Loading summary
Transcript104 lines
- [00:00]
Nathaniel Rakic
Good thing I'm bringing Ivo to P Town.
- [00:02]
Galen Drew
Nathaniel's meeting me for lunch when I'm in P Town.
- [00:04]
Nathaniel Rakic
Yeah, and I couldn't find a dog sitter for Ivo.
- [00:06]
Mary Radcliffe
I'm glad. Nathaniel, you said you're meeting Galen in P Town. Cause I was going to say this is not going to help the questions listeners send in.
- [00:15]
Nathaniel Rakic
I know, I know. At this point, we just lean into it.
- [00:18]
Galen Drew
If you can't beat them, join them. Hello, and welcome to the GDP Politics podcast. I'm Galen Drew. Well, it looks like President Trump is finally facing the scandal that will do him in. Quote, Trump fumes that Epstein mess as polls reveal big GOP revolt, reads the New Republic. Donald Trump suffers major polling blow over Jeffrey Epstein files, reads Newsweek. At the very least, the story has had some staying power, and Trump's approval rating has been sliding. But is it good data, bad data, or not data to draw a connection between the two? In other words, yes, we will be talking about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal conspiracy drama today against the wishes of one or maybe even both of our panelists. We're also going to take a closer look at how Americans are thinking about the economy. It's a tricky moment. Inflation is up, but modestly, it still looks like more tariffs are likely on their way, which is one of the reasons the Fed says it isn't lowering interest rates. Trump is also threatening the independence of the Fed. And more economists are talking about the national debt. But do voters care? Can they make fetch happen? And we've also got a redistricting update. Republicans in Texas are suggesting they'll try to redraw their congressional maps to their benefit before the midterms. And Gavin Newsom says he'll fight gerrymandering with gerrymandering and try to do the same in California if they follow through. Here with me to discuss it all are two dear friends of the pod. Mary Radcliffe, welcome to the podcast.
- [01:57]
Mary Radcliffe
Hey, Galen, how's it going?
- [01:59]
Galen Drew
It's going pretty well. You know, it's a Monday. Trying to, you know, caffeinate myself back to life. Also here with us is Nathaniel Rakic. Welcome to the podcast, Nathaniel.
- [02:08]
Nathaniel Rakic
Hey, Galen. How are you?
- [02:10]
Galen Drew
I'm doing well, guys. It's been a minute. How are both of you?
- [02:13]
Mary Radcliffe
I've been, well, great.
- [02:14]
Galen Drew
Excited to talk about this Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
- [02:17]
Nathaniel Rakic
God, no. 2 of the three podcast topics this week are. Are not my favorites, so thank you.
- [02:23]
Galen Drew
Hate the economy. You hate the economy. You hate Jeffrey Fuel.
- [02:27]
Nathaniel Rakic
I love redistricting so much that it's worth it.
- [02:29]
Galen Drew
Well, then let's get it out of the way. So a lot of redistricting.
- [02:32]
Nathaniel Rakic
Get redistricting out of the way.
- [02:34]
Galen Drew
No.
- [02:34]
Nathaniel Rakic
How dare you.
- [02:35]
Galen Drew
Jeffrey Epstein.
- [02:36]
Nathaniel Rakic
Thank God.
- [02:36]
Galen Drew
Okay, so a lot of news coverage has drawn a connection between the Jeffrey Epstein files drama and Trump's slide in the polls. And to be clear, Trump's overall approval rating is around net negative 9, net negative 10. And that's ticked down from where it was a couple weeks ago at, say, negative 6, negative 7 at the same time. If you look at some of the recent polling on this Jeffrey Epstein stuff, I'll use Quinnipiac as an example. Their latest poll reads a week after the Justice Department and the FBI effectively closed the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by releasing no new files and concluding that he died by suicide in his jail cell. 17% of voters say they approve of the way the Trump administration is handling the Jeffrey Epstein files, while 63% of voters disapprove. Now, to be clear, that is a plurality of Republicans disapproving and a majority of independents and Democrats disapproving. Just to give you some of those Numbers, Overall, it's 40% of Republicans say they approve, 2% of Democrats say they approve, and 11% of independents say they approve. They approve. So, Mary, let's start with you. Is drawing the connection between Americans disapproval of the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files to overall Trump's decline in the polls. Good data, bad data or not data, gd, BD or needy?
- [04:06]
Mary Radcliffe
I think it's not data, Right? Like, there's, we cannot know what specific events are impacting the overall approval rating. Like, it's not possible to know, really. I mean, asked directly if they approved of Trump's handling of the issue in Reuters, Ipsos, I think he was underwater 17 to 54 in their poll last week's on. On this issue specifically. So, like, it's true that people don't like how Trump is handling the Epstein issue, but there was this really interesting poll that came out yesterday from YouGov and CBS News. They asked about a bunch of different issues. They focused on four topics, which were inflation, immigration, the one big beautiful bill, and the Epstein case. Those are their four. And in each topic area, the last question they asked was, how much does this issue matter to how you evaluate Donald Trump's presidency? Which I thought was really fascinating because we don't see that question in that form very often. So here's what the numbers are. For inflation, 56% of people said it mattered a lot for immigration and deportation, 61% said it mattered a lot. For the one big Beautiful Bill Act, 56% said it mattered a lot. So majorities on all three of those for Epstein case and files, 36% said it mattered a lot. So this is, like, clearly less important to voters than the other issues that are driving the news of the day. And if you want to think like, okay, this has made MAGA mad, because this is what I think a lot of the news coverage has been like, it's made MAGA mad, and they're disapproving of him even more because of it. Only 11% of Republicans said the Epstein case mattered a lot. 54% of Republicans said it did not matter at all. Everyone else said it mattered a little. Right. So, like, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Epstein case in particular is driving the drop in Donald Trump's approval recently. I think it's probably more related to economic issues and immigration.
- [05:55]
Galen Drew
It's a little bit like, have y' all been around for the past decade? It is a little surprising to me maybe, the way that this issue is being handled, not only because I think people already knew that they had a relationship, but also because this is exactly the kind of scandal that doesn't seem to have affected Trump negatively in the past. But you are seeing a lot of coverage that's like, MAGA is turning on Trump. And I think it also maybe misunderstands what MAGA is. Are there people, loud people online who are upset about this or have conspiracies about this that have now, like, an itch they need to scratch? Yes. Is that maga? No. MAGA is people who like Trump and like sort of his core proposals on things like immigration and the rest of the world is taking advantage of the United States and, you know, it's make America great again, not clearly make America wholesome again. So I don't know. I've been a little confused by how this has blown up in a way.
- [06:58]
Mary Radcliffe
Yeah. I mean, I think, like, if you think about the ethos of Trump, especially from. From 2016, when he first came on the scene, I mean, the ethos of Trump has always been like, anti elite in a way. Right. And so I think the reason that this has made waves is that this is seen as, as like the quintessential elite people getting better treatment than non elites. And so it feels sort of contrary to Trump's, like, fundamental nature. That is speculation. I haven't seen polls that ask about that, but for me, I think that's why it's been so big.
- [07:32]
Galen Drew
Nathaniel, can you make the case that this is good data?
- [07:35]
Nathaniel Rakic
No, no, no, I can't. I agree that it is not data. The main thing to me is that, right, this is a good case of, like, Twitter and cable news is because it is not clear to me, looking at the approval rating averages, that Trump has actually gotten less popular. Right? Like, if you look at the New York Times average, he's been basically steady at 44% approval for the past month. His disapproval has ticked up from 52 to 54%. But, like, that's the kind of thing I really don't think that we should be reading into, because when you kind of take a bigger step back and like, in a year when you're looking at this period in time and like, sure, if it continues to go up from 54 to 57, then that's a spike that you'll notice, but it could very easily just go back to 52% this week and then nobody will notice because there's always a little bit of kind of like twitches in the line at some point. Right. Basically, I think the main trend that we have seen with Donald Trump is the same trend that we have seen with basically every president, which is that he started off popular to some degree. Obviously, other presidents have had bigger honeymoon periods in the past than he has. And then there was an inflection point at some point a few months into his term where he flipped and became unpopular. And he's basically been at the level of unpopularity that we have come to expect from Donald Trump from his first term since that time, which is about that 44% approval. I guess during his first term, he tended to hover more around like, 42%. But again, these are small differences. And again, that that disapproval number being just a little bit north of 50%. And so I just don't see the evidence for this mattering among the broader electorate. For I think a lot of the reasons that, that Mary mentioned salience is so important, it isn't because of, you know, you can't just be like, oh, this number, you know, 70% of, of Americans disapprove of his handling, and therefore this is his, and this is what's driving it. Salience is, is. Is really key. I'm also curious, Mary, because to the point about kind of the Republicans, like, yeah, I think Democrats are obviously not going to approve of basically anything that Donald Trump does. So the fact that, what, only 2% of them approve of his handling of the Epstein files is basically irrelevant. The independence number isn't great. For him, it's, it's quite bad. But again, I think independents care more about the economy and immigration. You could maybe, maybe at the start of all this, if you could tell me, like, this is an issue that, like, Republicans are going to be upset with Trump about, and that is a group among heat which he does have room to drop, I could be like, okay, sure, that's plausible. But, Mary, I wonder if you have any stats on Donald Trump's approval rating, average approval rating among Republicans specifically over, say, the past month, and if there's been any movement. Because I'm, I'm betting there hasn't been.
- [10:11]
Mary Radcliffe
I actually do. And, and, and this is going to be surprising, I think. So.
- [10:16]
Galen Drew
I have a, I have a sense of what's about to happen.
- [10:19]
Nathaniel Rakic
Okay.
- [10:19]
Galen Drew
Is it, is it that his approval rating went up amongst Republicans?
- [10:22]
Mary Radcliffe
Yes, Galen, not data. The YouGov economist.
- [10:26]
Nathaniel Rakic
This is data.
- [10:27]
Mary Radcliffe
To be clear, the YouGov economist published on Friday an analysis over the entirety of Trump, Trump's term. His approval rating among not three groups, but four groups. So Democrats, Independents, Republicans that identify as maga, and Republicans that do not identify as maga. And over the last month or so, what you see is his approval rating declining among independents and basically staying the same among Democrats and MAGA Republicans and going up among non MAGA Republicans. And I suspect that increase among non MAGA Republicans has more to do with the economic package that was just passed that includes things that non MAGA Republicans might really like, like tax cuts.
- [11:09]
Nathaniel Rakic
Yeah, interesting. And I wonder maybe the Israeli, the Iran war cause that. Yeah, that sounds like traditional neoconservative Republican thing. And it resolved in a way that actually ended up being pretty good for Trump. We did not, in fact, go into World War iii.
- [11:22]
Galen Drew
So, yeah, Nathaniel, I know you are this podcast's favorite structuralist, and so I'm not surprised to hear you say, well, you know, he was popular and then he started declining in popularity and a certain point he became unpopular, and that's just where we are now. Like, I think if you look at his approval rating over the time that he's been president, you do see reaction to actual events, right?
- [11:46]
Nathaniel Rakic
A few times, yeah.
- [11:47]
Galen Drew
Stock market crashing in response to the tariffs levied. It seems like there's a pretty clear relationship between implementing those tariffs or Liberation Day tariffs. And his approval rating dropping significantly to its lowest point around net negative 10. Then going back up a little bit. As that went on pause, the stock market boomed. But I am curious. I think, yes, there is some noise in there, but if you look at the Silver Bulletin. And if you look at Elliot's approval rating as well, you do see some recent decline. And I think that every pundit can sort of like take their pick in terms of what they want to attribute that decline to, because there is no, this isn't going to be divined by God. Like, no one's going to tell us it was, you know, one third this and two thirds that and whatever. But I think the competing causes are, you know, a negative reaction to Trump's deportation policies, the Jeffrey Epstein stuff, the one big beautiful Bill act passing, and then otherwise, you know, just cost of living stuff. Issues enduring. I don't think Americans are probably reacting to the fact that annualized inflation ticked up to 2.9% from 2.7%. But if I had to take my pick, you know, if I'm just going to toss my two pennies into the pundit potential, I'm going to guess one big beautiful Bill act because that is super salient stuff that people feel is more concrete and it and a change of topic and it's different from what they had experienced from the Trump administration so far. And I'm not even saying that is necessarily like people already feeling the impact because they aren't right. The cuts to Medicaid and the changes to the Affordable Care act subsidies and things like that people won't experience until after the midterms. But this vibe of Republicans care more about the wealthy, they care less about the poor, et cetera, et cetera. If I had to guess, that's where the decline is coming from. And it also got wall to wall coverage. I know Jeffrey Epstein is getting like, if you go on the Wall Street Journal in the New York Times on a regular basis, it keeps being at the top of the page, which again is a little bit surprising to me. Even though that's the case, I don't think it's. I think people maybe find it entertaining, but I don't know if they find it important, as has already been discussed. So, yeah, I would be curious between the three or four topics out there, if you were forced to draw a connection. And we've already established that this is not data where you might land.
- [14:19]
Mary Radcliffe
So on the tracker that Elliot has up that uses data that I collect, you can see that sort of the, like local peak before Trump's approval rating started declining again was around June 10th. And what's interesting, if you compare that on the like tracker we have on key issues, that's also around when you see his immigration approval start to crater so for whatever that might be worth, like, those things seem to be happening in tandem. I mean, there's other things that are falling around that time, too. So trade and jobs in the economy are both also kind of declining. So that, like, you would expect these things to be declining in tandem because if you start to disapprove of the President, you'll disapprove more on issues like, they should be correlated. But I think the most significant drop at that time is in the immigration approval. This is also, I think, around the time of the protests in Los Angeles and. And all of that going on. So that seems to have, like, kicked off the big decline. So I'm going to put my hat on immigration as, like, the first tipping point of the, like, recent slide.
- [15:21]
Galen Drew
Nathaniel, he's like, I'm a structuralist. Stop asking me these questions.
- [15:25]
Nathaniel Rakic
I mean, basically, like, I mean, yeah, you know, I will caveat that, like, I do think it is basically impossible to tell and there may not be an answer to. Because these things kind of work together, right? They feed into each other, to me, I think. And again, I think this is also a little parable in, like, it does matter which average you look at, because, like, if you do look at the New York Times average, it has been more stable than in Nate Silver's or Elliot Morris's averages. But even in Nate's and Elliot's averages, the decline has been gradual. So I agree that the Big Beautiful Bill feels more important. It's undeniably unpopular, but that may have been baked in. I mean, I guess the negotiations over the Big Beautiful bill were happening for a long time before it actually passed on, like, July 3rd, I think. And so you wouldn't necessarily expect, like, a kind of a sharp dip right after it. So maybe that actually does feed along with the. The gradual decline, as does the immigration stuff as well. But my gut instinct, and again, there's no way to confirm this is kind of just the economy stuff and the continuing sense that the economy isn't getting better. I agree that they're not being like, you know, oh, like the, you know, the inflation rate is 2.7% or whatever it is. But, like, obviously, the number one thing that voters elected Donald Trump to do, based on exit polling and all the data that we have from last year, was to stop inflation, get prices under control. That hasn't happened. It hasn't been, you know, we haven't had 9% inflation. But I just think there's this nagging sense, and I think with every day, week, month that goes by people start to lose patience and maybe, you know, a few more, a handful more people every, every day disapprove, start disapproving of Donald Trump because they're just kind of running out of that patience. And to me, that fits with the kind of gradual decline, maybe decline that we've been seeing, which again, is like a point or two. So that's, that's probably what I would say. But again, I do think that feeds into, I think that plus the big, beautiful bill negotiations, you can be like, Donald Trump said that he would lower price. Why is he focusing on this other thing like cutting Medicaid, which, like, I don't think is a good idea? Donald Trump said he would focus on lowering prices, but this immigration stuff is out of control and there are protests on the street and this is very chaotic. This isn't what I voted for. So I think, again, I think it's all fed in together. And I don't think that voters are as linear as connecting it to one issue. But I think if you had to make me pick, I think I would say the economy.
- [17:45]
Galen Drew
All right, so we have three people, three different explanations. We have one big, beautiful bill, actually, we have Useful.
- [17:50]
Nathaniel Rakic
Right.
- [17:50]
Galen Drew
I think also, though, I do want to point to a piece of data that backs up your theory, Nathaniel, which is that all of Trump's first term, his approval on the economy was significantly better than his approval overall. So that sort of maybe buoyed him a little bit, even at some of the hardest moments of his first term. This term it's the reverse. So his overall approval rating is better than his approval on the economy. Right. And just to give you some example, because Word of zipsos is tracking these issues separately. So overall job performance for Trump right now is 41%. Overall job.
- [18:29]
Mary Radcliffe
In their survey, in their, in their.
- [18:30]
Galen Drew
Survey, performance on the economy is 35% approval. Right. Whereas if you go back to his first term, at this moment in time, he had about a 45% approval rating on the economy, while he had like a 36% approval rating overall. So I think Americans are not feeling the same way about the Trump economy 2.0 that they felt about the Trump economy 1.0.
- [18:58]
Nathaniel Rakic
Yeah, I think that's, that's undeniably true. And if you look at kind of the breakdown by Issue Silver Bulletin has, has a breakdown like that. And I know that that strength in numbers does as well. Inflation is Trump's worst issue. And again, that also being the most salient issue. It's like, maybe we should just go with Occam's razor. That, like, the most salient issue being his worst issue probably is the thing exerting the most downward gravitational pull on his approval rating.
- [19:21]
Galen Drew
I do want to say one more thing, though, about Mary's point on immigration, which is Americans disapproved of Biden's handling so much that there was some question of the severity of thermostatic public opinion that we might experience once Trump actually starts implementing his policies. Right. Like, when Trump got into office, the mass deportation stuff, building a wall stuff, had a. A literal majority, like, above 50% of Americans supported it. And these were not questions of, like, should we just deport to criminals? It was, you know, do you favor mass deportations in the United States of people who are in the country illegally? It seems like Americans have changed their minds pretty quickly.
- [20:02]
Mary Radcliffe
I just want to take a moment of personal privilege here to say that last year when we were talking about this issue, I kept saying Americans are going to sour on Trump's handling of immigration. Like, he's going to overreach. You know, Americans are actually more to the left on this than. Than Trump is. And you guys didn't necessarily agree with me, so I just moment to glow.
- [20:24]
Nathaniel Rakic
Sorry. I do think. I mean, I think that, like. Right. I don't think it's actually that Americans have moved that much, because I do think that we have known for a while that Americans want to deport criminals, but people who have been here a long time and people who are, like, nonviolent offenders, they don't want to deport. And obviously, Trump has gone even farther with, you know, illeg deportations. And so, yeah, I think. I do think that Trump has obviously gone way further to the right than. Than Americans would like him to. I think Americans may have approved of Donald Trump on immigration or, like, trusted him more than Biden and Harris on immigration last year because of the salience of, like, the border. And now the thing that's salient about immigration is the deportations.
- [20:59]
Galen Drew
I think there's also something else important to keep in mind here, which is that, like, you're right, the backlash has been pretty severe. And still, despite all of the unpopular and controversial things Trump has done, Americans trust Republicans more on the issue of immig than Democrats. Right. So, on one hand, well, Americans don't approve of literally anything Donald Trump is doing, and immigration is still his best issue of all of the different things that he's doing. And number two, if you force Americans to choose between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, they're still choosing Republicans. So I think that there is a tendency amongst some of the chattering classes on the left to be like, see, look, we were right about immigration. And it's like, okay, well, why don't you try offering the Biden approach to immigration at the next election and see what happens then? So I think it's, it's a more nuanced story. Like Americans don't agree fully with either Republicans or Democrats on this issue. Basically, the answer is they agree with Republicans on border security and they agree with Democrats on citizen, a pathway to citizenship for people who are in the country illegally who are contributing to the economy. And at the moment, no party is offering that kind of platform is kind is basically what's happening.
- [22:12]
Mary Radcliffe
Yeah. So, so just to put some numbers around this change, if you look at CNN's polling on this issue. So in February of this year, they asked whether Donald Trump has gone too far, been about right or not gone far enough when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the United States illegally. Back in February, there was a majority of people that said it's either been about right or not gone far enough. Now there's a majority saying it's gone too far. So it basically completely flipped. It was 55, 40 in February saying it was about right or not far enough. And now it's 55, 45 the other way. So almost exactly flip.
- [22:48]
Galen Drew
All right, well, we took the Jeffrey Epstein story as an opportunity to talk about some other perhaps more important issues. I see what you guys did there.
- [22:55]
Nathaniel Rakic
I approve. Yeah.
- [22:57]
Galen Drew
Let's move on and talk a little more specifically about the economy. But first, a break. Today's podcast is brought to you by GiveWell. This year's cuts to US foreign aid have made headlines. They've also raised concerns about the future of people in some of the world's poorest communities. But it's hard to know what's actually happening or how to help. GiveWell doesn't claim to have all the answers, but over the past 18 years, the Independent nonprofit research organization has helped guide More than 135,000 donors and two and a half billion dollars to highly cost effective aid. Its researchers are analyzing the impact of USAID funding cuts real time and sharing what they're learning with everyone for free through research updates, grant write ups and podcast conversations. GiveWell has already committed tens of millions of dollars to directly address needs emerging from this year's cuts. And its researchers are working to forecast, find and fund the next highly cost effective ways to help. For trusted evidence backed insights and information about how you can help. Follow along@givewell.org USAID it's become something of a running joke between Mary Radcliffe and myself that at some point on this podcast we will talk about the debt and deficit because a while back I said we were going to do a segment on it and as often happens, we talk too much and then we didn't actually get to it. So, Mary, this is your opportunity. Increasingly, economists have been saying, all right, I wasn't shouting about the debt previously, but now I'm shouting about it. I mean, to maybe a more neutral observer, that might seem a little bit like, oh, convenient, you know, you're a left leaning economist and now that Republicans are the ones spending a lot of money, you're worried about the debt and deficit. But let's throw all the politicians and chattering classes out and let's just look at Americans. How do Americans feel about the debt and deficit in this moment?
- [25:01]
Mary Radcliffe
So I mean, if you ask people directly, are you concerned about the debt? They say yes, right? They are. Does it come up as like a top issue? Not so much. So just a couple of pulling pieces here. So the Peter G. Peterson foundation does monthly tracking on specifically debt and deficit. Like their entire survey is about the debt and deficit. And their monthly tracking shows that, you know, when, when Trump first won the election, people actually felt a little more optimistic that the debt would be getting better under the Trump administration. When Trump won, the percentage of people saying the debt would be getting better slid up. It had been hovering in the mid-30s during the, the tail end of the Biden administration. It went up to like the mid-40s. So like a 10% jump in confidence that this problem would be getting better. And it stayed there until about March and then just right back down to the mid-30s. So the Trump administration doesn't seem to be improving people's outlook on this. But here's, I mean, I think a pretty interesting nugget here. So in a recent Fox News poll, they had an open ended question where they asked people like, hey, what's the top issue facing America? And 3% of people in an open end question mentioned something about the debt and deficit. And like the top issue was I believe 27% of people mentioned something about inflation and cost of living. So while this is something that if you say, hey, do you care about the debt? People will say, yes, I do, generally majority. But they don't care about it more than they care about their own pocketbook issues. I don't know to the extent to which that will change as the debt problem continues to become more severe, but I suspect not if it doesn't touch people's actual lives, I don't think people are going to start caring about it.
- [26:38]
Nathaniel Rakic
Well, the debt has been getting more severe for what, decades? Right. I mean, what's going to be the tipping point? I'm not sure that it exists, so.
- [26:47]
Galen Drew
Yeah, well, historically it's ended up mattering to people when politicians talk about it in a way that people feel as though it matters to them. I think we've talked about this before on the podcast, but like Ross Perot spent his entire 1992 campaign talking about it and told people like the debt and deficit is the reason for this recession. It's the reason you don't have a job, it's the reason you don't have as much money as you want and the like. Public opinion is malleable, but somebody has to like seize the opportunity in order to change it. And I think at this moment everyone, both parties want to do so much in terms of tax cuts and new programs and whatever that it would, it doesn't align with the direction that the parties want to go in like making a full throated argument about the debt and deficit. Which is why it would probably be a third party independent type person who would once again come in and make fetch happen.
- [27:39]
Mary Radcliffe
Yeah, I mean I think think neither party is really a credible messenger on this issue because both parties in the last few administrations have contributed pretty significantly to increases in the deficit. So I don't know that that you could expect voters to believe either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party if, when they talk about this issue. Now there's some few figures I think that are credible messengers on this issue. Right. Like if you put Thomas Massie on TV talking about the debt, I think he's a credible messenger because he's one of the only people who's been consist in not voting for debt increases.
- [28:14]
Galen Drew
So from one topic that Americans say they care about but don't ultimately sort of vote on necessarily to another topic that I don't know how much is on Americans radar at all, which is an independent Fed. So Trump has been threatening Jerome Powell, I would say like tacitly, but at this point I think they publicized that he had written a letter firing him and that he was going around asking if he should actually send it. So that's not so tacit. You know, we don't have to become an economic theory podcast. But in the absence of an independent Fed, what oftentimes happens is politicians pressure the central bank to lower interest rates in the run up to an election in order to make voters happy to boost the economy, which may be sort of exciting and enticing in the short term, but in the long term can lead to inflation levels like we see in places like Argentina and Turkey, where 9% annualized inflation, which was the highest point that we reached in 2022, look very quaint in comparison to like 35 to 100% annualized inflation. So there is actually, when it comes to what Americans say they care a lot about, which is inflation and the cost of living. A lot at stake here, but I'm not. But Mary, you tell me, are Americans actually drawing that sort of relationship?
- [29:31]
Mary Radcliffe
Would you believe that. That I don't have any polls in my database that I've tagged. It's talking about interest rates.
- [29:37]
Galen Drew
What? Wait, I'm. No, hold on. Usually I'm like cynical about this stuff, but I am actually surprised.
- [29:43]
Mary Radcliffe
I do have a couple recently that asked about Jerome Powell in the Federal Reserve, but I really don't have. At least since November. I went and searched for interest rates in my database and I didn't tag any of them that way. It doesn't mean they don't exist. But I didn't, I didn't add that tag.
- [29:59]
Galen Drew
That's kind of a failure.
- [30:00]
Mary Radcliffe
Like, I tried to Google for it and like the, the top hits that come up on Google is like a poll from 2015.
- [30:07]
Galen Drew
Given that we have higher interest rates than we've had for, you know, the decades prior, I think it is kind of surprise and that people are frustrated about the cost of housing and the like. It's surprising to me that people aren't pollsters. Get on this, you know, put some interest rate questions on your surveys.
- [30:23]
Mary Radcliffe
Yeah, I mean, I have. So since Trump has been talking about firing Jerome Powell, a couple of pollsters have asked about him in particular and the independence of the Fed also. So Atlas intel last week published a survey that asked about Jerome Powell. And specifically they were asking about how voters saw Powell's decision to hold interest rates stable. They asked whether they voters thought this was based on a genuine interest in promoting a healthy US Economy or if it was political bias. Those are the two options. Now, we can quibble with that question wording, but that's the question as it was worded. Okay. On that question, 43% said that this his decision to hold interest rate study was based on a genuine interest in promoting a healthy economy, and 38% said it was political bias. So that's a 5% edge for Powell, like 5 percentage points more saying that his interest is genuine, but that's not much. I was actually pretty surprised by this survey to the extent that voters are paying attention. So, first of all, to have like 80% of voters express an opinion rather than say they don't know was pretty surprising to me. And that so many of those people said that they thought Powell was acting based on political bias was also surprising to me. YouGov, CBS, in their survey yesterday, asked directly about Fed fed independence, and 68 said the Fed should be independent from Donald Trump, 32% said it should be guided by what Trump wants. So they've got got much more support for an independent Fed than I think you would expect based on the Atlas intel survey. But so that's. That's what we've seen so far since this recent dust up.
- [32:09]
Galen Drew
Well, we will keep following the story and see what happens if he does decide to try to fire Jerome Powell. But let's move on.
- [32:18]
Nathaniel Rakic
That would get me interested in the economy.
- [32:19]
Mary Radcliffe
Yeah, I will say, I mean, like, the reaction among, like, the investment class and the business class here has been really interesting. Some economist was saying, or an investor was saying to a journalist that based on all of this, he doesn't know who the next governor of the Federal Reserve will be, and he already doesn't trust them because of all of this talk. Like Trump. Jerome Powell, even if Trump doesn't fire him, will be gone next year. Right. And so Trump will appoint a new director and whoever that is. Already this. You have people asking questions about their independence.
- [32:54]
Galen Drew
Yeah. All right, well, let's move on to a topic I have written in my prep doc, the Economy, starring Mary Radcliffe. And the next topic is redistricting. Texas and California, starring Nathaniel Rakic. Okay, so let's move on, Nathaniel, to a topic that's more squarely in your wheelhouse. Republicans in Texas are calling a special legislative session that actually begins today. They have several things on the docket, including, you know, aid for all of the flooding that happened, Texas and the like. But one of them is also redistricting, which, as I'm sure many people who listen to this podcast know, generally happens once every decade after the census is conducted. We have new population numbers, so the lines get redrawn based on how Americans have moved around the country and around the state. So it does not usually happen in the middle of the decade. Texas Republicans are thinking of doing things a little bit differently. Nathaniel, what's going on?
- [33:54]
Nathaniel Rakic
What's going on is that under the current maps, Republicans are Almost certainly going to lose the House in 2026. Right. Democrats only need to pick up three seats. There are actually only three seats that Harris carried that are currently occupied by a Republican. But then there are many other seats that were very, very close in the election, which obviously Donald Trump won the popular vote, which is kind of, I think you could say that is a high watermark for Republican performance. And if we see a midterm environment like we saw in 2018, if we see just kind of like a more neutral year or slightly Democratic leaning year, Democrats should be able to pick up more than enough seats to win Republicans. One of the only ways, I think, in which they could have a fighting shot at keeping the House next year is to redraw some of the maps. So Ohio is already going to be redrawing its map. That is something that we knew was going to happen because basically it's complicated. But under Ohio law, if you don't get a bipartisan map, the map is only good for two election cycles. And it was, we had it in 2022 and 2024, and now they're going to redraw it for 2026. Republicans are in process. They could probably get a couple seats out of that. But Texas, of course, is a real prize because it is the largest state that is controlled by Republicans. There are still a lot of, a lot more Republican representatives from Texas than there are Democratic ones. The map is already pretty friendly to Republicans, but there are a few ways in which they could draw the, the new map to pick up. Really. I think any, anything up to maybe four seats. I would, I think four seats is plausible. Anything more than that is going to start getting tricky. I can explain why, but. Yeah, but basically it, it is an attempt for Republicans to obviously, in a way that is gerrymandering and not good for voting rights and fair elections to try to hold on to control of the House next year.
- [35:38]
Galen Drew
Wait, so, Nathaniel, is this just generally allowed? Like, can any state redistrict in the middle of the decade if it wants to?
- [35:45]
Nathaniel Rakic
It's complicated. It is definitely more. I would say it was. It is more enforced by norms than by laws. But some states do explicitly have provisions preventing that. In other states, it's more ambiguous. And other states, like Texas, they have done it before. This was something that famously happened in 2005. In the middle of that decade, Tom Delay, who, you know, was later, you know, indicted and kind of orchestrated this plan to get more Republicans seats in Texas, California, which we'll talk about in a minute. It is Ambiguous to illegal to do that. But, but yeah, it, it is something that states have done in the past to gain an advantage, obviously. Kind of a, a naked partisan power grab in, in the House.
- [36:28]
Galen Drew
Okay. You said that you were going to talk about why four seats is probably the upper limit of what Texas Republicans can get out of a redistricting scheme.
- [36:38]
Nathaniel Rakic
Yeah. So basically, you know, Texas Republicans are in a situation now where they can make some nips and tucks to the map or they can really kind of.
- [36:48]
Galen Drew
Go for the jugular, you know.
- [36:50]
Nathaniel Rakic
Exactly. Right. Or a total reconstructive surgery.
- [36:53]
Galen Drew
Okay. Yeah.
- [36:54]
Nathaniel Rakic
The issue is that if you kind of tinker, if you mess with the map too much, you are going to upset current members of Congress. Right. And that, you know, if you try to blow up every Democratic, you know, district or, you know, kind of maximize the number of Republican districts. The way that it works. Right. Is you take some, you know, Democratic voters and kind of like put them, hide them in currently heavily Republican seats. And if you do that too much, then those seats start to get competitive. And there are a lot of representatives who don't want to run in competitive seats. And especially if we're looking at another 2018 level blue wave, maybe you could draw a seat that is Trump +10 in order to get rid of a next door neighbor seat that is safely Democratic currently. But, but the Trump +10 district might not cut it. You might, you're going to be in a competitive rates this year maybe. And so there's going to be, I think, a lot of internal lobbying probably because nobody wants to go out against Trump and the party's interests kind of on the record. But I think you're going to see a lot of under the table poking to say, hey, I don't want, you know, more Democrats in my district, let's not do this. But basically the, the easiest way for Republicans to pick up seats in Texas is two seats that are already competitive in the Rio Grande Valley. This is Henry Cuellar's seat and Vicente Gonzalez's seat. Those like, you know, there's a decent chance that they might flip to Republicans because of the movement among Latinos toward, toward Republicans. They could also pretty easily just do those nips and tucks, like I said, to basically put them out of reach for Democrats. I think if, you know, that's kind of their lowest bar for things, they could just do that and not upset any other incumbents in any other areas of the map. And, you know, I think Republicans would kind of go home happy with that. Some Republicans Maybe not Mike Johnson and Donald Trump, which of course, course, Donald Trump is the one who matters here.
- [38:35]
Mary Radcliffe
Can I ask a question?
- [38:36]
Nathaniel Rakic
Yes, please.
- [38:38]
Mary Radcliffe
So I wonder, like, I don't know the extent to which you've thought about this, but I wonder if Republicans might end up shooting themselves in the foot here if we see some reversion on that racial realignment that you're discussing.
- [38:51]
Nathaniel Rakic
So the, the precincts that they would add, I think would be more reliably Republican. They wouldn't, like, make these districts more Latino. So I think that, that it actually would be good for them politically to do that because it would hedge against that. Bas, because. Right. I agree. There is at least some chance that Latinos will revert back toward Democrats, maybe more so than the average voter, because we do expect some reversion to the mean in 2026, regardless. But, but I think that, you know, adding some more conservative areas around Corpus Christi, for example, to, to one of these districts would kind of hedge against that because these were at one point safe Democratic districts, especially, in fact, at.
- [39:28]
Galen Drew
One point, some of the bluest districts in the country.
- [39:30]
Nathaniel Rakic
Right, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, yes, but good question. So, okay, so if you're Republicans, you get those two seats maybe with some relatively simple changes. The next kind of nuts to crack are the Dallas Fort Worth area and the Houston area. Those areas could get like, you have three Democratic seats in Dallas Fort Worth and you have four in Houston. It would be relatively easy for them to get one seat from each, one Democratic seat from each without endangering too many. You would probably not endanger any Republican incumbents in those areas. You might give them new areas that are bluer, that maybe they don't want to have have for just kind of personal, parochial reasons. But that's how you could get to four seats, again, somewhat easily, without rocking the boat too, too much. But after that, it gets tricky because if you're trying to blow up a second Democratic seat in either Dallas or Houston, then you're going to probably put some Republican incumbent in a competitive race. And that, to me, I think, is going to be a bridge too far for them. So I'm very curious to see exactly what they decide.
- [40:28]
Galen Drew
And also we talk a lot about movement amongst Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. But also we have seen a lot of leftward move in the Texas suburbs over the past decade in the Dallas Fort Worth and Houston area. And if we do see a midterm in 2026 with differential turnout with a lot of the wealthier, higher educated set turning out to vote like we have seen in recent midterm elections, then you do really risk putting somebody in a competitive seat who's in a safely Republican seat now. But so Overall there are 38 congressional representatives from Texas, 25 Republicans, 12 Democrats. It looks like they have some movement that they can do there and they may well. Gavin Newsom, governor of California, has said, all right, you guys gerrymander Texas. We are going to gerrymander California. As folks who have been listening to, who listen to the Forbearer podcast to this know California has an independent slash bipartisan redistricting commission. It was a long process that was in some ways kicked off by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger even. Nonetheless, I mean, it's a very Democratic map already. So out of the 52 congressional members from California, 43 are Democrats, nine are Republicans. So from a logistical perspective, can Gavin Newsom actually do this? Can Democrats in California re sort of gerrymander the map and get rid of the commission? And then if they did, like, how many seats could they even get? Because, because lest we forget that California had the most Trump voters of any state in the country, over 6 million Trump voters. So it's not like there are no Republicans in California and they only have nine seats currently.
- [42:16]
Nathaniel Rakic
No, that is very true. But there, the geography of California is pretty favorable to Democrats. So there, there is a way that they could flip, you know, multiple Republican seats. But yeah, the bigger obstacle is just going to be doing it because there is no clear legal mechanism to do this. So as you mentioned, California has an independent redistricting commission. The legislature can't just go up and draw a map. They have an independent commission to do this. And that commission only convenes once every 10 years. And even if they somehow reconvened it now, it would, they would draw a fair map because that's their job. Gavin Newsom has proposed kind of two ways in which to do this. One is to say that basically pull some legal jujitsu and to say, oh well, the like independent redistricting commission, its job is only to draw the map every 10 years. But that doesn't mean that the legislature can't draw the map in between those years. Okay, which obviously is very much undemocratic and against the spirit of the commission. It is also against kind of California law as it has currently been interpreted by the California Supreme Court. In 1983, the California Supreme Court ruled that you can't do mid decade redistricting in California. You know, obviously the composition of the court has changed in the last 40 years, maybe if Democrats want to try and draw a map in the legislature and then dare Republicans to sue, and then it goes all the way up to the California Supreme Court, we can see what happens. And if they kind of follow the lead of other courts in the nation and become kind of more partisan, it is a court that is predominantly Democratic leaning in terms of its appointees. So that's one option. The other option is for the legislature to vote, to put a ballot measure on the ballot, presumably here in November 2025 that would repeal the independent redistricting commission or at least, quote, put it on pause until 2031 or whatever, which, you know, would then, you know, if that ballot measure then passes in 2025, then the idea is that the legislature would then redistrict in early 2026, get new maps in time for the 2026 election. The problem with the this is, I mean, there are just so many hurdles to cross. The legislature would have to agree to put the ballot measure on the ballot, which would require a 2/3 vote. The ballot measure would have to pass, which would require voters agreeing to this. And then they'd have to draw the maps in time for the 2026 election, which is a really tight timetable because it really takes a lot of time to draw a map and implement it. And you know, primaries in California are happening in June of 2026. The filing deadline is in March. Now, they could states if they wanted to the legislature, but it would just become a very compressed timetable. And then you do run into more legal issues with, you know, courts saying you can't make changes so close to an election, et cetera. So both of these paths, one of them is illegal, probably, and the other seems so logistically far fetched that it probably isn't going to happen. And so that, I think, in summary, leads me to say that this should not be covered as a, a story of like, which seats can Democrats pick up from Republicans in California. This should be covered as a, a 2028 story where Gavin Newsom is definitely running for president and wants to be seen as like a fighter and is willing to like, burn all down all norms in order to beat Republicans, which he's betting will be something that is, will be in demand among Democratic primary voters in 2028, which I think is probably true. And then the other aspect is that they're, they're bluffing to try to stop Texas. Right? If, if Texas Republicans truly believe that California can do this, then maybe they will leave the map alone or maybe they will only leave those two seats in the rearview.
- [45:58]
Galen Drew
If anyone from, if any Texas Republicans are listening to this podcast, then they probably been disabused of that notion.
- [46:04]
Nathaniel Rakic
They have lawyers. I don't think that it will work. But I mean, you've also heard from, you know, people rumblings in other states like New York and Illinois, where it would be more kind of legally feasible to change the map. So I do think there is an element of deterrence here for Democrats which makes sense for them to at least try. But yeah, I think that the Texas. It'll be really interesting to see what happens with Texas. It does seem like there's going to be some change made to the map. I don't know exactly what the upshot will be, but I will be surprised if Democrats are able to retaliate. Certainly in California and in other states, I guess. Tbd.
- [46:37]
Galen Drew
It's also thinking of the scale here. Right. Like right now Democrats only have to win three seats. Okay. If Texans, Texas Republicans really burn it down and they can get four to five seats, like we're not looking at a fundamentally different picture for how the 2026 midterms could go.
- [46:57]
Mary Radcliffe
That's exactly what I was going to say. Right. Like you mentioned, Nathaniel, that there's a lot of districts that, that Republicans are going to need to defend and I don't know, four or five seats is enough to make.
- [47:09]
Galen Drew
I mean historically not.
- [47:10]
Mary Radcliffe
Right.
- [47:11]
Nathaniel Rakic
It will be. Right. So I do think like, I think it moves the needle notably. Right. Like going from needing a three seat pickup to needing. So say they do four seats in Texas plus the two in Ohio that I mentioned. So that would be nine seats. Like, you know, that is a significantly higher bar and I would say it takes it from like again, currently under the current maps, I think Democrats are all but assured to win the House if they have to pick up nine seats. I think there are scenarios where, you know, if a neutral environment materializes and we don't see the, the blue wave and stuff like that, then maybe they don't win the House. But I think it takes it from like something like these are, you know, made up numbers, but something from like a 98% chance for Democrats to like maybe a 75% chance for Democrats. Obviously you'd rather have that if you were Republicans, but.
- [47:54]
Galen Drew
Right.
- [47:54]
Nathaniel Rakic
I think at the end of the day the outcome will probably be about the same.
- [47:58]
Mary Radcliffe
Know how many seats flipped in 2018?
- [48:00]
Nathaniel Rakic
Just curious. I think it was 41.
- [48:03]
Mary Radcliffe
Ah yeah, there it is.
- [48:04]
Nathaniel Rakic
But I should, I should note like, right. This is a, this is a good point. Right. So on average, the president's party loses 25 House seats in the midterms. Historically, I do think there is reason to think that that number will be smaller in 2026, not because of the environment, which I do expect to be pretty Democratic leaning, but just because the number of competitive House seats has been shrinking and shrinking and shrinking over time. And so I do think that there are probably about 20 seats that Democrats have a pretty good shot at winning in 2026. And you know, they won't win all of them, obviously, but somewhere between maybe a 10 and 30 seat gains seems, seems plausible. And again, like, obviously, but like that 10 seat gain, you know, might not, I guess 10 is still bigger than nine, but like it makes it closer. So. So yeah, I do want to emphasize that it is not, we're not probably not looking at 2018 level gains in the House even if the popular vote is the same just because of the different maps.
- [48:54]
Galen Drew
All right, well, I think that's where we're going to leave things for today. Thank you Nathaniel and Mary for joining me.
- [48:59]
Mary Radcliffe
Thanks for having me on.
- [49:01]
Galen Drew
My name is Galen Droock. Remember to become a subscriber to to this podcast@gdpolitics.com and wherever you get your podcast. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes and access to 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 can keep this podcast going. Also, be a friend of the podcast and go give us a five star rating, maybe even tell a friend about us. Thanks for listening and we will see you. It.