WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.980 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Really glad you could 00:00:01.980 --> 00:00:04.660 join us. It's been, well, an incredibly dynamic 00:00:04.660 --> 00:00:07.559 week in our sources. Quite surprising in some 00:00:07.559 --> 00:00:09.820 ways. You've got material stretching all the 00:00:09.820 --> 00:00:12.820 way from high stakes political plays in Washington 00:00:12.820 --> 00:00:16.820 and around the country, right down to some unexpected 00:00:16.820 --> 00:00:19.440 shifts in just how people are living their lives. 00:00:20.649 --> 00:00:23.850 So our mission today, as always, is to cut through 00:00:23.850 --> 00:00:26.589 that noise. We want to pull out the key insights, 00:00:27.050 --> 00:00:29.429 help you connect the dots, so you walk away feeling 00:00:29.429 --> 00:00:33.020 truly informed. maybe even have a few aha moments. 00:00:33.259 --> 00:00:35.219 And that's really it, isn't it? Moving past the 00:00:35.219 --> 00:00:37.299 headlines to grasp why things are happening, 00:00:37.399 --> 00:00:40.380 why they matter. That's the goal, to unpack the 00:00:40.380 --> 00:00:43.759 context. Exactly. So let's dive right in. The 00:00:43.759 --> 00:00:45.579 executive branch has really been under the microscope 00:00:45.579 --> 00:00:47.700 this week, legally speaking. Lots of questions 00:00:47.700 --> 00:00:49.960 about authority, accountability. On multiple 00:00:49.960 --> 00:00:52.039 fronts, yeah. Let's start with one that's demanding 00:00:52.039 --> 00:00:55.119 answers about the past. The Jeffrey Epstein birthday 00:00:55.119 --> 00:00:58.439 book, The Deadline, September 8th. It's coming 00:00:58.439 --> 00:01:00.619 up fast for his estate to hand over that book 00:01:00.619 --> 00:01:03.579 from 2003 to the House Oversight Committee. And 00:01:03.579 --> 00:01:06.900 the big, the $64 billion question, as they say, 00:01:07.739 --> 00:01:10.439 is there a raunchy drawing in there from Donald 00:01:10.439 --> 00:01:13.700 Trump? He's denied it repeatedly, of course. 00:01:14.739 --> 00:01:16.920 Our sources outline a few ways this could go. 00:01:17.140 --> 00:01:19.540 If it's a bound book, pages numbered, and the 00:01:19.540 --> 00:01:22.219 card's in there, well, that makes the past denials 00:01:22.219 --> 00:01:24.340 a real problem. That's a very significant problem. 00:01:24.359 --> 00:01:27.500 But if it's bound and the card isn't there, Maybe 00:01:27.500 --> 00:01:29.780 he's off the hook, though apparently the Wall 00:01:29.780 --> 00:01:32.599 Street Journal's lawyers felt 100 % certain about 00:01:32.599 --> 00:01:34.920 their story originally, which complicates things. 00:01:34.959 --> 00:01:37.140 And does add a layer of complexity. But maybe 00:01:37.140 --> 00:01:40.040 the most intriguing possibility, that it's a 00:01:40.040 --> 00:01:42.319 loose leaf scrapbook. Right. Which means pages 00:01:42.319 --> 00:01:44.680 could potentially be removed or replaced pretty 00:01:44.680 --> 00:01:46.840 easily. Which raises serious questions about 00:01:46.840 --> 00:01:49.379 tampering. Exactly. And that's why people like 00:01:49.379 --> 00:01:51.840 FBI Director Cash Patel are calling for a forensic 00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:54.500 exam. Others suggest subpoenaing people who sent 00:01:54.500 --> 00:01:57.370 cards. or even Epstein's estate lawyers. And 00:01:57.370 --> 00:01:59.609 what's really fascinating here beyond the drawing 00:01:59.609 --> 00:02:03.489 itself is the bigger theme, accountability, especially 00:02:03.489 --> 00:02:05.810 with Alexandra Acosta's testimony coming up on 00:02:05.810 --> 00:02:09.389 September 19th. Okay, yeah. Remind us about Acosta's 00:02:09.389 --> 00:02:11.849 role again. He was the U .S. attorney back in 00:02:11.849 --> 00:02:15.969 2007 who gave Epstein that deal. widely seen 00:02:15.969 --> 00:02:18.430 as a slap on the wrist, right? Even though Epstein 00:02:18.430 --> 00:02:21.750 was looking at maybe 45 years for sex trafficking 00:02:21.750 --> 00:02:24.750 underage girls. Girls as young as 14, the sources 00:02:24.750 --> 00:02:26.830 say. Right. So Democrats are going to press him 00:02:26.830 --> 00:02:30.430 hard. Why the lenient deal? Was his later cabinet 00:02:30.430 --> 00:02:33.069 job under Trump some kind of reward? And you 00:02:33.069 --> 00:02:37.110 have to remember Acosta. He's Harvard Law clerk 00:02:37.110 --> 00:02:39.310 for Justice Alito. So he understands the gravity. 00:02:39.409 --> 00:02:42.490 Oh, absolutely. He knows very well that lying 00:02:42.490 --> 00:02:44.900 to Congress under Earth is a felony. This isn't 00:02:44.900 --> 00:02:47.460 just politics for him. It's serious legal territory. 00:02:47.719 --> 00:02:49.340 So this isn't just, you know, political theater. 00:02:49.340 --> 00:02:51.699 It's got real legal weight. You mentioned historical 00:02:51.699 --> 00:02:53.560 parallels earlier. Yeah, it reminds me a bit 00:02:53.560 --> 00:02:56.379 of Nixon. His downfall really kicked into high 00:02:56.379 --> 00:02:58.620 gear during those Watergate hearings. Remember 00:02:58.620 --> 00:03:00.819 Fred Thompson asking Alexander Butterfield that 00:03:00.819 --> 00:03:03.800 simple question? About the tapes. Exactly. Is 00:03:03.800 --> 00:03:06.599 there a taping system in the Oval Office? Butterfield 00:03:06.599 --> 00:03:09.879 says yes, and boom, the dam breaks. Sometimes 00:03:09.879 --> 00:03:11.939 asking the right question to the right person. 00:03:12.560 --> 00:03:15.439 It can change everything. It shows how truth 00:03:15.439 --> 00:03:18.780 can unravel even carefully constructed defenses. 00:03:19.460 --> 00:03:21.680 That's a powerful point. So for you listening, 00:03:21.819 --> 00:03:24.120 this isn't just digging up old news or focusing 00:03:24.120 --> 00:03:27.340 on, you know, salacious details. It's fundamentally 00:03:27.340 --> 00:03:30.240 about how truth and accountability work years 00:03:30.240 --> 00:03:33.340 later and how that shapes public trust in powerful 00:03:33.340 --> 00:03:35.580 figures. Precisely. And speaking of holding power 00:03:35.580 --> 00:03:38.330 accountable. This past Friday was really interesting. 00:03:38.729 --> 00:03:41.349 We saw courts pushing back directly on the powers 00:03:41.349 --> 00:03:43.469 of the executive branch itself, a kind of double 00:03:43.469 --> 00:03:46.030 whammy. A big one, yeah. First, those emergency 00:03:46.030 --> 00:03:47.849 tariffs got blocked. The U .S. Court of Appeals 00:03:47.849 --> 00:03:50.330 for the Federal Circuit ruled, pretty decisively, 00:03:50.389 --> 00:03:52.949 seven to four, that the president just has no 00:03:52.949 --> 00:03:55.349 authority to slap on tariffs using emergency 00:03:55.349 --> 00:03:57.710 powers. Because the Constitution gives that power 00:03:57.710 --> 00:03:59.990 to Congress. Exactly. The legislative branch, 00:04:00.069 --> 00:04:02.050 not the executive. It's right there in Article 00:04:02.050 --> 00:04:06.439 1. And the president's reaction was, well, Strong. 00:04:07.340 --> 00:04:10.379 He said, if allowed to stand, this decision would 00:04:10.379 --> 00:04:12.639 literally destroy the United States of America, 00:04:12.680 --> 00:04:15.800 which, as our sources note, seems a bit at odds 00:04:15.800 --> 00:04:20.040 with 249 years of constitutional understanding. 00:04:20.399 --> 00:04:22.860 Just a bit. Yeah. So the big picture here is 00:04:22.860 --> 00:04:26.259 a major reassertion of checks and balances. So 00:04:26.259 --> 00:04:27.959 what happens now? It goes to the Supreme Court. 00:04:28.220 --> 00:04:30.879 It's heading there. Appeal slated for October 00:04:30.879 --> 00:04:34.399 14th. And the court faces a really stark choice. 00:04:34.639 --> 00:04:37.560 follow the Constitution, or follow Donald Trump. 00:04:38.040 --> 00:04:40.079 If they uphold the appeals court. Well, that 00:04:40.079 --> 00:04:43.120 puts a big crimp in Trump's style. Also. Well, 00:04:43.180 --> 00:04:45.480 not only does he lose a favorite tool for economic 00:04:45.480 --> 00:04:48.000 leverage, but it could mean massive refunds on 00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:50.319 tariffs already paid. Billions, potentially. 00:04:50.579 --> 00:04:52.800 He could try other tariff methods or ask Congress. 00:04:53.120 --> 00:04:55.259 But that's tougher, right? With a narrow majority 00:04:55.259 --> 00:04:57.879 and lots of free traders in his own party. Much 00:04:57.879 --> 00:04:59.800 tougher. And, you know, it's worth remembering 00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:01.860 Congress kind of ceded some of this authority 00:05:01.860 --> 00:05:04.459 in the first place. But this ruling pulls it 00:05:04.459 --> 00:05:06.480 back firmly. Okay, and this pattern of courts 00:05:06.480 --> 00:05:08.519 pushing back didn't stop with tariffs, did it? 00:05:08.779 --> 00:05:10.800 There was another ruling on immigration. That's 00:05:10.800 --> 00:05:13.779 right. U .S. District Judge Gia Ka blocked the 00:05:13.779 --> 00:05:16.120 administration's fast -track removal process. 00:05:16.319 --> 00:05:19.459 She found it violated the law. And this process? 00:05:19.560 --> 00:05:22.750 Yeah. Wasn't it originally meant for very specific 00:05:22.750 --> 00:05:25.850 cases, like recent arrivals near the border? 00:05:26.069 --> 00:05:28.310 Exactly. People caught within 100 miles of the 00:05:28.310 --> 00:05:30.910 border in the country less than two weeks. But 00:05:30.910 --> 00:05:32.970 the administration started using it way more 00:05:32.970 --> 00:05:35.649 broadly, deporting people who'd been here a long 00:05:35.649 --> 00:05:38.730 time far from the border, like that example from 00:05:38.730 --> 00:05:41.949 a slaughterhouse in Iowa. And Judge Ka brought 00:05:41.949 --> 00:05:44.740 up a fundamental point. due process. She said, 00:05:44.819 --> 00:05:46.740 everyone in the US has a right to due process, 00:05:46.920 --> 00:05:49.139 even those people in the country illegally. Even 00:05:49.139 --> 00:05:51.879 those here illegally? Yes. She pointed out that 00:05:51.879 --> 00:05:54.819 ICE was basically using arbitrary quotas, like 00:05:54.819 --> 00:05:57.839 aiming for 3 ,000 arrests a day. That led to 00:05:57.839 --> 00:06:00.100 things like staking out courthouses, potentially 00:06:00.100 --> 00:06:02.360 grabbing citizens or legal residents without 00:06:02.360 --> 00:06:04.439 giving them a proper hearing. The government 00:06:04.439 --> 00:06:06.720 can deport people, but it has to follow the legal 00:06:06.720 --> 00:06:09.699 process, period. So across the board, we're seeing 00:06:09.699 --> 00:06:13.319 courts drawing lines, reinforcing Congress's 00:06:13.319 --> 00:06:17.040 power and individual rights, like due process. 00:06:17.560 --> 00:06:20.379 These aren't just technical legal points for 00:06:20.379 --> 00:06:22.480 you listening. They're about the fundamental 00:06:22.480 --> 00:06:24.680 structure of our government and basic rights. 00:06:24.819 --> 00:06:27.480 Foundational stuff. OK, let's shift gears slightly. 00:06:27.740 --> 00:06:30.120 There's another power struggle brewing, this 00:06:30.120 --> 00:06:32.100 time involving Congress's power of the purse. 00:06:33.360 --> 00:06:35.819 The September 30th government shutdown deadline 00:06:35.819 --> 00:06:38.959 is getting closer. Right. And Senator Susan Collins, 00:06:39.240 --> 00:06:42.600 a key Republican from Maine, is more than concerned 00:06:42.600 --> 00:06:44.879 about a tactic the administration might use. 00:06:45.220 --> 00:06:47.860 It's called a pocket rescission. Uh huh. How 00:06:47.860 --> 00:06:50.360 does that work exactly? So imagine Congress passes 00:06:50.360 --> 00:06:52.379 a funding bill, allocates money for something 00:06:52.379 --> 00:06:55.759 specific, say foreign aid, bipartisan support 00:06:55.759 --> 00:06:58.019 signed into law. But then the administration 00:06:58.019 --> 00:07:00.300 submits a rescission bill, basically asking to 00:07:00.300 --> 00:07:02.500 cancel that funding. But they do it really close 00:07:02.500 --> 00:07:04.079 to the end of the fiscal year. Too close for 00:07:04.079 --> 00:07:07.069 Congress to act. Exactly. Congress is required 00:07:07.069 --> 00:07:09.949 to consider it for 45 days. But if the fiscal 00:07:09.949 --> 00:07:13.129 year ends before those 45 days are up, the president 00:07:13.129 --> 00:07:15.050 isn't required to spend the money while it's 00:07:15.050 --> 00:07:18.110 supposedly being debated. So effectively, they 00:07:18.110 --> 00:07:21.670 kill the funding Congress approved. Like the 00:07:21.670 --> 00:07:24.329 nearly $5 billion in foreign aid Trump is reportedly 00:07:24.329 --> 00:07:26.449 trying to cut right now. And Senator Collins 00:07:26.449 --> 00:07:29.889 is not happy. Not at all. As chair of the Appropriations 00:07:29.889 --> 00:07:32.360 Committee, she's apparently very angry. calls 00:07:32.360 --> 00:07:35.040 it a clear violation of the law, says Trump is 00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:37.079 usurping the power of the purse from Congress. 00:07:37.480 --> 00:07:39.779 Strong words. And the key insight here is how 00:07:39.779 --> 00:07:41.959 this tactic poisons the well for the shutdown 00:07:41.959 --> 00:07:44.639 negotiations happening right now. If Democrats 00:07:44.639 --> 00:07:47.019 think Republicans are negotiating in bad faith, 00:07:47.399 --> 00:07:49.519 agreeing to funding, they know the president 00:07:49.519 --> 00:07:52.019 will just try to cancel later. Precisely. It 00:07:52.019 --> 00:07:54.639 destroys trust. So. Democrats might insist on 00:07:54.639 --> 00:07:56.240 changing the law governing these rescissions, 00:07:56.279 --> 00:07:58.879 making them harder to do. But Republicans would 00:07:58.879 --> 00:08:00.759 likely balk at that. Which could lead straight 00:08:00.759 --> 00:08:02.980 to a shutdown. It very well could. It becomes 00:08:02.980 --> 00:08:05.379 a sticking point rooted in whether you can even 00:08:05.379 --> 00:08:08.199 trust the other side to uphold a deal. So the 00:08:08.199 --> 00:08:11.800 stakes for you are really high. It's about whether 00:08:11.800 --> 00:08:14.620 bipartisan agreements mean anything. The integrity 00:08:14.620 --> 00:08:17.819 of how your money gets spent. Basically how government 00:08:17.819 --> 00:08:21.449 functions. Fundamentally, yes. So. Stepping back 00:08:21.449 --> 00:08:24.370 from these specific battles, what does this all 00:08:24.370 --> 00:08:27.209 signal for the broader political scene, especially 00:08:27.209 --> 00:08:29.230 for the Republican Party? Let's zoom out a bit. 00:08:29.269 --> 00:08:32.929 OK. We have a new Quinnipiac poll. And the numbers 00:08:32.929 --> 00:08:36.210 for Donald Trump, well, they're not great. 37 00:08:36.210 --> 00:08:39.629 % approval, 55 % disapproval. That puts him 18 00:08:39.629 --> 00:08:41.690 points underwater. Tied for his lowest point 00:08:41.690 --> 00:08:44.649 in this second iteration, Trump 2 .0, as some 00:08:44.649 --> 00:08:47.700 call it. Right. His problem isn't really with 00:08:47.700 --> 00:08:50.600 Republicans. He's got 84 % approval there. It's 00:08:50.600 --> 00:08:54.080 the independents only 31 % approver 59 % disapproval 00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:56.960 That's a huge a massive gap and on specific issues 00:08:56.960 --> 00:09:01.340 and economy trade Net negative 18. Foreign policy 00:09:01.340 --> 00:09:04.840 negative 16. Israel Hamas policy negative 19. 00:09:05.080 --> 00:09:07.240 It's really not a pretty picture politically 00:09:07.240 --> 00:09:10.340 speaking. No. And the significance is this widespread 00:09:10.340 --> 00:09:12.320 assumption in political circles. If those numbers 00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:14.960 stay in the mid 30s come November 2026, he will 00:09:14.960 --> 00:09:18.200 drown the entire Republican ticket. Wow. So these 00:09:18.200 --> 00:09:20.700 aren't just abstract numbers. They could genuinely 00:09:20.700 --> 00:09:24.320 reshape upcoming elections and maybe even the 00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:26.879 future direction of the party itself. A serious 00:09:26.879 --> 00:09:29.720 potential reckoning, yes. And beyond approval 00:09:29.720 --> 00:09:32.340 numbers, there's this other deeper shift happening 00:09:32.340 --> 00:09:34.720 in Washington. People are calling it the educational 00:09:34.720 --> 00:09:38.299 divide. 50 years ago, you had lots of politicians 00:09:38.299 --> 00:09:41.159 from both parties coming out of elite universities. 00:09:41.529 --> 00:09:44.049 Maybe that helped them find common ground, shared 00:09:44.049 --> 00:09:46.049 networks, whatever. There's an argument for that. 00:09:46.129 --> 00:09:49.129 But that's really changed. Today, Democratic 00:09:49.129 --> 00:09:51.950 politicians are, as the source puts it, appreciably 00:09:51.950 --> 00:09:55.210 more elite than Republicans, educationally speaking. 00:09:55.370 --> 00:09:57.289 The numbers are quite stark. Yeah. In the Senate, 00:09:57.669 --> 00:09:59.870 Republican grads from elite universities dropped 00:09:59.870 --> 00:10:02.309 from over half down to about a quarter now. In 00:10:02.309 --> 00:10:05.090 the House, it went from over 40 % down to 15 00:10:05.090 --> 00:10:08.730 % by 2021. Even degrees from Harvard and Yale 00:10:08.730 --> 00:10:11.110 show this split widening. Which does raise an 00:10:11.110 --> 00:10:13.409 interesting question, right? Does this make Democratic 00:10:13.409 --> 00:10:16.289 politicians potentially out of touch with constituents 00:10:16.289 --> 00:10:18.889 who didn't go to those schools, while Republicans 00:10:18.889 --> 00:10:22.330 from, say, state schools might actually be more 00:10:22.330 --> 00:10:24.549 connected? It's a potential dynamic. Of course, 00:10:24.649 --> 00:10:27.350 history is complicated. FDR went to Harvard and 00:10:27.350 --> 00:10:29.690 was arguably the most pro -working class president 00:10:29.690 --> 00:10:31.769 we've had. But it's something Democrats probably 00:10:31.769 --> 00:10:34.210 need to be conscious of not assuming everyone 00:10:34.210 --> 00:10:37.000 shares their background. So it's more than just 00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:39.759 demographics. It potentially affects policymaking, 00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:43.100 how politicians communicate, even how representative 00:10:43.100 --> 00:10:45.559 our government feels. It could, yeah. Okay, let's 00:10:45.559 --> 00:10:48.159 look even further ahead. Who might be lining 00:10:48.159 --> 00:10:51.720 up for the Republican nomination in 2028? What 00:10:51.720 --> 00:10:53.799 does that tell us about where the party might 00:10:53.799 --> 00:10:56.139 be headed? The crystal ballgazing has begun. 00:10:56.559 --> 00:10:59.850 The Hill has a list. People like JD Vance, Senator 00:10:59.850 --> 00:11:03.350 Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio. Vance shares Trump's 00:11:03.350 --> 00:11:05.250 sort of isolationism, but some apparently see 00:11:05.250 --> 00:11:07.990 him as phony. Ted Cruz, who was a big rival in 00:11:07.990 --> 00:11:11.730 16, is now supposedly widely disguised. Politics 00:11:11.730 --> 00:11:14.809 changes fast. And Ron DeSantis, despite his conservative 00:11:14.809 --> 00:11:17.889 cred, apparently has a tin ear, comes across 00:11:17.889 --> 00:11:21.070 as inauthentic to some. Interestingly, governors 00:11:21.070 --> 00:11:24.029 Brian Kemp and Glenn Youngkin weren't on this 00:11:24.029 --> 00:11:26.840 particular list. Yeah, omissions can be as telling 00:11:26.840 --> 00:11:29.659 as inclusions sometimes. But the really fascinating 00:11:29.659 --> 00:11:31.620 thing here, the bigger issue lurking in the background 00:11:31.620 --> 00:11:35.000 is where is the Republican Party going with the 00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:38.000 Republican Party? What do you mean? Well, Trump 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:40.620 has shifted the party so much from its traditional 00:11:40.620 --> 00:11:44.440 principles. Think about it. The old GOP, small 00:11:44.440 --> 00:11:47.519 government, free markets, free trade, welcoming 00:11:47.519 --> 00:11:50.519 immigrants, generally trusted science. Right. 00:11:50.659 --> 00:11:53.019 Reagan era principles, more or less. And Trump. 00:11:53.320 --> 00:11:56.220 Big, powerful government intervening everywhere. 00:11:56.679 --> 00:11:59.559 He hates free markets and trade. Tariff is the 00:11:59.559 --> 00:12:01.919 most beautiful word, he says. He picks winners 00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:04.399 and losers with industrial policy, like for Apple 00:12:04.399 --> 00:12:07.659 or Intel. His stance on immigration is, well, 00:12:08.019 --> 00:12:11.279 unlike anything since maybe Eisenhower. And there's 00:12:11.279 --> 00:12:13.940 the skepticism of science, vaccines. A complete 00:12:13.940 --> 00:12:16.799 reversal on many fronts. Totally. So if Trump 00:12:16.799 --> 00:12:19.480 isn't on the ballot in 2028, the primaries are 00:12:19.480 --> 00:12:22.029 set to be this huge fight for the soul of the 00:12:22.029 --> 00:12:23.710 Republican party. They'll be trying to figure 00:12:23.710 --> 00:12:26.110 out what it even means to be a Republican going 00:12:26.110 --> 00:12:28.230 forward. So these ideological fights happening 00:12:28.230 --> 00:12:30.549 now, they're really going to shape the future 00:12:30.549 --> 00:12:33.830 of conservatism and the country. And beyond these 00:12:33.830 --> 00:12:36.330 big leadership questions, there are tactics being 00:12:36.330 --> 00:12:40.370 used to reshape the map itself. Literally, we're 00:12:40.370 --> 00:12:42.809 talking about raw political power in the electoral 00:12:42.809 --> 00:12:45.370 system. Gerrymandering. Exhibit A, Missouri. 00:12:45.840 --> 00:12:48.620 Governor Mike Kehoe called a special session 00:12:48.620 --> 00:12:52.320 specifically to, quote, gerrymander the living 00:12:52.320 --> 00:12:55.299 daylights out of a congressional district, M 00:12:55.299 --> 00:12:58.500 -O -O -5. Trying to flip a Democratic seat. Exactly. 00:12:58.639 --> 00:13:02.139 Change it from a D plus 12 district to, as the 00:13:02.139 --> 00:13:05.100 source bluntly puts it, something rep, Emanuel 00:13:05.100 --> 00:13:09.149 Cleaver, DMO, can't win. Just a naked power grab 00:13:09.149 --> 00:13:11.590 to pick up a House seat. And this raises that 00:13:11.590 --> 00:13:13.470 huge question about the national picture. Can 00:13:13.470 --> 00:13:16.370 gerrymandering actually stop the party that wins 00:13:16.370 --> 00:13:18.350 the most votes nationwide from winning the House? 00:13:18.649 --> 00:13:20.789 Can it? Nate Cohn at the New York Times ran the 00:13:20.789 --> 00:13:23.809 numbers. It depends heavily on a few key states, 00:13:23.970 --> 00:13:26.289 like if California redistricts aggressively or 00:13:26.289 --> 00:13:28.590 if places like Florida, Ohio, Indiana follow 00:13:28.590 --> 00:13:30.350 Missouri's lead. So it could get really messy. 00:13:30.539 --> 00:13:32.879 It could become all out war if multiple states 00:13:32.879 --> 00:13:34.840 go down this path. But there's a flip side, which 00:13:34.840 --> 00:13:37.639 is independents absolutely hate gerrymandering, 00:13:37.899 --> 00:13:41.059 despise it. So Democrats could actually use this, 00:13:41.120 --> 00:13:43.480 propose reforms and potentially mobilize those 00:13:43.480 --> 00:13:46.059 independent voters against Republicans who are 00:13:46.059 --> 00:13:48.220 seen as rigging the maps. So for you listening, 00:13:48.259 --> 00:13:50.919 how these maps are drawn directly impacts the 00:13:50.919 --> 00:13:53.340 power of your vote and who represents you. It's 00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:56.080 not just some obscure state level game. It's 00:13:56.080 --> 00:13:58.720 fundamental to democracy. It really is. OK, let's 00:13:58.720 --> 00:14:00.929 shift gears completely now. Moving away from 00:14:00.929 --> 00:14:03.690 all that political intensity to a social trend 00:14:03.690 --> 00:14:05.850 that honestly might surprise you. Let's unpack 00:14:05.850 --> 00:14:09.169 this. OK, I'm curious. A new Gallup poll. It 00:14:09.169 --> 00:14:10.909 found that the percentage of Americans who drink 00:14:10.909 --> 00:14:13.470 alcohol has hit its lowest level since the Great 00:14:13.470 --> 00:14:16.309 Depression. Wow. Since the Depression? Yeah. 00:14:16.769 --> 00:14:20.690 Only 54 % of Americans in 2025 say they occasionally 00:14:20.690 --> 00:14:23.070 drink alcohol. That's a big drop. That is a big 00:14:23.070 --> 00:14:25.230 drop. Any particular group striving that? Yes, 00:14:25.269 --> 00:14:28.169 the decline since just 2023 is pretty significant 00:14:28.169 --> 00:14:30.529 in some areas. Younger generations, homelanders, 00:14:30.590 --> 00:14:33.570 and millennials down 9 points. Women saw an 11 00:14:33.570 --> 00:14:36.269 point drop. Men, only 5 points. But here's the 00:14:36.269 --> 00:14:40.990 kicker. Republicans. Down a massive 19 points. 00:14:41.330 --> 00:14:44.750 19 points for Republicans. Compared to Democrats. 00:14:44.909 --> 00:14:47.289 Democrats only dropped three points. So huge 00:14:47.289 --> 00:14:49.629 partisan divergence there. That's fascinating. 00:14:49.750 --> 00:14:53.629 And the deeper implication. Could there be a 00:14:53.629 --> 00:14:56.190 connection between that Republican shift and, 00:14:56.190 --> 00:14:58.529 say, the White House's Make America Healthy Again 00:14:58.529 --> 00:15:02.009 campaign? I mean, both Trump and RFK Jr. are 00:15:02.009 --> 00:15:04.570 known non -drinkers. It's plausible. And one, 00:15:04.690 --> 00:15:07.190 it lines up with this growing feeling that alcohol 00:15:07.190 --> 00:15:10.750 just isn't healthy. A record 53 % of Americans 00:15:10.750 --> 00:15:13.190 now say even moderate drinking is bad for health. 00:15:13.330 --> 00:15:15.409 Especially younger people. Among those under 00:15:15.409 --> 00:15:18.629 35, it's even higher, 66%. So it really looks 00:15:18.629 --> 00:15:21.190 like a cultural shift towards health consciousness 00:15:21.190 --> 00:15:24.269 might be driving this. But I had to inject a 00:15:24.269 --> 00:15:26.570 note of caution here, a caveat. Remember the 00:15:26.570 --> 00:15:29.950 COVID years, 2020 to 2022. Alcohol consumption 00:15:29.950 --> 00:15:32.289 actually spiked then, cabin fever, stress. Oh 00:15:32.289 --> 00:15:34.409 yeah, levels got very high. So the question is, 00:15:34.409 --> 00:15:36.590 Is this big Gallup drop just things returning 00:15:36.590 --> 00:15:39.289 to normal after that spike or is it really a 00:15:39.289 --> 00:15:41.309 new sustained low? What does other data tell 00:15:41.309 --> 00:15:43.789 us? That's the critical question. And the data 00:15:43.789 --> 00:15:46.309 is still a bit murky because despite this reported 00:15:46.309 --> 00:15:49.009 drop in consumption from Gallup, the alcohol 00:15:49.009 --> 00:15:51.129 related death rate in twenty twenty three, that's 00:15:51.129 --> 00:15:56.450 the latest CDC data we have, was still very high, 00:15:57.029 --> 00:15:59.389 still high, even with fewer people supposedly 00:15:59.389 --> 00:16:02.059 drinking. Yeah. And alarmingly, for people aged 00:16:02.059 --> 00:16:05.200 35 to 44, the death rate was roughly double what 00:16:05.200 --> 00:16:08.399 it was just a decade ago. Double? Wow. So if 00:16:08.399 --> 00:16:10.679 this Gallup trend of lower consumption holds 00:16:10.679 --> 00:16:13.399 true over time, we should see those mortality 00:16:13.399 --> 00:16:15.940 numbers come down eventually. But there's always 00:16:15.940 --> 00:16:18.179 a lag. It's possible the Gallup drop is just 00:16:18.179 --> 00:16:20.620 a one -off, a correction after the pandemic. 00:16:20.799 --> 00:16:23.399 Or maybe. Fewer people are drinking overall. 00:16:23.710 --> 00:16:26.710 But those who do drink are drinking more or engaging 00:16:26.710 --> 00:16:28.830 in more dangerous binge drinking. That's the 00:16:28.830 --> 00:16:30.950 other possibility. Maybe the beneficial effect 00:16:30.950 --> 00:16:33.210 of fewer drinkers is being canceled out by more 00:16:33.210 --> 00:16:35.049 harmful patterns among those who still drink, 00:16:35.250 --> 00:16:37.070 honestly. We'll know soon enough as more data 00:16:37.070 --> 00:16:39.549 comes in. It's a really surprising trend, but 00:16:39.549 --> 00:16:42.070 the full story isn't clear yet. Yeah. So for 00:16:42.070 --> 00:16:43.490 you listening, this isn't just about lifestyle 00:16:43.490 --> 00:16:46.289 choices. It touches on public health, changing 00:16:46.289 --> 00:16:48.870 social norms, maybe even generational shifts. 00:16:49.330 --> 00:16:51.710 And it definitely challenges some common assumptions 00:16:51.710 --> 00:16:53.789 about American life. Absolutely. A lot to watch 00:16:53.789 --> 00:16:57.009 there. Wow. OK. We have covered a lot of ground 00:16:57.009 --> 00:16:58.889 today. We've really taken that deep dive, haven't 00:16:58.889 --> 00:17:01.610 we? From the high stakes political games in DC, 00:17:01.690 --> 00:17:04.569 in the States, all the way to this quiet, but 00:17:04.569 --> 00:17:08.369 maybe profound shift in alcohol use. And if we 00:17:08.369 --> 00:17:10.920 try to connect all these threads. political, 00:17:10.920 --> 00:17:14.140 legal, social, you really get a sense of a moment 00:17:14.140 --> 00:17:16.579 of significant change, maybe even redefinition 00:17:16.579 --> 00:17:18.900 happening in American life right now. Understanding 00:17:18.900 --> 00:17:21.640 these different forces, how they interact, it 00:17:21.640 --> 00:17:24.099 helps make sense of the bigger picture. So here's 00:17:24.099 --> 00:17:25.759 a final thought for you to reflect on as you 00:17:25.759 --> 00:17:28.000 go about your day. What connections do you see 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:30.480 between these things, between the shifting political 00:17:30.480 --> 00:17:32.819 tides we talked about, the legal battles over 00:17:32.819 --> 00:17:35.960 power and rights, and these subtle but maybe 00:17:35.960 --> 00:17:38.519 significant changes in social behavior like the 00:17:38.519 --> 00:17:42.319 drinking trend? Are these things completely separate? 00:17:43.019 --> 00:17:44.779 Or are they influencing each other in ways we 00:17:44.779 --> 00:17:48.240 maybe haven't fully grasped yet? Hmm. Good question. 00:17:48.420 --> 00:17:51.599 Keep exploring. Keep questioning. And thanks 00:17:51.599 --> 00:17:53.019 so much for joining us for this Deep Dive.