Will Dems Chuck Chuck?

Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. We've talked about SimpliSafe for a while, and their biggest sale of the year is officially live. If you've been holding out for the right time to get SimpliSafe, your wait is over. Their Black Friday sale is happening right now. That's right, you can order your SimpliSafe system for 70% off when you visit simplisafe.com slash crooked. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break-in is already underway, SimpliSafe is built to stop intrusions before they start. Smart AI-powered cameras watch for potential threats and alert a live US-based agent ready to intervene. The agent intervenes in under 30 seconds, speaking through the camera to stop an intruder in their tracks and calling for urgent 911 dispatch when it's needed most. Here are some of our CEO's favorite features. The app makes arming and disarming the system from anywhere totally effortless. If she ever worries she forgot to lock up, she can check status and lock the door right from her phone. She can even check live camera feeds in the app to greet family and friends as they drop by. We've partnered with SimpliSafe to offer our listeners the biggest savings of the year, 70% off your new system with professional monitoring. When you visit simplisafe.com slash crooked, that's simplisafe.com slash crooked. And when you order, type in Pod Save America at checkout. It lets them know we sent you and it really helps the show. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime in real time. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, we're going to talk about how Donald Trump is handling his ass kicking. Stephen Miller is the new White House Chief of Staff. Jim Jordan is House Minority Leader. J.D. Vance's cunning plan to pretend he wasn't part of any of this. The administration's exposure to the Jensen Wong scandal. Scott Colombe officially winning the Senate race in Mississippi. And Democrats trying really hard to ruin the good vibes. But let's start with how Trump and his Republican Party, are reacting to being on the losing end of one of the biggest electoral landslides in half a century. Do you know that we're, I think we're hitting 14 points? Yeah, it was like 13-9 last I checked. Yeah, I saw Dave Wasserman just say we're heading to 14. So our typically introspective president has been doing some soul searching, but has so far come up short, despite telling Ross Douthat on last Sunday's 60 Minutes that he thinks he can still get into heaven without ever forgetting. He's giving his enemies. So he needs to look a little harder at that Bible. Um, Trump also said he could, quote, very easily go six months without insulting Democrats if that's what it took to get a deal on immigration. First thing Thursday morning, he posted in all capital letters, "The Democrats are corrupt and evil." So I guess it depends on when you start the clock on those six months. Zero days till the last insult. Zero days, yeah. He then continued to show that he's turned over a new leaf by accusing Democrats of cheating in the election, threatening to investigate blue states, complaining that the six Democratic senators who told troops to refuse illegal orders haven't been prosecuted yet. And just to show he's bipartisan, blamed the loss on Senate Republicans' refusal to get rid of the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act. But Trump also has been, you know, self-reflective about his own role in Tuesday's fiasco. Let's listen. Every time I ran, we won. When I didn't run, you know, it seems to be difficult. It's sort of interesting. I think my level of popularity maybe is higher now than it was. I'm not sure, but maybe it feels to me that it would be higher, other than what happened at the midterms. - Other than that, yes. - It's like, look, I just suffered the biggest defeat in 50 years, but it feels like I am pretty popular. - I mean, Mrs. Lincoln did say it was a great play. - So, now that we're talking about that, now that we know for certain that this 80-year-old dog will not be learning any new tricks, how do you see Trump's last two years playing out? What can we expect from our lame, addled duck of a president? - I think there was a world in which Trump sunset, and I mean that in every sense of the word, quietly on his presidency, and just kind of, not that he could ever fade in the background, but he just really focused on his true passions of home renovation and self-enrichment, and just kind of did that, and spent less time trying to remake the federal government, prosecute his enemies, and implement some sort of agenda, deport everyone you could possibly deport. And it seems like he's chosen the latter path, where he's going to, in his own haphazard, ill-conceived, incompetent way, continue to just double and triple down on all the things that got him into this mess. Like, he was never gonna be self-reflective in any way possible. He's not had a moment of introspection his entire adult life. Or, frankly, child life. But the extent to which he is just totally blowing past what happened, that he has apparently convinced himself, I guess, that it's not his fault he lost. It certainly wasn't a reflection on him. All the polls were wrong. Democrats, who he also calls incompetent and stupid, were somehow able to steal enough votes for a 14-point national popular vote margin, and to win states like Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia by such large margins that even if no Democrat had voted on election day, we still would have won. And so, I think we're just gonna end up with a lot of what we've had before just done more erratically and more incompetently than before. - Yeah, I mean, I don't think he's ever gonna, there was ever any hope that he was gonna, like, turn over some new leaf. - But he could get lazy, right? - Right, and I still think two years is a lifetime, unfortunately, with Donald Trump as president. And this is the first chapter of the final, or the opening of the final chapter. So, there's a long, a lot of game left to play. Just to mix up all the metaphors, I don't know how many metaphors now. - The fourth quarter, is that what you're saying? - Yeah, okay, it's the beginning of the fourth quarter. So, you know, he could still get lazy and just do his corruption and, you know, host his HGTV renovation project. Right now, I think what we're seeing is, like, he's finally processing all of the horrible coverage about his landslide defeat, and it's making him mad. And also, as we're gonna talk about, with his new White House Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, who's been in his ear all the time, I'm sure he, Miller is spinning him up in all the right ways for Miller's purposes to make Donald Trump very angry about everything. Now, how long does that last, who knows? Do I want any kind of, you know, national or global crisis during these two years with him at the helm? Certainly not, certainly not. That definitely worries me. But I do think right now, we're just, we're dealing with the aftermath of his reaction to the election, that was delayed a little bit. Because he probably hadn't fully internalized what happened. I do just want to say, before you move on, to the fraction police, that it's the fourth quarter if you count all eight years. That's true. Just to be clear. Okay, yeah, that makes sense, that makes sense. I do like that he is still calling for, he's still a supporter of getting rid of the filibuster. He's still mad that Thune didn't get rid of the filibuster. And I think the Democrat, and I know you agree with me, we were talking about this, I think the Democrats should show that they are willing to work with this president. And they should give bipartisanship a try. And they shouldn't just be so partisan. And they should just extend an olive branch to Trump and say, we're going to go with you on this filibuster thing. And we're going to get rid of the filibuster, just like you've been asking John Thune and Republicans for the last couple of years. We're here to deliver for you, Mr. President. There are lots of ways to do this. But I think if and when Democrats have a governing trifecta in 2029, it can be their farewell present to Trump. His gold watch on the way out the door, Senate majority leader or whoever is a Senate majority leader at that time, we'll get to that later, can say, Mr. President, thank you for your service. I will do what John Thune would not, and I will eliminate the filibuster. I just think that's unity, Dan. That's how the city-- That's what the voters want. That's how people come together. And I don't understand who would stand in the way of that. Just-- Just John Thune. Just John Thune and some of these Republicans. But I think we get a lot of Democrats on board for this. So we could do a ceremony. Nothing to sign for Trump, but I don't know. But you could-- yeah, I guess nothing to sign for him. But you could just rip up a page of the Senate rules and hand it to him. He could cut it with giant scissors like a ribbon. I love the idea. So it does seem like the real president will be Stephen Miller, the new White House chief of staff. This is the man who calls the opposition party in our democracy a domestic extremist organization and says that American children born to immigrants are causing civilizational suicide in our country here. So that's our new White House chief of staff. Axios reports that top of Stephen's agenda is winning back young men, especially the young men of color who helped elect Trump in 2024, because what young man doesn't look at Stephen Miller and think, when I'm 41, I hope I look like a shriveled dick with herpes? You know, I was waiting for that sentence to come to an end, and it took a turn I did not expect. That is sort of what he looks like for free. He looks good for 41. Yeah. 41. Anyway, that's the role model. That's young men across America, whether they're bros, gay, straight, black, white, Latino, Asian-American, whoever they are. They're just looking at Stephen Miller like, that's the guy I I wanna be, that's my role model. - The voice of a generation. That generation is 1940s Germans, but that's fine. So if someone asked me to come up with the list of the top five people who cost Republicans the midterm, Stephen Miller would certainly be on it almost to the top of the list. I was saying this before the election. So to me, it seems like making him chief of staff is a signal that Trump and the White House just do not care about politics anymore. He doesn't care how unpopular he is. He's just going to pretend he's very popular. He's not on the ballot anymore. He just doesn't give a shit, and nor does Stephen Miller give a shit about politics because he has power, and he wants to use that power to do all the things that Stephen Miller has always dreamed of doing, most of them around immigration, but I'm sure crushing his enemies and going after them with prosecutions is part of that as well. But what do you think about the new Stephen Miller era and the Trump White House? I don't think it is that they don't care about politics. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Donald Trump is going to lose sleep over any Senate. Or House Republicans who lose their seats after he's out of office. I think the thing is, is Donald Trump and Stephen Miller do not understand politics. And in their demented, funhouse, mirror view of the world, the problem isn't Trump. The problem is the people in their minds, Susie Wiles, who wouldn't let Trump be Trump. Stephen Miller is the most dangerous, most annoying advisor in any meeting. You and I have been in these meetings where the person who comes in and goes, you just got to let the boss be the boss, right? The problem isn't too much Trump. The problem is not enough. We need more of that. And so they're doubling Trump down. And I think Trump and Miller are convinced that that is good politics. They are wrong. Absolutely wrong. And you are 100% right that Stephen Miller, with the possible exception of Pete Hagsgast for convincing Trump to go to war in Iran, is the person most responsible. Because he won, I mean, we could go down the list, but the way he handled immigration, the mass ice raids, the lying and gaslighting about American citizens and others killed by ice, sending people to torture prisons. All of those things took what was Trump's best issue and made it an issue on which they could not gain a single bit of advantage in the election. Also instrumental in the tariffs, which didn't help with the economic concerns that people had in the election. I think for the Democrats, there's two things they got to do with Miller. Number one is just like, you know, use their power in Congress to stop him from like the damage that he wants to cause. And they'll be able to do some of that, but certainly not all of it, unfortunately, because we don't have the presidency. But also from a political perspective, he's got to be the face of the Trump administration now. He is the future of MAGA at just 41 years old. He is the president. J.D. Vance, who we'll talk about too, was going to run for president. J.D. Vance is on video saying that Stephen Miller is his best friend in the White House, his best friend. He's pals with Marco Rubio too. And so I just, and I think there's just, there's few administration figures, probably more unpopular. Than Stephen Miller. And to the extent that he's not incredibly unpopular, it's because people still don't know who he is. So like, I'm all for making Stephen Miller as famous as possible. So people understand the White House chief of staff is the second most powerful person in government. Yep. They're more powerful than the vice president, for sure. They're more powerful than any cabinet secretary. They control what information gets to the president. They control what decisions the president makes. They are, they can pick up the phone and get anything changed in government. And so this is not just a figurehead. It's not just a figurehead position for a guy who gets a nice office. It is one person who will have the full capacity to turn the federal government into a weapon for their cause. Yes. Yeah. It is, it is bad news for, you know, all of the damage that he will cause. But like I said, I think the silver lining is it is incredibly bad politics. He will make bad political decisions. And just him as the chief of staff is going to be incredibly unpopular, I think. Yeah. So it is bad, bad and dangerous for the country. It probably ends up hurting Republicans politically at the same time. Yes. As they're heading into 2028. We already have an early indicator of how the Miller regime will operate. White House counsel Will Scharf is threatening to investigate Democrats who may investigate the White House. He sent a letter this week to incoming House Oversight Chairman Robert Garcia that specifically cites, among other things, Garcia's joke at Cricket Con about how, quote, pettiness is a thing when it comes to investigating Trump's corruption. Love to be a footnote on the White House enemies list. Next year, we've got to make the main body of the letter. Glad we're on the radar. That warms my heart. What did you make of Scharf's letter? Absurd, embarrassing and stupid. Has no legal force. Has no legal force. It's basically just it is a threat. He's just trying to throw a shot across the ballot. Democrats just somehow thinks that will prevent them from doing their job. The Constitution. The Constitution is incredibly clear about the speech and debate cause, about what role Congress has. The things they're saying are not actual law. And they're just saying, we don't like what you're doing. And so we're going to then use the taxpayer funded resources of the federal government to investigate you. To no end, we're not going to win a court case. They want to make an argument that Democrats are overstepping their constitutional authorities when arguing in court against certain subpoenas or document requests. They can do that. They'll probably lose that, too. This idea. The idea that the Democrats have committed a crime or danger of committing a crime by doing the oversight is absurd. Talk about overreach. They have overreach by doing this. Like now, Democrats, I think, are on stronger political footing to do these investigations because the White House, before they even opened a single investigation, threatened to prosecute them, threatened to investigate them criminally. And, you know, we were just talking about Trump complaining that the the seditious six, the six senators who were they tried to prosecute merely because they were. Because they spoke their mind and and fucking recorded a video telling soldiers that they don't have to follow illegal orders. Yet the reason that they're not they weren't prosecuted is because they couldn't even get a fucking grand jury indictment for any of those. They already tried and they couldn't do it. So, like, it's I think I think Democrats have rightly laughed this letter off. Yes. As they should. And, of course, the White House is going to try to use the DOJ. And do whatever they can to try to investigate and slow them down. But, like, you know, and that's annoying, certainly for all of those Democrats on the committee. But it's not going to do anything. Yeah, it's the whole thing is dumb. Pods of America is brought to you by Zbiotics. You know how we feel about Zbiotics. We love it. And I've gone back to getting it. I get a regular delivery now. Because I had so many. And then I used all of them. And I was like, OK, I got to go back to doing a subscription. Because the only way I can remember to take this stuff. Yeah, you need it. And you do need it because it works. I promise. I promise it works. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was engineered by Ph.D. microbiologists to break down acetaldehyde, an unwanted byproduct of alcohol metabolism. Make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly. And enjoy your next day activities. Zbiotics has sold more than 15 million bottles. I think 13 million have gone to me. That's OK. Yeah. And also earn the trust of thousands, including us. The holiday season is officially here. And if you're anything like me, your social calendar is filling up fast. Don't mind if I do. From Friendsgiving with friends to the turkey trot the next morning. These are the moments you don't want to miss. That's why I make Zbiotics pre-alcohol part of my routine before drinking. Because the best part of the holidays. Is being present for all of it. Yeah, I don't think that's right. Yeah, I was going to say. Come on. We want to make honest claims here. Try Zbiotics pre-alcohol for yourself. And if you're not satisfied, they'll refund your entire order. No questions asked. Head to zbiotics.com slash crooked. And use code crooked for 15% off your first order. Pod Save America is brought to you by Haya. As parents, we're back in full swing of the school year. And can already feel the holidays approaching fast and furious. Well, I'm not me, but parents. You know, the last thing any of us want is for your kids or yourselves to be down for the count. That's where Haya comes in. Formulated alongside pediatricians and nutrition scientists. Haya's products target kids' most common nutrition gaps. Each chewable daily multivitamin packs 15 essential vitamins and minerals alongside a blend of 12 organic fruits and vegetables designed for kids 2 and up. You can get your Haya at Target or have it shipped straight to your door. John, you have children. Yeah, they're walking into the office any minute now. Oh, yeah. If only they had come. They could walk right in here. They could talk about Haya. Because you know what? Charlie loves Haya. We're doing our pumpkin carving. As we're recording this. He's been taking Haya vitamins. He's been taking Haya vitamins since he was 2, 3 years old. He's 7 feet tall now. He can dunk a basketball. You know, he's a picky eater. And so, this is how to get him all the vitamins and minerals. And they taste good. So, he likes Haya. Haya also launched a teen daily multivitamin for ages 13 and up. It features 15 plus bioavailable methylated vitamins and minerals like B12, B6, and folate for easy absorption. Plus, my-o-in-o-s-i-t-a-l. Why? Why Haya? And vitamins D3 and K2. To support bone growth. Zero sugar. Monk fruit sweetened. How do you get the monks? How do you get fruit of the monk? Where does that. Monk fruit's great. Really squeeze those monks. And packed in their signature refillable glass bottle. We worked out a special deal with Haya. Receive 50% off your first order on any of their products. To claim this deal, you must go to hayahelp.com slash crooked. This deal is not available on their regular website. Go to h-i-y-a-h-e-a-l-t-h dot com slash c-r-o-o-k-e-d. And get your kids the full body support. they deserve. Much like the White House, House Republicans are also signaling a fresh start by replacing Mike Johnson with Jim Jordan, who they picked over Steve Scalise to be minority leader. The Senate kept John Thune, despite some grumbling in the caucus and conservative media. Thune responded by asking his critics what they would have done differently, and then nobody ran against him, so he's still leader. Josh Hawley, to his credit, did come up with something for Republicans to do. He has invited people to the Capitol on December 15th to pray and fast for an hour. This podcast, I guess, is us fasting for an hour. I understand praying for an hour. I don't really understand fasting. You're just going to a room that doesn't have food. An hour is not a fast. An hour is like that's – For some people, it is. It is? I suppose. It's so funny. Praying for one hour straight. Really emblematic of Josh Hawley's impact on American politics. It's like a grand pronouncement about nothing. We care so deeply about this. We will do it for 60 minutes and not a minute longer. So what political problem could you possibly have where the answer is Jim Jordan? Just like the Miller hire, this is just an example of them doubling and tripling down on the things that got him in this mess. If you think about it from the perspective of – forget even put Trump aside. Put aside all these Republicans who remain in the back. Now, in the House, they're all theoretically in safe districts because there's not a single House Republican in a district that Trump won by less than nine points left. Wow. Yeah. It's just an amazing statistic. But there are a lot of people who thought they were safe after the 2006 wave. Then the much larger 2008 wave came and they lost there too. And if you want to rebuild the majority, you have to improve your political standing with – or regain the majority. You have to improve your political standing with the public. And the biggest problem is not that they would ever do this. But their biggest problem is they ran on a pledge to do a bunch of things to make people's lives easier and they did none of those things. One could theoretically – different people – but people could decide, you know what? We're going to do a couple things to deliver for people. We'll work with Democrats. And Jim Jordan is the exact opposite of that approach. He believes his job in Congress is to just yell louder with his short sleeves rolled up in a hearing. I will say if you're – let's pretend. Let's imagine. There's a Republican in the House who wants to follow that path. Like maybe we can – the way to turn this around is to do a few things with Democrats and try to turn a new page on the Trump era. Like to be fair, you're not going to start that new era with Donald Trump as president. So like I don't know anyone who's going to put their hand up and say, yeah, I'm going to be the new Republican leader of the House. It feels like they – Jim Jordan versus Steve Scalise is just like House Republicans giving up. Like you know what? It's two more years of Trump. We have to deal with him. He's there. We're here. Let's just fucking wallow in our loserness. Yes. I agree to an extent. I think that Steve Scalise, who does suck. I don't want to suggest he doesn't suck. But at least as someone who has legislative experience passing bills or at least counting votes for bills and has worked with the other parties. Not just like getting things done but just the day-to-day of making the Capitol run on time. Jim Jordan is just a Fox News personality with a congressional vote. Yeah, it's going to be interesting when he has to start whipping votes and counting votes. Not like he's going to win many. Yeah, I mean he's just like – it doesn't really – they're not trying to solve a problem. I guess it's to your point. They're just going to continue – they're going to wallow in what they're doing because they don't know another path and don't know how to get to another path if they were to try. And they probably think if they're going to be investigated or Democrats are going to do a lot of investigations, then Jim Jordan is the guy you want on Fox and on TV and on right-wing media just yelling and screaming about Democrats. Democrats being monsters. You know, he's like – he's good at that. Yeah, good for him. Striving to emerge unscathed from this disarray, Vice President J.D. Vance. As we've discussed, the VP soft-launched his presidential campaign with a 600-word tweet blaming the Republican wipeout mainly on the Iran war. His boss, the guy who started said war, did have one edit for the VP. Let's watch. Has J.D. Vance's comments about Iran, questioning some of those decisions, has that impacted? Has it impacted your relationship at all? No, not at all. But a lot of people didn't like his comments, but not me. He was right other than one thing. He should have made one other statement, one statement that I think is very important. If you had it to do again, would you do it again? The answer is yes. Oof. Would I love to hear J.D. Vance's answer to that question. When is a reporter going to ask him? How has that happened yet? Maybe he hasn't appeared before the press. Has he? I don't know. Who knows? It's the most obvious. I mean, it's going to happen. And he has to answer yes. I can't wait. It's so good. He's going to have to answer yes, right? If he wants to continue showing up at the White House. It's worth remembering, once again, Donald Trump tried to murder his last vice president. Trump said Thursday, after all that, that the war is no longer part of J.D.'s portfolio because we, quote, don't need a deal with Iran. Let's see. This is we're recording this on November. You're hearing it on the 13th. I believe on the 9th, he said, we're close to a deal. They want a deal. Now, we don't need a deal with Iran. And so he's put J.D. Vance on the corruption beat. I guess rooting it out, not doing it. Some of that as well. Trump, the doing corruption is Trump's job. Yes. The rooting out corruption from the other side, fake corruption, is J.D. Vance's job. So, Vance is probably thrilled with being off the Iran war beat since his people, leaked a playbook that the vice president, quote, sees an opening in the post-election blame game. Republican hawks are attacking him for opposing the war. Democrats promise retribution. And he's planning to use both to prove he's the anti-establishment voice in Washington. Hilarious. Vance's rivals for the nomination, they don't seem to agree. There have been a bunch of stories about how other potential candidates like Ron DeSantis and even Josh Hawley of the One Hour of Fasting fame, appear to be emboldened, trying out campaign messages of their own. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that even some of Vance's allies are quietly telling him maybe he should sit this one out. Apparently, he got a text from a close friend who said maybe you should sit this one out. I imagine the journal got that from the friend who got the text, who sent the text. Yeah, there are only two people. Maybe it was through a group chat. We don't know that. That's true. I don't think he's invited to a lot of group chats, honestly. What are your thoughts? On J.D. Vance's gambit here, that he's going to be the anti-establishment voice in Washington by being attacked by Mark Levin and Mark Thiessen for not being hawkish enough on the war and by going after Democrats for trying to hold the administration accountable for corruption. I kind of got the sense that J.D. Vance is fucked. There's really nowhere to go here. He did this big statement saying he's blaming the war which now Trump is boxing him in where he's going to have to agree with the original decision to go to war. Trump now doesn't want to end the war in any way, shape, or form. He just wants to live, which is the worst case scenario of all for Republicans, is just leave it in this current stasis for the foreseeable future where nothing's happening, nothing's getting better. Traffic does not move through the straight in any real way and gas prices can just stay high. And that seems to be where he's. He's put Vance, and Vance just looks weak. And there was a world in which this nomination was a coronation. He maybe might have won Challenger kind of like Al Gore had Bill Bradley. There is an anti-incumbent administration vibe. People line up behind it, but you still remain the overwhelming favorite. It looks, as we sit here today and things could change, you could end up with several people who are formidable in the world of Republican politics, like Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis, who run real challenges, splits the field in lots of ways. And there's blood in the water here, to use what people have said. And it's going to make J.D. Vance's path to nomination much more treacherous. And even if he gets the nomination, he's going to be a much more damaged nominee coming out of it. It's just, it's so. Reading that spin in Playbook this morning, I was like, I can't even believe that they were able to offer this up with a straight face. That, like, who does he think that would run against him? Does he think the field would be a bunch of people criticizing him for being too much of a dove on Iran? For, like, does he think he's running against Mark Thiessen and Mark Levin? Like, those people. He's going to get a bunch of challengers who say that the war is terrible and that the war shouldn't have happened. And then, like, does he think he's going to get. He's running against a bunch of Washington insiders who, like, aren't going to go after Democrats for over. Understepping? Not make that argument? Like, it's just. The idea that he is going to depict himself as the anti-establishment, anti-war, populist crusader after spending the last four years by Donald Trump's side and not breaking with him once publicly is fucking hilarious. I mean, I've said this before. G.D. Vance has run for office once in his life. Underperformed. Dramatically underperformed every other Republican on the ticket. Yeah. Yeah. He is not good at this. The only reason he is vice president and it's because he was able to swindle Donald Trump Jr. Okay, an easily swindleable human being. And that's it. And in his role as vice president, he has shown absolutely no political skill in any way, shape, or form. He is not deft. He is not able to dance among the raindrops, which you have to be able to do in a situation like this. He just goes out there, lifts up his sleeve, and says, look at the cards I have up here, and then he makes the play. It's so patently obvious to everyone. Hungry Root doesn't just give you more options. It helps you discover the right ones for you and your family. Get back to what matters instead of spending mental energy grocery planning and shopping. Actually look forward to discovering new favorites instead of dreading the daily decision of what to eat. So the nice thing about Hungry Root is it can curate all kinds of recipes based on your preferences. So, for example, if you like sheet pans, there's some great teriyaki chicken and veggies. There's also a veggie and sausage sheet pan dinner. So if you're a vegetarian, if you're into sheet pans, Hungry Root is for you. That's just one example. I love a sheet pan recipe. Me too. A one-pot pasta or one-pan dinner. The best. The best. You're going to love Hungry Root as much as we do. For a limited time, get 40% off your first order, plus a free item in every box for life. Go to HungryRoot.com slash Crooked and use code Crooked. That's HungryRoot.com slash Crooked. Code Crooked for 40% off your first box and a free item of your choice for life. One thing America's anti-corruption warrior could start looking at, his administration's close personal relationship with the world's most important chipmaker who, whoopsie-daisy, has been sleeping with an alleged Chinese spy as well as not one, but two of his employees. On Thursday, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Wang resigned in disgrace from the company he founded. NVIDIA's CFO will take over as interim CEO and Donald Trump has already helpfully suggested the permanent job goes to him. I'm sure he wants that. We haven't had a chance to talk on this show about this insane story, but here's the part that matters. NVIDIA makes the chips that train all the most powerful AI models. The U.S. limits, which ones can go to China. Wang convinced Trump to ease those limits. Then the New York Times reported that Wang was having an affair with an executive named Alice Wang, no relation, who U.S. intelligence believes was working as a spy for the Chinese government. She was also working at a company in Singapore called Megaspeed, which somehow, somehow, managed to acquire billions of dollars worth of NVIDIA chips, which the U.S. now suspects were potentially funneled to China in violation of U.S. export controls. NVIDIA also appears to have put its thumb on the scale to squash an investigation into its actions by the Commerce Department, which has apparently been quite lax in its oversight of who's doing what. of who gains access to NVIDIA's chips. Not Lutnick. Lutnick did that? That's Howie. Howie Nutlick at the Commerce Secretary, who's now in some trouble. Even worse, the Times reports that Marco Rubio warned Trump about his pal's affair with the alleged Chinese spy before Jensen Wang got on Air Force One for their trip to Beijing back in May. What does Trump have to say about all this? Well, he initially said he hadn't been briefed, then he said he didn't really remember. Then he said, well, he believed Wang didn't know that she was suspected of spying, which seems to be a misunderstanding of how spying works. Yes. I didn't know I was sleeping with the spy. Yeah, no, that means she did it well. That means that's the honeypot. So many questions. Massive implications for AI, national security, the entire economy. But let's start here. How big of a scandal do you think this is for the Trump administration? This is one of the biggest, most important stories in the world right now. And if we weren't just coming off this giant midterm, it would be getting so much more attention than it currently is. This has, as you say, huge national security implications. It has real potential for corruption here because Wang is not just friends with Trump. And they are good friends, or at least to the extent Trump doesn't really have friends. They are regular acquaintances. They talk on the phone all the time. There is this obviously mortifying and cringey, cringing clip of Wang at the all-in conference where Trump just calls him on the phone and puts him on speakerphone for everyone else. He is, as far as we know, a major financial supporter of all the president's various projects. $25 million for the ballroom. Yeah. I'm sure whatever library fund he's given, they have a financial relationship. And the president was aware of this, did nothing about it. His administration did nothing about it. And it has. It has real implications for the world economy. There is. NVIDIA plays such a gigantic role in the ability for AI companies, not just the hyperscalers in the United States, but the open model ones in China. They need their chips. Wang is. Like, he is NVIDIA, right? And he has this very complicated supply chain relationship in Asia to get all of the stuff built. It's really all based on his personal relationships. With him leaving, we don't really know what that's going to do. You know, everyone worries about AI being in a bubble. These are the kinds of things that could pop bubbles. It had, like, just tremendous implications there. And just the national security implication that there was an intelligence operation using a honeypot to get a friend of the president to convince the president to give China access to our chips, which is the one thing we always said that Trump. Even Trump was saying we should not do because his argument for why we let AI cook, we don't need regulations to build every day, is because we're in this fierce competition with China for AI dominance, and he helped give China all the tools they had to keep up with us. Just, like, massive implications here. Yeah, I mean, the only question here is, was the spying even necessary? Because it was in Wang's interest, financial interest, to sell the chips to China, even if this alleged spy wasn't a spy. There's some. In the CNN story, I just saw that, like, some people in the intel community are like, was she actually a spy? Was she recruited by Beijing? We can't prove this yet. But, like, either way, like, Wang has been making an argument that we should give the chips to China because his argument on this is, well, if we give our chips to China, then we control the supply to China. And so then it's, like, U.S. chips that are. You know, the Chinese are then dependent on U.S. chips, and that's why they're not giving the chips to China. And that's good, because otherwise they would, like, just create their own, I guess. And it's, like, it's a kind of a fucking weird argument. Like, it never really made much sense to me. Well, the only part that makes sense is he gets to sell them. That's what I'm saying, right? It does make sense if you're NVIDIA and you're just a chip seller, right? So, again, like, did you need the spy to try to have Jensen Wang go around export controls and sell to a company in Singapore so that they could potentially divert those chips to China? That's the part that. So there's. There's two elements to how this. Three elements, I guess, to where the spy. The spying or whatever you want to say could be problematic here. One is just that U.S. national security and secrets. You have a spy who spends a lot of time with someone who is talking and texting, I assume texting with Trump all the time, right? So there are huge, just sort of national security secrecy questions there. Then there is, did the spy convince Wang to convince Trump to do this? As you say, you may not have viewed the spy because Wang always says, but then the other thing in which we need a lot more information about is whether the Alice Wang, who just sort of had a very rapid rise from television reporter to head of a major chip buyer, which, I mean, look, anything can happen in China. Anything can happen. That's right. Yeah. It's a land of opportunity. That's right. And then that company becomes a cutout to illegally send chips to China and the all sorts of. Potential protocols that prevent that from happening are not followed both within NVIDIA and the U.S. government. And perhaps maybe because the head of NVIDIA was having an affair with the person who was giving the chips to China. Here's the other thing that's fucked about it. Every time someone is like, hey, maybe we should regulate artificial intelligence because the heads of these AI companies are telling us that it could escape human control, that it could. Kill us all. Those aren't like just random doomers online and AI safety researchers. That's like, you know, the people who are running these companies. And every time there's a call for regulation, they say, all the people who stand to make a lot of money from this pretend it's not about the money and say, well, actually, we just don't want. We don't want China to win, right? And if you're really serious about not wanting China to win the AI race for national security reasons, which I understand there are national security reasons for this, men certainly You shouldn't be on the side of selling a bunch of chips to China, advanced U.S. chips to China, or just having a personal relationship with a chip maker who is sleeping with an alleged spy. Right. Like I thought I thought we were trying to do everything possible to make sure that China didn't win the race. But of course, and, you know, I cover this on offline, too, like the the worry has been for a while now that like this whole idea of like beating China to the punch and like is that China was going to steal the secrets of how to get to advanced AI anyway from us. That like one of the tools in their toolbox is espionage and that like whatever company here is figures out how to, you know, develop advanced AI that like China is going to be able to figure it out to either on their own or by spying on us. And so like the only real way to do this is to both regulate U.S. companies here and to enter into serious talks and international diplomacy with China to make sure we all don't develop a fucking AI model that we lose control of. Also, the people who make the argument that we can't regulate because it allows China to beat us are the same people who want to send the chips to China because they have a bunch of companies that are invested in that use the Chinese open source models as the basis for their work. Right. To compete with the hyperscalers. Right. So it is everyone. Everyone is conflicted here. And by the way, that's the other danger out here. We haven't talked about the open source models is like you let chips get out all over the world, you know, in violation of export controls or they're based on someone spying or they're based on someone's financial interest or Howard fucking Nutlick is not paying attention. Now you've got all these open source models getting a bunch of chips and who knows who the fuck has those like, you know, you start you start realizing why some of these AI people are like, yeah, the world is ending because not the right administration. To have in place while the AI race is at this stage. Tell you that much. All right. Let's talk about the latest with Democrats who still aren't tired of winning. On Wednesday night, the Mississippi Senate race was officially called and Scott Cologne became the state's first black senator since Reconstruction. Take a listen to some of his victory speech. There were times that I couldn't get donors to answer the phone. They did not believe a moment like this was possible. But I kept the faith. But I want to have a final word to every Mississippian, the ones that voted for me, the ones that didn't vote for me and the ones that didn't vote. My commitment to you, each and every one of you, is that first, I'm going to treat your children like I want my children to be treated. I'm going to treat your parents the way I want my parents to be treated. It looks like Cologne will end up winning by a bit more. More than 5,000 votes or half a percentage point. Up in Alaska, Mary Paltola was ahead by 4,000 votes or about a point and a half on Thursday afternoon with 82 percent of the vote counted. Her team and all the data nerds we obsessively follow seem to think she may hit 50 percent and avoid the rank choice vote tabulation altogether. She also now has more votes than both Dan Sullivan's combined, defanging that talking point. So looks like we're hitting 56, Dan, 56 Democratic senators. So on Mississippi, what do you think of Cologne's campaign and what it says about the path to a Democratic supermajority going forward? I loved his campaign. There's a moment that I think embodies exactly why he won. So Trump came to Mississippi to do a rally as he was doing his tour around the country. Most cases, the Democrat will hold a press conference or put out a video and respond to it and attack back. And what Scott Cologne did is he went to the rally. He went to the line of people of all of Trump's fans who were. Going to the waiting to get into the rally, he introduced himself to them. He shook hands with them. He hugged them. And it was just this campaign of openness and generosity and a willingness to do things differently. To understand that if you just ran the same playbook that we use all the time in Democratic politics that can in good years deliver in even slightly Republican states that will not work in Mississippi in any year. And he built a campaign that was good. He was open enough and and open enough and broad enough that when the wave came, he was ready to ride it into the Senate. I think it is a model for how we should think about not just winning individual races, but long term organizing in the states in the Deep South where you have this large population of black voters that have been disenfranchised, have not had their votes counted, have been purged from the rolls, even have went have lost their lost seats in Congress in the last year. He's checked out the process in some cases, very understandably so, to begin to engage with them, but also reach out to other people in the same way to treat every Mississippian as the same, whether they're Republican or Democrat or black or white or old or young. And it's just I think it's a model. I really do. Yeah. And there were plenty of folks in the party, not enough, but plenty of folks in the party who have sort of realized the potential of Mississippi for a couple of years now. And also that there was a governor's race there that Brennan Presley only lost by three points not long ago. So it wasn't. I mean, even though Trump won Mississippi by 23, 24 points, it's not it wasn't totally crazy to imagine a Democrat winning statewide there when the governor's race was three points. And look like this is it's a great example of why, like, you just don't you don't look at the map and say that anything is off limits and you give people a chance and you invest everywhere and you play everywhere. And like, I mean, I was connected with Scott on email like. Last year and people were like, I think he's got a chance. And I remember our friend Patrick Gaspar, who was like very involved in the campaign. He had said that, too. And, you know, like your instinct is like, well, we got a lot of important races. And this is this really going to are we really going to flip Mississippi? And what we really got to focus on is like the swing states and the top tier races. But like, you know, we had him on. He came in here and I was like, wow, that's that's pretty impressive. And like, you don't want to just like completely, you know, believe. That like it's going to happen no matter what. But like, I don't know. I was like very it's same thing with Annie Andrews. Right. I remember I was connected with Annie Andrews and was like, yeah, sure. Come on, save America. And like a lot of people invested in that race. And then a lot of people thought it was crazy. And I will say this is for all the factional fighting. There were people on the far left who were like Mississippi. Why Mississippi and not Angie Nixon? And they got mad about that. And then there were there were like people in the center left who were like, why are we spending money on Mississippi when we should be spending more when we're struggling in Michigan and other races? And so it's like this is not like a factional thing either. This is just you've got to be able to play everywhere. The I think the important thing to recognize here, the reason to invest, too, is Scott Cologne won today because some people invested in Brandon Presley two years ago. And people invested in Mike Espy and his Senate race two years before. I remember. Yeah. Tallarico and Gina Hinojosa won in part because of what Beto did in 2018 and in everyday sense. Right. Keisha Lance Bottoms benefits tremendously, not just from Ossoff and Warnock and what they've done. In years. But Stacey Abrams running in 2018 and 2022. And so when you run well-funded races with good candidates, even when you lose, you're you're building another step to get you closer to winning the next time around. And that's why that is why you can't write off any districts. It's why, you know, our friends that run for something are recruiting people to run everywhere so that when the waves hit, you have you have built an infrastructure, you have built a relationship with the community and you have a bunch of candidates who can run and take advantage of times like this. The other thing, too, is like. I think, you know, back in the Obama era, we all got a little bit over our skis with demographics or destiny. Demographics are not destiny. Obviously, we did not. We did not. Barack Obama did not. I mean, we as a as a country. Yes, yes, yes. But there is a you know, you can overcorrect too much in the other direction. And the reason people thought Mississippi was possible someday, it turns out now is because they looked at the demographics there. They looked at the concentration of black voters in that state. I mean, this is what happened. With Georgia, this is what happened with Texas is what happened with North Carolina, South Carolina, South Carolina. You start seeing states where there is a diverse population. There's a lot of black voters, white voters from the north are moving into the cities, which, you know, tends to, you know, college educated white voters, black voters, Latino voters, Asian American voters, like younger voters. And so you start looking at states and that doesn't mean alone that the demographic mix and the demographic changes are going to make that. That state flip. But it's a signal that maybe if the demographic changes are happening in the state, it's a good time to invest and to start running people, even if, like you said, they lose the first couple of times you do it, like you start building up an organization and then eventually it flips. I mean, that's what Stacey Abrams and Natasha Brown and everyone else did in Georgia. They saw they saw they looked at the they looked at the state. They saw the potential. They invested. People ran. People lost. And eventually now every single statewide elected official in Georgia is a Democrat in Texas. This is a great. Great thing to say. Every single official except Ted Cruz. Right. Is a Democrat. Every single statewide official like it is. It can be done. Pod Save America is brought to you by Quince. The best items in your closet are the ones you rely on every day, whether you're working, going out or staying comfortable. This holiday season, Quince makes it easy to find high quality staples for yourself and everyone on your gift list. Quince focuses on high quality staples made with premium. Materials like one hundred percent Mongolian cashmere, 14 karat gold and Italian leather. They specialize in those timeless, versatile pieces that feel special to unwrap and become everyday favorites long after. to the holidays. Their cashmere sweaters started to $60 and the lineup doesn't stop there. Premium down jackets, wool outerwear and cashmere accessories. Everything you and your loved ones need to stay warm and look put together all season long. Everything at quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middleman. So you can give luxury quality pieces without the luxury price tag. I just, we just got some quince stuff. We have a bunch of people coming over, uh, in a couple of weeks, uh, staying with us. And so we needed to buy sheets and some blankets. And so we got some great stuff at quince because it's really well-made. It doesn't cost as much as brands that are making stuff of similar quality. And so it was like a perfect solution and it looks great. So we've got some really great looking blankets and sheets and it's, it's awesome. And when it comes to gifting, quince has a lot more than clothing. Think fine jewelry, leather bags, hotel quality bedding. That's what I got. Chef grade cookware and five-star luggage, basically plenty of ways to find something special for everyone on your list. Give a gift of quality this holiday season, download the quince app for app exclusive offers, or go to quince.com, get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. And when quince asked where you heard about them, let them know it was pod. Save America. It's the best way to support the show. Of course, the good times couldn't last forever, Dan, uh, or even a week, uh, because that's how we Democrats roll. Uh, I'm talking about the blame game this week over the failure of Republican Thomas Massey's impeachment resolution against Pete Hegseth. Here's what happened on Tuesday house. Republicans called a vote. To stop Massey's impeachment resolution from moving forward. It passed, uh, 211 to 204 with 203 Democrats plus Massey voting. No. So they didn't get any other Republicans, but Massey 11 Democrats missed the vote. If all 11 had been there and nothing else changed, the impeachment resolution would have stayed alive. Though even then there still would have had to be another vote to actually impeach Hegseth, but it would have kept it alive. Um, but, but seven Republicans also missed the vote. And since most of those seven were in DC and actually voted later, the Republican majority could have theoretically held the vote open to wait for those Republicans. If the 11 Democrats had actually shown up, which would have given Republicans the votes they needed to kill the resolution. Um, many of the Democrats who missed the vote later said they had been stuck in traffic, which is why they couldn't make it. In time, many of them apologized. Uh, and in case anyone needed one more reason why Hegseth, uh, is the most embarrassing defense secretary we've ever had. Um, here's a video of him and his wife and staff getting yelled at for not observing a moment of silence at the tomb of the unknown soldier on Veterans Day. Now to Hegseth's credit, which I've never said, um, we'll never say again. Right. Yeah. On Thursday, he invited that soldier, uh, who just gave them that warning and that video to the Pentagon, uh, and gave him a medal. Um, let's talk about the impeachment fail. Uh, many people are very angry. Um, like I said, many of those Democrats who missed the vote have apologized. What is your take on the whole thing? I think this is a Rorschach test. For Democrats. If you think that Democrats and particularly Democrats in leadership and maybe Kim Joe is in particular suck, then you see this and you get very mad immediately. And I think you laid out exactly what happened here, right? This is, this is sort of a clusterfuck. It's not a clusterfuck entire, entirely of the Democrats making. It is not unusual for members to be off Capitol Hill in the evening and waiting in wait to get called for a vote. And then they come back. And were there not to be some like mass of traffic snarl, these members all would have made it back. That happens all the time. Is it a great idea to leave when you have such a super, super important vote? Probably not. But it is also tradition that they just keep the vote open until everyone arrives. And Republicans played a little bit of dirty pool here. And just as soon as they had the votes they needed, they gaveled it shut without anyone else. Well, not allowing these, these members or the seven Republicans to come because they had the majority in the end, there is, and you, we can, you know, the explanations originally, it seemed like Jeffrey's in, in Catherine Clark, the whip did not know exactly why people weren't there. Some of them were at the, at the reception. Some others just weren't in town. I think Nancy Pelosi was at a veteran's day ceremony in California that she goes to has gone to every year. Um, others, I think had a health issue, but it wasn't explained very, very easily. And so the, you know, the internet spun up very fast. Here's the thing, as you point out, even if these members had showed up, they would hold that vote open until the Republicans got there and it would have failed. Also, it does not matter substantively in the end because Democrats can, and we'll just bring this back up again when we're in charge in January and pass it away. It might be the biggest thing. Yes. Yes. That is the most important thing is he is going to be impeached by the house. There will be an inquiry. Jeffrey's has said he's fully committed to it. There is obviously more than the majority of Democrats are going to be there for it. That is going to happen next year. It'll be one of the first things I imagine this Congress does. Um, so, and by the way, I don't think, like, does he have the, do we have the two thirds votes required in the Senate to actually remove Pete Hebseth from office? That's, that's the other thing. Probably not. Like, does that mean that the house shouldn't impeach him? No, I don't. But like, I think in my, here's how I'm looking at all of the situations like this in the next couple of years. Do, is there a situation where Democrats had the power to make people's lives better and did not use that power, um, or misuse the power or fucked up in some way that they didn't, you know, like, and if that's the case, then I'm going to be really mad. But if it is about like missing a vote that, you know, first of all, probably they would have lost anyway. Second of all, they can bring up again in January. Third of all, might not even lead to Pete Hebseth leaving office. Fourth of all, even if he did leave, might not stop. The war that's actually costing us so much money and costing people money and putting people's lives in danger. Like, so like there's a, we have to think about, at least I'm thinking about you. Everyone else can be as mad as they want and think however they want. What I'm thinking about is like, what is the ultimate goal that we want to achieve? How do we get the power to achieve that goal? And are we taking the right steps to use that power correctly to achieve that goal? And in my view, that goal should be improving people's lives and sort of delivering on, the promises we made in this campaign and what, and, and delivering on the challenges that people are so upset about, which is the cost of living. Yeah. I mean, obviously this is not the way you want to kick things off. No. And again, you should like not go to a reception when you know, you should have a vote. Like I get that. That is a totally fair thing. But in the end, if the end goal is to impeach Pete Hebseth, Pete Hebseth is going to be impeached. Right. And all these people who just ran, we'll get a chance to do it. We're like cutting out all these new members right now. So we do it next year. That's true. They all, everyone gets it. Yeah. And it's very important. We have fixed the Scarlet eye to Pete Hebseth. I mean, and I mean that actually seriously, like you are correct. He is, it is highly unlikely that you're going to get 11 Republican senators to vote, to remove him from office, but it is all thing. It is very important to, for Democrats to show that we are trying to hold the Trump administration accountable for this war. And that is, this is the most high profile, best way to do that. Even if it does not result in a substantive change. There are other things we can do involving funding that do can result in a substantive change, but like right now, this is the right thing to do. And I think it's important to do it. Um, one of the consequences of the impeachment screw up was that it turned up the temperature on the conversations about whether the current democratic leaders in Congress should keep their jobs. Once the new majority is sworn in, in the house where this went down, it seems very unlikely that anyone will mount an open challenge to Hakeem Jeffries, especially since AOC and lots of other potential progressive challengers have already said they support him and will vote. Yes. And no one else has challenged him. Uh, in the Senate, things are more complicated. Uh, Chris Van Hollen may challenge Schumer though. Schumer claims he already has the votes and is proceeding with planning for 2027. Um, why don't we do this? What, what is the fairest argument for and against Schumer as leader? And, and how do you think this goes down? I'm going to give the argument that the pro Schumer side offers. And I think the best and most, um, catchily phrased by Ruben Gallego, who was at a press conference with Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand the other day, endorsing Schumer for leader. And he said, when the manager takes you to the world series, you give them an extension. You know, Schumer does not get credit for every part of this, but he did recruit when it was hard to recruit, like not in the salad days of 2026, but in 2025, when Democrats were still slogging, he recruited Sherrod Brown to run in the map, recruits Mary Paltola to run in Alaska. And I, the Alaska is not in play without Mary Paltola recruits Roy Cooper to run in North Carolina. And now North Carolina, this is such a democratic year that in hindsight, you could say, could some other statewide official or member of Congress want the seat? Maybe, but Roy Cooper was such a dominant force that he took the state off the map with a month to go saving the Democrats tens of millions of dollars that they could redirect to Texas or Kansas or one of these other seats we picked up. He raised a gazillion dollars for the Senate for both the DSCC and all the various super PACs so that we could compete in all these states. He has, you know, he led the effort, right? They got us here and he is taking credit for it. I think gets legitimately gets credit for helping deliver this majority. And the answer is you deliver the majority, you should get to lead the majority would be his case. The argument against is that despite all of that, and I think even good faith opponents of Schumer can give him credit for what he delivered. The argument is twofold, that in this election, voters wanted change in general and generational change in particular. You look at the candidates we elected, the number of senators under the age of 50 is doubling in the Democratic caucus now. It just, they were looking for people like James Tallarico, Annie Andrews, like a very, Abdul, a very different set of senators. And if we're going to, the way it is a mistake to respond to that by putting the same faces, including 75-year-old Chuck Schumer at the front of the line, make him the face of the party. Second to that, and this is the critique you get from inside the caucus, and this was articulated by Alyssa Slotkin at a press conference she had with Bernie Sanders earlier this week, arguing against Schumer and saying that they were not supporting him, is that Schumer does not, is not fully get, or is not the best leader for a fight against a threat as dangerous as Trump. Slotkin called it team fight versus team flight. Inside the Senate, there's wellness reporting about these group of senators, they call themselves the Fight Club, who have been trying to push Schumer to stand up more, to be more aggressive, to use as much power as we have. They claim Schumer is not doing that. There is a related critique that he's just, because he's older, he maybe doesn't understand modern politics in the way that some of the younger people do, and certainly don't understand modern politics. He doesn't understand modern politics in the way that some of the younger communication techniques. Schumer, like in the back in the day, was the premier Democrat in terms of communications. Like he was the master of print and early television media. He was when new senators got elected, they made them go sit with Schumer and he would coach them on how to get press. He now calls the refers to it as the social media, which I think is it is an indication that that's not his strength. And so that that is the you know, the question is, does Schumer should Schumer get a reward for what he delivered and and be the leader for at least the next two years, which is what his his seat is up in twenty twenty eight. He has not announced he's running for reelection. He's also not announced he's not running for reelection. A lot of people in Washington suspect these are the last two years for him. We don't know that. Or is the best way to take advantage of this moment we have to keep faith with the voters who put us in office to prepare ourselves for the next election is to find a newer, fresher face to do. Now, Chris Van Hollen, who I like a lot, is not exactly like he's in his mid 60s, I think. Yeah, he's not. It is sort of funny. Like people like we want generational change. We want generational change. Get rid of Hakeem Jeffries, who's 56, I think. And we also need to replace Schumer with someone nine years younger than him. Well, that's why, like, in my mind, again, it comes down to who leading the Senate is more likely to. Get tangible results with the power that we have, which is much more than we had before, but still limited by the fact that we do not have the White House. And so I actually like I take Alyssa Slotkin's critique seriously in that, you know, are we going to get into a government funding showdown and Schumer is going to Bach where maybe Chris Van Hollen or someone else would say and fight? Yeah. But then and we you know, this was we've been through this now so many fucking times on this podcast and so many different government funding fights. The real question is, in those fights, is sticking and fighting going to change the Trump administration's mind in any way? Is Trump ever going to give on any of these funding fights or are we just going to keep the government closed for the next two years? And he's never going to change his policy on anything, right? Because he doesn't feel political pressure. These are questions that sometimes I think go beyond the personality of the person leading the Senate Democrats, right? Now, I don't know, like, and I could be wrong on that. And maybe Van Hollen would stay and fight and with Slotkin and the rest of them and Schumer wouldn't. And if they stay and fight, then Trump eventually backs down for the first time ever. And we and we deliver real results to people. The reason I say this is because I have much more concern about who if we win the White House in 2028, who are the leaders of the Senate? In the House in that scenario? Yes. Because I look back at us passing the Affordable Care Act, and I don't think anyone could have done what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. Like, I think that they had some real fucking skill to help pass that legislation that a lot of other Democrats in Congress, I can't think of any who could have done that. And so I do think like if we were sitting in this position with a Democrat in the White House, I think I would be like screaming from the rooftops that Chuck Schumer should not be the leader. I don't care that he won. I don't care that he delivered the wins. I don't think that the next two years in Congress matter as much to me who is leader, because like, I also think about it in terms of like, who's the best messenger for the party. And like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are not the best messengers for the party. The leaders have never been the best messengers. And they've never been. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were not out front. That's also true. I mean, Daschle and Gephardt a little bit, but they still weren't the best messengers of the party. But again, the next two years, the best messengers of the party are going to be the people who are running to be president of the United States. Like, they're going to be the ones out there all the time carrying the message for the party, debating what the best message for the party is. They're going to get all the attention. So it doesn't worry me as much who the leaders are in these next two years. It worries me a lot who they are in the two years after that, which is partly why I think, I mean, if I was Schumer and I really wanted to lock the whole thing down, I'd be like, yeah, I'm going to be leader for the next two years. But then I'm announcing my retirement early and I'm out. I think he thinks he probably doesn't have to do that to get it. I mean, it's important to recognize that the way we're doing it, we're doing it in a way that's very familiar with how speakers are elected because we went through all of this with the Republican speaker attempts in recent years. And the speaker of the house is an official government job where you need a majority of the house. And so you have to get almost all of your caucus to vote for you. It's a big deal to become leader of the Senate. It's not a public vote. It happens at a lunch and you just need half of the senators present during the vote. So if everyone showed up, Schumer wins with, I think, 29 votes. And if speaker of the house is like, winning a class president election, leader of the Senate is basically like being elected the president of your club. And it's so much more intimate. Like in the house, if you vote against the speaker, there's another 220 or 30 or 40 of you and you can kind of hide. Now you have to go look that person in the eye at lunch every single day, twice a week for the entire year. And it's awkward and it's just, it's a very different thing, which is why there so rarely are challenges to team leaders. We may end up with one here. We may not. The other thing, I just want to say one more thing about this, which is I worked for a Senate leader. Speaker has a lot of power. The Senate leader has a lot less power than the speaker. And even in these fights, the question, like the government funding fights, it's not just how strong the leader is. The leader could be stronger in every case. And I think Schumer totally messed up the first one that never happened. Second one, he held them together for a long time until he couldn't. But also, especially in this last one, it was a couple of members to bail. And once that happens and you can't, it's everyone, you know, it's not LBJ and the Robert Caro books. You can't like, you don't have a lot of power. And if you punish them, you can't really even really get away with that with your own caucus. Are they going to kick them off their committees or something like that? George Bush didn't invite Jim Jeffords to a teacher of the year event at the White House and you switch parties and give the majority of the Democrats. So, I mean, I think this is a really interesting conversation about the future of the AOC. You know, as you said, Jeffries is almost certainly going to be speaker. And I think the fact, I honestly think the fact that he is everything from AOC to the Blue Dogs is probably speaks well of his internal caucus leadership and how people think he's done. People will see him closest. Schumer is, you know, it's not anyone's first choice. That was very clear at CrookedCon. Then we'll see where it goes from there. It may not be as consequential as people think it is, but it is important. Yeah. All right, Dan, that is our show for today. Dan's going to be back on Sunday with a conversation with Pete Buttigieg. Exciting. Right here from Denver at the What's Next conference. Can't wait for that. All right. Have fun, Dan. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Michael Goldsmith with Reed Cherlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hethcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Kenny Moffitt, Adam Lippert, Joseph Dutra, Desmond Taylor, Dan Farrow, David Tolles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Subtitles by the Amara.org community