(upbeat music)
- Hey everybody, welcome Mark Alpern here.
Thank you for being part of next stop on the other and Chief of Two Way and the host here. And I think I've encoded, decoded, what's going on with the midterms.
“I think I've got a theory about what's actually happening”
that's a little different than some of the others. You all hear elsewhere. And I'm eager to share with you in my report, I've talked to a ton of people in both parties and independent analysts and sub-publican convention.
And I'm gonna share with you in a minute what I think is a different perspective on where we are. After that, two great guests, a Vita Duffy Alfonso.
She's a contributor at the Federalist really good comment, young commentator and thinker about public policy, often from the point of view of a younger person. She also happens to be part of what I call the candidates
of Wisconsin, her father was a congressman, now the Secretary of Transportation. And Sean Duffy and her husband, Michael Alfonso is running for Congress now as a Republican nominee in Wisconsin.
So we're gonna talk about the state of politics and how Republicans are thinking about this challenging election season. And then my friend David Bonson will be here, author of Profit From The Profit.
If you're interested in understanding
“the best way to invest and David is an extremely”
successful investor, I think you'll appreciate hearing David's thesis about which kind of companies he believes are the best place to put your money, the best place to invest in your own future
by finding companies that pay dividends. Before they get here, though, my reported monologue. You know, every day people want to know for me what's gonna happen in the midterm, so it's gonna win, et cetera.
And I don't know. And I'm not gonna tell you today who's gonna win,
but here's what I'm gonna tell you.
The way, if you listen to cable news, if you read most of the political analysis, here's the conventional wisdom right now. The environment is for the Democrats. Presidential, the president's party does poorly,
almost always in the midterms. The president's approval rating is bad. The Iran is a drag on the Republicans that price a gas, the price of food, et cetera. But that the losses will be limited.
It will not be the kind of overwhelming level of loss that you normally see in a midterm, particularly when the president's approval rating is low like president Trump says, because redistricting, put off limits,
a number of Republican seats, a large number for Republican seats. And then on the Senate side, a lot of the competitive center races that Republicans would have to lose Democrats
would have to win to get the net for for the majority, would our in-red states that President Trump will easily in there. And so probably I would say again, just looking at all the conventional wisdom,
Democrats will take the House, and they'll either take the Senate exactly, netting four seats, or they'll just come short, they'll win three. The betting markets are along those lines.
So we're talking about in the House, maybe 12 to 20 net democratic pickups. Again, it's kind of the conventional wisdom norm. Or, and in the Senate, again, right on that line between taking the majority or not.
I got a different view, and I'm not saying that couldn't happen.
“But I think the more likely outcome is not”
that kind of center-centered conventional wisdom. It's over here, oh, it's over here. It's on the extreme of one side of the other, which is to say, either we're going to see a blue tsunami, the size of the Connecticut I like to say,
that wipes out not just all the races that are currently thought of as competitive, but others. So in the Senate, we see Republicans lose, not just places like Ohio, North Carolina, Maine, Iowa,
but we also see them lose, maybe places like Kansas and South Carolina. That Republicans could lose up to eight, say, Senate seats, which would give them the majority there quite easily. And then the same thing on the House side.
Most of these conventional wisdom analysts say, if it's a Trump plus seven plus eight plus nine plus 10 or more district, it's not going to be in play. Well, I think if this tsunami happens, you're going to see people who aren't expected to lose
and themselves don't expect to lose, maybe lose. What's the evidence for that? What's the data that suggests that?
Well, private polling, it's what I always try to look at.
The public polling kind of leans in that direction, right? Here's real clear politics, average F7, please. What does it say about where the House is? It's so called generic ballot. Which party would you prefer control Congress?
Eight point lead in the average of the recent polls. That's a big lead. We've seen bigger ones and some of the polls this year have it bigger. But eight point lead usually leads towards the tsunami. The president's approval rating, the history, as I mentioned.
And then in my private conversations with Republicans, you see, we're all worried. The vice president, when campaigned in Kansas. The president has done things to support with spending and other things.
People in red places. You're not going to send the vice president to spend a day in Kansas unless you're worried about it. Here's a tweet, a couple of tweets, from two Republican strategists, F5, please.
This is just such a tell.
Republicans says, if you're a Republican incumbent
“and you haven't pulled your race recently,”
you better go do it. One of the Republican strategists says. And then the other guy says, even up to Trump plus 15 districts, OK, these are guys who are having this conversation in public that reflects the private conversations
and reflects some of the public polling data. Right now, today is a snapshot of where I'm today. I have no doubt Democrats would win the house. I have no doubt today that they would win the Senate. I don't know by how much, but no doubt.
But the election's not today. Although voting does start soon. And in some places, it's going to start. It's going to start in one state's voting early starts. Why-- so what's the counter argument to that?
What's the counter argument? The counter argument is that Republicans have some asymmetrical advantages here. When you see the speaker of the house or James Blair, the president's top political lieutenant,
when you see them say, with some degree of confidence,
“that they're going to control the Senate and the House, maybe,”
what are they basing that on? Well, you got to project confidence. So some of it is just they're projecting the confidence. But some of it is a true belief that they can do this
and why, because the reality is they have some cards to play.
Let's look at the Bellweather states here on the Senate side F2. These are the super-competitive contests that will probably determine control of the Senate. Main or Republican-controlled seat, Iowa, Republican-controlled seat, taxes for public-controlled Alaska.
Those are the big ones. And Republicans probably have to win three or four of them depending on what happens elsewhere. But even if you take the biggest field possible, we're talking maybe nine Senate seats where there may be 10, maybe 11.
The House side same thing, about 30 seats max, will determine who controls this. So James Blair looks at the map every day. He knows where he needs to win. And if you go race by race and look at the public and private polling,
what you'll see is Republicans are not in great shape, but they're not being killed in most places. They're down a few, usually within the margin of error. Now, being down a few in a red state like in Texas or in Alaska, that's not a comforting position.
But what do they have? First of all, they have James Blair himself. He's an extremely able guy. He's young, but he's very politically experienced. And he's got full command to control over this whole thing.
He's not fighting for jurisdiction or turf. It's super PACs, the party committees, the campaigns. They know that James Blair is the quarterback of this thing. And the laws now allow for more coordination than they used to in James Blair knows that.
There's no analog on the Democratic side. So if you got two armies lined up, and one army's got a pat in at the top and a MacArthur, everybody's going to listen to what he says. And the other army has like all these little factions
and phoetoms and different people in charge. You'd want to be the side that had one talented person, as long as it had a talented and respected person running the show. So they got that. Then they have a money advantage.
Money is not everything in politics. People can win races, spending less. But we're about to see an unprecedented delta between how much money the Republicans are going to have. And all the different pots of money candidates,
party committees, super PACs, et cetera. And how much the Democrats have comparable? I believe that the delta between how much the Republicans have and the Democrats have
will be over a billion dollars.
Money's still coming in, some's come in, but hasn't been reported based on my reporting. Over a billion might be depending on how Elon Musk and others choose to spend. It might be a billion and a half dollar difference.
Take a billion and a half dollars and spread it out over 10 Senate races and 30 house races. You do the math, it's a lot of money. And a lot of it's going to be spent on negative ads.
“And I think the Republicans will make very good negative ads.”
They're dealing with the Democratic Party. The candidates will be the target of those ads. First of all, some are socialist, some are not. Most are not. But they are still connected to a Democratic Party
that has a lot of socialist supporters, some candidates, but a lot of supporters. And a lot of them, as Gavin Newsam said the other day, have positions that are the same as a socialist on some issues. So they've got some liberal positions.
And if you go race by race in a lot of these races that are Republican-held seats, whether it's an incumbent or an open seat, the Democratic candidates are inexperienced.
Some of them have never been in politics at all.
Some of them have run before, some have run in one, but very few of them have run for federal office. And that's a horse of a different color. It's a different beast. And so a lot of money expertly spent
against inexperienced candidates who are ill-defined in the mind of the voters. I mean, you just look at a textbook. We all know that the Republicans to win this thing. They're going to have to be make this a choice
Election between the Republican and the Democrat.
Not a referendum on the president.
And how do you do that? You define the Democrat as unacceptable. That's how you win. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all expected to lose their reelection campaigns.
And they all won because they made it a choice. And they disqualify the person on the other side. That's what James Blair's going to do. Now, here's another asymmetrical advantage besides that money advantage in the command and control.
Field operation, registering voters, contacting voters, getting them out to vote. Elon Musk's very interested in that's going to spend a lot about it. You don't hear much from either party now
about these get out the vote efforts, these voter registration efforts. On the Democratic side, I don't-- I think you're not hearing about them based on my reporting, because they're not really
happening at a big scale. On the Republican side, you're not hearing about them,
“because I think James Blair's decided, shh.”
Let's not give away to the other side what we're doing. So that big chunk of that money will be spent on TV and digital ads. But a lot of it's going to be spent on getting their voter identifying their voters and getting them out.
So when I ask Democrats who really follow this closely, are your chances as good to have a big night as the conventional wisdom? The smart ones say, no, they say, go race by race. We may have an issue here.
And I want to give you one example. I want to drill down on a house race here in New York. Mike Lawler, you probably seen him on TV. He's on a lot. Mike Lawler is a Republican incumbent.
He's been there for a couple of few terms. And he's a very scrappy guy, very media savvy guy. And he's on every list of every term, every toss-up list, every list of Democrats have made since the selection cycle began.
We got to beat Lawler. Lawler's in a discomala Harris. One of the few house Republicans in a district comala Harris won. He had Donald Trump come in and campaign for him.
He's been supportive of the president. We got to beat Lawler, OK? Now, are they going to beat Mike Lawler? I don't know today that they would. And I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Look at this quote. This is from Axios, I think. Let me find it here. Yeah, Axios. This is from back in the August, F9, please.
An article about Mike Lawler's race, as they were a Republican incumbent in a district in the New York suburbs. Here's what it says. Quote, I don't think Lawler is beatable.
Says a senior house Democrat. Headline has Democrats privately doubt they can beat Mike Lawler.
“That's what I found in my reporting, too.”
Now, they're spending some money there to try to beat him. His opponent is a first-time candidate. One of the name Kate Conley. She on paper, she's a great candidate. Her family grew up in Hudson Valley, where the district
is. She's an army combat veteran, a West Point graduate. She's worked in counterterrorism in the White House. She's got a lot of national experience.
But she never run before.
She got degrees from MIT and Harvard. They're going after her hard with negative ads. She took money from, as a consultant, from the AI industry. That's a vulnerability. And unlike Lawler, she's not a beast in the media.
What she's running on is she's say, Lawler voted it's with Trump 100% of the time. You can see she says it all the time. Here she is in a private meeting with a liberal group talking about her race.
This is Kate Conley, the Democrat running against Mike Lawler in a district here in New York, New York, 17S7, please. The one thing that I know resonates with every voter across this district, Mike Lawler votes for a Donald Trump 100% of the time.
“She says it all the time, it's inter-advertising.”
It's in the advertising of people who support her. It's just not true. Mike Lawler has, in fact, been one of the Republicans most often, including on high-profile issues, going against Donald Trump, a big issue in his district
is salt, state and local tax deduction. Used to be, you could deduct all your state and local taxes. The law changed. Lawler wanted to change it back, not all the way. He would have liked it all the way, but partially.
He fought the president on a daily basis in a high-profile way, and he got the president to give it. He delivered for his district something, because his district has a lot of state and local taxes. He delivered that.
But as I said, there's a range of other issues on which he's opposed the president, and he's done it in a very outspoken way. Goes on TV all the time when he disagrees with the president. So in this race, you got a well-funded experience guy.
By the way, he's got a very robust voter-contact operation to spend money, then a very sophisticated way to get out the vote. He is TV ads talking about how he's worked hard for the district. He talks about beating the president on salt and getting the president to give in.
This is a sophisticated, well-funded,
he's got several million dollars more in the bank than Conley does.
Guy, who doesn't want to lose, and knows what the national tide is, but plans to be at his district is heavily democratic. It didn't just vote for Conley Harris. So he knows what he has to do. He's got a win of certain number of independent and democratic votes.
You saw the quote. Strategist says, "Lolor probably can't be beat." If they can't beat Mike Lawler, you got to look at the reasons why.
Oh, an inexperienced, easily defined, democratic candidate
going up against a well-funded incumbent
with a sophisticated field operation, and a lot of money to run negative ads against this Democrat. That's the template. According to MySources and Axiose's sources, that template, borrowing a massive tsunami
that no one could overcome really, Lawler's going to win, can James Blair replicate that template in enough Senate races and enough House races to keep the majority? I'm not predicting it, but I asked the question,
“if Mike Lawler can do it, what about these other folks?”
What about these other Republican candidates? I'm incumbent, so I'm not, with the same set of advantages that Mike Lawler has and the weaknesses on the democratic side. We shall see, but this could be boomerbuss, feaster famine for one side of the other.
And I think as we look at the data going forward in a few weeks, after these Republican negative ads
has started, let's see where the polls stand.
All right, there you have it. That's my preview for you. For where we're headed over the next couple weeks to see whether there is what I call the Lawler template. Let me know what you think.
Republicans got a better or worse chance than I've just laid out. Democrats have a better or worse chance. Send me an email next up at devilmailcaremedia.com. Let me know what you think about today's mon luck.
All right, a quick break. And when we come back, great guest, defeated Duffy Alfonso, a great political commentator who's led an interesting life at a young age
“and now a new mom, a defeated Duffy Alfonso, is next up.”
(upbeat music) This episode is sponsored by Rowe. A lot of people here at GLP1, and immediately assume treatment is going to cost a bundle. But GLP1 medications may be more affordable
and more accessible than you realize Rowe helps eligible patients find to path to FDA approved GLP1 treatment that fits their budget. Whether they have insurance or if they're paying cash, I love that Rowe makes getting started so very easy.
They're free insurance checker, and let's check whether certain GLP1 injections are covered by your insurance. He simply submit your insurance information, and then you receive a report with your coverage details
so you can understand all of your options. And if insurance doesn't cover treatment, Rowe also offers FDA approved cash pay GLP1 options, including for pills and for injections. I also appreciate this Rowe provides ongoing support
if you become a member, including access to a provider for questions all throughout the process. I've got a friend who's used Rowe, and it's had a very positive experience. So it's definitely an option.
I consider if I need a GLP1 treatment. So right now, go to Rowe.co/nextup and see if you qualify. That's Rowe.co/nextup to get started on Rowe. For side effects of GLP1 medications,
including boxed warning, go to Rowe.co/safety. Again, that's Rowe.co/safety. (upbeat music) All right, next up in joining me now, a great guest, a great conversatialist, a big banker,
and a member of what I call American political royalty. She'll blanch at that. Vita Duffy Alfonso's here, contributor at the Federalist. She's a part of a political dynasty. If I'm Wisconsin or father, happens to be someone I've interviewed,
transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, and her husband happens to be someone I've interviewed who's running for Congress in Wisconsin and he won the primary and faces now, a general election of Vita, welcome.
Thanks for having me. - Parenthood changes people. You've congratulations again on your baby. How is so far as a young parent? Has it changed you at all
in terms of your view of public policy area? - I mean, it's well, it's changed everything. I mean, it's changed my entire perspective. I don't know, I think when you, there's something inherently selfish
about being a young single or about being even a drink, dual income no kids, which is what my husband and I were.
We first got married as everyone is.
And suddenly, your entire world is set it around someone else, that's not yourself.
“And I think that's actually a really good thing”
when you're thinking about what's best for the country. What do I want my future to look like? And it's all about what's best for my baby. I mean, this has been something that Michael and I have have been especially inspired by as we saw in a little small town
in our district where we live in Wisconsin had transidentifying males, infiltrate women's sports and bathrooms. And this is a conservative community, but they don't have a conservative school board,
which happens in a lot of places. And suddenly, that fight became so much more important because I have a little girl myself and for my husband as well. And so it changes everything.
- You've been part of a political family or dad member of Congress. Now you're in a different role. You're the spouse to someone running. Are you learning new things about politics
That you didn't learn as a offspring?
They only learn as a spouse or is it all pretty much the family business? - Well, I mean, the work is pretty similar, right? I mean, and I loved campaigning as a kid. Like I would go to all the parades,
all the dairy breakfasts and the fairs, like the real kind of grassroots work.
I always enjoy as a little kid.
I was a little stinker. And as I would go on the parade route and I would see the stickers on the little children with our opponents, like logo on them. I take the definitely for Congress stickers
and I put 'em over their shirts over over the other kids, like opponents, our opponents stickers. So funny stuff like that. I guess what's a little different is, I definitely am more involved in sort of the messaging
and why we're running, we're putting out there. And sort of the public facing social media sphere. And my husband is like my greatest confidante. So there's a lot more responsibility to be a spouse and keep him safe, keep him on track
that a child obviously wouldn't have with a parent in this role. - Yeah, he's the first time candidate and as far as I know none of his relatives remembers a Congress.
“So are you kind of the political sthengali in the family?”
- I told you, no, I try to be, but he's pretty good in his own right. He just comes at things from a very honest place. So maybe not, maybe not DC Savvy, but he is somebody who really cares about the country
and where we go in the future right. And so that, that being your guiding principle, I think helps you make a lot of really good decisions and so I'm really proud of him for that.
If he's elected, he'll be the first member
born this century, which some people say is maybe not a good thing, I think it's actually a great thing because it means he's got to stake in the future, especially whether we have a young family. I think that helps as well.
He'd become the, I don't know if he'd become the youngest, I think he'd be the youngest overall, but certainly the youngest Republican member of the house if he wins, right? - Youngest overall and youngest Republican.
- Yep, youngest, youngest, everything. - Yeah. Talk to you all in the program about the environment. There's no secret that anybody who's doing polling now in a Republican race is gonna see
the difficulty of running in the current environment history does not typically reward the party that controls the White House and things cost a lot right now. - So how much are you worried about winning your race based on just the national environment
of created in part by your dad's boss? - So we have a very conservative district, which is helpful. It's generally considered plus 11. The former congressman who's now running for state wide race
is running for governor, he run it by over 20 points.
“So that's very helpful, but I think, you know,”
everywhere across the country, red or blue districts, people are talking about affordability. Gas prices are high, that's a fact. And, you know, the Republican party has shifted. I think from the country club or publicans
to really representative of the working class voters. And so when the economy doesn't feel good, that actually has a great effect on things like the midterms. And so I think everybody is a little worried and I think they should be.
And I think it's all about, I think, promoting what the administration has done well, bringing up those deportation numbers, to bring up the value of labor on least the American energy independence,
which we need, you know, making our safe, our streets safe, instead of overrun by crime, created by these blue officials who don't care about the safety of regular Americans who work and pay taxes and are good law
by the citizens. So these things matter and also think emphasizing the threat of the Democratic party. And it's a real threat because Michael's parents fled communist Cuba.
My great-grandparents survived the Spanish Civil War, fought communist during that. This is a violent movement that we're facing from the DSA and it needs to be emphasized. And that's a baby next to me, I'm so sorry.
- Yeah, that's all right. We like baby Sandifix. In your household, as young parents, what seems to cost a lot in your daily life, what do you look at the price of and say, man,
that's a lot more than it was just a bit ago.
- Well, I have to admit, I never fill up my car with gas.
Michael does that for me all the time, but I do go to the grocery store to the grocery shopping. And the price of groceries is not great. I mean, things, it feels like it goes up every time. I mean, at the price of beef and of eggs,
you know, it's hard for young families, for all families.
“And so, I mean, we have to, I think acknowledge that,”
not deny that it's real. And talk about where by Republicans are better at getting these cost-reliving issues fixed. Democrats are offering free, free sounds really sexy, but ultimately, it will only lead to equitable suffering.
It's not gonna make everybody feel better. - Yeah. Let's talk about your family a little bit. In my household, your parents are political and media royalty.
Your dad's career in politics,
your mom's career in media. And of course, both of them career in reality, TV early on. You got to chance to participate in that family,
with a lot of fanfare from people who'd never even watched,
it got to participate in a show. Tell people, we'll watch a clip in a second, but tell people about how the show came about and what's the like to participate. - So, in my family or in the road trip, I'm sorry.
- In the road trip, sorry, in the show. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, the Rademar Carotrip is basically just a way to promote transportation and promote America in general. And I'm not a whole chair, I'm sorry.
- That's all right, we start eating. - I did have a babysitter and then she kind of bailed on me. So, but, you know, the Rademar Carotrip is really about just connecting with your family. I mean, you know, you can't really know
and understand your family or even our country by scrolling through TikTok or listening to the nightly news. Actually, experiencing our country on the open road first hand is a way to really understand who we are. You know, Lexus at Oakville did this, John Steinbeck did this.
It's kind of an American tradition to get in your car and experience the country. Our family has done this since I was a little girl. For the first one of the first road choice you ever took was from Wisconsin, all the way to visit my grandparents
in Arizona.
That was one of the most amazing beautiful experiences
of my life. Did we fight on the road?
“Yes, that I get dry eye from looking out the window all the time?”
Yes, but it was one of the most beautiful experiences. And so, the Rademar Carotrip is about inspiring other families do the same and to re-fall in love with the country. - All right, here's a clip from the Rademar Carotrip, the Duffy Clan out on the road, roll that please.
- A grandpa said to me when I got here, I gave him a hug and he said, you're getting a little fat there. He said that? - Yes, that's what he said. - Who said that?
- You? - I did. - You said that to me. - All right, that's right, that's right, that's right. - This view, it's beautiful.
I love taking in all the awe of the Grand Canyon, but no, no, you're just gonna stay by me. Patrick is unable to sit still ever. The other thing that's been very stressful for me is Valentina. I have insisted that we have a leash to keep her safe.
It's giving me a lot of anxiety. And it's also making me a little bit annoyed at everybody who's going on the mules and not having to deal with Patrick and Valentina. - All right, that gives you a sense of the flavor,
but it's a big exciting family. And I call you also, I call you the Wisconsin Kennedys. Now, Kennedys is not a dirty word in the Republican Party, so it's okay. Tell people where they can watch it.
It's on YouTube, but I have to go find it. - So the US Department of Transportation's official YouTube channel, it's a lot of fun, we had a good time. Yes, there was fighting, yes, there's tension as every big family has, as any family has,
“but I think it will inspire a lot of you”
to take your own rate of miracle road trip and fall in love with the country once more. And I think that is a beautiful thing. - Yeah, I recommend it, again, even if you're not like me and so interested in your parents
and just the arc of their lives, it's just a great piece of Americana. So I recommend it to people. What's your day like now in terms of your mom and you do your own work,
or federalists and you comment stuff like this, but how much you add on the road, what's it like being a campaigner for the family? - Well, you know, so my mom was doing this.
When my dad first ran on the campaign trail,
she had her sixth baby, there's a lot of babies. And my dad did a lot of this on his own, and he was just gone a lot because it's just so hard to drag around six children with you on the campaign trail.
And our district's big, so we have the biggest district, east of the Mississippi. So you know, you can potentially be driving six hours from one place to the other.
I think I'm in a position right now or because I only have one little baby, I'm on the campaign trail with my husband all the time. We are going all over the place, doing the ground game,
trying to win over voters in person. You know, we live in a district that really cares about retail politics still. It's an older district.
“And so we show up, that's what we have to do.”
In addition to, of course, helping my husband with social media, writing on my own, commentary on the side, watching a baby all the time, I have a lot going on, but it's a lot of fun. - Yeah, what kind of rituals they have in the district?
You go to like as county fair or parades, what kind of stuff have you done that kind of very Wisconsin and of the district? - Well, we have tons of parades and I actually did. So since I was a little girl and my dad was an office,
I would roll and blame down the parade routes. I found that that was much more efficient than walking down the parade routes. So I roll or blame. And I even, when a Michael started running,
I was roller-blading up until I was nine months pregnant down parade routes. And then less than a week after I was postpartum, I was out back on the parade route with the stroll or in the baby.
So I love parades, but a real Wisconsin ritual is Wisconsin dairy breakfast. So every June, farms across the state of Wisconsin will host like hundreds of people.
Sometimes 500 people, they come to the farm.
They have a breakfast and they get to tour the farm and learn about Wisconsin dairy farming. It's kind of a celebration of our agriculture and this sort of Wisconsin dairy state, right? So it's a celebration of this Wisconsin tradition
of dairy farming. And we go to those all the time. Michael shakes every single hand in there. I strike some hands and then I get a good breakfast.
And they always include ice cream dairy breakfast
which makes a lot of fun. Your husband's applying for a weird job because being a member of Congress is a little bit of a weird job. And it's a, it's a, it's a, it's an out of town job. A lot of the time is spent in Washington.
I've known this, but I can't remember. Did your folks move you guys to Washington
“or did you stay in Wisconsin when he was in college?”
Well, it's, it's actually, believe it or not, very unaffordable to live in Washington, D.C. and have six, seven, eight, nine kids. So no, we never moved to D.C. We were always in district and it had to be that way.
And my dad never had a place in D.C. either. He, he lived in his office actually. He had a, he had a little ball of mattress that he would set up every night, slept in his office. He had a little sink in his office.
There was like a gym that you could shower at that all the congressmen could use. So I got to stop you, I got to stop you on that one because it's one of my obsessions because your dad was part of a class or two
who decided, yeah, we're frugal. We're just going to sleep in the office. There's something cool about it. But I also, I just stipulate. It's a little gross.
It is a little gross. And you know what? After 10 years, he was really sick of it. But yeah, it takes a lot of the prestige and the pump out of it.
“Which I think is kind of good for congress.”
Yeah, I grew at that and, and I was attracted to it. But, but then I drilled down with one member who did it. And it's just, there's a reason my most people don't sleep in the office. It's just like not, not the most like sanitary way to live.
So what were you and Michael do? Were you moved to Washington with him if he wins? Were you going to stay on the district? We're trying to, we know, well first, we got to get through this, this general.
And I know we live in a solid district. But I really don't even think ahead that much. I'm just laser focused on the general because anything can happen in a cycle like this. But we, we are, I think, probably going to stay
in the district, at least me and the baby will. Obviously, Michael will have to go back. Now, they have a stipend for members of congress. So we might get a small apartment. But my home is Wisconsin.
After my parents moved to New Jersey.
And I never moved to Jersey.
I always stayed in Wisconsin after college. I went back to Wisconsin. So it's, it's my home. What, what have your parents been like in being grandparents to your baby?
“How are they, how would you rate the job they've done?”
They do it, you know what, they love it. They have very busy lives. And my mom, she, you know, she just left for a speech. And she said, I miss Rose so much. I just want to spend more time with her.
But she's so busy, it's hard to do that. So I think they're, they can't wait for a few more years. Maybe there's retirement on the horizon. And they can actually get to spend some quality time with her. To me, it's just an amazing story of, of this, of your generation here.
And, and your husband, trying to succeed. And again, probably should have said before. Your father obviously has been out of the seat for a while. But it's the seat, it's the seat your dad held, basically, right? And, and so there's a, there's a tradition there.
Have you done the research? How many sons and laws have succeeded their fathers and law in a seat in Congress? Any idea?
You know, I have, I have no idea, I've never, I've never, I've never looked into that.
Um, I don't know if you've been making history. Me, yeah. He's definitely making history as the first member born in this century. That's pretty awesome. Yeah.
Yeah. And if he wins, he won't be able to take that away from him because no one else can match it. I want to talk a little bit about, about stuff in the news and, and, and Maha, it was a thought that, um, that, uh, present Trump with Secretary Kennedy and others in the administration or supporters of Maha would, um, uh, be using this time, uh, to substantively help Americans
families, uh, parents and moms in particular, uh, they're interested in Maha and my experience to, um, to have healthier kids, healthier life, uh, but also there would be political benefits to that. How would you say, uh, Maha has gone both substantively and politically during the first two years of the administration?
How is that project in terms of changing America? Well, you know, I mean, I love Maha because I think Maha is, that is the way that you win over. I think a lot of these suburban women who might not love Trump for his tone, his background, like some of them just, they don't, I drive with Trump.
I love Trump. Some of them just don't drive with him. But Maha is a way to, to bring in those people who I think might be more inclined to vote for Democrats, but say, you know what, I really care about the health of my family. I don't want my kids to be eating poison.
That's a really compelling thing. I will say I was a little bit disappointed on the glyphosate vote. There were, there were a lot of the administration, a lot of members of Congress, you know, voted to keep these glyphosates in our farming industry and I just, I think that that's not helpful because it's, it's, it's really it's poison and I think Secretary Kennedy knows
that too. But, um, I think, you know, limiting the recommendations for vaccines is a big deal for parents
Who are just cautious, who want the freedom of choice to make those decisions...
without all this public pressure, all this, you know, pressure from, from our, you know,
health services. So there's, there's been, there's been a lot of wins, there's been a few setbacks, but I think owning the Maha movement is a way to win over a lot of people. Uh, did you watch Secretary Kennedy speech at the Republican midterm convention? Yes, I did.
Why, why are people so enamored of that? Why have people gotten so excited about it? I don't, I'm not saying it was a bad speech, but I just want to hear you and your own words, uh, what he did in that speech that got people so jazzed up. Well, you know, I almost think it's, I mean, it's, it's the Maha movement, but it's also
who's Secretary Kennedy is, right? Like he, he is, he represents like this bridge, right? There are, there are so many Democrats who, um, feel like their party has left them behind. And that's really true of our district as well in the seventh. You know, we, we're a working class district that realized, oh, you know what?
The Republican Party has a lot more, um, in common with us than than, then, then, you
know, the, the, the, the, the, the Democrats today, it's not the party of Bill Clinton. It's not the party of JFK and to sort of see a Kennedy symbolically stand with Maga is, I think, really an meaningful to a lot of people. As you think about your future now, you've got a young kid, I won't ask you unless you
“want to say, if you want to have more, but, and your husband, if he wins, is about to”
embark on a pretty complicated career. You can write at your great writer, a very fluid writer, a great speaker, but how are you thinking much about your future grand visions, or are you focused on baby and, and Michael's race right now? You know, I'm like completely, I'm completely consumed in Michael and Michael's race
and, and my daughter and it, it makes it, you know, I, I think it, it actually, this is kind of funny, as, because I, as I'm sitting here bouncing the baby, it becomes easier when you have more kids, which sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think it's true because once once older and can sort of help with the others, things get a lot more seamless. When he's just you, and one little baby who's throwing up and talking all through this
interview, it's, it's a lot, it's a lot more difficult. You know, I realize that with, with my family, my mom, you know, I helped a ton, my, my, brother helped a ton, my sister did, we, you know, it becomes more of a fluid unit and we all
kind of figure it out and there's always somebody around to kind of help, but when it's
just you and two little kids or one little kid, it's actually a lot more difficult in my opinion. Yeah, I'm super excited for you, not just because the baby and, and, and because of Michael, but, but again, because you get, you got a world of possibilities now, whatever happens, and, uh, and, uh, and, uh, I look forward to, you think you guys will make any more
reality TV together with where that your parents are, that was a one. You know, so my parents have been asked to do reality TV show for 20 years, actually over 20 years. It's been like 25 years because my parents met on a reality TV show, the real world. Oh, yeah.
Oh, I know. I'm the first reality TV child, fun fact, um, like product of reality TV, and, you know, they've always said no because they didn't think it was good for the family. They agreed to do this road trip because it is something special. I think it was a way to get back to the country to sort of promote the transportation and
my dad's job. And so we agreed to do it. And the reason I say it's really a giveback is we made no money off of it. You know, it was a lot of work. Um, and there was that, you know, none of my, none of my, my parents, none of my siblings were
paid. Um, we really just said, this is, this is, this is to promote dad and his job and what he's doing. And that's, that's why, and, and to help the country give back America to 50. So, I actually don't think it'll ever happen again because we've said no for so many
years. This is a one time special opportunity.
“And that's why I think it's really awesome.”
All right. Get ready to keep your bags packed because next time you're on, I'm going to talk to you about my theory that vice president of the anti secretary of state rubio, both passed on the presidential and your dad's or Republican nominee. So be ready to talk about that next time.
That was great. That was great. People, it's a good reality show that if people want to see your work, read your stuff, where can they go? Avita Duffy under score one is my ex and my Instagram and you can read my work at the
federalist.com. Okay. Avita, thanks for joining. conversation with my best to you and your husband and best to luck with the race. Thanks, Mark.
I'm so sorry about the baby. I'm sorry. Oh no. It made the segment. Avita or work can be seen as she said at the federalist and you can follow her on social
as well. And we appreciate her. Making time. And we got to check with that babysitter about being a little more consistent. Take a quick break.
Next up. The great David Bonson will be here. David Bonson is next up. You hear it everywhere. Talking about weight loss injections because the results are so dramatic.
They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you're looking to lose weight, but not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects.
“That's why doctors, they created a weight loss supplement.”
It's called lean and the results are remarkable. The study ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting
It into energy and curb your appetite and cravings so you're not as hungry.
Listen though, lean.
“It's not for the casual diet or if you just got a few pounds to lose.”
This is in for you.
The doctors have forecast nutrition.
They created lean for the frustrated diet or someone with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started right now that fits your desires and your needs 20% off and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan right away. Visit tateline.com and then enter the promo code next up for your discount.
That's promo code next up at tateline.com. Next up in joining me now David Bonson, he's the founder of the Bonson Group and the author of the new book, profit from the profit he's one of the smartest people I know in explaining the complex economy to dumbies like me. David, welcome.
Thank you for being here. Congratulations on the book. Thank you, Mark. Always a pleasure. One or two on the news a day and then we're going to drill down into the book.
These rates go up as widely expected, the president not as necessarily expected was pretty soft on Kevin Worsh and blamed it on the other governors. What is the current for a normal person?
“What is the significance of what happened yesterday?”
Both on the actual interest raise and on the relationship between the president and the Fed chair? Well, they're both great questions. They're separate issues.
So let's first just look at the rate and move itself what it means to normal people in
theory. People would expect higher rates would mean higher mortgages and that affects regular people that are trying to borrow for their homes and other borrowing costs that can be impacted as well. In reality, the rate hike that Fed did doesn't affect any of those things because financial
markets had already done it. The long end of the yield curve, meaning 10 year and 30 year long-term borrowing had already gone up. The short end, 30 days, 90 days, two years had already gone up. So the Fed was doing what I'm referring to as a performative rate hike rather than trying
to lead the markets, which is what Alan Greenspan famously did Ben Bernanke. He's following the markets. The markets had done it now. They're doing a rate hike to catch up. So it doesn't really impact people as a result of what the Fed did.
In the second issue, you bring up as fascinating because I've been of a mindset for the last month or so that the chairman needed to sell the president on a wire rate hike was beneficial to the president and that the way to sell it was to explain to him, I can now be your fall guy.
If things are going well in the economy, you just take the credit like you always do.
And if things go poorly, you can now blame it on me. And as you win, tails, you don't lose, those are trades, President Trump generally likes. I don't even know what to say about the way the president responded. He clearly wasn't upset at the chairman, but what he did is say, yeah, I'm not upset with him because he had to do it because everyone else was doing it.
But obviously the president knows that isn't true and obviously chairman was said it wasn't true. So it was sort of a twist from what you would expect. But I suppose all that matters is, at least for now, the drama is not there that many in the media were probably hoping for and some were expecting, which is some sort of a fight
between the chairman and the president. I mean, it's really just kind of the opposite, normally President Trump of what normally happens. Normally, he blames people when they don't deserve the blame. In this case, he absolved someone.
For whatever reason, maybe he just dealt with the reality that the number was going to go up and he wants to keep the notion and maybe the behind-the-scenes reality that he in wars and the Treasury Secretary can still do business. We could talk about this all day, but I want to move to one other topic in the book. Most of the AI conversation is about the technology, about the societal implications.
And when the business story is discussed, it's typically discussed as what these companies are thinking about doing these of the IPOs, what these companies are doing in terms of is there a bubble. I want you to focus on a different question, which is, I've saw the other day, that the amount of profit they're going to have to bring in to justify the capital expenditures they're
engaged in is unprecedented, really.
“So how are investors like you as a fiscalian investors viewing this just as a business?”
Not as a, you know, planetary revolution in so many areas, but just as a business, how do you see them? Are they good back, bad, bad? Well, we have to separate which categories of the AI story we're talking about. So the hyper-scalers, what they're spending in AI capex to rationalize, a future, return
on investment is one category, and then there's the AI frontier labs, the language models,
Your emphropics, open AI, et cetera, and then of course there's what we refer...
pick and shovel companies, but the one selling the compute power, whether it's semi-conductors
“or other adjacent things necessary to power all of this, most popularly people think of”
Nvidia, but there's a whole ecosystem of companies there. So in one case, that category, the Nvidia is the world of receiving money. In another case, there's the companies paying them the money or Microsoft's Amazon's meta-google, and then there's these frontier labs that are largely, as you say, pre-IPO, but looking to go IPO.
That's where the largest vulnerability lies, because they are all at once customers and competitors to some of the aforementioned categories, and Mark, they don't have any money. Okay, and the commitments do exceed into the trillion, one and a half, two trillion dollars pro-forma for these companies. So there is a circularity and intertwining of all these things that is mind-numbing,
and it's happened before, but never to this degree of zeros and commas that are involved,
which is levered up the risk level. I would answer your question by saying that the thing people are not talking about is by far the greatest risk, which is though I am highly skeptical, they could ever recuperate the level of investment they've made. I am also highly skeptical, though ever get to make the level of investment they need,
because it requires equity markets and debt markets to continue cooperating.
“And I think there's a lot of headwinds to financial markets continuing to fund this mania.”
Yeah, and they're going to have to figure out when the cash isn't there, how they're going to adjust their business models and their business place. Again, we can talk about this, I want to have you back to talk about it as we head down the road. But let's talk about the book again, congratulations on profit from the profit. David is, if you don't get his newsletter, David and Kathy, I recommend it to you.
It's free, and David's just a great writer, he's a funny writer, he's an engaging writer. But he also, as I said, makes a complex idea as different, what's the thesis of profit from the profit, what are the two profits referred to and who would benefit from reading the book?
Well, first of all, Mark, thanks for your kind words, and you know I reciprocate in terms of my
fondness for all the work you do, but I will say that it is tremendously nice to hear those things from you in particular, as far as the book itself, the profit from the profit is a reference to two different profits, the profits companies are making and the profits that I want investors to make that are derived from the profits of underlying companies. This all seems very simple, except for the vast majority of American investors have gotten off of that very simple path and
thinking. Most people's investment plan, yeah, varying degrees as self-consciousness is to make money from other people having confidence in something. Hey, everybody still believes this is going higher, let's write it as it goes higher. The popularity, the mania, the momentum, that's the source of our return, because everybody likes something. And I believe so. So you buy Apple stock at $10 and then when you want to make the profit, it goes to 20 years
“sell it, right? That's how most people think about it. And underlying that, though, is that Apple”
goes from 10 to 20 because it's making profits, where there's a lot of companies that may or may not be making profits, but they go from 10 to 20 because other people believe in the story or the hype or the future or whatever the case may be. People can be wrong and anyone who thought Apple was going to make a lot of money the last 15 years was right, but the point being that the source of the return is coming from this sort of underlying confidence is what I'd call an exogenous
factor. It's outside of the thing itself. I'm not making money because Apple's doing well. I'm making money because other people believe it is doing well, continue doing well. And the investment world we refer to it as the valuation. We just want people to keep valuing it higher. I'm encouraging a return to the endogenous source of return. In other words, the thing is inside of itself, I'm making money on the thing I'm invested in from the thing, not of the people's
perception of the thing, the underlying profits of the great companies of America and our public equity markets. And then they're sharing of those profits with me. If a company makes a lot of money and holds on to it, then they have become a bank or they have become a source of tremendous financial destruction, which in the M&A environment is very often what happens. Companies,
Sea suites are not immune from vanity projects and ego and other things that ...
to capital. But my point is that that is your money as a shareholder, as a minority owner of the business
and as a risk taker and the way in which you monetize the risk you took is when they at profit it comes back to you in the form of your profits what we call dividends. Right. So, dividends, I invest in a lot of companies, mostly through my retirement accounts and most of companies don't
“pay dividends. So, the top 500 public companies in America, how many paid dividends in the last year?”
Oh, in S&P 500, it's about 400. It's roughly 80%. But there's about 60% that don't grow their dividends. So, the companies that are paying a dividend and growing consistently, it's less than 20% of the S&P. There's a big group that pays a dividend but it's small and they don't grow it.
And then there's more than ever 80 to 100 companies that are paying a dividend at all.
Right. So, your recommendation from an investor is to focus on companies who has as their kind of core philosophy, let's make money and then let's pay that out as a dividend to the people who've invested in the company. Right. And not all of the profits, the amount, the portion of profits that are shared with shareholders is going to vary because let's take exon mobile, you can imagine they're very capex intensive. They have to reinvest a lot in new
infrastructure, equipment, drilling, pipelines, things like that. And then we just stop you there just for people following along. If you're an investor and exon, you want them to make smart
“choices about those kinds of investments that they deem essential to growing the company further,”
may not consistently be that way, but at any given moment, if they say rather than giving you a dividend, we want to take this money and buy more things to grow bigger and faster. That's the trust you got to have in them that they'll pay you the dividend at the right time when that's the best use for the money. Right. But the issue is that the great capital allocators, the great stewards of their owners' capital are ones that find that ability to maintain
a consistent dividend while also maintaining adequate amounts of capital reinvest in the business. Sometimes they can borrow a bit of money, but they do it prudently. Others end up borrowing excessively in the leverage becomes too much. Exon's actually a great example because you would be very hard pressed to find a company in history that has been as brilliant a capital allocation as them where Mark oil went to zero during COVID and they were able to maintain not only the dividend
but growing it. The exon vowed these scandal that many of us remember from a younger part of our lives. They didn't cut the dividend. Oil prices have been way up and way down so many times throughout our adult lives. We've lost count, but what I haven't lost count of is how many years exons grown the dividend every year of my life. Yeah. So when you're your company where you manage people's money high net worth individuals, do you focus primarily exclusively on companies like
exon with a history and management philosophy of paying robust dividends or do you also see the value in investing elsewhere? Well, I wouldn't say it's exclusive because we're multi-asset and we're going to what an entire client needs is going to have different elements, real estate, bonds. You know, we're going to diversify the portfolio, but the US public equity exposure, the ten and a half billion dollars I manage. It's about five and a half billion in dividend growth
equity. It's our core strategy. It's what I've built our business off of. But there will be venture capital, private equity, other things for given risk profiles and situations that we would do as well. But what I'm suggesting is that for an investor who needs to withdraw money, an investor trying to accumulate money and maintain liquidity, it's sort of just traditional
core base of a portfolio. I have never seen anything better than dividend growth and I never will.
“Yeah. How does the United States in terms of the culture of paying dividends?”
How does it care compared to other countries? Do we do that more of that here? Less of that here? It's different decade by decade. We become less of a dividend growing public equity market since the technology moment of the 1990s. Europe has had certain companies that have paid high dividends, but not great growers. But the problem in Europe is not their dividend policy versus ours. It's that we create a lot more new successful companies than they do.
So we have a much higher denominator of opportunities for great dividend growers. Asia is
Catching up.
high profitability and their paying dividends now. But we tend to sort of harmonize the dividend,
“like proper gamble, Johnson Johnson. They just pay it each quarter throughout the year,”
where some of the emerging markets, they're paying a big one one month and a small one the next. They're a little more lumpy. So different parts of the world handle it differently. But the American markets, our capital markets, are so much more sophisticated and innovative that we still tend to have the best dividend policies. Right. And again, someone is interested in this topic and they should be if they're interested in being successful investors. What will they get
from reading the book? They're going to get first of all where I have to start with things as a
first principle is the philosophy behind it. I do not believe most investors know why they own what they own. I don't want my clients to believe in the investment strategy of dividend growth without knowing how the strategy is rooted to an underlying philosophy. So I'm asking people to
“ask themselves why you own what you own. And I sort of paint a picture around those important questions”
foundationally. Then I make all of the different arguments for dividend growth. I'll spare you all the details of now. And then I answer a lot of the opposition to it. A lot of the various criticisms that exist. I go through those one by one. And then ultimately conclude with, you know, a summary
of all of it. But then a couple of appendixes that I had a lot of fun writing where we look into
some of the bad examples in history where companies didn't do this. And I pick on the late Sumner Redstone and Viocom around it. And then I also for those who happen to be faith-oriented, even make a theological case for dividend growth investing, which is rather fun for me. Yeah. The book is at least the two for it's a great piece of economic history and corporate history. But also give you a extremely great foundation for understanding how David believes with all the great
success he said, how to invest your money. It's called profit from the profit by David Bonson of the Bonson Group David. Again, congratulations on the book. It's available now. Love having you on and look forward to having you back soon to talk about AI and other stuff. Thank you, David. Thanks, Mark. All right. Next up, take your quick break. And then it's 8 for 28. 8 for 28. 8. How next or so for active to my latest ranking of the Democratic presidential candidates for 20. 28.
Make sure you subscribe to next up on your YouTube channel. You can watch all our content there. The full episodes and our bonus content clips go to youtube.com/@nextupalpern. And of course, you can listen to the program as a podcast. If you miss it on YouTube, subscribe to next up with Mark Helpern wherever you get your podcasts. I make sure the downloads there are turned on so you get every episode right when it goes live. So imagine checking your bank account tomorrow morning and
discovering the money you work for is gone. Your account can be levied. Your wages can be garnished. A federal tax lien can put your financial life under pressure. And when the IRS decides to enforce a tax debt waiting for another letter, that's not a strategy. It's time to take control of your financial situation before it's too late. If U.O. back taxes have unfiled returns or are already dealing with IRAs, collection activity, hate action before the situation gets worse.
Value or to file penalties can reach 25% of the unpaid tax while interest continues to accrue daily. The longer tax prom remains unresolved, the more complicated and expensive it can become. Don't try to take on the IRS blindly. America, tax group, help tax payers address serious federal and state tax problems and pursue available resolution options based on their individual circumstances. Call America tax group right now. 888-811-2599 or visit them at
America-tax.group.com again, America-tax-group.com. Your tax problem, it's not going to disappear by ignoring it hate control before the IRS takes action for you. Call again, 888-811-2599 or visit America-tax.group.com today. All right. Next up, the segment we love is called 8 for 28 hate. Those of you have strong reactions to my latest rankings of the most likely democratic presidential nominees for 2028. I read your
reactions here and chips fall where they may. First one, here we go. Hi, Mark. I have lived in
Maryland most of my life and cannot understand how you can say Westmore has done a great
“good or better job. I cannot remember your exact words as governor of Maryland. Unfortunately,”
Maryland is a completely blue state with many corrupt politicians. There is little chance for a
Public in winning again soon.
Since he took office, the deficit that he likes to say he inherited. And so many other choices, he has made that are not good for taxpayers. Plus, all of the lies he tells now and about his
past finally, Laura doesn't sound to me like your Democratic primary voter. So you're not
“going to play a role in picking the Democratic nominee. Westmore, I believe in the end, probably”
won't run. And I think Democratic primary voters will find his record more appealing than you do. But it does go to this issue of electability and of Democrats looking for someone who can win in general election. No, no Democrats going to win a ton of Republican votes. But there is in someone who grows up in a blue state like a Westmore, Gavin Newsom. There is less experience compared to say the governor of Pennsylvania or Mark Kelly and Arizona. There's less experience
of winning over independence who lean right or even Republican. So it's definitely something to watch if Westmore decides to run. All right, here's another one. You can see who it's from there, Ellen and FEMA, or Emma, two, two, five, five, whatever. Mark, it's not going to be Gavin Newsom. Most Democrats can't stand him. I have him as number one right now. Authenticity is everything. His California record is horrible and he really started tanking after he came out against the
billionaire tax. I'm telling you, this is such a deal breaker for so many Democrats. This goes right to the point of Gavin Newsom's relationship to his own party, then not to general election electorate. Can Gavin Newsom sell his record. He's got enemies on the left. He's got enemies on the right and the center. That's a challenge you're running for president, particularly for someone like Gavin Newsom who's been in office a long time, San Francisco and in Sacramento. And he's made a lot of choices.
So I get this skepticism about him. But someone has to be the nominee and there's, say it all the time, there's stuff you can point to for just about anybody. All right, here we go. From MG Wall, if Newsom decides to run, I assume it's because he wants to do it for the rest of the United, he wants to do for the rest of the United States, the same thing he did to California. Good luck with that. As for bootage, after running south, bend into the ground and as appalling, lead lacking any
other personal or professional accomplishments. Why would anyone vote for him unless he's obsessed with electing someone gay to the presidency? If the Democrats secure the next White House, it is more likely because the Republican lost it than Democrats offered anything of substance.
“Again, another person who, I think, is a connection to the nominee process may not be so tight,”
but Pete Buttigieg is going to have to deal with skepticism. For sure, here's another one on these two guys. Mark, you are saying, Gavin and Peter sophisticated, they know how to run an election. But they have no record on completion of big projects. California is a train wreck and Pete did nothing
for the train development in East Palestine. Ohio, the residents to this day are saying they never
received support. Give me a break and AOC is a success for her bad girl podcast. The only Democrat that is a decent record in brain is Shapiro. This goes to the point I suggested before Governor Shapiro by appealing to Democrats, maybe not as much as some others, has the capacity to get some Democrats to say, hey, he may be more moderate than I would like, but because he might be able to win over moderate voters, he's a more appealing choice on electability. It's going to
“be a key issue to watch. Great for all the feedback here of 28 for 28. Thank you for that. We'll see”
again with that feature in October. That's it for today's program. We'll be back on Tuesday with
a brand new episode. Subscribe to next up on YouTube wherever you get your podcasts. So you always
know what's coming next up.
