Lone star showdown over redistricting; Kamala and “the system,” and the climate right

Summary

Redistricting Battle: Texas Democrats Protest and Nationwide Gerrymandering Concerns

The episode opens with Host 1 discussing the intensifying partisan conflict over redistricting, highlighting how Texas Democrats are once again fleeing their state in protest of newly proposed maps by Texas Republicans and Governor Greg Abbott. This move echoes a similar event in 2021 when Texas Democrats attempted to obstruct an election integrity bill by traveling to Washington, D.C., only to face a series of blunders that ultimately had little impact on the bill's passage.

Host 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the disproportionate representation resulting from gerrymandering across various states:

• California: Republicans secured 40% of the statewide vote but hold only 17% of the seats (9 out of 52).

• Illinois: With Republicans winning 47% of the statewide vote, they possess just 17% of the seats. An example cited is Democrat Eric Sorensen's district, which is described as a "classic gerrymander," resembling a "spoon" that meanders through multiple areas (Timestamp: 04:15).

• Massachusetts and Connecticut: Both states see Republicans winning significant portions of the vote (35% and 38%, respectively) but holding 0% of congressional seats.

• Others: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Rhode Island exhibit similar patterns where Republican vote shares do not translate proportionally into congressional representation.

Host 1 underscores the stark contrast between Texas and blue states like Illinois, emphasizing that Illinois represents "the Mecca of partisan redistricting." The proposed Texas map, which sharply favors Republicans, would allocate 30 seats to Republicans and only eight to Democrats, reflecting a significant disparity compared to the actual presidential election results.

A notable moment includes a quote from Host 2 highlighting the sacrifices of the Texas Democrats:

“You've had to leave behind your families, your full-time jobs, your communities, and you did it to protect the voting rights of the people that you represent and voters all across this nation.” (Timestamp: 06:22)

However, Host 1 criticizes their strategy, likening protesting redistricting in a Democrat-dominated Illinois to “protesting complex carbohydrates by going to the Cheesecake Factory,” suggesting the protest is misdirected and ineffective.

Kamala Harris and Criticism of the Political System

The discussion transitions to Vice President Kamala Harris's book tour, which recently took a notable turn during her appearance on Stephen Colbert’s show. Host 1 highlights a pivotal moment where Harris expresses her disillusionment with the political system:

“I think it's broken. Our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be. And I just don't want to for now, I don't want to go back in the system.” (Timestamp: 07:10)

Colbert presses her on whether she intends to run for office again, to which she responds by asserting that her loss in the recent election is evidence of a flawed system. Host 1 interprets this as indicative of broader Democratic struggles, noting that some swing seat Democrats are reportedly reluctant to seek Harris's support in upcoming midterms. He critiques the timing of her book, which focuses on a campaign riddled with missteps and suggests that her narrative may not resonate positively with the electorate.

Despite the criticisms, Host 1 expresses hope that Harris will continue to have a voice in political discussions, emphasizing her potential influence moving forward.

Climate Right and Environmental Policy Shifts

The episode delves into environmental issues, starting with a controversial wind project in Arkansas. The transition from the Ozark Forest to a wind turbine farm spearheaded by Brookfield Corporation's Green Energy division has sparked local opposition. Notably, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is a prominent stockholder in the project. Despite a local ban on new wind projects earlier in the year, the existing investments are pushing forward.

Host 1 contrasts this development with President Trump's vehement opposition to wind energy, quoting his recent remarks:

“The whole thing is a con job. It's very expensive. It ruins the landscape, it kills the birds. They're noisy.” (Timestamp: 09:00)

Discussion highlights the environmental irony of dismantling valuable forests—key carbon sinks—to erect wind turbines, which involve significant emissions during construction and are criticized for their aesthetic and ecological impacts.

The conversation shifts to the EPA's regulatory changes under Administrator Lee Zeldin, who announced a reevaluation of the Obama-era endangerment finding. This move aims to alter climate regulations, including those affecting electric vehicles, with the intent to reduce costs for American consumers. Host 1 critiques this stance by challenging the validity of the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. He references inaccuracies and perceived biases within groups like World Weather Attribution, suggesting that their rapid, unpeer-reviewed studies undermine the reliability of climate science.

A pivotal segment features insights from Kim Strassel’s column on the rise of the "climate right." Host 1 summarizes Strassel’s arguments, which assert that climate hysteria poses a significant threat to freedom, with extremist promoters using it to justify expansive governmental control over personal and economic choices. The column emphasizes the Republican strategy to reclaim scientific discourse by presenting their own data that contests the left’s climate narrative.

Strassel is quoted as stating:

“Climate hysteria is one of the greatest threats to freedom in modern times... Anyone who disagrees with the regime's reigning narrative that the collective requirement to address the existential threat is branded the climate version of an enemy of the people, a denier. It's corrosive.” (Timestamp: 09:07)

Host 1 reinforces this viewpoint by pointing out that decades of climate policies have not yielded the predicted catastrophic outcomes, and public opinion surveys indicate a rejection of heavy-handed governmental interventions in energy and consumer choices.

Conclusion

The episode wraps up by emphasizing the ongoing political and environmental battles shaping the current landscape. Host 1 encourages listeners to engage with these critical issues and stay informed about the evolving strategies of both partisan factions. The discussion underscores the complexities of redistricting, the challenges within the Democratic Party exemplified by Kamala Harris’s experience, and the burgeoning movement of the climate right that seeks to redefine environmental policy debates.

“Long may the healthy, vigorous debate, the essence of good science, continue.” (Host 1, Timestamp: 10:27)

Listeners are prompted to stay engaged, subscribe, and share the podcast to continue following these pivotal national conversations.

Transcript

[Host 1]

The partisan battle over redistricting escalates as a group of Texas Democrats flee their state. We're gonna unpack that. We're gonna unpack Kamala Harris's book tour. We're gonna talk a little bit about how President Trump's administration is changing the way the EPA regulates things related to climate. All of that and so much more. Today on 10 Minute Drill. Everybody get up. Get up.

[Host 2]

The story of America is the story of an adventure. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. We under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free.

[Host 1]

Beginning today with the battle over redistricting. We talked a couple weeks ago about how Democrats were frustrated in this redistricting battle that they had already gerrymandered their states so much they didn't have any more room to go. We're gonna look at those numbers really fast. Just for some background here. We're gonna look at the gulf between how much of a statewide vote Republicans have won and how much they're actually being represented in the state, based on how Those lines are Dr. First. California. Republicans have won 40% of the statewide vote in California, but hold only 17% of the seats. That's nine out of 52. Illinois Republicans won 47% of the last statewide vote, but hold only 17% of THE seats. Let's look at that Illinois map really fast. It looks like a Jackson Pollock painting. People have compared some of those kooky district lines to a bowl of ramen noodles. Massachusetts Republicans have won 35% of that statewide vote, but hold 0% of those congressional seats. 0 out of 9 in Connecticut, 38% of the statewide vote, but hold 0% of those 5 congressional districts. New York Republicans have won 42% of the statewide vote, but hold only 26.9% of those seats. 7 out of 26. New Jersey Republicans won 43% of the statewide vote. Hold only 25% of the seats. Maryland, 38% of the statewide vote. Hold Only 12% of the seats. That's 1 out of 8. New Mexico Republicans who won 44% of the statewide vote, hold 0% of the 3 congressional seats. Hawaii, Republicans have won 30% of the statewide vote. Have 0% of the seats. Oregon, 42% of the statewide vote, but hold only 16% of those seats. Washington, 38% of the statewide vote. Hold only 20% of the seats. 2 out of 10. Rhode Island, 38% of the statewide vote. Hold only 0% of those seats. Let's look at what they're doing in Texas first. Here's the 2024 election results. You can see Republicans won almost 60% of that 2024 vote. Their new map would split to 30 Republicans and eight Democrats. And when you look at that map, it looks very similar to the actual presidential election win map. Democrats won about 42% of the vote. They'll have close to 30% of the congressional representation. So again, not close to what we're seeing in a lot of those blue states. But one more time, let's look at Illinois. Here is the 2024 presidential election results map. The red areas are the areas won by President Trump. Now let's look at their congressional districting map. Again, it looks like a Jackson Pollock painting. But just for good measure, let's look at one district that currently is represented by a Democrat named Eric Sorensen. As you look at it, you'll see it's a spoon. To get from the northeastern corner up there at the top right to the southeastern corner, he'd have to go through multiple other districts. That is a classic gerrymander. So again, think about how absurd Illinois's gerrymander is. As we said up the next part of this story, on Sunday, a group of Texas Democrat legislators announced they were fleeing their state in protest to these new maps that have been proposed by Texas Republicans and Governor Greg Abbott. But for a little bit of background, this might sound familiar to you because this is not the first time this very same group of Texas Democrats decided to flee their state to try and stop a vote. Back in 2021, Republicans in Texas were considering an election integrity bill that had things like voter id, incredibly, provisions to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Democrats, seeing the wave of pushback against election integrity bills, decided they wanted to make a show by flying to Washington, D.C. to try and draw attention to their fight. They did not have the votes to stop it. They knew there was nothing they could do to really change the bill. But they flew to Texas to try and one raise money and two ask Democrats in Washington to pass federal legislation that would supersede anything they do in Texas. However, it was one of the greatest political comedy of errors of my lifetime. It was a hilarious several weeks on Twitter. First, they flew in a private plane that was shadily funded. Nobody could really figure out who was paying for it. When they posted pictures of their sort of crusade, they were holding large boxes of beer. They looked like they were basically on a sightseeing tour. Two of those Democrats who talked very strongly about going to Washington for this fight were found to have not even Gone to Washington, but gone on a European vacation that they had pre planned. Democrats continued to make a fool of themselves in Washington. Washington. One kind of strange lady who is a Democrat representative posted pictures of her underwear talking about the hardships they were facing as they were on the lam in Washington D.C. another Democrat posted pictures of the Caesar salads they were eating, calling it my first meal as a fugitive. Delicious. That was Jean Wu, who was sort of the poster boy of this really absurd crusade, which in the end meant absolutely nothing because as soon as they got back to Texas, they were able to pass the bill without them in under weeks and nothing happened. They maybe raised some money, but I think overall they also started a Covid outbreak at the time with the Delta variant. So it was a comedy of errors. So consider all of that as you hear that once again they're up to the same thing. However, they're not coming to Washington D.C. this time to protest redistricting. They're heading to Illinois, which is raising a lot of questions because again, let's look at that Illinois congressional map. Illinois is the Mecca, mecca of partisan redistricting. Republicans have won 47% of that statewide vote, but only hold 17% of the seats. Here is Governor J.B. pritzker, the king of partisan redistricting and partisan gerrymandering, welcoming them to his state.

[Host 2]

You've had to leave behind your families, your full time jobs, your communities, and you did it to protect the voting rights of the people that you represent and voters all across this nation.

[Host 1]

Going to Illinois to protest partisan gerrymandering is a little bit like protesting complex carbohydrates by going to the Cheesecake Factory. It really doesn't make any sense to say we are against the injustice happening in our state. So we're going to go to a Democrat state that's doing it even worse. Again, you've got to compare. Texas is not close to what Illinois has pulled off in partisan gerrymander. We've talked before about Kamala Harris's book tour. Well, it hit a major inflection point last week when she joined the soon to be completely canceled Stephen Colbert. Let's watch a clip of that.

[Kamala Harris]

I think it's broken. Our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be. And I just don't want to for now, I don't want to go back in the system.

[Host 1]

So with a very friendly audience, Colbert pushes her on whether or not she wants to run again. And she says she doesn't want to because she thinks the system is broken. And her proof that the system is broken is that she lost. This to me was very interesting. I think a lot of people would suggest that a candidate with no real policy vision losing an election is actually the system working the way that it's supposed to. But Democrats are also reacting fairly negatively to this Kamala Harris book tour Politico reporting that a number of swing seat Democrats do not want Kamala Harris's help in the upcoming midterms. So again, writing a book about a campaign where everything seemed to go wrong, where a lot of the polling suggests the candidate herself was the problem. An interesting choice. But I for one really hope that we continue to hear a lot from Kamala Harris going forward. The eyesore in Arkansas, a controversial wind project is getting new attention. This used to be Ozark Forest in Arkansas and now it's being cleared out for a large farm of wind turbines. Brookfield Corporation's Green Energy division is pushing for this new farm and one of their stockholders is a particularly prominent person, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Earlier this year, local residents voted to ban new wind projects, but because money has already been invested in this, Smithfield is pushing forward with this. Anyways, President Trump has strong feelings about wind. Let's look one more time at what he said to the EU just a week ago.

[Host 2]

The whole thing is a con job. It's very expensive. It ruins the landscape, it kills the birds. They're noisy.

[Host 1]

So again, the absurdity one of knocking out forests that are already very, very valuable to our climate. They help suck in CO2, they help regulate temperatures to wipe out forests, to build windmills. That 1 have so many emissions in the building process and 2 are incredibly ugly is just absurd. But also to be doing it on behalf of Canadian Prime Minister is absurd in so many ways. We will watch and see where this one goes. Last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that they would be revisiting the Obama era endangerment finding, a move that would significantly change the way they approach climate regulations, including those related to electric vehicles. This action is expected to save American people billions of dollars because of the regulations that drove up the cost of everything they do. And part of Zeldin's argument is that this finding by President Obama, the endangerment finding gave the EPA the ability to supersede Congress in passing rules and regulations without anyone having to vote on it. But it drove up the cost of everything. In an effort to, they say, slow down climate change, we say make everything in life more expensive to have little or no effect on the climate. I mean, do you accept the overwhelming.

[Kamala Harris]

Scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions.

[Host 1]

Are the biggest drivers of man made climate change? We've talked before here about the absurdity of this, quote, climate consensus. Now a lot of people, even the staunchest opponents of the climate agenda, agree that there's some change in the climate. But the consensus has been used as essentially a policy trump card to override any effort to prioritize consumer choice and low cost energy over their fight against climate change. That sort of boogeyman climate consensus when you pick apart one the people who are behind it. We've talked a lot here about the corner cutting from so many of the scientists contributing to that scientific consensus. For example, World Weather Attribution, the group that's constantly quoted describing how a hurricane or a tornado or a storm was the result of climate change. We found now so much evidence that their work has been completely refuted. They cut corners. They didn't get peer reviews because they wanted to be fast so that they could get the climate messaging into media stories about a hurricane. Regardless of whether the science added up or not. There are so many examples of the people contributing to that climate consensus being either paid by left wing climate groups or completely faulty in their scientific process. So again, when you hear that scientific consensus, it's really important to understand just how politically charged that is and how flawed it is as an argument and as a trump card. Which brings us to this great column by Kim Straussel. The rise of the climate right. Energy Secretary Chris Wright seeks to set the record straight about the science. What Kim Strassel is talking about here is the right is no longer coming into this. You know, just saying climate change isn't real or anything like that that Democrats feel they can easily dismiss. Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin and others are coming in with scientific facts to back up their arguments against the climate movement that has in so many cases cut corners on science and argued that their political arguments were actually SC when they didn't have the data to prove it. But you have Chris Wright and Republicans now coming in with the scientific evidence to say everything that they've been pushing on us is actually false. Here's a quote from Kim. What's become obvious in recent years, thanks to the taste of it we got with the Biden administration, is that climate hysteria is one of the greatest threats to freedom in modern times. The more cynical of its promoters seized on it for that reason as a justification for total power. If day to day. Human activity is causing the earth to melt. Government must control the day to day. What we drive, what we eat, what products we buy, what industries exist and don't, where we live. Anyone who disagrees with the regime's reigning narrative that the collective requirement to address the existential threat is branded the climate version of an enemy of the people, a quote, denier. It's corrosive. The right this week debuted its new strategy and Americans received the bigger scientific picture. Long may the healthy, vigorous debate, the essence of good science, continue. So this is an incredibly important moment for the right to take back the science and point out the fact that everything that the left has pushed for the last four years and for the 60 years before that has been based on flawed arguments. We have been told now for 60 years the world is going to end in 5, 10, 15 years if we don't make these drastic lifestyle choices. We made the drastic lifestyle choices under President Biden. One Polls show us the American people overwhelmingly rejected the heavy handed government control of what they drive, what appliances they use, things like that. But also the science has shown us it's had little or no impact on the actual client it around us. Thank you so much for turning into another on the road edition of 10 Minute Drill. Please like subscribe, tell your friends and thanks again for joining us.