Loading summary
Transcript161 lines
- [00:00]
A
Claire Kaylin, it's been a minute.
- [00:03]
B
Oh, my gosh. I mean, not in our lives, but in the lives.
- [00:06]
A
Not in our lives. I saw you last Friday, right?
- [00:09]
B
In the life of a podcast.
- [00:10]
A
In the life of a podcast. I haven't seen you in this little rectangle on my computer since 2020.
- [00:18]
B
Wait, but is that true? I feel like we've maybe we've only done.
- [00:22]
A
We've only done live shows together.
- [00:24]
B
Wow.
- [00:24]
A
In the time since, so much of.
- [00:27]
B
My life in 2020 was lived exactly this. Like, this, like, with. With little books stacked up with the mic and, like, looking at you on a little screen and. And sort of sweating uncomfortably in a small room that had, like, proper acoustics.
- [00:44]
A
One of my most specific memories of podcasting with you through 2020 was we said. I said some joke like, okay, if this election isn't decided by my birthday, were doing shots on air.
- [00:56]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [00:57]
A
And you held me to it. And then the election still wasn't decided until Saturday. After that.
- [01:03]
B
Oh, my gosh. So long. Yeah. So, so many memories. So many visceral memories flooding back.
- [01:18]
A
Hello, and welcome to the GD Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Droock, and we've got a very special guest with us today, former 538 politics podcaster, staff writer at the New Yorker, and dear friend, Claire Malone. Claire, welcome to the GD Politics Podcast.
- [01:33]
B
Hi, Galen. I'm so happy to be here.
- [01:36]
A
I'm so happy to have you. We have a lot to talk about today, but first, I want to say that, well, the last time listeners heard from you was at a live show that we did at the Comedy Cellar back in April. And excitingly, we've got another live show coming up at the end of the month, again at the Comedy Cellar in New York City with our partner in Shenanigans, Nate Silver. Are you excited?
- [01:59]
B
I'm very excited. I miss the medium of, like, smart conversation. So whatever the venue, whether it be over the computer or in person, which is always so much more fun, because, as you and I have pointed out, Nate loves a live show.
- [02:14]
A
Loves a live show.
- [02:15]
B
It's just fun. It's just, like, fun to actually, like, talk to you guys, you know, shoot the shit in front of a lot of people.
- [02:21]
A
But I think the Comedy Cellar is a great place to do this because, as I like to say, politics can be pretty joyless, but we don't have to be. And so, like, we can talk about serious stuff while also enjoying each other's company and playing games and engaging with the audience. We Also, we have a pretty interesting track record of picking notable dates to do live shows. I think our first ever live show was the day that Ted Cruz dropped out of the 2016 Republican primary and Trump became the de facto nominee in Washington.
- [02:55]
B
Right. We were in D.C. we do, yeah. I have. I have like a vision of the hotel room where we were.
- [03:00]
A
Oh, yeah, we were all crowded, like watching.
- [03:02]
B
Yeah.
- [03:03]
A
Cruz's concession speech or something in a hotel room. We had a live show the day of the Brexit vote in San Francisco. In San Francisco. Uh huh. And we decided in an impromptu manner to turn the microphones over to the crowd and ask if anyone in the audience was British. And some woman stood up and was like, hey, I'm British. And like, here's some context for Brexit. And we also. 2016 was so crazy. We also had a live show in Chicago the day that the pussy grabbing tape came out.
- [03:31]
B
I remember that.
- [03:32]
A
Which in some ways felt like it was gonna be the end of the 2016 election. And then it absolutely wasn't.
- [03:37]
B
Wow. I have measured my life in live shows with you. Watch out. September 29th.
- [03:43]
A
Okay. Yeah.
- [03:43]
B
What's gonna happen?
- [03:44]
A
We don't yet know what is going to happen on September 29, but if past is prologue, it will be something notable. We at least know that the government will shut down at midnight on September 30th if Democrats and Republicans don't come to some agreement. So at the very least, we have that.
- [04:00]
B
But we promise, I'm gonna say this in advance, we promise not to make it a show about the government shut down.
- [04:05]
A
Yeah, we're gonna have a lot to discuss. I mean, we're in the midst of a New York City mayoral race.
- [04:09]
B
Yeah, that'll be hot.
- [04:10]
A
I think it was at the last live show where Zoran Mamdani was first mentioned on this podcast. And I mean, it was April, that primary was in June. So much happened and we barely even knew Zoran Mamdani's name then.
- [04:25]
B
Isn't that. You know, I think that speaks well to like, the appropriate way that New York City's politics cycles are timed. Like, we've all become used to the interminable slog of like three year long presidential campaigns. But, like, the fact that in April people were like, who is this guy? And then two months later they were like, this guy's going to be the mayor. Really is kind of how politics used to be and maybe should be. I mean, that's kind of how British or European politics was for a really long time.
- [04:55]
A
Maybe it's changing six week long campaigns. What was it like Canada had eight weeks or something? I'm probably getting the exact number wrong.
- [05:02]
B
But if you're Canadian or British, I'm sure you'll say something to us and yeah, correct us.
- [05:07]
A
Anyway, so go get your tickets to see me, Claire and Nate live at the Comedy Cellar in New York City.
- [05:16]
B
9Th clearly, if there's a Comedy Cellar in your city and you are not in New York City, we're not going to be. We're not going to be there.
- [05:23]
A
Okay? So go to GDPolitics.com you'll be able to find tickets there. It's also pinned on my Twitter account, so there are plenty of of places where you can find it. And I'll also put the link in the show notes for this. In any case, come join us. It's going to be fun. Shall we get down to business?
- [05:39]
B
Let's do it. My bun is off center. This is the problem with video podcasting. I'm like, that's the other thing. Video podcasting felt like such a novelty in 2020. We were like, why are we putting this on the Internet? No one's going to look at it. And now all people want to do is stare at faces. I just, that's actually a generational thing. I do not understand. I'm like, why wouldn't you just want to, like, put it put in your earphones and like, do something else while you listen to this?
- [06:04]
A
Yeah. The weird thing for me about video podcasting is that you can't while we're recording. You can't, I don't think, turn off your own view without turning your camera off for everybody else. You can perceive yourself the entire time you're recording a podcast. But by the way, your bun looks perfectly on point.
- [06:19]
B
Thank you. I fixed it a little bit.
- [06:22]
A
Okay, let's get down to business. And at the time that we're recording this, which is to pull back the curtain on September 11, the country is still reeling from the assassination of Charlie Kirk the day prior. We've also got a bunch of new polling in the New York City mayoral race, which we just talked about a little bit. The first excerpt from Kamala Harris's book just dropped. Democrats are, as ever, debating their political strategy and pushing for the release of the Epstein files. The Murdoch family succession drama seems to have been resolved, which is at the nexus of extra. Exactly what you cover at the New Yorker, Claire, which is politics and media. Speaking of politics and media, before we get to any of those other things I mentioned, you have A new piece out in the New Yorker the day that folks are listening to this. Monday.
- [07:05]
B
That's right. Yeah, Monday, if you get your print subscription, which everyone should subscribe to.
- [07:11]
A
Yeah, of course.
- [07:12]
B
Don't do that, Galen. Yes, I cover, I cover media and politics now at the magazine and I have a piece out this week. It's a profile of a woman named Jessica Reed Kraus who goes by House in Habit on Substack and Instagram. And I think she's a really interesting figure. She started as kind of a mom blogger, lifestyle interiors blogger and based out of Orange County. And for many years she sort of had this niche fame with mothers, sort of affluent mothers. And she kind of got canceled in 2020 and then sort of reemerged as this.
- [07:47]
A
Why? What, what'd she get canceled for?
- [07:50]
B
Her husband. This, this all we go into all of this in the piece. But her husband liked a transphobic post by Candace Owens, who I've also profiled for the New Yorker. Look it up, people. You can, you can, you can read, you can spend your afternoon reading.
- [08:04]
A
You've done some pretty solid profiles in the, in the time that you have been away from. Fivethirtyeight.
- [08:10]
B
Thank you. And anyway, her husband had liked, in 2020, liked a transphobic post on Instagram by Candace Owens and another influencer in Jessica Reid Kraus sphere sort of surfaced this. And so her kind of, her, her views which had been evolving behind the scenes and becoming more and more sort of anti woke kind of spilled out. And she was. So that was the reason for her cancellation. But kind of in the aftermath, she became a chronicler of all these trials. So it started with Free Britney and then she covered the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, she covered the Johnny Depp trial and got quite on both of those trials, got kind of well known for taking almost the contrarian point of view. She was a kind of almost like a Ghislaine Maxwell was the scapegoat Johnny Depp is, you know, being unjustly persecuted, you know, sort of these reactionary or sort of anti, the anti establishment views of these things. And during 2024 she started following Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And his campaign, got a lot of access to it.
- [09:14]
A
Who you've also profiled, who I've also profiled because of Claire Malone. We know that RFK Jr found a roadkill bear on the side of the road, put it in his car, brought it to New York City and dumped it in Central Park. Claire, you're the reason the public has that information.
- [09:33]
B
I have to say I am.
- [09:36]
A
I hope that's like number one on your resume.
- [09:40]
B
First line in my obituary.
- [09:43]
A
New Yorker writer Claire Malone, responsible for the in depth reporting on RFKJR's journey with roadkill.
- [09:52]
B
Anyway, so she kind of got this like really unprecedented access to him and to sort of Trump world, but was writing about things from this almost like gossipy, soft focus view of politics. Really has like, you know, she's an, she's a very aesthetic person. She kind of has not a classic Republican aesthetic. This is, this is a profile actually for the Stylist issue of the New Yorker. And it's sort of about how she kind of brought her, her audience of moms along with her for this sort of red pilled ride. I think she's a really fascinating figure. Some people might have heard of her, but check it out. Jessica Reed, Kraus House Inhabit. I've got a profile of her in the issue of the New Yorker and I think it's online. For you people who don't subscribe to the print New Yorker, which you totally should. I think it'll be online on Tuesday.
- [10:38]
A
The Maha movement, we've talked a little bit about it on this podcast, is itself a very interesting collection of strange bedfellows.
- [10:47]
B
Totally.
- [10:48]
A
There are people who have long time worried about the health of American children and our food supply and all of that stuff, who have been liberal for a long time, who now find an advocate in the White House. But it gets complicated quickly.
- [11:03]
B
Very much so. I mean, and it's sort of amazing to think that Maha the movement is literally basically a year old. I mean, in August, Bobby Kennedy dropped out of the race or suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. And almost immediately they kind of branded it, I think really savvily as Maha make American America healthy again. And it did this interesting thing of knitting these two movements together. And like Kennedy's coalition was kind of like crunchy left people who were like so left wing, so establishmentarian that they kind of gelled with people on the right. I think he is a charismatic figure in his own way. You, I think it's a powerful movement because as I like to say, a lot of people are a little bit Maha, like many Americans are worried about pfas, right? Many Americans are worried about their Teflon pans and why so many people are getting, you know, young people are getting cancer. Like there's a lot of worry. And I think that movement has very mixed issues and issue reception. I mean like you'll, you'll talk to people who are nutrition scientists and they'll say like, actually he's bringing up a lot of, he being Bobby Kennedy, the health Secretary is bringing up a lot of things we've been talking about for a long time now. They're next to really troubling anti vaccine or vaccine skeptical stances. But yeah, I think Maha is, you know, sort of a very, it's, it's organic too. I mean, organic both in the, in the literal and abstract. But like it speaks, it speaks to people's worries.
- [12:32]
A
Yeah. We had the dean of the School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis on the podcast and one of the themes that we talked about is how Maha fits into a long running Trump trend, that he is quite adept at naming the problem and asking provocative questions, but then coming to controversial and self defeating solutions. So in that Maha report where he says Americans are unhealthy, we are overweight, children are being diagnosed with all of these kinds of diseases, there's not enough people aren't getting enough socialization or physical activity. Like all of these things. The public health community is like, absolutely common sense.
- [13:15]
B
Yes, we've been. Yeah, totally. What's interesting about it is that it's, you know, a lot of the, a lot of American politics in the past five years post pandemic have felt really personal. Like it started during the pandemic with schools, right. The politics around schools, teachers unions. But everything was about my kids. Your kids. Right. Very emotional. And I think one of the interesting things about watching the Maha movement mature over the past year is how it feels so personal to so many people. A lot of its big figures are big figures on Instagram. Right. Like, you know, they are targeting a lot of moms in ways that don't feel explicitly political. They feel like, hey, you should, you should bake this bread without preservatives for your family because it's good for them. And you know, you should worry, we should worry about what your kid is consuming, which, by the way, I'm a mom, I worry about that. It targets, you know, Maha has also sort of played into like, I remember when I was found out I was pregnant, I like immediately checked to see what was in my shampoo. You know, when you, when you're, when you, when you get pregnant, you realize like, you become aware of like, well, what's in my environment, you know, and.
- [14:24]
A
I, it's a little bit of the Joe Rogan effect for women.
- [14:27]
B
Totally. Yes, absolutely. And I think so. Maha kind of had, there was fertile ground already, particularly with women who worry about what they're consuming, who worry about what their kids are consuming, and it just sort of. It all feeds together. I think it's a really fascinating and quite powerful movement that's here to stay.
- [14:44]
A
All right, well, folks, should definitely read the piece. We're gonna move on to a more somber topic here, which is Charlie Kirk's assassination. At the moment that we're recording, we don't have the details about his murderer. I hope that that's changed by the time that folks are hearing this and that the person is brought to justice. But a single shot to the neck of a political activist and media figure while engaging in debate on a college campus. The context, to a certain extent, speaks for itself. I think we all have a lot of thoughts about this. It's a very fraught moment. How are you grappling with it?
- [15:20]
B
I mean, I think I saw it yesterday afternoon pretty early and like, texted my editor right away, like, someone shot Charlie Kirk. I think it's a huge deal A On just like, morally reprehensible. Murder, obviously, is morally reprehensible. Political assassination in particular, which has become quite common in this country, is reprehensible. And I. But I think I kind of felt a certain degree of shock because. And I think maybe it took him, this incident to really sell how. How influential he. He really has become. I mean, I remember Charlie, like, I remember him when. When it was kind of like, what is Turning Point. There's some of these, like, younger activists, but, like, you know, to go back to Maha, like, some of the biggest. Alex Clark, who's a big Maha influencer, like, came out of Charlie Kirk's Turning Point usa, almost like talent scouting program, right. Where they would find these young conservatives and, like, bring them up. Like, I feel like Charlie Kirk is really responsible for nurturing and talent scouting a lot of these conservative media figures that you now know. Candace Owens, you know, another person who. Charlie Kirk was, like, a really seminal person in her come up. Right. Like, I think he. He. He was so young, 31. Right. But had a really outsized influence. So I'm, you know, frankly, like, feeling pretty unnerved. Unnerved that this. You know, there was the assassinations in Minnesota over the summer, obviously the assassination attempts during the campaign. Like, it's just really. It's really unnerving. That was my first instinct. And then I would say the thing I've been sort of marinating on over the past, you know, overnight is just what a big deal this is going to continue to be. I mean, Charlie Kirk was quite close to Trump to the Trump family, to many figures in the conservative movement. And, you know, he's sort of taking, I think he will take on this martyr status almost in the way that, like, you know, so many conservatives point back to, like, Andrew Breitbart as being this like, mythical, larger than, like, life figure. But I think that, you know, Trump made the statement from the White House that I, this part really caught my eye where he said, and I'm quoting here, my administration, this is talking about Kirk's death. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country. I linger over that statement because I'm curious what that means to Trump. And, you know, again, we're recording this on Thursday, maybe something will have become clear, but it's obvious that this, this will, this is a seismic event for the conservative movement outside the tragedy of the death of some of someone. It is going to have, I think, yeah, real, real time political ramifications and potentially policy ramifications for Trump.
- [18:30]
A
You know, I'll say, to echo what you said, very unnerving. I have, Claire, you met me when I was. Could still be unnerved by a lot of things that happened in the news cycle, and we have plenty of memories, but over a decade, I, I oftentimes feel like I've become emotionally inured to a lot of what happens in politics. But I found myself after seeing this and frankly seeing it on video. Seeing it, yes, yeah, it on video and close up. And Twitter sort of decided that that was also the right time to show me videos of the murder of Irina Zarutska, the Ukrainian refugee who was murdered in North Carolina, also close up. I mean, just, I was, I was sitting in the park processing all of this, really, just, really just shaken and sort of upset, worried about the country. I mean, this all goes without saying, but, like, we have to live. I mean, we have to live if we're going to be a free society in a place where people are. Feel free to speak their piece whether it's controversial or not. And that kind of has to be the rule of the road, full stop. And I don't want to, I don't want to live in a country where people are afraid to say controversial things, certainly not afraid for their safety to say controversial things. And I don't want anyone to, to feel like they can't speak out right Left, whatever.
- [19:56]
B
Yeah, it's. It's a lot of. I mean, I, I also, without meaning to, saw the close up video that was quite disturbing and it just was. I mean, I think I had like a physical reaction to it, like, kind of like, you know, anyway. And I think it's something that I think so many of us have been experiencing for the past couple of years on our social medias where, you know, particularly with like the war in Gaza, you see pictures of death so much on your social media and it is so. I don't even know how to describe it, but it's just like a really, just really troubling like, just like those images and just the way that they're all kind of circulating in this way that is.
- [20:34]
A
It makes you sick.
- [20:35]
B
It makes you sick.
- [20:36]
A
Yeah, it makes you sick. And obviously people are having very strong reactions to this, which is normal and good. You know, people should have strong negative reactions to somebody being assassinated like this in broad daylight. To echo what you said about the knock on effects and where we go from here to the extent that politicians across the political spectrum are denouncing it in absolute terms, like, we know from the research, the evidence that the best way to stop the cycle of political violence is to impress upon people in moments like this that violence is never an acceptable form of political behavior. There are also, sadly, people who I think are taking this opportunity to say things that are unhelpful. And you know, one, one thing in particular that I saw was sort of the way that Jesse Waters on Fox News was describing this as the left is at war with us. What are we gonna do about it? Those are not helpful terms to be speaking in. And I think we all rightfully worry about the lessons that people take from this.
- [21:45]
B
Yeah, I'm not even sure how to put, you know, put a button on this, but it's. Yeah, yeah, like the, you know, it's like the same thing with like the Luigi Mangione thing. Even though he's, you know, it wasn't a political assassination, it was a ideological, ideological assassination. And obviously we all know that he was embraced, you know, like for that. And you can certainly have feelings about American health care. I do, many people do. But just the way that he was memed so quickly and, you know. Yeah, yeah, it is, you know, violence is not the way that you in this country handle things or, you know, have handled things. And I just think, you know, it's just. I had, I also had the thought yesterday of like, wow, it kind of feels like, you know, the 60s had so many political assassinations. Are we just sort of like having a re emergence of that era, which is this really sobering thought?
- [22:43]
A
Yeah, yeah. And how do people behave differently when they don't always feel safe? I mean, just even the things you have to think about, like security everywhere now, all kind, you know, we all probably love somebody who says controversial things and we don't. I don't want to have to like worry about that person's safety or whatever, be they at the right, left, center, whatever. And so it's sad. We got a lot of stuff to talk about. So we are going to move on and we're going to talk about the New York City mayoral race, which I think is going to come back up at the live show. So we won't necessarily cover absolutely everything, but in the moment that we're talking, we have a spate of new polling from the New York Times. Siena College, Emerson College, Quinnipiac, University of Massachusetts, Really a who's who of high quality pollsters. And the last four high quality polls show on average that Maidani is leading the pack by somewhere close to 20 percentage points in the most recent New York Times polling. In a head to head matchup, you know, if you were going to hit Cuomo against Mandan, it is quite close. Obviously at this moment that's an irrelevant consideration because there are still. Eric Adams is still running, Andrew Cuomo is still running, Curtis Lewis still running in addition to Zoran Hamdani. But that head to head matchup looks like, you know, 48% support from Amdani, 44% support for Cuomo. And folks have probably heard that in an effort to try to get us closer to that reality, Trump has mulled offering Eric Adams a plum position as the U.S. ambassador to. Wait for it, Saudi Arabia, which the first thing that came to my mind was like, I can't imagine anyone who would enjoy that post more than Eric Adams.
- [24:28]
B
Yep.
- [24:29]
A
But yeah. Claire, where's your head at in terms of the state of the race in our dear city?
- [24:35]
B
Well, just, just on that Eric Adams, Saudi Arabia post. As a person who has lived in the Persian Gulf, I spent my first two years after college living in Doha, Qatar. I can say with a lot of confidence that I genuinely think Eric Adams would like Saudi Arabia like it is.
- [24:54]
A
You know, he doesn't drink, but he loves to party.
- [24:57]
B
Exactly. No, like, exactly. And also, you know, I include myself in this as someone who used to live there. But like, you're not entirely normal if you're like, you know what I Want to go live in, like, the hottest place on earth for a while? Um, yeah, it's just like it's. He'll. It makes sense. It makes sense.
- [25:15]
A
So it's not jerky. Maybe by. Maybe by the time folks are listening to this, it's become a three person race, which still wouldn't be helpful to Cuomo because Curtis Leewa at the moment gets more support than Eric Adams anyway. But maybe we can talk about what's motivating this race, both by the numbers and from our experience living in New York.
- [25:36]
B
Yeah, I mean, obviously the race has been primarily about cost of living in New York, which, if you live in New York, makes a lot of sense. You know, the thing that I thought was most interesting in the recent polling numbers, and I believe it was the Times Siena poll, was people's confidence in Mamdani when it came to public safety. Because I feel like it's. I, you know, believe that I'm saying this right. Correct, Galen, that he. He beat Cuomo still with. With voters of feeling that he could handle the. Handle public safety better.
- [26:09]
A
Well, it was tied, basically. Exactly. So when the Times asked, it was 30% said they think Mamdani would do the best on crime, 29% said Cuomo, 23% SLIWA, and 15% Adams. So that was the. Of all of the issues that they asked about, that was the closest. But it wasn't like Mamdani was blown out of the water.
- [26:32]
B
Right. Which I kind of think, you know, if you're thinking about lines of attack from Cuomo or from, I mean, Trump, because Trump is obviously inserted and I think will probably continue to insert himself in this race. You'll think of public safety. Right. That's the thing that has become over the past few years the classic issue of like this lefty politician insert name is making your city more unsafe. All this stuff. And so when I saw that number, that was one number that kind of caught me, like, oh, interesting. So, because I think. And I think that speaks to just Andrew Cuomo's real, like, lack of connection with voters. But like that, you know, I didn't. I think that I found that a little bit surprising because it hasn't been a huge. I think Andrew Cuomo tried to make it a big thing in the race, but it hasn't been a huge issue in the way that I thought it would be. I really think that this New York is too damn expensive thing has really resonated. Um, so, tho. That was kind of. My reaction to that poll was like, interesting. I Like, I'm surprised that he's, that Mamdani is doing, is so strong on that vertical.
- [27:36]
A
And when it comes to that question of affordability, that is where Mamdani does the best. So 49% of New Yorkers say they think Mamdani would do the best job on affordability. Only 23% say Cuomo. And then it goes on down from there. And you see similar numbers on housing. You know, it gets a little more interesting with things like dealing with the Trump administration. 36% prefer Mamdani, 31% prefer Cuomo. But it also gets interesting again with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. 43% say they prefer Mamdani. Only 16% say they prefer Cuomo. Yeah, and I think in a city that has, you know, the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, there is a sense that if you're going to be able to appeal to pro Israel Democrats, it would be here. And to some extent that may be the case. And this was also the issue on which New Yorkers were the least decided. So 21% said they, they don't know who would be better on the conflict, whereas for every other issue it was like 3% were undecided. But that Zoran Ramdani is, is resonating in this city in this way is notable.
- [28:47]
B
It is, and I think, you know, it speaks to the changing Democratic Party's base or Democratic leaning voters, changing feelings about Israel and the war in Gaza is a, you know, has, has, I think changed a lot. It changed Israel's reputation. And so, and I think it's important to remember that the New York City mayorals race is, is, you know, there's lots of different voting blocs. There's certainly like big pockets of ultra Orthodox, Orthodox voters in Brooklyn and you know, the Upper west side of Manhattan. But there's also huge blocks of black voters, of Muslim voters in Queens and Brooklyn. I mean there's, it's just like it's, it's both. And then of course you've got like, you know, white college educated yuppies, many of whom are sort of anti, pretty firmly anti Israel. So it's an interesting coalition and it makes sense in a lot of ways that, that it's, I think exhibiting the Democratic Party's not even ambiguity, but sort of really like firmly changing stance on Israel. And you know, it's funn. I can remember having conversations at 5:38. I think probably it would have been, you know, in conversations about the emergence of the squad and the way that like Ilhan Omar in particular was and Rashida Tlaib were questioning the Democratic Party's orthodoxy. And that felt like a big deal that they were questioning, well, should our stance on Israel be this? And this is probably. When would that be, Galen?
- [30:19]
A
Like 20, 20, 18, 2019?
- [30:21]
B
Yeah. So it just feels like a real acceleration of an evolution that was already happening in the party. And the war in Gaza has just been an accelerant to that change.
- [30:33]
A
Yeah. And to exactly that point, the New York Times, along with this poll about the mayoral race, asked New York City voters how they feel about the Israel Palestine conflict and whether they sympathize more with Israel or the Palestinians. And you see just a dramatic shift across generations. So 18 to 29 year old New York City voters, 67% sympathize more with Palestinians, 13% sympathize more with Israelis. Democrats in particular, 57% sympathize more with Palestinians, 18% sympathize more with Israel. And there was a video clip recently of Kirsten Gellibrand saying something like, oh, nine in ten Democrats support Israel. And you know, as a longtime New York Democrat, I think that was more of an instinct than an evidence based citation of sentiment. But I've been feeling for a while that the way in which maybe a lot of Democratic leaders are out of step with Democratic voters and this maybe gets into like a whole can of worms that I don't necessarily want to open, but reminds me a little bit of, of the way that the Republican Party was out of step with its voters on immigration in 2016. And Donald Trump sort of came in and was not uncomfortable saying all of the things that the base actually wanted to hear on the issue. And I think because Democratic leaders have been very hesitant to sort of dive in to say probably some of the sentiment that is there within the Democratic Party that leaves an opening for folks to come in and give voice to it if Democratic leaders themselves aren't. And I want to caveat this by saying that at the time, immigration was far more important to Republicans in 2016 than this conflict is to Democrats. Like, when you ask what are your most important issues, this comes like so far down the list that I don't think you can sort of like perform a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party on this issue. But it does just remind me of when the elites are out of step with the voters. There is a political opening.
- [32:41]
B
It's the authenticity conversation. Yeah, I was gonna say, like, I'm not sure that this is like the number one emotional issue, but it does. I think voters often look for. We constantly Talk about authenticity. And what does authenticity mean in politics? Often authenticity is constructed very carefully by people who are good at acting it out. Right? And like, but like this idea. But this idea of telling it like it is. And like, yeah, I think that too. And you kind of say it, like, say it is really important to voters. And I think, like, when you see someone, whatever, like, let's take Mamdani, since we're talking about the mayoral election, when, you know, he said, well, I'd no longer, like. I think there was a whole debate about whether or not he thought it was okay to use the slogan globalize the Intifada. And he, I think because he's, you know, he has created this political brand of approachability. He kind of was able to walk that back and say, like, well, I don't, you know, like, I don't endorse that anymore. You know, like, it kind of this, like. So that was actually interesting just on a purely kind of communicative politician, like sliding from past position or it's not even a position. It was like, you know, sort of rhetorical thing with obvious, like, real world impacts and real world import. But this idea of, does this person talk in a way that feels real? And I think, like, you know, maybe this will springboard a little bit into a conversation we'll have later about, like, why what the Democrats are going to do for the midterms. But just like, yes, where is the emotional pressure point for your voters, for your base, for your. For your both, like, you know, dyed in the wool. We're going to support you no matter what people. But also like, whatever the independent, leans Democratic voter, where. Where are they feeling politics most intimately is kind of the question, right? Like, where is. Where does it hit them in the gut. And I think Gaza hits them in the gut in a way that it does. Many people scrolling social media and like, oh, my God, this is awful. But unfortunately, human beings are. We're motivated by other things too, right? Like economic cross. You know, crosswinds are. Are the thing for people. Inflation is still a thing for people. And so it's. It's kind of like this conversation around authenticity becomes interesting. How do you talk about this in a way that hits home and vocalizes people's feelings?
- [35:02]
A
Today's podcast is brought to you by you, the listeners. We've been making this podcast for about six months, and it honestly wouldn't still exist if not for our paid subscribers. Because of you, we could pick up where FiveThirtyEight left off and continue covering politics with Curiosity, rigor, and a sense of humor. So first, I wanna say a huge thank you for all of your support. I, I feel the community that we've built here at GD Politics. Second, if you have not yet taken the plunge, come join us. The water's warm. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes, access to the videos, and you can hang with us in the paid subscriber chat. Now that it's post Labor Day, we're heading into this fall's off year elections. Before long, we'll be talking about the midterms in earnest. Make sure you never miss an episode and become a paid subscriber. And@gdpolitics.com that's gdpolitics.com see you there. I want to bring up one more topic that maybe gets at questions about authenticity, but certainly gets at New York City politics, which is the Epstein files. So it seems like something that Trump has not really been able to shake in the midst of all other kinds of arguably more important news. And if you do want to look at the polling data about how Americans think Trump is handling the issue, I think it might be his absolute worst issue. So his net approval rating on handling Jeffrey Epstein's investigations is at net negative 35 percentage points. And it's gotten worse amongst Republicans over the past month or so, to the point where 21% of Republicans say they disapprove. And I have one, I have one more thing to say, which is YouGov recently asked, do you think Donald Trump's name appears in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein? And 60% of Americans say yes, 16% of Americans say no, and 23% of Americans say they're not sure. And even 31% of Republicans say they think that Donald Trump's name appears in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein. So it's, it's quite the issue for Trump, even if it's not the make or break issue of the day.
- [37:16]
B
Can I just say, can I just grandstand for a second? If you had said to me a year ago that the issue that would be occupying like the front pages of America's most respected newspapers was the Epstein files, I would have been shocked. And I understand that it has taken on a life of its own. The Democrats are like, great, this is a terrible issue for Trump. Let's keep on bringing it up. And it does, again, to speak to the authenticity question, it does speak to something real where people are like, oh my gosh, like these rich and powerful men. JP Morgan is, you know, allowing Epstein to continue to be legitimized even after his conviction as a sex, you know, as a sex offender. All of these things speak to people's like, disgust with the wealthy and powerful.
- [38:13]
A
Well, and to the authenticity of Donald Trump, which is that he claims that he's going to drain the swamp.
- [38:18]
B
Right.
- [38:19]
A
The Epstein files were part of that. I mean, maybe Trump didn't talk a ton about it, but the conservative ecosystem talked a lot about it. And then to come in and be like, in such a spectacularly botched fashion, be like, actually, never mind.
- [38:34]
B
Of course, of course. I'm not even sure quite what to do with it. But there are so many other seismic changes happening to American institutions and government that I am sometimes, you know, like, you open up the paper physically or, you know, whatever click would open and you're like, oh my gosh, more Epstein stuff. Because for so long it was kind of like relegated to the, you know, the conspiracy world. And I just, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be talked about, but I am consistently surprised with how many column inches above the fold are devoted to it. That's all I'll say.
- [39:06]
A
Okay, well, maybe to that point, Democrats, as ever, are debating amongst themselves how to position themselves strategically in opposition to Trump. And it includes making calculations about this. Like, okay, so Americans really don't like Trump's handling of the Epstein files, but the Epstein files, the release of the Epstein files isn't going to lower the price of groceries or energy or housing. And so maybe we should really focus on that. But at the same time, look at what's happening to all of these institutions. Look at him trying to fire, you know, Fed governor. Look at the ways in which he's trying to sort of influence the Department of Justice in previously understood to be totally inappropriate ways.
- [39:53]
B
He's trying to bring up a 5:30 again. Fivethirtyeight, bugaboo. He's trying to change the census. I mean, I mean, these are really big things, right?
- [40:01]
A
And so the Democratic Party is like, okay, how do we manage all of these? Some of it seems like sideshows, some of it seems like bread and butter.
- [40:10]
B
How do we package it?
- [40:11]
A
Yeah, how do we package it? And a memo has recently been circulating amongst beltway Dems claiming that the path forward is to criticize the, quote, culture of corruption, saying that it's a catch all message for the Democrats in the midterms. And I want to read a little bit from the memo and then hear your, your take on this. They say the culture of corruption is back and it's more out of control than ever. Trump and Republicans are enriching themselves and their friends and abusing their power, all at the expense of working people who are drowning in high costs, which Trump is purposefully increasing. Trump's wholesale handing over a government and Americans private personal information to his biggest billionaire donor will continue to have real world consequences, from FEMA to Social Security to our national parks. And Trump's open defiance of the law and democracy is central to a broader culture of corruption. He's normalized and has infected every area of our government. Trump's corruption has grown more brazen. But what makes this moment uniquely dangerous is that it's being rubber stamped by a complicit Republican Congress and a Supreme Court, that it has abandoned its role as a check on the other branches. And then they go on to list sort of things that fall under the bucket of a culture of corruption. Over the past month, it's DOJ coddling and Trump dangling pardons for Ghislaine Maxwell. Firing the nonpartisan head of job statistics after Trump's awful jobs numbers. Trying to steal the House of Representatives in Texas. Continuing to kill clean energy production even as utility bills have spiked 10% on his watch. All to pay back oil donors. The Trump family profiting off the presidency with a staggering $5 billion crypto scheme serving as an open air bribery market. His corrupt power gr the city of Washington D.C. with more cities to come, weaponization of law enforcement against political opponents from the Fed governors to John Bolton to sitting senators. Okay, that's a lot of stuff to, to, to fall under the culture of corruption. What's your take on it?
- [42:10]
B
Can I ask who the message is aimed at? That's my question here. Is it aimed at the Democratic base? Is it aimed to get out the vote during midterms? Is it a two prong message of Democratic base persuadable voters?
- [42:25]
A
I think they believe that it is a catch all in the sense that it covers the base and it gets the swing voters and that we know now that swing voters are a bit more anti institution distrusting of government and to focus on corruption might be a way to get people into the fold. I mean it's part of what Trump did was focus on corruption and say like I'm going to, you know, fight back against the politicized Department of Justice, blah, blah, blah. But then you also talk about like democracy and the stuff that really gets the goat of some of your MSNBC watcher.
- [42:58]
B
Yeah, I think my reaction is, you know, so, so Bernie Sanders has done the Anti oligarchy tour with aoc. There are all these, like, no Kings rallies, which I think speak to sort of the Democratic base. Although the oligarchy thing, I think is a, is a, is a way that they are trying to sort of channel this, you know, culture of corruption thing. I think my reaction to it is. And this is, this is kind of an open question I'm turning over, maybe I'm curious for your thoughts. I feel like Trump has become, when you put him on TV or in an attack ad or whatever, obviously he's gonna be spoken about during midterm stumping. But, like, let's say you're in sort of a swingy district. It could go either way. Is it more powerful to knock on Trump, or is it more powerful to bring up the names of people who you are going to paint as corrupt that he has empowered? Like, is it more powerful to bring up the names of, like, Elon Musk or other wealthy people who have benefited from this system? And what I mean by that is, does saying Trump's name, yada, yada, yada, a bunch of bad stuff, turn off a swing voter right away and say, like, oh, you lib. You know, like, you're just complaining? Maybe it doesn't, but, like, does it? Like, I'm kind of. That's, that's the thing I'm interested about, that messaging is that, like, in these midterms, will saying negative things about Trump and Trump, the culture that Trump has created, be effective? Or will it be more effective to bring up other characters who have benefited and who don't have the same kind of like, either implicit trust or, you know, implicit reaction? Do you know what I'm saying? That, like.
- [44:35]
A
Claire, I know exactly what you're saying. We literally share a brain. I have been thinking about this too, because Trump, at the very least, feels that it's to his benefit to nationalize the midterms as much as possible. Because to the extent that you make it about Trump, yes, he's not a particularly popular president, but it's going to benefit Republicans if they can get enough attention on the midterm elections to make it so that people who really like Trump do also turn out instead of being like, well, he's not on the ballot, so I'm not that interested, right? Getting those low propensity voters to turn out. And if you make it all about Trump, maybe it's easier for Republicans to nationalize the election. Because you see, in all of these special elections that aren't nationalized, the status quo in America Today, the, the, the way that things are, Democrats are so amped up to get out and vote that without it being nationalized, it seems like Democrats kind of sweep. And also to your point, Trump will never appear on the ballot again. Democrats kind of have to move on to a different, I mean, yes, like the midterms are a referendum on the President because he's unpopular. This sort of easy playbook is to make it a referendum on Trump. But do you want to focus more on the issues and you know, talk about the big beautiful bill and your healthcare costs are going up and your none of, none of your cost of living issues have been addressed? Sometimes like all of this, like reading through all of that, I was like, I don't know, this feels kind of muddled. So calling someone corrupt is a simple message, but I think you have to be careful about the way that you elaborate on it.
- [46:08]
B
Well, maybe also what I was trying, maybe a better, a more pointed way to say it is in this political environment, in a swing district, if you, a liberal, start off your speech with nasty thing about Donald Trump, is there a certain voter who will immediately be turned off by that and not listen to anything else you've said because they will write you off as kind of like a knee jerk person. Whereas like.
- [46:36]
A
Yeah, because we're all exhausted of hearing about Trump.
- [46:38]
B
Yeah, but like the big beautiful bill, right, the cuts, the cuts to those programs, that is the biggest impact that it's having on people. And do you find non Trump names to attach to that, whether they be Republican, you know, if you're Democratic, whether.
- [46:56]
A
If you're Republican, the oil industry or the, something like that?
- [47:00]
B
Yeah, like, I think that's what I'm, I have a genuine open question about what is most effective because I think we saw in the last election that what spoke most to voters in swing districts were issue based ads. And I think there were, you know, in the aftermath of the election, we've sort of heard about these disagreements between Democratic strategists about, you know, the, what was the Harris campaigns, you know, wanting, wanting to do more of the democracy stuff. Quote unquote, not quote unquote, real, I mean, versus like all right, let's just, let's just target issue ads and these swing districts. And I, I, yeah, but I think this is not me saying like a culture of corruption message, it can't work. It's just, it's just sort of questions about like how do you implement it, what names are attached to it, what stories are attached to it. Because I'm not sure. Trump. I'm not sure calling Trump corrupt has an impact anymore. Which is, which is, I mean, again, like, you and I have been talking about Trump for 10 years.
- [47:59]
A
Literally.
- [47:59]
B
Literally. And it's. He's really changed America. He's really changed American government. He's really changed norms. I mean, they have enriched. The Trump family, has enriched themselves in a startling way. Like, genuinely, all those things I just am saying, like, I don't know if the American public is inured to it. I think they might be, but maybe not. You know what I mean? This is one of those things where it's like we're all down the looking through the looking glass a little bit.
- [48:24]
A
Yeah. And this does take me back to a poll that I cited a lot during the 2024 cycle, which is that when you ask Americans who don't have a favorable view of Trump, why don't you have a favorable view of him? The top two reasons that voters cited were that they viewed him as corrupt and dangerous. So it is an accurate reflection of a Trump vulnerability. But I think you asked the right question of After 10 years, do you still just want to focus on that main Trump vulnerability or do you want to move on? Both because he's not running for office ever again, and also because Americans have become a nerd. But you, you mentioned you brought up somebody who I do want to also bring up before we close. Who, which is Kamala Harris.
- [49:10]
B
Oh, yeah. Look at you. You're a professional seguer.
- [49:13]
A
I was like, oh, this is what, this is what my dreams are made of. Just, I'm like, oh, I had such a good dream last night. I had the perfect segue into a new segment. Okay, so the first excerpt from Harris's book is out. And my question is like, I don't think you've read the whole book yet unless you got embargoed copy. We just read what was in the Atlantic and I'm gonna read a quote from it. It reads, of all the people in the White House, I was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out. This is Biden, obviously. I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self serving. If I advised him not to run, he would see it as naked ambition, perhaps as poisonous disloyalty. Even if my only message was don't let the other guy win. It's Joe and Jill's decision. We all said that like a mantra, as if we'd all been hypnotized. Was it grace or was it recklessness in retrospect I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn't a choice that should have been left to an individual's ego, an individual's ambition, and should have been more than a personal decision. So that is not the only place in this excerpt where Harris takes issue with the Biden administration. She also talks at length about how she feels like they, in some cases, deliberately made moves that undercut her image amongst the American public. With the American public. Is this accurate self reflection? Is this. Kamala's definitely running. Is this. She'd love to sell a book.
- [50:50]
B
Who among us would love to sell a book?
- [50:53]
A
I mean, yeah, listen.
- [50:57]
B
Yeah, she's running.
- [50:59]
A
Really?
- [50:59]
B
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [51:01]
A
Okay, interesting.
- [51:02]
B
I mean, first of all, as a writer, you got to admire the nine month turnaround, right?
- [51:10]
A
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I want another ghostwriter.
- [51:13]
B
But, like, yeah, I have to say, just as a journalist, like, the broad category of, like, host Biden crash out self flagellation among Democratic strategists and Democratic elected officials has been, you know, refreshing is maybe the wrong word because, like, one of the. One of the things about political journalism that's so vexing is like, you know, half the time that the person is saying something that they don't believe, that is like a canned line. So there is a certain thrill when you actually hear people for. For obvious strategic purposes to cover their own asses when they say things that you're like, yeah, we knew you were thinking that to say it out loud. And I always find these things, like an important document of like, yeah, you guys were lying or you guys were doing whatever it is. So, you know, in the. In the, like, you know, time tested, like, get it on the record. Like, it's an interesting document in that sense where she's basically like, yep, we. We let his, you know, again, we let his ego. How. How many times did Biden run for President, Galen? 88. 2008.
- [52:18]
A
That was his third time.
- [52:19]
B
No, it was his fourth time. His fourth time was his fourth time running for president. Come on. Anyway, so I found an interesting document in that sense, but, like, I very clearly read it as, okay, so she's not running for governor of California, which was the news that preceded this by, what, two or three weeks? To me, it's kind of like, all right, you take a little break. Take a little breather. Breathe in, breathe out. Seed your book. You know, you don't make the. The mistake that like Beto o' Rourke did where it's like, I'm gonna get Back on that horse and I'm gonna run again. Because then you sort of turn into like, you know, a little bit of a write off, like, perpetual candidate and you kind of take a deep breath and you say, hmm, well, let's see how Gavin Newsom plays out over the next few years. Like, let's see. And like, you know, I think everyone can agree that her campaign was, came under bizarre circumstances, right? That she took over this incredibly hobbled democratic enterprise. She wasn't able to create her own identity from the beginning. I think she won sort of plaudits from people for being like, all right, well, however many days it was. What it's, it's literally the title, 107 days. Thank you. My mind is like a sieve. I'm like, ah, I don't know, like round it. I just totally read it as like a careful, calculating politician being like, I'm gonna see what, how this plays out.
- [53:52]
A
And I, I'm just gonna go to Iowa. Let's see what happens. Let's just see what happens. Let's see what happens when we get there. Yeah, I think that's fair.
- [53:59]
B
I also, she's gonna make a gazillion dollars off of it. I mean, maybe not a gazillion because no one knows how to read anymore, but like, you know what I mean? They'll listen to it on audible.
- [54:07]
A
I honestly, like, I don't want to sound too credulous, but I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't know yet. Like, I, I, I think politics is so much about right person, right time, and she doesn't want to put herself in a position where she'll lose. She loses spectacularly. I think it's going to be, she wants to run if she really thinks she can win, right? And if Gavin Newsom's star just keeps rising and whatever, or if I don't know for it's Jon Ossoff or whoever sort of comes at the beginning of 2027 or right after the midterms, seems to be like the star. Or if the field is just totally splintered, it looks like AOC is gonna run and also Bernie Sanders is gonna run, and also Gavin Newsom and also Jon Ossoff and also, you know, some of our friends from Texas, whatever. And then she'll be like, you know what? I think I can come in here and sort of run the tables on this super splintered field than she would do. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion at this point.
- [55:09]
B
Yeah, I think it's a move of a very careful politician. It's also a bit of like, it had the element in this Atlantic excerpt of like, setting the record straight on some, like, you know, lines that are out there about the, about me. Because from the 2019 campaign and the White House, there was always this knock on her that she ran a chaotic organization, that it was not a good organization. And she sort of directly addresses that in the Atlantic piece, which I think you can read as just, again, like, setting the reputation straight. And the way she said it was basically like, well, the White House is a hard job. And it would have been. She's essentially like, I fired people if I thought they couldn't handle it. And it's like, okay, well, you know, that's a, that's your spin on having a lot of turnover. So I, I thought that I, I, like, looked at that, knowing the back, the, the backstory to that, which was like, it went beyond just the Biden White House. That was her 20, 19, 19 campaign rap, too. So it's sort of a fascinating document. Like, you love it. I love it a little bit when the, when the, like, the, the Vendett are just out there.
- [56:13]
A
There was a piece of me, though, reading it where I was like, I don't know. I'm. I'm not. I'm still not sure if you really get it, because in that excerpt, she was like, she tries to explain, right, her put her spin on the whole borders are thing. And, you know, I was tasked with addressing the root causes of migration. And she goes on to say, and like, let me tell you all the ways in which I was successful. And she tells all the ways in which I was successful was like, all of the jobs that I brought to Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, citing a whole bunch of different, like, American corporations, how she's improving life there, all of this investment, you know, people who have access to credit, blah, blah, blah. I'm like, okay. I think the issue with the border was, like, you have to show Americans that you care a lot about them. I don't think the right spin is like, I was bringing American jobs to Central America is like the right political argument for the moment. I think Democrats have a perception problem of, like, too often they care about people outside our borders or something like that. You know, Trump calls it America First. Democrats can call it something else. But, like, I don't know that. Whatever. It's a long book. And she can explain whatever she wants to explain, but, like, it still wasn't framed in, like, I don't want Illegal immigration in America. And this is what I was trying to do to stop it.
- [57:30]
B
Correct, Right. It was like my way of tackling immigration was to solve the root causes, which are real.
- [57:37]
A
One final thing before I let you go. I just gotta get, I just gotta get you on the record about the Murdoch succession.
- [57:43]
B
Oh, yeah.
- [57:45]
A
So it looks like Lachlan Murdoch, after all the drama, is taking the reins to the empire. I don't know if listeners to this podcast have followed the twists and turns of this what will end up being a three plus billion dollar settlement paying out the not red pilled Murdochs to each a billion dollars to lay off and let Lachlan run Fox News and.
- [58:08]
B
News Corp. Yeah, it's a fascinating settlement because it's like, you know, Rupert is 94, on his fourth marriage. He's a newlywed, which I just always love to linger over. Now he's married to Dasha Zhukova's mother, which I always love. Google her.
- [58:28]
A
I don't know who that is.
- [58:29]
B
You don't know who this is? Dasha Zhukova is the ex wife of Roman Abramovich, the Russian oligarch. Google it. It's interesting people anyway, but like, I think like Rupert getting married in his 90s and Rupert trying to change the terms of his trust in the 90s and getting in a really intense litigation with three of his adult children speaks to like the essence of this man, which is like, you know, run through the bases, like, you know, you're not dead till you're dead kind of thing. And like, you know, it also speaks to how like, important he thinks maintaining foxes and things like the New York Post's right wing view of the world is like Rupert's reputation has always been. He sees himself as like a newspaper man at heart. And that like newspapers have a power of conveying ideology. And so Lachlan winning is kind of, it's like Rupert basically being like, this is my gift to the world. Fox News and things like the New York Post and things like the Wall Street Journal and you know, the, the Prue and Elizabeth and James, the other Murdoch siblings who took the billion dollar each payout, you know, they're, they're getting a billion dollars. And then I think in 2030 is when they're the TR. They can use the, they can sell their shares from the Murdoch trust. You know, they'll get more money than they have two other, you know, siblings who are from the Wendy Dang marriage who are not involved in any of this litigation. But it's just like, yeah, they Got money and, you know, you can. You can make judgments about that. I, I was listening to some speculation. Matt Bellany was talking on his podcast yesterday with Jim Rubenberg from the Times, and basically there was some speculation that they were talking about of, like, well, maybe, you know, maybe James and Elizabeth will try to launch some competitive property, you know, like some sort of, you know, more traditional conservative outlet. Who knows?
- [60:36]
A
I mean, take it to substack, folks.
- [60:39]
B
Take it to substack. Oh, my gosh. I would. I would really. I would read the shit out of a. Of a Murdoch substack. It's, it's basically like, viva la Fox News. That's sort of like the. The gist of it.
- [60:55]
A
And the New York Post, Page Six.
- [60:57]
B
You know, soon to be the California Post.
- [60:59]
A
Soon to be The California Post.
- [61:01]
B
2026.
- [61:02]
A
Count me as somebody who reads the New York Post.
- [61:06]
B
So many people. I read the New York Post every day. So many people do. I mean, the New York. Even if you're not. Even if you're a dye in the wold liberal.
- [61:12]
A
I mean, I also read the Wall Street Journal every day, for what it's worth.
- [61:14]
B
Wall Street Journal is a great. This is a great news gathering, fantastic newspaper. And, And I think, like, even if you're dyed in the wool liberal, you probably read Page Six every once in a while. Like, there's a PO. Like, there is a.
- [61:26]
A
How else am I gonna find out who's replacing Anna Wintour? Hello?
- [61:30]
B
Yeah, I mean, like, the New York Post has good reporters. So I just think it's like, you know, what is the conservative ecosystem going to look in the next five years, 10 years? It's going to be a lot of, like, disparate substack stars, things like that, podcast stars. But it's also going to be things like the New York Post and Fox News, like, forever and always, in whatever form. Not forever and always. Who knows what's going to happen with, like, print media, but, like, I just think it really solidified that there will be a Fox News mouthpiece for the conservative movement.
- [62:01]
A
All right, well, I think we're going to leave things there for today for more superb analysis like this and to bring Nate Silver into the fold as well. Come join us on September 29th at the Comedy Cellar in New York City. To get Tickets, go to gdpolitics.com It'll be kind of like this, what we just did, but we will also have, like, a scotch on the rock, another loudmouth contrarian, and a crowd of rowdy audience members who will also get to ask us questions.
- [62:32]
B
Yeah.
- [62:32]
A
What more could you ask for?
- [62:33]
B
That's right. It's always people. It's always people lined up to ask Nate very specific, very specific questions.
- [62:40]
A
So in 2019, you. Okay, so. No, it'll be like, so in 2007, I was reading the baseball Prospectus, and I noticed that someone.
- [62:49]
B
That's when I check my text messages. I'm like, this is not for me.
- [62:52]
A
That's when I ask for a drink from the bar.
- [62:56]
B
Come watch us disrespect Nate, who we love dearly. Who we love dearly.
- [63:01]
A
Go to GDPolitics.com to get your tickets one more time. Claire, thank you so much for joining me today.
- [63:06]
B
Thanks for having me, Galen. It was fun.
- [63:08]
A
My name is Galen Druk. Remember to become a subscriber to this podcast@gdpolitics.com and wherever you get your podcasts. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes access to the videos for the podcast, and you can also join in our paid subscriber chat and pass along questions for us to discuss on the show. Most importantly, you ensure that we keep making this podcast. Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.