After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Emily’s Makeover, Trump Cabinet Shake-Up, & Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s WILD Comments: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily opens with some comments about her ‘makeover’ on The Megyn Kelly Show. She then moves on to discuss the break between President Trump and Tucker Carlson and the infamous Easter Day message. Then Emily shares some thoughts about members of the Trump administration including Harmeet Dhillon’s free speech advocacy and why Emily believes Dhillon doesn’t get enough credit for her work, the recent Trump cabinet shake-ups and who she thinks might be out next. She also addresses what’s happening with Iran, in the Strait of Hormuz, and her overall thoughts on the war. Emily answers a series of questions about local and national politics including the future of MAGA, the 2028 White House race, Michele Tafoya’s Senate race, local election in California, Wisconsin, D.C., and the cost-benefit analysis of not voting. She also takes up the topic of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and if she’s a liability. Emily discusses tribal biases, race relations, and the rarity of the United States. She rounds out the show with some questions about Breaking Points and her working relationship with Ryan Grim.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to Happy Hour, everyone. It's, of course, always a special edition of After Party that we do here on Friday afternoons, where I get to speak to all of you through the great emails you send in to Emily at devil make caremedia.com. Thanks so much for getting in touch. I always go through them here for the first time. I just think it's more entertaining that way. If you have not subscribed on YouTube, please make sure to do that. It helps us a lot. Feel free to leave a review. Likes, comments are appreciated as well. Let's now dive on in to your. messages. All right. This is a nice one. Hank says, happy Easter. He's not here. He has risen, just as he said. Have a blessed day. Thank you, Hank. I hope you had a wonderful Easter as well. This one is for Ryan, who says, you look amazing. Love the makeover. If you missed Monday's edition of the Megan Kelly Show, I was live up in Megan's Red Studio and revealed the results of a little makeover project that we did all the way back in early February, I think it was literally like the first or second day of February. And I've had extensions in my hair ever since. And so we finally showed Megan the results of it.

Basically, they, like Megan's great stylist, Molly helped me find some great new clothes. And Megan's amazing hairstylist, Sarah, encouraged me to do. a middle part, put extensions in, and we went a little darker with my hair, so not super different, but enough that it makes, I think, a significant difference. So it was a lot of fun. It was very uncomfortable, as I told Megan, because I hate hair and makeup stuff. But it's important. I do a lot of actually, like, public speaking. So it's good to feel, like, for those types of things, It's actually really good to have like an easy wardrobe and makeup routine, hair makeup routine, that just makes it quick. And you just don't have to worry too much about it because you get all kinds of pictures taken at those sorts of things.

Pictures like go on the internet and live forever. So you always want to look your best. There's always a camera on you. So one of the positive things that came out of my discussion. comfort, but it was a ton of fun. Megan's team is super exciting. This is from Hank, who says maybe we'd have a better chance of the midterm elections if you went home and ran for Congress. Thanks, Hank. That's like the last thing that I could ever, that I would ever subject myself to. Yeah, not only because I'd be bad at it, but also just I can't even, I don't even think of myself as,

I certainly don't think of myself as a Republican or a member of any political party because I just have a hard time getting around the loyalty to entities that, in my opinion, are by nature engaged in propaganda. And anyway, that's why I'm a journalist. It would be very hard for me. You know, I have very good friends who work in the official political apparatus, some Republicans, some Democrats, and they make it happen. They're good people. But, you know, we probably have debates on the ethics of all of it. I definitely have had debates on the ethics of all

of it. So not for me. Howard, this is another one on the makeover who says, you certainly are a good sport and have a lot of guts to allow this. You couldn't pay me enough enough. I would rather interview Putin, Howard says, then go through this kind of experience. I've always been so glad that I'm a guy because being a girl seems so much harder. Amen. And then Howard goes out to say, I guess this kind of transformation will be useful if you run for VP in 28 or want to be a socialite in Palm Beach. That's really funny. It says, you did look glamorous, but I hope you will not go full movie star on us.

Real is always better. Howard, I couldn't look like that every day if I wanted to. It would be, I mean, Sarah and Molly are, I was telling this to Megan on air, they're just artists. They're incredible at what they do. And you see the difference with people who consider their work to be art. They think of it that way. Or at least I imagine they think of it that way. And it's subjective, but it involves making basically something.

out of what you have available to you. And that's very interesting. I think it's, I think it's a really, really interesting line of work and they're very interesting people, very, very fun people. So that made it a lot easier. But yeah, it was quite an experience. Two things I would never want to do, be a socialite in Palm Beach or have a run for office, including vice presidents. Thanks, Howard. Appreciate it. Let's see. Matthew says, Oh my gosh, this is a great, this is a great email. I also normally only listen to the podcast version of your episode so I can listen to them at my anxiety inducing speed, but I made sure to watch your episode live tonight so that I can see your MK makeover. That's funny. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Matthew's a long-time listener going back to Federalist Radio Hour Days.

Let's see, let's see here. This one is from Casey. Do you think Tucker Carlin? Carlson is finally rounding the corner on his friendly talk about Trump on his show. In his episode on Monday, he seemed to have crossed his line about never speaking directly against Trump. This comes after the true social post that called for war crimes on Easter Sunday. He also brought up how Trump's spiritual advisor likened Trump to Jesus himself. I'm no saga historian, but I'm sure that is the first time a president's spiritual advisor has borderline blasphemed, although Reagan was into astrology, so who knows? I think the report on that is actually that Nancy Reagan was into astrology.

I don't know the truth about that. It wouldn't surprise me if Nancy Reagan was into astrology. Casey goes on to say, Tucker seems to hold his faith above his friendships now. What do you think? Sorry for the poor grammar as a writer. I'm sure it bugs you. No, Casey, it's all good. I know many of you would probably disagree with the characterization of that as war crimes

because it's plausible. I suppose that he could have only been talking about dual use, bridges, et cetera. It's hard to make the dual-yose arguments. with electricity, which, you know, that would, yes, electricity almost always has dual uses, but the effect on civilians, it's hard to get around that. Civilians, by the way, this administration has said it was trying to help, and many do really need help. There was thousands of people, as far as we know, were slaughtered in January, and there's

no question, it's a difficult situation and a tyrannical situation. in Iran, but we'll go on here. In regard to Tucker, he used to have a policy of the daily caller never to, that the caller itself couldn't criticize Fox, no matter what, which was, I always thought very admirable, mixed feelings about it, kind of like the ethics of it, but his rule was, you don't attack the people who pay your salary, period.

And when Tucker owned the daily caller, he said it wouldn't be right for me to work at the daily caller, and have an entity going through another entity that I'm taking a paycheck from. Like, it just would not be right. And he's always known around here. I mean, first of all, whether you love the guy, I heard him, he has always been known to be one of the nicest people in cable news. Like, just almost an anomaly is how people would talk about him.

He doesn't live up in D.C. anymore. He's obviously not in cable news, but hair and makeup women, everybody always loved Tucker Carlson. and he wouldn't publicly go after friends. He wouldn't publicly go after former employees. He has always had this dogged sense of loyalty that I think is very, very admirable. I don't know if he is still friends with Trump. So I don't know that the question, actually the kind of framework of the question even is the right framework anymore, Casey,

because it sounds like Trump is permanently out on Tucker and Tucker's permanently out on Trump. I don't know that this one is reparable, and I don't know that Tucker would particularly want to be friends with Trump anymore, given the way that he's described to him. It is – I talked about this on Wednesday's show, so if you missed it, it's right at the end of Wednesday's show. I did kind of an extended monologue on what I made of Tucker's Monday message. And it's – because I think it's a landmark. It was a sort of explicitly Christian argument against the Cold War consensus towards proxy conflicts and geopolitics in a nuclear age. We've gotten very comfortable with making civilians suffer to take down their bad leader, their enemy leader. We've gotten very comfortable with supporting bad proxy groups if they're fighting the right proxy groups.

So, for example, the contras. We've gotten very comfortable with things like sanctions, the blockade in Cuba. And I think what Tucker did was argue against that very directly. And that I do think is a landmark because it wasn't coming from a liberation theology vantage point. It wasn't coming from a hippie progressive vantage point. It was coming from a explicitly conservative Christian vantage point. And I think it's really, really interesting, really interesting. And I think it's going to cause not everyone, certainly.

But I do think it's starting this. It's planting seeds of doubt. That's how I put it in a piece for unheard. It's planning seeds of doubt with people on the right. who listened to him and have to kind of take a hard look in the mirror and say, what is the Christian argument for Trump making this threat for civilizational destruction? And I saw Joe Rigney wrote a piece, pastor, building up to saying, it's defensible as a Christian because there's biblical examples.

King Solomon, as one example that was cited, rhetorically threatening to cut a baby in half and getting results through that rhetorical maneuver that were just and in God's interest. So there's a huge process right now, I think, unfolding. It's almost, it almost was inevitable. It's almost like we just didn't see it coming necessarily because the Cold War held the fusion, the three-legged stool of fusionism, social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and neoconservatism together, or neoconservatism is probably not the right word,

hawkish conservatism. Maybe neoconservatism is the right word, but anyway. And now as that's kind of melted, those bonds have kind of melted, you're seeing the coming apart on a lot of different levels. Obviously, this was talked about a lot after 2016 fiscally. now it's being, it's being laid bare on foreign policy in a way that it wasn't quite. It hadn't quite. I mean, remember the fights between Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce over ESG, wokeness. Now, it seems like GOP and the Chamber of Commerce are pretty much back together. Those were, that was a real, a real bitter battle. The tech companies and censorship, so it's still being waged. It's just kind of, on the back burner, I would say, right now, and foreign policies on the front burner,

Hank sends along this Harmeet Dillon profile in Politico. Politico goes after Harmeet for going, but for herself, going after groups that are protected by the Civil Rights Division, but they don't ever mention the, quote, disparate impact racket that she's fighting against, steeply dishonest. You might want to mention it on afterparty. I actually hosted a conversation with Harmeet Dillon recently for the Center for Conservative Women, the Claire Boothoose Center for Conservative Women. It was like a fireside chat for young professionals. I have known her me not well, but just in a professional capacity for years because she

represented students that I worked with. And she represented James DeMore, who I interviewed back in the day. and she is, I mean, the literal perfect person for that job. She was, even as a conservative, so respected in the Bay Area that she was, I think I'm trying to remember the exact title. She was on the board of the local ACLU chapter and worked with them and has friends in the kind of, what's the right way to put it, lefty free speech space and is, you know, pretty, like held some pretty inconvenient defenses of speech for conservatives. she stood up for some pretty difficult to defend, for some conservatives, difficult to defend speech.

And that woman deserves way more credit for the left than she gets and way more credit from the media than she gets. So I don't disagree with that. I think it's, she's one of, she's also just like insanely brilliant. So she's someone to watch very, very closely into the future, a very interesting person, very, very, very smart. and has some very interesting experiences. I get the sense that she's pretty ambitious, too. So I'd say keep an eye on her meat. It is always crazy.

I don't know how people in her shoes do it. I mean, you put your life's work into something like free speech, and then free speech advocates or beneficiaries in the fourth estate can't bring themselves to pull their heads out of their butts and see any of this with clarity. And yet they're the ones who claim to be. be clear-minded and neutral and alike. Wild stuff. All right, here is one from Ryan, who says, Big Fan, thanks for the great podcast for Happy Hour. I'm now rooting for Gavin Newsom to be the

Dem candidate just so we could get more of his wife, an absolute banger. She keeps uncorking in interviews. Today she compared accidentally killing her sister when she was seven and then discussed it to make some weird criminal justice point. Yes. If you didn't see that clip, it's horrific. Ryan says, does anyone talk about this in D.C. or what would happen if he's the candidate, and she's on the podcast and TV circuit?

Please just talk about her. She's amazing. Megan covered that on her show, and I hadn't seen the clip yet. It's really jarring. Very weird. Or I think it was Megan. Maybe I saw that clip.

I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is some crazy stuff. It's, if you see the clip, you go look it up. It's just, I can't. I can't put myself in the shoes of an extremely wealthy coastal Democrat. So I don't know, but this is, I think it's what happens when people, well, first of all, I think it's wellness culture, toxic wellness culture. And when you're in toxic wellness culture, very popular among rich people in California. And you're also in a position where you're surrounded by yes men. that goes in some weird, weird directions where you just get more comfortable talking like that

than you probably should be because you have a hard time picking up on other people's discomfort since they often hide it. And there are a lot of yesmen around you that don't or yes women, yes women who don't necessarily react in the way that they want to or ways that would be more honest. I haven't seen a lot of chatter about that in D.C. One of the things about X and blue sky as well. But, you know, X actually still has a lot of journalists and lefty people on it. Center left. That's why I said lefty. Also leftists. Not everybody's on blue sky. X is still really the center of the discourse. But things that, a lot of things go viral in one circle or the other, and then they don't always cross over into everyone's algorithms at the same

level. And so this is one of the coolest things, honestly, about having friends who are like leftists and conservatives, but also having friends that are like hardcore leftists and hardcore conservatives is I don't even have to like work that hard to make sure my algorithm is bringing me stuff from every different like silo. It just sort of naturally happens. And I just honestly think that it reminds me of what's the name of Tim Walses' wife? I forget her name. But I don't even feel badly for forgetting her name, to be honest. But the weird way she described opening her window during the 2020 George Floyd riots that she could like smell, I think it was smoke or something, she could hear the noise of the protest, and smell the protest. That was

similar to me. That was also weird. And she just, Gwen Walls, is that her name? She just didn't get a lot of criticism. And it was happening on a bigger scale with Biden, obviously. And it happened on a bigger scale with Kamala Harris. It happens with a lot of high-profile Democrats who don't get the grilling that they should. I say this a lot. It's one of the rare occasions with Democrats sympathy, like baked in sympathy in corporate media, often backfires. The Biden health story totally backfired. Biden successfully prevented the media from grilling them as much as they should have been grilled on this over and over again for years. And because of that, the rug was pulled out

from other than when Biden melted down during a debate and they had to scramble. And the vice president was Kamala Harris, who was the least popular vice president in modern history. She's thrust into the spotlight. Has gotten criticism. She was wasn't like, I would say a media darling, but relative to her unpopularity. You could call her a media darling. And that was tough, that was tough, tough. And the same thing may happen with Jennifer Siebel-Nusom. We'll see. I can see that happening, actually. You just kind of put it aside. It's not your priority to be like, what is going on with this woman? And before you know it, she's, you know, running as future first partner, whatever she calls it. And everybody's like,

What the? Okay. Let's see. Go on here. This is from an Anon who says, hey, Emily, please talk about the paradox that is effectively manufactured from the standpoint that all politics germinate from biological, formerly national origins. And yet for one to make an argument that is based upon the logical acceptance of this as a historical and contemporary fact, that person would be immediately disqualified as a heretical, pariah and the argument would become non sequitur via epistemic closure. Man, I'd really like to see you guys at BP or someone in your circle who is brave, grab this issue and begin to start

normalizing public discourse about the danger of ignoring biological, cultural, national boundaries. Someone needs to core punch this issue and rhetorically break the dam. Otherwise, the First Amendment will remain in its present self-inflicted, crippled state, and we will be forever doomed to live in a never-ending feedback loop of deceit, despair, and devolution. I know that you know about the subjects I'm alluding to. Be brave. Thanks, Emily. I'm not quite sure what the, like, I'm trying to right now grok the exact issue at hand here.

I assume what it's talking about is that we don't pay enough attention to the, like, biological tribalism that human beings have. Maybe I'm misreading this, so I apologize if I'm misreading this. Just the reality that human beings have innate tribal biases for biological reasons. So, again, that's what I think we're talking about. Meaning, like, if you have a country that's such a melting pot or a mosaic, as some people like to call it, like the United States of America. or if you take, for example,

um, Syrian migration to Sweden. Sweden's just a very homogenous population. And suddenly there is an influx of Syrian refugees or suddenly, I mean, the Dominican Republican Haiti is an interesting example of this. Like there's a wall and reporting, um, on a lot of like bitter,

sometimes racism, uh, between Dominicans and, Haitians, Dominicans on average, lighter, Haitians on average, darker. I think that's what this is talking about. And I'm not super familiar with the research. I think it's probably obvious that human beings, I mean, there is research from the United States that social trust. I think it was Robert Putnam. I want to say it was Robert Putnam. Don't hold me to that, who did this research like decades ago about how social trust is actually lower when diversity

is higher, and that could be for a lot of different reasons. But what I understand about the research is that it's true. People have kind of tribal biases that are baked in. What I think is amazing about the United States is we are raised from a very early age, or at least we used to be. And, you know, certainly decent people are still raising their kids at a very early age to acclimate to this historically very anomalous condition of living amongst so many people from different backgrounds on a lot of different levels, different religious backgrounds, different ethnic backgrounds. It is historically so rare. And I just think of growing up in the 90s in early 2000s, there was such a stigma on thinking

differently about absolutely anyone for any reason that. that was out of their control, I think it was so beautiful and it sounds really ridiculous. But that is a very hard thing to do at scale. And I think we were doing it. And so that leads me to believe we still can do it. Now, obviously, if the research is there, we should acknowledge the research. I'm not familiar with it. And I don't even know if I'm going down the right lines of this email.

But that doesn't mean it's not surmountable. It's not a surmountable obstacle. I think, you know, it was. We did it at scale, and it's amazing. And I think if you look at research on the American public, what we're able to do at scale, even now, when things feel so divided and tribalistic and awful, I think it's still amazing. And we take for granted how rare, how difficult, how just what a feat. It is for all of us to live amongst so, so many people from so many different backgrounds with relative harmony.

Again, I know things feel divided, trying to downplay the state of things. That's probably the last thing anyone would accuse me of doing it. Yes. It's, yeah, it's wild out there. It's amazing that we're able to, like, actually, the world is a wild place. Like, we're actually able to do that right now. And we're still able, we were once able to do it, I think, even at a higher level. If you look at some polling, I want to say it's Gallup, has polling on this, that racial tensions

have increased since about 2014, which would be around the, like, Michael Brown controversy. I always say I felt in 2012, I just remember actually where I was when I had this realization. I was on a bus. and Trayvon Martin, the fallout from the Trayvon Martin killing felt really different to me. It felt like I got a pit in my stomach and felt anxious about the future of the country literally for the first time ever, I think, like on an existential level. I felt anxious about the future of the country. I was probably like 20 years old. Yeah, I mean 19 or 20 years old.

And that felt different to. me. So it's, I'm not surprised to see tensions have heightened in the aftermath of that. I wish I had the numbers right in front of me, but they've been pretty viral on the internet in recent years. Um, it's tough. I mean, it's, it's amazing. It's wild what we've been able to do. And I hope we're able to recapture it. But yeah, I understand people's pessimism. I think it's a very worthy goal. Uh, there is no Jew or Greek, as the Apostle Paul told us. And, uh, I understand people's, That's a wonderful way to approach our future in the United States. All right.

This is from Daniel, who says, as always, I love the variety of guests you have on. I've always loved listening to Daryl Davis talk and really like the interview. I think his comment to the two groups that Trump has had shrunk following from a businessman and racist was really insightful. That's what Daniel says Daryl's two groups were trying to remember. Daniel goes on to say, I was wondering if you think that the assumption of a lot of the country that all Trump supporters is being the second option is actually pushed people in the first group into the arms of the second. Also, to agree with other emails wishing there was more conversation around why Daryl thinks Trump is racist, but not necessarily because I think he is wrong, but I want

to know why he thinks it because I think Trump certainly seems very willing to stand incredibly close to the line where things start to become racist. Daniel, that is such a good point. I should have, first of all, we've had this conversation. There's a full episode where like half of it on all of the Daryl emails that I got. Thank you for all of those. I love the way that Daniel puts this, though, that the curiosity isn't even just from disagreement so much as it is from wanting to hear someone

who has done so much work in the space for a long time with an open heart and an open mind, explain that position on Trump. So that, Daniel, I appreciate that. That's really interesting. and it would have been, I don't dispute this, I never have, I think it would have been pretty interesting to pull out that thread with Daryl even more. But that is, I think, a really good way to put it and to frame it.

And yes, I do think that we run the risk by calling everyone racist by having what I wrote about as the progressive or bigot binary, that if you're not fully progressive, this was definitely work, during the like peak woke period by calling everyone who doesn't agree with Ebermix-Kendee racist you're you're categorically racist if you don't agree all the way with this point or that point like even it was homo- it was you're homophobic if you are you know a turf or trans exclusionary radical feminist and you don't want to go along with this I think that does really risk people giving up on being good

altogether because it makes it easy to resent and even hate your political enemy because they are falsely accusing you of sin, of evil, of, I mean, that's what it is. It's evil. They're falsely accusing you of being hateful or falsely accusing you of being a bigot. And the mainstream organs of cultural influence were going along with it. It was like being gaslit at scale. And I think it did make it very easy for a lot of people to give into that human temptation to resent and hate their fellow Americans who were treating them unfairly. And they were.

Of course they were. Now, if you feel like that describes you, the book I really like is Screwtape Letters for everything, one of the best books ever written, but CS Lewis is screw tape letters. It's a seductive temptation to give in and say, I'm done. Like, I'm giving up on being good because nothing I do short of buying some completely immoral and false notion about biological sex differences, or some completely immoral notion about racial discrimination in college applications.

That is radicalizing. I do think for not everyone, probably not even most of everyone, but for some people, yeah, they just give up and they say, screw it. All right, you're going to call me that. Might as well go for it because you are not listening. You will not listen. You're close-minded. And you are are closing doors for opportunities that some people deserve. And just cancel culture peak woke, we saw this every single day. And I do think it radicalized some folks, especially like some people in Gen Z who you talk to earn a bit more nihilistic.

That's not all of Gen Z certainly. I actually find Gen Z to be very ambitious, interestingly enough. But there has been a rise in nihilism. an interesting kind of nihilism, but I sense that there's been a spike in that. That's a good question. Ryan says, Wisconsin just had their spring local elections, so you find it difficult to find candidates to vote for in D.C. since D.C. is mainly leftists. Are there many independent or conservative candidates who you would want to support? It's interesting. I mean,

this is the big question for conservatives and Christians living in deep blue or secular areas where no conservative Republican candidate really has a chance. So do you try to vote for the lesser of two evils among the viable candidates? Or do you vote for a conservative that's maybe not really conservative just to make a point? I can't bring myself to vote for non-viable, like quote-unquote conservative candidates who I don't think are really conservative. They're just kind of coastal moderates who, you know, are, like, still going to support abortion and the like. I just don't even think it's worth the effort.

Now, in some cases, I would disagree with that. Like, some cases, I think maybe there's a campaign that has a really good organization and, you know, the candidate's interesting. And it's just for me, it's like issue by issue. I don't remember exactly. I'm pretty sure I voted for some. local Dems who've supported school choice because it's been, and I don't say that this is like the correct ethical decision. I say this is the ethical conclusion that I've come to after thinking long and hard about whether it's worth it or as long and hard as is warranted for local elections.

I spend a good time thinking about it and following local politics. And I think I have supported local Dems who've supported school choice because, you know, I don't think school choice is a perfect solution by any means. But it's better than the current situation in the District of Columbia. And when you have, you know, no viable candidate on the right and there are two viable candidates, then, yeah, I've considered. I've definitely done it at least. I've definitely done it a couple of times. But it's always a question you have to answer. All right. Let's see here. question is from Marlowe, who asks, do I think Michelle Tofoya has a snowballs chance in hell of winning?

I hesitate to answer this question with any confidence because I've not spent time in Minnesota. So to say, to give a snowballs chance at hell answer to that would, I think, require confidence that I've not earned with enough time in Minnesota. If anyone could do it, I imagine it would be someone like Michelle Tafoya. And sometimes it takes a really good candidate to start building momentum. But I do sort of look at Minnesota as, I mean, the problem for comparing Minnesota and Wisconsin is that the suburbs, Minneapolis and its suburbs, are wealthier than the Milwaukee suburbs or certainly like Madison or anything. any like suburban major suburban area that is in wisconsin they're i'm sure more populous and more densely populated wealthier and because of that they're more affluent more likely to vote blue

uh and be democrats so i think rural minnesota i i do have a lot of friends from minnesota uh and my impression of rural minnesota is that it is actually a lot like rural wisconsin where you have a lot of people who voted democrat forever who are very pro trump um because they're essentially populists and nationalists, even if they wouldn't necessarily use the nationalist label there, America first is probably a better way to put it, would identify with that ideological formulation. And so you could potentially see a situation where enough of the people outside of the Twin Cities are fed up that they vote for a Trump-like candidate, or you could see a scenario where someone like Michelle Tafoya is, you know, a sort of middle of the road type person that is appealing to

enough of those kind of disillusioned rural Trump voters and enough of the suburban people to triumph. So that's, there's an equation that could work out. It just, I'm sure, in Minnesota people will probably write in and tell me, it's, it's, it's, it's, very far-fetched. I'm sure it is. Unfortunately, I'm sure it is. One-party states are bad business. We always talk about how the deepest red states send the most moderate Republican senators. One-party states, if they're that way for a really long time, like California is a good example. Texas has a lot of current capitalism problems. But it can get ugly on the political level. And so I don't wish for one-party state on anyone, to be honest. I think it's,

It's like the market, right? The capitalism, the competition of capitalism. You need the competition to get the best option. But it depends on who your consumers are because some consumers aren't going to test the product exactly the way that you might want to test the product. So that's not a great analogy, but it is one. I do think competition is helpful. Like having serious competition from the other party is helpful. So maybe Michelle will be able to put up a fight. that's one of the takeaways from the Wisconsin election results this week, which were a shalacking for Republicans. The Wow counties, so that's Washington-Ozaki and Wisconsin, and Wisconsin, and Washington, around the Milwaukee area, suburban Milwaukee, those counties swung left. And the numbers that I was looking at early, at least, were even further left than they swung in last year's Supreme Court election. which you might remember Elon Musk coming to Green Bay and doing the whole song of dance, and then Republicans losing by a pretty hefty margin. So, I mean, that's what I mean about Minnesota, that there's just, you still had enough rural Democrats, and, or DFL in Minnesota, the people who vote for in Wisconsin, like a Mark Pocan,

in ag areas, in rural areas that support will still vote Democrat, even if they're more pro-Trump. But they won't vote for a lot of Republicans who aren't Trump. And then you have these affluent suburban populations. I mean, I think part of the story in those wow counties is that millennials, they're being settled by affluent suburban millennials who are. are going to vote blue at a higher rate than their parents who maybe raised them in the Wow counties, the parents who were, you know, coming of age in the Reagan generation, Reagan wins the youth vote twice, and they, you know, produces a more Republican generation than millennials, more

Republican-friendly generation than millennials. And so basically millennials who are doing well, settling in those Wow counties are going to make it competitive. and that could put Wisconsin and Minnesota territory, you know, 10 years down the road. We'll see. We'll see. We'll see. Like I said, there are some real differences. So, anyway, Marlow also asked if the Strait of Hormuz was truly open before the conflict with no problems, threats, or concerns. Yeah, that's a great question. It's a great question. my understanding of it, and it's not perfect. Of course, it's not perfect, but that it was roughly business as usual, day by day, things were fine.

You know, if you look at the level of ship traffic, I can probably pull that up relatively quickly. But my understanding is there was a fifth of the world. oil and liquid national liquid natural liquid natural liquid natural liquid natural things were pretty much like I keep saying business as usual but yeah they were pretty much as doable as you'd expect from a place like that here sorry I'm I'm rambling a bit because I'm trying to pull up the actual numbers okay yes so huge drop here So we're looking at, I'm looking at an NBC news chart. If you want to pull it up on your own, it is from April 9th.

And the headline is straight of Hormuz shipping traffic is effectively at a standstill despite Iran ceasefire. So this is from Thursday, the day that I record these episodes. And what you see after February 28th is an absolutely dramatic drop. No real spikes. So it looks like the traffic here. So there have been about under 80 crossings a day, just under 80 crossings a day, before the war. And now it's down to less than 10. So nine on April 5th.

So it went down from about, like I said before, about 80, a little bit under 80, probably mid to high 70s, all the way down to less than 10. So I guess it's kind of relative. And you see it even going back further. NBC has a chart that goes back all the way to the beginning of the year. Yeah, daily traffic is around 50. It's steadily between 50 and 100. Then throughout February, a lot of days actually over 100 crossings through the straight. And yeah, it looks like, you know, a giant wall and then a tiny little fence right after that February 28th date. If you're, if you're looking at the chart and trying to visually illustrate it

for everyone listening. So yeah, I guess it's relative. But to Marla's question, was it insurance-wise expensive? Was Iran, you know, gumming up the works? I don't know the answer to that question. But what I do know looking at here is that traffic was consistently around the same level that is very high relative to where it is now. So that will, oh wait, no, I was going to say that'll do it, but I have Instagram questions to check. You can also always send questions on Instagram. I think we have a few here. Yeah, let's look at this one. Tom says that he lives in California's third district, which you Celine comfortably read before the recent redistricting. I've been happy with many things President Trump has done, but I'm strongly opposed to the war in Iran.

I've been going back and forth about possibly not voting in November as a form of protest. And I'm curious about your thoughts on that. Are there other effective ways to show support for the president while also making it clear, I don't support the war? That's interesting because it also, I think, depends on the election itself. So if your local election is a pro-Trump Republican and you stay home for a pro-Trump Republican versus whether you stay home for an anti-Trump Republican, I don't know if that makes, I think that probably does make a difference in how it's interpreted by the national GOP.

But yeah, you really just have to do a cost-benefit analysis between, you know, is it worth it? Is the cost of, you know, potentially, depending on how solid the district is, potentially having a Democrat represent you, is it worth the benefit of protesting the Trump administration? So losing a vote in the House of Representatives potentially, but again, it's district to district. So if it's a solid Republican district and there's no real likelihood of potentially the seat sliding, then maybe it is just worth staying home because then it becomes part of this bigger national story of why people in Republican districts did not turn out. And that becomes a story about disillusionment, right? And the National Republican Party, it gets passed on from the local level. It's the national level. They say,

well, maybe we have a problem with disillusioned voters. I do think it depends, again, like just is your representative really pro-Trump, really pro-war, really anti-Trump, really anti-war? I think so that stuff makes a difference. But it's a really interesting question. A really really interesting question. I don't quite have a super clear answer. I mean, I do think it's more helpful than you realize to be in touch with your local party, whether it's the GOP or the Dems. That can make a difference. But anyway, that's a tough one. That's a tough one. This looks like it's from Ilya. Who do you think Republicans will get behind in 2028? And do you think the MAGA movement will fade away. Well, the way I look at it is kind of mathematic in that, you know,

about 30% of the Republican electorate. So not the base, but the Republican electorate, people who are likely to vote Republican, is hardcore MAGA, the Fifth Avenue voters, as I call him. You know, Trump always said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his people would still be with him. So that's why I refer to like hardcore MAGA, people who go to rallies by merchandise. That's like 30% of the Republican electorate. And as long as you have that 30%, it matters significantly in primaries. Now, I always say, you know, if Butler had turned out just a couple of inches in another direction, that matters a lot, a lot. Because, you know, if something tragic were to happen, Trump becomes a martyr.

And that changes the future of the Republican Party. on the other hand, we all remember what happened on January 7th. The Republican Party was, national Republicans were trying to do everything to get away from Trump. And if that's how his presidency ends with no potential for a sort of rehabilitation third term, that's different too. So I think there's a lot of unknowns right now. I mean, a lot of people didn't even predict this war, for example. So there are a lot of unknowns.

but I think it's probably a strong likelihood that you still get a not insignificant trunk of the Republican electorate that's very attached to MAGA. I think right now if I had to put a chip behind someone, I would probably put it on Rubio right now. Again, I think it's not impossible to me that J.D. Vance is disillusioned with national politics. he is not a career politician. He came from the business world, and he's sort of an intellectual guy. I think Rubio is too, but Rubio's had a long political career. Rubio is very good at politics. Vance seems to me less interested in politics, so I could see a world where, because Rubio is such a talented politician,

Trump decides that Rubio might be the better heir and starts putting his thoughts. on the scale and JD is disillusioned, sees the writing on the wall, and sits it out. I'm just saying I could see a world where that happens. And I think right now Rubio's fortunes are rising. I don't think vances are falling by any means. It's just to say I think Rubio's are rising. So I think Rubio's kind of always been underestimated. He was overestimated by the kind of Republican establishment for a while. But ever since, I think he's been underestimated. I always remember a poll, I want to say it was a Washington Post poll in 2015, that found Marco Rubio was the only Republican candidate with higher support among young voters than Hillary Clinton, which, again,

like, put yourself 12, 11 years ago, that's kind of remarkable for a Republican candidate. It speaks to how bad of a candidate Hillary Clinton was, but there's also sort of interesting data point about Marco Rubio. He really is just a good politician, and he's handled the Trump moment well. So I think it could be Rubio. I wouldn't count out Ron DeSantis. It's possible to me there's a DeSantis type candidate, somebody who's kind of been low key during Trump 2.0. DeSantis has been quietly sort of distancing himself from MAGA on tech data centers, which I do think is one of their big vulnerabilities politically. And he's again kind of quietly been distancing himself or separating himself on that issue, which has been very interesting to watch.

So, you know, it's going to be a problem that he lost in 2024. Nobody kind of likes the stench of failure. And he did go up against Trump. On the other hand, we don't know how the Trump presidency ends. We just don't know what that looks like. We don't know what the country looks like. There's so many unknowns right now that it doesn't seem crazy to me that DeSantis finds a lane. And with a splintered electorate, you have 30% really hardcore, hardcore MAGA, but can someone consolidate

the non-Maga, not anti, but non-Maga vote? Probably. Mathematically, probably. I just don't know exactly what that's going to look like. So very, very interesting question. Very, very interesting question. I don't think, you know, I certainly don't oppose Thomas Massey or someone like him running, or like Marjorie Taylor Green or Thomas Massey running.

but just mathematically with a splintered electorate, I think it's just an interesting question as to how that would go. So anyway, so much to think about in the next few years. Carol says, what are your thoughts on the way Trump is handling the war with Iran? That's a big question. Just bluntly, I don't think we should have started a war. But I do agree with a lot of people who support the war on a foundational point, which is that Iran the death to America, Iran, having a nuclear weapon is bad. And the death to America or Iran having a ballistic missile, a stock of ballistic missiles, which has been depleted, but will be rebuilt quickly no matter what.

That reaches pretty far all the way to Diego Garcia, as we learned, is not a good thing. I mean, I would never dispute that's bad. So I agree on that kind of foundational point where I depart from many, many people is believing any of what just happened in the last month is going to make the situation better. My personal perspective on this is that we have a long history of creating power vacuums. We have a long history of regime change, regime change that goes bad. We have a long history of trying to, make something better and actually making it worse in the process and losing American blood and treasure along the way.

And I think it's very reasonable right now to be worried about the fact that the IRGC has been telling the IRGC has been telling the Iranian people for how long that America is the great Satan. then first day of the war that girls' school is bombed, which I do not think was on purpose, but the girl's school was bombed. That's part of the reason why violence should always be the last, last, last, last resort. And then Donald Trump threatens to wipe out their entire civilization. And there's a separate conversation, of course, and I get it, about not being hysterical when it comes to Trump's negotiating rhetoric.

I understand that. I think you have to take it seriously because it's from a president, and two things can be true at the same time. It's serious, but it's also likely just rhetoric. It doesn't mean you can just dismiss it, though. And that would be, again, an insult to Trump because Trump, in order for that rhetoric to work,

is counting on people taking it seriously. So all that is to say, it's a big propaganda win. for the IRGC. And I wonder, I don't know how the dust is going to settle, but I do think there's a non-zero percent chance that Iranians have been, first of all, the IRGC has been radicalized to go pedal to the metal on getting a nuclear weapon. And secondly, that some of the Iranian people have been pushed further towards the IRGC.

It's not supported by, I would say even the majority. of the public in Iran, but have more people been pushed in that direction over the course of the war? That's what really concerns me, that the situation is not better, that it's fairly easy in 2026 for Iran to rebuild its missile system, and that now they might be even more motivated to enrich uranium to nuclear weapon capacity. So looking at things where they are right now, I'm I'm pessimistic to say the least. I'm pessimistic to say the least. So, unfortunately, I don't think it's, I'm pretty opposed to what's been happening.

I'm glad that it's remained an air campaign. That's a benefit, I suppose. If we're looking at the glasses half full, I don't know, many of you disagree with me on this. But, no, I am at least glad that it's remained in an air campaign and that it hasn't turned into a ground operation. I'm skeptical that it won't. And I'm skeptical that even if it remains just an air campaign and there's a ceasefire,

we're not going to be back here in six months or a year. That was the, you know, everyone was saying skeptics. Tucker was literally the first guest on After Party. And I think it was the Monday after, again, the Monday after Midnight Hammer. A lot of neocons, hawks saying, here, take the L. we didn't devolve into nuclear war, take the L.

And I said at the time, I'm happy to take the L, genuinely happy to take the L, but I think there's something more coming. And that was vindicated. Unfortunately, that was vindicated. So that's something I worry about, too. Ireland says, do you have a prediction for which Trump cabinet member will be ousted next? Oh, this is another rare point of vindication. I think I did. You can roll the tape, but I'm pretty sure I said it.

the first person out would be Christy Gnome, because if you are able to sort of speak Trump, as many people are, because many people have, you know, watched this happening for the last 10-plus years, she seemed like she was about to get on the bad side. She was flying too close to the sun, too close to the sun. I was surprised by Pam Bondi, so that's, I genuinely did not see that one coming. It's possible that it could be Lori Chavez-Durimer, the labor secretary, but she's also very hard to replace because she was this rare Republican who was liked by the labor movement and was able to kind of do the realignment thing politically. Lots and lots of drama coming out of the labor department, lots of really bad media stories coming out of the labor department. Seems like it is genuinely a mess.

I don't know that. I don't actually have sources in the labor department, so I don't know if it's actually a mess or it. if it's just what's being reported, but obviously the president cares about what's being reported. So maybe it's her. I just think she's also really hard to replace, and nobody's paying much attention to labor right now. So she's been able to kind of fly under the radar with all these dramatic stories about her husband and the personnel issues at labor. But, I mean, if the, depending on how the war goes, you could see Pete Hegseth maybe being a sacrificial lamb, but, The president seems very happy with Pete Hagseth.

I don't have a strong feeling about this right now. Like I did. I did have a strong feeling that Christy Knoem would be the first to go. So I don't have a strong feeling right now. Those are some possibilities. Yeah, those are some possibilities. Maybe one answer is it would be Lee Zeldon at EPA if he goes to DOJ, because Trump has reportedly been thinking about Lee Zeldon for Attorney General.

It looks like he's perfectly fine with Todd Blanche right now. But I guess that could possibly it, although it would just be, maybe that's cheating because he would just be moving over to another cabinet position. We'll see, we'll see. Good question. Veo Casio says, why did J.R.E., Joe Rogan experience, I assume that means, say breaking points isn't independent. Episode with Theo Vaughn. I didn't see this. Interesting.

if he meant independent in the context of like we're not political independence, that's probably fair because we're ideological, meaning Saga and I are conservative, Crystal and Ryan are leftists. So if he meant in that sense, it's actually totally defensible. I would have to see the context. But yeah, I mean, like, we're definitely not, like, oh, people who can go either way, right? Like, oh, you know, sometimes I vote this way, sometimes I vote that way. Like, we're roughly not even roughly, but like we're generally right and left. So if it was in an ideological sense, I think that's perfectly defensible. If it meant financially or journalistically,

that would be different because financially and journalistically, breaking points is supported almost entirely by premium subscribers. It's a really important and impressive model. There are dynamic ads on the podcast feeds and on YouTube that we get revenue from, but it's not a big part of the revenue stream. So all that could go away tomorrow and we would be fine, take a little bit of a hit, but would be fine. We don't have any private donors, corporate sponsors. Like we're literally funded by premium subscribers.

So independent, absolutely 100% in that sense, which is amazing. And I think it's just generally been important for people to demonstrate that model works. So it's great. I mean, totally away from any pressures. Again, I would have to do the context of Rogan. But that's the truth about the model, which is awesome. Totally awesome. Rachel says, how did you and Ryan get connected?

I appreciate the mutual respect on BP segments. Okay, so when Crystal and Saga were leaving Rising at the Hill, Ryan and I had both been on Rising. I don't think we had ever been on together, though, to be honest. And Crystal was friends with Ryan. I was friends with Sager. and they just both said, hey, would you like to take over for us? And both Ryan and I had full-time jobs.

So, and I actually had a part-time job in addition to a full-time job. So we were like, yeah, we're happy to do it. It was pretty good money at the time. We're like, we're happy to do it temporarily. Will they look for other people? And so I think the original deal was like two to three weeks. And boy, was it brutal. I kept trying to, like, they kept trying to extend it.

And I kept trying to be like, no, we can't keep doing this. but they kept dragging us back because I was really so fascinated by Ryan. And what we were doing, I mean, we'd have such interesting guests that were really, for me, like the reason to be in journalism is that there's so many fun questions. And I have all kinds of different questions I want to ask different people. And Rising was giving us an opportunity to talk to, like, politicians from all different backgrounds. but also like thinkers from all different backgrounds. And I loved that.

And really what I came to be most interested in was, was bouncing things off of Ryan and talking with Ryan. And so we stuck around. I eventually just had to pull the corks. I was so like, again, I had a part-time job on top of a full-time job already. And hosting Rising is honestly a full-time job. So it was almost impossible like get sleep. But then they accommodated us and let us do a Friday only show.

And we love that. And about a year into breaking points, Crystal and Saga, we're like, okay, we can bring you guys in now. And we took over Wednesdays and Fridays. And we do Fridays now with Crystal and Griffin, too. But it's just been such a gift to get to know Ryan, to get to know Ryan's world, and to talk through some of these incredibly tough topics with Ryan, who's a good friend. And Crystal Sager, of course, are too.

But being a co-host with Ryan in particular has just been a real gift. So that's how it all started. I don't think we really knew each other before that. I'm a media obsessive, so I knew him from the White House Correspondence Dinner gossip story about how he punched Jesse Wan. I think it was like an MSNBC party after the White House correspondent's center like 15 years ago. But anyway, he's really the best. So it's been an absolute gift.

All right. Thank you so much for all your questions. I appreciate it. It's been a blast to chat with all of you via the Emily and Devil Make Care Media email. We will be back with more after party. Monday, live 9 p.m. Eastern on YouTube, Wednesday live, 9 p.m. Eastern on YouTube. And then after party in your podcast feeds only on Fridays, every Friday. Emily at devilmycaremedia.com again is the email address. Subscribe, like, comment with you. It all helps us so much. I'm very,

very grateful for every single one of you and hope you have a wonderful weekend. God bless everyone.