I'm going to wrap things up here. Did anyone else want to say anything before we close? I think we we've been gone for a while. I guess I got a pea, who hello and welcome to the five thirty eight politics pie cast Iron Galen during last week. Biden Administration announced its next big legislative push to. Three trillion dollars in spending on infrastructure and jobs. It would be for over fifteen years by raising the corporate tax rate from twenty one percent to twenty. Eight percent and Democrats are when to pass it by some time in the summer, we're gonna discuss what the public thinks The plan and what the challenges might be in getting a text were also them

Take a look at how the Republican Party is reacting to its recent electoral losses. Oftentimes. When parties lose elections, they do some soul searching and try to figure out how to make themselves more. Appealing to american voters. Democrats did that after twenty. Sixteen Republicans did that after twenty twelve, it's a process that goes back decades, so our republic conducting any twenty twenty postmortem and, if not, why here with me to discuss our senior politics rider period, they can junior Highbury altogether. Is politics. Editors are frozen, said, hey Sarah Heating and managing editor, Mica Cohen, hey Mica, Taegu, and so, let's begin with infrastructure violence plan which the administration is calling the american jobs Plan includes six hundred we one billion dollars in transportation spending which makes up twenty seven percent of the plan? According to the Washington Post, it also includes things not traditionally thought of as infrastructure like four hundred billion dollar expansion of care services under medicate, we'll get into

what any sticking points might be, but to keep things off. What's ask one of our favorite questions, which of course is good use of pulling or bad use of pulling so vine and his administration have adopted an idea of bi partisanship that is very pulling driven. They say that because their initiatives most recently infrastructure heavy chunk of republican and independent support behind them that they are by partisan, even though they have not gotten and are unlikely to get any support from republican lawmakers. So I'm curious what people think is this? good or bad use of pulling its an interesting can that I have to say, I think the american Public Harris a bit smarter that if no Republicans vote in favour, this isn't really bi partisanship, no matter how you spend it and Democrats more so than Republicans, at least according to a January pupil, really want bi partisanship. That said, Parrys done

a peace looking at the covered nineteen relief bill and what we learned from that and how Biden moving forward and write. He is pitching himself as unity does not mean bi partisanship in, for make sure you know historically, has been a really popular bill in which both parties, generally speaking, get to find something that they want some good pork and barrel. It looks like it will be the case this time around, probably just with Democrats. The conventional wisdom seems to point to this being another example of budget reconciliation, as opposed to a bipartisan bell and in his pocket. it is not as popular as the covert relief bill, which I do think opens up some potential problem, Biden in the sense that, depending on how this place out in the media, you know is it does it become. this narrative that its oh, it's more than infrastructure its remaking the fabric of our society or is it no rebuilding a lot of crumbling bridges were helping with affordable housing? We're getting people college to it

who need at? I dont think its clear cut is covered. Nineteen and I dont think that they can spend a bi partisanship if Republicans don't vote for it, so bad use of falling, I think of them. It is appalling to amuse good for buying, and we should do whatever he wants to do. So. The republican voters have done two things. One Apparently, in some all summer, Publican voters say I like to govern nineteen bill. I like them, the other we. On the other hand, the republican voters unanimously voted for republic in them the Congress and Donald Trump, almost unanimously so hard to say which about that We value more, who they are before or what they said and what I think is sort of obvious to me. It is who they voted for its like the poor suggests, there is some number of voters who, like the covert ninety, bill, but also voting for about what you asked candidate, but a desert, a brain surgery to think that the republic in asking that it was going to be-

against the covered nineteen bill when it came through, are going to oppose most abides agenda. We just did this hoping for eight years. My view generally is life if you're gonna say unify the can. three times in a speech. Do that otherwise, don't say it, but don't read Wait. Unity needs Do you realize that you don't like he's saying something that the country is hard to unify maybe I'm unify won't. I sort of like lying about it is helpful in this is that I feel I can in January? Is one. I agree that you should look. voters voted for more than what they tell pollsters in terms of issue position as like the meaningful indicator of where voters are, but by parties chip ship, as defined by will the other party vote for your bills bills. The majority party support

and has put forward is essentially means. Bi partisanship is not possible, as as Perry put it, unity is not possible. Now, maybe binding should have said that may be binding. said, you know what you know. The unity is not possible and in of saying we need to end the sun civil war, he would have said we need to win the sun civil war. I actually think there's a pretty good argument for that knowing that one, as Sarah mentioned polls show voters want bi partisanship whatever that means, including ought to Democrats and too The media is obsessed with whether something is by partisan and they tend to define what The presidency is, exceeding are not one. Does accomplish its legislative goals, but to how much is it doing to win over the opposing parties. So, as like a political gamble

as a political use of pulling, I should think it pretty clever by the binding mystery ten to try at least to redefine bi partisanship in this way? Not what well Mitch Mcconnell get behind because much, is it gonna get behind to anything but rather what do voters support, and not with the caviar aside that he's right republican voters voted for the Republicans who are now opposing everything with that have it aside by didn't really has pursued, agendas that are really popular across the board or, at the very least, divide. Republicans rather then draw unified republic in opposition at the voter level. So I think it's a political good use of pulling maybe a little bit of a redefinition. If Biden said my agenda is popular. I think this supported by evidence ensure, I think, unifying and bi partisanship. I disagree with

what we see as the less you what matters now is that window party, is unified Control House Synod presidency. They push things that are going to be more on their side. They, like we, have by listen build the past in twenty one last year, providence along. There was because he has invited government one. Secondly, the demon. we'll do things that help. This issue instant. If with our president, obviously doesn't happen. So There is potential bi partisanship in sometime taxes, but why to me that he knew what he was getting into. Fine, unity in a way that I think popular is fine. Bipartisan unity is, is now It gives them and was David sort of not ideal in the discourse to me and then it's not truthful. Yes, agent as popular as clearly restatement. My agendas bipartisan doesn't work unnecessary. It's an interesting question,

I think one thing we saw in the last four years, particularly among Republicans, was they moved away from the fiscal conservatism right. There is a brand of populism that extended to economics within that as well, and was one reason I think at least among republican voters, that the covert relief bill was so popular, and I What is interesting about this bill is its infrastructure and that historically, has not been a contentious type of bill that isn't pass through bipartisan measures and one thing This is why the flag for the snares- because this was a new fact for me and editing a story- was that the last com this is actually pretty by partisan fifteen major laws now granted. This is categorized and Polly Sigh way, but this is like covert release bells. This was something to do with climate change. Those were passed through. With Republicans and Democrats voting, and I think if there is not even the tempter effort to try Do that now on something like infrastructure biting

continuing to signal that is unity. It's not unity. I just think that sets up a problem for him politically. absolutely does set up a problem for Biden politically, but I also think there's nothing biting can do about it. It's like going into a basketball game and saying hey Philadelphia, seventy six hours, you can only succeed in this game if the New York Necks help you win right, there's no chance of that. The next are gonna. Try to make the success lutes right so compared to the last congress when there was a republican, president and divided government. I dont think as a fair yardstick. I think we have every reason We expect Republicans in Congress, are gonna oppose every binding does? And so, if we're going to talk about partisanship? I think we need to either not talk about acknowledge its not a thing or two

I talked about in this other way, which are you don't think that even if the binding, illustration size Democrats came to Republicans in Congress and said: hey. We want to have an infrastructure bill. What do you want in it? I think the here is that its associated with tax increases. I think it was pure like roads and bridges and ports and airports, but that's not what does that's one anyway. So the reason that there is no bi partisanship is because there is a common ground on one infrastructure. Bill should be if they just stop to a very limited scope of infrastructure and would be Republicans who voted for that bill. I disagree that completely and so do I, I think, tat never happen in Think Collins. Mc Caskey, like the usual suspects, one Republican, just my warnings about I mean they literally wrote it after Bill wrote based Mitt Romney had previously did. In the end like he was ass. It was so now I dont think maybe, but we in this environment makes by it and look successful. No, I dont think deal. doesnt, even the bill, really small, a sea

hundred billion bill. There was really a partisan biding could say, look it was by partisan, it builds roads, there will be great electoral juice for him, Dell. Miss Miranda would end in the kind of victory the any budget review bill. It was be worth any meaningful spending that this proposal would sign onto with his members with Israel will help by electoral into much interesting and then we'd be having a conversation about. Does one or two Cross the aisle votes count as my party, which I note that don't write now. I do not think it is more than the current standard of bi partisanship, let's paint an ideal of bi partisanship as like the covert bills, but just Perry said Democrats are willing to do that. Democrats are willing to give the other party a win if it helps their constituents and they think it's the right thing to do that. Doesnt work, the other way so lets the fine, and I

the old bi partisanship, as that as like significant numbers of members of both parties, vote for something and significant numbers of voters from both parties support something, that's the ideal. So yeah, that's not gonna happen, that's not gonna happen, but then, if it, if I had to choose between significant numbers of voters from both parties, support something or Mc Caskey Collins vote for something I think the voters is the more meaningful thing but under the circumstance of course, you would have both right asses by doesn't actually believed this himself if inflexibility star holy, more negative way and have Republicans of war. Would you withdraw the bills are? Will he shares your definition of why they should since a unity and by partnership are important, but these are fundamental values I ran for president, the majority who voted for me like I don't even think

really believes this like most. This is at the end of the day, would prefer to get virgin d done then to be by horse. I hunters are. I think you're right Mary, one hundred percent and by the way that might become a real issue. The longer this infrastructure to sort this out public zero, but the fact that both sides have been talking about infrastructure for decades and support infrastructure that has to count for something that least the gleam of bi partisanship. I figured all of this. It matters. The order in which Biden is going Biden is proposing the most popular. Legislation first and so to Paris point he has just proposed more popular starts and calling it unity or bi partisanship and

will eventually get two things that he has almost no republican support for and then he will have to change his message, presumably, but at least the way that he's conducting his administration. So far, it's like front loaded with the popular stuff. That seems to me the strategy, and this is the message hunting. That strategy. We should provide a talk about more of the specifics of its structure, but given that this strategy final score on that Good use, appalling or bodies are pulling out good for him that I think bed in a moment since saying yeah see. Ok, I think but because I got going political use up all the good. Normative, use, appalling, bad, consistent use, appalling cause. It definitely is shifting the goalposts. Ok, We're gonna have to create an algorithm, give that a score, but so bad use appalling. Probably and there I am too bad. If it comes down to the US, there are eight majority, rosier bad use of power

once we're gonna talk about some of the specifics of the infrastructure proposal and what trying to get it through Congress will look like we. Just talking about the popularity of some of buttons early proposals and they got there first piece of legislation. The american rescue plan through Congress and sign in just fifty days debate within the Democratic Party was minimal and no Republicans voted for it. The buying ministration, is now moving on to infrastructure and social welfare, and do we think that this, even though its popular some extent will be more of a challenge to pass then Initial american rescue plan- yes, what what what I'm coming in hiding on is at the end of the day, I don't think it will be, because the Democrats largely seem to be the ones right now, and the story is talking about. I want this in the proposed.

I went down the proposal and they're gonna work it out. I think the risks, though, tie back to how their choosing to fund it with taxes and that messaging is gonna, be beyond what Democrats can control. I think they have the votes in the sense of like budget reconciliation to get it through it's just not as popular as covert relief, and I think how this will be messaged, particularly and how it will be paid for all of us. I guess that's a long winded with its saying: yes, it is going to be harder, it will be harder, but it will happen yes I mean you can already see that on the first bill, everyone was sort of several mansion. There were very few people who are being as difficult as possible in transit. Immigrants, Eagle already see people, given these absolutist demands. Models of New York, New Jersey, saying if you don't have repealed your vision and MRS harms that same local taxes, we will vote for it. You seen evil sort of thing. My things not deal, I will not vote for this bill. Also has a few more component parts

to which he was like a lot of things going on here. This tax policy. There's infrastructure, there's broadband, so I think the bill itself, is appalling and build a laugh, Goebbels temporary allow the cooling relief bill had studied. There was passing twenty. Twenty is well like the checks, so I think the other bill was actually more red upon the substance. Well also, now that most Democrats have get you know they voted for something by most for lions. First things out of the gate, now members of Congress going to throw their elbows around if they ever found Why are you listening to me? We are already seeing some of it you go step is normally plays out. Play out. This is their democratic region. Is a study that I saw. What are you once you find? Is it? Values are turned off by the process of being passing itself Endless discussion about horse trading, who likes this members, Harris eating each other intrinsically will make this bill law. Popular it says we Democrats are pointing in spending for more money.

passing this bill basement about six its passing the less and less than their superiors been for months and have every story ever were being songs and with this, gonna be unpopular even about what the details are, and I think this is kind of a big challenge like how do you reduce some of the need for Congress numerous to do this, using probably voters dont like legislative sausage making, but they do like bi partisanship. So you know autonomy voters don't really know what there was nobody, our talk down of learners on this planet cost breaker note, but but parity just mentioned about the timeline here, I think, is really important. There was a ticking clock for the covert bill in that those benefits were running out or we're gonna out- and there is not the same thing- can clock for this, and so all indications and all reporting are, as a sovereign Perry said, that this is going to last a few months.

and the longer it's out their history would suggest at least more unpopular. It will get because voters don't like the sausage making and because it just me time for opponents to attack it and for things to become unpopular now. I will say that, like May I go with Sarah that I think it's likely to pass likely through budget reconciliation, because there are mutually exclusive choices in infrastructure In the same way there is unlike health care but say or on other issues, and so I do think so. For example, like different parts of democratic Party care about different things in this law, but they don't care about what the other side cares about that much so. I think Perry mentioned earlier referred to. You saw these members of Congress from wealthy.

lose states say I'm not going to go for this unless the state local tax deduction is reinstated I think progressive members will oppose that the sunset it's kind of regressive tax, wise and I dont think they're big fans of it but I don't think they're gonna make their vote contingent on now don't make sure they get something else like these. labour salts, but they don't care. If that means you don't get pepper, Thirdly, please athletes germs bitter mornings, please cut that out of that stand now by So, yes, I think that it's easier to please everyone in this way, but you it'll, definitely be harder than covert. Was I have a question here because we published an article on the website. A little while back by contributor Macro Spain, who basically said it becomes harder to pass and legislation, becomes

less popular the more contradictions are controversy or tensions over the bill are covered in the media, but we right after this was proposed by Biden last week, moderates came out saying they wanted to reinstate salt deductions Alexander ass reporters immediately said that it was not enough and called for ten trillion dollars in spending. So Democrats are making this a very public fight already. Why are they doing? That is We know that having these tensions ploughed in public will ultimately make it hard. maybe to pass this bill or make it less popular when it does pants, because it's good for the politicians at the end of the day, Elsie needs to be re elected and that's on brand for her. That is what she was elected to do in Congress. I think that's just the dynamic is like a lot of individual

members within Congress. Yes, their part of the Democratic Party, but at the end of the day, the care a lot about their own political career. It's why Joe Mansion is constantly in the headlines terms if what he will or won't support and again I think that's why, at the top heroes like oh, it's definitely still going to pass. It will all happen within reason, but I think if they chip away at it a little that's more leverage, you know a little bit more bargaining chip cause bite and won't want to drag out for a long time, but there's different incentives. I think driving someone in Congress, verse, item in the White House, the other thing I would say, go and reside there disagreement, and then I disagree man, you know. If you remember Obama care you members of the Obama administration taking Ike pretty rough shots at the progressive winging Congress. I think the reporting- suggest that the binding administration is taking

or like yet. This is part of the process, view of things, and so does it help public opinion on the bill. Probably not, I dont, think this kind of low level disagreement will have much effect now. If it gets aimed up alive, then maybe it has more of an effect. It is now nice, various members of Congress or politicians know much about what science research so the ideal David known what men Roseman are that idea in general is then in my MRS Lynne. They also there ideological views in their electoral views line up equally. They it's called one of them evidence shows the longer you drag out the worse it out. They would say I'm wrong because their motivated reason and take our I dont think, did they so we know or even would save the repay. Your give toll by one process is worse than a bill, no matter what also there Norman, resist any longer process you might have,

We want more discussion like to the corporate tax. Maybe only one twenty thirty, two twenty four out of their neighbours. Like two weeks of hearings about better that's gonna, be slow unease, in our reason that, as a member I public that I actually would work the lights. I ever I can tell you exactly within the stimulus bill. Is it pass will quickly about here. We all knew- oh my god so much about it- is every part of it was debated for four months, and this bill is going through the lagoon Our committee Pross regularly right, I think in a normal. Yes, so I want to lay down appalling Margaret here, because we are saying that to some extent this could become less popular if things dragon so morning, council with politico did some polling last week on this, and they found that fifty four percent of Americans support infrastructure improvements that are,

with tax increases, twenty seven percent support infrastructure improvements, but without tax increases and then six percent dont support infrastructure improvements, and then thirteen percent said they didn't know. And when you look at independence and republic and thirty two percent of Republican said they support infrastructure improvements. We have tax increases. Fifty two percent of independence said they support infrastructure improvements with tat increases, so the foundation of this bill as popular, but as we mentioned it's gonna, be discussed. A lot public We know what are the sticking points that you think could if it worked to become less popular over the coming months, be those things. Ok, as you were just aunt, Ellen tactics are less popular than infrastructure in the abstract, now even that I think, is of little misleading like that morning. Constable found that plurality of Republicans supported infrastructure without any tax heights which basically means

funding the bill by borrowing which I think you'd have every Republican come out against and I think you'd see public opinion there change. I think that but on misleading, but in general, the funding port. of this bill, how its funded is less popular, then the spending part of this bill, which is totally normal and there's a lot of detail. I think still to come out about exactly how this would be funded. The main to mechanisms we seem so far are by raising the corporate income tax from twenty one percent to twenty eight percent. This basically like halfway, reverses what the Trump Tax law did, which dropped it from. I think thirty, four thirty five percent to twenty one percent and then the other one is by a tax increase on people making over four hundred thousand dollars. It's a little unclear which of those is more popular or less popular the morning oh Paul you mention Galen, showed fifty seven,

about Loaders voters supported that tax increase on those making over four hundred I was in force only forty seven percent, who said that the hike in the corporate tax rate would make them more likely to support the empress. Such a bell, but that's the soft spot here is the funding mechanisms. There are some day got to who have come out and said. We should pay for their seated investment in the future. It should be funded by crying. I dont know whether republic and attacks on the bill for just borrowing a couple trillion dollars would be more potent than republic and attacks on the taxi sets an interesting question actually, but that's the soft spot in this bill politically adding to tax is actually do even tax. Raising the corporations in the wealthy, I think there's not dead unpopular it popular. I think in fact does not just not that unpopular. Isn't it actually popular amongst a lot of people is generally popular grant all was and is the enclosure.

But I think that we in this house, in the wealthier generally pretty puppet. So what I think of dangerous goods is a four trillion dollar bill. I think we're gonna talk about eventually easy. I will begin include some spending Republicans have four months to look for four Will you not spending and buying some that seems wasteful, I think they'll be pretty effective there, once box. New sort of buys whatever is the boondoggle and repeat daily, so on general, mobilise about vision, frequently, I think getting republic this bill in the eighties by highlighting web is received, is wasteful, spinning will be is my dear said, I think that's where the problem is. I mean the democratic. Clearly they were the meat, in reality, this is like ie green deals last. Let windows last infrastructures last year slashed education, like there's gonna, be a lot of stuff in this bill somewhere.

she's going to seem like not the most urgent task for the cap. Yeah morning consoled had also dense and pulling that looked at some of the individual measures and overall they're, pretty broadly popular with seven and ten supporting in that stuff. Like climate change, expanding the country's electrical vehicle charging network taking other upset electrified the transportation sector then you know one thing to know: is. There are also two provisions to reduce tuition at historically black universities and colleges ray and even offer free tuition. New ceo drop off among them grants, but then also really solidified. Opposition among Republicans and so to Paris today. Two men on that is that, like reparations, which we know but even Democrats sometimes say: oh, that's a little too far for me actually in terms of policy, and I do think this bill and protect pillar in a way that covered nineteen. Also, perhaps that really fell changed what was or what the Stimulus payment terms-

other legislation went through this extends beyond what we think of infrastructure ray and so how much too Republicans use that as a talking point and is there, even a problem for Democrats, or you know right now, more funding for it. We housing is really popular overs, Sixty per cent close to seventy percent want that, and so does that change with messaging. I do think Europeans are right that the specific spending in this bill will be the soft spot. I do think as the details of defence, funding mechanisms come out and we sort of get more drowning, more than just cite raising the corporate tax rate taxes on a rich. I think there could be some detailed. The air that is harder for Democrats too, what is the rich? How far down does that income bracket go, etc? The other thing I would just say, though, on the attacks on this bill that I've seen so far

which are along the lines that Parian Sarah describing better just like this is a democratic wish list some have been more effective than others is maybe the way I would put it. I saw one member of Congress make this argument that This is really about infrastructure, and then they cited delight money that's earmarked for electric car charging stations. the current does seem like infrastructure to me. There are part of this effort that seamlessly infrastructure, maybe the home care stuff right by trying to raise the wage of people who in home, elderly care. That's not exact! roads and bridges. I also think that Democrat have an argument to make about. That's there's like a real, a compelling argument that that is infrastructure. That's the human infrastructure. You need right to be cleared

and calling this the american jobs plan, and so his answer to that is also just gonna. Be that that's a large part of the american economy and we need to like create those jobs and pay those jobs better, so that people can go out and work because their family members are taken care. I will say that on this question, I think this is going to be a big debate. We ve already seen it come out. The was article in the Washington Post from the fact checker there was sacked, checking the claim from the gene, that only five to seven percent of violence plan is for cortical real infrastructure and there's a bunch of different. And here they added various together they found out about a quarter was transportation infrastructure. You know. The single biggest item in here, like loan item, is that four hundred billion for you not spending care under Medicaid zero, evokes one of dates for all the different line items and see what percentage for. Why would suggest that folks go, that article the Washington Post but yeah. I think there are different

is that you added up- and so far it looks like if you only consider record of what real infrastructure to be roads, bridges, ports, airports, things like that, then it is about a quarter of this bill. One question I have here- and this gets out like a broader, maybe realignment attention with an american politics right now, is that historically, we would think of business interests being at odds the Democratic Party in their attempts to raise corporate taxes, because what we see right now is. I think Joe Biden and look. I have in mind that there are two different bills that they're going to propose this first one is the american jobs Plan, which is more infrastructure spending and they're going to raise. The corporate tax rates in were to pay for that, they probably another bell. That's coming down the pike which is more focused on social welfare spending, healthcare and things like that, and they would plan to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund that there might be some pushed to try to combine those too was, I think for now, they're trying to keep them separate. So in this

the media Bell the american jobs plan, we see you know the corporate tax rate being proposed that it raised from twenty one percent to twenty eight percent. our corporations going to come out strongly against this, because they don't want to see their taxes raised or has other the realignment that we ve seen in american politics. Are they changing the calculus for business interests like the Chamber of commerce or others make them more lined with Democrats and not really want to fight publicly with them. So my person is they're going to try to kill, quite so ten years ago, the corporate, whose may have been more anti democratic party and will try to of my sins is in part because the demand of course it is Saddam is more suburban Democrats represent, in some areas. We Democrats work what about all those same people we'll figure out a way, probably not pose a corporate tax in Greece or to Sweden twenty, eight and twenty four, so I think it

and actually not tat easy now require the busy do much to sort of fight they viewed. As you say, I think that immigrants are closer to business community than they were fifteen years. Macedonia thing is further from the Republican Party right now because of issues like Georgia, voting law and so yeah, I mean there's been so much uncertainty in the last four years, is always tough and hard for businesses. Does seem to be some reporting at this point that ok, the business community might take more of a hike in taxes. You know for a more precise, detectable stance on things like trade and tariffs the times had a piece on that may also highlighted that violence approached immigration will be better for businesses because in a global economy, which is what we use and can always put America first prevent immigrant labour from coming to the country for jobs, particularly in the tech industry, and so there's been some when you do that, but I have to agree that Parrys wretchedness and said

gonna be pressuring behind the scenes. I dont think it's gonna, be this big active push, maybe in a few months it will be at least at this stage. It won't be- and I do think you know in the same way, you saw moderate Democrats push back on salt, though, also be pushing if the individual tax rate on those making four hundred thousand or more becomes to undress so you'll see subtle pushing in that regard? Yet there was this article I think, sorrows reference saying that was Ike Corporate America's Tom. Because they like Biden more predictable, burning style, but I would say that you don't want their tax rates raised. it's not like biting his saying hey if you dont support this shut your bill, I'm starving Having like Trump was corporate Amerika can get both they can get both the more predictable government. They already have the immigration policy. They want the trade policy they want. And they can try to kill this corporate tax hike is there may be a little

Do they want to be less open about it? Yeah, maybe because I think, there's more rest to them. In being associated with the Republican Party these days, but I still think the serum Perrier right, they're gonna fight our raising taxes under the Obama administration Democrats really worked hard, especially with the Asia to match dollars spending to dollar of taxes raised in this initial plan. They are trying to go that way. You know paying for eight years, are spending with fifteen years of tax increases, but it seems like long term when they include changes in healthcare spending and social welfare more broadly, that they don't actually want to cover at dollar for dollar

Is that what has changed that that's no longer a priority for Democrats in the way that it was under the Obama administration? I think they ve seen that one, like Republicans, have been so hypocritical about the evils of endangers of deficit spending and amassing debt that I think Democrats think this kind of less political risk in those attacks. Being levelled against them. I think there's also genuinely been a shift in like the walk, policy wing of the Democratic Party and how they view deficit, spending where there's just like fear of paper inflation and that kind of thing, so the covert really fell was not paid for right, not pay for it was paid for, but through bonds. I do wonder whether this bill with infrastructure bill be easier to pass if they didn't try to pay for any of it with anything

but deficit spending. Yes, it will be easier to pass because I mean this is why these things as gale was hinting at earlier. Increasing taxes on the ridge is actually incredibly pocket, even if any need to find like the wealth taxes. Quite popular needed doing this. The reason tax result will be that it uses the wealthy a lot of power to block you know: campaign donations, back room door and so on, but in reality, if you look purely appalling devasted doesnt matter, people just one is from the rich and not just the Democrats and in reality, if you want to make a bit more popular, you should figure You tax, Bloomberg sorrows, all the rich people, we already know would actually be popular. Bide will solve their. There will be something that will be good, pole critically in terms of popularity minutely. Good indeed, Bloomberg might take away, is the Democratic Party in question, but in terms of raw boulders, but is only about devastated I hate the rich

I was an essay. I think, given that the covered stem the spell did increase the deficit so much that if Democrats didn't make any attempt to try to pay for in some measure, that would be another talking point there is already talking, What's about, like inflation, this year could be had a straffic. I realize, though, that I think MIKE is right that the walk wing within the Democratic Party has changed their tune. A bit on that front, because there's this idea that Democrats didn't do enough in a way for economic recovery, then- and I think the stance has been- will be- how to do more at this time around to speeding up the deficit. Wasn't, issue, as you both sad, but I think it regular with infrastructure too, if the numbers don't exactly add up, there will be this moral argument that our bridges are crumbling. Our roads are in vast disrepair, and it's been

Just since there has been a federal government bill for infrastructure funding, and I think they want to match it dollar. Four Argus the deficit is really high right now, but tier broader point. I dont think that that is and all that it once was in politics are well we'll see how this debate plays out, but let MILAN and talk about the GNP? Twenty twenty autopsy or lack thereof, but first today's podcast is brought you by another five. Thirty, eight podcast hot, take down each Tuesday check out five. Thirty, eight sports podcast hot takedown, where the hot takes up the sports world meet the numbers that proved them right or ten down the crew digs into fiery opinions from the week in sports and measures them according to the analytics behind the issue, they end each week show by

having into a rabbit whole data from the strangest fifty point games in the NBA to the ever larger gullies of the end, H out, don't mess hot takedown available every Tuesday, wherever you find. Your pot casts today's account is brought to you by the pipe cast series in plain sight, Ladybird Johnson, this These were tumultuous time in the United States, the Vietnam WAR, the fight for civil rights, the assassination of three prominent leaders through it all one woman who had a front row seat history and left us her experience in a collection. Of audio diaries that one is Ladybird Johnson, the former Lady and wife of President Lyndon be Johnson. Leaderboard Johnson were quartered her thoughts From November nineteen sixty three to the beginning of nineteen sixty nine it started with. If case assassination, spanned the Vietnam WAR in the fight for civil rights. and ended with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert Kennedy find out herself

The story on in plain sight, Ladybird John, available now on Apple podcast Spotify and your favorite podcast app, as I mentioned at the It is a long american tradition for a losing political party to do some soul, searching after an election laws and try to readjust its messages and policies in all. to be more appealing to voters in the next election. While some european leaders talked about a new direction for the party after January sex. The talk has mostly died down If it is happening, it's mostly out of public view. Perry recently reported why the GEO Pe doesn't seem to be undertaking a traditional autopsy post, twenty twenty and finest peace on the five thirty eight website. I want to dig into some of those reasons here so Perry just to kick us off here what does the traditional post election autopsy usually look like. allow different forms inside the animals

after the twenty twelve election republic is literally roadie documented became known as the autopsy it later detail here. why we lost. We need to do more appealing to female voters. People go in particular to you, that's the sort of most far more than that happen, but every twenty six you had a lot of public discussion, a lot of talk about Democrats are too focused on racial and gender issues from the center part of the party. The left there were not the Democratic Party's, not populous enough All parts to the party said that we should not be Hillary Clinton Justforfun290 without any real primary in Eden, but going back like one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight you had after that loss You had a real formal discussion among Democrats. The resulted in a sort of moved to the centre. The new Democratic Movement Bill Clinton was more moderate, been Michael, Dukakis had been so you a lot of different forms and in general are what happens. They really broad public discussion. It usually while stressing the nominees loss in great detail. Mitt Romney noted

to tell you that they were described and unflattering further people in their own party who, in remember like you're, a candidate in by December or even November a week later were saying you were there skin and ever how dare we? Nobody? You you are done, do us basically in trouble not getting better with a star yeah. I mean to what extent do, see a public debate about the direction of the Republican Party happening I don't see one at all. In fact, there was enough of sea last week there was put out too high level? Would he no democratic shred is released the autopsy about why the Democratic Party was You never won the house in it. In the present while living. Nobody knows little enthusiasm round with any one of you ever do overall, but he a Democrat study, latino issue very carefully and, like publicly in debate, You publicly. I dont see much discussion nerve them nothing. There are no Republicans least Jamie Adam Kinsey here there are certainly a few Republicans, but there's not like a party. Why formal discussion? Because if you

had that you'd, I will say here are the dickens were saying trunk blew it here is decreasing. Of trumps campaign team. At seeing a lot of them after twenty sixteen I read a lot of criticism, are Democrats. I knew renaming robbing Luke individually. He was Clinton's came a minute you. There was a lot of criticism of people on Europe. staff everyone herself, and even Barack Obama. To some extent in the EU almost have none of their reels or settling distance. The other thing, an autopsy, a real autopsy would require, is acknowledging that your law, sister Anne and a huge chunk of the party, the majority that party does not want to do that. Such doesn't believe that it was fairly, not sure. That's true the people doing that, but it wouldn't be it is doing the autopsy right. Maybe some voters would particularly excited about politics when do autopsies for for each party, but it would be party elites right and

The party elites who are unwilling to acknowledge that I didn't want, I do think, no or maybe yeah. No, I mean I keep thinking back to see back in February, which we ve talked about it what it's not necessarily the most representative conference, of where the Republican Party as its strong pole in the past has been horribly unproductive, but in capsule they were all talking about really well, you know, Tromp was the keynote speaker, everyone who spoke praised him. There was a golden statue of him. and there weren't any dissenting opinions either because they weren't invited or because they declined to speak and when they were mentioned, they were booed, and so I Think there's this open question of will trust himself, be the leader of the party moving forward, and I think that's much more debatable, but his

ideas and his approach to politics. That's not going anywhere! You know. Ninety five percent who attended the conference said. I liked president trumps agenda and that is there is no autopsy report. just think so. Much of this comes down to the GEO Peace, structural, electoral advantages in the Senate and the house in the electoral college in many state legislatures, because what it means is theirs Just a huge disconnect between popular will end the floor, since that our exerted on republican politicians, so you can describe in this peace. Perry wrote that I editing You can describe the twenty eighteen to twenty twenty cycle as absolutely ruinous for Republicans. Republicans were sweat, out of power. They lost the White House. The house, the Senate, they ve, won the popular vote for the presidency.

One time in the last. However, years, multiple decades, since one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight, since one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight or You can say Well, Republicans were about couple hundred thousand out of millions cast votes away from Trump squeaking out electoral college victory and saying in the White House. You move a couple percentage points in Pennsylvania was content. This apparent about, and if David Purdue one about, I think at sight. Sixty thousand more votes. Georgia, run off then republican to keep the Senate? Not Jane. They made a bunch of state legislative gains, and the reason that that electoral picture is so confusing trump can come. So close, winning. The White House, while losing the popular vote by seven million vote, is that the GNP has these structural advantages, which, essentially make them mostly immune from the

pillar will and make them behold in too much and electorate that looks much different than the country overall, I think that's why you get a lot of republicans looking around not only refuse to acknowledge reality that Trump lost, but essentially saying everything's fine cut for them most of them. It is. I take your point, my group, but also like it. When you look at the twenty sixteen election, there was an extremely close election where Hillary Clinton was tens of thousands of votes away from winning and there was mayhem with, Democratic Party and there was a lot of soul searching about what to do so. There has to be another reason beyond just like it was close. They almost one in pair you go through some of the rational for why there isn't an autopsy happening within the Republican Party right now. Can you wear like some of those other ideas, because I take your point- my kind, it's absolutely true from a structural perspective, but their mood Forces at play, I think, to within the Republican Party the EU can contribute to why this autopsy isn't happening.

So a couple things that I wrote about was so one was like right. At the January six, Macao was very fairly like we give it a flop and we're tired and you just sort of signalling that but been used, all these European Turkey in a bunch of other states, daily seizure resolutions that were pats like these. In other words, it is said that attacked Republicans who voted for you men are anything worth anything and one I guess this is like busily. I view politics, a sort of delete driven in some ways, and so the maternal level Mccarthy with open moving too, but this state republican Party. the local activists, the groups like its foundation- the heritage, action club, Baroque Fox NEWS the good people that sort of between conall and rank and file voters. Those people are really the change like the Christians it is no. Their agenda is unpopular spanning about getting rid of really. We are not changing urgent because they believe in a deeply source. Impossible working party? The question is,

Why change my views to help us win or the view so fundamental to me and the way I see the world are we in an excess of crisis where moving left me but I'm gonna, let the liberals take over the country and their opposing then indeed rather push a risky strategy that might not win, then asserted it will be more electoral, viable. There are a lot of compromises, one another importing right meals, fighting with a view as a sort of demographic, cold will shake their resistance you and they rather go the on fighting. Then the sort of changeover lets the broader or what I mean Second was you cannot see and you can't criticise Trump and they can criticise tropical. Your primer them that's a big party leader like using Travis primary people already so the third is the almost one. I noted that report in both areas are not really clamouring for changes, and I think this party to look at the polling you look indeed, I ll give you a done upon

of democracy. Twenty seventeen asked them. Do you want Hilary now me I don't think there would have been a very popular idea. Personal lotta republicans are for trot being the nominee mean they don't want change, and the last thing is it when I'm in in previous parties. You had the deal c in the nineteen eighties, pushing them across the: U N, George W Bush who was in the early in the late ninety saying your public to be compassionate conservative was implied the maybe new Gingrich was not compassion, so you had the force in me will be hard to say who are the central Republicans worthy meeting? What is their organization that to me there's about a part of the republican voters, building the poles who want to move on from Germany? There is a core republican vote. It wasn't cumbersome is not learn to me. There is any institution in the party, this sort of gas when I was in those people the way you like, but you had a big group of elected Ability- Democrat

you were saying no, no, the left is going too far. I dont know where the entire tromp Republicans are really organisms us the other thing, we just dad and it's the difference I know has given said that you know Clinton came close to winning in twenty sixteen, but the differences Republicans have the advance page, so the onus was on. Democrats. Democrats had to do something to overcome that disadvantage. Republican don't really have to do anything? That's an exaggeration, but like do you get what I mean like Republicans, have the advantage so the few efforts at like What's the future, the party that you have seen our largely doubling and tripling down on trumped up. You saw that Republican Study, committee come out with basically a plan that was like the Republican Party should try to make itself known as the workers party and that was really explicitly saying we need to double down on trumpet

and expand on it because they, coalition Non college. Whites in particular non college, educated white voters is what gives them those structural advantages, particularly in the in the electoral college. So there is a big difference between having five point had start it just in terms of the incentives etc. Carrying had on something interesting where there was that short lived period, particularly right after the insurrection at the capital where, yes, someone like Mcconnell was like this is a step too. far ten Republicans in the house ultimately voted for impeachment, which is not much but is the most within a house and teach me vote. But then they were so publicly rebuked at the state and local level that that discussion, just kind of died down like less Cheney, her position within house leadership had to be voted on there were members that wanted to take her out for that and what's

interesting to me about that disconnect is the party seems to be grappling with this idea of, I do think, there's a faction whose, like I'm done with tromp, but what the party not done with, is what his politics represented. This idea of, like he fought for us. This idea that yeah can they be the workers party. You know they were small gains overall, we should read that much into them, but they did do better among non white voters without a college degree in twenty twenty and yes stem We are now studying in particular what went wrong with the spanish voters that fit that bill, but I think Republic, and it's interesting earnest this tenuous situation, where Democrats and twelve Sixteen had no problem, saying: ok, Clinton, what's rethink that she was unpopular they're doing that here and twenty one talking about tromp, but that dynamic seems to be embedded in some of these conversations around Trump is what is the party need? And thirty?

having them openly. I would say I thought you didn't you changing that are worth noting. You know we talk I guess you nigerian the sort of cancel culture everything is cancelled. Like the phrase you ever bubblegum, possibly get, we woke in cancer. Culture are good words to use in terms of I think this one thing and I think it is wash the Fox NEWS, unlike in what there is clearly an effort to promote new people, descent This Christie known rigour, but I No one on Fox was going to say we need a different candidate next time cuz. You can't say that cuz, the the audience loves Trump, but there's clearly

an attempt to suggest there are other trump like people who are not shrunk than we can have their cannon and admitted anymore yeah. I think that there is a little bit of an idea here within the Republican Party that, like ok, what like Trump as a might not have actually been that bad of an electoral strategy, but Trump kind of guy in his own way, because he was such an eccentric person and he was so controversial, so they want to give the Trump ism without Trump a try before they truly change course. The other thing I wanted to bring up here, which gets beyond maybe just the structural advantages that Republicans have when preparing for the segment. I was

going through political science paper is trying to find research on when political parties change, and why- and there was a study actually done looking at european political parties back in two thousand thirteen. So this is well before any of this was even relevant and they found that leadership dominated parties are far more likely to change their policies and messaging after election than activists dominated parties, and I think this get someone at the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party right now, in that the Democratic Party is relatively top down like leadership and the establishment within party has a lot of power and within the Republican Party, that's not the case, as you will mention Mitch, Mcconnell and lives. Cheney didn't have the force of leadership to be able to redirect the party post January sex because the activists prevent them from doing so, and so I think what we see here is is yes, these electoral structural advantages is just the idea that trumpets and maybe did have some effect

advantages, but also fundamentally different parties. It's a really good point, gale in a really interesting point. What else chicken asked is you know I never Publican Study Committee memo there was Ike recommending, let's become the workers party It actually seemed like relatively smart Aleck torridly to me You'd have to ignore some policy disconnects in terms of like the republican platform and becoming the workers party, in particular their position in terms of corporations and taxes and their positions regarding people of color in a lot of people of color are working class say: can it can't be the White Identity party and be the workers party? That seems somewhat mutually exclusive, at least if you're, like judging things on the merit, but if they're trying to become like White poppy,

first party or like a white like a White Workers party there, a couple lines in their basically about corporate Amerika has like now been so soured the Republican Party right and that because of the insurrection, and that's because of corporate Amerika lots of corporate Amerika has had to get its act together or tried to get its act together or start to get its act together on issues of grace and diversity and inclusion. Their employees are our demand, I pray you saw in African, not Republican Study Committee Mademoiselle to essentially turn that to the GEO peace advantage and to say the Democrats are the corporate party see these corporations are trying to get you to live your life and different and all these things, and that seem that at least electoral torridly pretty clever to me. Actually, yes, I think they particularly heavy wash other handling Emily

big baseball asked. Our game has been moved from Georgia because in I'll be objective the voting while there yes corporations. on the republican words to work, and I think there is something to cooperate as magazine, corporations are sensitive. the democratic arguments on raising gender issues, so corporations overly popular with people in the first place and so position health is a sort of not as corporate tie parties? Probably smart, I the vinegar Sidney, big issues. One is that agenda, but I do not know the answer there, but I think yes, in general, saying Europe for the Working Class in Europe gives woke any arrogance, cancel COS I dont know what those Kennedy rebranded, but I think those smart things to say in the very linguistic we ran those are useful ideas themselves, the interesting part of their having been an autopsy, the hidden, even items.

Right is like the trunk problem me the actually, if the republic, Germany or aren't seems and we're having an autopsy to diagnose. Why we striven twenty twenty there would treat Traviata many one. Nowhere with the lowest possible that they're doing more stuff. That is like harder to see another gap. I don't think so. You don't accept There might be more of this than I can see is out of the kidnapping, and I agree with that, and I think, way in which the media wants to cover. It is in this sense that right there will be a report where it says: Tromp was a problem for X Y, see reasons because that's how these reports generally go but further. and you say, Perry like that can happen, but that doesn't mean that this conversation isn't happening and if they, We can re brand themselves as the Working Class party. I realize you know, at least among Non college educated white voters. That has been true for several actions. Now that would be a big pivot for the party

that is the message being again: what policies that generates? Is there an uneasy coalition because, as we know, it wasn't just Non college, educated white voters who, back from a lot of official, and white business owners also backed tromp, but that pivot, interesting- and I think it is happening. So I do I agree that the ship in voting along lines of education- that we ve seen coupled with kind of the We re Shaw, engender reckonings and corporate Amerika, coupled with the kind of anti tech back clash in republican circles presents an opportunity to the Republican Party to try to brand itself as a more of a workers party. I agree with that at some point they will have to like. I don't think you can be a workers party. If none of your policies benefit

occurs, but not, but you know what I mean like. I think Republicans could emphasise policies that support families. What you saw Romney do, for example, and I think they could do that. What I don't buy is that. The post twenty twenty conversations around ass are an autopsy. the way that pass autopsies have been like the post, twenty twelve autopsy recommended that Republicans do comprehensive immigration reform that would have been a big shift in the Republican Party seems like an at them and now to the GNP, but there is nothing in the current GEO p conversations around That's equivalent to that level of policy shift. This is all about suggesting and Bob now, though I think we make too much to some extent of these autopsy report, you know one of the big take away he's coming out of time. sixteen was Clinton, shouldn't have done identity politics, but as parry

for the same leading up. I didn't do that. Just fine. Here in twenty twenty, and I realise that yes, spite and was an older white man. Clinton was a woman. We can't discount sexism and what that meant. why you know by them as the spokesperson for that it's the message, perhaps easier for more Americans to die chest, but then Did we really understand the route of why Clinton lost in sixteen? It seems like some of the forces that were at play in seen, at least among the Democratic Party continued undertone twenty eight, which may be Clinton, was flawed as a candidate for Ex wisely reasons, and so to some extent. I wonder with these autopsy reports, how Sure that's really does ultimately shape the party moving forward implying autopsy. Everyone is a theme was pick a white guy. I think then stated. Never really stateless wasn't leave it. There was often what is really happening. There was even a lot on in there.

No one really big data should be present in accepting the accounting system that operates. in terms of the autopsy I would remind my peace was, if you told me, on January, set of the Republicans in Georgia will pass a law that makes it harder phone and bans giving wandered people I've been like make a little bit of a ship are not going to go farther supported. Is like in the context of what's happening in these states. I thought they were a lead, be a little less champion, not less be a little more in a certain way. I think that's ten of what I anticipated, that there will be some reckoning and wish Nicky Alias Republic, he'll be interviewed, allowing that very ruptured resulting back like there is definitely a sense from early herself more of an opening it now, it seems like wherein the descent. Bubble, and that goes for the fact that I think everybody thinks that now the party looking for life Trump

ISM without strong, as opposed to something different yeah. I think that's fair, like the couple weeks that we saw January sex were I mean, did you hear even had some tough words when she addressed the Currency Committee meeting where they were voting for future party leadership and that was pretty much disappear, so we will see to what extent any of that mergers and will be watching Republican Party for the next two and four years. So this conversation will not go away. That's it for this conversation today. So thank you, sir occurring. Thank you. my name is given droop tony child is in the virtual control room Clare Bidding Airy. Curtis is on audio editing, you'd get in touch by e mailing us at podcast that five thirty eight dot com. You can also persuaded us with any questions or comments if your friend of the show leave us away our view in the apple pie, tat, store or tell someone about us thanks for listening and will cease,

her. think I won that conversation just got a competition. We're here for the listeners,