June 1, 2026 • 34 mins
California's primaries may be local elections, but Jeff Greenfield argues they're offering an early glimpse of the political battles that could define the next presidential cycle. Joining John Ellis, the veteran political analyst breaks down the chaotic races for governor and mayor of Los Angeles, the surprising rise of reality-TV candidate Spencer Pratt, and why vast campaign spending isn't always enough to buy momentum. The conversation then widens to the national landscape, from the emerging Democratic field, to the Republican succession fight that could follow Donald Trump. Along the way, Greenfield and Ellis explore why figures like Rahm Emanuel and Gina Raimondo may be better positioned than conventional wisdom suggests. The episode closes with a deep dive into artificial intelligence as a political issue. As Silicon Valley leaders openly discuss building a "machine god," Greenfield and Ellis examine whether public anxiety over AI could become the defining fault line of the 2028 election.
Hosted by John Ellis
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome back to the News Items Podcast.
Our guest today is JeffGreenfield.
Jeff is an award-winningtelevision journalist and author
focusing on politics, media, andculture.
In the course of his career, heserved as a senior political
correspondent for CBS News, asenior analyst for CNN, and a
political and media analyst forABC News.
(00:22):
He's also authored orco-authored 13 books and written
for Time Magazine, The New YorkTimes, the LA Times, National
Lampoon.
Okay, National Lampoon, that's agood one.
Harper's Magazine and Slate,among other publications.
Jeff, thank you very much fordoing this today.
SPEAKER_00 (00:40):
A pleasure to be here.
I very much have been followingyou, and I'm glad I'm now on
with you.
SPEAKER_01 (00:46):
So you live in California, and there's a ton of
interest in Tuesday, theupcoming Tuesday primary in
California.
And I think the first thing weneed you to do is to explain to
us what a jungle primary is andhow it works.
SPEAKER_00 (01:01):
Aaron Powell Well, we don't call it that anymore.
But uh in fact, both theCalifornia gubernatorial race
and the Los Angeles mayor's raceare all in or what they used to
call jungle primaries.
It means that the that you don'trun with a party.
No matter what party you are,you are in the same primary.
And if no one gets 50 percent inin California and in LA, the top
two finishers go to a runoff inNovember.
(01:24):
And that's a situation we'realmost certainly going to face
after Tuesday.
Neither in the governor's racenor the mayor's race is there a
single candidate with over fiftypercent of the vote.
SPEAKER_01 (01:35):
Let's talk about the governor's race first.
Governor Newsom is term-limitedand presumably running for
president.
And we have, I think, eightcandidates that have some
semblance of a chance to make itto the runoff, if you will.
What's the status of the race sofar?
SPEAKER_00 (01:51):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, it there was a real
concern among Democrats thatwith only two Republicans
running of any reasonable stayou know presence, and six major
Democrats, that when the voteswere counted, the top two
finishers would both beRepublicans and the Democrats
would be shut out in November.
That does not look like what'sgoing to happen.
(02:12):
What we have here is sixrelatively indistinguishable, if
not undistinguished, Democrats,because neither Senator Padilla
nor war former Vice PresidentCatherine Harris chose to run.
And you've got two Republicans,the major one of whom, Steve
Hilton, is a actually a recentor last 12 years immigrant from
(02:32):
England where he was a prominentconservative political activist.
The polls now suggest that SteveHilton will finish first, and
then right behind him, XavierBasera, who was everything.
He was a cabinet member, he wasa House member, he was
California Attorney General.
And the third figure in the raceis Tom Steyer, a
(02:52):
multibillionaire who havingspent a few hundred million
dollars trying to run forpresident, is now spending at
least two hundred milliondollars trying to run for
governor.
You cannot turn on thetelevision set without seeing
his ads.
If you go on social media, yousee social influencers who he is
paying.
But if you had to make a bet,you would say that Becerra and
Steve Hilton will wind up on theballot November, and given
(03:14):
California, that's almost acertainty that uh Becerra will
win.
I think it's interesting to notethat had there been a different
kind of Republican, thatCalifornia used to produce a
more moderate Republican in thein the spirit of uh anyone from
uh former Governor Pete Wilsonto Arnold Schwarzenegger, there
might have been different,because there's a lot of
(03:35):
dissatisfaction in Californiawith every issues racing from
housing to homelessness to thetax burden to a high-speed rail
system that that is somethingout of Rube Goldberg, only his
machine worked.
But given given the wayCalifornia has been for the last
several decades, whoever theDemocrat is will win.
And the one the one thing thatuh had seemed a different
(03:58):
possibility was that twoDemocrats would get on the
ballot, Piserra and Steyer.
But it as I said, it now looksotherwise.
And so I think that's going toend not with a bang but a
whimper.
SPEAKER_01 (04:07):
I'm interested in that Tom Steyr, having spent all
this money, seems stuck where heis.
I mean, well, the theory is thatif you have vast amounts of
money and you can buy vastamounts of media, you move up,
you don't stay flat.
And is there a reason thatSteyr's had such such a hard
time gaining traction, as theysay?
SPEAKER_00 (04:26):
Aaron Powell Well, I'll make two points.
California is a place where youcan spend a lot of money and not
do well.
Meg Whitman, you might rememberher, ran for governor in 2010
and basically carpet bombed thestate with money, and Jerry
Brown beat her quite handily.
I I think what has happened isthat that the California
Democrats, having been spookedby the idea that they might not
make the ballot, have have goneto the safest candidate.
(04:50):
Piserra is like a he's polenta,he's vanilla.
There is absolutely nothing youcan say.
You watch him in a debate andyou try to it's like you know,
it's like you kind of got a gripon Jell O.
There's nothing substantive ortough there.
He is the reverse of that.
But I think basically theCalifornia Democrats said, We
really don't want to risk beingshut out.
(05:11):
Well once there was a favoriteat one point, uh Swalwell, but
he got booted out of the raceand then out of Congress in a
sexual scandal.
And I think that it was a flightto safety.
It's you almost could think ofit like in 2020 when Democrats
said, you know, Joe Biden's notthat bad, and and we don't
really know anybody else.
Let's all go to him.
Now they haven't all gone toBissera.
It's still going to be afractured primary, but that's my
(05:32):
bet that he will wind up as theDemocrat and there will be a
really uninteresting campaign.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
I was surprised that Kamala Harris didn't run for
governor.
It seemed perfectly set up forher, given the rebellious.
SPEAKER_00 (05:45):
Well, think about so, John.
The last failed democra uh thelast failed presidential
candidate who tried to run forgovernor of California was
Richard Dixon in 1962, and hegot clobbered.
And I also am not sure that ifshe had presidential ambitions,
that the governorship ofCalifornia is the right place to
to retreat to, as opposed tojust holding her ground for the
(06:09):
next few years and seeing whathappens.
But she certainly was that wouldhave been the odds on favorite
to win that race.
And the fact that she didn't,along with Senator Petty, is
what threw this into this kindof who are we voting for now?
I mean, the the this KatiePorter, a former congresswoman
who was burned by someunfortunate video.
There's a former mayor of LosAngeles, but he was mayor, I
(06:30):
don't know, twelve years ago.
And so as I say, I wish I couldgive you a compelling, holy
smokes story about what's goingon in the governor's race, but
as I said, I think it's aretreat, it's a reversion to the
norm or a retreat to safety.
And I also have a hunch, andthat that's all this is, that at
some point people got annoyed byall the sire commercials, that
(06:50):
there actually was a negativeimpact from it, you know,
because they really reinforcedthe the the notion that here's a
guy with a whole lot of moneyand he and he wants to do
something else with his life,and he couldn't get to be
president, so he'll trygovernor.
SPEAKER_01 (07:03):
Right.
I I was uh at Fox News whenRupert picked Steve Hilton out
of obscurity and gave him a Ithink it was a Saturday, maybe
Sunday night television show.
Um and I can't imagine that uhyou know did much to improve his
standing with you knowCalifornia voters.
SPEAKER_00 (07:22):
He has been the best debater, because everybody else
is is doing tap dances around awhole lot of issues.
And you know, you for thebillionaire tax be on the ballot
in November, the Democrats aresplit.
They all seem to have signed onto try to continue this
high-speed rail, which as I'm afan of high-speed rail, I've
ridden it you know from Japan toParis.
But this system was supposed tobe done ten years ago,
(07:43):
connecting LA to San Francisco,and maybe by 2030 it will
connect Mercer to Bakersfield,which is what millions of
Californians have been dreamingof.
And Hilton's guy said, no.
He is also, by the way, the onlytime I can recall where a
political debate in America hastaken place where one
participant has a very clearBritish accent.
SPEAKER_01 (08:03):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (08:04):
Um but I I think he's actually I think he's
actually impressed.
But it once again, he is he isnot a Pete Wilson, Earl Warren,
Arnold SchwarzeneggerRepublican.
And I think that label alone isgo is just it's it's a bridge
too far in the currentCalifornia political system.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (08:21):
Drilling down, uh a big race that's attracted a lot
of attention is the LA mayor'srace.
The incumbent Karen Bass is upfor re-election.
It appears that the race istied, at least according to the
last LA Times poll I saw.
What what's the status of thatrace?
SPEAKER_00 (08:38):
Aaron Powell This race has the potential, and I
have to underline potential tobe, as opposed to the governor's
race, a real eye-opener, orwhatever the proper expression
is.
You have three significantcandidates.
You have Mayor Karen Bass, whowon very handily four years ago,
but whose reputation was reallybattered by the by the Palisades
fire and the fact that she wasout of the country when it
(09:00):
happened.
It turned out there were somereal failures of planning.
And so she's really taken.
And on top of that, we have ahomeless situation in Los
Angeles, which is reallyunavoidable, literally, if you
if you go down several streets.
She's so she's in trouble.
She was challenged sort of onthe left by a councilwoman, uh
Raman.
I never pronounce her NithyaRaman.
(09:21):
But the other candidate in therace is Steve is Spencer Pratt,
who is a reality TV star knownfrom the hills, and was it kind
of entered the race peoplethought it was almost like it's
a stun.
Maybe he's going to make avideo.
But this is a situation wherethe dissatisfaction with with
Mayor Bass is such that anout-of-the-box person like
(09:41):
Pratt, who also, by the way,performed very well in the
debate, so much so that hisopponents chose to not debate
him anymore, has emerged as acontender.
The most recent poll is they'rewithin the three candidates are
within three points of eachother, you know, 26, 25, 22.
And so now the question is whichof the the two of these three
(10:02):
are going to make the runoff?
And the and the permutations arefascinating.
Maybe it's the the twoDemocrats.
Pratt, who has sort of beenendorsed by Trump, which was not
a help for Pratt given to LosAngeles.
Yeah.
It might be the mayor againstPratt, and it might be the city
councilwoman, uh Raman againstPratt.
And the one thing that I reallywant to underscore is that one
(10:24):
of the things that has benefitedPratt is a series of videos.
He not made by his campaign, butby an outsider who has produced
some of the most inventive,shockingly effective videos that
I have ever seen.
And I used to do this for aliving before I became a virgin
journalist.
I mean, he it it's so it's sodifferent.
He has one ad where a woman isbeing wiggled into an emergency
(10:47):
room, and the mother and thedoctor are frightened because
she's for Pratt.
And how did this happen?
We, you know, and the doctorprescribes six doses of NPR and
five doses of the New York Timesevery day.
And you have another ad wherethese very upscale women, which
is not Pratt's necessarily uhyou know, key constituency, at a
health club or tennis club orsomething, some upscale club,
(11:08):
confess to each other, almostlike they you know that they're
gonna vote for Spencer Pratt.
It would be foolhardy to saythat if Pratt makes the runoff,
you know, he could win inNovember because again, he's a
re he's a Republican, he kind ofidentifies with MAGO, or they
identify with him, and that thatcould be too far.
But I want to, if I may, thisgives me a chance to offer you
something I thought I stumbledon almost ten years ago.
(11:31):
It's like a it's Greenfield'sprecepts or whatever it is.
I came up with the notion thatif you have a dissatisfied
electorate and they are toldthey can do something they
didn't know they could do, thatin itself is a powerful asset.
And California is kind of theleading fact.
You know, back uh decades ago,they realized we could pass a
(11:52):
proposition to limit ourproperty taxes, and Prop 13
passed two to one.
They they realized we could takewe could take justices of the
Supreme Court that we think aretoo liberal and get them off the
bench.
And three of them, including theChief Justice, I think it was in
1986, were removed by vote.
And then they said, wait, wecould recall the governor and
(12:13):
replace him with an actor.
California had never recalled,it's in the it's been a rule for
decades, they'd never done it.
They kicked out Gray Davis andput in Old Schwarzenegger.
And if you want a nationalexample of that, Donald Trump's
not a bad one.
So before I I understand whatthe polls are going to say, I
would not bet the house or evena you know a portion of it, but
it would not surprise me ifSpencer Pratt turns out to be
(12:34):
when on election day moreformidable than the poll show.
You know, again, don't take thatto the bank, don't even take it
to a loan shark.
But there's something that wassomething going on in those ads
that I that really hit me as a,as I said, as a participant in
that dark heart and then as aviewer.
Whoever's doing these ads, Ithink his name is is I don't
even know his name because he'sgoing under a pseudonym.
(12:58):
It's something like likeParmesan is his real name, or
maybe his fake name.
But uh but you can't see the adson TV, but you can they're all
over social media and YouTube,and they are they are quite
striking.
SPEAKER_01 (13:09):
Aaron Powell One of the rules in in our earlier days
of political analysis andreporting was that what happens
in California will eventuallyhappen across the country.
Are there initiative andreferenda that sort of presage
developments uh in the UnitedStates, or is it just the
billionaire's tax?
SPEAKER_00 (13:29):
Aaron Powell Well the the billionaire's tax is far
and away the the you know butevery year in California there
are there are dozens and dozensof referenda and propositions
because it's a system that HiramJohnson uh instituted back 120
years ago when he was apressure, and it's been
completely taken over by thepros.
You pay people to gathersignatures.
If you have a particular specialinterest, you buy enough
(13:51):
signatures to get on the ballot.
Sometimes you put things on theballot in effect to extort
concessions from thelegislature.
But it but the billionaire taxis one that I think could really
have impact elsewhere, becausethere is this feeling,
particularly among Democrats onthe more popular side, that that
inequality and wealthconcentration is the key issue
(14:14):
of our time.
Jonathan Shait wrote aninteresting piece a few days
ago, I think in in uh TheAtlantic saying that that the
Democrats are being misled bythis.
That that's not what people careabout mostly.
But but wealth inequality,concentration of wealth, the
rise of the billionaires hasproduced a tremendous amount of
energy on the left.
And and in fact in New York,there's uh in the city, they're
(14:36):
seeking to impose a luxury taxon second homes owned by very,
very rich people.
And uh I'm yeah, I I suspectthis is not the end of this.
But but it's interesting, uhJohn, to note that among the
people running for Californiagovernor, among Democrats,
there's n there's a completedisagreement.
Some people say this is this isbecause the tax will only go to
one element, I think it's uhhealth, it shortchanges
(14:59):
everybody else.
And other people say it's theit's the one way we can get more
money into a system thatperennially is in need of money.
So that's the one that I thinkyou know has national eggs.
SPEAKER_01 (15:09):
Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.
So I have a theory that AI isgoing to be the major political
issue in the 2028 presidentialcampaign.
And there was a piece by CadeMetz of the New York Times that
was uh published this week inwhich he interviewed some of the
intellectual elite uh in SiliconValley, and they argued that uh
(15:31):
essentially God had failed, butAI would deliver cures for
disease and feeding the hungryand so on and so forth.
And there's a particular quotewhich I'm gonna read.
He writes, AI has started tocrack math problems that humans
struggled with for decades, andit will soon cure diseases in
the same way, said Jeremy Nixon,who's one of these uh Silicon
(15:54):
Valley intellectuals.
Quote, practically speaking, itwill achieve the outcomes that
many religions claim theirdeities would be able to
achieve, he said.
This is an increasingly commonbelief among researchers in
Silicon Valley.
They insist they are on theirway to building a more powerful
species or even a new god.
Quote, people arematter-of-factly saying that
(16:16):
they are looking to build amachine god, said Ryan Krishnan,
the chief executive of Val's AI,a San Francisco company that
tracks the performance of thelatest AI technologies.
They are not saying thatironically or in jest.
They are saying it as a matterof fact.
I whoever the PR guy is forthese tech bros needs to rein
(16:39):
them in because it seems to methat that sets off a uh a
reaction of enormous size.
Is that do you share this viewthat AI is going to be the major
issue of the 2028 election orone of the major issues?
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
Aaron Powell I think you're quite right about that,
but it raises a c at least oneissue, which is I cannot think
in the past of any issue thathad that has the potential to be
this significant that is sototally understood by the vast
majority of people.
And I include myself as one ofthem.
You know, the idea of of what AIcan do.
(17:15):
I've I don't know how manypieces I've read about this, I
don't know how many televisionpieces I've seen about this, but
this argument that this newcreation is going to make life,
you know, paradise on earth, orit's going to wipe out human
existence, if I can quote a bitof poetry, it's going to be
fought on a darkling plane, youknow, where ignorant armies
clash by night, because I thinkthe I politicians in general,
(17:37):
John, are horrible about anytechnology.
I remember when the Internet wasnew and watching some
congressional hearings aboutthis, and it was total
illiteracy.
You know, I mean Strom Thurman,who was a little old, said that
the Internet's a series oftubes, right?
You know, that's a real quote.
He was on the other handninety-nine years old.
But if if if the internet threwthe p the political system for a
(17:59):
loop, how do you regulate it?
You know, how free should it be?
What do you ban?
What is the argument, assumingthat it your instinct is right,
how do you think the argument'sgonna go as a political issue?
How much regulation, how muchfreedom, how do we get a handle
on it?
I mean, try to project, John,how that might even go in twenty
twenty-eight.
Who's arguing what?
SPEAKER_01 (18:20):
Well, the argument would be that that you have to,
quote, put guardrails around it,end quote, and then you would
have to have some very smartpeople figure out what those
guardrails might be.
I'm not sure that a candidatelooking to get elected to, you
know, the Senate in, I don'tpick your state, Minnesota,
let's say, in a close race, ifhe or she were to say, look,
(18:44):
these people think the machineis God, I will stand up to them
and do everything I can todefeat them.
That's a message that's going toplay in the evangelical
community for sure, and theCatholic community for sure, and
the Jewish community for sure.
You know, new Fox News poll outtoday says 80% of Americans
(19:04):
believe that it is an urgentmatter that guardrails be put
around AI.
And I I told a story the otherday I did an interview with Josh
Tarangle, who's written a bookcalled AI for Good, which is a
bunch of stories about peoplewho are using AI to do great
things.
And he'd just gotten off thebook tour, and I said to him, So
(19:24):
how did the book tour go?
And he said, Well, I learned onething.
And I said, What's that?
And he said, Everybody hates AI.
SPEAKER_00 (19:30):
Well, you saw the stories, hadn't you, about at
the uh the commencementspeakers?
Yes.
A couple of them who explainedabout the brave new world coming
in and were almost booed off theoff the podium.
SPEAKER_01 (19:38):
Yeah.
So I don't think you n I don'tthink you need, you know, a
detailed, you know, eight-pointplan on how to how to regulate
or control AI.
I think the way it will play outis us against them.
And they, meaning the people,basically the tech bros, if you
want to you know reduce it tothe cliche, will have too much
(20:01):
power, uh, they will have toomuch influence, they already
have too much money.
And uh be it right or left, itseems to me, will say enough is
enough.
You gotta do you know make thiswork for us and not for you.
And I think that'll be apowerful message.
I really do.
Aaron Powell, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (20:17):
But given the fact that the tech bros have already
decided that they have to playin politics and have a fair
amount of resources, by which Imean several billion dollars, to
play at least.
Can you and I think they've hadsome impact on the White House,
and it it's what seems now afriendlier approach to AI, I
think.
Looks like that.
So do you imagine that therewill be other people saying we
(20:38):
we must not pass this chance tohave this wonderful new device
do great things for us?
Yes, we need to regulate it, butdon't strangle the baby in the
crib.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (20:46):
That's gonna be the counter-argument, right?
Um I mean the interesting thingis if you went back to the early
part of 2024, you would say 80per I mean, Gina Raimondo was
the commerce secretary.
She was probably the person inthe Biden administration who was
most fluent, if you will, in theAI issues and AI regulation
(21:06):
issues and so on and so forth.
She spent a lot of time in thevalley talking to people.
They seemed to be buying intowhat she was selling.
And then Biden collapsed in thein the debate.
Jill thought he was having astroke, and the, you know, the
tech community turned on a dimeand they knew their client, and
and so they knew what theirclient wanted was money.
(21:29):
Uh so they arrived withboatloads of it and took over
the Trump administration.
I mean, David Sachs runs AIpolicy.
He has investments in 300startups in Silicon Valley, I
believe the number is.
And, you know, Mark Andreessenis, you know, all in with the
Trump administration.
He's seen all of the major techCEOs and so on and so forth
(21:51):
attending events, contributingto Trump causes, and they've
just completely captured theTrump administration, which
offers an opportunity for theDemocrats.
It seems to me, to say, youknow, there Trump is in the tank
with the tech bros.
The tech bros are not in thetank with you, and we're here,
we're gonna do everything we canto slow this down to or to stop
(22:12):
them.
SPEAKER_00 (22:12):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
And I think it's also worthputting on the table some signs.
I don't know if it's a backlash,but it's interesting to me that
it's some of the people who werepresent at the creation of AI
have now become people warningof its dangers.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
And I think I just saw a storywhere some some institutions,
some companies, have decidedthat AI, as opposed to helping
them with efficiency, they arereplacing it with human beings
(22:35):
because it costs more to drivetheir work with AI than with
humans.
So that may be the source ofsome kind of political dialogue
as we get into 2028.
But as they say, it's almost asource of potential black humor
to imagine conventionalpoliticians debating the finer
points of AI.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (22:53):
Exactly.
No, and my theory is that JainaRaimondo actually has a shot at
being the Democraticpresidential nominee in 2028.
She's the only person whoamongst all of the people who
can speak who can speakintelligently about the issue.
SPEAKER_00 (23:16):
You know, that every once in a while really because I
think Trump at the point was uhyou could bet at Ladbrook's, you
know, something like 500 to 1again is Tim Winning.
Uh but I didn't have the guts tofollow my convictions.
But maybe you ought to take atrip to London or go on Polly
Market.
SPEAKER_01 (23:31):
I'm sure that the Raumundo case would would be a
very I'm gonna get 10,000 to oneon that one.
That's what I mean.
SPEAKER_00 (23:41):
Yes, I met uh I met her c uh some time ago when she
was transitioning from thegovernorship to to her cabinet
role.
She's very impressive.
So I I you know you you got agood candidate there, John.
SPEAKER_01 (23:53):
Well, we'll see.
I mean uh I uh I I don't evenI'm not even sure she's gonna
run, but the but if there is a ademocratic politician who can
meet uh the issue, and if I'mright it's the major issue of
twenty twenty-eight, then herchances are improved
significantly.
So we'll see.
I'm not I'm not betting.
(24:14):
Well, you can you're not bettingany money on it.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Um I think I would I would go to Logbooks and put
slightly less money on uh as areal long shot of Rama Manuel.
I was watching a video that heput together of a quote
non-campaign video, a two-minutevideo from his trips.
And he is the as far as I cantell, the only prospective
candidate on the Democratic sidewho was just willing to face up
(24:36):
to some of the things thatcommentators have been talking
about.
You know, the Democratic Partyhas to get real about how some
of its policies have hinderedgrowth, have really hurt the
poor, that i its close alliancewith the teachers' unions have
not necessarily helpededucation.
He's he talks about this in veryblunt terms.
And I think the what what youcan call the field is nowhere
(24:58):
near that.
You know, when I look at theother possibilities, I think
they're still tied into a kindof a democratic dialogue that
does not permit you to say,okay, how come Mississippi has
has had one of the mostsuccessful increases in reading
scores of any state in thecountry when it spends a you
know a pittance on education?
What are they doing?
(25:19):
I think Louisiana's another sanother business too.
Yep.
What are they doing?
And what do we learn from that?
And if it means changing how weteach in a way that the you know
establishment of the educationworld doesn't like, well, that's
too bad.
SPEAKER_01 (25:33):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (25:34):
Absolutely.
I point out to you that uh myfriend Joe Klein always points
us out the largest singleoccupation of delegates of the
Democratic Conventions over thelast two years have been
teachers.
And the teachers' unions, youknow, have a lot of clout, and
taking them on would make whatBill Clinton did in 1992 by
trying to kind of changing thedialogue very difficult.
(25:55):
So so whatever else it is, RamEmanuel is just very well worth
listening to.
And he has certainly curbed hisuse of the more colorful
adjectives, verbs, and nounsthat used to characterize his
his conversation.
SPEAKER_01 (26:07):
I think he's a very strong candidate.
I I mean if I were betting onsomebody, I wouldn't bet on him.
I think you know, he's he DoDemocrats need somebody at the
top of the ticket who looks likehe or she would leap across the
table and rip your lungs out ifif uh if if you thought they
were you know uh if he or shewere thought they were being
(26:30):
disrespected or something.
Ron projects strength, which isdesperately needed on the
Democratic side.
I mean he's also very smart andobviously been around issues of
governance a long time.
He was chief of staff to thepresident of the United States.
So he's been in the room, so tospeak.
And I think what's going tohappen on the Democratic side is
there are going to be a lot ofpeople competing for the quote
(26:53):
progressive vote.
And the fact is that black womenin the South basically make the
choice uh in that sort of middleperiod between uh the I mean,
using the old calendar, Iowa,New Hampshire, Nevada, uh then
takes you south.
And if Rom can, you know, garnersupport amongst blacks in South
(27:14):
Carolina, which is fifty-fivepercent of the primary
electorate in South Carolina,you know, similar in Alabama,
Mississippi, etc., then he'sgonna be formidable.
And I you know, I don't see theothers as being particularly
formidable, and I certainlydon't see anybody owning the
quote progressive vote, youknow, immediately, if you will.
(27:36):
I don't think there is a BernieSanders out there.
Aaron Powell So what else do yousee on the on the horizon here
in the midterm elections?
Are there are elections thatyou're particularly interested
in or following closely or thinkare particularly important?
SPEAKER_00 (27:49):
Aaron Ross Powell You know, there are six Senate
seats where the Democrats have aa sh sh a shot at one level or
another.
I'm kind of I'm very interestedjust because I've always thought
Sherrod Brown was a very strongfigure in the Democratic Party.
You know, your kind of guy,strong pro-labor, liberal, but
not in the far reaches.
(28:10):
Now he lost by three points in2024, and I think he is a shot
at at getting the seat back.
I think Alaska is reallyinteresting because, and you'll
help me pronounce her name,because I think former
Congressman is Peltola Peltola,I never get that right.
Mary Peltola, she was theat-large Congressperson for a
year.
She's running for the Senate, Ithink actually has a shot.
And I think there are there isat least one state where the
(28:32):
Democrats, or two states wherethe Democrats could suffer what
should not have been a loss.
I think the the Michigan primaryis looking like a uh dumpster
fire.
And the most kind of the mostcurious one, like if you were a
novelist that wanted to writeabout a campaign, I think you'd
want to really look at at Maine,because you know, you had this
two this very popular governorwho decided she was going to run
(28:53):
for the Senate.
She's 77 years old.
And then this 41-year-old oysterman, Plantner, was so far ahead
in the polls that she droppedout.
And it now turns out that he hascertain things in his past that
are not looking so good.
Certainly, not the tattoo, butcertain comments that when he
was young and foolish that thatare coming back to haunt him.
You could see the Democratslosing a Senate majority, even
(29:14):
though they win four or fiveseats by losing two seats they
should have held.
And the one that everybody wasgoing to be watching for obvious
reasons is Texas.
You could not two differentkinds, you know.
I am awed by by Paxton's abilityto survive.
He's like that character in theMonty Python play movie, and he
loses his arms and his legs, andhe's still standing.
SPEAKER_01 (29:32):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_00 (29:34):
Under indictment.
I mean, just just take a stepback.
This is an indicted potentialfelon who twice wins a statewide
election, who runs on moralvalues, and you know, his wife
is divorcing him on quotebiblical grounds, which I do not
think means not obeying theSabbath.
His entire staff turned him inbecause he was he was protecting
(29:56):
a campaign contributor, and hewins.
And my you know, my feeling isby the way, Texas is one of
those Lucy with the footballstates that the Democrats are.
They always think we're going toturn Texas blue, and it never
happens.
In 2002, they had a dreamticket, they got clobbered.
It just keeps happening.
But uh and I have you seen, youmay have seen already what the
what the Republicans are doingto Tel Rico.
(30:17):
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (30:18):
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (30:19):
Steve, deputy chief of the other way, says, well,
he's trans.
SPEAKER_01 (30:22):
I just put out a piece on from uh political news
items and I I quoted Paxton'svictory speech, which uh which
was, you know, basically oneslur after another on Tel Rico.
The thing about that was sointeresting about Texas was in
in the first go-round, Cornanwon with 900,000 plus votes, and
(30:43):
Paxton finished second with878,000 votes.
In the runoff primary, Paxtonadded 7,000 votes to his total.
So he got 885,000 votes andwould have lost to Cornyn's had
Cornyn held his 908,000 votes,Cornyn would have won the runoff
(31:05):
primary.
But in the runoff primary,Cornyn got 500,000 votes.
So 400,000 Cornyn voters didn'tshow up for the runoff.
And you know, my theory aboutTrump endorsing Paxton, you
know, the White House polls likeevery minute of every day.
So they knew Paxton was going towin, and people were impressing
(31:26):
upon Trump that he should, youknow, John Thune and others were
saying to Trump, you gotta yougotta endorse Cornyn, you gotta
endorse Corning, we need Corner,and so on and so forth.
And Trump is like, I'm not gonnaendorse a loser.
I'm with Paxton.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (31:39):
That's exactly right.
Trump is very good at findingsomebody who's running ahead and
then saying, I pushed him overthe top.
And sometimes he did.
SPEAKER_01 (31:46):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
But that one, I mean, those400,000 as a as a metaphor,
that's a real warning sign forRepublicans.
I know a lot of people in Texas,you know, sort of bushy
Republicans who are like, I'mgonna abstain on the Senate
race.
I'm just not gonna vote.
I can't stand Paxton.
And when you think about theimpeachment of Paxton, the vote
(32:07):
to impeach him in theRepublican-dominated state
House, okay, was 121 to 23.
60 Republicans voted to impeachhim.
So it's not an insignificantnumber of people, you know, who
might just say, you know what,I'm not gonna I'm not gonna pull
the lever on that one, which iswhy Paxton is running the
(32:29):
campaign that he's running,which is he's gay, he's trans,
he's you know, he's you know,everything else.
SPEAKER_00 (32:36):
It's not subtle.
It's not subtle.
Definitely not subtle.
I was looking at some of those.
I mean, they but they're I don'teven want to share with you some
of what they're putting outabout you know Telarico, but
it's not it's not he's a goodand decent man, but I disagree
with him.
That's not this game is going.
I'm trying to think the racethat may have 28 implications is
(32:56):
North Carolina, the Senate race.
You've got a very popularDemocratic governor, Roy Cooper,
who is right now, I think,running well in the Senate.
Now, I don't know if you go fromthe Senate to a freshman, you
know, two years from a Senatefreshman to a presidential
candidate.
Obama came close, but he's thekind of candidate that a lot of
Democrats are thinking we need.
(33:17):
You know, he's m he's centrist.
He now he disagrees with some ofthe Democratic base on some
cultural issues, but he's beenvery popular.
And if he wins big, I thinkyou're gonna see his name
surface as a uh as a possible.
I've and and but we're also inthe in this time frame of the
calendar where everybody gets toput a name in.
So I'm reading that if if uhSenator Asaf of of Georgia wins
(33:40):
pre-election big, you know, he'sin the mix.
But I uh again, you know, we cancome back and talk about this in
a in a year and laugh at who'sbeen who has been mentioned and
who has not, and we'll see howwell our Ron Emmanuel the
Emanuel Ramondo ticket, maybe wecan bet a tri a trifecta or
whatever they call it in a dailydouble.
It's an interesting talk.
I don't think it's exactlylikely.
SPEAKER_01 (34:01):
But if they want to bring it up, it's an exacta,
which means the odds would belike a billion to one.
So if we bet a dollar, it we'dbe a billionaires, right?
SPEAKER_00 (34:10):
I'll put my ticket tomorrow.
SPEAKER_01 (34:11):
All right.
Jeff, thank you very much fordoing this today.
We will do it again as we getcloser to the real pleasure.
SPEAKER_00 (34:17):
I mean, I really enjoy them as a as a spectator,
so as a participant, it's youknow, it's even more fun.
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_01 (34:24):
Thank you.
And Dale, thank you forproducing this, and we will turn
it around and get it out beforeTuesday's primary, and uh we'll
see how well it holds up.
Hello, and welcome back to the News Items Podcast.
Our guest today is JeffGreenfield.
Jeff is an award-winningtelevision journalist and author
focusing on politics, media, andculture.
In the course of his career, heserved as a senior political
correspondent for CBS News, asenior analyst for CNN, and a
political and media analyst forABC News.
(00:22):
He's also authored orco-authored 13 books and written
for Time Magazine, The New YorkTimes, the LA Times, National
Lampoon.
Okay, National Lampoon, that's agood one.
Harper's Magazine and Slate,among other publications.
Jeff, thank you very much fordoing this today.
SPEAKER_00 (00:40):
A pleasure to be here.
I very much have been followingyou, and I'm glad I'm now on
with you.
SPEAKER_01 (00:46):
So you live in California, and there's a ton of
interest in Tuesday, theupcoming Tuesday primary in
California.
And I think the first thing weneed you to do is to explain to
us what a jungle primary is andhow it works.
SPEAKER_00 (01:01):
Aaron Powell Well, we don't call it that anymore.
But uh in fact, both theCalifornia gubernatorial race
and the Los Angeles mayor's raceare all in or what they used to
call jungle primaries.
It means that the that you don'trun with a party.
No matter what party you are,you are in the same primary.
And if no one gets 50 percent inin California and in LA, the top
two finishers go to a runoff inNovember.
(01:24):
And that's a situation we'realmost certainly going to face
after Tuesday.
Neither in the governor's racenor the mayor's race is there a
single candidate with over fiftypercent of the vote.
SPEAKER_01 (01:35):
Let's talk about the governor's race first.
Governor Newsom is term-limitedand presumably running for
president.
And we have, I think, eightcandidates that have some
semblance of a chance to make itto the runoff, if you will.
What's the status of the race sofar?
SPEAKER_00 (01:51):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, it there was a real
concern among Democrats thatwith only two Republicans
running of any reasonable stayou know presence, and six major
Democrats, that when the voteswere counted, the top two
finishers would both beRepublicans and the Democrats
would be shut out in November.
That does not look like what'sgoing to happen.
(02:12):
What we have here is sixrelatively indistinguishable, if
not undistinguished, Democrats,because neither Senator Padilla
nor war former Vice PresidentCatherine Harris chose to run.
And you've got two Republicans,the major one of whom, Steve
Hilton, is a actually a recentor last 12 years immigrant from
(02:32):
England where he was a prominentconservative political activist.
The polls now suggest that SteveHilton will finish first, and
then right behind him, XavierBasera, who was everything.
He was a cabinet member, he wasa House member, he was
California Attorney General.
And the third figure in the raceis Tom Steyer, a
(02:52):
multibillionaire who havingspent a few hundred million
dollars trying to run forpresident, is now spending at
least two hundred milliondollars trying to run for
governor.
You cannot turn on thetelevision set without seeing
his ads.
If you go on social media, yousee social influencers who he is
paying.
But if you had to make a bet,you would say that Becerra and
Steve Hilton will wind up on theballot November, and given
(03:14):
California, that's almost acertainty that uh Becerra will
win.
I think it's interesting to notethat had there been a different
kind of Republican, thatCalifornia used to produce a
more moderate Republican in thein the spirit of uh anyone from
uh former Governor Pete Wilsonto Arnold Schwarzenegger, there
might have been different,because there's a lot of
(03:35):
dissatisfaction in Californiawith every issues racing from
housing to homelessness to thetax burden to a high-speed rail
system that that is somethingout of Rube Goldberg, only his
machine worked.
But given given the wayCalifornia has been for the last
several decades, whoever theDemocrat is will win.
And the one the one thing thatuh had seemed a different
(03:58):
possibility was that twoDemocrats would get on the
ballot, Piserra and Steyer.
But it as I said, it now looksotherwise.
And so I think that's going toend not with a bang but a
whimper.
SPEAKER_01 (04:07):
I'm interested in that Tom Steyr, having spent all
this money, seems stuck where heis.
I mean, well, the theory is thatif you have vast amounts of
money and you can buy vastamounts of media, you move up,
you don't stay flat.
And is there a reason thatSteyr's had such such a hard
time gaining traction, as theysay?
SPEAKER_00 (04:26):
Aaron Powell Well, I'll make two points.
California is a place where youcan spend a lot of money and not
do well.
Meg Whitman, you might rememberher, ran for governor in 2010
and basically carpet bombed thestate with money, and Jerry
Brown beat her quite handily.
I I think what has happened isthat that the California
Democrats, having been spookedby the idea that they might not
make the ballot, have have goneto the safest candidate.
(04:50):
Piserra is like a he's polenta,he's vanilla.
There is absolutely nothing youcan say.
You watch him in a debate andyou try to it's like you know,
it's like you kind of got a gripon Jell O.
There's nothing substantive ortough there.
He is the reverse of that.
But I think basically theCalifornia Democrats said, We
really don't want to risk beingshut out.
(05:11):
Well once there was a favoriteat one point, uh Swalwell, but
he got booted out of the raceand then out of Congress in a
sexual scandal.
And I think that it was a flightto safety.
It's you almost could think ofit like in 2020 when Democrats
said, you know, Joe Biden's notthat bad, and and we don't
really know anybody else.
Let's all go to him.
Now they haven't all gone toBissera.
It's still going to be afractured primary, but that's my
(05:32):
bet that he will wind up as theDemocrat and there will be a
really uninteresting campaign.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
I was surprised that Kamala Harris didn't run for
governor.
It seemed perfectly set up forher, given the rebellious.
SPEAKER_00 (05:45):
Well, think about so, John.
The last failed democra uh thelast failed presidential
candidate who tried to run forgovernor of California was
Richard Dixon in 1962, and hegot clobbered.
And I also am not sure that ifshe had presidential ambitions,
that the governorship ofCalifornia is the right place to
to retreat to, as opposed tojust holding her ground for the
(06:09):
next few years and seeing whathappens.
But she certainly was that wouldhave been the odds on favorite
to win that race.
And the fact that she didn't,along with Senator Petty, is
what threw this into this kindof who are we voting for now?
I mean, the the this KatiePorter, a former congresswoman
who was burned by someunfortunate video.
There's a former mayor of LosAngeles, but he was mayor, I
(06:30):
don't know, twelve years ago.
And so as I say, I wish I couldgive you a compelling, holy
smokes story about what's goingon in the governor's race, but
as I said, I think it's aretreat, it's a reversion to the
norm or a retreat to safety.
And I also have a hunch, andthat that's all this is, that at
some point people got annoyed byall the sire commercials, that
(06:50):
there actually was a negativeimpact from it, you know,
because they really reinforcedthe the the notion that here's a
guy with a whole lot of moneyand he and he wants to do
something else with his life,and he couldn't get to be
president, so he'll trygovernor.
SPEAKER_01 (07:03):
Right.
I I was uh at Fox News whenRupert picked Steve Hilton out
of obscurity and gave him a Ithink it was a Saturday, maybe
Sunday night television show.
Um and I can't imagine that uhyou know did much to improve his
standing with you knowCalifornia voters.
SPEAKER_00 (07:22):
He has been the best debater, because everybody else
is is doing tap dances around awhole lot of issues.
And you know, you for thebillionaire tax be on the ballot
in November, the Democrats aresplit.
They all seem to have signed onto try to continue this
high-speed rail, which as I'm afan of high-speed rail, I've
ridden it you know from Japan toParis.
But this system was supposed tobe done ten years ago,
(07:43):
connecting LA to San Francisco,and maybe by 2030 it will
connect Mercer to Bakersfield,which is what millions of
Californians have been dreamingof.
And Hilton's guy said, no.
He is also, by the way, the onlytime I can recall where a
political debate in America hastaken place where one
participant has a very clearBritish accent.
SPEAKER_01 (08:03):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (08:04):
Um but I I think he's actually I think he's
actually impressed.
But it once again, he is he isnot a Pete Wilson, Earl Warren,
Arnold SchwarzeneggerRepublican.
And I think that label alone isgo is just it's it's a bridge
too far in the currentCalifornia political system.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (08:21):
Drilling down, uh a big race that's attracted a lot
of attention is the LA mayor'srace.
The incumbent Karen Bass is upfor re-election.
It appears that the race istied, at least according to the
last LA Times poll I saw.
What what's the status of thatrace?
SPEAKER_00 (08:38):
Aaron Powell This race has the potential, and I
have to underline potential tobe, as opposed to the governor's
race, a real eye-opener, orwhatever the proper expression
is.
You have three significantcandidates.
You have Mayor Karen Bass, whowon very handily four years ago,
but whose reputation was reallybattered by the by the Palisades
fire and the fact that she wasout of the country when it
(09:00):
happened.
It turned out there were somereal failures of planning.
And so she's really taken.
And on top of that, we have ahomeless situation in Los
Angeles, which is reallyunavoidable, literally, if you
if you go down several streets.
She's so she's in trouble.
She was challenged sort of onthe left by a councilwoman, uh
Raman.
I never pronounce her NithyaRaman.
(09:21):
But the other candidate in therace is Steve is Spencer Pratt,
who is a reality TV star knownfrom the hills, and was it kind
of entered the race peoplethought it was almost like it's
a stun.
Maybe he's going to make avideo.
But this is a situation wherethe dissatisfaction with with
Mayor Bass is such that anout-of-the-box person like
(09:41):
Pratt, who also, by the way,performed very well in the
debate, so much so that hisopponents chose to not debate
him anymore, has emerged as acontender.
The most recent poll is they'rewithin the three candidates are
within three points of eachother, you know, 26, 25, 22.
And so now the question is whichof the the two of these three
(10:02):
are going to make the runoff?
And the and the permutations arefascinating.
Maybe it's the the twoDemocrats.
Pratt, who has sort of beenendorsed by Trump, which was not
a help for Pratt given to LosAngeles.
Yeah.
It might be the mayor againstPratt, and it might be the city
councilwoman, uh Raman againstPratt.
And the one thing that I reallywant to underscore is that one
(10:24):
of the things that has benefitedPratt is a series of videos.
He not made by his campaign, butby an outsider who has produced
some of the most inventive,shockingly effective videos that
I have ever seen.
And I used to do this for aliving before I became a virgin
journalist.
I mean, he it it's so it's sodifferent.
He has one ad where a woman isbeing wiggled into an emergency
(10:47):
room, and the mother and thedoctor are frightened because
she's for Pratt.
And how did this happen?
We, you know, and the doctorprescribes six doses of NPR and
five doses of the New York Timesevery day.
And you have another ad wherethese very upscale women, which
is not Pratt's necessarily uhyou know, key constituency, at a
health club or tennis club orsomething, some upscale club,
(11:08):
confess to each other, almostlike they you know that they're
gonna vote for Spencer Pratt.
It would be foolhardy to saythat if Pratt makes the runoff,
you know, he could win inNovember because again, he's a
re he's a Republican, he kind ofidentifies with MAGO, or they
identify with him, and that thatcould be too far.
But I want to, if I may, thisgives me a chance to offer you
something I thought I stumbledon almost ten years ago.
(11:31):
It's like a it's Greenfield'sprecepts or whatever it is.
I came up with the notion thatif you have a dissatisfied
electorate and they are toldthey can do something they
didn't know they could do, thatin itself is a powerful asset.
And California is kind of theleading fact.
You know, back uh decades ago,they realized we could pass a
(11:52):
proposition to limit ourproperty taxes, and Prop 13
passed two to one.
They they realized we could takewe could take justices of the
Supreme Court that we think aretoo liberal and get them off the
bench.
And three of them, including theChief Justice, I think it was in
1986, were removed by vote.
And then they said, wait, wecould recall the governor and
(12:13):
replace him with an actor.
California had never recalled,it's in the it's been a rule for
decades, they'd never done it.
They kicked out Gray Davis andput in Old Schwarzenegger.
And if you want a nationalexample of that, Donald Trump's
not a bad one.
So before I I understand whatthe polls are going to say, I
would not bet the house or evena you know a portion of it, but
it would not surprise me ifSpencer Pratt turns out to be
(12:34):
when on election day moreformidable than the poll show.
You know, again, don't take thatto the bank, don't even take it
to a loan shark.
But there's something that wassomething going on in those ads
that I that really hit me as a,as I said, as a participant in
that dark heart and then as aviewer.
Whoever's doing these ads, Ithink his name is is I don't
even know his name because he'sgoing under a pseudonym.
(12:58):
It's something like likeParmesan is his real name, or
maybe his fake name.
But uh but you can't see the adson TV, but you can they're all
over social media and YouTube,and they are they are quite
striking.
SPEAKER_01 (13:09):
Aaron Powell One of the rules in in our earlier days
of political analysis andreporting was that what happens
in California will eventuallyhappen across the country.
Are there initiative andreferenda that sort of presage
developments uh in the UnitedStates, or is it just the
billionaire's tax?
SPEAKER_00 (13:29):
Aaron Powell Well the the billionaire's tax is far
and away the the you know butevery year in California there
are there are dozens and dozensof referenda and propositions
because it's a system that HiramJohnson uh instituted back 120
years ago when he was apressure, and it's been
completely taken over by thepros.
You pay people to gathersignatures.
If you have a particular specialinterest, you buy enough
(13:51):
signatures to get on the ballot.
Sometimes you put things on theballot in effect to extort
concessions from thelegislature.
But it but the billionaire taxis one that I think could really
have impact elsewhere, becausethere is this feeling,
particularly among Democrats onthe more popular side, that that
inequality and wealthconcentration is the key issue
(14:14):
of our time.
Jonathan Shait wrote aninteresting piece a few days
ago, I think in in uh TheAtlantic saying that that the
Democrats are being misled bythis.
That that's not what people careabout mostly.
But but wealth inequality,concentration of wealth, the
rise of the billionaires hasproduced a tremendous amount of
energy on the left.
And and in fact in New York,there's uh in the city, they're
(14:36):
seeking to impose a luxury taxon second homes owned by very,
very rich people.
And uh I'm yeah, I I suspectthis is not the end of this.
But but it's interesting, uhJohn, to note that among the
people running for Californiagovernor, among Democrats,
there's n there's a completedisagreement.
Some people say this is this isbecause the tax will only go to
one element, I think it's uhhealth, it shortchanges
(14:59):
everybody else.
And other people say it's theit's the one way we can get more
money into a system thatperennially is in need of money.
So that's the one that I thinkyou know has national eggs.
SPEAKER_01 (15:09):
Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.
So I have a theory that AI isgoing to be the major political
issue in the 2028 presidentialcampaign.
And there was a piece by CadeMetz of the New York Times that
was uh published this week inwhich he interviewed some of the
intellectual elite uh in SiliconValley, and they argued that uh
(15:31):
essentially God had failed, butAI would deliver cures for
disease and feeding the hungryand so on and so forth.
And there's a particular quotewhich I'm gonna read.
He writes, AI has started tocrack math problems that humans
struggled with for decades, andit will soon cure diseases in
the same way, said Jeremy Nixon,who's one of these uh Silicon
(15:54):
Valley intellectuals.
Quote, practically speaking, itwill achieve the outcomes that
many religions claim theirdeities would be able to
achieve, he said.
This is an increasingly commonbelief among researchers in
Silicon Valley.
They insist they are on theirway to building a more powerful
species or even a new god.
Quote, people arematter-of-factly saying that
(16:16):
they are looking to build amachine god, said Ryan Krishnan,
the chief executive of Val's AI,a San Francisco company that
tracks the performance of thelatest AI technologies.
They are not saying thatironically or in jest.
They are saying it as a matterof fact.
I whoever the PR guy is forthese tech bros needs to rein
(16:39):
them in because it seems to methat that sets off a uh a
reaction of enormous size.
Is that do you share this viewthat AI is going to be the major
issue of the 2028 election orone of the major issues?
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
Aaron Powell I think you're quite right about that,
but it raises a c at least oneissue, which is I cannot think
in the past of any issue thathad that has the potential to be
this significant that is sototally understood by the vast
majority of people.
And I include myself as one ofthem.
You know, the idea of of what AIcan do.
(17:15):
I've I don't know how manypieces I've read about this, I
don't know how many televisionpieces I've seen about this, but
this argument that this newcreation is going to make life,
you know, paradise on earth, orit's going to wipe out human
existence, if I can quote a bitof poetry, it's going to be
fought on a darkling plane, youknow, where ignorant armies
clash by night, because I thinkthe I politicians in general,
(17:37):
John, are horrible about anytechnology.
I remember when the Internet wasnew and watching some
congressional hearings aboutthis, and it was total
illiteracy.
You know, I mean Strom Thurman,who was a little old, said that
the Internet's a series oftubes, right?
You know, that's a real quote.
He was on the other handninety-nine years old.
But if if if the internet threwthe p the political system for a
(17:59):
loop, how do you regulate it?
You know, how free should it be?
What do you ban?
What is the argument, assumingthat it your instinct is right,
how do you think the argument'sgonna go as a political issue?
How much regulation, how muchfreedom, how do we get a handle
on it?
I mean, try to project, John,how that might even go in twenty
twenty-eight.
Who's arguing what?
SPEAKER_01 (18:20):
Well, the argument would be that that you have to,
quote, put guardrails around it,end quote, and then you would
have to have some very smartpeople figure out what those
guardrails might be.
I'm not sure that a candidatelooking to get elected to, you
know, the Senate in, I don'tpick your state, Minnesota,
let's say, in a close race, ifhe or she were to say, look,
(18:44):
these people think the machineis God, I will stand up to them
and do everything I can todefeat them.
That's a message that's going toplay in the evangelical
community for sure, and theCatholic community for sure, and
the Jewish community for sure.
You know, new Fox News poll outtoday says 80% of Americans
(19:04):
believe that it is an urgentmatter that guardrails be put
around AI.
And I I told a story the otherday I did an interview with Josh
Tarangle, who's written a bookcalled AI for Good, which is a
bunch of stories about peoplewho are using AI to do great
things.
And he'd just gotten off thebook tour, and I said to him, So
(19:24):
how did the book tour go?
And he said, Well, I learned onething.
And I said, What's that?
And he said, Everybody hates AI.
SPEAKER_00 (19:30):
Well, you saw the stories, hadn't you, about at
the uh the commencementspeakers?
Yes.
A couple of them who explainedabout the brave new world coming
in and were almost booed off theoff the podium.
SPEAKER_01 (19:38):
Yeah.
So I don't think you n I don'tthink you need, you know, a
detailed, you know, eight-pointplan on how to how to regulate
or control AI.
I think the way it will play outis us against them.
And they, meaning the people,basically the tech bros, if you
want to you know reduce it tothe cliche, will have too much
(20:01):
power, uh, they will have toomuch influence, they already
have too much money.
And uh be it right or left, itseems to me, will say enough is
enough.
You gotta do you know make thiswork for us and not for you.
And I think that'll be apowerful message.
I really do.
Aaron Powell, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (20:17):
But given the fact that the tech bros have already
decided that they have to playin politics and have a fair
amount of resources, by which Imean several billion dollars, to
play at least.
Can you and I think they've hadsome impact on the White House,
and it it's what seems now afriendlier approach to AI, I
think.
Looks like that.
So do you imagine that therewill be other people saying we
(20:38):
we must not pass this chance tohave this wonderful new device
do great things for us?
Yes, we need to regulate it, butdon't strangle the baby in the
crib.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (20:46):
That's gonna be the counter-argument, right?
Um I mean the interesting thingis if you went back to the early
part of 2024, you would say 80per I mean, Gina Raimondo was
the commerce secretary.
She was probably the person inthe Biden administration who was
most fluent, if you will, in theAI issues and AI regulation
(21:06):
issues and so on and so forth.
She spent a lot of time in thevalley talking to people.
They seemed to be buying intowhat she was selling.
And then Biden collapsed in thein the debate.
Jill thought he was having astroke, and the, you know, the
tech community turned on a dimeand they knew their client, and
and so they knew what theirclient wanted was money.
(21:29):
Uh so they arrived withboatloads of it and took over
the Trump administration.
I mean, David Sachs runs AIpolicy.
He has investments in 300startups in Silicon Valley, I
believe the number is.
And, you know, Mark Andreessenis, you know, all in with the
Trump administration.
He's seen all of the major techCEOs and so on and so forth
(21:51):
attending events, contributingto Trump causes, and they've
just completely captured theTrump administration, which
offers an opportunity for theDemocrats.
It seems to me, to say, youknow, there Trump is in the tank
with the tech bros.
The tech bros are not in thetank with you, and we're here,
we're gonna do everything we canto slow this down to or to stop
(22:12):
them.
SPEAKER_00 (22:12):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
And I think it's also worthputting on the table some signs.
I don't know if it's a backlash,but it's interesting to me that
it's some of the people who werepresent at the creation of AI
have now become people warningof its dangers.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
And I think I just saw a storywhere some some institutions,
some companies, have decidedthat AI, as opposed to helping
them with efficiency, they arereplacing it with human beings
(22:35):
because it costs more to drivetheir work with AI than with
humans.
So that may be the source ofsome kind of political dialogue
as we get into 2028.
But as they say, it's almost asource of potential black humor
to imagine conventionalpoliticians debating the finer
points of AI.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (22:53):
Exactly.
No, and my theory is that JainaRaimondo actually has a shot at
being the Democraticpresidential nominee in 2028.
She's the only person whoamongst all of the people who
can speak who can speakintelligently about the issue.
SPEAKER_00 (23:16):
You know, that every once in a while really because I
think Trump at the point was uhyou could bet at Ladbrook's, you
know, something like 500 to 1again is Tim Winning.
Uh but I didn't have the guts tofollow my convictions.
But maybe you ought to take atrip to London or go on Polly
Market.
SPEAKER_01 (23:31):
I'm sure that the Raumundo case would would be a
very I'm gonna get 10,000 to oneon that one.
That's what I mean.
SPEAKER_00 (23:41):
Yes, I met uh I met her c uh some time ago when she
was transitioning from thegovernorship to to her cabinet
role.
She's very impressive.
So I I you know you you got agood candidate there, John.
SPEAKER_01 (23:53):
Well, we'll see.
I mean uh I uh I I don't evenI'm not even sure she's gonna
run, but the but if there is a ademocratic politician who can
meet uh the issue, and if I'mright it's the major issue of
twenty twenty-eight, then herchances are improved
significantly.
So we'll see.
I'm not I'm not betting.
(24:14):
Well, you can you're not bettingany money on it.
SPEAKER_00 (24:16):
Um I think I would I would go to Logbooks and put
slightly less money on uh as areal long shot of Rama Manuel.
I was watching a video that heput together of a quote
non-campaign video, a two-minutevideo from his trips.
And he is the as far as I cantell, the only prospective
candidate on the Democratic sidewho was just willing to face up
(24:36):
to some of the things thatcommentators have been talking
about.
You know, the Democratic Partyhas to get real about how some
of its policies have hinderedgrowth, have really hurt the
poor, that i its close alliancewith the teachers' unions have
not necessarily helpededucation.
He's he talks about this in veryblunt terms.
And I think the what what youcan call the field is nowhere
(24:58):
near that.
You know, when I look at theother possibilities, I think
they're still tied into a kindof a democratic dialogue that
does not permit you to say,okay, how come Mississippi has
has had one of the mostsuccessful increases in reading
scores of any state in thecountry when it spends a you
know a pittance on education?
What are they doing?
(25:19):
I think Louisiana's another sanother business too.
Yep.
What are they doing?
And what do we learn from that?
And if it means changing how weteach in a way that the you know
establishment of the educationworld doesn't like, well, that's
too bad.
SPEAKER_01 (25:33):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (25:34):
Absolutely.
I point out to you that uh myfriend Joe Klein always points
us out the largest singleoccupation of delegates of the
Democratic Conventions over thelast two years have been
teachers.
And the teachers' unions, youknow, have a lot of clout, and
taking them on would make whatBill Clinton did in 1992 by
trying to kind of changing thedialogue very difficult.
(25:55):
So so whatever else it is, RamEmanuel is just very well worth
listening to.
And he has certainly curbed hisuse of the more colorful
adjectives, verbs, and nounsthat used to characterize his
his conversation.
SPEAKER_01 (26:07):
I think he's a very strong candidate.
I I mean if I were betting onsomebody, I wouldn't bet on him.
I think you know, he's he DoDemocrats need somebody at the
top of the ticket who looks likehe or she would leap across the
table and rip your lungs out ifif uh if if you thought they
were you know uh if he or shewere thought they were being
(26:30):
disrespected or something.
Ron projects strength, which isdesperately needed on the
Democratic side.
I mean he's also very smart andobviously been around issues of
governance a long time.
He was chief of staff to thepresident of the United States.
So he's been in the room, so tospeak.
And I think what's going tohappen on the Democratic side is
there are going to be a lot ofpeople competing for the quote
(26:53):
progressive vote.
And the fact is that black womenin the South basically make the
choice uh in that sort of middleperiod between uh the I mean,
using the old calendar, Iowa,New Hampshire, Nevada, uh then
takes you south.
And if Rom can, you know, garnersupport amongst blacks in South
(27:14):
Carolina, which is fifty-fivepercent of the primary
electorate in South Carolina,you know, similar in Alabama,
Mississippi, etc., then he'sgonna be formidable.
And I you know, I don't see theothers as being particularly
formidable, and I certainlydon't see anybody owning the
quote progressive vote, youknow, immediately, if you will.
(27:36):
I don't think there is a BernieSanders out there.
Aaron Powell So what else do yousee on the on the horizon here
in the midterm elections?
Are there are elections thatyou're particularly interested
in or following closely or thinkare particularly important?
SPEAKER_00 (27:49):
Aaron Ross Powell You know, there are six Senate
seats where the Democrats have aa sh sh a shot at one level or
another.
I'm kind of I'm very interestedjust because I've always thought
Sherrod Brown was a very strongfigure in the Democratic Party.
You know, your kind of guy,strong pro-labor, liberal, but
not in the far reaches.
(28:10):
Now he lost by three points in2024, and I think he is a shot
at at getting the seat back.
I think Alaska is reallyinteresting because, and you'll
help me pronounce her name,because I think former
Congressman is Peltola Peltola,I never get that right.
Mary Peltola, she was theat-large Congressperson for a
year.
She's running for the Senate, Ithink actually has a shot.
And I think there are there isat least one state where the
(28:32):
Democrats, or two states wherethe Democrats could suffer what
should not have been a loss.
I think the the Michigan primaryis looking like a uh dumpster
fire.
And the most kind of the mostcurious one, like if you were a
novelist that wanted to writeabout a campaign, I think you'd
want to really look at at Maine,because you know, you had this
two this very popular governorwho decided she was going to run
(28:53):
for the Senate.
She's 77 years old.
And then this 41-year-old oysterman, Plantner, was so far ahead
in the polls that she droppedout.
And it now turns out that he hascertain things in his past that
are not looking so good.
Certainly, not the tattoo, butcertain comments that when he
was young and foolish that thatare coming back to haunt him.
You could see the Democratslosing a Senate majority, even
(29:14):
though they win four or fiveseats by losing two seats they
should have held.
And the one that everybody wasgoing to be watching for obvious
reasons is Texas.
You could not two differentkinds, you know.
I am awed by by Paxton's abilityto survive.
He's like that character in theMonty Python play movie, and he
loses his arms and his legs, andhe's still standing.
SPEAKER_01 (29:32):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_00 (29:34):
Under indictment.
I mean, just just take a stepback.
This is an indicted potentialfelon who twice wins a statewide
election, who runs on moralvalues, and you know, his wife
is divorcing him on quotebiblical grounds, which I do not
think means not obeying theSabbath.
His entire staff turned him inbecause he was he was protecting
(29:56):
a campaign contributor, and hewins.
And my you know, my feeling isby the way, Texas is one of
those Lucy with the footballstates that the Democrats are.
They always think we're going toturn Texas blue, and it never
happens.
In 2002, they had a dreamticket, they got clobbered.
It just keeps happening.
But uh and I have you seen, youmay have seen already what the
what the Republicans are doingto Tel Rico.
(30:17):
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (30:18):
Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (30:19):
Steve, deputy chief of the other way, says, well,
he's trans.
SPEAKER_01 (30:22):
I just put out a piece on from uh political news
items and I I quoted Paxton'svictory speech, which uh which
was, you know, basically oneslur after another on Tel Rico.
The thing about that was sointeresting about Texas was in
in the first go-round, Cornanwon with 900,000 plus votes, and
(30:43):
Paxton finished second with878,000 votes.
In the runoff primary, Paxtonadded 7,000 votes to his total.
So he got 885,000 votes andwould have lost to Cornyn's had
Cornyn held his 908,000 votes,Cornyn would have won the runoff
(31:05):
primary.
But in the runoff primary,Cornyn got 500,000 votes.
So 400,000 Cornyn voters didn'tshow up for the runoff.
And you know, my theory aboutTrump endorsing Paxton, you
know, the White House polls likeevery minute of every day.
So they knew Paxton was going towin, and people were impressing
(31:26):
upon Trump that he should, youknow, John Thune and others were
saying to Trump, you gotta yougotta endorse Cornyn, you gotta
endorse Corning, we need Corner,and so on and so forth.
And Trump is like, I'm not gonnaendorse a loser.
I'm with Paxton.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (31:39):
That's exactly right.
Trump is very good at findingsomebody who's running ahead and
then saying, I pushed him overthe top.
And sometimes he did.
SPEAKER_01 (31:46):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
But that one, I mean, those400,000 as a as a metaphor,
that's a real warning sign forRepublicans.
I know a lot of people in Texas,you know, sort of bushy
Republicans who are like, I'mgonna abstain on the Senate
race.
I'm just not gonna vote.
I can't stand Paxton.
And when you think about theimpeachment of Paxton, the vote
(32:07):
to impeach him in theRepublican-dominated state
House, okay, was 121 to 23.
60 Republicans voted to impeachhim.
So it's not an insignificantnumber of people, you know, who
might just say, you know what,I'm not gonna I'm not gonna pull
the lever on that one, which iswhy Paxton is running the
(32:29):
campaign that he's running,which is he's gay, he's trans,
he's you know, he's you know,everything else.
SPEAKER_00 (32:36):
It's not subtle.
It's not subtle.
Definitely not subtle.
I was looking at some of those.
I mean, they but they're I don'teven want to share with you some
of what they're putting outabout you know Telarico, but
it's not it's not he's a goodand decent man, but I disagree
with him.
That's not this game is going.
I'm trying to think the racethat may have 28 implications is
(32:56):
North Carolina, the Senate race.
You've got a very popularDemocratic governor, Roy Cooper,
who is right now, I think,running well in the Senate.
Now, I don't know if you go fromthe Senate to a freshman, you
know, two years from a Senatefreshman to a presidential
candidate.
Obama came close, but he's thekind of candidate that a lot of
Democrats are thinking we need.
(33:17):
You know, he's m he's centrist.
He now he disagrees with some ofthe Democratic base on some
cultural issues, but he's beenvery popular.
And if he wins big, I thinkyou're gonna see his name
surface as a uh as a possible.
I've and and but we're also inthe in this time frame of the
calendar where everybody gets toput a name in.
So I'm reading that if if uhSenator Asaf of of Georgia wins
(33:40):
pre-election big, you know, he'sin the mix.
But I uh again, you know, we cancome back and talk about this in
a in a year and laugh at who'sbeen who has been mentioned and
who has not, and we'll see howwell our Ron Emmanuel the
Emanuel Ramondo ticket, maybe wecan bet a tri a trifecta or
whatever they call it in a dailydouble.
It's an interesting talk.
I don't think it's exactlylikely.
SPEAKER_01 (34:01):
But if they want to bring it up, it's an exacta,
which means the odds would belike a billion to one.
So if we bet a dollar, it we'dbe a billionaires, right?
SPEAKER_00 (34:10):
I'll put my ticket tomorrow.
SPEAKER_01 (34:11):
All right.
Jeff, thank you very much fordoing this today.
We will do it again as we getcloser to the real pleasure.
SPEAKER_00 (34:17):
I mean, I really enjoy them as a as a spectator,
so as a participant, it's youknow, it's even more fun.
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER_01 (34:24):
Thank you.
And Dale, thank you forproducing this, and we will turn
it around and get it out beforeTuesday's primary, and uh we'll
see how well it holds up.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com