John Gerardi Fills In - California 'Democracy' Means Voting Continues Until the Democrats Win

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We're gonna talk a lot about California today. We spent
pretty much the whole first hour of the show talking
about California, Gavin Newsom and Sequa and all the ways
in which all these people saying, oh, well, all we
need is for Gavin Newsom to focused on actually delivering
results for California rather than all these aggressive anti Trump
liberal policies, ignoring that Newsom's been governor for six years.

(00:26):
He ain't changing. The zebra is not changing his stripes.
What's the phrase that chie does not changing his spots.
Zebra's not changing, tiger's not changing his stripes.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Whatever.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
This animal's patterned coat will not be changed. His slicked
back hair only goes one direction. Anyway, as we're talking
about California, I wanted to talk a little bit about
California democracy and a very interesting election that is still

(00:57):
being counted right now. As you all know, it takes
California a flippin' month to count all of its votes,
and some of you might think it's embarrassing that it
takes California so long to count these votes. The election
that this is really impacting is the race for the
House of Representative seat. It was currently being held by

(01:18):
John Duarte. It's John Duartes race against Adam Gray. For
those of you in the North Valley Modesta area, you
know about this. This is a congressional district involves a
lot of kind of the west side West Presno County,
Maderra County up towards approaching the Modesto area. This was
one of the tightest races in the country. It was

(01:41):
one of the most highly targeted races in the country
by Democrats as a seat that they wanted to flip.
This should be, by their way of looking at it,
this should be a Democrat seat. They have Democrat voter
registration advantages there and it's it seems as though Duarte
has been punching above his weight. Duarte won by only

(02:05):
a couple hundred votes last time, and so far in
the counting process, it looks like he's only up by
about two hundred and twenty something votes right now. Per
the count They've got a couple thousand more to go still, though,
and you might ask, how in God's name are there
still several thousand more votes to count in this race.

(02:28):
The election was what today's Tuesday, So how many weeks
ago was the election. Was that three weeks ago? Yeah,
three weeks ago. How are they still counting? It's on purpose, folks.
Allow me to explain to you all this fact. California

(02:50):
does not take a long time to count votes because
California is incompetent. California takes a long time to count
votes by design. It's by design to allow for more
or less institutionalized cheating by Democrats. Allow me to explain. So,

(03:19):
in California, we have universal vote by mail. Anyone in
California can vote by mail. Everyone gets a vote by
mail ballot. I did not vote by mail. My wife
did not vote by mail, but we got vote by
mail ballots. I don't want to vote by mail. And
it's important to remember for this discussion, what is the

(03:40):
core of the American right to vote?

Speaker 2 (03:43):
The core of the American right.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
To vote as developed by first off, the constitutional provisions
saying everyone above eighteen can vote. The right to vote
will not be limited by race, it will not be
limited by sex.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
But the sort of statutory.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Core of the American right to vote is that we
have the right to vote in person on election day
in your local precinct at a secret voting booth, a
secret ballot voting booth. That is the norm, that is
the core, that is what has developed over the course

(04:23):
of decades centuries under American law, in person on election
day in your local precinct at a secret ballot voting booth.
Everything else has been deemed an extension of that. And
if a state affords you some extension of that right

(04:45):
to vote, you gotta follow the rules. So when I
was a college student, my primary place of residence was
still Clovis, California, but I was going to school at
Notre Dame. I was in South Bend, Indiana, and so
I was allowed to vote absentee. But I had to

(05:06):
follow the rules. I had to fill out my ballot.
I had to mail it in time in order for
it to get there in time to be counted. I
had to follow all the steps. I had to sign
on the I think I had to sign on the
outside envelope or whatever. I had to follow all these steps.
I had to register to vote in a timely fashion beforehand,
a bunch of steps I had to follow, and different

(05:27):
states of different processes for doing something that is again
outside of the norm. The norm, which we all understand
is in person at your precinct on election day, secret ballot.
Why do we do it that way, Well, because we
determined in person at your precinct. Secret ballot is the

(05:48):
most secure way to vote. We know that there's not
going to be fraud because you're there, you're voting secretly.
No one's exerting outside influence on you. We see you there.
There's perfect chain of over that ballot, no risk of
someone tampering with it direct from you into the hands
of the county election officials. So anything else that's beyond that,

(06:12):
there's more risk. So you got to follow the rules.
And what liberals tend to do in these different election lawsuits,
and they were doing this all over the place in Pennsylvania,
especially the last two elections, last two presidential elections, is
basically they identify a group of voters that were probably
Democrat voters who didn't follow some rule, didn't follow some
kind of vote by mail rule, and they say, oh,

(06:37):
are we really gonna deny someone the sacred American right
to vote just because they didn't sign inside this signature box, right,
just because they mailed in their vote by mail ballot
and it arrived a mere day late. We're gonna deny
this person the sacred American right to vote over something

(06:59):
like this, to which our answer should be, yeah, that's
the rule. Your state legislature passed the law saying this
is the rule. The American right to vote at its
core is in person at your precinct secret ballot on
election day.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
You can do it any other way that the state affords.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
You, but you gotta follow the rule. Now here's what
California did. What California did was basically alter things so
that if someone didn't follow the rule, they could come

(07:43):
back at some point weeks after the election to fix
a little whoops of daisy in order to quote cure
their vote by mail ballot. Let's say you turn in
a vote by mail ballot, and let's say the county
elections officials say that your signature doesn't match the signature

(08:08):
for you that's on file from your voter registration, and
they say, we're not counting this vote because the signature
doesn't match. Some Democrat party operative using Democrat campaign funds
can get a hold of you and say, hey, you
want to go cure your ballot. The county election official

(08:31):
says that your signature didn't line up. Why don't you
go cure your ballot. That means you get your ballot,
you provide the correct signature in the field somehow, or
maybe you forgot to sign whatever, there was some problem
with your ballot. Weeks after the election, you're allowed to

(08:51):
go back and fix it. Democrats have been using this.
This whole process took great effect. In fact, earlier this
year in March. Something you may remember, we had our
primary elections in March. I believe it's in March. And

(09:12):
one of the things that was on the ballot was
Proposition one. This was ballot initiative that Gavin Newsom and
other Democrats were supporting for various various kinds of taxpayer funding.
I think it was another bond measure for various kinds
of mental health resources. Gavin Newsom wanted it to pass.
It's a ballot initiative, statewide ballot initiative. Everyone votes on

(09:35):
it after election night. It's pretty close. It's fifty to fifty.
Looks like it could pass. Maybe it won't pass.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
Well.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
Gavin Newsom has such a massive campaign war chest built
up from his recall election. Remember the disastrous recall election
where Gavin Newsom we got the recall qualified for the
ballot and absolutely did not recall him. Well, Gavin Newsom
raised so much money from that he doesn't even know
what to do with it. He used a bunch of

(10:05):
that campaign money that was donated to him to help
the Democrats have a Cure your Ballot drive statewide to
identify people whose ballots were rejected for some flaw on
their vote by mail ballot to get them, Hey, go
and cure your ballot, fix whatever.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
Problem there is now.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
Republicans can go and do the same thing. Republican campaigns,
Republican party operations can go and do the same thing.
But of course the Democrats have way more of an
infrastructure to do that. In California. Their state party is
much bigger, much stronger, much better funded, and they're always
going to have more capacity to do that than Republicans

(10:52):
will ever be able to do. This is what's happening
right now with the Adam Gray John Duarte race. Gray
was losing by a couple thousand votes on election night,
and ever since he's been creeping, creeping, creeping, creeping closer

(11:14):
as more and more and more and more Democrat ballots
all of a sudden get cured guess who's leading up
this effort. Christine Pelosi. Whole big story in the San
Francisco Chronicle. Gv wire wound up running it. And in
this story they put the headline on it. And I

(11:35):
don't know who who wrote this headline, if it was
gv wire who did it, or San Francisco Chronicle did
it and gv wire was just reprinting it. But the
headline says, Christine Pelosi leads charge to ensure every vote
counts in tight Duarte Gray race.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
No, she's not.

Speaker 1 (11:54):
She doesn't want every vote counted. She wants every Democrat
vote to get in, whether.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
It was legitimate or not.

Speaker 1 (12:05):
Any any Democrat vote that can be passibly legitimized is
what she wants.

Speaker 2 (12:10):
County.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
She's not out there going to some west side farmer
in Madera County who has like a trailer on his
property with a big Trump sign and talking about how
Jim cost is horrible and Adam Gray is horrible and Trump,
you know, pro Trump. She's not going out there as
all a farmer farmer Jones who voted for Donald Trump.

(12:31):
Let me help you. I know you're you know, since
you had that stroke, your your signature doesn't match what
you were registered with. Let me help you cure your ballot.
Because I'm Christine Pelosi. I'm a Pelosi and all I
care about is democracy flourishing. That's what I just want this.
I just believe in the system. I just happened to
be paid by the Democrats to be getting this this. No, no, no,
I just believe in democracy so much. I just want

(12:53):
to ensure that farmer Jones with his big Trump sign
in his front yard, make sure that his vote counting. No,
that's not what she's doing. That's not what she's supposed
to be doing. If you talk to her, I'm sure
she would say, no, that's not what I'm doing. I'm
trying to get Adam Gray to win. But that's California
election law. It's a whole structure set up to ensure

(13:19):
that in the event of a tight race, that Democrats
really care about, whether it's a statewide race or a
congressional district. And by the way, a one seat flip
in the House, it looks like Republicans have the majority.
But shrinking that House Republican majority from a six seat
majority to a four seat majority.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
That's a huge difference.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
Democrats would cut off their left pinky as I continue
smacking the microphone in my wild gesticulations.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
My apologies, folks.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Democrats would be like the the Yakuza and cut off
a finger to make sure that they get that house.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Is the Trevor carry Show on the Valley's Power.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Talk on the John Duarte Adam Gray Race from our
friend tal Cloud, frequent guest host slash guest contributor to
All Things Power Tuk, who broke the news to me
that Adam Gray is now one hundred I think one
hundred and five votes ahead of John Duarte. So again,

(14:32):
Democrats don't take a long time to count votes because
they are incompetent. California doesn't take a long time to
count votes because they are incompetent. They take a long
time to count vote votes because of this whole ballot
curing system where people who didn't fill out their ballot.

(14:52):
Right Democrats, with their much larger political machine and more money,
can go to the voters and say, hey, you want
to help fix your ballot so that it can count
and get us over the hump here. That's the whole
point of it. Now, I want to talk to just
a little bit about the right to vote, the sacred

(15:13):
right to vote, and ah I like on John Girardi's show.
By the way, John Girardi filling in for Trevor, my
thanks to Trevor for letting me sit in the big
boy chair. I like popping pious balloons about things that
we don't need to be pious about. Generally, I like piety.

(15:33):
Piety is good. Piety is good for things you need
to be pious about. But I like popping balloons, especially
things around legal the law, in American legal culture that
I think people think are a bigger deal than they are.
And one of these things is democracy registered trademark, that

(15:54):
democracy is this sacred value in America, and particularly the
right to vote. Certainly, the right to vote is important.
I wouldn't say it's the most fundamental right you have.
I wouldn't say that the Founding fathers thought of it

(16:16):
as the most important thing in the world. So to
understand this, you know, do this for a couple of segments.
Maybe let's understand the Founding fathers their sort of sense
of themselves. When we hear the word democracy, I think
sometimes we think of Greece and Rome. We think of Athens,
which had a democracy, and we think of Rome, which

(16:37):
had a republic, and we think, oh, democracy, that's what
they are. Democracy. Democracy is good that we're carrying that torch. Well,
the Founding fathers knew their Greek and Roman history better
than many people today do. First of all, democracy was
not really a thing the Romans liked, and it was

(16:59):
not a thing most so the Greeks liked. It was
a thing in one Greek city, Athens. Athens had a democracy.
The idea of a democracy demos means people, kratos means power.
Is that the voting assembly of the citizenry makes all

(17:20):
the laws and makes all the decisions, with a minimal
structure of magistrates who wield power. Athens had a democracy. Now,
most of the city states of Greece and most of
the city states of the Mediterranean had some kind of
voting assembly of citizenry that was empowered to do some things.

(17:41):
But in Athens they were empowered to do more or
less everything, and the Founding fathers hated it. The Founding
fathers thought democracy was terrible. They didn't see themselves as
promoting democracy writ large. Most of the Founding Fathers thought
of them as being in the Roman tradition. So when

(18:05):
you're talking about Athens, you're talking about kind of its
golden age of its democracy sort of let's think like
five hundreds four hundreds BC. With the Roman Republic, you're
talking about two hundreds to it finally collapsing a couple
of decades before the birth of Jesus Christ, when Augustus

(18:29):
Caesar came to be the first emperor. The Roman Republic
was not really a democracy. It was a mixed republic.
It didn't prioritize first and foremost what the voting assembly
of the people wanted. As equal voting individuals, that's not

(18:49):
how they decided things. They had a lot of different
voting assemblies where different people had different weights to their votes.
Rich people had way more weight to their vote than
poor people did, and a lot of that was some
of the voting assemblies the Romans had were sort of
almost military in their origin. So if you were an equestrian,

(19:11):
meaning someone who was able to afford a horse and
bring it to war, you had more of a say
than a guy who was only bringing you know, a
sword and a little bit of armor into the fight.
You had more of a say. So property qualifications gave
you different weight as far as your vote. In Rome,

(19:31):
and furthermore, in Rome, most law was originally written by
what was called the Senate, and in Rome, the Senate
was not a representative body. Senators in Rome didn't represent anybody.
They were just the really wealthy guys from the old families.
Literally senate in Latin it just means the council of

(19:53):
old guys. Senex is the Latin word for old, so
this is the old guy he out. Basically, the sonatus
is the group of old guys, the old guys with money.
They were the dominant force in the Roman Republic pretty
much until the time that the Roman emperors came to be.

(20:17):
So Rome didn't think, no, we don't want all the
people voting on stuff, because people can be dumb, people
can be swayed by sentiment. They can vote, you know,
bred and circuses to themselves. They might not be the

(20:38):
best judges of what's best for the state. Let's leave
it in the hands of the wisest, most venerable, most
experienced Romans who have the most on the line. The Senate,
or that's how they viewed it. So they dispersed power
into a variety of different mechanisms Now, they did have
some magistrates who did view themselves as representatives of what's

(21:01):
called the plubs. The plubs were basically everyone who wasn't
a patrician. The patricians were the really old, venerable, established
families of Rome. The PLBs were everyone else. The plubs
did have some representatives directly for them, called the Tribunes
of the Plubs, that could veto things that the Senate
was proposing and blah blah blah blah blah. But for
the most part, the Romans didn't just think, yep, just

(21:22):
let the people vote on it, and what the people
vote happens. And that's not how our constitution is set up.
If you have a majority vote here in the state
of California, you have ballot initiative on the table, and
a majority of Californians vote for we are voting that
the Presbyterian Church is hereby outlawed in the state of California.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, you can't do that.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
The Presbyterians would file a law suitents say hey, this
violates the California Constitution or it violates the US federal Constitution.
So no, pure democracy, pure people power is not how
we are governed in America. We have super majoritarian protections
for things that are really fundamental, And we think furthermore

(22:11):
that the raw will of a majority of the population
is not how we determine necessarily how laws get passed.
Look at the Senate. Every state gets two senators. It
doesn't matter if you're Wyoming and you have fewer than
a million people, or if you're California and you have
forty million people, you get two senators. Why because we
think of every state as being on in some ways

(22:33):
equal footing. Now, the House of Representatives, that's our most
democratic institution that does sort of reflect democracy. Every member
of the House represents more or less the same number
of people, and they're up for reelection every two years,
so they can reflect the shifting changing mood of the populace.
The presidency is different from that. The presidency is not

(22:55):
supposed to just be the will of the people. In fact,
when you look at the Constitution as a really written
what things did the Constitution mandate that the people vote
for only their member of the House. In the original
draft of the Constitution, people didn't vote for their senators.
Their state legislators did in.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
The original draft of the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (23:20):
And in fact in the current draft of the Constitution,
you don't vote for the president. You're voting for your
electoral college representatives from your state, who will in turn
vote for president. How you pick your electoral college representatives
is up to every state. An individual state could say
we allocate our electoral college representatives based on what the
state legislature wants.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
They don't even need to involve us.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Now most states, every state has decided to allocate their
electoral college representatives based on the will of the people.
But how they do that is different. Nebraska does it,
and Nebraska and Maine do it differently for most other states.
So so wrap this up for a state to say, hey,

(24:02):
we respect that the right to vote. We're not gonna
limit your right to vote based on your race. We're
not gonna limit your right to vote based on your sex,
We're not gonna limit your and anyone who's eighteen and
up can vote. But if you want to vote, here
are the rules you gotta follow. You got to turn
in your vote by mail ballots by a certain date.

(24:24):
You got to present an ID, you gotta do this,
you gotta do that. States are allowed to put rules
on it. This is Super Tuesday with Trevor Carey on
The Valley's Power Talk in California, and just to sort
of understand the you know, we talked a little bit
at the first part of the This Hour about the

(24:47):
Adam Gray and John Duarte race, which we are still
counting the votes in the Adam Gray John Duarte race,
and Democrats are engaged in a massive ballot curing effort.
This is basically to say, hey, we've identified these ballots
that have problems with them. They're vote by mail ballots
where people didn't really follow the rules, or the signatures

(25:08):
don't match or what have you. They go out to
those people and say, hey, you want to go fix
your ballot. You want to go cure your ballot to
make sure it counts. So weeks after the election, Democrats
can somehow magically get their non compliant ballots to be
magically compliant. Now Republicans can do and apparently are trying
to do the same thing, but of course the Democrats

(25:28):
will always have the massive advantage there. Now, this relates
to other stuff within California voting in California democracy that
I think is fundamentally ridiculous and unfair, and one of

(25:51):
the ways in which that's happening is through the impact
of both federal and California versions of the Voting Rights Act.
This has to do with redising. Basically, California adopted all
these new rules about redistricting over the course of the

(26:11):
last ten plus years and maybe more than that actually,
and a lot of that is the legacy of Arnold
wanted us to do our elections differently. So when Arnold
was the governor, he was mad at what he perceived
to be the partisan polarization between the two parties. He thought,

(26:36):
basically that the two parties were electing people who were
hardcore extremists for one side or another, and that that
led to tension gridlock in Sacramento. He had Republicans getting
mad at him for various budgets that he passed hardcore
right wing Republicans, And we had a number of reforms

(26:57):
that Arnold wanted that resulted in changes to our elections
systems that that he promoted through ballot initiatives that moronic
California voters voted for and which are now part of
our election systems. So most of you may know by
now about the top two jungle primary system. That was

(27:18):
another stupid Arnold. Schwarzenegger backed idea. Arnold thought, well, if
I'm gonna try to resist the temptation to do an
Arnold impersonation this whole segment. Basically, Arnold thought, well, if
voters just pick from the whole range of all the
candidates and just pick the top two, maybe that will
encourage people, if they're trying to get votes from Republicans

(27:38):
and Democrats, to just run towards the middle get more
moderates elected. Well, that hasn't happened. Basically, a lot of
what's happened is you have people strategically running and strategically
just just being every bit as partisan as they always have,
but trying to do Shenanigans to ensure that, you know,

(28:00):
one basically, they get a favorable matchup. Often what happens
is in a heavily Democrat or heavily Republican district, you'll
get two members of the same party who will be
the top two vote getters, who will then have to
square off against each other in the general election, and
often the more hardcore person might win. Sometimes sometimes it
will be the less hardcore person, but often it's two

(28:22):
people equally as hardcore left or right and You'll also
get these dumb Shenanigans where here's a district, for example,
Senator Marie Alvarado Gills District, which is pretty much a
sixty to forty Republican district. And guess what happened in
the twenty twenty two primary. Well, Republicans idiotically had four

(28:45):
people running and Democrats only had two. The Republicans split
up the vote basically fifteen percent each for four guys.
The Democrats had twenty percent each for their two candidates.
Scrats were the top two vote getters. Democrats pick up
that state Senate seat, a state Senate seat that really
should have been Republican.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
Now, in addition to.

Speaker 1 (29:14):
The jungle primary, we also have the California Redistricting Commission.
The way redistricting has always worked in America for the
most part, has been every ten years, you have the census,
and based on the census, all of the state legislatures
around the country redraw the district lines in their state.
So in California, the California State Legislature would redraw the

(29:35):
lines for members of the US House of Representatives representing
California and also the district lines for state Assembly members.
That's our lower House in California that has eighty members,
and our state Senate that's our upper house in California
with forty members. So every ten years, the state legislature
would redraw all the lines, and often there would be

(29:56):
a kind of political tit for tat. Okay, well, you know,
I'll go along with you drawing this safe Democrat district
if you go along with me drawing the safe Republican district.
All right, and then deals get worked out, and it
was always part of the political process. It was deemed
to basically not be subject to judicial review. Well, California

(30:18):
and federal law wound up sort of limiting a lot
of that through the various voting rights acts, which I'll
discuss in a bit.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Now.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
California changed this system to not have the state legislature
do it because Arnold thought it's two bodss in them,
making too many safe seats with hardcore extremists representing them.
So Arnold said, let's have a non partisan redistricting commission
do all this work. Well, the non partisan redistricting commission
wound up being every bit as partisan as the state legislature,
and they're producing all kinds of ridiculous congressional districts that

(30:49):
are every bit is ridiculously drawn as the gerrymandered districts
drawn by the state legislature were. And much of this
is the fruit of these various voting right sects. So
what are the voting right sects?

Speaker 2 (31:04):
What do they do? What are they meant to do?

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Basically, instead of us just taking a race blind approach
to drawing electoral seats, the voting right sex in their
zeal to correct historic wrongs, produces more wrongs. So basically,
in the old days in the South, often redistricting would
happen and an African American neighborhood. In order to mitigate
the power of African American voters, they would take an

(31:34):
African American neighborhood and maybe they would have this one
neighborhood be a part of ten adjoining congressional districts, basically
to dilute the voting power of this African American neighborhood
to ensure that they would have absolutely no impact on
the electoral politics of any of these congressional districts. Or

(31:55):
maybe what they do is shove all the African American
voters into one bizarre drawn jerrymandered districts so that all
the other districts would be white and have white leadership,
white favored leadership. To correct those wrongs, we introduce the
Voting Rights Acts, both California and federal, which prohibit not
just maps that result in this kind of discrimination on

(32:22):
African Americans intentionally, but also if they just happen to
have the byproduct the effect of diluting a racial minorities vote. Now,
that may be made more sense in the South where
African Americans were still a genuine minority, that makes a

(32:42):
lot less sense in California, especially many parts of California
where Latinos are the majority, and it results in these
bizarre setups where you have a totally jerrymandered thing that's
wildly benefiting Democrats. In central California, we shove all the
Republicans into the twenty third congressional district. This is Kevin

(33:04):
McCarthy's old district. Now it's Vince Fong's district. It's this bizarre.
It almost looks like the number three where one of
the arms of the threes get of the three gets Clovis,
the top one gets Clovis, the middle one gets Lamore
and the bottom one gets the most conservative parts of
the Bakersfield area in Kerrent County, it's like a thirty
point Republican registration advantage, so all the Republicans are jammed

(33:29):
in there, and then all the rest of the districts
around have slight Democrat majority registration. John Darte's district, Jim
Costa's district, David Valadeo's district, all these other San Juan
Valley districts. Somehow, the conservative San Joaquin Valley has like

(33:49):
AH Republican Congress well AH district with Republican majority registration. Now,
Valadeo and Duarte massively outperformed what you would expect from
their districts, but the point was clearly to shove all
the Republicans into one district in the most precise just
the exact way that corrupt jerry mandering politicians have always done.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
This is the Trevor Cherry Show on the Valley's.

Speaker 1 (34:16):
Coward Talk John Girardi and for Trevor Carrey playing a
little blink one eight two as we come in from
the break. Thank you so much for listening. It's always
a pleasure to fill in for Trevor.

Speaker 2 (34:27):
Hey.

Speaker 1 (34:27):
Speaking of California voting. We're going to have a governor's
race in twenty twenty six. And here's an interesting little
story from Axio, San Francisco about someone who might jump in.
California governor could be in play. As Kamala Harris decides
her next move, Vice President Harris is telling advisors she's

(34:50):
not leaving the political arena and wants to keep her
options open. According to political reporters who spoke with five
people in her inner circle who were granted anonymity, trust me,
her options are quite open given that she's going to
be unemployed as of January twentieth. In phone calls with
advisors and allies, Harris maintains she is quote staying in

(35:10):
the fight. That includes a potential twenty twenty six subernatorial run,
where she'd enter a crowded field with more support than
those already running, according to a new poll from the
UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. Now there's this telling
quote from Brian Brokaw, a former Harris aid, where he says,

(35:33):
could she run for governor?

Speaker 2 (35:35):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (35:36):
Do I think she wants to run for governor? Probably not?
Could she win? Definitely? Would she like the job? I
don't know. Could she run for president again?

Speaker 2 (35:49):
Yes? Okay.

Speaker 1 (35:49):
The two things he said that were most telling. Do
I think she wants to run for governor? No? Would
she like the job? I don't know. Let me give
you guys, I'm insight. One of the things we seem
to have discovered abou Kamala Harris. I don't think she's
the hardest worker.