The extent to which Anti Establishment Terry and is that the word that is to order. I think so. I struggle I struggled to pronounce that Taiwan much play that word is getting during this progress. Is that like the law for the longest workers of ETA, in recent months: language, please help us find a fifty year way to save Anti disestablishment area, isn't that the This word whistling ready. I think that is the longest yeah that but I establishment terrorism is still of work better basic. hello and welcome to the five thirty eight politics podcast I'm game, and last week, as expected, Senate Democrats pushed to eliminate the filibuster foreboding legislation. Joe mansion encased in Cinema, were the only to democratic for that while their decision to block their party has party members frustrated. Their position is an entirely unique during

this presidency. Republicans failed to repeal the affordable care act because of just three key factors in the Senate and during Obama. residency? A public opinion was dropped. The SBA because of just one significant today, we're going to talk about why senators and other high profile politicians both their pardons and what the consequences usually are rules are gonna, take a look at why more amateur candidates are running for office in recent years. This year's celebrity candidates, like Doktor OZ and Herschel Walker, are getting at for their Senate runs and, of course, Trump is the prime example of this. One who never held public office being a successful politician, but the uptake in amateur candidates isn't just confined to the Republican Party we ve, also got a good or bad use of pulling example from President Violence Press conference last week, so Europe meet to discuss it all out. the executors our presence, and he Sarah. He came here or zero. Thus is man editor, make a current, hey, mica,

Galen, hello, everyone. Thank you for having me it's a pleasure. as always, and also your thus is, elections, analyse Jeffreys Galley Hedge F, K, Galen show What's die ready and we ve got a lot to govern the show today, starting with violence press conference last week, so Biden held his tent press conference. As president last Wednesday, marking his first year in office, he's held significantly fewer press conferences compared to his recent predecessor. Stow president's dating back to Bush Senior, including trump, have held an average of twenty press conferences per year. Violence conference was long. It lasted almost two hours and included all kinds of commentary about bite in the first year in office. Couple of the things that made news were aghast about Russia and Ukraine and ignore,

judgments that he was too optimistic about bi partisanship, but one particular moment caught our attention and its today's good use or bad use of pulling example. Take a lesson: how do you plan to win back moderates and independence who cast a ballot for you and twenty twenty, but polls indicate, are unhappy with the way you're doing your job now leave alright folks is this a good or bad use of pulling circus off bad very bad? Very them Bad agree, tremendous! We bad, ok, what if by them, is like? Maybe many of the Americans who have lost faith in pulling over the past several years. I don't know. Is there any saving Grayson as these appalling, you're, hitting on something that people do say gale, and I dont think, though, that what Biden meant here was actually something you flagged internally and our slack that you know is easy

for him to say I dont believe the coals than to answer the question, which was: how will he went back independence who voted for him, but disapprove of his performance now, and it's Jefferies for the site, independent and bite support among them, has been a long standing issue starting in March April. There was already a dip in support among them and it steadily gotten worse and he d really answer the question so you're saying basically, maybe agreement suggestion that in this case, even if ruffles, some feathers and the press it's easier for bite into ignore the evidence and not answer the question that actually try to answer. Why he's done so parliament, independence during his time in office, are or how he might when those independence back yeah, I mean it seems as if he was caught off guard and just went with the easy answer, verses having thought through, maybe a more thoughtful answer on how he would do that. You know I'm not a political strategy,

but I would have thought maybe given that this is a long standing problem, he would have had some possible solutions he could give, as president about it. I'm gonna do x y see, but he didn't do that and I think instead, just kind of gave a defiant. I've got a plan that is in a plan, but the poles are wrong. So this truism comparisons, a Trump online would just say you know, ignore the poles or ignore the news that, is negative, only Bay. What I'm, what I'm saying do think those comparisons are accurate. I dont think trumps should be. The comparison I think trumped should be. The context like there are a couple different ways to look at this. One is blots politicians discount poles either because there are leading in the polls, but they don't want their voters to get complacency. You know this is like a week before an election Canada will say- we're not worried about the poles. This is a close re see, you know, turn out and vote so there's a long history and politics of candidates and politicians

waving aside the pause, the difference now is you live in this era where there has been a sustained attack on evidence, expertise, our ability to survive know anything of our ability to have a shared sense of facts, and I think, in that context, by in saying I dont believe the poles which look, I don't know, what's in bite and tired or mind, but I bet- and I bet a lot that he

does believe suppose that sure bite and like a lot of other people, probably by more than most people in fact, is aware of pullings shortcomings and how an exact it can be. But in that same press conference Biden was talking about how big part of his agenda are super popular with the american people. That's based on polling, so I dont for one second think Biden doesn't believe the poles. I think it's but Sarah said is just as hard question to answer with a real answer. He probably the pad like a political answer and in our current context I think it was an irresponsible enter here, because you have not only make it was saying goodbye and go on kind of mention the popularity of different parts of his agenda, but also said that every president, his kind of struggled in their first twelve months during their first couple of years in terms of popularity so like I think he fought hoofs the poles

as a good understanding of them? This seems like political showmanship thou, not wanting to kind of it bet that he might have a problem with independent voters. That's the other interesting thing about the question is binding could have had a pretty wrote political answer to that question. He could have said we're we're hang on, he said our other parts in the press conference were working on inflation rhetoric as simple as we're going to do it for the american people, and you know that, although for us as a result, yeah exactly but a truer answer is probably like whether independence approve, whether independence and ever and also provided, is mostly not within guidance control, which is, I think, what he was kind of getting up in referencing other presidents who, in recent history who have like had this sort of first term downtrend buddy, I ibis eating, go anywhere near that either you just can't discounted the poles

he sort of white fur. I think assistant to answer that goes against everything that we view when it comes to pause. You know, even if there are doubts about pulling we written endlessly about how the Poles, not suddenly just terrible and that appalling, MR people get worked up about the twenty twenty election. Wasn't really that large, grand scheme of things it wasn't so totally out of kilter with ass polling error we ve written about issue polling. trying to understand that you know with issue polling and trying to gauge whether people support certain policy or have their views on it can depend a lot on things like wording and that whether alike, sixty eight percent think it or six the two percent think it is not actually that big a deal. The grand scheme of things and trying to understand the public's views about a certain issue, that's why we can see pretty confidently right now that by its approval rating is not going so well cause

no it's in his approval rings and a low fortys and his disapproval rating is in a low fifties and that's like a large enough gap that, regardless of what you think about the accuracy of pulling right. is, is too large to waive away so The answer is from the perspective of the value of Portuguese just sort of dumb. Frankly, I do think it's not just about pulling up to compare Biden, relationship with truth and evidence to trumps relationship with truth and evidence and reality. I dont think too much of a comparison. There, but in the wake of tromp I do think everyone else in the world has an extra responsibility to not add to that one linking this to just discount reality when you don't like it and Biden, I feel confident and saying does,

or better. Yet there are so many choice quotes from Trump on the subject of how much to trust the media reports. But there is one where he said you know if it's bad, I I say it's fake. If it's good, I say it, that's the most. Accurate pull ever biting clearly didn't do that, but, as makers saying you know, that's the context which he is then saying I don't believe in the polls and as we ve written about the site, distrust in institutions from polling to universities, to the city see, our historic allows, and so it does seem as if you know a final necessarily pouring as much gasoline on the fire he still contributing to the spark and to the underline fear that script, this country around trust and what we can believe. Then I have a question here for someone at home, watching the press conference or someone who reads about it. After the fact they might be thinking. Ok. Well, it's been proven to us to elections like a presidential elections are goals in a row that the pools can be off

so you know like. Maybe it is fair to question the poles, like the poles, aren't as simple as like one plus one equals to yadda yadda yadda, there's a difference between like question pulling accuracy and saying that covert? Isn't real or vaccines? Don't work? Here I mean Is there some flexibility there to be like I'm, not really sure about the poles like it's an inexact metric or whatever? There's pole, air and there has been high profile? Pulling era like I have some questions or maybe like weather I didn't know better or not. Should the public be thinking of polling as as straightforward as vaccines work or one plus one calls to know, but that's the point right. I think, like our big gripe as five thirty eight hours with much of the public discourse over polling, is it presented as binary either? Poles are perfectly exact and you should live your life by them,

pulling, is totally useless and fake, and you should never pay attention to them. Of course, melody is neither of those are truly reality. Is poles are our best tool for measuring public opinion, but our inexact a new, the audience you an american citizen on moroccan resident, anyone interested in our countries, interests and the public will and politics should absolutely come to poles. With a sceptical I and with an inquisitive mind than wonder: how is this poor conducted? What does really told me there is a difference between that and what Biden did the yen and that differences and important one where The answer I think

Yet in the way of that more nuanced skeptical use of Poland, where it just feeds this. Oh there either perfect or their useless privacy in the useless category, and that's just not true wrapping up here. He didn't give us an answer to the question asked, but how important is the answer to that question to demo That's path forward, brightens, presidency or legacy are having independence and moderates, which are it's complicated. Those aren't the same thing but our having those people in his corner fundamental to Democrats path forward. Well, I think, with independence is always complicated, as you say, because listen depend, leaned toward one party or the other, so in a right now, mostly the independence to approve Abiden, probably leaned toward the Democrats and then on the much larger share of independence.

disapprove, are either republican, leaning or may be true blue. You know independence and who actually dont leaned toward one party or the other. I would say that for binding for Democrats heading into the midterm election, that it would certainly be for them. If a larger share of these voters, independent voters were supportive of Biden approved of his performance, because those are the voters who are in the granting things, at least some are more likely to maybe foot their vote like maybe a lot of the burden for Biden and twenty twenty but some of those words, especially that small group in the middle of a fair engage, it might sharpened mid term elections midterm election, that they might vote for republican this time for their local house race or a sinner race. Or what have you? in that gets it one of the major reasons why we consistently see the president's party struggle enemy, terminal action in that's because of this idea: the presidential penalty, and it's that the

party. That's in the White House, some voters who for them in the previous election and that presidential election flip to the other party in the ensuing MID term so. The more popular Biden is with those types of voters maybe the smaller that share of voters who flip might so that sort of how I view it as being important abiding democrats future? I will say that I don't take any. This can tell us about his chances if he does run for reelection and twenty twenty four. I think we're way way too far away from their at this point to say much about that are well you're all confirmed it at the top, the sketch a bad use of polling rating. Let's move on and talk about why high profile politicians defect from their parties, but first today's podcast is brought to you by unlike other restrictive diets or work out programmes, noon, way, uses psychology to empower you with the practical knowledge and skills you need to build smarter,

sustainable long term habits and behaviors. Their psychology approach is based on scientifically proven principles like cognitive behavioral therapy, which helps people better understand their relationship with food and why they, the way they do you're the boss. You decide how new wait fits into your wife, five, ten or fifteen minutes a day. How much time you want to spend on the app is up to you knew is grounded in science is at the heart of everything they do. They have published more than thirty peer reviewed scientific articles that inform users, practitioners, scientists and the public about how their method

work and how effective they are sign up, fear, trial and get psychology based support and motivation to reach your goals at an oh, oh, am dot com, slash politics! That's an oh! Oh! Am dot com, slash politics to sign up for your trial! Last week, Senate Majority leader Chucks humor pushed forward a vote on changing the rules of the filibuster, setting up senators, mansion and cinema for high profile breaks with the Democratic Party whose reminiscent of Senator Mccain, Rakowski and Collins. All voting against, the repeal of the easier after the GEO P, campaigned on its repeal for four election cycles. Of course, the substance of the legislation is very different, but for members of both parties it was a significant betrayal, so much progress, and I want to start off with this broader question. Just how common is it for politicians to break with their part

he's on legislation like this. Well, I mean, I think, in our current political environment we tend to see higher dinners, unity- and I think that comes down in part to the fact that the parties are more consistent across the board. Like your average Democrat from state a and your average demographic be more likely to review. Think similarly, then say fifty years ago, when you might have had a concerted Democrat from the south and a more liberal democrat from the northeast or or what have you we saw those differences and both parties to both parties now more ideologically cohesive and so that tens lead to greater party unity on various it's where to get gets a nine, but the idea that of like having parliamentary parties where, a parliamentary system, the party, that's a usually votes, pretty much as a block for whatever legislation is that the government backs and we

when trending sort of in that direction were not we're not there by any means, but that's or the direction thinks of trend it. So I would say that it is more unusual now in a broad sense, then maybe it was in the recent but still somewhat distant past today re earlier this year, we analyze least in the house, how commonly Democrats voted together and what we found as they were really unified and backing violence agenda, and if you look at our right and score metric spite alot of dissension we ve seen among mansion and cinema. They vote more in favour of Biden's agenda than they vote again. in sum of that's a reflection of what brought to the fore right, if neither of them really like a bill, guess what Democrats are going to vote on it? That said, Oh you know the Senate more so than the house kind of has a history of senator is getting to go rogue, whether that's because of their own views, something that represents their constituents or for the sake of bi partisanship.

As Lee drop Man thousand for five thirty eight last year, bipartisanship partisanship, what we're seeing at least as Mansion Cinema define, it is kind of a dying mechanism within the Senate is Jeffrey was getting you know, The parties are just it's less common to have. Senators of different parties represent the same state, so what we're seeing is less disunity among the parties less breaking with the parties, but I think in the Senate more than the house just given the final throws it seems to be, and in terms of having split state representation, which I think you know in our lifetime here maybe will be situation with whatever that state voted for. President is also you know at the Senate level, who represents them in Congress, could see that he's right now, I believe

six senators. Where there's a mismatch, you could imagine a future where that zero, so that some of the broader context in that party unity is increasing when it comes to how people vote in the legislature. But at the same time, when you look at the past couple decades, there are these examples. Very high while examples of individual senators kind of stymie in the parties, much broader legislative agenda or priorities. You know people that I mentioned. Maybe one of the most high profile cases are the most high profile case during the Obama years was Joe Liebermann and then, of course, in the house today, perhaps really high profile. Examples are Adam, Kensington was Cheney blocking their entire party on the general sixth committee, so you do have still these like very high profile examples, and maybe we paid

to them even more, because there is so much party unity. Why does this happen? I think we should enter that in general terms, rather than specifically for wise mansion doing what he's doing? Why cinema? Why did Liebermann do or change either, in general, I think the factors that Michael summoned to break with our party are there leaves truly held beliefs and cynical about that one. But let's start there. Maybe it is what they really believe to electoral calculus. What do they think is best for them? kind of electoral future and more generally, maybe this overlaps with that. But I that sort of separately a political calculus. Where do they think not just in terms of winning re election but politically, let's chemisette, TAT Investor, for the future. I'd also add in their like interest groups and

nerves and that kind of thing people are human. They succumb to pressure from their peers from people trying to lobby them from people donate Aden to their campaign. If their thinking about having a career beyond elected office, that might factor- and if I now after time at five. Thirty, eight eventually wanna be sea of IBM. Well, that Florence my willingness to assign a story that critical of IBM right now well I'd like to think that, but in a who's to say nothing of what might be clear, eyed, on this. I don't wanna be ceo of idea. I just made that up. I think those the major ones right, maybe I'd I'd like one other, fourth, one which has just psych personality. I think some people, like to throw a bench in the gears? I think some people like to have that power and be in the spotlight so make up pretty cynical. I mean not. All of those are cynical, necessarily

but I do sir, and just do you agree because I personally looking at some of these high profile cases, would it necessarily background just strongly held beliefs. I kind of things like wild with these people be doing what they're doing, if it's not for showing how beliefs, but Sarah and what do you think? Politics is cynical man, it's obviously we're not inside mansions head were not inside cinemas. It is hard to speak to underline motivations. I do think, though, for both it is this Miss smash a firmly held beliefs like you, don't write and are bad about what you think the filibuster role should be in the threat of bi partisanship. If you don't believe that you can argue, maybe that carve out of already happened, maybe mansion and a state as white as West Virginia doesn't fully understand the ramifications of those restrictions being passed, but I do think he and Cinema genuinely believe in the value of what they're doing for bi partisanship.

I said, though, there's also electoral ramifications. I think cinemas are a little less clear cut, because Arizona is very much a purplish state and taking such a maverick, John Mccain, Esca Proach might not really be as politically viable. She also you know, used to have more of a progressive background. What is the one hundred and eighty there alot of the coverage seems to be. You know: she's power, hungry she's, doing Personal ambition is that because she's, a woman and then mansion, you know it's just like four hundred and ten he's in a state where, honestly, as a Democrat, he should not be in office, but it's because of his personal brand of politics, having been governor being left over from a long era of Democrats in the state if and when he retires. It's unlikely that another Democrat wins that Senate race right at least given where West Virginia s politics currently lie, and so I think for the both of them. At least you know it dismiss smash of truly,

leaving this idea of bi partisanship and also thinking about the electoral ramifications. It's also like look. The few minutes it's hard to operators things when you yourself are subject to certain incentives and entrust you end up constructing believes that a line with those interests often times so mansion has an electoral interest in backing the Democratic Party right. It part of his personal branda politics had Sir said West Virginia is very red, stayed so its within his political and electoral interests desire, meaning. He doesn't also believe that we should keep the filibuster in its current form, etc, etc. Well, he might also truly deeply believe that now does he believe that in part, because it in his interest to believe that

you don't have to see how to know in the specific case of mention, but I do know that generally, like motivated reasoning, is a thing right and people of construct arguments that make them feel the most comfortable. Basically, who knows what can happen with mansion and send a man? We can talk about that, but oftentimes with these kinds of politicians, they get themselves in a pretty hot water. Mc Caskey was challenged from the right in two thousand ten. She lost her primary. She did run as a right in candidate, but why she still in the Senate, based Cheney being challenged from, I guess the right or the more trompe side of the party and my only Adam Kinda guy retiring, Joe Liebermann, primary lost his primary one as an independent, so oftentimes do people that take this path, get punished for it by party fishing sector has to be something more than electoral calculus going on question mark, and maybe these are all bad example, because these people just ran is independence, are right, ends and and still maintain their position, and maybe

became even stronger as a result of it. Taking your example of labour ban and Rakowski, they both suffered consequences, but their maneuvers kind of made sense within their state. Silly Connecticut had just kind of pivoted and Liebermann lifetime from being maybe more friendly for its Republicans to friendly towards Democrats, but still like a more moderate brand of politics so when he ran as an independent than it was like. His democratic challenger was a little too progressive. Republicans realized their candidate. Wasn't gonna win, Statewide Liebermann made sense Similarly, you know I'll ask as a deep red stayed, but it has a history, at least of being a little bit more independent or entered in a streak there. I think we're Cowskin benefited from that. She also was obviously a brand name in the state. Thanks to her fathers political career before her, and so me cinema, for instance. Let's say you know. Poles right now show that Democrats in Arizona or super unhappy with her, so she gets pray

married and maybe she loses, does she run as an independent then, and that kind of hold more appeal in the state in Arizona particular as we ve covered at the sight. There's been a huge push their around the big lie to change. How voting is working there and to me, depending on who Republicans field as a candidate that opens up an avenue for an independent baby, just the republican and I think it's a little less clear for mansion and if he were primary just because West Virginia such a register it, but it does seem as if it's that kind of indecipherable. Oh unanswerable blend of what they're doing electrically and politically and how their motivated by that and then also just what they seem to think is right. I think both are at play here and it's really hard to kind of parse out which one is leading them more on this issue

It's easier when the person bucking their party is also bucking, their immediate political interests, it's easier to at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing it for like sincerely, beliefs. So in the case of Cinema Mansion, actually I was being equal. You would think that it's me likely Cinema is doing what she's doing for sincerely held beliefs then mansion, because mansion it's clearly in his political interest to do what he's doing cinema it's much less clear. As Sarah was saying you know if she might be primaried, maybe she put my medicine in the pendant, maybe not who's, to say but when they seem to be acting against our political interests, it raises the likelihood that their acting out of sincerity,

beliefs. Even then, though, there is other things that could be motivating them: career prospects, donors, all kinds of stuff, so I don't mean to be too cynical, but I think a certain level of cynicism has been urged by american politicians. Yeah me, look, I think, with Cinnamon mansion part of it is that for the gig go they sort of put out there that they work and be willing to change the film. US rules, and now, with thanks sort of coming to a head on voting rights legislation. I just don't think that they feel they have we go room like they place said that they favour you to some extent the voting rights legislation, but the act of joy. the filibustered some way something where they they caught. It put themselves out there from the get go in this current congress that they want to be willing to to make changes to it, and it's sort of, I think, for them to go back on that after having put themselves out there in that way, is challenging. You know

were used to politicians, maybe shifting when it's convenient or when it seems convenient for them, but in this case maybe it's sort of as a part of their brand, their independent brand within their states. It wishes par their political appeal. Maybe they still feel they can backtrack on that, given what they ve already said. So, looking at some of these past examples include John Mccain in all this, he Brighton himself as a maverick and got him all the way to the republican nomination. What do you think this all means for mansion and cinema going for? Do you think that their likely to lose primaries in their states? And if so, why are Americans up for more independence and the other? The kindest surprised that if mansion does run again and I'm not sure he will run again, I am sceptical that he would

the primary, I think was rejected in terms of finding a figure in West Virginia to take him on who would be able to build enough support to defeat mansion hard because it basically democratic bench was Virginia. The state has become very, very republic and very quickly. There were conservative Democrats out there who have left the party who are now Republicans, and it's is not an obvious person. In Arizona. On the other hand, when you're thinking about a primary shouts, the cinema It's much easier to come up with a scenario where that happens and where she's maybe unrolled trouble, because there are notable democrats like a ribbon guy ego or a great Stanton who are high profile stance was made phoenix before he got into the House guy ago, has already been rumoured as a potential primary opponent for Cinema,

Also in the house I mean you can kind of immediately come up with names right who could potentially build a big campaign to take on a sitting member the Senate. If she also seeks reelection, which may be given her behaviour, she's, not planning on seeking re election, but again this is very much like speculative at this point, but I think you could deftly see an easier path to her losing renown. the nation than mansion yeah need. Cinema is just a lot more unpopular with democratic voters. Public policy pulling commission to pull earlier this year and they found that only fifteen percent of Democrats had a favourable opinion. her not to be clear. Mansion was underwater with Democrats as well, but forty two percent still had a favourable opinion, so just goes to show, I think is Jeffrey was saying that there should not have bench in West Virginia and by default. Mansion has kind of

sway there I'm curious honestly if he runs again for election for cinema, there's been so much speculation that she is. You know trying to do all of this to build her brand for a presidential ran and then just like did you know? see what happened with tools he gathered in the DE link. Is she not gonna run as a Democrat and now maybe That's the answer answers I don't understand how in a democratic primary, she would go on to have great success, particularly when, like in her own state and again Arizona, purplish state, but Democrats, there so upset with her it's hard to see the political machinations that are going on there and how it works in her favour. Sarah, maybe in the kind of legacy of more Cowskin Liebermann, you look at her favourable numbers amongst Republicans and independence and that Paul actually she's at fifty seven percent favour ability with Republicans and fifty six percent favour ability with independence. So I don't know that looks like perhaps the political coalition of someone who doesn't maybe stick with our

that pursues an independent power that are now, and I could see that, maybe in Arizona again, I think there's a lot of questions around will who do they run as to republican senator? Is it someone like? Do you see a little bit more moderate in the party or is it somebody who fully embrace is kind of like the trumpets strain within the party? That's a big question: it's less Clearly the lake on the national stage, because I think in that instance it's kind of like ITALY, Historically speaking, most Democrats, gonna rally behind whoever the democratic nominee is most Republicans or gonna rally behind whoever there are not many, as you know, maybe she's, the next Ross. I don't sweat. It seems a little far fetched for that to be the strategy and even though no electoral votes on your right and just add, what's her saying, I think, she's right to draw a distinction between our a zone in the matter stage could Cinema win as an independent?

our ozanna sure that seems possible. It seems more difficult to me, let's a different set of argument, cinema doesn't have had any sincerely held beliefs, it just all political motive, electromotive, I'm nothing is true, but does just that play this out? Would it be easier for Cinema to win reelection, basically towing, but What kind of party line for the most part, like other more centrist democrats like getting out on the democratic left flank, but sticking with the party you know at its innermost right flank right or would it be easier for her to when reelection do much he's doing, which is going one step further blocking the party on it's sort of key

pillars and win as an independent. The latter's seems harder to me. So that's why I think some other factor is at play here. Sincerely believes other career motivations, exe Et Cetera national way. There was some reporting that Cinema has this idea, that people want bi partisanship she's, creating this by partisan brand and that there will be an appetite for that nationally speaking. my problem with that is like. That is true. As far as it goes. That's how Biden one Right Biden was among the more moderate Democrats running in the democratic primary and twenty twenty, and he be Trump aided blow out trumpeted, beat

clearly running as as a united, nodded diviner yeah exactly exactly so. The problem air, though, for Cinema is Biden ran as all of that, but The mainstream Democrat, and I think Cinema has Ghana. Little beyond that, I mean just point: this is buttons agenda: right and he ran as that Cross Party appeal- unify our etc. So I don't know it's it's a little country. I think if Cinema actually is intending on running for re election is like an independent or something that the Iraqi get to keep by half, because I think, generally speaking, when you see independent success in a Senate election, it's usually because one of the major party candidates either is practically non existent or just doesn't have very much support. So I think the problem for hers that a lot of Democrats would be backing. a democratic nominee, and I dont think you

though she does have high variability. My republicans that Republicans are going to just sort of lead. continue on, unless Irene right off anything entirely. But I just I could imagine her being in a very close like three way race, where visions are actually his? Third, in that scenario, because the party support is behind the two major party nominees site, It gets challenging to plan on that working for you near it kind of like you're lucky if it works, but that's not usually the career path you charge for you of show wrapping us all up how much power do these idiosyncratic politicians have mentioned Cinema Collins, Mc Caskey, Mccain to some extent, Ronnie Liebermann, Liz Cheney, how much power do they have an and what impact Do they have ultimately on our politics a lot of the time you're kidding me? I mean in elsewhere, like in our common,

where the Senate is fifty fifty. lantern and send a mine theoretically, any single senator has all the power in the world I mean before buying was inaugurated. There is a lot of talk about. Like President Mansion, President Mansion on sales are kind us get the club that you know mansion had stuck with the party on impeachment, for example. So I don't I was just skeptical, maybe I am good reasons, but I was wrong. Like Mansion Cinema, they have an incredible amount of power and that's been shone out. They ve stalled. Big big chunks of Eid ends agenda. How much power does Cheney have in the house? That's a little different and, I think circumstances matter. Allied Cheney. Does I have much power in the house? I don't think that's true. I do think the circumstances at this matter align its clear cut in this

because democratic majority there is so slam that they have to have both mentioned in Cinema. That's why you know right, like you, know their spending as much time in Congress as they are being quoted in the White House, whereas it's very different calculus for Republicans, who have broken with the party in the house, are obviously you know oftentimes. I feel like the drama. This is a little more subdued in the house just given. Normally the margins are not quite so narrow and coalitions are a bit easier to build. The I think it's worth mentioning good will in particular context. You were both members have very, very narrow majority Siena Democrats have the narrowest possible majority in the Senate, and then you know single digit seat margin advantage in the house. So in circumstances where party unity is especially important to pass anything. You have to have the party, mostly unified Anita. We see that on a lot of these votes. Where Equally, almost all Democrats and in a lotta cases, all Republicans vote one way or the other

but with such narrow majorities. When you have this, especially the Senate, where you have a couple who are voting against the rest, their party, you can see just how important being idiosyncratic could be met. We always saw this with the attempt to repeal the affordable care act, but John Mccain walking in famously doing thumbs down. You know so well can hang on this behaviour in a closely divided chamber? Dat, who knows maybe that's reason enough to find yourself in the Middle EAST and editors and crowded politician and like a closely divided country. That's all the power as that point anyway, as was made clear, we don't know, what's inside these politicians, heads but interesting to discuss, let them on and talk about a whole other kind of politician, the non politician, but first people like Doktor OZ, Herschel, Walker or, of course, Donald Trump, put a fee

is to the phenomenon of amateur candidates running for high profile federal office, but the trend it started before them. Since two thousand eight there's been an uptake in candidates running and winning house primaries who never previously held elected office. The trend began with Republicans, but in two thousand eighteen Democrats started collecting more amateur candidates as well Jeffrey. You have been doing a bunch of reporting on this. Why it's happening? It's impacts on governance. So let's talk about it first, let's define our terms just what counts as an amateur candidate. Yes, you in this context, will we say amateur candidate we mean someone who doesn't have any elected experience that ever been elected to office. They never an elected to the state legislature never been elect mare to City Council. So if you're thinking about traditional view and play, the science it long but thought the quality candidates. That is people who had been elected to office previously

when they would go run for the. U S: house they tended to do better. Think who had no lected experience in civil basil, we're picking up now, is that there is less of a notable difference between that sort of quality, candidate versus the inexperienced candidate. Now it's their running much more evenly, so both carriage with previous elected experience and kindred to have none of it, at the same rate, basically yeah in the place where you can really see this is when you do focus on house it's just. U S, houses gives you a larger sample size. A lot for thirty five ceased, but if you look at the ones where there's no incumbent running, because incumbents of all stripes, they tend to win. So if you try to pick out electoral expiring weather matters there. I can tell you much say you look at the ones where there's no comfort running and you see who's,

the primaries in those races for the Democrats and Republicans, and what were seeing? Is that roughly fifty fifty split in both parties between inexperience candidates and experienced candidates, winning nominations in those races? So in that instance, we Darcy difference between the two parties. Vocs did an analysis where they trying to break down types of corn quote amateur candidates were there's like true amateurs and preferred amateurs and preferred amateurs means lawyers, educators, government aids. We will have worked in the military, been appointed to some position, business professionals, verses. True amateurs who have basically no experience with public service social service whatever, and they said that when you break it down like that than you do see a difference in terms of Republicans and Democrats, do you think that's like a fair comparison to make when trying to analyze this one? Well, I mean, I think you could tell you about some differences between what the parties value. The over example is, of course, time travel,

but you do tend to see report. Bookings, are more likely to nominate someone whose background is business or military or something are they weren't necessarily serving in government Where's Democrats might be more likely, denominate someone who's. A lawyer but hasn't held office before someone who's been like a political aid or has been appointed official in some governmental bureaucracy, for instance. So I think TAT can't tell you a little bit about what the two parties value. I think that sort of indicative of republican when they want an outsider, they tend to go for someone who really is truly outside, whereas Democrats they do nominal plenty of outsiders who have no previous connection to any sort of political experience. Even if it's not elected by they do. And tat to nominate a fair number of people who at least have some connection to governmental politics, so thing is just a way of picking up on a difference. I think it is worth noting, though, that basis

She says that the research on this is the candidates who do have that experience with politics government didn't actually necessarily perform better, which you might think, because of that that they would perform better primers, but they dont overcome its you. Don't even have that experience yeah with ours can say, isn't that box analysis also pre twenty eighteen, because, according to our analysis. There was an up taken, Republicans sort of electing inexperienced candidates. Before there was an uptake for Democrats, tuna Optics for Democrats came in twenty. A tenant Twenty, that's not to say if you'd braided, that analysis now wouldn't still hold true, but I do agree with Jeff that that doesn't say much about sort of effective. Yes, there is research. Has Jeff wrote that people with elected experience are more effective legislators? once you get beyond that, you know, does being a lawyer verse being in the military?

with one or the other better to serve. As a representative, I don't think that's like claim. Anyone here is trying to make right. I think it's more. Just have you been elected office? Have you not been elected office beyond that which, if says just more about the demographics of the parties, the values of the parties, that kind of thing one thing I found in their research? Thank I was really interesting, but also this kind of challenging to track is this increase a man candidates with no experience but also a strong, anti establishment, strain Rennie I think that is kind of what, to some extent, we're conflicting more on the republican side, because there's just more prominent examples right, like Marian Williamson, did it when the democratic Primary Nicholas Christoph I'm gonna run in Oregon, and I realize I I don't even think it's accurate to kind of frame hand is anti establish and terrorism, just more so like a very on traditional democratic background running right, but their release

to me from Jeffreys Peace in his research was just that kind of strain has become more potent among voters in the sense that there really attracted to the outsider candidate aspire. so when they also have anti establishment rhetoric. So across the aisle we see this trend happening, maybe those differences stylus degree but as far as what we tracked here at five thirty, eight its across the board. So Maybe the interesting question is why why are candidates who have never experienced running and why our voters voting for them right so, and I should say that I spoke to her to political scientist, Diversity North Carolina, Sir Tool and racial porter, who have done a ton of work on this, and you know they point to a few different things, one of them was getting it. What service talking about, which is that may be,

People are very dissatisfied with institutions and the appeal of sort of an anti establishment rhetoric from candidates candidates. You dont have a background, as an elected official may make them more attractive to voters. So that's something. That's there, there's also, as so often with campaigns. There's where's the money comes from an one of the things that they found was that candidates who didn't have any elected experience we're having an easier time getting donations, either from individual donors or from outside groups, are particularly ideologically motivated groups, their donating a lot more to those types of Canada's than they once did. So a lot of tat, I think, can tie back to the general theme that we often touch on in this package, which is weakened political parties the political party apparatus just has a lot less say in who's. Gonna, be a candidate and who, like maybe breaks out in a primary, because

outside Europe should have more power than they used to and that money is a big part of it as well as candidates of any strike, because Does the internet have a very easy time getting donations from all you know everywhere. You just have a viral video and you could raise millions of dollars. You know on Twitter so those forces have, I think, made it easier for this type of candidates to succeed and made more attractive to run in the first place. And in the immortal words of five thirty contributor Julias are weak parties, strong partisanship, so everything just just said then add to that the fact that it must blue states the democratic Gonna win, almost no matter what an must read states. The Republicans

when almost no matter what? In other words, there are a lot of races where you have to Canada to running and lets say, one of them comes at last. Field has no elected experience and voters are gonna, be elected in a blue state and democratic voters are gonna, be like yes that person. As a Democrat, I don't really think they have the experience to be an elected office, I'm in a vote for the Republican that just is not going to happen in modern politics with any frequency, so its weak party, strong polarization from partisanship, is a good recipe for this. I do what I'm sure. It's what you guys think the extent to which Anti Establishment Terry and resume at the word. That is to order. I think so. I struggle I struggled to pronounce that Taiwan much play that word is getting during this paragraph. Is that, like the law of the land,

word or some pattern of Emission Lewis Langley. Please help us find a fifty year way to save anti disestablishment terrorism, not anti establishment. Terrorism is that the longest word emotional- and I think that is the longest- would yeah that, but the anti establishment, Harry, is still of work nor is it using anti establishment sentiment. It just sounds like it has two syllables at the end that it doesn't need in any case, agora. Sarah somebody send us like a pity or word for that. You can just me make up a better word for that? I do wonder how much anti establishment Terry is a factor in this trend. Because, as we were just discussing, I think you can explain a lotta the trend simply based on the weak parties, strong partisanship, polarization point and much upset about. You know you have like act Blue now. Where is much easier?

to raise money. So conceptually I totally get. It makes sense to ascribe some of this trend to that kind of anti establishment movement in american politics. But I do wonder how much it's playing a role and whether its whether its different by parties, Sarah was getting I'd like you would think it be more in the GNP than the Democratic Party of extra. You saw it or take amongst Democrats voting for these cortical amateur candidates in primaries in two thousand, a teen oftentimes. When you run in a district where your party doesn't

Lock, you want someone who doesn't really have strong ties to the party so that they can frustrate partisan identity. Why I mean your member, like all than people who had military experience running in reddish or purple, if districts in two thousand a teen? They don't even have a really say that their Democrats, at the end, they just say you know, like I'm Amy Mcgrath for Congress or whatever, instead of saying like immigrants, demographic Congress, so it's like, maybe in these stretch, districts or areas where you want sounds like partisan identity is worth that most effective. I think that's true to some extent, but that's really honing in on competitive, seat seeds, it's like if you look at it and Open sea race, but wanted some safe district ruling party, the they're still, I would say a greater likelihood now of the party opting somebody who doesn't have any elected experience. So I think you're exactly right, that in a competitive, see that provocative

but I think it can also work in a seated safer. Your party I mean could be an activist on some issue on the left are winning the nomination and a democratic sea, or This person urged or of right wing activists in a conservative republic elite accede. I think you're, seeing it kind of across the board to some extent yeah. I think the squad and the left part of the Democratic Party is a great example of a different strain of anti establishing tearing. As you know, I'm not saying that Unlike quarry, Bush is similar to Madison Concord, but they are related and the sense of like no prior political experience wanting to shake up the system, and I think just given where Americans are in distrust, you know our institutions, politicians there's an appetite. I think it's expressed in very very different ways, but among republican voters, among democratic voters, to kind of see something, that's different, and I think that's reflected here. You know one thing that Jeffrey touches on his peace

that is like an upside of this is that more experienced candidates, particularly within the Democratic Party, but also the Republican Party, that Vienna was the year of the woman for them and twenty twenty, but it has led to more diversity within Congress and particularly the house, and so that's one upside of and I think make it was getting out. It's easy to conflate all of this kind of under the entire establishing terrorism umbrella, and I think that's probably is Jeffrey cotton notes in his article, not the only factor here, but I think it is one given where our politics are. That deserves more study. You said that one of the effects of this trend is more diversity in Congress in political office.

What are the other effects of having more amateurs? As legislators, I was going to say there is party this that's like a reinforcing cycle, where I think a lot of voters look at Washington and don't think the people there are really doing anything effectively or or to help them in their day to day lives. Whether that's true or not, but put that aside for a second there, certainly a lot of people in the country who feel that way, and we therefore feel what do I need someone with elected experience. it's the people with elected experience were already there aren't doing a good job. Let me throw somebody out of left field in their right. Certainly, with

a lot of that at least conversation in TWAIN. Sixteen men, trumpets elected, but research does show that people without elected expand our less effective legislators, and so, if you, through a more inexperienced people into Washington, it becomes even less effective than voters have all the more reason to be like it's not effective. Who cares? So there you are a kind of feedback dynamics of recovered, a ruthless scenario. Yeah me there's just the potential for a negative feedback loop and you have the political scientist I spoke with. You know they said It was a real concern, so there could be this benefit of people who have traditional trouble. winning some of those stepping stone offices like estate legislative position near women and minorities, particularly so maybe I can get greater action Since this is a benefit of. Maybe not meeting is much like experience to get enter Congress, but the flip side if you get more more people, her inexperienced trying to govern that may make

Already struggling federal government, even less effective doing its job, and so there, this negative feedback loop were voters fresh aided by the status quo, continue to turn to people who don't have experience, legislating. And then look at the Washington to make things worse and one of the things it also pointed out to me was that some of those members that their electing who were outsiders, they may not really have much interest in doing much legislating anyway. You know, I think you can that was someone like a martyr Taylor, Green. Do her constituents really care that she's on committee a or be, or that she got kicked off of some committees, things. She said, I think they wanted her to get in there and and sort of shake things up and

air view shaking things up, so I think that actually is is probably the most important part of this, which is. There are plenty of politicians and candidates with collective experience and without elected experience, who want to get into government to do something. We cannot legislatively, let's say if we're talking about Congress or just more generally, to do something, but there are also allow people who don't who want to go the office, because they think it's nice gig because they like the attention, because it's good money, whatever the reason I think we have seen not on an increase in the number of elected officials who don't have previous experience, but also an increase in the number of elected officials who dont, have any interest in governing really and that's not why there there and those are two overlapping but separate trends. Well, that's coming.

Pressing. Let's end on that, go on no, please yeah! It's not really like reassuring trend because actual things that I note the articles that you see an, Greece and the share of freshmen in Congress. You don't have any previous like experience in space, you like it that keeps up over the next few cycles and a lot of those freshmen stick around that. Just me, The d, the overall percentage of people in Congress you who, when they came to come has had some sort of background Elect experience will gets smaller and could create a more Amateurish Connor's frankly or a well. We will keep an eye on this, of course, in this coming cycle. We will see if the next senator from Pennsylvania is doctor eyes or than Senator from Georgia

four Walker, I'm sure there are many more examples out there that we have been kept as closer in Ireland, but we will in the coming year and we will see what happens, but let's leave it therefore now think you Jeff Ceramic Scanlon. Thank you make again. My name is Galen drink Tony child is in the virtual control room. Clare beggary Curtis is on audio editing. Emily Vanessa key is are in turn. You can get in touch. My e mailing us a pod cast at five thirty dot com. You can also forced. We did us with any questions or if you're a fan of the show leave us a rating or review and apple pie cast store war. Tell someone about us thanks for lessening and will cease. Her.