WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.080 Welcome to the deep dive. You've handed us a 00:00:03.080 --> 00:00:06.339 really interesting set of stories today. All 00:00:06.339 --> 00:00:09.480 seem to be pointing towards some major pressure 00:00:09.480 --> 00:00:11.699 points in American politics right now. Yeah, 00:00:11.699 --> 00:00:14.179 they really do. We're looking at, well, potentially 00:00:14.179 --> 00:00:16.839 a constitutional showdown brewing. Right, between 00:00:16.839 --> 00:00:19.940 the White House and the court. Exactly. And then 00:00:19.940 --> 00:00:23.039 this surprising turn on immigration from Trump, 00:00:23.300 --> 00:00:24.960 of all people. That one definitely caught my 00:00:24.960 --> 00:00:27.399 eye. Seems quite different from his usual stance. 00:00:27.789 --> 00:00:29.750 And, you know, the very, very early whispers 00:00:29.750 --> 00:00:34.429 about the 2025 and 2026 elections are starting. 00:00:34.469 --> 00:00:37.250 All righty. Wow. Okay. And some fundraising numbers, 00:00:37.549 --> 00:00:39.630 potential challenges, plus some polling data 00:00:39.630 --> 00:00:43.270 that's, well, pretty revealing about voter moods. 00:00:43.369 --> 00:00:45.909 Shifts in sentiment, maybe? Seems like it. And 00:00:45.909 --> 00:00:48.929 finally, something quite specific, the noticeable 00:00:48.929 --> 00:00:52.350 lack of Black participation in those recent hands 00:00:52.350 --> 00:00:55.750 -off protests. Mm -hmm. That's an important observation 00:00:55.750 --> 00:00:57.829 worth digging into. OK, so let's try and unpack 00:00:57.829 --> 00:00:59.630 all of this, see what connections we can find, 00:00:59.810 --> 00:01:01.789 and figure out what it means for you listening. 00:01:02.289 --> 00:01:03.950 Absolutely. What's really interesting, I think, 00:01:04.069 --> 00:01:06.709 is how these different headlines, they might 00:01:06.709 --> 00:01:10.049 seem separate, but they actually tap into these 00:01:10.049 --> 00:01:13.450 deeper currents, potential realignments happening. 00:01:13.750 --> 00:01:15.250 Right, like pieces of a puzzle moving around. 00:01:15.310 --> 00:01:17.989 Exactly. You start to see a bigger picture emerge. 00:01:18.250 --> 00:01:20.290 OK, let's dive right into that first piece then, 00:01:20.409 --> 00:01:23.540 the situation with the judiciary. the Kilmar 00:01:23.540 --> 00:01:26.239 -Obrego -Garcia case. Yes. From what we understand, 00:01:26.879 --> 00:01:29.939 the Trump administration seems to be, well, ignoring 00:01:29.939 --> 00:01:33.659 court orders. From Judge Paula Sheenis and the 00:01:33.659 --> 00:01:36.140 Supreme Court even weighed in initially. That 00:01:36.140 --> 00:01:39.620 feels like a pretty big deal. It's a very significant 00:01:39.620 --> 00:01:42.299 situation, yeah. I mean, how are governments 00:01:42.299 --> 00:01:44.519 supposed to function, right? Checks and balances? 00:01:44.879 --> 00:01:47.200 Precisely. When you have court orders, especially 00:01:47.200 --> 00:01:49.049 ones that have you know, been touched by the 00:01:49.049 --> 00:01:51.390 Supreme Court in some way, being seemingly disregarded 00:01:51.390 --> 00:01:54.510 by the executive branch. It just raises these 00:01:54.510 --> 00:01:56.530 fundamental questions about the balance of power. 00:01:56.730 --> 00:01:59.090 You know, the judiciary says, do this, and the 00:01:59.090 --> 00:02:01.489 executive appears to be saying, well, no. And 00:02:01.489 --> 00:02:03.950 historically. Has this sort of thing happened 00:02:03.950 --> 00:02:06.530 often? What are the impacts? Well, challenges 00:02:06.530 --> 00:02:09.469 like this aren't entirely unprecedented, but 00:02:09.469 --> 00:02:11.930 they can definitely have lasting impacts. It 00:02:11.930 --> 00:02:15.469 affects the authority, the perceived legitimacy 00:02:15.469 --> 00:02:18.729 of the courts going forward. And the article 00:02:18.729 --> 00:02:20.830 you shared mentioned some, let's say, verbal 00:02:20.830 --> 00:02:25.250 gymnastics from the Trump admin and President 00:02:25.250 --> 00:02:27.930 Bukele in El Salvador. That's a good way to put 00:02:27.930 --> 00:02:30.110 it. It almost sounded like they were openly mocking 00:02:30.110 --> 00:02:32.580 the whole legal process. Yeah, the reporting 00:02:32.580 --> 00:02:35.120 suggests a level of deflection, perhaps, that 00:02:35.120 --> 00:02:37.520 isn't sitting well with the judge. Understandably. 00:02:38.199 --> 00:02:40.479 So Judge Sheena, she's not happy. Definitely 00:02:40.479 --> 00:02:43.000 not. She's demanding truthful information, real 00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:45.919 answers. And she's ordered these expedited depositions 00:02:45.919 --> 00:02:49.009 now. sworn testimony. That's right. Four specific 00:02:49.009 --> 00:02:51.610 officials from the Trump administration. ICE, 00:02:52.110 --> 00:02:54.069 State Department, Homeland Security. By April 00:02:54.069 --> 00:02:56.789 23rd. That's soon. Very soon. Robert Serna and 00:02:56.789 --> 00:02:59.210 Evan Katz from ICE, Michael Kozak from State, 00:02:59.490 --> 00:03:01.550 and Joseph Mazzara, Acting General Counsel at 00:03:01.550 --> 00:03:03.810 Homeland Security. And she basically warned them 00:03:03.810 --> 00:03:05.750 about contempt of court if they don't comply. 00:03:05.979 --> 00:03:09.439 Exactly. She's made it very clear failure to 00:03:09.439 --> 00:03:11.759 comply to provide this testimony under oath could 00:03:11.759 --> 00:03:13.939 lead straight to contempt charges. This means 00:03:13.939 --> 00:03:17.180 penalties, right? Fines, maybe even jail time 00:03:17.180 --> 00:03:20.500 in some extreme cases. Potentially, yes. Contempt 00:03:20.500 --> 00:03:22.879 is the court's way of enforcing its authority 00:03:22.879 --> 00:03:25.620 when orders are defied. Judge Sheenis is using 00:03:25.620 --> 00:03:28.219 a significant tool here. She's trying to get 00:03:28.219 --> 00:03:30.699 to the bottom of why Mr. Garcia hasn't been returned 00:03:30.699 --> 00:03:33.710 despite the orders. Precisely. to get the facts 00:03:33.710 --> 00:03:36.669 under oath. The threat of contempt really underscores 00:03:36.669 --> 00:03:40.370 how seriously the judiciary views this noncompliance. 00:03:40.550 --> 00:03:42.870 It's a direct assertion of the rule of law. And 00:03:42.870 --> 00:03:44.969 just to be clear, the Supreme Court, where are 00:03:44.969 --> 00:03:47.210 they in this now? Right now, they're not directly 00:03:47.210 --> 00:03:49.909 involved. They sent the case back down, remanded 00:03:49.909 --> 00:03:52.689 it to Judge Sheenis. OK. So she's really the 00:03:52.689 --> 00:03:54.770 central judicial figure pushing for compliance 00:03:54.770 --> 00:03:57.669 at this point. So, OK, playing this out. If the 00:03:57.669 --> 00:04:00.909 executive branch can just ignore or sidestep 00:04:00.909 --> 00:04:04.270 judicial orders. What does that mean? What are 00:04:04.270 --> 00:04:05.550 the bigger implications? Something really hits 00:04:05.550 --> 00:04:07.490 at the core of it, doesn't it? The whole idea 00:04:07.490 --> 00:04:10.729 of separation of powers. You know, distinct roles, 00:04:11.349 --> 00:04:13.650 limited authorities for each branch, executive, 00:04:13.949 --> 00:04:16.410 legislative, judicial. It's fundamental. Right. 00:04:16.509 --> 00:04:19.089 Checks and balances. Exactly. If one branch can 00:04:19.089 --> 00:04:22.129 openly defy another with no real consequences, 00:04:22.750 --> 00:04:25.209 that principle gets seriously weakened. So the 00:04:25.209 --> 00:04:27.910 law becomes less about the rules and more about 00:04:27.910 --> 00:04:30.310 what the president wants. That's the danger. 00:04:30.519 --> 00:04:33.040 It could lead towards a system where executive 00:04:33.040 --> 00:04:36.220 will Trump's judicial rulings. It risks eroding 00:04:36.220 --> 00:04:38.100 judicial independence, upsetting those checks 00:04:38.100 --> 00:04:40.699 and balances that are designed to prevent any 00:04:40.699 --> 00:04:43.160 one branch from becoming too powerful. It sounds 00:04:43.160 --> 00:04:44.920 like it could destabilize things quite a bit. 00:04:45.100 --> 00:04:48.519 It definitely raises real concerns about the 00:04:48.519 --> 00:04:50.939 long -term health of our democratic institutions. 00:04:51.220 --> 00:04:53.120 It's something to watch very closely. Okay, let's 00:04:53.120 --> 00:04:55.019 pivot to something that honestly feels like it 00:04:55.019 --> 00:04:58.500 came out of left field. Trump's proposed immigration 00:04:58.500 --> 00:05:03.620 plan. It sounds surprisingly like the old Bracero 00:05:03.620 --> 00:05:06.339 program. It is a striking resemblance, yes. He's 00:05:06.339 --> 00:05:08.339 talking about bringing undocumented immigrants 00:05:08.339 --> 00:05:12.300 in for seasonal work, agriculture, hotels, and 00:05:12.300 --> 00:05:14.439 then expecting them to leave. That's the proposal, 00:05:14.660 --> 00:05:17.500 as reported. Bring them in for specific jobs, 00:05:18.019 --> 00:05:20.240 specific periods, then they return home. This 00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:22.560 seems completely opposite to his usual rhetoric, 00:05:22.579 --> 00:05:24.899 doesn't it? It does feel like a significant shift 00:05:24.899 --> 00:05:27.259 or at least a very different emphasis. The original 00:05:27.259 --> 00:05:31.000 Bracero program, you know, 1942 to 1964. Right, 00:05:31.139 --> 00:05:34.120 with Mexico. Primarily agricultural workers brought 00:05:34.120 --> 00:05:36.860 in temporarily during peak seasons, then required 00:05:36.860 --> 00:05:40.399 to return. Trump's idea seems very similar, but 00:05:40.399 --> 00:05:43.800 adds the hotel sector. Which is new. It is. And 00:05:43.800 --> 00:05:46.410 what makes it so well. interesting, as the source 00:05:46.410 --> 00:05:49.069 material points out, is that inherent contradiction. 00:05:49.310 --> 00:05:50.810 With everything else he said about immigration. 00:05:51.029 --> 00:05:53.949 Exactly. The focus has so often been on restriction, 00:05:54.449 --> 00:05:58.569 building walls, deportations, often framing undocumented 00:05:58.569 --> 00:06:02.790 immigrants negatively. This proposal implicitly 00:06:02.790 --> 00:06:05.170 acknowledges their economic contribution. Right. 00:06:05.310 --> 00:06:08.529 It's that classic only Nixon could go to China 00:06:08.529 --> 00:06:10.509 thing, isn't it? That's a very apt comparison. 00:06:10.649 --> 00:06:12.769 If a Democrat proposed this exact same plan. 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:15.139 Imagine the reaction. Oh, absolutely. You can 00:06:15.139 --> 00:06:17.259 almost write the headlines now. Accusations of 00:06:17.259 --> 00:06:20.420 open borders, amnesty. But because it's Trump 00:06:20.420 --> 00:06:24.579 proposing it, the political framing just completely 00:06:24.579 --> 00:06:27.139 changes how it's perceived. It really does highlight 00:06:27.139 --> 00:06:29.540 the power of political messaging and who delivers 00:06:29.540 --> 00:06:32.379 the message. And let's be honest, it also points 00:06:32.379 --> 00:06:34.699 to a kind of uncomfortable truth about our economy, 00:06:35.060 --> 00:06:38.740 maybe. How so? That certain sectors like agriculture, 00:06:39.100 --> 00:06:42.220 maybe hospitality, they rely pretty heavily on 00:06:42.220 --> 00:06:45.519 immigrant labor, often because native -born workers 00:06:45.519 --> 00:06:48.319 aren't lining up for those jobs, especially at 00:06:48.319 --> 00:06:50.660 the wages offered. That's a crucial point. The 00:06:50.660 --> 00:06:52.740 economics are undeniable. And this keeps the 00:06:52.740 --> 00:06:55.480 cost of our food down, right? Fruits, vegetables. 00:06:55.879 --> 00:06:59.139 Hotel days cheaper exactly the willingness of 00:06:59.139 --> 00:07:01.740 many immigrant workers to fill these often difficult 00:07:01.740 --> 00:07:04.100 seasonal roles Sometimes it lower wage points 00:07:04.100 --> 00:07:06.500 than native workers demand. It directly impacts 00:07:06.500 --> 00:07:08.540 consumer prices So it's not just about the workers. 00:07:08.540 --> 00:07:10.959 It affects all of us. It does it keeps prices 00:07:10.959 --> 00:07:13.620 So stepping back from the politics for a second. 00:07:14.040 --> 00:07:16.100 What does this plan tell us about where the US 00:07:16.100 --> 00:07:19.399 economy actually needs workers? It tells us there's 00:07:19.399 --> 00:07:21.959 a persistent demand for labor in specific sectors, 00:07:22.480 --> 00:07:24.879 often seasonal, often physically demanding, that 00:07:24.879 --> 00:07:27.060 isn't being fully met by the domestic workforce 00:07:27.060 --> 00:07:30.519 at current wage levels. Agriculture and hospitality 00:07:30.519 --> 00:07:33.300 are prime examples. This proposal, whatever its 00:07:33.300 --> 00:07:36.019 fate, reflects that underlying economic reality. 00:07:36.680 --> 00:07:39.379 Okay. Let's shift gears again. Elections. It 00:07:39.379 --> 00:07:43.339 feels way too early, but 2025, 2026, we're already 00:07:43.339 --> 00:07:46.620 seeing some intriguing signs. The political cycle 00:07:46.620 --> 00:07:48.899 never really stops, does it? Apparently not. 00:07:49.540 --> 00:07:51.740 So Q1 fundraising reports are out. What are they 00:07:51.740 --> 00:07:54.439 showing? Well, the big picture, maybe surprisingly, 00:07:54.699 --> 00:07:57.100 is that Democrats seem to be out raising Republicans 00:07:57.100 --> 00:08:00.220 overall, at least in this very early stage. Isn't 00:08:00.220 --> 00:08:02.180 the party in the White House usually at a disadvantage 00:08:02.180 --> 00:08:04.720 in midterms? Often, yes. That's the historical 00:08:04.720 --> 00:08:06.439 trend. So this is noteworthy. Of course, there's 00:08:06.439 --> 00:08:09.399 a big caveat. It's very early. And incumbents 00:08:09.399 --> 00:08:11.680 almost always have a fundraising edge initially. 00:08:11.899 --> 00:08:14.319 OK. But you mentioned something else. Money in 00:08:14.319 --> 00:08:16.879 Republican primaries. Right. There seems to be 00:08:16.879 --> 00:08:19.459 significant funding flowing into GOP primary 00:08:19.459 --> 00:08:22.379 challenges. That suggests some potentially intense 00:08:22.379 --> 00:08:25.240 internal battles. Which could weaken the eventual 00:08:25.240 --> 00:08:27.939 nominee for the general election. Exactly. Even 00:08:27.939 --> 00:08:30.519 if an incumbent survives a tough primary, they 00:08:30.519 --> 00:08:33.879 might emerge bruised and with depleted resources 00:08:33.879 --> 00:08:36.220 heading into November. And within the Democrats, 00:08:36.379 --> 00:08:38.940 the progressive wing seems pretty fired up fundraising 00:08:38.940 --> 00:08:41.419 wise. Very much so. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria 00:08:41.419 --> 00:08:44.720 Ocasio -Cortez, they top the charts in Q1. Wow. 00:08:45.279 --> 00:08:49.659 $11 .4 million for Sanders, $9 .6 million for 00:08:49.659 --> 00:08:52.220 AOC. Those are big numbers, yeah. Fueled by their 00:08:52.220 --> 00:08:55.440 strong base support and those resistance rallies 00:08:55.440 --> 00:08:57.899 we've seen, like that huge one in LA, 40 ,000 00:08:57.899 --> 00:09:00.419 people. Right. So what does AOC do with that 00:09:00.419 --> 00:09:02.320 kind of cash? There's talks she might challenge 00:09:02.320 --> 00:09:04.679 Schumer. That speculation is out there. It would 00:09:04.679 --> 00:09:07.039 be a major challenge within the party. Or she 00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:09.759 could use that influence and money to back other 00:09:09.759 --> 00:09:11.679 progressive candidates across the country. And 00:09:11.679 --> 00:09:13.899 speaking of funding progressives, David Hoggs 00:09:13.899 --> 00:09:16.500 -Patey. Yeah, raising 20 million dollars. Their 00:09:16.500 --> 00:09:19.039 strategy is interesting. Targeting safe Democratic 00:09:19.039 --> 00:09:22.059 districts. Right. The goal seems to be electing 00:09:22.059 --> 00:09:24.580 younger, more progressive officials within the 00:09:24.580 --> 00:09:27.340 party itself. Shifting the internal landscape, 00:09:27.399 --> 00:09:29.740 not just flipping Republican seats. That's a 00:09:29.740 --> 00:09:32.200 long game strategy. It is. It focuses on changing 00:09:32.200 --> 00:09:35.240 the party from within, cultivating a new generation 00:09:35.240 --> 00:09:38.960 of leaders. OK, moving on. There was this weird 00:09:38.960 --> 00:09:42.460 poll about Kamala Harris. Not about approval, 00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:46.419 but about emotions regarding a potential presidential 00:09:46.419 --> 00:09:49.340 run. Yeah, the Politico UC Berkeley poll, it 00:09:49.340 --> 00:09:52.500 was unusual. They surveyed political influencers, 00:09:52.840 --> 00:09:56.019 basically Politico Pro subscribers. Okay, insiders. 00:09:56.080 --> 00:09:58.419 Right, and also registered voters, asking how 00:09:58.419 --> 00:10:01.240 they'd feel joyful, excited, indifferent, irritated, 00:10:01.559 --> 00:10:04.179 outraged, hopeless. What did they find? The insiders 00:10:04.179 --> 00:10:06.159 were kind of neutral, maybe indifferent, but 00:10:06.159 --> 00:10:08.519 registered voters lean more positive, more towards 00:10:08.519 --> 00:10:11.759 excited or joyful. Huh, strange way to poll. 00:10:11.899 --> 00:10:14.480 Harris says she'll decide by summer. That's the 00:10:14.480 --> 00:10:17.100 timeline mention. It's an odd metric emotion 00:10:17.100 --> 00:10:20.220 so early on, but maybe it gives a hint of potential 00:10:20.220 --> 00:10:23.279 resonance or lack thereof. Quick hits on some 00:10:23.279 --> 00:10:25.740 other races. Iowa governor. Kim Reynolds, the 00:10:25.740 --> 00:10:27.919 Republican governor, isn't running again. Any 00:10:27.919 --> 00:10:31.639 reason why. Long time in office. She backed DeSantis. 00:10:31.840 --> 00:10:33.899 Could be any of those. She's been in office a 00:10:33.899 --> 00:10:36.419 while, nearly a decade as governor, 65 years 00:10:36.419 --> 00:10:39.600 old. And yeah, the DeSantis endorsement might 00:10:39.600 --> 00:10:43.480 play a role in the current GOP climate. So far, 00:10:43.659 --> 00:10:46.080 just one declared Republican, Brad Sherman, a 00:10:46.080 --> 00:10:49.220 conservative, former state rep, very pro -Trump. 00:10:49.500 --> 00:10:52.240 Others might jump in, like maybe Zach Nunn or 00:10:52.240 --> 00:10:55.399 Brenna Byrd. Only one Democrat declared Paul 00:10:55.399 --> 00:10:58.620 Dahl a bus driver. OK, Michigan Senate, open 00:10:58.620 --> 00:11:00.820 seat. Mike Rogers, Republican, is running again. 00:11:00.940 --> 00:11:03.960 He just lost narrowly in 2024. Right. Any other 00:11:03.960 --> 00:11:06.340 GOP names? Possibly Tudor Dixon, who ran for 00:11:06.340 --> 00:11:08.899 governor, Congressman Bill Hizenga, maybe Pastor 00:11:08.899 --> 00:11:11.740 Lorenzo Sewell. Early polls show Rogers trailing 00:11:11.740 --> 00:11:14.440 most Democrats, except maybe Haley Stevens. And 00:11:14.440 --> 00:11:17.580 some House races. Yep. California 22nd. Valladao's 00:11:17.580 --> 00:11:19.659 district. Yep. David Valladao, Republican incumbent. 00:11:19.820 --> 00:11:22.460 It's an R plus one district, but 73 percent Latinos. 00:11:22.720 --> 00:11:24.960 Very competitive. Who's challenging him. Randy 00:11:24.960 --> 00:11:27.759 Vallegas described the left wing populist and 00:11:27.759 --> 00:11:30.240 likely Rudy Salas again, who's more moderate 00:11:30.240 --> 00:11:33.120 and lost narrowly before. This district is considered 00:11:33.120 --> 00:11:35.559 the median in the country in terms of partisan 00:11:35.559 --> 00:11:38.600 lean, a real bellwether. Gotcha. And Michigan 00:11:38.600 --> 00:11:41.919 13th. That's Shree Thanedar's seat Democrat. 00:11:42.179 --> 00:11:44.480 He's Indian -American, wealthy, 70 years old. 00:11:44.590 --> 00:11:48.210 In a majority black district, D plus 22, pretty 00:11:48.210 --> 00:11:50.690 safe dem. Right. He's being challenged by Adam 00:11:50.690 --> 00:11:54.049 Hollier, a black former state senator, 39, not 00:11:54.049 --> 00:11:57.210 wealthy. Hollier has run and lost before, twice, 00:11:57.629 --> 00:11:59.570 raises interesting questions about representation. 00:11:59.769 --> 00:12:03.090 And finally. New York City Mayor. Oh boy. Eric 00:12:03.090 --> 00:12:05.309 Adams, the incumbent, seen as very vulnerable, 00:12:05.509 --> 00:12:06.970 and guess who might challenge him? Don't tell 00:12:06.970 --> 00:12:09.389 me. Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo, yeah. He's already picked 00:12:09.389 --> 00:12:12.789 up some big union endorsements. 32BJ, SEIU, Hotel 00:12:12.789 --> 00:12:15.090 and Gaming Trades Council, had a little hiccup 00:12:15.090 --> 00:12:17.429 with matching funds paperwork initially, but 00:12:17.429 --> 00:12:19.889 looks like he's gearing up. Adams versus Cuomo. 00:12:20.190 --> 00:12:22.850 Wow. Okay, what are all these little snapshots, 00:12:22.970 --> 00:12:24.950 these early indicators? Tell us overall about 00:12:24.950 --> 00:12:27.210 the move out there. Potential power shifts. I 00:12:27.210 --> 00:12:30.629 think taken together, they suggest a lot of fluidity, 00:12:30.950 --> 00:12:32.990 a potential for real change in the next couple 00:12:32.990 --> 00:12:35.509 of cycles. How so? Well, you see competitive 00:12:35.509 --> 00:12:38.230 primaries popping up, younger candidates challenging 00:12:38.230 --> 00:12:41.129 established figures, incumbents looking vulnerable 00:12:41.129 --> 00:12:42.929 in different kinds of districts and offices. 00:12:43.610 --> 00:12:45.690 It suggests voters might be looking for something 00:12:45.690 --> 00:12:48.470 new, different approaches. So maybe less certainty 00:12:48.470 --> 00:12:51.379 than usual. Perhaps. Those closely fought districts 00:12:51.379 --> 00:12:54.759 like CA -22 will be key indicators. And the internal 00:12:54.759 --> 00:12:57.720 party fights, like in MI -13 or potentially with 00:12:57.720 --> 00:12:59.940 AOC Schumer, they show ongoing debates about 00:12:59.940 --> 00:13:01.960 the direction and soul of the parties themselves. 00:13:02.440 --> 00:13:04.379 It's definitely not static. OK, let's turn to 00:13:04.379 --> 00:13:06.559 polling news specifically about voter sentiments. 00:13:07.379 --> 00:13:11.480 First, this idea that the NBA movement is. Yeah, 00:13:11.759 --> 00:13:13.799 an NBC News poll showed the percentage of voters 00:13:13.799 --> 00:13:16.659 identifying as Manji went from about 20 % early 00:13:16.659 --> 00:13:20.000 last year to 29 % around the last election. And 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:22.580 now it's apparently around 36%. Wow, that's a 00:13:22.580 --> 00:13:24.960 significant jump. Who's driving that? Interestingly, 00:13:25.320 --> 00:13:27.539 the poll suggests it's largely driven by college 00:13:27.539 --> 00:13:30.240 -educated male Republicans joining the Magier 00:13:30.240 --> 00:13:33.120 ranks. That seems counterintuitive, maybe. It 00:13:33.120 --> 00:13:35.559 might challenge some stereotypes, yeah. But that's 00:13:35.559 --> 00:13:37.559 what the data indicates. OK. But at the same 00:13:37.559 --> 00:13:40.480 time, another poll shows Trump's approval with 00:13:40.480 --> 00:13:43.500 independent voters is tanking. Right. That poll 00:13:43.500 --> 00:13:45.899 shows his approval among independents is just 00:13:45.899 --> 00:13:50.460 39 % approve, 61 % disapprove. That's 22 points 00:13:50.460 --> 00:13:53.259 underwater, apparently his worst numbers ever 00:13:53.259 --> 00:13:56.440 with that crucial group. So how does that work? 00:13:57.039 --> 00:14:00.870 MadGA base gets stronger. but independents flee. 00:14:01.070 --> 00:14:03.350 It really paints a picture of intense polarization, 00:14:03.429 --> 00:14:06.029 doesn't it? Yeah. The May GA movement seems to 00:14:06.029 --> 00:14:08.750 be consolidating its hold on a big chunk of the 00:14:08.750 --> 00:14:11.049 GOP base, maybe even expanding in some corners. 00:14:11.570 --> 00:14:14.070 But Trump's focus on that base seems to be pushing 00:14:14.070 --> 00:14:16.610 away the swing voters, the independents, who 00:14:16.610 --> 00:14:18.870 often decide elections. So what does that mean 00:14:18.870 --> 00:14:21.279 for elections, for the Republican Party? It creates 00:14:21.279 --> 00:14:24.320 a potential bind. That Maggiangi enthusiasm is 00:14:24.320 --> 00:14:26.940 powerful in primaries. It might force non -Maggi 00:14:26.940 --> 00:14:29.700 Republicans further right just to survive. But 00:14:29.700 --> 00:14:31.799 that could lead to candidates who are less appealing 00:14:31.799 --> 00:14:33.820 to the broader electorate needed to win a general 00:14:33.820 --> 00:14:36.100 election. A super motivated base is great. But 00:14:36.100 --> 00:14:38.480 if you alienate everyone else. It might not be 00:14:38.480 --> 00:14:42.259 enough. Got it. What about the Democrats? Any 00:14:42.259 --> 00:14:46.399 very, very early 2028 polling? Yes. Echelon Insights 00:14:46.399 --> 00:14:48.940 had one out. Again, super early. Take with a 00:14:48.940 --> 00:14:51.980 huge grain of salt. Name recognition stage. Exactly. 00:14:52.419 --> 00:14:55.019 Kamala Harris leads with 28 percent. Cory Booker 00:14:55.019 --> 00:14:57.840 is next at 11 percent. Then a bunch of others 00:14:57.840 --> 00:15:00.559 in single digits. Does name recognition explain 00:15:00.559 --> 00:15:03.840 Harris's lead being VP? Almost certainly at this 00:15:03.840 --> 00:15:06.259 point. People know who she is. Others just haven't 00:15:06.259 --> 00:15:08.580 had that national spotlight yet or haven't started 00:15:08.580 --> 00:15:12.000 campaigning. Anyone notable lowdown? Well, Stephen 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:14.019 A. Smith, the sports commentator who sometimes 00:15:14.019 --> 00:15:17.960 talks politics, polled at 1 percent. OK, so media 00:15:17.960 --> 00:15:20.580 fame doesn't equal votes. Apparently not. It 00:15:20.580 --> 00:15:22.820 shows that being a celebrity and being a viable 00:15:22.820 --> 00:15:24.879 political candidate are very different things, 00:15:25.059 --> 00:15:26.759 different skill sets, different considerations 00:15:26.759 --> 00:15:30.059 for voters. So zooming out again, this polarization 00:15:30.059 --> 00:15:33.480 energized Manjia base, Trump losing independence. 00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:35.779 What does it mean for American politics overall? 00:15:35.820 --> 00:15:38.000 Where are we headed? It suggests we're probably 00:15:38.000 --> 00:15:40.299 stuck in this period of really intense partisan 00:15:40.299 --> 00:15:43.039 competition for a while. More gridlock. More 00:15:43.039 --> 00:15:46.259 fighting? Likely. The energy in the Magier movement 00:15:46.259 --> 00:15:49.259 could harden ideological lines within the GOP, 00:15:49.559 --> 00:15:52.559 making compromise even harder. Trump's weakness 00:15:52.559 --> 00:15:54.820 with independence suggests a potential limit 00:15:54.820 --> 00:15:58.919 to his reach. But the big question is, can anyone 00:15:58.919 --> 00:16:02.759 else in the GOP appeal to both the base and those 00:16:02.759 --> 00:16:05.139 swing voters? A tough needle to thread. Very 00:16:05.139 --> 00:16:08.259 tough. Overall, the polls show a deeply divided 00:16:08.259 --> 00:16:11.240 country and honestly a potentially volatile political 00:16:11.240 --> 00:16:14.230 future. Okay, one last topic, and it's quite 00:16:14.230 --> 00:16:17.350 specific but I think revealing. Those recent 00:16:17.350 --> 00:16:21.070 hands -off protests. Huge numbers, millions of 00:16:21.070 --> 00:16:23.710 people. But the reporting indicates they were 00:16:23.710 --> 00:16:25.809 overwhelmingly white, often older white people, 00:16:26.090 --> 00:16:28.710 very few black protesters seen. That observation 00:16:28.710 --> 00:16:30.929 was noted in the materials, yes. And the article 00:16:30.929 --> 00:16:33.330 you shared gives a few... Potential reasons why? 00:16:33.409 --> 00:16:35.149 What are they? Well, the first one discussed 00:16:35.149 --> 00:16:37.830 is, frankly, personal safety. Safety? Yeah. There's 00:16:37.830 --> 00:16:39.509 a quote from Chalice Manza -Young essentially 00:16:39.509 --> 00:16:41.450 saying, Black people know the First Amendment 00:16:41.450 --> 00:16:43.409 doesn't always apply equally to everyone. Meaning 00:16:43.409 --> 00:16:45.889 they might face a harsher police response? That's 00:16:45.889 --> 00:16:49.190 the implication. A concern that large -scale 00:16:49.190 --> 00:16:52.370 Black participation might draw a different, potentially 00:16:52.370 --> 00:16:54.809 more aggressive law enforcement presence than 00:16:54.809 --> 00:16:59.360 a predominantly white protest does. Wow. That's 00:16:59.360 --> 00:17:01.559 sobering it is another quote from Nina Smith 00:17:01.559 --> 00:17:03.980 was something like the best way I can show up 00:17:03.980 --> 00:17:07.500 is to take care of myself It speaks to a calculus 00:17:07.500 --> 00:17:10.220 of risk and even questions about whether long 00:17:10.220 --> 00:17:12.900 -standing black families could face deportation 00:17:12.900 --> 00:17:15.400 threats under certain policies So a fundamental 00:17:15.400 --> 00:17:18.119 difference in perceived risk just by showing 00:17:18.119 --> 00:17:21.099 up. What else timing and fatigue were mentioned? 00:17:21.309 --> 00:17:23.869 The idea that black activists, especially black 00:17:23.869 --> 00:17:26.829 women, poured so much energy into the last election 00:17:26.829 --> 00:17:29.930 cycle that there's now a need to sort of regroup, 00:17:30.150 --> 00:17:32.289 conserve energy, focus strategically on future 00:17:32.289 --> 00:17:34.789 battles rather than mobilizing for every single 00:17:34.789 --> 00:17:37.829 event. Activist burnout is real. Right. It takes 00:17:37.829 --> 00:17:40.660 a toll. And the last point. Leadership transitions. 00:17:41.160 --> 00:17:42.960 Apparently, many black activist groups are undergoing 00:17:42.960 --> 00:17:45.359 changes at the top. New leaders might be more 00:17:45.359 --> 00:17:47.660 focused on internal planning, strategy development 00:17:47.660 --> 00:17:49.480 right now. And the issues themselves are maybe 00:17:49.480 --> 00:17:52.019 more complex now. Yeah, that was suggested too. 00:17:52.779 --> 00:17:55.339 Compared to the clearer goals of, say, the civil 00:17:55.339 --> 00:17:58.079 rights movement ending segregation, voting rights, 00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:01.539 the challenges today can feel more multifaceted, 00:18:01.839 --> 00:18:04.759 maybe harder to build unified mass mobilization 00:18:04.759 --> 00:18:07.970 around instantly. So safety concerns. activist 00:18:07.970 --> 00:18:11.170 fatigue and strategic pauses, leadership changes, 00:18:11.769 --> 00:18:14.069 issue complexity. What does all that tell us 00:18:14.069 --> 00:18:17.309 about activism today and about different communities' 00:18:17.450 --> 00:18:20.410 experiences? It tells us activism isn't one size 00:18:20.410 --> 00:18:22.890 fits all. Different groups engage based on their 00:18:22.890 --> 00:18:24.849 own histories, their current realities, their 00:18:24.849 --> 00:18:27.150 assessment of risk versus reward, and their strategic 00:18:27.150 --> 00:18:30.160 priorities. So the absence of Black protesters 00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:32.519 at these specific events doesn't mean apathy. 00:18:32.680 --> 00:18:34.980 Not necessarily at all. It likely reflects a 00:18:34.980 --> 00:18:37.279 different calculation about safety, about resource 00:18:37.279 --> 00:18:39.960 allocation, about long -term strategy. It highlights 00:18:39.960 --> 00:18:42.539 how crucial it is to understand the diverse experiences 00:18:42.539 --> 00:18:45.180 and approaches within social movements, not just 00:18:45.180 --> 00:18:47.039 look at the surface number. That's a really important 00:18:47.039 --> 00:18:49.579 perspective. Okay, so we've covered Wow, a lot 00:18:49.579 --> 00:18:52.059 today. We have this potential government branch 00:18:52.059 --> 00:18:55.180 clash, the weird Trump immigration proposal, 00:18:55.380 --> 00:18:58.079 the super early election buzz, the voter sentiment 00:18:58.079 --> 00:19:00.740 swings, the dynamics of protest. And really does 00:19:00.740 --> 00:19:02.900 all feel connected somehow, doesn't it? Absolutely. 00:19:03.000 --> 00:19:05.680 They're not isolated incidents. They're all symptoms 00:19:05.680 --> 00:19:08.839 or drivers of this larger, evolving political 00:19:08.839 --> 00:19:12.200 moment we're in. The tensions are palpable between 00:19:12.200 --> 00:19:14.720 branches of government over national identity 00:19:14.720 --> 00:19:17.539 and immigration between different voter groups 00:19:17.539 --> 00:19:19.690 within. and social movements, it's all part of 00:19:19.690 --> 00:19:22.509 the same story, really. So thinking about all 00:19:22.509 --> 00:19:24.009 these things together, the polarization, the 00:19:24.009 --> 00:19:26.049 challenges to norms, the shifts we're seeing, 00:19:26.650 --> 00:19:28.990 what does it suggest about, I don't know, the 00:19:28.990 --> 00:19:32.190 resilience of American institutions, of our society? 00:19:32.490 --> 00:19:34.470 Can it adapt? That's maybe the big question to 00:19:34.470 --> 00:19:36.690 leave folks with. That is a huge question and 00:19:36.690 --> 00:19:38.789 probably the most important one underlying all 00:19:38.789 --> 00:19:41.769 these individual stories. How resilient are these 00:19:41.769 --> 00:19:44.130 systems and norms when faced with these kinds 00:19:44.130 --> 00:19:46.670 of pressures? Something to definitely keep thinking 00:19:46.670 --> 00:19:48.750 about. Thanks for joining me for this deep dive 00:19:48.750 --> 00:19:50.650 today. As always, we encourage you listening 00:19:50.650 --> 00:19:52.990 to keep following these developments, maybe dig 00:19:52.990 --> 00:19:56.029 into some of the sources yourself. Indeed. There's 00:19:56.029 --> 00:19:58.130 always more beneath the surface. Thank you.