Cage Match Inside the White House

Potsafe America is brought to you by Simply Safe. From the endless churn of the news cycle to daily tasks at work and home, we all have enough anxiety as it is. Take worrying about your home security off that list of stressors with Simply Safe. Simply Safe provides 24-7 protection, so no matter what's happening in the news or in life, you can always count on peace of mind at home. Love it set up at Simply Safe all on his own, and it was very easy, and he's very happy with it, and you can just use it right from your phone. He likes that. So he's had a great experience with it. With Simply Safe, you can customize your system to fit your needs, then it ships fast directly to your door. The app-guided setup is simple and there's no drilling required, so you can install an Armure system in under an hour. Simply Safe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras, and 24-7 professional monitoring. Over 5 million people value and trust Simply Safe with their home security every day. Right now, our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring and your first month is free. Just visit simplysafe.com slash cricket. That's half off at simplysafe.com slash cricket. There's no safe like Simply Safe. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. For years, I've heard from candidates, activists, and political staffers who turned to PodSafe America for political strategy and messaging advice because they don't have access to a political consultant or a pollster. That's flattering to hear, but it's a huge problem. If we're going to defeat MAGA and protect democracy, we need everyone to have access to the best information and advice possible. That's why I recently launched MessageBox Pro, a subscription consulting product for people working at every level of politics. Subscribers get weekly strategy memos, data-driven messaging insights, and polling analysis. Plus, you get access to an incredible community of smart, committed political pros. Whether you're running for office, staffing a politician, organizing your community, or working in communications at any level, MessageBox Pro is built for you. To learn more or sign up, go to MessageBoxPro.com. MUSIC Welcome to PodSafe America. I'm John Fabro. And I'm Alex Wagner. Two weeks in a row. Baby. You know, I'm really glad when you said, I want to do a special Knicks-focused episode of Pod. That is what I said. I was like, who will even know where we're going to be? But it turns out, very fortuitous. Happy to just talk about the Knicks on this podcast. Thanks for inviting me, John. Congratulations. That was nothing to do with this. I had some excellent timing because I put the boys to bed, and then I went downstairs and I turned the game on at the beginning of the fourth quarter when the run started. Oh, my God. Plus you with your Pacific Standard time. It's watching sports West Coast time, not that I ever do because I have two young children. But it is the best. It is the best. It's you're so lucky. I had put my, I let them stay up a little bit late, and we saw the first quarter and it was like, we can turn this off now. They were like, my, my, this is an eight-year-old started like kind of crying and he was like, I hate the Knicks. And I said, you need to manifest positivity. I put them to bed and then he woke me up at seven o'clock. I know I slept in and he was like, mom, they won. And then we watched highlights. I was slightly concerned that Trump had cursed them for the rest of the series, but it turns out it's just about him actually physically being there. True. And also smart Knicks fans burned a bunch of sage in front of the garden yesterday because we know how to clear bad vibrations. Clear the Trump stink out of MSG. Yeah, it's just, it hangs in the air, especially in this weather, but listen. Well, there we go. There we go. That's it. Thanks for joining us. Make sure to subscribe to POTSY America. We get lots to talk about on today's show. We're going to talk about Trump saying, we're on the verge of a deal with Iran for the 39th time since the war began a little over 100 days ago. Who knows? This could be the big one. We'll also cover the president's latest inflation gaff, spoiler. He loves it. In his attempt to quiet Republican Fuhrer over Bill Pulte by announcing his long-term pick for DNI. There's also new reporting that the knives are out in Trump land, which is perfectly illustrated by an explosive new story from Maggie Haverman and Jonathan Swan about how these morons bumble their way through the Epstein crisis. And finally, you will hear my conversation with our pal Ron Brownstein, one of the best political analysts out there about the midterm state of play, his take on the Grand Platinum saga, the House map, the Senate map, and much more. But before we start, please consider subscribing to Cricket and become a friend of the pod. You get ad-free episodes of POTSY America and all your favorite Cricket pods. You also get to be supporting one of the few pro-democracy independent media outlets left in the world. The Barry Weiss hasn't shut down yet or tried to murder. And you get subscriber-only shows like Dan Pfeiffer's Polar Coaster, our special extra episode of Pod Save America, and access to all of our excellent Substack newsletters. So think about subscribing if you haven't already, if you have, tell a friend, cricket.com slash friends. Tell my friends. What's that? Tell five friends. Tell five friends. I like that. Thank you, Alex. Why go for one? Don't clip your own wings. All right, I want five friends from everyone. Here we go. All right, Alex. Stop me if you've heard this one before. The ceasefire with Iran broke down. Missiles started flying again. Trump threatened to bomb the shit out of the entire country. And then at the last minute, announced with great fanfare that he's calling off the strikes because a deal is finally at hand. Is this an episode from six weeks ago, three weeks ago, last week, next week, 10 weeks from now, all of the above? You know, John, I've come to the Chris Nolan theory of time, but it's a dimension. And so it's always happening. We're always at war, and a deal is always imminent. We're always at war with... It is omnipresent. We live in the dimension of it. Yeah, we're never not about, it will go on forever. Middle Asia, in the distance, I guess. Yes. It is just, we're going to be talking about this for eternity. Like, it's like, all right, let's talk about the latest almost deal with Iran, and then we'll talk about the inflation gaff, and then we're off. I think... I've been thinking a lot about this, and I wonder if it's time for the press to stop asking him anything about the war. Because it's so... It's like asking, like, perhaps a mentally ill person about stock tips. Like, there's no use in doing that. They'll tell you some things. Now, I will say... They'll have ideas. I will say he's pretty good at that because of all the insider information, which he trades off of. Yes, that is true. 3700 stock tips. Yeah, he's quite adept at doing that. So the latest US strikes hit targets across Iran, including apparently drinking water infrastructure, which would likely be a war crime. And after Trump threatened to take Karg Island and assume, quote, total control of Iran's oil, he backed down with the post claiming, quote, final points have been in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, and then listed 10 countries. Iran was not one of them. As I mentioned, CNN has tallied this up for us. It's at least the 39th time that Trump has claimed a deal is imminent. And, you know, he did take some questions on the deal in the Oval. But like you said, it was all the same questions and all the same crazy answers. We thought it was much more interesting to play a supercut from his calling to Fox and Friends this morning between when he threatened to destroy the country and he announced an almost deal. He was there to ostensibly discuss Iran, but that only barely happened. Here are some of the highlights. I mean, I'd like to get a deal now, less than three or four weeks to go, because, you know, once you do this, you could just go a step further. But I don't know that America has the appetite to do what I would really much prefer doing. But we were in Vietnam 19 years. If it were me, I would have had that war done in three months. But we did great in 2020. It was a rigged election. And you saw it in California. Very interesting if I could just divert. You said all of a sudden, oh, we have a surprise. Steve Hill won. But Iran. It's a rigged election. But just to get back to Iran. I shouldn't have brought that up. But a Buddha Buddha. No, but let's get back. Let's get back to how I was. I just want to say to the public, it's a rigged election. We need to save America Act. Period. Okay, let's get back to Iran. Much simpler. Iran is very good at publicity, but they're not good at fighting. I took a look and I must tell you, they can't believe the press they get. They can't even believe it. And they told me, they said, it's amazing how well we're doing in the papers. We're not doing so well. They're negotiating with us to make a deal. It's like they did an editorial today about, we're not hitting them hard enough. I mean, it's just not hitting them hard enough. We dropped $250 million worth of bombs on them last night. It's the whole thing is crazy. Part of the problem is that they read the fake news. I mean, because Fox is greater. All the anchors on Fox have been fantastic, from Sean to Jesse, Laura, I mean, they've all been great. Everybody, every single anchor has been great. You guys have been amazing. Excellent. Seems like he's locked in, huh? Dude. Okay. I mean, like, where do we even begin with this? First of all, there's so many things to call attention to. The fact that he had to, in the middle of all of this, go off on the 2020 election and Brian Kilmeade is like, I shouldn't have brought that up. I shouldn't have brought that up. And he says, Iran's Iran. It's my fault though. It's my fault. I took us off topic. And then Trump says, let's get back to Iran a much simpler situation. He sounds like an old, angry person who's not yet even stood up from bed. You know, he has that kind of, the throaty congestion of someone who's just ranting from bed. And it's just, obviously, it's just association at this point. Just word salads. None of it makes sense. The fact that he keeps bringing up Vietnam as like a comparison should not make any member of the American public feel assured that they have their hands on the wheel here, that they got their arms around this thing. Well, look at Vietnam. That took so long. Yeah, no, dude. We don't want to do that again. Also, his whole thing about, you know, I do what I want to do, but the American people might not have the stomach for it. Like he wants to do this big war. He wants to keep going with the war. He wants just, he wants more war, harder war. His message, at one point he's pressed to give his message to the Iranian people. And Trump says, and this is a quote, my message to the Iranian people is they're afraid because they have no guns and the other side has guns. That's not a message to the Iranian people, I don't think, is it? That is not a message to the Iran. Every time someone has asked him about this whole war, though, he confuses, it feels like intentionally now, the Iranian people with the regime. And so everyone's like, what about the Iranian people? And he's like, they're running scared. That's what they're doing. And it's like, some people are specifically mentioning the Iranian people. And he, of course, does not give a shit about them, even though that was, you know, that was one excuse for why we were doing this in the first place. I also love the notion that the Iranian regime that most of our many who has not been seen in public since this began is calling Trump to be like, it's amazing how well we're doing in the papers. The papers. I look, I, I grabbed the New York Times here. The Atlantic. I grabbed the post this morning. You should have seen the wood on the post. Amazing. I'm getting amazing press. They, they, they put the Knicks on the back page. They, I was right there in the front. And that was a great game, Mr. President. He also starts talking at some point about Tiananmen Square and how it takes a, it starts, it starts the drivers of the tanks and Tiananmen Square who mowed down citizens at which point he's cut off. And they're like, we only have a minute, Mr. President. They literally cut him off on Fox and Friends because he's so outled. Can I say though, seriously, John, I mean, because you mentioned, and I think very importantly, and he certainly wasn't being asked about this on the Fox and Friends broadcast. They may have bombed water infrastructure, which would be a war crime. And the story of whenever this ends, or maybe it never ends because time is dimension, but when it theoretically comes to a conclusion, the story of American war crimes in Iran will live with us as the, as our legacy for decades. And we on Runaway Country had talked to the, a retired master sergeant at the, what is it called, the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which was a department in the DOD, which was set up to mitigate and prevent civilian deaths, like for example, bombing a girl's school or bombing water infrastructure. And Pete Hegseth wrote in and dismantled it effectively. Like civilian deaths are not beside the point. I mean, I think terrorizing people, especially brown people, the world over is the point. And we, I mean, this administration owns these civilian deaths. And we don't have a good tally of them because there's so much opacity with regards to this war, even as it concerns American deaths. And we have a free press, but at some point the numbers are going to come out. And Donald Trump will own every single one of those deaths for a deal that looks like it will be nothing on par with the JCPOA. Also, one thing he said there in that clip that we played is, you know, he's talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial board saying that he's not bombing hard enough. He's not doing enough, right? Because there are hawks over there. He also calls the Wall Street Journal. He's like, I know that you guys own them, but they're trash. He said to the Fox people, referring to Murdoch. And he's like, what do they want from me? We just dropped $250 million worth of bombs on them last night. So now he is bragging to the American people about using their tax dollars to drop bombs on Iran that hit water infrastructure that could potentially cause civilian death. So now he's telling people, he's like, hey, what do you want from me? I spent your money killing people in Iran for no reason last night. It's the first time we've also gotten any kind of price tag from him. I mean, it's so embarrassing that this is like, the braggadocio about killing civilians is the only way we get some transparency from this White House about what the damage and the sort of collateral on the table is. It's like horrifying. You know, the question is, you know, we'll Lucy yank the football away yet again. Or this finally Charlie Brown's moment. It seems like the, it's still just a memorandum of understanding. So that's what Trump said that in the Oval, which means it's the sort of the same deal as before deal. The Israelis are apparently surprised. No, and they said they're not part of this deal at all. So no matter what the deal is, it's not solving the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Trump said that the Ayatollah has agreed already. Iran is not saying that. There's an Iranian news agency said there's a high chance the agreement will be approved. So like, you know, maybe we're going to get there, but it feels like we're right back to, if it does get approved, what it is is the end of the naval blockade reopening of the street and then kicking all the nuclear issues down the road for more negotiations that I'm sure will not go anywhere else. But I don't know what you're saying. There's definitely going to be some sweetening to the tune of, I mean, Marco Rubio on the Hill said they were not going to trade sanctions relief for reopening the street. But, and Nahal Tuzi has like a breakdown of this in Politico today, there's definitely ways that they can make sure money flows to Iran. Basically to fill back up the coffers and pay them for reopening, pay them to reopen the street. We are going to buy any kind of resolution that happens here. We may not know about it as American taxpayers, but it is certainly there is going to be a shell game going on inside the bowels of the federal government to ensure that money goes to the Iranian regime. Because otherwise, why would they do any of this? No, of course. And what happens, what will happen is some intrepid reporters will find out what the shell game is and report it in a great story and then someone will ask the White House about it. And they'll basically say, fuck you, fake news. And then everyone will go on to the next thing. But, but don't don't take it from us. Take it from Brian Kilmeade, who said, Mr. President, you're like an anaconda, squeezing the life out of the enemy, slowly squeezing them to death. He said it like four times. Yeah, he was really happy with his analogy. And he just, he was like, but did you hear the anaconda thing? Really trying to make it happen. I'm workshopping it. Yeah. Before we move on, what did you make of his rant about the California election? Did you, did you realize that Steve Hilton won because Donald Trump complained about Spencer Pratt losing? Yeah. What did he say about Spencer Pratt? He was like, the kid got shafted. He got shafted. But then I said something, I said something and now, now we got Steve Hilton. Now he made it through. Yeah. It was happening to Steve Hilton too. But now, I mean, it's, it's good that someone's got their eyes on California. We guys, we know how you operate. And it's a, it's a complicated, you know, con, right? You think, oh, well, the gubernatorial race matters more. But no, what this is, is about singular and discrete races that are stolen for no apparent reason. But just to throw you off the scent. Yes. It's about, it's about the LA mayor, the incumbent, who much, who wanted to face Spencer Pratt much more than she wanted to face a progressive challenger and yet did her best to rig the election so that she could get that progressive challenger and not Spencer Pratt. That is, that was the double cross of a double cross, John. Untangle that cat's cradle, buddy. Man, these people. But like, can I just say? Yeah. The election fraud and going back to 2020 is like so much more animates this dude than actually Iran. I mean, he's both incompetent and incoherent on Iran, but he's also bored of it. Like he doesn't really have, like he would much rather, he wants to talk about the same America Act. He wants to talk about raw power and the stealing of elections and getting his election deniers, you know, having them act with the full force of the federal government. That's what really gets this guy up in the morning. Yes. As, as, as you can tell from the tone in his voice. Yeah. Pod Save America is brought to you by NutriFull. Real change comes from the small, healthy habits you do every day that quietly add up to big improvements. That's the idea behind NutriFull. It's built around a simple, consistent approach to hair health that works from within and delivers visible results over time, not overnight. NutriFull is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. NutriFull's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed NSF certified for sport and clinically tested. It's not a one size fits all approach. NutriFull offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages, like postpartum or menopause and lifestyle factors such as a plant based diet. So you get the personalized support that's right for you. Adding NutriFull to your daily routine is easy order online, no prescription needed with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. Let your hair become one less thing, taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with NutriFull. For a limited time, NutriFull is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you visit nutrifull.com and enter promo code CROCKET. That's nutrifull.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L.com promo code CROCKET. Pods of America is brought to you by Cooke Unity. I love Cooke Unity and I just had a meal last night. What did I have last night? I had the Thai beef curry with rice and who knows what I'm going to have tonight. Maybe it's like a good chicken dish they gave me. Anyway, I've used Cooke Unity for years, long before they were ever a sponsor. It's great. It's the first chef-led meal delivery service that makes your meals in small batches inside local micro kitchens across the U.S., not factories. So every dish arrives with the kind of freshness you'd get at the restaurant itself. Meals from Michelin-starred chefs, James Beard winners, and Food Network stars. Go to CookeUnity.com slash CROCKET or use code CROCKET before check out for 50% off your first week. Every Cooke Unity meal is handcrafted by chefs in local micro kitchens, not mass produced in large facilities, fresh, never frozen, and can be refrigerated for up to seven days. Cooke Unity uses real culinary talent cooking in real kitchens, not a brand slapping a chef's name on a factory product. Cooke Unity works with some of the best chefs in the country to bring creative, delicious meals to your door. There are hundreds of dishes to choose from, and the menu is updated constantly. Taste what happens when real award-winning chefs make fresh, small batched meals just for you. Go to CookeUnity.com slash CROCKET or enter code CROCKET before check out to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using code CROCKET or going to CookeUnity.com slash CROCKET. Well, deal or no deal with Iran, it's looking like it may be too late for Trump to turn the economy around before the midterms. And per usual, he's making it abundantly clear that he doesn't care. New inflation data from Trump's own Department of Labor shows that prices rose in May to a three-year high for the third straight month, with energy prices up 24% from a year ago. Data on wholesale inflation released Thursday morning put that measure at its highest since late 2022. Trump, of course, has delivered an epic run of gaffes on the topic of how much people's financial struggles are weighing on him. Here's a few highlights to jog your memory. Do you believe the price of oil and gas will be lower before the midterm elections? I hope so. I mean, I think so. It could be. It could be or the same or maybe a little bit higher. I look today, it's like at 102. And that's a very small price to pay for getting rid of a nuclear weapon from people that are really mentally deranged. Affordability is a hoax that was started by Democrats. How much longer will Americans continue to see the high gas prices? Well, they're not very high. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night. That was the prelude to the midterms. Well, good news. We have a new contender for the crown. Here's what Trump said on Wednesday in response to a question about the latest inflation data. Can you serve as your president about the latest inflation number which came out this morning? Could that be a no? I love it. The numbers were great. You know what? I really love that. I love the inflation. You know why? Because you're still there. I love the inflation. He loves the inflation. God, I wish they could pan to other faces in the room. Can someone in the pool just go to Suzy Wiles' face when this is being said? Scott Besant, I love the inflation. I mean, this is the downside, John, of having a malignant narcissist in office. They can't summon empathy when empathy is the prerequisite from staving off the political fallout from stopping the bleeding here. The war is so catastrophically out of Trump's hands to a certain degree because he refuses to engage in diplomacy and doesn't really give a shit and is also an idiot. But if he's going to try and manage the political reality that he and his party are facing, you've got to start the sentence with empathy. And I feel your pain and I know this economy is bad and it's tough to be a working class American but X, Y, and Z about Iran and the stability of the globe or whatever. But he is constitutionally unable to summon, to even pretend, not only he's constitutionally unable to pretend to be empathetic, he's the opposite. He's digging the knife in further. Bill Clinton's message was, I feel your pain. Donald Trump's message is, I cause your pain. And I'm fucking glad I do it. And tough shit. That's me. I cause your pain. You and your dumb cars. You and your dumb desire to put food on the table. Don't talk to me about health care. I need another million for my ballroom. Now, for my money, I still think the reigning champ is, I don't care, but I don't think about Americans financial situation at all. I don't know. I love the inflation. It's funny because he uses the article in front of it, I love the inflation. So that makes it a little funnier. But, well, no, he says it's actually the full quote is so good. You know what I really love. I love the inflation. You could argue, right? Like he's like, hold it. He teased it up. He's like, I'm about to, you know what I really love? The inflation. Like it's so sadistic. Honestly, I don't think about Americans financial situations is part of a bigger question. And I'm not excusing it at all. I think it was a disastrous quote. But this is psychotic. This is someone who's like, you like the pain? How about a little bit more? You know what I really like? F***ing over the American public. It's always dangerous to do this. But I was trying to think of like, what was he actually trying to do there? And I think what he, in his, in his adult, very old mind, he was thinking, you know what, this data, it's going to be great because as soon as the war is over, this inflation is going to come right down. And then I'm going to take all this credit for inflation falling. So I love the infl, like I think it's a little bit like, still doesn't make sense. It doesn't. No, of course not. Of course not. Like, because he's talking about ongoing inflation. It still doesn't make sense. Well, he doesn't know. He also doesn't know what inflation is really. Yes. Can I just say also, I don't moonlight as a petroleum engineer, but I will for this podcast. Yes. I try and come, I try and come prepared. Like the gas prices are not going down, even if the straight of hormones opens back up tomorrow. No, like this is bakes. This is, this is where, where it's cooked for the midterms. I, the Washington Post is talking about the reality of these like ships getting through back through the straight. They're like, even the hundreds of fully loaded tankers that have idled in the straight since last February will not be able to quickly move their cargo vessels are now so coated with barnacles that teams of divers will need to be dispatched to clean them. I didn't know that. This is not just going to be an issue, the issue in the midterms. This is going to be an issue in for JD Vance and Mark and in the Republican primary and whoever decides to run against him from outside the administration. I mean, this is like by act by 2028, it won't, maybe it won't be, hopefully it won't be as much of an issue, but like 2027 when the primaries are happening. Yeah. 100%. You're so right to say that. That is like such a, you're so smart about this, but that is so true. Like because the, the, the, I mean, again, I'm not a petroleum engineer, but the refineries and the production facilities have to take an offline and it takes months to get them back up and running. And like if the oil supplies, I also didn't know this, if oil supplies drop low enough, then it breaks down the, if there, if there's not actually oil running through the pipeline, it can break down the production systems. So like if they don't resolve this in the next several weeks, there's like a catastrophic supply side issue where the infrastructure starts breaking down. And that's, well, like fixing all that is going to take, forget about the travel season. We're talking about holiday plans, Thanksgiving, Christmas. Like again, I'm not rooting for any of this. I didn't say that. I don't know why I'm saying again, I'm not a politician, but this is a fucked up situation. And yet I, well, and not and yet the incompetence and the refusal to acknowledge reality here is, makes you think they really want to lose that there's something, again, they're just, it's, it's self-flagellation politically speaking. Here's the other challenge and I'm no geopolitical expert, but if they come to a deal where it's just about opening the straight for money and for ending the naval blockade and then they go on to negotiate the nuclear issue, which is going to be tricky to say the least. And they don't include Israel and the deal. Then as we get into the fall, and Trump has his elections and we have our elections here, Netanyahu has his elections and Israel. Like as long as Israel continues to be a war with Lebanon and firing, you know, firing Hezbollah and Hezbollah is firing rockets in Israel and Iran doesn't want to let those rockets go unanswered and then Iran gets involved. Like that, we're not bringing peace to the Middle East with them, with a memo of understanding. So I think that, and there's a risk there, both for in the midterms and in the presidential primaries, that the Middle East is now like permanently in this state of, you know, I mean, it's, there's always been a lot of conflict in the Middle East, but like this latest conflict continues as a sort of like in a low boil, I guess in the best case scenario, low boil, but like, and they're going to have to deal with it. They're going to have to deal with the fallout of this war for years. It is, this is what I mean by time as a dimension, the war is ongoing, the war never ends. We are constantly on the brink of a peace deal. Call me in 2059. So also on this note, the Washington Post reports that oil and gas executives have been warning the White House that, as you said, that gas prices are likely to spike. So they're hearing this from the oil executives themselves. This is not like, this is not just some, just us talking about it. And then Politico has a story on Wednesday with the headline, the die has been cast. Trump allies fear it's too late to reverse economic woes. I also think there was a funny quote that I just saw from John Cornyn, who is liberated now. He spoke to the New York Times and he said, he said this about Donald Trump, he's going to have the most miserable two years of his life in the last two years of his term, I think, because I think November is going to be a disaster. You know what? I mean, oh, fuck, like, what is that? What's going to be miserable? I mean, miserable things to Democrats who have backbones and certainly not to Republicans who might actually stand up to him. I mean, John Cornyn has no reason to continue to enable the agenda of this madman. And yet, given the opportunity to break with him, hasn't. I mean, it's just such cold comfort when you hear the guys that are on their way out the door suddenly sort of develop a moral compass. It's such bullshit. And by the way, they haven't delivered on anything. There have been some pretty big ticket issues that they could have done something about in the last week, and they've chosen not to. So like, call me when your backbones made of actual, like, bone matter and not, what am I even saying? John Cornyn, what the fuck ever? What the fuck ever is what I say? I know. I agree with everything you said, and then I also love hearing quotes like that. So it's, you know, to get a little bit of both, I get mad because I'm like, where have you been? But also, yeah, I think what he said is right. I hope so. Well, and I think that there's a, you know, you should be dragging all of these. Every time an administration official goes in, goes up to the Hill, a fairy gets her wings. Every time an American administration official goes to the Hill and has to testify under real questioning, they prove themselves to be absolute clowns, and someone ends up losing their job. Like, just look at the, you know, look at the track record of Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem and, you know, Tulsi Gabbard. Like, so the once Democrats control Congress, and I think there's a likelihood that's both houses, like, there's going to be some real investigation into the absolute, I'm not going to say, I mean, the amorality, the potential, the deep corruption of this administration, and they're going to have to answer for it, all of it. And then, and then they're going to continue fighting with each other, which we hear is happening right now. Apparently, Trump, Trump is not happy about any of this, and it's putting a real strain on the supportive workplace culture that he has tried so hard to build. Here's a MAGA operative close to the White House talking to Playbook this morning. Trump is, quote, increasingly frustrated with everyone from his own team to the Senate. He's pissed, and people are not recognizing the level of pissed that he is. And here's another White House ally talking about Trump's staff, quote, knives are out in some capacity, this person said. I mean, people are stabbing people like it's chaos. The chaos is like creeping back. Sounds like a fun place to work. No? Good benefits? I mean, I'm great, great. Real, the ladder is steep when you can climb it. I don't, I mean, the knives are out. Like if you thought, should we be surprised that this, the most incompetent and corrupt White House in American history is beset by infighting and backstabbing? Absolutely not. I guess what's marginally interesting to me about that is those quotes or choice, but that it hasn't spilled out as much. I'm setting aside like Bongino Gate and all that. That infighting hasn't spilled out in the sort of real cremationology of this White House, the way that it did in Trump 1.0, given that things are going so much worse for Trump, and he's so much more addled and obviously less. I mean, maybe he's asleep more, so that offers a reprieve and people can, you know, unruffle their feathers. But it's, it's interesting to me that there hasn't been as much of a revolving door and sort of leaked backstabbing sort of anecdotes coming out of this White House the way there was in Trump 1. I don't know what that owes to. Maybe it's Suzy Wiles, but it sure still doesn't sound like a good place to work. I mean, nothing is. Once you've been to the crooked media headquarters, the bar is very high. Very high. My guess on this is that the percentage of like diehard loyalists is much higher in the second term. And so all the people who might have had a conscience or wanted to speak out or thought things were going too far, they're all gone now. And so it's just the hardcore true believers. And so if you're starting to get knives out among those people, that's that's the good stuff right there. That's when you know things are combustible. And I would say, you know, and I'm sure we'll talk about this later when we talk about the slush fund, there is the carrot on the stick of personal enrichment in a way that is like, it's an almost an explicit promise. Like if you're in this White House and, you know, Pam Bondi was doing stock trades, they all have sort of various honeypots that they're dipping into. There is, that will keep you there in your seat maybe a little bit longer because you're making, you have side hustles in a way that that was not an option or that they hadn't discovered that maybe in Trump 1.0. There is a reason to stay longer perhaps than you would. I mean, you know, personal personal, what is it personalized bourbon doesn't just grow on trees, John. And if you're cash Patel being FBI director, you know, membership has its perks. It sure does. So Trump was off course, pissed that Republicans keep defying him. And that's like one of the things he's really mad about. And it looks like Republican sort of displeasure with him picking Bill Pulte for acting DNI as you and I talked about last week, has led to Trump announcing his long term pick for DNI. And it's that's US attorney and former SEC chair, Jay Clayton. So that got announced today on Thursday, presumably because enough Republican said, fuck no, we're not dealing with the bill. Pulte is a bridge too far. And also, if you go ahead with Bill Pulte as a permanent DNI director, even a temporary DNI, which some of them said absolutely not about, that even if they do that, then what they were going to do is hold up 702 or the reauthorization of 702, which is what gives the federal government warrantless spy powers. Gotta make sure the government has warrantless spy powers, right? That is a, again, that is a bipartisan push. But anyway, so now the question is, does this do it for for Congress now that they've got, and also, what do you think about Jay Clayton? Okay, so two things. One, as I understand it, and our Crackerjack fact checking team can probably disabuse me of this if it's incorrect. But Pulte remains, I think the Times was reporting, the current plan is for Pulte to continue to serve as acting director until Clayton is confirmed by the Senate. Yes. And Bill, and he wants, and he wants again, there was another story about, apparently he called Tulsi Gabbard, Bill Pulte, and was like, I know you said you're leaving next month or whatever, but you're out now. I'm starting. And she's like, what the fuck? She's like, the president should tell me that. And then she called the president and he was like, well, what do you want your last day to be? And so now it's going to be, I think in a week, week and a half. Yeah. Well, that's because he knows he has, the clock is running. And these, Tish James mortgage fraud documents don't just find themselves, John. He has a special skill. He has a special skill. Well, I mean, he's in there to be faffing around in classified material to try and drum up reasons why elections have been stolen, or Democrats are corrupt, or whatever the fuck it is. But I don't like the idea of Bill Pulte being anywhere near the office of national intelligence. Like that is setting aside Jay Clayton. Like that is alarming. And that is every reason why Democrat, they should, first of all, Senate Republicans like John Cornyn, who are, you know, intent on giving the president, keeping him in line, they got the wool pulled over their eyes on the slush fund. I know we're talking about that coming up, but they shouldn't get their wool, the wool pulled over their eyes on Bill Pulte. Like that man needs to be locked out of the intelligence infrastructure and get a restraining order basically. Because even two weeks on the job for him is too many. And if that means holding up FISA read authorization until and unless that happens, then that's what should happen. Like he is a danger to democracy. Now, this is basically what, that's basically what I haven't seen other Democrats yet, but Mark Warner, who's a ranking member on Intel said that. Warner was like, this is fine. I'm glad, like we wish we could have got here earlier. But there's no way we're, there's no way we're reauthorizing FISA unless we get assurances that there's no Bill Pulte at all. Like Bill Pulte needs to be extradited to a different country and get nowhere near like a passport and office. I will say, I mean, Clayton oversaw a lot of the review of the Epstein documents. He was the one, I think his off his prosecutors brought the case against Nicholas Maduro, which was, you know, nominally the reason that Trump went in and seized Maduro. He's very capable of doing the president's bidding. And I think that's probably what won him favor. He also, in recent days, has been raising alarms about fraud in California and the vote count. So like, I noticed that. Yeah, he said, he said, I'm not saying there's fraud, but the laws, the way they're written in California, present the opportunity for fraud. I'm like, okay, Jake Clayton, now we know why Jake Clayton was just totally. I mean, that's, and that's a prerequisite for any, but like, I don't know. There's part of me that thinks, okay, maybe Clayton gets in there and he proves himself to be more of a bulwark against Trump's most lawless impulses, or maybe he becomes more of a stooge. Like Todd Blanche was a kind of respected, like white, you know, white shoe law form kind of guy and has turned out to be like the architect of our national nightmare. So I'm a little worried. I'm worried about anybody that meets Trump's standards or sub standards for any of these positions. I like that Jim Heim, someone I, you know, and Mark Warner, people, Democrats who have like very good reputations on this are signing off on him and saying he's good. That's reassuring. But you know, I worry, something happens to you when you walk into the Trump administration. You have to check your morals and your brain at the door. Especially if you're someone who wants the job. That's a red flag. You should, no one in their right mind should want this. Also, Want the promotion. Yeah. Idiot ass administration understand there's a legislative branch that like needs to confirm this, but like, why did he nominate this guy as the house is out and the Senate's out? Like, this isn't nothing, nothing's going to happen till I think June 23rd. So FISA authorization is going to expire almost no matter what, even if the candidate is more to the liking of the upper chamber. Yeah. And again, is it some kind of a scheme or is it just typical incompetence? It could be either probably, probably incompetence. Probably incompetence. The latter. Pod Save America is brought to you by Stamps.com. We could all use a few more hours, even minutes in the day for ourselves. Skip your trip to the post office and stop letting mailing steal your precious little time with Stamps.com. With Stamps.com you can print postage and shipping labels from your computer or phone 24 seven with up to 90% off UPS, U.S.P.S. FedEx and more. No lines, no trips, no waiting, get everything done in minutes and even schedule free pickup so carriers come right to you. Whether you're sending letters, contracts, important legal documents or packages, Stamps.com makes mailing simple for businesses of all sizes, including multi-location offices. You can even send certified mail with proof of delivery right from your desk. If mailing is taking more time and more money than it should, try Stamps.com free for four weeks and get a welcome kit. Go to Stamps.com slash PSA to get this offer today. That's S-T-A-M-P-S dot com slash PSA. Stamps.com slash PSA. Taxes and fees apply. Pots of America is brought to you by Sundays. If you've ever had a dog who's picky when it comes to food, we do, you know how surprisingly stressful it can be. You'll try every brand under the sun in the hopes that your dog will finally find the one they like, but maybe the answer is simply that your dog knows the difference between processed brown pellets and real food. Sundays for dogs is different. They start with over 80% all natural meats and then finish with superfoods like kale, ginger, blueberries. All of the ingredients are gently air-dried instead of using high heat. Sundays doesn't look or smell like traditional store-bought dog food. It looks like high-quality jerky the kind humans would eat. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as a veterinarian and as a dog parent. And the best part, Sundays requires no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. You get the quality of a home-cooked meal with the scoop and serve ease of kibble. It's what dog food should have been all along. Our dog Leo can definitely tell the difference between real food and dog food because he really likes the real food and is always trying to get it off the table. But now that he has Sundays, he is very excited every time he eats. We pour it into the bowl. He runs to the bowl and it's easy to store. It doesn't smell bad like some of the other dog food and we love it. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to sundaysfordogs.com slash Crooked50 and get 50% off your first order or you can use code Crooked50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com slash Crooked50, sundaysfordogs.com slash Crooked50 or use code Crooked50 at checkout. On the slush fund that you mentioned, the Atlantic seraphits Patrick, who broke those stories about cash potel drinking on the job, has new reporting that administration officials are quietly telling allies that, quote, plans for some form of payout remain on track. So we've talked about this too. Blanche said we're not moving forward with it. But then Republicans in Congress blocked any provision in the ice funding bill that would have killed it for good. And then Trump talks about how much he loves it still and he loves the slush fund. And sure enough, it sounds like from this reporting and Sarah talked to quite a few officials, current and former in the Justice Department, in Congress, and the Trump administration elsewhere, who said that basically, the plan could be that anyone who wants a payout from the slush fund or from what used to be the slush fund would just sue the government, because that's who you'd sue for that. And then the federal government, the DOJ will just settle and settle for an amount of money, some amount of money as a payout. And that's that. Even if the courts are like, because they wouldn't take their case to court, because the court would be like, well, that's fucking crazy, you're on video almost murdering a cop. So no, we're not going to pay you any money or find in favor of you. And they'll say, well, we don't have to go to court because the DOJ will settle with us. Yeah, I mean, it's not an adversarial lawsuit. Therefore, it would be thrown out in court. But with this true story of this administration, as obviously corrupt as the ballrooms and the reflecting pool contracts and all that shit is, the true story of corruption is what they're doing behind closed doors inside the guts of the federal government. And I will just plug Runaway Country one more time, because this week, we talked to pro-publica reporter Robert Fete Raci, who's been breaking amazing stories, including the way in which the Trump kids are dipping their hands in the deep coffers at the Department of Defense and making 10x investments on venture capital funds or Ryer Earth mineral startups or drone contractors. There is a lot of cash floating around in the American federal government, and they have figured out a way to tap that maple tree, if you will. And the slush fund is exemplary of the opacity. Once people stop, once these kind of issues stop being adjudicated publicly in courts or politically, and it's just a kind of behind the scenes process, a settlement fund at the DOJ that hush-hush, you can tap if you have friends at the DOJ, that's where the most brazen corruption happens. And I have every reason to believe that they intend on... I mean, Sarah's reporting yes, but it's also Todd Blanche refused to write down, like he wouldn't submit a written statement saying the slush fund is outlawed. Like their behavior in and around the cancellation of the slush fund was so transparent, it was clear that they were going to try and resurrect it in some fashion. And the statements in the piece, I think she quotes Tom Tillis, who's like, he has grown vocal in his criticism of the administration as he heads towards retirement and indicated he may not vote to confirm Blanche unless the fund is truly dead. Gee, you fucking think, Tom? Why are you even alive? What are you doing, Bill Cassidy? What is the point of you? I think I said this last time on... We were on the podcast lesson. What is the point of you, Bill Cassidy? Like, how cuck can you be to this madman and his stooge's? When is enough enough? Apparently, there is no limit. And I do think that what you just mentioned about Blanche, that is one leverage point here is don't confirm Blanche, unless they put it in a court filing, right? You can't just say it anymore. And also don't confirm Blanche because he helped with the Epstein cover up. And I just saw there was breaking news that a group of Epstein survivors announced public opposition to Blanche's attorney general nomination. Like, I do think that's the kind of fight you can pick that actually gets more attention than just we don't want Todd Blanche because Todd Blanche sucks, right? Like, you have some good examples. I think on the slush fund too, I would make... This is an extreme example that tells the whole story of the Trump administration. And if I were Democrats, I would hammer it every single day from now into the midterms. If they win, they have a secret plan to take your money and give it to criminals who beat cops and abuse children. Yeah. That's... Because those are a lot of the Jain... Sells itself. Somehow, somehow, so many of the January 6 convicts also have either gone on to commit child abuse or had in the past. So that's just... That's interesting. But yeah, these are the people that they want to give your money to if they win. And this is one area too where there's a lot of things that Trump's doing where if Democrats take Congress, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to do anything until we have a Democratic president. And so everyone's going to have to keep fighting and we're not going to be able to pass legislation because Trump's still president. But everything where you were just talking about happening behind closed doors, happening in secret with the slush fund, with the other stuff, Democrats take Congress, they're going to be able to shine a light on all of that and make sure that it doesn't happen, a lot of it at least. And the slush fund is a perfect example. And New Pizilabuster and make sure it doesn't happen. Slush fund is a perfect example of that. And so I would be saying that all through the fall. You elect Republicans and they are going to... Donald Trump is going to take your money and use it to pay out criminals, criminals who beat cops. John, they're such jabronis though. Like they probably can't even pull it off in secret. Like they have the quote Stanley Woodward Jr. who's an associate attorney general who signed off on the slush fund. And he responds, we're on it to a post by Lindsey Graham that suggested victims of the weaponization fund could still be compensated through other means. It's like, you're not supposed to say that dude. He then deleted the post. They're so dumb. They are so dumb. And the criminals who were going to try to get the payouts, they're not going to be able to stop themselves from bragging about it because they're also dumb. Yeah, totally. Videos of themselves rolling around on beds of money like Demi Moore and In Decent Proposal. Yeah, like videos that they took of themselves breaking into the Capitol and trying to, you know, exactly. So speaking of knives out in Trump world, let's talk about the explosive story in the times about just how badly the administration fucked up the entire Epstein saga. The story is actually an excerpt from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's forthcoming new book, Regime Change. And it includes some pretty incredible details and anecdotes that involve Trump officials screaming at each other and just generally acting like morons. What were some of your favorite bits? Oh God, I mean, do I have to talk about abused nipples or will you talk about that? I really don't want to have to talk. I had my fill. We're going to have to tackle it. Tommy and I did a lot of Nipple Talk responding to this on YouTube. When don't you? When don't you? Sorry, we don't do a lot of public Nipple Talk. Right. Okay. Good. Good. Good. Good. We did. We did lead off with this yesterday on the Pod State of America YouTube, but that's why that's why I want to hear your take. Well, that's why you should be a subscriber, huh? Exactly. That's a great place to plug our YouTube. Okay. Where to begin? Let's do table abuse nipples. Maybe we won't even get to it and we'll drive people to the subscription-only YouTube rapid response. I think just one of the things that grabbed me initially was the idea that they're sitting in the sit room. Trump isn't there and it's like the crackerjack A team to figure out what to do about the Epstein scandal. And it's like Susie Wiles, David Warrington, Fine, Caroline Levitt, Steven Chung, Pam Bondi, Cash Patel. This is like, I'm trying to think, is it like a gang of like Rasputins or Yago? Like what's the appropriate character delineation for this group of malicious idiots? But anyway, then I, of course, I focus a lot on the JD Vance of it all because in these inside, Maggie and Jonathan have done great reporting and they did another similar sort of piece about how America decided to go to war, which also involves a group of- A lot of JD Vance. Malicious idiots. Yeah. And it's clear that JD Vance is a source for some of this. Like in some parts of this, he comes across as like the only clear thinker and understands that Epstein is a major problem for Trump and he needs to do something about it and they need to be aggressive and, you know, he needs to, he presses for the administration to release all the files and even the unsubstantiated allegations and anecdotes. But then he also has like the most dumbfuck ideas ever, like having suggesting that Tucker Carlson go and interview Ghislaine Maxwell, like somehow that's going to solve their problems, which would only spin it into the stratosphere and is like asking a six-year-old to go eat a whole bunch of cotton candy and then take the tea cups ride. Like it's all sensory overload. Can you even imagine what that conversation would be like? I can't. I don't know. What did you think? Also, well, so I had a couple of like big thoughts on the whole thing, big picture thoughts. One is that the people in the administration who most understand like what really drives and angers the MAGA base, your JD Vance's, your Dan Bonjino's, they may be sources for this story that could be likely, but clearly like they, what's awesome about this is that they, you know, spoke up and are trying to stop this and trying to fix it. And yet they are going to be tarnished forever by not having achieved any of what they set out to achieve. So it's not like, like no one in the MAGA base is going to be like reading this and thinking like, oh, you know, JD Vance, our guy on the inside, he tried his best. Did you read Maggie and Jonathan's TikTok? Come on. Give the guy some credit. No one's going to think that. Yeah. So JD Vance is like, I have a great idea. We'll have Tucker interview Ghislaine Maxwell. And then that was like, that's kind of crazy. And then Todd Blanche is like, I'll interview Ghislaine Maxwell. And then the White House counsel floats giving her a pardon. And then the rest of the room strongly disagrees. And then Stephen Chung says, quote, pardoning Maxwell, a trafficker of young girls would create a huge PR problem. No fucking shit, huh? Wow. Also, good thing you're in this job. You're a you're a break-eyed. But also not even a gesture. I know. Towards the morality. More the morality here. Not a word they understand. The ethics never ever come into debate. It is just about spin. It is just about minimizing the drama for the Trump administration. It is nothing about the victims and survivors who went through this hell. Like it's so naked. Not that it should surprise anybody, but really, it's astounding. And then JD Vance is like, then they thought when they were coming out with that wonderful memo that did nothing, but caused them more trouble. They had this original plan to have Todd Blanche go on Joe Rogan to talk about this. And then JD is like, well, how about I go instead of Todd Blanche? And I can take a few questions about this. But because it's me, the vice president and not Todd Blanche, he'll have to ask about other stuff like the administration's progress on helping working people and the tax cuts and the bill. Have you listened to Joe Rogan? And then of course, Joe Rogan was like, I'm only taking JD Vance and not Todd Blanche because who the fuck is Todd Blanche? And so, and then it never goes anywhere. But I did like that little anecdote just because JD clearly has some, really the mind of a communication strategist. You'll definitely want to hear about how we're helping working families and how we're cutting the social safety net to help those working families. Also, Pam Bondi like released her fake dummy Epstein files without any consultation with the White House. And this is a small thing, small thing, but she was left out on some of the emails about the memo. And the reason is, is because it said, Bondi rarely used her Justice Department email and was not on the chain where the group worked on the memo. The attorney general rarely uses rarely used her Justice Department email. Remember 26, why is there some irony in that that I'm missing? No, no, it's we've always, we've always cared a lot about it. It's not like she's dealing with classified information. Opsec here. And so, and then Dan Bongino screams at Pam Bondi, yells at Susie Wiles, storms out of meetings. He said to Pam Bondi, you fuck this thing up from the start. The way you've been talking about this, the dumb fucking charade with the Epstein files, the there on my desk nonsense, all the promises to the folks out there. So that was fun and threatened to quit. Bongino definitely a source. Also, this is, I like this part of it, privately Bongino seathed in conversations with confidants. He lamented what the job had cost him. Millions of dollars in podcast revenue, family time, his audience. It's like family time, family time, just sandwiched in between the millions of podcasts. Yeah, I left, I'm sorry. Millions. Yeah, no, I've left to spend more time with my audience. Just like, okay, no, it's good to know where your kids stand. Now they know for sure. We should sandwich between your, your like, your downloads and your YouTube subscribers. Cool. Before we, before we move on to from this, we should at least talk about a Nipplegate because otherwise people are going to think that we're weird, that we didn't, we just threw it out there and then, and then didn't actually explain it. Yeah, we don't want them to think we're perverts. No, right. So that's the president. That would be the president. So when they looked through all the emails and all the files, they found allegations from a woman named Sarah Ransom. And she claimed that she knew a girl in Epstein's sex trafficking ring named Jen, who said she had sex with Trump. Ransom also claimed that Jen had told her that Trump had a predilection for nipples and that he had aggressively flicked and sucked hers. She wrote that she had seen evidence when she shared a bathroom with Jen, quote, they looked incredibly painful as they were read and swollen. And I remember wincing when I looked at them, she wrote, thank you for taking that one for the team, dude. Yeah, no, I was like, I'm going to have to do this because I'm a woman, but you really thank you for doing me that solid. So of course, you know, unsubstantiated, but there was, we heard, we didn't hear this exact story, but like this story who had been out there, and then the White House has tried to say that because she had basically rescinded other allegations, because she said she was afraid for her life, that maybe she's not a reliable source. And so though she, she said the other things weren't true, she took it back. And so this is so there's like some confusion on there. But anyway, the point is, this story is why they didn't make the searchable database for all the files and left some out of there, which also ended up fucking them, because obviously people knew they're withholding some of the files. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's like the fact that we now live in a universe where these kind of stories are ones about the president of the United States, where we're talking about the document that connected Trump to the claim about abused nipples was among the material that came out. I also, like that's what we're, we now have to talk about abused nipples in the context of the president of the United States. And then I also like, the JD Vance is like, Trump would be okay if you released the Nipple related documents. He's gonna get it out there. He's gonna be better. It's gonna be better. It's gonna be better to get it all out there. Anyway. Abusing nipples, it's nothing to the, it's nothing compared to the other abuse. And then Susie Wells is like, hard note, hard note, JD, not letting Nipplegate get out there. Obviously like the lurid nature of that story and the description makes it like that, that is what sort of attracts your attention. But just stepping back from it all, if like, that is an allegation that Donald Trump was involved with Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking of underage girls. Right. And so now we have like, and we're just all like, oh, well, that's a, that's a wild story. It's like, no, no, no, the price, It's not the only allegation that was really, and it's, it's, and it's like, the one person in the White House who did not want to deal with the Epstein files, did not want to deal with the strategy around transparency and what was released and what wasn't was Donald Trump. And it's like, why did that be? And he says privately to Marjorie Taylor Green in the piece. Oh, it's because I don't want it released because it could really hurt some of my friends. Like, yeah, including his best friend. Yes, exactly. He's very closest friend. And then we, yes, I mean, there are a lot of, listen, we're just asking questions, John. Yeah. I mean, look, it's, it's all out there. It's all out there. One other data point on why Trump might not be in a great mood. I know you saw the post story saying that the Washington Post story saying that his last medical checkup, Trump was seen by 22 different medical specialists. I did not read this whole story, but I know you wanted to talk about this. That's all there is. Have you ever seen 22 doctors? The last time he was at the, at Walter Reed, he was seen by 14 specialists, 11 before 22 doctors seems like a lot. Now you could say, oh, Biden saw 20, I think, according to Korean John Pierre, I think his last year in office. But Biden also wasn't covering his hands in like Maybelline concealer on the daily. Didn't have a rash creeping up his neck, wasn't falling asleep all the time at any hour. And as, you know, Adel as Biden seemed, he, I don't think he approached the incoherence of Trump and certainly not with the same stakes. Like we're in the middle of a war and the global economy is in a tailspin. There's like food shortages happening around the world. People in the Philippines can't go to work five days a week because there's not enough fuel. I mean, it's like, anyway, I think we should all be talking. Thank you for including this in the rundown, John, because I do think we should all be talking a lot more about his fitness for office. Like it's kind of crazy to me that the, the, the jabroni who fell asleep at the Knicks game gets a pass for any of it. Like it is, he increasingly shows no signs of competence in office and the American public deserve to have more transparency about his health. I do agree. I will also say though, if, if Donald Trump was turned out to be in 100% tip top shape, not fit for office, don't think it would, don't think it would be improving his performance. 1%, 2%, no percent. I think that he, I think if he had, if he is, if he was like a physical specimen at whatever his age is, probably to be 80 years old this weekend, if he was a physical specimen, if he had the, the, if he had the, the constitution of a 40 year old, he would still be as bad of a president as he is right now. Respect. I agree. I concur. Still, but it is fucking weird. It would be good to know. It'd be good to know if he's dying. Speaking of this weekend, we'd be remiss if we didn't discuss the massive sporting event, bringing Americans together in a celebration of our shared purpose and values. The UFC sponsored cage match that Donald Trump is staging on the White House lawn for his 80th birthday on Sunday. A group called Public Integrity Project is suing to try to stop the event. Not sure they'll succeed. According to the AP, the government attorneys revealed in legal filings that the UFC and other private groups have already spent $60 million on the event. That is the government saying that they did not say how much the federal government has shelled out, but wrote that seven different agencies are involved and have quote, allocated significant resources and manpower. Most of this is, you know, UFC is footing the bill for most of this and various sponsors. But I don't know. You have seven different government agencies involved. That's, that's going to be, that's going to be directing some, some time and energy and resources that could be going to the business of the people, I suppose. Again, I point you to the real grift that's happening is inside the guts of the federal government. Like there will be an accounting for it at some point, but this, we should assume the very worst about what they're doing and the way they are reappropriating resources to serve Donald Trump's massive ego. The only thing I can hold out hope for, John, is first of all, I believe the cage matches on Sunday. Is that right? Wayans are on Saturday. I'm looking at the forecast for Washington, D.C. 92 degrees and thunderstorms. I know. I saw that. I saw that because when I thought I was going, I was, I was, was saying it was going to be that hot. It was a chance of thunderstorms. I don't know if the chance has increased, but it's a 55% chance of scattered thunderstorms in the afternoon and evening. You know, I don't want to, I don't want to say anything that's going to trigger any kind of karma because forecast for Chicago on Thursday at the Obama library opening. One day in Chicago, it's supposed to rain heavily. Yes, but is there an outdoor cage match happening at the Obama library that I'm unaware of? David Axelrod versus Pete Kraus. Have you seen the pictures of the, of the octagon? Yes, dude. It looks like six flags. It's so bad. My kids didn't believe it. They were like, mom, that's AI. You got tricked. And I was like, no, no, it's real. If it wasn't on the White House lawn, I'd be like, that looks pretty cool. Bro, no, don't even say that. And I'm not like a UFC fan, but like, well, it looks pretty cool. But I'm like, this is on the south line of the White House. It's also extremely funny. And just talk about the symbolism. They built a like an 800 foot octagon cage right next to the rubble of the East Wing. Yeah, exactly. John, the Wayans are happening at, the Wayans are happening at the Lincoln Memorial. No, I looked into this. Is it getting canceled? No, the Wayans, so this was the, the, the organization that was filing the lawsuit got in trouble for this because they put it in the filing too, but the press conference is being held at the Lincoln Memorial and the Wayans are happening at the Ellipse. Oh, fantastic. He loves the Ellipse for all important things. I don't know. I, I am not a fan of this, but it is the country. I wanted this president and some people in this country will be served by this gruesome spectacle and perhaps they will enjoy it, or perhaps mother nature will have the last laugh and shoot down bolts of lightning to the south line of the White House preventing the cage match from happening on Donald Trump's birthday. The thing that, honestly, the only thing that the story that has bothered me the most about this is the, the hot troops only story that for all the, the, for all the service members that are getting invited that have to pay, first of all, they have to pay their own way to get there. And then they have to meet a certain like weight requirement. And one defense official told CNN that they wanted to make sure they pick people who are going to look good on television. This is what you go when you install a men's grooming expert as the secretary of defense. This is the kind of stuff that you get. I, he, I wish he was just doing TikTok videos about how to keep salt and pepper hair looking dignified. But alas, but alas, he's running a war in Iran. Yeah. Good stuff. When we come back, you'll hear my conversation with CNN's Ron Brownstein. We will talk about the Senate map, the house map, and all kinds of other good stuff. Pot Save America is brought to you by Walmart. You know, we talk a lot about finding a job, but what about building a career? Walmart 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. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions add in 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 slash grow at Walmart. That's walmart.com slash grow at Walmart. I'm Dan Pfeiffer for years. I've heard from candidates, activists and political staffers who turn to Pot Save America for political strategy and messaging advice because they don't have access to a political consultant or a pollster. That's flattering to hear, but it's a huge problem. We're going to defeat MAGA and protect democracy. We need everyone to have access to the best information and advice possible. That's why I recently launched Message Box Pro, a subscription consulting product for people working at every level of politics. Subscribers get weekly strategy memos, data driven messaging insights and polling analysis. Plus you get access to an incredible community of smart, committed political pros. Whether you're running for office, staffing a politician, organizing your community or working in communications at any level, Message Box Pro is built for you. So learn more or sign up. Go to messageboxpro.com. Ron Brownstein, welcome back to Pot Save America. Hey, good to be with you, John. So since you're one of the smartest political analysts out there, wanted to check in, get your thoughts on the primaries we've had and the midterms ahead of us. Maybe we can start big picture. Where are we right now, a little less than five months till the midterms? How does this political environment compare to where we were in 2018, which was the last midterm when Democrats faced an unpopular Donald Trump and did quite well? That is a really good place to, I think, the right point of comparison. And I think this election to me is just shaping up as the classic collision between the irresistible force and the immovable object. And both of them, both the irresistible force and the immovable object are getting stronger as we go. The irresistible force is the widespread disapproval of Trump and dissatisfaction with the economy. If you go back to 2018 in the exit poll, Trump's approval rating was 45%. It is not going to be 45% in all likelihood on election day this year. It may not be as low as it is now in the high 30s, but I think at best it's going to be in the low 40s. So Trump is probably going to be more unpopular today than he was on election day in 2018. Second, in the 2018 exit poll, two-thirds of voters described the economy in positive terms. Even as Democrats were winning 40-plus house seats, it's probably going to be two-thirds describing it in negative terms this time. So I think if you think of those kind of attitudes as the motor that drives the wave, there's every reason to believe the Democratic, now the Democratic, overall Democratic performance will be even better, I think, than the wave behind them is even stronger than it was in 2018. I will put one caveat on that in a minute. But so like the wave looks to me like it could be very high. Democrats won the popular vote by eight and a half points in 2018 when Trump was at 45. Could they win the popular vote by more if he's at 41 or 42? Two-thirds of the country is dissatisfied with the economy. I think that's possible. Now the other side of the equation is the immovable object, which is that to a greater extent than in 2018, this election is being fought out on Republican terrain. In 2018, you had about two dozen House Republicans in districts that voted for Clinton two years earlier. Now, before the redistricting, you only had three and even kind of more broadly. In 2018, you still had the remnants of all of these House Republicans who were holding on in suburban white collar districts outside of the South, even in the South, I guess a couple, mostly outside of the South, that had been voting Democratic at the presidential level since Bill Clinton. And Democrats really cleaned them out in 2018. Three quarters of the House seats that Democrats won in 2018 had more white college graduates than the national average. It was kind of the bookend. I look at 2018 as the bookend of 2010. In 2010, the Republicans cleaned out the last blue dog Democrats who were surviving in heavily blue collar rural districts that had been voting Republican for 20, 30 years and they kind of wiped all of them out. And then Democrats in 2018 did the same with the kind of suburban, in the 90s, they used to call it Chipsy Moth Republicans. So as a result, there really aren't that many more of those white collar seats left to win in 2026. There are a few. There's Mike Lawler, there's Tom Cain Jr., there's Don Bacon seat, there's Brian Fitzpatrick, but most of the seats that Democrats are targeting this year in the House in very distinct counterpoint to 2018 have more non-college whites than the national average. And of course, that is a real challenge. I mean, you look at districts in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that is a big chunk of what Democrats are trying to win back. And most of those seats are more heavily white blue collar than the national average. Same story in the Senate, by the way, eight of the 10 seats that both sides consider the most competitive in the Senate. I wrote about this a few months ago, have more blue collar whites than the national average. And if you kind of look at it by presidential vote, you have Maine. And as we talked about before, let me just take one step back. Senate results and presidential vote are just much more correlated than when even you got started in this, much less me. There are 25 states that voted three times for Donald Trump. Republicans now have all 50 of their Senate seats, which obviously makes it tough. I mean, you're kind of seating 50 seats at the start, you know, at least you're a pretty narrow pathway. There are 19 states that voted three times against Trump. Democrats have 37 of their 38 with Susan Collins as the last exception. And then there are six states that have flipped back and forth at any time in the three Trump races. And Democrats now have 10 of their 12 Senate seats. And that is very much the way I look at the Senate. The job for the Democrats is, first of all, to beat Susan Collins to get rid of the last Republican left in the 30, among the 38 in the states that voted three times against Trump. They've got to defend two seats in the flip states, which is Georgia and Michigan. But ultimately, they have to break into, but not only in the near term, but in the long term, because it's obviously not, you know, it's not a plausible strategy to give 50 seats away at the start. They have to break back into the Trump three time state. So what do you got? You have North Carolina, which he only won narrowly, but after that, every other state, they have to win in the Senate Trump won by double digits two years ago, which is not not easy. So that's probably an order, you know, North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, right? And if you don't win Maine, if you don't convert Maine, and you and I are in different places about Maine, we should probably talk about it at some point. If you don't convert Maine, you got to win three Senate seats in states Trump won by double digits two years ago. And that that's asking a lot. So overall, I would say Democrats, the conditions are more favorable to Democrats than in 2018, with the exception that you've had the Biden presidency in the middle. And that definitely took, you know, put a dent in the Democratic image that matters. I think the party outside of the White House, their image matters less than the performance of the president in the midterm. But nonetheless, it's there. Conditions should be overall better for Democrats, but the Republicans have built stronger defenses, both in terms of the inherent nature of the playing field and also the gerrymandering that's happened. Yeah, let's um, that's a very good summary of where we are right now. So thank you. Let's dive into Maine. That was my next question anyway, because you know, we had the primary this week. Also, as you mentioned, like you've been sounding the alarm about the electoral risk Democrats are taking with Graham Platner. And since everyone's heard enough of my not quite as worried view, I want to, I want folks to hear a good, smart counter. You want to give them the full worried view? Look, Susan Collins, as I say, is an anomaly or a unicorn, whatever you want to call her. As I said, she is the only Republican left in the 19 states that voted three times against Trump, 37 to one. She's the one. In Trump's first term, she was the only Republican senator or challenger, according to the exit polls who won an estate when more people disapproved and approved of his performance as president. She was also the only Republican Senate incumbent or challenger to hold their Democratic opponent to less than 89% of the people who disapproved of Trump. Sarah Gideon in 2020 only won 71% of Trump disapprovers. Every other Democratic Senate candidate during the first Trump term won at least 89% of Trump disapprovers. And that relationship is not getting weaker generally. Jay Jones in Virginia won 89% of Trump disapprovers. Sheryl and Spanberger won 93, 94% of Trump disapprovers. There was a poll from the University of Massachusetts at Lowell even before the latest rounds of revelations about sexting and the New York Times story about his relationship with former partners that found Platner winning 74% of Trump disapprovers in May. That is Susan Collins' superpower. She is able to get to a greater extent than any Republican anywhere. She is able to get any other Republican anywhere. She's able to get voters who disapprove of Trump to vote for her, especially older women. And the key to her, why did she win in 2020 in a state where Trump's disapproval in the exit poll was 58% and obviously Biden won the state by I think nine points. The reason is because she ran really far ahead of Trump among older white women. Both in the exit poll and the AP VODCAST are two major sources of voter behavior at the state level. Collins, Gideon ran 15 points behind Biden among women 45 plus. Now when I started doing that, doing this in the 80s, things like that happened. They don't happen anymore. You do not have a major demographic group that veers off by 15 points between how they view the president and how they view other candidates. That's why Republicans have all 50 Senate seats in the 25 states. Trump won three times. That's because they're all great candidates. It's because those attitudes really shape things. So Platner seems to me, I would not say you cannot say Platner can't win. In this environment, Trump is weaker than he was in 2020. His disapproval is now over 60 in Maine and Collins is weaker than she was in 2020 because, she, Brett Kavanaugh in the interim between 2020 and now voted to overturn Roe v Wade after she stood in the Senate forum promised she would not. He would not. So I would not say Platner can't win. I will say the Platner makes it a lot harder than it has to be because his vulnerabilities map ominously over her strengths. I look at older white women as a prime audience to be worried about all of the things that have come out of it. I also think, and I haven't talked about this as much, I think his strengths are less relevant in Maine than they might be elsewhere. If the guy's strength is that he, and it does seem legit, that he can mobilize a lot of younger non-voters, kind of a Trump thing in reverse. I mean, Maine, I mean, this isn't Georgia or Texas or, you know, even Wisconsin, where you have a huge pool of non-voting young people. You have like the second or third oldest electorate in the country. I mean, your job, the job of a Democrat in Maine in 2026 is not to mobilize new voters. It's not even to persuade a majority that Trump and the Republicans are taking the country in the wrong direction because a majority, a big majority, already believed that in Maine. The job of the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine is to reassure the majority who already think Trump and the Republicans are taking the state in the wrong direction, that it's okay to vote against Collins and that you are a reasonable alternative. And I think Platner, again, he could win, but he introduces a tremendous amount of risk in that equation that doesn't need to be there. He hasn't told July 13. I don't know if you've talked about this, under Maine law, they can't push him out at this point, but he hasn't told July 13 to step aside. And as I pointed out in a column this week, they've had really good candidates in the gubernatorial primary. Four candidates got over 20% of the vote in the first round, including three who have very broad support on the left. And I do think that if there are more negative stories that come out, or if simply there are a lot of polls that raise, you know, worrying direction between now and then, it would be in the interest of Democrats to kind of look at some of those alternatives. Because I do think, and this will really get the mailbag, I do think that the forces that are the national forces behind Platner, particularly the Sanders-Warren orbit, are so determined to prove that their model is the right model for how Democrats come back, that they have lost sight of the actual human being that they are betting on, and the place that they are testing it. And they seem to me more interested in beating Schumer in the primary than in beating Collins in the general. It's funny, my, I wouldn't say my bullishness, I maybe, I will say I'm not as bearish as you. And, and the reason is, actually has nothing to do with thinking that the Sanders model is the, is the model, or this is the proven ground for that. I actually think that, just to talk about Collins, right, she has, so she's never been this unpopular, right? She's never run a competitive race with a midterm electorate, which is like a whole new thing, as you know, right? And so we keep talking about the Saragidian example, but the Saragidian example is in 2020, when you've got a whole presidential electorate, which as we know, and we've talked about in the audience, probably knows by now, is, is just in this era better for Republicans, right? Because you bring out more of the non-college, less engaged voters. Generally speaking, midterm elections, the electorate is two, three, even four points more college educated than the presidential, the previous presidential. And then you have, and then you have a midterm electorate. So now she's running in her first competitive midterm electorate, and one that is this favorable to Democrats, and the state has moved left since 2020. And I think in there, in 2024, Maine's swing right was maybe the one of the smallest, if not the smallest in the, in the country. So those are all the reasons I, as I say, he can win. There's no question he can win. There's any given the overall climate, given the specific, as you say, Collins is weaker than she was in 2020. Trump is more unpopular than he was in 2020 in Maine. So you can't say that any Democrat can't win. It's just that this is much more of a jump ball than it should be because of his unique problem. I kind of like, are you surprised at how weak Mills was in and still is in all these, I mean, even that poll, there was a poll out right before the primary, where I think that Mills was like the first poll where Mills did slightly better than Plattener against Collins, but still by only like one point, two points, like, I don't get how that is. Mills doing that poorly and Gideon doing that poorly also makes me think like, what is it about those candidates who seem like they should fit the older women in Maine sort of voter model that you were talking about? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I'm not an expert on Mills's relationships in the state, but there's no question she's conflicted pretty consistently with a lot of the same liberal groups in the state that are promoting Plattener. And, you know, would one of the other alternatives in the governor race have done better against him in the end than Mills did? I think that's, you know, I mean, Hannah Pingray, former Speaker of the House, Troy Jackson, Bernie endorsed in the governor race, former Senate president, and then Shinabellos, who is now the Secretary of State, who was kind of the sacrificial lamb against Collins in 2014 when she was much younger and at that point, I think had only been the head of the state ACLU. You know, the thing about Mills is that the thing I felt about Mills was that if she got to the general election, it wasn't clear to me what Collins would run against her on. Like, if she was one point ahead now, the thing about Plattener is he gives them a lot to work with. And it may not prove this positive. It may be that everything else is sufficient. But it introduced, you know, to put him over the top, but it introduced a level of risk that I think is just unnecessary. And I think just like I said, I feel like many of the the national forces in particular that are pushing Plattener are just so determined to show that this is the right way for Democrats to win, that they are not willing to acknowledge, A, this may not be the right place to test the theory. And I'm not sure it is. But B, you know, candidates are not just like on baseball. You can be the greatest prospect in the world. You actually got to go out and do it. And the realities that he is presenting them with, they are just powering through. And people say, well, you know, switching to Kamala Harris didn't work that well late in 24. I would say it worked out better than trying to stay the course. Like, I'm not sure that Alyssa Slotkin and Ruben Gallego and Jackie Rosen wouldn't say it worked out pretty well. But this is, I was thinking about that. Like, to me, between now and July 13, the, the easier scenario in some ways is if there are if like, a ton of really damaging stories or even one story that's, it's much more damaging comes out, and suddenly you see polls where he's down five, six, seven, eight, right? Then it becomes like fairly easy, not easy, but easier for Democrats in Maine, which would have to be to like go to the campaign and try to convince them to drop out. I think if there's like, a few polls showing it tied or he's a pointer to behind, and then there's no big stories or maybe just one kind of in the middle story, not sure. Then it's really hard to go to someone who did better in the primary than Sarah Gideon did when she was facing two kind of no names in 2020, and say, okay, you got more votes than the last nominee against Susan Collins, but now we're going to make, now we should push you aside because we're worried. Like that to me is the tougher, that introduces another, that introduces risk that I think is greater maybe than the risk we have right now. To the extent it is Republicans and not the media who has access to more damaging information, they're not going to put it out before July 13. Certainly not. But it feels like the media would get there, I don't know. On their own. Look, like we keep saying, he can win. There's no guarantee he's going to win. He gives her an opportunity to play the card she's played before. Like we're saying, if you don't win Maine, you got to win three out of four in Alaska or Ohio, Texas and Iowa. I mean, that's asking a lot. I mean, in the long run, Democrats have to start competing again in these heavily blue collar Trump three time states. But flipping that, and maybe the war goes on, gas prices stay high, Trump stays under 40. Like if Trump stays under 40, yeah, I could see them flipping three of those four conceivably. But if he gets back to the low 40s, which I still would bet on on election day, that's asking a lot to win three of those four states. Well, let's leave Maine and talk about those four states. I think you sort of ordered them earlier quickly. But I would just love, like, you have financial decisions if you're the Democrats. Like, Texas is a very expensive, very big state to compete in. Alaska, Iowa, not as much. Ohio's obviously, they're going to go all in in Ohio. How do you look at those four states in terms of feasibility for in flipping them? So you got North Carolina, which looks pretty good for Democrats now. I mean, I think Republicans can end up pulling the plug there. So like to me, like, as I said to you before, like in Trump's first term, Susan Collins is the only Republican who won in a state where according to the Expo, more people disapprove than approved of his performance. So if you're thinking about Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Texas, they're all probably going to be right at the tipping point. Either he's either going to be slightly above 50 or maybe more likely below 50. I mean, you know, I saw, was it the argument that knew that, you know, LaKeisha, Jane and my former colleague at the Atlantic Jerusalem, they tried to use their polling to project Trump's approval in all 50 states and they had him seven points or more negative in all four of those states. And if that's the case, Democrats have a shot in any of them. Now, if you're going to rank them, I think Peltola is an unusually good candidate. Alaska has kind of unusual population dynamics. It really doesn't have a huge white blue collar population. So I think Alaska is the strongest. By conventional measures, you'd have to say Ohio is the second. I mean, you know, Ohio is a big blue collar population. It's like 50, 51% of the electorate will be whites without a college degree, even in the midterm year. Now, maybe that will go down to 49 this time. And if you look at Sherrod Brown, when he won in 2018, he won 45% of non-college whites, 20 days of Expo. When he lost in 2024, he won 35% of them. So it doesn't get all the way back to 45, but he does have to get somewhere north of 40 probably to win. That is possible. I mean, you know, one thing we should have said before, when I was talking about the irresistible force, not only is Trump's overall approval rating down, it is well below where it has been among those non-college whites. So like even in 28, so, you know, he won two thirds of whites without a college degree in all three of his races. Even in 2018, again, according to the Expo, his approval rating among non-college whites was 61%. Now, in every national poll, it is right at 50-50, either, and usually slightly below 50-50, at best, 51-48, something like that. It's like the best. And then there have been polls where he's been as low as 46 among non-college whites. If that's, if he stays there until November, Sherrod Brown can win. I mean, you can win. And people should take into account that when I say Trump is basically at 50-50 among non-college whites nationwide, well, that includes evangelical Christians, most of whom are non-college whites and are heavily concentrated in the South. There aren't as many of them in Ohio. So if Trump is at 50-50 among non-college whites nationally, he's probably going to be below 50-50 in Ohio, which makes it possible for Sherrod Brown. And this is like what I was saying about Maine. Sherrod lost in a presidential turnout here where you have a greater share of non-college whites coming into the electorate than you do in 2018 when he won, which was a midterm year. And then you have fewer non-college whites as a Sherrod. And I think Trump's approval will be lower today than it was in 2018 in Ohio. The difference is, Sherrod's been around the block a little, so there might be a little tread off the tire in terms of how voters are looking at him. I kind of feel like that's going to be the tipping point. I mean, if Democrats don't mess up Maine, if either Plattener steps aside for someone more electable or they kind of stabilize things and are able to just pound, do you really want to give Donald Trump another vote to put another Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, which seems to be their best argument. Then you look at Ohio and, I'm sorry, Iowa and Texas. Iowa is Ohio, but even tougher because in Ohio, roughly 20% of the voters are non-white and in Iowa, it's only like eight or nine. The non-college whites are more like 56, 57% of the vote in Iowa compared to like 50, 51 in Ohio. And more of those non-college whites in Iowa are evangelical Christians than they are in Ohio. So like by every measure, I can't see Turrick winning before Brown wins. Like if Turrick wins, the wave is big enough that Brown is going to win. Texas is intriguing, right? I mean, you know, if you look at, again, like I love how you started with 2018, Beto is in 2018 versus Ted Cruz, Beto or Rourke, is kind of the template for any kind of competitive statewide race for Democrats in Texas. Since then, the state has added three and a half million, I think is the number of new voters. And almost all of them are people of color. It's like 90% of the new voters and they're Metro, right? I mean, they're like, they're in those four big metros. Beto won the four big metros, didn't win them by quite enough. Now, so, you know, Richard Murray, who I love, a professor emeritus at the University of Houston in New and Texas politics since, you know, before any, either of us, he says that if all the groups, all the major groups in the electorate, non-college whites, college whites, Latinos, black, Asian, all vote the same way they did in 2018, but vote in the numbers they are present at today, Beto would win, right? So, but the problem is, the problem is, can you really get back to where Beto was among Latino voters, which was the low 60s? You're probably, you're going to, Trump, Trump won Texas Latinos in 2024, which is kind of remarkably one, like probably 55% of them. That's not going to happen. Talarico is going to win them. But is he going to get back over 60? You know, I mean, there was another poll out yesterday that Siena poll only had in it like 52. I don't think it's going to be that low, but is he going to get back to 60? I kind of feel like the ballgame in Texas, and in Texas, you know, a very large share of the non-college whites or evangelicals, the fact that Talarico, you know, is a seminary and is not really going to help, because he's a different kind of seminary. And I mean, the, you know, Texas blue collar evangelicals do not want to hear that God is non-binary, although seems like, as a, you know, seems like a perfectly defensible argument. I think the key is going to be, can you get a few points more out of the suburban college educated voters around Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio? Beto got like 44 or 45% of college whites in 2018. Can he, can Talarico push that up to 47, 48 against Paxton? You know, the other dynamic about Paxton is, I mean, I forget which one, so you probably might remember, but out of Slotkin, Rosen, Baldwin, and Gallego, the four Democrats who won in states where Biden lost, several of them did not get more votes than Harris, right? It was just Republicans skipped the Senate race. And that, you know, hard to see a lot of Texas Republicans voting for Talarico. It's not hard to see a few of them voting for Abbott and skipping Paxton or skipping Paxton and jumping down to Abbott. You can squint and see how this works where like some of them leave the Senate race blank. He gets up, he bumps up his numbers in the suburbs by a little, a few more after Ben Beto did. And then he gets that Latino number, maybe if not all the way at 60 in the, yeah, 58 and then that's enough. Yeah. By the way, as people point out all the time, if they are a larger share of the vote than they were in 2018, Latinos, you can get a bigger net vote out of that community even with a smaller share. You don't have to match the share, but matching the share would help. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think Democrats can get back to 62, 63, maybe among Texas. I was down in South Texas a few weeks ago, and you know, there's a lot of economic discontent. There's a lot of ICE discontent. And I think, you know, my CNN column for later this week, tomorrow's news today, I think subtraction is going to be a bigger issue in this election than addition. I don't think you're going to add a lot of new Democratic votes either with new voters coming out or with Republicans who voted for Trump and 24 switching to vote for Democrats. But you could subtract a lot of Republican votes. I mean, Trump's, according to one of the stats, I'm kind of unveiling in this column later this week, among Hispanics who voted for Trump, his approval rating now is 66%. Right. That is not so good. Among all, I remember all of the focus on the non-college, non-wide voters and how this was kind of the, you know, the augurs of the realignment, his approval rating among non-college, non-whites who voted for him is 68%. Among non-college, non-whites who didn't vote in 24, his approval rating is 20%. Yeah, you saw that in the New York Times, Seattle poll. It was those numbers were the worst. Yeah, among non-voters, in the New York Times, Seattle poll among non-voters in 24, people who either skipped it or who have become eligible since he's a 2171 in job approval. So, you know, I'm not sure, you know, this is 2018 was another thing that was unique about 2018 is you did have this enormous surge of new voters. Catalyst says 13% of all the voters in 2018 had not voted before. Census says turnout in 2018 was 10 points higher than in either of the Obama midterms. It was 50%, as opposed to 40% in the Obama midterms. So, there was this surge of new voters. That's where I think the Biden experience is going to really hurt. I mean, because, you know, if you were a 21-year-old in 2018, you had Obama as your counterpoint to Trump. And it was like, yeah, we've got, we've passed universal healthcare or we did this or we did that. Now, you've got Biden and, you know, whatever rightly or wrongly, most Americans think that was not a successful presidency. So, at a point where young people in particular are very negative on Trump or are also pretty negative on what they remember out of Biden, I don't see that big surge that Democrats had in 2018 repeating itself. What I do think is a very clear and present danger to Republicans is that the voters in their coalition who are disappointed with Trump, some of them are going to switch to voting for Democrats. But I don't think even many Democrats are expecting too many of them. Like, you know, only, only 6% of voters in 22, according to Pew, voted for a House candidate from the party opposite that they voted for president in 20. It's not that big anymore. The real swing voters are the people who cycle in and out of the electorate. And they express their discontent by staying home. And I think that is a real risk for Republicans everywhere. But Texas is a very good place where you could have a lot, I could see a lot of those Latino first time Trump voters in South Texas, just like, you know, yeah. Sitting out. All right, well, we'll leave it there. All right. Thank you for, thank you for joining and making us smarter and everyone check out Ron's column at CNN. And I know you got a column at Bloomberg as well. So you're a little bit, a little bit about Graham Flattner at Bloomberg. Yeah, it's great. Take it. It'll be great. So everyone take a look at that. And thanks again for coming by. We'll do it again before we get closer to November. Absolutely. Good to be with you, John. That's our show for today. Alex, lovely as always, to do the pod with you. Such a delight. Two in a row, man. I know. But I got to say, this show's a lot of work. Dan Pfeiffer needs to get his butt back into the chair, huh? This is like the longest dance been away from politics. I wonder if he's somewhere just like getting the shakes or hives or something. Dan, Dan, send up two flares if you can still hear us. We love you, Dan. We miss you, Dan. We do. Thank you for letting me warm the mic while you were away. And thank you for warming the mic. You have been a fantastic addition. Oh, it's an honor and a pleasure, my friend, to help us navigate these choppy, insane waters of our American democracy. Have a good weekend, everyone. Love it. We'll be back with an episode of Podsave America Sunday. He's talking to David Sideris. How about that? Nixon 5. Yeah, OK. And then Tommy Lovett and I will be back with a new show on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. Nixon 5. Podsave America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fischer, Sol Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed Cherlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Hefko, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Karel Pellevieve, David Tolles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. For years, I've heard from candidates, activists, and political staffers who turned to Podsave America for political strategy and messaging advice because they don't have access to a political consultant or a pollster. That's flattering to hear, but it's a huge problem. We're going to defeat MAGA and protect democracy. We need everyone to have access to the best information and advice possible. That's why I recently launched MessageBox Pro, a subscription consulting product for people working at every level of politics. Subscribers get weekly strategy memos, data-driven messaging insights, and polling analysis. Plus, you get access to an incredible community of smart, committed political pros. Whether you're running for office, staffing a politician, organizing your community, or working in communications at any level, MessageBox Pro is built for you. To learn more, or sign up, go to MessageBoxPro.com.