Episode 184: Working Class Revolution: How Democrats Lost Their Traditional Base

🔍 In This Episode:

🗳️ Why Are Democrats Opposing the SAVE Act?

Most Americans—regardless of party—agree: you should be a U.S. citizen to vote, and you should have to show ID to do so.

So why are Democrats doing everything they can to block the SAVE Act, which would enforce voter citizenship requirements?

Mark breaks down how this is yet another 80/20 issue where the Democratic Party finds itself on the wrong side of public opinion.

📊 CNN Polling: Republicans Surging With Working-Class Voters

New data shows Republicans making huge gains with working-class Americans.

As long as Democrats continue to appeal only to coastal elites, they’ll struggle to win elections—and Mark explains why this trend is accelerating.

📉 Tariff Talk Trouble: Trump’s Communication Challenge

We question whether Howard Lutnick is the right voice for Trump’s tariff strategy—and why messaging matters more than ever.

🎙️ Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Communication Disaster

We break down how poor staff decisions turned a visit to the Oval Office into a political mess for the Michigan Governor—and what all politicians can learn from it.

💸 New Mexico: One of the Most Taxed States in America

Yep, we’ve landed on another dubious list—New Mexico ranks among the most heavily taxed states in the nation.

What can be done to help working families? And more importantly, why won’t it happen under current leadership? We break it down.

💥 Krysty’s Powerful Take on Political Extremism

In a passionate moment, Krysty slams extremists who resort to violence to make their political points.

The latest victim? Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Political violence is unacceptable—no matter where it comes from—and it’s time for leaders to start calling it out across the board.

#breakingnews #newmexico #doge #albuquerque #musk #news #politicalpodcast #governmentwaste 

https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/

Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/
Twitter: @nodoubtpodcast
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose
between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest thereis no such thing as a left or
right, there's only an up ordown.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the no Doubt About it.
Podcast.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
No doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Now your hosts Christy and Mark Runcady.

Speaker 4 (00:24):
All right, okay, so welcome.
Yeah, no, welcome is right.
Okay, so welcome.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
Yeah, no, welcome is right, so we will get right to
it.
There's some action.
We've got a hard out today.

Speaker 4 (00:36):
Well, it's prom season, mark.
I don't know if you know thisor not, but prom season is upon
us.
Yeah, at our school you go toprom dancing practice, and today
Ava has to show up at prompractice and cannot be late.
This is true, and actually Ilove this.
They teach the kids how todance and I think, it's so sweet
.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
It is very sweet.

Speaker 4 (00:57):
Yeah, it's like a cotillion almost, which I
appreciate.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Yeah, no, I, uh, I, I appreciate what they do.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
Cause, let's let's be honest, you could have done
with a little bit of promdancing lessons yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Yeah For being honest , because did you?

Speaker 4 (01:10):
dance at prom.
Do you even remember dancing atprom?

Speaker 3 (01:12):
Yeah, I mean you danced yeah, I didn't dance like
when the fast music came on,like no, no, like that's not
happening.
No, guys are out, but now someof the slow dances, yeah, yeah,
sometimes you get into that yeah, this is a totally different
deal at our school, like I knowI think it's great.
I just look back at myself inhigh school and how much more of

(01:33):
a high quality individual avais than me and I, and I feel
good about that thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:37):
You feel like we've got her at the right school.
Yeah, we actually just went,got her prom dress today as well
.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
It's good looking dress.
It's it's pretty.
I think she's going to.

Speaker 4 (01:44):
I think it's going to be a solid thing.
Yeah, we have a whole theme.
Everything at our school isjust a little bit different.
So okay.
So she we got to get her out ofhere, so she can add 45 minutes
.

Speaker 3 (01:57):
Okay, we've got 45 minutes.
All right, we'll knock it outQuick, quick.
A couple of things we're goingto talk about, one from Dan
Lewis, which was veryinteresting, and one from from
our guy, sam Bregman.
Now, we're not trying to pickon Bregman here Not that he
cares either way, it'll be finebut but I do want to make an
interesting political point.

(02:17):
He's also not our guy, let'sjust not frame it that way.
It's a good point, buteverybody's our guy in this, hey
, which basically requires beingan American citizen to vote.
I know it's crazy, it'soutrageous.
It's outrageous.
Married women will never be ableto vote again, Never to be able
to vote again.
They're not voting.
We're sorry.
We're eliminating married women.

Speaker 4 (02:33):
We're done Actually 69 million of us can't vote
anymore.
Done Finished If the SAFE Actgoes through.
That's actually not true.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
Yes, and we're going to talk about some of the tariff
action and we're going to talkabout actually another issue
with violence directed at apolitician.
This one is the governor ofPennsylvania, which thankfully
nothing happened, but it's notgood.
So we'll get into details onall that.
But of course we start withemails.

Speaker 4 (02:58):
That's right.
We got some emails coming in.
I only picked two.
This week we had a lot, but Iwent with two, so the first one
comes in from the Atomic Mom.
These were both from X.
Okay, she said honestly she wastalking about our podcast.
It's the one podcast I canlisten to right now without
feeling like I'm going to losemy mind.
Thanks for keeping things lightwhile at the same time serious.
Oh yes, thank you, atomic Mom.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
She's great.

Speaker 4 (03:30):
Yeah, I always read her, always engaged.
Oh, she's always going back andforth and all of everything
like a lot of different issues,which I appreciate.
So I follow her quite a bit,absolutely.
And then, um drea us.
She says mark single-handed me,turned me basically single,
single-handedly turned me off ofbregman yesterday.
So far, zero candidates formayor or governor appeal to me.
Her vote is mark for governor,christy for mayor and Ava for
state press secretary.
Thank you, thank you.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
I think I should just let me be governor.
We'll see what happens.
At the rate we're going, wecould use you right now.

Speaker 4 (03:53):
I feel like there's an age limit.
My first act as governor willbe to remove that.
Very good then Any 17-year-oldthat feels like running for
governor.
I don't think that's gonnahappen, dre, but we do
appreciate your, uh, yourthoughts, because don't speak on
my behalf.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
Mark, that's a good point.
Yeah, you could still jump inthe mayor's race.
It's a possibility.
Uh, let's all right so speakingof the bregman thing which dre
mentions.
Yes, I want to get into thisbecause it was a very
interesting I guess you'd callit an op-ed from from breregman
today on Sunday in theAlbuquerque Journal.
Okay, and you can go and readit.
I'm not, we're not going toread a bunch of it for you.
I will read just one littlepiece of this for you and then I

(04:34):
want to.
I want to explain what I thinkis going on here, or what
possibly is going on here.
There's really one of twoexplanations for this whole
campaign and I want to get intothose.
But here's one little paragraph.
It says in 2024, democratsfaltered because a rigid
ideological minority pushed toofar too fast.
Voters were told we will fightfor your health care and wages,

(04:56):
but only if you sign on to everypart of our cultural platform.
That was simply too much fortoo many.
People should not be forced tochoose between economic justice
and holding on to their deeplyheld values.
Ironically, while Republicansunder Donald Trump attacked the
left for this, they now impose,excuse me, the same ideological

(05:16):
purity test, leaving voters withnowhere to turn.
Okay, so he spends this op-edkind of.
Basically, he's trying to hitTrump as much as he can for his
bona fides for the left and thentrying to say that his side
made some mistakes too.
Ok, he's trying to kind of playthis thing down the middle.
Ok, and so either one of twothings is happening here with

(05:38):
his campaign.
Number one he has nounderstanding of the party in
which he's running in.
He just he looks at this partyas he did when he was party
chairman 15 years ago and thinksthat he has a reasonable middle
.
That vote in primary electionsthat will bail him out OK, or
some independents that will comein and vote and bail him out OK
.
That's one thing.

(05:58):
I don't think he's clueless onthe on the party he's running.
No, I don't think that's it.
I think more likely it's numbertwo he has an overinflated
opinion of his ability to carrya message and move the
electorate.
He thinks he can move the partyand say look, you got to be
reasonable here.
And so he's.
The quote I just read you from.

(06:19):
This thing is convoluted in andof itself, right.
He's saying well, we made somemistakes and we went too far,
too too fast.
So what, you went too far oryou went too fast because you
went too far.
There's no question about that.
I don't care what speed you'regoing in.
The message they're carrying istoo far.
Forget the too fast he does thetoo fast as a little wink like
hey, it's not, it's not all that, it's a message we went too

(06:44):
fast.
Ok, just kind of play thatlittle game a little bit.
And then he goes into the Trumphitting game, which every
Democrat has to do in ademocratic primary, of course,
just like a Republican has to do.
But what he thinks is he cancome out here with this sort of
mealy mouth message Well,there's problems on both sides.
Vote for me.
That doesn't work in a primary.
So if I'm Deb Haaland, I lookat this mealy mouth stuff that a

(07:04):
guy who thinks he cancommunicate with a rock and move
it.
You go to this and you say SamBregman doesn't get it.
We're in the political fight ofour lives against these
Trumpers.
We can't have a guy who'sblaming our party the whole time
.
This guy doesn't understand thethreat that we face.
He truly doesn't get it.
And if you want someone who'sgoing to go and try to kind of

(07:25):
halfway do this mealy mouth, youwant Sam Bregman, but you don't
.
You want me, deb Holland, who'sgoing the whole distance.
Tell me which message is easierto carry.
We are fighting for our livesagainst Trump, or well, we kind
of screwed up, they screwed up.
We've got some screw ups goingon here.
It's sort of anybody who has tosit there and try to pull a

(07:46):
message out of a mealy mouthBoth sides.
Ism doesn't work in a primary.
I've never seen it work and Ihave never seen it work recently
.
So, especially in the politicalenvironment we live in, sam
Bregman going with this message,while I understand the message
and while I think someRepublicans will read the
message and go, yeah, this ismore reasonable.
This is the Democratic Party Iremember from 15 years ago.

(08:08):
That party doesn't exist in aprimary.
So good luck to you, sir, onthis.
It'll be fascinating and I findwhat he's trying to do really
interesting and I also thinkwhat he's trying to do is really
arrogant, and I think he'sgoing to find that out in a very
, very significant way.
Now, could I be wrong?
Absolutely I could be wrong,but running in primaries and
we've got some knowledge on howthe primary works- Just a little

(08:31):
bit.
I don't care what primary you'rerunning in, republican or
Democrat, it doesn't matter.
But if half of your messagingis eh, we screwed this up,
you're screwed, you are, sowe'll see what happens, okay,
we'll see.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he findsa way and again Deb Haaland
could collapse.
All this stuff could happen,there's no question about that,
but it's really hard in aprimary when your message is

(08:54):
well, let me just kind ofexplain this to you versus her
message of we're in a fight forour lives, support me.
It's a lot easier case to make.

Speaker 4 (09:02):
Well, it will be interesting to see how the
Republicans respond to thisright, because, at the end of
the day, like he's clearlytrying to still see what
independence he can get to comein and vote with him for these
primaries now that we have openprimaries.
That's a question Are theseopen primaries?
And I don't know the answer tothis yet.
I don't think we've figuredthis out yet, but I wonder if

(09:28):
they'll count for this electionfor this governor's office, yeah
, 26.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
Yeah, it will, okay, okay, so that's kind of an
interesting thing.
No, it's not.
You can't do that, there's nodemonstration.

Speaker 4 (09:33):
You don't think an independent can come in and vote
then for Bregman versus in theprimary.
Can?

Speaker 3 (09:37):
he move enough independents to go vote to
offset a strong democraticturnout for a far left candidate
like Holland.
No, there's nothing todemonstrate that that's going to
happen.

Speaker 4 (09:50):
Right, and I think that the the only thing that we
got to keep saying.
I mean, to me it's so obvious.
I'm like this has been yourparty for 80 years, like I when
I see him coming in on the horselike we talked about in the
last episode.
You're coming on this big horse, like in your black hat and
you're going to save the day.
I'm like, but your party's theone that's been in control for
80 years.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
Well, that's a different argument.

Speaker 4 (10:07):
Well, I know, I think it's interesting that you're
running for governor on nationalissues.
I always think that's kind ofinteresting, like he's coming in
out on the whole national frontright.

Speaker 3 (10:20):
I'm going to just right.
It's his own party.
You got to run against somebody.

Speaker 4 (10:23):
Well, I get it, but he's running for a state
election, right, so he's runningfor here.

Speaker 3 (10:29):
Yeah, but the world has changed Again.
The world has changed, right Iunderstand.
So we used to elect senators ofone party and a president of
another, all the time right.

Speaker 4 (10:38):
In.

Speaker 3 (10:38):
New.

Speaker 8 (10:39):
Mexico we did it all the time, those people don't
exist.

Speaker 3 (10:41):
Everything's the national election.
Now, everything is ourgovernor's election turned on
abortion.
Yeah, we're three going in tothe May of 2022.
We're three points on thegovernor going into the final
stretch.
Ok, dobbs comes out, flipseverything, we're down 10.
That's a national issue.
Ok, it was settled law in thestate of New Mexico, whether you

(11:04):
like it or not, and we don'tlike it.
Ok, that's the way it is.
I'm not walking away from thator or saying it's not true.
However, it switched because ofnational politics.
National politics.
Donald Trump is still going tobe the biggest issue in 2026.
So, because the world haschanged, we used to have that.
Now I think it will change backeventually.
I think eventually, some of thenational stuff will lose its

(11:30):
grip on state elections andyou'll start to see a little
more flexibility between voterssaying okay, I'm going to slide
back and forth between democrats, but I guess my whole point,
though, is with this is ifyou're actually a constituent,
you actually live in this state.

Speaker 4 (11:38):
I don't you sit here and go.
Okay, what's bregman gonna doabout trump you?

Speaker 8 (11:43):
know what I mean.
I'm looking for you.

Speaker 4 (11:45):
But I understand.
I just think logically.
I would hope that voters couldsay listen, we've had
Republicans in office and in ourstate legislature that have
ultimately had control off andon for the majority of 80 years
right For basically on for thelast 80 years and we have all of
these things that we're failingat.
So how was another Democratgovernor coming in attacking a
president going to help us herein the state?
That, to me, would be thelogical argument that somebody

(12:08):
that's going to run for on theRepublican side is going to.
Obviously I understand that butI'm not.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
You're talking about dessert.
I'm still, I'm still on theappetizer, like he's not getting
out of appetizer land.
Ok, like you're talking about.
You know, what are we going todo with this souffle for dessert
?
I'm saying he ain't getting tothe souffle, okay, like it's
over.
As soon as, as soon as thisthing starts to hit.
That's a hard case.
Or I say it's over.

(12:33):
I could be totally wrong, butI'm just saying this approach is
never demonstrated fruit in thepast 10 years.
So so I, I'm the moderate here.
I'm the moderate, vote for me.
I'm the moderate.
What I mean?
It's crazy, crazy.
So we'll see.
But I think you're right.
You're just making the morebroad, the more broad electoral
point, which I totally wouldagree with you on right.
I just, I just don't thinkwe're ever going to get to that
okay.

Speaker 4 (12:50):
Well, let's move on.
Let's talk a little bit aboutthis whole save act and what's
been happening right now.
It's passed in the house as ofthursday, okay, yeah.
So explain this save act firstfor everybody that don't doesn't
really understand.
We know it's a voteridentification law that's being
passed.
It's an amendment actually tothe current law that was
basically set up in 1993.
This is to try to tighten upthe reins, to say, hey, we

(13:12):
already have this law that saysthat if you're not here a US
citizen, or you're not herelegally, you're not supposed to
be allowed to vote.
This is an amendment to that tomake sure it's actually being
checked that you actually areproving your citizenship or that
you're here legally.

Speaker 3 (13:23):
Yeah, Basically this.
This says look, you have to bea U S citizen to vote.
Okay, now what's happened is intoo many States across the
country, including New Mexico.
Great example Okay, if you goback in time, for many of us who
have voted in elections in NewMexico for 20 years, you know
you used to have to show an IDto vote.
You no longer have to do that,and that's by design, right?

(13:46):
They do not.
The ruling powers of this statedo not want you to have to show
an ID and, in fact, the waythey'd like it is.
If you just want to line up andvote, go for it.
All right, we'll hear that insome of the sound we're about to
play.
Okay, but the electorate is notwith them on this.
Okay, and this is another one ofthose 80-20 issues.
Okay, what do I mean by that?
So we'll get into what the saveact does here in a second.
But effectively, it requiresyou to produce you know, for

(14:08):
many of you who have thedriver's license now, which is
the real ID, you already qualify, you're done, right.
But but you know, for those ofyou who don't, there's a couple
other steps that couldpotentially have to be taken.
They're normal stuff, like youhaving to prove that you're
you're a citizen.
I never thought we'd be havingthis debate.
You have to be a citizen tovote and you and you have a

(14:29):
bunch of people who say we don'twant, we don't want that
checked, we do not want thatchecked.
Just so you know where theamerican people are.
Here's the numbers on a few ofthese things, and not all of
these things are.
Fall on the on the republicanside.
Let's go tighter on this so wecan actually see it here and you
can see.
Requiring electronic votingmachines to print a paper ballot
backup 82% of Americans supportthat.

(14:51):
I think that makes completesense.
We actually do that in NewMexico.
Okay, we have that.
Making early in-person votingavailable to voters at least two
weeks prior to election day 76%.
I think you don't want to gobeyond two weeks.
To me, I do think you want tokeep it into a timeframe because
, as a candidate, it's reallydifficult once you start going a
month out and things like that.

(15:11):
It's just so long.
But a couple of weeks doesstill make some sense.
There are plenty of Republicanswho don't want it.
They just want the Election Dayvoting.
I think two weeks is fine togive people that flexibility,
whatever.
Making Election Day a nationalholiday.
There we go, and what you alsohave here, though, is the very
top one here, requiring allvoters to show a
government-issued photoidentification to vote.
Okay, that is an 81% issue here.

(15:33):
Okay, and so this SAVE Actcomes up, because they're trying
to basically beef up the factthey want people to be able to
be citizens.
Okay, and so I want you tolisten to Brian Steele, and he's
from Wisconsin, and he got onthe floor of the house just
before the vote and wanted tomake this point to his
colleagues.

Speaker 8 (15:52):
Mr Speaker, I view that as insane.
We should be making sure thatonly US citizens are voting in
US elections.
You'll hear arguments aboutit's burdensome.
Mr Speaker, I think it's absurdthat we're protecting beer more
than we're protecting ballots.
You have to show a photo IDwhen you go in to buy a six-pack
of beer.
You should have to go in andshow that you're a US citizen

(16:15):
when you register to vote.
It's just that simple, and Iremind my colleagues that we had
this debate in this chamberlast Congress.
Five Democrats joined us invoting for this bill.
Well, in a few moments we'll bevoting.
Mr Speaker, it'll be darninteresting to see how many
Democrats have the courage tocome across the line and say,
yes, only US citizens shouldvote in US elections.

(16:38):
My colleagues should supportthis bill and I yield back.

Speaker 3 (16:40):
Okay, so interesting stuff.
And again, just to remember you, you know in new mexico a lot
of this gets down to county bycounty too.
A lot of times your county runsthese elections.
Bernalillo county has gone fromshow an id to don't worry about
it, just give me your address,call it good, okay.
So there's a reason for that,and I and most of the american

(17:00):
people realize you should haveto show an ID, a legitimate ID,
not one that was found who knowswhere, that you should be able
to have to do that to vote.

Speaker 4 (17:12):
Right, exactly, and it's interesting because it's
not that complicated, becauseour state largely now, and I
just went in to get my ID.
I had lost mine, right, sorry,mine was expired.
So I was going in and she said,well, do you have everything
you need for the real ID?
And I said, oh right, sorry,mine was expired.
So I was going in and she said,well, do you have everything
you need for the real ID?
And I said, oh, I don't.
I don't think I have everythingon hand.
Can I just get this updatedthough, so I can fly?
And she said, no, no, no, no,we're only doing real IDs.

(17:34):
That was a year ago, okay, so Iwas like so that particular
location was only point forward.
Now I did look it up.
You can still get astate-issued ID if you want, but
you can't get into certainfederal buildings and you can't
fly without one as of May 7th ofthis year.
So our state is federally underthat law too.
They've had 20 years to geteverybody a real ID.
So what did that require of me?

(17:55):
I did have to show citizenship.
I had to show my birthcertificate.
My name has changed because Igot married to you, so I did
have to show a marriagecertificate for that and I had
to take a passport in, okay, oryour social security card.
You can show a couple differentareas to get that.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yeah, you don't have to do a passport if you don't
want, to which we'll get to onthat, right, okay?

Speaker 4 (18:13):
But that was one option, right, okay.
So all of that to say is nowwe're seeing, so we have to do
that here in the state for thereal ID, but now we're getting
hit back here locally from ourleaders, our state leaders,
saying that this will really becrushing.
However, I have to say, in theHouse they had four Democrats
that voted in favor of this, soit did pass the House.
One of these in particular wasa Democratic congressman, jared

(18:34):
Goldman of Maine, and I thoughthis tweet was worth reading
today, and he says there are alot of misleading claims out
there about the SAVE Act.
Let me set the record straightI voted for the SAVE Act for.

(19:07):
So let me just set it straighttoo.
Okay, I am one of the peoplethat had to prove that I was
married when I needed to get thereal ID, so I did get in.
My birth certificate was one ofthose little cheesy ones that
had like a little ribbon on itthat came from the hospital
didn't count.
So I just had to look up mycounty, which I was born in,
houston, texas, and I had toorder one of those for 10 bucks.
It came in the mail in like 24hours.

(19:28):
Then I had to request anothermarriage certificate because
we've been married a long time.
That's what I had to do to getthe real ID.
It took 25 bucks and a littlebit of my time nothing crazy.
So I guess it's just sayingthat like this, you're going to
see a lot of messages out thereabout women not being able to.
They're going to be not able todo this if they've been married
and changed their names.
It's just not that difficult.

(19:49):
It just really isn't thatdifficult to have to to get this
information.

Speaker 3 (19:52):
Okay, so makes sense.
So let's go now.
I want to switch a little bitto the democratic pushback on
some of this, and Shelly Pingreeis one of the people doing this
.
She's a representative alsofrom Maine, okay, so she's
coming out on the other end ofthis thing, as opposed to Jared

(20:13):
Goldman, okay.
So I want you to listen to whatshe says about this and listen
to a couple things that she says.
It's clip number 11 and it'sinteresting and, ava, I may have
you stop it midway through, butlet's just listen to what she
says and how she's pushing backabout what's happening here.

Speaker 7 (20:24):
It's called the Save Act.
Now, the idea behind this,honestly, is to make it harder
to vote.
You know, one of the greatthings about Maine is we've made
voting fairly easy.
You can register on ElectionDay.
We do a lot of things becausewe believe everyone should vote
and we shouldn't make it sodifficult.
You can't figure out what to do.
Stop for one second.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
We believe everyone should vote.
I agree with that.
You do believe that, but turnsout that's not the law.
The law is actually citizensshould vote, ok, and by going
and pushing back in every waypossible, they're trying to open
this up to as many people aspossible to vote.
Now she keeps going here andstarts giving some specific
examples of what she has aproblem with proof of

(21:04):
citizenship, an Americanpassport or a birth certificate
to vote First off.

Speaker 7 (21:14):
Half the people in this country don't have a
passport.
It's expensive to acquire ifyou're not about to travel
internationally or go to Canada.
And also one of thecomplications about using your
birth certificate.
Let's just say you got marriedand you changed your name.
If your name isn't the same asthe one on your birth
certificate, you're not allowedto use it, so this just spells
obstacle.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
Okay, that's clearly not true All right, I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (21:34):
You need this if you want to change your Social
Security name.
So we get married and I neededto change my name from my maiden
name to my married name on mySocial Security number, which
applies to taxes.
So you have to do thisregardless.
I mean, honestly, there's a lotof places that need this my
health insurance.
I would have had that if Ididn't do this and I didn't
register with my new last name.
So it's just yes, it's one stepthat you have to take.

(21:54):
You can do it online.
You can get your marriagecertificate and you can get your
birth certificate and you showit and there you have it if you
don't have a passport.
So that is.
I just don't think this is thehard mountain pass that they
want it to be and that they'rethinking that this is going to
be so difficult to do this.
You have to do the same thingif you want to file for your
taxes and if you want to filefor Social Security.

(22:15):
Well, technically, you'resupposed to do this.

Speaker 3 (22:17):
Well, the Social Security cards too, by the way,
just for just so you're you'reclear.
Ava clip nine here, by the way,is what's happened with Social
Security numbers recently?
This is from Fox Business OK,new non-citizen social security
numbers have been issued.
Ok, how many have been issuedyear over year?
Ok, in 2021, there are 270,000issued by 2024, there were two

(22:39):
million issued.
Ok, so this is some of what someof the pushback is, because
you've had a border openedsocial security cards being
handed out.
This is a clear effort to goand get as many people voting
for one party as you possiblycan, and so no one who's logical
in this whole thing looks atthis and says, oh, absolutely,

(22:59):
this is the way it should be.
I mean clearly.
I mean, what's happening hereis as many people can vote as
they want.
According to the representativefrom Maine, maggie
Toulouse-Oliver, who is thesecretary of state of New Mexico
, she, of course, is againstthis.
She, you know she comes out andsays in New Mexico, we've
worked diligently to make ourvoter registration accessible

(23:20):
through same day and onlinevoter registration.
The SAVE Act's mandate wouldeffectively dismantle these
advancements.
That's absolutely not true.
Okay, but but you should haveto be a citizen of this country.
So you know, obviously shepushes back and Melanie
Stansbury then comes out and she, of course, voted against this.
Okay, and one thing she says isshe says I'm confident that

(23:42):
it'll die in the Senate.
Stansbury says because they'llneed to reach a 60 vote
threshold in the Senate and Ithink there's still enough good
Republicans in the Senate whocare about our democracy to
hopefully stop it.
Okay, this is ignorant on about10 different levels.
Number one democracy settlesaround making sure that you have
citizens voting.
So I love it.

(24:02):
We're for democracy.
Let's loosen the laws on whocan vote.
That's not democracy.
That is trying to set up anelection that only you get to
win.
Ok, that's not how it works.
Number two the 60 vote majoritythat she's talking about.
First of all, you don't need tosay you're not going to get a
single Republican vote to blockthis.
So that's wrong.

(24:23):
60 vote majority would takeDemocrats to support it.
So for her to say thatRepublicans have a role in
killing this, they're not goingto.
The Democrats are going to killit.
They're going to kill itbecause they're not going to
vote for it.

Speaker 4 (24:34):
Yeah, they need seven in the Senate to pass this yeah
you need seven votes, slidingover from Democrat to Republican
.

Speaker 3 (24:40):
You're not going to get that, so of course they're
going to.
They're going to probablysucceed in making sure you still
don't have to be a citizen tovote.
Now there are a bunch andthere's a list of different
things.
Okay, on this whole thing of ofpushback on what's not true
about this, okay, and Ava, it's,I think it's clip 10 and just
put this document real quick.
We'll we'll make this real fast.

(25:01):
But the point is, on thepushback on some of this, it's a
couple of different things.
First of all, the SAVE Actwould stop women from voting who
would change their name.
That's obviously not true.
The SAVE Act would requireeveryone to have a US passport.
That is not true.
None of that is true.
And it also we also talk aboutthe.
In federal elections, it'salready illegal to vote.

(25:24):
Okay, I want to get into that.
Federal elections are alreadyillegal to vote if you're not a
citizen.
Okay, the point on that isstates don't enforce it.
So, in other words, you'd havea law that's not being enforced
and, in fact, you have countiesin this state in New Mexico that
have deliberately come out andsaid we're not checking IDs,
we're not checking IDs, so theyare deliberately trying not to
enforce it, so that's adisingenuous argument.

(25:46):
So there's a reason that thereis a push for the SAVE Act.
It is just simply that Americancitizens should be the ones
voting, and of course now that'sbecome political, even though
it's another one of those 80-20issues.

Speaker 4 (25:58):
Yeah, I guess I just don't understand.
Again, I come up and I'm like,if you're really all about
democracy and you're really allabout whatever, you're shelling
at us this way.
It's a matter of like, hey, whyare we not willing to, I mean
to ask people to give their id?
You act like it's going to killpeople from having to show up
to vote.
When you need to vote, you needyour id to do basically

(26:18):
anything.
Yeah, right to go buy beer.
Right to go to go get a welfarecheck, to go get lots of things
that you're going to need to doactually a welfare check.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
not necessarily right , really, no, that's what we
were finding out.
Oh, with all the yeah, thereare more.
And more people who arebecoming eligible.
Again, a lot of this has to dowith fraud and has a lot to do
with what's happening on a bunchof different levels in this
government.
But again, I think this isanother one of those 80-20
issues that they're on the wrongside of.
And Harry and Harry Enten cameout with a clip on CNN talking

(26:52):
about how the parties haveshifted here and it's clip 15.

Speaker 1 (26:54):
And just listen to this Shocking pieces of poll
data that I, truly truthfully,have seen this year, maybe in
any prior year yes, really,because I want you to take a
look Cares more about the needsfor people like you.
You mentioned the Cape Bowl.
We got a tie even after thistariff war had already started
split between Democrats andRepublicans on how people feel
which party cares more for needsof people like you.

(27:15):
And why is that so surprising?
Because I want you to take alook at prior years.
Democrats always lead on thisquestion.
Back in 2017, before the 2018midterms 13 point lead.
2005, a 23 point lead forDemocrats.
1994, which was a bigRepublican year, a 19-point lead
for Democrats.
And now, all of a sudden, a tie.
All of a sudden, the Democrats,who are the party of the people

(27:37):
.
No more, no more.
We get a tie on this question,on a question that has
traditionally overwhelminglybeen a Democratic advantage for
party which party cares more forthe needs of people like you?
It's truly something I wouldnot have expected to see,
especially after this tariff warhad begun.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
Okay, super interesting because we talk
about it.
I think we talk about it onevery show, which is when you're
on the wrong side of every80-20 issue, guess what happens?
You start to decay support.
I mean it just erodes fromunderneath you.
So if you leave the border wideopen and say, no, it's no
problem here, let's not worryabout it.
Everybody knows it is you know.
And when you go, issue afterissue, and you say we have to

(28:16):
fix this, we have to be forworking families in this country
, and everything you do showsthat you're not on that side.
Voting you don't have to be acitizen, don't worry about that.
That's an 80-20 issue.
You're losing it again.
That issue of who cares morefor me, that's a complete flip.
And even if it's anywhere neareven ever, then it is a massive

(28:39):
advantage for Republicans.
And this just shows how thingshave completely and totally
changed.
Our political parties arereorienting themselves in a way
that I never imagined, even acouple of years ago.

Speaker 4 (28:50):
Well, let's just keep in mind that the original
election denier was HillaryClinton okay, on the Democratic
side.
So I would think that havingthis voter having voter ID would
protect both sides, right?
Because then you couldn't beclaiming cheating on either side
of the aisle, regardless of whowins or loses.
We would put a stop to that,right.
It would obviously save us alot of time, a lot of stress, a

(29:11):
lot of money taxpaying moneywhen you go in to investigate
this and that and Russiagate orwhatever else you want to throw
out there.
It should clear up a lot of allthe claims that come out after
an election and I just think forboth sides, don't you want this
to be a clean, just election,no matter what side you're on,
right?
But you can feel like I believein the process that we have and

(29:33):
I just think I don't understandwhy it would be so crazy to ask
for for ID on that.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
Right, and that just is another piece of a broader
point on all these issues thatkeep sliding.
So so when you look inside hisnumbers and you start saying,
well, who is fueling the pushthat gets Republicans and
Democrats even on that issue ofwho cares more?
For me, the push is one that,again, we've talked about a lot.
This is very close ties to thereorienting of the political

(29:59):
parties.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Non-college.
We got those with a collegedegree Among those with a
college degree.
It's the same score eight plus18 points for Democrats in 2017,
plus 18 points for Democratsnow.
But look among non-collegevoters.
Look here.
It was plus seven for Democratsin 2017, and now Republicans
have overwhelmingly gained plusnine points.

(30:20):
That is, the gains have beenconcentrated, at least within
the last decade, among voterswithout a college degree, the
working class.
That is where Republicans havegained, even since the beginning
of the Donald Trumpadministration.
The Democratic base is nowthose with a college degree
Among the working class, thosewithout a college degree.
Republicans have overwhelminglygained on this all-important

(30:41):
question of which party caresmore for people like yourself.

Speaker 3 (30:46):
There you go.
So that just shows exactly whatwe've been talking about the
working class party.
And again this gets back to ourpolitical messaging.
It's much easier to be theparty that advocates for the
working class, bringing jobsback.
Whatever it is, then it is tobe the high end, super educated.
You don't understand, you don't.

(31:06):
You're not as smart as we areparty.
When you're not as smart as weare party, when you're not as
smart as we are, when you'repart of that party, you lose,
you lose, and that's exactlywhat this is happening right
here now.
It doesn't mean in 2026 we'renot going to see republicans
lose seats in the house andeverything else, but but when
you see all these things wherepeople talk about the stock
market and what's happening withtariffs and you think, oh my
gosh, trump's blowing up Stockmarket's not in good shape, the

(31:28):
country's going to revolt.
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily Now.
You can't go into a deeprecession and think you're going
to be fine.
You'll get destroyed.
If we end up in a deeprecession, republicans are going
to pay the price in a huge way.

Speaker 4 (31:42):
But to think that they're not on the right side of
this thing as far as people'ssensibilities go, I think they
are at least for right now, okay, well, now let's talk about
this senior Wall Streetexecutive with ties to Trump's
White House, kind of like alittle bit of a what like?
Was it like a foot and mouth orwhat I mean?
What happened exactly?

Speaker 3 (32:00):
Well, charlie Gasparino, who's one of the guys
on Fox Business who talks allthe time about what's going on
with economic issues and thingslike that, he talked about an
interview that Howard Ludnickhad today on one of the Sunday
shows and it was with JonathanCarl, and so one of the things
that happened over the weekendwas, you know, the president

(32:20):
backed off on tariffs on thingslike electronics and things like
that, saying all right, hold on, let's reevaluate this and
whatever else.
So then let Nick comes out anddoes an interview and let Nick
does something ratherinteresting.
So basically, what, what,charlie Gasparino, let's go back
up with that tweet again andwe'll we'll go through it.
And he says, basically, he saidhis comments about the

(32:43):
temporary nature of the tariffexemptions, meaning saying that,
yeah, these tariff exemptions,they're not going to last long,
they're coming back.
Like the tariff exemptions arecoming back.
That basically sends a messageto the market get ready to dive
again on Monday, right, becausethis is not a long-term solution
.
So just listen to what Lutnicksays and we'll talk about the
importance of it.

Speaker 6 (33:04):
You're saying that the big tariffs on things like
smartphones and laptops, iphones, all those iPhones built in
China, that those tariffs aretemporarily off, but they're
going to be coming right back onin another form in a month or
so, or what are you saying?

Speaker 9 (33:23):
Correct.
That's right.
That's right.
Semiconductors andpharmaceuticals will have a
tariff model in order toencourage them to reshore to be
built in America.
We need our medicines and weneed semiconductors and our
electronics to be built inAmerica.
We can't be the holden and relyupon foreign countries for

(33:43):
fundamental things that we need.
We can't be relying on Chinafor fundamental things that we
need.
Our medicines and oursemiconductors need to be built
in America.
Donald Trump is on it.
He's calling that out, so youshould understand.
These are included in thesemiconductor tariffs that are
coming and the pharmaceuticalsare coming.
Those two areas.

Speaker 3 (34:03):
All right, let's stop right here.
This is OK.
This is why people talk aboutwords matter and why Charlie
Gasparino's tweet said he's offmessage.
Why is he off message?
Cause you sit there and say,well, okay, what's really
happening here?
What he did there was he's notcareful enough with his words,
and so he ends up muddlingmessages.
When Jonathan Carl asked him sothese things are coming back

(34:27):
real, real quickly, right?
He should have said look, ourgoal here is to make sure
critical services and productsare produced in this country.
We will do everything possibleto make sure that that happens,
so that the American people arenot at risk.
In case we end up in some sortof either conflict of a military

(34:47):
sort or of an economic sort.
We've got to bring these thingsback.
There's a lot of ways we can dothat, but by him saying, yeah,
they're coming back, loose talk.
The minute he goes with thatloose talk, he's in trouble,
okay.
So that's why words matter, andthe people that come out and
speak for you have to be tightin their communication style.
Howard Ludnick is not.
Howard Ludnick is too loosewith his communication style and

(35:09):
because he is, he hurts theadministration.
Someone like Scott Besson isbetter at it, he's tighter with
it and he keeps on message.
So when you're off message, theminute he said, oh yeah, all
those things are coming back, heblew it up.
He blew it up the minute Carlled him into that and he said
yep, yep, yep.
And then he uses the messagingright.

(35:31):
He says we've got to return allthese credits.
That's absolutely true.
You lead with that and then youdon't answer the part if
they're coming back, because,first of all, I'm not sure they
are.
Secondly, he wants them to comeback but I'm not sure they're
going to Whatever.
But he's stolen the message byagreeing with Jonathan Karl, who
led him into a wood chipper.
This was not a good moment forhim.

(35:51):
You have to be disciplined inyour communication style and
there are so many people who arenot Even at the presidential
level, you know, even at anadministration.
It's incredibly important thatyou're smart about this stuff.
Lutnik is too loose with it andmy guess is you're going to see
less and less of Lutnik.
I think you're going to seeless and less of Lutnick.
I think you're going to seeless and less of Navarro right,
because these guys are too loosewith the things that they say.

(36:13):
So you've got to get someonelike Besant who is tighter on
these messages and understandsthat even the wrong statement,
even a quick agreement like thatwas right.
Even that quick agreement, itsidelined everything.
So all of a sudden, the marketsget up on Monday morning and
the flexibility that theadministration tries to provide
in some of this, to give themsome room to negotiate, is ends

(36:36):
up.
The story again gets hijackedand it will be what happens with
the stock market and againwe've made the case that the
stock market's not the economy.
But you can't stack up dayafter day when you step in it on
these little things, right?

Speaker 4 (36:47):
You've got to be careful, more disciplined on
that.
Well, we'll see if there's anyimpact then coming in on the
stock market from that situation.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
That'd be interesting to see right On Monday.

Speaker 4 (36:54):
It could be wrong.
Can have somebody else go outand talk in between.

Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yeah, I don't think he's a great carrier of the
message.
I don't think he's effective,right, I don't think he's
effective.
And again, you don't have to besuper smooth and you don't have
to be the silver Fox out theresaying all the answers, right,
but you've got to be good andit's got to make sense of the
differences.
And we've directed you tolisten to Besant before.
He's just has to navigate.
Lutnick leads with his personalbeliefs on this, so does
Navarro, and that ends upgetting the administration in

(37:25):
trouble, not necessarily from apolicy sense, but from a
political sense, where you endup having to clean up things on
aisle four that you don't wantto have to clean up.

Speaker 4 (37:33):
Right, ok, there was a new list that came out and
it's not great news for us.
Once again, it's about the mosttaxed states in America.
How do you think we fall onthis?
I?

Speaker 3 (37:42):
bet we're not in great shape on this.

Speaker 4 (37:44):
We are not in great shape, okay.

Speaker 3 (37:46):
So what's our average percentage?
About 9.6% right.

Speaker 4 (37:49):
Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
And it's it's uh, so we're inthe top 12 states of the one of
the highest states getting a tax.

Speaker 3 (37:57):
Okay, so I bet if you read these top 12 states.
In fact, let's go ahead andtake a look at these top 12
states.

Speaker 4 (38:03):
Yep, we got Hawaii.

Speaker 3 (38:04):
New York.

Speaker 4 (38:05):
Vermont, California, Maine.

Speaker 3 (38:07):
Yeah, every one of these is left-leaning state all
the way through 13.
Yes, every single one Okay nowdon't forget how New Mexico fits
into this.
We have a $3 billion budgetsurplus.
Did we get significant tax cutsfor working families in the
state of New Mexico?

Speaker 4 (38:20):
We got no tax breaks for anybody in the state of New
Mexico.

Speaker 3 (38:23):
There's some stuff there, but not significant,
especially for the vast majorityof the state.
So you have literally billionsof dollars in surplus and we're
one of the most heavily taxedstates in the country.
How's it working out for us?

Speaker 4 (38:35):
Well, number one in food stamps, and so that's-.

Speaker 3 (38:38):
So right.
And so you look at this, youlook at this thing, You're
exactly right.
So when you look at that, thosenumbers for food stamps right,
and we are at the level thatwe're at, and again it's clip 21
or the level that we're at.
So as we look at that, you see,okay, you know what money going
back into people's pockets andincentivizing them to be able to
keep more of their own moneywould work here, but we don't do

(39:01):
it.

Speaker 4 (39:01):
No, it's not happening.
I mean we are highest inpoverty, I believe we're one of
the most I mean we need, we havemost people on welfare of any
other place in the country and Ijust I can't understand how our
state legislature can't vote infavor of giving a tax rebate,
especially an oil and gas taxrebate, which we've discussed at
length about how this makessense.

Speaker 3 (39:23):
Eliminate the income tax for every family in New
Mexico earning under $100,000 ayear.
Do that in a heartbeat.
You will help every one ofthose families, every one of
them.
They could absolutely do it.
It'll probably cost around $1.5billion.
They could easily do it.
They have the money to do it,but they won't.
But they won't.
So that part of it isincredibly frustrating.

(39:46):
And they do it because theyhave a they have a political
ideology that trumps actualinformation on the ground and
actually helping people.
If you get rid of your ideologyand you say, what do we need to
do to help people, there aresome pretty simple answers where
you could reach across theaisle and get stuff done.
But no, it's politics first inSanta Fe, and that's that's the
part of this that's frustratingAll right, Okay.

Speaker 4 (40:03):
Well, let's talk a little bit about this op-ed with
Dan Lewis.
We are friends with Dan Lewis.
He's a city counselor.
We believe in the that.
His passion towards helping thecity is very clear.
I mean, he goes to bat for alot of the issues that I think
we want here in the state and toprotect ourselves in the city
of Albuquerque.
So he writes a column.

Speaker 3 (40:20):
This is today's Albuquerque Journal.
Sunday's Albuquerque Journal.

Speaker 4 (40:23):
And so it's about the mayor, and he says,
albuquerque's agitating mayor,presiding over a city plagued by
crime.
A couple of things that wepulled out of this.
This is the mayor ofAlbuquerque stood on a stage at
Civic Plaza last Saturday andshouted legislate, litigate and
agitate to a crowd of far leftpolitical allies at a time when
the city is buckling underviolent crime, growing
homelessness and a stagnanteconomy.

(40:44):
This is his call to actionprovocation over policy and
noise over leadership.
And then he takes another hitreally at Keller and says
instead of guiding the cityforward, keller performs for the
cameras using borrowed slogansmeant to rally a radical base
rather than govern a city.
Just a week after the stateRepublican Party headquarters in

(41:05):
Albuquerque was firebombed, themayor offered no condemnation,
only a vague, borrowed, recklesscall to agitate.
What does it mean and who payswhen someone takes it so
seriously?
They become violent.
And still no explanation foragitate.
He borrowed that line fromfar-left political figures who
have used it to justify civilunrest across the country.

(41:25):
It's not leadership, it'sopportunism, it's a signal to
escalate, not to solve anything.
The last thing our city needsis an agitated mayor who
oversees a city with high crimerates and teenagers killing
teenagers.

Speaker 3 (41:40):
This is what you do when you have no answers.
You turn and you say look overhere, and you turn yourself into
a political sideshow.
You are the mayor.
You've been the mayor for eightyears.
Things have unquestionably spunout of control.
Grow up, get out of the whole,stand on stage and do your rally

(42:02):
garbage and go solve someproblems.
But he's not going to do that,so he's clearly not serious
about doing the things that needto be done to help this city.

Speaker 4 (42:12):
Well, I mean, it's just a bummer if you want to go
and have like a town meetingkind of thing or town hall
meeting or something like that,where you want to get up and you
want to address issues for thegeneral public, fine, do that.
Showing up to a hands-off rallythat's very clear, very just,
more divisive than anything elsewe've seen.
Why would a mayor with a citythat is now the now it's been
called the most dangerous cityin the world by that travel

(42:34):
blogger that we showed right,that came in here, but it's
ranked as the 23rd.
It's ranked in the 20 to 23rdmost dangerous city in the world
.
When you've got that knockingon your door, you've got the
homelessness issue knocking onyour door, why are you showing
up at a political protest?

Speaker 3 (42:48):
Well, I mean, but even so, why do?

Speaker 4 (42:49):
you have time to even do that and then you're sitting
there saying agitate, agitate,agitate, Like really.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
That's the no and I think if you're doing a decent
job in your city and you want togo out and support people that
you think support your samepolitical ideology, I'm fine
with that, but you've justfailed miserably.
So this is what you're doing inlieu of actually your job.
That's the biggest issue to me.
It's like you have a job to do.
It's overwhelmed.
You You're clearly not up tothe job.
So let's go out and go to apolitical rally and start

(43:15):
screaming into a microphone.
Screaming into a microphone.
It's a joke.
And that part of this and Danhits them hard.
It's very well written and verywell done and Dan does a good
job of cutting through exactlywhat the reality is and the
point being here, this is goingto be an interesting mayor's
election.
We'll see what happens with it.
I mean, you have the NationalGuard now coming into
Albuquerque, which we talkedabout on our last episode.
That it is an interestingchoice by the governor not

(43:41):
necessarily one that supportsTim Keller, because this is all
a joke but what Dan also talksabout in this is the fact that
the city council has stood upand give the mayor everything
he's needed for tools like morepolice officers.
Funding for all these things isthere on the table, but he
can't seem to get any of it done.
So he's going to go run out andstart screaming into a
microphone.
Grow up, I mean honestly, growup and do the job.

(44:02):
But clearly that's not going tohappen.
The question is will votersdial in enough to say, okay,
here's our alternative?
You know, hopefully they'll dothat with Darren White.
I mean, that's our hope.

Speaker 4 (44:12):
Well, I guess I hope that people are starting to see
again and I've said this, so I'mblue in the face, but honestly
I hope that people are startingto connect high crime, high
homelessness and our state goinggetting worse, our state
getting worse, worse and worseto our actual people in
leadership, Like if you continueto not understand that those
things are correlated and youmiss the mark and you think I'm
only going to, I just keepvoting the same party over and

(44:33):
over because it's always beenthis way, It'll always stay this
way.
That's just not true and youcan actually see that crime rate
going up and again, we'vecovered this at length.
So go back and watch our lastepisode, because we did go after
Keller pretty harsh and talkingabout why that National Guard
was coming into the city ofAlbuquerque.
That's our last episode, if youhappen to miss it.

Speaker 3 (44:51):
Okay, and one other thing on pure politics front
it's important to have goodstaff, because when you have
good staff, they put you in aposition to make sure you don't
end up in a bad position.
Our bad staff award of the weekgoes to Gretchen Whitmer's
staff.
Okay, this is a real picture ofGretchen Whitmer, who ended up
in the Oval Office withPresident Trump and she was in

(45:15):
town in DC to talk about thepotential for a National Guard
base near Detroit.
Ok, and it would take federalfunding and that makes sense.
That the governor would sitdown with the president and say,
hey, can we do this, can we getit done?
Yeah, nothing to do withpolitics in that particular case
.
But she ends up in the room, ok,and then he's talking.
It says some nice things abouther and she's standing there

(45:36):
looking like she wants to vomit.
And then they immediately pivotwith her standing in the room
to the president signing a bunchof executive orders which I'm
sure she did not agree with.
So he started to sign thesethings and she's literally
sitting there like she'ssupporting it.
Now, clearly she's not, but herstaff allowing her to end up in
that room during that moment,and then she doesn't want her

(46:00):
picture taken, so she puts afolder up in front of her face.
I mean, this picture iscraziness again.
I mean it just it's, it's crazy,it's so you know, and he's
going to draw more attention toher than if she should have just
put her head down and just kindof been like oh, I got burned
Right, but you got to have goodstaff.
So this gets back to the point.
You have a big Democratic fieldthat's going to get ready to

(46:22):
get going in twenty twenty eight, and Mark Halperin believes
that now there are plenty ofpeople who say they've got a
really deep bench and they'vegot good people, and my guess is
we don't know who their nomineeis yet.
In other words, that personcould still emerge from a lot of
a lot's going to happen betweennow and then, but here's what
Halperin had to say on hispodcast about how that all
played out and how the fact ofthe matter is they're still

(46:44):
maybe looking for somebody tochallenge the Republicans in
2028.

Speaker 5 (46:50):
The 2028 Democratic field is overrated.
Running for president andwinning the nomination and
winning the general electiontakes major league talent.
And these folks I've been asingle one of them out, but I'm
saying it's true of almost allof them you can, you can look at
a governor from 2000 miles awayand say, well, they look
amazing, they'd be a greatcandidate.

(47:10):
I'm telling you, these folkshave not had the level of
experience that some have.
Here's Gretchen Whitmer.
She went to the White Houseyesterday.
It's still a little unclearwhat she was doing there, but
she ended up in an Oval Officephoto op and then her press
person had to kind of apologizeand say she wasn't endorsing the

(47:31):
stuff that was going on in theWhite House.

Speaker 3 (47:32):
So look, just look at her, look how she appears to my
eyes.
Ok, so she does.
She wants it, she got caught inthere, and so I was in DC when
this went down.
She got caught in there, and soI was in DC when this went down
.
We were in a meeting with somemembers of the House of
Representatives and we wereliterally sitting in an office
right off the Capitol floor,right off the floor of the House
.
I mean, actually it wasPelosi's former office, by the

(47:52):
way, it's pretty funny, but it'sa nice looking office.
So we're sitting there and Istopped the meeting and I said
is that Gretchen Whitmer in theOval and every staffer in the
congressman's?
Like no way?
And they turn it.
And it was.
And we're just like how couldthis happen?
Right?
I mean, how could your peoplelet you get caught into this?
And again.

Speaker 4 (48:14):
it's just hilarious.
Well, why wouldn't she justwalk out too, is the question.
I mean, it's a tough moment,it's a tough moment.

Speaker 3 (48:18):
It's a tough moment, right?
Yeah, it's hard, because then,once you get in there, you don't
want to be a jerk at the sametime.

Speaker 4 (48:24):
But you put a folder in front of your face when the
cameras are.
Well, there was one.

Speaker 3 (48:27):
No, there was some of that.
No-transcript this.

(48:49):
But to be president of theUnited States takes a certain
level of skill and talent.
That is, that is next level.
It is I don't care which whatparty you're in it really does.
Well, the Biden thing was weird, but you know what I mean.
Okay, you know what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
So in general it does .

Speaker 3 (49:06):
It does take a certain level of political skill
.
Now your policy may be adisaster.
That's not the point I'm making.
I'm just saying it.
So it always, you know,whenever I hear people say, oh,
prison's a moron or whatever, itis like no, not really a moron.
You may not agree with whatthey, what they say or do or
whatever else in most cases, youknow, and obviously I think the
Biden thing is differentbecause of health issues and
issues like that.

(49:26):
But but my point being on allthis is it takes the right set
of circumstances, a person thatcan execute on them, and then
the perfect timing right In allthese things and one of the
things I always tell people,especially new candidates who
want to get in, one of thethings I've said to them is my
first piece of advice is alwaysyour success or failure will
likely come down to somethingthat is completely and totally

(49:46):
out of your control.
So when things like that happen,you've got to have people
around you that are really goodat executing on keeping you in a
good political position, andGretchen Whitmer's people didn't
do that.
One person who may also be inthat circle is Josh Shapiro.
Right, he's somebody who wantsto run for president of the
United States.

Speaker 4 (50:05):
Yeah, he was a contender for vice president.

Speaker 3 (50:07):
Very much so Before Tim.

Speaker 4 (50:08):
Walz, which honestly, could have changed the entire
election.

Speaker 3 (50:10):
It could have.
It could have, yeah, it couldhave.
And talk about scary whathappened to him.

Speaker 4 (50:15):
Yeah, so this is a.
It's a Keystone is.
His house was set on fire by anarsonist while his family slept
.
I mean, this is the New York,yeah.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
And so there, you know it's interesting too about
like, for example, ourgovernor's residence is not
right next to the road,thankfully, I mean, I don't.
I don't think our and it lookslike theirs is right and the
state police are always thereprotecting the governor, but I'm
glad ours is not, because wedon't want our governor
subjected to garbage like thisand I don't know who you know,
as we're recording this, wedon't know who did this.

(50:45):
Hopefully we're going to findout, and that person's going to
go to jail for a long timebecause Shapiro, his family,
they could have been killed,right, I mean, this is
ridiculous, it's just asridiculous.

Speaker 4 (50:55):
when politics I don't care, I mean, obviously he's a
Democrat, right?
So like somebody that justagreed with his policies or
whatever it is.
It just like the firebombing ofour Republican headquarters here
.
This violent approach to thingsis just.
It needs to stop and that's whywhen I hear things, when I hear

(51:16):
leadership talking aboutagitate in any level whatsoever,
I don't like it.
I think stay away from thiskind of rhetoric because it just
heats it up.
It keeps things going.
We didn't show the clip fromthis, but you know it's
interesting if you've listenedto Bill Maher lately talking
about he's going.
He went to DC and had dinnerwith Trump and a lot of people
are like, oh, you felt like youback, you know you backstab her
and you trade her and all thesethings about like how dare you
go over there and you knowswitch sides and stuff.

(51:37):
And he's like no, I actuallytook him.
All the nasty things he saidabout me.
I took him a list and I showedhim the list.
He goes.
I went because I'm tired ofthis.
Hey, I'm gonna fight it out onmy side and this guy's gonna
fight it out on his side andwe're never gonna find any sort
of thing to agree on.
We have to stop that kind ofrhetoric.
I'm gonna make fun of him.
The rest of his life.
He's probably gonna make fun ofme sometimes, but I wanted to

(51:58):
see what he was really like andhe guess what.
He actually turned out to havea sense of humor.
He actually turned out to wantto listen to me and have a
normal conversation.

Speaker 5 (52:05):
So he wasn't like I'm a Trumper but he's just as like
and he never will be right.

Speaker 4 (52:09):
He's still going to be a liberal and he's going to
stay on that side of the aislepart.
I liked the fact that he camein and said we have to stop all
this hate and vitriol rhetoricthat just keeps going.
It just keeps stirring the potstirring the pot.
Nothing good is coming fromthat.

(52:29):
So why can't we not stop andjust have conversations and
disagree on policy issues andtalk about what can we do to get
to the other side of this?
That's what I appreciated aboutit.
You see things like this guygetting this, you know Josh
getting his house lit on fire,cars getting bombed, whatever
that are things that arehappening.
Cars getting keyed it's enough.
Stop People punching each otherin the face.

(52:50):
Grow up Like we are not allgoing to agree on policy.
We're just not.
But we do need to have humandecency in this country and
that's what Americans should befor and be supportive of that
and just having a level of classand respect for one another,
even when we blatantly disagreewith each other.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
Yep, I agree.
Enough of that.
No, agreed, agreed.
It's really well said.
Okay, we are good for now,we're going to do it.
That's it.

Speaker 4 (53:15):
You just put an exclamation point on this thing,
oh, I put a little bow on thatoh you sure did you put
something on it.
Okay, and we do want to sayhappy Passover to our Jewish
friends.
Yes, because that is sort ofofficial.

Speaker 3 (53:23):
Absolutely, absolutely.
And we've got Good Fridaycoming up on Friday and then, of
course, easter Sunday afterthat.
It's an incredible week.
Holy Week, yep.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
Holy Week is the to get to church.
Please do that and we will beback with you coming up on
Wednesday night.
You've been listening to the noDoubt About it podcast.
We hope you've enjoyed the show.
We know we had a blast.
Make sure to like, rate andreview.
We'll be back soon, but in themeantime you can find us on
Instagram and Facebook at noDoubt About it podcast.

Speaker 9 (53:58):
No doubt about it.
The.

Speaker 2 (53:59):
No Doubt About it Podcast.
No doubt about it, the no DoubtAbout it Podcast is a Choose
Adventure Media production.
See you next time on no DoubtAbout it.

Speaker 3 (54:09):
There is no doubt about it.