Trump's Wars Are Bankrupting America

(upbeat music) - Welcome to Pots day of America, I'm Don Faber. - I'm Dan Feifer. - On today's show, we got some fresh new polling that shows Trump's forever wars, dragging down his party and boosting Democrats. We'll also talk about the president's spirited defensive data centers and launching Saudi Arabia's nuclear program. Congratulations. As well as all the drama over which states will go first in the 2028 presidential primary calendar, which the DNC is debating as we speak. Then Dan talks to our pal and former Obama colleague, Jennifer Paul Mary, who's out with a new series co-produced by your friends here at Crooked about the politics of the South. All right, with just about a hundred days left until the midterms, Trump is ramping up the two forever wars he started that are now bankrupting the country, his war with Iran and his trade war with everyone. He told Axios this morning, quote, "I am considering a massive attack on Iran bigger than ever before because Iran," quote, "hasn't received enough pain yet." This despite a US intelligence report that more bombing won't change Iran's negotiating position. Nothing's getting through the straits right now, oil's now back over $100 a barrel, gas is back over $4 a gallon, and Trump had to go to Dover Air Force Base on Wednesday to witness the dignified transfer of four more Americans who lost their lives in this war. Here's what the commander and chief had to say about all of this at an event in Georgia later in the day. - This is with this skirmish we have with the Islamic Republic of Iran. And I call it that because let me tell you, they're getting hit so hard. When I go to Dover, I read charts on all of the young people and some are unbelievable. Some are a little bit, you know, they got a little bit of a, little, a couple of little bad things put in. This is a son who is like a flawless, perfect person. - He's looking down right here. He's so proud right now. So together we're making our countries safer and stronger and far more successful than it's ever been before. And that's happening before you very eyes. It was, I fought ourselves before, as you know, and we won, we had a great success against this guy. He reminds me of Pinky Herman. Do you ever see Pinky Herman? (audience cheering) - You ever see Pinky Herman, Dan? - No, no, I haven't seen Pinky Herman. - You miss Pinky Herman? - A few things about that. Now we're talking about all the bad things about the soldiers who died, whose bodies he greets for a dignified transfer at Dover. Luckily for the soldier who died that he talked about in that rally, there were only good things, but sometimes there are bad things apparently. So that was normal. - On the charts. - On the charts. - On the charts. I don't know if you also saw at the beginning there, do you see the guy in the suit behind Trump who was doing an impression of Trump, I think? - Yeah, it was at flattery, mockery. - I assume flattery? - I don't know. Who can say? Who can say? Pinky Herman. He really can't land the Oshoff name. It was, remember on truth social he had, John Os jerk off and he had jerk in parentheses. - That was better than Pinky Herman. - Well, it reads better. It doesn't, it doesn't sound, you can't really say it. You can read it and you get the jerk off thing. - Yeah, it's hard to do air parentheses at a rally. Better than Pinky Herman though. - All right, is there a Pinky, there's no Pinky Herman. - There's no Pinky and he didn't conflate to 1920s characters or something, right? - I don't believe so. 'Cause later he did say P.W. Herman. I think he read it wrong. - Okay. - But he's a creature, he's also a creature of the 80s. So you think he would know P.W. Herman? - Not know him personally, but like would have been. - I mean he's historic a chance he would know him personally. - Maybe. - Maybe, who knows where they used to hang out? - Hi, yeah, right. Okay, he cuts the theaters. All right, I was gonna have a question about all this. Oh yeah, right. So, it made political poll. Half of MAGA voters said that the Iran War was worth the economic costs. In this week's poll, only one third of MAGA voters think that. These aren't just Republican voters. These are MAGA voters. These are Trump supporters. One person close to the White House told Politico the president is now fully aware that the only way to the victory he wants is completely, politically, impossible. Do you think he's actually aware of that? - That's a great question, John. It's hard to say. The whole, like what victory does he want? He doesn't really care, I think, about anything other than getting gas prices and oil prices down without looking like he surrendered to Iran. He wants the war to go away, but he doesn't want to look like a loser in doing that, which seems like an impossible circle to square in the current situation. Also, he seems in the, this is gonna, I'm thinking of the worst attack ever. He, like, maybe there is a plan somewhere the p-takes have to drawn up for the worst attack. They probably have some contingency plans, but it really seems like Trump trying to threaten them. Again, but he's done this a hundred times now. You know, I'm gonna blow up the bridges. I'm gonna blow up the power plants. I'm gonna do all these things, then he doesn't do them. And Iran just keeps doing what Iran is doing, and nothing really changes. And so his threats, his words, which is not a great place for a president to be, but his words mean nothing domestically or diplomatically now when he's talking about the war. - I've always thought that the best way to understand Trump is that he is just a, like a cable news viewer who became president, like a cable news fanatic. And so his understanding of war is that of someone who has watched, you know, the Iraq war and other wars unfold on cable television. He thinks you just press some buttons and drop some bombs. And if you drop enough bombs, then the war stops. And because he now is in control of the most powerful military in the world, I'm sure he's running around the White House being like, well, we just got a bomb, more. We got a bomb harder. Well, bomb bridges, well, bomb power plants. We'll do all the war crimes. I don't care. And the more we do that, suddenly Iran will stop. And he clearly has no idea what the reality of the situation is, which, you know, the Wall Street Journal just had a story that satellite imagery shows that they are rebuilding in Iran faster than the Israelis or the US anticipated after all the strikes. And so, like there is, and like I mentioned, there's that US intel report from, again, from our own intelligence agencies. Just the other week that says, you know, no amount of bombing is going to change the Iranian negotiating position. You just cannot bomb your way out of this war. And I don't think Trump has come to grips with that. And I think when they say his optimal outcome is politically impossible and he's realizing it or maybe he's not, it is ground troops in some kind of a grounded vision. I guess, I mean, I guess that's what he, I mean, I guess if the military assessment probably be the only way to actually force Iran to open the straight, to give up their power, to give the power, whatever the dust, whatever it also would be to simply invade the country. Yes, that is politically impossible. And I think some of the things they might be considering now is they're back to the, if we take Carg Island and maybe some of those islands around there, then perhaps we don't need like a full ground invasion, but we can take those islands and that'll help open the straight. I don't know, I think they are. It's very bad. It's very bad. It's very bad. And like, it very much seems like we're going to be dealing with us through the election. At least, and maybe many, many, many years longer because it's entirely asymmetric. In order for the straight to be open, we have to stop Iran from even threatening the idea of firing missiles or drones at ships. So if we open, let's say we take all these islands that, you know, cause lives, money, et cetera, let's say we do that and 20 ships go by. But if the 21st ship gets hit with a drone, a missile gets damaged, that is going to then dramatically reduce traffic. Yep. Like, we're trying to do something that is not actually possible in the situation we're in, if it, unless Iran wants either surrender or cooperate and Trump can get them to do neither. That's wild. There was, however, one exciting diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East this week that I'm sure Americans will love. Trump reached a deal that would allow Saudi Arabia to pursue a civilian nuclear program, which could lead to them enriching nuclear fuel. Though Trump denies that. He also said that it's on the condition that the kingdom normalizes relations with Israel. I guess if you can't destroy Iran's nuclear program, the next best thing is to launch Saudi Arabia's. It's wild timing on this plan. I mean, what? Also, it trebles like he denies it could allow him to enrich uranium. Of course he can, like, that is the deal. That's what point is what is going to happen. But then he, I mean, this is sort of a very Trumpian, which is there are substantive arguments why some would want Saudi Arabia to do this. This was a long process. There's a long memorandum. There's an agreement on how it goes forward and how it will comply with nonproliferation and safety and all of that. They do all of that. It gets very bad reviews. Trump must be. probably sees a bad review on television or on social media or someone calls them. So then he tweets out a condition that is not in the deal. Saudi Arabia has normalized visions with Israel. Somebody in Saudi Arabia said it will never do and undoes all of the work. - Also, though why are we launching a nuclear program with an autocratic regime? I know that we are ostensibly allies with Saudi Arabia because we have to be for a number of very complicated geopolitical reasons, maybe not that complicated. - Yeah, it's pretty simple, John. - Yeah. It's oil and Israel and everything else. Okay, so there's that. But like, I don't know. We've already looked the other way when MBS brought out the bone saw and they are an extremely repressive regime. And now we think that it's a good idea to launch a nuclear program that could lead to more nuclear weapons, another nuclear-powered country in the world of all the countries do not even a democracy. - Yes, you're 100% right. Like, why are we going out of our way to make this happen? - That question. - Because the Trump family's in business with them and has done some good deals. - That's one reason. But then there just is, from the perspective of timing, which is just very funny. Like, I can imagine being Trump's communication, I should imagine being the White House communication director, and you have spent the last four months arguing how the greatest threat to America is Iran having a nuclear weapon. We cannot do it. Then as you're doing it, as the war to quote unquote stop them from doing that is ramping up some other part of the administration, the fucking Yahoo Energy Secretary, whose name no one can remember, negotiates a deal to give Saudi Arabia one. And like, that makes to the American public that makes zero sense. - You're like, yeah, but you know, but Iran is an autocratic regime that's repressive. - Oh, oh yes. (laughing) - That's right. - Yeah, but they're on our side. - They're on our side. For now. - I mean, the way a lot of people interpret it is, yes, we are giving a nuclear weapon to the country where 15 to 19, 9, 11 hijackers came from. - Right, yeah. Of course, it's an important thing to do. - That's right. I'm sure everyone understands the difference between the different factions and alliances in the Middle East and why we're helping Saudi Arabia get nukes, but not, I'm fucking-- - I mean, there was a UGov flash pole that showed that only 19% of people supported this idea. - Yeah, I can't imagine it's a winner. (laughing) - Yeah, I don't know if I needed to throw that in a poll, but it's good to know. (upbeat music) - Today's show is sponsored by strawberry.me. Do you ever look at someone really succeeding in their chosen field and think, how did they get there? And what am I missing? - Yeah, the cash per tell. (laughing) - Well, it's succeeding. - Right, yeah, fair enough. - One thing is certain, they didn't get there alone. Those who reached the highest levels of career success head mentors, coaches, people in their corner who help them think through big decisions and see what they can't see themselves, like Donald Trump. That's exactly what today's sponsor, strawberry.me, is all about. A lot of us know we're capable of more. We just don't know what the next step is. It starts with getting clear on what you want, not what everyone else expects. Then you uncover the blind spots and obstacles that are keeping you stuck. And finally, you build an actionable plan instead of waiting for the perfect opportunity to fall into your lap. Whether you're trying to land a new job, earn a promotion or completely reinvent your career, strawberry.me gives you a roadmap and a dedicated coach who's with you every step of the way. Scan the QR code on your screen or head to strawberry.me/cricot to get 50% off your first session. That's strawberry.me/cricot. Strawberry.me. It's like therapy for your career. - Pod, save America. It's brought you by Mint Mobile. There are things in life that you don't want to be transparent. Like a swimsuit or your search history. But when it comes to your wireless bill, transparency is everything. That's why Mint Mobile's wireless plans have no gimmicks and no gotchas, just high speed data and reliable coverage on the T-Mobile 5G network. And right now, all plans are $15 per month, even unlimited. Mint Mobile took what's wrong with wireless and made it right with premium wireless for $15 a month. It's like a built-in line. There's nothing wrong with America's wireless system. They can't be fixed by what's right with it, you know? You can even bring your current phone and your number, choose from a three, six or 12 months plans and say goodbye to a monthly build. To get your new wireless plan for a 15 bucks a month, go to MintMobile.com/cricot. That's MintMobile.com/cricot. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month and MintMobile.com/cricot. That's it. There is no catch. Up from payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months, plan required $15 per month, equivalent taxes and fees extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabyte hotspot, capable device, required availability, speeding coverage, vary, see MintMobile.com. (upbeat music) Also, a reminder that we're not just paying for this war at the gas pump, but with our tax dollars. Pete Hegseth, who oversees a $1 trillion defense budget, is apparently about to run out of money in a few weeks, because in his words, quote, "It takes money to kill bad guys," which apparently they haven't done enough of. He's asking for an immediate cash infusion of about $70 billion, which doesn't yet have the votes in the Senate, and in order to pass, would certainly need some combination of the three Republican senators up in November, all in very tight races, Susan Collins of Maine, John Houston of Ohio, and Dan Sullivan of Alaska. Do you think it'll pass? And also, is this the easiest no vote ever for Democrats? - I would imagine that this does not pass before the election. - And then they just run out of money at the Pentagon? - Wow. - They can find money in the Pentagon. - Yeah, I do think they're, it's very like, they're about to run out of lines of funding that have to do with this war, and I guess Hegseth is moving some stuff around, though they're like, they're canceling military exercises. - Well, not the ones at Kid Rock's house, right? - They're parking jets to like, I mean, this is crazy. This war is fucking, is bankrupting the country, and the Defense Department, is if there are no other threats in the world. - I mean, it does once again through the asymmetry of this, which is around ascending cheap fabricated drones towards us, and then we're shooting them down with very, very expensive missiles. - It's wild. But I think, you know, the, in the Senate, Jonathan has said he will not work on this reconciliation bill, that would fund this until after they do government funding for the September 30th deadline, which suggests to me that he really would like to do this in the lame duck. - Although did you see that they want to, he was contemplating attaching government funding to the reconciliation package, so the government funding had passed with just 51 votes? - Yeah, that'd be another option for them to do it. But then you'd still have to force Collins-- - You just have to force dead in Sullivan to vote. I forget how many you would need of those, but-- - Well, you're gonna get Federman's vote almost certainly. - Right. - So they could all take a walk. - All three of them? - Well, we are at 53, 47. - Okay. - Do you have to get to 50? - You only have 54. - They have 53. - But they'll have 54 with Federman. - They'll have 54 with Federman, you lose three, which gets you to, and you only need 50 anyway, because he can break the tie. So they could all take a walk on if they want to. - And Murkowski. - And Murkowski. - What about Rand Paul? - I bet Rand Paul won't vote for him. - Well, yeah, I mean, it is, it'd be easier for Thune to do this, because in addition to, his vulnerable Senator, C also has other people who don't want to vote for it, Rand Paul. And so you could see why he, if he could, my guess is if he had his brothers-- - He'll wait. - And he may not, this he would push this thing to after the election. - Man, take the vote. Go ahead, do it. - Yeah, do it right now. - Love to run on that. - So the political poll, I mentioned earlier, showed that people correctly view around as the top reason shit is so expensive. But a runner-up was tariffs, which Trump has apparently decided to double down on. Also great timing, just like the Saudi deal. This week, he announced a new 50% tariff on most imports from Canada, including wine, hockey sticks, and cement. He also announced tariffs as high as 200% on imported generic drugs within a few years. Imported generic drugs make up the vast, vast majority of people's prescriptions in the United States. His theory here is that he's telling all the drug manufacturers to come back to America and manufacture here. And if they don't do it by 2028, just a time for the next election, the next presidential election, everyone's getting hit with a 200% tariff. On prescription drugs, stupid and probably politically inconsequential on the short term. - Right, but you should people should talk about it, that it's coming, that he wants to do it. 'Cause he's out there the only affordability thing he can talk about is he's like making up some shit about Trump RRX as if it's like some big discount that he's offering people on prescription drugs, which it isn't. But they clearly know that prescription drugs is a very salient issue for people and one that they had been on the wrong side of, so they tried to get on the right side. And now he's doing a 200% tariff. - Well, let's go back to the tariff's on-canx. I think he looks at an important part. Why, John, tell me why he put these tariff's on-canada? - I don't, is it, did he say that it's 'cause of the smoke because that's what the reports say? I mean, I knew he was pissed at them about the smoke and then I knew the tariff's came, but for some reason I thought it was another explanation, but of course, it's the smoke. - Yeah, it seems like the most, the reason that Americans are gonna pay more in costs for many things. It's because the tariff doesn't understand how win works. I mean, if you imagine you were sitting at the NRCC, the NRC, the House Senate, the Republican leadership, and you're just trying, or even any one of these campaigns, right, you work for John Hewsted, or Mike Collins gets ready to jump us off, or in any of these races, in your judgment. just like, truly the White House is trying to destroy us in this election. At every single turn, he is, I mean, he's finally passed the bipartisan housing bill. He refuses to sign it because he wants to, he wants to prevent people from voting. He starts a war. He starts a, he reignites his tariff war. He spends all of his time talking about building corporate funded monuments in Washington, DC. It's like, deep down in his soul, I really think Trump doesn't want to win the midterms. Like he just, he's trying, he doesn't like intellectually, he wants to win the midterms. He thinks he wants to win the midterms, but his subconscious is trying to lose the midterms. Unpopular wars that are bankrupting the country while he makes $2 billion since he's been in office. That's it. That's the, that's the midterm argument right there. I mean, you really don't have to say much more. Speaking of voter anger, the White House held an affordability event on Thursday where Trump was supposed to show how he's protecting Americans from increasing power costs because of data center construction, a hugely salient and unpopular issue. And as usual, he nailed the whole, I'm on your side thing. You have the communities that really want the data centers. And frankly, those are the smart communities. You have to convince your community how great these things, you can't fight it, you have to go with it. So your last point, he's just, he's really trying to lose. I mean, a Gallup poll in May showed 70% of people do not want, would not want a data center built in their local community, 70%. I think data centers are the sleeper issue of 2026 and beyond. The polling is very clear, it is a bipartisan issue, it is an issue that elicits tremendous passion for polling as end Democrats, as you say, more than 2/3 of voters do not want data centers in their communities, majorities of voters think that the pace of which data centers are being built nationally is happening too fast. They, the large majorities of voters, in some cases, 2/3 of voters believe that data centers are leading to higher electricity in utility costs. They think it is poisoning their water, it is bad for their community. A, some of them, most of them do not buy the arguments about job creation, economic growth. It is, and this is an issue that is bipartisan in the United Democrats that fires people up and is an issue of absolutely crystal clear contrast with Trump, who not, it's this, yeah, he said some dumb shit here, but the policy of his administration is to build a data center on every corner, not because that's what's good for America, not because that's what's good for those communities, but because the billionaire roller garks in the AI companies have told him that's what they want, like this is like Democrats, there are some Democrats who are very strong on this, but this is, but for the most part, Democrats have been overly cautious on this because they're so afraid of the AI super PACs coming in and raising the ground with their hundreds of millions of dollars, but we are, this is a sleeper issue, Trump's on the wrong side, we have to be on the right side. There's also, I've noticed some Democrats, maybe not democratic elected, but sort of center left, writers, pundits, who like defend data centers by saying that like, you know, if they could lead to, it could help with more energy and energy efficiency and all this other shit, and I'm like, I think, I think that no one is ready to hear of the possible benefits of data centers when people are looking around their communities, seeing these awful things being built that could jeopardize the environment, that could send their electricity costs soaring, and it is a stand-in for everything that people don't like about AI, which is a lot right now, because when you look at the polling too, it's not just that people oppose them in their own, it's not just like a nifty thing where people like oppose them in their own community, people oppose them in other communities as well, which makes you think that it's a, it's about, it's, it's not just about the physical data center, like where you live, it's about what it represents, which is AI taking over everything. This is an issue I've been working a lot with, with candidates and campaigns and activists who subscribe to MessageBox Pro, because I think this is a huge issue. A couple of things I would say on it, though, is if you're going to talk about, you must be prepared for the pushback on increasing the tax base locally in economic growth, because there is, those arguments do have some purchase with writers. There is also a skepticism on a national ban that has been changing a little bit recently, but people, voters have very conflicted views of AI, they're deeply concerned about it. There is some optimism that, you know, it could be good for the country in the long run, if done, if done right with the right amount of regulation. And so there is some hesitancy to say, stop everything right now, because there's a fear that we could fall behind. And interestingly enough, I know you guys talked a little about the equies, the more ministers and equies poll on Tuesday's pod, but Latino voters are actually more positive towards AI and data centers than the population writ large, or at least open to the idea that they could be, they could help with economic growth and job opportunities, both locally and nationally. And so it's not, like, it is an issue we have to be very strong on, but there is like a little nuance to the argument, but if you are overly nuanced and you're not standing up, especially if it's in your local community, I think you're making a huge mistake. What are the arguments against data center construction that are the most resonant with people? That you're going to pay for it with your utility bills, and that it is bad for the environment and the community, or the ones that have the most. But it's going to raise your costs is like a number one, anywhere you've seen the biggest battles on data centers or in states that have very high utility costs, like in Maine, that's one of the reasons that, Jean, it mils was populated later, he has been down, is people are very upset about data centers in Maine. She abused that. She abused that. All right. So you would expect all of this to translate into good polling results for Democrats. And it is. Some eye popping numbers in this week's polls, Emerson has Democrats at plus 11 on the generic ballot. You has D's at plus six and Fox News has it at plus seven. And in their poll, Dems are at 53%, which is the highest percentage either party has received on the generic ballot in Fox polling since 1996. Fox also showed Democrats more trusted to handle income inequality by 22 points, health care by 21 points, inflation by 10, the economy by nine, foreign policy by seven, and April Republicans had an eight point lead on immigration as an issue. Now Democrats are up by one point on immigration. Anything else jump out at you from all these polls? It's funny. I saw that 1996 number. I was like, holy shit. I don't remember 1996 being a wave here. What was it? We picked up like three seats. So it's like, I don't know. That's good. But I think these numbers are excellent. We may look back and just say that these were a little bit of outliers because the polls threw in at any moment of intense focus on the Iran war and tariffs and Trump's two worst issues. But I also think it's we could look back on this in a few months and say this was the hinge moment in the election where it broke in Democrats favor. A lot of times. Yeah. Yeah, but it's like what it the ceiling on Democrats to this point has been people do not like Trump. They do not. They think he's doing a terrible job on these issues, but they trust Republicans more than Democrats on these issues, particularly the economy and inflation. I mean, there was a, remember that Wall Street Journal poll that was, I think late last year earlier this year, which showed almost every single issue other than health care and climate Republicans. People voters trust the Republicans over Democrats. The fact that Democrats have a 10 point advantage on the economy in this Fox News poll is incredibly consequential. Trump had an advantage on the economy in 2018. We picked up 40 seats. The economy is a more resonant issue this time. That's very good for us. And just to give you a perspective of how much things have shifted on the economy in that Fox News poll, Republicans have only a seven point advantage among white non-college voters on the economy. Oh, wow. Trump, Trump won that group by 34 points in 2024 like this and the economy always has been Trump's superpower. It has been the thing that has held him a float to this point. He lost that superpower, but Democrats were unable to take advantage of that. We are starting to make real gains there and if that stays the case, we will have a very good 2026 in terms of the national popular budget. It won't look like the seat gains from 2018 because of all the gerrymandering and redistricting the second place, but it could be a very good year if these numbers hold. Yeah, I was happy to see this because I feel like in the last month, there have been a number of polls where Trump's approval is in the shitter, but the generic ballot was closer than you'd expect from Trump's approval being that bad in the same poll, right? And so that you have polls where it's three, four, or five. Now all three of these polls could be outliers, but there are also all three of them high quality polls rated very highly, Fox, Emerson, and Pew. So who knows, but maybe, like you said, maybe it's a focus on Iran. Look, I mean, gas prices were going down before the MOU went kaput and we were back to full scale war. That, you know, it could be a, they could come down again. For sure. They could come down again. Pots of America is brought to you by Wal-Mart. You know, we talk a lot about finding a job, but what about building a career? Wal-Mart is actually making that happen for their associates by investing over a billion dollars in training and education. And the proof is in the numbers. year, more than 100,000 associates. it's earned promotions, adding great benefits like 401k matching and paid parental leave and it's clear. Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Go see for yourself at walmart.com/grow@waltmart. That's walmart.com/grow@waltmart. All right, let's get to the latest on the presidential race, which we're talking about because the DNC rules and bylaws committee met this week to figure out the RBC. They met this week to figure out the early state primary calendar for 2028. Most of the reporting points to four states that are likely to make that window before Super Tuesday and March, so this is in the January February window. South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. There may also be a fifth state added and now reporting is centered around possibly a New Mexico or Virginia, but the order of which states go first is very much up for grabs and the source of all the drama that's been leaking out of these meetings. South Carolina and Nevada are jockeying to be the first state fueled by what Axios called a long-simmering feud between black and Latino leaders. New Hampshire has a law that requires the state to hold the first primary, so that's tricky. There are 49 people on the committee who will decide this and one of them told, "Notice, it's going to be a bloodbath. Most states represented have at least one or two members on the committee and I think they're all going to fight to the death for this." Great. So what are the big issues here and how much does the sequence matter? So let's do the issues first. I think there are a handful of things that need to be in consideration as you do this. The first is the first four or maybe five states. Any states that come before Super Tuesday have dramatically more impact than all the states that come afterwards. These are the states that window the field. They are the states that help pick the front runner. They matter a ton. And so if they're going to matter a ton, they must represent the full breadth of the Democratic part of the electorate. You need to have states with large black population. You have to need Latino voters to have a say. You want theoretically a swing state in play. You want rural voters to have a say. So it's got to have real representation and of all the parts that Democratic party. That's one. Two, you also want the states to be states that play in ways, both in terms of the voters you appeal to, the size of the state that give us the best chance of picking our best nominee. Right. It can't be for giant states where the person with the highest name ID automatically wins shouldn't be for tiny, for rural states or for states that are doing roughly similar. You want it to look like you want it to be a, like a good trial run for a general election. And then what I think is really important is you want, because millions of dollars and thousands of hours of tens of thousands, a hundred thousand hours of organizing is going to go into these states, you don't want all that investment to go to waste in the general election. So remember this, we were together in Iowa in the 2020 caucuses. We're flying out the day after the caucuses ended, but there's still no winner declared. And at the airport with us were all these organizers who worked for Bernie Pete Biden, Elizabeth Warren who had spent the last year in Iowa who knew the names of every Democrat and caucus goer, their names are fun numbers, their kids names in these communities in Iowa. And they were leaving to go to another state to never return to Iowa again. Yeah. If you're going to organize these states, you want to have some benefit in the general election. So I think those are sort of the main considerations. There's one more thing, which is you need, if you're going to move a state's primary, you need control, democratic control of the state. This is the most practical concern. Yeah, this is not like something about winning the election or anything, but like you can't, because some of these states have already had their primary set and the legislature sets it, and so if the Democrats decide, oh, we want to move it up, you'd have to go to the legislature. And if it's a Republican legislature, like in Georgia, because Georgia was being considered instead of South Carolina, because it would make more sense for a whole bunch of reasons. It's a competitive state. South Carolina is not, still also has a very large black population, but we don't control the legislature in Georgia. And so there's no reason to believe they would ever move the primary date for us. So yeah. I mean, there's all these little things in here that are really the same, like they should be done, but are quite consequential. It is New Hampshire law. The New Hampshire goes first no matter what. New Hampshire insisted on going first anyway in 2024 and got no delegates. Face a huge price and they sit like in the back of the convention. They have to theoretically change their law if they don't go first if they're not picked first here. They probably shouldn't be picked first. Nevada, this is really interesting. Nevada is a vote by mail state where votes count if they are postmarked by election day. So if Nevada is the first state, you couldn't call the, there's a chance you would be able to call the winner on election night. Therefore depriving that winner of that moment where they accept the, they accept they give their victory speech. It is the moment that's propelled, you know, the propelled Obama in 2008, all the, like, so that's a consideration. That's it. There's much little ones like that. If we, if we won the governorship in Georgia, which is, I'll talk to Jennifer Pomerri about later in the show, you can maybe do it there, but you won't know that when you have to make the decision on this. So New Hampshire, they have this law, they can't change the law or, I mean, they could change the law, but we have a Republican governor there and a Republican, they control at least one part of the legislature. Yeah. Can't do it. Kelly AI does not going to do it. Yeah. Because the Republicans want New Hampshire to be first. Right. So I don't know how all the reporting is like, well, it's between South Carolina and Nevada for first. How are they getting around the New Hampshire problem? Even if New Hampshire, even if the New Hampshire Democrats on the, at the DNC agree, like they still have the law. So I don't know, I don't know why they're talking about South Carolina and Nevada first. They would just not, if New Hampshire can't change the law on the, New Hampshire would not count. If you be just like 2024, remember, I mean, this has happened in the past. You, you may remember this from a different period of our lives in 2008, Florida, Michigan moved up to go too early against the DNC rules. New Hampshire primaries did not count because of the, because they were awarded no delegates when we didn't even compete in those primaries. And so New Hampshire could, if they don't pick New Hampshire, New Hampshire has its primary on that day. It's for nothing. No vote. No delegates are awarded. They guess they could have, I heard a rumor that this is possible, that they could have that primary that day, no, no delegates awarded. And then the state party can organize and put on a primary when they're supposed to have it agreed by the rules and bylaws committee. Yeah. You could theoretically do that, although I'm not sure, there must be a way to do it, but I'm not sure how you would fund that if the governor didn't want you to do it. So that's one issue. The issue you cited with Nevada is worrisome to me that we would not know who the winner is for. That seems like a disaster in the making. But there's this big fight between South Carolina and Nevada and the chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party said in the New York Times that if Nevada goes first, then it will say something about how the Democratic Party views black voters, which I think is quite a statement to make. And then the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party, who is a black woman as well. She was like, well, 15% of our electorate is black also. And what are you talking about? And also does that mean that if South Carolina goes first, that the Democratic Party is saying to Latino voters that they don't count as much like this. But I just feel like the best way to deal with that is to let the state with the law that says it's supposed to have the first primary go first. And then next have South Carolina Nevada go like within days of each other. Yeah. Like, how much does the order matter among the early states, right? Like I get why you want to be in one of those five states in that window. But like if New Hampshire is one week and then South Carolina and then Nevada or then Nevada and then South Carolina, like, how much does that matter? It matters a lot to the people on TV stations, cool in those states. It matters a lot to the people who own hotels in those states, people who have companies that rent bike rack, you know, the things for rallies, because the first day people will be there for a long time for longer and spend more time. And then they're diminishing, right? Because the, you put all your, most of your resources in the first state, because for most kids, they don't get all the first state to not go in anywhere. The front runners then put their second most resource in second state. And you're sort of like, well, if I make it to South Carolina, which used to be the third state, or Nevada, we'll figure it out from that point on. Right. There are a lot of the calculus on this is really dumb because there is this reporting, I think this is in Peter, hand piece, excellent piece in puck, that there are some folks who are very worried about Nevada because they think AOC could win. This, this, you and I both, yeah, this is so stupid because, and the argument is because Bernie won, but just to put some numbers on this and because it was a caucus in 2020 when Bernie won. And they've made it a, it was a hybrid caucus. There were four days of early vote, and then the actual caucus day, but even with that, there were 105,000 Democrats who participated in the primary in 2024, where, when Biden was running uncontested, essentially, 150,000 people voted. And if there are 500,000 registered Democrats in the state, if it just, if it operated at a turnout level, like a typically contested president primary, there'd be like 250, 300,000 people would vote. So it's a very different electorate. And it's a more moderate electorate because for a couple of reasons. Like, just because primary electorates are always more moderate than caucus electorates because to go to a caucus, you tend to be highly engaged, more of an activist, you're getting out of your house in the middle at night and going to sit in a, you know, town hall somewhere for hours and hours. And so the people are more committed, they tend to be more partisan. And so like Bernie Sanders organizing the culinary workers in Nevada and winning the caucus that way versus an AOC trying to win over a larger primary electorate of, and yes, younger than South Carolina, more heavily Latino, but still a lot of like non-college working-class voters, which like, yes, she could do well and but like so could any candidate. It's not obvious that that would benefit progressive candidate like AOC over anyone else. And then there's, there is concern about Michigan because they think Gaza would make Gaza a dominant issue in the primary. Yeah. I think everyone's overthinking this. We don't know what the world's going to look like when people are campaigning, you know, when these elections happen, you know, a little less than two years from now. Yeah. It's fascinating. And how they ordered will it does affect things a lot. The only other thing I'd say is the identity politics fight about which voters we care which that is not particularly constructive. It is true that black political power in this country has been decimated in a lot of ways by the Supreme Court in terms of congressional representation and all of that. But one thing that I think is not gotten a ton of attention is because of the way the districts where all these majority minority districts, which are mostly black across the South, have been written out of existence, that is going to diminish black voters influence in a longer primary process because those districts are ones that perform incredibly well and you get a bonus delegate if you perform above a certain level. And so the way Obama and Clinton really cleaned up across the South is that they were claiming all five delegates in those districts. Those, there are fewer, there will be almost no districts like that left across the South. And so there is a, you know, the opportunity to have a say in the process earlier, does I don't think the South Carolina should necessarily be first, but that the process doesn't look like it used to four black voters now post the VRA decision that did before. Undoubtedly one of the five early states should have a heavily black population undoubtedly. It is particularly rich for South Carolina to be the ones complaining about this because that is a state that plays no role and it is the one state we're talking about, that plays no role in the general election whatsoever. And so when you talk about like time wasted by candidates who are organizing in a state that they're never going to go back to, that's, I mean, you could make the same argument for New Hampshire, but Michigan, Nevada, you know, again, it would have been much better if we had democratic control of Georgia to make just Georgia would be the state and that would be it. But you also have a lot of black voters in Michigan, the Michigan one in about one in five democratic primary voters is black in Michigan. Yeah. And look, ideally you want a Southern state to be in the top five that no matter what and it just, because of who controls the legislatures, it seems like we're stuck with South Carolina. Yeah. North Carolina is also an option. I could have things like that in there. Oh yeah. North Carolina would have been good. Where we control the government of shit. Why didn't North, that's an interesting one. I wonder why North Carolina didn't. And then I guess Virginia also, but Virginia, the reason people are falling in Virginia is because it is a way to have a Southern state that solves the Georgia problem because we control the legislature. Right. So you can easily move it up. Well, I'll tell you this. If it is Nevada, we will be moving production of this show to Las Vegas for many months, maybe even a year. John, I've been to Vegas with you. We should do it when we can at a time. I just don't think an extended period is not going to be good for anyone. I love it. I don't know what would even happen to him. Oh my gosh. Yeah. This could be a real problem. Staff's going to love it. I can just tell. I can already see. Yeah. See the excitement here. All right. Last thing before we get to Dan's conversation with Jen Palmerie about Longplay. On Tuesday evening, White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino posted a minute-long video on his official Twitter account. Set to some theme music that some of you might recognize who are millennials or older. In which he panned his phone camera around the walls of the Oval Office and admiration of Donald Trump's interior decorating, check it out. For those of you just listening, this is a lot of gold. Some more gold. There's a lot of model airplanes here. It's like fucking Saddam's palace. I don't know what's with all the planes. Yeah, the Saddam's palace thing is right, except this makes Saddam's palace look like a pottery barn. Oh god, it's so much. Is that the Liberty Bell? Okay, so what'd you think Dan? It's not often you get to see, you know, when you see the Oval Office on TV, you only get to see part of it at a time. So you don't fully understand how absolutely gotty it is now. It's just, it's gross. It's gross. There's just too much, there's too much gold and it also looks like cheap gold. And I'm sure it's not. I'm sure he just like spent whatever, but it's just, it's busy, it's too, it's tacky. The model airplanes make no sense. There's some real substance here that we can talk about. The post, Washington Post is out with a new poll about Trump's big self memorials. Found that about two thirds of Americans are unhappy about the renovations in DC. The Trump renovations led mostly by Democrats and Independents. There is a big intensity gap, 67% of Democrats chose the most negative answer, upset, whereas only 31% of Republicans chose the most positive descriptor enthusiastic. How much of a political liability do you think, not just that oval, but all of the shit is? Every one of these things is in affordability issue. It's just like, this is, do people, do they, are they really passionate about an ugly arch on the mall or the amount of time the president or like what the reflecting pool looks like? No. What they are upset about is that when the prices are growing up, the president is spending so much time on the resin on the bottom of the pool or on individually hand-sourcing gold flake for the White House, or when he went shopping for marble armrests like that, that is to people just like he's supposed to be fighting for me and he's doing all of this shit for himself. What a waste of time in energy. I will say I'd rather him be doing that than focusing on the economy because when he focuses on the economy, he makes everything more expensive, not less expensive. That is a big last half full take, John. If all he did was just run around and sourcing fucking gold leaf from other places and just left everything alone, we would probably be doing a lot better, we'd probably be doing better than when he actually focuses and decides he's going to slap more tariffs on shit, start more trade wars and forever wars. So he basically needs at all times some sort of fidget toy. Yes. Maybe taxpayer-funded fidget toy or billionaire-funded fidget toy, but that's what you wanted to be doing. Yeah, that's just a thought. All right, when we come back, Dan talks to Jen Paul Mary. Pots of America is brought to you by Chime. It's no secret that everything is expensive right now, which means you probably want to know if you're getting the most out of your money. That's where Chime comes in. Chime is changing the way people bank. They're not like traditional banks that love to gatekeep the best rewards and pile on hidden fees unless you have a massive balance. Chime offers the most rewarding fee-free banking. All with no overdraft fees, no monthly fees, no minimum balance fees. You get 5% cash back on Chime card and a category of choice like gas or groceries all while building credit through regular everyday spending. No credit check required. You can also grow your money faster with a savings rate that's nine times the national average. And if you're ever in a pinch, spot me unless you overdraft up to $200 fee-free. Join the millions who are already banking fee-free with America's number one choice for banking. Head to Chime.com/cricut. That's Chime.com/cricut. Sign up now. It only takes a few minutes. Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services and Chime card provided by Chimes bank partners. Qualifying direct deposits required, terms and limits apply. Go to Chime.com/disclosures for details. On Monday. Yeah. And drops. We have two episodes. Our first two episodes drop on Monday. They're about Georgia and Texas. Okay. That's right. So. Yeah. This is a six-part series on how Democrats win back power in the South. I'm impressed you can do this in six parts. It's simply quite a task. You have been to Georgia and Texas. Yeah. What did you find and where you go next? So, okay, so Georgia, I mean, every state is super interesting. Right now we're in North Carolina, so this episode three will be in North Carolina. We're going to go to Tennessee next, then we're going to go to Alabama, and then episode six is a jump ball between Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kentucky. So we're figuring that out. Does the Oklahoma counts as the South? It does. It is and looked it up in like, whatever, you know, I think it's MSAs. Do you remember that, like metropolitan statistical areas? It is classified as part of the South. I think they consider themselves pretty Western, but I've just find it an interesting place. There's interesting Republican leaders there, Mayor David Hold from Oklahoma City, Governor Stits kind of interesting guy. So we'll see. So let me start with Georgia, because like what's fascinating about that place is like why it is different from all other southern states and why it became a belt. I'm in North Carolina right now, right? And why did Georgia flip first, why did Georgia flip before North Carolina? Like I think we're both old enough to have, when like we thought North Carolina would be the one. Right? But Hillary lost Georgia by five points, and then Biden won. Hillary lost North Carolina by like one, you know, one point, something points. And Trump came back and won in 20, he won in 24. And I think, you know, and what you learn with Georgia is intention matters that that state, like there was decisions made in Atlanta 50 years ago at the end of Jim Crow, beginning a civil rights by a white mayor, mayor, hurts field that Atlanta was going to be the city too busy to hate. You know, that was like partly an economic reason, right? Because racism is bad for business. But with intention, mayor, then Mayor Jackson, you know, the first black mayor of Georgia, of Atlanta, followed him and built, that's why hearts field is so huge, the airport, because they wanted it to sustain a black middle class. Georgia is the state that it was the heart of the Confederacy, it was the heart of the civil rights movement. And just as, you know, 50 years ago, the civil rights leaders had to come together to make things, to make change in Georgia, so did black voters matter, so did Stacey Abrams, you know, they didn't, because like, Dan, remember, in Georgia 10 years ago or so, it was, let's run conservative Democrats in the zeal miller, you know, sort of mold, right? They're like kind of almost Republican, and most of the Republican governors of Georgia, by the way, were former Democrats. And then Stacey Abrams is like, no, we're going to do something different. We're going to like build a different electorate, we're going to change the electorate. You have Senator John Assof, Senator Raphael Warnock, they are running different kinds of campaigns, and they won in very tough years, Warnock won again in 22, you know, John Assof is like in a good, it's in good shape right now. But it mattered what happened 50 years ago, and that decisions that were made in Atlanta that are different than decisions that were made in Birmingham, different than decisions that were made in Raleigh, North Carolina, so that reverberate today. And so you just get a sense of, and then of course, moving with intention now and trying to do things differently in Georgia, like it matters. And that's sort of the inspiring part is, if people come together and try to make change and they're smart and consistent about it, you can do it. And so let's talk about Texas. Super interesting. Yeah. So I spent a lot of time in Texas in 2018, as many people did. Oh, for Beto. A bunch of events with Beto, you know, washing that race, Democrats got their hopes up there. This was a state that where it's the one state, I believe, the Hillary Clinton outperformed Barack Obama from 2012 was Texas, and she is so somewhat substantially in 2018. Look good. And then snap back in 20, snap back further in 2024, seeing you moving much redder. Democrats are pretty optimistic about James Tallerico this time. What did you find in the state? I was pretty, you know, I was a little skeptical of Tallerico coming into the state. And I left with a different view, you know, what is, I think faith is a, faith is a very big deal that Democrats discount too much in the South. You know, I think there are, there are big structural reasons of why Democrats and black voters are disenfranchised in the South. And you know, that was sort of the impetus for this series to understand all of that. But also there's a, there's a big cultural disconnect. What was amazing about, and I did feel this in Georgia, and also in North Carolina, it's like, I'm not saying Tallerico's necessarily going to win. But it feels more fluid, I think, as we're sort of the tail end of Trump's popularity. And since he was not an ideological conservative, voters are, it's more of a jumpball for them, right? So, for example, and we went to Tarant County, I interviewed Taylor Remitt, who's the guy, who's the state senator that flipped a Trump seat earlier this year, because he had an open election, an open seat, you know, and he was basically like, look, I'm a machinist that just knocks on people's doors and, you know, meet somewhere they are, and they understand like who I am when it comes from. I don't associate with the Democratic Party of national and local level. And they know that they can rely on me. The other thing that happened was we interviewed PTA moms in Tarant County, right? So Tarant's Fort Worth, it's the big swing. It's the swing of the swings in Texas, particularly this year. These are three Republican women. One was like a never Trump Republican. The other two identify themselves as an evangelical Christian conservatives. And they are not just voting, they're just not like sitting out, not just voting for governor Abinette for re-election, and they're not just not voting for Ken Paxson. They are voting for James Talleriko and Gina and Ahosa, because they're so upset about wait for it, the MAGA takeover of their school districts. So there was a big, it's so interesting, Dan, because it's like the clap back to 20 to Glen Youngkin and Loudon County and critical race theory and all of that in 21 and in the 22 midterms. And what one of these moms said is her child was an infant during COVID and she said, I heard about critical race theory. She's concerned about it because I don't want any children to feel like they're not equal or victimized. I heard that boys were going into girls' bathrooms and boys were playing sports. And she's like, so I voted for this MAGA school board candidate. And then she said, my son goes to school and I come to find out they're not teaching critical race theory. They're just teaching normal history, and you know, we need to know the good and the bad parts of history. They're just teaching like ABC's and one, two, three, she said, there's no boys going in the girls' bathrooms or boys trying to play in girls' sports, not at our school. And she said, I kept saying, show me where it's happening. And so then I came back to her and I said, well, you know, you're saying you're going to give up for Tolerico, but what about like Jimmy Sixth genders that Ken Paxton throws at him? And what about low T. Tolerico and they're like, we're tired of that, we're tired of that. So it's, if that's breaking down, if people feel she said, I feel duped now. So I think a lot of times we can hear MAGA voters and think they're wrong, but not understand that they're saying what they believe to be true. And once these women found out that that was not true and they're super fresh, they like the dual language programs. They liked the DEI programs that are in their school because it gave their kids more opportunity. So I'm like, if these women are voting for James Tolerico, that's a different deal, but also sort of more importantly for the democracy, it felt like people questioning things more and being more open. Were there things that the, not just the absence of all the things they said were happening in school districts, but were there things that MAGA? MAGA school ward was doing in the schools, whether it was, you know, book banning, is changing the history curriculum that they were reacting to as well. Yeah, it was book banning, they hated that. You know, oh, interestingly, both of these women who were evangelical Christians said, you know, I don't want the 10 commandments taught in school. That is not what school is therefore. She said, I do that, I do that at home. And I think that, and they'd also didn't like, they had, I guess, very aggressive. They were doing good, do language programs so that from a young age, you know, English speaking students are being taught, Spanish, and they're going to, they're going to come out of that school district, fluent, and they got rid of all of that. And then there, and then there was a, you know, confusing takeover where the state started closing schools as well. And that happened too. And of course, it's also very, the sort of state takeover is also very antithical to the, you know, what we think of as traditional Republican ideology. And that rubbed in the wrong way as, as well. He's not, you know, Trump is not popular there. We also fascinating. Mitch Langerus spoke with two Hispanic small business owners who had both, their construction, they have a construction company. They had both voted for Trump. They were very patriotic, vote of room for the economy, and they're going to vote for Democrats now too, because the way he's corrupted immigration enforcement, you know, has like, has handicapped their business. And also, it's really, and Gina and a host have brought this up too. It seems it's really struck a chord with Hispanics and Texas, their patriotic pride. You know, they're really proud to be American. They think they've worked really hard for that. They're culturally conservative, and it's an insult to them when they're, you know, when they're, when everyone is rounded up, when no one, when, when, when, you know, whether you're here with documentation or not is treated as. the same. Super interesting place. Yeah, I'm very fascinated by Texas. It's, you know, I don't want to get my hopes up for it, but there's a convergence here between the kind of Republican tax in is, the kind of Democrat. Tallerico is the dramatic shift in the Latino vote, which is happening to Trump across the country, but it happened. This is, yeah, I mean, if it's going to, he's going to pay a price for it. It is in Texas more than almost anywhere else in the country. 53% of Hispanic men in Texas voted for him in 24. I think a big jump. It was like a 13, 15 point jump from 20, but that feels, you know, that feels tough now. I mean, you know, Texas is still super conservative. It's, you know, just to remind everyone it's not all odds. Houston, it's places like Tyler, it's, you know, places like LaRada. We went to LaRada, which is super cool. You know, right on the, my hotel balcony looked out over the Rio Grande and the border. I was like, our hotel was sort of part of the border patrol. I did not understand what I was looking at for like two minutes. I mean, I, Dan, I thought it was like the catering part of the hotel. I was like, Oh, that chain link fence with the awning. That must be where they bring the catering down. I was like, Oh, that's, that's not what happened. Oh, no, that's what the border patrol is. Yes. Democrats are going to have to do better in the South, particularly when the, as the electoral map, who's going to change up a 2032 census, the blue wall is to, well, to be insufficient to win the presidency in and of itself as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin potentially lose electoral votes and Texas and Florida gained them. So we, there's Georgia and North Carolina, where that, you know, Georgia is battleground state. North Carolina is a battleground state, but as you point out, it's one that we've struggled with at the presidential level, although have won, you know, we've had run three statewide governance races there. We run a few statewide races last time. Is there another southern state that you look at that could be the next one to go? Like, is there a Georgia in the making out there somewhere? It's a law. I think it's a long way off, but people point to Alabama as that state because of the size of the black population. Because of the sign, I mean, here's the thing with Mississippi and Alabama, right? That it is, I think Georgia probably has the third highest per capita percentage. Black voters, Mississippi and Alabama have the highest, they're about 39%. And, but what's happening, and they just have not been, you know, and I was born in Mississippi. I lived in Mississippi and South Carolina until I was 11. So I kind of, you know, I love this part of the region. It like would kill me, Dan, how we just like a Democrat's like, I left and I never had a reason to go back because even for work, right? Because we just, it's like, well, this is, this is what happens when you ignore a region. And the thing with Alabama is there's a high percentage of black voters. There's just a lot happening there. Huntsville is a big, you know, NASA is there. There's a lot of research there. There's people moving to Huntsville. I think it's like the second fastest-growing city in the South. It's diverse. So kind of the way that the research triangle in North Carolina attracted new kinds of voters. Huntsville is doing that. And then Birmingham is really growing economically, but also you're starting to see new kinds of democratic infrastructure come into Birmingham. So Doug Jones is running for governor, their former Democratic United States senator. We're going to go, I'm super sorry to go to Alabama because, you know, you just don't hear a really interesting culture too, interesting music, music's a big part of the show too. So that people are moving with a little more intention in Alabama, but like it's a way. Tennessee is kind of the, I feel like Tennessee is another place that with focus could change. There's a lot of people that are pretty, you know, really angry at the way they've just, you know, I think at the after this election, that there will probably not be a Democratic member of the House representing Tennessee anymore. They gerrymandered Jim Cooper out a few years ago and now they're gerrymandering the last Danny Democrat and it will be 90. And then the expectation has come next year. They will gerrymandered the state legislature as well. And that the resentment there is building now is you got to get better candidates. As we are having this conversation, the DNC rules and bylaws committee is meeting about what the presidential calendar is going to look like. There's John and I talked earlier in the show a lot about it. But one of the things that some people think is very important is that there's a Southern state in there and maybe two Southern states, South Carolina being one and then possibly either North Carolina, Virginia or possibly Georgia, although as John and I discussed, you need the governor to change the law to move the primary, which, you know, is possible. You in the government legislature, which is could be an impediment there. Do you think that having the Democratic primary presidential primary takes place in the South would be a net positive or a net negative for impressions of the Democratic Party in the South and ability to win in general election. I think it's better. I think it, I mean, first of all, I think Democrats would learn the South more, right, which I think is really important. And, you know, I think if you look at the stereotype of a Christian conservative mother who's Republican and voted for Trump three times and Greg Abbott three times, you probably didn't imagine that she didn't want the 10 Commandants taught in school and that she wanted her children to be taught Spanish and she did not want this kind of takeover of schools, right? So there's so many stereotypes that I feel like familiarity, our candidates in these states, you know, and the staff, you know, the like infrastructure or Democratic infrastructure, happy to folks on this, on the state too, I think is a net plus, but I can imagine some of the concerns that you and Fabs might have raised. Yeah, I'm, we didn't get it too much into like the long-term impact. The question we have is about, you know, obviously that we need the states to be representative of the party in the country. And you want the states to be, there's sort of a short term in a long term, right? With the short term is it's great if it's in a swing state because you do all this investment and, right, in building infrastructure there. And then you can use infrastructure in the general, which worked great in the years in which Iowa and New Hampshire were swings, were federal states. Right. Yeah. Right. Iowa, less so at the presidential level, New Hampshire, sort of on the cusp there, but there is this argument for long term, which is if you actually had people investing in the state, you know, you had a two-year cycle or an 18-month cycle where people were organizing the state within an inch of his life, that could be, you know, then you have the right demographic movement, you have the right political environment, you might actually, that's kind of the a gets some investment in the state that could lead to some of the things you talked about in Georgia, at least on the progressive organizing side. I think that would really help in North Carolina in particular, you know, because I think the problem in North Carolina is in attention to rural areas. And, you know, I talked to some rural state lawmakers, the representatives from the Black rural counties and they're like, there's just, you know, maybe if they heard something other than caricatures of Democrats, they would feel they would feel differently. So it is like it's that kind of stuff that's killing Democrats. It's the national, you know, particularly if you're running for a federal state, whether it's in the House or the Senate, it's like that's, you know, that's why North Carolina is sort of the inverse of Georgia, which is it can elect governors, but it can elect senators and Georgia, they elect senators, Democrats, but not governors. Oh, hopefully we'll be electing a Democratic Senator in North Carolina this year, because if we don't learn big trouble, if Roy Cooper is not winning, we're not taking the Senate. That looks good, but I would just say the thing that they're like, they're nervous about, the could be people who are nervous about a couple things. One, Michael Watley, who's the Republican opponent, has not gone up on air yet. That may, you know, he's not, you know, so they're like, hey, we're at 48, his approval rate is 48%. I would like Roy Cooper's approval, they need to be at 50%. You know, it's not. And they haven't even gone after him yet. And then, you know, it's just a tough, it's just a tough state. And people aren't giving the him as much money as other candidates, because I think North Carolina is fine. So, but North Carolina has elected that guy a lot. I think four times is 18, six. And twice with Trump on the ballot, which is a great feat. I talked to Governor Cooper a couple of weeks ago on Potsay America. And you can feel the trepidation of people, too many people are counting the chickens before they're hatched here. And just this is, this is not going to be a seven point race. He's not winning my seven points. It's going to be a very close race. It's just, there's this, as you point out, he's right kind of, you know, right around 50 in his, in a lot of this polling, but either, but he's not a high above it. And so while a lot of that vote, while he's going to pick up and make it close. And so it's going to be, it's going to be a close race. One interesting Democratic congressional candidate. I met in North Carolina, just as Jamie Ager, who he is running. He's in West North Carolina, and you're Asheville. His grandfather was a congressman, but he is not, does not, he's just, does not feel political at all. He's a farmer. And he's running against Chuck Edwards, the incumbent who just about a month ago was like, oh, wait for it. Shocker has like, you know, problem with like sexually harassing his staffers. And there's an ethics investigation of him. So that's like newly interesting, and he's like a very compelling guy. - All right, we will check 'em out. - Fed hogs with 'em. - I am, I'm very excited for Longplay. Everyone should check it out. YouTube, where you get your podcasts. This is fun for me 'cause I am a long time, Jen Paul Mary fans, so I'm excited to watch it myself. It's a very, very cool project. We're very, very excited to be participating in it with you and it's great to talk to you. - Thanks, Iver. - That's our show for today. Thanks to Jen Paul Mary for coming on. Everyone check out Longplay on YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. It'll be out on Tuesday. I'll be back on Sunday with Slow Boring's Madaglaceus, diving deeper into the midterms in 2028. Can't wait. - Bye everyone. - Pods in America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed Charlene, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hefco, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Callevi, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's guild of America East. (upbeat music)