December 28, 2024 • 34 mins
Bolts Magazine Daniel Nichanian details how the states are going to affect policy in 2025. Mother Jones Anna Merlan examines how RFK and his conspiracy-minded world are making a new conspiracy theory about a "pandemic."
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. Well,
we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's
best minds.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We're on vacation, but that doesn't mean we don't have
a great show for you Today. Bolts Magazines Daniel Nacatia
details how states are going to affect policy in twenty
twenty five. But first we'll talk to mother Jones Eda
Merlin about how rfk's conspiracy minded world is making new
conspiracy theories about a pandemic.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Welcome back to past polity, Axanna, thanks for having me.
What's happening right now is so completely insane, So I
want you to first talk to us about this paranoia
about a post inauguration plandemic.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
So, essentially what happened with this is that a scientist
and vaccine expert named doctor Peter Hotez went on MSNBC
and said that there are these kind of obvious disease
outbreak threats the next Trump administration is going to.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
Have to deal with.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Right specifically, he said, we have some big picture stuff
coming down the pipe, meaning you know, ab and flu news,
streams of COVID, other potential outbreaks and sort of conspiracy
theorists mostly on the rate took that to me and
that he was threatening to unleash disease outbreaks during the
next Trump administration, because he also said all that stuff
is going to come crashing down on January twenty first
(01:22):
on the Trump administration. We need a really good team
to be able to handle this. So that was taken
as not just he's warning about disease outbreaks. That was
taken as he says they're going to He's going to
cause them, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right, It is so completely beyond crazy this idea. So
what is the thinking here and who are the people
who are narrating this?
Speaker 6 (01:44):
Right?
Speaker 4 (01:44):
So, I think the first important thing to kind of
know here is that doctor Hotez is a really frequent
sort of target of the anti vaccine movement and the
right and the far right, you know, just to kind
of set the scene, he's, like I believe he's he
wears a bow tie. He's a recognized vaccine expert and
has been for years and was a real proponent during
(02:05):
COVID four people to get vaccinated. And then all of
that has put him on the radar of people like
Steve Bannon and Carlson and Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers,
all of them have denounced him in pretty like personal
terms over the years. So almost anytime he says anything,
he faces some degree of sort of outrage, harassment, pushback,
what have you. But talking specifically about these new threats
(02:28):
that the next Trump administration is going to face also
ran into this other thing, which is that the broader
kind of conspiracy community has been warning that, you know,
the deep spit, deep state or other dark forces are
going to try to interfere with Trump's presidency, you know,
and somehow set him up for failure, which it's worth
noting they also said this last time before he took office,
(02:49):
Like Alex Jones said before Trump took office the first time,
you know, they're not going to let him take office,
And so there's a lot of that now. This just
sort of created a kind of perfect storm situation where
the folks are trying to tell their audiences that Trump
is already under threat, right and running up against something
that is real and true, which is there are probably
(03:09):
going to be some pretty serious disease outbreaks in the
next couple of years. In California, today declared a state
of emergency over the Avian flu outbreak, we're seeing new
cases in human beings, which is pretty scary.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
You know.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
We've seen a couple of disease outbreaks in Africa, specifically
in Congo. There's a really devastating measles outbreak and also
an outbreak of novel disease that they're not sure what
it is yet, right, and then COVID is always a threat.
We're seeing COVID cases starting to tick back up. So
by warning that there's going to be a quote unquote plandemic,
like by implying that doctor Hotez or some other people
(03:43):
are going to cause the next pandemic, it acknowledges that
it's going to happen, and then it's real. But it
puts the blame onto a more politically useful group of actors.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, because it's much better if they can get mad
at the left than the right, is what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
Well, and if it's a conspiracy, right, if it's not
just like the outbreak of infectious disease has been happening
for years, it's better if it has a person behind
it to blame, preferably somebody who can be depicted as
sort of like an opponent of Donald Trump. So you know,
I'm seeing like Mickey willis sharing these ideas. Who's the
filmmaker who produced pandemic right of course, you know, which
(04:24):
implied that COVID nineteen was sort of deliberately created and
unleashed several pretty well known kind of anti vac seating
figures conspiratorial news sites like info wars and natural News.
So this one got a pretty wide amount of pickup
because it was useful for so many different people.
Speaker 5 (04:42):
Yeah, I would love you to talk about it.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
How a lot of these conspiracies are actually used by
people on the right to push a narrative.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
Can you talk a little more about them.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
The common thread with a lot of these is that
they create someone to blame, right, They create a sense
of a group of evil doers, like working in secret
against the common good, you know, kind of classic conspiracy stuff.
And so folding in new disease outbreaks into that is useful,
It's helpful. It creates a common energy, someone to blame,
(05:14):
someone to get mad at. And as we saw with
for instance, QAnon, you know, the basis of the qnon
conspiracy theory was that Donald Trump was doing a really
good job, but that a group of evil doers were
working against him and we're undermining him. So this idea
of a deep state or a sinister group of scientists
or some other kind of group of villains thwarting what
(05:36):
Donald Trump is trying to do is a useful idea if,
for instance, Donald Trump is having trouble getting things done.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
So it's sort of way to give him an out
if he can't do some of the things he might
want to do.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Yeah, just sort of like preemptively create a set of
let's say too, yeah, a set of villains, a set
of factors that could be used to create an out
or you know, an alternate explanation for anything that does
not happen during the next Rump administration. Because he's making
really big promises, and so are people who are going
(06:10):
to be in administration.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Broad expensive, hard to maneuver promises totally.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
You know, I mean, when you say that you're going
to solve all of these issues on day one, whether
it is the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza.
You know, if you're Robert F. Kennedy Junior and you're
claiming that you're going to end ill.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Health, whatever that means, it's pretty vague.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, but yeah, I mean, these are incredibly broad claims,
and if you can't get them done, then it would
be great to be able to blame someone in advance.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So let's just for another minute talk about why I'm
wondering if you could explain to us sort of one
of the things that I've.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
Been destruck by when we talk about our Cage Junior.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Part of K Junior actually brought a group into MAGA world.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
They are really the other side of the horseshoe in
a lot of ways. I'm hoping you could talk.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
About sort of who RFK Junior's people are and why
they exist.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Right.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
First of all, I should plug Conspiratuality, the podcasts that
talks about the kind of incursion of right and far
right beliefs into the New Age health and wellness world
if you're curious about this, because they've done really great
work over the years talking about the ways that these
different characters kind of appear and join forces. But you know,
the first thing that Kennedy was in his adult life
(07:27):
was an environmental lawyer, and the second thing was an
anti vaccine activist. He's claimed that he got involved in
the vaccine issue in like two thousand and five because
you know, concerned mother came to him. But he has
created a really outsized public image in the anti vaccine
world as a crusader for their health right and has
(07:48):
like a real intense fandom in the anti vaccine world,
especially among mothers who believe that their children were harmed
by vaccines. And because he's built this incredibly like adoring
fan base, a lot of them were just automatically like
willing to follow him when he began this kind of
(08:09):
presidential run in this political career, willing to advocate for
his campaign. And then when his campaign started to founder
and he decided to suspend it and endorse Donald Trump,
he made what was a pretty canny sort of marketing
decision and started promoting this idea of the make America
Healthy Again movement in Maha, and Maha was meant to
(08:29):
be a way to kind of unite the concerns of
Trump voters and sort of Kennedy fans under one umbrella.
And it's not always like the most comfortable relationship, you know,
Like Kennedy is obviously a pretty big proponent of what
he considers to be healthy foods. There was that viral
(08:49):
image of him sitting uncomfortably at a table with Donald
Trump and some other people, you know, with McDonald's in
front of him, looking uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
It.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
You know, it's not always like the most natural kind
of marriage between these two sides, but they do share
some things in common, chiefly the sense that the government
regulates too much, especially around food safety.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Right, which is ironic because part of the problem here
when you think about like microplastics, the kind of thing
wouldn't that be a lack of government regulation.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Yeah, I mean, so this is interesting because both the
Maha people and the more died in the wole Trump
people do share this sense of government overreach and this
idea that, yeah, that the government is doing too much
and regulates too much around food and around medication. But yeah,
when we talk about a lot of the goals that
Kennedy wants to achieve, they are more about better and
(09:47):
further regulation of food safety. I mean, he also sort
of falsely claims that vaccines are unsafe, that they are
not tested, that they are not regulated in a way
that other drugs are, none of which is true. But again,
like to me, that sounds like he's making an argument
for more government oversight, not less right, but you know,
as the nominee for the head of AHHS, you know,
(10:10):
it seems like a lot of what he's talking about
is cutting funding and regulation and sort of like taking
away funding, especially from agencies that he considers to be corrupt,
like the NIH and the CDC.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
So that's where raw milk comes into it. Can you
talk about raw milk?
Speaker 4 (10:29):
Yeah, specifically raw milk. Where it relates to Kennedy is
he did this kind of viral tweet a while ago
where he was talking about all of the things that
he wants to reduce oversight of or you know, enforcement
actions against when he's the head of the AHHS. In October,
he had this kind of viral tweet where he said,
(10:49):
you know, the Fday's war on public health is about
to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides,
stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, kulating compound, impromectin, hydroxy clark,
when vitamins, clean food, sunshine, exercise, nutriceuticals, and anything else
that advances human health and can't be patented by pharma. Right,
(11:10):
and he's been super critical.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
Of the war on sunshine.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Yeah, of course, right, But yeah, he's been super critical
of the FDA, and the USDA is sort of enforcement
actions against raw milk distributors when they are either taking
stuff across state lines or when you know, testing reveals
the presence of a flu, as it has recently. So yeah,
he's made it pretty clear that he considers raw milk
(11:34):
to be a health food that is inappropriately suppressed by
the federal government.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So interesting. Yeah, the war on sunlight is a real one.
So it's funny because this is so stupid. But then
also there's a certain like can you make the raw
milk and the ball of Arena farm stuff makes sense
for us. I think you have to explain Ballerina Farm
for the few, the few lucky people who don't know what.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
This is, right, So, Vallerina Farm is a woman in
whose real name is Hannah Neilman. Basically, she's a social
media influencer. She's often referred to as a tradwife, though
I think she denies that, like she doesn't identify with
that designation. She is a woman who with her husband,
owns a farm in Utah and sells meat and sells
(12:26):
sourdos starter and kind of cultivates a what to me
seems like a tradwive aesthetic on social media, where she
has like a million, Oh, I'm sorry, she has ten
million Instagram followers and nine million on TikTok.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
I actually don't know what.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Her stance is specifically on raw Milk, but I would
say that the tradwives, like some of the Raw Milk influencers,
sort of present themselves as advocating for an older, healthier,
more sort of a nostalgic view of health and wellness
that harkens back to an earlier and better and more
innocent time basically.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
For the modern life.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I mean, the idea is that somehow modernity has ruined
American life.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Yeah, and we see that right in all kinds of
different areas, whether it is masculinity influencers talking about feminism
as the corrosive force, whether it's tribal wives also talking
about feminism as a corrosive force, whether it is mister
Kennedy saying that, you know, US health and safety agencies
are sort of inappropriately regulating things that we're seen as
(13:28):
healthy in previous eras, though of course that's not true
for things like hyperberic occiden chambers or chelating compounds. We've
been pasteurizing milk for a really long time because we
learned that it makes it much more difficult to get
things like tuberculosis listeriosis.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Like, yeah, yes, we have really ended up through the
rabbit hole here.
Speaker 5 (13:48):
I'd love you to talk just for two seconds about
the polio vaccine.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
So basically, there's a story in The New York Times
this week about how an attorney named Arion Siri, who's
a big player in the anti vaccine movement and who's
kind of linked to mister Kennedy and some other big
anti vaccine players like Dell big Tree, he filed a
petition for the government to revoke its approval of one
of the polio vaccines that is currently used in the
(14:13):
United States. He's also filed petitions seeking to pause the
distribution of other vaccines, including COVID vaccines. So this is
the long shot. Currently, this is not something that the
federal government would do, especially not for the specific polio
vaccine that was used in the United States. So it
is just widely considered to be extremely safe, very effective.
(14:34):
It is incredibly rare for children or adults in the
US to get polio anymore, which it didn't used to be. Basically,
Aaron Siri represents a group called I CAN, which is
owned by Dell Big Trees and anti vaccine Actiputs who
worked for Robert F. Kennedy Junior's campaign, and these petitions
to revoke authorization of these certain vaccines are being put
out by I CAN. So basically, right now, the idea
(14:58):
that the FDA would read petitions and be like, yeah,
we should do that is incredibly far fetched. With Robert F.
Kennedy Junior over AHHS, which is over the FDA, maybe
that would change. So it's more kind of about at
this point signaling what the priorities are for allies of
mister Kennedy if he is confirmed and sworn in as
(15:20):
head of AHHS.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
This is such completely insane I should laugh. I laugh
to keep from crying. Thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Yeah, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Daniel Lakatian is the editor of Bolt's bagazine.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Daniel, talk us through state legislatures,
what's going on?
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Talk us through elections? You're my election guy, among others.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Well, thanks for having me again.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's yeah, a lot has changed since since I last
talked to you.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Quich probably was before the election.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
We had bolts where I work reading low closely at
the state level, at the county level, which you know,
it doesn't get as much attention as obviously the federal elections.
Very understandable reasons, but when it comes to you know,
when it comes to a lot of things that people
really care about, including emotion rights, including civil rights, really
thinks that are going to be at the center of
the next two to four years. States are everything, especially
(16:20):
if you're a progressive, trying to find places where there
could be pushback, you know, cases where whether legal or political,
that's really word to look. And so a lot of
what we've done is look at state houses, state senates
and also state Supreme Court. So to just start with
state senates and state houses. You know what I did
in the in the past few weeks is quite is
(16:41):
just go state by state. Look in every state, how
did the composition of state chambers change, And that's really
going to determine what yours have opened and closed in
the next year.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
I want to pause for a minute and just for
our listeners explain. You know, we're all feeling pretty moralized
and these state legislatures are a way to take power back.
They're not expensive. They are happening, you know, on off cycles.
So and these off yr elections are ones where low
(17:17):
turnout rules and a little money can make a big difference.
So anyways, start talking to me about these state legislators.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
No.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
So the first sort of big number that I thought
was interesting is I quite literally look at the swing
of state seats if you take into account all the
races across the country, which obviously is a bit of
a silly exercise because there isn't ever an institution where
every state lawmaker from Alaska to Florida gets in the room, right,
But there were rough six thousand elections happening for state
(17:49):
lawmaker around the country, and out of this six thousand,
the GOP gained fifty seven seats. That's a small number,
I mean, obviously, you know, it suggests that the UOPE
had the better nights, and if you look at the detail,
which we could do in a second, they had some
big wins, but if you look at the overall composition,
it was quite small given the extent of the shift.
(18:11):
Obviously in the presidential election. So this is another instance
like in the US House, where the coattails of Trump
were were much smaller than one might expect, and Democrats
clearly got a lot of bright spots as well. Republicans
gained seats in twenty states and Democrats gained seats in
eleven states. Again, the GOP had the better night, but
(18:31):
we do see in a bunch of states where Democrats
are the ones who gained seats and are in a
better spot going into twenty twenty five.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
So let's talk about those states.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Yeah, yeah, So let's talk of the two most interesting
spots because in Wisconsin and Montana. Wisconsin and Montana had
new maps this year for the first time, and they
were more equitable maps than the ones that they were
using in twenty twenty twenty. In Wisconsin is probably the
one that a lot of people who are who might
(19:01):
listen to this have heard about, because there was a
huge court fight in Wisconsin around the gerrymanders that Republican
tasked in the early twenty tens and early twenty twenties
to re locked in their majorities in the state House
and the state Senate. And it took I mean, it
was a very expensive election for the state Supreme Court
in twenty twenty three got a lot of attention in
(19:23):
April twenty three, which is just a year and a
half to go, and the candidates supported by Democrats there
won and flipped the Court to the left for the
first time in a long time. And then the Court
shruck down the GOP gerrymanders that was a year ago,
and the new map was created and lo and behold
that that the map created a lot of change, as
(19:44):
you would expect, because we went from a very aggressive
up jeromander to a fair map. And over in the state,
Democrats gained fourteen seats in Wisconsin, so that's the biggest
gain they made anywhere in the country. Republicans kept their
majority in both chambers, but they're small majorities compared to
the quasi supermajorities they had, and it sets Democrats up
(20:08):
very well for twenty twenty six for trying to flip
control of Wisconsin for the first time in a long time.
And there's a somewhat similar story in Montana, which is
quite interesting because the defeat of John Tester in the
race for the US Senate was a huge story. Obviously,
on election night at the state level, Democrats gained twelve
seats across both chambers and up's supermajorities, which is actually
(20:33):
quite important because the GOP was hoping to use its
supermajorities to put constitutional amendments on the ballots on party
line votes.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Basically, they somehow flipped the Senate seed but lost the
majority in the House.
Speaker 6 (20:48):
No, they did not lose the majority. Germany ten seats
in the state House, and that seems like a lot
that it's a big change.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Again, it's it has to do with the districting fighter
that was describing earlier, but the one that didn't come randomly.
There was a whole fight and another point of contact Smalledgy.
To just show you the depth of how everything is related.
There were elections for the state court in the state
of Montana, and Montana might be a very unusual state
in for a red state, in that it has a
state court, the state High Court the Supreme Court that
(21:20):
leans to the left and has repeatedly struck down GOP
bills in the last few years, including a restriction on abortion,
including restrictions on voting access, and conservatives were hoping to
really change that left lean of the.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Court and that didn't succeed.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Actually, there was a key race there that the Democratic
affiliated candidate won, So there is still going to be
this bucket of resistance in the state government, which is
going to be the state Court, and therefore that's why
the GOPS lost to the super majority there is important
because they're not going to be able to go around
the court and just put stuff on the ballot at well.
(21:57):
So that's going to be very interesting situation in coming years.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yeah, that is very interesting, all right, So talk to
me about other state launche stuff. So the bright spots
Montana and what else.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Wisconsin one of the two biggest ones. So there are
others where Democrats gained seats, but the GOP also had
just to be clear of very bright spots. The two
main stories to just highlight are that the GOP erased
the majorities that Democrats had for the past couple of
years in the House in Michigan and the Minnesota House.
(22:32):
And in both cases, Democrats had just won control the
full government in twenty twenty two, which you might remember
as a huge story because no one expected Democrats to
to gain power during the mid term, and the GOP
gained just enough seats in both states to erase Democratic
majorities in the House. That doesn't mean that the Republicans
have control the state government because Democrats have in both
(22:52):
states the governorship and the state Senate. But it does stop, obviously,
the ability of Democrats to pass laws at will with
their own votes. In Michigan and Minnesota, those are states
that they used to do. They did a lot of
stuff in the last couple of years, a lot of
which made headlines. Just as an example, you know the
free lunches and schools that Governor Waltz signed. Governor Walts
(23:15):
also signed a voting rights Act at the state level.
So all of those sort of policies were done because
of the trafficta Democrats had. So those are the main
spot and then the other one I will name is
that in New England Republicans did. They gained in three states,
especially the state of Vermont, the state of Vermont, where
Republicans gained twenty five seats in the state House and
(23:37):
state Senate in Vermont and broke the supermajorities Democrats had.
The governor there is a Republican so that's going to
really tie the hands of Democrats to be able to
override the veto's.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
The republican governor there.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Let's talk about what the calendar looks like, now, what's
coming up?
Speaker 6 (23:53):
First?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I have this theory that I want you to either
tell me is wrong or right.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
Okay, So I have this theory that the way.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
This election went wasn't actually Republican Democrat brand, that it
was Trump then Democrats than Republicans. And so one of
the phenomenons I saw when I looked at some of
these numbers from swing states was that you had states
where Trump got over fifty percent of the vote, then
they must have left the ticket blank. And I'm wondering
(24:23):
if you can talk about that phenomenon as it like,
did you see when you look through the data, did
you see voters who were just Trump and no one
else voters?
Speaker 3 (24:33):
That's a great question. I don't have numbers to share
on the undervote that you're asking about, but I think
there's evidence to suggest so, I mean, I think your
question gets to the very first thing I said, right,
which is that here I was just talking about Michigan
and Wisconsin, the states that saw a big swing one
way or the other, but in most of the country.
(24:55):
It's what the most startling thing as I literally went
state by state and not just state by state by
chamber by chamber. The most startling thing to me, that
the clear story that jumped out is that in so
many chambers the status quo was almost entirely intact, that
there was either no change at all or the most
(25:15):
minimal change. And I mean, I think the most striking
example is Pennsylvania, which maybe gets to what you're saying.
So let's just recap what happened in Pennsylvania. Obviously, Trump
won the state, flipping it on the presidential level. It
also flipped at the congressional level because Republicans ousted the
(25:35):
Democratic senator there, and they also gained seats in the
US House. Now let's go down one level, and this
is honestly one of the most I don't have a
particularly great explanation, but it's so startling. Not a single
seat changed hands in the state House. Out of two
hundred and three seats. Pennsylvania Democrats had a majority harder
than two to one hundred and one going into the election,
(25:56):
and they're going to have a majority harder than two
ton and one exiting the election. That is quite striking
given the given the shifts at the federal level that
did not translate when people were voting, and for their
state House, and we see this over and over again.
The number I came up with was that the twenty
eight chambers saw zero change after holding elections this year,
(26:19):
and a lot of others only saw a single seat shift.
That is a lot of stability underlying what you know.
Has often been covered as like a great night for
the GOP, a landslide for Trump, but etcetera, which the
numbers don't really support. Obviously the GOP had the better night,
there's no question. What I will say is Republicans have
a lot of reasons to be happy right out of
(26:40):
November fifth. So they're not going to ask each other
a lot of questions, which is understandable because.
Speaker 6 (26:44):
They overall won.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
But if you look at what they should ask themselves
how they weren't able to flip the state House in
Pennsylvania despite the state shifting to Trump. They should ask themselves,
right how Perry Lake lost by so much worse than
Trump in there on a Senate race. For a third
consecutive cycles, the GOP lost the Senate seat in Arizona,
and this time was an open race, with Trump winning
(27:07):
the state by six points, and yet they lost the
Senate race. There's a lot of questions for the GOP
to ask itself, and it's not going to ask itself
that because.
Speaker 6 (27:14):
Take one the big one.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
But there's a lot of different storylines if you dig right.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And it is striking to me with Pennsylvania because you
must have had some people vote for Trump and then
Democrats on the bottom of the ticket.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right, well, yes, no, of course, the question of whether
it was people splitting tickets or under voting is not
something I can speak to. But there definitely was ticket
splitting there, and there was a lot of obviously ticket
splitting in other states. I mean, just to name one
other state not overwhelm listeners, but North Carolina is a
(27:51):
great example where Democrats won the governor's race in the
midst of a giant scandal that engulfed the Republican But
they also want other state races. They won the AG
race by a surprising margin. They want other state level races.
They won by a very small margin a race for
the state Court, and they broke the GOP super majority
(28:15):
in the state House, which is going to prevent the
Republicans in twenty twenty five of overriding the vetos of
the incoming governor, and as you may have seen, the
Republican is not taking that very well. They're quite there
this week trying to ram through a bill that would
effectively gut some of the essential roles of the current
governor and transferred to Republican authority because they only have
(28:39):
a few weeks left of being able to use their
supermajorities and they're trying to make the most of it.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, exactly, very strange and interesting. So tell us where
we should keep our eyes peeled now, talk to us
about the future.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Yeah, there's always a lot. It's a lot happening.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
The very first thing to know, if people want to
know about sort of elections going forward, is that they're
a special elections happening in January and early twenty twenty
five in Michigan and Virginia for important seats in the state.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
And the governorship.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Governorship is going to be in in November, but there
are races in January, like literally around the corner that
will decide whether Democrats keep control of the state tenets
in Virginia and Michigan, and those those are very important.
And then yes, obviously the big one in twenty twenty
five is the governor's race in the state of Virginia.
That is going to be an open race because the
governor is not allowed to run for reelection. Democrats will
(29:32):
want to take that governorship back, which would give potentially
give them control they state government there that they lost
a few years ago. That's really a big one to
watch in Virginia. And the other the second big sort
of state wide race in twenty twenty five is the
Supreme Court race in Wisconsin. So that's actually happening in April,
and I already talked a bunch about why that court
(29:54):
has been so important in the past. A liberal justice
is not running for reelection in April, and conservutives have
a shot at flipping the court back to the right
in Wisconsin. Expect that to be extremely expensive race. It's
sort of going to be on its own on the calendar.
There's nothing around it happening. The stakes are very high
(30:14):
on abortion rights in Wisconsin, on redistricting in Wisconsin. That's
really where the next big campaign is likely to be.
And also, you know, at this point, the US House
is so tight, we're all that any special election, any retirement,
any vacancy would just be a huge deal, right because
(30:36):
if what once it flips, that actually has huge consequences.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
What it has right now, it's good or at least
it's going to be two seventeen to two fifteen. Right.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
So the results of November fifth were two twenty two,
two fifteen, and Trump named three people from the Republican
caucus and then Gates was one of them, and then
he resigned.
Speaker 6 (30:54):
But is not going to be in the House. It's
not going to be aged anyway.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Yes, So that gets us as two seventeen to fifty
for now until the special elections.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Just as a reminder to listeners, you can't tie in
the House of Representatives.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
You tie, you lose.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
So it means that effectively Mike Johnson has a one
seat majority.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
And at that point it's not just who has won
or who is in Congress, it's who is sick that
they who has a wedding to attend in Michigan, who
has you know, we we already saw that in the
last few years, where an absence could have huge consequences
in what's happening. And that's going to be a lot
more intense in coming months.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
And actually, if you want to get furious, I was
talking to a member who was saying to me, you know,
Democrats have a couple of people who haven't been to
Congress in a while, of coorse, who are actually like
legitimately sick and who can't get there.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
But who probably should not be in office anymore.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Now that said, Republicans also have that, But that is
quite infuriating.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Yes, I wish I had pulled the median age of
people in Congress.
Speaker 6 (32:00):
By what you're saying doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Yeah, you know, look there's a Nancy Pelosi eighty tray
and then there's you know, some of those people are
not so old, but they are sick and they need
to leave if they're if they're too sick to get
to work, you know.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
To also maybe to give a parallel point as to
how tight the margin is, because we were taught talking
earlier about re district thing, right, and we redistricting in
the state of Wisconsin in particular. So let's just talk
about redistricting in North Carolina for a moment, because the
exact inverse of what happened in Wisconsin happened in North
Carolina in twenty twenty two. Republicans flipped that state Supreme
(32:37):
Court and they struck down a prior ruling that had
stopped the GOP from passing their own maps. And so
what happened is that the GOP in North Carolina passed
new maps for twenty twenty four and that flipped three seats,
three seats and the margin in the House out of
(32:57):
the number fifth. If three seats hadn't flipped, the Democrats
would have been the majority party. So it's just so
interesting to trace back the current Republican majority not just
to the new map in North Carolina, but also as
a result to the state court elections that happen in
twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6 (33:15):
Now, we don't think.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
About the state court races as that relevant maybe to
federal politics or to the national politics, but here's a
case where literally the state level races for this for
state judges are directly responsible for a new map that
is directly responsible for who has the majority right now
(33:37):
in US House. So you know, that really explains maybe
to people why the coming election in Wisconsin is going
to be so expensive and why in twenty twenty six,
you know, you should repay attention to what's happening.
Speaker 6 (33:47):
At the state level in these elections.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
So interesting.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Thank you for coming on Daniel, I hope.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
You'll come back, of course, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
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 sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics. Well,
we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's
best minds.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We're on vacation, but that doesn't mean we don't have
a great show for you Today. Bolts Magazines Daniel Nacatia
details how states are going to affect policy in twenty
twenty five. But first we'll talk to mother Jones Eda
Merlin about how rfk's conspiracy minded world is making new
conspiracy theories about a pandemic.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Welcome back to past polity, Axanna, thanks for having me.
What's happening right now is so completely insane, So I
want you to first talk to us about this paranoia
about a post inauguration plandemic.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
So, essentially what happened with this is that a scientist
and vaccine expert named doctor Peter Hotez went on MSNBC
and said that there are these kind of obvious disease
outbreak threats the next Trump administration is going to.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
Have to deal with.
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Right specifically, he said, we have some big picture stuff
coming down the pipe, meaning you know, ab and flu news,
streams of COVID, other potential outbreaks and sort of conspiracy
theorists mostly on the rate took that to me and
that he was threatening to unleash disease outbreaks during the
next Trump administration, because he also said all that stuff
is going to come crashing down on January twenty first
(01:22):
on the Trump administration. We need a really good team
to be able to handle this. So that was taken
as not just he's warning about disease outbreaks. That was
taken as he says they're going to He's going to
cause them, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right, It is so completely beyond crazy this idea. So
what is the thinking here and who are the people
who are narrating this?
Speaker 6 (01:44):
Right?
Speaker 4 (01:44):
So, I think the first important thing to kind of
know here is that doctor Hotez is a really frequent
sort of target of the anti vaccine movement and the
right and the far right, you know, just to kind
of set the scene, he's, like I believe he's he
wears a bow tie. He's a recognized vaccine expert and
has been for years and was a real proponent during
(02:05):
COVID four people to get vaccinated. And then all of
that has put him on the radar of people like
Steve Bannon and Carlson and Joe Rogan and Aaron Rodgers,
all of them have denounced him in pretty like personal
terms over the years. So almost anytime he says anything,
he faces some degree of sort of outrage, harassment, pushback,
what have you. But talking specifically about these new threats
(02:28):
that the next Trump administration is going to face also
ran into this other thing, which is that the broader
kind of conspiracy community has been warning that, you know,
the deep spit, deep state or other dark forces are
going to try to interfere with Trump's presidency, you know,
and somehow set him up for failure, which it's worth
noting they also said this last time before he took office,
(02:49):
Like Alex Jones said before Trump took office the first time,
you know, they're not going to let him take office,
And so there's a lot of that now. This just
sort of created a kind of perfect storm situation where
the folks are trying to tell their audiences that Trump
is already under threat, right and running up against something
that is real and true, which is there are probably
(03:09):
going to be some pretty serious disease outbreaks in the
next couple of years. In California, today declared a state
of emergency over the Avian flu outbreak, we're seeing new
cases in human beings, which is pretty scary.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
You know.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
We've seen a couple of disease outbreaks in Africa, specifically
in Congo. There's a really devastating measles outbreak and also
an outbreak of novel disease that they're not sure what
it is yet, right, and then COVID is always a threat.
We're seeing COVID cases starting to tick back up. So
by warning that there's going to be a quote unquote plandemic,
like by implying that doctor Hotez or some other people
(03:43):
are going to cause the next pandemic, it acknowledges that
it's going to happen, and then it's real. But it
puts the blame onto a more politically useful group of actors.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, because it's much better if they can get mad
at the left than the right, is what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
Well, and if it's a conspiracy, right, if it's not
just like the outbreak of infectious disease has been happening
for years, it's better if it has a person behind
it to blame, preferably somebody who can be depicted as
sort of like an opponent of Donald Trump. So you know,
I'm seeing like Mickey willis sharing these ideas. Who's the
filmmaker who produced pandemic right of course, you know, which
(04:24):
implied that COVID nineteen was sort of deliberately created and
unleashed several pretty well known kind of anti vac seating
figures conspiratorial news sites like info wars and natural News.
So this one got a pretty wide amount of pickup
because it was useful for so many different people.
Speaker 5 (04:42):
Yeah, I would love you to talk about it.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
How a lot of these conspiracies are actually used by
people on the right to push a narrative.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
Can you talk a little more about them.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
The common thread with a lot of these is that
they create someone to blame, right, They create a sense
of a group of evil doers, like working in secret
against the common good, you know, kind of classic conspiracy stuff.
And so folding in new disease outbreaks into that is useful,
It's helpful. It creates a common energy, someone to blame,
(05:14):
someone to get mad at. And as we saw with
for instance, QAnon, you know, the basis of the qnon
conspiracy theory was that Donald Trump was doing a really
good job, but that a group of evil doers were
working against him and we're undermining him. So this idea
of a deep state or a sinister group of scientists
or some other kind of group of villains thwarting what
(05:36):
Donald Trump is trying to do is a useful idea if,
for instance, Donald Trump is having trouble getting things done.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
So it's sort of way to give him an out
if he can't do some of the things he might
want to do.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Yeah, just sort of like preemptively create a set of
let's say too, yeah, a set of villains, a set
of factors that could be used to create an out
or you know, an alternate explanation for anything that does
not happen during the next Rump administration. Because he's making
really big promises, and so are people who are going
(06:10):
to be in administration.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Broad expensive, hard to maneuver promises totally.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
You know, I mean, when you say that you're going
to solve all of these issues on day one, whether
it is the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza.
You know, if you're Robert F. Kennedy Junior and you're
claiming that you're going to end ill.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Health, whatever that means, it's pretty vague.
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, but yeah, I mean, these are incredibly broad claims,
and if you can't get them done, then it would
be great to be able to blame someone in advance.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So let's just for another minute talk about why I'm
wondering if you could explain to us sort of one
of the things that I've.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
Been destruck by when we talk about our Cage Junior.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Part of K Junior actually brought a group into MAGA world.
Speaker 5 (06:56):
They are really the other side of the horseshoe in
a lot of ways. I'm hoping you could talk.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
About sort of who RFK Junior's people are and why
they exist.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
Right.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
First of all, I should plug Conspiratuality, the podcasts that
talks about the kind of incursion of right and far
right beliefs into the New Age health and wellness world
if you're curious about this, because they've done really great
work over the years talking about the ways that these
different characters kind of appear and join forces. But you know,
the first thing that Kennedy was in his adult life
(07:27):
was an environmental lawyer, and the second thing was an
anti vaccine activist. He's claimed that he got involved in
the vaccine issue in like two thousand and five because
you know, concerned mother came to him. But he has
created a really outsized public image in the anti vaccine
world as a crusader for their health right and has
(07:48):
like a real intense fandom in the anti vaccine world,
especially among mothers who believe that their children were harmed
by vaccines. And because he's built this incredibly like adoring
fan base, a lot of them were just automatically like
willing to follow him when he began this kind of
(08:09):
presidential run in this political career, willing to advocate for
his campaign. And then when his campaign started to founder
and he decided to suspend it and endorse Donald Trump,
he made what was a pretty canny sort of marketing
decision and started promoting this idea of the make America
Healthy Again movement in Maha, and Maha was meant to
(08:29):
be a way to kind of unite the concerns of
Trump voters and sort of Kennedy fans under one umbrella.
And it's not always like the most comfortable relationship, you know,
Like Kennedy is obviously a pretty big proponent of what
he considers to be healthy foods. There was that viral
(08:49):
image of him sitting uncomfortably at a table with Donald
Trump and some other people, you know, with McDonald's in
front of him, looking uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
It.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
You know, it's not always like the most natural kind
of marriage between these two sides, but they do share
some things in common, chiefly the sense that the government
regulates too much, especially around food safety.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Right, which is ironic because part of the problem here
when you think about like microplastics, the kind of thing
wouldn't that be a lack of government regulation.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
Yeah, I mean, so this is interesting because both the
Maha people and the more died in the wole Trump
people do share this sense of government overreach and this
idea that, yeah, that the government is doing too much
and regulates too much around food and around medication. But yeah,
when we talk about a lot of the goals that
Kennedy wants to achieve, they are more about better and
(09:47):
further regulation of food safety. I mean, he also sort
of falsely claims that vaccines are unsafe, that they are
not tested, that they are not regulated in a way
that other drugs are, none of which is true. But again,
like to me, that sounds like he's making an argument
for more government oversight, not less right, but you know,
as the nominee for the head of AHHS, you know,
(10:10):
it seems like a lot of what he's talking about
is cutting funding and regulation and sort of like taking
away funding, especially from agencies that he considers to be corrupt,
like the NIH and the CDC.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
So that's where raw milk comes into it. Can you
talk about raw milk?
Speaker 4 (10:29):
Yeah, specifically raw milk. Where it relates to Kennedy is
he did this kind of viral tweet a while ago
where he was talking about all of the things that
he wants to reduce oversight of or you know, enforcement
actions against when he's the head of the AHHS. In October,
he had this kind of viral tweet where he said,
(10:49):
you know, the Fday's war on public health is about
to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides,
stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, kulating compound, impromectin, hydroxy clark,
when vitamins, clean food, sunshine, exercise, nutriceuticals, and anything else
that advances human health and can't be patented by pharma. Right,
(11:10):
and he's been super critical.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
Of the war on sunshine.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Yeah, of course, right, But yeah, he's been super critical
of the FDA, and the USDA is sort of enforcement
actions against raw milk distributors when they are either taking
stuff across state lines or when you know, testing reveals
the presence of a flu, as it has recently. So yeah,
he's made it pretty clear that he considers raw milk
(11:34):
to be a health food that is inappropriately suppressed by
the federal government.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So interesting. Yeah, the war on sunlight is a real one.
So it's funny because this is so stupid. But then
also there's a certain like can you make the raw
milk and the ball of Arena farm stuff makes sense
for us. I think you have to explain Ballerina Farm
for the few, the few lucky people who don't know what.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
This is, right, So, Vallerina Farm is a woman in
whose real name is Hannah Neilman. Basically, she's a social
media influencer. She's often referred to as a tradwife, though
I think she denies that, like she doesn't identify with
that designation. She is a woman who with her husband,
owns a farm in Utah and sells meat and sells
(12:26):
sourdos starter and kind of cultivates a what to me
seems like a tradwive aesthetic on social media, where she
has like a million, Oh, I'm sorry, she has ten
million Instagram followers and nine million on TikTok.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
I actually don't know what.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Her stance is specifically on raw Milk, but I would
say that the tradwives, like some of the Raw Milk influencers,
sort of present themselves as advocating for an older, healthier,
more sort of a nostalgic view of health and wellness
that harkens back to an earlier and better and more
innocent time basically.
Speaker 5 (13:00):
For the modern life.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
I mean, the idea is that somehow modernity has ruined
American life.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Yeah, and we see that right in all kinds of
different areas, whether it is masculinity influencers talking about feminism
as the corrosive force, whether it's tribal wives also talking
about feminism as a corrosive force, whether it is mister
Kennedy saying that, you know, US health and safety agencies
are sort of inappropriately regulating things that we're seen as
(13:28):
healthy in previous eras, though of course that's not true
for things like hyperberic occiden chambers or chelating compounds. We've
been pasteurizing milk for a really long time because we
learned that it makes it much more difficult to get
things like tuberculosis listeriosis.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Like, yeah, yes, we have really ended up through the
rabbit hole here.
Speaker 5 (13:48):
I'd love you to talk just for two seconds about
the polio vaccine.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
So basically, there's a story in The New York Times
this week about how an attorney named Arion Siri, who's
a big player in the anti vaccine movement and who's
kind of linked to mister Kennedy and some other big
anti vaccine players like Dell big Tree, he filed a
petition for the government to revoke its approval of one
of the polio vaccines that is currently used in the
(14:13):
United States. He's also filed petitions seeking to pause the
distribution of other vaccines, including COVID vaccines. So this is
the long shot. Currently, this is not something that the
federal government would do, especially not for the specific polio
vaccine that was used in the United States. So it
is just widely considered to be extremely safe, very effective.
(14:34):
It is incredibly rare for children or adults in the
US to get polio anymore, which it didn't used to be. Basically,
Aaron Siri represents a group called I CAN, which is
owned by Dell Big Trees and anti vaccine Actiputs who
worked for Robert F. Kennedy Junior's campaign, and these petitions
to revoke authorization of these certain vaccines are being put
out by I CAN. So basically, right now, the idea
(14:58):
that the FDA would read petitions and be like, yeah,
we should do that is incredibly far fetched. With Robert F.
Kennedy Junior over AHHS, which is over the FDA, maybe
that would change. So it's more kind of about at
this point signaling what the priorities are for allies of
mister Kennedy if he is confirmed and sworn in as
(15:20):
head of AHHS.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
This is such completely insane I should laugh. I laugh
to keep from crying. Thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you for coming on.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
Yeah, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Daniel Lakatian is the editor of Bolt's bagazine.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Welcome back to Fast Politics, Daniel, talk us through state legislatures,
what's going on?
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Talk us through elections? You're my election guy, among others.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Well, thanks for having me again.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's yeah, a lot has changed since since I last
talked to you.
Speaker 6 (15:56):
Quich probably was before the election.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
We had bolts where I work reading low closely at
the state level, at the county level, which you know,
it doesn't get as much attention as obviously the federal elections.
Very understandable reasons, but when it comes to you know,
when it comes to a lot of things that people
really care about, including emotion rights, including civil rights, really
thinks that are going to be at the center of
the next two to four years. States are everything, especially
(16:20):
if you're a progressive, trying to find places where there
could be pushback, you know, cases where whether legal or political,
that's really word to look. And so a lot of
what we've done is look at state houses, state senates
and also state Supreme Court. So to just start with
state senates and state houses. You know what I did
in the in the past few weeks is quite is
(16:41):
just go state by state. Look in every state, how
did the composition of state chambers change, And that's really
going to determine what yours have opened and closed in
the next year.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
I want to pause for a minute and just for
our listeners explain. You know, we're all feeling pretty moralized
and these state legislatures are a way to take power back.
They're not expensive. They are happening, you know, on off cycles.
So and these off yr elections are ones where low
(17:17):
turnout rules and a little money can make a big difference.
So anyways, start talking to me about these state legislators.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
No.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
So the first sort of big number that I thought
was interesting is I quite literally look at the swing
of state seats if you take into account all the
races across the country, which obviously is a bit of
a silly exercise because there isn't ever an institution where
every state lawmaker from Alaska to Florida gets in the room, right,
But there were rough six thousand elections happening for state
(17:49):
lawmaker around the country, and out of this six thousand,
the GOP gained fifty seven seats. That's a small number,
I mean, obviously, you know, it suggests that the UOPE
had the better nights, and if you look at the detail,
which we could do in a second, they had some
big wins, but if you look at the overall composition,
it was quite small given the extent of the shift.
(18:11):
Obviously in the presidential election. So this is another instance
like in the US House, where the coattails of Trump
were were much smaller than one might expect, and Democrats
clearly got a lot of bright spots as well. Republicans
gained seats in twenty states and Democrats gained seats in
eleven states. Again, the GOP had the better night, but
(18:31):
we do see in a bunch of states where Democrats
are the ones who gained seats and are in a
better spot going into twenty twenty five.
Speaker 5 (18:39):
So let's talk about those states.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
Yeah, yeah, So let's talk of the two most interesting
spots because in Wisconsin and Montana. Wisconsin and Montana had
new maps this year for the first time, and they
were more equitable maps than the ones that they were
using in twenty twenty twenty. In Wisconsin is probably the
one that a lot of people who are who might
(19:01):
listen to this have heard about, because there was a
huge court fight in Wisconsin around the gerrymanders that Republican
tasked in the early twenty tens and early twenty twenties
to re locked in their majorities in the state House
and the state Senate. And it took I mean, it
was a very expensive election for the state Supreme Court
in twenty twenty three got a lot of attention in
(19:23):
April twenty three, which is just a year and a
half to go, and the candidates supported by Democrats there
won and flipped the Court to the left for the
first time in a long time. And then the Court
shruck down the GOP gerrymanders that was a year ago,
and the new map was created and lo and behold
that that the map created a lot of change, as
(19:44):
you would expect, because we went from a very aggressive
up jeromander to a fair map. And over in the state,
Democrats gained fourteen seats in Wisconsin, so that's the biggest
gain they made anywhere in the country. Republicans kept their
majority in both chambers, but they're small majorities compared to
the quasi supermajorities they had, and it sets Democrats up
(20:08):
very well for twenty twenty six for trying to flip
control of Wisconsin for the first time in a long time.
And there's a somewhat similar story in Montana, which is
quite interesting because the defeat of John Tester in the
race for the US Senate was a huge story. Obviously,
on election night at the state level, Democrats gained twelve
seats across both chambers and up's supermajorities, which is actually
(20:33):
quite important because the GOP was hoping to use its
supermajorities to put constitutional amendments on the ballots on party
line votes.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Basically, they somehow flipped the Senate seed but lost the
majority in the House.
Speaker 6 (20:48):
No, they did not lose the majority. Germany ten seats
in the state House, and that seems like a lot
that it's a big change.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Again, it's it has to do with the districting fighter
that was describing earlier, but the one that didn't come randomly.
There was a whole fight and another point of contact Smalledgy.
To just show you the depth of how everything is related.
There were elections for the state court in the state
of Montana, and Montana might be a very unusual state
in for a red state, in that it has a
state court, the state High Court the Supreme Court that
(21:20):
leans to the left and has repeatedly struck down GOP
bills in the last few years, including a restriction on abortion,
including restrictions on voting access, and conservatives were hoping to
really change that left lean of the.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
Court and that didn't succeed.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
Actually, there was a key race there that the Democratic
affiliated candidate won, So there is still going to be
this bucket of resistance in the state government, which is
going to be the state Court, and therefore that's why
the GOPS lost to the super majority there is important
because they're not going to be able to go around
the court and just put stuff on the ballot at well.
(21:57):
So that's going to be very interesting situation in coming years.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Yeah, that is very interesting, all right, So talk to
me about other state launche stuff. So the bright spots
Montana and what else.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Wisconsin one of the two biggest ones. So there are
others where Democrats gained seats, but the GOP also had
just to be clear of very bright spots. The two
main stories to just highlight are that the GOP erased
the majorities that Democrats had for the past couple of
years in the House in Michigan and the Minnesota House.
(22:32):
And in both cases, Democrats had just won control the
full government in twenty twenty two, which you might remember
as a huge story because no one expected Democrats to
to gain power during the mid term, and the GOP
gained just enough seats in both states to erase Democratic
majorities in the House. That doesn't mean that the Republicans
have control the state government because Democrats have in both
(22:52):
states the governorship and the state Senate. But it does stop, obviously,
the ability of Democrats to pass laws at will with
their own votes. In Michigan and Minnesota, those are states
that they used to do. They did a lot of
stuff in the last couple of years, a lot of
which made headlines. Just as an example, you know the
free lunches and schools that Governor Waltz signed. Governor Walts
(23:15):
also signed a voting rights Act at the state level.
So all of those sort of policies were done because
of the trafficta Democrats had. So those are the main
spot and then the other one I will name is
that in New England Republicans did. They gained in three states,
especially the state of Vermont, the state of Vermont, where
Republicans gained twenty five seats in the state House and
(23:37):
state Senate in Vermont and broke the supermajorities Democrats had.
The governor there is a Republican so that's going to
really tie the hands of Democrats to be able to
override the veto's.
Speaker 6 (23:47):
The republican governor there.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
Let's talk about what the calendar looks like, now, what's
coming up?
Speaker 6 (23:53):
First?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I have this theory that I want you to either
tell me is wrong or right.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
Okay, So I have this theory that the way.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
This election went wasn't actually Republican Democrat brand, that it
was Trump then Democrats than Republicans. And so one of
the phenomenons I saw when I looked at some of
these numbers from swing states was that you had states
where Trump got over fifty percent of the vote, then
they must have left the ticket blank. And I'm wondering
(24:23):
if you can talk about that phenomenon as it like,
did you see when you look through the data, did
you see voters who were just Trump and no one
else voters?
Speaker 3 (24:33):
That's a great question. I don't have numbers to share
on the undervote that you're asking about, but I think
there's evidence to suggest so, I mean, I think your
question gets to the very first thing I said, right,
which is that here I was just talking about Michigan
and Wisconsin, the states that saw a big swing one
way or the other, but in most of the country.
(24:55):
It's what the most startling thing as I literally went
state by state and not just state by state by
chamber by chamber. The most startling thing to me, that
the clear story that jumped out is that in so
many chambers the status quo was almost entirely intact, that
there was either no change at all or the most
(25:15):
minimal change. And I mean, I think the most striking
example is Pennsylvania, which maybe gets to what you're saying.
So let's just recap what happened in Pennsylvania. Obviously, Trump
won the state, flipping it on the presidential level. It
also flipped at the congressional level because Republicans ousted the
(25:35):
Democratic senator there, and they also gained seats in the
US House. Now let's go down one level, and this
is honestly one of the most I don't have a
particularly great explanation, but it's so startling. Not a single
seat changed hands in the state House. Out of two
hundred and three seats. Pennsylvania Democrats had a majority harder
than two to one hundred and one going into the election,
(25:56):
and they're going to have a majority harder than two
ton and one exiting the election. That is quite striking
given the given the shifts at the federal level that
did not translate when people were voting, and for their
state House, and we see this over and over again.
The number I came up with was that the twenty
eight chambers saw zero change after holding elections this year,
(26:19):
and a lot of others only saw a single seat shift.
That is a lot of stability underlying what you know.
Has often been covered as like a great night for
the GOP, a landslide for Trump, but etcetera, which the
numbers don't really support. Obviously the GOP had the better night,
there's no question. What I will say is Republicans have
a lot of reasons to be happy right out of
(26:40):
November fifth. So they're not going to ask each other
a lot of questions, which is understandable because.
Speaker 6 (26:44):
They overall won.
Speaker 3 (26:45):
But if you look at what they should ask themselves
how they weren't able to flip the state House in
Pennsylvania despite the state shifting to Trump. They should ask themselves,
right how Perry Lake lost by so much worse than
Trump in there on a Senate race. For a third
consecutive cycles, the GOP lost the Senate seat in Arizona,
and this time was an open race, with Trump winning
(27:07):
the state by six points, and yet they lost the
Senate race. There's a lot of questions for the GOP
to ask itself, and it's not going to ask itself
that because.
Speaker 6 (27:14):
Take one the big one.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
But there's a lot of different storylines if you dig right.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
And it is striking to me with Pennsylvania because you
must have had some people vote for Trump and then
Democrats on the bottom of the ticket.
Speaker 3 (27:31):
Right, well, yes, no, of course, the question of whether
it was people splitting tickets or under voting is not
something I can speak to. But there definitely was ticket
splitting there, and there was a lot of obviously ticket
splitting in other states. I mean, just to name one
other state not overwhelm listeners, but North Carolina is a
(27:51):
great example where Democrats won the governor's race in the
midst of a giant scandal that engulfed the Republican But
they also want other state races. They won the AG
race by a surprising margin. They want other state level races.
They won by a very small margin a race for
the state Court, and they broke the GOP super majority
(28:15):
in the state House, which is going to prevent the
Republicans in twenty twenty five of overriding the vetos of
the incoming governor, and as you may have seen, the
Republican is not taking that very well. They're quite there
this week trying to ram through a bill that would
effectively gut some of the essential roles of the current
governor and transferred to Republican authority because they only have
(28:39):
a few weeks left of being able to use their
supermajorities and they're trying to make the most of it.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Yeah, exactly, very strange and interesting. So tell us where
we should keep our eyes peeled now, talk to us
about the future.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
Yeah, there's always a lot. It's a lot happening.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
The very first thing to know, if people want to
know about sort of elections going forward, is that they're
a special elections happening in January and early twenty twenty
five in Michigan and Virginia for important seats in the state.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
And the governorship.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Governorship is going to be in in November, but there
are races in January, like literally around the corner that
will decide whether Democrats keep control of the state tenets
in Virginia and Michigan, and those those are very important.
And then yes, obviously the big one in twenty twenty
five is the governor's race in the state of Virginia.
That is going to be an open race because the
governor is not allowed to run for reelection. Democrats will
(29:32):
want to take that governorship back, which would give potentially
give them control they state government there that they lost
a few years ago. That's really a big one to
watch in Virginia. And the other the second big sort
of state wide race in twenty twenty five is the
Supreme Court race in Wisconsin. So that's actually happening in April,
and I already talked a bunch about why that court
(29:54):
has been so important in the past. A liberal justice
is not running for reelection in April, and conservutives have
a shot at flipping the court back to the right
in Wisconsin. Expect that to be extremely expensive race. It's
sort of going to be on its own on the calendar.
There's nothing around it happening. The stakes are very high
(30:14):
on abortion rights in Wisconsin, on redistricting in Wisconsin. That's
really where the next big campaign is likely to be.
And also, you know, at this point, the US House
is so tight, we're all that any special election, any retirement,
any vacancy would just be a huge deal, right because
(30:36):
if what once it flips, that actually has huge consequences.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
What it has right now, it's good or at least
it's going to be two seventeen to two fifteen. Right.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
So the results of November fifth were two twenty two,
two fifteen, and Trump named three people from the Republican
caucus and then Gates was one of them, and then
he resigned.
Speaker 6 (30:54):
But is not going to be in the House. It's
not going to be aged anyway.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Yes, So that gets us as two seventeen to fifty
for now until the special elections.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Just as a reminder to listeners, you can't tie in
the House of Representatives.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
You tie, you lose.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
So it means that effectively Mike Johnson has a one
seat majority.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
And at that point it's not just who has won
or who is in Congress, it's who is sick that
they who has a wedding to attend in Michigan, who
has you know, we we already saw that in the
last few years, where an absence could have huge consequences
in what's happening. And that's going to be a lot
more intense in coming months.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
And actually, if you want to get furious, I was
talking to a member who was saying to me, you know,
Democrats have a couple of people who haven't been to
Congress in a while, of coorse, who are actually like
legitimately sick and who can't get there.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
But who probably should not be in office anymore.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Now that said, Republicans also have that, But that is
quite infuriating.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
Yes, I wish I had pulled the median age of
people in Congress.
Speaker 6 (32:00):
By what you're saying doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Yeah, you know, look there's a Nancy Pelosi eighty tray
and then there's you know, some of those people are
not so old, but they are sick and they need
to leave if they're if they're too sick to get
to work, you know.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
To also maybe to give a parallel point as to
how tight the margin is, because we were taught talking
earlier about re district thing, right, and we redistricting in
the state of Wisconsin in particular. So let's just talk
about redistricting in North Carolina for a moment, because the
exact inverse of what happened in Wisconsin happened in North
Carolina in twenty twenty two. Republicans flipped that state Supreme
(32:37):
Court and they struck down a prior ruling that had
stopped the GOP from passing their own maps. And so
what happened is that the GOP in North Carolina passed
new maps for twenty twenty four and that flipped three seats,
three seats and the margin in the House out of
(32:57):
the number fifth. If three seats hadn't flipped, the Democrats
would have been the majority party. So it's just so
interesting to trace back the current Republican majority not just
to the new map in North Carolina, but also as
a result to the state court elections that happen in
twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6 (33:15):
Now, we don't think.
Speaker 3 (33:16):
About the state court races as that relevant maybe to
federal politics or to the national politics, but here's a
case where literally the state level races for this for
state judges are directly responsible for a new map that
is directly responsible for who has the majority right now
(33:37):
in US House. So you know, that really explains maybe
to people why the coming election in Wisconsin is going
to be so expensive and why in twenty twenty six,
you know, you should repay attention to what's happening.
Speaker 6 (33:47):
At the state level in these elections.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
So interesting.
Speaker 5 (33:51):
Thank you for coming on Daniel, I hope.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
You'll come back, of course, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (33:55):
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 sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 5 (34:15):
Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com