New Leaders Emerge for 2028

[MUSIC] >> All right, I feel like everybody's in a good mood tonight. Did something happen? Did I maybe miss? All right, thank you for that amazing team for having us. Thank you to the Brooklyn Public Library and BPL presents for partnering with us on this live taping of the opinions. We are unreasonably excited to be here. Also, big hello and thank you to everybody in the room and to all those watching on live streaming. We hope our fellow political sickos enjoy this half as much as we're going to do. But I do need to remind you, I think Linda mentioned it, but there are cards. So if you have questions, fill them out. At the end of this, we're going to do our best to tackle those. So collect them, they'll hand them to me and we'll go from there. And with that, we're going to go forward. I, for anybody who does not know, and Michelle Coddle, I cover national politics for New York Times' opinion. And I am delighted to be here with my brilliant colleagues, the usual suspects columnist, Jamel Buie and David French, who I never get to see in person. So guys, hello. Howdy, howdy. Hey, Michelle. Can I say this might be the happiest audience I've talked to in a decade? Like literally? Yeah. [APPLAUSE] Yeah, I was thinking about it. It could have been really dark if the election had gone the other way. We'd like to show up as an empty room or whatever. I'm not going to pander. I once talked to a wine tasting, and they were very happy. No. So-- You got to be-- OK, so the big headline from the midterms, in case any of you were not paying attention, was that this was not just a blue wave. This was a blue tsunami, juggernaut, thumpin, romp. You just pick whatever kind of over-the-top adjective or noun, melt your butter. And we've had a couple of days now to unpack that. We've figured out everything that happened. We've processed it. So tonight, I want to go ahead and look forward. What does all this mean for the future of both parties? But before we do that, I do think we have to take a very quick beat and look at the results themselves. So the first thing I want you guys to hold forth on is, was this election won by kind of fired-up voters who turned out or by all those not-so-fired-up voters who stayed home? Yes. Yes. Yeah. OK, next question. No, unpack that for us. No, I mean, it's a combination. I mean, three things happened. The first is you had sort of incredible democratic enthusiasm to go vote. You also had a distinct decline in Republican Billings to turn out, but you also had persuasion. You know, JD Vance put out that weird statement on Wednesday when he was like-- You don't have to be more specific. Yeah. When he was like, we can blame the Iran War. It's not our fault, kind of deal. But the one thing that was absolutely treatment statement is he noted that Republican turnout was not that bad. The issue is that a bunch of people who are Republicans voted for the Democratic candidate. And I think this has been one of the big questions of kind of Trump-era elections. You always have this contingent of Republican Trump disapprovers. And so what do they do? If they vote for the Republican candidate, then that can kind of sustain a decent level of performance. But if they all turn against the Republican, then, you know, then you get the kind of shellacking. In Texas, I'm going to call this the Sharon election. So Sharon was a voter I met when I was walking. I spent some time down in Texas and walked the streets of Beaumont with some Tallarigo volunteers. I offered to do that with Paxton. And they never got back to me. So just to be clear, I made an offer on both sides. I wanted to walk with both sides. So I'm walking. And it was very interesting. People are very nice, very pleasant. And this woman named Sharon comes out. And she says, oh, I'm so sorry. She saw the volunteers had a Democratic party shirt on. They said, I'm a Republican. And I've voted for Trump. I mean, I really don't-- And you could tell she's embarrassed. They really don't like him, but we need to change. Or something like, he's so rude, but we need to change. And then the volunteers did not really set anything. And then she paused half a beat and says, but I hate Ken Paxton. And it was like that tone of voice. It was like an angry-- and I kept running into that all across wherever I was, talking to people in Texas. And I have to say I was a little bit skeptical because I've spent 10 years having Republicans come to me behind closed doors and say, I really don't like what Trump does in X, Y, or Z. And then going out and turning around and either voting for him or defending him. So I had a lot of skepticism that this-- but it was really striking. It was seething rage at what the GOP base had done by unseeding corn and by putting forward Paxton. And it wasn't just rage that it was Paxton. It was rage at the way he was running. So here's Talleriko. He's got, love your neighbor on-- that's the banner. Love your neighbor. It's one of the two key commands of Christianity, by the way. Love God and love your neighbor. He's got, love your neighbor. And then they're just hitting with a barrage of Talleriko, this, Talleriko, that. And they-- Not the interrupt, David. Talleriko is like a dope. Well, they started selling those t-shirts. That was the best part. I can't buy merch, right? You should do that. But I really wanted a Talleriko t-shirt. But it was like Talleriko, Talleriko, and then vote for a Ken Paxton because of Jesus. No. That was not the message. And so I talked to a number of conservative evangelicals who were going to vote for Talleriko. And they said, do not use my name. Do not share my identity. But I'm going to do it in all of the attacks. And I think this is a microcosm of the night. In the most extreme example being Texas, or microcosm of the season, as you had people running and saying, we don't want data centers. We want health care. We want to investigate corruption. And the Republicans were just hurling personal insults. Just hurling personal insults. And these evangelical voters were saying, I'm not going to join Talleriko's church. And then this is the evangelical version of the beer test. But I'd like to have a coffee with the guy. And so everything Paxton was doing was digging his political grave. And he didn't realize it because that echo chamber, that bubble is so tight that said, if you bully and you bully, and you bully, like we do on Twitter, you're going to win. And the American people were over it. Yeah, I mean, I knew that there was something different going on. So I traveled to Rio Grande Valley with Bobby Polito, who was running to replace Demo Monica Delacruz Republican, who was the first Republican to flip Texas 15 in years and years and years and years and years. So I was traveling with him, and I ran into somebody. We were keeping a close eye on whether or not Trump's gains in Hispanic communities were going to stick. And she had given him a shot last time, explicitly on his economic promises. And she was hosting an event for Polito, because she and her husband were like never again. So that was one sign. The other sign is that I come from a family of die hard Republicans. Like Alabama, born and bred, conservative, my dad voted for Trump. And he passed away this year. And my mother was like a kind of spy at her senior community this year, going around telling people, "You can't vote for Ken Paxton. He's the most corrupt man in politics." So I knew when my extremely Republican mother was going undercover for Talarico at a Houston community center and retirement home, yeah. Something weird was going on. I want to comment real quick, just on the voters who are like never, Hispanic voters never again on Trump. I mean, I think what the White House, its political operation, failed to understand was that it's 2024 victory, was in a lot of sense a provisional. It was a bunch of voters saying, we wanted, we remember the 2019 economy. And we want that back. And you were president then. And we're going to give you a chance to bring it back. It was not, no one like, you know, did a blood oath for MAGA, these voters. Like this is a provisional choice. And there's a world in which they understand that, the White House, and they take steps, and they govern in such a way to turn that provisional choice into a durable new majority. That was a real possibility. But by doing the literal opposite, right? If everything you would have done to solidify that majority, I don't think this is just like a one off thing. I think they may have permanently turned off a cohort of voters from backing Republicans. I mean, think about a contrast. So let's talk about it. What I think was a provisional victory in 2021 was the Warnock, Ossoff victory in 2021. It was a product of an enormous amount of upheaval in Georgia. From telling the Republicans it's all telling them, don't bother to go to the polls. Yeah, no confidence in the vote. And, and so us off wins by just the narrowest margin. And then he just gets busy being an adult. Yeah. And he gets busy being a governor for all Georgians. And he gets busy doing the hard work of building a network and building a constituency. In other words, all of the things that the Republicans could have done with their gains in blue areas in 2024. And they did none of it. They did the exact opposite of that. They treated every single new voter as if they're a permanent member of the coalition, even if you are arresting their nephew. Right. Right. And so that the contrast between taking an opportunity, nurturing it, treating, stewarding that opportunity versus just, you know, I'm sorry, I'm going to use a video game reference, Lee Roy Jenkins in it. Old World Warcraft player. 20 year old video game reference of that. Oh, that's kind. That's bad. That's bad. Okay. So before we go too far down this road, so we got to, we got a shift to gears here and say, so while we're up here congratulating ourselves on being genuine, what did we miss? What did we miss in the run up to this? We talked about this infinitely. We did not miss how bad Ken Paxen was. I'll give you that. I think for me, the story of the night is the apparent kind of transformation of the partisan landscape in the deep south. Right. And I don't think it's, I don't think, if you, if you tell me today, if any of you people out there say to me tonight, oh, yeah, I totally thought Scott Colombo is going to become a center of Mississippi. I swear to God, I'll be very upset. No one could have predicted that that Louisiana was what within a point or a point or two. Great. Even Florida. I mean, Angie Nixon, who is a very, came out of nowhere, extraordinarily talented politician in Canada, but is a self-identified member of the Democratic Socialist of America, comes within two points of winning in a state that has become over the past decade like a sink for like America's chuddy of seniors, right? Right. So it's going to be that kind of night. I can see. So this is all to say that there, there are these things happening below the surface. It isn't just candidates, right? It's, it's organizing its activity. It's the fact that black voters in the deep South responded to both the administration and the Supreme Court as if they were and I say they were existential threats to their political freedoms. And what has happened is for the first time, really since the 70s, there's like meaningful partisan competition and large parts of the South. Yeah, I feel like Chuck Schumer, if, if they wind up with Column in Mississippi, should really send Trump a thank you note. Thank you so much for that Supreme Court redistricting mass. Who knew that Trump was the one to turn it blue? I know that. I just, I just want to make one more note about Mississippi, just to emphasize the kind of really historic nature of Columns when, if he, if it clears and it looks like, I think it looks like he's going to win this. It's looking good for him. The last black American black man to serve as a senator from Mississippi was Blanc's Cape Bruce and I believe the 18 AD's reconstruction and he was, he was born a slave, right? Yeah. So the last black man to serve as a senator from Mississippi was born a slave. And that, that, that is, I think an illustration of the difficulty of winning in a place like Mississippi, but also like the truly historic nature of that win. If it, if it clears. Are you the same? Are you look Sherman marched from Austin to Charleston on Tuesday? And that, that's what happened. Leave it to the Southerner to go back. Yeah. And, and so, and that is the most surprising thing for me, but nothing will match. And I think there's a, there's a kind of slowed awning realization that I had that we were looking at something that is once in a lifetime perhaps. Yeah. Historic in the electoral realm. And I'll tell you, there was one news alert I got that solidified it for me, like from the top of my head to the bottom of my toes, I realized what we're dealing with the Texas school board flipped blue. I like, what? What? Yeah. So let's just take a minute and point out that everybody's really excited, understandably about the federal races, the Senate, the House, whatever. But I am a terrible nag about the need to pay attention to stay level races. There is going to be a House in Texas that is by the, that is controlled by the Democrats, just the idea of that is insane. Well, and to think about it like this, I'm going to say something that you might think is nuts, but hang with me here. I think Texas going that blue in hindsight, if you were looking back 10, 15, 20 years will be more significant than the Senate swinging to the Democrats. That's right. No, I think that's right. No, it's true. Because at that point, at that point, all of a sudden, the single foundation of Republican power in the United States is now officially up for grab, think of for grabs. Think about this. There is exactly one statewide elected Republican right now. Ted Cruz is the last man standing. And as, and as Jamel said, back in the green room, he would have been gone too. If he'd been on the ballot, that is mind blowing. It is mind blowing down. I mean, especially when you think about how, how much everybody hates Ted Cruz. In Texas, I mean, like, I did a piece when he ran last time, which was like, everyone hates him. How does he do it? So. But I'm going to say, like, look, I'm, I, I was a Republican until Donald Trump. I am still a conservative. I want to see a conservative renaissance, but I think as an American, it is better for all of us when the South is up for grabs. Yeah. I think that's just an unquestionably true statement. When people have to fight to win races, it is better. Because when you have a situation where there's just total nonstop one party rule, it fosters an enormous amount of corruption. It fosters an enormous amount of extremism. And we can't it. And we can. I mean, and that's one thing that we found was all of a sudden when these senators had to step up, they couldn't do it. I mean, I don't know. Roger Marshall. Roger Marshall, who did not campaign his, his, his closing ad, this is so funny to me. So obviously the big cuts versus Roger Marshall is our publication of times ran this story about how he was apparently sort of people didn't owe him money. He would, like, like, sink legend agencies out of them, like $50 bucks, $100. Terrible story. People very angry about it, contributing to Adam Hamilton, really making ground. Roger Marshall, the last ad he cuts for this election is him defending this. He's like, listen, it's a reasonable thing to do. And his campaigns, his own campaigns, like, you cannot put this out. You, you cannot publish this. And just like the idea that he would have to respond to be fair, though, by the standards of this cycle's Republican ads, that's not half bad. True. Not half bad. At least he didn't have somebody's mom on there. Somebody's somebody is a son. Holy and mentally ill mother. Yes. That's about this. What competent candidate in the state of Mississippi says, well, you can choose another protein. Oh my God. That was the best ad ever. So good. And now I'm just going to say this is I'm not, I'm much more of a lawyer than a political, a legal analyst and a political pundit. But I will tell you this, if you're on the wrong side of the Red Meat divide and the deep South, you're going to lose. There's a good reason why James Salarico basically campaigned with brisket in both hands. And so you just say it was just so amateurish, so much malpractice and that that all signals arrogance driven by arrogance. Erragance. You will take darling Graham and like it. Yeah. Yeah. You know that and it just kept being in it. Paxton, you will, you will vote for Paxton and like it. Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that you saw that at a time and again, and even with like how they would attack their candidates. So like the reason that Bobby Polito wound up a national star was that Monica Delacruz made fun of the fact that he was a Tejana star. And she's like, Oh, well, you should stick to doing Kinseneiras. So what did he do? He started, he started campaigning at Kinseneiras. He held contests to see who he had. I followed him to these things. And it was amazing. Sorry. I don't think I'd read that. That's really stupid. Like, thank you, Jamal. Like, I don't understand what would possess you as like as in that environment to be like, look at this guy. Kinseneiras. He's famous. Yeah. I'll tell you another thing that not enough people are talking about yet. If you look at the exits right now, white evangelicals appears they went for the Republicans by the same percentage, roughly 82% to 16 or 82 to 17 as they did in 2024. But in 2024, 23 or 24% of the electorate was white evangelicals. And this cycle, it was 17%. And so what you saw was a couple of things. There's a couple of explanations here. I honestly think it's because there are fewer evangelicals. Because what I'm seeing are people saying, no, evangelicalism has been so tied to Trump. I'm out. I do not want to say that word and have people assume that I am tied Donald Trump. So I think fewer people are maybe willing to say it. And then you have a lot of others who've been trained taught since birth. You cannot vote for a Democrat. You cannot vote for a Democrat who just said, okay, I'll just stay home. And that was part of the Roy Moore phenomenon in 2017. And so I think that all of a sudden, the two twin foundations of Republican power are the state of Texas and the white evangelical vote. And the state of Texas is now almost navy blue. And a substantial number of white evangelicals are either not evangelicals anymore, or they stayed home. All right. So it looks like we were all kind of gobsmacked by the south doing what the south did. I certainly was. And as you as you might know, all three of us are from the south. You can probably hear it in some of our voice, although I think we sound perfectly neutral. I am told that we we'd give ourselves away. But how durable do we think this can be? I mean, it sounds like you think it can be pretty enduring. I mean, to go back to what I said about the Trump 2024 victory. I think this is an opportunity, right? This is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to begin making long-term investments in these states. Now, some of these places, I do think that those long-term investments can pay dividends very quickly. Mississippi is an interesting place because it's about 37% black. So by percentage, it's the largest, the blackest state in the country, not by absolute numbers. And it's the issue has always been the high level racial polarization in the state. So white voters in the state just don't vote for Democrats. But if what you're seeing is that beginning to change, even just a little bit, like you don't need white voters in Mississippi, to vote like white voters in New York. You need to vote like white voters in Ohio, right? Even the vote like white voters in even Montana. If you can get that, then all of a sudden the state becomes very purple. And I think that's within reach. Louisiana appears to be in kind of a similar vote. But South Carolina is the interesting one. It was shocking to me on Tuesday night when I was looking at the odds on the on the website. And I was like, okay, where's Michigan and the odds? And it's like, you know, 70%. We're South Carolina, 90%, lightly Democratic. Yeah. Yeah. Which, I'll know, it's, I'm going to, I like history of things. Any Andrews is going to hold the seat that before Graham in the 19th century is previously held by John C. Cahoon, one of the worst Americans to ever live. A guy named pitched for Ben Tillman. All right, that's glorious. Another one of the worst Americans to ever live. And then noted Demon's Tromb Thurman. So it's just, it's really, that's a very striking win on that point. But I think just in terms of durability, South Carolina is interesting because it does have, you know, industrial manufacturing aerospace. It has universities. It has all the things that you think would make it more purple. But it hasn't been. But what has changed is like very high black turnout. And the beginning of a kind of educational polarization change in Charleston and Columbia. And so if you can build on that, then South Carolina becomes like a like a light red. So two things about that. One, I think we're overlooking right now, Raphael Warnock, because he showed the way, winning reelection in Georgia, when it was not a blue wave. All right, and then Ossoff comes in and turns it into a tidal wave. And I think, I think it would, you know, it would be who Democrats to sit down with Warnock and Ossoff. It also, I mean, also Stacey Abrams, right? Yeah, I was about to say. So Stacey Abrams 2018 campaign. I think a lot of the durability will depend on how seriously Democrats take this and how much they invest. I mean, talking to Stacey Abrams about this back in the day, she would talk about how people didn't understand how long it takes, how much you have to invest, how you have to be there all the time. You can't just show up a couple months before the election. You really have to take this seriously. And I think that that's what the party maybe this will give them a taste of what's possible. They just kind of given up on it. Right. And the other interesting thing is the size of the Democratic majority is going to be of great help to Southern Democrats. Why? Because they're going to be able to take votes in opposition to sometimes to the rest of the party. And it's not going to be a situation where that's going to then threaten the entire party's legislative agenda. We underestimate how much and how much the Republican Congress was rendered inoperable by maybe six or seven just total cranks. If you have six, if you have a margin as small as the House Republicans had, you, if you have six or seven total cranks, they can cripple the whole enterprise. Well, with a majority like that, you can actually begin to recreate the old Democratic coalitions where it isn't, okay, is the Democratic party going to be more centrist? Is the Democratic party going to be more DSA? Is it going to have a little conservative wing? Well, then at this point, you can say yes, yes, yes. And when it's super close, these factions become almost fatal to any sort of effort to govern effectively. But when you have that kind of margin, this is the greatest gift Southern Democrats ever got. Also just Jeffrey, how came Jeffrey's the presumptive next speaker is going to have a much easier time. I mean, there was much plotting behind the scenes as happens before the election happens. If you think you're going to be taking the majority from DSA members about how they were going to extract concessions and try and force him to do this or they were going to allow the House Freedom Caucus for Republicans. They were going to demand seats on certain committees and they were just going to hold things hostage. That's gone. That's like, that's not an option now. So it's going to have there's already been kind of rumblings about how the different factions of the parties are preparing to play nice together. We'll see how well that sticks. So I'll say, I think you're right that that's not an option. But I do think that the influx of just a lot of new people, right? Like dozens of new people, many of them quite young, right? We're getting almost total generational turnover in both chambers. That might just change the structure of both chambers in interesting ways, right? Because these aren't people, these are people who are coming in who want to do stuff. And for the past, this is for like Congress nerds. I think this is the thing Congress nerds care about a lot about, but regular people understandably do not. For the past 15 years or so, power in both chambers has been concentrated in the leadership. Like the first Trump tax cut in 2017 was basically just written in Paul Ryan's office. This goes back to Gingrich. So this goes back to Gingrich. Gingrich broke the Congress. But it's accelerated with every subsequent Congress. They got worse and worse to the point where ordinary members have nothing to do. And that's fine. I think it's fine for Republicans. And they complain about it viciously. Republicans don't tend to want to do that much. So I think they can kind of get away with it. But but I think all these new democratic members, they're going to want to do stuff. And that's going to require devolution of power away from the leadership. And that's the dynamic I'm kind of paying attention to. Like what does that look like when committee chairs are empowered a little more, when maybe there's a little more research that's done in the subcommittee is all that kind of stuff. They're very nervous about that. Well, we're not going to go down that operation. All strategic rabbit hole. But that does make them very nervous because the whole thing is if you have too much consensus building and too many power centers, whatever. Those cats are hard to hurt on a good day. But that might be a good thing. That might be a good thing. Oh, okay. We will fight about this. David, did you just have anything you wanted to throw in before Jamal and I go, you know, elbows? You know, one thing that I would say is like, look, Democrats won. You have an opportunity to govern and to pass the legislation you want to govern. But you want to pass. Got it. But I'm asking you to also think about some, what are the some of the systemic things that got us here? And can we address those? So how about a clean partisan gerrymandering bill? In other words, a clean bill that says no more partisan gerrymandering. Don't put a don't lard it up with 800 other things. Do it clean. And here's another one. I'm begging from the bottom of my constitutional lawyer heart, can we amend the pardon power? I think this thing, this pardon power, it can break the republic. It can. And this was seen all the way back in the ratification debates. George Mason, George Mason versus James Madison, George Mason says, look what this, look at the scope of this thing. And Madison says, oh, don't, don't worry, we can impeach. That hasn't worked out. So the pardon power. And I do think you can get some bipartisan buy in there. I really do think you can get because everybody's angry at everybody else about pardons. And then with corruption, the top concern, the concern of 90, 90% of voters, the idea that Trump can hand out, mass scale get out of jail free cards is intolerable. It's intolerable. So those are just two off the top of my head. I think though the top of the list for them is going to be a stock trading ban. Oh, yeah. Well, that should, that should even go without saying. They put that in the rules, though. At the Democrats want to put that in the rules for the House. They could do that without having anybody. Did you have a preferred reform that you would like them to work on? I mean, I think, I think I think a, I think a gerrymandering ban makes a lot of sense. I would like to see, you know, Shelby County beholder gathered the voting rights act. And I think the subsequent decade of court jurisprudence of the VRA has been a disaster. And I would just like like to see a new VRA, like a new VRA that kind of, new-- You're always thinking bigger than David and I. New pre-clearance formula, like the whole nine-year-olds just sort of, 'cause part of the court's decisions have been predicated basically on the idea that Congress will never be able to do anything. They think Congress should just do something. I think, you know, as far as like sequencing, I do think that it's very important for Democrats. As much as I'm the like structural change guy, I do think it's very important for Democrats from the jump to just like start like delivering things to the public. So the easy things, the lowest, the lowest hanging fruit, is restore ACA funding, and restore, it's not funding, restore Medicaid funding. Like all the cuts from the big, beautiful bill, just restore it. And that money is immediately flowing, like that I think would be immediately beneficial to the majority and give them space to work on other stuff. And then if affordability was issued number 1a, so number 1 was 90% corruption, then you're at 88, 89% affordability, strip the tariff power from the president. Well, see, these are all things that are part of their first 100, just know what they're saying in the roll line. And you might get Republican buy-in on stripping the tariff power. That's one where you're gonna put right to Republicans, perhaps the most difficult, an incredibly difficult vote, right at the moment where for the first time in 10 years, the greater threat to career, their career is a general election voter, then it is Donald Trump. And so now they've seen what's happened. And a lot of these senators, a lot of these senators are in less, quote, safe seats than the senators from South Carolina and Texas. And Mississippi were in strip that tariff power. Tariffs are deeply, deeply unpopular. They have made things more expensive for people. People are suffering right now. And that it would be a fast, fast way to deal with where people live. - Well, that is one of the things you're seeing with Jeffries talking about his first 100 days, sort of roll out, is that they're looking for things that unify the caucus. And this is a big caucus. It's diverse, it's sprawling, you've got people. But so they have intentionally looked for things on the affordability issue, on the Iran war, on the tariffs that they think that will not cause divisions. And they might, you know, they might get a Republican or two. - Rescue Ukrainian civilians from Russian missiles. - Point, point Stephen Miller on the rack. (audience laughs) Point him on there. (audience applauds) - Which does bring up the accountability thing and we all assume, like the top of the to-do list for any kind of investigation is Pete Hegseth. Yes, we think that that's it. - Well, I mean, it's Hegseth is like the lowest hanging fruit. Like he's a bad at his job. - It's so many ways. - Very. (audience laughs) - Bad at his job. - Family show, family show. - Her personally unpleasant. And like, has not done himself any favors. And I do think, you know, Thomas Macias had an impeachment resolution. I think there might, there's a chance for a democratic-led impeachment of Hegseth and the next Congress. - Yeah, the next Congress. - And I do think you would get 11 Republicans to vote for removal. - I think of that with Hegseth and Blanche. And the reason why I signal out the Pentagon and the DOJ, these are the two executive agencies that we most depend on to exercise independent judgment to be free of top to bottom. Of course, a president gets to set policy priorities for DOJ and of course, for the Pentagon. Of course, for the United States military. But it is imperative to our republic that the law enforcement agency is not a politicized, sick of anti-entity that prosecutes political opponents and it's imperative for our national security that the military is not a political military. You know, I was talking to some of the flag officers, the generals and admirals who were fired by Hegseth. And I want this to be very clear. People don't recognize this. They were fired for following orders. They did not create the DEI programs that they were fired for. That was a political priority of the Biden administration. They were fired for implementing the orders of their civilian bosses. If you create that as a pattern in the military, you gut the military, you gut it. Because what's next is the next Democratic president to come in and fire everyone who followed Pete Hegseth's orders. Well, then each time, no, bad idea, bad idea. Now, if they followed a plainly illegal order, do that. Like, that's the law. But if you're going to fire officers for following the orders of this civilian commander in chief, you are destroying our military. And so these two men, I think they should be impeached, convicted, and barred forever from serving in federal office. And I think that is one of the only ways that we can start sending a message now that these agencies have obligations to the Constitution and the American people, not just a Donald Trump. No, I'm just going to say real quick, just this very short. I think this is also worth doing because it adds to this sort of showing the public that you're doing things, right? Like, it's a very easy thing to-- Hey, we fired this guy. And it's an immediate thing to the public. We have accomplished something. OK, so as much as I would like to spend hours and hours talking about the downfall of Pete Hegseth and Todd Glamage, perhaps, at this point now, we have to look to the future of the Republican Party. The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day they've had. And what that means and what the results are in their response. And I want to just, for giggles, start with the vice president's response to this monumental development. Which is, yeah, it's just the war. That's it. That's all. And he didn't like the war, so you can't blame him for it, right? So what do you make of this? And where do you think that's going to land him? Where is this going, David? I feel we should start with you. I think the second biggest loser of the night beside Donald Trump was JD Vance. I think that when you're looking at a man-- this is Cope. This is Absolute Cope, one of the most hilarious things that I read was this across of Maga Twitter. We lost the midterms because of Neocons. And I'm like, you spent 10 years purging every last Neocon. You know, five Neocons cost them. Notably, one of the most famous Neocons alive Bill Crystal is like a resist live now. Right, exactly. Liz Cheney. This is massive Cope. When the reality was, if you look at the approval ratings, they were plummeting before the Iran War. They were absolutely-- it was the ice crackdowns. It was tariffs. It was all of the chaos of just the Donald Trump persona. Everything was going down, down, down. And I would say a defeat of this magnitude is about the only thing at this point, after 10 years of Trump. And it wasn't just 10 years of Trump. It was 10 years of building a cult around the man-- a level of zeal and dedication that I never saw around Ronald Reagan. I certainly never saw it around HW Bush. He only had one term. Never saw it around W. Bush. Never saw that cult of personality. So the effort to rebuild the Republican Party was always going to be extraordinarily difficult because of that cultish nature around Trump and Maga. But now I'm already beginning to see a lot of voices who were quieter, a lot of people who had been-- I frankly cowed and intimidated-- are now beginning to say to those who are going to that old, deeply insulting playbook, that old personal attack, vicious cruelty, stop it. Stop it. You're like Biff from back to the future. We're sick of it. And so I think that that's the sheer extent of the defeat is the, at this point, 10 years in, is the only thing that actually gives me hope for green shoots of renewal. Because the bottom line, guys, I know there's probably only about 49% of you are Republican in here. But you can raise your hand a few times. But we really do need two good functioning parties. In a two-party democracy, you have to have two good functioning parties. Because what that ends up happening is the country then becomes inherently dangerous and unstable in the absence of that. I'm reminded of what Susan Eisenhower's granddaughter told me about his decision to become a Republican. And this is a really interesting-- and I think a story that demonstrates the wisdom of the need of two healthy parties. He was probably more dispositionally Republican than not. But it really was. There was a real competition for him. And NATO, though, this is-- NATO was already being condemned by the isolationist Republicans. There was already the isolationism that arose after World War I was coming up after World War II. And Eisenhower had the wisdom and the foresight to realize this system of international security will only work if both parties buy in. And he knew the Republicans wanted him, and he was pretty sure he would win the presidency. And what did that do? That set in sort of not granite, obviously, because NATO is under question now. But it set in a softer form of stone for decades that was indispensable to the health and welfare and well-being and the peace and prosperity of this country. And so I think that a wipe out of this kind is the-- now, I'm not somebody-- I totally agree, Reagan Republicanism is not coming back. That was something for a different time in American history. But you can have a conservatism that focuses on civil liberties, of focuses on individual liberty, that focuses on economic freedom, that focuses on character and integrity that is, that does have and can adapt to the current moment. And, you know, I'm going to be writing about this in the future, what could it possibly look like? But for right now, I would say only a wipe out of this level could lead to a potential renaissance. Otherwise, it's just like sort of throwing, trying to throw mattresses into the side of the Titanic. You have to, this, you had to have a destruction before there was a renewal. And I hate to say that, I hate that it came to this. I hate it. But I think at this point, one of the reasons why I, what I felt a lightness is because for the first time in a decade, I felt hope. I actually felt hope that we could have the Republican Party being a party of decency and character and thoughtfulness, and one in, you know, in my preference that really centers around the preservation of the American Constitution and the principles of our founding. Jamal, did you? Yeah. I mean, I'll say, you know, Eisenhower came after four FDR terms and the Truman terms. So if it takes that long to get a responsible Republican Party back, fine by me, you know. You're good. You're good with that. I'll just note, I do think that the next two years, like this process, when it begins, it will begin after 2028, right? Because I think the next two years-- You think it has to be gone. I think Trump actually has to be gone, has to be out of power. I agree with that. I think that Vance, who desperately wants to be president, is still going to be trying to find someone to do a synthesis. I do think that although there are people who immediately kind of, it's clear through their hats into the ring on Wednesday, Rod DeSantis, gave its press conference, you know, Chris Christie went after Vance on television. You're seeing people begin to sort of like kind of consider their position here? I do think that 28 is probably going to be a Republican White House. Okay. I need to talk about this for a minute. So like, nobody has spent more time slapping Donald Trump than we have over the past decade. But he is a generational talent in terms of appealing to kind of tuned out political people. If you're not paying attention to politics, he's your guy. And so he built this unorthodox coalition that has now been blown apart. So young men are gone, Latinos, and the black constituency that he had pulled together are gone. And the Republican Party has just four years now been whatever he says it is. So the coalition's gone. He's going to be gone. Who's going to do that? Who's going to be able to build their own coalition? And I'll tell you who's not going to be able to do it. Ron DeSantis. No, DeSantis. JD Vance, people who can order a donut without pissing off people in the room. I don't think this coalition gets rebuilt in two years. I don't think, I just don't think that I don't think there's a clear way out because the depth of the losses this week also means it sort of a bench has been wiped out. You know, Brian Kemp is probably like a long way Nikki Haley. Yeah. Probably the two best general election candidates the Republicans have. They can never get through a primary. And importantly, Kemp, he just a lot, Georgia is deep blue, right? And so that's he doesn't have that to sell to a Republican. I was talking to the Georgia operatives and strategists. They were super hoping this new governor candidate was going to help them figure out what to do beyond Trump because Kemp was their guy for years. And everybody was he's the boy who live, you challenge Trump and you survive. And that. So what do you do now? I just had Brian Kemp because of conservatives like me. If we're looking at the landscape, Brian Kemp is the number one name that we come up with for a couple of reasons. One, in a lot of ways, he governed Georgia in a way that was not, he was not given to ideological extremes. He was very interested in economic development. And he was very interested in and the processing, focusing like a laser, not on culture war, but on the prosperity of the state of Georgia. And so when you have that, I think that's your formula going forward where you're not going to be Mr. Culture War striding onto the string scene. But you, you can walk onto the scene and you can say, here are how conservative ideas can make you better able to buy a house. Here is how conservative ideas will bring more jobs. That is, I think that's because people at this point in American history and you guys feel it, you guys know it. There is just a sense of deep seated despair and pessimism. I was, I was, I teach at a Christian college in Nashville and there's this, you know, so many wonderful young Christian kids there. And I hear again and again, I don't think I'll be able to buy a house. And that just grieves me. You know, you think about my own children and our neighborhood in Nashville. My own children could not, after they graduate, even several years after they graduate from college, could not possibly buy a house. And it's just Nashville for crying out loud, although it's kind of trendy now. But you got to have a tattoo sleeve to move to Nashville, though, Michelle. That's, it's amazing. I got you to. But so I do think that, say, a Brian Kemp figure or people like that have an opportunity in the future, I don't know how they break through in 2028. Yeah, yeah, I, yeah. All right, so we're sadly running sort of time on this. So I want you to do this. Not as a lighting round, but I need you to like, give me your top line thought on Trump himself for the next two years. What are you expecting? Okay, you a lightening round. Okay, really quickly, very quickly. Obviously, I thought he was going to respond to losing with like, you know, it's rigged. It's fraud. No, he was like, you know what? Sometimes you lose. Sometimes sometimes sometimes he was so demoralized. And I think actually that, that is the dynamic. But he's just not going to want to be there anymore. If it's possible, we're going to hear more about the ballroom. Like I, oh my god, I live in Washington every time I cross the bridge to go to the airport. I'm blinded by the newly gilded statues. They are a traffic hazard. I just need him to stop the one's by the link of moral. Oh, they're awful. It's just I mean, I don't think there's much speculation. What are we going to get for the next two years more Donald Trump? And we know exactly what that is. And that's one of the reasons why, you know, look, he still has to deal with what's going on in the Persian Gulf. That this, he is the commander chief. Okay, sorry. I'm stopping. That's enough. All right, sorry. All right. Before we go to Q and I, it is time for my favorite part of the show recommendations. Who wants to go first? I'll go first. I was joking with Michelle earlier that she asked me if I was going to have a highbrow or lowbrow. I knew I knew I didn't really have to. And I said highbrow. Okay. Yeah. After thinking about it for a moment. And then I realized that this is like a bit of a bit like I'm doing a bit to an extent, but lean in. I'm going to lean into it. A buddy of mine teaches a really interesting class at UVA. And he had me come in to talk about a movie that I love. And I've done this a couple of times. We end up watching this movie every year. It is the movie Deton about the French Revolutionary. Oh, sweet. Jesus. It's a, I can never pronounce the name of the director. So I'm not going to attend. But it's a Polish film, Polish French production that was released in '84 on kind of the anniversary of the French Revolution. There's a funny story about this. The mids or non-government in France provided money for the production because they were thinking it was going to be kind of a hage graphic film. It turns out it is a somewhat dour and jaded view of human nature kind of film. And the French hated it. They're like, this is the worst thing it's ever been made. But it's a wonderful movie, stars. It stars noted scumbag, Gerard Depardieu. As you're really selling it hard, by the way. As the titular character. But it's really, it's a movie about political ambition. It's a movie about like revolutionary passions. It's a movie about the way those things can inter do interfere with like basic human connection. I find it immensely compelling film and I would highly recommend it. David, please do your low-brow for me. I got you. Okay. I got you. Hook me up. But I'm, I mean, I bet this is going to be controversial in this room because I'm guessing there might be a few Lord of the Rings nerds in here just maybe one or two. Yeah, you have my axe. Go ahead. Okay. The next season of Rings of Powers coming on Amazon. And I am a giant fan of it. Now, don't boom me token nerds because look, we all know this, it covers the second age of middle earth. We all know that's 3,441 years. So if you're going to be covering 3,441 years of history in like five-season arc, you're going to have to compress. It's okay. It's okay. But it is, it is a beautiful show. The, I love the portrayal of, gosh, I'm just, I'm, I'm just the mega nerd. I love the portrayal of younger Galadriel. She's, oh, you know, she's a few thousand years younger than she was in the movies where she's more impulsive. Man. us, as Tolkien said, but anyway, it's really fascinating and what's phenomenal about it is that in this will to power age, this Machiavellian will to power trumpest age, it is very in keeping with the Tolkien spirit that you do not defeat evil with might. You defeat evil with virtue, and I thought, and that is shot through the show, it's really well done. I'm a huge fan, don't hate me, but I'm going to be binging the heck out of it as soon as it starts. Okay, fair enough. So it falls to me to tell you what to do this weekend, which is, as it happens tomorrow a night, Wild Horse 9 is opening, Martin McDonough's new film, I don't know if you've seen the reports from the film festivals, it is basically John Malkovich in what may be the role of his lifetime, Sam Rockwell, as two CIA agents in 1973, right around the time of the Chilean coup, who get mysteriously dispatched from Santiago to Easter Island for a weekend, and it looks like it's going to be the most uproarious comedy you've ever seen, but then it suddenly turns into, because Malkovich is a genius, like this really kind of dark, sad, and also hilarious meditation on death, male friendship, with a lot of big heads as the ads keep pointing out. So I think it opens tomorrow, I highly recommend, got to see an advance screening, and I'm going to go, I'm going to go again this weekend because I just can't get enough of it. So there you have it, we have provided you with your weekend entertainment, and a lot of binging opportunities, and with that we will basically see the field now, thank you, thank you very much guys, it's always a pleasure, and we're going to turn to your questions. So I've got a stack full here, if I screw anything up, you just stand up and yell, and there's also more floating around, so I don't know what we're supposed to, somebody can handle that, but I'm going to start out with an easy one. What can we reasonably expect in terms of real policy wins for the DEMs, when Trump still has veto, and does that put the party in a tough spot for 20, 28? Okay, Mr. Glass is half full, you go. Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's first, it's sort of reasonable policy wins. I do think because budgets will have to be passed, right? Like restoring funding from stuff is I think 100% can happen. I think you're not going to get any like, you know, dismantling a vice, but like you could probably take back all the money, all the, that $180 billion they gave to ICE and the big, beautiful bill, you could call that back and direct it towards other stuff. That's 100% plausible. I think they're going to do it. And then obviously the investigative stuff does not require any kind of individual signature. Beyond that, I do think, you know, unless Trump decides he wants to sign bills, I just think it's going to be vetoes, but that's not, I think, a disadvantage, right? If you spend the next Congress, you force those Republican votes, you pass popular legislation that the president vetoes, then you can say in the next election year, listen, if you give us Washington, all this stuff, the president veto, we just need a signature. We can pass that. So I think, I think that's actually the situation that they're in where they can do some lower hanging fruit pretty easily, investigations, and then basically build out the agenda for the Congress after is ideal. I mean, look, it's still going to be the case that in two years, voters are going to hold Trump responsible primarily for the state of the country. I mean, that's, you know, in '06, Democrats have a big blue wave, you know, eight. It wasn't an election over shared responsibility, right? It was over, it was a referendum on Bush. It will be a referendum on Trump, I think, in 2028. Are there, and I totally agree with Jamel, I mean, the smart thing is to pass popular policies and make Trump veto. But are there things that could survive a veto? And I'm going to pick three areas that I think there's maybe some hope, tariffs. There's one area where you could come in and you could say, we walked in the door and I think you could make, I'm not going to say it's veto-proof majority, but I think you're going to get some Republicans to join you on that. No question. Number two, AI, there is a huge amount. Trump right now is basically out on an island with AI, SI, super intelligence, it's the best, whatever. He's out on this island. This is something that Republicans and Democrats alike. If Republicans care at all, the current Republicans in Washington care at all about what their constituency is concerned about, AI, and then the last one is, I actually think that we could start to see some related in the tech world, social media, some, you know, we just had a situation where Florida had a social media ban that was for young teens and it was actually upheld by the conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. So that's an area where I think you're talking about issues, affordability, AI, which is very much linked in people's anxiety about the future, social media and big tech, all of these are areas where there is overwhelming demand for governmental action, prudent governmental action. So I think if well-drafted statutes could potentially get some veto-proof majorities and then also, I think we could get a pardon amendment out of this Congress. I do think a ban on political gerrymandering is possible. I do think these things are possible, but I think Jamel's right in the end is the Democrats, the best thing that they can do is pass popular legislation and then make Donald Trump own the veto and make the GOP own the veto. Yeah, I'm very sorry. I want you all to know that I did have a huge block of stuff on AI and data centers down here. I'm not sure about other things, but I know we had so many races where that was key. Hinooso was running in the governor's race in Texas, completely pushing a moratorium on it, Sherrod Brown in Ohio was given a huge boost with the data center stuff. It's been a huge issue. I think it's going to follow a lot to the governors with the data centers. Congress can try to deal with these things. But this is again why I think those state races are important because a lot of that's going to come out. Can I interject something here? Please do. There's also a giant moral dimension to AI and I think you could have a combination. There's a combination of economic concerns and moral concerns and you could have a union here. This is where you could have, this is where Pope Leo is such an important figure, like he has articulated a moral vision for the primacy of humanity. And the one thing we absolutely cannot let happen, watch this like a hawk, y'all. We cannot let the AI super companies write legislation that exempts them from liability for what their AI agents do. There you go. There's your platform. Okay. So will the tight race in Mississippi now make Americans understand the power of a single vote? And before you guys jump in, I just want to say please, I hope so. I actually talked to people who I, I, my family lived in Mississippi for a while. No people in Mississippi. And we were driving home. My friends and I were driving home the point that if they had not turned out to vote, it actually would have made a difference. So I, I'm constantly hectoring people in my friends. Like it doesn't matter. It's just one vote or whatever. No, everybody's going to do this. Yeah. I mean, the answer is no, it's not just because I'm just, so it's just that it's, you know, it's hard. There's, I think there's actually a lot of like, a lot of reasons why people don't vote and it's sort of hard to overcome them and people begin to try to rationalize their decisions. And it's just even when you can point to examples, you know, 10 years ago in Virginia, right? There's the, the House of Delegates race that was taught, right? Like it, it was an exact tie and they had to decide it with a coin flip, which is how I decide disputes with my children, actually. And that race determined control of the House of Delegates. So like every vote literally matter. I don't have to remember Florida in 2000, actually. So it's not good. No, no amount of evidence that that is the case. I think we'll get, we'll persuade everyone that the vote matters. But what I will say is that so much of, so much of politics, so much of these things are psychological, right? Like one of the reasons why Democrats were turning out in Deep South States, they didn't think there was any reason to, right? They didn't think that it was hopeless. The fact that it is possible to flip these, these seats, so that's not a no, it's a provisional no, right? A provisional no. The fact that it is possible, at the very least, I think it will, it will create kind of a virtuous cycle where it's like, no, really, we almost did this. It's worth doing it. So Jamel's a provisional yes, actually. I mean, I just think the lesson of Mississippi and South Carolina and before that, Georgia in 2020 and now Texas, there's no such thing as a lost cause. And so one of the things that has really set back our politics is our political parties for a long time just wrote off big parts of the country and they just didn't even try. And there's a lot of downstream negative effects of that, to be honest, one of the downstream negative effects is dehumanization. We just start to treat all of those people who live in that state as they're the other. They're just something different and wrong and bad from who we are. And then you realize, well, wait, no, wait a minute. There's actually a lot of people, even in these bubble states that are, haven't gone blue and then, you know, watch out Democrats or may come in time when states have that haven't gone red for a while, actually start to flip. And this sort of idea that we write off part of the country, so we don't even try. It dehumanizes us, it separates us. And I would say that that is the lesson of Mississippi, is an irony, no lost cause. - Yeah, right. - Oh, okay, well, what can Democrats do to hold on to the young voters who flipped? Do you want to start this one off? - Yeah, I mean, I think that's really given the question of delivering on concrete things. I mean, especially when it comes to sort of like, not just affordability, but a sense that there is a future that you can buy a home, build a family, that sort of thing. I do think that when you look at kind of the larger issue space that younger voters were engaged with, it's not just affordability, it's a sense, it's corruption, right? It's a sense that people and politics are primarily interested in their own pocketbooks. It's American support for the Israeli government, is a big issue for young voters. - It surprises me because usually the kind of rule of thumb is that Americans and young people in ticker just don't pay attention to foreign policy. So this has been a fascinating show. - I mean, the issue is that for several years, people were watching bombs being dropped on Gaza on their phones. - Social media. - They were seeing, they were seeing a first hand, this awful thing, and it has shaped their politics in profound ways. And so I do think that one of the things Democratic and I have to figure, I mean, this is, this is an area of conflict in the Democratic coalition. Like, what is the Democratic party to relationship to American support for Israel? - All right, we're running. I'm going to give you a different question. Just pause. So the midterm cycle saw the reversal of young men's conservative leanings, a little bit. Well, the future of the Republican party continue to play into online conspiracy in audiology. - Well, I mean, it might, because one of the things that I said was earlier, there's zero indication amongst that sort of manosphere side of the Republican party online that there's anything that they've learned. Like, not at all. Like, we didn't Trump advance hard enough as their takeaway from all of this. And so, is there anything to learn? I think they will learn if the losses continue. And I think there's some learning that can continue right now. But here's the thing, they decided to try to inspire young men with ambition, greed, and brutality. That's what they tried to inspire young men with ambition, greed, and brutality. Look, I got a son, you know, I served in the military, we ran a ton of young men. That is some slice of young men, like, yeah, they're all in on an Andrew Tate. They're all in on the Russell brand who is just ironically enough convicted of rape, I believe, today. And he was a manosphere influencer for a brief period on the right. And, but I'm around enough young men to know that what actually inspires them is they want to be good. They want to be shown a way to be a good man. Not just to be a strong man, not just to be a wealthy man. They want to be known as a good man. And I think that that is where the Republican Party dropped the ball in the most grotesque way. And I remember, you could see this coming. I don't know if you guys watched any part of the Republican National Convention in 2024, but they had "Man Night." And it was, and, but-- - "Man Night." - Who was featured in "Man Night," okay? Well, you had Dana White, the president of UFC, who was seen on camera, hitting his wife. You had Hulk Hogan, who, now, I just take a backseat to no one and loving the Hulkster back in the '80s. I saw him wrestle Andre the giant live in Reparina. It was glorious. But the Hulkster in his life is not a role model for young men. And then the entertainment was Kid Rock. Again, this is not a role model for young men. And then it whole night was capped off by Donald Trump. And that was the vision of masculinity. Right there was the vision of masculinity. And I could see it. I could see it as obvious as the day as long. It was so morally and spiritually bankrupt. It was not going to last. And I think it might be, I could be wrong about this, but I think the group of people who switched the hardest left of all of the demographics was young white men. - Okay, so last question of the night. I just want to assure everyone out there, just doesn't end tonight because we're already into 2028 cycle. So you got to keep it short. I don't need to know your reasons why. Who are you feeling solid about going into 2028 as kind of a potential standard bearer? You each take a team. - I'll do Democrats. I'll say three names. - Okay. - John Assoff. - Yep. - AOC, J.B. Pritzker. - What? (audience laughing) - Shut the front door. - You told me I can't give explanations. - Fine. - If I have a very good explanation for Pritzker, if you want to hear it. - No, okay, fine. All right, but if you're here all night, don't blame me. - Pritzker spent this election cycle spreading the money around. Spreading the money around to every race you could find. And that's the kind of thing you do when you're trying to build good will. And so it isn't that he is out front. It isn't that he is the most charismatic guy, but he is the guy who's thinking strategically about who do I need to make happy to get in the doors? - And the guy who just dropped 80 pounds. - And he's looking, he's looking, you know, slim, these days. - Looking spelt, David? - So on the Republicans' side, I think I would be surprised at this point if Rubio and Vance don't run. So then the question is going to be, is there going to be anyone from outside the administration who challenges them? And I think there is going to be, and I think it's going to be a desantis, and I think Ted Cruz is going to try again. (audience laughing) Now the question is, now the interesting thing is Ted Cruz will probably, ironically enough, mount the most aggressive attack on Trumpism, which is going to sound counterintuitive, but mark my words if he runs, I think he'll mount the most aggressive attack. None of those people are my hope for the renewed Republican Party. (audience laughing) And my view of the renewed Republican Party will come out of a governor. It will probably happen in 2032. It could be a Brian Kemp. I don't know-- - Chris Anunu? - I'm sorry. - Chris Anunu? - Possibly, one in full disclosure, my wife worked on his book, but Spencer Cox, have you taught him? - I knew you were going to say it. - You knew I was going to say it. - You knew it. - But in my view, one of the interesting things about the Republican Party is that it's shown it can really zig and zag. So you go from a Richard Nixon, and then from my perspective, that was a massive zag to Reagan. You go from Bush, I think it's a massive zag to Trump. The party can change, and I do think a thermostatic reaction within Republican politics to the cruelty of the Trump era, I do not think, and I hope and pray that the thermostatic reaction is a cruelty of Trump will be a renewal and a renaissance of character in virtue in the Republican Party. - Okay. (audience applauding) I reserve the moderators right to skip any question. And so I'm just gonna duck that one 'cause I don't play that game this early, but. - This has been fantastic. Thank you all so much, David and Jamel. So much fun to play as well. - Oh, of course, thank you. (audience applauding) - Thank you to everybody in the room for coming out. Thank you to the people watching online. Of course, thank you again to the Brooklyn Public Library for having us and remember, if you wanna see more of these guys and you know you do, you need to go to subscribe to our YouTube channel, which is the opinions podcast. With that, we're landing this plane. Everybody have a great night. - Have a great night. (audience applauding) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)