0:02

Hello there happy Thursday welcome

0:05

to another episode of the

0:07

Chuck Todd cast today a

0:09

solo round of things obviously

0:12

big development in the last

0:14

24 hours with President Trump's

0:16

decision to rescind or pause

0:18

the tariff regime which had

0:21

been in place for a

0:23

couple of hours leading to

0:25

another market meltdown and particularly

0:28

we think the thing that truly rattled the

0:31

president was what was happening in the bond

0:33

market but I'm not here to play CNBC

0:35

guy for you there are plenty of smart

0:37

financial guys if you want to go down

0:40

that road you can go down that road

0:42

I'm here to talk about the politics of

0:44

this moment what to learn from this moment

0:46

and what it could mean and how to

0:49

watch sort of reaction going forward so what

0:51

to take away from this well bottom line

0:53

is Donald Trump blank the blank the question

0:55

is why did he blank Going into this,

0:58

there was always a belief, almost

1:00

like a security blanket belief among

1:02

the business community, who towards the

1:04

end of 2024 accelerated

1:06

in their support, generally, of Donald

1:09

Trump over Kamala Harris. You know, and

1:11

it was the basic reasoning being

1:14

regulation, regulation, regulation,

1:16

regulation. Donald Trump was

1:18

campaigning on doing all these tariffs.

1:20

and all of these sort of

1:22

business leaders were kind of

1:25

compartmentalizing, believing, oh, he's not

1:27

as serious. The tariffs he did

1:29

the first time weren't that damaging.

1:31

If that's all he's going to

1:33

do, we can handle it. Didn't

1:35

necessarily believe that he was willing

1:38

to go where he was going

1:40

to go. I think the biggest

1:42

reason why there's been so many

1:45

miscalculations about Donald Trump 2.0 versus

1:47

Donald Trump 1.0 is simply the

1:49

missing people. that were very involved

1:51

in putting together Trump's first administration.

1:53

Mike Pence and Ryan's previous. Ryan's

1:56

previous was the first chief of

1:58

staff. He was chairman of the

2:00

RNC when Donald Trump got a...

2:03

president and then he got named

2:05

chief of staff and Mike Pence

2:07

was the vice president and Mike

2:09

Pence was in charge of the

2:12

transition. Well we now know in

2:14

hindsight particularly after watching the first

2:16

80 days of Trump 2.0 that

2:19

what Mike Pence and Ryan's previous

2:21

did in stacking that administration in

2:23

Trump 1.0 was to put in

2:25

a whole slew of guardrails in

2:28

the form of personnel. Whether it

2:30

was Gary Cohn, who worked on

2:32

the White House economic team and

2:35

literally snatched documents away from President

2:37

Trump from getting rid of trade

2:39

agreements with South Korea at one

2:41

point, or Jared Kushner. versus Donald

2:44

Trump Jr. Jared Kushner very much

2:46

a bit more of an internationalist,

2:48

a bit more friendly to private

2:51

equity, a bit more culturally conservative

2:53

and feudalist, and he's the family

2:55

member with the most influence on

2:57

Donald Trump right now, the last

3:00

time it was Jared Kushner who

3:02

was the family member with that

3:04

kind of influence. And I could

3:07

go on and on, but I

3:09

think it is pretty clear that

3:11

Trump 1.0 had a lot more

3:13

guardrails preventing Trump from governing by

3:16

instinct. That is not what has

3:18

been happening in Trump 2.0. He

3:20

has been governing by instinct. It

3:23

is why the tariff regime was

3:25

announced. It is why the tariff

3:27

regime was put into effect even

3:29

for a few hours. There is

3:32

nobody around him to tell him

3:34

no. Now clearly what happened here

3:36

is a couple of things. One,

3:39

the markets didn't write themselves. It

3:41

wouldn't be so bad. It was

3:43

bad, particularly in the bond markets,

3:45

so clearly they realized they had

3:48

a problem. And a lot of

3:50

wealthy people have Donald Trump's cell phone.

3:52

And I'd said this before with members

3:54

of Congress, that they were going to

3:57

start feeling heat. directly from their most

3:59

important constituents, important of course in quotes

4:01

meaning their most financially significant constituents, who

4:04

all have their congressman and senator on

4:06

speed dial as well. And they were

4:08

all complaining about these tariffs. It's why

4:11

you had arguably for the first time

4:13

multiple elected Republicans going on the record.

4:15

criticizing the tariffs. They might be, they

4:17

were gentle about Donald Trump, the individual,

4:20

saying, well, I know what he wants

4:22

to try to do, but I'm not

4:24

sure these tariffs are going to be,

4:27

or the Tom Tillis quote, who do

4:29

I choke if this doesn't work? But

4:31

he was saying things like, if this

4:34

doesn't work, Ron Johnson clearly was, didn't

4:36

like any of these tariffs, but he's

4:38

been pretty supportive culturally of a lot

4:41

of things of the magga movement, and

4:43

he didn't want to sound anti-trump in

4:45

how he did it. But they were

4:47

all speaking out. You had bills introduced

4:50

in the House and the Senate. You

4:52

had seven senators ready to, Republican senators

4:54

ready to sign on to a bill

4:57

that would essentially give the tariff power

4:59

back to the legislative branch and take

5:01

it away from the executive branch. So

5:04

I think that this is times 100

5:06

with Donald Trump. Every major donor of

5:08

Trump has a cell phone. Because Donald

5:10

Trump loves to get their calls, he

5:13

loves to talk to them, and they

5:15

all were talking to him, and they

5:17

were all trying to cajole him, convince

5:20

him. They weren't yelling at him, but

5:22

they were all begging him. And then

5:24

Donald Trump weirdly enjoys being seen as

5:27

playing the role of Savior, and there's

5:29

no doubt in my mind that the

5:31

best way to get him to act

5:34

is you can really help the economy

5:36

right here. You alone can make this

5:38

happen. So there are all sorts of

5:40

ways people have learned to play sort

5:43

of to sort of play the Trump

5:45

personality to sort of you know you

5:47

know what you're going to get. How

5:50

do you use it? Can you control

5:52

it? Certainly over the last few days

5:54

there was some there was some doubt

5:57

creeping into my head a little bit

5:59

and some out creeping into the head

6:01

of others that maybe this is

6:03

a different Trump. Maybe he so

6:05

believes in tariffs that he is

6:07

not going to let outside forces

6:10

influence him and show him what

6:12

reality looks like. But that wasn't

6:14

the case. So I think the big

6:16

takeaway is he is still, he still

6:19

cares what rich people think.

6:21

And it was the wealthiest

6:23

people on Wall Street that

6:25

were screaming the loudest, including many

6:27

people. that had become important

6:29

supporters and advocates of him. Bill

6:31

Ackman, who has become a

6:33

very polarizing figure in the finance

6:36

community, but certainly is somebody

6:38

very loudly in favor of Trump

6:40

and then very loudly complaining

6:42

about the terrorists. You had Elon

6:45

Musk complaining with Peter Navarro. So the

6:47

point is, I think the lesson to take

6:49

away here is that he still, pressure

6:51

still works with Trump. He may not

6:53

have the Thelma and Louise gene that

6:56

I thought... Perhaps we were all staring

6:58

at here that, boy, he was willing

7:00

to drive off that cliff no matter

7:02

the evidence, no matter what

7:05

people were saying. That is

7:07

not what happened. The question

7:09

is whether he's already done

7:11

a lot of damage. He

7:13

showed some weakness. Now he's

7:15

showing a bit of indecisiveness,

7:18

right? Sometimes indecisiveness can be

7:20

just as damaging as being

7:22

sort of wrong and strong, right?

7:24

I'm not saying he's politically out of

7:26

the woods. I don't think he's going

7:29

to recover, but clearly he saw that

7:31

his own political ratings were going upside

7:33

out. He was 10 points in the

7:35

negative on one poll I saw earlier

7:37

on Wednesday, excuse me, that had his

7:39

numbers upside down on the economy, his

7:42

numbers in the economy looked like what

7:44

Joe Biden's numbers on the economy looked

7:46

like at the end of 2024. Needless

7:48

to say, that's not a good look.

7:50

He's also a guy trying to get

7:52

Congress to do a very difficult budget

7:54

proposal that will give him his big

7:57

tax cut. It's not an easy vote for

7:59

some of these. members of Congress. So here

8:01

he was creating this horrible political environment for

8:03

the Republican Party, a shaky economy, and he

8:06

was cajoling these people to vote for a

8:08

budget that may or may not be very

8:10

popular with the public. That was a lot

8:12

to ask, and I think that he had

8:14

a big vote in Congress that he needed

8:17

to get through. This goes back to the

8:19

criticism I'd leveled earlier. Forget whether you think

8:21

it's a good policy. Let's assume you accept

8:23

the premise. that the policy Donald Trump is

8:25

pursuing is a good idea, which is figure

8:28

out how to use tariffs in order to

8:30

sort of get manufacturing back in America. Well,

8:32

then he didn't order his agenda very well.

8:34

He should have been focused on the tax

8:36

cut and his budget first, doing the budget,

8:39

doing all of that in the first six

8:41

months. And then if you read Owen Cass,

8:43

who was basically a very, a big defender.

8:45

ideologically of what Donald Trump is trying to

8:47

do. In the New York Times he laid

8:50

out a more rational way he could have

8:52

done this. And ironically, you know, he even

8:54

talked about creating 90-day windows. Well, here we

8:56

are with a 90-day window. It does appear

8:58

as if that the most, I think what

9:01

we're likely to see is these tariffs will

9:03

come back, but it's probably going to be

9:05

a bit more methodical. It does, my guess

9:07

is Peter Navarro has been shoved back into

9:09

the line a little bit of advisors, but

9:12

it doesn't mean Donald Trump's belief in tariffs

9:14

is going to go away overnight, even if

9:16

Peter Navarro is not in the room or

9:18

sitting as close to Trump in his ear

9:21

as everybody else. And it is clear that

9:23

Howard Lutnik, the Commerce Secretary, another big advocate

9:25

of this tariff policy, is also wearing out

9:27

his welcome with some staff and with some

9:29

key supporters. So I do think the most

9:32

polarizing figures behind this policy, Peter Navarro and

9:34

Howard Lutnik, are going to, you're going to

9:36

see them sort of be pushed aside a

9:38

little bit. These tariffs are going to come

9:40

back. But it's more

9:43

likely now that they're

9:45

going to be a

9:47

bit more methodical and

9:49

there'll be at least

9:51

a little bit more

9:54

predictability. I don't know

9:56

if they're going to

9:58

be any less impactful,

10:00

though, on the consumer.

10:02

And if the cost

10:05

of living goes up

10:07

on consumers, even if

10:09

it's just a directed

10:11

tariff on China, I

10:13

am skeptical that that

10:16

is going to be

10:18

something that Republicans can

10:20

continue to overcome. No,

10:22

no, no, no, no,

10:24

no, you must sacrifice

10:27

to go get China. I

10:30

am, I am skeptical that

10:32

even the most devoted of MAGA

10:34

folks will have the patients

10:36

beyond a few months here or

10:38

there. But look, it's, it

10:40

is, I could tell you this,

10:42

there are a lot of

10:45

Republicans that are relieved. It's sort

10:47

of like one of those

10:49

moments. Okay, they got through this

10:51

crisis, but let's remember we're

10:53

still not at the 80th day

10:55

of this presidency, let alone

10:57

day 100. We still have at

10:59

least more than 1 ,000 days

11:01

left in Donald Trump. So

11:03

1 ,000 days of this potential

11:05

policy gyration instability, ask

11:08

yourself, is business really going to

11:10

assume everything is now normal in

11:12

the way it was, or are

11:14

they now going to have to

11:16

take this moment where they have

11:18

breathing room and essentially prepare for

11:21

more disruption and more instability? In

11:23

my conversations already with some business

11:25

leaders over the last 24 hours,

11:27

it's pretty clear now they're going

11:29

to use this breathing room to

11:31

essentially truly prepare for some of

11:33

these potentially worst case scenarios when

11:35

it comes to international trade. So

11:37

there's sort of my quick sort

11:39

of 24 hours later reaction, of

11:41

course, in the era of Trump

11:44

you always have to be careful

11:46

what you think is happening in

11:48

the moment can suddenly change on

11:50

the dime as many a person

11:52

on Wall Street has learned. But

11:54

for now, I think that's the

11:56

situation where it is he is

11:58

at least stop the political bleeding that

12:01

was starting to become a gusher

12:03

really had he continued to follow

12:05

through with these tariffs the way

12:07

they were executed. A lot of

12:09

times in these solo shows one

12:12

of the things I want to do

12:14

in these shows is a few things

12:16

I want to sort of deal with

12:18

what I call errors and omissions meaning

12:21

there's some topics I didn't get to

12:23

in the week that I kind of

12:25

wanted to give a you know Not

12:27

necessarily a hot take, but call

12:29

it sort of hot analysis that

12:31

I think is at least sharing

12:33

with you how a development in

12:36

a political race is sort of

12:38

changing my thinking about the battle

12:40

for control in 2026. So I'm

12:42

going to get to that in

12:44

a minute. And then there's some

12:46

omissions, some things that either I

12:48

meant to do and I never

12:50

said or I promised like in the

12:52

last episode. talked about sort of

12:54

my take on what's what's wrong

12:56

with the current state of media

12:58

and journalism and I sort of told you

13:01

I said well I have this whole thing

13:03

about OJ Simpson I said I'm gonna put

13:05

a pin in then and get back to

13:07

you. Well I'm pulling the pin back out

13:09

so I'm gonna start my sort of

13:11

cleanup section of this of this

13:13

episode of the podcast with sort

13:15

of finishing my analysis there about

13:17

the OJ Simpson angle to this.

13:19

So when you think about sort

13:21

of how the media became what

13:23

it has been, very narrative driven,

13:25

right? Everything seems to be about

13:27

narrative rather than, you know, about

13:29

policy in the moment or about

13:32

the facts in the moment. You

13:34

know, I think one of the

13:36

great sort of mistakes, big mistakes

13:38

that big media has made in the

13:40

last, in my lifetime. I go back

13:42

to 1994, and I know for some

13:44

of you listening to this, you're like,

13:47

hey, that's before I was born, what

13:49

do I give a shit about that?

13:51

Well. Here's what happened in 1994. 1994.

13:53

We had one at the time, we

13:55

had one cable news channel at the

13:57

time, seeing it. There were not three

13:59

yet. He was just one. And

14:01

in 1994, we had arguably the

14:04

most famous crime of the 20th

14:06

century. One of the most famous

14:08

people in America was accused of

14:10

double murder. O.J. Simpson was a

14:12

football star and a TV star,

14:14

and frankly a movie star. And

14:16

everybody loved O.J. Nobody didn't, you

14:18

know, now if you look up

14:21

OJ you think, oh, you know,

14:23

he's this, before 1994, people just

14:25

loved OJ Simpson. He was just

14:27

a football hero. OJ Simpson being

14:29

accused of double murder was the

14:31

equivalent of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning,

14:33

Derek Jeter, somebody like that. That's

14:35

how that's that's how love beloved

14:38

OJ was. It was beloved the

14:40

way a Peyton Manning's beloved or

14:42

a Tom Brady. You'd be like,

14:44

well, there's no way that guy

14:46

would do that because he was

14:48

in our living rooms all the

14:50

time. So it was a big

14:52

deal. Big deal, not hard news,

14:55

big deal. But CNN made an

14:57

interesting decision. Before that, CNN had

14:59

a reputation of being, boy, they

15:01

were covering the first Iraq war

15:03

better than any news organization had

15:05

ever covered a war. It had

15:07

really looked like they'd sort of

15:09

redefined what 24-hour news meant, so

15:12

they were writing the rulebook. There

15:14

really wasn't 24-hour news organizations before

15:16

there was CNN. And it was

15:18

really seen as sort of a...

15:20

a high pillar of journalism, big

15:22

J journalism, if you will. And

15:24

they made a ratings decision. It

15:26

was the first time. They made

15:29

a decision. They saw that we

15:31

had something called court TV at

15:33

the time, and they were taking

15:35

advantage of cameras in the courtroom.

15:37

And court TV was covering all

15:39

the preliminary hearings. And CNN had

15:41

never worried about ratings before. Notice,

15:43

court TV was outrating them. And

15:46

they were like, whoa, maybe we

15:48

ought to cover the OJ trial.

15:50

Well, cover the OJ trial. did.

15:52

And CNN made so much money

15:54

covering the OJ trial dedicating hours

15:56

every day just to the trial

15:58

with occasional interruptions of other news

16:00

happening around the world that both

16:03

NBC and Fox decided they too

16:05

were going to start cable news

16:07

channels. They didn't start cable news

16:09

channels because they thought the public

16:11

wants more news. They started cable

16:13

news channels because they saw a

16:15

look at CNN did it's a

16:17

big event and how much money

16:19

they made. We're not going to

16:22

leave that kind of money on

16:24

the table. from then on what

16:26

it did and what I believe

16:28

the sort of the the the

16:30

the the sort of the bad

16:32

gene that this planted in in

16:34

the media business was this before

16:36

OJ Simpson news divisions that were

16:39

owned by big media companies as

16:41

long as they didn't lose money

16:43

they were fine after OJ Simpson

16:45

media executives and the bean counters

16:47

said oh well you can make

16:49

money on news if you make

16:51

it interesting and from then on

16:53

I argue that the television news

16:56

business, and frankly the news business

16:58

in general, truly started to figure

17:00

out how do we package this

17:02

to make it more interesting, to

17:04

make more clicks and eyeballs and

17:06

all this stuff, and of course

17:08

social media comes along, algorithms comes

17:10

along, and all of this ends

17:13

up on steroids. But whenever I'm

17:15

asked the question is, you know,

17:17

how did we get to where

17:19

we got with this current state

17:21

of media and journalism? I do

17:23

think one of the sort of

17:25

the core mistakes, the initial mistakes

17:27

that was made, was a decision

17:30

that the single most important news

17:32

event in America for a six-month

17:34

period was when a news organization

17:36

decided that trial of a celebrity

17:38

accused of murder is more important

17:40

than war in Central Europe or

17:42

the battle over whether there should

17:44

be national health care for everybody.

17:47

These were some of the stories

17:49

that were taking place at the

17:51

time. The advent of the internet.

17:53

All these other... new stories that

17:55

would have normally gotten coverage but

17:57

didn't because of OJ. So anyway,

17:59

I do... think the we sometimes

18:01

forget that our business made

18:03

some mistakes that created the

18:06

conditions that sort of created

18:08

this media circus that we

18:10

all now find ourselves participants

18:12

and viewers of these days.

18:14

So there's that a few

18:16

other things that I want

18:19

to point out. Tuesday was

18:21

an election day and incumbent

18:23

mayor lost in St. Louis. Why

18:25

am I making a big deal

18:27

of this? Because I have a feeling

18:29

that it's going to be a

18:32

bad year for incumbents. And if

18:34

you want to know, if you

18:36

want to look for canaries in

18:38

the coal mine about the midterm

18:40

elections, keep an eye on some. There's

18:42

a lot of vulnerable mayors.

18:45

We've already had, you know, a

18:47

new mayor elected in San Francisco.

18:49

We got a new mayor and

18:51

St. Louis, Eric Adams, the mayor

18:53

of New York City is unpopular.

18:56

There may have been for parochial

18:58

reasons or this or that, but it

19:00

tells you there's a vibe for change.

19:02

There's a vibe for change out there.

19:04

So just something to keep in mind.

19:06

Texas Senate, probably the single biggest development

19:08

in the battle for control of

19:11

Congress in 2026. Why am I

19:13

saying this is a big deal?

19:15

Because it's two parts. Number one,

19:17

this is sort of a huge

19:19

showdown between two wings of the

19:21

Republican Party. I still think it's

19:23

possible that what Donald Trump is

19:25

doing with tariffs is going to

19:27

fracture the Republican Party between the

19:29

sort of, think of it as

19:31

the Romney-Bush wing, free trade chamber

19:33

of commerce wing on one side

19:35

and the populist, nationalist, Donald Trump

19:37

wing on the other. Well, we're going to see

19:39

a massive sort of heavy-weight primary

19:41

fight in Texas. John Cornyn,

19:43

sort of more of the

19:46

avatar of the traditional version

19:48

of Republicanism. pre-Donnell Trump, and

19:50

then the Attorney General there

19:52

Ken Paxton, who is very

19:54

much a Trump, more magga-related

19:56

beliefs in using government, weaponizing

19:59

government. in a way that

20:01

many conservatives pre- Trump wouldn't have

20:03

felt comfortable doing with government. So

20:05

this is going to be a massified.

20:08

A Ken Paxton victory in the

20:10

primary makes it realistic that Colin Allred,

20:12

the likely Democratic candidate who lost

20:14

the last time to 10 Cruz,

20:16

but was competitive, certainly raised a

20:18

ton of money. I think Colin

20:21

Allred has a... the ingredients are

20:23

all there for him to win this

20:25

Senate seat. If Pakistan's an nominee and

20:27

Donald Trump's approval rating is hovering close

20:29

to 40% that's how that would happen

20:31

and if Texas is suddenly put into

20:33

play in the Senate, well then suddenly

20:36

the idea of Democrats having a 20

20:38

or 30% shot at taking control of

20:40

the Senate is actually realistic. Right now

20:42

I put their percentage chances in the

20:44

teens. This is a tough map for

20:46

them. But if they get that, you

20:49

know, that primary now in Texas, North

20:51

Carolina, Maine, you know, Democrats

20:53

are defending a lot of open seats

20:55

still, and I think that's going to

20:58

be the reason why they don't win

21:00

the Senate ultimately. But

21:02

suddenly, you're starting to see

21:04

just a few more pieces being put

21:07

on the game board here that might

21:09

give Democrats a boxer's chance. So those

21:11

are my own missions and... Corrections, clarifications.

21:14

Again, I want to try to do

21:16

that as best I can, especially if

21:18

I make mistakes. By the way, I

21:21

use the whole construction of seriously and

21:23

literally, and I did it while on

21:25

CNN with my friend Brad Todd, who

21:28

is a Republican strategist, and he says,

21:30

hey, you brought up seriously and literally.

21:32

Do you take Trump seriously or literally?

21:35

Well, Brad wanted me to remind people

21:37

that he is the first person

21:39

to ever. Use that those turn a

21:41

phrase and said hey people are

21:43

taking him to literally you just should

21:46

take him seriously By the way

21:48

I debate whether which what you should

21:50

do literally or seriously with Trump

21:52

all the time I'm very curious if

21:54

you guys have questions about that

22:00

And speaking of questions, I

22:02

promised that I would answer,

22:04

and I'm going to try

22:06

to answer three questions here,

22:08

to try to get out

22:10

of, you know, I don't

22:12

want to linger too long

22:14

on your feet on days

22:16

that I don't have interviews,

22:18

but I promised three questions

22:20

here, so here's the Ask

22:22

Chuck segments. Yeah,

22:27

I got some cool music now.

22:29

So it's a little bit more

22:31

fun, right? Ask Chuck. I love

22:33

it. All right, question one. Over

22:35

the years, we've seen increasing partisanship

22:37

and dysfunction in American politics and

22:39

the journalism that covers it. What

22:41

can ordinary citizens who consume political

22:43

news do to be part of

22:46

the solution and not part of

22:48

the problem of hyper-partisanship in the

22:50

media and politics? That question comes

22:52

from Michael. I kind of think

22:54

the problem with our... journalism these

22:56

days, it's not locally sourced. You

22:58

know, I want my political news

23:00

the way I want my ingredients

23:02

at my favorite restaurants in Arlington,

23:04

Virginia, which is I want those

23:06

ingredients locally sourced. Well, I want

23:09

my political news locally sourced. And

23:11

so if I'm going to proclaim

23:13

myself the news are here, and

23:15

if I could be the news

23:17

are and try to fix this

23:19

problem here, the biggest thing I

23:21

would do is essentially... cut

23:23

half of the political journalists in

23:26

Washington and kick them out of

23:28

Washington and send them to all

23:30

50 states capitals and all 200

23:32

say major metro communities in this

23:34

country to start reporting on the

23:36

impact of government on the ground.

23:39

This is the way political coverage

23:41

used to work. Washington bureaus for

23:43

smaller papers around the country did

23:45

the job of explaining what government

23:47

was doing from the perspective of

23:49

your community rather than top down

23:52

coverage that just told you generally

23:54

what legislation was going to do.

23:56

We actually had these journalists who

23:58

were in Washington DC covering their

24:00

specific member of Congress explaining to

24:02

their local readers how those local

24:05

members voted, how the bill would

24:07

impact community, you know, street Y

24:09

or building X and what money

24:11

would be spent right local and

24:13

people would have a better idea

24:15

what government did. And if you

24:18

wonder why people aren't sure what

24:20

government does in their community, literally.

24:22

Government trees are falling around for

24:24

us all over the country and

24:26

there is no one there to

24:29

hear the tree or see the

24:31

tree fall in the community forest.

24:33

So the biggest thing we could

24:35

do is try to consume your

24:37

political news locally. Try to find

24:39

good trusted... local folks that you

24:42

trust that understand your community and

24:44

see Washington through that prism. Look,

24:46

this is one of the, this

24:48

is what I'm trying to work

24:50

on, figure out if, you know,

24:52

can I help build a immediate

24:55

company that can help support and

24:57

expand and encourage the expansion of

24:59

new local news and people to

25:01

do this, but, you know, it's

25:03

a great question that you ask.

25:05

I think the solution is we've

25:08

got, we need. We need a

25:10

thousand new local publications. A thousand

25:12

new. Not 10, not 15, a

25:14

thousand community-driven news organizations that I

25:16

think could help clean up the

25:18

information ecosystem. All right, we go

25:21

to the next question. It comes

25:23

from a fellow GW alum, Drew

25:25

Archer. He says he's an avid

25:27

listener. Appled, appreciate it. Like and

25:29

subscribe. Did I tell you to

25:31

like and subscribe? He says, I

25:34

have a few questions. But I

25:36

think, I'm just going to take,

25:38

they're kind of merging into one.

25:40

Here it is. He says, do

25:42

you think there's a straight line

25:44

from Obama deciding not to go

25:47

after the big banks in the

25:49

aftermath of 2008 and the rise

25:51

of Donald Trump? He says, I

25:53

think there's a pretty good case

25:55

to make for it, but I'm

25:57

curious about your perspective too. Do

26:00

you think Bernie would have defeated

26:02

Trump in 16 had he won

26:04

the Democratic nomination? I think the

26:06

D's undeniably put their thumb on

26:08

the scale for Hillary and didn't

26:10

listen to their voters. Same thing

26:13

could be said for Biden 2024.

26:15

He gives me a go hippos.

26:17

That's a real, that's a real

26:19

sort of deep cut for GW

26:21

alums, the hippo business. For now

26:23

I'll just say go revolutionaries. I'm

26:26

going to save the, go do

26:28

your own rabbit hole on the

26:30

hippos and try to understand what

26:32

GW people mean about hippos. But

26:34

let me answer his question there.

26:36

I'll never forget a line, Rahm

26:39

Emanuel, who was chief of staff,

26:41

the first chief of staff for

26:43

President Obama, said he wanted to

26:45

do some Old Testament justice when

26:47

it came to the financial crisis.

26:49

I do think the fact that

26:52

nobody was frog marched. We didn't

26:54

see anybody in orange jumpsuits. Nobody

26:56

was held accountable for doing what

26:58

was done to the world economy,

27:00

let alone the American economy in

27:02

the housing crisis. So I do

27:05

think the lack of... of justice

27:07

in this was in hindsight a

27:09

big mistake. I think another big

27:11

mistake, which actually lawmakers learned from

27:13

when they handled COVID, was they

27:15

didn't throw enough money at the

27:18

problem. I think, you know, COVID,

27:20

and you could argue, maybe we

27:22

threw too much money at the

27:24

problem, but the choice was recession

27:26

or inflation. And I think when

27:28

you look at what happened during

27:31

the great recession and what happened

27:33

during the inflationary period of the

27:35

last four years, Trust me, most

27:37

Americans would take inflation over recession

27:39

every day of the week and

27:41

twice on Sundays. So that is

27:44

another reason. I think the not

27:46

finding a way to save every

27:48

house 500,000 or less should have

27:50

not been foreclosed on, that should

27:52

have been the PPP loan, if

27:54

you will, of the great recession.

27:57

So I do think that also

27:59

contributed to it, but I don't

28:01

think you're wrong about that. As

28:03

for Bernie Sanders, I think now

28:05

I come to the conclusion that

28:07

Bernie probably beats Trump. I do

28:10

think that Clinton last name was

28:12

the problem there. I think clearly

28:14

voters wanted the establishment elites out

28:16

of here. In many ways between

28:18

the Iraq war and the Great

28:20

Recession the assumption was the Clinton's,

28:23

the Bush's, all these people were

28:25

responsible for this clean house. Get

28:27

rid of all. First the Democrats

28:29

cleaned house and they got rid

28:31

of the Clinton's and nominated Obama

28:33

and then what did Obama do.

28:36

He put his thumb on the

28:38

scale for Clinton. What did Donald

28:40

Trump do? He ran against the

28:42

bushes and got rid of him,

28:44

ran against the Clinton's and got

28:47

rid of him. So under this

28:49

scenario where Bernie's the outsider that

28:51

slays the political dragon on his

28:53

side of the aisle, I do

28:55

think that Bernie is probably a

28:57

much stronger candidate. in the general

29:00

election against Donald Trump. There's no

29:02

doubt and we see it now,

29:04

right? And it's obvious now in

29:06

Trump 2.0 in his success in

29:08

that election that Bernie voters in

29:10

2016 were very much more Trump

29:13

curious and Kennedy curious than they

29:15

ever were. Clinton curious or Biden

29:17

curious. So I think now it's

29:19

pretty easy to see that in

29:21

hindsight. But I'll tell you this,

29:23

if Obama doesn't put his finger

29:26

on the scale for Hillary Clinton,

29:28

I actually think there's six or

29:30

seven other candidates that jump in

29:32

this race in 2015 and 2016.

29:34

And I don't think Sanders ever

29:36

gets traction, but somebody else would

29:39

have beat her, potentially. And you're

29:41

right. I do think it had

29:43

been a fair, had... had she

29:45

not been such had such frankly

29:47

support among rank and file insiders

29:49

which she had earned that support

29:52

I would argue Bernie Sanders thumbed

29:54

his nose at the party so

29:56

yes there was the thumb on

29:58

the scale for Clinton but arguably

30:00

she paid her dues to make

30:02

sure that thumb was on her

30:05

scale right she went to pancake

30:07

breakfast and she raised money for

30:09

the party, Bernie wouldn't even register

30:11

as a Democrat. So I understand

30:13

sometimes the frustration among Sanders supporters,

30:15

but you know, he did not

30:18

exactly try to become a member

30:20

of the Democratic Party in good

30:22

standing. In fact, ask yourself, is

30:24

he a member of the Democratic

30:26

Party? The answer is no. Do

30:28

you know how many times he's

30:31

promised that he would become a

30:33

member of the Democratic Party since

30:35

he came so close to getting

30:37

that nomination? Quite a few times,

30:39

and he's still not a member

30:41

of the Democratic Party. All right,

30:44

last question that I'm going to

30:46

take, and there's others that you

30:48

guys have sent in, and we'll

30:50

get to that. Here's a question,

30:52

long-time, long-time listener, all the way

30:54

from my days at the hotline,

30:57

meet the press, etc. This person

30:59

now lives in Milwaukee, from a

31:01

farm in Northern Ozaki County. I

31:03

hope I said that, right. uh...

31:05

in shaboigan and he visits shaboigan

31:07

county a lot i love to

31:10

say the word shaboigan who doesn't

31:12

like to say shaboigan feels like

31:14

you would have like shapoopi shaboigan

31:16

shaboigan anyway talk to a ton

31:18

of people and he's amazed at

31:20

the number of people who voted

31:23

for Trump strictly because of the

31:25

number of people who voted for

31:27

Trump strictly because of the number

31:29

people who voted for Trump strictly

31:31

because of the number of John

31:33

Strath. Well, John, what's the gender

31:36

of one of the, of one

31:38

of your, of one of the

31:40

two U.S. senators in Wisconsin? A

31:42

woman. Tammy Baldwin. She's, and it's,

31:44

she's a lesbian. And she's won

31:46

three times now. 2012, 2018, or

31:49

excuse me, she's won in 2012.

31:51

She's won in 2018. She's won

31:53

in a presidential year. She's won

31:55

in a midterm year. And she

31:57

won again in 2024. So I

31:59

think that I here's the thing

32:02

with this question. It is hard

32:04

to crawl inside somebody's head. I

32:06

will go to my grave believe.

32:08

that Hillary Smith defeats Donald Trump,

32:10

but Hillary Clinton couldn't. Meaning, I

32:12

believe the last name was much

32:15

more toxic than gender on that

32:17

front. I'm not saying those voters

32:19

don't exist. I'm not saying that,

32:21

you know, and I've certainly seen

32:23

that there's some evidence that particularly

32:25

African-American men may not have been

32:28

as comfortable voting for an African-American

32:30

one for president. I've had plenty

32:32

of African-American men in the political

32:34

sphere. Claim this to me. It's

32:36

a very, the reason pollsters don't

32:38

bring it up is some of

32:41

these questions are things you can't

32:43

pull because people lie. They give

32:45

pollsters the correct answer. They give

32:47

pollsters the answer that they think

32:49

they should give versus perhaps how

32:51

they feel. But when you're in

32:54

that voting booth, nobody gets to

32:56

see it, right? So then you

32:58

do what you do. So I'm

33:00

not going to sit here and

33:02

rule that out. And I do

33:04

think that then I won't be

33:07

surprised if there is. more hesitancy

33:09

among Democratic Party elites about supporting

33:11

major women candidates in 2028. I'll

33:13

be very curious, whether it's AOC,

33:15

Gretchen Whitmer, in particular, Amy Klobashar,

33:18

whether that the perception or even

33:20

Kamala Harris, if she decides to

33:22

run again, that this conventional wisdom,

33:24

maybe women can't win or not

33:26

right now in this presidency, that

33:28

it will, could become self-fulfillan. But

33:31

I really don't believe in either

33:33

case. I think that there is

33:35

more evidence. I'm not saying those

33:37

voters don't exist. And guess what?

33:39

I'm not a woman and plenty

33:41

of women in my life disagree

33:44

with me on this. So I

33:46

just I throw it all out

33:48

there. I'm not not going to

33:50

sit here and say that I'm

33:52

being definitive here. But I think

33:54

the data shows that that there

33:57

the other factors mattered too. And

33:59

I think Clinton's last name being

34:01

part of the long-time Democratic elite.

34:03

She was not changed. She was

34:05

considered more status quo. I think,

34:07

I mean, the fact is, in

34:10

theory, being a woman should have

34:12

been seen as a change agent.

34:14

One would argue she sort of

34:16

leaned away from that. Some, she's

34:18

been, nobody's been more over analyzing

34:20

Hillary Clinton. So I'm not gonna,

34:23

you know, I don't, I don't,

34:25

and here I go doing the

34:27

same thing again. But I'm, you

34:29

know, I want to see what

34:31

Hillary Smith would have done. Hillary,

34:33

you know, but, so there's that.

34:36

And, you know, this election. The

34:38

incumbent president, I don't know what

34:40

sitting vice president could have won

34:42

an election when the incumbent vice

34:44

president that was the running mate

34:46

had an approval rating under 45%.

34:49

Hubert Humphrey couldn't win when LBJ

34:51

was unpopular. Al Gore couldn't win

34:53

when Bill Clinton, personal character was

34:55

unpopular. George H.W. did win as

34:57

a sitting vice president. Why? Because

34:59

Ronald Reagan was popular. Had Biden

35:02

been popular and Kamala Harris couldn't

35:04

win, I think there's a stronger

35:06

argument about gender or race and

35:08

gender. But I just can't discount

35:10

that aspect. Anyway, I'm going to

35:12

leave it here as I promised.

35:15

I hope you enjoyed this truncated

35:17

version of the Thursday podcast. Remember,

35:19

you too can ask me questions.

35:21

Send her to Ask Chuck at

35:23

the Chuck toddcast.com. as I like

35:25

to say, don't forget the the,

35:28

just like the George Washington University

35:30

and the Ohio State University, the

35:32

Chuck Comcast, you can't forget the

35:34

the. So with that, I'm going

35:36

to sign off for another 24

35:38

hours or so, and hopefully I'll

35:41

see you soon until we upload

35:43

again.