Welcome back. So today we're doing a really critical
deep dive. Think of it as a post -mortem sequel
on the recent elections. Right. But we're not
really looking at the big national headlines
you've already heard. No. We want to drill down
into those micro signals. maybe the media missed.
Things like unexpected local results, simmering
cultural stuff. Exactly. Things pointing towards
2026, maybe even deeper shifts. Yeah. And we've
pulled together a really interesting mix of sources
for you. It's got internal analysis on how the
administration reacted privately to, well, taking
a beating. OK. Surprising results. Georgia, Mississippi,
a deep dive into that key Pennsylvania County,
Bucks. The bellwether. And then this other Quite
profound clash brewing between the administration's
policies and, well, the Catholic Church. OK,
so quite a rage. So for you, the listener, the
mission today is connecting these seemingly scattered
dots. Right. What does it all mean? What's the
picture they paint about the political climate
right now? And what are the practical signs that
might actually matter going forward? Let's jump
in. OK, let's start at the top. National noise,
internal party stuff. Sounds good. So leading
up to the vote, there was a lot of chatter. maybe
even some fear about the DOJ sending election
monitors, right? Oh, yeah, big story. So places
like California, New Jersey, place you wouldn't
necessarily expect. And the fear was, is this
a trial run, a dry run for 2026 voter intimidation?
It definitely dominated the pre -election coverage,
but according to sources who were actually there,
on the ground. It was, well, pretty much a non
-event. Really? Yeah. Reporters were out looking
for these monitors, couldn't find them. We heard,
like, maybe two spotted in all of Fresno County,
that kind of thing. Just two. Yeah. And when
they were found, they weren't career folks. They
were political appointees, some described as,
you know, hardcore Mejia loyalists. OK. So what's
the read on that? Our material seems to have
two sort of competing theories on why it fizzled.
Right. One idea is maybe the administration just
couldn't find enough qualified people or maybe
enough willing people to do it. this kind of
overtly political thing. That makes sense. What's
the other interpretation? Well, the other. And
maybe more concerning analysis is that it wasn't
really about immediate intimidation, not this
time. It might have been more like an intelligence
gathering operation. Sending high level political
types lets them test the waters, see how the
DOJ machinery reacts, how local officials push
back. So collecting intel. Exactly. Gathering
intel for a potentially bigger, maybe more legally
focused or bureaucratic challenge in 2026. Less
about boots on the ground, more about maneuvering
behind the scenes. That's a more chilling thought
than just not finding enough people. And related
to that, some sources told us, watch out for
post -election fraud claims being used as a pretext.
But we haven't really seen a flood those either,
have we? No, that's right. It seems like right
now, anyway, it's harder to sell those big fraud
narratives when the wins are pretty decisive.
The margins matter. Yeah, the claims seem to
get more traction when it's really close or when
it's specifically about flipping a Trump loss
into a supposed win. So that relative quiet may
be a small positive sign for now. OK, let's shift
to the president's private reactions. Yeah. Because
whatever is being said publicly, our sources
say he knows the GOP took a hit. Oh, he knows.
Reports mention, let's say, significant temper
tantrums aimed at fellow Republicans. Speaker
Mike Johnson, Lindsey Graham specifically named.
Yeah, the blame game is definitely on. And it's
strategic, right? He's reportedly pointing the
finger squarely at the shutdown debacle and,
interestingly, at Senate Republicans. Saying
they weren't loyal enough. Pretty much not loyal
enough, didn't fight hard enough. And he apparently
used this moment, the losses, as leverage. Tried
to push Senate Republicans privately to just
abolish the filibuster. Wow. How did that go
over? Stony. Silence. That's the report. Stony
silence. And that silence, that's the real tell
here, I think. He's testing his influence, trying
to tie the election losses to this long -standing
Senate rule. And getting nothing back. Exactly.
It suggests his power to just dictate procedure
to Senate leadership. It's waning. That reduces
his leverage quite a bit heading into the next
cycle. Staying with Congress but moving to the
House. Yeah. There's another fascinating little
detail showing how election losses have immediate
consequences. We're talking about the discharge
petition math. Right. The magic number 218 signatures
needed to force a vote on something the speaker
doesn't want on the floor. Yeah. The timing here
is just brutal for the Democrats trying to use
it. You've got Rep Spanberger leaving by January
17th, Rep Sheryl by the 20th. to be governors.
So that's two signatures gone? Instantly drops
the total. Now, rep -elect Adelita Grigialva
comes in, but that only brings it back up one,
still short of 218. Meaning that threat, that
tool to bypass the speaker. It's off the table
for months, probably, until those seats are filled
in special elections. It gives the speaker a
lot more breathing room, a small detail that's
strategically huge. Absolutely huge. OK, let's
pivot now. Yep. state level because some of the,
maybe the most interesting signals for 2026 weren't
in DC at all. Agreed. Let's start in Georgia.
There was a special election for two seats on
the Public Service Commission, the PSC. Not usually
headline news. No, but this is a really big deal
when totally under the radar for most people.
The PSC, remember, sets utility rates, oversees
energy projects, big climate policy implications
now. Okay. And what happened? Democrats flipped
two seats. Alicia Johnson and Peter Hubbard won.
And get this, turnout was huge. Over 1 .4 million
votes cast. Wow. So why is that, like, historic?
Well, first, it's the first time a Democrat won
any seat on the Georgia PSC in 25 years. A quarter
century. Yeah. And bigger picture. It's the first
time the Democrats have won any statewide constitutional
office there since 2006. OK, that is significant.
And Governor Kemp, the Republican governor, he
put a lot of political muscle into this race
for the Republicans who lost. So this wasn't
just a fluke. It feels like a real message. When
the party in power loses control over, you know,
electricity bills and things like that. That's
a loud canary. Exactly. A very loud canary in
the coal mine. OK, let's head over to Mississippi.
Democrats picked up three state Senate seats
there. Sounds small, maybe. Doesn't sound like
much, but the impact is big. It meant the GOP
lost its supermajority in the state senate. Ah,
okay, so that changes the dynamic. Immediately.
Makes it much harder for the majority to just
ram through, let's say, the more controversial,
highly partisan stuff, that veto -proof edge,
gone. And the reaction from the state GOP chair,
Mike Hurst, was pretty defensive. Yeah, blaming
gerrymandered districts drawn by an unelected
court, blaming federal statutes weaponized by
interest groups. You know, the usual suspects.
But notably, not just blaming national politics.
Right. He went straight for the map drawers and
the courts, which kind of shows the pressure
they're feeling right there at the state level.
Interesting. And one more state note, Virginia.
A historic win. Absolutely. First Muslim, first
Asian American to hold statewide office in Virginia's
history. Which is significant in itself. But
zooming out even further, she's the first Muslim
woman to win statewide office anywhere in the
United States. Ever. Why? So this isn't just
one election, right? It speaks to these larger
demographic shifts, changing patterns of political
engagement. It's reshaping the map, especially
in places like Virginia that are growing and
changing fast. All right. Let's really drill
down now into one specific place. Bucks County,
Pennsylvania. P .A. zero one. We keep calling
a critical a bellwether. Why? Well, it's that
classic suburban swing county. It was pretty
reliably Democratic for a long time. Then Trump
narrowly won it in 2024. Which was the first
time a Republican presidential candidate had
won bucks since, what, the 80s? Exactly. So it
really is on that knife's edge. And then in these
recent local elections, total reversal. What
happened locally? Local Democrats just swept
the board. Every single countywide office. And
not by small margins, like around 10 points each.
10 points, that's decisive. Yeah, the biggest
margin they've had in a They flipped the DA's
office, flipped the county sheriff role. That
one went to an Army reservist named Danny Ciesler.
And Ceasler's campaign, the strategy there, seems
pretty instructive for Democrats trying to win
in these kinds of places. Totally. He made a
point of focusing on local stuff, like really
local concerns, avoided the national shouting
matches. And reined in his competence. Right.
Making sure law enforcement was professional,
not political. Exactly. The sense was voters
felt the incumbent sheriff was letting national
politics seep into local governing. Ceasler promised
basically competent, non -extreme local leadership.
And it worked. Even though Doesn't Bucks County
still have more registered Republicans? Oh yeah,
significantly. Like nearly 10 ,000 more registered
Republicans than Democrats. It's a doubled advantage
for the GOP on paper. So for Democrats to win
by 10 points. It means a huge number of registered
Republicans or maybe independents who lean Republican
crossed over. They specifically chose candidates
promising, you know, just common sense local
governing over party label. That registration
advantage just vanished. Which brings us to the
guy who represents this district in Congress.
Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, P -A -0 -1. He's
like the Houdini of Republicans. He really is,
often called Teflon Fitz. He just keeps outperforming
the top of the ticket, survives these blue waves.
He's the last Republican standing in the Philly
suburbs, a true outlier. So Democrats see this
local sweep, they see Governor Shapiro's popularity,
and they think, okay, this is the year we finally
get Fitzpatrick. That's the hope, yeah. They're
confident, but the Republicans. They point to
his track record. He won by 13 points in 2024,
even as Trump barely won the county. And he raises
a ton of money. A ton, like almost $900 ,000
last quarter alone. They're not worried, or at
least they say they're not. So his brand is key.
He's ranked, what, the most bipartisan member
of Congress, co -chairs the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Right. And he makes sure people know about his
breaks with Trump. You know, confirming Biden
won in 2020, voting against that big domestic
policy bill. He... cultivates that distance.
And that helps him defy gravity, as they say.
It seems to. But the Democratic strategy against
him next year, it's shaping up to be about tying
him to the National Party anyway. The agenda
of chaos argument. Exactly. Saying, OK, maybe
you vote against some things, but your party
enables extremism and you're still part of that.
And then hitting him on cost of living issues,
trying to pin that on the GOP broadly. Arguing
his moderate votes ultimately do nothing. for
people's wallets. Right. It's gonna be fascinating.
That district, PA -01, it's like a perfect microcosm
of the whole national battleground for 2026.
Okay, so we've talked local politics, state shifts,
but now let's turn to something maybe deeper,
more fundamental. This growing rift you mentioned
between the Catholic Church and the administration,
specifically over migration policy. Yeah, this
isn't just about competing policies. It feels
like a clash of, well, core moral frameworks.
How so? Well, you have... We have the NGA -aligned
view on migrants, which is often very harsh,
very restrictionist. And that runs directly counter
to fundamental Catholic teaching about the dignity
of every single human being, the call to love
foreigners, refugees. Basic tenets of the faith.
Exactly. And this isn't just theoretical anymore.
It's playing out very practically, very visibly.
What are some of the really stark examples from
the source material? The ones that stick with
you. Well, there was that incident in Broadview,
Illinois. ICE reportedly denied Catholic priests
access to detainees. Denied access for what?
To bring them the Eucharist communion, which,
for Catholics, is profoundly important. They
believe it's the actual body of Christ. Denying
that? That's a serious escalation. Wow. OK. What
else? We've seen reports of priests and nuns
literally accompanying immigrants to their ICE
check -ins. Standing with them as a physical
presence, hoping to deter, you know, summary
deportations right then and there. Using their
presence as a shield, almost. In a way, yes.
And maybe the most dramatic, the Diocese of San
Bernardino out in California. They formally released
Catholics from their Sunday mass obligation.
Lifted the obligation to go to mass. Why? Specifically
to protect them, because people were reportedly
being targeted and picked up by ICE agents right
as they were leaving church on Sunday morning.
That is astonishing. leaving church. Yeah. So
the diocese said essentially, your safety comes
first. You don't have to risk capture to fulfill
your religious duty this week. And this isn't
just local priests acting alone. This goes higher
up. Oh yeah. The late Pope Francis spoke out
repeatedly. urging Catholics don't give in to
narratives that discriminate, warning against
building walls of ignominy. Strong language.
Very. And the current pope, Leo IV, he's been
just as forceful, maybe even more direct. He
essentially questioned if you can even be pro
-life if you support the inhuman treatment of
immigrants. Drawing a direct line between those
issues. He said, I don't know if that's pro -life.
And he's warned that abusing vulnerable migrants,
that constitutes grave crimes committed or tolerated
by the state. Heavy stuff. So how's the administration
responding to this moral pressure from the Vatican
and the US bishops? Publicly. Dismissive. The
White House reportedly told one journalist pretty
bluntly, the pope doesn't know what he's talking
about. Just outright dismissal. Yeah. And then
you have political figures like Senator J .D.
Vance trying to undermine the U .S. Bishop's
credibility, accusing them of being motivated
by money, pointing to the funds they receive
for refugee resettlement over $100 million, trying
to frame it as self -interest, not moral principle.
And Vance also used a theological term, right?
Bordo amoris. Yeah. the Order of Loves, he tried
to use it to argue, it's okay, even right, to
prioritize loving Americans over loving immigrants.
Kind of a theological justification for nationalism.
But didn't Pope Francis address that exact argument?
He did, specifically push back on that interpretation
using the parable of the Good Samaritan, which,
you know, is pretty much the classic Christian
teaching against prioritizing care based on nationality
or group identity. It teaches universal care.
So it really forces a choice for some people.
It absolutely does. It brings up this fundamental
question, especially for Catholic voters, officials,
maybe even folks working in immigration enforcement,
a question of dual loyalty. Faith versus state.
Yeah. When your faith's demands about universal
human dignity clash head -on with an America
first ideology and with how state policy is actually
being carried out, which one wins? Which duty
comes first? It's a profound conflict. Hashtag
tag tag outro. So pulling it all together, what
we're seeing is I think pretty clear. On one
level, the antidote to some of this national
polarization seems to be really local, common
sense stuff. Like in Georgia, Mississippi, Bucks
County. Exactly. Those democratic wins suggest
voters respond to focusing on community competence,
steering clear the extremes. Those are political
shifts, though, tactical wins. But underneath
that? Underneath, there's this deeper, maybe
more significant tremor, this macro level moral
clash like the church versus the administration
on migration. That represents a potentially much
longer term, maybe more destabilizing kind of
fault line. Which leads us to that final thought,
something for you, the listener, to really chew
on. Bishop Mark Sites of El Paso. He suggested
Catholics working within the deportation system
might soon face a really hard choice. Yeah, he
said they might have to make that difficult moral
choice to say, in conscience, I can no longer
do this. So the question for all of us then is,
what does it actually mean for American stability,
for the fabric of society, when deeply held religious
duties, moral imperatives, start lining up against
these stated goals, the actual enforcement of
the law and the land? When people feel forced
to choose between their faith and their government?
What happens next? A powerful question to end
on. Thank you for joining us for this deep dive
into the source material. We'll see you next
time.