Chuck’s Commentary - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Democrats Split On “Fight vs. Unite” Approach - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
when you get a sponsor that you already use. And
guess what. Quint's is something that in the Todd household
we already go to. Why do we go to Quint's
Because it's a place you go where you can get
some really nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And
one of the things I've been going through is I've
transitioned from being mister cot and ty guy to wanting

(00:22):
a little more casual but to look nice doing it.
Is I've become mister quarter zip guy. Well guess what.
Guess who's got amazing amounts of quarter zips? It is Quints.
I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't

(00:43):
normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll
be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop

(01:06):
for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints.
Or if you're trying to figure out what to get
your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
I'm telling you you're gonna find something that is going
to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get your
wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quints. Don't wait.

(01:27):
Go to quints dot com slash chuck for free shipping
on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
dot com slash chuck, free shipping and three hundred and
sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck. Use
that code. Hello there, I'm Chuck Todd. Welcome to another

(01:53):
episode of the Chuck Podcast. So got another pack show
for you. Got a top five list that's come up.
I think you'll be intrigued by that. I let's just
say I enjoyed putting that one together. I want to
talk a little bit about an interesting phenomenon that I
think is developing on the democratic side of the aisle.
It's the subject of my substack this week. Again, I

(02:16):
have a free substack. I'm not going to charge you
because I don't want to paywall here. This is why
I've paid advertising on this and why you know trust me,
I get fun little emails from you. I'm like, oh,
why are you advertising this? Why are you I'm taking
advertising money so I can make this paywall free if
you will so. But I think you'll be intrigued by

(02:38):
a thesis that I've developed on my substack this week
that involves Gavin Newsom, Mark Kelly, and Jasmine Crockett. All
three of them walk into a bar. No, but the
three of them have something in common. I want to
get into that. But before we then, look, let's this
appears to be the week that Donald Trump wants to
deal with the economy, or wants to show that he's
dealing with the economy. A trip to Pennsylvania Monday, he

(03:00):
announces the big Farmer bailout, does an interview with political saying, hey,
he thinks his economy the stamp he's putting on the
economy is a plus plus plus. Look, here's the good
news for Republicans that are going to be on the
ballot in twenty twenty six. The president's finally talking about
the economy. Here's the bad news for Republicans on the

(03:21):
ballot in twenty twenty six. He doesn't seem to accept
the premise that this isn't a troubling economy. That this
is and anything that people feel negative. Of course, he
wants you to say, hey, blame my predecessor. You know,
that's not it. I'm creating this golden age. But the
fact that he had to do a bailoff for farmers
is a cell phone, right, This is why do we
have this? Because China's boycotting soybeans from the United States

(03:46):
and it's just a double whamming on our farmers. This
is not a Biden policy. This was Liberation Day that
Donald Trump did. And I think that that's you know,
it's interesting with presidents and how they try to blame,
particularly first year presidents always want to keep the predecessor

(04:07):
in the news long enough to have them still be
seen as the foil if things aren't quite working out. Right.
I mean, Barack Obama seemed to go almost four years
convincing the public that he was dealing with this Bush
economy that he inherited, and for the most part, the
voters gave him that benefit of the doubt. I mean,
he did the unique trick of changing the question of

(04:30):
are you better off than you were four years ago?
To are you going to be better off four years
from now? He flipped the question and that met Romney
race and pulled it off. But for them, and for
his most of his first term, he was able to
convince the public this was Bush's economy, and we had
the Great Recession, and something that catastrophic is not something

(04:51):
that happens overnight. So there was certainly a public that
was believe that it was that was Bush policies, and
perhaps Clinton policies Bush policies coupled together. Right, So, but
Trump is is not succeeding with that. When you actually
look at polling pluralities, say this is Trump's economy, say

(05:12):
that it's on him. The costs haven't gone down, And
of course, you know, Trump only has himself to blame, right,
his typical bravado, this will be easy, I'll fix this
right away, the Golden Age starts YadA YadA, YadA, bing
bang boom. Right. Well, it ain't a boom right. That's
the situation he's in. What's fascinating is is how he

(05:33):
keeps claiming he's going to pay for this bailout of
the farmers. Right. It's a twelve billion dollars in bailout money.
That's he's announced. He says he's going to use the
tariff money. Now he's also said he's going to use
the tariff money to give relief checks for middle and
lower income folks who have been hit hard by the terriffs.
And then he also thinks the tariffs are going to

(05:53):
replace the income tax. We just do a little mass
reality check because this is in some ways this is
Donald Trump, right, this is the developer in him. You know,
he promises the world and then let somebody else finance
it or pay the bill. So far, the US is
collected approximately two hundred and fifty billion dollars in tariff
revenue this year. Let's just say that's just a tag

(06:17):
shive of the two point six six trillion dollars the
Internal Revenue Service collects. So two hundred and fifty billion
doesn't quite replace two point sixty six trillion. So if
Donald Trump does plan to have tariff revenue replace income

(06:39):
the income tax, let me just tell you the dollar
store will become the five hundred dollars store. I mean,
if we go to a consumption tax, which many there's
always been this movement of some on the right who
hate the income tax and want to repeal the constitutional
amendment that allowed the income tax. You know, they push

(06:59):
what they call a fair tax or a consumption tax.
The Europeans call it a vat tax of value added tax. Literally,
what it does is double, triple, quadruple the price of
a common consumer good. You know, the argument goes, hey,
if a rich person buys a yacht, they're going to
pay an exorbitant tax, and that will be good for

(07:21):
the coffers. But the problem is it is it is
going to be lower and middle income that end up
paying a bigger chunk of their income to taxes than
upper income will. So it is a totally regressive tax
system punishes middle and lower the middle and the lower class,
and rewards and rewards the wealthy. It's interesting to me

(07:47):
how often Trump hints at wanting to get rid of
the income tax, which is ultimately it is. To me,
it's sort of a very fringe thing to believe when
you consider sort of how our system works. But he's
trying to mainstream the idea. But again, his plan is
to I think he called it once, the external revenue

(08:08):
service will replace the internal revenue service. But guess what, folks,
The American consumer would pay the taxes just like the
American taxpayer pays. But there's a little bit more fairness
in our tax code. It could be a little more fair,
and it's not. But at least the tax code as
it stands a heck of a lot more fair than
doing some sort of consumption tax, which would just be

(08:29):
a punishing and talk about exasperating income inequality. It would
do so in a heartbeats. But in some ways I'm
burying the lead here. The fact that Trump is talking
about two things regarding his tariff policy right. One is
to bail out the farmers, and then two is to

(08:52):
use tariff income to cut a government check to anybody,
as he called it, not including high income people, but
a two thousand dollars check for every for every taxpayer.
I don't think that's going to pass Congress. You already
have some deficit hawks, and again sometimes want to be
careful using the phrase deficit hawks. There are no deficit

(09:12):
hawks in Washington. What you have is you have partisans
who care about the deficit when the other parties in charge. Right,
there are chunks, and that is a fact. There's a
handful of Democrats and a handful of Republicans that do
talk about the debt and deficit. Usually they care about
it more when the other party's in charge. Yes, there's

(09:34):
one or two, and I think on the Republican side
there's enough that don't want to look like hypocrites that
they're not going to be for writing these writing these checks.
But again I go back. The real headline is Donald
Trump admits his economy isn't working, so he's desperately trying
to throw money at the problem. Right, That's what's really

(09:54):
happening here. And if they feel like they have to
go down that road, they're in big trouble. Now, let's
talk about out, just very quickly, sort of how the
economy plays in a campaign. There's sort of a traditional
measurement here and sort of there's sort of a running
theory this has gotten there's been studies among political scientists

(10:16):
on this. This isn't just sort of sort of speculation,
but basically, what the economy actually is in May June
of an election year is what that economy is will
be the perception of the economy that the voter thinks
of going into November. The point being is that if

(10:37):
we in a recovery in August, September, October, the voter
isn't going to feel it by election day. This happened.
This happened to George HW. Bush in nineteen ninety two.
The economy wasn't doing well. It was starting to recover
in the fall of ninety two, but by that point
it was too late. Clinton had already won the argument
that Bush had taken his eye off the ball in
the economy, and then it was up to him to

(10:59):
turn it around. Why did he get a quick turnaround
the economy because it was already kind of turning around, right.
It's like how Donald Trump inherited a healing economy from
Barack Obama. So suddenly it was, but he got all
the credit when we had a sort of an economy
that actually started to hum in twenty seventeen until he

(11:19):
did the tax the tax cut, which in a weird
way sort of caused a lot more long term deficit
issues and such. But that's the big headline out of
this is that he's at least, if you're an elected
Republican and Capitol Hill, you've got to be relieved they're
at least trying, or at least there's an attempt to try. Now,

(11:40):
you know, he undermines himself on his economic argument when
he'll you know, he doesn't want to he calls affordability
a con job, or you know, he says, yes, I
know things need to go lower, but hey, that was
the previous one and we're making you know, this is
going to be amazing. And you know, he talks about
things that aren't happening yet, all this manufacturing that he's
bringing back. In theory, he's hoping to bring back some manufacturing,

(12:01):
but as we've seen, this economy actually has been punished
on the manufacturing front, more so with these tariffs. But
that to me is the biggest To me, the really
big headline is Donald Trump acknowledges his economy's terrible, and
he's trying to throw money at the problem to try
to to try to buy some call right and Frankly,

(12:23):
I think any president in this position would be looking
for some way to do this. Trump being a you know,
he's sort of a non ideologic, you know, sort of
his version of populism is chicken in every pot. Let
me write a check, let me do this, let me,
you know, you throw money today and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. Right.
That is the philosophy of Donald Trump, which is why

(12:45):
when he leaves the presidency, whoever's his successor is going
to have a total and complete s show to deal
with because he will not care of the situation he leaves.
He will do everything he can to push any problem
off on his successor, no matter who his successor is.
A quick little update on Obamacare before I get to
the sort of the main my main monologue topic for

(13:07):
the day, keep an eye out on the following compromise.
Punchball had this, and I thought it was an important compromise.
It's a bipartisan group of House members are introducing a
bill to extend the Obamacare subsidies. They would extend them
for two years. They would add income limits so there'd
be some sort of essentially means test of some sort,

(13:28):
and put in some anti fraud measures, which is usually
code for, you know, waste fraud and abuse. Frankly, anytime
you know each party claims that they're always worried about it,
I think they generally are worried about it, but they
always put a higher price on what waste croad of
abuse is going to deliver than it actually does. Just
so you know this is true, whether it's Democrats doing
it or Republicans doing it. I'm just telling you whenever

(13:50):
you hear, oh, we're going to get what waste froed
and abuse is going to count for x percent, Okay,
good luck with that. You know that those are not
real dollars to be counting on. But the I find
this bill to be the potential starting point of a
healthcare compromise. Number One. I just think the politics are
so bad right now in healthcare for Republicans that they're
looking for an exit ramp. This seems like a reasonable

(14:12):
exit ramp. Again, it's bipartisan House members. The Republicans are
Brian Fitzpatrick Swing district in Pennsylvania, Don Bacon who's retiring,
Rob Resdahan Swing District in Pennsylvania. Nicole Maliotakis in New York,
another swing district on the Democratic sidey of Jared Golan
retired Golden retiring Tom Swazi Swingish district in New York,
though safer under this, Don Davis in North Carolina. They're

(14:35):
in the middle of a new Jerry Mander and then
sort of the queen of the Blue Dogs these days,
Marie Glusen camp Perez. So it is sort of on
the conservative side, on the Democratic side, on the sort
of very centrist side on the Republican side. In theory,
in the pre Trump era, this is how compromises were struck.
This is how you got out of this situation. I

(14:56):
think this is chance. This is the framework threatening a
discharge petition if they can't get a vote. We know
where Johnson is on this. He doesn't want to. But
the point is is if you told me senators sort
of took up this framework as a framework, it wouldn't
surprise me. Now, look, let's be realistic here. If we're
going to get an extension of the Obamacare subsidies, a

(15:18):
couple things have to happen. Number One, Trump has to
endorse this in some form or another, either say won't
veto it, he's not against it, you know something, And
sort of there's different levels of him supporting it. He
can sort of grudgingly promise he'll sign the bill into law,
which is code for let Democrats carry most of the water,

(15:42):
provide just enough Republicans to get it passed. So in
the Senate that would mean you go find thirteen Republicans.
In the House, I'm guessing it would be sort of,
you know, two thirds of the Democratic House and one
third of the Republican House. So something something that can
to that. Obviously, I still think there's a chance to
try just says no, extend it. Maybe he does one
year or whatever, and he sort of dictates the terms

(16:04):
of the debate. But I still think it made you know,
in that sense, then maybe it will be more Republicans
than Democrats. But I think where things stand now in
the House, what I don't envision is a bill that
passes the House with more Republicans than Democrats to extend
Obamacare subsidies. That I don't quite see. But the point

(16:27):
is pay attention to that one. It seemed to be
the most reasonable compromise that's making the rounds. You know,
two years sort of takes it out of the political
you know, sort of does throw it back into the
twenty twenty eight political stream if you will, but maybe
there should be a presidential fight, if you will. But

(16:48):
that that is I just wanted to signpost that and
put a put a pin in that. Do you hate hangovers, well,
say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the
social buzz without the next day regret. Their best selling
out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.

(17:09):
With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
fit your vibe. From a gentle one point five milligram
micro doose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a
more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul

(17:33):
is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC
and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
simply help you unwine, so if you struggle to switch
off at night. Soul also has a variety of products
specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a

(17:54):
fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the
good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order,
So go to getsold dot com use the promo code toodcast.
Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code
toodcast for thirty percent off. Finally, I just want to

(18:21):
it's sort of my way of dealing with what's going
on in Texas and the primary situation. But it's more
of a you know, the world of journalism. When you're
a reporter, we all operate under the rule of three, right,
which is three's a trent, two's interesting, But three's a trent.

(18:42):
And I'd been stewing on an idea that it had
two being interesting. And that was how Gavin Newsome and
Mark Kelly both successfully used fights with Donald Trump to
sort of vault themselves into the zeitgeist of democratic chatter,
particularly twenty twenty eight presidential chatter, right, you know, and

(19:06):
how it wasn't it's not being done with ideology, not
being done with an issue. It's being just shown as
being willing to fight Trump. Right, So Gavin Newsom has
been willing to fight back at Trump re redistricting debating
Ron Decantis last year. Right, he is he has not
been an ideologue. I mean, if you know Gavin Newsom

(19:26):
and you're honest about where his place in the California
Democratic Party, you know he's the business friendly Democrat and
always has been business friendly Democrat. When Jerry Brown was governor,
who was lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom hanging out with then
lieutenant Governor Rick Perry excuse me, governor Texas Governor Rick Perry,
talking up, you know, admitting that sometimes California made it hard,

(19:52):
a little bit harder to do business than Texas. I
don't know those of you and have a memory that
goes back that far. I know, anything pre COVID, all
of our brains get a little mushy. But this was
sometime in like you know, twenty eleven, twenty twelve, when
Gavin was sort of the lieutenant governor with nothing to do,
which most lieutenant governors have nothing to do. And he

(20:13):
wasn't always very close with Jerry Brown, so he was
kind of in no man's land and he had it
just sort of make his own way. So, you know,
he's not a left winger. I know, the perception of
California Democratic politics is is all liberal and left wing.
He really is sort of considered a business friendly Democrat.
I think on social issues you could certainly call him
a big liberal, but it's one of those. But it's

(20:37):
been interesting to me how he's become essentially their early
front runner for twenty twenty eight and it's not due
to anything. He's no big policy proposals that he's rolled out, nothing,
no big policy that he wants to run on in California.
If anything, his job approval ratings them when California voters
been middling at best, kind of underwater during twenty twenty four.

(21:00):
But what really jump started him was a fight with Trump,
a fight with Mega right. Take Mark Kelly uh and
the and the and the video. Well, Mark Kelly had
a nice little run here for the last couple of weeks.
In fact, I got to read you, uh, I got

(21:21):
to read you this, Uh, you know, he's become such
a darling if you will, Uh after this fight over
following you know, over not following illegal orders where Pete
Hegseth sort of threatened to bring charges against him. Well,
he's he's become something that we hadn't seen for you know,

(21:41):
Kelly has this. His bio has more charisma at times
than Kelly comes across. Right, And he's not alone John GLENNO.
This always hung over John Glenn's head, like I've always
wanted to write a book of a collection of essays
on I can't believe they never became president. When you

(22:02):
look at the resumes of some people that ran for
president but never became president. Bill Bradley and John Glenn
are two people I've always in Bob Dole, right, those
would be the three you'd put the cover. You're like,
given everything they did and accomplished in the world of
in Bill Bradley's case, sports, you know, and academia versus
the world of you know, a hero an American hero, astronaut,

(22:28):
and John Glenn an American hero in the battlefield in
Bob Dole. But Glenn always had this, and I think
if you know, if you're going to orbit the Earth
by yourself, you kind of have to be pretty good
at being a loner. But that doesn't always make you
the most charismatic figure. And Glenn's resume was always more

(22:49):
charismatic than the person himself. And that's been whispered about
about Mark Kelly. And you know, a lot of people
know he's kind of interested, he might be interested in
running for president. He was on the shortlist for Kamala
Harris when she was interviewing VP candidates. But there's always
been whispers of you know, he's got the astronaut personality,
which means you know, when you're when you're going up

(23:10):
and staying in space for a while, whatever it is,
you just you it is. It's just it takes a
different type of personality to to do that. It's not
always the most outgoing personality, if you will. But boy
have Pete Hegsith, you know, threatened court martial after you,

(23:33):
and it first of all really fired up. I saw
a version of Mark Kelly I hadn't seen before on television,
and he's taken advantage of the moment. He did doing
fundraising emails. Let me read you this one that he
did for Katie Obbs, the governor of Arizona, and it
begins You've been hearing a lot from me lately about
the threats and attacks made against me from Donald Trump

(23:53):
and his administration, what they represent, and why this is
such uncharted territory for all of us. I can't thank
you enough for all the support you've shown me, my team,
and my family. But today I'm writing you to urge
you to support Katie Hobbs's reelection campaign. The point is
is that you know, Mark Kelly is also considered to
be somewhat of a centrist. He taught he himself riges
about being a former Republican. He's not, you know, he's

(24:15):
not going to be mistaken for AOC or Bernie Sanders.
But he got some juice because he he picked a
fight with Donald Trump, right. It gave him some energy,
It gave him juice. It allowed him to stand out
in a way he hadn't been able to stand out
yet among those that are pondering twenty eight. So that

(24:38):
was what I was hanging by. I was like, Okay,
this is interesting. There's two but I wasn't ready to
write about it until I saw the announcement video for
Jasmine Crockett. She, of course, is the Dallas congresswoman I've
interviewed here. I really encourage anybody who didn't catch that
interview I did with her a few months ago to
go back and listen to that interview with Jasmine Crockett,

(24:59):
because I can I tell you I went into it
with one idea of who she is, and I came
out of it with a totally different idea. I think
people underestimate her at your own peril. I think this
is somebody who might be too quick. So maybe she
speaks too quick, maybe she speaks faster than she thinks sometimes,
But the point is she's always thinking and she's very

(25:22):
savvy and she doesn't make the same mistake twice, which
is always interesting with with smart politicians. But her announcement
video was even more It was sort of even more
grounded in fight if you will, with Trump, it's just
her in silence. You know that she doesn't say a word.

(25:43):
All you do is hear every Donald Trump insult against Crockett.
So it's just Donald Trump's voiceover insulting Jasmine Crockett in
all sorts of ways or intellect, et cetera. How about
this new one. They have their new star, Crocket. How
about her, She's the new star of the Democrat Party,
Jasmine Crockett. They're in big trouble, but you have this

(26:06):
woman Crockett. She's a very low IQ person. I watched
her speak the other day. She's definitely a low IQ person. Crocket.
Oh man, oh man.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
And it's just first it's a stone faced Crockett and
then at the end she smiles. But it's so there's
my trend, right, which is are you going to run
on something, are you going to run on an ideology,
or are you going to run as a fighter? And
right now, the fastest way to get traction in democratic

(26:45):
politics is to be a fighter. It's more than being
left or right. It really is fight versus unite. Right,
there's I've said there's sort of there are multiple divides
inside each party. The two biggest in the Democratic side
are the agressives and the sort of centrist. That's a
big one and not insignificant, and certainly one that is

(27:06):
that could hold Democrats back from having a massive successful
election Night twenty twenty six, depending on how these primaries
pay out. But the problem is the primary voter wants
a fighter. Now they'll take a centrist if you're a fighter.
And that's the point I'm making here. I think it's

(27:27):
fascinating to watch, particularly with Newsom and Kelly, because having
the fighter sort of picking a fight with Trump avoids
the progressive litmus tests, and in some ways you can
you can connect with progressives on emotion rather than on substance,

(27:52):
and you can and that look, Bill Clinton, I would argue,
was able to win over the base of the party
when he showed himself to be a fighter. He never
changed his ideology, he never sort of veered left on ideology,
you know, he was always sort of very much in

(28:12):
the center left, but he showed he was willing to
punch back and so and certainly when he took a
hit with impeachment, that's when the base really finally fell
in love with him, because again, he showed himself to
be a fighter. So I think there's I'm not saying
that this might not you know, that this might be
a necessity if you want to run for office in

(28:34):
twenty six or twenty eight, but I will lament that.
You know, if I could argue that Democrats are going
down the same road that Republicans have been on for
the last decade, which is Republicans don't run on anything.
They don't run on any big ideas. What they really
run on is owning the lips, right, Like that's the

(28:55):
cohesive messaging, which is fight back, right, it's been I've
heard it from conservatives. So you got to fight back,
and you know there's not enough fight. I mean, you know,
in fact, it gets me to one more item. I
want to get to get to you guys here in
a minute. That kind of fits this sometimes where the
where the left and the right aren't very self aware
of their own of their own behavior sometimes. But Republicans

(29:22):
have been running on this sort of just looking for fighters,
and in some ways you can overcome certain you know,
old stances, whether it's neocon stuff or it's formally democratic
ideas or quote unquote woke things if you bring the
fight to owning the libs right, and now you really

(29:45):
have a democratic party that may be more animated by
looking for those that are willing to quote unquote own
the magas right, you know, own the right. The downside
to this is you don't stand for anything, and I
think there's a little more risk there for Republicans, for

(30:05):
Democrats on that than republicans. I think there's a chunk
of voters that do expect Democrats to stand for something,
do expect a lot of issue papers and white papers,
and there could be some disappointment in that when that's missing,
And I could argue that, you know, I wish you know.
Another part of my sub stack is, you know, we've

(30:27):
got a lot of important issues we should be debating,
but even on the even if we debate the right issue,
we debate it the wrong way. Let me give you
an example. Take take immigration. Right we fight it is
kind of an eighty twenty issue as if it is

(30:51):
xenophobia versus open borders, when really what we should be
debating is what does a functional citizenship pathway look like?
What do modernized worker visas look like? How do you
increase strong border security in addition to having more legal immigration.

(31:11):
These are fifty one to forty nine issues, meaning you know,
the country's pretty divided on these solutions. They're not divided
on the big ticket ideas, but they we really should
have a debate on, Okay, how would we do this?
And we're not going to have that debate public education
is another one. We just us you know, school choices
just shorthand for conflict. It isn't for the debate. If

(31:36):
if you look at it as a fifty one forty
nine problem, then we would be having a debate about
teacher retention, funding formulas. How would we teach ai in classrooms?
What is the purpose of high school in the twenty
first century versus what it was in the twentieth century
versus what it was in the nineteenth century. But that's
not sexy, that's not viral. So it's like the only

(31:58):
time we have a debate substance is when we have
we sort of create straw men about the other side. Right,
each side creates an eighty twenty straw man that doesn't
really exist in the real electorate. The real electorate is divided,
you know, is actually more in general agreement, but divided
on the implementation of those solutions. There's general agreement that

(32:19):
immigration is a net positive in this country. There's general
agreement that there should be reasonable pathways to citizenship, but
some of the details we genuinely disagree on. But we
don't have those debates, So that to me is the
risk here. But make no mistake we are seeing. And
I think the fact is, I think you're going to

(32:42):
have I don't think you're Look, do I think one
or two Democrats are going to try to be the
issue candidates? I do that's going to happen in twenty twenty.
Someone always tries to play that role. Bruce Babbott was
that guy in ninety two, Elizabeth Warren was that person
in twenty twenty. You know, there's always a version of
that candidate. They don't always do as well as they
might in political science classes on that front. But I

(33:05):
think you're going to see. You know, am I skeptical
that Krockt can win that senen see? I am, But
I'm not skeptical that she can win the primary if
she shows, you know, especially because she's positioning herself as
I'm the one that's taken the fight to him and
James Tallerico is more of the hey, let can't we
all a little bit of the can't we all just

(33:26):
get along? So we're going to have an interesting fight
where two people who I think both would describe themselves
as progressive, but you're going to have a divide a
fight versus unite And what's the attitude of the Democratic
Party in going to be in the spring of twenty six.
It's possible by the spring of twenty eight, when we're
having the presidential primary fight that Democrats are looking for

(33:50):
a uniter by then, because maybe they've won both Houses
of Congress in the twenty six midterms. But until they
have some power, I think it's pretty clear that the
fighting that the litmus test for a Democratic candidate for office,
at least right now, appears to be are you willing
to have a fight with the Trump administration? Have you

(34:12):
picked a fight with the Trump administration? Or will the
Trump administration pick a fight with you that will be
seen as an asset not a liability. One more nugget.
I'm sure some of you caught Nancy Mace's abed in
the New York Times. I found it hilarious because it's

(34:33):
sort of a I can't tell you how often each
there are members of each party that really believe this
about the other party. Here's what she writes, Here's a
hard truth Republicans don't want to hear. Nancy Pelosi was
a more effective House speaker than any Republican the century.
I agree with her on essentially nothing but she understood

(34:53):
something we don't. No majority is permanent. When Democrats hold
the majority, they ran through the most progressive policies they can.
They delivered for the colders and elected them while they
are in power. Let me stop her right there. So
I promise you if you survey House Democrats who have
been in Congress as long as Nancy Mays, if not longer,
many of them would say the following. When Republicans hold
the majority, they ran through the most conservative policies they can.

(35:16):
They deliver for their coalition that elected them while they
are in power. But Democrats don't ever do it. Ask
a progressive if they think Democrats know how to use power,
they will tell you that Republicans are better at using power.
And here's Nancy May saying, No, Republicans suck at using power.
It's the Democrats that know to use power. It's astonishing
that we all live in the same country, right like

(35:37):
that we are seeing this. The bottom line is is
that you you know, if you look at at Democrats,
they ended up you know, they were sort of they
took a haircut, right, Joe Mansion made Joe Biden take
a haircut. Right. They didn't get to jam everything through.

(35:59):
Barack Obama's down on trying to do cap and trade
after he did Obamacare. It's actually Trump and the Republicans
that seem to at least keep pushing the out. They're
willing to take a bad vote to fulfill a promise
in a way that Democrats aren't always willing to do.
And I think part of that is this version of
the Republican Party won because they effectively made the argument

(36:21):
that the previous leadership regime of the Republican Party, sort
of the Bush Romney era, didn't fight hard enough, didn't
try to push conservative principles compromise, and always threw the
right under the bus. But I just found the op
ed amusing to me because that phrase when she when

(36:41):
she claimed when Democrats hold the majority, they ran through
the most progressive policies they can. Literally half the Democratic
Caucus believes when Republicans hold the majority, they ran through
the most conservative policies that they can. This is the
world we live in right where it's a lot easier
to portray yourself or your party as a victim of

(37:03):
some sort rather than acknowledging the actual reality of the
actual situations that we're in. There's a reason results matter
more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and
Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the last
thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
more than half a million clients. It includes cases where

(37:26):
insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get
away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan
fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
dollars twenty six million, six hundred fifty thousand dollars. So

(37:48):
with more than one thousand lawyers across the country, they
know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
you need a lawyer. You need somebody to get your back.
Check out for the People dot com, Slash podcast or
Doubt Pound Law, Pound five to nine Law on your
cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same,
So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free

(38:10):
unless they win, all right, let's get some questions. We'll
get to a little last Chuck, then I'll get to
my top five list. Ask Chuck. First question comes from
Tyler and he asks, with all the ice raids and
that economy for working class, do you think Trump support
with Latinos will start to go down drastically? If yes,

(38:32):
do you think states like Florida and Texas could be
in play for Democrats in twenty twenty eight. Well, first, Tyler,
the numbers have already softened a great deal. And I
have to tell you one of the weirdest things that
took place in twenty twenty four in the post election
analysis was assuming that every voter that voted for Trump
is suddenly a Trump voter, meaning like they're suddenly part

(38:54):
of the Trump coalition and like a base and sort
of talked about as a vag voter. And so there
was this, hey, look, you know to me, you know,
we used to have a rule in and I think
they still do at the NBC News poll. But the
rule was when you saw a trend in a demographic,
don't report on a trend that you'd never seen before,

(39:15):
you know, a dramatic spike or drop, you know, among
the specific demographic group could be men, could be women,
could be Latinos, could be African Americans. Cutter, don't report
it until we see it. Two poles in a row. Well,
I think that applies to elections, which is now there
had been some softening among Latino support for Democrats for

(39:38):
the last couple of cycles. Then we had the dramatic
swing in twenty twenty four, led by what we saw
in South Texas. But that was a dramatic swing. And
it's arguably when you see a swing like that, you
wait one more cycle before you declare that voting group
a part of a semi at least Nope, no members

(39:59):
per of any coalition, but a you know, fairly consistent
member of said coalition. Well, we've only had one election
with Latino's decidedly leaning Republican. But I just simply think
that Latino working class voters are swing voters. They're no
different than white working class swing voters and black working
class swung voters. And we saw all working class voters, black, brown,

(40:24):
or why all lean Trump and in some cases swung
Trump very hard. And all of them have already swung back.
And if either some of them are already voting Democratic.
On the generic, some are simply expressing disapproval of Trump
and are sitting and undecided. Others are sitting in independent.
So we've already seen the erosion. It's pretty it's pretty

(40:47):
dramatic if you compare it to his success of twenty four.
I don't find it very dramatic. I kind of see
it as expected. But it was treated his twenty twenty
four success was treated as if it was permanent. And
you know, one of the things I remember, not every member,
not everybody who votes for president, does so enthusiastically. Right,
there's a lot of people that do this. Oh A,

(41:08):
by voting for right, you're holding your nose and you're going,
all right, I guess I'm gonna go here. And it's
usually more because you can't bring yourself to vote for
the other person. It's less about it is it is,
you know, the the Maybe it's the devil, you know,
maybe it's the least of the two worst options. Whatever.

(41:30):
What did south Park one year? I think did an
election between a tird sandwich and I can't remember what
it was. It was like a tird sandwich and a
shit sandwich or something like that. Pardon my French. That's
kind of the same thing. I kind of they had it.
I think I'm getting it. I apologize for mangling, and
as a proud member of gen X, I should never

(41:51):
get any South Park references wrong. So my apologies for there.
But it was it was one of their better episodes,
and it was like, oh, it was a giant douche
and a tird sandwich. That's what it was. It was
a giant a tird sandwich. But what I love is
at the end is like, you don't understand sometimes that's
your choice, but you've got to make a choice because
in America sometimes your only choice is a giant douche
or a turd sandwich, and you got to pick one,

(42:14):
and you got to decide which one's going to do
the least amount of damage. So I think we now
you're asking which states. I think it's more likely to
have an impact in Texas than Florida. Florida's the Florida
Latino voter is slightly different. In Central Florida, there's there's
the Central Florida Latino voters more likely to behave like

(42:35):
a South Texas Latino voter. But in South Florida it's
a different it's a different Hispanic voter. A lot of
Cuban Americans Venezuela and a lot of Central and South
Americans who are there who came to this country sort
of escaping communism in the case of the Cubans, or
escaping authoritarianism in the case of the Venezuelans and the Nicaraguans,

(42:58):
et cetera. So it's now if he botches this Venezuela
build up and lets down a whole, you know, there's
a scenario where he decides not decides to cut a

(43:19):
deal with Maduro that maybe popular, maybe the thing that
is the right thing to do for the Mega movement,
but actually will alienate Cubans and Venezuelan's and South Florida,
and that could really scramble Florida politics. But I'm not
quite ready to say that that that shift's going to
happen in Florida. I think it has a bigger impact

(43:40):
in Texas and a bigger impact in Arizona also, you know,
with a and even in basically everywhere except South Florida.
That's probably the way to put it. Next question comes
from Matt and Chesterfield, Virginia. Matt writes, Hey, check longtime
fan of both you and Krystaliza. Your weekly conversations and
election live shows, They've been a breath of fresh air.

(44:01):
As a JMU grad, Hey, all right, let's go Dukes.
I'm on cloud nine about crashing the playoffs. It's how
you grow the sport, even if it won't impact the champion.
Nd haad a case, But it's not Jamu's fault that
the ACC messed up. It's tiebreaker. You got that right. Well,
you and Chris have a bet on that game. Far
look ahead feels like the next open VA Senate races
prime to be Spamberger versus Youngkin. Ooh, that's I've heard

(44:22):
that before. I think Youngkin runs for president before he
runs for Senate next. I'm not saying you won't eventually
run for Senate, but I think he wants to. He
wants to take twenty twenty eight for a test ride
first before he runs for Senate. If he's a Senate candidate,
my guess would be not till not till twenty thirty
he goes. Go Dukes and Reds. How about that? Baseball
economics are bad, But like my Duke's was happy to

(44:44):
be part of the party this year. Matt from Chestfield. Actually,
Silis and I are going to have a bet because
silisam married into a Texas A and M family. He
is if you know the Modello ads that talks about
the different fans that they're looking they're looking to reward,
and he says, there's the fan that married into the

(45:04):
married into the family, you know, married in to the fandom.
Well that's Elizabeth Texas A and M. So we're gonna
have a little Miami v. Texas A and M bet
and then we're probably going to tailgate together in College station.
We'll see if the Gighams and the Todds can get along.

(45:25):
But in all seriousness, I'm looking forward to that. But
to go back to your Senate race, far look ahead
Spamberger versus Youngin. Like I said, both of them could
be on it. Both of them could be on the
ballot in twenty eight for a little bit of a
higher office. Spamberger as the VP Youngkin running for president

(45:52):
for the Republican nomination. Just have something to think about,
all right. Next question comes from George and the Twin Cities. Hey, Chuck,
thanks for the great programming lately. The Iowacentic candidate MS
Esker and others have been terrific. As someone who grew
up on a farm in East Central I would love
to hear debate on reforms like electing the Attorney General independently,
requiring timely congressional votes on confirmations and emergencies, and clarifying

(46:13):
presidential immunity, which the founders were largely silent on. These
changes could up restore balance and accountability across the branches.
Thoughts I like them. On a lighter note, glad to
see Miami made the playoffs. Had the head should have
always mattered, and I thought Notre Dame's reaction was a
bit much. George and the Twin Cities, well, look, my
top five list is going to be a little bit
about that, just to give people a sneak preview that, man,
I'm in playoff Heaven, So I'm going to have a

(46:34):
little bit too much football over the next couple of programs.
I'm just trying to spare those that roll their eyes
about it and put it at the end so that
you know, hey, you don't have to listen to that
part of the podcast if you're burned out on it.
But I'd like to think I've turned some of you
into at least semi interested college football fans. So let

(46:56):
me tick through your reforms very quick. So obviously we
don't elect that attorney it's interesting, would you like to
see us an elect I think you're asking we should
elect the attorney general independently. I've you know, you saw that,
Sarah Skar and I I threw that ad R as
sort of we got to come up maybe a federal
reserve way. If the Supreme Court is going to rule

(47:17):
in such a way that all anybody in the executive
branch is an at will employee of the President of the
United States, regardless of whether it's a quasi independent commission
versus one that is directly appointed by the president, does
sort of shake up this. I do think we either
need either Congress has to be more specific on which

(47:41):
agencies are independent and which aren't, which I do think
they could designate on their own and just say, hey,
they're operating under the branch, but as written into law.
This is I think, and this has been sort of
essentially the philosophy of John Roberts, which is thinks Congress
needs to be more specific in their intent and that

(48:05):
the executive you know, you're if you're not, then you're
just making it giving the courts no choice but to
give the executive branch defference. But you know, if you
look at where he's always at, it's always he's essentially
trying to get Congress to do its job. And on
that score, you know, I think he's right. I think

(48:27):
he's He sometimes leans on it as a crutch to
sort of avoid ideological fights sometimes or try to rationalize
certain ideological outcomes, but largely I don't disagree with him. Look,
you got a lot of members of Congress that want
legislation to be as as as ambiguous as possible so

(48:47):
that they can they can sort of claim credit for
the good stuff, but keep their hands clean if things
get dirty, right and say, oh, it's how it was implemented.
They don't want to take responsibility for the implementation, which
is why there's such a light on specifics on how
to implement these things. Which what they've done is that
they've essentially just handed the executive branch more power. And

(49:10):
that's the you know, you're saying, you know, we should
have timely Congression votes and confirmations emergencies, yes, which you're
basically asking, can't we just have Congress to it's job.
The answer is yes. Now on presidential immunity, I disagree
that the Founders were silent. I think what the Founders

(49:31):
really believed in was a robust legislative branch that would
have no problem holding the executive to account via the
impeachment process. Right, that is why they wrote it into
the Constitution. They saw it as an important check, you know,
one of the things you have to you know that
I've had pounded in my head by Founder scholars, and
I think I want to pound in everybody ahead here.

(49:53):
If they didn't write, if they wrote it, if they
wrote a specific in the Constitution, they did it for
a reason, and if they didn't. So take the issue
of super majorities. I'm a big fan of supermajorities for
judicial picks, but it's notable. And as those that have
pushed back on me through the lens of sort of
originalists or sort of what what Founders intent, I don't

(50:15):
like originalism. I like sort of founders intent, which I
think sort of is a way to is a way
to both sort of honor the original intent and at
the same time modernize it. Right, when the Founders thought
supermajorities were necessary. They wrote that into the Constitution. So
the fact that they didn't in certain places means they

(50:37):
know they were you know, they thought fifty There's a
reason they thought fifty plus one could work. I still,
like I said, I still think when it comes to judiciary,
if you if you want an impartial judiciary, then you
have to raise the limits. You have to raise the
vote threshold to sixty, sixty six or seventy five. You know,
you know, essentially sixty votes do thirds or three quarter. Now,

(51:03):
some argue that that would just there would be gridlock
all the time. I disagree. I think you'd get a
different type of nominee. I just I do. For the
most part, you get those, You get those nominees. So,
but ultimately, what I find interesting about your email is
what you're really asking is, hey, converse, can you make

(51:24):
the legislative branch great again? And it's really what all
of us are asking. Right, they have the authority on tariffs.
They just need to to remind the executive branch on
that they have the authority to rescind these emergencies. They
have the authority to re sind this nebulous, ambiguous aum

(51:50):
F which allows for the use of military force to
go after designated terrorists, whoever the President and the State
Department define as terrorists, and they've invented this narco terrorist category,
which is really not an accepted category and not quite Again,
I go back to the only, the only directly narco

(52:11):
terrorists that by by the definition that I think of
terrorism as was was among the Taliban in Afghanistan who
were using the poppies and heroin essentially to fund to
fund their extremism. That's not what's happening here in Venezuela.

(52:32):
But that's to me, that's the question I really took away,
which goddamn Congress, do your fing job all right, Sorry, George,
didn't mean to put add those flourishes in your voice.
Last question before I get to my top five list
is Matthew.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
M He said, Hey, I'm concerned about Senator Morenos Bernie
marinos proposed Exclusive Citizenship Act and what it says about
Magas America.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
First mentality is a dual citizen of Luxembourg in the
US Army veteran. I find the implication implication that dual
citizens are less American to be offensive than historically misguided,
especially given how many Americans, including the first Lady whold
dual citizenship, do you think this bill has any legal
traction or political upside, particularly in diverse states like Florida
and Texas. Thanks for very great work. So you know,
we've always had this weird relationship with dul says, we don't.

(53:19):
We've never I don't think the United States ever recognized
dual citizens. Other countries are the ones that allow somebody
to be a citizen of of their country and as
citizen in the United States. So and I do think
it would I don't think that I don't think that

(53:39):
that would pass at all. I mean, because of all
the examples you cite, there's quite a few members in
the I think what is it isn't it isn't the
current the current head of the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services right at CMS, doctor Oz, I believe he's

(54:02):
a dual citizen of Turkey and of the United States.
So the point is is that there's quite a few
people in power that have that. I don't think that's
I really don't think that's going anywhere. I understand why
why it offends you. I get it, but it is
not like you know it is not uncommon, especially ironically,

(54:25):
especially among some of the wealthier allies of the president.
Many of them have a second citizenship somewhere for tax
purposes and all sorts of things. So I doubt it,
But you know, I don't want to rule anything out
that suddenly gets traction. What does the how do the

(54:47):
how does the court? I'm pretty convinced they're not going
to somehow get, you know, grant Donald Trump the authority
to sort of negate birthright citizenship. It's in the constitution.
But if you told me they did a stricter definition
of what qualified as birthright citizenship, I don't want to

(55:10):
rule anything out. I don't think they will, but think
maybe you know, it feels like I don't think anything's
a given anymore, And if something like that gets redefined,
then maybe something like this gets real traction. Having good
life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience.

(55:34):
I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't
have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape.
My mother, single mother, now widow, myself sixteen trying to
figure out how am I going to pay for college?
And lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance
policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was
important at the time, and it's why I was able

(55:55):
to go to college. Little did he know how important
that would be in that moment. Well, guess what. That's
why I am here to tell you about Ethos Life.
They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future

(56:18):
in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
and some policies start as low as two dollars a

(56:38):
day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at
ethos dot com. Slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot
com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates

(57:01):
themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance
is something you should really think about it, especially if
you've got a growing family. All Right, I'm gonna get
to my top five list, top five, top topest top.

(57:22):
My top five list is going to be five bowl
games that are not playoff games. The top five bowl
games that if we played them as the first in
the first two weeks of August next year, would be
some of the most would be some of the great
games that the entire college football season could give us.

(57:46):
Because a I have a proposal that I know I'm
in the minority on with some of my college football
fanatic fellow fanatic friends. I've I've pitched this for a while.
Some of you have heard me on my hobby horse before.
But I think we're at a moment where I think
there's going to be there's going to be some openness
to doing something different with the non playoff connected college

(58:09):
bowl games. And that is, you know, with the opt outs,
with the transfer portal, with coaches taking other jobs, the
number of teams that have opted out of these of
these bowl contracts that the Big twelve, the ACEC. In fact,
what is it, two teams opted out in the Big
twelve and they were fined because you know the money

(58:29):
that the bowl money is pooled, right usually you know,
the team that earns the bull band gets to keep
you know, a big chunk of that money. But like
it's like half goes to the school and half goes
to the conference. So suddenly you know, this is denying
everybody money when you choose not to go to a
bowl game. Notre Dame is not in a conference, although
they selectively want to be a member of the ACC,
when when when it's convenient, they suddenly felt as if

(58:54):
the ACC were burning a bridge with them when they
ACC promoted their football member over their football member. I
don't know what Notre Dame expected there. When you humiliate
the ACC by refusing by sort of treating the ACC
as a minor league scheduling assistant, which is what you've
done for all your other sports, don't be shocked when

(59:15):
the ACC isn't there to have your back in football.
You want the ACC to have your back in football,
join full time rather than just using the ACC as
a minor league scheduling system. But the point is, I
think by them pulling out of a bowl in some
ways they could this could It feels like this is

(59:37):
the year the death knell of the non playoff bowles.
I don't want to see these balls go away. I
love the theory of these matchups. What I'd like is
these matchups to mean something. Well, you know, one hope
I had a few years ago is at the advent
of nil that you'd actually see bonus money being paid
to players to play in a bold game. Hey, if

(59:57):
you play, here's an extra two hundred three thousand dollars.
There's an extra fifty thousand dollars whatever, Right, if you
agree to play in this meaningless bowl game, that that
maybe would improve things like I don't know this, but
I'm guessing Cam Wore got compensated for playing the first
half of the Pop Darts bawl that you know, he
got extra money somehow, which is why I only played
one half. Maybe it was part of the deal. I

(01:00:20):
don't know anything, but it certainly that's what it smells like.
Travis Hunter did similar things. I mean, and by the way,
it's an exhibition game. I mean, you know, the entire
World of tennis operates on appearance fees, right, and in
some ways it's a quote unquote appearance fee. But I
don't think we want that. I think we want real
competitive games. Here's what I'd like to see is you

(01:00:42):
take all these incredible bowl matchups that we have and
instead of having meaningless games that we that we yes,
it's nice to have on a Tuesday afternoon in the
week between Christmas and the years, because it's nice to
have something on the air. Don't get me wrong, I
will miss that one and it's gone. Maybe we can

(01:01:02):
move the FCF playoffs to the middle of the week
and we can all start getting into South Dakota State.
But I digress. I'd like to see essentially use the
ball matchups that you have, but you'll play the following year. Now.
I know I've pitched this around to various folks, and
the pushback I've gotten is, well, what about the reward

(01:01:23):
for a good season? Well, in this case, the playoff
is the reward, and if you don't make the playoff,
it doesn't feel like you had a good season. Well,
the players that earn the good season won't be there
to play. Well, a lot of them opt out anyway.
So in the hot light of that, here are the
top five incredible games that would start in my By

(01:01:44):
the way, if you earn a bull bid, then you
get an extra thirteenth game and you get thirteen games
to deliver on your resume for the playoff committee rather
than twelve, which having an extra win could be a
big deal. Having an extra loss could be diluted. So

(01:02:05):
I just think that there's and again, it'd be great
if people showed up in Frisco, Texas in August. By
the way, school hasn't started in a lot of the country.
You could still have family trips, you could have more
places hosting outdoor bowl games across the country rather just
in the South or the Sunbelt. So, without further to doo,

(01:02:27):
my top five games that we'd all be looking forward
to in week zeros in the first. And by the way,
college football would own the month of August. It would
be theirs right now, they own Labor Day weekend. That's good,
own the entire month of August. Nobody will care about
NFL preseason. You guys will step on all of that.

(01:02:48):
Baseball's in a weird lull in that moment in time
because of you know, before the Pennant Race heats up
in September. I think it would be good for the sport.
And look at these matchups. Okay, Number one, how would
you like for an Opening week Bowl game in the

(01:03:13):
cheese at Citrus Bowl between the Texas Longhorns and the
Michigan Wolverines Arch Manning and Bryce Underwood. Do we really
think we're going to get the best versions of Arch
Manning and Bryce Underwood in this matchup when they play?
How many of the teams or are we going to
have people that really care about winning this game come
August of next year? So that's number one? What a game?

(01:03:34):
What a terrific game? All right? Number two on my
list to me, that would be the among the most watchable.
This is a fun one and it's because it's my
way of it's what I call the Smart Bowl. It's
what is going to be the pop Tarts Bowl this year,
which should be BYU and Notre Dame, which, by the way,

(01:03:54):
what an amazing Week one game that would be or
Week zero game b YU and Notre Dame in the
pop Tarts Preseason Bowl. Right, it's a game that counts.
You get all the pop Tart bs that you can
get your that your heart desires, and you'd get this
great matchup of the Mormons and the Catholics. Okay, we

(01:04:15):
could call it, you know, the super Holy War, right?
I know Utah and BYU already has the Holy War. Sorry, Lauren,
I don't want to steal the great rivalry name there,
but you could have called it the Crusades. I don't
know if I've offended somebody. I wasn't intending to offend
on that. But what a much better game going into

(01:04:35):
the season. Now, let me give you my number three.
How about a little Penn State, Clemson and Yankee Stadium.
How cool would that be in August rather than some
frigid game that nobody cares about with the interim coach
at Penn State. Right, But instead it's the debut of
Matt Campbell's Penn State Nitney Lyons playing Dabo Sweeney on

(01:04:56):
the hot seat and Clemson that's really into interesting Unfortunately
not an interesting bowl game. Let's see. So there's three
number four on my list at this point, I'm going
to go with Arizona State and Duke. You'd have the
party crashers from two years ago versus the near party crashers, right,

(01:05:19):
Arizona State wins, the Big twelve gets into the tournament,
Duke wins. The ACC tried to talk its way into
the tournament, but this would be an El Paso that
one of my favorite bowl nicknames that Tony the Tiger
Sun Bowl. Give me some Arizona State and Duke then
versus whatever middling game that no one's going to care

(01:05:39):
about this year other than the fine folks that go
go to the game in El Paso. And then fifth
on my list, number five on my list is simply
because I think it would become a super popular bowl
game in the preseason and a much more desirable bowl

(01:06:01):
to make, and that is the shared in Hawaii Bowl
between Cal and Hawaii. It's probably going to be the
one of the more watchable bowl games in this exhibition
season that we're about to embark on. But imagine this
is week zero, I'd be a little nervous with Cal
as a member of the ACC, Tommy Changs putting together
bringing trying to make Hawaii football great again. I still

(01:06:23):
I have a memory of their incredible run that got
into the Sugar Bowl one year where they were just
out playing out of their minds and such an exciting
team to play. There was nothing like that run and
gun team of Hawaii when your midnight nothing else is
on and you're watching them win a game sixty five
sixty four. Right. The point is all five of those

(01:06:43):
Bowl games I told you nobody's going to give a
darn about over the next four weeks. Everybody would be
glued to any of those games if they were being
played in the first two weeks of August week thirteen. Anyway,
Hey man, I'm just here to solve problems. That's what
the Chuck Podcast is about. We're just trying to figure
out how can we solve problems? So, how do we

(01:07:04):
solve polarization? How do we solve the bold mess? All
right with that, I'll see you in twenty four hours.
Thanks for listening, and until we upload again.

All Episodes

Chuck’s Commentary - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Democrats Split On “Fight vs. Unite” Approach

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Chuck’s Commentary - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Democrats Split On “Fight vs. Unite” Approach