Chuck’s Commentary - A Good Night For The Blue Team, A Horrible Night For The Red Team + Trump Backs Down On TACO Tuesday

looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know, my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation, but he did make one purchase. He bought a life insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it was enough when we found it. And when I say we found it, meaning we went through his desk and we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's anything here. And it helped us out at a time

that we really needed it. And that's why I think it's important that if you can, especially if you have young children, if you can get life insurance, you should get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen. It is an extra bit of security, something you can leave and help out at a time when you're not you're not there to help. So what does Ethos do well. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's

one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds, you can apply in minutes, and you can get same day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health

questions online. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck. That is ETOs dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and rates may vary. Hello there, Welcome to the Wednesday edition

of the Chuck Podcast. If it's Wednesday, it means somebody voted somewhere on Tuesday. And you know, for a lot of Wednesdays between now and November, I'm going to be leading with the campaign because they'll be an important primary night or an important Tuesday election, and you know we've only had a couple of important primary nights so far, Texas and Illinois being a big one. But we had a big one, and it was a special election, in

this case, a special referendum. It's in Virginia. I've talked a lot about this Virginia referendum, those of you who've forwarded, No, this is you know the state. I live in the state. I'm a resident in the state I'm voting in. I still consider myself a Floridian. First, you know where you're born and raised, you know always where you're from. Virginia is where I live. The irony of courses, I have now lived longer in Arlington and in Virginia than I have any other state in the Union. So and yet

I still consider myself a Floridian. And I'm probably not alone here in northern Virginia. But look the big news, and it would have been arguably bigger news had this referendum not passed. But I do think we have this

sort of I do want to lay a few things out here. So Look, it's a it's a it's a

big win for Democrats in this respect. Look when Republicans started this in Texas and then Indiana and Missouri, and we saw in some of these places, I think there were real question marks about whether you whether Democrats could unite enough, even in some of their blue estates to do something like this, And they had to create a in two of the states actually get referendum on the ballot basically to create a constitutional legitimacy in the state

constitutions of California and Virginia and to pull this off.

And they did it. Okay, they did it. I mean, I think it shows you the power, right, the power of of the of the Trump resistance is extraordinary. If it wasn't extraordinary, you wouldn't have California and Virginia successfully essentially creating special referendum, special elections, constitutional amendments to temporarily change how they do things in order to jerry rig a map in Democratics favor, in order to balance out

what happened in Texas. So tactically, for a party that regularly brings knives to gunfights, I get that there's a feeling of satisfaction among some partisan Democrats this morning that like they that they fought fire with fire. Now, what I've been warning about, and I still think is a

medium term issue for the party going forward is. I do think the strength of the Democratic Party in the Trump era has been there seen as the party that doesn't want to break the rules, that they're seen as the party that are rule followers, that they're seen as

the party of fair districts. Right. This is a party that has spent the last fifteen years of which many of US Virginia saw plenty of TV ads showing clips of Barack Obama lamenting jerrymandering, which the no referendum side amplified quite a bit in the last couple of weeks. I think it was so successful that the Yes side had to sort of redo some of their Obama driven at campaigns. And I think the fact that that they don't have this benefit of the doubt with the independent

voter right now, right, that's what this is. Where you know they're playing partisan games. We know that that's what they're doing. Wait a minute, now, you're going to do this too. And so while I get the short term benefit, I get the near term you know help that this will give. And you know, I question how helpful this will be. I think you could argue, and I've made

this argument, You've heard it here before. I think you could argue that if Virginia didn't touch its map there, we're going to pick up two congressional districts in this the essentially the old first and the old second. The second is Virginia Beach. The first is this Northern Neck area,

which is sort of a a as the Northern Virginia suburbs continue to grow. Right, this is a place where, in some ways it was going to be an uphill campaign. But with the wind at the backs of the Democrats, and particularly in Northern Virginia, I think there was a path to them getting an eight to three advantage with the with the map pre referendum, and so now they're going to have a map that in theory allows them

to go ten to one. But there is all of a sudden now a whole bunch of Democratic primaries, and you know, just like what we've seen with the Republicans, right Democrats could overperform in Republican leaning districts if the quote unquote wrong person won the primary. You know, if

it was two MAGA or two Tea party ish, that could happen. But on the left side of the aisle right two progressive, two left leaning of a nominee and then suddenly it opens the door. There are a couple of these districts that are you know, democratic advantage, but we're talking, you know, under five points when it comes

to democratic advantage. So I'm not going to sit here and say this is a total success for the Democratic Party unless it is ten to one for sure, or if they'd only the only way they win the House is on the backs of these remaps in California and Virginia. And when you start to just look at the three states that have done the most gerrymandering, right, Texas went to try to find a net of five seats, California basically try to erase the five and and Virginia is

trying to do four. So if the Democratic majority is in the single digits, they win the control of the House. But it's in the single digits, well, then you're going to have to you you are going to have to point to these referendums in Virginia and in California as

the difference that without it, it doesn't happen. If Democrats win the House and they're up to two hundred and thirty five members, which means they've netted somewhere between seventeen eighteen ninety somewhere in the twenty you know, around basically between seventeen and twenty five districts. Then I I'm going to look at these maps as sort of wasted money. These referendums is wasted money because it means they would have won the House regardless of these remaps, regardless of

these referendum changes. And so the lingering question I have in my mind about all of this is not whether this is going to help them with the House. Look it is it is going to help Democrats are closer to taking control of the House today than they were yesterday. Simply call these referendums. I'm not discounting that, but at

what cost. Just take in the state of Virginia, you know, Governor Abigail Spamberg, after winning by double digits, looking like sort of you know what the what the future of the Democratic Party could look like, has found herself dragged into becoming a very partisan looking governor, very unlike the Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and Ralph Northam models of governing.

Even Terry McAuliffe, who you know as a former National Party chairman, I don't think anybody saw him at first as a honor, but he very much governed from the center.

You know, he was he was you know, he may be a thought of as a longtime partisan Democrat because he was the chairman of the DNC, and you know, and it's so close to the Clintons, and the Clintons are certainly synonymous with the Democratic Party, but it is of a different wing of the Democratic Party, right, much more of the quote pro business wing of the Democratic Party.

So when you look at sort of the four Democratic governors that have most recently preceded Abigail Spamberger, Terry mccauliffe, Ralph Northam, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine, they either governed they all four tried to govern more from the center. I still think Governor Spamberger wants to govern from the center, but she had to begin her term immediately as a partisan warrior, right, because the first thing on the agenda was getting this through the legislature. Then getting this you know,

and by the way, this is not done done. There is still a court case, there's still this is likely to reach the State Supreme Court. The assumption is the courts will end up ruling in favor of the yes side on this, but there's the there's it's not an unreasonable ruling if they decide nope, they violated specific pieces of how this should get done. You know, perhaps you know,

you could see a hybrid situation where they say, you know these maps, you got to redo this again if you and you can make this constitutional going into twenty eight, but you can't do it for twenty six. Right, there's all sorts of scenarios that are still left. But I will tell you, like there's a bit of pandemonium now

in how this election cycle works. So this map passes, believe it or not, we have these brand new districts that in theory are only now in law starting today, right, because the passage of this referendum as soon as it's certified, essentially puts these officially, So the new paps take a fact immediately when this referendum becomes law. So as soon as it's certified, and it sometime today, maybe it's tomorrow that it's certified. So guess what the filing deadline is

for the now new August fourth primary. Virginia has never had August primaries in recent history. Frankly, primaries are fairly new this century. There used to be a state that did more of its nomination nominating process via conventions and county caucuses and things like that. The shift towards primaries really began in the nineties. So now there's gonna be an August primary for these federal races, and the filing deadline is Friday, as in this coming Friday. So we

may see some Republican incumbents retire. Whitman, the incumbent and the current first congressional district, he's kind of politically homeless

in the remap. He may decide not to file, but there may be pressure on all of these incumbents to go ahead and file if they're thinking about retirement, because you know they're in theory. There's still this court case

that that could end up disqualifying this referendum. So the nightmare scenario for the state and the Department of Elections is if the yes vote, if the state, if the Supreme Court later decides that the legislative process to put this referendum in place was unconstitution intitutional, then you would have candidates who filed for the districts under the new map suddenly running in a district that no longer exists.

You could see the August fourth primary pushback again, you could see a refiling period, so you know this is likely to be what the new map is, but nothing is concrete yet. Right the court, there is still a challenge to the constitutionality of this referendum and of what's been done. It is still going through state courts. This is not something that would make itself to the US Supreme Court. This would be a Virginia decision within the Virginia court system. So it's probably you know, going to

get implemented. But even after this vote, we still have a bit of uncertainty. But big picture, the price that

Democrats are paying to essentially stay what they believe is stay competitive in this House map, which again I don't think this was as dire as the picture that they were painting. And yes, we'll probably get another redistricting attempt now to counter Virginia in Florida, but there's only so much they can do in Florida. They also have a referendum that's in the constitution that well, that sort of they've got to be careful not to do this via

partisan gain. If it looks like partisan gain, then they have constitutional problems. I think there's only so much they can do. Now we saw I'm you know, I'm stunned at how this ten to one map looks that they took essentially northern Virginia and essentially did what Illinois did to maximize congressional seats there for Democrats, which is, you know,

have as many districts touched the Chicago land as possible. Well, in Virginias, have as many districts touch northern Virginia as possible, and then you sort of sprout out like a like sort of a one sided octopus, if you would, on

that front. Well, in Florida, where they think they can make gains is to take those southeastern Democratic health districts and Broward and Palm Beach and parts of Dade County, Miami Dade County and essentially create slices of bacon from the Atlantic Coast to the Gulf coast and essentially bring

in more Republicans into some of these East Coast Broward County and Palm Beach congressional districts and get Republicans from the southwest part of the state your Naples, your Sarasota, is your Fort Myers, etc. And that they can The problem with that, though, is that they're going to make a lot of light red districts, and in a bad

Republican year, light red districts can get flipped. So the possibility of a dummy mander for Florida messing around there is probably a bat higher than I think folks fully appreciate. But look in the long run, you know, I think the biggest loss for Democrats here is this brand issue that they're no longer seen as the party of honest reform. I think Donald Trump and the Republicans were not seen as a party that was interested in fairness or fair elections.

And who am I speaking with the I'm talking about voters that are these independent, these unaffiliated voters that are not hard partisans. And when you look at when Democrats the successful election cycles for Democrats in the Trump era eighteen twenty in particular, they would over index with those voters in the middle who saw them as sort of, you know, that even slightly center right voter. I think this is going to linger. I think this is going to leave a bad taste. And this is what's going

to you know, the unintended there's always unintended consequences. I think the biggest unintended consequence of all of this gerrymandering

that we've seen in all of this sort of hard partisanship in the States is that I think it only is going to increase demand for a third alternative now is it an independent, is alternative party, whatever you want to look at it. I just think that it only increases the appetite for that and it is you know, I will say this, I don't think the Democrats are improving their brand on this. They may make the base happy, it may fire them up, and Donald Trump is an

amazing elixir here for the Democratic coalition. In fact, you know, NOE appeared to have a little bit of momentum. I think the worst thing that the No side did in Virginia was at Donald Trump to do a teletown hall the night before the election. And I get what they were trying to do, right, This is the trap of Donald Trump swing voters to test them, but base voters only get motivated by them. And so you know, the more you bring Trump involved in your campaign, the more

you probably fire up queasy northern Virginia voters who maybe don't like this are a little bit uncomfortable with this, and then they see Trump and figure it out screw that guy. Right, So here we are, and I guess at this point, if you know, I already sort of believed the cake was already baked with the house, I think now Virginia might be icing. But it's all of those unintended consequences that that may not rear its head here this cycle, but may rear its ugly head in

twenty twenty eight. And in the meantime, frankly may have

done some long term you know, it may be that an Abigail Spamberger never fully recovers from starting being seen by the voting elector at aar in Virginia as seeing is more partisan than they expected her to be, and does that sort of hover over her term in a way that she never gets never gets out of. Look still a long way to go, and there may be moments where she decides to push back at her party

in a more high profile ways. Now that this referendums out of the way, I'll be curious to see if she sort of starts to push back at the speaker, Louise Lucas, the sort of the most influential state senator

there who right now look like they're the ones leading the party, while Governor Spamberger is sort of writing Shotgun. This episode of the Chuck Toddcast is brought to you by Soul. So if you love that end of the day unwined, but hate the hangover, Soul's out of Office is for you. These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without

the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCHC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out of Office Gummies were designed to provide

a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety of products specifically designed to help you get a better night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep. Look. I have made no secret, I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis and

hemp derived. I do not partake in alcohol for the most part, I think this stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less dative of an alcohol. And yes, I have to say I love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and you know after work, that's what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan. So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to sold today. Right now,

Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order. Go to getsol dot com and use the word todcast. That's getsol dot com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I too, am a customer. The other big news of the day, of course, was something that I told you was going to happen here forty eight hours ago, that even if they didn't negotiate, that they were going

to find a way to extend the ceasefire. And Donald Trump unilaterally extended the ceasefire with iron if he hadn't singled, If you needed yet another signal that he does not want to restart the wore, we got it in spades

on Tuesday night. Everything he asked Iran to do, they didn't do. And yet he agreed to extend a ceasefire anyway, and he called it an indefinite extension. Right. He didn't want to He didn't want to have to do this in another week, do this in another three days, do this in another two weeks. So Iran has essentially won the second round of negotiations by not showing up, and

Donald Trump agreed to extend the ceasefire anyway. That's quite the capitulation by him, and it's quite an acknowledgment of the current situation. And this gets back to the to the trap that he put himself in because he's now

found a way to start a war with Iran and somehow strengthen Iran's position in the region. And that's what this looks like at the moment, and the only way to undo it is to add and he doesn't have the stomach for it. And we know this because he's choosing not to do it already. Now. There is one thing that I think will eventually get the Iranians back to the table, and they's going to be the Chinese, right, They're only going to have so much patience for this

strait of hormones to be closed. They're not going to be interested in having a confrontation with the United States. They want to have good relations with the United States. Their economy needs the United States. So at some point I think the Chinese are going to put a lot of pressure in the Iranians to get to the table and find an exit ramp, you know, get the straight

open and find an exit ramp here. But think about what I just said, right, We're now waiting in the Chinese to put pressure in Iran because the United States couldn't do it. The United States couldn't make them do this. And don't start a war you're not prepared to finish. And Donald Trump started a war. He's not prepared to finish. He thought he could essentially blow hard his way uh and and get the Iranians to do his bidding without

without without it being difficult. Right. He clearly thought the Venezuela example was going to work here, and it didn't. And I guess the good news is, if you're worried about us getting into a long, years long quagmire, he isn't going to do it. That's a I think that's

a good thing for our troops. I think that's a good thing for a lot of Iranians. And so a lot of people are going to live instead of die. But strategically, this, if this is the scenario we're staring at, then this has been a strategic disaster. This is in some ways worse than you know, it's much worse in a rack, right, I mean, we got a better outcome out of Iraq than we're getting out of this. It's

as bad as Vietnam. I mean, again, it's not worse than Vietnam because we're not doing this for a decade and we're not you know, seeing thousands of American troops die.

But what a strategic I mean, just this is an epic foreign policy failure now, and it is hard to see that whatever deal eventually gets cut here does anything other than oddly enhance the position of the Iranians. I mean, we'll be lucky to get the Iran Nuclear Deal two point zero at this point, and it's probably going to be something like that with the Strait having to be

a part of this. But this is I know, Trump's erratic, and maybe you know, there's always a possibility he could do X, Y and Z, but he clearly doesn't want to do it. He clearly doesn't have the stomach for it. He sees what this has done to our economy and

it's not going to get better. He is desperate to try to get this economy healing as fast as possible. That's why you extend the ceasefire indefinitely. That's why you go ahead and do this unilaterally even if the Iranians aren't there, because he is signaling the Iranians I want to cut a deal. Please, I want to cut a deal. Will you hurry up and cut a deal with US? So? And you know, the Iranians are good negotiators and they

pay attention. As I told you on Monday, I think they can sniff out the fact that Trump wants a deal too badly. And they sniffed that out. They played

they basically called his bluff, and he extended the ceasefire. Anyway, we got a long way to go. I know all the time I can sit here and talk about, you know how bad the decision isn't Iran? Did I tell you how bad this decision is? Now? Do you? We? You know, as if more people needed convincing, Why so many US presidents said this is a bad idea? Why so many US presidents told bb Netanya who to stand down?

But hey, this one leads with his gut. This one, you know, he doesn't need to take the advice of the people around him. And I do think, are you know the folks in you know, we're we're going to get a lot of whispers that you know, I wasn't for this, or I wasn't for this, I wasn't. You could have said something more definitive and louder at the beginning.

Now maybe it wouldn't have mattered, Right, he heard what he wanted to hear out of BB and he doesn't trust his own intelligence agencies because it goes back to the twenty twenty election, and even before then, he thinks all the ever, all the rank and file intel people are just against him. So he's not going to ever buy into any of that. But it's it's h this

is this is this is a big blunder. You know. I think this is something that will leave a huge mark on Marco Rubio and his president future. And I don't know how A Jed E. Vance ducks getting sort of tainted with this, but you know, it is hard to imagine that this that any deal that is cut

here at the end is going to make this a ran war seem like a good idea in hindsight, especially since we know that the economic ramifications, the negative consequences to this are are going to linger, and they're going to linger for months, not weeks. So you want to take these two things together, and it is in some ways a pretty disastrous night for the Republicans in twenty

twenty six. You know, I certainly have my opinion about the long term impact on the Democratic Party brand for being, you know, for deciding to fight partisan fire with partisan fire. But if you want to just look at the cold hard calculus of campaign twenty twenty six, the events of Tuesday have moved Democrats a lot closer to winning both the House and the Senate. With this Iran war getting no closer to ending, it is more and more likely

we are going to have a very unpopular economy. I'm not going to sit here and predict brother in a recession or not. It's just going to be an unpopular economy come November. And that means the Senate is now

fully in play. And we've seen I'll tell you, you know, it's April, and you know, you usually know right, and to me, there have to be a black swan event for the trajectory of this campaign season to change. But you're starting to see it's always you know, it's in April that you start to see hints at certain states.

You're let go on, huh, how about that? And there was some polling that came out of Kansas a couple of days ago that showed the independent candidate leading the incumbent senator there, Roger Marshall, showed lesser known Democrats within striking range and keeping the incumbent senator there under fifty. And you're like, huh, And Kansas has been hit hard on tariffs, right, all of these Midwestern EG states have you know, it's a double whammy, right, the Ran war

is not going to be popular. They're getting impacted directly because of the cost of energy and fertilizer. But these were already this was the egg industry was already an industry that had been taking on water and taking a

lot of pain from the tariffs. So when I see a political environment where you have, again a small sample poll in Iowa that had Rob sand already up double digits, had the state had both Democratic candidates essentially dead, even with the likely Republican nominee there you've got what we've seen in Kansas. We've already seen that Nebraska is already

super competitive. There is not a data point I've seen that has been that is somehow going to that counters what appears to be democratic momentum going into the fall of twenty six. All of the little tea leaves that you put together to start reading, right, I mean, I mean, look, there's a new poll out of Texas indicating that Paxton is more likely to win that runoff than Cornyn. Right, It's like that only puts all of those Texas seats

more in play. It is all of the developments right now are only helping one side and only hurting the other. About the only thing the Team Red has going for right now is this massive financial disparity in the super PACs and this massive financial advantage that they have between the rn C and the DNC. But here's the unknown on those Donald Trump controls some of that money, and he's weird cheap, and he doesn't always smartly spend it.

He withholds they didn't spend near hardly any of that money in Virginia on the NO side right there, So you know, I you know, I think he is definitely going to spend it to try to defeat Thomas Massey. But you know, he he, he exerts more ownership over that money in a way that he uses his not belonging to the Republican Party or the Republican campaign. So you know, one day does not begin or end a

campaign season. But boy was this just when you look at the impact on our camp on Campaign twenty twenty six, Tuesday was a really good day for Team Blue and a really bad day for Team mat This episode of the Chuck Toddcast is brought to you by Wild Grain. Well Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less.

Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the

gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code, the todcast code. If you use the promo code podcast at checkout, you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your

freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving wild Green to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today.

That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. I'm gonna keep with the Obviously, it's Wednesday, which means I have a new top five list top five toppaztop and this is for the second week in a row.

I've got a reader inspired top five and that is top five overlooked races this cycle. And what do I mean? What is the definition? It's it's it's races that the parties are not prioritizing that maybe those of us that are observing of our surprise that they're not prioritizing because we think that with a little TLC they can be competitive and potentially flippable. So these are five on my list of five. I've got three Demo Republican health seats and two Democrat account seats on this So that is

this top five. I'll talk to you about some other races that I that I contemplated in this top five. But fifth on the list of my top five of races that the parties that I think the party out of power and said race is not prioritizing and is

making a mistake. So number five in the list, I'm going to go backwards here, five down to one. Five on the list is Florida governor. Look, I see the math, I see the trend lines. I know that the general direction right now looks like boy, that's a you know, Republicans have just beaten the daylights out of Democrats and

voter registration over the last four years. DeSantis has taken what was a victory by a fingernail in twenty eighteen, had a blowout by twenty twenty two, and it wasn't It appears to not be a one off, right You sort of see, you know, Trump won Florida more comfortably than a Republican has won really going back thirty years on a presidential level. So you look at it from a macro level and you think, Okay, I get it.

I get why Democrats are underrating Florida governor or are deciding to essentially walk away from them, not taking Florida seriously either. The the the semi open Senate race, I say it's semi open because there's a uh, there's there's an appointee uh there. But it's the Rubio seat. But it is an open governor's race. And that's the key. When a party does not target an open seat, that is not just conceding that election cycle, that is conceding a decade of an election cycle in a given state.

So you'll see here in some ways, I think that though, when you concede not trying to make an open seat competitive, I think it's just a gigantic waving of the white flag that sends a larger message internally in that state and sends a pretty negative message if you if you think you would like to start to plant the seeds to become more competitive, and said state, I get it. Byron, Donald's has a truckload of money. The early endorsement by

Trump seemed to clear the field. The Santa would love to find an alternative to Donalds and has really struggled to do that because it is Donald Trump's Republican Party, at least financially in the state of Florida. I'm not as convinced that he has the iron grip with the voters that it is as iron iron clad as they behave, but it is financially, there's no doubt. Right Trump sent the signal and all the money followed, So there's a

giant financial advantage of iron Donald's gonna have. But he's really being treated almost as a governor in waiting and you know, look, the history of Florida on open governor's races are usually highly competitive and you usually have you know, pretty you know, the Floridians, there's always a new you know, every two years there's half a million new residents that are voting in that state for the very first time and aren't just you know, gonna likely knee jerk just

a one party and so you know, it's pretty clear that you know, donors have been told don't bother with Florida. Now the center race, Vinman, Alex Vinman, the brother of Eugene Vinman, who's already a sitting member of Congress in Virginia. He raised a ton of money and he does well in that sort of act blue circuit raising money, you know,

in the online left. And he certainly in that sense had you know, thanks to the impeachment emails over the years, has a pretty effective list on the in the governor's race there with those two Democrats, David Jolly Jerry Demmings, neither one of them, although Jerry Demings has valed Demings list when she ran against Rubio, and that was an incredibly successful fundraising apparatus that again was sort of wasted

by National Democrats and Florida Democrats. So there is I think walking away not taking this race seriously, not trying to prioritize Florida in general. You're not just walking away from one race. I think the National Party is walking away from the state for a decad and it's it's just a it's a huge miscalculation. But this look that there are larger problems right that. You know, both parties are kind of a mess strategically. The Democratic Party is

more of a mess. They really have. They've botched Florida from six ways from Sunday, uh and they've and there's another state on here that that I'll be highlighting where they've they've really missed. They've really not put the effort in that if they had been making efforts over a decade, this would be the cycle they could actually see see it come to fruition. So fifth on the list is Florida Gov. This is one where I think the Democrats

are not prioritizing it. I think the race will be it'll end up being more competitive, it'll end up being a single digit race despite the lack of prioritizing or national interests. Number four on the list for me is a is a Democratic health seats Oregon governor. Now Oregon governor has been sort of a little bit of a of a of a lower profile version of Charlie Brown

in the football that New Jersey has had become over the years. For Republicans on the East coast, Oregon is always much more competitive than its reputation, right, you know, Oregon sandwich between Washington and California. It's certainly had a long streak of Democratic governor. So it's been a long time since Republicans. I don't think they've won to They haven't had a Senate seat a newly elected senator since the mid nineties with Gordon Smith, but they've come quite

close before. Right, this is not a seventy to thirty blue state. This really is a fifty five to forty five, you know, on a good day for Democrats. Now the national right, you know, Oregon is a place that Republicans are only going to be more competitive in good Republican years nationally, I think that there's so I understand why you haven't seen too much here. And there's also a

sitting governor for reelection, Tina Kotech. But they and arguably their lat the Republicans, the three way race messed up their chances perhaps of winning Oregon GOV. Back in twenty or two, I had been just a two way race, and the third party candidate might have decided not to run. The sort of the Phil Knight candidates, as I called her. She was a former Democrat, became a became an independent, but she not been in that race and had been co tech and a sort of a sort of mainstream Republican,

sort of non maga Republican. I think that's a winnable race for Republicans. So look, twenty two was the year that they could have done this, but they, you know it is. It's funny Oregon. Again, it is similar to what Democrats have done in Florida. Republicans could be more competitive Oregon if they just spent some time there, if they just and they've had some luck targeting a few house seats. They flipped the house seat or two that some people didn't think they could flip. So it's clear

it's on the ground. There's certainly questions about how Portland's been governed, which have sort of I think made the suburbs of Portland a bit more competitive potentially now part of it is I think MAGA doesn't sell an organ and it's possible that Oregon comes back into the semi

competitive list of states. And I say semi competitive there the light red, light blue states that right now that may have an allergy to Trump in particular, but in general, I feel like the Republican Party doesn't know how to prioritize Oregon very well. Certainly this version of the Republican Party, which just you know, the Maga, the MAGA stuff just doesn't play on the coasts. We've seen this. It just really doesn't play on the coast and that may be

part of the problem. But I definitely think it's a it's a race that's under prioritized in a state that's under number three on the list. For me is Alabama governor now Doug Jones is running and Tommy Tupperville's the likely Republican nominee. Tommy Tupperville there were questions about whether

he's even qualified to be governor and did he meet the seventh the six year residency requirement. There's some questions about that. You don't need the you don't need to be a resident for you could literally, you know, run for US Senate anywhere, just established residency for a day and and you're as long as you're a citizen and thirty years old, you could you could run and win a Senate seat. That's most states have hard and hard and fast residency requirements for governor. They take that a

lot more seriously. So you have a candidate who's, you know, not seen as very sort of conversant on how Congress works, and they spent a term there doing it hasn't been seen as somebody. You know, most people want their governors to sort of be less partisan. You know, they certainly expect them to be, you know, maybe in Alabama a small sea conservative, but they don't necessarily. We usually don't

want partisan warriors as governor. We usually if we elect a partisan warrior, we'll do that for a legislative seat. We're usually a little less comfortable collectively as voters doing that for a governor seat. And you know, so I think there's a case where Doug Jones and you're more likely if you're a Republican running in a blue state or a Democrat running in a red state, you're going to have a better chance at winning statewide running for governor than you are for Senate and this isn't a

bad Democratic gear. It looks like it's building into one. So I've not seen the evidence that the National Party is putting Alabama governor in play, is making a real effort. Now, maybe you know, they might argue, well, we're going to help Doug Jones when he's there, but we don't want to bring a lot of attention to it because the sooner they think he's a viable candidate. The I don't buy that, right. He's a former US senator, he got

elected not that long ago, ironically running for governor. Now he's going to be facing Tommy Tupperville for a second time. He lost to him. Tupperville defeat defeated Doug Jones to win that Senate seat six years ago, and now they'll be facing off again for this governor's race. But I think Democrats have not given this the priority compared to I think that the chances they have to win. I

think their chances are much higher here. And you know, then most people think, and you know, this is another one that's gonna If you're telling me this is a race that's decided by five points or less, it wouldn't surprise me, and if it is, there'll be a lot of questions about you know, hey, did they not pay attention to this race soon enough? Number two on my list is Texas Governor. I think this is one where

again this goes you know, it's funny. Democrats are pretty fun focused on the center race, but to me, the

governor's race, and this is where I thought. So I thought Taller Rico would have could have been a more effective candidate for governor. He was in the state legislature. He's more conversant on state issues, but he wanted the easier path. He thought, you know, facing Ken Paxton might be easier to win, and look, facing an incumbent governor who's trying to become the longest serving governor in Texas history.

And you know, Abbot, I will give you know, Abbot deserves I think a lot of credit for he is somehow, he has somehow walk this tightrope in Texas between the Maga wing and the non Mago wing, and he's not really a comfortable member of either. Right, he's not really a Bush Republican, although he sort of was more Bush Republican at the beginning of his career. But he's not really a Trump Republican either, right, he is. He is

something in between, right. He's not as much of a firebrand as the Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is, but he's never wanted Dan Patrick to get traction on his right, so he sort of tries to manage that from afar. You know, regardless of what you think of as politics personally, I'm impressed with how Abbot has navigated this over a

couple of cycles. You know, this could have We've seen other Republicans try to play this game where they kind of like kind of you know, they kind of are a chameleon, right, and they're almost a and they just sort of they seem and part of it is is Abbot has a good relationship with the donor community in general, and that seems to be I think what keeps him

keeps his head above water. But you know, I look at the history of just you know, people trying to run for third and fourth and terms as governor and and that's when fatigue kicks in. You know, we saw it with the cuomos plural in both with Mario and Andrew over the years. And I think that fatigue issue is potentially ripe in Texas. We've already seen. And what's been interesting is the Democratic nominee gene you know, so I've not yet to see a poll where this where

the race wasn't already in single digits. It's pretty clear Abbit has a hard ceiling. What he's done on school choice is not as popular among some pockets inside Republican the Republican Party, as as he believes. There's been in some ways a Republican civil war that he has helped fund inside the party, you know, getting rid of folks that stood in his way on some of his agendas.

So the point is is that when you've done that, you've made yourself a share of uh political enemies that could come back to haunt And I look at his I look at his numbers. Overall, they look like somebody who is who is at the tail end of their career, not necessarily continuing to build momentum. But I don't see

the commitment by the National Party. You don't see the money coming into you know's campaign that would allow her to take what is going to be a you know, sitting at a six or seven point range for the most part, and you know, you might have a tail wind from all the money that comes in for the Senate race of Paxton ends up winning the runoff, and who knows, maybe this changes here, but I think the lack of focus and attention to this race is a

real missed opportunity because if you're trying to build a party infrastructure in a state that you'd like to make competitive, winning a governor's race is much get you much further down the road of building the infrastructure you need to make a state party competitive than winning a Senate seed does. Right, And this is you know, it's another reminder that there's just too much Washington thinking. Inside of the Democratic Party. It is way too concentrated and what's best for the

national party. In the Washington Party, they this is a party that has just stopped thinking about party building in the states, and you can feel it. Part of it is, you know what's in front of them, right, you know, they help out certain people if they think they can win, see Rob sand in Iowa. But you don't get the sense this is a national party thinking about, Hey, what's this map going to look like after the census in twenty thirty and what do they need to do to

be prepared in twenty thirty two? And watching them not prioritize either Texas or Florida in any way at all, is I think putting them in a bad position for the next decade when it comes to the electoral College once we see these numbers change after the twenty thirty census. So Texas governor number two and number one on my list is a Democratic health seat, and it's the open

seat in Minnesota Senate. It's it's Minnesota Senate, and it's with the Republicans. They have just not prioritized Minnesota. And it's surprising to me. You have a divisive Democratic primary, you have basically a left versus pragmatist fight between Peggy Flanagan and Angie Craig. You've gotten You've got an unpopular governor sitting that is choosing not to seek reelection. Tim Walls. Yes, the Democratic Party's sort of best political joke going not

in the state. Amy Klobe Shar is now going to be at the top of the ticket running for governor. And it probably does save the Democrats in that state from from what was becoming a political problem with Walls. And so I'm not going to sit here and say that that that if the Republicans spent a little gave, gave a little more attention to Minnesota. They they'd win

the Senate. See but when I look at how much they put more effort in trying to win New Hampshire the Minnesota, and if I would, I think they have a better chance of winning Minnesota than the New Hampshire. You don't have a divisive Democratic primary in New Hampshire. You have a Chris Pappis who's as a member of Congress, is not seen as a as a hard left winger. If anything, there's a in the in the little item I featured earlier in this podcast about bridge grades and

this new metric. Pappis is somebody who's seen as a regular works across the aisle. So he fits the New Hampshire profile in a way that in a way that maybe some other Democrats wouldn't fit as well. So yes, they have you know, two now two former senators running in that Republican primary. But it does seem as if that nationally the Republicans have prioritized New Hampshire over Minnesota,

which you know, again a head scratcher. Now look, the ice killings in Minnesota have certainly put the Republican Party in a in a hole there in Minnesota. That and maybe when Trump's not on the not in power, that

will provide an opening. But and this could very well, Michelle Tafoya could be running a race where she learns a few lessons and then runs again in two years for the a in a special election to fill out the rest of Amy clobe Shark's term, which will pop up in twenty twenty eight, assuming Clobshar went to the governor's race, and you will, and they'll prioritize it more. But it's funny. Minnesota has been teetering on the edge of the competitive battleground for the presidential race for a

few cycles now, not not prioritizing the Senate race. I think it's been a head scratcher to me and another potential missed opportunity there. So there you have it. My top five sort of overlooked races where I think the out party is you would be would actually have a reasonable chance at being competitive and possibly pulling an upset if they actually put some effort into it. So my order again, Number one Minnesota Senate, so dinging the Republicans

there for their lack of interest. Number two Texas governor digging the Democrats for their lack of interest. Number three Alabama governor dinging the Democrats there, Number four Oregon governor dinging the Republicans there, and number five Florida Governor digging the Democrats on that one. So really appreciate the reader's

suggestion on these top five lists. Two weeks in a row where we've done a top five list, so last week it was doing the six through ten list on our Senate flips, which the reader correctly pointed out as probably a more volatile list than our five most likely to flip. And in this case, how about five overlooked races that the parties are whipping on. So there you have it. Ask Chuck h Right a little question time.

This one comes from Travis from Charlottesville, and he asked, after going back and forth on the redistioning issue, I finally decided to vote yes, mainly for two reasons. One

there is little else I can do that may get the attention of elected officials, and two to help Spamberger gain back a little bit of her political capital. Wouldn't it be worse for a governor to expend all this energy and money if it resulted as a loss in hearing your opinion on the second. Thanks Travis. Well, we actually now know the result on this front. But it's an interesting thesis here. It's like, what's worse? You know, I I could I could see Spamberger spinning a loss

by saying I knew it. I wanted to be a team player here and this this was happening before I took office, and this was already in the works. You know, this is not how we're going to go forth, you know, you know I so I guess I'm not. I get your line of thinking that, you know, and certainly it helps her in the party right, But to me, Spanberger didn't have a party issue. Spanberger has a has a

sort of governing issue now a little bit. But you know, I still look at this whole thing and all this energy, all this political capital. Again, if the map doesn't change one bit, Democrats likely pick up one for sure, Virginia two, and likely a second Virginia one. So all of this political capital has expended for hope, they're hoping two more seats ten to one. I say hoping. Look, if one of these primaries it's too far to the left and the Republicans don't have somebody who's too maga on the

other side. You know, this thing could easily end up a nine to two map rather than a ten to one, and then you're talking nine to two to eighth when when you looked at it from the big picture, this was you know, especially now if this, you know, if this triggers more redistricting going forward. So it's I understand that line of thinking, and maybe that's right. But I could make an argument that she could been a loss and make essentially the legislative Dems own that, and she

could separate herself from that if necessary. Next question comes from Pallo in Italy. All right, I love when we

get some questions from Europe. I've been thinking about the phrase kem deuce volts perdre prius dementat whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad in the context of recent political discussions around the twenty fifth end minute, Kendall Hi the bar is in Congress, who would realistically be willing to support such a move And is there any scenario where the kind of bipartisan agreement exists. More importantly, even if it were possible, would the country necessarily be

better off with the alternative. In Italian, we say something the effective, beware of what you wish for, it might come true. Best regards Palo in Italy. Well, I'll just say, you know, I don't think any of these mechanisms that avoid the ballot box to turn the page on Trump are going to be effective. I think anything that gets Trump out of office that isn't voters directed and voter specific, risks turning him into a martyr, that becomes weaponized politically

and could actually make things worse, not better. So that's why I'm not a you know, look, the twenty fifth Amendment, why did we have it? We had it because there was this concern after Kennedy was shot, what if he had lived but was a vegetable, right, what if he were the physical you know, but he really couldn't you know, but there wasn't a lot of brain function, so he were alive, but he really could, you know. Ultimately, that

is why the twenty fifth Amendment. That was the thinking behind the twenty fifth amendment, Right, that was the motivation. And I always think it's important, like why does an amendment happen? Right? Why did they do it? I think it is always an It is important to understand the context of the twenty fifth Amendment. It is one of I think it really is like pornography. Will know when we see it, right, when you could realize, oh, there's

they're not functioning at all. But remember it has to come from inside the cabinet, right, So I guess in theory, if the cabinet did it, then then you know they're more They're only going to this cabinet, right, which is filled with people who are you know, who wouldn't get the job if they weren't willing to be sick of

fans of sorts. If somehow this cabinet did it, it's probably it probably is such a deterioration onhealth or mental capacity that it would be weird if they didn't do it, right, So, you know, and it only happens if both Rubio and Advance think it should happen. Right. That's a case where the two of them, the two of them together said hey, this needs to happen. It would happen. I just think the likelihood of that, you know, again, a guy who got into office by running against the so called deep

stay not sure. It's not sure it's the healthiest thing to do to out said person through and through a mechanism that isn't voters centric. But it's funny you say that, I I do. I say some similar things when those that you know think about Trump Trump singularly, you know, and fantasize about him sort of leaving office early. And I'm like, okay, are you you prepared for advanced presidency? Are you aware of how how close he is too? One of the more out there tech people in Peter

Teel Right, So I I I also be careful. What you wish for is is H is a form of a similar form of warning that I have issued to others when I'm asked about that specific question. All right, next place. Next question comes from Lincoln C. Who calls himself a displaced New Englander in Columbus, Ohio. All right,

all right, we got it down. You like to refer

to political athletes when describing politicians. What do you think about vance and how important do you think being a good political athlete will be in twenty twenty eight on the Republican side, when I assume Trump will have an outsizeed hand in picking the nominee, or maybe Trump's influence will have waned in political athleticism will be even more important as the eventual nominee will need to thread a narrow needle of staying close to Trump to get the

nomination and then aggressively trying to appeal to the middle after the convention. Look, I'm not impressed with Jade Vance and as a political athlete, right. This has nothing to do with the individual. It doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential. But I look at the campaign he ran for Senate. It's an atrocious campaign one despite himself, right, he was dragged across the finish line by Peter Thiel's

money and eventually by Mitch McConnell's super pack. He you know, was not gonna win a primary campaign if Trump hadn't come in late to essentially rescue him. In that primary campaign, I think at one point almost came to fisticuffs with Bernie Marino during Remember Bernie Marino ran in the ran in the in that primary in twenty two before he became the consensus candidate in twenty four and knocked off

Shared Brown. So you know, the one campaign that Vance has been involved with that was his campaign right on his own, was not good at all. I mean, he he underperformed across the board, right, he underperformed you know what his numbers should have been, arguably, and you know that would have you know, look at how Mike DeWine did versus how Jade Vance did in Ohio in twenty

twenty two. So I you know, I'm and I don't think we can say he navigated the primary very well when you realize that he kind of needed Trump to come in at the last minute to secure this. So it is a so needless to say. I think of the two, I think Rubio is the much better political athlete because he is one tough races and he's you know,

one competitive primaries. In some ways, he was you know, he was he was a disruptor inside the Republican Party before Trump in twenty ten when he essentially challenged Charlie Crist from the right, when Charlie Crist was the sitting Republican governor wanting to run for the Senate. Marco Rubia wanted that he and he went in and it, you know, he basically drove Charlie Crist out of the party. Right. So I think when you look at just in terms

of comparing the two of them as political athletes. It's not a close call. One's a blue chipper and ones a an undrafted free agent, you know, And and you know, maybe as as advance, you know, gets gets more practice, you know, in the national spotlight at Republican dinners, maybe

he gets better at this. But you know, look, I think twenty eight is going to be who can you know, I think it's highly unlikely a Republican's going to win the presidency in twenty eight, right, We Doug Sosnik and I were having this conversation, right, it is hard to fathom. And and you know it is we've we've we're more likely and we're no matter what, going to have our fourth straight one term president. You know, we'll see if

they end up a one term for sure. We know we have three and you know we're gonna have a fourth straight. And the question is is it can that person win reelection? But it's hard to imagine that Trump's somehow, you know, I guess anything is possible, but it's hard to imagine that that he his presidency in lame duck status after the midterms, is somehow going to age better than at any other point, and he is going to be you know, more involved in the campaign than other

outgoing presidents. Right, Obama was was was less involved in Hillary Clinton wanted to be more involved in Gore but wasn't. Bush wasn't involved with McCain. So I Trump's not going to be that way. Trump's going to try to insert himself and be very involved. If it's somebody that's you know, if it's not Vance, then whoever, then whoever beats Vance. It's got to be a pretty good plue. It means

they've navigated. They've somehow become the the the most acceptable candidate of the non MAGA wing while not being will also being acceptable to the MAGA wing. Right, that's not easy to do. I'm not sure it's possible, right I did you know? I never would have said Marco Rubio could pull that off before serving with Trump. Maybe that is something he can do now, you know, maybe that is improved and we shall see. But I do think that if you're the Republicans, you can't you can't just

go totally non MAGA at all. Right, your your entire coalition crumbles. But if you're trying to put together a durable coalition that might survive post Trump and post MAGA, it has to be you know, somebody who's appealing to the non MAGA wing as Nikki Haley was right, but is not as negative towards the mega community as as Nicki Haley was. So that's the sweet spot. I don't know if anybody can meet it. And the only person I see out there that might be able to walk

that line like that is Marco Rubio. And you know one other person I'd put out there who's done it, I just don't know if he's got the charisma to be a national party leader. Is the Governor of Texas, Craig Abbott. Next question comes from Mike in Honolulu. I think I've had you chime in before, Mike, and he says, what are the longer term impacts to the US if the administration really pulls out of NATO? For example, would

Norrad be crippled as we rely on the UK and Norway capabilities? Also Canada. By the way, fun fact traveling in Asia this week and the podcast downloads without ads except for the ones you deliver. How about a quince quarter zip for the five timers? Kidding of course, Thanks Mike and Alalu, Hey, thanks for letting our ad folks know about this, right, we can have special European rates for those that you know, that's the extra bonus for

our ad sales team. So listen up, guys, right when you go overseas, you know, the ads that matter the most are the ones that that I'm reading. How about that, let's the European premium, it's coming. Appreciate that little Look this is this should be of concern to us. And you know Canada, Canada's cooper all of this cooperation with

the United States, right, we have this is generational. I don't think we've fully you know, We're not going to realize how much damage Trump has done to our international alliances until we need them again, right, really need them. And we haven't hit a moment where but it's going to happen, right, it's inevitable. And when that becomes more front and center, and Claire, you know, my guess is you'll see voters demand better cooperation going on, we better

fix that relationship. I think that the next president is going to have a hard time winning over the trust of some of these a lot broken alliances. But I mean, you know, we're we're we're between the tariffs, the erratic security behavior, right, you know, we help Ukraine. No, we don't help Ukraine. We help Ukraine, We're not going to help Ukraine. The the disruption that the United States alone has caused the world by doing by poorly executing this

war in Iran. Yeah, it's gonna frail lot. It's gonna it's gonna take a lot more than just a so called apology tour, which some of the right accused Barack Obama on. But Barack Obama had to repair some relationships who were who who were frustrated with the Bush led the United States. But they, you know, they at least felt, you know, he didn't try to blow NATO up and things like that. It's, uh, this is going to be a real challenge for the next president and regardless of

party on this one. Uh. It's why Frank I think the fastest way to repair our alliances is if we end up electing somebody who's not a member of either of the two major parties, because then that would send the message to the world that hey, we didn't like this either, and we're trying to chart a new course. And if we make a statement that we're truly trying to chart a new course, the world's likely to have more of an open hand for us than if we're

continue to look like we're in this seesaw. Because if we're in the seesaw, even if you think, oh, this administration is better than the previous one, but it won't last. We know we know what's going to happen because we've we've been watching this movie over the last decade. So I think that's that's going to be that medium to long term challenger. All right, let me uh, next one

comes from Steva. I hope I got that right. It is a Stevam instead of a Stefan. Stevan. Hey, Chuck, I hope this mess just find you well. Love the podcast, been listening since episode one from your time at NBC right on back in the old nineteen forty seven days. In your opinion, which piece of Republican legislation democrats misunderstand the most? Which piece of democratic legislation to Republicans misunderstand the most? Love to get your commentary on this. Thank

you for all you doing. Best of luck moving forward. Hm that they misunderstand huh, misunderstand? I think the I mean the easy the first thing I thought of, and I'm going to stick with that for now. The first thing I sought of was the border security stuff and the border security proposals, and I think in this case it's Democrats have always just sort of miss you know, you can agree to some similar legislation, you don't have

to use the same rhetoric. And I think Democrats, you know, there's nothing wrong with having rules for the border, and why Democrats don't say, no, we have to have borders, And you're starting to see more more sort of pragmatic Democrats express that that, no, there should be borders, there should be rules. You know, I think the I think I would put the border security Look, I think asylum

policy is different, and immigration policy is different. And in fact, I think I think I think the Republicans intentionally mislead on immigration policy because most immigration policy is about trying to fill the gaps, you know where. It's the biggest bizarre myth out there that somehow the Democrats immigration stance

has to do with finding new voters. The math there's no data that supports this accusation, and it is something that like the prime time of some of these far right news organizations have been dining out on that Democrats are opening the borders looking for new voters when there's just no evidence that first generation immigrants, you know, somehow favor the Democrats over the Republicans, and they somehow even vote.

And then how often you know, it's it's it's a it's basically an unconfirmed myth, right, there's not even a grain of truth to it, And that's probably now is it? Is? It? Is it? You know? I think I do think Republicans, whether they intentionally want to not understand what why Democrats are for, are are certainly pro sort of immigration, if

you will. It's frankly the history of this country, right, and now we as we as a nation, we love the mythology that we're a nation of immigrants, and yet we have fought every immigrant wave that this country has benefited from. Right in the middle of that wave, we've been anti immigrant, and then once they're here, we become we like to celebrate, but we usually don't celebrate an immigrant population till the second generation that that immigrant population

has taken hold in this country. So I think, you know, in both cases, I'd probably go with immigration. And the only question I don't know, and I'm always careful with motive, is whether how intentional it is. And you know, I think that I don't think Democrats understand that their messaging on borders is comes across as if that they don't

think borders matter. And I just think that, you know, hey, it matters to be an American versus being a Mexican, or versus being a Canadian, and so in order to have that distinction, you have to have predictable borders, and you have to have secure borders. And I think when it comes to the motivation of the left or of Democrats to be pro immigration, this isn't about importing new voters.

There's no evidence that that works. I mean, you know, look, you know, every new Cuban voter is a Republican and every new Venezuelan is a Republican, right, I mean, you know it, it is that stuff. First of all, it changes a lot. You know, where first generation immigrant groups vote versus the party they end up supporting by the

third generation almost always changes, you know, usually diversifies. So it is a I find that to be a disingenuous pushback that somehow Democrats are pro immigration because they're looking for new voters. There's just there's this is the most of all the bullshit that's out there that gets pushed around on immigration. I think that's the biggest piece of it. I think that's the largest piece of bs that circulates

that doesn't get enough pushback. There's just nothing there, There is no there there, Right, what we need immigration to fill jobs that Americans won't do, and it has been sort of what has kept this nation relatively young, has kept our birth rate up. You know, if we want to essentially screw up social Security, screw up the funding of Medicare, screw up the sort of the future economic prosperity of this country, sure, shut the borders, stop bringing

in immigrants. That's how, that's how, that's how we would become Japan. And Japan has had thirty years of sort of of just of just sort of muddling along. Right, It's an aging population. They've been muddling along. They've let a whole bunch of other economies surpass them. That is what we'll do if we stick to this isolationist nationalists, build the walls as high as they can possibly go mindset. I hope that helped, but it was a challenging question.

So I appreciate that one. All right, I'm gonna do.

I'm gonna do one more and then we'll call it so NASA. We got through question six. Hey, Jack, I have a daughter that is an International relations China major at University of Maryland going to China and study abroad. Congrats, Deansless Sorry, Dad is proud. You should be congrats. I pay a lot of attention to politics, and I'm surprised at what she teaches me about Chinese politics. Do you think as a whole our elected officials actually understand China?

Seems like we always get them wrong. Man, I one hundred percent agree. I don't feel like I know enough.

I mean, that's why if you've seen over the last year, whenever I've had a chance to sort of showcase an author writing about, you know, a little bit of trying to understand how the Chinese system works or how she thinks, like this profile of she's father, you know, I had that author on a few months ago because I don't think we fully understand how the Chinese system works, right, just like I think, you know, our system is easier

for people to learn because we're so open. That system is really hard for people to learn because it's so closed. So no, I don't think we fully understand it. I think we all could get better at it, and you remind me that I need to do more on this. I don't you know, and I don't think you know one of the things right now, as I worry pretty high up in our national security apparatus, we're not fully we don't fully understand why she purged his military right.

We have an idea of why he's purged all his military leaders recently, but we're not one hundred percent sure of why he's done it. The fact that we're not one hundred percent sure shows, you know, whether it's you know, our intelligence on the ground isn't as good as it could be, whatever it is. I do get the sense that both in the private sector we don't understand the Chinese system enough and government to government that we don't,

and certainly people to people that we don't. And I think it would behove all of us to get to get smarter about Chinese history. I will tell you there's one thing we do a terrible job of when we're teaching the history of civilizations of this globe. We over index on all things Europe, and we under index on all things Africa and Asia. And we certainly under index on China, and that is something that I think we all ought to have a goal of changing. And with that,

I will put a pin in this episode. Appreciate it as you know, I'll becoming this is. We had quite a day. You have no idea the day I had. I've taped multiple podcasts today, including one of the Sports Variety that hasn't hit yet, and so I don't want to give it away too much, but it has been a day and the good news is in twenty four hours I'll have a brand new episode for you to download. So enjoy this one. Thanks for listening, don't forget to

like and subscribe. Tell your friends I'll take I'll take some five star reviews in the Apple podcast section. Always helpful, Always helpful in Spotify. Thank you and we'll see you so