Full Episode - New Polling Shows BIG Shift Toward Democrats + Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you hate hangovers, We'll 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. With five different strengths, you
can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest

(00:20):
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 is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes

(00:41):
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 fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to

(01:02):
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order, So go to get sold
dot Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code.
That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
Hello there, Happy Thursday, getting ready for the long for

(01:26):
what is going to be a holiday week next week.
I'm excited here at the Chuck Podcast. Welcome to another
episode of it because my kids come home on Friday.
I have to say, when I was in college, we
had classes at least Monday and Tuesday. They finally sort
of chipped away at the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because I
knew everybody was leaving. And now apparently there's no more

(01:50):
classes Mondays and tuesdays of Thanksgiving week, at least at
the schools that my kids are at. And hey, as
a recently empty nested parent, let's just say, I am
really looking forward to seeing my kids. I've actually gotten
to see them quite a bit this fall. But it
is not the same. It is for those of you
that have experienced empty nesting. The quiet, right is actually

(02:13):
you miss the noise, and I am looking forward to
that and that all begins in the next twenty four
hours for the Todd household. So I'm happy about that.
And I've also as you can see, I'm home. I'm
finally home. Look, November travel always in you know, November
for me has always been a heavy travel month, whether

(02:33):
it's previewing elections, coming doing analysis on post elections talk,
scheduling a lot of talks around the country. November has
always been a busy travel month. So this has been true,
which is why I never travel on Thanksgiving. As I joke,
as soon as I had a kid, I declared home
field advantage with my family and simply became the Turkey

(02:58):
host at this point. And I'm one of those that
loves a giant a giant crowd. You're welcome to travel
to me. I just don't want to be in an
airport during Thanksgiving week. One other I don't want to
sound like Tony Korneiser here and talk to you about
my travel pet piece, but I'm gonna make one pet

(03:20):
peeve that I think all of you will agree with,
and that is Hotel lotion all right, I you know,
get dry hands. And you know, like, is it a
rule at every hotel, whether you're talking the nicest hotel
you can come up with, or your you know, your
your sort of highway motel, you know, a courtyard or

(03:43):
something like that, is it a rule that everybody has
to water down their lotions? Like, no matter what what
you buy in CVS is never as watery, no matter
the brand you buy, whether it's generic or not, it's
always watered down every single hotel. It's almost like a
running joke. You feel like why, why is why this
lotiony looking water coming out of their thing? And it

(04:05):
is it is like it is not mattered the hotel.
It is not mad to the chain. And I would
just say to you, some of you lotion companies out there,
your good name, some of you probably for advertising purposes,
give it away, but are you telling it, you know,
to these hotels, And I think they all just dilute
them to stretch it out even further. Anyway, it's becoming

(04:28):
a pet peeve. And I realized it when had my
home lotion here, no more dry hands and it wasn't
watery anyway. I know that's a bizarre, But in that
what podcasts are for, right, You're supposed to air bizarre grievances, right,
So I was going to do that. But in all seriousness,
let me give you a rundown of this episode. Number one.
My guest is Ann apple Bomb. I'm going to guess

(04:48):
some of you are subscribers to The Atlantic, and if
you are, you know who Anne Applebomb is. I think
she's one of the best journalists out there when it
comes to expertise on Europe, particularly Eastern Europe. What's happening
are what is Russia up to? She's author of a
book that's come out in the last year, including a
new paperback version of it called Autocracy inc. Full disclosure.

(05:10):
We planned this interview a couple months ago. It just
happened that we were able to talk on Wednesday, and
it's the day that something leaked out. Whether it was
an intentional leak to sort of start to change the
headlines from Epstein and other stuff, or it was an
accidental leak or a leak by the Russians to try
to create an illusion of peace that is coming. But

(05:33):
the leaked potential supposed peace deal that the United States
and that the White House seemed to say to Axios
that they were going to try to jam Ukraine with
and get them to agree to it. The proposal is
a joke for what it's worth. Now, when I interviewed Anne,
we didn't know many of the details. To her credit,

(05:57):
she sort of foreshadowed what she assumed it would be there,
the maximalist position. If Russia is not allowing. If Ukraine
in the room, they were going to have a maximalist position,
and they know that the Trump administration, which does want
to have a separate relationship with Russia on other issues,
is anxious to have that relationship, and with it comes

(06:18):
the attempt to do this. But as you'll hear in
the interview, this does feel like the beginning of Trump
just trying to get out of having to deal with
this anymore, that he'll throw up his hands and say,
nobody wants peace. I'm walking away, And in many ways
we've already walked away. You know the Ian Bremer's newsletter

(06:39):
G Zero. I'm a big fan of that newsletter. It's
a free newsletter. I encourage you to go check it
out and find it. I think it's a very smart
sort of internet almost like an international Political Science newsletter.
They had a nice chart in there showing funding to
Ukraine for the war, basically US funding and European funding,

(07:01):
and it's been pretty much dollar for dollar up through
twenty twenty four, American funding European funding. Twenty twenty five,
American funding is almost down to zero. It's not zero.
We have sent a few things to them, and European
funding has never been bigger. But still the combined is
only about sixty percent of what Ukraine was getting during

(07:27):
before Trump took office a second time. So the United
States has already financially walked away from this war. The
question is going to be whether and because the US
actually isn't funding much of Ukraine's war anymore, they're providing
important intelligence. In some ways, the US doesn't have the

(07:49):
leverage that it even had a year ago on Zelenski,
or the leverage that they even had six months ago
on Zelenski, because at this point the Europeans, to their credit,
have essentially tried to help on their own the Ukrainians,
and they, like I said, they have filled the gap
up to about sixty percent of what the combined total

(08:11):
funding was. And so the leverage is not the United
States doesn't have the leverage over Zelensky that it did
in some ways, the Europeans do. And I don't know
if the US has the same leverage over the Europeans
that we had. You could argue that Donald Trump's plan
to make Europe pay for this is working and with it, though,

(08:33):
comes diminished influence from US, you know, as the leader
of the free world, because we are not a party
to this, we don't want to be in. Well, then
we're also not going to be able to have the
same amount of leverage. Look, we had a ton of
leverage over Israel to force them into that peace plan.
We do not have the same leverage over Ukraine a

(08:53):
year ago we did, but we do not have that
same level of leverage now. So this thing is not
going anywhere, and it does look a lot more likely
that this is. You know, he will he will just
simply walk away from it because he doesn't want to
be a party to something that he thinks he can't
deal with. And he's and you know, it's unless he

(09:14):
accepts the premise that Putin's been playing for him for
a fool and he refuses to accept that premise. I
think we know that this is unfortunately going to continue
to drag on into some version of a stalemate. But
our conversation gets deeper than that. We obviously talk about
this deal, talk about what could happen, where's this headed,
the rise of authoritarianism Saudi Arabia. We get into the

(09:37):
Venezuela issue and what our aggressiveness towards Venezuela, what message
that is sending to China in regards to Taiwan, or
frankly putin in regards to what he's trying to do
in essentially reconfigure the old Soviet Union. So we get
into all of those things. I think it's a so conversation,

(10:00):
but a good conversation. And we hadn't touched on this
topic in a while, and hey, that everything. The confluence
of events made this I think, top of mind, and
I hope you will give it the attention that it deserves.
But it is a you know, it's interesting when we
were talking about the issue with Venezuela, and I think
I've expressed this to you before. Personally, I'm sort of

(10:23):
very torn. I want to see him go. This is
a country. This guy's violating democratic norms. He he was
ousted in a free and fair election, and he's refused
to go. And if I and if the if the
president of the United States laid out the goal and
the rationale for doing what we're doing in an attempt

(10:46):
to sort of essentially protect and defend democracy in our hemisphere,
I think you could. You know, look it, I think
you could. You certainly would have a bit more credibility
in the world stage for what we are doing. The
problem I have is the fact that he's lying about
the rationale for doing what he's doing. Right, we don't
have a fentanyl crisis coming out of Venezuela. That isn't

(11:09):
the issue. You know this this we are there for
other reasons. But we're claiming we're there for another reason,
which isn't true. And that's you know, when you lie
or mislead a democracy into why you're going into a
military intervention, you know that usually doesn't go well. You
know it. We only have our own history to look

(11:32):
at that. And every time we meddle in Latin America
this way, it always bites us in the ass. And
so that certainly is of concern. But if we were
a nation that cared about expanding and protecting democracy around
the world, we'd be much more involved and invested in
Ukraine's success at beating back the Russians, and then maybe

(11:55):
we would have a better rationale for what we're doing
in Venezuela. But right now now we are not in
We are not trying to protect democracy in Venezuela. That
may be, that may be an outcome that comes with
this decision to intervene, but it is not the primary
reason we're doing it, and that I think that is

(12:17):
unfortunate and it will only increase the amount of mistrust
it out there. And of course Donald Trump has a
has a has a base that doesn't want intervention in
foreign wars, which is why I think this Venezuela situation
is more fraught politically than I think this administration appreciates.

(12:37):
I think they think that they can basically play the
deal with Venezuela like they're playing the game of risk
and we're the big bully in our hemisphere, and we'll
just do this because this is this is right there
on our side of the of the game board. It
doesn't always work that well. It doesn't always work out

(12:58):
that way. So when you look at what we're doing
with Venezuela and what we're not doing with Ukraine, right,
We certainly don't have any kagent ideological explanation for our
lack of intervention in one place and threatened intervention in

(13:18):
another place. So again, that's that side of that conversation.
I want to get through a bit of a like
I said this before, a bit of a notebook slew
of notebook items there. We've seen an additional round of
polling now post election day twenty twenty five. If you
recall the last time I delved into a poll with
you guys, it was the NBC News poll, and it

(13:40):
was a poll that came out before the election day
twenty twenty five. And it's worth noting how precient that
poll was. It had Democrats with an eight point generic
ballot advantage on the generic congressional ballot. No other poll
had shown anything like that. Now, pretty much every pole
that's come out has shown Democrats with anywhere from a
five to a Maris Pole chose a fourteen point lead.

(14:01):
I think that's a super outlier, but there are other
polls out there that show it consistently five six, seven.
It shows you that eight point number was not an outlier.
There were some people who were trying to argue that
was an outlier, that was not an outlier, And I
think we saw there was another part of that poll
that I failed to make a big deal out of that. Frankly,

(14:21):
I meant to. I'd written it down in my notes,
but I didn't bring it up, and I should have.
And that was sort of one of the ways the
heart McInturff one of the regular questions that the NBC
News poll has had on that poll going back some
fIF I want to say, we started doing this in
the eight cycle, maybe six cycle. Is on a scale

(14:45):
of one to ten, how you know, how interested are
you in this election, in the next election? Interest in
the election? And what was remarkable in this in this
poll here in twenty twenty five is the number was
already in the mid fifties. And this was asking about
the twenty twenty six midterms a year out, and it
was in the mid fifties. Normally that number was in

(15:05):
the forties four years before, and it's regular. This was
sort of a It being in the mid fifties felt
like a summer of an election year number, not a
fall of the year before. Well, what did that foreshadow?
The massive turnout advantage that Democrats ended up showcasing. On

(15:26):
election day twenty twenty five, we saw New Jersey. I
continue to go back to the New Jersey example. You know,
Virginia you can write off as a federal worker issue.
New Jersey where there was a not so popular two
term Democratic governor being replaced. It was term limited. In
the Republican nomine he got more votes this time than
he got four years ago, and he ended up losing

(15:47):
by thirteen percentage points. That is a flashing red light
for the Republicans. And I will say this, So we've
gotten these two new generics out there, Marist and I
know the Marist folks well. They they they are very
they're very careful about what they they They're very transparent

(16:09):
about their methodology, and so their numbers can be a
bit more fluid. And academic polsters in general, uh get
a little skittish about about waiting based on different things.
They very much want to have a more hands off
approach and to some of the decision making that they
make on weight. So the Marist will fluctuate more. And

(16:31):
that's why it's always important don't compare two different polls
to each other. Compare a Polster trend line to themselves,
and so the trend line fits the same trend line.
We're seeing what what marists showed a month ago is
now is now moved in the democratic direction. Well, guess
what every pole has moved in the democratic direction. You've

(16:53):
seen a consistent rise in Trump's disapproval rating, a consistent
rise in the spread between Democrats and Republicans, and the
generic ballot. They're clearly something has turned here. It looks
like it's mostly economy based more than anything else. Right.
You know, you may think it's about Epstein, or you

(17:14):
may think it's about some of these other things. Ultimately,
I think the great lesson that everybody I should go
back and take away from twenty twenty four is it
Ultimately it's about prices, and it's about cost of living.
And the cost of living has been skyrocketing everywhere, right,
and the latest issue is electric bills. And the fact
is you can't you know, the White House is nervous.
That's why they wiped away the food tariffs. That's nice

(17:36):
that maybe they can sort of slow down the rise
in grocery prices, but the electric but the rise in
electric bills around the country is going to eat into
whatever tariff savings he creates there. And of course he
spent his speech browbeating the Fed. And if the Fed

(17:56):
lowers interest rates too quickly, and I think there's a
real divide on this because going to imagine the Fed
lower's interest rates and Trump turns out two thousand dollars checks,
we're going to be in twenty twenty one all over again.
And remember what happened in twenty twenty one. That's when
we had another surge of inflation that essentially ruined Biden's presidency. Right,

(18:17):
he could not get out from under that initial inflation
surge where the market was flooded with easy money and
lower interest rates plus a tear Freebate check all would
flow extra easy money in there. And I promise you
prices aren't going to go down, just the opposite, prices
are going to go up. So he is not This
economy is not in a good situation. There's not many

(18:39):
levers he can pull here. And yet one thing you
know about Donald Trump is he's always going to try
to pull a lever, and in some ways, the more
levers he tries to pull, the more he makes things worse.
If you need an example of that. Just look at
what he did with redistricting. He has now put his
party in a worse place right by bullying all these
legislatures to do this, He's put his party now in

(19:02):
a worst place if Texas, if this map does, if
this map doesn't get upheld by the US Supreme Court.
But I want to go back through these because there
was another poll that was out that I think gives
you a sense of how to read some of these
generic ballot numbers, the Marquette Law School poll. I'm a
big fan of the Marquette poll. It's a very he's

(19:25):
a steady pollster there, Charles Franklin. Anyway, it's a very
good poll, very consistent. One of the things, by the
way he does quarterly is probably the most thorough examination
on the public opinion side of the public's opinions of
the Supreme Court, for what it's worth. So it is

(19:49):
it is a poll that I care about a lot. Well,
they came out and their generic ballot among just registered
voters was forty nine forty four the Democrats. Then he said,
among those certain to vote, the Democratic lead expands to
nine points. More importantly, in that Poul Trump's approval rating
among independent voters is below thirty percent. So look, there's

(20:12):
already a disadvantage for Republicans when it comes to these
off your elections, as Democrats have the more regular voters.
Democrats have the voters that are definitely going to show up,
which is why you see those more certain to vote,
the Democratic lead expands. So if you're the Republicans and
you're trying to hold Congress, you know, among registered voters,
you're hoping that the number is you know, you don't

(20:33):
want a separation on the generic ballot of more than one,
two or three points at this point, because you know,
among likely voters it's going to basically whatever the spread
is among registers, it's basically going to double. And so,
you know, I think the way these congressional districts are gerrymandered,
Democrats probably have to be ahead somewhere between six and

(20:56):
seven points on the national generic ballot in order to
win control of the House. Maybe if the Texas map
doesn't get upheld, you know, and let's say Virginia still
gets aggressive and decides to redistrict and helps out the
Democratic numbers, or maybe that number goes down to four
or five. But The point is we're already in territory

(21:19):
where the House is gone. Right. Anything north of six
points the Republicans have lost the House. And as you
keep creeping up, then suddenly you start to see that
the Senate is in play. 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

(21:41):
thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
more than half a million clients. It includes cases where
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

(22:04):
originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
dollars twenty six million, six hundred fifty thousand dollars. So
with more than a 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 dial Pound Law Pound five to nine Law on

(22:26):
your cell phone. And remember all law firms are not
the same, so check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee
is free unless they win. One of the talks I
did a few days ago was on with another another
analyst who was very involved in the one of the
Virginia races, the ag race, and you know, I want

(22:49):
to protect we were in an off the record setting,
so I just want to share the analysis. But the
basic analysis of why did j Jones win? Did he
how did he win? Well? He won because the number
of split ticket voters in Virginia was about six or
seven percent. Yes, I know what I just did, six

(23:10):
seven have at it, everybody, But it was somewhere in
the six to seven percent range here and it is
it is interesting because she she won by fifteen points
and Jones was able to win by five or six
So you start to see what that range is and
if you applied this, so Susan Collins in twenty twenty

(23:32):
overperformed by about six to seven points, indicating a split
ticket vote in Maine of about six or seven percentage
points of the electorate. So you know, we've all been
trying to calculate what is the maximum number of voters
who might actually be vacillating between the two parties. Right,
Most of the differences these days are which party turns

(23:55):
out more of their voters. That's that's the difference between
why you know, Democrats may do better in Ohio in
a midterm year and Republicans do better in Ohio in
a presidential year. But the question is who's the persuadable number, right,
who are the voters? You know, we used to have
fifteen twenty five percent of voters that would be split

(24:16):
ticket voters. We're nowhere near that. But it's interesting to
me that what you saw in Maine was about six
or seven percent on the split ticket side. What we
saw in Virginia five years same sort of six or seven.
So just keep that in mind, right, And so what
does that mean? So let's say you have this generic
ballot sitting in the where Democrats are up north of

(24:38):
six points, which I would argue is what their advantage was.
It looks like in the off year elections, essentially anything
between any state legislative district that Donald Trump carried by
five points or less Democrats won in Virginia. Now they
only won I think one seat where Trump carried a

(24:59):
legislative district by somewhere between five and ten points. So
let's assume that sort of five point buffer. You apply that.
So what that would mean is that it makes Ohio
Senate a coin flip. And then you already have a
bit of breeze at Shared Brown's back because Democratic turnout advantages.

(25:20):
So that's a that becomes a coin flip race. It
is a winnable race. Not saying he's gonna win it, it
is a winnable race. Then if you apply the wellther
six to seven percent of potential split ticket voters, all right,
then suddenly you say, okay, what would that do numbers
wise in a Texas, numbers wise in an Iowa, numbers
wise in a Kansas although there's no Kansas series Kansas

(25:42):
Senate candidate yet, or numbers wise in a Mississippi, And
that's where you start to see where, well, I don't
think Democrats in a presidential year could win a Mississippi
Senate race, could win an Iowa Senate race, could win
a Kansas Senate race, and probably not a Texas center
race though though I think Texas is is a bit
more fluid than we fully appreciate. In a midterm year,

(26:03):
they can, right, you apply the five essentially a generic
five point advantage, and then on top of that, right,
you have another six to seven percent of voters who
are willing to split their ticket. If you accept the
premise that this is essentially what we've seen in any
competitive race, at least in our new Trump polarized era,

(26:26):
that does put Kansas, Alaska, Mississippi, all of that on
the radar. Which is why I think right now I
go back. I've never been more bullish on democrats chances
to do well in the midterms, and I am this week.
I've been a bit skeptical all year because you know,
there's because of a few things. One is just the

(26:48):
simple and popularity of the Democratic brand. But that was meaningless,
I mean it turned out to be meaningless. Right. The
other big, the other big sort of what do you
call it rule these days of the Trump era is

(27:11):
we just vote against right. We don't like whoever's in power,
and so we are voting out parties in power when
we get a chance. We are voting out incumbents presidents
when we get a chance. Right, we've done it, I
mean to think about it. We've essentially fired two incumbent
administrations back to back, and if you count Trump's victory
over Clinton, that's three in a row on that front.

(27:35):
The House flipped in eighteen, The House flipped again in
twenty two, Right, so the Senate flipped in twenty The
Senate flipped again in twenty two. Excuse me, the Senate
flipped again, not in twenty two and twenty. Then it
flipped again in twenty four. You notice here, how it?
You know? On that front. So I do think that

(27:56):
if Democrats can't use this moment to find good candidates
to run in Kansas, good candidates to run in Alaska,
big money to donate to places like Mississippi, Iowa Senate,
Kansas Senate, Alaska Senate, they can't do it at this moment,
then I don't know when they're going to do it.

(28:16):
This is their opportunity. The polling's never look better. And
I'm a big believer in the Haley barbarisms. I love
my old Haley barbarisms, and one of my favorite is
good gets better and bad gets worse. And I think
we're in a situation where bad is going to get
worse for Trump, right, because he's going to keep trying
to fix it, and the stuff he does to fix

(28:40):
it will only divide his party, like he's already divided
his party on whether to even do these rebate checks.
He thinks he can do this without Congress. Good luck, right,
He's going to get a haircut when the tariff ruling
comes down. So all of these things, I think that
he's likely, his instinct to meddle and to think he
can somehow change the weather is likely to take a

(29:03):
bad situation and make it worse for him on this front.
And even though do you have a Democratic party that
doesn't like its leadership, there's a total vacuum there. There
is such enthusiasm at pushing back against Trump. There's such
a belief that, hey, this stuff is working. Right, the
courts ruled against them in Texas, voters got behind doing

(29:24):
something that I didn't think was as you know, I
don't think we fully appreciate how impressive the feat was.
With Gavin Newsom in California. You start to see where
good gets better on that front, but we're still in
the in fairness, we're still in the wake of what was.
This has just been a really bad November for Trump,

(29:48):
the Republican brand, Republicans in general. You know, it is
every month going to be like this between now and
next November. That's unlikely, right, but it is if this
economy continues to be this uneven, and especially if we
continue with this AI bubble talk, and there's a lot

(30:09):
of conversations out there that we are this is looking
a lot more like nineteen eight, ninety eight, nineteen ninety nine,
which was basically the first time the Internet bubble completely popped.
You know, as I joke, well, somebody please tell me
which one of these AI companies is pets dot com.
And there is certainly that hanging over the head. And

(30:29):
so if even that doesn't go well, then that turns people,
even those that have a little bit of money, will
suddenly be feeling sour about about how about how Trump
is handling this economy. One more thing I want to
get to before we get to the interview with Ann Applebaum.
And by the way, I also will have my college
football preview. I got a few things to say about
the updated college football playoff ranking. Says you might you

(30:51):
might think, and I'm going to deal with a few,
quite a few questions. I want to just end on
California governor. We just got a new candidate jumping in
the race, Tom Steyer. You may remember him as a
climate change activist who ran for president, kind of self funder.
You know, Stier is a guy who doesn't look like

(31:13):
he ever laughs. He is always serious, borderline a little
bit angry, and he's and I think he takes I
think he takes his positions very seriously. He takes politics
very seriously. He's willing to spend his money as a
to do these things. But there's you know, there's I

(31:35):
don't think you can be dour all the time. You
have to have some sonny in you somewhere, right, you know,
I think the key we've all you know, you heard
crystalis and I discussed this quite a bit during the
election night live stream that we did. You know, one
of mom Donnie's superpowers is his optimism and the constant
smile on his face. So you know, you've got to

(31:55):
project some optimism with voters. And you know Styr has
been in this dog sort of dark place, dark place
about climate change. Right, the end is coming sooner than
we think. Dark about democracy. He inserted himself a bit
into the referendum campaign to do the reredissecting in California.
It was an insertion that how many great Gavin Newsom

(32:17):
folks appreciated. But look, you know why he got in
because this has been I have to say so far,
the development of California governor's race is one of the
big head scratchers to me. This is in nineteen ninety one,
when all of these big time Democrats decided that George H. W.
Bush wasn't beatable in the nineteen ninety two general election,

(32:39):
people like the gut part Out Gore, Bill Bradley, Jay Rockefeller,
Sam Nunn, all these supposed rising stars of the early
nineties all decided not to run. And the people that
did run were nicknamed the Seven Dwarfs. And it was
Bill Clinton, it was Paul Songiz had Doug Wilder in
that race, you had bought carry in that race. I know,

(33:01):
I'm leaving Tom Harkin was in that race, but collectively
that crew was because there was no star power at
the time. Bill Clinton wasn't a star. Then Bill Clinton
ended up sticking out as like the best political athlete
on stage with a whole bunch of sort of Tier
two senators and governors who showed themselves up and I

(33:21):
think helped catapult him, to quick start him. At the time.
I remember a debate I believe it was on PBS
the first time they all appeared together, and Bill Clinton
was the sort of the clear star of this field.
But in general it was treated like the Seven Dwars.
That's kind of how I feel about the current makeup

(33:42):
of this California governor's race. Here's here's an open seat
for California governor. That where you get to be the
governor of the fourth largest economy in the world. It
is as important of a position. I think it's you know,
New York City mayor's probably slightly more prominent on the

(34:04):
international stage because of New York City's prominent, But California
governors probably New York City maybe a harder pr job.
California Governor's just a harder job, especially these days. You know,
it's weird. It's you know, you think a single party
state makes it easy. It's all these one party states
are still two party states, meaning there's sort of two

(34:25):
wings of the one party that fight each other. I mean,
Texas is kind of a three party state. Right, you
have the Democrats is one party, and then you have
two wings of the Republican Party that are at war
with each other. Essentially the Ken Paxton Dan Patrick wing
that Greg Abbott is suddenly now on one side. And
then you have sort of the old bush Rick Perry
John Cornyan wing of the party a bit more pro business.

(34:47):
And what's interesting that wing worked with the Democrats to
elect the last speaker of the Texas Legislation. But the
point is these one party states, you know politics, you
know the expression politics of poors a vacuum. Even in
the one party states, there's always an opposition. Sometimes the
opposition comes from an outside force. In Oklahoma, it's not
the Democrats or a slice of the Republicans, it's the

(35:09):
it's the tribes who are very wealthy, and they will
fund primary foes, they will fund candidates to keep sort
of as the quote check if you will on the
on the Republican leadership in that state, and in California
you do. You pretty much. You have a very liberal,
progressive wing of the party and then you have a
very sort of pro business democratic wing of the party.

(35:31):
And collectively it's given Democrats this illusion of a super majority,
but it actually makes it quite difficult to govern. But
it has been interesting to me how few big time
rising stars have wanted to jump into this race because

(35:52):
it isn't you know, it's a you know, this doesn't
come open very often, and you know, you've had Jerry
Brown and Gavin Newsom essentially governor of California for the
last sixteen years, and they've kind of, you know, they've
kind of been hovering over democratic politics in California for
the entire twenty first century. This is the first time

(36:14):
that page is going to turn. Now. I understood that
with the referendum and the re redistricting, that kind of
whatever jockeying was taking place on when it came to
the governor's race sort of got put on pause while
all efforts went in there. But we're still I mean,
let's just be honest, this thing is lack and star power.
You have Jave Ebreserah, the former congressman, former state attorney

(36:36):
general who's one of his closest advisors, just got indicted.
And it's an investigation. You can't just chuck this up
to a Trump investigation. It's an investigation that started during
the Biden Justice Department and continue during the Trump Justice Department.
Basically a dummy job, right, you know, sort of using
Bessera's name and a position to you know, there's no

(36:58):
evidence of Besserah was a part of this, but I
think it it tarnishes him. Whether he thinks that's fair
or not, I think it does. You've had somebody I've
interviewed on this podcast do I find to be one
of the more interesting characters in this race, Steve Klubeck,
who is of course made his money doing time shares.

(37:20):
He is a big personality to say the least, and
you know, in this environment, he's one of those that
if he caught fire, it wouldn't shock me, And if
he ended up only getting two percent come primary day,
it wouldn't shock me. Katie Porter had the had that
well publicized meltdown when a journalist asked her a few

(37:41):
simple questions where she couldn't handle basic questions, and then
of course the floodgates open. Exporter staffers just you know,
unloaded story after story about what a terrible boss the
former congresswoman is. I do think you know, that probably
has ended her ability to become one of the top two.

(38:05):
And remember this California governor's race is a top two situation,
so everybody runs in the same ballot. There's really only
two prominent Republicans that are getting some attention. You have
this Riverside County Sheriff, Chad Bianco, very very hardcore, sort
of more of a MAGA guy. And then you have
Steve Hilton, who's the British transplant as a British accent

(38:29):
and everything, but he's a US citizen. He's been running,
he was a Fox commentator, he was a former advisor
to David Cameron when he was Prime Minister of the UK.
I hadn't really taken his candidacy that seriously. Not because
he's not a serious guy. I think he is, but
because I just don't think, and I still am skeptical

(38:49):
that a former British citizen is going to be met
with open arms by a Republican electorate or any electorate
to become governor of I mean, yes, they embraced Arnold Schwarzenegger,
but Arnold Schwarzenegger, you know, in some ways, was as
American as they come, and it isn't it wasn't a

(39:11):
recent thing that he became an American to then jump
in and run for governor on that front. So, but
what I've noticed is the Democratic field is so weak
that both Republican candidates in a very with a huge
undecided number have actually been the ones hovering closer to
the top. You've seen different orders by uncle will be

(39:31):
one some of them. Hilton is one, Katie Porter with
her name ideas too, and then everybody else is sort
of below that. So the assumption is some more people
are getting in. I don't consider Stier to be a
big name. He's big money, but I don't know if
he's a big name on that front. And I don't,
like I said, I have some questions about whether he's

(39:52):
just too dour to catch fire. We shall see. By
the way, Tom Styr, I'd look forward to having you
on the podcast. Steve Elton, I know we've talked about
having you in the podcast. I'm hoping to have you
on soon as well. Then the other though, Shoe that
I think the assumption is, you know, in whispers in
California circles, is that people are just waiting for Rick Caruso,

(40:14):
who lost the LA Mayor's race four years ago to
Karen Bass. That you know, is he going to run
for mayor, for real for mayor and challenge Karen Bass again,
or is he going to run for governor? And it
really depends on who you talk to out there. I've
talked to people who are sure, of course he's running
for governor. Why would he want to run for mayor.
It's a it's a ceremonial job. You don't have as

(40:35):
much power, it's perceived power. And about the only draw
of being mayor of LA over the next four years
is being mayor of LA during the twenty twenty eight Olympics.
So there's there's some people who swear, no, no, no, no,
he's not He's not going to run for mary. He's
going to run for governor. He's definitely going to run

(40:55):
for governor. I think the field's open for him if
he does run for governor, because you have sort of
this race to the left right now that is with
Katie Porter, Tom Steyer. There's nobody, I mean, Klubec will
tell you he's trying to hug the center lane. He
calls himself a Bill Clinton Harry read Democrat, which is
his code for saying, I'm a more pro business centrist Democrat,

(41:16):
but it's clear Caruso is going to and that lane
could be wide open if all of the other Democrats
are going to play to a more liberal crowd. And
I think some of this are not sure. You have
Antonio Viragoso who's running again. He was kind of the
only seemed like the only candidate that had a shot

(41:36):
at making Gavin Newsom's life miserable when he ran for
governor in twenty eighteen. I actually moderated a debate that
featured both Via Goosa and Gavin Newsom on there, and
they were the only two sparring partners, if you will.
But that was a race that never felt in doubt.
It was all about whether well with knew some sort

(41:57):
of you know where is where out is welcome providing
an opening or not, and Knewsom didn't and he ended
up running away. Swawell could be interesting. I don't want
to write him off. He could end up raising a
lot of money. But sitting members of Congress have struggled
in the past in governor's races in California. It's just

(42:18):
tough because it's tough to have much name id. In
some ways, Katie Porter is benefiting from the fact that
she ran for the Senate and did run state watch game.
Obviously didn't make the runoff against Adam Schiff, but she
certainly got a little bit of that. But I still
look at this and I keep thinking there's got to
be some better, some bigger candidates that are going to

(42:39):
jump in this race. You know, maybe some interesting outsiders
that might jump in. It has been a what I
would say is a shockingly sleepy race that perhaps gets
more interesting if Rick Caruso ends up jumping in and
then suddenly that might elevate things. But I'll tell you now,
I do think the Republicans have all both of them,

(43:00):
have gotten enough traction where this is going to the
top two is going to be a D N and R.
I don't think you're going to have two d's or
make it in the top two anymore. And I think
there was a thought that that's that's where we were headed.
I think there's definitely going to be a D versus
R situation here because of the smaller number of Republicans
and the increasingly large field of Demo. I mean, if

(43:23):
you're gonna have Swawell in this race, Tom Steyr in
this race, Katie Porter in this race via Regosa Bessarah
Klubec is a self funder throwing correct. I mean, you
see where we're going here. That's up to seven Democrats
splitting that vote. If you assume there's thirty to forty
percent of the electorate is going to show up for
the Republicans. You see how very quickly that you almost

(43:45):
guarantee that one of the two slots is gonna is
going to go to the Republicans. But just in general
it's been in it's been fascinating to me how we
haven't seen more star power try to come into this anyway,
something that I suspect we'll get. We'll start to see

(44:06):
some movement over the next few weeks and maybe in
and around the holidays you'll start to see some announcements.
All right, enough from me on the introduction to this.
Let's take a break and when we come back, my
conversation with the journalists of the Atlantic and an expert
on all things having to do with Eastern Europe in

(44:28):
Central Europe, it is Anne Applebox. This episode of the
Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Wildgrain. Wildgrain is
the first bake from Frozen subscription box for our teasonal breads,
seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all items conveniently bake
in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store bought options,

(44:50):
Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly
and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrains boxes are fully customizable.
They're constantly adding seasonal and limited tiping products for you
to enjoy it. In addition to their classic box, they
now feature a gluten free box and a plant based box.

(45:11):
I checked out the gluten free box and let me
tell you they have a gluten free sourdough bread.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
It is.

Speaker 1 (45:18):
We got two loads of it and we've done one
loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's
like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except it's
not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know
it's hit or miss if you mess around in the
gluten free bread world. This is a hit. Seriously. I
was impressed. So look for a limited time, Wild Grain

(45:39):
is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box,
plus free croissants in every box when you go to
wildgrain dot com slash podcast. To start your subscription, follow
these instructions. Free crossants in every box thirty dollars off
your first box when you go to wildgrain dot com
slash podcast. That's wildgrain dot com slash toodcast or simply
use the promo code toodcast at checkout. Always use the

(46:03):
code get the discount. I'm telling you, it's excellent, excellent,
right well, joining me now is one of the journalists
that I always learned something from when I read her
stuff in The Atlantic and Applebomb, and in many ways,
I know what I turned to her for and what
I read her most thoroughly about is whenever she's writing

(46:26):
about Central and Eastern European and what's going on in
that part of the world specifically. I want to timestamp this.
We are talking midday, Wednesday, November nineteenth, and it's important
to timestamp this because earlier this morning some news leak
that there is a supposed potential piece deal of sorts

(46:48):
being circulated that was I guess negotiated by the President's
personal en voice, Steve Whitcoff with an envoy of the
Russians and it is now they are supposedly shopping around
to see if, in the words of the Axios reporting,
essentially can they jam the Ukrainians to take this deal.

(47:11):
Doesn't seem as if many people know about this deal,
and if you does have the whiff for what it's
worth of a leak in order to try to turn
the page on stories perhaps this administration doesn't like on
the front page. That's the cynic in me. But I'm
not going to make ann Apple bomb day with that
aspect of this story. And is also author of a

(47:31):
brand new book, Autocracy inc Right, it's it's new ish.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
It came out in paperback this year, and it has
a new paper.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
Yes, yes, well, and I obviously want to talk about that,
But let's start with I mean, look at any given day,
I would have asked you this, which is, you know,
will I don't feel like the war between Russia and
Ukraine is going to end even if there's a cease fire.
But I guess that's the question. Are we I have
a period this year where there is no exchange of

(48:03):
fire between the Russians and the Ukrainians.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
So to be clear right now on this, you've just
time stamped the date. One of the things that's been
true about this war since the very very beginning is
still true, and that is that Vladimir Putin has never
said that he will give up his original war aims,
and his original war aims remain the conquest or the

(48:30):
occupation or the or just the control of all of
Ukraine and the prevention of the existence of a Ukrainian
government that would have sovereignty and would be able to
make trade deals with the European Union, and would be
able to run the country the way they want to
run it. And so he's never said that, he's never
acknowledged the legitimous legitimacy of President Zelenski. He's never said

(48:54):
he wants to stop fighting. He's never acknowledged, as I said,
the right of Ukrainians to be Ukrainians. He's continued to
talk about them as if they were part of Russia.
And it seems to me that until he gives that up,
and it's and he would have to do it publicly,
I mean, he would have to do it in some
way where he says it, then it's very hard to

(49:16):
see how we get to the end of the war.
The war will end when the Russians stop fighting and
when they say we're not going to conquer all of Ukraine,
and then we can talk about ceasefires, or we can
talk about where the border's going to be, and there
are a lot of other things we could negotiate, but
we haven't reached that moment. What worries me about the

(49:38):
news that we heard today, aside from the piece of
it that you mentioned that it feels a little bit
like let's haul an old story out of the you know,
out of the trash can and put it back on
the front pages so that we can distract from stuff
we don't want to talk about. I mean, what worries
me is the is the persistence of the two main negotiators,

(49:59):
and this is Steve Witkoff and Kirol Dimitriev. We know
who Witkof is. He's Trump's friend from the real estate agency,
was involved in Gaza. He's someone who doesn't know Russia
and Ukraine very well. He doesn't know any of the
history or any of the people.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
Well, I think he would now dispute that.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
He might now dispute it. But his main interlocutor has
been Kiroll Dimitriev, who's the head important because he's the
head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, and a lot
of what Wikoff and Dimitrie have apparently been talking about
is not so much peace in Ukraine but business deals
that might be done between the United States and Russia.
And that's not really a very good starting point as

(50:40):
far as I'm concerned, or as anybody Ukrainians are concerned,
or the Europeans are concerned. That's not really a good
starting point for talking about how to end the war,
because the thing that end the war is expressions of
American and European commitment to Ukraine. Well, you know, Putin
has to be persuaded that Ukraine will be able to
continue fighting for a long time, and then maybe he

(51:01):
will rethink his may aim. And that's not the role
that would Cough is playing.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
I'm just going to cut to the chase here. If
I just think about this as game theory. But if
I'm Vladimir Putin, I have the most supportive, malleable American
president that I'll ever have, probably right, and he knows

(51:28):
he can, and he continues. It feels as if he
gets to put he has pushed Trump further closer and
closer to him. As this is dragged on, and now
they've negotiated without the Europeans and without the Ukrainians. Here
is there a point where where where Putin is overreaching

(51:51):
Here and even even Trump will realize he's being played.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
Trump seems to be resistant to the idea that he's
being played. He continually it's it's and it's strange because
he's so easily offended by everybody else, by other leaders,
by journalists. But there are particular people. Actually, the Saudi
crown Prince was one of them. We saw that in

(52:19):
Washington also yesterday. Putin is another who seemed to have
a special status for him. And my guess is it's
because they're very rich, and he thinks that he can
do business deals with them, and he doesn't want them insulted,
and he doesn't seem to take what he doesn't take
their insults as as seriously as he does others. And

(52:40):
so it doesn't it doesn't feel like he's close to that.
I mean, he may be miscalculating in another way, though,
which is that you know, at this point in the war,
the Europeans are supporting the Ukrainians far more than the
US is, certainly in sheer monetary terms. They definitely are.
And the Ukrainians themselves, also, as the President would have

(53:01):
put it, have their own cards, They have their own
weapons industry. They made two million drones last year and
they're going to make four million drones this year, and
they've been using them to effectively hit Russian oil refineries
and other targets connected to the oil and gas industry.
And you know, it's not clear that Trump has control

(53:22):
over this war. In other words, a decision that he
makes will end it. So it's a it's an odd
moment where we're still playing the game putin talking to
Trumpell and the war, but there are so many other
factors now that he doesn't seem to be taking into account.

Speaker 1 (53:37):
According to this report in Axios, there was a sense
that and you could hear it that the that certain
members of the administration think that Zelenski's politically weak at
the moment because of the scandal that just sort of
forced out a few of his cabinet ministers, and that
they essentially can jam him. I know you've got particular

(53:58):
insight on that on the ground domestically with Ukraine. What
kind of what kind of political peril is Zelenski in
at the moment domestically.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
So remember that the reason there is a corruption scandal
right now in Ukraine is that the Ukrainian state, a
state institution, is investigating the operations of the state. In
other words, this is the Ukrainian government acting. And although
it has identified a couple of ministers who one or

(54:29):
two of whom are close to Zelenski, it's doing so
within the law. It's not as if, you know, the
IMF has come in and said you're corrupt, or even Germans.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
We have or something you know, or right or the
US has.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
This is actually internal to the Ukrainian political system and
it's part of Ukrainian democracy and it's supported by most Ukrainians.
And so assuming that Zelenski you know, doesn't try to
block it or stop it, and so far he hasn't,
so he done nothing like that. He said, you know,

(55:02):
let the investigations continue. Assuming that continues, then he may
emerge more strongly from this scandal actually because he would
then be seen to have presided over something that Ukrainians want,
which is a kind of clean government. This, by the way,
the nature of the scandal is not to do with
US or European aid. So at least not as far

(55:25):
as we know so far. It's to do with kickbacks
on contracts, which is more which is more internal.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
I hate to call it this. It felt like running
the mill government graft when I read the story, right, like,
you're like, oh, well, this happens pretty much everywhere around
the world. There's always somebody skimming something off the top
getting out.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Yeah. And also, of course it's something that you can't
imagine cash Betel's FBI doing, like you can imagine this
happening now in the United States. So cash Betel's FBI
investigating Trump administration deals for example, or or Trump cabinet members.
So this is evidence of the strength of Ukrainian democracy

(56:05):
and of transparency and so on. So you have to
you have to keep that in mind.

Speaker 1 (56:10):
Do you think it's a miscalculation that there's a moment
to jam Zelensky here, that the US may be misreading
the situation.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
So given that we I don't know any of the details,
well none of us. I mean, the Ukrainians you know,
have no interest in ending the war, or I should
say that differently, they have they have no interest in
how creating a ceasefire for the sake of a ceasefire.
In other words, having a ceasefire that will just kick

(56:39):
the problem down the road a little while, give the
Russians time to rearm and start the war again. That's
not something that they find useful. I mean, there's a
there's a problem actually with the way wit Cooff and
Trump negotiate, which is that they want a big headline,
just like the same thing has just happened in Gaza,
big headline, end of the war, ceasefire, just return forgetting

(57:01):
that loss of hostages were returned by the Biden administration
as well. And then actually there is no solution and
we don't know how the war is going to end,
and actually the fighting is continuing in new ways, and
I think the Ukrainians are afraid of that. And there
you know, so there's no you know, there's you know,
unless they're going to be offered something that has some substance,

(57:23):
in other words, stop fighting right now, which, by the way,
they've said they would do, stop fighting right now on
the current you know, on the current battle front lines. Uh.
And you know, then we will ensure that we reinforce
you and then we can begin negotiations with some kind
of guarantee that the Russians won't use this uh to

(57:44):
to start fighting again. I mean, unless there's something that
offers them something real, then I don't see how you
can jam them. As I said, they have their own agency,
they have their own sources of money.

Speaker 1 (57:54):
And at this point the war itself has changed in
that it's not using as many it's a drone war
or less. Right.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
No, this is a really important point and I don't
think it's really understood by most Americans. This is a
completely different kind of war from the kind of war
was at the beginning, and it's also a different kind
of war from any war in history. So there is
a there is a there is a kind of you know,
ten twenty miles on either side of the front line
which are now completely transparent. Everything can be seen because

(58:28):
there's so many drones in the air, and that means
that old kinds of military tactics whereby you know, you
did a secret raid or you've got are all visible.
And it's very very hard in that situation to move
forward because as soon as any Russian trucks or tanks
or people move into this visible zone, that Ukrainians can

(58:48):
hit them. And so the tactics of the war have
been about electronic warfare, how the drones are being used,
and the Ukrainians also now have a system whereby the
own industry is connected directly to the front line, so
as the situation changes on the front line, they radio
back to the factory not far away, and they change

(59:10):
the way the drone is being built, or they change
the software whatever needs to be changed. So there's a
kind of constant updating of the technology, which I mean
is also the speed of it is something that I
don't think we've seen anywhere else before.

Speaker 1 (59:25):
So it's such a strange war. And you're right, I've
been trying to get my I had Dexter focus on
recently and he was he had just been there trying
to explain and how frankly, how the Pentagon now is studying, right,
everyone is studying what's happening here, because obviously warfare is
going to change with the advent of drones. But that

(59:45):
so if you if you need fewer human soldiers, but
there are now more defenseless civilians, and both the Ukrainians
and the Russians are using their drones to go to
try to right. I assume the new pressure points are
civilian population.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
So what the Russians are doing is hitting civilian cities
very very hard. Actually, there was one this morning in Tarnopol.
There was a something like seven miss cruise missiles that
may not be precise, but a very strong attack hit
a Ukrainian city that's pretty far from the front line. Actually,
it's kind of in western Ukraine. And that's how the

(01:00:27):
Russians have been seeking to terrorize and demoralize Ukrainians. Ukrainians
are doing something different, which is the Ukrainians, as I said,
are hitting Russian energy export infrastructure and oil refineries, and
they're doing so pretty effectively, so much so that they've
taken out about a quarter of Russia's refining capability. And

(01:00:48):
recently they hit a very important export port on the
Black Sea, which is where oil goes through. And so
their calculation is that the Russians don't care about men,
you know, so they don't care how many people will die,
they're not bothered by that. But they do care about money,
as one put it to me, and so they're trying
to you know, their effort to stop the war is

(01:01:09):
going that way. You know, they need to make the
cost of the war so high that, as I said,
the point being that Putin changes his mind and you know,
and begins to think it's unwinnable or it's not worth winning,
which is, by the way, how colonial wars, which is
what this is, usually end, is that the capital decides

(01:01:30):
that it's not worth it anymore and the colony is
allowed to go. If you look at the Algerian French
War in Algeria or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:37):
Look, you can't go a week without seeing a headline,
whether it's in the Financial Times, but somewhere in Europe
that does try to do some reporting out of Russia.
I mean, the economy seems to be in just wretched
shape in Russia that all of this is finally having

(01:01:58):
is taking a toll. I mean, at what point does
domestic pressure play a role here?

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
Well, Putin has constructed his political system so that he
feels very little domestic pressure. You know, there isn't a
pathway for domestic pressure to express itself.

Speaker 1 (01:02:15):
Sure, but if people are not happy with that, the
economy they start to get I mean it feels as
if they're talking more and more. Put it that way,
because there's more reports about.

Speaker 2 (01:02:24):
This, people are talking more, people are angrier. Actually, there
isn't real polling in Russia, but there are some opposition
groups who do kind of measuring of sentiment online and
that certainly swung against the war. I mean, another kind
of grim statistic is the number of people who commit
suicide in the Russian League mysteriously or fall out of

(01:02:47):
windows or somehow or other disappear, and that number has
also been pretty high recently. So that means that those
are people who are expressing in their circles some kind
of descent or otherwise not going along with the program.
And that's and that's evidence that there's that there is
that you're right, there is this pressure. I mean, just

(01:03:08):
the question is when at what point it really reaches
Putin and forces this this this you know, it's actually
a political change, a change in language and rhetoric that
either he has to make or of successful.

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
The killing off Progosion. I mean, Putin was probably saved
himself on that because there is nobody that can sort
of challenge him internally if someone chose to.

Speaker 2 (01:03:39):
But he could have well Progosion, Yeah, Progosion had a
real constituency and his constituency if you for those who
don't remember, he was the leader of the Wagner group
who staged this extraordinary which was a kind of paramilitary
merst chefs, right, that's right. He had originally been a chef.
He ran actually he was the one who yeah, he

(01:04:00):
was the one who ran the online influence operations during
the twenty sixteen election here. And he then became the
head of this mercenary force and he had a real constituency,
so the mercenaries were very devoted to him. So he
actually had armed men who were on his side and
who were becoming at that time very critical of the

(01:04:21):
war and of why it was being fought and why
it had started in a lot I mean speaking of corruption,
the enormous amount of corruption around defense in the military there,
and so he expressed it by making this critical statements.
And then he launched this march on Moscow that he aborted,
and then afterwards he had a plane accident. So he

(01:04:44):
was he was an example of someone who had a constituency.
And the problem with other opponents of Putin is that
they don't have that. They don't have, you know, a
team of armed guys that they can count on who
might who might scare the president. But you know, it's
also one of the lessons of Russian history, and I
have written about it my whole life, almost is that,

(01:05:08):
you know, the regime seems inevitable and eternal until the
day it falls. I mean, if you look at the Zaris.

Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
You're describing bankruptcy, right, you know, first it's slowly and
then all of a sudden it's quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
But you look at the way the Bizarist Revolution happened,
you know that was totally unexpected. If you look at
the way the Soviet Union fell months before that, nobody
thought that was going to happen, you know. And so
I'm always hesitant to make predictions about about Putins Russia,
to say that it's you know, it's going to last forever,
or it's going to end next week, because the system

(01:05:43):
is very strong in that he controls all these levers
of power, He controls the media, the military, the economy,
and so on. But it's also very weak, and that
once his authority is questioned, it's not clear who comes next.
So there's no there's no successor there's no succession process,

(01:06:03):
there's no pollit bureau, you know. You know, so as
soon as something happens to him or there's lacks of
faith in him, then you might get changed very quickly.

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
How much does he need China right now? And is
there a point where China is just like it's not
worth the cost.

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
He is totally dependent on China. He's dependent on China
for trade, He's dependent on China as the market for
oil and gas. He's dependent on China politically. The Chinese
have stood up for him in various international fora and
so on. The Chinese seem to be defending me, even
though I think they had they were surprised by the

(01:06:44):
invasion of Ukraine, and they were also I think somewhat
horrified by it. I mean, they had investments in Ukraine,
and they had students there and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
But they the.

Speaker 2 (01:06:53):
Chinese have stuck with the Russians, and I think will
stick with them because they see the war as a
way weakening the United States. They see it as a
tool that they can use to weaken the perception of
American power, maybe to weaken the American European Alliance, which
actually is happening pretty effectively without them.

Speaker 1 (01:07:13):
But I was just going to say President Trump is
going on on his own trying to weaken this alliance.

Speaker 2 (01:07:19):
Yeah, and of course that's also a mistake because the again,
the way the war ends is through American European solidarity.
You know, make make Putin think it will never crack,
stick with the stick with the Ukrainians, and then you know,
wait for the moment of wait for the shift. But
the you know, this constant movement back and forth, this

(01:07:41):
attempt to do business deals and so on, all of
that gives Putin the feeling that if he just keeps going,
he'll win. And he has, as I said, as we've
just said, he has Chinese allies. Not only that, he
has North Korean allies. The North Koreans have sent troops
to Ukraine. He has Iranian allies. They've sent drones to Ukraine.
You know, there is a this being the topic of

(01:08:03):
the book we discussed, I mean, this is the this
is the There is a kind of network of the
autocratic world, and you can see it really most clearly there.

Speaker 1 (01:08:13):
I know, you have particular insight into Poland, and there
was another sort of there are always these did Russia
do this on purpose? I don't think there's ever been
an accidental incursion into Poland during this war. I'm curious,
but what do they think they're accomplishing here, because it
feels as if the last thing they should want is
to sort of steal the resolve of Eastern Europeans.

Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
Now, well, so you're talking about two things. I mean,
there was this drone incursion into Poland and also in
the last.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Few days they blew up a train line right.

Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
Now, train track. There was a train from Warsaw to
Lublin that goes to.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
And they assume, and I know, the polesy essentially said
they assume it's Russian sabotage, but they hadn't.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
I think they know who it is already, Okay, as
as far as I know. I mean, there's one little
nuance which is interesting, was it looks like what the
perpetrators were Ukrainians, originally Ukrainian citizens who were employed and
paid by Russia and seemed to have escaped into Belarus.
And so I think the purpose of it, the purpose

(01:09:17):
of this is always to you know, the Russians think
a lot about creating antagonism. You know, they want there
to be antagonism between Warsan Kiev. You know, they want
to create suspicion of Ukrainians in Poland. They may also
have the scary thing about the train story is that
they may have been trying to kill a lot of people,

(01:09:37):
because if the bomb didn't go off the way it
was supposed to go off, it it had done, it
might have knocked a train over an embankment and hundreds
of at least hundreds of people might have died. So
I think they're looking for some kind of spectacular scene.
And you know, their calculation is that if we do
enough stuff like that will scare people, you know, will

(01:10:01):
frighten them into not supporting Ukraine, or will make people
stay home. I mean, as you just observe, the Russians
are good at stuff like that, but they're also not
so good sometimes at understanding how it will affect people.
And I think the impact in Poland is going to
be the opposite. I mean, the more you bring the
war home to people in Poland, or in Germany, where
it's similar there have been similar incidents, or in Scandinavia

(01:10:22):
where there have been some drone drones who threatened the
Copenhagen airport, the more you do that, the more you
inspire European populations to want to defend Ukraine. And I
should say again, European spending is going up. It's probably
the main conversation in Brussels right now at U meetings.
Big story in Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, the UK. Not everywhere

(01:10:45):
in Europe, but a lot of European countries are taking
really seriously.

Speaker 1 (01:10:49):
Is all the usaid now to Ukraine indirect? It all
goes through NATO. Basically NATO buys from US and then
it moves there. How is usaid in to Ukraine working
these days?

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
So I don't I don't know. There was still some
aid that was purchased under the Biden administration that was
still coming into Ukraine, and I don't know at this
exact second the status of it, whether it's all finished
or whether there's some still going in. There have been
some big European purchases, and the US has two things
that nobody else has. One of them is patriot missiles,

(01:11:25):
which defend which can be used to defend Ukrainian cities.
So this is this is about defending civilians from missile attack,
and the US just has more of them and they
work better, and that's something the Ukrainians are trying to buy,
and I think the Europeans have done deals to buy
And the other thing the US has is intelligence, the
real time satellite intelligence, and that is beginning to be replaced,

(01:11:49):
but might not be totally. But as I said, the
bulk of money is coming from Europe to pay for
all this.

Speaker 1 (01:11:57):
Because I'll be honest, my ma isption that the most
likely scenario here in the in regards to this, this
whitcough negotiated proposal to end the war, is that Trump
will use if the Ukrainians say no, right, you know,
Europeans sort of poo poo it that that's what he'll

(01:12:18):
use to basically say, well, I'm out, I'm walking away.
If the US walks away, what does that look like?

Speaker 2 (01:12:27):
So it depends what walk away meets walking away leaving
in place. The intelligence cooperation is bad, but maybe not
that bad, you know. Then puts the Europeans as the
main ally of Ukraine, and we can stop having this
pretense that America negotiating with Russia will solve the problem. Also, though,

(01:12:50):
you know, I think this was Trump's goal before and
Zelensky to find an excuse to leave. Actually it was.
It was when Zelensky read all as only he said
he would accept an immediate ceasefire if there were.

Speaker 1 (01:13:03):
To be won and then Trump he knew that Trump
had to go.

Speaker 2 (01:13:06):
Back, right, and it's it's actually once again, it's the
Russians who don't want to cease fire because the Russians
still think they're gonna win, you know. And so if
Zelenski continues to repeat that that he'll accept a ceasefire,
maybe maybe he can ward this off.

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
Is it your suspicion, then then that probably what we
haven't seen the deal. But if what the Russians have
agreed to they know the Ukrainians will reject, and that
they they know one of the outcomes could be Trump
just walking away, which is actually they don't care or
well that or do they want the Americans still in

(01:13:42):
the loop.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
So what the Russians were asking for before was for
Ukrainian territory that they haven't conquered. They were they were
demanding possession of some land that they have never that
they've never managed to uh to occupy. I remember, the
Russian have been fighting in Dunbass in eastern Ukraine. They've
been fighting for more than ten years, and they still

(01:14:05):
haven't managed to conquer all the territory they claim, and
so and that of course is unacceptable Zelenski can't give
away territory for no reason and exchange for nothing that
they were they weren't the Russians weren't offering any other
kind of concession. Maybe there's some other maybe there's some
twist to it now that that I that I don't

(01:14:25):
know about. But if that's still what they're saying, that
will you know, we want this extra land, right and
we want Ukraine to disarm. That was the other piece
of it. We want to we want to demilitarized Ukraine.
Then Ukrainians can accept that, because that's just an invitation
to the Russians to take territory they haven't conquered, and
then to take over Ukraine next year, you know, or

(01:14:47):
the year after and so again. Unless unless there's a
deal that reflects some kind of you know, some kind
of acceptance that Ukraine has the right to exist, can't
accept it. And by the way, and I don't think
anybody would be surprised by the in other words of
Putin's if Trump says I have this great deal and

(01:15:10):
you know, Ukrainians are supposed to disarm and give away
their territory, I don't think that even that Most Americans
would say well, that sounds fantastic. Why aren't the Ukrainians
going along with it?

Speaker 1 (01:15:21):
But it's your your your suspicion is is it still
the same as it was before that Trump's looking for
a way just to walk away from this issue.

Speaker 2 (01:15:31):
I mean, I think he probably authentically wants the thing
he got in Gaza, which is some big announcement that
people think is a peace plan or a peace deal,
which isn't really a peace deal, just as the plan
in Gaza wasn't a peace deal, wasn't a complete peace deal.
He wants. You know, what Trump is always interested in
is winning the moment or whatever moment he's in, whatever

(01:15:56):
conversation he's in, he wants to emerge.

Speaker 1 (01:15:57):
I always say he's always buying time too, whatever it is.
He's always pushing off hard decisions.

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
But he also doesn't he doesn't have a long term strategy.
He doesn't have an idea for how Ukraine and Russia
will coexist over the next ten years. Or he doesn't
think about how the rest of the world would perceive
his abandonment of Ukraine, what that would do to other
kinds of American interests. You know, he doesn't think in
that global way. He only thinks like, how do I win?

(01:16:27):
How do how do I emerge from this?

Speaker 1 (01:16:29):
Well, you know, it's funny you say that, because I've
been thinking about the Venezuela issue and sort of how
we're going about this and the message that China is
taking from it and the message that Russia is taking
from it. Yep, right, this is quote unquote our hemisphere
and we're dealing with what we say is a problem.

(01:16:54):
So they even make a law enforcement issue, right that
this is a this is a creating a national security
sort of pretext. I guess. But you know what we're
doing with Venezuela, what would Putin say, wouldn't he argue?

(01:17:15):
It's no different than what he's trying to do in Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (01:17:18):
Of course, it's also almost an exact blueprint of what
the Chinese could do in Taiwan. I mean, it's very
very similar. I mean, this is my I even a
lot of qualms about Venezuela, although I think it's you know,
that's a it is a very ugly regime, and I
know lots of people who would like it to fall.

Speaker 1 (01:17:35):
Well, look, I'm at Miami. I grew up in Miami,
and I'm very empathetic. I got a lot of Venezuelan friends,
and I I if the administration we're making a democracy
case what they're doing, I would feel better. But the
fact that they're not, and they're basically lying about the
situation in order to to do this, You're just like,

(01:17:57):
this is you're going about this the wrong way for
an outcome that maybe many people would like to see,
but this is not the time for an ends justifies
the means moment.

Speaker 2 (01:18:08):
No, And as you say, it sets a terrible example.
You know, it says we get to this country is
close to us, and so we get to do whatever
we want, and we can do extra judicial murders of
what might be drug traffickers or might be fishermen, and
we can park lots of boats, you know, big ships

(01:18:30):
around the coast, and we can threaten you know, we
can issue threats and we do it with impunity because
it's our hemisphere. And this is exactly the argument that
Putin has made about Ukraine. I mean, with nuances. It's
very similar to what the Chinese could start to say
about Taiwan, and Taiwan threatens our national security because we
say so, you know, right, and it's it's really profoundly

(01:18:55):
undermining to the the you know, the idea really that
small countries have rights, that borders have meaning that you
know that there is some kind of international system that
people that people have respect for. I mean, it's been
deteriorating for a long time and you can you can

(01:19:16):
you can find previous American presidents who also undermined it.
But this is just feels like something new, especially in
the context of the war in Ukraine and of China's
threats of Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
In your book, obviously you were just referring to it
before that there is you know that there now really
is a network of these autocrats. We had to visit
what is Saudi Arabian? Is it an autocracy I call

(01:19:48):
you know, I don't believe in any monarchies. I believe
there's either benevolent dictators or malevolent dictators. And the benevolent
ones we call king and the malevolent ones we call
something else. But that's my sort of that's my spin.
But where where do you put Saudi Arabia on this?
And because it feels like we really and this wasn't

(01:20:10):
just the Trump administration, the Bide administration. I mean, I've
had this conversation with Jake Sullivan, everything about would be like, look,
we've got to tolerate some of this from the Saudis
because we need them on our side. We don't want
them on China side. What do you put Saudi Arabian?
What is our coosing back up to them? Do in
your thinking about where autocracy is going?

Speaker 2 (01:20:34):
So Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia like the other goal states,
is a little different from the Russia, China, Iran, North
Korea nexus in that, at least for the moment, they
their primary interest isn't undermining US, okay, and that is
the primary interest of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela Bilarus,

(01:20:59):
And so they they are different. They are of course
they're an autocracy. Autocracy and monarchy goes under the is
a sub category of autocracy. They're an autocracy in that
it's a state where they rule without the leader's rule,
without checks and balances. There's no transparency, there's no there's
no real opposition, there's you know, people don't have rights

(01:21:20):
and they're above all. There's no rule of law. There's
rule by law, which means the law is with the
King says laws, and it can change. And at the
moment he's a little bit more benevolent than he than
some previous Saudi leaders were, but that could change in
a heartbeat if he feels like it. And so it's
it's so, that's the kind of political system it is.
I mean, it's been one that has been willing to

(01:21:42):
cooperate with us, and that's you know, there are reasons
why it's useful to talk to them. You know, they
they're they're they're constructive things that the Saudis can do.
And as I said, they don't have a either a
military apparatus or a you know, or a a propaganda
apparatus that's aimed at us, which most of the other

(01:22:04):
countries do. So don't I don't object to American presidents
talking to Saudi leaders. I think what I find troublesome
about Trump's relationships is, first of all, his family's enormous
conflicts of interest there. You know, his sons are doing
deals with Saudi company building hotels.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
Isn't that a hallmark of abudding autocracy is when the
family members of the leader are benefiting financially. I mean,
I don't look, I don't want to go down the
road that we're there. I mean, I think it's the
Republican Party right now that's under this sort of control.
It's not yet spread everywhere in this country, but it's
certainly the beginnings of it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:46):
Oh No, it's it's a it's a hallmark and the
personalization of power. The fact that you have to offer
a plane or a gold bar, as some Swiss businessmen
did a few days ago to the President in order
to work create the atmosphere for your trade deal or
your negotiation.

Speaker 1 (01:23:03):
I mean, let me go back to let me go
back to Cotter. They gave a plane, and now they
get non they get they get basically NATO like security
agreement from the United States, I mean, which is apparently
what the Saudis are now asking for. And it is
amazing that we gave Cotter a deal that we had

(01:23:25):
yet to give the Saudis. And if I were the
Sadi's I feel kind of put off by that, given
given what the Saudis have meant to the United States
over the years versus what Cutter as a ASM I
mean and.

Speaker 2 (01:23:38):
Think, I think, when when when the leader of Saudi
Arabia walks into the Oval Office and se'es Donald Trump,
what does he think he thinks I own this guy.
You know, I'm I'm I'm paying for the golf tournament
that went on at his golf course. I've given I've
put a you know, a billion dollar, two billion dollar,
I think investment into his son in law's company, doing

(01:24:00):
business with his family all over the Middle East, and
who knows what else. I mean, a lot of Trump's finances,
especially the crypto companies, are are pretty opaque. We don't
really know who's paying into them and how and he
and he does need something from the United States. And
Saudi is a country that is very wealthy. Obviously they
have all this oil, but it's also very weak, doesn't

(01:24:20):
have much of a military. It can't really defend itself,
and so you know, they're in they have a huge
interest in buying off the American president and getting something
and you know, getting f thirty fives or getting weapons
from the insance. I mean, the question here and this
is this is you know, returning to original point, is

(01:24:41):
what do the American people get out of it? Why
or what do we get out of this relationship with
Saudi Arabia? You know, the you know is the when
the American president.

Speaker 1 (01:24:50):
And they argue stability in the Middle East, I mean,
is that is that the best we can offer the
American public.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
I mean, if that's the point, I mean, that's great,
and I would support that point. If the point is
to enrich the president's family, if that's what we're getting
out of it, then I then I'm more worried. So
there's always a question with Donald Trump, and it's exactly
the same as his negotiations with the Russians. Why is
he doing this? Is he doing it for personal benefit,

(01:25:16):
for his family's benefit, or is it in some broader interests?
And I just for all the flaws of many previous
American presidents, I can't think of one who negotiated abroad,
you know, about whom there was that question is who's
who's benefiting?

Speaker 1 (01:25:33):
And that's the previous president waited to suck up to
the Saudi's after they left office for library friends, right,
Like I mean, I hate to be that cynical about it,
but it was sort of there was almost like an
agreed upon, Hey don't don't don't use your contacts there
until after you leave to enrich yourself. I mean, I
hate to be that cynical, but.

Speaker 2 (01:25:52):
Sure, but you didn't you know, even the worst I
don't know if you know, even even even the Bush
family who had oil interests. I mean, when George W
You or his father were negotiating with the Saudis, were
they thinking about specific business deals that are that are
being negotiated right now? And that I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:26:16):
So where where are you today when it comes to
the fight between democracy and autocracy around the world. I
know it feels as if democracy is in retreat, but
it's not as if autocracy is succeeding either, right, I mean,
you do have a Chinese economy that is not great.

(01:26:38):
You have the youth unemployment, so you know this idea
that whose system is more stable, whose system is better?
It's not as if these autocratic systems are having a
golden age themselves.

Speaker 2 (01:26:50):
I would actually describe the contest from the beginning a
little differently in that, Okay, this is not so much
a contest between autocracies and democracy, because there are lots
of different kinds. We just talked about. The Saudis and
the Russians are quite different. It's on this is really
a contest between This is a war of ideas of

(01:27:10):
autocratic ideas against the ideas of liberal democracy, and that
contest is taking place inside every country on the planet,
including ours. So it happened in most European countries, even
if they're formal democracies, they have autocratic political parties or movements.
And by the same token, a lot of dictatorships have

(01:27:33):
within them, you know, dissidents or or people who would
like to end.

Speaker 1 (01:27:39):
Well, the woman who just won the Nobel Peace Prize
in Venezuela, right, absolutely, she's a great example.

Speaker 2 (01:27:43):
Yeah, interviewed her several times. Actually in Venezuela, the democratic
opposition won an election through this extraordinary feet of organization
and then proved that they want it. So, you know,
so this is a this is a war of ideas.
You know, do we want to live in political systems
where one person or party or family controls you know,
the media with no checks and balances, uh, you know,

(01:28:07):
decides how the legal system works, doesn't offer people rights?
Or do we want to live in a system where
there are rights and there are independent institutions independent of
the of the of the ruling party or the leader.
And you know, and it does feel right now, I think,
especially because what's going on in the United States, like
the democratic arguments are losing, But there's also no inevitability

(01:28:32):
that you know, history doesn't work like that that you know,
the you know, everything is swinging in one direction, and
that's how it's going to go. You know, the fight
is on, and the fight is inside our country, it's
inside Russia, it's inside Ukraine. You know, the and the
and the and the question is really whose arguments are

(01:28:54):
going to win? And how do we and how do
we express that victory.

Speaker 1 (01:28:59):
What do you think of the role that Silicon Valley
is now sort of playing as sort of infusing itself
with this government in ways that we've not seen an
industry do arguably in a hundred years, right, not since
the industrialists of the early twentieth century. And you know,
I think about this, you know, the philosophies that we've

(01:29:20):
heard Peter Tiele espouse. I mean, you know, this is
somebody who does not believe in liberal democracy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
He's very clear about it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:26):
Right. I guess we should be happy that he's honest
about it. But you know, I think Peter Peter till
is one of the most dangerous Americans in the country
with his ideas and wealth combined and the access to
power that he has already purchased. What should we be concerned?
I mean, I sort of have faith in our democracy

(01:29:47):
that the pitchforks are coming for Silicon Valley and they
don't fully I don't think they fully see it yet,
and that you know, we're going to have a Teddy
Roosevelt moment here, But how do you see the role
they're playing in this sort of competition between democracy and autocracy.

Speaker 2 (01:30:05):
So Silicon Valley has a kind of power that no
one has had before. And this is the power to
influence I wouldn't say control, but influence and manipulate feelings
and emotions and information. And they you know, they have
these tools, you know, the you know, the algorithms that directly.

Speaker 1 (01:30:27):
At times we're talking about science fiction sometimes with them.
But yes, anyway, no, I mean, but.

Speaker 2 (01:30:31):
You know, most people in America, if you're you know,
if you're not someone who looks for news in other words,
you click on the New York Times website or or
even the Fox News website. If you're someone who just
passively receives news, which I think is most people, then
they decide what you see. You know, then your your
preference for one kind of washing powder or one kind

(01:30:56):
of shampoo might lead you to receive a political ad
that people who like that kind of washing powder or
shampoo get or or or a clip or you know,
or somebody expounding something on Instagram. And so we haven't
never hed. So so their their decisions are really shaping
what it is that people see and perceive. And that

(01:31:17):
does mean that they have, you know, something that I
don't think anybody has had before. And actually in real autocracy,
So in China, that power is controlled by the state,
and the state, you know, they they they own that power.
And in Russia they're seeking to own that power that
Russians haven't. Their system is not as sophisticated as the Chinese,
but they are trying to cut people off from Western

(01:31:39):
Western social media. And in our country, you know, the
idea was originally that this was a power that would
be given to private companies and it would be therefore benign,
and it would be divided between several groups and it
wouldn't you know, we we would we would take care
of it that way, and I think we're failing. I mean,
and it's important that you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt because what
did he do He broke up monopolies or he spoke

(01:32:02):
about they were called trusts them And we are at
a point where there is time to ask whether these
companies have too much power and whether they're truly patriotic companies.
Do they want the health of American democracy? Are they
dedicated to making sure that we have better debates and

(01:32:23):
better consensus and better information? I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:32:25):
I had an interesting conversation with a recently retired general
who was sort of had a lot of insight in
the first Trump term, and he expressed a concern. He says,
you know, with the development of nuclear power, the government
essentially was infused in the process in many ways. The

(01:32:48):
Manhattan Project, right, it was a creation of the government.
The development of the Internet, you know, came out of
the Defense Department. He said, we're making this massive technological
shift in our soci society where we have completely outsourced
it to the private sector. That is not the way
any of the other major technological shifts that altered the

(01:33:10):
course of this country on technology has ever happened. And
that he expressed, like that is the he thought that
was such a higher risk and we haven't fully appreciated
concentrating all that power into this private entity.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
The Atlantic had a good article recently about NASA and
the difference between NASA and SpaceX. And NASA, which was
our premier space institution in the United States, was people
went to work for it because they were public servants
and they were doing something on behalf of the United
States of America. And SpaceX is a private company owned

(01:33:50):
by Elon Musk, and people work in it to make
money or the primary goal is not the public interest.
The primary goal is to earn money for shareholders. And
that is different.

Speaker 1 (01:34:06):
What is you know, how much of a how much
of a danger do you think we are in domestically
because of this kind of concentrated power. I mean, looks
on the outside, like Silicon Valley decided they made a
bet and they said, well, Trump's more malleable than the
Democrats on this one, so we're going to go all

(01:34:27):
in here, you know. And it was the crypto crowd
plus the AI crowd, and they and and they've pretty
much gotten carte blanche from this administration. That seems to
be step one of a scary development.

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
Look, I think what they're looking for is not to
be regulated you know, they're looking for They don't want
any any anything cramping their power, any any trust law,
any other kind of law, anything that would question trust.

Speaker 1 (01:34:55):
Their development of social media really really worked out well
without regulation, so sure, let's let them do this.

Speaker 2 (01:35:04):
No no, But they know there's a backlash, They've heard it,
and they're what they're now doing is trying to stave
off the consequences. And it's pretty pernicious. So it's not
just here. They're also working pretty hard in Europe to
make sure that they aren't regulated by the European Union,
which is probably the only institution left on the planet
that could regulate them. And they're even to the extent

(01:35:27):
of Musk supporting anti European political parties in Germany and elsewhere.
So they're very conscious of this, the coming backlash, and
they're preparing very hard to prevent anything from hampering their power.
And I think it's something that would be very useful
for more Americans to be aware of.

Speaker 1 (01:35:46):
Yeah, look, I think I actually have I do believe
the twenty twenty eight presidential election is going to be
more centered on this, you know, be er of AI,
job displacement, all of that is going to sort of concentrate.
I think the conversation a little bit on this, but
let me get you out of here actually on some
on Europe, which really sort of we go back the

(01:36:07):
the unintended consequence of Donald Trump's quasi isolationism. I say
quasi because it's not really it's more transactionalism. But let's
let's say the the perception of the pullback, this feels
like it's made Europe stronger than ever, and that the
EU is now a thing, and that native that there

(01:36:28):
is that Europe. You know that that you're it was.
This has been a wake up call to Europe and
that there is a As you said, look, Europe may
be able to just keep supporting Ukraine regardless of what
the United States decides. The strengthening of Europe can it
hold or are we going to see cracks because of
various you know, domestic you know, right wing movements in Germany,

(01:36:52):
populist movements in the UK, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
So Europe is under an enormous amount of pressure from
Russia U through not just the war but sabotage in
propaganda campaigns. It's also now under pressure from US, as
we've just discussed. I mean you know, from from Elon
Musk who wants to fund anti European parties to some

(01:37:17):
extent from the Trump administration. I mean, we'll see where
that goes. And it's also you know, it's because it's
a it's a confederation. It's not a federation like we are.
It's it's has you know, there has kind of permanent
problems with getting everybody on board that don't ever really
go away. Having said that, though, there's something in what

(01:37:38):
you're saying in that if you're an investor from anywhere
in the world, actually, if you're from you know, South
Korea or France or the United States, and you're looking
around the world and you're looking for a place that's
stable and safe and has predictable laws and predictable teriff
rates and you know, respects contracts, I mean, maybe you

(01:37:59):
would out start to choose Europe. Europe. Europe has a
you know, Europe has a rule of law culture that
is very strong and very deep and goes right to
the heart of what the European Union is and what
most modern European states are. And you might think this
is this is the place to go. I mean, Europe
did become you know, they were so sure of their

(01:38:23):
relationship with America, and they were so sure that America
would defend them, and they were so sure that America
was a friend and that shared their values by the
way they were.

Speaker 1 (01:38:31):
Weren't you so sure? Were it not?

Speaker 2 (01:38:33):
I mean, actually European passport, so I should I should
say be too, so, you know, but they let a
lot of things slide. They didn't develop their own tech
industry because you know, they were fine with what the
Americans were doing. They were you know, they have a
defense industry, but they didn't care as much about it.
And a lot of that has now shifted. If you

(01:38:54):
go to any kind of confidence about anything in Europe,
now it'll be about how do we build our own
tech industry, how we build a new weapons industry. And
so you're about to see that transformation, I think going
across every European country.

Speaker 1 (01:39:07):
All right, let me get you to answer the question
I get and I'm sure you get it all the time.
What's your level of concern about the state of the
American democracy?

Speaker 2 (01:39:17):
In my case, it's very high. I'm afraid it's very high.
I mean, it's not you know, I don't think any
story is ever over and nothing is ever too late.
But I do think that the combination of the use
the way ICE is being used as a pilm paramilitary force,
the attacks on you know, the president's constant attacks on journalism,

(01:39:44):
the attacks on research and science and universities, the attempts
to capture culture, the firing of the civil service, the
attempts to destroy an independent civil service, you know, all
those things packaged together. And this is for me, where
I've written about these kinds of situations before. This is
this looks to me like an assault on a democratic

(01:40:05):
political system. And it also looks to me like it
could be their way of preparing for at least to
try to shape the midterms, and in ways we haven't
seen before.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
And I Hungry the closest sort of corollary here, like
what happened in Hungary.

Speaker 2 (01:40:21):
I mean, actually in Hungary, the Hungry, you know, the
primership of Hungary didn't move this fast, and he didn't
assault institutions so quickly, and he didn't, you know, the
speed of change that we've seen here. I think it's
pretty unprecedented. And there's some aspects of it that are unprecedented, like,
for example, the attack on science, on the scientific research system,

(01:40:43):
and on the vaccine research. I mean, there's no other
The Chinese don't attack their own research institutions, you know,
they value them. Neither do the Russians. I mean maybe
they politicize them in some ways. It's a different subject,
but there's some pieces of it that seem pretty radical
to me and don't even have an echo in recent

(01:41:04):
in our world history.

Speaker 1 (01:41:06):
Well, on that note, with Thanksgiving a week away, there's
there's something to give thanks for.

Speaker 2 (01:41:11):
Well, and you can discuss it with your with your
relatives and cheer up the conversation. No, but let me
let me let me end on that note, actually, because
again the reason I talk about this stuff, and I'm
sure this is true of you as well, because I
want people to be aware of it and understand where
it could go. That doesn't mean it has to go
that way, but the more people are aware, the more

(01:41:32):
prepared they are.

Speaker 1 (01:41:33):
To do something about And the more people that are aware,
I mean, that's when I have faith in our in
the democracy. Eventually, you know, I'm like Churchill, right, we're
going to exhaust all these other and let's just hope
the system is still there for us to express our
concern when the time of all it comes. That's that's

(01:41:54):
where I where I get my optimism too. And Apple
Bomb this, I appreciate the time.

Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:42:08):
Well. I certainly feel like I said at the start
of that interview, I always feel better informed and better
educated about a situation after I either read Anne Applebomb
or listen to Anne Applebom and I hope you feel
the same way. All right, let's get to a few questions.
I'm going to try to get through three or four

(01:42:30):
here before I get to my college football preview slash
reaction to the rankings. It's not going to be as
ranty as you might suspect. I'll let you know. This
next question comes from Brian and he gives me a
little let cheese or reeve, which we know what that
means if you know you know, Hey, Chuck, my new

(01:42:51):
favorite part of the podcast is the Weekly Time Machine.
I like hearing that, you know what. It's kind of
becoming my favorite segment to produce. I thoroughly enjoyed this
week's topic of the end of World War One. He's
referring to last week anyway, got me thinking back to
what I was taught And you're exactly right and focused
on German surrender, the harsh reparations, and now that led
to the rise of Hitler in World War Two. I'd
love to go deeper into the fall of the Ottoman
Empire and how it led us to where we are today.

(01:43:12):
Any books to recommend on it? Thanks, you know what
I'm gonna I don't have them. I don't have any
good books right now on that I want to do
some You would think here, why don't you do the
research before you read the questions? That's not how I
roll guys now, But you know what my substack and
this is a good way and yes, this is my

(01:43:34):
my conspiratory way to get more of you to go
subscribe to my free substack. I am not going to
ever put it behind a paywall. And I know that
substack sometimes lowers the algorithm on free substacks, but I
don't care. I am I want to be totally ad supported.
I don't want to be captured by an audience and
worried about an audience. So this is a free and

(01:43:56):
it will be free. I will not be you know,
sneak making you pay down the road here, but this week,
for what it's worth, I have a big column on
Gavin Newsom and sort of what explains why Gavin Newsom's
rise in the twenty twenty eight sweepstakes, if you will.

(01:44:17):
But in there I also do I did some book
recommendations on James Garfield and what's been happening with that
mini series Death by Lightning. I am this coming Tuesday,
going to make one of my sidebars segments of that,
and I update that newsletter every Tuesday, and this one
I will put my favorite Automan Empire books. I just

(01:44:40):
don't have a good list in front of me. I
want to get it right, and you know there's different
aspects of it. You know, there's some good books just
about sort of Turkey and sort of the rise of
Turkey post World War One. Obviously plenty of books I've
been sort of I'm probably over subscribe. I've done books

(01:45:00):
about sort of Israel before nineteen forty eight, and there'll
be some in there. But I will put that together.
I think that's a nice public service and a very
fair request. Next question comes from Aaron from Skokee, Illinois.
I probably said this to you before. I think you've
written in before, because when I see Skokie, I still
think of one of my early memories as a kid

(01:45:24):
was that clan march in Skokie back in the day,
and this is similar theme. He goes, I was fascinated
by your recent commentary in World War One. As a
gen xer, I only learned about the war through an
American lens and didn't grasp the full extent of the
Ottoman Empire's role or the consequences of European powers carving
up the Middle East. And here again, do you have
any nonfiction book recommendations that offer a broader global perspective

(01:45:45):
on that war. I've always been a history buff, but
World War One tends to get overshadowed by World War Two.
I'm so happy that this is the reaction I've gotten
for what it's worth. Aaron, same answer that I just
want to prove to all of you that I read
your questions and that we do this both Aaron and Brian.
I promise you I'm going to put together a very
thorough World War One holiday reading list. Perhaps it'll be

(01:46:09):
stocking stuffers for your family to get you if you
want that. And there's also I'm going to point I'm
actually going to find a couple of you know, one
of my favorite I binged and I can't remember the
name of it now, but it was like a fifty
part podcast series on the fall of the Roman Empire.

(01:46:29):
It was about five years ago and it was sort
of and there's some terrific podcast historians out there, and
I'm going to do a little research see if there's
any good ones on World War One. I've not fully
dove in on that topic in the pod in the
audio space, but I will also try to do that

(01:46:50):
as well. All right, Next question comes from Lynn Oh,
a longtime fan from Boise. I appreciate your recommendations on
changing the US Constitution. Bringing in experts for a deep
dive would make a great segment. In Idaho, voters have
a direct say in constitutional amendments, unlike at the federal level.
What are your thoughts on making voter approval for amendments
to the next amendment itself? Huh? I know the textualists
would bulk, but we need more citizen engagement and this

(01:47:12):
could reinforce the idea that the Constitution is a living document.
Linn Ogo, Idaho Statesman. What I love about that The
Idaho Statesman is sort of the has been the paper
of record when it comes to Idaho news for most
of my lifetime. So I'm nice to see that there.
It's interesting, whether you know, a lot of countries do

(01:47:36):
national elections on constitutional amendments. Right, Ireland did one on
reproductive rights that got certainly generated a lot of international news.
We're a republic, not a direct democracy. My argument against it,
it would be that we are not a democracy or
a republic, and in a republic it is you. In fact,

(01:47:57):
I'm one of those, I'm I could I think that
because we're a republic, we shouldn't have state based referendum.
But that's that ship is sale that we are a republic,
meaning a representative democracy more so than a direct democracy.

(01:48:17):
But I am all for Look, I think I think
the case for a republic when you had a limited
amount of information that was you were even able to
share back in the day, you know, just logistically and geographically,
you could say it made a lot of sense. Today
it doesn't. Right Today, we all have equal access to information,
we all have an equal opportunity to be informed. You know,

(01:48:40):
it's not as if there's there's these barriers. You know,
there's we have a public education system that I wish
were better, but it's certainly pretty good, good enough to
sort of inform us enough on how to be a citizen.
And I think you would need a constitutional amendment. And
I think if you pass constitutional amendment that says all
future constitutional amendments need you know, need to be passed

(01:49:02):
by the populace, you know, then hey, it's an amendment
in the Constitution. I think where you would where you
would have a real debate is whether and I can
tell you this right now, I think small c conservatives
on this would argue for a threshold of, say sixty percent.
And you could make an argument that given that there

(01:49:23):
is you know, either two thirds, three fourths. You know,
there's certainly these bigger requirements in order to get a
constitutional an amendment, an amendment added to the constitution. You know,
what number do you use to pass the constule? Is
it sixty percent? Is it sixty six percent? Two thirds?
Do you go all the way up to seventy five percent?
So I do think that would be the among probably

(01:49:45):
the biggest debate about what should that number be. But
in general, I mean, I think that anything we can
do to bring more democracy closer to the people, right
that says, why I believe we've got to double the
size of the House of Representatives. You know, I think

(01:50:09):
is an improvement in where we are, and so, you know,
I could be talked into it, but you know, I
don't know. I've thought about imagine this. Somebody said, you
know what if we had retention elections for our Supreme
Court justices instead of instead of you know, basically they

(01:50:30):
were there, they were there for life, but they'd have
to go through a retention election. And I was just thinking,
can you imagine a national retention election and the money
behind it for sake Clarence Thomas right, and the amount
of what the ads would look like. I don't know,
like that that could be, that could be something that
we would we might regret, but look, like I said,

(01:50:51):
I'm for whatever it would take to get more people
engaged in our process. I think we desperately need a
constitutional convention. We need to update the rules of the
democracy to fit the twenty first century. And I think
it's pretty clear that we're not there. And I think
ultimately the frustration that's out there with the populace is
because politicians are further away from their electorates than they've

(01:51:15):
ever been before. All of their money comes from big
rich donors. It doesn't come from grassroots or the people.
You have these giant congressional districts that population have the
population size of a major city, which means all you
need is a small faction of said major city to
then represent the entire congressional district, which is no longer

(01:51:37):
a community of interest. So I do think the biggest
problem we have generically in politics today is that people
are too far away from the politicians, and we've got
to figure out how to close that gap. It's a
problem with the media, right. We gutted local media, and
so now I would say national media is too far
away from the people we cover. Right, there's too many
reporters in Washington and not enough everywhere else, says the

(01:51:58):
guy doing his pod cast from the suburbs of Washington, DC. Anyway,
I'm a well aware of irony. Next question comes from
Reggie in Austin, Texas. He says, Chuck gys the following
with the subject line about coming back, as in back
to a time when the parties actually work to get
things done in addition to reform. When it comes to
how the districts are drawn, would there be any way
to reform the primary system which makes it more and

(01:52:19):
more difficult for center left and center right candidates to win.
I view most of our primaries now like the runoff
in the presidential race in Chile where you have a
far right candidate opposed by a communist. Yes, and can
you imagine? Like, what do you do? Right? I'm enjoying
the new podcast, thank you, and I'm also now following
the newsgirls I, Mabel, and Ren are happy to hear that.

(01:52:40):
I hope you, Reggie, I'm glad you have made that
fine choice. Look, I think we I am going to
reiterate something I've said before. I think partisan primaries that
are funded by the tax payers are unconstitutional. I think
the idea that I have to become a member of
a private organization in order to participate in a primary
that is funded with my taxpayer dollars is a poll tax.

(01:53:04):
And I believe we've decided that that's that that's unconstitutional.
You can make an equal protection argument on that. I
think that if you're not registered as a Democrat or Republican,
you are sometimes banned from certain being able to vote
in certain primaries some states. Some state parties do have

(01:53:27):
allowed independence to vote, and some don't. I think we
got to go to all all. I think we had
to get rid of partisan primaries. I'm fine if you
want to put if you want to put a partisan
label by your name on an all you know, basically
an all voter primary. But I think I think it's

(01:53:47):
pretty clear, especially now with so many in gen Z
so disillusioned by either of the two major parties that
are registering as independence. I mean a plurality of voters
in America prefer to be registered there's no party or independent,
rather than being registered with either of the donkeys or
the elephants. So I think it's I think it's well

(01:54:08):
past time and this and the and you know, the
reason why the two major parties fight this is because
the two major parties are controlled by base activists, base
progressives and base conservatives and they only have a chance
at getting power through a rigged primary process. Yes, I
called it rigged. I think the keeping other voters out,

(01:54:31):
you know, you know, siloing your selection there. I think
a political party is welcome to endorse a candidate, go
for it, and then let the voter decide if that
endorsement means anything to them, but to then shut out
people from having any sort of choice on who makes
the general election ballot, especially when you're using taxpayer dollars.
So I think there needs to be smarter lawyers attacking

(01:54:53):
this situation. All the good election lawyers work for the
two parties. We need some election lawyers that work for
the rest of us. But I think I think, in
you know, full full disclosure, you know, with some of
these organizations that are working to try to open up primaries,
I've gotten to know them and I've been working them
hard on this issue. I think it. I think this

(01:55:15):
is I think this is one of the things that
is eating away at the democracy. I think polarization is
a virus. And I think if we want to deal
with polars if we want better elected officials, we need
we need a better system and a better set of incentives.
And if the if if an elected official knows every
voter is going to be on the ballot for a

(01:55:36):
primary election, I promise you they're going to make different
decisions when they vote on certain pieces of legislation. That's
the I think that's the the the single biggest thing
we could do over the next is that and then
the second is the barrier to the barrier to get
on the ballot as an independent or as a as
a third party. Again, many most states rig it so

(01:55:59):
that the Democrats are the Republicans have easier access to
the ballot than if you're an independent or a member
of another party. Again, I believe there's an equal protection
argument there, and I believe that rigging a prime access
to the ballot through the prism of the two major
parties is unconstitutional and yes, undemocratic. All right, last question

(01:56:25):
before I get my college football rants going here. Long
time fantasy hotline on call days it's not on call. Well,
I guess our blog was called on call. I think
we did that. We were always on call. We had
last call, and they'd still have last call and wake
up call. I still have a few episodes saved on iTunes. Oh,
look at that. I do vaguely remember when we were

(01:56:47):
doing those things. Watching your Decision to Ask stream tonight
and wanted to share quick thought. I've heard you mentioned
how dem favorability is low despite great results. As a
Democratic county official, i'd probably tell a polster I feel
unfavorably too. I think, by the way, You're not alone.
I think of the reason Chuck Schumer's numbers suck, it's
not just Republicans that don't like them, it's fellow Democrats
that don't like them. Anyway. The party failed to keep

(01:57:07):
Trump out. Yep. But like many hardcore Dems, I'm still
walking through fire to vote next November. There's a real
internal grievance this time, not just among independents. Pete, Pete,
I think you're right, and I know this. I mean,
it was the same thing we saw, you know, in
the run up to when the Republicans went ahead and
got behind Trump. If you recall, you would start to
see growing disapproval of Republican officials by Republicans. And there

(01:57:32):
was a time where Democrats are reading that as if oh,
Republicans are sour on their own side, that they wouldn't
support Republican That isn't the case. And I think you
make an important point. I want to single out of
line you said, because this, to me is this single
most I think it's the biggest reason why a chunk

(01:57:54):
of voters are so sour in the Democratic Party. The
party failed to keep Trump out. Joe Biden had one job.
He was elected to do one thing, turned the page
on Donald Trump, and he didn't do it. Now you
can say he tried and failed. You can say he
pursued it the wrong way. You could say he was

(01:58:16):
the wrong man for the job. We could go through
a variety of reasons. But I do believe that the
anger at Joe Biden is all about he and he
alone is why Donald Trump is back. And I think
people and I think there are going to be Democrats
that will will hold Biden to account on the return

(01:58:38):
of Donald Trump for the rest of their lives. It
is why Joe Biden can't raise money for his library.
It is why Joe Biden got invited to exactly one
campaign rally over the last three months, and it was
for the Nebraska State Party Democrats, rank and file, activist Democrats,
independents that didn't like Trump. Right, the anger is not

(01:59:00):
a Trump anymore. Yes, that anger is still there. And
like you, I we've seen this, right, which is I
don't like the Democratic Party they gave They were so
bad at their job. They brought back the return of
Donald Trump. But it doesn't mean you're not going to
not vote for an opposition to Donald Trump. Right, So
I get where you're going here. But I do think

(01:59:22):
this the single biggest sort of elephant in the room
that Democrats haven't had a haven't had this full conversation.
But what the real anger about? Buyden, Like, you had
one job and you failed to do that job, and
you instead sort of let people whispering you, and you
let your presidency get hijacked by the left in ways

(01:59:46):
that you thought was a good idea, and all you
did was create a situation where Donald Trump came back again.
Some of it may not have been in his contry,
but I think for many voters that you know, Joe
Biden was very few Democrats had Joe Biden as their

(02:00:07):
first choice. He was pretty much everybody's, you know, nobody's
last choice, and he was everybody's second or third choice.
But the assumption was he was going to be a
calming presence and he was going to be able to
turn the page. I do think, and I'm going to
point you back to my substack this week. I do
think why the single most important attribute that I think

(02:00:30):
Democratic voter are going to be looking for in the
next Democratic presidential nominee is somebody who's ready to act,
somebody who isn't sloganeering, but is doing right. I think
one of the reasons why Gavin Newsom has frankly had
shocked me. But he has sort of rocketed to already

(02:00:52):
the top of any presidential primary poll you ask, whether
it's a poll of Democrats in New Hampshire, a national
primary poll, or any You pick a state, and he
is somewhere in the top three, and the other two
usually are AOC Bernie, you know Bernie, actually Lexel. You'll
see AOC there. She's already been a national figure for
some time. And then you might see Pete pudagdch who's

(02:01:13):
run for president before. It's more impressive to me that
Gavin Newsom, who's never run before and really did not
have a national identity before the last six months. I
know those of us in politics think of Gavin Newsom
as a guy that's been around a while, but he's
really been a you know, a star in California, not
necessarily a national figure. He's a national figure now, and

(02:01:37):
I think Democrats that are picking him at the moment
see him as somebody, Hey, he went and did something
he didn't just you know, this is not going to
be a hope and change Democratic primary. This is going
to be your goddamn right, I'm going to do this primary.
And so I do think that, and I do think
the failure of Biden's stylistic and the temperament of Biden,

(02:01:58):
and I wonder is that, you know, I look at
an amibus share in a Wes Moore as two candidates
that want to be sort of turn the temperature down,
turn the page candidates, and it could be by twenty seven,
that is, that is where the primary electorate's attitude is.
Especially if Democrats win both the House and Senate. I
think then maybe though the heat will have backed off

(02:02:19):
a little bit. But if the same frustration that Democrats
are expressing, like you Pete right now is there in
twenty seven, then I don't know if the moderate and
temperament governor idea is going to be as appealing, even
if you know, even if it's appealing to somebody like myself,

(02:02:39):
who I considered myself to be more of a swing
voter because I'm not comfortable ideologically in either party, that
might not be what Democrats want, and they may consider
electability not necessarily somebody with the moderate temperament, but somebody
with an action temperament with a take the bull by
the horns temperament, because, as I mentioned to you earlier,

(02:02:59):
one of the interesting things in my recent trip to
austin my interview with Wes Moore and the conversation I
observed with Tim Walls was that they both came down
when they were asked to, you know, the question the
form of the question of what does Trump do? Well,
you know, he's always doing something right, and Democrats are
always asking a committee to look at an idea, and

(02:03:22):
then they kick the tires and then they see if
an interest group is going to support them, and then
maybe they'll implement the idea if they can find the
votes after that, you get my point. So, I mean,
we'll see where the attitude of the party is in
twenty seven. I think a lot of it will have
to do with how successful or not that the party
is in twenty six. But I Pete, I think you've

(02:03:43):
put your I think you've you've really identified the feeling
that you have Democratic voters who are going to crawl
them broken glass to vote, who have a negative view
of the current leadership of the Democratic Party. All right,

(02:04:06):
it's time for a little bit on college football. Not
the greatest weekend of games. This is this weird weekend
where every SEC team plays a group of five or
worse team other than Oklahoma Missouri and for those of
us in the two loss column of the college football playoff,

(02:04:28):
there's a lot of Missouri fans in South Bend, and
a lot of Missouri fans in Tuscaloosa, and a lot
of Missouri fans in Miami, and potentially a lot of
Missouri fans in Oregon and Southern California. That's the other
big game of the weekend, which is Oregon in Southern
cal that they could have some playoff implications. But let

(02:04:49):
me just react a bit to the college football rankings.
Believe it or not, I'm feeling I don't want to
say bullish about Miami's chances, but I actually think your
start that we're that that is, it's now in Miami's control.
They can't they obviously, they can't lose another game. They
got two more games on the road, one against Virginia

(02:05:11):
Tech this weekend in Blacksburg on the week that they
hire their new coach. Does that mean players want to
play hard because they know the new coach is watching.
Because I'm sure he's going to be at the game
and that there's going to be Does they want to
start to drum up enthusiasm for for Franklin or have
they already mailed it in? Right?

Speaker 2 (02:05:31):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (02:05:31):
Does this coaching staff know they're all going to get
replaced and they all have to look for jobs or
do they want to impress the new boss to see
if they can stick around? Right? I'm I don't know
what the psyche of the Tech folks are going to
be and that is but it does It shouldn't matter, right,
If Miami is as good as I think they can be,

(02:05:54):
then this is you know, if they are Playoff worthy,
then they they smack they smack Tech. You know, it's
a thirty one to ten, you know, something like that,
thirty four to you know, you know, forty two seventeen,
but it's something thorough. Anything less than that, and this
is going to be held against them. But I think

(02:06:14):
if they can do that and then they whip hit
the following week, another tough game, road game Saturday after Thanksgiving,
you know, I think the path is there because it's
interesting to hear the Playoff committee spin, you know, when
they're asked the question of why do you have Notre
Dame ranked heead of Miami when Miami? When are you?
And they're saying, well, we're not factoring in the head

(02:06:36):
to head because they're not being considered within the same pool,
and they it's it's funny to me all the different
rules that they sort of let us know about, and
they trickle them out because they still don't They still
have never really said what the criteria is on whether
wins matter more than losses right right now, they've decided
losses matter more than wins, because if if wins mattered

(02:06:57):
more than losses, Miami would be ranked a head of
Notre Dame. But they've decided losses matter more than wins,
and that's why Notre Dames ahead of both Miami and Alabama.
By the way, I wanted to welcome Paul Finbaum to
the Miami's Getting Screwed Here committee, I noticed I have
a feeling he's only there because Alabama got dropped below

(02:07:17):
Notre Dame because again, Alabama's wins are terrific, but they're
being punished for the Florida State loss and punished for
losing at home to Oklahoma in a game that they
should have won if you believe in these sp plus rankings, etc.
But it's interesting if you look at the two loss teams, right,
You've got Utah, Miami, Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, and then

(02:07:45):
maybe Oregon if they lose to USC, and then USC
jumps in there, and then you might have Michigan if
they beat Ohio State. Then there suddenly in the conversation
on this sort of where things go. But I do
think that Miami's creeped up here. If they were ranked
one slot higher, they would be in the same group. Right.

(02:08:09):
They apparently decide who the top four teams are. Then
they then five through eight are are are identified and
compared against each other. Then nine through twelve, well, Miami's
in the next tier of thirteen through through sixteen. If
Miami's in the same quote like grouping of Notre Dame,
then the head to head according to these according to

(02:08:30):
these playoff committee experts, will start to matter more. Miami
wins out and wins both games big and Notre Dame
does the same. But you know, I do I'm starting
to believe that they're going to get there, and I
do think I'm sorry by the way the lack of
there's a lot of people who don't watch college football.

(02:08:51):
It turns out they watch their team, but they don't
really pay attention to the rest. This is true of politics,
and it happens all the time. In case you're one,
I get all of my expert college football advice from
gambling podcasts on college football, not from any of the
punditry that you see on Fox or ESPN, because, frankly,
the gamblers give you a It is a much more

(02:09:14):
data driven analysis that you get right of offensive metrics
defensive metrics now gamblers sometimes get, you know, I do think.
I do think Mario Christobal's reputation for blowing games for
his teams losing games that they shouldn't. It's true at Oregon,
it's been true at Miami is for some reason, being

(02:09:36):
held like it's making for whatever reason, Miami's losses are
being held more accountable to Miami because of this supposed
crystabal reputation. I don't think that's fair to me. It's like,
you know, it should be blank slate, here's team A,
here's team B, and if it were blind taste as
team A team B, Miami's going to win that argument

(02:09:58):
just about every time against for one simple fact, the
head to head and again, yes, the final score was
three points, but if you watch that game, Miami was
in charge of that game the whole time. They basically
had a double digit lead for most of the game.
They were in control of that game until Mario didn't
know how to just sort of slow the game down
and end it. But it did give it did give

(02:10:21):
Notre Dame the perception of coming back there at the end,
but it really wasn't. It was a pretty thorough defeat
by Miami over Notre Dame. Now you can make the
argument out CJ Car's first game. Yeah, that's true. So
it was Carson Beck's first game. It was Malachi Tony's
first game, Ruben, You know, so there's you know, I

(02:10:41):
think that that argument sort of wears me out. And
now here's where I think Notre Dame might actually have
more problems on that committee. As much as I think
this committee is making decisions not based on what happens
on the field, but what happens in the ratings and
what happened and what ESPN cares about the most, I
do think there's a lot of conference commissioners and conference

(02:11:02):
ads who can't stand that Notre Dame continues to not
have to be in a conference. And the fact of
the matter is, none of these college football pundits have
acknowledged the fact that Notre Dame's last two games where
against teams that chose not to compete at one hundred
percent against Notre Dame. So essentially, they got to play
two exhibition games, one against Navy, one against PITT, against

(02:11:25):
two teams that did not care and the coaching staff.
I'm not saying the players didn't care, but the coaching
staff did not coach to win the game. They held
out players that they thought mattered more for their conferences.
And again, it's a very logical thing to do, but
it should it should count against Notre Dame. It doesn't
mean they defeated. It's an impressed I'm not impressed with

(02:11:47):
their pit victory because they didn't face the best version
of PITT. So, now, is it Notre Dame's fault that
teams are choosing to do that. No, but they're not
in a conference and so they don't they don't have
that pressure of winning or losing conference games. Conference games
are just have more pressure because you face the same

(02:12:08):
team all the time, and especially if you're the bigger brand,
they're always obsessed with beating you, and it's and it's
in conference, and there's it just matters more conference games,
it adds pressure, they're harder, all of those things, and
Notre Dame doesn't have any of those difficult type games.
Because now, in some ways, the conference path, particularly ACC

(02:12:31):
Big twelve and Group of five teams, since the committee
is going to be incredibly biased against every conference that's
not named the SEC and even the Big Ten. Right,
your conference games matter so much more than your non
conference games, and Notre Dame plays nothing but non conference games.
So I'm just saying I think that there's a chance

(02:12:51):
that this is one of those cases where Miami might
get you know, I think deserves the bid over Notre Dame.
But the reasoning they may get it is it irrit
you know, it's about pressuring Notre Dame to join a
conference and to have a real conference schedule and to
go through there. And I do think if Notre Dame
wants a simpler path to the College Football Playoff, they'd

(02:13:13):
be better off joining the ACC as a full member.
They would likely almost always make the AEC final. But
of course that was the pitch Florida State made to
Miami coming into the ACC and we know how well
that worked out, But it would it would make everything
I think cleaner in this and it would it would
actually probably still get it would still create more leverage,

(02:13:38):
and it was sort of equal to the veil. I
do think there are going to be more conferences in
teams that want to that want to try to have
a bit more of a of a leverage against sort
of this this sec sort of financial juggernaut that ESPN
is trying to create. Anyway, But the point is, I'm
starting to feel slightly better that if Miami wins out,

(02:14:02):
they're going to get treated fairly here in this, in this,
in this comparison, and that uh I saw that yeah yeah,
who sports is chief college football writer said it would
be it would be pretty much erase whatever little credibility
this committee has with many college football fans, and they

(02:14:23):
don't have a lot of credibility, particularly with fans of
the a CEC. Mean, what they what was done to
Florida State to this day is to me an unforgivable
sin and a reminder that that what happens on the
field does not matter to this committee. They just want
to They're just putting on a TV show. They don't
care about the merits of what happens on the field,

(02:14:43):
which I think is just a terrible lesson to teach
young men when it comes to life. You know, if if, if,
if you rig a sporting event, and that's what you're
doing when you punish a team that goes into feed
and is a conference champion, and yet you say they
don't belong because you think they that without a top

(02:15:08):
level starting quarterback, they're going to get bounced hard. Hey,
I don't think that was true in that year. I'm
convinced to this day that Florida State beats Michigan because
that's who they would have played. They'd probably have been
the four seed and they would have played Michigan. I
think they'd have beaten Michigan because that's how good that
defense was, and they would have had a month to
prepare and get that offense there. Don't and don't give

(02:15:30):
me what happened with the Georgia Florida State matchup because
Florida State all their good players didn't play in that game.
So it is that game is meaningless to me and
has no impact whatsoever on what was an egregious decision then,
and if keeping Miami out despite winning I head to
head a Notre Dame would be equally as egregious and

(02:15:50):
would discourage teams from ever scheduling tough out of conference games.
If you're saying those out of conference games don't matter
whether you win them, and that's what they would be
saying by not crediting by putting Notre Dame in ahead
of Miami. They would say, then why schedule Notre Dame
in all? Screw them? Let them play Northern Illinois every
week anyway. Games that I'm obviously the most Missouri Oklahoma.

(02:16:16):
There's lots of rumors at Missouri's bo Prebula is going
to try to make this game. Kudos to Missouri that
they want to keep fighting. I have to tell you,
I think this is going to be a nail bider.
I expect this to be a close game. I don't
have a lot of confidence this is one of those
Oklahoma just won the biggest game of Brett Vennable's tenure there.

(02:16:39):
And put it this way, I'd be all over the
underdog on a point spread cover if given the opportunity,
and perhaps I will take that opportunity. USC organ It's
at Oregon, an old Pac twelve matchup that used to
decide who was going to win the twelve, Right, Oregon's

(02:17:01):
got an interesting last two games. They got this game,
so and then they have to play Washington at Washington
and that's that's a real rivalry game. So it you know,
throw the record books out right type of thing. Uh
So the Big Ten, do they get three teams for
sure in the playoff or do they only get two? Right?

(02:17:23):
And you know, if here's your scenario, if you know,
if Oregon beat USC but loses to Washington, do they
make it? I think it? And then suddenly it's Oregon
Notre Dame Miami. Maybe for that you know two of
those last three, who are the two? Do they sort

(02:17:43):
of avoid the Miami Notre Dame discussion and put both
Miami Notre Dame and leave Oregon out? Or if it's
USC Notre Dame Miami with the two losses, I think
USC definitely gets left out. There Is it possible the
Big Ten only gets two teams? Anyway? It is interesting
between Michigan, USC and Oregon. And by the way, I

(02:18:05):
fully expect USC to beat Oregon and lose to Ucla
the following week, and their rivalry game point is both
the USC and Oregon this game matters, but they both
have a long time rivalry game the following week, Oregon
with Washington and USC with Ucla. So it's that's gonna
be a great game. Notre Dame plays Syracuse. Can they
beat Syracuse by a bigger margin then Miami beat Syracuse?

(02:18:28):
Is that the fairest way to measure it? Well, it's
going to be a way to measure it. Miami won
I think thirty eight to ten. Basically at backdoor it
was thirty eight to three, and then Syracuse backdoor covered
it was a twenty and a half points right in
case you were following at home and Notre Dame. I
think it's favored by thirty five and a half point.
So the expectation is Notre Dame's going to run up

(02:18:50):
the score. Are they going to run up the score?
Will they? We shall see Kentucky Vanderbilt. You know, we
don't talk about Vanderbilt in the two lost in area.
There's almost this assumption that Vanderbilt is is not going
to be you know, that they're going to be you know,
that they wouldn't get in over Notre Dame, they wouldn't
get in over Miami. At least, this is looking like
the assumption these days. Kentucky's five and five, they need

(02:19:13):
one more win to be Bowl eligible. They got Louisville
next week. That's not an easy game, although we'll see
if Louisville has anything to play for. They really don't
have anything to play for, but Kentucky might care about
Bowl eligibility. Mark Stoops might care. That game smells like
one that's going to be sneaky close. On that front,

(02:19:35):
pay attention to there's a whole bunch of five and
five teams. Tulane appears to be one of the front
runners for the group of five slot in the playoff. Well,
they have to go to Temple. Temple's five and five,
they need one more win, they care about being Bowl eligible.
Keep an eye on that game. That's going to be interesting.
Pitt Georgia Tech. This is probably as important as there
is for the for the ACC. Obviously, Miami needs Pitt

(02:19:58):
to win this game. I think had BC knocked off
Georgia Tech last week, then Pitt beat then the path
for Miami to get into the A SEC title game
would have been a bit more plausible. Less So now
Tennessee Florida. How much does either team? How much does
Florida care about this game? That's a question that I have.
They look like they kind of quit when they got

(02:20:25):
beat pretty badly by Kentucky. But you know, they gave
Ole Miss a little bit more of a game than
I expected there. And then a big game in the
Big Twelve is BYU at Cincinnati. Let's just say BYU
is uncomfortably. You know, they only have one loss. They're
two slots ahead of Miami. Nobody expects the Big twelve
to get two teams. But can you sit there and

(02:20:48):
ignore an eleven to one one BYU team SMU at
eleven and one got in. I don't know how you
leave an eleven and one team out. Let's just say,
for those of us that want to see Miami into
this playoff, we're big bear Cats fans this week on
that front. So there you go. That's how I'll be
watching college football. And what's exciting for me is I'm

(02:21:09):
watching with my son this weekend. He's in town. My daughter,
she's now living and dying by all things hurricanes. So
it'll be a lot of fun and a little bit
tense in the toddousehold over the next two weekends. But
with that, enjoy your weekend and I'll see it Monday.

All Episodes

Full Episode - New Polling Shows BIG Shift Toward Democrats + Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}Full Episode - New Polling Shows BIG Shift Toward Democrats + Why Putin Won’t Stop, And Why Ukraine Won’t Settle