1: in the world. So the question isn't whether there's anything
• 2:39:41
  Speaker 1: there beyond Trump. There could be. It's whether the movement
• 2:39:44
  Speaker 1: can develop an identity and a governing philosophy that survives Trump.
• 2:39:51
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Democrats have a different version of this problem.
• 2:39:54
  Speaker 1: They have plenty of policies, plenty of constituencies, and plenty
• 2:39:56
  Speaker 1: of people who want to lead the party. But since
• 2:39:58
  Speaker 1: Obama left, Democrats have struggled to establish either a unifying
• 2:40:02
  Speaker 1: national message or a messenger capable of communicating one as
• 2:40:05
  Speaker 1: effectively as Obama did. Joe Biden won, but he won
• 2:40:09
  Speaker 1: on the fumes of Obama. And that's the challenge Democrats
• 2:40:14
  Speaker 1: are still debating as they look towards 2028. What does
• 2:40:17
  Speaker 1: the party want the federal government to become? How does
• 2:40:20
  Speaker 1: it explain its approach to economic security, opportunity, and the
• 2:40:22
  Speaker 1: role of government to voters who aren't already committed Democrats?
• 2:40:26
  Speaker 1: And who can make that argument credible? You can have
• 2:40:29
  Speaker 1: a collection of policies that isn't the same as having
• 2:40:31
  Speaker 1: a philosophy. And that's been a bigger problem of our politics.
• 2:40:35
  Speaker 1: We either have incredible performers or a bunch of think
• 2:40:38
  Speaker 1: tanks coming up with great ideas. But we are struggling
• 2:40:42
  Speaker 1: to merge the two.
• 2:40:46
  Speaker 2: So.
• 2:40:47
  Speaker 1: We're pretty good at turning elections into referendums on the
• 2:40:49
  Speaker 1: person or the party currently in power, but we're having
• 2:40:51
  Speaker 1: a harder time convincing Americans that the two parties are
• 2:40:54
  Speaker 1: offering different credible ways of achieving the same goals. Voters
• 2:40:59
  Speaker 1: have been pretty blunt about their dissatisfaction. They can vote
• 2:41:01
  Speaker 1: somebody out. They can put somebody else in. What they
• 2:41:03
  Speaker 1: can't easily do through a ballot is explain which parts
• 2:41:06
  Speaker 1: of a governing philosophy they support and which parts they
• 2:41:09
  Speaker 1: reject or what compromises they are willing to make. So
• 2:41:14
  Speaker 1: political leaders can mistake a vote against the other side
• 2:41:17
  Speaker 1: as an endorsement for everything they want to do. And
• 2:41:19
  Speaker 1: when the results disappoint, voters change direction again. We keep
• 2:41:23
  Speaker 1: flipping over the table in Washington, and I think part
• 2:41:25
  Speaker 1: of the reason is that neither party has consistently persuaded
• 2:41:28
  Speaker 1: enough ideological skeptics that it understands the same problems they do,
• 2:41:33
  Speaker 1: even if it proposes different solutions. And that, to me,
• 2:41:36
  Speaker 1: is where this Reagan story becomes useful. In 64, the
• 2:41:39
  Speaker 1: conservative movement had spent years developing an argument about the
• 2:41:42
  Speaker 1: role of government. Goldwater was the leader, but he wasn't
• 2:41:45
  Speaker 1: particularly effective at persuading a majority of Americans to embrace it.
• 2:41:50
  Speaker 1: And some of his positions were deeply unpopular. But the
• 2:41:54
  Speaker 1: movement wasn't dependent on Goldwater to remain its leader. When
• 2:41:56
  Speaker 1: Reagan emerged, he didn't have to invent a new identity.
• 2:41:58
  Speaker 1: He had something to explain, and he spent years learning
• 2:42:02
  Speaker 1: how to explain it. And it's a different challenge from
• 2:42:05
  Speaker 1: simply finding somebody who can command attention or excite people
• 2:42:08
  Speaker 1: who already agree with you. Substance without performance can lose.
• 2:42:13
  Speaker 1: performance without substance can work for a while, surprisingly for
• 2:42:18
  Speaker 1: a long time sometimes, but eventually if the performance isn't
• 2:42:21
  Speaker 1: connected to a governing philosophy that produces results, voters will
• 2:42:25
  Speaker 1: look elsewhere. The challenge is finding leaders who can do both,
• 2:42:29
  Speaker 1: who can make a compelling argument about what government ought
• 2:42:31
  Speaker 1: to do and persuade people who don't already agree with
• 2:42:33
  Speaker 1: them that their approach is worth trying. So as we
• 2:42:39
  Speaker 1: head into another election day, I wonder whether both parties
• 2:42:41
  Speaker 1: have gotten the process backwards. We're spending an awful lot
• 2:42:44
  Speaker 1: of time searching for the next great messenger and not
• 2:42:47
  Speaker 1: nearly enough time figuring out what that person ought to
• 2:42:50
  Speaker 1: say that commands a governing majority. So there's your time
• 2:42:58
  Speaker 1: machine slash commentary for the week. So with that, as
• 2:43:02
  Speaker 1: I've done a lot, I've had a lot to say
• 2:43:04
  Speaker 1: about this election. I had a lot to say about Mr. Musk, Mr. Ramaswamy.
• 2:43:07
  Speaker 1: I think this is an incredibly pivotal moment that we're
• 2:43:10
  Speaker 1: experiencing today. in the piece of this campaign. For the
• 2:43:14
  Speaker 1: rest of my episodes going into election day, it's going
• 2:43:17
  Speaker 1: to be all the nuts and bolts. Every race at
• 2:43:21
  Speaker 1: some point, we will talk about every competitive Senate race
• 2:43:23
  Speaker 1: and GovRace there is, including by the end, how exactly
• 2:43:29
  Speaker 1: I'll be watching election night. So with that, I will
• 2:43:32
  Speaker 1: see you tomorrow on Super Tuesday until we upload again.