WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.200 Welcome to the deep dive. We have a heavy stack 00:00:02.200 --> 00:00:05.559 of sources today and they're all pointing towards 00:00:05.559 --> 00:00:08.380 political calculations, crises and these big 00:00:08.380 --> 00:00:10.500 structural shifts happening in American power. 00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:13.179 especially with that September 30th government 00:00:13.179 --> 00:00:15.939 funding deadline just, well, looming. Yeah, it's 00:00:15.939 --> 00:00:18.579 a lot. The sources are just packed with high 00:00:18.579 --> 00:00:21.059 stakes political gamesmanship. You've got this 00:00:21.059 --> 00:00:23.379 deep voter dissatisfaction running through everything 00:00:23.379 --> 00:00:25.339 and then these institutional battles. I mean, 00:00:25.620 --> 00:00:27.800 they could reshape everything from the economy 00:00:27.800 --> 00:00:30.739 to, you know, fundamental civil rights. Right. 00:00:30.839 --> 00:00:32.920 So our mission today is to connect these threads. 00:00:33.310 --> 00:00:35.369 Because they seem separate, but they're not, 00:00:35.429 --> 00:00:37.950 are they? Exactly. We want to link, say, what's 00:00:37.950 --> 00:00:40.310 happening, or rather not happening, on the Senate 00:00:40.310 --> 00:00:44.189 floor with a massive $30 million ad spend in 00:00:44.189 --> 00:00:46.770 California over redistricting. It's about giving 00:00:46.770 --> 00:00:49.390 you a quick, clear grasp of the strategies leaders 00:00:49.390 --> 00:00:51.750 are using right now. And the overall signal, 00:00:52.270 --> 00:00:54.789 instability, profound instability. OK, let's 00:00:54.789 --> 00:00:57.229 dive in then, starting with that immediate instability, 00:00:57.509 --> 00:00:59.789 the shutdown threat, this Washingtoning of chicken. 00:00:59.850 --> 00:01:03.520 And the core fact seems to be. just a total communication 00:01:03.520 --> 00:01:06.500 breakdown. That's right. The key players, Senate 00:01:06.500 --> 00:01:09.079 leaders, John Thune for the Republicans and Chuck 00:01:09.079 --> 00:01:11.400 Schumer for the Democrats, they're just not talking. 00:01:11.519 --> 00:01:13.040 Even though they've known each other for years, 00:01:13.780 --> 00:01:16.280 decades. It's decades. And this isn't just the 00:01:16.280 --> 00:01:18.959 usual failure to compromise you see in Washington. 00:01:19.280 --> 00:01:21.579 This feels different. It's like the personal 00:01:21.579 --> 00:01:25.420 and electoral calculations have completely swamped 00:01:25.420 --> 00:01:28.819 the basic job of governing. Yeah. And the relationship 00:01:28.819 --> 00:01:31.959 itself, Thune and Schumer, is reportedly very 00:01:31.959 --> 00:01:34.099 strained. Especially compared to how Schumer 00:01:34.099 --> 00:01:36.540 managed to work, functionally at least, with 00:01:36.540 --> 00:01:38.879 Mitch McConnell before. And part of that strain, 00:01:39.099 --> 00:01:41.299 the sources suggest, is political maneuvering. 00:01:41.780 --> 00:01:44.739 Thune's apparently, uh, miffed, is the word used. 00:01:44.840 --> 00:01:47.060 Yeah, miffed. Because Schumer tried to go around 00:01:47.060 --> 00:01:49.019 him. Tried to set up a meeting directly with 00:01:49.019 --> 00:01:51.000 Donald Trump. Exactly. Which, by the way, didn't 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:53.980 even happen in the end. But the attempt itself... 00:01:54.120 --> 00:01:57.340 That caused friction. Okay, so Thune's position 00:01:57.340 --> 00:02:00.239 is I offered a clean bill kick the can down the 00:02:00.239 --> 00:02:02.840 road seven weeks Just take the deal pretty much. 00:02:02.980 --> 00:02:06.120 Yeah, but Schumer. Mm -hmm. He's Politically 00:02:06.120 --> 00:02:09.340 trapped by his own base. Yeah, he's still feeling 00:02:09.340 --> 00:02:11.919 the heat from that funding fight back in March 00:02:11.919 --> 00:02:15.080 Remember his base felt he caved them right and 00:02:15.080 --> 00:02:18.030 there's actual data on this internal threat There 00:02:18.030 --> 00:02:21.830 is. They surveyed 18 Democratic Senate challengers. 00:02:22.069 --> 00:02:25.289 Ten of them flat out refused to say they'd back 00:02:25.289 --> 00:02:27.990 Schumer for leader. Wow. And the other eight, 00:02:28.370 --> 00:02:29.830 they just wouldn't answer the question at all. 00:02:29.909 --> 00:02:32.069 So that's that's more than dissent. It's basically 00:02:32.069 --> 00:02:33.969 an internal revolt brewing. And that's before 00:02:33.969 --> 00:02:37.229 you even factor in the the generational pressure 00:02:37.229 --> 00:02:39.919 from the left, like AOC. Oh, absolutely. The 00:02:39.919 --> 00:02:42.860 2028 shadow hangs over him. There's this theoretical 00:02:42.860 --> 00:02:45.639 primary poll showing Representative Casio -Cortez 00:02:45.639 --> 00:02:49.159 leading him, what, 55 % to 36 %? Huge gap. It 00:02:49.159 --> 00:02:51.900 is. So the key insight here is that this shutdown 00:02:51.900 --> 00:02:54.180 calculation, it's completely moved beyond governing. 00:02:54.639 --> 00:02:56.900 It's just a zero sum fight now over who gets 00:02:56.900 --> 00:02:59.379 blamed. OK, and this whole drama is playing out 00:02:59.379 --> 00:03:02.280 against a backdrop of just incredible national 00:03:02.280 --> 00:03:05.120 dissatisfaction. Staggering is the word. Multiple 00:03:05.120 --> 00:03:07.060 polls are showing voters feel like the country's 00:03:07.060 --> 00:03:09.400 in a crisis. Like the Strength in Numbers Verisite 00:03:09.400 --> 00:03:12.659 poll, 60 percent say wrong track. That's a net 00:03:12.659 --> 00:03:15.460 negative of 32 points. Yeah, and Gallup has it 00:03:15.460 --> 00:03:18.939 even higher. 67 percent dissatisfied, a net minus 00:03:18.939 --> 00:03:22.180 38. Quinnipiac found 79 percent of voters think 00:03:22.180 --> 00:03:24.759 the U .S. is in a political crisis. I mean, those 00:03:24.759 --> 00:03:27.830 numbers are... almost universal. They are. But 00:03:27.830 --> 00:03:30.210 interestingly, the blame isn't really sticking 00:03:30.210 --> 00:03:33.469 to one side yet. Look at Trump's approval. It's 00:03:33.469 --> 00:03:36.810 underwater by 13 points overall. And specific 00:03:36.810 --> 00:03:40.509 policies, like his tariffs, way underwater minus 00:03:40.509 --> 00:03:45.250 24 points. 34 % approve, 58 % disapprove. You'd 00:03:45.250 --> 00:03:47.129 think that would translate into a big Democratic 00:03:47.129 --> 00:03:49.729 lead, but... But it hasn't, not really. The generic 00:03:49.729 --> 00:03:52.169 House ballot, just asking Democrat or Republican 00:03:52.169 --> 00:03:55.169 for Congress. It's only D plus five among likely 00:03:55.169 --> 00:03:58.250 voters. Only five points. Which is, well, surprisingly 00:03:58.250 --> 00:04:00.509 narrow given everything else. And if the shutdown 00:04:00.509 --> 00:04:02.909 actually happens, what does the blame look like, 00:04:03.129 --> 00:04:05.780 then? It's a perfect split, almost. 34 percent 00:04:05.780 --> 00:04:08.240 say they blame Republicans, 34 percent blame 00:04:08.240 --> 00:04:10.560 both sides, and just 23 percent blame the Democrats. 00:04:10.780 --> 00:04:13.080 So the blame game is basically a draw right now. 00:04:13.199 --> 00:04:14.919 Which means from a strategist's point of view, 00:04:14.919 --> 00:04:16.699 you need a different angle. You can't rely on 00:04:16.699 --> 00:04:18.379 just blaming the other side. And that's where 00:04:18.379 --> 00:04:20.519 this tactical shift comes in, the Democratic 00:04:20.519 --> 00:04:23.800 strategy. Exactly. This is really crucial. They 00:04:23.800 --> 00:04:26.100 seem to be deciding to nationalize the election, 00:04:26.100 --> 00:04:30.079 but not around, say, threats to democracy or 00:04:30.079 --> 00:04:33.480 institutional norms. They're focusing on the 00:04:33.480 --> 00:04:36.930 economy. pocketbook issue. Precisely. It's what 00:04:36.930 --> 00:04:39.250 the sources are calling the price of eggs strategy. 00:04:39.350 --> 00:04:41.449 And it's very targeted. Highly targeted. Yeah. 00:04:41.569 --> 00:04:43.649 You've got this super PAC House majority forward 00:04:43.649 --> 00:04:47.589 dropping three million dollars just on ten vulnerable 00:04:47.589 --> 00:04:49.870 House Republicans. And the message is simple. 00:04:50.149 --> 00:04:52.829 Very simple. Hitting them hard on failing to 00:04:52.829 --> 00:04:55.550 lower prices for consumers and on votes that 00:04:55.550 --> 00:04:57.769 made health care more expensive. And the thinking 00:04:57.769 --> 00:05:00.350 behind this is based on polling that suggests 00:05:01.019 --> 00:05:03.060 What? Well, the polling, according to these sources, 00:05:03.259 --> 00:05:05.639 is pretty blunt. It suggests voters are so focused 00:05:05.639 --> 00:05:08.379 on economic relief right now that they'd, quote, 00:05:08.860 --> 00:05:10.939 happily give up democracy to get the price of 00:05:10.939 --> 00:05:13.920 eggs down a dollar. Wow. That's stark. It is. 00:05:14.040 --> 00:05:16.339 And that finding is directly driving their ad 00:05:16.339 --> 00:05:18.579 campaigns, like in Wisconsin's third district 00:05:18.579 --> 00:05:20.600 against Representative Derek Van Orden. What 00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:22.519 are they doing there? They're running ads on 00:05:22.519 --> 00:05:25.139 TV that look like social media posts featuring 00:05:25.139 --> 00:05:28.060 an influencer, Kate Duffy, talking about cost 00:05:28.060 --> 00:05:30.720 of living failures. It's tailored, it's modern, 00:05:30.740 --> 00:05:33.399 and it's all about those grocery bills. OK, so 00:05:33.399 --> 00:05:36.699 this intense focus on local prices, domestic 00:05:36.699 --> 00:05:39.759 concerns. It's kind of a sharp contrast to what 00:05:39.759 --> 00:05:42.180 seems like major fractures happening in bigger 00:05:42.180 --> 00:05:44.279 political relationships, even globally. Yeah, 00:05:44.360 --> 00:05:46.839 it feels like even alliances that seem stable, 00:05:47.199 --> 00:05:49.660 whether personal or political, are cracking under 00:05:49.660 --> 00:05:53.040 all this pressure. Let's look at two really unexpected 00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:55.459 splits the source has highlighted. First, Trump 00:05:55.459 --> 00:05:58.040 versus Russia. Right. Trump recently called Russia 00:05:58.040 --> 00:06:01.139 a paper tiger. said Ukraine could easily take 00:06:01.139 --> 00:06:03.220 back its territory. Which is quite a statement 00:06:03.220 --> 00:06:05.500 from him. It is. And the reaction from Moscow 00:06:05.500 --> 00:06:08.579 was fast and, frankly, pretty cutting. It really 00:06:08.579 --> 00:06:12.220 suggests that old Trump -Putin bromance, as some 00:06:12.220 --> 00:06:14.800 called it, might be well and truly over. What 00:06:14.800 --> 00:06:17.240 did they say? Well, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry 00:06:17.240 --> 00:06:19.980 Peskov shot back. Russia is more compared with 00:06:19.980 --> 00:06:23.060 a bear. There are no paper bears. And other big 00:06:23.060 --> 00:06:26.420 names chimed in, too. Dmitry Medvedev, Margarita 00:06:26.420 --> 00:06:30.439 Simonian from RT. They openly mock Trump, called 00:06:30.439 --> 00:06:32.879 him a carnival huckster, said he'd been given 00:06:32.879 --> 00:06:35.740 an alternative reality. So what's the significance 00:06:35.740 --> 00:06:38.560 here? Why the change? Well, the speculation is 00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:41.399 it's likely a fundamental split over how to end 00:06:41.399 --> 00:06:43.899 the war in Ukraine. If that's true, if that alignment 00:06:43.899 --> 00:06:47.160 is genuinely broken, that has huge geopolitical 00:06:47.160 --> 00:06:50.259 implications. For NATO, for Republicans in Congress 00:06:50.259 --> 00:06:53.240 who leaned on Trump's previous stance, it changes 00:06:53.240 --> 00:06:55.860 the game. OK, now for a crack closer to home. 00:06:56.040 --> 00:06:58.300 Trump versus Senator J .D. Vance. What happened 00:06:58.300 --> 00:07:00.819 there? This one's interesting. Trump made a non 00:07:00.819 --> 00:07:03.060 -medical claim warning pregnant women against 00:07:03.060 --> 00:07:05.920 taking Tylenol, acetaminophen, claiming a link 00:07:05.920 --> 00:07:08.959 to autism. Which the sources say has almost no 00:07:08.959 --> 00:07:11.220 evidence. Close to none is the phrasing used. 00:07:11.459 --> 00:07:13.600 But then J .D. Vance, who's known for being very 00:07:13.600 --> 00:07:16.519 calculated. He contradicted Trump publicly. He 00:07:16.519 --> 00:07:19.829 did, but subtly. He advised women to ask their 00:07:19.829 --> 00:07:21.889 doctors that all drugs have side effects, doctors 00:07:21.889 --> 00:07:24.750 know best. It was a clear, if polite, break from 00:07:24.750 --> 00:07:27.189 Trump's statement. OK, Vance is known for being 00:07:27.189 --> 00:07:29.990 strategic. So why risk pushback from the loyal 00:07:29.990 --> 00:07:32.529 base by disagreeing even on something like this? 00:07:32.649 --> 00:07:35.170 It looks like a calculated play for 2028, most 00:07:35.170 --> 00:07:38.329 likely. Positioning himself. Exactly. He's trying 00:07:38.329 --> 00:07:41.569 to carve out that lane of being mostly like Trump 00:07:41.569 --> 00:07:45.569 on policy, but maybe not quite as... whack -a 00:07:45.569 --> 00:07:47.550 -doodle on the personal stuff. The pragmatic 00:07:47.550 --> 00:07:50.490 Trumpist lane, maybe? Sort of, yeah. Support 00:07:50.490 --> 00:07:53.730 the platform, but skip the unnecessary drama 00:07:53.730 --> 00:07:57.769 or, frankly, bizarre claims. If he can walk that 00:07:57.769 --> 00:08:01.129 line while others maybe try to out -Trump Trump, 00:08:01.829 --> 00:08:04.310 he potentially positions himself as the more 00:08:04.310 --> 00:08:06.889 grounded, maybe more electable heir apparent 00:08:06.889 --> 00:08:09.290 down the road. It's a long game. OK, so we've 00:08:09.290 --> 00:08:12.209 gone from the immediate shutdown crisis to tactical 00:08:12.209 --> 00:08:14.350 shifts like the price of eggs to these fracturing 00:08:14.350 --> 00:08:16.649 relationships. Now let's get into those longer 00:08:16.649 --> 00:08:18.750 term structural power struggles. The sources 00:08:18.750 --> 00:08:21.370 point to battles over the very rules of the game. 00:08:21.769 --> 00:08:23.689 Absolutely. Two big examples here. First, in 00:08:23.689 --> 00:08:25.930 California with Proposition 50. Right. Governor 00:08:25.930 --> 00:08:28.209 Newsom wants to temporarily take map drawing 00:08:28.209 --> 00:08:30.470 power away from the state's independent commission. 00:08:30.769 --> 00:08:32.470 Yeah. Take it away from the commission, give 00:08:32.470 --> 00:08:35.009 it back to the state legislature with the very 00:08:35.389 --> 00:08:38.350 open goal of flipping about five Republican House 00:08:38.350 --> 00:08:40.970 seats by redrawing the districts. And the fight 00:08:40.970 --> 00:08:44.629 against this is huge. Enormous. The opposition 00:08:44.629 --> 00:08:47.250 is being bankrolled mainly by one mega donor, 00:08:47.730 --> 00:08:50.350 Charles Munger Jr. He has a Ph .D. in physics 00:08:50.350 --> 00:08:53.149 and he's a Republican, but he believes in the 00:08:53.149 --> 00:08:55.789 independent commission. Deeply. And he's put 00:08:55.789 --> 00:08:59.230 30 million dollars in so far just to defeat Prop 00:08:59.230 --> 00:09:02.450 50. 30 million. And he's very hands on with the 00:09:02.450 --> 00:09:05.860 campaign. Apparently so. He's dictating ad content. 00:09:05.960 --> 00:09:08.600 Like the main ad right now shows a kettlebell 00:09:08.600 --> 00:09:11.539 literally smashing wooden blocks that spell out 00:09:11.539 --> 00:09:14.039 fair elections. Which sounds a bit old school. 00:09:14.240 --> 00:09:16.379 That's exactly the criticism from some Republican 00:09:16.379 --> 00:09:18.000 strategists. They're saying it's kind of boring, 00:09:18.080 --> 00:09:20.000 very traditional, totally out of sync with the 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:22.320 fast paced, you know, very online tactics you 00:09:22.320 --> 00:09:24.460 need to grab attention today. It's the old guard 00:09:24.460 --> 00:09:26.700 versus the new map, basically. OK, so that's 00:09:26.700 --> 00:09:29.480 a fight over legislative power. But maybe the 00:09:29.480 --> 00:09:31.759 highest stakes structural fight is happening 00:09:31.759 --> 00:09:34.450 at the Supreme Court. Definitely. Specifically 00:09:34.450 --> 00:09:36.429 concerning the potential threat to same -sex 00:09:36.429 --> 00:09:38.929 marriage, which was established federally by 00:09:38.929 --> 00:09:42.620 Obergefell v. Hodges back in 2015. And the concern 00:09:42.620 --> 00:09:45.600 is based on the court's potential makeup and 00:09:45.600 --> 00:09:48.899 its recent rulings. Yes. Looking at the likely 00:09:48.899 --> 00:09:51.399 ideological lines of the current justices, there 00:09:51.399 --> 00:09:53.799 are probably six votes on the court right now 00:09:53.799 --> 00:09:55.919 that could potentially overturn the federal right 00:09:55.919 --> 00:09:57.700 to same sex marriage. And this comes down to 00:09:57.700 --> 00:10:00.340 the standard the court used in the Dobbs decision, 00:10:00.480 --> 00:10:02.759 the one that overturned Roe v Wade. Exactly. 00:10:03.059 --> 00:10:05.539 To help you understand this, Dobbs got rid of 00:10:05.539 --> 00:10:08.539 the federal right to abortion by arguing it wasn't 00:10:08.539 --> 00:10:11.159 deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. 00:10:11.480 --> 00:10:15.379 That ruling basically introduced or elevated 00:10:15.379 --> 00:10:18.120 this new legal test focusing purely on history 00:10:18.120 --> 00:10:21.240 and tradition. So the big shift is moving away 00:10:21.240 --> 00:10:23.860 from decades of legal precedent. That's the core 00:10:23.860 --> 00:10:26.799 ideological move, yes. Away from stare decisis, 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:29.379 respecting prior decisions, towards this historical 00:10:29.379 --> 00:10:31.679 test. Okay, for someone listening trying to really 00:10:31.679 --> 00:10:34.759 grasp this, what's the single biggest implication 00:10:34.759 --> 00:10:37.679 if precedent becomes secondary like that? Well, 00:10:37.840 --> 00:10:40.279 the implication is pretty profound. It means 00:10:40.279 --> 00:10:43.840 if a right wasn't explicitly protected way back 00:10:43.840 --> 00:10:46.559 in, say, the founding era and same -sex marriage 00:10:46.559 --> 00:10:48.679 clearly wasn't, it was illegal almost everywhere 00:10:48.679 --> 00:10:51.500 for most of U .S. history, then this court feels 00:10:51.500 --> 00:10:54.860 it has the justification to remove federal protection 00:10:54.860 --> 00:10:57.899 for that right now. So established rights aren't 00:10:57.899 --> 00:11:00.940 necessarily stable anymore. Potentially not. 00:11:01.120 --> 00:11:04.200 It suggests the stability of law could become 00:11:04.200 --> 00:11:06.940 secondary to whichever ideology happens to have 00:11:06.940 --> 00:11:08.759 the majority on the court at any given time. 00:11:08.879 --> 00:11:10.919 And there's a specific case that could be the 00:11:10.919 --> 00:11:13.860 vehicle for this involving Kim Davis. That's 00:11:13.860 --> 00:11:16.299 one potential path. The former Kentucky County 00:11:16.299 --> 00:11:18.220 clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses 00:11:18.220 --> 00:11:20.759 based on her religious beliefs, if the court 00:11:20.759 --> 00:11:23.259 takes up a case like hers and rules that her 00:11:23.259 --> 00:11:25.000 First Amendment right to practice her religion 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:27.980 overrides the established right to marry, Well, 00:11:27.980 --> 00:11:30.019 that could be the mechanism to effectively undo 00:11:30.019 --> 00:11:32.379 a Berger fell. And if that happens, same sex 00:11:32.379 --> 00:11:35.159 marriage becomes a state by state issue again, 00:11:35.399 --> 00:11:38.059 a complete patchwork. Yeah. Which then opens 00:11:38.059 --> 00:11:42.399 up a Pandora's box of legal chaos. Like, does 00:11:42.399 --> 00:11:45.259 one state have to recognize a marriage legally 00:11:45.259 --> 00:11:48.399 performed in another state? That directly tests 00:11:48.399 --> 00:11:50.879 Article four of the Constitution, the full faith 00:11:50.879 --> 00:11:54.240 and credit clause. The potential fallout is. 00:11:54.879 --> 00:11:57.659 OK, let's bring it back to ground level for a 00:11:57.659 --> 00:12:00.179 final point, circling back to that theme of generational 00:12:00.179 --> 00:12:02.820 anxiety we saw with Senator Schumer. There's 00:12:02.820 --> 00:12:05.320 a local race in Massachusetts that seems to capture 00:12:05.320 --> 00:12:07.460 this perfectly. Yeah, it's a really interesting 00:12:07.460 --> 00:12:10.360 test case within the Democratic Party. Senator 00:12:10.360 --> 00:12:13.440 Ed Markey, who's 79, is facing a primary challenge 00:12:13.440 --> 00:12:16.779 from Representative Seth Moulton, who's 46, and 00:12:16.779 --> 00:12:19.039 a Marine veteran. So the age gap is obviously 00:12:19.039 --> 00:12:21.519 front and center. Markey would be 86 by the end 00:12:21.519 --> 00:12:23.600 of another turn. That's the main driver, yes. 00:12:23.980 --> 00:12:25.960 But there's also a policy split that Moulton 00:12:25.960 --> 00:12:28.440 seems to be using very strategically. It's about 00:12:28.440 --> 00:12:31.299 trans athletes. Ah, a really charged issue. What's 00:12:31.299 --> 00:12:33.620 Moulton's position? Well, Moulton is generally 00:12:33.620 --> 00:12:36.139 liberal. But he's deliberately broken from what 00:12:36.139 --> 00:12:38.899 you might call party orthodoxy on this. He said 00:12:38.899 --> 00:12:40.919 publicly he doesn't want his daughters getting 00:12:40.919 --> 00:12:43.620 run over on a playing field by a male or formerly 00:12:43.620 --> 00:12:46.059 male athlete. And he acknowledged that's controversial 00:12:46.059 --> 00:12:48.840 within the party. He did. He even said Democrats 00:12:48.840 --> 00:12:51.639 are supposed to be afraid to say that, which 00:12:51.639 --> 00:12:54.779 shows he knows exactly what he's doing. So why 00:12:54.779 --> 00:12:57.220 pick that fight? How does it play politically? 00:12:57.580 --> 00:12:59.649 Well, look at the national polling. I believe 00:12:59.649 --> 00:13:02.470 70 % of all U .S. adults actually agree with 00:13:02.470 --> 00:13:04.629 Moulton's concern about fairness in women's sports. 00:13:05.169 --> 00:13:08.549 70%. That's huge. It is. Now, Democrats themselves 00:13:08.549 --> 00:13:11.549 are split more evenly. About 45 % support athletes 00:13:11.549 --> 00:13:15.169 playing based on current gender. 41 % think birth 00:13:15.169 --> 00:13:18.009 gender should decide for sports. So Moulton's 00:13:18.009 --> 00:13:20.309 position, while potentially risky within a Dem 00:13:20.309 --> 00:13:22.669 primary, actually aligns with a large majority 00:13:22.669 --> 00:13:25.090 of the overall electorate. Exactly. It hits a 00:13:25.090 --> 00:13:28.190 political sweet spot. He's highlighting the age 00:13:28.279 --> 00:13:31.320 issue, but also using this specific culturally 00:13:31.320 --> 00:13:34.299 resonant policy difference to potentially peel 00:13:34.299 --> 00:13:36.220 off voters who might otherwise stick with the 00:13:36.220 --> 00:13:39.139 incumbent. So this local primary becomes a fascinating 00:13:39.139 --> 00:13:42.570 test. Can the younger, maybe more pragmatically 00:13:42.570 --> 00:13:46.009 positioned Democrat use these potent social issues 00:13:46.009 --> 00:13:49.049 combined with the age factor to actually unseat 00:13:49.049 --> 00:13:52.029 entrenched power? It really could be. It encapsulates 00:13:52.029 --> 00:13:54.190 a lot of the tensions we're seeing play out nationally. 00:13:54.389 --> 00:13:57.009 So let's recap. We've seen a shutdown threat 00:13:57.009 --> 00:13:59.610 basically built on silence, on non -communication 00:13:59.610 --> 00:14:02.059 at the highest levels. Right. And an electorate 00:14:02.059 --> 00:14:05.080 that seems united only in its deep dissatisfaction. 00:14:05.320 --> 00:14:08.419 And political tactics shifting to focus intensely 00:14:08.419 --> 00:14:12.139 on very local, very tangible pain points, like 00:14:12.139 --> 00:14:15.259 the price of eggs, almost ignoring bigger institutional 00:14:15.259 --> 00:14:18.240 crises. And underneath it all, these huge structural 00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:20.039 battles are being fought, whether it's drawing 00:14:20.039 --> 00:14:22.500 lines on a map in California for 30 million dollars. 00:14:22.539 --> 00:14:24.679 Or redefining the very basis of constitutional 00:14:24.679 --> 00:14:27.970 rights at the Supreme Court. And the common thread, 00:14:28.090 --> 00:14:29.769 really, that connects all this and the source 00:14:29.769 --> 00:14:32.169 material, it seems to be this increasing reliance 00:14:32.169 --> 00:14:35.429 on just raw political power or pure ideological 00:14:35.429 --> 00:14:38.269 tests. Not on established norms, not on precedent, 00:14:38.350 --> 00:14:40.830 not on finding common ground. Less and less, 00:14:40.830 --> 00:14:42.730 it seems. Whether it's the Senate threatening 00:14:42.730 --> 00:14:45.289 a shutdown or the court potentially overturning 00:14:45.289 --> 00:14:48.250 longstanding rights based on a new interpretation 00:14:48.250 --> 00:14:51.409 of history, power and ideology seem to be winning 00:14:51.409 --> 00:14:53.330 out. OK, and that brings us to our final thought 00:14:53.330 --> 00:14:57.120 for you, the listener, to mull over. If the Supreme 00:14:57.120 --> 00:15:00.580 Court really does continue moving away from relying 00:15:00.580 --> 00:15:03.360 on legal precedent, if that history and tradition 00:15:03.360 --> 00:15:05.559 standard becomes the dominant way constitutional 00:15:05.559 --> 00:15:08.700 rights are defined, does that fundamentally change 00:15:08.700 --> 00:15:11.080 how you think about stability? Not just stability 00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:14.200 in the law, but stability across the entire American 00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:16.580 political system. Yeah, I mean, if the rules 00:15:16.580 --> 00:15:19.399 themselves can be rewritten based purely on who 00:15:19.399 --> 00:15:22.019 holds power at a particular moment, how do you 00:15:22.019 --> 00:15:24.259 plan for the future? How do you view the reliability 00:15:24.259 --> 00:15:26.450 of the system itself? Something to think about. 00:15:26.649 --> 00:15:27.889 Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.