Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Trump's Military Occupation Comes to DC (ft. Shane Goldmacher)

Episode Date: August 13, 2025

Jessica sits down with New York Times national political correspondent Shane Goldmacher to unpack President Trump’s unprecedented takeover of D.C.’s police force — even as crime hits a 30-year low — the redistricting battle in Texas that could reshape the House map, and the aggressive countermoves from blue states. They also explore why Democrats are betting on military veterans to win swing districts in 2026, and how Republicans are preparing for a post-Trump era. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How do we AI proof our jobs? How do we fix the deficit? How do we get our political system working again? I'm Henry Blodgett, and I'm launching a new podcast called Solutions, where every week I'll talk to an innovative enterprising expert to cut through the doom and focus on how to build a better world. Follow Solutions with Henry Blodgett wherever you get your podcasts. The first episode will be out Monday, August 18th.

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlove. Scott Free August rolls on, but we have a fantastic substitute. I'm very excited to have Shane Goldmacher here with me, National Political Correspondent for the New York Times. Shane, how are you? I'm pretty good. How are you? I'm great. How's your summer been? Uh, summer's excellent. Yeah. I like the off year better than the on year. I'm not surprised by that, though everything now feels like an on year, probably not as much for you who, would actually have to be out on the trail, but there seems to be no rest. It feels more on than it should, but it is less on than the actual election year. Definitely. Probably a Trump effect.

So I'm thinking last summer we were in Chicago for the DNC at this point, which was way more on. And the R&C was the most on with the assassination attempt. Crazy. What has happened in the last year of politics? All right. I'm going to get into it. Thank you again for joining us.

I can't wait to talk to you about. all the things, starting with Trump's crackdown of D.C., the latest on the redistricting wars, which you've been leading the reporting force on, and how both parties are building their strategy going into the midterms. So first up on Monday, Donald Trump held a press conference. He had been saying for a couple days that he was going to be federalizing the D.C. Metropolitan Police, and he really went for it. He's bringing in 800 National Guard troops plus 120 FBI agents. or going to be reassigned to night patrols.

Local leaders, including the mayor and the police chief, say that they weren't given a heads-up, even about the announcement. Trump claims the city is overrun by bloodthirsty criminals and roving mobs, but DC's own numbers show violent crime is at a 30-year low and down another 26 percent this year. A Washington Post poll from the spring found that while crime is down, it's still a big concern for residents over 50 percent, say it's a very serious problem. but 71% believe Trump is getting too involved in local issues. I would definitely be in that 71%.

The idea of a full federal takeover of D.C. is concerning to people across the board. The D.C.'s Attorney General is calling the move unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful, setting the stage for a legal fight. So, Shane, he's doing this under something called the D.C. Home Rule Act. How much authority does he actually have to do this? I mean, the short answer is he has a time. ton of authority, that Washington, D.C. exists under the thumb of the federal government for the most part. A few decades ago, the federal government gave D.C. a lot of power to rule itself,

but carved out exceptions to basically take things over when they want to on a short-term basis. And so not only is he talking about deploying the National Guard, he's literally taking over the police department or having his federal government take over the police department. And as you saw with the sort of somewhat relaxed reaction, all things considered. from the mayor. He has the power to do it. Not forever. There's a time limit on the takeover of the police. It's about 30 days, I believe, once you notify Congress, there's some steps. But in the short term, he absolutely has this power. Yeah, so it's 30 days. And then they would need congressional authorization. My concern as, you know, I think a reasonably minded, but definitely partisan person,

is that Republicans have been rubber stamping absolutely everything that Donald Trump wants. So this could go on in perpetuity. And he is threatening to do this to other blue cities. We saw it in Los Angeles during the time of the immigration raids when they started going after Home Depot's and picking people up from, you know, when they go to get their kids from school. And he's, what did he cite, you know, Oakland, Baltimore, which I think has halved its murder rate in the last couple of years under Chicago. I'm torn about this because on the one hand, I believe to my core, that everything that he does is a distraction from the fact that he is not getting the results that he expected to. Like, his trade wars are not going well. They can talk about the

billions of dollars in revenues, but the American public has him severely underwater when it comes to that. Immigration policy also underwater. And then there are the Epstein files of it all, which seems like the one thing that he can't escape. How do you see it? Like, he obviously wants to be doing this. But do you think that he's playing a game of diversion more than anything or he's just walking and chewing gum? You know, I think that sometimes we assign some more strategy to some of Trump's decisions than there is. Look, I thought some of the comments he made yesterday were revealing of what he's thinking and some of the comments from people who are working around him, which is he is ferrying himself around or being ferried around Washington, D.C., and he is

seeing homeless encampments. He is seeing coverage of crime. And he talked about, you know, the dirty kitchen at a restaurant is a bad, or the dirty front door is the bad sign for the kitchen is something his father taught him. He doesn't like the way D.C. looks when he's going around the town. And so he wants to talk about crime in general. He's always wanted to talk about crime. He's been talking about urban crime for 40 years. He wants to talk about immigration in general. And he's enamored with the police powers of the presidency. He has been since his first term, where he was often more resistant to using them. And as you mentioned some of these examples,

he is using policing authorities through the National Guard repeatedly over the objections of Blue State mayors and Blue State governors. And so I think it's a continuation of that. I don't know that this is a grand strategy as a diversion or a new topic as much as he is seeing something

he has power here to act upon it and he's acting upon it. I think that's right. And it also, it's in the Project 2025 playbook and it's kind of amazing. how they spelled everything out. And Democrats had a moment, like a couple months where it was actually resonating with people

and then Trump took control of the narrative back with the Butler assassination attempt. And then we kind of didn't hear about Project 20, 25. Again, but it's definitely in there. He wants to play mayor and sheriff, sometimes more than an American president and to be in charge of all of this. And obviously, red states are going to go along

with whatever he wants. There's been all these Republican dreams of taking D.C., which has been sort of a liberal playground for policy and ideas for a long time, say, you know what, Congress controls Washington, D.C. They control the Persons. They have all of this authority. There's been chatter for years ago about charter schools, attempting all kinds of things that the Republican Party is a goal and saying, you know what, while this is a liberal city, it's actually sometimes under Republican control because of Congress. And so, yeah, as you mentioned,

in Project 225, and just in general, for a long time, it's been one of those dreams, say, hey, this is a place where we actually have real authority in an urban area in a way that the Republican Party generally doesn't because cities in America in general have been progressive or Democratic. Definitely. That's a really good point. And there's also something that I noticed about Mayor Muriel Bowser's response. And you said it was more muted. It was definitely more conciliatory than I expected if a president who I don't support politically on top of it came in and said, basically, I'm taking control of everything. She looked incredibly. defeated, right? That's the idea that you can't do anything about this. But she has really done

her best in the first, you know, seven, eight months of the Trump administration to stay out of his way, right? And to pacify him as much as possible and enjoyed when she can get a little bit of adulation. You know, he made an announcement himself in May. He got up at the podium and talked about the drop in violent crime in D.C. And he wanted to take a victory lap on that. Cash Patel yesterday, even the FBI director. was talking about how the murder rate is so far down. So it's strategic, obviously, to make sure that she doesn't inflame him. But she also said maybe this more police isn't such a bad thing.

And that really stuck out to me because there's this constant back and forth, I feel like, amongst liberals more like me, kind of like a liberal elites that live in nice neighborhoods and don't worry about day-to-day crime or the carjackings or whatever it is. And that's not the totality of the city. They experience at different parts of where both New York Cityites in other neighborhoods is much worse than that. And she's acutely aware of the fact that while violent crime might be down and the murder rate might be down, that there still is a carjacking problem and there is a huge homelessness problem in her city. And you continually hear from police chiefs and people of color that they're not necessarily upset at the idea of there being a larger police presence. I mean, you see in New York, the current mayor, Eric Adams, that's how he was elected four years ago, right? He ran on a former police officer background.

He was saying, I'm a black leader who worked in the police and thinks we need more policing. Look, I think that you see the arc of this in Muriel Bowser, right? It was in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd's murder, where they painted the streets just outside the White House. While Trump was still there, the Black Lives Matter Plaza, right? There was this, it was yellow and black lettering all up 16th Street. And it was there for four years. And when Trump came back in, Mayor Bowser had that removed. And so that lettering is no longer there.

There was a push on Black Lives Matter. There was a sort of a related push by some progressive activists about defunding the police that really didn't gain traction in the main. stream of the Democratic Party, but was really successfully used to attack Democrats. I think Joe Biden gave a speech not long. In late 2020, in the campaign, late in the campaign, saying, you know, do I look like the kind of person who wants to defund the police? The Democrats right away were trying to push back against that label nationally. But it stuck. It stuck because activists can be loud and activists have some influence and they can have an echo chamber online. And so we sealed Bowser

and Eric Adams and a whole slew of Democrats, frankly, saying that is not our actual goal. You know, as some folks said at the time, both they defund the police, abolish ICE was a predecessor, is if the end goal is accomplishing your slogan, which is that there would not be a funded police department, and that is not actually your goal, then the slogan's not serving a good purpose, right? Like, you want people to hear your slogan, follow it to the finish and be like, yes, that is in fact what I want, right? You can contrast that with other people running, you know, if you're Zoran, Mamdani running for mayor now, right? Free buses, okay, end slogan.

It's like people be okay with free buses, right? Freezing the rent, they could be okay with freezing rent. Defunding the police. People are like, no, actually, I don't really mean all the way that. And I think that was from the get go, one of the struggles with the slogan, which is if people actually take it at face value and say, that's exactly what I want. And it's not popular, then you probably don't have a good slogan. No, I think James Carville said it. last week to me that he thought to defend the police were the stupidest three words in the

English language, especially tied together. You know, Jim Clyburn tried his best, a lot of the kind of dons of the party to say, you absolutely may not run around saying things like this. There's a way to talk about racial justice and social justice and the murder of George Floyd without using that kind of language, and it's haunted us. Mom, Donnie, doing his best to kind of backtrack at this particular moment in advance of the election in November. I'm curious as to, and I'm just spitballing this because I'm not going to end up mayor of D.C., but if I were mayor of D.C. Yes.

Or I were part, definitely not. That would be serious carpet bagging, and it seems not good. I don't know what city I would want to be mayor if it's too hard here, but it would be hometown fun, I guess, to be in New York. But it feels like there's always an opportunity with Trump to at least present a rational pushback. You're not necessarily going to get him to agree with it, but there's, there feels like there are proposals or things that you could say that could make him look as absurd as I believe that he is and that this is all part of Project 2025 and he wants to take over every single facet of American life. We see this with the universities,

with law firms, et cetera. He wants to control as much as possible. And the Republicans, for instance, they cut a billion dollars from the D.C. budget. Why is no one talking about that? Or U.S. attorney, Janine Piro, I can't. I am not adjusted yet to calling her U.S. attorney. I just say Judge Piro. But she got up there and gave a fiery speech, as she usually does. And she's talking about the laws that prohibit her from locking up juveniles,

even juveniles that are running around with guns and committing terrible crimes. And that's something that Democrats and Republicans agree upon. Joe Biden talked about that as well and how the D.C. Council was actually way over for its skis and had to change the laws. And Congress has a tremendous amount of control. So why do you think that we're not seeing that conversation going on right now? I mean, I don't think that the action you saw yesterday from Trump is about a specific set of policies, right?

It is about a sense of control, a framing of a conversation around power and policing. And it's an exertion of power. I mean, I think that a lot of these things are about showing his supporters. A show of force. Yeah, it's a show of force. And I think that, you know, there are places where Democrats and Republicans can come together, frankly, on some of these issues. You just mentioned one about some juvenile justice issues. But that wasn't the sort of tone, right? Like, if you wanted to work together with the city of D.C., you would have been more collaborative up front and in advance and given the morning, right? This was a, you know, there was reactions to, you know, some violence against a person who would work for Elon Musk that Trump had posted about and Musk had posted about, right? This is a reaction to things and an exertion of power more than a specific set of policies. There are people around the president and around Republican politics who do have specific policies in mind and outcomes that are policy-oriented. But I think this is him saying, I can take control here. I want to show that I'm taking control. So much of Trump's first six, seven months almost now, has been about

action, giving his supporters a sense of action, giving people who didn't like him a sense of action and saying, oh, you are really on the defensive. And I think it's just, it's an important to think of this as a continuation of that. I think, you know, there are two parts of this, right? The first part is he's taking over the police of D.C. for a month, well within the formal powers, even if it is, in fact, unprecedented. The other thing he is doing is activating the National Guard and activating a slew of other federal law enforcement officials and saying you too are going to be part of this. And I think of that as different.

I think you can think of a bunch of examples where Trump has taken the National Guard or other armed forces and brought them into the political fray. You have it at the border. Certainly you had it in Los Angeles, probably most strikingly. You had the parade. I think a lot about trust

and voters trust in our political system. One of the last remaining institutions that have the trust across partisan lines has been the military. And it is a slow creeping that instead of 99% of the country, 85% of the country seeing troops and thinking positively of them, they're going to be seen less positively if you're in a blue state and these troops are being sent against your wishes to impose a policy that you don't support.

I don't think that's the reaction that's going to happen quickly, but we've watched the erosion of trust in the media where I work, in almost every institution, churches, media, schools, universities, right? All of these things are rewarding trust. And the military has been one of the last places where that's not happened quite as severely. And I do see each of these steps in totality adding to a real strain on the left's trust of the military. Yeah, the term for what happened in Los Angeles, that was bad around that there was an occupation, essentially, and an occupation where they were doing nothing.

I mean, there were thousands of troops that were just sitting around. They were forced to be sleeping and living in substandard conditions because there was, LA was not set up for those folks to be sent in. And I would imagine we may see a similar fate in D.C. I mean, the numbers are going to be less so far. But how do you think it actually will look on the ground once everyone is there? Like last night, we saw there were some random stops outside of Howard, University. I saw some footage from there. Patrol cars. There were DE agents walking along the

National Mall, which is strange. I don't know how much crime is really occurring there. But how do you think it actually physically manifests, whatever is to go on in the next 30 days? It's a really good question. And I really have no idea. I mean, I lived in D.C. for a number of years. And because there's so many different government agencies, there are often people who are, you know, armed services of various branches doing things and patrolling the city for some different purposes. They're not controlling the city in that sense, but you see them out and about at various moments. So, you know, will 800 people feel or look different? I don't frankly know.

You know, if you take 800 National Guard troops and you take people from a bunch of other agencies, and you have DEA and FBI, there could be something different, but it really, we're in uncharted waters here, right? They've taken over the police force. It's important to note that these are trained professionals, but not trained for these jobs, right? It's a different set of training. And so if you're a National Guardsman, I don't believe you have arresting authority.

And so. No, they have to call the local police. They can essentially detain you. And then they call in for backup. And Trump even admitted that there were technically enough cops on the street that should be able to be executing the job to get it to the point where when he rolls around, he feels like it looks like a nice TV set versus a graffiti-laden homeless problem. But I think that that's that graffiti-laden homeless problem. problem. I feel like is a big part of it, right? He brought this stuff up repeatedly. It wasn't just the violent crime. It's the visual crimes, right? The things that make you think you're less safe or

that you think look dirty. You know, the line to me, I mean, I said this earlier, but the kitchen thing was just so fascinating about a restaurant. This is the psyche that he has about it doesn't look good. We want to make the capital look good so people trust our country, so people feel better about our country. It's a visual thing. And can you make changes on the visuals in 30 days? You probably can. You probably aren't going to substantively change the crime dynamics of a city. If you have a short term, potentially something changes. But like, these things go up and down. And as we heard from all the people in D.C., crime is at a low. It has been going down. And so, yeah, I think it really is an open question of what this will end up actually looking like in the streets of D.C.

in the coming weeks. Yeah. I mean, he's a visual person. He's a TV person. And he knows what looks good. And we've seen liberal leaders clean up in advance of big events. Like Gavin Newsom cleaned up San Francisco pretty well in advance of the China summit that took place.

Was that two years ago now? But he's making a crime case. And it's about, you know, started, well, years ago, but the attack on big balls, or the nickname he's called, the Doge employee was really. the catalyst we're moving forward with this, but it's interesting to me that this is both the crime issue and also these quality of life issues, which is where the homeless conversation comes into play. And the administration has said, we're just going to get them all out. And that's something that we've heard for here in New York City and in Chicago, and people have suggested

a wide range of solutions, like, you know, putting more people in mental institutions, which frankly has a decent amount of bipartisan, support, that there are a lot of people who need mental health help and are on our streets to shipping them elsewhere. I don't really even know what that means because they might be homeless, but this is still their home, right? It doesn't mean that you can send them to rural Wisconsin. But you do so much work in talking to voters and kind of reading the pulse of what's going on electorally. And I do think that the argument that Democrats have failed to take good care of these blue cities, which are the crown jewels of the country in a lot of ways, is very salient with voters

and that they would listen to Donald Trump say, you can't have homeless encampments all over the place. You can't have open-air drug markets. You can't have your kids walking by, you know, prostitution or we shouldn't have graffiti on the walls there, and that that resonates. Yeah, I mean, everything you just said are 80-20 issues, right? 80% of people feel that way. And so if you're a politician, and I think this is maybe, you know, example of Trump's sort of instincts is take the 80, right? Like, you know, say like, we don't want open-air drug markets. Okay, yeah, nobody really wants open-air drug markets, but then act like you're the person solving the problem. I mean, this is this is one of those things where you can pick all of those topics and say, yes, okay, Democrats have failed in this place.

He's going to say the Democrats have failed, whether there's improvements. or not, people are still unhappy with the state of cities and homelessness and cities all across the country. And so it is one of the challenges I think for Democrats is they think about how to present a face for their own party into the future. How do you solve those problems and do it in a way that matches sort of your progressive ideals and not see the topic of being against rampant homelessness, right? Like you can't be the party that is comfortable with people living on the street because that's not popular, right? So you can be the party of getting folks services.

You can get folks into housing. You can do things that are policing. But you don't want to be the party that is just for people living on the streets. Because, again, you don't want to take the 20 in general of an 80-20 issue and be successfully politically. No, absolutely not. I was talking to Congressman Richie Torres who was saying how hard it was to get an open-air drug market in the South Bronx closed. Because there were all of these, I don't know if stakeholders is even the right term to use for this, but the people who were opposing the move to just shut it down, eventually they did. And guess what? His constituents are thrilled because there isn't a drug market that's open there. And it kind of boggles the mind of, I think, any sane Democrat to see these kinds of forces. And it's not about, you know, being unkind or saying, like, to your point, we want people to get the treatment that they need. But, you know, you wouldn't send your kid through there and then you get into this whole nimbie debate, right?

I mean, the successful politicians show the voters, they care about the issues they care about, right? Chiefly, that's been the economy. But for cities, it can also be homelessness. It can be affordability as a cause of homelessness, right? You can tackle some root causes along the way. You know, San Francisco is a city where the former mayor was ousted last year and was replaced by Daniel Lurie, who has been, on his own, not nearly as viral. but his own sort of social media campaign to show that he cares about the places

that have been some of the worst parts of the city. And, you know, he goes and he's not saying things are perfect, but he's showing people that he cares. And I do think that, like, telling constituents that you care about the issues that matter most of them is, like, the most obvious thing in politics,

but it's often a forgotten thing. Yeah, I love his videos on the trolleys. I think he has such a... Yeah, it's great. You can, you know, go to Union Square and say, still problematic here, but retail is coming back. And I feel safe walking around here and you should come down and do some shopping. I want to ask you, it's kind of a wrap-up about this.

So Democrats immediately, and I was part of this, so maybe I should Mayacopa a little bit. I think that Donald Trump is freaking out about the obscene files to a level that we don't even really understand or that the words in the English language can't even meet the moment of how panicked they are about this. And it's multiple people in his administration who have staked their reputations on this issue, which is obviously about, you know, a pedophile and sex trafficking, but also about transparency and this idea that we're on your side, right? We're not on the side of the cabal of elites that fly around on private jets to go to islands and hang out with 13-year-old girls.

And so I think that that's a major issue. And I think as well, you know, Donald Trump's authoritarian streak is important to continually bring into the consciousness. And like I said, there are ways to work with Muriel Bowser and the police chief to make sure that you can clean up D.C. or get to your end result without sending in federal troops. But he wants to do that because he wants to be, you know, a sheriff, essentially. But we've seen over the years that making the argument that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy is not resonant, really, that people have moved past it. They've made their decision about him. And a lot of the folks who didn't vote for him in 2020 turned around and voted for him in 2024.

So could you talk a little bit about how salient you think those kinds of arguments against Trump and the Trump administration actually are? Or are we just really in a full like bread and butter kitchen table issues political moment? I think that they are important issues, but they're often not front of mind for folks. And I think you could even think about the conversation we've just had about D.C. and taking over the police and not talking about one of the most violent episodes in recent years in D.C., which was the storming of the Capitol, where Trump could have sent in National Guard troops faster. Yes, apparently he does have that power. Who knew? Yes, it certainly does have that power. And so, you know, that was this sort of, it felt like a searing moment that you wouldn't forget. And here we are talking about this for a few minutes. And it hasn't come up. up right away, right? As we've talked about federal authority in D.C., I think it is a potential, you know, I think something else we're talking about as redistricting. I think that people don't

like to feel like their democratic powers are being taken away from them, their right to express their vote. And I think that that's a real concern that voters do have, but I don't think it's the first concern, right? If you are concerned about the state of American democracy, then you probably have enough food for you and your kids, right? You're probably not concerned about whether they're to pay your rent the next month. And if you look at the economic statistics, a lot of Americans have real concerns about if they missed a paycheck, if they could pay their bills. And so until that problem solved, it's part of the conversation. But I don't think it's the centerpiece. And that's why you don't see Democrats chiefly running on this all across the country, right? It was part of the last

campaign. Voters gave their verdict on that question. They said, we saw Trump as president. He didn't end our democracy in a first term. We don't believe he's going to end our democracy in a second term. And he is back as president again. And so Democrats, it's a hard argument to make when you know that the voters have pretty soundly rejected it. I mean, it was a centerpiece of the 2024 campaign for Democrats. Not the only piece, but it was a big piece, especially in the Joe Biden era. And so looking forward, I think the party is looking at other messages to put at the forefront, not to ignore these issues, but to not center them. I think you're right.

And I'm not bringing up January 6th, I realize how conditioned I am as well from working in media and especially conservative media, because they just, they turn off completely. If you bring up January 6th, which seems like a pretty important historical event and something that says something very clear about Donald Trump and what he thinks about power and his control over truth and people's understanding of truth in this nation. And I just roll their eyes at you. and they want to move on to Hillary Clinton's emails. And it stuns me on a daily basis, and I'll go do it again this afternoon. But I will lead with January 6th because of that. All right, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Support for the show comes from Mint Mobile, summertime, and the living's easy. That is, unless you're overpaying on your wireless bill.

So how about you quit doing that? Make summer a breeze again and switch over to Mint Mobile. With Mint, you can get the coverage and speed you're used to, but for way less money. And for a limited time, MinMobil is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for just $15 a month. You can even keep your old number and your existing contacts when you switch to Mint. So ditch your expensive cell phone bill and find something better to do with the money you'll be saving with Mint. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer on your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15.

a month at mintmobile.com slash moderates. That's mintmobile.com slash moderates. Up-front payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month, limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Spees may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra, see Mint Mobile for details. For a long time, in order to prove your age online, All you had to do is input your birthday or click a box that says you're totally over 18. That's going away. This week on the Vergecast, we're talking about age verification and how the internet is about to get a lot less private.

Plus, some huge new announcements in the world of AI, including the newest model for chat GPT. Finally, Miyasado interviewed the CEO of Bloggalates and the Adleisure brand Popflex about what it's like to have your designs get knocked off all over the internet. That's this week on the Vergecast. Welcome back. Shane just mentioned this, the redistricting war, and I want to get into it more in depth. Texas lawmakers are still locked in a high-stakes game of political chicken. For the second week, House Democrats remain out of the state to block a GOP redistricting plan that could hand Republicans up to five U.S. seats in 2026. Governor Greg Abbott says he'll keep calling special sessions and arrest Democrats if they come back. The fines are piling up, lawsuits are flying, and blue states like California. are threatening to redraw their own maps in retaliation.

Shane, you were great on the Daily last week about what's going on with the redistricting wars. What is the latest? I mean, the latest is it's just expanding state by state. You know, we've written about the idea that the Trump team is pushing this, and Texas is not the end game. It is the beginning of the game. There are a slew of Republican states that are at various states along the problem. process. You have Texas where they're talking about potentially five seats. You have Ohio, which has to redraw its maps already and are hoping to carve out one or two seats. They're talking about

Missouri a seat, Indiana, a seat. And now Florida, where Ron DeSantis is and the Attorney General there, who DeSantis's former chief of staff, are talking about tearing up the map there and carving out even more seats. And you have the Democrats talking about retaliating, but the complexity of this issue in blue states where Democrats have adopted commissions, nonpartisan commissions to draw these lines, makes it harder for them to gerrymandered these districts back at the same ease and speed with what Republicans are threatening to do. Even if Texas Democrats have fled the state and stop them for now, most folks don't think that the Democratic lawmakers in Texas are going to stay out of their state forever if Greg

Abbott continues to call special session after special session. So the idea of them making it to December. So I think that's kind of the drop date, right? where the map has to be finalized and so if they can stay out until December, then they can avoid this. I mean, my view of when things have to be finalized is always a little bit loose, right? Deadlines aren't really deadlines because there's always another deadline, right? The Texas has some of the earliest, usually I think, the earliest primaries in the country at the beginning of March, sort of kicks off the national primary season. Well, they could move it back if they wanted to, right?

Like, if they're changing all the laws, what if they move their primary? to September, which is when, like, New Hampshire tends to have their primaries. That's six more months. So, yes, I think that December is one of the current drop dead dates. Again, these are legislators who have families and who are left, have left the state, who are facing, and have other jobs. And have other jobs that are facing $5.4.00 fines, right? I mean, so it is logistically complicated to stay out.

And, you know, I think the hope, frankly, and I think they've been successful in this, which is draw national attention and draw blue stuff. into a fight and say, hey, maybe Republicans don't want to do this in Texas because California Democrats are going to retaliate and it's going to wipe it off. And maybe we all just back away from the table and put away our weapons for drawing voters out of having a say in their own congressional membership, their own congressional representation. That doesn't look like what's happening, right? Republicans aren't backing away because California is threatening to retaliate. And we can get into some of the specifics of California and why they could in some

ways draw even more seats for the Democratic Party, but it is a much more complicated process. But there is no sign of Republicans backing away in Texas. The Attorney General is trying to get some of these lawmakers thrown out of the legislature entirely basically saying their derelict of duty. And so for now, Texas is at a standstill, but other states are advancing and advancing pretty quickly. And this really does look like increasingly these congressional are going to be drawn for maximal party partisan gain and not for, like, what makes sense for a community or a district that might be able to flip if the president or the leadership of either party is unpopular.

Yeah, it's the YOLO approach, right, is always the Trumpian take on politics. I want it and I want it now, right? The Varucas Salt of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I would like to talk about California a little bit. I know that you covered the Schwarzenegger administration in Sacramento. He is out talking about this as released a statement. Big proponent of the Independent Commission approach, which they have in California, and also in New York. And I don't think Kathy Hochle will be able.

She's talking a very big game. And I don't know if you saw the recent polling, but has boosted her popularity, double digits. She seemed to be in a lot of trouble. And we were all saying, like, oh, you know, is Richie Torres going to run? like, does Delgado have a chance? And Kathy's keeping it together at this point. But, yeah, can you talk a little bit more about what California could actually accomplish? I know that there's a Republican lawmaker.

It's Kylie, right? Kevin Kylie, who has a proposal that he thinks Mike Johnson is going to take up, which is utterly ludicrous to say that we should actually do this the fair way because everyone is just in this gunfight essentially at this point. But be a little nitty-gritty with me. me about California. Sure. So California has 52 congressional seats. And right now, Republicans, I believe, have nine of those seats. And the Democrats are looking at a map that can wipe five of them out just as the same number potentially. Just to level with Texas. Just as to level of Texas.

But the reason why I say it could do more is not only would they take those seats, they potentially take four incumbent Democrats who are in swing districts. These are some of the most contested races in the country and shore up a handful of Democratic seats to maybe four more Democratic seats. The maps have not even been shared with with the lawmakers. These have been sort of people been briefed on what these maps look like and people have described them to me. But you're looking at a potential like eight seats, nine seats that move solidly in the more Democratic direction. So that's the sort of quote unquote good news for Democrats who are trying to match Texas. They can even get more. They're shoring up vulnerable incumbents.

Republicans don't have any vulnerable members in Texas to shore up. They're just drawing new seats. The challenge is that the legislature and the governor can't just pass a law and sign this because, as you mentioned, Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigned for and got the voters of California to rewrite its constitution to allow only a nonpartisan commission to draw these maps. And so what Newsom is talking about is getting the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment with maps tied to it and ask the voters for a one-time dispensation.

Please, please, vote for this. Adopt these new maps temporarily. This new commission goes back into place in 2030. This is just going to respond to Trump and the Texas Republicans. Voters might get into their partisan camps in California on a ballot measure, and the Democrats put on their blue jerseys,

and they might pass a ballot measure like that. But if you are telling voters, you need to go vote for gerrymandered maths instead of a non-partisan commission, that's a tricky proposition. You add in if Arnold Schwarzenegger starts running ads or being featured in ads, he's improved his standing among independents in the year since he left the governor's office, right? He became a Trump skeptic, a Trump critic.

He doesn't look like a partisan Republican. He or he would be saying, this is a thing I care about as a statesman as your former governor. And then you talk about the number of seats there. Five Republican seats could get basically wiped off. and four Democratic seats could be bolstered, an expensive congressional race to cost 10, 20, 30 million dollars. The size of the budget that the Republicans could spend to torpedo this ballot measure could be really enormous. And big, big money on California moves voters. I covered California politics for years. If you want to win a big campaign in California, you need a big check.

And Trump's political operation is sitting on a lot of money. And Republican donors know that losing all of those seats, it would be better to spend a huge amount of money trying to win this ballot measure than not even be able to compete in a number of seats over three election cycles. That's so interesting. You know, ethically speaking, I wish none of this was happening at all, right? And frankly, that none of some of the behavior that regularly happens even after the census. And it, you know, this is extraordinary circumstances to be doing it mid-cycle and at the behest of a president that has also asked, you know, for someone to find him 11,000 votes when things are going the wrong way in Georgia.

But how effective of a messenger do you think Governor Pritzker is on this, for instance? It was, you know, all over the Sunday shows and the Illinois map looks terrible, right? It's a severely gerrymandered map. It's a total partisan gerrymander. Right. Exactly. And, you know, I kind of feel like. You should be fighting fire with fire and that we Democrats have spent too long letting Mitch McConnell or whoever, you know, push us around and that when you have the opportunity to do that, you should, is it ideal to do it the way Massachusetts did where you had a GOP governor that signed off on a bipartisan commission plan? And, you know, Donald Trump's railing about how there are no seats, Republican seats in Massachusetts. But it was Republicans that signed off on it. That is not the case in Illinois. And so who do you think is winning

the messaging battle about the redistricting. Or does that not even matter because it's just about seats and everyone's got to be cutthroat and get as many as possible? I mean, I think that just in order, a couple of those things. Yes, J.B. Pritzker is not an ideal messenger because Illinois is a partisan gerrymander. Now, his defense is we follow to the law, which is to say they did it once a decade, and that's true.

But that doesn't make a difference for voters who saw competitive seats wiped off the map. I do think that this fight has really helped position Gavin Newsom politically and frankly other Democrats and Kathy Hookwold's an example as well. You know, I've been spending a lot of my time this year covering Democrats and the sort of attempt to rebuild and what does the party need to do next. And there's been a lot of talk and a lot of naval gazing and a lot of frustration that the party is powerless.

This is a thing that the party is proactively talking about doing, right? Corey Booker got a huge amount of praise for giving a long speech that didn't have a specific outcome other than that he showed that he was in the fight. This is Gavin Newsom, showing he's in the fight and actually doing something. And what I've heard from pollsters, people who do focus groups, and voters themselves is the party is craving someone who's actually fighting, not just talking about fighting. And this is a real rare moment where he is actually doing the fighting. And look, he may be doing the fighting on something that ends up being unpopular, right?

Voters don't like the idea of politicians drawing their districts. This isn't a popular concept across the country. But you saw the same thing you mentioned about Kathy Hochle and her polling numbers, right? She is showing gumption and fight in a willingness to engage that voters are just Democratic voters are desperate to see from their leaders. They see Trump and they see all those exertions of power that we were talking about. And they see Democrats looking feckless and unwilling to engage. And so in all of these cases, you see these political leaders taking the opportunity to show fight.

And I think in Newsom's case in particular, to actually deliver something potentially. Now, it's risky. There could be backlash. But as a political moment, he's doing something. He's not just talking about something. And this is a party desperate for more doing. Yeah. And he's been able to, with his approach, to get folks that are really against partisan,

gerrymandering, like even Eric Holder has come out and said that he's supportive of it the way that Newsom is proposing it because it only exists for a couple of years, right? And then you will go back to normal. But if we don't treat the Trump era as the aberration that it is, we are doomed to fail and then pay the consequences for decades afterwards once there are all of these extra GOP safe districts. And I mean, we've seen how much they've accomplished with just a three-seat majority. I mean, Mike Johnson, and I had, you know, I've said that I think Mike Johnson has been very successful. And I've gotten very respectful pushback from a number of elected Democrats. You know, Jared Moskowitz was like, well, this is the laziest Congress in American history.

We've basically passed nothing. And my point was, well, you pass the stuff that matters, right? There's very little that Donald Trump could say, I wanted and I didn't get. And isn't that the mark in the modern GOP of what success actually looks like? I mean, Mike Johnson has been successful by seating his authority to the White House, right? Like, the Congress used to be a separate branch with its own set of prerogatives and priorities, and he has deferred to Donald Trump. And that has allowed him to pass legislation with votes from people who had not voted for such legislation before. So, yeah, I mean, in that regard, there's one number in the Congress that matters.

There's 218. Can you get 218 votes on anything? And Mike Johnson has been able to get two. 218 votes because he is deferred to Donald Trump. So has he been effective of that? Yes. Is he a powerful speaker? Absolutely not, right?

Because power is having your own set of priorities you're pushing. And I couldn't identify his priorities separate from the Trump administration's priorities. And that's intentional that, you know, they've made that. I want to go back to one thing you said about Eric Holder and whether this just reverts in a few years with Newsom. I mean, I think the challenge here is that I don't know that anybody thinks that any of stuff gets unwrung, right? Once you bring the bell that everyone is going to remap everywhere, you end up, everybody's got a gun pointing to each other all across the country,

and nobody's going to holster. You're not going to get 50 states holstering simultaneously unless there's a federal law. And Democrats had tried to do that, and they were unable to pass such a measure. So I don't think that we are looking at this sort of being unwound quickly. And while, you know, I cover national politics and I'm really focused on control of Congress, where these really narrow margins, this is why these districts potentially matter, right? The Congress has been controlled by just a handful of seats. But there are other factors here, not just for Congress, but state legislative seats that are drawn, where there is no counterbalance, where there's not a blue state to counteract a Texas remap.

At the state legislature level, just one party can exert total control and wipes the other party out of control in a state with no other recourse. And so, you know, I do think that there's some small D Democratic concern about redistricting at the state legislature level, where if you're Texas and you decide to make the Democrats a permanent minority, there is no countervailing force. There is no California inside Texas. So blue states and red states could have this arms race and basically wipe out minority parties within state legislatures all across the country. Depressing. All small D democracy conversations are depressing these days. but we are going to soldier on and talk about the midterms. So we're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back.

Before we go, Shane, you recently wrote about how the Democrats are heading into the 2026 midterms with a big push to recruit military veterans to run for Congress. It's a strategy that paid off in 2018. We had the camo wave. A lot of those stars are currently running for big positions like government. of Virginia and New Jersey. The idea is pretty simple. Veterans can often connect with voters who might otherwise lean Republican, especially in rural or swing districts, and their service record can help them sidestep some of the partisan baggage tied to the Democratic brand right now,

which is like the heaviest baggage of all time. So Democrats had real success, as I said, with this approach. What's different about the political landscape in 2026 that might make this more or less effective? What's your read? I mean, I think that it has been effective basically for most of this century for Democrats. They did it in 2018, and they did it back in 2006, too, when Rahm Emanuel was at the D-Triple-C, and they recruited a wave of veterans, not just for the House, frankly, at other levels of governor and senator. The reason that Democratic Party keeps returning to this strategy is something you just said, which is people start to make presumptions about what a Democrat is and looks like, and they make different sets of presumptions around military

veterans. And that allows you, maybe if you're knocking on doors, a little extra time to make your case. If you're running a TV ad, it allows people to see you not just as a Democrat, but something more. Look, military veterans are not guaranteed to win these races. I could give you a whole laundry list and Republicans certainly have, as I've written this story, of big spending Democrats who got the party all excited where veterans Amy McGrath comes to mind, who ended up losing. I literally was going to say, how much money did I give to Amy McGrath thinking? that she was the solution, right? I mean, so, you know, at the same time, it's hard to run in a Trump area if you're a Democrat

and be what is the brand you want to affiliate yourself with, right? Most people are not going to run. I'm a Joe Biden Democrat anymore. People are not going to run and say, I'm a Kamala Harris Democrat in these districts. These are districts that she lost. And the Republican Party and the Republican sort of conservative media are going to call everyone an AOC Democrat, right? And so how do you carve out of it?

your own brand when you're running for Congress for the first time. You don't have a party brand. You don't have probably a voting record. Maybe you worked in the legislature and voters aren't paying super close attention. So what can you do to get yourself in the door and have a chance? And this is a tactic that the party's turned to over and over. And look at this point, I think, and there's literally more candidates since when I wrote that story, I think you were at like 10 or 11 of the most competitive seats that the Democrats have a military veteran running. Now, some of them have to clear their primary first, that's a huge portion of the House battleground map to have a military veteran. It shows you the degree to which they think that this is a chance to widen the playing

field. Those are the most competencies. Then there's the reach areas, right? The places that you probably aren't going to win, but like maybe in a year that, you know, if the tariffs go poorly and voters are unhappy about the state of the economy and Trump is overreached. And there's a backlash we just talking about, right? Republicans in Congress have not pushed back against Trump on almost anything. If you want to check, maybe they reach into even redder areas and maybe that veteran helps you put those seats into play. So that's definitely part of the strategy. But I think when I think about this, I think there's two parts of the Democratic Party's future that I think about differently. Part one is, how is the party looking in 2026? The answer is like probably pretty good

by almost every historic measurement, right? Trump's popularity is going down. And like his popularity moves in a pretty small bandwidth because, like, Republicans have continuously liked him. But on some other key metrics, his popularity is down, on the economy, he is less trusted on the economy today than he has been. That has been one of his superpowers since he was the host of the apprentice. The presumption of voters was he was a smart, decisive businessman who knew the economy. And people are less confident in him on that issue, which is probably the most important issue last year. And so 2026 looks like it's moving in Democratic direction, these veterans could help. The longer-term project of the Democratic Party

feels very different, which is, you know, if you did an open-ended word cloud poll of voters, what do you think about the Democratic Party and pollsters do this? The words don't look good, right? Like the words you get back, they are not positive words. People don't like Trump. They might not like all the power he has. They may want to put a check on it. But when you're thinking about longer term, the next presidential election, you need to have something that people are buying into. And yes, that will come with a particular candidate, but you don't want the brand itself to be a hindrance.

You want the brand to be helping, right? The average Republican in Congress today chooses to run as a MAGA-Trump Republican, because that is not hurting their chances to win. The average Democrat in a competitive House district is not trying to run as a run-of-the-mill Democrat, because running as a run-of-the-mill Democrat is not currently a path to victory in most of those seats.

Yeah, I'm definitely noticing that. Even the conversations that I'm having, like, I had Mallory McMorrow on the podcast last week. And one of the first things she said was Chuck Schumer's got to go, right? And that has had a huge impact on our campaign, and she's fundraising like crazy. And Haley Stevens, who she is running against, feels more establishment-y to people.

And I don't know how the race shakes out, but you can see that candidates are trying to carve out space for themselves to run against the party when it's convenient. And Nancy Pelosi was an utter queen in so many ways, but she was great about this, where she always said, you know, if you need to call me the devil, call me the devil. If you need to call me and you want me to come campaign with you, I'm there. And it doesn't, it doesn't feel like folks have that kind of freedom, I guess, anymore. Like, it's almost like we're just scratching the surface of the reputational problem. And people obviously have gestured towards issues that we've had and there's a

media problem and there's a connectivity problem and there's, in some cases, a patriotism problem. But mostly there's an effectiveness problem. And this goes back to all the conversations that we've had, right, about what Trump is trying to do in D.C. and blue state governance. Even in the question about what we're going to do in the redistricting wars. Like, how are you going to get shit done? Because that's all that Americans want at this point. And in your conversations, are you feeling that folks that are running or who are already in elected office as Democrats are understanding this moment in that sense? I think it's a mixed bag. I don't think that there's a full understanding. And I think there are different approaches on what they want to get done. And I

think that a lot of the fight right now, look, because there is so little power that Democrats are holding right now, it's created a real vacuum. And so what I think you see right now is these sort of early skirmishes to fill that void and show that different ideologies or different approaches are actually going to be the way to go. You know, I think that Bernie Sanders's, you know, stop the oligarchy tour has been important, right? He has showed that his message is still able to get a huge crowd all across the country. You know, if you look, you know, I've covered campaign finance stuff for a long time. If you look at the most recent first six months of the year, at Blue, which processes most of the,

most of your past donations to Amy McGrath, I presume, most of the online donations, just the number of actual contributions to AOC was about the same as the D-T-T-Ruble C, which is a huge staff of people, which is a national party arm, raising money for house members all across the country, people are on the left excited to give to AOC. People on across the spectrum are showing up at these Bernie Sanders and some of them with AOC rallies. You know, on the other hand, right, you have moderates trying to reassert themselves and say, that's great. But like, those campaigns and those messages don't work in red states. And you will never have a majority without us. And so there's a lot of fighting. Fighting is maybe not even the right.

it's like positioning. There's a lot of positioning to say, you know, one of these things is great. We want the energy that Bernie Sanders is getting, but like we don't want the positions he is taking if they're going to cost us in particular races. And this is a big fight that's happening. Less about the midterms, although there are a bunch of Democratic primaries. Michigan is one. Minnesota's and others going to be a big primary in Iowa and Texas for Senate races. These are more Democratic primaries than we've had big open Democratic primaries in big states in recent years. But I think that this is all, this is all like the appetizer to an open primary for 2028. We now know Kamala Harris isn't running for governor. It seems less likely that she's

going to run for president again. You know, that's as wide open a race as we've really had in a very, very long time without a clear frontrunner, without even a clear like front pack, right? Like if you had to say, here the top four, that's a tricky thing to do. We don't know yet. And so, So that's the fight that's going to define the party of the future. But a lot of this is happening now is sort of the set the stage for what the table looks like when people get there. Yeah, I want to talk about 2028 a little bit, but I won't go back first to what you're saying about AOC and the battle with the moderates. I think folks like Pat Ryan have done a very good job of straddling all the areas or the factions within the party, you know, an ally of AOC, also a moderate himself and a veteran, which. to go back to your initial point, it helps a lot. But I think Mom Doni is going to be a huge

reputational factor, at least, for the party for the next year, year and a half. My expectation is that he's going to win the mayoralty in November. And you've seen moderate representative, Democratic representatives like Tom Swazzi and Laura Gillen running away from him. He doesn't have all the endorsements that you would expect someone who won the primary so handedly to have. can you talk a little bit about what you see the mom-dani effect being on the party? Yeah, I mean, I think that he won that primary and, you know, there's been a lot of stories and reporting and essays around, like, he won for this one reason. I think it's pretty clear he did not win for one reason, right? He won for a confluence of reasons. His ideology was an important

part of it and one that probably wouldn't work in other parts of the country, but does work in New York City. But he also won because he was relentlessly focused on the things. that voter care about in New York and probably most the country, which is it's expensive, right? Like, if you were any New Yorker is aware of the price of living in New York. And that was the overwhelming focus of his campaign. And yes, he made good social media. Yes, he is sort of an appealing, charming, charismatic figure, right? That works all across the country.

You know, charming charismatic focused on what voters care about. Turns out that that's a really good formula, regardless of what the specifics you're standing for. I don't usually think that a single local office will come to define the party nationally. I think it's hard to take one person and say, yes, Democrats all across the country, especially if it's a mayor, are going to be identified with this person. I think it will have spillover, and I think the two examples you gave are in the New York media market, hopefully, right?

Like Tom Swazi and Lauren Gillen, they get New York media coverage. Those are the people who are going to be likeliest to be affected. But there are other people who, in November, who win, who also, if they do win, will be faces for the Democratic Party going forward, which is the Abigail Spanburgers and the Mikey Sheryls who are running for governor of Virginia and New Jersey. And again, talking about that skirmish, which side gets to claim the future in the face of the party, right? What do those races look like? It's possible that Spanberger wins comfortably, right? There's been a lot of Democratic conversations trying to knock him up enthusiastic. but people feel very comfortable and confident about that race right now.

If she has a very big win in a state that was, you know, this century, a battleground state, it's become a bluer state. But it is a state that has a Republican governor. If she flips that governorship by a wide margin, it's possible she becomes a really big part of the conversation. And she was an important part of the conversation about the party's left lurch during the Biden year. She was trying to yank the party back to the center. She's not a hidden centrist. She's pretty unabashed about it, right?

So I think Mamdani is someone that Republicans will absolutely campaign against. But they're going to, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, Denver is basically the only campaign against Trump for like a decade at this point. Republicans have switched, right? There was a brief moment. I remember campaigning. I remember being on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, where all of the Republican voters at Trump events were talking about Ilan Omar.

She was the centerpiece of the Republican sort of message machine. It's possible Zoran Mamdani becomes that. But if he doesn't somebody else, will be. And I'm not sure that he is the single best person to define the Democratic Party or if he's more effective than using AOC as that foil for the right. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm curious. So you said, you know, historically speaking, it should be pretty good for Democrats, barring, I guess, that Republicans redraw all the maps and they suddenly have, you know, 10 new seats, but they only have a three-seat majority right now. What races are you paying

particular attention to as potential Democratic pickups. I mean, I'm definitely tracking the Medicaid recipient numbers in all of these districts like David Valdejo, in California, Mike Lawler, here also in New York, who seems to be putting his foot in it left, right, and center. What races are you watching closely? I mean, you mentioned the Democrats would only have to flip three house seats to take the majority before any of these gerrymandering. The Senate is actually harder, which is crazy. They actually have to flip four Senate seats to win the majority. So I've been tracking the efforts for the Democrats to, like, expand that map to give themselves possibilities. Because on its face, it is not a good map for Democrats in the Senate.

But they have been working very aggressively to find new places to conceivably compete in. You know, there's been an aggressive push by Chuck Schumer to recruit Sherrod Brown to run in Ohio again, whether you can win. That was the most expensive Senate race in the country. it would be a huge stock of resources. Texas, which has become the sort of center of the political universe. I know. I just...

It's like, it is a state where the Democrats have, have, I think the Democrats are unlikely to invest. We've said so much money. Well, mostly to Beto O'Rourke, like for anything that he says that he's going to do. And I love Colin Allred. And it seems like James Tallerico is going to get in. Though Allred, I don't know if he feels more like the pulse of where Texas is. But anyway.

Like, can these guys actually be defeated? Well, I would- I guess it matters who's on the Republican side as well, if it's Cornyn or Paxton. I think about Ohio and Texas, not as terrific Democratic pickup opportunities, but money holes for Republican Party. If Ken Paxton is the Republican nominee in Texas and Sherrod Brown is the Democratic nominee in Ohio, you're talking about Republicans looking at probably having to spend $500 million between those two states.

They could allow Democrats to try to reach in some smaller places that are a little less expensive. Look, it's very hard to flip four seats for the Senate, period. There are not. There's only one Republican senator in a state that Democrats have won, which is Susan Collins. There's a second open seat in North Carolina. Roy Cooper, former governor, a Democrat, is running. Those are the two best pick-up opportunities for Democrats. Three and four is like tough to see.

That's the landscape right now. But they are trying everything they can do to stretch the map. for Republicans, and, you know, I have this sort of strange analogy that I have in my head. I'm not even sure I've said it out loud yet. So, you know, first for you, you know, I think that try it out. Yeah, try it out. Let's just do it live. The, for years, I think Republicans had a media disadvantage, right? They had to work harder to get their story they felt in the mainstream media. And so they had to be more creative about coming up with ways to get their story out. And I feel the same, and there was sort of a complacency for Democrats in getting their story

out at the same time. I actually feel like the Senate map is almost the same thing in reverse, which is the Senate map is so bad for Democrats year after year after year. So they have like a real creativity on like how are we possibly going to make this a thing that we can compete and even win in? And Republicans have this complacency because really they just have to win the red states and then that gets them to 50. And so I see you see cycle after cycle a real effort for Democrats have come up with interesting and different ways to like expand the map. But on the Republican side, you haven't seen that. There's an occasional candidate, but, you know, they're really the reach campaigns.

And some of the which are successful have mostly come from Democrats in these Senate races. Quickly, and I know that you're deeply embedded on the Democratic side. But do you have any views on what the future of the Republican Party looks like in a, I'm not even going to say potentially post-Trump era? He's not allowed to run again, let's say for the purposes of this conversation, he's not running again. But I was talking to Kellyanne Conway about it, and she was pretty blunt. She said the Republican Party is Donald Trump. I don't know what it looks like. And he is openly said, like he doesn't really even know about J.D. Vance, right, as the heir apparent to this, which seems strange since he's your vice president.

But what's your feel about what Republican life looks like going forward? Yeah, I mean, I think that I expect Trump to try to maintain his hold and control on the party as long as possible, which means not. announcing who your successor is or anointing that person. Look, he is, in Kellyan Conway is correct, he is a singular figure, not just in Washington, all across the country. Are state legislatures excited in all of these states to do these remapping? Not necessarily. There have been signs out of Missouri and Indiana that these state legislators, they don't necessarily want to do this. But guess what? If Donald Trump wants to do it, and you know a single true social post from him, against all of your primary opponents, you know, there's a real willingness to listen,

tax all of these places. I mean, we have not seen a president with this much control over their own party in a really long time. And I think it's important to think it's not just that the politicians are scared of Donald Trump. His power comes from voters, Republican voters like Donald Trump. Republican voters overwhelmingly pick up. him again in 2024, they were drawn even further into his camp with the indictments, right?

So until there's a break with the public, Trump's power is going to continue. And I agree. I don't know what a post-Trump Republican Party looks like. It doesn't look like the old guard of the Republican Party. But whether it looks more like J.D. Vance or more like Marco Rubio, you know, I think it still just looks like Donald Trump until Donald Trump isn't leading it. I really, it's hard to see what it looks like after him because he's such a blot-out-out-the-sun dominant figure. Yeah, and then my real anxiety is that the kids take over, and we have to pay homage to Don Jr. and Eric, on that uplifting note, Shane, thank you so much for your time. It was great to have you. Thanks for having me on. All right, that's it for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates.

Our producers are David Toledo and Eric Janikis. Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. Going forward, you'll find Raging Moderates every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to Raging Moderates on its own feed to hear exclusive interviews with sharp political minds. This week, I'm talking to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and you won't want to miss it. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcast so you don't miss an episode.