Chuck’s Commentary - Republicans Avoid Disaster In Tennessee, But The Midterms Look Great For Democrats + Top 5 Senate Seats A “Wave” Election Could Put In Play

know how important that would be in that moment. Well, guess what. That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated

process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you just answer a few health questions online. You can get a quote and it's a little ten minutes,

and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage and some policies start as low as two dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted Ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos

dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you should really think about it, especially if you've got a growing family. Hello, they're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. Well, one of my favorite sayings used to be, if it was Tuesday, somebody's voting somewhere, which means, if it's Wednesday, we have some election results. And this happens to be

no ordinary Wednesday. It's a day after a special election. I know the most devoted of your time podcast subscribers and listeners caught our live stream or I hope caught our live stream election show and partnership with Decision Desk HQ and Chris Solisa. We were essentially watching the returns with those that chose to watch with us, and we

had another huge turnout. We are overwhelmed by the response we've been getting for these election night specials. Let's just say, you're you're only encouraging us to do this more and more. But in some ways, this is one of those special elections where both parties are going to take something away that they feel better about. Both parties are going to look at this and say what could have been for different rays, And in another way you look at it is in some ways it changes nothing. It taught us

nothing we didn't already know. So I'm gonna start with that part right. In some ways, this special election went as expected.

somewhere around, you know, somewhere between four and six percentage points, which means you're looking at it at approximately a sixteen to eighteen point Democratic over performance based on the twenty twenty four results, which is exactly pretty much in line with what we've seen with various special elections. We've had some special congressional elections. Two that happened in Florida one had a sixteen point over performance, another one actually had

a twenty three point over performance for Democrats. Both were still Republican victories like this one, but there was this over performance right super red districts that suddenly got much closer in a special election. In some Democratic victories, their over performance has been in the sixteen to eighteen point range. Why do I keep using this number sixteen to eighteen And no, I'm not saying six seven. I'm not participating

in that nonsense. But the importance of that sixteen to eighteen point range is that it's about the same number that we saw in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen special elections going into that mid cycle, where that over performance

did end up translating to a good Democratic Knight. But of course the question is is twenty twenty six going to be another twenty eighteen or it's twenty twenty six going to be something bigger, something akin to what Republican You know, Republicans nineteen ninety four they swept both the House and the Senate, or Democrats two thousand and six,

where they swept both the House and the Senate. When you have a to me at this point, a wave is when you're the party out of power, you're not holding either of the House and Senate, and after the wave hits, you end up controlling both the House and

the Senate. And I think the question we're all looking for is, is this in a political environment that is developing into a wave for the Democrats right to You know, we love our weather metaphors as political prognosticator types, and there's clearly a storm brewing, and the question is is this going to be you know, to use hurricane terms, a Cat two, a Cat three, a Cat four, a Cat five. Right, if it's a Cat one, Republicans probably

can hold both the House and the Senate. If it's simply a Cat two or a Cat three type of storm, where it's a bigger Democratic turnout than Republican turnout, more enthusiasm on the left than the right, but the money's kind of equal, the candidate performance is kind of equal. You know, that's an environment that the Democrats probably wouldn't control the House.

There's a cultural bind that keeps this coalition together, but there's not really an issue bind that keeps this coalition together, you know, And so if you start to see fracture, it's fracture that may be really hard to put back together. And I think the fear Republicans had about this special election in Tennessee that a loss would essentially lead to

the bottom falling out. And what does the bottom falling out look like for Republicans, another ten to fifteen House members deciding to retire and not seek reelection, maybe a senator or two. That you don't that Republicans thought we're going to seek reelection. That says, you know what, I'm out of here. I'm not going to do this. I'm gonna.

of the House. Maybe the Senate goes from a three seat advantage down to a one seat advantage, but they hang on to some power in Congress, and it's not a total loss if you're Donald Trump, and if you look at and I think that that's what each party's going to take away from this, right, I think the Democrats are going to look and say, look, we got an enthusiasm advantage. Voters are ready to walk on broken

glass to show up. The turnout in this special election was was very high, but it also meant it engaged the other side too. I think a lot of Democrats are going to whisper today that hey there, you know, imagine if they had a candidate that ideologically fit the

district better. Right this If you remember the famous Connor Lamb special election of twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen, that was sort of the first big, you know, sort of tea leaf that when Connor Lamb won a district that had been a double digit Republican district and he won that special election, that was like whoa. And I remember at the time Republicans were going, well, Democrats won't find

candidates like that in all these races. But it was an acknowledgment that the Democrats had found almost the perfect candidate to run in that district. That is not Aftenban, Right,

she was definitely the progressive in the primary. She was outspent in the primary by more establishment candidates, and you know, she was the more democratic socialist leaning candidate, if you will, I think even you know had some kind things to say about it. Let's just say anything she had said positively about democratic socialism or progressive politics. Republicans found and used it in their at and she ended up being,

in some ways the referendum in this race, right. It was Republicans wanted this to be a referendum on her and left wing politics. Democrats were hoping this would be a referendum on prices, the economy, and Donald Trump. And the fact of the matter is they both succeeded.

special had they had a Jim Cooper like Democrat. And for those of you who are familiar with old Tennessee politics, Jim Cooper was sort of an old school blue dog Democrat, which was code for more you know, he was closer to Joe Manchin on the ideological scale than even say Chuck Schumer. Okay, I'm not even saying, you know, going to AOC definitely was more center left than just mainstream liberal. And I think that's going to be a fair, a fair piece of analysis that you know, would that have

would that have been the difference? Right? A couple of points been harder to paint, you know, somebody like a Jim Cooper as a radical. But then you got to ask yourself, if you're Republicans, can you do this in forty races? Can you do this for thirty districts that you've got to defend? Because it's going to be somewhere. Now, you know, anything that is our anything that Donald Trump won by say twelve to fifteen points, I think now is a house seat. Realistically, the Democrats, that they find

the right candidate can potentially put in play. So, you know, can they run the kind of camp essentially emergency triage campaign that Republicans came in and ran. And by the way,

they deserve credit for this because you know, failing to answer the bell on these warning signs and losing this would have led to a total catastrophe. So doing the triage sort of bought them some time and probably saved a handful of retirements on this front, But can they scale this right? You know, you might be able to save a race here or a race there in this game, but you're not going to be able to hope that you get Democratic nominees that don't fit the district across

the country. Now, do I think Republicans are going to get into the habit now of trying to actually play in Democratic primaries, because that's been the biggest That's the other difference between the twenty eighteen cycle and the twenty twenty six cycle. In twenty eighteen, the Democratic leadership and at that time, you know, and yes that included Schumer and Pelosi, But back then they had a little more juice.

The Democratic Party had a little more credibility with its own voters and donors that when they squeezed people out of a primary, they listened and they said, hey, this is who we were supporting, this is who the national party wants. They could clear a primary field and they could sort of minimize the number of nominees that we're

going to be too far to the left to win general elections. They don't have that credibility this cycle. While

I think a bit more enthusiasm for Democrats. You also have a national party that can't sit here and say we're going to squeeze out this candidate, and the Michigan Senate primary squeeze out and in some ways, an endorsement from the national party for in certain primaries maybe a kiss of death that it puts the scarlet e on your coat for establishment right and in these days, being part being seen as part of the political establishment, whether you're on the left or the right, is not a

good place to be politically.

And ask yourself over the next five months, what good headlines are going to help a Republican that's going to be on the ballot in twenty six Right, they're having

this argument over extending the Obamacare subsidies. In fact, I believe that had Ashton Bain won this special had the Democrat pulled the upset. I think you've seen those subsidy extensions like happen within forty eight hours. I still think they're going to happen because I think Trump is going to flip a switch in his polster who's been warning a lot of Republicans that healthcare could be the issue

that takes down the Republican majorities in both chambers. That Trump will end up weighing in and doing a one year or two year extension because he just wants to get that. They want to mitigate the damage. Not extending these healthcare subsidies would do so. But the point is just that fight alone, there's not positive headlines being created. Those are negative. That's defensive headlines. Then you've got we've

got a Terra ruling that's coming. Well, no matter what the ruling is, it's a bad I think.

tariffs have really slowed down Japan's economy. That's not good for America. Of Japan's economy, it goes into recession. That's not anything to cheer. That's only going to hurt our economy. Economies are too interconnected. So this is the naivete of this whole teriff regime. But the more nationalistic we go with our economic policy, the more nationalistic everybody else is

going to go with their economic policy. And that is bad for prices, and that is bad for GDP growth around the world, And it doesn't solve the income inequality problem, and it just puts a sort of a wet blanket over any economic growth. But you still have inflationary pressures, right, Costs still go up because of these consumer taxes. We call them tariffs, but they're nothing more than an additional tax, essentially, a form of almost like a vat tax that Trump

has tried to institute here. But that's not going to be a great headline. You've got what's happening in Venezuela, where where you know, is this war even legal? Have any of the you know, it's possible. Nothing is legal here, right, There's been no congressional authority that you know is clear

to me that has given the president the authority to do this. This definition of narco terrorism to me, is a It is not something that's been tested in the courts, whether you can truly I go to war and if this is you know, is this a regular crime or is it a homicide or a war crime. But either way, the second strike attacking those that survived the first strike

in that first attack on the alleged Venezuelan and cocaine traffickers, either one creates a congressional inquiry that again, this is not a positive headline for the Republican Party and anybody running for office. It is a headline that puts you on the defensive at best, and if anything, may put some Republicans in a place where they feel like they've got a distance themselves from Donald Trump. Do you hate hangovers? We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of office gives you

the social buzz without the next day regret. 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, from a gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.

And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THHD and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwine so if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help you get a better

night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for d restorative sleep, So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order. So go to get sold dot com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's get sold dot

Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.

Van epsads is that they didn't use Donald Trump. Yes, he phoned into a rally, right you know, and the national media covered that rally, but you know that was they did not want a picture of Donald Trump with this candidate. He never used Trump's name, you know. He certainly said I will fight for America first, and used radicals, used different buzzwords that are very familiar buzzwords in maga circles. But there was no use of Trump, and there are

going to be other Republicans are going to be looking for specific places to start splitting from Trump. They may do it on tariffs, they may do it on Venezuela, they may do it on healthcare subsidies. But the point is all of the near term events that are going to impact this political environment, they all seem like negative headlines right now for the Republicans. What is going to be a positive headline that's coming up. Are we suddenly going to see prices fall and saving these accounts grow

over the next six months. That doesn't seem likely. And then there's the intangible here of Donald Trump and Trump fatigue. Don't I think we underestimate the length of the you know, of the hold he's had on our politics. Right it's been now over ten years that he's essentially dominated politics.

His movements about ten years old. And if you look at the history of modern political campaigns, at modern politics, which I defined modern politics as essentially the end of World War two to now, you know, these runs, these sort of cult We've basically had a series of cult to personalities. It's not that parties have have runs. It's almost like political personalities have run, right. You know, Eisenhower

had himself of basically an eight to ten year run, and Kennedy Johnson had eight to ten years, and Nixon had his ten year period. You know, Carter was sort of a four year interlude, and Reagan Bush dominated about ten to twelve years, and Clinton had his eight to ten years, and George W. Bush and then Barack Obama and then we're in the air of Donald Trump. The point is is that it's really hard to extend this to eleven and twelve years successfully. Right by the ninety midterms,

everything was petering out for the Reagan coalition. By the twenty oh two midterms, the Clinton or Clinton coalition was completely gone. By twenty sixteen, we saw the Obama coalition already fracturing. It kind of got put back together during COVID for Biden, but that might have been a bit of a COVID effect than anything else. So I don't think we fully appreciate that we're at the end. We're at the end stages here of the Trump era. Is it going to go out with a whimper? Is it

going to go out with a bang? Is it going to be escorted out by the voters or sort of fade away. I think that's the only unknown here, right, and it being escorted out by the voters is a wipeout in.

of think I believe we're underestimating the sort of the intangible Trump fatigue here. And the fact is, when this economy sucks and the economy member did not suck in twenty eighteen, that's a big difference between twenty eighteen and now. You had a people felt pretty good about that economy in twenty eighteen, and Democrats still won the House though they lost two sentences. You're now going to have a similar enthusiastic democratic environment, but with an economy that a

lot of people don't like. And I always say that because you know, the stock market looks good, but the real world looks uncomfortable and bad, right, And I think it's because the issue of costs is really starting to pinch.

And Trump's doing this almost on a weekly basis. Where there's some pardon that you're like, oh, BOYD, does that stink? That's impossible to defend. In a normal political environment, there might be borderline impeachable offense. We're obviously not going to head in that territory. But the point is is that not only are the macro is the macro environment pretty bleak right now? If you're an elected Republican and the headlines that you know are coming, there's sort of the

what Trump is doing to you? And you know Trump

is not thinking about the Republican Party at all. Trump never has right. It is about himself and whether it's these pardons, whether it's these personal business deals that he cuts on behalf of his son, the weird business relationships that is chief envoy in these negotiations Steve Woodcoff is involved with, and the mixing of all this, none of that's defensible. And when people don't, if people are unhappy about the economy, that stuff will then really irritate them.

They overlooked it the first four years. They overlooked it maybe during the Biden presidency, but if they don't like their current situation, they're really not going to like you benefiting Donald Trump while they're in this tough situation. So that's why I'm a bit more bearish on Republican chances of holding each chamber. And I think that the for those that follow these political prediction markets, I think everybody is under under rating Democratic chances of winning the Senate.

There have been you know, since there have only been six times six midterm elections, the first was eighteen ninety four, but six midterm elections where the party not in power in the White House won both the House and the Senate in a midterm, It's only actually happened six times. The last time was two thousand and six. On election day, Republicans held both the House and Senate. By the time all the votes are counted, Democrats had flipped both the

House and the Senate. The Republicans did flip them both in ninety four. Then it happened again in the fifties, and it happened again in the forties. The first time it happened was eighteen ninety four, and it was Grover Cleveland's second presidential term. In the midterm of that election, and he was dealing with the depression of eighteen ninety three. Republicans sweep the midterms in eighteen ninety four, and that

second non consecutive term. Is that familiar to anybody? Are we dealing with a president in his second non consecutive term. The out party sweeps in eighteen ninety four, and it foreshadows a big Republican sweep in eighteen ninety six, which leads to sixteen straight years of Republicans holding the presidency until Woodrow Wilson's victory in nineteen twelve, so that's the

first time it happened. Here's what was interesting that we've had thirty three midterm elections since eighteen ninety four, and in twenty one of the thirty three the out party picked up Senate seats, and in eighteen of those twenty one instances the pickup was four or more Senate seats. Well, Democrats only need four Senate seats to win control of

the Senate. I know the map's not great for them when you're you know, and this is sometimes I question whether Democrats are truly a national party because they don't. They barely contest elections in a third of the states, and I think that's why they may have a hard time putting enough Senate seats in play with this particular map that they have to run on. But if history is any guide, the likelihood of them winning at least

four Senate seats is actually quite high. And so that's why I think the bar I think people are underestimating democratic chances here. Look, they still have a lot of recruiting to do and finding a cannon in Kansas, finding a ralling around a canad in Mississippi seeing if they can target places like Kentucky or Alaska or Iowa. But they've got to put a lot more races in play. But history says they actually have a pretty good shot at doing it, which leads me to the rest of

the rundown of this episode. I'm going to wrap things up here in a second. Got a top five list that actually goes well with what we're talking about tonight, which is top five center races that Democrats if they actually can put the Senate in play in twenty twenty six, then of my top five list, one of them, at least one of them has to be a single digit race and very competitive by October if that's going to become realistic.

all things Tennessee seven. I'd rather let that settle, let that simmer, and I'll see in twenty four hours with the hottest of hot takes, not just on the world of politics, but on the ESPN Invitational and the.

Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and limited tibing products for you to enjoy. In addition to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free box and a plant based box.

Or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. Always use the code, get the discount.

given what happened in Tennessee, I thought it would be worth focusing my top five list before I get to the ass check segment. I thought it would be worth focusing the top five list this week on five Senate races that are not competitive at the moment. They're Republican

health seats. But what I would call is blue WaveWatch Senate seats top five, top top The five I'm going to give you are or my five nominees for what happens in an actual wave, is that a Senate race that was not on the map a year out ends up flipping. In two thousand and six, there were sort

of three candidates. There were arguably four candidates for that. Three candidates really for that, For that idea, you had Virginia Senate at the time, a Democrat had n't want to, you know, had Chuck rob But it was the sense that Virginia was still a Republican state. George Bush carried Virginia in two thousand and four. Democrat had and carried carried in a presidential race since Carter in seventy six. So the perception of Virginia was that it was a

tough place. So and Jim Webb was an unusual candidate. George Allen was a prospective presidential candidate. It was a race that developed late and popped on the radar late, and then it was a flip. And then it turned out to be a canary in the coal mine. It turned out to foreshadow it was a growing shift of Virginia from light red to now light blue. But each one of those cycles, there's always a seat or two that you're like, well, how did that happen? Sometimes it's

a special election win in the Senate side. Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, it was it a seat that could hold on his own in twenty twelve. Nope, that's what gave us Elizabeth Warren. But in that unique environment, in that moment in time, that's how much the ground had shifted underneath Democrats when it came to the issue of health care, and it certainly foreshadowed what was not a

very good mid term. So, with that caveats out of the side, here are my nominees of the five you know, and like I believe, I think all five of these Senate seats have a chance to become shockingly competitive, and I'll explain the unique circumstance for each of them, but they are ones that have been written off right, And I'm not even talking about Alaska. Texas don't make this list because or or even Nebraska, because they're already seen

as quasi competitive at the moment. Right Alaska, especially if Democrats get Mary Patello, Texas looks like it's going to be competitive, no matter what part of it is demographics. Part of it is Explain to me how John Corny gets out of that gets fifty percent plus one after a runoff. Really hard to see that, and without him as the nominee, suddenly that becomes a winnable race. Although the Democratic primary is a mess there. It's a topic

for another day. But these don't count those races to me. You know, it's the job of the Democratic Party to put those races in play because they're competitive enough sort of on paper.

they're not obvious at all. And what I would theorize for you is that if Democrats, you know, if I go into a coma and I wake up the day after the mid terms and you tell me Democrats flip the send, I'm going to guess one of these five races was either actually flipped or was one of the final was one of the six or seven Senate races in the country that was decided by five points or less.

So here are my candidates for that, and I'll put in an order of least likely to end up on that last minute competitive slate to most likely. So I'm going to start with my home state of Florida. I think there's still a competitive nature to the state of Florida. I think there's definitely some sort of Republican fatigue in general.

all three of those that I just mentioned. And you know, it just it's a very expensive state. So the work and the Democratic Party nationally has done a terrible job at incubating the state of Florida. They don't help the state party. The state party doesn't help itself very well. You know, there's a variety of reasons why Florida sort of under punches. It's voters, right, This is a state that you know is still probably a fifty three forty

seven state if both parties were equally funded. You know, it's a leaner. I think I still think Florida's light red, not dark red yet, but you know, the incompetence of the state Democratic Party makes it seem like it's dark red. So that's why I put it in the fifth slot here, because I do think the political environment could shift in such a way where we could see and Ashley Moody is not a household name and it is an appointed senator.

If you told me in October fifteenth, twenty twenty six, you had a poll showing that race forty five forty with the Democratic nominee in Moody in a political environment that looks like a growing blue wave, which at the moment to me, it looks like that. That's what's happening. Florida gets more competitive. It's just inevitable that you would see that. So Florida's fifth on my list. But I'm not yet impressed with the Canaid. I almost think it's

too expensive to put in this category. To actually take it from from could we make it competitive to look, it's kind of competitive to actually competitive. Fourth on the

list of Kentucky, it's an open seat. This is the Mitch mcconnal'syat. There's actually we've interviewed one of the Kentucky candidates, Amy McGrath is running again.

as well. But what if one of them aren't the nominee and it is, like I said, it is nasty. The primary campaign is heated up. There is a sense on the Republican side that it doesn't matter what happens, it can be as bloody as you want. Sometimes that mindset might leave a potential nominee weaker than they should be. We saw that with Jade Vance out of his Ohio primary, which was a bloody mess and ended up creating a much more competitive general than was necessary. All the ingredients

are there in Kentucky for that. So it's I tell you, this is one of those things that if there were a more if the Democratic Party had a slightly better brand and slightly better leadership, Andy Basheer would be the Senate nominee in that campaign and we'd be talking about Kentucky Senate.

If the Republican primaries as messy it is, again, I'm assuming only if this environment continues to be as poor

as it appears to be for the party that's currently in power. Number three on this list for me is Lindsay Graham in South Carolina. I know we've been here before them with the with Jamie Harrison and all that waste money, just like with Amy McGrath and that wasted money. But I would argue that six years ago the political environment wasn't as weak for Republicans. It was a very competitive environment. What does that Senate race look like in

twenty twenty six without Trump on the ballot? Is Lindsay Graham wearing out as welcome? Does the mess that is the South Carolina Governor's race sort of put an entire pall over the South Carolina Republican brand? Look, South Carolina Democratic Party is very similar to the Florida Democratic Party. They really underperformed their potential. You know, there is a stronger floor in South Carolina.

and Mississippi in general. But it's a problem they have across the black belt in the South. Is Democrats underperform among in all rural communities, not just rural white communities and but a rural Latino communities and rural black communities. It has been a it is it has been a nagging problem for them, and they've done very little to

fix it, very little investment. And this gets it to, you know, is the you know, does the party see the opportunity that's staring them in the face or have they Is it being run by a frankly, a bunch of people who live on the coasts and and just have written off and assume all rural America is white when in the South, not all rural America is white.

And I think that's been a huge missed opportunity, uh in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia in general, I mean, the only reason they throw money at Georgia is do the Atlanta growth of the Atlanta suburbs.

creating a bad juju if you will. And you know, Lindsay's his own worst enemy at times, and his mouth can certainly inspire donors to give money to candidates in ways that that that he may and he may have tied himself too much to Trump in ways that are not you know, you know, Lindsay's problem is is I think that there are there is this center right voter in South Carolina that assume Lindsay was one of them. And I think they still think Lindsay is one of them.

But he's so desperate to stay in Trump's good graces that he he sort of does some retort gymnastics that's embarrassing to some voters. They just have not had the right Democrat to to to sort of expose that side of Lindsay. But you look this is a guy Lindsay reminds me of Chuck Schumer in this respect. These are two two politicians who've had a really impressive career who are probably here a term too long. Had they left a term sooner they'd be they'd have they'd have been lying.

They literally would have been treated as lions of the Senate, you know, if they had left on their own terms. And yes, you could say they're going to be leaving on their own terms. But in some ways, you know, it's it's they're they're they they're kind of here past their cell by date, and the longer they're here, I think the smaller they've become in some ways, And and I think that's the danger here for Lindsay. Uh, on this one. And that's why again I put it in here.

I think that it's it's another political environment, right, you know, you me how South Carolina working class voters are going to benefit from high tariffs and things like that. So, uh, it's it's a it's it's again. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's if if it does happen.

It's one of the five races I would put in there. Number two on my list is Mississippi, as I previewed, almost the identical situation uh as South Carolina. But you also have an incumbent who's just not hasn't left a heavy footprint yet in the state, Cindy Hyde Smith. You know, Roger Wicker is definitely more of the senior senator and he's on the higher profile committees. He's sort of involved

in the higher profile issues. I don't think Cindy Hyde Smith has the same hold over over her voters or her seat that are previous senators from Mississippi have have had on their Senate seats. So look, she's you know it is. This is actually her campaign for a second full term. She got she got appointed there two years and then second full term. So look that the Democrats have an interesting candidate here in somebody that was put up for a judicial nomination rejected.

You know, Montana is an R plus ten state. It is you know, in some ways not having a high profile challenger this time like Steve Danes had the last time.

other incumbents could get caught napping. But Montana's also not a hard right state, and they're going to be pretty sensitive, especially if corruption starts to pop. Montana voters are a bit more sensitive to corruption issues I think in general, and a bit less tolerant of it no matter whose side is doing it. And if that becomes you know, sort of gets into the ecosystem in the campaign ecosystem, what Trump's been doing with pardons and the self enrichment

and all of that. You know, I think there's a reason. If you've noticed Steve Danes keeps a pretty low profile, he does not want to necessarily pop his head up on this front. It is Look, Montana is a populist, it's a right leaning state, but there's a it's a populous state, and it is one of those you can get on the wrong side, and the Democrats are well organized in the state. So the point is is that I think these are five races nobody's talking about at

the moment. Nobody believes are going to be competitive. Nobody believes maybe nobody at the d SEC is even looking at it. But I promise you, if this is as as bad of a political environment as it looks like it's growing into for Republicans, one of these five, if not more of them, but one of those five Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Montana will be a seriously targeted race and might actually flip come election Day twenty twenty six.

If this trajectory of where the political environment is going

stays on the same trajectory, there's a reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's 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.

a few. So I appreciate that. And I left out, by the way my numbers, I left out the single most important thing I do every Thanksgiving, and that is I make this turkey chili with the leftover turkey. And the real question is how long? The question is how long is it? Is it okay to keep around? Because it is one of those chili's it gets better every day for a period of time. Then there's the point then everything starts to taste old, right, But there's something

about putting all the flavors together. You know. Today, certainly I'm taping here on a Tuesday. I had it a lunch again for lunch today. It's we're still in peak. I think we're still in it's it's in peak mode. But I'm probably now on the other side of the hill. Is it worth freezing or not? Would you freeze leftover at chilling? I am probably not going to do it, but I'm contemplating it. So I would love I'd love your thoughts on that, if any of you want to

chime in that. All right, next question comes from Dan. He says, Hey, Chuck, what is the public to make of all the recent attempted censures in the House of Representatives? Some of it is dem on dem and GOP and gop.

I am. I think Marie Glusen camp Perez is one of the If I would to say, who the if I were to do my best Barbara Walters and who's the five most interesting Democrats right now to talk to, she'd be in my top five list on that one. She's she's fascinating to me, and I think that there's a there's a populist honesty to her that I think is infectious and fascinating and you know, definitely worth Uh.

She's trust me. I'm trying to book her. I'm going to bring her to you as soon as we can get her to say, agree to agree to an interview. So some of it is the members blame on that, but I think some of it is just simply the current political environment, right, think about it. The Democrats are unhappy with their leadership, and they're unhappy with what they're having to deal with Donald Trump, and they're really mad about Joe Biden still, so it's just a cranky group

of Democrats. Republicans feel as if they've been pushed aside, particularly after the shutdown. They feel as if they do nothing but to you know, go back to Marjorie Taylor Green statement, they feel as if they do nothing but defend Trump and all they get is grief and return or they get set aside, or they get dealt out. So even though in some ways this is a Republican

governing renaissance, in theory could be right. You have controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and the president has control of his party in a way that no president has had. Frankly, you know, Obama didn't have a grip like this under Democrats, and maybe for a temporary period Bush had a grip on the Republicans like this after nine to eleven, but not.

to sign executive orders. He doesn't want to bother watching letting the sausage be made. So I think it's that nobody's happy, right. House Republicans aren't happy that they don't get to govern, and House Democrats are unhappy at their position and are pissed off at all their leaders for they believe putting them in this place. So you put it all together, and it's just think about your own bad day. I think about this, and I I will you know, I've been this way as a boss. I've

been this way as a parent. Right, you've had a bad day and then somebody does something that's just slightly annoying, might be an employee, might be a kid. Isn't worth you losing your cool about, But you lose you're cool because you're already upset about sixteen other things. That's the equivalent of I think the situation that the House of Representatives is feeling these days, And I just think that's the way anybody in elective politics feels this way right now.

Everybody feels like they're all out, that they all are out for themselves, not because they want to be, because they don't think they have any other choice because they really don't trust anybody else to look out for themselves. Next question comes from Randall van der Vahal from Lighten, Netherlands. I hope leading or lighten my apologies, he says, as a listener from the Netherlands, I struggle to understand how so many still support leaders who behave irresponsibly and unpredictably.

It feels like both Europe and the US are losing a shared sense of purpose with real leadership and short supply. I agree Europe should take more responsibility for its own security, but we need leaders who think beyond themselves. How do we get accountable, responsible leaders into power again? And what needs to change in our democracies to make that possible. So this is where I think populism and nationalism gets contagious,

and it's the wrong type of contagious. And as leader of the free world the United States, how you know we set an example right whatever whatever posture we take are when we're leaning in as as leader of the free world in a more internationalists posture, say in the era of Frankly from Eisenhower to Obama, in general, right we viewed we did every president between Eisenhower and Obama came into office believing America was leader of the free world,

and we put that in quotes there. Free world, believe that the relationship with Europe was second to none, that it was the single most important relationship there was, and that democracy was the ultimate goal. Freedom and democracy was the ultimate goal.

how we got into World War two. So I think that's I think that is at the root of all this. Right the more when when America becomes more isolationists, more protectionists, well so does everybody else, because it's you know, you're you're going to behave like the you know, like the big dog is going to behave And so I think that has a huge part of it.

But in some ways that was due to fear of

what was coming next. Right, the Teutonic place were shifting in geopolitics, the United States was becoming a world power, and the powers that were the dominant powers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century we're trying to hang onto power, right, So we are in the middle, and I think we can't underestimate we are in the middle of this great transition from an industrial to whatever this new economy is going to look like, this tech driven, service driven AI

driven Right, we know this is going to dramatically change the nature of work, and ultimately, over time it's probably going to be to the benefit of humanity. But the transition is going to be awful, just like the Industrial Revolution was to the overall benefit of humanity when you look at it through one hundred year prism. But the first twenty years of the end utual revolution was terrible if you look at it in terms of livelihoods lost

and things like that. So this is where I play sort of amateur historian, and I said, let's take a step back and realize, this is a moment in time. Now, why are we in this moment in time? I try to comfort myself by sort of trying to at least understand how we got here, and we kind of know how we're going to get out. The question is can we get out without a world war? Can we get

out without internal civil wars, without dramatic sort of ideological revolutions? Right, will the transition be smoother than it was between the industry, between the agrarian and the industrial. You know, that was a very violent transition when when you look at it in hindsight, we don't we don't necessarily always cover it that way. We just sort of like, ah, and then the industrial revolution began, and yeah, we had some child labor laws, we had something to that, right. You know,

it is like when we were in the moment. I don't think people felt like, oh, some man, this is gonna be great. Everybody's gonna have electricity, and everybody's gonna have We're all gonna someday just sit on couches and watch stuff picture, moving pictures on video screens. Right. You know, people didn't know what their lives were going to look

like thirty years later. Then they had no clue what their life was going to be like thirty years later because that unknown was because it was unknown, it was all fear. So I think that here's here's why I always say, trust the voters. The voters eventually figured out. I think the voters are starting to figure it out in Europe. I think the voters are figuring it will continue to figure it out in this country.

but I think that that's the larger reason why we're here. But I also think that, you know, ultimately, people vote based on their own livelihoods, and there's been a lot of promises made by many of these nationalists and many of these popularis and they're not being able to fulfill them. And I think and instead it looks like there's just been nothing but grift and graft. I think that's going to be how these movements end. That's usually how many

a political movement ends. It ends in corruption. That's what this one feels like, at least in this country. Next question, I love it you signed it your champ. It's pretty neat to end up with the nickname champ. I hope

you're a champ in something. But anyway, this next question is just from Champ, you better have won something that got you the nickname, and I kind of think it's got to be at least high school championship are above Like, if you're gonna come at me with a middle school championship, I don't know if that's worthy of the Champ nickname.

for Biden? And why might donors be so reluctant despite having the right to support him. So, look, I think it's just donor anger at the moment. And these weren't Biden donors, right, These were Democratic Party donors who always donated to who the Democratic nominee was, right, so they were their loyalty was to the party before it was loyalty to Biden. So I think there's a little bit of that, and it goes back to this has been a problem Biden's always had, right his his his loyal

set of supporters have been very small. It's always been at small, tight circle. But there weren't you know, he was never a prolific fundraiser before he became president, so he didn't have like a donor network that akin to what most presidents have. And when you have a donor network like that, it's easy to tap into them for the library. Obama had a devoted donor network that was the Obama donor network. It wasn't one that belonged to the Democratic Party more than it belonged to him.

his set of donors. I'm surprised that Biden doesn't have more folks in Delaware and in Philadelphia chipping in right, that was always his sort of community was the Philadelphia business community and the banking sort of the banking industry of Delaware or you know, because of the incorporation rules that they have in Delaware that there was certainly a lot of He never had any trouble raising pac money as a senator put it that way, but he was

never the most prolific. So but I think so, I think you have the main you have Democratic donors who donated to Biden but never considered themselves Biden donors, still pretty angry at him, And so I don't think there's so you have that issue. You know, he could use a sugar daddy, like one big donor that might be, you know that might really want to have a presidential library at the University of Delaware, might really want to see something like that, or if they wanted to see

it at Penn. Yeah, it's definitely supposed to be in Delaware. He announced that in September. Here's my guess, and what

usually is the secret to finding presidential donors? Wealthy foreigners and so uh in that sense, I do wonder if Trump does scare off, if you know, if he's gonna raise money anonymously but I don't think that's in Biden's nature, and that would make people uncomfortable. I do think there is some concern by some major donors that they don't want to. They don't want to, they don't want to that they they believe, but donating to Biden in a public way in the Biden library would put a target

on their back for the Trump administration. I think that fear is real, and I don't think it's unfounded in in defense here, but I do think, uh, the biggest reason why he's had so much trouble is.

You know, Adam, I think that's quite possible, right, you know, I have said that, I think the biggest problem Republicans face in general over the next two years is I don't think Donald Trump cares about the future of the Republican Party. He didn't care about the Republican Party before he got into it. In fact, when he got there, he said, you know, all he did was criticize the party. All he said is what a terrible party it had been. They'd had stupid ideas or stupid people, you know, the

typical Trump word and analysis. And if you told me in ten years Republicans hadn't elected, hadn't gotten control of the House, or the Senator, hadn't elected a president, whether Trump would be happy or sad about that if it were deemed that, you know, boy, only Trump seems to be the only Republican that can win elections. That's the legacy Trump would actually like the most, not that he helped.

You know, if there were four straight presidents under the umbrella of MAGA post Trump, would that make them happy or would it make them happier if nobody could win that didn't have the last name of Trump? Right, I think we all know the answer to this, and I think deep down most Republicans know this too. He does

not care about the future of the party. He cares about him, and that's the stuff in the last two years of a presidency and why these midterms, and this is why I think that some people are really hesitant about this redistricting gambit because they're trying This is all about Trump staving off lame ducks status for about six months, which is all it would do if he somehow holds the House. But he's just trying to preserve his own status at the expense perhaps of making Republicans more vulnerable

in the long term. I think that's why you're seeing pushback in the places that I would expect it. Indiana is one of those kind of states that they're Republicans before they're Trump people. And you know, Utah's another one, but it's a It's certainly a place that I would and I'm not surprised to see this. But I also think that there's there's a little bit the I think

there's the average Indiana Republican I think thinks that there's thinks about the world beyond Trump, and I think that that's that's what you be seeing this. I you know, I happen to think that the I will go this way as One of my favorite movie lines to use when talking about the industry of television is from the movie Cocktail. Everything else, everything ends badly, or else it wouldn't end. It's kind of how I feel about the Trump,

how Trump's ten ure is going to end. And by the way, this is you know his you know, he was a disaster for Atlantic City. He eventually had his TV show canceled due to low ratings. Right, everything in Trump's life, every sort of six or seven year cycle has ended badly or else it wouldn't have ended. I suspect his political career is it's hard to imagine that's a legacy that's going to get better rather than worse. All right, last question for this episode. It comes from

Andy from Indy speaking of Indiana. Hey, Chuck, as a millennial ouf and here from my peers that the political system feels broken and any honest critique tends to spiral into both parties are bad. The constant partisan battling has left many of us exhausted in dissillusion. While a viable third party seems unlikely anytime soon, do you think we could see a mixed party presidential ticket, say a Democrat with a Republican VP. Would love to hear your take

on any combos you think could actually work. Andy from Indy. You know, look my old mentor, the late Doug Bailey, he had a vision in two thousand and eight. He thought he feared that a presidential election between which if starting in two thousand and five, the two front runners

were loosely Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Right, this is before McCain didn't seem like as where the Republicans were going to go, and he thought that was going to be an opportunity for a bipartisan ticket, that Rudy v. Hillary, that Rudy v. Hillary would be so divisive that it would open the door for.

something under that category. You know, I think the only here's where I think that you know, I look at we've had three major our three major third party candidates for president in the last say one hundred and twenty years. Right, one was Teddy Roosevelt in nineteen twelve, one was George Wallace nineteen sixty eight, and one was Ross pro.

for the future. Obviously, Teddy Roosevelt handing the presidency to the Democrats led to a different outcome on a variety of things, but sort of was an attempt to sort of reform both parties. I don't know if it fully did, to be honest, because a very corrupt Republican Party followed Wilson in the twenties, and so in some ways Teddy failed to do what he was trying to do, which form the Republican Party. We didn't get that version of

the Republican Party really until Eisenhower. And I would argue that Perode had an impact on both parties fairly positively, right, got Republicans not being so reflexively free trade, and got Democrats to be a bit more concerned about the debt and deficit and more into fiscally responsible things.

thinking about their party. And you know, I don't know how many I don't know how many elected officials i'd put in that category, but they're you know, they're two people, Mark Kelly, John Curtis, another Utah politician, John Curtis as a senator, you know Rafael Warnock and James Langford, the two ordained pastors in the Senate. That would be an interesting pairing to me. It's all about what moment are we trying to meet right at the time that you're

trying to put this together. Is it to restore trust in government. Is it to restore faith in the country, is it to heal the country? Is it to try to unify the country? Right, I think it there's you know, I think there's different skill sets. But when I start to think about certain people who I think have the ability to because it would in order to work, in order to pair up with somebody on the other side

of that, you got to leave your party. So who who could I picture being comfortable leaving their party under a circumstance like that. And you know, look, I could you know, I'll give you another odd pair that you would say, what are you talking about? But you know, I could see Ran Paul and a John Tester, you know, type of type of pairing when you're looking for bipartisan pairs that I think could work together again depending on you know, if they were depending on what problem you

were trying to solve. But I you know, Mark Kelly is in that category, John Curtis, Lisa Rakowski, I'd probably put I'd have put a John Cornyn in that category. I had to put a Build Cassidy. We know Builcassidy actually showed some interest in the no labels. In the no label situation when no Labels was seeing if they could recruit a bipartisan ticket.

and usually we don't have that right. When one party goes too far one way, usually the other party then tries to become the party for the center right, tries to absorb the center and so which is Frankly, I think it been a very effective way to create a check and balance in our country between the two parties. It's when it's in those weird moments when both parties split apart. Maybe we're oncoming to one of those moments, and if we do, then perhaps there is room for

this yere. But I ultimately don't think we're going to be there, and obviously my dog Kelly, she is ready for this podcast to end. So with that, I will see you in twenty four hours