Welcome back to the show and a special welcome
to you, our listener, for requesting today's
deep dive. We've got an incredibly dense and
frankly fascinating agenda to get through today.
We really do. Yeah. Our mission is to unpack
what has been a truly chaotic week, a week where
a massive geopolitical earthquake is colliding
in real time with the global economy, domestic
political gridlock, and believe it or not, the
world of mixed martial arts. Right. It's all
connected. Exactly. And to do this, we are looking
at two highly detailed sources you sent our way.
First, we have a political newsletter from Electoral
Vote, dated March 10th, 2026. And to pair with
that, we have a market report from Leidenberg
Asset Management, dated just a few days earlier
on March 6th. Actually, before we jump into those
notes, I need to step in and explicitly address
you, the listener, with a crucial caveat. The
sources we are diving into today contain highly
opinionated, politically charged commentary spanning
multiple sides of the aisle. So my role today,
our role today is strictly to impartially report
on and analyze the content provided in these
texts. We are not taking any sides and we are
not endorsing any of the viewpoints you'll hear.
Our only goal is to help you understand the ideas,
the data, and the arguments contained in the
original source material you provided. Absolutely.
We are just here to act as your guides through
the information. Okay, let's unpack this. Starting
with the geopolitical earthquake dominating the
headlines. The U .S. War in Iran. Yeah, the administration's
stated goal right out of the gate has been total
regime change. The public strategy relies on
this idea of cleaning out the current leadership
and just, you know, swapping in a preferred successor.
But looking at the electoral vote breakdown,
the reality on the ground seems far more complex.
Much more complex. What are the intelligence
communities actually saying about this strategy?
Well, the newsletter highlights a leaked report
from the National Intelligence Council that paints
a very different picture than the public messaging.
The report essentially argues that even a massive
military assault is highly unlikely to oust the
entrenched leadership. Because of the way the
government is structured. Exactly. Comes down
to structural design. When you look at a state
like Russia, for example, power is highly centralized.
If you take out the leadership at the very top,
you might completely cripple the state's ability
to function. But Iran's power structure is intentionally
decentralized. They've planned for this. They
have. They've spent decades building a system
designed to survive exactly this kind of decapitation
strike. So taking out the top tier simply activates
the next layer of the network. And we're watching
that exact survival mechanism play out in real
time right now. The supreme leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei was killed in a strike at age 86
and he was immediately replaced by his 56 year
old son Mojtaba Khamenei. How does the source
evaluate that specific transition in leadership?
The analysis suggests this might actually be
a significant step backward for U .S. strategic
objectives. Really? Yeah. Think about the math.
You've traded an 86 -year -old leader, who is
naturally nearing the end of his tenure anyway,
for a 56 -year -old who could theoretically hold
power for the next three decades. Oh, wow. Yeah.
Furthermore, considering the violent nature of
his father's death, this new leader and the entire
state security apparatus are now on extreme existential
high alert. You've basically replaced a somewhat
predictable aging target with a younger, highly
defensive and highly motivated successor. Which
brings up the broader, perhaps more terrifying
scenario discussed in the notes, which is the
threat of creating a failed state. The military
numbers alone are just staggering. They are.
The source mentions a 200 ,000 strong Revolutionary
Guard backed by 400 ,000 regular troops. What
makes the internal dynamics of Iran so much more
volatile than other regional conflicts we've
seen? What's fascinating here is the historical
comparison the source draws to Syria and Libya.
Iran is not a cultural or ethnic monolith. You
have significant populations of Kurds, Armenians
and Azerbaijanis. All with deep ties to neighboring
regions. Precisely. So if the U .S. succeeds
in creating a massive power vacuum at the top,
the result isn't likely to be a neat democratic
transition. The historical precedent points straight
towards civil war. We saw this in Libya. Muammar
Gaddafi fell over a decade ago and the country
still fractured without a central authority.
And an Iranian civil war is something nobody
wants. The source points out it's a nightmare
scenario for literally everyone. Not the US,
not Israel, and certainly not Iran's Arab neighbors.
A failed state means millions of refugees pouring
across borders, permanent disruption of vital
trade routes, and just a level of regional instability
that cannot be contained. And containing it is
already proving to be unsustainable expensive.
I mean, the sheer cost of this operation is estimated
at one billion dollars a day. A billion a day.
Yeah. And the administration is floating a 50
billion dollar first installment, which is predictably
angering deficit hawks in Congress. But beyond
the financial strain, how are our European allies
reacting to this unilateral push? The diplomatic
pushback is remarkably explicit. The newsletter
quotes Italian defense minister Guido Crosetto.
who issued a sharp refusal to blindly assist.
He stated publicly that the war began unbeknownst
to the world and was, quote, not a decision shared
by anyone. That is a stunning rebuke from a NATO
ally. It really is. And the friction with Germany
is equally intense. Chancellor Friedrich Merz
reportedly had a meeting with the US administration
that was so hostile, a German newspaper actually
likened him to a clueless tourist stranded in
a crisis zone. The traditional coalition is not
simply falling into line. And that diplomatic
strain ripples outward in unexpected ways, especially
regarding Ukraine, because the U .S. is burning
through resources and desperately needs cheap,
effective drones. Which Ukraine has been manufacturing
at scale. Exactly. But President Zelensky isn't
just handing them over. He's demanding ATCM missiles
in return. Why is he pushing so hard for ATCM
specifically rather than the tomahawks we keep
hearing about? It comes down to tactical range
and political risk. ATCMs, which stand for Army
Tactical Missile Systems, are ballistic missiles
that cost about $1 .5 million each and have a
range of roughly 180 miles. OK. Zelensky wants
these because they are highly effective for striking
critical supply lines and bases just behind the
front lines. The U .S. has been reluctant to
provide the longer -range tomahawks because those
can travel over 1 ,000 miles. Right, which carries
the inherent risk that Ukraine might use them
to strike deep inside Russian territory. Like
Moscow. which crosses a major escalation red
line for Washington. But the diplomatic friction
goes even deeper than weapon types. The source
notes the U .S. is currently holding on to weapons
that were actually paid for by the EU, meant
to be sent to Ukraine. Wait, so the U .S. is
redirecting EU purchased munitions? Yes, effectively
redirecting them to support the Iran conflict
instead. That is a staggering logistical and
diplomatic mess. Let's look at how this global
storm hits closer to home. Turning to Leidenberg's
analysts, how are these geopolitical shockwaves
translating to your everyday economy? If we connect
this to the bigger picture, the most immediate
and severe economic impact is the oil choke point
in the Middle East. The conflict has effectively
shut down the Strait of Hormuz. And to understand
the gravity of that, roughly a fifth of the entire
global oil supply flows through that single narrow
waterway. Exactly. As a direct result of that
bottleneck, Oil has surged past $90 a barrel.
The supply chain is so backed up that Kuwait
is actively cutting their oil production. Because
they've run out of storage space? It's not a
strategic choice. They have simply run out of
physical storage space for their bottled up crude.
Since they can't ship it out, they literally
have to stop pumping it out of the ground. And
Leidenberg is explicitly warning about a stagflationary
spiral taking hold. We all know the pain of high
prices mixed with stagnant economic growth. But
what makes their reading of the February data
so alarming? Because on paper, the jobs report
looks awful. Non -farm payrolls fell by 92 ,000
jobs when economists were expecting a gain of
55 ,000, and unemployment ticked up to 4 .4%.
Leidenberg specifically cautions against pure
panic over that headlong jobs number, because
you have to look at the mechanics of the drop.
Right. That 92 ,000 plunge was heavily distorted
by two transient factors. Severe winter storms
across the country that temporarily froze hiring
and a massive 28 ,000 person nursing strike in
the healthcare sector. So those are temporary
issues that should normalize in the coming months?
Yes. What you cannot ignore, however, are the
inflation warning signs flashing bright red beneath
the surface. The ISM manufacturing prices paid
index, which is a leading indicator measuring
the cost of raw materials for businesses, jumped
massively from 59 .0 in January to 70 .5 in February.
Here's where it gets really interesting because
the market reacted to all of this data with severe
volatility. But it wasn't an even spread. No,
it wasn't. The S &P 500 was down about 1 .99
percent for the week and the Dow dropped 2 .92
percent. But the Russell 2000, which tracks small
cap stocks, bled out over 4 percent and international
equities dropped nearly 7 percent. Why do those
smaller and international markets take such disproportionately
heavy damage during these kinds of shocks. It
is a textbook flight to safety. When geopolitical
shock waves hit and energy prices spike, institutional
capital immediately flees smaller companies.
Small cap businesses usually don't have the cash
reserves or the pricing power to absorb sudden
massive spikes in raw materials and transportation
costs. Right. Whereas large cap companies in
the Dow or S &P can often pass those costs on
to consumers. Exactly. But small businesses just
get squeezed. Similarly, international markets,
especially emerging ones, are far more vulnerable
to a strong U .S. dollar and global supply chain
disruptions. Capital runs toward the perceived
safety of massive insulated U .S. corporations.
And it's not just international capital searching
for a safe harbor. We're seeing extreme defensive
posturing right on the Senate floor. Absolutely.
The gridlock in Washington is completely entangled
with these broader pressures. Electoral vote
outlines a fascinating stalemate involving the
Save America Act. You have Texas Attorney General
Ken Paxton offering to drop his primary challenge
against incumbent Senator John Cornyn, but only
if the Senate passes this specific piece of legislation.
Why is Paxton making a demand he knows won't
pass? Because it's a shrewd political bluff designed
entirely for an audience of one. Paxton understands
the mechanics of the Senate floor. He knows that
the legislative filibuster is firmly in place,
meaning you effectively need 60 votes to pass
the Save America Act. And he knows the Senate
Republican Conference is highly unlikely to detonate
the filibuster to force it through. Exactly.
So by making this very public, high -stakes demand,
Paxton is writing a political check he knows
he will never have to cash. It allows him to
overwhelmingly prove his Maggier loyalty to Donald
Trump while simultaneously branding Senator Cornyn
as too weak to pass the president's agenda. And
the stakes are artificially heightened because
Trump has publicly dug in, declaring he won't
sign any other bills until the Save America Act
hits his desk. Which brings us right to the brink
of the looming Department of Homeland Security
and ICV funding shutdown. The timeline here is
aggressive and the math is shifting with Kristi
Noem out of the picture and Markwayne Mullin
stepping in. How does this funding fight actually
play out as we get closer to the summer? The
approaching summer travel season is the ultimate
pressure point. If DHS remains unfunded and shuts
down, that immediately cascades into TSA shutdowns
at airports nationwide. Oh, wow. Yeah. From a
political standpoint, stranding millions of furious
families in airport terminals right before a
midterm election is an absolute nightmare scenario
for incumbents. To pass a funding bill and break
the shutdown, the Senate has to overcome cloture,
which is the procedural hurdle to end debate
and stop a filibuster requiring 60 votes. And
the newsletter notes that the impending chaos
at the airports might force the hands of moderate
Democrats. Senators like John Fetterman, who
has already shown a willingness to vote with
Republicans on border related issues, and Peter
Welch might cross the aisle to hit that 60 vote
threshold simply to keep the country moving.
Very possible. I want to give the rest of the
domestic politics section the breathing room
it deserves because the notes gave us a rapid
fire rundown of several major shifts. Let's start
with the DNC. Cherkin Martin is under massive
fire after just 13 months on the job. What exactly
is the source of the rebellion inside his own
party? The complaints are coming from multiple
flanks. First, there are growing accusations
of cronyism, with critics pointing to his reliance
on a tight -knit circle being dubbed the Minnesota
Mafia. Right. Second, the party's fundraising
numbers under his tenure have been objectively
terrible, which induces panic ahead of the midterms.
But perhaps the most controversial move is that
Martin is reportedly hiding the full 2024 election
autopsy report from his own party insiders. And
when a party loses an election, the autopsy is
meant to provide a transparent roadmap for what
went wrong. Exactly. Hiding it suggests leadership
is more interested in protecting specific reputations
than fixing structural flaws. Speaking of structural
flaws and shifting power, let's talk about the
Wisconsin Supreme Court. conservative judge Annette
Ziegler has announced her retirement. Why is
a single judicial retirement in Wisconsin being
flagged as a massive national story? Because
it fundamentally alters the legal and electoral
landscape of one of the most critical swing states
in the country. Ziegler's retirement potentially
opens the door for the court to move from a narrow
split to a commanding 5 -2 liberal majority.
And state supreme courts have immense power over
redistricting maps, voting access laws, and election
certification. They do. A 5 -2 liberal majority
in Wisconsin could essentially redraw the battle
lines for the 2028 presidential election map.
We also got an update on health care policy.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is now running the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, made a rather
bold claim about Obamacare. He did. He stated
that enrollment only dropped by two million people
despite significantly higher premiums because
roughly five million people currently enrolled
are there fraudulently or by error. How is that
being received? It's being viewed as a highly
aggressive political justification for a coming
purge of the voter rolls in health care exchanges.
Oh. Framing five million enrollments as fraudulent
or erroneous gives CMS the bureaucratic cover
it needs to systematically remove those individuals
from the system, effectively dismantling portions
of the Affordable Care Act from the inside without
needing a legislative repeal from Congress. Finally,
in the House of Representatives, Representative
Kevin Kaley of California officially switched
his party affiliation from Republican to independent.
He says he will still pock us with the GOP. So.
Why is this matter for Speaker Mike Johnson?
Because Speaker Johnson's margins are already
razor thin. Yeah. Even if Kylie promises to caucus
with Republicans on major votes by declaring
himself an independent, he is politically obligated
to cross the aisle occasionally just to prove
to his constituents that his new title actually
means something. Right. He has to show independence.
Yes. And every time he does that, it mathematically
complicates Johnson's ability to pass strictly
partisan legislation, forcing the speaker to
constantly negotiate with a wild card. This hyper
partisan filter isn't just dictating Senate votes
or healthcare policy. It is literally dictating
who gets to throw a punch on the White House
lawn. Yeah, this part was fascinating. The electoral
vote source dives into the upcoming UFC America
250 event. It is a $60 million spectacle, but
the fight card itself is being aggressively curated
based on political optics. Who exactly is being
kept out of the octagon for this event? It is
a striking example of sports promotion bowing
entirely to political narrative. Several top
tier fighters were excluded. Islam Makachev,
who is widely considered overdue for a major
title fight, was left off the card. Wow. The
analysis suggests this is entirely due to the
optics of his name and his Russian nationality.
The administration simply doesn't want a Russian
fighter raising a championship belt on the White
House lawn right now. And then you have Conor
McGregor. Right. Despite being one of the most
famous fighters on the planet and a vocal Trump
supporter, he was excluded because he was recently
found civilly liable for rape. The liability
of associating that verdict with a White House
event was deemed too high. And perhaps most glaringly,
there are absolutely zero women's bouts scheduled
for the event. The general presumption outlined
in the notes is that women's mixed martial arts
was deemed too woke for this specific political
spectacle. As a result, massive combat sports
stars like Ronda Rousey and Gina Carano are headlining
a completely separate, non -UFC sanctioned fight
out in Los Angeles instead. And, you know, the
political entanglement with sports extends right
into the collegiate level as well. The source
covers the ongoing chaos in the NCAA regarding
the transfer portal and name image and likeness
or NIL money, which has effectively commercialized
college athletics by allowing student athletes
to profit from their personal brands. To address
the lack of regulation, the president convened
a blue ribbon panel. But the proposed solution
highlighted a glaring legal disconnect. The president
threatened to issue an executive order to force
the NCAA to fix the issues. But the problem is,
the NCAA is a private non -profit organization.
It is not a government agency. Exactly. You cannot
legally use an executive order to mandate the
internal operations of a private sports league.
That misunderstanding of how the political and
legal machine actually works brings us perfectly
to Stephen A. Smith. He officially announced
he won't be running for president in 2028, and
his stated reason was that he simply wants to
keep his 20 million dollar annual salary at ESPN.
The newsletter practically laughs at this, pointing
out his total misunderstanding of modern political
economics. If he were paying closer attention,
he'd realize that modern political campaigns,
super peaks, and the associated media grift can
be exponentially more lucrative than a standard
$20 million broadcasting contract. It certainly
proves he is better suited for sports commentary
than campaign finance. But after all that heavy
geopolitical and partisan news, the Leidenberg
report provided a genuinely inspiring palate
cleanser. Yes, Cadillac. They detailed how Cadillac
is currently attempting a massive engineering
feat, building a Formula One racing team from
an absolute blank sheet of paper. It is a monumental
undertaking. They are hiring roughly 600 people
to build this team from scratch. And the way
they are structuring the organization is incredible.
They hired a veteran technical chief, noting
that his PhD in aerodynamics wasn't strictly
mandatory, but it certainly helped. But what
I absolutely loved in these notes is that they
actually put a PhD in aerodynamics in charge
of their human resources department. It's a brilliant,
unconventional approach to organizational management.
Building an F1 team isn't just about building
a fast car. It requires extreme precision, seamless
logistics, and managing a highly specialized
workforce under immense pressure. Right. By putting
an aerodynamicist in charge of human capital,
they're applying the principles of flow, efficiency,
and reducing friction to the very people building
the machine. Honestly, if more companies applied
the scientific principles of drag coefficients
to their corporate bureaucracy, we might actually
get some things done. I agree completely. So
what does this all mean? When you look at the
entire stack of sources you provided today, it
is a master class in how deeply interconnected
our modern world truly is. A tactical decision
regarding a drone strike in Iran doesn't stay
in the Middle East. It instantly shuts down global
shipping lanes, which spikes the cost of oil,
which directly hits your stock portfolio and
the price of raw materials. And those harsh economic
realities dictate the leverage politicians have
in Washington, D .C., stalling domestic legislation,
threatening air security funding and even dictating
who is politically viable enough to fight in
a mixed martial arts bout on the White House
lawn. This raises an important question and it's
the final thought I want to leave you with today.
We are watching an administration attempt to
solve deeply complex 21st century decentralized
problems, whether that's the deeply embedded
power structure of the Iranian regime or the
sprawling commercialized collegiate NIL markets
using mid -20th century centralized force like
decapitation. strikes and executive orders. If
Cadillac is proving that the future of elite
performance relies on cross -disciplinary brilliance,
like having an aerodynamicist manage human behavior,
what happens when a global superpower finally
realizes its traditional centralized levers of
power simply cannot grip the gears of a decentralized
modern world? And furthermore, if the Strait
of Hormuz remains bottlenecked and oil prices
force a deep global recession, how will that
fundamentally alter the political math for the
upcoming midterms? And will it totally fracture
Europe's willingness to support any ongoing global
conflicts? That is a phenomenal question to mull
over as we watch these events continue to unfold.
Thank you to our listener for bringing these
incredibly rich and complex sources to the table
today. It has been an absolute journey unpacking
them with you. We will see you next time on The
Deep. dive.