WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.819 OK, let's unpack this. Welcome, everyone, to 00:00:03.819 --> 00:00:06.620 the deep dive. We've got a fresh stack of sources 00:00:06.620 --> 00:00:09.160 here. And our mission is really to pull out the 00:00:09.160 --> 00:00:11.779 key insights for you. We're diving into the current 00:00:11.779 --> 00:00:14.119 political landscape today, some surprising legal 00:00:14.119 --> 00:00:16.640 stuff, election dynamics. Yeah, exactly. And 00:00:16.640 --> 00:00:19.739 what we're seeing in these sources, it's a really 00:00:19.739 --> 00:00:21.960 fascinating mix, isn't it? Legal challenges, 00:00:22.179 --> 00:00:24.460 these electoral strategies unfolding, and, well, 00:00:24.660 --> 00:00:27.010 some decisions that make you go, hmm. Our goal 00:00:27.010 --> 00:00:28.850 really is to help you connect those dots, not 00:00:28.850 --> 00:00:31.070 just the what, but the why it matters. Give you 00:00:31.070 --> 00:00:33.609 that shortcut to being properly informed. Absolutely. 00:00:34.009 --> 00:00:36.170 So let's jump right in with a legal case that, 00:00:36.170 --> 00:00:38.469 well, it could potentially change a lot. Ghislain 00:00:38.469 --> 00:00:41.909 Maxwell's Supreme Court case. Sources are detailing 00:00:41.909 --> 00:00:43.950 this alleged plan from Donald Trump trying to 00:00:43.950 --> 00:00:46.630 get Maxwell to testify against Democrats. The 00:00:46.630 --> 00:00:50.549 trade. a pardon. But, you know, it's not straightforward. 00:00:50.750 --> 00:00:52.429 Lots of ways it could fall apart. She might want 00:00:52.429 --> 00:00:54.570 that pardon up front. Maybe the base just won't 00:00:54.570 --> 00:00:57.509 buy her story. Or, and this is interesting, the 00:00:57.509 --> 00:00:59.009 Supreme Court might just step in and bail her 00:00:59.009 --> 00:01:01.750 out anyway. Right. And what's really insightful 00:01:01.750 --> 00:01:04.209 here, the core of her argument, comes down to 00:01:04.209 --> 00:01:07.590 one specific line in Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 plea 00:01:07.590 --> 00:01:11.430 deal, a line that neutral lawyers called unqualified. 00:01:11.640 --> 00:01:14.760 Okay. It basically said, the U .S. will not institute 00:01:14.760 --> 00:01:17.060 any criminal charges against any potential co 00:01:17.060 --> 00:01:20.980 -conspirators of Epstein. Just blanket immunity 00:01:20.980 --> 00:01:24.799 for unnamed people. Wow. Yeah. Legal experts 00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:27.680 looked at that and were frankly astonished. And 00:01:27.680 --> 00:01:29.260 it's worth remembering the U .S. attorney who 00:01:29.260 --> 00:01:31.439 signed off on that deal, Rene Alexander Acosta, 00:01:32.299 --> 00:01:34.859 he later became Trump's secretary of labor. Right. 00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:37.019 Now the government's lawyer, the solicitor general, 00:01:37.319 --> 00:01:39.680 is arguing they didn't know Maxwell's full role 00:01:39.680 --> 00:01:42.280 back then. So no immunity for her. OK, so let's 00:01:42.280 --> 00:01:44.620 play this out. If the court does rule for Maxwell, 00:01:44.939 --> 00:01:47.560 what does that mean beyond just her case? Are 00:01:47.560 --> 00:01:50.000 there wider implications for the justice system? 00:01:50.359 --> 00:01:52.319 That's a really profound question, actually. 00:01:52.519 --> 00:01:54.859 It touches on how justice is applied. Look, if 00:01:54.859 --> 00:01:57.019 they decide that plea deal did cover her, yeah, 00:01:57.060 --> 00:01:58.980 her conviction could get tossed, which helps 00:01:58.980 --> 00:02:01.079 Trump now. But connecting this to the bigger 00:02:01.079 --> 00:02:04.299 picture, think about it. It could totally change 00:02:04.299 --> 00:02:06.180 how the Department of Justice works going forward. 00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:10.419 I mean, imagine if plea deals could just be revoked 00:02:10.419 --> 00:02:13.520 later on. Defendants, especially ones with money 00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:16.039 who don't care about legal fees, might just say, 00:02:16.439 --> 00:02:19.580 nope, no deal. I'll risk trial. Right. You'd 00:02:19.580 --> 00:02:21.939 see way more cases going to court, stretching 00:02:21.939 --> 00:02:24.919 DOJ resources incredibly thin. It might even 00:02:24.919 --> 00:02:27.580 make it harder to convict people, letting more 00:02:27.580 --> 00:02:30.819 criminals potentially walk free. It really challenges 00:02:30.819 --> 00:02:33.539 the foundation of how the system manages cases 00:02:33.539 --> 00:02:36.659 and gets agreements. And sticking with the Epstein 00:02:36.659 --> 00:02:39.159 files for a moment, Chuck Schumer, the Senate 00:02:39.159 --> 00:02:41.180 minority leader, he's trying something too, right? 00:02:41.419 --> 00:02:44.580 Using some obscure law. Something about five 00:02:44.580 --> 00:02:46.460 members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee 00:02:46.460 --> 00:02:48.699 being able to demand documents. Yeah, that's 00:02:48.699 --> 00:02:50.699 the one. The House Government Operations Committee 00:02:50.699 --> 00:02:53.159 has a similar power, but they need seven members. 00:02:53.860 --> 00:02:57.199 So what are the odds of actually getting unredacted 00:02:57.199 --> 00:03:00.139 files this way? Is it likely? The sources we're 00:03:00.139 --> 00:03:02.639 looking at suggest the probability is, well, 00:03:03.340 --> 00:03:05.960 extremely low. Trump could just redact everything. 00:03:06.340 --> 00:03:08.340 Or challenge the law itself in the Supreme Court. 00:03:08.400 --> 00:03:10.900 OK. But the politics of it are still important. 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:14.020 regardless. You get Democrats pushing, being 00:03:14.020 --> 00:03:16.300 seen trying to release the files, Republicans 00:03:16.300 --> 00:03:19.340 blocking. Exactly. Democrats get asked, what's 00:03:19.340 --> 00:03:21.439 he hiding? And that could definitely play into 00:03:21.439 --> 00:03:23.939 the midterms. Maybe even keep some GOP voters 00:03:23.939 --> 00:03:27.159 home. So these legal fights keep bubbling up, 00:03:27.340 --> 00:03:29.580 throwing off political sparks. But it's not just 00:03:29.580 --> 00:03:32.439 courts and campaigns. We're also seeing pressure 00:03:32.439 --> 00:03:36.360 on major institutions, right? Universities. And 00:03:36.360 --> 00:03:39.830 these reports Frankly, they're disturbing Columbia 00:03:39.830 --> 00:03:43.090 supposedly paying 220 million dollars in protection 00:03:43.090 --> 00:03:46.330 money and now Harvard reportedly looking at paying 00:03:46.330 --> 00:03:48.990 500 million dollars just to continue to exist 00:03:48.990 --> 00:03:51.030 That's a phrasing from the source. It's the scale 00:03:51.030 --> 00:03:53.430 of it that's striking and what it implies I mean 00:03:53.430 --> 00:03:56.509 Harvard has what 53 billion dollars in the bank 00:03:56.509 --> 00:03:59.129 an army of brilliant lawyers. Yeah if they feel 00:03:59.129 --> 00:04:01.409 they have to pay half a billion dollars. The 00:04:01.409 --> 00:04:03.370 source suggests that points towards something 00:04:03.370 --> 00:04:06.270 pretty concerning, like deep institutional pressure, 00:04:06.370 --> 00:04:09.729 maybe even bordering on, well, the source uses 00:04:09.729 --> 00:04:12.650 the term fascism. That's strong language. It 00:04:12.650 --> 00:04:15.370 is. And the crucial questions aren't just about 00:04:15.370 --> 00:04:18.589 the cash. It's about the precedent. Does the 00:04:18.589 --> 00:04:21.069 government get a say in university policies now? 00:04:21.649 --> 00:04:25.470 Protests, speakers, hiring, admissions. curriculum. 00:04:25.910 --> 00:04:28.029 Because Penn settled earlier, but that was policy 00:04:28.029 --> 00:04:30.829 changes, no money. Exactly. Ben changed policies, 00:04:30.870 --> 00:04:33.569 but didn't pay. If Harvard caves on the money 00:04:33.569 --> 00:04:36.529 demand, it sets a really dangerous precedent, 00:04:36.810 --> 00:04:38.910 makes it much harder for any other university 00:04:38.910 --> 00:04:41.290 to resist similar pressure down the line. You 00:04:41.290 --> 00:04:43.490 know, after talking about all these legal and 00:04:43.490 --> 00:04:45.089 institutional fights, maybe we should check the 00:04:45.089 --> 00:04:46.990 public mood. Let's look at Donald Trump's approval 00:04:46.990 --> 00:04:48.589 ratings. What are the latest polls telling us? 00:04:48.709 --> 00:04:50.129 Our sources seem pretty clear on this. Yeah, 00:04:50.170 --> 00:04:53.500 they are. He's deeply underwater, consistently 00:04:53.500 --> 00:04:55.939 at or below 40 % approval. Gallup just had him 00:04:55.939 --> 00:05:00.360 at 37%. And the trend is just unmistakable. Since 00:05:00.360 --> 00:05:02.939 the start of his term is net approval, that's 00:05:02.939 --> 00:05:05.779 approval minus disapproval, it's dropped 18 points 00:05:05.779 --> 00:05:09.220 from plus 9 to minus 9. How does that stack up 00:05:09.220 --> 00:05:11.160 historically? Pretty stark when you compare. 00:05:11.680 --> 00:05:14.420 At similar points, Biden was plus 10 net. Obama 00:05:14.420 --> 00:05:18.720 plus 18, George W. Bush plus 24. So quite a difference. 00:05:18.899 --> 00:05:21.399 Huge. And what's really driving this drop, what's 00:05:21.399 --> 00:05:24.180 illuminating here? Independence. They have really 00:05:24.180 --> 00:05:27.120 soured on him. He's got a minus 33 net disapproval 00:05:27.120 --> 00:05:29.639 with independence. Minus 33. That's significant. 00:05:30.019 --> 00:05:32.040 And what about the details, the cross stabs? 00:05:32.100 --> 00:05:34.680 Who specifically is moving away? Well, the cross 00:05:34.680 --> 00:05:37.100 stabs really show it. He's losing ground with 00:05:37.100 --> 00:05:39.639 groups that used to be more solid form. Men, 00:05:39.879 --> 00:05:42.160 white voters, seniors, lower and middle income 00:05:42.160 --> 00:05:44.279 folks. And on the issues? For image across the 00:05:44.279 --> 00:05:46.339 board, he's in negative territory. Immigration, 00:05:46.439 --> 00:05:49.860 the economy, trade, education, abortion, climate 00:05:49.860 --> 00:05:52.459 change, especially inflation. People aren't happy. 00:05:52.779 --> 00:05:55.040 Are there any issues where he's doing OK? Honestly, 00:05:55.240 --> 00:05:57.699 looking at the data we have, those key areas 00:05:57.699 --> 00:06:01.100 are consistently showing negative ratings. It 00:06:01.100 --> 00:06:03.439 seems like broad dissatisfaction, not just focused 00:06:03.439 --> 00:06:06.000 on one or two things. OK. So that's the Republican 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:08.160 side. But the Democrats are making moves to write 00:06:08.160 --> 00:06:10.779 strategically. Let's talk about Kamala Harris. 00:06:11.339 --> 00:06:13.660 She decided not to run for governor of California. 00:06:14.339 --> 00:06:17.300 What is that signal? Presumably twenty twenty 00:06:17.300 --> 00:06:19.699 eight presidential run. It certainly looks that 00:06:19.699 --> 00:06:22.040 way. It's a very calculated decision. I mean, 00:06:22.139 --> 00:06:24.100 think about it. She's giving up what's almost 00:06:24.100 --> 00:06:26.680 a guaranteed governorship. California usually 00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:29.199 gives governors two terms right for a shot at 00:06:29.199 --> 00:06:30.959 the presidency, which is, you know, much longer 00:06:30.959 --> 00:06:33.550 odds. Yeah. Our sources figure. Her internal 00:06:33.550 --> 00:06:35.250 polling must look pretty decent for her to make 00:06:35.250 --> 00:06:37.069 that leap. What are her strengths and weaknesses 00:06:37.069 --> 00:06:39.110 looking ahead? Well, she's got strengths. The 00:06:39.110 --> 00:06:42.370 2024 campaign performance was seen as strong. 00:06:42.629 --> 00:06:45.970 She has name recognition, a network, fundraising 00:06:45.970 --> 00:06:48.970 potential. But challenges, too. Definitely. You 00:06:48.970 --> 00:06:51.759 hear some Democrats talking about wanting a quote, 00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:54.939 bland white man nominee. And then there's the 00:06:54.939 --> 00:06:57.740 direct rivalry with Governor Gavin Newsom, another 00:06:57.740 --> 00:06:59.980 Californian. They'll be competing for the same 00:06:59.980 --> 00:07:02.699 donors, the same delegates. That could get intense. 00:07:03.519 --> 00:07:06.379 And her decision not to run for governor, it 00:07:06.379 --> 00:07:09.040 shakes up that California race immediately, doesn't 00:07:09.040 --> 00:07:12.160 it? Oh, absolutely. It turns it into a real barn 00:07:12.160 --> 00:07:15.199 burner. Lots of Democrats jumping in. Katie Porter, 00:07:15.500 --> 00:07:17.439 the former rep, looks like an early favorite. 00:07:17.610 --> 00:07:19.790 And I read somewhere that this might actually 00:07:19.790 --> 00:07:22.310 help the California GOP. How does that work? 00:07:22.509 --> 00:07:24.670 Yeah, it's interesting. With so many Democrats 00:07:24.670 --> 00:07:27.089 potentially splitting the vote in California's 00:07:27.089 --> 00:07:29.290 top two primary. Where the top two finishers 00:07:29.290 --> 00:07:32.449 advance, regardless of party. Exactly. The leading 00:07:32.449 --> 00:07:34.990 Republican, who might only get, say, 25 percent 00:07:34.990 --> 00:07:37.689 of the vote, could actually sneak into that second 00:07:37.689 --> 00:07:40.069 spot for the general election. It creates an 00:07:40.069 --> 00:07:42.430 opening for them in a very blue state. OK, let's 00:07:42.430 --> 00:07:44.800 pivot to the Senate now. Democrats seem to be 00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:47.000 playing offense, trying to flip seats, even if 00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:49.079 they can't always get their first choice candidates. 00:07:49.620 --> 00:07:52.060 Right. They had a big win strategically in North 00:07:52.060 --> 00:07:54.519 Carolina. Former Governor Roy Cooper got in the 00:07:54.519 --> 00:07:56.439 race for that open seat, instantly makes it a 00:07:56.439 --> 00:07:58.839 toss up, maybe even leans slightly his way now. 00:07:59.060 --> 00:08:02.139 He's popular. Long track record. Formidable candidate. 00:08:02.259 --> 00:08:04.519 But other states are trickier. Yeah. Different 00:08:04.519 --> 00:08:07.160 challenges elsewhere. Maine, for example. Senator 00:08:07.160 --> 00:08:10.019 Susan Collins looks vulnerable, but Democrats 00:08:10.019 --> 00:08:12.740 really want Governor Janet Mills, whose term 00:08:12.740 --> 00:08:15.560 limited to run. If she doesn't, Chely Pingree, 00:08:15.660 --> 00:08:18.560 the representative, is Plan B. But Mills is the 00:08:18.560 --> 00:08:20.879 dream candidate there. OK. What about Alaska? 00:08:21.779 --> 00:08:24.199 Alaska? They're hoping Mary Peltola runs against 00:08:24.199 --> 00:08:26.480 Senator Dan Sullivan. She's won statewide twice 00:08:26.480 --> 00:08:30.180 already. But if she says no, there's no obvious 00:08:30.180 --> 00:08:32.250 Plan B right now. And then you have red states 00:08:32.250 --> 00:08:35.049 like Montana and Ohio. Right. But with strong 00:08:35.049 --> 00:08:37.590 Democratic incumbents, John Tester in Montana, 00:08:37.909 --> 00:08:40.309 Sherrod Brown in Ohio. These are guys who know 00:08:40.309 --> 00:08:43.409 how to win in tough territory, especially Brown, 00:08:43.590 --> 00:08:45.889 maybe. Ohio is less deep red and the Republican 00:08:45.889 --> 00:08:48.269 senator there was appointed, not elected. So 00:08:48.269 --> 00:08:50.250 potentially vulnerable. And Texas. I keep hearing 00:08:50.250 --> 00:08:52.490 about Texas. Yeah, Texas could get interesting 00:08:52.490 --> 00:08:55.529 if Ken Paxton wins the Republican primary. Sources 00:08:55.529 --> 00:08:58.350 suggest he might be a candidate quality problem 00:08:58.350 --> 00:09:01.330 for the GOP. Which helps Colin Allred, the Democrat. 00:09:01.590 --> 00:09:04.169 Exactly. Boost his chances. And then you have 00:09:04.169 --> 00:09:06.779 the real long shots. You know, Iowa, Nebraska, 00:09:06.940 --> 00:09:09.600 Florida, those depend on retirements or maybe 00:09:09.600 --> 00:09:11.840 a big blue wave year. Right. Sometimes it's less 00:09:11.840 --> 00:09:14.080 about the state and more about the specific opponent 00:09:14.080 --> 00:09:17.220 or some weird dynamic like Alaska's ranked choice 00:09:17.220 --> 00:09:20.460 voting. Precisely. Those factors can override 00:09:20.460 --> 00:09:23.100 the state's typical leanings sometimes. OK, let's 00:09:23.100 --> 00:09:25.740 shift down ballot to the House. 20 House members 00:09:25.740 --> 00:09:28.200 already announced they are not running in 2026. 00:09:28.659 --> 00:09:31.299 Why is that number significant? It's a big deal 00:09:31.299 --> 00:09:33.620 because open seats are just generally easier 00:09:33.620 --> 00:09:36.360 to flip. Than seats where an incumbent is running 00:09:36.360 --> 00:09:38.620 much easier. Okay. Now the sources point out 00:09:38.620 --> 00:09:40.740 a lot of the Republican retirees They're pretty 00:09:40.740 --> 00:09:43.899 safe districts. So not many pickup chances there 00:09:43.899 --> 00:09:46.240 for Democrats. Maybe John James or Don Bacon 00:09:46.240 --> 00:09:48.700 seats in Midwest That's about it. And on the 00:09:48.700 --> 00:09:51.179 Democratic side five Democratic seats are opening 00:09:51.179 --> 00:09:53.299 up. So those will be in play But what's also 00:09:53.299 --> 00:09:55.639 fascinating here is the retirement watch list. 00:09:55.639 --> 00:09:59.289 Mm -hmm particularly what the sources call the 00:09:59.289 --> 00:10:01.610 octodums. Octodums? Yeah, you know, Democrats 00:10:01.610 --> 00:10:04.549 in their 80s. Many are in safe districts. If 00:10:04.549 --> 00:10:07.169 they retire, it means opportunities for new blood 00:10:07.169 --> 00:10:09.269 helps build the party's bench for the future. 00:10:09.690 --> 00:10:11.649 Mikey Sherrill, for example, she was on that 00:10:11.649 --> 00:10:13.590 kind of list and now she's confirmed she's running 00:10:13.590 --> 00:10:15.590 for governor of New Jersey. Speaking of New Jersey, 00:10:16.230 --> 00:10:17.769 that governor's race is happening this year, 00:10:17.870 --> 00:10:20.070 right? One of the few big ones. Could it tell 00:10:20.070 --> 00:10:23.169 us anything about the national mood? It definitely 00:10:23.169 --> 00:10:25.399 could be an indicator. And the current polling, 00:10:25.639 --> 00:10:27.360 according to our sources, shows Mikey Sherrill, 00:10:27.419 --> 00:10:30.419 the Democrat, leading the Republican, Jack Sciattarelli. 00:10:30.860 --> 00:10:33.679 The lead is about eight points, 45 percent to 00:10:33.679 --> 00:10:36.720 37 percent. That's in a state considered D plus 00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:38.960 four, meaning it leans Democrat by about four 00:10:38.960 --> 00:10:41.879 points usually. So she's outperforming that baseline. 00:10:42.139 --> 00:10:44.139 What's the challenge for Sciattarelli then? Well, 00:10:44.200 --> 00:10:47.360 what's compelling is his dilemma. He needs those 00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:50.559 undecided independents. They currently favor 00:10:50.559 --> 00:10:52.850 Sherrill. though it's pretty close among them. 00:10:53.269 --> 00:10:56.110 But to win them over, does he distance himself 00:10:56.110 --> 00:10:59.250 from Trump? That risks alienating his Republican 00:10:59.250 --> 00:11:02.529 base. Or does he embrace Trump? And lose those 00:11:02.529 --> 00:11:04.889 crucial independents. It's a very fine line to 00:11:04.889 --> 00:11:07.090 walk, especially since he only lost by three 00:11:07.090 --> 00:11:09.870 points back in 2021. But he seems to be doing 00:11:09.870 --> 00:11:13.269 worse against Sheryl now. Tough spot. So with 00:11:13.269 --> 00:11:15.309 all this going on the retirements. Though the 00:11:15.309 --> 00:11:17.350 strategic calculations, what does it mean for 00:11:17.350 --> 00:11:19.690 someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, known as 00:11:19.690 --> 00:11:22.769 a, quote, fire -breathing Trumpist? She decided 00:11:22.769 --> 00:11:25.070 to stay in the House, even though sources point 00:11:25.070 --> 00:11:27.750 to two obvious opportunities for advancement, 00:11:28.230 --> 00:11:30.809 an open governor seat, a vulnerable Democratic 00:11:30.809 --> 00:11:32.690 senator. Yeah, it's interesting. The source speculates 00:11:32.690 --> 00:11:35.289 a few things. Maybe she just doesn't want to 00:11:35.289 --> 00:11:36.850 actually govern, you know, deal with the practical 00:11:36.850 --> 00:11:38.970 stuff like fixing potholes. Prefers the platform. 00:11:39.250 --> 00:11:42.370 Maybe. prefers the national spotlight, the incendiary 00:11:42.370 --> 00:11:44.769 tweets she can do from the House, or it could 00:11:44.769 --> 00:11:47.350 just be polling. Maybe polling showed she'd likely 00:11:47.350 --> 00:11:49.789 lose a statewide Senate race against Jon Ossoff 00:11:49.789 --> 00:11:53.149 because, as the source puts it, independents 00:11:53.149 --> 00:11:55.830 don't like her at all. So a calculated move based 00:11:55.830 --> 00:11:58.740 on her specific brand or electability? Seems 00:11:58.740 --> 00:12:01.559 like it. A specific political calculation rather 00:12:01.559 --> 00:12:03.860 than just a lack of ambition. She's playing the 00:12:03.860 --> 00:12:06.480 game her way. Wow. OK, what a deep dive that 00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:08.659 was. We really bounced around today from those 00:12:08.659 --> 00:12:11.179 intricate legal battles over the Epstein files, 00:12:11.460 --> 00:12:15.000 the pressure on places like Harvard to the big 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:17.240 shifts in approval ratings, especially with independence. 00:12:17.700 --> 00:12:20.019 And then all the strategic moves, Harris's decision, 00:12:20.200 --> 00:12:22.299 the Senate battlegrounds, House retirements that 00:12:22.299 --> 00:12:24.259 New Jersey raised. Yeah. And if you connect it 00:12:24.259 --> 00:12:26.360 all to the bigger picture, you really see how. 00:12:26.570 --> 00:12:29.250 Everything is constantly moving, constantly interconnected. 00:12:29.870 --> 00:12:32.529 Every little detail, a line in an old plea deal, 00:12:32.929 --> 00:12:35.529 one politician deciding to run or not run at 00:12:35.529 --> 00:12:38.750 all, adds a piece to this huge mosaic of American 00:12:38.750 --> 00:12:41.429 politics. And it really raises an important question, 00:12:41.490 --> 00:12:43.429 doesn't it? As all these threads keep developing, 00:12:43.629 --> 00:12:45.950 keep intertwining, how are they gonna collectively 00:12:45.950 --> 00:12:48.669 shape not just the next election, but maybe the 00:12:48.669 --> 00:12:51.059 very way we're governed in the years ahead? That 00:12:51.059 --> 00:12:52.840 is definitely something to think about. Maybe 00:12:52.840 --> 00:12:54.860 leave this for you, the listener, to ponder. 00:12:55.399 --> 00:12:58.500 Which of these surprising nuggets or strategic 00:12:58.500 --> 00:13:00.120 plays that we talked about today do you think 00:13:00.120 --> 00:13:01.659 will cause the biggest ripples in the coming 00:13:01.659 --> 00:13:02.960 months and why?