WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.040 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Our mission today, 00:00:03.279 --> 00:00:05.740 well, it's pretty laser focused. We're synthesizing 00:00:05.740 --> 00:00:09.019 a huge stack of sources for you. A huge stack. 00:00:09.199 --> 00:00:11.839 We've got the latest Gallup polls, some really 00:00:11.839 --> 00:00:15.039 surprising local election results, high stakes 00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:18.039 legal battles. Exactly. And the goal is to give 00:00:18.039 --> 00:00:21.300 you the absolute fastest, most thorough understanding 00:00:21.300 --> 00:00:23.480 of where the political and economic landscape 00:00:23.480 --> 00:00:25.850 is right now. And we're not just looking at the 00:00:25.850 --> 00:00:28.010 obvious headlines here. No, not at all. We're 00:00:28.010 --> 00:00:30.769 trying to find those hidden currents that are 00:00:30.769 --> 00:00:33.810 actually shaping the 2026 map. And we absolutely 00:00:33.810 --> 00:00:35.789 have to start with those hidden currents. I mean, 00:00:35.990 --> 00:00:38.210 the hook today isn't just about the top line 00:00:38.210 --> 00:00:42.009 approval numbers, which are, frankly, quite challenging. 00:00:42.030 --> 00:00:43.829 They're tough, yeah. It's what's happening far, 00:00:43.909 --> 00:00:46.630 far away from Washington. We are seeing definitive 00:00:46.630 --> 00:00:50.810 evidence that these truly sleeper issues things 00:00:50.810 --> 00:00:53.810 like electricity prices exactly skyrocketing 00:00:53.810 --> 00:00:56.229 electricity prices often fueled by the massive 00:00:56.229 --> 00:00:59.409 energy demands from AI data centers they are 00:00:59.409 --> 00:01:01.689 quietly swinging local elections in deep red 00:01:01.689 --> 00:01:04.810 areas And that tells us that fundamental economic 00:01:04.810 --> 00:01:07.290 pain is, well, it's starting to crack partisan 00:01:07.290 --> 00:01:09.890 loyalty. OK, so let's start with that big political 00:01:09.890 --> 00:01:12.069 pulse check, because these Gallup numbers, they 00:01:12.069 --> 00:01:14.450 really demand our attention. We're looking at 00:01:14.450 --> 00:01:19.090 an overall job approval of just 36%. With disapproval 00:01:19.090 --> 00:01:23.109 spiking up to 60%. 60. And that 36 % figure is 00:01:23.109 --> 00:01:26.769 a major benchmark. Now, the all time low is 34 00:01:26.769 --> 00:01:30.730 % right after January 6, 2021. Right. But this 00:01:30.730 --> 00:01:34.230 36 % This is a record low for what we sort of 00:01:34.230 --> 00:01:37.569 been calling Trump v 2 .0. The political movement 00:01:37.569 --> 00:01:39.989 since he left office. Exactly. He started that 00:01:39.989 --> 00:01:42.989 period of 48 percent, a sustained rating in the 00:01:42.989 --> 00:01:45.709 mid 30s. I mean, that puts the House of Representatives 00:01:45.709 --> 00:01:47.670 in serious jeopardy for the Republicans next 00:01:47.670 --> 00:01:49.950 year. And, you know, maybe the Senate, too. And 00:01:49.950 --> 00:01:52.030 what's genuinely surprising here isn't the drop 00:01:52.030 --> 00:01:53.629 among Democrats. I mean, they couldn't really 00:01:53.629 --> 00:01:57.159 get any lower. It's the. The erosion happening 00:01:57.159 --> 00:02:00.000 with independents, they fell from 33 % approval 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:02.640 down to just 25. And even among Republicans. 00:02:02.920 --> 00:02:07.159 Right. A slip from 91 % down to 84. That erosion 00:02:07.159 --> 00:02:09.979 among the base, that is the huge danger sign. 00:02:10.960 --> 00:02:14.490 That 7 % dip in Republican loyalty. That's where 00:02:14.490 --> 00:02:16.569 the analysis really needs to focus. Who are these 00:02:16.569 --> 00:02:18.430 people? Who are these seven percenters? Well, 00:02:18.669 --> 00:02:21.610 they're likely voters who are feeling the pinch 00:02:21.610 --> 00:02:24.490 of inflation and those local economic stressors 00:02:24.490 --> 00:02:26.870 we mentioned, like utility bills. So it's not 00:02:26.870 --> 00:02:29.590 ideological? Not necessarily. They aren't suddenly 00:02:29.590 --> 00:02:31.810 anti -Trump, but they're asking, is the government 00:02:31.810 --> 00:02:34.469 doing anything to make my life cheaper? And when 00:02:34.469 --> 00:02:36.210 the answer is no, they pull back their approval. 00:02:36.400 --> 00:02:39.419 OK, so to put this in some historical context, 00:02:39.740 --> 00:02:43.300 back in 2017, the average approval was 38 percent. 00:02:43.560 --> 00:02:46.699 That preceded the midterms where Democrats flipped 00:02:46.699 --> 00:02:50.580 41 House seats. A blue wave. Is that level of 00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:53.219 devastation possible again, even with all the 00:02:53.219 --> 00:02:55.580 highly effective gerrymandering we have now? 00:02:55.659 --> 00:02:57.740 That's the major caveat. You always have to mention 00:02:57.740 --> 00:03:00.280 it. Gerrymandering might reduce the number of 00:03:00.280 --> 00:03:03.539 potential flips, but there's a critical counterpoint 00:03:03.539 --> 00:03:07.770 to that. The dummymander. Yeah, that's when political 00:03:07.770 --> 00:03:10.849 models create these so -called safe seats based 00:03:10.849 --> 00:03:13.169 on flawed assumptions about how people will vote. 00:03:13.870 --> 00:03:16.770 Say, they assume loyalty from black, Latino, 00:03:16.969 --> 00:03:19.650 or young voters based on old trends that are 00:03:19.650 --> 00:03:21.969 now shifting. And if that model breaks? If the 00:03:21.969 --> 00:03:24.590 model breaks, those safe red seats become highly 00:03:24.590 --> 00:03:26.909 vulnerable. A gerrymander can actually become 00:03:26.909 --> 00:03:30.650 a liability when a specific, unanticipated, issue 00:03:30.650 --> 00:03:33.449 -like utility rates just blows up the whole map. 00:03:33.580 --> 00:03:36.300 So when we break down the administration's performance 00:03:36.300 --> 00:03:39.080 by issue, the results are, while they're telling, 00:03:39.500 --> 00:03:42.139 the highest approval is on crime. It pulls in 00:03:42.139 --> 00:03:44.599 43 percent. Which fits the standard Republican 00:03:44.599 --> 00:03:46.599 platform, sure. But then you see the political 00:03:46.599 --> 00:03:48.840 liabilities just stack up at the bottom of the 00:03:48.840 --> 00:03:51.759 chart. The lowest approval issues are, I mean, 00:03:52.180 --> 00:03:54.569 abysmal. Yeah. Healthcare policy at 30 percent, 00:03:54.889 --> 00:03:57.449 the situation in Ukraine at 31, federal budget 00:03:57.449 --> 00:03:59.909 also at 31, the Middle East is barely better 00:03:59.909 --> 00:04:02.629 at 33. Which raises a real question for me about 00:04:02.629 --> 00:04:05.629 polling accuracy. How can the general category 00:04:05.629 --> 00:04:08.210 of foreign affairs score 41 percent approval? 00:04:08.370 --> 00:04:10.689 When all the specifics are in the toilet. Exactly. 00:04:11.270 --> 00:04:14.110 When the two biggest international conflicts, 00:04:14.469 --> 00:04:16.610 Ukraine and the Middle East, are rated so poorly. 00:04:17.240 --> 00:04:20.060 What are people approving of? It absolutely flags 00:04:20.060 --> 00:04:22.639 an ambiguity in voter knowledge. I think voters 00:04:22.639 --> 00:04:24.759 are giving a kind of general pass on the high 00:04:24.759 --> 00:04:27.220 level concept of foreign affairs. Yeah. You know, 00:04:27.220 --> 00:04:29.740 thinking about alliances or global standing. 00:04:29.959 --> 00:04:32.000 While rejecting what they see on the news every 00:04:32.000 --> 00:04:35.060 night. Precisely. They are actively rejecting 00:04:35.060 --> 00:04:38.699 the specific crisis level conflicts. It suggests 00:04:38.699 --> 00:04:41.360 that if reporters focus specifically on how the 00:04:41.360 --> 00:04:43.839 administration is handling, say, key allies, 00:04:44.459 --> 00:04:47.980 that general 41 percent would just collapse instantly. 00:04:48.170 --> 00:04:50.449 OK, so shifting away from polling, let's look 00:04:50.449 --> 00:04:52.889 at the performance art coming out of Washington. 00:04:53.430 --> 00:04:55.689 The administration is heavily focused on executive 00:04:55.689 --> 00:04:58.449 actions, specifically this announcement to cancel 00:04:58.449 --> 00:05:00.709 all of Joe Biden's executive orders that they 00:05:00.709 --> 00:05:02.930 claim were signed by auto pin. A number they 00:05:02.930 --> 00:05:05.610 claim is as high as 92 percent. 92 percent. This 00:05:05.610 --> 00:05:07.930 whole auto pin battle is, well, it's classic 00:05:07.930 --> 00:05:09.850 political theater. It's completely performative 00:05:09.850 --> 00:05:12.069 in a legal sense. Right, because an executive 00:05:12.069 --> 00:05:14.649 order is just a directive to the bureaucracy 00:05:14.649 --> 00:05:17.209 telling them how to interpret existing laws. 00:05:17.480 --> 00:05:20.079 Exactly. And the simple fact is that whether 00:05:20.079 --> 00:05:23.040 the previous president signed it by hand or by 00:05:23.040 --> 00:05:25.139 a machine. The next president can just issue 00:05:25.139 --> 00:05:27.519 a new one overriding it with the flick of a pen. 00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:31.040 With the flick of a pen. It makes zero operational 00:05:31.040 --> 00:05:34.600 difference in the long run. In fact, if you go 00:05:34.600 --> 00:05:37.360 back to the George W. Bush administration, their 00:05:37.360 --> 00:05:41.500 own Office of Legal Counsel confirmed a president's 00:05:41.500 --> 00:05:44.339 authority. to use auto pins for these directives. 00:05:44.399 --> 00:05:46.620 So the method of signing doesn't matter. It doesn't 00:05:46.620 --> 00:05:48.579 invalidate the instruction. The only reason to 00:05:48.579 --> 00:05:51.920 highlight this is just to create noise. OK, but 00:05:51.920 --> 00:05:54.459 wait. They are making a special point about pardons. 00:05:54.800 --> 00:05:57.480 They're claiming auto pin sign pardons are invalid. 00:05:57.939 --> 00:06:00.160 Isn't there at least some legal meat on that 00:06:00.160 --> 00:06:03.540 bone? I mean, a pardon is a more solemn constitutional 00:06:03.540 --> 00:06:06.600 act. You'd think so, but not really. What's fascinating 00:06:06.600 --> 00:06:10.060 is a 1929 memo from the Solicitor General, which 00:06:10.060 --> 00:06:12.079 stated the Constitution doesn't actually specify 00:06:12.079 --> 00:06:14.600 how a pardon has to be granted. So even an oral 00:06:14.600 --> 00:06:17.600 agreement would work. Technically, yes, though 00:06:17.600 --> 00:06:20.980 written is obviously more practical. The administration's 00:06:20.980 --> 00:06:23.720 focus here, it isn't really the legality of the 00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:26.240 auto pen. They're using the auto pen to imply 00:06:26.240 --> 00:06:28.439 something deeper. And that deeper implication 00:06:28.439 --> 00:06:31.000 is the real danger here, isn't it? It is. The 00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:34.060 suggestion that using an auto pen implies a lack 00:06:34.060 --> 00:06:37.579 of mental competence. a lack of executive capacity. 00:06:37.740 --> 00:06:40.360 That is the critical takeaway. And it's a constitutional 00:06:40.360 --> 00:06:43.339 can of worms. Because if you successfully establish 00:06:43.339 --> 00:06:46.579 that a lack of mental competence can invalidate 00:06:46.579 --> 00:06:50.199 official acts without invoking the formal process 00:06:50.199 --> 00:06:52.060 of the 25th Amendment. You've set a terrible 00:06:52.060 --> 00:06:54.339 precedent. A terrible precedent. Yeah. A future 00:06:54.339 --> 00:06:57.000 Democratic president could then apply that same 00:06:57.000 --> 00:06:59.740 standard questioning competence retroactively. 00:07:00.029 --> 00:07:02.029 Against every act of the next administration. 00:07:02.069 --> 00:07:04.310 Yeah, it weaponizes the whole issue of mental 00:07:04.310 --> 00:07:07.009 fitness speaking of political deflection Let's 00:07:07.009 --> 00:07:09.189 talk health care since the promises to lower 00:07:09.189 --> 00:07:12.269 costs weren't met The strategy has clearly shifted 00:07:12.269 --> 00:07:15.149 to finding a scapegoat blaming greedy insurance 00:07:15.149 --> 00:07:18.329 companies for rising health premiums This is 00:07:18.329 --> 00:07:20.589 the administration's way of avoiding the core 00:07:20.589 --> 00:07:23.250 financial conflict in modern health care reform 00:07:23.250 --> 00:07:26.089 Let's just break down the mechanics simply for 00:07:26.089 --> 00:07:28.670 a second. Okay, if the government passes a mandate 00:07:29.389 --> 00:07:32.129 meaning insurers have to accept seriously sick 00:07:32.129 --> 00:07:34.930 people without charging them extra for pre -existing 00:07:34.930 --> 00:07:38.170 conditions, that cost has to go somewhere. Right. 00:07:38.250 --> 00:07:41.189 You stop the insurer from charging the high -risk 00:07:41.189 --> 00:07:43.949 person, so the cost burden just shifts. Exactly. 00:07:44.509 --> 00:07:47.529 And normally, that shifting cost is absorbed 00:07:47.529 --> 00:07:50.490 by government subsidies that help pay those premiums. 00:07:50.569 --> 00:07:53.649 But since this administration opposes those subsidies 00:07:53.649 --> 00:07:55.810 on ideological ground... You're left with a bad 00:07:55.810 --> 00:07:58.550 equation. You're left with... Mandate... require 00:07:58.550 --> 00:08:00.750 coverage. Plus, no subsidy government doesn't 00:08:00.750 --> 00:08:03.490 pay, which equals a premium hike. The cost gets 00:08:03.490 --> 00:08:05.689 shifted onto every healthy working person paying 00:08:05.689 --> 00:08:08.430 a premium. The only way insurance companies can 00:08:08.430 --> 00:08:10.850 stay in business is by jacking up premiums for 00:08:10.850 --> 00:08:13.449 everyone else. So the political question really 00:08:13.449 --> 00:08:16.129 becomes, is the administration willing to admit 00:08:16.129 --> 00:08:18.470 that their own stance against subsidies is what's 00:08:18.470 --> 00:08:20.410 leading to the higher premiums they're now blaming 00:08:20.410 --> 00:08:23.009 on greed? And that's a major opportunity for 00:08:23.009 --> 00:08:26.069 Democrats. They could clearly explain the function 00:08:26.069 --> 00:08:28.649 of subsidies here to defuse that whole greedy 00:08:28.649 --> 00:08:32.090 insurer narrative. If a voter understands that 00:08:32.090 --> 00:08:34.289 high premiums are basically a tax on the healthy 00:08:34.289 --> 00:08:36.149 to make up for a lack of government funding, 00:08:36.669 --> 00:08:38.769 the blame game changes instantly. Which brings 00:08:38.769 --> 00:08:41.350 us right into rising costs and economic stressors. 00:08:41.649 --> 00:08:44.350 We have a new villain in the household budget. 00:08:44.649 --> 00:08:47.750 It's replacing the price of eggs. And that villain 00:08:47.750 --> 00:08:50.509 is electricity prices. Absolutely. Electricity 00:08:50.509 --> 00:08:53.730 is the new major price shock and is driven primarily 00:08:53.730 --> 00:08:57.230 by the astronomical energy demands of AI data 00:08:57.230 --> 00:08:59.190 centers. People are seeing this on their monthly 00:08:59.190 --> 00:09:02.429 bills and it's quietly becoming a huge local 00:09:02.429 --> 00:09:05.429 political issue that DC just doesn't seem to 00:09:05.429 --> 00:09:07.389 recognize yet. We saw proof of this in the recent 00:09:07.389 --> 00:09:09.190 Georgia Public Service Commission elections. 00:09:09.370 --> 00:09:11.409 I mean, these are races nobody outside of Georgia 00:09:11.409 --> 00:09:14.169 usually even watches. No. And Democrats won landslide 00:09:14.169 --> 00:09:16.929 victories in some extremely deep red counties 00:09:16.929 --> 00:09:20.330 there. This is a huge bellwether. Voters in places 00:09:20.330 --> 00:09:22.830 like Hogan'sville, for instance, were furious 00:09:22.830 --> 00:09:26.070 about escalating utility bills. and a specific 00:09:26.070 --> 00:09:29.909 localized $50 a month levy for a new nuclear 00:09:29.909 --> 00:09:33.210 power plant 200 miles away. And they blamed Republicans 00:09:33.210 --> 00:09:36.529 for it. Squarely. For being too cozy with the 00:09:36.529 --> 00:09:39.570 AI industry and utility providers. The two Democrats 00:09:39.570 --> 00:09:43.490 won on this single issue. In counties, Trump 00:09:43.490 --> 00:09:46.490 won by massive margins. And this isn't isolated, 00:09:46.690 --> 00:09:49.370 right? This same issue came up in Virginia. Repeatedly. 00:09:49.500 --> 00:09:51.559 The Virginia gubernatorial election, it kept 00:09:51.559 --> 00:09:53.700 surfacing. The public is demanding that tech 00:09:53.700 --> 00:09:56.039 companies pay the full cost of data center energy, 00:09:56.460 --> 00:09:58.700 not the ratepayers. Especially since those data 00:09:58.700 --> 00:10:01.379 centers create almost no local jobs once construction 00:10:01.379 --> 00:10:03.779 is done. Exactly. Voters are asking, why should 00:10:03.779 --> 00:10:06.000 I subsidize massive energy use for something 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:09.320 that gives my community zero benefit? And politicians 00:10:09.320 --> 00:10:11.240 who can't answer that question are getting punished. 00:10:11.819 --> 00:10:13.779 Severely. Okay, moving to consumer sentiment. 00:10:14.320 --> 00:10:16.059 The overall picture is low, but when you look 00:10:16.059 --> 00:10:18.220 at the graphs, there's a genuinely fascinating 00:10:18.220 --> 00:10:20.580 disconnect in who is actually optimistic about 00:10:20.580 --> 00:10:23.419 the economy. Right. First, the partisan divide 00:10:23.419 --> 00:10:26.320 is still king. Republicans are much happier than 00:10:26.320 --> 00:10:29.580 Democrats. Which is pure partisanship. Pure partisanship. 00:10:30.039 --> 00:10:32.279 We know this opinion would flip instantly if 00:10:32.279 --> 00:10:35.179 a Democrat takes the presidency in 2029 no matter 00:10:35.179 --> 00:10:37.340 what the GDP is doing. But the wealth divide, 00:10:37.620 --> 00:10:39.500 that's what's really striking. People who own 00:10:39.500 --> 00:10:42.480 stocks, about 60 % of adults are feeling better. 00:10:42.679 --> 00:10:45.679 But that 60 % isn't uniform across the population, 00:10:46.159 --> 00:10:49.120 which creates a political problem. 70 % of white 00:10:49.120 --> 00:10:53.120 adults own stocks, versus 53 % of black adults 00:10:53.120 --> 00:10:57.019 and only 38 % of Latino adults. And that disparity 00:10:57.019 --> 00:10:59.980 explains why some groups might feel disproportionately 00:10:59.980 --> 00:11:02.659 negative, even if the national numbers look stable. 00:11:02.840 --> 00:11:05.500 Of course. The top third of income earners are 00:11:05.500 --> 00:11:08.059 more optimistic. Because if you have money left 00:11:08.059 --> 00:11:10.580 over to save or invest, even with high inflation, 00:11:10.940 --> 00:11:12.840 you're participating in the stock market's growth. 00:11:13.159 --> 00:11:14.879 For the 40 percent of Americans who don't own 00:11:14.879 --> 00:11:17.539 stocks, rising prices just mean a shrinking budget. 00:11:17.840 --> 00:11:19.720 And then there's the most counterintuitive graph 00:11:19.720 --> 00:11:23.320 of all, the age surprise. So vast. Young adults 00:11:23.320 --> 00:11:26.320 under 35 are far more optimistic than older people, 00:11:26.600 --> 00:11:28.679 especially those 55 and up, even though younger 00:11:28.679 --> 00:11:30.980 adults generally have lower incomes and fewer 00:11:30.980 --> 00:11:34.620 assets. Right. And while, you know, Idealism 00:11:34.620 --> 00:11:36.779 is a factor we have to look deeper. Older Americans 00:11:36.779 --> 00:11:39.559 are often on fixed incomes. They're deeply sensitive 00:11:39.559 --> 00:11:43.139 to inflation eroding their savings. Younger adults, 00:11:43.159 --> 00:11:45.399 though, they see themselves as still climbing 00:11:45.399 --> 00:11:47.700 the earning ladder. They might see current hardship 00:11:47.700 --> 00:11:49.980 as temporary, believing their future earnings 00:11:49.980 --> 00:11:53.159 will outweigh today's high prices. They're optimistic 00:11:53.159 --> 00:11:55.659 about their potential, whereas older voters are 00:11:55.659 --> 00:11:57.419 worried about preserving their present assets. 00:11:57.899 --> 00:12:00.399 OK, let's switch gears entirely to the legal 00:12:00.399 --> 00:12:02.740 and electoral battlefields that are shaping the 00:12:02.740 --> 00:12:05.080 immediate future, starting with a definitive 00:12:05.080 --> 00:12:07.480 legal loss that really sends a message. Yes, 00:12:07.559 --> 00:12:10.320 the three judge panel decision unanimously upholding 00:12:10.320 --> 00:12:12.440 the order for that payment of what was it, nine 00:12:12.440 --> 00:12:14.179 hundred and thirty seven thousand nine hundred 00:12:14.179 --> 00:12:15.879 and eighty nine dollars and thirty nine cents. 00:12:16.179 --> 00:12:18.919 That's the one against Trump and his former lawyer, 00:12:19.120 --> 00:12:21.519 Alina Haba, for that bogus racketeering lawsuit 00:12:21.519 --> 00:12:23.779 against Hillary Clinton. And the significance 00:12:23.779 --> 00:12:26.750 there is the panel's composition. The judges 00:12:26.750 --> 00:12:29.110 were appointed by George W. Bush, Joe Biden, 00:12:29.289 --> 00:12:32.149 and Trump himself. When you get a unanimous ruling 00:12:32.149 --> 00:12:34.789 across that wide of a political spectrum. It's 00:12:34.789 --> 00:12:37.190 not an ideological decision. It's a statement 00:12:37.190 --> 00:12:39.960 about the quality of the litigation. It sends 00:12:39.960 --> 00:12:42.379 a clear message that this type of politically 00:12:42.379 --> 00:12:45.820 motivated baseless lawsuit will be punished with 00:12:45.820 --> 00:12:48.259 serious financial penalties. And this fine just 00:12:48.259 --> 00:12:50.519 adds to the pressure stacking up against the 00:12:50.519 --> 00:12:53.200 $83 million E. Jean Carroll judgment that's on 00:12:53.200 --> 00:12:55.940 appeal. He does. Now, in foreign policy, we have 00:12:55.940 --> 00:12:58.779 this highly sensitive leaked phone call about 00:12:58.779 --> 00:13:01.960 Ukraine and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff. 00:13:02.179 --> 00:13:04.659 It's jaw dropping. The leak suggests he's coaching 00:13:04.659 --> 00:13:07.120 Russia on how to sell a peace plan. Yeah, the 00:13:07.120 --> 00:13:09.500 leak suggests Witkoff is coaching a top Russian 00:13:09.500 --> 00:13:12.419 official, Yuri Ushakov, on how to structure a 00:13:12.419 --> 00:13:14.539 Ukraine peace plan so that it appeals to Trump. 00:13:15.120 --> 00:13:17.299 Witkoff, I mean, this is a guy who has idolized 00:13:17.299 --> 00:13:20.399 Trump for 40 years and has called Putin not a 00:13:20.399 --> 00:13:22.600 bad guy. So he's freelancing foreign policy. 00:13:22.679 --> 00:13:24.700 He appears to be completely freelancing and, 00:13:24.700 --> 00:13:26.899 you know, toting water for Russia. This brings 00:13:26.899 --> 00:13:29.720 to mind that quote from the seasoned negotiator, 00:13:29.879 --> 00:13:33.399 Aaron Miller, deals are cut when there is urgency, 00:13:33.919 --> 00:13:37.019 meaning both pain and prospects for gain. Precisely. 00:13:37.129 --> 00:13:40.009 And right now, Putin is clearly not experiencing 00:13:40.009 --> 00:13:42.690 enough pain to negotiate unless he gets to dictate 00:13:42.690 --> 00:13:46.289 the terms. Witkoff, who seems desperate to please 00:13:46.289 --> 00:13:49.309 his idol, is likely trying to structure a deal 00:13:49.309 --> 00:13:52.169 that Putin wants, then helping the Russians frame 00:13:52.169 --> 00:13:54.549 it so Trump sees it as a win. Which would be 00:13:54.549 --> 00:13:57.669 a clear dictate outcome from Moscow. And it completely 00:13:57.669 --> 00:14:00.789 undermines any serious U .S. negotiating position. 00:14:01.009 --> 00:14:03.230 OK, so let's turn to the immediate electoral 00:14:03.230 --> 00:14:05.710 bellwethers happening this December. These are 00:14:05.710 --> 00:14:07.470 the races that are testing all these underlying 00:14:07.470 --> 00:14:09.269 tensions we've been talking about, especially 00:14:09.269 --> 00:14:11.649 that economic pain threshold. We've got several 00:14:11.649 --> 00:14:13.889 runoffs highlighting the progressive versus moderate 00:14:13.889 --> 00:14:16.769 Democrat fight in Atlanta. You have Mayor Dickens 00:14:16.769 --> 00:14:19.029 backed moderates running against candidates supported 00:14:19.029 --> 00:14:21.570 by the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America. 00:14:21.820 --> 00:14:24.500 Right. For city council and school board. You 00:14:24.500 --> 00:14:26.700 see a similar dynamic in Jersey City with former 00:14:26.700 --> 00:14:29.240 Governor Jim McGreevey running against a working 00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:32.440 families party -back progressive. These results 00:14:32.440 --> 00:14:34.960 will show where the energy really is in the Democratic 00:14:34.960 --> 00:14:37.679 base. Then you have races focused on immigration 00:14:37.679 --> 00:14:41.440 and ICE. In the Albuquerque mayoral runoff, the 00:14:41.440 --> 00:14:43.700 current Democrat mayor, who limited cooperation 00:14:43.700 --> 00:14:47.559 with ICE, is facing a pro -IC Republican former 00:14:47.559 --> 00:14:50.120 sheriff. And a big win for either side there 00:14:50.120 --> 00:14:52.620 says a lot about local sentiment toward enforcement 00:14:52.620 --> 00:14:55.169 policy. You know, regardless of all the national 00:14:55.169 --> 00:14:57.870 rhetoric. But the race that truly tests our core 00:14:57.870 --> 00:15:01.110 thesis, the anti -utility and AI backlash, is 00:15:01.110 --> 00:15:04.669 that Georgia HD 121 special election. The absolute 00:15:04.669 --> 00:15:07.929 must watch race. This district is extremely red. 00:15:08.129 --> 00:15:11.750 Trump won it by 22 points in 2024. If the Democrat 00:15:11.750 --> 00:15:14.690 Eric Gisler flips that seat. It validates everything. 00:15:14.750 --> 00:15:16.690 It proves that the anti -utility sentiment we 00:15:16.690 --> 00:15:19.330 saw in those PSC races was not a fluke. It means 00:15:19.330 --> 00:15:21.309 economic pain is flipping seats in rural areas. 00:15:21.470 --> 00:15:24.070 And it's a huge signal for And finally, let's 00:15:24.070 --> 00:15:25.889 not forget the challenges popping up against 00:15:25.889 --> 00:15:28.210 established Democrats in New York City. Right. 00:15:28.409 --> 00:15:31.710 Young progressives like Chiyose and Alexa Avelez 00:15:31.710 --> 00:15:34.750 are targeting powerful incumbents like minority 00:15:34.750 --> 00:15:37.350 leader Hakeem Jeffries and Dan Goldman. Goldman 00:15:37.350 --> 00:15:39.590 is a fascinating target. He was the lead impeachment 00:15:39.590 --> 00:15:41.929 counsel. He's a progressive himself and he's 00:15:41.929 --> 00:15:44.690 very wealthy. Which makes him incredibly difficult 00:15:44.690 --> 00:15:47.330 to knock off. The challengers have to move very, 00:15:47.350 --> 00:15:49.970 very far left to create any daylight between 00:15:49.970 --> 00:15:52.080 themselves and incumbents who are already you 00:15:52.080 --> 00:15:54.720 know, card carrying progressives. It makes for 00:15:54.720 --> 00:15:57.179 a really contentious primary. So as we synthesize 00:15:57.179 --> 00:15:59.440 all this, what does it all mean? We've gone from 00:15:59.440 --> 00:16:03.000 a specific 36 percent approval hurdle and that 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:06.320 performative legal noise about auto pins to the 00:16:06.320 --> 00:16:09.340 surprising economic split between stock owning 00:16:09.340 --> 00:16:11.779 and non -stock owning demographics. And most 00:16:11.779 --> 00:16:13.740 importantly, we've pinpointed these immediate 00:16:13.740 --> 00:16:16.220 electoral indicators in Georgia and the southwest 00:16:16.220 --> 00:16:18.980 that are being driven by energy prices and local 00:16:18.980 --> 00:16:21.879 economic frustration. The key insight, I think, 00:16:22.259 --> 00:16:24.799 is that even with widespread gerrymandering, 00:16:25.279 --> 00:16:27.679 economic pain, specifically localized, rising 00:16:27.679 --> 00:16:30.419 costs like electricity, can break through. It 00:16:30.419 --> 00:16:32.960 can overcome partisan loyalty. The results in 00:16:32.960 --> 00:16:35.419 Georgia are telling politicians that scapegoating, 00:16:35.720 --> 00:16:37.840 whether you direct it at insurers or previous 00:16:37.840 --> 00:16:40.720 presidents, it won't work if voters feel it in 00:16:40.720 --> 00:16:43.259 their pockets every single month. So here's a 00:16:43.259 --> 00:16:45.159 final provocative thought for you to chew on 00:16:45.159 --> 00:16:47.360 that kind of builds on this theme of economic 00:16:47.360 --> 00:16:50.019 fairness. We noted that Swiss voters recently 00:16:50.019 --> 00:16:52.559 rejected a 50 percent inheritance tax and the 00:16:52.559 --> 00:16:54.820 Washington Post ran an editorial congratulating 00:16:54.820 --> 00:16:57.220 them. Right. Now, we often hear debates about 00:16:57.220 --> 00:17:00.059 taxing earned income versus capital gains. But 00:17:00.059 --> 00:17:02.399 consider the simplest defense of an estate or 00:17:02.399 --> 00:17:04.900 inheritance tax, preventing people from becoming 00:17:04.900 --> 00:17:07.599 billionaires purely by lucking into the right 00:17:07.599 --> 00:17:09.619 parents. It's a fundamental question of fairness. 00:17:10.039 --> 00:17:12.309 We accept taxing earned income. which is money 00:17:12.309 --> 00:17:15.690 someone actually labored for. But that feels, 00:17:15.690 --> 00:17:18.150 well, fundamentally different than taxing someone 00:17:18.150 --> 00:17:21.049 who acquires billions by birthright. So if voters 00:17:21.049 --> 00:17:23.210 are looking for a tax that addresses fairness 00:17:23.210 --> 00:17:25.710 and prevents the creation of vast unearned wealth. 00:17:25.930 --> 00:17:28.750 Perhaps the focus shouldn't only be on income, 00:17:29.029 --> 00:17:32.309 but on inherited assets. It's an issue that will 00:17:32.309 --> 00:17:35.710 absolutely resurface for the 2028 debates. Something 00:17:35.710 --> 00:17:37.509 to mull over as you watch those Georgia results 00:17:37.509 --> 00:17:39.529 come in. Thanks for joining us for the Deep Dive. 00:17:39.670 --> 00:17:40.230 Always a pleasure.