Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:01]
Galen Drouke
What was Dollywood like?
- [00:03]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Dollywood was so fun. I did not realize how Tennessee themed it was. I mean, it's called Dollywood and Dolly's obviously like a presence there, but it's really not Dolly themed. It's really, it's Eastern Tennessee themed. So there's like a ride that takes place in a collapsed mine and there's a ride where you're like tracking a bear.
- [00:28]
Galen Drouke
Can I ask, was it a tastefully collapsed mine?
- [00:33]
Leah Askarinam
So that's what I was wondering.
- [00:37]
Jacob Hrabashkin
It was hokey. You know, I like it was about as tasteful as you could do, like a collapsed mine ride.
- [00:58]
Galen Drouke
Hello and welcome to the GD Politics podcast. I'm Galen Drouke. First and foremost, I want to say that I'm thinking of everyone affected by the flash flooding in Texas. The details are heart wrenching and here's to hoping that everyone stays safe as more flooding appears to be on its way. So here's what we're going to do today. We're going to start off by taking a look back at how Republicans managed to pass a tax and spending bill that so many of the party's own caucus seemed to take issue with. We'll also look ahead to the kinds of political fights over the legislation we expect to emerge. We're also gonna round up some other news. So Elon Musk says it's official he's starting the America Party. We all know the structural challenges that lie ahead if he actually does it. But what's the most optimistic case for America? The party, not the country. And what's the most pessimistic? Also this week, the pause on President Trump's Liberation Day. Tariffs expires on Wednesday. The betting markets are wagering that it's going to be another case of taco. So will it be? We also have one more thing on tap if there's time for it. We are now officially in America's 250th year. The country, not the party. To mark the start of the semi quincentennial, a word that I learned today, we're going to play a game of American election data trivia. Here with me to do all of that is Jacob Hrabashkin, deputy editor of Inside Elections. Welcome to the podcast, Jacob Galen.
- [02:29]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Like they say in the song no place I'd rather be, I love to hear it.
- [02:33]
Galen Drouke
And also here with us for the first time ever on the GD Politics podcast is Leah Askarinam, reporter at the Associated Press. Leah, welcome. It's so good to have you.
- [02:43]
Leah Askarinam
It's so Good to be here. I'm so happy to see you. We should do this when we're not on podcasts together. Sometimes it would be nice.
- [02:50]
Galen Drouke
I know. We truly should. It's been too long. And we're going to start with you. You were on the Hill covering the passage of the bill that was formerly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill act, as it all played out. So I'm curious for your perspective, how did this bill end up passing after Republicans, I mean, many Republicans, not everyone, but significant portions of both the House and the Senate trashed this bill throughout the process? How did it end up getting signed by July 4th?
- [03:25]
Leah Askarinam
There's a nuanced answer to that and there's a very simplified answer to that.
- [03:30]
Galen Drouke
Let me guess. It's Trump.
- [03:31]
Leah Askarinam
Donald Trump, the President? Yeah. President Donald Trump. I think it's a simplified answer. Add on Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson to that as well, who is in kind of constant communication with the president throughout this entire process, which has been going on for months. I mean, there were constant meetings over the last few months with different kind of interests within the House, within the Senate, who all had their red lines, particular issues. And I mean, it kind of reminded me of like, you know, everybody was a Joe Manchin when Democrats had that, you know, their narrow majority. And so, you know, every member could leverage their power in a way that they wouldn't be able to if, you know, Republicans had a normal sized significant majority. So you had like, on one side, you had like the SALT caucus was a big one, state and local tax deductions, which was like some New York, California, like kind of mix of the, you know, some of the, more like suburban Republicans. And then you had a group of members who were really concerned about Medicaid cuts. And that was of really strange coalition. Like, if you look at the Senate, like that included like Josh Hawley and Susan Collins, like, what, what world were we in? And then you had like some green energy tax cut stuff. You had, of course, the Freedom Caucus. And Mike Johnson has been saying from the beginning that this process would result in a lot of people being, you know, some people weren't going to be thrilled. And the fact that nobody was going to be that happy or that sad meant that it was probably a good deal where everybody was going to get something that they wanted out of a really tiny Republican majority. So I think in the end, I mean, the pressure was huge. Mike Johnson, that last night where the vote was just open for hours, right? And like he was going on TV saying, you know, yeah, I Think we're just going to leave, leave it open for a bit and waiting for, you know, some of the Freedom Caucus members and Chip Roy to get on board. And then, you know, four in the morning, before you know it, you know, you're seeing, like you could see on the House floor, you know, Republicans going into the clothes room and having meetings and coming out and then going back in, and then coming back out and going back in, like it was just a constant negotiation where I think in order to say no, the political consequences for most of these members would have been huge. And so they were Freedom Caucus members were able to kind of keep their foot down for a lot of the process, keep the pressure on. But in the end, you know, they had to pass a bill by July 4th because Donald Trump said they had to pass a bill by July 4th.
- [06:16]
Galen Drouke
And so maybe the fact that a lot of people were at least somewhat displeased. There's almost a feature of this process, though, now they'll have to sell the bill that they've all just gotten on board with, which we're gonna get to in a second. But, Jacob, you posted something sort of. Once the Senate had passed the bill and it moved back to the House, you wrote, quote, tweeting a post from Republican Representative Victoria Sparks saying, quote, sparks signaling she doesn't support the bill is once again the best sign it will pass. And with her vote, well, first of all, you were right. Within a day or a little bit more, she ended up ultimately supporting the bill that she had again trashed, saying that it didn't follow the framework that the House, House, at least 30 House Republicans had laid out. But second, why such little faith in victorious Sparts and the broader question of why such little faith in these, like, faux holdouts?
- [07:19]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I actually, I quibble with your assertion here, Galen. I have the utmost faith in Victoria Spartz to do exactly what Victoria Spartz always does, which is say adamantly that she is against something and then very quickly change her mind and come around on whatever leadership needs her to do. I mean, this is a trend that we've seen from her really since she got to Congress back in the 2020 election. She is all over the place, but ultimately she always comes back around. We saw this with this process, of course, we also saw it quite famously in the speaker fights with Kevin McCarthy, where she was with McCarthy. And then she voted against McCarth. She voted for Thomas Massie as Speaker. She said there was nothing that McCarthy could do to win her vote. She voted for McCarthy again. You know, she played a similar dance with Mike Johnson. This is just, this is what Victoria Sparks does. She talked about, you know, she was going to run for Senate to, to succeed Mike Braun. And then she said, actually, I'm not going to run for Senate. And then she said, I'm not going to run for reelection because we didn't balance the budget. Then she said, I'm actually going to resign because I'm so upse that we aren't cutting funds, you know, we're not cutting spending in Congress. And then she said, no, I'm actually going to run for reelection again. So, yeah, no, I, I, you know, chaos is a constant. And, and I have faith that Victoria sports will always come around in the end.
- [08:55]
Galen Drouke
God bless. I mean, not to single her out specifically because. Right. You know, Josh Hawley penned an op ed in the New York Times saying don't cut Medicaid and then eventually got on board. You know, we heard from a lot of folks who either said this goes too far in terms of reducing benefits or applying restrictions to Medicaid or SNAP benefits, or people who said this doesn't go far enough in terms of addressing the debt and deficit, but then every single person, except for, what is it, Massie, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and maybe one or two other people ended up getting on board with this bill in the end. So, Jacob, do you have an interpretation of what went on in that process?
- [09:38]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I mean, I agree with Leah. I just think that ultimately the political pressure outweighed the ideological pressure that any of these members might face in deciding when to get on board with the bill. And this is the through line of the Trump presidency, you know, with the, you know, taking aside the Biden interregnum here. Right. Trump is not an ideological figure. Right. Trump doesn't have kind of core ideological tenets that he adheres to, but he always has a program. Right. And his program has become the Republican Party program, and that trumps, you know, pun intended, the ideological consideration. So once this bill became. Passing the bill, passing a bill, any bill, became the number one goal of the Trump administration. You had to be on board or you had to be so firmly entrenched in your politics and in your political situation that you can afford not to be on board, especially, you know, understanding that the bill was gonna pass. Right. I think all this has to be understood in the meta context of, you know, the most important thing is the bill passing. The second most important thing is that you get members on board so you can afford to lose a certain number of members you're gonna lose those members and help them out. Someone like a Susan Collins, for instance. But as long as you have the votes to do it. But I mean, look, I was struck by. And Leah, I don't know if you managed to talk to him at all on the Hill. Keith Self. Not to pick on somebody else, but Keith Self is kind of your typical Republican backbencher. I don't know how many people have heard of him before. He's from Texas. He's been in for two cycles. I want to say he tweeted for me, Jacob, four dates. Well, you remember the Van Taylor. What happened with poor Van Taylor in that election, which is how Keith Self. I believe that was the race that he won. We don't have to get into that. Even though this podcast is R rated 4 days ago now everyone's gonna be googling Van Taylor. Van Van Taylor, ISIS bride. I think that will be enough to get you to be forewarned. Don't open at work. Don't open around your parents or your employer. Anyways, we're so off the rails here.
- [12:06]
Leah Askarinam
This is like how I got my middle school students to read Shakespeare by being like, guys, you won't understand it, but trust me, it's really dirty. And then all of a sudden they all open it. That's what Jacob's doing with House races right now. He's like, trust me.
- [12:20]
Galen Drouke
He goes, don't, don't. Whatever you do, don't Google ISIS pride dancing podcast. Pausing as we speaker three on.
- [12:30]
Jacob Hrabashkin
On. On Wednesday, I guess on Wednesday evening, which was the night where we went through all those votes, Keith Self tweeted the Senate's version of the BBB is morally and fiscally bankrupt. We must get back closer to the House passed version. And he voted for it. And it wasn't even a question of whether this guy who said day of that this bill was morally and fiscally bankrupt was going to vote for it. I don't think anyone really took that seriously. And that to me is just an illustration of the underlying politics at play.
- [13:02]
Galen Drouke
Is it clear who won ultimately between the. I guess if you want to combine Hawley and Collins, we're talking about a sort of populist slash moderate coalition that can align on spending, even if they don't align on things like norms or whatnot. And then you also have the fiscal conservatives between the moderate populist coalition and the fiscal conservatives who ended up winning in this bill.
- [13:29]
Leah Askarinam
And they both ended up losing quite a bit. And I think they both ended up, you know, making concessions and getting, getting concessions for their, their support. I mean, keep in mind that, like a lot of this, you know, that what we saw on Twitter, like, yes, it is, you know, demands of what they want in the legislation. It's also, you know, this is all a negotiation. This is all strategy. This is all, you know, who can dig their heels in the deepest and get what they want. But in the end, because so many members did fight at the beginning of what they want, like, they, they got some of it. Like Murkowski, Lisa Murkowski, I think, is the best example of this where, you know, the, heard of her, the, yeah, the, you know, in order to get her vote, like, you know, there were long negotiations throughout the night that I think she called. I forget the exact term she used, but she was, she wasn't thrilled with, you know, how. Well, how do I say this? I think she was tired. I think everyone was tired. I think she was, too. And in the end, the bill cites Alaska. The AP found like 19 times, whereas, like, Texas decided like twice or three times. Maybe, like, she did get things out of it, even though she, in the end didn't really like the legislation and said that she wanted the House to modify it. So, I mean, it was this kind of like, give and take. And there are, I think that a lot of members, if not all members, had to give something up in order to get this through.
- [15:06]
Galen Drouke
So now that all of this is on the record, these negative comments, nonetheless, Republicans have to sell the bill. I mean, they could never talk about it again, but that probably wouldn't be strategic given that Democrats are already advertising on it, in particular cuts to health care and this message about, you know, the wealthy benefiting over the poor. So what is the Republican plan here? What are they. I mean, I have a sense probably of what they'll emphasize, which is tax cuts on a secure border. But is there more to the strategy than that?
- [15:38]
Leah Askarinam
If you turn on, you know, ad impact or whatever, like, you know, our political ad software, you'll already see ads from Republican groups or Republican aligned groups saying, you know, this Democrat voted against tax cuts for, you know, this, this Democrat voted against border security. There's so much in this bill that you can kind of pick and choose what, you know, what items you want to campaign on. And so Republicans, like you said, tax cuts, the Trump accounts or MAGA accounts. I forget which one they're called right now, but the savings accounts for, for kids, there's overall, you know, this is. Republicans are, are promoting kind of the economic benefits of this bill. And saying that if Democrats didn't vote for it, then they voted against all of that. Now they're not going to mention Medicaid or, you know, healthcare necessarily in those ads. And that's where you're gonna see Democrats start filling in that void. But something to remember is that, though, I think we might start seeing some of the effects of the Medicaid changes before the midterms. A lot of the Medicaid actual changes go into effect after the midterms. So it's going to be a lot on Democrats to message what is going to happen in their view, as opposed to, you know, it's not going to be you might see some changes or we might see some budget cuts from hospitals, for example, in preparation for what's going to happen after the bill takes effect. But it's going to be up to Democrats to explain it.
- [17:15]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm interested to see how it all plays out. As Leah, I'm sure this sounds familiar to you, but the worst time to try and assess the impact of an event or breaking news is while it's happening. And the second worst time is immediately after it happens. And so we're still in that moment. I think it'll take a little time for it to play out. But one thing I'm interested in seeing is I'm not so sure that the fact that the implementation for a lot of this is delayed toward after the midterms is as helpful to Republicans as they might like to think. I think back to two previous instances, right. Obamacare passing in 2010. Right. That was a kind of the last time we saw a massive overhaul of the country's health care system. That also, you know, there was a lot that wasn't implemented by the 2010 midterms that didn't prevent it from being a bloodbath for Democrats. In fact, Obamacare was also the reason why the 2014 midterms were a bloodbath for Democrats because it took four years to to launch the exchanges and it was such a disaster. And then you Flash forward to 2018 where Republicans didn't even pass their health care bill. Right. It failed and it still was the catalyst for such a backlash in those midterm elections. So I'm not sure that the Republicans are so protected from a backlash to this bill simply because the major Medicaid changes don't actually go into effect until, know, December 2026 or whenever it is. Because I think by the time we get closer and closer, people are going to be aware the Medicaid administrators of the various states that are going to be affected are going to be working overtime to ensure that everyone who, you know is going to be subject to new requirements is, understands what's going on. I don't think that the effective date is nearly as important as how the public sees it and the overall impact that, that it will be anticipated to have when it does go into effect.
- [19:24]
Galen Drouke
Yeah, also because, I mean, there's a lot of talk about, oh well, Republicans are cutting Medicaid as their voters become lower income and are they shooting themselves in their own foot and whatnot? I think it's pretty complicated. I think first of all, a lot of the backlash is going to be message based. It's not. So when you look at the Yale Budget Lab's assessment, the median American does benefit from this bill. Right. The people who are experiencing the overall negative impact are in the bottom 20% of American earners. That's like $15,000 or less. And that is a group of Americans that still pretty overwhelmingly votes for Democrats. Right. Republicans have gained a lot amongst the sort of invisible middle, as you know, Joan Williams called it when she came on this podcast. But it is not the case that the poorest Americans are now firmly in Republicans camp. And we, you can get into the weeds talking about who this affects the most. And yes, it absolutely benefits the, the wealthy the Most. The top 20% of Americans seeing, depending on the estimate, 6 to $7,000 more a year. But I think it's a lot about the message as opposed to who is personally impacted by this. Like, I don't think all of a sudden the top 20% of Americans are going to for Republicans or overwhelmingly more for Republicans or that the bottom 20% are going to vote overwhelmingly more for Democrats. I mean, those also happen to be the people who vote at the lowest levels in, in American elections. But I think the message of Republicans are choosing this group of people over that group of people or this isn't fair or this isn't considerate or sort of health care is being impacted in a negative way. People are going to lose insurance. Isn't that terrible? Like, I think that's the message more than like you are losing money personally because of this bill. Does that make sense?
- [21:17]
Leah Askarinam
Yeah, in a lot of ways. I think we're looking at a potential 2018 kind of rerun on messaging. Like Jacob said, even though Republicans weren't able to repeal the aca, like that was a really politically difficult position for them when they were trying to. And that gave Democrats a lot of like messaging, but also just, you know, a lot of space to win on that issue. If and then again, of course, like our voters this time, not even this time next year, more than a year from now, are they going to be voting on a piece of legislation that was passed by Congress or are we going to see individual parts from this legislation get turned into different news events throughout the next year, year and a half that will end up, you know, influencing the way the electorate behave. And that's all depending on whatever else happens. Remember that pandemic? Like, you know, like we don't actually, we don't actually know what voters are going to be voting on. But if we're talking just about like the political kind of momentum and like where Democrats are strongest now and where they might be able to leverage that. I do think that healthcare kitchen table issues is what Democrats campaigned on in 2018. I sometimes think that people forget that because that was also like the AOC election. So people just think about like, you know, the progressive kind of victories. But like that's what the House was one on for Democrats was, you know, these kind of what they called kitchen table issues. And I think you're seeing a kind of rerun of that kind of messaging at this point.
- [22:54]
Jacob Hrabashkin
And don't forget Republicans also passed the tax cut in 2017. They got that through and they talked a lot about that bill in the 2018 midterms. And it wasn't enough to save them from the deluge caused by a bill that they did not pass, that there was no change. I mean, they fiddled with the individual mandate, but now they're in the position of trying to run on extending a tax cut. Right. That had already been implemented. Right. So people have already been feeling the effects of that for the last eight years while also defending the changes to the healthcare system. And I think Galen, you're absolutely right that this framing of like, you know, Republicans are choosing the wealthiest over the poorest is, you're correct in that being the more salient framing. And I think that's why Republicans, when they defend this bill talk a lot about undocumented immigrants and you know, they talk about the, the hypothetical healthy, able bodied 35 year old man who is on Medicaid and sitting on a stage.
- [24:01]
Galen Drouke
Signaling me out, Jacob, I'm not on Medicaid, by the way.
- [24:06]
Leah Askarinam
Well, it's also like the waitress, like who doesn't have tips on or doesn't have tax on overtime. Like it's, it's the same talking points over and over again, taking these Individual people like the waitress, like the 35 year old man playing video games. Like these are the people who are kind of being singled out. I think that's a really good point.
- [24:26]
Galen Drouke
Right. Like it wasn't a particularly populist bill, but the message is still going. It was like the campaigning was populist, the legislating was more conservative, fair. But then once again, once that legislation has passed, the campaigning on that legislation will be once again more populist. Even though maybe the person who benefits the most from this bill is a business owner or somebody who is making, you know, whatever. The Yale Budget Lab again breaks it down by the 0.1% of Americans who are making $3 million or more a year are going to see overall like a hundred plus thousand dollars a year more as a result of this bill. Like we're not going to be talking about or they're not going to be talking about the person who benefits the most from this, they're going to be talking about the place where it pulls the best.
- [25:14]
Leah Askarinam
Right? No, I think that's right. And I really like, I know we're kind of getting into the weeds here, but like I do think Jacob's point is really important. That, or maybe it was. Galen, both of you are so important and your points are so important that this is an extension of a tax cut that had been in place for eight years. And if we learned anything from the Biden administration, it's that this idea that or the Biden campaign, the idea that voters are going to reward you for continuing to do something that they already want it done or that has already been done or has already been, quote, unquote, fixed isn't necessarily elect politically effective. And so I think that's a lot of where Republicans face potential political danger. Because also on immigration, if they've already, you know, again, quote, unquote, quote fixed the immigration issues, can they run on something? Can they run on a previous success or what they call a previous success? And I think they're going to run into potentially the same issue with the tax. I mean, what this really, you know, the legislation was meant to do, which is extend the tax cuts.
- [26:24]
Galen Drouke
To quote, something I've said on this podcast many times at this point, voters don't vote to say thank you, they vote to say you. And so I think that. But Jacob, close it out for us.
- [26:38]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Yeah, let's just not forget Republicans are starting in the hole on this bill. Right. This is not a popular bill. We're talking a lot about, you know, will they be able to message it. Well, they've been trying to message it for the last two, three months. Obviously the specifics of the bill weren't written until the very end. But Democrats are currently winning the messaging war on this bill. So Republicans will need to step up their game if they want to convince voters that this was actually the right thing to do. Because right now voters aren't buying it.
- [27:11]
Galen Drouke
Yeah, it's about net negative 25 percentage points@ an average of recent polls. Do you guys think that this bill becomes more or less popular between now and the midterms?
- [27:22]
Leah Askarinam
Oh, do I think people will be thinking about this bill as things get closer to the midterms or will be thinking about the individual elements in it? Like is it going to be a, like, you know, go back and vote for big beautiful bill or is it going to be like Trump cut your taxes or is it going to be Trump and Republicans cut your Medicaid? I mean the individual issues in this bill, like Republicans do point out that some of them do poll relatively well. Like you know, work requirements in general. I think it's just, I think it's going to be individual issues rather than the entire bill. But I think that also depends on what Republicans and Democrats choose to message on.
- [28:06]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I agree with Leah there. No, I was going back to look at the polling on Obamacare from Kaiser from the 2010. I was actually struck by how Obamacare was only 3 points underwater in November of 2010.
- [28:21]
Leah Askarinam
Oh wow.
- [28:21]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Among registered voters. And then 2014 it was worse, it was 10 points underwater. But this bill is significantly less popular than Obamacare was in, in either 2010 or 2014. So leave you with that thought. But I don't think this bill is going to get more popular. I think that Leah is correct that the question will be can Republicans refocus voters minds on the popular provisions therein. I'm not sure that the overall bill is gonna leave a good taste when voters think about it in totality.
- [29:05]
Galen Drouke
Well, listeners can be sure that we will continue to track it over time. And I will say just as a different comparison point, the Tax Cuts and jobs act of 2017 became notably more popular as we got closer to the midterms. So while it was, I don't know, somewhere in the range of 20 percentage points underwater at the time that it passed, it was closer to a 5050 split because to Leah's point, people stopped talking about it. So I think how popular this bill is is something of a measure of how salient this bill ends up being for how politics is. Waged between now and the midterms, I want to move on so we can get to some other stuff. But first, a break. Today's podcast is brought to you by you, the listener. This podcast is possible because of paid subscribers@gdpolitics.com paid subscribers get access to about twice the number of episodes. They can join in our private chat and send in questions that we'll later answer on the show. And most importantly, they ensure that we can continue to try to understand politics and the world with curiosity, rigor, and a sense of humor. When you become a paid subscriber, you can also connect your account to wherever you listen to podcasts and never miss an episode. Join the GD Politics podcast community today at GDPolitics.com. that's G as in gosh. D as in darn politics, as in, well, you know, politics. In fact, go to GDPolitics.com right now and become a subscriber. We will still be here when you get back. That's GD politics and dot com and thank you. On July 5th, Elon Musk wrote on X, quote by a factor of two to one, you want a new political party and you shall have it. That's based on an informal poll that he fielded on X. He goes on to say, today the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. So, first of all, the American Party has not technically been formed yet. Betting markets put it at a 54% chance that it will be formed by the end of this month. So I guess middling faith in even getting this effort off the ground. Jacob and I talked about the structural challenges of launching a third party the last time he was on this podcast. So we don't need to get too much into that again. But I want to play devil's advocate for a second. What is the most optimistic case that you could pitch for Elon Musk's America Party?
- [31:32]
Leah Askarinam
Oh, gosh. Most optimistic. Okay, so first off, who doesn't want a third option? You know, something that, like chocolate vanilla, but you can get like a chocolate vanilla swirl like, you know, like in a milkshake, like, that sounds amazing. And I think more options are great, except for, you know, the jam test that you might have heard about where you have too many options and then you can't choose. But that seems like we're not there yet. So that's the best case scenario is chocolate vanilla ice cream. But realistically, I think, like, you know, if there's a way to get your supporters, like if you have like a message or a movement, like even if it's just for like a handful of voters or for some like, and it gets them to the polls and gets them to donate and gets them more politically active, like, sure, that's can be politically beneficial probably to, you know, whichever party it's more aligned with the Republicans or the Democrats. But, you know, it's a, it's a way to, a way to elevate a specific set of interests and make them kind of like, kind of push them in onto the national stage in a nice chocolate vanilla swirl package.
- [32:45]
Galen Drouke
Or it's like strawberry, right? It's like, well, neither the Republicans or the Democrats are taking the debt and deficit seriously. So I'm going to come onto the stage and Jacob, we have done this, we've had this conversation before. Come onto the stage, pull a Ross Perot and run a party that. Or create a party that just talks about strawberry, which is the debt and deficit in this metaphor. In case that hasn't caught on.
- [33:10]
Leah Askarinam
I thought strawberries were chocolate vanilla milkshake. So I'm really glad he had just.
- [33:17]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I'm gonna throw two pretty divergent best, best, best case scenarios at you with the caveat that I don't think that the America Party is going to come anywhere near either of those. Because Galen, as, as we talked about, I'm not sold on, on this whole endeavor overall. I think the first is Perotism, the Ross Perot movement. Call it what you want, whether it's, you know, his independent run in 92, Reform Party in 96. Right. That is a true third party effort that was funded by a billionaire. It was focused on spending and economic issues specifically, but also had a real strain of this kind of cultural retrenchment. And Ross Perot wins 19% of the vote in the 1992 election. He wins 8% of the vote in the 96 election. And one governor, Jesse Ventura is elected on the Reform Party ticket. That's in 1998 in Minnesota. I think that that is kind of the high watermark of any third party in terms of their electoral success that we've seen organized third party that we've seen in a long time. So I think if you squint, you can kind of see a universe in which that kind of effort could, could spring up again. I don't think that Musk is, has the kind of political chops that Ross Perot did, which is why I don' that he'll get there. But the other best case scenario thing, and I don't think they'd go this route, but I think Any third party that wants to gain a foothold, this is probably the route they need to go, is Working Families Party, right? It's taking advantage of New York's fusion balloting, trying to get other states to adopt either a fusion balloting or some level of ranked choice voting. Something that allows you to work essentially within, with one foot inside the two party system, but one foot outside of it. Sometimes you can field your own candidates. You can also cross endorse with one party or another. You can build up name recognition for your party specifically elevate your issues to the larger stage and, you know, try and make it work that way. I think that what Working Families Party has done, and certainly, I mean you look at like the success of Zoron in the, in the New York City mayoral, which may well be their kind of crowning achievement as a party in recent memory. You know, I think that's the other path for a third party to go down. But I don't think that either of those are particularly viable for Musk's effort.
- [35:59]
Galen Drouke
I have a question here, which is what's the most pessimistic case for the America Party? But I actually don't know that we need to fully flesh this out because the most pessimistic case for the America Party is that it never even gets registered.
- [36:11]
Leah Askarinam
Oh, we could, if you want to make it more like it is 20, 25 if we want. Oh, I'm not going there. I'm just saying we could, we could go down some, you know, some, some pretty dark scenarios if we wanted to be really creative. But no, I think that most likely is, it just doesn't or, or it spoils historically third party candidates. I think with the exception of kind of like the individual lines in New York that Jacob mentioned, like with the Working Family Party, the biggest role that a third party plays is a spoiler candidate. And I think the, the kind of worst thing that you can do is you, you spoil the race so that you end up with. Actually if you had to choose one of the two other options, the one that you like less ends up winning because you divided the coalition that you were previously a part of. So that's probably worst case scenario.
- [37:03]
Jacob Hrabashkin
I mean, pessimistic. There's a real pessimistic situation for Republicans, I think, which is that Musk really does throw a lot of money at this project and he fields candidates in races across the country. He goes out and he recruits people to run under his banner and on his issues, which are very much aligned at this point with the Republican Party and he siphons away votes. Right? And you don't have to siphon away very many votes in very many House races or Senate races to have a real adverse impact on the Republican Party's electoral chances. So certainly from a. If you're looking at the most pessimistic situation for Republicans, it's that the party is moderately successful. But otherwise, I don't know. When's the last time you thought about the Forward Party and its founder, Andrew Yang, former presidential candidate and one time New York City mayoral frontrunner? I mean, like, that's, I think, I think that's where this is going. If it gets up anywhere and like.
- [38:04]
Leah Askarinam
Theoretically, if he wanted to spend like every single cent of his money on like building this party. And then it's like, oh, all of a sudden you have a scenario where like the richest person in the world became like the poorest man in the world. And that became a whole like, saga and you had like a movie based on it. Like that could, you know, like you can, like that's. We really would go like for him personally, that could. But I don't think that's going to happen.
- [38:28]
Galen Drouke
So, yeah, this movie is called the Poorest man in the World and it's how Elon Musk literally spent every single thing that, every single dollar that he owned creating the America Party.
- [38:38]
Leah Askarinam
And it doesn't even work, right? Like it doesn't even form after all of that. Like, that would be the worst case scenario.
- [38:42]
Galen Drouke
Well, it gets him American Samoa, just like Michael Bloomberg.
- [38:45]
Leah Askarinam
Oh, there you go. That's something. Hey, that's not worst case scenario. That's something.
- [38:50]
Galen Drouke
Yeah, that is something. That is something. Okay, next question. The 90 day pause on Trump's Liberation Day tariffs ends on Wednesday. The betting markets have swung pretty wildly based on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant's comments over the weekend saying that essentially the deadline will be the day that Trump sends out letters to countries saying that this is going to be the new tariff rate if they don't agree to something by the end of the summer, which I think is a very roundabout saying way of saying that the deadline has been extended by a couple months. Although take issue with that if you want. And the markets are still. It's not. It's still not. The market in particular that I'm looking at is when will Trump remove the majority of his Liberation Day tariffs? By. And it. The markets currently say there's a 91% chance that it's before the 90 day deadline. So people think it's Taco, my question here is like, we don't have to get into the economics of all of this. I think we saw in Trump's approval rating that it is a genuine downside risk if Americans perceive him to have tanked the American economy, or at least the stock market, based on levying tariffs. But is this whole Trump always chickens out argument like a compelling political argument for people?
- [40:24]
Jacob Hrabashkin
No. No, I don't think it is. I don't think. I don't really understand it. It's like, what are you. What are you trying to communicate? Are you trying to goad him into doing the thing you don't want. Want him to do, which is to re. Implement or implement the tariffs? Are you trying to make him feel bad? That's not possible. Are you trying to convince his supporters that he is not as firm or aggressive as he says he is? I don't think you can do that. Good luck. After 10 years of him building up that image, I don't really understand who it's for beyond.
- [41:09]
Galen Drouke
Like, liberal libs, people being people on the. Not even lib, but just like, people.
- [41:13]
Jacob Hrabashkin
On Twitter, people on, you know, social media and the taco truck vendors of Washington, D.C. who got a lot of business when the DNC paid to give the Republican staffers free lunch. I mean, I don't know.
- [41:28]
Galen Drouke
Well. Cause his whole argument is going to be, I'm negotiating. Like, that was the point of all of this. You know, it was. It's the meme that was like, I'm levying, levying tariffs. Yay, I'm bringing jobs back to America. Tariffs have been paused. Master negotiator. Like, I'm levying tariffs again. Yay, jobs are coming back to America. Tariffs are paused. You know, like, so if you really spend a lot of time thinking about it, it's like, okay, Trump or Republicans, what is the actual message? Like, are we bringing jobs back to America or do we just want to lower tariffs in the same kind of way that all conservative Republicans, whatever, would want to lower tariffs over the past 50 years or whatever. But, like, again, I think that what people were reacting to the first time around was just they didn't want the stock market to fall or they didn't want the economy to crash based on tariffs. And then being like, oh, well, you undid tariffs and the stock market came roaring back like, shame on you. You chickened out. I don't know that. That. Yeah, I guess I'm in. I'm on Jacob's side in this, but Leah.
- [42:27]
Leah Askarinam
Oh, I'm. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna take, take the opposite side. I think that another view of it is less the impact on the economy, which, again, it's like a really big deal in the economy. But I do think Trump has effectively made the case over the last, you know, decade plus that other countries are taking advantage of the United States of America. And the United States of America needs to show strength. And this is a way of kind of performing that strength. And that might be appealing to some of his base and also to some people who, you know, are kind of subscribed to the more social, cultural movement around Trump. So it's an economic issue. It is obviously, like, first and foremost an economic, an economic issue. But I think it does go toward, like, a much deeper kind of like, resentment that a lot of his coalition has. And even if, you know, the result isn't a clear, you know, like, it worked. It didn't work. Like, the act of writing that letter, the act of being like, I'm in charge, is going to be appealing to some people.
- [43:49]
Galen Drouke
I think that's smart. And I honestly don't think that that's just a base message. Yeah, that is the same message that Bernie Sanders would.
- [43:58]
Leah Askarinam
No, I think that's fair.
- [43:59]
Galen Drouke
That's something that appeals to the populist middle. Mushy middle. Populist, whatever. Like the, the, the Americans that are. Just have a general sense of what happened during neoliberalism. Neoconservatism wasn't good for America.
- [44:16]
Leah Askarinam
Right.
- [44:17]
Jacob Hrabashkin
The problem that I think Trump has, though, is that people don't actually think he's doing a good job on the economy, and they certainly don't think that.
- [44:25]
Galen Drouke
He'S doing a good job. Way to bring the data into it, Jacob, Come on.
- [44:28]
Jacob Hrabashkin
On trade, right? He's in this tough spot where, you know, there's the first roll out of the tariffs. The markets tank. The market is up. The s and P500 is up like 20%, 25% from its bottom kind of at the, in the first week of April when, after Liberation Day, and since Trump said that he was going to pause the tariffs, the market's up 25%. So, like, people's 401ks are doing great again. And his, his approval rating on, on jobs in the economy rebounded a bit, but it's fallen back down and it's now still among his worst issue set. So he, he is kind of in between a rock and a. The status quo might be good for the economy overall. Continuing to extend those deadlines will keep the market happy, they'll keep people's savings intact and they'll keep the business community happy. But the American people don't like what they're feeling right now. It's a very similar problem, I think, to what Joe Biden faced in some ways where all of the indicators were good. I mean, hiring remains strong, the markets are going up, and yet people are dissatisfied with the economic situation. So I almost wonder whether he'll feel compelled to do something. Right. I don't know if that's to actually implement the tariffs. I don't know if that's to soften his stance just so that he can cut a bunch of deals and say he made deals, even if they're not great deals for the US I don't know what it is, but I'm not so sure that the status quo politically of Americans looking at the Elliot's issue job tracker thing, I mean, Trump is negative 12 on jobs in the economy, he's negative 20 on trade and he's negative 23 on inflation and cost of living. I don't think that that's tenable. I think that Trump has to do something to either make people feel like he's addressing the issue or, you know, change the underlying circumstances to improve his political situation.
- [46:35]
Galen Drouke
Yeah, and his net approval has fallen back down a little. Right. He hit a net negative 10 percentage points during the market's bottom in April. He rose up a little bit to, you know, net negative three, net negative four, depending on which average you were looking at. He's back down to net negative 7 in Nate's the Silver Bulletins approval tracking. And so maybe that's in part a reaction to the negotiations over this bill. Like the sausage making has not been pretty. And you know, folks remember back to when the Obamacare repeal legislation was being negotiated and also some of the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act stuff like Trump was near his all time low in terms of approval for his first term. So, you know, it's unclear exactly what folks are reacting to. It could be a lot of the stuff, that messy stuff that's happening in D.C. and moving on from that could help improve his approval rating. But it is noticeable that his approval rating on things like trade have not improved dramatically during this 90 day pause.
- [47:44]
Leah Askarinam
Well, I think a lot of this framing is around like Trump needs to do X, like achieve X, achieve whatever in order to improve his, you know, improve his chances of, you know, helping Republicans win or keep, keep the House majority in the midterms. But that's not really how Trump works In a lot of ways. Right. Like, as much as, you know, the, like, on one hand you have that, you know, people who voted for Trump were kind of, they remembered the economy being particularly good when he was president. So, yes, they are saying, like, in that sense, you know, Trump achieved something. But a lot of it with Trump is like he's going to project his messaging through a whole bunch of other means that aren't necessarily going to be like, your kind of conventional solving this political problem solving, you know, whatever. I don't know. I'm trying to think of, like, a strong economic indicator that, like, for any other president might be really helpful, but for him, like, it might be something that he kind of campaigns around, you know, does that make any sense?
- [48:52]
Galen Drouke
Well, I think you're bringing up an important secondary point here, which is that Trump is pretty singular. He's also something of a lame duck. I mean, they might still pass more legislation while he is in office, but he is never going to run for president again. And still, much of the focus of Democrats attacks, and the, the taco attack in particular, is around Trump and his sort of singular behavior. But in many ways, should we be focusing more on what Americans think about the Republican Party or Congressional Republicans? Because Trump won't be on the ballot in 2026 during the midterms, and he won't be on the ballot in 2028. Like, Republicans kind of have to figure this out for themselves now, too. It can't just be Trump anymore.
- [49:44]
Leah Askarinam
Yeah. And I may think the House is, you know, keeping the House is a huge priority, obviously, but, like, especially for a lame duck president, like, that is going to be what, you know, potentially gets his legislation through, but also could protect him as Democrats, you know, occasionally bring up impeachment. Like, that is something that's going to be important to Republicans. And obviously, given historical trends, it's incredibly difficult for the party in power with this narrow majority to keep the House of Representatives through the midterms. But what we saw in the making, going back to the first segment of the big legislation, the reconciliation legislation, is that Republicans have almost entirely tied their fortunes to Trump's fortunes. Trump needs to be popular in order for House Republicans to be popular. And the exceptions being, you know, Thomas Massie and Brian Fitzpatrick, you know, that's those, the two, the two no votes. And I think it's more so than ever before, kind of in all of Republicans best interest to make sure that Trump is popular, because they are not going to be, or at least have not indicated that they'll be separating themselves from him during the midterms in a way that you'd conventionally see candidates do. Like, you know, we saw by Democrats, you know, didn't necessarily want Biden to come campaign in their districts. I don't think you're going to see that much from that, that kind of behavior from Republicans. And so it's more important than ever for all of them to kind of be on the same successful page.
- [51:20]
Galen Drouke
So in a sense, what you're saying is, yes, technically, Trump will never be on the ballot again, but from a strategic perspective, it's just keep the whole thing united, like, keep Trump the leader of the party so that even come 2028, it's like you're still voting to further the Trump Republican Party, the Trump agenda, you know, whatever you liked about Trump. And it's just kind of keep it all together.
- [51:46]
Leah Askarinam
I would say come 2026, I don't know about 2028, but 2026.
- [51:51]
Jacob Hrabashkin
And, and don't forget, Trump is not a passive actor in all of this. I mean, he's sitting on half a billion dollars in campaign cash that he's raised since the 2024 election. He is already going after one sitting member of Congress of his own party, Thomas Massie. We'll see. You know, in the past, his team has gone after other members. Bob Good earned Trump's ire, and Trump eventually helped oust him with John McGuire in Virginia's 5th congressional district. I don't think Trump is going to sit back and, you know, let all this play out without his own personal, intense involvement, both politically and financially. And, and I think that that is, it's not just that, you know, there's a carrot and there's a stick, right? There's the carrot of, you know, the more popular Trump is, the better Republicans chances are in the midterms in 2028, regardless of whether he's on the ballot or not. And there's the stick of, if you step out of line, he might not be on the ballot, but his money is certainly still spending just as good in your media market. So you better watch out, because if you step out of line, Chris La Civita and half a billion dollars of, you know, MAGA Inc. Cash is headed your way.
- [53:10]
Galen Drouke
Do Democrats have the same incentive, though? Is it sort of attack Trump and try to make Trump unpopular so he drags down the rest of Republicans? Or should Democrats be trying to say, like, no matter what you think about Trump, these Republicans are doing X, Y and Z thing that you don't like? So put him to the side and focus on, you know, congressional Republicans or something else. Because in reality, Trump will never be on the ballot again.
- [53:34]
Leah Askarinam
Okay, so there are three Republicans at the moment in congressional districts that Kamala Harris won. One, Don Bacon, announced that he was going to not run for reelection in the last couple weeks. One voted against the big reconciliation bill, Brian Fitzpatrick, and the third, Mike Lawler, is possibly running for governor, so.
- [54:03]
Galen Drouke
Of New York.
- [54:04]
Leah Askarinam
Of New York. Yeah. And that one's probably like the least, you know, we're, I don't know. He, he's going to decide soon. I think that tells you a lot about where kind of Democrats, where Republicans think Democrat strategy is going to be and where Republicans think the energy is going for Democrats. It's like the way that Hakeem Jeffries put it is kind of like, you know, do everything. You know, you can't just choose one thing to do. Democrats need to do everything. And I think the messaging is almost like doing everything. But how do you do everything in order to create one kind of feeling that ultimately comes down to distrust in Trump and the Republican Party? And that's going to be like a mix of Medicaid conversations and the plane and, you know, whatever else is going on this time next year. So that's beyond my scope. That seems like calculus and I'm an English major. So that's, that's all.
- [55:08]
Galen Drouke
All right. Or we're going to leave it there for today. Thank you so much, Leah and Jacob.
- [55:14]
Leah Askarinam
Thank you.
- [55:15]
Jacob Hrabashkin
Thanks, Galen.
- [55:17]
Galen Drouke
We did not have time to play our America's semi quincentennial birthday trivia game in this episode, but we're going to try to fit that in and maybe we'll publish it later on in the feed for paid subscribers. So stay tuned and you will maybe have some electoral data trivia from the past 250 years coming in your feed soon. For now, I'm Galen Drook. Remember to be become a subscriber to this podcast@gdpolitics.com and wherever you get your podcasts. Paid subscribers, like I mentioned, get about twice the number of episodes and access to the videos for the podcast. You can also join our paid subscriber chat and pass along questions for us to discuss on the show. And most importantly, you ensure that we keep making a podcast that prioritizes curiosity, rigor and a sense of humor. Also, be a friend and give the podcast a five star review wherever you get your podcast. Maybe even tell a friend about us. Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.