November 6, 2025 • 51 mins
MSNBC’s Ali Vitali examines the election results and what they mean for the future of the Democratic Party.
Then Congressman Robert Garcia details the passage of Prop 50 and its implications for Democrats’ chances of taking back Congress.
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):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And President Trump is not publicly remarked
on the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney. It's
been more than twenty four hours since the death was announced.
We have such a great show for you today. Ms
(00:21):
NVC's Eli Videlli steps by to read the tea leaves
from the election and what it means for Dems in
the future. Then we'll talk to Congressman Robert Garcia about
Prop fifty and the implications for the future of the
Democrats taking back Congress. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Smiley, we did a rundown of the election last night
as we saw it, since Debs had a big night.
But what wasn't in the tea leaves quite yet. What
we did is how much DEVS flipped, even the reddest
district stationwide.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Yeah, there was a lot of information to process last night,
and they were things like every single district in Virginia
moved to the left, not by huge margins, some by
huge margin, some by Les's huge margin, but they all
moved to left. And there were other things. So while
(01:16):
Mandani is a historic candidate, and that was a historic win.
There were a lot of other different wins that actually
may even say more about where Trump's Republican Party is.
Erie County, Pennsylvania, which supported Trump in the twenty twenty
four cycle, voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat in its county
(01:38):
executive race by twenty four points. In Virginia's sixty sixth
state House district, this woman, Nicole Cole, defeated a thirty
six year Republican incumbent. And there are just numerous stories.
The one I think what I think of is really
(01:58):
important is that Democrats in Georgia. You'll remember Georgia as
being really a red state, Democrats in Georgia managed to
win two state wide races for Public Service commissioner. These
are their first non federal so like not the Senate
seats that Democrats slipped, these are just state elections. These
are the first non federal state flips since two thousand
(02:23):
and six. And there are two of them, and one
the Democrat one fifty eight to forty one, and the
other one the Democrat won sixty one to thirty nine.
So clearly these are our positions that deal with utilities
and have the executive power to decide what is fair
and reasonable rate for service. And you will remember that power.
(02:44):
The cost of power is going up because Donald Trump
killed all of these clean energy initiatives. So this shows
really like the many ways in which trump Ism has
gotten into different states and done different craziness. Even in
the state of Mississippi, a ruby red state represented by
(03:05):
two of the really the dumbest members of the Senate.
Actually that's not fair. Tommy Tubervilla isn't from Mississippi. Democrats
were able to break the supermajority and the state Senate
by flipping three seats after thirteen years. Take you away Republicans'
ability to override the governor's veto and easily proposed constitutional amendments.
(03:25):
So we don't talk that much about state legislative seats,
but it's actually really important. And so when you can
break a supermajority, it means that you have power. That
is really it means that you can't you know, these
states can't necessarily pass crazy crazy stuff like in Texas
with SBA. You know, you have a pushback. You can
(03:46):
stop these Republican state legislators from doing just the worst
or the worst so this is a big deal and
I'm happy to see it, and it's also a sign
that Trump is in quite a lot of trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, So by I think we could say that there
are Chuck Schuber's between a rock and a hard place,
and that people, you know, my family has been very
affected by the shutdown. You know, my wife to not
get paid. A lot of people want this to add
but also a lot of people, including people in my
wife's staff, are like, we don't want to have to
have sacrifice this for nothing, and we want to get concessions.
(04:18):
We want to get people healthcare because they believe in this.
And we're about to hit negotiations here and it looks
like Schuber is going to have a tough margain.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
So there's a lot of anxiety when you talk to
Democratic insiders that the Senate is going to cave, that
the House is going to stand strong, but that the
Senate is going to cave. And we've seen, you know,
we have a very vulnerable senator in John oss Off.
I mean, I think he's probably feeling a little better
after last night, but you know, that's a Trump seed
(04:47):
and there's a lot of anxiety in the Democrats in
the Senate, my cave. But if they do, and I
think it's likely that this is going to happen either way,
but it seems very likely the Chuck schum is not
going to run again. Now, he's going to say he's
going to run again because that's what people do, because
they don't want to be lame ducks, just like Donald
(05:08):
Trump says he's going to have a third term when
he's eighty three and has already torn down the White House.
But Chuck Schimmer, really, if he does not stay strong,
he will have effectively ended his political career. Now that
doesn't mean he will stay strong, it doesn't mean he
won't cave and make a deal. And look, the ass
here is funding Obamacare premiums. This is billions of dollars
(05:32):
which Republicans have earmarked for tax cuts and to bail
out a South American country that none of us have
ever heard of. I mean, we've heard of it, but
we don't want to give it twenty billion dollars. So
the point here is that do I think that Republicans
will cave on this. I'm not so sure they will.
You could see a world where Democrats cave on this.
(05:54):
This is the longest shutdown we've ever had. At some point,
people have to come to the table and pay pay workers.
So I have always been and I think you and
I differ on this. I've always been very like, shit down, Agnosta.
I understand that it was the right thing to do.
I understand it was the only way to put sand
in the gears. I understand that Trump has been running
(06:15):
the place like a king, but I also understand that
there are real world implications to shutting down the United
States government.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I mean, I have to feel in my house, and
I'm still pro shutting down the government. You know, at
the end of the day, they're threatening to not pay
back pay. That just means that I ended up having
to pay for the bills of the month. But I
think it's really important that we do this and we
stand up for people. Obamacare saved my life, so it's
the thing I take very very seriously.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I too agree, but I also think, like, first of all,
it's the Trump administration, so they will threaten all the
illegal shit they can. So of course they're going to
say there, but we know they have to pay back pay.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
It's just like you can keep Tom Holman with the
kava bag and the fifty thousand dollars for as long
as you want, but someday you're going to have hearings
about that kava bag and that fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Listening to a economist also talk about what Trump has
to face next week of his very rich friends calling
up and saying they don't have enough space to store
the inventory of the things they need to ship if
the airspace gets shut down, and that the economy goes
to a halt. That like you know, in the past,
we've run experiments like this that when there's been snowstorms
(07:25):
that have shut down to air travel, it costs these
companies insane about some way, and they can't get employees
into them in the snowstorms. So the things that just
sit there. But if the employees are, you know, seemingly
in the factory and they don't know what happens, this
is a total chaos structure, and no one has any
idea how this is going to play out. If incompetent
(07:46):
Sean Duffy can't keep flight attendants going to work next
week and they have to shut down a lot of
air travel.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Personally, I just want to eat at kava I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Know what it is, say said, no one is ever
that doesn't just have one close to their workplace at lunch.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Isn't your pod?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
You know, we call these places now slop bulls that
will settle for them for our lunch. As Like, either way,
you settle for slop because it's not good. But I
really did question the kava bag for this, Like I
guess it was just the closest thing around. Like you know,
I feel like if you're handing that much money to Tomahole,
but you at least give him a birket bag he
could give to.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Give it to missus Holman. Ali Vitally, senior Capitol Hill
reporter and host of MSNBC's Way Too Early and is
a quick note. MSNBC becomes ms NOW on November fifteenth.
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Ali Vitally, so thrilled to
(08:49):
be back. I am so excited to have you here.
So it is the day after two women governors, one
one in Virginia, one in New Jersey. So you and
I I feel like we have our secret language of
like we understand that a certain level of misogyny is
probably par for the course, but we still believe that
(09:10):
women can have equal rights. And you're a little younger
than I am, but like, this is pretty radical stuff.
Both these women way overperformed. They both did you know,
everything we were told in the weeks leading up were
not what we saw. You were on the ground of
Virginia to talk to us about what that was like,
what you saw before and what you saw actually.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
I actually think what was so amazing to me?
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And you know that I come from this from the
perspective of not just having covered many, many female candidates,
but then writing my book Electable about why we haven't
had a female president yet. But the reason why we're
part of the reason why there's zilian explanations that swirre
all in this pot is that we haven't had too
many examples of women in executive leadership positions. And it
doesn't get more executive than governorships if you're falling short
(09:57):
of the presidency. So the fact that you're now electing
two women on the same Tuesday night, two executive offices
in two different states, means that you now have two
more examples of what it looks like when women lead.
I think the most stunning sign for me, and I
would argue this is a sign of progress is the
fact that we only just started about the started talking
about the historic potential of these candidates, specifically in Spaanberger's case,
(10:21):
because she's the first female governor of the Commonwealth. We
only just started talking about that when we turn to
election day, which means that gender was not swirling in
the pot in the negative ways that it often does.
I think the explanation for that in Virginia is because
you had two women running against each other, and there's
a whole slew oft studies about how that changes the dynamics.
(10:41):
Certainly you could look at it, I think, and the
way it manifested more was in Cheryl's race, and you
wrote really well about this kind of the disconnect between
who Cheryl is authentically.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
I've spent time with her on the hill.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
I mean she is funny, she's charismatic, she's smart, she's
sober minded and serious. I mean she can in so
many multitudes as I to do, and yet it wasn't
seemingly coming across. And that disconnect always says to me,
how much of that is misogyny and how much of
that is the candidate not doing their job right.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
There's always a mix.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Right now for sure. Yeah, this Spamberger race is interesting
because you have when some sears I just want for
another minute to talk about Virginia, because there were a
couple of interesting things that happened. One you had when
some seers who was just unbelievably insane said insane stuff
almost on the regular, which I appreciated. But then you
(11:32):
also had this, you had scandal on the Democratic side
of the ticket, and that was Republicans sort of hoped
they could use that to run against Spamberger. Talk us
through like how you thought that worked out.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Well, It's clear in the exit polls that voters thought
that it was concerning for Jay Jones, the Attorney general
candidate who won last night, to have talked about one
of his colleagues that he should be shot in the head.
And that is exactly the opposite of the rhetoric that
we need right now in this country. And Democrats rightly
condemned it. What I think they did is they fell
(12:09):
short of calling on him to drop out of the race.
And I think we saw voters in the exit polls
say that they didn't like that he talked that way.
But then also he won his seat, and so Electorally,
you're grappling with the fact that morally these comments are reprehensible,
especially an environment where political violence is becoming far too common.
But then on the electoral side, voters are saying, yeah,
(12:33):
but I want to vote for the Democrat. And I
think with Spanberger, my sources has always said to me,
if she had more than a ten point margin of victory,
her coattails were just going to pull all the other
Democrats up. And that is exactly what happened. What was
her margin fifteen? I felt the last back more than fifteen.
I want to talk about Mikey because you know, for
(12:54):
obvious reasons.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
So with Mikey that it was New Jersey Harris wanted
by six Anything less than that I thought was going
to be just the world's most annoying news cycle. Mikey
wanted by thirteen.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Yeah, exactly, And I actually think that's a fascinating story
right there, right Biden wins it by sixteen, and twenty twenty,
Phil Murphy's on the ballot defending his incumbency. One year later,
he wins only by three two against Jack Chitdarelli. Then
you fast forward a few years after that, Kamalas they
see a ten point swing into the Trump column, Kamala
only wins by six, and then you put it to
(13:29):
last night, where Cheryl was supposed to be in this
much tighter race and she comes away with it by
thirteen points. I mean, I do think that it goes
to show in all of these races that even though
voters weren't saying in exit polls, I'm voting because of Trump,
you were saying that on the issues that mattered the economy,
cost of living, affordability, that was an issue set of
(13:53):
Trump's own making and frankly his own ruining, Like he
is the one who has controlled all of the levers
on the economic message, on the tariffs, on the way
that the stock market has been extremely volatile until very recently, right,
So all of it was him resetting the issue set
and then resetting it in a way that actually didn't
benefit him and his party. And even just before I
(14:14):
came on with you, he met with Senate Republicans this
morning and privately behind closed doors, many of them told
me that he was saying he thinks they're getting killed
on the shutdown, and that that's part of what manifested
in the election results last night.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yeah, blame anyone but him. And also this is the
same conversation where he told them he wants them to
nuke the filibuster.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Right exactly.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
And so then if we're layering in on top of
our election dynamics, the fact that there was a shutdown,
I think the impact of the election is that Democrats
I've spoken to on the hill this morning are saying, Okay, yeah,
there's bipartisan talks happening, and those are really starting to
catch steam. They're starting to make some key decisions that
they need to make to actually make moves to reopen
(14:56):
the government. We're not there yet, but you know, hope
spring's eternal. The other side of it, though, as progressives
are saying, yeah, but if Republicans are now feeling that
much more pressure, why are we going.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
To make any deal at all?
Speaker 5 (15:06):
And then Republicans, I think, instead of feeling that pressure
and saying, well, we should be pressured to go to
the negotiating table, Trump is trying to say no, no, the
pressure should be to go it alone and break the filibuster.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Yeah, which it seems like would be even less popular.
But also Thune it has shown a lot of hostility
towards that idea.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
He is not for that.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
And I think covering John Thune for as long as
I have, he is someone who wants to uphold the
institutions of the Senate. The fact that Republicans were applauding
Senator's mansion and cinema.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
We talked about this a lot.
Speaker 5 (15:40):
Right when they were saying I don't want to get
rid of the filibuster, Republicans were like, bravo, that is
what we need more of. For them to then turn around,
and this is why Thune hasn't part of why for
them to turn around and then say, yeah, well we
liked it when Democrats preserved it, but now we hate
it because we need it. I mean, there are some
progressives who want that to happen because they want to
not take the heat and then take advantage of it.
(16:00):
But Republicans, I mean, it would just be a massive
shift if they got rid of the filibuster, and right
now it doesn't sound like they will, but Trump wants that.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I want to talk about New Jersey for a minute,
because so when I was I went to Montclair to
write this opinion piece, and I was there I ran
into another national political reporter very seasoned person. She said,
you know, the polls are tightening. Chitarelli's really catching fire.
People are starting to really like him. She is just
(16:31):
not so great, and I think he's going to win.
And it was something I'd heard again and again and again.
What strikes me is that, you know, the polls were
pretty much even. I mean, maybe they were tightening a
point or two, but they are pretty much I mean
a lot of that narrative seems to have come from nothing.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
I think, again, this is where I come back to it,
where like, I'm a political reporter first, but we can't
ignore the fact that gender and race always swirl in
the pot and the reason it's easy to overlook them
is because it's hard to explore what kind of role
they play. But the thing I think I come back to,
and what I loved about your off ed is the
fact that you talk about how female candidates and candidates
of color walk a higher typrope and it's easier for
(17:12):
them to be knocked off by whatever the narrative wind
of the day is. The mistakes are that much more amplified,
and the biases that voters come to the polls with
part of why it's important to elect firsts is because
it means that voters then no longer have to do
the imagination gap game, which is, well, I can't imagine
this person in that role because I've never seen anyone
(17:33):
like them before. And so that's why having this expanded
paradigm of where women can be leaders, the fact that
they can win if they are just simply voted for,
is so important because I think it disrupts this trend
that we've talked about a little in the Democratic Party
and in Democratic circles that you and I have conversations
in a lot, this whispered about idea of like, oh, well,
(17:54):
I don't know if women are electable after twenty sixteen
and after twenty twenty four, And it drives me nuts
because it's like, how many men have been losing elections
for how many years? And somehow people are not looking
around being like, well, is that it on men in
the presidency?
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Gush?
Speaker 1 (18:07):
I don't know, you know, one of the things like
I then wandered into a conversation one of the great
things about writing for The New York Times is that
everybody reads it. And the bad part is everybody reads it.
So I wandered into a conversation about how stupid I
was online. These two white guys were like, yeah, she's
so stupid, she sockstuttered out. And then they were like,
(18:28):
the problem with Mikey Cheryl isn't that she's a woman.
It's just that she's not a very good candidate. And
so I was thinking to myself, which was something I
had heard? So and what when I heard her speak
in Montclair and they were like Mikey screaming her name,
chasing her to her car, I thought, well, maybe she
is a good candidate, But the question I have is
(18:51):
what a good do?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:53):
What I mean? Like, I feel like it's not that
she's a woman, it's just that she's not a very
good candidate. Feels like it's just that she's a woman.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Also the fact that when we think about leadership, we
often use words that are masculine coded to talk about
what it is to be a leader. And I think
both things can also be true at the same time. Right,
the Chitarelli campaign got a lot of traction off of
ads that simply used Cheryl's words on their face. There
(19:21):
were in artful phrases that she uttered during debates, during
appearances that's true. That's like canids or athletes.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
And that was the Kamala Harris playbook. Right, She's for
they them, he's for you.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Gone, It's that.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
It's also the fact that Harris regularly had a tendency
of like word salady answers, right that as a political reporter.
First I look at and I'm like, that's not a
good answer. I don't know what you just said, right, right.
And then at the same time, I've heard plenty of men,
including Joe Biden, give answers that were meandering in circular
and I wasn't really quite sure what the point was best.
(19:57):
And that's again kind of where it where it comes
at in the wash. Right, It's that unquantifiable percent where
you look at it and you say it might not
be fair, but the tightrope is higher. And I think
in Cheryl's case, the fact that it was a tightening
race in the polls, the fact that New Jersey has
had some weird swing things. There was a question about
if Hispanic voters would turn out in the same ways
(20:18):
that they did without Trump on the ballot. Turns out,
they turned it out, they turned out, and not the
way that then he.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Had turns out arresting them is not good for getting
them to vote for you.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Yeah, And that's like one of the threads to follow
into the midterms, right, the idea of the ways that
the Trump administration has overreached in their various campaigns on
anti crime and anti immigration and on like the moves
they've made on the economy that Trump says are good
for us, I promise, except that people are paying more
for beef at grocery stores and they're like, but wait,
(20:51):
this is more and isn't more and more?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
So I think, isn't there bad?
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Yes, isn't more of a no? I agreed? And manufacturing
and I mean, it just feels like at every point
we are not. It's so nonsensical too. There were also
a bunch of other races. There is also this question
of like, now, if they redistrict and the headwinds are
(21:19):
such that you have the kind of movement you're having
in Virginia, so talk us through what that would mean,
because Jerrymander can become a Dummymander can become a way
to lose a seat that would have otherwise been yours.
Speaker 5 (21:33):
I also think in the conversations I've had with folks
at the D Triple C who are singularly focused on
just retaking the House. What they are looking at in
places like Virginia is the fact that in all of
these counties across the board, you had a little blue.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Arrow that ticked up.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
Didn't mean that Spanberger won every county, that would be bonkers,
but it does mean that she kept her margins tighter.
And it does mean that Democrats were able to make
some gains compared to past election cycles. And what that
means if you translate it forward, is the fact that
now maybe some places are more competitive than they once were.
I do think it's hard to compare. And this is
(22:10):
always where you end up talking to pollsters who are like, well,
we don't really know what we're mirroring against, and we
don't really know what the best correlation of the voter
set is. And all of that is true because every
election is different, but like, it's why what happened in California.
The redistricting measure being approved is so important because the
House race, the race for the House control is going
(22:33):
to be so so tight. It was decided by three
seats last time. You could argue those three seats that
were staying in Republican control came because North Carolina redistricted
and three Democrats lost their seats there. Right, that's the
Hakeem Jeffrey's explanation to me in the past and others,
And so the redistricting stuff really matters just for the
(22:54):
fact that California can now cancel out Texas and that
levels the playing field, even know it was a completely
on level playing field that started this whole fiasco in
the first place. Like, I want to be really clear,
I don't think midscycle redistricting is a good trend or
habit for any of us to get into.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Nobody wants it. It's where we're at. But you have
to fight fire with I mean, if you're gonna you
have to fight fire with fire.
Speaker 5 (23:16):
Well completely because it's it's it's bringing a knife to
a gunfight, right, I mean that's the comparison that you
often hear.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I want to talk for one more minute about Cuomo
because one of the things that Trump two point zero
was was a backlash against me too. Right. It was like,
my man, he did a lot of stuff. It's not okay,
but we're he's still at least he's not a woman, right,
(23:44):
I mean, who knows. They A lot of people voted
for a man who credibly had a long, long line
of accusers and who courts even said so I want again.
There was a lot going on in the New York
City mayoral. Zorin was young and charismatic and spoke to people.
I think in a way we have not had a
(24:05):
male we I mean, in a long time. But I
think there's an important bit about Cuomo there and about Democrats,
and I'd love you to talk.
Speaker 6 (24:13):
Us through it.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, you and I I think have talked about the
way that I have been looking at these past few
years of political moments as backlashes to me too, And
I don't think we do enough to connect that singular
monument to the way that we are watching young men
feel demonized. And I understand where that demonization comes from, right.
I think that many of them who came of age
(24:35):
during COVID, during that time when we were grappling with
me too, are like the way I didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yeah, but though those guys are now back, if you
look at the numbers like gen X, those guys suck
like whatever they're gone. Don't ever date those guys. But
the younger guys like my sons like those guys they're back,
and the women like I think the younger I mean
that talk about radicalized, you know. But anyway, yes, go on.
Speaker 5 (24:59):
But that gender gap, right, is not just a gender
gap that we see show up in politics, though it
absolutely does time and again and will continue to. It's
also sort of a commentary on like where our society
has gone and where our sense of community will go. Right,
If women are finding that they are just on such
a completely different wavelength than the men that they are
supposed to partner with in heteronormative relationships, then where do
(25:22):
you go from there?
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And I think that is such a mismatch.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And I also think both things can be true, right,
that there is an ongoing backlash to me too, and
that men in many cases have felt unfairly demonized. It
also feels patently unfair that women could be transparent, honest,
vulnerable and brave about their experience living in a world
that often feels dangerous and unsafe, and that there's just
(25:46):
an accepted backlash that because that makes men feel uncomfortable,
we should stop talking about that and change our tactics.
I think that is a really dangerous place for us
to live. And if this seems like kind of a
non sequord or conversation, again, I argue that the me
too backlash and the me too conversation is so intrinsically
linked into our politics, especially when you consider conversations in
(26:09):
the so called manisphere and the way that it continues
to sort of breede that toxic masculinity that we often
talk about when we talk about me too and what
has come since.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Yeah, and I don't think I think all of this
is really important. And you know, we've spent such a
long period of time obsessing about like young men and
how hard it is for young men and what's happened
to young men, and to not have the conversation about
young women I think is important, you know.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
And if you look at the way and that young
women broke exit polls show that they were massive fire
power behind everyone from Mamdani to Cheryl Too, spam Band.
I think the lowest percentage and I can't remember who
got it, but it was something like eighty some odd percent.
So it's like, these are the people, these young women
are coming out and fueling candidacies. They are so important,
(27:03):
and you know, female rage there are deep histories that
have been written rightfully on the way that female rage
powers movements, and I think if we learn any lesson
it's that. But also the singular lesson to me from
the Tuesday elections is it's simple enough that you know
women win when you vote for them per.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, oh yeah, for sure, for sure.
Oh I love this conversation.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
It made me so happy.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Can I Can I also say, though, too, like it
is why I am happy about being at MS now, right,
because these are the kinds of conversations that I you,
all of us, look, we're nerds, we love this stuff, right,
But like knowing that my reporting and my thoughts on
this are received by an audience that also spends as
much time speaking about this and wanting to understand and
(27:50):
metabolize it and as many as possible, I feel really lucky.
And I feel like we saw that reflected in our
election coverage last night. So that's a shameless plug for
me where we're at. But I'm so lucky that we
get to spend time you and I on the air
talking about this on Morning Joe on way too early
we are, and I feel grateful for that.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Oh well, we're friends. Thank you Ali Vitally, Thank you
Molly John. Fast Congressman Robert Garcia represents California's forty second
district and is the head of the Oversight Committee. Welcome
back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Congressman Garcia, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
We're talking the day after this twenty twenty five cycle,
which is an off here. It's like not an off
your election. It's like an off off off off.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
Here election, right, but it was a pretty serious repudiation
of Trump and Trump is you are the ranking on oversight.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
You have been one of the people sort of out
there being like, you know, you can't do a lot
of this shit. So it must be strange to wake
up and be you this morning.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Yeah. I mean, honestly, it feel it feels great. And
I was saying, like, it feels like Democrats and progressive
movements is back, and you know, we have been struggling.
I think rightly so after a big presidential loss, one
that had the stakes so high, when you have Donald
(29:19):
Trump on the other side of it, and to see
the country just usher in not just new leadership but
expand the tent. I have to emphasize the fact that
we could elect on the same night, both a Zoron
and Abigail and two very different political perspectives, but both
running with our party support, both having huge wins. I
(29:45):
think paves a future where we've got to be a
coalition party again and we can do that. And I
think I got to also give some credit to Ken
Martin at the DNC. I think he has been wisely
in the last few months investing in these races and
ensuring that we support all Democrats, and I think it's
(30:05):
paying off.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
I do think both Ken Martin and Gavin Newsom have
taken a lot of shit. You know, there's been the
last year has just been a lot of repudiations of
everybody all the time. But Gavin, it feels like a
much more clear story. So I'd love you to talk
us through sort of Prop fifty the decision there, what
you think it means. I know there was definitely just
(30:28):
the fact that they were doing this was a huge
morale push for a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
First, I think people need to people to really get
and understand like the kind of person that Gavin Newsom is,
and he's obviously been a fixture in our state for
a long time. Governor, former lieutenant governor, mayor San Francisco,
just I mean an executive, someone that has a strong opinions.
I've never been shy about pushing big, bold ideas, has
(30:54):
passed numerous big statewide propositions, and so rank obviously you
know he when when confronted with what's going on, he
made a decision to go all in and honestly put
his reputation on the line, his political future also on
the line.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Right because what this prop I just want to be
clipped for just the four people who don't who don't
live and die by this. So Texas decided to give
Donald Trump ten five seats. Now, the only way for
California to do that would be to have a special election.
There was no election planned with a ballot initiative, and
(31:29):
to put it all together in two months, and knew
some did.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
That's exactly right, and you know it looks so so
seamless today post win. But this was complicated. Yeah. Not
only did the governor essentially he raised I mean one
hundred million plus campaign that he put together was because
he made it happen right, team ran the measure, he
fundraised for it. He kept the California delegation together. He
(31:56):
then had to get it through the legislature, who had
very diverse opinions about what it should look like, and
then he got people across the country to get on board.
This was and he wisely made it a reaction right
a moment to take on what Texas was doing Donald
Trump was doing with bringing the map for twenty twenty six,
and he once again took a big risk. There's a
(32:19):
big idea, but it paid off of mentally, the one
kind of untold benefit the people aren't talking about. Everyone
keeps saying, oh, you're going to you know, these five
seats are in play, absolutely, but we had swing seats
in California that gone back and forth depending on the election.
Those are now off the table. And so while a
(32:39):
lot of people are going to focus on these five seats, great,
you now have another four seats, five seats that were
toss ups that were essentially basically you know, possibly DEM
seats that are now becoming solid DEM seats.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Tell us what those are.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
So, for example, let's he takes seats like an Orange county,
for example, like Michael Levin, Dave Min, Derek Tran the county.
Now are these are Democratic seats you've got seats now
like Josh Harder, who was in a much more tossup district.
He's in a solid Democratic seat, and so these are
incumbents that are now being protected. We don't have to
(33:21):
spend the immense resources it takes to win a seat
in California, and now we can. Honestly, there are two
targeted seats now in California. We're going to go after
those seats. And it's a good day for our state.
And I'll say this, every governor should be taking their
accused right now from what we're doing in California and
what we did. And I think it's a shame to
see some of them kind of like inch their way
(33:42):
to the solution and the solutions right in front of them.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Gavin did really do. That was bold action, and a
lot of people on the right were saying that if
this didn't work, it was the end of Gavin Newsom's
political career because he is turned out in twenty six.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
That's right. I would never count out Gavin. Look, he's
he's a friend, he's the one that a mentor I respect,
but I also he's probably our sharpest political mind. He's
also a political person that understands campaigns, and I think
that is he governs. He's aggressive, he takes risks, and
he's proving in this moment that to take on Donald Trump,
(34:18):
you got to play, you know, in that same sandbox.
And he pushes back the way, he takes him down
the way, he's not afraid to get in his face.
I think that's what the country wants and needs.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
It certainly feels like it's what the county country wants.
There's sort of interesting wrinkle here. I mean, I'm sure
you saw this reporting that Trump was in the room
with the senators when they lost and he was like,
you now have to nuke the filibuster. I mean, there's
clearly going to be a lot of blame here. I
want you to talk about this idea that maybe the
(34:51):
redistricting may actually hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
I think that's right. I think they're also realizing there
are some news coming out of like Kansas, for example,
that the legis like, you're there, is now rethinking whether.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
They can't do it right. Didn't they lose?
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Yeah, the numbers were so overwhelming. Yeah, I think that
you're going to have some stage, we think their position
because in a blue wave year, we might be able
to win many more of these seats that may have
not been winnable in another election. So I think I
think this could end up actually causing a lot more
damage to Donald Trump than he expected. I think his
(35:24):
efforts in Texas are where things are starting to push back.
You saw Wes Moore and Maryland. New York is moving
forward on a plan. Illinois is having conversations with Governor pritzkare.
I think there are some real robust conversations happening about
moving forward. And I think, you know, I think all
governors need to be engaged at this moment, do whatever
they can to get these seats. We have to fight
as aggressively as the MAGA, right. There's just no other
(35:47):
way of doing it.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
One of the things that I saw, and you're going
to be on the forefront of this, I take no
pleasure to tell you, is all of the MAGA influencers
were like it's rigged. They were like, you saw a
new Jersey moving leftward, the idea that somehow this was
not just like people don't like troops in the streets,
(36:10):
they don't like giving tax cuts to billionaires, they don't
like Elon Musk cutting their Grandma's Medicare. But Maga world
is definitely gonna. I mean, there's only one word when
they lose an election, and it's rigged.
Speaker 3 (36:26):
That's exactly right. And I think you know it's dangerous
obviously to say every election is really like, I can't
tell you right now. In California, I'm I've spent most
of the day responding and hearing from folks that are
you know, we got a Republicans here filing lawsuits claiming
that somehow Prop fifty was rigged, that the governor did
this or governor did that. I mean, it's just completely
ridiculous that when when Donald Trump doesn't win, it's rigged.
(36:48):
I mean, that's just something that has happened. And I
think you know that they've got to be careful because
I think what's one thing to campaign saying you're going
to help working people and you're going to help latinos
and you're actually going to lower costs, and then people
actually see their bank accounts and they see the rents
going up, and they see the grocery costs that are
not going down, and you can scream and yell on
Fox News all day saying that Donald Trump is lowering
(37:09):
your costs. But when your costs actually are going up
and you're feeling it, then there's a disconnect. And I
think two things happened last night across the country that
are really important. One is this idea that what's happening
on the ground. People stopped the misinformation machine that was
geared up for these elections in California and New Jersey,
(37:31):
SAMEUS information that was kind of happening on the last
presidential around about what was the economy and what was
going on. It didn't really work and it didn't connect
because people went with what they're feeling. People went with
the promises that Trump made didn't deliver on. My costs
are still going up, and so I think that was
a win for kind of truth and the media environment changing.
(37:56):
I think the amount of new media and YouTube ages
and podcasts that have kind of been uplifted and created
in the last year and a couple of years. I mean,
the new media landscape or progressives is changing. We are
beginning to push and catch up, and I think that's
gonna be really important and I saw that play out,
(38:18):
especially here in California. The second thing that people didn't
know about last night is the Latino vote. Yeah, I
was watching this very carefully. If you look at the
precinct with large Latino populations at New Jersey or in California,
all of the games that Trump made were erased, not
just erased, they moved beyond actually what we weren't expecting.
(38:40):
And so the question about whether Latinas were going to
permanently stick with Republicans I think was partly answered last night.
And without that kind of growing Latino coalition, Republicans are
going to have a hard time winning in twenty six
and twenty eight. So that was very good used last night.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Yeah, I mean, who could have seen that having a
militia force target Latinos, have the Supreme Court say it's
okay Kavanaugh stops would turn Latino voters. Who could have
seen that?
Speaker 3 (39:13):
That's exactly right? And and I've shared these, you know,
two quick stories, one of my one of someone in
my family who voted for Trump. Another one is a
local business person I know really well, Barbara, what it
for Trump? Good people, you know, great guys, both you
know my little group of focus group. I've talked to
them extensively, and both regret their vote. Both are horrified
(39:34):
about what Trump is doing with ice to people on
the street, and both feel betrayed and Latinos across this
country that voted for Trump that maybe were had there
was appeal to that working class kind of you know,
with GisMo that that maybe Trump shared and and and
and and kind of represented. That's that's going away a
little bit, and I think that's a good thing for
the country.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
The government is still shut down. It's now the I
think it's longest shutdown ever. Yeah, and it's still shut down.
Donald Trump wants to kill the felibuster. That's his very
into solving problems. What does it look like Mike johnson
house is still out? Do you think Mike Johnson is
handling this well? What's the next move here? You know,
(40:15):
you have Sean Duffy saying that errows. You know that
they're not you're not going to be able to fly.
I mean, where are we here?
Speaker 3 (40:21):
It's simple first, I mean, Mike Johnson has kept this
government shut down for over a month, and the Republicans
have been on vacation. Democrats have been in DC on
I've been in d C every week, checking in being
in DC, meeting with our caucus and Republicans have been
nowhere to be found. They're around the country doing god
knows what, waiting for orders from Donald Trump. And our
(40:42):
position from day one has been the right one, which
has been is that we will not support a Trump
budget that allows healthcare costs to go up and skyrocket
for the American public. And people are now starting to
get those letters and those messages from their care providers,
and they're seeing, because we're getting the calls, they're seeing
their healthcare costs are going up or going to go
(41:04):
up next year. That is not a position that Republicans
want to be able to defend. And so we're saying,
extend the support for the Affordable Care Act, keep cost low,
and stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. And I think
that's been a winning argument with the American public. And
so from a shutdown perspective, I think Johnson knows that
(41:25):
we're not going to cave. Senate Democrats have done a
good job of holding tight. I hope they still do so,
and we've got to get concessions out of Trump and
Mike Johnson. And if Donald Trump wants to end the shutdown,
he could do it tomorrow. He should extend and support
the Affordable Care Act and reopen the government. It's not hard.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
At some point, Mike Johnson will have to bring you
all back. And then there's also this discharge petition, which
like she doesn't want to swear in this congresswoman Griava, right,
and it's been a month now, But just like it
seems that's very stupid to me, Like it feels like
he's making the situation worse for himself because like if
(42:05):
he swears her in, you guys sign the discharge petition,
it goes to the Senate. They kill it in the Senate.
So like there's no world in which this administration is
like going to release the Epstein files. Like that's not happening.
So but in this it feels like so obvious and
he's just obfuscating or am I missing something?
Speaker 3 (42:22):
No, I mean, it's it's bad politics. It's also just
the wrong thing to do. He was elected by over
eight hundred thousand constituents and you denying her, I mean,
she's this is the longest period of time where a
member of Congress hasn't been sat into the body. I mean,
it's completely ridiculous. Yeah, And I think what he's realizing
is that they're not winning the argument, and they truly
didn't win it last night and so on election night,
(42:44):
and so we're gonna get brought back soon. I think
it's going to hopefully be a deal to be made
there at leite, this should be sat already. What Mike
Johnson doesn't want with the EPSTEIN files is he knows
that there's gonna be a huge break in his caucus.
So if this thing goes to a in the House,
and EUS is just the House, there is going to
be a large chunk of Republicans that are going to
(43:05):
vote for this bill.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
And that's like Massy, That's like Marjorie Taylor Green, That's.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
Like yeah, that's and I think a lot of others
that don't want to be on record not supporting the release.
I mean, when you spend you know, after the campaigns,
and you're going to release the EPSOM files as a
member of Congress, and then you have a time to
vote on it and you vote no, it's pretty easy
to be voted against releasing the EPSOM files. Yeah, you're
gonna have a big chunk of them vote to release them.
(43:32):
And I think Mike Johnson doesn't want to see that.
And Trump would be furious again at Johnson and.
Speaker 1 (43:37):
This idea that he's going to be able to press
pressure soon to end the filibuster. I mean that strikes
me as and then he's fighting with Lindsay Graham. I mean,
do you think that's real? And do you think that happens?
Speaker 3 (43:53):
I don't. I mean I think, I mean, THEO has
been pretty vocal about his position. I I just don't
see that moving. I don't know that last night Trump
and jeared himself to many more people after last night.
That's loss. I mean, he certainly tanked a lot of
the chances of Republicans had across the country. Didn't help
in New Jersey at all by some of his late actions. Certainly,
(44:15):
Andrew Cuomo didn't have a great night, thinks part to
Donald Thomp's last last minute endorsement.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Though he did win.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
I think he won Staten Island.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
He went Staten Island, Yeah, exactly, you know, good good
for him, and what a great win for for Zorn
and I think the country and it's going to be
pretty incredible to watch, you know, the next the next
few weeks and months there, I think the whole I
don't think Flood's gonna cabin a filibuster. I think that
within within a week we're going to have some type
of deal on the table, as it should. I mean,
people need their paychecks, people need access to the food.
(44:47):
This has got to end in Republicans. We've got to
get back to work.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
So one of the things, because you are ranking on Oversight,
you are like sort of the only person stopping Trump.
I mean, your crew is sort of the only people
trying to stop Trump from doing a lot of this
stuff like demolishing the East Wang, et cetera, putting up
new signs on the Oval Office, but also more seriously,
like having a crazy militia. What can you legitimately do
(45:15):
to put sand in the gears here?
Speaker 3 (45:17):
I think we're doing a with the powers that we have.
I'm really proud actually of the over Sec Committee. I
told the caucus, you know, during the process of the
election for the for the position, I said, look, we're
gonna goal to like model what being in the fight
looks like, and for all of our committees in the Congress,
all of our committees in the Congress should be in
the fight every fucking day, like just as you throw
(45:40):
as much at the administration as possible. And we've had
some success. I mean, we have taken issues to the courts.
We've supported lawsuits that have actually that have used our
work to make the case, you know, in front of
the courts, which has been great to see. We have
advanced more on the Epstein's files than folks thought possible
(46:00):
by actually getting some of the documents and the notes
and the subpoenas breaking out. I mean, Alex, what's what
the new revelations about alex Acosta. Now he's clearly not
telling the truth, and there's a there's a lot that
is developing there. And then I think our work, for example,
around ICE and DHS, we're we're chronically all the injustice
and the unconstitutional actions and the violations of due process,
(46:22):
which is important to keep records of because we are
I told everyone, we are not going to allow you know,
at this moment, for for just for the people in
this country, particularly young people, to think that what's happening
now is okay. At some point we're going to have
to stand up and say what happened was not okay,
and this is how we are going to address what
(46:43):
what what these people did, and how we're going to
hold these people accountable so that is that is also
going to be really important. Every action that Trump administration takes,
they have to note that we are going to document it,
We're going to call it out, We're going to ask questions,
and we're asking questions of private industry. So you know,
sure Trump doesn't want to work with us on the
(47:04):
honors to the ballroom, but you could you best believe
when we're sending letters to all those companies, they know
that Donald Trump's not going to be the president forever.
I'm very aware that we likely will win the majority back.
And we win the majority back, they better respond to
the subpoenas that we're going to send, and if we're
ask them to contestify, they will be coming to answer
(47:25):
our questions. And so I think that the American you know,
particularly the business community that is working in some cases
to appease Trump, including some in the media, I think
have to be unnoticed. So true.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Robert Garcia, thank you, thank you, thank you the moment.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
Jesse Gannon, One of the things I think about is that,
you know, when Trump was coming into office, a lot
of our hypothesis this time last year were that, like
RFK was going to run this crazy, crazy place that
was run on ideological grounds of his kooky ideology, and
Trump was going to grift to bribe and make himself rich.
(48:08):
But now what we see is we read that TeV Frog.
The FDA under our FK is just doing the same
crodi capitalism shit that the Trump administration's doing.
Speaker 1 (48:16):
RFK Junior not all that different than Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
Two grifts of a different feather, right.
Speaker 1 (48:23):
Both men are two tan, both men are a little
bit charismatic, and both men completely utterly and totally are
crimy criminals who do crime. I don't know. Look, it's
a clown show. If we have a pandemic, we are
all fucked, I mean, and just completely disastrous. Here are
(48:48):
the details. FDA regulator accused of using physician to extract
revenge on an old business associate. This sounds just like
Trump World. An extortion attempt, a petty years long grudge
sounds like Ronald Trump. Shocking social media posts and ominous
text messages make up the latest scandal at the Food
and Drug Administration. So it turns out what they meant
(49:11):
by make America healthy again was just let people do
crazy shit to each other under the guise of the
United States government. The latest scandal is an agency that
industry outsiders are calling a quote clown show and a
soap opera. Imagine how bad it has to be to
be considered more clowny than the DoD Or had. Let's
(49:33):
see the abrupt dismantling of the whole program in divisions.
Teams that provide critical health services to Americans are being
just wiped away. Senecon Firmed directors didn't make it a
full month before dramatically ousted after allegedly refused to rubber
vaccine recommendations. We saw her testify that was pretty harrowing.
(49:57):
So the CDC is in shambles. FDA has turned into
something of a side show, with concern mounting that we
are all going to die. I just added that, but
it's really true. Basically, a lot of people in rfks
orbit are like sleazy, multi level marketing kind of people, right,
that's like.
Speaker 2 (50:17):
The charitable read of some of them.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Yeah, you know, they're health influencers, they're you know, they're
not doctors. None of us is above board. Let's just say,
but some of the people who made it into this
group are like COVID truthers, people who got where they
are because they were anti lockdown, anti vaccine, that kind
(50:39):
of thing. So one of them is this top vaccine regulator.
He is a chief medical officer, and he made a
name for himself on social media during the pandemic as
a COVID nineteen response skeptic. Since joining the FDA, he's
been known for overwheeling agency scientists and sowing distrust, unrest,
and paranoia among staff. He was pushed out of the
(51:02):
agency in July, only to be reinstated two weeks later.
This is just a whole cavalcade of fuckery. That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make
(51:22):
sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And President Trump is not publicly remarked
on the death of former Vice President Dick Cheney. It's
been more than twenty four hours since the death was announced.
We have such a great show for you today. Ms
(00:21):
NVC's Eli Videlli steps by to read the tea leaves
from the election and what it means for Dems in
the future. Then we'll talk to Congressman Robert Garcia about
Prop fifty and the implications for the future of the
Democrats taking back Congress. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Smiley, we did a rundown of the election last night
as we saw it, since Debs had a big night.
But what wasn't in the tea leaves quite yet. What
we did is how much DEVS flipped, even the reddest
district stationwide.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Yeah, there was a lot of information to process last night,
and they were things like every single district in Virginia
moved to the left, not by huge margins, some by
huge margin, some by Les's huge margin, but they all
moved to left. And there were other things. So while
(01:16):
Mandani is a historic candidate, and that was a historic win.
There were a lot of other different wins that actually
may even say more about where Trump's Republican Party is.
Erie County, Pennsylvania, which supported Trump in the twenty twenty
four cycle, voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat in its county
(01:38):
executive race by twenty four points. In Virginia's sixty sixth
state House district, this woman, Nicole Cole, defeated a thirty
six year Republican incumbent. And there are just numerous stories.
The one I think what I think of is really
(01:58):
important is that Democrats in Georgia. You'll remember Georgia as
being really a red state, Democrats in Georgia managed to
win two state wide races for Public Service commissioner. These
are their first non federal so like not the Senate
seats that Democrats slipped, these are just state elections. These
are the first non federal state flips since two thousand
(02:23):
and six. And there are two of them, and one
the Democrat one fifty eight to forty one, and the
other one the Democrat won sixty one to thirty nine.
So clearly these are our positions that deal with utilities
and have the executive power to decide what is fair
and reasonable rate for service. And you will remember that power.
(02:44):
The cost of power is going up because Donald Trump
killed all of these clean energy initiatives. So this shows
really like the many ways in which trump Ism has
gotten into different states and done different craziness. Even in
the state of Mississippi, a ruby red state represented by
(03:05):
two of the really the dumbest members of the Senate.
Actually that's not fair. Tommy Tubervilla isn't from Mississippi. Democrats
were able to break the supermajority and the state Senate
by flipping three seats after thirteen years. Take you away Republicans'
ability to override the governor's veto and easily proposed constitutional amendments.
(03:25):
So we don't talk that much about state legislative seats,
but it's actually really important. And so when you can
break a supermajority, it means that you have power. That
is really it means that you can't you know, these
states can't necessarily pass crazy crazy stuff like in Texas
with SBA. You know, you have a pushback. You can
(03:46):
stop these Republican state legislators from doing just the worst
or the worst so this is a big deal and
I'm happy to see it, and it's also a sign
that Trump is in quite a lot of trouble.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, So by I think we could say that there
are Chuck Schuber's between a rock and a hard place,
and that people, you know, my family has been very
affected by the shutdown. You know, my wife to not
get paid. A lot of people want this to add
but also a lot of people, including people in my
wife's staff, are like, we don't want to have to
have sacrifice this for nothing, and we want to get concessions.
(04:18):
We want to get people healthcare because they believe in this.
And we're about to hit negotiations here and it looks
like Schuber is going to have a tough margain.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
So there's a lot of anxiety when you talk to
Democratic insiders that the Senate is going to cave, that
the House is going to stand strong, but that the
Senate is going to cave. And we've seen, you know,
we have a very vulnerable senator in John oss Off.
I mean, I think he's probably feeling a little better
after last night, but you know, that's a Trump seed
(04:47):
and there's a lot of anxiety in the Democrats in
the Senate, my cave. But if they do, and I
think it's likely that this is going to happen either way,
but it seems very likely the Chuck schum is not
going to run again. Now, he's going to say he's
going to run again because that's what people do, because
they don't want to be lame ducks, just like Donald
(05:08):
Trump says he's going to have a third term when
he's eighty three and has already torn down the White House.
But Chuck Schimmer, really, if he does not stay strong,
he will have effectively ended his political career. Now that
doesn't mean he will stay strong, it doesn't mean he
won't cave and make a deal. And look, the ass
here is funding Obamacare premiums. This is billions of dollars
(05:32):
which Republicans have earmarked for tax cuts and to bail
out a South American country that none of us have
ever heard of. I mean, we've heard of it, but
we don't want to give it twenty billion dollars. So
the point here is that do I think that Republicans
will cave on this. I'm not so sure they will.
You could see a world where Democrats cave on this.
(05:54):
This is the longest shutdown we've ever had. At some point,
people have to come to the table and pay pay workers.
So I have always been and I think you and
I differ on this. I've always been very like, shit down, Agnosta.
I understand that it was the right thing to do.
I understand it was the only way to put sand
in the gears. I understand that Trump has been running
(06:15):
the place like a king, but I also understand that
there are real world implications to shutting down the United
States government.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I mean, I have to feel in my house, and
I'm still pro shutting down the government. You know, at
the end of the day, they're threatening to not pay
back pay. That just means that I ended up having
to pay for the bills of the month. But I
think it's really important that we do this and we
stand up for people. Obamacare saved my life, so it's
the thing I take very very seriously.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I too agree, but I also think, like, first of all,
it's the Trump administration, so they will threaten all the
illegal shit they can. So of course they're going to
say there, but we know they have to pay back pay.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
It's just like you can keep Tom Holman with the
kava bag and the fifty thousand dollars for as long
as you want, but someday you're going to have hearings
about that kava bag and that fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Listening to a economist also talk about what Trump has
to face next week of his very rich friends calling
up and saying they don't have enough space to store
the inventory of the things they need to ship if
the airspace gets shut down, and that the economy goes
to a halt. That like you know, in the past,
we've run experiments like this that when there's been snowstorms
(07:25):
that have shut down to air travel, it costs these
companies insane about some way, and they can't get employees
into them in the snowstorms. So the things that just
sit there. But if the employees are, you know, seemingly
in the factory and they don't know what happens, this
is a total chaos structure, and no one has any
idea how this is going to play out. If incompetent
(07:46):
Sean Duffy can't keep flight attendants going to work next
week and they have to shut down a lot of
air travel.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Personally, I just want to eat at kava I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Know what it is, say said, no one is ever
that doesn't just have one close to their workplace at lunch.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Isn't your pod?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
You know, we call these places now slop bulls that
will settle for them for our lunch. As Like, either way,
you settle for slop because it's not good. But I
really did question the kava bag for this, Like I
guess it was just the closest thing around. Like you know,
I feel like if you're handing that much money to Tomahole,
but you at least give him a birket bag he
could give to.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Give it to missus Holman. Ali Vitally, senior Capitol Hill
reporter and host of MSNBC's Way Too Early and is
a quick note. MSNBC becomes ms NOW on November fifteenth.
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Ali Vitally, so thrilled to
(08:49):
be back. I am so excited to have you here.
So it is the day after two women governors, one
one in Virginia, one in New Jersey. So you and
I I feel like we have our secret language of
like we understand that a certain level of misogyny is
probably par for the course, but we still believe that
(09:10):
women can have equal rights. And you're a little younger
than I am, but like, this is pretty radical stuff.
Both these women way overperformed. They both did you know,
everything we were told in the weeks leading up were
not what we saw. You were on the ground of
Virginia to talk to us about what that was like,
what you saw before and what you saw actually.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
I actually think what was so amazing to me?
Speaker 5 (09:36):
And you know that I come from this from the
perspective of not just having covered many, many female candidates,
but then writing my book Electable about why we haven't
had a female president yet. But the reason why we're
part of the reason why there's zilian explanations that swirre
all in this pot is that we haven't had too
many examples of women in executive leadership positions. And it
doesn't get more executive than governorships if you're falling short
(09:57):
of the presidency. So the fact that you're now electing
two women on the same Tuesday night, two executive offices
in two different states, means that you now have two
more examples of what it looks like when women lead.
I think the most stunning sign for me, and I
would argue this is a sign of progress is the
fact that we only just started about the started talking
about the historic potential of these candidates, specifically in Spaanberger's case,
(10:21):
because she's the first female governor of the Commonwealth. We
only just started talking about that when we turn to
election day, which means that gender was not swirling in
the pot in the negative ways that it often does.
I think the explanation for that in Virginia is because
you had two women running against each other, and there's
a whole slew oft studies about how that changes the dynamics.
(10:41):
Certainly you could look at it, I think, and the
way it manifested more was in Cheryl's race, and you
wrote really well about this kind of the disconnect between
who Cheryl is authentically.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
I've spent time with her on the hill.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
I mean she is funny, she's charismatic, she's smart, she's
sober minded and serious. I mean she can in so
many multitudes as I to do, and yet it wasn't
seemingly coming across. And that disconnect always says to me,
how much of that is misogyny and how much of
that is the candidate not doing their job right.
Speaker 4 (11:09):
There's always a mix.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Right now for sure. Yeah, this Spamberger race is interesting
because you have when some sears I just want for
another minute to talk about Virginia, because there were a
couple of interesting things that happened. One you had when
some seers who was just unbelievably insane said insane stuff
almost on the regular, which I appreciated. But then you
(11:32):
also had this, you had scandal on the Democratic side
of the ticket, and that was Republicans sort of hoped
they could use that to run against Spamberger. Talk us
through like how you thought that worked out.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Well, It's clear in the exit polls that voters thought
that it was concerning for Jay Jones, the Attorney general
candidate who won last night, to have talked about one
of his colleagues that he should be shot in the head.
And that is exactly the opposite of the rhetoric that
we need right now in this country. And Democrats rightly
condemned it. What I think they did is they fell
(12:09):
short of calling on him to drop out of the race.
And I think we saw voters in the exit polls
say that they didn't like that he talked that way.
But then also he won his seat, and so Electorally,
you're grappling with the fact that morally these comments are reprehensible,
especially an environment where political violence is becoming far too common.
But then on the electoral side, voters are saying, yeah,
(12:33):
but I want to vote for the Democrat. And I
think with Spanberger, my sources has always said to me,
if she had more than a ten point margin of victory,
her coattails were just going to pull all the other
Democrats up. And that is exactly what happened. What was
her margin fifteen? I felt the last back more than fifteen.
I want to talk about Mikey because you know, for
(12:54):
obvious reasons.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
So with Mikey that it was New Jersey Harris wanted
by six Anything less than that I thought was going
to be just the world's most annoying news cycle. Mikey
wanted by thirteen.
Speaker 5 (13:07):
Yeah, exactly, And I actually think that's a fascinating story
right there, right Biden wins it by sixteen, and twenty twenty,
Phil Murphy's on the ballot defending his incumbency. One year later,
he wins only by three two against Jack Chitdarelli. Then
you fast forward a few years after that, Kamalas they
see a ten point swing into the Trump column, Kamala
only wins by six, and then you put it to
(13:29):
last night, where Cheryl was supposed to be in this
much tighter race and she comes away with it by
thirteen points. I mean, I do think that it goes
to show in all of these races that even though
voters weren't saying in exit polls, I'm voting because of Trump,
you were saying that on the issues that mattered the economy,
cost of living, affordability, that was an issue set of
(13:53):
Trump's own making and frankly his own ruining, Like he
is the one who has controlled all of the levers
on the economic message, on the tariffs, on the way
that the stock market has been extremely volatile until very recently, right,
So all of it was him resetting the issue set
and then resetting it in a way that actually didn't
benefit him and his party. And even just before I
(14:14):
came on with you, he met with Senate Republicans this
morning and privately behind closed doors, many of them told
me that he was saying he thinks they're getting killed
on the shutdown, and that that's part of what manifested
in the election results last night.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yeah, blame anyone but him. And also this is the
same conversation where he told them he wants them to
nuke the filibuster.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Right exactly.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
And so then if we're layering in on top of
our election dynamics, the fact that there was a shutdown,
I think the impact of the election is that Democrats
I've spoken to on the hill this morning are saying, Okay, yeah,
there's bipartisan talks happening, and those are really starting to
catch steam. They're starting to make some key decisions that
they need to make to actually make moves to reopen
(14:56):
the government. We're not there yet, but you know, hope
spring's eternal. The other side of it, though, as progressives
are saying, yeah, but if Republicans are now feeling that
much more pressure, why are we going.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
To make any deal at all?
Speaker 5 (15:06):
And then Republicans, I think, instead of feeling that pressure
and saying, well, we should be pressured to go to
the negotiating table, Trump is trying to say no, no, the
pressure should be to go it alone and break the filibuster.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Yeah, which it seems like would be even less popular.
But also Thune it has shown a lot of hostility
towards that idea.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
He is not for that.
Speaker 5 (15:28):
And I think covering John Thune for as long as
I have, he is someone who wants to uphold the
institutions of the Senate. The fact that Republicans were applauding
Senator's mansion and cinema.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
We talked about this a lot.
Speaker 5 (15:40):
Right when they were saying I don't want to get
rid of the filibuster, Republicans were like, bravo, that is
what we need more of. For them to then turn around,
and this is why Thune hasn't part of why for
them to turn around and then say, yeah, well we
liked it when Democrats preserved it, but now we hate
it because we need it. I mean, there are some
progressives who want that to happen because they want to
not take the heat and then take advantage of it.
(16:00):
But Republicans, I mean, it would just be a massive
shift if they got rid of the filibuster, and right
now it doesn't sound like they will, but Trump wants that.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I want to talk about New Jersey for a minute,
because so when I was I went to Montclair to
write this opinion piece, and I was there I ran
into another national political reporter very seasoned person. She said,
you know, the polls are tightening. Chitarelli's really catching fire.
People are starting to really like him. She is just
(16:31):
not so great, and I think he's going to win.
And it was something I'd heard again and again and again.
What strikes me is that, you know, the polls were
pretty much even. I mean, maybe they were tightening a
point or two, but they are pretty much I mean
a lot of that narrative seems to have come from nothing.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
I think, again, this is where I come back to it,
where like, I'm a political reporter first, but we can't
ignore the fact that gender and race always swirl in
the pot and the reason it's easy to overlook them
is because it's hard to explore what kind of role
they play. But the thing I think I come back to,
and what I loved about your off ed is the
fact that you talk about how female candidates and candidates
of color walk a higher typrope and it's easier for
(17:12):
them to be knocked off by whatever the narrative wind
of the day is. The mistakes are that much more amplified,
and the biases that voters come to the polls with
part of why it's important to elect firsts is because
it means that voters then no longer have to do
the imagination gap game, which is, well, I can't imagine
this person in that role because I've never seen anyone
(17:33):
like them before. And so that's why having this expanded
paradigm of where women can be leaders, the fact that
they can win if they are just simply voted for,
is so important because I think it disrupts this trend
that we've talked about a little in the Democratic Party
and in Democratic circles that you and I have conversations
in a lot, this whispered about idea of like, oh, well,
(17:54):
I don't know if women are electable after twenty sixteen
and after twenty twenty four, And it drives me nuts
because it's like, how many men have been losing elections
for how many years? And somehow people are not looking
around being like, well, is that it on men in
the presidency?
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Gush?
Speaker 1 (18:07):
I don't know, you know, one of the things like
I then wandered into a conversation one of the great
things about writing for The New York Times is that
everybody reads it. And the bad part is everybody reads it.
So I wandered into a conversation about how stupid I
was online. These two white guys were like, yeah, she's
so stupid, she sockstuttered out. And then they were like,
(18:28):
the problem with Mikey Cheryl isn't that she's a woman.
It's just that she's not a very good candidate. And
so I was thinking to myself, which was something I
had heard? So and what when I heard her speak
in Montclair and they were like Mikey screaming her name,
chasing her to her car, I thought, well, maybe she
is a good candidate, But the question I have is
(18:51):
what a good do?
Speaker 3 (18:52):
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:53):
What I mean? Like, I feel like it's not that
she's a woman, it's just that she's not a very
good candidate. Feels like it's just that she's a woman.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Also the fact that when we think about leadership, we
often use words that are masculine coded to talk about
what it is to be a leader. And I think
both things can also be true at the same time. Right,
the Chitarelli campaign got a lot of traction off of
ads that simply used Cheryl's words on their face. There
(19:21):
were in artful phrases that she uttered during debates, during
appearances that's true. That's like canids or athletes.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
And that was the Kamala Harris playbook. Right, She's for
they them, he's for you.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Gone, It's that.
Speaker 5 (19:35):
It's also the fact that Harris regularly had a tendency
of like word salady answers, right that as a political reporter.
First I look at and I'm like, that's not a
good answer. I don't know what you just said, right, right.
And then at the same time, I've heard plenty of men,
including Joe Biden, give answers that were meandering in circular
and I wasn't really quite sure what the point was best.
(19:57):
And that's again kind of where it where it comes
at in the wash. Right, It's that unquantifiable percent where
you look at it and you say it might not
be fair, but the tightrope is higher. And I think
in Cheryl's case, the fact that it was a tightening
race in the polls, the fact that New Jersey has
had some weird swing things. There was a question about
if Hispanic voters would turn out in the same ways
(20:18):
that they did without Trump on the ballot. Turns out,
they turned it out, they turned out, and not the
way that then he.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Had turns out arresting them is not good for getting
them to vote for you.
Speaker 5 (20:29):
Yeah, And that's like one of the threads to follow
into the midterms, right, the idea of the ways that
the Trump administration has overreached in their various campaigns on
anti crime and anti immigration and on like the moves
they've made on the economy that Trump says are good
for us, I promise, except that people are paying more
for beef at grocery stores and they're like, but wait,
(20:51):
this is more and isn't more and more?
Speaker 4 (20:56):
So I think, isn't there bad?
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Yes, isn't more of a no? I agreed? And manufacturing
and I mean, it just feels like at every point
we are not. It's so nonsensical too. There were also
a bunch of other races. There is also this question
of like, now, if they redistrict and the headwinds are
(21:19):
such that you have the kind of movement you're having
in Virginia, so talk us through what that would mean,
because Jerrymander can become a Dummymander can become a way
to lose a seat that would have otherwise been yours.
Speaker 5 (21:33):
I also think in the conversations I've had with folks
at the D Triple C who are singularly focused on
just retaking the House. What they are looking at in
places like Virginia is the fact that in all of
these counties across the board, you had a little blue.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Arrow that ticked up.
Speaker 5 (21:50):
Didn't mean that Spanberger won every county, that would be bonkers,
but it does mean that she kept her margins tighter.
And it does mean that Democrats were able to make
some gains compared to past election cycles. And what that
means if you translate it forward, is the fact that
now maybe some places are more competitive than they once were.
I do think it's hard to compare. And this is
(22:10):
always where you end up talking to pollsters who are like, well,
we don't really know what we're mirroring against, and we
don't really know what the best correlation of the voter
set is. And all of that is true because every
election is different, but like, it's why what happened in California.
The redistricting measure being approved is so important because the
House race, the race for the House control is going
(22:33):
to be so so tight. It was decided by three
seats last time. You could argue those three seats that
were staying in Republican control came because North Carolina redistricted
and three Democrats lost their seats there. Right, that's the
Hakeem Jeffrey's explanation to me in the past and others,
And so the redistricting stuff really matters just for the
(22:54):
fact that California can now cancel out Texas and that
levels the playing field, even know it was a completely
on level playing field that started this whole fiasco in
the first place. Like, I want to be really clear,
I don't think midscycle redistricting is a good trend or
habit for any of us to get into.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Nobody wants it. It's where we're at. But you have
to fight fire with I mean, if you're gonna you
have to fight fire with fire.
Speaker 5 (23:16):
Well completely because it's it's it's bringing a knife to
a gunfight, right, I mean that's the comparison that you
often hear.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I want to talk for one more minute about Cuomo
because one of the things that Trump two point zero
was was a backlash against me too. Right. It was like,
my man, he did a lot of stuff. It's not okay,
but we're he's still at least he's not a woman, right,
(23:44):
I mean, who knows. They A lot of people voted
for a man who credibly had a long, long line
of accusers and who courts even said so I want again.
There was a lot going on in the New York
City mayoral. Zorin was young and charismatic and spoke to people.
I think in a way we have not had a
(24:05):
male we I mean, in a long time. But I
think there's an important bit about Cuomo there and about Democrats,
and I'd love you to talk.
Speaker 6 (24:13):
Us through it.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, you and I I think have talked about the
way that I have been looking at these past few
years of political moments as backlashes to me too, And
I don't think we do enough to connect that singular
monument to the way that we are watching young men
feel demonized. And I understand where that demonization comes from, right.
I think that many of them who came of age
(24:35):
during COVID, during that time when we were grappling with
me too, are like the way I didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
Yeah, but though those guys are now back, if you
look at the numbers like gen X, those guys suck
like whatever they're gone. Don't ever date those guys. But
the younger guys like my sons like those guys they're back,
and the women like I think the younger I mean
that talk about radicalized, you know. But anyway, yes, go on.
Speaker 5 (24:59):
But that gender gap, right, is not just a gender
gap that we see show up in politics, though it
absolutely does time and again and will continue to. It's
also sort of a commentary on like where our society
has gone and where our sense of community will go. Right,
If women are finding that they are just on such
a completely different wavelength than the men that they are
supposed to partner with in heteronormative relationships, then where do
(25:22):
you go from there?
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And I think that is such a mismatch.
Speaker 5 (25:25):
And I also think both things can be true, right,
that there is an ongoing backlash to me too, and
that men in many cases have felt unfairly demonized. It
also feels patently unfair that women could be transparent, honest,
vulnerable and brave about their experience living in a world
that often feels dangerous and unsafe, and that there's just
(25:46):
an accepted backlash that because that makes men feel uncomfortable,
we should stop talking about that and change our tactics.
I think that is a really dangerous place for us
to live. And if this seems like kind of a
non sequord or conversation, again, I argue that the me
too backlash and the me too conversation is so intrinsically
linked into our politics, especially when you consider conversations in
(26:09):
the so called manisphere and the way that it continues
to sort of breede that toxic masculinity that we often
talk about when we talk about me too and what
has come since.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Yeah, and I don't think I think all of this
is really important. And you know, we've spent such a
long period of time obsessing about like young men and
how hard it is for young men and what's happened
to young men, and to not have the conversation about
young women I think is important, you know.
Speaker 5 (26:39):
And if you look at the way and that young
women broke exit polls show that they were massive fire
power behind everyone from Mamdani to Cheryl Too, spam Band.
I think the lowest percentage and I can't remember who
got it, but it was something like eighty some odd percent.
So it's like, these are the people, these young women
are coming out and fueling candidacies. They are so important,
(27:03):
and you know, female rage there are deep histories that
have been written rightfully on the way that female rage
powers movements, and I think if we learn any lesson
it's that. But also the singular lesson to me from
the Tuesday elections is it's simple enough that you know
women win when you vote for them per.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, oh yeah, for sure, for sure.
Oh I love this conversation.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
It made me so happy.
Speaker 5 (27:28):
Can I Can I also say, though, too, like it
is why I am happy about being at MS now, right,
because these are the kinds of conversations that I you,
all of us, look, we're nerds, we love this stuff, right,
But like knowing that my reporting and my thoughts on
this are received by an audience that also spends as
much time speaking about this and wanting to understand and
(27:50):
metabolize it and as many as possible, I feel really lucky.
And I feel like we saw that reflected in our
election coverage last night. So that's a shameless plug for
me where we're at. But I'm so lucky that we
get to spend time you and I on the air
talking about this on Morning Joe on way too early
we are, and I feel grateful for that.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
Oh well, we're friends. Thank you Ali Vitally, Thank you
Molly John. Fast Congressman Robert Garcia represents California's forty second
district and is the head of the Oversight Committee. Welcome
back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Congressman Garcia, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
We're talking the day after this twenty twenty five cycle,
which is an off here. It's like not an off
your election. It's like an off off off off.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
Here election, right, but it was a pretty serious repudiation
of Trump and Trump is you are the ranking on oversight.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
You have been one of the people sort of out
there being like, you know, you can't do a lot
of this shit. So it must be strange to wake
up and be you this morning.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Yeah. I mean, honestly, it feel it feels great. And
I was saying, like, it feels like Democrats and progressive
movements is back, and you know, we have been struggling.
I think rightly so after a big presidential loss, one
that had the stakes so high, when you have Donald
(29:19):
Trump on the other side of it, and to see
the country just usher in not just new leadership but
expand the tent. I have to emphasize the fact that
we could elect on the same night, both a Zoron
and Abigail and two very different political perspectives, but both
running with our party support, both having huge wins. I
(29:45):
think paves a future where we've got to be a
coalition party again and we can do that. And I
think I got to also give some credit to Ken
Martin at the DNC. I think he has been wisely
in the last few months investing in these races and
ensuring that we support all Democrats, and I think it's
(30:05):
paying off.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
I do think both Ken Martin and Gavin Newsom have
taken a lot of shit. You know, there's been the
last year has just been a lot of repudiations of
everybody all the time. But Gavin, it feels like a
much more clear story. So I'd love you to talk
us through sort of Prop fifty the decision there, what
you think it means. I know there was definitely just
(30:28):
the fact that they were doing this was a huge
morale push for a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
First, I think people need to people to really get
and understand like the kind of person that Gavin Newsom is,
and he's obviously been a fixture in our state for
a long time. Governor, former lieutenant governor, mayor San Francisco,
just I mean an executive, someone that has a strong opinions.
I've never been shy about pushing big, bold ideas, has
(30:54):
passed numerous big statewide propositions, and so rank obviously you
know he when when confronted with what's going on, he
made a decision to go all in and honestly put
his reputation on the line, his political future also on
the line.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Right because what this prop I just want to be
clipped for just the four people who don't who don't
live and die by this. So Texas decided to give
Donald Trump ten five seats. Now, the only way for
California to do that would be to have a special election.
There was no election planned with a ballot initiative, and
(31:29):
to put it all together in two months, and knew
some did.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
That's exactly right, and you know it looks so so
seamless today post win. But this was complicated. Yeah. Not
only did the governor essentially he raised I mean one
hundred million plus campaign that he put together was because
he made it happen right, team ran the measure, he
fundraised for it. He kept the California delegation together. He
(31:56):
then had to get it through the legislature, who had
very diverse opinions about what it should look like, and
then he got people across the country to get on board.
This was and he wisely made it a reaction right
a moment to take on what Texas was doing Donald
Trump was doing with bringing the map for twenty twenty six,
and he once again took a big risk. There's a
(32:19):
big idea, but it paid off of mentally, the one
kind of untold benefit the people aren't talking about. Everyone
keeps saying, oh, you're going to you know, these five
seats are in play, absolutely, but we had swing seats
in California that gone back and forth depending on the election.
Those are now off the table. And so while a
(32:39):
lot of people are going to focus on these five seats, great,
you now have another four seats, five seats that were
toss ups that were essentially basically you know, possibly DEM
seats that are now becoming solid DEM seats.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Tell us what those are.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
So, for example, let's he takes seats like an Orange county,
for example, like Michael Levin, Dave Min, Derek Tran the county.
Now are these are Democratic seats you've got seats now
like Josh Harder, who was in a much more tossup district.
He's in a solid Democratic seat, and so these are
incumbents that are now being protected. We don't have to
(33:21):
spend the immense resources it takes to win a seat
in California, and now we can. Honestly, there are two
targeted seats now in California. We're going to go after
those seats. And it's a good day for our state.
And I'll say this, every governor should be taking their
accused right now from what we're doing in California and
what we did. And I think it's a shame to
see some of them kind of like inch their way
(33:42):
to the solution and the solutions right in front of them.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Gavin did really do. That was bold action, and a
lot of people on the right were saying that if
this didn't work, it was the end of Gavin Newsom's
political career because he is turned out in twenty six.
Speaker 3 (33:57):
That's right. I would never count out Gavin. Look, he's
he's a friend, he's the one that a mentor I respect,
but I also he's probably our sharpest political mind. He's
also a political person that understands campaigns, and I think
that is he governs. He's aggressive, he takes risks, and
he's proving in this moment that to take on Donald Trump,
(34:18):
you got to play, you know, in that same sandbox.
And he pushes back the way, he takes him down
the way, he's not afraid to get in his face.
I think that's what the country wants and needs.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
It certainly feels like it's what the county country wants.
There's sort of interesting wrinkle here. I mean, I'm sure
you saw this reporting that Trump was in the room
with the senators when they lost and he was like,
you now have to nuke the filibuster. I mean, there's
clearly going to be a lot of blame here. I
want you to talk about this idea that maybe the
(34:51):
redistricting may actually hurt Trump.
Speaker 3 (34:54):
I think that's right. I think they're also realizing there
are some news coming out of like Kansas, for example,
that the legis like, you're there, is now rethinking whether.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
They can't do it right. Didn't they lose?
Speaker 3 (35:03):
Yeah, the numbers were so overwhelming. Yeah, I think that
you're going to have some stage, we think their position
because in a blue wave year, we might be able
to win many more of these seats that may have
not been winnable in another election. So I think I
think this could end up actually causing a lot more
damage to Donald Trump than he expected. I think his
(35:24):
efforts in Texas are where things are starting to push back.
You saw Wes Moore and Maryland. New York is moving
forward on a plan. Illinois is having conversations with Governor pritzkare.
I think there are some real robust conversations happening about
moving forward. And I think, you know, I think all
governors need to be engaged at this moment, do whatever
they can to get these seats. We have to fight
as aggressively as the MAGA, right. There's just no other
(35:47):
way of doing it.
Speaker 1 (35:48):
One of the things that I saw, and you're going
to be on the forefront of this, I take no
pleasure to tell you, is all of the MAGA influencers
were like it's rigged. They were like, you saw a
new Jersey moving leftward, the idea that somehow this was
not just like people don't like troops in the streets,
(36:10):
they don't like giving tax cuts to billionaires, they don't
like Elon Musk cutting their Grandma's Medicare. But Maga world
is definitely gonna. I mean, there's only one word when
they lose an election, and it's rigged.
Speaker 3 (36:26):
That's exactly right. And I think you know it's dangerous
obviously to say every election is really like, I can't
tell you right now. In California, I'm I've spent most
of the day responding and hearing from folks that are
you know, we got a Republicans here filing lawsuits claiming
that somehow Prop fifty was rigged, that the governor did
this or governor did that. I mean, it's just completely
ridiculous that when when Donald Trump doesn't win, it's rigged.
(36:48):
I mean, that's just something that has happened. And I
think you know that they've got to be careful because
I think what's one thing to campaign saying you're going
to help working people and you're going to help latinos
and you're actually going to lower costs, and then people
actually see their bank accounts and they see the rents
going up, and they see the grocery costs that are
not going down, and you can scream and yell on
Fox News all day saying that Donald Trump is lowering
(37:09):
your costs. But when your costs actually are going up
and you're feeling it, then there's a disconnect. And I
think two things happened last night across the country that
are really important. One is this idea that what's happening
on the ground. People stopped the misinformation machine that was
geared up for these elections in California and New Jersey,
(37:31):
SAMEUS information that was kind of happening on the last
presidential around about what was the economy and what was
going on. It didn't really work and it didn't connect
because people went with what they're feeling. People went with
the promises that Trump made didn't deliver on. My costs
are still going up, and so I think that was
a win for kind of truth and the media environment changing.
(37:56):
I think the amount of new media and YouTube ages
and podcasts that have kind of been uplifted and created
in the last year and a couple of years. I mean,
the new media landscape or progressives is changing. We are
beginning to push and catch up, and I think that's
gonna be really important and I saw that play out,
(38:18):
especially here in California. The second thing that people didn't
know about last night is the Latino vote. Yeah, I
was watching this very carefully. If you look at the
precinct with large Latino populations at New Jersey or in California,
all of the games that Trump made were erased, not
just erased, they moved beyond actually what we weren't expecting.
(38:40):
And so the question about whether Latinas were going to
permanently stick with Republicans I think was partly answered last night.
And without that kind of growing Latino coalition, Republicans are
going to have a hard time winning in twenty six
and twenty eight. So that was very good used last night.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Yeah, I mean, who could have seen that having a
militia force target Latinos, have the Supreme Court say it's
okay Kavanaugh stops would turn Latino voters. Who could have
seen that?
Speaker 3 (39:13):
That's exactly right? And and I've shared these, you know,
two quick stories, one of my one of someone in
my family who voted for Trump. Another one is a
local business person I know really well, Barbara, what it
for Trump? Good people, you know, great guys, both you
know my little group of focus group. I've talked to
them extensively, and both regret their vote. Both are horrified
(39:34):
about what Trump is doing with ice to people on
the street, and both feel betrayed and Latinos across this
country that voted for Trump that maybe were had there
was appeal to that working class kind of you know,
with GisMo that that maybe Trump shared and and and
and and kind of represented. That's that's going away a
little bit, and I think that's a good thing for
the country.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
The government is still shut down. It's now the I
think it's longest shutdown ever. Yeah, and it's still shut down.
Donald Trump wants to kill the felibuster. That's his very
into solving problems. What does it look like Mike johnson
house is still out? Do you think Mike Johnson is
handling this well? What's the next move here? You know,
(40:15):
you have Sean Duffy saying that errows. You know that
they're not you're not going to be able to fly.
I mean, where are we here?
Speaker 3 (40:21):
It's simple first, I mean, Mike Johnson has kept this
government shut down for over a month, and the Republicans
have been on vacation. Democrats have been in DC on
I've been in d C every week, checking in being
in DC, meeting with our caucus and Republicans have been
nowhere to be found. They're around the country doing god
knows what, waiting for orders from Donald Trump. And our
(40:42):
position from day one has been the right one, which
has been is that we will not support a Trump
budget that allows healthcare costs to go up and skyrocket
for the American public. And people are now starting to
get those letters and those messages from their care providers,
and they're seeing, because we're getting the calls, they're seeing
their healthcare costs are going up or going to go
(41:04):
up next year. That is not a position that Republicans
want to be able to defend. And so we're saying,
extend the support for the Affordable Care Act, keep cost low,
and stop giving tax breaks to billionaires. And I think
that's been a winning argument with the American public. And
so from a shutdown perspective, I think Johnson knows that
(41:25):
we're not going to cave. Senate Democrats have done a
good job of holding tight. I hope they still do so,
and we've got to get concessions out of Trump and
Mike Johnson. And if Donald Trump wants to end the shutdown,
he could do it tomorrow. He should extend and support
the Affordable Care Act and reopen the government. It's not hard.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
At some point, Mike Johnson will have to bring you
all back. And then there's also this discharge petition, which
like she doesn't want to swear in this congresswoman Griava, right,
and it's been a month now, But just like it
seems that's very stupid to me, Like it feels like
he's making the situation worse for himself because like if
(42:05):
he swears her in, you guys sign the discharge petition,
it goes to the Senate. They kill it in the Senate.
So like there's no world in which this administration is
like going to release the Epstein files. Like that's not happening.
So but in this it feels like so obvious and
he's just obfuscating or am I missing something?
Speaker 3 (42:22):
No, I mean, it's it's bad politics. It's also just
the wrong thing to do. He was elected by over
eight hundred thousand constituents and you denying her, I mean,
she's this is the longest period of time where a
member of Congress hasn't been sat into the body. I mean,
it's completely ridiculous. Yeah, And I think what he's realizing
is that they're not winning the argument, and they truly
didn't win it last night and so on election night,
(42:44):
and so we're gonna get brought back soon. I think
it's going to hopefully be a deal to be made
there at leite, this should be sat already. What Mike
Johnson doesn't want with the EPSTEIN files is he knows
that there's gonna be a huge break in his caucus.
So if this thing goes to a in the House,
and EUS is just the House, there is going to
be a large chunk of Republicans that are going to
(43:05):
vote for this bill.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
And that's like Massy, That's like Marjorie Taylor Green, That's.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
Like yeah, that's and I think a lot of others
that don't want to be on record not supporting the release.
I mean, when you spend you know, after the campaigns,
and you're going to release the EPSOM files as a
member of Congress, and then you have a time to
vote on it and you vote no, it's pretty easy
to be voted against releasing the EPSOM files. Yeah, you're
gonna have a big chunk of them vote to release them.
(43:32):
And I think Mike Johnson doesn't want to see that.
And Trump would be furious again at Johnson and.
Speaker 1 (43:37):
This idea that he's going to be able to press
pressure soon to end the filibuster. I mean that strikes
me as and then he's fighting with Lindsay Graham. I mean,
do you think that's real? And do you think that happens?
Speaker 3 (43:53):
I don't. I mean I think, I mean, THEO has
been pretty vocal about his position. I I just don't
see that moving. I don't know that last night Trump
and jeared himself to many more people after last night.
That's loss. I mean, he certainly tanked a lot of
the chances of Republicans had across the country. Didn't help
in New Jersey at all by some of his late actions. Certainly,
(44:15):
Andrew Cuomo didn't have a great night, thinks part to
Donald Thomp's last last minute endorsement.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Though he did win.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
I think he won Staten Island.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
He went Staten Island, Yeah, exactly, you know, good good
for him, and what a great win for for Zorn
and I think the country and it's going to be
pretty incredible to watch, you know, the next the next
few weeks and months there, I think the whole I
don't think Flood's gonna cabin a filibuster. I think that
within within a week we're going to have some type
of deal on the table, as it should. I mean,
people need their paychecks, people need access to the food.
(44:47):
This has got to end in Republicans. We've got to
get back to work.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
So one of the things, because you are ranking on Oversight,
you are like sort of the only person stopping Trump.
I mean, your crew is sort of the only people
trying to stop Trump from doing a lot of this
stuff like demolishing the East Wang, et cetera, putting up
new signs on the Oval Office, but also more seriously,
like having a crazy militia. What can you legitimately do
(45:15):
to put sand in the gears here?
Speaker 3 (45:17):
I think we're doing a with the powers that we have.
I'm really proud actually of the over Sec Committee. I
told the caucus, you know, during the process of the
election for the for the position, I said, look, we're
gonna goal to like model what being in the fight
looks like, and for all of our committees in the Congress,
all of our committees in the Congress should be in
the fight every fucking day, like just as you throw
(45:40):
as much at the administration as possible. And we've had
some success. I mean, we have taken issues to the courts.
We've supported lawsuits that have actually that have used our
work to make the case, you know, in front of
the courts, which has been great to see. We have
advanced more on the Epstein's files than folks thought possible
(46:00):
by actually getting some of the documents and the notes
and the subpoenas breaking out. I mean, Alex, what's what
the new revelations about alex Acosta. Now he's clearly not
telling the truth, and there's a there's a lot that
is developing there. And then I think our work, for example,
around ICE and DHS, we're we're chronically all the injustice
and the unconstitutional actions and the violations of due process,
(46:22):
which is important to keep records of because we are
I told everyone, we are not going to allow you know,
at this moment, for for just for the people in
this country, particularly young people, to think that what's happening
now is okay. At some point we're going to have
to stand up and say what happened was not okay,
and this is how we are going to address what
(46:43):
what what these people did, and how we're going to
hold these people accountable so that is that is also
going to be really important. Every action that Trump administration takes,
they have to note that we are going to document it,
We're going to call it out, We're going to ask questions,
and we're asking questions of private industry. So you know,
sure Trump doesn't want to work with us on the
(47:04):
honors to the ballroom, but you could you best believe
when we're sending letters to all those companies, they know
that Donald Trump's not going to be the president forever.
I'm very aware that we likely will win the majority back.
And we win the majority back, they better respond to
the subpoenas that we're going to send, and if we're
ask them to contestify, they will be coming to answer
(47:25):
our questions. And so I think that the American you know,
particularly the business community that is working in some cases
to appease Trump, including some in the media, I think
have to be unnoticed. So true.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Robert Garcia, thank you, thank you, thank you the moment.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
Jesse Gannon, One of the things I think about is that,
you know, when Trump was coming into office, a lot
of our hypothesis this time last year were that, like
RFK was going to run this crazy, crazy place that
was run on ideological grounds of his kooky ideology, and
Trump was going to grift to bribe and make himself rich.
(48:08):
But now what we see is we read that TeV Frog.
The FDA under our FK is just doing the same
crodi capitalism shit that the Trump administration's doing.
Speaker 1 (48:16):
RFK Junior not all that different than Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
Two grifts of a different feather, right.
Speaker 1 (48:23):
Both men are two tan, both men are a little
bit charismatic, and both men completely utterly and totally are
crimy criminals who do crime. I don't know. Look, it's
a clown show. If we have a pandemic, we are
all fucked, I mean, and just completely disastrous. Here are
(48:48):
the details. FDA regulator accused of using physician to extract
revenge on an old business associate. This sounds just like
Trump World. An extortion attempt, a petty years long grudge
sounds like Ronald Trump. Shocking social media posts and ominous
text messages make up the latest scandal at the Food
and Drug Administration. So it turns out what they meant
(49:11):
by make America healthy again was just let people do
crazy shit to each other under the guise of the
United States government. The latest scandal is an agency that
industry outsiders are calling a quote clown show and a
soap opera. Imagine how bad it has to be to
be considered more clowny than the DoD Or had. Let's
(49:33):
see the abrupt dismantling of the whole program in divisions.
Teams that provide critical health services to Americans are being
just wiped away. Senecon Firmed directors didn't make it a
full month before dramatically ousted after allegedly refused to rubber
vaccine recommendations. We saw her testify that was pretty harrowing.
(49:57):
So the CDC is in shambles. FDA has turned into
something of a side show, with concern mounting that we
are all going to die. I just added that, but
it's really true. Basically, a lot of people in rfks
orbit are like sleazy, multi level marketing kind of people, right,
that's like.
Speaker 2 (50:17):
The charitable read of some of them.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
Yeah, you know, they're health influencers, they're you know, they're
not doctors. None of us is above board. Let's just say,
but some of the people who made it into this
group are like COVID truthers, people who got where they
are because they were anti lockdown, anti vaccine, that kind
(50:39):
of thing. So one of them is this top vaccine regulator.
He is a chief medical officer, and he made a
name for himself on social media during the pandemic as
a COVID nineteen response skeptic. Since joining the FDA, he's
been known for overwheeling agency scientists and sowing distrust, unrest,
and paranoia among staff. He was pushed out of the
(51:02):
agency in July, only to be reinstated two weeks later.
This is just a whole cavalcade of fuckery. That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make
(51:22):
sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.