WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.339 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're really 00:00:02.339 --> 00:00:06.139 trying to cut through the noise, get a handle 00:00:06.139 --> 00:00:09.500 on the current political landscape. Yeah, there's 00:00:09.500 --> 00:00:11.800 a lot happening. Definitely. We're going to peel 00:00:11.800 --> 00:00:14.019 back some layers on these recent legislative 00:00:14.019 --> 00:00:16.019 fights, look at some, well, some fascinating 00:00:16.019 --> 00:00:18.820 shifts in political alliances, and even take 00:00:18.820 --> 00:00:20.960 a look at voter behavior. We've got a stack of 00:00:20.960 --> 00:00:23.160 fresh sources to guide us. Right. And our job 00:00:23.160 --> 00:00:25.640 here, really, is to pull out the key insights, 00:00:25.859 --> 00:00:27.800 maybe some surprising facts from all this material, 00:00:27.859 --> 00:00:30.980 give you a clear, concise picture of what's really 00:00:30.980 --> 00:00:32.659 going on behind the headlines. So that means 00:00:32.659 --> 00:00:36.119 policy details. Deal making. Exactly. Specific 00:00:36.119 --> 00:00:38.520 policies, the sort of intricate dance on Capitol 00:00:38.520 --> 00:00:41.880 Hill. Yeah. Deal making. And yeah, the bigger 00:00:41.880 --> 00:00:44.000 trends shaping American politics right now. OK. 00:00:44.479 --> 00:00:46.780 And the main source we're leaning on is the 2025 00:00:46.780 --> 00:00:50.159 7 to 3 electoral vote news dot PDF. So this is 00:00:50.159 --> 00:00:52.259 all pretty current stuff. As current as it gets. 00:00:52.539 --> 00:00:54.240 All right. Let's unpack this. First off, let's 00:00:54.240 --> 00:00:57.320 jump straight into the the legislative drama. 00:00:57.659 --> 00:01:00.520 Donald Trump's July 4th deadline for his, quote, 00:01:00.719 --> 00:01:04.219 giant bill. That really cranked up the pressure 00:01:04.219 --> 00:01:06.920 didn't it? Oh, absolutely Intense is the word 00:01:06.920 --> 00:01:09.599 and the document really details the pushback 00:01:09.599 --> 00:01:12.420 particularly from the Freedom Caucus they laid 00:01:12.420 --> 00:01:17.000 out their criticisms in a Three -page critique 00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:18.980 of the Senate's version and what were their main 00:01:18.980 --> 00:01:21.920 beefs? Well quite a few they were worried about 00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:25.230 increased deficits For one, they complained it 00:01:25.230 --> 00:01:27.189 failed to peel off what they call Biden's green 00:01:27.189 --> 00:01:30.129 new scam. OK. And they highlighted stripped protections 00:01:30.129 --> 00:01:32.329 against undocumented immigrants getting Medicaid. 00:01:33.069 --> 00:01:36.349 They even use this this odd phrase, illegal aliens 00:01:36.349 --> 00:01:39.530 with Trump accounts. Trump accounts. What else? 00:01:39.930 --> 00:01:42.209 Their list went on. They felt it watered down 00:01:42.209 --> 00:01:45.290 house rules against waste and fraud in S .N .P. 00:01:45.370 --> 00:01:47.150 The food stamp program. Right. They called the 00:01:47.150 --> 00:01:49.370 bill loaded with pork, basically, stuff thrown 00:01:49.370 --> 00:01:51.370 in just to buy Senate votes. Standard operating 00:01:51.370 --> 00:01:54.049 procedures, some might say. Yes. They also hit 00:01:54.049 --> 00:01:57.609 the slashing of a 3 .5 % House tax on remittances, 00:01:57.790 --> 00:02:00.349 which was aimed at illegal immigration. And they 00:02:00.349 --> 00:02:02.950 felt it didn't deliver on expanding health savings 00:02:02.950 --> 00:02:06.150 accounts, HSAs. Wow. Quite the list. And there's 00:02:06.150 --> 00:02:09.560 more. Failure to stop taxpayer funds for sex 00:02:09.560 --> 00:02:12.479 changes and abortion, keeping tax loopholes for 00:02:12.479 --> 00:02:15.539 foreign tobacco companies, a radical expansion, 00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:19.180 they said, of the RECA fund eligibility. That's 00:02:19.180 --> 00:02:21.439 the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. That's 00:02:21.439 --> 00:02:23.560 the one. Plus, undermining the Second Amendment 00:02:23.560 --> 00:02:26.360 and what they called a salt blue states handout. 00:02:26.759 --> 00:02:29.280 Salt state and local tax deduction. So basically 00:02:29.280 --> 00:02:32.139 helping taxpayers in high tax, often democratic 00:02:32.139 --> 00:02:34.520 states. Exactly. That's their take on it. So 00:02:34.520 --> 00:02:38.419 this list. It's not just policy, is it? It really 00:02:38.419 --> 00:02:41.520 shows the fractures within the party. It absolutely 00:02:41.520 --> 00:02:44.860 does. It highlights this deep ideological divide, 00:02:45.139 --> 00:02:47.759 makes compromise incredibly hard, even internally. 00:02:48.400 --> 00:02:50.199 And like you said, it also points to the reality 00:02:50.199 --> 00:02:52.759 of political sausage making. Provisions get added 00:02:52.759 --> 00:02:54.939 or dropped specifically to appease certain senators. 00:02:55.439 --> 00:02:57.159 You need their votes. Until the game is played. 00:02:57.219 --> 00:03:00.069 It is. Pragmatic reality in D .C. But despite 00:03:00.069 --> 00:03:02.330 all that complaining, the House did vote to move 00:03:02.330 --> 00:03:05.930 the bill forward to 19 to 13 late Thursday night. 00:03:06.050 --> 00:03:08.009 Right. Setting up the final vote. Interestingly, 00:03:08.250 --> 00:03:10.770 only one Republican crossed over Brian Fitzpatrick 00:03:10.770 --> 00:03:13.110 from Pennsylvania. He's seen as pretty centrist, 00:03:13.110 --> 00:03:15.849 right? The analysis speculates his no vote might 00:03:15.849 --> 00:03:19.370 be tied to those salt issues given his district. 00:03:19.409 --> 00:03:22.430 That's the speculation. Yes. Salty matters, as 00:03:22.430 --> 00:03:24.889 the document puts it. Wealthy district. So the 00:03:24.889 --> 00:03:27.039 salt a cap. It's harder there. But the really 00:03:27.039 --> 00:03:29.080 intriguing part is how they got the freedom caucus 00:03:29.080 --> 00:03:32.180 votes. I mean, just yesterday afternoon, some 00:03:32.180 --> 00:03:35.340 were loudly saying, no way. That is the big question. 00:03:35.539 --> 00:03:38.240 How were those votes secured? The analysis throws 00:03:38.240 --> 00:03:41.500 out a few possibilities. Direct arm twisting 00:03:41.500 --> 00:03:44.039 by Trump. Possible. Closed door meetings with 00:03:44.039 --> 00:03:48.599 Speaker Johnson. Maybe threats. Or offers of 00:03:48.669 --> 00:03:51.289 Goodies. Goodies. OK, and the analysis suggests 00:03:51.289 --> 00:03:54.110 these were likely non -legislative goodies. Why 00:03:54.110 --> 00:03:56.030 is that distinction important? Yeah, that's key 00:03:56.030 --> 00:03:58.550 because of the time crunch and legislative hurdles 00:03:58.550 --> 00:04:01.969 like reconciliation rules, the filibuster. Making 00:04:01.969 --> 00:04:04.729 last minute legislative changes is really, really 00:04:04.729 --> 00:04:06.849 hard. So what kind of non -legislative goodies 00:04:06.849 --> 00:04:08.949 are we talking about? Well, the report gives 00:04:08.949 --> 00:04:11.990 some hypothetical examples, but they're pretty 00:04:11.990 --> 00:04:14.409 potent, like maybe Trump promising executive 00:04:14.409 --> 00:04:16.769 actions in a member's home state. The document 00:04:16.769 --> 00:04:19.889 gives a pretty provocative example. Like maybe 00:04:19.889 --> 00:04:22.389 using alien and sedition act powers to close 00:04:22.389 --> 00:04:24.529 mosques, something to appease a certain base. 00:04:24.970 --> 00:04:28.509 Or perhaps Trump not doing something punitive. 00:04:28.670 --> 00:04:31.209 Like not closing a military base. Exactly. Not 00:04:31.209 --> 00:04:34.069 closing a base that employs, say, 10 ,000 people 00:04:34.069 --> 00:04:35.910 in a member's district. That kind of leverage. 00:04:36.509 --> 00:04:38.449 It shows how much power the executive branch 00:04:38.449 --> 00:04:41.189 might wield over individual members. Wow. So 00:04:41.189 --> 00:04:43.980 given all that, High odds the Senate bill passes 00:04:43.980 --> 00:04:46.300 the House today. Very high odds, yes. Looks like 00:04:46.300 --> 00:04:48.560 it gets Trump's signature by July 4th, just like 00:04:48.560 --> 00:04:50.839 he wanted. OK, let's shift from the big picture 00:04:50.839 --> 00:04:53.800 bill to a specific detail that reveals a lot, 00:04:54.420 --> 00:04:57.300 the no tax on tips provision. What's interesting 00:04:57.300 --> 00:05:00.199 here, the source notes is AOC's perspective. 00:05:00.519 --> 00:05:02.800 Right, Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez. She's apparently 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:04.699 the only one in Congress who's actually lived 00:05:04.699 --> 00:05:07.079 on tips. Gives her a unique viewpoint. And the 00:05:07.079 --> 00:05:09.800 Senate changed the House version of this. Significantly. 00:05:10.120 --> 00:05:13.110 The biggest change was adding a cap. a $25 ,000 00:05:13.110 --> 00:05:15.290 maximum on tip income that could be tax free. 00:05:15.589 --> 00:05:18.610 $25 ,000. Why the cap? Well, the stated reason, 00:05:18.810 --> 00:05:22.129 according to the report, was to stop, say, highly 00:05:22.129 --> 00:05:24.589 paid partners in law firms or similar fields 00:05:24.589 --> 00:05:27.110 from gaming the system. You know, taking a tiny 00:05:27.110 --> 00:05:29.649 salary and then millions in tips from their partners 00:05:29.649 --> 00:05:33.050 to avoid taxes. I see. And AOC had some strong 00:05:33.050 --> 00:05:35.490 words about this. She did. The source quotes 00:05:35.490 --> 00:05:37.810 her directly. She said, so if you're at home, 00:05:38.009 --> 00:05:40.149 and you're living off tips, you do the math, 00:05:40.490 --> 00:05:43.110 is that worth it to you? Losing all your health 00:05:43.110 --> 00:05:45.550 care, not able to feed your babies, not being 00:05:45.550 --> 00:05:48.189 able to put a diaper on their bottom in exchange 00:05:48.189 --> 00:05:50.769 for what? Pretty powerful stuff. Definitely puts 00:05:50.769 --> 00:05:52.689 it in perspective. But there were other catches 00:05:52.689 --> 00:05:55.269 too, right? Things not widely discussed. Oh, 00:05:55.269 --> 00:05:58.170 yeah. The analysis points out several. First, 00:05:58.589 --> 00:06:00.970 this whole thing expires at the end of 2028. 00:06:01.069 --> 00:06:04.610 It's temporary. OK. It only applies to tips that 00:06:04.610 --> 00:06:06.709 are actually reported to the employer for payroll 00:06:06.709 --> 00:06:09.879 taxes. So cash under the table doesn't count. 00:06:10.199 --> 00:06:12.899 Makes sense. And it only helps workers whose 00:06:12.899 --> 00:06:15.180 income is below a certain level. If you earn 00:06:15.180 --> 00:06:17.420 so little, you don't owe federal income tax anyway. 00:06:17.639 --> 00:06:19.759 This doesn't help you. So not everyone benefits. 00:06:20.100 --> 00:06:23.160 No. Plus, there are limits on which industries 00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:25.600 are covered. It's not universal. And it's only 00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:28.199 federal taxes. Doesn't touch state taxes on tips. 00:06:28.800 --> 00:06:30.259 And then there's the question of whether people 00:06:30.259 --> 00:06:33.439 might tip less now. Exactly. If tippers think 00:06:33.439 --> 00:06:35.519 the worker isn't paying taxes on it, will they 00:06:35.519 --> 00:06:39.480 reduce the tip? It's an open question. So bottom 00:06:39.480 --> 00:06:42.920 line, it's not some huge windfall. Maybe better 00:06:42.920 --> 00:06:45.519 than nothing for some, as the report says. That 00:06:45.519 --> 00:06:48.180 seems fair. But the broader implication is interesting. 00:06:48.379 --> 00:06:50.139 Could this encourage workers who don't normally 00:06:50.139 --> 00:06:53.620 get tips to start asking? Like plumbers, mechanics. 00:06:53.800 --> 00:06:56.300 Right. Plumbers, auto mechanics, maybe even accountants, 00:06:56.360 --> 00:06:58.699 the report suggests. And given that a lot of 00:06:58.699 --> 00:07:00.939 people already feel tipping culture is out of 00:07:00.939 --> 00:07:03.399 control. This could just make that feeling worse. 00:07:03.709 --> 00:07:06.350 It potentially could, yeah. This idea of tipping 00:07:06.350 --> 00:07:09.189 creep into new areas, it shows how even small 00:07:09.189 --> 00:07:11.569 policy details can have these wider ripple effects. 00:07:11.790 --> 00:07:14.449 OK, moving beyond specific bills, let's talk 00:07:14.449 --> 00:07:16.230 about power dynamics. The relationship between 00:07:16.230 --> 00:07:18.730 Trump and Elon Musk, for example. That seems 00:07:18.730 --> 00:07:22.850 complicated. Yes, complicated is a good word. 00:07:23.949 --> 00:07:26.290 The document points out Trump's history of turning 00:07:26.290 --> 00:07:30.360 on allies, even major supporters. Musk seems 00:07:30.360 --> 00:07:32.420 to be the latest example. Despite Musk giving 00:07:32.420 --> 00:07:34.779 a lot of money in 2024. A substantial amount, 00:07:34.920 --> 00:07:38.220 yes. Musk says he's out of politics for 2025, 00:07:38.740 --> 00:07:42.439 but the analysis expects him back in 2026. Why? 00:07:42.860 --> 00:07:45.279 Well, $100 million isn't much to him, relatively 00:07:45.279 --> 00:07:47.600 speaking, and the analysis suggests he enjoys 00:07:47.600 --> 00:07:50.860 playing kingmaker. So Trump isn't buying Musk's 00:07:50.860 --> 00:07:53.139 political paws. Doesn't seem like it. He's already 00:07:53.139 --> 00:07:56.139 launching a counter move, a new super pack. It's 00:07:56.139 --> 00:07:59.009 called Full Support for Donald. FSD pack. FSD, 00:07:59.170 --> 00:08:01.389 like full self -driving. A clear dig at Musk. 00:08:01.430 --> 00:08:04.170 A very clear dig. The strategy, apparently, is 00:08:04.170 --> 00:08:06.529 for Trump to get friendly billionaires. Ones 00:08:06.529 --> 00:08:07.870 who, you know, might want something from the 00:08:07.870 --> 00:08:09.870 government to fund this pack. To match or neutralize 00:08:09.870 --> 00:08:12.709 Musk's money. Essentially, yes. And the report 00:08:12.709 --> 00:08:15.470 dismisses Musk's talk of a new party as vaporware. 00:08:15.810 --> 00:08:18.870 Vaporware? Meaning unlikely to happen. Very unlikely. 00:08:19.610 --> 00:08:22.000 Not because of money. But because there's just 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:24.939 no real demand for it, the analysis argues. Plus, 00:08:24.980 --> 00:08:27.279 think about the challenges a third party president 00:08:27.279 --> 00:08:30.319 would face in Congress. Total gridlock, worse. 00:08:30.639 --> 00:08:34.080 Probably worse. The report suggests every Republican 00:08:34.080 --> 00:08:36.279 and Democrat would likely want that president 00:08:36.279 --> 00:08:40.539 to fail just to crush the third party idea. OK, 00:08:40.779 --> 00:08:43.539 from individual power plays to something more 00:08:43.539 --> 00:08:47.059 institutional, the DOJ's denaturalization program, 00:08:47.059 --> 00:08:49.899 it seems to be expanding. Yes. That's a significant 00:08:49.899 --> 00:08:52.480 development highlighted in the source. Trump's 00:08:52.480 --> 00:08:55.279 focus on deportation isn't just on those here 00:08:55.279 --> 00:08:57.100 illegally anymore. Who else are they targeting? 00:08:57.539 --> 00:08:59.559 Legally naturalized citizens. People who went 00:08:59.559 --> 00:09:01.639 through the whole process became citizens. But 00:09:01.639 --> 00:09:04.059 now the DOJ wants to strip that citizenship away. 00:09:04.460 --> 00:09:06.620 On what grounds? That's where it gets concerning. 00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:09.679 The reasons are described as broad, potentially 00:09:09.679 --> 00:09:11.919 vague could be something that happened before 00:09:11.919 --> 00:09:14.899 or after they became citizens. The source even 00:09:14.899 --> 00:09:17.100 raises the possibility of targeting people for 00:09:17.100 --> 00:09:19.980 exercising First Amendment rights or just for 00:09:19.980 --> 00:09:23.019 opposing Trump. That sounds alarming. Is there 00:09:23.019 --> 00:09:26.360 a concrete example? The document gives one. Representative 00:09:26.360 --> 00:09:30.279 Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, he's 00:09:30.279 --> 00:09:34.240 proposed stripping Zoran Mamdani. of his citizenship. 00:09:34.440 --> 00:09:37.559 And Mamdani is? A naturalized citizen born in 00:09:37.559 --> 00:09:41.139 Uganda. And the reason Ogles gave, Mamdani won 00:09:41.139 --> 00:09:44.200 the Democratic primary for NYC mayor. Just for 00:09:44.200 --> 00:09:46.320 winning a primary. That's what the source states 00:09:46.320 --> 00:09:49.539 Ogles cited. And the report expects we'll see 00:09:49.539 --> 00:09:52.559 more cases like this. Wow. This really ties into 00:09:52.559 --> 00:09:54.960 a broader theme, doesn't it? This decline of 00:09:54.960 --> 00:09:58.159 the political center. Absolutely. It feels like 00:09:58.159 --> 00:10:00.480 that Yates quote, things fall apart. The Senate 00:10:00.480 --> 00:10:03.139 cannot hold. We're seeing it play out. With retirements, 00:10:03.159 --> 00:10:05.940 for example. Exactly. Look at two high profile 00:10:05.940 --> 00:10:07.820 moderate Republicans mentioned in the source. 00:10:08.500 --> 00:10:10.220 Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina. Right, 00:10:10.360 --> 00:10:12.620 you mentioned him earlier. A moderate. Trump 00:10:12.620 --> 00:10:14.159 threatened him with a primary challenge from 00:10:14.159 --> 00:10:16.519 the right. And now Tillis has announced he's 00:10:16.519 --> 00:10:19.000 not running again. He's only 64. Could have served 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:21.659 for years. Decades, potentially, if there was 00:10:21.659 --> 00:10:23.620 still a strong place for moderates and swing 00:10:23.620 --> 00:10:26.309 states. He's apparently lamented the rise of 00:10:26.309 --> 00:10:28.649 tribal politics, the lack of bipartisanship. 00:10:28.870 --> 00:10:32.049 He made some comment about how bipartisanship 00:10:32.049 --> 00:10:34.470 is viewed differently depending on the party. 00:10:34.690 --> 00:10:36.970 Yeah, a really telling comment. How members of 00:10:36.970 --> 00:10:40.389 the other party get praised as heroes for working 00:10:40.389 --> 00:10:42.669 across the aisle. But if you do it within your 00:10:42.669 --> 00:10:45.169 own party, you're labeled a traitor. We've seen 00:10:45.169 --> 00:10:48.190 that before. Romney, Corker, Flake. Exactly. 00:10:48.350 --> 00:10:50.549 Same pattern. And the other example. Representative 00:10:50.549 --> 00:10:53.509 Don Bacon from Nebraska. Another Republican moderate, 00:10:54.029 --> 00:10:57.250 military background, wins repeatedly in a district 00:10:57.250 --> 00:11:00.129 that leans Democratic. A D plus three district, 00:11:00.190 --> 00:11:02.990 the report says. Right. Impressive record. But 00:11:02.990 --> 00:11:05.710 even he apparently sees no future for moderates 00:11:05.710 --> 00:11:09.129 in the GOP right now. He's only 61. Again, could 00:11:09.129 --> 00:11:11.210 have served much longer. But feels there's no 00:11:11.210 --> 00:11:13.850 point if nobody's listening. Yeah. That's the 00:11:13.850 --> 00:11:16.149 sense you get from the analysis. The reality 00:11:16.149 --> 00:11:19.049 is few members are truly moderate anymore, and 00:11:19.049 --> 00:11:21.330 those who might lean that way often don't advertise 00:11:21.330 --> 00:11:24.210 it. Because the base demands purity. Extreme 00:11:24.210 --> 00:11:27.049 partisanship combined with a country that's almost 00:11:27.049 --> 00:11:30.389 evenly split. Yeah. If you're not seen as fighting 00:11:30.389 --> 00:11:32.389 tooth and nail for the party line, you've got 00:11:32.389 --> 00:11:35.289 a big problem with your base. It's just a very 00:11:35.289 --> 00:11:37.509 tough environment for moderates today. Which 00:11:37.509 --> 00:11:40.149 leads us neatly into the Senate retirement watch. 00:11:40.519 --> 00:11:42.980 Seven already announced, which the source says 00:11:42.980 --> 00:11:45.559 is above average. It is. We've got Tuberville 00:11:45.559 --> 00:11:48.700 running for governor in Alabama, Durbin and McConnell 00:11:48.700 --> 00:11:51.799 stepping down due to age, health, Peters and 00:11:51.799 --> 00:11:54.220 Shaheen citing generational change, long service. 00:11:54.820 --> 00:11:56.460 Tina Smith apparently never really liked the 00:11:56.460 --> 00:11:59.399 job and Tillis forced out by the Trump threat. 00:11:59.799 --> 00:12:02.019 But the analysis also flagged some potential 00:12:02.019 --> 00:12:04.240 involuntary retirements, senators who might be 00:12:04.240 --> 00:12:06.980 pushed out or choose not to run. Right. Several 00:12:06.980 --> 00:12:10.100 names on that watch list. First, Joni Ernst in 00:12:10.100 --> 00:12:12.240 Iowa. Because of that, well, we are all going 00:12:12.240 --> 00:12:14.980 to die quote about the MAGA bill. Exactly. Democrats 00:12:14.980 --> 00:12:17.399 plan to hammer her with that. The thinking is 00:12:17.399 --> 00:12:19.940 if the bill proves unpopular in Iowa and her 00:12:19.940 --> 00:12:22.860 polls drop sharply, especially if there's a wider 00:12:22.860 --> 00:12:25.700 blue tsunami. She might just decide to bow out. 00:12:25.860 --> 00:12:28.559 OK, who else? John Cornyn in Texas. He's facing 00:12:28.559 --> 00:12:31.019 a really tough primary against Ken Paxton, the 00:12:31.019 --> 00:12:34.399 AG, who is extremely Trumpy. And if Trump endorses 00:12:34.399 --> 00:12:36.519 Paxton, that could be the end for Cornyn's run. 00:12:36.820 --> 00:12:38.620 The analysis suggests he might be forced into 00:12:38.620 --> 00:12:41.299 retirement. Now, Democrats winning an open Texas 00:12:41.299 --> 00:12:43.799 seat is still a long shot. But with a candidate 00:12:43.799 --> 00:12:47.100 like Paxton, the thinking is maybe Paxton says 00:12:47.100 --> 00:12:50.379 something so extreme that even Texas voters say 00:12:50.379 --> 00:12:54.250 no thanks. It's possible. if unlikely. Then there's 00:12:54.250 --> 00:12:56.909 Susan Collins in Maine. Yeah, she hasn't officially 00:12:56.909 --> 00:12:59.470 launched her campaign, voted against the big 00:12:59.470 --> 00:13:03.370 bill, which helps her maybe. But if Governor 00:13:03.370 --> 00:13:06.190 Janet Mills, a popular Democrat, decides to challenge 00:13:06.190 --> 00:13:09.009 her, Collins might just call it a career. And 00:13:09.009 --> 00:13:11.110 Bill Cassidy in Louisiana? He's tangled with 00:13:11.110 --> 00:13:13.750 Trump before, voted to convict in the second 00:13:13.750 --> 00:13:16.250 impeachment, I think. If Trump decides to back 00:13:16.250 --> 00:13:18.389 a primary challenger against him, Cassidy might 00:13:18.389 --> 00:13:20.190 just decide he'd rather go back to being Dr. 00:13:20.370 --> 00:13:22.549 Cassidy. He was a liver specialist. Interesting. 00:13:22.730 --> 00:13:24.610 So lots of potential shifts. What about the key 00:13:24.610 --> 00:13:27.350 open races, where the seat is definitely up for 00:13:27.350 --> 00:13:30.090 grabs? North Carolina is one to watch. The report 00:13:30.090 --> 00:13:33.549 says Democrats are almost praying that Lara Trump 00:13:33.549 --> 00:13:36.049 runs. Derek Trump's wife. That's her. She has 00:13:36.049 --> 00:13:38.649 local ties, but the analysis thinks her very 00:13:38.649 --> 00:13:40.990 Trumpy profile would energize Democrats like 00:13:40.990 --> 00:13:43.240 crazy. Especially a former governor Roy Cooper, 00:13:43.440 --> 00:13:45.679 who left office popular, gets in the race for 00:13:45.679 --> 00:13:48.259 the Dems. OK. New Hampshire. Looks like Chris 00:13:48.259 --> 00:13:50.659 Pappas, the Dem congressman, or Scott Brown, 00:13:50.759 --> 00:13:53.059 the former Republican senator from Massachusetts. 00:13:53.360 --> 00:13:55.519 Ah, so the carpetbagger attack is coming. You 00:13:55.519 --> 00:13:58.419 can bet on it. Pappas will hit that hard. Michigan's 00:13:58.419 --> 00:14:01.700 Democratic primary is crowded and messy. Several 00:14:01.700 --> 00:14:04.620 big names already in, maybe more to come. Still 00:14:04.620 --> 00:14:07.940 very unsettled. And Minnesota. That DFL primary 00:14:07.940 --> 00:14:10.870 Democratic farmer labor looks fascinating. Lieutenant 00:14:10.870 --> 00:14:13.590 Governor Peggy Flanagan, who's part Native American, 00:14:13.970 --> 00:14:16.750 versus Representative Angie Craig, who is a lesbian, 00:14:17.750 --> 00:14:19.889 the source calls it a big battle of which group 00:14:19.889 --> 00:14:23.690 is more deserving of the seat. Wow. And some 00:14:23.690 --> 00:14:25.850 states are basically locked, right? Yeah, Alabama, 00:14:25.970 --> 00:14:29.289 Illinois, Kentucky. The report says they're very 00:14:29.289 --> 00:14:31.570 unlikely to flip, regardless of the candidates, 00:14:31.610 --> 00:14:33.850 just too red or too blue. All right, let's shift 00:14:33.850 --> 00:14:35.830 gears one last time. There's this long -held 00:14:35.830 --> 00:14:38.350 belief in democratic circles that if they could 00:14:38.350 --> 00:14:41.000 just boost turnout, they'd win. The idea being 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:43.360 that non -voters are basically secret Democrats. 00:14:43.539 --> 00:14:45.679 Right. That's been a core assumption for a long 00:14:45.679 --> 00:14:48.320 time. But the analysis we looked at really challenges 00:14:48.320 --> 00:14:50.879 that. How so? What's the evidence? Well, there's 00:14:50.879 --> 00:14:52.919 a new Pew Research report mentioned. They did 00:14:52.919 --> 00:14:55.419 a deep dive, checked voting records, figured 00:14:55.419 --> 00:14:57.759 out the leanings of non -voters, and the results 00:14:57.759 --> 00:15:00.720 were surprising. Surprising how? If all the non 00:15:00.720 --> 00:15:04.179 -voters had voted in 2024, Pew found Trump's 00:15:04.179 --> 00:15:07.059 margin would have actually doubled. from 1 .5 00:15:07.059 --> 00:15:10.620 % to 3%. Doubled! So the non -voters leaned Republicans. 00:15:10.740 --> 00:15:12.500 That's what it suggests. The report even calls 00:15:12.500 --> 00:15:16.620 them lazy secret Republicans. Huh. Is that just 00:15:16.620 --> 00:15:19.919 one study? No, there's more. A Stanford study 00:15:19.919 --> 00:15:22.500 from 2020 looked at states that made voting easier 00:15:22.500 --> 00:15:25.419 versus those that didn't. Found basically no 00:15:25.419 --> 00:15:27.889 gain for either party. the extra voters split 00:15:27.889 --> 00:15:31.350 pretty evenly. And another study from the Public 00:15:31.350 --> 00:15:33.870 Policy Institute of California found making voting 00:15:33.870 --> 00:15:36.370 easier either had no real effect, or in some 00:15:36.370 --> 00:15:39.029 cases, it actually helped Trump slightly. So 00:15:39.029 --> 00:15:42.490 the whole more turnout automatically helps Democrats 00:15:42.490 --> 00:15:45.929 idea might be wrong. It's looking less certain 00:15:45.929 --> 00:15:48.009 based on this evidence. Now, election laws do 00:15:48.009 --> 00:15:50.309 matter, but campaigns adapt. How do they adapt? 00:15:50.610 --> 00:15:54.059 Well, if there are strict voter ID laws, Campaigns 00:15:54.059 --> 00:15:56.919 put more resources into voter education, registration 00:15:56.919 --> 00:15:59.759 drives. If mail -in voting gets easier, they 00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:02.259 focus more on outreach, ballot return efforts. 00:16:02.559 --> 00:16:05.100 More early voting means shifting resources to 00:16:05.100 --> 00:16:08.240 lock down votes earlier. It's complex. So the 00:16:08.240 --> 00:16:10.440 simple assumption. The simple assumption that 00:16:10.440 --> 00:16:13.220 non -voters are just lazy Democrats. The reports 00:16:13.220 --> 00:16:17.230 conclude that's not likely to be true. Why exactly 00:16:17.230 --> 00:16:19.909 non -voters skewed slightly Republican in 2024, 00:16:20.549 --> 00:16:22.789 or why easier voting doesn't automatically favor 00:16:22.789 --> 00:16:25.370 one party? Well, that's still not fully understood. 00:16:25.610 --> 00:16:28.230 The source mentions Fox News. Yeah, it throws 00:16:28.230 --> 00:16:30.509 that out as a possibility. Maybe non -voters 00:16:30.509 --> 00:16:33.070 are more exposed to conservative media, but it 00:16:33.070 --> 00:16:34.879 admits... More research is definitely needed 00:16:34.879 --> 00:16:37.019 to figure out the real reasons. OK, so we've 00:16:37.019 --> 00:16:38.899 really covered a lot of ground here. The intense 00:16:38.899 --> 00:16:41.360 maneuvering around the big bill, the fine print 00:16:41.360 --> 00:16:43.820 in that TIFS provision, shifting power plays 00:16:43.820 --> 00:16:46.740 between figures like Trump and Musk, the erosion 00:16:46.740 --> 00:16:49.120 of the political center, those Senate retirements, 00:16:49.320 --> 00:16:51.960 and now this surprising data on voter turnout. 00:16:52.320 --> 00:16:54.539 It paints a picture of a political landscape 00:16:54.539 --> 00:16:58.279 that's, well... incredibly fluid and maybe defying 00:16:58.279 --> 00:17:01.419 some old assumptions, highly transactional deals, 00:17:01.679 --> 00:17:04.319 a shrinking center, basic ideas about voting 00:17:04.319 --> 00:17:06.440 being challenged. So the final thought for our 00:17:06.440 --> 00:17:08.880 listeners, given everything we've just discussed, 00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:11.240 this transactional politics, the vanishing center, 00:17:11.720 --> 00:17:14.400 the overturned assumptions about voters, what 00:17:14.400 --> 00:17:16.420 does this tell you about the future, the future 00:17:16.420 --> 00:17:19.099 of compromise, maybe even the future of political 00:17:19.099 --> 00:17:21.319 identity in America? Yeah, what stands out to 00:17:21.319 --> 00:17:23.599 you? How do you see these currents reshaping 00:17:23.599 --> 00:17:25.859 things in the years ahead? It's definitely something 00:17:25.859 --> 00:17:28.059 to think about. Indeed. Thank you for joining 00:17:28.059 --> 00:17:29.119 us on this deep dive.