Full Episode - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Capitol Hill Is A MESS & The Vibes Are LOW - The Chuck ToddCast

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

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

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

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

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

(01:53):
episode of the Chuck Podcast. So got another pack show
for you. Got a top five list that's come up.
I think you'll be intrigued by that. I let's just
say I enjoyed putting that one together. We've got a
great interview with the folks that Notice. I would say
one of the new news organizations in Washington that has

(02:15):
really made a positive splash. Probably not since the advent
of punch Bowl, and we had a new news organization
really sort of fill in a gap that was missing.
And Notice, which is sort of the brainchild of Robert Albritton,
a former founder and owner of Politico. He sold Politico.
This is a bit of a startup nonprofit. It's intended

(02:38):
to be also an academy to help mentor and train
younger journalists. I just find the work they're doing terrific.
They're really doing smart reporting on Capitol Hill. But they're
doing something that they're filling a role that the Washington
Post has just abdicated, which is they're covering the town
of Washington. The Washington Post. They've done some they've done

(03:03):
some good reporting lately. And don't get me wrong, but
you can feel this seed change. This is not Washington's
newspaper anymore. It is a national newspaper located in Washington, DC,
and it is It's one of these things where I know,
if you don't live here, you probably haven't really noticed
the changes that much. But if you live in the town,

(03:25):
if you live in the DMV, you're like, the Washington
Post isn't the Washington Post anymore. It's just a different things.
It's not a This is not one of those cases
where they've gone from being a real news organization to
a non news organization. That's not the point I'm making.
And I think you've heard me use this metaphor before,
use this comparison before. I think what Jeff Bezos wants
the Washington Post to be is the Wall Street Journal, right,

(03:47):
a national paper that happens to be located in New York,
which is the Wall Street Journal. In this case, it's
to be a national paper that happens to be located
in Washington. You know. It's coverage of the Virginia governor's
race was pretty much the what by implying that it
was the worst coverage the Post ever gave would imply
that they did coverage. They just sort of treated Virginia
governor as if it were Kansas governor. Like it was

(04:09):
as if they were, like, we're going to report on
this strange land that is like thousands of miles away
from us, rather than a community, that they're part of
the community. It feels that way when you're wondering about
local DC politics. You know they'll cover the top lines.
Mario Boser's not running that gets a story, But their

(04:30):
coverage of local news cultural Washington, if you will, has
been missing. And Notice and we get into this conversation,
my guess are two people from Notice managing editor Kate
and Sarah Congression correspondent Reesce Gorman and I spent a
lot of time talking about. Look, we talk about certainly
what's going on in Capitol Hill in the moment, things
like that, although do not we take this a few

(04:52):
days ago, but they really and perhaps it's just simply opportunity, right,
if the Washington Post isn't going to co this is
a good opportunity for them. But they've already provided better
coverage of the Washington DC mayor's race than anything I've
seen in the Post. That's just one example of this.
But they also sort of cover Capitol Hill both sort

(05:15):
of in the normal way that you'd expect any professional
DC publication to do, but they also capture a little
bit of the community aspect of things, something Roll Call
was usually pretty good at doing, but again I go back,
this is kind of what we used to get out
of the Washington Post. And again it's you can just
feel it. And I don't want to take anything away

(05:35):
from from the hardcore reporters. There's still good national security reporters,
great congressional reporters. I mean, I never miss a Paul
Kaine piece, I never miss Karen Pummelty. So I'm not
I don't. I don't want this to come across as
as a burn or some sort of that I'm like
roasting the Washington Post. It's just clear that their priorities
are no longer the region. They're not interested in being

(05:56):
the region's paper or of the local paper. You know.
The best version of the Washington Post to me is
when that's doing both right, it's being the paper of Washington.
So that's uh, that's been missing. And notice has been
just this pleasant surprise a couple of years old. But
this year I really feel like they've they've gotten their
sea legs, and it's just it is now probably the

(06:19):
you know, it's on my four or five I have
to read in the morning list. Not a nice to read,
it's a have to read. On this point, So and
in case you're wondering who I have to reads are,
It's punch Bowl, It's Dispatch, It's the Wall Street Journal,
New York Times, Washington Post. Notice those are my you know,

(06:41):
have to read because they have an impact on the conversation,
even if whether you whether or not you know. And
then there's a There's plenty of other stuff that I
dig into. But it's like, if I really want to
understand what's happening in the business of Washington, you know,
you have to hit those. You have to hit those markers.
Political one of them too. I don't want to. I

(07:01):
didn't mean to dismiss them. But anyway, that's the that's
the big interview on this one. Like I said, I
have top five lists. I also want to talk a
little bit about an interesting phenomenon that I think is
developing on the democratic side of the aisle. It's the
subject of my substack this week. Again, I have a
free substack. I'm not going to charge you because I

(07:21):
don't want to paywall here. This is why I've paid
advertising on this and and why you know, trust me,
I get fun little emails from you. I'm like, oh,
why are you advertising this? Why are you I'm taking
advertising money so I can make this paywall free if
you will so. But I think you'll be intrigued by
a thesis that I've developed on my substack this week

(07:43):
that involves Gavin Newsom, Mark Kelly, and Jasmine Crockett. All
three of them walk into a bar. No, but the
three of them have something in common. I want to
get into that. But before we then, look, let's uh.
This appears to be the week that Donald Trump wants
to deal with the economy, or wants to show that
he's dealing with the economy. Trip to Pennsylvania Monday, he
announces the big Farmer bailout, does an interview with Political saying, Hey,

(08:09):
he thinks this his economy. The stamp he's putting on
the economy is a plus plus plus. Look, here's the
good news for Republicans that are going to be on
the ballot in twenty twenty six. The President's finally talking
about the economy. Here's the bad news for Republicans on
the ballot in twenty twenty six. He doesn't seem to
accept the premise that this isn't a troubling economy. That
this is and anything that people feel negative of course

(08:31):
he wants you to say, hey, blame my predecessor. You know,
that's not it. I'm creating this golden age. But the
fact that he had to do a bailoff for farmers
is a cell phone, right, This is why do we
have this? Because China's boycotting soybeans from the United States,
and it's just a double whamming on our farmers. This

(08:52):
is not a Biden policy. This was Liberation Day that
Donald Trump did. And I think that that's you know,
it's interesting with presidents and how they try to blame,
particularly first year presidents always want to keep the predecessor
in the news long enough to have them still be

(09:12):
seen as the foil if things aren't quite working out right.
I mean, Barack Obama seemed to go almost four years
convincing the public that he was dealing with this Bush
economy that he inherited, and for the most part, the
voters gave him that benefit of the doubt. I mean,
he did the unique trick of changing the question of

(09:32):
are you better off than you were four years ago
to are you going to be better off four years
from now? He flipped the question when that met Romney
race and pulled it off. But for them, and for
his most of his first term, he was able to
convince the public this was Bush's economy, and we had
the Great Recession, and something that catastrophic is not something

(09:53):
that happens overnight. So there was certainly a public that
was you know, believe that it was that was Bush policies,
and perhaps Clinton policies and Bush policies coupled together. Right. So,
but Trump is is not succeeding with that. When you
actually look at polling pluralities, say this is Trump's economy,

(10:14):
say that it's on him. The costs haven't gone down.
And of course, you know, Trump only has himself to blame, right,
his typical bravado, This will be easy, I'll fix this
right away. The Golden Age starts YadA, YadA, YadA, bing
bang boom. Right, Well, it ain't a boom, right, that's
the situation he's in. What's fascinating is is how he

(10:35):
keeps claiming he's going to pay for this bailout of
the farmers. Right, it's a twelve billion dollars in bailout
money that's he's announced. He says he's going to use
the tariff money. Now he's also said he's going to
use the tariff money to give relief checks for middle
and lower income folks who have been hit hard by
the terriffs. And then he also thinks the tariffs are

(10:55):
going to replace the income tax. We just do a
little mass reality check because this is in some ways
this is Donald Trump, right, this is the developer in him.
You know, he promises the world and then let somebody
else finance it or pay the bill. So far, the
US is collected approximately two hundred and fifty billion dollars
in tariff revenue this year. Let's just say that's just

(11:18):
a tag shive of the two point six six trillion
dollars the Internal Revenue Service collects. So two hundred and
fifty billion doesn't quite replace two point sixty six trillion.
So if Donald Trump does plan to have tariff revenue

(11:38):
replace income the income tax, let me just tell you
the dollar store will become the five hundred dollars store.
I mean, if we go to a consumption tax, which
many there's always been this movement of some on the
right who hate the income tax and want to repeal
the constitutional amendment that allowed the income tax. You know,

(12:01):
they push what they call a fair tax or a
consumption tax. The Europeans call it a vat tax of
value added tax. Literally, what it does is double, triple,
quadruple the price of a common consumer good. You know.
The argument goes, hey, if a rich person buys a yacht,
they're going to pay an exorbitant tax, and that will

(12:23):
be good for the coffers. But the problem is it
is it is going to be lower and middle income
that end up paying a bigger chunk of their income
to taxes than upper income. Well, so it is a
totally regressive tax system punishes middle and lower the middle
and the lower class, and rewards and rewards the wealthy.

(12:48):
It's interesting to me how often Trump hints at wanting
to get rid of the income tax, which is ultimately
it is. To me, it's sort of a very fringe
thing to believe when you consider sort of power system works.
But he's trying to mainstream the idea. But again, his
plan is to he I think he called it once,

(13:08):
the external revenue service will replace the internal revenue service.
But guess what, folks, The American consumer would pay the
taxes just like the American taxpayer pays. But there's a
little bit more fairness in our tax code. It could
be a little more fair, and it's not. But at
least the tax code as it stands a heck of
a lot more fair than doing some sort of consumption tax,

(13:30):
which would just be a punishing and talk about exasperating
income inequality. It would do so in a heartbeat. Well,
let's but in some ways I'm burying the lead here.
The fact that Trump is talking about two things regarding
his tariff policy right. One is to bail out the farmers,

(13:53):
and then two is to use tariff income to cut
a government check to anybody, as he called it, not
including high income, but a two thousand dollars check for
every for every taxpayer. I don't think that's going to
pass Congress. You already have some deficit hawks, and again
sometimes want to be careful using the phrase deficit hawks.

(14:13):
There are no deficit hawks in Washington. What you have
is you have partisans who care about the deficit when
the other parties in charge. Right, there are chunks, and
that is a fact. There. There's a handful of Democrats
and a handful of Republicans that do talk about the
debt and deficit. Usually they care about it more when
the other party's in charge. Yes, there's one or two.

(14:37):
And I think on the Republican side there's enough that
don't want to look like hypocrites that they're not going
to be for writing these writing these checks. But again
I go back, the real headline is Donald Trump admits
his economy isn't working, so he's desperately trying to throw
money at the problem. Right, That's what's really happening here.

(14:58):
And if they feel like they have to go down
that road, they're in big trouble. Now, let's talk about,
just very quickly, sort of how the economy plays in
a campaign. There's sort of a traditional measurement here, and
sort of there's sort of a running theory. This has
gotten There's been studies among political scientists on this. This

(15:19):
isn't just sort of sort of speculation. But basically, what
the economy actually is in May June of an election
year is what that economy is will be the perception
of the economy that the voter thinks of going into November.
The point being is that if we are in a

(15:40):
recovery in August, September, October, the voter isn't going to
feel it by election day. This happened. This happened to
George HW. Bush in nineteen ninety two. The economy wasn't
doing well. It was starting to recover in the fall
of ninety two, but by that point it was too late.
Clinton had already won the argument that Bush had taken
his eye off the ball in the economy, I mean,
and then it was up to him to turn it around.

(16:02):
Why did he get a quick turnaround in the economy
because it was already kind of turning around, right. It's
like how Donald Trump inherited a healing economy from Barack Obama,
so suddenly it was but he got all the credit
when we had a sort of an economy that actually
started to hum in twenty seventeen until he did the
tax the tax cut, which in a weird way sort

(16:26):
of caused a lot more long term deficit issues and such.
But that's the big headline out of this is that
he's at least if you're an elected Republican and Capitol Hill,
you've got to be relieved they're at least trying, or
at least there's an attempt to try. Now, you know,
he undermines himself on his economic argument when he'll you know,

(16:46):
he doesn't want to. He calls affordability a con job
or you know, he says, yes, I know things need
to go lower, but hey, that was the previous one,
and we're making you know, this is going to be amazing.
And you know, he talks about things that aren't happening yet,
all this manufacturing that he's bringing back. In theory, he's
hoping to bring back some manufacturing. But as we've seen,
this economy actually has been been punished on the manufacturing front,

(17:08):
more so with these tariffs. But that to me is
the biggest To me, the really big headline is Donald
Trump acknowledges his economy's terrible, and he's trying to throw
money at the problem to try to to try to
buy some call. Right. And frankly, I think any president
in this position would be looking for some way to

(17:30):
do this. Trump being a you know, he's sort of
a non ideologic, you know, sort of his version of
populism is chicken in every pot, Let me write a check,
let me do this, let me you know, you throw
money today and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. Right. That is
the philosophy of Donald Trump, which is why when he
leaves the presidency. Whoever's his successor is going to have

(17:51):
a total and complete as show to deal with because
he will not care of the situation he leaves. He
will do everything he can to push any problem off
on his successor, no matter who his successor is. A
quick little update on Obamacare before I get to the
sort of the main my main monologue topic for the day,
keep an eye out on the following compromise. Punchble had this,

(18:13):
and I thought it was an important compromise. It's a
bipartisan group of House members are introducing a bill to
extend the Obamacare subsidies. They would extend them for two years.
They would add income limits so there'd be some sort
of essentially means test of some sort, and put in
some anti fraud measures, which is usually code for you know,

(18:34):
waste fraud and abuse. Frankly, anytime you know each party
claims that they're always worried about it, I think they
generally are worried about it, but they always put a
higher price on what waste croad of abuse is going
to deliver than it actually does. Just so you know,
this is true, whether it's Democrats doing it or Republicans
doing it, I'm just telling you, whenever you hear, oh,
we're going to get what waste froed and abuse is

(18:54):
going to count for x percent. Okay, good luck with that.
You know that those are not real do to be
counting on. But the reason I find this bill to
be the potential starting point of a healthcare compromise number one,
I just think the politics are so bad right now
in healthcare for Republicans that they're looking for an exit ramp.
This seems like a reasonable exit ramp. Again, it's bipartisan

(19:15):
House members. The Republicans are Brian Fitzpatrick Swing district in Pennsylvania,
Don Bacon who's retiring, Rob Resdahan Swing district in Pennsylvania.
Nicole Maliotakis in New York another swing district. On the
Democratic sidey of Jared Golan retired Golden retiring Tom Swazi
Swingish district in New York, though safer under this, Don

(19:36):
Davis in North Carolina. They're in the middle of new
Jerry Mander and then sort of the queen of the
Blue Dogs these days, Marie Glusen camp Perez. So it
is sort of on the conservative side, on the Democratic
side on the sort of very centrist side on the
Republican side. In theory, in the pre Trump era, this
is how compromises were struck. This is how you got
out of this situation. I think this is chance. This

(19:59):
is is the framework. They're threatening a discharge petition if
they can't get a vote. We know where Johnson is
on this. He doesn't want to. But the point is
is if you told me senators sort of took up
this framework as a framework, it wouldn't surprise me. Now, look,
let's be realistic here. If we're going to get an
extension of the Obamacare subsidies, a couple things have to happen.

(20:22):
Number One, Trump has to endorse this in some form
or another, either say won't veto it, he's not against it,
you know something, and sort of there's different levels of
him supporting it. He can sort of grudgingly promise he'll
sign the bill into law, which is code for let
Democrats carry most of the water, provide just enough Republicans

(20:45):
to get it passed. So in the Senate that would
mean you go find thirteen Republicans in the House. I'm
guessing it would be sort of, you know, two thirds
of the Democratic House and one third of the Republican House,
so something that can to that. Obviously, I still think
there's a chance Trump just says no, extend it. Maybe
he does one year or whatever, and he sort of
dictates the terms of the debate. But I still think

(21:09):
it made, you know, in that sense, then maybe it
will be more Republicans than Democrats. But I think where
things stand now in the House, what I don't envision
is a bill that passes the House with more Republicans
than Democrats to extend Obamacare subsidies. That I don't quite see.
But the point is, pay attention to that one. It

(21:31):
seemed to be the most reasonable compromise that's making the rounds.
You know. Two years sort of takes it out of
the political you know, sort of does throw it back
into the twenty twenty eight political stream, if you will.
But maybe there should be a presidential fight, if you will.
But that that is I just wanted to signpost that

(21:55):
and put a put a pin in that. Do you
hate hangovers, well, say goodbye to hangovers. Out of office
gives you the social buzz without the next day regret.
Their best selling out of office gummies were designed to
provide a mild relaxing buzz boost your mood and enhance
creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor
the dose to fit your vibe, from a gentle one

(22:16):
point five milligram micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram
gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and
gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of
wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this, I've
given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I prefer
the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that believes

(22:36):
feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
delicious HEMP derived THHC and CBD products, all designed to
boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So if
you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also has
a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help
you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling
sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep, restorative sleep.

(22:59):
So bring on the good vie and treat yourself to
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order, so go to getsold dot
Com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code
that's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. Finally,

(23:21):
I just want to it's sort of my way of
dealing with what's going on in Texas and the primary situation.
But it's more of a you know, the world of journalism.
When you're a reporter, we all operate under the rule
of three, right, which is three's a trent, two's interesting,

(23:42):
but three's a trent. And I've been stewing on an
idea that it had two being interesting. And that was
how Gavin Newsome and Mark Kelly both successfully used fights
with Donald Trump to sort of vault them into the
zeitgeist of democratic chatter, particularly twenty twenty eight presidential chatter, right,

(24:06):
you know, and how it wasn't it's not being done
with ideology, not being done with an issue. It's being
just shown as being willing to fight Trump. Right, So
Gavin Newsom has been willing to fight back at Trump
re redistricting debating Rondecantis last year, right, he is he
has not been an ideologue. I mean, if you know

(24:28):
Gavin Newsom and you're honest about where his place in
the California Democratic Party. You know, he's the business friendly
Democrat and always has been business friendly Democrat. When Jerry
Brown was governor, who was Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom hanging
out with then Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry excuse me, governor
Texas Governor Rick Perry talking up, you know, admitting that

(24:52):
sometimes California made it hard, a little bit harder to
do business than Texas. I don't know those of you
have a memory that goes back that far. I know,
anything pre COVID, all of our brains get a little mushy.
But this was sometime in like, you know, twenty eleven,
twenty twelve, when Gavin was sort of the lieutenant governor
with nothing to do, which most lieutenant governors have nothing

(25:15):
to do, and he wasn't always very close with Jerry Brown,
so he was kind of in no man's land and
he had it just sort of make his own way.
So you know, he's not a left winger. I know
the perception of California Democratic politics is is all liberal
and left wing. He really is sort of considered a
business friendly Democrat. I think on social issues, you could
certainly call him a big liberal, but it's one of those.

(25:39):
But it's been interesting to me how he's become essentially
their early front runner for twenty twenty eight. And it's
not due to anything. He's no big policy proposals that
he's rolled out. Nothing, no big policy the he wants
to run on in California. If anything, his job approval
ratings when California voters have been middling at best, kind

(25:59):
of underwater during twenty twenty four. But what really jump
started him was a fight with Trump, a fight with
Mega right. Take Mark Kelly and the and the and
the video. Well, Mark Kelly had a nice little run
here for the last couple of weeks. In fact, I

(26:20):
got to read you. I got to read you this.
You know, he's become such a darling if you will,
after this fight over following you know, over not following
illegal orders where Pete hakes Hath sort of threatened to
bring charges against him. Well, he's he's become something that

(26:42):
we hadn't seen before. You know, Kelly has this. His
bio has more charisma at times than Kelly comes across, right,
and he's not alone at John Glenno. This always hung
over John Glenn's head, like I've always wanted to write
a book of a collection of essays on I can't
believe they never became president. When you look at the

(27:04):
resumes of some people that ran for president but never
became president, Bill Bradley and John Glenn are two people
I've always in Bob Dole, right, those would be the
three you'd put the cover. You're like, given everything they
did and accomplished in the world of in Bill Bradley's case, sports,
you know, and academia versus the world of you know,

(27:26):
a hero an American hero, astronaut, and John Glenn an
American hero in the battlefield in Bob Dole. But Glenn
always had this and I think, if you know, if
you're going to orbit the Earth by yourself, you kind
of have to be pretty good at being a loner.
But that doesn't always make you the most charismatic figure.

(27:49):
And Glenn's resume was always more charismatic than the person himself.
And that's been whispered about about Mark Kelly, and you know,
a lot of people know he's kind of interested, he
might be interested in running for president. He was on
the shortlist for Kamala Harris when she was interviewing VP candidates.
But there's always been whispers of you know, he's got
the astronaut personality, which means you know, when you're when

(28:11):
you're going up and staying in space for a while,
whatever it is, you just you it is. It's just
it takes a different type of personality to to do that.
It's not always the most outgoing personality, if you will.
But boy, have Pete Hegsith, you know, threatened court martial

(28:34):
after you, and it, first of all, really fired up.
I saw a version of Mark Kelly I hadn't seen
before on television, and he's taken advantage of the moment.
He did doing fundraising emails. Let me read you this
one that he did for Katie Obbs, the governor of Arizona,
and it begins. You've been hearing a lot from me
lately about the threats and attacks made against me from

(28:54):
Donald Trump and his administration, what they represent, and why
this is such uncharted territory for all of us. I
can't think thank you enough for all the support you've
shown me, my team, and my family. But today I'm
writing you to urge you to support Katie Hobbs's reelection campaign.
The point is is that you know, Mark Kelly's also
considered to be somewhat of a centrist. He taught he
himself rigs about being a former Republican. He's not, you know,

(29:17):
he's not going to be mistaken for AOC or Bernie Sanders.
But he got some juice because he he picked a
fight with Donald Trump, right. It gave him some energy,
It gave him juice, allowed him to stand out in
a way he hadn't been able to stand out yet
among those that are pondering twenty eight. So that was

(29:41):
what I was hanging by. I was like, Okay, this
is interesting. There's two. But I wasn't ready to write
about it until I saw the announcement video for Jasmine Crockett. She,
of course, is the Dallas congresswoman I've interviewed here. I
really encourage anybody who didn't catch that interview I did
with her a few months ago to go back and
listen to that intervi view with Jasmine Crockett, because I

(30:02):
can tell you I went into it with one idea
of who she is, and I came out of it
with a totally different idea. I think people underestimate her
at your own peril. I think this is somebody who
might be too quick. So maybe she speaks too quick,
Maybe she speaks faster than she thinks sometimes. But the
point is she's always thinking and she's very savvy and

(30:26):
she doesn't make the same mistake twice, which is always
interesting with with smart politicians. But her announcement video was
even more It was sort of even more grounded in
fight if you will, with Trump, it's just her in silence.
You know that she doesn't say a word. All you
do is hear every Donald Trump insult against Crockett. So

(30:49):
it's just Donald Trump's voiceover insulting Jasmine Crockett in all
sorts of ways, her intellect, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
How about this new one.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
They have their new star.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
How about her?

Speaker 3 (31:02):
She's the new star of the Democrat Party, Jessmine Crockett.

Speaker 1 (31:05):
They're in big trouble.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
But you have this woman Crockett.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
She's a very low IQ person.

Speaker 2 (31:11):
I watched her speak the other day.

Speaker 1 (31:13):
She's definitely a low IQ person. Crocket. Oh man, oh man, She's.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
A very low IQ person.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
And it's just first it's a stone faced Crockett and
then at the end, She smiles. But it's so there's
my trend, right, which is are you going to run
on something, are you going to run on an ideology,
or are you going to run as a fighter? And
right now, the fastest way to get traction in democratic

(31:47):
politics is to be a fighter. It's more than being
left or right. It really is fight versus unite. Right,
there's I've said, there's sort of there are multiple divides
inside each party. The two biggest in the Democratic side
are the progressives and the sort of centrist. That's a
big one and not insignificant, and certainly one that is

(32:08):
that could hold Democrats back from having a massive successful
election Night twenty twenty six, depending on how these primaries
pay out. But the problem is the primary voter wants
a fighter. Now, they'll take a centrist if you're a fighter.
And that's the point I'm making here. I think it's

(32:29):
fascinating to watch, particularly with Newsom and Kelly, because having
the fighter sort of picking a fight with Trump avoids
the progressive litmus tests, and in some ways you can
connect with progressives on emotion rather than on substance, and

(32:54):
you can and that look Bill Clinton, I would argue,
was able to win over the base of the party
when he showed himself to be a fighter. He never
changed his ideology. He never sort of veered left on ideology,
you know, he was always sort of very much in

(33:14):
the center left. But he showed he was willing to
punch back and so and certainly when he took a
hit with impeachment, that's when the base really finally fell
in love with him, because again, he showed himself to
be a fighter. So I think there's I'm not saying
that this might not you know, that this might be
a necessity if you want to run for office in

(33:36):
twenty six or twenty eight, but I will lament that.
You know, if I could argue that Democrats are going
down the same road that Republicans have been on for
the last decade, which is Republicans don't run on anything.
They don't run on any big ideas. What they really
run on is owning the lips, right, Like that's the

(33:57):
cohesive messaging, which is back right, it's been I've heard
it from conservatives. So you got to fight back, and
you know there's not enough fight. I mean, you know,
in fact, it gets me to one more item. I
want to get to get to you guys here in
a minute. That kind of fits this sometimes where the
where the left and the right aren't very self aware
of their own of their own behavior sometimes. But Republicans

(34:24):
have been running on this sort of just looking for fighters,
and in some ways you can overcome certain, you know,
old stances, whether it's neocon stuff or it's formally democratic
ideas or quote unquote woke things if you bring the
fight to owning the Libs right, and now you really

(34:47):
have a democratic party that may be more animated by
looking for those that are willing to quote unquote own
the magas right, you know, own the right. The downside
to this is you don't stand for anything, and I
think there's a little more risk there for Republicans, for

(35:07):
Democrats on that than Republicans. I think there's a chunk
of voters that do expect Democrats to stand for something,
do expect a lot of issue papers and white papers,
and there could be some disappointment in that when that's missing,
And I could argue that, you know, I wish you know.
Another part of my sub stack is, you know, we've

(35:30):
got a lot of important issues we should be debating.
But even on the even if we debate the right issue,
we debate it the wrong way. Let me give you
an example. Take take immigration. Right we fight it is
kind of an eighty twenty issue, as if it is

(35:53):
xenophobia versus open borders, when really what we should debating
is what does a functional citizenship pathway look like? What
do modernized worker visas look like? How do you increase
strong border security in addition to having more legal immigration.

(36:13):
These are fifty one to forty nine issues, meaning you know,
the country's pretty divided on these solutions. They're not divided
on the big ticket ideas, but they we really should
have a debate on. Okay, how would we do this,
and we're not going to have that debate. Public education
is another one we just us. You know, school choices
just shorthand for conflict. It isn't for the debate. If

(36:38):
if you look at it as a fifty one forty
nine problem, then we would be having a debate about
teacher retention, funding formulas, How would we teach ai in classrooms?
What is the purpose of high school in the twenty
first century versus what it was in the twentieth century
versus what it was in the nineteenth century. But that's
not sexy, that's not viral. So it's like the only

(37:01):
time we have our debate substance is when we have
we sort of create straw men about the other side. Right,
each side creates an eighty twenty straw man that doesn't
really exist in the real electorate. The real electorate is divided,
you know, is actually more in general agreement, but divided
on the implementation of of of those solutions. There's general
agreement that immigration is a net positive in this country.

(37:24):
There's general agreement that there should be reasonable pathways to citizenship,
but some of the details we genuinely disagree on. But
we don't. We don't have those debates, So that to
me is the risk here. But make no mistake, we
are seeing and I think the fact is I think
you're going to have I don't. I don't think you're Look,

(37:46):
do I think one or two Democrats are going to
try to be the issue candidates? I do. That's going
to happen in twenty twenty. Someone always tries to play
that role. Bruce Babbott was that guy in ninety two.
Elizabeth Warren was that person in twenty twenty. You know,
there's always a version of that candidate. They don't always
do as well as they might in political science classes
on that front. But I think you're going to see,

(38:10):
you know, am I skeptical that Krockt can win that
Senate seat? I am, But I'm not skeptical that she
can win the primary if she shows, you know, especially
because she's positioning herself as I'm the one that's taken
the fight to him and James Tallerico is more of
the hey, let can't we all a little bit of
e can't we all just get along? So we're going
to have an interesting fight where two people who I

(38:32):
think both would describe themselves as progressive, but you're going
to have a divide a fight versus unite and what's
the attitude of the Democratic Party in going to be
in the spring of twenty six. It's possible by the
spring of twenty eight, when we're having the presidential primary
fight that Democrats are looking for a uniter by then,

(38:53):
because maybe they've won both Houses of Congress in the
twenty six midterms. But until they have some power, I
think it's pretty clear that the fighting that the litmus
test for a Democratic candidate for office, at least right
now appears to be Are you willing to have a
fight with the Trump administration? Have you picked a fight

(39:15):
with the Trump administration? Or will the Trump administration pick
a fight with you that will be seen as an
asset not a liability. One more nugget. I'm sure some
of you caught Nancy Mace's abed in the New York Times.
I found it hilarious because it's sort of a I

(39:37):
can't tell you how often each there are members of
each party that really believe this about the other party.
Here's what she writes, Here's a hard truth Republicans don't
want to hear. Nancy Pelosi was a more effective House
Speaker than any Republican this century. I agree with her
on essentially nothing, but she understood something we don't. No
majority is permanent. When Democrats hold the majority, they ran

(39:58):
through the most progressive policies they can. They delivered for
the coalers and elected them while they are in power.
Let me stop her right there, so, I promise you
if you survey House Democrats who have been in Congress
as long as Nancy mays, if not longer, many of
them would say the following When Republicans hold the majority.
They ran through the most conservative policies they can. They

(40:19):
deliver for their coalition that elected them while they are
in power, but Democrats don't ever do it. Ask a
progressive if they think Democrats know how to use power,
they will tell you that Republicans are better at using power.
And here's Nancy May saying, no, Republicans suck at using power.
It's the Democrats that know to use power. It's astonishing
that we all live in the same country right like

(40:39):
that we are seeing this. The bottom line is is
that you you know, if you look at at Democrats,
they ended up you know, they were sort of they
took a haircut, right, Joe Mansion made Joe Biden take
a haircut. Right. They didn't get to jam everything through.

(41:01):
Barack Obama stood down on trying to do cap and
trade after he did Obamacare. It's actually Trump and the
Republicans that seem to at least keep pushing the ut.
They're willing to take a bad vote to fulfill a
promise in a way that Democrats aren't always willing to do.
And I think part of that is this version of
the Republican Party won because they effectively made the argument

(41:23):
that the previous leadership regime of the Republican Party, sort
of the Bush Romney era, didn't fight hard enough, didn't
try to push conservative principles compromise, and always threw the
right under the bus. But I just found the op
ed amusing to me because that phrase when when she

(41:44):
claimed when Democrats hold the majority, they ram through the
most progressive policies they can. Literally half the Democratic Caucus
believes when Republicans hold the majority, they ran through the
most conservative policies that they can. This is the world
we live in, right where it's a lot easier to
portray yourself or your party as a victim of some

(42:06):
sort rather than acknowledging the actual reality of the actual
situations that we're in. All right, I've done enough here.
Let's sneak in a break, and when we come back,
I want you to get to get a chance to
get to know the folks at Notice. It's called News
of the United States. See otis right. We have Totus
President of the United States, sctis. We have Flotus, First

(42:30):
Lady of the United States. This is Notice News of
the United States. When we come back, my friends from
Notice there's a reason results matter more than promises, just
like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's largest
injury law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've
recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a
million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered next

(42:54):
to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying as
little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up
winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded
twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty times
the amount that the insurance company originally offered. That original
offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million,
six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So with more than

(43:15):
one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to
deliver for everyday people. If you're injured, you need a lawyer.
You need somebody to get your back. Check out for
the People dot com, Slash podcast or Dow Pound Law
Pound five to nine Law on your cell phone. And
remember all law firms are not the same, So check
out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win,

(43:40):
so Joining me now are two journalists from a news
organization that I thinks take taken Washington by storm. It's
called Notice.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
It is.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
News of the United States. The otis potusctis all of
those fun little acronyms that we Washingtonians love to use
and abuse. But Notice has become it is the original.
One of the original founders of Politico, Robert Albritton is
basically is the godfather of Notice. It is a nonprofit

(44:12):
that's in some ways they are becoming the Washington Bureau
for independent local news. In some ways they're the independent
Washington bureau that exists today. And I'll just put it
in these terms. In Washington every morning, I now care
about four email alerts that I have to read before
I read anything else. Washington Post, punch Bowl, Politico, and

(44:34):
I put Notice in that category. They have been scoop
machines on Capitol Hill because that's the point they've been
going to where the best news, the easiest place to
find news if you just work a little bit Capitol Hill.
In joining me now or two of the one is
the managing editor, Kate Nesara and one of their great reporters,

(44:55):
Rees Gorman, who just started a podcast for Notice. Welcome
to both of you. Thank you, appreciate appreciate you coming on, Kate.
Before we get into sort of the world that we're
all in the middle of covering right now and and
what we're watching, and I will time stamp this. We're
taping Tuesday afternoon here on December second, So if you

(45:17):
it might be a few things out of date, but
why don't you add to what I didn't include in
yours in the description of Notice and in the origin story,
in your origin story of how you got there?

Speaker 4 (45:33):
Sure, as you said, Notice is a non partisan newsroom
in Washington, d C.

Speaker 3 (45:40):
We cover power and politics.

Speaker 4 (45:42):
A lot of our focus of our coverage is on
the Hill, but we also cover agencies, the White House
policy uh and we our model is we have early
career journalists, work with more veteran journalists like Michelle and
bring them through you know, a two year fellowship over

(46:07):
at the All Britton Journalism Institute.

Speaker 3 (46:09):
That's our nonprofit side work with them.

Speaker 4 (46:12):
They get, you know, full newsroom experience, They focus on
state delegations, they focus on different beats. They really get
like the full education of what it is to be
a Washington.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
See a reporter.

Speaker 4 (46:28):
It's super inspiring, wonderful to work in a place where
people you know, really want to do this job and
want to do this great work. And at the same time,
like we break news, you know, we have reporters like
Reece who are on Capitol Hills breaking news and teaching
these folks how to do it. And it's awesome just

(46:50):
to bring everybody together and like towards the school, you know.

Speaker 3 (46:55):
Making Washington. We are entering our third third year.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
This is your third year. My apologies, it feels still
feels new to Washington. Still feel new, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (47:08):
Yeah, yes, yes, I still feel I still feel.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
New, new to notice.

Speaker 4 (47:13):
But I think that's like the exciting part of being
at a startup, being at something new, is that it
does feel new and fresh. I do think that, Like really,
in the last year, we have established ourselves as you know,
a go to place for people to get their news
and very reliable.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
You use you went out of your way to use
the word non partisan. How how do you you know,
other than saying it a million times? Right? Give me
how how do you? I go back in the movie
Tommy Boy, there's this guy says I want to guarantee
on the box, right, and he says, I like it
saying guarantee right, we all want to say nonpartisan. What

(47:57):
does it mean? And how do you execute a policy
that guarantees that this is nonpartisan?

Speaker 4 (48:06):
I don't think it means like not pulling your punches
right or making sure that you.

Speaker 3 (48:13):
Just be you know, one.

Speaker 4 (48:16):
Person says the sky is blue, and so the other
person has to say the sky is black. It doesn't
mean that. I think it means that we're going to
tell the stories that are interesting to our readers, and
we don't really care if they're about Republicans or Democrats.
We're going to break big news about about all the
characters in DC. And what non partisan means to me

(48:38):
is going after the stories that our audience wants, that
our audience needs, like what serves them best. And so
to me, that is not some sort of middling or
mealy mouthed way of saying like, yes, we need to
show both that we obviously go and ask for comment

(49:02):
from both sides. But I think that it is about
making sure that we go where the story is.

Speaker 1 (49:08):
Yeah. I used to say about the phrase fair and balance.
Balance is the code word there. It's called fairness. If
you're fair you can't balance the truth, just like you're saying.
It's like sometimes there's both sides to an argument. Sometimes
there's not. You're just seeking the truth. So it is
what it is. One other one other thing you've mentioned

(49:31):
is your audience. Who do you believe is your who?
Who do you imagine is your audience? Right? Like we
all you know, there's the audience that you have, the
audience that you want, So tell me the audience that
you want. And who you think your your sort of
median reader is.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
Yeah, I mean, I.

Speaker 4 (49:50):
Think our median reader is a pretty knowledgeable Washington you know,
someone who who is a policy maker. We definitely want
to talk to the people who are looking at laws
making laws. But then that ring sort of expands outwards.
We also something we have at Notices called the Washington

(50:13):
Bureau Initiative where the fellows from the A. J. I. Side,
who who are reporters notice cover state delegations. I think probably,
as you know, a lot of state delegation coverage has
really gone by the wayside, and so it's yeah, yeah,
it's gone right, Like probably like the New York Post

(50:36):
has as a reporter in DC, but they're they're covering
the delegations, so having eyes and ears on lawmakers see uh.
And we partner with local outlets in a number of
different states and and are able to provide them coverage.
So there's that circle, and then the circle of you know,

(50:57):
sort of expands outwards from there, right.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
And you know, I think about you know, when you
were talking about its early entry journalists. You know where
I got my start was at the Hotline, and that's
basically was our pitch. You know, we were there, we
want to be your first job, your first real job
out of journalism, your first real job as you get
ready to understand Washington. And there were other entities out

(51:21):
there that were sort of similar put it this way,
similar financial lifestyles, meaning you didn't make very much money.
It was there was something called State's News Service. You'd
have things called like Medill's News Service, which was you know,
in a few other journalism schools that tried to do
the same thing you're doing with your institute, which is,
can you kind of be a Washington bureau for news

(51:42):
organizations that don't have one, Like I remember a friend
of mine at the Hotline got to be the Washington
bureau for the Dover Delaware, the Delaware State News, which
meant he got to sit down and interview their senior
senator at the time, a guy named Joe Biden. And
it was like, because there was no other person to
talk to if you wanted to talk to the state's
largest newspaper, Are you guys alone in this space now?

(52:06):
Or State's News still around you see this? Are you
guys suddenly the only only shop in town that is
sort of turning into this incubator for young journalists political journalists.

Speaker 4 (52:19):
I wouldn't go as far to says that we're the
only shop in town. I think we're probably the best
shop in town personally, but you know, certainly, I think
one of the more intensive programs for the fellows that
come in through here and they have, you know, a
very long, intensive boot camp when they first arrive, but

(52:40):
then every day is really a boot camp working in
a newsroom. I know when I started on Capitol Hill,
I was just kind of like dropped into it and
it was like figure it out. And there is a
method to that madness, right like sink or swim?

Speaker 3 (52:55):
Can you do it?

Speaker 4 (52:55):
I do think like journalists, you know, learn how to
figure it out, But like I didn't know where the
food was on the.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Hill for a really long time. I was just walking
around hungry all day.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
Bathrooms, right Like I always say this, like that's how
you you know, you know, over time you figure out, Yeah,
you know what, the second floor in Rayburn has a
bathroom that's you know, actually kind of clean, and you know,
don't you know if you get over here. But that
takes time. I mean, I know that's silly, but it's
not silly, you know, it's the way you do your job.

Speaker 4 (53:25):
Ment Like mentorship, real mentorship between reporters like Reese or Riley,
Rodgerson or the you know, the people that really do
this day in and day out, where where the younger
fellows can come and learn from them directly and learn
from the editors directly. Like that is not built into
most newsrooms that I have ever seen. We like to

(53:50):
call it like a teaching hospital model, where we are
you know, we're we're here, we're doing really important work,
and the residents come in and learn from us, but
they are also really doing the work. I mean, some
of our biggest stories have been broken by aji fellows
who are also reporters, and so you know, I'm just like,
incredibly proud every day of the work that I'm doing.

(54:12):
And to be doing this work in twenty twenty five
and feeling both like very proud and inspired, I think
is probably probably rare.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (54:23):
I can speak for myself and just say that I'm
very happy to be doing what I'm doing.

Speaker 1 (54:28):
Rees I mean, describe your experience at notice, how'd you
get there? And I like to echo what Kate said,
I mean, it's sort of my feeling in what I'm
doing in the world of independent journalism. It must be
nice to be at a place that wants to grow
rather than shrain.

Speaker 5 (54:44):
Definitely, And that's kind of how I got I mean,
I was in Oklahoma doing local news and then start
got a job with the Washington Examiner covering Congress and
was really had just kind of thrown to the deep
end and just started doing it. Went to the Daily Beast,
was there for only about three or four months, and
too point, the Daily Beasts did.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Not want to grow.

Speaker 5 (55:02):
We got sold about three months into me being there,
and they basically just were like, you guys are not
going to be here much longer. And I don't think
they have a DC Bureau anymore. And so in that
I was like looking for obviously a job. I mean,
the variety was on the wall that we're I was
gonna be laid off, like they're getting rid of everyone.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
And Notice came along.

Speaker 5 (55:22):
And I got a I think Tim, I know for
a fact. So I get a call from Tim Alberta,
who's one of our uh one of a mentor here
at Notice for the for the Fellows, and he was like,
I want you you should come work at Notice. And
I was like, I don't even know really what Notice
is at this point, Like I I think my boss,
my boss, the Daily Beast had gone, but like I
it was still less than a year old at this point.

(55:43):
And he was like, just come get a drink with
me and Tim Greve, the editor, and I'll convince you
to come. So I think that night got a drink
and I was by the end of the night, I
was like, Okay, sounds like I'm going to Notice. So
that's kind of why I wanted to go and then
start a feeling to your point, is very fun. It's
nice to be able to be a place that grows,
having the freedom to chase down stories that I like

(56:06):
chasing down. I get time if I tell Kate about
oh I have this crazy tip or whatever, there's the
freedom to me to go chase it down, to report
it out without the pressure of this has to be
a story. It's okay if there's something I chase down
turns out to be a dead end, which happens a lot.
That happens a lot of journalism. That's it's not always

(56:27):
so I do appreciate the ability to just go chase
down tips that I get without the pressure of being like, Okay,
this doesn't pan out, then I'm going to be in trouble,
and that's happened a lot. But also a lot of
the tips I've been given the ability to chase out
and have worked out to be good stories and have
turned out to be very promising ones as well. And
they're not afraid to take a big swing at people,

(56:50):
and that's something I love.

Speaker 2 (56:51):
I love.

Speaker 5 (56:51):
I mean, a lot of the stories I've written have
made people mad, and I love having the people that
are stay behind you, like, oh, we'll support.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
You even if these people are mad. We're not going
to cower back down. That's a lot of fun.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Well, that's always nice. Areas I always say, if you
to be a good journalist, You've you've got to be
comfortable not being popular. Unfortunately, in today's algorithmic uh world,
that doesn't always Trent. You know that, doesn't you know that?

(57:26):
That doesn't always? That isn't as easy as it sounds, right,
it should be easy for a journalists to say hey,
without fear or favor. I don't care what you think.
What we're all human beings and the way these algorithms work. Kate,
I'm curious how often you know do you do you
feel like you've got to play two algorithms? Do you
think about that when you guys are posting stories? How much?

(57:49):
I mean, you know, the whole search optimization frankly nonsense.
I get that it's a necessity if you're looking for traffic,
but I hate the way it can distort a headline.
How do you strike that back? You guys strike me
as an organization that doesn't want to get caught up
in just chasing clicks. So what's your How do you
strike the balance? As an editor?

Speaker 4 (58:09):
I think it is always nice to have people read
your stories, but to me, not at the expense of accuracy, fairness.
I it is just not something that I am obsessing
over in the same way. It is very helpful obviously
that we you know, we how we started our connection

(58:30):
with with Ajai. Those things sort of built in meant
that we were not going to be an organization that
was out there like gunning for traffic all the time. Obviously,
I love it when people read our stories or stories
blow up, when like a big story breaks and there

(58:51):
are a lot of eyeballs on it and people are
talking about it, yes, like I yes, but I want
people to read my stories that like, that's what that's about.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
That's not about.

Speaker 4 (59:00):
It's not about a traffic chase necessarily, And we are
in a really unveil pole position where you know, we
we do have traffic goals again, wanting people to read
our stories, but it's not like the top measurement of
what we feel makes a great story or why a

(59:22):
story would be important to publish, if that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (59:27):
And recent how you know it used to be. You know,
when I first got in, I remember moving from the
hotline to NBC, and I had a standard explanation for
what the hotline was. And then the first time I
called on Behalf saying I was working at NBC, I
didn't have to have an explanation of what NBC was right,

(59:47):
And I remember it was an empowering feeling that first
time you're like, Okay, finally I don't feel like I
have to convince somebody that I am a legitimate reporter
with a legitimate news organization. Here's what it is. And
a lot of time with the Hotline, it was us
trying to introduce what it was to somebody who hadn't
run in politics before. What is this? What are you? Well,
we're kind of a trade and this is what we do,
and et cetera. I imagine over the last year you're

(01:00:11):
having to explain what notices less and less, and given
the fragmentation of media, is that even a challenge anymore?
Do you feel in some ways not being part of
the legacy media is actually an advantage?

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
I think definitely.

Speaker 5 (01:00:23):
They definitely come like they approach me with less of
a I guess, kind of just a negative light.

Speaker 2 (01:00:32):
Sometimes. I think it's also if I were look at you.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
And see like a Peacock logo or the Post logo
or the Times logo, they just see a guy with
a small a a at a publication that so far
seems to be a straight shooter exactly.

Speaker 5 (01:00:47):
And also it does there is times when it's definitely
harder when I do have to like kind of explain
myself more to get in get in the door with
some people or also people to talk to me. And
I find that less difficult when it's people on the hill,
are people in politics. I feel as though when I
call them, I mean, I've worked with these people the examiner,
at the Daily bas etcetera. Where it's not I don't

(01:01:08):
have to necessarily explain it, but it's more so would
be I'm talking to people not in the DC echo ecosystem,
where for example, I did a story on hore emails
and his broad Star and how all these people said
that he didn't save their lives. So I was calling
these veterans that had served with him, and two of
the veterans were shot and wounded, and I had to
explain they.

Speaker 2 (01:01:28):
Weren't readers of notice.

Speaker 5 (01:01:30):
They If I were to call sales with the Post
or the Ties, it probably would have definitely not necessarily
been easier, but I would have had to explained it. I'd
be like, oh, this is our publication, this is what
we do. We're a startup, or it's a founder of Politico.
So Politico started notice and send them a website and
it takes it definitely is more of like an explaining thing,
but they are never once were they like, oh, like

(01:01:52):
I don't really want to talk to you. I've heard
bad things about your outloads. We're just like, what is it?
And so there is less of a I guess to
be disposed kind of idea of what notice is, which
is helpful in a lot of sense.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
Kate, one thing that I iced.

Speaker 3 (01:02:09):
Yeah, sorry, no, I was gonna say.

Speaker 4 (01:02:11):
I was just gonna say, like I was at BuzzFeed
when BuzzFeed news started and trying to explain what BuzzFeed
knew was to put Grassley or anybody else was So like,
notice is very easy in comparison to that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:24):
Right, Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know
from personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college? And lo and behold, my dad had

(01:02:45):
one life insurance policy that we found. It wasn't a lot,
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he
know how important that would be in that moment. Well
guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
about Ethos Life. They can provide you with peace of
mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst

(01:03:07):
comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes
getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
You can get a quote in as little as ten minutes,
and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving

(01:03:29):
your home. You can get up to three million dollars
in coverage, and some policies start as low as two
dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
quote at ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's

(01:03:52):
Ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary, and
the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me,
life insurance is something you should really think about, especially
if you've got a growing family. One of the things
that I've noticed, Kate, and maybe I'm looking for it
because I am so appalled by what's happening at the

(01:04:16):
Washington Post when it comes to being covering the DMV as.
I try hard not to use that phrase because I
do feel like it confuses people outside of the district
Maryland in Virginia. No, I'm not talking about getting your
driver's license, but I feel like, and you tell me

(01:04:37):
this local Washington politics in some ways, you guys feel
like is part of your responsibility. That is something that
I think the Washington Post has decided is no longer
their responsibility. I saw it. It was striking to me
how they covered the Virginia governor's race as if it
were like the Kansas governor's race. It was like this

(01:04:57):
really bizarre detachment. They have one person left in the
Richmond bureau. They've made a decision they want to be
the Wall Street Journal. I get it. I don't know
if that's the right call, but I understand. I get
what they're doing. They're literally retreating on all things local
and wanting to be a more national conversation. I've seen
you guys lean more into local. I feel like you've
covered the mayor's race more often than the Washington Post does,

(01:05:20):
for instance, intentional or just opportunistic.

Speaker 3 (01:05:24):
I wouldn't. I wouldn't say either.

Speaker 4 (01:05:26):
I think we're really interested in political stories, stories about
the Democratic Party, stories about the federal government taking over Washington,
d C. Which is obviously a massive, important local and
national story.

Speaker 3 (01:05:43):
I think that the stories from.

Speaker 4 (01:05:45):
Virginia about where the Democratic Party is heading super important,
Wes Moore in Maryland, like, these are all national stories
that also serve as the local story in the back yard.
I just think like for us, it's like, we're here,
We've got people, these are interesting stories. Why wouldn't we

(01:06:06):
Why wouldn't we tell them? Like I think what I
would say is, I'll just never say no to an
interesting story.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
And all of the so it's not like, Okay, we're
covering local Washington and how much culture?

Speaker 3 (01:06:21):
Okay, yeah, like an explor but like what has happened?
What happened? What's happening to the Kennedy Center?

Speaker 4 (01:06:28):
Fascinating story that we feel like we should be telling
as well.

Speaker 3 (01:06:34):
You know, so.

Speaker 4 (01:06:36):
I don't think it's fun that you like picked up
on that, because I think, I.

Speaker 1 (01:06:41):
Guess I see it what it does for me. It's
sort of like if you guys weren't didn't exist, I'd
feel like there was a bigger gap in, Like there's
just a whole bunch of what I would say are
quote local stories, as you say, with national implications that
the Washington Post has just decided no longer to cover.

(01:07:01):
And I don't know if that is a temporary decision
by them or not, but I think good. I mean,
this is primarily I think how you've worked your way
in my daily news stream because it feels like you're
covering stories that they stopped.

Speaker 5 (01:07:15):
Covering to that point as well. I think also, we
just like breaking news a lot, and if there's a
way to break some news on anything, I think we're
all in. I mean, we broke the news about the
I remember it was the week the White House Corresponds week.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
It was.

Speaker 5 (01:07:31):
It was a Sunday afternoon. I was very hungover, and
we got a story of that the Washington Commander Stadium
was moving to the old RF Kent and that they
the city had an agreement they're announcing on Monday, And
I remember being at a bar and just like typing
up my phone and it was just like, it is
a local story, not necessarily a national, not usually my wheelhouse,
but it's just like we like breaking it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
We like that whole thing.

Speaker 5 (01:07:54):
And I'm like, oh, this is a good kind of
scoop or a good way to kind of break news
and not gonna like nothing's really too small in that sense,
because it's like, oh, there are readers that really do
care about this.

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
Yeah, well, let's talk about like the environment that we're
in right now and sort of Washington, Kate. I've had
a friend who says, who's lived here a long time,
who says, you know, it's DC feels just different. And
I always joke about like there is you know, the

(01:08:26):
buildings stay the same, although right with this administration, he
might actually change the building design. But it is funny
how the occupant makes people look at a building differently
and look at things a little bit differently. Do you
sense that the city has changed in the last year, Like,
is he the cultural imprint on the city itself? On

(01:08:47):
the attitude you know, as a friend of mine jokes.
Are we an occupied city at the moment?

Speaker 3 (01:08:54):
I don't. I don't necessarily feel that way.

Speaker 4 (01:08:57):
So I I'm a bit of a transient. My permanent
residence is in Massachusetts, and I come down to Washington
quite often.

Speaker 1 (01:09:06):
So you already Washington as sort of a you've got
a different relationship with Washington and perhaps I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:09:14):
I mean I live.

Speaker 4 (01:09:15):
Look, I lived here for I lived here for thirteen years,
and and to go, you know, with my family and stuff.
But it's interesting to come back because come back and forth,
because I read about you know, this is happening, and
this is happening, and I come back here and I'm like, oh,
it feels exactly the same.

Speaker 1 (01:09:36):
Yeah, to know, people say, what's it like with the
National Guard troops, I'm like, other than people wearing fatigues
every once in a while walking on the sidewalk, nothing's
really change. And in fact, yeah, I don't know why.
And I always say, if they were going to do this,
I don't know why they keep putting them in the
tourist attractions. I don't know why they don't put them
in other parts of the city where maybe they could

(01:09:56):
use a little bit of extra extra I.

Speaker 3 (01:09:59):
Actually, I mean I don't think.

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
I don't really think that it was Donald Trump necessarily
necessarily like this term of Donald Trump. But uh, to me,
the biggest difference was covering Capitol Hill before the pandemic
and before January sixth, and then covering Capitol Hill after
the pandemic and after January. And that is there's like
market difference.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
Tell me more, tell me more about that, just.

Speaker 4 (01:10:23):
Like the collegiality of their gone in gone just nothing
that it's nothing and and and I get it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:34):
I think the relationship with between the.

Speaker 4 (01:10:37):
Press and members is more strained, definitely more difficult. I
think that even I mean Reese is there every day,
and maybe it's gotten better, but the collegiality between members
of the press, you know, when I was there covering
things was feet It was a very this.

Speaker 3 (01:10:56):
Was your friends.

Speaker 4 (01:10:57):
It was like little like they're your friends who wanted
to be Obviously.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
Team Press Corps though, wasn't it like yeah, you felt
like everybody. It's the way the White House Press Corps.
I used to say, being in the White House Press Corps,
particularly when we went overseas, it was team America, you know,
and and there was and there was sort of a
relationship with fellow reporters that was different.

Speaker 4 (01:11:20):
You know, yes you competed, but yeah, yeah, and and
re please correct, like, please correct me if I am wrong.
But I am trying to when I bring the fellows
up there and bring the Hill team up there, like
I am trying to change a little bit of that,
like making sure that people understand that this is, you know,

(01:11:40):
a like a really special place to cover, be the
best place to cover.

Speaker 3 (01:11:45):
I think best places start works.

Speaker 4 (01:11:47):
Yeah, and see, like these people are your colleagues. These
are the people that you are, you know, go to
work with every single day and maybe we'll even go
through like pretty crazy situation with at some point. And
so it's about treating them with respect and collegiality. But
which again, like I just feel like it was it

(01:12:11):
was warmer ye before.

Speaker 1 (01:12:13):
But Reese, I'm sure you don't love hearing about the
good old days because the other the good old days
is that they're old, right, you know, And I'm aware
like we're never going to go backwards, We're always going
to go forward. But how often do you hear a
similar sentiment as Kate just expressed from older colleagues on
the Hill.

Speaker 2 (01:12:34):
Quite a bit.

Speaker 5 (01:12:35):
Honestly, I do feel I mean, a lot of my
closest friends are on the press corps. But to your point,
it's like it's very clickie. I mean, I'll just admit that.
I mean, it's very much like it doesn't seem like it.
There's people who I mean, I've worked alongside up here
for Congressional talked to.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
Yeah, I never talked to. It's just very different in
that sense.

Speaker 5 (01:12:55):
And it's not like there's any animosity or hard feelings
for it's just like, oh, yeah, your friends.

Speaker 1 (01:13:00):
And that's that it gets to do you start to
recognize people you don't know their name of right, You're like,
at some point we ought to we ought to at least,
you know, acknowledge each other's existence. That's work side by
side every day.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 5 (01:13:12):
There is also though, like a really it's it makes
it fun too, in the sense that it's like it's
very competitive. I played golf in high school and college,
and I compare it to a golf team where it's
like you're on the same team because you're all like reports,
like you're just here there and your friends, but at
the same time, like you want to kick their ass,
like you want to beat them really bad, and so
there is much more of like competitive spirit, which I

(01:13:32):
also kind of chalk up to just there's more. I
feel like there's a lot more different outlets on the
hill now, like there's a whole lot more competition to
go against because it's such a I think there's there's
just so much a lot of information, so much quickly.
A lot of people just tweet out little things that happen,
or Politico has their blog that they can quickly write

(01:13:54):
stuff up, so it's a lot more of like quick
hit scoops, and so that just makes the competition so
much more where that's not necessarily stuff I focus on.
I don't really care about the quick who's meeting with who,
what's going on, who said this in conference? I like
more caring than getting those things and writing like a
bigger thing. But that still is like you're trying to
get it, and then it's like do I run with
this now because it might get out there, or do

(01:14:15):
I hold it and use it as like an antidote
as a larger, larger story. There's just so much more
competition and the flow of information is so much quicker.
It's either you get scooped right away or you you
hold in and try to hope that no one else gets.

Speaker 2 (01:14:27):
It for it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:28):
Let's talk about your first guest for your podcast. First
of all, tell me you guys launched that this week.
What's uh? Do you have a mission? You have a
north star for the podcast? What's the what give me
your focus?

Speaker 5 (01:14:40):
Yeah, it was definitely. I came to them about I
want to say, like six months ago. I was like,
I'd like to start podcasts. I think there's a lot
of news of the day podcast where it's like, here's
what's happening today, and you can get to your it's
hard to differentiate yourself from that.

Speaker 2 (01:14:55):
And I was like, there's so many of those.

Speaker 5 (01:14:57):
I there's a couple I listened to, but for the
best joy of me the podcast, I listened to our
more in depth get to know somebody like you have
time to talk to them. And I was like, there's
so many members of Congress that I think that there's
the general public doesn't necessarily know unless you're you're Ao
c or Jim Jordan. You're on TV all the time,
like they know who those people are. But even then

(01:15:18):
it's like just like they don't really know them no personally,
and so I catched an idea of I was like,
I want a podcast where it's not necessarily just it's
getting another member. I want someone a listener, to be
able to listen to these interviews in six months, a year,
two years and be like it's still it's relevant.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
It's not talking about so in.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
Somebody's an oral profile, an exact professional profile. Is the
is the goal of each of these Yes, So it's
Steve Scalise as your first guest. And what's remarkable about
him is how he has survived all this change inside
the Republican Party, right, like you know, basically you know

(01:15:57):
when you when you look at the House leadership, he's
the I guess he's the last man standing. That goes
back to was he did he serve with Bayner too? Right? Right? Yeah,
So so goes back to Bayner through Ryan and all
of that. So he is you know, it's funny, he's
always been considered more on the conservative side. Now I

(01:16:19):
don't know what the definition of conservative is anymore. That
was a subject of a podcast I just had with
Jack dan Forth where we were you know, what what
did what people think it's conservative today is not what
people would have called conservative when Steve Scalice began running
for Congress. So how does he fit in today's Republican Party.

Speaker 5 (01:16:39):
I mean he's still universe. I mean the republic Party
is still just. I mean, he's really been able to
move with the party as it goes. He's made he's
a close ally Trump. Trump still brings him up all
the time, and these things, especially the story that Trump
continually brings upbout him is how he visited him after
he got shot, how his during this station tip And

(01:17:01):
he always is like your wife, do you have a
great wife? Like she was like, I'm super nice to
talk to you when you're in the hospital, and always
brings that story up when he brings up Steve Scleeze.
But he's really been able to adapt with the times,
which is not something that other members of leadership.

Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
We're just gonna say many haven't been able to pull
that off.

Speaker 5 (01:17:18):
And he had Bader left beforehand, Ryan left and then
McCarthy got ousted, and.

Speaker 3 (01:17:24):
That's what I wanted. People haven't wanted to adjust and
he's like he's good to adjusts.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
Like he's made it work. Is he not?

Speaker 1 (01:17:33):
There has to be some I mean you know, he
probably used to not take Mike Johnson's calls right away,
right like he was the dean of the delegation and
you know this young Mike Johnson, he might have screened
Mike Johnson's calls. He probably wouldn't admit if he did that,
but my guess is he might have at first. And
now he's got a uh. You know, Mike Johnson has

(01:17:56):
the job that we know Scalice would love to have, and.

Speaker 5 (01:17:59):
It also the job that Steves Cleese did try to get.
He tried and he was blocked by the Freedom Clocks
and Jordan Allies and that was I mean, I remember
people asking him basically when this happened, it was like
you were supposed to be the speaker for Louisiana and
now you're like, you're having to hand off to this
other eye. And I mean, he would never admit it,

(01:18:21):
but you definitely know there is They're really close. I mean,
john Siscleise are close.

Speaker 2 (01:18:24):
Now. They were really tight.

Speaker 5 (01:18:27):
Very differentlationsip than him McCarthy had, and but you could
see that he was definitely disappointed, like he that was
supposed to be his speakership. He was the majority leader.
He was next in line and he was blocked. I mean,
there was stuff that he just couldn't get around. But
the ability that he's been able to stay leadership for
this long is remarkable. It's especially through an assassination attempt,

(01:18:51):
through cancer, through two Trump presidencies, when through an ever
changing conservative faction in the House. Yeah, it's wild how
he's been able to kind of he might he might
have been blocked for me a speaker, but he was
also like one of four people that are blocking a speaker.
So it wasn't not that that was unique to hand.

(01:19:12):
Nobody would have been was perfect until Mike Johnson. And
so it's just it's you definitely do sense that there
is probably some disappointment because that's the job he's always wanted.
But him and Mike Johnson are very close. They had
they hold a relationship that is really good.

Speaker 1 (01:19:27):
Kate, I'm curious, given your experience now covering a decade
of Trump at the variety of locations that you covered him,
we're all sitting here. I think this time is different.
We've had these Trump dips below and and I think
we're all a little uh, you know, there's nobody left

(01:19:50):
that hasn't predicted incorrectly the demise of Donald Trump. Okay,
over the last twenty five years of his of his
public life. You know, up, that's it for Trump, you know,
and the TV stars dead, and that's it for Trump
the casino guy, right. You know, he's the master of reinvention,
He's the master of frankly, always being counted out a

(01:20:11):
little bit too soon. But this time feels different because
part of it, I think is we're impacting a Trump fatigue.
But what's your sense and is you know, what's the
similarity to twenty seventeen twenty eighteen, and what make what
if it is different? What do you think it's different?

Speaker 4 (01:20:31):
I mean, the biggest difference between twenty seventeen and twenty
eighteen is twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen there were like
norms within the administration that they were still adhering to.
I think when they came back into When Trump came
back into office, it's very purposeful, like we are going
to enact our agenda. I mean, the people he had

(01:20:52):
around him in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen, we're all
pretty establishment Republicans who were there, who said, you know,
we know how to run a White House, like think
about John Kelly like that, Like these are people who
who've been in d C and doing it a long time.
And Trump this time was like, no, we're not doing that.

(01:21:13):
We are going to bring We're going to have the
people around me that are loyal above all else, the
trust you know that I trust above all else, and
we are going to do.

Speaker 3 (01:21:22):
What I Donald Trump and they want to do.

Speaker 4 (01:21:26):
And so that to me, I look, I am out
of the prediction business. I mean prediction one time, a
very long time ago, and I shall never do it
again because I.

Speaker 3 (01:21:37):
Was very fond.

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
What was the prediction that Eric.

Speaker 3 (01:21:40):
Cancer would not lose his primary?

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
Yeah, well that's right, you never Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:21:50):
I don't do that anymore.

Speaker 4 (01:21:52):
And uh so you know, I I just it is.
It is hard for me when I do go up
to the hill, when I am in Washington and talking
to Republics, like I don't see any fatigue really from them,
Like I mean, people are just keep rolling like it

(01:22:13):
like there is whatever whatever scandal, whatever news story, whatever
is happening, and there there is always seems to be
a way out for people, you know, say and that
is so I so I am not I don't see

(01:22:36):
it in the in the party, and I think that
you know, the elections next year will tell us more.

Speaker 3 (01:22:43):
But again, don't need predictions, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53):
Recent I'm curious of your experience because this is something
that I think is going to make this mid term unique.
Is our fragmentity information ecosystem. If you don't want to
hear bad news for your side, whatever your side is,
you can avoid it. You know, you can feel better
about how things going if you have a certain news
feed and or a certain information feed. Can you sense

(01:23:15):
which members sort of are more fully informed see it
at a three hundred and sixty degrees of the information
ecosystem versus those that frankly maybe live in a curated world.

Speaker 5 (01:23:27):
Oh definitely, I mean I was talking. It's a lot
of times the members who have been there for a while,
and that have been here free Trump and know what
it's been like for ten twenty years. At some points,
they're the ones that are much more open eye to
this situation of like, this is not fun, this is
not good, this is not We're going to lose. I
talked to a member today where Mike Johnson was a conference.

(01:23:50):
He was basically trying to be like, oh, Republicans. We're
not just going to keep it, We're gonna grow it,
Like we have perfect ability to grow it.

Speaker 2 (01:23:56):
Grabbed a veteran member.

Speaker 5 (01:23:58):
Afterwards, they told me, they're like, yeah, and I thought
I was going to date the prom queen in high school,
but like, we don't always get what we want, and
that was their exact quote, and I was so they're
much more being like this is terrible, like interesting, But you.

Speaker 1 (01:24:11):
See a really a real dividing line between those that
basically that were there before twenty sixteen and those that
it got elected during Trump's during Trump's.

Speaker 5 (01:24:19):
One hundred percent because they these younger members I would
even say young younger in the amount of time they've
been in Congress. Rather they they don't know they think
Trump can is the only figure of the public BRD
though he could do no wrong. They are type of
people that came up and like, if you ran for
Congress as a Republican for a first time at post Trump,
you're running for Trump. You're not running like you're running

(01:24:41):
because you say something in Trump and there's really and
the only way to win was to run towards Trump.
You cann't really run make your own really Republican lane,
so those members are feel more of a sense of oh, like,
he'll always find a way to make this right. He'll
find a way to say that like, oh, it might
be terrible right now, but we're still gonna be okay.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
Where is it?

Speaker 1 (01:25:01):
The same dividing line among those who lament the lack
of that Congress has given away too much authority to
the presidency. That that is also that that divide is
between sort of the newbies and the veterans.

Speaker 5 (01:25:16):
Oh, definitely, because I don't think newbies really know what
it was like when Congress actually had its full power,
like when they could stand up. I mean, they don't
know what it was like before Congress was like if
they're actually passing appropriations, built, they're funding the government, they're
doing this, like they don't fully remember what is like
what are these older members who have like, oh, like

(01:25:37):
I remember, like Congress is actually like we stand up
to a president, we disagree.

Speaker 1 (01:25:41):
With that, and we still here's the irony to that
the era they're talking about. Those of us that cover
that era would say this is kind of a weak Congress.
They're seeding too much power to the presidency. So I
mean it is sort of amusing to me because this
has been a forty year I'd argue a forty year
phenomenon that started with the Reagan White House sort of
you surping more and more power, and this has been

(01:26:01):
a consistent thing. Presidents never give power back to Congress.
I don't care what body they are.

Speaker 5 (01:26:06):
I remember I read a good book, The Admission of
the Power, about Jim Wright and great about how he was.
I think he was the last speaker to really fully
be like, no, like the House, I am equal to
the president. I'm going to use this power to do
what I need to do. And he that's what he did.
He literally saw himself as like equal to the president.

(01:26:29):
He said he was taking leaders with foreign leaders, like
he was doing his thing like and I feel like
reading that and then looking at today, I'm like Mike
Johns would never he would never try to go against
I mean even like Ken McCarthy and Johnsonderby, like even
to the point they were like, oh, that's that's an
executive issue, that's not a legislative issue, Like even in

(01:26:50):
opposite parties, that would never really happen because they would
be like, oh, that's not our issue.

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
Where before under Jim Wright.

Speaker 5 (01:26:56):
He was like, Oh, there's an issue, like I'm going
to make it a legislative issue, like it's going to
be my thing, And you don't just don't see that anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:27:04):
No, I think, you know, it's inevitable we'll have another.
You know, look, if you look at things with a
really long lens, we've had cycles of weak congresses versus
strong congresses, and I think a period of a stronger
legislative branch, particularly if we have to continue with a
series of one term presidents, is going to be inevitable.
We've had three in a row, and the last time

(01:27:25):
we had that was over one hundred years ago. So
in that sense, Kate, if there's another difference between twenty
seventeen and twenty eighteen and today, it's on the democratic side.
There was confidence and confidence associated both words were associated
with the democratic leadership circa twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen.

(01:27:46):
Those are not two words you would here to describe
the democratic leadership of today. How how much of a
problem could that end up being for Democrats as they
even as the political environment is pretty good if you're
the party not in the White House, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:28:07):
I mean I it is funny to watch them. They
always get in their own way, right, Like it's like, oh,
you caught the ball, and then you fumble, and you
caught the ball and then you fumble. Nancy Pelosi, I
think even her biggest critics would say she she counted
every single vote, She knew how to get something that

(01:28:30):
she wanted done done, and just had this you know,
armor around her where she just.

Speaker 3 (01:28:38):
Did not let that.

Speaker 4 (01:28:42):
The infighting truly like trickle in, and it does not
seem that current Democratic leadership has has got that figured
out at this point.

Speaker 3 (01:28:54):
Reese and I were in New Hampshire.

Speaker 4 (01:28:57):
A little while ago to see some senator shortly after
the government reopened, some people who may or may not
be thinking about running for a president in twenty twenty eight, uh,
Senator Chris Murphy, Senator Corey Booker, who both you know,
had pretty like tough things to say about their leadership,
and Senator Chuck Schumer, which is just I don't think

(01:29:21):
is something you saw. I mean, people were obviously very
critical of Harry Reid, but it just it was it
was different, you know, and people didn't Harry Reid was
still able to keep folks together and get done what
he needed to get done. And the you know, the
overwhelming criticism of Schuber post shut down was that he

(01:29:44):
just let he you know, he let this coalition dissolve
and for what. At the end of the day, it
was like they had kept the government shut down and
for what.

Speaker 3 (01:29:53):
So I'll be really interested to see what.

Speaker 4 (01:29:58):
How how the party run, you know, I think this
idea that they can run on economy and affordability like
Trump did in twenty four and as we saw in
the November elections, if they can keep on that message,
maybe we'll see. But there's a lot of noise out there,
especially on the far left, and it is very hard

(01:30:20):
for the party, I think, to tune that out.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
Reese, what do you sense of the nervousness among you know,
do Democrats feel bullish or are they always looking over
their left shoulder literally that you're Democrats that you talked to.

Speaker 5 (01:30:35):
I think from talking to them, they definitely feel bullish
going into the midterms, but they there's just a sense
that there's never gonna like they don't really have full
like like clearly Nancy Pelosi is what the leader as
to her point of the Decocratic Party, and they don't really
have a leader like Republicans going into midterms, even when

(01:30:58):
they're down, they're like, oh, Trumps aren't like Trump's gonna
endorse especially yeah where I mean my colleague Alex Rody
wrote about this, Well, it's about Senate races where they
don't really have a forced clear primaries. They don't have
a force to help get the right candidate elected. Where
Steve Dain's last cycle, the former NRSC chairman was like,

(01:31:22):
we have our candidate, that's the guy who can win,
and we're gonna just have Trump endorse these people to
then help our field. Like they could put up a
candidate in Michigan who might not be able to be microagers.
They might put up a candidate Maine who can't beat
Susan Collins, and they have these Well they've cleared some fields,
but I mean not in Texas.

Speaker 2 (01:31:42):
There's possiblity Jasmine.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
Right, Roy Cooper cleared a field. I don't believe anybody
that Chuck Schumer did nothing to clear that field. Shared
Brown's no he by the way, they didn't even clear
that field, right shared Brown's not the heavy favorite, but
it didn't scare off one challenger with a couple of bucks,
you know.

Speaker 5 (01:32:00):
And then Texas, I mean they have James and then
the Crockett might get it, and that would also be
a best for them. So there's also this sense of
like what should be like, Oh, we're gonna win it.
It's like, dang, like are you gonna well, how's it
going to work? In the citate, we can nominate the
row candidate. Same in the House, I mean the redistrict.
Your stuff is definitely getting to them.

Speaker 1 (01:32:22):
Do they accept the premise. Do Democrats accept the premise
that they can't win the mid terms without winning both
the House and the Senate.

Speaker 2 (01:32:30):
I don't think they do. I think they're really focusing.

Speaker 5 (01:32:33):
I think they're like, oh, if we win the House,
were good, they could just like hinder.

Speaker 2 (01:32:36):
A little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:32:37):
Yeah. That that to me is that's a loser mentality.
That's not a win.

Speaker 5 (01:32:41):
It is hard to Definitely the sinate is definitely significantly harder,
but means you would think.

Speaker 2 (01:32:46):
That ever seats.

Speaker 1 (01:32:47):
I just did this. I just did a bunch of
research on this. We've had We've had thirty three midterms
since eighteen ninety four, which was the first time the
out party swept the House and the Senate in the
midterm and in eighteen of the twenty one times at
the Out Party in those thirty three elections gained Senate seats.

(01:33:09):
Eighteen of the twenty one times that the Outparty gained
Senate seats, they gained four or more Senate seats. So
in theory, picking up four Senate seats is sort of
the norm. If that party picks up most of the
time it is four or more. So the idea that
they viewed that as a reach right now, I think
is a real indictment of the fact that they're no

(01:33:32):
longer a national party because they just can't compete in
literally a third of the country.

Speaker 5 (01:33:38):
And then there are also is concerned, I mean even
about states that should be safe New Hampshire with Johnson
neu new getting in, like they're gonna have to spend
money there when usually I mean if it was just
Scott Brown that would have the National Party would not
have had.

Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
To spent some money. Eh, they might have to spend
some I think people under estimate Scott New Hampshire is
a quirky state. It is where yeah, you know it's
it's you know, it's really smart. People pissed off how
cold it is, right like it's just, you know, it's
just you know, you never know, very dark.

Speaker 3 (01:34:06):
That was all your hotline popping out there. Check just
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:34:09):
I just well, I'm just vomiting my my data that
I just sort of accumulated because I was obsessed with this.
How many times has there been an actual clean suite
where the out party won both the House and the Senate.
It's actually, I only happened six times since the since
the Republican Party became one of the two major parties. Ironically,

(01:34:31):
the first time it ever happened is the first time.
It was for Grover Cleveland's presidency, in the second mid
term of his second non consecutive term. I'm not saying
history repeats itself, but.

Speaker 5 (01:34:45):
But I think you also been a difficulty for Democrats
that I'm hearing a lot is that there's no cohesion.
A message like the shutdown, I think really amplified that.
Where there were some people, I mean, they're just and
even if there is a message, they don only fight
to push forward with it. Like the message was, oh,
it's a Republican shutdown, but like we're not going to
open it back up until we get healthcare, Like it

(01:35:07):
was just Democrats are really upset about how there wasn't fake.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
Because it wasn't about healthcare. But they couldn't say what
it was really about because the public didn't you know,
it was really about not trust that the executive in
a weird way, it was an old fashioned Hey, the
executive branch doesn't respect the legislative branch. We can't trust
them to the laws that we pass. They won't try
to nullify. But your good luck selling that message hard.

Speaker 4 (01:35:33):
I don't know if anyone on Capitol Hill really feels
like a winner right now.

Speaker 3 (01:35:37):
I don't know, like vibe up. There is so bad people.

Speaker 1 (01:35:42):
I've heard it's super bad. And I mean, you know,
you hear the anecdotes. I mean that people are demoralized.
That should I mean, look, I assume we're going to
see two to three retirements a week for the next
six weeks. And it feels especially if, like I said,
we're taping before the Tennessee special. If you know, I
assume Republicans hang on and went narrowly win it. But

(01:36:04):
if an earthquake happens, a retirement earthquake could happen.

Speaker 5 (01:36:08):
Yeah, I don't necessarily think that there'll be like immediate
resignations like MTG.

Speaker 2 (01:36:13):
But I do you think to your.

Speaker 5 (01:36:14):
Point that people are just gonna be like, I don't
want it, probably especially if they're like I don't want
to be in the minority, Like it's miserable to the majority,
this will be even more miserable to the minority. I'm
gonna just leave, right and it's gonna be really.

Speaker 4 (01:36:25):
Interested members who say, like being in the minority is
like slightly more fun because you don't really have to
like do anything, you.

Speaker 1 (01:36:32):
Know, like you don't really have to don't do anything.

Speaker 4 (01:36:34):
You don't do anything, like you just show up and
yell a little bit, and you don't actually have to
be responsible for for policies in the same way. Obviously,
obviously they you know.

Speaker 3 (01:36:47):
They want to win the majority.

Speaker 4 (01:36:48):
But I just think I think that like the as
you said, the you know, getting getting cohesion or talking
like a winner, that there is none of that, there's
none of that feeling anymore among any like that. I
don't feel like they're even trying necessarily, you know, like
Kristin Jilbrand, Kristen.

Speaker 3 (01:37:08):
Jilbrand is the is the DSCC chair, right? Is that correct?

Speaker 1 (01:37:13):
How about the fact that no, it is, but I
do the same thing, Kate. It's it is Kirsten Jillibrand
because talk about somebody who has chosen to have the
yeah in an anonymous footprint, like you know, it's like
she does not want to be seen. She does not
It's a strange thing. I'm very curious about a relationship
with Schumer. I'm sure it's okay, but I'm usually senators

(01:37:37):
from the same state, from the same party, you know,
the relationships it's never usually great. Weirdly, the relationships are
better when it's when it's from opposite parties. Sometimes unless
you're Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin, but you get along
with Ron Johnson, right, But it is, it's a it's
been really strange watching this DSCC. They are I think

(01:37:59):
the argument they would Kate is, hey, everybody hates the establishment,
so we don't want to we don't want to stick
our head up and become a target.

Speaker 4 (01:38:08):
Well, then why I pick an establishment senator to run
the DSCC. You know, It's just it's very it's it's
bizarre to me because I feel like, you know, previously
previous DSCC chairs twenty twenty fourteen and twenty eighty some
of the other midterms I've covered, Like.

Speaker 3 (01:38:25):
There's brief it.

Speaker 4 (01:38:26):
You know, there's briefings, they're they're they're doing things, they're
out there, they're talking, and I just I don't see.

Speaker 1 (01:38:33):
Well, Rees, I was just going to say, do you
think if you've got a question about a Senate race,
do you go to Schumer's office or Jilli Brand's.

Speaker 5 (01:38:38):
Office, I go to consultant. I'm like, this is like
a lot of times the DS. I'm gonna be honest,
like I found it. I find that the DS is
not super responsive all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:38:52):
Like and I think that.

Speaker 5 (01:38:55):
Also, like if I wanted to know something specific about
the Senate rate, like will either go to the candidates
or people in the state there who are like maybe
not necessarily working for a candidate, but might be working
for the state party or might just be a consultant there.
That's more where I focus. And I think that it's
been it's just been difficult. Like there there's a lot

(01:39:16):
like the NSC has been hosting briefings and they've been
like there's at least been some more conversation and communication.
It's I will say the D trip is really good.
I get into the D trip is really communicated. So
the NRCC, but the DS I've just found to be
not like just I just I don't know. I just
has been kind of a more of a difficult relationship.

(01:39:38):
And I don't know, maybe that's on me. Maybe I'm
not doing pretty my best foot for well, you're not alone.

Speaker 1 (01:39:43):
It's just that they just don't they don't You get
the sense that that they're there keeping their head down
because there's this awkward conversation happening in some of these
Senate primaries where there's where supporting Schumer is a litmus
test and which is gonna put the D and you know,
so my guess is they're almost afraid to go on
the record about any Senate Democratic candidate.

Speaker 5 (01:40:05):
Yeah, and then also like their whole they completely true.
And there's also I mean, I remember they Jill Brand
I believe, was saying literally on the record that oh,
we're not gonna get involved in the main primary. We're
gonna let this play out. And then I reported and
I'm like, you have a joint fundraising committee with Suit
with Jana Mills, like this is and then like I

(01:40:25):
tweeted that out, I'm like, this is a JFC with
Jana Mills in the d SEC like, I don't know
how much more cleary it could be, and then that
later was like, oh, like that's not really an endorsement.
I'm like, it is one hundred percent endorsement if you're
joint fundraising with her. And so there's just like they
want to help their candidates, but at the same time,
like that could be.

Speaker 1 (01:40:42):
Mad to this race. Did they start one with Grant
with Platner yet or not?

Speaker 2 (01:40:48):
They did not start arning the Grant platter I don't
think that's in the cards.

Speaker 1 (01:40:51):
Yeah, that's it.

Speaker 2 (01:40:52):
And same thing in like.

Speaker 5 (01:40:53):
Michigan, like they're very much behind Hailey Stevens, but it's
like they don't want to publicly put all their weight
behind her.

Speaker 1 (01:41:00):
Well she looks, I yeah, I mean talk about a
candidate that you can tell is in baseball there's an
expression having It was an old expression called rabbit ears,
and it was for baseball players who were too tuned
into what the people in the crowd were saying and
not focused enough on the game. Haley Stevens strikes me
as a candidate that's got Robert ear. She reads every

(01:41:22):
bad press clipping she gets and is constantly fearing she's
got the look of a candidate running scared and she
wants to recreate the Slotkin campaign, and it's not going
to happen this cycle. It's just a different cycle. And
I could feel the pressure seems to be getting there.
I think the question now is at Elsie, she looks

(01:41:42):
like a candidate that's running nervous, and nervous candidates don't win.

Speaker 5 (01:41:46):
And my colleagues Altrody and Danielle Diaz wrote a good
story about Haley Stevens about how the party is actually
like dang, do we push for the right person?

Speaker 2 (01:41:55):
Like this is?

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
It had been better off with McMorrow. But the problem
is that's the thing. Is it a scarlet letter if
you get the party's endorsement, right, is it automatically sending
the wrong message, which is a really troubling place for
the for the brand of the party to be. Let
me get you both out of here on the following
and Kate, I'll start with you, and that is, give

(01:42:17):
me a couple of names that people don't know right
now that you think will be household names in Washington
a year from now. You know, maybe it's a member
of Congress, maybe it's a uh, you know, a candidate
for Congress, but somebody that that may become more of
a household name. You know that In a similar question
for you, Reese, but really focused on your being on

(01:42:39):
Capitol Hill because I think sometimes the so called backbenchers, right,
you know, Mike Johnson was a backbencher until he wasn't,
right like, and I think that's we know this happens.
So give me a couple of names, Kate and Reese.
I want to get you out of there on the
same question.

Speaker 3 (01:42:55):
Yeah, and I don't know, like like DC household.

Speaker 1 (01:42:58):
Names, but I right that that actually you know that,
let's put it in another way that either the Ruthless
guys or the Pod Save America guys are going to
be obsessing over this person a year from now, and
right now, this person wouldn't be on either of their
radars right there. To me, they're the sort of the
partisan zeitgeist guys, right, you know whatever the zeitgeist of

(01:43:21):
the left or the zeitgeist of the right is. They
kind of both sort of seem to tune their podcasts
into that. Right.

Speaker 4 (01:43:29):
So I'll shout out to someone who's an upcoming guest
on the On.

Speaker 1 (01:43:35):
Notice podcast that's a smart way to do it. Yeah, promoting.

Speaker 4 (01:43:39):
Becca Balance from Vermont. She's a at large member from Vermont.

Speaker 1 (01:43:44):
She first term, right, right, this is the Peter Well.

Speaker 4 (01:43:48):
She is, she is, she took Yeah, well she's see it.
And a lot of people see her as sort of
the heir apparent to Bertie Sanders if Bernie does retire,
will she take up his mantle? You know, they sort
of see her as as just a potential successor. And
I thought Reese's conversation with her was fascinating. So hope

(01:44:10):
people listen to that one and tune in, and so
I think she'll she's definitely on the radar. And then
someone who's a little more I think already on some
people's radars, is another upcoming Unnice Gas. Marie Glusen camp Perez.
Oh yes, I just fine to be just.

Speaker 1 (01:44:31):
We're this close to where MGP is going to mean
something to people, right, We're not quite there, right, Marie
Glusen camp Perez.

Speaker 3 (01:44:38):
But they different than.

Speaker 1 (01:44:41):
Exactly or or or or MTG, right, you know, so
or STP, which for NASCAR fans they would know. Reese
over to you give.

Speaker 2 (01:44:51):
Me two in the Senate, two in the House, the Senate.

Speaker 5 (01:44:54):
I'm going to go rubined Diego, who freshman Democratic Center
from Arizona.

Speaker 1 (01:44:58):
You think his stars all going to get brighter over them.

Speaker 2 (01:45:01):
I think it's only going to grow.

Speaker 5 (01:45:02):
He is really kind of making a name for himself
in the Senate, both in foreign policy realm and then
also with the defense video that Trump he seems to.

Speaker 1 (01:45:10):
Be seeking it out right, He's seeking out action.

Speaker 2 (01:45:13):
Yeah, he loves he loves it.

Speaker 5 (01:45:15):
And then also I think Bernie Marino from Ohio, who
be shared Brown, is I think he just has again
like a good foreign policist but also like a political
actionen that he is catching the eye of a lot
of people. And he I think that these two freshmen
are definitely not household names by any stress imagination. But
I mean, you don't be shared Brown and not have

(01:45:38):
some kind of skill and stay with Rumaguego. I mean,
he beat Kerry Lake, who wasn't necessarily the hardest candidate
to beat, but there was still I mean Trump on
Arizona that year and or guessing last year.

Speaker 1 (01:45:47):
You know the way you described Marino and and I've
actually heard it that it sounds like he's a future
in r SC chair.

Speaker 5 (01:45:54):
I think that I mean always a possibility. He has
this just this real political wit about him and he and.

Speaker 1 (01:46:00):
Let's be honest, he's a car salesman and I and
I mean this in the in the best way to
describe it. You know, he knows how to talk, he
knows how to community exactly.

Speaker 5 (01:46:08):
And then on the house, I'm gonna say, I think
someone who's definitely not a household name, but I would
keeping out is Brian Jack. He's Trump's former political director
in the White House.

Speaker 3 (01:46:16):
He is.

Speaker 5 (01:46:18):
He also worked for Kevin McCarthy as a political director
prior to running, and he is he doesn't do a
lot of TV hits. He's not a big media guy.
But there was even rumor, I mean, when Richard Hudson
was considering whether to try to go for n C
chairman or go for NRCC, his name was thrown out.
He hadn't been sworn in yet as a possible NRCC
chairman as a freshman, which obviously that I mean Hudson

(01:46:41):
decided to go and the route of saying in RCC chairman. Uh,
but yeah, Brian Jack is definitely someone who is really
just a great operator. McCarthy loves him Trump, He's he
has a really close relationship with Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:46:53):
And to have both. Yeah, he's not going to be Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:46:58):
You're not gonna see him what Fox us all the time.
But I mean a lot of times most the best
operator in the house are the people that you don't
necessarily see all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:47:06):
Well that's that's that's why I was asking you guys,
because I that's all right. It's the old cliche the
show horse versus the workhorse, exactly. You know, you have
those that think just showing up on Fox News is
the job right on others or ms, you know others,
And I.

Speaker 5 (01:47:22):
Think someone who is like a perfect example of that.
I mean Patrick mckenry. He went to Congress being like
I'm gonna be a show horse, got some talking to
became a workhorse, and was speaker pro tem for three weeks.
Like he really reinvented himself in that sense.

Speaker 1 (01:47:36):
But like I enjoy referring to him as mister speaker.
I see him quite a bit these days. It's uh, yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:47:42):
I see him.

Speaker 5 (01:47:43):
His kids go to school right by my house. I
always see him walking to his kids. I still say
mister speaker. I think it pisses him off to.

Speaker 1 (01:47:48):
Know when oh so weirdly, I think he kind of
I think he realized. Yeah, yeah, I mean I love
that his speaker's portrait is what a third of the size? Right?
I mean, I just think they they've all I had
a little fun, Reese. How can people follow you in
your work and find your work if they're not finding
another notice web page? Can they sign up for email

(01:48:08):
alerts or Twitter feeds?

Speaker 5 (01:48:11):
So definitely the Notice newsletter I'd signed up for that.
There's a lot of good all of our stories going there.
I mean, follow me on Twitter x and then also
subscribe to the Unnoticed podcast on Spotify or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (01:48:22):
There you guys, I've gotten used to saying.

Speaker 1 (01:48:24):
Now you got to say like and subscribe, like and subscribe.
There's no share in that, Kate. Where can people find
your work in you?

Speaker 4 (01:48:30):
Yeah, I'm on an exit at Kate, No, Sarah, And
mostly though I'm like editing behind the scenes, so my
violines are not always out there, but I'm usually out
there promoting the great work of notice reporters. So yeah,
newsletter podcasts join us.

Speaker 1 (01:48:49):
I'm a huge fan, I'm a huge advocate, and I hope,
I hope if I can give you a couple more subscribers,
couple more email newsletter subscribers out of this, So I
appreciate it. Thanks for I'm so glad of the work
you guys are doing. It's it's a reminder there's always
some fresh eyes and fresh energy we can bring to
the to the Washington Press score, and you guys are

(01:49:09):
doing both.

Speaker 2 (01:49:10):
So thank you, thank you. I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:49:21):
Well, I hope you have been signed up for a
free email alert to Notice sign up for the podcast
with Reese Gorman. Of course, after you've listened to my podcast,
please you know, like and subscribe everything we do here
at the Check Podcast. Don't forget the like and subscribe
on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, on Facebook and x. We love

(01:49:43):
all of that. I'll take some five star reviews, four
and a half star review yes, of course, every let's
let's not diplow for but then go sign up for
my friends. But in all seriousness, get an email alert
from Notice. You won't regret. It's a it's a very nice,
concise morning email alert that I've come to relian. All right,

(01:50:06):
let's get some questions. We'll get to a little last chuck.
Then I'll get to my top five list, ask Chuck.
First question comes from Tyler and he asks, with all
the ice raids and that economy for working class, do
you think Trump support with Latinos will start to go
down drastically? If yes, do you think states like Florida
and Texas could be in play for Democrats in twenty
twenty eight. Well, first, Tyler, the numbers have already softened

(01:50:29):
a great deal. And I have to tell you one
of the weirdest things that took place in twenty twenty
four in the post election analysis was assuming that every
voter that voted for Trump is suddenly a Trump voter,
meaning like they're suddenly part of the Trump coalition and
like a base and sort of talked about as a

(01:50:50):
base voter. And so there was this, hey, look, you
know to me, you know, we used to have a
rule in and I think they still do at the
NBC Newspot. But the rule was, when you saw a
trend in a demographic don't report on a trend that
you'd never seen before. You know, a dramatic spike or drop,
you know, among the specific demographic group could be men

(01:51:11):
could be women, could be, Latinos could be African Americans, Cutter,
don't report it until we see it. Two poles in
a row. Well, I think that applies to elections, which
is now. There had been some softening among Latino support
for Democrats for the last couple of cycles. Then we

(01:51:31):
had the dramatic swing in twenty twenty four, led by
what we saw in South Texas. But that was a
dramatic swing. And it's arguably when you see a swing
like that, you wait one more cycle before you declare
that voting group a part of a semi at least
no members permanent of any coalition, but a you know,

(01:51:52):
fairly consistent member of said coalition. Well, we've only had
one election with Latino's decidedly leaning Republican. But I just
simply think that Latino working class voters are swing voters.
They're no different than white working class swing voters and
black working class swung voters. And we saw all working

(01:52:14):
class voters, black, brown, or why all lean Trump and
in some cases swung Trump very hard. And all of
them have already swung back, and if either some of
them are already voting Democratic on the generic. Some are
simply expressing disapproval of Trump and are sitting and undecided.
Others are sitting in independent. So we've already seen the erosion.

(01:52:36):
It's pretty it's pretty dramatic if you compare it to
his success of twenty four. I don't find it very dramatic.
I kind of see it as expected. But it was
treated his twenty twenty four success was treated as if
it was permanent. And you know, one of the things
I remember, not every member, not everybody who votes for president,
does so enthusiastically. Right, there's a lot of people that

(01:52:58):
do this. Oh, by voting for right, you're holding your
nose and you're going, all right, I guess I'm gonna
go here. And it's usually more because you can't bring
yourself to vote for the other person. It's less about
it is it is, you know, the Maybe it's the devil,
you know, maybe it's the least of the two worst options. Whatever.

(01:53:20):
When in south Park one year, I think did an
election between a turd sandwich and I can't remember what
it was. It was like a tird sandwich and a
shit sandwich or something like that. Pardon my French. That's
kind of the same thing. I kind of they had it.
I think I'm getting it I apologize for mangling and
as a proud member of gen X, I should never

(01:53:42):
get any South Park references wrong. So my apologies for there.
But it was it was one of their better episodes,
and it was like, oh, it was a giant douche
and a tird sandwich. That's what it was. It was
a giant douche and a third sandwich. But what I
love was at the end is like, you don't understand
sometimes that's your choice, but you've got to make a
choice because in America sometimes your only choice is a
giant douche or a turd sandwich, and you got to

(01:54:02):
pick one, and you got to decide which one's going
to do the least amount of damage. So I think
we Now you're asking which states. I think it's more
likely to have an impact in Texas than Florida. Florida's
the Florida Latino voter is slightly different. In Central Florida,
there's there's the Central Florida Latino voters more likely to

(01:54:26):
behave like the South Texas Latino voter. But in South
Florida it's a different it's a different Hispanic voter. A
lot of Cuban Americans Venezuela. A lot of Central and
South Americans who are there who came to this country
sort of escaping communism in the case of the Cubans,
or escaping authoritarianism in the case of the Venezuelans and

(01:54:48):
the Nicaraguans, et cetera. So so it's now if he
botches this Venezuela build up and lets down a whole,
you know, there's a scenario where he decides not decides

(01:55:10):
to cut a deal with Maduro that maybe popular, maybe
the thing that is the right thing to do for
the Mega movement, but actually will alienate Cubans and Venezuelan's
and South Florida, and that could really scramble Florida politics.
But I'm not quite ready to say that that that
shift's going to happen in Florida. I think it has
a bigger impact in Texas and a bigger impact in

(01:55:34):
Arizona also, you know, with a and even in basically
everywhere except South Florida. That's probably the way to put it.
Next question comes from Matt in Chesterfield, Virginia. Matt writes, Hey, Chuck,
longtime fan of both you and Crystalizza, your weekly conversations
and election night live shows that've been a breath of
fresh air. As a JMU grad, Hey, all right, let's

(01:55:54):
go Dukes. I'm on cloud nine about crashing the playoffs.
That's how you grow the sport, even if it won't
impact the champion. And he had a case. But it's
not jam U's fault that the acc messed up. It's tiebreaker.
You got that right, Well, you and Chris have a
bet on that game. Far look ahead feels like the
next open VA Senate races prime to be Spamberger versus Youngkin. Ooh,
that's that's I've heard that before. I think Youngkin runs

(01:56:15):
for president before he runs for Senate next. I'm not
saying you won't eventually run for Senate, but I think
he wants to. He wants to take twenty twenty eight
for a test ride first before he runs for Senate.
If he's a Senate candidate, my guess would be not
till not till twenty thirty he goes. Go Dukes and
Red's how about that? Baseball economics are bad, But like
my Duke's was happy to be part of the party

(01:56:36):
this year. Matt from Chesterfield. Actually, Silis and I are
going to have a bet because silisam married into a
Texas A and M family. He is if you know
the Modello ads that talks about the different fans that
they're looking they're looking to reward, and he says, there's
the there's the fan that married into the married into
the family, you know, married in to the fandom. Well

(01:56:59):
that's Elizabeth Texas A and M. So we're gonna have
a little Miami v. Texas A and M bet and
we're probably going to tailgate together in College station. We'll
see if the Gigghams and the Todds can get along.
But in all seriousness, I'm looking forward to that. But

(01:57:22):
to go back to your Senate race, far look ahead
Spamberger versus Youngkin. Like I said, both of them could
be on it. Both of them could be on the
ballot in twenty eight for a little bit of a
higher office. Spamberger as the VP, Youngkin running for president

(01:57:43):
for the Republican nomination. Just have something to think about,
all right. Next question comes from George and the Twin Cities. Hey, Chuck,
thanks for the great programming. Lately, the Iowa Senate candidate
ms Iker and others have been terrific. As someone who
grew up on a farm in East Central I would
love to hear debate on reforms like electing the Attorney
General into pendently, requiring timely congressional votes on confirmations and emergencies,

(01:58:03):
and clarifying presidential immunity, which the founders were largely silent on.
These changes could help restore balance and accountability across the branches,
thoughts I like them. On a lighter note, glad to
see Miami made the playoffs. Had the head should have
always mattered, and I thought Notre Dame's reaction was a
bit much Georgian and the Twin Cities. Well, look, my
top five list is going to be a little bit
about that, just to give people a sneak preview that, man,

(01:58:23):
I'm in playoff Heaven, so I'm going to have a
little bit too much football over the next couple of programs.
I'm just trying to spare those that roll their eyes
about it and put it at the end so that
you know, hey, you don't have to listen to that
part of the podcast if you're burned out on it.
But I'd like to think I've turned some of you
into at least semi interested college football fans, so let

(01:58:47):
me tick through your reforms very quick. So obviously we
don't elect that attorney it's interesting, would you like to
see us in elect I think you're asking we should
elect the attorney general independently. I've you know, you saw that,
Sarah skir and I I threw that adder as sort
of we got to come up maybe a federal reserve way.

(01:59:07):
If the Spring Court is going to rule in such
a way that all anybody in the executive branch is
an at will employee of the President of the United States,
regardless of whether it's a quasi independent commission versus one
that is directly present appointed by the president, does sort
of shake up this. I do think we either need

(01:59:28):
either Congress has to be more specific on which agencies
are independent and which aren't, which I do think they
could designate on their own and just say, hey, they're
operating under the branch, but as written into law. This
is I think, and this has been sort of essentially
the philosophy of John Roberts, which is he just thinks

(01:59:51):
Congress needs to be more specific in their intent and
that the executive you know you're If you're not, then
you're just making it giving the courts no choice but
to give the executive branch difference. But you know, if
you look at where he's always at, it's always he's
essentially trying to get Congress to do its job. And

(02:00:14):
on that score, you know, I think he's right. I
think he's He sometimes leans on it as a crutch
to sort of avoid ideological fights sometimes or try to
rationalize certain ideological outcomes, but largely I don't disagree with him. Look,
you got a lot of members of Congress that want
legislation to be as as as ambiguous as possible so

(02:00:38):
that they can they can sort of claim credit for
the good stuff, but keep their hands clean if things
get dirty, right and say, oh, it's how it was implemented.
They don't want to take responsibility for the implementation, which
is why there's such a light on specifics on how
to implement these things. Which what they've done is that
they've essentially just handed the executive brand more power. And

(02:01:01):
that's the you know, you're saying, you know, we should
have timely congressional votes and confirmations emergencies, yes, which you're
basically asking, can't we just have Congress to it's job.
The answer is yes. Now on presidential immunity, I disagree
that the Founders were silent. I think what the Founders

(02:01:22):
really believed in was a robust legislative branch that would
have no problem holding the executive to account via the
impeachment process. Right, that is why they wrote it into
the Constitution. They saw it as an important check, you know,
one of the things you have to you know that
I've had pounded in my head by Founder scholars, and

(02:01:42):
I think I want to pound in everybody ahead here.
If they didn't write, if they wrote it, if they
wrote a specific in the Constitution, they did it for
a reason, and if they didn't. So take the issue
of super majorities. I'm a big fan of supermajorities for
judicial picks, but it's notable. And as as those that
have pushed back on me through the lens of sort
of originalists or sort of what founders intent, I don't

(02:02:06):
like originalism. I like sort of founders intent, which I
think sort of is a way to is a way
to both sort of honor the original intent and at
the same time modernize it. Right, when the Founders thought
super majorities were necessary, they wrote that into the Constitution.
So the fact that they didn't in certain places means

(02:02:28):
they know they were you know, they thought fifty There's
a reason they thought fifty plus one could work. I still,
like I said, I still think when it comes to judiciary,
if you if you want an impartial judiciary, then you
have to raise the limits. You have to raise the
vote threshold to sixty, sixty six or seventy five. You know,

(02:02:48):
you know, essentially sixty votes two thirds or three quarters. Now,
some argue that that would just there would be gridlock
all the time. I disagree. I think you'd get a
different type of noominee. I just I do. For the
most part, you get those, you get those nominees. So,

(02:03:09):
but ultimately, what I find interesting about your email is
what you're really asking is, Hey, Congress, can you make
the legislative branch great again? And it's really what all
of us are asking. Right, they have the authority on tariffs.
They just need to to remind the executive branch on
that they have the authority to rescind these emergencies. They

(02:03:30):
have the authority to recind this nebulous, ambiguous aum F,
which allows for the use of military force to go
after designated terrorists whoever the President and the State Department

(02:03:51):
define as terrorists, and they've invented this narco terrorist category,
which is really not an accepted category, and not quite Again,
I go to the only, the only directly narco terrorists
by by the definition that I think of terrorism, as
was among the Taliban in Afghanistan who were using the

(02:04:12):
poppies and heroin essentially to fund to fund their extremism.
That's not what's happening here in Venezuela. But that's to me,
that's the question I really took away, which goddamn it, Congress,
do your fing job all right, Sorry, George, didn't mean
to put add those flourishes in your voice. Last question

(02:04:34):
before I get to my top five list is Matthew
m He said, Hey, I'm concerned about Senator Morenos Bernie
marinos proposed Exclusive Citizenship Act and what it says about
Magus America. First mentality is a dual citizen of Luxembourg
in the US Army veteran. I find the implication implication
that dual citizens are less American to be offensive than

(02:04:55):
historically misguided, especially given how many Americans, including the first
Lady whold dual citizenship do you think this bill has
any legal traction or political upside, particularly in diverse states
like Florida and Texas. Thanks for every great work. So
you know, we've always had this weird relationship with dual says,
we don't. We've never I don't think the United States
ever recognized dual citizens. Other countries are the ones that

(02:05:16):
allow somebody to be a citizen of of their country
and as citizen in the United States. So and I
do think it would I don't think that. I don't
think that that would pass at all. I mean, because
of all the examples you cite, there's quite a few

(02:05:37):
members in the I think what is it isn't it
isn't the current the current head of the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services right CMS, doctor Oz, I believe
he's a dual citizen of Turkey and of the United States.
So the point is is that there's quite a few

(02:06:00):
people in power that have that. I don't think that's
I really don't think that's going anywhere. I understand why
why it offends you. I get it, but it is not,
like you know, it is not uncommon, especially ironically, especially
among some of the wealthier allies of the president. Many

(02:06:20):
of them have a second citizenship somewhere for tax purposes
and all sorts of things. So I doubt it, But
you know, I don't want to rule anything out that
suddenly gets traction. What does the how do the how
does the court? I'm pretty convinced they're not going to

(02:06:42):
somehow get, you know, grant Donald Trump the authority to
sort of negate birthright citizenship. It's in the constitution. But
if you told me they did a stricter definition of
what qualified as birthright citizenship, I don't want to rule
anything out. I don't think they will, but I think maybe,

(02:07:07):
you know, it feels like I don't think anything's a
given anymore. And if something like that gets redefined, then
maybe something like this gets real traction. All right, I'm
gonna get to my top five.

Speaker 2 (02:07:27):
List, to top five.

Speaker 1 (02:07:30):
Top top My top five list is going to be
five bowl games that are not playoff games, the top
five bowl games that, if we played them as the
first in the first two weeks of August next year,

(02:07:51):
would be some of the most would be some of
the great games that the entire college football season could
give us. Because I have a I have a proposal
that I know I'm in the minority on with some
of my college football fanatic fellow fanatic friends. I've I've
pitched this for a while. Some of you have heard
me on my hobby horse before. But I think we're

(02:08:13):
at a moment where I think there's going to be
there's going to be some openness to doing something different
with the non playoff connected college bowl games. And that is,
you know, with the opt outs, with the transfer portal,
with coaches taking other jobs, the number of teams that
have opted out of these of these bowl contracts that

(02:08:35):
the Big twelve VCC. In fact, what is it, two
teams opted out in the Big twelve and they were
fined because you know the money that the bull money
is pooled, right usually you know, the team that earns
the bull bid gets to keep you know, a big
chunk of that money. But like it's like half goes
to the school and half goes to the conference. So
suddenly you know, this is denying everybody money. When you

(02:08:55):
choose not to go to a bowl game. Notre Dame
is not in a conference, although they selectively you want
to be a member of the ACC when when, when
it's convenient they suddenly felt as if the ACC were
burning a bridge with them when they ACC promoted their
football member over their non football member. I don't know
what Notre Dame expected there. When you humiliate the ACC

(02:09:19):
by refusing by sort of treating the ACC as a
minor league scheduling assistant, which is what you've done for
all your other sports, don't be shocked when the ACC
isn't there to have your back in football. You want
the ACC to have your back in football. Join full
time rather than just using the ACC as a minor
league scheduling system. But the point is, I think by

(02:09:45):
them pulling out of a bowl in some ways they could.
This could It feels like this is the year the
death knell of the non playoff bowls. I don't want
to see these balls go away. I love the theory
of these matchups. What I'd like is these matchups to
me something. Well, you know, one hope I had a
few years ago is that the advent of nil, that
you'd actually see bonus money being paid to players to

(02:10:08):
play in a bowl game. Hey, if you play, here's
an extra two hundred fifty thousand dollars. There's an extra
fifty thousand dollars whatever, Right, if you agree to play
in this meaningless bowl game, that that maybe would improve
things Like I don't know this, but I'm guessing cam
Ward got compensated for playing the first half of the
Pop Darts bawl that you know, he got extra money somehow,

(02:10:28):
which is why I only played one half. Maybe it
was part of the deal. I don't know anything, but
it certainly that's what it smells like. Travis Hunter did
similar things. I mean, and by the way, it's an
exhibition game. I mean, you know, the entire world of
tennis operates on appearance fees, right, and in some ways
it's a quote unquote appearance fee. But I don't think

(02:10:49):
we want that. I think we want real competitive games.
Here's what I'd like to see is you take all
these incredible bowl matchups that we have and instead of
having meaningless games that we Yes, it's nice to have
on a Tuesday afternoon in the week between Christmas and
the years, because it's nice to have something on the air.

(02:11:10):
Don't get me wrong, I will miss that when it's gone.
Maybe we can move the FCF playoffs to the week,
to the middle of the week and we can all
start getting into South Dakota State. But I digress. I'd
like to see essentially use the ball matchups that you have,
but you'll play the following year. Now, I know I've

(02:11:31):
pitched this around to various folks, and the pushback I've
gotten is, well, what about the reward for a good season? Well,
in this case, the playoff is the reward, and if
you don't make the playoff, it doesn't feel like you
had a good season. Well, the players that earn the
good season won't be there to play. Well, a lot
of them opt out anyway. So in the hot light
of that, here are the top five incredible games that

(02:11:55):
would start in my By the way, if you earn
a bull bid, then you get in an extra thirteenth game,
and you get thirteen games to deliver on your resume
for the playoff committee rather than twelve, which having an
extra win could be a big deal, having an extra
loss could be diluted. So I just think that there's

(02:12:21):
and again, it'd be great if people showed up in Frisco,
Texas in August. By the way, school hasn't started in
a lot of the country. You could still have family trips,
you could have more places hosting outdoor bowl games across
the country rather just in the South or the Sunbelt. So,
without further to doo, my top five games that we'd

(02:12:42):
all be looking forward to in week zeros in the
first and by the way, college football would own the
month of August. It would be theirs right now, they
own Labor Day weekend. That's good, own the entire month
of August. Nobody will care about NFL preseason. You guys
will step on all of that at Baseball is in
a weird lull in that moment in time because of

(02:13:06):
you know, before the Pennant race heats up in September.
I think it would be good for the sport. And
look at these matchups. Okay, Number one, how would you
like for an opening week Bowl game in the cheese
at Citrus Bowl between the Texas Longhorns and the Michigan

(02:13:29):
Wolverines Arch Manning and Bryce Underwood. Do we really think
we're going to get the best versions of Arch Manning
and Bryce Underwood in this matchup when they play? How
many of the teams or are we going to have
people that really care about winning this game come August
of next year? So that's number one? What a game.
What a terrific game, all right, number two on my

(02:13:51):
list of to me that would be the among the
most watchable. This is a fun one and it's because
it's my way of it what I call the Smart Bowl.
It's what is going to be the pop Tarts Bowl
this year, which should be BYU and Notre Dame, which,
by the way, what an amazing Week one game that
would be or Week zero game BYU and Notre Dame

(02:14:14):
in the pop Tarts preseason Bowl. Right, it's a game
that counts. You get all the pop Tart bs that
you can get your that your heart desires, and you'd
get this great matchup of the Mormons and the Catholics. Okay,
we could call it, you know, the super Holy War, right,
I know Utah and BYU already has the Holy War. Sorry, Lauren,

(02:14:34):
I don't want to steal the great rivalry name there,
but you could have call it the Crusades. I don't
know if I've offended somebody. I wasn't intending to offend
on that. But what a much better game going into
the season. Now, let me give you my number three.
How about a little Penn State Clemson and Yankee Stadium.

(02:14:55):
How cool would that be in August rather than some
frigid game that nobody cares about with the interim coach
at Penn State. Right, But instead it's the debut of
Matt Campbell's Penn State, Nitney Lyons playing Dabo Sweeney on
the hot seat, and Clemson that's really interesting Unfortunately not
an interesting bowl game. Let's see. So there's three, number

(02:15:20):
four on my list at this point, I'm going to
go with Arizona State and Duke. You'd have the party
crashers from two years ago versus the near party crashers. Right,
Arizona State wins, the Big twelve gets into the tournament,
Duke wins. The ACC tried to talk its way into
the tournament. But this would be an El Paso that

(02:15:41):
one of my favorite bowl nicknames, the Tony the Tiger
Sun Bowl. Give me some Arizona State and Duke then
versus whatever middling game that no one's going to care
about this year other than the fine folks that go
go to the game in El Passa and then fifth

(02:16:02):
on my list. Number five on my list is simply
because I think it would become a super popular bowl
game in the preseason and a much more desirable bowl
to make, and that is the Shared in Hawaii Bowl
between Cal and Hawaii. It's probably going to be the
one of the more watchable bowl games in this exhibition

(02:16:24):
season that we're about to embark on. But imagine this
is week zero, I'd be a little nervous with Cal
as a member of the ACC, Tommy Chang's putting together
bringing trying to make Hawaii football great again. I still
I have a memory of their incredible run that got
into the Sugar Bowl one year, where they were just
out playing out of their minds and such an exciting
team to play. There was nothing like that run and

(02:16:46):
gun team of Hawaii when your midnight nothing else is
on and you're watching them win a game sixty five
sixty four. Right. The point is all five of those
Bowl games I told you nobody's going to give a
darn about over the next four weeks. Everybody would be
glued to any of those games if they were being
played in the first two weeks of August Week thirteen. Anyway,

(02:17:10):
Hey man, I'm just here to solve problems. That's what
the Chuck Podcast is about. We're just trying to figure
out how can we solve problems. So how do we
solve polarization? How do we solve the bold mess? All
right with that, I'll see you in twenty four hours.
Thanks for listening, and until we upload again.

All Episodes

Full Episode - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Capitol Hill Is A MESS & The Vibes Are LOW

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Full Episode - Trump Won’t Say It… But He Knows The Economy Sucks + Capitol Hill Is A MESS & The Vibes Are LOW