The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Raging Moderates: The GOP’s Unpopular and Harmful Bill (ft. Galen Druke)

Episode Date: July 2, 2025

With JD Vance casting a tiebreaking vote, the Senate voted Tuesday to advance the GOP budget bill. To process this news, Jessica is joined by Galen Druke — the former host of the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast, and current host of GD Politics. They discuss the bill that no one seems to like, what lessons the Democrats should (and shouldn’t) learn from Zohran Mamdani’s win in the NYC mayoral primary, and last week’s surprising Supreme Court opinions. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from BetterHelp. It would be great to be able to leave your work stress at work. Unfortunately, most of us can't. Tell me about it. A lot of US workers suffer from work-related stress, and many of them say it affects their home life. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp could be a great resource to help you think through your relationship to your work. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash prop G. That's better h-e-l-p dot com slash prop G. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint

finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today. Enzo. No, not right now. Enzo. No, not right now. Lots of us feel like we understand our dogs. But scientists who actually study dogs say we might be a bit overconfident. We're just not as smart as we think we are when it comes to understanding our dogs.

This we can't explain it to me. Do we actually know what our dogs are feeling? Or are we just fooling ourselves? New episodes every Sunday. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. Scott's off today, but I'm joined by podcasting veteran you might recognize from his time at FiveThirtyEight.

He's now the host of the GD Politics podcast, which is fantastic. Gail and Druke, welcome to the show. Hey, Jesse. Thanks so much for having me. It's such a pleasure. I've been data nerding out over you for a long time and now you're here. Well, I'm flattered. And I brought some data as well. Thank God. If you brought anything else, I'd be sorely disappointed. Well, coffee. I mean, I've also brought coffee.

And you have a great plant behind you. Oh, thank you. Yes. You know, I've had to reimagine my podcast space now that I'm an indie podcaster over at GD Politics, which, shameless plug. Shameless plug. We'll do it multiple times. How do you like the indie life? I feel like everyone is going for it, and obviously, 538 was shut down,

which was sad for all of us. But how has it been? It's been both easier and harder than expected. So the easier part is that I have been podcasting alongside a really awesome community for more than nine years at this point. And a lot of them have followed along and been really supportive. And the messages that you get when your newsroom shuts down, it's like attending your own funeral. People are really, really kind in a way that you probably wouldn't experience under any other circumstance. So that was really,

really lovely. And the experience of being my own boss and going in whatever direction the data takes us has been also really fun and being able to swear a little bit more and be a little more irreverent. The hard part is that I work by myself. So doing stuff like this and hanging out with you is really fun. And there are fewer chances for me to be in a newsroom environment. But you know, I don't know, maybe someday I'll join a co-working space or I'll just have to talk to my plants like the ones that you see behind me. You know, that would be fun too.

All right. In today's episode of Raging Moderates, we're discussing how unpopular the GOP's bill is with Americans, the Democratic Party's reckoning with Zoran Mondani's surprise primary win and what the Supreme Court's latest ruling means for the balance of power in Washington. All right, let's get into it. As we're recording, the Senate just passed a high stakes vote on Trump's massive domestic agenda bill, a sweeping package of tax cuts, spending changes and deep Medicaid overhauls. It's been a chaotic few days of negotiations, last minute speeches and a late night Votorama on dozens of amendments. Galen, there are so many places that I want to start. I just, I don't want to soliloquy

about it that much, but there are just so many ways that this bill is unpopular and bad for Americans. And I struggle. I understand politics is a dirty game and people have to serve a bunch of different masters and K Street has been hyperactively working to make sure that they get everything that they need. And we've had makeups and breakups. I think the last that I saw that Trump said he's gonna look into must immigration status again, whatever they're doing and all of this. But just to kind of set the stage, up to 17 million that could lose their healthcare

between the Medicaid cuts and the Obamacare, credit rollbacks, the largest transfer of wells from the poor to the rich, from the young to the old as well. I mean, these stats just blow my mind that the bottom 20% of taxpayers will pay an extra $560 a year and top earners get an extra $6,000 in their pockets. You have the building trade union, the electrical worker unions all coming out and saying that this is threatening millions of jobs. You've got the trillions to the deficit. Shout out Rand Paul.

The cuts to SNAP, 186 billion, and just wiping out the clean energy industry. And Trump said, I've always been against the EV mandate. And so you picked an interesting doge master. But I saw a Senator Schott saying that we're gonna generate 500 gigawatts less energy over the course of the next decade, which however you feel about drill baby drill,

like that's not a good thing. So A, I don't know how you feel, but if you feel anything, talk about that. But then also talk about how the public is viewing the bill as well. Well, I promise that I'm not a sociopath, but most of the information I have about this bill is based on polling data and other estimates from the Yale Budget Lab and the like.

And I think that that can sort of ground folks in terms of, you know, if I don't like this bill, am I alone? Well, it turns out you are not. So looking at four recent polls that asked Americans about whether they approve of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on average, the bill is 25 percentage points underwater. And I want to make sure I quote this correctly here, but according to this analysis, that makes the bill more unpopular than any piece of major legislation passed since at least 1990. And this is data

crunched by George Washington University political science professor Chris Warshaw. So there are things that have been considered that were less popular. For example, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act back in 2017, but that of course failed. So if this does pass, it will be So if this does pass, it will be sort of history making in that sense. And, you know, it is certainly the case that sometimes when things are considered and they get highly scrutinized in the press and they get a lot of negative coverage when they're considered on the floor, they become very unpopular, but that fades over time. I mean, this happened, for example, with the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017. It was super unpopular when it passed, but by a year later, Americans were more

evenly divided. It didn't get continuous coverage, and folks kind of moved on at a certain point to what else was happening in the Trump administration. I don't think that's going to be the case with this. I think that this is going to be something that Democrats do not stop talking about for the next four years, if it ultimately does pass. And one of the main reasons is because in an issue landscape where Democrats have found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion frequently recently, sorry, in the 2024 election, Americans trusted Republicans more on inflation and immigration and some other key things, Americans have long trusted Republicans more on inflation and immigration and some other key things. Americans have long trusted Democrats more on the issue of healthcare. That was even the case when Joe Biden was unpopular. That is even more the case now. And we see in polling that healthcare is an

increasingly salient issue for Americans overall and Democrats in particular. So if Democrats are looking for a way to motivate a disenchanted electorate, a disenchanted rank-and-file Democratic party, healthcare is one of those ways. And not only will the Democratic party use this in its campaigning over the next two to four years, but the press is going to cover this. I mean, as you mentioned, folks will likely lose their health care as a result of this bill if it's passed. Now, you know, in the abstract, Americans don't have a problem with work requirements for Medicaid. Work requirements for Medicaid get the majority of support not just amongst the overall public, but even amongst Democrats. So I think in a recent New

York Times poll, it was like 51% of Democrats support work requirements. That doesn't mean though, when people start seeing like, oh, okay, 10 million people have been kicked off Medicaid as a result of these new work requirements, they won't sort of shift their views. Oftentimes you see this in polling where you ask something in the abstract and then you present them with different arguments

or information and people will move. You know this, your background is in research. For example, KFF, one of the poll stores that focuses on healthcare has done work on this and said, you know, okay, well do you still support work requirements for Medicaid if it means that this many Americans will lose their healthcare and suddenly things shift. Changes. Yeah. And so I think that this potentially gets into a tricky area. We've heard folks like, you know, Senator Josh Hawley say that.

We've heard some of the other conservative populists say that. I think Trump himself has expressed some skepticism about the cost-saving measures that are in this bill. So I think even Republicans know that this could get uncomfortable for them. Yeah, it's so strange to me. I mean, Tom Tillis, you know, quasi-profile and courage, I guess, where he basically just said, screw it, I'm going to retire. He was already considering retiring anyway, but he's, you know, been unleashed on the

floor and has given impassioned defenses of, he has, I think, 663,000 people in his state that are on Medicaid. And he's like, what am I supposed to tell them, right, when it doesn't expire in a year, but in two years, then they find themselves without healthcare. But all of these people went on the record saying that the bill was bad, like Josh Hawley taking to the pages of the New York Times, like a liberal and saying, I'm not gonna do this,

or Susan Collins, who's always deeply concerned, but Trump usually gets what Trump wants. And they'll find ways to do the carve outs to make sure that everyone is satisfied. Lisa Murkowski, who you recently had a very interesting conversation with on your podcast, was looking for carve outs for Alaska. And the latest thing that I saw is

that she was able to get that done on the energy front, I believe. But do they just not think about the fact that another election is going to happen? Is it the YOLO approach to governing? And we want to make sure that we ram these tax cuts through no matter what. And as a self-flagellating Democrat,

I do always think about what we could have done better. So as Donald Trump is overseeing all of these incredibly unpopular actions, you know, he's underwater on everything, including immigration now, which was his best issue, Democrats still have an approval rating of what, like 22%. And Scott and I constantly ask, like, where is the Democratic counter proposal? Like, why haven't we shown up with our spending bill just to say these are where our priorities lie and it has allowed the Republicans to get away with this

massive lie that the tax cuts are going to expire at midnight tonight. Like Cinderella if she doesn't get back in her pumpkin or whatever. We have six months to figure it out but the American public doesn't have any idea about that because Democrats haven't been able to say it or they have said it, but they haven't said it in front of a big enough microphone. I think they're in some ways reveling in the joy of being in the opposition.

And one of the great joys of being in the opposition is you don't have to offer your own ideas that then get criticized. All you have to do is criticize the people in power. And- I would like both. You know, I think it can be cynical for sure, but it is the fact that oftentimes you let

the governing party shoot itself in its own foot and then you start making your argument. But I think as far as Republicans are concerned, why are they pursuing this? I think they believe a lot of this stuff. I think that a lot of Republicans believe in work requirements for Medicaid and expanded work requirements for SNAP benefits. I think that when it comes to the tax cuts and jobs, I mean, there was no way that Republicans were going to let those 2017 tax cut and jobs, you know, act, expire. And they also were put in a difficult position

by the president himself who said on the campaign, we're not going to tax tips or tax overtime or, you know, interest payments on car loans and all measure of things. And so something was going to pass and I think you just put people under the pressure cooker and they all, I don't know if it's and they all, I don't know if it's a suicide pact. I don't know if it's just like, there's enough in here that I like that I'm going

to get behind it even if I don't like everything. You know, in some ways, what we've seen over the past several months on this, and by the way, I think it's no surprise that the deadline to pass this is during a holiday week, is that the Republican party, although it's unified under Trump, is still sort of drawn in different directions. You have the conservative populists who now like Medicaid, like Josh Hawley, and you have the debt and deficit hawks like Rand Paul and others who, you know, seem to care deeply about the fact

that America's interest payments are rising and that the more we spend on our debt, the less we will be able to spend on other things. And how do you put all of those people into one room and come up with a tax and spending bill that makes sense to them? I mean, one amendment that Susan Collins was pushing for, I don't know in this moment whether she got it passed, was to increase the highest tax rate back up to 39.5% from 37% where it was placed in 2017. It's hard to do all these things if you also take the position that you can't raise new taxes. So what we will end up with is another bill that dramatically increases America's debt

and deficit. And people will continue not to care or they'll care while they're campaigning and then they're just going to vote the same as always. I did. Well, I have a theory. Yeah. Theory me. I have a theory, Jessie, that it's like we're on 15 year cycles where every 15 years the debt and deficit becomes important again.

You know, remember like Ross Perot ran an entire presidential campaign on the debt and deficit and just use his quirkiness to make people care about it. And then, you know, it became important again, not so surprisingly under Obama. I think that we could be nearing another cycle where somebody could use the debt and deficit to significant effect in electoral politics. Now, will it actually change anything? I have no clue, but I think there is an opening there to try to make a political argument.

Yeah, I mean, if there was a credible third party effort that could happen again, I think it would probably include something like that. Like a grownup pants party, right? That just says the way that we've been doing this for the last several decades is not good enough. And there has to be another way. And, you know, I have many views on third party projects of the past that have felt more grifty than genuine to

me. But there is obviously a tremendous American appetite for something different than what we have at this current moment. And I, you. And I've chosen, but I think the Democrats are better than the Republicans, but I certainly have my own issues with our party. And if you talk to the average person, and I'm certainly living a higher quality of life than the average American, they have good reason to feel completely despondent

when they look at what their options are. Speaking of, you only have two options, how are you seeing the North Carolina Senate race, which Lara Trump rumored to be considering that she would get in to replace Tom Tillis. I would love if Roy Cooper got into the Senate race, the former Democratic governor of North Carolina. Do you have any thoughts about the Senate race and then also the midterms? Well, with Tom Tillis getting out of the primary and announcing that he's going to retire,

I think that open North Carolina Senate seat has now become the blockbuster race of the 2026 primaries. I don't think that the decision not to run for re-election on Tillis's behalf was solely about like not wanting to be part of Trump's Republican Party anymore. I think he saw some warning signs in terms of trying to maybe win a primary in North Carolina. Nonetheless, it's now a prime target for Democrats to pick up and just to lay out the math really quickly, Democrats would need to pick up four seats in order to get 51 seats in the Senate. Obviously, if there's a tie, JD Vance would break that tie. And so the prime targets are now, number one is North Carolina. Number two would be Susan

Collins's seat in Maine, which she has been able to hold onto despite all kinds of challenges and difficult political environments over the past decade. And then things get more difficult for Democrats. You have to look at places like Iowa or Texas or Alaska, places that are not obvious pickups and have eluded Democrats for years. So on one hand, Democrats can be very excited about that race in North Carolina, which if Roy Cooper,

do you know that he sort of like re-identified as Cooper? Really? He went by Roy Cooper for a long time and then all of a sudden told a journalist in an interview, you know, by the way, it actually is Roy Cooper. I don't believe that. Yeah. I mean, I believe that he said that. So if Roy Cooper gets in that race. That's Cooper. C-O-O-P-E-R, Cooper. That's like an easy name. Yeah, but I think he was able to win when Trump was on the ballot in 2016 and 2020. And I think Democrats see him as the most promising prospect.

He hasn't said that he's in yet, but it would surprise me zero if he does get in. And let's remember as this talk of Laura Trump comes to the fore that Trump's victories have been very exciting for Republicans. They haven't been landslides, despite the fact that he's called them that. And the folks that he has endorsed, sort of in his image, in competitive primaries around the country,

have done quite poorly in total and arguably even lost Republicans the Senate in the 2022 midterms. And so I don't know, you know, when you look at polling, like Democrats are oftentimes more concerned about electability than Republicans. Republicans are like, I want the person to agree with me on everything or be the most conservative or whatever. And Democrats are like, I don't care if they agree with me on everything. I just want them to win. That was at least how they felt during Trump 1.0. I think eventually Republicans would be served well to think a little bit more about electability as opposed to just whoever Trump endorses.

Yeah, that would be smart. I mean, Trump has now started endorsing just every Republican that's in the race, which is a way that you guarantee that you can't lose. Do you have any thoughts about 2026 on the midterms? I'm scared that Dems will do well, not like blockbuster well, but will do well and it'll paper over issues.

And then 2028 is gonna be potentially miserable. So those are my anxieties. So, Occam's razor is that Democrats win the house and lose the Senate. But I think that there's a long runway between now and 2026 and economic circumstances will matter. I mean, in particular, inflation, if tariffs end up affecting inflation, if this, you know, tax and spend bill that just

passed has massive effects on people's health care and those become a focus point, you know, who knows what will happen over the next year and a half. I wouldn't write off Democrats winning the Senate, but Republicans would have a really difficult half, I wouldn't write off Democrats winning the Senate, but Republicans would have a really difficult time, I think, holding onto the House. What lessons will they take from 2026? The lessons they should take from 2026 are almost nothing, right?

Like we have actually looked at this in a rigorous way and performance in the midterms has no correlation to performance in the presidential two years later. I think there are enough people out there, ambitious Democrats trying to win the nomination who remember what happened in 2019 and 2020, who have learned some lessons and probably still regret some of the things they said

during that primary campaign, that I don't think we're going to see, like, everybody getting up on stage, raising their hand in support of decriminalizing crossing the border. You know, we're gonna talk about this later on, but I think, though, that folks will try to learn something from the Zoran Mamdani's of the world about charisma and populism.

And they probably didn't need to wait for Mamdani to learn that lesson because Trump has in a way taught them that lesson over the past decade as well. So I will be curious like you to see, do they take away policy lessons? Do they take away lessons about left, right, center? Or do they take away sort of more structural lessons from the 2026 midterms? Only time will tell. And like you said, Democrats are awfully unpopular. And sometimes when a party starts to lose sway

with its rank and file, it doesn't get to choose its own path. The primary voters choose for it. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I just know if anyone gives you a questionnaire to answer and it says, do you want to pay for transgender surgeries for undocumented people in prison, that you say no. Because that will come back to haunt you

in an election ad in 2028. All right, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. All right, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Support for PropG comes from Grammarly. There's the job you were hired to do, but also the busy work that comes with it. And like it or not, you have to do it, and it takes an unfortunate amount of time to complete. Things like writing repetitive emails, building decks, generating product briefs, and the list goes on and on. Well, imagine offloading some of the tedium so that you could focus on the exciting stuff that made you apply for your job in the first place.

Enter Grammarly. Grammarly lets you use AI to jumpstart your writing. It's more than a simple spell check. Grammarly can help you tailor your tone for effective communication and generate well-written drafts to get your ideas down on paper. It can even help you simplify complex information instantly, so you can deliver compelling drafts faster. And the more you use it, the more Grammarly personalizes

to fit your voice and sensibility. We use Grammarly at ProppG, and simply put, it's made our communications crisper and, I don't know, just easier to read. Let Grammarly take the busy work off your plate so you can focus on high-impact work. Download Grammarly for free at busy work off your plate so you can focus on high impact work. Download Grammarly for free at Grammarly.com slash podcast. That's Grammarly.com slash podcast.

The Supreme Court just ruled on a case about pornography and free speech. The court has ruled on this numerous times, including in the sexy 70s. So there was one film that came up in front of the Supreme Court. And the plot of this thing was literally there's a woman, she likes sex, she has a lot of sex, and then she gets on an airplane

and the airplane is hijacked. We could stop in Sacramento, couldn't we? We'd be violating international law. And I suggest you violate it. Huh? If I am correct, with six stops for refueling, we shall be in Havana in approximately 30 hours. At which time...

And the hijacker launches into this lecture on the relative virtues of communist and capitalist societies. The communist countries have far less money than America, but the people work together as equals. Now, why did that happen? Well, one reason is because it meant the film was protected by the First Amendment. Today Explained, a wild ride every weekday. Support for the show comes from Groons. You've heard me talk about these guys before,

but let me refresh your memory. Groons are a convenient, comprehensive formula packed into eight delicious gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a green gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those things, and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. And just in time for summer, Grunz has a limited edition raspberry lemonade flavor.

So you can upgrade your wellness routine with a fun and refreshing snack pack that couldn't be more convenient. Perfect to toss into your beach bag, your carry-on, or wherever your summer travels take you. Our Groons Daily Snack Pack is vegan, free of nuts, gluten, and dairy, and made with no synthetic sweeteners or dyes. Groons says their daily snack pack of eight gummies contains more than 20 vitamins and

minerals and more than 60 whole food ingredients. Grab your limited edition raspberry lemonade Groons, get up to 52% off when you go to gruns.co and use the promo code prop G. That's gruns.co and use the promo code prop G at checkout. Welcome back. Zaran Mamdani shocked the political world by pulling off a stunning upset in New York's Democratic mayoral primary, beating former governor Andrew Cuomo. His campaign leaned hard into economic populism, proposing rent freezes, free buses, and city-run grocery stores, while mobilizing an army of online supporters and first-time voters in immigrant and working-class neighborhoods.

The win has progressives celebrating, moderates panicking, and billionaires threatening to bankroll his downfall. I don't want to diminish what Mom Donnie pulled off because it surprised me. I didn't think it was going to be a cakewalk necessarily, but it wasn't until a few weeks before the primary day that people even thought he had a shot. There was only one polling firm that actually had him winning,

I believe, and I'm sure you actually had him winning, I believe. And I'm sure you know this more precisely than I do. But I still thought that he was too radical for the city writ large. And I know that Cuomo is, in a lot of ways, a uniquely flawed candidate even, and he didn't want to do any of the work. Like I watched a lot of Cuomo campaign events and I use quotes around that because they were barely campaign events. Like he would show up somewhere, he'd shake some hands, he'd take some footage, he didn't

want to do questions, he didn't want to sit down with people. All of the lessons from the 2024 election, I assume he just told his team, absolutely not. I'm not going to do a long form interview, I'm not going to do a podcast bro thing, you know, I'm not exploring this at all. And so you had this contrast between such an open and an honest candidate. I mean, Mom Donnie, I don't like a lot of his positions, but he didn't shy away from any of them.

He wasn't sugarcoating anything. He sat down face to face with people who disagreed with him and just said, I'm sticking to my guns about this. So how much do you think it actually mattered that Cuomo was terrible versus Mamdani being this great unifier and that being a preview of what we might be able to see more generally speaking from progressive candidates? Yeah, I mean, there's no beating around the bush. Cuomo was an absolutely terrible candidate who didn't really run much of a campaign.

And I don't think that Zoran Mamdani ultimately represents the median voter or even necessarily the median Democrat in New York City. Ultimately about a million people voted in a city of eight million people. I don't want to diminish that because the turnout was pretty high for a New York mayoral primary. But again, these are things that happened in late June. They're closed primaries. So anybody who's not registered as a Democrat was not able to participate in this primary election. And when we get to the

general, you know, there's going to be a lot more people participating. And so I wouldn't suggest that Zoran Mamdani now represents the broad political ideas of New York City. And when you look at the polling as well, someone like Adrian Adams, who was a candidate who got in quite late, had a significantly higher net favorability rating than Zoran Mamdani. I mean, the deep irony of this election is despite the fact that we have ranked choice voting in New York City, it became a head to head race between two of the most polarizing figures, right? Cuomo was not particularly popular compared to the other candidates, and neither was Zoran Mamdani. The two most popular were Adrian Adams and Brad Lander, who weren't really able to catch on in the primary. So I think somebody like Adrian Adams, who leads the city council and has corporate

experience, is probably more representative of the median Democrat in New York, but just didn't have the campaign apparatus behind her. And I mean, what Zoran Mamdani did, and like, look, at this point in American politics, we shouldn't discount a charismatic populist in an election. He talked about the issues in a really simplistic way. You know, the buses, they're going to be fast and free. The rent, it's going to be frozen. The groceries, they're going to be provided by the government or sold by the government. And so by the time you get to the argument of like,

well, that's not possible. You can't raise those funds, that's socialist, et cetera, et cetera. New Yorkers have already heard the main message about, I wanna make this place more affordable. And then you start hearing from the other candidates who are fighting over the details. And so I think, you know,

one thing that Democrats can probably learn from all of this is the campaign style. You know, when you look at what Trump has done, you remember his agenda or the Republican platform from the most recent election was 10 bullet points that were like, we're going to fix absolutely everything. We're going to make America more affordable. We are going to stop illegal crossings at the border. And that was kind of how Mondani ran his campaign. And so the effectiveness of that kind of messaging is something to take away even if, yeah, I mean, New York City is not America. I actually did a little research before joining you today. And the most representative city of America writ larger

cities is like the greater New Haven area, the greater Tampa Clearwater St. Pete area. And so like, it's not New York City, but it's also not Oshkosh, Wisconsin. And so it's somewhere in between. And no, I don't think that somebody who has the positions of Zoran Mamdani makes a great general election candidate in competitive elections around the country for Democrats. But also, that's not New York City. And I guess if that's what New York City wants, that's what New York City wants. Do you think there's any chance that Mayor Adams is able to win the general election? At this point, it's a really steep climb.

I think not to draw more parallels to Trump, well, actually to draw more parallels to Trump. Once partisanship sets in, it's a really hard force to beat back, right? So while maybe if you had every single Democrat in the city or Democrat leaning voter in the city participate in this election, you might have landed on somebody else. And I don't even know if that's the case, right? Or if you say you had the video team behind Adrian Adams that Democrats might have landed somewhere else. Once you have the candidate, people tend to fall in line. And so you see this amongst even the Democratic establishment or elite in New York state starting to say, okay, you know what, we got to support this guy.

So I think it is a really, really steep climb for somebody like Eric Adams at this point. And the fact that Cuomo seems to be keeping his name on the ballot is only going to make it likelier that the anti-Zoran Mamdani vote splits its votes between those two options. Yeah, I did. I mean, as his final act of selfishness, it's kind of perfect that Cuomo wouldn't even take his name off of the ballot, where you're just like, no, it has to be me no matter what.

It can't even just be someone who's more moderate or someone who is supportive of the police. You know, I do want to say something to that point, which is there's been some conversation about whether Zoran Mamdani's win is a sort of back-to-back vibe shift, right? We felt like there was this conservative vibe shift in the country where, you know, Donald Trump won the popular vote, Americans were more amenable to a lot of his ideas

on immigration and law and order and the like. Oh, but all of a sudden a democratic socialist is winning the primary in New York City. It's important to focus not just on what Zerun Ramdani did, but what he didn't do. He totally backtracked on defund the police. He really didn't talk about a lot of the social positions of the democratic party. He wasn't foregrounding immigration and fights over immigration with Donald Trump. I mean, he didn't shy away from some of the positions he had taken once pressed on them. I mean, the one where he did just kind of blatantly walk it back was defunding the police. You know, we can have another conversation about the accusations of anti-Zionism or whatever,

but he really tried to focus on affordability and affordability only in some ways. And I think that's how he won the voters beyond that young white professional class of voters that has been in the Sanders AOC camp all along is these are people who really just think the city is too expensive. And he kicked off his campaign talking to Trump voters in the Bronx about their most important issues. They all said it was affordability. Now, looking at the results, it doesn't seem like he picked up a lot of those voters in the Bronx.

Cuomo did the best in the Bronx, and Zoran Mamdani did the best in Brooklyn and then Queens and Manhattan. But he really tried to foreground an issue that could be strong for progressives and background a lot of the unpopular positions that the progressive part of the unpopular positions that the progressive part of the Democratic Party or the Democratic Socialists have held over the

years. Yeah. Well, having such a comparatively weak competitor allowed a lot of that to happen to my mind. I mean, he certainly got questions about not just his anti-Zionism, but what a lot would argue and sometimes even I would argue, bordered on anti-Semitism. And he, I don't want to say it was a layup, but when you're looking at the two-man race and all that, I think the people just went for the guy who seems to actually care about people

and talking about affordability is the number one way to do that. And Cuomo just completely failed at that. But some of the things that you're talking about were featured in your New York Times op-ed from last week, which I really enjoyed about how the left needs their own Trump. And I've been saying for a long time, not like taking credit for your op-ed, but that being ideologically consistent is just not that important anymore. That people are looking for a

common sense human being in a leader. They're not looking for someone that toes the party line. And, you know, we have seen Donald Trump out there pushing, towing the party line to the utmost degree in what's going on with the big, beautiful bill. But in terms of what folks want to see from someone campaigning, they want you to seem like a rational human being. So like the country needs a border, but you also need healthcare, for instance. And those were kind of Trump's diametrically opposed ideas for the party, right? Where he says, we're going to have this tough immigration policy, but also I'm not going to touch Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.

Can you talk some more about what was in your op-ed and I guess how Mom Donnie fits a bit into that mold of a leftist Trump? Yeah. I mean, I think he fits into that mold in some ways, although that's not necessarily the person I had in mind when I was writing this piece. And the perspective from which I write it is one of a political analyst who spent, you know,

over a decade looking at what Americans think and- I'm not trying to make you a partisan. I'm sorry if my- Oh, no, no, no, no, no, by all means. But, you know, just how Americans react to what's happening. And there's something that we all just have to understand in American politics, which is both parties are unpopular.

And when you want to win a competitive election, now in the bluest and reddest parts of the country, this advice is totally irrelevant. I guess do whatever you want. Sort of be as extreme as you want. And I guess if voters will still vote for you, great. But if you want to win a competitive election, frustrating people's perceptions of you as one sort of partisan or another is key. Being something beyond just a Republican or something beyond just a Democrat. And one of the ways that you can do that, there's a lot of ways that you can do that.

You can do that with your identity, like the way that you can present yourself as down home or Democrats shooting guns, like Kamala Harris talking about her pistol, or Republicans trying to soften their image with what was George Bush's line, compassionate conservatism. So there are many different ways that you can do this,

but one of the ways that you can do it is talking about policy differently. And so the example that I present of Trump is from 2016, when you had this broad field and there were the more moderate folks like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who, you know, Rubio had been involved in pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, Jeb Bush about as establishment as they come, who were projecting a more moderate version of the Republican Party. And then you had conservatives like Ted Cruz or Scott Walker, who had Ted Cruz in particular come out of the Tea Party movement, were pushing for some of the most unpopular parts of the

Republican platform at the time, like cuts to Medicare and social security. For Scott Walker, it was union busting and the like. And Trump comes into this situation, and when faced with the sort of moderate view or the conservative view, in some ways he chooses neither. He runs to the party's right on immigration, proposing a border wall and mass deportations, and he runs to the left of his party

on government spending, as you mentioned. Not only did he say no cuts to Medicare and Social Security, he also originally proposed a big infrastructure bill. He proposed universal healthcare. I mean, this is how he campaigned, not how he governed. But, and by the time voters cast their ballots in 2016, we have pretty good data that suggests Americans viewed Trump as the less extreme candidate between the two options.

And not only did they view him as less extreme than Hillary Clinton, even though he took extreme positions throughout that campaign, they viewed him as less conservative than every Republican nominee going back to George H.W. Bush, which is what we have data from. And another key part of this is he attacked his party at every turn. He attacked all of the recent nominees. He attacked the war in Iraq. He attacked John McCain. And he basically said the Republican Party has failed you. So in the end, no matter where you stood on the right side of the spectrum, if you thought the Republican Party was doing a shit job at, you know, representing you

being a party, you could find some agreement with Donald Trump. Now, I would say Zoran Mamdani in some ways ran against the party establishment, so that accomplishes that. He leaned into something that Democratic voters care a lot about, which is affordability. In the Times piece that I wrote, I said, for Democrats, maybe going to the left on healthcare and really like engaging that issue would be helpful while moving to the right on immigration

or going left on housing and going right on the debt. This doesn't sound coherent to somebody who's a top to bottom partisan, but ultimately a lot of people who code as moderates are not top to bottom partisans. They hold all the way left positions on some issues and all the way right positions on others. And so obviously, Mamdani didn't really take right positions in what he did, but he did talk a lot about one left issue affordability that's really important to Democrats, and he ran against his

own party. So in some ways, he did it, in other important ways, he didn't really do what I suggested could be a winning strategy for the party. You had a conversation a few weeks ago with Nate Silver about who would be the 2028 nominee for the Democrats. You both had AOC as your pick for that. That surprised me. And maybe I'm just That surprised me and maybe I'm just too moderate to my core, but I've been thinking about our coalition as needing to make sure that we continue to capture the center and that we pick up as many independent voters as possible,

but that there will be moderate Republicans like the Romney Republicans that will still be available to Democrats. So putting aside the bulwark folks, right? Like those guys are now card-carrying Democrats or maybe not all of them, but I feel like most of them are at this point. That there will be people who maybe tried Trump again

in 2024, let's say like 2016 Trump, 2020 Biden went back to Trump or went for Kamala Harris. And now they're looking around. And if you put up someone like a Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer or even a Gavin Newsom, who's getting his yimby on as of late and having conversations with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, that maybe they could see themselves being part of a democratic party

that had someone more moderate at the top of the ticket. And I'll just be honest, that's my preference. Not only because I think you can build the biggest coalition, but that's more aligned with my politics. And that doesn't mean that you don't believe in the promise of things like universal healthcare. It just means that you're a practical person. Says that there are costs associated

with doing certain things, and we wanna try to get as many people as possible healthcare. So we're gonna have a public-private partnership or whatever it is. But you guys picked AOC and I'm curious as to why that is. And if you think that like an AOC pairing with a centrist or more moderate VP makes that a bit easier. I've been pretty wowed by her starting at the DNC last year. I was there in Chicago.

I thought that she gave arguably the best speech of the entire convention. She sounded completely middle of the road, like a great economic populace, but there was none of the extremism in any way. She was just laser focused on like, these are the bread and butter issues. This is what's going on your kitchen table. I'm all about affordability. I was a bartender like me. Talk to me about AOC. And if you think that that's really what's gonna happen. Yeah, so what our task was in what we termed our first Democratic primary draft of 2028

was to choose who we thought would be likeliest to win the nomination, not who we thought would be Democrats' best chance at winning the White House. And while we both suggested at the time that that person was AOC, I think we would both take the field over AOC, meaning I don't think she has a more than 50% chance of being the next Democratic nominee. Oh, great. But at that moment in time, she had

the best of anybody out there. And I think that part of that is seeing her fighting the oligarchy tour and the fact that she really does seem to be running for president this early on and some of the reaction to her. I think we can also expect a pretty deep field of Democratic hopefuls in 2028. And in a divided field, somebody who has a really ardent base of support could do particularly

well. Again, again, you know, going back to Trump in 2016, he was winning a lot of those primaries with 30 some percent support early on. And so I think part of it is mechanical. Part of it is the Democrat rank and file being fed up with taking what the establishment gives them, which has been for the past decade, ultimately pretty middling presidential candidates

and relatively uninspiring ones to them at that. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, then almost Joe Biden again, but instead Kamala Harris. I think it has been now a generation since Democrats have had somebody that they can get super enthusiastic about and who is charismatic in the way that people think

of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. And so I think in some ways there is a market for that, especially in a divided field. Part of it also goes to exactly what you were just saying and what we talked about with Zoran Mamdani that the Democratic left, the progressives, the democratic socialists, however you want to term them, however much they might not like the pundits, they have paid attention to the polling. And they know that defunding the police, decriminalizing, crossing the border, abolishing ICE, you know,

long list of these things, are ultimately unpopular. And they don't really want to talk about them anymore. And they want to talk about the economic part of their argument. And even in the fighting oligarchy tour, we heard AOC make pitches like, you know, very Obama-esque. Like there's no red America, there's no blue America. We all just want to sort of be together and we all, you know,

we want to fight the rich who take advantage of us and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I think to your point about winning over independents or moderates, oftentimes when we think about those people, and it's not lost on me that we're on the Raging Moderates podcast, in the media's conception of who those people are, they're like people who take the middle position on everything. They're like the kind of person who think that, well, abortion should become illegal at exactly the second trimester mark, or that they want the tax policy to be exactly in the middle of what the Democrats want and what the Republicans want.

But like I said before, it's not usually so. It's people who, you know, and these people are not super partisan. They aren't. They can't be because they don't fit into a party neatly. They're people who want a wall at the border and they're people who want Medicare for all. So oftentimes, and we'll fight over sort of how do you win elections? Is it turnout or persuasion or whatnot? Oftentimes they go hand in hand.

Somebody who's charismatic enough to get people to turn out and sort of choose the voting booth over their couch is also charismatic enough to get people to switch sides. And there's a lot to be said for basically becoming a celebrity in that way. Now, could AOC do that? I have no idea. Could Josh Shapiro do that? Sure, maybe. I have no idea there either. I mean, plenty of folks have also compared him to Obama. And so, you know, I have no idea what's going to happen in 2028, but I do think that I think Democrats are ready for a more anti-establishment, more populist campaign. And let's remember, Barack Obama was not the most liberal candidate when he took that approach, and neither was Bill Clinton.

No. Right? Barack Obama, yes, he took the left position on the Iraq War. He ran against that, but he took the more right position than Hillary Clinton on healthcare. Likewise, Bill Clinton took the right position on crime and federal spending, and then he took the left position on healthcare in that case. It goes back to just not being all of one thing,

being able to be many things to many people. Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, working in conservative media, the amount of clips of old Obama and Bill Clinton that I am shown on a daily basis, seeing like, you guys used to be sane, And working in conservative media, the amount of clips of old Obama and Bill Clinton that I am shown on a daily basis saying, like, you guys used to be sane, even though they've changed their tune about Obama over the years, but when they're talking about immigration, even old Hillary Clinton talking about border walls, old Joe Biden talking about border

walls makes a compelling argument that, A, people can't evolve, but that you don't have to betray your party and their values to say something that makes sense to the widest swath of people. And granted, background it as a researcher, so I'm always obsessed with the numbers of it. I'm like, even if this doesn't sound perfect to you, if 70% of people think it, then why are you gonna be the one to show up there and say,

no, there are folks who didn't take that Iraq war vote who feel pretty good about that at this point when everyone else was trying to push them in that direction. One thing, and I want to move on to talking about the court, wonkiness. Democrats are very wonky. We love a good deep dive. I think take policy paper,

and I saw that Project 2029 is now bubbling, and some of the people that are working on it, very familiar names to me, you know, Neera Tanden, Jake Sullivan, Anne Marie Slaughter, Justin Wolfers, people that I like a lot. But I have this fresh face concern that's going on. And this is definitely part of the Mom Donnie effect as well. And whoever it was that was part of his team, we don't know who they are, either. They're not like pollsters that are getting bounced around from different Democratic candidates.

Do you think the wonkiness is a problem that people are not able to campaign in bullet points, which Mom Donnie did, and I think AOC is certainly capable of, and I think a Josh Shapiro would be as well, but that there's always this extensive rollout of everything, and we're gonna make sure that you know how we're paying for every single dollar of this.

And at the end of the day, people don't really give a fuck, right? They just want to know what your vision is and what you're going to try to accomplish. They don't have a tremendous amount of faith in government anyway, that you're going to be able to pull it off, but they would just want to vaguely be on the same page as you and know that you're a normal human being. Yeah, I think that the idea of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose comes to mind here. There's a reason that Elizabeth Warren didn't ultimately win the 2020 Democratic primary, who had a 12 point plan for everything. I just don't think that there's maybe the attention span

for that. I don't know that that wins over, right? Who are the marginal voters in America today? They are people who don't pay a lot of attention to the news. I say this based off of polling. They're people who don't vote regularly. They're people who don't really align with either party

or don't have a strong track record of voting in one party's primary or voting at all. Today, they skew more male, they skew more Latino, they skew more middle-working class. We're not talking about the swing voter soccer mom of the sort of Bill Clinton versus Bob Dole 1996 campaign. And again, to like go back to how the media conceives of a swing voter, it's not somebody in a diner in New Hampshire looking at one person's policy paper and the other person's policy paper and then checking, I like this one and I don't like that one. And it just, you're probably familiar with her,

but Kristen Stoltis Anderson, she's a Republican pollster who does fantastic work in this space. And you know, something that she's said for a long time is people want somebody who will fight for them. That's the number one indicator of why Republicans like Trump, for example. Yeah. And I think that's more of a vibe than necessarily a policy package. I like it. And it's true. And I generally like Kristen Soltis Anderson as well. All right,

let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Support for the show comes from SoFi Small Business Lending. You're a small business owner, you need capital to find new opportunities and grow. And you can do that with help from SoFi. You might know SoFi for student loans and high interest savings, but now they help small businesses too. No more chasing bankers or wasting time in a branch. SoFi's small business marketplace is your new go-to fast and digital solution. In one single simple search, SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business in just minutes. You can discover options to meet your specific needs and if you find a quote that works for you, you may receive

funds as soon as the same day you're approved. Say it's working capital you need or a line of credit or an SBA loan or equipment financing. SoFi's marketplace can help you find all of the above. It's already helped thousands of small businesses find the funding they need. SoFi also offers business owners curated tools, vetted business bank accounts, business credit card recommendations and a ton of resources to help you scale your business like a boss. SoFi, now helping you get your business right. Visit sofi.com slash propgpod and see your options in minutes.

Danielle Pletka Welcome back. Before we go, the Supreme Court just handed Donald Trump one of the biggest wins of his second term. He's certainly calling it that. In a sweeping 6-3 ruling, the justices effectively gutted the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, a key legal tool that has been used to block many of Trump's most controversial policies. This caps off a remarkable term for Trump in the court, whereas administration won a

series of emergency rulings that critics say lack transparency and bypassed normal judicial review. Galen, the ruling didn't just limit nationwide injunctions, it reshaped the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. How could this precedent affect future efforts to check the White House no matter who's in power? Yeah, so this is a part of the American judicial system that presidents of both stripes have railed against for a long time. You'll remember that things like DACA and student loan forgiveness were also held up in lower federal courts because of nationwide injunctions.

Obama and Biden were not particularly happy about that, But Donald Trump has tried to do a lot more by executive action than any other modern president. And so he has had as a result, more nationwide injunctions against his policies than any other modern president. And on top of that, oftentimes, especially in his first term, a lot of these executive orders were put together somewhat sloppily, like things that probably could survive judicial review if worded more carefully, more thoughtfully didn't, simply because they were written hastily and without the experience or expertise of other administrations. And so this has affected Trump disproportionately, but obviously, historically and going into

the future, it's not like this is only good news for Republicans or only good news for Democrats. I'm sure Republicans will be quite unhappy about having to overcome this hurdle later on. And I should also say, this doesn't block all nationwide injunctions. I think it just means that they have to be brought as class action lawsuits.

So it will make it a little bit more difficult to potentially get this case hurt. Or also, folks can go straight to the Supreme Court to try to get an injunction. And so this doesn't mean that all of a sudden there will be no more nationwide injunctions, but it does open the possibility where we will have more of a patchwork of laws in America where they're sort of on pause in some states or some regions and not on pause in others, which could be a little chaotic. Now, I spent a lot of time thinking about public opinion, and so how does this ruling align with what Americans think? I can tell you based on recent

polling from the Associated Press and NORC, Americans are more concerned about the president having too much power than they are concerned about the president having too much power than they are concerned about federal judges having too much power. So 50% of Americans today say that the president has too much power. Only 30% of Americans today say that the federal courts have too much power. There are some partisan differences underneath that, as you can imagine. Republicans don't think Trump has too much power. They're more inclined to think that federal courts have too much power. But broadly speaking, this doesn't exactly align with Americans' current views of who has too much power in the checks and balances system.

What about the courts giving the president too much power? Because that's my main gripe with all of this from the Supreme Court and their immunity ruling down to, you know, Donald Trump was very effective in terms of judicial appointments. I mean, Biden did a little bit better in the four years, but still Trump went around and he put like 35 year olds on the court everywhere, you know, looking at Eileen Cannon in Florida, who essentially saved him while winning the election saved him, but with the Mar-a-Lago documents case. And obviously he's been able to handpick three Supreme Court justices, and I imagine he's going to get one more, right?

I mean, between Alito, Thomas, or Roberts going in the next three years. Justin, I'm already fretting in that news cycle. I can barely keep up with the news as it is. It's gonna be really bad. It's gonna be bad. It's gonna be bad. You know, I think that ultimately this whole process has not

been great for the courts. We can see in polling that Americans' views of the Supreme Court and the judiciary in general have been in decline, as folks have increasingly seen it to be partisan. After the 2000 election ruling in Bush v. Gore, that was a really emotional, hard fought case that in many ways did decide that election.

But the doubts that Americans had about the Supreme Court ultimately didn't endure. It was a little blip and then, you know, faith in the institution went back up to around 70%. That's no longer the case. And obviously it's hard to have a constitutional representative, democratic, republic, use whatever combination of words you want to use

because I know that they code as partisan in different ways. It's hard to do that if we don't have our checks and balances in place and the judiciary, the legislature, and the president behaving according to how they have been allotted power. There were also, I mean, there were a spate of other decisions that came out last week, and some of them just affirmed what the consensus opinion is. To go back to what I was saying in our last conversation, like if something's like a 70-30 issue or an 80-20 issue, and as a Democrat, I'm constantly talking about this with transgender people playing in competitive sports. Like you can feel however way you want to about this,

but the polling is clear on it. This is an 80-20 issue. It's not something that people think is fair that Leah Thomas swimming at Penn with biological women is just not something that we're going to be able to get over that hurdle. The court actually affirmed a lot of those kind of 70, 30, 80, 20 issues as well. Yeah, it's really quite striking. I think there is a sense that the court has become increasingly partisan

and that's because the balance of the court has shifted. And also that there have been some very high profile rulings recently that have overturned precedent. Obviously I'm talking about DBS here. And so on some high profile rulings recently that have overturned precedent. Obviously, I'm talking about DBS here. And so on some high profile cases, the partisan divides or the ideological divides of the court have really come to the fore. And because we in the press stress conflict, those are the things we're also going to stress the most. But there's some polling done by folks at Harvard and elsewhere called the SCOTUS poll

that tries to ask in plain language the American public about every issue before the court during the upcoming term. And they did that this year. And it turns out that in every single one of the cases that SCOTUS poll asked about, the Supreme Court ruled with the majority of public opinion. Now, we have to hold the birthright citizenship one because they asked about birthright citizenship to the public and it was something like just shy of two-thirds, but if you look at polling broadly, it's somewhere around two-thirds of Americans believe that birthright citizenship should stand.

Obviously, the majority of the court didn't rule on the merits in that. The minority said that at its face, birthright citizenship should stand. We should rule on the merits here. Instead, they ruled on these nationwide injunctions, which didn't get asked in SCOTUS poll. But on things like, you know,

should you have to confirm your identity before watching adult content in Texas, the court said yes and a majority of Americans agreed. Should parents and their children be able to opt out of certain lessons on LGBTQ issues, the majority of Americans said yes and the court ruled as such. These are issues on which maybe Americans didn't used to have super hardened views like on trans rights in particular. It used to seem like folks trying to ban trans individuals from using gendered bathrooms and things like that were on the wrong side of the issue. I think Republicans have sort of maneuvered a bit to figure out where they actually have better

footing politically and have focused more on that. But it is interesting to me, like, I think the court, as much as they say they're not partisan, they may be political in the way that they do try to sort of align themselves with public opinion where possible. Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if that was included in some of the heavy research that they're doing. You know, they don't, they want to what's right and they wanna follow the law, but they also are trying to create an America that people want to live in

and that they think is fair and just. And also increase faith in the court. I mean, I think John Roberts has been pretty clear that he's worried about the degree of decline in trust in the Supreme Court, especially with his name at the top. And so the John Roberts Court basically, is it going to be the court that depletes faith in that branch of government? And

I, you know, reporting suggests he has a lot of anxiety about it. So trying to do as much as possible to showcase places where there are unanimous decisions, where some justices are more mavericky and take turns that you might not expect them to. Obviously, Amy Coney Barrett did plenty of that this term. I think they want to spotlight that as much as possible to try to bat down this narrative that it's just one more legislature with a majority Republican on the bench. And you might not have data ready to go on this, but I wanted to ask you.

Shoot, you know, I'll do my best. I can come up with just opinions out of my ass as well. Good. Well, that's all that being a cable news pundit is anyway. So I got you covered there. Don't worry. This is a safe place for opinions pulled just out of your ass on the fly.

But one of the many ways that Donald Trump likes to govern is to attack his enemies, right? And people love that about him. He's our fighter. Going back to he'll fight for us, though I think he just fights for himself and his kids sometimes. But he goes after the judiciary a lot, right? He thinks that judges should be impeached.

He doesn't necessarily care about threats of violence. Amy Coney Barrett was a crowning pick for him and then she's the devil going after Leonard Leo and saying, you know, he's misled us on all of this and he's just a rhino, etc. Do you know anything about how Trump voters or conservatives feel about attacks on the judiciary and the importance of having an independent judiciary? on the judiciary and the importance of having an independent judiciary? It's a good question. I'm inclined to believe that partisan signaling matters a lot here because most people don't spend their days thinking about the separation of powers. And so Trump is now the leadership of the Republican Party. The opinions that he expresses

can become the opinions of millions practically overnight. And so, you know, that's something to take seriously. One of the best examples that we saw of this recently was bombing Iran. So the Washington Post did polling before the US bombed Iran on whether we should strike, and then they polled again afterwards. And they saw a 30 percentage point increase in Republican support for bombing Iran once Trump had taken that step. And so when Trump verbalizes a position,

especially on something that Americans don't spend a lot of time thinking about, you know, on things like abortion or immigration or guns that we have talked about in American life for decades. People have relatively entrenched views that are harder to move. But on things that are more esoteric or just more distanced or foreign, places where Americans don't have really entrenched views, what Trump says can change their opinion. And so whether he is attacking the court or the press or some individual, Elon Musk or what press or, you know, some individual, Elon Musk or what have you, I'm sure many Republicans who were just fine with Elon Musk overnight decided that they don't like Elon Musk anymore once they got in a fight. Yeah. But yes,

he has the power to change the opinion practically overnight of millions of Americans. Wow. Disturbing on a whole host of levels. All right. That's all for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates. Our producers are David Toledo and Eric Gennikis. Our technical director is Drew Burroughs. You'll find Raging Moderates every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to Raging Moderates on its own feed to hear exclusive interviews with sharp political minds you won't hear anywhere else. This week I'm talking to Congressman Jason Crow about how Democrats can reclaim patriotism. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts so you don't miss an episode.