S1: Following recording may or may not include instances of words being said that the FCC would find me for if their long arm could ever reach.
S2: It’s Wednesday, February 26, 2020 from Slate. It’s the gist. I’m Mike PESCA. The chaos in Charleston. The South Carolina Shout Fest. But will it be the face Palmetto State for Bloomberg after he was lost and aimless in Las Vegas? No normally destroy frontrunner Bernie Sanders, although he is likely to get fewer delegates out of South Carolina than Joe Biden is.
S3: Notice I didn’t say he will win or lose a state. And by avoiding that phraseology, I admit I surrender a sizzling yet misleading bit of drama.
S4: That is why I topped the pack of this show with all those pizzazz filled phrases. Just because I know there is going to be a huge letdown when I refused to inaccurately say win South Carolina or lose South Carolina or any state that awards delegates proportionally, which is to say all of them in the Democratic primary later in the show, I will do a fuller accounting of the arguments put forward in this debate. But let’s play politics. As I admit, I don’t know any more than you do or then conventional wisdom does or than the campaigns themselves do. And what they forecast is that Joe Biden probably will come out on top on Saturday, especially after Jim Clyburn endorsed him this afternoon. So it wasn’t a great debate for Bernie Sanders, especially because he took flak from all comers, but it wasn’t especially bad. That said, it was more watched than any debate this cycle other than the last one in Las Vegas. So maybe Bernie’s B-minus performance times 13 million viewers, plus South Carolina being the first state where he doesn’t get the most. Delegates are almost the most delegates in Iowa. He got 12 to booted you just 13. Maybe that all adds up to slow his roll. Then again, Bernie’s role is not so easily slowed. Let’s go on to Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren actually laid out a clear, understandable, cogent case against Bernie. It’s a case I agree with. Here it is.
S5: Getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted to help rein in Wall Street in 2008. We both got our chance. But I dug in. I fought the big banks. I built the coalitions and I won. Bernie and I both want to see universal health care. But Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get there, doesn’t show how we’re going it, get enough allies into it and doesn’t show enough about how we’re going to pay for it. I think I dug in.
S3: And then having put that out there in a calm, cool manner, she proceeded to turn every bit of her attention to Michael Bloomberg. And none whatsoever to Bernie ever again. She stopped articulating the case against Sanders. Now I know why she did this. It is where her passion lays. And it worked last time. It worked at least to raise money, but it didn’t work quite as well this time. For one, Bloomberg was better prepared, and for another, he realized that debates can be won on their own limitations. For example, some hard to explain statement from years ago. Don’t try to explain. Just deny it ever happened.
S5: At least I didn’t have a boss who said to me, kill it the way that Mayor Bloomberg never said that. I’ve said to one of them on Dragnet employees, people want a chance to hear. People want a chance to hear from the women. I never said that.
S6: I want to land more the record of she was a teacher in New York City. She would never have had that problem. We treated art teachers the right way and the unions will tell you exactly that.
S4: Yes. Perhaps you’ve not heard of the Michael Bloomberg forced sterilization of teacher program. Now, what he was saying is that New York City had good unions, which, by the way, were were Bloomberg’s bane of existence. And he once compared him to the NRA. No matter because he might not win the moral high ground with Warren, but he won that portion of the debate and she wasted her time trying to elevate her status by mostly ignoring the front runner. There was one other Warren exchange with Bloomberg or non exchange that I want to highlight.
S5: And here that is in 2016. He dumped twelve million dollars into the Pennsylvania Senate race. Dale Reelect, an anti-choice right wing Republican senator. And I just want to say the woman challenger was terrific. She lost by a single point in 2012. He scooped and to try to defend another Republican senator against a woman challenger. That was me. It didn’t work, but he tried hard.
S4: So, by the way, that explains to some extent why Warren was so focused on the guy who is a distant second or third in most national polls. Payback. But Bloomberg, for his part, never even bothered to explain why he donated to Pat Toomey. That’s the Pennsylvania senator, or Scott Brown, who is Warren’s Republican opponent. But the ads are happens to be a good one. Guns. Gun policy strategy in stamping out gun crime in America. See, Toomey supported background checks and Brown opposed concealed carry reciprocity. Right? That’s Arkansas passes a law and now New York has to follow it and someone can walk around with their gun tucked into their waistband. The theory is that if you want to counter the NRA, you can’t do it by only giving money to Democrats. You have to support everyone who favors gun control. You have to put out the message that you can rebut the NRA and not have empty coffers come election time. That’d be extremely fair. Guns weren’t maybe the only reason why the billionaire Bloomberg opposed the candidacy of one of Wall Street’s biggest critics, Elizabeth Warren. But it was at least worth articulating, and Bloomberg didn’t. That said, his debate was fine. It had missed opportunities and a couple bad clunkers. But it wasn’t last week’s debate in which he brought gasoline and charcoal to his own bonfire. These weren’t the only parts of the debate that bear scrutiny. And luckily for that, I have an institution known as the shpiel. Stay tuned. But first, political hobby ism is the idea that while Americans say they’re interested in politics as civic duty, they’re really interested in politics as entertainment. Taking in political content serves the viewers or podcast listeners emotional needs, but not the country’s policy needs. Like people who identify as spiritual but not religious or sports fans who think the Astros care about them. Political hobbyists are kidding themselves when it comes to their impact on elections. This is the theory of Tufts political science professor Ayten Hirsch. He is here now to discuss his book, Politics is for Power How to Move Beyond Political Hobby ISM, Take Action and Make Real Change.
S1: I have a friend who can tell you what’s the bellwether county in Arizona so that, you know, on election day where that state may be headed. Who can tell you which of the suburbs of Philadelphia are key for the national election? Who could tell you where the Mahoning Valley in Ohio is leaning this time around? But if you ask him, that’s great. Where’s your local polling place? He would say, oh, I think they changed it. Probably a gym. He is typical. It’s not me. I’m not the friend. He is typical of the phenomenon that Eton Hersh writes about in his new book. Politics is for Power How to Move Beyond Political Hobby ISM, Take Action and Make Real Change. And that phenomenon is there in the subtitle Hobbie ISM A Ton Hersh is a professor at Tufts and is the author. His last book was Hacking the Election, which I won’t ask him about, too. Hello, Tom. Hello. I’m in. Thanks for having me. So this book posits power is a good title, but it’s not really as descriptive as something like political hobby ism is a waste of time. Now, that wouldn’t have sold as many books, but that is the main gist of the book. You tell affirming stories of people who really get into politics and don’t care so much about signalling on Facebook. But it is a scathing critique of the phenomenon of people who are just mainlining MSNBC and telling themselves they’re doing something in terms of civics.
S7: That’s right. By the way, that titled Politics is Power, the power part actually puts some people off. Huh? Yeah, hobbyist stuff like power. I don’t know if I want. That’s a little scary. I just want to kind of do something for my couch that’s not going to bother anybody. And like.
S1: Yeah, but the thing they want not to bother anybody is sometimes, you know, scathing. Aiming critiques on Twitter or Facebook. Yeah, they’re off to face those people that’s here, so lobbyism, you look at the history of it and you do. I think rightly ask, well, is it even worse than before? Has it become worse than it ever was? People have always been into politics and people have always been news junkies. So why and what facts do you point to that would indicate it’s gotten worse? lobbyism.
S7: OK, so first of all, it just a number of people who say they’re interested in politics. We’re at an all time high for that. The national election studies, this big survey has been going since the 50s. It always asks how interested you are in elections. So far they haven’t done the 20/20 study yet, obviously, but 2016 was the peak before 2016. No one’s been as interested in politics as in just the election. And yet, if you look at measures of volunteer engagement is below historical averages. Yeah.
S4: So. So in 2016, 94 percent of people volunteered for a political race in 1964 with 17 percent.
S7: Yeah, by the way, 4 percent is one who said they did. Holly. Oh yeah.
S4: Two thirds them are like yeah that does attending a rally. Does that count as something other than hobby ism?
S7: No. The 4 percent is like attending a meeting volunteer for a candidate, that kind of stuff. It’s very hard to measure the stuff because actually people do lie frequently about this. But you know, even if you just ask people you know, you ask the daily news consumers today, are they members of organizations? Most say zero. Have they attended a meeting? Most say zero in the last year. Have they worked with others to solve some community problem? Most say zeros. And these are the people who are following the news the most. You know, we have this phenomenon hasn’t grown over time. Well, it looks like we’re this ratio of kind of interest, emotional intellectual engagement to real engagement is definitely like way out of whack compared to the past. And then there’s, you know, obviously some rationales for why that’s happened. The most obvious is technology. Like it’s easier than ever to feel that connection to politics without leaving your couch.
S1: So you also interrogate. Okay, academic term, the idea because there is this idea. All right. Maybe being active online is a gateway to actual activism. And you don’t just argue. I don’t think that’s true. There’s some data to back it up. So what? I had to look into that.
S7: Yeah. So first of all, I mean, it’s not true for most people. You know, in some ways the book goes back and forth between analytical view and then this, you know, there’s like a how to in the title. And I want each person to kind of reflect as a reader, like, are they someone for whom slacktivism or hobby ism is a gateway or isn’t it? So, you know, you take something like the women’s march, which is this very big march. And for some small group of people, this was a real gateway into real organizing. They met people. They got signed up for something. But for the vast majority of people, it wasn’t right. It was it. That was in some ways the end instead of the means to an end. And that’s end versus means when as easily to think about that. So for Hobbie ism, for hobbyists, the emotional kind of catharsis you get out of online engagement or participating in rally, that is the goal. That’s that’s why you’re doing it.
S3: To feel that connection might not know it’s a goal. You might not tell yourself that’s a goal, but that’s the goal, because once you’re satiated and once those particular brand of endorphins kick in, you’re fine and you don’t need to take the next step.
S7: That’s right. But in real kind of political activity, that’s, you know, people who are working with in groups with strategies and goals influence politics. They think about emotion differently. They think about it as a means like righteous anger gets people in a room so they can do something else. So, you know, it’s the first step. And I think what’s happening in hobby ism today is that it’s just the first the first EP is the last up.
S8: Right. So one of the distinctions you make is why is it gambling or drinking a hobby? Why is why are vices not a hobby? And the answer is what?
S7: Well, generally, they’re not like socially sanctioned things. Like we kind of are embarrassed about those things. And so that’s why.
S8: So I was thinking about this because what you do to make something like drinking a hobby is you add some measure of sophistication or knowledge. Right. You add some. Oh, I’m not a drunkard. I’m a beer aficionados. Right. I whiskey kind of. So exactly. I’m a connoisseur.
S4: So the version of that in politics, right. To turn it into a hobby is the person who is watching all of this, MSNBC and doesn’t realize they’re engaged in a hobby. I mean, it’s essentially a vice is my point. But you’ve injected the sheen of sophistication.
S8: Oh, I’m so involved in the details of the Mueller investigation. Therefore, it’s an acceptable hobby, but it really is not that much more than a vice.
S7: I mean, I think, you know, I want to be a little bit careful because I think it comes from a very positive place in people’s hearts. They care about politics. That’s why they’re paying attention, because they they worry things are going wrong. But you’re right that eventually it often becomes for people like let me do a deep dive into the rules of the Iowa caucuses. And you’re like, oh, but that’s you know, is that really channeling the energy that you have and the care that you have to something productive? You know, I think obviously there’s a lot of media that’s channeling our energy that way towards the kind of the creating a drama or a sports out of politics. But. It’s different than than drinking in that sense that I think people come from it from a good and civic place.
S8: If you’re and you’ve got to realize if you’re not doing it, if the individual is not doing the organizing the KKK as they’re doing opioid outreach.
S7: Yeah, that’s right. So, I mean, on the political extremes, both in this country, in other countries, we see groups who figure out a way to build power. And it’s not what you might think. They’re not just selling ideology. You know, I used the example that you just gave if the KKK in the book, because the KKK is not going around just saying we’re white supremacists, come join us. They’re saying, hey, do you have an opioid problem? I have an addiction problem. We’re here to help you. How can we help you? And when people, I think hear that story, they have this like, oh, man, they have this moment like, oh, I can’t believe they’re doing that. They actually really have a strategy.
S8: Yeah. Now, people might say that sounds good. And I don’t want to think of myself as a hobbyist. This is a chance for you to address the defensive hobbyist who might be denying that they’re a hobbyist. But listen, if I want to get involved in politics, I live in a blue state. I live in a or I live in a red state. Most likely I live in a blue state. I know exactly how the vote is going or there’s essentially a machine.
S4: There’s no way I’m going to be able to puncture the, you know, in New York here in the Cuomo machine for governor. Is there really a point is this is my time really well spent trying to canvass for the Democratic Party in Brooklyn? They’re gonna win it anyway.
S7: So there’s a couple of things. First of all, if you look at issues, a lot of Democrats say we’ll say like they’re big issues are the environment or they’ll say it like it’s racial equality, things like that. There are a heck of a lot of things you could do on those issues in your community about which your neighbors and you will disagree. And I mean, I think this is one thing that you notice whenever you kind of get engaged in politics at a local level, it’s like there might be a neighbor. That’s all Democrats are all Republicans, but not any one issue. There’s a whole lot of disagreement when it comes to like, you know, the actual trade offs between, say, home values and economic development versus the environment. You know, when those things are actually real, then there’s some convincing to do. So, you know, if you actually care about those values, not in just a way that’s like so easy to say. You I want some giant national international change, but I actually wanna do something myself. Then you’re buying into the fact that politics is messy and that people disagree with one another. The other thing I’ll say is that I have some work with political science colleague Bernard Fraga, where we kind of measured competitiveness in elections and within about four election cycles, almost everywhere in the country, almost everyone, the country has a D versus R Democrat, first Republican close election. In the book, I talk about this example in Massachusetts where we have had close gubernatorial elections. We now have a very popular Republican governor and a Democratic state. We had not that long ago, Scott Brown or Republican senator, win this really critical election in a special election for Senate. So, you know, you go into the bluest and then lose to a woman named Elizabeth Warren. That’s right. Obviously, Alabama just had a massive upset of an election not that long ago. Actually, every state has these things. And so it might not be tomorrow, but the whole point of building political power is to make it durable. And, you know, in ways that we’re engaging, like some people say, like I can’t I can’t focus on anything beyond 2020 or anything beyond the primary. And a few months ago, they would say, I can’t think of anything but the impeachment trial before that, anything but the Mueller report. And you, of course, if you just live your life like one crisis moments the other, then, yeah, you’re going to not be able to do very much of anything.
S8: Is it easier to become active and involved if you are on the more progressive liberal side of things, if you’re a Democrat or the more Tea Party conservative right wing side of things? Is it harder for a moderate to be active and organize in that direction?
S7: Well, I mean, I think that a few things. First of all, the political parties, because of how they’ve transformed the last few years, it feels more comfortable to be in those spaces sometimes if you do have extreme views. Beyond that, I think that if you have those extreme views, what what’s happening is you really care a lot. You’re saying like like politics is so far from where it needs to be. We have a lot of work to do.
S8: Well, let me interrupt you by talking a little bit about what’s going on right now. There are a lot of people collectively who prefer a moderate or centrist candidate. You add them all up. It’s more than the people who are into Bernie right now. But Bernie, for a lot of reasons, is leaning leading in the field.
S4: But it also seems to me that if you’re talking about energy and if you’re talking about activism, if you’re talking about going out there and campaigning for some one, everything about Bernie lead you to believe, oh, I understand what you do as an activist to support that mindset. I’m not sure it’s as easy for someone who generally believes in the whole group of moderates. So what do I do as an activist to not just support those specific campaigns, but that. Mindset. What do I do to advance those values and champion them?
S7: Yeah. So I think that mindset comes from forgetting honestly what politics is all about. I mean, in the book I talk about how a lot of people have in their heads have politics in one sort of section of their head and community service, service in another bucket. And those things are not supposed to go together. Politics is about Democrats fighting Republicans. And service is about like building community. You know, they might be on the PTA or something. And those things don’t merge. But in fact, in all real politics outside of Harvey ism, those things are kind of one and the same. That is, you serve your community through community and Veidt involvement by getting to know your neighbors, by doing favors for people. And that’s also how you build political power. So, you know, I don’t think it’s complicated, for example, for someone who is involved in, say, school issues. You know, they’re on the PTA and they say, okay, we also need to get this bond voted for. And so. Okay. There’s a real merging of making their schools better and electioneering. And that kind of is the leap that we have to make collectively in politics, particularly for these moderates who think about politics as polarized fighting and service as something that they’re more comfortable doing. The way to resolve it is actually politics should be more like service.
S4: Ayten Hersh is the author of Politics is for Power How to Move Beyond Political Hobbie ISM, Take Action and Make Real Change. It was a pleasure, Professor Hersh. Thanks for having me.
S3: And now the schpiel, the median life expectancy of the candidates on the stage last night is one week which sounds desperate until you realize the average lifespan of the American male is 76 years and the three leading candidates, Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg all exceed that. So they’re playing with House money people. Bloomberg and Sanders are both 78. Biden is 77. Now, Biden had a fine night, but he did say some weird things like this exchange with Amy Klobuchar, 47, along with he didn’t write that.
S9: I wrote that. I wrote The Violence Against Women Act like you did that out of the hands of people who usually have it whack check. Well, let’s look at the fact check this. The only thing that the boyfriend loophole wasn’t is was not covered. I couldn’t get that covered. You, in fact, when you were as a senator, tried to get it covered. And Mitch McConnell is holding up on his desk right now and we’re gonna lose the Violence Against Women Act across the board.
S3: Add up that interruption. And what Biden was saying was not actually I wrote that bill, but I wrote that loophole. If only keeping guns out of the hands of angry husbands was the only thing covered. Guess who wasn’t covered? Boyfriends. And guess when you call it when something is not covered in a bill, it is a loophole. So he wrote the boyfriend loophole.
S10: Biden also said this walking dishes. Here’s Mother Emanuel Church. Nine people shot dead by a white supremacist. Bernie voted five times against the Brady Bill and wanted a waiting period and waited and waited a waiting period of twelve hours. I’m not saying he’s responsible for the nine deaths, but that man would not been able to get that weapon with a waiting period had been what I suggest. Until you are cleared.
S4: So Bernie voted against the Brady Bill or early versions of the Brady Bill. That is true. But he also voted for later versions of the Brady Bill. The bill that Sanders did vote for mandated a three day period to do background checks before you issue a gun to someone who is buying one. And authorities did the checks in the South Carolina purchase. They were. It was the FBI, because South Carolina is one of those states that won’t do the checks itself, makes the FBI do it. And the FBI screwed up. This is documented. The FBI reported the wrong office of one of the places where the South Carolina shooter was arrested and it fitted all gone properly. He would have been denied his guns. But just as we can’t know what he would have done if there were a 10 day waiting period rather than a three day waiting period. We have to be fair and say even with a 10 day waiting period. We don’t know that the FBI would have caught the mistake or that the shooter wouldn’t have gotten his guns in some other way. So all of that that critique and it’s a fair critique. And Hillary Clinton made it and all the fact checking sites rated it true or mostly true. But what it falls into is, I would say, highlighting a flaw or imperfection in Sanders record. There are different flavors of floor and all the candidates have him. Biden favored some forms of segregation in the 70s, and Warren was a Republican and clobbered Cha let one prosecution go astray in Hennepin County and Bloomberg oversaw stop and frisk and but a judge has a smug goddamn face that’s on Mayor Bill de Blasio, I’m quoting there. And of course, Tom Stier, he took up all that time in the debate stage for no good goddamn reason. So what I’m saying is they’ve all got flaws. And the the point isn’t that some flaws are worse than others because the mistakes were worse than others. I mean, one bad prosecution at a club, H.R. doesn’t at all compare to hundreds of thousands of black and Latino kids stopped and frisked in New York vs. Bloomberg. But the question is, how disqualifying are they not based on the enormity of the flaw. But based on how likely that flaw will be revisiting itself as the candidate or if the candidate were to assume the office of the presidency. I think a lot of Democrats look at Bloomberg and say, well, that’s exactly what the flaw does. It is disqualifying because it shows the kind of policies he would favor. A lot of Democrats also look at Bloomberg and say his flaw is he thinks big business in search of profit maximal isation is still a productive thing in America. Then again, there are a lot of other potential voters who say, well, I kind of agree with that to an extent, too. And maybe they also look at his proposed tax plan and say, all right, well, let’s put whatever we think his policy towards big business, let’s put that aside. The tax plan is very, very progressive. Maybe voters do the same with Sanders and they say, well, he once opposed the strongest gun control legislation available. So therefore, he’ll be weak on guns. I don’t really think anyone does that. So I think the reason why the critique of Sanders was valid but not disqualifying. Isn’t that it wasn’t so bad. It’s just that it will not revisit itself in any way in the in terms of the policy that Sanders will pursue as president. Maybe they look at club H.R.. Voting for Trump judges and they say, oh, here’s someone who, when she gets into office, will vote for people or her version of Brett Kavanaugh. But I think very, very few people think this is the case. So when you criticize Klobuchar for being the senator who’s running, who voted for the most Trump judges fact check. True. You’re highlighting a flaw and it’s a fair critique. But there. It doesn’t really have a bearing on what she’ll do as president because there are a couple kinds of record vetting and background checks. They’re the ones that highlight imperfections. But those imperfections are not indicative of future actions. And then there are ones that raise legitimate concerns that demonstrate where the candidates really stand and the ones that make you wonder about the character of the candidate. Maybe the thing the candidate did is so personally odious that you could never vote for the candidate. Maybe that’s Bloomberg and women in the workplace or Bloomberg and stop and frisk and maybe. And this is the last category. There’s the flaw. That’s not indicative of how the candidate will govern on that issue. But it’s such a 180 where there are so many examples of that one flaw or many flaws or imperfections not being indicative of where the candidate is. Now, you begin to wonder about the candidate’s honesty or the candidate’s actual conviction or if the candidate is a good person. This all leads me to Joe Biden, septuagenarian Barack friend. But increasingly, Gabby Hayes type figure in his complaint to Major Garrett in a post-debate interview on CBS. He said this of Bernie Sanders and the vetting.
S11: He’s been getting screwed only eight to five. No one knows. He voted against the Brady Bill five times eight to five. No one knows he voted. He supported the gun lobby.
S3: Mr. Vice President, lay you eight to five. I thought I knew all the gambling jargon. I understand what it means. Laying eight to five means you bet 80. And then you pocket 130, meaning a profit of $50. But it’s really saying is I think there’s a sixty one and a half percent chance that people don’t know this. That’s what eight to five is a 61 percent chance. If this is an idiom, I am unaware of the idiom, but a thought struck me. Biden and Bernie are different types of old people. Bernie has the old man affect. Biden has the old man vocab. It’s a little like Grandpa Simpson and Mr. Burns, the two classic old people on The Simpsons. Bernie is a little like Grandpa Simpson. Now there are differences. Grandpa Simpson isn’t a rabble rouser like Bernie is. In fact, Grandpa Simpson is, if anything, rabble resistant.
S12: It wasn’t done yet. I’m just saying we could blow all our money on a stupid little street, but.
S3: I very don’t like it, but Grandpa Simpson is an old person whose age Adonis is really familiar. He has aged in a familiar way. His personality is easily recognizable as one way that we know an old person acts. Joe Biden, on the other hand, says words that are unrecognizable because they are the words an old person says.
S4: And that’s like how Mr Burns says Ahoy ahoy! Or compares people today to stars of the silent screen or ballplayers from the dead ball era or says things like this. You’re the brain band of a stage coach duty, which is the cousin of lying dog faced pony soldier again. Biden says words from a bygone era. Sanders simply acts as if he’s spent the last 77 years not being listened to. Damn it. Bloomberg also has some Mr. Burns, to whom, of course, he’s a billionaire. Steven Miller. Miller, by the way, is pretty, Mr. Burns, but JEJ. He’s like Martin Prince begging for more homework. Elizabeth Warren, she’s all Lisa Simpson, grade super student who doesn’t understand why no one gets it. Amy Klobuchar is a little bit of Marge Simpson trying to understand if the kids today still say cool and Donald Trump is ever so clearly. Homer Simpson, a low brow, overweight dunderhead who never faces the consequences of his action. How do we get to The Simpsons? Because where I really want to get to is my Muppet theory of the race. Here goes in 2020. All argument in nuance has been reduced to the most easily recognizable iconography. Donald Trump is the most iconographic person ever to inhabit the presidency. Maybe Taft. Donald Trump is a crude, simple figure who’s easy to draw and can be conveyed with a couple strong lines in simple colors a soup of yellow, a field of orange, a lumpy circle. Now, if you were to cast all politicians in felt Donald Trump the most easily translatable into a Muppet. As for the Democrats, it’s definitely Bernie. Bernie is the easiest to monetize. White hair, stooped, finger waving. The other candidates, they’re just a muppet who stocked the background for the group scenes. We’ve seen them according to Wikipedia. They are the whatnots. The whatnots or muppet extras designed with blank heads and customizable faces, clothes and hair that can be customized for different roles. So kilobyte Cha might have the most sane policy on war and health care, plus a proven track record of Midwestern. Yeah. It doesn’t matter. It’s 20-20. You got to answer what muppet are you? She’s just a what-not muppet. And that’s not muppet enough for the moment. Sadly, we now have the most easily discernible, digestible, mean, muppet slash malevolent cartoon character ever in the White House. And it looks like the Democrats are going to have to fight this one out mano a mano. Muppet, a muppet and no pops day.
S13: No. Nope. It’s pretty clear. It’s pretty clear. Not puppet Muppet. And if the felt fits.
S4: And that’s it for today’s show, Pricella. Lobby is the just associate producer. She says five will get you 10 that Maggie’s back in town. Daniel Schrader, just producer, isn’t a Real Housewife hobbyist. He’s a real housewife. I tend to Terrian. The gist, I say Biden’s polling to an inside straight, hoping his queens will hold up given its kicker. Trouble with you for an eight. The hard way on the calm. What I’m saying is, yes, it’s still possible to prove. Deborah DIPIERRO, and thanks for listening.