Chuck’s Commentary - Algorithms Are Destroying Our Brains & Democracy + California’s Redistricting Fight Heats Up + Top 5 States That Could Elect An Independent Senator

I use it as a crutch. I'm gonna be honest as if I'm not being honest before. I'm trying to cure myself of using that crutch. But what I'm trying to say is is that I'm letting you in on sort of some personal feelings that I normally don't like to share, and that is I just feel rotten about the state of the country. I'm not sleeping very well about it. And because i don't see a path out of this right now, I'm long term optimistic, and I'm

still going to be alone term optimistic. We've gone through a lot of bad things in this country and gotten out better each time. Each time we have formed a more perfect union, whether it was the scourge of slavery, whether it has been then giving civil rights and Jim Crow, whether it has been the internment of the Japanese, whether it was prohibition. The point is is that we've gone down.

We've had a lot of the Red scare, which I'm bringing that up for a reason because I think we might be seeing a fervor, particularly on the right, that wants to try to essentially stain an entire political party with an ideological belief that I don't think the country shares, but one side of the aisle shares. I mean, the initial what folks around the president have been promising when

it comes to retribution, going after the left, sort of being blind to the violent outbursts that have taken place that people have, you know, violence and murders that have been done in the name of a far right ideology. The fact of the matter is we have got a poisonous information ecosystem that can radicalize somebody on the left or somebody on the right to do bad things. Our system is rigged towards it. I spend my sub stack this week talking about this, and I know I've brought

it up here before. In some ways, it's you know, some of you may be listening and going, oh, there's Chuck on his soapbox about big tech. But the fact of the matter is, we know we have two problems. Right.

We all know this is a problem, which is social media has completely screwed up our information ecosystem, and the tech companies, for some reason are getting no blame and not being held accountable for this their algorithms, and they're look, it's the efficiency of technologies. And I say this with sort of without sort of animus in this point. Right, technology, every time you know, we advance, you know, it creates

an efficiency. And when it came to sharing information, we created an efficiency that it turns out is actually bad for public discourse and it's bad for democracies. And what is that efficiency. It's the efficiency of getting information, of boiling it down to the one thing that matters. It's the efficiency of being able to eliminate people that you don't want to hear from. It's the efficiency of only

being able to see like minded people. And so that may make sense if you're a quilter and you just want information about quilting, or if you're a baseball card dealer and you just want information about trading baseball cards. But it's when it's on politics and you're only getting

one side and these algorithms. You know, I don't want to sit here. I will. I've been trying to sort of right. I want to turn down the temperature too. I want big tech to participate in this. But I do believe the second an algorithm is created to curate how I see information that has made these companies publishers. And once you're a publisher, you should be held accountable for how the information you're curating is being used and manipulated.

But ultimately it's going to take some leadership from Washington to do this. And you know, I look at what's happening in the state legislatures at the moment. Over the last two years, particularly post COVID, state legislatures have been passing have been very aggressive on two things. And it hasn't matter whether it's a red state or a blue state.

They've all been passing essentially the same laws, which is a tougher age verification to try to limit the exposure kids are getting to pronoc graphy and it is And guess what, the fact that the pornographers are complaining about this shows you that the just forcing age verification, which you have to do if you want to buy booze you're underage, or cigarettes or anything other vice you want

to participate in. And you know, we've never the Internet's always been very loosey goosey on identification and forcing a tougher standard there. And we're suddenly seeing, oh, so you can put in some guard rails here that can do

a better job of protecting young people from this extreme pornography. And the other thing that has been passing in state legislatures all over the country, whether it's in a red state or a blue state, is getting rid of cell phones and classrooms. Right. Private schools had been doing it earlier, Right, the public schools are now following suit. Look there, and

I think we've discussed this before. I mean, I am empathetic to divorce parents who need to have want need to make sure they have access to their kid during the school day. But there are ways to do this, right, you put you know, you can look at your phone in between classes. You can have it in your backpack, in your locker, you can have it in a in a pad, but you don't have it while you're learning.

You take one hundred percent attention to your teacher one hundred percent attention to what you're to what you're doing. And maybe it's our friend Spencer Cox and Uteh likes to say, you know, maybe touch grass every now and then,

which is a kid touching grass is pretty important? But when you think about it, we're so worried about what social media and the and the tech companies are doing to our kids that we're trying to do something about it. Guess what if it's toxic for our kids, it means it's toxic for us too, isn't it. And so look, I'm a free speech absolutist. I am. I do think bad speech is fixed with good speech. But amplification is

not free speech. Right, dialing up and dialing down what you see and what you hear, that's not free speech. That's curative speech, right, that's a campaign's that's that's something that that and it should be up to the user. If I want to curate my feed a certain way, it should be in my hands. I don't need the tech companies suggesting what I should be looking at a for you tab like our friends at X do, which is just nothing, but you know, it thinks it knows

my interests. But it will always be the most incendiary thing about a topic I care about, even when it comes to Miami Hurricane football, Green Bay Packer football, or Washington Nationals baseball, let alone the various political things. You know, attacks on the media, sometimes personal attacks on me. They make sure it shows up in the for you tab.

What does that accomplish? I didn't ask for this. In fact, I've gone out of my way to mute the idiots, and yet it's still you know, these things still show up. So you know, we we we are in that sense, we're powerless on this. And then you have the two parties who have been very reticent to write. You know, they talk a big game. Individual members talk a big game about regulating big tech, but they don't end up

doing it. And part of the problem is I just was talking to a former US senator and you know, you'll you'll figure it out in a couple of weeks when you when you see the interview that pops up in a and when I when I do it. But

I was talking to a US senator who said to me, ah, he said in passing that you know they you know, I think we have to do something about tech. And he said within two Within an hour he had he suddenly had Sheryl Sandberg and Jack Dorsey calling him to like, are you sure? What are you talking about? What are you concerned about? With what tech is doing? Tech, the big tech companies have really just sat your raided Washington with money left and right. They've hired up all sorts

of strategists and former staffers left and right. It is frankly standard practice for a powerful industry. Okay, this is no different than big oil in the eighties and things like that. And so what you've seen is kid glove treatment. Right. We haven't had anything on maybe repealing Section two thirty. We haven't had anything remotely close to trying to have a digital bill of rights that protects our data, right rather than allows so many other entities to own and

buy and sell our data. And you know they've done a good job with that. And so what you have now is twenty years of elected officials who don't know how to attain power without the tech tools, right, So that makes them hesitant. I mean, look, I'm not going to be labor point. I want the president to rise above his partisan instincts and meet this moment the way it needs to be met the way George Bush met nine to eleven, the way Barack Obama did Charleston, the

way Bill Clinton handled Oklahoma City. We haven't gotten that from him yet. If anything, he views it, he's done. What about ism? You know, when he was questioned on Fox about extremists on the right, he essentially rationalized their extremism, saying, well,

they care about they're upset about crime, I think, is what he said. And when you see these leading partisan politicians saying that they're going to investigate the left, that's red scare stuff, right. That's what happened in the fifties, and it was an ugly It was an ugly period in Washington where guilt by association was the coin of the realm. And that seems to be what's happening here is that you have a lot of folks here that

see an opportunity right for political exploitation. But here's the other thing. If you attained power in this polarized era, you don't want it to change, do you. You don't

want to go back to an era that might be a bit more unifying, a bit more bipartisan. By partisanship is not good for Donald Trump. Right by partisanship hasn't been you know, partisanship has been you know, the Democrats arguably have done better because of reactionary partisanship with Trump. You know, their brand has been problematic now arguably going back to the Hillary Clinton nomination, but their success has been due to polarization. Trump's ability to get a second

term was due to polarization. And so you know, when you're sort of stuck, you know, the only way you know how to win is this way. Then the incentives are all. You know, our incentive structures are broken. And you've heard me use that phrase before. You've heard a lot of people say this. Okay, so how do we

create better incentive structures? Well, the only way I think, which then fits the theme where I have today, which is the rise of the independence. The fastest growing political party in America is no party right. People are registering are you know if they were registered? A lot of former Republicans registered is independent because they don't like Trump.

You now have a lot of former Democrats registering is independent because they don't like what's happened to the Democratic brand under Biden Harris, and you're starting to see that. We're seeing gen Z is sort of on the on the age front, you're seeing a lot more of registered independence. And you know, I always love I always love to go around. I mean, and we're up to I think half the states where non party or no party or registered independence outnumber at least one of the two major parties.

And I believe it's in ten states where independents actually outnumber both major parties. So there's a huge constituency out there who don't like what's happened to the two parties. Now, look, I am I am done sitting here making the do I think in a perfect world, I think we should be a four party system. I think it would actually provide some relief, would force coalition politics. But I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole today because I do.

I want to stick to topic here. What the two parties need is a time out, right, they both need to lose at the same time, or they both need to be punished, essentially in order to force an inward Look, you know, I railed on Monday about the fact that there is zero incentive to call out your own party. If anything, if you call out your own party for bad behavior, you're seen as a trader not as somebody looking out for the best interests of the country or

the party. And if you're going to sort of get them out of their partisan rabbit holes, they're going to have to be set back at the same time or be under threat. And we've had an example of two independent presidential candidacies that didn't win, Teddy Roosevelt and Ross Purot, but effectively forced both parties to reform themselves and forced, you know, forced an issue. You know, I look at

a guy like Spencer Cox and he's decidedly on MAGA. Okay, in a in the pre Trump world, Spencer Cox would be already identified as a rising star in the Republican Party. He has no chance right in the Maga Republican Party. But his voice and how in his north Star about what the tech companies have done to us and how this has happened. I kind of think because he he's

a little bit younger than I am. He's in his forties, so's he's a millennial governor, and I think he's in some ways more digital native and under in his better he's just more conversant at explaining the harm. Right. It did interview with this this older senator and they've identified the harm, but they're not very conversant in explaining the harm. You know, Donald Trump doesn't really you know, he's not

as conversant and couldn't explain it if he chose to. Right, that's just just in some ways he's he's he's just demographically out of touch. But it feels like we're in a moment that if we're going to force the two parties to sort of wait a minute, we've got to put the country first every now and then they have

to be punished for their ways. And if the public wants to just like they're exhausted from this, it may be that that you need a third party scare. And whether it's a third party scare, can you know every every political party needs needs a check on itself, right, the whole point of checks and balances are good whether you're organizing a government or you're organizing policy, you're organizing

a political party. You know, you a political party doesn't needs to have a check on its potential ideological excesses. There's nobody checking the maga wing of the party anymore. There was a lot of checks in the first term, there's not many checks this term. And we've seen fewer checks. You know, you had, you had your Joe Mansions and cinemas that were kind of the centrist check on the Democrats before they're both gone, and there really isn't a

lot of space. I guess John Fetterman has suddenly sort of kind of adopted that role, but I don't think he has I don't think he has really the credibility yet to be that check with the middle of the road voter. Right. I think some on the right love what he's doing, but but I think only for owning the Lib's purposes, right, this whole trolley, this whole trolley mindset. So that's what's frustrating is that we do of a problem.

We're going to have a part of it. Looks like partisans on the right want to just try to harass the left in under the name of trying to you know, root out political violence, but without it all sort of

accepting the premise that hey, it's it's sadly a bipartisan affair, and that basically it's the Internet that radicalizes folks and it doesn't matter whether they come from stage left or stage right. The one thing that we haven't that we have in common here is the Internet has has been, has been what's radicalized them. And if we're not going to confront this problem this way right now, it is

going to get worse. Okay, if you ratchet up a radical view of what you think the other side is doing, I promise you the other side is going to respond in a radical way, right and radicalism, reactionary radicalism. And here we are right and this is this escalatory polarization that we've been experiencing. I mean, you know, it's we've seen it in the US Senate with the absurdity of

how we've destroyed the judiciary branch. And make no mistake, we've destroyed the judiciary branch with this, with this partisan gamesmanship in the Senate. And there's always this attempt to well, but they started it. It doesn't matter which side I of the alight talking about. But they started it. The right will scream foror the left will scream, will scream about Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Mark Garland. The fact is they they both chose punishing the other side without thinking

about what it would do the judiciary itself. Right, we turned the judiciary into the freaking House of Representatives where a whole bunch of fifty percent plus one judges are out there, So you either have super liberal or super maga. There is there is no you have sixty sixty five votes, you would have this sort of moderate temperaments, you know,

which is really what our politics could use. I'm not suggesting we all ideologically have to move to the center. You know where I stand. I'm an incrementalist, but what we need is moderate temperament to lead us. When you're trying to lead three hundred and fifty million people, a moderate temperament goes a long way. And our most successful presidents have been of moderate temperaments, regardless of how you know.

Reagan and Obama pretty mainstream liberal Democrat, mainstream conservative Democrat, almost identical temperaments, and in many ways they had I'm sure there's some of you out there that have been voting long enough where you voted for both of them almost as much because of their temperament. You know, it's a huge factor with my vote. I want to know

how this person's going to handle a crisis. I want to know how this person's going to handle you know, I certainly have issues, and there are you know, there are there are veto there are candidates, there are issues that I might veto at candidate on because the issue matters to me that much. But for the most part, I'm a character and temperament guy, and we could use

a moderate temperament. But we have a we have an information ecosystem and a political and a political system that punishes moderation, not in ideology, which it does do that too, but even punishes it in style. I think it's what we would prefer as a body politic, but the way our information ecosystem works, it seems to it seems to

almost force us into the exact opposite persona. There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is a Maria because largest injury law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.

Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company originally offered that original offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.

If you're injured, you need a lawyer, You need somebody to get your back. Check out for Thepeople dot com Slash podcast, or dial pound Law Pound five to nine law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same, So check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win. Just a few

interesting updates on the campaign trail that you might have missed. We have the redistricting wars obviously, and one of the questions is going to be, you know, the big the big campaign fight on the ballot is going to be in California where essentially the maps are going to be on the ballot for this Novembers election up or down. You have a huge amount of money. There are now

three different entities essentially trying to stop this remap. You have Charlie Munger Junior, who is the son of Charlie Munger longtime business partner to Warren Buffett back in the day. He's really been a political lately. He used to be a big Republican donor. I don't think he's a big trumpy is not as trumpy as some other Republicans. But he was a big supporter of the original redistricting commissions that are out there, so he wants to defend what

he did. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he's going to campaign, but interestingly, it sounds like he's agreed to sort of not be the face of any of the movements. He's chosen not to work directly with Munger's group, he doesn't plan to work with Kevin McCarthy's group. He does seem to be focused on on keeping his independence. I think he doesn't want to look like he seems to be trying to find a way he wants to be. He wants to

be pro reform, but not necessarily looking like he's help I don't think he wants to use the Republicans to help him get that message across. I think he's trying to have it. But that's a real challenge if you're Gavin Newsom and the Democrats who are trying to get this referendum pass and that you have sort of you now have three different entities that are all trying to

spend money to get those in different ways. Right, You're going to have now Arnold who is going to not associate himself with the Republican groups but sort of be talking straight to the independence you got. Charlie Munger's put a ton of money in there, Kevin McCarthy's got a hundred million to spend. We'll see. It's my understanding and focus groups that the surprising thing to my sources who

I've been talking to about this are is how engaged voters are in California about it. They're pretty well educated, they get it, and those that believe they can get this map passed think that this is not a bank shot. That it is important to these voters if you want to get them to approve this map, they really have to believe it's temporary, and they have if they don't believe that this will revert back to the public process, the sort of the commission process for twenty thirty and

beyond that. That's the key when a voter is is here's the message for it, and they believe that aspect of it that this is just temporary justify what Texas is doing. They think it's enough to get a majority.

So I do think this is still a campaign and it's infant, but it is obviously in some ways may even you have Virginia governor, you have New Jersey governor, you have New York City mayor, it's you could argue this California referendum is suddenly the most important election this in twenty twenty five, even as the Virginia and New

Jersey are traditionally a little more high profile. And of course mayor of New York City. Speaking of the redistricting, watch Missouri very closely because Missouri did its map, but

they have an interesting addendum to their constitution. So under state law, if a petition reaches roughly one hundred thousand signatures in six of eight congressional districts, the law that the Missouri legislature passed with this new redistricting proposal that would eliminate all but one Democratic leaning congressional district, basically

getting rid of the Kansas City Democratic seat. The law would actually go before voters for an up or down vote, and it could get repealed, and the lines don't go into effect until that ballot referendum happens. So if they get it, the Missouri would potentially have to put a special election if they wanted to count for November twenty twenty six, and they successfully have a challenge to the state law that qualifies for the ballot, we may have

a special spring election in like March or April. Perhaps the August primary Missouri is in August primary state. Perhaps it goes on there, although that seems super late, right, because that's when congressional candidates got to know which district am I running in. So keep an eye out on whether and it's going to tell me how organized are

the Democrats nationally? Right, The California Democrats turned out to be very organized. I mean, whatever you think of the idea, what Gavin Newsom has pulled off something that I was I was circumspect. I thought that with so many different stakeholders, so many different people wanting, caring about their district lines and all of this stuff, the fact that Gavin Newsom got that whole party to row in the same place, it's just, you know, you got to admire the political

leadership there. That is not an easy thing. He has pulled off is that him or is there a pretty strong national Democratic Party organization behind him. We're going to find out in Missouri, right whether there is a whether the Democrats are organized nationally is they clearly were in California to push back on this because there is a you know, essentially a plan B in Missouri to go to the voters and get an up or down there.

I just think it'll be really telling. But I have to tell you there was an item in my old my old publication I worked at before NBC, the Hotline, and it was just a simple construction, which is what's always the beauty of the hotline, covering the coverage, right, and they note I'm just going to read you the item verbatim. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buotage will return to his old state this week and rally with the Indiana

Democratic Party against redistricting. That came from a press release. Meanwhile, Hacking Jeffrey spent the weekend in California raising millions for Fournia Proposition fifty, the Democrats redistricting ballot initiative. This is the second trip Jeffries is made to California to support the redistricting effort. This is to me, the real sort of challenge for the Democrats. On one hand, they're trying to stop redistricting efforts, bringing in a national star to

try to do it in Indiana. Simultaneously, they're going to California to raise money to try to support a re redistricting effort out there. You know, it doesn't take a communications genius to say you got a messaging problem. Right Gone are the days where you could message in isolation. You could somehow talk to one group over here, tell them something, talk to another group one hundred miles away,

and somehow they wouldn't hear. You know, you promised that you were going to deal with this landfill issue in this county over here. You told them, don't worry, the landfill's not coming to your county. It'll stay there. And you know, back when when communication wasn't shared so quickly, you know, a politician could essentially talk out of both sides of their mouth and get away with it for a period of time until reporters over time shared information

quick enough that you couldn't do that. And I think this is when I was reading this item, You're like, it just made my head hurt. On one hand, a major Democratic Party star is trying to stop a redistricting effort in Indiana. On the other hand, a major Democratic star is going out to California to raise money to help a redistricting effort in another state. I think it goes to why this is again, I understand the tactical decision that the Democrats made here. They feel as if, hey,

look what they're doing. They had no choice. But it

is a reminder of how complicated this effort is going to be. One other candidacy that I think you should keep an eye on. That sort of fits. It's a little bit more on which wing of the Democratic Party is more ascended, right, the progressive wing for the moderate peacemaking wing. The Georgia primary for the Georgia Democratic primary for governor is becoming fascinating. You now have a former Republican Lieutenant Governor, Jeff Duncan, right, who was an early

Trump critic, was on a glide path. He was Brian Kemp's essentially, you know, on a you know, kind of running mate. I mean, you run for LG on your own in a primary, but you know, he was seen as potentially assumed her apparent to Kemp. Duncan became, you know, particularly after the attempt by Trump to essentially overturn the Georgia election, you know, twisting the arms of party operatives.

Over time, became more and more of a Trump skeptic to the point where he is, you know, he he has now changed parties completely elected as a Republican in Georgia. So you're not a moderate Republican when you're winning a primary. You're pretty conventional conservative Republican as lieutenant governor in twenty eighteen and now eight years later, hopes to be the Democratic nominee for governor in twenty twenty six. Now, look, so he clearly is more in that super moderate lane.

You now have a state Senator, Jason Stevies, your former Atlanta mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms who was worked for Biden state rep. And Derek Jackson, the chief executive Michael Thurman, who I believes run for state wide office. Before It's suddenly a pretty crowded primary. There's a lot of Atlanta Democrats in there, which could give Duncan an opportunity if there's enough vote outside, if all of that, all of this vote gets split up there. But it's a just

like the Michigan Democratic primary for Senate. There's a handful of Democratic primaries that if they all go in the

same direction right the progressive wins or the or the more center center left person wins, it may directionally tell us where where are rank and filed Democrats right? Are they angry and ready to go left? Or are they exhausted and frustrated and looking for what I call our peacemakers right, trying to trying to win win over the middle. But in particular now Georgia Democratic Primary for governor, Michigan

Democratic primer percentate. Both of them feature candidates from all wings of the Democratic Party, so they're all going to be pretty good tests where the energy of the party is.

A couple more things to talk about quickly. On twenty twenty five, we're now seeing the real money is coming into both New Jersey and Virginia. There was some question with the National Republicans invest is heavily in Virginia as they did the last time. They now have and there's

a real reason for that. Like it Ultimately in the Republicans I've talked to about the Virginia races, it's not that they're conceding the governor's race to Abigail Spamberger, but they're conceding that it's an uphill battle, but they don't

want to get swept. And if there's one candidacy that they're trying to save, it is the Attorney General Jason Miaris, and I had a smart Democrat say that he thinks it's the single most important race to understand whether Democrats truly have a shot at the midterms or whether Republicans can hold off the flip. And it's because of the you know, you're seeing. You have a Republican incumbent with

a lot of financial advantages. You have a Democratic challenger who's being painted as soft on crime, which is what both Republicans and Democrats tell me is likely to be among the bread and butter issues you see in the midterms, especially if the economy is not good. Republicans are going to be running against Democrats is sort of softened the border, soft on crime, soft on law and order stuff, especially if they can't run in the economy. And right now

things don't look great with the economy. And by the way,

it may not matter. Right the economy may be everything, and it may overwhelm that. But we're going to find out how effective can a law and order campaign overcome sort of momentum that autumn sort of sort of the momentum that the Democrats have as simply being the out party, right, you know, they have a few advantages going for them in these offier elections in Virginia, federal government workers being

laid up, they have a lot of advantages. Can munt can the financial advantage they will have and the issue of law and order combat that right? That Virginia AG race this cycle could foreshadow what the mid terms look like. In particular, we're seeing a little bit in the governor's race, and don't get me wrong, I think there'll be some culture war type back and forth between the two governor's candidates.

But in many ways, all that, you know, there's Spamberger's now up with a lot of negatives, almost just exclusively in northern Virginia, hitting win some earl sears on just simply being supportive of Trump, which ironically she doesn't have Trump's endorsement yet I think she'll get it because everything is about helping turn out for the pot of the ticket there the AG candidate, and if you don't have

people enthused about the gubernatorial candidate. It's he's gonna you know, you're just gonna have a turnout issue that's going to trickle down and cost you down the ballot. So I suspect Trump comes in. It's why the RGA, I think, has come in with real money to help the top of the ticket, because ultimately the one they're trying to see can they save one of the three seeds that

they currently hold in Virginia. As for New Jersey, you've seen the Republicans have also sort of equalized money there. We're going to have our first debates. They're going to have two debates. I want to watch those debates. I think that they may matter more than we fully appreciate. I think gubernatorial debates voters care a little bit more about than Senate debates. To be frank, I think Senate campaigns are always read versus blue again one of the

challenges for these independent candidates. But governor's races, I think more often there are voters that will will we'll, we'll choose a person over a party if there's a specific issue that really animates them. And that's why I actually

want to withhold judgment. I have a sneaking suspicion that New Jersey's going to be awfully closed. But let's see how the debates play out on that front. And then we've seen it looks like Donald Trump is conceding the New York City mayor's race to Mom Donnie. It is fascinating to watch these progressive pressure campaign on a Keem Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer, who have not yet endorsed Mom Donnie. The governor of New York did. But remember, everybody, you know,

I talked about incentive structures at the top. Why does Kathy Hulkle have to endorse Mom Donnie because she's got a primary challenger from the left. Neither Jeffries or Schumer are worrying about that at the moment. Hokel has to worry about that in the very very near term. Her numbers aren't that great anyway. She can't afford a very competitive primary that would likely be negative, ugly, and only make her potential campaign against the least staphonic that much harder.

So I look at the whocal endorsement as a she's

got primary opponents, that's what she's worried about, and she can't afford to alienate the progressive flank as much. Jeffries has got a whole other problem. He's got a whole bunch of Democrats running all over the country who are don't want the future Speaker of the House looking like they endorse a socialists, And so I don't envy the

situation Jeffries finds himself in. But I go back, Jeffries and Schumer should have been more hands on when Cuomo jumped into that race and basically screwed it all up for the for the for the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party. The fact that they sort of look the other way is arguably why they're in this situation they're in. But that's a tough that's a tough position he's in politically. I know. I'm guessing Jeffries will end up endorsing him

or voting for him, not endorsing him. We'll see. But I do think this is as much about his branding. What happens to his branding as the guy who's essentially running to be Speaker of the House in the midterms. There's a lot of Democrats running in House races that are nervous that he gets painted as a socialist. So I do think that is what's, among other things, politically,

what's making it very uncomfortable for Jefferson. All right, I hope you enjoyed that interview with those two independent candidates. So and in fact, my top five lists this week

is on independence, and it's my top five list of states most likely to elect an independent to the Senate top top jest. Some of it is going to be based on history, some of it is going to be based on, you know, the electorate and just sort of how you know, do you have an electorate that thinks that is very partisan, Like you know, you take state of North Carolina, which is a very evenly divided state, but it's it's sort of divided by polls. It's a

polarized electorate. It is basically forty five are forty five d in a very small size of independence versus a place like Alaska, which is sort of filled with sort of this sort of independent you know, a little left, little right, little libertarian, little of this, and it's just a more fluid electorate. It's not as it's not as partisan,

it's not as hardcore. So my top five list of states most likely the elect and independent to the Senate, Well, obviously I got to start with two states that have done it. I don't count Bernie in this one. I know,

although Vermont has arguably had two independent one that was independent that caucused with Republicans. Still he switched parties and caucus with Democrats and Jim Jeffords, and then you had Bernie. But in some ways, I don't put Vermont there anymore. I think it's decidedly I think it's going to be very difficult for somebody. You can get elected as an independent if you're further to the left of the Democratic Party, but I don't know if you can do that, you know,

from the other way. So look, I think you have to put Alaska and Maine is one and two because they've done it, and there's their electorates are fluid enough that it's supportive. They've elected independence for governor, right, and I think that that is, you know, these are the states that are most righte for non major party candidates to have some success. Alaska and Maine obviously are too. The next state on my list, number three is Minnesota.

In fact, you could argue now that if you're right of center in Minnesota and this is going to actually get I got some interesting feedback about my battleground state list and a little bit of pushback of having Minnesota ranked higher than New Hampshire of states on the Republican side most likely to make it into the battleground right blue states that Republicans might be able to contest, And the argument is that while Minnesota is always very close,

Republicans never seem to be able to, you know, to crack the code that in twenty fourteen, for instance, Al Frankin's reelection year, he won by ten points and that was a great Republican year, So I Republicans couldn't make Franklin sweat in twenty fourteen. Then the argument goes that this is a this is a much harder state. You know that there's a hard ceiling on the Republicans, and I you know, it's an old hotline buddy that was pushing back on me. And I think my buddy Quinn

is right. Quinn, I'm throwing I'm giving I'm throwing you this bone. I do agree New Hampshire probably it should be New Hampshire over Minnesota. I still think there's an opportunity there in Minnesota. But I think you're right. I think the track record of New Hampshire. Recently, they just elected a Republican governor. It's been a long time since Minnesota's elected a statewide Republican, has been at least over

a decade. I think, I think you make a compelling case at New Hampshire should be ranked higher than Minnesota. So Alaska one, Main two, Minnesota three, and my next two are Sun Belt states. Arizona, who arguably had a

couple of independent acting senators even though they didn't get elected as independents, and John McCain and Kirsten Cinema, And there's something about it's electorate, right, there's a there's a there's a it's a state that has a huge independent voter registration. And when you're a transient state, right that where a majority of the voters weren't born in that state, that means you don't have as strong a ties on

partisanship as much. And I think, and so we should give away what my number five state is of a chance electing independent. That's Florida. Florida also is a huge, growing no party registration vote, and I think the opportunity

and ballot access isn't very difficult. Ditto in Arizona, that also matters here, right, how difficult is ballid access to get on there? You know, Texas is extraordinarily hard to run as an independent. And even though you in theory Texas is the type of electorate that maybe could be supportive of it, I'm skeptical of it. So my top five this week, top five states most likely with electorates it would be open to electing an independent. And you

could actually picture it happening. Two places they've already happened Alaska in Maine, right with Lisa Murkowski and and Angus King both did get elected as independence. Now they caut us with one side or the other, but they're I think in they both have elected independent governors, So I think there is a tradition there. Minnesota, right, they've had some You know, this is a party that even the Democratic Party is not named. It's the Democratic Farm Labor Party.

It was a coalition party. There used to be the Farm Labor and then the Democrats that they merged. And in fact that back in the day the Minnesota Republican Party was referred to as the Independent Republican Party. There was almost an over emphasis on the word independent and less so on Republican so Minnesota, number three, number four Arizona,

and number five Florida. Other states that I contemplated. Nebraska, I do think the fact that they have a unit cameral legislature where you do not run or hold office

by party, does create an electorate that is comfortable with candidates for office that don't associate with a major party. The fact that their unit cameral legislature works that way, I think does. I think it does help explain why Osborne dan oz Born, who's running again, has has gotten into the forties. On that front. Kansas, I think there's

something there. I think the Democratic brand is probably not quite strong enough to elect a senator, but an independent that leaned to the left but had a few things that were appealing to right leaning independence, you could see it. I put Idaho, South Dakota down here as well, because

we're going to find out right. I do think you're going to have a little better in general running against the two major parties, as there's usually a bit more of an appetite for it out west than there is out east here, particularly in some of the in some of the states that have been around a while that have of you know that have that have certainly have very very very strong state and local political parties. All right, so there's my top five lists. With that, let's do

a few questions ask Chuck. All right. First question comes from Greg al and he writes, thanks for the show. I wanted to ask about your call for a politician to run as a uniter. It's what the country needs.

But is it possible as a moderate who has voted for both parties less presidential Canada? I recall running as a uniter is President Obama, who came to prominence with his unifying One America speech back in two thousand and four. However, we call family members who perceived Obama as a divisive radical who hated capitalists and Americans. In the Obama years, I also noticed that compromise and unity were tough promises

to deliver on. Even if a politician followed through with concessions, the opposing party could force failure by refusing to cooperate, even when offered policies they previously supported. I hope you can share some optimism. Well, look, I mean this is why I don't think either either party. I think this has to this almost has to be a pirate type of situation where you just sort of where you have an independent calls time out. You know, you guys have

lost your privileges to lead. You need to learn how to lead. It's sort of it's it was the It was how Jesse Ventura won his election in ninety eight. He basically turned the two parties into tweetled the and tweedled dumb, and it gained quick traction. It was it was actually a short campaign. He was He was polling in the high single digits, low double digits for the longest time they have a debate. He's an outsized charismatic figure.

The two nominees, I think it was I think, if memory serves, it was Norm Coleman, future US senator, and Skip Humphrey, the son of Hubert Humphrey, And they just they came across a stale compared to the charismatic ex wrestler, right and former actor you know who's uttered one of my favorite movie lines of all time, I don't got time to bleed from the first predator, which I think he used in his campaign at and I think it was the title of his memoir, of his political memoir.

But the point is is that he didn't run as saying this is you know, yes, it was sort of with the Pero Reformed Party at the time, but in some ways it was, Hey, I want to send a message these two parties and sober up. And I think what you outline here the inability for one party to concede anything to the other party right now, it's not going to happen. If you want to know how nineteen

nineties by partisanship happened. It happened because Ross Perot essentially threatened his candidacy, threatened the success of both parties at one point or another, and so it almost served as a force as a mechanism to force by partisanship. You know, the nineties recipe for bipartisanship also had one party controlling Congress, one party controlling the presidency. In the twenty first century, the handful of times we've had that it didn't, it didn't.

It didn't lead to in many bipartisan successes. And in some ways I think this is thanks to the internet age to be fur filthy, Frank, I mean, that's that's what I think has done it. I think that in the you know where anytime you quote helped the other party, it becomes a problem for the base, and they amplify it, and they get everybody fired up, and they threaten primary challenges, and all of a sudden, this wayward moderate R moderate D has been tamed by the outrages of the of

the base. We saw a version of that on the Republican side with Joni Ernst and the confirmation of Pete Hegsea right, she was basically shamed and threatened and harassed until she agreed to do it. In the pre internet days, Haig Seth never makes it. Eg Seth probably doesn't even even get out of committee in the pre internet days, but essentially making it public and forcing it that way did so. I concur with you that it's not going to come from one of the two major parties and

that they would successfully do it. I do think a term with an independent basically just highlighting the fact that both parties have failed us and have helped tear this country apart, would would could could serve as that a sort of return sort of Like I said, I refer to sobering up the two political parties. Next question comes from Lincoln from Columbus, Ohio, but he makes it clear he's not a Buckeye fan. Well, That's why I'm taking your question. Lincoln. By the way, I love it, Lincoln

from Columbus. Maybe I can meet Columbus from Lincoln anyway, Hey, Chuck la cheeserie if you know you know. I love the toodcast and appreciate the commentary, extended interviews and deep dives into all things politics and politics adjacent news stories. You're right, we need more in depth conversations in fewer

sound bites. I have a question about Senate and House hearings. Do the people testifying have an idea of the questions

in advance? Obviously this would be more partisan, because when RFK testified, I can't imagine Democrats would provide their questions, but I can see Republicans trying to curry favor with the White House, if not overtly providing questions in advance, perhaps in a meaning mentioning that a question like that may come up with a link and a no. Thanks for the work and information to look forward to the mornings when I see the pod drop, well, it's great

to hear. Thanks Lincoln. Appreciate that. On hearings, you know, it depends. There's some people do mock hearings. A friendly hearing. Right your friendly side, you will know, you know, you might know they might have Hey, I'll uh, I know you're going to get attacked for this issue. I'll be able to ask you this question on a follow up. So the point is the answer is yes, okay, what

you suspect is true partisan. You know, anybody that is that is favorable to the person testifying, if that person is in government and has a relationship that it likely means they have some sort of professional relationship with that senator, with that Senate staffer, with that House member, with that House staffer. So in that sense, yes, they're told, hey, I'm going to ask about this, this, and this if they're friendly. Obviously you don't you don't get the questions

in advance of the others. But you know, if you don't know what's coming, you're not very good at your job, or you don't have a staff that's very bright about this. I've never watched one of these congressional hearings and been surprised by a question. Right, Sometimes you might get surprised if it's like arcane, it'll be like oh, and again, when you're surprised as the person testifying, it means your staffers blew it. You know, a good staffer should know, Hey,

Senator Schmengi is obsessed with this one arcane issue. No one else is going to ask about it, but you may be asked about it from him or her. You better know it. But no, your suspicion on essentially partisans help helping the friendlies is one hundred percent trough. There's always by the way it happens in the White House press room, there are certain reporters that are essentially used

by the person at the podium. Maybe they don't know the question that's going to be asked, but they know it's not going to be antagonistic, and they go to them as almost like a break if they're if they're if they're getting attacked. And you know every press secretary has had those in their back pocket. This one has more friendlies than most that I've noticed. Next question, boy, you absolutely nail it in your nine to fifteen commentary. Politics should be about I believe in A and you

believe in Z, and we meet somewhere around L M N O P. But Congress now seems allergic to compromise, acting as a blank check for Trump's agenda. I also agree that social media fuels division. I even deactivated my own accounts after hearing every network link the latest shooting to online extremism. Podcasts can be similarly insular, Yes they can, though yours stands out for presenting multiple viewpoints, which I really appreciate. Michael C. From Douglasville, Georgia, Well, I appreciate

you noticing that it's what I'm trying to do. That's a frustration of the sort of the architecture that the tech companies have created for those of us in this independent space. I you know, I appreciate substack. You can sort of curate yourself. They don't feel I don't feel like they use algorithms to push stuff on me. It's you're you only get pushed stuff from the actual publisher of the content or people that you know. If you decide to subscribe, then you're asked to to to spread

the word. It's a it's a it's a healthier way to do it on that front. But the you know, that's the problem, right, And you see, I don't want to build an audience where I feel like I'm captured by the audience. Now, I just I am a podcast listener because I'm trying to get more information. I sort of listened to three types of podcasts. One is deep dives on history, one is on economic and a bunch of sports. Not gonna lie, maybe one or two in sports gambling, a few in sports cards, but quite a

few on history on that stuff. And I want information over commentary. Right, I don't necessarily want left right commentary. I can read the left right commentary on that front, but I do think that, you know, I'm very mindful. I don't want I don't want to I don't want an audience. I don't want to feel like I've been capped stured by my subscribers or my audience, or however you want to look at it. I think that you've

seen that. I feel like I see that in the New York Times, you know, when when they chased away James Bennett from being editorial page editor of the opinion section. He didn't do anything wrong, he didn't he didn't do anything fireable by the editors, but there was a revolt among subscribers, and there they were concerned about losing subscribers and losing it, and it seems like he was sacrificed for that. Well, when you make a decision based on

viewership or who's watching. Look, I don't want to get into too many details, but you know, these were these were some of the struggles when when when I was trying to do a a a non ideological partisan show on politics on a cable channel that had a history of being partisan, and it was the audience. The audience

was uncomfortable with it. They didn't like when I would put Republicans on and it would become a thing, and I didn't like that I was being used by the right at times to try to do it was just a mess. But it's what happens when you have audience capture, and it is something I'm trying really hard not to have audience capture. I appreciate you noticing it, and I'm trying so thank you, and we'll spread the word. All right, I'm gonna sneak in at least one more question here.

I've got a little I'm on the clock before taping,

so I want to see how many can get in. James E writes, is it me or does it seem like the right are being opportunity to utilizing their friend's death as a reason to go after the left. I don't think it's just you. If you hear my commentary top, that's I think exactly what's happening. Seems like such an odd time to go on the attack rather than to mourn a supposed friend. Have there been other instances in the past of a political death or assassination being used

to attack the other side so soon after the incident. Well, here's the thing. In the Internet era, we see it all, you know, and it gets It's something that I think social media also provides us with that. God. This is why I think it's an experiment gone haywire on our brains. I can't remember if I shared this earlier with you guys or with my friend Chrystaliza on the weekly podcast I do for his feed. But John pot Horitz, who's

an editor at Commentary magazine. He's a conservative commentator, had a fascinating thread over the weekend about how the real issue with social media is that too many good people have allowed too much of their of their inner thoughts

go public. And what he was saying is that look, in any given second, if our thought, if every thought that was in our head, do this exercise and think about everything you may have thought about for a split second, involving your life, anything about it, right, relationships, you name it. If all those thoughts were broadcast on social media, do you think you'd have any friends left? Would you still be married, would you still be in relationships? Would you

be seen as a madman? Would you be seen as crazy? Right? I think you sort of get what I'm saying, or maybe I'm the weirdo that is admitting that you know you get. There's plenty of things you think that you don't say, and somehow social media. Like I was reading, I was reading a quote from somebody who was who oh, I know what it was. It was an elected official down in my hometown in South Florida, in Miami Palmetto Bay, one of these invented towns in Dade County, I say invented.

When I was growing up, there were thirty one municipalities. I think we're up the thirty six down there in Miami Dade County. Palmetto Bay is now one of them. It all used to be unincorporated Dade County, so we all wrote miamis our is our address? Which is I

grew up an unincorporated Dade County. Otherwise I describe it as East Kendall if you're if you're scoring at home, but an elected official went out there and said something really you know, said something really not good about Charlie Kirkstaff. I don't remember the exact things. I'm hesitant to characterize it other than it was inappropriate, and certainly the timing was inappropriate. And the guy had said he goes he woke up the next morning and regretted sending it, right,

it was heat of the moment. I bring this up because I think that that's where we've let why social media is so so toxic and and so bad for

our brains. Right, there's no there, there's no uh, there's no sort of It should sit in drafts, right, Like you know, if you're worried about your inner id saying something that you'll regret in the morning, It's almost like you should be able to put a small g governor and your Twitter feed and just say send all tweets to draft, and then the next morning reread them and see if you want to send them. But of course, you know, nobody wants to do that because they want

to be in the moment. You want to see if you go viral or whatever. Right, and so I just bring that up because I have a feeling in the pre social media world there were plenty of people who had unpopular opinions about political attacks or assassinations that if they shared them, and if there had been social media at the time, would have probably gotten them, you know, canceled,

and maybe in some cases deservedly. So I'm not gonna even I don't want to sit here and defend that idea, but I think this is where social media is just it incentivizes stupidity, and it sometimes you know, remember the advice I assume everybody has heard this advice, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's certainly a rule of thumb I have about people

that die in politics. You know, if you know you, you certainly if you've got a disagreement, you want to highlight. Maybe wait, let the family mourn, have some grace, right, whatever it is. And for some reason social media has made us think that the rules of decorum don't apply when how would you behave in you know, if you were face to face with that person, if you if you were trying, if you put yourself saying, if I was face to face how would I say this? It

probably would make Twitter less interesting. But maybe that's a good thing on this front. But I'm really worried about a sort of red scare vibe, as I said at the top here, and a disingenuous attack on this that this is just trying to do guilt by association, which is you know, it's a very dangerous. It's you know, it's our polarization is bad. Are the increase in political violence that we've been experiencing is bad, and scapegoating and guilt by association is only going to make all of

these things worse. All right, On that happy note, I think I'm going to pause here for twenty four hours. This was, like I said, I wanted to make it a little canpaigin heavier episode. But look, we're living in a rough period, and if we don't have the leaders to get us out of this rough period, do little things on your own, right, you know, just say thank you, say hi to somebody you don't know, acknowledge somebody's existence when you walk by them, you know, on a street corner.

And Spencer Cox said, touch grass, right, but turn it off, you know, I have I all the time try to do better when it comes to I'm a news junkie, I'm an information junkie, so I'm always looking for more information. But I have found different ways now to get information without using social media. Not totally gone. I'm not totally

kicked the habit. You know, I might be smoking one cigarette a day, but I'm not smoking twenty and I think that's the I think if everybody took that advice, you know, wean themselves off, we might have a better digital atmosphere. So with that, I'll take a break until we upload again. See in twenty four hours. Hey,