October 27, 2025 • 14 mins
Explore the U.S. redistricting battle — from the White House’s vote-monitor move in California to Trump’s strategy and what it means for Congress. Follow for daily political breakdowns.
Long Description (under 500 words):
In this episode we dive deep into the high-stakes world of U.S. redistricting. We examine how the White House’s decision to send election monitors to California has ignited a major mapping fight — even as Donald Trump appears to sit out the state’s redistricting war.
If you care about how election integrity, party strategy and congressional control intersect — this episode is for you. Listen till the end for expert insights on the national implications, and follow for daily political breakdowns.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Long Description (under 500 words):
In this episode we dive deep into the high-stakes world of U.S. redistricting. We examine how the White House’s decision to send election monitors to California has ignited a major mapping fight — even as Donald Trump appears to sit out the state’s redistricting war.
If you care about how election integrity, party strategy and congressional control intersect — this episode is for you. Listen till the end for expert insights on the national implications, and follow for daily political breakdowns.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. Today, we're diving into what I
think is one of the more intriguing political calculations we've
seen recently, the really high stakes battle over California's Prop fifty,
that's the controversial redistricting measure, and well, the conspicuous absence
of President Trump from that fight.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
It really is fascinating, isn't it, especially when you consider
the history there. I mean, we're talking about California governed
by Gavin Newsom, someone President Trump has spent years setting
up as his main Democratic rival, and then when this
chance comes for a direct legislative fight, the President is
largely well quiet exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
So the core question we're tackling today is this was
President Trump's decision to, let's say, minimize his engagement with
California's Prop fifty a calculated move. Was it political strength,
rooted in pragmatism, maybe resource optimization, or.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Did that absence actually highlight a tactical weakness, a kind
of concession to Democrats and a frankly very visible fight.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
And I'll be arguing that this was in fact a
strategically optimized decision. It reflects I believe the tough political
triage needed to maximize the party's resources heading into a
really crucial election cycle.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
And I'm coming at it from a different angle. I
believe that's silence Hm, particularly after the administration had initially
promised to fight, signals a genuine tactical weakness. It created
a leadership vacuum, allowed opponents to nationalize the whole thing
and really hurt the morale and frankly, the fundraising of
the state GOP.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Well, my desosition starts with political discipline and resource management. Look,
allies inside the White House were pretty clear, and I'm
quoting here, Jerry Mander fight is not top three on
the administration's totem pole of the fight with Gavin Newsom.
Their focus is much more targeted on what you might
(01:59):
call durable political cudgels. You know, issues that resonate nationally,
need sustained effort and directly impact those crucial swing states.
We're talking about crime and maybe most critically, illegal immigration.
The reality is President Trump's broader offensive against Newsom is
(02:19):
continuing on those issues precisely because they seem to offer
more long term political advantage than Prop fifty. The core
strategic math is well, pretty simple. The President lost California
by over twenty points in twenty twenty four. It's a
deep blue state, So committing significant funds, significant political capital
(02:40):
to a structural fight where winning is highly unlikely, that's
arguably fiscally and politically irresponsible. It just makes more sense
to focus on the backboard states, think Texas, Florida, North Carolina,
where redistricting efforts actually promise concrete gains for the national party.
Getting involved in a let's face it likely losing battle
(03:01):
in California, especially when polling shows seventy five percent of
Yes voters are motivated by opposing Trump, that would only
tie the president to a failure right before the midterms.
This calculated stepping back, I argue, is disciplined strength.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
I'm sorry, but I just can't quite see that as strength.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
For me.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
It looks like a glaring inconsistency, maybe even a failure
of leadership and the narrative cost that's huge here. Remember
President Trump initially vowed back in August to file lawsuits
against California over this measure. He promised to fight, and
then well, he failed to follow through with anything near
that level of action. When a leader makes that kind
(03:41):
of explicit commitment and then goes quiet. It it fundamentally
undermines confidence.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Okay, but the promise versus the reality of the situation.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well exactly, and this lack of action it highlights what
I see as a critical missed opportunity, especially in a
low turnout election, which this was shaping up to be.
Someone close to the California GOP actually said that if
Trump had been more engaged, you know, firing up that
committed twenty percent of solid MAGA voters in the state,
it may have made a difference. Those base voters are
(04:13):
absolutely key in these kinds of fights. And what's more,
state level Republicans apparently saw the White House's silence as
a pretty clear signal that the No campaign was well struggling,
almost a self fulfilling prophecy defeat. Right By staying out,
the GOP basically handed the narrative over to the Democrats,
letting Newsome and others successfully nationalize the whole thing. As
(04:35):
Blake Xanthey noted, this special election effectively became an early
referendum on the Trump administration, and by setting it out,
the GOP looked vulnerable without even you know, putting up
much of a defense.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I definitely see why you'd emphasize the narrative cost, and yes,
the disappointment among the base. But I think we need
to be careful about defining the nature of the engagement here.
When we talk about absence, it wasn't a complete disconnect.
They chose some highly targeted signaling instead. For instance, the
Department of Justice sent election monitors, similar to what they
(05:08):
did in New Jersey. Right, That signals engagement on election integrity,
which was a key concern requested by state Republican officials.
Now that action is important because it confirms the prioritization
they mentioned. The White House is focused on those durable
issues crime immigration, where they think they have real long
term leverage against newsom. Sending monitors is relatively speaking, a
(05:31):
low cost action. It lets the administration signal concern about
the process to the base without pouring in the huge
political capital needed to fight a ballot measure that was
already polling pretty well for the Yes side anyway. So
it's a targeted use of resources designed to satisfy that
base need for some action while keeping the main focus
on the higher reward fights elsewhere. That to me is
(05:51):
tactical efficiency.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
That's an interesting spin. I suppose but I would frame
the effectiveness of that action very differently. Sending DOJ monitors
that felt pretty superficial, and Governor Knwsom immediately jumped on it.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Didn't.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
He framed it as voter intimidation and suppression. The negative
pr the immediate controversy that stirred up. I'd argue it
almost certainly outweighed any marginal benefit of reassuring the base
about election integrity. It felt like a low effort move
that backlied had frankly, and it certainly didn't fill the
leadership vacuum left by the president's silence on Prop fifty itself.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But it was some engagement.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Was it helpful engagement?
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Though? If the goal was really to support the state
party and keep morale up, the lack of presidential involvement
badly hurt fundraising momentum. The party apparatus, including big names
like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, was lagging far behind Newsom
financially in the Prop fifty fight. You can't really claim
strategic strength based on resource optimization when your absence directly
(06:52):
leads to your local team being unable to fund or
motivate their campaign effectively. That failure to mobilize resources isn't strength.
It's a tactical breakdown that basically hands the advantage to
the other side on the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
But that failure, as you call it, to commit vast
sums to what looked like a losing effort, that is
the strategic strength I'm talking about. We have to look
at the political mechanics here. The Democrats were clearly trying
to make Prop fifty and national referendum. Republicans like former Rep.
Mimi Walters argued correctly, I think that the GOP strategy
(07:26):
had to keep it local and why because the polling was,
let's be blunt toxic for the president in California when
three quarters of the Yes voters are saying their main
reason is opposing Donald Trump, Well, the only rational political
move is sort of self quarantine. Self quarantine strategic distance, right.
(07:46):
It minimizes the collateral damage to the national brand before
the midterms. If the President had jumped in with both feet,
he would have become the definitive target the lightning rod
for a ballot measure already leaning towards passage. By avoiding
ownership of a pretty much guaranteed California defeat, he protects
his political capital, and that capital is much better spent
(08:07):
in states where he can actually move the needle, especially
thinking about those tight congressional races that decide who controls
the House.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I'm just not fully convinced by that logic because the
strategic distance it didn't actually stop the nationalization, did it.
It just let the opponents define the outcome and the
reason for it. The moment you step back, you give
up that narrative space. Hannah Milgram, the s ON fifty spokesperson,
She defined the president's silence very directly, Donald Trump is
(08:35):
weak and knows that we are going to expose him
for what he truly is. A loser. That vacuum wasn't
filled by strong local Republican messaging. It was filled by
that narrative, the narrative that the GOP just surrendered.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
But the local messaging couldn't overcome the national tide against him.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
There perhaps not, but you also can't pretend this is
just some local California issue that you can easily wall off.
The context makes it clear the California measure was framed
at least partly as a direct response to the very
aggressive Texas redistrict in Plant. It's part of this national
Gerrymandarin arms race that let's be fair, Republicans largely initiated.
(09:16):
So by retreating in California, the White House creates this
unavoidable impression that they're losing that national arms race in
a very public, maybe even humiliating way, and that undermines
the whole perception of strategic competence nationwide.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Okay, but the true measure of strategic strength, i'd argue
is the return on investment across the entire redistricting map,
and that's where White House advisors are really focusing. They're
banking on confirmed or at least high probability gains in Texas,
North Carolina, and Florida. And just to put that in context,
those states hold key marginal districts, the ones that will
(09:49):
likely determine the House majority. So sacrificing a state like California,
which is so heavily democratic it offers basically zero potential
for new GOP seats even if Prop fifty failed, that
ensures that money and messaging power are focused on these
critical redder backboards.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
The calculation is cold, yes, but maybe essential. A win
against Prop fifty in California nets the GOP zero nationally,
but failing to secure marginal seats in Texas or North
Carolina that could cost them the entire House majority. So
while yes, it definitely disappointed local California Republicans, the President's job,
(10:26):
arguably is to ensure national victory, and this specific optimization,
prioritizing winnable states over deep blue ones strikes me as
a sound macro strategy.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's a compelling argument from a pure cold math perspective.
I grant you that, but have you considered the risks
that come with relying so heavily on just those three
backboard states. I mean, the national redistricting effort hasn't exactly
been universally successful for Republicans, has it. We saw the
failed attempt in Indiana to pass mid cycle redistricting, even
(10:59):
with pressure from Trump. That suggests the supposed gains in
Texas and North Carolina might not be the absolute sure
thing the White House is banking on. And if that's
the case, completely surrendering one front, no matter how blue,
starts to look like a much riskier gamble.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Indiana had unique circumstances, though.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Maybe, but it shows things can go wrong and a
more engaged fight in California look, even if it ultimately
resulted in a loss, could have been leveraged differently, using
his committed base raising funds for a credible, even if
uphill fight that would have forced Democrats to spend serious
resources defending Prop fifty. Instead, the silence basically allowed Newsom
(11:40):
and the National Democratic machine to pour resources into offense,
defining the narrative against Trump, and maybe even diverting money
out of California Defense and into those other competitive states
you mentioned. It feels like a missed opportunity to at
least tie down some of the opposition's forces.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Ultimately, my argument comes back to poloitical discipline. I see
the decision as reflecting a necessary rational triage of resources
in what is effectively a multifront war. President Trump, in
this view, is correctly prioritizing the use of those durable
political issues crime immigration against Governor Newsom where there's potential
(12:18):
for long term, high impact gain, and relatedly, he correctly
focused the actual redistricting efforts on states where success directly
translates to national power Texas, Florida, North Carolina. That calculated
distance serves as a shield insulating the national GOP brand
from a guaranteed very public loss and a hostile state
(12:41):
right before the midterms. That I maintain is political strength
defined by discipline, and.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
While I absolutely understand the need for pragmatism, this specific silence,
in my view, created a damaging leadership vacuum and resulted
in real tactical weakness for the GOP in California. It
failed to mobilize potentially a critical slice of voters, that
twenty percent who might just might have mattered in a
low turnout scenario. It completely conceded the national narrative to
(13:10):
the Democrats, and it allowed the opposition to successfully frame
Prop fifty as this popular referendum on the Trump administration's
perceived weakness or resignation. The White House appeared strategically resigned
in a major, high visibility state, and that perception itself
carries a political cost that likely extends well beyond California's borders.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
The complexity of fighting on multiple political fronts well, it
certainly demands a very careful balancing act. You have to
weigh the triage of resources against the absolute imperative of
trying to control the political narrative.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And sometimes, I suppose the decision that seems to save
resources in the immediate term, unfortunately ends up costing far
more in terms of narrative control and local morale down
the line. We'll leave it to our listeners as always,
to weigh the ultimate wisdom, or perhaps the costs of
White House is calculus here. Thank you for joining us
on the debate.
Welcome to the debate. Today, we're diving into what I
think is one of the more intriguing political calculations we've
seen recently, the really high stakes battle over California's Prop fifty,
that's the controversial redistricting measure, and well, the conspicuous absence
of President Trump from that fight.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
It really is fascinating, isn't it, especially when you consider
the history there. I mean, we're talking about California governed
by Gavin Newsom, someone President Trump has spent years setting
up as his main Democratic rival, and then when this
chance comes for a direct legislative fight, the President is
largely well quiet exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
So the core question we're tackling today is this was
President Trump's decision to, let's say, minimize his engagement with
California's Prop fifty a calculated move. Was it political strength,
rooted in pragmatism, maybe resource optimization, or.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Did that absence actually highlight a tactical weakness, a kind
of concession to Democrats and a frankly very visible fight.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
And I'll be arguing that this was in fact a
strategically optimized decision. It reflects I believe the tough political
triage needed to maximize the party's resources heading into a
really crucial election cycle.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
And I'm coming at it from a different angle. I
believe that's silence Hm, particularly after the administration had initially
promised to fight, signals a genuine tactical weakness. It created
a leadership vacuum, allowed opponents to nationalize the whole thing
and really hurt the morale and frankly, the fundraising of
the state GOP.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Well, my desosition starts with political discipline and resource management. Look,
allies inside the White House were pretty clear, and I'm
quoting here, Jerry Mander fight is not top three on
the administration's totem pole of the fight with Gavin Newsom.
Their focus is much more targeted on what you might
(01:59):
call durable political cudgels. You know, issues that resonate nationally,
need sustained effort and directly impact those crucial swing states.
We're talking about crime and maybe most critically, illegal immigration.
The reality is President Trump's broader offensive against Newsom is
(02:19):
continuing on those issues precisely because they seem to offer
more long term political advantage than Prop fifty. The core
strategic math is well, pretty simple. The President lost California
by over twenty points in twenty twenty four. It's a
deep blue state, So committing significant funds, significant political capital
(02:40):
to a structural fight where winning is highly unlikely, that's
arguably fiscally and politically irresponsible. It just makes more sense
to focus on the backboard states, think Texas, Florida, North Carolina,
where redistricting efforts actually promise concrete gains for the national party.
Getting involved in a let's face it likely losing battle
(03:01):
in California, especially when polling shows seventy five percent of
Yes voters are motivated by opposing Trump, that would only
tie the president to a failure right before the midterms.
This calculated stepping back, I argue, is disciplined strength.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
I'm sorry, but I just can't quite see that as strength.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
For me.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
It looks like a glaring inconsistency, maybe even a failure
of leadership and the narrative cost that's huge here. Remember
President Trump initially vowed back in August to file lawsuits
against California over this measure. He promised to fight, and
then well, he failed to follow through with anything near
that level of action. When a leader makes that kind
(03:41):
of explicit commitment and then goes quiet. It it fundamentally
undermines confidence.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Okay, but the promise versus the reality of the situation.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well exactly, and this lack of action it highlights what
I see as a critical missed opportunity, especially in a
low turnout election, which this was shaping up to be.
Someone close to the California GOP actually said that if
Trump had been more engaged, you know, firing up that
committed twenty percent of solid MAGA voters in the state,
it may have made a difference. Those base voters are
(04:13):
absolutely key in these kinds of fights. And what's more,
state level Republicans apparently saw the White House's silence as
a pretty clear signal that the No campaign was well struggling,
almost a self fulfilling prophecy defeat. Right By staying out,
the GOP basically handed the narrative over to the Democrats,
letting Newsome and others successfully nationalize the whole thing. As
(04:35):
Blake Xanthey noted, this special election effectively became an early
referendum on the Trump administration, and by setting it out,
the GOP looked vulnerable without even you know, putting up
much of a defense.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I definitely see why you'd emphasize the narrative cost, and yes,
the disappointment among the base. But I think we need
to be careful about defining the nature of the engagement here.
When we talk about absence, it wasn't a complete disconnect.
They chose some highly targeted signaling instead. For instance, the
Department of Justice sent election monitors, similar to what they
(05:08):
did in New Jersey. Right, That signals engagement on election integrity,
which was a key concern requested by state Republican officials.
Now that action is important because it confirms the prioritization
they mentioned. The White House is focused on those durable
issues crime immigration, where they think they have real long
term leverage against newsom. Sending monitors is relatively speaking, a
(05:31):
low cost action. It lets the administration signal concern about
the process to the base without pouring in the huge
political capital needed to fight a ballot measure that was
already polling pretty well for the Yes side anyway. So
it's a targeted use of resources designed to satisfy that
base need for some action while keeping the main focus
on the higher reward fights elsewhere. That to me is
(05:51):
tactical efficiency.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
That's an interesting spin. I suppose but I would frame
the effectiveness of that action very differently. Sending DOJ monitors
that felt pretty superficial, and Governor Knwsom immediately jumped on it.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Didn't.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
He framed it as voter intimidation and suppression. The negative
pr the immediate controversy that stirred up. I'd argue it
almost certainly outweighed any marginal benefit of reassuring the base
about election integrity. It felt like a low effort move
that backlied had frankly, and it certainly didn't fill the
leadership vacuum left by the president's silence on Prop fifty itself.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
But it was some engagement.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Was it helpful engagement?
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Though? If the goal was really to support the state
party and keep morale up, the lack of presidential involvement
badly hurt fundraising momentum. The party apparatus, including big names
like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, was lagging far behind Newsom
financially in the Prop fifty fight. You can't really claim
strategic strength based on resource optimization when your absence directly
(06:52):
leads to your local team being unable to fund or
motivate their campaign effectively. That failure to mobilize resources isn't strength.
It's a tactical breakdown that basically hands the advantage to
the other side on the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
But that failure, as you call it, to commit vast
sums to what looked like a losing effort, that is
the strategic strength I'm talking about. We have to look
at the political mechanics here. The Democrats were clearly trying
to make Prop fifty and national referendum. Republicans like former Rep.
Mimi Walters argued correctly, I think that the GOP strategy
(07:26):
had to keep it local and why because the polling was,
let's be blunt toxic for the president in California when
three quarters of the Yes voters are saying their main
reason is opposing Donald Trump, Well, the only rational political
move is sort of self quarantine. Self quarantine strategic distance, right.
(07:46):
It minimizes the collateral damage to the national brand before
the midterms. If the President had jumped in with both feet,
he would have become the definitive target the lightning rod
for a ballot measure already leaning towards passage. By avoiding
ownership of a pretty much guaranteed California defeat, he protects
his political capital, and that capital is much better spent
(08:07):
in states where he can actually move the needle, especially
thinking about those tight congressional races that decide who controls
the House.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I'm just not fully convinced by that logic because the
strategic distance it didn't actually stop the nationalization, did it.
It just let the opponents define the outcome and the
reason for it. The moment you step back, you give
up that narrative space. Hannah Milgram, the s ON fifty spokesperson,
She defined the president's silence very directly, Donald Trump is
(08:35):
weak and knows that we are going to expose him
for what he truly is. A loser. That vacuum wasn't
filled by strong local Republican messaging. It was filled by
that narrative, the narrative that the GOP just surrendered.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
But the local messaging couldn't overcome the national tide against him.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
There perhaps not, but you also can't pretend this is
just some local California issue that you can easily wall off.
The context makes it clear the California measure was framed
at least partly as a direct response to the very
aggressive Texas redistrict in Plant. It's part of this national
Gerrymandarin arms race that let's be fair, Republicans largely initiated.
(09:16):
So by retreating in California, the White House creates this
unavoidable impression that they're losing that national arms race in
a very public, maybe even humiliating way, and that undermines
the whole perception of strategic competence nationwide.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Okay, but the true measure of strategic strength, i'd argue
is the return on investment across the entire redistricting map,
and that's where White House advisors are really focusing. They're
banking on confirmed or at least high probability gains in Texas,
North Carolina, and Florida. And just to put that in context,
those states hold key marginal districts, the ones that will
(09:49):
likely determine the House majority. So sacrificing a state like California,
which is so heavily democratic it offers basically zero potential
for new GOP seats even if Prop fifty failed, that
ensures that money and messaging power are focused on these
critical redder backboards.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
The calculation is cold, yes, but maybe essential. A win
against Prop fifty in California nets the GOP zero nationally,
but failing to secure marginal seats in Texas or North
Carolina that could cost them the entire House majority. So
while yes, it definitely disappointed local California Republicans, the President's job,
(10:26):
arguably is to ensure national victory, and this specific optimization,
prioritizing winnable states over deep blue ones strikes me as
a sound macro strategy.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's a compelling argument from a pure cold math perspective.
I grant you that, but have you considered the risks
that come with relying so heavily on just those three
backboard states. I mean, the national redistricting effort hasn't exactly
been universally successful for Republicans, has it. We saw the
failed attempt in Indiana to pass mid cycle redistricting, even
(10:59):
with pressure from Trump. That suggests the supposed gains in
Texas and North Carolina might not be the absolute sure
thing the White House is banking on. And if that's
the case, completely surrendering one front, no matter how blue,
starts to look like a much riskier gamble.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Indiana had unique circumstances, though.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
Maybe, but it shows things can go wrong and a
more engaged fight in California look, even if it ultimately
resulted in a loss, could have been leveraged differently, using
his committed base raising funds for a credible, even if
uphill fight that would have forced Democrats to spend serious
resources defending Prop fifty. Instead, the silence basically allowed Newsom
(11:40):
and the National Democratic machine to pour resources into offense,
defining the narrative against Trump, and maybe even diverting money
out of California Defense and into those other competitive states
you mentioned. It feels like a missed opportunity to at
least tie down some of the opposition's forces.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Ultimately, my argument comes back to poloitical discipline. I see
the decision as reflecting a necessary rational triage of resources
in what is effectively a multifront war. President Trump, in
this view, is correctly prioritizing the use of those durable
political issues crime immigration against Governor Newsom where there's potential
(12:18):
for long term, high impact gain, and relatedly, he correctly
focused the actual redistricting efforts on states where success directly
translates to national power Texas, Florida, North Carolina. That calculated
distance serves as a shield insulating the national GOP brand
from a guaranteed very public loss and a hostile state
(12:41):
right before the midterms. That I maintain is political strength
defined by discipline, and.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
While I absolutely understand the need for pragmatism, this specific silence,
in my view, created a damaging leadership vacuum and resulted
in real tactical weakness for the GOP in California. It
failed to mobilize potentially a critical slice of voters, that
twenty percent who might just might have mattered in a
low turnout scenario. It completely conceded the national narrative to
(13:10):
the Democrats, and it allowed the opposition to successfully frame
Prop fifty as this popular referendum on the Trump administration's
perceived weakness or resignation. The White House appeared strategically resigned
in a major, high visibility state, and that perception itself
carries a political cost that likely extends well beyond California's borders.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
The complexity of fighting on multiple political fronts well, it
certainly demands a very careful balancing act. You have to
weigh the triage of resources against the absolute imperative of
trying to control the political narrative.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And sometimes, I suppose the decision that seems to save
resources in the immediate term, unfortunately ends up costing far
more in terms of narrative control and local morale down
the line. We'll leave it to our listeners as always,
to weigh the ultimate wisdom, or perhaps the costs of
White House is calculus here. Thank you for joining us
on the debate.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.