Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:00]
David Jolly
Foreign.
- [00:10]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. Because it is April Fool's Day, I was actually almost tempted to say that. Hey, David Jolly. I'm coming down to Florida because I'm having lunch at Mar a Lago. But I figured, you know what? People just are not in the mood for that kind of thing. It just, we just, we just can't take it. But anyway, hey, welcome back on the podcast. I appreciate it very much. I want to talk to you about your personal plans in a little while. I, you know, look, I, we're trying to sort through all the various things and I live in fear that there's some major development that gets lost in the flood of things or that we don't have enough imagination. So I've, I've been writing a lot about the law firms caving in big law because I actually think that in terms of raw authoritarianism, that seems like the most egregious. But then again, you, you turn the page and you have students being snatched off the streets for writing op ed pages by, by masked, you know, agents. And you have Kristi Noem doing her sort of cruelty porn, which, by the way, is really, really, really weird. But can I bounce something off you, David, just to dive into it, you know?
- [01:22]
David Jolly
Yeah.
- [01:24]
Charlie Sykes
What do you, what do you make of Donald Trump saying he's serious about thinking about a third term? I ask you that because two months ago I'm the guy that would have said, do not be distracted. Don't waste your time on that. Where are you? What do you, what do you make, what do you make of that? He's just trolling us. Is it just what?
- [01:45]
David Jolly
No, Charlie, I love this framing because I think we would be doing ourselves an injustice to doubt him. I think that one of the biggest lessons of the past eight years is take him at his word. I mean, the run up to January 6th is a perfect example where he started sowing the seeds, you know, September and October about whether or not the election could be trusted. And then it all led ultimately to him trying to topple democracy. I came, I come at it from a little different spot. I would have said a couple of months ago, not, don't be distracted, but it's just impossible. Because of the way federal elections are held, the state secretaries of state or someone like them administer the ballot functions and a two term president would not qualify to appear on the ballots. And I just don't think there are enough Republican secretaries of state that would go along with him. But I think what terrifies me the most is actually now you see the drip, drip, drip about running for vice president and then Vance resigning. That shows some creativity behind what they're saying. But I think. Bottom line. Yeah, I think the bottom line is we should believe him. And he has shown a willingness to confront and shred the Constitution where it gets in his way, and there's no reason to think that he wouldn't do it in this case.
- [03:00]
Charlie Sykes
Okay? So I just want to reaffirm my position as being a skeptic about all of this stuff, as one of those who has constantly counseled people to tune out the white noise. This is not going to happen. But I think it is the experience of following this over the last eight and 10 years, eight to 10 years, we have seen again and again how ideas that seemed absurd on the fringe get bigger and bigger and bigger, like sort of a cloud on the horizon. And before you know it, they become mainstream, and then they become gospel. January 6th being a perfect example. I remember the first time I heard the story, I think it was Paul Gosar or somebody was filing a lawsuit saying that the Vice President, United States, had the ability to not count certain electoral votes. And I remember thinking, this is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. Well, now we know that that, in fact, was being taken very, very seriously in the White House. And we've seen how MAGA has been prepared to make these pivots, this Orwellian acceptance of things that they would never have accepted five minutes ago. And I guess I asked myself the question, okay, and again, I asked myself the question, you know, do we have enough imagination, given what's happening right now, if he actually decided that he wanted to do it, what would the circumstances be? Would he declare a national emergency? Would there be some sort of a crisis? And then who. Who would stand against him? You're right. The Secretaries of State have the responsibility of not putting him on the ballot. But how confident are we that in enough states, not everywhere, but in enough states with, say, 270 electoral votes, they might do it? And would Republicans actually stand up against him? I mean, how many members of the House would stand up against him? How many senators would push back? We. We've seen this again and again and again, haven't we?
- [04:55]
David Jolly
We have. And to use your phrase, do we have the imagination? I think Donald Trump has the imagination and MAGA has the imagination. And recall, you know, I remember a conversation late summer going into the 2020 election, a veteran of the Bush recount election had said, there's nothing Donald Trump can do that. That, you know, what he is envisioning, he can't do. And I used to say to him, very respectfully, you don't understand. He's not playing by the rules. His goal is to get this tossed into the. Into the House of Representatives, and then all rules are off. And I think where the audacity of the MAGA movement has come in is there used to be a general respect for the constitutional guidelines right there. There's even this great saying about Ron DeSantis for all of the. The challenges he's provided both ideologically and to law and order. You know, they say about Ron DeSantis, he does things for how he wants the Constitution to be interpreted, right? But at least there's that nod that somewhere there's this framing that maybe he'll challenge it to the Supreme Court and it will be accepted or affirmed. I think Donald Trump and MAGA have brought in this attitude of, well, why not? I mean, why should the Constitution say this, right? Why should there be only two terms? That doesn't make sense. If I can create a populist sentiment around three terms, then populism trumps the Constitution, trumps the rule of law. And that's been one of the strongest lessons of Trumpism.
- [06:19]
Charlie Sykes
What? And one of the strongest lessons that we should have learned in the first 60 some days is that they're trying all the doorknobs. They're at least saying among themselves, okay, well, let's throw it up against the wall. Maybe the courts will accept it, maybe they won't. Even if they don't, maybe we can convince our people to ignore the courts, that the courts are illegitimate. So this is a full frontal attack on all the norms, all of the rules. And anyone who thinks that this will stop with the third term has forgotten that this is a guy that actually fomented an insurrection to overturn the 2020 election. So he's already shown a willingness to violate the law to stay in power. So I'm really wrestling with the. Oh, don't go there, Charlie. That's what, you know, the conspiracy theorists versus it's naive to think that they're not talking about it. And the fact that he brings it up in the first 60 days in an interview with NBC, we need to take it seriously.
- [07:22]
David Jolly
That's right. And consider Garry Kasparov saying famously, the point of disinformation is not simply to misinform, but it's to exhaust you. And so if Donald Trump continues to say, choose his lane, right? If he says it's a national emergency. If he says, the Constitution would let me be a vice president, or if we enter into the cycle in 2028, and he's suggesting that, that states cannot be trusted to administer elections. And so therefore we need to think differently about how a president is elected, that's. That exhausts your, your capacity almost to think about. Recall. Also, in the 2024 election, it was talked about, including by a sitting member of Congress in the state of North Carolina, that because of the hurricanes, the Republican legislature should just deem the electoral votes to Donald Trump. They don't need a popular election. The legislature could just deem the votes. Those are the types of imaginative or creativity on Donald Trump's idea that ultimately kind of exhaust the, the, the senses of people pushing back, but also bring his movement along to say, yeah, why not?
- [08:27]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. I mean, and in terms of things that were unthinkable, they're now unthinkable. It's one thing to criticize the courts or attack the judges, but then when you see the speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, actually saying, we would consider defunding district courts if they rule against Donald Trump. And here in Wisconsin, we have Ron Johnson and other congressmen saying we would support that, actually going after federal courts if they issue rules. These are things that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. So we live in this world. Yeah.
- [09:05]
David Jolly
I think we're in a constitutional crisis. Maybe it's a small one compared to what it could be. It could be much larger. But I think ignoring the crisis right now, all the elements are already there. Frankly, it's there also because of a Republican Congress that just lays down and refuses to do their job. And then also Donald Trump saying, I'm just going to ignore the courts or I'm not going to spend money, or I'm going to suspend due process. That's a constitutional crisis. Everything we're talking about are protections within the Constitution that Donald Trump has just torn asunder. We should take him at his word. There's no reason to believe that he thinks otherwise. Maybe he wants a third term and has a plan for it.
- [09:42]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so you're a former congressman. I continue to be just amazed at the way in which the Congress has rolled over, turned itself into potted plants. I mean, one of the fundamental principles, I think, of the Founding Fathers was that there would be separation of powers and that there would jealousy between the powers. Congress is Article 1, not Article 2. And yet Republicans willing just to give up power, give up power over, you know, giving up their power of the purse, giving up their oversight power, giving up their ability to have any say about these trillions of dollars in tariffs that are about to drop on us this week, on Liberation Week. So give me some sense, like, don't congressmen have a little bit of pride, dignity and jealousy about their own power? I mean, do they really want to geld themselves this way?
- [10:31]
David Jolly
I think very few do. I think they all prefer power over anything. Yeah, power can come just through a political license. If you're a Republican and Donald Trump supports you, it doesn't have to be constitutional power. And, you know, I started on the Hill in 1994, and I would say we were kind of at the end of the Congress actually working where you had the traditional how a bill becomes a law. The House and Senate, you have conference committees. That hasn't happened. True. I mean, maybe here and there, but honestly, that has not been the function of Congress in 25 years. Even if you're a more senior member of Congress now, you're still not participating in anything. Effective leadership makes decisions on the very small things, that they're very small bills that they're going to move, number of bills, and you go along with it. And so Congress largely stopped its legislative function, I think, at the end of the 20th century. I say that with heartbreak. I really do. And so what do congressmen do all day?
- [11:29]
Charlie Sykes
So what congressmen do all day?
- [11:31]
David Jolly
Raise money and go on social media. And, you know, there's a series of votes that their staff tells them how to vote for. But look, I had so many disappointments from my time actually then serving as a member. I remember a lot of your listeners will remember at the time it was Obama said, pin in a phone. I'm going to, I'm going to do immigration reform by pen and a phone. Republicans lost their minds. You can't do that. That's a legislative function. And then I turned to our legislative leaders and said, okay, so now what are we going to do about it? And they said, nothing. Do you know what we would do, what the American people would do to us if we passed immigration reform on, on gun safety? There were several moments where we had the votes in the House and Congress just decided, we're not going to confront the gun lobby. We're not going to offend our donors. We're just going to ride this one out. Congress laid down a long time ago. I think Trump just came in and put a huge magnifying glass on their display.
- [12:28]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, well, okay, I don't disagree with you. And now you got me thinking about this, that if it's been 25 years since the legislative branch has functioned, we have, you know, been talking about defending democracy, the death of democracy, the crisis of democracy. But in terms of representative democracy, it sounds like it's ground to a halt. That in fact we've already stopped having anything like a division of powers, separation of powers functioning the way the Constitution envisioned.
- [12:59]
David Jolly
Yeah. And look, I don't want to throw every member of Congress under the bus. I would say even those with, with conviction confront a broken system. This gets really nerdy and wonky. But if you go Back to the 2000s, early 2000s, the emergence of big data, big money and big media began to transform American politics. So the ability to gerrymander, the ability to data target voters, the ability then to reach into households and say, I know you have a subscription to Better Homes and Gardens or the NRA magazine and you're going to receive a message specifically for you, and it's going to be funded now by this unleashing of big money, where I have unlimited resources to target you. And now we have this explosion of new media platforms where we're going to silo the information you get. Politicians now have to come up and live in that environment. And so even if, and I know there are members of Goodwill who wish they could change everything tomorrow, but they're not able to. And so in part, even the members of Goodwill are victims of a system now that simply doesn't work. I don't know how we get out of that without a major, major crisis. You know, I used to think we don't have campaign finance reform without a huge crisis of corruption. But I don't even. I mean, we are watching a crisis now, and I'm not sure we now have the political will or capacity to confront it.
- [14:21]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so speed, this is a perfect segue because of course, as you know, today in my home state of Wisconsin, we're having an election for one seat on, on the seven member state supreme court. And spending on that race is expected now to top $100 million in Wisconsin. We're not Florida, we're not California, we're not New York, we're not Illinois. In Wisconsin, $100 million. A lot of that's driven by Elon Musk, the world's richest man, who is really flexing his muscles here. I mean, this is gonna be a test case of a lot of things. It's become a proxy war between the left and the right. A referendum on Musk, a referendum on Trump, Elon Musk has put in $26 million and he was here on Sunday night handing out million dollar checks to voters, which I don't know, I'm old enough when we weren't allowed to give out bottles of water to people standing in line.
- [15:16]
David Jolly
That's right.
- [15:17]
Charlie Sykes
This is this. You know, we'll know a lot more tomorrow when we get the results. But this is going to have national consequences. I mean, I've written if, if Trump and Musk win and they elect the conservative Brad Schimmel to the court, this is gonna solidify Elon Musk position as the enforcer and the kingmaker in the Republican Party. On the other hand, there's gonna be real Republican heartburn if you drop that kind of money in a state like Wisconsin and you come up short. Your thoughts, what does it look like from where you're sitting?
- [15:52]
David Jolly
Yeah. And likewise tonight, two congressional special elections in the state of Florida. One a 37 point Trump district, 30 point Trump district. So I think the trend line will be fascinating coming out of tonight's elections. Look, I think that the raw corruption of money in politics. Now you're talking to a convert now, Right? I came up a young conservative thinking money is speech and it should be unrestricted. Now I've done a 180. I'm in favor of public financing of campaigns and nothing else. So I look at the corruption of the million dollar checks and to your point, you know, it was just two or three years ago the voter suppression move of Republicans was to prohibit handing out water to people standing in a, in a line too hot to, to wait to vote. The level of corruption, I do wonder if it tees up a cycle in which money and politics now matters again. I would hope so. I would hope so. I do think, broadly speaking, in terms of how we see voters in Wisconsin and Florida perform in so many ways. All politics is national now. And so we have seen this explosion of Democratic voters in town halls across the country. Charlie, the town halls I've been doing with, you might have 50 people two months ago, you're having 500 this month. And they are angry. They are angry, but they're also looking to put their energy into something. You know, a lot of comparisons been made this cycle to is it a 1994, a 2010, a 2018? I would say we can talk more about it for Democrats. You should also be worried because it may be throw the bums out. It might just be, we don't want any incumbents in this environment. But I am fascinated to see what the, the turnout levels of Democrats will be tonight more so than the election itself, because if you move turnout in some pivotal states among Democratic performing voters, that shows they're not laying down like Chuck Schumer. Arguably, they're willing to put up a fight, they're willing to put up a contest, and they're trying to turn some critical races. I think baked into the, you know, the, the equation here is most people think Democrats will overperform in Wisconsin and Florida, whether that's a win or not. What I worry about, what I. Oh.
- [17:56]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, in Wisconsin, you certainly, Wisconsin gotta win.
- [17:58]
David Jolly
Yeah, you gotta win. What I kind of worry about, and I don't think this is going to happen, is, remember, this was all the feels of the Jamie Harris and Lindsey Graham race, too. That was the race where Democrats were gonna turn the tide and overcome some huge advantage. They didn't do it. But that was a general election race. I think, I think tonight we're going to see Democrats prepare, perform very well.
- [18:18]
Charlie Sykes
Well, it's going to be very interesting in Wisconsin because, of course, if this election was a, as a referendum on abortion, and again, I just set the stage. Supreme Court, seven members, four three liberal majority right now. If the conservative wins, we'll flip it to a 4:3 conservative majority. Huge implications for the future of public employee bargaining rights, congressional redistricting and abortion. I mean, abortion is, it is either or on the ballot. Conservative wins. Abortion will be banned in Wisconsin and 1849 law will be, will go into effect. If the liberal wins, very likely you'll still have abortion rights. But Elon Musk has parachuted in and made this all about. Musk, made this all about Donald Trump. The Democrats have responded that way. Every piece of literature, and this is the weirdest thing, because this is a nonpartisan race for Supreme Court. They're not talking about judicial independence. Every single piece of literature featuring Brad Schimmel, the conservative, has Donald Trump on it. It's all like, Donald Trump, protect Donald Trump's agenda, protect Donald Trump's. You know, add to his support network all of that. So one of the things they're doing that Musk is doing, and it's not stupid, but I've learned my lesson in having a hard and fast position about what I hear about grassroots efforts, you know, turn out the vote effort, but he's flooding the zone, bringing people in from outstate to go door to door. And their strategy is to turn out low propensity Trump voters. These races are usually very, very low turnout. And the question is, can you get the kinds of people that would never vote in an off year election, but would turn out for Donald Trump in November. Can you get them to turn out? If they do that, then the conservatives have a very good chance. On the other hand, there is nothing that, nothing imaginable designed to motivate Democrats more than the abortion issue and Elon Musk, and probably not in that order. So the Democrats are all in on Elon Musk trying to buy a Supreme Court seat in the state of Wisconsin. So that's going to be huge. The, the footnote here for non Wisconsinites, though, is that we will have a Supreme Court race now every year for the next six years. Every year for the next six years, there will be an election which could theoretically flip the court back. So we could spend $100 million this year, $100 million next year.
- [20:53]
David Jolly
So in Florida, though, flip a year or two ago.
- [20:56]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, exactly.
- [20:57]
David Jolly
It did.
- [20:58]
Charlie Sykes
So.
- [20:58]
David Jolly
And I would also pick up on your, your drive to turn out low propensity voters. That is the formula, arguably one of the critical elements of the formula of how Trump won the presidency.
- [21:08]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, absolutely.
- [21:09]
David Jolly
You and low propensity voters who turned out disproportionately voted for Trump by significant numbers.
- [21:14]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [21:15]
David Jolly
And they know that. And unfortunately, then this is where money comes in. Money is used to reach voters. The message can't reach them if there's not resources behind it. And this is where the, the distortion of democracy really happens when you have $100 million coming into a race.
- [21:30]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of money coming in on the progressive side as well. So in Florida, what's interesting is the way that they're sweating these special elections. You know, the, these are overwhelmingly red districts. Right. Why are they closer? Why are they even close? Give me your sense of that, first of all.
- [21:47]
David Jolly
Sure. So I think the traditional lens of a special election, and I was the product of a special election in which people were angry about the Obamacare rollout. I was a Republican in a 50, 50 district. And what happens is the candidates get overwhelmed with outside money, just like you were describing. And so there's a lot of message testing going on in some of these races, not as much as if they were swing seats. As you mentioned, one's a 30 point seat, one's a 37 point seat. I think what has electrified the 30 point seat, which is the east coast beaches, Daytona beach and south kind of that area, is the candidate himself raised, I believe the Democratic candidate raised about $12 million in hard money. That never, ever happens, particularly in a 30 point district. Also, the Republican candidate is really not well liked even by Republicans. And that might be what actually allows for the miracle to happen because all the momentum is with Democrats right now, as we mentioned these town halls. But the Republican candidate in that race is not really supported from the governor's office to the NRCC to others, they're just not quite sure. And I think he raised maybe $900,000 all in. That one seems to be where all the eyes are. The other one is the panhandle. Matt Gates, old district. You have a great Democratic candidate. She's been, I believe, a first time candidate. She's been working it very hard against though the sitting chief financial officer of the state elected statewide, an old Florida family, almost old money family. And that one seems to be certainly less enticing if you're looking at the two races. Here's what to watch for tonight. Special elections happen fast. So the polls close at 7 o'clock on the east coast of Florida. We should have results by about 7:45 or 7.
- [23:31]
Charlie Sykes
Wow, okay.
- [23:32]
David Jolly
The panhandle closes at 8. We should have them by 8:45 or 8:50. We're going to know a lot coming out of Florida early tonight.
- [23:39]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you won't know a lot early coming out of Wisconsin because notoriously the votes in the city of Milwaukee do not come in until late at night, which leads to all kinds of conspiracy theories. But again, you're gonna have to, you know, find somebody who's pretty sophisticated in knowing where the votes are coming from. So speaking of Florida and Florida politics is always kind of a mystery to all of us on the outside. You served for many years in Congress from Florida and you've been thinking about getting back into elective politics. So David Jolly, where are you? You know, word on the street is you're thinking about running for, what are you thinking about running for?
- [24:19]
David Jolly
For a governor. We're very close when I say we, my wife and I are very close to making a decision to run for governor of Florida. As a Democrat.
- [24:27]
Charlie Sykes
As a Democrat.
- [24:28]
David Jolly
Right. We don't have a strong new party movement in the state. As you know. My I, I've been an independent for seven years or so. I love the independent space because it kind of embraces pluralism instead of trying to pick if you're left right or middle. You know, a lot of independents, you know, I, I, I say I'm for lower corporate taxes but more gun control. So where does that put me on the left right spectrum? I, I enjoy that. But the truth is I've been a member of the Democratic coalition pretty much since Donald Trump came up. You have as well, Charlie, given our, our backgrounds. And I think the Democratic Party is the right vessel to take the state back and to take the country back ultimately. And I don't buy a lot of the angst within today's Democratic Party about this identity crisis. I don't think they're having a traditional fight over left, right or middle. In fact, coming off the Harris race, you saw an embrace of a lot of the moderates, a lot of the middle, if you will. I think the angst within the Democratic Party right now is who's willing to fight for us, who's willing to fight for us and who's going to lay down and if there's any kind of reshaping of the macro Democratic brand. And if I'm a candidate or not, I stand by this as a kind of a political consultant. I think the opportunity for Democrats to reshape some goes through state house races in 2026 where candidates can meet voters where they're at in the state of Florida, an open seat governorship in 26 is not about Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis might be about the direction they've taken us, but it's about a property insurance crisis that has created an affordability crisis where homeowners and renters can't afford to live in the state. Florida's become a home for the rich and the reckless. It's about an education crisis that people don't really see coming. Yes, we've abandoned public schools, we've defunded public schools. People are angry there aren't more schools closer to home. But even in the private school choice space, Republicans unleashed vouchers on the state. All these families went and grabbed them. And now they don't even pay for the private school options that you've been given. There is a crisis in education in the state of Florida. You can also talk about a crisis of corruption. We have. It is swampier than Washington, D.C. you know, Ron DeSantis signed a bill overturning a local ordinance on the size of cruise ships in Key West. I believe the next day or the next week, you got a million dollar check. There is an opportunity, if I'm a candidate or not, for Florida Democrats to really reach voters where they're at and shed a lot of the messaging of 24 and 22. Most importantly, though, and I think a lot of leading Democrats get this wrong, Democrats are not wrong on the issues. Even the issues that maybe didn't Meet voters where they were at some of the social issues, the culture war issues. Some party has to fight for the marginalized, has to fight for an economy for all people, for equity, for all of the important things. I think too many leading Democrats are running away from who they truly are, but the base sees it. The base doesn't want to abandon who they are. They just want to know that we're. We're nominating candidates that can meet voters where they are and can win it. The Florida generic ballot now is about a 14 point spread. So it would really have to be a change election for Democrats to overcome that. But this might be that cycle.
- [27:39]
Charlie Sykes
All right, so there have been a lot of Democrats who said that right now the, the Democratic Party brand is toxic. I think Gavin Newsom said that. And obviously you'd be a different kind of Democrat because you'd been a former Republican. So what, you know, people have, you know, talked about what Democrats need to do. You know, they need to be on TikTok more. They need to go on Joe Rogan. I would suggest they need to convince voters that they share their values. Now, one of the things that I'm noticing here in Wisconsin is Elon Musk. I'm going to get back to Florida a minute. Elon Musk's campaign has a real. There's a dark side to it where they are running fake ads in favor of the progressive, implying that the progressive candidate is soft on crime, soft on the border, soft on transsexual athletes, student athletes. How do you navigate that? How do Democrats change that brand without alienating the base? So let's talk about what. So what do you say about the border? The Democrats in the past have not said about the border.
- [28:46]
David Jolly
Well, I think I would embrace the bill that James Lankford, the Republican from Oklahoma and Vice President Harris negotiated that recognized, yes, we need to be strong on the border. We need border enforcement. We need tall walls, but wide gates because we need to welcome people who want to come to the United States and be a part of American opportunity. I also think fundamentally we need to create a pathway for people who are here without documentation. I think it's disgusting that we dehumanize people who are here without documentation and somehow punch down at people who are just looking to be a part of the American dream. Look, in the state of Florida, Ron DeSantis likes to humiliate immigrants. I think we should embrace them. I think we should welcome them. We should be a state that has a place for them. They contribute to our state. They contribute to the country. But I think Democrats also shouldn't be afraid, and I don't think they really are, to say, look, if someone's here without documentation and they. They kind of rise up on the scale of being a threat or have a criminal record or have some reason why they shouldn't be accommodated with a pathway, then they should be deported. That's right. That is how law and order works. I'm just afraid the level of xenophobia and arguably the threads of racism and some of the hardest doctrines of Republican immigration policy have caused Democrats to grab onto that and say, how dare you? And I get it, because I agree. But that doesn't mean, as an administrator of a state or as an administrator of the country, you can't recognize that there's a place for law and order, but there's also a place for humanity. I think that's where Republicans fail the test and Democrats could do very well.
- [30:19]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, So I do not. Sorry.
- [30:22]
David Jolly
Real quickly, Donald Trump revoking temporary protected status of the Cuban American. Hispanic American voters in south Florida, about 500,000. These are people who, they only receive TPS because they have a financial backer. Their records are clear, they're not a ward of the state, and we're providing them an opportunity to be here. And Donald Trump said, nope, you gotta get home. We don't want you. I'm not sure that's the right message for Republicans right now, and I think Democrats can push back on that.
- [30:51]
Charlie Sykes
So I don't wanna create a viral moment that results in $100 million ad campaign, because in 2024, the Trump folks spent $100 million on one ad against Kamala Harris involving trans athletes playing in women's sports. Use of taxpayer money. This has been one of the most difficult issues. Every piece of literature, by the way, in Wisconsin mentions this issue still. So how do you navigate that issue?
- [31:26]
David Jolly
I fundamentally think it's an issue for the courts. And I don't think one rule should apply to everything. You know, if you've got a youth league where somebody's signing up for soccer just to make friends, that's very different than a competitor in the Olympic trials or in the NCAAs. I think some latitude among the sports leagues to make decisions, but ultimately it's a constitutional question that the courts are going to have to decide. So I think you take that baseline test and you send it to the courts. And I think where I fundamentally diverge from Republicans on this issue is you can immediately see where leaders and voters are either working in good faith towards equity or in bad faith against it. This is a new and novel moment for us as a country. It's okay to wrestle with it, but you're either wrestling, trying to resolve it on behalf of all Americans, their fundamental and constitutional rights, their respect and their dignity, or you're working to humiliate them. And I think it's been pretty disgusting what we've seen from Republicans in the past several years on this. I look, I don't think we need to knock down that youth soccer player who is working with their family and their doctor on whatever their current, you know, crisis is. Personally, I think it can be supportive of them to allow them to play in youth sports. If it's a question of Olympic trials, obviously, I think you get too far down the road there saying maybe this is a bridge too far to allow trans athletes in certain sports, but let's leave it to the sports leagues and if somebody feels like their rights have been violated, take it to court and let's ask the constitutional question of the federal courts.
- [32:56]
Charlie Sykes
So in Florida, Republican politics is always the knives are always out. Is there a possibility that you might, if you were the Democratic nominee, that you would be up against Matt Gaetz? Is he running for governor? Could he be the Republican nominee?
- [33:10]
David Jolly
Oh, this is all rumor mill now. What is definitely taking shape. Yeah, what is definitely taking shape is there appears to be so we have a governorship run and then three cabinet offices, all of which are elected independently. Statewide, there appears to be shaping up a DeSantis slate and a Trump slate. So Trump has already endorsed Byron Donald for governor, but Casey DeSantis is flirting with Iran, the governor's spouse. And the governor's already making phone calls saying nobody better donate to Donald's or I'm going to veto your projects. He's already using kind of the corrupt power of his pin to try to influence that race. Whether or not Gates gets in, it's been presumed after the scandal under which he left, he wouldn't. But there's been some rumor that if you end up with Casey DeSantis and Byron Donalds, Matt Gates decides to get back in. I would say there's also talk, though Matt might come in and run for attorney general. But the latest scuttlebutt is he's living a happy life in San Diego, California. So apparently California is not too hostile to him or his politics. I'm sure his residency is still here, so we'll see what Matt decides.
- [34:12]
Charlie Sykes
But. But it is interesting. What you're describing is could be a really nasty split in the Republican party between the DeSantis Wing and the Trump wing so that Republicans could limp into next year's election badly divided in a year that is going to be challenging for them particularly is if, you know, Elon Musk continues on the path. He's, he's, he's at. Are you surprised? I am genuinely surprised at the zeal with which he has gone after Social Security and Medicare and the lack of pushback from other Republicans because I don't know of any elected Republican that's got to feel good about what's going on. They're all out saying he's going to protect your, your Social Security benefits and your Medicare benefits. But the only reason you're saying that is is because Elon Musk and his, in his Doge minions are in shittifying these, these programs that millions of people rely upon. I mean, does that surprise you that you know.
- [35:11]
David Jolly
No. Because of the fundamental lack of leadership of Donald Trump. I mean, Elon Musk has taken over governing from the White House. Donald Trump might be kind of the spokesperson and sets the agenda, but Elon Musk is kind of the coo And Donald Trump doesn't even to see what he's doing. I think senior White House staff is actually really worried about all of this. I think the reason you saw Tony Fabrizio, the pollster for Trump kind of leak out or someone in that orbit leak out the polling that's going against Trump is because they're trying to get Trump's attention that this isn't working. Throw into that mixed veterans benefits as well, Charlie. I mean, the rollback of veterans services under the Trump administration and Doge is real. And I think what I, what I'm fascinated to watch is hopefully no damage, no greater damage is done. But in most of these spaces there is a latency before the impact is really felt right by the consumer and the voter. And so we are watching the maladministration right now. But when does it actually hit Main Street? I'm not sure it has yet. And that is where you end up in an environment that is disastrous for down ballot Republicans under a Trump administration. But look, they broke it, they bought it, they own it. That there is zero sympathy for any of these Republicans going along with this right now because they know what they signed up for.
- [36:26]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and you know, that's again going back to the Wisconsin primary. I mean, I'm sorry, the Wisconsin election for Supreme Court. If Elon Musk loses there, it's going to, I mean he's going to lose some oxygen in terms of the clout he's got in the Republican Party. So we'll have to see. Okay, so in terms of the downstream effects of all this in Main street, tomorrow happens to be Liberation Day, where Donald Trump escalating his tariff war, which. And what's fascinating to me about this, there's so many things, is that even people in the administration really have no idea what he's going to do. And so he's injected this massive amount of uncertainty into the business world, into the markets, into the spending habits of consumers. He continues to escalate his rhetoric against our allies. This is the part that, you know, you and I have talked about this for years, but it's still shocking to see it playing out. Changing sides with Ukraine attacking Europe, attacking Canada, insulting Denmark, talking about Greenland, and then imposing these massive 25% tariffs on goods that will affect every American's pocketbook.
- [37:38]
David Jolly
Donald Trump is making us less secure and less prosperous. If you were trying to break us down from within, there are three things you'd do. You would break the security alliances with the West. You would. You would break our alliance with NATO and other partners, and you would empower Russia and others. You would also create economic strain domestically, which is a tariff war. Tariffs make countries less prosperous, including us. Yes, it's a tax. It ultimately will hurt prosperity in the United States. The uncertainty itself, itself could cause massive disruption. And then the third thing you'd consider doing is disrupting government services to the people who need it, which is the entire thing. What is Doge doing? And, and that's where I, you know, I have this circular conversation with myself. I've had it always. You and I may have talked about it. Are we in an existential crisis, or are we so resilient that we can get through anything? And it's really that. It comes full circle in my mind all the time. And I think where I come down on that is we have to assume it's an existential crisis, because ultimately, if we fail to push back on what we're seeing, we won't have the resiliency to get through this. And so I, you know, I have this little mantra I remind myself in the mirror when I'm trying to give myself a pick me up. But it's oppose, propose and prepare. We do have to oppose what Donald Trump's doing. We absolutely have to oppose it because it's wrong. We also have to propose, though, to the disaffected voters. What, what would we do differently? Right. What is it that we want to be defined for because being defined by opposition isn't enough. That'll never work. So for Democrats in Washington, is it a tax package that actually cuts taxes for people under 400,000? Is it the Lankford immigration bill? Is it to reverse the tariffs? What is their agenda right now? Not just opposing the cuts. And then prepare is what we're talking about for tonight's special elections and for the 26 cycle. I worry, and look, I'm not a mega Democratic donor, so I can say this. I worry that the Democratic machine is kind of missing that. We are in a continuous campaign cycle now. If we can't go by the rule next, next August or September, we ramp up. I actually think if Democrats would figure out nationally what are they proposing, what is their brand, who are they going to be? Now's the time to be on the air with paid media and in your, on your phone and in your mailbox. We are the party of X with a ton of paid media because you're not going to get it in an earned media environment in the first hundred days of a new president.
- [40:10]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you know, speaking of existential crises and our resiliency, we haven't talked about this, the, the RFK story, because if in fact he really does destroy the public health infrastructure of the country, people will die. And again, that's another one of those things that people overuse. They engage in hyperbole. But just in the last couple of days, we've had the resignation of one of the top vaccine experts in the government, Peter Marks, the head of FDA Biologics division who helped shepherd Operation Warp Speed for Covid vaccines. And he's bringing in nut jobs. This is going to have real consequences. And Peter Marks, very highly respected, resigned and said that basically RFK Jr. Is not interested in the truth. He's interested in advancing his agenda. And the Wall Street Journal editorial board says RFK Jr. Is already vindicating his critics. Shrinking HHS makes sense, but giving power to anti vaccine crusader David Gere does not. This is, again, you know, where do we focus on? We have the Social Security, we have Medicare, we have national security issues. It's only been a week since we had signal gate, but there you have RFK Jr. Who is, I mean, this guy has been a nut job from the go. And he is in the process of dismantling something that we rely upon as parents and grandparents to protect our children and our communities. And the consequences, I think are horrible. Terrific. There.
- [41:42]
David Jolly
Yeah. No, that's right, Charlie. I, I think a lot of People have felt or asked themselves, what point do they just give in and give up? And I, I will tell you, my wife and I have a six year old and a three year old. For us, if you said the safety and health of our children is now at serious risk, the only responsible move for us is to leave, is to get away from the risk. Right. And, and I think a lot of people are going through that. And where I, I do wonder if science can hold, kind of hold the line a little bit for four years on this. I know there are other ways to get messaging out, but what I also worry about equally on the other side is the permission structure that's already been given to parents who are not trained in the clinical sciences, who are not trained in medicine, but they're waiting for that messenger to tell them, you don't need the vaccination nature, kid. We're already seeing an uptick in those families. We're seeing at school boards and at county commissions moves to say we're going to reduce the number of vaccines required of students or we're going to take fluoride out of water, at what point do we expose our children to a risk that's simply too high to take, too great to take? You know, maybe we're not there yet, but the trend line is certainly going in that direction.
- [43:00]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, I mean, anybody that has small children knows that they are petri dishes for communicable diseases. Oh, my goodness. You just hope that it's a cold or it's a flu or something. It's not serious. But there's a great piece, by the way, in the New Yorker, talks about what it's like to be the, the parent of a small child who goes and brings back something like, I think, you know, for the last 200 days, she says, I've been sick every single day. But I mean, that's no, that's no joke. If we, if we have the return of polio and measles and other diseases that we don't even think about, you know, we don't even have, can imagine them because, because of the miracle of vaccines, we have eradicated them. David Jolly, former Congressman David Jolly, perhaps future candidate for governor. David Jolley, thank you so much for coming back on the podcast.
- [43:42]
David Jolly
Thanks, Charlie. Great to be with you.
- [43:44]
Charlie Sykes
Thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. It is April Fool's Day, but we do this because we need to remind ourselves more than ever that we are not the crazy ones.
- [43:56]
David Jolly
Thanks.