Episode 184: Working Class Revolution: How Democrats Lost Their Traditional Base

I just look back at myself in high school and how much more of a high quality individual ava is than me and I , and I feel good about that thank you .

He's also not our guy , let's just not frame it that way . It's a good point , but everybody's our guy in this , hey , which basically requires being an American citizen to vote . I know it's crazy , it's outrageous . It's outrageous . Married women will never be able to vote again , Never to be able to vote again . They're not voting . We're sorry .

We're eliminating married women .

we start with emails .

Thanks for keeping things light while at the same time serious . Oh yes , thank you , atomic Mom .

So far , zero candidates for mayor or governor appeal to me . Her vote is mark for governor , christy for mayor and Ava for state press secretary . Thank you , thank you .

Okay , and you can go and read it . I'm not , we're not going to read a bunch of it for you . I will read just one little piece of this for you and then I want to . I want to explain what I think is going on here , or what possibly is going on here . There's really one of two explanations for this whole campaign and I want to get into those .

But here's one little paragraph . It says in 2024 , democrats faltered because a rigid ideological minority pushed too far too fast . Voters were told we will fight for your health care and wages , but only if you sign on to every part of our cultural platform . That was simply too much for too many .

People should not be forced to choose between economic justice and holding on to their deeply held values . Ironically , while Republicans under Donald Trump attacked the left for this , they now impose , excuse me , the same ideological purity test , leaving voters with nowhere to turn . Okay , so he spends this op-ed kind of .

Basically , he's trying to hit Trump as much as he can for his bona fides for the left and then trying to say that his side made some mistakes too . Ok , he's trying to kind of play this thing down the middle . Ok , and so either one of two things is happening here with his campaign . Number one he has no understanding of the party in which he's running in .

He just he looks at this party as he did when he was party chairman 15 years ago and thinks that he has a reasonable middle . That vote in primary elections that will bail him out OK , or some independents that will come in and vote and bail him out OK . That's one thing . I don't think he's clueless on the on the party he's running .

No , I don't think that's it . I think more likely it's number two he has an overinflated opinion of his ability to carry a message and move the electorate . He thinks he can move the party and say look , you got to be reasonable here . And so he's . The quote I just read you from . This thing is convoluted in and of itself , right .

He's saying well , we made some mistakes and we went too far , too too fast . So what , you went too far or you went too fast because you went too far . There's no question about that . I don't care what speed you're going in . The message they're carrying is too far .

Forget the too fast he does the too fast as a little wink like hey , it's not , it's not all that , it's a message we went too fast . Ok , just kind of play that little game a little bit . And then he goes into the Trump hitting game , which every Democrat has to do in a democratic primary , of course , just like a Republican has to do .

But what he thinks is he can come out here with this sort of mealy mouth message Well , there's problems on both sides . Vote for me . That doesn't work in a primary . So if I'm Deb Haaland , I look at this mealy mouth stuff that a guy who thinks he can communicate with a rock and move it . You go to this and you say Sam Bregman doesn't get it .

We're in the political fight of our lives against these Trumpers . We can't have a guy who's blaming our party the whole time . This guy doesn't understand the threat that we face . He truly doesn't get it . And if you want someone who's going to go and try to kind of halfway do this mealy mouth , you want Sam Bregman , but you don't .

You want me , deb Holland , who's going the whole distance . Tell me which message is easier to carry . We are fighting for our lives against Trump , or well , we kind of screwed up , they screwed up . We've got some screw ups going on here . It's sort of anybody who has to sit there and try to pull a message out of a mealy mouth Both sides .

Ism doesn't work in a primary . I've never seen it work and I have never seen it work recently . So , especially in the political environment we live in , sam Bregman going with this message , while I understand the message and while I think some Republicans will read the message and go , yeah , this is more reasonable .

This is the Democratic Party I remember from 15 years ago . That party doesn't exist in a primary . So good luck to you , sir , on this . It'll be fascinating and I find what he's trying to do really interesting and I also think what he's trying to do is really arrogant , and I think he's going to find that out in a very , very significant way .

Now , could I be wrong ? Absolutely I could be wrong , but running in primaries and we've got some knowledge on how the primary works- Just a little bit . I don't care what primary you're running in , republican or Democrat , it doesn't matter .

But if half of your messaging is eh , we screwed this up , you're screwed , you are , so we'll see what happens , okay , we'll see . Maybe I'm wrong , maybe he finds a way and again Deb Haaland could collapse .

All this stuff could happen , there's no question about that , but it's really hard in a primary when your message is well , let me just kind of explain this to you versus her message of we're in a fight for our lives , support me . It's a lot easier case to make .

I don't think we've figured this out yet , but I wonder if they'll count for this election for this governor's office , yeah , 26 .

I'm like , but your party's the one that's been in control for 80 years .

Ok , it was settled law in the state of New Mexico , whether you like it or not , and we don't like it . Ok , that's the way it is . I'm not walking away from that or or saying it's not true . However , it switched because of national politics . National politics . Donald Trump is still going to be the biggest issue in 2026 .

So , because the world has changed , we used to have that . Now I think it will change back eventually .

I think eventually , some of the national stuff will lose its grip on state elections and you'll start to see a little more flexibility between voters saying okay , I'm going to slide back and forth between democrats , but I guess my whole point , though , is with this is if you're actually a constituent , you actually live in this state .

So how was another Democrat governor coming in attacking a president going to help us here in the state ? That , to me , would be the logical argument that somebody that's going to run for on the Republican side is going to . Obviously I understand that but I'm not .

Or I say it's over . I could be totally wrong , but I'm just saying this approach is never demonstrated fruit in the past 10 years . So so I , I'm the moderate here . I'm the moderate , vote for me . I'm the moderate . What I mean ? It's crazy , crazy . So we'll see . But I think you're right .

You're just making the more broad , the more broad electoral point , which I totally would agree with you on right . I just , I just don't think we're ever going to

get to that okay .

It's an amendment actually to the current law that was basically set up in 1993 . This is to try to tighten up the reins , to say , hey , we already have this law that says that if you're not here a US citizen , or you're not here legally , you're not supposed to be allowed to vote .

This is an amendment to that to make sure it's actually being checked that you actually are proving your citizenship or that you're here legally .

You no longer have to do that , and that's by design , right ? They do not . The ruling powers of this state do not want you to have to show an ID and , in fact , the way they'd like it is . If you just want to line up and vote , go for it . All right , we'll hear that in some of the sound we're about to play .

Okay , but the electorate is not with them on this . Okay , and this is another one of those 80-20 issues . Okay , what do I mean by that ? So we'll get into what the save act does here in a second .

But effectively , it requires you to produce you know , for many of you who have the driver's license now , which is the real ID , you already qualify , you're done , right . But but you know , for those of you who don't , there's a couple other steps that could potentially have to be taken .

They're normal stuff , like you having to prove that you're you're a citizen . I never thought we'd be having this debate . You have to be a citizen to vote and you and you have a bunch of people who say we don't want , we don't want that checked , we do not want that checked . Just so you know where the american people are .

Here's the numbers on a few of these things , and not all of these things are . Fall on the on the republican side . Let's go tighter on this so we can actually see it here and you can see . Requiring electronic voting machines to print a paper ballot backup 82% of Americans support that . I think that makes complete sense . We actually do that in New Mexico .

Okay , we have that . Making early in-person voting available to voters at least two weeks prior to election day 76% . I think you don't want to go beyond two weeks . To me , I do think you want to keep it into a timeframe because , as a candidate , it's really difficult once you start going a month out and things like that . It's just so long .

But a couple of weeks does still make some sense . There are plenty of Republicans who don't want it . They just want the Election Day voting . I think two weeks is fine to give people that flexibility , whatever . Making Election Day a national holiday .

There we go , and what you also have here , though , is the very top one here , requiring all voters to show a government-issued photo identification to vote . Okay , that is an 81% issue here . Okay , and so this SAVE Act comes up , because they're trying to basically beef up the fact they want people to be able to be citizens .

Okay , and so I want you to listen to Brian Steele , and he's from Wisconsin , and he got on the floor of the house just before the vote and wanted to make this point to his colleagues .

You should have to go in and show that you're a US citizen when you register to vote . It's just that simple , and I remind my colleagues that we had this debate in this chamber last Congress . Five Democrats joined us in voting for this bill . Well , in a few moments we'll be voting .

Mr Speaker , it'll be darn interesting to see how many Democrats have the courage to come across the line and say , yes , only US citizens should vote in US elections . My colleagues should support this bill and I yield back .

So there's a reason for that , and I and most of the american people realize you should have to show an ID , a legitimate ID , not one that was found who knows where , that you should be able to have to do that to vote .

So I was going in and she said , well , do you have everything you need for the real ID ? And I said , oh , I don't . I don't think I have everything on hand . Can I just get this updated though , so I can fly ? And she said , no , no , no , no , we're only doing real IDs .

That was a year ago , okay , so I was like so that particular location was only point forward . Now I did look it up . You can still get a state-issued ID if you want , but you can't get into certain federal buildings and you can't fly without one as of May 7th of this year . So our state is federally under that law too .

They've had 20 years to get everybody a real ID . So what did that require of me ? I did have to show citizenship . I had to show my birth certificate . My name has changed because I got married to you , so I did have to show a marriage certificate for that and I had to take a passport in , okay , or your social security card .

You can show a couple different areas to get that .

However , I have to say , in the House they had four Democrats that voted in favor of this , so it did pass the House . One of these in particular was a Democratic congressman , jared Goldman of Maine , and I thought his tweet was worth reading today , and he says there are a lot of misleading claims out there about the SAVE Act .

Let me set the record straight I voted for the SAVE Act for . So let me just set it straight too . Okay , I am one of the people that had to prove that I was married when I needed to get the real ID , so I did get in .

My birth certificate was one of those little cheesy ones that had like a little ribbon on it that came from the hospital didn't count . So I just had to look up my county , which I was born in , houston , texas , and I had to order one of those for 10 bucks . It came in the mail in like 24 hours .

Then I had to request another marriage certificate because we've been married a long time . That's what I had to do to get the real ID . It took 25 bucks and a little bit of my time nothing crazy . So I guess it's just saying that like this , you're going to see a lot of messages out there about women not being able to .

They're going to be not able to do this if they've been married and changed their names . It's just not that difficult . It just really isn't that difficult to have to to get this information .

So I want you to listen to what she says about this and listen to a couple things that she says . It's clip number 11 and it's interesting and , ava , I may have you stop it midway through , but let's just listen to what she says and how she's pushing back about what's happening here .

Stop for one second .

Now she keeps going here and starts giving some specific examples of what she has a problem with proof of citizenship , an American passport or a birth certificate to vote First off .

If your name isn't the same as the one on your birth certificate , you're not allowed to use it , so this just spells obstacle .

I would have had that if I didn't do this and I didn't register with my new last name . So it's just yes , it's one step that you have to take . You can do it online . You can get your marriage certificate and you can get your birth certificate and you show it and there you have it if you don't have a passport . So that is .

I just don't think this is the hard mountain pass that they want it to be and that they're thinking that this is going to be so difficult to do this . You have to do the same thing if you want to file for your taxes and if you want to file for Social Security . Well , technically , you're supposed to do this .

Ok , in 2021 , there are 270,000 issued by 2024 , there were two million issued . Ok , so this is some of what some of the pushback is , because you've had a border opened social security cards being handed out .

This is a clear effort to go and get as many people voting for one party as you possibly can , and so no one who's logical in this whole thing looks at this and says , oh , absolutely , this is the way it should be . I mean clearly . I mean , what's happening here is as many people can vote as they want .

According to the representative from Maine , maggie Toulouse-Oliver , who is the secretary of state of New Mexico , she , of course , is against this . She , you know she comes out and says in New Mexico , we've worked diligently to make our voter registration accessible through same day and online voter registration .

The SAVE Act's mandate would effectively dismantle these advancements . That's absolutely not true . Okay , but but you should have to be a citizen of this country . So you know , obviously she pushes back and Melanie Stansbury then comes out and she , of course , voted against this . Okay , and one thing she says is she says I'm confident that it'll die in the Senate .

Stansbury says because they'll need to reach a 60 vote threshold in the Senate and I think there's still enough good Republicans in the Senate who care about our democracy to hopefully stop it . Okay , this is ignorant on about 10 different levels . Number one democracy settles around making sure that you have citizens voting . So I love it . We're for democracy .

Let's loosen the laws on who can vote . That's not democracy . That is trying to set up an election that only you get to win . Ok , that's not how it works . Number two the 60 vote majority that she's talking about . First of all , you don't need to say you're not going to get a single Republican vote to block this . So that's wrong .

60 vote majority would take Democrats to support it . So for her to say that Republicans have a role in killing this , they're not going to . The Democrats are going to kill it . They're going to kill it because they're not going to vote for it .

Okay , on this whole thing of of pushback on what's not true about this , okay , and Ava , it's , I think it's clip 10 and just put this document real quick . We'll we'll make this real fast . But the point is , on the pushback on some of this , it's a couple of different things .

First of all , the SAVE Act would stop women from voting who would change their name . That's obviously not true . The SAVE Act would require everyone to have a US passport . That is not true . None of that is true . And it also we also talk about the . In federal elections , it's already illegal to vote . Okay , I want to get into that .

Federal elections are already illegal to vote if you're not a citizen . Okay

, the point on that is states don't enforce it . So , in other words , you'd have a law that's not being enforced and , in fact , you have counties in this state in New Mexico that have deliberately come out and said we're not checking IDs , we're not checking IDs , so they are deliberately trying not to enforce it , so that's a disingenuous argument .

So there's a reason that there is a push for the SAVE Act . It is just simply that American citizens should be the ones voting , and of course now that's become political , even though it's another one of those 80-20 issues .

When you need to vote , you need your id to do basically anything . Yeah , right to go buy beer . Right to go to go get a welfare check , to go get lots of things that you're going to need to do actually a welfare check .

But again , I think this is another one of those 80-20 issues that they're on the wrong side of . And Harry and Harry Enten came out with a clip on CNN talking about how the parties have shifted here and it's clip 15 .

We got a tie even after this tariff war had already started split between Democrats and Republicans on how people feel which party cares more for needs of people like you . And why is that so surprising ? Because I want you to take a look at prior years . Democrats always lead on this question . Back in 2017 , before the 2018 midterms 13 point lead .

2005 , a 23 point lead for Democrats . 1994 , which was a big Republican year , a 19-point lead for Democrats . And now , all of a sudden , a tie . All of a sudden , the Democrats , who are the party of the people . No more , no more .

We get a tie on this question , on a question that has traditionally overwhelmingly been a Democratic advantage for party which party cares more for the needs of people like you ? It's truly something I would not have expected to see , especially after this tariff war had begun .

Everybody knows it is you know . And when you go , issue after issue , and you say we have to fix this , we have to be for working families in this country , and everything you do shows that you're not on that side . Voting you don't have to be a citizen , don't worry about that . That's an 80-20 issue . You're losing it again .

That issue of who cares more for me , that's a complete flip . And even if it's anywhere near even ever , then it is a massive advantage for Republicans . And this just shows how things have completely and totally changed . Our political parties are reorienting themselves in a way that I never imagined , even a couple of years ago .

It would obviously save us a lot of time , a lot of stress , a lot of money taxpaying money when you go in to investigate this and that and Russiagate or whatever else you want to throw out there .

It should clear up a lot of all the claims that come out after an election and I just think for both sides , don't you want this to be a clean , just election , no matter what side you're on , right ? But you can feel like I believe in the process that we have and I just think I don't understand why it would be so crazy to ask for for ID on that .

This is very close ties to the reorienting of the political parties .

That is , the gains have been concentrated , at least within the last decade , among voters without a college degree , the working class . That is where Republicans have gained , even since the beginning of the Donald Trump administration . The Democratic base is now those with a college degree Among the working class , those without a college degree .

Republicans have overwhelmingly gained on this all-important question of which party cares more for people like yourself .

You're not as smart as we are party . When you're not as smart as we are party , when you're not as smart as we are , when you're part of that party , you lose , you lose , and that's exactly what this is happening right here now .

It doesn't mean in 2026 we're not going to see republicans lose seats in the house and everything else , but but when you see all these things where people talk about the stock market and what's happening with tariffs and you think , oh my gosh , trump's blowing up Stock market's not in good shape , the country's going to revolt . Not necessarily . Not necessarily Now .

You can't go into a deep recession and think you're going to be fine . You'll get destroyed . If we end up in a deep recession , republicans are going to pay the price in a huge way .

White House , kind of like a little bit of a what like ? Was it like a foot and mouth or what I mean ? What happened exactly ?

off on tariffs on things like electronics and things like that , saying all right , hold on , let's reevaluate this and whatever else . So then let Nick comes out and does an interview and let Nick does something rather interesting . So basically , what , what , charlie Gasparino , let's go back up with that tweet again and we'll we'll go through it .

And he says , basically , he said his comments about the temporary nature of the tariff exemptions , meaning saying that , yeah , these tariff exemptions , they're not going to last long , they're coming back . Like the tariff exemptions are coming back .

That basically sends a message to the market get ready to dive again on Monday , right , because this is not a long-term solution . So just listen to what Lutnick says and we'll talk about the importance of it .

We can't be relying on China for fundamental things that we need . Our medicines and our semiconductors need to be built in America . Donald Trump is on it . He's calling that out , so you should understand . These are included in the semiconductor tariffs that are coming and the pharmaceuticals are coming . Those two areas .

When Jonathan Carl asked him so these things are coming back real , real quickly , right ? He should have said look , our goal here is to make sure critical services and products are produced in this country . We will do everything possible to make sure that that happens , so that the American people are not at risk .

In case we end up in some sort of either conflict of a military sort or of an economic sort . We've got to bring these things back . There's a lot of ways we can do that , but by him saying , yeah , they're coming back , loose talk . The minute he goes with that loose talk , he's in trouble , okay .

So that's why words matter , and the people that come out and speak for you have to be tight in their communication style . Howard Ludnick is not . Howard Ludnick is too loose with his communication style and because he is , he hurts the administration . Someone like Scott Besson is better at it , he's tighter with it and he keeps on message .

So when you're off message , the minute he said , oh yeah , all those things are coming back , he blew it up . He blew it up the minute Carl led him into that and he said yep , yep , yep . And then he uses the messaging right . He says we've got to return all these credits . That's absolutely true .

You lead with that and then you don't answer the part if they're coming back , because , first of all , I'm not sure they are . Secondly , he wants them to come back but I'm not sure they're going to Whatever . But he's stolen the message by agreeing with Jonathan Karl , who led him into a wood chipper . This was not a good moment for him .

You have to be disciplined in your communication style and there are so many people who are not Even at the presidential level , you know , even at an administration . It's incredibly important that you're smart about this stuff . Lutnik is too loose with it and my guess is you're going to see less and less of Lutnik .

I think you're going to see less and less of Lutnick . I think you're going to see less and less of Navarro right , because these guys are too loose with the things that they say . So you've got to get someone like Besant who is tighter on these messages and understands that even the wrong statement , even a quick agreement like that was right .

Even that quick agreement , it sidelined everything . So all of a sudden , the markets get up on Monday morning and the flexibility that the administration tries to provide in some of this , to give them some room to negotiate , is ends up .

The story again gets hijacked and it will be what happens with the stock market and again we've made the case that the stock market's not the economy . But you can't stack up day after day when you step in it on these little things , right ?

And we've directed you to listen to Besant before . He's just has to navigate .

Lutnick leads with his personal beliefs on this , so does Navarro , and that ends up getting the administration in trouble , not necessarily from a policy sense , but from a political sense , where you end up having to clean up things on aisle four that you don't want to have to clean up .

how New Mexico fits into this . We have a $3 billion budget surplus . Did we get significant tax cuts for working families in the state of New Mexico ?

So as we look at that , you see , okay , you know what money going back into people's pockets and incentivizing them to be able to keep more of their own money would work here , but we don't do it .

I mean we are highest in poverty , I believe we're one of the most I mean we need , we have most people on welfare of any other place in the country and I just I can't understand how our state legislature can't vote in favor of giving a tax rebate , especially an oil and gas tax rebate , which we've discussed at length about how this makes sense .

So that part of it is incredibly frustrating . And they do it because they have a they have a political ideology that trumps actual information on the ground and actually helping people .

If you get rid of your ideology and you say , what do we need to do to help people , there are some pretty simple answers where you could reach across the aisle and get stuff done . But no , it's politics first in Santa Fe , and that's that's the part of this that's frustrating All right , Okay .

with Dan Lewis . We are friends with Dan Lewis . He's a city counselor . We believe in the that . His passion towards helping the city is very clear . I mean , he goes to bat for a lot of the issues that I think we want here in the state and to protect ourselves in the city of Albuquerque . So he writes a column .

This is the mayor of Albuquerque stood on a stage at Civic Plaza last Saturday and shouted legislate , litigate and agitate to a crowd of far left political allies at a time when the city is buckling under violent crime , growing homelessness and a stagnant economy . This is his call to action provocation over policy and noise over leadership .

And then he takes another hit really at Keller and says instead of guiding the city forward , keller performs for the cameras using borrowed slogans meant to rally a radical base rather than govern a city .

Just a week after the state Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque was firebombed , the mayor offered no condemnation , only a vague , borrowed , reckless call to agitate . What does it mean and who pays when someone takes it so seriously ? They become violent . And still no explanation for agitate .

He borrowed that line from far-left political figures who have used it to justify civil unrest across the country . It's not leadership , it's opportunism , it's a signal to escalate , not to solve anything . The last thing our city needs is an agitated mayor who oversees a city with high crime rates and teenagers killing teenagers .

But he's not going to do that , so he's clearly not serious about doing the things that need to be done to help this city .

Why would a mayor with a city that is now the now it's been called the most dangerous city in the world by that travel blogger that we showed right , that came in here , but it's ranked as the 23rd . It's ranked in the 20 to 23rd most dangerous city in the world .

When you've got that knocking on your door , you've got the homelessness issue knocking on your door , why are you showing up at a political protest ?

It's overwhelmed . You You're clearly not up to the job . So let's go out and go to a political rally and start screaming into a microphone . Screaming into a microphone . It's a joke . And that part of this and Dan hits them hard .

It's very well written and very well done and Dan does a good job of cutting through exactly what the reality is and the point being here , this is going to be an interesting mayor's election . We'll see what happens with it . I mean , you have the National Guard now coming into Albuquerque , which we talked about on our last episode .

That it is an interesting choice by the governor not necessarily one that supports Tim Keller , because this is all a joke but what Dan also talks about in this is the fact that the city council has stood up and give the mayor everything he's needed for tools like more police officers .

Funding for all these things is there on the table , but he can't seem to get any of it done . So he's going to go run out and start screaming into a microphone . Grow up , I mean honestly , grow up and do the job . But clearly that's not going to happen . The question is will voters dial in enough to say , okay , here's our alternative ?

You know , hopefully they'll do that with Darren White . I mean , that's our hope .

correlated and you miss the mark and you think I'm only going to , I just keep voting the same party over and over because it's always been this way , It'll always stay this way . That's just not true and you can actually see that crime rate going up and again , we've covered this at length .

So go back and watch our last episode , because we did go after Keller pretty harsh and talking about why that National Guard was coming into the city of Albuquerque . That's our last episode , if you happen to miss it .

Okay , this is a real picture of Gretchen Whitmer , who ended up in the Oval Office with President Trump and she was in town in DC to talk about the potential for a National Guard base near Detroit . Ok , and it would take federal funding and that makes sense .

That the governor would sit down with the president and say , hey , can we do this , can we get it done ? Yeah , nothing to do with politics in that particular case . But she ends up in the room , ok , and then he's talking . It says some nice things about her and she's standing there looking like she wants to vomit .

And then they immediately pivot with her standing in the room to the president signing a bunch of executive orders which I'm

sure she did not agree with . So he started to sign these things and she's literally sitting there like she's supporting it . Now , clearly she's not , but her staff allowing her to end up in that room during that moment , and then she doesn't want her picture taken , so she puts a folder up in front of her face . I mean , this picture is craziness again .

I mean it just it's , it's crazy , it's so you know , and he's going to draw more attention to her than if she should have just put her head down and just kind of been like oh , I got burned Right , but you got to have good staff . So this gets back to the point .

You have a big Democratic field that's going to get ready to get going in twenty twenty eight , and Mark Halperin believes that now there are plenty of people who say they've got a really deep bench and they've got good people , and my guess is we don't know who their nominee is yet .

In other words , that person could still emerge from a lot of a lot's going to happen between now and then , but here's what Halperin had to say on his podcast about how that all played out and how the fact of the matter is they're still maybe looking for somebody to challenge the Republicans in 2028 .

And these folks I've been a single one of them out , but I'm saying it's true of almost all of them you can , you can look at a governor from 2000 miles away and say , well , they look amazing , they'd be a great candidate . I'm telling you , these folks have not had the level of experience that some have . Here's Gretchen Whitmer .

She went to the White House yesterday . It's still a little unclear what she was doing there , but she ended up in an Oval Office photo op and then her press person had to kind of apologize and say she wasn't endorsing the stuff that was going on in the White House .

We were in a meeting with some members of the House of Representatives and we were literally sitting in an office right off the Capitol floor , right off the floor of the House . I mean , actually it was Pelosi's former office , by the way , it's pretty funny , but it's a nice looking office .

So we're sitting there and I stopped the meeting and I said is that Gretchen Whitmer in the Oval and every staffer in the congressman's ? Like no way ? And they turn it . And it was . And we're just like how could this happen ? Right ? I mean , how could your people let you get caught into this ? And again .

You may not agree with what they , what they say or do or whatever else in most cases , you know , and obviously I think the Biden thing is different because of health issues and issues like that .

But but my point being on all this is it takes the right set of circumstances , a person that can execute on them , and then the perfect timing right In all these things and one of the things I always tell people , especially new candidates who want to get in , one of the things I've said to them is my first piece of advice is always your success or failure

will likely come down to something that is completely and totally out of your control . So when things like that happen , you've got to have people around you that are really good at executing on keeping you in a good political position , and Gretchen Whitmer's people didn't do that . One person who may also be in that circle is Josh Shapiro .

Right , he's somebody who wants to run for president of the United States .

I don't think our and it looks like theirs is right and the state police are always there protecting the governor , but I'm glad ours is not , because we don't want our governor subjected to garbage like this and I don't know who you know , as we're recording this , we don't know who did this .

Hopefully we're going to find out , and that person's going to go to jail for a long time because Shapiro , his family , they could have been killed , right , I mean , this is ridiculous , it's just as ridiculous .

It needs to stop and that's why when I hear things , when I hear leadership talking about agitate in any level whatsoever , I don't like it . I think stay away from this kind of rhetoric because it just heats it up . It keeps things going .

We didn't show the clip from this , but you know it's interesting if you've listened to Bill Maher lately talking about he's going .

He went to DC and had dinner with Trump and a lot of people are like , oh , you felt like you back , you know you backstab her and you trade her and all these things about like how dare you go over there and you know switch sides and stuff . And he's like no , I actually took him . All the nasty things he said about me .

I took him a list and I showed him the list . He goes . I went because I'm tired of this . Hey , I'm gonna fight it out on my side and this guy's gonna fight it out on his side and we're never gonna find any sort of thing to agree on . We have to stop that kind of rhetoric . I'm gonna make fun of him . The rest of his life .

He's probably gonna make fun of me sometimes , but I wanted to see what he was really like and he guess what . He actually turned out to have a sense of humor . He actually turned out to want to listen to me and have a normal conversation .

So why can't we not stop and just have conversations and disagree on policy issues and talk about what can we do to get to the other side of this ? That's what I appreciated about it . You see things like this guy getting this , you know Josh getting his house lit on fire , cars getting bombed , whatever that are things that are happening .

Cars getting keyed it's enough . Stop People punching each other in the face . Grow up Like we are not all going to agree on policy . We're just not .

But we do need to have human decency in this country and that's what Americans should be for and be supportive of that and just having a level of class and respect for one another , even when we blatantly disagree with each other .

We'll be back soon , but in the meantime you can find us on Instagram and Facebook at no Doubt About it podcast .

it .