Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we're taking,
well, a really fascinating, sometimes frustrating
journey through the American political landscape.
Yeah, our sources are pulling us all over the
place from the Supreme Court, you know, where
these long constitutional games are playing out.
Decades long games. Exactly. Right down to the
the really granular level. County by county fights
for just a handful of votes and swing states.
We do have a lot to synthesize today. We do.
We're looking at some deep legal analysis on
the future of the Voting Rights Act. Or maybe
it's slow dismantling. And we're diving into
some fresh polling that reveals, honestly, a
shocking gap between what voters actually prioritize
and what they think the other party cares about.
It's quite something. So the mission here is
to give you that critical shortcut. We want to
synthesize these calculated political legal shifts
happening right now, the ones designed to reshape
things for, well, the next decade at least. Context
and connection, that's the goal. Okay, let's
unpack this. We really have to start with what
might be the most consequential story happening,
sort of quietly right now, and that's at the
Supreme Court. We're looking at the oral arguments
in Louisiana v. Calais, a case that Well, it
seems almost designed to deliver the next blow
in that long, slow dismantling of the Voting
Rights Act, the VRA. It really does. And, you
know, to get the stakes, you need the backstory.
Right. After the 2020 census, Louisiana, which
is about a third black, drew a map with only
one majority black district out of six total.
OK. Black voters sued under section two of the
VRA. Yeah. Which. basically prohibits voting
practices that discriminate based on race. And
they won. So the legislature had to redraw. They
did. They came back with a new map that had two
majority black districts. OK. Seems like progress
according to the VRA mandate. You'd think. But
then a group of white voters sued. And their
argument, essentially, is that the legislature
engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination
by intentionally drawing that second majority
black district, LA 66. Wait. So they're arguing
it's racial discrimination? to remedy racial
discrimination. That's the stunning legal pretzel
the court is facing, or maybe embracing, is creating
a second majority black district to comply with
the VRA itself, an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
That seems like a contradiction. And I read Chief
Justice Roberts reportedly called that second
district, LA 06, a snick. He did. And that image,
that snake district, it feels like it's meant
to reinforce this idea that racial gerrymanders
are bad, unconstitutional. Well, purely partisan
gerrymanders are somehow fine and dandy, just
politics. Exactly. That seems to be the underlying
logic. So if the court decides that creating
the second district was an unconstitutional racial
gerrymander, even though it was arguably required
by the VRA, they'll likely strike it down. And
the oral argument suggests they might. Based
on the questioning. Yeah. Justices Thomas, Alito,
Gorsuch, and Roberts all seemed pretty strongly
against using race at all in map drawing. Ugh.
Roberts' long -held view. The way to stop racial
discrimination is to stop discriminating based
on race, even if that means ignoring existing
inequities. Precisely. So that's four votes.
Pretty solid against applying the VRA this way.
Which puts a squarely on Kavanaugh watch. Justice
Brett Kavanaugh, he often holds that key swing
vote. What did he signal? He gave the biggest
clue, really. He suggested that maybe remedies
for past racial discrimination, like parts of
the VRA, might only be constitutional for a,
quote, limited period of time. A limited period.
The VRA is almost 60 years old, signed in 65.
Exactly. Kavanaugh seemed to be openly asking,
is 60 years long enough? Has the remedy expired?
Wow. And this fits perfectly into what some analysts
call the John Roberts two -step. Right, I've
heard this term. It's not a sudden attack on
precedent, is it? No, it's more like a patient
bulldozer. Dismantling precedent slowly, steadily,
through technical moves often plotted years ahead.
Think Citizens United. Think Shelby County. So
they signal their direction years in advance,
almost inviting the right case to come along.
That seems to be the strategy. Roberts and Kavanaugh
basically set this up in the Allen v. Milligan
case, the precursor. Kavanaugh's concurrence
laid out this whole temporal argument, this idea
that Section 2 might have an expiration date.
An invitation. An invitation Louisiana's lawyers
clearly saw and accepted with this Kelly challenge.
The stakes here feel enormous. This isn't just
Louisiana, right? Well, absolutely not. It affects
every state with a history covered by the VRA,
especially in the South. If Section 2 is effectively
gutted like this. Then Republican legislatures
in Alabama, Georgia, Texas. they could just eliminate
majority black districts. They'd likely be legally
free to. We could be talking about, I don't know,
a dozen or more House seats flipping Republican
by 2026, just from these map changes. A dozen
seats, that could easily decide control of the
House. But you mentioned an internal political
check that Republican incumbents might get nervous.
Explain that math again. Yeah, it's a bit counterintuitive,
but really important. These majority black districts
pack in huge numbers of Democratic voters. If
you eliminate that district, Where do those Democrats
go? They get spread out, watered down into the
neighboring districts. Which are often safe Republican
districts. Exactly. So a district that was a
comfortable R plus eight Republican lane suddenly
gets diluted. Right. It might become a much more
competitive R plus four. And if you're the Republican
incumbent in that previously safe seat, you're
suddenly looking over your shoulder, worried
about your next primary, maybe even the general
election. So it's not a simple win, even if the
court rules their way. Interesting. Then there's
the timing nightmare. Oh, yeah. The timing is
critical. Usually the court releases big decisions
in June. Right. End of the term. But if they
rule in June 2026, primaries in many states will
already be happening or over, trying to redraw
maps in July after primaries. It would be enormous
chaos. Legal challenges everywhere. Total gridlock
potentially. Yeah. So our sources suggest the
ideal timing politically for Republicans would
be for the court to rule much earlier. Yeah.
Like November or December 2025. That would be
highly unusual. A real break from their normal
schedule, almost like a power grab. Unheard of,
really. But it would give Republican legislatures
the time they need to draw those new favorable
maps well before the 2026 primaries even start.
So that's the long game, this slow, potentially
devastating shift in Democratic structures. But
the short game, the fight for voters' attention
right now, seems almost totally disconnected
from this. Which brings us to what voters actually
care about. And this perception gap you mentioned
earlier. Yes. Here's where it gets really interesting.
Let's set aside the cable news chatter for a
second. OK. Our source polling is pretty clear
on top voter issues. Number one, affordable prices,
especially for Republicans. Makes sense. Kitchen
table stuff. Followed closely by health care
and then jobs and wages. So two of the top three
are straight up economic concerns. But the perception
of the parties, that's where it goes sideways.
Dramatically. Democratic voters, they actually
have a reasonably accurate view of their own
party. They think Democrats are focused on prices,
health care, jobs, lining up with their own priorities.
OK, that seems logical. But Republican voters,
they are, according to this polling, largely
off base about Democrats. How so? Only about
13 to 15 percent of Republicans think Democrats
care about those core economic issues. Only 15
percent. What do they think Democrats are focused
on? By large majorities. They believe the Democratic
Party is almost entirely focused on climate change,
abortion, and especially LGBTQ plus issues. Wow.
And here's the kicker. The poll also shows that
99 percent of Republicans consider LGBTQ plus
issues totally unimportant to them personally.
So they think Democrats are obsessed with something
they themselves don't care about at all. Exactly.
A complete mismatch. The sources we look at attribute
this huge misperception gap to outside media
influence, basically creating this manufactured
disconnect about priorities. OK, so if the judicial
game is about shifting the map structure, the
political game has to be about cutting through
that noise, that misperception. Absolutely. And
the polling actually points to a really clear
winning message for Democrats highlighted in
a recent Gallup poll. Let's hear it. When U .S.
adults were asked the best way to reduce the
federal deficit, nearly two thirds, a huge majority,
supported increasing taxes on the rich. That's
not surprising, but still a powerful number and
the least popular option. By far. cutting Social
Security and Medicare, hugely unpopular, which
presents this massive political opportunity.
We should probably nail down some specifics,
though. Vague promises don't work as well as
concrete fixes, right? Totally. Like Social Security.
The trust fund is projected to run short in about,
what, 10 years? A simple, popular fix. Raise
or just get rid of the FICA payroll tax cap.
Explain that cap quickly. Sure. Right now, you
only pay Social Security taxes on income up to
a certain level. It's around $176 ,000 for 2025.
Any income above that isn't taxed for Social
Security. So billionaires pay the same amount
into Social Security as someone making $180 ,000
a year? Pretty much. Raising or eliminating that
cap means high earners pay more into the system.
It would shore up Social Security almost instantly.
And the message is simple. Save Social Security
by taxing the rich more. Very popular. OK, that's
one concrete example. What about fixing the tax
code itself? Any specific loopholes that resonate?
Oh, yeah. The big one? The one that always comes
up because it just seems so unfair to most people
is the carried interest loophole. Ah, the private
equity favorite. Exactly. It's basically a gift
to super wealthy fund managers. It lets them
treat their income, which is really just fees
for managing money, essentially wages as lower
tax capital gains. So they pay a much lower tax
rate than someone earning the same amount through
a regular salary. Right. A massive tax break
for the very, very rich. perfect political target.
Closing loopholes like that, taxing the wealthy,
these are popular economic arguments. OK, so
stepping back, we see these big battles happening
outside the normal legislative process too. In
the administrative state, the courts. Let's look
at a couple of those flash points, starting with
what looks like a clear Hatch Act violation.
Yeah, this involved the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Kristi Noem. She produced this video
and tried to get it played at TSA checkpoints
in airports. OK. What was in the video? She explicitly
blamed the long airport lines during the recent
government shutdown on Democrats, saying it was
their fault for not reopening the government.
Whoa. Using federal resources, like TSA screens,
to blame one specific political party? That sounds...
Like a potential felony violation of the Hatch
Act? Yes. That law bans federal employees, apart
from the president and VP, from engaging in partisan
politics on the taxpayer's dime. Naming and blaming
a party for political gain. That's crossing a
line. Did the airports actually play it? Many
didn't. The backlash was pretty quick. Major
airports Atlanta, LAX, Chicago refused. Several
explicitly cited the Hatch Act as the reason
why. You can't use public assets for partisan
messaging. But did she still sort of win, even
if the video wasn't widely shown? Well, the sources
suggest the real goal might have been achieved
anyway. Generating publicity, maybe appealing
to her boss, showing she's a fighter. It kind
of feeds that idea that In some political circles,
you can win by losing the actual battle as long
as you create the right noise. Hmm. OK, shifting
to the courts again, but on the administrative
side, a federal judge blocked some layoffs. Yeah,
U .S. District Judge Susan Ilston in California.
She temporarily blocked these federal reductions
in force, RIS layoffs that were ordered by OMB,
the budget office and OPM, personal management.
What was her reasoning? It was pretty blunt,
actually. She basically said OMB and OPM were
acting as if, quote, all bets are off that the
laws don't apply to them anymore, just because
there was a government funding lapse. So ignoring
civil service protections. Exactly. She really
pressed the Justice Department lawyer, asking
how they could possibly implement these layoffs
without even analyzing if they were legal under
the circumstances. It's an example of the courts
trying to act as a check on executive overreach,
even in chaotic times. OK. And finally, in this
section. The truly unusual, this Make America
Healthy Again group, MAHA. Oh, MAHA, yes. This
is the advisory group led by HH Secretary Robert
F. Kennedy Jr. And, well, the sources we consulted
consistently describe his approach as, let's
just say, outside the mainstream. I think I read
six former Surgeons General called his leadership
a profound, immediate, and unprecedented threat.
They did. But the details of the actual MAHA
calls. Mm -hmm. There's something else. They
happen every other Wednesday. The attendee list
is eclectic. Like who? Well, the governor of
West Virginia has been on it. Russell Brand reportedly
shirtless in a bathtub. Seriously? Apparently.
And one attendee was quoted saying, fluoride
disconnects one from God. OK. Wow. So these ideas
are circulating at high levels. Directly within
the executive branch, yes. It's not just fringe
stuff online. It's influencing policy discussions.
What's fascinating, though, is there's a bit
of internal pushback. From whom? From the CMS
Administrator, Mehmet Oz. Cataract Oz, he's on
these calls, too. Wait, Dr. Oz is the voice of
reason trying to restrain R .F .K. Jr.? It appears
so, at least occasionally. One source mentioned
an instance where Kennedy claimed Tylenol causes
autism. Oz apparently had to step in and say
something like, gotta be restrained on this,
it's not causation. What a world. A bizarre dynamic
at the top of the nation's health administration.
Deeply relevant to public policy, though, however
strange it seems. All right. Let's pivot and
end our analysis in a place that reminds us that,
you know, the immediate on -the -ground political
fight still matters hugely. Wisconsin. Wisconsin.
The ultimate swing state, right? Went with the
presidential winner in the last five elections.
Very tight. And the Democrats there just selected
a new young party chair, Devin Remaker. He's
33. Yeah. Vigorous young leadership. And he's
been very clear about his mission. He sees his
job as building a, quote, bulwark against a hostile
administration, focusing on year -round organizing,
modern communication. That modern communication
piece seems key, doesn't it? Especially with
younger voters. The old playbook of just flooding
TV with ads doesn't cut it anymore. Not at all.
Having a millennial chair seems aimed squarely
at figuring out social media, localized digital
outreach, driving engagement in ways that actually
connect. You need that when the opposition is
so powerful. And his big strategy, it's not just
focusing on the blue areas. No, that's the core
of it. He calls it the Redland focus, focusing
on all 72 counties in Wisconsin, not just the
Democratic strongholds like Madison, Milwaukee
or tribal lands. Why? What's the math behind
going into deep red territory? It's all about
those marginal gains we talked about earlier.
But at the county level, take a really red county,
maybe 30 ,000 voters total. Democrats might only
get 20 percent there historically. But if, through
sustained effort, just showing up, listening,
organizing a bit, they can move that 20 % up
to 30%, that's a 10 -point swing. In a county
of 30 ,000, that's 3 ,000 extra votes. Exactly.
And Wisconsin's statewide elections are often
decided by... just a few thousand votes. So netting
3 ,000 here, 2 ,000 there, across a dozen rural
or redder counties. It adds up fast. It could
be the entire margin of victory. Precisely. It's
not about flipping the county red to blue. It's
about improving the margins everywhere by simply
showing up and listening, as Romaker puts it,
engaging voters who often feel ignored by Democrats.
OK, so let's zoom out one last time, tying all
these threads together. You really see this profound
tension, don't you? On one hand, you have this
strategic, slow -motion erosion of something
fundamental like the Voting Rights Act via these
judicial two steps. That can literally change
the map of power. And on the other hand, you
have these immediate political opportunities
for Democrats, really popular economic messages
like tax the rich, combined with smart, targeted
state -level strategies like that Redland focus
in Wisconsin. It's a clash between that constitutional
long game played largely by unelected judges
and the immediate political battle for voter
attention. Yeah. And that battle for attention
is complicated by the perception gap we discussed.
Voters care about prices, health, jobs. But polling
suggests outside media successfully gets many
Republican voters focused on cultural issues,
thinking that's what Democrats prioritize, even
when it's not the voters main concern. It brings
to mind that that blunt quote from Chief Justice
Roberts back in 2009. Talking about the court's
power, he essentially said to the public, if
they don't like what we are doing, it's more
or less just too bad. Oof. Yeah. Here's where
it gets really interesting, then, for you to
think about. What happens when one party, like
the Democrats here, does manage to align its
voters' perceptions with its actual priorities
on, say, economic issues? And they maybe even
nail the local strategy in a key state like Wisconsin,
but at the same time, these profound structural
changes to democracy, like gutting the VRA, are
happening through these inaccessible long -term
judicial maneuvers? Yeah. What does that mean
for the next few elections? If the map itself
gets fundamentally redrawn by the courts before
those popular economic debates can even fully
play out on fairground, that's the tension the
question will leave you with. A lot to consider.
Indeed. Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.