Politics Politics Politics

Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, discusses significant Democratic strategies and his future political aspirations. He dives into the implications of the looming government shutdown and the modest deal on the table. Newsom emphasizes the energy surrounding Democratic initiatives and speaks candidly about the challenges of economic messaging, notably addressing the public's perception versus reality. He also touches on wealth concentration and the need for economic democracy amidst the bustling national political landscape.

It’s been building for weeks, but after this week’s election results, Republican infighting has officially hit a fever pitch.It’s like any anxious period in life, the kind where you don’t even realize something big is coming until you look back on it in hindsight. Over the past two weeks conservative movement has quietly been eating itself alive with a fight that, on the surface, was about Tucker Carlson’s podcast interview with Nick Fuentes. But with this issue finally breaking containment after Tuesday, well, let’s be honest — this wasn’t really about that. It’s about a party that knows, deep down, Donald Trump won’t be on the ballot ever again, and they’re worried they have no idea what to do next.This wasn’t just any dumb online spat. Tucker Carlson, once the crown jewel of Fox News, now runs his own operation, and his guest list has been getting increasingly controversial. Nick Fuentes certainly falls into that category; he’s the dead center of outright racism and anti-Semitism, and he’s not particularly quiet about it. And yet, here he is, being given a platform by Carlson.Now, I don’t think this was surprising. Tucker once interviewed the president of Iran, after all. No, here, the outrage was less about the specifics and more about what it revealed. The conservative world is split between those who want to double down on the bomb-throwing populism and those who would very much prefer a nice, quiet, electable figure in a navy blazer.And look, the fear is justified. When Trump isn’t on the ballot, Republican turnout tanks. Nobody has yet figured out how to get those same voters off their couches and into a polling booth. JD Vance is trying to play crown prince to the MAGA throne, but we still don’t know if he’s got the juice. And sure, someone like Marco Rubio might look good on paper, but 2016 already taught us what happens when you try to play establishment kingmaker in a populist uprising. Meanwhile, the fringes of the movement are getting louder. The Fuentes crowd isn’t interested in compromise — they want the whole thing, and they’ll torch the place if they don’t get it.The result? A Republican Party that’s stuck between an ever-unpredictable Trump and a base that only shows up for him. A coalition that used to rely on reliable suburban voters now hopes that low-propensity working-class Americans will carry the load. That’s not a gamble you want to be making blindly. The anxiety isn’t just about who says what on a podcast — it’s existential. Who inherits this movement, and can they actually win anything with it?Trump isn’t going to unite anybody. He’ll back whoever flatters him most and ditch them the second they falter. There’s no Mar-a-Lago summit where everyone hugs it out and agrees on a future. There’s just this slow-motion car crash of conflicting ambitions, bad blood, and rising panic. And, yes, it might just get worse before it gets better.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:59 - Republican Problems00:14:01 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:26:21 - Update00:27:23 - Shutdown Deal?00:29:41 - Maybe Not...00:30:24 - Unless... Filibuster Nuke?00:33:23 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con’t)00:58:34 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Well, what a night that was.The 2025 off-year election came and went, and I don’t think anybody on the Republican side was quite ready for how hard it hit. I expected Virginia to go blue — I didn’t expect it to be a total decimation. Abigail Spanberger didn’t just win, she boat-raced it, besting Winsome Earle-Seares by a whopping 14 points. That momentum was even enough to carry Jay Jones, dogged by scandal after scandal, to a smaller (but no less impressive) six-point win. That’s despite having an opponent with a compelling ad campaign and a story that, in a different climate, might have turned heads. It didn’t matter. The wave swallows all.What stands out to me the most is how broad this Democratic surge really was. In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill handed Jack Ciattarelli a 13-point loss, completely rewriting the expectations I had going in. I thought if Republicans were going to find any traction, it would be in the Garden State. It wasn’t. In Latino-heavy areas like Passaic, New Jersey — areas that just barely swung for Trump in 2024 after 2010s results in the D+50 space — saw a reversion back to near-2020 Democratic margins. Republicans had a shot to build a new working-class coalition in those towns, and right now, it looks like they blew it.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The real story of the night, though, was New York City. Zohran Mamdani didn’t just win. He crushed. He did it with style, focus, and an eye for narrative. His campaign was slick, and his messaging was clear. He connected with voters who felt left behind — people priced out of housing, worried about jobs, unsure about their future. Mamdani was speaking directly to them. He predicted headlines, embraced viral moments, and even handled scrutiny around some of the more potentially-controversial moments of his name with grace and wit. His vote totals show him cracking 50 percent, a number that Cuomo and Sliwa together couldn’t touch. It’s an out-and-out victory for a campaign that, initially, seemed like a pipe dream for the left.What we’re seeing now is a Democratic Party that knows how to win and a Republican Party still figuring out how to respond. And with the 2026 midterms now less than a year away, it’s only going to get crazier.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:30 - Virginia04:50 - New Jersery09:37 - Prop 50 in California11:36 - Mamdani in NYC18:51 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I’ve seen my fair share of shutdowns over the years. Loud ones, quiet ones, dumb ones, strategic ones. But this one? This is just sad.I spent the day on Capitol Hill talking to anyone who would meet with me, bouncing between offices, looking to understand how close we are to any kind of resolution, and the mood is absolutely lifeless. Nobody knows what they want, and nobody’s talking to each other. The word I keep hearing is “aimless,” and that’s exactly what it feels like to be here.I had the opportunity to attend Speaker Mike Johnson’s press conference earlier today, and what stuck out to me was just how defensive it was. Republicans seem genuinely irritated that Democrats have managed to set the tone on this one, especially with their own base. Johnson spent most of his time pushing back against “false narratives,” but in doing so, he basically confirmed that the narratives are working. And I’ll be honest — if I were him, I don’t know that I would’ve spent that much time sounding frustrated.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What did break through, though, was something more interesting. A change in who the Republicans are pointing fingers at. It used to be Schumer and AOC. But now, it’s Zohran Mamdani, and this — Election Eve 2025 — was the day it shifted. You’re going to hear his name a lot more from Republicans. According to them, he’s now the face of the Democratic Party, at least the one pushing for this shutdown. That’s a big change, and it tells you where they think the real energy on the left is coming from.This all traces back to March, when Schumer passed a clean CR and got torched for it by the left flank. The idea now is that Schumer and Jeffries are shutting things down not because they want to, but because they’re scared of losing their jobs. That’s the same vibe I got from conversations on the Hill — they’re being pushed around, and they don’t have the political juice to stop it.Like I said… I’ve seen dumb shutdowns before. But even dumb ones usually make sense if you squint. This one doesn’t. It’s got no internal logic. The Democrats don’t want to own it. The Republicans are scared of their shadows. The base isn’t fully convinced by either side. And while everyone blames everyone else, regular folks — the people running out of ways to pay for groceries, unsure of whether they can afford insurance next year — are the ones dealing with the fallout. Chapters00:00 - Intro01:48 - Shutdown09:10 - Update09:42- Nancy Pelosi10:49- Supreme Court IEEPA Case12:00 - Thomas Massie12:49 - 2025 Polls16:42 - Interview with Andrew Heaton33:08 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump and Xi finally sat down for the first in-person meeting of this new administration, and I won’t lie — there was a lot of hype going into this one. There were whispers about a grand bargain, even murmurs of a complete game-changer announcement. Maybe China would distance itself from Russia. Maybe there’d be some kind of century-defining move on Taiwan. Earlier this week, anything seemed possible.What we got was something a lot less dramatic: a truce. Not a full-blown trade deal. A trade truce. And honestly, I was a little disappointed.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.So here’s what went down. China made a few big concessions. They agreed to immediately buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans and promised to keep it going at 25 million tons per year for three years. They also agreed to suspend their new rare earth export controls for a year and curb fentanyl precursor production — a big issue in the U.S. Beyond that, China made a surprise move by signaling interest in American energy and even hinted at joining a natural gas pipeline project in Alaska. That last bit came totally out of nowhere.In return, the United States is lowering tariffs on Chinese goods by 10 percentage points, which still leaves them at a hefty 45 percent. We’re also postponing an investigation into Chinese shipping practices, which would have imposed new port taxes. There’s a delay on export restrictions for blacklisted Chinese firms for one year. Now, don’t get too excited — Trump made clear that China won’t be getting its hands on Nvidia’s top-shelf Blackwell chips, though some older GPUs will still be allowed to be sold. There was talk about ending Russia’s war in Ukraine, but nothing about China stopping its oil purchases from Russia. And most notably, no mention of Taiwan at all.Honestly, when I look at this, I think Trump and Xi were made for each other. Normally, trade deals take forever, get wrapped in ceremony, and then quietly fall apart when China decides not to follow through. U.S. leaders usually just shrug and move on, chalking it all up to classic maneuvers on their part. But Trump doesn’t play that game. If he doesn’t like a deal, he changes it. If China doesn’t hold up their end, he goes right back at them. And I have to say, there’s a certain clarity in that approach. It’s not exactly stable, but it’s a little more to-the-point.I’ll admit, I got a little swept up in the pre-meeting hype. I thought maybe we’d see something big, something that could define this administration’s approach to foreign policy. But now that I’ve had time to let it all sink in, here’s what I’m left with: this matters. Maybe not as much as I hoped it would, but it still matters. Because the American economy — and by extension, our elections — are tied so closely to what happens with China. If this truce brings even a little stability, it could have ripple effects that shape 2025 and beyond.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:18 - US-China Deal00:09:39 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher00:31:10 - Update00:31:27 - Shutdown Progress00:33:59 - Jasmine Crockett00:37:02 - Elise Stefanik00:40:13 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher, con’t01:08:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We’re just about a week out from Election Day, and I have to say, this is what I live for. These are the kind of stories that really scratch the itch for anybody who loves the game of politics as much as I do. We’ve got real contests, real dollars behind them, and actual electoral stakes. Yes, I know it’s not a presidential year, but this is the sandbox where some serious groundwork gets laid. And for as much as I hate the off-off-year calendar, I love election season more than anything. Here’s my breakdown of where I think the chips are going to fall in November.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Starting in California, we’ve got Prop 50. Gavin Newsom has staked a big chunk of political capital on this one. It’s pitched as a pushback on Republican redistricting, with the messaging ultimately landing on “protecting America from Trump.” What started off messy got refined quickly, and with Newsom’s team sticking the landing, I see a 10 to 15 point win. McCarthy was supposed to pour in $100 million to fight it, but as of now, the actual spending is suspiciously light. All that adds up to a clear Democratic win.Now onto Virginia: Winsome Earl Sears vs. Abigail Spanberger. I’m heading up to D.C. this weekend, and originally thought I’d be bouncing around Virginia to catch campaign stops. But Sears? She’s nowhere to be found. Spanberger, while not the most electrifying candidate, has managed to avoid major blunders post-Jay Jones scandal. The polling tells a consistent story; Spanberger holding a lead that’s grown since the scandal broke. I’m calling it Spanberger by eight. Could be tighter, but it’s hard to see Sears overcoming the fundamentals working against her.As for Jay Jones, man, what a collapse. DUI, community service for his own super PAC, and leaked texts about shooting a rival politician? That’s how you lose an election. Miyares hasn’t trailed since that story broke. Nate Silver might be holding out hope, pointing to early voting and ticket-splitting, but my money’s on Miyares by one. A close one, but still a loss for Jones. This scandal made a difference, period.New Yorkers better get ready for Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He hasn’t been behind at all in public polling, all while Cuomo is clawing for relevance. Meanwhile, Curtis Sliwa isn’t pulling enough Republican support to matter to anyone but Cuomo. The energy just isn’t there for a last-minute surprise. Mamdani by 13.And then there’s New Jersey. The Mikie Sherrill vs. Jack Ciattarelli race is the sleeper of the night. Sherrill has led for most of the race, but recent polling has things tightening. Trafalgar and Coefficient both show her up by one. Republicans are feeling bullish, and if this ends within three points, they’ll have reason to. That would mean New Jersey, at minimum, becomes a fringe battleground in 2028. Not quite Arizona-level swing, but enough to force Democrats to spend real money defending it. I’m predicting Sherrill wins — but just barely.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:32 - Election Predictions00:23:08 - Update00:24:53 - Trade Deals00:30:58 - Shutdown00:38:10 - Israel00:44:36 - Interview with Austin Padgett01:38:03 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

This Graham Platner saga just keeps delivering. Every time I think we’ve hit the ceiling on oppo drops, the elevator dings and we’re in a whole new suite of controversy. It’s not that the content was entirely new in tone. We’ve already seen him refer to himself as an Antifa supersoldier and admit to having an SS tattoo (which, to his credit, he covered up). But the latest batch of Reddit posts that surfaced added a thick layer of ugly homophobia. Explicit posts. Graphic anecdotes. And not from his teenage years or during some misunderstood youthful rebellion. These posts span several years, even continuing into the Biden administration.I’ve always said that if you’re running as an outsider candidate, having some skeletons in your closet isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can actually help. Nobody expects a populist outsider to be perfect. The electorate doesn’t want a robot. They want someone who talks like them, even if it means sometimes saying the wrong thing. And even as Platner tests the outer limits of that rule, here’s the twist: the polling. A new University of New Hampshire poll of likely voters in Maine had Platner at 58 percent. That’s not just a lead. That’s a blowout. Janet Mills is at 24 percent. If those numbers hold up, then Chuck Schumer and company are right to be panicking.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Still, Platner’s campaign has been running scared. Apology videos. Zoom interviews. Carefully worded statements about how he doesn’t think that way anymore. But from where I sit, this guy is doing everything but what he should. If I were advising his campaign, I’d be yelling: go on offense. The proper response to all of this should be simple — I deleted the posts before you ever knew my name. I deleted them because they didn’t reflect who I am anymore. That’s growth. That’s accountability. And that’s all anyone should expect. Instead, we get these soft, hedged statements. You’re not going to convince anyone that you’re the perfect candidate — stop trying.What kills me is how obvious the pressure is from the Democratic establishment. You can feel Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over this. They’re running the classic drip-drip-drip strategy, hoping to humiliate Platner into dropping out. But if you’re Platner — and especially if you believe those polling numbers — why would you flinch? Schumer and Mills are the ones who should be sweating. They’ve failed to unseat Susan Collins time and time again. They trot out the same kind of “perfect” candidate every cycle and lose. And now, when someone is actually running strong in the polls, they’re scrambling to blow it all up.I’m not defending what Platner posted. It was gross. And people are right to be upset. But this is a high-stakes game, and the voters of Maine seem willing to give him a shot. The question now is whether Platner will take the opportunity and run with it — or keep playing defense while the party machine steamrolls him. Personally, I’m tired of watching him take these hits and not swing back. I’ve been saying it all week. If you want to win, you have to punch. You can’t win a Senate seat on your heels. So please, for the love of political strategy — say their names, take their power, and act like you’re trying to win this damn thing.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:19 - Graham Platner00:17:55 - Update00:18:57 - SNAP00:21:40 - White House East Wing00:28:36 - Beef Prices00:31:08 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke00:59:39 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It’s not every day that the most interesting story in American politics is a Senate primary in Maine, but here we are. This race, at least for now, has everything: a populist outsider, a messy internal fight, a supposedly safe Democrat, and a very unfortunate tattoo. If the Democrats blow a winnable seat in 2026, you can probably trace it back to this moment, and to one name: Graham Platner.Platner launched his campaign with the kind of fire Democrats usually dream of and then quickly move to kill. He’s ex-military, tattooed, and came out swinging against the party establishment. Think Fetterman with a more overtly socialist bent — and the endorsements to match. Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, a digital team built for viral insurgency. His launch video was raw and effective, casting him as the only one who’d fight Collins like it meant something. But before he could define himself, the knives came out. Old Reddit comments. Unpolished statements. And most notably, a chest tattoo that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to an SS death’s head symbol.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Now, he says the tattoo was a drunk decision made while serving overseas — something picked off the wall at a shop in Croatia. That tracks. Plenty of service members come home with something dumb etched into their skin. But politics isn’t fair. The second it surfaced, it became a narrative — a “secret Nazi” smear that, while ridiculous, is now baked into every conversation about the guy. And that’s not something most voters are willing to fact-check. The perception — not the reality — becomes the problem.Still, the bigger issue isn’t the ink. It’s how Platner handled it. His entire appeal is built on strength and authenticity — and he responded like a nervous staffer trying to keep his job. The apology video was soft. It was long. It was careful. None of that fits the image he’s built. If you’re running on being the guy who doesn’t back down, you can’t fold the first time someone calls you a name. He needed to come out swinging — not just at the press, but at the party that clearly doesn’t want him there.Because make no mistake, they don’t. Janet Mills is the Schumer pick. She’s the “safe” one — a proven fundraiser, a party loyalist, and the kind of candidate who rarely wins a general in a state like Maine but always gets through the primary. That’s why the long knives came out for Platner. And if he doesn’t wake up and fight them like they’re already trying to end his campaign — which they are — then he doesn’t deserve the spot. Not because he’s a bad guy, or because he’s unelectable. But because he misunderstood the moment.This is a fight. Not a conversation. Not a listening tour. A fight. And if he doesn’t start treating it like one, he’s already lost.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:26 - Graham Platner00:16:10 - Interview with Josh Jennings and Andrew Heaton00:45:58 - Update00:46:13 - Trump-Putin00:49:03 - Israel-Hamas00:52:30 - Shutdown00:56:30 - Interview with Josh Jennings and Andrew Heaton, con’t01:23:09 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump is once again talking about Vladimir Putin — this time setting up a meeting in Budapest to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. That’s according to Trump himself, who said the two agreed on a phone call to meet, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other U.S. officials would begin prep meetings with their Russian counterparts. No date has been set, but Trump described the call as productive.He also mentioned they’d loop in Zelensky during his upcoming White House visit, which adds another layer of complexity. Earlier in the week, Trump floated sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine as leverage. Whether that was serious or just bluster is up for debate, but the message was clear — he’s still playing both sides. One thing he did emphasize on Truth Social was how eager Putin seemed to be about post-war trade. According to Trump, that was the real focus — not the war itself, but what comes next.This is the kind of move that makes sense if you assume Putin is trying to preempt whatever message Zelensky hopes to deliver later this week. It’s also a reminder that Trump sees all of this through the lens of dealmaking, not diplomacy. He’s playing to his base — the voters who see “getting a deal” as a win, regardless of what’s actually in it. But as past attempts have shown, any momentum gained by just talking with Putin tends to evaporate as soon as the bombs keep falling.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The Shutdown MathSenate Majority Leader John Thune hinted that the White House might walk back some of its shutdown-related moves if Democrats agree to vote for a continuing resolution. He didn’t lay out specifics, but the implication was that things like furloughs or aggressive reduction-in-force orders could be reconsidered. Thune said passing a full-year appropriations package would make more clawbacks unnecessary — but until then, it’s unclear what Democrats would get in return.The rumor mill is working overtime — and the story making the rounds is that Democrats will vote for the CR, then hold a vote on Obamacare subsidies separately. Chuck Schumer says that’s not the plan, but let’s be real: it sounds like a deal in the making. Everyone knows the play here. The question is how quickly the Democrats can make it look like they won.At the end of the day, this is all about messaging. Democrats want to go back to their base and say they got something out of this. And if a CR plus a later vote on subsidies is the path to that — well, they’ll probably take it. Everything else is just noise.John Bolton IndictedJohn Bolton’s been indicted. Eight counts of transmitting and ten counts of retaining national defense information. This case centers around his handling of classified documents tied to his book, which he apparently shared through personal email and notes. The FBI raided his home, and now it’s up to the courts.The Biden administration says politics aren’t involved, but Bolton’s been a vocal Trump critic, which puts this in awkward territory. It comes on the heels of indictments for James Comey and Letitia James — all of them known Trump opponents. In those cases, the Comey case seems flimsy, while the one against Letitia James has more substance. Meanwhile, the Bolton charges had been floating around since before Trump left office in 2021.Here’s where I land: this whole mess reflects the same double standard we’ve seen for years. People working with classified material always say the same thing — if they did what these folks are accused of, they’d be in jail. There has to be a better way to handle these documents. Until then, we’ll keep getting stories like this.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:04 - Interview with Tom Joseph00:22:23 - Russia-Ukraine00:24:43 - Shutdown00:26:21 - John Bolton00:28:26 - Interview with Ryan McBeth01:13:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We’ve officially entered the phase of the shutdown where things stop being polite and start getting real. Missed paychecks are happening this week for federal employees, and while everyone knows they’ll eventually get paid, it doesn’t matter. Missing a paycheck now still hurts. It gets gritty fast. Both parties are struggling to manage this moment, and honestly, neither of them is very good at what they’re trying to do.On the Democratic side, they’re bad at being the ones who stop the machine for a righteous cause. You can tell because half of them aren’t even taking credit for the cause they’re supposedly fighting for. The public explanation is that this shutdown is about Obamacare subsidies and funding for regional hospitals, but those subsidies don’t expire until the end of the year. That means this fight is more about symbolism than urgency. The Democrats are also trying to repeal parts of what Trump calls the “one big beautiful bill,” though they won’t say that directly. Instead, they’re focused on a message that doesn’t connect cleanly — and that’s showing.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Then there’s the filibuster angle. Democrats keep saying Republicans can end the shutdown by devolving the filibuster and voting the government open again. That’s dangerous thinking. Republicans don’t want to touch the filibuster because doing so would force them to start passing a lot more legislation — the kind Democrats could easily overturn later. I get the strategy. Democrats want the filibuster gone so Republicans have to own the bills they pass. Then they can campaign against them. But that’s a high-stakes game to play in the middle of a shutdown.Meanwhile, the Republicans aren’t handling this much better. They’re out of practice at playing defense on a shutdown. Their usual posture is that government is bloated anyway, so maybe turning it off isn’t the worst thing in the world. That might play well in theory, but when paychecks stop going out, people stop laughing. The White House hasn’t done much to apply pressure either. No press events. No imagery. No clear sense that anything’s different. To the average voter, it just feels like business as usual — and that’s not how you win a messaging battle.So where does that leave us? Probably in this standoff for a while. I’d bet on this dragging past Halloween, maybe into mid-November. The continuing resolution being floated now would keep funding through November 15, which would only buy about a month before we’re right back here again. The pattern is familiar. You stop one shutdown, swear never to do it again, and then do it again anyway.The most realistic off-ramp is a handful of Democratic senators breaking ranks and agreeing to a handshake deal — reopen the government now, vote on the Obamacare subsidies later. But so far, that hasn’t happened. Instead, we have Chuck Schumer saying every day of this shutdown is “better for Democrats.” That’s the kind of sound bite that will haunt you when paychecks are still missing and airports start slowing down.I thought this would be over already. I really did. A week ago, I said Democrats should have sold high — wrapped it up while they still had good poll numbers and claimed a moral victory. But they didn’t. They thought they had more to gain by holding the line. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re wrong. Either way, we’re all about to find out together.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:12 - Shutdown00:10:35 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:37:30 - Update00:37:59 - Maine00:44:40 - Ukraine00:48:01 - Argentina00:51:58 - Interview with Kirk Bado, con’t01:16:41 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe