It's a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Republican Loyalty to Trump—and What It Means for the GOP’s Future

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode: It’s a Numbers Game: The Numbers Behind Republican Loyalty to Trump—and What It Means for the GOP’s Future
Date: February 9, 2026
Host: Ryan Girdusky
Featured Guest: Gabe Fleischer (Author of "Wake Up To Politics")

---

Overview

This episode, hosted by Ryan Girdusky, dives deep into the numeric realities and shifting dynamics within both the Democratic and Republican parties, zooming in on two main themes: the resurgence of progressive activism on the left (inspired by Bernie Sanders and his donor machine), and the evolution of loyalty to Donald Trump among congressional Republicans. The discussion is data-rich, refreshingly candid, and touches on ideological splits, generational change, and the mechanics behind party loyalty.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Progressive Resurgence Within the Democratic Party

[02:28 – 09:08]

• Is This the Progressive "Tea Party" Year?

  • Democrats’ string of election victories (New Jersey, Virginia, NYC mayoral, etc.) are attributed in part to progressive candidates powered by Bernie Sanders’ donor mobilization network.
  • Noteworthy upset: Progressive Anila Maya wins in NJ-11, defeating establishment-backed candidates and opposition from AIPAC.

• Bernie Sanders' Enduring Grassroots Power

  • Unlike typical candidates, Sanders retained his influential small-donor list, using it to fuel campaigns for other leftist candidates nationwide, even in deep-red districts (e.g., Utah, Montana).
  • Quote:
    “Bernie who never, I mean, he accomplished some things in the Senate... but he's a kingmaker now. He's in a position that no progressive this century has really been in.” – Ryan Girdusky (09:08)

• Targeted Races and Identity Politics

  • Sanders backs Nida Allam (NC-4), Brad Ladner (NY-10), and Donovan McKinney (MI), with identity and representation shaping targeted contests.
  • Progressives, notably, are now financially outperforming establishment Democrats, even against incumbents—a rare break with party tradition.

• Potential Consequences for Party Leadership

  • The influx of progressives poses future challenges for party leaders like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, possibly upending conference dynamics over funding, government shutdowns, and more.
  • Quote:
    “...Come 2027, after this election’s over, they’re going to be living in the House that Bernie built.” – Ryan Girdusky (09:08)

• AOC Poised as Possible Successor

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floated as a potential torchbearer for the movement, considering both Senate and presidential runs, leveraging Sanders’ infrastructure.

2. Republican Party Loyalty to Trump – Data and Trends

[16:37 – 34:26]

• Measuring Loyalty: Gabe Fleischer’s Deep Dive

  • Methodology: Analyses focused on key Congressional votes (impeachments, major legislation, executive powers).
  • Findings:
    • Of 493 Republicans serving since Trump’s first term, only 94 ever broke with him on major votes.
    • As of 2026, fewer than 40 of these dissenters are still in office—down from 94—due to retirements and primary defeats; that number may soon drop to as low as 22–28.

• Profile of the Dissenters

  • Many were old-guard, “Maverick” GOP members (McCain, Flake, McConnell, etc.), gradually replaced by Trump-aligned newcomers.
  • Electoral vulnerability was more common in swing districts (where many lost to Democrats), while some retired to avoid likely primary defeat.

• Top Issues for Dissent

  • The biggest breaks with Trump occurred over national emergency declarations (notably for the border wall in 2019), where even loyalists like Marco Rubio opposed publicly.
  • Quote:
    “...only 94 out of the 493 had ever broken with him on any of those kinds of key votes.” – Gabe Fleischer (17:04)

• Notable Moderate Outliers

  • In the Senate, Rand Paul (for libertarian principle) and Susan Collins (pragmatism) featured as most frequent dissenters.
  • In the House, Thomas Massie and Brian Fitzpatrick tied—one for ideological consistency, the other for pragmatic moderation.

• Shifts in Internal Party Ideology

  • Present-day dissenters are rare: more “blind loyalty” has shifted to practical splits, with even MAGA-aligned members (like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert) publicly disagreeing with Trump on specifics.
  • Quote:
    “...there is more friction than there was in the first term in terms of— I don’t say blind loyalty... but those who always seem to have the president’s back.” – Ryan Girdusky (27:09)

• Trump’s Unique Influence

  • Despite his inconsistencies, Trump’s charismatic dominance held the conference together. The long-term question: Can a successor (JD Vance, Marco Rubio, etc.) unite such a disparate coalition?

• Private vs. Public Dissent

  • Some GOP members showed more willingness to break with Trump when he wasn’t president (e.g., during Biden era votes on the Jan 6 Commission, Steve Bannon contempt votes), but reverted to loyalty once Trump returned.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

The Democratic Progressive Surge

• “Morris County, New Jersey, is a very wealthy, very Jewish county, and they just elected a progressive liberal who wants higher taxes, socialism, and hates Israel. I mean, who knew that such a candidate could win?... If I told you that 10 years ago, you’d say, Ryan, you’re crazy.”
  — Ryan Girdusky (08:44)

• “Is AOC’s time? She’s contemplating actively a run for the US Senate, but also for president. And she has the money. And with Bernie Sanders, she will have the infrastructure to pose a real challenge.”
  — Ryan Girdusky (10:17)

Republican Loyalty to Trump (Data Deep Dive)

• “Of all those 493 Republicans that have served since President Trump took office the first time, only 94 had ever broken with him on any of those kinds of key votes.”
  — Gabe Fleischer (17:04)

• “...Most of them were older and they were replaced by people who were less, I guess, ideologically... more supportive of the president.”
  — Ryan Girdusky (19:46)

• “The senator who opposed Trump the most frequently was not Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, it was Rand Paul.”
  — Ryan Girdusky (22:14)

• “I think, under the hood, there remain a great number of ideological divisions... there’s an entire generation of Republicans that—used to take up a large amount of Congress—that just doesn’t exist in Congress anymore.”
  — Gabe Fleischer (32:48)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Democratic Progressive Resurgence Discussion:
  [02:28 – 13:35]

• GOP Loyalty to Trump Overview:
  [16:37 – 20:03]
  Data, methodology, and long-term trends

• Key Issues of Republican Dissent:
  [21:26 – 24:36]
  National emergencies, border wall, tariffs

• Ideological and Practical Splits in the GOP:
  [24:36 – 31:01]
  Figures like Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Thomas Massie, Brian Fitzpatrick, and discussion of MAGA members’ evolving stances

• Future of the Party Post-Trump:
  [32:31 – 34:26]

---

Tone and Style

The episode is lively, opinionated, and data-driven, combining humor and blunt political analysis. Ryan Girdusky provides colorful analogies (“living in the House that Bernie built”; “There’s been many versions of Marco Rubio. We’re on Marco Rubio 4.0...”), and peppers the conversation with political insider knowledge. The conversation with Gabe Fleischer is thoughtful yet conversational, unpacking a complex subject in plain language.

---

Takeaways

• The Democratic Party is experiencing a groundswell of progressive activism and electoral wins rooted in Sanders’ donor infrastructure—potentially reshaping its ideological core and legislative priorities.
• On the Republican side, Trump’s presence has reduced ideological dissent in Congress: many non-loyalists have retired or been defeated, replaced by more Trump-aligned members, though the remaining dissent splits between libertarian purists and pragmatic moderates.
• Future leadership in both parties could look dramatically different—2026 may be a year of lasting transformation.

---

Transcript

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Guaranteed Human support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures [e-mail].

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

Hey, this is US Olympic gold medalist Tara Davis Woodhull and.

[Hunter Woodhull]

I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best mortgage, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA and you.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Learn more at pennymac.com PennyMac Loan Services.

[Ryan Graduski]

LLC equal housing lender NMLS ID 35953.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Licensed by the Department of Financial Protection.

[Ryan Graduski]

And Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we're here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit capella.edu to learn more. Did you know that parents rank teaching financial literacy as the toughest life skill? That's where Greenlight comes in. The debit card and money app made for families with greenlight. You can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and track spending with real time notifications. Kids learn how to earn, save and spend responsibly while parents have peace of mind knowing smart money habits are being built with guardrails in place. Try Greenlight Risk Free [e-mail] iheart that's greenlight.com iheartra.

[Ryan Graduski]

Welcome back to A Numbers Game with Ryan Graduski. Thank you guys for being here. Is this year the progressive Tea Party year? That's the question I want to pose to everybody. Democrats as a party have had a string of very successful elections from going back from the special elections to all the way in November when we had the elections in Virginia, which they flipped the governorship and all the statewide elections in New Jersey where they kept the governorship and then the New York City mayoral election where socialist and Wasora Mandani won. But the squad itself has not had that many successes, especially in the last few years where they lost primaries for Cori Bush and for Jamal Bowman. But could this year change everything? Could it turn it around? It looks like the squad has made their first comeback in New Jersey where progressive Anala Maya looks like she scored an upset victory with the support of Elizabeth Warren, AOC and Bernie Sanders. The district is New Jersey 11, where the current governor has left the seat obviously to become the governor. Progressive Anila Maya was actually kind of running a little bit under the radar. See a lot of establishment Democrats had circled around to support two people, Brendan Gill and Tahitia Way, I believe how you say her name, they were supporting them. The former congressman faced mass opposition from aipac and they thought that there's no way that this Maya woman would kind of squeak by. We would have one of these three, either the former congressman or these two establishment Democrats kind of win. AIPAC went all in against the former congressman and now it looks like this very progressive, the most progressive candidate in the race has won. She's ahead by several hundred votes. It's ironic because Bernie Sanders, who never was really that close to winning the presidency, I know that's a story that Bernie bros like to tell themselves that they were so close, but they really were never that that close. Especially not in 20, obviously not in 2024 where he didn't even run. 2016 was the closest, but he still was a bit distance away from Hillary Clinton. He's actively, despite his loss, is actively changing the Democratic Party because of the institution he built while running for president. See, when you run for president, when anyone runs for president or a big statewide office, they build a donation list, a list of donations, top dollar donors, mid sized donors and then grassroots donors. And it is very typical that grassroots donors lists those huge hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of lists of donors who give the $10, $20, $100 that those lists are turned over to the RNC or the DNC or whoever is the elected the nominee as president. And you all share to kind of come together as a party. While in 2016 and 2020 Bernie Sanders said, no, I'm not doing that. I'm keeping my list. I'm keeping the list of donors who supported me. And with that list, he is building the grassroots money machine, the money juggernaut to back very progressive candidates running all over the country. So he's, he's actively working to stay shape it. He's running candidates including in deep red seats. He's running a candidate in Utah's 1st congressional district and Montana's 1st congressional district districts that Democrats are not going to win. I mean it would have to be a, an insane election. I mean I don't do a monsoon for them to win. But he's running even their candidates because he wants to show that his message, his very far left message is actually the message that Trump voters gravitate to, that they don't really gravitate to a Hillary Clinton, a Joe Biden, a moderate, that they really want his message. They want far left progressivism, socialism, Medicare for all, high taxes on the wealthy, breaking of corporations. That's what they want. Right. Almost every major candidate that Bernie has is endorsed, is building this, is living off of this massive financial infrastructure from the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns. So I want to go through a few of them right now. In North Carolina in the 4th district, which is a majority black district, he is supporting a Muslim woman named Nita Aleem against incumbent Democrat who is a black woman, Valerie Fushi in New York. Ten, he's supporting Brad Ladner, a very progressive of Jewish candidate, against incumbent David Daniel Goldman. In Michigan, he's is backing Donovan McKinney, a black man in a district that is currently represented by a Muslim Sheree Ther. You don't know him by name, but he's the guy who barely speaks English and looks like he's constantly wearing a wig and screaming about Donald Trump. He's got a very awkward voice. He's challenging Kenneth there. Race and identity play an intricate part in each of these races he's kind of getting involved in. In the Senate, he's supporting Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul Al Said in Michigan and Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota. Bernie's candidates are outraising the establishment Democrat, including incumbents. That's the craziest thing. These aren't all open seats. Some of them are in the Senate they're all open seats. But in the House, a Lot of them aren't challenging sitting Democrats. That is a complete break from the norm for the party leaders, who usually wait till an open seat shows up and then they back somebody. They don't really go after incumbents. It's very, very rare. And these challengers are raising more. As I said. Nita Aleem in North Carolina outraised the incumbent Democrat almost three to one. Donovan McKinney over in Michigan. He raised $263,000, while the incumbent Democrat, the guy with the wig I told you about, he actually lost 1.9 million in his last quarterly filing, which I've done a lot of races. That's extremely atypical. I never heard of a candidate running for office who lost $2 million and raised. Almost done. Something's wrong with that guy. But how successful will Bernie's army be is the question. Who knows? It's very difficult to tell. They're certainly winning in places that no one expected them to win. Morris County, New Jersey, is a very wealthy, very Jewish county, and they just elected a progress liberal who wants higher taxes, socialism, and hates Israel. I mean, who knew that such a candidate could win? You could not create that in a lab. You couldn't mimic that to.

[Hunter Woodhull]

To.

[Ryan Graduski]

To audiences. And if I told you that 10 years ago, you'd say, ryan, you're crazy. But this could. The. This year could be the opposite of 2010, where rather than seeing a wave of conservatives win, you're seeing a wave of progressives win. And while Democrats are sitting there and they're celebrating, you know, oh, look, we're going to win all these elections, these elections, it's a different Democratic Party. This is not. Forget about the party of, like, Tip O' Neill from the 80s. That's gone, gone. And it has been for a while. But this isn't even party of Harry Reid from the 2000s. This is barely going to be the party of Nancy Pelosi going forward. So while Democrats are celebrating, right, these wins and possibly taking over the House and being competitive in the Senate, it's going to be a pain for Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. They don't know it yet, but come 2027, after this election's over, they're going to be living in the House that Bernie built. And that's going to change dynamics when it comes to conversations over international funding, conversations over continuing resolutions to keep the government open where a lot of Democrats fall in line. There's enough establishment Democrats to keep things moving. AOC and the squad are very much outnumbered, but what happens if their numbers dou this year? It won't be the same. And it's all creating the outline, the plan, the infrastructure, the candidates nationwide for a socialist to run and we the Democratic nominee. Now, Bernie looks like his time is basically overdoing that. I mean, a man is very old. I'm not exactly sure how old he is, but his teeth almost don't fit. That's how old he is. He looks like he's constantly falling out of a building. I mean, the man has aged significantly. He's frozen and preserved in Vermont, but still. But it looks like his time is over. But is AOC's time. She's contemplating actively a run for the US Senate, but also for president. And she has the money. And with Bernie Sanders, she will have the infrastructure to pose a real challenge. And Bernie who never, I mean, he accomplished some things in the Senate, I don't want to undermine his entire career. He had a very prominent health care bill for veterans. With John McCain back several decades ago, he had a lot of other wins under his belt. So he's not a do nothing senator, but he's a kingmaker now. He's in a position that no progressive this century has really been in. And we are entering a phase where could this be? Like the 19 is again where Democrats, rather than backing up Bill Clinton like they did in the 90s, they back a Walter Mondale, they back a far left progressive. And while America rejected those candidates back in the 80s and the 70s, we're not that country anymore. The demographics are remarkably different. And playing into identity, it's part of what Democrats are really trying to do now to gin up this progressive base. And among young people, it could take enough of a control, enough of a footprint that it ultimately elects the next Democratic nominee. Black women in the Deep south still have a, you know, a very strong control, but if they're outnumbered and they're outgunned by white progressives and by ethnic minorities who are recent immigrants who are demanding a more far left Democratic Party, they may end up losing this entire thing. And who knows which way the country goes till then, especially with hiring and the economy and how people feel about Donald Trump, you never know. One thing is clear. This could be the year progressives actually make themselves seen and heard. And we are all waking up to a Democratic Party that looks to Bernie Sanders as the ideological, ideological godfather. It's wild. And while I was working on this monologue, I started thinking about loyalty, right? There's going to be this innate sense of loyalty to Bernie ideologically one, but two financially because he's doing all this. What is loyalty look like to Trump on the Republican side? Especially as we're entering into year two? Halfway through the second term, we're going to start hearing about a presidential run in the very near future for Republicans. A lot of Republicans after this midterm election are going to start poking their heads around and saying, do we have a chance to win? Do we have a chance to run? That's what I want to explore. For our next topic, we're going to have a special guest on a talk about ideological support and loyalty to Donald Trump and what that looks like in the Republican Party today. Stay tuned.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures hey.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

This is US Olympic gold medalist Tara.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Davis Woodhull and I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best mortgage, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA and you.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Learn more at pennymac.com PennyMac Loan Services.

[Ryan Graduski]

LLC, Equal Housing Lender and MLSID 35953.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Licensed by Department of Financial Protection and.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act.

[Ryan Graduski]

Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

Now I'd like to introduce you to Meaningful Beauty, the famed skin care brand created by iconic supermodel Cindy Crawford. It's her Secret to Absolutely Gorgeous Skin Meaningful Beauty makes powerful and effective skin care simple and it's loved by millions of women. It's formulated for all ages and all skin tones and types and it's designed to work as a complete skin care system, leaving your skin skin feeling soft, smooth and nourished. I recommend starting with Cindy's full regimen which contains all five of her best selling products including the Amazing Youth Activating Melon Serum. This next generation serum has the power of melon leaf stem cell technology. It's melon leaf stem cells encapsulated for freshness and released onto the skin to support a visible reduction in the appearance of wrinkles. With thousands of glowing five star reviews, why not give it a try? Subscribe today and you can get the Amazing Meaningful Beauty system for just $49.95. That includes our introductory five piece system, free gifts, free shipping and a 60 day money back guarantee. All that available@meaningful beauty.com you've never been one to settle, stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance. At Capella University we help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit capella. Edu to learn more.

[Ryan Graduski]

Gabe Fleischer is the author of Wake up to Politics. He's writing a fascinating piece that I really wanted to talk about about how loyal members of the Republican Party are to Donald Trump. Gabe, what I like what you did on compared to like what Voter Hub did, which they did a similar but not exact same piece, is that you looked at members throughout the entire time Trump has been president, including the first term. What are some things that you learned?

[Hunter Woodhull]

Yeah, so I basically looked exactly right since 2017 and there's been about 490 Republicans who have served in Congress, you know, in the last coming up in a decade now since President Trump first took office in his first term. And I basically just took what I felt like were the key votes to kind of test Republican loyalty towards Donald Trump. I think like you said, there's other analyses that have been done at different points trying to get at some of the things I didn't go like every single bill that's ever been before Congress and how Trump decides on it. I kind of tried to pick key moments in both terms. And so those are impeachment votes in both terms, votes on signature pieces of legislation like the one big beautiful bill in this term and Obamacare, Obamacare Appeal and the 2017 tax cuts, votes on kind of executive power like national emergencies or tariffs or war powers, things like that. And basically what I found was, you know, that in that whole, out of all those 493 Republicans that have served since President Trump took office the first time, only 94 out of the 493 had ever broken with him on any of those kinds of key votes. And then I also tried to look, you know, over time, how many of those Republicans are still in office and trying to look at kind of the steady erosion over time. As we know, a lot of those Republicans have retired from office. Some of them were in swing districts, were defeated. Some of them, President Trump, you endorse primary challengers against them. Basically what I found was that fewer than half 40 were still in office by the time Trump returned this year or last year in 2025. So it from 94 to 40. And then there's, there's many more members. You know, as we know, members like Don Bacon and Thom Tillis are retiring, and then others like Susan Collins, who are, you know, very vulnerable in general elections or Thomas Massey is very vulnerable at a primary. And basically my finding was that the number could shrink to as few as 22 by this time next year and will certainly be as low as 28, based on who we know.

[Ryan Graduski]

It looks like, from what I was seeing, is That, I mean, a 90s, 94, I think, is not a small number because it's about. I was on a fifth, right. A fifth broke with him at one major time or the other. And what it looked like was a lot of people who had been there for a while, like the Mitch McConnell era, Republicans, were willing to sit there and break with him here or there. Except for Hal Rogers, who's been there forever and I guess will just be there forever and will never leave his seat in Kentucky. The. But, but most of them were older and they were replaced by people who were less, I guess, ideologically, I don't know, not ambitious. But. Or more of. Now I'm looking for the word that Sarah Palin and John McCain used, and I'm blanking on it.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Maverick.

[Ryan Graduski]

Yeah, they were also a maverick. They were willing to stay on track with what the president wanted. So it wasn't that he just challenged them all, just some of them didn't actually just retire and, like, headed to the sunset and they were replaced by more ideologically coherent and supportive of the president. Is that right?

[Hunter Woodhull]

Yes, I think that's exactly right. And I mean, I would note, I guess, I think it's a mix. I think you're certainly right. If you look at the list, I mean, it's like really it's a mix of things, but it's largely, I think, a tour through kind of, you know, names that people remember, the Jeff Flakes and obviously John McCain or Mitch McConnell's of the world, you know, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, kind of these kind of. Exactly. Old line Republicans. Yeah, I think you're right. I think some of them who were, I mean, obviously like Mitch McConnell is clearly at an age at which it makes sense that he retired. I think some like Jeff Flake, you might imagine if, you know, President Ted Cruz or something had won in 2017, you know, was probably young enough that he certainly is of a different era of Republican, but would maybe still have run for another six years. So some who I think retired, but definitely seemingly retired, you know, knowing they would be facing primary challenges, knowing that, you know, they were kind of out of step with the party. So I think it's a mix. And, you know, so yeah, I think it's some who, who retired kind of under duress. Some who retired at the time, you'd expect them to. Some who were defeated because, you know, as is not surprising, people who tend to be more heterodox, more mavericky, like you're saying, usually are from purple swing districts. So actually of the people who lost their seats, you know, more of them lost their seats because Democrats defeated them than other Republicans because these are people in, you know, purple seats. And that's why they were branded with.

[Ryan Graduski]

Trump, whether they liked it or not. Right.

[Hunter Woodhull]

And so they took votes against Trump because they're in purple seats, but they were still Republicans in years like 2018, and so they lost their seats.

[Ryan Graduski]

What, what are the, what's the issue that they broke with Trump the most on? If you had to bring those, what was the issue that most of them sat there and broke Trump on?

[Hunter Woodhull]

That's a good question. I think I just looking at the list and I want to be clear that each of the areas, there are some areas that, you know, there's more than one vote per area. And so some of these is just, it's the result potentially of the most. But I believe that the number one is, is the national emergencies. And that's particularly because it's very interesting if you remember from President Trump's first term there's actually a lot of Republicans in the House and Senate who broke with Trump on that border wall emergency he declared in 2019, if you remember, including Marco Rubio, interestingly enough, who's obviously now in Trump's cabinet and was also, I guess, you know, could have been considered in the same kind of at least mold of Republican that we're talking about. Until obviously now he's.

[Ryan Graduski]

Well, there's been many versions of Marco Rubio. We're on Marco. Be a 4.0. Like, I mean, it's not Marco Rubio is updated with the Apple phone every couple.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Exactly.

[Ryan Graduski]

So. And I like Marco review. But it is the truth of truth now. And the interesting thing about these votes for national emergencies is a lot of times when there's opposition to anything Trump's doing, a lot of it happens behind closed doors. Like you don't see. There's not a vote because the votes either squashed or Trump changes his mind or whatnot. So to take a public opposition actually does mean something more significant because privately a lot of members have sat there and said to Trump, I don't like this. I don't like that. As I mentioned, Vote Hub was that website they did analysis of of the current members of the party and how moderate they were. And what I found fascinating. I know you didn't write this, but I would love your feedback on it. What was fascinating was the senator who opposed Trump the most frequently was not Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, it was Rand Paul. Does that make any sense to you or anything?

[Hunter Woodhull]

Yeah, I mean, he also figures, again, these are two different analyses, but he figures very highly in breaking with Trump in my analysis, too. I mean, Rand Paul, you think of him, he's a very classically libertarian politician. So he's broken with Trump on several of the national emergency votes in oftentimes are kind of tariff votes disguised as national emergency votes. Because the way President Trump is declaring or the way that President Trump is imposing many of his tariffs are via national emergencies and what's available in the law. And just to briefly get back to what you're saying, and the reason why many of those votes are public as opposed to behind the scenes, is because all it takes is one member of the Senate to force a vote on doing a national emergency, which then can undo the tariffs. But anyways, so Rand Paul's broke with Trump on several of those national emergency slash tariff votes. He's broke with Trump. You know, he's been a longtime critic of, you know, presidential war powers and, you know, really trying to rein in, you know, the executive, you know, military powers. And so he's broke with Trump on several of those votes. And so, so, no, I would say that that's not surprising. Again, I mean, two different ways of running the numbers. So the way I kind of did it was just by looking at who had broken with Trump in the most of those categories. I had eight categories. Susan Collins broke with him in seven out of eight. So for her, from, in my way of running the numbers, she was going to break the most. But I can look at Rand Paul. It's, you know, he definitely.

[Ryan Graduski]

And it's very interesting because when it comes to breaking four out of the eight categories, when it comes to breaking with Trump, right, there's two people who did. There's the ramp hall of you're not being principled enough, and then there's a Susan Collin of you're not being pragmatic enough. And I guess really that's the split within the Republican Party of like, I can't support what you're doing just because you're not being what an ideal of what a good conservative is versus what is pragmatic for our own reelection. Or I hate saying the word moderate because moderate doesn't mean what people think it means. But isn't that, is that what you see when you break down all your.

[Hunter Woodhull]

I think that is a good point. I think one thing that interested, that interesting that comes up there is, I think, when you look at the first term, I mean, you know, I think the House Freedom Caucus is probably like the group most associated with that kind of second group you're talking about. Obviously, that's in the House and Paul's in the Senate, but a lot of his, historically at least, ideological allies in that caucus and in his first term, you saw members of that caucus broke with Trump, not infrequently. I mean, obviously, we're still Trump allies, but again, a lot of those national emergency votes would break with Trump. And in a lot of the ways, I mean, the House Freedom Caucus was founded during the Obama era on shrinking executive power, you know, critiquing, you know, the presidency for getting out of hand of what the Constitution had contemplated. And so you would see in the first term members of the Freedom Caucus breaking with him a lot when he would kind of, like you say, kind of stray from those principles. I think you've seen a lot less of that this term, but, but certainly not none of it. And I mean, I was, you know, commenting the other day that, you know, you know, it's it's pretty interesting if you think of just the last few months of Republicans who have broken with Trump. Obviously we've had Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, incredibly, publicly we saw Lauren Boebert, you know, Trump veto a bill by Lauren Boebert and her really criticized him over that we saw just a few days ago. Not in a way that was, you know, messaged as criticizing Trump, but Anna Paulina Luna, another, you know, very MAGA aligned Republican, you know, kind of threatened to shut down the government, threatened to tank a bill that President Trump was supporting. You know, she was over a billion.

[Ryan Graduski]

She's probably behind the Epstein thing too.

[Hunter Woodhull]

That, that's true. And then, yes, and then her and Mace and Greene all signed the, the Epstein file sisters position. So, so I agree. I think it's, it's, there have certainly been times when it's the Republicans. If you had told me that those are the types of Republicans breaking with Trump the most, you know, a year, a year ago, I would not have expected splits with, with the Blair and Boebert's and Marjorie Taylor Greene's of the world. So, so you do sometimes see, I think, surprises because of that split you're talking about.

[Ryan Graduski]

It's interesting that a lot of the not ideologically rigid conservatives, but specifically those aligned with Trump have, are not here anymore. MTG Matt Gates Paulina. Paulina Luna is here, but has, has split with him. Bo Burt's here, but has split with him. There is more friction than there was in the first term or halfway through the first term in terms of like, I don't say blind loyalty because I don't want to speak disrespectfully to anybody, but those who always seem to have the presence back or had the presence back 99 times out of, I mean.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Look, Donald Trump, you know, say what you will about him and in some case, in some ways this has worked out well for him and in other times poorly. But you know, he is an incredibly ideologically inconsistent figure. And so I think there are some Republicans who've been elected to Congress in the last few years, you know, as kind of Trump supporters, full stop. And so wherever Donald Trump zigs or zags, they're happy to zig or zag with him. When you look at like Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, if you've heard what she's talked about, she was on this show, she was on the show since resigning. So there you go. So then you've heard it from herself, you know, talking about, you know, she was elected, you know, really bought into the America first ideology and really feels that Donald Trump has broken with that. And it's true that at different points, you know, if, you know, if, if you're someone who was elected with a pretty strict ideological agenda, no matter whatever wing of Republican Party you're in, it would be hard to always be voting with Donald Trump because he skirts around the ideological map up all the time. So I think. Yeah, so I think a lot of it is, you know, which is always the case in Congress and like this isn't the first presidency this has come up for, although I do think he is particularly ideologically heterodox, we could say. But you know, there's always had the question of voting strictly along the party lines or, you know, are you gonna vote when there are times that the president of your own party are doing things, you know, like, you know, imposing tariffs which are essentially, you know, taxes or, you know, exercising war powers that you've criticized? You know, when there are things that go against, you know, the values you've campaigned for in your, in your campaigns, there's always that decision of whether to follow those principles or follow the part.

[Ryan Graduski]

So you mentioned Susan Collins in the Senate and ramp. I mentioned Rand Paul in the Senate. Who in the House. I pro. You're probably the same as voter hub as the Republican House member currently in office who has broken most with the president.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's Massey. Which. Is that what they say as well?

[Ryan Graduski]

No, they didn't actually. It's very funny. They said Brian Fitzpatrick. So let's see.

[Hunter Woodhull]

So I have here, let me check.

[Ryan Graduski]

Brian Fitzpatrick, for those who don't know Thomas Massey, he's very well known. Brian Fitzpatrick, for those who don't know, he represents Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It's a district that barely voted for Kamala Harris, I think by 0.1%. He is extremely well liked. He wins his re elections with huge numbers. He's got millions upon millions of dollars for fundraising. I wouldn't be surprised if he end up running against for the Federman seat when it opens up. Very, very, very popular in the Swain county of Bucks County. He's a very, very moderate Republican, that's who. And actually they actually said that, that Fitzpatrick has voted with the President as often as Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from South Texas who is the most conservative Democrat in the House by, you know, light years. So why did you say Thomas Massey?

[Hunter Woodhull]

So I actually have. So I just checked in and double checked. So. So again, so I'm, I'm basing off of I have eight categories and it's actually a tie. They both have broken them on four.

[Ryan Graduski]

Okay. So yeah, it's about the same.

[Hunter Woodhull]

So it's actually a tie between the two of them. I don't think it's the same exact categories, but it's basically the same Massey.

[Ryan Graduski]

And that also speaks to the splinter of the ideology of Massey being, you're not being ideologically consistent with me and Fitzpatrick saying you're not being pragmatic as I would like you to be. And therefore that is splintered. How much of this split that you've looked at, your numbers of people who've opposed Trump, how much of that is related to the competitiveness of their district? Did you look at that?

[Hunter Woodhull]

I didn't, I did not like run like a statistical analysis of like you're kind of comparing competitive, competitiveness of the districts to the numbers. But I will say, like I said, you know, of you just looking at the, if you take the whole Data set of 94 who, who have broke with Trump on any of these categories since 2017, you know, after retiring, the most common way they have left office is by losing their seats, which I think does speak to the fact that many of these are representing, you know, purple seats. That, you know, actually I do think it's interesting because I wrote this story partially, you know, really, you know, I had in mind, you know, he had just endorsed a primary challenger to Bill Cassidy who appears in this list having voted for Trump's conviction in 2021. He's obviously, he's been posting several times on Truth Social trying to promote Thomas Massie's primary challenger. And so part of the reason why I was looking into these numbers was I was curious how many had lost their seats via primary challenges. Because we know quite famously the President has promoted several high profile primary challenges. Obviously this Cheney, you know, the list goes on. But, but actually that, you know, after retiring, the most common way is not, not because they're from your really deep red seats where, where maybe a Trump backed primary challenger is enough to knock them off, but actually it's from being from purple seats. And you have particularly, you know, I included my list, you know, people who voted against Obamacare appeal in 2018 or the 2017 tax cuts. And you know, a lot of that was with the intention of, you know, trying to, to save their, save their own seats in the 2018 midterms. And a huge number of those were just wiped out.

[Ryan Graduski]

And so last question to you, where does that leave the Republican Party as Trump is exiting where does it leave us as a party? Is it more, is it more ideologically consistent or is it just more Trump specific?

[Hunter Woodhull]

I think it's hard to say. I mean, I think under the hood, I think there remains a great number of ideological divisions. I think. Yeah. And I think it remains a big question whether, you know, a J.D. vance or a Marco Rubio, whoever comes after Trump, will he be able to, will they be able to glue together, you know, the disparate factions as masterfully as Trump has? I think there remains a lot of ideological divisions. What we can see, I think pretty clearly in this analysis is like we said, you know, there's an entire generation of Republicans that, you know, I think used to take up, you know, a large amount of Congress, I think still takes up a large amount of like the maybe commentariat we could say of kind of like we could think of like never Trump Republican type people and that that type of person just doesn't exist in Congress anymore. Now, one thing I'll note that is interesting and I didn't, didn't put this in, in, in the numbers, but like one little bit of an interesting thing is I wanted to only include votes during President Trump's terms when he kind of did have the power to, you know, he has clearly we've seen, you know, pretty, you know, large powers of kind of whipping his members and keeping them in line. But I also looked, I didn't include it in kind of the formal analysis, but a few different votes taken during the Biden era. It was interesting to see votes like on the January 6 Commission on creating a January 6 Commission, votes on holding Steve Bannon in contempt, votes like that. And there were larger numbers of Republicans who broke with Trump once he was not on the scene and then have kind of reverted back to kind of voting in lockstep with him once he is on the scene. So I think does suggest a lot of those Republicans do remain in office who have kind of, you know, snapped back.

[Ryan Graduski]

And then if you go into the private conversations, there's really only fewer that even argue one way or the other. Had a few on the show. But Gabe, this has been so fascinating. Where do people go to read more about you and read your stuff and your comments?

[Hunter Woodhull]

Yes. So the newsletter is wakeuptopolitics.com and people can find it there.

[Ryan Graduski]

And on social media.

[Hunter Woodhull]

And on social media, I'm on Wake Up Number two Politics.

[Ryan Graduski]

Okay, great. Thank you for coming on this podcast. I really appreciate it.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Thanks so much for having me. Ryan.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Support for the show comes from Public the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor. Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures hey.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

This is US Olympic gold medalist Tara.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Davis Woodhull and I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best Morgan, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA and you.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Learn more at pennymac.com PennyMac Loan Services.

[Ryan Graduski]

LLC equal housing lender NMLS ID 35953 licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

Hi, I'm Cindy Crawford and I'm the founder of meaningful beauty. When Dr. Sabah and I decided to do a skincare line together, he said to me, we are going to give women meaningful beauty. And I said, that's exactly right. We want to give women meaningful beauty. Which means each and every product is meaningful. It has a reason to exist. It's efficacious. You're going to get results. And then you just go out and live your life. Meaningful Beauty Confidence is beautiful. Learn [e-mail] you've never been one to settle, stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance At Capella University. We help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit Capella. Edu to learn more.

[Ryan Graduski]

Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment. If you want to be part of the Ask Me Anything segment, email me. Ryan numbers game podcast.com that's Ryan plural numbers game podcast.com this email comes from Jenny. Jenny, this email was so over my head I actually had to phone a friend. She asked. She sent me an article called the Boom and they mistook for a bust from Breitbart Business Digest or Financial Digest. It explains that we need to reorder our thinking on payroll data when evaluating manufacturing sectors. Just like how it matters in real estate and whether there are sellers, if it's the seller's market or buyer's market. The same could be said in which statistics matter when there's a shortage of employees instead of a shortage of jobs. Or at least that's how she understood the concept. What do I think? I did not understand this article. It was a little over my head. Basically it's saying we need to reconstitute how many manufacturing jobs are needed because of technology. And you know what that looks like as far as employment goes. I actually emailed John Carney, the author of the article. I said, john, explain this. And this is what he said. He said, this is 100 correct. Jenny, your opinion on this is 100 correct. If we have a low job number, it isn't that it's weak if the reason is there are fewer people to hire. So that's a very, I thought, astute thing when it comes to looking at manufacturing hiring, especially as robotics take more of these jobs. It's very interesting and it certainly will play a part in how we have these conversations about certain business sectors going forward. Okay, last question comes from Ben. Ben says, I'm curious, what are your thoughts on those who were used to be staunch Republicans, such as those in the subject line, which is Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, Joe Walsh, Adam Kinzinger and Bill Crystal, but now ran completely to the left in the era of Trump. Do you think that they had genuine change of political ideology or are they all just opportunists and grifters? Me personally, I lean towards the camp that they are grifters, but wondering what your thoughts are and if you any interesting intel on these people that you could shed some light on. Okay. I used to work with Bill Crystal when I was at the Washington examiner he was at the Weekly Standard. We shared an office. I wasn't in there every day, but I was in there quite a bit. And Bill and I had one conversation exchange. I worked in New York politics on the campaign side for years. Like, I mean, since I was 18. It's the only job I have besides, I worked at Victoria's Secret, selling bras. I had two jobs my whole life, selling bras, working in politics. Only thing I can do if this goes belly up, I'm back to selling bras. So. But I know New York politics in and out. I can. I'm up there with the. Like, I. I'm up there with the most knowledgeable people in the field on this state's politics. So when Trump was running the primary, I said to, there was, I think, 95 delegates at risk in 2016, which, once again, how I know that and don't know why I walk in the kitchen half the day, drives me crazy. But there were 95 delegates. And I said to Bill Crystal, Trump was going to win at least 90 of them and probably win every county beside Manhattan. And Bill was like, yeah, right, get out of town. And I said, I'll bet you lunch. And I come in the next day, Trump had won 90. Exactly. In every county aside from Manhattan. And when I walk in, Bill is staring at the television screen, just screaming the F word over and over and over again. And I didn't ask him about lunch. I was like, you know what? Not his day. Probably not feeling too good. Probably not gonna be a great conversation. So I just let it go. And you remember, Bill's a nepo baby. Like, Bill's the worst kind of nepo baby. His father, Irving Crystal, was a major, major figure. He was a, quote, communist who got mugged by reality. And that's, I think, their phrase, where the neoconservatives were. And Bill expected to be the heir apparent. And he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about his father's reputation and wanting to live up to that. And he'd done media for decades, and he thought he really had. Was a kingmaker in a certain sense, or understood the gop. Actually, his Weekly Standard was the first company that Murdoch actually invested in, in for a conservative media publication. So Bill thought that he knew the party and knew the voters, and he didn't. He had no clue what he was talking about. He just had no, absolutely no clue. And was. I think I'm going to make an analogy, and it may not be a perfect analogy, but I want you to go along with this, imagine you are a rabbi in ancient Israel or in the Roman terr territory of Palestine, whatever, and you are a rabbi, and one day you're walking along the road and you see Jesus Christ rise from the dead. And at that moment, you need to either change your beliefs because you've been confronted by the truth, or you need to double down on what you which what is a lie or what you know is not true anymore. For Bill Crystal, the Donald Trump election was that it was, wow, something has happened. It was always there. It's been there since Buchanan ran for president, probably before then. And I need to either confront something that a lot of my ideas were not the case, or, and you could dislike Trump as a person, but the ideas are challenging to Crystal's worldview. Or double down on a lie. Crystal chose to double down on a lie. I have one of my Twitter followers sends me, actively sends me old tweets of bill crystals from 2010s that were just everything was incorrect and he wasn't his father and he was a bad Nepo baby. Not every Nepo baby is Liza Minnelli. Not every Nepo baby can sit there and perform and do well. Some are very talent. Most are not. That's it with him. Steve Schmidt, in my opinion, allegedly in my dreams, whatever, I have to sit there and say, I think there's some issues there going on on him personally. I know the McCain family really dislikes him, that he lied a lot about John McCain after, after the presidential race that Steve was on. And there's a lot of bad blood. And no one thinks highly of Steve Schmidt in the business. They not a single person. And I mean, Rick Wilson, Steve Schmidt, they run the Lincoln Project. Now, the Lincoln Project used to make hundreds of millions of dollars. It still makes millions of dollars. Almost none of it goes to actual campaigning. Right. People are making the amount of money that people made from the Lincoln Project is gargantuan. It was a business to be anti Trump. And they. A lot of people made. I'm not talking, I'm not just saying they made like a lot of money, like a million dollars. I'm saying they made generational wealth off of making those Trump videos on Instagram and trying to sit there and get him and having, you know, wine moms give them $100, $200. It was the greatest grift in history. So, yeah, there's that. Joe Walsh was a former congressman. I think he tweeted the N word a couple times. He doesn't seem to be all right in The. I don't think that he's necessarily a grifter, Adam Kinzinger. I think that, listen, if you want to run for office, there's a certain. There's a certain part of you that really likes attention, especially for certain people and not every level of office but Congress. Yes, especially if you want to be a congressman who's on television every 12 and a half seconds like Adam Kinzinger was. Adam Kinzinger really loved having attention. He used his. Allegedly used his office to chase women everywhere. And he, I think, likes to bask in the attention. I don't know if he's really making money off of being an anti Trump Republican. Not certainly the way the Lincoln Project people are. And obviously, we know the Lincoln Project. They had a lot of issues with one of their other co founders who was using it to prey on young boys. I think. I think allegedly one of them was underage, according to the New York Times story. Remember, I broke the story in the Lincoln Project, so I knew how many underage boys that he was hitting on, which was funny. I don't know if I ever told. Maybe next episode I'll tell how I broke the Lincoln Project story, if you guys can remember all that. But it's not, it's not worth a whole conversation at this point now. But, yeah, I think it's a mixture. I think it's a mixture of people who are broken because Trump changed the Republican Party and changed the way that they were, the Republican were supposed to function, which, which means they are the kingmakers, that they are deciding everything. I think that part of it's a grift. People in certain organizations have made tens of millions of dollars over the last 10 years being opposed to Trump. And I think part of it is people really like attention and are using their runs for office to generate attention. And with no meaningful goal of, like, gaining political power again, they just want to sit there and feed the beast and give themselves, like. So that's a mixture. That's my answer to it. I don't think there's many people who have ideological opposition and, and like George Conway, for example. Right. You can't sit there and say, I disagree. I think Trump's a disgusting figure. And then you're supporting, like, you know, changing what kind of gas stoves we use. Like, you know, they're taking their position. They've taken every Democrat position under the sun. They don't believe in anything that they believed in just five years ago. That shows a sign of a broken person who really, you know, was always in the grift. That's my opinion. Anyway, thank you guys for listening. Should you if you like this podcast, please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, wherever. Get this podcast and on YouTube. I will talk to you guys on Wednesday. Thank you.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we're here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit Capella. Edu to learn more.

[Ryan Graduski]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Profit Problem? Business software is expensive.

[Hunter Woodhull]

And when you buy software from lots.

[Ryan Graduski]

Of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Save money without missing out on the features you need.

[Ryan Graduski]

Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting, all linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at O D O o dot com. That's O D O o dot com there's no championship league for small business owners, but if there was, you'd be.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

At the top of the standings. Because going pro with Lenovo Pro means.

[Ryan Graduski]

You'Ve got the winning formation. One One on one advice.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

IT solutions and customized hardware powered by.

[Ryan Graduski]

Intel Core Ultra processors help you stay.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Ahead of the competition.

[Hunter Woodhull]

Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro.

[Public Podcast Sponsor Voice]

Sign up for [e-mail] pro. You ever get the feeling the city walls closing in the concrete jungle suffocating your soul? You crave wide open spaces, the chance to connect with nature, maybe chase some elk, fish a private stream. Well, listen up. There's a whole world out there, and finding your own piece of it just got easier. Head over to land.com they've got ranches, forests, mountains, you name it. Search by acreage, location, the kind of hunting or fishing you dream of. Land.com it's where the adventure begins.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.