November 5, 2025 • 13 mins
In this episode, we unpack former President Donald Trump’s bold claim that the government shutdown was a major reason behind recent Republican election losses. Speaking at a breakfast with Senate Republicans, Trump called the shutdown a “big factor” in Democrats’ victories and urged the GOP to end the Senate filibuster to quickly restore federal funding.
We analyze how Trump’s remarks reveal deep divisions within the Republican Party — from his criticism of the filibuster to his call for a national voter ID law. The conversation also explores how voter sentiment in states like Virginia and New Jersey shifted toward Democrats, fueled by economic anxiety and frustration over prolonged political gridlock.
You’ll also hear expert perspectives from GOP strategists and Democratic analysts on how these election results could reshape negotiations in Washington and affect the 2025 political landscape.
Whether you’re a political junkie, a student of U.S. government, or just curious about what Trump’s statement means for the GOP’s future, this episode gives you the context, quotes, and consequences behind the headlines.
Listen till the end for expert insights on what comes next for Republicans — and how the shutdown could redefine the party’s strategy moving forward.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
We analyze how Trump’s remarks reveal deep divisions within the Republican Party — from his criticism of the filibuster to his call for a national voter ID law. The conversation also explores how voter sentiment in states like Virginia and New Jersey shifted toward Democrats, fueled by economic anxiety and frustration over prolonged political gridlock.
You’ll also hear expert perspectives from GOP strategists and Democratic analysts on how these election results could reshape negotiations in Washington and affect the 2025 political landscape.
Whether you’re a political junkie, a student of U.S. government, or just curious about what Trump’s statement means for the GOP’s future, this episode gives you the context, quotes, and consequences behind the headlines.
Listen till the end for expert insights on what comes next for Republicans — and how the shutdown could redefine the party’s strategy moving forward.
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. We're diving into the pretty intense
political fallout from this historic, really record breaking government shutdown.
Congress is still locked in this bitter stalemate over federal funding,
and while voters just weighed in, we saw it in
key off your races Virginia, New Jersey gubernatorial contests, the
(00:20):
New York City mayoral race, all delivering losses to Republican
backed candidates. So the core question we're tackling today is this,
how much did the ongoing shut down really swing these
elections and importantly, does that political damage justify this call
coming from some high level figures to immediately end the
Senate filibuster, you know, the sixty vote rule, as a
(00:41):
way to restore funding and maybe push the stall GOP agenda.
I'm going to argue that the shutdown played a well,
a significant, maybe even decisive role, signaling a kind of
political toxicity that really demands a strong strategic response, possibly
even rethinking Senate procedures.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, well, I come at it from a slightly different angle. Look,
the shutdown was certainly a factor, a negative one hovering
in the background, but I believe these losses were predominantly
driven by factors like well, basic political geography. These are
tough areas for Republicans anyway, and frankly, a deeper voter
rejection of the administration's overall policy direction, not just the shutdown.
(01:24):
So to then leave from these let's be honest, somewhat
predictable outcomes to talking about eliminating the Senate filibuster. That
feels like a strategic overreach to me. It kind of
mixes up temporary political pain with a reason to change
a fundamental institution. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I understand the focus on geography, but let me bring
in the perspective of those you know, closer to the fire,
including the President himself. He cited outside pollsters who confirmed
the shutdown played a big role in these wins for
the Democrats. Now that isn't just internal spin. It suggest
a direct, kind of quantifiable link between the government dysfunction
(02:02):
we're seeing and immediate punishment at the polls. And we
actually have specific empirical evidence here. Take Northern Virginia. Exit
poll analysis show that over a fifth of voters in
Virginia had someone in their household who was a federal
worker or contractor. Now, in those households, the ones feeling
the direct economic pinch from the shutdown, you know, missed paychecks, uncertainty,
(02:24):
a really striking sixty three percent back the Democrat. That
feels like very localized, quantifiable punishment for economic pain, something
that goes beyond just the baseline political opposition you mentioned.
And that result, well, it demands swift action, which is
exactly why you see the President pushing to kill the filibuster,
(02:45):
to quickly quote restore federal funding, stop the bleeding politically,
and you know, regain the footing needed to govern.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
HM. That's a compelling point about northern Virginia. I'll grant
you that, but we do need to keep the wider
political environment in view. These losses happened in areas that
are well inherently pretty hostile to the current administration. The
winds in New Jersey and New York City, for example,
they aren't tied to huge federal worker populations quite like
(03:14):
the DC suburbs are. And maybe more importantly, the core
message coming from voters, at least as Democratic strategists and
progressive groups read it, was this broad, generalized rejection allowed
no to the whole administration agenda. It felt bigger than
just ending the shutdown. It was about these wider policy clashes,
(03:37):
so the focus I think needs to be broader than
just GOP failures. These results actually gave Democrats enormous leverage.
A Senate Democratic Aid was quoted saying, the pressure will
be enormous for their moderates to hold the line, you know,
not give in until they get key things. Specifically, they
were demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies,
(03:58):
and just for listeners, these subsidies are critical federal payments
helping people afford insurance. Removing them would hit millions immediately
and painfully, so suggesting Republicans need to dismantle a core
institution like the filibuster based on losses in predictable territory,
it just seems way out of proportion, especially considering the
(04:19):
strategic opening this gave the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Okay, that's an interesting take on the leverage, though I'd
frame the primary driver of the losses a bit differently.
Let's maybe set aside the geography for a second and
just focus on causality. This shut down had been dragging on,
setting a new record longest in US history. That specific
timely economic strain, that's the unique variable here, isn't it.
(04:46):
It doesn't feel like just generalized opposition. It feels more
like an active intervention by voters protesting the immediate government
dysfunction at the ballot box. And touching on your point
about other drivers, you mentioned polsters ing depressed turnout among
the magabase because the president wasn't on the ticket. Okay,
if that's true, if the core base was just unmotivated,
(05:09):
why did the margins shift so dramatically, specifically in those
Northern Virginia households with federal workers. No passively depressing engagement.
It was actively alienating voters, turning them against the party
in power, maybe including some who might otherwise have been sympathetic.
That points to a unique political toxicity tied right to
(05:29):
the funding stalemate, which well feels like a stronger cause
and effect argument than just general apathy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I'm sorry, I just don't quite buy that the shutdown
was the sole active depress in here. Yes, the Virginia
data shows localized pain. It's compelling evidence, I agree, But
focusing too narrowly on, you know, one set of counties
risks over generalizing the effect. These election results can also
be seen as a kind of generalized spine stiffener for
(05:57):
Democrats right a confirmation that their anti administration strategy was working,
not just a single issue protest vote. If the shutdown
was the absolute deciding factor everywhere, maybe we'd expect Republicans
to do comparatively better in places less reliant on federal jobs.
But the losses in New Jersey suggest a broader rejection
(06:18):
was happening. We can't just ignore that the underlying political
tide was already running against the GOP in these specific regions.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Well, okay, regardless of how we precisely divide up the causality,
the party that takes the immediate hit politically is usually
the one force to change course, and that leads us
right back to leverage. I'd argue these losses significantly ramped
up the pressure on Republicans to find an off ramp,
you know, some phase saving way out of the shutdown mess,
precisely because the party in power took the damage electorally.
(06:47):
Even veteran GOP strategist Liam Donovan noted this, Republicans are
now forced, or at least feel force, to consider pretty
dramatic options like changing the filibuster rule just to regain
some control, and actually their agenda before things get worse,
maybe in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
M I'm just not convinced the leverage calculation forces the
GOP onto that kind of institutional ground. Actually, I think
the pressure really mounted on Democrats to stay unified and
not cave. That quote from the Senate Democratic Aid makes
it pretty clear. It's hard for anyone to argue the
message from voters is please cave asap to Trump success,
(07:24):
as even Donovan admitted, makes choreography of any resolution that
much trickier. Why would Democrats suddenly feel they need to
compromise fast when voters just seem to reward their firmness.
If anything, they gained the leverage to dictate terms, especially
on policy wins like those ACA subsidies, before agreeing to
end the shutdown. This feels much more like it's about
(07:45):
a potential policy victory for Democrats, not necessarily a procedural
defeat for Republicans.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Okay, it dictates the terms for ending the current shutdown maybe,
but that doesn't fix the GOP's underlying longer term issue.
This fundamental difficulty in governing and passing their major agenda
items because of the filibuster barrier, which brings us right
to the presidents let's face it, controversial call to reform
(08:10):
the institution. I see the filibuster push as a perhaps
necessary strategic pivot. It's a response to this perceived political
weakness and the sheer urgency of the moment. The current
deadlock reinforced by that sixty vote rule means the GOP
often can't deliver on its promises, which well leads to
voter discontent, exactly like we saw in Virginia. The President
(08:31):
explicitly warned that just sitting back is a tragic mistake.
He argued that if Republicans don't act decisively now, especially
seeing the political consequences of legislative failure, then Democrats absolutely
will change the rules themselves when they get back in power,
and that could potentially leave the GOP sidelined for a
long time. This procedural fight feels kind of existential, not
(08:52):
just temporary.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
I absolutely yet the sense of existential urgency I do,
But that line of thinking risk conflating a temporary electoral setback,
which again was geographically somewhat predictable, with justification for a
massive institutional overhaul. Why should one set of off year
losses dictate such a dramatic long term shift in how
(09:17):
the Senate operates. The filibuster requiring sixty votes, It's meant
to be a guard rail right to protect minority rights
encourage some compromise. Getting rid of it fundamentally changes the
Senate from a place that at least theoretically deliberates into
just a majority rule body, and that dramatically impacts how
any future minority, including Republicans, when they eventually lose control,
(09:41):
can influence anything. Look, I think this is a classic
case of political optics, maybe overwhelming strategic thinking. When the
President himself says, the Senate Republicans opposing the filibuster change
are being very smart people. While that suggests a deeper understanding,
doesn't it that maybe prioritizing institutional stability over a reactive
(10:03):
move driven by immediate political pressure is the smarter long
term play. Changing the rules now could destabilize the whole
legislative process way more than it promises any short term
policy wins.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
What that is protecting minority rights if it leads to
the majority party failing to govern, effectively alienating its own
base and then losing elections. The argument is that the
filibuster isn't really a tool for deliberation anymore. It's become
a weapon of frankly total obstruction, leading directly to stalemates
like the shutdown that caused this political toxicity we're talking about.
(10:37):
So if the choices between institutional stability and actual governing capacity,
while the results in Virginia New Jersey seem to suggest
voters prioritize the latter, the filibuster is stopping critical budget measures,
stopping policy initiatives that could ease the very political pressure
the GOP is feeling right now. The alternative looks like
continued gridlock and likely continued losses.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
That is a compelling framing of the dilemma stability versus capacity.
I agree. However, any move to eliminate the filibuster has
to be seen historically. Every single time the rules have
been changed unilaterally, it's just led to escalation. Right, If
Republicans ditch the legislative filibuster now, they lose the main
tool they'll have next time they're in the minority. This
(11:19):
isn't just about governing today, it's about political survival tomorrow.
The election results confirm for Democrats that if they just
hold firm, they can probably extract policy concessions. So maybe
the strategic wisdom here is to use the leverage from
the shutdown to force a policy win that actually benefits people,
like securing those ACA subsidies, rather than tearing down the
(11:40):
institution that allows the minority to even function.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
So, to sum up my view, the evidence really does
strongly suggest this government shutdown had significant immediate negative political costs.
We saw proof in key districts like Northern Virginia where
voters felt the economic uncertainty directly, and this political toxicity
it has to be addressed, either by finding a way
(12:04):
to secure funding immediately ending the stalemate which requires compromise
and off ramp, or perhaps by taking more drastic procedural
steps like filibuster reform to ensure the ability to govern
going forward and prevent these kinds of setbacks. The current
path just seems politically unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And I'd reiterate that yes, the shutdown definitely contributed to
the losses. It created real political heat locally, but the
overall political landscape was already fundamentally unfavorable in these very
democratic leaning areas. So interpreting this as Republicans must fold
immediately or change the rules, well, that overlooks the simultaneous
(12:44):
pressure and frankly, the crucial leverage these results gave Congressional democrats.
It empowered them to maintain their position and push for
specific demands like the ACA subsidies extension. The immediate focus,
I think should remain on ending the shutdown with favorable
policy outcomes, not sacrificing long term institutional stability just for
(13:07):
some short term political relief.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Well, we've certainly explored a complex web of causes today.
The shutdowns immediate impact, yes, but also underlying political trends,
turnout effects, regional politics, all feeding into these election results.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Indeed, and those results leave lawmakers facing some really profound
strategic choices, not just about the filibusters' utility in such
a partisan era, but also crucially about the specific terms
needed to end this historic and politically damaging stalemate. The
full implications, well, they're definitely still playing out on Capitol
(13:44):
Hill right now,
Welcome to the debate. We're diving into the pretty intense
political fallout from this historic, really record breaking government shutdown.
Congress is still locked in this bitter stalemate over federal funding,
and while voters just weighed in, we saw it in
key off your races Virginia, New Jersey gubernatorial contests, the
(00:20):
New York City mayoral race, all delivering losses to Republican
backed candidates. So the core question we're tackling today is this,
how much did the ongoing shut down really swing these
elections and importantly, does that political damage justify this call
coming from some high level figures to immediately end the
Senate filibuster, you know, the sixty vote rule, as a
(00:41):
way to restore funding and maybe push the stall GOP agenda.
I'm going to argue that the shutdown played a well,
a significant, maybe even decisive role, signaling a kind of
political toxicity that really demands a strong strategic response, possibly
even rethinking Senate procedures.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Okay, well, I come at it from a slightly different angle. Look,
the shutdown was certainly a factor, a negative one hovering
in the background, but I believe these losses were predominantly
driven by factors like well, basic political geography. These are
tough areas for Republicans anyway, and frankly, a deeper voter
rejection of the administration's overall policy direction, not just the shutdown.
(01:24):
So to then leave from these let's be honest, somewhat
predictable outcomes to talking about eliminating the Senate filibuster. That
feels like a strategic overreach to me. It kind of
mixes up temporary political pain with a reason to change
a fundamental institution. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I understand the focus on geography, but let me bring
in the perspective of those you know, closer to the fire,
including the President himself. He cited outside pollsters who confirmed
the shutdown played a big role in these wins for
the Democrats. Now that isn't just internal spin. It suggest
a direct, kind of quantifiable link between the government dysfunction
(02:02):
we're seeing and immediate punishment at the polls. And we
actually have specific empirical evidence here. Take Northern Virginia. Exit
poll analysis show that over a fifth of voters in
Virginia had someone in their household who was a federal
worker or contractor. Now, in those households, the ones feeling
the direct economic pinch from the shutdown, you know, missed paychecks, uncertainty,
(02:24):
a really striking sixty three percent back the Democrat. That
feels like very localized, quantifiable punishment for economic pain, something
that goes beyond just the baseline political opposition you mentioned.
And that result, well, it demands swift action, which is
exactly why you see the President pushing to kill the filibuster,
(02:45):
to quickly quote restore federal funding, stop the bleeding politically,
and you know, regain the footing needed to govern.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
HM. That's a compelling point about northern Virginia. I'll grant
you that, but we do need to keep the wider
political environment in view. These losses happened in areas that
are well inherently pretty hostile to the current administration. The
winds in New Jersey and New York City, for example,
they aren't tied to huge federal worker populations quite like
(03:14):
the DC suburbs are. And maybe more importantly, the core
message coming from voters, at least as Democratic strategists and
progressive groups read it, was this broad, generalized rejection allowed
no to the whole administration agenda. It felt bigger than
just ending the shutdown. It was about these wider policy clashes,
(03:37):
so the focus I think needs to be broader than
just GOP failures. These results actually gave Democrats enormous leverage.
A Senate Democratic Aid was quoted saying, the pressure will
be enormous for their moderates to hold the line, you know,
not give in until they get key things. Specifically, they
were demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies,
(03:58):
and just for listeners, these subsidies are critical federal payments
helping people afford insurance. Removing them would hit millions immediately
and painfully, so suggesting Republicans need to dismantle a core
institution like the filibuster based on losses in predictable territory,
it just seems way out of proportion, especially considering the
(04:19):
strategic opening this gave the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Okay, that's an interesting take on the leverage, though I'd
frame the primary driver of the losses a bit differently.
Let's maybe set aside the geography for a second and
just focus on causality. This shut down had been dragging on,
setting a new record longest in US history. That specific
timely economic strain, that's the unique variable here, isn't it.
(04:46):
It doesn't feel like just generalized opposition. It feels more
like an active intervention by voters protesting the immediate government
dysfunction at the ballot box. And touching on your point
about other drivers, you mentioned polsters ing depressed turnout among
the magabase because the president wasn't on the ticket. Okay,
if that's true, if the core base was just unmotivated,
(05:09):
why did the margins shift so dramatically, specifically in those
Northern Virginia households with federal workers. No passively depressing engagement.
It was actively alienating voters, turning them against the party
in power, maybe including some who might otherwise have been sympathetic.
That points to a unique political toxicity tied right to
(05:29):
the funding stalemate, which well feels like a stronger cause
and effect argument than just general apathy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I'm sorry, I just don't quite buy that the shutdown
was the sole active depress in here. Yes, the Virginia
data shows localized pain. It's compelling evidence, I agree, But
focusing too narrowly on, you know, one set of counties
risks over generalizing the effect. These election results can also
be seen as a kind of generalized spine stiffener for
(05:57):
Democrats right a confirmation that their anti administration strategy was working,
not just a single issue protest vote. If the shutdown
was the absolute deciding factor everywhere, maybe we'd expect Republicans
to do comparatively better in places less reliant on federal jobs.
But the losses in New Jersey suggest a broader rejection
(06:18):
was happening. We can't just ignore that the underlying political
tide was already running against the GOP in these specific regions.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
Well, okay, regardless of how we precisely divide up the causality,
the party that takes the immediate hit politically is usually
the one force to change course, and that leads us
right back to leverage. I'd argue these losses significantly ramped
up the pressure on Republicans to find an off ramp,
you know, some phase saving way out of the shutdown mess,
precisely because the party in power took the damage electorally.
(06:47):
Even veteran GOP strategist Liam Donovan noted this, Republicans are
now forced, or at least feel force, to consider pretty
dramatic options like changing the filibuster rule just to regain
some control, and actually their agenda before things get worse,
maybe in the midterms.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
M I'm just not convinced the leverage calculation forces the
GOP onto that kind of institutional ground. Actually, I think
the pressure really mounted on Democrats to stay unified and
not cave. That quote from the Senate Democratic Aid makes
it pretty clear. It's hard for anyone to argue the
message from voters is please cave asap to Trump success,
(07:24):
as even Donovan admitted, makes choreography of any resolution that
much trickier. Why would Democrats suddenly feel they need to
compromise fast when voters just seem to reward their firmness.
If anything, they gained the leverage to dictate terms, especially
on policy wins like those ACA subsidies, before agreeing to
end the shutdown. This feels much more like it's about
(07:45):
a potential policy victory for Democrats, not necessarily a procedural
defeat for Republicans.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Okay, it dictates the terms for ending the current shutdown maybe,
but that doesn't fix the GOP's underlying longer term issue.
This fundamental difficulty in governing and passing their major agenda
items because of the filibuster barrier, which brings us right
to the presidents let's face it, controversial call to reform
(08:10):
the institution. I see the filibuster push as a perhaps
necessary strategic pivot. It's a response to this perceived political
weakness and the sheer urgency of the moment. The current
deadlock reinforced by that sixty vote rule means the GOP
often can't deliver on its promises, which well leads to
voter discontent, exactly like we saw in Virginia. The President
(08:31):
explicitly warned that just sitting back is a tragic mistake.
He argued that if Republicans don't act decisively now, especially
seeing the political consequences of legislative failure, then Democrats absolutely
will change the rules themselves when they get back in power,
and that could potentially leave the GOP sidelined for a
long time. This procedural fight feels kind of existential, not
(08:52):
just temporary.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
I absolutely yet the sense of existential urgency I do,
But that line of thinking risk conflating a temporary electoral setback,
which again was geographically somewhat predictable, with justification for a
massive institutional overhaul. Why should one set of off year
losses dictate such a dramatic long term shift in how
(09:17):
the Senate operates. The filibuster requiring sixty votes, It's meant
to be a guard rail right to protect minority rights
encourage some compromise. Getting rid of it fundamentally changes the
Senate from a place that at least theoretically deliberates into
just a majority rule body, and that dramatically impacts how
any future minority, including Republicans, when they eventually lose control,
(09:41):
can influence anything. Look, I think this is a classic
case of political optics, maybe overwhelming strategic thinking. When the
President himself says, the Senate Republicans opposing the filibuster change
are being very smart people. While that suggests a deeper understanding,
doesn't it that maybe prioritizing institutional stability over a reactive
(10:03):
move driven by immediate political pressure is the smarter long
term play. Changing the rules now could destabilize the whole
legislative process way more than it promises any short term
policy wins.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
What that is protecting minority rights if it leads to
the majority party failing to govern, effectively alienating its own
base and then losing elections. The argument is that the
filibuster isn't really a tool for deliberation anymore. It's become
a weapon of frankly total obstruction, leading directly to stalemates
like the shutdown that caused this political toxicity we're talking about.
(10:37):
So if the choices between institutional stability and actual governing capacity,
while the results in Virginia New Jersey seem to suggest
voters prioritize the latter, the filibuster is stopping critical budget measures,
stopping policy initiatives that could ease the very political pressure
the GOP is feeling right now. The alternative looks like
continued gridlock and likely continued losses.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
That is a compelling framing of the dilemma stability versus capacity.
I agree. However, any move to eliminate the filibuster has
to be seen historically. Every single time the rules have
been changed unilaterally, it's just led to escalation. Right, If
Republicans ditch the legislative filibuster now, they lose the main
tool they'll have next time they're in the minority. This
(11:19):
isn't just about governing today, it's about political survival tomorrow.
The election results confirm for Democrats that if they just
hold firm, they can probably extract policy concessions. So maybe
the strategic wisdom here is to use the leverage from
the shutdown to force a policy win that actually benefits people,
like securing those ACA subsidies, rather than tearing down the
(11:40):
institution that allows the minority to even function.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
So, to sum up my view, the evidence really does
strongly suggest this government shutdown had significant immediate negative political costs.
We saw proof in key districts like Northern Virginia where
voters felt the economic uncertainty directly, and this political toxicity
it has to be addressed, either by finding a way
(12:04):
to secure funding immediately ending the stalemate which requires compromise
and off ramp, or perhaps by taking more drastic procedural
steps like filibuster reform to ensure the ability to govern
going forward and prevent these kinds of setbacks. The current
path just seems politically unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And I'd reiterate that yes, the shutdown definitely contributed to
the losses. It created real political heat locally, but the
overall political landscape was already fundamentally unfavorable in these very
democratic leaning areas. So interpreting this as Republicans must fold
immediately or change the rules, well, that overlooks the simultaneous
(12:44):
pressure and frankly, the crucial leverage these results gave Congressional democrats.
It empowered them to maintain their position and push for
specific demands like the ACA subsidies extension. The immediate focus,
I think should remain on ending the shutdown with favorable
policy outcomes, not sacrificing long term institutional stability just for
(13:07):
some short term political relief.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Well, we've certainly explored a complex web of causes today.
The shutdowns immediate impact, yes, but also underlying political trends,
turnout effects, regional politics, all feeding into these election results.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Indeed, and those results leave lawmakers facing some really profound
strategic choices, not just about the filibusters' utility in such
a partisan era, but also crucially about the specific terms
needed to end this historic and politically damaging stalemate. The
full implications, well, they're definitely still playing out on Capitol
(13:44):
Hill right now,
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.