Loading summary
Transcript65 lines
- [00:00]
A
Sarah, as far as I'm concerned, you're still a queer. Oh, thanks. I'm not going to remove you from queerness just because you have issues that I disagree with politically.
- [00:12]
B
That's. I appreciate that. I didn't know it was on the table.
- [00:15]
A
Andrew, you're not a queer. Congratulations.
- [00:19]
C
That's what people keep telling me. Yeah.
- [00:24]
B
Hello, everyone, and welcome to the next level. I'm Sarah Longwell in for jbl, and I am here with my buddy, best friend Tim.
- [00:31]
A
And the boy voice got really high there. My mom always said she knew I was lying when my voice got really high. I did my homework.
- [00:40]
B
I just. It's not for you. I don't want to shortchange Egger here. Egger is. But I quickly realized that if I did the best friend bit, that I'd somehow be betraying jbl. And I can't put Tim above Edgar in the show. It's just. It was a layer of emotion that hit me quickly.
- [00:57]
A
But Andrew, Egger's here.
- [00:58]
B
He is here. Thank you for stepping in. We really appreciate it. Since JBL is out, I'm going to drive today. But that is. That means we will careen and weave wherever this show takes us because we don't have the same. JBL usually gets these things down to a science. I do them like I looked at it five minutes ago. So, gentlemen, let's start with scotus, because this is all coming out this morning. It does look, you know, we're getting this flurry of big decisions. I don't. We all have different legal podcasts we're going to do. I know Tim spent a lot of time on this on the main pod with David French, so I don't want us to spend too, too much time on it. But I do want to say just a couple things. One is, looks like we still have birthright citizenship in this country. Which is. Which is a yay, yay, good news.
- [01:43]
A
Yay for me.
- [01:45]
B
Edgar, how do you.
- [01:46]
C
Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, and not just that we still have it, but they didn't decide it in some kind of narrow way either. I mean, really dramatic affirmation. Not unanimous, but. But strongly affirmed that it is constitutionally guaranteed. So very, very hard to dislodge in
- [01:59]
A
the future, but a little concerning, I guess, maybe not very, very hard to dislodge in the sense that Kavanaugh seemed to be on the side of saying that we could take it away legislatively. And so it seems like there have been four votes for getting rid of birthright citizenship. Had it been a bill passed through Congress signed by the president that still would have been five to four would have been a little tighter in that sense. So you could imagine, I don't know, a horrid future where we have a MAGA majority, a MAGA trifecta they were given kind of a path towards. But I had a big defeat for Trump. But anyway, it's just worth kind of flagging that I was a little at least noted it the Kavanaugh comments to
- [02:41]
C
know maybe one thing on the other side of that though, it is not necessarily locked tight that even Alito and Thomas would have been slam dunk, you know, citizens or sorry, children of illegal immigrants ought not to have citizenship, period. I mean if you read through their dissents, they get very squirrely. They're by far spend the most time talking about the children of temporary visitors, like people who just like the whole birth tourism thing. For people who consider the United States their home, which Thomas even suggests in his dissent might include a lot of illegal immigrants, they still believe that they would be covered or at least many of them might be covered according to the historical definition of this thing. So again, they are not. You might want them to be slam dunk. This is guaranteed by the Constitution the way all the others are. But I don't even think there's like three, let alone four who are like Donald Trump's position is the correct position here. Who'd be ready to give it to him if you got one or two more.
- [03:39]
B
Okay, that's good. That does make me feel better because since this one is so black and white in the Constitution, you do want a Supreme Court that is capable of reading the Constitution. So I was a little. I was with Tim. But Andrew, I think you just assuaged some of my concerns. I will say you didn't make Donald Trump feel any better because he bleeded the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad, bad for our country. But we could easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the President. That has now been determined during this process. No long an unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Exclamation point. Congress should start today all caps to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support.
- [04:20]
A
Add it to the SAVE Act.
- [04:21]
B
Yeah. Do we think we're going to get a legislative birthright citizenship effort here?
- [04:27]
A
I do not.
- [04:28]
B
Me neither.
- [04:29]
C
I hope they try. I mean like just one more thing for him to like make Republican senators lives hard about like that they know will never, ever, ever become law, and that it's a total exercise in futility, but that he might try to extract from them as the cost of doing literally anything. That seems like it could be another fun thing.
- [04:46]
A
I agree with that. John Thune's pain is my pleasure. You know, I have a little bit of a. A narrow sadomasochism just with. Just with John Thune in particular. It's something we can talk about later.
- [04:59]
B
Okay, just real quickly, NPR did this thing where it reported that Alito is retiring and then had to retract it. Tim, I don't know about you, my comms brain and Andrew, maybe your reporter brain goes to the fact that maybe somebody accidentally broke an embargo and this is perhaps not happening today, but maybe on Friday. What do we think?
- [05:17]
A
I don't think that that's what happened. I don't. I don't know. I have been of the view that, that Alito is a complete partisan hack and that he will be monitoring the odds of the Senate going towards the Democrats. And if it looks like there's a chance that the Democrats could get the Senate, he might retire just to guarantee that Donald Trump can replace him. I don't have any inside information to that effect. I just. All of the evidence of Samuel Alito seems to me like hackery matters to him a lot and partisanship does, and he would be concerned about losing the ability to have a replacement that he approves of. So it wouldn't be surprising to me if he resigned. To me, this seems kind of like more though. Like when I was on the Jeb campaign and we were so excited for the first debate that we had all of our, like, little press releases attacking our opponents, like, preloaded into the back end of the website so we could send them out really quickly. And then somebody on the digital team pressed like, send all or something. And so we sent out like 100 attacks on Marco Rubio that Jeb did not actually do on the debate stage. And that was very embarrassing to me as a communications director. And to me that I think is more likely what happened with npr.
- [06:36]
B
Like, there's a pre write that went awry.
- [06:39]
C
Yeah, it's hard for me to imagine that Alito, of all people, as he's making these decisions. Like, part of his calculus is, well, we'd better make sure that, you know, we tip off all of the news outlets so it can be really convenient for them and they can get their pre writes ready. And so NPR can be first, you know, first bite of the apple Here, anything like that. I very much lean toward where Tim's coming from, where there's all this speculation that now might be a plausible time for Alito to retire. And so it makes a lot of sense that these guys are all locked and loaded for what they will write if and when he says he will. And that somebody just pushed the wrong button on the dashboard triggering. By the way, it wasn't just npr. Like Vox had a piece up that was like jumping off of the NPR News. Seemed like they had pre written their take. It was like a cavalcade of unfortunate pre write errors is what seems like the likeliest thing to me.
- [07:30]
B
Okay, I'm gonna take a different position than both of you and see if test it out on you. I think that they want the Supreme Court seat as a thing to focus on for why people should turn out for them. It would not surprise me at all if they wanted to try to get a confirmation through going into the midterms. Thoughts on that maybe that Trump would want that. Yeah. And that Alito, that Alito would go along with a PR play that is meant to help Republicans electorally and therefore him leaving sooner rather than later and creating a vacancy.
- [08:08]
A
Yeah, I don't know. I think that's very possible. Like I said, I think that it kind of depends. I mean also Supreme Court justices really think that they're special, you know, and so Samuel Alito's decisions might be more about what's happening in Samuel Alito's brain and what Martha Ann thinks that her husband merits rather than some, you know, some little gimmick like that that Donald Trump wants. But I think that he does have obvious partisan intent. And you know, there's a real risk from the Alito perspective that if the Democrats take the Senate or even if it's 50 50, that what happens if something happens to him? Health lies. What happens if then a Democrat becomes president in 2029? I mean he's getting kind of old. Like you could conceivably look at a 6 to 10 year window like this is the time to get a clean replacement in. And I think that that would weigh on Alito a little bit. Thomas. I think luckily we can count on megalomania being the top interest in his case. He's about to be the longest running Supreme Court justice. I think if he goes into I next year or the following year. So I expect that he'll try to
- [09:19]
B
try to do hold on for that. I think whoever replaces Alito is going to be. Could you see all the, the, the Stuff the, the crap Barrett's getting from the Megyn Kelly's of the world or whatever. Right. And so knowing that whoever Trump puts up post Alito has got to be an actual insane person to meet the MAGA demands, which does. I'll just want to kind of throw this out there because it'll, it'll reattach to us later when we talk about the polling coming out of Maine and Texas. But does it, does it throw into stark relief for you guys some of the partisan nature of just electing a Democrat, any Democrat in Maine. When you think about the fact that a Collins would likely be either a yes vote for whatever truly insane person comes up or a no vote that is conceived to be a no vote to keep her safe while they make sure they've got everybody else, they need to get this absolutely insane person through. Whereas if you had a Dem in that seat, that'd be a hard no. What do we think about that?
- [10:26]
C
Can I just say the thing that makes it a little hard for me to do analysis in this vein is it sort of like assumes that you'd like, get the name of the nominee and then everybody would go vote and then you would like, you know, you'd have either Susan Collins or Graham Platner in there to actually do the up or down here. Whereas I think if, if we, if it were to happen, if Alito were to retire, all of the energy would be to shove it through before there's any question about replacing a Susan Collins. Right. I mean, I think, I think that would be the, the thought process there. Of, of. And by the way, like, I mean, you, you mentioned a minute ago, Sarah, that, that, you know, maybe that would sort of juice Republican turnout or Republican enthusiasm. I think that if Alito were to do it, he would maybe do it for the, for purposes of court stability. But I am not necessarily convinced that having a big fight over one of these crazy people, which is not just what the MAGA base demands, but what Donald Trump has decided he needs, he is done with these Federalist Society judges that stab him periodically and is totally ready to send some real psycho up in there. And I just, I think there would be a big messy fight. I think it would not just be Susan Collins. I think you'd risk losing guys like Bill Cassidy, guys like Tom Tillis, and that like you could have a giant actual problem on your hands that is not to any Republicans benefit electorally before guys like Platner or Talarico even arrive on the scene.
- [11:40]
A
Yeah, just two thoughts. I do I mean, the case that you just made, I think is the strongest case for Platner, whether that be Supreme Court or something else that, like, to me, it's less about a specific thing. That's just like, we don't really know what crazy shit Donald Trump's gonna do the last two years. We know he's gonna do a lot of crazy shit. There's not a ton of evidence that Susan Collins will be. Will stand up to it. And, you know, unfortunately, I wish that that was not the way that we, you know, would prioritize the choice of senators. But we are in the year 2024, 26. And that just, I think is something that voters should contemplate, even ones that have skepticism of Platner or hostility to him, for that matter. But to me, the interesting part about this in the Alito timing is he obviously will want to do like an Eileen Cannon, right? I just think that that is what Trump will want to do. Whether it's Eileen herself or some other facsimile of that, that's what Trump would want to do. But put somebody like that on the court. And the votes for that are already a little shaky, right, because of the way that he has angered these other senators with Cassidy in particular, Tillis and Cornyn. And so you wait till after, like, you wait till next year, like, even if they take a 51 seat majority, you know, it's going to be a bit of a challenge. Like, Trump jammed through those. Like, one of the benefits of the first term, Trump with the judges is just like, I'm going to outsource this to the Federalist Society guys. They're going to put their people in, all of the senators already in bed with the Federalist Society. This is easy. The Kavanaugh thing might have felt like it was kind of a fight because of the accusations. And the left did everything possible to try to make it a fight. Like all of those nominations were fait accompli, right? This time, if, like, Trump tries to pick a Trump person, he needs as many votes as he can get. And it's pretty dicey.
- [13:29]
B
I wrote this on a napkin earlier. I did this analysis, right? So if there are four R's against, right. He can lose three. But then he's got JD as the tiebreaker. But if there's four R's against in the Senate, against whoever he puts up, he's cooked. And right now you've got Cornyn, Murkowski, Tillis, Cassidy and Collins. Who are your people? Who could.
- [13:50]
A
And McConnell, I would say also I mean, he could be dead or not to be macabre, but just like McConnell seems very, very sick and also a deathbed. McConnell might decide that he doesn't want to be for a kook.
- [14:04]
B
This is A thumbs down, McCain move, man.
- [14:06]
C
Is there any world in which John Fetterman on whatever bender he's been on crosses over for this specifically, do you think?
- [14:13]
B
Yes, great point.
- [14:14]
A
Sure. Great point. Yeah. You might need five.
- [14:16]
B
You might need five. And this is where Collins gets jammed up on this. And this is why. This is why, Andrew, you're right about they wouldn't be in their back, but like, it would matter a great deal to her how she voted on this going into her election, number one. Number two, I just sort of meant it's clarifying sometimes to get pulled out of the specifics of Collins and Platner and to just be like, what are the cases where you're like any D that was in there versus her in there in terms of decisions like this, you suddenly are like, yeah, Susan Collins could get jammed up enough to vote for an Eileen Cannon and a Democrat, whoever the Democrat is in Maine, like, if it was Graham Platner would be against this stuff. So, anywho. Okay, last thing on SCOTUS before we go to the break, which is we what? The other big thing we got was the trans sports ruling in which they said that basically they were on the side of the states that said you had to be your biological sex to play.
- [15:26]
A
I want to lump this one in with the other big ruling which was from yesterday or today. I don't know. We were all traveling back from Aspen. So time. This is a little bit of a mystery for me right now, but with the mail in ballots, which is basically challenging the states that count mail in ballots after election day.
- [15:43]
B
Watson versus rnc.
- [15:45]
A
Yeah, they're postmarked by election day, but received and counted after. Do those ballots count? And to me, for all the complaints I have about SCOTUS and their view on executive power and making Trump basically immune. Trump can sell pardons now, it seems like, without that being a crime. So I've got some pretty severe disagreements with SCOTUS in the executive power category. Both of these cases kind of just fall into states rights category. I mean, like, you can get into the nerdy weeds about the, about the rulings, but it's like if West Virginia decides they want to have to ban the two trans girls that want to swim in their meets in the state, then okay. And if California wants to allow them, then okay. And if California wants to count ballots that come in five days late. And, you know, if West Virginia wants to disenfranchise people that mailed their ballot in, but because of the, you know, they live in rural West Virginia, and it didn't, it didn't make it, you know, to the, to the county in time for the election day, then that's their rule as well. And I don't, I don't see anything wrong with that. And I think that, that those rulings are kind of unobjectionable, really.
- [17:00]
C
The interesting one to see is going to be the one on the trans stuff specifically. We're going to get a very comparable case probably next term. That is the flip side of this. It's not our states allowed to, you know, pass these rules keeping trans girls from playing in girl sports. It's going to be a case brought by, you know, biologically female athletes, basically saying that the whole federal government should bar trans participation in girls sports under Title ix. And we are probably going to see that at the Supreme Court next year. So this, you can kind of see this one as an appetizer to that other fight we're gonna have later. I think it'll be more illuminating for where these judges fall on that one.
- [17:38]
B
Can I just ask you guys quickly on this as a political matter, is it better for Democrats to have this issue removed for them by the Supreme Court politically? So the Supreme Court makes the decision. It's off the table, and basically it can. Republicans can no longer use it as the big wedge issue because it's more or less decided or. And Dems kind of let that just go because they're not. This isn't like where they're going to make their big stand anymore or. What do you think?
- [18:02]
A
I don't think it matters. I think the Dems need to help themselves on all this stuff. I think that, like, the trans sports issue is not a. Kamal Harris did not lose because of the swim meet where Riley Gaines finished and tied for fifth versus fifth. Okay. Fundamentally, it's an issue that is. This is where I always object to people who are like Democrats focus on kitchen table issues. The whole original conceit of kitchen table issues or issues that you discuss at the kitchen table and people like to talk about transports. It is something that people like to talk about. But I think that Democrats can have different positions on that. I think that where Conway got into trouble was this view. The Democrats cared more about all that kind of stuff than they cared about things that mattered more broadly to the electorate. And so I don't know. I don't think that this issue in particular is the one that sunk them. And I think that frankly, there are ways to kind of mock the Republicans about it as well. And I think that there are some. And we're kind of getting to a consensus. The Olympics and the international community is getting to a pretty clear consensus about what types of sports there should be different rules for and where, and the puberty. And I think that that's just kind of working itself out. That's my view.
- [19:21]
C
Yeah. The thing that stands out as sort of the illustration of what you're talking about there, Tim, for me, is that we came out of the 2024 election where there was a certain conventional wisdom that Donald Trump had won hard on trans issues and that there had just been this cultural shift, this big time cultural shift almost immediately. Who did you see? Like, the first person to really try to capitalize that and like, make that a big part of their own political brand was Nancy Mace in congress with her one woman crusade against Sarah McBride. And you had Sarah McBride over there basically staking out a case that was like, look, I'm in favor of trans rights and all these sorts of things, but I'm not extraordinarily loud about this stuff. This is not like the thing that defines me politically. It's the thing that defines you politically. You're the one who keeps making a giant deal out of it for me. And it just really fell flat from Nancy Mace because the thing.
- [20:08]
A
Winsome Sears, too. The Virginia governor race was another example.
- [20:11]
C
Yeah. Yeah. For the most part, if you are the one who's bringing this topic up, there's like a burden of, like, why are you bringing it up kind of on either side? Right. I mean, that's why it was effective against Kamala Harris. It was the stuff about trans operations for illegal immigrants and prison inmates and things like this. Like, well, why have you even spent time. What does it say about you that you are willing to spend political capital making stances on some of these issues to flatter some of these group suggests that you are just paying attention to stuff that's sort of far out of normal people's mainstream concerns. But that's not to say that, you know, Republicans can then turn around and make hay by them being the ones to focus really hard on these issues. It's only sort of in the, in what it says about your, the, your priorities that it really ever becomes politically damaging for anybody.
- [20:55]
B
Guys, we need to talk about the DSA freakout that's happening after the New York's primaries last week. Last week three Zoran Madani endorsed candidates won congressional primaries in New York City. We got Brad Lander who beat Dan Goldman. We got Assemblywoman Claire Valdez who won an open seat. And we've got Darieliza Avila. Chevalier. Chevalier.
- [21:16]
A
Chevalier.
- [21:17]
B
Chevalier. We're just going to go with DAC because I did my best, but I still didn't hit it. She's got some, you know, pretty intense opinions about a whole bunch of things. Very sort of commie adjacent. K file has a big roundup of that if you guys want to go listen to them.
- [21:35]
A
What do you think, Edgar? I know what my opinion is. I want to know what Edgar's opinion is.
- [21:39]
C
Which, which bit of my opinion. I don't like it. It's bad.
- [21:42]
A
I wouldn't say ascendancy.
- [21:44]
C
I think it's over torqued a little. I think like, you know what, what they're going to do what Democratic primary voters are going to do in New York City, especially off of the endorsement of this extremely popular mayor whose popularity transcends his own ideological commitments. I mean I think it's. It's kind of a petri dish designed to turf up some candidates like this. And I would like to see similar. I guess like to see is the wrong. Is the wrong way to put it. I would need to see this sort of thing happening in, you know, less predictable areas before I am ready to like declare the Democratic Party like this being the future of it, I guess I would say.
- [22:23]
A
Well, Andrew, I do think it's probably going to expand. We're taping this Tuesday afternoon. So by the time some people listen this on Wednesday we'll know what happened in Colorado. I kind of expect the DSA candidate to win at least one of the races there. And we'll see in Denver. Diana DeGette has been a congresswoman representing Denver since I was in short pants. I mean I was kind of surprised that she was still there when this race started, to be honest. And so she is a DSA challenger. Hickenlooper does in the Senate race. Bennett has kind of more of a traditional left candidate challenging him in the governor's right. So we'll kind of see how that shakes out. I expect that we'll see at least if I was just going to put my money on it, it'd be to get losing. And so you'll see some expansion. I think that will expand the freak out that Sarah was referencing among kind of the D.C. establishment class. And I think that the more that The DC Establishment class freaks out the more it empowers the left, because that's exactly what they want, is for those people to fre. And so I just. No, I don't know. I talked about this a little bit with David French today, but I think that everybody kind of learned the wrong lessons from the Tea Party. And I feel like there's a lot of Democratic establishment people who are like, you know, what was it that John Boehner did back in 2010? I should do the exact same thing, because that really worked out well. And it's like, you know, look, I think that a lot of people there are. There are some ideological DSA types within the party. I'm not. What. I don't know what that number is. Maybe it's 10%, maybe it's 20%, but there's that. Then there's a lot of other people that just look at the Democrats, and they're Democratic voters, and they say, you know what? We tried it your way, and Donald Trump got elected again. And I'd like to try it a different way, because I am fucking pissed that Donald Trump got elected again. And in response to that, right now we have a one group of people that is offering a coherent other way, and that is the populist left. And I think as long as that's the case, they're going to have some success in the meantime. And I think that, again, it is true that there's some young voters who are more. Young voters are more interested in socialism than us millennials were when we were young. So there is something to monitor there. But I think in the grand scheme of things, what is happening is that the populist left is offering a new path forward. And I think that the folks in the center or on the establishment of the Democratic Party would be better served to also offer a fresh path forward and a new strategy for fighting Trump and a commitment to fighting Trump and a commitment to caring about people's economic concerns. And that would be a better use of their time than, like, throwing spitballs at the left, because I think the more the spitballs they throw at them, the more that they're going to empower the tiger. We just. I just. I live this. So that's. That's my 2 cents on all of this. But, you know, I think that one of my other takes on Darieliza, who seems awful to me, is that I would like us to expand the House by a lot. I think it'd be great. I think the House should have, like, five Dariel and We should have like seven Thomas Massey's and you know, we should have some elder millennial homosexuals who are, you know, who have like mixed different types of views, like liberal social views and more conservative economic views. Like, you know what I mean? Like, we should have some Jared Polis's, like, I don't. It is not that big of a deal for there to be three crazy people in Congress. And so I think that at some level, you know, that part of it gets a little bit overblown. Congress, the House of Representatives is where crazy people should be. I want lots of flavors of crazy in the House and I think that would serve us. You know, it's a big country. So that's my contrarian take on Darielisa.
- [26:23]
B
Yeah, I have. I wouldn't go quite as far as that, but I would, I would remark that we have seen, you know, aoc, Cori Bush, Jamal Bowman. Like, we have had cycles like this. And I also think, I just want to say for the record, and I've been talking about this in other formats, I do think that DSA panic is, is overblown. And I also think that the Tea Party, remember, who do we nominate? Who did Republicans nominate during the Tea
- [26:49]
A
party was in 2010, said it'd be 2012. Andrew was seven. Do you remember that guy? Andrew?
- [26:54]
C
Yeah, he was some Mormon fellow, I think.
- [26:57]
A
Yeah, he was Mitt Romney.
- [26:59]
B
He was in the midst of. In the wake of the Tea Party, the Republicans nominated the not at all radical Mitt Romney. And so I think that. I think that we shouldn't overread it for, for the entire country. I also think we are in the middle. If you look at the people that are doing well right now, I think that it has a little bit less to do with whether or not they are socialists and a lot more to do with whether or not they are good communicators. And so I think we are seeing much more of a communications shift here than we are just sort of an ideological one. Because the ideological, to me what is happening very clearly is you've got both the disappointment with the establishment coupled with affordability as a main issue, like a top of mind issue. And some of these candidates are talking about this more than their more centrist counterparts, which is a problem because people are locked in on affordability right now. And obviously the Iran war has put Israel front and center, which is helping some of these other candidates too. And then the third thing is Mumdani is popular at the moment. He used some of his capital. Tim mentioned that on Stage. And it's really true. And you know what? Instead of freaking out, instead of freaking out, how about, how about more of the centrist candidates do the work of being good communicators and talking about affordability and fighting, pushing against Trump.
- [28:19]
A
Let's talk about Denver for a second. So we'll see what the results are tonight. Who are the three? So it's me that, you know, I'm
- [28:25]
C
going to talk about.
- [28:25]
A
I want to talk about the establishment people that are being put up in Colorado right now, okay? And it's like, all right, so you've all this bedwetting of like, oh, there might be a socialist barista that represents Denver. And it's like, okay, well, who'd you put up against her? Diana DeGette, who as mentioned was literally the representative of Denver, okay. Like, she has been there forever. There are two senators, John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett. Neither of them are knocking anybody's socks off with their communication styles. Neither of them. You can think of as having a good moment in pushing back on Trump over the past 10 years, can you? I can't. I remember Michael Bennett getting mad at a couple Senate hearings. I can't remember Hickenlooper doing anything, you know, and so it's like, okay, now you have Hickenlooper running up. He was mayor of Denver when I was in middle school. So these people have been there forever. Michael Bennett ran the public schools of Denver when I was in middle school. And then he went to the Senate. And then he's like, I'm bored in the Senate. I haven't done anything to stop Donald Trump. I want to come back and run Colorado now. And so you can understand, I think, why some Democrats in Denver and in the rest of Colorado look at these candidates and are like, I don't think that this is what the moment is calling for. And Denver and Colorado also, by the way, has some dynamic young House members who are in the center. Jason Crow is like, I think, a real moderate. Jonah Goose, I think is kind of a middle of the Democratic Party guy. But is the younger guy from Boulder black guy and both. He's been really good on oversight in the House. Negus has. And so it's like, okay, imagine what this picture would look like if instead of Bennett and Deget and Hickenlooper, it was Negus and Crow and somebody from the state legislature that like, was whose turn it was to be in fucking Congress because Diana to get retired like she should have. And they were running against three barista socialists. I think the results would probably be different. I don't know, but who knows? I'm just saying. So, like, I think that, like, the context of all this is important and if the Democratic establishment is worried about this, they should be, like, looking in the mirror rather than like, looking down the street like they should be doing something different.
- [30:28]
B
I would say my prediction, because we did, we went deep on Colorado.
- [30:33]
A
I listened to your focus group this week.
- [30:35]
B
Did you listen to it? Kyle should be a star. Kyle Clark, if you're listening again, should come work for us. You are excellent. You were, you were terrific. I'll just make job offers on the pods. But he was, he was outstanding. My prediction is that to get and Bennett probably both lose. I think Hickenlooper hangs on, but I do, I think the other two might be going down. And, and, and.