WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.839 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we're taking, 00:00:02.960 --> 00:00:06.019 well, a really fascinating, sometimes frustrating 00:00:06.019 --> 00:00:08.740 journey through the American political landscape. 00:00:09.099 --> 00:00:10.980 Yeah, our sources are pulling us all over the 00:00:10.980 --> 00:00:13.099 place from the Supreme Court, you know, where 00:00:13.099 --> 00:00:15.560 these long constitutional games are playing out. 00:00:15.759 --> 00:00:19.000 Decades long games. Exactly. Right down to the 00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:21.460 the really granular level. County by county fights 00:00:21.460 --> 00:00:23.960 for just a handful of votes and swing states. 00:00:24.339 --> 00:00:27.140 We do have a lot to synthesize today. We do. 00:00:27.230 --> 00:00:29.929 We're looking at some deep legal analysis on 00:00:29.929 --> 00:00:32.289 the future of the Voting Rights Act. Or maybe 00:00:32.289 --> 00:00:35.450 it's slow dismantling. And we're diving into 00:00:35.450 --> 00:00:38.329 some fresh polling that reveals, honestly, a 00:00:38.329 --> 00:00:41.710 shocking gap between what voters actually prioritize 00:00:41.710 --> 00:00:44.149 and what they think the other party cares about. 00:00:44.390 --> 00:00:46.530 It's quite something. So the mission here is 00:00:46.530 --> 00:00:48.880 to give you that critical shortcut. We want to 00:00:48.880 --> 00:00:51.960 synthesize these calculated political legal shifts 00:00:51.960 --> 00:00:53.960 happening right now, the ones designed to reshape 00:00:53.960 --> 00:00:57.079 things for, well, the next decade at least. Context 00:00:57.079 --> 00:00:59.079 and connection, that's the goal. Okay, let's 00:00:59.079 --> 00:01:02.119 unpack this. We really have to start with what 00:01:02.119 --> 00:01:04.579 might be the most consequential story happening, 00:01:04.719 --> 00:01:06.939 sort of quietly right now, and that's at the 00:01:06.939 --> 00:01:10.239 Supreme Court. We're looking at the oral arguments 00:01:10.239 --> 00:01:13.700 in Louisiana v. Calais, a case that Well, it 00:01:13.700 --> 00:01:15.939 seems almost designed to deliver the next blow 00:01:15.939 --> 00:01:18.640 in that long, slow dismantling of the Voting 00:01:18.640 --> 00:01:21.819 Rights Act, the VRA. It really does. And, you 00:01:21.819 --> 00:01:23.939 know, to get the stakes, you need the backstory. 00:01:24.299 --> 00:01:27.260 Right. After the 2020 census, Louisiana, which 00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:30.280 is about a third black, drew a map with only 00:01:30.280 --> 00:01:32.719 one majority black district out of six total. 00:01:32.719 --> 00:01:36.560 OK. Black voters sued under section two of the 00:01:36.560 --> 00:01:39.129 VRA. Yeah. Which. basically prohibits voting 00:01:39.129 --> 00:01:41.609 practices that discriminate based on race. And 00:01:41.609 --> 00:01:44.010 they won. So the legislature had to redraw. They 00:01:44.010 --> 00:01:46.510 did. They came back with a new map that had two 00:01:46.510 --> 00:01:48.689 majority black districts. OK. Seems like progress 00:01:48.689 --> 00:01:51.069 according to the VRA mandate. You'd think. But 00:01:51.069 --> 00:01:53.950 then a group of white voters sued. And their 00:01:53.950 --> 00:01:55.769 argument, essentially, is that the legislature 00:01:55.769 --> 00:01:58.790 engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination 00:01:58.790 --> 00:02:01.409 by intentionally drawing that second majority 00:02:01.409 --> 00:02:04.849 black district, LA 66. Wait. So they're arguing 00:02:04.849 --> 00:02:07.939 it's racial discrimination? to remedy racial 00:02:07.939 --> 00:02:11.120 discrimination. That's the stunning legal pretzel 00:02:11.120 --> 00:02:15.020 the court is facing, or maybe embracing, is creating 00:02:15.020 --> 00:02:18.060 a second majority black district to comply with 00:02:18.060 --> 00:02:22.180 the VRA itself, an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 00:02:22.520 --> 00:02:24.479 That seems like a contradiction. And I read Chief 00:02:24.479 --> 00:02:26.340 Justice Roberts reportedly called that second 00:02:26.340 --> 00:02:30.539 district, LA 06, a snick. He did. And that image, 00:02:30.699 --> 00:02:32.860 that snake district, it feels like it's meant 00:02:32.860 --> 00:02:35.659 to reinforce this idea that racial gerrymanders 00:02:35.659 --> 00:02:38.840 are bad, unconstitutional. Well, purely partisan 00:02:38.840 --> 00:02:41.840 gerrymanders are somehow fine and dandy, just 00:02:41.840 --> 00:02:43.900 politics. Exactly. That seems to be the underlying 00:02:43.900 --> 00:02:46.419 logic. So if the court decides that creating 00:02:46.419 --> 00:02:48.719 the second district was an unconstitutional racial 00:02:48.719 --> 00:02:51.120 gerrymander, even though it was arguably required 00:02:51.120 --> 00:02:53.379 by the VRA, they'll likely strike it down. And 00:02:53.379 --> 00:02:55.020 the oral argument suggests they might. Based 00:02:55.020 --> 00:02:58.169 on the questioning. Yeah. Justices Thomas, Alito, 00:02:58.409 --> 00:03:00.969 Gorsuch, and Roberts all seemed pretty strongly 00:03:00.969 --> 00:03:03.629 against using race at all in map drawing. Ugh. 00:03:04.150 --> 00:03:07.550 Roberts' long -held view. The way to stop racial 00:03:07.550 --> 00:03:10.250 discrimination is to stop discriminating based 00:03:10.250 --> 00:03:13.330 on race, even if that means ignoring existing 00:03:13.330 --> 00:03:15.830 inequities. Precisely. So that's four votes. 00:03:16.229 --> 00:03:19.009 Pretty solid against applying the VRA this way. 00:03:19.129 --> 00:03:21.810 Which puts a squarely on Kavanaugh watch. Justice 00:03:21.810 --> 00:03:24.370 Brett Kavanaugh, he often holds that key swing 00:03:24.370 --> 00:03:27.219 vote. What did he signal? He gave the biggest 00:03:27.219 --> 00:03:30.120 clue, really. He suggested that maybe remedies 00:03:30.120 --> 00:03:32.460 for past racial discrimination, like parts of 00:03:32.460 --> 00:03:34.939 the VRA, might only be constitutional for a, 00:03:34.939 --> 00:03:37.560 quote, limited period of time. A limited period. 00:03:37.639 --> 00:03:40.139 The VRA is almost 60 years old, signed in 65. 00:03:40.460 --> 00:03:42.819 Exactly. Kavanaugh seemed to be openly asking, 00:03:43.060 --> 00:03:46.139 is 60 years long enough? Has the remedy expired? 00:03:46.659 --> 00:03:49.099 Wow. And this fits perfectly into what some analysts 00:03:49.099 --> 00:03:51.300 call the John Roberts two -step. Right, I've 00:03:51.300 --> 00:03:53.080 heard this term. It's not a sudden attack on 00:03:53.080 --> 00:03:54.879 precedent, is it? No, it's more like a patient 00:03:54.879 --> 00:03:57.800 bulldozer. Dismantling precedent slowly, steadily, 00:03:58.039 --> 00:04:00.800 through technical moves often plotted years ahead. 00:04:01.180 --> 00:04:04.020 Think Citizens United. Think Shelby County. So 00:04:04.020 --> 00:04:06.099 they signal their direction years in advance, 00:04:06.300 --> 00:04:08.159 almost inviting the right case to come along. 00:04:08.300 --> 00:04:11.520 That seems to be the strategy. Roberts and Kavanaugh 00:04:11.520 --> 00:04:13.860 basically set this up in the Allen v. Milligan 00:04:13.860 --> 00:04:17.970 case, the precursor. Kavanaugh's concurrence 00:04:17.970 --> 00:04:21.370 laid out this whole temporal argument, this idea 00:04:21.370 --> 00:04:23.470 that Section 2 might have an expiration date. 00:04:23.589 --> 00:04:26.170 An invitation. An invitation Louisiana's lawyers 00:04:26.170 --> 00:04:29.430 clearly saw and accepted with this Kelly challenge. 00:04:29.569 --> 00:04:32.930 The stakes here feel enormous. This isn't just 00:04:32.930 --> 00:04:35.129 Louisiana, right? Well, absolutely not. It affects 00:04:35.129 --> 00:04:37.350 every state with a history covered by the VRA, 00:04:37.689 --> 00:04:40.529 especially in the South. If Section 2 is effectively 00:04:40.529 --> 00:04:43.069 gutted like this. Then Republican legislatures 00:04:43.069 --> 00:04:46.910 in Alabama, Georgia, Texas. they could just eliminate 00:04:46.910 --> 00:04:48.850 majority black districts. They'd likely be legally 00:04:48.850 --> 00:04:51.569 free to. We could be talking about, I don't know, 00:04:51.730 --> 00:04:54.069 a dozen or more House seats flipping Republican 00:04:54.069 --> 00:04:56.870 by 2026, just from these map changes. A dozen 00:04:56.870 --> 00:04:58.629 seats, that could easily decide control of the 00:04:58.629 --> 00:05:00.730 House. But you mentioned an internal political 00:05:00.730 --> 00:05:03.629 check that Republican incumbents might get nervous. 00:05:03.790 --> 00:05:06.170 Explain that math again. Yeah, it's a bit counterintuitive, 00:05:06.189 --> 00:05:08.689 but really important. These majority black districts 00:05:08.689 --> 00:05:11.230 pack in huge numbers of Democratic voters. If 00:05:11.230 --> 00:05:13.889 you eliminate that district, Where do those Democrats 00:05:13.889 --> 00:05:16.730 go? They get spread out, watered down into the 00:05:16.730 --> 00:05:18.829 neighboring districts. Which are often safe Republican 00:05:18.829 --> 00:05:21.610 districts. Exactly. So a district that was a 00:05:21.610 --> 00:05:24.589 comfortable R plus eight Republican lane suddenly 00:05:24.589 --> 00:05:27.189 gets diluted. Right. It might become a much more 00:05:27.189 --> 00:05:30.009 competitive R plus four. And if you're the Republican 00:05:30.009 --> 00:05:32.670 incumbent in that previously safe seat, you're 00:05:32.670 --> 00:05:34.189 suddenly looking over your shoulder, worried 00:05:34.189 --> 00:05:36.529 about your next primary, maybe even the general 00:05:36.529 --> 00:05:39.370 election. So it's not a simple win, even if the 00:05:39.370 --> 00:05:42.019 court rules their way. Interesting. Then there's 00:05:42.019 --> 00:05:44.019 the timing nightmare. Oh, yeah. The timing is 00:05:44.019 --> 00:05:47.120 critical. Usually the court releases big decisions 00:05:47.120 --> 00:05:49.720 in June. Right. End of the term. But if they 00:05:49.720 --> 00:05:53.620 rule in June 2026, primaries in many states will 00:05:53.620 --> 00:05:56.319 already be happening or over, trying to redraw 00:05:56.319 --> 00:06:00.420 maps in July after primaries. It would be enormous 00:06:00.420 --> 00:06:03.939 chaos. Legal challenges everywhere. Total gridlock 00:06:03.939 --> 00:06:06.500 potentially. Yeah. So our sources suggest the 00:06:06.500 --> 00:06:09.139 ideal timing politically for Republicans would 00:06:09.139 --> 00:06:11.399 be for the court to rule much earlier. Yeah. 00:06:11.439 --> 00:06:14.920 Like November or December 2025. That would be 00:06:14.920 --> 00:06:17.899 highly unusual. A real break from their normal 00:06:17.899 --> 00:06:20.379 schedule, almost like a power grab. Unheard of, 00:06:20.459 --> 00:06:23.120 really. But it would give Republican legislatures 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:26.019 the time they need to draw those new favorable 00:06:26.019 --> 00:06:29.660 maps well before the 2026 primaries even start. 00:06:30.019 --> 00:06:33.040 So that's the long game, this slow, potentially 00:06:33.040 --> 00:06:35.879 devastating shift in Democratic structures. But 00:06:35.879 --> 00:06:37.819 the short game, the fight for voters' attention 00:06:37.819 --> 00:06:40.379 right now, seems almost totally disconnected 00:06:40.379 --> 00:06:43.819 from this. Which brings us to what voters actually 00:06:43.819 --> 00:06:46.579 care about. And this perception gap you mentioned 00:06:46.579 --> 00:06:49.120 earlier. Yes. Here's where it gets really interesting. 00:06:49.279 --> 00:06:51.259 Let's set aside the cable news chatter for a 00:06:51.259 --> 00:06:53.620 second. OK. Our source polling is pretty clear 00:06:53.620 --> 00:06:57.079 on top voter issues. Number one, affordable prices, 00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:00.100 especially for Republicans. Makes sense. Kitchen 00:07:00.100 --> 00:07:02.000 table stuff. Followed closely by health care 00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:04.519 and then jobs and wages. So two of the top three 00:07:04.519 --> 00:07:06.939 are straight up economic concerns. But the perception 00:07:06.939 --> 00:07:09.139 of the parties, that's where it goes sideways. 00:07:09.259 --> 00:07:11.720 Dramatically. Democratic voters, they actually 00:07:11.720 --> 00:07:13.620 have a reasonably accurate view of their own 00:07:13.620 --> 00:07:16.300 party. They think Democrats are focused on prices, 00:07:16.819 --> 00:07:19.240 health care, jobs, lining up with their own priorities. 00:07:19.680 --> 00:07:22.500 OK, that seems logical. But Republican voters, 00:07:23.480 --> 00:07:25.399 they are, according to this polling, largely 00:07:25.399 --> 00:07:28.240 off base about Democrats. How so? Only about 00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:31.259 13 to 15 percent of Republicans think Democrats 00:07:31.259 --> 00:07:34.360 care about those core economic issues. Only 15 00:07:34.360 --> 00:07:36.160 percent. What do they think Democrats are focused 00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:39.100 on? By large majorities. They believe the Democratic 00:07:39.100 --> 00:07:42.699 Party is almost entirely focused on climate change, 00:07:43.079 --> 00:07:47.680 abortion, and especially LGBTQ plus issues. Wow. 00:07:47.959 --> 00:07:50.139 And here's the kicker. The poll also shows that 00:07:50.139 --> 00:07:53.199 99 percent of Republicans consider LGBTQ plus 00:07:53.199 --> 00:07:55.759 issues totally unimportant to them personally. 00:07:56.120 --> 00:07:58.000 So they think Democrats are obsessed with something 00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:00.939 they themselves don't care about at all. Exactly. 00:08:01.199 --> 00:08:04.339 A complete mismatch. The sources we look at attribute 00:08:04.339 --> 00:08:06.899 this huge misperception gap to outside media 00:08:06.899 --> 00:08:09.279 influence, basically creating this manufactured 00:08:09.279 --> 00:08:12.730 disconnect about priorities. OK, so if the judicial 00:08:12.730 --> 00:08:14.850 game is about shifting the map structure, the 00:08:14.850 --> 00:08:16.910 political game has to be about cutting through 00:08:16.910 --> 00:08:19.189 that noise, that misperception. Absolutely. And 00:08:19.189 --> 00:08:21.389 the polling actually points to a really clear 00:08:21.389 --> 00:08:23.490 winning message for Democrats highlighted in 00:08:23.490 --> 00:08:25.470 a recent Gallup poll. Let's hear it. When U .S. 00:08:25.529 --> 00:08:27.790 adults were asked the best way to reduce the 00:08:27.790 --> 00:08:31.870 federal deficit, nearly two thirds, a huge majority, 00:08:32.330 --> 00:08:35.389 supported increasing taxes on the rich. That's 00:08:35.389 --> 00:08:38.370 not surprising, but still a powerful number and 00:08:38.370 --> 00:08:41.690 the least popular option. By far. cutting Social 00:08:41.690 --> 00:08:44.909 Security and Medicare, hugely unpopular, which 00:08:44.909 --> 00:08:46.870 presents this massive political opportunity. 00:08:47.110 --> 00:08:48.549 We should probably nail down some specifics, 00:08:48.809 --> 00:08:50.809 though. Vague promises don't work as well as 00:08:50.809 --> 00:08:52.990 concrete fixes, right? Totally. Like Social Security. 00:08:53.190 --> 00:08:55.389 The trust fund is projected to run short in about, 00:08:55.389 --> 00:08:58.309 what, 10 years? A simple, popular fix. Raise 00:08:58.309 --> 00:09:00.590 or just get rid of the FICA payroll tax cap. 00:09:00.870 --> 00:09:03.429 Explain that cap quickly. Sure. Right now, you 00:09:03.429 --> 00:09:05.769 only pay Social Security taxes on income up to 00:09:05.769 --> 00:09:09.110 a certain level. It's around $176 ,000 for 2025. 00:09:09.580 --> 00:09:11.740 Any income above that isn't taxed for Social 00:09:11.740 --> 00:09:13.840 Security. So billionaires pay the same amount 00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:16.860 into Social Security as someone making $180 ,000 00:09:16.860 --> 00:09:19.879 a year? Pretty much. Raising or eliminating that 00:09:19.879 --> 00:09:22.299 cap means high earners pay more into the system. 00:09:22.779 --> 00:09:24.940 It would shore up Social Security almost instantly. 00:09:25.580 --> 00:09:28.019 And the message is simple. Save Social Security 00:09:28.019 --> 00:09:31.559 by taxing the rich more. Very popular. OK, that's 00:09:31.559 --> 00:09:34.379 one concrete example. What about fixing the tax 00:09:34.379 --> 00:09:37.500 code itself? Any specific loopholes that resonate? 00:09:37.659 --> 00:09:40.360 Oh, yeah. The big one? The one that always comes 00:09:40.360 --> 00:09:42.980 up because it just seems so unfair to most people 00:09:42.980 --> 00:09:45.919 is the carried interest loophole. Ah, the private 00:09:45.919 --> 00:09:48.480 equity favorite. Exactly. It's basically a gift 00:09:48.480 --> 00:09:51.340 to super wealthy fund managers. It lets them 00:09:51.340 --> 00:09:53.980 treat their income, which is really just fees 00:09:53.980 --> 00:09:57.480 for managing money, essentially wages as lower 00:09:57.480 --> 00:10:00.460 tax capital gains. So they pay a much lower tax 00:10:00.460 --> 00:10:02.240 rate than someone earning the same amount through 00:10:02.240 --> 00:10:04.899 a regular salary. Right. A massive tax break 00:10:04.899 --> 00:10:08.220 for the very, very rich. perfect political target. 00:10:08.840 --> 00:10:11.000 Closing loopholes like that, taxing the wealthy, 00:10:11.659 --> 00:10:14.320 these are popular economic arguments. OK, so 00:10:14.320 --> 00:10:16.740 stepping back, we see these big battles happening 00:10:16.740 --> 00:10:19.519 outside the normal legislative process too. In 00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:21.919 the administrative state, the courts. Let's look 00:10:21.919 --> 00:10:23.759 at a couple of those flash points, starting with 00:10:23.759 --> 00:10:25.980 what looks like a clear Hatch Act violation. 00:10:26.120 --> 00:10:27.779 Yeah, this involved the Secretary of Homeland 00:10:27.779 --> 00:10:30.600 Security, Kristi Noem. She produced this video 00:10:30.600 --> 00:10:33.340 and tried to get it played at TSA checkpoints 00:10:33.340 --> 00:10:37.019 in airports. OK. What was in the video? She explicitly 00:10:37.019 --> 00:10:40.059 blamed the long airport lines during the recent 00:10:40.059 --> 00:10:42.340 government shutdown on Democrats, saying it was 00:10:42.340 --> 00:10:44.179 their fault for not reopening the government. 00:10:44.340 --> 00:10:47.639 Whoa. Using federal resources, like TSA screens, 00:10:47.899 --> 00:10:51.179 to blame one specific political party? That sounds... 00:10:51.179 --> 00:10:53.220 Like a potential felony violation of the Hatch 00:10:53.220 --> 00:10:57.240 Act? Yes. That law bans federal employees, apart 00:10:57.240 --> 00:11:00.220 from the president and VP, from engaging in partisan 00:11:00.220 --> 00:11:03.820 politics on the taxpayer's dime. Naming and blaming 00:11:03.820 --> 00:11:06.299 a party for political gain. That's crossing a 00:11:06.299 --> 00:11:08.179 line. Did the airports actually play it? Many 00:11:08.179 --> 00:11:10.539 didn't. The backlash was pretty quick. Major 00:11:10.539 --> 00:11:13.679 airports Atlanta, LAX, Chicago refused. Several 00:11:13.679 --> 00:11:15.659 explicitly cited the Hatch Act as the reason 00:11:15.659 --> 00:11:18.019 why. You can't use public assets for partisan 00:11:18.019 --> 00:11:21.259 messaging. But did she still sort of win, even 00:11:21.259 --> 00:11:23.299 if the video wasn't widely shown? Well, the sources 00:11:23.299 --> 00:11:25.240 suggest the real goal might have been achieved 00:11:25.240 --> 00:11:27.980 anyway. Generating publicity, maybe appealing 00:11:27.980 --> 00:11:30.360 to her boss, showing she's a fighter. It kind 00:11:30.360 --> 00:11:32.679 of feeds that idea that In some political circles, 00:11:32.820 --> 00:11:35.460 you can win by losing the actual battle as long 00:11:35.460 --> 00:11:37.879 as you create the right noise. Hmm. OK, shifting 00:11:37.879 --> 00:11:39.740 to the courts again, but on the administrative 00:11:39.740 --> 00:11:42.720 side, a federal judge blocked some layoffs. Yeah, 00:11:42.840 --> 00:11:45.259 U .S. District Judge Susan Ilston in California. 00:11:45.919 --> 00:11:48.159 She temporarily blocked these federal reductions 00:11:48.159 --> 00:11:51.620 in force, RIS layoffs that were ordered by OMB, 00:11:51.820 --> 00:11:54.500 the budget office and OPM, personal management. 00:11:54.879 --> 00:11:57.000 What was her reasoning? It was pretty blunt, 00:11:57.019 --> 00:12:00.139 actually. She basically said OMB and OPM were 00:12:00.139 --> 00:12:02.860 acting as if, quote, all bets are off that the 00:12:02.860 --> 00:12:04.919 laws don't apply to them anymore, just because 00:12:04.919 --> 00:12:07.519 there was a government funding lapse. So ignoring 00:12:07.519 --> 00:12:10.700 civil service protections. Exactly. She really 00:12:10.700 --> 00:12:12.679 pressed the Justice Department lawyer, asking 00:12:12.679 --> 00:12:14.879 how they could possibly implement these layoffs 00:12:14.879 --> 00:12:17.259 without even analyzing if they were legal under 00:12:17.259 --> 00:12:19.419 the circumstances. It's an example of the courts 00:12:19.419 --> 00:12:21.759 trying to act as a check on executive overreach, 00:12:21.980 --> 00:12:24.299 even in chaotic times. OK. And finally, in this 00:12:24.299 --> 00:12:27.080 section. The truly unusual, this Make America 00:12:27.080 --> 00:12:31.580 Healthy Again group, MAHA. Oh, MAHA, yes. This 00:12:31.580 --> 00:12:34.360 is the advisory group led by HH Secretary Robert 00:12:34.360 --> 00:12:37.879 F. Kennedy Jr. And, well, the sources we consulted 00:12:37.879 --> 00:12:40.159 consistently describe his approach as, let's 00:12:40.159 --> 00:12:42.700 just say, outside the mainstream. I think I read 00:12:42.700 --> 00:12:45.620 six former Surgeons General called his leadership 00:12:45.620 --> 00:12:48.159 a profound, immediate, and unprecedented threat. 00:12:48.559 --> 00:12:51.919 They did. But the details of the actual MAHA 00:12:51.919 --> 00:12:54.389 calls. Mm -hmm. There's something else. They 00:12:54.389 --> 00:12:56.629 happen every other Wednesday. The attendee list 00:12:56.629 --> 00:13:00.750 is eclectic. Like who? Well, the governor of 00:13:00.750 --> 00:13:04.710 West Virginia has been on it. Russell Brand reportedly 00:13:04.710 --> 00:13:07.450 shirtless in a bathtub. Seriously? Apparently. 00:13:07.950 --> 00:13:10.049 And one attendee was quoted saying, fluoride 00:13:10.049 --> 00:13:13.049 disconnects one from God. OK. Wow. So these ideas 00:13:13.049 --> 00:13:14.950 are circulating at high levels. Directly within 00:13:14.950 --> 00:13:17.309 the executive branch, yes. It's not just fringe 00:13:17.309 --> 00:13:19.850 stuff online. It's influencing policy discussions. 00:13:20.559 --> 00:13:21.980 What's fascinating, though, is there's a bit 00:13:21.980 --> 00:13:24.460 of internal pushback. From whom? From the CMS 00:13:24.460 --> 00:13:27.059 Administrator, Mehmet Oz. Cataract Oz, he's on 00:13:27.059 --> 00:13:29.519 these calls, too. Wait, Dr. Oz is the voice of 00:13:29.519 --> 00:13:32.080 reason trying to restrain R .F .K. Jr.? It appears 00:13:32.080 --> 00:13:34.460 so, at least occasionally. One source mentioned 00:13:34.460 --> 00:13:37.019 an instance where Kennedy claimed Tylenol causes 00:13:37.019 --> 00:13:39.259 autism. Oz apparently had to step in and say 00:13:39.259 --> 00:13:40.960 something like, gotta be restrained on this, 00:13:41.019 --> 00:13:44.240 it's not causation. What a world. A bizarre dynamic 00:13:44.240 --> 00:13:46.700 at the top of the nation's health administration. 00:13:47.120 --> 00:13:49.179 Deeply relevant to public policy, though, however 00:13:49.179 --> 00:13:51.440 strange it seems. All right. Let's pivot and 00:13:51.440 --> 00:13:53.519 end our analysis in a place that reminds us that, 00:13:53.519 --> 00:13:56.519 you know, the immediate on -the -ground political 00:13:56.519 --> 00:14:00.799 fight still matters hugely. Wisconsin. Wisconsin. 00:14:01.320 --> 00:14:04.259 The ultimate swing state, right? Went with the 00:14:04.259 --> 00:14:05.940 presidential winner in the last five elections. 00:14:06.600 --> 00:14:09.240 Very tight. And the Democrats there just selected 00:14:09.240 --> 00:14:12.659 a new young party chair, Devin Remaker. He's 00:14:12.659 --> 00:14:16.240 33. Yeah. Vigorous young leadership. And he's 00:14:16.240 --> 00:14:18.580 been very clear about his mission. He sees his 00:14:18.580 --> 00:14:21.580 job as building a, quote, bulwark against a hostile 00:14:21.580 --> 00:14:24.299 administration, focusing on year -round organizing, 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:27.580 modern communication. That modern communication 00:14:27.580 --> 00:14:29.700 piece seems key, doesn't it? Especially with 00:14:29.700 --> 00:14:32.519 younger voters. The old playbook of just flooding 00:14:32.519 --> 00:14:35.039 TV with ads doesn't cut it anymore. Not at all. 00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:37.399 Having a millennial chair seems aimed squarely 00:14:37.399 --> 00:14:40.019 at figuring out social media, localized digital 00:14:40.019 --> 00:14:42.519 outreach, driving engagement in ways that actually 00:14:42.519 --> 00:14:44.519 connect. You need that when the opposition is 00:14:44.519 --> 00:14:46.519 so powerful. And his big strategy, it's not just 00:14:46.519 --> 00:14:49.139 focusing on the blue areas. No, that's the core 00:14:49.139 --> 00:14:52.259 of it. He calls it the Redland focus, focusing 00:14:52.259 --> 00:14:55.220 on all 72 counties in Wisconsin, not just the 00:14:55.220 --> 00:14:57.299 Democratic strongholds like Madison, Milwaukee 00:14:57.299 --> 00:15:00.620 or tribal lands. Why? What's the math behind 00:15:00.620 --> 00:15:03.279 going into deep red territory? It's all about 00:15:03.279 --> 00:15:05.039 those marginal gains we talked about earlier. 00:15:05.200 --> 00:15:07.899 But at the county level, take a really red county, 00:15:08.039 --> 00:15:10.940 maybe 30 ,000 voters total. Democrats might only 00:15:10.940 --> 00:15:16.059 get 20 percent there historically. But if, through 00:15:16.059 --> 00:15:18.259 sustained effort, just showing up, listening, 00:15:18.700 --> 00:15:21.379 organizing a bit, they can move that 20 % up 00:15:21.379 --> 00:15:24.460 to 30%, that's a 10 -point swing. In a county 00:15:24.460 --> 00:15:27.240 of 30 ,000, that's 3 ,000 extra votes. Exactly. 00:15:27.580 --> 00:15:29.419 And Wisconsin's statewide elections are often 00:15:29.419 --> 00:15:32.480 decided by... just a few thousand votes. So netting 00:15:32.480 --> 00:15:35.759 3 ,000 here, 2 ,000 there, across a dozen rural 00:15:35.759 --> 00:15:37.840 or redder counties. It adds up fast. It could 00:15:37.840 --> 00:15:40.519 be the entire margin of victory. Precisely. It's 00:15:40.519 --> 00:15:42.820 not about flipping the county red to blue. It's 00:15:42.820 --> 00:15:44.879 about improving the margins everywhere by simply 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:47.340 showing up and listening, as Romaker puts it, 00:15:47.679 --> 00:15:49.960 engaging voters who often feel ignored by Democrats. 00:15:50.139 --> 00:15:52.460 OK, so let's zoom out one last time, tying all 00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:55.120 these threads together. You really see this profound 00:15:55.120 --> 00:15:57.759 tension, don't you? On one hand, you have this 00:15:57.759 --> 00:16:00.500 strategic, slow -motion erosion of something 00:16:00.500 --> 00:16:02.799 fundamental like the Voting Rights Act via these 00:16:02.799 --> 00:16:05.639 judicial two steps. That can literally change 00:16:05.639 --> 00:16:09.200 the map of power. And on the other hand, you 00:16:09.200 --> 00:16:11.820 have these immediate political opportunities 00:16:11.820 --> 00:16:14.919 for Democrats, really popular economic messages 00:16:14.919 --> 00:16:19.279 like tax the rich, combined with smart, targeted 00:16:19.279 --> 00:16:21.679 state -level strategies like that Redland focus 00:16:21.679 --> 00:16:24.830 in Wisconsin. It's a clash between that constitutional 00:16:24.830 --> 00:16:27.210 long game played largely by unelected judges 00:16:27.210 --> 00:16:29.590 and the immediate political battle for voter 00:16:29.590 --> 00:16:32.029 attention. Yeah. And that battle for attention 00:16:32.029 --> 00:16:34.549 is complicated by the perception gap we discussed. 00:16:35.090 --> 00:16:38.409 Voters care about prices, health, jobs. But polling 00:16:38.409 --> 00:16:41.629 suggests outside media successfully gets many 00:16:41.629 --> 00:16:43.909 Republican voters focused on cultural issues, 00:16:44.330 --> 00:16:46.350 thinking that's what Democrats prioritize, even 00:16:46.350 --> 00:16:48.350 when it's not the voters main concern. It brings 00:16:48.350 --> 00:16:51.039 to mind that that blunt quote from Chief Justice 00:16:51.039 --> 00:16:53.419 Roberts back in 2009. Talking about the court's 00:16:53.419 --> 00:16:55.299 power, he essentially said to the public, if 00:16:55.299 --> 00:16:57.080 they don't like what we are doing, it's more 00:16:57.080 --> 00:17:00.460 or less just too bad. Oof. Yeah. Here's where 00:17:00.460 --> 00:17:02.340 it gets really interesting, then, for you to 00:17:02.340 --> 00:17:05.440 think about. What happens when one party, like 00:17:05.440 --> 00:17:08.220 the Democrats here, does manage to align its 00:17:08.220 --> 00:17:10.740 voters' perceptions with its actual priorities 00:17:10.740 --> 00:17:14.140 on, say, economic issues? And they maybe even 00:17:14.140 --> 00:17:16.920 nail the local strategy in a key state like Wisconsin, 00:17:17.200 --> 00:17:20.140 but at the same time, these profound structural 00:17:20.140 --> 00:17:23.460 changes to democracy, like gutting the VRA, are 00:17:23.460 --> 00:17:25.839 happening through these inaccessible long -term 00:17:25.839 --> 00:17:28.130 judicial maneuvers? Yeah. What does that mean 00:17:28.130 --> 00:17:30.609 for the next few elections? If the map itself 00:17:30.609 --> 00:17:33.109 gets fundamentally redrawn by the courts before 00:17:33.109 --> 00:17:35.289 those popular economic debates can even fully 00:17:35.289 --> 00:17:38.170 play out on fairground, that's the tension the 00:17:38.170 --> 00:17:39.970 question will leave you with. A lot to consider. 00:17:40.170 --> 00:17:42.309 Indeed. Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.