Trump’s NEW Chief Of Staff OFF THE RAILS In First Day On The Job

Brian's been a couple of days since the midterm elections. I think we did pretty well, right? I would say, yeah. Yeah, well, okay. Eaked out of victory. JD Vance is tweeting out op-ed, length, screeds, blaming Iran. Trump is showing us, though, that he's going to internalize these results. He's going to course correct. He's going to be a better man and a better president by naming Stephen Miller as chief of staff. That ought to do it. If there's one way that we can really know Trump internalize these results and has learned his lesson, it is by giving a promotion to the guy responsible for all of the policies that Americans just turned out to condemn. It's Miller time, baby. Yeah, they're doubling down on ice raids and deportations and immigration. It seems like, given, you know, Pete Hegseth has tweeted about Stephen Miller like seven times since he was named chief of staff after they pushed out Suzy Wiles, it seems like this will probably mean a continuation of the Iran war. I mean, I know JD Vance blamed the Iran war for the midterm results. I know he would like to cut some sort of deal, but Hegseth sure doesn't seem to want to. So it's worth asking here. Does the Trump administration go all-in on this and just say, look, we're truly in ducks. We have nothing to lose by throwing ourselves fully into this. Or do they say this was so unpopular? Everybody just rebuked this from Texas to Kansas to Maine and everywhere in between. Let's preserve some modicum of viability for our party moving forward, because, you know, whatever we do right now is going to be basically an abatross around the next of JD Vance and Marco Rubio and any other administration or Trump-aligned figure who wants to run in 2028. Yeah, it's terrible. They are the lamest ducks. You would think like in a just world, Pete Hegseth is the first guy you fire. Now, it does seem like Trump keeps defending him. Of course, though, Trump can change his mind at any time and just don't fire you the next day, right? There does seem to be a lot of people taking shots at Pete Hegseth on background in the press. Some members of Congress are calling for him to go. But like, I wonder, would Trump view that as admitting defeat or like suggesting that he did the wrong thing? Because Trump said, yeah, that the run war was partly to blame for the result. But then he said, but I do it all over again. Yeah. Is the right thing to do. I mean, look, will Trump have any allegiance to anybody? No. He hasn't ever shown allegiance to anybody. Everybody is always dispensable from from Marjorie Telegrain to Kayleigh McEnany to Rex Tillerson to to Michael Cohen to George Papadopoulos Gordon Saunland. I mean, I broke that name. Gordon Saunland, the EU ambassador. Yeah. And a long time donor. Yeah. Papadopoulos. That's another good one. George Papadopoulos. So, so he will, he will discard anybody the moment they lose their use for this. But I think what's so interesting about this effort by the broader ecosystem on the right to pin the blame on Pete Hegseth. I think James Comer was like, Oh, yeah, we're going to have to really look into Pete Hegseth here. Pete Hegseth is like one is just one cog in this machine that you're all part of. For the last two years, there hasn't been a single Republican except for Thomas Massey, who's now excommunicated from the movement, a single Republican who pushed back on anything. And now there's there they're trying to have their come their pretend come to Jesus moment where they pretend that that that Pete Hegseth is responsible with the thing that they all allowed to happen. Yes, I know it's it's been funny watching like these guys still don't have the guts to blame Trump directly. Like I saw some kind of influencer types conservative influencers, members of Congress being like whoever decided to send Trump to a construction site on election day should be fired. It's like he decided, but shmon old shmump. I think it was who made that final decision. I want to say you're the longer your hair gets. It's a little more hexetian, which is a problem. I hear the job might be might be open soon. Great hair. You're from central casting. I want to ask you about redistricting. You've been on this beat for a long time. Trump's his gerrymandor didn't turn into a dummy mandor, which means you lose seats because of the maps you changed, but certainly they didn't benefit in the way they wanted to in large part because Democrats fought back Gavin Newsom redistricted in California. We could go down the list. But I saw something really interesting the other day, which is there was a proposed map in Indiana. If Republicans had pushed that map through and passed it, Democrats would have either won 90 or eight to one in Indiana. Does that make you rethink redistricting at all? Because, look, by the way, the same thing would have happened in South Carolina, not to that extent, but it would have they would have flipped a few more seats had they actually gone through with that gerrymandor. And it's interesting because Trump then tried to primary all of these Indiana Republicans. He should be sending these guys flowers, you know, they were the only people that prevented him from losing a raft of other seats in that state and issuing even more of a humiliation. I also wouldn't go so far as to say that it wasn't exactly a dummy mandor because North Carolina Republicans tried to relegate Democrats to just three seats out of the 14 in that state. And now it looks like Republicans are going to be the ones to have only four seats in that state. The results aren't final yet, but it's looking like Democrats will certainly take more seats, but it's probably going to be in the ballpark of nine. And they tried to draw them so thin that they would only get three. So that is a little bit of a backfire in North Carolina. But am I rethinking the whole process? No, I still think that we need national legislation banning gerrymandering nationwide. And the reason is because you're not always going to be fixed. You're not always going to be in a D+15 environment. And sure, while there wasn't exactly a dummy mandor in Texas or a dummy mandor in a lot of these other states, it's still going to be a precarious situation when we're in 2028 or 2030 or 2032. And if we're in a more Republican environment, those are still gerrymandered seats. So we do need an actual solution. Luckily, in this cycle, because they were drawn so thin, it made it that much more difficult for Republicans to win. But I don't think it's a permanent solution. Liberal tiers is brought to you by PDS debt. If you ever feel like you're working too hard, but are still losing money every month, PDS debt can help. They can reduce up to half of what you owe on credit cards, personal loans, and medical bills. And it starts with a free 30-second assessment at PDS debt.com/rank. Pazave miracle listeners who enroll save an average of $29,801. So people are actually doing something about their debt instead of just treading water. You can stop juggling multiple payments and roll them into one lower monthly payment with saving, starting the day you complete the free 30-second assessment. Checking your options is fast, free, and won't impact your credit. And there's no minimum credit score required. If you're carrying a balance in your credit cards, it's costing you money every single day. PDS debt is the industry's top-rated company with thousands of five-star reviews and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. Visit PDS debt.com/rank to get started. Everyone has had that experience when you get the credit card bill and it's way bigger than you thought where you overdraw your bank account and you see fee after fee after fee charts and you just wonder yourself, when am I ever going to pay this down and how am I ever going to get out of debt? PDS debt can help you build a plan that can get you back on your feet and to your financial freedom. Get your free 30-second personalized assessment today at PDS debt.com/rank. That's PDS debt.com/rank. Yeah, I don't think it's a permanent solution either. I don't know what the right one is. The other thing you're seeing a lot of people talk about in progressive circles is whether we should sort of de facto get rid of the electoral college. The process is basically a bunch of states come together, states that have an equivalent of 270 electoral votes and they all decide that the winner of the popular vote will get all of their electoral votes, thus essentially throwing the election to the winner of the popular vote. I hate the electoral college. I can't decide if I like this idea. Where are you on it? I love this idea. I am like the biggest national popular vote interstate compact stand you will ever find. Right now the compact as it stands, I believe is 222 votes. But now we've got trifectas in Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. If you add those 63 electoral votes to the existing 222, then I think we're in the 283 ballpark, which is above 270. So we just got to lean on these governors, lean on these state legislatures and look, it is not unreasonable in a democracy to think that one person equals one vote and that everybody's vote should count the same. Not more because you live in Arizona or Nevada than somebody who lives in California. So I think that the time has come. We can make it happen. We just have to show some political will here. The only question mark. Well, there are two. It'll be litigated because Republicans won't want this to happen. And the second thing is think about the states that right now benefit from that undue disproportionate attention money because they're battleground states. All of those states I just named, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada are all those battleground states. And that's the little ring that all of these presidential candidates bounce around in between. And so if they decide to basically surrender their disproportionate influence in deference to the broader environment, they're not going to have candidates that are just pouring money and pouring time and energy and attention into that state. Yeah, prokial politics could play a part of this. Let me tell you what I love. That jacket on you. That thing is great looking. First of all, I just want to get that out there. It's from Thursday. What's that? It's from Thursday. Oh, one of your sponsors. No free ads. I'm just going to say, I'm going to don't take it out because I never said it to them. Check out Brian's page. Second, you know what I love about this election is so many of our elections feel small and like it's a foregone conclusion. Yeah. And we know what like states are, you know, in play and we just battle it out in a few battlegrounds and the rest of us who live elsewhere feel like our votes don't matter. Our opinions don't matter. And this election just like scrambled everything. you know, like Democrats can win in South Carolina. We can win in Mississippi. We can win in these Trump plus 16 districts. It just, it feels like, so fresh and so hopeful. And then we're also welcoming in this entirely new crop of legislators. Like I was talking to the Heather Working Families Party yesterday. They've got like, Darlisa, they've got, Brian point deck, like those motley, diverse crew of people. And it's like, it's, you know, it's a huge opportunity. Of course, we could fuck it up. But like, it's an opportunity to just showcase a like an entirely different look of the Democratic party and about politics to the world and to young people in particular. And I'll end on this to that exact point. I think that something that's really exciting is not just the fact that we're going to have state legislatures and trifectas and the House and the Senate. You got it. I'm not just kidding. But the really exciting thing is like, we were facing such an existential risk heading into 2030 with the post census reapportionment. California is a bunch of seats. Texas is going to get those seats. And it got to the point where it was like, we'd have to win the entire blue wall. We'd have to win like mains first congressional district. I mean, it was getting to that. - Math was tight. - Yeah, the math was really tight. But now, now all of these other states where Democrats have won and elected great governors and senators like Rob Sand and James Teleriko and Gina Hosa and on and on, they're going to have exposure to Democrats beyond the caricature that's been drawn for them on Fox News. And that opens up the map in 2030 and beyond in such a big way. Because those people, hopefully, they deliver. And then that means that moving forward, they say, oh, these guys aren't so scary like we've been told for our entire lives. - Freakin' Libs. Well, it's a bright new day here at Washington D.C. - Great full to be living out with you here at Crooked County. - Great to see you. Let's do it again soon. - Subscribe.