0:01

AT&T is opening connected learning centers

0:04

across the country, opening

0:06

doors for students in need by

0:08

giving them access to free high-speed

0:10

internet, computers, and educational resources that

0:12

can keep them learning. It's

0:15

just part of our ongoing commitment to

0:17

help more students stay connected, because when

0:19

students stay connected, they get closer to

0:21

their dreams. To

0:24

learn more, visit att.com/connected

0:26

learning. Hello

0:39

from New York, I'm Chuck Todd and this is

0:41

the Chuck Todd cast. Yes, normally I come to

0:43

you from Washington, but we did our coverage out

0:45

of Atlanta and New York for the first presidential

0:48

debate here at NBC News. And

0:51

needless to say, it was,

0:54

I think, a very consequential debate,

0:56

and that was a question. I obviously

0:58

beforehand thought it was more possible than

1:00

not that this would be a less

1:03

consequential debate than perhaps folks thought.

1:05

But the question really was, would

1:07

either candidate look like the

1:09

caricature that the other campaign has been trying

1:11

to paint? With Donald Trump,

1:13

did he come across unhinged? With

1:16

Joe Biden, did he come across

1:18

lucid? And

1:20

all there. And let's just

1:22

say that it is Joe Biden that

1:24

looked more like the caricature that the right's been

1:27

painting of him than Donald Trump did looking like

1:29

the caricature that the left has painted of him.

1:33

As the debate was going on, I

1:35

was talking to a bunch of Democratic Party

1:38

sources, including a few elected officials, a

1:40

few labor leaders, a few other just

1:42

long time political strategists. And

1:45

to say that there was panic is

1:48

an understatement. The words

1:50

disaster, can't believe this, what's

1:52

wrong with him? This

1:55

can't hold. It was that type

1:57

of rhetoric. Now look. It's

2:01

possible, you know,

2:03

you can have a bad debate performance. Ronald

2:06

Reagan had a terrible first debate performance against

2:08

Walter Mondale. In fact, the famous quote

2:11

where Ronald Reagan had to say, you

2:15

know, I'm not going to hold my opponent's

2:17

youth in an experience against him, was

2:20

in response to his bad first debate. It

2:22

was the only moment in that campaign for

2:24

Reagan's reelection where there was a moment of doubt. That

2:27

first debate, Reagan didn't look up

2:29

to stuff. He looked like he was a bit too old

2:31

to do the job. And

2:36

that's probably about the best spin

2:39

that the Biden campaign could come up with, but they've

2:41

really got to, they're really going to

2:43

struggle here with spinning this performance because they got

2:45

everything they asked for. This

2:48

debate format was the debate format they asked

2:50

for. The debate timing was the debate timing

2:52

they asked for. And it's

2:54

that timing that is only adding what I think

2:56

is going to be a real problem for Joe

2:58

Biden for the next two weeks. And that

3:01

is going to be increased chatter and

3:03

hand wringing about whether it is, whether

3:05

there's enough time to replace him as

3:07

the nominee. One of

3:09

the more intriguing aspects of

3:11

the Biden campaign's decision to

3:14

have the first debate this early was that

3:16

it was coming before Biden was technically the

3:18

nominee. He is

3:20

not the nominee yet. The Democratic Convention

3:23

is not convened yet. And

3:26

in theory, if Joe Biden decided he woke up

3:28

tomorrow and said, okay, for the good of the

3:30

party, I'm not going to seek reelection. I release

3:33

all my delegates. It

3:35

would become an open convention. The first open

3:37

convention the Democrats truly have had since

3:40

1952, if you're keeping score

3:42

at home. That, by the way,

3:44

52, the Democrats held

3:46

their convention in Chicago. Then again, the Democrats

3:48

have held their convention in Chicago a lot.

3:52

But still, it is worth noting

3:54

that and ironically in 1952, Democrats

3:57

were searching for a candidate. Harry

4:00

Truman and some had wanted, had

4:02

held out hope they could convince Dwight Eisenhower to

4:04

run as a Democrat. He decided to run as

4:06

a Republican. They were really

4:08

nervous about finding somebody and Harry

4:11

Truman kept trying to convince the

4:13

governor of Illinois, a gentleman by the name of Adlai Stevenson to

4:15

do it and he didn't want to do it. And

4:18

then when he welcomed and opened the Democratic Convention, he

4:21

gave a speech that made all the delegates decide, no,

4:23

you really have to do it. And

4:25

he decided to accept that nomination. So that's

4:28

just a little history for you on that

4:30

front. Look, there's a

4:32

long way to go on this.

4:34

And again, perhaps the Biden campaign

4:36

will get to a bunch of elected

4:38

Democrats will calm the

4:40

waters. Maybe the explanation that he has

4:43

a cold will suffice. Maybe

4:45

he comes out really vigorous. Maybe he

4:47

does a series of interviews, something he

4:49

hasn't done with many members of mainstream

4:52

media because these are the things

4:54

he's going to have to do if he wants to quiet this down.

4:57

I would pay particular attention, though,

4:59

to two Democrats publicly. I

5:02

believe there's really only two Democrats that if they

5:04

came out and said, Joe Biden needs to step

5:07

aside, it probably would

5:09

start a flood of other Democrats

5:11

saying the same thing. And

5:14

that would be Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. They're

5:17

arguably the two most influential Democrats other

5:19

than the president inside the party. In

5:22

some ways, they arguably have as

5:25

good, if not better, relationships with

5:27

many of the major donors

5:29

and the major leaders of the Democratic Party

5:31

than Joe Biden. So I would be paying

5:34

particular attention to those two. While I'm I

5:36

think it's unlikely a Barack Obama would ever

5:38

go public. Nancy Pelosi

5:41

is is somebody

5:43

who isn't afraid to do the

5:46

tough things and isn't afraid

5:48

to take an arrow for the

5:50

party if somebody has to

5:52

take an arrow for this. And she certainly is, I

5:55

think, the probably the most

5:57

respected voice in the

5:59

party outside. the president right now and the

6:01

former president and Barack Obama. So

6:04

I would pay particular I think those

6:06

two in particular would have a lot of influence

6:08

on this and might and might make

6:10

it very difficult for Biden to fight back on this.

6:13

Now again perhaps by the morning and

6:15

look we should I'm

6:17

gonna show so we should all show some humility

6:19

on this in that it may

6:21

not change the vote share. People

6:23

could be more concerned about his age but not

6:25

concerned enough that they're not going to vote for

6:28

him because perhaps they don't like what Donald Trump

6:31

was saying and it wasn't as if Trump had

6:33

a great debate performance it's just that Biden

6:36

was just terrible

6:39

and so Trump

6:42

was somewhat disciplined in the first 45

6:45

minutes of the debate. He got almost a little

6:47

cocky towards the end of

6:49

the debate and I think certainly got smaller and

6:51

smaller in some of his back-and-forth but

6:55

I you know I'm not one of those who thinks

6:57

Biden got stronger as the debate went on it certainly

6:59

he didn't get weaker but

7:01

to me the exclamation point on his

7:03

awful night was this bizarre back-and-forth over

7:05

his golf handicap and then just the

7:07

answer he gave when he said he

7:09

was vice president he got it down to a sixth and

7:12

that was a response and

7:14

he seemed to not be prepared for his

7:16

January 6th exchange with him in a way

7:18

and I know some of the campaign is

7:20

going to complain that well the moderator should

7:22

have done some of this you

7:25

know that's not what a debate is about a debate

7:27

you know the fact the chief fact-checker at a debate

7:29

are each other's opponents you know

7:31

the the moderator is a facilitator I think as journalists

7:33

you fact you check the facts you do all this

7:36

now you do here and if there's

7:38

some obvious you know when you do follow-ups and

7:40

things like that but there's a fine line between

7:42

becoming a participant in the debate and

7:45

facilitating the conversation in the debate but

7:48

ultimately it was Joe Biden that struggled to

7:51

fact-check Donald Trump

7:53

more than anybody else on that stage and

7:55

that was his chief job on

7:58

that front so This,

8:00

uh, this feels like a

8:02

consequential moment in this campaign. Um,

8:05

I can tell you there's a lot going to

8:07

be a lot of Democrats who get a sleep

8:09

or have a sleepless night from Thursday to Friday.

8:12

Um, Joe Biden's going

8:15

to have to show show, you know,

8:17

where does he find a moment to

8:19

repair this before his convention? Um,

8:22

I have a feeling if they're going to

8:24

try to saw calm the waters quickly, my

8:27

guess is we see Biden in an interview in the next 48

8:29

to 72 hours and maybe multiple

8:31

interviews, but he's going to

8:33

have to pass a few

8:35

firing line type of tests, I think, to,

8:38

to, to calm folks down because, um,

8:41

the performance tonight, especially

8:43

when you realize this was a

8:45

format they asked for. They

8:47

basically spent the week preparing and resting

8:49

in Camp David. Um,

8:52

and this is the performance that was turned

8:54

in. Uh, it's going

8:56

to be very, very, uh, tough,

8:59

uh, for them to defend, defend this,

9:02

uh, going forward and how

9:04

I think you'll,

9:06

you'll have an idea of how bad

9:08

things are on

9:10

how aggressive the

9:13

Biden folks are with the president's time

9:15

in the next 72 to 96 hours,

9:18

if you start to see him in a million

9:20

places, then you know, they know they have a

9:22

lot of repair work to do. Um,

9:25

as for polling and the impact of this debate,

9:27

uh, we've got a, we've got

9:29

the 4th of July coming up. I'd be very careful

9:31

about what polling we're going to see a few overnight

9:33

polls that'll, that'll, um, I think

9:35

a better poll question isn't going to be the head

9:37

to head and probably won't move that much. The better

9:40

poll question is going to be, do

9:43

you feel confident Joe Biden has what it takes

9:45

to, to serve a full four years?

9:48

And more importantly, what's that number among

9:50

Democrats forget what Republicans say,

9:52

we know that's sort of a partisan answer,

9:54

but what will fellow Democrats say about Joe

9:56

Biden? What will independents say in that answer

9:58

about Joe Biden? and how many Democrats would

10:01

like to see a new nominee now? What

10:04

is that number? I

10:06

promise you there'll be multiple poll questions on

10:08

that over the next couple of weeks. So

10:12

I would say this, the first

10:14

polling you see in the week

10:16

of July 8th, that to me will

10:18

be the first time you can fully sort

10:21

of say, okay, the debate's baked in, all of

10:23

this is baked in, and here's where this race

10:25

stands, and we'll have a better idea then. But

10:27

for now, it's gonna be

10:29

a very, very long holiday week for

10:32

team Biden. We're gonna

10:34

sneak in a break when we come back. My

10:37

interview with Indiana Governor, former

10:40

Indiana Governor and former President of

10:42

Purdue University, Mitch Daniels. AT&T

10:50

is opening connected learning centers across

10:52

the country, opening doors for

10:55

students in need by giving them

10:57

access to free high-speed internet, computers,

10:59

and educational resources that can keep

11:01

them learning. It's

11:03

just part of our ongoing commitment to

11:05

help more students stay connected, because

11:08

when students stay connected, they get closer

11:10

to their dreams. To

11:13

learn more, visit att.com/connected

11:15

learning. Is

11:21

it a stay in or a go out

11:23

kind of Friday night? The choice is yours.

11:25

Find the detail that moves you with three

11:27

times points on dining, including takeout from Chase

11:29

Sapphire Reserve. Learn more at chase.com/Sapphire Reserve. Cards

11:31

issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member

11:33

FDSE, subject to credit approval, terms applied. So

11:37

my guest today is former Indiana Governor, Mitch

11:39

Daniels. He's also the senior advisor to

11:41

the Liberty Fund, and he is

11:43

the President Emeritus of Purdue University, which also

11:46

means he was actually the President of Purdue

11:48

University. You can't get the Emeritus title that

11:50

you've actually done that job. In his latest

11:52

opinion piece for the Washington Post, Daniels

11:55

writes that his home state is quote, revealing

11:57

the real consequences of one party rule. He

12:00

argues, quote, the issue isn't simply that

12:03

states lean reliably Republican or Democratic. It's

12:05

that now a big majority are heavily maybe

12:08

irrevocably tilted in one direction or the other.

12:11

Governors in these states, he says, no longer have an incentive to

12:13

reach out to the other side. They instead need

12:15

only focus on winning roughly 5% of

12:17

the electorate in a primary election as

12:20

an Indiana's example. Before

12:23

we start this conversation, though, remember to stick

12:25

around until the end of the podcast. You'll

12:27

hear my answer to one of your listener

12:29

questions and to send yours in. Just email

12:31

thechucktodcastatgmail.com and don't forget the dot. But

12:34

I want to get back to this because what made

12:36

this surprising is that I'm guessing

12:40

Governor Daniels wasn't upset about the result

12:42

who ended up the nominee. He's

12:44

just concerned about the process itself. Many

12:48

people don't speak out about the

12:50

process when things go their way.

12:52

So Governor Daniels, welcome to the

12:54

podcast. Morning, Todd, Chuck, and thanks

12:56

for having me. Well,

12:58

I want to start with that. Politically,

13:02

I'm guessing you like Mike Braun and Jim Banks

13:05

and all of this. This isn't about the individuals

13:07

that won the nominations, which

13:10

made to me your op-ed more

13:13

relevant and more interesting and I think more

13:15

potentially persuasive because you're

13:18

still concerned about how they won their process,

13:20

how they won their nominations. I'd like to

13:22

be understood that way, that it was my

13:24

intention. No,

13:27

I'm comfortable with the outcome.

13:31

And in

13:33

a way, Chuck,

13:36

I should say, in a way I'm

13:38

responsible for it. We had a very

13:40

competitive state. And then during the eight

13:42

years in which first

13:45

our team rested control,

13:48

long time control from our opponents

13:50

and then built these, we built

13:52

these majorities, which have now lasted

13:54

ever since. And so

13:57

the one-party domination really is... Now,

14:00

something that traces to our time in office.

14:03

No, I think that in general, I

14:05

mean, our state has been well-governed. I've

14:07

made the point in the piece that

14:09

doesn't mean that states that are heavily

14:11

one way or the other can't be

14:13

well-governed, only that the incentives for their

14:15

candidates and their office holders are

14:18

not as balanced as they once were

14:20

or as I think was healthy. Well,

14:24

it look, and I would just say this,

14:26

and I can, I can trace it in

14:28

that. And I'm not, I'm not assuming anything

14:30

going forward here. I know Senator Braun, I

14:33

think he's a highly ethical guy.

14:35

So I'm not, I don't want this to come across

14:37

as a, as a potential hit on him. But

14:40

if you look at other states, when one

14:42

party has had an advantage sort

14:45

of into a fourth term, you

14:47

know, into your 20th, a second decade

14:49

of political dominance, that's usually

14:51

when corruption starts to percolate, right?

14:53

It just, it is, it is a

14:55

phenomenon that you see in it. And

14:58

it is, it goes to, there's a

15:00

reason why you get the occasional Republican governor

15:02

in New York. It's the reason why you get

15:04

the occasional Democratic governor in Kansas. It's

15:07

usually about the only balance you can get

15:09

in some of these states. But, and

15:12

to me, at least seeing that has shown,

15:14

hey, there's at least some balance in the force

15:16

here in these one party states.

15:19

I think you're concerned that maybe even

15:21

that's not available to the

15:23

voters. Corruption is certainly one of the problems that

15:25

can come with too much complacency,

15:28

too easy a time, securing

15:32

and holding office. It's not the only

15:34

problem. I'm also

15:37

troubled by the excesses

15:39

to which some of these states

15:41

are prone, either fiscally

15:43

and on one hand or sometimes

15:45

culturally on the other. And

15:49

maybe most of all, simply by the fact that

15:52

that I think politics at its healthiest

15:55

encourages candidates to think

15:57

about and speak about,

15:59

formulate policy. about the

16:02

broader common good. And they do that

16:06

out of, I'm sure, principle, but

16:08

also out of their quite

16:11

understandable desire to get elected. But

16:13

when that's no longer the currency

16:15

of election, when an election

16:17

can be secured as it was in the case

16:19

I wrote about by actually fewer than 5% of

16:21

the voters, candidates

16:27

and eventual office holders may

16:29

not have fought as much about

16:32

policies that will bring people together and that will

16:34

serve the broader public interest. Right.

16:38

So I've had a few theses on this and that,

16:41

you know, they're just theses, you have to

16:43

prove them out. But one of,

16:45

I really think a stark

16:47

moment in how campaigns

16:49

changed came in 2004

16:51

when we discovered, both parties

16:54

discovered, micro-targeting is

16:56

what it was called in 2004, but they

16:58

discovered that swing voters weren't

17:00

centrists, meaning swing voters

17:02

weren't vacillating between the two parties. It turned

17:04

out most swing voters vacillated between the same

17:07

party. They just were vacillating between voting and

17:09

not voting. And the minute

17:11

political operatives figured that out, the

17:14

general elections changed. And if you see

17:16

now, compared to the first general elections

17:18

you were involved in, governor,

17:20

versus the general elections of today in

17:23

the October, I always say, look at the last six

17:25

weeks. When I was growing up,

17:28

when you and I were coming of age, those

17:31

October TV ads featured

17:33

Republicans talking about working with Democrats,

17:35

Democrats talking about working with Republicans,

17:37

because the incorrect assumption as

17:39

it turned out was that, hey,

17:41

these last voters, they're in between the 45

17:43

yard lines. When we found out

17:45

they weren't, it suddenly

17:47

became a race to 50% plus one.

17:50

And it was about getting your people

17:52

out, identifying your voters already. Rather

17:55

than persuading, it was about identifying with

17:57

them already. And so you micro-target.

18:00

getting found out, oh, wow, there's a bunch of gun

18:02

owners over here. So let's do a gun messaging over

18:04

here. Oh, wow. There's a bunch of people upset about

18:06

reproductive rights over here. So let's do that. So

18:08

it changed the way we campaign. So that's

18:10

just one that, that what the

18:13

more we learned about the voters, the

18:15

less broad we were in our campaign message, which

18:17

I think is something that my guests would frustrate

18:19

you. I, well, I mean,

18:21

at, at all sphere, I mean, I

18:23

think that the, these were refinements of

18:25

techniques that have been coming along for a long

18:28

time. I think you're onto something there. I think

18:30

that probably did change the nature

18:32

of our campaigns. There were

18:34

many other factors involved.

18:38

You know, the, the, the way in which

18:40

today people are having

18:42

their biases confirmed and even reinforced

18:44

by the, by the

18:46

media they consume probably has,

18:50

has driven more people toward the

18:52

edges than, than was once the

18:55

case. But whatever, whatever

18:57

the cause it does, it does

18:59

produce, I think the unfortunate a

19:02

situation that I tried

19:04

to describe in which campaigns,

19:08

which at their best really

19:10

can be important vehicles of

19:12

public under for furthering public understanding

19:14

and getting people to think about

19:16

issues they hadn't before. You

19:19

know, I used to tell our folks all the time, we're

19:22

not going to take polls to figure out what to

19:24

talk about. If we don't know what to talk about,

19:26

if we don't know what we think is in the

19:28

interest long-term of our state,

19:30

then they should find somebody else. Um,

19:34

what we, what we want to do is, um, uh, try

19:38

to, uh, where we can help shape

19:40

and lead public opinion. And I saw

19:42

many cases where, where that was, uh,

19:44

where that was achieved. So, um,

19:47

I agree with your thesis. I like,

19:49

like, uh, most of the problems

19:51

we see it's probably not a complete explanation.

19:55

No, no doubt. No doubt. I want to tackle

19:57

sort of though directly. I think what you were

19:59

writing about. And that is this the

20:01

primary phenomenon, the idea that 5% decide the choices

20:03

that ultimately

20:06

100% of us have to pick from. You

20:09

know, we can, you know, there's all

20:11

these people claiming how upset they are about the presidential

20:13

race, but as my friend Michael Steele, I heard him

20:15

say this in front of a group of voters, remember

20:17

who to blame, you did this. He goes in 2016,

20:19

there were 20 of the rising

20:23

stars of the Republican Party and you chose

20:25

Trump. And in 2020, there were 20

20:28

rising stars of the Democratic Party and you

20:30

chose Biden. So ultimately the voters

20:32

did have some say in this, but let's talk

20:35

about the primary issue. There are different ideas out

20:37

there to try to increase

20:39

more people in the primaries,

20:42

ranked choice voting. I think

20:44

that's sort of hit a wall to be honest. I

20:46

think the, the lack of transparency

20:48

and how second, third, and fourth choices

20:50

work for people. It's very exploitable in

20:52

the media and it's very hard for people like

20:55

me to explain the process in

20:57

the most transparent way. The

21:00

top two systems, Washington State, California,

21:02

Louisiana are the most prominent there.

21:04

I know you're

21:07

a data guy. I know you look at this stuff. You were, before

21:09

you got into politics, you were the political director

21:12

at the Reagan White House. What

21:14

do you make of these various

21:16

ideas and it's usually hard partisans,

21:19

the party leaders that fight this more

21:22

than anybody. I have some pretty antediluvian

21:24

views about this. I actually

21:27

think that as

21:29

long as we allow primaries to

21:32

be the vehicle

21:34

by which our candidates are chosen, you're going

21:37

to have, you're going to struggle to get

21:39

away from the problem

21:42

that we're discussing here. If once

21:46

again, candidates were being

21:49

chosen in conventions,

21:51

conventions would be, tend to be

21:53

over time populated by people

21:56

who don't bother with them today. And I think

21:59

you'd maybe once

22:01

again have a decision process

22:03

that concentrated more

22:05

on who might achieve maybe

22:09

not just a slim majority, but the kind of

22:11

majority you need to make significant

22:14

change. I

22:17

always say this, presidents may need to win with

22:19

50% of the vote, but if you

22:21

want to be successful, you got to have a

22:23

60% approval. That is very important. That's a very

22:25

important insight. I said a similar

22:28

thing in a different

22:30

way to our folks all the time. I say

22:32

we're here to make big change, and big change

22:34

requires big majorities, not just to enact

22:36

them, but if you want them to endure and not

22:38

be quickly undone when

22:40

50% plus one goes against you

22:42

the next time. No,

22:45

I mean, I do think that as

22:48

long as we're committed, I'm tempted to

22:50

say stuck with a presidential

22:53

primary system. A starting

22:57

point would be not to

23:00

start in the same place every single time

23:02

where you basically have a small

23:04

coterie of people who are

23:07

by now political professionals. A couple of

23:09

these early states are like a statewide

23:11

focus group. They're

23:16

better at punditry. I joke

23:18

the Iowans are better pundits than anybody you'll see

23:20

in cable news. I mean, they're

23:22

very good. Bless them. They're active citizens. I'm

23:25

all for that. I love, by

23:27

the way, requiring

23:30

our candidates to actually go out and

23:32

meet real people. It's

23:34

still a very artificial process because

23:36

there are 50 of your colleagues

23:39

chasing them around with cameras all the time. No,

23:43

it's frustrating because I do think I'm with

23:45

you. What I've always

23:47

loved the early, I've always defended the

23:49

early states because I said, hey, there

23:51

are tests. One is an

23:53

organizational test. One is a test of

23:55

winning independence, New Hampshire. One is a

23:57

test of wooing your base, South Carolina.

24:00

China, African-American voters and evangelicals.

24:02

One is a test of

24:04

Latinos, Nevada. Like, it's a

24:06

series of trial heats, but unfortunately,

24:09

my colleagues and I have all decided, no, no,

24:11

no, whoever wins Iowa wins the nominee. I mean,

24:13

again, I think it's that part

24:15

of it, I think is very positive. I

24:18

have a problem with the very same

24:20

states year after cycle after cycle after

24:22

cycle. I

24:24

think produces artificialities of its own kind. If

24:26

we rotated the

24:29

sequence of the early states, I think

24:32

maybe you'd start to see a different

24:35

set of outcomes. You're

24:38

probably right. You're probably right. So

24:40

let's go to the, that's interesting. So you're

24:42

not, in some ways you want to

24:44

go back to the old party system. I

24:46

mean, and I was thinking about the

24:48

Republican party. Dwight Eisenhower couldn't have won

24:50

primaries. No, that's probably right.

24:52

You know, smoke

24:55

filled rooms, absent of smoke, had

24:57

something to recommend

24:59

them. Namely, the hard

25:02

bitten, probably cynical politicians who were

25:04

in there had one objective. That

25:06

was to identify a winner, somebody

25:08

who could have

25:11

the best chance to attract the

25:13

most voters. You

25:18

know, it's interesting you talk about the convention

25:20

process. Right now, the one

25:22

state that has sort of both a convention

25:24

and a primary process, and we watch this

25:26

play out as Utah, right?

25:29

And if the convention were in charge, Utah

25:31

would go really hard, right? But

25:33

the voters step in and we just saw it this week.

25:35

We just saw it last night, you know, the

25:38

Spencer Cox might not be popular inside what

25:41

is the Utah Republican party

25:43

these days, but he's certainly popular

25:45

with rank and file Republicans because he

25:48

won fairly, fairly handily. So

25:50

I guess you assume

25:52

the convention process changes if

25:55

it has more actual power. I'm just speculating, but

25:57

I think that when they had power, you had

25:59

a... I would

26:02

say a broader group of people who

26:04

found it useful to hold

26:06

the party office, seek to be delegates and

26:08

so forth. When they became what

26:11

they are now, I

26:13

think you have simply

26:15

different folks attracted to it, a

26:18

narrower group. So if

26:21

we restored some power over nominations,

26:23

while we were at it, I

26:25

would restore power over dollars in

26:27

our politics too, to

26:30

the parties. They

26:32

might resume their role as

26:34

unifiers, as agencies

26:37

of organizations committed

26:40

to trying to capture the middle.

26:44

So would your, I don't want

26:46

to put words in your mouth, but it sounds to

26:48

me, because I've been an advocate of this actually. I

26:50

mean, I think McCain-Feingold ruined the parties

26:53

and really weakened the party. Citizen United in

26:55

some ways put the

26:57

final nail in the coffin of political

26:59

parties. Because one of my

27:03

favorite sort of conundrums to offer up to people,

27:05

which is we've never been

27:08

more loyal to parties and

27:10

yet parties have never been weaker as

27:13

organizations. And

27:16

so you go to the whole, why is that?

27:19

But if you put all the money, if

27:22

you were incentivized financially

27:24

to let, and the parties were incentive, you

27:26

let them raise unlimited dollars, but full disclosure

27:29

all the time, however you wanted it, every

27:33

24 hours, every week, whatever you wanted to put

27:35

in there, I think that you could realistically,

27:38

do you think that

27:40

kind of system, it would scare people, the

27:42

John McCain's of the world argue, you can't

27:44

put all this power, put all

27:46

this money in a political party, but it

27:49

sounds like you possibly think that might actually be

27:51

healthier for our system. Well, what we have now

27:53

is pretty scary. And I'm

27:56

not for a moment for limiting the ability of...

28:00

people to freely participate and to

28:03

donate dollars. It's

28:06

a question of how those get spent and where. I

28:08

mean, I think the most insidious distortion

28:10

of our system of all right

28:13

now is the spending of huge

28:16

amounts of money by one side to

28:19

try to nominate somebody they think is a loser.

28:22

Somebody that they have no

28:25

regard for at all, but

28:27

they try to, and often succeeded,

28:29

getting these people nominated, knowing

28:32

that that'll be the end of

28:34

the trail. You know,

28:36

that would never happen, of course, if they

28:38

were forced to channel their, I

28:42

don't think that would happen if they were

28:44

forced to channel their contributions to an organized

28:46

framework. You

28:51

know, it's interesting. I can feel the

28:53

tension in you. You're a free market capitalist, and

28:56

I think you believe in the free market of democracy as

28:58

well. And at

29:00

the same time, I'm guessing you feel as

29:02

if the current rules, would

29:05

you argue the current rules of our election

29:07

infrastructure are actually are

29:11

anti-free market? I'm

29:14

not sure what you mean by the term. Well,

29:19

I guess that the idea that it's

29:22

not, that it isn't an artificial market,

29:24

that you're truly letting, you know, you're

29:27

letting the campaign market

29:29

decide. You know, I don't

29:32

feel like we do have a free market of, you

29:35

know, you look at what you described in Indiana, it's

29:37

a joke in Florida. Do you know that

29:40

you know who the state speaker of the house is going

29:42

to be more than two years in advance? That's how one

29:44

party rule it is. And it's

29:46

a part-time legislature, so suddenly, it's

29:49

as if the future speaker has a job

29:51

application. It's

29:53

just, again, it doesn't feel as

29:55

if everybody has a fair

29:58

shot at deciding things. And

30:00

yet, I, you know, it feels like it's

30:02

our current structure that is actually limited. What I

30:04

would argue is the free market. I think that

30:07

is a reasonable observation.

30:11

On the other hand, in a

30:13

social media world, suddenly everybody's a pundit,

30:15

everybody's a journalist, everybody, you know,

30:17

can spout off, you know, in ways that,

30:21

and to audience, to larger audiences than

30:23

ever before. So in a

30:25

way, we do have a freer

30:30

marketplace of ideas and voices than ever,

30:32

maybe to the point

30:34

that nobody can hear anybody anymore. And

30:38

libertarianism gonna run amok, I guess.

30:42

You could argue. So let me

30:44

go back to, is

30:46

there a structural change

30:50

short of essentially getting

30:52

rid of voter

30:54

primaries and putting power back in the convention? I

30:58

have a feeling that toothpaste is out of the tube. I don't

31:00

think we're putting, I don't think voters

31:02

will say, no, no, no, no, that's a good idea. I

31:04

want to have less say.

31:06

But I do think voters want more say in

31:08

the entire process, whether that is,

31:10

you know, I personally believe

31:12

both major parties are too big for

31:14

their constituencies they represent, that

31:16

we might be cleaner in a four-party

31:19

structure with

31:21

a runoff process where, you know,

31:23

you let your four primaries pick who they want, your

31:26

four parties pick who they want, and then

31:28

you let a runoff process sort

31:31

of get us to the least objectionable

31:33

final two candidates. That

31:36

may be the best available alternative. Obviously,

31:41

there have been great virtues in

31:44

a two-party system. We

31:48

look at our friends

31:50

abroad, we see fragmented

31:52

systems, parliamentary systems, coalitions

31:55

have always forming and

31:57

reforming. probably

32:00

not the future. How many prime ministers do you think we

32:02

would have? As you describe,

32:05

might be the cure for that, might be the

32:08

happy medium in

32:11

which we could have candidates

32:16

selected much more on the basis

32:18

of their perceived

32:21

viability and yet not have the chaos

32:30

that sometimes comes with a very fragmented

32:32

system. What

32:34

do you make of third party candidacies or

32:37

independent candidacies? Do you see them as the

32:39

answer to our problems as or as sort

32:41

of, sort

32:44

of basically

32:46

one-offs where you're just trying to, it's

32:50

a rebalance in a short period of

32:53

time. I wish the door was more open

32:55

to them, at least as

32:57

a check on the process, maybe a prod

33:00

to established parties and not to wander too

33:02

far toward the edges. I

33:04

thought that had a third

33:06

candidacy emerged this year, it would

33:08

have been reasonably viable.

33:10

I didn't accept

33:12

the, what I know is the prevailing

33:15

view that it would have been

33:17

another, yet another doomed venture.

33:22

I think we're in, as we've been

33:24

discussing, such new water here,

33:28

two candidates each looked

33:32

upon very skeptically by two thirds

33:34

of America, two octogenarians. These

33:37

are brand new circumstances. So I'm not

33:39

sure that history told us

33:42

much about how a third

33:44

party might have fared in that situation.

33:47

It would have had to have been a

33:49

highly credible candidate. Nobody found one, so

33:52

we're not gonna know. But I think

33:54

had there been such a candidacy, even if it didn't

33:57

make it to the finish line, it would

33:59

have changed. the debate in a positive way. I

34:01

think that both candidates then would have been

34:04

induced to try to speak

34:06

to those who were gravitating toward

34:08

that third option. So as I

34:11

mentioned, I've always

34:13

seen great

34:15

virtues in a two-party

34:18

system, but the one we have

34:20

today has flaws and maybe a

34:22

little healthy competition from a third

34:24

direction would be helpful. You

34:29

know, it's interesting you say that about the two-party system

34:31

and you look over in Europe and and,

34:35

you know, I joke, imagine how many

34:37

prime ministers we would have had between 2016 and 2024. You

34:41

know, we had two impeachments, we had a disputed

34:43

election, we had, you know, all these things. Anyway,

34:46

imagine had we changed leaders, you know, we

34:48

also struggled. We've had two different speakers of

34:51

the House in less than two years. We've

34:53

had all sorts of how

34:55

in our system chaos and

34:58

yet we have guardrails. We had prevented

35:00

even more chaos because of the

35:03

structure of our system versus what

35:05

we're seeing right now in France in

35:07

the UK where, you know, snap elections

35:09

or somebody asked me recently if

35:12

we had had the ability to do a snap election, when

35:14

would Biden have called for one? And

35:17

I said probably would have been right after the

35:19

22 midterms. But I don't, you know, that I

35:21

guess that's what how we would have done, which

35:24

of course only creates more

35:26

instability in the one

35:28

country around the world that our allies

35:30

don't want us to look unstable. Is

35:36

there a system? Would

35:39

you support an

35:42

all party primary? I'd like

35:45

to see and I'm glad to

35:47

see other certain jurisdictions experimenting with

35:49

all these things we've talked about,

35:54

you know, yet another virtue of our federal

35:57

system that we can experiment

36:00

learn from those that

36:02

seem to be successful. So

36:06

yeah, I'm intrigued with it. It

36:08

might be the way to maintain

36:11

what I think people, you were

36:13

correct, people strongly favor and that's

36:16

the opportunity to participate in the

36:18

nominating process directly. But

36:22

maybe without the problem

36:26

that we've wandered into

36:28

in which those choices

36:30

are dominated by the most

36:33

passionate voices. Earlier

36:37

this week, I had an interview with two mayors, one

36:40

from Columbus, Ohio, Democrat, one from

36:42

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Republican. Both

36:44

of them are elected in nonpartisan

36:46

primaries. Many mayors are.

36:50

Mayors, it's sort of the last county

36:52

executives and mayors in a

36:54

lot of jurisdictions. You

36:56

don't put your party label on. It is sort

36:59

of an all everybody's on there. And

37:01

I've seen it firsthand. I'm

37:03

a Miami native, a former

37:06

mayor. I couldn't have told you whether he was

37:08

a Democrat or Republican. I thought he might have

37:10

been Republican. He ran for Congress. He ended up

37:12

being pretty conservative Republican. But when

37:14

he was elected as a nonpartisan

37:16

mayor, he didn't govern as a

37:18

partisan Republican. He governed as a

37:20

more general, if you will, mayor.

37:26

Why do you think we have not seen a movement to do

37:28

that with governors? We seem as a

37:30

society, hey,

37:33

we don't want our mayors to get too partisan

37:35

because there's no, as these mayors will like to

37:37

tell you, there's no Republican way to pick up

37:39

garbage or a Democratic way to fill a bottle.

37:41

I think governor, at least until recently, has been

37:44

largely that sort of office too. You made a

37:46

good point a few

37:48

moments ago about the states like

37:50

Massachusetts has elected several Republicans. You

37:52

can't get elected surveyor in most

37:54

of Massachusetts, but you

37:56

can get elected governor as an elected

37:59

governor. three or four recent ones

38:01

have demonstrated. Maryland has

38:03

elected a couple and to pick

38:06

another of the most democratic states.

38:08

And I think that's because people

38:11

look at offices like mayor and governor as

38:13

action jobs, as they want to know who can run the business, who

38:23

won't spend us broke, who will

38:26

be reasonably responsible. Very

38:28

different than when you're picking congressmen and

38:30

senators and I guess presidents in which

38:34

issues more philosophical

38:37

tend to dominate. So I think

38:40

that the

38:42

nature of those jobs has produced

38:45

balance and once again has encouraged

38:48

people to step forward who want

38:53

to try to identify

38:55

unifying themes and and

38:58

broader long-term factions

39:01

and policies that they think are good for their

39:03

state. And

39:06

now we get, I think we're still getting those

39:08

people, but that's not how they got there. They

39:10

probably got there by, as

39:13

I think I wrote in the piece, stroking the

39:15

erogenous zones of whichever

39:18

side there. You know, I want

39:20

to actually, I mean, you know, look,

39:22

and I don't want to just pick on Indiana here

39:25

because you're not, it wasn't the only Republican primaries, but

39:27

there were a lot of states who are hundreds

39:29

of miles away from the southern border where the primary

39:32

issue that I watched on TV ads

39:34

was the border. And it was

39:36

all they needed to do. They didn't have to talk about what

39:39

they were going to do for school funding and

39:41

they didn't have to talk about what they were

39:43

going to do for transportation funding, arguably two of,

39:45

you know, the two things that I

39:48

would want to grade a governor on first and

39:50

foremost. That was my point exactly. That is the

39:52

experience we had here. I, I joked

39:54

that it wasn't clear if some of these folks are

39:56

running for, you know, secretary of state or secretary

39:59

of Homeland. security. Now, you

40:02

know, Chuck, you and your, and

40:04

your colleagues can look in the mirror to some

40:06

extent, we've nationalized news in this country in a

40:09

way that I think is unhealthy too. It's not,

40:12

it's not all the fact

40:15

of that it so much

40:17

emanates from your precinct,

40:20

so to speak, but the

40:23

unhappy collapse of local news in too

40:25

many places, our state is one. Right.

40:27

Has led to, I think this imbalance, you

40:30

know, when

40:32

I was spending years and years and

40:34

years in every copy shop and saloon in the

40:36

state of Indiana, you know, people

40:39

weren't talking generally about national issues.

40:41

They were talking about things closer

40:43

to home these days, the needle

40:47

still. No,

40:49

I say that, that unfortunately the cable channel,

40:52

a national cable channel has replaced the,

40:55

the local newspaper as the, as

40:57

the conversation starter and that diner you go to.

41:00

Right. Whether, and it, and that's a, that's a

41:02

bummer because it used to be with some local

41:05

initiative. Hey, you know, they're trying to build a

41:07

dump over here. Why is that corporation? Right. You

41:10

know, nobody, nobody's reporting on that. Instead

41:12

it's, it's, I had, look,

41:14

I had a retiring member

41:16

of Congress. He's just 36, a

41:19

Republican named Jake LaTurner in Kansas and

41:22

basically what I would call a Mitch Daniels conservative. If

41:24

you met him, I think you'd take it as a

41:26

compliment, but sort of in the Paul Ryan school, that

41:28

sort of that type of conservative. And he said, he

41:31

goes, nobody in my

41:33

district covers what I'm doing. And

41:35

he said a lot of his colleagues, he says,

41:37

one of the reasons why they just show up

41:39

to talk about whatever Fox or whatever CNN or

41:41

whatever MSNBC

41:43

wants them to talk about is it's essentially proof

41:45

of life to their constituents,

41:47

you know? And he, and he

41:49

goes, meanwhile, if he does something

41:51

on the Ag committee that

41:54

really is helpful to farmers

41:56

in his district, literally

41:58

it's the definition of tree fell in the forest. forest and

42:00

no one was there to hear it. Right.

42:03

Um, no, I mean,

42:05

uh, you know, the, the immigration issue has

42:08

now been with us long enough

42:10

and, and, um, grown big enough

42:12

that I can somewhat, I can

42:14

somewhat, um, understand

42:16

its salience in places far from

42:18

the border, because many of these folks have come

42:20

far from the border and occasionally there've been, uh,

42:22

problems that they have caused or crimes they've committed

42:25

or something. But you know, we also had people

42:27

talking about how tough they're going to be with

42:29

China and it was hard for me to understand

42:31

exactly what the governor of Indiana was going to do

42:33

to thwart the, uh, you know, what,

42:36

what, what does it, what powers does the governor

42:38

of Indiana have on, I don't know. I suppose

42:40

you can limit their ability to invest here or

42:42

something like that. But, uh, again, it was, it

42:45

was just a little odd, um,

42:47

uh, given the fact that

42:49

there's so many other really important issues about how

42:52

you build a better economy, how

42:54

you continue to keep the finances

42:56

of the state, triple A and solid

42:59

as they are schools have, uh, uh,

43:01

and, and school achievement, huge issue that

43:03

remains all these things. And, uh, um,

43:07

but again, I'm not faulting the candidates.

43:10

They talked about the things that

43:12

they're responding to the market. I'd argue on

43:14

whether we like it or not. They're responding

43:16

to the market and, uh, and

43:18

therein lies the problem. We

43:21

have to change the incentive structure. Speaking of markets,

43:24

I've, I've, uh, I've made you comment on

43:27

college sports before you had a unique, unique

43:29

place. The big 10 is

43:32

becoming, and you were famous at Purdue

43:34

for making the athletic program, essentially eat

43:37

what it kills, right? You

43:39

did not subsidize the athletic program. Um,

43:43

I saw the other day, uh, the

43:46

big 10 commissioner sort of sort

43:48

of put a little warning shot at some of the schools in

43:50

the big 10. Hey, if you don't, you don't

43:52

have a big NIL and you don't sort

43:55

of make an attempt to be

43:57

major. It felt as if, if you don't attempt

43:59

to be major league, you know. your membership in

44:01

this club may

44:03

not be as solid as you think it is. Are

44:06

you concerned about the incentives growing around college

44:08

sports, even for the HAVs? You're in the

44:11

HAVs now, Purdue. You're not in the HAV

44:13

NOTs. Now, you may be in the HAV

44:15

NOTs inside the HAVs and HAV NOTs of

44:17

the Big Ten, but you're a HAV compared

44:19

to anybody in the ACC or anybody in

44:21

the Big 12. And

44:25

I wonder what

44:27

that does to Purdue athletics. Well, you're

44:29

exactly right. And I

44:31

think that the situation,

44:35

which some of us saw coming several years ago,

44:38

is the only surprise to me is how fast

44:40

it happened and how far it's gone. No,

44:44

I mean, schools like

44:46

ours will have a

44:48

double problem, really. One is that

44:52

you won't have the financial

44:56

wherewithal, unless you choose to raid

44:58

the real business of the university,

45:03

the academic enterprise, which I think is simply

45:05

wrong to do, to tax the students who

45:07

may have no interest

45:09

whatsoever in Division I football so

45:12

that you can pay

45:14

the players more and attract the

45:16

better players. Secondly

45:19

is standards. If you have academic standards, as

45:21

many of the schools in the fortunate, currently

45:24

fortunate stratum do, they're going to all be

45:26

put to some very severe tests.

45:31

No, I mean, here too, I've got

45:33

some unorthodox, I think, views, Chuck. I think if

45:36

we're going to turn Division I football, let's

45:38

just stick with that, into AAA NFL, and

45:40

that's where we are headed, then why don't

45:42

we just do this honestly? Pay

45:45

the players. That's always been the game since

45:49

the first lawsuit in the first statute in

45:51

California. Pay the players, they'll have to be

45:54

unionized so that you can circumscribe. You have

45:56

to collect the labor. I don't know

45:58

how to get you. doing,

46:00

right? Yeah. Yeah. And,

46:02

and just do it above the table.

46:05

And you could make academics,

46:07

you could make education a fringe benefit

46:10

of the employment. You sort

46:12

of flip the model on its head, instead of pretending

46:14

these people are students, which

46:17

in too many cases has led to cheating,

46:19

has led to hypocrisy, you

46:21

know, and waving of standards.

46:23

So you'd flip it out, you'd flip the

46:25

script there, the student wouldn't have to participate

46:28

in academics if they didn't want to, but could

46:30

as a benefit. Sure. And that's what a lot

46:32

of businesses do. They have education as a fringe

46:35

benefit. You

46:37

know, it may sound radical,

46:41

but, you know, we've

46:43

already made radical changes in

46:45

the system and continuing to pretend that

46:47

this is college sports. Listen, it's going

46:49

to be very successful. It's going to

46:51

be very entertaining. I'm going to watch

46:53

it. But that's a different

46:56

question from whether this is really

46:58

college sports or deserves to be looked

47:00

at that way. Obviously,

47:02

there are other problems. What this, what

47:05

this may do to the,

47:07

all the other sports is worrying a

47:09

lot of people what it, how you

47:11

can possibly do this consistent with the

47:13

obligations of Title IX. I haven't seen

47:15

a good answer to that yet. And

47:21

so, you know,

47:23

schools and like Purdue

47:26

that have maintained that standard

47:29

that athletics should

47:31

pay for itself. We love it. We're,

47:34

nobody's a bigger fan than I have been, but

47:38

schools that want to maintain a standard like that are

47:40

going to be put in a really tough place because

47:43

even if you don't reach into the funds

47:46

of the university, it's real purpose.

47:48

It's real reason for being to

47:51

discover knowledge and share it with

47:53

young people. Even if

47:55

you don't do that, it's inevitably, it's already

47:57

starting to cannibalize funds that would have been

48:00

raised for that purpose. They're going to go

48:02

to athletics instead of, you know,

48:04

the chemistry department. And, uh, Well,

48:07

but it's also, it's also, you can't, this is

48:09

no way to sustain an athletic department is on

48:11

the generosity of, of, of alumni and donors. I

48:13

mean, look, I, you know, it's,

48:17

it's a luxury. And once it becomes

48:19

a necessity, there's going to be a lot

48:21

of people going, I'm exhausted. I can't give

48:23

to hear, hear and hear. No, no, that

48:25

that's quite right. That's what I say. It's,

48:27

it's, there will be funds that are diverted

48:30

that would otherwise have gone to, um,

48:33

to, uh, the, uh,

48:35

academic enterprises as they should

48:37

have. So, um, I,

48:40

I don't see, let me ask you this so

48:43

far. I don't see a, uh, you know,

48:45

deus ex machina. I don't see Congress stepping

48:47

in and restoring some

48:50

as, uh, uh, dominant position

48:52

of the NCAA or anybody else, um,

48:55

over, uh, So you're,

48:58

you're, you're okay if, if, uh, football

49:00

players are deemed employees, or do

49:02

you think it is just sort of, I'm not happy about it,

49:05

but we're, we're there really. Um, and,

49:08

uh, you know, there, there, it's not

49:10

just an IL there, but by court ruling, they're

49:12

about to be paid a salary. Uh, that's

49:15

only going to go one direction. I

49:17

think I understand the arguments that their

49:19

skills are creating a lot

49:21

of this revenue. Um, and,

49:24

um, that, that ought

49:26

to be shared. I understand all that, but

49:28

once you, once you head down that trail,

49:31

then you really have to ask yourself,

49:34

is this, is this about college

49:36

anymore? Uh, or

49:38

is it a, a business that colleges

49:40

are sponsoring to, uh,

49:43

promote their, promote their name like a

49:45

smart business does? I,

49:48

I'd like to know what Indiana, why does Indiana state have to

49:50

pay such a large share of the settlement

49:53

and the conferences that they belong? And I say this as

49:55

somebody went to GW, who's university

49:57

president I'm friendly with and, and. She

50:00

questions, it feels as if

50:03

the non-power for schools are

50:07

subsidizing this settlement

50:09

that the NCAA is trying to get the

50:11

big conferences, they've all signed on. There's a

50:13

reason all the big conferences signed on to

50:16

it and not the little conferences because

50:18

the little going, wait, 810's

50:20

media rights are not worth, what are you

50:23

talking about? Why is the 810 got

50:25

to contribute somewhere between 9 and 12% of

50:27

the settlement? I want to ask a real

50:29

lawyer this question, but the

50:31

theory of that particular case was that

50:37

these young people had generated revenue of

50:40

some kind at the

50:42

gate or if not in

50:44

big TV contracts and

50:46

that therefore everybody's student

50:49

athlete from the cutoff date,

50:51

2016 I think, on, needed

50:54

to share. So if your athletes

50:56

are going to share, I guess you're supposed to chip

50:58

in. I understand it doesn't feel fair. Yeah.

51:02

Well, I have a feeling there's going to

51:04

be more lawsuits on the lawsuit, about the

51:07

lawsuit. It's America, you

51:09

can count on more lawsuits. Well,

51:12

I mean that sometimes if

51:14

you can't rely on government to get it right, sometimes

51:17

we're forced to go to the courts. I

51:21

ask you this all the time, are you done

51:23

with politics? You seem to be, you

51:25

flirted a little bit with running this cycle. Do you

51:27

regret not running? Oh no, I don't, not at all.

51:31

Out of respect for people who were pressing

51:34

the idea on me, I went down to

51:36

your town and talked

51:39

to several people in both parties who hold

51:41

the job now and they

51:44

were uniformly encouraging, but nobody could

51:47

answer my real question, which was what

51:50

are the chances that a first term

51:53

and quite likely a one term US

51:55

Senator can make a significant difference. And then I

51:57

would name three or four things that are troubling.

52:00

me about the country's future.

52:02

Nobody was quite able to say

52:04

that. They all said, well, it'd be a great platform, you

52:06

know, you could talk to Chuck Todd more often than, well,

52:09

that would be, that would be a great thing.

52:11

I, there wasn't reason enough.

52:13

You're welcome to talk to me anytime. You're welcome to talk

52:15

to me. The, it's interesting.

52:17

I assume you talked to a lot of former governors

52:20

who turned Senator. I've yet to meet

52:22

one who preferred the

52:24

title Senator over. Right. And, and,

52:26

and, you know, that was once

52:28

the, once upon a time, that

52:30

was sort of the expected route. Somebody would come

52:33

up in a state context, maybe become

52:35

a governor and then go to the

52:37

Senate. These days you see people

52:39

heading the other direction and, and Mike Braun

52:42

being just the most recent of several

52:44

examples. Look,

52:48

I think it says a lot that Mike Braun

52:50

decided one term was enough. It does. And it's

52:52

a sad thing, you know, when talented people find

52:56

it's either too frustrating, too

52:58

negative, too

53:01

arduous and, or

53:04

maybe pointless to, to hold

53:07

their, to hold their attention.

53:09

It's a new problem

53:11

that I'm not sure when it's been worse. Look,

53:15

Senator Braun advertises and his campaign was about one thing,

53:20

but I never, he has never struck me

53:22

as a comfortable partisan. He does what he has to do. And,

53:25

and, and people hear me say this and

53:27

they say, well, but he does this. And I'm like, I've

53:30

spent time with him. He doesn't, it seems like he wishes the

53:33

system didn't work the way it did, but

53:35

he wasn't going to try to, he wasn't

53:37

going to try to swim against the

53:39

tide. I have very

53:41

high hopes, frankly, he's, he's a smart fella.

53:43

He's a, he's a, got a good business

53:45

background, which is very helpful in these executive

53:47

jobs. I think it's helpful everywhere. It

53:50

seems like a high character guy, too. And so

53:52

I have very high hopes for him. You know, my,

53:55

my only point was up to this point, he had

53:57

no reason. In fact, it would have been a

53:59

tough, a tactical mistake to

54:02

delve very deeply into the issues

54:04

that I think are going to

54:06

absorb his time and energy when

54:08

he's in office. Well,

54:11

it'll be interesting. He has a real opportunity

54:13

to run any general election campaign he wants.

54:15

Well, that's true. And I

54:19

hope that some parts of it

54:21

needs... You should be liberated. ... we'll share an

54:23

outlook, a vision for the future, maybe three or

54:25

four high-caliber,

54:30

big-caliber ideas for moving the

54:32

state forward. Campaigns

54:35

can be dreary affairs, but they don't have

54:37

to be. And maybe

54:39

liberated, as you just pointed out, if

54:42

he decides to invest a little money in

54:44

there, this could be a real opportunity to

54:46

do something I talked about earlier, which is

54:48

to try to get people thinking about

54:51

subjects they haven't been hearing much about

54:53

on cable news, that they

54:55

haven't thought about before. Maybe get them excited

54:57

about a couple of tangible

55:00

steps forward that the state could take. Governor

55:05

Mitch Daniels, President of

55:07

the Meritus of Purdue as well. Could we talk with

55:09

you? A good provocative column. I

55:12

love... You write weekly? Oh, no, it's

55:14

closer to once a month. When

55:17

the spirit moves, I don't think the readers of the post

55:19

need to hear from me too often. But

55:23

it's a nice voice to have in

55:25

there. It's an

55:27

editorial page that's one of the more diverse

55:29

of mainstream media, and I appreciate it.

55:32

Thank you, sir. AT&T

55:39

is opening connected learning centers across the

55:41

country, opening doors for students

55:43

in need by giving them access to

55:46

free high-speed internet, computers, and

55:48

educational resources that can keep them learning.

55:51

It's just part of our ongoing commitment

55:53

to help more students stay connected. Because

55:56

when students stay connected, they get closer

55:58

to their dreams. To

56:01

learn more, visit att.com/connectedlearning.

56:09

When you only have a couple hours at the airport and

56:11

still want to get a feel for the city, head

56:14

to the Chase Sapphire Lounge by the club. There,

56:16

you can order a dish curated with

56:19

local flavor or a drink

56:21

inspired by a local neighborhood. The taste of

56:23

both sounds good. Find the

56:25

detail that moves you with craft cocktails

56:27

and locally inspired menus at the Chase

56:29

Sapphire Lounge by the club. Chase, make

56:32

more of what's yours. Learn more at

56:34

chase.com/Sapphire Reserve. Cards issued

56:36

by JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC subject to

56:38

credit approval. So before we go,

56:40

let's take a question. This one comes from Daniel in Virginia.

56:42

And he writes, I've heard you mentioned several times that you

56:44

think Virginia may become a swing state in

56:47

a post Trump world. I agree. But I'm curious

56:49

as to what makes you think that. And then he adds

56:51

to someone that has lived in almost every part

56:53

of the state. Northern Virginia feel just feels like

56:55

it dominates everything and Nova feels bluer than ever.

56:57

On the other hand, everything west and south of

56:59

Richmond, with the exception of college towns, feels redder

57:01

than ever. But the number of vote vote voters

57:04

there is far smaller than in Northern Virginia. Well,

57:06

I think it comes to look, my belief in

57:08

this comes to the fact of how blue it

57:11

do you really think Northern Virginia is or

57:13

is it an anti Trump blue? Right.

57:15

You know, Bill Crystal is a Democratic voter

57:17

now in Northern Virginia. Bill

57:20

Crystal will tell you how off, you

57:22

know, how the first time he voted in

57:24

a Democratic primary, he voted in the Ralph

57:26

Northam, Tom Perriello primary, where he had sort

57:29

of a center left damn versus a more

57:31

progressive Democrat. And

57:33

there were a lot of what I call

57:35

ex Romney voters who came in and Northam

57:37

won anyone big. So,

57:40

you know, I often joke that I live

57:42

in the last Romney precinct of Arlington County.

57:46

And the fact is that, you

57:49

know, I don't believe these voters.

57:53

Here's the thing about Northern Virginia, right,

57:56

which is these are professional sort

57:58

of. they're probably

58:00

the most well-informed electorate going. They

58:02

understand the process, they understand the

58:05

system, and they're almost, they're

58:07

both more cynical and less cynical. How

58:10

are we more cynical? We're more cynical in

58:12

that, yeah, we know there's a bit of

58:14

graft in the system. We're less cynical in

58:16

that we also know it's, it's, you know,

58:19

not enough to impact the system. We know

58:21

that it's, the system is complicated enough that

58:23

one person can't sort of, can

58:27

sort of wield this high conspiratorial power

58:29

in order to move it, per se.

58:33

But you're also talking about an

58:36

area that is, that is, you know, what I

58:38

always say about the Washington DC metro area is

58:40

that it's the largest metro area in America where

58:42

it is, you regularly run into

58:44

Democrats and Republicans run into each other. Versus

58:46

if you live, really only, only other place

58:48

I can think of that's that way, arguably

58:51

is Miami. And,

58:55

you know, where I grew up, I now

58:57

realize I got a perverted view of the world, right?

59:00

Most metro areas are not as bipartisan as

59:02

where I grew up. But

59:05

there is sort of a, there is

59:07

that sense here. And so

59:09

you're still always going to have a

59:11

group of residents and government

59:13

workers that work for both sides of the aisle,

59:15

not just one side of the aisle. So I

59:19

think it's, what Northern Virginia

59:21

is, is pro-institution, so it's

59:23

a very institutionalist. So when

59:25

you have an extraordinary anti-institutionalist

59:27

leading the

59:30

party, I think voters are going to recoil.

59:32

But when you have somebody who's a bit more of

59:34

an institutionalist, they

59:37

can win as a Republican. Glenn

59:39

Youngkin being an example, Ed Gillespie came

59:42

within a nose hair of knocking

59:44

off Mark Warner in a Senate race just in 2014. But

59:47

he was not a Trump Republican. Ed Gillespie is really

59:50

more of an, you know, more of a Paul

59:52

Ryan Republican, I guess, to use

59:55

that shorthand or a

59:57

Mitch Daniels Republican on

59:59

that front. So, That's my

1:00:01

belief as to why, and if you look,

1:00:03

look, you know, the 10th

1:00:05

district, you know, only a few cycles

1:00:07

ago was represented by Barbara

1:00:10

Comstock, another person who I would call part

1:00:12

of the institutionalist wing of the Republican Party.

1:00:14

So I just don't

1:00:16

think those folks go away. And

1:00:19

they're still there, but

1:00:22

they're also, you know, we have nonpartisan, you

1:00:24

know, you don't have to register by party,

1:00:26

and so you can get involved in either

1:00:28

party's primary. So when there are compelling candidates

1:00:30

on either side, it

1:00:33

still can draw people. So I, that's why,

1:00:35

you know, Colorado is the same way. When

1:00:37

you have in some of these states, you

1:00:40

know, if you look at the high, both

1:00:42

Colorado and Virginia share the education factor in

1:00:44

common, but there's both a libertarian

1:00:46

streak in the state of somewhat, but at

1:00:48

the same time, high education so that there

1:00:50

is a belief that government is at least

1:00:53

part of, you know, part of the solution.

1:00:55

Look, it was a Republican governor that

1:00:58

got a major

1:01:01

transportation infrastructure bill through Bob McDonald

1:01:04

as Virginia governor. So you know,

1:01:07

it is, that's why it's a certain type

1:01:09

of Republican that

1:01:11

I think is in Northern Virginia, but I just

1:01:13

don't think Northern Virginia is as blue as it

1:01:16

looks in the Trump era. And

1:01:19

that's, that's how I'm, that's

1:01:21

why I, I

1:01:24

believe that more, more than anything else. Daniel, I

1:01:26

appreciate the question. And if

1:01:28

you want to go

1:01:30

back and forth on this, shoot, you know, shoot

1:01:32

another email and we can do so back

1:01:35

and forth. I'm happy to talk about this because

1:01:37

it's a thesis more than it is, right? Well,

1:01:39

the proof of concept may take a cycle, election

1:01:42

cycle or two to prove which

1:01:44

one of us is right about this. Daniel,

1:01:47

appreciate the question. For you too

1:01:49

can send me your comments, thoughts,

1:01:51

questions, just email thechucktodcastatgmail.com and

1:01:54

I may answer it in an upcoming episode.

1:01:56

Remember, don't forget the, the George Washington University.

1:01:58

Now you see what I just said. that there.

1:02:00

That does it for today. You've been listening to The

1:02:03

Chuck Toddcast from NBC News. Today's episode was produced by

1:02:05

Matt Rivera, Elias Miller, and Greg Martin, theme

1:02:07

music composed by Spoke Media. You can read my column

1:02:10

on nbcnews.com every Wednesday morning. Catch new

1:02:12

episodes of The Chuck Toddcast every Wednesday

1:02:14

and Friday morning just in time for

1:02:16

your morning commute, jog, or whatever you're

1:02:18

doing. Thanks for listening and until we

1:02:21

upload again. Does

1:02:32

your child stop in their tracks to

1:02:34

marvel at an anthill? That's an introduction

1:02:36

to engineering. Maybe your child loves hunting

1:02:39

for the shiniest rock they can find.

1:02:41

You've got a budding scientist on your

1:02:43

hands. At the Goddard School, we turn

1:02:45

these everyday moments of wonder into a

1:02:47

lifelong love of learning by encouraging your

1:02:50

child's curiosity. Because each curious moment is

1:02:52

an opportunity to ask more questions and

1:02:54

make new discoveries. Children love being in

1:02:56

our classrooms because they get to take

1:02:58

the lead and pursue their interests with

1:03:00

nurturing teachers who guide them through

1:03:03

each lesson. Small class sizes mean

1:03:05

that each child is nurtured, happy,

1:03:07

and safe as they explore the

1:03:09

world around them. Our curriculum is

1:03:11

designed to foster important social-emotional skills

1:03:13

development like creativity, critical thinking, and

1:03:16

problem solving, preparing your child for

1:03:18

a future of endless possibilities. From

1:03:20

six weeks to six years old,

1:03:22

there's something amazing waiting for them

1:03:24

at Goddard because the Goddard School

1:03:27

is where extraordinary awaits. Visit gotterschool.com

1:03:29

to schedule a tour today.