C (3:15)

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Galen. Great to be here.

B (3:17)

It's great to have you. And also here with us is Nathaniel Rakic. Nathaniel, happy Thanksgiving and congrats on the new job. Tell us about it.

A (3:26)

Thanks, Galen. Yeah. So I am the new managing editor at Vote Beat, which is a nonprofit news site that covers election administration and voting access issues. I just started a couple weeks ago and there's already been a lot of fun issues like ballots being thrown into question in a mayoral race in Michigan and of course, all of these redistricting things going on that we are going to talk about. So it's a really interesting and I think important time to be covering issues of voting and democracy.

B (3:59)

Yeah. Nathaniel, when I heard you got this job, I was very excited because I could hardly think of a more fitting job and also a job that tackles such an important thing in our politics today. So again, congrats, and we're going to be tracking all your successes there. In the meantime, let's talk about something that feels not quite so serious, but also maybe equally, if not more perplexing, which is the Marjorie Taylor Greene Mamdani mishmash of last Friday. So after more than a decade, the analysis of Trump being different in person than online and being highly influenced by in person flattery like that whole analysis has become a little bit tired. But I'm curious if there is any other way to describe what we saw between Trump and and Mamdani on Friday, because I'm just going to quote from the New York Times here. Mr. Trump had falsely claimed that Mr. Mamdani, a naturalized U.S. citizen, might be here illegally and had threatened to have him arrested. He had demonized him as a communist who would drive his beloved hometown into the gutter. But then in person, they couldn't have been more smiley. Nathaniel, do you want to take the first crack at trying to explain this?

A (5:11)

Sure. I mean, I do kind of think it is mostly as simple as that. I think that I on Trump's part. He is at his core a businessman and a schmoozer and a New Yorker, specifically a Queens man, just like Zoran Mamdani. And I think he really likes glad handing. And Mamdani is, as we all figured out, he's very telegenic, he's very charming in person. And I think that it makes total sense that two people who are both quite charismatic and are a bit of a kind of back slapping type, that they would get along famously. And I think obviously there's gonna be plenty of time for them do their, you know, anti Trump, anti Momdani shtick kind of to their respective bases. But I think that's kind of the point is that it is somewhat, you know, like, it's a bit somewhat performative for both of them. Trump is a useful foil for Mamdani, and Mamdani is a useful foil for Trump, but they both kind of understand that, like, this is the game. And when they get together they're like, yeah, we can get along. Like, it's not personal. And yeah, I think that's the simplest explanation.

B (6:13)

So you don't think this is the final word. You're still, you're still expecting quite a bit of beefing in the coming years?

A (6:20)

Oh, yeah, of course. Like, and it'll go back and forth, right. If the, the only constant here is change with, you know, certainly with Trump, I guess we'll, we'll find out with Mamdani. But, you know, he has gone back and forth on liking some people and then disliking them and then liking them again. And, and I think a lot of that probably does have to do with things like the in person interaction versus if he's standing in front of a, you know, crowd of people wearing MAGA hats and Mamdani is thousands of miles away. It's easy to, to rail against him as a, you know, communist and a jihadist. But yeah, you know, they, they will definitely butt heads. It is not era of good feelings, you know, where New York City government and the federal government get along great. But I also think that, you know, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are never going to be charming to each other again either.

C (7:02)

It sounded like from the reporting, Mandani came into that meeting ready to talk about ways they can work together rather than being at each other's throats. So, for example, on immigration, right. Like, we've seen mayors of other cities push back really hard against the Trump administration's efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. But like, what Mandani did is came into the meeting and said, hey, here's where in New York State law, we can work together to deal with this problem, to, like, help find criminals, whatever, whatever. So instead of coming in and being like, I'm going to stand against you in every possible way, Mamdani came in with a compromise. Right. So, like, there's ways that I think Mamdani approached this perhaps differently than some of the other, like, fire brands we've seen on the left, which may also have contributed to some of their getting along.

B (7:52)

Yeah, I mean, I found the dynamic interesting because it's kind of clear what the political calculations for Madani are. Trump could make his life as mayor of New York City much, much harder if he wanted to. From keeping federal funding from the city, deploying the National Guard, unrest related to ICE arrests, and I'll just say, for my part, I live in New York City. I'm surrounded by people from across the political spectrum, but plenty of anti Trump sentiment. And for the most part, people were very happy with how that meeting went and enthusiastic and somewhat relieved at seeing them get along, because I think there has been the sense that Trump could really things up for the city. But it's less clear to me what Trump's political calculations are. And you already said, Nathaniel, maybe it's just that he likes schmoozing and was charmed by Zoran Mamdani, but he isn't necessarily afraid of ruffling feathers, even in person. Like, you know, I would say Volodymyr Zelensky is one prime example of that, you know, even in the Oval Office. And so I'm curious, is there any underlying political motivation here for Trump to get along with somebody like Zoran Bondani on the issue of affordability or Even from the 4D chess perspective, change the story from the Epstein files, or from a showman's perspective, keep the television show engaging so that no matter what, at least you're still in charge of the narrative. Or like, is it really as simple as, like, charming 34 year old millennial comes into the Oval Office, shakes Trump's hand and says, hey, some of a lot of the people who voted for you in 2024 also voted for me. And I also want to make New York City safe. And there are some ways where we can work with you on ice, but otherwise I want to make everything affordable. And he said, oh, my God, I love you, and you can even call me a fascist if you want to.

A (9:49)

Yeah, I kind of think it is that simple.

C (9:52)

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what I think is interesting about this is that, like, regardless of how people in New York feel, Mamdani is not particularly popular nationally. Right.

B (10:01)

Which is why I was also confused. Yeah.

C (10:04)

Like, if you look at polls just conducted in the last month or so, there were six polls that asked about Mamdani on the national level, favorability on the national level, and he's on average underwater by six or seven points, 28, 29 to 35. Like, first of all, that's a lot more people that have an opinion of a local politician than we typically see in national polling. Right. So over 50% of Americans say they have an opinion and underwater by six or seven points. So I don't know that there's any, like, real national benefit in cozying up to Mamdani necessarily, but I tend to agree. I think, you know, if that's the way that Mamdani could lay out his agenda, there's very little in there that, I think that sounds objectionable to Trump. It's like, when you get into the specifics of the affordability question and how to address that, that's where I think you're going to end up with conflict. But when you just say, like, hey, let's make life affordable. Yeah, it's fine.

B (11:01)

Yeah. The press even tried. They were, they asked, I mean, I watched the whole half an hour press conference and they asked about, you know, city run grocery stor, and they asked Trump as a billionaire, would you feel comfortable living in Zoran Ramdani's New York City? He said absolutely. I mean, you know, almost seemed like he wanted to move back. It was, it was hard to make sense of. So I guess let's not try. We don't need to try to continue making sense of it. Unless anybody has Donald Trump's phone number and we can ask him directly.

A (11:29)

No, I mean, I would, I do think there is, it's an. It's a funny kind of, you know, political story to talk about and dissect. But I do think there is, like, something serious to talk about in terms of the relationship between the federal government. Government and individual cities, I think is very high stakes for the cities in particular. And I'm thinking, you know, I am coming to you from Washington, D.C. which is a city where, you know, the federal government has an unusual amount of power because it is, you know, we are famously not a state. And the National Guard has been deployed here now for months. And there is this real kind of split in whether our mayor, Muriel Bowser, has done a good job in terms of standing up to Trump. So the most recent poll that I could find on this was from May, which a lot of things have happened since May, so it may be out of date. But 47% of Washingtonians said that Muriel Bowser should be doing more to oppose Trump. But about 40% said she's handling things about Right. So I, and I do think that this is an issue that Muriel Bowser is up for reelection in 2026. And it's we don't know if she's running again, but I think it's going to be a big issue for her in particular is like the stakes are very high politically in terms of how well you handle Trump. And obviously Mamdani is four years away from his next election, so there's a lot of time for this relationship to But I think it will be interesting because I think it could if DC Is any kind of harbinger, because this has been the, it is the biggest issue in the mayoral race right now. I think it could be very important to Mamdani's political future how well he handles Trump.

B (12:57)

Yeah. Okay, let's move on and talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene. A lot of observers are reading into the Trump Green breakup as being emblematic of something larger that's going on within the Republican Party or the MAGA movement, specifically that this maybe more America first, more populist part of the party is growing tired of some of the seemingly less America first moves, a lot of engagement in foreign conflicts, bailout for Argentina type stuff. And also one of Greene's biggest points of criticism has been on healthcare and saying that her constituents are going to have their premiums go up because Republicans aren't taking seriously the issue of the aca, enhanced subsidies expiring and so on. Do you buy that this is emblematic of something larger going on in the party, or is this another sort of Zoran Mamdani example of a high variance president and a high variance congresswoman just having a personal relationship that is that we're obviously all watching, but begins and ends there.

A (14:05)

My instinct is that it is a unique thing, but I would actually, I would love to hear from Mary because Of course, at 50 plus 1, they one of the averages that they track is Trump approval rating and they also have crosstab data for So I would be actually very curious to hear how Trump's approval rating among Republicans has, has shifted, if at all, in recent months.

C (14:23)

It hasn't really. His approval rating among Republicans is generally in the high 80s and it has pretty much stayed that way. I think where you are seeing A softening in his approval rating is mostly among, like, probably unsurprising, the like recent entrants to the Trump coalition in 2024. So you see softening approval among voters of color, you see softening approval among younger voters and political independence. Right. So that I think is actually where the biggest movement has been, is not among people who identify as Republicans, but among people who identify with as independents. Now it's difficult to separate out like, are some of those people that identify as independents, would they also think of themselves as like maga, which is sort of a separate thing from the Republican Party in a way.

A (15:11)

Um, but his approval more the same though. So yeah.

C (15:15)

But his approval rating among independents in, in a lot of recent polls is like down in the 20s. It's like pretty bad.

B (15:21)

This is where I do think that it's important to get off of the right left axis a little bit and maybe talk about the populist establishment axis, because America first is a populist. Like MAGA is a populist movement for sure. That's at least the part of the movement that distinguishes it the most from the former Republican Party or the larger Republican Party prior to Donald Trump. And the more populous part of the Republican Party is going to be the type of voter who both thinks that there should be enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care act or is totally down with like demonizing the insurance companies and sort of really focusing on the cost of healthcare being too high and the likes also not interested in high skilled immigrants coming to the United States. And so I think that it's not emblematic of the far right or the sort of most conservative part of the Republican Party cracking up. It's more emblematic of the populist coalition cracking up, which is actually probably more just as dangerous, if not more for the Republican coalition because they now rely pretty heavily on the populist voters.

C (16:35)

I think there's a way in which what the populist wing of the party expected from a Trump administration, the second Trump administration. Very little of that has materialized. With the exception of the immigration crackdown. It seems to me that there has been very little done in punks.

A (16:53)

Yeah, the Doge stuff. I actually think he's done a lot.

B (16:57)

I don't know.

C (16:57)

I feel like.

A (16:58)

I think he's also broken, obviously on things like Epstein and stuff.

C (17:02)

Yeah. When I think about like the things that you're talking about, Caitlin, like the ACA subsidies and the healthcare stuff and all of that, I'm thinking about the ways in which there are tangible benefits to people's lives based on these actions. Right. Like I would say the populist side of, of this argument would say that like protectionist trade policy and high tariffs has a tangible benefit, but that will take time to materialize. That's possibly so, but the point is no actual tangible benefit appears to have materialized from those policies with respect to like the average person's life in a way. So I don't know, like, I, I can understand why folks from that side would be upset about those things.

A (17:45)

Yeah, I mean, I think that's all right. And you know, I think you're absolutely right, Galen, that it is definitely more dangerous for Trump if the populist right is, is softening on him. But I just, I do think that would show up in the data. I think that we have seen over and over again that the definition of Republican, the definition of conservative have changed to where people now associate Republican equals Trump Trump or conservative equals Trump. And so I think that if the, his approval rating among those voters is remaining steady, then I, I don. There is like, I'm not seeing the evidence that there is a movement among voters to turn against him the way that Greene has, but it's possible she could be kind of the canary in the coal mine. But yeah, I think I'd like to see more, more information first on Green too.

C (18:31)

What I think is really interesting about this conversation is that I think she's been actually fairly careful in her statements. With the exception of the Epstein issue, she hasn't seemed to me to be attacking Trump directly. Yeah, right. You know, I mean, she is careful to say in her statements this is the, the President that I vociferously supported and, and President we all helped to get elected, things like that. So it seems to me that while she's upset about certain policy issues, she doesn't seem really like she's trying to distance herself from Trump. Like if you asked her do you approve or disapprove of, of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, like we ask people in polls all the time, I suspect she'd say she approves.

A (19:14)

I don't know about that.

B (19:15)

I watched that 10 minute resignation video.

C (19:17)

You watched the whole thing?

B (19:20)

Yeah. Oh, for sure. Just like I watched the full half an hour Oval Office.

A (19:25)

You know, she's a self employed podcaster. He has nothing but time.

B (19:30)

Wow. Red to filth. I think she would say that she 100% supports the stated goals, the MAGA movement, America First. But I think she's kind of being quite savvy here in that Like, I don't think we've seen the last of Marjorie Taylor Greene. I don't know, maybe that's reading too much into it, but she's being quite savvy here and that so often when Trump gets criticized in public, he's getting criticized from the left for being what he says he is going to be and for doing what he says he's going to do, like cracking down on immigration and what things like that. But he rarely, rarely gets criticized for not actually living up to his populist sort of right wing goals. I think in the first Trump administration, somebody like Ann Coulter was pretty out loud about him not living up to those and not going far enough on immigration and other things that the populist right had been enchanted by during his campaign. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows what is the most popular about Trump and it is the sort of strong, strong border protection while also providing economic benefits to Americans themselves. Right. And so she focused on that a lot in that 10 minute speech. And her criticism was basically like, Trump isn't being Trumpy enough. He's lost his way. And to the point about the populism, like, yes, he obviously, he's implementing tariffs and the immigration crackdown and the like. From a populist perspective, I think, think people at least today would probably prioritize making things more affordable than sort of trade protectionism or whatever. So that's not really working out the way he would have wanted it to. But even so, I think the most, some of the most high profile images that we have of Trump are Trump with like, billionaires, Trump with leaders of foreign countries that, you know, expensive dinners and talking to, you know. Yeah. Building a ballroom. Talking, yeah. Is that what the polling shows? I mean, I'm sure it does. Like, I think that Trump is having a great time in his second term. Like, I, I, I don't know. I think he seems to be doing exactly what he wants to do and enjoying himself. And I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is like, okay, I don't think this is going in a direction that is ultimately going to be popular. And I want to shore up for me and my brand what is popular about Trumpism? Maybe it's because she wants to do something sort of later in her career. Maybe it's because she's had a, you know, a change of heart or whatever, because she's also softening on the whole partisanship thing and she's positioning herself as an outsider in the way that Trump used to position himself as an outsider, which is attacking both parties. If you listen to her, she says the political industrial complex motivates both parties to convince Americans to hate each other and they're destroying the country. And, you know, I want to be above that. So that's a long winded way of saying, like, I think she knows what she's doing and she knows that it kind of polls well. Ish.

A (22:20)

So I think this is the key. I think that Trump has still been pretty populist during this term, but like, right. Not as much as Green would like. And I think that that is the. I think the difference in the makeup of Congress, I think is also really important here. So let's say that during Trump's first term, it was obviously a much more establishment term than I think a lot of people were expecting and certainly more so than his current term. Let's say it was 80% stuff that like a bush would do and 20% Trumpy populism. But the thing is, at that time of Congress were still like basically entirely members of the old guard Republican Party. So the only voices that you were hearing criticizing him from the right were or from the new right, the populist right, were those kind of fringe, quote, unquote, people like Ann Coulter. But I think now you have had 10 years where as we covered at 5:38, the turnover in the Republican Party in Congress is such that you have a lot more Trumpy people, people who came up during the Republican Party of Trump and are true believers in the populism cause and I think Green is one of them. And I think that now maybe Trump's administration is like 60% populist, 40% establishment stuff, but that's still too establishment y for somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene. And so you are seeing those criticisms come from like inside the House now in a way that you weren't during his first term. And I think that that is the difference. And I think you're absolutely right that Greene is like 100% populist. Like she is a true believer. And I think that is the reason why she's doing this. I actually don't necessarily think that she is planning on. I mean, I'm not. Maybe she will run for something in the future. But I think it seems to me like it is genuine disillusionment with like this man and like, cause that caused her to run for office. That like, she is not a Mitch McConnell or, you know, whoever who was elected before 2016, who is in this because, you know, for like, kind of the trappings of power in Washington, she really believes in this stuff.

C (24:03)

I wonder Also, just thinking about how you, how you phrase that, Nathaniel, in terms of, like, the makeup of Congress, I wonder if this is less about a crack up in the base and more about a crack up in Congress specifically.

B (24:17)

Like, just about to ask about that.

C (24:19)

I wonder if this, that Marjorie Taylor Greene is not the canary in the coal mine for the base, but is the canary in the coal mine for the Trump administration losing their iron grip on Congress, which they have had since this second administration began. Basically, Congress has just let Trump do whatever he wants. But I wonder the extent to which members of Congress are starting to get fed up with that, especially when it is not accomplishing those populist goals that they, they set out to do when they ran for Congress in the first place.

B (24:48)

And it also just so happens to the timing just so happens to coincide with Republicans losing in a big way. And if there's anything that can focus you on, you know, the consequences of politics, it's losing elections.

A (25:02)

Trump is also at his lowest point in his approval rating of his term so far. Like, this is the weakest he has been politically so far in the second term.

B (25:11)

I was going to ask though, too, is she emblematic of something broader that's happening? So not just the Trump administration losing its iron grip on Congress, but lawmakers themselves being like, this is not for me. This is not a good job. I'm not having fun. We're not doing the things that we set out to do. I mean, she also saves some of her ire for Johnson in particular and suggesting that the House should have been open during the government shutdown and working on the people's work and we can get into this. I already know that Nathaniel takes some issue with this characterization from Axios, but they published a piece earlier in the month saying that the House lawmaker exodus is hitting a record pace because 31 representatives have announced that they are leaving so far this year. That's oftentimes suggests that lawmakers don't think they're going to win their election or in this case, they've been gerrymandered out of their seat or whatever. So it's not all just getting fed up and saying, I don't want to, you know, deal with Johnson or I don't want to deal with Trump. But is there something bigger going on there? Because I think there's been some other reporting along those lines that Mary sent us this morning.

C (26:21)

Actually, yeah, there was reporting out this morning in Punchbowl that there's a number of other House Republicans considering early resignation, not just retiring but early resignation, which is what Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing, which will leave her seat open for some period of time. And part of that is because, of course, none of these people spoke on the record, but comments from lawmakers are saying, like, they really feel like they're getting pushed around by the Trump administration. I mean, Steve Bannon has compared Trump's relationship with Congress to Vladimir Putin's relationship with the Duma in Russia. Right. Like, that's how much these, these folks feel like they aren't really getting the opportunity to do their jobs as representatives for the American people. They're being told what to do by the Trump administration. They're, they're kind of getting sick of it.

B (27:07)

Republicans don't have a very large majority, so if a couple too many resign early, they're basically saying what they're threatening to Johnson and Trump is we're going to take away your majority.

A (27:18)

Yeah. Which would be very spicy. Um, but yes, I think it is absolutely true that you see this anecdotally, you see it in the data that members of Congress are not enjoying their jobs anymore and are leaving Congress in higher numbers than they have in the past. So the last two Congresses, the 117th and 118th, have two of the three highest rates of retirement from Congress over the last this century. So I think certainly the Axios report and the reporting from Jake Sherman at Punchbowl speaks to that frustration, which I think is, is absolutely very real. I think my issue with Axios calling it a record is that the, the record in, at least in, in this century, having gone back, you know, decades and decades, is 68 members of Congress either retiring or resigning from office, which we are a long, long way away from. So it's basically like taking the score terms of retirements and extrapolating that forward, which may or may not hold. It could just be that, like people who are going to retire in the following year have moved up their retirements, for example. But I do think that there is something to the idea that in recent memory, it has never been as unfun to be in Congress as it is now. And so I think you could absolutely see some more people retiring and resigning. The data from recent years shows that. I do want to make a slight distinction though. I think what Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing is different from what most, most Republicans have been doing when they have been retiring or resigning recently, which is that I think most of those retirements and resignations have been still those old guard Republicans who still do exist. They are, I think, I would say, no longer a majority in the Republican caucus, but there's still a good chunk of them. And I think that a lot of the frustration you're hearing from people like Punchbowl is that they are frustrated with I came to Congress to legislate and we're not able to do this. And the White House is treating us like and so I think those people might be coming at it from a different place of green, although green is also obviously upset with the White House. But I don't think these people's issue necessarily is that the White House isn't being populist enough. I think it is a general frustration with the brokenness of the system, if that makes sense.

B (29:24)

Okay, well, speaking of a broken system, I don't know if that's too much editorializing, but let's talk about gerrymandering. But first, a break. Today's podcast is brought to you by you, the listeners. Without paid subscribers, GD Politics wouldn't be possible. Your support means that we can continue making an independent podcast guided by curiosity, rigor and a sense of humor. Paid subscribers also get about twice the number of episodes, access to the videos and can join the paid subscriber chat. You can also connect your personal feed to your favorite podcast player so you get every episode wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, a reminder, we now have merch, so head over to GDPolitics.com merch for that and GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber. See you there. Last Tuesday, a federal panel of judges blocked the use of Texas's new congressional map in the 2026 midterms and instead ordered the state to use the lines drawn in 2021. The new map would have likely given Republicans five more seats in the House. I'm sure folks know all about this by now and is the map that originally kicked off the mid decade redistricting post that we're now in the middle of. So, Nathaniel, I found this news cycle to be a little bit difficult to sort through in terms of who was celebrating this ruling and sort of the rationale from the court for why the new maps could not stand for the 2026 midterms. Can you just sort of explain this to anybody who might be confused like me or just hasn't been following this news cycle as closely as you? You have?

A (30:58)

Yeah. So basically the a panel of federal judges have struck down the new Texas gerrymander, which obviously was passed at Donald Trump's instigation to help get Republicans more seats in the House because they're probably going to lose the House because that's what happens in midterm elections. The judges did this based on, they, they, they found that the map had been racially gerrymandered, which is basically the only way that a congressional map can get struck down in federal court anymore. Because, as folks probably know, a few years back, the Supreme Court decided we're getting out of the partisan gerrymandering. And so basically this, this panel found that the maps had been basically drawn to, like, with, with race in mind. And part of the rationale for this is that the Department, Trump Department of Justice kind of in, I think, seeking to justify this whole spate of redistricting that we're seeing, kind of came out with this novel, neat legal theory back over the summer that was basically said that, like, coalition districts, which are like, under the Voting Rights act, when you, like, put like, black voters and Latino voters together and kind of count that as a quote unquote, minority district instead of like a black district or a Latino district, that those are, are not allowed. So basically, I think the Trump administration put Texas, the Texas map, in a bit of a bind because they had kind of laid out this kind of racial argument for why Texas old map was unconstitutional, and so they had to redraw it. But, but this has basically ended up being like the grounds on which that the map got struck down in this, this role this time around. And if they had basically just said from the beginning Texas, I mean, had just said, we're drawing this map because we want more Republicans in Congress, like pure partisan motivations, which was what the state of Texas ultimately argued that was the case. But because they had the, this kind of also this racial justification floating out in the ether, I think it made a problem for them. But if they had just been like, partisanship all the way, baby, then the map would have been fine, probably because again, and partisan gerrymanders are perfectly legal under federal law. But as a result, the map was put on hold. It has since been the current state of this, as we record here on Monday, November 24, is that the Samuel Alito has temporarily put the map, The Jerry, the 2025 gerrymander back in place while the Supreme Court decides whether to stay the lower court order, while they kind of debate the merits of the case. And so we are expecting kind of a word from the court as a whole, rather than just Samuel Alito, which will probably be the, the decis in terms of whether this map is used in the 2026 midterms.

B (33:29)

Any interest in reading the Tea leaves on how the Supreme Court might handle this.

A (33:33)

So in general, I think the safer assumption is to say that the Supreme Court will side with, you know, the conservative side in an argument or the Republican side of the argument, if you like. I think that, you know, just given the ideological makeup of the court. And so my guess would be that they will probably put the 2025 gerrymander back on the books while they kind of adjudicate the case. But, but the Supreme Court can be unpredictable. I think, like most famously in the VRA case a couple years ago over Alabama's congressional maps, they ended up going away that I was personally not expecting, which was to say that, yes, Alabama did need to draw more majority opportunity districts, so there's always room for a surprise. But I think that if I had to guess, I would say that the Texas gerrymander will be put back into place.

C (34:19)

Does this potentially get rendered moot by the Louisiana case?

B (34:22)

Case?

A (34:23)

Well, right now we're talking about 2026, I think. And, but I think yes, the, the broader question of whether, you know, like, this map is racially gerrymandered is going to collide. I think basically all the cases that are out there on the federal level are going to end up colliding with this case out of Louisiana, Calais, that is going to essentially decide whether the Voting Rights act still has teeth or not. And as people again, probably know, that case is probably going to be. The Supreme Court's going to issue a decision in that case sometime next year.

B (34:52)

Year. Okay. Well, speaking of the near term, where does the gerrymandering spat conflict whatever stand right now in terms of how many seats both parties have netted or lost and what we can expect from the remaining states that are still in play.

A (35:13)

Right. So right now, six states have redistricted for 2026 so far. And it's kind of convenient from kind of thinking about it from a mental perspective, because a lot of these states have kind of like cancelled each other. So you have Texas, which is adding like between three to five seats for Republicans. There are basically like three auto flips and then two seats that makes that are made a little bit easier for Republicans to flip in Texas. And then that's basically canceled out by California because California, I think probably on purpose drew three more seats that would basically be auto flips for Democrats and then made two more seats kind of easier for Democrats to flip. So you can call that a wash. Those two, obviously what. Depending on what happens with the Texas map, that makes a big difference. But call that A wash for now. Then you have Missouri on one side, which was drawn by Republicans to eliminate one Democratic seat and turn it into again one Republican auto flip. And on the Democratic side, Utah, which was a court ordered redistricting, turned one solid Republican seat into one solid Democratic seat. So essentially, again, in that case, Utah and Missouri basically cancel each other out. Then you are left with North Carolina and Ohio. And in North Carolina and Ohio, the changes were a little more subtle. So in North Carolina, they took one district, district, the first District, and made it like a fair amount more Republican, but not impossible for a Democrat to win. And in Ohio they made two districts a bit more Republican but not impossible for Democrats to win, but then one district more Democratic but also not impossible for Republicans to win. So I would say the overall scoreboard right now is that there are three more district, three districts where Republicans are in better shape than they would have been without any of these redraws, and one district district where Democrats are in better shape than they would have been. But in neither case, none of those four seats, I think are quote unquote auto flips the way that you see in like Texas and Missouri and California and stuff. So right now it's kind of looking like a wash, a bit of an advantage for Republicans, but really nothing I think that you can say, you know, if Democrats win their House or if Republicans win the House. I don't think you can say that redistricting made a difference at this juncture. I guess depending on whether if the, if the majority literally comes down to North Carolina's first District, you know, maybe, you know, I'd be singing a different tune. But yeah, I think for the most part it has, it has come out even with basically the only casualty being competitive districts, which is really a shame for obviously, you know, people's ability to choose their representatives.

B (37:33)

It sounds like Kansas has been taken off the board. Republicans there don't want to gerrymander Indiana as well. On the Democratic side, it seems like Maryland does not want to gerrymander, but Virginia is going down that path. They're looking to maybe make two to three seats more Democratic. We've covered that on this podcast already. It sounds like the big wild card remaining is Florida. Do we have any greater sense of what Republicans may try to do there to enhance their chances?

A (38:06)

No, they scheduled a hearing for December 4th, I believe, so we may know more at that point, but yeah, exactly. I think Florida and Virginia are the two wild cards. We don't know what exactly those maps are going to look like if they do go ahead with them, which I think they probably will. Virginia should be noted would require a, like a ballot measure. Like in California. The voters would have to sign off on that because they also have a commission that would need to be overridden in this process. But, yeah, those are the two states that have more than one seat still at stake.

B (38:36)

Okay, Mary, I want to bring you in here because in the process of reading over the latest redistricting news, I saw a poll that I was like, I think this is going to get Mary's goat.

C (38:46)

You know me so well.

B (38:48)

And I'll just quote from the write up in Politico. They said a new Politico poll shows both Democrats and Republicans support redrawing congressional districts to give their side a boost in the midterms. And there is no apparent appetite for a ceasefire in the gerrymandering wars. Most voters on the left and right favor using partisan redistricting not just to level the playing field, but as a weapon to help them win. And this is in the context of when we've previously talked about redistricting or gerrymandering on this podcast, we usually say it's not popular. Americans don't want politicians to gerrymander. Obviously, this month we saw California Democrats or Californians more broadly, vote to gerrymander the state. So that's one piece of evidence in favor of this kind of a poll. But, Mary, what did you make of this survey? And would you say, yeah, this, this new evidence kind of trumps the old evidence we have of Americans not wanting politicians to gerrymander?

C (39:48)

No, I would not. So the first thing I want to say about this survey is the very first question they asked was about how voters prefer that congressional lines or political maps, excuse me, be drawn. Not just Congress, but also state legislatures are impacted by this. They gave three options, which I thought was very weird because these are not usually the. They. They don't describe the ways in which these lines are typically drawn. But the three options they provided were to have maps drawn through an independent, politically neutral process. So you can think of like an independent redistricting committee commission to have them drawn by state legislators, but approved by voters. I'm not aware. Maybe Nathaniel knows. Are there any states that do that?

A (40:30)

Nope.

C (40:31)

Okay, so that's a weird thing to throw in there.

A (40:34)

I mean, it's obviously that's kind of what California did. I mean, it is what California did this time, but that is not the regular way that it's supposed to happen.

C (40:41)

And then the third option was to have maps Drawn by state legislatures without approval by voters. Which is the kind of thing you're seeing in these, in these, most of these instances of, of gerrymandering this mid decade redistricting, with the exception of California, only 7% of respondents said they wanted the maps to be drawn by state legislatures without approval by voters. So like the very first question in this poll basically undermines anything else that they headlined from this poll.

B (41:06)

So you're giving this a. You're giving this a bad data is where I, I think I imagine this.

C (41:11)

Yeah, I want to also highlight one other thing here. So the first, they framed this question for both democrats and republicans. I'll read the democratic version of the question they asked. Democrats have proposed redrawing congressional districts in blue states to gain them more seats in the u. S. House of representatives to match and neutralize republicans doing the same in red states. Would you support or oppose this? Now with that framing of using this redistricting as a mechanism to neutralize the other party's actions. Wide support 68 to 6among Democrats, 57 to 9 with the corresponding question asked with the parties reversed among republicans. Well, first, it's not really democrats and republicans they're asking. They split people based on how they'd plan to vote in the midterms. So people who intend to vote for democrats versus people who intend to vote for republicans in the midterms, which is very weird. Not that I think it makes much of a difference anyway. So that's the first question they asked and that makes a lot of sense to me that people that, that co partisans would be like, yes, I support my co partisans. Like neutralizing the bad behavior of others.

B (42:19)

Right. Like the starting point is you are an aggrieved party here.

C (42:23)

Correct. That question was followed up by another question which is the one that got all of the headlines where they asked now imagine the democrats propose redrawing congressional districts in blue states to not only offset republican gerrymanders first flag but gain an advantage in the midterms over them. Would you support or oppose this? Okay, this second question first they've primed their respondents based on the series of preceding questions to be like yes, this redistricting is good. And in this second question they also mentioned that this is being done to offset the behavior of the other party. These questions were written to get these responses. I really think that this is counter to all the other evidence we have on this from other polls. I think that the way that this poll was conducted, like you can see why, yes, copartisans would support Neutralizing the other party. And once you've primed them through those few first few questions and then ask them a question that's slightly more explosive that you can write a good headline around, you get the answers that you want.

B (43:30)

All right, that's my fault. Any thoughts on that? Are you also giving us a bad data?

A (43:36)

Yeah, I think that voters can probably can hold two, especially partisans can hold two thoughts in their head at the, at the same time, which are that one, gerrymandering is bad and that, you know, voters or politicians shouldn't choose their voters. But also at the same time that they. If as long as gerrymandering is a thing. Yeah, my partisan. Do it.

B (43:56)

Yeah. Okay, let's wrap up by talking about Thanksgiving. After all, it is Thanksgiving week. So a new national tradition was brought to my attention by the very hip Wall Street Journal. So let me read for you this lifestyle section title.

A (44:17)

And the Wall Street Journal is a lifestyle section. All right.

B (44:20)

It's Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Heard of it?

A (44:23)

Yeah.

B (44:23)

Um, okay. This year's Thanksgiving surprise, half of the guests are stoned. What started as a secret trip to smoke pot before dinner has mushroomed into a full blown commercial holiday. Behold the cousin walk. They go on to write. What started as a subversive activity among dedicated stoners has mushroomed into a full blown tradition. Like every other holiday, it's gone commercial. With marijuana legal for medicinal use in 40 states and recreational use in more than half of the those, the industry is seizing on the popularity of the pre turkey toque this year. Don't be surprised if grandma gets a little loopy after toasting with a cannabis infused beverage in her wine glass. Or your aunt brings two varieties of stuffing, one made with pot leased rosemary oil, one without. In a way, wasn't this inevitable for a holiday that's always been all about the munchies? Question mark? Okay.

C (45:13)

Oh, geez.

B (45:15)

So I was like, all right, I'm, I'm reading this. I'm also so, you know, I'm on all of the sort of press release lists for Gallup and Pew and all of those things. And I'm thinking this is interesting that this is the style section piece right now, because I could have sworn I just saw data from Gallup suggesting that Americans are turning against marijuana. So I mean, we can talk about this cousin walk specifically if we like here. But to me, I thought maybe, you know, maybe these two things are related. Marijuana has become so prevalent and so now folks are turning against it. I'm curious what your overall Sort of reading is maybe. Mary, you can, you can start with the polling where American acceptance of marijuana stands today.

C (46:04)

Yeah, I mean, you are right that the Gallup polling has shown some decline in support for, for legalizing marijuana. But I don't know that it's like that much. Right. So support hit a high. No, positive. In 2023 at 70% of Americans saying that they supported legalizing marijuana. In Gallups polling, the most recent survey in 2025 has support down to 64%. So first of all, from 70 down to 64 isn't really that huge of a decline. Especially when you consider that like at the beginning of this century Support was at 31% in their polling. So like we're still double the percentage of Americans that say they support legalizing marijuana on the national level in their surveys in this century. But also like support had been hovering around 68% for, since 2020. So like, yeah, it, it went up a little to hit that peak of 70 in, in 2023. But like from 68, 68 now down to 64, like a 4 point, that's like margin of error stuff.

B (47:15)

So I mean, what they do find though is that almost all of the, there's a little bit of change amongst independents, but that it's almost all amongst Republicans. So that in 2023, Republicans hit a high of 55%, an outright majority of Republicans supporting legal marijuana. And that's dropped to 40%. Which obviously there are larger margins of error around, you know, smaller groups within the cross tabs. But I have to think that something is actually happening there that's more just noise. You know, I, I want to get everyone's taken a second. But this takes me back to when we had a conversation one time about unions and how unions literally just gonna say that. Oh really? How unions have become historically popular today, like unions, I mean, you see this, they become a bipartisan issue. Everyone supports unions, everyone talks about unions, whatever. It's like 70% of Americans support unions. And oh, this happens to be happening at a time when unions have never been less powerful. Powerful. Right. So few Americans take part in unions. So few Americans would report their lives as disrupted by a strike or something like that, or having to pay union dues that they don't want to pay. So whatever the politics of unions aside, we don't have to get into that today. That when something becomes either so sort of like absent in American life, it's easy to say, oh yeah, I support this or whatever. But then once it becomes so present in American life, You're going to get some sort of natural, natural backlash, in a sense.

C (48:38)

Basic thermostatic stuff.

B (48:41)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

C (48:42)

But why would the thermostatic effect only apply to Republicans?

B (48:48)

Well, maybe it's because this is of a piece with sort of reports of derelict cities, society out of control, things that, you know, messages that get delivered to Republicans on a more regular basis. I mean, I want to read one more thing. This is from Gallup. Not this year, but last year. They wrote, Americans views of the effects of marijuana have worsened over the past two years as slim majorities now say it negatively impacts both society as a whole, 54% and most people who use it, 51%. This contrasts with Gallup's findings from 2022, when the public was about evenly divided in its assessments for marijuana's effect on society. And more likely to say the effect on most use users was positive rather than negative, 45%. Again, not massive changes. But I think that now that weed is more available and more visible in public life, in society, that some people who were prone, who were sort of like, primed to be offended by its visibility or the things that it does in public, are now feeling that and reacting accordingly. I don't now.

A (49:57)

Yeah, I think that that is plausible. I think the other thing I was just going to suggest is that it's just part of the general conservative vibe shift that we've seen in 2025. You know, gay marriage also is something that Republicans had been getting, had been warming to over the past several years and couple of decades and before kind of that has taken a dip down as well. And so I think, I think we may just obviously be in a time, you know, with Trump's election and, you know, Republicans being like, all right, well, like, you know, it's okay to, you know, be against these things again, but. Yeah, but I think, you know, there are several possible explanations.

C (50:32)

Are you saying that this was because of woke?

A (50:35)

Yeah, kind of. I think, like, yeah, basically the general sense that everybody agreed that, like, oh, it's fine to be anti woke now, I think could contribute to something like this and I think would explain probably better than the thermostatic explanation why you see it being mostly among Republicans.

C (50:52)

I tend to agree with that. Like, I had had some notes that, like, we hit the, the peak here of like, across the board at, like, during the Biden presidency. At peak woke. I know I sound ridiculous, but I actually mean it.

B (51:07)

Yeah, well, but the other thing is that's weird about all of this is wasn't Trump on Theo Vaughn's podcast, talking about cocaine with Theo Vaughn. Like, yes, maybe thermostatic, probably opinion or anti woke or whatever, whatever. But in a way, anti marijuana reminds me of conservative Wokeism of the first decade of the 21st century. Right. Like everything is bad. No, you shouldn't do that. The Republican Party is the scoldy party. This is well before the Democratic Party becomes the scoldy party. And, you know, maybe we are turning a corner and what will follow Trump will be a scoldy Republican Party. And obviously the Republican Party is censoring all kinds of things and trying to use the federal government to get certain outcomes that it wants and blah, blah, blah, blah. But in terms of having a.

A (51:52)

Generally about different things.

B (51:53)

But yeah, having a general. It just sort of. Who has the enough cultural cachet to have their scold mean anything.

C (52:01)

Yeah, I mean, and like, yes, Trump was on a podcast talking about cocaine, but if you go back to that conversation, he's talking about how he has not used cocaine, but he's talking to.

B (52:11)

A podcaster who seems to know, know, know about cocaine. Right. Like, it's kind of like Bush going on a podcast and being like, I don't smoke, but, like, you know, but I'm doing an interview with Barbara Walters, and Barbara Walters smokes weed all the time.

C (52:22)

Like, I don't know, I just, I just think it's different to be like, I want to know about this thing versus, like, I support this thing.

A (52:30)

You know, I kind of the. The new. One of the pieces of news that I, you know, thought was kind of amusing over the weekend was when Transportation Secretary Sean Dunn put together a video that was like, making air travel fun again. Starts with, you dress up for your flights. The golden age of air travel back in the 50s and 60s, more people should dress up for the flights. And I kind of feel like it's part of that. The whole Republican yearning for the 50s and 60s when everybody was clean cut and stuff like that, when everyone's getting.

B (53:04)

Skinny again, Ozempa, you know, hashtag return.

A (53:08)

It's just like Mad Men all out there. Yeah, but I don't know. But I do kind of think that, like, that is part of this. Again, the conservative vibe shift, for lack of a better term, is this returning to this golden age of America when people dressed up on airplanes and didn't smoke pot.

B (53:28)

And Timothee Chalamet just did an interview where he said the reason that humans are here on Earth is to procreate and, and that he can't imagine bragging about not wanting or having children. Um, so, you know, as. As silly as it may sound, vibe shifts are real. Like, cult culture does exist. Society has impact on its members.

A (53:48)

Like, and I actually think that these polls are the data to back up the vibe shifts.

B (53:54)

Yeah. Yeah. All right, well then I like that analysis. Okay. And with that, enjoy your Thanksgiving cousin walk, because you may not have it much longer.

C (54:05)

Folks, I know you're not, you're not trying to tell me to break the state and local laws where I live.

B (54:12)

Well, I say this from New York state is Pennsylvania. Is it still illegal in Pennsylvania?

C (54:17)

Yes.

B (54:18)

Oh, wow. I didn't know that. You know, what do I know?

C (54:21)

John Fetterman's biggest issue as a lieutenant.

B (54:24)

Governor was that he wanted or he didn't to want want it.

C (54:27)

He wanted to legalize weed. It was like one of the big issues that Federman ran on in his various statewide campaign. Anyway, Pennsylvania politics. How do I always end up talking about Pennsylvania politics, Galen?

B (54:37)

Oh, I don't know. I have no idea how that could happen. But we love it. Anyway, Nathaniel, Mary, thank you so much for joining me today.

C (54:44)

Thanks, Galen.

A (54:45)

Always a pleasure. Happy Thanksgiving, Galen.

B (54:46)

Happy Thanksgiving. And I should say with that, we are going to be off for Thanksgiving. So I don't know, listen to this episode twice or just go on your cousin walk and watch spongebob and eat turkey instead. My name is Galen Druke. 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 and access to the video for the podcast. You can also join our paid subscriber chat and pass along questions for us to discuss on the show. Also, be a friend of the POD and go give us a five star rating wherever you listen to podcasts, podcast or tell a friend about us. Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.