MUCK YOU! Nathan Daschle's Bold Analysis & Surprising Predictions

Nathan Daschle joins David Wheeler on the podcast to discuss his experiences and insights in the political landscape, particularly focusing on the dynamics of upcoming Senate races. He highlights the shift in the electoral environment, noting that Democrats now have a significantly improved chance of regaining control of the Senate, citing recent polling data and changing voter sentiment as key factors. Nathan reflects on the importance of authenticity and independence among candidates, referencing South Dakota's political climate and the candidacy of Brian Bengs as an example. The conversation delves into the strategies employed by his firm, DB3, in providing political intelligence and analysis, aiming to offer clients a unique perspective that transcends mainstream media narratives. With a blend of humor and honesty, Nathan and David explore the intricacies of modern campaigning and the evolving role of party affiliation in voter decision-making. The conversation between David Wheeler and Nathan Daschle offers a fascinating glimpse into the intricate world of political consulting and lobbying. Nathan, now the CEO of DB3, reflects on his journey from founding the Daschle Group with his father to merging it with the Howard Baker firm, highlighting the synergy between their respective political legacies. Throughout the episode, they reminisce about the camaraderie of past political gatherings and discuss the current political landscape, particularly focusing on the upcoming elections. Nathan's insights reveal a deep understanding of the shifting dynamics within the Senate, where he notes that Democrats face an uphill battle in red states but sees a glimmer of hope as their odds seem to improve in certain key races. He emphasizes the importance of authenticity and competence in candidates, especially in places like South Dakota, where independent candidates like Brian Bengs are gaining traction against established incumbents. As they delve into strategies for navigating the complexities of the political arena, Nathan shares his analytical approach to providing clients with unique insights, making the discussion not only informative but also engaging and filled with humor.

Takeaways:

• Nathan Daschle discussed the evolution of political dynamics in South Dakota over the years.
• He highlighted the importance of authentic leadership in South Dakota's electoral landscape.
• The conversation explored the growing trend of voters aligning with political teams rather than individual candidates.
• Daschle shared insights on his firm's focus on providing political intelligence and analysis to clients.
• He also emphasized the significance of bipartisan collaboration in political consulting for effective governance.
• The episode concluded with a look at rising political stars and their potential impact on upcoming elections.

Links referenced in this episode:

• www.db-3.co

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• muck you
• Daschle Group
• DB3
• Howard Baker
• Ted Turner
• Joe Manchin
• Tom Vilsack
• DGA
• Nathan Daschel
• Mary Peltola
• Jon Ossoff
• Graham Plotner
• Brian Bengs
• Rob Sand
• Ashley Hinson
• Josh Turek

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Hey, folks, this is DavidWheeler with Muck You!, and we've
got a very special guesttoday. Somebody with a very famous
last name and a very famousface himself. His name is Nathan
Daschle. Welcome to the show, Nathan.
Thank you so much, David. It'sgreat to be here. I appreciate. Appreciate
you inviting me.
We were reminiscing before wewent on air that the last time we

(00:27):
saw each other was on anairplane coming out of Montana after
the dga. I. I kind of missedthose DGA days when Vilsack was there
and everybody.
Yeah, there were some greatgovernors back then. Yeah. Really
great group. There's somegreat governors now, but. But I really
enjoyed my time at the dga.
Yeah. And that event was withthe late Ted Turner, I remember,

(00:50):
in Montana, Big Sky. That wasa terrific event.
Yeah, that's right. You got agreat memory.
Well, I tend to remember thethings that are positive. And anything
that involves a Dashiell or aVilsack is. Is a good memory for
me to have. So Joe Manchin wasthere and a bunch of other governors.
So, Nathan, tell us whatyou've been up to the last couple

(01:16):
years. I know you're. You'vegot your own firm now and you're
working on some races, buttell us reintroduce, folks.
Sure. About 11 years ago, myfather and I started a lobbying group,
a public policy group. We do.I call it a lobbying group because
that's the easiest bucket thatpeople can fit us in. But obviously,

(01:36):
you know, in 2026, and this istrue back in 2014, we do a lot more
than that, but we had a firmcalled the Dasher Group, and that
existed for about 10 years.And then almost one year ago, the
Dasher Group merged withanother firm. We formed DB3. The
other firm was named after thelate Howard Baker, who you remember

(01:59):
was a former Republican Senateleader. And I thought there was a
great. Just synergy betweenDaschle and Baker. You had two former
Senate majority leaders backin an era when things really got
done, when people workedtogether, when public service really
was something held in esteem.And. And so those are the principles

(02:19):
that we've tried to bring tothe firm. I'm now the CEO. My father's
the chair. I have the blessingof working with him every day. And
we have a team of 20outstanding people.
That's terrific. And you'rebased in D.C. or Arlington or where
are you based?
In D.C. okay, cool.
So what's a typical day foryou? What. What are you working on?

(02:39):
What clients? Obviously youdon't want to talk about clients,
but what sort of client workare you doing?
Well, our firm does a littlebit of everything, especially after
we merged and we're abipartisan firm. I'll add about half
Dem, half Republican. Andthere's. We're big enough that there's
no issue that we can't workon. Where we specialize, where we

(03:00):
have a cluster of clients, isin healthcare, defense appropriations,
energy. I also work with thegovernments of Japan and Taiwan,
which are fantastic clients towork with, and I really enjoy that.
But, you know, one of thethings that we do for our clients,
for all clients, is we try togive them information that they're

(03:23):
not going to get retreating inthe press. And largely that is analysis.
You know, there's the analysiswhere we apply what we know of dc
what we know of politics. Wetry to help clients see around the
corner by giving them good,strong political intelligence and
analysis. So I spent a lot oftime doing that. And then, of course,

(03:46):
there's the. When people thinkabout the D.C. cocktail circuit,
it's a real thing. That is areal thing. And for better or for
worse, I mean, you know, myrole is not to judge the system.
It's just serve my clients thebest I can. But. But I do a lot of
that in the evenings.
Good for you. It sounds like,no, no day is, is the same. And so

(04:11):
what about politics? How doyou guys touch on politics these
days, whether it's Democratsor Republicans? What, what's your
interaction there?
Well, we support a lot ofcandidates. The DB3 as a firm, we
give as individuals more moneythan probably most PACs give. We

(04:32):
host a lot of fundraisers forsome candidates. We advise them.
Although in reality, inreality, even when candidates say
they want your advice, theydon't want your advice. We don't,
we don't take everyone up onit when they say they want our advice.
We try to figure if there's aarea where we can actually be a value

(04:53):
add. But, you know, we're theDasher group. Back when we establish,
we did a lot more fundraisingon the Democratic side than the Baker
Group did on the Republicanside. And that's kind of carried
over. So still, DB3 does a lotmore for blue than for red, but that's

(05:14):
a big part of what we do. Theother thing that I do is I put together
with the help of the team, ofcourse, both bullet alerts, where
we kind of give a one pagebulleted text on what we think is
going to happen on an issuethat's relevant at the time. And

(05:35):
we always try to. Our criteriais say something that no one else
is saying because we want tobe a value add. We don't do our bullet
alerts regularly because thenyou're going to force yourself to
say things when things don'tneed to be said. We do them as needed.
I also do my guilty pleasuresis a PowerPoint deck on the races

(05:57):
where we just kind of give ouranalysis. And to make it fun, my
rule is there are no toss ups.I make a call on every single race.
And sometimes we write,sometimes we'll be wrong. But I think
people like us taking a standon who we think is going to win.
If we had to go to Vegas andbet our house on a candidate on whom

(06:19):
we bet, that's what theapproach that we take.
And is that just for yourclients or is that something public?
It's public. We, we send themout to our clients first and then
after a few days we post themon our website.
Okay, cool. And so where,where could we see that?
If you go to www.db-3.co it'scalled the, it's called DB3 Intel.

(06:45):
And we have everything we sendto our clients, we post there.
All right, cool. And we'lllink that in the show notes to make
sure folks can go see thissounds like it's an interesting take.
And good for you for nothedging. You're taking some risk
by getting out there. Allright, so let's talk about your intel.

(07:05):
What are you hearing and whatare you seeing as far as races? And
obviously you're not talkingon behalf of any clients here. This
is just Nathan Dashielltalking to David about racist. But
what are you seeing andhearing in. In these Senate races
and others?
Well, so we did a Senate deckat the end of last year and in November

(07:26):
last year, and I gave theDemocrats a 1 in 10 chance of taking
the Senate. It was a realuphill climb. And the reason is to
take the Senate, Democratshave to win in red states. And Democrats
have not won a Senate race ina red State since 2018. But this
year we're going to have to doit at least twice. Now, as a caveat,

(07:47):
Dems have won in purplestates. There are seven purple states
in my analysis, but 43 statesare either blue or red. And Dems
don't have any senators rightnow from red state. So we'd have
to do that at least twice. SoI thought that would be an uphill
battle. But in my most recentdeck, which I did just A couple of
weeks ago. Now I give demsabout a 1 in 3, maybe even a 1 in

(08:08):
2 chance of taking the Senate.Their odds have been, have dramatically
improved because theenvironment has dramatically improved
for Democrats. And that's whywe are competitive and actually winning
in the polls in some stateslike Alaska, which is just wild.
Now that's going to be a closerace, but, but I think we win Alaska.

(08:31):
You know, I think the Demseither either win the Senate or get
very close.
Sorry. That is definitelysweet news to a lot of people's ears.
And what is your intel reportbased on? What sort of data? What
sort of metrics?
When we look at the empiricaldata is really polling, fundraising,

(08:55):
press, other people'sanalysis. We look at all that, but
I'd say that's about, that'sabout 50% of it. And then the other
50% is our analysis. What dowe make of all that and more importantly,
what do we make of theenvironment? Because one of my theories
right now is that in general,voters don't slip their tickets anymore.

(09:18):
I mean, in certain occasionsthey do, but it is dramatically declined.
And I'll give you an example,give you a couple examples. The Senate
map, when you put it rightnext to the presidential map, it's
almost the exact same. There'sonly one state that's different and
that's Maine because SusanCollins is right now Republican in
a blue state. Other than that,the Senate map looks just like the

(09:40):
presidential map. But as youand others will remember, you know,
it wasn't that long ago thatthe Dakotas had an all had all Democrats
in their delegations and theDakotas had Democrats. They were
sending Democrats to Congresspretty often even though they hadn't
voted for a Democrat forpresident since 1968. And that's

(10:03):
just in fact, in the 1980s,over half the Senate came from a
different party than the partythat their state voted for for president.
Now, now there are, I can'tremember the number, but it's single
digits. But the second thingis 20 years ago, Senate candidates
and the presidential nomineein their own state would have on

(10:24):
average a separation of ninepoints. So that's be the gap between
how they performed. Now it'son average 2.7 points. So they're
getting almost the same votetotals as the presidential candidate.
So your question was wheredoes our analysis come from? And
a lot of it is thinkingthrough if we, if we believe that
voters are nationalizing theirvote and they're really voting for

(10:46):
the teams red or blue, thenwhile candidates certainly Matter.
The biggest driver right nowis how voters feel about national
politics.
Well, that's reallyinteresting. I don't think I've heard
that sort of analysis.Obviously, people rely on polls and
other things, but that's aninteresting way to look at it. So

(11:08):
here's a broad question, andyou touched on this a little bit
because I'm old enough toremember the Dakotas being Democrats.
How is it in your analysis,you know, just, you've been around
the block, you've seen a lotof data and a lot of information.
How is it that we get from,you know, Tom Harkin to Joni Ernst

(11:28):
and from, you know, your dadto Mike Rounds, how is it we got
here? They're just, they'repolar opposites.
Yeah, they really are. And Idon't know, I mean, it'd be interesting
to look at the voterregistration numbers, but it's happened
in the state legislature aswell that, you know, Democrats are

(11:52):
not as, they're not as much ofa percentage of the state legislature
as they used to be. But Ithink federally what happened was
voters started thinkingthey're going to vote by team, they're
not going to vote forcandidates so much as they're going
to vote by team.
So.
And that really was a resultof the increase in partisanship that

(12:12):
we've had. And the increase inpartisanship is real. I think it's
something that we all feel,but I don't think it's healthy for
the country. But one of itseffects is that voters vote for a
team voting. They really dothat down the ballot. And so their
views of what's happening inthe White House really drives their

(12:33):
views for everything else. Andsince South Dakota pretty consistently
voted for Republican forpresident, South Dakota started voting
Republican down ballot. And Ithink Republicans just kind of took
the momentum and ran with it.
Yeah, it's also they, youknow, they, they saw the trend probably,
and they're very good atextrapolating and figuring out how

(12:54):
to scale it, unlike theDemocrats, which, you know, we used
to have the data advantageduring the Obama years. But I think
that's flipped back to theRepublicans again for some reason.
And do you see a correlationbetween that thinking in midterms
as well, or is that just every four.

(13:14):
That is a great question. Andwhen this is done, David, I'm going
to send you, I have a deck onthe death of split ticket voting.
I'm going to send it to you.Okay, great. But one of the slides
in there is that, yes, thistrend happens in midterms as well,
the midterms end up being nodifferent than the years which we
have a presidential election.The correlation between the Senate

(13:37):
vote and the presidential votefrom the prior election is strikingly
similar.
And so it's this midterm wouldbe Team Trump. Am I, is that correct?
Team Red?
You mean in general or.
Well, on the Republican side.So the Republicans have a quote unquote
leader. Obviously you and Iwould probably differ on whether

(14:00):
he's really a leader or not,but yes, and, but the Democrats don't
necessarily have a leader or,or do we?
No, it's very true, we don't.And I'll ask the first answer the
first question first, whichwas since Trump won the presidential,
will he win, will Republicanswin the Senate? And I think there,
where Democrats have anopportunity to win, the majority

(14:23):
is first in the purple states.And we've got a few of those, but,
and there's actually one bluestate where we can pick up a Senate
seat and that's Maine. Again,Susan Collins. And there's some purple
seats, but unfortunately we'redefending those. But then there's
some red states where thiskind of goes against my theory, but

(14:43):
I'll explain why I think itdoesn't. But Alaska, Iowa, possibly
even Texas. And then, youknow, we are still running strong
candidates in Florida andMississippi, so you can't write those
off as well. Those are all redstates. But I think some states like
Iowa and possibly Alaska andeventually Texas, not yet, but eventually

(15:06):
will be purple states. So Ithink what we're seeing is the, is
the beginning of themtransitioning to purple states and
that's the margin whereDemocrats can win.
Gotcha. All right. Well, youtouched on South Dakota a little
bit. And, and as you know,I've got a candidate there that I
like a lot. Brian Bengs is anindependent. He ran as a Democrat

(15:26):
against Thune in 22. He'srunning again, this time as an independent.
There's a poll out with a headto head match up and three way race.
There's a Democrat in therace, obviously, and then the existing
incumbent. Did you get achance to look at that poll I sent

(15:48):
you at all or.
I did, yes. Thank you very much.
And what is that, what doesthat tell you about this race? And,
and I want bark off. This isnot, you don't need to ingratiate,
gratiate yourself with anybodyother than, you know, the world.
But what, what, what do yousee in that poll?

(16:09):
Well, one of the things thatstands out immediately is the one
thing that hasn't reallychanged about the South Dakota electorate
is that they still wantauthenticity, they still want competence,
and they still wantindependence. And those things are
things that South Dakota haswanted for a long time. And that's

(16:32):
why I think the Republicanprimaries playing out the way it
is. And that's clearly whatBrian Banks is, is seeing as well.
And that's the lane where he,he does have a path, for sure. And
it's really the same as DougOsborne in Nebraska. Now, the thing
that, that caused me concernfor Brian is that Donald Trump is

(16:55):
still very popular in SouthDakota. And, you know, according
to the poll, and I haven't, Ididn't do my homework and look, see
if this number's right. Butthe poll says that Trump won 6334,
which is probably. Sincevoters tend to, sometimes they tend
to change their minds after anelection, that's probably roughly

(17:16):
how popular he is right now inpopping South Dakota. Although actually,
I imagine it's less becausenationally he's so unpopular. But
nevertheless, his, hisapproval rating is above 50 in South
Dakota. And if voters aregoing to have Trump in mind when
they vote, that's going to bea big obstacle to overcome.
Yeah, I agree. I agree. Andobviously Rounds is tied to Trump

(17:40):
pretty closely and has beenable to kind of stay under the radar
and that and not get Trumpangry at him. Go ahead.
Well, I was going to say oneof the things, you know, let's go
back to the poll in Brian'srace after this, but I, that I just.
One of the things that I tookaway from the recent primary is that

(18:03):
the South Dakota RepublicanParty is kind of going through kind
of an identity crisis rightnow. And I think this is, this is
an environment where votersdon't want to be told who to vote
for. And I think in theRepublican gubernatorial primary,
voters felt that DustyJohnson, he was next in line. He's
who the establishment wasessentially saying, that's who you

(18:26):
should vote for. And then youhad Dayton come out. Did I pronounce
his name right? You know, outof nowhere to win the primary. And
I think that was an expressionof voters saying, no, we're going
to pick. Don't tell us who topick. And that's Rounds, I think
Will know he's in a strongposition to win. Although I really,

(18:47):
I'm rooting for Brian. But,you know, th, if, if somebody could
emerge to challenge student ina primary and if the environment
stays the same, that could bea real threat.
Yeah, the number that wasreally interesting to me was Rounds
approval rating was you know,in the low or mid-30s.

(19:09):
Yes.
And, and then in those head toheads, Brian was even. And the Democrats
seemed to have reached aceiling of about 25, 30%. And, and
that's, that's typical in, inthese red states where the Democrat,
unfortunately, just becauseyou have D behind your name, you,

(19:32):
you only reach a, a certainlevel. You'll never get beyond that
because it's such a red state.But Brian, I think has a shot if
the Democrat would stand asidein the. Similar to what, as you mentioned,
what happened in Nebraska. Sowhat, who, who else do you see out
there as kind of a rising starthat maybe is off the radar of our

(19:55):
listeners and some of theother national Democrats?
Well, I'll tell you one risingstar who's in South Dakota, not a
candidate, but more of anoperative, is Yuva Shandana. He just
started working with theDemocrats a few months ago and very
talented person and I hope hesticks around on the national scene.
You know, there is a lot ofbuzz around Jon Ossoff, the senator

(20:18):
from Georgia. He's reallystayed under the radar. So he still
has that newness appeal tohim. A lot of people are talking
about him and a lot of peopleare talking about Graham Plotner
in Maine. Graham is a veryskilled communicator. He's got a
good instinct for politics. Ipersonally, he's not my brand of

(20:40):
vodka. I don't care for a lotof his approach and the way he's
handled these stories, but Ithink it's very possible, if not
probable, that voters in Mainewill overlook that and elect him
in the Senate this fall.
Yeah, and you know, I agreewith you. I mean, I think he's got
a good shot. I tend to thinkmore about winning than personal

(21:06):
character of the candidatebecause nobody's perfect. And as
you know, it's tough being acandidate, man. I mean, tough on
the family and tough on thecandidate and himself. And so I tend
to kind of give candidates alittle bit more of a pass maybe than

(21:26):
some people, but, you know,the guy's doing something right.
And at the end of the day, theelectorate in Maine are the ones
that voted for him. You know,it wasn't like somebody forced them
to vote for Graham and he won,you know, substantially.
Yeah, he was in the 70s. Exactly.

(21:48):
So we can hold our noseagainst some of the crap he's done
in the past, but God forbidsomebody look under my hood. I mean,
that would be a frighteningmatter. So. And who else. Who else
on the Senate front? Let's. Idon't want you to make a prediction
unless you want to. But who'sgoing to be the big upset in this,

(22:12):
this round of midterms, do you think?
I think it will be Josh Turekif you consider that an upset. Ashley
Hinson is favored, but I thinkTurek is an exceptional candidate.
And Iowa, I think Iowa is amore practical state than it is sort

(22:32):
of acted in the last fewelection cycles. I think it's, it
fundamentally is not, not asred as the elections might make it
appear. So I think there's areal, environmentally, I think there's
an opportunity for Josh and,and the environment. This is one
of those states where at theright time the right candidate can
win. And this is definitelythe right time. And I think Dirk

(22:55):
is the right candidate.
Yeah. And he's younger and hasa military background similar to
what Ernst had. And thenyou've got Rob sand there too, who's
going to be a very strongcandidate for governor and has performed
well. And you're right, it'sa, it's more of a, used to be more
of a populous state similar tothe Dakotas, I think.

(23:17):
Yes.
And you think the Democratscan get their shit together again?
I mean the Democrats used tobe, you know, under Vilsack and Culver
and those guys were prettyorganized. You think they can get
their shit together again?
I think so because you know,politics now is so much more personality
driven than party driven andjust in terms of the execution of

(23:40):
the campaign. And Sans is anincredibly strong candidate for governor.
He'll be at the top of theticket. And Turek, you know, when
he ran in the primary he wasdown in the polls for a while and
then he started spending moneyexplaining his story. Never ran an
ad negative against hisprimary opponent, but he was able

(24:02):
to raise a lot of money bothto the campaign and outside groups.
Came in with a lot of moneyand he won and he turned those poll
numbers around and that'sexactly what he'll have to do to
win the general. So I amconfident that he can win. And you
know, I'm feeling good aboutMary Peltola in Alaska. I think again,

(24:23):
at the right time the rightcandidate can win and she is just
undoubtedly the rightcandidate. She's an exceptional candidate,
interestingly, somewhat likeBrian Banks in South Dakota. She's
not running as an independent,but she's very much keeping her distance
from the national Democratic Party.
Right? Yeah. Probably becauseshe believes that too. I mean, yeah,

(24:44):
Chuck Schumer is not exactlythe guy you want to run run with.
In Alaska or South Dakota.
You don't want his endorsement?
No, no, no. And I thinkleaders. Huber's done a lot of good
stuff, but he's passed a selldate. But we don't. We're not going
to go there with the formermajority leader, son.
So, folks, we.
We've had a terrificconversation today with Nathan Daschle

(25:09):
of DB3 out of Washington, alobbying and consulting firm. You've
given us some insights ondifferent races you guys are taking
a look at, and I hope to haveyou back on again soon. Nathan, I'd
love to.
I love to. This has been a lotof fun, David.
I really enjoy. Yeah, well, Iappreciate it and I appreciate your

(25:29):
honesty on some of the racesand, and giving us a little bit of
insight. So if you could givefolks your website over time, they've
got some free information overthere and some predictions on some
elections.
Yes, and I will. Today I'mgoing to post my deck on the death
of split ticket voting becauseit's such a core thesis to the analysis.
But the website is www.db-3.coand where you want to go is to the

(25:57):
DB3 intel tab. It's rightthere at the top of the page. And
you'll get all the decks andall of our.
Yep. Or if there's any otherclients out there that are interested
in a terrific firm with someterrific people in Washington, you
can learn more in there aswell. So you got a pretty broad audience.
So, again, Nathan Dashiell,thank you so much for joining us

(26:18):
on Machu. And we'll talk toyou on the other side. Take care.
You got it. Thanks, David.