Ever feel like you're just drowning in information,
you know, the headlines flashing, reports piling
up? Yeah, and you just wish someone would like
cut through it all and tell you what really matters.
Exactly. That's what we're here for. Welcome
to the deep dive. And today, this deep dive is
really for you, the learner. If you're looking
to get up to speed on complex stuff quickly,
thoroughly. See different angles, have those
aha moments without the headache. Precisely.
without getting bogged down in jargon. We totally
get it. So to do that today, we've got some really
interesting sources lined up. First, we're digging
into recent news and analysis from 2025 515 electoral
vote news dot PDF. That's kind of our window
onto the political scene right now. And then
we're pairing that with a look at investor sentiment
using a report called hate it or love it sentiments
message dot PDF. It's dated May 12th, 2025. Right.
So that gives us the pulse of the financial markets.
Exactly. Our mission today, pretty simple. Pull
out the most important developments, the key
insights from both of these, so you get a clear
picture of what's shaping politics and finance.
OK, let's dive in. First up, something pretty
fundamental. The Voting Rights Act. Yeah, the
VRA. Most people know the basics, right? The
Supreme Court decision a while back that weakened
preclearance. Which, as we saw. kind of open
the floodgates for states to bring in more restrictive
voting laws. Right. And now our political source
points to another potentially major development.
This one involves section two of the VRA. OK,
section two. That's the part updated back in
82 meant to make sure everyone gets an equal
shot at participating, you know. in elections.
And for decades, the understanding, the precedent,
was that, well, the Department of Justice and
regular citizens or groups could sue if they
thought those rights were being violated. But
that understanding might be changing. There's
this recent ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals. It involved the Turtle Mountain Band
of Chippewa Indians. What was their case about?
They were arguing that North Dakota's voting
maps diluted Native American voting power. Unfairly,
they said. OK, but the court? Didn't even get
to the merits of the case. Instead, they ruled
the tribe didn't have standing, basically, the
legal right to sue under Section 2. Whoa. So
who does have standing, according to them? Only
the Department of Justice. That's their interpretation.
But wait, that goes against, what, 40 years of
how this has worked? Exactly. The source highlights
that. Since 1982, think about this, 466 cases
brought under Section 2. And the Duduje, they
only brought 18 of them. 18. So this ruling,
if it stands, basically shuts the door on almost
all Section 2 lawsuits, as we've known them.
In certain states, for now, the immediate impact
is in the Eighth Circuit. Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.
And the Chippewa Tribe. What do they do? That's
the really tough spot they're in. Do they accept
this, or do they appeal to the Supreme Court?
Which is, you know, a huge risk. A risk because...
Well... Looking at the current court, our source
points out, justices Thomas and Gorsuch have
signaled they might agree with this narrow review.
And Justice Roberts, his track record on the
VRA doesn't suggest he'd be inclined to overturn
the Eighth Circuit here. So the fear is if the
Supreme Court takes the case, this ruling could
go nationwide. That's the big concern, yeah.
And you layer on top of that the current DOJ
under Bambandi. The source suggests they don't
seem particularly interested in pursuing these
kinds of cases anyway. Historically, the DOJ
hasn't brought many. Right. So for you, the learner,
this is really important. It's about a potential
shift in how fundamental voting rights are protected.
Limiting who can sue could really weaken a key
tool for ensuring fair elections, especially
for minority groups. Definitely something to
watch. OK, let's shift gears from voting rights
to some legislative maneuvering. Ah, the inside
baseball part. That's how the source puts it.
Yeah. But it's important because it could signal
a big change in how power works in D .C. We're
talking about California's vehicle emission standards.
OK, refresh my memory. California got the OK
from the EPA for stricter standards back in 2024,
right? Correct. And maybe surprisingly, the big
automakers aren't really fighting it hard. Why
not? Because they see the writing on the wall,
right? EVs are the future. So having a huge market
like California push that actually kind of de
-risks things for them long term. But not everyone's
happy. No, definitely not. The petroleum industry,
obviously, is pushing back hard. They want Congress
to step in and overturn California's rules. But
wouldn't that just get filibustered in the Senate?
Needs 60 votes, usually? Normally, yes. But this
is where the strategy comes in. Senate Republicans
are looking at using something called the Congressional
Review Act, the CRA. The CRA that lets Congress
undo recent agency rules with just a simple majority.
That's the one. Simple majority in both chambers,
and boom, the rule is gone. And the agency can't
try something similar again. OK, but how does
that apply here? California standards aren't
exactly a new federal rule. It was an EPA waiver
letting California do its own thing. Exactly.
That's the, let's say, creative part of the strategy.
They're arguing that the EPA waiver itself should
count as a rule under the CRA. Even though the
Senate's own rules expert, the parliamentarian
probably wouldn't agree or the GAO. Right. It's
a stretch. But think about the implications if
they succeed. OK, first. California's waiver
gets overturned permanently. Yep. But bigger
than that, it sets a precedent. Congress could
potentially start overturning all sorts of executive
branch decisions with simple majorities. Think
corporate merger approvals, FDA drug decisions,
basically bypassing the filibuster for a whole
range of actions. Wow. That is a potential game
changer for the balance of power. Huge. And interestingly,
it seems there's some debate even among Republicans.
McConnell seems OK with it, but others like Senator
Collins are apparently hesitant, worried about
setting a precedent that can be used against
them later, weakening the filibuster overall.
That's likely the thinking. Yeah. So for you
listening, this technical fight over emissions,
it could actually lead to a really fundamental
change in how Washington works, kind of flying
under the radar. OK, from potential power shifts
to something that feels almost routine now. impeachment
talk. Ah yes, the near miss of impeachment 3
.0. Right. Representative Sri Thanedar, Democrat
from Michigan, he made a move recently to start
impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.
His reason? He said it was about constitutional
principle. But the rest of the House Democrats,
or most of them, weren't on board. No, they felt
it was a distraction, right? From the budget
fight, Medicaid cuts? And also... Let's be honest,
it had zero chance of passing the current House.
So it risked looking like, well, a political
stunt. And our source kind of hints that maybe
the timing wasn't accidental. Something about
Fanadar facing a primary challenge back home.
The source definitely raises that possibility.
Procedurally, any member can force a quick vote
on impeachment. It's called a privileged motion.
We've seen others use that tactic before. But
Fanadar backed down at the last minute. What
was the official reason? Said he talked to colleagues.
wanted to strengthen his case, add more to the
articles of impeachment. And the likely reason,
according to our source, that a lot of Democrats
were actually ready to vote against it right
now, which would have looked really bad for Thanader.
So impeachment attempt shelved for now. Yeah,
the feeling from the source is pretty clear.
This isn't over. Impeachment 3 .0 is seen as
like almost inevitable eventually. What might
trigger it later? Different strategies. Maybe
waiting until Trump's support drops. or closer
to an election, or perhaps waiting until Democrats
potentially retake the House in 2027. Maybe even
the Senate, though that's less likely. And if
they had both in 2027? Then you could see a full
impeachment trial. Maybe not aiming for conviction,
but definitely aiming to shape public opinion
for the 2028 election cycle. So for you, the
learner, this whole episode is a good reminder
of the political chess game, the strategic calculations
behind even something as serious as impeachment.
It's stalled this time, but the issue's definitely
not gone away. OK, let's turn to a different
kind of political narrative now. There's a new
book coming out about President Biden's time
in office. Right. This one's got a pretty dramatic
title. Original sin, President Biden's decline,
its cover up and his disastrous choice to run
again. by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. And
the buzz is it details alleged health issues,
infirmities during Biden's last year based on
anonymous Democratic sources. Any specific examples
mentioned? Yeah, things like tightly controlled
access, speculation he might have needed a wheelchair
for a second term, even a story about him not
recognizing George Clooney at a fundraiser. Hmm.
Our source seems a bit skeptical about the timing
and relevance, though, now that Biden's out of
office. Yeah, they raise good points. How reliable
are anonymous sources? And assessing cognitive
decline is really subjective, often not linear.
Yeah. And there's this counter -argument, right?
That if there was a cover -up, it might involve
current leaders like Hakeem Jeffries. Wolf Blitzer
apparently asked about that. But the source pushes
back on that, too. Like, what did people outside
the immediate White House really know? and when,
and what could they realistically have done about
it? Plus, they point out, Democrats did effectively
push Biden aside after that bad debate performance.
Right, and putting it all in perspective, the
source kind of contrasts the focus on Biden's
alleged past decline with, say, downplaying actions
related to Trump, like the insurrection or constitutional
concerns. The reaction seems to be... a bit sensationalized.
So for you listening, this book will probably
make waves, but maybe take its claims with a
grain of salt, considering the sourcing in the
context. Definitely. OK, let's switch fields
entirely from politics to baseball. Baseball.
How does that fit in? It's about Donald Trump's
influence, surprisingly, specifically the Pete
Rose situation. Pete Rose. OK. Yeah. Remind us
he was banned for life for gambling. Right. Like
shoeless Joe Jackson back in the day. Exactly.
Jackson. banned after the 1919 Black Sox scandal,
despite ongoing debate about his actual guilt.
Efforts to clear his name went on for, well,
a century. And then the current commissioner,
Rob Manfred, he was against reinstating people
like Jackson, wasn't he? Yeah, back in 2015,
he said it was basically impossible to know the
full truth after so long, so the ban should stand.
But something's changed. Big time. Manfred just
announced that all deceased people in the permanently
banned list are now reinstated. Off the list.
Why the change of heart? What's the official
reason? His explanation is, well, they're deceased,
so they can't harm the game's integrity anymore.
And a lifetime ban is, you know, already served.
OK. But is there maybe an unofficial reason?
That's what our source strongly suggests, because
this move also effectively clears the way for
Pete Rose. And guess who's been championing Rose's
cause lately? Let me guess. Donald Trump. Bingo.
Trump's been very public, promising a pardon,
which is weird in itself, it wasn't a federal
crime, and demanding Rose get into the Hall of
Fame. Why Rose? Does Trump see some similarity
there? Our source thinks so. The Magier connection,
alleged tax stuff, felony convictions, Rose.
had tax evasion, even alleged sexual misconduct,
statutory rape in Rose's case, and just sort
of a shared 1970s cultural vibe, maybe. Trump
even put out a statement pardoning Rose. Yeah,
and incorrectly claimed Rose only bet on his
own team to win. Which isn't the whole story,
is it? He was the manager, too. Right. The source
points that out. Betting while managing raises
huge questions about his decisions during the
games. Did he burn out his bullpen to win a bet?
That kind of thing. The Dowd report was clear
on this. So again, the source asks, is Trump
just mistaken or is he deliberately misleading
people? It's the recurring question. But why
would Manfred fold now after holding firm before?
What's the thinking? Couple of things, potentially.
Maybe some political alignment. But more importantly,
think about MLB's business. They rely heavily
on things like their antitrust exemption, getting
visas for foreign players. Things a president
or someone with sway over a future president
could make difficult. Exactly. Getting on Trump's
bad side could pose a real like existential threat
to how baseball operates. So the bigger lesson
here for you, the learner, is how leverage works.
Influential figures using their power in areas
maybe they shouldn't based on potential consequences,
not just what's right. Like Trump going after
universities with federal grants. It's a pattern.
And looking ahead for Rose, he's technically
eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot in 2027.
But getting voted in is another story. Usually
it'd be unlikely. But you expect some pressure
now. Oh, yeah. The source predicts arm twisting.
Give Trump an inch and he'll demand the whole
ballpark. Got it. OK, finally, let's shift to
the financial side. Investor sentiment. What's
the mood out there after the recent market swings?
Right. So the financial report we looked at dives
into that April market plunge and then the honestly
pretty stunning recovery. How fast was it? The
S &P 500 jumped 13 .7 % between its low on April
8th and May 8th. That's like one of the biggest
one -month gains since 2000. Really sharp rebound.
And what happened with sentiment during that
drop in April? It went to extreme pessimism by
a lot of measures, which counterintuitively often
happens before a market bounces back. Pessimism
gets overdone. Was there a specific trigger for
the rebound? Seems like the main catalyst was
the news about a 90 -day pause on new tariffs
and the start of trade talks. That calmed nerves
a bit. Now, the report makes a distinction, right,
between how investors feel and what they do.
Super important distinction. Attitudinal versus
behavioral sentiment. So attitudes first. What
did the survey show in April? The AAII survey
that's the American Association of Individual
Investors Their measure of bulls versus bears
basically collapsed. Pessimism spiked to levels
we hadn't seen since the end of the 2022 bear
market. And other surveys. Similar story with
the investors intelligence advisor sentiment.
Sharply down, hitting levels consistent with
prior bear markets like late 2018 or March 2020.
So people felt really negative. OK, but what
about behavior? What were they actually doing
with their money? That's where it gets interesting.
AII members. Yeah, they cut back on stocks a
bit, but not drastically. Kind of like what happened
in June 2022, a disconnect between feelings and
actions. What about options trading? Put call
ratios. That increased, suggesting more hedging,
but again, not to the extreme levels you usually
see in major market bottoms. And money flows.
Were people actually selling stocks aggressively?
Not really. Domestic equity ETF flows stayed
positive. People weren't yanking money out en
masse, which is typically what you see at a true
panic low. So surveys screamed panic, but actions
were more measured. What about measures that
combine both? Sentiment Trader has these indexes,
smart money and dumb money. During the April
lows, smart money confidence actually went up.
They were buying the dip, acting contrarian.
Dumb money confidence plunged, following the
herd down. Interesting. Any other combined measures?
Yeah, the Ned Davis research crowd sentiment
poll. It dropped into extreme pessimism. And
interestingly, it's still there despite the big
market rebound since then. Is that significant
if it stays low? Well, the report notes that
if it climbs back into neutral territory, that
has historically been a pretty bullish signal
for a future S &P 500 performance. Something
to watch. Are there any longer term risks highlighted?
One big one. Household stock ownership was at
a record high coming into 2025. That means market
swings, up or down, have a bigger impact on people's
overall wealth. The wealth effect is amplified.
What about the health of the rally itself? Was
it broad based? There was a positive sign there,
something called a breadth thrust, where way
more stocks were going up than down over a 10
day period. That kind of surge often happens
near the end of bear markets. We saw similar
signals near the bottoms in 2020, 2009 and 2002.
But these signals aren't perfect, right? No,
definitely not. History doesn't always repeat
and breadth thrusts can be full signals. The
report is careful to say that. So wrapping up
the market view. Short term. The momentum, the
animal spirits seem to favor the bulls. The reason
price action is strong. But, you know, expect
turbulence. The whole tariff situation is still
hanging out there and the market's still digesting
potentially higher rates. Volatility is probably
the name of the game. OK. So for you, the learner,
the takeaway on sentiment is it's complicated.
Extreme pessimism didn't translate into panic
selling. Some indicators look bullish, but risks
remain, especially around trade and just general
economic uncertainty, brace for more ups and
downs. That sums it up pretty well. And that
brings us to the end of this deep dive. We've
covered a lot of ground today, threats to the
Voting Rights Act, potential filibuster changes,
the latest impeachment drama, that upcoming Biden
book, Trump getting involved in baseball, and
the mixed signals from investors. Our goal, like
always, was just to pull out the most important
threads from these sources, give you that shortcut
to being informed. And you really see how these
different areas, politics, finance, even sports,
can intersect in unexpected ways. often driven
by power and strategy underneath. Absolutely.
Which leaves us with a final thought for you
to chew on. With these potential changes to voting
rights and maybe even how the Senate works, how
could our political system fundamentally look
different in a few years? And on the financial
side, given that disconnect between how pessimistic
investors felt and how they actually behaved,
what hidden risks or maybe overlooked opportunities
should you be paying closer attention to in the
market right now? Lots to think about. Thanks
for joining us for this deep dive.