Politics Politics Politics

Trump might get his cabinet after all.It was never going to be easy, many of them pulled from the Deep MAGA reserves doomed to offend the old guard who are developing carpel tunnel holding their nose through Trump’s second administration. Others are lifelong Democrats who helped over the finish line but still inspire a stink eye from lifelong Republicans.Some confirmations were easy—Elise Stefanik sailed through, and Marco Rubio was unanimous. Others more controversial, like Pete Hegseth, who barely squeaked by. But throughout it all, two nominees had the lowest odds of making it through, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. That’s because neither of them are Republicans, and in a Senate where the GOP holds a 53-47 edge, blocking a nomination means peeling off Republican votes, not relying on Democratic opposition. The Democrats could stomp their feet all they wanted—it didn’t matter. But on this Tuesday, both have made it out of committee, thanks to key endorsements from influential figures within the GOP they both look to be on a narrow but assured path to the executive branch where they will serve at the pleasure of the president.Politics Politics Politics is free twice a week. Does it LOOK like news is only breaking twice a week? C’mon dude, get the two bonus episodes.Tulsi GabbardHer confirmation was boosted by Susan Collins, a senator unafraid to buck the Trump administration. Representing Maine—a state that's far from a deep-red stronghold—Collins' support was critical. It was enough to push Gabbard through committee on strict party lines. Beyond Collins, outreach from newly installed CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senator J.D. Vance helped smooth over concerns that arose during her confirmation hearing. The main sticking point? Her stance on Edward Snowden. Gabbard made it clear that she viewed Snowden as a criminal and would not recommend a pardon, but she stopped short of calling him a traitor. This led to a bizarre debate over whether she was sufficiently condemning Snowden, as some seemed to argue that unless she said the magic “traitor” word she was unqualified. Gabbard's confirmation has brought together one of the strangest coalitions I’ve seen on the right—far-right Republicans like Tom Cotton, staunch Never Trumpers like Meghan McCain, and figures like TuringPoint’s Charlie Kirk. McCain even appeared on Kirk’s radio show Monday to announce they’d team up to primary anyone who voted against Gabbard. That looks like it might not be necessary.RFK Jr. Unlike Gabbard, his confirmation hearing was messier. While Gabbard kept her composure, RFK Jr. approached it like a Kennedy: arrogantly. Democrats took their best shot, mostly by hammering him on vaccines, though their efforts were, frankly, ineffective. They made a lot of noise but didn’t seem genuinely committed to blocking him. In the end, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who voted to impeach Trump, decided he was comfortable enough with RFK Jr. to push him through committee.With that, Trump's cabinet is nearly complete. There’s one more potential hurdle: a labor secretary nominee who previously supported the PRO Act and has drawn skepticism from Republicans. But compared to Tulsi and RFK, this is a much lower-profile battle.At the end of the day, this confirmation process has been tougher than what Trump faced in his first term, but his team has handled it deftly. The Democrats? They put up almost no real defense.Was that on purpose? I don’t know. I suspect they don’t either.Chapters00:00 Intro02:50 Tulsi and RFK safe?12:42 USAID21:04 Waffle House Raises Egg Prices25:46 Senate Takes Charge on Reconciliation Bills32:38 Chris Cillizza This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The ongoing confirmation hearings for RFK Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard have been largely predictable. But as always, the real story isn’t the grandstanding—it’s in the quiet calculations happening behind the scenes.This was RFK Jr.'s second day facing the Senate, and the discussion largely revolved around his past statements on vaccines. But if you’re looking for movement in the room, there wasn’t much. Coverage focused on explosive exchanges between Democrats and the nominees, but that’s irrelevant. The Democrats can all vote no, and it won’t change a thing. What matters is what Republicans are saying—and there’s little indication that they are going to vote against RFK Jr.RFK Jr. remains politically resilient for two reasons:* The Kennedy name still holds value with a broad swath of Americans.* His skepticism of Big Pharma and Big Agriculture resonates with a coalition that includes both libertarians and "crunchy moms"The main Republican angle of attack was always going to be abortion. RFK Jr. has been pro-choice his entire life, but now he’s taking orders from a pro-life president. How does that play out? He faced questions about the abortion pill but gave answers that were lukewarm at best.My assumption: He’s moving forward.Kash Patel’s hearing was predictably contentious, with heated exchanges involving Adam Schiff and Amy Klobuchar. But, again, those don’t matter. He also had solid support from Republican lawmakers, which means his confirmation is essentially a done deal.If Matt Gaetz was a non-starter because of his long list of enemies, Patel should have had similar problems—he’s burned plenty of bridges. The difference? Patel has a history in law enforcement, whereas Gaetz does not. That seems to be enough to push him through.This is where things get interesting. Unlike RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t have the built-in advantage of a famous name. Unlike Patel, she lacks a Republican establishment safety net. And unlike both of them, she has a real opposition force: the intelligence community.Tulsi has been one of the most vocal critics of the intelligence agencies, particularly regarding FISA Section 702, which she argues enables domestic surveillance. She’s also expressed support for Edward Snowden—a major red flag for the very institutions she’d be overseeing as Director of National Intelligence.Her hearing featured a bipartisan focus on one specific issue: Would she call Snowden a traitor?She wouldn’t.She acknowledged that Snowden broke the law, that there were other ways he could have exposed government overreach. But she refused to use the word “traitor.” And that, oddly enough, might be the line that sinks her.It speaks to a deeper issue of symbolic politics. It wasn’t enough to condemn Snowden’s actions—she needed to emotionally brand him as a traitor. Her refusal to do so is revealing because it suggests that there are Republicans who may see her as too much of a risk to intelligence operations.Looking at prediction markets like Polymarket:* Kash Patel is sitting comfortably at 95%.* RFK Jr. has dipped slightly from 78% to 75%, but still strong.* Tulsi Gabbard is now underwater at 44%.That’s not a good place to be.Gabbard’s nomination has created one of the strangest coalitions in modern politics—hardcore MAGA figures lining up alongside Tom Cotton and Meghan McCain. But if Trump’s team is going to throw its weight behind any nominee, it’ll likely be her. The next 72 hours will tell us if she has the votes or if this is where the process stalls.Not a ton of surprises overall, but one question remains: Will the Trump administration go all in on Tulsi?We’ll see.In this episode we also have a great chat with Michael Tracey who makes his Px3 debut. I wanted to talk to him about current events but we wound up spending the whole hour rehashing the 2024 campaign. Chapters00:00 Intro02:30 Confirmation Hearing Chaos: Tulsi Looks Wounded14:17 UPDATE: Potomac Crash and Vivek Monster Ohio Numbers23:34 Michael Tracey This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The wolves are out for two of the Trump administration’s most unconventional cabinet picks. Can Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. survive their hearings this week?Let’s start with Bobby.Caroline Kennedy has publicly stated her opposition to RFK Jr.‘s appointment. Caroline is deeply embedded in the power structure of the modern Democratic Party—she has served multiple times as an ambassador and was one of the first major endorsers of Barack Obama back in 2008. So, make of that what you will. RFK Jr., the black sheep of the family, is now stepping into a Republican administration, a move that surely raises eyebrows. Though, if we’re speculating, old Joe Kennedy probably wouldn’t have had much of a problem with it. Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A recent New York Times article titled “A Vatican Meeting Added Scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard’s Foreign Travels” befuddled me. If you remember Gabbard’s complaints about being placed on a TSA watch list, this article confirms it—but oddly enough, it doesn’t treat that as the headline. Instead, the focus is on why she was put on the list, with government sources leaking that it stemmed from her attendance at a Vatican conference organized by a man who was reportedly on a terror watch list.The Times knows this man’s name but chose not to publish it because they couldn’t verify why he was on the list. Essentially, the government gave the reporters a briefing, naming this individual as the reason Gabbard was flagged, but when pressed on why he was on the list, they refused to elaborate. And yet, the Times still ran with the story.The article tacks on another odd claim—an intelligence briefing reportedly revealed that two Hezbollah members once mentioned Gabbard in a conversation that was passed on to US intelligence. During Gabbard’s controversial trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad she also met with “the big guy,” according to the Hezbollah fighters. My first thought? She met with Joe Biden? No, apparently, “the big guy” in this case was either a Hezbollah leader or a Lebanese government official with ties to Hezbollah, which, given the region, isn’t exactly uncommon.But what’s the real takeaway here? The way this story is framed makes little sense. If the government comes to you with information about a public figure, I understand reporting on it. But why not fold it into a larger piece digging deeper into the actual process behind it? Why not talk to Gabbard directly? Why not investigate the TSA’s reasoning in more detail? Instead, this piece presents her as suspicious without providing substantial evidence.And knowing now that the government proactively brought this information to the Times, it only raises more red flags. That’s a weak justification for placing a high-profile critic of the current administration on a TSA watch list. It’s probably a bad thing to do in general. It’s even worse that they felt the need to leak it to the media. But, of course, the real motive is clear—they don’t want her confirmed. There’s no other reason for the government to hand this story to the Times unless they’re trying to sink her nomination.Chapters00:00 Introduction01:34 Why didn’t I Cover The J6 Pardons More?17:02 UPDATE: MI Senate Race Heats Up, Trump Funding Pauses, Buyouts?34:23 Previewing Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Hearings with Jen Briney This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

President Donald Trump, on his first day back in office, issued pardons and commutations to over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. This action nullified the efforts of the Justice Department’s extensive investigation and prosecution of the events. The clemency measures included full pardons for the majority of those convicted, effectively erasing their criminal records. Additionally, sentences for 14 prominent figures, such as Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, were commuted to time served, leading to their immediate release. La Pointe reporter Claire Meynial has been covering the trials and incarcerations of many of these cases and joins us to talk about the reality of the cases and we guess about the political fallout. Also: * The vibe inside congress during the indoor inauguration. * A plea for digital services like YouTubeTV to carry C-SPANChapters * (00:00:01) Introduction* (00:01:22) The Battle for C-SPAN’s Future* (00:07:06) Update: Hegseth Secured? Ratcliffe Confirmed. JFK Files Declassified* (00:15:57) Claire Meynial on J6 and Inauguration This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Donald Trump is the president of these United States again. And with it comes a flurry of executive orders that could reshape America.It’s officially Joe-ver for Biden. But before it was over he reshaped the concept of American presidential pardon power. We discuss all of it LIVE from Washington DC with Jen Briney.Politics Politics Politics relies entirely on your donations to travel the country and cover national politics. Join us, won’t you? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Very happy to be joined on the show today by Ricardo Fernandez a doctor from Chicago who happened to become close friends with former President Jimmy Carter.We discuss:* Life after the presidency * Obama’s campaign refusing to let him speak at the 2008 DNC* How he reacted to his grandson recording Mitt Romney’s “47%” quoteAnd much more! Politics Politics Politics is a good show. Subscribe for free right here or upgrade to paid!Episode Chapters* [00:00:01] Opening Remarks* [00:01:19] Introduction to Jimmy Carter Special* [00:02:00] Ricardo Fernandez* [00:23:03] TikTok Ban News* [00:24:46] Joe Biden's Farewell Address* [00:29:57] Midterm Polling and Other News* [00:39:59] Jimmy Carter's Final Days This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Pete Hegseth is your next Secretary of Defense. Nothing from Tuesday’s contentious hearing will likely pluck GOP votes away from him. If anything the histrionics of the Democrats on the panel will make it harder for skeptical Republicans to stray. The way you collapse a nominee when you are in the minority is you give them enough rope to hang themselves. Ask cordial questions that elevate in complexity and hope they screw something up. That is the most likely possibility with Trump’s slate who are being painted as unready and unprepared.They did not do that.Instead we got screeds on Hegseth’s personal history, financial management and his opinion of women. What standing does a Republican Senator have if he is on the side of Sen. Tim Kaine taking the moral high road on infidelity? That being said, even if the Democrats had played a more strategic hand it looks like the GOP had effectively closed ranks. The lynchpin of a potential washout was Iowa’s Joni Ernst and she spent the first portion of her time discussing the importance of a Pentagon audit (the upside of finding someone from outside the traditional drafting grounds for SecDef since DoD has routinely failed audits) and then played home run derby pitcher on the subject of women in the military. Yesterday, Hegseth was the most vulnerable of Trump’s nominees. Today, betting markets pin that honor on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.But if the Republicans are on the same page the Democrats are going to take this seriously, then I would bet on the full slate sailing through. Also, on the this podcast…Jen Briney, host of Congressional Dish, joins to discuss the stakes of these hearings and the ideological divides within Trump’s coalition. Dave Levinthal, the money man, is back to discuss Kamala Harris 24 continuing to charge donors months after losing.Chapters* 00:00:00 - Episode Introduction and Live Show Announcement* 00:01:35 - Pete Hegseth's Confirmation Hearing Analysis* 00:10:17 - Breakdown of Trump’s Coalition Cabinet* 00:21:00 - Marco Rubio’s Focus on Foreign Policy* 00:30:00 - Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel: Challenges and Prospects* 00:43:10 - Upcoming Events and Political Updates* 00:52:49 - Dave Levinthal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Best I can tell there are two emerging Democratic Lanes in our post-Obama era world…Progressive + Border Hawk In a bygone era, Bernie Sanders got an “A” rating from the NRA and believed increased immigration was a corporatist scheme to drive down union wages. While, he has yet to reload on his 2A cred, he is now back to beating the drum on the economic costs of immigration. I would suspect that progressives will feel more comfortable consciously uncoupling from positions and groups calling for a decriminalized border. New Blue DogsArf! Arf! John Fetterman sees a lot of Trump signs when he drives through the state of Pennsylvania. So why should he fight tooth and nail to keep Pete Hegseth from the Pentagon? If he wants to keep his seat in a state that is trending rightward then maybe picking and choosing his battles with the MAGA agenda is smarter than diametric opposition. Maybe it makes more sense to make face in Mar-A-Lago than to march in defiance. —Either way we have a lot of spaghetti being thrown at the wall and our friend Jeff Maurer is here to help make sense of it. Including whatever the hell Chris Murphy is up to. Chapters4:30 Jeff Maurer35:05 UPDATE - Carter Funeral, Fetterman to MAL, Trump First Executive Orders48:51 Kirk Bado This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Justin Trudeau, Canada’s long-standing Prime Minister, announced his resignation this week, marking a seismic shift in the nation’s political landscape. Trudeau’s departure comes after nearly a decade as Prime Minister and thirteen years as leader of the Liberal Party. His resignation was not entirely unexpected but has sparked a wave of introspection within Canadian politics.Here is what you need to know if you don’t care about Canada unless they’re playing hockey or changing heads of state as told to us this episode by Evan Scrimshaw.The Breaking Point: Why Trudeau ResignedTrudeau’s decision to step down was a culmination of mounting pressure from within his party and worsening public opinion. In recent months, his leadership faced escalating dissent. A pivotal moment was the resignation of the finance minister, which signaled deep fractures within the Liberal Party. Over the holiday season, Trudeau faced an ultimatum from his caucus—resign or face a vote of no confidence.Several factors contributed to Trudeau’s plummeting support:* Declining Poll Numbers: Trudeau’s approval ratings had been steadily eroding, with the Liberal Party polling over 20 points behind the opposition Conservative Party.* Special Election Defeats: Losing in traditionally strong Liberal ridings signaled waning public support.* Policy Disconnect: While many of Trudeau’s policies were popular in principle, his personal brand had become a liability. Voters who liked Liberal initiatives often dismissed them outright when they were linked to Trudeau.Trudeau’s tenure will be remembered as one of bold progressive initiatives juxtaposed with ethical controversies. On the positive side, his government achieved significant reductions in child poverty, lowered carbon emissions, and introduced affordable childcare programs. Yet, his administration was marred by scandals, including:* Ethics Violations: Pressure on the attorney general to favor a Quebec-based company, SNC-Lavalin, during a corruption probe.* Conflicts of Interest: Controversies surrounding contracts awarded to organizations with personal ties to Trudeau’s family.* Housing Crisis: Critics argue Trudeau’s inaction exacerbated Canada’s housing affordability crisis, with rents and mortgage rates soaring during his leadership.As Scrimshaw put it, Trudeau’s administration embodied “reckless disregard” for ethical boundaries. While these issues might have been survivable individually, collectively, they eroded trust in his leadership.Trudeau’s resignation has thrown the Liberal Party into a leadership race. He will remain interim Prime Minister until March, with no parliamentary sittings until then. Key contenders for his replacement include:* Chrystia Freeland, the current finance minister and one of Trudeau’s closest allies.* Mark Carney, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor.* Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence.* Other candidates, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Dominic LeBlanc, and former B.C. Premier Christy Clark.The party faces a critical choice: selecting a leader who can halt its decline and prepare it for the next general election. Scrimshaw warns that without decisive leadership, the Liberal Party risks being overtaken by the New Democratic Party (NDP) or marginalized altogether, as seen historically with the UK’s Liberal Party being replaced by Labour.As Trudeau exits, the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, appears poised to seize power in the next election. Poilievre, a pragmatic and relatively moderate conservative, has maintained focus on fiscal discipline while distancing himself from extreme social conservatism. The scale of the Conservative victory—whether narrow or overwhelming—will shape the trajectory of Canadian politics for years to come.Trudeau’s political obituary is one of contrasts. He entered office as a symbol of youthful energy and progressive ideals, but over time, his administration became a cautionary tale of hubris and ethical lapses. His departure offers an opportunity for renewal within the Liberal Party and Canadian politics at large. Yet, the path forward is fraught with challenges, as the party grapples with its identity and viability in a rapidly shifting political landscape.ChaptersOpening and Introduction (00:00:00–00:00:45)General overview of topics, including Trudeau’s resignation, Zuckerberg’s changes at Meta, and upcoming political discussions.The Revival of Government (00:00:45–00:01:25)Commentary on the return of political activity in the House and the Trump administration’s cabinet hearings.Justin Trudeau Resigns (00:01:25–00:08:45)A detailed discussion of Trudeau’s resignation, his legacy, and the future of the Liberal Party.Global Political Trends and Liberal Party Risks (00:08:45–00:12:15)Insights into parallels between Canadian and UK politics, the Liberal Party’s identity crisis, and risks of being overtaken by the NDP.Future Leadership of the Liberal Party (00:12:15–00:14:22)Breakdown of potential leadership candidates and their implications.Conservatives' Prospects and Pierre Poilievre (00:14:22–00:21:57)Analysis of Poilievre’s leadership style and the Conservative Party’s likely dominance in the next election.Discussion with Tom Merritt on Meta (00:39:00–00:41:07)A conversation with Tom Merritt on the implications of Meta's changes for political and social discourse.The Trump Administration’s Strategy (00:26:23–00:29:56, 00:42:00–00:49:20)Overview of Donald Trump’s legislative plans, reconciliation tactics, and the challenges facing the House and Senate. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Kamala Harris is the American High Speed Rail candidate.Very expensive. Popular with liberal city dwellers. But ultimately a lot of hype that leads to very little.While she isn't necessarily a poor candidate in every context, she struggled twice on the national stage with median voters first within and then outside of her party. I’m not going to do a blow by blow of her campaign because this is a eulogy and eulogies are broad. So let’s start here:Kamala Harris is from California. Not a bygone version of California. Not Ronald Regan’s California. Not Roger Rabbit’s California. The California over the last two decades. One that saw the rise of San Francisco as a financial and cultural hub AND post-pandemic has become synonymous with progressive failure.That California. If you are a California politician the first decision you need to make when explaining yourself to the nation is: does California suck right now or not?If you say it sucks, then you explain how your beloved home state has fallen victim to the plight of the modern world. Blame capitalism, blame a lack of morals, decry the spread of drugs… if you want to get spicy, blame local or state government. Or you can decide California is great actually, blame the media for spreading a distorted image. Kamala Harris did neither. The only time she mentioned California was in her backstory. Oakland was a prop. But for Presidential candidates, your past is your governing philsophy. And I don’t mean the bullet points she’d recite, (did you know she prosecuted trans-national gangs?) I mean your leadership. Are you a head cracker? Are you a unifier? Are you a turnaround artist? Are you a technocrat? With Kamala, we got a little bit of everything. Which means we got nothing. And I’ll give credit to her campaign staff, who I didn’t think did a great job, because I don’t know that they had much to work with.Kamala Harris lacks dynamism and appeals to a limited audience. She is a highly-touted college quarterback who underperforms in the pros. Based on their initial promise they get a second shot on another team only to be terrible there too. Why do we think the third time is the charm?She emerged from her tenure as San Francisco Attorney General as a let’s-enforce-the-laws liberal and was lauded for it. By the time she became California AG she had liberal wins to notch including legalizing gay marriage. Her election to Senate from the one-party state while impressive for her resume is not indicative of someone with political skill or campaign savvy. Her early wins say more about her than anything that came after because California was on the ascendancy after that. The nation was begining to agree with positions California had taken in the last century: specifically on marijuana and LGBT freedoms. The tide rose and her boat with it. But to be clear: she’s a system product. An assembly line politico. Sleek and shiny but quite possibly purposeless.We saw this when she leaned into progressive messaging while running for president in 2020, it backfired. Some blamed this on her embracing "woke" politics or poor advisers, but the real issue was deeper: she's never had to dig deep and find a compelling version of herself before. She certainly didn’t find it in 2019.True authenticity emerges when voters believe in a politician's core identity—even if they disagree with their views. They sense an underlying worldview driving the candidate forward. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all possessed this quality. Harris notably lacked it, exemplifying a broader Democratic Party tendency to believe messaging alone can solve fundamental problems. No amount of messaging could separate Harris from her identity as a politician from America's most progressive state. And she can’t explain it as a stregth or distance herself from it as a weakness.She's not a poor speaker— just uninspiring. Unlike George W. Bush, who wasn't particularly dynamic but clearly stood for something, Harris never conveyed a sense of deep conviction.Without conviction, you can't win. You need to spark something in swing voters or motivate your likely supporters to actually turn out. Without that spark, you have nothing. This is all compounded by the fact that she was dealt a tough hand. This is the second visit the Campaign Undetarker has made to the Democratic Party this cycle. President Joe Biden drops out before the convention, admitting to America that they’d reject him and the job he’d done as president. And in the late summer, Kamala faced a tricky choice. How do you handle Joe? She decided not to. Okay, allow me one bit of back seat driving for the campaign. In my opinion, her only viable path forward would have been resigning the Vice Presidency. She could have done this gracefully—simply stating she wanted to pursue her own vision of government. Would it have left the Biden Administration scandalized? Yes. But that’s happening anyway. Why tie yourself to the mast of a sinking ship when you have a chance to win the presidency? This would have distinguished her from the administration without directly criticizing him. Now when she dodged she could always point to her sacrifice which would speak louder than any second guessing. The fact that this option wasn't seriously considered reveals how Democrats misread the situation. They treated her like an interchangeable part, failing to recognize that when crafting a multi-year national narrative, you can't take voters for granted. The audience isn’t dumb. Shape the story how you want, they’re not slow.You need to be alive. You need to be vital.Only bold moves could have saved her. Instead, we got a rehash of post-Obama Democratic presidential campaigns: celebrity endorsements, polished interviews, and rigid talking points. Not a speck of humanity in sight.When you're trailing by 30 points, you need to get aggressive. You need to try every strategy possible. If you're not willing to think creatively, what's the point?But this isn’t simply a eulogy. No, this is a prelude. In politics, what is dead may never die. I believe Kamala Harris is the next governor of California and I think she might be popular. California might be the only state that would realistically think of Kamala as a centrist. She will have the political clout to do otherwise unpopular things that will be quality of life improvements to the citizens. She could go back to the style that suits her the best: Kamala the Law and Order Liberal. To use a football analogy. Mac Jones was a good quarterback in college at Alabama but has been mediocre on two NFL teams. But what if he could go back to college? There is every reason to believe he’d be awesome.Same for Governor Harris. But if she decides to run for president again? I’ll be saying the same thing I said in 2019. The same thing I’m saying now. If she runs for president a third time, her ambitions will…REST IN PEACEChapters* (00:00:50) Introduction: Setting the Stage for 2025 Politics* (00:01:17) Kamala Harris's Presidential Eulogy* (00:13:23) PAX MAGA: Republican Dominance in the 2024 Election* (00:18:03) Biden’s Legacy and Party Dynamics* (00:26:03) Reflections on Election Predictions* (00:40:01) Closing Thoughts: The Path Ahead This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe