Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics, where we discussed the top political headlines with some of today's best minds and moms for liberty laws nearly every race they were involved in.
We have such a great show for you today.
Inside Elections, Jacob Rubashkin talks about the hidden lessons from the twenty twenty three election. Then we'll talk to George Laws about new legislation to finally make Puerto Rico estate. But first we have the Bulwarks. Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to Fast Politics, the great Charlie Sykes.
Hey, it's good to be here, good to be anywhere.
Me too.
I just got your newsletter this morning. Morning Shots from the Bulwark, that headline you're just scum.
Yeah, this is the debate we deserve. You know, I was watching the debate last night, as I said, and you know, I suppose I'm supposed to be watching for all the nuance and the substance and you know who's making this move on abortion or an on Ukraine, And unfortunately I just got distracted by you know, asking you know, what is what is Nikki heally gonna do? Is she going to push Vivic into the locker, or is she going to skewer him with a five inch heel because
the guy is such an insufferable prick. This is the problem and the fact that five minutes ago anybody in this country took him seriously as a plausible presidential candidate. I mean it doesn't that say something about the times we live in?
Obviously he's a complete joke, but there is a world like I actually feel bad for you as like the last of the normal Republicans.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Does that mean I relish You're pity?
Here's Nikki Haley.
She is actually a good candidate who could win a general election, and there's no way she's going to get the nomination.
No, there isn't. Actually, that was something else I was watching, you know, thinking that if you're a normal, rational Republican and you're watching this debate, and look, you know, I have a lot of problems with Nikki Haley. Have read a lot about her. She's made some should we say, compromises in her life. But yes, true, if you're a Republican and you're looking at her, you're thinking, who would
you rather go into twenty twenty four with? Behind NICKI Haley or Donald Trump, and for all of her flaws, think about what a superior candidate she would be. By the way, just think about how our politics would be transformed in the blink of an eye if you swapped out Donald Trump for some just reasonably normal Republican like Nicki Haley. But it's not gonna happen.
As you point out, it's interesting because it's like the thing I think about is, I don't agree with her on almost everything, but you could see her like people voting for her because she's offering them something right, and she's also just making some of those policies which I don't agree with, sort of palatable for mainstream people.
Well. Also, look, I mean she's got some substance. She's able to speak with a good deal of authority on foreign affairs. You know, her discussion of Israeli Ukraine I thought was really solid. When she first talked about, you know, getting a compromise on abortion, I think people thought she was dancing and dodging, but I think it actually sounded more reasonable last night. Now, whether or not you can
sustain that in a campaign, I don't know. I think it's kind of silly to engage in the who's the winner and who's the loser in the debate, although clearly Tim Scott was the loser and vivek make him made himself a joke, and I thought that she did about as well as she could. As long as we recognize this is a attemptiontion debate that they're just going through
the motions right exactly. This is a debate among people who either want to be vice president or want their own podcast or something else because they're not going to be the Republican nominee. And by the way, nobody seems to care the fact Donald Trump just completely blows off these debates, does not even show up, has no intention of ever showing up. And I guess I'm old enough to remember when that would be a thing. And it
doesn't even register. It's we completely normalize the fact that he's off with Roseanne Barr who's having the irrational meltdown at one of his rallies, and people go, yeah, okay, so I'm thinking that Donald Trump is the big winner tonight. Yes, okay, hello, people, just can we focus on the crazy for a moment. I just I'm sorry a little PTSD.
You're right to bring this up, and I want to ask you because you have actual experience with a Republican party. I mean, isn't this sort of a sign of how weak the party is that they have no power over their front runner?
Oh? Absolutely. I mean it's just like Donald Trump on an hourly basis giving Ronna McDaniel, Romney or whatever her name is, now, giving her a noogie and just reminding her that you know, I own you, I own you. What you want to have another debate, Kim here, let's try this again. No, it's Hlili eating. But also the fact that you have all of these candidates on stage. And I'm sorry, Molly, You'll know where I'm coming from
on all of this. But as I'm reading a lot of the punditry, I'm thinking, have we forgotten what we're actually talking about? Here? The firm running candidate for President of the United States on the Republican ticket. He is facing more than ninety felony charges. He's on trial for fraud. A federal judge has found him liable for rape. He is being accused by the federal government of violating the
espionads AT. He is facing racketeering charges. The US government is accusing him of trying to overthrow the election, engaging in Lie's trickery, deceit, and fraud. And none of these Republican candidates can figure out, huh, how do I run against this guy?
How do I be this trying? They're not even trying.
I mean, New York is about to take away his business license so he cannot have a business, and they're not and they're like, oh, we shouldn't dare to try to make a case against this guy.
I mean, Chris Christie does it, but I mean, you know the problem is that if you're Chris Christie, you needed Donald Trump there as a foil. And so it's you know, as much as I want to root for Christie, can't. You can't punch a punch bag that doesn't show up. So yeah, so he's been saying the right things and he'll go through you know, he'll he'll point out that it seems like a bad idea to nominate somebody who's gonna spend most of their time in the dock in
a criminal trial. I mean, yeah, you know again, five minutes ago, a rational political party he would have said, yeah, that makes sense. It's a really bad idea. And Chris Christie says it'll.
Yeah, I mean, that's true.
And I also think as we watch this, we see Christy remember has like got COVID from Trump and was I mean, you know, he nearly died because of Trump. I mean, and he worked in the Trump administration. I feel like the one thing I don't feel like we talk about this enough again, it's like one of the uncomfortable realities. But like, there are a bunch of people
who served in the Trump administration happily. I mean a lot of people, and then they sort of decided it was a bridge too far, or maybe it wasn't or maybe they were about to get you with perjury, and so they decided they'd write a book and get out of it. Now, you know, there's something to be said for that, and you know, what's good for people to pull back the curtain. But it's also there's a percentage of craven there. There's a big wallaping dose of craven there.
But on the other hand, you know, when when you're in the foxhole, you you really, you know, can't be checking the resumes of everybody that's jumping in with you. I am willing to welcome any conrad. I continue to be amazed at the fact that and this also is I continue to be amazed that something's happening that has
never happened in American presidential history. The number of people who have worked in the Trump White House or served on the Trump cabinet who are out there saying this man is nuts, this man is disconnected from reality, he is dangerous, and it doesn't seem.
To be mattering. I mean, normally you would think, okay, what would happen if his hand picked attorney general, if his own chief of staff, if his secretary of state, if his secretary of defense, if his national security advisor, if one aid after another came out and said, guys, this is terrible. This man is completely unfit to serve. You would think that. Again, a rational political party in a world we do not innhabit would say, yeah, maybe we got to listen to the people who were in
the room while the shit was happening. And again, it doesn't seem to be making much of a difference.
Yeah, that is unbelievable that a month ago there was this news cycle where Trump said, you know, I think we should execute Mark Milly and people were like, well, this seems pretty bad.
And then it sort of went away.
Okay, we could play this game, and the one before that there was a news cycle where I've lost track of the new cycles. Remember, Mollie, do you remember when he actually put in writing that we should suspend the US Constitution to allow him to be returned to power? And you remember that news cycle when he was having dinner with Neo Nazis. Huh? And then there was a new cycle. And this is part of the problem, is that we keep moving on and the default setting of
most of our punditry now is just horse race up. No, let's let's gaze a little bit more in our navel. We'll talk about this pole, or we'll talk about that, or we'll do this game theory about all of that. It's like, hello, do you remember who Donald Trump is, what Donald Trump has done, what Donald Trump tells us on a regular basis, he's going to do. See, Mully, you and I can engage in Trump derangement syndrome and say, you know what second Trump term? He would be all
about revenge and retribution. Trump is like you know, says hold my beer, absolutely, and we're going to execute the top general. And I have this list of people that would incredibly prosecute. It's like you can't come up with something that he is not going. No, I'll do you one better. You know you think I'm not going to support you, creat I'm going to fuck NATO all together. I'm going to amend it all of our allies.
And I want to point out for our listeners that I'm not laughing because this is funny. I'm laughing because it's just so upsetting that the only way I can process it is and I mean, what you're saying is funny, but it's funny tragic, not fun.
Oh no, no, it's it's also if you're not laughing at it, what are you doing, You're like blowing your brains out?
You know, It's like it's yeah, exactly, and it's it really is.
You know, it's up to eleven, so there's no world in which he disappears. The thing I wanted to ask you is we've seen the polls. Again, we don't even need to talk about the polls, but obviously they somehow have American people deciding against It's three thousand people in five states, but who answer their cell phones to unknown numbers. So I'm just going to put that out there but that group has decided they love Donald Trump and think
he has incredible mental acuity, which, okay, that's baffling. But if Trump loses in twenty twenty four, which we really need to happen so democracy survives, I don't think he goes away.
Oh see, I was hoping I didn't have to go here this early. I remember that moment when I was doing my podcast back in twenty twenty and I said, you know, even if he loses, he could run in twenty twenty four. Nothing bands He's not going to have He's not going to made loss because Donald Trump never loses. He's gonna run in twenty nine. People, No, no, oh my god. And so so you raise the question he loses in twenty twenty four, there's no chance that he
graciously concedes. See, there is no chance that he acknowledges his defeat. There's no chance that he does not press the Republican Party in Congress to overturn the election. And there is a very real chance that Donald Trump will fully intend to run again in twenty twenty eight. Okay, I need to start day drinking. Just you just have pushed me right over the limit here.
I don't think he's a better candidate in twenty twenty eight. I mean he's not a right, he'll be eighty two that or no, he'll be eighty I don't know, he'll be eighty five or something.
I mean he'll be the most robust candidate. He'll will be the best and strongest candidate. This has been part of this sort of this this cycle, this nightmare cycle that we're in here evolving this. But and what I'm also noting is that and I'm going to take a shot at some of our never trump friends. I am a never Trumper that because we've been doing this for
eight years. There's almost a PTSD about this where I sense a bookend on social media between the triumphilism of the MAGA folks we're going to win, nothing you will do will stop us, and the never trumpers who go, we will never win. There's nothing we can do to stop them. It's a bookend. It's like the arrogance and the despair. Let's swallow in our despair. At a certain point, you just got to suck it up and go, Okay, we're not the crazy ones. We don't have to buy
the bullshit. Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that we are dealing with some other worldly genius who has scoped out everything, and that we are incapable of finding a way of stopping him, or blocking him, or humiliating him. I mean, it is almost a Stockholm syndrome that I'm seeing here, the people going, Hey, you know, here's my hot take. Who won the elle? Donald Trump's the big winner? Who won the debate? Donald Trump's the
big winner. What's gonna happen on abortionble? Donald Trump is going to figure? No, this guy is he has this reptilian instinct, which I do not underestimate. He does have a reptilian instinct and a certain low cunning. But if you watch him, which you also realize that his arrogance, his narcissism, and his fundamental shallowness does catch up with him occasionally. You know. You put him on the stand in New York, and I'm sorry that was not a
master class in being a defendant. That was and raging against the dark.
And screaming at the judge who was about to decide his fate, which in my mind is not a great move.
Really. Huh See, I'm not a lawyer either, but VI didn't seem smart to me.
Yeah, I mean that is the thing is, you know, he is not some cunning genius. We only have a few minutes left, and I don't want to just talk about Trump because I want to talk to you about this is theoretically a good Senate map Republicans. We have twenty twenty three is over. We had this election where Democrats really won. I'm hoping you can talk about gun Youngkin was sort of shopped as this moderate. He never was really a moderatey. I think he offered a sort of more deluded form of trump Ism.
The people of Virginia's they sort of they did not give him a mandate.
Well, he's a moderate in the sense of in terms of where the windows moved. I mean, the definitions are shifting here. But you know, there was the fever dream of the donor class that he was going to be able to come in and, you know, perhaps save them from Trump. That was never going to happen. That's why I said, no, his ambitions have gone to the rapidly
filling unicorn graveyard. He was a unicorn there. But I think what's really rattled Republicans after this election is the recognition they have two problems and they are separable problems. I mean, number one is the obvious problem of abortion. Abortion is not going away. It's still motivating voters. And they had hoped that they had cracked the code in Virginia by coming up with a fifteen week ban, figuring that a fifteen week ban pulls much better than a
six week ban, right, which it does. Yeah, and you can tell that you talk to Republicans that are thinking, hey, this is the way out of this particular problem that we have created. What you saw in Virginia was that voters are not focusing on the number of weeks. They're focusing on the word ban. And so the fifteen week ban flopped and that was their default setting, that was their off ramp, and now they're going, oh, we're screwed
on this. Their second problem, besides wars, which is not going away, is that MAGA continues to be a loser. You know, what happened in Kentucky is amazing really when you think about it. Trump wins by twenty six points deep red state Andy Basheer was elected governor by I think bout five thousand votes. Four years ago. Donald Trump goes all in Daniel Cameron, the Republican puts on the
MAGA red hat runs full out, full throatd MAGA. The Democrats pushback, say, you know, we're running against MAGA extremists. We have a centrist Democrat against MAGA extremists. And Andy Basheer wins by five points. That is a comb margin in that state, a state that Donald Trump won by twenty six points. So MAGA continues to be a boat anchor. Abortion is not going away, and they haven't figured out how to handle it.
Yeah, and this is Kentucky. This is not Georgia. This is not a sweet state. This is a red state. Now Wisconsin, Yeah, wiscon Sorry. I think it's really a good point that they can't win on abortion. I would like to talk to you for a second about what happened in Mississippi, because again I haven't seen enough reporting about what happened in Mississippi, but I have some anxiety that it was not so easy to vote in Mississippi.
I honestly don't know. I mean, I've seen the same reports you've seen about running out of ballots. I do think that there have been efforts to make it harder to vote, particularly in urban areas. I was on a conference call yesterday about voting in Wisconsin. No, voting in Wisconsin is the vote turnout is dramatically up everywhere except in the urban areas in places like Milwaukee, where they have made it harder to vote the various changes in state law. So I don't know, you know, how that
played out in Mississippi. If I remember my history, I believe the Mississippi has kind of a checkered past when it comes to voting rights.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's.
Kind of a track record there. It is not implausible to think that in Mississippi they made it more difficult. But I simply don't don't have enough information, right.
But I do think that's a good point, and I do think that the battle for voting rights, I think people find it boring, but it is actually quite an important, you know, thing that underscores all of those.
Well, yes, obviously, you know a lot of things that we had taken for granted are now obviously at risk. And I think this is we're living through an ror in which, you know, our complacency has been shattered on one issue after another, and certainly ought to be shattered about our complacency about the robustness of our democracy.
Charlie Sikes, thank you so much. I hope you'll come.
Back anytime, Molly, anytime. Thank you.
Jacob Rubashkin is an analyst and reporter for Inside Elections.
Welcome to Fast Politics.
Jacob, Yeah, thanks for having me.
We are a few days out from an off here. I think it's like an off off here election. First, I want you to explain a little bit about what you do, and then I'm going to make you interpret the results.
I'm a reporter and analyst for Inside Elections. We exclusively cover elections primarily for the House and Senate and governor, but also some presidential and when the need arises a state level things that can inform us about the national political environment. So we spend our.
Whole day looking at data.
Looking at data, but also interviewing sources, interviewing candidates, talking to people here in DC, but also out in all of these districts and states where the races are taking place, and combining the data that we see with those interviews and on the ground reporting we do to paint as full of picture as possible.
There were a few state elections, some very important, some an indicator I was told that from the White House world that this is the first time in thirty years that a president's party has done this well consistently on an off year. Talk to me about sort of the meaning of these elections. I mean, were they from just a sort of straight data, no opinion point of view. Do you see this as having been a good cycle for Democrats?
Absolutely?
I think for the most part, when you look at kind of these disparate races that took place in a handful of states across the country, Democrats did well in almost all of them. Right. I think if you looked at any individual contest, right, if you said, I'm only going to look at Virginy R. I'm only going to look at Kentucky, you would say, okay, well Democrats did well in that race. But it's just one state, right, it's a local race.
But Andy Burscher, let's talk about Kentucky for a minute. He won by five thousand in that first race. In this second race, he actually did better.
Right, Absolutely, I mean he got went from winning by five thousand votes to five percent. And in Kentucky, no less, which is obviously a very republican state these days. So you know, I think that the sum total of everything. The fact that they didn't just do well in one or two of these states, but that they did well in almost every state that was holding an interesting election. Here is what makes it a good night for Democrats across the board.
Virginia and Kentucky both have this issue of abortion. Right for Chaer ran on abortion. He was an apologetically pro choice. He talked about it. He really is a little bit counterintuitive in a red state like that, but he really ran on it. And in Virginia, you know, the idea here was that Democrats needed to hold and we interviewed a ton of people from both the state Senate races and the House of Delegates races, because we are nothing if not in the weeds. They needed to hold the
state Senate. Winning the House of Delegates didn't even in my mind, I was prize the Democrats did that. They really ran on this idea that if Youngkin was able to have a rubber stamping state legislature, he would ban abortion at fifteen weeks.
Yeah.
Absolutely, Abortion certainly the dominant issue in those Virginia races. You know, it was really interesting. We saw for the first time Republicans try and coalesce around a single message on abortion right. Ever since the Dobbs ruling came down a year and a half ago, Republican candidates have struggled to get on the same page about what they're proposing to fill the gap that you know, Roe versus Wade
used to fill. And some candidates wanted a total ban, no exceptions, Oklahoma style, some wanted six weeks, ten weeks, fifteen weeks, twenty weeks. It was all over the map, and what they were trying to do in Virginia was Youngkin basically said we're going to go fifteen weeks. That's what the polling tells us is popular. Everyone who's running for state legislature is going to get on the same page about fifteen weeks. We're all going to run ads
fifteen weeks. It's not a ban, it's a reasonable limit, and it was not enough to get over the finish line. So I do think it'll be interesting to see what Republicans do now that that experiment fell short. Do they stay with this fifteen weeks because that's what the polling numbers say, or are they back to a state of disarray when it comes to what exactly the party as a whole is proposing on abortion.
That is a really interesting point, right, because this is here someone who took a more quote unquote moderate view. There's a lot that's sort of supported by polling, right, not like a Mike Johnson view, but a really kind of careful view. And he too, really got his clock cleaned.
Yeah, you know, I think that. You know, it's been fascinating to see Republicans kind of within this particular issue sphere learn a lesson that I think Democrats have been learning for quite some time. For instance, when it comes to guns, right, Democrats talk all the time about how universal background checks have a ninety percent approval rating in the general public. Right, ninety percent of voters support more restrictive gun laws like universal background checks, a saw weapon ban,
things like that. And yet when they go to the polls, they aren't just going to vote for the candidate that supports that policy, right. There are a lot of other considerations, primarily whether they think they'll just stop at that, you know, either the fifteen week ban when it comes to abortion, or you know, just a universal background check. There's a lack of trust when it comes to Republicans on abortion. That meant that even though they were saying in these ads,
I'm only going to go fifteen weeks. Voters didn't necessarily believe that, because they saw them cheering on the striking down of Row versus way, they saw them take more restrictive stances in the past, and so they weren't willing to vote on faith that Republicans would just do that and nothing more, at least the voters who might be
open to that. And then of course you've got a lot of voters who don't support fifteen weeks and were never going to back a Republican who they thought was going to pass any sort of abortion restriction.
Is there a sense in which it's trump But I think it's more than that. It's sort of because not all of these people are Trumpet. But there is a certain maga bravado, right, and we see it in Mike Johnson, and we see it in Jim Jordan, this sort of performative politics that is very crazy.
And very loud.
And Lauren Beaupert and MTG do you think that this is creating an atmosphere of mistrust for the Republican Party. I'm just thinking out loud when I think about like voters not taking politicians at their word. Youngkin's whole thing was that he was talked about as someone who could sell himself as a moderate. What he was unable to do in this election cycle was sell himself as a
motor right. They didn't trust him. So I just wonder how you get to a place where voters really where the R next to your name hurts you in your inability to you know, sell the game.
Yeah.
Look, I think that there are a couple of things going on, right. I think that specifically to this race and this set of races, Junkin was not on the ballot himself. I think he is still popular in Virginia as an individual figure. And obviously he won that election narrowly, but he still won two years ago, and he did that by winning over a lot of voters who have
typically voted Democratic. But I do think that in the Trump era, right, really ever since twenty sixteen, Yeah, there has been a shift in the way that a lot of voters, voters that are heavily represented in Virginia, right, Virginia's kind of ground zero in a lot of ways for a lot of the shifts that we've seen in the two party coalitions over the last decade or so have become more skeptical of Republicans. And I think everyone is skeptical of their politicians in general, and that's.
Not a bad thing.
That's probably a good thing that voters don't just blindly believe what a politician says they're going to do in a campaign.
Ad Right, and they may be more skeptical of Democrats.
That's possible too, right, Yeah, absolutely, And I think look, the Virginia races were very close. Right, We're going to look at a state Senate that's twenty one to nineteen, a state House that's fifty one forty nine. It doesn't get much closer than that. So I do think that this was a loss for Republicans. They put a lot of political capital, a lot of financial capital behind trying to flip the state Senate and get full control of government.
They felt short, absolutely, But this was not a wipeout. This was a very very narrow result in favor of Democrats. But they lost the House of Delegates.
They did, and.
That's why I'm saying it's not it's not a good outcome for Republicans. It could have been a lot worse for them. There were four or five seats that were very narrow that went for Republicans that could have easily
flipped to Democrats. And so I wonder what the lesson is going to be that Republicans draw from this, Whether it's a lesson about abortion, or whether it's a lesson about Virginia just not quite being there for them yet, whether it's a lesson about vote by mail, which is something that they invested in heavily this election cycle for
the first time. There are a lot of different lessons that they might pull out of the results here that might not just be We've got to totally rethink on abortion again.
Right, And quite frankly, Republicans are really in a sticky wicket when it comes to abortion because the people who are their bread and butter are the people who they must win in order to win elections. They have gone to the Republican Party because they want abortion van.
Yeah, it's tough. It is not something that the party has figured out how to solve yet. You know, I think it was interesting for the five people who watched the Republican primary debate last night. I don't know I was one of them. I don't know if you were. You know, we got to five on the podcast. Okay, what a five?
They don't came enough to watch that debate, I'm sorry to tell you.
One of the interesting moments was when abortion came up, you know, an hour and forty five minutes, in which I think was a little late for such a pressing issue.
You know, there was a real difference in opinion among the people on this age that I thought was illustrative of the kind of internal struggle that Republicans are going on between people who want a national law, people like Nikki Haley, who might vote for a national law or sign a national law, but thinks it's not feasible and so not worth you know, even talking about because it'll turn voters off. People like Chris Christy, who are like,
whatever the states want. If New Jersey wants to have no limits, that's fine with New Jersey.
Again, you don't have to say anything here, but because I know you're not on the opinion side, but I will say, because this is I'm on the opinion side.
This is a lie.
This whole thing about that it's the state's rights they have right now, you know, a group trying to ban the abortion pills, so yes, they shop it that way.
But that's not really what it is.
Yeah, I think that there was a lot missing from that discussion. Obviously, the judge down in Texas that's trying to ban life PRISTO and the dynamics there that went totally unremarked upon are important, and Republicans really don't have an answer for them. The movement to try and ban contraception, I think, which is even as unpopular as a lot of the abortion restrictions are right, contraception bans are times ten unpopularity. Not not really, of course, but you know,
quite significant. They are not just all over the place in terms of what they want, but they're all over the place and how to talk about it and how to try and sell voters on trusting them on abortion policy.
They have not.
Figured that out yet, and I don't think they're any closer to figuring it out for next year's elections.
The thing I am struck by with this Republican contest is there's no one who is offering a radically different view of trump Ism.
Really.
Yeah, I mean, I think that the candidates who are even slightly deviating have really struggled to gain traction. Obviously, you know, someone like Asa Hutchinson, who's that right, the former governor of Arkansas, who I think is still technically running but hasn't made any of the debates since the first one. Honestly, he probably had the most clearly articulated kind of return to pre Trump Republicanism as his plat.
He was one of the only candidates other than Chris Christy who basically has said Trump should be barred from running for president. He is probably going to be a convicted felon, you know. He obviously didn't get anywhere. But look, I think that most of the people who see a version of Republicanism that's different than trump Ism have voluntarily or involuntarily left the party, and they've certainly left any
sort of real positions of power within the party. And if they are still there in positions of power, they're smart enough not to rock the vote too much because they know which way the elector at swings.
But again, it does come back to this, the base wants something different than what the general wants.
Yeah, I mean, I think that is probably the case. I think there's a lot of data floating out there right now to suggest that, you know, if the election were held today, things might be a little closer than perhaps anticipated. I don't think that's necessarily a reflection of general election voters wanting trump Ism and more just they've forgotten what trump Ism is and they don't like Biden, and so they're just grasping for whatever altern it out.
Let's talk about that poll, because there's actually also there was another one too. So there were two poles of c and And poll and New York Times poll, and they both basically said the same thing, which is that voters are not very happy with Biden, and for a number of reasons, him being old, being very high on the list. So I just want to like take a minute here to sort of look at this for a second. So these poles compared Biden, they were sort of they
were like, how do you feel about Biden? Right? And even like the exit polls, I don't totally trust the polls. And again, three thousand people, six states, but they are the states that matter. But the exit polling in Ohio, for example, that's something I put more faith in, right, because they're voting anyway, they're in there. This is the exit polling. Biden got very poorer marks from them in Ohio, which is a red state, but then they absolutely voted
for the abortion initiative. So is it a smart play to put abortion on the back everywhere and will that help Democrats on the ticket?
I think absolutely. It's not a silver bullet, right. It's not like if there's an abortion right. Obviously, Ohio was not going to vote fifty six percent for Joe Biden if the abortion referendum were on the ballot next to Biden.
But I do think that from a turnout perspective, once you get people into the voting booth for whatever reason, right, whether it's to vote for Biden or to vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, if they're a Democrat, they're far more likely to vote for Joe Biden.
Right.
The worry that I think Biden has right now is that people just aren't going to show up. Younger voters, voters of color, people who are dissatisfied with the job he's doing might just sit it out. It's not that they're going to vote for Trump, because I think ultimately those people dislike Trump far more than they dislike Biden.
But the thing that items like the ballot referenda helps with is is getting those voters in the ballot box in the first place, and once they're there, they're probably not going to leave the top of the ticket, like especially with Trump's name on the ballot. So I think we're seeing in states across the country. I think the
most notable one is Florida. We'll see if they get there or not, because it's a tough process to get on the ballot, but we're seeing Democrats really try and get abortion referenda on the ballot and as many states as possible for next year so they can try and get whatever boost out of it they can.
And there were a lot of tight races. But one of the things that Dave Wasserman, as you and I both know Blue Wave Dave or red Waves day, I want to read this to you because I think it's a little bit interesting. She said that it seems in his mind that there was a turnout problem for Republicans and that there was a sort of an enthusiasm problem, And I was wondering if you had seen that, and also what your take on that was.
Yeah.
Look, I think that one of the things that we are beginning to grapple with in kind of the Trump era of politics is this question of who is showing up to vote in off year elections and special elections.
In Kentucky, Republicans had a turnout enthusiasm problem.
Sorry, that was what I was looking for.
Yeah, you know, I think that that is a very reasonable question to ask. You know, I think that it's become clear that one of the major shifts and coalitions over the last ten years, right has been you We've seen college educated voters move toward the Democratic Party, and we've seen lower propensity, non college educated voters, more rural
voters moved toward the Republican Party. And that has resulted in potentially, right, a special election electorate, an off year election electorate that favors Democrats in some structural ways, because the more educated you are, the more likely you're going to show up to vote in an off year election. The more engaged politically you are, right, the more likely you are to show up in an off year election. And so Republicans, I think, as they've lost some of
those voters in the suburbs of even in Stea. It's like Kentucky, right, which you know, has a lot of wealthy suburbs outside of Louisville and Lexington has wealthy suburbs up by Cincinnati, places where Andy Basheer did significantly better in twenty twenty three than he did in twenty nineteen. That's a real problem for them when it comes to these off year elections. Same thing in Virginia. You know, we saw in northern Virginia Democrats ultimately did pretty well,
and you've got a lot of college educated voters. There are a lot of government workers there. In Hampton Roads, for instance, where the Democratic coalition skews a little bit more rural, a little bit you know, reliant on black voters, we saw Democrats not do as well in some of those districts. So even within Virginia, we saw kind of the effects of the change in coalitions on the turnout and the ultimate results.
So Moms for Liberty and parental rights, let's talk about this.
Prontal rights quote unquote.
This was the sort of thing that a lot of Republicans sought would win them elections. And Moms for a Liberty a whole slight of school board candidates, including just As Alito's daughter, and they all lost except for one of them. Talk to me about that weirdness.
We have seen a segment of the Republican Party really lean into social issues over the last couple of years, be it issues about schools and the kind of books that students are reading, transgender issues, treatment for trans kids. We have seen Republicans lean into those issues as political messaging tools to very very mixed, I would say, negative results from a political perspective. I think what happened ultimately was that there was a reaction to school closures during COVID.
There was a reaction to masking rules during COVID that really did drive a lot of parents who otherwise would have voted down the line for Democrats to consider voting for Republicans. And when we look at like the twenty twenty one Virginia elections, right, I think it's clear that some of the things Terry mccauliffe said about parents and
schools hurt him and they contributed to that loss. But I think the mistake Republicans made was they mapped that anger onto a different issue, which is books and learning about sexuality and learning about transgender people and like those kinds of issues which which were very different, very different than COVID restrictions. And they expected the same people who were angry about COVID to be angry about those things
and they weren't right. And so we saw and it's not just the Mom's for Liberty on the school board. It was Daniel Cameron in Kentucky and his allies running ads a sailing Andy Basheer for you know, the line was that he supports gender change surgery for trans kids.
Right.
That was in millions of dollars. I think they ran five million dollars in ads that mentioned those surgeries. And it wasn't effective. It didn't even in deep red Kentucky. That was not an issue that motivated people to go out and vote against Andy Bisheer. So we saw that at the school board level that they, you know, a lot of these Moms for Liberty slates failed to capture
or retain control of school boards. We saw it at the state level as well in Kentucky where it just didn't click with voters at all.
Thank you, Jacob.
Of course.
George Laws is the executive director of the Puerto Rico Statehood Council. Welcome, too fast politics, George.
Thank you so much, Molly. It's great to be here.
We are here to talk about something that isn't an obsession of mine. I feel like it's like a low key obsession of every Democrat we know, which is the fifty first state. No, I'm not talking about South South Dakota or North North Dakota or West West Dakota. I'm dogging about an actual place with a lot of people, which is part of America. Even though Donald Trump, I think now he knows, let's talk.
About Puerto Rico.
Definitely.
Our project, tell me what is called, and tell me all about it now.
Our project is called PR fifty first and you can go to PR fifty first dot com to check us out.
And it makes a.
Lot of sense because this is all about the fifty first date exactly.
It's a project by the nonprofit that I lead as executive director, which is the Puerto Rico Statehood Council, and our goal is to advance full equality and democracy for the US citizens of Puerto Rico, which unfortunately, for over one hundred and twenty five years, have been relegated to a second class status by Congress because in American democracy under the US Constitution, unless you're a US citizen that lives in a state, you don't actually get voting representation
in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. And you don't have any voting representation in the electoral College, so you're subject to federal laws, but you're deprived of any actual say in those laws.
And then at top of it, you're treated unequally under them.
And that's what we're seeking to end, and we support statehood as the best solution for Puerto Rico and America.
Why is it that Puerto Rican statehood has such a hard time.
Well, you know, this issue has been an issue that's been around for one hundred and twenty five years, and I think it has such a hard time because it's out of sight and out of mind for the majority of the American public most of the time. That changed significantly in twenty seventeen when we had the hurricanes Irma
and Maria devastate Puerto Rico. Americans saw a lot of the horrible footage of the damage that was happening on the island and the lackluster response by President Trump and his administration during that time, and as a result, a lot of people were appalled that, hey, here are fellow American citizens just as important to us as our fellow citizens in Texas and in Florida and in Louisiana. When they experienced natural disasters, we should be taking care of
them too. So I think that that's really elevated the awareness about the fact that, you know, our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico are treated unequally, and then that's increasing the visibility of this issue. But traditionally most people a state side are just really unaware that our fellow citizens on the island are treated unequally and deprived of full democracy and full voting rates.
How would Puerto Rican statehood actually happen? Give us the nuts and bolts here.
So the US Constitution's very clear that Congress has the power to admit new states into the Union. They've done so thirty seven times since the original thirteen colonies became the first states, so there's a pretty clear precedent for how this happens. Congress has to pass legislation. The way that they did it in the case of Alaska and Hawaii, which were the last two states to be admitted, is that there were locally sponsored votes that were held in
those territories. Majority of the citizens there said that they didn't want to continue being territories and that they wanted to be states, and then took a lot of pressure and a lot of work for Congress to finally get around to passing what they called it Admission Bill, but eventually they did. And what that bill said is, we're offering you Alaska Hawaii admission into the Union, and if your citizens vote yes in a final vote, then you're in.
And that's basically what happened in nineteen fifty nine, and those were the last two states that joined the Union. It doesn't require constitutional amendment, it doesn't require two thirds vote in either chamber. It's a simple majority in the House and the Senate and the signature of the President. And Puerto Rico would beyond path to becoming America's fifty first state.
So does that seem possible? And let's talk about the sort of support you have in the government.
So it definitely seems more possible now than it has ever been. And I'll tell you why because much the same way that happened in Alaska Hawaii, in Puerto Rico. Over the last decade, we've held three locally sponsored votes they're called plubsites, where voters were given the option to choose between continuing to be a territory and the non territory options that are available under the Constitution, which are statehood, independence,
and free association. And each time voters rejected continuing under the current territory status and they favored statehood over the non territory options, and that has generated significant momentum for this issue to advance. During the last session of Congress, the House actually passed a bill that would essentially authorize a federally sponsored vote that would give voters in Puerto Rico that very choice to choose between statehood, independence, or
independence of free association. It passed with unanimous support among House Democrats and even sixteen Republican votes, which, considering that we were just a couple of weeks away from Republicans taking over the House majority, was amazing to be able to get that much bipartisan support. And it also passed with a statement of administration policy by the Biden administration
saying that they endorsed this bill. So that passed in December, and unfortunately the Senate obviously didn't have time to take up the measure, and that's where we pick up with what happened this week with a Senator Martin Heinrich introducing a Senate companion bill that would allow for this process to take place for Puerto Ricans to choose their future.
And the bill came out with a historic amount of original co sponsors, with twenty one Senate members one fifth of the Senate already saying that they endorse this idea and that they want to have this happen.
What does that mean.
It means that right now we have the opportunity to accumulate support for this legislation and have that legislation be brought up in committees so it can be debated, and other Senators aren't engaged on this issue can become aware of it, and you know, when the right opportunity comes, which you know, maybe during this session, but more likely than not, we'll have to wait until the next session
of Congress. We have the opportunity to actually pass this legislation, have Congress officially commit to offering voters in Puerto Rico definitive choice among the non territory options, and then ultimately
let Puerto Rico decide its future. And I firmly believe that if Congress offers the US citizens of Puerto Rico the opportunity to choose between statehood, independence or independence with free association, that an overwhelming majority of voters are going to choose statehood because I think they think that that's the best option for Puerto Rico, and they also feel very strongly that it's the best option for strengthening American democracy.
Explain to me what happened yesterday.
So yesterday we had a historic press conference. A Senator Martin Heinrich led the introduction of a bill called the Puerto Rico Status Act. This is the Senate companion to the House bill that I mentioned was passed in the House last session, was introduced, reintroduced again this session of Congress. He had twenty one members of the Senate in total participating as sponsors of the bill. The Governor of Puerto Rico, Pedro pier Luisi, who's a Democrat nationally, he was there
and was endorsing this completely. And Puerto Rico's a Resident Commissioner, which is our non voting member in the House of Representatives, Jennifer Gonzales Coloone who's a Republican, she was there endorsing this too. So it really sets the stage for the opportunity to build on what happened you know last session, where the House passed this and the Senate didn't have the opportunity to take action. Well, now we've got to
build in the Senate. We've got the opportunity to get Senate members on it and be able to push for that to be advanced in the legislative process. And one fascinating fact is that if you look at the senators who supported it, you have people from all the way to the left like Bernie Sanders to Senator Bennett from Colorado, which is, you know, one of the more centrist and moderate Democrats. So it really shows kind of a wide swath of ideological support for this legislation.
I mean, how would Republicans pass something like this?
Well, in the House, I think right now it's very very tough.
You really have to have control of all three branches to do.
This, right, I think that that's the most likely scenario. But let's think a little bit here, and it has to do with the Republican politics, right. So the common knowledge that Republicans have is that if Puerto Rico were a state, would practically add two Senate Democrats and you know, four Democrat House members. The electoral politics in Puerto Rico don't really back that up, right, So our current governor
is a Democrat, our current Resident Commission of Congress. As a Republican, she has been the top vote getter in Puerto Rico elections for the last three election cycles, and she recently announced that she's actually challenging the governor in a primary in Puerto Rico. Because in Puerto Rico, they're both part of the pro statehood party right, which is the one that fields candidates on the ballot, So Republicans actually
have a base of conservative support in Puerto Rico. They just have to realize that it's there appeal to those voters as opposed to just presuming that just because we're Hispanics, we're going to automatically vote Democrat. So there's a little bit of education that needs to happen there on the
Republican side. I believe that there is a possibility that, looking at the close election that we're looking forward to in twenty twenty four, our Republicans are going to have to take a look at those Puerto Rican voters because they're not just on the island in three point two million, right, but stateside, there's a population of five point eight million Puerto Ricans, and they're not just in solid Democrat states
like New York they're also in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, and in all of those states, even just a few thousand votes can tilt the balance of the electoral college right.
And it's also it's ultimately even more than that, like this is a state. These are people who are American citizens who don't have the same rights as everyone else.
Well, most definitely, I think that anyone on the Republican side or the Democratic side that's looking at this from a perspective of our core values as a country. America has founded on the idea of government by consent of the government. That's literally why we fought the American Revolution,
and territory status goes directly against that. Holding fellow US citizens under a permanent territory status where they don't have a say in the federal laws that they live under, and then on top of that they're treated unequally and worse than everyone else under those laws, that's un American.
So on a principal basis, I think it's absolutely one hundred percent clear, and there's many Republicans that want you talk about it from a constitutional perspective, and that principles basis they really get it and they're on board with it. It's the politics and the short term thinking that really gets in the way of much of their potential for
supporting this further. And that's part of what we're trying to to cut across now in our outreach efforts and our education efforts in the port Eco fifty first.
Such an interesting project. I mean, do you need volunteers, do you need money? What do you guys need?
So right now, our biggest need is for our fellow citizens' stateside to contact their members of Congress, to reach out to their representatives and senators. You can go onto our website at PR fifty first dot com and click on the take action button. We've got a web form that you can use to reach out to your members of Congress to let them know that America shouldn't be holding colonies. That America needs to make sure that all its citizens have the opportunity to have a say in the type
of government that they live under. And in the case of the three point two million US citizens of Puerto Rico, we're being held as a territory on behalf of American citizens by Congress. So you guys have the power contacting your members of Congress to tell them, you know, sponsor this legislation, the Puerto Rico Status Act, and provide a pathway out of territory status for our fellow citizens in
Puerto Rico. And that's not only going to help Puerto Rico significantly improve its local situation, but ultimately in a strengthen American democracy, because right now there's a lack of representation of US citizens in Congress, where we're passing laws that impact people in Puerto Rico, but we don't have any representation in the Senate, and in the House we only get one member that can speak on the flour but ultimately can't vote on bills that impact their constituents.
So insane. Thank you so much for coming on.
No, thank you so much, Molly. I greatly appreciate it, and definitely, if there's any opportunities to provide further updates on this issue or any other information that would be helpful for you or your audience, would love to be back here and continue showcasing the growth of this issue, which is, you know, not just an issue for elected officials, but it's really a citizens movement from people in Puerto Rico.
As well as all of our allies and supporter state side that together are going to make the difference and change the course of American history for the better. Yeah, thank you, Thank you so much, Jesse Cannon.
Molly junk Fest. The news just broke. That seems pretty disturbing. What do you see in here? Fucking guy? Can we just cue Nandor from what we do in the shadows?
Yes? And guy, fucking guy, this fucking guy, as to quote Nandor Saten Island's best resident. That fucking guy, the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, messed up the Inflation Reduction Act, now trying to mess up the twenty twenty for president. See, Joe Manchin is not going to run for reelection, but instead he's going to going to do a listening tour, which means he's going to try and run for president and mess up the election for Joe Biden and bring us back into fascism. And that is
why Joe Manchin occupies our moment of fuck. Right. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again thanks for listening.