Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:00]
Galen Druke
Okay, a couple things. There's some weird things going on. It's starting to get late summer vibes, which is Justin Trudeau and Katy Perry.
- [00:09]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Allegedly. Allegedly. So says tmz.
- [00:11]
Galen Druke
Allegedly. Okay. And then in the process of learning about this, I learned that Justin Trudeau's father. I don't know his first name, whatever. The other Trudeau, Prime Minister Pierre. Pierre dated Barbra Streisand.
- [00:28]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Wow.
- [00:28]
Galen Druke
For like a year.
- [00:29]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Huh.
- [00:29]
Galen Druke
Did you know that?
- [00:31]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I did not. You know, they're very glamorous up there because, you know, the other the conspiracy theory about how Justin Trudeau is actually not Pierre Trudeau's child.
- [00:40]
Galen Druke
He's Barbara's child.
- [00:43]
Jacob Hrabashkin
No, he's Fidel Castro's child.
- [00:56]
Galen Druke
Hello and welcome to the GD Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druke. We've got lots of election updates for you today. First, it's that time of the cycle when potential candidates are increasingly making moves. As you probably heard, Kamala Harris is not running for governor of California, which has opened up a crowded primary there. Longtime New York Congressman Jerry Nadler recently got a primary challenge from a 26 year old who's making Nadler's age a prime issue. The blockbuster Texas Senate primary is continuing to heat up on both sides. And of course, the Texas legislature has released its newly gerrymandered maps with the goal of adding five seats to Republicans congressional numbers in what will likely be a tough midterm for the party. Oh, and lest we Forget, we are three months away from Election Day 2025, which will feature statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia. So today we're going to talk about all of that, and we'll focus in particular on the Senate. Inside Elections just released its overview for the Senate in 2026. And lucky for us, our guest today is the deputy editor of Inside Elections, Jacob Hrabashkin. Welcome to the podcast, Jacob.
- [02:08]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Thank you so much, Galen.
- [02:10]
Galen Druke
So Kamala Harris just announced that she is not running for governor of California. And folks were parsing her statement for any indication of whether she'll run for President in. In 2028, which probably we won't be able to learn from this statement alone, but I want to read an excerpt of it and try to get your thoughts. So she writes. I have extraordinary admiration and respect for those who dedicate their lives to public service, service to their communities and to our nation. At the same time, we must recognize that our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis. As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new met methods and fresh thinking. Committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook. For now, my leadership and public service will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans. In the United States of America, power must lie with the people and we the people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, I will remain in that fight is how she ends it. So I have heard people being like, on one hand, this means she's definitely running in 2028, just because logistically, she's probably not done with her political career. And if she's not running for governor of California, that means she's running for president. At the same time, she kind of seems to suggest at certain places, like, elected politics is not the only way to enact change in the country. And, you know, I'm going to focus on other stuff right now. Do you have a take on this, Jacob?
- [03:50]
Jacob Hrabashkin
She is obviously, she's the most prominent Democrat in the country. In some ways, she's the most recent presidential nominee. She begins as the polling frontrunner because she is so well known in the very, very early 2028 polls. And she's got a base of support and she's got a fundraising list that far outpaces any other Democrat in the country. We know all of these things. Right. So you have to treat her as a legitimate and, and serious contender and, and potential candidate in the 2028 primary. At the same time, we've gone a very long time since the loser of a presidential election on the Democratic side has gone.
- [04:33]
Galen Druke
I was gonna say wait again, hold on. We haven't got that long.
- [04:36]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Obviously, yeah, Trump has skewed all our perceptions on this thing, and he just keeps running for president. But historically, that's, that's not necessarily what we see. Right? I mean, Hillary Clinton didn't run. Mitt Romney didn't run in 2016. John McCain didn't run in 2012. John Kerry didn't run in 2008. Al Gore didn't run in 2004. Bob Dole didn't run in 2000. Right. Like, typically when people lose a presidential election as the nominee, they're not actually going to come back four years later and put themselves through that whole process again. So ultimately, like, we won't know until we know. I think that her not running for governor of California probably makes it more likely that she runs for president. I Think it keeps her options more open than if she were to spend the next two years running for governor and then have to be governor while also immediately turning around to run for president. Right. She gets a little bit more flexibility on a smaller scale. I think it's exactly what we saw happen with Pete in that Michigan Senate race. I mean, he was talking very seriously about running for Senate in Michigan. He was clearly the choice of some senior Democrats. Senator Debbie Stabenow wanted him to run and he turned it down. And I read that and I think a lot of people, people read that as a pretty clear sign that his focus is on 2028. He's not interested in running in a Senate race he may not win to then turn around and immediately start running for president.
- [06:02]
Galen Druke
Yeah, I took her statement about American institutions too often failing the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis two different ways. And this is again, not going to tell people anything is one like, I'm motivated to work outside of electoral politics. Like, don't be surprised if you see me just sort of cashing in and making off of my experience, because that's one of the ways that she can sort of work outside of elected politics. The other thing I heard in that was like, I understand that you're pissed off at the establishment and you currently see me as the establishment standard bearer. I'm ready to, when I run my next campaign, be more of a populist. So take that for what you will. I don't think we have to parse this anymore. Like you said, we'll figure out soon enough. Let's move on to some other recent announcements. We did an overview of House races together a couple months ago, and at the time it looked like threats of intraparty primary challenges were more bark than bite. That is to say, Democrats outside of Congress challenging Congressional Democrats or Republicans challenging Congressional Republicans are more of those kinds of challenges materializing now.
- [07:14]
Jacob Hrabashkin
We're definitely seeing more House Democrats face primary challenges. I mean, that, that's a fact. And, and I think the interesting element here is that unlike in 2018 and 2020, and even 20 challenges were primarily ideological based. Right. You remember AOC running against Joe Crawley on an ideological basis and Cori Bush and Lacy Clay and Ayanna Pressley and Mike Capuano. Those were all progressive versus more moderate or centrist primaries. These days it is about age. And the Democrats who are most vulnerable in primaries are Democrats who are on the older side who have been in Congress for a while and who have to prove that they're up to the task of fighting Trump, because that is what democr primary voters want. They want somebody who's going to fight Trump. And if they don't think that you are either willing or able because of your age to do that, they may well give you an eviction notice. And so that's the, that's the thing that I'm looking for. And I think that's what's going to differentiate the successful primary challenges, because I'm sure there will be some from some of the unsuccessful ones, which there will be many, many more of.
- [08:24]
Galen Druke
I mentioned Jerry Nadler, who is my own congressman. He's getting primaried by Liam Elkind, whose whole announcement was about how Democrats are so old that they are dying on the job. I think there was news footage that said something along the lines of like three. What was it? Three Democrats died within a couple months on the job. Okay. So he cites that. And there's not a lot of policy. There's sort of, you know, make things affordable, fight Trump, whatever. But you can't tell from that ad if he's running to the left or to the right of Jerry Nadler. And if you dig a little bit deeper, it seems like he's not a progressive style candidate and may even be a little bit more moderate than Jerry Nadler, who's continued to shift to the left, I think out of fear of a progressive, because in the past he's gotten progressive challengers. And so out of fear of vulnerability from his left flank, he has moved left. This is really not about that. And it's interesting that you noted this being different from 2018 and 2020. It's sort of like fighting the last battle. Right. In 2016, the message to the Democratic Party was you didn't have enough of an economic message or you didn't have enough of a bold vision. And that's why you lost to Donald Trump. Like Hillary Clinton, her head wasn't campaigning in the right place. And now it was just like Joe Biden was too old for the job. And so now we're seeing this kind of divide within the Democratic primaries.
- [09:55]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think, you know, it'll be very interesting to see whether that's a successful strategy. I mean, it is true. Three Democrats have died in office this year, all on the older side, all members who were sick and who. Several. Most of whom I think potentially all three of whom knew that they were sick when they ran for reelection last year. Zooming out, over the last three years, eight Democrats in Congress have died of natural causes, zero Republicans have died of natural causes over the same same time period. So Democrats are clearly feeling the sting of their aging leadership in Congress because they're losing narrow votes, they're losing members, and that is only becoming more and more of an issue at the same time. I think this is going to be a really fascinating primary because Jerry Nadler is no shrinking violet. He's not a backbench member. He was the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He oversaw the first impeachment of Trump.
- [10:55]
Galen Druke
He is famously was kind of sidelined there in favor of Adam Schiff because I think Nancy Pelosi saw him as like too much of a partisan hack to be viewed or like maybe too old even to be taken seriously by the median American.
- [11:12]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Sure. And I think that if Jerry Nadler were running in a, in a median American race, this, this would be a different story. But he's running on the Upper west side now on the Upper east side, too. Which, you know, if, if there's any, if there's any reason why he might lose, it's because that still not his home territory. Redistricting really shifted the center of gravity of the district. But Jerry Nadler, like you said, he has become more progressive as he's faced these primary challenges in the past. He has made a name being very aggressively anti Trump. Two notable things, right, he put a beat down on his own colleague Carolyn Maloney when he faced her in a member versus member primary, despite the fact that the new district was much more of her territory than his territory. Also, he was one of the first major Democrats to endorse Zoran Mamdani after he won the Democratic primary a couple of weeks ago, which is something that plenty of New York members of Congress have yet to do. And so I don't think that Nadler is perhaps as vulnerable as some of his other colleagues. And this is setting aside the fact that he's got very, very deep political roots. And in, in what is a very engaged congressional district, I think part of what you can see happen in some of these districts is a young fresh face is able to change the electorate, pull in people who aren't otherwise engaged. I would wager that New York's Upper west side is the most, the 12th district is the most politically engaged or one of the most politically engaged congressional districts in the whole country. These are people who live and breathe this kind of stuff. And so we'll see how that happens. It's going to get a ton of attention because it's, it's New York. And so, you know, the press is going to cover it. I would put another race on your radar though, which I think is going to be potentially more compelling in the Democratic primary. And that's in Connecticut's first Congressional District. John Larson, who is an older member of the Democratic Party. He notably had a freeze up on the House floor or during a press conference recently where he just kind of stopped speaking. And I think they later said he took the wrong medication. But it was kind of a McConnell esque moment that he, he faced. He got a primary challenger from a guy named Luke Bronin. He's the mayor of Hartford and he raised half a million dollars in his first like 24 hours in the race or first week in the race, which is a ton of money and I think is more money than John Larson's raised all year. So that I think has more of the ingredients for a potential upset. You've got a strong, well known challenger who already has a political base who has shown a capability to fundraise against an older, less prominent member Congress who has faced a notable health issue recently and will have to work to convince voters that he's still up for the job.
- [14:09]
Galen Druke
And where does the challenger there fall on the political spectrum? Because I think the interesting piece of the primary in New York's 12th congressional district, and thank you for calling me out for being a New York media elite who is biased and focusing attention on his own congressional district. I agree. But the interesting thing there is that some people have been saying, oh, Zoran Mamdani was popular because he's young and charismatic, but it's not necessarily about socialism. Zoran Mamdani was already an elected member of the New York State Assembly. Liam Elkind has no experience doing electoral politics and is only 26 years old. So I don't know if that's the best comparison, but it will be a test of can somebody who's more sort of standard fare Democrat, moderate, ish, but who is young and charismatic be a viable challenge as well? What do those sort of lines look like in Connecticut?
- [14:59]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, I mean, I think it still remains to be seen. Bronin's, you know, and I should be clear, he's the former mayor of Hartford. He left office the end of last year. I think he's got kind of a normie Democratic background. He was a naval intelligence officer. He worked for the Obama administration. He worked for the administration of Dan Malloy, the governor, former governor of Connecticut. I don't think that he is going out of his way to strike an ideological contrast with Larson, at least at this point. I think he's been very explicit that 28 years is enough time in Congress for a member and making that generational contrast the centerpiece of his campaign, which, again, is only about a couple days old.
- [15:41]
Galen Druke
Serious question here, although maybe it's like a question, but are these jobs really that great? Why is everyone holding on to their job in Congress until they die? It doesn't. I mean, look, I'm pretty cynical about this political stuff, so I'm biased. But from the outside looking in, it doesn't look like a very nice job.
- [16:02]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, I mean, you'd have to ask members of Congress, former members of Congress. I think that there is a lot that those jobs have that appeals to people. I mean, I think people like the sense of purpose. They like the trappings that they get. They get a driver, they get, you know, to go to fancy dinners. They get all sorts of staff.
- [16:26]
Galen Druke
They get a staff.
- [16:27]
Jacob Hrabashkin
They get a staff. They get status. They get attention. Right. I think that's.
- [16:31]
Galen Druke
They get talked about on important podcasts like GD Politics.
- [16:35]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Exactly, exactly. And that matters a lot to people. And I think that's the cynical take. I think the more earnest take is that to get into electoral politics to begin with, you really do have to believe that you, specifically you, Galen Drook, are the answer to our nation's problems. And if you don't do won't get done. And so if you really convince yourself that you have to run, that you are the answer, it's very hard to let that go because it's not like the nation's problems have been solved. So I think that there's an earnest view of it. There's a cynical view of it. And, you know, I think when this becomes people's lives, it's very hard to give up something that defines you as a. As a person. It's the reason why people don't ret from plenty of other careers as well, until they're. They're forced to.
- [17:28]
Galen Druke
All right, well, that's why I'll be doing this until I'm at least 85 years old. While we're talking about the House, though, the Texas legislature released its proposed new maps last week with the goal of making five seats that are currently held by Democrats Republican friendly. I last talked about this with Nathaniel Rakic, and he suggested that that five seats would be a stretch for Texas Republicans. They might be making some Republicans lives more difficult by adding too many Democrats to their districts. This is all, you know, the definition of gerrymandering. But what do you make of these Newly proposed maps. Is it a sort of slam dunk that Republicans will pick up five seats if they pass these?
- [18:11]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Well, this shows you should never trust Nathaniel Rakic. No, look, I think that. And in six months, when he listens to this podcast, he'll let me know how he feels about that. I think that it was a reasonable concern heading into this process that Republicans might draw themselves into a dummy mander. But that was not founded out. Right. So one thing that this new map does very well is protect all of the current Republican seats. But that said, it doesn't guarantee five flips either. I think that's the trade off that they made. So there are a couple of seats on the newly drawn map, which again, is subject to change and I'm sure.
- [18:57]
Galen Druke
Subject to lawsuits as well. Sure.
- [19:00]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Though the Texas judiciary at this point has been very hesitant to upend maps, there's still an ongoing lawsuit about the map that they've been using for the last two cycles that is winding its way through the judiciary at the moment.
- [19:14]
Galen Druke
Wait, so just to pause for a second, we are pretty sure here that if Texas wants new maps, they will get new maps that will be enacted for 2026. Is that what you're saying?
- [19:23]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, Yeah. I think on a basic level, you know, the legislature has the power to do this, and I'm skeptical that any sort of litigation would be successful enough, quickly enough to prevent implementation ahead of 2026. It's not out of the question. Right. I mean, you can't really predict what the courts are going to do. They could pass this map, it could be ch. Challenged, and it could make its way up to the Supreme Court. And by then the court might say, no, you've got to use the current maps until we resolve these questions. But I guess I'm skeptical that that would be the case. I think the most likely outcome is that they pass a new map and it gets used.
- [20:03]
Galen Druke
How are other states responding if it seems likely that this will actually happen? Does it seem likely that, like, Missouri and Ohio will also sort of enact more Republican favorable maps and that California and New York will respond by gerrymandering in kind?
- [20:20]
Jacob Hrabashkin
So Ohio has to draw new maps under their law. They're. They're already down that process. They're required to do that. And those maps will almost certainly be more Republican friendly than the current maps, which, again, are already pretty Republican friendly. Same, same picture as Texas. Missouri, I think, is an interesting case. Just because they're one of these states. One of the only states, I believe, that still has A legislative filibuster in their state Senate. And the Democrats have been very aggressive using that to prevent all sorts of Republican action, including on some redistricting measures. And so I'm not sure that the Missouri Republicans are going to blow up their entire Senate for the purpose of trying to oust Emmanuel Cleaver from his Kansas City area district. They might if they come under enough pressure, but I think there's very little appetite there. Indiana is another one where it really does seem like there's not a lot of appetite to go after the map. You know, on the Democratic side, California and New York are in a more difficult position because they have enacted laws over the course of the last decade and a half to guide the redistricting process. I mean, California has an independent redistricting commission. Technically, the legislature doesn't actually have the power to redraw the maps. So if they want to redraw the maps, they have to change the law, and they have to do it by a statewide referendum. California is a big state. Those things cost a lot of money. We're talking nine figures to get voter approval on a new map. So it's possible it faces significant hurdles in a way that Texas doesn't. New York is similarly. There are all sorts of rules up there that prevented the last Democratic gerrymander from being implemented. And I think it's very likely that they aren't able to actually get something in place in 2026 up there to. To counteract what's going on in Texas.
- [22:14]
Galen Druke
I've covered gerrymandering a lot in my career. Folks who were following FiveThirtyEight back in 2017 and 2018 might remember. I even did a whole gerrymandering project where I went around the country and looked at the effects of gerrymandering in different states and efforts that folks were trying to enact to stem gerrymandering. And this is not the first time that this is happening mid cycle. This has happened before and in Texas specifically. But seem like we are entering a new era of rat, as they call it. Because if this is the standard right, then once New York and California eventually change their laws back so that there's no longer these kinds of regulations in place to encourage nonpartisan map drawing. Like what? What are the incentives not to do this? Just like every two years.
- [23:04]
Jacob Hrabashkin
There are none. It's difficult. It costs money and political capital. But if you can get past that, then I think we're in a brave new world. I think that states are gonna really try and fine tune their gerrymanders. You know, part of, part of what happens in redistricting is you.
- [23:21]
Galen Druke
All right. And that's the end of today's preview. Head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and hear the full episode. We got into a lot more election updates. In the full episode. We talked about the elections that are actually just a few months away in New Jersey and Virginia. We also talked about the fiery Senate primaries in Texas and Iowa and, well, actually in all of the Senate battleground states for that matter. We even listened to Lara Trump's rendition of Tom Petty's I Won't Back Down. I'm serious. We actually listened to it on the podcast. Like I said, head over to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes, can join in the paid subscriber chat and and most importantly, keep this podcast going. When you become a subscriber, you can connect your account to wherever you listen to podcasts so you'll never miss an episode. There's a link in the show notes explaining how. Again, head over to GDPolitics.com and see you there.