Welcome to the deep dive. Our mission here is,
well, pretty clear. We want to cut through all
the noise. It's straight to the point. Exactly.
Straight to the essential insights from quite
a stack of recent sources we've been looking
at. Today, we're taking a, hmm, a multifaceted
look at some recent political strategies, key
policy impacts, and just the ever -shifting landscape
of public opinion. And it's really striking,
you know, how these events that seem kind of
separate on the surface, they're not just isolated
things. When you zoom out a bit, they start to
reveal these important patterns. They're interconnected.
And that tells us a lot about the current political
climate, why it actually matters to you, the
listener. OK, so let's unpack this, then. Looking
at the landscape right now, one of the, I guess,
most glaring things jumping out from our sources
is this political distraction playbook, as we're
calling it. We're diving into the ongoing Epstein
affair. And, you know, the administration's pretty
clear attempts to shift the narrative away from
that. It seems like that initial tactic, the
sort of nothing to see here line. Yeah. That
just, well, it failed, according to the source.
And land. No. So the sources detail. a whole
variety of distraction strategies they tried
next, starting with legal moves. Ah, the legal
tactics. Yeah, the see you in court approach.
Remember the Trump administration's lawsuit against
the Wall Street Journal? Oh, yeah. Demanding.
What was that reported figure? Something like
eleventy bajillion dollars. Yeah, something deliberately
absurd like that. Huge damages claimed. And there's
a detail here that's pretty noteworthy. The judge
assigned is Darren Gales. He's gay, black, and
an Obama appointee. And it feels like judicial
deja vu, actually. Because he handled another
Trump case. Exactly. Gales previously oversaw
Trump's $50 million suit against Michael Cohen,
which was dropped right before discovery. So
the expectation node in the sources is that this
WSJ suit might just you know, follow the same
path, dropped for similar pre -discovery reasons.
And the key takeaway here, I think, is that the
White House isn't just stopping at lawsuits.
They're also trying to maybe punish the paper
in other ways. How so? Well, for instance, a
Wall Street Journal reporter, Tarini Pardee,
had her credential pulled for an upcoming UK
trip. And the thing is, she wasn't even involved
in the Epstein story. Interesting. So it makes
you wonder, right? What's the actual goal there?
Is it just punishing the journal or is it about
sending a you know a broader message? Mm -hmm
or just creating another news cycle beyond the
legal stuff the administration also went for
a Blame game distraction right starting with
the classic but Barack Obama Ah, yes. DNI Tulsi
Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence.
Yeah, she sent that criminal referral to the
Department of Justice. Something about Russian
interference in 2016 and the investigations around
it. Yeah, and the sources really suggest this
was, well, let's just say remarkably unserious.
Well, first, as Trump himself has often argued
in other situations, government employees, especially
presidents, have pretty broad leeway in their
official duties. Okay. Second, Gabbard didn't
even really identify an actual crime. It was
vague stuff, like a years -long coup against
someone who wasn't even in office in 2016. That
term coup seems misplaced there. It does. And
third, you've got the basic issue of statutes
of limitations, you know, three to five years
for most federal crimes, eight for terrorism,
unless it's like, you know, capital offense or
tax stuff. So way past the deadline. Pretty much
this whole Obama gambit. It just went nowhere,
which is probably why Gabbard shifted gears pretty
quick. And speaking of shifting gears, the next
move was the but Joe Biden approach. Speaker
Mike Johnson put out that video right with of
Democrats defending Biden's mental acuity. Yeah,
and framing it as the largest political cover
-up in U .S. history. Quite the claim. Quite
the claim, indeed. And it wasn't just Biden.
Trump also took aim at Senator Adam Schiff. Right.
Schiff targeted him over, what was it, an alleged
misrepresentation of his primary residence for
mortgage rates. That's the one. You know, the
effectiveness of that particular attack seems
questionable. I mean, Schiff knows he's constantly
under scrutiny. I think. It seems highly doubtful
there was anything really wrong there. He said
he had a lawyer check at all. It was fine. And
honestly, a lower mortgage rate for a US senator,
you could justify that pretty easily. It's probably
easier to get money back from them. Plus the
irony. Oh, the irony is thick. Trump criticizing
someone else's real estate borrowing. Yeah. So
as a distraction, that shift story just sort
of fizzled. Pretty much. It's a bit complicated,
you know, mortgage rates. And while Trump clearly
dislikes Schiff intensely. A personal bugaboo,
as the source puts it. But he doesn't really
fire up the base in the same way, maybe a broader
deep state narrative might. It didn't catch on.
OK, so beyond the blame game, we also saw the
enemies at the gate strategy. This involved pulling
back National Guard troops and Marines from Los
Angeles. after they'd been sent there for immigration
crackdowns. Yeah, and what's interesting is the
shift in focus then to New York City. Right,
the plan to flood the zone with ICE agents there.
And the sources kind of analyze why NYC might
be the target. There are fewer Latinos there
compared to LA. OK. And many of the Latinos who
are there are Puerto Rican citizens, which...
you know, could lead to more false arrests, potentially
bad PR if they're not careful. But on the other
hand, maybe they see New York's mayor, Eric Adams,
as more pliant, as one source put it, compared
to Ellie's Karen Bass, who really pushed back.
So maybe just looking for a fresh target, new
headlines. Could be. Maybe hoping to stir up
some new outrage somewhere else. And there were
the culture wars. Always a go -to. Yep. Trump
demanded the Cleveland Guardians baseball team
and the Washington Commanders football team switch
back to their old names. Indians and Redskins.
Right. And the response is pretty swift. The
Guardians said no, basically immediately. And
the Commander. Their new leadership seems uninterested,
but they have to be a bit more careful, you know,
with stadium deals potentially in the works.
But the real kicker here is the irony again,
isn't it? Oh, absolutely. People all over social
media dug up Trump's own tweet from like 12 years
ago. What did it say? Basically advising that
a president shouldn't be telling teams to change
their names because the country have far bigger
problems. Wow. That does highlight maybe a miscalculation
about how people would react this time. Seems
like it. So after the whole Obama gambit didn't
work out, Gabbard pivoted again, her final shift.
We're calling it, OK, we will release the files.
Right. Announcing the release of, what, 230 ,000
pages of files related to the Martin Luther King
Jr. assassination. OK. But zooming out, the sources
assess this, and, well, these files are almost
60 years old. Not exactly breaking news. No.
And they weren't really highly anticipated by
anyone, it seems. In fact, Baronee's King, MLK's
daughter, actually opposed releasing them on
social media. Huh. So what was the thinking there,
supposedly? That's the question the sources raise.
I mean, the sheer lack of connection to current
events suggests either, you know, real desperation.
Or just completely misjudging what might actually
distract people. Exactly. A profound disconnect.
Maybe raising questions about, well, judgment.
So if we sum up the effectiveness of all these
different distractions... The sources seem pretty
clear. Yeah, none of them really seem to be working.
Right -wing media is still just wall -to -wall
Epstein coverage. Which probably signals some
real concern inside the White House. Definitely.
And this connects to Speaker Mike Johnson's actions,
right, with the Epstein -Files vote in the House.
Yeah, exactly. He's pushed the vote back until
September. The reason given. The upcoming recess.
But that creates problems. Oh, yeah. Several.
For one, a lot of Republican members actually
want that vote. They don't want to spend the
next month back home getting hammered with Epstein
questions. Can't blame them. No. And some have
apparently made it clear they'll try to force
votes on it anyway, you know, by adding release
the files amendments to basically everything
else that comes up. So that leaves the House
stuck. Pretty much. The only option seems to
be just do nothing this week. twiddle their thumbs,
as one source put it, before getting out of DC
for 39 days. And that sets up potential issues
down the line. Big time. This gridlock, combined
with other factors, could easily lead toward
a government shutdown by October 1st if they
don't get a budget passed. Wow. OK. So with all
these internal pressures, these failed distractions,
how are the actual core policies playing out
with the public? What do the polls say? What's
the real world impact? Let's maybe transition
to the economy first. Look at the U .S. tourist
industry. Just to set the stage, it's huge. The
U .S. generates almost, what, $2 .4 trillion
in tourist revenue every year? And over a trillion
of that is from foreign tourism. That's a staggering
amount of money. It really is. And our sources
point out there were already things negatively
impacting tourism before this latest move. Like
what? Well, you know, past talk about annexing
Canada or buying Greenland, the ongoing trade
wars. Right. Even reports about the risk of detention
for people from certain countries or just having,
you know, critical memes on your phone when you
arrive. Stuff that doesn't exactly scream welcome.
Not really. And now there's this new development.
The visa integrity fee. Exactly. The White House
announced this new $250 fee on top of existing
visa costs. And it's imposed under the BBB authority.
What does that mean exactly? Yeah. The BBB authority,
it's basically a broad legislative power, often
used for budget or administrative changes. And
the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has
discretion in how it's applied. OK. But not everyone
pays it. Right. It's important to note that countries
in the visa waiver program, that's mostly European
nations, they're exempt if they're just coming
for a short stay. And refunds are supposedly
possible. but the details are vague, involves
jumping through some unspecified hoops. So what
are the potential goals here, according to the
sources? Why do this? Well, the sources float
about four possibilities. One, maybe discourage
non -Europeans, specifically from coming. Two,
maybe it's about collecting extra information
on those visitors. Three, maybe deterring people
who overstay their visas, though the sources
doubt it'd be very effective for that. And the
fourth? Or... You know, maybe it's just about
bringing in money for the government through
fees people end up forfeiting. What really struck
me here, though, is the paradox. This policy
could actually hurt states that voted for the
administration. How so? Well, think about the
top tourism states. Florida is number two for
tourism revenue. Texas is number four. Tennessee
is number 10. And those are states that have
generally supported this administration. Exactly.
So it seems potentially counterproductive on
that front. Interesting point. Let's let's pivot
now to the wider view, public opinion overall,
because the sources are highlighting, well, lots
of bad polls for Trump. Yeah, it really underscores
that difference between making promises on the
campaign trail and actually governing. Definitely.
The overall approval ratings, they show this
consistent downward trend looking from May through
July. Like the economist YouGov polls had his
net disapproval going from negative five percent
down to 14 percent. It's quite a drop. Significant.
And the poll aggregators, the ones that average
lots of polls together, they also show Trump
at or near double digit disapproval now. So given
those overall numbers, let's maybe drill down
a bit. Look at the polling on three specific
core Trump V2 .0 policies. OK, where should we
start? How about the BBB? The big bad bill. Right,
the BBB. Public opinion on that one is running
almost two to one against it. Wow. Yeah, a recent
CNNSSRS poll found 61 % disapprove, only 39 %
approve. And didn't the CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, just come out with its final scoring?
They did. And it projects a $3 .4 trillion increase
in deficit spending over 10 years. And maybe
even more impactfully, it projects that roughly
10 million people are likely to lose their health
insurance because of it. 10 million. That's a
huge number. It is. And this brings up a really
critical point from the sources. Historically,
voters don't really vote based on deficits. It's
too abstract. But. The idea, the very concrete
reality of, I had health insurance and now I
don't. That's something people understand immediately.
Very relatable, very tangible. Exactly. That
could be a major problem, Maria. OK, so that's
the BBB. What about tariffs? Tariffs? Also pretty
unpopular, similar numbers to the BBB, actually.
A CBS YouGov poll shows 60 % oppose them, only
40 % support. And what about inflation? People
connect the tariffs to that. Seems so. That same
poll found 64 percent think Trump isn't doing
enough on inflation, and 62 percent believe his
actions, presumably including tariffs, have already
raised prices. So people are feeling it in their
wallets. Apparently. And what's really interesting
here is the breakdown. Harris voters. They strongly
oppose the tariffs. 86 percent think they hurt
the U .S. Makes sense. But even among Trump's
own voters, the support is kind of soft. Only
63 % think tariffs help, while a significant
chunk, 27%, actually think they hurt. Almost
a third of his own supporters aren't sold on
a core policy. Exactly. It suggests a real vulnerability
there. A core policy isn't even overwhelmingly
popular with his own base. OK, EB unpopular,
tariffs unpopular. What about the immigration
crackdowns? This one really jumped out at me
from the sources. Ah, yes. This is where it gets
really interesting, as you say. There's been
a major shift in approval. How major? Well, back
in March. Approval for the crackdowns was at
54 percent. By July, it had dropped to 44 percent.
Wow, that's a 10 point drop. Wait, no, a 20 point
swing if you consider approval versus disapproval
change in just four months. Yeah, a really significant
shift. And it aligns with broader findings from
Gallup. What did Gallup find? They track the
percentage of people who want immigration decreased.
In early 2024, that was 55 percent. Now it's
down to 30 percent. Huge drop. What's driving
that? Primarily Republican voters, actually.
In early 2024, 88 percent of Republicans wanted
immigration reduced. Now it's 48 percent. That's
a 40 point drop among Republicans alone. Incredible.
It really is. And maybe the most striking Gallup
result is about how people view immigrants themselves.
Approval is now the highest it's ever been since
they started polling this. 79 % of Americans
now view immigrants as a good thing for the country.
79%. That's higher than even 2014 or earlier
this year. Yeah, higher than both. It's a record
high. So what's the explanation for this dramatic
shift on immigration? Well, the sources offer
a couple of compelling possibilities. One is
that maybe for some voters, immigration was kind
of a proxy issue. A proxy for what? Like a way
to signal general dissatisfaction with previous
administrations. maybe Democrats, without getting
into specifics, just general discontent. OK,
that makes sense. And the other explanation.
The other idea, and maybe this is more powerful,
is that policies often sound good in theory,
in the abstract. Like secure our borders. Exactly.
That might sound appealing. But then when you
see the policy actually implemented the aggressive
crackdowns, the real world impacts, the families
affected, it becomes much less appealing for
many people. The reality bites. Something like
that. The abstract idea versus the concrete consequences.
So wrapping up this polling segment, the sources
kind of suggest something interesting about Trump's
behavior lately. What's that? That his angry,
erratic behavior, as one source puts it, it might
actually be a result of seeing these bad poll
numbers rather than the cause of them. So the
numbers are driving the behavior, not the other
way around. Potentially. I mean, the picture
isn't great for the administration, according
to these polls. Democrats still largely oppose
him. Independents mostly oppose him. And even
some slippage among Republicans, as we saw with
the tariffs and immigration numbers. Right. And
things could potentially get worse as the full
impact of policies like the BBB and the tariffs
really start to hit home for people. Not to mention
the Epstein scandal continuing to unfold. Exactly.
Lots of headwinds. Yeah. So with all these dynamics
swirling around, the failed distractions, the
shifting polls. What are the kind of immediate
future stakes, the political ramifications we
can see right now? No, there's a very specific
electoral opportunity that just opened up. Ah,
right. Representative Mark Green, Republican
from Tennessee. Yep. He officially resigned from
the House, specifically cited the BBB becoming
law as his reason. So that triggers a special
election in his district, TNO7. Exactly. And
this is pretty significant. It's an R plus 10
district. Meaning it leans Republican by about
10 points, typically. Right. But a Democratic
pickup isn't completely impossible, especially
in a special election environment. Is there a
precedent for that kind of upset? Well, the sources
point to Conor Lamb's win back in 2018. He won
a special election in PA 18, which was an R plus
11 district. Narrow win, but it happened. So
TNO7, R plus 10, it's within the realm of possibility,
maybe. It's seen as a benchmark for what's. Not
impossible, let's say. A real opportunity. And
we're already seeing candidates jump in. Oh yeah,
the race is already heating up. On the Republican
side, names like Jody Barrett, Lee Reeves, Matt
Van Eps, Jason Nider mentioned. And for the Democrats.
Afton Ben, Vincent Dixie, Bo Mitchell. Several
familiar names from the state legislature and
elsewhere. So what makes this particular special
election so crucial? Well, it's a really key
opportunity for Democrats to test out their messaging
for the 2026 midterms. Testing messages on what?
particularly around the Epstein situation, obviously,
but also the BBB. This is a chance to see how
effective those arguments are in a competitive
district. And for you, the listener, especially
if you're in Tennessee, this has direct local
impact, right? Absolutely. That CBO to projection
we talked about, 110 ,000 people in Tennessee
expected to lose health insurance. due to the
BBB. That breaks down to about 12 ,000 people
per congressional district on average. Roughly,
yeah. Now, most probably won't actually lose
their insurance before this special election
happens. Right. But the key will be how effective
the Democratic nominee is at convincing voters
in TNO7 that this potential loss is real. that
it's coming and that it's linked to the policies
they oppose. That'll be the messaging challenge.
Definitely. And this resignation, Mark Green
leaving, it also impacts the dynamics in the
House overall, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. Speaker
Mike Johnson was already working with a razor
thin majority. Now it's 219, 212. So he can barely
afford any defections on votes. Exactly. He can
only lose three Republicans, assuming everyone
votes. Basically, Thomas Massey plus two others.
Wow. That makes things like that Epstein files
vote or any other potentially contentious issue
where members might want to force a vote Incredibly
challenging for the leadership very little room
to maneuver. It really paints a picture of Congress
facing some serious hurdles Yeah between the
internal party pressures the slim majority the
looming deadline for a budget October 1st for
that potential government shutdown again, right?
if they don't pass a budget or at least a continuing
resolution. It really makes you wonder, why does
anyone ever run for Congress again? Good question
sometimes. Okay, so let's recap our deep dive
today. We've looked at the administration's pretty
extensive, multi -pronged efforts to distract
from the Epstein affair. Efforts that seem largely
unsuccessful so far, according to the sources.
Right, and we've seen these really surprising
shifts in public opinion on major policies, immigration
tariffs, the BBB. Yeah, the public mood seems
to be moving perhaps faster than anticipated.
And we've touched on the immediate consequences
like that special election in Tennessee and the
broader legislative challenges facing a very
narrowly divided house. And I think a key takeaway
looking across all these sources is the sheer
breadth and the rapid succession of these failed
distraction attempts. What is that? suggest to
you? Well it suggests maybe not just desperation
but perhaps a profound misreading by the administration.
A misreading of the public's current maybe capacity
for political deflection. Especially when faced
with a story like Epstein's. Exactly. A story
that seems to cut across the usual partisan lines
hits personal moral thresholds for a lot of people.
It might just be harder to change the subject
this time. So as we wrap up, something for you,
the listener, to think about. A final provocative
thought, perhaps. OK. Given this really complex
interplay, we've discussed the political strategies,
the shifting public opinion, the tangible impacts
of these policies. How might all these current
events shape things moving forward. Not just
the immediate political landscape. Right. Not
just the next election cycle, but maybe even
the fundamental relationship between voters and
the people they elect. What specific actions,
what shifts in strategy or tone might you expect
to see from politicians trying to navigate this
environment? That's a big question to ponder.
It is something to mull over. Thank you for joining
us on this deep dive.