The Daily Beast Podcast - Charles Booker, a 'Black Guy from the Hood,' Wants Rand Paul's Seat

Episode Date: November 2, 2021

In this election day episode of The New Abnormal, Rand Paul challenger and former Kentucky Congressman Charles Booker explains why the senator’s exit is long overdue, and why he’s the one to take his seat. Plus, The Nation columnist Jeet Heer breaks down America’s anti-vaccine sentiment compared to other countries and Sam Wang, who is part of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project team, explains the Virginia governor race and how likely it is for former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe to defeat Trump-backed Republican Glenn Youngkin. If you haven't heard, every single week The New Abnormal does a special bonus episode for Beast Inside, the Daily Beast’s membership program. where Sometimes we interview Senators like Cory Booker or the folks who explain our world in media like Jim Acosta or Soledad O’Brien. Sometimes we just have fun and talk to our favorite comedians and actors like Busy Phillips or Billy Eichner and sometimes its just discussing the fuckery. You can get all of our episodes in your favorite podcast app of choice by becoming a Beast Inside member where you’ll support The Beast’s fearless journalism. Plus! You’ll also get full access to podcasts and articles. To become a member head to newabnormal.thedailybeast.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Molly Jong-Fast and welcome to The Daily Beast, The New Abnormal. I'm a left-wing pundit and an editor-at-large at the Daily Beast. We're here to have fun, sharp conversations with some of the smartest people in media, politics, and science that help make what's happening in the country and the world clearer. Our world has been turned up day down. On The New Abnormal, we'll talk about the people who got us into this mess and figure out how to get ourselves out of it. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon. I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails.

Today we have an excellent show. Charles Booker, who's running for the Senate in Kentucky against one of the new abnormal's least favorite clowns, Rand Paul, will join us to talk about his campaign. Then we'll talk to scientists Sam Wang about his work with the Princeton gerrymandering project. And now that we know how gerrymandering from the latest census is shaking out, he'll tell us what to expect and explain it to us.

But first, we have show favorite, columnist at the nation, and substacker, Jeet here. Welcome to the new abnormal Jeet here. Good to be here, as always. You're a frequent flyer here because you were such fans, even though you are not in America. That's right, yeah. If Trump was re-elected in 2024, I feel like you'll all be coming to stay at my place. Yeah, we will. And in fact, we're going to be like, who do we talk to about getting visas? Actually, around the last election, we did talk to a lawyer about just to find out how hard it would be. And it's fascinating because your national health care system is actually like very determinative about immigration.

Yeah, I don't know. That makes sense. Yeah. So it's harder to get old people in than younger people, which is fascinating. Yeah, yeah. That makes sense. Like a lot of Western societies, we need more young people to keep the old people around. And it's fascinating because it is like the thing with the immigration.

conversation that Trumpists don't want you to have, the conversation they don't want you to have when they're like caravans coming to our southern border is that actually like we are going to be Japan. Yeah, no, no, that's a really fascinating point. Yeah, I mean, like, we're already kind of seen it now with the labor shortages and with like, you know, the so-called great retirement or whatever. I mean, like, coming out of the pandemic, a lot of people are taking early retirement. So these are all going to be kind of pressing questions. So, I feel the whole immigration debate is going to be in flux. Right.

Well, I don't know. I mean, this is like a fundamental problem I feel like with everything with Trumpus, like for vaccines. We all thought, or at least I certainly thought, well, we'll get this vaccine. And then people will want to take it because they won't want to die, right? That would seem like a very rational hot take. But in fact, we have a lot of Trumpists who are convinced that taking the vaccine will somehow be a win for the Biden. administration and they'd rather just, you know, take their chances. And, and I mean, it seems to me, and I want to talk to you about this, like, because you're in

Canada, you don't have that in Canada, right? Yeah, no, no. I mean, there is a little bit of regional polarization in the sense of, unfortunately, where I am, which is in Western Canada, in Saskatchewan, the provinces that are most like sort of Texas, like Alberta and Saskatchewan are having the worst time of it because the governments have been a little but lacks. But there's not the same degree of political polarization around this. And I think one thing that we're fortunate about is that anti-vaxia people

had their own party, which got five, the PPC, which is a breakaway from the conservatives. And they got, but it's a 5% in the last election. Now, but if you have a situation where the anti-vaxxers, you only have two parties and one of them, the anti-vaxers are like a big proportion, then the the politicians, even if they, you know, get vaccinated themselves, they want to say, like, well, it's an individual choice. I mean, I think it's the dissantis situation in Florida, right? Right. Exactly. So, so, yeah, I don't think what's happening in the United States,

I don't think, I've never, as far as I know, has no parallel to any other, like, developed country of, like, that sort of level of ideological polarization on vaccines. It's just, and I mean, I speak to a broader issue, which is, we're morons. Even the smartest of us, are not that smart. Beyond the morons, it says you have the morons in a political party. Yes, yes, yes. If the morons were more evenly distributed across the two political parties, you could actually get something done.

But because they're all concentrated in one party and it becomes more beyond. I think it's a little bit like the UK. In a way, the UK is worse off because they really, you know, their liberal party is kind of in trouble. And their conservative party while being slightly less insane, it's still chock a block with idiots. Yeah, yeah, that might be the one point of comparison. And yeah, there's always in which Boris Johnson is a kind of Trumpian figure.

Although even there, I mean, like, I mean, to put in a word for American exceptionalism, I mean, the UK Conservative Party, first of all, I mean, Boris Johnson ran on saying he would spend more money on health care and would show up the national healthcare system. And secondly, like, they accept climate change. I mean, like, you know, they're not doing enough like all governments in the world, but it is not a government of climate denial. So, yeah, I just think I mean, I think the unique American dilemma if I want to get like on a big philosophical scale is that the way the political system is set up, it's not really made for that degree of polarization, that like the American politics works best when there's a kind of broad consensus and also that the two parties are heterogeneous. That is say, if you have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, that means that, you know, you could have some Republicans voting for civil rights as they did under Lyndon Johnson, right?

Right. Conversely, under Reagan, have some conservative Democrats who voted for some of his things. But if you have the two parties so polarized, then it's actually hard to get anything done because there's so many points, veto points, and there's so many hurdles, and you need supermajorities to get a lot of done. So the basic problem, and this is a lot of it. goes beyond Trump, it predates Trump. It really, I think, is a Mitch McConnell problem or a Newt Gingrich problem. But like, like those guys set out to make the two political parties ideologically homogeneous in, on a congressional level. And they really push to make the Republicans like a unified right-wing party in a way that it hadn't been before. And that really makes America ungovernable. I mean, like, I'm sorry. Like, it's just like. It's a Newt Gingrich problem, really. Yeah, I think Gingrich is a real root of this. Yeah, fucking New Gingrich. Yeah, so, I mean, like, this is something I always say, I've been saying since 2015.

I mean, Trump is terrible, but he's the epiphenomeno. He's like the late stage cancer that you get like, you know, apologies for people. There's a harsh metaphor, but, you know, he's the late stage disease, but there were many earlier things that were the actual root cause. And so, yeah, I mean, I think honestly, like, I get annoyed at the Democrats, but I have to say, like, considering the fact how hard it is to get unified parties and how thin the margins are in Congress, like it's kind of amazing they're getting anything down. No, it's amazing. And I think if you didn't have sort of the press of the possibility of authoritarianism and the other party, you would see a more divided Democratic Party. Because remember, the Democratic Party is really a big tent party, right? The Republican Party is just like, if you love Donald Trump, you're here. Yeah. So I do think that's right. I have a thought here, which is we were talking about this vaccine and how people are willing to basically die to prove their allegiance to Donald Trump and their hatred of Joe Biden. We are right now, there's a huge climate summit going on. Yes. And a lot of people I've seen, and I think it's really true, have said there's a worry that the way Republicans have acted towards a vaccine is likely how they're going to act about climate, which is they're willing to die to prove a point. Yeah, I think that's more than a worry. I mean, like, I feel the whole COVID thing is in some ways a test run. Yeah, that's what I'm doing. And it's like, you know, we're seeing like all the kind

problems. You know, like also some of the positive stuff, like, you know, like there has been like amazing. It's amazing what technological breakthroughs you can get if your life is on the line, right? Like if you actually, you know, have a virus that's going to kill so many people, the government, as the American government did, you know, under the advice of Fauci, uh, poured in like, you know, billions into research and they got it. And I think that's the more positive. If you had governments that actually felt like climbing is so urgent, like there's all sorts of things that could be done.

But the problem is that you're not going to get that level of unity. What the pandemic has shown is that like any of these, anything like a big structural change is going to produce a blowback, especially if you have people that are kind of committed to the act, right? They're committed to the bit. Like they're like the Andy Kaufman of politics. Right. You know, they'll take this to a further edge.

I will say that I think that it's a kind of combination of an alliance between the evil and the idiotic, right? And one sees this like in Fox News where like, you know, I actually think Rupert Murdoch was one of the very first people on the entire planet to get the vaccine. Oh, yeah, one of the first in the planet. Yeah, yeah, yeah. As soon as it was, you know, like they immediately, as soon as it was discovered, like they immediately. December, I think. Yeah, yeah. His agents or whatever, like, you know, like immediately took it from the national health. Of course. So he could, so it's like Mr. Burns. He can continue to live to be 150 years old. And, you know, like Fox News has a vaccination policy. It's very rigid actually. I think they test people like every day. Yeah. All the people are Fox News. And those are the evil people. They will lie. They will like go on air and cast doubt on vaccine because it serves their interest. But they're going to get vaccinated. And then on the other end, you get the people as you believe this.

And this is a, you can see the cost structure with the, the low-level conservative radio host who dies of COVID. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They were like five or six radioos. Those people drank the Kool-A. They actually believed this nonsense. Yeah. So they were unlike Tucker Carlton.

I think the same thing happens with climate where I think people like, you know, like Burdock or Tucker Carlton, they know climate change is coming. I think they think like, you know, if I'm rich enough, I can, you know, protect myself and my family. We'll just like, you know, it'll be like plenty of the apes out there, but I'll be in my little retreat on the top of Kilimanjero. Yeah. Surrounded by 10,000 bodyguards and my Bitcoin and gold. Right, which is possible.

I mean, the brunt of a lot of this climate stuff, the people are going to die are going to be poorer people. I mean, eventually it'll get everyone, but, you know, it will take time. You'll take time, yeah. Whereas conversely, there are a lot of, like, you know, Republican voters, who actually will believe the climate-denial stuff and are more likely, they're going to be the people at the front of the line, right? They're the frontline soldiers. And as with COVID, it's their houses that are going to be like underwater.

They're going to be like in the areas where they're drought and they won't have, you know, like armed bodyguards making sure that their supply chain is safe. So it's a real problem not to be too pessimistic. I mean, I think almost uniquely the, the American political system, I want to emphasize this because I think this is the way out eventually. Like the American political system with its requirement of supermajorities, with all its undemocratic features, you know, like really is the problem. And that's where the Democrats have to be attacking.

And that's why things like filibuster reform and Voting Rights Act and expanding the courts are so important. I mean, if you think about climate, right, like, where are going to be the hurdles? One big hurdle is just the Senate, right? And Obama had this. They came, they were pretty close to getting some sort of climate action, but they just couldn't get this. And they had like 58, 59 senators at one point. And the real problem is that the way the Senate is organized,

where, you know, like Wyoming has the same number of seats as California, right? And so places that think that are more rural, more white, think that they're more insulated from climate. You know, like they're just overrepresented. So even if you have, you know, 60, 70% of the population that wants, you know, climate accident, the Senate is a big hurdle. And the other big hurdle, I hate to tell you this, is going to be the courts. Biden is going to try to use, you know, as Obama did, EPA to, like, enforce climate action and is going to go to the courts.

And you saw the Supreme Court has already put that on the docket. It's on the docket. And I'll tell you something, the guy to watch is Gorsak, because. I don't know if you remember this. His mom tried to abolish the EPA. Yes. And also, he ruled on that case where the truck driver froze to death. Yes.

Right. Pro-business, I mean, anti-worker. Yeah, yeah, pro-business, anti-worker, and very has this libertarian ideology that the government shouldn't be doing anything in this matter. And, yeah, I mean, like, it's literally in his blood. Like, this is almost like a super villain story, you know? The mom tried to destroy the EPA. and couldn't. And, you know, the sun grows up

because of the Supreme Court justice, and he will do it. He will finish the job. It's unbelievable. I mean, it's a dire situation, but I think that it's a situation that forces, you know, should force Democrats to think more broadly if they do that. About the Supreme Court. Yeah.

I think that there's two paths forward, or there's a couple of paths forward. One is to expand the courts. I mean, the other is Congress has the power to, like, change the jurisdiction of the courts. And they could just say, this is not, like, within the court's mandate, right? And that's a very radical move. It would involve, like, a big change in, like, sort of constitutional law. But, like, you know, like, the stakes are so high.

I think that people have to be thinking about that. And my big worry, and we've seen them to expand the courts, you know, because Biden had that commission and they came up against that. Right. They came up with nothing. The problem here, I think, is a big law and the liberal legal establishment. And all these people that are like the advisors on this, they're all like law school graduates. And that's an indoctrination process.

You know, you get indoctrinated thinking the law is sacred, the law of supreme. This is why you get people like, you know, Brayor saying the courts are not political. We're just like, you know, these, we're like the watcher in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We're just like observing and coming to judgment. And I mean, I think ideologically that generation wants that to be true. But everyone knows it's not. Exactly, exactly. And I think with both Breer and Ginsburg, they were really committed to this.

And that's part of what got us into this problem, right? Exactly. Right. No, I mean, that's having Breyer up there being like, no, no, no, no. Like, he is really on the path to Ginsburg his way into a seven to, Supreme Court. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they're so committed to the idea that the court will be disinterested that you're going to get like, you know, seven, eventually eight or nine, you know, Clarence Thomas Jones. I mean, what's amazing to me is I was listening to these, I was listening

to these arguments this morning, you know, basically the argument today on Monday, they're listening to oral arguments about whether, really, whether Texas can just do whatever the fuck it wants. I mean, ultimately, like, it's not abortion. It's more of, like, how the law is structured. And though the slyrons on cable news, I'll say it's abortion, which it's not. I mean, I think abortion will come in December, but when they overturn Roe v. Wade officially. But, I mean, as you and I both know, Roe has been overturned already in Texas. Yeah.

Well, I mean, here's the day. I actually think, like, I'm pretty optimistic, just from listening to stuff this morning, that, like, the Texas law, I think there might be a majority. just because it's like too roundabout and it's too clearly like stepping on the kind of sneak past the courts. I actually think that the majority might prefer to actually just get rid of role, like on their own, right? Like that's our job. Don't you do it, Texas? I think that's right because I think that ultimately what's happening here is they are being asked to vote if like states can just override them.

Right. I mean, that's really the question. The question is like, can Texas just make a law and enforce it without having to worry about what the real laws of the country are. And they know that if they do that, then California can make laws that take away people's guns and enforce them. Exactly right.

Yeah. Yeah. And just on a peer level of power, the Supreme Court will be low to have a majority that limits their own power, right? I honestly think they want to be the ones to do it. And why not?

Well, not they have like 6'3. I mean, it's always going to be a question. I mean, I think maybe Roberts, my chicken out, but that gives you 5-4, right? Like, when it comes down to Roe v. Wade, and they might try to find a way to, like, overturn it, but not overturn it. Like, say, we're still affirming it. But, you know, here are these new restrictions, which are basically a total ban, right?

Yeah, exactly. I mean, you know, what I just want to, like, harken back to is that the conservatives in Congress voted against subpoenaing Steve Bannon, right, against enforcing. the subpoena on Steve Bannon, they voted against criminal enforcing it. Democrats won, but you really did have a case there where Republicans voted against their own power, right, to limit their own power in order to help Trump. And I don't think the Supreme Court will do that because they don't have to worry about re-election.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I think that's right. Yeah, yeah. It's so interesting. I'm so, you know, it's like fascinating and terrifying. Yeah, yeah. It's a great spectacle. Hey folks, if you haven't heard every single week we do a special bonus episode for Beast Inside, the Daily Beast membership program.

Sometimes we interview senators like Corey Booker or the folks who explain what's happening behind the scenes in media like Jim Acosta or Soladad O'Brien. Sometimes we just have fun and talk to our favorite comedians and actors like Busy Phillips or Billy Eichner. And sometimes we just have friends around to analyze what's happening in the news. You can get all of our episodes in your favorite podcast app of choice by becoming a beast inside member where you'll support the beast fearless journalism, as well as getting full access to podcasts and articles. To become a member, head to new abnormal.com. That's new abnormal.com. Charles Booker is a former Kentucky House of Representatives member and is looking to get the nomination to run in Kentucky against Senator Rand Paul. Welcome to the new abnormal,

Charles Booker. Thank you. It's going to be with you. We're very excited to have you. There are a lot of things I want to talk to you about. The first thing is, like, you are in Kentucky. You are in a state that has a pretty disenfranchised Democratic Party. And I'm curious to know how do you run for office in that state? Well, the first thing is that we don't wait for the party. There are a lot of people that are fighting for change, and we are facing some real headwinds that I'm very clear about. You know, we've, as a Commonwealth, been at the bottom and damn near every measurable index of good quality of life. And we are facing a political status quo that gives you the likes of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. I realize that in order for us to do things different, we have to show the type of leadership that meets people where they are.

And that means that we got to build more infrastructure and do more organizing. And so I realize that the Democratic Party is in the best position to seize on the realities that we face, that we need leaders of the going to value human beings and humanity and prioritize addressing poverty and not profiting from it. But we aren't waiting. And the thing that gives me a lot of hope, though, is Democrats from across the Commonwealth as well as independents and folks that are registered as Republicans, even people that voted for Trump are rallying with my campaign early because they realize this is about them. It's not about partisan games. Yeah. So let's talk about one of the things I feel like I've heard you say or I've read that you've said in interviews,

is sort of you're using Stacey Abrams as a kind of model. Yeah. The first time I set eyes on the world, you know, I trust black women. And the thing that Stacey understood well that I've taken notes from is that when you do meet people where they are and you do deep organizing and you invest in people and you focus on building coalitions. and not simply conceding the narrative that you can win. And, you know, people didn't give Georgia a shot in hell. You know, they were laughing at the idea of seeing two Senate seats, one, you know, even. And so a lot of that work is because of what Stacey has done.

And, you know, Kentucky's different. Sure, we're unique. But the thing that holds true is that we are people that are desperate for change. We've been abandoned and ignored for so long, and we need leaders that are going to care enough about us to say, hey, I see you. I care about you. I'm fighting with you. And we're going into the heart of Trump country or whatever folks want to call it. That's my family. We're going all across Kentucky. The coalition is growing because we're doing the real work. Yeah, you know, the thing I'm so struck by is you have so many of these Trump supporters, they feel that they have been abandoned, right? Which, okay. But the things they want. are things that Democrats want to give them, but somehow there's a disconnect. This is one of the things that pisses me off the most about people like grandpaw

is because of everything you said is true. But what we have in our leadership, it's not leadership, but what we have in office are these people that will stoke division and say that, you know, the challenges, the pain you feel is because of that person over there, fight them. Meanwhile, they're laughing to the bank. And so in a place like Kentucky where there's so much isolation, there are, the echo chambers are really thick here.

You'll have people in communities that no one talks to. Democrats don't talk to them. Republicans take advantage of them and then vice versa. And in the hood areas like mine where Democrats will come to us for votes. Republicans don't even care. And so it's really a matter of breaking through those silos and those echo chambers. And it really requires, you know, the audacity to say, okay, I'm a young black guy from the hood, but I'm going to go into the hills in Appalachia.

and say, hey, our lives matter. I'm rationing my insulin, or I've had to do that, rather. You've had to do that. You know that story? Let's fight together. And it's refreshing. You know, I've had folks that had Trump hats on, making America Great Again hats on.

They were like, Charles, we're going to work with you. Even if we don't agree with you on everything, we realize you actually give a damn about us. And that type of leadership is something that can happen everywhere. Yeah, that's the thing I don't understand. It's like with a great example is the insulin. You know, you have people who are literally, Trump supporters who are literally dying because they can't afford their insulin. And Trump is saying things like, we're going to make insulin cheaper.

But he has no plan to do that, whereas Democrats actually do have a plan to do that. That's the opportunity as well as the frustration, right? Because Trump was calling out to a lot of people that the system is broken. Right. You know, I always said from the beginning, anyone that followed him over his career, Trump was not a Republican. He's an opportunist. And he was really exploiting a party that was one of the first. to lay down and let him, you know, take rain.

And he was exploiting a lot of people that desperately need help that need someone and need leaders that will see them and care about them. And so that really is frustrating. But the opportunity is what you said. We're seeing a lot of folks, regards to a party, that the bottom is falling out for them. And at this point in the game, there is only one party that is remotely trying to speak to that. You know, what I'm trying to do is make it clear that I'm fighting for these issues, not

because people call me progressive. or because I'm registered as a Democrat, I really don't care about that. I'm fighting for these issues because I care about us as Kentuckyans. And making it about the people, you know, not a national narrative, but just us on the ground of the things we deal with, is really how we're seeing our support growing. I put out a coffee volunteers. We had over 7,000 people across Kentucky respond since I launched my campaign from every single county. And in our first quarter, we reported $1.7 million.

Half of that is from Kentucky, which means the people, are standing up early. And even if we don't have a lot of money, we're investing because we know this is for us. Right. So Charles, with that, I want to talk a little bit about one of the things that upset me and I think a lot of listeners of this podcast was after Amy McGrath got the nomination against Mitch McAll in your last race, when we saw how much money flooded into that race and how some of it was spent, it was really like just soul crushing because it seemed like they made

a lot of poor decisions. Could you talk to us about what lessons you learned, seeing how that campaign went? You know, as much as our allies in the fight, you know, were frustrated, you can only imagine how I felt on the ground here. I mean, it was it was really a reinforcement that, you know, the political status quo does not really care about people. I think one glaring reality, you know, even considering what I was able to do in my primary, we were outspent at one point close to 50 to 1. It doesn't matter how much money you have if you don't have a vision. if you're not going to meet the people where they are, if you're not going to speak to real issues.

You know, we need our partners, our allies, people that are vested at the national level to realize you can't ignore folks. You can't ignore the people on the ground and hope that things just go your way. The reassuring thing to that now is that a lot of national folks, a lot of organizations, people all over Kentucky are saying, okay, Charles, we get it.

How do we stand with you from the beginning? We're not going to do that again. You know, that gives us a chance to build, And that's what we're doing. How important do you think it is, like, to go to every part of Kentucky? First of all, that's what democracy is supposed to represent. You're supposed to go to the people. But one thing I'm really trying to do here is tell the story of what it looks like to look at a map.

People will say Kentucky is a red state. And my response is, well, no, it's not. Kentucky is a disenfranchised state. Kentucky is a marginalized and abandoned and ignored state. And so I'm going into those areas that have. voted Republican for years because they're my family, but I'm also trying to lift up this fact, you know, that if we actually do go talk to people, listen to them, we'll find common bonds. We'll find opportunities to build. I was a director at Fish and Wildlife. So I was one of three

black people under an agency that was over 700 employees, and I was a director. And every room I went in, I would talk to folks and tell them my story. They're not listening. And then we see how much we have in common. And I think we need more people that get that, that have lived. the struggle and are willing to stand and to be uncomfortable and go into areas that we've ignored. And when we do that, we'll see turnout. People will vote because they'll be like, okay, what matters now. Right. And I also think the thing you said about the siloed media, I'd love to get back to that for one second, because that is something I think about a lot. It seems like Facebook is a large part of all of this. Will that be part of your strategy, too?

Yeah, I mean, it's real here. So, you know, the talk radio, not here. This is a wonderful platform. But, you know, there are folks out in the state, out in rural areas in particular, and then, you know, isolated areas where they're getting this certain message that it's just really, I mean, it's hurting them. And it's a matter of how do you break through that? To me, you break through that by organizing.

And what I mean by that is not just using the word because a lot of folks use it now is actually building community and building relationships. So the spirit of relational organizing is having people talk to their family and friends and neighbors. And, you know, their fellow church members, classmates, not about partisan talking points, but about the issues they care about. And then you mobilize people around the issues they care about. So I've launched the statewide organizing campaign already with our 7th,000. thousand plus volunteers. And, you know, we're training people on how to say, look, I support Medicare fraud. Hear me on that. But understand why. It's because I nearly died from diabetes, keto, acidosis, because I ration my insulin to feed my girls. And it's like when you tell the story behind

the policy, more people can see it. And to me, that's the only way we're going to really break through these silos, these echo chambers. Right. Exactly. And I mean, that's such a powerful an important story. And it is, I mean, I think that's something that Democratic Party should be focused on. It's good that you're running against Rand Paul because he's the worst person in the world. He's really terrible, isn't he? I'm proud to say that I've been against the Paul family for as long as there was a Paul family from his anti-semitic, his father, who was famously anti-Semitic to his. I mean, what's interesting about him, especially is that, like, really libertarianism is a scam. It's all a scam to him.

He is an opportunist. He's a contrarian. He's all about himself. And to me, that really is the opportunity here, too, because, of course, Democrats don't like and Republicans are tired of him. Libertarians know he's a fraud. Up to this point, though, he hasn't really been called out on it. No one had really taken him the task for the fact that he was the one person that blocked

the Emmettill Anti-Linching Act. And now I'm standing here talking about the fact that my ancestors were lynched in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. You can't hide anymore, Rand Paul. And so it's giving us the chance to take the fight to him directly and call him out. But we're building something bigger than him too. So we're inspiring people to say, look, it's not just about how crappy this guy is. He's a joke.

But this is about us. You know, it's about our future. And we're going to get him out of the way so we can do the work. I do have to provide a fact check here. One person did take him to a test. That neighbor who beat him up. Right. But it's also, I mean, I think you'll be the 12th African-American senator.

are. Yeah, that's a, that's a humbling note. As proud as I am, you know, to be on the shoulders of giants. And, you know, I'm a father of three girls, my, my bosses. And, you know, every day someone asks me, you know, well, Kentucky vote, you know, will they support a black person? And I just have peace knowing that no one will have to ask my daughter's that, you know? And so, I'm honored to be on this journey. Yeah. Well, I also think the state of Kentucky looks like you. And so why shouldn't you be representing the state of Kentucky? Absolutely. I mean, that's what's so insane is we just don't have representation with our Senate.

Yeah. And, you know, it leads to what we're seeing today. I was watching the news about Senator Mansion and, you know, the current debate around, are we actually going to invest in the built and the physical infrastructure and the people infrastructure and actually build a sustainable future? A lot of this wouldn't even be a debate if we had more regular people in office that cared about our lives, you know, that weren't really in it for profit. You know, my hope is that in me running and beating Rand Paul and helping to inspire this bigger movement, that more people will be encouraged to run at the state, local, federal level as well. Yeah. No, I think that's right. And I think that it's really important. And there are statistics which sort of say that if Democrats run people in red states,

they either win or they begin, like as you saw with Stacey Abrams, they begin to change the topography of the place. How involved in registering voters are you? So that's a big part of our path here. So there is a very real path to beating Rand Paul, not just because of how dynamic we are in this race and know how good if a singer I am, but no, we're doing the deep work.

And one of the first bills I filed when I went into the state, state house was for restoration of voting rights. Because again, as mentioned, Kentucky's been one of the most disenfranchised states. My bill inspired Governor Bashir's executive order, which restored voting rights for over 170,000 Kentucky's. Many of them still don't know. And so my campaign is doing an organizing effort now to track down folks who have got their rights restored to let them know, hey, you can be heard at the ballot box now.

And so we've been registering voters already. We have a plan here to. to leverage our statewide infrastructure, the work I've done, you know, over the years, to really make sure we calm the Commonwealth because we know between people that got the rights restored, people that are going to be of age by next year, and folks who have just checked out. We got plenty of firepower behind us to beat Rand Paul, and we will. Yeah, yeah. Oh, good. Well, from your mouth to God's ear, thank you so much for joining us. Of course. It's a pleasure.

you're at. What's crazier than QAnon, more outlandish than Pizza Gate, and scarier than a Mexican getaway with Ted Cruz? The answer is what the American right wing has planned next. Be one of the first to listen to Fever Dreams, new podcasts from The Daily Beast tracking the conspiracy slingers, orange acolytes, and straight-up grifters pushing to retake power. Every Wednesday hosts Swin Subasang and Will Summer checking in on the movement of the radical right. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts or your favorite podcast player to catch the first episode and get subscribed. That's Fever Dreams, which you can subscribe to wherever you get your podcasts. Sam Wang is a scientist and the head of the Princeton gerrymandering project. Welcome back to the new abnormal Sam Wang.

Thank you. Let's get Virginia out of the way because tomorrow when this airs, there will be voting. What the fuck is happening in Virginia? I mean, what's happening there? I mean, just from a distance, it's a little hard to tell what's happening. But, you know, usually the Virginia governor's election goes against whoever happens to be president. In this case, the president, according to most people, is Joe Biden. And so what that means is that it should be a relatively strong election for Republicans. And from a distance, it looks like Yonkin is doing pretty well. If you look at the opinion polls, McCullough's been staying pretty level at or a little bit below 50%, which is a little bit below where he really needs to be. And as far as as I can tell, looking at the number, is it looks like Yonkin has fully caught up, and we're just not going to know until tomorrow who's won that election. So what that means is, could be a Republican governor. There is some chance that the State House, the General Assembly, rather, will flip to the Republicans. I think that's less likely, but it is not to be ruled out. Pundits around the

country are going to go nuts interpreting it, whatever may happen. Yeah, I mean, that it's going to be the worst fucking news cycle. Excuse my French, but it's really earned on this. It's going to be a news cycle from hell, is my suspicion. I mean, the Republicans seem to have done a really good job, like, getting certain things into the public eye, whether people go for it or not, I don't know, whether it be the use of critical race. What is it? The teaching of Beloved in schools.

Isn't that one of the things? Yes, the people against cancel culture really want to cancel Beloved. Yeah. Or maybe, like, that business about, like, that kid who, like, put on a skirt and assaulted a woman, a high school girl in a bathroom. Like these things are like front and center. And, you know, if you get angry about that, you might want to go vote. So, you know, I think at some level that's the approach taken by Yonkin.

And I guess we'll find out probably pundits will retroactively decide that those things worked if he won. And so if he wins by half a point, they'll say it worked. And if he loses by half a point, they'll say it didn't work. And that little teeny tiny difference will affect what pundits say. Don't you think that if McAuliffe wins by a small margin, then pundits will say it was a victory for Trump? If McCallif loses, pundits will say it's a victory for Trump. I mean, the only way that this is sort of declared a win for Democrats is if McCallif wins by 10 points. You know, that's not going to happen.

So I guess we now know what the news coverage is going to be, right? because it wasn't Biden's victory over Trump and Virginia about nine points or so, nine or ten points, in which case... I think it's closer to ten, yeah. Yeah, so there's no possible way that McCullough's going to win by ten points. I mean, that would be really super mega-surprising. And so, I don't know, it seems like it's going to be within five points or a few points in either direction. I suppose the really clearly identifiable signal would be, let's say, hypothetically, Yonkin wins by more than three points. Like, that would be a reasonable clear signal that whatever he and his campaign staff were working on, like, really...

worked to turn out voters in an odd year election. There has been already a million early votes in Virginia. And the claim, I guess, is that that's good for Democrats. I don't really have a clear read on that because, you know, post-pandemic, how do we know what early votes mean? Right. And no, I mean, the sort of polling that supported that was that it was two, that that was two to one, but that should be, you know, three to one, that Democrats need to be way ahead in early voting. Oh, I see. So they're not ahead enough in early voting. That's what someone told me. You know, this reminds me of The Last Emperor.

If you remember that old movie in the first scene, like the eunuch gets a thing in a bowl, and it turns out to be, you know, and then he sniffs it and rolls it around the bowl and passes around to another eunuch, and they run around and they try to tell the future based on this thing. And it turns out to be, let's just say it's the omission of Pui,

the last emperor. And they're basically sniffing that in order to figure out what's going to happen. Right. It's what's happening here. Yeah, so pundits, you know. It's a very annoying news cycle. Do you have any sense with the lieutenant governor's race?

I don't. I actually am not aware of that at all. I've been so immersed in either the governor or the statehouse or redistricting. Those are the things that I've been paying attention to. Talk to us about what the state house will look like. Well, it's currently 55-45 controlled by Democrats. If you look at those districts, there would have to be a pretty big swing towards Republicans for the chamber to flip, but, you know, one couldn't rule it out.

I mean, I think it's within the margin of uncertainty. And so there's an outside chance that the chamber will become, I don't know, within a few seats in either direction for either party. You could potentially end up with a Republican General Assembly, Republican governor, and a Democratic State Senate. So that would be a possible outcome that could come out of Tuesday's election. Oh, it's so stressful. Talk to us about redistricting, which is also stressful in a completely different way. Well, in Virginia, there's a fairly spectacular event that has. happened in some, like, I mean, redistricting has its own yardstick for what's spectacular.

And so, her redistricting spectacular is there are these four parts of the commission, citizens and legislators, each of which is divided into Democrats and Republicans. And they basically tried to draw the General Assembly map, couldn't come to terms, tried to draw the state senate map, couldn't come to terms, tried to draw the congressional map, a big kerfuffle because one of the maps turns out to have been offered by a famous Republican consultant and former elected official, Tom. Davis. I'm shocked. But actually, but that wasn't true of the first two. The General Assembly and the Senate, as far as we can tell here at the Princeton gerrymandering project, we score all these maps.

We have a report card that we worked out where we give A, B, C, F in different categories. And when we scored the General Assembly and Senate maps, you know, some of those maps were A's, including from Republicans and Democrats. There was a C in one case. That was a Republican map. And it was only really the congressional map that was seriously problematic. And so I would say that the consultants who are working for that commission, did an okay job. And then the politicians and the citizens on the commission couldn't get it together to pass a map and the whole thing gets thrown to the state Supreme Court.

But I would say the nerds behind the scenes who are doing that, they were doing kind of okay. We, like, both the Republican and the Democrat who were serving the commission came up with the plan that we scored as an A. And if you go to gerrymander.prinston.edu, it's all there in nerdy glory. How many seats will Democrats lose

because of partisan redistricting nationwide? Hard to predict, but I would say fewer than when I expect it. So I'll give you an example. Texas, it appears that it's a wash. I mean, it appears to be a partisan gerrymander. It gets an a half in that regard, according to us. But the two additional seats, if I recall correctly, end up being one for Republicans, one for Democrats.

Ohio looks like it's headed for, well, I mean, it's hard to know where it's going to head, but the strategic maneuvering looks like it's headed towards a fairly partisan map. but actually it was already a partisan map. Illinois, Democrats pulled off, you know, drew a fairly strong partisan gerrymander, and so that's in the opposite direction of what you would imagine. I would say there was a real dumpster fire of partisan redistricting in 2012, or rather in 2011, and I think what's going to happen this time,

knock wood is going to be a somewhat smaller effect because of independent commissions, because some things turn out less bad than expected. I mean, I'll give you an example. The Arizona Commission, people were saying, well, you know, that could be really partisan because, of such and such about the chair or what have you. But it turned out that the Arizona Commission, we gave them an A. And I got to say, I was pretty happy about that.

I was like, wow, guys, you did well there. And so, you know, there are some bright spots. I mean, it doesn't make for, you know, complaining news coverage. But I would say if your measurement is net change that goes beyond what voters would decide, affects smaller than expected. If your measure is fairer maps, I mean, if you're an Ohio voter or an Illinois voter. Does it make you feel better that some more people of your party got elected in the other state? Because the thing is, in your state, you still don't have a say. So in that respect,

I would say there's certain states where the situation just sucks. And I've just, you know, named a few in the last minute. But it won't ultimately, because originally a lot of people thought that Democrats would lose the House on redistricting alone. I mean, that could still happen because there are things that can happen in places like Tennessee where we don't really know, maybe Memphis will get split, which is kind of a weird thing to do to a city that's about the size of one congressional district. So that could still happen, but I would say it's slightly less likely to happen than it was a few months ago. And, you know, we just have to watch and keep on watching. Do you feel that there has to be a kind of bipartisan or non, I really think

bipartisan, kind of watchfulness towards all of these states, if it comes to redistricting or election law in general? I mean, the problem is that if the watching is done by people who are partisans, then you end up with a bunch of partisan seats that favor either party. And so the ideal case is to have a lot of citizen engagement and have a lot of citizens who don't really have a dog in the game about which party benefits from the map. And so the ideal case is an independent commission where there aren't really legislators involved. Now, that is in about half the states, there is no legal way to get there because there's just no way to establish an independent commission. But there are states where it's happening in California. It's happening. Arizona, it's happening.

In Michigan, it appears to be happening. So there are places where it can happen. And I think that it is possible with vigorous public input and public engagement to get, I wouldn't say, wonderful outcomes, but better than what we saw 10 years ago. Yeah. So interesting. Yeah, it's kind of, it's work. And the problem is that it's a lot of work to like, log on and draw your community or to write letters to your local paper or to harangue legislators. And in some places like North Carolina, it can still be a garbage fire. And it still may end up going to the state Supreme Court. The difficulty is democracy appears to be in a state in a condition where one has to go to the battle lines again and again and again.

Since it is lawsuit season, explain to our listeners what lawsuit season meant. Inevitably, after redistricting, there are going to be lawsuits. And so, for instance, in Texas, there is at least one, several or several lawsuits brewing, say, for instance, that Hispanic communities are treated poorly by the new map that was drawn. And they have a pretty strong claim that more districts could have been drawn that would have given Hispanic communities an opportunity to elect members of their choosing. In North Carolina, one of the draft maps, despite the fact that North Carolina is a 50-50 state, is 10-4 favoring Republicans over Democrats.

And in that 10-4 map, the state Supreme Court has a history of regulating partisan gerrymanders. And so state court is a possible way of doing that. And the difficulty is that in federal court, there's the possible of racial gerrymandering lawsuits. In certain state courts, such as Ohio and North Carolina, there could be state lawsuits. It's just like mushrooms after a rainstorm. And it's inevitable that over the next few years it's going to be a protracted struggle over whether these lines were drawn fairly. Yeah.

It would have been better to draw them fairly in the first place, but having, in some cases, having failed that, the next line of defense is to a dreary parade of experts and testimony and whatnot. A dreary parade of experts and testimony. I can't wait. Would you turn out for that parade? I would turn out for that parade, but I'm very nerdy, so, you know. And it's exciting to see democracy in action or the lack of it.

Yeah. It's exciting as a word for it, yes. Yeah. Thank you so much, Sam. Lang, please come back. Thank you. Jesse Cannon. Molly Jock Fest.

So today, we are talking about that guy, our segment. We're talking about the people who make us completely crazy. And today, mine is very topical. It is Glenn Yomkin. A few things about Glenn Yonkin, first of all, he is super, super Trumpy and has been caught numerous times on hot mics before. saying things like, don't worry, we'll make abortion illegal. Don't worry, we'll do this, we'll do that, very conservative Trumpy things, but then he's pretending to be more centrist in the hopes of winning.

I also think this Yomkin Virginia race is so interesting because we have in New Jersey a race where the Democrat is leading by, you know, 15 points or some enormous margin and has really cemented the governorship. And remember, this used to be a Republican governorship, but somehow the pundant class has decided that the main definer in American life is actually this Virginia race because it's very tight. And I can't help but think that even if McAuliffe does win by a small margin or even by a sizable margin that we will be tortured by weeks and weeks of punditry and weeks and weeks of of what does a Junkin win mean for the rest of America? Trump is going to win again,

and you're all going to be sent to death camps. So I am not excited about weeks and weeks of punditry that says that the Virginia governorship is the most important thing that happens in the world. And so I say a hearty fuck you to Glenn Yonkin, no matter what happens, and also a hearty fuck you to that style of pendentry. And they are my fuck that guy.

You know, what I think is so funny about this race is that Trump spurred all these psychos who are true believers in crazy right-wing stuff who run like that. But when we look back at Trump in 2016 is, you know, he ran as this guy who blurred the lines and obscured his actual crazy right-wing authoritarianism. And Youngkin is imitating that part of it instead of what a lot of people have. I think that that's... Right. That's the thing I wish the pundit class was focusing on.

Right, is that Yomkin, if he wins, he will have tricked voters into thinking he's not like Donald Trump. And it's very annoying to me because I am going to then hear all of this punditry, which says, in fact, that Trump is going to win again and da-da-da-da-da-da. And I am not happy. So they are the fuck-that guy. Jesse, who is your fuck-that guy? Well, speaking of really, really far-right things being disguised under the guise of center normal things, on Fox and Friends this morning, Brian Kilmeet, a extremely concussed man. Is he concussed or is he just a fucking idiot?

I know, that's what I'm saying. There's something not functioning in that cortex the way many other people who do his job do. He's a simple man, kind of like the Eric Trump of the Fox and Friends, I would say. So the point being, though, we often hear about how, you know, there's apparently these pipelines or human centipedes, if you will, of how far right content gets into the mainstream. But I actually think the theory is that, like, you know, really you just take the craziest take in the right wing,

and eventually it'll make it sway into mainstream Fox News now. And this is perfect evidence of it. This morning, Mr. Kilbein was saying that the FBI was actually pushing for the attack of January 36th. Jesus. Yeah, because they love to kill their own people. That's part of one of the central tenants of FBI life. You know, the FBI is always sitting there like, hmm, you know what we really need to do?

Make the stock market get wobbly. Take it. People's in confidence in this country go bad. That's what we're really all about, yes. Yeah, exactly. It gets worse, though, Molly. Tucker Carlson agrees with them and then suggests that the big Washington Post feature that was published yesterday.

It was only done in response to his trailer for where he's going to whitewash January 6th. Not that it was just that people keep, I mean, let's be honest here. We are, Jeff Beezer's once said we're not on the first day of, we haven't woken up on the first day of the internet yet. We haven't woken up on the first day of all the fuckery

we're going to learn about January 6th in the next decade and how many things are going to slip out. Yeah, that is certainly true, I think. So for that and for Rupert, and Lockwood, I know Rupert looks like is so old, he looks older than the oldest vampire on what we do in the shadows

and like really probably isn't too with it these days. Little what we do in shadows plug here. Yes, yes, yes. Best show on TV. Best show on TV. Watch it on FX. Yes. I know that he's not quite with it these days,

but like they really got to get it together and fucking knock this shit off. Yeah, good luck. I'm sure Rupert will come around. On that note, we'll wrap this episode of the new abnormal from The Daily Beast. In future episodes, we'll be talking to smart folks from The Daily Beast and beyond from media, culture, politics, and science. We'll help us understand what's happening to our country and the world.

We hope you'll subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app and share the show on social media. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you again on the next episode. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast, at the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast

and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.