Show, here's something that's popular and punditory, keep your eye out for it, because it happens all the time, and it's it's something stupid that has occurred in the last couple of years. So pundits on cable news or even on the networks on Sunday morning, they'll they'll put out a hypothetical that is quite unlikely, in some cases very unlikely,
and then discuss it seriously for fifteen minutes. So they throw out a what if Trump, you know, did do this, and then discuss it for fifteen Well, there's no evidence that what are we what are we talking about this for? And I have thought that conversation around Hillary Clinton has been that for quite some time, throughout what if Hillary gott race? And then discussed it for fifteen minutes. Well, there's there's no chance that's gonna happen. Until this week.
Oh boy, I think things changed this week. I think it's a real conversation now. That New York Times article with all the powerbrokers in the Democratic Party saying, uh, you know, we're we're looking elsewhere and she's on the list. Our guest is Lani Chen David and Diane Steffy, Research fellow too Over Institution Director Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University lan he how are you. I'm doing well, gentlemen, how are you? What is that? It's the spirit of
Hillary Clinton haunting the Democratic Party. I don't know if you're familiar with this line here you probably are. One of my favorite quotes from H. L. Menkin, which I can never find. She's describing how unsuccessful presidential candidates ought to be thrown off the top of the Washington Monument because once they lose, all they do is wander the countryside spreading bitterness. Yeah, so what of Hillary in the current state of things? Well, this is the you know
some of this. I think there's two reasons you're hearing all this speculation. By the way, you're absolutely right about the hypothetical on cable news. I mean, if if there weren't hypotheticals, we'd only have like two hours of cable news programming a day. But but you know, the Hillary thing,
I think is an outgrowth of two things. First of all, I do think there is a genuine concern in a lot of Democratic Party circles, particularly amongst the more establishment Democrats, that they're not going to have a candidate who's going to be able to compete with Donald Trump when it comes to the general election. So there is a sincere concern that someone like Elizabeth Warren is just too far to the left. Her policies are too far to the left. She's not going to be a sailable asset when when
the time comes during the general election. The other thing is, in every presidential primary, as long as I can remember, certainly everyone I've worked on, there is always this yearning for somebody else to come in the race. I remember in two thousand twelve when I was working for Mitt Romney, it was all about Chris Christie. You know, is Chris Christie going to get in the race. Then it was Mitch Daniels. Is Mitch daniel is going to get in the race. Then it was you know, fill in the blank.
In two thousand and sixteen Republican primary, you know, the tables returned, it was, you know, will Mitt Romney get into the primary and compete against Jeff Bush? And and in the Democratic primary that year, similarly, there was you know, Mike Bloomberg, is he going to get in? So a lot of what we're hearing now about Hillary and the and the ghost of Hillary, the spirit of Hillary kind
of pervading over all the entire field. Some of that is natural, and I think you're gonna find that in a presidential primary, regardless of the year, regardless of the candidate. The only thing that I think is is different about it is um. I saw some of the people from Hillary Land or from Clinton Land on the various cable news shows this weekend, and they didn't knock it down at all. In fact, they spent their time on the TV explaining why she would be a good candidate, which
I thought was pretty interesting. Well, they're trying to keep her relevant, because otherwise, why do you care about Hillary Clinton? You know, why do you care what Hillary Clinton thinks? I mean, the answer is you don't care anyway, but the people and I certainly don't and I never have. But but the reality is that if you don't make it seem like it's some stability, then that talk goes away and she goes back to, you know, making millions
at the Clinton Foundation. You're You're absolutely right. The moment anybody says no, she's not interested in running, she's completely done on the on the national stage, it's over. Yeah, she has no platform she's not an elected official. She doesn't have, you know, anything she's involved in that keeps her in the public eye, and so this is their way of trying to keep people interested in her. But
I don't seriously think that she's going to run. I mean, losing the way she did to Donald Trump in is quite enough. I would think lan he Chan on the line, change the topic, Lawn. He's the impeach O meter. Is it pointing more toward impeachment and removal than say a
week ago less? What's your take? I think it's I mean, I've always thought that it was, you know, pretty much a hundred percent likelihood he gets impeached because you know, the House is democratically controlled and they have to they have to take that vote for a variety of different reasons. On on the Senate side, I suppose you can argue that the that the meter is ever so slightly tacking higher in terms of likelihood of removal, I mean still a really low number. I still think the likelihood of
removal is somewhere around you know, eight to nine. So it's the low number. But the evidence this week are the the leaks around the Bill Taylor testimony, UM the Ukraine ambassador's testimony. Uh, that was damaging to the president. I don't think there's any way to spin that, Folks
super into it. Why do you say that, Well, just because you know, it presents sort of evidence of somebody who was involved in the relationship between the US and Ukraine at the time in a very serious way, who who has been a career diplomat, who has been you know, well well regarded and generally credible, doesn't seem to have a whole lot of political leaning one way or the other. Uh, for him to say, look, you know, I was concerned about what the president wanted, and he read it as
a quid pro quo. I mean, those those kinds of pieces of evidence of people who were involved in the process at the time and who don't seem to have an ax to grind that that that seems to me to be to be more credible than not. And so that's why I think, you know, people sort of pause
and say, well, that's an interesting piece of evidence. Again, I don't know that it changes anybody's mind at this point, but I do think a lot of this is a question of when does the Jenga tower collapse, and and and what you know what peace causes it to collapse? And I think that's the question we got to ask. Chen has a podcast called Crossing Lines with lan Hea Chen, and I was listening to another podcast the other day with Johnah Goldberg and somebody else on it, and they
were discussing, um, maybe things were better. They believe things were better back when it was smoke filled rooms picking candidates for the parties instead of the process we got now, and there was more of an emphasis on the party platform. You knew what each party stood for. They they announced their platform, and it was more about the platform than the person as opposed to now it's more about the personality, and nobody knows that the platform is of either party.
What are your thoughts on that as a guy who thinks about this sort of stuff. Yeah, I mean, I think that's absolutely right. Having having worked on the party platform, you know, the last couple of cycles, I can tell you it really is a posturing document that nobody actually reads anymore, and it is about, by the way, what goes into the platform is entirely what the nominee of the party wants in terms of the policy that he
or she comes up with. Yeah, and and and and so, I mean, if you go back to the premise that things were better before, I do think there's a certain truth to that, because what happened in the old days is parties were forced to think about things like general election, electability, ability to govern, experience, and and you know, to me, at least, those are important factors. Now to a lot of people, they're not. And that's why we've migrated towards
the system we have now. And that's why you end up with not a nominee like Donald Trump, somebody who didn't have any prior experience in politics, but who people thought was going to shake things up and do something different that was a more important value to them than the other values that were around, you know, years ago. Well, in a counter argument to your point of view, which I actually on one level agree with, and I think
we've got like ninety seconds left. But at the point that the federal government becomes so enormous and bloated and profitable for those in it, and the Democrats and Republicans are clearly cooperating with each other, nobody shrinks the government. It just grows and grows and grows. At that point, you can't trust the party elders, and you need a fire brand, You need to chuck a grenade, as they say, and you know, whether it's Donald Trump or or somebody
like that. Yeah, I mean, and that That's the other problem is when you've got this sort of industrial complex that arises around lobbying and influenced politics in Washington. You know, people do want an outsider, and that's a perfectly understandable need. But how do you balance that with the desire to have, you know, a nominee of the party who can actually govern, who can actually command the middle of the country, which
is what you want. I think ultimately you want someone who governs from the middle, because that ends up creating a situation where you've got less inflame passion and people on either side at least hopefully can say, yeah, you know what, I can get on board with this guy. He Chen of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Crossing Lines with Linha Chen the excellent podcast Lani. I hope the good folks listening enjoy the chats, because we sure
do every time. Thanks a million, Okay, thanks for having me. Yeah, I just think I like the idea of it being about the platform rather than the personality right, and and and then they pick somebody that's going to act their platform. If you don't like that platform, you go to the other side. Or a third party comes up that challenges those two platforms as opposed to the right personality to to challenge the other personalities, which isn't happening obviously hasn't
gotten off the ground. And or the party elders get the word that listen, we have got to change or we will get no votes. We need to shake things up. We can't continue to, you know, scratch the Democrats back say, well, you know they scratch ours or vice versa, depending on which way you swing. I don't know. This is such an interesting question to me. Democracy can't possibly work. It's been a lovely try, though, crossing lines with lan Hea
Chen is his podcast. I don't know how everybody I know people who seemed to take in endless podcasts, newspaper articles, latest hit TV shows and movies. I don't know how y'all do it. No, I don't either. When do you sleep or eat or shoot? Most other responsibilities in my life from other There's that's one plan. It would be easier without children, no doubt, But Uh, I don't know how people do want to find all this suff and there's certainly plenty of content out there right now. Yeah,
how many friends do you have to say? Oh, you man, you gotta listen to this podcast's grace three hours and forty five minutes long. When what What What? Am I driving to Fairbanks at some point this week? Come on much content Armstrong and Getty m