December 10, 2025 • 33 mins
Ryan and Emily discuss Shapiro launches war on Kamala, Newsom dodges AIPAC questions, corporate lobbyist rails against the rich.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Kamala Harris seems to still be set are running for
president again someday.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
The New York Times at a.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Very very splashy profile for let's put up D two
on the screen.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
Actually all kinds.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Of interesting stuff in this profile, but her profile recently
in The Atlantic caused some trouble.
Speaker 5 (00:53):
We're gonna talk about that in a bit first.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
In this New York Times piece, Comers seems to be
pretty eager to run again. She made all kinds of
news for a particular quote where she told Shane Goldmocker,
I understand the focus on twenty twenty eight and all
of that.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
But there will be a marble bust of me in Congress.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I am a historic figure like any vice president of
the United States ever was. Goldknocker followed Harris around two
different book tour stops and really does some I don't know,
does her some favors in this piece by making it
sound as though everywhere she went everyone was clamoring to
(01:35):
see Kamala Harris. Young black women in particular, Goldmocker reports
were delighted to see Kamala Harris or big fans of
Kamala Harris. I'm just skeptical that that's any significant portion
of the country in terms of the numbers. But she's
getting in trouble her profile with The Atlantic. She I'm
sorry that Josh Shapiro profile in The Atlantic saw him
(01:59):
responding to something in her book One hundred and seven Days,
which I might have to eat crowing, because I was like,
this book's not going to sell anything OpEd.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
To what books we thought.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
Both were wrong about that.
Speaker 5 (02:08):
Now compared to what books used to sell.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
It didn't sell that many, but six hundred thousand copies
according to the Times. Profile makes it like the best
selling memoir of the year. Some of that could be
big corporations having Kammala come speak and buying books.
Speaker 5 (02:20):
But it's still a.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Big a lot of books.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Yeah, people, Maybe people are clamoring for Kamala Harris, right,
and we were wrong the whole time. Let's play this
clip though, of Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, responding a
little fun twenty twenty eight preview here to simone standers
of mess and mess now to correct myself here, asking
(02:42):
him if he really said, if you really called some
of Harris's claims bullshit.
Speaker 7 (02:47):
Here's a quote, and you are describing former Vice President
Kamala Harris here it says, I mean she's trying to
sell books and cover her as Sorry with standards, Shapiro snapped,
I shouldn't say cover her word. I shouldn't say I
think that's not appropriate. Shapiro said, his tone was suddenly collected.
She's trying to sell books, period. What were you trying
(03:07):
to signal in that in that moment? So you want
to parse this out for.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Us, there's no parsing. Look, I stand by what I said.
Speaker 8 (03:17):
I think the way in which the author described my
emotion frankly was not accurate. But the words are mine
and I stand by them. I think what was relayed
to me by that author that the Vice President had
written about me just simply wasn't true. And you know,
I think the Vice President I had very and continue
(03:38):
to have very candid conversations, and I think the way
in which it was articulated to me what was said
was was certainly not accurate.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Shapiro owns it.
Speaker 6 (03:47):
What do you think, Grin it was pretty funny.
Speaker 9 (03:50):
So yeah, I mean he's like, look, I said what
I said, and yeah, she was doing a little c
ya like. I don't think anybody is going to disagree
with that. On the point of Kamala Harris being a
historical figure, I was just looking up some of the
other historical figures that she'll she'll join.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
I see Wikipedia.
Speaker 6 (04:12):
Do you watch Miracle on thirty fourth Street every year?
Speaker 5 (04:15):
Not every year?
Speaker 9 (04:17):
I just learned something right now that one of the
iconic scenes in Miracle on thirty fourth Street turns out
to be incorrect. When Santa is doing the the wellness check,
like the cognitive test that Donald Trump, you know, famously
aced where they're giving him the psychiatric evaluation and they
ask him who is the vice president under John Quincy
(04:38):
Adams because they're trying to get him to fail, and
he says Daniel D. Tompkins. It's one of this classic scene.
Turns out that's not true. And I just realized that
right now, just now, which I actually I should have known,
because Quincy Adams is Calhoun was his vice president. It
(05:00):
looks like what happened is this is before Google and Wikipedia,
and so the Miracle on thirty fourth Street writers said
who was the sixth vice president? And the sixth vice
president was Daniel D. Tompkins. Sixth president was Quincy Adams.
So they were like, oh, they must have been together.
Speaker 5 (05:16):
They put it in chat GPT.
Speaker 9 (05:18):
They didn't have they didn't have a book on hand
that they could look for. They just had a chart
or something of who this or maybe they just sat
around on it.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
Who knows the sixth or anyway, it's.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
A deep joke for people like you.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
Maybe it is a deep joke. Wow, that is that?
That is that is wild.
Speaker 9 (05:34):
It might be there's a little easter egg in Miracle
thirty fourth Street, and maybe this is a widely known
thing among Miracle on thirty four Street heads.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
But anyway, so Daniel D.
Speaker 9 (05:45):
Tompkins, Martin van Buren he became president, Richard Mentor Johnson
vice president, George Dallas, Millard Fillmore, Billy King, John Bredkinridge,
Hannibal Hamlin.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
This is fun.
Speaker 9 (06:04):
Abraham Lincoln's vice president, Skyler Colfax also has a bust
in the Capitol, so as does Henry Wilson, William Wheeler,
Ruther for b.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Hayes's vice president.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
There you go, Kamala Harris, what more could you ask?
Speaker 6 (06:17):
Jesster Arthur Jarfield he became president.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Are you watching the new James Garfield series Netflix? It's fantastic.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
I didn't even know there was one. Very excited for that.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Yes, you'll love it.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Garrett Hobart.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
These are the esteemed ranks of men. Kamala Harris will
join with her bust in the Capitol.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
Maybe she'll be right next to Garrett Hobart.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
She might and that again, what more could you ask for?
Speaker 6 (06:40):
Or maybe Chuck Fairbanks, Maybe Chuck Fairbanks, Jim Sherman, So
do you it's Tom Marshall. I know a lot of history.
Speaker 9 (06:47):
Like half these people on the play, Wikipedia could be
totally lying to me.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
It seems so Yeah, that's true. We could have just
done a lot of fake news. Charles Dawes, it seems
so obvious that.
Speaker 9 (06:58):
Calvin Coolidge's vice president, for those are not up on there.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
It's like, what we're going to be saying about that
was Joe Biden's vice president two hundred years from now,
Someone's going to be explaining that to someone Kamala Harris,
that was Joe Biden's.
Speaker 6 (07:09):
They'll be failing to pronounce it.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Yes, really, yes, But Josh Shapiro love or Hatim feels
a lot more like the future of the Democratic Party
than Kamala Harry does.
Speaker 9 (07:21):
And also the past, which is also impressive because he's Obama.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
Yeah right, same cadence. Should we move on to Gavin news.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
I think we might as well.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Let's do it all right, So Ryan Gavin Newsom got
a question about his relationship with a pack Let's go ahead.
This is from Jack Coucherella. Do you know what Jack
cauchuriwan is M I don't either.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
He follows me, so maybe he watches shout out to you, Jack.
Good question. Let's roll the club.
Speaker 10 (07:50):
A little bit ago, you did an interview higher Learning
and the question of the question of a pack came up.
Oh yeah, And it wasn't really necessarily a question of
a pack.
Speaker 11 (07:59):
It was just a random I thought about any papers.
I've never received any money from APACK, and we were
curious kind of raised.
Speaker 10 (08:05):
A pack DMFI the Israel lobby at large, this has
become a big conversation and someone like myself and I
think at this point a broad majority of Democrats are saying,
we don't want candidates who are taking money from APAC.
We don't want the candidates who are beholding to the
Israel lobby. When you look at what you were able
to accomplish with the groundswell of support financially from people
(08:26):
who said, I want to back this, I want to
back fighters, I want to back people who are independent
of an establishment.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
How do you think about a pack now, and maybe.
Speaker 10 (08:35):
Someone like Seth Molton who said I want to return
this money, I'm not taking it anymore. How do you
think that a pack should be involved or shouldn't be involved.
Speaker 11 (08:43):
I've never received a dollar from them in my entire
political career, so that that's sort of absolute. So I've
had an opinion on that going back decades. Now, I
don't take you know, tobacco money, oil money. I've never
taken eight pack money. I mean, there's there's certain absolutes
that are the lines that have been drawn for decades
for me, and those will continue and to the extent
they need to evolve because of the devolution of certain interests,
(09:05):
and we're experiencing that in real time along the lines
of what we've been talking. Perhaps that will even grow.
But the small dollar is become just the lifeblood.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
For me, Okay, Ryan, some of the times for sure.
We can also put this next element up on the screen.
Marjorie Taylor Green, let's run this. Yeah, this is the
Margor Taylor Green with the track APAC graphic saying I
am America first, thank you for your attention to this matter.
It shows her taking zero dollars from a pack and
Trump taking what is that two hundred and thirty million
(09:36):
upwards of twenty two hundred and thirty million dollars from
a pack. So Gavin Newsome has landed on this answer.
Speaker 9 (09:45):
What does that tell us, Ryan, And what was the
answer that he might in the future that he's never
taken any pack money and he might not take it
going forward.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
Is that the he said, this is a line he
has drawn and he will continue not to take money
from apack.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
I thought he was saying the line that he drew
was on tobacco, and that he might draw a line
that's in the future, because if he feels that that's necessary,
should we run again.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
If you're watching this, you're you're in luck.
Speaker 9 (10:18):
You can just scroll back and listen to listen to
him again. I thought he left himself for a little
bit of wiggle room.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
I mean, that wouldn't be out of the question for
Gavin Newsom. He said, I don't take tobacco money, oil money,
and I've never taken a pack money.
Speaker 9 (10:33):
Noticed a change intents, right, Yeah, don't take this. I
don't take that and I've never taken that.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
And to your point, here's the next sentence. There are
certain absolutes that are the lines that have been dropped
for decades to go to the past of tents.
Speaker 9 (10:47):
Yeah, and then he says, and it might in the
future that line might have to change to include a pack.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
God, this guy's slick.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
Yeah, yeah he is so.
Speaker 9 (10:58):
Yes, So what he is saying is that he's never
taken it before, but he doesn't have a policy against
taking it yet he does have a policy against taking
tobacco money and this other stuff. But in the future,
if he's under enough pressure, he might draw a policy
that says I will not take it, yes, which would
actually genuinely be a remarkable political development. If the blank
(11:22):
a leading like establishment candidate for the Democratic nomination just
straight up set I'm not taking a PAC money, that
would actually be a seismic shift. So the fact that
he's like leaving open the door for it even and
trying to make you and I think that he.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Said it, yeah, yeah, he almost got it.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Well, it's slick in the like to get you a
legalistic sense, like how the language is slick. It's not
slick in a sense that I think a lot of
people see that and they're like, just say no, just
say no.
Speaker 9 (11:51):
But let's let's do a survey in the comments, like
he did he get you? Did you think that he
said he was not going to take a PAC money.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
He always got to see the transcript. Sometimes you have
to see that to be like, what's he doing here?
And we'll also see how this plays out. We talked
earlier in the show about the Texas Democratic Senate primary.
I'm very curious to see how the APEC questions play out,
given Jasmin Crockett and taller Ico both Talarico has an
existing relationship with Miriam Edelson said basically about gambling by
(12:21):
any way.
Speaker 9 (12:22):
Which is another funny, but I took Mariam Adilson money
to support her gambling empire.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Right not for And yeah, and also by the way,
I am the Evangelical Christians in this race, which is
insane another reason.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
And he did vote to support the gambling stuff, so like.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
That it all checks out a little transactional there, But yeah,
I mean that's another again, just another reason that when
the DC people see him referencing Scripture, it doesn't it's
not only land with Evangelical Christians because it's it's a
totally different like language the way that he frames his
faith based approach of politics. Like Evangelical Christians are still
(12:59):
like the read that is like the holdout in gambling.
That is one area of the culture where this all
gambling holdout. So anyway, we'll see how all of this
plays out in that primary. I think it'll be very interesting.
We were talking about Goldman and Lander will also be
the Israel question to policy towards Israel. That will be
(13:20):
interesting in that race as well, because I'm sure it's going.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
To come up.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Indeed, all right, well let's go ahead and get to
Sam Goadaldig Ryan, this is going to be pretty interesting, excellent.
Speaker 9 (13:33):
Joining us now is Sam Goadaldig, a big shot Republican
lobbyist here in Washington with the firm CG c N
who is focused for decades now on the class divide
when it comes to advocacy around Congress and the divisions
between and within the parties. Sam's firm has a fascinating
(13:57):
new report out, so we're excited.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
To welcoming back. Sam. How you doing doing great?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Good to see you guys.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Excellent.
Speaker 9 (14:04):
So the new report is called Class Dismissed, and there's
a lot of kind of interesting insights about our current
politics that we want to walk through here but sketch
out for us, like.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
Like where this comes from. And people are going to.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
Be like already asked themselves, why is a lobbyist care
about this?
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Like how is this?
Speaker 9 (14:24):
How is this useful to advocacy for the corporate clients
that you have here in Washington.
Speaker 12 (14:30):
So we've known this for a long time because we
go into a lot of offices and it's kind of instinctual.
Once you start visiting with members of Congress, you know,
in your head you kind of characterize a Freedom Caucus member,
a problem solver member, a Black Caucus member, a Hispanic
(14:52):
Caucus member, and the feel and every meeting is a
little different and you walk out after you know, for me,
now twenty years in the business, thousands of meetings, and
you can start to see a pattern. There's like a
pattern recognition that goes along with it, and you realize
(15:13):
that the members that represent the wealthier congressional districts also
have the best reputation in Washington, d c. Among thinks, tanks, journalists,
other lobbyists. So there's this unconscious bias towards calling the
people that represent the wealthier parts of the country reasonable, thoughtful, productive,
(15:37):
And there's the same pattern recognition when it comes to
members of the Freedom Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus,
and there's a caucus that is not as well known
called the anti Woke Caucus, and that pattern recognition leads
you to believe that those members are destructive, problems, not
productive in any way, not worth lobbying being, they're crazy,
(16:01):
they're you know, whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
The word might be that, you know, and I'd love.
Speaker 12 (16:05):
To see like a grouping of focus group boards amongst
like the elites in Washington, how they described the members
that come from the poorer parts of the country. And
you know, after twenty years, you start like it opens
your eyes and you're like, holy shit, everyone here is
a classist. So you ask why a Republican lobbying firm
(16:27):
went to the effort to document all this, And it's
honestly because we're trying to teach our corporate clients like
what they're dealing with and how to be successful in Washington.
It also is meant to get them to reframe an
unconscious bias that they have against those members. Those members
are dealing with horrible issues, and we documented in class
(16:50):
dismiss too. They're more likely to die of opioid deaths,
They're more likely to serve in the military, they're more
likely to be unemployed, they're more likely to live less
long than the wealth for your constituents in wealthy districts.
So you know, it kind of makes sense. It's like,
why is everyone hating on these people that have such
a such a sorry story to tell? And there's once
(17:14):
you look at it that way, you can't unsee it.
It's almost like you go to Spencer Gifts as you're
as a kid and they put one of those posters
in front of you and they tell you to unFocus
your eyes and you can see it, and it's like
once you see it, you can't never see it again.
So I feel like a little bit like we're screaming into,
you know, a void, just telling everyone what we see,
(17:35):
and more and more people are starting to see it.
Trump certainly awakened that. Like London's and the way mainstream
news media covered Trump's win in twenty twenty four, They're
starting to recognize that the class dismissed like walks you
through just how hard it is for a lot of
constituencies in America dem and Republican, and why their representatives
(17:57):
might be framed as not reductive because their voters are
angry and they want change.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Right in Washington, it's strange to see people come to town
acting like their hair is on fire, whether they're from
the Freedom Caucus or their AOC. But what your report
shows is that they're coming from places where their hair
should be on fire. It would be irrational for them
to not be furious at the system and focused on
overturning it or fixing it or change it, however you
(18:24):
want to say. But let's put this graphic up on
the screen. You found the thirtiest, the thirty wealthiest districts.
Seven of them are GOP representatives, are representative represented by Republicans,
and twenty three are represented by Democrats. Similar breakdowns just
(18:44):
in other metrics that you guys looked at, Sam, But
this is kind of you're putting numbers to the realignment
what has kind of maybe Trump was the first to
really recognize it in modern political history, but the underpinnings,
quantitative underpinnings of the ideological realignment?
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Do you see it that way? Is that how you
talk about.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
This when you're going into you know, meetings with people
who corporate clients that may have been used to sitting
down and having a pretty open year in Republican offices
and that's not always going to be the case this
time around.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yes, one hundred percent.
Speaker 12 (19:22):
So that's the purest installation of the data, and we
go really deep into other metrics, but the thirty poorest
and thirty wealthiest proves the point that you know, there's
an old conventional wisdom that Republicans will reflexively help the
business community and maybe specifically the fortune five hundred and
more and more, the Republican rank and file, the meat
(19:45):
of the Republican Party represents constituencies that have had a
really tough go of it, and those voters in those
congressional districts are not as reflexively ideologically pro business as
the party was, say during the George W.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Bush years twenty years ago.
Speaker 12 (20:02):
So politics has evolved, Republican voters have evolved, Democratic voters
have evolved. And what's very interesting is the fact that,
you know, the Democrats have not lost their anger or
heat towards corporate America, but Republicans now are fighting for
the same constituencies that Democrats once completely commanded a long
(20:25):
time ago. And I've never seen it in the thirty
years i've been here. I was a staffer for about
twelve and now I've been lobbying. Both parties consider working
class voters the base of their party, and I'm not
sure who's right. I mean, maybe we'll find out in
the midterms. Maybe we'll find out in the twenty twenty
eight election. I think they're almost completely up for grab.
(20:48):
And if you look at like how Trump did with
Hispanic men, he won fifty two percent of Hispanic men nationally.
Like that, that's an insane progression from you know, the
Bush years, when we th we reached the pinnacle of success,
when we had marginal success with Hispanic voters. So, you know,
I feel like the mainstream media, the people that cover Washington,
(21:11):
whether you're a professor or a journalist or a think
tank fellow, they kind of resort back to this lazy,
conventional wisdom that's definitely not true anymore. And I think
it's our job to tell our clients how to successfully
win and how to frame up arguments that used to
work but no longer do.
Speaker 9 (21:34):
And so then if you look at the thirty poorest districts,
the breakdowns a little more even. You have eighteen of
those districts represented by Democrats and twelve of them represented
by Republicans.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
There's also like a stark racial divide there.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
The Democratic districts are going to be in general black
caucus or Hispanic caucus members, and then the Republican districts
are going to be overwhelmingly you know, white districts, poor
white districts. If you expand it out to like the
hundred poorest, do you even get closer to parody like
(22:09):
what let's say about fifty to fifty almost?
Speaker 12 (22:13):
Or yeah, I think like the Republicans, And I don't
have the data in front of me, and I apologize,
but I think, what if you really took a deep
dive look into the middle. The Democrats kind of dominate
both ends of it. So the poorest districts in the
country are almost exclusively black and Hispanic caucus and they're
(22:33):
all Democrats that represent those districts. The wealthiest are almost
exclusively white Democrats. And then the middle is a huge
chunk of Republicans that skew poorer than wealthier. So I
think the middle would be like a lot of Republicans,
more Republicans than Democrats, and those Republicans are probably representing
(22:54):
less wealthy districts. And if you broke it down into
the caucuses, you would find that the Republicans the wealthier
districts join moderate mainstream. Again, these are very nice words,
moderate mainstream centrist. They joined caucuses that reflect those viewpoints,
and the people from the poorer districts their caucuses are
(23:17):
not described quite as kindly.
Speaker 6 (23:20):
And when you know they're not at all.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
So when you would have started, you know, thirty years
you know, twenty five, thirty years ago, and you looked
at the top thirty, they would have been overwhelmingly Republican,
probably still.
Speaker 6 (23:32):
At that point.
Speaker 9 (23:33):
So as you as you watched this unfold, like what
did you see happen? Like how did those districts you know,
start to go democratic? And what effect do you think
that has had on the kind of middle districts as
you have this like then polarization between the haves and
have nots.
Speaker 12 (23:52):
I think a lot of things happened over the last
ten years. Notably the most was Donald Trump beating Hillary
Clinton in twenty sixteen, which was kind of a continuation
of the Tea Party that started in twenty ten when
you had Republicans challenging So like, my favorite example is
Marco Rubio was like tried to be They tried to
(24:12):
run him out of a primary against now Democrat Charlie
Christ who was a popular Republican governor. Mitch McConnell opposed
Rubio running. I don't know if you remember that, but
he was dead set against Rubio jumping in the race.
And you know, now he's a fantastic you know, maybe
you disagree, Ryan, but he's certainly a competent secretary of
(24:34):
State and a realist right Like all it proves to
me is like the conventional wisdom and the smartest people
in the room gets shit wrong all the time, Like
Marco is wonderful for our party. And now I just
think the Democrats are like on a lag behind that
tea party, and I think we're starting to see it,
and nobody documents it better than Ryan Graham on the left.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
And I wouldn't pretend to know as much.
Speaker 12 (24:57):
But Jasmine Crockett challenging TALLERIQ go in Texas, their dream
candidate to take a very traditionally red state. They're going
to come up with a lot of reasons why she's
not productive, she's not helping. She could go on to
be a secretary of state. I've seen her on TV.
They platform her all the time. She's in a voting
rights district in the House. And here's the other thing
(25:20):
that we've noticed. There is a glass ceiling on black
and Hispanic senators and governors moving up into statewide positions.
They're very well represented in the House, and a lot
of that is because of the Voting Rights Act, which
creates minority majority districts. The states don't have any such governor.
So I can't, for the life of me think of
a reason why black and Hispanic politicians, who represent the
(25:44):
base of the Democratic Party have had such a difficult
time bracking into statewide elected positions in the bluest of states.
I remember when we were talking a long time ago, Ryan,
I wrote a check to Donna Edwards to prove a point.
Speaker 6 (26:00):
Is running for the Intenate against Chris van Holland right, correct.
Speaker 12 (26:03):
Correct, And I guess the point is everyone has to
play their role according to this town. And again the
town being think tank fellows, journalists, flobbyists, the smart people,
and they put people in these boxes that are it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I think it's racist.
Speaker 12 (26:23):
Like I'd love to hear a Democrat Pundon explained to
me why Jasmine Crockett shouldn't run, Like.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I'd love to just let them just go. We talked
about elain It.
Speaker 9 (26:32):
We talked about that earlier on the show, and she
actually is kind of a perfect k Street candidate in
that sense. Had pledged had you know, had bragged about
not taking corporate pac money. Since has taken enormous amounts
of corporate PAC money, has taken millions in.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Support from from Crypto.
Speaker 9 (26:50):
Uh has been you know pretty you know, went on
an a PAC trip to Israel. So I think some
people are going to have some arguments around substance when
it comes to Crockett. But your your point is is
a legitimate one that for all of their talk when
it comes to a.
Speaker 6 (27:10):
Then the Maryland Maryland case is a good example.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
When it comes to a blue state, you know, where
the Democrat is going to win, they're there often is
not support for black Cannis.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Now I think, who are who are the two senators now.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
From also Brooks?
Speaker 9 (27:27):
So yeah, so also Brooks did did finally break through,
but it but nowhere near you know, uh, nowhere near
where it should be.
Speaker 12 (27:37):
No, not not for a party that has weaponized race
or and again, I don't want to make it about parties.
I want to make it about this city, Washington, the city.
We all live in the city. We never leave they do.
Politicians come and go. They serve an average of you know,
ten years in Congress generally, and then they leave. I've
been here thirty I don't know how long. Ryan and
Emily you've been here, but like, we don't leave. We're Washingtonians.
(27:58):
We make a living here and we set the stage.
And I just think that conventional wisdom is completely lopsided,
upside down broken, not relevant what you know, choose the
term you want. But like, maybe we're not so smart.
Maybe Marco Rubio is one of the best things to
happen to the Republican Party. Maybe Jasmine Crockett might be.
(28:19):
Who knows, Like, who are we to say? We've been
proven wrong so often it's not funny.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
My last question, Sam, is if your corporate clients have
started to realize this is not a flash in the
pan from like, because one of the things this data
I think makes clear is that it's not a flash
in the pan, that it's too deeply rooted to suddenly
you change. That there's populism, whether it's whether it's democratic
(28:48):
populism or Republican populism, there's there's a class based populism
that's emerged as a pattern as a trend.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Are do you.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Think Washington is realizing is coping with that? Do you
think they're just because I think actually Crockett and Tallerico
are kind of good examples, like Oh, here's your populist messaging.
But neither of them is like a populist candidate truly,
you know, at least from what we can tell so far,
is that thinking.
Speaker 12 (29:15):
In So, you guys have a beef with corporate America,
I kind of don't like, and I like, I just
don't like. I get that you're upset about them, and
I'm not like. But whatever, we can have a nice conversation.
I think they're like water, like, if you show them
the path to success, whatever it might be, they'll get there,
(29:36):
maybe not quickly. It's not easy to see the image
in the poster that we talked about, but increasingly more
and more people are starting to see the image. And
some of this stuff makes sense. But it has to
break a frame of how you were raised, how you
were you know, what situation you grew up in. We've
talked about this and class dismissed one. The first document
we did talks a little bit about, you know, the
(30:00):
the unconscious bias of wealthier suburban kids moving to Washington
and the world as they understand it might not be
the same as the way you know, other Washingtonians moved here.
And I think Washington happens to be corporate America too,
dominated by people that you know, went to a four
year college, grew up in a wealthy you know, a
(30:22):
wealthy suburb of a major city.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Have been urbanized a.
Speaker 12 (30:25):
Touch, but you know it's I'm not ashamed of that
way of thinking, and I grew up that way too.
But like again, going to every congressional office or a
lot of them over twenty years has opened my eyes.
And going to their fundraisers and hearing them explain why
they're so mad and what it's like when they go
home and what they have to hear and what their
(30:48):
constituents are upset about.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
It breaks the frame.
Speaker 12 (30:52):
And most people don't have that luxury where they can
pop into a congressional office and get a real taste
of America. I've lived here for thirty but I kind
of understand it because I've listened to them honestly speak
about struggles they have when they go home.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So it's made me more open minded.
Speaker 12 (31:09):
I'm proud to be open minded, and that's kind of
why we write the memos to explain what twenty years
of talking to members of Congress has revealed to us.
Speaker 9 (31:20):
And I will say on your point about your love
of corporate America that you kind of only know what
you had until it's gone. Like compared to the oligarchs
that are now kind of the dominant power structure in
the US, I'm almost like wistful for.
Speaker 6 (31:37):
The time of like the corporate capture of.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
America, like the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 6 (31:43):
Can we go back to.
Speaker 12 (31:44):
That, Like, Yeah, it's careful what you wish for. It
happens in Washington a lot.
Speaker 9 (31:48):
At least they had some like nominal connection to the
United States and some like connection to the national interest.
Speaker 6 (31:55):
Not so much with these new guys.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
This is I'm not going to get myself in trouble. Ryan.
Speaker 12 (32:01):
You go on and rail about them, and I'll keep
representing them and it'll be like the sheep Dog and
you know the famous Looty Tuns cartoon where we can
grab a grab a beer after work at sounds good.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Well, folks can read this report.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
We'll put the report in the video link, but they
can also read it on the CGCN website. Sam, this
was really interesting. I appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Thank you for having me guys. Always great to see you.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
Of course you later.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Well that does it for us. On today's edition of
Breaking Points. Ryan, it was great to have good alding on.
Speaker 6 (32:34):
Indeed, and we'll see everybody at the Miracle Theater everybody night.
Speaker 5 (32:39):
You will all be there.
Speaker 6 (32:40):
I'll be there.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
You can still get tickets on the Reason website and
or you can just google. I think it's Reason Versus
and Ryan and I have the links on our ex
accounts as well. We'll put it in the video description,
I think too, so you have plenty of places to
find it.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
No want every single one of me to be that's right.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
We hanging out afterwards. The was like a post yes.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
The five minutes. Yeah, because then I have to go
do After Party Live.
Speaker 9 (33:06):
Emily stay on Wednesday, like very early morning, all the
way debate and then After Party Live.
Speaker 6 (33:12):
It's a lot people should probably watch that. It's probably
gonna be disaster.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
I would have a Gatorade on stage and we'll be
wearing one of those backpacks with like the hydration straw.
Speaker 5 (33:21):
It will be good, all right, everyone, thanks so much
for tuning in.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
We'll see you tonight and we'll see you Friday.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Kamala Harris seems to still be set are running for
president again someday.
Speaker 5 (00:40):
The New York Times at a.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Very very splashy profile for let's put up D two
on the screen.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
Actually all kinds.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Of interesting stuff in this profile, but her profile recently
in The Atlantic caused some trouble.
Speaker 5 (00:53):
We're gonna talk about that in a bit first.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
In this New York Times piece, Comers seems to be
pretty eager to run again. She made all kinds of
news for a particular quote where she told Shane Goldmocker,
I understand the focus on twenty twenty eight and all
of that.
Speaker 5 (01:11):
But there will be a marble bust of me in Congress.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I am a historic figure like any vice president of
the United States ever was. Goldknocker followed Harris around two
different book tour stops and really does some I don't know,
does her some favors in this piece by making it
sound as though everywhere she went everyone was clamoring to
(01:35):
see Kamala Harris. Young black women in particular, Goldmocker reports
were delighted to see Kamala Harris or big fans of
Kamala Harris. I'm just skeptical that that's any significant portion
of the country in terms of the numbers. But she's
getting in trouble her profile with The Atlantic. She I'm
sorry that Josh Shapiro profile in The Atlantic saw him
(01:59):
responding to something in her book One hundred and seven Days,
which I might have to eat crowing, because I was like,
this book's not going to sell anything OpEd.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
To what books we thought.
Speaker 6 (02:07):
Both were wrong about that.
Speaker 5 (02:08):
Now compared to what books used to sell.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
It didn't sell that many, but six hundred thousand copies
according to the Times. Profile makes it like the best
selling memoir of the year. Some of that could be
big corporations having Kammala come speak and buying books.
Speaker 5 (02:20):
But it's still a.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Big a lot of books.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Yeah, people, Maybe people are clamoring for Kamala Harris, right,
and we were wrong the whole time. Let's play this
clip though, of Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, responding a
little fun twenty twenty eight preview here to simone standers
of mess and mess now to correct myself here, asking
(02:42):
him if he really said, if you really called some
of Harris's claims bullshit.
Speaker 7 (02:47):
Here's a quote, and you are describing former Vice President
Kamala Harris here it says, I mean she's trying to
sell books and cover her as Sorry with standards, Shapiro snapped,
I shouldn't say cover her word. I shouldn't say I
think that's not appropriate. Shapiro said, his tone was suddenly collected.
She's trying to sell books, period. What were you trying
(03:07):
to signal in that in that moment? So you want
to parse this out for.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Us, there's no parsing. Look, I stand by what I said.
Speaker 8 (03:17):
I think the way in which the author described my
emotion frankly was not accurate. But the words are mine
and I stand by them. I think what was relayed
to me by that author that the Vice President had
written about me just simply wasn't true. And you know,
I think the Vice President I had very and continue
(03:38):
to have very candid conversations, and I think the way
in which it was articulated to me what was said
was was certainly not accurate.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Shapiro owns it.
Speaker 6 (03:47):
What do you think, Grin it was pretty funny.
Speaker 9 (03:50):
So yeah, I mean he's like, look, I said what
I said, and yeah, she was doing a little c
ya like. I don't think anybody is going to disagree
with that. On the point of Kamala Harris being a
historical figure, I was just looking up some of the
other historical figures that she'll she'll join.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
I see Wikipedia.
Speaker 6 (04:12):
Do you watch Miracle on thirty fourth Street every year?
Speaker 5 (04:15):
Not every year?
Speaker 9 (04:17):
I just learned something right now that one of the
iconic scenes in Miracle on thirty fourth Street turns out
to be incorrect. When Santa is doing the the wellness check,
like the cognitive test that Donald Trump, you know, famously
aced where they're giving him the psychiatric evaluation and they
ask him who is the vice president under John Quincy
(04:38):
Adams because they're trying to get him to fail, and
he says Daniel D. Tompkins. It's one of this classic scene.
Turns out that's not true. And I just realized that
right now, just now, which I actually I should have known,
because Quincy Adams is Calhoun was his vice president. It
(05:00):
looks like what happened is this is before Google and Wikipedia,
and so the Miracle on thirty fourth Street writers said
who was the sixth vice president? And the sixth vice
president was Daniel D. Tompkins. Sixth president was Quincy Adams.
So they were like, oh, they must have been together.
Speaker 5 (05:16):
They put it in chat GPT.
Speaker 9 (05:18):
They didn't have they didn't have a book on hand
that they could look for. They just had a chart
or something of who this or maybe they just sat
around on it.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
Who knows the sixth or anyway, it's.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
A deep joke for people like you.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
Maybe it is a deep joke. Wow, that is that?
That is that is wild.
Speaker 9 (05:34):
It might be there's a little easter egg in Miracle
thirty fourth Street, and maybe this is a widely known
thing among Miracle on thirty four Street heads.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
But anyway, so Daniel D.
Speaker 9 (05:45):
Tompkins, Martin van Buren he became president, Richard Mentor Johnson
vice president, George Dallas, Millard Fillmore, Billy King, John Bredkinridge,
Hannibal Hamlin.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
This is fun.
Speaker 9 (06:04):
Abraham Lincoln's vice president, Skyler Colfax also has a bust
in the Capitol, so as does Henry Wilson, William Wheeler,
Ruther for b.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
Hayes's vice president.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
There you go, Kamala Harris, what more could you ask?
Speaker 6 (06:17):
Jesster Arthur Jarfield he became president.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Are you watching the new James Garfield series Netflix? It's fantastic.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
I didn't even know there was one. Very excited for that.
Speaker 5 (06:28):
Yes, you'll love it.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Garrett Hobart.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
These are the esteemed ranks of men. Kamala Harris will
join with her bust in the Capitol.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
Maybe she'll be right next to Garrett Hobart.
Speaker 5 (06:36):
She might and that again, what more could you ask for?
Speaker 6 (06:40):
Or maybe Chuck Fairbanks, Maybe Chuck Fairbanks, Jim Sherman, So
do you it's Tom Marshall. I know a lot of history.
Speaker 9 (06:47):
Like half these people on the play, Wikipedia could be
totally lying to me.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
It seems so Yeah, that's true. We could have just
done a lot of fake news. Charles Dawes, it seems
so obvious that.
Speaker 9 (06:58):
Calvin Coolidge's vice president, for those are not up on there.
Speaker 4 (07:01):
It's like, what we're going to be saying about that
was Joe Biden's vice president two hundred years from now,
Someone's going to be explaining that to someone Kamala Harris,
that was Joe Biden's.
Speaker 6 (07:09):
They'll be failing to pronounce it.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Yes, really, yes, But Josh Shapiro love or Hatim feels
a lot more like the future of the Democratic Party
than Kamala Harry does.
Speaker 9 (07:21):
And also the past, which is also impressive because he's Obama.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
Yeah right, same cadence. Should we move on to Gavin news.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
I think we might as well.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
Let's do it all right, So Ryan Gavin Newsom got
a question about his relationship with a pack Let's go ahead.
This is from Jack Coucherella. Do you know what Jack
cauchuriwan is M I don't either.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
He follows me, so maybe he watches shout out to you, Jack.
Good question. Let's roll the club.
Speaker 10 (07:50):
A little bit ago, you did an interview higher Learning
and the question of the question of a pack came up.
Oh yeah, And it wasn't really necessarily a question of
a pack.
Speaker 11 (07:59):
It was just a random I thought about any papers.
I've never received any money from APACK, and we were
curious kind of raised.
Speaker 10 (08:05):
A pack DMFI the Israel lobby at large, this has
become a big conversation and someone like myself and I
think at this point a broad majority of Democrats are saying,
we don't want candidates who are taking money from APAC.
We don't want the candidates who are beholding to the
Israel lobby. When you look at what you were able
to accomplish with the groundswell of support financially from people
(08:26):
who said, I want to back this, I want to
back fighters, I want to back people who are independent
of an establishment.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
How do you think about a pack now, and maybe.
Speaker 10 (08:35):
Someone like Seth Molton who said I want to return
this money, I'm not taking it anymore. How do you
think that a pack should be involved or shouldn't be involved.
Speaker 11 (08:43):
I've never received a dollar from them in my entire
political career, so that that's sort of absolute. So I've
had an opinion on that going back decades. Now, I
don't take you know, tobacco money, oil money. I've never
taken eight pack money. I mean, there's there's certain absolutes
that are the lines that have been drawn for decades
for me, and those will continue and to the extent
they need to evolve because of the devolution of certain interests,
(09:05):
and we're experiencing that in real time along the lines
of what we've been talking. Perhaps that will even grow.
But the small dollar is become just the lifeblood.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
For me, Okay, Ryan, some of the times for sure.
We can also put this next element up on the screen.
Marjorie Taylor Green, let's run this. Yeah, this is the
Margor Taylor Green with the track APAC graphic saying I
am America first, thank you for your attention to this matter.
It shows her taking zero dollars from a pack and
Trump taking what is that two hundred and thirty million
(09:36):
upwards of twenty two hundred and thirty million dollars from
a pack. So Gavin Newsome has landed on this answer.
Speaker 9 (09:45):
What does that tell us, Ryan, And what was the
answer that he might in the future that he's never
taken any pack money and he might not take it
going forward.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
Is that the he said, this is a line he
has drawn and he will continue not to take money
from apack.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
I thought he was saying the line that he drew
was on tobacco, and that he might draw a line
that's in the future, because if he feels that that's necessary,
should we run again.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
If you're watching this, you're you're in luck.
Speaker 9 (10:18):
You can just scroll back and listen to listen to
him again. I thought he left himself for a little
bit of wiggle room.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
I mean, that wouldn't be out of the question for
Gavin Newsom. He said, I don't take tobacco money, oil money,
and I've never taken a pack money.
Speaker 9 (10:33):
Noticed a change intents, right, Yeah, don't take this. I
don't take that and I've never taken that.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
And to your point, here's the next sentence. There are
certain absolutes that are the lines that have been dropped
for decades to go to the past of tents.
Speaker 9 (10:47):
Yeah, and then he says, and it might in the
future that line might have to change to include a pack.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
God, this guy's slick.
Speaker 5 (10:57):
Yeah, yeah he is so.
Speaker 9 (10:58):
Yes, So what he is saying is that he's never
taken it before, but he doesn't have a policy against
taking it yet he does have a policy against taking
tobacco money and this other stuff. But in the future,
if he's under enough pressure, he might draw a policy
that says I will not take it, yes, which would
actually genuinely be a remarkable political development. If the blank
(11:22):
a leading like establishment candidate for the Democratic nomination just
straight up set I'm not taking a PAC money, that
would actually be a seismic shift. So the fact that
he's like leaving open the door for it even and
trying to make you and I think that he.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
Said it, yeah, yeah, he almost got it.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Well, it's slick in the like to get you a
legalistic sense, like how the language is slick. It's not
slick in a sense that I think a lot of
people see that and they're like, just say no, just
say no.
Speaker 9 (11:51):
But let's let's do a survey in the comments, like
he did he get you? Did you think that he
said he was not going to take a PAC money.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
He always got to see the transcript. Sometimes you have
to see that to be like, what's he doing here?
And we'll also see how this plays out. We talked
earlier in the show about the Texas Democratic Senate primary.
I'm very curious to see how the APEC questions play out,
given Jasmin Crockett and taller Ico both Talarico has an
existing relationship with Miriam Edelson said basically about gambling by
(12:21):
any way.
Speaker 9 (12:22):
Which is another funny, but I took Mariam Adilson money
to support her gambling empire.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Right not for And yeah, and also by the way,
I am the Evangelical Christians in this race, which is
insane another reason.
Speaker 6 (12:34):
And he did vote to support the gambling stuff, so like.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
That it all checks out a little transactional there, But yeah,
I mean that's another again, just another reason that when
the DC people see him referencing Scripture, it doesn't it's
not only land with Evangelical Christians because it's it's a
totally different like language the way that he frames his
faith based approach of politics. Like Evangelical Christians are still
(12:59):
like the read that is like the holdout in gambling.
That is one area of the culture where this all
gambling holdout. So anyway, we'll see how all of this
plays out in that primary. I think it'll be very interesting.
We were talking about Goldman and Lander will also be
the Israel question to policy towards Israel. That will be
(13:20):
interesting in that race as well, because I'm sure it's going.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
To come up.
Speaker 6 (13:24):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Indeed, all right, well let's go ahead and get to
Sam Goadaldig Ryan, this is going to be pretty interesting, excellent.
Speaker 9 (13:33):
Joining us now is Sam Goadaldig, a big shot Republican
lobbyist here in Washington with the firm CG c N
who is focused for decades now on the class divide
when it comes to advocacy around Congress and the divisions
between and within the parties. Sam's firm has a fascinating
(13:57):
new report out, so we're excited.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
To welcoming back. Sam. How you doing doing great?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Good to see you guys.
Speaker 6 (14:04):
Excellent.
Speaker 9 (14:04):
So the new report is called Class Dismissed, and there's
a lot of kind of interesting insights about our current
politics that we want to walk through here but sketch
out for us, like.
Speaker 6 (14:16):
Like where this comes from. And people are going to.
Speaker 9 (14:18):
Be like already asked themselves, why is a lobbyist care
about this?
Speaker 6 (14:22):
Like how is this?
Speaker 9 (14:24):
How is this useful to advocacy for the corporate clients
that you have here in Washington.
Speaker 12 (14:30):
So we've known this for a long time because we
go into a lot of offices and it's kind of instinctual.
Once you start visiting with members of Congress, you know,
in your head you kind of characterize a Freedom Caucus member,
a problem solver member, a Black Caucus member, a Hispanic
(14:52):
Caucus member, and the feel and every meeting is a
little different and you walk out after you know, for me,
now twenty years in the business, thousands of meetings, and
you can start to see a pattern. There's like a
pattern recognition that goes along with it, and you realize
(15:13):
that the members that represent the wealthier congressional districts also
have the best reputation in Washington, d c. Among thinks, tanks, journalists,
other lobbyists. So there's this unconscious bias towards calling the
people that represent the wealthier parts of the country reasonable, thoughtful, productive,
(15:37):
And there's the same pattern recognition when it comes to
members of the Freedom Caucus, the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus,
and there's a caucus that is not as well known
called the anti Woke Caucus, and that pattern recognition leads
you to believe that those members are destructive, problems, not
productive in any way, not worth lobbying being, they're crazy,
(16:01):
they're you know, whatever.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
The word might be that, you know, and I'd love.
Speaker 12 (16:05):
To see like a grouping of focus group boards amongst
like the elites in Washington, how they described the members
that come from the poorer parts of the country. And
you know, after twenty years, you start like it opens
your eyes and you're like, holy shit, everyone here is
a classist. So you ask why a Republican lobbying firm
(16:27):
went to the effort to document all this, And it's
honestly because we're trying to teach our corporate clients like
what they're dealing with and how to be successful in Washington.
It also is meant to get them to reframe an
unconscious bias that they have against those members. Those members
are dealing with horrible issues, and we documented in class
(16:50):
dismiss too. They're more likely to die of opioid deaths,
They're more likely to serve in the military, they're more
likely to be unemployed, they're more likely to live less
long than the wealth for your constituents in wealthy districts.
So you know, it kind of makes sense. It's like,
why is everyone hating on these people that have such
a such a sorry story to tell? And there's once
(17:14):
you look at it that way, you can't unsee it.
It's almost like you go to Spencer Gifts as you're
as a kid and they put one of those posters
in front of you and they tell you to unFocus
your eyes and you can see it, and it's like
once you see it, you can't never see it again.
So I feel like a little bit like we're screaming into,
you know, a void, just telling everyone what we see,
(17:35):
and more and more people are starting to see it.
Trump certainly awakened that. Like London's and the way mainstream
news media covered Trump's win in twenty twenty four, They're
starting to recognize that the class dismissed like walks you
through just how hard it is for a lot of
constituencies in America dem and Republican, and why their representatives
(17:57):
might be framed as not reductive because their voters are
angry and they want change.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Right in Washington, it's strange to see people come to town
acting like their hair is on fire, whether they're from
the Freedom Caucus or their AOC. But what your report
shows is that they're coming from places where their hair
should be on fire. It would be irrational for them
to not be furious at the system and focused on
overturning it or fixing it or change it, however you
(18:24):
want to say. But let's put this graphic up on
the screen. You found the thirtiest, the thirty wealthiest districts.
Seven of them are GOP representatives, are representative represented by Republicans,
and twenty three are represented by Democrats. Similar breakdowns just
(18:44):
in other metrics that you guys looked at, Sam, But
this is kind of you're putting numbers to the realignment
what has kind of maybe Trump was the first to
really recognize it in modern political history, but the underpinnings,
quantitative underpinnings of the ideological realignment?
Speaker 5 (19:04):
Do you see it that way? Is that how you
talk about.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
This when you're going into you know, meetings with people
who corporate clients that may have been used to sitting
down and having a pretty open year in Republican offices
and that's not always going to be the case this
time around.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yes, one hundred percent.
Speaker 12 (19:22):
So that's the purest installation of the data, and we
go really deep into other metrics, but the thirty poorest
and thirty wealthiest proves the point that you know, there's
an old conventional wisdom that Republicans will reflexively help the
business community and maybe specifically the fortune five hundred and
more and more, the Republican rank and file, the meat
(19:45):
of the Republican Party represents constituencies that have had a
really tough go of it, and those voters in those
congressional districts are not as reflexively ideologically pro business as
the party was, say during the George W.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Bush years twenty years ago.
Speaker 12 (20:02):
So politics has evolved, Republican voters have evolved, Democratic voters
have evolved. And what's very interesting is the fact that,
you know, the Democrats have not lost their anger or
heat towards corporate America, but Republicans now are fighting for
the same constituencies that Democrats once completely commanded a long
(20:25):
time ago. And I've never seen it in the thirty
years i've been here. I was a staffer for about
twelve and now I've been lobbying. Both parties consider working
class voters the base of their party, and I'm not
sure who's right. I mean, maybe we'll find out in
the midterms. Maybe we'll find out in the twenty twenty
eight election. I think they're almost completely up for grab.
(20:48):
And if you look at like how Trump did with
Hispanic men, he won fifty two percent of Hispanic men nationally.
Like that, that's an insane progression from you know, the
Bush years, when we th we reached the pinnacle of success,
when we had marginal success with Hispanic voters. So, you know,
I feel like the mainstream media, the people that cover Washington,
(21:11):
whether you're a professor or a journalist or a think
tank fellow, they kind of resort back to this lazy,
conventional wisdom that's definitely not true anymore. And I think
it's our job to tell our clients how to successfully
win and how to frame up arguments that used to
work but no longer do.
Speaker 9 (21:34):
And so then if you look at the thirty poorest districts,
the breakdowns a little more even. You have eighteen of
those districts represented by Democrats and twelve of them represented
by Republicans.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
There's also like a stark racial divide there.
Speaker 9 (21:49):
The Democratic districts are going to be in general black
caucus or Hispanic caucus members, and then the Republican districts
are going to be overwhelmingly you know, white districts, poor
white districts. If you expand it out to like the
hundred poorest, do you even get closer to parody like
(22:09):
what let's say about fifty to fifty almost?
Speaker 12 (22:13):
Or yeah, I think like the Republicans, And I don't
have the data in front of me, and I apologize,
but I think, what if you really took a deep
dive look into the middle. The Democrats kind of dominate
both ends of it. So the poorest districts in the
country are almost exclusively black and Hispanic caucus and they're
(22:33):
all Democrats that represent those districts. The wealthiest are almost
exclusively white Democrats. And then the middle is a huge
chunk of Republicans that skew poorer than wealthier. So I
think the middle would be like a lot of Republicans,
more Republicans than Democrats, and those Republicans are probably representing
(22:54):
less wealthy districts. And if you broke it down into
the caucuses, you would find that the Republicans the wealthier
districts join moderate mainstream. Again, these are very nice words,
moderate mainstream centrist. They joined caucuses that reflect those viewpoints,
and the people from the poorer districts their caucuses are
(23:17):
not described quite as kindly.
Speaker 6 (23:20):
And when you know they're not at all.
Speaker 9 (23:23):
So when you would have started, you know, thirty years
you know, twenty five, thirty years ago, and you looked
at the top thirty, they would have been overwhelmingly Republican,
probably still.
Speaker 6 (23:32):
At that point.
Speaker 9 (23:33):
So as you as you watched this unfold, like what
did you see happen? Like how did those districts you know,
start to go democratic? And what effect do you think
that has had on the kind of middle districts as
you have this like then polarization between the haves and
have nots.
Speaker 12 (23:52):
I think a lot of things happened over the last
ten years. Notably the most was Donald Trump beating Hillary
Clinton in twenty sixteen, which was kind of a continuation
of the Tea Party that started in twenty ten when
you had Republicans challenging So like, my favorite example is
Marco Rubio was like tried to be They tried to
(24:12):
run him out of a primary against now Democrat Charlie
Christ who was a popular Republican governor. Mitch McConnell opposed
Rubio running. I don't know if you remember that, but
he was dead set against Rubio jumping in the race.
And you know, now he's a fantastic you know, maybe
you disagree, Ryan, but he's certainly a competent secretary of
(24:34):
State and a realist right Like all it proves to
me is like the conventional wisdom and the smartest people
in the room gets shit wrong all the time, Like
Marco is wonderful for our party. And now I just
think the Democrats are like on a lag behind that
tea party, and I think we're starting to see it,
and nobody documents it better than Ryan Graham on the left.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
And I wouldn't pretend to know as much.
Speaker 12 (24:57):
But Jasmine Crockett challenging TALLERIQ go in Texas, their dream
candidate to take a very traditionally red state. They're going
to come up with a lot of reasons why she's
not productive, she's not helping. She could go on to
be a secretary of state. I've seen her on TV.
They platform her all the time. She's in a voting
rights district in the House. And here's the other thing
(25:20):
that we've noticed. There is a glass ceiling on black
and Hispanic senators and governors moving up into statewide positions.
They're very well represented in the House, and a lot
of that is because of the Voting Rights Act, which
creates minority majority districts. The states don't have any such governor.
So I can't, for the life of me think of
a reason why black and Hispanic politicians, who represent the
(25:44):
base of the Democratic Party have had such a difficult
time bracking into statewide elected positions in the bluest of states.
I remember when we were talking a long time ago, Ryan,
I wrote a check to Donna Edwards to prove a point.
Speaker 6 (26:00):
Is running for the Intenate against Chris van Holland right, correct.
Speaker 12 (26:03):
Correct, And I guess the point is everyone has to
play their role according to this town. And again the
town being think tank fellows, journalists, flobbyists, the smart people,
and they put people in these boxes that are it.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
I think it's racist.
Speaker 12 (26:23):
Like I'd love to hear a Democrat Pundon explained to
me why Jasmine Crockett shouldn't run, Like.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I'd love to just let them just go. We talked
about elain It.
Speaker 9 (26:32):
We talked about that earlier on the show, and she
actually is kind of a perfect k Street candidate in
that sense. Had pledged had you know, had bragged about
not taking corporate pac money. Since has taken enormous amounts
of corporate PAC money, has taken millions in.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Support from from Crypto.
Speaker 9 (26:50):
Uh has been you know pretty you know, went on
an a PAC trip to Israel. So I think some
people are going to have some arguments around substance when
it comes to Crockett. But your your point is is
a legitimate one that for all of their talk when
it comes to a.
Speaker 6 (27:10):
Then the Maryland Maryland case is a good example.
Speaker 9 (27:12):
When it comes to a blue state, you know, where
the Democrat is going to win, they're there often is
not support for black Cannis.
Speaker 6 (27:19):
Now I think, who are who are the two senators now.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
From also Brooks?
Speaker 9 (27:27):
So yeah, so also Brooks did did finally break through,
but it but nowhere near you know, uh, nowhere near
where it should be.
Speaker 12 (27:37):
No, not not for a party that has weaponized race
or and again, I don't want to make it about parties.
I want to make it about this city, Washington, the city.
We all live in the city. We never leave they do.
Politicians come and go. They serve an average of you know,
ten years in Congress generally, and then they leave. I've
been here thirty I don't know how long. Ryan and
Emily you've been here, but like, we don't leave. We're Washingtonians.
(27:58):
We make a living here and we set the stage.
And I just think that conventional wisdom is completely lopsided,
upside down broken, not relevant what you know, choose the
term you want. But like, maybe we're not so smart.
Maybe Marco Rubio is one of the best things to
happen to the Republican Party. Maybe Jasmine Crockett might be.
(28:19):
Who knows, Like, who are we to say? We've been
proven wrong so often it's not funny.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
My last question, Sam, is if your corporate clients have
started to realize this is not a flash in the
pan from like, because one of the things this data
I think makes clear is that it's not a flash
in the pan, that it's too deeply rooted to suddenly
you change. That there's populism, whether it's whether it's democratic
(28:48):
populism or Republican populism, there's there's a class based populism
that's emerged as a pattern as a trend.
Speaker 5 (28:57):
Are do you.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Think Washington is realizing is coping with that? Do you
think they're just because I think actually Crockett and Tallerico
are kind of good examples, like Oh, here's your populist messaging.
But neither of them is like a populist candidate truly,
you know, at least from what we can tell so far,
is that thinking.
Speaker 12 (29:15):
In So, you guys have a beef with corporate America,
I kind of don't like, and I like, I just
don't like. I get that you're upset about them, and
I'm not like. But whatever, we can have a nice conversation.
I think they're like water, like, if you show them
the path to success, whatever it might be, they'll get there,
(29:36):
maybe not quickly. It's not easy to see the image
in the poster that we talked about, but increasingly more
and more people are starting to see the image. And
some of this stuff makes sense. But it has to
break a frame of how you were raised, how you
were you know, what situation you grew up in. We've
talked about this and class dismissed one. The first document
we did talks a little bit about, you know, the
(30:00):
the unconscious bias of wealthier suburban kids moving to Washington
and the world as they understand it might not be
the same as the way you know, other Washingtonians moved here.
And I think Washington happens to be corporate America too,
dominated by people that you know, went to a four
year college, grew up in a wealthy you know, a
(30:22):
wealthy suburb of a major city.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
Have been urbanized a.
Speaker 12 (30:25):
Touch, but you know it's I'm not ashamed of that
way of thinking, and I grew up that way too.
But like again, going to every congressional office or a
lot of them over twenty years has opened my eyes.
And going to their fundraisers and hearing them explain why
they're so mad and what it's like when they go
home and what they have to hear and what their
(30:48):
constituents are upset about.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
It breaks the frame.
Speaker 12 (30:52):
And most people don't have that luxury where they can
pop into a congressional office and get a real taste
of America. I've lived here for thirty but I kind
of understand it because I've listened to them honestly speak
about struggles they have when they go home.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
So it's made me more open minded.
Speaker 12 (31:09):
I'm proud to be open minded, and that's kind of
why we write the memos to explain what twenty years
of talking to members of Congress has revealed to us.
Speaker 9 (31:20):
And I will say on your point about your love
of corporate America that you kind of only know what
you had until it's gone. Like compared to the oligarchs
that are now kind of the dominant power structure in
the US, I'm almost like wistful for.
Speaker 6 (31:37):
The time of like the corporate capture of.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
America, like the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 6 (31:43):
Can we go back to.
Speaker 12 (31:44):
That, Like, Yeah, it's careful what you wish for. It
happens in Washington a lot.
Speaker 9 (31:48):
At least they had some like nominal connection to the
United States and some like connection to the national interest.
Speaker 6 (31:55):
Not so much with these new guys.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
This is I'm not going to get myself in trouble. Ryan.
Speaker 12 (32:01):
You go on and rail about them, and I'll keep
representing them and it'll be like the sheep Dog and
you know the famous Looty Tuns cartoon where we can
grab a grab a beer after work at sounds good.
Speaker 5 (32:14):
Well, folks can read this report.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
We'll put the report in the video link, but they
can also read it on the CGCN website. Sam, this
was really interesting. I appreciate you coming on.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Thank you for having me guys. Always great to see you.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
Of course you later.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Well that does it for us. On today's edition of
Breaking Points. Ryan, it was great to have good alding on.
Speaker 6 (32:34):
Indeed, and we'll see everybody at the Miracle Theater everybody night.
Speaker 5 (32:39):
You will all be there.
Speaker 6 (32:40):
I'll be there.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
You can still get tickets on the Reason website and
or you can just google. I think it's Reason Versus
and Ryan and I have the links on our ex
accounts as well. We'll put it in the video description,
I think too, so you have plenty of places to
find it.
Speaker 5 (32:54):
No want every single one of me to be that's right.
Speaker 6 (32:58):
We hanging out afterwards. The was like a post yes.
Speaker 5 (33:02):
The five minutes. Yeah, because then I have to go
do After Party Live.
Speaker 9 (33:06):
Emily stay on Wednesday, like very early morning, all the
way debate and then After Party Live.
Speaker 6 (33:12):
It's a lot people should probably watch that. It's probably
gonna be disaster.
Speaker 4 (33:15):
I would have a Gatorade on stage and we'll be
wearing one of those backpacks with like the hydration straw.
Speaker 5 (33:21):
It will be good, all right, everyone, thanks so much
for tuning in.
Speaker 4 (33:24):
We'll see you tonight and we'll see you Friday.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.