Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're really
trying to cut through the noise, get a handle
on the current political landscape. Yeah, there's
a lot happening. Definitely. We're going to peel
back some layers on these recent legislative
fights, look at some, well, some fascinating
shifts in political alliances, and even take
a look at voter behavior. We've got a stack of
fresh sources to guide us. Right. And our job
here, really, is to pull out the key insights,
maybe some surprising facts from all this material,
give you a clear, concise picture of what's really
going on behind the headlines. So that means
policy details. Deal making. Exactly. Specific
policies, the sort of intricate dance on Capitol
Hill. Yeah. Deal making. And yeah, the bigger
trends shaping American politics right now. OK.
And the main source we're leaning on is the 2025
7 to 3 electoral vote news dot PDF. So this is
all pretty current stuff. As current as it gets.
All right. Let's unpack this. First off, let's
jump straight into the the legislative drama.
Donald Trump's July 4th deadline for his, quote,
giant bill. That really cranked up the pressure
didn't it? Oh, absolutely Intense is the word
and the document really details the pushback
particularly from the Freedom Caucus they laid
out their criticisms in a Three -page critique
of the Senate's version and what were their main
beefs? Well quite a few they were worried about
increased deficits For one, they complained it
failed to peel off what they call Biden's green
new scam. OK. And they highlighted stripped protections
against undocumented immigrants getting Medicaid.
They even use this this odd phrase, illegal aliens
with Trump accounts. Trump accounts. What else?
Their list went on. They felt it watered down
house rules against waste and fraud in S .N .P.
The food stamp program. Right. They called the
bill loaded with pork, basically, stuff thrown
in just to buy Senate votes. Standard operating
procedures, some might say. Yes. They also hit
the slashing of a 3 .5 % House tax on remittances,
which was aimed at illegal immigration. And they
felt it didn't deliver on expanding health savings
accounts, HSAs. Wow. Quite the list. And there's
more. Failure to stop taxpayer funds for sex
changes and abortion, keeping tax loopholes for
foreign tobacco companies, a radical expansion,
they said, of the RECA fund eligibility. That's
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. That's
the one. Plus, undermining the Second Amendment
and what they called a salt blue states handout.
Salt state and local tax deduction. So basically
helping taxpayers in high tax, often democratic
states. Exactly. That's their take on it. So
this list. It's not just policy, is it? It really
shows the fractures within the party. It absolutely
does. It highlights this deep ideological divide,
makes compromise incredibly hard, even internally.
And like you said, it also points to the reality
of political sausage making. Provisions get added
or dropped specifically to appease certain senators.
You need their votes. Until the game is played.
It is. Pragmatic reality in D .C. But despite
all that complaining, the House did vote to move
the bill forward to 19 to 13 late Thursday night.
Right. Setting up the final vote. Interestingly,
only one Republican crossed over Brian Fitzpatrick
from Pennsylvania. He's seen as pretty centrist,
right? The analysis speculates his no vote might
be tied to those salt issues given his district.
That's the speculation. Yes. Salty matters, as
the document puts it. Wealthy district. So the
salt a cap. It's harder there. But the really
intriguing part is how they got the freedom caucus
votes. I mean, just yesterday afternoon, some
were loudly saying, no way. That is the big question.
How were those votes secured? The analysis throws
out a few possibilities. Direct arm twisting
by Trump. Possible. Closed door meetings with
Speaker Johnson. Maybe threats. Or offers of
Goodies. Goodies. OK, and the analysis suggests
these were likely non -legislative goodies. Why
is that distinction important? Yeah, that's key
because of the time crunch and legislative hurdles
like reconciliation rules, the filibuster. Making
last minute legislative changes is really, really
hard. So what kind of non -legislative goodies
are we talking about? Well, the report gives
some hypothetical examples, but they're pretty
potent, like maybe Trump promising executive
actions in a member's home state. The document
gives a pretty provocative example. Like maybe
using alien and sedition act powers to close
mosques, something to appease a certain base.
Or perhaps Trump not doing something punitive.
Like not closing a military base. Exactly. Not
closing a base that employs, say, 10 ,000 people
in a member's district. That kind of leverage.
It shows how much power the executive branch
might wield over individual members. Wow. So
given all that, High odds the Senate bill passes
the House today. Very high odds, yes. Looks like
it gets Trump's signature by July 4th, just like
he wanted. OK, let's shift from the big picture
bill to a specific detail that reveals a lot,
the no tax on tips provision. What's interesting
here, the source notes is AOC's perspective.
Right, Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez. She's apparently
the only one in Congress who's actually lived
on tips. Gives her a unique viewpoint. And the
Senate changed the House version of this. Significantly.
The biggest change was adding a cap. a $25 ,000
maximum on tip income that could be tax free.
$25 ,000. Why the cap? Well, the stated reason,
according to the report, was to stop, say, highly
paid partners in law firms or similar fields
from gaming the system. You know, taking a tiny
salary and then millions in tips from their partners
to avoid taxes. I see. And AOC had some strong
words about this. She did. The source quotes
her directly. She said, so if you're at home,
and you're living off tips, you do the math,
is that worth it to you? Losing all your health
care, not able to feed your babies, not being
able to put a diaper on their bottom in exchange
for what? Pretty powerful stuff. Definitely puts
it in perspective. But there were other catches
too, right? Things not widely discussed. Oh,
yeah. The analysis points out several. First,
this whole thing expires at the end of 2028.
It's temporary. OK. It only applies to tips that
are actually reported to the employer for payroll
taxes. So cash under the table doesn't count.
Makes sense. And it only helps workers whose
income is below a certain level. If you earn
so little, you don't owe federal income tax anyway.
This doesn't help you. So not everyone benefits.
No. Plus, there are limits on which industries
are covered. It's not universal. And it's only
federal taxes. Doesn't touch state taxes on tips.
And then there's the question of whether people
might tip less now. Exactly. If tippers think
the worker isn't paying taxes on it, will they
reduce the tip? It's an open question. So bottom
line, it's not some huge windfall. Maybe better
than nothing for some, as the report says. That
seems fair. But the broader implication is interesting.
Could this encourage workers who don't normally
get tips to start asking? Like plumbers, mechanics.
Right. Plumbers, auto mechanics, maybe even accountants,
the report suggests. And given that a lot of
people already feel tipping culture is out of
control. This could just make that feeling worse.
It potentially could, yeah. This idea of tipping
creep into new areas, it shows how even small
policy details can have these wider ripple effects.
OK, moving beyond specific bills, let's talk
about power dynamics. The relationship between
Trump and Elon Musk, for example. That seems
complicated. Yes, complicated is a good word.
The document points out Trump's history of turning
on allies, even major supporters. Musk seems
to be the latest example. Despite Musk giving
a lot of money in 2024. A substantial amount,
yes. Musk says he's out of politics for 2025,
but the analysis expects him back in 2026. Why?
Well, $100 million isn't much to him, relatively
speaking, and the analysis suggests he enjoys
playing kingmaker. So Trump isn't buying Musk's
political paws. Doesn't seem like it. He's already
launching a counter move, a new super pack. It's
called Full Support for Donald. FSD pack. FSD,
like full self -driving. A clear dig at Musk.
A very clear dig. The strategy, apparently, is
for Trump to get friendly billionaires. Ones
who, you know, might want something from the
government to fund this pack. To match or neutralize
Musk's money. Essentially, yes. And the report
dismisses Musk's talk of a new party as vaporware.
Vaporware? Meaning unlikely to happen. Very unlikely.
Not because of money. But because there's just
no real demand for it, the analysis argues. Plus,
think about the challenges a third party president
would face in Congress. Total gridlock, worse.
Probably worse. The report suggests every Republican
and Democrat would likely want that president
to fail just to crush the third party idea. OK,
from individual power plays to something more
institutional, the DOJ's denaturalization program,
it seems to be expanding. Yes. That's a significant
development highlighted in the source. Trump's
focus on deportation isn't just on those here
illegally anymore. Who else are they targeting?
Legally naturalized citizens. People who went
through the whole process became citizens. But
now the DOJ wants to strip that citizenship away.
On what grounds? That's where it gets concerning.
The reasons are described as broad, potentially
vague could be something that happened before
or after they became citizens. The source even
raises the possibility of targeting people for
exercising First Amendment rights or just for
opposing Trump. That sounds alarming. Is there
a concrete example? The document gives one. Representative
Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, he's
proposed stripping Zoran Mamdani. of his citizenship.
And Mamdani is? A naturalized citizen born in
Uganda. And the reason Ogles gave, Mamdani won
the Democratic primary for NYC mayor. Just for
winning a primary. That's what the source states
Ogles cited. And the report expects we'll see
more cases like this. Wow. This really ties into
a broader theme, doesn't it? This decline of
the political center. Absolutely. It feels like
that Yates quote, things fall apart. The Senate
cannot hold. We're seeing it play out. With retirements,
for example. Exactly. Look at two high profile
moderate Republicans mentioned in the source.
Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina. Right,
you mentioned him earlier. A moderate. Trump
threatened him with a primary challenge from
the right. And now Tillis has announced he's
not running again. He's only 64. Could have served
for years. Decades, potentially, if there was
still a strong place for moderates and swing
states. He's apparently lamented the rise of
tribal politics, the lack of bipartisanship.
He made some comment about how bipartisanship
is viewed differently depending on the party.
Yeah, a really telling comment. How members of
the other party get praised as heroes for working
across the aisle. But if you do it within your
own party, you're labeled a traitor. We've seen
that before. Romney, Corker, Flake. Exactly.
Same pattern. And the other example. Representative
Don Bacon from Nebraska. Another Republican moderate,
military background, wins repeatedly in a district
that leans Democratic. A D plus three district,
the report says. Right. Impressive record. But
even he apparently sees no future for moderates
in the GOP right now. He's only 61. Again, could
have served much longer. But feels there's no
point if nobody's listening. Yeah. That's the
sense you get from the analysis. The reality
is few members are truly moderate anymore, and
those who might lean that way often don't advertise
it. Because the base demands purity. Extreme
partisanship combined with a country that's almost
evenly split. Yeah. If you're not seen as fighting
tooth and nail for the party line, you've got
a big problem with your base. It's just a very
tough environment for moderates today. Which
leads us neatly into the Senate retirement watch.
Seven already announced, which the source says
is above average. It is. We've got Tuberville
running for governor in Alabama, Durbin and McConnell
stepping down due to age, health, Peters and
Shaheen citing generational change, long service.
Tina Smith apparently never really liked the
job and Tillis forced out by the Trump threat.
But the analysis also flagged some potential
involuntary retirements, senators who might be
pushed out or choose not to run. Right. Several
names on that watch list. First, Joni Ernst in
Iowa. Because of that, well, we are all going
to die quote about the MAGA bill. Exactly. Democrats
plan to hammer her with that. The thinking is
if the bill proves unpopular in Iowa and her
polls drop sharply, especially if there's a wider
blue tsunami. She might just decide to bow out.
OK, who else? John Cornyn in Texas. He's facing
a really tough primary against Ken Paxton, the
AG, who is extremely Trumpy. And if Trump endorses
Paxton, that could be the end for Cornyn's run.
The analysis suggests he might be forced into
retirement. Now, Democrats winning an open Texas
seat is still a long shot. But with a candidate
like Paxton, the thinking is maybe Paxton says
something so extreme that even Texas voters say
no thanks. It's possible. if unlikely. Then there's
Susan Collins in Maine. Yeah, she hasn't officially
launched her campaign, voted against the big
bill, which helps her maybe. But if Governor
Janet Mills, a popular Democrat, decides to challenge
her, Collins might just call it a career. And
Bill Cassidy in Louisiana? He's tangled with
Trump before, voted to convict in the second
impeachment, I think. If Trump decides to back
a primary challenger against him, Cassidy might
just decide he'd rather go back to being Dr.
Cassidy. He was a liver specialist. Interesting.
So lots of potential shifts. What about the key
open races, where the seat is definitely up for
grabs? North Carolina is one to watch. The report
says Democrats are almost praying that Lara Trump
runs. Derek Trump's wife. That's her. She has
local ties, but the analysis thinks her very
Trumpy profile would energize Democrats like
crazy. Especially a former governor Roy Cooper,
who left office popular, gets in the race for
the Dems. OK. New Hampshire. Looks like Chris
Pappas, the Dem congressman, or Scott Brown,
the former Republican senator from Massachusetts.
Ah, so the carpetbagger attack is coming. You
can bet on it. Pappas will hit that hard. Michigan's
Democratic primary is crowded and messy. Several
big names already in, maybe more to come. Still
very unsettled. And Minnesota. That DFL primary
Democratic farmer labor looks fascinating. Lieutenant
Governor Peggy Flanagan, who's part Native American,
versus Representative Angie Craig, who is a lesbian,
the source calls it a big battle of which group
is more deserving of the seat. Wow. And some
states are basically locked, right? Yeah, Alabama,
Illinois, Kentucky. The report says they're very
unlikely to flip, regardless of the candidates,
just too red or too blue. All right, let's shift
gears one last time. There's this long -held
belief in democratic circles that if they could
just boost turnout, they'd win. The idea being
that non -voters are basically secret Democrats.
Right. That's been a core assumption for a long
time. But the analysis we looked at really challenges
that. How so? What's the evidence? Well, there's
a new Pew Research report mentioned. They did
a deep dive, checked voting records, figured
out the leanings of non -voters, and the results
were surprising. Surprising how? If all the non
-voters had voted in 2024, Pew found Trump's
margin would have actually doubled. from 1 .5
% to 3%. Doubled! So the non -voters leaned Republicans.
That's what it suggests. The report even calls
them lazy secret Republicans. Huh. Is that just
one study? No, there's more. A Stanford study
from 2020 looked at states that made voting easier
versus those that didn't. Found basically no
gain for either party. the extra voters split
pretty evenly. And another study from the Public
Policy Institute of California found making voting
easier either had no real effect, or in some
cases, it actually helped Trump slightly. So
the whole more turnout automatically helps Democrats
idea might be wrong. It's looking less certain
based on this evidence. Now, election laws do
matter, but campaigns adapt. How do they adapt?
Well, if there are strict voter ID laws, Campaigns
put more resources into voter education, registration
drives. If mail -in voting gets easier, they
focus more on outreach, ballot return efforts.
More early voting means shifting resources to
lock down votes earlier. It's complex. So the
simple assumption. The simple assumption that
non -voters are just lazy Democrats. The reports
conclude that's not likely to be true. Why exactly
non -voters skewed slightly Republican in 2024,
or why easier voting doesn't automatically favor
one party? Well, that's still not fully understood.
The source mentions Fox News. Yeah, it throws
that out as a possibility. Maybe non -voters
are more exposed to conservative media, but it
admits... More research is definitely needed
to figure out the real reasons. OK, so we've
really covered a lot of ground here. The intense
maneuvering around the big bill, the fine print
in that TIFS provision, shifting power plays
between figures like Trump and Musk, the erosion
of the political center, those Senate retirements,
and now this surprising data on voter turnout.
It paints a picture of a political landscape
that's, well... incredibly fluid and maybe defying
some old assumptions, highly transactional deals,
a shrinking center, basic ideas about voting
being challenged. So the final thought for our
listeners, given everything we've just discussed,
this transactional politics, the vanishing center,
the overturned assumptions about voters, what
does this tell you about the future, the future
of compromise, maybe even the future of political
identity in America? Yeah, what stands out to
you? How do you see these currents reshaping
things in the years ahead? It's definitely something
to think about. Indeed. Thank you for joining
us on this deep dive.