Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - What’s Trump’s Endgame in Ukraine?

Episode Date: February 18, 2025

Jessica and Tim Miller break down the biggest political moves of the week. Trump is making waves on the world stage, claiming a breakthrough in Ukraine talks with Putin—so what’s his real endgame? Back at home, he’s throwing a legal lifeline to NYC Mayor Eric Adams, but is that “help” actually a political liability? Plus, where do Anti-Trump Republicans stand in a party still dominated by him? Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Tim Miller, @Timodc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for Total Fund Savings Adventure, maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Human eggs are only the size of a grain of sand, but the space they can take up in your mind can be gargantuan.

Now there are a lot of concerns with some experts saying this procedure really just serves as another way for companies to make money from stoking women's anxieties. Egg freezing has been presented as a kind of girl boss panacea, but what's the reality? That's this week on Explain It To Me. New episodes every week wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlov. I'm Tim Miller. Tim, this is the banter section.

How are you? Hey, banter. I'm just happy to be in here for Scott. You know, I think that I'm going to be a downgrade in certain manners and upgrade in hair. You know, we'll see what the people think. We will see what the people think. I think they'll be excited to see you. They were super excited when you joined us, but we were together, all three of us. It was fun. It's good. I mean, I'd rather be raging with you guys than... Maybe you

have a view on this. I think not raging with the Dems on the Hill. I'm not feeling a ton of raging. Yeah, snoozing. Democratic snoozing? Yeah, I'd rather be raging with the moderates than snoozing with the progs. I mean, this is heavy for the banter section. But do you... No, no, no, I'm good with it.

You want to talk about Mardi Gras instead? It's difficult times. No, I don't want to talk about... I mean, if you want to talk about Mardi Gras? It's difficult times. No, I don't want to talk about I mean if you want to talk about Mardi Gras hiding in your house we could do that, but Do you really think that they're snoozing or we're not paying attention? It's a good question I think that they are doing a lot of stuff that people who are who read Hill Newsletters and to like care and who know a lot about what's

happening in the federal government. I think they are seeing Democrats. I think that anyone who's a casual observer of politics is seeing only Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Travis and Taylor. I think that's like the material that they're getting. And so I don't know if they're snoozing so much as they're not yelling. And I feel like they could probably benefit from some yelling that resonates outside of the cordless. I think resonant yelling is the trick for that one. Because I have seen some yelling and I have

hated it. Yeah, the singing. The singing. Singing, yelling. I'm open to singing in the right kind of context, you know? I'm open to singing and chants, but maybe we could work on the language of the chants a little bit. Yeah. We're getting lapped by the YMCA, so you got to think about that. The gays gave away YMCA.

Well, you don't even want it back, right? I know. I made it official. It was not a battle in the culture where we expected, but it was the battle that was thrust upon us. And I think for a moment during the Biden era, we had felt like we'd taken YMCA back from the MAGAs. And unfortunately, I think that is one L we just have to take. It's over now and the village people and YMCA, despite the fact that that is a song about cruising in gay gyms.

The Maggots have taken it from us, and I don't think we're ever going to get it back. It's unfortunate. I don't think you're going to hear a lot of YMCA at Gay Pride this year. No, probably not. Abracadabra by Lady Gaga instead. I think you'll be hearing a lot of Abracadabra. It's a pretty good upgrade.

I think so. Did you watch any of the SNL 50 stuff? I was in and out. I was watching White Lotus and I was podcast prepping, so I caught a little bit of it. I really liked a couple of the Eddie Murphy segments. Eddie Murphy being Tracy Morgan was hilarious. Eddie Murphy doing some borderline inappropriate prison rape jokes with Will Ferrell in one of the very last segments I also really really liked those are my big takeaways. Prison rape is always a highlight.

I said multiple times to my husband that I can't believe this show is happening. Like if it weren't the SNL 50, there's no way these jokes would have made it in. But I'm pretty sure everybody showed up and they were like, we are not playing by 2025 standards. We're playing by whatever year we were actually on the show. And it was, a lot of it was hilarious, but I was overwhelmed by Cher. I don't know if you saw these shots

of like Kevin Costner losing his mind and Billy Crystal watching this 78 year old woman look like a 30 year old woman belting out, if I could turn back time, which I think the gays still have possession of. We still have possession of. I missed that clip though. I will immediately be going to the internet after this to watch that.

To the internet. And now to the show. And I'm keeping us on time, which is not Scott's strong suit. How'd I do in the banter section? I think you did great. I don't know. We'll see. Okay.

So in today's episode of Raging Moderates, we are discussing Trump's plan to end the war in Ukraine, Trump's lifeline to Eric Adams, and the state of anti-Trump Republicans, your specialty. All right, let's get into it. Big moves on the world stage last week. Trump says he had a highly productive call with Vladimir Putin, claiming that they're now working closely on a Ukraine peace deal. He even floated the idea of a future sit down with Putin. This all came after Russia released American teacher Mark Fogel, which Trump called a quote sign of good faith. Meanwhile, Keefe is on edge after a drone strike hit Chernobyl just days after Zelensky asked the US for more aid. And in

Europe, leaders are scrambling. An emergency summit is set for Monday. So that's today. So by tomorrow, you may have an update. Amid fears that Trump's outreach to Russia is leaving them isolated, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a once-in-a-generation security moment. Vice President J.D. Vance warned that Russia could face economic and military pressure if it doesn't negotiate in good faith. But in Munich, he took aim at European leaders instead, claiming their real threat isn't Russia or China, it's their own policies on free speech and refusal to work with hard-right parties in government. Back at home, not much better.

The White House is clashing with the press again, this time banning an AP reporter from the Oval Office for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The AP is now accusing the administration of violating the First Amendment. Let's talk Ukraine first. What do you think the game here is? I mean, you can start with Pete Hegset's maiden voyage, which did not go well, and he's walking things back within 24 hours. But what do you think Rubio and Trump and Vance want

for Ukraine? Well, as a, I guess, cradle neocon, I don't know if the neocons exist anymore. I have a ton of thoughts about this. Uh, I first, just really quick, because I think it's got lost and I'm obsessed with the crypto element of everything that's happening, the hostage trade or if you want to call it Mark Fogel, very happy Fogel's back. That's great news.

But what got missed was the person that got let out on our side was like one of the original crypto scammers who was running a massive crypto scam that allowed Russia to avert sanctions by paying for things using crypto rather than cash and going through the regular banking system. I only say that just because everybody should just like make a mental note of that. Because I think that the crypto corruption that is coming over the next four years might end up being one of the biggest stories that happen. Bigger than the Trump coin. It's interesting.

Well, no, it's related. The Trump coin, it's all related, right? Like, I mean, Trump launches his coin. No, but that, I think that that's how people can manage it. Well, they just say, okay, we know he's a grifter who does things like this, but it's so much bigger than that. And the trade wasn't publicized at all.

It took days for anyone to know if we got, if we had to trade anything for Mark Fogel. Yeah, for sure. And so obviously there are bad people getting traded and all of these things like Victor Booth got traded during the Biden administration. So like, and I'm happy Mark Fogel is home. So these things like Victor Boot got traded during the Biden administration. And I'm happy Mark Fogle is home.

So it's like less a commentary on like the particular trade than just like, it's interesting where the priorities were. Like that the first Russian person out is this crypto scammer, person doing the deal, Steve Witkoff, his son is business partners with the Trump kids on their crypto scam. So that's not a coincidence. All right. I'm not, I'm not the always sunny guy putting yarn against the wall here. Like it's a, it's a pretty direct connection, um, directly to Trump's pocket.

So anyway, um, the broader deal, I mean, like the sad part about this is. The just, like we appear to be on the side of the bad guys. I mean, I think that JD did some tough talk, but what is happening is we have this meeting in Saudi that you referenced. The Ukrainians aren't even invited. Like we're having a bilateral with the Russians who invaded Ukraine and who we are sanctioning currently to try to cut a deal that Ukraine isn't even at the table for and Europe is having a separate, you know, the Europeans are having a separate meeting at the table for. And Europe is having a separate, you know,

the Europeans are having a separate meeting at the same time. As you mentioned, Keir Stormer, like the UK is out there saying, we're going to put boots on the ground, if necessary, peacekeeping troops to support Ukraine. And so, like, in this moment, we're getting some mixed signals from the White House, but directionally, most of the signals are that we're sympathetic to the invaders, to the aut, most of the signals are that we're sympathetic

to the invaders, to the autocrats, to the people that were attacking a free democratic country. Whatever you thought bad about American foreign policy in the past, this is a massive shift. This is not just about a judgment call, it's the fact that it seems like that we're supporting, you know, the countries that are in conflict with what the American values have been in the post-World War II era. So like at the top level, like that is the thing to me that's the most striking. And when you looked at these press conferences, both Hagseth and Trump, I can't remember if

Vance was asked this, but definitely Hagseth and Trump were asked, you know, as part of these negotiations, what are you asking Russia to give up? And neither of them could answer. Like Hegseth gives like a two minutes of gobbledygook because you know that he couldn't come up with anything. And Trump starts attacking Europe during the answer to that question. And so I think that kind of tells you all you need to know. Yeah, I think there was something about shooting values and that you can't do that. And Pete's answer, I can't really get to calling him Secretary Hicks yet. I'm still in Pete mode. Are you and Pete pals? Were you guys drinking buddies? No, not drinking buddies. We have socialized, but no comment. No, I totally agree with you.

And one thing that's been sticking out to me is how quickly everybody has folded from who they were beforehand. Because at least I was holding on to the idea. I know Mike Waltz really well, the national security advisor. We're in a foreign policy group together. Marco Rubio has been very clear

about his foreign policy views for a long time. And I don't think any of either of those two would have ever thought that they would be part of a deal that was going to essentially tell Ukraine, you have no future in NATO, and you're never getting back your territory. I mean, even forgetting the pre 2014 lines, even from just a few years ago. And maybe that speaks to the awesome power of Trump. Maybe that speaks to the new realignment within the Republican Party. But I don't see anyone in positions of power now that are going to be holding on to traditional

American views of foreign policy and our role in the world? No, I mean, Rubio has been basically a full-throated defender of the Trump push on this. And that pivot for him has been kind of happening gradually over time since 2016 when he was kind of the candidate that was running the most, maybe even more than Cheb, like the most W, like the most Bush compassionate conservatism, like, uh, type platform of any of the candidates. And so, you know, no, who knows what, how things actually go. I guess it's better that Rubio is there in Saudi Arabia than some of the other potential people, um, who could be there from the Trump orbit, maybe there are things happening on the margins that matter.

And like you said, Waltz was a very traditional, you know, type of, you know, type of Republican. It is in the house as far as foreign policy is concerned. And I interviewed Tom Malinowski, the Democrat from New Jersey last week, who's he was a pretty kind of hawkish Democrat. And so he was like, when I got to Congress, I was looking to Republicans that I could work with, like where we might have some overlap on foreign policy. And he was like, Waltz and Stefanik were the two people that I turned to.

And he's like, they've, you know, he's like, Stefanik has totally, you know, gone native with the MAGA and he's like like, it appears like Walt is doing the same. So we'll see how things shake out this week, but the signs are not positive, and it's really a sign of kind of submission to the Trump worldview from all these folks. What do you think is the likelihood that Zelensky gets his way?

So he was speaking to Munich Security Council, and he said, we need an armed forces of Europe. This is after JD Vance essentially took a flame thrower to our relationship with Europe in his speech. Clearly Zelensky does not see us as the top partner opportunity for him going forward. Do you think Europe is really going to unify without us? Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't see us as the top partner opportunity either if I was him. Yeah.

No, I think Europe will. I think it could be a positive outgrowth of like the Trump worldview that Europe ends up, you know, stepping up their game on defense and, you know, takes more responsibility. And it's not like they, I don't want to say they're not taking any responsibility for their own defense, but, but actually, you know, sort of take seriously the act that they might have to go it alone at some point. And you've seen this from people from Europeans at the Munich security

conference, leader NATO said something to this effect, which was pretty a secretary general rather, which is pretty alarming. So I think that that's possibly positive, but like, okay. That has potential massive negative ramifications for us. You know, I mean, I was, um, there was a, uh, a woman, uh, who is a journalist in Ukraine who, uh, who, whose quote just really kind of dropped me in my feet over the weekend. Uh, she wrote. She said this,

her name is Anna Merlakina. She's from Moiripal and like had to flee to Kiev. She said, when you live in a world that is crumbling under your feet, the only thing that helps you survive is to believe in guidelines and civilized democratic countries that uphold values. When countries like the United States cease to be pillars, there is nothing to hope for. I mean, that is like, that is a jaw dropping quote from somebody over in Ukraine. And I just think that's reflective of how people in Europe are gonna see us.

And I just believe that there'll be negative ramifications for that down the line. We don't exactly know how or when, but I think that Europe will kind of decide that they should be prepared to go out without us. Going back to, I guess, we got into ineffective Democrats very early on in the podcast, but I do, maybe just because I work in communication, I guess that I always think that there was an opportunity to do better if we had messaged properly about this and it doesn't feel like

we have made the case. This is Democrats and Republicans, like obviously, Mitch McConnell and the kind of more traditional set have been screaming from the rooftops at a low pitch. He doesn't scream so loud anymore at 83, but have been trying to talk about the importance of keeping together the democratic world order and that you need to support countries

that share our values. And it feels like that has just fallen on completely deaf ears and that people have moved to this world where it's, what about me, first, and can't see the second order effects if we end up abandoning Ukraine. So do you think there's anything we could have done or this storm, which is taking over the world, right? Was there any way to stop this?

On this one, I'll let you make fun of the Democrats' communications and I'll take responsibility for my people because I think possibly no because of Iraq, honestly. I do think that it was just such a debacle that there, you know, within the country, there has just become an increased skepticism or like hostility to the idea that we should be involved overseas in foreign conflicts. And I think it's very complicated to then say, okay, well, this is not Iraq, right? Ukraine is different. Like we don't have troops on the ground. We're not trying to do regime change. We're trying to defend an ally and that helps us because, you know, if Russia successfully overtakes Ukraine, that's going to demonstrate weakness, you know,

to the, you know, rules-based order. And that could cause threats to us down the line, right? Like it's just, it's a complicated point to make, right. Especially in the face of, you know, really like pretty bipartisan, increasingly like opposition to us playing this role in the world. And so to me, the obligation is then like, this is what Trump has unraveled is that there were a number of things that are not really popular among the whole country that leaders in both parties continued to do such as USAID because it was the right thing to do and because they were

responsible leaders, right? And sometimes that is, you know, required. This is not ancient Greece. We don't have a direct democracy on purpose. Not everything should be decided based on 50% plus one vote, you know, if that is true, I would have never gotten married, right? Like that was an opposite opposed vote until the Supreme Court did it, right? Like eventually sometimes leaders have to do things that are unpopular because they're the right thing to do. Maybe sometimes they get held accountable for that. Trump, because he doesn't care about any of that, doesn't like have really core values or empathy or care about, you know, the American idea, doesn't believe that, doesn't believe that exists, only believes their American interests,

um, has wiped away all of that. And so I don't know that the Democrats could have, just by making their messaging better, changed people's view of this, or broadly America's role when it comes to aid. So, I mean, I think that you could probably give a few of them some lessons on how to make those arguments better, having watched you on the five and having watched some of them,

but I felt I don't know that it would have actually made the difference in this case. It's just such a big failure when you think about how core Biden made it to his reason for being. Part of it was I have to get you all through COVID and I can be America's grandpa and I'm the most empathetic man you ever met. But it was also like this return to normalcy and people's lived experience was just so not commensurate with the world that he was talking about that they were just like, F

you, right? I'm out. It was a failure. And I don't, I mean, obviously Biden's inability to deliver a message had ramifications. Like what, you know, in this case, was it, you know, was that the key difference? I don't know. But I mean, I think it was a problem across multiple verticals and it relates to the democratic stuff. Now it's just, he was not, he was absent, right? And there was a moment in 2020 where I think people were so fucking sick of the news and Trump and COVID, like the idea that Biden wouldn't be in their lives every day was kind of, people were like, that's a good thing. There were at least some people out there that that was an attractive, but like over

time as crises unfold that as inflation happened, as the invasion of Ukraine happened, as, as 10, seven happened, you know, people need somebody that can. Talk to them, right. And to deliver a compelling message and that can, you know, I demonstrate leadership traits or demonstrate strength at least. And I think that that was like kind of missing from the last couple years of the last administration. I would even say that the quality of the messaging wouldn't have mattered as much if it was happening as more frequently that people actually just want to physically see you and then their

minds run wild. And obviously there are people who are feeding this that are like, oh, he's not here because he's dead, but he'll be awake at two o'clock and then he's going to die again. I totally agree with you. I never compliment Trump. So it's just how you want it. But like, Guy has been every, like there was this thing on the left and like resistance world, like during the campaign that was like, Trump is just as old as Biden and Trump's, you know, brain is putting too and like the media, it's so unfair that the media is making the Biden age thing like the only thing. And it's like, I keep saying, I don't think that is true.

Like Trump gives off crazy energy, not old energy. Like he just does. And since he's been in there, I thought, I didn't know. I thought it was an unknown. And like, could, might Trump win and just be so happy that he's not in jail, that he's just going to golf and like go on the NASCAR track, which he did and like do the fun stuff, do the fun stuff and the accoutrement of the presidency and not do everything else. And that's been the opposite. Like he's given more press conferences than anybody.

Like dude is like, I lose track of all the press conferences he's done. Like I missed one on Friday, you know, like he's talking to media all the time. it's easy, he's done. Like I missed one on Friday, you know, but like he's talking to media all the time. And, um, I'm sorry, like that is how to do it in the modern media age. Like, and I think that that is something that those of us who oppose them could could learn from. Yes. Be everywhere all the time, even if they don't like you and their feed.

I have this conversation constantly with people. I'm like, Oh, but the engagement is so mean. And they're like, but it's engagement. That's what Trump understands. Like all the hate comments, they're still thinking about you. You're still living, what did they say, like rent free in your head. I want to talk to you about the AP, but just really quickly, did you, I shouldn't say did you make anything, because it obviously is a big deal about the State Department taking down the statement that we do not support Taiwanese independence.

And that feels like it's flying in the face of the way that we're moving with Russia because obviously that's China's red line. That feels like signature Rubio to me, who's such a big China hawk. Do you think anything's going to come of this or? Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I kind of just see Taiwan going the same path as Ukraine, right? Where there is some resistance inside the administration that like, wants us to be stronger in that case, and that there's some resistance among Republicans on the Hill,

resistance to that word, but some views among Republicans on the Hill, and in the administration, they're more hawkish on Taiwan than Trump's itself. But Trump was asked about Taiwan at one of his 100 press conferences we were just talking about recently, more hawkish on Taiwan than Trump's itself. But Trump was asked about Taiwan at one of his hundred press conferences we were just talking about recently, and he goes on a rant about how they've been stealing our jobs and how, you know, jobs for the micro, the chips need to be coming

back to America. And I, I just, if you just looked at the tone of his comments, it didn't sound like the tone of somebody that's ready to put American defense power on the line to protect Taiwan. And I just don't see how a Trump-Vance administration, you know, who has just laid the groundwork with their followers that they only care about us first, they only care about American interests first, we shouldn't care about what's happening on the other side of the globe. If a conflagration happened with China and Taiwan, I just don't know how they can go

to their supporters and be like, oh yeah, actually we need to put in a couple hundred billion here or God forbid troops or ships or whatever. I don't see it. Marco might be trying to fool himself into thinking that Trump sees China differently because it's a bigger threat, but I think that if Bush came to shove, we'd see pretty much the same thing we see from him on Ukraine. All right. So we've got a rogue Rubio moment. That's how I see it. And I think Trump likes that actually too, by the way. I will say this. I think Trump doesn't mind if people are confused. He is not-

He benefits from us being confused. Yeah, right. And so I think it's, I don't think that he's mad at Marco over this. I think that he's like, we'll keep them on their toes. That's part of Trump's mindset. My point is just like if push comes to shove, if I'm she, I'm like, these guys aren't going to go to battle for Taiwan.

That would be the bad idea. Yeah. Let them put whatever they want on their silly website about cooperation with Taiwan. That would be the bad idea. Yeah, like let them put whatever they want on their silly website about cooperation with Taiwan. Okay, moving on to something else that I want to talk about the AP getting banned. So they were kicked out of the press briefings and then they weren't allowed a photographer and a reporter weren't allowed on the presidential plane. And there was a big, I shouldn't feel so lame to say there was a big explainer because't, it feels so lame to say there was a big explainer because it wasn't even like a real piece of journalism. But I got a nifty

newsletter from Axios talking about the kind of history of this administration's objections to the AP and basically they're mad that the AP's style book has used terms that they hate too liberally, like gender, DEI, inclusivity, et cetera. I'm old enough to remember when the other news stations stood with Fox News when the Obama administration wasn't going to let them in to do a pool briefing with a representative from the administration and basically ABC, NBC, CBS, they all said, if Fox can't do it, then we're not doing it. And then they let them in begrudgingly. But it doesn't feel like that moment is happening at all. Like everyone is bemoaning the fact that the AP is being excluded, but no one is doing anything about

it. And I mean, this feels like a pretty obvious, we A, don't know what the First Amendment means and B, we don't care. And we're running this like the Wild West. Yeah, I mean, the asymmetry is just so obvious. It's almost like, you know, it's like dog bites man to even mention it. But like, yeah, I mean, look, so in part, I actually would be defensive of the other mainstream outlets. Like, because I think that if ABC and NBC and CBS said we're going to boycott in solidarity with AP, I feel like the Trump administration would be like, okay, peace,

you know? Yeah. So it's kind of like the conservative outlets need to do it. Like, right, Bart needs to eat suits. And they're not going to. So I don't, you know, I mean, that's like the situation. I think everybody should just be aware of like what time it is and what's happening out there.

As far as like the more interesting part of this, I know obviously there's the first amendment threat here. Um, but to me is how all in these guys are going on like, you know, patriotic, what I call patriotic correctness. Like, like, you know, it's not just enough to stop doing, you know, pro DEI activities. They need to snuff out anybody that is using words or language that they don't like, right? And to a preposterous extent, right? Like the idea that like everybody has to use the new name of the Gulf that they just changed one minute ago, or else they're going to be banned, is ridiculous. And in some ways it's ridiculous as some of the most extreme things that you see on

the far left on PC, demanding that people use Latinx or whatever. And so I do wonder if it's going to backfire on them eventually. Um, I don't, are people really for this? Like it feels, it feels very mockable. So obviously it's serious, but I do think they are like very much being responsive to something that only like a tiny group of far right trolls who are super online actually care about. Um, and I don't know if that that's a path to long-term success for the right. No.

They definitely just want to get in as many kind of gloating laps early on. I think that they know that it just gets more and more complicated, and certainly as we head into special elections and the midterms and things like that, which hopefully Democrats will perform better than we did. That's interesting. So you do think that's conscious? and the midterms and things like that, which hopefully Democrats will perform better than we did. So you do think that's conscious?

Like, they're like, hey, you know, this isn't going to last forever. This like gloating honeymoon. And so we want to like rub their face and shit for as long as possible. Like, and there's like a little bit of that. I think they can look to past administrations and say, okay, you know, your first two years are when you can actually get things done, right? They have control of everything. They're definitely trying things done, right? They have control of everything. They're definitely trying it on, right, to the largest extent possible.

You know, let's ram through $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. Like, let's try to cut all of these entitlement programs. Now, they realize that they're not going to get their wish list of all of it, but they are at a moment where they're owning the culture. And so I feel like they're just taking advantage and saying, okay, well, if we have ingratiated ourselves to a segment of the American population that wouldn't have given us their time at all four, eight years ago, let's really go for it.

And you can tell that also in the attitude that Caroline Levitt, the press secretary, has about everything. I mean, she's so haughty and arrogant in the way that she delivers everything, which I, listen, I wish that I had more of that in me. I wish I didn't have such a terrible case of imposter syndromes. But like to be 27 years old and to walk up there with that, you know. It's a fact. It's the Gulf of America.

Big swinging energy. Right. This is a fact. Right. Or like every man in Gaza is wearing a condom that we paid for. Well, actually, no. No, that's not true. In Mozambique, there are some condoms that got sent. And it's the Trump bravado that if you say it a certain way, there's at least a good amount of people that are going to believe you.

And I think that they're living for the moment, right? It's like a YOLO administration at this point. And until there are real consequences, I think they're gonna go for it with everything. I mean, the AP is calling Mount Denali, Mount McKinley right now. I mean, they're doing half of the crazy thing. I wonder, is that true, like your comment

about how they're owning the culture now? I can't figure this out. Like, is that true, like your comment about how they're owning the culture now? I can't figure this out. Is that actually true or does it just kind of feel like it's true? And maybe that's a distinction without a... Would I be able to know the difference? Yeah, maybe that's a distinction without a difference, right? But I'm kind of like, is it just political obsessives who feel this way? Did people's lives really just change, like, do they change, like, their mindset

on this sort of stuff, like, overnight? I don't know. Well, they're owning infrequent voters that are 18 to 40, right? And those are real culture vultures. Those are people that are listening to podcasts. Those are people who are concerned about all of the dyes in our food. Those are people who are picking schools

for their kids to go to and are disenchanted with the public school system and wanting to get away from feeling like they have to use gender pronouns on their email signatures. I mean, these are real things that folks are thinking about. And so I don't know if owning the culture is the right way to put it, because I still don't think that Kid Rock is cooler

than Jay-Z, that will just never happen. But I watch- You can tell when Melania put those references, that's good. I know, I can't. I can't fight the 40, and I'm 41 in a couple of weeks. No, but Kid Rock was on Bill Maher on Friday night, and I found the interview

really interesting. I mean, it was first of all, I had forgotten, I guess, that he played Obama's inauguration in 08. And he was like, it's not as if I liked Obama then, you just show up and you do this. But he was essentially mocking us for like liberal leaning people and you knew to the side of the fence, but for freaking out about everything all the time. And I do think that they are owning the culture by making it clear that majority of people feel like it's just not that serious. And part of that is a mistake on Democrats part by not making it feel like it's that serious in practical ways, not like

the sky is actually going to fall, but like this is the way that your checkbook is going to be affected. This is the way your kid is going to be affected. But like people are walking around just saying, I don't think politics is that serious. And the Republican side seems like that right now. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, that goes against, you know, my entire, like, like everything in my body wants to reject that, like, you know, cause I'm like, things are

stigorous, things matter, um, actually. Um, but I do, I'm, it makes me curious about the Federman, um, kind of model because he, that like, that's kind of what he's doing basically, which is like mocking, like progressive who are like hyperventilating while just basically voting with the Democrats all the time. I don't think that every Democrat should act like that, but I do wonder if there is some potential efficacy to having a couple of Democrats out there who have

more of a slacker energy to try to break through. All right. Let's take a quick break. Stay with us. The Republicans have been saying lots of things. Just yesterday, their leader said he wants to own Gaza? The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it. On Monday, the secretary of state said an entire federal agency was insubordinate. USAID in particular, they refuse to tell us anything. We won't tell you what the money's going to, where the money's for, who has it.

Over the weekend, Vice President Elon Musk, the richest man on earth, tweeted about the same agency that, you know, gives money to the poorest people on earth. We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the woodchipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead. But what have the Democrats been saying? People are aroused. I haven't seen people so aroused in a very, very long time.

Huh. That's a weird way to put it, Senator. We're going to ask what exactly is the Democrats' strategy to push back on Republicans on Today Explained. This week on ProfGMarkets, we speak with Alice Han, China economist and director at Greenmantle. We discuss the potential impact of tariffs on China's economy, how Tesla is fairing against BYD, and how a Trump presidency could shape China's foreign and domestic policies. Trump is the biggest dove in a house full of hawks. Everyone else around him wants to push him towards being more hawkish on China, on trade, on tech, on military. And I sense that whether it's Rubio or Hegseth or Waltz, they're going to try to push the agenda of

being tougher on China and having more deterrence vis-a-vis Taiwan. You can find that conversation exclusively on the ProfG Markets podcast. Welcome back. Mayor Eric Adams just got a legal lifeline, but it came from the most controversial figure in New York politics, Donald Trump. The Trump administration's Justice Department dropped Adams' corruption case, but in a city where Trump remains deeply unpopular, that reprieve could be more of a political liability than a win. Now Adams is facing accusations of being in Trump's pocket, especially after appearing alongside Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, and making moves that align with the president's immigration policies.

Meanwhile the case's dismissal has sparked a crisis inside Trump's DOJ, a mass resignation of prosecutors, including one who accused GOJ leaders of looking for a quote, fool to take the fall. Have you been following that? Probably not as closely as me. Maybe not as closely as you, but I have been following it because here's why I'm into it. Hagen Scotton, who is the guy you mentioned, who said that, I expect you'll eventually find someone who's enough of a fool or a coward to file your motion. This guy is like special forces dude who-

Three bronze stars. I think two, maybe two, whatever. I'll give him a third for this if he only has two. But who clerked for, so I believe he was Kavanaugh and Roberts and then Danielle Sassoon, who's the original person who wrote the letter to Emil Bov, she was Scalia, a Scalia Clark. Both, I mean, both like Scott and his letter kind of subtly implies that he likes Trump. I forget exactly how he put it, but he was like, I could kind of see the perspective. He's like, some people might be quitting because they're really upset with this administration. Like that's not me. And I kind of see how a businessman could think this was a good

deal. It's just not legal. Like that's like that's TLDR summary of his letter. And so the fact that it's these two people who are fed sock folks who are stepping out. That's Federalist Society for maybe reaching moderates. Audiences are not as in it at the bulwark. Yeah. Who are like fed sock. Yeah.

You know, so they're like conservative legal folks who are just saying no, who are like standing up and saying, I'm not going to go along with this. And I think that's pretty powerful. And it comes at a time when I don't know, at least maybe just me or maybe just the bulwark people are like thirsting for people to be showing a little bit more backbone right now. And so I've, that's kind of why I've been following it less on like the legal nerd side, but just more on this is kind of how you do it as far as standing up to illiberal actions. Yeah. I mean, I was into it. I had been feeling starved, I guess,

for some old school intellectual resistance, I guess. Not people out there with a sign, you know, like hands off my whatever. But, you know. I'm okay with those signs too, but yeah, sure. Yeah, I like them, but they're not getting us really anywhere at this point. But it feels like what they're doing is because it's a harbinger of bad things to come. So the Adams case itself, or at least what we know about it, you would expect more, I guess, in the indictment. He definitely broke the law. And

I thought that Sassoon's letter was very specific about that. And that does matter to people that are career prosecutors who take the law very seriously. But to me, I felt a little bit of a, if you think that we're just going to roll over for all of this from like the lighter fair of this, which obviously has very real implications for New York City politics and national politics even, but that they're scared of what this administration is going to be asking them to do. Like, Pam Bondi will see us all as folks that are ready to just line up and rubber stamp whatever is to come and they can't help the fact, even though Bondi was one of the lesser controversial

nominees, which just speaks to how crazy the set of nominees were. But you know, Pam Bondi was all in on the 2020 election, was rigged out there front and center on that. And to me, it felt like a little bit of a cry for help or at least a signal of like, we can't be there for whatever they are going to try because they've spent so much time bemoaning quote unquote, lawfare. And it is very clear that they are looking to weaponize

everything back for their own benefit. Yeah. And we also had a US trainee down here and Louisiana who quit. I think that there are a lot of those warning signs happening. And this guy, the US trainee down here in Louisiana who quit. I think that there are a lot of those warning signs happening. And this guy, the character that I've been watching closely in this thing is this, I kind of hate saying his name, Emil Bove. Kind of want to call him like Emil Bove. I don't know. It's kind of a pretentious for another

name, for one for a maga. But anyway, Bove was the person who in this assumed letter, I think the most powerful thing was like in the first footnote where she was like, someone was taking notes in the meeting where they told us that they were going to, you know, about the deal on the prosecution and he collected the notes at the end of the meeting, which is like no note taking, which, you know, feels very fascistic. Though also kind of dumb, sort of, and I guess a lot of times fascism is dumb, like dumb bad, it's like, okay, well, the notes are gone, but people can still talk. I prefer it when it's dumb, because at least we can talk about it, that he took away the notes.

Yeah, and so, but he's the same guy who is at the center of the FBI firings, right? And there's that whistleblower, and if you saw that over the weekend where, you know, they were saying that Cash Patel lied during his confirmation hearing because, um, you know, the note taking in that meeting, the FBI meeting said that, Boves had said that Cash Patel had and Stephen Miller were the ones that were asking for this. So they have this like kind of henchmen in at the DOJ. And so I think that it is pretty, it is good that, you know, cause there's always

this debate, right? Like should people like the stay, would we rather have Hagen Scott and in there than whoever replaces them? And, and I think that in my view, it's actually better for these folks to, you know, uh, kick up a cloud of dust here and like draw attention to this person so people can watch it. So it's not like happening, you know, behind the scenes and cloak and dagger. Yeah, though you do need good people to stay. I said a couple of weeks ago that we're, it's going to require thousands of Mike Pence's to make it through whatever is to come over the course of the next four years.

So I agree with you and I think it's also matters that this is happening so early on. I can't believe we're only in the beginning of the fourth week of this. But we are going to need people who are interested in the rule of law in a traditional sense, not in the rule of law just because I said so in Napoleonic slash Trump terms to reference his weekend tweeting, which did not feel like him at all. I don't know. That felt more Musk. Here's the thing that made me think it might be him. I was reading an article and that quote is actually from a movie called Waterloo that's not from Napoleon. And it's like...

It's accredited. I guess. It's like maybe apocryphal,, but the direct quote is from Waterloo, the movie. The movie was in 1970. And that to me feels like it could be a Trump cultural reference. He might have watched a 1970s movie about Napoleon. That feels like the thing he might have watched. But maybe not. I don't know.

Because I agreed with you. Initially, it did feel musky. Or Stephen Miller, someone got control of the phone for a second. I don't want to belabor that Adam's stuff that much, but part of the deal that I guess he's made, which he claims he hasn't made a deal with the administration, but it's quite obvious since he had to sit on the Fox and Friends couch and be humiliated by Tom Homan a couple of days ago. But is that they'll be easing or he's going to try to ease sanctuary city laws as it applies to Rikers. And the way that sanctuary city policy works in New York is that ICE can't be near the prisons. And the reason that that's the case

is not necessarily that we don't want criminals to be deported, but it's because they could pick up people who haven't actually been convicted yet, people who have just been charged and not gone through their due process, which they're entitled to. Do you have any views kind of thinking about the macro issue that I think liberals are finding themselves in as having been way too lax about illegal migration and even too lax

on people who are here illegally and then committing violent crimes on how we should be approaching sanctuary policy? Yeah. So my viewpoint, which is I think different from some of, from like kind of the conventional wisdom among democratic strategists is that like, maybe in February of 2025, like the right thing to do is to fight these guys tooth and nail and to figure out what happened and figure out with how things shake out. And in 2026 summer, you can decide to be strategic and like figure out what happened and figure out with how things shake out. And in 2026 summer, you can decide to be strategic and like figure out which issues

are the right ones for the electorate. Like we don't fucking know what's going to happen over the next year. So just fight them and try to make them fail. My exception to that is like on some of these, like there are a couple of policies where just the Democrats like obviously got out way too far to the left away from public opinion. And I, and I just, I do think sanctuary cities is one of them. I'm so like, I was like the compassionate conservative, most Republican. I was, I'm like about as liberal on immigration as you can get. Like I was part of the group of Republicans that the Republican

voters wanted to overthrow. And like the kind of McCain View of the world immigration. So like I am extremely Sympathetic to immigrants and the plight of immigrants who are fleeing, you know Oppression or fleeing whatever and want to come to America. That's what America is about Like that said like some of the sanctuary, you know, like some of the sanctuary city stuff, it just got overboard. It was just kind of crazy. Like, and I understand there might be like a specific reason why it makes sense to not have ice in the prisons, but I just think that like fighting over whether prisoner illegal migrants who committed crimes in this country should be

deported is like maybe one of the fights I would say, I think you can take a pass on this one, if you're a Democrats. So that would be, that's my view on that. Yeah, that's definitely the way that a lot of Democrats feel you. You already referenced John Fetterman, or you'd be like, why are you wasting my time with this? Right? This is, you're in a privileged position that you got to be here illegally in the first

place. And you can just see the next iteration of the Charlemagne ad about giving transgender surgeries for undocumented people in prison being written about something like this. It doesn't change the fact that the city council has to be the ones to revise sanctuary city laws. But I tend to agree with you that kicking up a massive fuss about it probably just allows Trump and co to continue to say that we're so out of step with where culture is.

Here's the other thing, they are going to overstep on immigration. So here's the area where I would say Democrats do not, like don't need to be over cautious. People do not want dreamers to be deported. People don't want that. People don't want people who are in this country, whose parents brought them to this country when they were kids, to be deported or to be separated from their families. And there are already a couple of examples of like very sympathetic individuals who are being either detained by ICE, like one, like there was like a guy in Newark who is a veteran who is like detained by ICE. And so I think that there are going to be ways to

fight immigration, you know, immigration from a humanitarian standpoint that are beneficial for Democrats and they should choose those fights rather than fighting over whether prison deportations like happen or not under the administration. Yeah, that leads me to something I've been thinking about in general about like where Democrats show up and stand up and amplifying stories like that on a local level versus in DC.

I mean, DC, unless you represent Virginia or Maryland, I don't think any of this should be going on in DC. I think you need to be back with your people and talking about stories like that. There was another one in Milwaukee, which I talked about on the five and rarely do my colleagues just shut up. But they were like, oh my God, that happened where they took in a toddler, a mom, and a grandmother for speaking Spanish.

And someone had to come with birth certificates, they were Puerto Rican, to get them out of the detention center. And the idea of a two-year-old in a detention center for allegedly, you know, where we're going to be holding people that have committed violent crimes and were here illegally when they're Americans and did nothing but speak another language, uh, seemed to hit the audience hard. Um, so.

And this is to me, and this is what I would say local is fine, but what you're doing is I think probably the most useful. Like on Fox and on conservative media platforms and on culturally conservative platforms, again, people have this totally wrong view of what the Manosphere podcasters think about all this stuff. They're like Bernie Bros. Yeah. You give specific examples like the ones you're giving, like they're 80% issues. Like people do not want most people besides racists and like extreme, you know, far right freaks do not want people detained for speaking Spanish in this country.

Like that is not something that is popular actually. And so if you can focus on a couple of those examples and bring them in to the lion's den, I think that is like a much more useful way to spend time than having a press conference on the hill. I know Jared Moskowitz, I saw it was on Fox over the weekend. I just think that like more is more on this stuff. I obviously agree with you. And that's always great when I see others showing up, not even necessarily to get the clickbait that worked in 2016, you know, how everything was just about owning the other side and there were those huge

fights. Now it's like showing up and being reasonable makes even more of a difference because people's partisan lines have been completely scrambled, right? You can't predict it anymore in the same way. And so if you show up like Jared Moskowitz did and you sound reasonable about immigration, you know, he was one of the first ones to say, let me in the Doge caucus, for instance, but then you hold the line about stuff that really matters and it gets amplified like that because he was on, you know, on primetime. They love it. They're going to get the clip out into their ether.

We'll get their clip out into our ether. And suddenly, you know, Jared Moskowitz is president. Yeah. Well, it's a eulogist to God's ears. But yeah, the prime example of this that I saw recently was Zelensky did the Lex Friedman interview, Lex Friedman. And like, if you just look at the comments on Lex Friedman's YouTube, which is like, he is, he's like Magna in the Musk way, right? Like he is like contrarian or whatever. He's not like a far right. He's not like a social conservative. You know what I mean? Like he's like a contrarian. So he's in that sort of ecosystem. And so it's like that is a mostly anti-Ukraine ecosystem. Zalanski

does the interview and like there were a lot of people in the comments that were just kind of like, huh, like, oh, I was expecting to hate him a lot more or he made a couple points, you know, like, so anyway, it's worth doing that. Or even people with that interview in particular who are big Lex Friedman people, but thought like he went too far in pushing him to say that Russia should get to keep territory that they obviously illegally took. I thought that was even if it was just for that soundbite, that it was worth the three hours of Zelensky's time to do it.

I want to get to the future of the anti-Trump Republican faction, but quickly, are you pro Cuomo, anti-Cuomo? Because did you see the ad he released, the Valentine's Day ad where he's with all of these older women, mostly women of color talking about how tough it is right now for New Yorkers, but we can always find a way forward and that the opposite of hate, the four-letter word that matters most is love. I think it was the phraseology. I am anti-quomo. I think that he handled COVID atrociously in addition to just all of his personal misdeeds. He handled COVID atrociously in addition to just all of his personal misdeeds.

I maybe have some personal bias. I've got some friends who are in, who are in a conflict with Andrew Cuomo, let's just say. And so I think he's kind of a creep. I will say though, like Democrats need more people that like, who, who are like Cuomo who talk normal. And he talks Italian, but like you can tell he's being authentically himself. He doesn't talk like a fucking valedictorian kid that's trying to appease the bosses in a PowerPoint presentation. And, um, I think that Democrats could learn from that. And, um, I don't, you know, I don't, I'm no fan of his in particular, but I think that that

is people want it. I won't, I wouldn't be surprised if he's successful in the mayor's race. Yeah, it's pretty crazy to think about, but the amount of normie Democrats that I know who don't like Cuomo for a whole host of reasons, whether it's the sexual harassment charges or even the management of COVID and lost people in nursing homes and just really wanted an apology for him that he couldn't get out there, just couldn't muster the strength to say,

I would have done things a little bit differently, which I think would have gone a tremendously long way. They're like, I could use a competent gangster right now. Like the city is in shitty trouble at this point. I hate being on the subway and he feels like when you look at Adams on the other side of this and you think I'm not going to go for someone as progressive as like Scott Stringer, that he might be the answer. Um, woof.

All right. Uh, one more break. It's just depressing. It is a little depressing. Um, but one more quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back. Before we wrap, and we've already been touching on this

a little bit, but I want to get into it more deeply with you. Um, there aren't that many Republicans openly pushing back against Trump's agenda these days. Mitch McConnell, for instance, was the lone Republican to vote against confirming Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. And Tim, you pointed out on the bulwark that even the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, usually pretty Trump friendly, finally took a shot at his economic policies. What do you think is the

future for the anti-Trump Republicans in a party that seems like they've given up a bit besides an editorial or two? Yeah, there's no future. Yeah, there's no future. There's no present. I felt like, I felt this way for a while. I'll give you a little scoop. I don't know if this is a scoop. Anybody cares about me would care about this. Nobody else would. But like I was planning on writing a book that was about, you know, that was the shorthand pitch for it was Trump is forever. That I just like, I felt like that, that the MAGA, that the Republican voters want Trump or something like it, right?

Like whatever comes after Trump, if he ever goes away, you know, will obviously not be a carbon copy of him because he has like a lot of unique traits and eccentricities and like it's, you know, you've seen how hard it is to copy him at the local level and how that has failed in other ways with, you know, Kerry Lake and others. But directionally, like the idea that of America first, of fighting these culture war battles, of not caring about norms and institutions and not caring about the traditional free markets and free people ethos of the 80s and 90s and 2000s Republicans, like all of that is gone, right?

And it was already going to be gone, even if Kamala Harris had one. Um, because that's just what that parties are just parties are not actually. Permanent coherent ideological groups. They are a reflection of a group of people and that group of people can change over time and it might change them up, might change the nature of the party. And Trump has massively changed the makeup of the Republican party. And as a result, that will be in his image for at least, you know, until the next realignment for probably a quarter century or something.

So I just think that is what's happening. I think that there'll be individual fights on the, on the outskirts, right? Like you mentioned this Wall Street journal article, which was an attack on him over tariffs and pushing for lower interest rates, given that's for inflation. You know, if we get into a more normal future in 2028 where Trump doesn't try to run again and like, you know, there's a primary, there will be some people who are like Trumpy or pro-tariff and there'll be some people who are more traditional, free market conservative

on trade. And on some of those issues, you know, it won't always fall on the Trump side of the line. I think that there will still be skirmishes, little skirmishes in the ideological coalition, but directionally things are to Trump and people, nobody is going to stand up to them except for people like Mitch McConnell who are already one foot out the door. And that's basically what we've seen for like a decade now. Do you have any idea about what happened during these confirmations to people like Lisa Murkowski,

Susan Collins, Todd Young in Indiana, or I should say from Indiana, who was really anti-Tulsi, for instance? I mean, is it straight like doxing, threatening you with a primary? Like Bill Cassidy already voted to convict him. So I don't, this idea that he promised Cassidy to essentially, RFK Jr., to not be who he is, right? And to say, you can be my dad and you can check in on me every day and make sure that I'm not going to do these things when even the CDC site already has information about the flu down. So obviously that's not going to hold up. Like what level of threatening or trolling was going on to make people like this

lay down and vote for every single one of these nominees. Yeah. And the Joni Ernst thing with Hegseth was the, was really, you know, I think the task is for this. I mean, I was in, I, so I worked in Iowa in a couple of campaigns. I was in Iowa, um, uh, like during when all this was happening, it was like about, and I was like at an event with a lot of Republicans. Um, and, uh, and you know, it was like in between when she had spoken out and when she had kind of folded, right. And there to a, to a person, I could not find a person at this event that thought

she was going to hold the line eventually. And there were some very pro-Joanie people there, right. And, and to people who like her and wish she would have held the line. I got across the board, I got to people who are like me, who are elapsed. people who are like me, who are elapsed. Everybody thought, no, because the voters wanted, you know, want Trump to get what he wants. Like that's what they want. And so she was just getting totally bullied online phone calls.

And I think the other senators really saw that. I think in addition to that, I do think in these private meetings, Trump and them basically said to the nominees, just tell these people whatever they want to hear, who cares? We'll figure it out on the back end, right? Again, because these are not rigid ideologues. Like it's, it's, that is not what Trump is. So I think that helped, you know, give a rationale to some of these senators to do the easy thing. And I also just, I, Jesse, I just fundamentally don't think anybody was going to actually stand up besides McConnell, who's one step out the door and Murkowski and Collins will choose their spots because they have kind of a different sort of brand.

Everybody else, I was with Gates at a TP, I go to the TPUSA annual gathering every year to just kind of, well, you live in Fox world. I don't, I want to make sure I'm not in my little bubble, my little resistance, you know, former never Trump bubble. It feels like a very unsafe place to test it out. It's fine. No, no, no. No, it's fine. The types of people that go to those sorts of things are the people you got to worry about are the people who are alone in their basement getting radicalized, honestly, like people that show up to a gathering. I've at least

I've found them to be relatively sociable. I had a few people shit talk to me, but I never felt unsafe. They're not bad to your face. Yeah. I've always found everyone is like, I feel so terrible that I've been calling you the C word online for three years. And I'm like, well, stop doing that. And I'm so nice. Do you want a picture? Yeah, that's hilarious. So anyway, I was with Gates and I was like, why did you drop? Like

I was like, because I think that you were going to get through. And Gates was like, well, John Curtis, the guy from Utah who replaced Mitt told me, and I, I wasn't, it wasn't an interview. So I wasn't taping it. So I forget the exact line, but it was, it was something like I would sacrifice my children before I would confirm you. It was some like very ostentatious comment about, and so Gates was like, I didn't think, you know, it was clear I wasn't going to get through. And I said to him, I was like, ah, Curtis would have folded.

And I like really think I'm right about that. Like I do, I do think that there is a lot of behind the scenes people, you know, trying to use a little influence they can without creating any backlash. Like when push comes to shove, like the voters are where their voters are. And so like that is why you're not seeing anybody like the Todd Youngs of the world actually stand up. Yeah. Unpopular opinion, but I don't think that you have to do everything that the voters

want. Like they picked a person who can also think for themselves, who broadly represents their interests, right? And understands their constituency, but can think for themselves. So if you pick, you know, one of 15 people that you don't think is unqualified for to kind of lay down your marker in the sand and say, your children will be vaccinated,

or we will not have someone who thinks Assad wasn't really that bad, that that might be good for you long-term, but I'm also not running for public opinion me I say that to the Republicans I talk to you all the time and fewer and fewer of them actually want to talk to me So, you know, maybe that's part of my lot. My influence isn't working But I'm like you don't have to be me. I'm not asking Republican senators or congressmen to troll Trump Online, you know to try to own him, you

know, to like fight everything. Like, there's a huge space between me and like total submission. And it's just like, they've kind of decided to abandon that whole space. Like there's just nobody that has decided to try to occupy that and succeed. And I think that's wrong. I think people could, I mean, Collins, I guess, as the example, like I don't really love Susan Collins or everything that she's done, but she did manage to occupy that space in between total never Trumper

and total Trump sycophant, and it worked for her. She was like the only Senator, well, this cycle a couple happened, but before, you know, during the first Trump, she was the only Senator that won and went the opposite way as the state in 2016 and 2020. Yeah. You're saying that I wasted my dollars on Sarah Gideon.

No, I think that was a worthwhile use of dollars for Sarah Gideon. I don't know if you gave any money to Jamie Harrison or that might have been a waste. No. I have a friend who is a doctor and loves politics, but isn't in the day-to-day insanity. She'll send me a New York Times article the day after, and she'll be like, can you believe this? And I'm like, I need to talk to you about how fast the news

cycle goes. But she'll regularly send me a link to various Democrats, and she goes, worth my money? I'm like, well, how much money are you trying to? If you want to be spreading $10 all over the place, go ahead for it. But Amy McGrath is never going to be the senator that takes Mitch McConnell's seat. Okay. Thank you so much for being here. That's it for this episode. Thank you for joining us, Tim, and the Raging Moderates crew. Our producers are David Toledo and Chinene Onike.

Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. You can now find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday. That's right, its own feed. There you'll get exclusive interviews with smart voices in politics like our latest guest, Congressman Pat Ryan. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts. Also follow Tim in all of Bulwark world. Thank you for being with us.

Well, just me. Scott's not here, but he loves you from afar. I loved it. Good to be here. We'll do that again soon. Peace. Bye.