← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
It's a Numbers Game: Ask Me Anything: Filibuster Explained, Gerrymandering Debate, U.S. Oil Reserves & Election Insights
00:32:35
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Welcome back to a numbers Game with Ryan Garduski. Thank you guys for being here. This is a Friday episode. It is an all Ask me Anything episode. I want to hear from you guys. This, you know, Buck Sexton made this idea for the show. He said, oh, he made the whole idea for the show, but he put said, do you want to ask me anything segment? It will be great. And it really has been. I kind of get to connect with you guys a little bit, considering it's just me talking to my computer every day with a microphone. I. And it's just producer, my producer hearing me babble constantly. So it gives me notice that you guys are listening and also what you guys want to hear, what you want to talk about. So if you want a part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me ryan@NumbersGame podcast.com ryan@Numbers plural numbersgame podcast.com I would love to hear from you guys. Literally anything on the table. As long as it's like PG rated. Yeah, like slightly higher than g, but anything pg 30. It's a family show. I try to keep it easy for everybody. All right, first question comes from Brian, who's emailed me before. He says, on behalf of all Brian's listening to the podcast, I'll forgive you for throwing at us during your January 26 episode. I don't remember that. I do, kind of. I mean, there is a thing in. In the country called Orion Party. It's a party for. You have to show your id, you have to be named Ryan. And I went to one of them and I'm tell you, it was actually a lot of fun. It was like way more fun than I thought it was B. But it was they chanting like F, Brian. And the whole thing, it's really. It was chaotic, but it was great because every Ryan in the country knows that you are called Brian at least 25,000 times a year. Okay. He says, in an age where all legislative action seems to be beholden to the great and powerful filibuster, can you provide historical context on how the power has evolved? Specifically, I like to understand its roots as a Senate agreement rather than explicit part of the Constitution. How is his mechanics have changed over time and the underlying theory invoking the nuclear option. And please highlight major legislation or nominations that have fallen victim or saved because the filibuster. Okay, so I'm not an expert on Senate rules. There's a woman named Rachel Bovard who's brilliant. She is an expert and you could read More of her stuff. If you want to know a lot about the Senate and the filibuster, this. The filibuster actually dates back to very close to the beginning of the country in 1806, but it's changed a lot of time since then. The idea of cloture was created in 1917 and it was to allow the end of debate when There was a 2/3 vote in the Senate. And that was first successfully done for actually the Treaty of Versailles back in 1919. The 2/3 rule was changed in 1975 to a 3/5 rule, so only 60, from 67 to 60 senators because a lot of southern senators were upholding civil rights legislation. In 2013, Democrats created a nuclear option for a lower court appointments. And then in 2017, Republicans extended to the Supreme Court obviously with Gorsuch. So that's how that cloture has changed. But another big development happened in the 70s and I think this is how this rule change specifically altered the entire filibuster. A major practical change occurred between 1970 and 1972 is called the introduction of the two track system system. Previously, a filibuster halted all Senate business. You can't do anything in the Senate until the filibuster is taken care of and you had to speak openly and you had to have the debate for as long as possible. Now the Senate can place a filibuster on a separate track and continue to work on other things. This led to the modern silent or virtual filibuster where senators don't have to hold the floor endlessly in speeches, they don't have to continue onward, you know, for end, for forever. They can just simply, simply signal the intent of filibuster, force a cloture of 60 votes or the bill dies and then just do other work. That really changed the relationship with the filibuster and the Senate more than just the existence of the filibuster, because it's existed before, but you had to be there, you'd be present to debate. And as far as legislation has died because of the filibuster, it's hard to say which legislation and saved, but legislation has died. There's been a number of immigration legislations that didn't even get to a vote because they knew they couldn't pass the filibuster threshold. That happened actually quite a bit. There was as well a gun control measure recently back when Biden was president. They wanted to pass gun control. They couldn't get it past the filibuster. They wanted to make A law to allow workers across the country to unionize that didn't pass the filibuster. And then was the for the People act, which would have done many things for voting, the ability to vote, but namely, it would have banned voter id, picture ID to go vote nationwide. All those things did not get passed because there was a filibuster. I know a lot of people are skeptical of a filibuster because Trump can't get a lot of his agenda done. What I always emphasize to people is with the Senate being what it is, Even if it's 53 members Republican, think of all the senators who would not be on board with the most base part of Trump's agenda. You have Murkowski, you have Curtis from Utah, you have McConnell from Kentucky, you have Collins from South Carolina, depending on the issue. And I believe there's other people that they don't have to take hard positions because that's not going to come up for a vote because the filibuster. In other words, Murkowski and Curtis and McConnell, save them from having to take on positions that, that people would be revolting over. And that could be, you know, that's both a hit or a miss. I mean, I don't know. That's kind of how I think of it is, is that we're not going to. Even if we abolish the filibuster, we're not going to get a lot of things we really want. And Democrats will 100% get all the things that they want because they're in lockstep with a lot of these issues as Republicans aren't. Okay, well, that's that question. Thank you so much for asking, Brian. Now, next one comes from Holly. Holly, I think, has written People four. She said yes. She says, thank you for answering the questions I've said in. I appreciate it. Living in Texas, it seems like every day there's a story about another generational ranch farmer being sold for development. At the risk of sounding like an environmentalist wacko, as Roche Limbaugh would say, what does this mean for food production? Where millions of acres are being turned into subdivisions and where they're well with the effects start to be felt. Or maybe they already are. Also, if you have time on how on earth did you end up working at Victoria's Secret? Okay, all right. Victoria's Secret. First. I was 18. I needed a job. My cousin was the store manager and she hired me. I mean, it was nepotism of the smallest form. I had no experience. I needed some kind of A job. And I think I was paid $5 and I want to say 25 cents an hour. And it got bumped up to 575 while I worked there. So really making a lot of money. But it was a good job. I learned a lot of different things. The thing that I. Well, the funny story is I worked at the Queen center mall in Queens, New York which is a very hub of diversity. A lot of foreign language speakers. I had to deal with people who didn't speak English. So you like would point them to the dressing room, they walk to the corner and start taking their shirts off. Like things like that would happen constantly. Also the fact that people believe that they would look like the Victor Victoria Secret model if they wore the clothes despite being significantly larger in non flattering places or being people of a particular age where you did not look like Gisele Bunshin, even if in your prime you may have. So that was, it was, it was, that was funny. The interesting thing was I would be. I grew up very much working class, but very like Italian working class, very Catholic. Like I did not know there were churches. This is how like insularly Catholic I grew up. I did not know that there were churches that were not Catholic until I was like 20 because every church around us was Catholic. I think we had one evangelical Korean church that I never saw people walk in. I only ever saw a Catholic church. And when I was like 20, I went to, I was living in Albany, working for the state legislature. I was 21 and I worked and I went to, I went to church, the corner church. I assumed it was just a Catholic church. It was an all black church. I said, oh, it must be an all black Catholic church. And like after hour two of the singing I was like, when is the Eucharist? And the lady goes, what's a Eucharist? And I was like, I have to get out here. So I did not have much exposure to people who weren't a lot like me. And the thing is, is that when I worked at Victoria's Secret a lot of the people were minorities, almost all women and from a different, not just like economic background because I was not wealthy, I didn't grow up wealthy at all, but from a like different position on, on values and morals. Like there was a lot of like 20 year old women who were like my age, but they were all single moms, a couple of husbands or boyfriends in prison. A couple of them were like, you know, talking about wanting to have another baby with a different baby daddy. And I would Just I came at it from the approach that my parents were pushed me in, which was like, can you afford that? Like, you're making as much as me. What do you mean? And that really just was an interesting cultural clash where I think I learned a lot about people in that time frame. And what, like, you know, they would tell me what they were looking for in, like, a boyfriend or. Or partner. And it was like, you know, must be. I'm one woman. I'll never forget it. She's like, he's got to be a thug. I was like, that's like, not like, have a credit score. That's your number is a thug. That was Victoria's Secret. Okay, on to farmers, which is what you asked about. We have seen the decline in farmers happen for decades. Like, before my. I was born, before my grandparents were born. In 1935, there were 6.8 million farms in America. That number hit 2.2 million in 1997, and it was consistently 2.2 million for about two decades. And now it's about 1.865 million. And it's just declining. And a big part of it is the farmer population is aging significantly. A lot of people do not want to go into the agricultural industry. It is a tough industry. It's an expensive industry. It is one where you can make a lot of money. At the same time. You could have bad seasons and you could lose a lot of money. And it's an interest, and it's a lifestyle. It's a certain lifestyle that, you know, you're not going to Disney every couple of years, you know, like once, like twice a year. Like you're not. There's no opportunity for that. And I think that fact that it's an aging population, don't want to do the industry is what is affecting it. The other thing that I would say is, is that as far as the diversity of our food go and our. It will. It will likely increase our dependency on foreign agriculture, which we're already seeing go to the grocery stores, look at blueberries. I mean, it's not natural in, like, nature to be able to buy blueberries in certain times of seasons in the Northeast. But we have it because of their trade opportunities with other countries. And I think that those will probably increase as we deplete our own agricultural ability. And we'll just have the super super farms, the super gigantic farms produce our main agricultural products and some other things might be outsourced. Where I think it really affects. It is the most expensive part of food is transportation. Having an Agricultural industry that is close to locations would reduce prices, but that's obviously not feasible everywhere. Like, Hawaii can't just build farms everywhere and we can't grow bananas. We grow in Hawaii everywhere. But that would absolutely take a lot of the cost. I remember forget I was in California last summer and I saw avocados for like a dollar, which, like, like, like 10 for like $5 or something like that. It was like, ridiculously cheap because they're produced there. So it's better, I guess, going bad in the fields is getting some money out of it. But that's what I think about that stuff. It is sad, but if you don't like that, I mean, part of that is because of mass population growth, because of immigration. Okay, Scott writes Ryan, I think I've listened to every episode of your show. Scott, you are a patriot, and I've learned a lot. Thank you so much for what you do. Hopefully Democrats aren't listening, but Republicans are. It is likely that no one's listening. I'm just joking. People do listen, but in my life, I feel like no one's ever listening. If you have, I've two questions for you. First, can you please listen to Reluctant Radio show and tell me if it's as awful as the Christian rock you've been listening to for Lens, I will give it a shot. Here's the thing. I like. I play music 24 hours a day. Like, there's never a time where music is not playing around me. So I knew it would be a big sacrifice for Lent to give up music. And I was like, I really like gospel. I have to be in the mood to listen to, like, traditional, like, Latin mass music or, like, I have to be a really contemplative place or just have it on the background and not even know that it's on. But, like, when you're doing things, when you're going to the gym, you want something a little bit more upbeat. I also love gospel music. I really, really love gospel music. But you want something upbeat. So Christian rock. I was like, maybe I'll find a few things. There were a couple singers. There's a song called Count of My Blessings that was really nice, but it was. It's very. Most of. It's pretty awful. It's really, really, really bad. But I will check that out. Second, if John Cornyn is replaced by Ken Paxton, do you think we'll get a nationwide concealed weapon recipro rec? I think Corin may be a major. Okay, so will Coran change on gun rights? I don't think so. I don't think Corin wants to. I think Corin if he has an issue he'll betray voters on would be immigration. And also if Corin is loses to Ken Paxton, there is no way on under the Sun. I think that Jonath brings up a gun control bill in either a lame duck or for the end of the year because there's not that many days the Senate's even working. So I have a hard, hard time thinking that corn going to back a gun control bill in his remaining days and it's not going to do much anyway. More Ask Me Anything is coming up next. Okay, next up is a question from Jason. He says, hey Ryan, love your show. Spend 70 hours a week running truck through the Intermountain west in Graves yard shifts have a question for you. Ask Me Anything segment. That sounds like a hard job. I'm an adult. I've only known two vice presidents to run for president after a successful term. The elder Bush and Gore didn't pay much attention, but did they go through a normal primary process or was it like an installation like Harris? I didn't include her because that was bs. Also, another note, you mentioned on previous pods testing about a podcast on true crime. I would recommend the hi Fi murders in Utah wasn't around for it, but it haunts the people of Utah to this day. I will check that out. And he goes, and in closing, I do not know all the Supreme Court justices names. Yeah, I mean they change every once in a while, but it's a pretty easy list. There's a couple I've been there for for some time. I mean, you should, you could kind of know Alito, Clarence Thomas and Roberts. But whatever, I mean, teach their own. Okay, so for the primary process for the past vice presidents who run for president, yes, they did have a normal primary. In 1988, George H.W. bush had a primary and he actually lost several states to Bob Dole and to Pat Robertson, the pastor who was running who didn't think that George H.W. bush was sufficiently Christian enough or part of the Christian right. And then the second One was in 2000, Al Gore did have a primary against Bill Bradley, but Gore was really liked in the party and so was Clinton. Towards the end of his second term, he won 75% of the vote. So it wasn't an installation. There was a primary, but Bradley didn't win any state score did. Okay, next question comes from Dan. Hey, Ryan, love the show. First heard of you in the Jesse Kelly show. Jesse's the man he's so great. It irritates me that Trump is using the strategic oil supply to relieve pain of the pump right now, especially after Biden deleted a bunch of it during his time in office. Do you have any insight to how much oil reserves we have and how much we're supposed to have, Dan? Great question, Dan. This is something that I actually think about from time to time. And it's one of those questions that you put in the backyard saying, I'm going to look this up later and then you don't. I was able to look this up because it was brought to me so this for this question. So, yes, at the end of 2023, right before Trump took office, we have 46.4 billion barrels of oil. That down from 48 billion in 2022. As you said, Dan, Joe Biden did release a lot of oil during the, during the, what was it, the inflationary period to relieve, you know, dollars. The pump didn't really do much, but he did release a lot of oil. Actually, I did not know this, but 2022 was the high watermark of the amount of oil in our reserves and 46.4 billion is near the high water mark. We, we normally don't have that much as we have right now. From the 1970s till the early 2010s, we only have about 25 billion barrels of oil on reserve. And it was really Obama and Trump, Obama then the second term and Trump in his first term that rapidly increased the number that almost doubled basically the amount of oil we have in reserve. So we are near the high mark. We're not near any low mark and we have a couple billion barrels to go. I know his concern is concerned of mine too. I did not know that we were near historic highs as far as oil goes and that the norm is about 20 to 25 billion. And now we are closer to 50 billion than we are to 25 billion. Okay, the next question comes from Bobby. He writes. Hey, Ryan, second time emailer. I love learning about the mechanics of elections. The polling, the voter registration, the turnout, the messaging. It's a party apparatus, the campaign. Instead of a podcast with all the gritty details of a murder, how about one of the gritty details of a campaign? I probably one of the small number of people who will be interested and would probably be a lot of work. So feel free to ignore me. Yeah, that would be a hard work because a lot of campaigns are not super exciting. Like, there's a lot of tense moments in a campaign that you feel, you know, you feel the intensity and you feel like the, the gravitas of it all. I remember, like, when I worked for J.D. vance's campaign with the Super packers campaign back in 2022, I remember, you know, we were getting close to the primary day and we were waiting for a Trump endorsement. We were hearing back and forth, Trump might endorse. Trump might endorse. Try my endorse. And it was Good Friday. I rem just came out of mass, the stations of the cross. And I was eating fish and I look at my phone and like, just like, it's the end of the day. I'm like, it's not going to happen. We're not going to get the Trump endorsement. We're going to go in this primary and just, it'll be like a nail biter. But, you know, it is what it is. I completely, completely, you know, said that that's what was going to happen. And like, seconds later, he endured. Trump endorsed and it was like, your phone blows up. And I called my boss at the time and he's screaming, let's F and go. And it was great. It was like high highs. And that's, that's the whole thing about campaigns. There is no higher moment than an election day with a candidate because you're just like, the intensity is almost unspeakable. Everything you've worked towards for months is just, it could end in a second. And, and I say campaigns go from like, you have, don't have enough work to do in a week to having enough work every week to do in a month. And then a feeling of intensity. Like another moment I remember is Brandon Gill. I was working on his campaign. I was a gc. And we're in the, we're in the room and you know, his wife's there and the campaign manager, Nesta Souza's there. And we're all just like, we're waiting, we're waiting, we're waiting, we're waiting. And everyone had the Texas, like board elections website open. I had the New York Times open. And I don't know how the New York Times got the results before. Before, like everyone else did before the BoE updated it and the New York Times came out. I was like, I think he got like 55 with 60 of the vote in or something, like, we're gonna win. And like, the question is like, maybe we have a runoff, but we probably don't. And I remember just bursting out, just screaming like, 57, 55, whatever the number was, like 60 and we won. Like, I don't know. It was just. And, like, the whole room, like, loses all the air for a second and then just explodes in excitement. Like, those kinds of moments are just. Just unimaginable. Like, they are unimaginable. And also, there's, like, moments and campaigns that are just heartbreaking. I worked for one guy. I don't want to say his name because he's extremely litigious. It was a New Jersey candidate. We had a. We had. We had to. He was a very oddball guy. He was funny. He was very interesting. We worked so hard for him to get the Republican nomination. He got it. He won the primary, and then the next day fired us. And that was, like, devastating. Like, that. That was a sucker punch, like, to be fired after we won a primary that no one thought we were gonna win. So there's a lot of. There's a million moments like that. I don't think they're all, like, gritty. The show Veep is much more accurate towards, like, what politics is like sometimes than anything else. Okay, next question. Karina. Karina says hi. I really love your show. I love your analysis and the hilarious side comments. I live In Tully, New York, a small town 20 miles south of Syracuse. Syracuse is beautiful. I wanted to hear more about why Elise Stefanik dropped out of the governor's race. I know the rumors that Trump didn't want to endorse her, and she felt betrayed by him. Do you have any other details? Does Trump really think a candidate from downstate is a better shot and has name recognition and a big following on social media? I don't think many people in New York had ever heard of Bruce Blakeman. He's the Nassau county county executive. What would only happen if hell freeze? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. If only a miracle could prove put Bruce Blakeman in the governor's mansion. Huh? Okay, so here's what I've heard about Elise Stefanik, and there's gonna be a lot of allegedly Stone around. So, allegedly, Elise very much was looking at a run for president in 2028, and she wanted some foreign policy experience, and that's allegedly why she asked for a UN Ambassador. Now, side note, I told Tulsi Gabbard that's the job she should have pursued was UN Ambassador, but whatever. But it's a great gig. You work and you get an apartment in New York, you get to take votes, and basically a delegation that means nothing. And you get in the New York apartment with an assistant. How wonderful is that? It's a great gig. So she allegedly wanted to do all those things. And what allegedly happened was her political team did not do a, an efficient job picking out a replacement. And in the void of her picking a replacement or getting a replacement pick that she and the party would get behind. We had special elections where Republicans drastically underperformed. And her seed was historically very wishy washy where she had replaced a Democrat when she first was elected. And then secondly, as she did not make a decision or her team did not make a decision, other from the party became very fragmented where you had party chairman of the conservative party and the Republican Party picking different people. And it looked like it was going to be a battle for the primary. And it was me, a very, very tense and hard fought general. And that's when they made the move to pull the plug. Elise, in my opinion, is a very strong fundraiser. She's a very strong, very effective and crafty woman. I've not always been the biggest fan of her, but I give credit where it's due. She's very effective and very capable. And her, how do I say this? Her, her announcement for governor was I think was going to be a disaster. Stefanik had supported a nationwide abortion ban. And New York is just, it's going to be like the end of it. There's no chance that she's going to make any, any, any, any ability to, to win over, you know, moderate New Yorkers who, you know, support abortion. And she had just aligned herself too close to Trump for New York. And allegedly the rumors that I heard was she was running to raise her national profile even more for this alleged run for president. One day it was all about this run for president. It was kind of crazy. And this is allegedly what people very close to her were saying over and over and over again. It was very messy. And Trump has had a relation with Bruce Blakeman for decades. Him, Bruce really do like each other. Bruce is moderate on multiple issues from a very important swing county. I mean, most of the counties in the southern part of the state matter a lot more. And Trump was playing footsie with both of them, saying, I like both, I like both, I like both. And then he had that press conference with Mandani where he, you know, said how much he likes Mandani and said that he didn't think that he believed in one. At least Stefanik was saying. And at that point it was just basically over. I think that her, with her, her, her chances of a non competitive primary where she wouldn't spend a lot of money to raise her profile all went out the window. And yeah, Would it take a chance? What's his chances? Blake's name's got a very weak chances. I mean, if he can sort of, you know, solidify Long Island Republicans dominance on Long island, if he can compete in Queens and get a 35 to 40 in Queens, if he can win, if he can continue to build momentum with the Asian community in Queens, the Latino community in Queens, the white working class in Queens and keep Staten super red, he'll have a chance to do and perform well. Problem is, upstate is not like it used to be. Upstate is much bluer as more Manhattanites have moved up there and it is less populated than it used to be. So the George Pataki route of getting all these votes out of upstate New York is just not. It's not there anymore. And that's the problem with it all anyway. But that's. That's the issue. Okay, one more question coming up in more ask me anything. Stay tuned. All right, last question on the ask me anything segment. This comes from Yosef. Yosef, thank you for writing. He's long time listener, first time caller. A lot has been said about gerrymandering on the national level and not much been said on the local level where it's arguably been much worse. I'm curious what you think about Republican gerrymanders in several states where the Republicans have lost popular elections but still won the state legislatures in the years 2012 through 2022, notably Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Michigan. I know that Democrats do as well gerrymander as well. Like in Nevada. I know the popular vote isn't a pure metric of legislative elections. I try to keep an open mind about this stuff, but it really feels like Republicans are pushing gerrymandering at least as badly as Democrats, if not worse. They are certainly not offering any types of solutions. I guess my question is what do you think is a long term solution for this type of gerrymandering arms race. That is a wonderful question. He says, I love the show. It has some unique and rigorous perspective and I know that you do a really great job avoiding political cheerleading. Thank you, Yosef. That means a lot to me. I really work hard at this show. Okay. So you have to remember, go back in time. 2010. Yes. Jerry Mannings existed for decades. Democrats families did in California and Texas throughout the 1970s. 2010 was the tea party year. So when redistricting happened in 2012, Republicans had majorities and in some places super majorities across the country. Go back to 2008 and look at 2008. Democrats had a majority In North Carolina, they had a majority throughout most of the Deep south. They were only one seat away from flipping this Texas state house. And 2010 changed everything. The Tea Party election changed it all. And then in 2020, a couple states started changing the way they do redistricting like Michigan does. An independent redistrict. Now it's not purely partisan, which is why the congressional seats are much more balanced. I guess. Wisconsin is so funny because say it's crazy gerrymandered. All the Democrats live in two cities. So in order for the Democrats to have more seats, you need to cut up those two cities and make those cities imbalanced. It's not, that's a question of geography for the congressional races. I know you're asked about state legislative, but that always annoys me. I'm like you. Yes. To get this equally balanced, you have to slice cities in half, which would. That's not the purpose of, of making districts. Districts should have both representative political alignment from the state, but also have communities of unique and, and, and common interest align in the same district. Right. You don't want to have a city split in half just because the city split in half. What are the Republicans doing in the 2010s and to 2020s? It hasn't always worked out. Remember in Pennsylvania the judges which are Democrat did strike down Republican gerrymandering in the state legislature and Republicans still won the state senate. They've lost the state house by just one vote. In Michigan they lost the state house and state senate and then they won them both back. And then in Wisconsin they've held on to the legislature both times. I, I mean you have to go like it's so difficult. I grew up in a neighborhood that was very Republican and my district was split, my community was split into three different districts for the state house. So we could never elect a Republican to actually represent us. And I understand why political parties do it. And even when there is independent redistricting commissions, like in New Jersey, New Jersey has districts that are not even connected by land mass. Like they just shove part of a district into another district in order to give a political balance in favor of Democrats. There is very little, I believe, very little things you could do to ever stop gerrymandering. You can make a rule where certain communities have to be paired together because of commonality. Although if their population booms, it's going to be impossible to do what I believe and I think this is the closest you can get. Well, there's two things. One, this is never going to happen. But you can do it. One, you could just get rid of districts altogether. You could just have proportional representation, right? First 35 candidates on the ballot, whoever wins, whatever, if the Democratic Party gets 50, the Republican gets 50, Green gets 10, whatever the case is, they get that many seats, you could do that. That would end gerrymandering altogether and make it just proportional representation. I don't think anyone's proposing that. I think Massachusetts tried it at one time, and then Democrats like, wow, we're electing a lot more Republicans. Let's get rid of this. But, but France did that one time where they were like, force representation. They're like, absolutely not. We're never doing that again. So you could try that. The state could absolutely try that. And I'm sure there's some states that may be even interested in having that kind of conversation. The second thing that you could do, which is what I believe, and this works more in Congress than it does for state legislatures because they're so much smaller, is you should have a rule where a county has to be completely encompassed into one district until the population, you fit the population line. So if you have four districts or five counties, you know, yada, yada, yada, that have completely that, that make up to 750,000 uni for a congressional district or a hundred thousand for a state legislature or whatever, they have to be completely encompassed. And you can obviously cut up a little bit here or there, depending upon if they're over the population line. But you have to encompass either cities together or counties together. And you can't have districts that run through 15 different districts to make it a certain way politically. I think that that kind of rule, the kind of geography rule would help. Now, would it always create perfect political balance? No, it wouldn't. But I think it's the best that we could do because you can never, as long as people are going to be making these decisions, you know, they're going to have a political bias and that's it. I think Iowa does a great job. Nebraska does a good job, but there's very, very few. Anyway, all right, that's the show. Thank you guys for listening. I'll be back Monday with great, great episode about the reporting on the Democratic primaries that are going on right now and how it's affecting the election, how outside money is affecting this election. Stay tuned on money, because if you like this episode, you should like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, YouTube, wherever you get this podcast. I'll talk to you guys Monday. Have a great weekend.