B (2:44)

You know, we're sorry if that's.

A (2:46)

Yeah. For you again, you're welcome to stay, but I'm sure you can also get a refund. Anyway, we are going to get to our draft later. And like I said, it's an interesting time because there's a civil war within the Republican Party. Over the war in Iran. We're also coming off of a Texas primary in which basically the blockbuster race, the Senate primary between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton was fought to a draw. I mean, an even split in arguably the most important Republican state in the country. Dan Crenshaw, a rising star just seven years ago, incumbent, lost his seat. And so it's an interesting time to talk about the future of the Republican Party, and we will get to that. But we are going to begin with the news of the day. Where did we settle after that impromptu poll?

C (3:34)

Was it Texas?

B (3:35)

I think Texas is on brand for us, too. You gotta start with.

A (3:38)

All right. Okay. We're gonna start with Texas. So Talarico won. I should caveat this by saying not all of the ballots have been counted yet, but we're pretty close. And it's fair to say that Talarico won by about six points over Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic Senate primary. And as I mentioned, Cornyn Paxton fought to a draw at around 40% Paxton to 41% Cornyn. And it's going to a runoff in which Trump says he will endorse, trying to shut the whole runoff process down. Now, I want to just ask generally, what are your main takeaways from. From the results in Texas, and it looks like you're ready to dive in. Neat.

C (4:18)

I mean, it's like you could argue that both parties were surprisingly rational, given how irrational politics are these days. I mean, I don't know. The whole kind of question about Talarico vs Crockett electability wise is a complicated one. I mean, he has said a lot of things that are pretty progressive coded and kind of uses the Presbyterian thing as a little bit of a shield, but, like, he is trying to reach across the aisle in a state that has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. senate since Lloyd Benson in 1988. He runs with kind of cool, righteous indignation. XI is a little bit more partisan, but I think, you know, if you look at how Republicans behave, they would think he is more, quote, unquote, electable. It's a complicated equation. Like, I do think in some ways, though, the GOP side is more of a high impact thing, right? Like, if you go to the prediction markets 24 hours ago at this time, Cornyn had, like, a 15% chance of being the nominee eventually, and now it's 85%. People are assuming Trump's ambiguous statement about endorsement was pro Corny. I guess if you're Paxton and you are claiming to be, like, Trump's best bud and he says, no, sorry, bro, I'm endorsing the other guy. It's like, not a foregone conclusion, but that's a pretty hard position to be in. And it's a big difference. Right.

A (5:38)

Do you think whether or not Cornyn or Paxton comes out of this primary process with the nomination makes a big difference in terms of who wins in November?

C (5:49)

Yeah, I do. I mean, look, Cornyn, or excuse me, Talarico needs a lot of things to break, right? To win the. To win the runoff or win the general election. Right now we have Texas benchmarked about it, R +5. When you look at the generic ballot, Texas in a neutral environment is an R+10 state. So now it's R+5. Democrats have gotten halfway to where they need. Right, but you need, like, a pretty big candidate, quality intangible. And you get that in two ways. By Taliban being a really good candidate, which can debate, or by the GOP having a really bad candidate like Paxton. I mean, Cordon might be boring, right? He's not like my cup of sweet tea.

B (6:25)

But there's also.

C (6:26)

But he's been totally solid electoral performances in the past.

B (6:30)

I mean, to synergize our top two topics, Texas and Iran. I mean, oil.

A (6:36)

Is that the common denominator?

B (6:37)

Oil is the common denominator. But couldn't you also see, I mean, one thing I was thinking about because, like, Obama has spoken glowingly of Tel Rico, and we've been talking about the electability of, like, young white men for, like, since the 2018 midterms, right? Like, that. That is sort of the code for who's electable on the Democratic side. And it often comes down to, like, a nice young, young man in khakis. But it's true. But you could see, like, my sort of wild car scenario for the Cornyn Tel Rico matchup is Iran, right? Because, like, Obama or candidates with no record can say, like, I'm anti war. And if John Cornyn is forced into supporting Trump's war, then you can see, you could theoretically see a lot of MAGA voters, you know, in the kind of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie vein of things, sort of saying like, well, you, Cornyn and casting a protest vote. Or, I mean, I don't know, like,

C (7:33)

I don't know, maybe. I mean, you could have things spiraling out of control, right? You have, like, I don't call them, like, Republican influencers. Like, I don't follow this as much as the people, but you have, like, Nick Fuentes being like, don't vote Republican at all. Right. And like, yeah, you could see the bottom dropping out quite a bit. And Talarico is a normal enough candidate where, like, if the bottom totally drops out, then, yeah, he would have. He has a shot against Cornyn, but, like, Paxton would have been a much. Paxton would have been almost a toss up, I think, against Cornyn. He's a. Has a puncher's chance. You know, he's like kind of Beto, but short, you know, I guess. Short Beto.

A (8:10)

Well, I think. And a lot of people draw that comparison. I think the difference is that Talarico is inarguably progressive. Right. Like, he doesn't even sort of fit a cross pressure to the right with things like, you know, I support the Second Amendment or I'm more conservative than you might think on one of these issues.

C (8:29)

It's like, not about left and right, top and bottom. What's that phrase, Galen?

A (8:32)

Wait, excuse me.

B (8:33)

Is that really.

C (8:34)

That's his phrase. It's like top and bottom, not left and bottom.

B (8:37)

I think he's a different audience.

A (8:41)

I think the gay bar is around the corner. Nate. Yeah, he said it's about the bottom versus the top. To be specific about what he said, and to be clear, that's similar to the argument that Zoran Mamdani made in New York City and, you know, that AOC is making as well.

B (9:01)

So it's an economic argument.

A (9:04)

It's not one way to put it. Yes, okay, we will move on from sexual innuendo, but for people who are saying this is better or work 2.0, he's significantly more progressive than Better or Work. He's significantly more religious, too. So maybe that frustrates people's perceptions. But I think we risk being overly simplistic by being like, oh, he's a pastor in training, therefore he's moderate. He espouses. And you've already seen Cornyn blasting out videos of Talarico saying there are six genders and talking about how the Bible specifically suggests that abortion should be permitted. I mean, those are the kind of things that, I mean, could make religious voters in Texas uncomfortable. Again, I don't know if the person made uncomfortable by those comments was in play for Democrats anyway, but I think that if Talarico were to win in Texas, it's a much different story than. Than like a Beto or work. Right? This is a. I think this is a through and through progressive winning in a red state.

B (10:10)

If Talarico wins, what was Beto in your mind?

A (10:13)

Beto in my mind, was more supportive of Second Amendment rights. He was a little bit more ideologically empty. Which is not really a bad thing necessarily. When you're trying to win on unfriendly turf.

B (10:27)

It kind of comes down to the theory of like political pheromones. Right. Where it's like politics isn't really substantive. It's all about like Beto had sort of like a skater, rich kid Persona. So he had to get, you know, he, he was cross pressured to be more conservative in his positions. And Tal Rico has, you know, shiny apple cheeked, you know, aesthetics. And so he can, he's, he's given more latitude to be progressive.

A (10:51)

Is that another Inuit?

D (10:51)

No, but it's really.

B (10:52)

But it's true. Right?

C (10:53)

Are we sure it's like, not like Tim Wallsey though, where like I am Tim Walls.

A (10:56)

I am.

B (10:57)

No, Tim. I mean, Tim Walls has teacher vibe. That's different. Right.

A (11:01)

It's again, it is, it's again trying to provide cross pressure and aesthetics only and not actual policy, which is worth it.

B (11:08)

Yeah, but that's true. But that's, that's worth a lot in politics. Like I do think that that, I

A (11:13)

mean, that's, it's why everyone wears a plaid shirt.

B (11:15)

Yeah.

C (11:16)

Yeah.

A (11:17)

Okay, so we have a lot to cover tonight, so we're going to move on to Iran. I gotta, I got some stats to read before, before we dive in. So we have been at war, or not at war with Iran, depending on who you talk to for five. So far, we've lost six US service members. Trump claims 48 Iranian leaders have been killed. According to Centcom, at least 1700 targets have been hit. There have been fatalities in at least eight countries. Here at home, gas prices have gone up in 11 cents since the start of the fighting. And according to the latest Ipsos polling, Americans disapprove of the attack by a 16 point margin. What are the political risks of this, this war for Donald Trump? Claire, let's start with you.

B (12:01)

They are many and they are, you know, very obvious. Go just, you know, roll the tape. Right. Like this was the America first anti interventionist president. I think I heard some stat today that he has in just 2026 authorized more military actions than Biden did during his entire presidency. He's hopefully not going to run for a third term. Right. Just constitutionally. But I think his biggest threat is what happens to the gop. Right. That, that he could see a fracturing of his base which was already sort of like looking at his lame duck period, licking its lips a little bit. Right. People kind of looking to usurp J.D. vance as like the successor to Trump, you know, So I think it's, it's widening fissures that were already there over the Epstein files in the sort of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, you know, sense of the party. I think that's just the obvious and greatest risk. I mean, it's in addition to the fact that, like, you know, he's starting a regional conflict in a very unstable part of the world and there's a lot of mixed justifications for it. So he's also, you know, that loses your credibility in, you know, the international community, which he obviously doesn't care as much about. But, you know, should this widen, I mean, that will matter.

A (13:22)

Credibility at home, too. Yeah.

B (13:23)

Tons of credibility. Yeah.

C (13:25)

I think it is a war. I think Venezuela was maybe not a war. Right. This is, I think it involves many different regional powers. It's spiraling out of control. Right. Like it's a, it's a war. That's what that term is meant to designate, I think. But there are three particular risks with this. Right. One is the fact that, like, you know, Iran is a significant oil producing state and also is in a part of the world that can disrupt the oil trade. Right. Number two is that it does represent a certain backtracking from a promise. I mean, there are lots of explicit and implicit phraseology, but we are not going to have forever regime change, wars. And this is exactly what Trump wants to do now. Right. So it might be a thing where, like with the Epstein stuff, I find the Jeffrey Epstein scandal profoundly enjoyable and entertaining. Right. I like seeing all these weirdos. You're like, you always seem like a creep. Of course he's in the Epstein files. Right. Like, I really enjoy, in a salacious way that story and I eat that coverage up. Right. I think as far as, like, how much it's hurt Trump, it's probably priced in. It probably lowered his approval rating by 2 points. This might be similar.

D (14:27)

Right.

C (14:28)

Where like, you lose another couple of points, people feel betrayed. Right. And the third is that like anytime you have Israel as a partner, that complicates politics. In both the left. On both the left and the right, we've seen like, explicit condemnations of the action. That would be maybe less vociferous if it were just a US Solo action.

B (14:47)

Yeah. And just, I mean, I also think just to sort of drill down to a point you were making if oil prices rise and stay high because of this war. I mean, he spent the past two months going on this affordability tour which has sort of been shoved down his throat by his staff because he also says like, well, there's no affordability crisis. I don't know why we're doing this, but I mean, gas prices are going to really piss off at a bare minimum.

A (15:10)

Right.

C (15:10)

He's not going to get. So under Covid, people to some extent forgave the economy under Covid because you have a once in 100 year pandemic,

B (15:18)

act of God kind of stuff. Yeah.

C (15:19)

Right. With Iran, at the very least, you're not going to have people being like, oh, okay, well, we have this heroic thing going on in Iran. It seems like a pretty big. And also just the notion that everything seems chaotic. Right. Biden got in trouble early on in his presidency because he promised to return to normalcy. And instead you got chaos upon chaos and, and Trump preyed on that. Chaos was very effective about it. But like now it just seems like shit's chaotic. You don't really know what the world's going to look like in six months or a year or five years. Right. Even the AI stuff plays into that. And the economic, economic anxiety plays into that. Chaos is good for the out party, which is in this case the Democratic Party.

A (15:58)

Yeah. I mean, for me, one of the ways I'm trying to understand the politics of this is looking at just the Republican Party. And so I went to the most listened to podcast on the right. That's Megyn Kelly's podcast the day that the war, sort of the Monday after the war broke out. And I listened to her podcast. Her, you know, she starts with a monologue in which she absolutely berates Trump for going to war with Iran. And then her first guest is Marjorie Taylor Greene who takes sort of Megyn Kelly's monologue and dials it up to a 12. Right. This is the most listened to podcast on the right. And they were absolutely trashing the president and his decisions. That's a significant risk. Right. Like, as we've seen with other kinds of foreign adventurism by the President, it wraps up pretty quickly. And in retrospect, Americans decide that they liked those actions more than they did at the time. It gets a lot closer to like Operation Midnight Hammer got a lot closer to 5050 a couple months out after the they'd bombed Iran and it didn't seem like we got into a protracted war. Same with Venezuela. Americans don't like these. I mean they don't think that much about these regimes, but when asked, they don't really like them. And so if it's A limited strike and you get in and you get out. Great. I hope. You know, I think we can all hope that that's what happens with Iran. But, like, already we're not there and the risks of a quagmire have exponential, I think, have, have, have increased. So if we enter quagmire territory, I think that's, like, that could kind of be the end of Trump's presidency. But even if we don't, like, even if we get back to a Venezuela Operation Midnight Hammer kind of situation, I think he has sparked a battle within the elite of the Republican Party that is not going to go away.

B (17:43)

Definitely not. And it also, like the storylines that I think are emerging on the right and certainly, like, through reporting in the mainstream media, is that, like, Bibi Netanyahu kind of took the lead on this. So that also undermines Trump's sort of like, I'm the actor, I'm the top. I am the

C (18:02)

not about left and right top.

A (18:03)

The top of Tallerico is trying to bottom. We got an applause. Are there gays in the audience tonight? Where were we?

C (18:20)

No, but look, in the first term, Trump had an argument. It was a more effective argument pre Covid, but, like, look, the Democrats complain about Russiagate and all this shit, but the economy is good and I'm keeping us out of, like, foreign entanglements. And, like, now you can't make that argument, either of those arguments, really. Right. And also, like, Epstein Gate, although I think it's a little bit overrated, is a big improvement over Russiagate. It's a real scandal. It's more fun.

A (18:49)

Also, for folks who suggests that this might be like a wag the dog situation, I mean, there's a couple reasons that won't work. One, there was no real argument made for why we've entered this war in public to make it at all popular before we went to war. Two, Americans are mostly focused on affordability and other issues. So even if it goes quote, unquote, well, I don't think that Trump will get a ton of credit. He will just. It will be a net neutral.

B (19:17)

And.

A (19:18)

And we already haven't seen, like, a rally around the flag effect. So for people who think he's trying to change the subject in a midterm year, I don't think that's what's going on. And even if it is, it ain't gonna work.

B (19:27)

It also, like, we sometimes forget that, like, Trump is just so weird. And so when he is in a war, I kind of think he, like, doesn't know how to act. So when he was saying, no, I mean, I'm serious about this. Like the, when he was talking about us service members who died and he, he was sort of, kind of cavalierly, it was like, and more are gonna die. And then today you see Carolyn Levitt at the podium and Pete Hegseth sort of saying, like, why is the media covering these deaths? Like what? Like, it's, it's genuinely, like those things are genuinely bizarre and I don't think will wear well on people. And it's a. It is sort of like these, this odd, like someone who laughs at a dead body kind of thing. Right. It's like the uncomfortable weirdness and tonality that I don't think he's going to get. Right.

A (20:14)

It was like during the State of the Union when he was almost gleefully describing the manner in which that Ukrainian slaughtered on public transit in Charlotte and her mother was just sobbing in the audience.

B (20:25)

Yeah, it's.

A (20:25)

It's like, it's that kind of a really weird.

B (20:28)

And then he described the pilot, the

A (20:31)

blood streaming down the.

B (20:34)

There's just some like weird New York Post stuff going on. Like, I'm not.

A (20:40)

Should we talk about the AI apocalypse?

C (20:43)

Sure.

A (20:43)

Okay. We did a live show here a little over a month ago, but in AI terms, that feels like a lifetime ago. So let me just read some of the things that have happened since then. Since then, Claude, Cowork agents have become their own mini workforce. Apocalyptic think pieces have moved markets. Utopian ones have come out too. Jack Dorsey laid off 40% of his employees at Block, implying AI was the cause. And most recently, the Trump administration banned the use of anthropic in the federal government based on a disagreement over how its models could be used in war. So I just want to ask, on a scale from 1 to 10, how worried are you about our transition to AI?

B (21:27)

I'm closer to.

D (21:29)

And that is the end of today's preview. Head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and catch the full live show. It lasted about an hour and 15 and only got rowdier from here. We shared our AI anxieties and some optimism. And then we dove into our Republican primary draft. It's a pretty different theories of how

A (21:50)

the primary might go.

D (21:52)

The audience had some thoughts too. Most important question of the evening though. Did Ted Cruz make the draft? Head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and learn the answer to that question for visual learners. You can also watch the full video

A (22:08)

live show of the night.

D (22:10)

Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes. Most importantly, we'll keep this independent podcast going strong when you become a subscriber. You can connect your account to wherever you listen to podcasts so you'll never miss an episode. Go to gdpolitics.com to catch the full live show and plenty more throughout this big 2026 midterm year and beyond. Again, that's GDPolitics.com. see you there.