August 15, 2025 • 31 mins
The redistricting wars are here and who better to have a conversation about them with than David Daley? David Daley is the author of the new book "Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections" and the national bestseller "Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count."
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/facepalm-america--5189985/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/facepalm-america--5189985/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
I'm Beawolf Rockland, and this is Face paulm America. Thank
you so much for being here. It has been a
long time since I have created a new episode of
this program, and there's a specific reason that I'm doing it,
Good News for Lefties. I'm glad that you listen to it.
If you do, if you haven't heard of it, you
(00:31):
can go to good News for Lefties dot com and
listen to it there. It's for positive stories every day.
But the story that I'm dealing with today is not
such a positive story. I'm hopeful that it will eventually
have a positive outcome, but at the moment, it doesn't
look so good. And I will tell you it is
(00:52):
about redistricting. It is about jerrymandering and all of the
issues that we've been hearing in the headlines. You know,
from Texas to California, from Ohio to Maryland to New Mexico,
there is a crazy crisis going on. And I remembered
back to about gosh, I want to say, thirteen maybe
(01:16):
even fifteen years ago, when I had a conversation with
someone about a district that looked like goofy kicking Donald Duck,
and it was you remember that one. David Daly is
joining us.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Today Pennsylvania thirteen. I remember it, well, there you go.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
It is so convoluted, it was so twisted that it
resembled Disney characters violently interacting with one another.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
David, you are the.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Of our politics, right there, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
I know it's nuts. And I know that at some point,
like people like ran a marathon or a foot race,
like to reflect the borders of of some district to
demonstrate just how thoroughly ridiculous the twisting of this was
politicians essentially choosing their own electorate. And it's you know,
(02:13):
it's a it's a complicated thing. First, I want to
properly introduce you, David Daily. He is the author of Unrigged,
How Americans are Battling back to save Democracy, and one
that I particularly remember back in the day ratfucked why
your vote doesn't count? And what I particularly remember from that,
(02:34):
and I think you came out with this in what
About It was referring back to twenty twelve and that cycle,
and at that point the Republicans had really gotten on
locking up the control of as many state legislatures as
they possibly could and now, and that's because they control
(02:56):
the redistricting process. And now the chickens are coming home
to roosts, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yes, they've been. They've been coming home for some time now.
I don't think you can understand American politics without understanding
how Republicans reinvented the gerrymander back in twenty ten, twenty
eleven as a high tech, blunt force partisan weapon. And
(03:24):
I know both sides of jerrymandered.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
I know.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, jerrymander has been with us for a time immemorial.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
I mean they came up.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
The root of the word is Is it Eldridge Jerry,
who is a politician in the in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Eighteen twelve, governor of Massachusetts draws districts around Boston. They
look like salamander, becomes known as the gerrymander. We've been
doing this for a long time. These jerrymanders today are
not Elbridge Gary's jerrymanders. It's just you know, but it
seems as if we have to keep repeating that.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
These are really high tech like computer programs that they
used to go like and analyze things and block by
block in order to get just the combination of voters
that they want to get the control in their states.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Republicans are really really good at this. It might be
the thing they're best at is redistricting because they know
they have to be good at it because that's how
they hold control of so many places, even when the
policies are unpopular. So the Lions have to be really
really good in order to maintain that control. And you know,
(04:39):
you know, talk to one of your friends who lives
in Wisconsin or North Carolina if you really want to
understand the power of these district lines to not only
affect your vote and your representatives, but the state of
policy in your state.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Because you have both of those states have democratic governors,
and yet the state legislators, because they have been so
powerfully locked in controlled by Republicans, are able to maintain
that control by making these crazy districts.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And they have been now for fifteen years. Yes, this
isn't something that you know. In the old days, a
jerrymander would wash out over the course of a decade.
People would move, people would die, there'd be a political wave.
The lines would not be strong enough to withstand it.
Today's gerrymanders are so good that they not only last
(05:33):
for a decade, but sometimes they bleed into a second decade.
So as the gerrymander wars pick up across the country
and so many states are about to consider or have
already drawn new wildly gerrymandered maps to lock in partisan control,
(05:53):
we have to be looking at this as the representational
crisis that it is. This is a five alarm fire.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean, first of all, it's crazy to me
that going back, you know, twenty years, the Democrats weren't
paying attention to this in the same way that the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Are and correct and Democrats are still paying the price
for this. It was political ineptitude. It was incompetence of
the of the highest variety. I mean, Democrats lost Barack
Obama's second term because they were completely unaware of the
(06:30):
Republican gerrymandering strategy. Democrats won one point four million more
votes for the US House back in twenty twelve states
that Obama won. The swing states that Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
(06:51):
They gave Republicans sixty four of ninety four members of
Congress that year. Ye you know, so that was the
real effective set of lines in which one guy wins statewide,
but when you divvy it all up, the other party
takes two thirds of the congressional seats.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
And so here we are.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Yeah, at this point.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Everything is on fire at this point, and we've sort
of gone past this point. But like, as a whole,
I mean, there's so many other things to focus on.
But as a whole, have the Democrats are Do they
get this yet? Have they focused? Do they focus adequate
resources on it?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Now?
Speaker 2 (07:36):
They get it?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Now?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
The trouble with the jerryman is it's it's just it's
really hard to defeat.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
So it's a it's a really good defensive tactic politically
in our system.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It's terrific. I mean, it's deeply anti democratic. It's highly effective.
So Democrats, you know, it took a couple of cycles
for Democrats to realize, oh something changed here. This is weird.
Why can't how is it that we keep winning elections
but losing elections? And you know, because for a long
(08:11):
time people thought, oh, the jerrymaners, you're something people do
and it's always happened, and you can defeat it at
the ballot box. You know, guess what you can't anymore.
So it took Democrats some time. The trouble is, eventually
you have to beat it at the ballot box if
you ever want to win the power to draw the
(08:33):
lines back yourself, and Democrats have not had a lot
of luck there. There were some states that defeated the
Jerry mendor by knocking it out in state courts, so
Pennsylvania and you know, North Carolina. Temporarily Florida won a
new map the middle of last decade. But Democrats then
(08:59):
invested a lot of hope that the federal courts would
step in and fix this, and they were for some
time until John Roberts in twenty nineteen put an end
to those dreams in the Common Cause versus Ruto case
out of North Carolina, and he not only ruled against
the lower court, but he closed the federal courts in
(09:20):
perpetuity to these claims forever and ever. Amen.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Yeah, I mean, who knows what could happen now, but
it certainly doesn't look good on the federal level given
the current makeup of the court. And it's not likely
to change, you know, even if somehow the things are
to shift on a federal level at the executive or
the congressional level. Let's talk about like what is going
(09:46):
on right now, because we see Texas doing what they're
going to do. First of all, one, I'm assuming that
by all ordinary precedents, this is essentially illegal what they're
trying to do. And at least as of the last
I've heard they are going the special session has ended.
(10:07):
I'm sure that isn't ending their efforts to make this change.
The Democrats fled the state to deprive Republicans of a
quorum so they couldn't push this through. They'll probably find
some other way to do it. I suspect, knowing the
state of politics in Texas, this is not legal, is it?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
It's legal? It just busts every norm and every unwritten
rule of American politics, which is that you only jerrymander
once a decade, right, you don't do it after every
single election. But we all know that this party thinks
that norms and unwritten rules are for suckers and totally
(10:51):
they will run rough shot over anything if it gets
in their way.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
So what are the laws around that?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Because I guess I had been in the back of
my mind under the impression that the Constitution, like you know,
mandated the it mandates the census, but I guess it
doesn't explicitly mandate like redistricting.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
That's kind of up to the states, right.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The states have to redistrict every year after the census
to account for population changes.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Right, But it doesn't say they can't do it in
the middle of that.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
There you go. It doesn't technically say you can. You
only have to do that. Some states do have rules
around it, because otherwise what you would see, right is
that control of the state legislature could change in the
middle of the decade and the party gets in and
they just say, well, we're going to also redraw all
(11:41):
the congressional districts and so that in order to put
an end to that kind of your canary, some states
have said we do this once a decade and that's it.
Some states have it in their state constitution, we only
do it once a decade. Texas pretty much all that's a.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Rough right And in the case of California, now that
Newsom is is responding to what Texas because is doing,
they're going to have to find a way, a legal
way around to do it themselves, assuming I mean, because
they do have something in place that would ordinarily keep
them from doing it. They have what an independent redistricting
(12:21):
board or something like that.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
In California, they took the power to draw these lines
away from the legislature, gave it to an independent commission. Uh,
you know, it's best. It's the best independent commission. It's
best process in the country. Newsom also recognizes that California
is the only state really that has the number of
districts available to perhaps counter what's going on in Californian
(12:44):
in Texas. So they have a really tricky process to
get through if they want to win the right to
gerry mender maps themselves to retaliate. You know, first the
legislature has to refer this to the ballot with the
two thirds vote, and then it has to pass. So
(13:05):
voters who hate jerrymandering, who said in two thousand and
eight and twenty ten, we don't trust the California legislature
to draw these lines, We'll have to give a majority
vote to not only allowing the legislature to jerrymander, but
to draw a forty eight to four democratic map. A
(13:25):
lot of independence, a lot of Republicans in California, my guess,
will vote against that. Can they get it a high
enough percentage of Democrats to go along even after there's
a one hundred and thirty million dollars no campaign that
was just announced today. You know, it's not it's not
automatic by any stretch. So it's a long process in
(13:49):
California that's about to get underway.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Let us assume, for the for the sake of argument,
that Texas goes ahead and does what they're going to do.
It sounds like the process is much simpler, even with
the Democratic legislative towards fleeing the state. And let's let's
assume Texas does what they're going to do. Let's assume
California does what they're.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Going to do.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Now other states have said they're looking at the same
sorts of things, and who like there might be individual
states like that one aren't going to do it or
try to do it and don't.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Succeed in doing it.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Assuming that, like, let's assume for the for the abstract,
that every state in the Union did the most that
it could do to skew like it. All the democratic
controlled states are going to push it one way, all
the Republican controlled states are going to push it the other.
If it were to develop into a full flame war.
(14:57):
I realized that it may not do that. Maybe some
dios x Mashina will come in that we are currently
aware of. But if it happens that way, aren't the
Democrats still at a disadvantage given the fact that Republicans
control more states and state houses than the Democrats do.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It's exactly right. Democrats are at a disadvantage here. They
can't gerrymander their way out of their gerrymander problem. And
that's what they're trying to do, and it's going to
be just as ineffective, honestly as most Democratic political strategies.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Yeah, yeah, to be so.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
If assuming that Texas and California balance each other out,
Republicans will not stop in California. They're going to move
to Ohio next, where there's two seats that they can
pick up, Missouri and Indiana after that. Ron De Santis
is talking about a new map in Florida. He's targeting
four or five. I don't think you can get four
(16:02):
or five. You can get two or three. If Republicans
want to keep going, they could go to Kansas, Kentucky,
New Hampshire, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina. They could probably pick
up one each. In those states, Democrats are a little
stuck because they can't do anything in New York, no
(16:25):
matter how tough the governor there is talking.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
And why is that the case?
Speaker 4 (16:28):
Because I've heard the state constitution would need to be amended,
and you can't amend the state constitution in one cycle,
so it would take until twenty twenty eighth in order
to get that done.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Wow, Okay, that wasn'twirre.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
So New York is off the board at this time around.
Illinois Democrats did a pretty good gerrymander there. Already they've
got fourteen of seventeen seats. Could you pick up one more?
Most people don't think so. Maryland is all already a
seven to one democratic map. Could you pick up the
eighth seat? I doubt it, And also I don't think
(17:07):
the state court there would let you. They've already stopped
one eight zero map. Earlier this year, the governor of Oregon,
where there's a five to one Democratic gerrymander, said she's
not going for it. Nevada Democrats have already outstretched themselves.
They've already they've already done what they can do. In
New Mexico, I don't see where they have targets or
(17:31):
opportunities left. I think they are. They're finally talking tough
about bringing a gun to a gunfight, but you know,
it's a water gun, and they just don't have a
lot of AMMA.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
So we've seen the Democratic legislators in Texas do what
they did. How long can they find this off in Texas?
Speaker 3 (17:54):
And what other legitimate, legitimate.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
To succeed legal recourse or other recourse, political recourse do
Democrats have in this case, either state by state.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Or or on a federal level.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
It's bleak, And you know, I'm glad we're not doing
this on good news for lifting.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, no, I want to I want to space.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Yeah, yeah, you know, And I recognize that I'm giving
an unsatisfying answer here. You know, I say this sometimes
and people are like, well, you're suggesting we just take
it and not fight back. I'm not saying that. I
am suggesting that the current democratic strategy of trying the
(18:43):
gerryman or yourself out of this doesn't work. That there's
nothing you can do if Texas wants to go ahead
and do this. This is like passing any other law
in the state of Texas, and eventually these lawmakers have
to come back. They are a part time legislature. They're
getting fined five hundred dollars is a day, but getting
paid six hundred dollars a month for their jobs. They've
(19:04):
got families, they've got full time jobs. This is a
terrific John Lewis Goold trouble strategy for the short term.
They've called a lot of attention to the issue nationwide.
People are talking about it. I don't know if that
happens the same way, if these lawmakers don't leave town
and blow up the Korum. But it's you know, it's
(19:25):
not a permanent solution. So the permanent solution. You know,
this highlights that we're not going to fix gerrymandering unless
we fix it nationally. But that's going to require Congress,
right and the federal courts are out of the business
because Robert's decision in the Routo case. So this is
(19:45):
a long, long, difficult road, and it's going to require
winning elections. You know it's gonna and that means beatings
at the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
We can't just depend on a benevolent judge to hand
down some wonderful rule.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
It's not going to happen you know, no state judge
in Texas is going to stop this. That's why these
judges have been appointed to the state bench. They are
not on the side of voting rights. They are on
the side of raw partisan political power. That is how
you get appointed to state benches in places like Texas.
And the year of our report twenty twenty five. So Democrats,
(20:25):
if they want to take back the Congress, are going
to have to really study the potential targets, the potential
swing seats. There's not a lot of them. They're going
to lose a couple in Ohio. They're going to lose
a couple of Texas. The road is going to be tougher.
There's some seats in Pennsylvania, some seats in New York,
some seats in Virginia, the Don Bacon seat in Nebraska.
(20:47):
And they're going to have to find a way to
expand the map and go out and run elections in
all of these places and win. I don't see any
other way to do it. They don't don't have enough
states to jerrymander. You can't stop Texas. It's going to
be a tougher map. The courts aren't aren't riding to
(21:11):
your rescue, not a lot of good options.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Do you think at this point that the Democratic Party
as an institution is engaged enough and committed enough to
playing that kind of like consistent, hard fought ground game
in order.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
To make that happen?
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Because if you were talking about an ordinary year like
you like, there would be just a huge ground swell
that would result in the kind of you know, shellacking
that Barack Obama got in twenty ten, and you would
have you know, Donald Trump as a lame duck president.
But clearly, you know, if you know, if Democrats went
(21:59):
back the cong if they win back the House of Representatives,
the Senate doesn't look likely. If they win back the House,
it looks to be by a slim margin. Given all
of this, So do you see are you hearing that
they have the commitment to do this or are they
still deceiving themselves by pursuing this strategy? Do they get
(22:20):
what they're going to have to do?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I don't think so. I think people you know, I mean, listen,
the Democratic base right has been saying to its leaders,
toughen up and go fight for a long time, and
so a lot of the bluesday governors have toughened up
their talk, right, It's just that that's not enough of
(22:44):
a strategy. And so it's great that people are fighting,
it's great that people are engaged. It's great that Democrats
understand the magnitude of the problem. But the solutions that
they're putting forth right now are not.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Going to work.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
So they have to find some that will. And that's
going to require going out and winning elections, and honestly,
I don't think I don't think the average Democratic voter
is very good at that.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Either.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
This is going to take funding the elections that matter
and the places that can actually be won. Democrats love
to send off small dollar donations to whoever's running against
Marjory Taylor Green and so that person has got all
the money they need to run and win their race. Well,
stop doing.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
That's that's not really where it matters. It's all these
places like like you say, in upstate New York, or
you're here and there in Kentucky, or you know, little place, it's.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Going to be fifteen or sixteen districts. You know, maybe
there's one or two in Iowa. There's gonna be one
in Nebraska. You know they're gonna be in Virginia they're
gonna be the in central Pennsylvania, and there may not
be enough of them in all honesty, you know, but
those races have to be funded. There have to be
(24:02):
great challengers, and those races have to be funded if
they want to have a chance of winning. And I'm
not sure that that the party or the rank and file,
you know, get that. I mean, it's not as sexy
to send off your money to try to win some
district in central Illinois or central Iowa as it is
(24:23):
to say, well, I hate Marjorie Taylor Green, here's ten
bucks on my Act Blue every month?
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Right?
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Are there forces outside the Democratic Party who can help
them over the finish line in spite of themselves.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I think we'll need that. I think we'll need that.
This is going to take real, you know, a real
hard boiled look at what districts have to be won
and then just relentless focus on trying to win those places.
And honestly, that's the only strategy for ever taking back
(24:58):
the Senate as well. Right, I mean, you know, twenty
five states voted for Donald Trump three times. Those twenty
five states have fifty Republican senators, right, it's fifty for fifty. Yeah,
you know, Democrats don't even have two senators in Pennsylvania
or you know plenty of other blue states. So if
(25:23):
Democrats want to take back the Senate, realistically, that's the
only shot is you're going to have to go into
places where you can't win right now, where your brand
is toxic, and you're going to have to go talk
to people and persuade them.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Like real on the ground, person to person politics. And
it seems like the kind of politics that they've been
playing for a long time is just national media politics,
the same sort that focuses on the presidency and ignore
its state legislators.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
When Democrats won their super majority in the US Senate
in two thousand and eight in the Obama year, they
held both seats from South Dakota, both seats in Montana,
both seats in West Virginia. They had seats in Arkansas
and Nebraska. They were able to win in all of
these states where right now and that was only fifteen
(26:18):
years ago.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
So I guess one positive thing is that things can
change relatively quickly.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
That's right, Things changed really fast. But things changed so fast,
and they got so bad that their brand is so
toxic in these states that you know, it's when when
Osborne in Nebraska in twenty four did not run as
a Democrat, right, it came close as an independent.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
And he's running again, by the way, Yeah, and.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
He's running, right, So it's going to take showing up
talking to people, breaking through the media apparatus, you know,
the Fox use propaganda wings and all of these things
that are out there.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
And not to mention the so called mainstream outlets that
have at this point completely capitulated to Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
So many of them have.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Yeah, it's it's not looking good, you know.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
I think this is definitely more of a a face
palm conversation as opposed to a good news conversation.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yeah, sorry about that. I hope no, No, I know,
I want them to do it some other time. On
the other one, Right, maybe.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
There will be individual opportunities for for good news conversations
and we'll we'll definitely.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Have some of them there.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
David, I want to ask you one last question. I mean,
is this really sounds to me like a generational struggle?
I mean, like and it involves I think, frankly a
lot more than even redistricting. But if you even look
just at the redistricting situation. This is something that's that's
going to take a long time and a lot of assistance.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
As you said, it's not an easy solution.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
I think though, that we're looking at something that in
order to completely get over this, like not even just
like preserve our democracy, but in order to fix the
problem of this radical jerrymandering, we're looking at decades or generations.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
As opposed to like years. That's what I'm hearing, is
that what you're seeing.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I fear that's right. I think this is a very
long term fight. I mean Wisconsin, where they have finally
won back some semblance of fairness in their legislative maps.
It took them fifteen years, and it took a strategy
of slowly winning back state Supreme Court seats and then
(28:52):
bringing a case that would upend those maps. So democrats
have to understand where the levers of power are in
order to pry back fairness, and then they have to
single mindedly try to regain control over those levers. Really
(29:13):
really difficult in some of these states. It's a long
term play, and people lose patience or these sound balid
races that people don't understand the high stakes of it's
going to take communicating the stakes, communicating the plan, having
a plan be focused and funded that is long term
(29:37):
and relentless, or else nothing else works.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Yeah, well, we got to start somewhere, and you know things,
big things are on the line. So it may as
well if it's not really beginning here. And again, given
the fact that you've acknowledged that the Democrats still aren't
quite there in terms of where their maintalit that he
needs to be in what they need to do, then
(30:03):
let it begin here. Let this go forth to the
powers that be in the Democratic Party and say this
is going to be hard to fight. Please engage in this,
not just a war of words, because that it is
going to take something serious. Otherwise the future does not
look good. David Daily, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Again.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
His books are Unrigged, how Americans are battling back to
save democracy and rat fucked. Why your vote doesn't count
that as an excellent one.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I love that. I love talking about years ago. And
it is.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
An unfortunate history of Republicans, you know, understanding where power
resides and the Democrats not understanding where power resides. And
it really has a lot to do with where we
are today. Where else can folks find out what you're doing,
what you're up to.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Absolutely, there's one more new book called The Anti Democratic
Inside the far right fifty year plot to control American elections.
You can find that online wherever you buy books, or
in your bookstores wherever you get them. I'm a senior
fellow at fair Vote. You can find this at fair
vote dot org. You can find me on the Blue
Sky at Dave Daily Dave Daily three on the old Twitter,
(31:17):
but I'm not up there very much, so you know,
find me elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
I have migrated as well to the Blue Sky. David.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
I appreciate all of your insight, all of your focus
and putting this out there and hopefully getting inside the
heads of a few people that have some control over this,
because it's really really important. Thank you so much for
being with us today on Face Paul America.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Thank you for having me
I'm Beawolf Rockland, and this is Face paulm America. Thank
you so much for being here. It has been a
long time since I have created a new episode of
this program, and there's a specific reason that I'm doing it,
Good News for Lefties. I'm glad that you listen to it.
If you do, if you haven't heard of it, you
(00:31):
can go to good News for Lefties dot com and
listen to it there. It's for positive stories every day.
But the story that I'm dealing with today is not
such a positive story. I'm hopeful that it will eventually
have a positive outcome, but at the moment, it doesn't
look so good. And I will tell you it is
(00:52):
about redistricting. It is about jerrymandering and all of the
issues that we've been hearing in the headlines. You know,
from Texas to California, from Ohio to Maryland to New Mexico,
there is a crazy crisis going on. And I remembered
back to about gosh, I want to say, thirteen maybe
(01:16):
even fifteen years ago, when I had a conversation with
someone about a district that looked like goofy kicking Donald Duck,
and it was you remember that one. David Daly is
joining us.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Today Pennsylvania thirteen. I remember it, well, there you go.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
It is so convoluted, it was so twisted that it
resembled Disney characters violently interacting with one another.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
David, you are the.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Of our politics, right there, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
I know it's nuts. And I know that at some point,
like people like ran a marathon or a foot race,
like to reflect the borders of of some district to
demonstrate just how thoroughly ridiculous the twisting of this was
politicians essentially choosing their own electorate. And it's you know,
(02:13):
it's a it's a complicated thing. First, I want to
properly introduce you, David Daily. He is the author of Unrigged,
How Americans are Battling back to save Democracy, and one
that I particularly remember back in the day ratfucked why
your vote doesn't count? And what I particularly remember from that,
(02:34):
and I think you came out with this in what
About It was referring back to twenty twelve and that cycle,
and at that point the Republicans had really gotten on
locking up the control of as many state legislatures as
they possibly could and now, and that's because they control
(02:56):
the redistricting process. And now the chickens are coming home
to roosts, aren't they.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Yes, they've been. They've been coming home for some time now.
I don't think you can understand American politics without understanding
how Republicans reinvented the gerrymander back in twenty ten, twenty
eleven as a high tech, blunt force partisan weapon. And
(03:24):
I know both sides of jerrymandered.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
I know.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah, jerrymander has been with us for a time immemorial.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
I mean they came up.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
The root of the word is Is it Eldridge Jerry,
who is a politician in the in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Is that right? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (03:41):
Eighteen twelve, governor of Massachusetts draws districts around Boston. They
look like salamander, becomes known as the gerrymander. We've been
doing this for a long time. These jerrymanders today are
not Elbridge Gary's jerrymanders. It's just you know, but it
seems as if we have to keep repeating that.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
These are really high tech like computer programs that they
used to go like and analyze things and block by
block in order to get just the combination of voters
that they want to get the control in their states.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Republicans are really really good at this. It might be
the thing they're best at is redistricting because they know
they have to be good at it because that's how
they hold control of so many places, even when the
policies are unpopular. So the Lions have to be really
really good in order to maintain that control. And you know,
(04:39):
you know, talk to one of your friends who lives
in Wisconsin or North Carolina if you really want to
understand the power of these district lines to not only
affect your vote and your representatives, but the state of
policy in your state.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Because you have both of those states have democratic governors,
and yet the state legislators, because they have been so
powerfully locked in controlled by Republicans, are able to maintain
that control by making these crazy districts.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
And they have been now for fifteen years. Yes, this
isn't something that you know. In the old days, a
jerrymander would wash out over the course of a decade.
People would move, people would die, there'd be a political wave.
The lines would not be strong enough to withstand it.
Today's gerrymanders are so good that they not only last
(05:33):
for a decade, but sometimes they bleed into a second decade.
So as the gerrymander wars pick up across the country
and so many states are about to consider or have
already drawn new wildly gerrymandered maps to lock in partisan control,
(05:53):
we have to be looking at this as the representational
crisis that it is. This is a five alarm fire.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean, first of all, it's crazy to me
that going back, you know, twenty years, the Democrats weren't
paying attention to this in the same way that the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Are and correct and Democrats are still paying the price
for this. It was political ineptitude. It was incompetence of
the of the highest variety. I mean, Democrats lost Barack
Obama's second term because they were completely unaware of the
(06:30):
Republican gerrymandering strategy. Democrats won one point four million more
votes for the US House back in twenty twelve states
that Obama won. The swing states that Obama won Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
(06:51):
They gave Republicans sixty four of ninety four members of
Congress that year. Ye you know, so that was the
real effective set of lines in which one guy wins statewide,
but when you divvy it all up, the other party
takes two thirds of the congressional seats.
Speaker 3 (07:10):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
And so here we are.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Yeah, at this point.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Everything is on fire at this point, and we've sort
of gone past this point. But like, as a whole,
I mean, there's so many other things to focus on.
But as a whole, have the Democrats are Do they
get this yet? Have they focused? Do they focus adequate
resources on it?
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Now?
Speaker 2 (07:36):
They get it?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Now?
Speaker 2 (07:37):
The trouble with the jerryman is it's it's just it's
really hard to defeat.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
So it's a it's a really good defensive tactic politically
in our system.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
It's terrific. I mean, it's deeply anti democratic. It's highly effective.
So Democrats, you know, it took a couple of cycles
for Democrats to realize, oh something changed here. This is weird.
Why can't how is it that we keep winning elections
but losing elections? And you know, because for a long
(08:11):
time people thought, oh, the jerrymaners, you're something people do
and it's always happened, and you can defeat it at
the ballot box. You know, guess what you can't anymore.
So it took Democrats some time. The trouble is, eventually
you have to beat it at the ballot box if
you ever want to win the power to draw the
(08:33):
lines back yourself, and Democrats have not had a lot
of luck there. There were some states that defeated the
Jerry mendor by knocking it out in state courts, so
Pennsylvania and you know, North Carolina. Temporarily Florida won a
new map the middle of last decade. But Democrats then
(08:59):
invested a lot of hope that the federal courts would
step in and fix this, and they were for some
time until John Roberts in twenty nineteen put an end
to those dreams in the Common Cause versus Ruto case
out of North Carolina, and he not only ruled against
the lower court, but he closed the federal courts in
(09:20):
perpetuity to these claims forever and ever. Amen.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Yeah, I mean, who knows what could happen now, but
it certainly doesn't look good on the federal level given
the current makeup of the court. And it's not likely
to change, you know, even if somehow the things are
to shift on a federal level at the executive or
the congressional level. Let's talk about like what is going
(09:46):
on right now, because we see Texas doing what they're
going to do. First of all, one, I'm assuming that
by all ordinary precedents, this is essentially illegal what they're
trying to do. And at least as of the last
I've heard they are going the special session has ended.
(10:07):
I'm sure that isn't ending their efforts to make this change.
The Democrats fled the state to deprive Republicans of a
quorum so they couldn't push this through. They'll probably find
some other way to do it. I suspect, knowing the
state of politics in Texas, this is not legal, is it?
Speaker 2 (10:31):
It's legal? It just busts every norm and every unwritten
rule of American politics, which is that you only jerrymander
once a decade, right, you don't do it after every
single election. But we all know that this party thinks
that norms and unwritten rules are for suckers and totally
(10:51):
they will run rough shot over anything if it gets
in their way.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
So what are the laws around that?
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Because I guess I had been in the back of
my mind under the impression that the Constitution, like you know,
mandated the it mandates the census, but I guess it
doesn't explicitly mandate like redistricting.
Speaker 3 (11:10):
That's kind of up to the states, right.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
The states have to redistrict every year after the census
to account for population changes.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Right, But it doesn't say they can't do it in
the middle of that.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
There you go. It doesn't technically say you can. You
only have to do that. Some states do have rules
around it, because otherwise what you would see, right is
that control of the state legislature could change in the
middle of the decade and the party gets in and
they just say, well, we're going to also redraw all
(11:41):
the congressional districts and so that in order to put
an end to that kind of your canary, some states
have said we do this once a decade and that's it.
Some states have it in their state constitution, we only
do it once a decade. Texas pretty much all that's a.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Rough right And in the case of California, now that
Newsom is is responding to what Texas because is doing,
they're going to have to find a way, a legal
way around to do it themselves, assuming I mean, because
they do have something in place that would ordinarily keep
them from doing it. They have what an independent redistricting
(12:21):
board or something like that.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
In California, they took the power to draw these lines
away from the legislature, gave it to an independent commission. Uh,
you know, it's best. It's the best independent commission. It's
best process in the country. Newsom also recognizes that California
is the only state really that has the number of
districts available to perhaps counter what's going on in Californian
(12:44):
in Texas. So they have a really tricky process to
get through if they want to win the right to
gerry mender maps themselves to retaliate. You know, first the
legislature has to refer this to the ballot with the
two thirds vote, and then it has to pass. So
(13:05):
voters who hate jerrymandering, who said in two thousand and
eight and twenty ten, we don't trust the California legislature
to draw these lines, We'll have to give a majority
vote to not only allowing the legislature to jerrymander, but
to draw a forty eight to four democratic map. A
(13:25):
lot of independence, a lot of Republicans in California, my guess,
will vote against that. Can they get it a high
enough percentage of Democrats to go along even after there's
a one hundred and thirty million dollars no campaign that
was just announced today. You know, it's not it's not
automatic by any stretch. So it's a long process in
(13:49):
California that's about to get underway.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Let us assume, for the for the sake of argument,
that Texas goes ahead and does what they're going to do.
It sounds like the process is much simpler, even with
the Democratic legislative towards fleeing the state. And let's let's
assume Texas does what they're going to do. Let's assume
California does what they're.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Going to do.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Now other states have said they're looking at the same
sorts of things, and who like there might be individual
states like that one aren't going to do it or
try to do it and don't.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Succeed in doing it.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Assuming that, like, let's assume for the for the abstract,
that every state in the Union did the most that
it could do to skew like it. All the democratic
controlled states are going to push it one way, all
the Republican controlled states are going to push it the other.
If it were to develop into a full flame war.
(14:57):
I realized that it may not do that. Maybe some
dios x Mashina will come in that we are currently
aware of. But if it happens that way, aren't the
Democrats still at a disadvantage given the fact that Republicans
control more states and state houses than the Democrats do.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
It's exactly right. Democrats are at a disadvantage here. They
can't gerrymander their way out of their gerrymander problem. And
that's what they're trying to do, and it's going to
be just as ineffective, honestly as most Democratic political strategies.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
Yeah, yeah, to be so.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
If assuming that Texas and California balance each other out,
Republicans will not stop in California. They're going to move
to Ohio next, where there's two seats that they can
pick up, Missouri and Indiana after that. Ron De Santis
is talking about a new map in Florida. He's targeting
four or five. I don't think you can get four
(16:02):
or five. You can get two or three. If Republicans
want to keep going, they could go to Kansas, Kentucky,
New Hampshire, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina. They could probably pick
up one each. In those states, Democrats are a little
stuck because they can't do anything in New York, no
(16:25):
matter how tough the governor there is talking.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
And why is that the case?
Speaker 4 (16:28):
Because I've heard the state constitution would need to be amended,
and you can't amend the state constitution in one cycle,
so it would take until twenty twenty eighth in order
to get that done.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Wow, Okay, that wasn'twirre.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
So New York is off the board at this time around.
Illinois Democrats did a pretty good gerrymander there. Already they've
got fourteen of seventeen seats. Could you pick up one more?
Most people don't think so. Maryland is all already a
seven to one democratic map. Could you pick up the
eighth seat? I doubt it, And also I don't think
(17:07):
the state court there would let you. They've already stopped
one eight zero map. Earlier this year, the governor of Oregon,
where there's a five to one Democratic gerrymander, said she's
not going for it. Nevada Democrats have already outstretched themselves.
They've already they've already done what they can do. In
New Mexico, I don't see where they have targets or
(17:31):
opportunities left. I think they are. They're finally talking tough
about bringing a gun to a gunfight, but you know,
it's a water gun, and they just don't have a
lot of AMMA.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
So we've seen the Democratic legislators in Texas do what
they did. How long can they find this off in Texas?
Speaker 3 (17:54):
And what other legitimate, legitimate.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
To succeed legal recourse or other recourse, political recourse do
Democrats have in this case, either state by state.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Or or on a federal level.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
It's bleak, And you know, I'm glad we're not doing
this on good news for lifting.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, no, I want to I want to space.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
Yeah, yeah, you know, And I recognize that I'm giving
an unsatisfying answer here. You know, I say this sometimes
and people are like, well, you're suggesting we just take
it and not fight back. I'm not saying that. I
am suggesting that the current democratic strategy of trying the
(18:43):
gerryman or yourself out of this doesn't work. That there's
nothing you can do if Texas wants to go ahead
and do this. This is like passing any other law
in the state of Texas, and eventually these lawmakers have
to come back. They are a part time legislature. They're
getting fined five hundred dollars is a day, but getting
paid six hundred dollars a month for their jobs. They've
(19:04):
got families, they've got full time jobs. This is a
terrific John Lewis Goold trouble strategy for the short term.
They've called a lot of attention to the issue nationwide.
People are talking about it. I don't know if that
happens the same way, if these lawmakers don't leave town
and blow up the Korum. But it's you know, it's
(19:25):
not a permanent solution. So the permanent solution. You know,
this highlights that we're not going to fix gerrymandering unless
we fix it nationally. But that's going to require Congress,
right and the federal courts are out of the business
because Robert's decision in the Routo case. So this is
(19:45):
a long, long, difficult road, and it's going to require
winning elections. You know it's gonna and that means beatings
at the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
We can't just depend on a benevolent judge to hand
down some wonderful rule.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
It's not going to happen you know, no state judge
in Texas is going to stop this. That's why these
judges have been appointed to the state bench. They are
not on the side of voting rights. They are on
the side of raw partisan political power. That is how
you get appointed to state benches in places like Texas.
And the year of our report twenty twenty five. So Democrats,
(20:25):
if they want to take back the Congress, are going
to have to really study the potential targets, the potential
swing seats. There's not a lot of them. They're going
to lose a couple in Ohio. They're going to lose
a couple of Texas. The road is going to be tougher.
There's some seats in Pennsylvania, some seats in New York,
some seats in Virginia, the Don Bacon seat in Nebraska.
(20:47):
And they're going to have to find a way to
expand the map and go out and run elections in
all of these places and win. I don't see any
other way to do it. They don't don't have enough
states to jerrymander. You can't stop Texas. It's going to
be a tougher map. The courts aren't aren't riding to
(21:11):
your rescue, not a lot of good options.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
Do you think at this point that the Democratic Party
as an institution is engaged enough and committed enough to
playing that kind of like consistent, hard fought ground game
in order.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
To make that happen?
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Because if you were talking about an ordinary year like
you like, there would be just a huge ground swell
that would result in the kind of you know, shellacking
that Barack Obama got in twenty ten, and you would
have you know, Donald Trump as a lame duck president.
But clearly, you know, if you know, if Democrats went
(21:59):
back the cong if they win back the House of Representatives,
the Senate doesn't look likely. If they win back the House,
it looks to be by a slim margin. Given all
of this, So do you see are you hearing that
they have the commitment to do this or are they
still deceiving themselves by pursuing this strategy? Do they get
(22:20):
what they're going to have to do?
Speaker 2 (22:23):
I don't think so. I think people you know, I mean, listen,
the Democratic base right has been saying to its leaders,
toughen up and go fight for a long time, and
so a lot of the bluesday governors have toughened up
their talk, right, It's just that that's not enough of
(22:44):
a strategy. And so it's great that people are fighting,
it's great that people are engaged. It's great that Democrats
understand the magnitude of the problem. But the solutions that
they're putting forth right now are not.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Going to work.
Speaker 2 (22:58):
So they have to find some that will. And that's
going to require going out and winning elections, and honestly,
I don't think I don't think the average Democratic voter
is very good at that.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
Either.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
This is going to take funding the elections that matter
and the places that can actually be won. Democrats love
to send off small dollar donations to whoever's running against
Marjory Taylor Green and so that person has got all
the money they need to run and win their race. Well,
stop doing.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
That's that's not really where it matters. It's all these
places like like you say, in upstate New York, or
you're here and there in Kentucky, or you know, little place, it's.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
Going to be fifteen or sixteen districts. You know, maybe
there's one or two in Iowa. There's gonna be one
in Nebraska. You know they're gonna be in Virginia they're
gonna be the in central Pennsylvania, and there may not
be enough of them in all honesty, you know, but
those races have to be funded. There have to be
(24:02):
great challengers, and those races have to be funded if
they want to have a chance of winning. And I'm
not sure that that the party or the rank and file,
you know, get that. I mean, it's not as sexy
to send off your money to try to win some
district in central Illinois or central Iowa as it is
(24:23):
to say, well, I hate Marjorie Taylor Green, here's ten
bucks on my Act Blue every month?
Speaker 3 (24:27):
Right?
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Are there forces outside the Democratic Party who can help
them over the finish line in spite of themselves.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
I think we'll need that. I think we'll need that.
This is going to take real, you know, a real
hard boiled look at what districts have to be won
and then just relentless focus on trying to win those places.
And honestly, that's the only strategy for ever taking back
(24:58):
the Senate as well. Right, I mean, you know, twenty
five states voted for Donald Trump three times. Those twenty
five states have fifty Republican senators, right, it's fifty for fifty. Yeah,
you know, Democrats don't even have two senators in Pennsylvania
or you know plenty of other blue states. So if
(25:23):
Democrats want to take back the Senate, realistically, that's the
only shot is you're going to have to go into
places where you can't win right now, where your brand
is toxic, and you're going to have to go talk
to people and persuade them.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Like real on the ground, person to person politics. And
it seems like the kind of politics that they've been
playing for a long time is just national media politics,
the same sort that focuses on the presidency and ignore
its state legislators.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
When Democrats won their super majority in the US Senate
in two thousand and eight in the Obama year, they
held both seats from South Dakota, both seats in Montana,
both seats in West Virginia. They had seats in Arkansas
and Nebraska. They were able to win in all of
these states where right now and that was only fifteen
(26:18):
years ago.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
So I guess one positive thing is that things can
change relatively quickly.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
That's right, Things changed really fast. But things changed so fast,
and they got so bad that their brand is so
toxic in these states that you know, it's when when
Osborne in Nebraska in twenty four did not run as
a Democrat, right, it came close as an independent.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
And he's running again, by the way, Yeah, and.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
He's running, right, So it's going to take showing up
talking to people, breaking through the media apparatus, you know,
the Fox use propaganda wings and all of these things
that are out there.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
And not to mention the so called mainstream outlets that
have at this point completely capitulated to Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
So many of them have.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Yeah, it's it's not looking good, you know.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
I think this is definitely more of a a face
palm conversation as opposed to a good news conversation.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yeah, sorry about that. I hope no, No, I know,
I want them to do it some other time. On
the other one, Right, maybe.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
There will be individual opportunities for for good news conversations
and we'll we'll definitely.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Have some of them there.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
David, I want to ask you one last question. I mean,
is this really sounds to me like a generational struggle?
I mean, like and it involves I think, frankly a
lot more than even redistricting. But if you even look
just at the redistricting situation. This is something that's that's
going to take a long time and a lot of assistance.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
As you said, it's not an easy solution.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
I think though, that we're looking at something that in
order to completely get over this, like not even just
like preserve our democracy, but in order to fix the
problem of this radical jerrymandering, we're looking at decades or generations.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
As opposed to like years. That's what I'm hearing, is
that what you're seeing.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I fear that's right. I think this is a very
long term fight. I mean Wisconsin, where they have finally
won back some semblance of fairness in their legislative maps.
It took them fifteen years, and it took a strategy
of slowly winning back state Supreme Court seats and then
(28:52):
bringing a case that would upend those maps. So democrats
have to understand where the levers of power are in
order to pry back fairness, and then they have to
single mindedly try to regain control over those levers. Really
(29:13):
really difficult in some of these states. It's a long
term play, and people lose patience or these sound balid
races that people don't understand the high stakes of it's
going to take communicating the stakes, communicating the plan, having
a plan be focused and funded that is long term
(29:37):
and relentless, or else nothing else works.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Yeah, well, we got to start somewhere, and you know things,
big things are on the line. So it may as
well if it's not really beginning here. And again, given
the fact that you've acknowledged that the Democrats still aren't
quite there in terms of where their maintalit that he
needs to be in what they need to do, then
(30:03):
let it begin here. Let this go forth to the
powers that be in the Democratic Party and say this
is going to be hard to fight. Please engage in this,
not just a war of words, because that it is
going to take something serious. Otherwise the future does not
look good. David Daily, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Again.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
His books are Unrigged, how Americans are battling back to
save democracy and rat fucked. Why your vote doesn't count
that as an excellent one.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
I love that. I love talking about years ago. And
it is.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
An unfortunate history of Republicans, you know, understanding where power
resides and the Democrats not understanding where power resides. And
it really has a lot to do with where we
are today. Where else can folks find out what you're doing,
what you're up to.
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Absolutely, there's one more new book called The Anti Democratic
Inside the far right fifty year plot to control American elections.
You can find that online wherever you buy books, or
in your bookstores wherever you get them. I'm a senior
fellow at fair Vote. You can find this at fair
vote dot org. You can find me on the Blue
Sky at Dave Daily Dave Daily three on the old Twitter,
(31:17):
but I'm not up there very much, so you know,
find me elsewhere.
Speaker 3 (31:21):
I have migrated as well to the Blue Sky. David.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
I appreciate all of your insight, all of your focus
and putting this out there and hopefully getting inside the
heads of a few people that have some control over this,
because it's really really important. Thank you so much for
being with us today on Face Paul America.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
Thank you for having me
Popular Podcasts
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
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.