Loading summary
Transcript113 lines
- [00:01]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?
- [00:07]
B
Well, with a name your price tool
- [00:08]
A
from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
- [00:22]
C
Trump's administration officials finally start to break with the president. And I've got four Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker, Congressman Jared Moskowitz, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Democratic candidate for Texas Governor Gina Hinojosa. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to no Lie. A pretty stunning turn of events as even Trump's closest allies, the people he handpicked expressly because they would toe the line on literally anything that he said or did, they're slowly starting to show signs of breaking with the president, something that most of us, and frankly, Trump himself likely never thought would happen. For example, Politico just published a story with the headline, vance was Skeptical Voice in White House on Iran Strikes. To be clear, that story does not get written unless JD Vance wants it to get written. That was very obviously placed by someone on Vance's team recognizing how much of a disaster this war already is. And Vance positioning himself for 2028 as, like, the sole guy in the room who wanted to avoid getting us sucked into a war, which, of course, is complete bullshit. In reality, not only was Vance not that guy, but he was among the voices angling to go bigger in Iran. I'm going to read an excerpt from the New York Times. Few in the president's inner circle voiced opposition to military action. Even Vice President J.D. vance, a longtime skeptic of American military intervention in the Middle east, argued in a White House Situation Room meeting that if the US Was going to hit Iran, it should, quote, go big and go fast, according to people familiar with his remarks. In other words, Vance is, of course, just as culpable as anyone else. But he can read the writing on the wall, right? He can see the polls like the ones showing that this is the single least popular war in modern American history at its outse. He can watch the coverage, which is overwhelmingly negative. He can see oil prices surging and gas prices rising. And he probably remembers how the people who pushed us into Iraq are viewed after the fact, meaning he needs some image rehab. And he's wasting no time waiting, like, not even two weeks before he starts planning stories in Politico suggesting that he's the one guy in the room who disagreed with Trump as opposed to the reality, which is that he is, in part the reason that we're there. And it's not just Vance. Pete Hegseth also took an opportunity to distance himself from Trump. Just days ago, a reporter asked Trump and Hegseth about the bombing of an Iranian school that left over 160 kids dead. Here's how that exchange went.
- [02:41]
B
Did the United States bomb a girl's
- [02:43]
A
elementary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war and kill 175 people?
- [02:48]
D
Based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran.
- [02:52]
A
Is that true, Mr. Hegseth? It was Iran who did that.
- [02:55]
C
We're certainly investigating. Trump says definitively that it was Iran, and Hegseth standing right next to him, would offer only, quote, we're certainly investigating. He wouldn't confirm Trump's comment, as Trump was literally standing beside him. That is a pretty significant break, considering Hegseth is generally so far up Trump's ass he can touch the back of his teeth. Turns out these people aren't actually in information bubbles. They just like to pretend that they are. So why is this significant? After all, these are just minor instances of breaking with Trump. And the reason is that these people are there expressly because they would never break with him. Trump expects total loyalty, total, that means 100% of the time. And when he doesn't get total loyalty, then he throws people under the bus, like he did with Michael Cohen and George Papadopoulos and Kayleigh McEnany and Mike Pence and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and on and on and on. The fact that not one, but two of his highest ranking administration officials just this week have begun the process of distancing themselves from Trump is a testament to his growing weakness. Remember, this guy hosts cabinet meetings where everybody takes turns fellating him. I mean, it really is like the most insane humiliation ritual that I've ever seen. And yet now he's got his vice president placing stories breaking with Trump in Politico. If that's not a sign of his weakened grip on the presidency, I don't know what is. Of course, more broadly, it tells us something even more important. This isn't really a story about Trump's own officials. They're not distancing themselves from Donald Trump because it's the right thing to do or the moral thing to do. They're doing it because of public pressure, which should be a lesson to everybody that these people are all. Everybody in the White House, all still very much susceptible to public pressure. I know that Trump likes to fashion himself, some autocrat who can do whatever he wants and face no consequences. But that's not the world we live in. And while Trump might delude himself into thinking it is, the people around him don't. Of course, the reality is that no matter how many political pieces they place, no matter how many times they refuse to confirm Trump's lies, they're all permanently marred by their association with Trump. Like that toothpaste is out of the two. That train has left the station. They will not be able to outrun their connection with him for the rest of their lives. This is their legacy, being part of an administration that launched a war. They promised they wouldn't launch raised prices. They promised they wouldn't raise and protect a child sex trafficking ring they promised they would expose. This is a White House based entirely on branding, and unfortunately for them, this branding has already stuck. Next up are my interviews with J.B. pritzker, Jared Moskowitz, Adrian Fontes, and Gina Hinojosa. No Lie is brought to you by Zebiotics. So I have to tell you about a game changing product that I use the night before going out with drinks. It's called Pre Alcohol Zebiotics. Pre Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. So here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre Alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make Pre Alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have Pre alcohol before drinks, I notice a discernible difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on being on camera without worry. And I won't lie, I was on the fence about Pre alcohol initially, but I gave it a shot and believe me, it is the real deal. So look, March is a marathon of social events. From the slopes to the bracket watch parties to Guinnesses on St Patrick's Day. Pre Alcohol is the tool that you need to fully enjoy the end of winter. Go to zebiotics.com BTC to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use BTC at checkout. Zebiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee, so if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll Refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to ZBiotics.com BTC and use the code BTC at checkout for 15% off. I'm joined now by the Governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker. Governor, thanks for joining me.
- [06:54]
D
Great to be here, Brian.
- [06:56]
C
So we've seen Donald Trump really double down on this idea that there's going to be some election interference. We've heard about reporting that he's drafting an executive order as a result of China interfering in the 2020 election that would, quote, unlock extraordinary presidential powers over voting. Notwithstanding the fact that the president doesn't have powers over voting, voting belongs entirely to the states. Still, that's not going to stop Trump from thinking that he does or trying to exercise this idea that he does. And so what is the plan in your state of Illinois in the event that, in what feels like the inevitable event that Donald Trump does try to, you know, usurp control of our elections,
- [07:37]
D
we should begin by just saying it is clear that he is going to use either ICE and Customs and Border Patrol with their uniforms and their automatic weapons, or he'll try to use National Guard to protect the polling places. And I have no doubt that part of that plan is potentially to claim fraud and to seize ballot boxes in order to count the votes himself. So he knows he's going to lose this election, and so he's got to find some fraudulent means to overturn what the voters want. So, you know, the protection aspects of this we've been working on for some time. And I will start by saying I don't want to share with you everything that we're talking about. I've talked to a number of governors about what their plans are. I can say that all of us have thought long and hard about how do we protect the elections. It starts, of course, from the cyber perspective, because it wouldn't, I wouldn't put it past Donald Trump to be interfering with the systems the way that we've heard Russia and China have been attempting to do for some number of years. Now. We have an advantage here in Illinois, which is that our elections are not run on a statewide basis. They're actually run in the 102 county clerk's offices. So it's very dispersed. We think that's a big advantage here and run by the elected clerks. So we don't have a secretary of state, for example, overseeing our entire election. We have a board of elections, but it is really the county clerks in charge. So, so part of it is making sure that we have a lot of poll watchers, some of them being deputized by the state. A lot of it is making sure that we have attorneys available and on call, because you can't have one at every polling place, but you can have one in every region, at least where you expect that there might be some effort by the administration to overturn our elections. I also think that Illinois is probably not their number one target for what they're, you know, hoping to overturn. I'm guessing that it'll be specifically in those states where you've got a Senate race that they think is going to be very close or where they've got a Republican incumbent that could be thrown out of office. We've got a Senate race, don't get me wrong, and it's going to be very important. But my guess is they're not prioritizing Illinois.
- [10:13]
C
Is there a world where, given the fact that they're probably not going to prioritize Illinois, they're going to look at states like North Carolina and Maine and Ohio, Alaska, maybe Texas. Is there a world where some of the states that have less of a risk and probably more, you know, additional resources where those can be shared with some of the states that are more at risk?
- [10:39]
D
Yes, indeed. And you can imagine that a big city like Chicago, a state like Illinois, has more lawyers, let's say, than some other places in the country where you need to guard against the election interference by Trump. So that doesn't mean that they're licensed to practice law in those other states. But having that legal background and being there in those states is also something that can be done. So, yes, let's just give as examples that, you know, we have historically in Illinois had activists who've gone just the example here would be have gone to Wisconsin. Right. It's a nearby state where there were have been important elections, presidential elections, for example, and people have gone in busloads and we've, you know, sponsored that. We, meaning Democrats at the Democratic Party, have sponsored that and sending them to other states. I'm very much a believer in taking the talent that we've got here, when we don't need it here, here, and sending it to other states where it is needed.
- [11:43]
C
The DNC just filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for pretty much exactly the reason that you laid out at the top. They wanted to get any. They basically tried to foia, Freedom of Information act, request any info from the White House where there were plans that were that were in process that would describe any effort to send ICE agents or law enforcement agents or the US Military into these polling places. The fact that they had to file this, this, this FOIA request and sue for it is a testament to the fact that the administration isn't trying to reveal any of this publicly. So does that suggest, in your opinion, that this is exactly what's going on to the point where, where a lawsuit would even be required?
- [12:28]
D
Yeah. And it's not just the recent evidence that backs me up on this. I mean, I've been saying this literally since a couple of days after the 24 election, that, that, you know, he has a history and, you know, Michael Flynn was the one who suggested it very publicly that, that of let's use the military to seize ballot boxes.
- [12:51]
C
Well, he tried to do it in 2020. He tried to seize the, seize the, the voting machines in 2020 in Georgia. So this is not even theoretical.
- [12:58]
D
No. And Flynn actually said it in 2020, in December, that, that, that's what Trump should be doing is seizing the ballot boxes idea for them. They didn't do it back then. My guess is that Trump thinks that now, you know, he's got free rein to do it. So this is hugely challenging. Now, as you point out, there is a memo that got revealed very recently. I think it was in Daily Beast, but elsewhere, someone revealed a memo at DOD that is a preparation for using troops in the election to supposedly protect the election. So this is happening. This is happening. And I know that when I was saying it back in January and February and March of last year, people thought, oh, it's a conspiracy theory. That's never going to happen. I don't think anybody thinks it's just a conspiracy theory or just a, you know, flight of fancy. Now, I think we all understand that that is precisely what he's doing. And you heard just the other day that, you know, his purpose in trying to pass the Save Amer. What he's calling the Save America act is precisely because he thinks that that will help Republicans win the election and that they will, you know, that that's going to guarantee them the election if they can toss people off the voter rolls, if they can keep people from voting because they're afraid to go, or people who just don't have, you know, the, the, the ID that they're demanding in the bill. So this is, I mean, anybody who hasn't heard this before, anybody who doesn't think it's true, pay attention now, because it is happening.
- [14:39]
C
In terms of the Save America act, there's some reporting now that, you know, especially led by these Republicans who are vying for Trump's endorsement in Texas, that they're even willing to nuke the filibuster to get this thing through. Because, as Trump says, if they're able to get it through, they won't win another. They won't lose another election for 50 years. And so can I have your reaction to the prospect of the filibuster being nuked so that Trump can shoehorn in the exact bill that would. That would have, you know, you just listed all of the things that that would do to suppress voting in this country.
- [15:12]
D
Yeah. I think that the reluctance on the part of Thune and a few others of the leadership of Republicans in the Senate has been because they understand that if they do this, that there is a future in which Democrats will take over the Senate and Democrats will be able to shove down their throats the things that, you know, the opposite of what they're trying to shove down our throats. Now and again, we can talk about the situations in which there have been, you know, the filibuster has been used against Democratic priorities. But I do think that this is a situation where there are some Republicans who just can't fathom the idea that democracy truly would be tossed out the window if they pass the Save America Act. I have a lot of women that I know, single women, people who are getting married, people who've recently been married, just as one example of people who would not be able to vote if they pass this law, because who's walking around with proof that, well, yeah, I just got married and, and my last name has changed, etc. Nobody's doing that. And we can go through all the examples of people who will be prevented from voting, homeless people, etc. This is precisely what Donald Trump and the Republicans want. But I don't think that they will in the Senate. I shouldn't say that I do not know anymore whether Republicans will act in a constitutional fashion or act in a fashion that they understand what the meaning of changing the filibuster will. Will do. But, but I am, you know, John Thune used to be a rational human being. Maybe somewhere deep down, he still is.
- [17:00]
C
You know, you had just. I just want to add one thing to a point that you made. Is, is preventing certain people from voting. Like, if, if they, if they preserve for themselves the ability to prevent certain women from voting, for example, people would say, oh, well, they're not going to just prevent women from voting. Women vote for Republicans, too. But they. The Save America act also allows the states or allows the federal government to see the voter rolls. And so they would know who they want to target. And so if they know, for example, that certain voters are registered as Democrats because they've taken the voter rolls from the states into the federal government, now it gives them the information that they would need so that if they do want to prevent certain people from voting, given the reasons that they've. That they've reserved for themselves now, they would know exactly who to target. And so this is all like small parts of a larger whole in terms of what the Save America act would do. I have a question.
- [17:52]
D
Add to that. Brian. Sorry to interrupt, but add to that that, you know, obviously the demand for the voter rolls by the Department of Justice is all wrapped in. And that's actually what I was founding my original belief about this seizing the ballot boxes and interfering with the elections came from. Why would they be. When there's so little voter fraud that's been proven anywhere in the country, why would they want to grab all of the data from the voter rolls in every state? Why? Because they want to claim more broadly fraud in the election. So this is all part of a broad scheme to keep people from voting and then to change the outcome of the election once they have voted.
- [18:34]
C
Yeah, that's perfectly put. And also, I would add, you know, there was the most extensive study that we have on ballot frau. Voter fraud in this country was a study from 2000 to 2014. And that study focused on a billion ballots, a billion with a B. And there were all of 31 cases of voter fraud or ballot fraud. So this is a solution in search of a problem, basically, when it comes to this issue. You had mentioned poll watchers, and we're talking about this idea of the federal government using the military or using law enforcement agencies to go to the polls when voting comes around. And you had mentioned this idea of poll watchers. And I think that's gonna be important because, you know, a big issue that I think we're contending with is until it happens, there's no standing to sue for it. Now, maybe there's a world in which if these FOIA requests actually get these documents released, these plans released, and then, you know, then there might be standing, because now the plans are already being laid out and, you know, we can and hopefully see some attorneys litigate that. I'd spoken about this issue with Mark Elias as well, but in the meantime, are the states recognizing that the way to make sure that these law enforcement agencies or military members standing at the polls, the way to make sure that they're not just that they don't have carte blanche is so that there is other people there to push back against what they're doing. Are there budgets for these poll watchers in the states and the other, have the other governors that you've spoken with said that this is a priority, that they're, that they're going to make sure to counteract these members of the military with either attorneys or trained poll watchers so that those people aren't acting alone or with impunity.
- [20:23]
D
So there are certain aspects of that that can be covered by, you know, a traditional state budget and there are certain aspects of that that have to be covered by the state parties. So, you know, you can have. When you talk about poll watchers, I mean, there are people who can man the polls whose job it is to make sure the law is being followed. The problem is those tend to be people who have a higher level of sophistication, so they can sort of call it out and deal with it right on the spot. And then there's, you know, the, what I would describe as regular rank and file volunteer, you know, or even paid sort of canvasser type poll watchers who may or may not know, but they have the phone number of somebody who can deal with it. And so it's eyes on that that's helping. And so that's sort of like two levels of it. I think the following. The law part absolutely can be done through a state budget. The kind of calling it out when you see it probably needs to be done by, you know, by volunteers. So two aspects of it. Is there a budget for it? Well, there never before has been.
- [21:35]
C
Right.
- [21:36]
D
But we've never before been in this situation where literally we know that the federal government and Donald Trump in particular are threatening the elections.
- [21:46]
C
Yeah.
- [21:46]
D
I would add one other, one other thing. You know, I don't know if you're aware that there is a federal law that allows states to have something called a State guard. Are you aware of this?
- [21:59]
C
No.
- [22:00]
D
So it's a very interesting point to bring to your attention. There's a National Guard we all know and we know what the rules are around National Guard because unfortunately we've been dealing with Donald Trump on it. So people have paid attention. They can be federalized by the president and sent overseas or any use that it's according to the act. A State Guard is something that was created during World War II when National Guard were actually called up and sent overseas and states didn't have the ability to call up their National Guard. Because they were gone. And so they gave states the ability to create a state guard which does not have any federalizing associated with it. So just under the control of governors, the state of Florida. I only learned about this honestly because under DeSantis, he funded his state guard to do things that were, frankly, seemingly hyper political. But. But who knew this existed? It turns out that we all have the ability to create a state guard. New York State has a state Guard that's in existence with people who belong to. It has to be funded by the state budget. But that's an example of. You don't have to use that method. But it's an example of. You could recruit people, by the way, State Guard can be, you can call them generals and captains and, you know, enlisted people, or you can call them poll watchers. So that's something that could be done in various states. Every state has the ability to do it. It's under federal law.
- [23:39]
C
Good flag on that. And you've spoken with other governors on that as well?
- [23:43]
D
Yes.
- [23:43]
C
Okay, so I wanna switch gears here to housing. And that's an issue that often goes completely ignored. And it's also one of the most important issues for people around the country. And I think as we head toward a midterm cycle where, you know, look, in the last few elections, we've seen a massive realignment, and it's not guaranteed that certain voters or certain demographics are gonna vote for a political party. I think people are desperate for someone who is actually gonna focus on the issues that they're contending with. And it feels very much like, you know, you've had years and years and years of politicians saying one thing and doing the other. And Trump exploited that in the lead up to the 2024 election. And of course, now he's in a position where, you know, he said that we're finally gonna focus on regular people. We're finally gonna gonna focus on the cost of housing and rent and groceries and eggs. And yet here we are, like a year in, a little more than a year in. And of course, we're dropping bombs in the Middle east, and there's plenty of money for that, but not enough money to fund Medicaid, not enough money to fund the aca, not enough money to fund food assistance. Rent is rising, mortgages are rising, costs are rising, and Trump doesn't seem to give a shit. And so what is your focus in terms of housing?
- [24:58]
D
Yeah, you didn't mention the $60 billion additional for ICE, you know, that could be spent on things that actually matter to Regular people. So housing. Let's start with this that, you know, in this world where the federal government is making it harder to balance budgets at the state level, the, you know, so there's. It's hard to just come up with new money in an operating budget to pay for housing. On the other hand, we traditionally have always really had affordable housing focus. That's a lot of it funded by the federal government, but the state's been involved in that too. But no effort really or money traditionally on what I call middle housing. So people who make $80,000 to $180,000 a year historically have been able to buy a home and in the Midwest, more affordable homes. Homes, but not anymore. You can't afford it with all the rising costs of everything else. Can't afford to buy a home. Many people can't afford to rent a home. But the point being that we have to solve the problem not just for people who don't have any housing at all and provide affordable housing as it's traditionally been defined, which typically are people who are at 80% or below of median income. Here we've got people who are, you know, average working folks who are making 80 to 180. They can't buy or find a home. So that is what we're trying. We were trying to address with a proposal that I made that goes along with our affordable housing agenda as well. The idea here is there are obstacles. We're not. We can't write checks for everybody to get a home. But what we can do is provide a little bit of help on your down payment. And importantly, we can remove some of the barriers to the development of.
- [26:56]
C
That was going to be my next question because I, you know, I live in Los Angeles. This is like the mecca of, of red tape. And it's. And it's really difficult to build. And a lot of what California Democrats are doing is focusing on deconstructing a lot of that red tape and those barriers to actually to build. That makes it. That makes it, you know, impossible for developers or contractors to even start the process because it's not financially viable for them.
- [27:23]
D
That's right. And we need about 225,000 new homes for people between now and 2030 here in Illinois. The challenge, and you're raising it when you talk about Los Angeles is when you start to think about each township and each city, each municipality and all the different red tape in all of those places and how over the years that red tape just piles up and piles up. Nobody ever removes any barriers that you know, we need to do something about that. And I think now I'll give you the example in my state of, you know, Rivian, the electric, electric car company is based in Normal, Illinois, next to Bloomington. Bloomington Normal, the center of my state. That's where their large plant is, where they're producing for those brief moment where
- [28:12]
C
I thought you were just saying like, as opposed to like the abnormal part of Illinois, but go on. Okay.
- [28:18]
D
It's a town called Normal, and that's where they produce the R1 and R2 vehicles. The R2 is just coming out now. And because of their growth, when I took office, there were 27 people working at Rivian. They're now more than 8,000 in normal. And the housing stock that was necessary for people to take the jobs there didn't exist. And. And it still doesn't. There still isn't enough housing. They've taken over hotels there and basically housed people in those hotels. So they need a lot more housing. The problem is there aren't a lot of the developers in the area and there's red tape that takes too long for that housing to be developed. I give that as the example because we had. I mean, we are continuing in a crisis for a place like Bloomington Normal. And the same thing's happening in a place like Rockford, Illinois, which has gone from a place that had high unemployment to a place that's just booming. And. And we, we need more housing. Chicago, of course that's the case. So I. What I'm saying is each one of these places has a different set of barriers that you've got to remove. But the answer is we need something that's statewide that says that they've got to approve permits within a certain period of time or else there is going to be a third party method of getting those permits approved. The same thing goes for other of the local regulation. That's just. I mean, for many developers, they say, I don't even want to do business in these places where they need houses.
- [29:57]
C
Yeah.
- [29:58]
D
So we're working very hard on that. I put a proposal before the legislature that will not only deal with the developers and help them develop more housing, but also the problem of. In a lot of jurisdictions, you know, you've got an apartment over a garage, for example, and the jurisdiction won't let you rent that out. That's a home for somebody.
- [30:20]
C
Yeah.
- [30:21]
D
And yet it might sit empty. It could be income for the family that owns the home next to the garage. So we've got a lot of those situations where we just need to loosen it up a bit and let people do what they naturally would like to do. And this isn't about stuffing communities with, you know, let's say a middle class or an upper middle class community with low income housing. That's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is just using available housing stock. That could be homes that were at a moment when we really do need some new homes. And that would take, for my 225,000 need, that would be about 100,000 of those 225,000, just the available housing stock today.
- [31:07]
C
Now, you had mentioned that something needs to be done on the state level. Is that in the works right now? Is there, is there legislation being drafted in the legislature to actually get this done?
- [31:16]
D
It has been. In fact, I gave in my state of the state speech, which was just a couple of weeks ago. I talked specifically about this proposal, the various elements of it and the fact that we've got to just think anew about housing. This isn't just about building, it's also about existing housing stock. And very importantly, you shouldn't have to wait till you're 40 years old to be able to afford to buy a home.
- [31:42]
C
Last question here. How are you thinking about the issue of housing in relation to the 2030 Census and Blue states like yours not losing seats in deference to red states down South?
- [31:56]
D
Yeah, this has always been a challenge, particularly because Midwest in general has had a migration of people to warmer parts of the country. What's interesting is if you look at the latest data, what you're seeing is that there is an expectation that there will be a reverse of that migration back to the Midwest. You know why? Because we have all the water. I mean, literally 80% of the nation's fresh water is here in the Midwest.
- [32:30]
C
Yeah.
- [32:31]
D
And you think about a place like Arizona, which has had so much migration out there, they no longer have the water that they once had. California suffers from that as well. The Colorado river isn't going to be able to feed California the way that California needs. So people are actually, and not to mention industry, you know, needs fresh water as well. So we're expecting and seeing already a kind of a reversal of that migration pattern. So that's something that we are challenged with in Illinois, the kind of being ready for that reverse of migration. Look, you know, I'm not going to be governor forever, although I've been governor for seven years and I'm running for reelection. But the truth is that that migration is going to occur over decades. But We've got to be ready for it, and we've got to continue our process of adding more existing, I mean, more available housing stock among the existing, as well as building new.
- [33:29]
C
Well, I appreciate it. Governor Pritzker, as always, thanks so much for the time.
- [33:32]
D
Good to see you, Brian.
- [33:36]
C
I'm joined now by Congressman Jared Moskowitz. Congressman, thanks for joining me.
- [33:39]
B
Hey, Brian, Good to be with you.
- [33:41]
C
So I want to get your reaction to an announcement that Donald Trump made this morning that's raising a lot of eyebrows here, and that is the United States is the largest oil producer in the world by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. And then he goes on to say, but the issue of greater importance to him, of course, is stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons, which is clearly why he decided to blow up the Iran nuclear deal. But all of that notwithstanding, your reaction to this new talking point from Donald Trump that actually high or high oil prices, high gas prices are good?
- [34:12]
B
Well, I guess I could say that he's definitely testing his theory that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Because this is, is obviously, this is. He's going to try to defy gravity here. Okay? Everybody knows that when they go to the gas pump, they're going to see what they're paying, right? That is where all the talking points and all the propaganda and all the spin, all the marketing, all the sales that Trump tries to do, all of that dies at the gas pump. Because math is still math. People can see that they're paying more for gas as a result of the President's strategy and plans. And so, listen, this is not gonna work out how he thinks. He's not gonna be able to convince the American people that we're making more money. Who is the we? It's not the American people who are suffering every day, obviously, under this economy as costs continue to go up. And so this is not gonna work out for the President. The president's gonna see that he's not gonna defy gravity when it comes to gas prices.
- [35:08]
C
Well, so I think you touched on something really important there. On the we. Isn't the we in this scenario just the oil and gas companies? Like, isn't. Isn't that. Aren't these multibillion dollar multinational conglomerates, the entities that he's referring to here when he beats his chest about making more money?
- [35:24]
B
Well, listen, that might be for his donors. It might be for the conglomerates. Right? The American people aren't in the we. That is not the we. It is not the, it's not the folks, by the way, Brian, who are going to go to the ballot box in the primaries and in the general, right around the corner. It's so certainly ain't those people, okay? Because those people are going to be bearing the brunt. It's why you've seen, you know, special elections and other elections not going the way Republicans had hoped. And now you add to this gas prices going up after they've dealt with grocery prices going up. You know, they are going to face a tsunami at the ballot box.
- [36:03]
C
You know, something that's especially striking about this is this is the issue on which Trump ran. Like he exploited the issue of higher costs that regular people were enduring when he was on the campaign trail. And so what does it say that Donald Trump will not only recognize that this is a potent political issue, but it's an issue that was so potent, he basically won the presidency off of it and now is just pretending that it doesn't even exist.
- [36:33]
B
Let me say it a different way, okay? Donald Trump is underwater on the two issues that the polls say he got elected on. One was the economy, and two is immigration. He's ruined both of those things, okay? He's ruined it by what he did all over the country and in Minnesota and what he did with tps, okay? He's absolutely destroyed himself with Kristi Noem on immigration and now on the economy. Right. He told everyone Joe Biden's policies were terrible, Bidenomics are awful. And yet, yet he's literally bringing us back to what he said was terrible gas prices, cost of living, cost of groceries. But now he's gonna tell everyone everything's fine. Right? Don't look at the math. Don't look at the gas pump. It's not gonna work, by the way. We tried that, we tried in the last election to tell people how to feel. Right? We tried to tell them things are getting better, don't worry. We tried to do that. But at the end of the day, the bills still show up at the kitchen table. And every time someone brings their car to the gas station, they're going to see that bill. And every time the, you know, the utility bill shows up on the kitchen table, they're going to see that bill. Okay? And, and the propaganda doesn't not going to go further than, you know, when people have less money in their savings account because of the president's policies.
- [37:48]
C
Right. I think that's perfectly put. And in fact, one of the issues that he tried to exploit on the campaign trail against The Democrats was the idea of housing. There is legislation that's working its way through the Senate right now that's called the 21st century road to Housing Act. Again, that's Republicans kind of hewing closely to what they said on the campaign trail, that they cared about the cost of rent and housing and groceries and eggs. And so now there's a big piece of bipartisan legislation. It was put forward by Elizabeth Warren and also Taylor Scott on the Republican side. And according to Punchbowl News from today, Donald Trump wants Mike Johnson not to focus on this bill because he wants all the focus to be on the Save America act so he can have some voter suppression legislation. And what he told Mike Johnson was, quote, no one gives a bleep about housing. So another instance of him doing exactly the opposite of what he kind of ran on during the campaign.
- [38:46]
B
Yeah, listen, you know, we thought the affordability is a hoax was a great line which now the President stopped using, of course, after all of his consultants and pollster said, stop saying that, please. Now we're hearing, you know, no one cares about the cost of housing. Right? So we got affordability is a hoax. High gasoline prices, you're gonna love them. They're fantastic. And by the way, the cost of your house and the cost of your rent, nobody gives a shit. I mean, those commercials are gonna be crazy to watch, though. Those mailers that are gonna go out. Can you imagine? You turn on the TV and it's like, are you headed to the polls in two weeks? Higher gas prices, higher housing, higher grocery prices. These are fantastic for you. The American people vote for us. This is their plan.
- [39:32]
C
And finally, Congressman, one last topic here, and that is the Shield of the Americas, which is. Is the very important. I don't even know what it is, but Kristi Noem was.
- [39:43]
B
I know what it is. I know it is. The President was watching Endgame, the last Avengers movie.
- [39:48]
C
Well, Kristi Noem lost her job as DHS Secretary. She's been relegated to the very important position as, I don't know, head shield at the Shield of Americas. There was some event to honor the Shield of Americas that Donald Trump went to. And Kristi Noem was there, wasn't even featured. She was just relegated to audience member, even though she's going to be the special envoy or whatever her position calls for. So your reaction to. To this latest. This latest job move from Kristi Noem?
- [40:14]
B
Yeah, I mean, first of all, I congratulate the former Secretary of Homeland on her new position as head of the Shield of the Americas obviously President has so much faith in her that he refused to even include her in the announcement. She was literally just an audience member. Which by the way is what he did with her at his last cabinet meeting. He wouldn't even let her speak peak at, at the last cabinet meeting. And so listen, ding dong, the witch is dead. I'm glad that she's no longer there. I'm glad that she's at that. She's gone. She's absolutely destroyed that agency. She's really hurt. Fema, fema. We don't talk a lot about FEMA because we haven't had a hurricane to deal with fema. Yeah, but what you're going to find out is the damage, systemic damage she's caused at fema. It will take years to rebuild fema. And so hopefully we don't have a major hurricane this summer because I can tell you that agency has a lot of good people there, but they're not ready because of what she's done there. And then the corruption. You think the $200 million commercial contract is bad? Wait till you hear about the internal lobbyists that were making money. People who work there. Corey Lewandowski, who was also making money as a lobbyist. Tens of millions of dollars allegedly is what, is what I'm hearing. And a quote came out from Corey Lewandowski the other day, said I don't give a shit. You know, the President will pardon me. Well, it's not gonna pardon you from state crimes. And so look, when we get that gavel back where Robert Garcia gets the gavel and Jamie Raskin gets the gavel, man, those hearings are gonna be much watched television. What we're gonna find out that went on in Homeland Security under Krissy Noem, probably the worst secretary of that agency of all time. The American people are happy to have a national divorced from her on biblical grounds.
- [41:53]
C
You know, I want to dig into that, that part as, as just in the, in the few minutes that we have left here. This idea that when Democrats get the gavel they'll be able to, they'll be able to do proper oversight on, on some of the stuff that we've been seeing. You know, one of, one of the issues is the Epstein files. Obviously the Trump administration will protect anybody from being called in so long as they're not named Bill or Hillary Clinton. Do you presume that some of these Trump administration officials, like Howard Lutnick for example, who have been able to avoid being subpoenaed because everybody knows that Jim Comer won't subpoena them and that Pam Bondi won't enforce any subpoena. Do you think we'll see some difference here when Democrats are actually in control?
- [42:34]
B
Oh, yeah, and by the way, Lutnick is coming, right? Lutnik is coming. They've subpoenaed Ludnik. So he'll be appearing in Oversight. Pam Bondi will be appearing in Oversight again. They're coming. But it's gonna be very different when we can all a sudden get bank records, right? When you could start following the money.
- [42:50]
C
There's also Maureen Comey, for example, led the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And not only was she fired, but now we haven't heard anything from her. And she'll have all, you know, a wealth of information on all of this stuff that. That otherwise wouldn't come into, that we wouldn't know.
- [43:05]
B
And, Brian, this is why the President is incessantly focused on the SAVE act, okay? The reason it's called the Save act is because he's trying to save himself, okay?
- [43:16]
A
Yeah.
- [43:16]
B
That's why it's called the Save Act. The only way he can save himself is to disenfranchise Americans from voting at the ballot box. Because come November, when we do get a chance to vote, they are going to lose the House and maybe the Senate. And when that happens, the next two years are going to be very different than the first two years in which the President has had unfettered reign. Right. He's had no oversight from Republicans on the House, no oversight from Republicans in the Senate. The executive branch has acted like a king because there's been Article 1 of the Constitution. Seems to not matter to Mike Johnson. And so it'll be a very different. When we can put brakes on the administration, when we at least take back the House and make Hakeem Jeffries the speaker, first black speaker in American history. When Hakeem holds that gavel up, it's not just gonna be his third historic moment for America. It's gonna be a historic moment for the next two years of the Trump administration.
- [44:11]
C
We'll leave it there. Congressman, as always, thanks for the time.
- [44:14]
B
Thank you.
- [44:17]
C
I'm joined now by the Secretary of State of Arizona, Adrian Fontes. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [44:22]
A
Thanks for having me.
- [44:23]
C
So Arizona is in the news in a big way right now because Donald Trump has turned his attention to that state, pointing to this idea that voter fraud took place in Arizona. And of course, this. This is especially ironic considering this was relitigated over and over and over. There were even the cyber ninjas who came in in the aftermath of the 2020 election from these Republicans who actually found that not only did Donald Trump not win, but the margin that Joe Biden beat Trump by was even larger than had been previously suspected. But still, that isn't stopping Trump because he's looking for any pretext to be able to claim voter fraud. So what can you tell us, first and foremost, about the priority prospect of voter fraud in Arizona?
- [45:03]
A
Well, I don't know how many times we have to exhaust this notion that 2020 was a clean election in Arizona. It was fair, it was accessible, it was secure. It was all of those things. I mean, look, even I was on the exact same ballot in Maricopa county at the time running for my reelection, and I lost. But you didn't hear me, you know, bitch and complain about it. We trust our voters, we trust our systems, and they worked out well. But one thing he didn't mention was the sitting Attorney General at the time, Republican Mark Bernovich, who since has passed away, may he rest in peace. His office put out a report. While they didn't put it out, the next Attorney General, Chris Mase, did. And even that report said that they couldn't substantiate any of the claims that were made. Look, this is just part of the continuing grift that we see on the part of election deniers, the continuing sowing of doubt on the part of this president. And it's really just a power grab. It's very elaborate. And the one thing I will say is this. You got to give the guy credit. He gets a lot of people to believe all of his lies. And so, you know, credit where due on that one. But at the end of the day, this is all just nonsense. It's not going to ultimately go anywhere. It is just another distraction away from all of those things that we should be dealing with. Iran, affordability, the Epstein files, all of that stuff.
- [46:29]
C
You know, Arizona is just the latest iteration of this same claim that's being surfaced by Trump. Just days earlier, we obviously found out that Donald Trump had sent his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to Fulton county to seize those ballots. So obviously, Fulton county is gonna be another point where Donald Trump says that the election was stolen from him. Prior to that, in the immediate aftermath of the Iran bombing, he said that Iran had interfered in the 2020 election. Just before that, we had reporting from the Washington Post that the White House was putting together an executive order on the foundation of this idea that China had interfered in the 2020 election. So at this point, we're just doing this whole thing where Trump basically points at a map and any place that his hand lands on is responsible for interfering in the election. I'm surprised we haven't gotten Hugo Chavez, the dead leader of Venezuela, having interfered in that election as well. But why do you think it's so important for Trump to try and find some place to serve as a pretext for him to claim that there was fraud?
- [47:35]
A
Well, the only way he can stay in power is if there's. If the reason he would come out of power is illegitimate. And so he's going to do everything he can to subvert the 2026 election Republicans, which, if he keeps governing as poorly as he has, his party will lose. His party will lose the House of Representatives, potentially lose the United States Senate, and then his presidency is in jeopardy. And that's the one thing a wannabe dictator doesn't want. But there's something a lot more important underlying this. You know, people often will say, well, this isn't how we do it in America. This isn't a democracy that's functioning with all cylinders firing anymore. You have the prosecutorial branch of the government in the Department of Justice and its law enforcement agencies, the FBI, chasing ghosts and conspiracy theories and lies. And it's not just in elections. We've just learned that subpoenas in an investigation into Jerome Powell were kicked out of court. Now, these folks are not making it past the judiciary, but the mess that they are leaving in their wake with these illegitimate prosecutions, these unfounded investigations, and this abuse of power, I think, is really important for folks to realize we cannot be comfortable with where we are, and we've got to be uncomfortable to get us away from where we are right now. And these subpoenas in Arizona, I think, are another example of subversion of the judiciary. And I get a little tighter into that, if you'd like me to.
- [49:07]
C
Yeah, I would love to hear more about that.
- [49:10]
A
Sure. So, in June, as you recall, along with many other states, the Department of Justice tried to get the sensitive part of our voter rolls so that they could do whatever they wanted to do. And there's. So there's two parts of our voter rolls. There's the public part. Names, addresses, party stuff that folks can get with the public records request, depending on their use. And then there's the private part. Mother's maiden name, father's name, part or whole of your Social Security, driver's license numbers, day and month of your birth, tribal ID numbers, that secure stuff that we don't give away, it's actually a crime for us to give that up under any circumstances, really, that aren't very, very narrowly provided for in law. I've said no. And they've sued us. Well, that lawsuit is pending. I think it's possible that this Department of Justice impaneled a grand jury to chase after these conspiracy theories in order to subvert the current pending litigation. And if that kind of prosecutorial misconduct is coming out of this doj, which I would not put it past them, then, then, then they've got another thing coming. So that's one of the reasons why this fight is still alive. And that they may have gotten that stuff from the state Senate, but what they can do with it and how they use it, they might have some real problems coming. And so we're going to pursue this as far as we can. And I think the DOJ is on some shaky ground if these, if these questions that we have turn out to be true.
- [50:34]
C
Can you speak a little bit about why the DOJ is so hell bent on trying to get these voter rolls from state control into the federal government's hands? And by the way, this is not just an effort that they're pursuing in the court, it's also a tenet of the Save America act, which Trump is so hell bent on passing that he's willing to throw every other legislative priority to the wayside to get through.
- [50:56]
A
Well, first and foremost, it reveals something really important, and that is how hamstrung the federal government is and how bad they're data is in the first place. Because people are like, oh, well, they've already got all this data. If they had it, they wouldn't be asking for it.
- [51:08]
C
Right?
- [51:09]
A
So what they want is they want to know who is voting, who has voted and how to find them. How to find folks like you and folks like me whose data may not be available because if they can find us, they can pursue us. They can send folks to knock on your doors and ask you questions. This is what authoritarians do. This is what a regime like this, who's hell bent on keeping power does. It's just part of the regular playbook. Now, do I know that that's their plan? No, but that's one of the worst case scenarios that you can think of. And I wouldn't put it past them. They are trying to, however, justify it with this mythology of non citizen voters. And you and I both know, even the Heritage foundation, the ultra conservative Heritage foundation, has found that since 1982, with literally billions of votes cast, there have only been 68 instances of non citizens who've confirmed to have voted out of billions. This is wholly and completely unjustified. It is the tail wagging the dog. It is a solution looking for a problem. And it's justifying. This whole non citizen voting thing is justifying something far more nefarious, far more dangerous for our democracy. And we've really got to wake up to the fact that, that these guys do not want to get out of power no matter what election results might say.
- [52:28]
C
Yeah, that was perfectly put. I often point to there was a study done from 2000 to 2014 that looked at a billion ballots over the course of 14 years to find instances of ballot fraud. Not just undocumented immigrants, just general instances of ballot fraud in the United states. They found 31 over the course of 14 years with a billion ballots cast. So like you said, this is a solution in search of a problem. I want to ask about something in particular, and this is with the Save America Act. You know, they had put forward this idea that the only acceptable forms of identification are going to be passports, for example. And so I presume that it would lend itself to reason that because the federal government is in charge of distributing passports, that if, for example, they get the voter rolls and they can see what your political affiliation is, your partisan affiliation, what your, what party you're registered with, and then you have the federal government who's in charge of giving you the documents that you would need to go vote, and they can see, for example, because now they have the access to the voter rolls who are Democrats, wouldn't that put them in a position where they can say, well, now we know who the Democrats are. And so when those people try to get passports, try to get birth certificates, because those are the only two approved sources of identification that we're going to allow, doesn't that put them in a position where the federal government of one party can determine, in effect who can vote?
- [53:49]
A
Well, it doesn't just determine that. Let's talk about fundamentally what this is from a legal perspective. What you're saying is you've got to have a government issued ID and this database is going to know exactly who each of us is. It's exactly what the Privacy act of 1974 was built against. But once you do that for one fundamental right, now that's going to end up flowing to all of the others. It's going to flow to your right to travel, your right to bear arms, you're right to speak freely to have this national id. Now, what do you do with that? Is that going to be a hook to healthcare, to banking, to insurance, to all kinds of other things that we do in this country? Are we going down that authoritarian path for reals? And this voter ID thing is just the first step in that direction? That's entirely possible, and that terrifies me, and that's why I'm fighting so hard against it. Look, Arizona has had voter ID laws for years. Our voters who voted in person have to present their id. We enforce that law here. We've had documented proof of citizenship for years. That's fine. We've figured out how to deal with it after fits and starts and 20 years of experience in Arizona. But the bottom line is this, Arizona runs that system, not the federal government. And that is the bright line difference between what the Trump administration is trying to do and what other states are working towards or have already been doing, like Arizona. So this is much more than just about voting rights and voting. It is far greater insofar as a real power grab from a legal perspective. But at the end of the day, what we've got is a federal government that we just can't trust with data. We saw them put a bunch of Social Security data up on unsecured servers. We've seen recently released interviews that they were having in some depositions from the Doge teenagers who were out there, you know, screwing around, not even being able to define basic terms, and transferring stuff to their Gmail and all kinds of unsecured stuff with some pretty important government work. This isn't how government is supposed to work. These folks are rank amateurs. They don't know what they're doing or how to implement this. And the sloppiness and laziness of the way they work things isn't good for the American people, no matter what systems they're trying to work through.
- [56:05]
C
Well, I want to add one more variable here, and that is the prospect of Trump sending the military or law enforcement agents to the polls. This is an issue that's so concerning that the DNC has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to find out if there are any ongoing efforts to do exactly that, where the administration is planning to send military members to the polls. And so, in the event that this happens, because obviously that litigation is gonna play itself out, the White House is gonna try and block this to the ends of the earth. So we probably won't get anything until we. Until the lawsuit moves forward and a judge demands that any correspondence be released. But in the event that this is going to happen. What's the plan in Arizona to keep the poll safe from having members of the military there expressly to intimidate people into not casting ballots?
- [56:54]
A
Well, first and foremost, let's look at this one way that the President might be thinking about getting there that a lot of folks have been talking about, and that is the possible declaration of an emergency of some sort of sort in order to be able to do what it is that you're talking about. The President doesn't have the power to do that. There's about 130, 140 or so reasons why the President can declare an emergency. Elections are not one of them, because we run them here in the states at our level of governance, not the president. And so that's not legally on the table for him. And I think he'd have a tough time trying to get past that question. But then there's this other thing about, well, he doesn't follow the law anyway. And so what are we doing to, you know, be able to react exactly to those things? Well, I'd love to tell you, but we aren't going to reveal any of what we're working on with the executive and the Attorney General here in Arizona. And in speaking with my colleagues and their attorneys general across the country through the Democratic association of Secretaries of State and even some Republican secretaries, by the way, are very worried about this, this sort of thing. Let's not forget the Trump administration has sued several Republican states for not giving up those voter rolls that we were talking about a minute ago as well. So is this prospect scary? Absolutely. Is it possible? It may very well be. Is it probable? I doubt it. And let's look at the big, big, big picture here. Authoritarians who have taken over democracies are generally somewhat popular. This guy's not popular. The American public are railing against him already. It looks like he may lose any political cachet that he has as the months and weeks go by. And I feel really good about that as a politician, as a statewide elected Democrat. But regardless of all the politics, we're gonna follow the law in Arizona. Our elections are run by local officials at the county level. We're a bottom up state. I basically am a regulator. We make the rules and all that, but we're going to be okay. And I want to ensure everybody understands there are folks working every single day right now planning on and working on the November 2026 elections. And it's going to take all Americans to get together to either work through your party infrastructure, your organizational infrastructure, or even if you feel so compelled, contact your local elections officials now so that if they need folks to work the polls to make sure voters are safe, to make sure the rules are followed, that you can get the training that you need moving towards the fall and you can get in there early enough to really help and make a difference in your own communities. That's one of the things that I would ask folks to do.
- [59:42]
C
Well, I think that that reassurance is especially important, and that's what it looks like when you have, you know, someone like you in your position as secretary of state. So can you talk about, you know, you're running for reelection? Can you talk about the importance of making sure that you are in this position, not just in 2026, but as we move forward to 2028, where of course, you know, there will be a general election. And Trump seems hell bent on making sure he can rig the rules of the game in his and his party's favor.
- [60:10]
A
Yeah, thanks for bringing that up. We've got a couple of really interesting candidates that are running in the Republican primary against me. It looks like I may not have a primary to get reelected as secretary of State in November of 2026. So the politics are going to play out. Both of the candidates running against me have very, very deep ties. One of them has been endorsed by the by Donald Trump in her race for Congress. I don't know if she's going to get that endorsement now for Secretary of State. The other one is a Turning Point USA guy. And as you know, Turning Point USA is based here in Arizona. And they don't like the fact that I push back against the conspiracy theories and the lies and misinformation all the time. They don't like the fact that I will hold up and celebrate local elections officials, regardless of their political party because the local elections officials want to help their communities. And I used to be one of those. And I know these folks. They do good work. They're your neighbors, they're your friends, the folks that work in the polling places. Those folks on that side of the aisle don't want someone who's going to follow the rules, support elections officials and secure Arizonans private data from this office. And so they're going to try to unseat me. And that's why it's so important that, you know, I think folks can support my reelection. They can go to electfontes.com I'll repeat that. Electfontes.com if you want to help, we'd really appreciate it. It's going to be a slogan because Turning Point has been engaged in very deeply already in a Mesa City Council race. They're working on the SRP board, which is a sort of quasi governmental board that has elections. They're putting money into these races. So we know that we're going to have a fight ahead of us. And I'm really, really excited about being able to show great support and push forward so that we can ensure that 2028 goes well. Also, because we don't just have 2028. Folks getting, getting reelected will help me set up so that we can have a really good census in 2030 also. So this isn't just about 2026 and me. This is about what's going to happen in the presidential race in 2028 and the presidential preference election, the primaries, all that stuff, and moving into 2030, how things are gonna flesh out. Arizona is getting ready to flip. And I wanna be the man who makes sure that the real voice of Arizona's voters is heard and that we can get past the shenanigans as we have done year in and year out. I'd love to do it again as Secretary of State for the next four years.
- [62:48]
C
Well, Adrian, I'm gonna put the link to your website right here on the screen and also in the post description for those who are listening on the podcast. It'll be in the show Notes. I appreciate you taking the time today. I appreciate that you have been a clear voice for not only transparency, but fighting back against all the bullshit that we're contending with right now for so long. So thanks again for taking the time.
- [63:09]
A
Super happy to be back with you. I can't wait till next time. Take care of yourself.
- [63:15]
C
I'm joined now by the Democratic nominee for governor of Texas, Gina Hinojosa. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [63:20]
E
It's great to be with you, Brian.
- [63:22]
C
So as it relates to Texas, we just saw a few weeks back during the primary that, that a bunch of the districts that Texas Republicans had redrawn to kind of engineer themselves a majority in the House to win these five seats, that in four of those new congressional districts, Democrats actually turned out more than Republicans. And so what kind of a blinking red light do you think that is for the Republican Party as we head toward this midterm election?
- [63:48]
E
This 2026 midterm is going to be unlike anything we've seen. We are seeing Democrats making gains in Texas like we haven't seen in decades. Something happening in Texas. And so, yes, they way underestimated our energy and our excitement, they way underestimated where the Latino vote is in Texas for this midterm election. So this creates, in Texas at an opportune time, a real opportunity for Democrats to make gains in a big, big way this midterm election.
- [64:23]
C
So talk to me about the Latino population in particular, because I think the way that Republicans had looked at that, that demographic group was okay. They are a permanent part of our coalition now. And so we can gerrymander these maps, assuming that the Latino voters who swung for Trump and Republicans in 2024 are always going to be Trump and Republican voters moving forward. But is that the case?
- [64:46]
E
No, they're not. So I'm originally from the Rio Grande Valley. Trump won the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas. We launched our campaign from the Rio Grande Valley. And people are angry with status quo. They're angry at the Trump administration and the Republican leadership that has enabled it. And so Latinos swung in a big way. Let me give you an. Let me put into context what that means for Democrats in this midterm election. In 2018, Beto got 64% of the Latino vote. Okay? He came really close to flipping Texas. In 2026, when I get 64% of the Latino vote against Abbott, I win because there's more Latinos in the voting. Taylor Ramette, who just flipped an open Senate seat in Tarrant county, the largest Republican county in the whole state, in the whole country, he got 79% of the Latino vote. Right? It is pretty incredible the way Latinos have swung in a big way, really. These immigration attacks on our families, on our communities, are personal. Many of us are from mixed status families. My own mother was not born in this country. My grandmother never became a citizen. So these attacks are literally hitting home for so many Latinos in Texas. We are a very patriotic people and we take pride in who we are. And so to have it be questioned and challenged by this government is unacceptable. And it's made Latinos very angry.
- [66:22]
C
So help me understand a little bit here, because I think the way that, that we used to think about Latinos, you know, decades ago, was, okay, any, any issues related to the Latino community is like, has to focus on immigration. And then everybody else talks about the economy. And then it became clear that Latinos vote very much along the same lines as everybody else in this country, which is to say that the economy, you know, if the economy is the principal issue for most Americans, it's also going to be the principal issue for Latinos. And so when we hear that, you know, this issue of ICE in particular is moving them. Does that mean it's swung back to immigration issues? Does that mean both are important? Like just give me a little bit of, help me understand a little bit here because I think the way that we had been kind of trained recently to think about the Latino population is whatever, you know, whatever issue is impacting the rest of America is also very much, much, very much the same issue that's impacting that community.
- [67:21]
E
Right. So that's a great question. So last election cycle I will say that border security was an issue, a liability for Democrats. Biden was not seen as strong on border security. Remember at the time there were the caravans coming, people were sleeping under bridges. It did not feel, it felt chaotic. And so I think Democrats were punished because of it. But this issue is, has, there's been a 180 on this issue for reasons that I told you because people feel personally attacked. It's people who have been in this country for 20 years, law abiding, hard working members of our community are now being targeted and then some. Right. They're even targeting citizens as we know. And so on that issue, it is now a liability for Republicans. It is a winning issue for Democrats. But you're right that the economic issues are always at the forefront for this community. That and in 2026, tell me who is doing better economically? I mean, everybody is struggling. And in Texas it's worse because our income is growing at a slower pace than the national average. We just, there was just a study on this released last month. Despite the fact that we are a world economic powerhouse in Texas and people know we built that economic power. Right. So people are very angry about the cost of everything going up. We have the most working people who are uninsured in this state, most children who are uninsured. Home ownership is out of reach. The price of electricity has skyrocketed since winter storm. Uri, when Greg Abbott sold us out to industry instead of looking out for the people of Texas. Remember, we lost power. Over 700 Texans died. Like on and on and on. Texans are struggling with the basics with a Republican governor and Greg Abbott who just doesn't deliver for us. He only delivers for his billionaire donors.
- [69:15]
C
So you had mentioned border security and how that was a liability for Democrats in 2024. And I understand that that's not the principal issue anymore because obviously the issue of ICE has kind of superseded that. But that doesn't mean that Democrats are still viewed favorably when it comes to border security. And that's still going to be A thing in Texas. So where do you stand of border security so that folks know whether it will continue to be a liability, continue to be a weakness for Democrats, or whether it's something that you are going to focus on?
- [69:47]
E
My position on border security is informed by what I heard from people that absolutely, we should have border security. But targeting longtime hardworking members of our communities who have been here 20 years is not making us more secure. It's making us less safe. And so we can't be treating those populations the same people who just arrive at the border absolutely need to be vetted in a different way than people who have been here for a long time. There should be a path to legalization. I have learned from the Harris county district attorney in Houston that in fact, he has child sex abuse cases that he cannot prosecute because witnesses are either deported or they're too afraid to come forward. So it's making us us more unsafe. It's putting us in danger to have these indiscriminate targetings of immigrants in this state. And we know that in Texas we're detaining more people than anyone. Greg Abbott has taken big money from the private prison companies who are now operating these detention centers. He's padding their profits by sending the Texas National Guard in to be staffing for these detention centers. We are the only state in the whole union that allows for little children to be locked up with their parents like little Liam. And that's after Greg Abbott received those tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the private prison companies and created a new kind of licensing that allows makes legal the locking up of these little children. And so that's just the corrupt reality we deal with in Texas. And Texans have had enough. The polling shows, the elections on the ground show that people are done with politics as usual and they're desperate for a change.
- [71:30]
C
So that's the part I want to dig into here because I understand that people are fed up and the former kind of alignments that we'd seen in politics are kind of blowing up. And, you know, it's anybody's guess where large swaths of voters are going to go. But it still remains true that for a lot of people, their political affiliation is very much, very much tied to their identities. And that's by design, I think. And so it's not a small thing for someone who's been a lifelong Republican to just go ahead and cast their ballot for a Democrat, especially if, you know, their families before them, their parents were Republicans and their grandparents were Republicans. And on and on. And so in the conversations that you've had with people across the state, I'm sure that you've encountered those people, what is most resonant with voters to get people who have voted for Republicans in the past or for whom their Republicanism is such a, such a major part of their identity to say to you, I voted for these people in the past and I can't do it anymore. I'm going to vote for you.
- [72:36]
E
Well, a few things on that. I do think that politics is so broken and government so broken that it's created a real opportunity for people to just look for something different. And so we've seen a lot of people become independent in Texas. Right. Who are open to either party. It just depends on who the candidate is. And in my poll, in the only polling we have, it shows that I'm winning independence significantly by 13 to 17 points. Right. The other thing is that for the last few years, we have fought this voucher scam that Greg Abbott has pushed and he got passed last year. And that gave me entry into Republican rural communities who very much support their neighborhood public schools. James Taurico and I were co chairs of the 2023 effort that beat Greg Abbott's voucher scam. And he kept coming back and trying to get it and he couldn't. Right. And over the years, we've been working that fight and those pro education allies are still there in Texas. You should know that, that we're very much pro public school. It's part of our identity. Think of Friday Night Light. Most school districts don't have private schools. Right. And so it's enshrined in our Texas constitution that we support public schools. So this is a very kind of niche Texas issue that resonates with people and it allows me to build on those relationships.
- [74:06]
C
Aside from from those issues, I know that we spoke a little bit about immigration and education. What else? What else you focused on in this campaign? What can, what, what is your pitch to Texas voters?
- [74:17]
E
So what I have learned in the Texas House is the reason why Texans are struggling so much after 12 years of Greg Abbott is because we are all paying the Greg Abbott corruption tax. I mentioned electricity. So Greg Abbott allowed industry to withhold the gas that our grid needed during winter storm URI until the prices were sky high and they could make billions in hours. As a result, all of us in Texas are paying about $40 more a month on our electricity bills. That's the Greg Abbott corruption tax. Schools across the state are shutting down and instead we're paying for a $1 billion voucher scam. That's the Greg Abbott corruption tax. The detention centers I mentioned, it goes on and on and on. And so Texans are looking for explanation about why do I work so hard, I pay high taxes, and yet we get less and less. And it is about the Greg Abbott corruption tax. And so that seems to be resonating. We need a clean slate and a fresh start. Because right now we have a system where we're feeding into it with our taxpayer dollars and it's working against us. It's not one, two or three things that's going to change things. We just need to wipe the slate clean and come back with something new. And I think in this moment in history, that's what people are thirsty for, just something totally new. Because the system hasn't worked for most people in the state for a long, long time.
- [75:48]
C
And finally, I want to finish off with kind of taking a 30,000 foot view here. And I know that we should be focusing on 2026 and what's right in front of us. But the reality is that we have a census coming up in 2030. And when new populations are taken into account, it's likely that Texas is gonna gain four to five seats. And so can you talk about the national implications of having a Democratic governor in Texas versus a Republican governor in Texas when it comes time to see that reapportionment happen?
- [76:18]
E
Yes. So Republicans in Texas are already getting ready for those four to five congressional seats that we are projected to gain in Texas. Cause we're growing faster than the other states. So they have already set in place plans to redistrict our state House and our state Senate to begin to gerrymander those houses within state government to draw the maps. And this would lock out Democratic control of Congress for a generation. Because at that point, Texas becomes too big. And the math no longer works for Democratic control because these congressional seats, seats equate to electoral votes for the White House. We won't be able to elect a Democrat for president for a generation. So those are the stakes. If they do this, and I know they will try if they can, to do this next year. We need a governor in place who can veto their rigged maps. Yeah, right. And so our polling shows us in a statistical tie with Greg Abbott. He is deeply unpopular. Public polling shows that he is, is the most unpopular person on the ballot in 2026. More unpopular than John Cornyn and Ken Paxton and all others, if you can believe it. But he's just been there so long. He's a known quantity and people are tired of him. So he's trying to win a fourth unprecedented term to be there 16 years. He will be the longest serving governor in Texas history. If as if that happens and people don't want more of that, people are done with Greg Abbott. It's time for change.
- [77:52]
C
Where can folks who are listening and watching right now go to help your campaign?
- [77:55]
E
They can go to ginafortexas.com G I N A F O R texas.com Great.
- [78:01]
C
I'm gonna put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description for those who are listening on the podcast. That link will be in the show Notes. Thank you so much for taking the time. Best of luck in the campaign trail.
- [78:10]
E
Thank you Brian. I appreciate it.
- [78:13]
C
Thanks again to J.B. pritzker, Jared Moskowitz, Adrian Fontes and Gina Hinojosa. That's it for this episode. Talk to you Wednesday. You've been listening to no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graeber, music by Wellesley, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me ryantellercohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.