A break down about Biden's exit and Trump's return

[00:00:12] Welcome to The Break Down with Brodkorb and Becky, a weekly podcast that breaks down politics, policy, and current affairs. I'm Becky Scherr. And I'm Michael Brodkorb. We are three weeks into January and have barely had time to catch our breath with all the political activity and history-making being done right here in Minnesota and in our nation's capital. That is why we brought in two of our partisan experts to help us carry the load and hopefully bring some of that partisan bickering we love so much. We are pleased to welcome back to the show Preya Samson-Dar and Darwin Forsyth.

[00:00:41] As a reminder, Preya is our resident Republican and communications pro who has worked for the MNGOP, the RNC, and various campaigns of all levels. And Darwin is representing the other side of the aisle, serving as communications director for the Minnesota DFL. With these two, we have a big show, and we are going to kick things off with all things surrounding President Trump's inauguration. We will break down President Biden's last day in office and the peaceful transfer of power. We will get into the details of Trump's big speech and his first, and many, executive actions that have been signed already.

[00:01:11] We will hit on tone, reactions, and what celebrities or notable guests were present, and why it matters. Then we will discuss Preya's recent op-ed in the Star Tribune titled, Republicans Were Given a Nationwide Mandate. Now let's get to work. Of course, we will need to get some insight from our two guests about their perspectives on the chaos at the Minnesota legislature and what we can expect in the coming days and or weeks. And we will end by briefly discussing Minnesota DFL Chair Ken Martin's campaign for DNC Chair. Thanks for joining us and enjoy the show.

[00:01:40] We are excited to officially welcome Darwin and Preya to the show today. We are going to be talking about all things surrounding Trump's inauguration. But before we get into the focus on President Donald Trump, I want to end with the outgoing President Joe Biden and his last day. There was a peaceful transition of power. There was a tea party. I don't know if we want to call it a tea party. A meeting with tea.

[00:02:07] He invited the Trumps to join him at 4T before the inaugural event and the speech and all of the hoopla. And of course, some last-minute pardons. Preya, I'll send it over to you to kick us off and chat through some of those last-minute pardons and the actions that we saw from President Biden on his way out the door. I mean, they certainly were interesting. I mean, I've never seen anyone get pardoned for a crime they have yet to commit, have not committed.

[00:02:38] I haven't been charged with. I really don't know what you would call it. It feels very unprecedented, to be quite honest. To just blanket pardon somebody for acts they may or may not have done for a very long period of time. But hey, he's the president, I guess. Do you? I mean, there really is no other way to describe it. Like, obviously, I don't agree with it.

[00:03:06] I also don't agree with blanket pardons of, like, the J6 folks either. But, like, when you were president, there are just some things you get to do. And, like, whether we agree with them or not, they've been done. So, like, oh, no. We're not really going to hit either side for one or the other because I'm not in that position anyway. So, just very, very odd. That's fair. You know, I agree.

[00:03:30] I think the pardons are something that have always struck me as a little odd, that it is something that the executive has the opportunity to do. We did see him allow or could do a blanket pardon for five members of the Biden family, for Dr. Fauci, and then for members of the House, the House January 6th committee. Darwin, what are your thoughts about these? I know, again, it's something both sides do. Got no ins, no outs, no plus or minus on Biden's pardons. Yeah, absolutely.

[00:03:59] So, right off the bat, I can think of at least one previous person who has received a blanket pardon for crimes they've not been charged with. The person's name was Richard Nixon. But setting aside that historical example there, it's true. Like, there are presidents from both parties that have issued questionable pardons. I personally, it's not my favorite power that we give to presidents the ability to pardon people.

[00:04:24] You know, Clinton, Bush, some Biden's pardons have certainly raised eyebrows. That has been, however, a bipartisan and precedented fact of life in American politics for a while. Not my favorite one, but not a complete breaking of the norm here.

[00:04:43] I don't think there's any comparing what happened in the closing hours of the Biden administration with the blanket pardon of 1,500 people on January 6th.

[00:04:58] This was a situation, as everyone who listens to this podcast know, where the person who played, at a minimum, the most generous, you know, interpretation possible, a very important role in what happened on January 6th. Pardoning not just people who were, quote-unquote, trespassing if we're going to talk Trump's language. The people who beat police officers, who sprayed them with mace.

[00:05:26] Some of those violent, awful images on January 6th were condoned by the United States because of this. That has never happened before. Nothing like that has ever happened before. And I understand and honestly even agree with some of the criticisms of those final Biden decisions. I think that we'd be doing a big disservice if we drew a comparison between them. I love it.

[00:05:52] We are two minutes into the episode and Darwin did not miss the opportunity to pivot from Biden and go to Trump. We are certainly going to get into that because I do have a lot of thoughts also on the January 6th pardon and some of the statements from Pelosi and others and what that means. The last thing I'll say on this, Michael, I do want your insight is I do completely understand the pardons for the members of the House Committee on January 6th.

[00:06:16] I think this is something that President Trump has alluded to wanting to have some attacks or kind of seek revenge on those folks. That makes sense to me. The Fauci one, eh, hate it. The members of the Biden family, he was really critical of the Trump doing the same action and his first term. But again, I think we all are in the same agreement. They're kind of silly. They're kind of stupid. Both sides do them. This is what we're kind of stuck with. Michael, any thoughts on Biden's pardons here?

[00:06:43] Yeah, as the person on this podcast episode who's the most likely to maybe need a pardon at some point, I'm not going to. I'm not going to totally dismiss the need for pardons because, again, I might need some someday, at least one. So that being said, I think there's an opportunity to be more transparent about these. It is. It's the last minute stuff that I don't like about it. It's and it's the volume of them.

[00:07:05] And there was a pretty, pretty aggressive record, a pretty clear record of Biden being critical of not doing this, number one, and then critical of some of the last minute pardons that Trump did previously. And so I think the opportunity that was missed here was by President Biden, former President Biden, to avail the public of his updated frame of thinking as to how he was going to approach these pardons and make the case to the American public.

[00:07:32] To do it in the way that he did and then kind of head off into the sunset, I have some concerns with that. I understand both sides of the coin. I understand the arguments that are made. You know, there's concerns about what Trump's going to do in office, coming after people. I can see those points. And I recognize the authority of the president to issue these pardons. But as the older I get, I am constantly trying to say, isn't there a better way to do this? While instilling, making sure it's clear that I might need a pardon someday.

[00:08:02] So we don't want to get rid of them totally. I do want to hit on Trump. I see that nobody disagreed with that, by the way. I saw a lot of shaking of the head and nodding, but no one seemed to disagree that I was probably the one that would need a pardon at some point. Yeah. Thanks. Who knows? My mom watches this, so thanks, guys. Michael. Yeah. I want to hit on the inaugural speech itself. So it was moved inside due to weather.

[00:08:28] I'm sure that is something that President Trump, the 47th president here, probably pushed back pretty significantly on. We know how he loves his crowd sizes. But it was actually, you know, looks beautiful. It was great optics of it. I thought it looked nice. Capital One Arena did a big, had a big party. I know some watch parties were kind of all around the district. I had some friends that traveled out there.

[00:08:52] And while certainly a little disappointing when you expect to go be a part of this on the Capitol lawn, still a big historic event. And Darwan, I want to start with you and kind of just get your take on any thoughts of his speech, any topics that were hit or his overall kind of. Actually, let's let's start with this. How did you take kind of like the overall tone and and messaging of it all the tone and the themes and kind of just the overall arching? How how was the speech to you?

[00:09:22] I think it was a honestly a good first window into what's going to be the gap between what a lot of people are hoping Donald Trump is going to do and focus on and where he's actually going to end up going.

[00:09:38] I mean, you saw the people who had front row seats that speech were people who use their wealth and influence to cozy up to him and a lot of focus on grievance politics or gimmicks like the Gulf of America, stuff like that. You know, there was there was substance stuff in there, too.

[00:10:00] But the focus was not on bringing down the price of eggs, which, you know, is Donald Trump won this election, I think, in large part, you know, due to backlash over higher prices. I think that's something that both Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree on is that, you know, high prices hurt Democrats in this election.

[00:10:18] And instead, I think we saw someone who is really focused on the this sort of like culture war, like, you know, Gulf of America, a lot of these things that are going to split and divide Americans, but that probably feel very good for Donald Trump personally to get off his chest. And maybe that pans out well for Donald Trump, you know, in theory, can't run for a third term, so he doesn't have to care that much about maintaining public support.

[00:10:47] But I don't know if it's going to work out well for the leaders who want to follow him in his party. OK, first of all, the fact that we're talking about cozying up to billionaires and billionaires when literally the Democrats have raised what? A billion dollars for Kamala Harris in the span of three months had folks like Oprah, Beyonce, Katy Perry.

[00:11:14] Do I need to go on showing up to their rallies? I like I'm sorry, but like it's just a little hypocritical. Well, she was able the fact that she was able to raise a billion dollars in like what? Three, four months was still 20 billion dollars in debt. The fact that the Democrats continue to outraise Republicans 10 to one, but we're the ones with the problem. Problems with millionaires and billionaires. That kind of messaging is exactly why Tim Walz and Kamala Harris lost.

[00:11:42] I'm just going to be like very blanket, very honest about it. The reality is, is that Donald Trump on inauguration day, whether you like it or not, said the exact same things he's been saying for the last eight years. None of that has changed. What you see with Donald Trump is pretty much what you get. He just says it. And like he doesn't like play cat or mouse about it. Like whether you like it or not, like that's the reality. He's going to tell you exactly what he's going to do. You don't like him.

[00:12:11] But he's going to be honest with you about it. And I think that's exactly what he did yesterday. He said the exact same stuff that he's been talking about on the campaign. And so I think for anyone to say, well, like, you know, this is a good first marker to see like where he ends up going versus like what he's saying. Like, that's pretty disingenuous because Democrats are responsible for everything that we're facing right now.

[00:12:36] Like, the reality is, is Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz did not get reelected because Americans largely blamed them for the situation that they find themselves in. And I think because Donald Trump actually and J.D. Vance offered solutions because they actually addressed the problems that Americans were facing, like illegal immigration, like inflation, like rising crime, like everything else. Because that's why they got elected. And that's what they have been talking about over the last 75 days.

[00:13:04] And that's what they were talking about yesterday. I'm going to just respond to that briefly. Yeah, of course, it's true that Democrats raise money from Republicans. And yes, I'm glad that our finance staff have done a better job, especially Minnesota, of doing it better than our counterparts. Hey, I want to disagree with you more. Yeah, well, hey, we got bipartisan agreement here. By the way, I just want to make sure. You said you mean billionaires, not Republicans. Yes.

[00:13:34] Okay, yeah. Fix what I said there. Plus, Republicans, too. Trust me. Yeah. Here's the key difference and where I disagree with you, Preya. Donald Trump has changed many things they believe in, and he's often changed them in response to people who have sidled up to him with influence. He was the one who was championing and making the TikTok ban a big idea.

[00:13:57] The thing that changed his mind was close personal relationships with TikTok investors and the TikTok CEO. I think there are compelling sides on both arguments of why TikTok should be gone for national security reason. I don't love the idea of them being able to control 150 million Americans' primary source of information. I also see the personal freedom argument.

[00:14:21] What's been very well-documented and credible reporting is that Donald Trump changed his mind after meeting with a TikTok investor with close ties to his campaign. That is going to be where the rubber meets the road in terms of the contrast between the image that Donald Trump has tried to sell himself as a man of working Americans versus the reality of who's going to have his ear and who he's going to be looking out for in the White House. I will say this, though. Yes, TikTok is a national security issue. There is no doubt about it.

[00:14:51] But as Donald Trump has already said, he's also extending TikTok's availability to be online for the next 70 days in order to see if there's an opportunity for it to be bought out. And I'm not arguing for against the TikTok ban. For non-Chinese organizations. So, I mean, like... I'm not arguing for against the TikTok ban. The point that I was making is that he made that decision not based off any sort of policy conviction whatsoever.

[00:15:19] He made that decision based off his relationship with rich investors who have ties and financial interests in TikTok. And that is the point that we were talking about with regards to Donald Trump's, you know, influence with those people and vice versa.

[00:15:34] I am just going to have to disagree with you on that because at the end of the day, like, he is finding a solution that allows TikTok to stay on American-like phones in a way that is not a threat to them from a national security standpoint. Whatever that, like, whatever that, like, background is, is not going to matter to the people who make a living off of TikTok. Who share stories on TikTok that raise awareness for different issues.

[00:16:03] Like, that's not going to matter to them. What is going to matter to them at the end of the day is the fact that they're going to see that TikTok, right or wrong, was saved because Donald Trump did something about it. And now they have their livelihoods are going to continue to have that. They're going to continue to raise awareness, whether it's brand awareness or, you know, a nonprofit cause or something else like that.

[00:16:26] Like, the reality is, is like, you can have an evolution on some things if it's still, like, if you're still holding your core reasoning for why that thing should change. He's not saying that TikTok should go away. He's saying it's a national security issue and that's why it should go away. Like, but if there is an option that opens the door to allow TikTok to stay without being a national security issue, then there is that room for evolution.

[00:16:50] That's kind of like saying, well, you can't go through this door because, you know, there, there's something blocking it on the other side. And so you'll never be able to go through that door. But if somebody has an opportunity to say, well, I can move it out of the way and put it somewhere else so you can go through that door. Or like, are you still going to hold that stance? Poor example, but it gets a point across. I mean, just to kind of jump in here, because I do want to get into some of the nuts and bolts of the speech.

[00:17:18] But I do love this conversation because I think there is a lot to this. And this is largely a lot of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook and others who previously were in Biden's camp or were supporting Democrats and on the left. Trump said yesterday that they supported the Democrats until they realized Biden didn't know what the hell he was talking about, that they have come over. He also said they deserted him. They were all with him, every one of them. And now they are with me. But he ends also by saying they're not going to get anything from me.

[00:17:46] I don't need money, but I do want the nation to do well. And they're smart people and they create a lot of jobs. And from wearing my Republican hat here, this is kind of capitalism at its finest. These are some of our nation's biggest job creators. These are some of our innovators who have literally built what this nation, whether you like it or not, and whether you agree that they should be men or women with this much money and with this much influence and power. There are.

[00:18:09] And so in this case, I think it's just I struggle with the fact that Democrats seem to love Mark Zuckerberg until he lifted the veil of Biden's team, you know, trying to censor different things and how until we saw a lot of this evolution of these tech CEOs. And, you know, so we had the TikTok CEO. We had main CEO. We had Amazon chair. We had Alphabet, the Google CEO, Apple CEO, Elon Musk. We're all there.

[00:18:37] And I think this is something that obviously there's difference of opinions and whether that's good or bad. I just find it and I'll pray you can back me up. I just find it fascinating that Democrats seem to only have an issue with this now that they have shifted the side that they are choosing to support. And at this point, it's Donald Trump. But I personally, when we look at the top, you know, we always like to tout Minnesota being a top Fortune 500 company.

[00:19:01] If we look at the top of the top of the top, we should want them to be in conversations with our president and our elected leaders. We should want them to be supporting and figuring out how to employ people, how to have good paying jobs for families and benefits and all of that sort. So I say bravo. I say it is something that I'll bring over to our Republican side and cheers capitalism and bring it on. And I hear that.

[00:19:27] And I don't think that most reasonable people would say that, you know, the leaders of some of the largest financial institutions in the country shouldn't be involved in public policy conversation at all. The key point here is the transactional nature that Donald Trump has sometimes explicitly encouraged. You scratch my back. I scratch yours. I don't think that that is going to work out well for most people in this country. I genuinely hope I'm wrong.

[00:19:56] It's happened before, and I hope it happens again here. Let me let me just say on the subject that a couple of things. And I really appreciate the discussion. It was really insightful. One thing I would add is I am someone who, you know, I staked out a claim. I was a supporter of Kamala Harris and Governor Walz this past election cycle. But I am approaching this election and the aftermath of this election the same way I did when I was first a college student. I voted. My first election was in 1992.

[00:20:25] Don't you dare tell me if you guys were alive or not. But the point I'm going to say is that after that election, I mean, I was I'm always been someone who just loves democracy and government and politics. And so after the election was over and Bush lost, I legitimately want I wanted Clinton to succeed. And after the elections, I want people, even if I didn't vote for them to succeed.

[00:20:47] So there is a portion of me and a part of me that's like seeing this unfolding yesterday is watching the CEOs there and saying, look, I hope there can be a good relationship between the government and these companies. Yes, I think there is a ton, though, of criticism that could be made to Zuckerberg and to others. And, you know, Elon Musk, we can get into more of the some of the stuff that he does.

[00:21:13] But I view someone like Tim Cook being there as someone who's obviously has personal political leanings. I think it's important that there's a good relationship. And so to the degree, but I understand the criticisms that happen. I will just also say that I think Donald Trump is probably the most transactional do this or, you know, I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine type of person.

[00:21:35] And the benefit that he gets from those folks being there is that is that his brand legitimacy, which I think he just soaks in and loves. Sure, it's good for the government. I mean, it's good for it's good for the institution of democracy, for there to be a peaceful transfer of power and all those things that occurred yesterday. Let's not forget that a lot of that happened because of people outside of Donald Trump to ensure that that happened. And so I think it was a good I think we needed a reset on that.

[00:22:05] But there's certainly opportunities for criticism. And I think Preya, Darwin and you, Becky, made great points. While we are on a notable guests, I do want to hit on a couple other celebrities that made their were visible. We're part of this. We had Carrie Underwood, who bravo for some wonderful acapella singing there. But the music didn't work. She did a wonderful job. We had Joe Rogan.

[00:22:28] We had UFC CEO Dana White, Jake and Paul Ryan, who lifted Mike Tyson on their shoulders or on Paul Ryan's shoulders for Jake, right? I'm sorry. And I should maybe have done my research and knows which one of that was. Mike Tyson was on the shoulders of the former speaker. No. No, I'm serious. Oh, no. Jake and Paul Ryan, the like fighters. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. There's two Paul Ryans. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. The world's not. We're all not Wayne Darwin. Okay.

[00:22:58] We're all not named Preya. Okay. Some of us have used names. Fair. Fair. We also had Conor McGregor, Danica Patrick and Wayne Gretzky among others. So, you know, there were celebrity fields. Preya did make the same note of the argument you made about cozying up, but there were some famous people there. Whether they support Donald Trump, who knows? It's a big party. It's a big thing. But I do want to chat a little bit more about what we heard from his speech.

[00:23:23] Overall, I would say that I was very pleased and impressed about the overall tone and tenor from the president. I think that he largely, you know, stayed low. He stayed steady. He stayed on script, which is a 50-50 toss-up of whether we get that from the president. We saw a couple ones go up. Whether you liked what the script said or not, you know, he did have a kind of a more respectful way of addressing the situation at hand, which I can applaud.

[00:23:53] I do think that there are some things that, you know, so as a reminder for you guys and for our listeners, I did not vote for Harris or Trump this time around. I did a write-in. And so there are some things, this is, you know, kind of my MO with Trump, is there are some things I largely support and some things in his speech and executive actions, which we'll get to here shortly, that I vehemently disagree with.

[00:24:16] But I thought kind of his overall theme of proud, prosperous and free that he started at the top, really talking about America being America first again within on the national stage, within our citizens, what we teach our students. You know, I think that one thing that I'd like to get your input on and pray I'll start with you is he was he was pretty harsh on President Biden, who was sitting right behind him and not something that I think we always technically see in a lot of these speeches.

[00:24:45] I think very quite often it's a forward looking, it's an optimistic, it's a goal and quest for the future. We know Trump likes to keep us on our toes. And he claimed, you know, the previous administration was corrupt, that they claimed that the government cannot manage simple crises, domestic crises, while at the same time stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad. Talk to me a little bit about your thoughts, your take on him launching into kind of that attack on Biden. And was it expected?

[00:25:15] Was it necessary? Is it just because it's... I mean, honestly, if he didn't do it, we would have all been wondering if there was something wrong with him or if there was a body double like up there giving that speech for him. I mean, let's be honest, there are just some things that are at least over the last eight, nine years are quintessential Donald Trump.

[00:25:41] Part of that is, you know, to Michael's point earlier, there is that transaction of ensuring that the brand maintains at a high level. Right. And part of that is ensuring that he has that compare and contrast so he can always show that he is better than everybody else.

[00:26:05] And so I think to not have that ability to come back and take one more swipe at Joe Biden would be just very uncharacteristic of him. I think he probably should have been a little bit softer with the man in the room. He already won. Like Joe Biden's going down and is leaving the White House at a very low point of his life. He could probably have been a little bit more gracious. But again, that's not really in Donald Trump's nature. It never has been.

[00:26:30] But I think overall to show that dichotomy of where the country or that and where he is thinking things. That is partially why he got elected. That is a large reason why he got elected. And I think for that not to be in a speech would be a little uncharacteristic just in general. Obviously, presidents in the past have done the same thing without focusing so much on the negative contrast. But again, this is Donald Trump we're talking about.

[00:26:56] It wouldn't be him if we weren't seeing some of that heavy interest in place. Darwin, what's your take? Did you I mean, I don't think we can really say anything shocks us when it comes to Donald Trump these days. But were were you anticipating that or were you expecting a little bit more focus on the future? I I was a little I wasn't I was not surprised. But part of me did wonder if, you know, I remember his first inaugural.

[00:27:22] He did try to set a slightly more conciliatory tone. That's clearly not what happened here. And I actually agree with Preya. Like if he hadn't said that, we all would have wondered like, hey, that does not seem very in character with this guy at all. And to me, that's the problem. I think that setting aside politics, ideology party, I think that one of the worst impacts that Donald Trump has had on this country's politics

[00:27:51] has been to take what was already a not great situation with civility and to just further corrode norms, decorum and people's ability to engage in this without it being just awful. Like I I get paid by Ken to have Twitter on my phone. But there's no way I would if Ken weren't paying me to because of how discussion is broken down at the highest levels of government.

[00:28:21] Our leaders, not just activists or people who were confined to blogs, you know, a few years ago. And I'm hoping that four years from now that, you know, whoever is president afterwards can help set a better tone and we readjust to it. But it's something that I'm not sure if or when we'll get it back. Michael, you kind of got a little chuckle when I knew when I said that I was surprised and impressed by his tone and tenor throughout the speech.

[00:28:51] What's your take on how he how he went after Biden and just the overall kind of way he presented himself yesterday? I was commenting on your use of the word script. And then when you said that it was in the script that I was nodding my head. Yes, this is what I would say. Donald Trump's. So let me just let me say this again. I didn't vote for Trump. I never voted for Trump. But let me just say this. I am constantly disappointed by his ability to walk into a room and not try to elevate the discourse and not try to make it a little better.

[00:29:21] That's what's disappointing to me. And sure, we can all be surprised and have that expectation. But wouldn't it be nice if he just made everyone just tried to elevate the discourse? I understand that it's the playbook that he has. But there is an opportunity for him to really do something in his four years. And one thing that he could have it and there's a lot of things that are outside the impact of the president, but directly is tone and tenor.

[00:29:46] And there was an opportunity to reestablish a rapport with the vast majority of Americans that didn't vote for him and didn't support him yesterday. And the punitive nature of some of his comments yesterday, I think, shows that Donald Trump's GPS only goes one way and it's down the wrong road. If you ever want him to take the right path, he's not going to do it. I just think it's sad.

[00:30:10] And it would be refreshing as he because, you know, Darwin made a great point that aside from the people that are trying to push the possibility of him running a third term, running for a third term, which I don't know if Freya can talk about her involvement in making that happen later. We'll see. But and we can discuss some of those plans. But ultimately, this is his last term in office. And so Darwin also said he doesn't have to be concerned about the polls. So that can be very liberating. That could be someone who comes in and decides to do things outside of his comfort zone.

[00:30:40] It could be a situation where he just wants to do what he said, be be their retribution, have this be a little bit of a revenge tour. And I would just say, I understand that I have zero influence in the Trump administration, but it would be great if he just walked into a room and left left people saying, boy, he made this place a little bit better. And there was there's an opportunity in this four years to lower down some of the rhetoric.

[00:31:04] And I understand I'm not saying that he has to fight with one arm behind his back, but there is a leadership opportunity that he misses. And I think I was disappointed yesterday, but not surprised at the tone that he took. I do. I had some notes of my favorite lines. Most of them are accompanied by executive actions that the president has taken already, has signed into action. So I'll kind of lump this all together.

[00:31:33] But one thing that I did want to hit on and just get your take, because it's a comment that has been made to me a few times over the last few months, but also after this speech by some friends. And he discussed the assassination attempt that happened earlier this year or at the end of last year in Pennsylvania. And he said that he was saved by God to make America great again.

[00:31:55] From my viewing and listening of this, it's certainly not abnormal in political speeches, but in particular in Republican speeches to have discussions of religion and God. But one thing that I've seen and as a theme and others have have also brought to me is feeling like there's a little bit of an evolution in Donald Trump with how he mentions or how he talks about God in his religion and how frequent he brings that into. And Priya and you, Darwin and Michael, feel free to jump into.

[00:32:24] But Priya, I just want to, you know, for somebody who has spent a lot of time working on comms in the Republican era, is this something that you've noticed too? Do you think that there maybe has been a little bit of a, you know, I want to be sensitive. I don't want to be attacking anybody's religious beliefs or anything of that sort. And I'm not trying to say that this is disingenuous by or disingenuine of the president. Instead, I think that maybe this has changed a court or, you know, made him have a different view on things.

[00:32:51] But it was just it seemed a little bit more prevalent than in the past. What's your take? Oh, 100 percent. And I had this conversation actually with friends out in D.C., some of them who who currently work for him. And what the consensus we all feel is that the assassination attempt and the subsequent ones really shook him. I think he thought for the longest time, because he was Donald Trump, that he was in Minnesota and that nothing could touch him.

[00:33:18] And I think with everything that's gone on, you know, whether it's like the prosecutions, whether it's the, you know, assassination attempts, the one in Pennsylvania and on, it really shook him up. It really shook their family up in a way that they have never really experienced before. And I do think he genuinely believes that he was spared by God. And that's why he talks about it in the way that he does.

[00:33:45] I don't know if he is actually religious or the level of how of his faith and his belief in God. But I really do believe in that very instance when he talks about that and when he talks about being saved, he really does believe, especially more so after winning the election, that like this is part of his purpose in life. And that is the reason why he was saved.

[00:34:10] And I mean, when you look at the video and he's looked at it plenty of times, I'm sure too, it's like it very was miraculous in some senses because most people, when it's that close, it's a very different tragic ending. And so I do believe wholeheartedly that he genuinely believes it. It is something that has changed his perspective on some things in terms of like his language. But I don't think that changes too much because as much as it is part of his brand, it's also a part of the show.

[00:34:40] Right. And it's a part of who Donald Trump is. It's a part of the Donald Trump show. It's a part of what people expect of him. And so even if he has had this life changing moment and he really does believe God did spare his life, he still has a show and a performance to carry on.

[00:34:58] And so he won't, I think, be able to change that piece of him, even though his experience would compel him otherwise or compel somebody else otherwise. Before we move it to executive actions, Darwin, Michael, any comments on that or any other piece of the speech, the day, the festivities before we get into some of those executive actions?

[00:35:24] A non-religious person named Darwin probably shouldn't speculate about Donald Trump's sincerity as Christian values. I will say I'm married to a wonderful, like saintly Catholic woman. And if it is genuine and sincere, I really hope that many of the other great values I know are in the Christian faith are adopted by him. I haven't seen him do it yet.

[00:35:51] I would say, and I want to be consistent about my discussion of religion, that religion is, I consider myself to be a very religious person, but I generally approach religion in talking about with other people as I want to know it's like exercise. I want to know it's a part of your life, but I don't want to see you do it. So I'm not really into talking about my faith. That being said, as someone who it does privately practice, when I hear Donald Trump talk about religion, I want to believe him. In my heart, I want to believe that he's being authentic.

[00:36:19] And there's a couple of ways you can go with those type of life-changing experiences. I want to believe that he's being authentic. One of the challenges that can happen when you talk about religion in certain ways, he can act like he's on God, kind of like David Koresh talked about religion and being like, I'm here and now I'm this. It validates my faith and he can go out and have it be a persona him, or he can go out and be like Jake and Elwood Blues saying they're on a mission from God and they're out to do good. There's a big spectrum of things.

[00:36:46] I think it gets into a really sensitive subject when you're trying to figure out which way someone's talking. And so I want to give him a lot of space to talk about it and I'll leave it up to others. But I hope, I hope that every experience that he goes through wants him to be a better person. And some of those experiences are good and some of those experiences are bad. Becky, we spoke in a very thoughtful and deliberative way about the assassination attempt on him. It was serious. It's nothing to laugh at. It's nothing to joke at.

[00:37:16] It's nothing to diminish. But to go back on what I said earlier, I would like to see, as I would any president that's come in, I'd like to see them try to make, try to heal this country, bring it together, and we'll see if he can do it. I appreciate all those comments. I know it is a sensitive topic and one that we want to be careful of how we walk around. But it just was interesting to me that a number of folks had brought it up in the way he kind of moves and discusses. And so I appreciate that conversation.

[00:37:46] I also apologize to anybody watching this because there's clouds going in front of the sun every two seconds. And so it looks like a strobe light on my face. But moving into executive actions. So we hit on it a little bit. Want to get into it a little bit more. It seems as though we all kind of have an issue with the kind of blanket pardon of the January 6th participants, attendees.

[00:38:11] They issued more than 1,500 or pardons to more than 1,500 defendants who participated. He called them hostages. Michael, you want to start? I want to just set this up before anything else because I want to hear other people talk. I think the January 6th pardons are outrageous. They're problematic. And for a later part of the discussion, I'd like to understand how Donald Trump pardoning the January 6th people helps Republicans in this state.

[00:38:41] Because there is a possibility folks are going to have to defend this stuff. And if you look at the record of the people there, the people that he pardoned, it is egregious. It is absolutely egregious. And I think it's problematic. It sends the wrong message. The framing of them as hostages. Let me just also say, I was critical of Biden when we were talking about the executive actions and the pardons previously. Because he did it kind of as he was leaving office. We did do it when he was leaving office and there was a lack of transparency.

[00:39:11] I just want to acknowledge that there was a large event at Capital One Arena yesterday where he did a number of executive actions. This one, the pardons, was not done in front of thunderous applause of people. And so there was a lot of questions. It was done late in the night. And I think that of any action he took yesterday, the one I think is going to be the most politically sensitive and the ones that I think people need to answer for is the January 6th pardons. I completely agree.

[00:39:39] This is, I have a hard time with it. I know that there are differing of opinions within the Republican Party of whether January 6th was an insurrection or not. And what that is, Michael and I actually, two years ago, last year, two years ago, did a crossover episode with the DFL debrief on January 6th.

[00:40:02] We both were very clear about the fact that Michael and myself do believe that January 6th was an insurrection and an attack on our federal government. Nancy Pelosi came out and she called this move shameful. It's had to remember the courage of law enforcement and heroes who ensured that democracy survived.

[00:40:17] And I will say that's my biggest issue with this is that I don't understand how we marry the parts of his speech bringing law and order back to the states, the parts of his platform of Republicans instituting law and order and prosecuting criminals. And, and, and of course, upholding democracy and supporting our law enforcement, things that I feel like are kind of, you know, standard bearers of what Republicans stand for.

[00:40:45] And how we marry that with this move really just doesn't sit with me. It feels weird. I understand it's, this seems more Trump-esque than, than anything I feel like he came out and did. I really, really struggle with this one. Rhea, your thoughts? This is one of the executive orders that I very, very much disagree with. I think just to your point, Becky, it's the law and order argument.

[00:41:12] It's, you know, the, the hypocrisy argument. Like, how can we, how can we rightfully call out, you know, Democrat leaders who institute, you know, defund the police mandates or, you know, find opportunities to make laws more lenient for, for violent criminals?

[00:41:31] Like, how can we have that conversation when, you know, Donald Trump on his first day in office just hurt on 1500 people for storming the Capitol on January 6th? Um, obviously I think this was one of the more like Trump decisions rather than a more collective argument. Probably something that he's heard from a lot of people throughout the campaign trail.

[00:41:58] Um, and felt was like something that he needed to do is my guess just because, you know, having the pleasure of working with some of the folks that now work for the president and have worked for his campaign. I, I know for a fact that they, they felt differently about this stuff a couple of years ago. And so, um, you know, I do feel like it is an issue, um, that is going to be more politically sensitive than others.

[00:42:23] But I also think that it's one of those instances where Republicans running for office, even in Minnesota, just have to very much say, look, I agree with some things that the president does. I don't agree with all the things that he does. This is one of them. And just move on. Darwin, I know, I know you've been chomping at the bit. Now you kind of got all of your talking in at the beginning, but anything else to add to this one? Honestly, like I, I agree with almost everything that's been said here.

[00:42:52] I think that to pray as last point though, that the reason why I don't expect you to see a ton of Republicans running for governor and Senate in 2026 say, I agree with Trump on most issues. I don't agree with them. This one is because I think they know that the backlash from Republican caucus goers and maybe from the White House itself would be so great that they're not going to touch it.

[00:43:22] I think they're going to decline interview requests about it. I think they're going to, you know, try to evade our trackers as much as possible on this topic. I don't think they're going to want to be on the record on this at all. Certainly not before the GOP state convention in 2026. Some, I give a lot of credit to Lisa Murkowski. I think Senator Cassidy in Louisiana who have come out and said, I think that if you assault cops, you should do the time.

[00:43:50] I give them a lot of credit for showing courage there. Minnesota did not vote for Donald Trump. And this is one issue where a clear majority of Minnesotans have consistently said they don't share his values on it. However, the backlash that we have seen consistently that resulted in Scott Jensen, Royce White, out of touch Republicans that you expect to see nominated in states like Mississippi or Alabama are winning statewide nominations here in Minnesota.

[00:44:20] And this dynamic is going to be a huge hindrance to their ability to succeed going forward. I think that they, I think Darwin makes a great point. I think the challenge is that I think they should have to answer for it. I think that this, having Republicans in this protective cocoon during the endorsement process where they can have these types of positions such as let's go along with this and then not thinking they have to answer for it. I think it's a reality.

[00:44:47] I honestly believe that this is, there's a lot of, there's a lot of messages that can come from the last election cycle. I have a hard time believing that this pardon is going to pull well in Minnesota. To your point, Michael, we'll not pull well, but what I will say is that the White House has some very smart political people who understand the realities of what we're dealing with in states like Minnesota and elsewhere.

[00:45:15] A little bit, I'll say this is like, they will like look elsewhere if somebody were to disagree with them on this issue because they understand that it's not popular with everyone. I, you know, there's a reason why there are certain Republicans in Minnesota were able to win in areas where Trump was not popular.

[00:45:41] And so messaging is very different in this state than it is elsewhere. Obviously, we've had this conversation, I think, many times before about folks. You know, they spend a lot of time and effort and money in this state being caucus members and being SEC members and going to state convention and you have to respect them and honor that.

[00:46:03] But at the same time, I think sometimes they look more to their own self-interest rather than what can actually win statewide. And that's how we end up with the candidates that we've ended up with for the last 20 years. There's always going to be a reason why Minnesota Republicans don't win. January 6th is one of them. But that doesn't explain the reasons why we didn't win the last 14 years or 16 years before that.

[00:46:30] You have a great line of that on your op-ed that we'll get to in just a moment here. I'll just do one last paging any candidates on the ballot in 2026. You've heard it here. You better have an answer for this if you are going to be on the ballot, whether for the state legislature or on up, especially statewide, because I'll take that as a hint from Darwin that they're going to be certainly reminding voters of this come November 2026.

[00:46:59] But certainly it's going to be something that we'll be talking about today. Press will be asking about and again in a year and a half. So we'll just we'll just put that blanket pledge out there to everyone. I do want to hit on two other big themes that I thought were in his speech and what we saw from executive actions, executive orders this week. Immigration and energy. Starting with immigration, President Trump declared a national emergency at our southern border.

[00:47:24] He did a number of different actions wanting to clarify the military's role in the border security, directing the military to prioritize protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the U.S. along our national borders, ending catch and release, continuing building the wall, ending birthright citizenship and designating criminal cartels as terrorists. Some of these, I think, make sense. I think this is immigration is something that I think that our federal government has been struggling with for a decade plus.

[00:47:53] I was out in Washington working on the Hill, you know, some eight, 10 years ago almost. And it is something we kept constantly saying. We're just putting a bandaid on it. We're just putting a bandaid on it. We're just putting a bandaid on it. So you're part of the problem. I'm part of the problem. Good to know. But this is something that I think we've really struggled with how to address. And so I do agree with the fact that it is a crisis. It is an emergency. Something does need to be stopped.

[00:48:19] Something does need to happen to stop illegal immigrants, the criminals that are coming over and conducting crime in our country. I will say one part of it that I vehemently disagree with is the DACA birthright citizenship. I believe that that is in the mass deportations of law-abiding dreamers in particular, I think, which we again, we don't know how much of that is actually going to be going into this. We know that right now they're focused on the criminals that are here illegally.

[00:48:48] But some large generalization has been made of mass deportations of all illegal immigrants. And so it's one that I think is a tough one to kind of in so many words stand behind and say. But I do agree with it being a crisis at the border. I don't agree with mass deportations of in particular children who were born here that may have happened, been born to illegal immigrants, but are law-abiding citizens, college students, taxpayers, the like.

[00:49:18] I am appreciative of the fact that we were granted free speech yesterday, which he put in his order, which is which is pretty surprising that the other presidents hadn't done that. But but thankfully, we now have free speech thanks to President Trump. If you can't get the sarcasm in my voice, you need to get a hearing aid done. Darwin, I assume you have some thoughts on the large amount of executive orders on immigration. Yeah, I do.

[00:49:45] I think that one of the key dynamics here is that Trump is trying to set himself up as solving a problem that has dramatically improved at the time of his taking office. Like the numbers in terms of reductions in illegal border crossings over the last I don't know what the time frame is, but marked improvement. I think that birthright citizenship.

[00:50:10] I don't have a ton of faith in a 6-3 court, but I think even that is not going to pass muster. I think it's a fundamentally unserious approach to a serious problem. I think it's a stun. I don't think it's going to pass legal muster. I think that is the hallmark of Donald Trump's approach on this. Again, we had a bipartisan immigration deal. Everyone knows where I'm going with this.

[00:50:39] That was written by conservative Republicans, not moderates. And Trump killed it explicitly because he said that he wanted it as a political issue. It's hard to argue that that didn't work out all right for him in light of the election results.

[00:50:56] But I do think that for people who are interested in getting this done independent of political games, that this is sort of a continuation of his work to kill that bipartisan compromise back in spring, winter, a year ago, give or take. Well, first of all, that quote unquote bipartisan deal. Love our senator from Oklahoma, but he gave up a lot of room, a lot of inches.

[00:51:25] He gave up a lot on the field to Democrats on that front. It was going to be a nonstarter whether or not Donald Trump got involved or not. I mean, just even having like a mandate of saying how many people can enter per day. There are just so many issues with regards to what our immigration crisis is, largely because the Biden administration, chosen to do nothing about it. And we saw historic records being broken month after month, year after year because of the inaction taken by this administration.

[00:51:55] It is just absolutely ridiculous to now just say that it's Donald Trump's fault because it's not. Hold on. No one said that, but continue. Well, you basically just said that there was a bipartisan deal and Donald Trump like killed it. So therefore, like the immigration issues and him like. Acting on it is essentially his fault now. So like, no, we're not going to start there. Sorry.

[00:52:20] Second of all, this administration canceled this current administration, excuse me, canceled a lot of the work that Donald Trump had done during his first four years, which is why we ended up with a crisis that we were dealing with over the last four years. On mass deportation, you know, I've heard Don Bacon say at best we don't have enough members of the military to like round up all these folks. I'm not sure how it's going to get done. And I agree with him on that point. There are a lot of people who have entered this country illegally.

[00:52:47] There's just no way that you are going to find them all, especially when we're dealing with children who have crossed into this country illegally. You know, parents sending them here and they have been lost to the system and we have no idea where they are. This is just a very large problem that, you know, as much as I think this administration would like to tackle it and get it fixed in the next four years. It is a problem that has been going on for decades.

[00:53:13] I remember when this was a conversation back when during Bush's second term and they were talking about potential amnesty. So this has been going on for decades and you're just not going to fix an issue, a decade long issue in like the span of four years. On birthright citizenship, I'm actually very torn on it. I can understand where he's coming from. You know, I'm very fortunate to be the daughter of immigrants who came here illegally and the right way.

[00:53:37] And I understand how important that is to, you know, be born here and know that you're born here in America and not just because of some, not just because, you know, a piece of paper says your parents have been here for generations. But because they've made that sacrifice to come here, do things the right legal way. And now you're here as an American as a result of their sacrifices. And that means so much.

[00:54:06] But at the same time, because I come from that community, I can tell you there are a lot of people who come here just to have anchor babies because they believe that by having children here, people from the country my parents grew up in come here. And they say, well, I'm just going to overstay my visa, have my kid, and then I'll be able to stay here forever. They're abusing the system at the same time.

[00:54:30] But whether or not that's actually legal, I don't think that's necessarily the point that Donald Trump is trying to make. I think they know that they're going to have a lot of issues with the 14th Amendment. I think this is more of a line in the sand that he is making it serious and known on his first day that he's taking this seriously. And he wants people to know, especially folks in other countries, that he's not playing games.

[00:54:54] And so whether or not birthright citizenship actually passes or not, like I said, again, I'm torn on it because of my own personal experiences with it. But also at the same time, because of that experience, knowing what people are willing to do in order to stake their claim here in the United States. This is more of his red line in the sand right now of saying, I'm taking this seriously. You're all on notice. We're not. The gates are not wide open. We're not just allowing folks to walk through our doors.

[00:55:24] I do want to thank you all for that. Briefly on energy executive actions, before we move on, we are thankfully going to have four years to get into all of the intricacies of policy. What is being proposed? What is being taken action on? What is being maybe declined by the courts or the general public? But with energy, I want to hit on it because it's something that I deal with in my day to day life at my job. It is something that I have a passion for energy policy.

[00:55:52] Drill, baby, drill is something that I have often set up on this show. And something that we heard from the president yesterday, we did see him withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords. This is something he did in his first term as well. And he has said that he intends to declare a national energy emergency. He's planning or actions are to end the Green New Deal and the EV mandate. I think that this is something here in Minnesota and across the country. We have so many great abundant national resources.

[00:56:18] Natural resources here in the country that can make us less dependent on foreign allies, foreign enemies, foreign adversaries, and the like that we can really tap into here. I think that we have the opportunity to go cleaner and go greener. But it is going to take a significant amount of time. And I think that we have really handcuffed ourselves with the Paris Climate Accords, with these mandates from the federal government, from the state government. We'll talk about that a little bit more as we move through the legislative session.

[00:56:45] But these are ones that I largely stand behind. I think that there certainly needs to be things done to reduce carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and really work towards a brighter future. But we really, like I said, handcuffed ourselves here in the United States when we see India and China and other countries continue to exceed and abuse those limits. And it's been to the detriment, I feel like, of our manufacturing, our business, our innovation. So that's the end of my little rant.

[00:57:13] Anybody have any passion about energy policy that you'd like to comment on Trump's executive orders here? Wow, just me? Come on. Energy is best, you've asked. You quote Becky. Drill, baby, drill. I'll bite briefly. I don't want to take too much time here. But I, one, under the previous Democratic administration, U.S. energy production did hit record highs.

[00:57:36] But two, I think there is inherent contradiction between the idea that we're going to, as you said, Becky, reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, including from hostile powers. And, you know, tanking some of the measures designed to support the production and viability of electrification, including cars.

[00:58:01] I think that that is one of the tools that we have to wean ourselves off of those foreign energy sources is moving toward electrification. And I think it's a counterproductive, it's counterproductive to the other state goal of the energy policy here. All right. All right. Well, we also have just a list off a few. And I think these are ones that are certainly going to be conversation that we are going to hit on because a lot of them are hot topic issues.

[00:58:30] Obviously, we know about the pause TikTok ban. Donald Trump has restored the federal death penalty, defined two genders, and rescinded 78 of Biden's executive actions. So there are certainly a lot of different things that have been done on day one. And we are obviously just getting started. And we will have a lot to get into here. Before we move on for some brief insights on the Minnesota legislature, I just wanted to chat briefly.

[00:58:58] Priya, you had an op-ed in the Star Tribune that ran on inauguration day called, and it was titled, Republicans were given a nationwide mandate. Now let's get to work. You talk a lot about some of the numbers and stats that I think we've talked to you about since the election as well, about the shift in demographics supporting President Donald Trump and moving away from Biden, Harris, Clinton, and the like.

[00:59:21] We know that we've seen the number of black men voting for Trump increasing Latinos, in particular Latinos, women, young voters, and just across the board. We've seen these numbers shift. And so talk to us a little bit about your perspective on how this is a mandate and what comes with that. So the reason I call this a mandate is because we saw several things happen that we as Republicans haven't experienced in quite some time.

[00:59:46] So obviously, looking at the numbers, you know, we've seen a historic amount of men of color, Latino men, black men voting for Donald Trump. We saw a significant rise in Latino women voting for Donald Trump.

[00:59:58] Obviously, we saw the issues that the Walls-Harris campaign were facing towards the end of the campaign cycle where they had to pull out of ad spending in Wisconsin in order to shore up blue collar workers and black men voters in Philadelphia because they were losing significant ground on that front. Obviously, Kamala Harris did poorly in almost every demographic compared to Biden and Clinton.

[01:00:23] And obviously, we've seen this trend of downward of losing ground over the last several years, probably over the last 10 years in the Democrat Party, with Obama probably being the height of where a lot of those voters came from. But also, when we look at where this came from as well, so we saw a lot of crossover in those demographics. But the other thing is, obviously, Donald Trump won the national popular vote.

[01:00:50] That's something that Republicans have a Republican presidential candidate, excuse me, hasn't done in over 20 years since George Bush won, I think, in 2006. And so that was also a very prevalent factor. You look here in Minnesota, obviously, you know, Donald Trump came within one point. What was it? 1.4 percent of the vote, 44,000 votes of flipping Minnesota in 2016.

[01:01:18] I like to call that a fluke because you kind of saw it rewrite itself. The ship kind of righted itself in 2020 when you saw a lot of those third party voters split off between Republican and Democrat. And that kind of readjusted a little bit. But here in 2024, despite the fact that, you know, one of our own was on the ballot, Tim Walz, you know, Donald Trump's margin in the state straight from 2020 to 2024,

[01:01:45] telling us that there were voters who maybe didn't vote for him in 2020 that came onto the right side of things in 2024. Democrats that shifted over, you know, Republicans who maybe sat on the bench in 2020 that came on board. New voters, independents, young voters were coming out to support him. And so really, this wasn't just along traditional party lines where it's Republican or Democrat, you know, right along those party lines.

[01:02:14] Or rather, it was a coalition of voters who maybe hadn't voted for Trump before or chose to sit out in 2020 or, you know, different factors. A coalition of voters from various demographics who came together and said, no more Joe Biden, no more of the Kamala Harris Joe Biden ticket. We want to go back to where things were from 2016 to 2020. And we want to do that with them.

[01:02:42] One thing that I want Darwin and Michael to weigh in on here is some of the end of your op-ed, where I feel like it's almost a plea to Republicans nationally, and in particular, Republicans here in Minnesota, and something that we've talked to you about, and Michael and I have talked about a fair amount on here, is our frustration with the Republicans in this state, our candidates and the like.

[01:03:03] And something that we know, Darwin, we've talked before about how Ken Martin has even said that he would like a robust, prosperous, successful Republican party. He wants that competition in our political campaigns again. So I'm going to read, Priya, some of your op-ed that says, While a mandate was handed down, a great responsibility comes with it. It's time to rise to the challenge because our track record of doing so isn't that great. Whether it's political games in Washington, firing the speaker at random points in time,

[01:03:29] or in Minnesota, where poor candidate selection, constant infighting, and my way or the highway attitudes have resulted in missed opportunities to competitively compete against Democrats. I think this is so important, and hopefully what I would aspire or encourage Republicans to take away is that while we do currently have the presidency and the House and the Senate in Washington, D.C.,

[01:03:55] while Republicans did have, make some strides in 2024, we still got a lot of freaking work to do. So, Michael, what are your thoughts here on kind of what Priya's take on this mandate and what we can only hope Republicans can take from it? I want to, first of all, I want to compliment her for doing the long-form work. And it's something that I really appreciate is people, the older I get, the more I realize that people firing stuff off on social media is the best.

[01:04:23] And so, really appreciate her long-form and getting this submitted to the Star Tribute. It's a thoughtful commentary. I disagree with some of it, but it's very thoughtful, and I want to applaud, and we'll make sure to link to it so everyone can read it. The one thing I would say, because I want to give Darwin an opportunity to respond, the one thing I would say is I worry about Republicans thinking in Minnesota that they won something nationally. Republicans, and so that's my concern. As someone, obviously, I didn't support Trump in this past election cycle,

[01:04:49] but there are a lot of Republicans in the state exactly like me who want there to be a vibrant two-party system and recognize that Trump is not the path to go. And so this opportunity over the next four years, I think, provides Republicans with a chance to establish, to the degree in which they can, a little bit of a recognition that Trump's brand, particularly in Minnesota, is pretty tough. It's pretty tough to over-accomplish that.

[01:05:13] And while there were some statistical gains, the reality is that Republicans lost, particularly in CD2, what Republicans were able to accomplish is, you know, Angie Craig won by massive margins. There's no really swing districts in this state anymore. And Tim Walls and Kamala Harris won the state. And Republicans have what argues to be, you know, some, depending on, we'll get into this in a minute, but have ties in the legislature right now. And so if Republicans want to break through and be that governing party,

[01:05:42] I think that they need to take elements of what Trump has done, but not the entire package. And I think what's my concern is, is they're going to adopt all of his persona, his belief. And I just don't see any evidence that the Trump brand is a solid electoral brand. And it's a brand that can win in Minnesota. Darlin. I'll add to that, that, you know, I don't, you know, I don't dispute any of Craya's data analysis here.

[01:06:10] That I really dispute two words, nationwide and mandate. I think that calling a mandate, calling a victory where you won the popular vote by, I think, a point and a half and received less than half the votes for president of the country is a little dubious.

[01:06:30] Also, just think, sidebar, that the concept of a mandate is, okay, it's, you win, and then you either have the votes or political support pass your agenda or you don't. So I don't know how much a mandate is or isn't a thing, but if you think a mandate's a thing, I'm skeptical that getting less than half the vote should be considered one. The other word that I have an issue with is nationwide.

[01:06:54] Minnesota did not vote for this, and it's pretty clear, and, you know, whether it's issue polling or candidate performance, that Minnesotans are super not on board with the agenda that won out nationwide. And I think, to Michael's point, that Republicans in Minnesota are running the risk of overlearning their victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,

[01:07:22] and thinking that that's a winning playbook for path back to statewide power in Minnesota. You know, my job is not to root for Minnesota Republicans to turn their party around, but I'm skeptical this is a playbook that will work in Minnesota the way it worked to eke out narrow majorities in some of those decisive presidential election states.

[01:07:47] I think the point larger is that by focusing on bread and butter issues rather than some of the more, I'm trying to think of the best way to describe it, to be quite honest, more conspiratory type arguments that we've seen from certain candidates in this last election. We won't name names, but instead of focusing on that, focusing more on bread and butter issues rather than some of the other things that we've seen in the past.

[01:08:17] The far left or far right issues that divide us rather than bring us together. We can find some success here. And we did see some of that on the local levels, on the more down ballot stuff. And that's what I meant more by nationwide, because this wasn't just a Donald Trump thing. This was not one and done. This was something that transcended down ballot where these folks focused on more of those bread and butter issues than maybe Donald Trump necessarily did.

[01:08:45] But also, as we know, that first midterm election is terrible for the party in power, for that White House. And so there really is a short window. But we also know that there is an exception to that rule. We saw that in 2018 with, you know, the blue wave. Even so, or sorry, not in 2018, but in 2022, sorry, where Democrats did much better than we expected, especially with Biden doing so poorly.

[01:09:13] And so there is an exception to the rule. And I think if we can stay on methods, stay focused on those bread and butter issues rather than some of these like more far right issues, we can find some success. Perfect. Well, thank you for doing that. Like Michael, I always like seeing some some good long form writing. So thank you for that. Thank you for the conversation. We have two more topics I want to get into shifting away from this national politics and Trump inauguration.

[01:09:39] And so we're going to do it really quick because we have already been going for quite a while and I appreciate the conversation. Michael and I are going to have a further conversation. We've been talking a lot about what's going on in the legislature. We're going to continue that conversation with a special guest later this week, but would be remiss if I had two partisan hacks on the on the line and did not ask you guys about your takes about what's going on at the legislature. So I had a coin flip just now in my brain and Darwin, we're going to start with you.

[01:10:07] What's your perspective? We know there's been a lot going on, so you can pick and choose what you want to talk about. We had a Supreme Court ruling over the weekend about the writ of special elections. We have Republicans who have responded. We have a recent court case ruling on a tapkey seat. What's your take on it all? Is there a tie? Is there a quorum? I'm guessing you think no. What's your take about what's going on at the state legislature? Let's have it.

[01:10:31] Yeah. So no surprise. I agree with the House and Secretary Simon Governor Walz's legal analysis, but not a lawyer. The courts are the proper venue to litigate that dispute, and we should have a ruling probably a couple days after this podcast comes out, I imagine. But to the larger point about the scene at the Capitol right now, if this were a conversation where House Republicans said,

[01:11:02] Brad Tabkey won his election, we lost this judicial piece, we're going to drop that. And if they just were committed to, all right, we are going to have a one-seat advantage for however long it takes to fill this special election, there would be no scene right now happening. There would not be this level of dysfunction.

[01:11:27] Lisa Dameth would have the gavel for however long, and when there were equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, the House would be governed like there were equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. The key sticking point here is, one, the threat to throw out a duly elected DFL legislator, and the idea that in an evenly divided House, which we all know is going to be what happens, that we'd be governing for two years like there's not an evenly divided House.

[01:11:57] Again, I understand the Republican argument about there is a Republican advantage right now, and Melissa Hortman has been very clear, if you want to govern that way while you have that advantage, go for it. It's the inability to restore what the actual makeup of the House would look like that is the other sticking point besides throwing out Brad Tabkey's election.

[01:12:22] I believe that you probably also have some thoughts on the matter, in particular when it comes to Democrats not showing up and refusing to do so until a special election, which was originally scheduled for January 28th. Now might be until March. I understand some of Darwin's points about wanting to find some power-sharing agreement that Republicans can have the power for now, and that changes.

[01:12:49] Do you think we'll have Democrats show up at any time in the next six weeks before potentially March 5th special? What's your thought on them working but not working? Let me have it. I mean, I wish I could not show up to my job and still get a paycheck. That would be everybody's dream, right? Sorry, boss, if you're listening to this. I'm just kidding.

[01:13:10] But in all seriousness, the reality here is if the tables were turned and Democrats were under by just a few votes and 2021 votes had just been thrown in the garbage by some person who probably had been there all day,

[01:13:36] I'm not going to say that anything nefarious, but just had been there all day, probably had no idea what they were throwing out, they would be calling for a special election as well because they would be screaming from the top of their lungs that we need to make sure every vote is counted. We need to make sure every person's vote is heard because guess what? If their majority to win was in those 20 votes that were tossed, they would be having a field day. So I think the fact that now Republicans are saying every vote should be cast

[01:14:04] instead of just calling it, you know, which is a far different conversation from what we've had, you know, in 2020 about elections and election integrity. The fact that we want every vote to be counted regardless of the result, want to make sure that folks have their voices heard, pretty ridiculous. I think throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way and not showing up to work. I mean, Democrats, you do you, but I think not showing up for six weeks of work is going to play very well

[01:14:31] during the general election because folks are going to be looking at this and saying, you work for five months out of the week here, you didn't show up for nearly two months of it, and you still collected your full paycheck. And that's on top of the new taxes, the $20 billion by the trifecta, by all of the ridiculous policies that have been proposed and passed by Tim Wall and the DFL. When you combine all of that, if folks aren't angry,

[01:15:01] if they aren't upset by what's going on with all of this charade, and the fact that Democrats have just taken control over the last, you know, four years, and now, frankly, Republicans are probably giving them a little bit of taste of their own medicine. Like, this is just ridiculous. May I jump in, Becky? You may.

[01:15:25] I could not disagree more on the idea that Democrats would be entertaining throwing out the election of another member if they took it to court and a judge ruled. Is it really an election if you've thrown 20 votes just right out into the garbage? I think this is one of the key differences between the two parties, that, you know, this was taken to court,

[01:15:49] and a judge ruled that not only was this, there's this not reason to throw out the election results, but the judge ruled not only that this didn't impact the election, but that those 20 voters could be identified, and it is mathematically impossible for Brad Tadkey to have lost the election because six of those 20 voters testified. Is that an ideal, like, remedy to this situation? Of course not.

[01:16:19] No one is happy that, you know, city employees screwed up and created this situation. However, the remedy here that Republicans are seeking is to throw out an election that they know if those 20 votes had been cast the way that those 20 impacted voters had wanted to, they still would have lost because they want another crack at winning that seat.

[01:16:44] I understand that in Donald Trump's Republican Party that that has become normalized, but there is no way that DFLers would be entertaining this if the shoe were on the other foot. I could not disagree more. No, 100% you totally would. We can look at the last three years and how the trifecta treated Republicans when they realized they didn't need their votes. There is no comparison between... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[01:17:09] We saw how the DFL trifecta treated Republicans after they assumed full control and they shut Republicans out. If you are telling me for one second, one second, that they wouldn't do the same if the shoe was on the other foot, then you must be, like, selling farms all over the place because, like, that is just a ridiculous notion because we have history. We have history that shows us that Democrats will do anything to keep and maintain the power that they have.

[01:17:38] That is plain and simple. We have seen them do it time and time again. That is number one. Number two, you are asking me to trust judges that have been appointed by governors in this state for the last 20 years. Let's not forget that a former legislator currently sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court, a former DFL legislator. It is not hard to open a new election. It is not hard to make sure that every vote is counted. And instead, you're trying to take this through the courts.

[01:18:08] Courts that are run and operated by the DFL, folks who have been appointed by the DFL, and you're trying to say, well, it's gone through the courts. Yeah, courts bought and paid for by the DFL. Not shocking. So I'm sorry if I'm not going to take your word for it because history has shown us otherwise. We have 20 years worth of history. We have three years of data, facts, and examples of the DFL. So we're always caution to the wind and saying it's my way or the highway because we have enough votes to do it.

[01:18:37] So sorry if I'm not going to take your word for it, that this is all fine and dandy and that Republicans are to blame here because history has shown us otherwise. There is a huge, huge difference between Democrats using their majorities to pass their agenda and Democrats using their majorities to throw out an election of a Republican legislator that they didn't like the fact they lost it. There is night and day difference. There's no comparison to that.

[01:19:05] I can't think of another time in my lifetime, which, as Michael's pointed out, is only 10 or 15 years, where any legislature in the country has done that. That would be completely unprecedented. To the point about judges, we use judges to evaluate legal disputes in this country. Republicans won one just last week with a DFL-appointed Supreme Court. Yeah, I don't think it's really reasonable to say, oh, we won.

[01:19:33] I don't know what the remedy is if you can't trust the judicial process. I think that's an extremely dangerous road to go down. Two, these judges have shown they're not just going to rubber stamp a DFL partisan interest no matter what. They demonstrated that independence last week. So if Democrats lose this quorum case, they're not going to say, oh, we shouldn't trust the judicial system for one way or the other. Democrats have been pretty consistent about respecting elections even when we lose them.

[01:20:02] We saw that on January 20th. You would see that if we were on the other foot in this case, too. How dare I think that we would have a short, easy conversation about this. Priya, I know you have more to say. I do know Michael has one comment. I have one comment and then I'll bring it back for final comments from both of you. I want to keep us going because we're already up on an hour and a half here, but I love the spicy. Michael.

[01:20:27] The one comment I just wanted to say is that in discussing the judge in this case, I just wanted to note for the record that the Republicans and the Democrats. So Aaron Paul and Representative Tapke did agree on who the judge would be in this case. So I think just one point I wanted to make that I think the judge in this case was determined by both sides. So Republicans did have input in who would decide this case. My comment here is I just kind of wanted to.

[01:20:55] We had such a beautiful, so much agreement leading up into this and I should have been aware. I do want to make a plug for a show we did last week. We did interview Representative Brad Tapke and got into the nitty gritty about his court case. I kind of feel a little bit both sides on this one personally because I completely agree, Priya, with the wanting to have every vote counted and the skepticism about those 21 votes.

[01:21:22] I did hear some compelling information by reading the court ruling and from Brad Tapke about the six individuals that they found and had testified as having voted for Tapke, their ballots being thrown away, giving them a fair majority there. But I am completely on board with you. We had Julius Hernandez on earlier and I asked him the same thing, if Democrats would be doing the same thing kind of across the board with the power, with the quorum and the power. And he said, no, no, no, we would not.

[01:21:51] And I'm with you on that. I think that that is one place roles reversed. Republicans, Democrats alike are taking advantage and pushing their agenda forward with the situation that we've been dealt with. A little bit both sides is in there. Final comments, 30 seconds to both of you. Priya, final thoughts? I just think Harry Niska has done a fantastic job of just pointing out some of the more historical legal precedences, especially when it comes to the quorum.

[01:22:20] And if folks haven't had a chance to kind of look through some of that, highly encourage it because I think it really does get to the root of the issue. I think Melissa Hartman has proven why she's been such an enduring and resilient leader on our side. I think that, you know, you know, it's no secret.

[01:22:49] Like she's acknowledged like Democrats are playing with a, you know, a tough hand on some of this stuff. And I think that she has shown a lot of backbone and fight on this at a time when it's been, you know, Democrats have been looking for leaders willing to push back on either Donald Trump or in this case, you know, a, you know, Republican overreach here. And I think Hortman deserves a lot of credit for her leadership skills.

[01:23:15] And I think Minnesotans are going to continue to see a lot of it. Perfect. Speaking of leadership on the Democrat side, Darwin, let's kick it off with you. Our final topic. Just spend a couple of minutes on it. It felt like we had to, we had you on. We, you're one of the closest folks working with Ken Martin in this day and age. So Ken Martin, Minnesota DFL chair is currently from all I've read and seen the front runner for the next DNC chair.

[01:23:44] Election is on February, February 1st. So just around the corner. Talk to us a little bit about what you hear, what you know, why people love him so much. By the time this episode comes out, we'll be what, close to a week away from the DNC election, which is, you know, just crazy to think about. But I think that Ken's doing well. I think that's a matter of public record. I think that his record in Minnesota has been hard to argue with. You know, you can, you know, criticize Ken.

[01:24:13] You can say he's a filthy liberal. Say whatever you want. But he knows how to win elections. And I think he'll be a great DNC chair, knock on wood. We certainly have seen him be successful on campaigns and serving the Minnesota DFL. Michael, any thought? No, I think the Republicans, and I don't know if Chairman Martin takes the helm. I assume that means he won't be the chair of the Minnesota DFL.

[01:24:39] Well, then Republicans are doing everything they can in this state to be boosting, supporting, donating, and encouraging Ken Martin to take the reins nationally because he has been a very tough nut for Republicans to crack. And so we'll see. But I think it's, I think his record here is simply astounding. And so it's not a surprise to me that he's risen up to the top and is by published accounts is the front runner and is likely to win.

[01:25:09] And so that's an impressive feat. We're looking into cloning him. That's right. Yes. You know, we've seen, I read a Salon piece. He talked about reimagining the DNC. And that means getting the DNC out of DNC or out of DC. He talks about how the importance has to go beyond just federal races, looking at down ballot, state legislative, local government races. And that's something we've certainly seen him exceed and succeed at here in Minnesota.

[01:25:39] Prea, I know this is something we have jointly had expressed frustrations and been in the chaos that has been the MNGOP over the last decade and seen it front hand, front row seats. Talk to us a little bit about how obviously we might not support his policies or what he's done, but you can't fault Ken Martin as a successful leader and what that could look like. Like, let's, I'm with Michael. Let's get him out of here. I, yeah, same.

[01:26:07] I mean, honestly, but I kind of fear for the other side of the coin is because it is going to be very difficult. Like he will put together a very hard fight for Republicans across the country. And so it's kind of that double-edged sword, right? We get rid of him here in Minnesota, but we subject to the rest of the nation. In terms of just Republicans being able to fight a little bit more easier because he gets it.

[01:26:31] You know, my favorite Ken Martin story is actually when I worked for the party, he came to the state fair booth because at the time his son liked conservatives. I don't know if that's still the case or not, but he was kind of a leaning Republican. And so he came to the booth and bought something for his son. And that just made me respect him all the more. Just knowing that he could be such an influential figure in the DFL. And instead of, you know, just kind of, you know, being like, what the heck is going on?

[01:27:00] Like my kid, you know, leaning conservative. He actually embraced it and encouraged, you know, encouraged it by getting him something from the booth. So, you know, I think Republicans should definitely be worried about him becoming DNC chair because it'll be a nightmare for us. Well, I think that wraps it up. We end up, we had a little sandwiched our little disagreements by some good conversation and agreements.

[01:27:28] But the last thing I will say on the Ken Martin thing is I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that he wins. And we see a little infighting within the DFL when it comes to electing their new chair. Because just like on the right, the spectrum on the left, we know it exists and can be vast. And it would be interesting to see left, right and center of the left come together and then have different candidates from each side. So I will be waiting with my popcorn for that to come. But Michael, I'll turn it over to you.

[01:27:58] Just a quick point to Becky's. I was laughing a bit as she was saying that. But I had a friend whose parents, I had a friend in high school who his parents were divorced. And he would tell me that he would really hope that there'd be a little bit of infighting at Thanksgiving between his parents because that would lead to a gangbuster Christmas. And so I think that's kind of what you're cheering her for is you're hoping there's some infighting so you can benefit from the process. No, I do have some breaking news. Very important to particularly to me. The Minnesota Vikings have signed KOC, Kevin O'Connell, to an extension.

[01:28:27] So our long nightmare of worrying about whether he was going to be with us is now over. That broke during the show. And so I just wanted to make sure we acknowledge that. Becky comes from a divided household. There'll probably be some frustration inside her household tonight. But we hope that everyone else is supportive. We want to thank you both, Darwin and Preya, and Becky for running this show. This was just a great episode. We want to thank you for listening to this episode of The Breakdown with Broadcover Becky.

[01:28:52] Before we go, show some love for your favorite podcast by leaving us to you on Apple Podcasts or on the platform where you listen. You can also leave a review and follow us across all social media platforms at at BBBreakbot. The Breakdown with Broadcover Becky will return this week. Thanks for listening. Stay tuned. Bye.