Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 11/6/25: Pelosi Retires, SCOTUS To Kill Trump Tariffs, Morning Joe Vs ADL, Summer Lee On Zohran Victory

Episode Date: November 6, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Pelosi retires, SCOTUS to kill Trump tariffs, Morning Joe loses it on ADL, Summer Lee on how Zohran crushed AIPAC. Summer Lee: https://summerlee.house.gov/ To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. She said, Johnny. The kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas planes, teens are dying. Suicides that don't make sense. Strange accidents and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of Breaking Bad. Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people.

There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to Paper Ghosts, The Texas Teen Murders, on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Robert Smith, and this is Jacob Goldstein, and we used to host a show called Planet Money. And now we're back making this new podcast called Business History about the best ideas and people and businesses in history. And some of the worst people, horrible ideas, and destructive companies in the history of business. First episode, How Southwest Airlines Used Chewereld. cheap seats and free whiskey to fight its way into the airline is. The most Texas story ever.

Listen to business history on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Cal Penn, and on my new podcast, here we go again, we'll take today's trends and headlines and ask, why does history keep repeating itself? Each week, I'm calling up my friends, like Bill Nye, Lily Singh, and Pete Buttigieg to talk about everything from the space race to movie remakes to psychedelics. the way, are you high? Look, the world can seem pretty scary right now. But my goal here is for you to listen and feel a little better about the future.

Listen and subscribe to Here We Go Again with Cal Penn on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent Media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does. not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com.

Hey everyone, huge update. Literally happened live while we were recording the show. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has officially announced her retirement. She released a new video. let's take a listen. I say to my colleagues in the house all the time, no matter what title they have bestowed upon me, speaker, leader, whip, there has been no greater honor for me than to stand on the house floor and say, I speak for the people of San Francisco. I have true love serving as your voice in Congress, and I've always honored the song of St. Francis. Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace, the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know. I will not be seeking re-election to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my

final year of service as you're a proud representative. As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this. San Francisco, know your power. We have made history. We have made progress. We have always led the way. And now we must continue to do so. Wow, there it is. Seismic announcement to the days after immediately these elections for the Democrats. Obviously, she stepped down already had Hakeem Jeffries, but obviously a titan, I think, in the Democratic Party, one of the most efficient power brokers in modern American history, especially up there at the top. A long and stored career. I don't want to give too much of a positive vibe, a lot of destruction, I think, along the way to.

The chemist leader looked pretty good, though, in comparison. You're definitely right on that one, but I'm going to say if we're going to judge on the report card. I wouldn't say it's been all that great. She was a nightmare for Republicans, for Democrats at many times. But, you know, at the very least, I do want to give credit where it is due. People who are 80 years old should move on and get the fuck out. So you know what?

Thank you. You didn't die in office. I wish that the bar was not that low. Thank you for listening and for. leaving. And this blows open the San Francisco primary. They're Schweikot, who we had here on the show. Now I think the guy's got a real shot. He actually could win. He's going to be going up against what is a Senator Scott Weiner, who is what? More about it? He's like a local politician, state senator. They're very, you know, in terms of their positioning, the Scott Wiener is very pro

Israel, you know, APAC recipe, all that sort of stuff. So that'll be a key, you know, dividing line. And Shoycott, Chakrabati, is AOC's former chief of staff. Very thoughtful guy ideologically kind of has the big picture and also the policy details there. Very big student of history as well. I think he and Sager could spend hours talking to each other about FDR and all of that. In any case, in addition, the expectation is that one of Pelosi's daughters, Christine, is likely to jump in the race as well. So that hasn't happened yet.

But that was the expectation, like from Schuikot, there's been a question for a while now whether Pelosi was going to seek re-election again. Obviously, there's a big conversation in the Democratic Party right now about gerontocracy with this incredibly elderly leadership and average age and, you know, multiple members literally dying in office. Of course, Diane Feinstein, who Nancy was very close with, being one of those individuals. And Pelosi would have been, you know, had a front row seat to watching that decline happen. So I think that probably pushed her more towards the exits as well. You know, Shoycott's challenge, her primary challenge already was one that she was going to have to take seriously. That could have also played a factor, played a role as well. You know, he had shared some polling with me that looked promising for him when people, you know, learned about his campaign, et cetera.

So, so yeah, now that's going to be a very, very interesting fight. Our San Francisco residents going to go with the nepotism route and say, okay, last name Pelosi, we're going to stick with. with it? Or are they going to be, you know, part of the sort of like, you know, Zoramam Dani left wave reckoning? Are they going to go with the more centrist figure of the established politician there, the state senator? That'll be a really fascinating one to watch. It's going to be a huge test for her endorsement, too, because if she does nominate or she does push her daughter and she endorses her, I don't know. I mean, look, I don't know San Francisco politics like all that well, but she was still pretty popular in her own district. She has survived multiple challenges. Her bid was

always, look, I'm the power broker and I'm going to get shit done for you. And I mean, again, but can you transfer that to your kid? It's always been that way. I don't know, truly. Like, I have no idea whether the voters would go along with that. I would pray not. I would say that San Francisco is definitely not gotten better under her leadership. If you live there, I think you probably would agree. I think the case has always been, but she's fighting, you know, on a national case. To be fair, congressional elections are not local, specifically. It's not really all the stuff that factors in. So I have no idea.

It's going to, wow, going to be a crazy race. But, you know, at least the honorable thing, she's leaving. She's left us with the legacy, the stock trade. You know, she single-handedly, her riches with her husband, I think elevated that issue to the very top. So Nancy, thank you. Thank you for you and your husband trading your way so flagrantly to make that into an issue that a lot of people could seize upon and to push some anti-corruption legislation. I'm trying to think about, well, like, my God, I mean, financial crisis.

Obamacare. She really, you know, was a key lynch fin. God, the Iraq war. Get the votes together to get Obamacare across the finish line. I mean, Democrats had a big majority, but they had a lot more like flu dog conservative members that they had to grapple with. So that was not no easy task. And I mean, the thing that she was very effective at was, first of all, knowing what

votes she had, right? She was a huge fundraiser, just a juggernaut. with that, which unfortunately the way Washington is set up, that is really the key to power. She was a much better tactician than Hakeem Jeffries, for sure. You know, she was relished to fight with Trump, you know, really stared him down and the border wall funding shut down. You know, I think she really emerged victorious from that particular fight. And she was able to really sort of coerce the Democratic caucus into maintaining unity.

which was not necessarily, in my view, a positive thing. But from her perspective and from Democratic leadership perspective, she was certainly very effective in her car. She was the master tamer. She tamed AOC. Yeah. She tamed all of the squaw. I mean, you got to give it to her.

She was LBJ-esque in terms of her control. There are very few like them. There's LBJ in my lifetime. It's been Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi. I haven't seen any greats in Congress. I mean, it's been a long time since we saw anybody great who actually could. was a creature of the institution, could get things, not just done, but, you know, really had a harness on the caucus, turned herself to an integral part of the machine, became one of the

pioneers of the billionaire, you know, raising money, movement. There was nobody better at it than control. She understands power. A hundred percent. She absolutely understands power. Fascinating life. And came from a Baltimore, like Machine, Paul. Yeah, her dad was a mayor.

So she was sort of like raised in that culture, I guess. So there you go. Rare breed, I guess you could say. So, all right. Good riddits. Okay, let's get to the tariffs. She said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas plains, teens are dying. Suicides that don't make sense.

Strange accidents and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of Breaking Bad. Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people. There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to paper goats. The Texas Teen Murders on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Robert Smith. This is Jacob Goldstein.

And we used to host a show called Planet Money. And now we're back making this new podcast called Business History about the best ideas and people and businesses in history. And some of the worst people, horrible ideas and destructive companies in the history of business. Having a genius idea without a... The need for it is nothing. It's like not having it at all. It's a very simple, elegant lesson. Make something people want.

First episode, how Southwest Airlines use cheap seats and free whiskey to fight its way into the airline business. The most Texas story ever. There's a lot of mavericks in that story. We're going to have mavericks on the show. We're going to have plenty of robber barons. So many robber barons. And you know what? They're not all bad.

And we'll talk about some of the classic great moments of famous business geniuses, along with some of the darker moments that often get overlooked. like Thomas Edison and the electric chair. Listen to business history on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. The Big Take podcast from Bloomberg News dives deep into one big global business story every weekday. A shutdown means we don't get the data, but it also means for President Trump that there's no chance of bad news on the labor market. What does a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich reveal about the economy? Our breakfast foods are consistent consumer staples, and so they sort of become outsize indicators of inflation.

What's behind Elon Musk's trillion dollar payout? There's a sort of concerted effort to message that Musk is coming back. He's putting politics aside. He's left the White House. And what can the PCE tell you that the CPI can't? CPI tries to measure out-of-pocket costs that consumers are paying for things, whereas the PCE, index that the Fed targets is a little bit broader of a measure. Listen to the big take from Bloomberg News every weekday afternoon on the IHeart radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Going now to tariffs, there was a massive Supreme Court case yesterday where Trump's tariffs actually appeared before the United States Supreme Court for their legality. The Supreme Court will rule on that imminent question. Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake because, of the amount of revenues that have flowed into the federal government's coffers. There is a potential possibility. They may actually have to repay all of the tariff revenue back to those companies if they

are struck down. And it increasingly looks that way. Here was Trump's immediate reaction to the possibility of them getting struck down. Let's take a listen. You're saying you're happy with what you came out of it. If I didn't have tariffs, we were right now, the entire world would be in a depression. Because, you know, that wasn't a threat against us. That was a threat against the entire world.

I did this for the world. I did it for the world. That's his response. Good luck, arguing that before the United States Supreme Court, sir, because they are not looking so favorably on your proposal. We have some of the audio just showing some of the conservative justices expressing a lot of skepticism around this. First, let's start with Justice Gorsuch. You say that we shouldn't be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the president's inherent powers.

That's the gist of it, as I understand it. why we should disregard both major questions and non-delegation. So could Congress delegate to the president the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit, to lay and collect duties as he sees fit? We don't assert that here. That would be a much harder case now in 1790. Isn't that the logic of your view, though? I don't think so, because we're dealing with a statute that was a carefully crafted compromise.

It does have all the limitations that I just talked about. You're saying we shouldn't look, we shouldn't be concerned with, I want to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has an inherent authority, and so delegation off the books, more or less. And again, the phrase that Justice Jackson uses, it just does not apply, at least it's true. I know, but that's where you started off, and now you've retreated from that, as I understand it. Well, I think we would, as our front line position is a certain stronger position, but the court doesn't accept it, then if there is a highly detrimental person. Can you give you a reason? To accept it, though. That's what I'm struggling and waiting for. What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the president? Well, we don't content that again. Well, you do. You say it's unreviewable. There's no manageable standard, nothing to be done. And now you're, I think you, tell me if I'm wrong. You backed off that position.

Maybe that's fair to say. Okay. All right. Thank you. Not great there for the U.S. Solicitor General. There were a couple of other instances where Justice Kavanaugh, also appeared to have some questions there. This time for the opposition, just to give you a bit of a flavor on some of the arguments that are happening. Let's take a listen. Mr. Katyal referred to common sense of several times, and I want to pick up on Justice Barrett's question, because your interpretation of the statute, as she pointed out, would allow the

president to shut down all trade with every other country in the world or to impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1% tariff. And that leaves, in the government's words, in its brief, an odd donut hole in the statute. Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we're going to give the president of power to shut down trade? So that was the argument that gets to some of the presidential power I just think broadly what we're trying to show you is that while there are a couple of justices who appear to perhaps rule on Trump's side, the vast majority were quite, quite skeptical. Let's put the tariff sheet up here on the screen from the Wall Street Journal.

Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's tariffs. The Trump administration's lawyer faced sharp questioning, including from the conservative wing of the court. Lawyers representing the tariff challengers were pressed a little bit here about the limitations that they could impose on core powers. One of the interesting things that kind of flows from this is that they would not strike down the ability to impose tariffs. What they would strike down was this AEPA authority that Trump used to impose these tariffs. And they said, well, you can do it, but those take a lot longer and you kind of have to show your work.

You have to prove through a system that they're taking advantage of you. And the whole reason he used these is because they could go into effect immediately, where those other ones require a lot more box checking and legalities in order to go. through and they can be challenged in court. But the big question is what about all the money? There's hundreds of billions of dollars sitting in the U.S. Treasury bank account. Who gets that money? Nobody even knows the answer to that question. But that would be devastating to the Trump theory, not only in terms of executive power, but of tariffs, because that's their whole cope is, well, where are you going to use this money to offset the shutdown, whatever,

to pay these farmers? Well, what if these farmers just took a hit and they get no money from the government. Oh, that's going to be, that's brutal. Yeah. Well, it also, I mean, it's a dagger to the heart of like Trump economics, which, you know, I think a lot of Americans want to see a dagger to the heart of Trump. And I mean, in a certain sense, it may kind of save them because the tariffs are some of the most unpopular thing that Trump has done in, in the second term. So, you know, I think there's a number of things going on here with the Supreme Court. Number one, a lot of businesses don't like the tariffs and the court, even the conservative justices are very prohibitive. So this was one that we always thought had a chance of success, even, you know, when Trump was riding high. So that's number one. Number two, I think rightly, they pointed out, hey, so does that mean that a Democratic administration can declare, you know, climate change emergency and then just do whatever they want, they want?

And you can just usurp power from Congress. I mean, they really started to grapple with the amount of power that this administration has claimed in the executive. And this was the first time, really, that we've seen them push back. in any area and say, you know what, Congress does have a role here. Like, they do exist. They are supposed to be doing some things as well, not just you guys. But number three, you know, I wonder if these arguments would have gone in such a clearly anti-tariff direction if you hadn't just had this massive midterm reckoning. You know, Trump is now looking more and more like already

kind of a lame duck. Given the, the reckoning that you had across the country, very strong message sent about the unpopularity of his policies, about the unpopularity of his, of his party overall, of the direction of the country. And so this court has been very fearful of crossing Trump. They've been worried about his power. They've been worried about maintaining their own legitimacy. I think that's a big part of the reason why they've done all these shadow docket decisions that have gone in his direction to avoid upsetting the apple cart and having this direct confrontation with him. Now he's looking a little bit less, little bit less powerful. He's looking a little bit more vulnerable, and that may be playing into some of this as well.

I mean, these are very political actors. No one should fool themselves otherwise. Yeah, look, definitely probably part of it in terms of what they're all looking at. And, you know, this refund question, I just can't get away with this. Go ahead and put C6 up on the screen. This is going to be one of the craziest things. If these get struck down, there's a liability of a trillion dollars. If they rule that the tariffs are illegal, tariff payments will be considered, quote, wrongfully collected taxes. That tariff will then apply to 150 countries, nearly every product in the United States. That will then reshape the global economy just from the outflows from the U.S. Treasury,

not to mention to all of the companies. And, you know, Ryan even said this, is that, yeah, if you think those companies aren't going to just take that money and immediately buy back their own stock and not, let's say, you know, like lower prices or any of that, you're also delusional. So the net result would be no money even in the government's coffers, And no investment spur, nothing, and the companies themselves would get a massive windfall in cash. The only people left holding the bag are those who bought goods in the interim and, you know, or if you're non-stockholder, then you're done.

So that seems to be the most likely scenario. By the way, I just, one thing to mention, there is an argument from the Solicitor General that if they do get struck down, it should only be from when the case was brought and specifically by the plaintiffs, which is the Oregon, like a few others, that those goods and it shouldn't broadly apply because of unfeasibility. We'll see. Pretty unfair, in my opinion, if you were forced to pay those tariffs, but I don't know. I mean, here's the other thing. It's like, you can go to Congress. You've got Republican House majority. You've got Republican Senate majority. But there's a reason why Congress has not fought back. Like, they don't want to have to take this vote. Because most of them actually

oppose the tariff program, but they don't want to get crosswise with Trump. So as with many things, they're just happy to say, yeah, you do it. We don't want to have to say anything about it. We don't want to really anything to do with it. So, you know, in theory, with Republican control and a Republican president, he could pass whatever tariff regime he wants through Congress. But he likes the ability to, you know, tweet out, they're on, they're off, they're this level, they're that level, et cetera. He likes having that power. And also, by the way, somebody likes insider trading off of that information as well, which we've seen, you know, multiple times like individuals making millions and millions of dollars, pre-running whatever Trump is about to.

announce. So, you know, he's not interested in, like, having actually some sort of coherent program that he has to pass through Congress. And Congress is not interested in having their hands. The Republicans in Congress are not interested in having their hands on it either. So that's why, if this does get struck down, it really will be a bit of a death now for what he can do on tariffs, unless he just decides to ignore them, which, you know, he is doing on food stamps. And she said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas planes, teens are dying, suicides that don't make sense, strange accidents, and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of breaking bad.

Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people. There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to paper ghosts, the Texas teen murders on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Robert Smith, and this is Jacob Goldstein, and we used to host a show called Planet Money. And now we're back making this new podcast called Business History about the best ideas and people and businesses in history and some of the worst people, horrible ideas, and destructive companies in the history of business. Having a genius idea without a need for it is nothing. It's like not having it at all. It's a very simple, elegant lesson.

Make something people want. First episode, how Southwest Airlines use cheap seats and free whiskey to fight its way into the airline business. The most Texas story ever. There's a lot of mavericks in that story. We're going to have mavericks on the show. We're going to have plenty of robber barons. So many robber barons. And you know what?

They're not all bad. And we'll talk about some of the classic great moments of famous business geniuses, along with some of the darker moments that often get overlooked. Like Thomas Edison and the Elections Chess. Listen to business history on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get. Your podcast. The forces shaping the world's economies and financial markets can be hard to spot. Even though they are such a powerful player in finance, you wouldn't really know that you are

interacting with them. And even harder to understand. Donald Trump's trade war, 2.0, is only accelerating the process of de-dollarization, which in a way is jargon for people turning away from the dollar. That is where the big take from Bloomberg podcast comes in. connect the dots. How unusual is a deal like this? Unprecedented. Every weekday afternoon, we dive deep into one big global business story. The biggest story of the reaction of the oil market to the conflict in the Middle East is one of what has not happened. Katie, you told me that

ETFs are your favorite thing. They are. Explain that. Why is that the case? And unpack what it means for you. Our breakfast foods are consistent consumer staples, and so they sort of become outsize indicators of inflation. Listen to the big take from Bloomberg News every weekday afternoon on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. ADL, not a fan of Zoran Mamdani. Apparently, the feeling is quite mutual. And they have announced in the wake of his election.

This is honestly insane and frankly racist. They've announced an initiative to track and monitor all Mamdani administration policies and appointments to quote unquote protect Jewish New Yorkers. So Greenblatt has gotten so far out over his skis on his anti-Mumdani meltdown freak out that even the morning Joe crew, Joe Scarborough specifically are like, dude, you can't be serious about this stuff. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that. Look, it's not about politics.

This morning we launched a tip line at adl.org, NYC. So if you are Jewish and you experience anti-Semitism where you work, or where you worship, or where you live, we want to know so we can track it. And look, I tell you, we also. And there has been anti-Semitism in New York that we've talked about time and time again. This isn't something new because he got elected last night.

Will you work with him? Will you sit and talk to him? Will, I mean, will he have to be a part of this process? He has said publicly that he will not work with the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt. Or when an elderly person is firebombed in Volter, Colorado, like an 80-year-old woman. Like someone angry about it.

We're all shocked, and we all find this abhorrent, and I'm sure that the next mayor would say the same thing, wouldn't he? You have to ask him. I think you have said the same thing. I don't know. I think you have to. I think you look at the fact that he has gone to one high holiday service after another. He is taught to the Jewish community.

That's not exactly right. He went to an anti-Zionate synagogue, which is like going to the... the black breakout at CPAC and saying you understand African Americans. I mean, come on. You're saying he hasn't talked to the Jewish community? I don't know of the mainstream. Now, look, he has been to synagogues.

He has Jewish people working for him for sure. Right. But if you look at the biggest institutions that represent Jewish New Yorkers, I have yet to see him engage with any of those. Now, my hope is the mayor elect will do so in the days and weeks to come. But in the meantime, but you're not suggesting that he supports the fire. bombing in Colorado. I know.

I never said that. But he supports the firebomers. Joe, I never said that. No, but you know, no. There is a lot of blurring and blending here, Jonathan. There's a lot of blurring and blending here, Jonathan. And you know, I love you and you're on all the time. And we are always a fierce defender of yours.

But you seem to be like blurring a lot of things together. And then looking into that camera and say, call us. We're going to make sure that he doesn't support. No, I say to Jewish New Yorkers call. Jewish New Yorkers call us if you feel unsafe. I say the Jewish New Yorkers call us if you are harassed. So let me clarify. How about you calling his team, Mom Dhani's team?

Or how about talking to people who may know him and you? Let's see if I happen. Talk to Reverend L. Maybe you guys can get together and have lunch and talk. Isn't that a more constructive thing? Incredible clip here. I mean, he tries to pull the hole. Oh, my God, this person is firebombed.

And Joe does not accept the emotional blackmail. Like, yes, that's terrible. I'm sure the mayor would say that's terrible, too. Are you insinuating that he wouldn't? And, oh, well, you'll have to ask him, which is him insinuating that he wouldn't be horrified by, you know, some Jewish person getting murdered or firebombed or whatever. I mean, it is deeply disgusting. And especially at a time, I mean, look, like, there's a whole thing happening on the right

about whether Nick Fuentes should be part of the coalition, et cetera. An overt, like, an overt neo-Nazi, genuine anti-Semline. These freaking people don't have anything to say about that. But God forbid, you have someone who is anti-Zionist and outspoken about it and also, by the way, Muslim, total meltdown, massive project to track everything, blah, blah, blah. By the way, I don't know if you saw, there were just some new stats that came out

where they did a deep dive into the alleged anti-Semitism incidents at one particular university. And there was one that didn't have to do with Israel, one. And so that's the game with this dude. And it's become transparent. Let me look at the details. We got to, right, is that? Let me see the details.

Look, with this dude, it's become transparent, even to someone like Joe Scarborough, who is there saying, listen, I've been your defender. And even I'm like, come on, this is getting ridiculous. You are trying to insinuate things that are wildly unfair against this guy who, you know, the only thing they can ever point to with him is he refused to condemn globalize the intifada. Not that he says it, not that he, you know, any of that, just that he refused to condemn it. that's the closest that they can come. And the free count has been completely deranged.

Yes, so silly. I mean, look, I will say the ADL spends spending a time on Nick Buentes and on all the right wing as well. It's just that they also have the Trump administration, I wouldn't say in their pocket per se, but they're definitely in a convenient alliance, I think, right now. There are a lot of these types, including Netanyahu, who don't really care about actual anti-Semitism. So long, in fact, in some ways, genuine anti-Semitism makes their, case for Israel stronger of like we have to have the state to protect the Jews. So they've been

happy to make alliances with, you know, far right, like flirting with genuine anti-Semitic types so long as they are allowed to have their apartheid, genocidal ethno state. That is the one line you can't correct. Well, I've said, you know, I've sure John Putheritz, who's Mr. Commentary, Nepo baby literally said Trump can say Shylock because he bombed Iran. I was like, okay. So all right. I mean, well, don't really want to hear about anti-Semitism from you ever again. So, Mr. Human Egg, but that's part of, that's, that is kind of giving away the game. Greenblatt already gave the game away. This is all just about Israel.

These people are the wokenest people on the planet. Every word he just said reminds me of the same type of like BLM bullshit rhetoric. By the way, including pointing to incidents. So like, oh, there's just one incident over there. And that is what you have, you know, that is exactly what you say when you don't condemn it. And people are like, yeah, I obviously condemn that. but that doesn't mean that I should have to, like, put on a dashiki and kneel in the middle of a square. And they're like, whoa, whoa, blah, blah.

And then now, in this exact same thing, put the next one up on the screen, the ADL has announced a new initiative to, quote, track monitor policies and personnel appointments of the incoming Mamdani administration to protect Jewish residents across the five borough. So the anti-Semites are now making lists of people. Are we tracking this? We are now going to make lists. about the people who do not align with our politics and then we'll publicize that. I mean, again, this is the same woke tactics that all these people did. Like, all of the list of the people who don't sign our pledges, they must be fired. They must put their names publicized.

It's like, it's just sickening to watch, honestly. It really is. Especially because nobody in the right spectrum is condemning any of this stuff out of an alliance of convenience because ADL, Miriam Adelson, and others are just chucking money into the Republican Party. How do you not look at the current election results and say, yeah, we need to get rid of this shit. People are done with it. The guy who took the podium and said, I'm not going to visit and I won't, you know, cave to your tactics, just won the election. Learn from it. Everybody just move on. Yeah. The level of just overt, like, Islamophobic bigotry, it honestly is higher

than even what I saw after 9-11 because it's out in the open and it was both Democrats and Republicans. I mean, Cuomo from the beginning, he was, you know, saying, laughing along, as someone said that Zoran would be cheering on 9-11 on a radio show, disgusting. He was darkening his skin tone and lengthening his beard in mailers. You had Kirsten, Gillibrand, calling him a jihadist. I mean, the number of people called him a jihadist. I didn't know if she said that. It's wild. Yeah.

No, I didn't realize. Yes. I mean, it's just absolutely insane. And, you know, this is the, like, from the right, it's just uniform across the board acting like he's going to, implement some kind of like Sharia law. Total insanity. And I think, you know, part of his victory was voters just being like, this is absolute nonsense. You know, and it cut against their argument that he's some, you know, he's like a lefty

radical communist. But then at the same time, he's like, Islamist Sharia law jihadist. Two things didn't really work together. And then people see the guy and are like, you guys are out of your minds. Like, this is not credible whatsoever what you're trying to insinuate about this man. The low IQ Islamophobia is an Israel tactic. It's actually one that they've explicitly said out in the open. That's exactly right.

What we want to do is to maintain support for Israel to make it so that it's like an Abrahamic, you know, we all band together against the Muslims. The West. About the West. But then you're like, wait, do Western countries usually have right to rape protests? Is that the same barbaric behavior that you condemn in Islamic country? Because, oh, maybe you're actually kind of the same. And that's actually really not good for you. And so, like, that's, that's the, what they really run into.

A lot of it is being pushed by the Randy Fines of the world. It's fascinating. It actually is, is that much of the anti-Israel right, which is probably more predisposed to being explicitly anti-Muslim is not the one who is pushing this. It is actually the capital L, like, liberal right, the people who are pro-Israel, who are the ones who are most embracing this, like, sharia, law coming to New York City stuff, and it's literally just to, it's literally just to protect pro-Israel politics. Yeah. It's totally crazy. It's like Randy Fine and all these other people who are

the ones who are pushing it the most. So yeah, I mean, don't fall for it. And also, like, I really just believe in like, like, looking at stuff on their face and it's like, oh, so was Zoran Mamdani is Sharia law? The guy whose wife wears like a brass England under a see-through shirt, is like, yeah, I just don't really think that's accurate. I don't think people were really behind that. Zoran is from a Chitlib family. Like amongst... No, he's from a legit leftist family. Okay, well, I would say there's not too much of a distinction on the culture,

and that's kind of what I'm getting at, is if you look at the, like, milieu of which Zoran and the people come from, amongst Indians, they are one of the most hated subgroups of, like, the high elite... I think he even... This is very in the weeds, but the Indians will know what I'm talking about. I think Zoran quoted Nehru in his... He did, yeah. Yeah, so Nehru is probably like the biggest villain in India right now under the nationalist

government because he's the one who kind of push this so-called like heterogeneous society, which was explicitly promos, whatever, we can go to the debates later. But the point is, it's just that by doing that, he's not a Sri law person. It's just a capital L liberal, like quite literally, in a lot of his position. and looking at him explicitly, it's just so insane, you know, to say that that is what's coming. It's like he probably is much more socially liberal than 99% of the U.S. population. So just to call it by what it is, I don't understand why they can't do it. Well, and here's a thing, too, is they've, so Bannon and Andy Ogles and Randy Fine are all

threatening to denaturalize him. They're trying to introduce bills in Congress also to keep him from being, from being sworn in using the 14th Amendment somehow. I mean, I'm not going to say these things are going to work out. But, you know, I mean, the attack on him personally and just, again, in the most flagrantly racist ways you can imagine, just because he's Muslim, he must be into Sharia law and jihad is literally the argument that's being made here is so repellent and repulsive. And then there's a level of genuine hysteria that I think, I mean, I think some of these people genuinely believe that he's going to, like, authorize pogroms against Jews in New York City. I just, like, I think they believe that. I think they believe it because of the ADLs of the world. Totally, who are starting.

For real. They're the people who are the ones who are pushing us. Put D3 up on the screen. This is just one sign of the insanity here. So NYC's fire commissioner is resigning from the administration over dishing. disagreements with Zoran on Israel. Let me read you that sentence again and tell me if this makes any sense. New York City's fire commissioner is resigning over Mamdani's positions on Israel.

Person familiar with Tucker's decision said it was influenced by Zoran's Zionist view, by his own Zionist views and believe that he could not continue to serve under Mamdani. Now, I don't think this individual will be a particularly large loss. Apparently, he had no, like, background in firefighting whatsoever. He was some sort of an Eric Adams donor, effectively, and that's how he ends up in the position. But that is so deranged and insane that that is like a sentence and a sentiment that exists. And then the last one, let me just put this up on the screen. This is kind of funny.

Everybody was sharing this New York Post headline, which I don't find this poll particularly credible. But whatever, they say there were nearly a million New Yorkers ready to flee New York City if Mamdani becomes mayor, possibly igniting largest exodus in history. Ryan pointed out, you know, if these million people who are supposedly going to pack. up and move had just showed up to the polls, they could have voted for someone else and he never would have won, which is why it's not very credible. But I will, I will tell you that, you know, all the New Yorkers that I've talked to have been like, please go. Like, if you said you're going to leave, please do, because that will actually, like, that will actually drive down costs and make life easier for us. And we just don't particularly want you here. So, look, we'll see.

I mean, you guys can watch our segment and I talked about it. I don't think, like, I'm making a bet. and if I could make a polymarket bet, I would. Aggregate rent will be hired four years from today, outpacing inflation, then it will be on the day that's wrong as elected. I will put a marker down. I don't think it's going to work. But, you know, we'll see. In terms of the people who are leaving, if it's about the right type of people.

If the millionaire millennials and Napo babies leave, yeah, it's great, right? But if you have younger families and other people who are middle class... And I was going to say, those are the people who are leaving who shouldn't be leaving, if you allegedly are a great place to raise a family. Now, if you have net migration of those types, then, yeah, I would say it's a failure. So, look, people should be judged on outcomes and we'll see how it works out.

Like I said, I don't think much of it's going to work. I think a lot of it's going to be virtue signaling and, you know, most of his speech was about Trump and all that, which is smart politically. I would do the same thing because then it's about a boogeyman who's attacking us and not about whether I'm going to lower the rent or any of that stuff.

Fine. If that's what you guys want for your mayor, be cool. I don't think that's fair to say that most of his speech was about them. Did you watch it all? Yes, I watched the entire thing. The most high-profile sections were specifically about- Trump is directly threatening the city with, you know, stripping their funding and sending an ice on all of that.

But number two, I mean, I, like, he definitely centered his campaign promises and the... I'm not saying he didn't do that, but there were significant portions which were dedicated to national issues. But, I mean, that's kind of my point. I think you'll be absolutely saved by it. by the fact is, it's like, I think that's what a lot of those voters want. I'm not so sure many of them even particularly care, whether he can even deliver on his promises. Most of politics is about whether somebody appears to be fighting for you. But we'll see.

I mean, you know, I put my marker down. If the red goes down, I'd be happy for you. I really will be, but I don't think it's going to work. Okay, we've got, what, Summer Lee standing by, so why don't we get to it? She said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas plains, teens are dying, suicides that don't make sense, strange accidents, and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot ripped straight out of breaking bad. Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people.

There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to paper ghosts, the Texas teen murders, on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you. you get your podcasts. I'm Robert Smith, and this is Jacob Goldstein, and we used to host a show called Planet Money. And now we're back making this new podcast called Business History about the best ideas and people and businesses in history. And some of the worst people, horrible ideas and destructive companies in the history of business. Having a genius idea without a need for it is nothing. It's like not having it at all.

It's a very simple, elegant lesson. make something people want. First episode, how Southwest Airlines use cheap seats and free whiskey to fight its way into the airline business. The most Texas story ever. There's a lot of mavericks in that story.

We're going to have mavericks on the show. We're going to have plenty of robber barons. So many robber barons. And you know what? They're not all bad. And we'll talk about some of the classic great moments of famous business geniuses along with some of the darker moments

that often get overlooked. Like Thomas Edison and the electric chair. Listen to business history on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. The Big Take podcast from Bloomberg News dives deep into one big global business story every weekday. A shutdown means we don't get the data, but it also means for President Trump that there's no chance of bad news on the labor market. What does a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich reveal about the economy? Our breakfast foods are consistent consumer staples, and so they sort of become outside.

indicators of inflation. What's behind Elon Musk's trillion dollar payout? There's a sort of concerted effort to message that Musk is coming back. He's putting politics aside. He's left the White House. And what can the PCE tell you that the

CPI can't? CPI tries to measure out-of-pocket costs that consumers are paying for things, whereas the PCE index that the Fed targets is a little bit broader of a measure. Listen to the big take from Bloomberg News every weekday afternoon on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

We are very fortunate to be joined in studio this morning by Congresswoman Summerlee. She is a progressive representative of the Pittsburgh area. Great to see you. It's so good to see you. You have been too long. And in person. Yes, indeed. Double treat. I have a lot of things I want to talk to you about. First, let's just jump in with like the overall election results. What do you think is the message that the American people were trying to send? Oh, my goodness. You know, I think I don't want to take this election alone. I want to take both of the elections together, right? Because I think that weaving them together tells a big story, right? I think that last November, it was, it was a change. It was like, we want systemic change. We want

to see an acknowledgement that things aren't working, that the way that things have gone for so long that we don't like. And I think that coupling this one, I think, honestly, I think it's that people are horrified, right? You know, oftentimes, obviously, when the party empower, you know, faces an election. It usually is a bloodbath. But I do think that, and I am grateful that people came out. People came out. They, some, a lot of people felt like they had, you know, something actually exciting to vote for. You had other folks who felt like they were voting against something. Whatever it was, folks showed up. And I think they sent the message that they don't like the direction, uh, that Trump and, uh, you know, his folks are, are taking us in

currently. Yeah. And what do you think for, for Democrats? Like, what do you think Democrats should take from that? Oh my goodness. I think that, you know, You know, I think that we're always going to take the wrong lesson. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if we're doomed to take the wrong lesson. You know, I think that a couple, you know, separate them, right? Obviously, with Zeron, with Zoran, I just feel like energy. You know, people have been begging for some sort of just responsive representation that says, I see you, I know you.

I'm not going to be afraid to lift up just like the regular stuff that you want. Not going to tiptoe around it, right? I'm going to actually go and be amongst you. I'm going to go to where you are. I'm going to bring you. That's what people like that. Every time people like that. And then, you know, I think that we watched, we all watched it, right?

We watched for months as, you know, some Democratic figures, you know, they didn't want to endorse. They didn't want to, you know, touch them. I think that that is a little bit of an indicator that we're making the wrong decision. We're taking the wrong message. Yeah. Let me tell you what I've been thinking about with that. So you had, you know, Kirsten Gillibrand, I think, never endorsed, called him a jihadist. Unbelievable.

You had Chuck Schumer never endorsed when say who voted for on Election Day when the other choice was either an actual Republican or the guy who was endorsed by Donald Trump. And you can't tell us that you voted for the Democratic nominee. Okay. Hakeem Jeffries did at the very last minute, very reluctantly and passive aggressively, did endorse, given that. And so I've been thinking about, you know, what is it, right? What is it about this man that is so repellent? I don't think it's just this man, to be clear. And don't get me wrong.

I think that there are parts of this man that makes it easier for them to be, except for some folks to be as outward, right? Because he is young, he's Muslim, he's Muslim, right? Yeah. Especially Muslim. Like, I think that sometimes that gives people a little bit more of a comfort that they just should not have. Yeah.

But, like, we saw with me in my early days when I first ran, we see it with a lot of, like, young, especially people called imp Progressive. Yeah. That combination really does something to the establishment. And here's what I came to. So I think Israel is a big part of it. I don't think there's any doubt. out about that. And I want to dig into that more with you. Because for people who don't know,

I mean, the Israel lobby spent, you can tell me how many millions against you, trying to defeat you. And they failed. And that was at a time when awareness of APEC and like Israel was not the red hot dividing line with the level of public awareness that it is a different day. Now, it is a different day. So I want to get into that with you. But I'm thinking about it with Zorn. I think, I think number one, it's his, you know, just stridently, like, I'm not going to catch out of you. I'm not going to tell you the things you want to hear. I'm going to say, I think it should be a state with equal rights. You know, I'm going to stand firm on my position.

And I think it's that. But I also think it's this sense from democratic leadership that they are losing control of their ability to tell the base who they are allowed to vote for and who they're not. And Zoron, to me, is the biggest example of, you know, they did everything they could. They had their sion of a storied political family and Andrew Cuomo. We had all the money behind him in the world, et cetera. they tried to paint Zoran as in a jihadist anti-Semite, which is just wildly out of step, which is insane and totally racist.

And all of their normal tactics completely fell flat. And you see this right now with Grand Platner as well, where voters are like, no, we're going to judge for ourselves and you're not going to get to tell us. That is different from the past. I mean, in 2020, we all watched when the political and media leadership said, it's got to be Joe Biden. it was Joe Biden, and the Democratic base largely listened. They had a lot of sway. And so to me, that's actually the more existential threat for them and the more existential sense for them

is that the fact that they would still stick with the sky and give him this massive upset victory, that means we don't have the power anymore. Oh, I think that that's absolutely, like the underlying thing behind a lot of progressives, right? This idea that we don't, you know, we're not playing the whole, you know, we're choosing both masters.

not on the fence. Yeah. Right? We are unapologetically against corporate interests, you know, especially those corporate interests, right, that are not in line with working class people, unapologetically for working class people. They threw everything that they could at that man. And you know what he did?

He pivoted every time to, yeah, but the price of housing, but the buses, right? But affordability, but affordability, right? And then I think that they, that is not a politics that they've been allowed to do. So I think on one hand, when they see an uninhibited progressive candidate like Zorran, you know, they see what they were never able to be. Right. So there's almost like a jealousy there. I feel like that, right?

And this can be just me, you know, therapizing them. But just having experiences for some time, right? I think that there has been this club that exists. And this is the way that we do it. And our number one, God is incumbency itself, right? Our number, or maybe fighting, fighting with, right, you know, our lobbyists, our corporate interests, the money,

the big, big, big, big money that comes into these races, right? And then you get someone who comes in and says, I'm going to bypass that money. I'm going to go straight to people in ways. Like, we saw the same thing. which is all the progress from from 2018. I'm not going to start. The world didn't start to 2018.

But that's the world that I know. 2018 on, right? It was like this animosity that instead of going to the same consultants, we went straight to social media, to digital, to email, to the streets, grassroots, volunteers, bringing in people, growing the base, that we're bringing people in who aren't always the ones who get the mailers. They're not the ones who get the phone call. Old methods, right?

Revolutionize the way that we interact with people, you know, who we're interacting with them on behalf. and how we talk about things, that's all, that is all different than what they've all known. So, yeah, I think that just this idea that we recognize that the system itself, whoever is empowering this system, the system itself has to change, is frightening for folks, for an institution that has relied on the counterbalance between one corporate own interests and the other one. I think that's very insightful because I think part of the psychology there is, there's a lot of telling themselves a story of like, well, I wish I could be for Medicare for all,

but that's just... You always hear people say that, I wish, I wish I could. Yeah, or I wish I could be more outspoken on an issue, but this is just the reality. And so when you have people who are actually doing this, it makes them, their whole narrative of why they haven't done the things

that they really need to do to deliver to the American people, it crumbles, and their excuse falls apart. Or, you know, it does crumble, but don't get me wrong, right? Because the reality is that, yeah, we've come a long way on being able to speak out, you know, just very clear about the genocide, you know, and just all the things that led up to it for decades.

And there are also a lot of people who lost. Yeah. So the reality of, you know, what, you know, can happen, the money that will come in after you. And not just the money, right? Because it's not just political, it's not just political pressure, right? We know that there are people in nonprofits. Folks have faced real retribution for speaking the truth on this one.

So I don't want to say that, like, it crumbles, but I do want to say that bravery, like having courage. Yeah. is frightening for people who have chosen to not. Right? So because it's like, oh, I'm choosing my comfort. Because when I spoke out, right, and I spoke out, right, when I was just me and APEC chose to come after me, right, I knew that there could be a consequence.

And I chose to say, like, it was more important for me to be honest, more important for me to be truthful and real to my values, you know, and it come with May. And there are a lot of people who don't want to do that. So I think that that is another thing, too. Can you talk a little bit more about that race and the amount of money that you? that was spent against you. And also, like, what was it for? What had you said that was so deeply offensive

or what had you done that was so deeply offensive that justified this multi-million dollar smear campaign against you? Honestly, who what they spent against me then is peanuts. Peanuts are what you're spending now, right? I think they spent like a measly four and a half million against me. Yeah, what did they say against Jamal Bowman? It was like 20 million or something insane, yeah. Many, many millions, right?

just, and it's going to keep getting bigger. Honestly, I hadn't even said anything. Right. When I first ran, you know, for Congress, I think I had literally one post. I had one tweet once that said, honestly, that likened what I saw and what I perceived was happening to Black Lives Matter. And that was just, that was, that was a bridge too far for them because I think that so many people want Black folks to stay out of it.

They want Black folks to have a one-dimensional view of it. things. So I was threatening just by being black and progressive. So you likened the Palestinian struggle to basically like black liberation struggles. I have. Yeah. And that was that was. It was one tweet. Too far. A PAC has never reached out

to me. Like we know the narrative, right? A new candidate shows up. The first call they usually get is from their local APAC rep. You know, then they do the interest paper. People have talked about it. You know, we've talked about it. You know, even Thomas Massey. Like people have been, people are talking about it more

now. It is a real thing. APEC has never reached out to me. A back has never asked for a meeting. They looked at me. Honestly, I'm not even sure, right? I like to hope that they looked at me and said, the good sister's unbought and unbossed. It wouldn't matter if we call. I don't know if that's the real reason. Because they have actually reached out to other folks. Yeah. You know, other folks in my cohort. Yeah. They didn't even bother with me. They were like, we don't want her. Well, I know Jamal Bowman told us that they reached out to him and he said politely declined. Yeah. And then they went through. another organization.

Black organization. Yes, black men organization in New York that he had a positive relationship with and basically tricked him into having a meeting with them because they were so desperate to like get that in. So it's very interesting that they just didn't even try with you and then they saw that one tweet and they're like, okay, we got to go all out to make this.

They went all out. Make sure that this lady is defeated, but they failed. In your case, they failed. In other cases, you're right. They did succeed. And I want to know from your perspective, you know, how much things have shifted, how much more, how much further you're allowed to go. Because, again, what you said is so tame compared to, you know, I mean, now, like, it's undeniable to genocide.

Vast majority of Democratic voters say it's a genocide. We should not be funding them at all ever again. The disconnect between where the base of the Democratic Party is and where Democratic leadership is, too, is truly, you know, something beyond what I've ever seen before on any issue. So, you know, talk a little bit about some of those dynamics, how much further you feel like politicians feel like they can go. And then also whether or not Democratic leadership realizes how at odds they are with their own voters here. Yes. Yes, they do. So when right after October 7th and, you know, there were many people who were like, we can see what's going to happen.

Like we can see what's going to happen because right history. We come out with the ceasefire now resolution. When we introduced that, I think it was maybe nine people on that. By the time that Congress ended, I think that we had never gotten a white person to sign on. Never. I don't think we ever got a white person. Take now our, oh, what is the weapons embargo? Block the bombs.

Yeah, the block the bombs. So now my roommates block the bombs resolution. I think what we're already maybe beyond 20s, 30s, right? And more coming every day. Like we've been in a shutdown for six weeks. And from what I understand, there are still more people who are looking to get on it.

Now you have people who are saying, for whatever reason, they're saying it, that they will not accept APAC dollars. That is because of the work that has happened on the ground to educate people on how this organization has moved, how they have come, especially into black and brown districts, dictures that don't have as much money,

They don't have as many resources and really honed on those districts, right? People are now waking up to that. People are coming and they're running on both opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people are like, listen, I'm still, you know, you know, Israel is 100% right. There is no nuance. And there are people who are like, okay, but yes, these kids. Right. And what's happening with these hospitals?

Like, what's happening, right? With these journalists, right? There are people who are questioning it out loud in ways that we've never seen. More people are speaking out in their ways. Back when it first happened, it's, we were in, people don't remember this. but we were in session for, I think, like, 10 weeks straight. It wasn't until people went back home. And then they found that at their town halls, people were saying ceasefire, right?

But they were going and they were fine and they were talking to their district staffers. And their district staffers are saying people are calling and they are horrified by not just what they're seeing, but your stance. So, no, I think that they've known for some time that their districts do not align with this. This is why they're trying to change the narrative, right? They're trying to say, oh, well, you don't know enough to talk about this. Right. Well, you don't understand, right? No, all lobbyists have a right to exist, right? I've heard that, which is why I focus, I laser focus on money in politics. I don't care if it's APEC, if it's crypto PAC, if it's oil and gas, if it's pharma, if it's the NRA. I do not believe that any corporation, any lobbyist should be able to have that much access and influence to members of Congress and to the financial processes of running for office. You don't have a democracy. You do not have a democracy when the people themselves do not get to make their own determination. nations for who they want in office. And there are some districts where that's what they want. They want somebody who doesn't care about a genocide. They want people like that. That's fine.

But most districts don't. And every district should get to choose that. Yeah. I think that's very, I think that's really important, really well said and fascinating look at. I mean, the thing that I just keep struggling with is then what is it that keeps so many of them from changing their position? Like, why is they don't have to? No, they don't have. A, I think, I do think it is, I think it goes back to that beginning. They have known a politics that's the only politics that they've known.

So it's just sort of like muscle memory. Yes, muscle memory. They've done their politics this way from the time that they got in. You go better and different. Go better and different. Being brave, and I'm not saying this as an excuse,

being brave in politics is underrewarded and understate it. Every day, you're juggling, you're juggling interest, right? Do I vote on that bill with a poison pill that people aren't going to understand knowing that I won't have enough money to get the message out. We weren't every two

years. When we're talking about just how much money comes into politics now, like, this is the race to the bottom, right? It was, it was remarkable that year that they spent $4 million against me. They went the next race after me and spent $8 million against Donna Edwards, right? Then you saw how much it cost, you know, to run the most expensive races in history last cycle in primaries, right? It's only going to get more expensive. And if you're somebody who doesn't want to spend all your time dialing for dollars. If you're a black elected and you're like, who would I dial for to get it?

You're poor. Who would I doubt for to even get it? You got to weigh these interests. So I think that the lack of courage is also conditioned. Yeah. I think that's conditioned. And I think that you don't, people don't understand how often, like people who are Palestinian, people who are poor, the kids who are, you know, facing gun balance in

their school, right? They don't have the access to Congress people like we do. Right. You know, people with diabetes, people, you know, they're not up in our offices every day. They don't have the power to, you know, get an audience with both the speaker and the leader, by camera, with the president. You know, JPP, they don't get meetings with Trump. Right. So it is also who you see.

And too often, people can just excuse a different perspective because they don't hear that perspective. They don't have to hear that perspective. Yeah. We have to change that. Let's talk a little bit about Mayor-elect Mom Donnie. Let me play a little bit of highlights from his victory speech. The sun may have set over our city this evening. But as Eugene Debs once said,

I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity. We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about. Donald Trump, since I know you're watching, I have four words for you. Turn the volume up. President Trump, when I say this, to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.

So Zoran, I mean, unbelievable star power, starting the speech with the Eugene Dembs quote. Love to that moment. And now you've got this big discussion happening on the Democratic side of the aisle of like, okay, what does the future of the Democratic Party look like? Is a candidate like Zoran? Is it a candidate more like Abigail Spanberger, who is, you know, more of a centrist after Donald Trump was elected? She came out and shook her finger at the left. It's all your fault.

This guy's coming back into power. And, you know, I mean, the truth of the matter is it didn't matter what, type of Democrat you were this week. They all won, including Jay Jones, who, you know, had a pretty significant scandal and actually still outpaced Kamala Harris. So, you know, I'm wondering how you're thinking about that and how you would make the case that, you know, the politics that you and I both share is the correct direction forward for Democrats, not just to win, but to actually deliver for people. To win and make sure that we're not, that we're putting this rising fascism to bed. I beg. I beg of Democrats. I beg of you all. I beg of us to get out of this

idea that all voters exist on the same like linear, you know, model that we make our politics exist in. The reality is, is that, you know, this whole left, right, middle thing, it is not how people organize their lives. And it's also just not how people organize their politics, right? we talked earlier about how Zoroan was just relentless and focusing on his people, focusing on his people wherever they were. Whatever the comment, the topic was, he made a point of getting back to the things that people care about,

and that's how you earn trust. But to do that, he had to know what people cared about. He had to know what excited them. He had to be a genuine, authentic messenger. Right? So number one, we don't have a messenger. We don't have a message problem with a messenger problem. Right?

The future of the Democratic Party is going to be, that picks a side, right? And the side isn't, you know, are we going to be the, are we going to be the scary left? Are we going to be the center? No, the side is, are you going to be for the people? Are you going to be for the special interests? That's the first thing that we have to do. So before we go into analyzing these races, we're just all Dems won.

All Dems won. We're up for a Dem brand. Like, let's talk about what the Dem Party brand is going to be. I don't really care if you are a centrist. I do care if you are somebody who believes that a corporation has more, has more right to be comfortable in the society to be taken care of than working class people

and you cannot convince me that whether you are in the Appalachian Mountains or if you are in the deep south or if you are on the coasts you can't convince me that people want corporations to have more rights to have more access to care than regular people. So we got to get rid

of that one. I think that is the number one thing and number two, yeah, I think we should not discount what people like Zorwan are able to do. The cities do exist. We should not have to moderate our politics to the areas that we don't represent. Just like Nebraska gets the right to have a representative that reflects them and their values, why should our urban areas not? Why should black areas not get to have that? Why should poor areas not get to have

that, right? We get to have that too. And I think that too often the party likes to exclude us, right? The pathway to 218 comes through our blue areas too. Yeah. Right? Yeah, what did you make of I saw Cory Booker in particular, Pete Buttigieg, in particular, like, congratulations to all the Dems, but not really Zora. I mean, they just couldn't bring them up. And, you know, the funny thing to me, too, is with Pete Buttigieg's post in particular, he mentioned the affordability message that Spanberger and Mikey Sherrill ran on, which, you know, especially Cheryl.

Like Zara Ronda do that every day. Right. And, I mean, he really, in my opinion, you can tell me if you disagree with this, he was really the one that led the way on that and showed this is powerful. I'm very biased, but I saw him leading on that. Right. This is very powerful. This politics is so powerful that it can turn Trump voters back to the Democratic Party.

It can allow me to win young men by 40 points. It can allow me to unseat a legit political dynasty coming from 0% of the vote to victory with a majority of the vote on election day. That's how powerful this message is. And so to just erase him from that, I found to be very offensive. Again, it comes back to that lack of courage, right? Because at the end of the day, they will always use us against each other. Listen, since I came onto the political scene in 2018, every election cycle, the Republicans who barely exist in Western Pennsylvania and nationally will use me on somebody's mailer against some candidate in a district that isn't as Democratic performing as mine. Every single time, they will do it.

The question is, is what would we accept, right? If the Republicans want to demonize black and brown people, right? If they want to demonize queer and trans people, we don't have to acquiesce. We don't have to accept it. We have to go and do our work. So I'm trying to understand why is it that we, you know, the left, you know, we are mature enough to understand that there are different districts with different makeups and different values. Again, I think that all working class values. I think our message relates everywhere, neither here nor there.

But we recognize that different districts exist. And we are not trying to say that you don't get to, we don't get to be. Why can we have the maturity to understand that and other people don't give us the same courtesy? Right. When Republicans are demonizing black women, I don't expect Democrats to help them. Right. Every election cycle, it brings us back to that one, you know, back in 2020, when everybody was saying, oh, all these Democrats lost because of Black Lives Matter. They lost because of defund the police.

And I'm like, well, black folks have been, you know, we've been begging. We've been begging for people to look at this system. And you're going to now come and blame us that your candidate who did not run on that in a district that didn't focus on that, that that's the reason why they lost. Yeah. I don't think that we, I think that we are. It was the one time that we actually did beat Tom Truss. Yes. And so our willingness to accept their messaging and their narrative has now bitten us in the butt, you know, as we've come back around, right?

Because, again, we yield the floor to them to create the narratives and then we just react to it. And we got used to it when it was against people who we didn't want to defend, didn't know how to defend. But again, we saw what he was able to do. He excited people. This is the largest voter turnout in decades. He brought new people in. That's what we want to do, right? Like, I'm looking around.

That's what we want to do. We lost. We need more people. He went and got more people. And not only did he go and get them, I hear from people who are like, oh my God, Zorwan is the first vote that I cast

that made me excited. Yeah. I remember when people said that about my race. And Rashida, and so many people there are like, I was excited to come. That's a party that we should aspire to, that people are not just voting out of duty. They're voting out of excitement.

They're voting because I'm like, I believe a better world is possible. And I actually have a responsibility to help to create it. Yeah. Let me play for you. He got, I think, asked a question about ICE and how he would handle. I mean, we're just seeing rampant lawlessness from not just ICE, by the way, ICE is sort of the catch-all, but it's ICE. It's CBP.

It's whoever, FBI, whoever else, whatever other federal masked thugs have been set loose on American cities. Let's go ahead and take a listen to F2. This is Zoran talking about ICE. My message to ICE agents and to everyone across this city is that everyone will be held to the same standard of the law. If you violate the law, you must be held accountable. And there is sadly a sense that is growing across this country that certain people are allowed to violate that law, whether they be the president or whether they be the agents themselves. And what New Yorkers are looking for is an era of consistency, an era of clarity, an era of conviction. And that is what we will deliver to them.

I feel like one of the activist movements that is most vindicated in this moment is the abolish ice movement. I mean, truly, because, you know, again, this is an ideology that's been smeared. And yet you see when ICE and CBP and these other agencies are turned loose on American streets, I mean, you see them literally shooting people and bragging about it to your gassing little kids. You see them using Black Hawk helicopters to raid an apartment building and pull little kids out and zip tie them in the middle of American citizens, too, by the way, not that it's okay when you do it to immigrants. You know, how do you think that the insane authoritarianism we've seen in our neighborhoods and streets, how do you think that has changed Americans' perceptions of this administration and of the conversation around immigration? I think that unfortunately, like all things, it's a polarizing.

It's a polarizing effect. You just said it, right? There are so many of us who have been warning that this is the trajectory that we've been going in. That's why you got, you know, the progressives, whether they be the elected progressives, the media progressives, right, the organizing movement. progressives, right, who have been talking about, hey, we're looking at, because in our own communities, we're experiencing it, right? We're looking at what's happening and we're trying to ring the bell, right? We're here now.

And right now, I think you're still getting, I think that everybody is not, I don't think everybody's woke. Yeah. People are afraid of being woke. Like, we gave them woke. So they're afraid of being woke now. But increasingly people are seeing it. The masked ice agents is horrifying.

And if you are not horrified, then you are not paying attention. You're not honest, right? The just overreach that we're seeing from Trump, that's. started, you know, back in 2016, the media complicity and letting him allowing him to create his narrative, allowing him to, to overstep without real serious analysis or serious responsibility accountability, right? All of these, they've all been in motion for a really long time. And, you know, we see the voters who are saying no still. I think that people are like, theoretically, I understand authoritarianism. Yeah. I think they're like, we're here theoretically.

I think Americans are still reckoning with the idea of us living through an authoritarian regime. in practice. Because again, American accessialism tells us this could have never happened to us. Right? Oh, even if they were living through it, just another election is going to get us through it. I think that right now, what we need are people to understand that when you actually fight authoritarianism, it isn't just what laws

because, again, he's lawless. Right. What law cannot pass? What law can I introduce that Mike Johnson is going to bring to the floor that Republicans are going to vote for? That's going to go to the Senate, that they're going to vote for, and that President Trump is going to sign into law that's a check on his own power. Right. We know that's not going to happen. Not to mention the Supreme Court already said, basically blanket immunity for anything that's remotely connected to.

No, we need empowered people. We need people to think about what they're going to do and how they're going to use their dollars. How they're going to use their labor. Yeah. We need people to understand the power of resistance and also the sacrifice of resistance. That's a different way of imagining America right now. So I think that, you know, but on the other hand, I think that there are still trumpful who see what he does. I think some of them every now and then are like, that's wild.

Yeah. That's wild. But then they go back to sleep and they wake back up and start the day over again. And we have to acknowledge and accept that that's where they are right now. I don't think that we are doing enough work that once someone does pick off, you know, that we're like, welcome. Welcome. We need more people. I think we got to get out of the Nana Boo Boo Boo stage.

Like, oh, we told you, don't do that. Yeah. That 92%. No, man, we need more people. And yeah, accountability can also exist with grace or it can exist with allyship. We got to figure that out. I don't think we're doing that enough yet. what do you think of how democratic leadership has met the moment or not met the moment?

I do want to give a cry. I think it's shut down has been important. I think, I mean, it's incredibly painful right now for a lot of people. So I don't want to, you know, I don't want to minimize that. But at the same time, I think it's really proven the way that you can actually take control of the conversation. You know, health care was not really a central part of the political conversation. It was basically ignored in 2024, which is insane. And now you have people looking at their premiums going up.

They know where to sign the blame. They know what's going on. So I want to give credit for that. But, you know, at other moments, there have been messages coming out from Jeffries and others saying, you know, don't talk about Kilmarraga-Garcia. Don't talk about the, you know, murdering random people in the Caribbean. Let's not talk about the ice raids and immigration because that's not our strongest ground. You know, how do you think that at the federal level, Democratic leadership has done? I think, I'm going to say, I'm actually after that.

I think that first I do want to say that we talk. talked about courage and courage in politics, the shutdown took a level of courage that is not in the, like, a day-to-day norm of the Democratic Party. Because we know. And don't you think that the base really pressured leadership? Absolutely. From July, from the reconciliation, where Schumer got flamed. Yeah.

He got flames for not standing firm. And I think that obviously he learned a lesson. But Democrats are going to, it's going to be painful because unlike Republicans, we actually don't want to see federal workers on one end, you know, the wall closing in on them for not being paid, a wall closing it on the other end from them not being able to access benefits or lie heap or whatever it may be. We actually don't want to see people suffer. So the pressure is going to be intense on the Senate this week to open up, to when, to not went on health care, to not went on anything, to give up. There's going to be a lot of incentive

to do that. And we're going to be, they're going to be in a lose-lose situation. That aside, I think that leadership has to look different than an ever look before. Yeah. And I don't think that they have found the, I don't think they have, I don't think they have recipe right now. I don't. Because, you know, I was just talking to my, to my staff. They're like, who are you going to answer this? And I was like, what other questions were you worried about getting? No, no. We weren't worried about it. We'd get them on. Get them on. No, we weren't worried about anyone. They were like, if someone to ask you that, who would you say? No, but I was just like, no, I think that people just like, even just really in the course of a conversation. I was like, I think that

leadership traditionally sees itself as leadership as the, of the caucus. Right. Like, they are the leader of the caucus, and leadership has meant that we have to raise enough money to help, the frontliners, we have to raise enough money to flip the seat. We have to gain a majority. But leadership to the country right now looks like marching orders. Yeah. It looks like being in the trenches. Like we have images of like George Washington on a horse.

Yeah. On the front lines, like that type of leadership. People are looking for that and they're not wrong. So I don't think that they have met that. Yeah. And I think that that's what people want from us. And when you shift, who are we leaders of? I think that's what people are asking.

We're not asking you to be leaders of each other. That's a good thing. We're asking you to be leaders of our country, leaders of us. What can I be doing right now? My organization maybe has a couple of dollars and what should we do? Right? The labor unions are like, hey, you know, the labor, the labor history is a mighty one. What do we do?

What do we do with it? People want to see people acknowledging that every movement in history was not led by Congress. It was led from the outset. The real movement came from the organized, empowered electorate. How do we get people back into that? How do we help people understand that the final fell safe and a democracy are the people, we don't get a dictatorship. Trump don't get to decide

if we have a dictatorship, right? Hakeem Jeffries doesn't get to decide if we have a dictatorship. We do, and we just want our leaderships to be with us on that. So to that extent, we all have to figure out better ways of doing that

and it will be hard because we have spent too much time telling people the right way to protest is to just vote. Yeah. The right way to protest is to go run and not that the right way to protest has always been

your organized. It's always been when you take to the streets. That's always been an appropriate way to express, you know, dissent to express a lack of consent when your government doesn't answer you when you said you want this. Has Hakeem Jeffries earned your vote again for a leader? I don't think, first of all, we had a whole year to go. My hope and dream, my hope and dream is that everybody will change the way that they're doing things.

So right now the question is, who's running? You know, who's even a part of the conversation about being a leader? I think that right now we have we have room where everybody is going to have to step it up. everybody needs to stab it up right now of the people who would ever think that they should be a leader, right? I want to see how people are applying the lesson of this election cycle.

I want to see how people are handling, you know, when a zoron comes, because I was a zoron. Right. Because, you know, all the squad, we were zorons, right? And we remember how it felt to be treated, how we were treated by our party. We want to see them learn a lesson from us.

We want to see that. I want to see how they're applying, you know, the idea that people aren't just going come a boat. We've got to go and get them. I want to see somebody who comes up with the horse. That's who I plan to vote for. Who's coming with the horse? Who's the cavalry? Are you going to be backing any primary challenges against incumbents? Oh, if they're not, listen, if their districts are saying that they want something, I don't have a blank, I don't have blanket rules, right? I don't know those districts. You're open to it. Yeah,

I'm open. I'm not. Sometimes I'm like, it makes sense. Sometimes it don't make sense. Like, I think that people should be represented. I think people should be represented well. and I think that to the extent that we as incumbents are doing our job that end of itself protects us and when we're not doing our job we have to answer to our people and if our people are all in a collective voice

saying that they want something different you're not going to see me being able to stand in the way of those folks and I don't believe that anybody should stand in the way of those folks I don't run that district so I like to hope and I think that this is going to be I think this might be an anti-incumbent year not a Democrat or a Republican year

because people are tired of the year Entocracy, right? You look at the halls of Congress and you're just like, wait, people don't want that. Credit to Nancy Pelosi for retiring. Credit to Nancy Pelosi, she looked at the landscape and she said, you know what, let's call it here. Let's call it. Let's call it, which is, you know, my family, don't let me, don't let me be 90 in conduct like this. Crystal, don't let me be, don't step in. Step in for me, please. All right, Congresswoman's Summerlee. So great to see you. So great to catch up with you and hear all your thoughts on. Very interesting times that we're living in. Aren't they? Let's get through them.

All right, guys. That does it here for us today. Friday should tomorrow, we have Michael Blake joining us, who has just announced a primary challenge against Richie Torres, which is very interesting. So we'll be getting the tea from him and lots of other interesting things to cover as well. There's a whole meltdown going on over at Heritage Foundation that I'm interested to hear from Emily on as well. So in any case, have a great day. We'll see you then. And she said, Johnny, the kids didn't come home last night. Along the central Texas planes, teens are dying. Suicides that don't make sense. Strange accidents and brutal murders. In what seems to be, a plot. ripped straight out of Breaking Bad.

Drugs, alcohol, trafficking of people. There are people out there that absolutely know what happened. Listen to Paper Ghosts, the Texas Teen Murders on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Robert Smith, and this is Jacob Goldstein, and we used to host a show called Planet Money. And now we're back making this new podcast called Business History about the best ideas and people and business. businesses in history and some of the worst people, horrible ideas and destructive companies in the history of business. First episode, how Southwest Airlines use cheap seats and free whiskey to fight its way into the airline is. The most Texas story ever. Listen to business history on the

IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Cal Penn. And on my new podcast, here we go again. We'll take today's trends and headlines and ask, why does history keep repeating itself. Each week, I'm calling up my friends, like Bill Nye, Lily Singh, and Pete Buttigieg to talk about everything from the space race to movie remakes to psychedelics. Put another way, are you high? Look, the world can seem pretty scary right now. But my goal here is for you to listen and feel a little better about the future. Listen and subscribe to here we go again with CalPen on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an IHeart podcast. Thank you.