Tim Miller (3:58)

Yeah, I think so. And Nikki Haley, we should also mention Trump said was not going to be getting a role, which is also not surprising seeing as they hadn't spoken since June, per Nikki Haley. But I'm not surprised about that. I mean, look, I guess this is what I sense and we're going to know more in a month than we do today, but the immigration regime is going to be extremely draconian. And they actually know. There's the analogy that people kept using if Trump gets back in, like the Velociraptors have learned how to work the door handles this time, like they didn't know what to do. Immigration was the one place where they knew how to work the door handles the first time. Right. So they're very well prepared to start day one. And there's already been a Leak that he might do an executive order ending birthright citizenship, which is probably unconstitutional, but is meant as an early challenge to the court to dare the courts to stop him essentially. So that will just be one vector across many draconian anti immigrant policies that will come into place. I think on foreign policy, you're exactly right. And this is what we've seen early foremost is one area where there's a question like does he do the thing he did last time where you know, there's some, some people who look the part that he brings in, you know, that aren't fully American first. Maybe he hasn't made any appointments yet, but I think it seems unlikely. On foreign policy, I think the tariffs is kind of where the rubber meets the road on this. I do think the domestic policy stuff we'll see. I mean he see Trump loves to have, you know, to bring people to heal, you know, that he felt like he was jealous of his whole life. So will there be some Manhattan finance guys who were always the on the A list while he was on the C list to get to be treasury secretary and call him sir who aren't fully in on the tariffs and the House, you know, if the Republicans have full Congress, which it looks like they will now, you know, will they focus more on the tax increase anyway? So I think the domestic stuff is maybe where some of the agenda gets softened a little bit. But I think immigration and foreign policy points towards full on Trumpism. How does that strike you?

Bill Kristol (6:02)

No, I think that's right. I mean he cares about the stock market going up and if someone persuades him that too much tariff talk would hurt that project or hurt him domestically or some of the business guys can get to him, to him, he has some debts or wants to keep them on side, he'll haram and he'll do some things with China and he'll announce things and then he'll as in the first term, conceivably claim victory and end up not doing some of the real tariff stuff and have a fake deal on a bunch of things still could do some damage to the economy. But that's the one place where reality might constrain them. But in foreign policy doesn't look that way, incidentally, just to be clear. So Cotton and Pompeo were presumably possibilities for the Defense Department, maybe in Cotton's case for CIA as well. State Department I saw. I don't know how reliable this is, but some. There was what looked like a fairly authoritative leak of the four names he's considering. Senators, Marco Rubio your close friend there, and Bill Haggerty from Tennessee. Tennessee, who had been ambassador to Japan in the first couple of years, the first Trump term. Romney guy from before that. So like Rubio, a former establishment internationalist type and who else? It was Vivek Ramaswamy.

Tim Miller (7:07)

Yep, Vivek. And Rick Grinnell.

Bill Kristol (7:08)

And Rick Grinnell who is the kind of pure, you might say Trump type and Vivek, who is pretty pure Trump type, I guess. So one of them secretary. It's funny. So I looked up Hagerty, Rubio, both of whom I knew back in the day. I looked up and thought, well, they probably were in the majority on Ukraine aid. Remember if I've got the numbers right, something like 33 Republicans voted for it and 15 against. It was a. Vance was one of us, less than a third, as I recall, who voted against the Ukraine aid. And so I thought, you know, I wonder if that will block them. Sure enough, Rubio and I hadn't remembered this. Rubio and Hagerty voted against Ukraine aid.

Tim Miller (7:41)

In that I remember Rubio did because I went off on it.

Bill Kristol (7:43)

But that really is like the aid was for Ukraine and Israel. So they're not against the Israel aid, I'm going to assume. So it's purely not helping Ukraine when it's being, you know, after the invasion, brutal invasion and by Putin. So they, they were already, I guess positioning themselves for, for Trump's party. And incidentally, in the leadership race, Rick Scott voted against Ukraine aid. Thune and Cornyn voted for it with McConnell of the Old fashioned types. I wonder if that's what it's not the reason, but that correlates with the Trump world's preference for Rick Scott over the two establishment Republicans. Right?

Tim Miller (8:23)

Certainly. Look, Trump Jr. Posted on social media, which I guess you got to take these missives as official government policy. Now there's a picture of Zelensky with you are 38 days away from losing your allowance. I don't know, there's something there that's very, I think it feels, feels like a psychological thing that Trump Jr. Is dealing with using the word allowance there as that's like his entire life is an allowance. Back to your point about the Senate leadership race for people that have not been paying attention to this, essentially the two Johns, John Cornyn and John Thune were kind of the stated Successors to Mitch McConnell, both in pre Trump Republican types that went along to go along. Is that how you do it? And Thune more quietly, Cornyn a little bit more ostentatiously at times though. He did buck Trump also a few times. And Rick Scott has kind of emerged as like the Trumpist choice here on social media from, you know, Elon has said it, and you could just go down the list of the usual MAGA suspects. Trump has not decided to weigh in. I do think that Ukraine has a lot to do with it. I do also just think the kind of control that the MAGA people feel, wanting just to, you know, fully demonstrate control over the party is driving a lot of this as well, though I don't know. Trump has not weighed in tbd and whether he does the votes later this week. At some level, you know, he likes excuses and outs. I don't know if he will actually weigh in because it's kind of like, well, if he can blame stuff on John Thune, that might serve his purposes actually a little bit more. And also, he might not want to waste political capital on something that he doesn't really have control over. It's a 53 Senate secret ballot vote, you know, so he can't browbeat them the way he would in a public vote. I looked at the list this morning. There's like a shocking number. This just pisses me off. Actually. There's a shockingly number of, like, pretty normal, actually, Republicans in the Senate that you just forget about because they've gone into total hiding and you assume that a lot of them will go for th or Cornyn. But, you know, Shelley Moore, Capito, do you remember Mike Rounds is still in the Senate. He is John Hovind boy from Arkansas, Dan Sullivan from Alaska. You literally forget that most of these people are senators because they just don't weigh in on anything controversial and just kind of tuck, tuck their tail and say, yes, sir, Mr. Trump, when they need to, or just don't say anything anyway. That's kind of the state of play. I don't know how you assess what's happening in that race.

Bill Kristol (10:48)

No, I think that's a good. I mean, I think it'll be an interesting vote because it is a secret ballot. So in some ways, if one wants to maintain the position, which so many people have maintained for nine years now, which I think we've been skeptical of, but which is, you know, deep down they really don't want Trump and Trumpism. And it's just they're a little terrified to say anything publicly. This is literally a secret ballot. I mean, there's nothing public. Right. So they can cast their ballot and Jonathan can get 31 votes and win, and that's it. And no one knows who voted how they could try to deduce it, I suppose, but. So you'd think that given that the Trump people would have just backed off and given that they're all capitulating to Trump anyway to show how loyal they are on this issue of recess appointments and kind of giving up all.

Tim Miller (11:29)

Yeah, I didn't mention the recess appointment thing. Why don't you explain what you're talking.

Bill Kristol (11:31)

About giving up all set of prerogatives. So they seem to be willing to concede that Trump could just make recess appointments right and left for cabinet and sub cabinet positions. They've been used at times in the past. They've been limited of times in the past. They've been used though, when an original appointment didn't go through or there was a reason to go to a recess appointment. There were then quarrels about how much latitude president should have in that. Here Trump just wants to do it right away. Elon Musk has tweeted, you know, it takes too long to get all these people through. It's of course ludicrous. It doesn't take that long to get cabinet officials through when you have a 53 seat majority. They could all get through by January, most probably by January 20th. But recess appointment makes it a little easier. And you have no debate, no nothing, right? No, I mean literally. This is literally in the Constitution as one of the checks of balances that we all learn about in 10th grade of how, you know, of how the American government's supposed to work, separation of powers. And the Senate candidates for Senate Majority Leader are giving it away. The Federalist paper says, you know, if one reason these checks and balances will be sustained is people will want to defend the interests of their place or have. What are the phrases, you know, they're going to Senators will defend the prerogatives of the Senate. They didn't think about, I guess, current party government and especially about party government that is utterly and totally dominated by one man in this case. I wonder if Trump will stay out of it or not. I mean he's. I don't know. You never know how much coordination there is in MAGA world. They're all in on for Scott and you know, I think it will be a defeat for Trump at this point even if he doesn't personally get involved if Scott loses. But maybe he thinks that's still different from Don Jr. And Elon Musk weighing in. I wonder how much they're lobbying privately and really trying to get commitments of votes and then figure out who voted how sort of afterwards. You know, I just don't know how serious they are.

Tim Miller (13:10)

You guys don't seem big on that lobbying privately.

Bill Kristol (13:13)

Yeah, I know.

Tim Miller (13:14)

I think. Yeah. You know, this seems like people that like to send tweets.

Bill Kristol (13:18)

Well, no, that could be. And. But interesting. So, Scott, was it 2022 or 2020? I guess it was the last time 2022, wasn't it? Ran against McConnell for leader. Yeah. And I think he got 10 votes that he was the insurrectionist against McConnell. And that means that the large majority of Republican senators have voted for McConnell and against Scott. And if you voted for McConnell against Scott, you probably would want to vote for Thud. Or maybe Cornyn against Scott. But let's see how many of them change even their secret ballot because, you know, gotta go along with Trump. We don't want to start off on a bad relationship with him. I mean, the Cornyn and Thune capitulation on the recessive warrants thing is really shameful. And I can't really quite to that point.

Tim Miller (13:56)

If they're going to totally capitulate, then it isn't really a loss for Trump. Right. Like, it's like only loss of John Thune plans to act like Mitch McConnell, which is extremely cowardly, and to do what Trump wants 96% of the time. But like on matters of controlling Senate power, preserving Senate power, and on matters of national security, those are the times that Mitch McConnell would step out. Right. To put a mode around his power. If John Thune or Cornyn aren't going to do that and they're just going to say, hey, all right, whatever, we'll do. Just the practical implication of recess appointments for people. It's like there are 53 Republican senators.

Bill Kristol (14:33)

Right.

Tim Miller (14:34)

So any four could prevent RFK Jr. From becoming HHS secretary or whatever. Cash Patel running the Defense Department, whatever. The, like the worst possible appointments you could imagine, you know, you could have at least, you know, John Curtis, who replaced Romney in Utah, is relatively moderate. We know Collins and Murkowski, yet several Republican senators didn't vote for him. Todd Young in Indiana, who you, you mentioned Cassidy voted to impeach him. Right. Like, anyway, I'm not hoping for, for courage from a lot of these people, but in like the worst possible, you know, for these outlier bad appointments for Republican senators could, could stop it. If th says no, I'm going to just take that power away even in those extreme cases and Trump can just recess, appoint whoever he wants, well, then there's really no functional difference between him.

Bill Kristol (15:20)

And Scott, which shows how effective I mean, already we're only. What are we? Six days after the high defied, six days after the election. The intimidation has been. I mean, it wasn't. They originally started with the Scott thing. I thought this is kind of foolish. His colleagues don't like Scott much, I don't think. And sort of, I assume they all capitulate anyway, so what are you doing this for? But, you know, part of the intimidation is to be for Scott, which probably helps Cornyn and Thune can't afford to have them splitting with Scott if this becomes the issue on which people vote. So now they've gone over to the dark side. So then, yeah, this is a very classic authoritarian intimidation move. The combination of the recess appointments, which may not be necessary, as you say, 53 senators, but still important to make the point that I'm going to do it and screw you. And then to make the point that I'm also going to be for Scott, or at least be for Scott until the other guys capitulate enough that there's no need to be for Scott. Screw you. So first six days show a lot of purposeful intimidation and authoritarianism, I would say, from Mar a Lago and not stupid from their point of view. So far, no backlash. Have I missed all the complaints from the Wall Street Journal and the American Enterprise Institute and from the Constitutionalists at National Review about all this stuff that's happening? Are they defending the old fashioned prerogatives of the Senate? I guess I don't read all these people anymore, but I somehow haven't heard much about that.

Tim Miller (16:44)

No, I haven't heard much either. I think that that's safe to say there's been nothing. You've been beating this drum for a while, but it's just also worth mentioning. Again, like that six days now, the difference between this and 2017 is already very stark. Just like the difference between total capitulation from Thune and Cornyn versus targeted capitulation from McConnell and Ryan. In 2017, it seems like my former colleague Elise Stefanik is going to be named ambassador to the United Nations. I put this in a category I'm going to spend some time on. Tomorrow's podcast is going to be a feelings podcast. So if you're interested in feelings, we're going to get there tomorrow. So I'm going to spend a little bit more time talking about bad people getting rewarded and how distressing that is. So Elise is certainly getting rewarded for her pretty shameful actions, and that is upsetting. On the other hand, I don't know, like this like, literally, this seems just like that. They wanted somebody to go to the United nations who's going to be able to get on their high horse and finger wag the bad countries for, you know, supporting anti Semitism, which is like, fine, I guess, I don't know. I don't know. I guess as we, as I rank my list of problems and concerns, I think that Elise going to New York to shout down the mullahs and to shout down the UN Security Council for their cowardice, that I don't know, that seems fine to me. Whatever. I think that there's going to be a lot more offensive appointments coming, but I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.

Bill Kristol (18:20)

No, I tend to agree with that, though. I would say let's not forget how Elise Stefanik became Elise Stefanik, the modern Stefanik. She went crazy about the Ukraine impeachment and became the great defender of Trump. And then when the robbery hit the road on January 6, 2021, or right before January 6, she became an election denier. Something she couldn't possibly have believed. Something that's, you know, she didn't have to go there. Not all of, I guess two thirds of the House did, but not all the House did, and only a, what a fifth of the senators did. Without doing that, she wouldn't be in leadership and she wouldn't have gotten this appointment. So the degree to which election denial is core, I think still to being okay in Trump world, which has all kinds of implications going forward. Right. I mean, it's not trivially important in terms of what kind of elections we're going to have over the next four years and how those are to be conducted and of course, 2028 and stuff. So that's the only point I'd add about. Yeah, I agree that in practice she'll be a kind of good, you know, she can beat up opponents of the US and get some say some things that people like us will agree with some of the time. But still the reason she's there is that she was willing to be an election denier.

Tim Miller (19:29)

Yeah, it's the ante it was like to be at the table in these conversations. It was the anti election denial. Obviously, Elise Stefanik did not believe that the Dominion voting machines had been hacked. It's amazing how easily that got fixed. This time, though, you know, no issues. I don't know, the hordes of illegal immigran votes, where did they go?

Bill Kristol (19:47)

Yeah. With Democratic governors running all these states, incidentally, presumably having a huge interest in doing all this stuff. Somehow it just wasn't an issue. Isn't that amazing? Yeah.

Tim Miller (19:57)

Yeah. I haven't heard from Elise about that, but she gets the promotion, so that's great. We're really thrilled for her and I hope that there is no hell. Hopefully it would work out in her benefit. When you're in a moment where most of the news that you're subjected to 247 is bad or downright depressing about the future, everything can feel a little overwhelming. And this might be the opportunity to regain control with a life insurance policy found just for you by the licensed insurance agents at Selectquote that can protect your financial legacy. Whether you need $500,000 or $50 million in coverage, selectquote can find you the perfect policy. Selectquote is one of America's leading insurance brokers with nearly 40 years of experience helping over 2 million customers find over $700 billion in coverage since 1985. Other life insurance brokers offer impersonal one size fits all policies that may cost you more and cover you less, while Selectquotes licensed insurance agents work for you to tailor a life insurance policy for your individual needs in as little as 15 minutes. And if you're worried about getting coverage with a preexisting health condition, SELECTquote partners with carriers that provide policies for a variety of health conditions, including high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and more. Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and your budget. Selectquote they shop, you save, get the right life insurance for you for less@SelectQuote.com Bulwark Go to SelectQuote.com Bulwark today to get started. That's SelectQuote.com Bulwark Elon Musk I want to talk about. He's been seen at Mar A Lago every day since Donald Trump won. He's been dining with him on the patio at times, weighing in on staffing decisions and making clear his preference for certain roles. It's a CNN report. I guess maybe it's. Is it without precedent? I don't know if it's without precedent. I guess maybe if we go back to the age of the industrialists, certainly would not be without precedent. So it's certainly without modern precedent, like in post World War II times, where there would be a oligarch rich person that would have this type of influence both over the information system, the political system, government contracting, and now direct influence over the president and who and who.

Bill Kristol (22:31)

He appoints and Publicly, so, so, I mean the old, in the old days, some of this might have happened quietly. You know, a phone call to the White House chief of staff from a big shot industrialist who also was given a lot of money to the president saying, you know, I really love to see this person in that job. But we're way so far beyond that. And Musk is so much more extreme, honestly. Again, it sort of matters here whether the types weighing in are weighing in in a kind of establishment way just so their buddy John Smith gets the job instead of Joe Jones. But they're basically identical, you know, Wall street finance types. It's just that one of them is a friend of someone as opposed to what Elon Musk is weighing in for. Elon Musk on the phone with Putin apparently several times during the campaign. Joins the phone call with even sound. So old fashioned it's like stupid to even say all this, but individuals who have no government position are suddenly on phone calls with other heads of government. I mean it's so jaw dropp, you.

Tim Miller (23:26)

Can'T even, you know, yeah, it's like, hey, Voldemort, here's Elon. Good luck. Negotiate it out. It is worth noting that simultaneously Russia has upgraded their drone attacks. They have added additional troops. I mean, I think that the Russians see this right now as an opportunity to maximize their position before the coming, whatever. They just try to call it negotiation over land and territory. And so while Zelensky is forced to whatever, try to suck up to Donald Trump's oligarch bestie, Putin is moving full steam ahead.

Bill Kristol (24:14)

And I'm not sure there are going to be negotiations over land and territory. Putin may just have decided, I'm going to just brutally go ahead and try to win this thing. Without US support and European support, Ukraine will crack in six months or 12 and 18 months and I'll be in Kiev. I don't, I'm not so sure he's even willing to accept what will be a terrible deal from the point of view of international politics and the people of Ukraine that Trump would impose. Maybe he will accept them. It depends on calculations how much the war is costing him in Russia, etc. But no, it's very, very bad. I mean those indications, I don't think there was ever much question what the implications of Trump winning would be for Putin and Ukraine. But I think whatever questions there might have been are pretty much being resolved in one direction only.

Tim Miller (24:56)

That's interesting. I'm just doing this live here and spent that much time thinking about it. But our Colleague Kathy Young is a monitor of Russia State TV and kind of following her, but also others on social media. The response was different than 2017 on Russia state TV. Like remember in 2017 it was like we're putting on our tuxes and popping champagne and etc. And this time it was more mixed. There was some mocking of Trump. There was a segment I saw that was very insulting to Melania where they're posting all of like the naked pictures of Melania that she did 20, 30 years ago. And that could be something, that could be nothing. I, you know, I'm not a criminologist. Right. But it does raise the prospect of like, it might not be as straightforward as it may have seemed. Right. That there is like that Elon and Putin have been back channeling Trump and Putin have been back channeling Trump is saying that he's going to wind this down, there's some plan to wind it down. That's the straightforward interpretation of what we see in the public sphere. And it's interesting your theory that Putin might not go along with that combined with what we're seeing on Russia state TV, I guess leaves open the possibility that it's actually worse than that.

Bill Kristol (26:14)

Yeah, I mean, not to get all Hitler in 38, 39 analogy to overly obsessed. But you might have said from a certain point of view, Hitler should have accepted Chamberlain's incredible concessions at Munich. He should have gradually, he would have been able to absorb a lot more of Czechoslovakia and do a lot more damage elsewhere. Instead, he swallows up the rest of Czechoslovakia in February or March of 1939, which leaves it pretty impossible to say that, oh well, it just was a problem with the German speaking Czechs and the Sudetenland. And then of course, he invades Poland in September 1st. I mean, I don't think Putin's quite there, but there is some history of dictators not accept, you know, when they see the weakness, they, they don't, they take advantage of it, of course, in the short term, but they, that's not ultimately the point. A lot so much depends on what you think Putin wants. Putin want a quarter of Ukraine or does he want to crush Ukraine? Does he want ultimately to have zelensky fleeing Kiev, 10 million Ukrainian refugees and the Russian flag, you know, flying in Kyiv? From his point of view, that would be a pretty big victory. Right.

Tim Miller (27:14)

I want to close talking about the election numbers and doing some debunking, but just circling back to the beginning of the conversation, what does fighting look like right now? There is an ongoing conversation about this Happening with. I mean, at some level, I think it's totally reasonable to say that fighting is like, let's let them fuck up and wait and pick battles in the future based on that and try to create a backlash in the midterms. And in the meantime, you know, kind of let them do their deal. There's other perspectives. It's like no, you know, pressuring those four senators we talked about, Collins and Murkowski and Curtis. There's legal, you know, the ways to gum up the works legally to slow him down. He's ostensibly limited to a term. Where do you kind of fall on that? If the theme of the missive was less hand drinking, more fighting, what does smart fighting look like to you?

Bill Kristol (28:07)

Yeah, so it's a. I mean it's a fair question and it's probably too easy for me to sit here and say they should fight. I mean they had need to be somewhat selective. Obviously there are important fights. And so some of these personnel appointments I wouldn't necessarily make. I'd find the worst one to make a huge fight about that if you could. Someone who really is manifestly unqualified or has a background that shows he shouldn't be entrusted with he or she with serious position. Others, yeah, they should vote against it, but they don't need to make a huge issue. The Democrats, I guess. I do think, though I don't quite agree with you, just let him do his thing. I mean you can't let him just deport 10 million or 15 million immigrants from this country and round them up. And I would prefer not to let him sell out Ukraine. Whether you can stop these things, I don't know. But I think you want to be on record and not just on record giving a speech, but on record doing your best. Lawsuits, state governments, doing things, other civil society type efforts to really say certain lines, certain things are just unacceptable and we're all in to try to stop it. Doesn't mean they'll succeed in stopping it. I was talking with Bob Kagan about this over the weekend. Quite a lot, a couple other people. I do think being hard headed about it is important. This isn't a matter of press releases. Where are the levers of power? Well, 47 senators and 212, if that's what it is, ends up being House members. It's not nothing. You can get a few Republicans or at least you can pressure some Republicans on some of these issues. 23 governors is nothing. States really do have authority in some of these areas. It's hard for the federal government to carry some of these things states don't want to. The red states understood that and caused various troubles for Biden and Texas at the border. I'm for doing things legally, but I think there are things you can do to make life tougher. The courts aren't going to be as great as they were in 2017 after, you know, they've had four years of Trump appointments, then four years of Biden, but now we're going to get more Trump appointments. I do think the Biden administration, I spoke with someone from the Biden administration over the weekend. They need to do what's legally appropriate and possible to make it harder for Trump to do these things. And that might mean regulations that Trump has to go to the trouble of repealing, which sort of can take 30 or 60 or 90 days. That can mean appointments in the civil service again done legally. That will make life a little harder for Trump. The Schedule F stuff, thinking about how to stop that, that's very dangerous. I think.

Tim Miller (30:20)

So the Schedule F just for people being their plan to do some mass firing, to change the rules, to make it easier to fire the top tier.

Bill Kristol (30:28)

Almost entirely political pointees and easier to fire and so forth. As you can tell, I'm not going to filibuster here. I don't have an easy and a lot of it is case by case. But look, this is there are plenty of experts and think tanks and people who serve in government and people who know these issue areas who would have thoughts about things to be done. And all I'm saying in the little piece in warning shots is people should be getting together to think about this and plan this, not simply to sort of have big think discussions about, you know, why aren't we in better touch with Trump voters.

Tim Miller (30:58)

I'm hearing that, I'm thinking about it and I will render my verdict later on how much fighting I feel like is appropriate over the next two years. Monitoring for sure. Raising alarm flags for sure. Bill Kristo, I'm going to stick around. I want to go through the numbers with people. I've been hearing some people concerned about whether there's funny business with the numbers. I want to debunk that, but I'll do it on my own. Will, Crystal, we'll let you go and we'll see you back here next Monday.

Bill Kristol (31:27)

Great.

Tim Miller (31:27)

Good to see you, Tim. Have you thought about a gift for yourself this year, one that has the power to help you grow, learn, become a better version of you, distract you from what's happening in the world? Well, maybe give yourself the gift of language by getting Babbel, you can speak like a whole new you. With Babbel, the language learning app that gets you talking. With quick 10 minute lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts, Babbel gets you talking a whole new language in just three weeks. And because talking is the key to really knowing a language, Babbel is designed for real conversation. Wasting hundreds on private tutors is the old way of learning languages. Babbel's tips and tools are inspired by the real life stuff you actually need when talking. With a focus on conversation. You'll be ready to talk wherever you go. You know, I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere. Well, I might go on a vacation, but I'm not leaving this fucking country. All right? Nobody's sending me to French Canadia or to Uruguay or whatever. But many of you are thinking about it. Many of you are dabbling with that idea. And we all need to indulge in a little fantasy right now. It's maybe nice to do something that would allow you to improve yourself while you're indulging in that fantasy. Imagine that you might be moving to, I don't know, the French Alps or to Portugal and get yourself some babble where you can learn a little Portuguese or a little French in the process. If you want more proof that that works and that Babel gets you talking. Studies from Yale, Michigan State and other leading universities continue to prove Babbel works. With over 16 million subscriptions sold, Babbel's 14 award winning language courses are backed by a 20 day money back guarantee. So your gift yourself is risk free this holiday season. Give the gift of language with Babel. Here's a special holiday deal for our listeners right now. Get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription, but only for our listeners@babbel.com Bulwark get up to 60% off@babel.com Bulwark spelled baby. Rules and restrictions apply. All right, gang, I want to start here. Obviously, Democratic elected officials and leaders have acted just unbelievably responsibly in the wake of the Trump victory Last week. Kamala Harris conceded Donald Trump will be going to the White House this week. Joe Biden's team is working with his team on the transition. I had a friend inside the White House who had a call with a person for the Trump team. That's not fun. They sucked it up though and did it. This is not something that the crybabies on the other side did last time. That is honorable and noteworthy and it should be noted and regarded. Obviously it's a low bar. I wish we weren't at a time where doing your duty as a public servant was something that required getting a badge of merit. But thanks to the way the Trump team behaved last time and Donald Trump himself behaved last time, it is. And so full acknowledgement to the Harris team and Democratic elected officials and leaders all across the country. That said, there also have been some Democratic lefty pundits and regular people that been questioning the results. I was stopped at a playground this weekend by somebody who they thought that the numbers didn't add up and were asking me about that. I'm happy to be stopped at playgrounds by listeners to say hey, but that was a jarring request for me. I've seen a few mentions of it in the comments here at the Bulwark. I saw some prominent grifters on Twitter on the left pushing this and so I felt like it was worth just clearly demonstrating for you. If you have any questions why there are no there were no actual issues with the count in this campaign, so you can have this data. So if anyone in your life brings it up, you can calmly debunk it with them. I'm stealing some of this. So with credit to Charles Gaba, I'll put his X account here in the comments if you want to give him a follow. So here we go. He breaks it down as such, he says basically there are three main conspiracies, whatever you want to call them out there. The first is people asking how there could be 20 million fewer votes than in 2020. The next was how could there be 15 million fewer votes for Harris than for Biden? And the third was how could there be so many swing state voters going for the Dem for Senate, but not for Harris for potus? So just take these one at a time. That graph that you're seeing about how there are 20 million fewer votes that's been going around on social media. That graph was made on like Wednesday morning. I should also mention, by the way, that there are both MAGA and lefty accounts I see pushing this because the MAGA accounts want this chart to prove that 2020 was fraudulent. And they're like, see, look at all these fake votes that happened in 2020. The number, they all went away in 2024. That is not true. These people are basing this over the fact that on early morning on Wednesday, many, many votes haven't been counted yet. It takes California forever to count. Which, by the way, is something California should fix, but it takes other states a long time to count as well. If you look at kind of expert assessments when all votes are counted, we're going to end up with about 1.5 million fewer votes in 2024 than in 2020. To me, this makes a lot of sense. There were changes in pandemic voting rules that made it a little bit harder to vote, particularly in certain red states. Also, people had less availability. If you were just sitting around on lockdown, you aren't a likely voter. All you had to do is drop your ballot off at a Dropbox. The friction there is a lot less than going to wait in line to vote. So going down 1.5 million total votes from 2020 is totally reasonable. And there's. I don't think anything there that should drive you to think that there's funny business. Number two, the claim that there are 15 million fewer voters for Harris. That number is going to end up being closer to about 5 million fewer for Harris than Biden had. It will be more votes than Hillary had. In 2016, Biden had a record number of votes. Most presidential votes in history in 2020. That will still be the case after 2024. Trump is not going to pass his number of 81 million. So Harris lost ground in every demographic as we've brought up, besides college educated white women. So it's not hard to understand why she would have 5 million fewer votes than Biden. Just a slight drop in turnout mixed with a greater switch in voters from Biden to Trump than from Trump to Harris, though there were some in both categories. All right, lastly, this Dem Senate candidates. Thank goodness by the way, that the Dem Senate candidates did better than Harris in a number of these states. As we mentioned earlier, having 53 senators could conceivably create some friction for Trump in a way that having 56 senators would not have. Also would have made it much, much harder for the Democrats to recontrol the Senate in the midterms. So these ended up being very important races. But the most interesting part of the analysis that Charles did that I want to point to is that if you look at the numbers, it was not really the case where there were a ton of people voting for Trump and the Democrats, though there were some. It was mostly the case of MAGA people going into the ballot box voting for Trump and then nothing else. Just checking the box for Trump and leaving the rest of the ballot blank. So thank you to those MAGA voters for their service because they played a key role in helping the Democratic senators get elected. There's one state where this was not really the case and that is Arizona where Ruben Gallego got a bunch of crossover Trump Gallego voters. This is something that I predicted every time this came up over the course of the last year. So this is, there's no conspiracy here, nothing hard to understand. This was working class Latino voters and people that were just really turned off by Carrie Lake combining to vote for Ruben Gallego. And so Arizona was the only place where the Democratic Senate nominee ended up getting a lot more votes than Kamala Harris did. And all these other states, the Harris and Dem Senate nominee vote share was vote total rather was basically the same. And it's just that the Trump number went down to the Republican senators because of those Trump voters that were not voting for Republicans down ballot. So there you go. Hopefully that clears it up for folks. Obviously doesn't make anybody feel any better, but it's important to know what actually happened. And I find this, you know, I find this exercise kind of funny because I did another podcast last week called Pablo Torre Finds out he's kind of Heads of Sports and Culture podcast. You can go check that out if you're interested. It was a little bit of a different conversation that I have here, a little less in the weeds on politics. And one of the things we discussed was this notion that the left feels like there needs to be a liberal Joe Rogan. There needs to be a liberal Joe Rogan. And I was making the point that I don't think there can be a liberal Joe Rogan in part because of what we just did here. Like a big part of the Joe Rogan appeal is that he's willing to kind of embrace and think about and work through these conspiracy theories or different false views. People like that. People are drawn to that. And that's kind of in some ways anathema to right now. The worldview, the dominant worldview of people on the left, maybe that's a bad thing, I don't know. One of my friends emailed and said maybe you could be the liberal Joe Rogan. I don't know that that's true, that I appreciate it. I have no muscles for starters, but I think that there's some value in being more accessible to people, working through it, responding to people's concerns and conspiracies and thoughts that are counter, whatever the conventional wisdom is. I'm open to doing more of that. In this case though, it just ain't it. The numbers are the numbers and the numbers resulted in a victory for Donald Trump. So much more this week to come on how we're processing all this, how we're thinking about all of it. And we'll do that tomorrow with my longtime frenemy turned friend, John Lovett. We'll see y'all then. Peace.

C (41:26)

I am just a poor boy Though my story is seldom told I have squandered my resistance For a pocket full of mumbles Such are promises all lies and jests Till the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest When I left my home and my family I was no more than a boy in the company of strangers in the quiet of the railway station when scared they don't see Seeking out the poor quarters where the ragged people go Looking for the places only they would know by the night by the line Lila lie by the light.

Tim Miller (42:37)

In.

C (42:37)

The clearing Stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade and he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him till he cried out in his anger and his shame I am leaving I am leaving but the fighter still remains Lie La la la la.

Tim Miller (43:23)

The Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.