Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're sort
of pulling focus on three big political threads.
Right. We've got major figures legacy, some really
high stakes legal fights, and then this whole
wave of local ballot initiatives. Yeah, it's
a lot to connect. Our mission here is basically
to trace how these things link up. You know,
how history shapes today's local votes. This
is your shortcut to getting up to speed. Exactly.
We're drawing lines between someone who really
changed the VP role, the kind of legal battles
we're seeing now between prosecutors and, well,
partisan attacks, and then how all that national
heat is turning local propositions into something
bigger. It's strategy, top to bottom. OK, so
let's dive in with former Vice President Dick
Cheney. He passed away at 84. And while the sources
really highlight his life as just an amazing
story of medical resilience. Oh, definitely.
I mean, first heart attack back in 1978. Almost
50 years ago. Yeah. And then multiple major attacks,
stents, valve repairs. culminating in that heart
transplant in 2012. And doctors thought he might
get another 10 years. Right. And he got 12. It's
really a testament to modern medicine, you know?
Absolutely. But beyond the medical side, it's
the political power debate that's really interesting.
Some sources are calling him America's most powerful
modern vice president. That's a huge claim. And
it suggests, well, a level of power we haven't
quite seen replicated. So where does that idea
come from, that he was almost a de facto president?
It really centers on those early George W. Bush
years. Cheney brought all this experience, chief
of staff, defense secretary, and basically acted
like a co -president. Using that institutional
knowledge. Exactly. But here's the interesting
contrast the sources make. He got this immense
power early on, but then he kind of got sidelined
in Bush's second term, which is different from
other really influential VPs, think Mondale,
Gore, even Biden. They kept their influence without
that same dramatic fall. So his power was huge,
but maybe unstable. Volatile, yeah. That seems
to be the key takeaway. And the sources actually
link him to Mitch McConnell here. How so? Arguing
that both of them unleashed political forces
he ultimately could not control. Okay, explain
that. What forces? It's about the long -term
effects of short -term tactics, specifically
turning elections into these culture war referendums.
The sources draw a really direct line here. It's
not far, they argue, from basing a 2004 campaign
on opposing gay marriage to a 2024 campaign focused
on opposing trans girls in high school sports.
It's that same playbook. And that kind of chaos
had a cost, even for his own family. Absolutely.
It arguably consumed his daughter, Liz G. Cheney's
political career in the end, that backlash. Wow.
OK, before we move on, there's a neat bit of
historical trivia. His passing ended the third
time in US history. We had seven living VPs.
Oh, really? Who was in that group? Let's see.
Quail, Gore, Cheney himself, Biden, Pence, Harris,
and JD Vance. Huh. Quite a list. OK, so we see
Cheney's long shadow, these forces he helped
unleash. Now let's shift to the ground level.
How are these dynamics playing out in local contests
right now? Let's look at the propositions. Right.
There are about 30 propositions on ballots across
the country, which is slightly below the midterm
average, interestingly. But wine is getting a
lot of national attention. California's Prop
50. Yeah, this one's really being framed as Governor
Gavin Newsom's, quote, first national campaign.
Why national? It's a state prop. Because the
fundraising is national. The messaging is national.
And look at the advertising shift. It started
as this broad defend democracy message. OK. Now
it's much more aggressive, very negative, focused
directly on attacking Donald Trump. And he's
got some big names behind it. Oh, yeah. An all
-star team of lefties, as one source put it.
You've got Tom Steyer, Obama, Senators Warren.
and Sanders, Pelosi, AOC. It's a big push. So
the stakes for Newsom personally are pretty high
then. Massive. Absolutely massive. If this loses,
it's disastrous for his national image. If it
wins narrowly, well, they'll spin it as a win,
sure. But only a big win gives him that real
momentum he needs to look like a serious national
player. Got it. OK, let's jump across the country
to Maine. Question one there, what's that about?
This one's a conservative push to restrict absentee
voting. And the rules are pretty specific. Yeah,
I saw that. No requesting ballots by phone. Right.
And the big one, it gets rid of permanent absentee
status. So every election, you'd have to go in
person to the elections office to request your
absentee ballot. Wow. That seems like a barrier
for some people. For sure. The sources highlight
a specific example. Sarah Trites, she's 60, has
vision problems, lives near her polling place,
but there's no public transit. So mail -in is
her only real option. Exactly. And this initiative
would make that much, much harder for people
like her. And we know who's backing this. Yep.
Funding traces back to a Republican activist,
Alex Titcombe, who in turn is backed by Leonard
Leo. Of the Federalist Society, okay? Maine also
has question two, which is about gun safety.
Allowing courts to temporarily remove guns from
someone deemed a threat. Seems straightforward,
but the governor opposes it. Yeah, Governor Janet
Mills argues the police already have enough authority
to act. She thinks shifting this responsibility
to the courts would actually slow things down.
Huh. Making it more dangerous. That's her argument,
yeah. Increases public danger by adding delay.
Interesting. Okay, elsewhere. Colorado's dealing
with school meals funding. Yeah, they have this
healthy school meals for all program, but there's
a $50 million shortfall. Ouch. So the vote is?
Whether to cover that gap by slightly reducing
tax deductions for people earning over $300 ,000
a year. It's not a new tax, just adjusting deductions.
OK. And then there's minimum wage popping up
again. Olympia, Washington this time. Right.
They're voting on raising it to $20 an hour.
Seattle's already at $20 .76. And the national
angle here is? Well, if these cities can implement
such high minimum wages without unemployment
skyrocketing, then it could really fuel the argument
for raising the federal minimum wage from its
current $7 .25. Could be a big Democratic issue
for 2026. Makes sense. Yeah. OK, last one in
this section. Bucks County, Pennsylvania, PA01.
Why is this one so important? Because Bucks County
is seen as the bellwether. It's a microcosm of
suburban America. Crucial for the 2026 House
race there between Fitzpatrick, the Republican
incumbent, and Harvey the Democrat. And there's
some serious history at stake in the local races
too. Get this. Democrats are seriously competing
for the district attorney and sheriff roles.
Offices Republicans have held for over 150 years.
Wait, 150 years? For both? Well, the Sheriff's
Office, the source says Republicans have held
it since 1682. 1682. That can't be right. Let
me double check that. OK, yeah, the office dates
back that far. But Republican control is only
150 years or so. Yeah. Still, that's incredible
institutional history. Right. That kind of longevity
is just staggering. It definitely raises the
stakes. Yeah. The sources use that Benjamin Franklin
analogy about the sun painting at the Constitutional
Convention. Ah, the rising, resetting sun. Exactly.
Is this a rising sun for Democrats in the suburbs,
or is the Republican Institutional hold the setting
sun finally fading. Bucks County is seen as that
test case. Hashtag take three. High stakes, legal
maneuvering and counter offense. That's a really
good way to frame it actually. From local history
to this. Well, this institutional warfare we're
seeing in D .C. Let's talk about the Jack Smith
standoff. Right. House Republicans, Jim Jordan
leading the charge, demanding Smith testify behind
closed doors. And Smith's response is basically,
OK, but not like that. Yeah. He countered. He
said he'd appear, but only if it's public. Right.
And he wants access to all his files, including
that volume two of his report they haven't released.
Exactly. So why would a public hearing be better
for him? Seems risky. Well, the sources suggest
it's his best shot to control the narrative.
It's the closest he might get to, quote, try
Trump in absentia in the court of public opinion.
Oh, OK. So he can lay out the evidence directly.
Yeah. Think about it. The classified documents,
the Mar -a -Lago security tape showing boxes
being moved, that whole flooded room incident.
And he gets to present his side. And push back
against the attacks he's facing. Precisely. Especially
since some Senate Republican Schmidt, grassly,
are trying to undermine him, like digging up
old news about call log subpoenas. Right, trying
to paint it as wiretapping. Even though the logs
were known about for ages and didn't contain
actual conversations, just numbers called, it
feels like a smear tactic, using old information.
Definitely seems that way. And speaking of pushback,
look at what two of Smith's fired prosecutors
are doing. Molly Gaston and J .P. Cooney. What
are they up to? They're starting their own firm
specifically to help state and local governments
investigate corruption. Interesting. Why now?
Because the sources argue the main DOJ unit for
this, the public integrity section, has been
basically gutted. It's been hollowed out. So
they're stepping in to fill that gap at the state
and local level. Exactly. Using their expertise
where it's needed. Since the federal capacity
is diminished, it's a direct counteraction. We're
seeing a similar dynamic, maybe, with the attempt
to go after New York AG Letitia James over that
second home mortgage in Virginia. Yeah, the Perrone
property case. The accusation was mortgage fraud
getting a lower rate for a secondary residence,
but really using it as an investment property.
OK, break that down. What's the core issue? It's
about the interest rate difference. You typically
get a slightly better rate if you declare a property
a secondary home, meaning you live there sometimes,
versus an investment property you just rent out.
And they accused her of lying to get that better
rate. Right. Claiming she submitted fraud to
save. Get this. less than $20 ,000 over the life
of the loan. Doesn't sound like a massive conspiracy.
And then evidence came out. Yes, Politico got
hold of a document, part of the mortgage agreement
itself, that explicitly allowed her to have exclusive
control over the occupancy, including short -term
rentals. So she was allowed to rent it out? Pretty
much. The only restriction seems to have been
using a third -party management firm to handle
the rentals. Okay, so for the prosecution to
actually prove fraud here. Yeah. What would they
need? It's a really steep climb. First, they'd
have to prove she did use a forbidden management
firm. Second, prove she knew she was breaking
that specific rule, which is tough with mountains
of mortgage paperwork. Right. Intent is hard
to prove. And third, argue that this relatively
minor alleged infraction, saving maybe 20 grand,
warrants severe punishment. It just, it looks
weak. So the sources basically suggest this is
more political theater. Yeah, the phrase used
is performing for an audience of one. Suggesting
it's more about scoring political points than
a solid legal case, it really seems to fall apart
under scrutiny. Okay, let's shift back to pure
electoral strategy. The move by Representative
Chewy Garcia in Chicago. That's a fascinating
example of modern political maneuvering. Oh,
absolutely. He's 69, been in politics for ages,
nearly 40 years. He'd already filed to run again.
And then suddenly retires. Suddenly retires.
But it's the timing that's key. How so? He announced
he was withdrawing just one hour before the official
deadline for candidates to declare. Wow. That's
cutting it close. Deliberately close. Because
his chief of staff, Patty Garcia, was ready and
waiting. She filed immediately. Ah. So it effectively
cleared the path for her. Almost certainly spared
her a contested primary in that district, which
is heavily Democratic D plus 17. Meaning the
Democratic primary winner is virtually guaranteed
to win the seat. Exactly. So it keeps the seat
within his preferred political circle, avoids
a messy primary fight. Very calculated. That
kind of inside baseball calculation, it connects
to a broader critique of democratic strategy
that comes up in the source material, doesn't
it? Particularly looking at the NYC mayoral race.
It does. There's a sharp critique reported. It
contrasts someone like Zawan Mamdani, who focuses
on, you know, actual neighborhood campaigning,
talking about what people need. Boots on the
ground. With opponents who the source argues
rely more on stoking fears and just running as
not Trump. So the argument is that some Democrats
aren't really making their case. The argument
presented is that some high level Democrats have
maybe over focused on chasing quote rural white
or white working class voters. OK. And in doing
so, they kind of take voters of color for granted,
treating them like votes they need and earn simply
because the Republican alternative is seen as
worse. And the source basically says that's not
a sustainable strategy. Yeah, the quote is something
like, we will oppress slightly fewer people isn't
exactly a winning message. It's a call for more
proactive engagement. And that gap between messaging
and maybe what voters are actually experiencing
ties into that. weird crime paradox in New York
City. It really does. You have NYPD statistics
showing crime is way down, like 50 -year lows.
Right. Statistically safer. But political candidates
are still hammering on public safety, which suggests,
according to the source, that maybe people's
feeling of being unsafe isn't always about crime
rates. But maybe conflated with other visible
issues. Like seeing more homeless people, perhaps.
It points to a real disconnect between the data,
the lived experience, and the political narratives
being hashtag tag outro wow we've covered a huge
amount today from you know the deep legacy of
someone like Chaney to the really intense institutional
fights around Jack Smith and Letitia James. Right,
that high -level warfare. All the way down to
these critical local battles. Prop 15, California,
Bucks County, the grassroots stuff. Yeah, and
if you try to tie it all together, what you see
in the sources is this real tension. On one hand,
you've got these long -term forces, like the
kind Cheney unleashed. On the other, you have
these very immediate, specific decisions on ballots
right now. So here's the final thought we want
to leave you with, something to chew on from
all this material. What happens when national...
figures like Newsome with Prop 50 start using
those really intense, polarized, almost culture
war style messages that used to be mainly for
local fights. Does that nationalize everything?
Does it basically accelerate the very divisiveness,
the chaos that figures like Cheney help start?
Does it make every local vote feel like some
kind of national emergency? Yeah. That's the
question to consider.