A (2:52)

I know this is very exciting. So, so as you know, we always start off with one of the toughest questions which relates to the Lunch with Jamie theme. Last time I was in New York, I took you to Via Carota, which is one of the best restaurants in New York. So next time I'm in New York, I want to look forward to this meal. Where are you taking me?

B (3:16)

Can you get us reservations?

A (3:19)

Yes, I can get the reservations.

B (3:21)

Okay. You get all the reservations. All right, I did. I usually don't think restaurants that are like impossible to get into are actually worth it, but I got in for dinner at 5:15 at the corner store and I thought it was incredible. So if you could take me to the corner store, that would be great.

A (3:40)

You know how many get a reservation there? I'm going to say I'm bringing Jesse Tarlov. Could we get a reservation?

B (3:44)

It doesn't work. I mean it's not going to get you anywhere. So find a bigger name friend, pretend that they're coming and then let's go to the corner store.

A (3:53)

So we're going to cover so many topics in a very short. I hate dating things specifically. But we are about T minus five hours from the start of the LA of the State of the Union. First of all, I have this vision of your Fox, your five co hosts kind of all cuddling together on the couch holding hands and got their beers out, eating popcorn. What are they doing? Do they have watch parties? What do they do? What are Greg and Jesse doing for the, for the State of the Union?

B (4:24)

Well, the five, not me. Like Harold Ford is on today. They're in D.C. so they're doing a live show there. And then Harold does cover it. We'll do some coverage afterwards with Dana Perino. Greg stayed home and definitely won't be watching. Jesse will be on until nine and then I'm pretty sure he'll go out to dinner and not watch. So it's not, it's not what you think. They're actually like disinterested until they have to be. So everyone will be cramming tomorrow before you have to have some sort of smart reaction. But I just saw that apparently it could be two and a half to three hours long. So, you know, I, who's gonna stay up for that?

A (5:05)

I mean, we are, but yeah, I am. I mean I'm, I'm, I, I like, I'm like there's times where I'll say I'm not gonna watch. But I'm not. I mean, I have it, like, block. I have it on my calendar. I added as, like, a calendar event in my calendar today.

B (5:18)

So that's a little lame, but here we are.

A (5:21)

That's all right.

B (5:22)

Yeah, it's okay. Yeah.

A (5:26)

I want to. I want to have one quickly about the Olympics, because I saw you guys talking about it yesterday on the five. I was there. I was there for the women's gold medal hockey game.

B (5:38)

Amazing.

A (5:39)

I was there for figure skating, speed skating, men's semifinals. I was not there for the men's gold medal game, which is now what all of the drama relates to. First, I want to say, I think it was just so awesome, these. And also so heartbreaking. These athletes like Amber Glenn and Hunter Hess and these athletes who had to come out and answer these questions about what it means to represent America and sort of. And really, they threaded a needle, I think, in many ways. And I know some people. People are so angry, and how could you just not be so excited to represent the United States? And just with no caveats. And I think they did a good job across the board. I know. I'm sure your co hosts were really angry from what I saw, and got so mad at anybody who would say anything contrary to that. But it's complicated. It's complicated to be American. Just being American in Europe right now or anywhere internationally is complicated. So for these athletes who spent their whole lives being. Becoming the best at a sport, to then be on stage and have to be asked about ice in Minneapolis. Right. Is just so awful that we've put them in that situation. And it's a bummer, because as an American, I want to just root for America when I was over there, and I did. But I also myself felt conflicted at moments, especially with the hockey team. I think I'm so proud that they won. And that video surfacing of Trump speaking to them was an unfortunate way to tarnish sort of the end of the Olympics. But I think you did a good job representing on the show. It must be frustrating and challenging as always. So I don't know, what's your take now after that conversation?

B (7:26)

Well, a few things I want to, I guess, back up to the first part of what you were talking about with feeling conflicted about the state of America for these athletes and maybe, maybe controversial position to be taking amongst my liberal friends here. But I actually wish that reporters would not put these athletes in that kind of position when they have to be so mentally tough to keep competing at that level, if you want to have a press conference at the end where everybody reflects on the state of things abroad and at home, I think that that makes sense. If an athlete wants to say something, that's their business. But I think that there are a few reporters, one who's at the time or at the Athletic, which is now like via the Times, who was really, really pushing and you could tell how much kind of mental anguish it was putting the athletes in. And we know from, like, how Simone Biles has spoken about her mental health and Naomi Osaka and others that, like, there is nothing tougher than getting through this. And you have two weeks, capitalize on a lifetime of training. And so I don't. As someone who loves talking about politics more than anything, I actually wish that there was a way to remove it from those kinds of conversations. When it's clear that an athlete doesn't want to go there. Like, when they do want to go there, great. When they're not interested. Like, I saw that one of our track and field athletes who is still in school in Texas just endorsed James Talarico. Did that. Totally voluntary. Like, that's his business. I'm blinking on his name. But I kind of get a bit squeamish when I see like an 18 year old who is suddenly being thrust into this global conversation about an authoritarian takeover and constitutional abuses in the US when, like, they're just trying to speed skate. So that's my take, which I totally accept that many people might not agree with.

A (9:34)

But no, I Listen, I agree 100%. I mean, I think it's a question of, like, you. When, when is it okay, right? Is it okay? And. And should we be asking athletes, should we be asking, you know, act like Channing Tatum at, at Berlin got, you know, got attacked for something. I mean, so I think it's a fine line. And these athletes are in the public eye and these are topics, you know, we sort of wish you could have sort of spaces where you sort of hold sacred 100%.

B (10:05)

Yeah. And I think, like, actors, you know, they have moments where they really want to show up and do these things, like wearing the ice out pins to the globes and things like that. But I just, you know, I only played Division 3 tennis, and like, I even thought that that was mentally taxing. I can't even imagine what it's like when the country, you know, their hopes and dreams are riding on you and whatever you're about to do in the next two and a half minutes or whatever. So that's how I Feel on that front, the question about what happened with hockey, I can, I don't want to say I can see both sides of it. Like, Donald Trump's gonna. Donald Trump, like, that joke was perfectly on brand for him. He would make it in 1965 the same way he would make it in 2026. I think that it's gross. I said that it was gross. And I feel like we're in a bit of a rock and a hard place. I think people who have platforms should continue to speak out about this and just say, like, just because you're not offended by it doesn't mean that there aren't people who are. And like, to this moment, we're Talking right now, 4, 10 Eastern time, he has not called the women's hockey team. He has not released a statement about the women's hockey team. He doesn't care about the women's hockey team. So that is the backdrop to this that I think matters. But we are in such a tense moment, I think, between people who on either both sides of the aisle, or I really should just say Trump or anti Trump, that I worry about blowing up controversies, not unnecessarily, because it matters to discuss these issues, but people like these casual voters, people who kind of dip in and they vote in the midterms, but they don't pay attention all along. The idea of them seeing a headline about outrage over Donald Trump's kind of old school sexist comment or whatever, and then just thinking that liberals are unserious, which I even see how my comments, which I thought were quite sane, not just for me by my standards, but in general are being framed as, you know, Trump derangement syndrome. She losing her mind, she hates America, whatever. Like, all of those things stick to our party and they don't stick to them. And so I see this as another kind of plank in those kinds of controversy controversies. What is interesting, though, and I emphasize this when I was talking about Cash Patel, is he has been under scrutiny for using the department plane too much. Like, he's gone to Vegas nine times. His girlfriend, who is a country singer, he flies all over the country to see her. He goes on podcasts when he should be, you know, fighting crime or however you want to say it. And I do think that that plot line is one that matters in this. And it's not about the FBI director being at the Olympics. Like, there was a big security meeting, he should be at the Olympics. I'm not opposed to that. But it fits in this larger corruption conversation. And it. I Don't know if you guys saw this, but there was a story today about how the investigation for the Brown shooter. Remember that in December on Brown's campus, and then the guy went to MIT to kill the Portuguese professor there, that some investigators couldn't get to Brown because the plane was in Florida with Kash Patel. So those are the kinds of things that I think are actually more resonant with people like Kristi Noem flying around fucking Corey Lewandowski in a DHS plane. Cass Patel is at a country music concert when Nancy Guthrie's missing, or there's a murder at Brown and FBI agents can't get there. So that's very. I have a lot of thoughts around, like, two minutes of talk time, but that was going through my head as I was thinking about how I wanted to frame the Cash Patel in the locker room crushing beers. Like crash. Cash Patel in the locker room. One thing. Cash Patel behaving like that, I think, is quite another.

A (14:14)

Right? Yeah, yeah, Was. Yeah, it was. Jesse, I think, pushed back with you on that concept, you know, and it's right. I mean, to be him being at the Olympics. There's nothing wrong with that and being in the locker room and celebrating. And I think the question is like, that fine line. But it's crazy that Trump won't, you know, doesn't just does these things that just make you scratch your head, because it's like, just do it. Just call and just congratulate the women's team. Like, there's no reason not to. And it just. I think. Well, listen, we're seeing it, right? I think it fires up his base, right? Cash Patel crushing beers fires up that rat. The radical Trump base. You know, Trump not calling the women's team fires up the radical base, which I think, thankfully is. Is potentially. You're finally actually beginning to hurt him because that base is smaller and smaller and he's just pissing off everybody else, finally, you know, so.

B (15:11)

Well, I think it's. I mean, more than anything with Cash for that. That base. And a lot of people defend it, just saying, like, why do you care about this? Just, like, focus on the hockey. And even Jack and Quinn and. And Luke Hughes's mom was saying that she works for the US Hockey team now they are saying, like, your priorities, you're not sticking with them. So, Cash Patel, why are you not releasing the Epstein files while you're doing. You're out there doing this? Why are you not finding Nancy Guthrie while you're out doing this? And those arguments, I think, have A lot of validity and are resonant with that section of the MAGA base.

A (15:46)

Totally. So I gave you a heads up that I'm going to make you do something that I don't, I don't want to do. But I've gotten into too many conversations with people getting angry at me by, by not participating in this conversation. We should all be focused on the 2026 midterms and nothing else at this point. But Nate Silver just put out an article about the 2028 election, started talking about candidates, and this has come up so many times that I feel you were the perfect person to actually have a conversation about this. We won't spend too much time because someone I, I have said time and time again, I've said it to you, I've said it in previous conversations. I think the Democrats are in a strong place with the variety and the depth of potential candidates that could be running in 2028. And I think, and while I'm not convinced any of them are ready for. Let's look at a baseball analogy. Ready for the major leagues yet. You know, I'm glad the election isn't in 2026 and it's in 2028. We haven't had a proper primary in a very long time. We haven't seen candidates be tested on a national basis and run through a really tough primary, which is valuable. So there's so much to come out, so much to learn about these people. And I think people will push back and say, oh, we already know so much about JB Pritzker, we already know so much about John Ossoff, we already know so much about even Gavin Newsom to some extent. But when you're in a primary and you have to run that, it is a totally different situation. So you asked me not to make you do a draft, so I'm not going to make you do a draft. But I think this kind of, this idea of kind of the minor leagues and baseball I think is kind of interesting, especially since we're just days off after spring training began. So I'm going to sort of look at it and that's sort of the framework we're going to use. So in the Nate Silver piece, he talked about the people who are at the top of the list. So you have the Newsoms and AOC and Kamala Harris still is top of the list, which if you go on prediction markets right now, Kamala and Gavin are right at the top. So first, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Kamala. And then second let's get into kind of a couple of the names and hear what you're sort of thinking.

B (18:21)

Yeah. So I'm. I'm not a tremendous Kamala fan and I haven't been forevermore like since 2020. You know, I thought that she was like an interesting, cool candidate. I thought she did a great job with, you know, Bill Barr when she was in the Senate cross examining him. But I didn't find her impressive in the 2020 election, which no one else did either. Rachel didn't even collect any votes in Iowa. And I think that 2024 would have been really tough, but was a winnable race even in this insane setup that we were in with only having what is 107 days or whatever it was. And then there were a few key mistakes that Kamala made that allowed for massive amounts of haunting, let's say. And I think it's just recency bias with her being atop the prediction markets and the polling at this point. And also, and this is a really big and also, and it matters a lot, especially in the Democratic primary, she saw has very strong support amongst black women. And I that narrative, and not saying narrative like in a made up way, but the feeling that she gets scapegoated for everything and she didn't get a. A fair shake. And she actually, you know, overperformed in a lot of ways. And she certainly overperformed versus Biden. Right. Like, I don't think any of our swing state senators would have won their races like Reuben Gallego, Alyssa Slotkin, etc. If it had been Joe Biden on top of the ticket. It would have been a complete decimation across the board. But they're very much sticking to that story. So I think that that does keep Kamala Harris in the conversation and towards the top of these markets. That said, I do not think that she is going to be the nominee if she does get in. And I don't think that she's going to. I think that talking about it allows her to stay in the conversation, which she has every right to do. But she'll find another way to make her voice heard or make an impact on that front. I. You said newsome too.

A (20:37)

Yeah, sure.

B (20:39)

I like Gavin a lot. I'm going to see him tonight, speak here in New York at Temple Emanuel. I think that he has like, at a time when Democrats needed somebody to seize the energy that we all wanted to see in like the fight, and we're not getting that from our leadership. Gavin Newsom was like, I'm the guy and he did that also risking the fact that he could be peaking too early and knowing that by the time we get to 2027. We were talking about Gavin Newsom for three years at that point. Right. Like he's going to be a little bit boring to us on a comparative basis. But he thought that making the points that he's been making and taking the fight in the way that he has was seminal or I should say most impactful to do it right away. And no one else wanted to. Like we interviewed Josh Shapiro on Raging Moderate not, you know, holding his fire or powder. Zip powder. Yeah. Like Gretchen Whitmer. Most people don't even think she's going to get in. I don't know if she's going to get in. Like she's someone who could stand up and say like I know how to get things done right. I, you know, win a Purple State overwhelmingly, etc. But it was only Newsome that wanted to do that. And I think that this will be more than 2020 a vibes primary. I think that people are going to actually be activated by what they're feeling and not what their head is telling them because Biden was ahead decision for basically everybody. Even like James Clyburn. Right. Would tell you like this is just the thing that makes sense and he was totally right about it. And we got an, you know, we won an election out of it though I would have actually rather Trump won again in 2020 and then we would be done with him. But that's my own issue. So I. That's kind of my newsome take. But I think he's still going to be interesting to people and California. My like my pick of someone not on the list. When you said we might talk about this is Dan Lurie, the mayor of San Francisco. And I think that a lot of Newsom's viability will directly correlate to what California looks like 26 and 27 versus how it looked in 2022. In which case I think he would get like laughed off the stage basically looking at crime issues and homelessness, et cetera.

A (22:58)

So yeah, we put in the chat the list that Nate had and there are obviously some interesting names on there. I think the idea AOC keeps coming to the top of the list. Somebody had a really interesting conversation which was there is a world where based on 20 people and she represents the sort of progressive left wing that she really. There is a lane for her in some ways. But at the same time they also said that would seal the Democrats fate of losing it's the only thing they saw sealing Democrats fate of losing to a JD Vance or a Marco Rubio. I think what's so exciting is, and I also sort of use the baseball analogy and I think this list is really good. I think you mentioned James Talarico. I think there's who you know, we have some A ball players like James Talarico. I think Beto, it still should be on anybody's list. I think he's, you know, he's lost two very public elections. But I also think he's really dynamic and interesting. You know, you have and we, and you know, you mentioned Dan Laurie, I think, which is an interesting sort of out there pick as well who's doing a great job in San Francisco. But I think one of the references I use is it's like, it's like the Democratic Party is like a Swiss army knife right now. And we have no idea what people are going to want in three years. Are they going to want a saw? Are they going to want a magnifying glass? Are they going to want a toothpick? They're going to want a little nail file. And we have something for everybody. It seems crazy that people are going to want a JB Pritzker type character where we are in society, but he might be exactly what the doctor ordered when we get to the time is right. And the same thing goes for a lot of these other people. And so when you look at these names again, I'm glad the primary is not today, but I think, you know, there's 20 to 30 names of really interesting people. And again, a lot of them are gonna, there's gonna be skeletons coming out of closets. They're gonna, they're gonna say things that they can't get back from. They're, gonna, they're, they're gonna prove that they're not as, you know, smart or as interesting or dynamic or as great politicians as we thought. But I think it's a really, I think anybody who says it's not an interesting and dynamic list of people I think isn't paying attention. Is there anybody else? You know, you have people like Mikey Sherrill, which, I mean, again, just a crazy idea. You have Roy Cooper out there. You have, you know, you know, is there anybody. You have Jamie Dimon, right? You have Mark Cuban still. You have, you know, I'm convinced. Bob.

B (25:43)

Jon Stewart.

A (25:44)

Jon Stewart.

B (25:48)

I am getting much more comfortable with the idea of not knowing. I think that for people who consume as much news as we do and like to say on top of everything, there's this big discomfort with the unknown of it. And you need to have an opinion, right? Like, I literally, I get paid, right, to have an opinion on this kind of stuff. And I think that we are going to be surprised, maybe not by the final pick for nominee once the primary starts taking shape, but the people who are going to jump in and the kind of conversations that we're going to be having. To use your Swiss army knife. I think that we want to saw right now, and I think we're still going to want to saw. Like, even if Democrats overperform expectations and win 30, 40 seats in the House, I mean, the Senate still feels like a massive pipe dream to me. I mean, picking up North Carolina and Maine seems feasible, though. I know Susan Collins has been, like, in a tough position before and managed to pull that out. But she might just be past her sell by date on all of this. You know, the Senate is very hard to win at this point. But, you know, if Democrats perform really well, Trump does basically everything without Congress anyway. And so we are in, you know, we have two, three years left of this crushing abuse of the Constitution and American culture. And so this idea that we're going to want someone who's buttoned up. And you see Andy Beshear struggling with this mid interview sometimes, right? Because his nature is to be that nice guy and to not be too aggressive in his language. And he knows that the moment is demanding something, something different of him. And that doesn't mean he doesn't have it in him. I think it'll come out. I think he will be someone that a lot of people really like. And I'm. We're going to interview him in a. In a couple of weeks. I'm really excited about that because sometimes I think he's so fantastic and then sometimes I see interviews and he feels super stiff to me. But whereas I usually, as a, you know, a pretty centrist, moderate person, think that my way of thinking or our voting bloc is the one that's going to win out in the primary, I actually think 2028 is going to demand a lot of flexibility from people who vote like us to build back that big tent that has, from mom Donnie to Abigail Spanberger in it, and to make progressives who have shown that they will vote third party, that they will stay at home, they will do whatever, feel like they have a seat at the table. And if that means mixing that you have, like a progressive top of the ticket and a more moderate vice presidential option, that's One way around it. Something that I thought was really interesting. Did you guys see the New York Times focus group from last week of Democratic voters? They asked, you know, what words you associate with the party. And it was the same. It was like a 2024 redux. They said, like had a, you know, have no cojones, enact, weak, you know, woke, whatever. And then all 13 members of the focus group said that they wanted a progressive candidate, not a moderate candidate. But when they gave names of people they were interested in, it included John Ossoff and Gavin Newsom, who are both technically on voting record, quite moderate. So I think we gotta, like, everything's being scrambled. Like this idea of being in your ideological camps or separating yourself from someone, like, this is how a lot of people have grown to love aoc. They've kind of let the barriers come down and say, I don't want to think of her as dsa. I want to think of her as a person who I can, you know, watch her interviews or I can see her on stage. And I think it's incumbent on us to do a lot of work that way because we're going to be seeing people that are showing up in these primaries or maybe a little to the left of where we might traditionally be and we're going to have to be embracing of it. That's how I'm living right now.

A (30:09)

That makes sense. All right, so Jon, so if you had to pick an out there, pick, which again, it's not out there, I guess. So Jon Stewart's a name that you would throw out there. Is there anybody else that we're missing that's sort of just a, a total left person from left field. I mean, people. And people keep saying there may be a person we never even thought of or heard of at this point. I finding that harder and harder to believe. I mean, because we're just, we're in a different world than when Obama ran, you know, and in this social media world. But, you know, listen, eight months ago no one had heard of James Talarico and then he went on Rogan and now he's, you know, have a, you know, it's going to be neck and neck if he's the Democratic nominee for Senate.

B (30:52)

Yeah, I agree. It could be, it could be someone that we're not thinking about. But you, you did mention Jamie Dimon. And I would love a, you know, a kind of pro business technocrat type with a reasonable set of policies. Like what it would have been like if Bloomberg had run for president and had a More charismatic personality and interviews on a debate stage, you know, like 30 years ago. So I think having someone from the business community would be a good thing, even just to sniff out where people want to be. Not that they would necessarily end up being the nominee. But I like, I like Jamie David a lot.

A (31:34)

It's going to be interesting. We're going to try not to talk about it too much because it just, we have the midterms ahead of us. So let's shift gears to the midterms. All signs on prediction markets, on everybody you speak to. Looks like the Democrats will take back the House. What things are you genuinely concerned about in the midterms that could lead to that not happening?

B (32:05)

I'm knocking on wood. I don't really think with this slim of a majority that we're not winning the House. I just had Speaker Pelosi on and she's talking about 30 seats. That would obviously be incredible. And it seems like there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes, especially in the redistricting fight where Democrats are very sure that we're going to end up with a pretty substantial advantage in a fight that the Republicans chose to pick with us. But I am afraid of a slim majority and what that means especially, you know, some Democrats have retired and kind of taken the hint, but we still have a much older caucus than the Republicans do. And as you've seen from what's gone on in just the first year of the Trump administration, like, sometimes people, like, get sick or drop out or had disgusting affairs with someone in their office who ended up killing themselves tragically. So I want a healthy majority, like a 10 plus. And you look at the generic ballot, it's good, right? Like, I think the average is plus four or plus five. But you really, if by looking at Trump's disapproval numbers and how underwater he is in every category, you would expect that to be D +8, D +10 at this point. And that's something that's a bit of a red flag to me also, in very high quality polling. The first time it was the Wall Street Journal. This weekend, it was the ABC Washington Post poll. Trump still has a slim lead on handling cost of living and immigration, which were the two central issues that delivered the 2024 election for the Republicans. And I'm talking about slim. Like, it was a plus one on cost of living. But to think about the fact that he's underwater, I think it's like by 35 points on handling tariffs and cost of living. 70% say that he's not doesn't have the right priorities. They know a tariff is a tax. They know he's driving up the cost. But that he would even still be within the margin of error of the opposition party reflects very poorly on us. And our ability to not only communicate better, which is something that upsets me. But, and I've said this to Democratic leadership too, we have not rolled out one policy. We have, we have no bumper sticker. Right. We have no, no tax on tips. He has, and the State of the Union is going to be a lot about these economic policies, which are all a sham, but they compute to people like whatever Trump RX or the baby savings account, which was a policy shop to the Biden administration and they rejected it. This was not a partisan thing to begin with. So I'm very concerned about that. Like, we talk about health care. We still have a pretty substantial advantage on it because the Republicans never do anything. But at the same time, we have no smart fixes for Obamacare. Like, we're fighting to maintain a system that is failing Americans. It's just better than having absolutely no health care. And I don't get why the party has not released a three or five point plan, right, for the rejuvenation of America. Like, these are the things that we're going to do. These are the smart, you know, common sense policies that are going to make sure you can afford a home, have a good job and have health care. So that, that's my concern, that they're just kind of like the other guy and that can, you know, it's not exciting, right? Like, how many of you are really jazzed about what you're seeing from the Democratic side?

A (35:55)

I mean, there's nothing to be jazzed about, right?

B (35:58)

I mean, well, there should be.

A (35:59)

Well, there should be 100%. I mean, that's. But it's, it's sort of shocking. To your point, I'm always confused why the leadership of the Democratic Party isn't coming out with a five point plan or a ten point plan. I mean, there's such, they say they have one.

B (36:14)

They keep telling me, oh, in the spring, what, Just revise it. Like if you change your mind, but give people something. Because I certainly, sitting there with my colleagues on the Five in a pretty hostile chat universe, they say, well, what do you, well, what have you got? And I'm like, well, and I can talk about things that I think, you know, that I would do about, you know, purchasing insurance across state lines or, you know, whatever it is, but that doesn't mean that It's a Democratic platform and it doesn't mean that our leadership is talking about it. So it's frustrating.

A (36:49)

Yeah. I mean, you talked the other day on raging Moderates. You know, the, the only thing that Democrats like to default is, you know, they're saving democracy. Right. Like that. That's their big line, which at this point I think nobody cares about in the average voter. But you did a good job, which I'm curious if you could restate how you sort of, you can create that kind of link between saving democracy and sort of everyday kitchen table issues and how kind of, and sort of spinning that to be more of a conversation about how kind of making, solving, like solving those kitchen table issues is through that sort of, you know, saving democracy sort of theme. Is that sort of resonate with you?

B (37:30)

Definitely. I mean, I think the tariffs is the clearest indication of it. And the fact that Trump is not taking the win that SCOTUS handed him by striking down majority of these reciprocal tariffs and is continuing to beat a dead horse and add. I don't know if. No. Are we at 10%, 15%? Maybe tonight it'll go up to 20 during the state of the Union. You know, you can just say because Donald Trump doesn't believe in the Constitution which creates our democratic norms, you're paying thirteen hundred dollars more for your life in 2026. It doesn't seem that hard. You know, all of the CEOs of these companies are saying it, whether it's the consumer. And 90% of the tariffs get passed on to the consumer, according to the Wall Street Journal. But even American businesses, American businesses are made up of Americans too. Right. Who, who work there, even if they are evil and sit on boards and you know, are major corporate shareholders. So I think that's a really easy way to do it. I think that you can also make the argument, and this is for certain representatives. I don't, I don't think everyone should necessarily do this because it is still very popular to be deporting people who are here illegally. And yes, they want the worst first out, but it doesn't mean that mass deportation is unpopular. I, I think we got a little ahead of our skis with the, I don't want to say victory because people died in Minneapolis for this cause, but it was definitely a victory for the rule of law and for those that were, you know, pushing back against this authoritarian takeover there. But there's been a huge economic cost to the country by deporting these people, whether they self deported or they were rounded up, up. And it's been great to see how many right leaning organizations in the think tank world is publishing very good data about the economic impact of losing immigrants. And it's a bipartisan issue. And so I think that you can in certain districts certainly be talking about that in California. It's going to be huge. Right. I mean you got a bunch more swing districts now after the redistricting from Prop 50 and I think it's going to be a focal point there and you're going to see Republicans who are on the back foot like the Kevin Kiley's of the world have to talk about how important illegal immigrants are to the American economy if he wants to end up staying in Congress.

A (39:57)

Yeah. You talked recently also about how some of the things in the Senate that you find interesting. I know it seems a lot less likely that Democrats take the Senate but would you sort of identify some of the races you're finding most interesting today and think where there's a real chance of Democrats pulling an upset?

B (40:13)

Yeah. So North Carolina is awesome. Send money to Roy Cooper. I'm like the ultimate Debbie Downer about sending money to useless races. Like I've sent money to Amy McGrath. I have sent money to Beto over and over. I know that you're pro Beto, Jamie, but I think that that is done. I think that he will have a very special place in people's hearts as kind of a sacrificial lamb and building Democratic infrastructure on the grassroots level in Tex this. But I don't think he's the guy for people and I think people have given to him before and don't want to be doing that again. That Talrico is kind of the beneficiary of it. A Jasmine Crockett, et cetera. So North Carolina, very bullish on I've been talking to Sherrod Brown's people. Ohio, firmly red state. If someone can do it, it is Sherrod Brown. It hasn't been getting that much publicity but John Husted who is running against Sherrod Brown took a lot of money from Les Wexner and so they're really pushing hard on the corruption and Epstein angle there. And I think that's the only very high profile race that has an Epstein angle. So I think that that's interesting but I still wouldn't, you know, put money on it. Maine, I think she's more vulnerable than she was when Sarah Gideon was running against her. There was a new poll out just today that Graham Platner is like 55 points ahead of Janet Mills in the Democratic primary, which her team says it was not like a fantastic poll, but obviously this is a big deal. Seems like something is happening in Maine. And this looping back to my comments about how I think a lot more moderate people are going to have to calm down about the left flank of the party. We might be seeing that happening in Maine where the establishment are kind of like the normies are not caught up with the energy in the base of the party or the new base of the party. Alaska is kind of like my fave. I don't know. Who knows, right? Mary Patola is just awesome. If anyone can do it, it's her. Dan Sullivan is kind of like a nothing burger. Like, you never hear about Dan Sullivan at all. He kind of just like copes along. So I'm excited by that. I will see the nominee is in Iowa, but I was just at a conference where Rob sand was there. He's running for governor. And you've seen that there's some consolidation on the Senate side with Josh Turek becoming like the guy. He has an incredible story. Have you had him on? You should definitely. I haven't had him yet either. He's amazing. So I'm excited about that. And there are people, Democrats in Iowa who really feel like because of the farming issue there and how many family farms are closing, the bailout issues and Trump, even though we recoup the money. But the bailout to Argentina that came before helping out Americans has really been a watershed issue, as well as cutting healthcare for tax cuts. So really feel good about North Carolina and I would say Maine. Very interested in Alaska, Ohio and Iowa. But I don't know how much I would advise you to give necessarily. But I think they're good races.

A (43:50)

That's a really good list. You got me excited. I'm going to move to the State of the Union. In preparation for this, I wound up going to a little bit of a deep dive on some of the prediction market sites, which I never really do. I think I'm sort of scared of them. And I know our buddy Scott Galloway talks about how much of a crisis that the production markets could lead to and are already sort of troubled when it comes to youth and gambling. But I did, I did stumble. I mean, it's amazing what you can gamble on if you haven't. I don't know if I would encourage people to go look, but there are so many things about the State of the Union tonight that you can gamble on. You can gamble on the number of Elon Musk tweets today during the you can gamble on the color of his tie, the number of times JD Vance claps during the State of the Union. And then maybe I don't even really want to say these out loud, but it's too just strange. What nicknames will Trump say during the State of the Union? So some of the things you can bet on. Pocahontas crying, Chuck, Marjorie Traitor Greene, Sloppidopoulos. Who's Sloppidopoulos? I don't even know who slapped, I don't know, Rocketman, Little communist comrade Kamala Biden, Crime family Tampon, Tim Green, New scam, News scum, Crooked Hillary. You can bet on all those things on so I'm not encouraging anybody to do that. But so it seems at this point there's not much movement one way or the other kind of can come out of the State of the Union. Right? You have the Democrats who are watching just because they want to, because they want to just sort of be more angry. I don't know why we want to watch. And then his sort of die hard base who will be excited, the hockey team will be there. That's probably, that's going to be a good look for him. Are there other things you think that he can do to come out really positive? It doesn't. It's rare. He does things that lead to sort of a real negative. I mean he's going to say absurd things like what? What, what do you think? So what are sort of examples of things that could really tip the scales one way or the other out of the State of the Union tonight?

B (46:14)

Well, I think as the backdrop to all of this is the State of the Union just doesn't really matter much anymore. Like it used to really shift things ten plus years ago, but now it's, I don't say just another night. It's a big speech, but everything kind of snaps back to loosely where it was before. So I'm not thinking about it in terms of like this is going to change the tide, but it does feel like the official kickoff of campaign season for him since he is going to be such a big player in campaigning, apparently, which I think is a good thing for the Democratic side because he's not going to animate like casual voters who tried him in 2024. And if he does, then all signs point to the fact that they're going to end up voting for Democrats if they do show up again. So that's young voters, black voters, Latino voters. I don't know if you guys saw his approval rating with Latino voters is now down to 22%. It was at 43 when he got elected. Very quick fall there. He did a big briefing mostly off the record for journalists a couple hours ago. The stuff that was is on the record that you can talk about is a lot of foreign policy accomplishments. I'm sure you'll hear the usual, you know, eight wars ended, I should have won the peace prize. It'll be interesting to see if there are any clues about what he's thinking re Iran. Marco Rubio was supposed to be traveling to Israel. He is now going to be there. So you know people are paying attention to that aspect. I did hear also in his messaging that he's going to talk about what the next three years for the economy is going to look like. So that sounds like moving off of the idea that actually the last year was fantastic. If he sticks to the script on that. I am not sure. But Stephen Miller, who I presume was the lead author of this as he usually is for the State of the Union speeches, is obviously aware of the fact that that line of argumentation is falling flat with people. So it has to be the forward looking stance. I mentioned already like a few of the more gimmicky things. He's going to talk about the Trump baby savings account, Trump Rx crime and policing. There will be angel moms there as well. So the parents of people who were killed by illegals in the country, you know, no Epstein obviously there will be a lot of Epstein survivors or Epstein correlated folks in the audience coming with both Reps. Khanna and Massey at the very least. But I presume with a lot more than that yet. I think it's going to be pretty standard if you watch or consume a lot of Trump. But I think he's this new what the next three years is going to look like and that will only be possible if Republicans maintain the majority will be the kind of like new tonal shift if he's able to pull it off. But if he goes for two and a half hours I think that's basically an impossibility in terms of the rebuttals. Alex Padilla is doing the Spanish language. Abigail Spanberger is doing the English language rebuttal. I think she's going to talk a lot about how she won her election right. And prioritizing these real issues of affordability around housing costs, getting good paying jobs, etc. And I think that she'll be good. But again I think if like the State of the Union doesn't really matter that much to people anymore. I'm not. The rebuttal, I'm sure, really doesn't. And a lot of Democrats aren't even going to. There's like an alternate one. Midas Touch is doing a huge amount of programming. Raging moderates. We're doing a live stream after. Yeah, I kind of. I think it's just going to be a long, painful night, frankly.

A (50:11)

Yeah.

B (50:11)

For those of us watching.

A (50:13)

Yeah. I would say if people needed to only watch things live, maybe the reason Trump wants to go for two and a half hours, that he just wants everybody to be asleep for the rebuttal so that nobody can comment after. But. But everything's done on clips anyway. I'll be watching your live stream after that. Sounds exactly. I want to end my night. I want to talk a little about the news media before we finish up here. I'm always just blown away at how you keep your calm and composure being on THE five. I think I asked you last time how much your therapy bills are to survive. I mean, I get, I don't know. I don't know how your husband handles it. We're just friends. I consider you a friend. And I can't watch sometimes because I just get too angry. I just want to. I remember I asked maybe I was going to come by and watch you taping it. Then I decided I didn't want to because I was concerned that I couldn't control myself. So anyway, thank you for sitting there and being a voice of reason. Have things changed at all based on kind of the tenor of, of society and the Daily News in your. In the last year, a couple years you've been there and, and how do you sort of manage.

B (51:27)

Yeah, I think it has changed a lot. And also thank you for the generous words. I think that. And we've talked about this when we've seen each other and text about it. I. The murder of Charlie Kirk is a real seminal moment, certainly in kind of like modern conservative lore Magal, or whatever it is. But it has created an environment where I think actually that what I try to do in modeling civil discourse and, you know, talking to people who disagree is less possible than it used to be. I'm sure you guys remember around the time that Charlie died, there was a lot of talk of civil war. Right. Or this is war. You know, you. And the conversation switched from where both sides said, you know, you're responsible for all of this violence. And it wasn't true when they said it, but it was true when I said it or when you Guys, if you were having that conversation in your own lives. Lives. And now there's complete blinders to the reality on the ground. Someone like Spencer Cox, the governor, Colorado, like, not Colorado, sorry, Utah, where Charlie was killed, like, even mentioning Melissa Hortman, the Democratic speaker of the House in Minnesota, like, made him into a, quote, unquote, squish. Whereas that used to be something that could kind of, you know, get through, I guess. So I think it's really, really bleak, frankly. And I hate saying that. Not that Democrats can't win elections. And I was pushing Nancy Pelosi about this. I was like, what is the actual plan? Because we're talking a lot about safeguarding our elections and they're going to send ice to the polls and what happens. But, like, that period after Democrats win, between that And I think January 3rd will be the January 6th of March, of, of this year or of 2027, when the swearing in has to happen. Like, that's the period that I'm really freaking out about. And a lot, and a lot of people are, because if the majority is slim, like Mike Johnson didn't see Grahalva, Congressman Grijalva for two months. Like, what if they won? If we win by three seats, he's not going to seat us. Right. Like, he was an architect of 2020. So, you know, all of that is really weighing on me. And also at a time where I feel like we are not just more fractured than we have been, where there is really a wall set up because someone, he wasn't even left leaning, but was in a relationship with a trans person, killed their friend. And it's making doing what I do and the kind of relationships that I'm sure all of you want to be able to have with people who you disagree with that much harder. And then this defensive crouch about what happened in Minneapolis. And it's really interesting. I actually, I ran into Tom Holman last week at work. I'd never met him in person. He was so nice. So, like, beeline for me and, you know, said it was. It's been great to hear my comments, especially in the last few weeks, because I said on the Five and on Raging Moderates that it's an acknowledgment that big mistakes were made, that Tom Holman got out of the doghouse where Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller had him and became. Became the guy, right. That they want to be front and center. And he said, you know, if. If I have to choose between just someone who's here illegally and someone who committed A crime. I'm obviously going to go for the guy who committed a crime and that he's getting great cooperation from Tim Walls and Mayor Fry. And I'm listening to him talk and it's so different from some of the loudest voices on the right who would sit, would come on the zoom with you guys right now and tell you Renee Goode had it coming. Alex Preddy had it coming. These are all the things that they did wrong. No, not budging 1 inch on any of the 10 items that the Dems have requested in terms of reforming ICE in order to push through the DHS funding. I mean, much less reasonable, frankly, than some of the most conservative senators who said like, yeah, let's get body cams on them. Like this is going to make everyone safer. And if they believe that Americans are assaulting ICE officers, you would want that to be recorded anyway, right? Because it goes both ways. The masks seem to be the big sticking point because of what they allege is all this doxing. But I'm not sure that that's really the case either. So it's pretty bleak. And one thing that I wanted to add that I've been frustrated about lately is there's been this huge push to have more independent media and to counter what the right has built in their ecosystem with our pro democr system, a pro democracy online ecosystem like where Midas Touch and Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman and Adam Mockler and these people built huge audiences, right? And what I have noticed and been hearing a lot about is that having a counterweight to the right wing bubbles is all well and good, but there people are so desperate to get get news that is not biased and we have not found a solution for that. Like the substance the world of substack, which is super fun to go on, right? And you get like fired up and you're going to listen, tune in to the Jim Acosta show or whatever it is that you're doing on there. Heather Cox Richardson, who has given you a historical lens, but still obviously has a very particular point of view, right, on the Trump administration and what they're doing. Like there are a lot of people who wish that we had a Walter Cronkite situation going on, who do not want to be in this 24 hour bubble of news constantly. The clip culture, it's overwhelming. People are trying to detox, if they can, off of their phones. I personally feel like my brain is mushy from the amount that I'm staring at screens and what my algorithm is doing to Me, and. And I don't know how to solve that problem, but I see that as a major gap in the media ecosystem right now, that, like, we may be countering it in eyeballs, right, that we have, you know, pro democracy warriors with 5 million, 10 million subscribers, whatever it is, but that we have no actual news. Right.

A (58:11)

So I couldn't agree more. I mean, I've talked about that a lot. I mean, Lester Holt at Newsnight did a little bit of that. The PBS NewsHour does a little bit of that. But that's. No offense, but it's like watching paint dry, but it is a real void. All right, I know you have to go, because Gavin Newsom is waiting for you. Before I let you go, if you were to set me up for dinner with Jesse or Greg, who would I be able to solve. Survive dinner with?

B (58:40)

Definitely Jesse. You really like him. He's like, you know. Yeah. I mean, if you, like, don't want to talk about politics, you don't have to go, but you would. You could actually. I don't know. Greg's very good about. He's good on, like, music and movies and things like that.

A (58:57)

We can't finish up without talking about our friend Scott Galloway, who has been on the front lines with Resist and Unsubscribe, which I think has been awesome, and. And fighting with my family a bit. I've gotten through a handful of things that I've unsubscribed from you, and I went to the no Kings protest together. All of these things are adding up, right? They are making a dent, and I think so. I like to leave people with some optimism, I think, and some action. Right. And I think the resistant unsubscribe movement is important. I think people should share it, and I think it makes an impact. I think protests make an impact, as we've seen in Minnesota, sadly, which led to loss of life. But ICE has basically, for all intents and purposes, sort of retreated from there in the way that this horrific way we saw. I mean, those things give me hope. I mean, people doing something. We always talk about that, right? If you just do something every day, that's how it's gonna make an impact. That's how we're gonna have free elections. That's how we're gonna take back the House. That's why we're gonna get rid of Donald Trump. Trump. Do you think that's sort of fair to say?

B (60:05)

I do. Yeah. I think it is fair. And I think that, you know, pushing people in important positions of power especially on the business side, like corporate America, to to be more vocal about what's going on. Like it's a little thing. But I noticed at Davos that Ken Griffin out of nowhere, which started like railing against Trump and the tariffs, right? Like he had, he gives down ballot more on the right. But you know, someone who definitely got along with Trump fine and kind of had stayed out of the crosshairs started talking about it. And I think, you know, you saw today, FedEx is suing the administration for their tariff refunds, which should go to all of us who said send things through FedEx. But the point is that I think us on the streets and people in positions of power on cnbc, that synergy makes a really big difference. So I loved Resist and Unsubscribe. The campaign will be over in a couple of days. Scott has some really fantastic reporting that he's going to be sharing out about the impact. But I hope that if it's indivisible or whoever organizes these kinds of marches, and it has to be more than just indivisible doing it, that it becomes a regular part of our lives to have these peaceable protests because the images and the action, it matters a lot and you can get results out of it. They're not immune to it. And we saw that in 2020 too.

A (61:37)

I agree. Thank you so much. Say hi to Gavin for me. I'll have you back on anytime you have time for us. And always. Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you in person soon.

B (61:51)

Great. It was so nice to see you guys.

A (61:53)

Bye.

B (61:54)

Bye.

A (61:57)

Thanks for tuning in to this week's episode of Lunch with Jamie. As always, be sure to subscribe to my newsletter@jamieslist.com for my thoughts on all things food, pop culture, politics and more. And remember to join these online conversations and ask my guests questions in real time. Sign up to get my paid subscriber. You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Audible and be sure to leave a review. Thanks and see you next time.