Welcome back to the Left of Old North. We're
your hosts, Adrian and CJ. And today we're coming
to you on Memorial Day. We, at the back half
of this episode, are going to have a great interview
with Chris Cooper, the WCU professor and author
of Anatomy of a Purple State. And I had a lot
of fun with that interview. Oh yeah, same. I
definitely would love to have him back on here
at some point. I feel like he will come back
on at some point. Cause we, we had a great conversation.
Um, he made some, he hedged his bets a little
bit, but he made a couple of predictions and
I, and I want to see, uh, how those pan out at
some point, you know, whether it's a year from
now or 10 years from now, we've got to catch
up with him and see, and see how things shake
up, you know? Yeah. And then, you know, if he's
wrong, we'll just badger him. And just let him
know. We'll run him off like Ann Seltzer got
run off in Iowa. When that poll came out, it
was either going to be the biggest upset in history
or she is going to be ran out of town. Moving
on, because I will... Yeah. And I mean, he did,
he, he did make the disclaimer that he's not
really a predictions guy. So we kind of nudged
him into it, but you know, overall great interview.
We had a lot of great. and he had a lot of good
advice for both people who are in politics and
people who study it and want to know more. And
you can definitely get a really good overview.
It's a great primer. Again, the book's called
Anatomy of a Purple State. It came out just last
year, right before the election, actually. We
talk a little bit about that. So go make sure
and watch the episode where we get to interview
him. Well, this episode. Excuse me. I'm also
thinking about the fact that this is one week
where we actually released two full -length episodes.
So we released an episode last Friday because
there was just too much to talk about. There
was way too much that happened this week to talk
about. We had to give the people what they wanted,
and by give the people what they wanted, I mean
just kind of rant for a little bit about what
was going on. Well, it wasn't too badly structured,
I don't think. I think we only had to skip over
one section, which we'll cover a little bit more
today. And if you want to know more about what's
the craziness that's been going on in North Carolina
this week, go and check out that bonus episode.
It's titled The Eyes of the Storm. It basically
just talks about how we are experiencing a lot
of intermittent weather, so to speak, in the
world of politics right now that is actually
probably going to manifest itself in a way that
we may not be able to foresee yet. But it's only
getting worse right now. And we're not exactly
being left with a lot of protections. from the
storm of politics and also from literal storms
that may be coming our way during this next hurricane
season. So strap in, folks. Make sure you're
prepared. Moving on. So again, today is Memorial
Day. And as you're listening to this and maybe
as you go throughout your day, all I would ask
is that regardless of how you feel about the
Department of Defense or what America does overseas
with its military, just remember that From the
beginning of this nation to the current day,
a lot of good men and women have died protecting
the freedoms that we now get to enjoy. And I
think that we just got to make sure that we're
honoring them for that. Speaking not only as
somebody who served myself, I think that we owe
it to a lot of people to make sure that we're
remembering them today, keeping them in our thoughts.
You don't necessarily have to thank some random
dude in uniform for his or her service, but I
don't know. Those people believed in something
along the way, regardless of how you feel about
it, you know? I do want to also kind of take
a moment and extend my thanks. I do have some
folks in my family who are in the military, and
I've heard some of their stories and whatnot,
and I know that it's very much a huge sacrifice
of, you know, Your time, your health, and possibly
your life, depending on the various circumstances
at the time. And, yeah, I just want to say thank
you to everyone who did serve. Yeah. And are
currently serving. Yeah, exactly. Pause one second.
Yeah. And, you know, thank me for my service.
I appreciate that. You're welcome. Yeah. No,
I... Always look at that as it's honestly, if
you want my honest take on this, it is often
a little bit embarrassing for people to do it
in public. And I'm sure that anybody who has
family members that have served would probably
hear the same thing from them. But like when
some random person who maybe sees you in your
uniform or finds out through conversation that
you served in some capacity, they go like, you
know, thank you for your service. It's always
a little bit like. you know like i i did radios
i wasn't on like i wasn't on the front lines
risking my life in the same way so uh you know
it we take it as it comes i and and uh but one
thing that i've always not always but one thing
that i've responded with uh when it's somebody
who has a good humor a good sense of humor is
i'll say in response thank you for paying your
taxes It's true, though. Yeah, it is. I mean,
the military has a budget of, what was it, $997
billion, a bit of which comes from taxes. A bit
of which, give or take, right? Yeah, I have often
taken Memorial Day to talk about how bloated
our military budget is. Uh, even when I was serving,
this was the kind of thing that I would talk
with my NCOs and fellow airmen about because
it's, it's really something that just never seems
to go down ever. And it really raises the question
of why it's nearly a trillion dollars to run
a military that's not even currently in wartime.
Yeah. So, you know, we've, we've currently got.
So many contracts with so many different private
corporations that basically just take all this
money for R &D and turn around and make halfway
decent jets like the F -35. And I only say that
because it's like a bit of an in -joke. It took
15 years for this thing to even get off the ground,
and it had so many development issues. From all
accounts, it's a damn good fighter jet. So, there's
that. But what's going to be interesting, too,
is I think that as we move forward with trying
to recreate the left, trying to recreate the
Democratic Party, I think that that's something
that Democrats need to push a little bit harder
on. Yeah, as far as like kind of, what's the
word, kind of reassessing things and kind of
holding feet to the fire on. Making sure all
this is spent responsibly. Yeah, just trying
to rein it in a little bit. Even if it's not
going to matter, I think voting against the spending
bill, if it's a ridiculous amount, is a good
thing to do. But that's my personal two cents.
And I know that some Democrats would heavily
disagree with me. And that's okay. Most definitely
think about whenever I see just how much the
military budget is, is how much we're spending
and then how much the next country is spending.
You know, I looked it up earlier as we were preparing
for this and we're in first place that $997 billion
and China is in second place with 300 some odd
billion dollars. So a third of what we got, right?
Yeah. We could cut our budget literally in half
right there. still be ahead we'd still be outspending
them by over 100 billion dollars yeah and i understand
that you know a lot of you know kind of america's
influence i guess lies in its military might
yeah you know a lot of our cultural identity
too if you think about it yeah oh yeah no most
definitely i mean we have we're the only real
country that has military bases in other countries
like on the scale we do. Yeah. You know? Yeah.
It's not even close. Yeah. I mean, it's all strategic.
It's, you know, obviously to have places to launch
operations from if need be, or, but it's also
just a, our way of saying, Hey, look how powerful
we are. You fuck with us. We can be there on
your, at your door in like two seconds. Right.
And what I think is interesting, too, is, I mean,
you bring that up, right? We talked a little
bit before the show, but I think that where Democrats
tend to fail in some aspect, right, is that they
can't all get on the same page about whether
to support military might or to try and rein
it in. There are a lot of Democrats that support
making sure that the military gets however much
money it wants. And then there are some Democrats
that really want to make sure that we're reining
in on the military spending. And though he's
not a Democrat, technically, but he is on the
left. Bernie Sanders has fought for that forever.
And I tend to agree with him in a lot of aspects
about decreasing our military spending. Because
it really is out of hand. We're not even touching
on the fact that they've failed their audit.
nearly every year for the past decade. So money's
just going poof, and we don't know what happened
to it. I just think, you know, wherever that
money went, what could we as a country do with
that money if it wasn't going towards DOD? You
know, we could have free school lunch for every
kid. You know, we could, honest to God, solve
homelessness. We could, you know. increase our
soft power around the world. Whoa, whoa, whoa,
whoa, whoa. Slow your roll. The minute you started
talking about feeding children, every Republican
stopped listening. I know, it's radical, right?
How dare I have basic empathy and care about
kids? No, but who's going to pay for it, CJ?
I mean... Who's going to pay for it, CJ? I think
I would rather have my taxes go to a hungry child
than a bomb. For children. Yeah. Sad but true.
Look, all I'm saying is that one of the most
well -known soldiers of the modern era was literally
on camera multiple times bragging about sniping
children. We need to figure out where our priorities
lie. And think about what actually is helpful
for the country. You know, again, the school
lunch thing, solving homelessness, taking some
of this money and actually improving Veterans
Affairs, improving the VA. But they're taking
some of this money and, like I said a second
ago, improving our soft power around the world.
You know, we don't have to always be, you know,
guns a -blazing. or threatening to be able to
have guns a -blazing at a moment's notice. There
are other ways to spread our influence and kind
of secure allies and our positioning on the world
stage. And that's where cuts to things like USAID
are so bad. Aside from the massive amount of
death that comes with cutting them. You know,
there's also the element of we lose a little
bit of our standing. See, but you don't make
money from those things. And you do make money
from funding war. You do make money from building
bombs and manufacturing guns and bullets and
airplanes and tanks. Yeah, if you're Lockheed
Martin. Yeah, that's why some of the top lobbyists
in Washington, D .C. work for military armament
firms and for military industrialists. They're
paid very, very well to do their job. I mean,
you know, and this isn't, all this isn't to say,
you know, just, you know, to hell with the military.
We don't need one. Obviously we do need one and
we do need a strong one, you know? Yeah. Because
there are threats out there that we should be
actively trying to defend against. Yeah. Yeah.
Defend against and, you know, anticipate their
moves and all that stuff. But there's also other
problems that we can solve at home for a fraction
of what we spend on this. And I think I agree
with that wholeheartedly, especially on like
what you were kind of saying. We need to get
on some kind of some kind of a same page. Right.
Because if Democrats are out there talking about
how we need to have the most lethal military
force in the world while they're running for
office. then they kind of just sound like Republicans
a lot of the time. And that's not to say that,
you know, blue good, red bad. No, blue mistaken
on their base. Blue not reading the room. Because
I do think that there are a lot of Democrats
who want a strong military, but to say that they're
the most, to say we need to have the most lethal
fighting force in the world, that's kind of a,
like... almost a lead into just saying we need
to spend more on the military. Cause that's,
that's the kind of language that Republicans
have used in the past. Oh yeah. No, it is very
much so. So we may be seeing like, and I think
that that's what turned a lot of leftists and
progressives away from like the Kamala Harris
campaign, because she was saying things like
that. And ultimately what people heard was I'm
going to. just do exactly what we were doing
before. And, and if they want to increase the
military budget, I will sign off on that sucker.
No, no questions asked. So we're making this
a, I'm CJ is not making this big thing. I'm making
this, I'm sorry for, for, for dragging him feet
first into it. But I, this is something that
I've been very passionate about, especially in
the last 10 years or so. And I try to talk about
it on Memorial Day, not because I'm trying to
disparage soldiers, airmen, sailors. But we really
need to think about how the cost of war is more
than just dollars and cents. And increasing the
military budget only gives us more leeway in
the future to throw bodies at the problem. And
people talk about, well... We have more sophisticated
technology. We can use drones. We can use airstrikes
and all these other things. But at the end of
the day, I'm not just talking about men and women
that are lost in the line of duty. I'm talking
about 22 veterans per day that lose their lives
to suicide. Because being in the military is
extremely stressful in a lot of ways, speaking
personally. And when you are behind a monitor
watching a black and white screen and seeing
a bomb go off and knowing that it took people's
lives on the other end of it, that affects you.
Not saying that that happened to me or that I
felt that. But this is the kind of thing we need
to take into account. That a lot of these military
members are still people. And the cost of war
is more than just lowering the budget. Like the
charge of... trying to lower the military budget
is more than just arguing for like fiscal responsibility
it's it's that let's try to steer away america's
culture from being one funded directly for war
and instead like cj was advocating for that's
directed in funding for people for diplomacy
because at the end of the day you know no matter
what the war is no matter what country the war
or what countries are involved in the war all
wars really end up the same way it ends with
a group of people in a room talking which is
what they should have done from the beginning
that's that's a really good point that's a really
good point it's like at some point they're gonna
be in i got that from episode doctor who see
and i was gonna guess the west wing no no it's
uh It's that Peter Capaldi episode of Doctor
Who. It's really good. Definitely watch it. It
may come from a British TV show, but it's true
all the same. The only difference between diplomacy
and war is that war just racks up a lot more
bodies. Not trying to bring the mood down. Just
something that I really feel like needs to be
said, needs to be thought about during this day
of remembrance for people that... died both again
i mean i was listening to a bunch of old songs
from the revolutionary war era and just thinking
about how the men who fought the british um and
i'm not talking about like the white protestant
slave owners that were just trying to protect
their monetary interests i'm talking about the
farm boys that signed up because they felt like
their rights were being taken away from them
because they were they were being They were having
British soldiers quartered in their homes. And
if anything like that happened today, I would
expect Americans to fight back against that.
So we need to remember those folks and remember
that the spirit of America is, for better or
worse, integrally tied to our military history.
Because that's how this country was born. And
before we get to our interview with Chris Cooper,
which is coming up here in a second. Something
in the last few days that just happened that
kind of ties into what we were talking about
with him, actually. This consolidation of power
within the North Carolina General Assembly and
the right wing of North Carolina politics. The
Supreme Court decided on Friday, of course, literally
when... When we released the episode, so we couldn't
even bring it up, they denied Democratic Governor
Josh Stein's request to block new appointments
to the State Board of Elections. What does that
mean, CJ? Can you layman it down for us there?
Yeah, so essentially it means that any appointments
that the state auditor who was just given this
power, any appointments that he makes are allowed
to stand right now. while Stein's lawsuit is
still going through the courts. And that is something
that could take months to resolve, really. Yeah,
if not years. And again, I want to remind everyone
that this is the only state in the country where
the state auditor has this ability. There's nothing
in his job description that justifies this kind
of power. And as we've said before, if this was
Jessica Holmes, a Democrat, would the Republicans
in the General Assembly have done this? Hell
no. We all know they wouldn't. They know they
wouldn't. We know and they know what this is.
And again, it is a blatant power grab. That's
it. How much do you want to bet if a Democrat
wins the next state auditor election that they'll
try to change it back? Oh. Uh, yeah, no, most
definitely out. I'll bet a hundred bucks right
here, right now. Um, I like, I like a sure thing.
I like to say that, uh, on May 1st, uh, Bolyak,
uh, the auditor was, you know, sworn in or was
able to make these appointments, make these changes
to the election board, which shifted it from
a three, two democratic majority majority to
a three, two Republican majority. Allison Riggs,
in a dissenting opinion, said, quote, Yeah. Oh,
she also said that this ruling... also as boy
to proceed with using chairpersons of the 100
county election boards beginning in late june
yeah so keep that in mind that these may seem
like small changes these may seem like changes
that probably won't affect you directly but given
a long enough timeline they absolutely will because
these are the folks that decide whether elections
get uh certified yeah this is How the elections
are conducted. How many polling sites will be
open in your area. What hours those are going
to be open in the area. And keep in mind, right
now, they're trying to make it a six -day voting
period. If that. If they can get it lower, I'm
sure they will. They want to make it a six -day
early voting period. I mean, hell, there are
Republicans in the General Assembly who want
to make election day just a one -day thing. a
one and done and that's it yeah so screw you
if you can't get off on a tuesday yeah and again
this is because as we said before they don't
care about your ability to vote no and if voting
didn't work they wouldn't be trying to take it
away right right and with with these hundred
county board of elections too like cj was saying
um this this was something that happened in texas
not too long ago that The governor, actually,
real charmer, that one, decided that he would
only allow for one early drop -off site in each
county. And I may be misremembering something
about that. Maybe it was only one in each precinct.
But you've got to remember that some of these
precincts, especially in Houston, Dallas -Fort
Worth, San Antonio, some of these precincts have
hundreds of thousands of people living in them.
And maybe not hundreds. Tens of thousands, at
the very least. And that's a lot of people to
only have one drop box for. So all that to say,
this is the kind of thing that Dave Bolliott
could do, is create rules that specifically are
designed to pull back voting rights. Just a little
bit. Just within the rules. To stifle a voter's
ability to actually go and vote. Exactly. It's
trying to stifle those rights there at the margins.
The thing is, once you get to those margins,
you create new margins that you can then work
in on, and then some more and more and more,
and then it just collapses, closes. Until you're...
One day voting, and it's only open from 10 to
6, and you have to have three forms of identification
on you, and you can't drop off for anybody else.
I'm not messing around. I'm not pulling this
out of my butt. This is all things that they
have advocated for. One day voting periods, 10
to 6. You can't drop off anybody's ballot for
them. It's all these kinds of things. We may
see them as individual pushes by the Republican
Party, but at the end of the day, if they were
actually to implement all of those, it would
be one of the most restrictive voting practices
in the world. Oh, yeah. I mean, we got to remember,
the Republican policies may be awful and they
may be stupid. The Republican Party, when it
comes to strategy, is not necessarily dumb. No.
There's a reason for all this. They have a plan.
They know what they're doing. There's a reason
they want to consolidate power in the NCGA. And
that is because the General Assembly is what
decides the district lines every 10 years. Right?
That is state law. And who decided it was state
law? I'll give you one guess. And who decided
that it didn't have to be nonpartisan? I'll give
you one guess again. I'm sure you'll get this
one right too. And they want to make the governor
powerless. They want to make the judicial branch
just a rubber stamp for pretty much anything
the General Assembly wants to do. And if you
really look at like a macro level, this is essentially
what the Trump administration is trying to do.
But with the executive branch, Project 2025 is
specifically geared towards making sure that
the. executive branch is clothed in power that
should belong to the judicial and the legislative
branch but instead what they're trying to do
even with their slim majority in the house is
they're trying to basically just do whatever
president trump wants to do put forward whatever
kind of legislation he they know he will sign
no matter what and instead of using the judicial
branch as a check on that power even though it's
not fully there yet We know it's not fully there
yet because we've already seen them check on
Trump's power a couple of times. So I'm not I'm
not immediately saying that they're just, you
know, shilling for Trump all the time. But we
are not quite there yet. But what they want to
do is to make sure that the judicial branch is
instead a check on a citizen's right or the House's
right to be able to to be able to petition the
executive branch and say, what you're doing is
wrong and we're going to sue or we're going to
take you to court. And the Supreme Court, they
want it to be there as a barrier to whatever
the Trump administration wants to do. This is
all in Project 2025. Again, I'm not pulling this
out of my ass. We've been warning y 'all for
a very long time now. And it's not my fault if
you didn't read it. And here's the thing. It's
not like this is something that's been a secret
hidden plan. No, it's been out there in plain
sight. They have been open about it. They put
up a 900 page document or whatever the hell it
is. Yeah. 900 pages. They've said what they want
to do. And if you're listening to us and you're
going, oh, well, that's just bullshit. You can
go to the Heritage Foundation's website and find
this. Yeah. It's not that hard. Yeah. But to
talk a little bit more about. the General Assembly
and to talk a little bit more about political
imbalance or rather some balance in the state.
Thank you for listening to us ramble on for the
last 20 something minutes. But it is time to
get on to our interview with the incredible Chris
Cooper. Again, professor from Western Carolina
University, author of Anatomy of a Purple State.
We're going to introduce him now. I hope you'll
stick around for the rest of the interview. Thanks
for listening to us. Make sure to follow us on
all the places. Do all the things. Subscribe
to our Substack. Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
We've got many more interviews coming down the
pipeline that I'm sure you're going to be excited
about. I know we are. Oh, yeah. So stick around
with us on the left of Bold North. See you on
the flip side. All right. We are here with Dr.
Chris Cooper. Chris is the Madison Distinguished
Professor of Political Science and Director of
the Hare Institute for Public Affairs at Western
Carolina University. His writing, commentary,
and research have helped define how we understand
North Carolina's fast -changing political landscape.
And boy, does it change fast. From redistricting
fights to voter behavior to the future of both
parties in the state. He's also the co -author
of The New Politics of North Carolina. and author
of the recent Anatomy of a Purple State, a must
-read for anyone who's actually serious about
learning the politics of the Old North State.
And it's quickly becoming a Bible for politicos
here. So, you know, not to pump you up too much,
but just so you know. If you've read an article
about NC politics in the last five years, chances
are he was quoted in it. So we're honored to
have him on today to help us make sense of where
we are, how we got here. And what is the path
forward for the state as a whole? Chris, welcome
to the Left of Old North. Thanks so much for
having me. Looking forward to the conversation.
And thanks for engaging with the state's politics.
I appreciate your time. We definitely appreciate
yours. And now that the 2024 election is over
and done with, including the most recently decided
NC Supreme Court case, or NC Supreme Court race,
rather. Do you wish you had waited maybe like
a few more months before releasing Anatomy of
a Purple State? Or are you good with where it
ended up? Just fodder for the second edition,
right? I mean, it is wild in all seriousness.
I mean, like this was an internal dialogue with
myself and a little bit with the press too. Like
when's the right time to put out a book like
this? And so we made a decision to put it out
right before the... 2024 election which was great
in some ways and that people obviously were interested
in politics but it also means we're gonna have
to do an update pretty soon because right after
the 2024 election obviously we have new data
we have new insights wrote some things in there
about the way for example that elections are
run in the state of north carolina and as of
last week like we need to update that right it's
no longer the party of the governor that gets
these appointees it's the party of the auditor
didn't see that one coming so we are going to
need some updates for sure So I'm guessing there
is a second edition planned at some point. It's
in my brain. Now let's see if we can get from
my brain to the publisher's spreadsheet. But
let's hope so. Well, that's good to know. No,
I was just going to say, yeah, it's amazing how
quickly things change here. You know, we've talked
about on the podcast before, you know, sometimes
we wish we had, like, waited a day to record
or, like, maybe two hours to record. Of course,
as soon as we're done recording, something happens
that just negates what we just did. That's North
Carolina politics, right? I mean, it is like
all the cliches are true. It changes so fast.
And, you know, y 'all say this. I've talked to
other podcasters and they say the same thing.
You know, the stuff that I write, like I feel
this way constantly. Like you think, you know,
you think you've got a general principle of the
way things work. and then all of a sudden you're
thrown for a wrench, right? You spend six months
and two days, six months and one day, talking
about the North Carolina State Supreme Court
race, for example, and you think, hey, there's
this federal judge, Judge Wynn. He's a Trump
appointee. He doesn't seem real friendly to the
arguments likely of Allison Riggs. I bet we're
going to be in this thing for a while. Then Wynn
comes down, he puts down a decision that makes
you question all that. He says, essentially,
Riggs is right, Griffin's wrong, let's move forward.
I didn't see that one coming, I'll be honest
with you. Same. Yeah, I was going to say, I don't
think anybody can blame you for that. I don't
think anybody saw that coming. I was expecting
it to go for at least another month, if not more.
That's right. I mean, it seemed like this really
was the draw that Griffin wanted, as far as judges.
good judge or bad judge or anything about him.
It just seemed like this is somebody who is probably,
you know, if Jefferson Griffin could could choose
a justice, this might be the one. And obviously
it didn't go that way. And it's interesting,
especially when we're talking about the makeup
of the court, which could make a huge difference.
Maybe not coming down the line too soon, but
at least in 2028, we have in between that time,
four different Supreme Court races seats up for
grab. So I wanted to ask you your thoughts about
that. Yeah, I mean, that's it exactly, right?
So I've seen a lot of folks say, well, why is
the GOP and why is Griffin trying to work so
hard for this one seat, right? I mean, what's
the difference between being up, having one Democrat
versus two Democrats? And the reason, of course,
is... This is a play for the next redistricting
cycle, I think, in a lot of ways. So 2028 is
going to be the key year. In 2026, all the Democrats
can possibly do is just hold on, of course, to
a neutral seat if they're lucky. If they lose
that seat, they might still have a Republican
majority. But 2028 is going to be the key. And
that's, I think, what everybody's playing for
is 2028. 2030, because when we get those new
maps in 2031, the court who's in place at that
time is going to be the key driver of what's
likely to happen. And just a quick follow up
on that. Do you think that Democrats like the
Democratic Party of North Carolina, do you think
they have another six month legal battle? ready
in their back pocket if something like Riggs
happens again in 2026 with Anita Earls? I mean,
I think they're going to have to, right? I mean,
there's really no choice. But, you know, that's
one of the pieces of this that some folks have
covered. It's not that it's been undiscovered
or something, but I don't think we've spent enough
time thinking about is just how much money this
costs. So, obviously, Alistair Riggs wins at
the end, right? She is now sworn in. It's official.
It's over finally. But... You know, there was
a whole lot of money that was spent on not just
one lawsuit, but multiple lawsuits from multiple
angles. The Democratic Party was already ramping
up for this curing process that the state judiciary
had put in. And so this was not a costless exercise
for the Democratic Party. And so, you know, are
they ready for it again? They have to be. Is
that a real hit for the party? Yeah, I think
it I think it really is. Something I was kind
of curious about. So, and I swear I'll get back
to this in a second. It'll come around. So I,
I majored in political science at App State.
Yeah. And one of the things about, you know,
going through that process and also just in the
work I've done since then, one thing that I really
started to learn about and pay attention to is,
you know, kind of like our system as a whole
of democracy and whatnot, but. also the kind
of cracks, kind of the weaknesses in the foundation
of it. And at least in my opinion, you know,
I think this whole thing with Jefferson Griffin
really kind of found those cracks, really kind
of exploited them. And I was just kind of curious
if you, in your professional opinion, if you
think what he did over the past six months has
kind of weakened our democracy, has kind of maybe
opened the door to further attacks, so to say,
what your thoughts were. Yeah, absolutely. Look,
I don't think anybody left, right, center came
out of this thing thinking they feel better about
our election system right now. I don't think
that's one thing that anybody in this state shares.
So, yeah, I am very worried about what this is
doing for trust in the judiciary, trust in our
election system in general. Somewhere back on
that shelf behind me, I've got a book that sort
of goes through the history of all of these different
challenges, post -election challenges. And there's
none of them in that book that go quite as long
as the one that we just experienced. So, yeah,
I think we are in a new territory. I do not think
this is the last time we're going to be having
this conversation, not as a state, but as a country.
Right. Because ultimately, Jefferson Griffin
lost. But how much did he really lose? Right.
I mean, they lost some money. There was some
time. But at the end of the day, if somebody
was willing to finance a similar operation in
the future. kind of why wouldn't they and that
is the part that scares me and that scares me
if it's somebody from the democratic party taking
that lesson or the republican party taking that
lesson like i want to live in a world where once
we go through the normal process um you know
it doesn't have to end on election night obviously
this is a close close election we're supposed
to do recounts all that was cool but it really
worries me that the lesson may be hey you might
as well press it the worst thing that's going
to happen is you lose you lost in the first place
and Do you think that could carry over to like
the national scene, like maybe even in this Senate
election that's coming up? Sure. Yeah, I think
it's very possible that it goes that it carries
over to the national scene. I think it's going
to be a little tougher to make some of these
legal arguments for a federal election. Right.
If you think about Jefferson Griffin's case,
a lot of it was based on, you know, let's take
the U .S. These are the uniformed military folks
overseas. Jefferson Griffin says, hey, look.
We have, just to grab one part of his argument,
we have a voter ID law in the state of North
Carolina, and you can't just not have that because
you're a UOCAVA voter. And some folks came and
said, well, UOCAVA is a federal law, like this
is what's allowed, it's in all the states. And
Griffin's response was essentially with a lot
of legalese, but he says, look, I ain't running
for federal office, I'm running for state office,
right? And so therefore the state constitution,
the state laws should be the ones that apply.
So I think it's gonna be tougher to make that
case. Not that it's impossible, not that no one
will try. That's a tougher case to make, I think,
at the federal level than it is for these state
elections. And speaking of the federal level,
also in 2026, we have a big Senate race coming
up in this state, which I'm sure you are going
to be paying a lot of attention to. But the question
that I have is, how does the Democratic Party
both reconcile with the fact that they haven't
elected a U .S. senator since 2008, you know,
before? a huge realignment in the state, and
also the fact that they might still continue
to vote Democratic for both AG and for the governor.
Yeah, that's right. AG, governor, I mean, all
down the ticket, right? We've got five council
of state offices that are currently held by Democrats.
I mean, I think it really is a matter of candidate
quality. I mean, yes, the Democrats have not
won a Senate election since 2008. That's a fact.
There's no question. Fair and square. Those were
the rules. Those have been some pretty close
elections. I actually did a little bit of analysis
about like which states have the closest Senate
elections. And North Carolina is among the closest
in the country. So I think if we look at margins,
I think the Democratic Party does have a chance.
This is going to be a good year to be a Democrat.
That doesn't mean that I think that. Every Democratic
position's right. It's just the party, the president,
of course, always loses seats during their midterm.
We expect the Democrats to do well. I think if
the Democrats put forward the right candidate,
I think there's a chance that they can take out
Tom Tillis. It's nowhere near a guarantee, but
it's possible. What they need, though, is to
figure out who their candidate is. And right
now, obviously, Wiley Nichols is declared. We're
all waiting on Roy Cooper, right? I mean, the
biggest lie told in North Carolina politics today,
I think, is I know what Roy Cooper is going to
do. Like, I'm convinced no one actually knows.
What's your name? Is Kristen Cooper or Roy Cooper
or maybe Morgan Jackson? I don't think you actually
know what's going to happen here, but everybody
likes to pretend like they know. Once we know
what Roy Cooper does, no relation, then I think
we're going to have a lot better sense of the
seat. And if that happens. I'm glad you said
no relation. I'm curious. We batted back and
forth on whether to ask that question. Jeff Tamir
used to always introduce me as Chris No Relation
Cooper. A little bit of a follow -up question
on that, and then CJ, I'll let you get to yours.
But because we're still kind of waiting on the
fence of whether Roy Cooper may or may not announce,
I mean, it's been buzzing really since 2024,
maybe even before that, just in smaller circles.
But if he declares, do you think that this is
something that perhaps the Republican Party needs
to look at running a potentially different candidate
than Tom Tillis? Or do you think that he's still
a decent candidate running this third time around?
Yeah, it's a great question. I think Tom Tillis
is a good candidate. I don't think that the Republican
Party is going to put up a primary challenge
to him. So I wrote a little piece in the assembly
titled something like why Tom Tillis doesn't
need to worry about a primary. I mean, the reality
is. Sometimes U .S. House members lose primaries.
It happens. They get primaried. U .S. senators
almost never lose a primary. I mean, it is incredibly
rare. We haven't seen one in about 10 years.
When they happen, they tend to happen because
of scandal. Tom Tillis doesn't have any scandals,
right? You may like his policies. You may not
like his policies. The folks on the right think
he doesn't go far enough right. The folks on
the left think he's with Trump too much. But
there's no major scandal there, at least thus
far. So I think Tom Tillis. is the candidate
for the Republican Party. And frankly, I think
he's a good candidate for the Republican Party
for all of those reasons. Now, whether it's enough
to beat a Roy Cooper or whoever else the Democrats
put up, we'll see. But he can raise money. He's
mostly scandal free, which is hard to say these
days. He does have some crossover appeal because
from time to time, he is willing to challenge
Donald Trump. Yes, it frustrates folks that he
doesn't do it more on the left. that he does
it too much on the right, but I think he's, I
think he's the right candidate. Um, and if we
get Cooper versus Tillis, this is going to be
like Helms hunt territory. This is going to be
the kind of race that people are talking about
two decades from now. Oh yeah. No, a hundred
percent. Um, so kind of bringing it, uh, to a
little bit down ballot then, um, in 26, you know,
We're going to have a bunch of General Assembly
seats kind of up for grabs and everything. Are
there any particular areas you're kind of watching
or anything like that that you think are going
to be really interesting? Yeah, absolutely. So,
look, the vast majority of these seats, as you
all know, are kind of locked in. You can blame
redistrict. You can blame gerrymandering. You
can blame residential settlement patterns, as
people like to say. But just put that aside for
a second and all. Start from the idea that most
of these seats are locked in. But there's a small
number that are going to matter. It's going to
be mostly the same ones that really were tight
last time. Lindsay Prather's seat in Buncombe
County is obviously one watched. The Republicans
put up Reese Smith last time. She raised a fair
bit of money. Ultimately, Lindsay Prather was
one of, I believe only. two members of the Democratic
side who was actually able to win in a Trump
favored district. So I think she's absolutely
one to watch. That Terrence Everett seat obviously
was close last time. I expect to be close again.
The Tricia Cotham seat. Seems like it's probably
moving farther left. That one, the Republicans
were able to hold on. They put a ton of money
into it. I expect to see a ton of money again.
I think that one may finally get out of the Republicans'
hands this next time. We'll see. But that's one
to watch. And then I think there's some primaries
to watch, too. Like, I am very curious to see
what happens, for example, with Cecil Brockman.
The Democrats have made no secret about the fact
that they're not wild about some of his voting
patterns and the times where he takes a walk.
He has made it pretty clear that he's not real
fond of the Democratic Party establishment right
now at this time. We've seen this happen before
where the Democratic Party has tried to take
out some folks who they didn't believe were.
sufficiently aligned with the party so i'm really
curious to see what that looks like as well right
that is a seat that's going to be held by the
democrats the question i have is which democrat
tends to hold it right and and that one was pretty
close the last time around in his primary he
only won by what did we say it was cj 85 votes
80 votes or something like that yeah so it's
it's not exactly safe for him necessarily no
not in the primary at all he makes it through
the primary I'd be shocked if he lost the general
given that district. But no, I think none of
this is guaranteed for Brockman at this point
or, you know, this small group of folks who tend
to run counter to what the minority party, the
Democratic Party wants them to do. So, yeah,
you know, Roy Cooper obviously played hardball.
It seems like with with some of these Democrats
in the past. I'm not sure what Stein's appetite
is going to be to play hardball like that. I
think we'll see. Stein, in general, seems to
be playing a little bit of a kind of a kinder
role, it seems like, at least publicly, than
Cooper. I have no idea whether that's going to
translate to backroom dealings or not. Now, with
some of these primaries that we saw, so again,
Cecil Brockman's victory by only like 80 -something
votes. Up in the 27th district, Rodney Pierce
being out Michael Ray by like 37 votes, I think.
Even over in like Nash County, you know, it wasn't
nearly as close, but it was like 400 votes with
Chester and Wilkins. What do you think these
like kind of really tight margins are saying
about the electorate and kind of their mentality?
And where do you think maybe the parties need
to kind of go from there? Yeah, I mean. It's
wild. I mean, just to sort of stop and jump back
for a second. I mean, those are those are incredibly
close primary races. And let's keep in mind,
too, this is in a presidential year where they
were that close. Right. So we got really high
voter turnout, second highest voter turnout in
the last hundred years in North Carolina. And
you still have, you know, a handful of districts,
the primary and then again at the general that
are decided by fewer than 100 votes. It's bananas.
Right. So I think what this says is that the.
The primary battle a lot is which ballot to the
unaffiliated folks choose. Right. I mean, ultimately,
that's what the deciding factor is going to be.
And the unaffiliated things, it's a fascinating
deal. Right. So when you talk to political consultants,
when I talk to consultants, they tend to say
it's kind of much to do about nothing. Most of
these people, we have other metrics on them.
We know which way they lean. Right. Just because
you're unaffiliated doesn't mean you're a moderate.
But some of the research that I've done. It is
a bold statement, right? And I think we see a
remarkable amount of movement. So I just track
like, all right, let's grab all these unaffiliated
folks that vote consistently. How often do they
choose the same primary? I did some of this work
with Michael Bitzer. And what we found was just
slightly less than half actually changed their
primaries. I mean, that has the ability to change
the dynamic really, really quickly. So, you know,
I live out in Jackson County. I live up in the
mountains. And I'm in the 11th congressional
district. And there's this guy you all have heard
of, Madison Cawthorn, maybe. Anyway, so he ran,
of course, in the Republican primary for the
11th congressional district. It was a big movement,
very controversial around here, to get unaffiliated
folks, well, to get Democrats to switch to unaffiliated,
and then to get those unaffiliated folks to vote
for anybody but Cawthorn. kind of worked, right?
Cawthorn lost the primary for a variety of reasons
I'm happy to talk about. But the key thing to
bring it back to our conversation is that group
of unaffiliated folks in which primary they chose
had a huge amount of power on ultimately who
the candidate was. And so I think the parties
haven't quite figured out how to work those unaffiliated
voters in a primary scenario. That's super interesting
too, because like CJ and I both ran races this
last go around in the NC state house. And I think
we can say, uh, I mean, in different, uh, microcosms,
I suppose that, yeah, indeed the unaffiliated,
like you, you cannot guarantee that it's going
to go one way or another. You really have to
get down into the data to figure out even an
inkling of an idea of how these folks are going
to swing. So that, that's really interesting.
And it kind of leads me into, uh, in. your view
if you had to predict um in the next 10 years
let's say that seems 10 to 15 years because like
15 years ago democrats were holding the uh north
carolina journal assembly the governorship and
all that obviously that's not the same today
so 15 years from now if you had to predict do
you think north carolina is turning redder bluer
or like grayer Yeah, I think it's going to continue
to be pretty purple, pretty gray, whichever sort
of metaphor you want to choose. Right. So the
way I sort of think about the last 30 years in
North Carolina, it's about a clock. Right. And
if you've got 12 o 'clock, you've got the Democratic
Party and six o 'clock, you got the Republican
Party. Right. So strong blue, strong red. The
whole South was at like 12 o 'clock. Right. And
then it went eventually to six. And a couple
of states came back to 3, 330, right? States
like Virginia, for example. North Carolina is
weird because we were, we're like at 230 or so
for the better part of 30 years. Like we've been,
we were never as democratic as all these other
Southern states were. And we're not as Republican
now. And so I see a lot of Democrats saying,
hey, eventually we're going to win, right? Eventually
the browning of the state, all the in -migrants.
The Democratic Party is going to end up dominating.
What I tend to see is, yeah, it may get a little
bit more Democratic, but I think it's going to
be competitive for the foreseeable future. Part
of the reason is we're just more rural than the
rest of the country. Like we have the second
most rural voters in the entire country. Texas
is the only state that has more. And so, yeah,
Charlotte's growing. Yeah, Wake County's growing.
You know, yeah, Buncombe's growing and New Hanover
to some degree. But we still have that rural
vote that keeps us a little bit redder than you
might otherwise expect, given all the growth
that's coming in. And in your suggestions at
the conclusion of Anatomy of a Purple State,
you put forward some reforms that you feel are
actionable to improve North Carolina politics.
It kind of seems like just as a whole, if not
just in the General Assembly, which of these
do you feel is the most achievable in the next
few sessions, if any at all? Yeah. So, I mean,
I think a few of them are somewhat achievable.
So one that I think is pretty achievable, actually,
we're seeing some movement on, coupled with something
I don't like that I'll talk about. But we are
seeing, so one thing I say is that I think we
should move, we should get rid of these odd year
elections, right? So we're about to have a ton
of them across the state of North Carolina. Still
trying to figure out exactly how many voters
are going to be affected totally. Stay tuned.
But there's a lot of them, right? So I live in
the town of Silva. We're going to have a Silvatown
council election. Those things get terrible,
terrible, terrible turnout. And they cost money,
right? Elections are not free. And so one thing
I think we can do is move those to even year
cycles. The General Assembly is starting to do
that. And I actually think it's a really good
thing. What I don't love as much. is that they
tend to be coupling that with moving many of
these local elections to partisan affairs from
nonpartisan affairs. So they're grabbing Jackson
County actually just did this. There's a bill
in the General Assembly to take all local elections
in Jackson County, move them to on -year cycles.
I'm pro and slap a partisan label on them. I'm
con. So I think. We are seeing some movement
there. You know, it's coming with something I
wish that wasn't there. Is that something you're
willing to bite the bullet on a little bit if
it comes to it? Like, is that a sacrifice you'll
make? You know, I would rather, it's a great
question, knows the short answer, right? So I
think these, moving these elections to partisan
affairs, maybe just step back to like big institution
for a second. Y 'all are steeped in this stuff,
but if any of your listeners aren't. which I
find hard to believe if you're listening. But
if you're not, right, so our governor gets the
veto power over a lot of stuff. That's a great
story. I talk about it some in the book. But
one thing the governor doesn't have the veto
power, well, three things, redistricting, constitutional
amendments, and what are called local bills.
And when I give this talk to like community groups,
when I say local bills, everybody takes a nap.
But this is really important, right? What this
means is if you want to pass a bill into law,
and you don't want it to go to the governor's
desk, just have it affect a small geography.
So if you are, say, the Republican Party, and
you want to stack the farm team more in your
favor, and you know there's more Republican counties
than Democratic counties, and you know if this
goes to the governor's desk, it's going to draw
all sorts of media attention. The governor is
going to veto it. How do you slow play this?
You pass a local bill here and a local bill there
and a local bill in another place. And you can
slowly remake the state of North Carolina without
anybody even really paying attention. And so
I don't love the way this is happening. We've
had a number of counties who have actually come
in and said, please, please, please. You know,
we're good Republicans. We love you guys, but
we don't really think we should have partisan
elections and the General Assembly in some of
these cases has listened and in some of these
cases has not. So I don't love the marriage of
those two things together. I wish we could separate
them out and just go with the cost saving, go
with the higher turnout, go with what I think
is better for democracy, which is more people
involved in elections. Now, I'm going to take
that last little part of more people being involved
in elections and kind of spin it away. So with
the General Assembly, you know, one thing that
I've kind of noticed and just looking around
and reading up on the folks who are in there
is a lot of them come from, say, wealthier backgrounds.
They're not necessarily working class. A lot
of them are lawyers or doctors, real estate agents,
whatever. And so that allows them to kind of
get in the door. Right, because for those who
don't know, who are listening to this, right
now the salary for a member of the state house
is $13 ,951. $13 ,951, yeah. We've got the book
right here. But $13 ,951, obviously that is a
barrier to a lot of folks who can't get involved
with the politics. See, brought it around. What
do you think the odds actually are of, you know,
the NCGA kind of raising the salary and kind
of maybe reworking, say, the long session, the
short session and whatnot to make it maybe more
of a full time sort of thing? Yeah. Now, this
is I'm so glad you brought that up. Right. And
that's another reform that I believe in strongly.
So we have a couple of things on the front end.
We have this is a big state. It's a growing state.
We give the vast majority of our power to the
litigants. We're a legislature for a state. States
vary in this. We say, legislature, you're all
in charge of most things. We can argue about
whether that's good or bad, but that's a fact.
And then we pay them $13 ,951 a year. We are
in session longer in the long session than the
short session usually, but sometimes that's not
even true and we don't put any sort of session
length on it. And we don't give folks a lot of
staff, unfortunately, right? So that's what political
scientists call lack of professionalism. And
so... What are the odds of changing that? I mean,
I think there are some ways, but I think it needs
two things. One, it needs a lot of public information.
So I did a survey experiment I talk about a little
bit in the book where I ask people like, how
much money do you think members of the General
Assembly make? And I do it in four states, California,
North Carolina, of course. New Hampshire, and
there's a fourth state I forgot that I surveyed.
And I asked people, the bottom line is everybody
thinks politicians make tons of money. And the
reality is, of course, they don't. So then I
corrected the information for some people, for
half the sample. So for half of them in North
Carolina, I said, actually, I make $13 ,951.
And then I asked folks, do you think we should
increase that salary or not? Turns out this isn't
rocket science. If you tell people how poor the
salary is, They're more okay with raising it.
So if you just, you know, if I walk out from
campus, my office today and grab somebody and
say, should we give state legislators a raise?
Heck no. Can I say hell on here? You can say
a lot worse. I promise you that. I won't go any
worse than that. But if I say, hey, folks that
represent you make less than $14 ,000 a year.
Now, what do you think? I think. we know that
that person is probably going to say yes. So
I think thing one, education. Thing two, we need
is to make sure it does not apply to the current
session. Nobody wants to see people giving themselves
a raise. So it has to apply for the future. And
I think California actually has a model, which
is going to be sort of kryptonite for some folks
that have said California, but California has
a model where they have a commission. Basically,
they say, look, legislators should be deciding
their own salaries. That's silly. Let's have
a commission that decides. What's a reasonable
salary based on cost of living, based on what
inflation is, based on all these other factors.
I think that's something with the right education
that could maybe gain some traction. But if it
is just, you know, some random member of the
General Assembly introduces a bill to raise the
salary, which has happened, that's that's dead
on the rifle. It's got to be a bigger campaign.
Wow. Quick follow up question on that. Do you
know if these independent commissions, are they
like. citizens or are they people that are involved
directly with parties and everything like that
or who is it usually made up of they are they
tend to be made up of citizens but you know the
devil is in the details and how do those citizens
get on there they do tend to be appointed by
the parties um but i think this is one like where
hopefully there's can be some bipartisan agreement
right there's no reason i can think of to think
that a democrat or republican should have like
different opinions on how much legislators get
paid. Like, it seems like we should be able to
look at a market together and say, hey, look,
you know, I'm a Republican and I want them to
make as much money as possible, but not too much.
I want to get the right kind of person in office.
I'm a Democrat and I want that. It feels like
that's maybe a rare place where we might actually
be able to get some bipartisan agreement. Well,
I sure hope so. At some point, I don't want our
legislators barely living off of a livable wage.
or a non -livable wage so to speak it's it's
crazy right and we can get off this onto something
else but just to think about it for a second
we've got a situation we're paying people's staff
more money than we're paying the legislator and
i'm all for staff making money too by the way
but what we see is members of both parties often
will have and y 'all know this their spouses
as their legislative assistant Men, women both
do it. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Why?
Because that's the only way to make this thing
work for a household. That's insane, right? That
this is the links that people are going to. Not
that spouses can't be good aides. I don't mean
that at all. But there shouldn't be the incentive
for that to be the system. So in the book, Lindsay
Prather gave me kind of a great... Example, she
lives in Buncombe County and, you know, talking
to her about this whole issue of salary and session
length and all this. And she says it much better
than I'm going to say it now. But essentially,
she said, look, I'm lucky. I'm meaning Lindsay
Prather, Representative Prather. I'm lucky. I
have family who lives in the Triangle. I have
a job that's pretty flexible. I have a spouse
who's pretty flexible. And she says, like, we
shouldn't have to depend on that to get people
to run for office. i totally agree and i think
that's true whether you're republican democrat
unaffiliated green libertarian we the people
if there's still a party this week whatever you
happen to be a member of so sorry the we the
people they made me laugh yeah that got me um
oh my god do we need to take a take a breather
yeah so i was gonna say i think one of the things
other than pay that does stand out is just a
lot of folks they can't get into this because
aside from pay they don't have jobs that are
flexible like you mentioned i mean you know like
i said a lot of the folks in their their doctors
their lawyers you know they have their own practices
they can take a break but you know yeah say i
wanted to you know go and run and get elected
i'd have to go find a job that was willing to
you know Let me take a sabbatical for six months
at a time or, you know, let me essentially make
my own schedule. But not a lot of clarity on
what said schedule would be like. That's right.
That's absolutely right. And so, you know, I
live a little more than four hours from Raleigh.
And so the problem is even greater the farther
you get from the state capital. Right. I mean,
if you live in Raleigh, it'd be a pain, but you
go home and get it, you know. tuna fish sandwich
for lunch if you needed to. If you're Kevin Corbin
and you live in Franklin, North Carolina, and
it's a full five hours to Raleigh, you can't
do that. So the effects of this are not consistent
across place. It also means that we're going
to get fewer and fewer young people in office,
which look at our General Assembly or Congress,
everybody says like, there's way too much gray
hair there. Well, This kind of thing only makes
it worse. We also know that these relatively
unprofessional legislatures like ours tend to
get fewer women in office. So the effects of
this are really huge. The unpredictable session
length. Jim Perry, who is a former Republican
senator, of course, talked to for the book. And,
you know, he was saying, look, we need to put
some guardrails on session length as well. Right.
So I pray they're talking a bit about the salary
piece. Jim Perry talking a bit about. The session
link piece, and I'll say one thing that I hope
Democrats and Republicans can agree on in the
General Assembly this cycle is that, just in
all, you may love what he's doing or not love
what he's doing as far as policy or ideology,
but I like that the man has a calendar. And he's
putting it out. We'll see whether he follows
it after June 30th, but at least up until this
point, there's at least a little more of a calendar,
which kudos to him and... How is it 2025 and
we're giving somebody kudos for a calendar? It's
bananas that this is the first time this has
come up. How does that feel if you are thinking
about running for office? It's just mind -blowing.
I got two kids at home. Luckily for all of y
'all in the state of North Carolina, I ain't
running for office ever. But if I did, how would
I explain this to my family? I'm going to commute
sometimes but not others. My spouse is going
to have to be in charge of the kids sometimes,
but not others. And I can't quite plan for it.
It's not a good way to run a state. Yeah, I can
definitely also say for certain that anybody
outside of this state or even in it has a hard
time just navigating even the first thing about
North Carolina politics. Forget the General Assembly.
Like just following it on TV, you got to read
a whole book, which is why we're so glad that
one exists. Highly encourage anybody to pick
up Anatomy of a Purple State. I personally listened
to the audiobook version on my way to and from
picking up my daughter, which that was a nice
listen. So thank you for coming on the show.
Thank you for giving us your insights and also
giving us. A little bit of, like, and I'm not
trying to spoil your book, but we talked a lot
about some of the things that you talk about
in the book. And that's why I highly encourage
anybody to still pick it up, because he goes
into a lot more detail with some of this stuff.
It's pretty digestible, even if you're not a
numbers person. And can I just say, personally,
we're both political science majors, CJ and I.
I really wish I could have taken your class.
Thanks. It's been great talking to both of you.
I appreciate it. what you're doing and trying
to put this information out there. So thanks
for your interest and thanks for doing what you
do and being comfortable laughing about it sometimes
too. That's the fun part. You have to. You have
to at some point. It can't all be serious all
the time. But speaking of not keeping it serious
all the time. Sorry. I was going to say sometimes
you got to laugh to stop from crying. Right.
That's right. Speaking of keeping it not serious,
last question that we have for you. What is your
go -to? cookout menu order if you have one uh
that yeah so i was there yesterday actually with
uh with my kids uh so it's not like super exciting
it's just a double cheeseburger tray with uh
with a vanilla milkshake i realize that's really
boring like that's not fun that's not cool nice
do you ever get wild with it a little bit do
you ever put anything on there that yeah yeah
sometimes but uh You know, I decided to go with
the last one. You know, I could pretend I could
dress it up. I could pretend like yesterday I
got something interesting. I didn't. It was really
it was a boring day yesterday. Well, you know,
sometimes we get to have boring days. Sometimes
we get to have boring days in between the normal
ones. So they're in between the extraordinary
ones. But yeah, thank you so much. Professor
Chris Cooper, again, wrote Anatomy of a Purple
State, which is out in stores and on audiobook
if you want to check that out. Where can people
see more of you? Yeah. I, for good or ill, and
it's both stay up on social media stuff. So I've
got, I'm still on Twitter X, whatever it's called
this week. I'm also on Blue Sky. Sometimes post
stuff to threads, all the fair warnings. It's
less political there. I tend to post more random
music stuff, but I'm on most of those things.
blog sometimes at Old North State Politics with
my friend Michael Bitzer. I write for the assembly
every now and again. I think I may have a new
piece coming out there fairly soon. And I've
got a website, which is chriscooper .com. Not
that I'm selling anything. So find things there
as well. Well, except for the book. Except for
the book. That's a good point. I guess I am selling.
Yeah, no, just thank you for taking the time
to, you know. hop on here and uh talk to us about
the book about you know just kind of the state
of well i guess this state thank you and um you're
welcome back on anytime if if perhaps maybe uh
2026 rolls around we can revisit and see uh where
everything fell i'd love to yeah i know anytime
it's great to talk to both y 'all i'm actually
gonna be just stewart's got me doing some talk
in the general assembly building in a couple
of weeks too if y 'all are um around oh wow uh
it's like more it's like 7 30 in the morning
and ridiculous so like get jacked up on coffee
um but if you're around love to see you both
all right thank you so much