Chuck’s Commentary - Trump’s Most Consequential Scandal Wasn’t Clickable Enough + Democrats Need A “Project 2032” To Stay Electorally Viable

nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The

Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code, the todcast code. If you use the promo code toodcast at checkout, you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.

They give you step by step instructions.

dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at check out. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. Hello,

They're happy Wednesday and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. Let me give you a quick little rundown of what to expect in today's full episode. I will have an answer to the question that I get more often than any other will the mid terms happen? But I want to explain it in such a way that kind of builds off of what we talked about on Monday. I will get to that in a minute. So going to have my top five list, and this one has to do with thought. I'm calling Project twenty thirty two

for the Democratic Party. I'll just leave that little tease at that, and you'll get an idea of where I'm going to go with my top five list on that, and of course we'll take some questions and go from there. All right, So let's go back to the to this exercise. I want to do it, and it wants to I want to build on the story we talked about on Monday,

but try to explain why why it's disappearing, and I'm going to lament why it's disappearing because I don't think it should be disappearing, and try to sort of help you discern, you know, which one of these alarming stories. How much worry about Trump's alarming rhetoric versus his alarming deeds. So look, if you listen to Money's episode, you know I spent a good chunk of time slowing things down, walking through a story that I think is easy to

miss in this current information ecosystem. I knew that this didn't have easy visuals to show bells and whistles, But what I really believe is that this is the worst sort of this is the worst corruption scandal we've ever had involving an American president. It's bigger than teapot doma bigger than Watergate. And I know, because we're so numb

to Trump's transactionalism, we just don't see it, right. But that's why I wanted to walk through the details very deliberately, because it's incredibly important.

and chips, and of course led to a pardon of a very controversial figure in the crypto world. And all of it happening while Trump was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in cash Trump.

and start worrying about whether presidents are following the Constitution. But then the rest of the Then the rest of Monday happened.

sudden burst of rhetorical crazy from Trump involving the midterms led to a whole bunch of questions that I regularly get from both listeners, viewers, and friends and family starting to panic, you know, is is he going to cancel the midterms? And it always leads to this, because how anxious should we all be right now? And you know you can and I get it right? Are things collapsing? Is this different? Is Trump actually serious this time? What guardrails are left that could stop him on this? So

here's what I want to do. I don't want to hype your anxiety, and I don't want to dismiss it either.

What I want to try to do is organize it, because one of the biggest mistakes we make in moments like this is confusing volume with importance and mistaking what feels scariest for what's actually doing the most damage. It goes to the original trope with Trump, you know, right, you know, which is you know, do you take them literally or seriously or both?

So let's start with the story that everyone understands. Immediately, Donald Trump goes on a podcast muses again about federalizing elections, which of course you know, reminds people of him musing about just I wish I could cancel the midterms, and almost simultaneously, right when you play that, you have your file footage, right, so if you see this on video, you could just show the weird Tulsa Gabert thing and the striking images out of Georgia of federal agents executing

a raid connected to election materials from twenty twenty. You know, we're at nearly six years later. We've had multiple elections in Fulton County ever since. I mean, I sort of look at what he's doing is laughable. I think it's silly,

but it's also very serious. Right, we know he's desperate to continue to sell this lie that he somehow was illegitimately thrown out of office in twenty twenty.

shouldn't be normalized. Election interference talk is as damaging as election interference itself, and using federal power to intimidate state workers matters a great deal.

because it's essential. What feels existential is not always what's most consequential. So these two events, the rhetoric and the raid, landed together. They functioned together. They were consumed as one narrative event. It almost doesn't matter which technically came first, right, the raid itself or his rhetoric to Bongino, the meaning

formed through proximity and imaging. Right, that's how political narratives work now, thanks to these algorithms, thanks to these big tech companies that control the flow of information that you and I get to see. It isn't done through chronology or nuanced but through what shows up next on your screen. And that's why this story dominates. It feels like democracy itself is on the line, and it animates a lot of people. But feeling existential isn't the same thing as

actually being the thing that does the most lasting damage. Now, let me talk about the Kennedy Center here. First glance, Trump's moved to effectively just shut down the Kennedy Center unilaterally under the guise of renovations. I see why some

see it as cultural authoritarianism, and symbolically, sure, it's pretty ugly, and if it's a broader pattern of treating institutions as enemies and loyalty tests. But then the context of all this matters, right, and I think it tells us something pretty important about how Trump actually operates. So why did he shut this down? This wasn't a first strike, This

was a reaction. He was being humiliated right. Artists were pulling out, performers were canceling, events were unraveling quietly but visibly. The reputational damage was happening big time for Trump. Right the minute Trump touched the Kennedy Center got involved. Everybody wanted out. The opera wanted out. People, every classical, anybody with any level of integrity wanted in. The art community wanted out. And it was humiliating the Kennedy Center. It

was humiliating Trump. Right. So Trump wasn't dominating the story. He was losing control of it. So what does he do? This is a classic Trump He flips the script. Instead of having to deal with they're rejecting me, which is what they are doing, it becomes I shut it down, and instead of absorbing a thousand small acts of descent, he creates one big spectacle. Instead of reputational damage accumulating quietly, he centralizes the conflict and reframes it as Trump versus

the culture. Right, it's just simple spin, right, And notice what happens when he does that, right, The story becomes

about Trump's power, Trump's move Trump's dominance.

be alarming everybody because he's already doing it, and he's already done it. He has taken these payments, he has enriched himself. This isn't he might he's thinking about. He's doing. This is stuff he's done.

proximity and mutual benefit. Each step defensible on its own and technically legal in some sort of byzantine way of looking at it, but it is damning when taken together, and it is illegal when you realize it's being done

by the president of the United States, and violation of the Constitution. And here's the moment that really sort of crystallized all this for me. So on Tuesday morning, I was scanning my usual mountain of newsletters right bias. You know, lots of good ones out there, lots of mediocre ones, but I read a lot of them good faith actors, smart people, outlets that are deeply focused on democratic norms. And the foreign policy story was gone from a couple of them that I was shocked to see it gone

on from. But the election rhetoric that was everywhere, the midterm anxiety that was dominant. I mean, my friend Bill Crystal, who does the Morning Shots newsletter for the Bullwork on Tuesday, not a single mention of this Wall Street Journal story anymore. Look, they did a lot on Monday, but they were obsessed

with the midterm issue. Ditto with playbook had nothing on that had a slew on the midterm issue. We all know how this stuff, right. Some stuff travels more, some stuff rides the algorithm right, and the way the independent media landscape works, a lot of editorial folks examine what's getting attention what isn't, and they may lean more heavily on the stories that are getting more traction, even if there are other stories that are arguably more important. And

I'm not calling it. I don't think that's bad faith. I don't think it's corruption. But it is sort of how our information ecosystem is kind of doing exactly what

it's designed to do. It rewards stories that are visually immediate and emotionally legible and quietly pushes aside stories that are technical, slow and complicated it and might not be as gripping to as large enough of an audience. And that's exactly why the story of the creation of the American kleptocracy is much more dangerous. So it brings me back to the anxiety question and something I want to be very clear about. As alarmed as we all are

by some of Trump's rhetoric and by the sense that there are no guardrails left. The truth is a bit more complicated, because what's interesting is every time we lament this idea that there are no guardrails, you start to see that some of them do work, not all of them, not consistently, but some of them some of the time.

And it's interesting for us to realize when they do work and when they don't work, and understanding which ones work and why is the difference, I think, between whether you should panic and whether you should view it as some sort of strategy. So let me give you two examples. First, there's Minneapolis after the killing of two Americans, and let's just say it took two American deaths for Trump to

do this. Trump did something almost never does rhetorically.

wasn't just coming from Democrats that owned the Libs. It was measurable, and Trump does respond to measurable pain, at least political pain in poling.

he do that? Well, one guardrail. He does seem to care about our markets, right, and he cares about what some donors think, his donors, and he certainly cares about what the elites that he interacts with think. So the guardrail wasn't the idea of FED independence. It was the risk of immediate, tangible financial consequences for him and his friends.

So it's an interesting pattern that you've watched over. It's like, every once in a while he responds to a guardrail, but it's never that for the reason you want him to respond to a guardrail. It's for usually some sort of personal cost and personal nervousness. So it does seem as if Trump accepts pushback when when three conditions are met. First, the cost is immediate, it's not theoretical, it's not long term, it's immediate. Second, the backlash is something he sees poll numbers,

market drops, donor anger, maybe even a ratings issue. Right, it's not an editorial, it's not a whole bunch of statements, right. And if the pressure is across the board, right, lots of people and lots of different parts of his life going, hey, are you sure about this?

hard for the formn policy monetization story to get legs. Because it fails those three tests, the costs are delayed. We won't see the impact of selling out American form policy, creating loopholes for China to catch up. We won't know this until after it's too late. The consequences are on a spreadsheet, and none of us like to read spreadsheets. And of course the backlash is a bit fragmented. There's no market crash, there's no single dramatic moment, there's no

image on cable news. Just a slow monetization of power, and we see it. We see it almost every week when he signs, when he releases the list of people he's and you start to go through it and you

realize most of them were represented by friends of Trump, and he just was monetizing, helping them win fees from these rich crooks. And it also explains why I'm less worried about Trump's election rhetoric than i am about what he's doing in form policing. Elections in the United States are decentralized by design, States run them counties, administer. The diffusion isn't a weakness, it's actually a firewall.

every time Trump muses about interfering with elections, he doesn't suppress turnout, which I know is a fear some people have.

your base out to vote. And then he's sending a message that he thinks the whole thing is rigged anyway,

and he's sending a message to his own base that, you know, maybe he's sort of winking and nodding, don't worry, I'll rig it. So it doesn't matter.

this he'll do out of view. So The point is this, No, I don't think the country's collapsing tomorrow, and no, I don't think elections are going to get canceled twenty six, But I do think we're watching something more subtle and more corrosive. Democracies don't usually fall from who's they actually erode. They look more like what happened, what's happening in Turkey,

what's happening in Hungary. They erode when corruption becomes complicated, normalized, and easier to ignore than the latest outrage, cultural outrage.

There used to be a publication out there that once reminded us democracy dies in darkness, But sometimes that darkness is also noisy, and the democracy can die in a lot of distraction and noise. 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 doose 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 THHC and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwind so if you struggle to switch off at night. Sol 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 deep 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. I'm going to the Census and a little bit of a riff as there's some new Sensus updates went around in there

a new round of panic among Democrats and liberals about how the electoral college map in twenty thirty two after the twenty thirty census is going to become a disaster for the Democrats because the power shift essentially, you know, the Democrats. You know, had Kamala Harris simply carried Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in addition all the other states she carried, she'd have been right at two hundred and seventy by

twenty thirty two. The same configuration of states would have only gotten her to two hundred and fifty nine electoral votes. So basically, Democrats in the next census are going to lose a dozen base electoral votes, which means the Republican floor is going to go up about a dozen votes. Just to give you some technical numbers, Essentially, you've got Republican states Florida, Texas, Idaho, Utah that collectively are going to net anywhere from say ten to twelve congressional districts,

which means electoral votes. And then you will have a bunch of losses in the blue based states. Right, California in New York collectively are going to lose eight to nine. Throw in Illinois's going to lose another two, and then you're going to lose one each from Oregon and Minnesota. Never mind some of the swing states that you're gonna see somerom shifts in. Right, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin each lose one, but North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia will each

gain one. So in that sense, the swing states the numbers are going to be the same, but it is going to mean that the Blue wall is not going to be the important thing. It's the Sunbelt purple wall that's going to matter. More of Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona are going to be at least as important, if not more important, than the trio of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, in Michigan. But that's just if you're sitting there, assuming the map

is what it is. Political parties are supposed to be dynamic organizations, and they, based on investments, can can try to take a base state from the other party and turn it into a swing state. Take a swing state and try to turn it into a base state.

read me closely and listen to me closely. Know, I'm obsessed that the easiest way to fix this electoral You know that one of the ways we need to fix the electoral college unfairness is to not have a constitutional amendment but simply expand the House to the size that the founders intended it to be. Right, it is no

longer a representative democracy we have now. We now have every congressional districts the size of a major city, with about eight hundred thousand. They're too big, They don't they are not representative of communities of interest anymore. They're simply dominated by the most powerful faction within each of these congressional districts, and so they're not doing what the founders intended.

The House of Representatives was supposed to expand with the population of the country, and they did this every decade until nineteen twenty when there was a dispute between the two parties and then they locked it in at four hundred and thirty five. That is now why you feel like you live in a congressional district, likely where you feel like your member of Congress doesn't really represent the

day strict. They either represent to liberal part of the of the district over they sort of overrepresent the liberal part or overrepresent the conservative part. But there's but it doesn't feel like anybody represents right the district as a whole. So I want to set that tangent aside. So if you're the DNC and you're and you have leadership that is thinking beyond tomorrow, and I don't know if that's

the case, I say it. I'm not trying to be snarky, but you know, leaders of political parties are like general managers for sports teams. The fan base expects immediate results. They are not interested in you building a foundation that pays dividends in eight years, because that general manager won't

even be there in eight years, just like that political party leader won't be there in eight years. So it

is the incentive structures are messed up. But that doesn't mean there aren't other outside entities that should be thinking about the following, which is, if the Democrats are suddenly have an electoral college majority problem, then they need to design what I call a project twenty to thirty two and decide they've got to put eight to ten They've got to invest in eight to ten states, and about

half of them are swing states that they've got to attempt to make more reliably blue and or red states that they can put into the competitive category. They have got to expand the map, even though it doesn't look obvious that they can expand the map, so that long

wind up is designed. So if project with twenty thirty two's presidential election in mind, with the new map that we'll have, then I give you the top five list of states that the Democrats should be targeting now in an effort to keep them competitive on in the electoral college going forward. Top top because the political power that

California and New York, that sort of floor of support that at times made it seem like the electoral college, and this is something that always is cyclical. At times it looks like there's an advantage to the Democrats, at times looks like there's advantage to Republicans. Really it usually is who's winning the middle more often, right is, and who's got the larger base, And right now Republicans have

a slightly larger base than the Democrats. So with that in mind, I'm going to give you my top five lists of states that the Democrats have to invest in either because they need to try to make that state more reliably competitive, or they need to try to take a state and make it competitive.

is trending the way we've seen with Georgia trending. It is younger, it's a bit more diverse, but it hadn't quite tipped yet, right, But it is one of the highest education to growth ratios in the state. Right, it's seven percent higher education than some of its neighbors. So you know, here they've they've got Virginia as a light blue state. Georgia is a model here. But North Carolina they have multiple markets. Charlotte, Raleigh, Ashville can serve as

anchors there. But the bottom line is they've they've acted while they are while they're competitive in North Carolina, they usually come up short. Right, It's sort of what Minnesota has been to the Republicans. And yes, Barack Obama carried North Carolina once and in that one year they won a Senate seat. And occasionally they win Senate seats just like Republicans occasionally win statewide. In Minnesota, there seems to be a hard cap of about forty eight percent in

most federal elections. Dido in Minnesota for the Republicans. Ditto for that in North Carolina. They've got to change that. And North Carolina has been a state that they you know, it's always like, was on the periphery of targeting in the swing state. Yeah, we're going to target North Carolina the same way they would say, yeah, we might target Florida back in twenty twelve and twenty sixteen, and sometimes they didn't.

get elected president without carrying North Carolina and Georgia. At the end of the day, you know, when you start to look at this in the way trend's going in the demographic makeup of the Democratic Party versus what we're seeing in the Republican Party aging in smaller populations, I suspect over time Pennsylvania, Wisconsin's going to start drifting right, which means Democrats have to figure out how to turn Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina collectively into the new trio into their

You know, that's going to be the new wall, right. It's either a red wall for the Republicans that Democrats can't penetrate, or it becomes the building blocks of a Sunbelt blue wall. But either way, the anchor of it is likely North Carolina number two on that list. I think of targeting is a bit of a reach state, but it's Texas Texas more than Florida right now. It's

I think the trend lines in Florida for some demographic reasons with the Latino population. In some ways, I think Hispanics are more gettable for Democrats in Texas than Hispanics are in Florida. They're more swing voter, swingy swing votery in Texas than they are in South Florida. So I think that when you start to just look at the numbers,

they're there. Texas is just getting a lot of new residents and any just like how Florida transitioned in the nineties from being a fairly reliable Republican state to becoming a swing state. First Clinton carried it in ninety six, and then of course it became the single most important state in two thousand, in two thousand and four. That's the sort of reasoning in rationale why Texas has to be a focal point. And the fact is, rhetorically the

Democrats have talked about Texas for a long time. They've never actually put their money where their mouth is. Maybe this year's Senate race, if it's indeed competitive, if Ken Paxton is the Republican nominee, that jump starts interest in it. But I would argue regardless, they have to treat Texas like a swing state even when it's not, in order to get that state comfortable supporting a Democrat by twenty

thirty two. It's not going to happen overnight. And that's why it's sort of like again, I go back, I have. You know, it is hard to get political parties to think more than a luncheon cycle ahead. That's not how the incentives work. But when thinking this far in advance, that's why Texas arguably is number two. Because it's going to be very expensive, and it's going to be and you just got.

to me that Democrats really don't focus on it, and it's Kansas.

in the opposite directions. You've got the growing suburbs of Kansas City in Kansas that have taken have basically taken what used to be a lean red district and turned it into a lean blue district. Both what Chaton Topeka are growing. You've got two big state schools in Lawrence and in Manhattan, Kansas and Kansas State. And so when you look at the sort of formula that Democrats have used to succeed in places like Wisconsin or Michigan, or let's see, smaller states are like Nevada.

And Democrats, I think right now have a better shot, particularly among white voters in the Kansas winning those folks over than they do winning the white voters of Missouri

number four on the list. Very similar argument to North Carolina.

there is this starting to become durable. I think we're going to learn. But no matter what, again, because the math issue, right Georgia. When you think about how much money and resources over the decades have gone into Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and number five on my list, Arizona.

they're as important, if not more important, than the blue Wall of the Midwest. This is going to be a red wall, a purple wall, or a blue sunbolt wall either way.

a position where you're competitive in those states where you have enough because you need some buffers. You can't always have to draw this, you know, the perfect inside straight. And you know, if you want to expand the map for Senate seats, and you want to expand the map for more governor's mansions, you've got to give yourself buffers.

And Indiana, Iowa, and Florida, in theory, all have enough combinations of metro areas and suburban populations and some allergies to MAGA policies that collectively, in theory, should give the Democrats opportunity. Now, you know, it's interesting the Democrats in this in what should be a focal point here Project

twenty thirty two. And I'm at some point waiting for there to be an organization that's spun off just called this right, you know that some big donor decides to fund and just focused on voter registration programs things like that is when the Democrats decide what their early calendar looks like. And they just over the last week greenlit twelve states that plan to petition to be in the early primary window for president antil politics. If if the

Democrats are thinking long term, they should be thinking about these four states as this decision as an opportunity to invest in Project twenty thirty two for them, how to strengthen their ability to get more a few more states in play expand the map, right, So I wanted to look at their twelve states and see where they overlapped with states that perhaps they need to strengthen in in order to give keep themselves competitive in a presidential by

twenty thirty two. So the twelve states they put in out of the east, it was Delaware, New Hampshire, Out of the midwest, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan. Out of the south, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and out of the

west Nevada, and New Mexico. So North Caro and the top five lists Georgia and North Carolina overlaps. You know, I think on the you know, I've said this before in the early state stuff, the bigger this day, the more ineffective that state can be at being sort of a fair fairness because with the bigger states then rewards those with big money. And both Georgia and North Carolina

are expensive states. So while I think you could argue this would this in theory, having them as early states, having more Democrats campaign in them all the time could serve to overtime invest them. I don't know if they're the best states to create a level playing field for those candidates with big money and those candidates that don't

have big money at the beginning. That would be the two negatives, right, just very expensive states to advertise in, but having them as early states where Democrats are just always traveling to those to what Georgia or North Carolina. Certainly, I think that is why Iowa state in the battle round, even though demographically Iowa looks like a state that should be darker red than it is.

to help the big name candidates. It doesn't really doesn't really work as a good early test where Iowa you have to campaign in rural parts of the state in order to win, versus Ellinois, Michigan you don't have to campaign in the rural parts of the state in order to win. The most interesting state that's on there that's got advanced for consideration to be in the early state window is Tennessee.

is Tennessee. And Tennessee is actually moved become more Republican, not less Republican over the last twenty years. Is that going to continue? Does the growth of Nashville does that sort of the bigger it grows, the more it becomes sort of Austin meets Las Vegas, which then creates your sort of suburban and you just get more non sort

of cultural Southerners in your electorate. It's certainly something that I think a lot of US election observers have been waiting to see, and there's been very little evidence of it. I mean, you know, if this were happening Tennessee special in December, would have would have seen a flip, while we didn't see a flip. Right, it was a little bit more competitive, but it wasn't necessarily a flip. So you know, part of it is, you could say the

election lines. I do think Democrats have a Memphis problem in the state. Meaning Memphis is just it's just it's a city that is not as it's not what it was thirty years ago. It feels as if and there's this whether it's fair or not, this perception while it's a Democrat run city and it's poorly run and et cetera, et cetera. And Republicans have weaponized sort of Memphis a

long time to win elections. It's been sort of something they've done, been sort of a you know, Memphis has been used as sort of a code word for race.

But when you look at the elector in Tennessee, you know, I know that if I if I were a strategist over at the DNC, I'd be thinking you know, yeah, Tennessee is a reached state. But here's a state that is that's got something in common with Virginia, something in common with North Carolina. You know, maybe more resources into

the state opened some doors here. I found, of all the of all the states that made it through in the top twelve, the one that you know, which one of these is not like the other, It was Tennessee.

But I'll tell you if you if you went back thirty years, a lot of US election forecasters would have said Tennessee was one of the states that we expected to start to sort of I think a lot of people saw the South sort of splitting into sort of you know, the South more Cosmopolitans south of quote New South right, and the sort of old South, deep South, however you want to describe it. And there was a you know, you had sort of your your Tennessee, your

North Carolina, your Georgia. You're Virginia in one area, Florida in one area, and then you're Alabama, your Mississippi, You're Louisiana, South Carolina in another area. So it is mostly broken along those lines, but not totally. In Tennessee has been interesting. I know, my friend Brad Todd has a lot of

theories there. He thinks that Tennessee Republicans have benefited from a lot of Midwestern refugees, if you will, sort of Midwestern conservatives who have left the higher tax states of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and have not moved all the way south, but moved to Tennessee, a low income tax state. So he says, one of the ways you notice it is if you go in the suburbs, some of these suburban communities in Nashville on a fall Saturday, you don't see Tennessee flex.

He goes, you see a lot of Ohio, State, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana flex. So that's been It's an interesting anecdote. I think it's one worth processing. But the reality is this Democrats have a major problem on their hands come twenty thirty two, and if they start worrying about it in

twenty thirty one, it's going to be too late. So if they're going to launch Project twenty thirty two, now, let me go through it again. The five states they should be focusing on North Carolina basically the sun Belt, Purple Wall of North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia, and then I'd throw in Texas and Kansas. They've got to expand their map, and then maybe you dabble in Indiana, Iowa, and Florida, and then of course we'll see what they

do about Tennessee. But if the party doesn't start thinking that way, they could get locked out of the presidency for a generation. That's how dire this population shift is from California, New York to Florida and Texas. Having good

life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.

single mother, now widow, myself sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time, and it's why I was able to go to college. Little did he 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 in as little as 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, especially if you've got a growing family. Ash chuck. All right, let's do a little last chuck before we get out of here. I think I'm going to try to do six of them today, so let's keep me honest. Number one came from Brian from New England. He says, Hey, it's been about a year since you announced your departure

from NBC. Yes, it is feels feels like it feels like a decade. But anyway, I imagine you're happy with the move. Was there a moment that made you realize going independent was the right call? Or had you just done everything you set up to? Two in a broadcast, it's the roles you wish you tried, like foreign correspondent or local politics and any future plans you can tease maybe a check sports cast. Thanks Brian from New England. Well,

there's a fun little sports project I'm working on. I'll have more details soon ish, partnering with somebody that is probably very familiar to many of you in the sports space. I'm looking forward to it. But it sort of combines my love for sports in history. So I will throw that out there and leave that out there as a tease for you. But it's something that should be come into fruition in the next four to six weeks on that front. Look, I have I I have no regrets.

I miss I miss the collaboration, I miss some of my friends in colleagues. I ache currently for my longtime friend Savannah got three, who's going through just the worst, the worst experience imaginable.

space before it was cool. I feel lucky to get this opportunity to help really talented friends and former colleagues jump into these waters. As I say, it's a big cliff dive, but I promise you there's water there.

that we're in with corporate owned media, I don't know. I think I was able to maximize everything that was possible under that situation. And you know that was as I was talking with an old friend yesterday, actually we were doing a little catching up and reminiscing and lamenting about what's happening to our friend's mom. And you know, he put it as like, you know, it's so different now that it's it's not even the same thing I worked. I don't recognize this network.

just hope they're given the opportunity to do it all. Right, next one, let's see, he says, Hey, I rarely miss an episode and really appreciate how you approach issues with balance and thoughtfulness. You give me hope multiple times a week. My wife tells me this all the time. You have to get people hope, don't depress them too much. So I appreciate you saying that I sensed a bit of fatigue in your one twenty six episode, which is understandable

given the repetitive nature of our political chaos. Just wanted to say your perspective is helping thousands of us see the bigger picture and hold on to hope.

and you know, no, it's a terrific observation. I think the second part, what if Canada sent in troops to protect protesters? It's you know, if you recall Tim Wallas was asked about bringing in the National Guard, and he seemed to think he was concerned that, you know that maybe the military confrontation.

transactional game. And Trump, as long as he gets what he wants in regards to control and oil, he doesn't care about democracy. So I do think Donald Trump is telling us something about what he thinks of democracy by what he's not doing in Venezuela. The fact that this is not a priority. Well, if democracy is not a priority when you have an opportunity to make it a priority in another country, it's clearly not a priority for

him here. So that's the unfortunate takeaway. Now speaking of American credibility with the Iranian hostage of the Iranian protesters, you know, every time we make a promise and don't follow through, overseas a potential terrorist, future terrorist attacking the United States or a US entity only increases. Right, somebody who's fifteen protesting in Iran will see their parent killed and wondering how come the Americans didn't come. They said

they would come, but they didn't follow through. Their word

means nothing. The impression that leads each time, right is it is to make a promise and then abandon is in some ways worse than not doing anything. But at least he didn't promise that you would. So look, it's a fair picture you're painting about, you know, the sort of protesters. But I think if we're really trying to understand, does he care about democracy or I think the actions in Venezuela say it all. And the lack of prioritization

of making this a democracy. There is a democratic elected government already ready to go, and the inability to acknowledge that is because for whatever reason, they haven't financially paid whatever price. I guess it needs to be paid to become to get this, to get the support of the United States for what the will of the people wanted.

But I also worry about you know, he's used a lot of hot rhetoric with these Iranian protesters, and we can debate whether American firepower should be used to protect these protesters or not. You know why in Iran but not in me and mar right why? You know, picking and choosing when we step in is always comes with that comes with a lot of problems long term. But making a promise not keeping it is in some ways

the worst possible outcome. Next question comes from Darryl. He says, longtime listener and fellow alum of Miami Killian and the University of Miami class in ninety seven. Hey, what you take on the current state of nil in college football and specifically Yum's approach to bringing established quarterbacks rather than developing talent from within. I worry this could push promising recruits like Darien Coleman to transfer and thrive elsewhere.

touted NFL quarterbacks. But they had great offensive lines, they had great running backs and receivers, and they were I don't want to call them game managers, sounds like a negative.

go through the top ten programs real quick. Ohio State last year won a national title with a portal quarterback. In the end of this year went to a national lad with a portal quarterback. Notre Dame was in the finals, lost the finals with a portal quarterback. Miami lost the finals with a portal quarterback.

you're assuming this is in Miami's control. I think until we get some sort of parameters around transfers and how this all works, the quarterbacks themselves are going to keep shopping because the paydays are there. Because you know, there's always one program that thinks they're a quarterback away from relevancy if some form or another and will overpay. So you're going to get more of these quarterbacks to get out of the portal and go in. And so do

I do? I, you know, think, Well, my guess is sixty percent of Miami starting quarterback until the system is sort of changed. If this is the system, that a majority of our starters will be quort of quarterbacks. But if there's you know, we'll find out, you know, what happens to how we recruit if we get a major injury, right, you know, there's also unforeseen issues that could pop up.

from Heather from Decatur, longtime listener. I'm curious Illinois or Alabama. Heather, long time listener, appreciate the clear, nonpartisan analysis that helps me stay grounded in two days political climate.

don't know if you know it. I think he was if I'm not mistaken. He was born in Moscow in nineteen eighty four. Parents brought him over to the United States at the age of seven, became a football crazed, got into it, all that stuff, and he's bringing over a great quarterback and Byron Brown. So I you know, look, I've got Auburn fans of my and my family and two our closest friends and some of my closest relatives. Big Auburn fans. So I'm a I'm an Auburn apologist

in general. I've become I'm learning to become one. They still didn't deserve a shot at the national title over Miami in nineteen eighty three, Stephen, And I'll just leave it at that. But I'm bullish on him. I you know, I just hope the Auburn powers that we have patience, right, They're so inpatience nobody ever seems to get a chance

to build a program. But I think I like that they they're trying this, you know, instead of like trying the searching for Bobby, you know, in the obsessions with Bobby Petrino, or throwing cash at Lane Kiffin or doing something like that, right, seeing if they can get a guy from the level below, find their own Urban Meyer, right, who came at the time from the mid majors and then turned, you know, came in and helped make Florida power.

know you had you had to turn out differential that was huge. But the fact that you still got those huge margins says something. But it mostly goes this is a weak field. I think the strongest candidate will be Derek Dooley, but it looks like the likely opponent's going to be somebody with the first name of Congressman, which I think is an absolute gift because his biggest impetive, you know, in theory, being a part of the Washington Swamp is not good. But if you're a House Republican

people people don't like Congress. I think they hate the House more than the Senate, just generically, right. So I just think you throw all that together open governor's seat. No Brian Kemp leading the ticket either, right, his political machine just yes, it's helping Derek Dooley in that Senate primary. But I think when you throw all that together, and I was, you know, look, I thought as Off was the accidental senator when you know, sort of writing the

coattails of Raphael Warnock back and during those runoffs. You know, he's got a formidable He's always been formidable on raising money, and he works his you know what off, he works his us off off. I guess it's a to to try to create a Dad humor pun there. So yeah, that's I think this is I'm I'm inclined to right now. It's in lean dee to me until you show me proof that one of these Republicans can get the fifty percent plus one right now, I don't see it all right.

Final question of the day comes from Colonel Stephen Mitchell, the United States Air Force retired, and he writes says, good day, Check. I really enjoyed your January twenty ninth podcast, especially in the segment on Trump's poll numbers, it seems he's losing support from voters who backed him for economic reasons. But I'm unsure if the same is true for those

focused on the border. Given your polling expertise, what you take and aside from the economy, what do you think will be the top issue on voter's minds?

So I think the fact that that's been split right where it's an opening if a nimble Democrat knows how to take it, which is, Look, Biden was terrible on border security. I'm not going to let that happen again. And I'm glad to see what the Trump administration has done at the border, but what they're doing in our

communities across the country is outrageous, et cetera, et cetera. Right, So the point is that I think what it does provide is the Democrats an opening to look like, hey, I'm no Biden on the border, but I'm no Trump in harassing Americans either. Right, It's a way to differentiate yourself from the Democratic brand on a negative aspect of the border and at the same time being able to differentiate yourself and show empathy and compassionate about what's happening

in places like Minneapolis. So that's where I think that there's a real problem now for Republicans on this issue, and why so many of them are starting to whisper loudly that Stephen Miller's a problem, that he is creating a narrative, creating a perception about Republicans. It's going to be hard to overcome in many of these places. You know, maybe the base is happy, but that is it on

this stuff. But when you're asking about other issues, look, I think obviously economy anything that's you know, so do you consider healthcare and economy issue? I kind of do, right, So I think that's there. If Democrats let me do this, let me flip the question here. If Democrats have a huge night, it isn't going to be because they only won on the economy. If Democrats have a huge night, it means they got the corruption issue into the mind of the swing voter, that they found a way into it.

Maybe they did it via exhaustion, you know, the Trump chaos idea. Look what he does at the White House, Kennedy centers selling foreign policy like lumping it all in together. But you know, I think the difference between Democrats having a good night in November and having an incredible night in November is their ability to take these various gross, corruptive, uncomfortable stories and figuring out how to package it as

one right. COVID helped paint a picture of you know, all the Trump chaos and it led to this right, And so that's why that messaging was was pretty easy to get him out of there.

must have played. That would be my initial instinct. So I don't know if it's going to play, but I think this is one of those for them to go from good to great, they need to figure out how to get the corruption issue to be easy to digest and something the quote check on Trump rite the check on his power, you know it is. It is the

path for them to get to that messaging. But you need to make the case that he's corrupt and that this corruption is happening in order to do it, and we'll see if they're able to pull that off.