 and welcome to Think Tech Hawaii on Thursday, November 4th, 2021. You are watching a weekly discussion show titled Politics for the People. I am your show host, Stephanie Stulldahlton. Today's top topic is to examine the reveal of the off-year Democrats electoral outcomes. And those are the ones that occurred, including California's recall of their governor, the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and of course the election of a new New York City mayor. We know now more about Democratic prospects for the midterms, which the alarm is on for the one-year event. So we have one year to get ready for that. So to discuss what it is that must be done and where we are and what the state is currently is, we have show guests here to discuss and analyze these matters. Welcome, Jay Fidel and also Tim Abuchalla. All right, thank you so much for being here and being ready to take it on. Okay, so first question today is, Jay, how do you characterize or what do you think the yield is of the 2021 elections, these off-year elections or various elections? What is that yield for the Dems this year? Let's take a look at them. What is it? Is it good, bad, ugly prospects are unpromising or what have? Well, your title of the show is unpromising and I agree with that, unpromising. You know, if people have already forgotten what it was like under Trump, they have. I guess it doesn't bother me that the base continues to, you know, vote for his candidates and Republican candidates who like him and follow him and do his bidding. What bothers me is that there are Democrats who are moving over into the Republican camp. That bothers me and they have forgotten. They have forgotten what happened in the four years that Trump was in office. They have forgotten about the big lie. They have forgotten about the insurrection. They have forgotten about the madness and instead they, you know, apparently they don't like how Joe Biden has been doing and they make their decision, you know, on what happened yesterday with Joe Biden, rather than what happened over the four years plus Trump was doing his thing. So it's unpromising because you can see a shift and the probability is that the shift will continue in the next, you know, few months toward 2022 and 2024. And I'm sad to see it. I think it's a flaw in the way the public thinks about this sort of thing. But there you have it. And by the end of the day, it tells us there's a fair chance that the Republicans will take Congress and the presidency. I'm sick to think about it. I'm going to have to go get a glass of water right now. You also asked, I think Tim will have a lot of ideas about this is what can be done. Because, you know, the Democrats are sad, they're disappointed, but more than that, they're worried, they're anxious. All the press is reporting that I think that's true. So they have to get together, you know, they've been blundering over the past few months, both in Congress and out. And somebody has to galvanize them. I like to see Joe Biden do that. But he hasn't been really good at galvanizing them over the past few months. So query what happens now, it really depends on whether somebody can bring them together. All right, let's take a look. That's a little more granular. Okay. California Governor recall turned out to be an entirely useless expenditure of gajillion millions of dollars on that election. Okay, Democrats want no doubt about it in rights and with a lack of tea. All right, what happens next? We've got the Virginia governor and that loss was somewhat self inflicted. Okay, and also according to a late report on the cable news, there is always the loss of the governor when in Virginia and New Jersey in the first year, first at year after election of a president. And for 30 years, Virginia has lost that has actually lost that election of governor since presidents 30 years ago every time. And but this one was very, very close. But the good news is that the New Jersey governor's race was not lost for the first time in 30 years. Okay, so then we've got, of course, got our New York City mayor. But so I wanted to ask Tim to consider those facts. Before he starts, I want to make another proposal for a bet with Tim. No more large size pizza, an additional large size pizza. No, I'm losing as it is, no more bets, but I'm not having lost. I'm in proposal. Maybe you like this bet. My bet is that Murphy will be treated as the winner in New Jersey, but the Republicans will file legal actions to unseat him. That's my my bet on it. I think you'd win that bet because I think law kicks in if it's so close. And I forget what the margin is. There's an automatic recount and examination at 1% I think that I don't know at 1% spread. Okay, so then by by by definition, you would win that bet. And I would be fooled to take it. However, if it gets beyond the 1%, then yeah, I'll take it because he's going to win and they won't be able to challenge. Well, you got it. You got it. You heard it on Think Tech Hawaii. We have a bet for a big pizza on that. I'll lose again. Can I address one thing you said, Stephanie? I want to say that for you and Jay, on the recount, it is allowable in any way, but they have to pay for it. Okay, so the candidate has to pay for it who wants it. So that depends on who's got it. So there you go, Mr. Fidel. No, no, I'm not talking about recounts. I'm talking about a lawsuit based on some improprieties in voting just the same has happened has happened. No, I wouldn't take that bet. I think you're right. Oh, okay. Well, I guess I have to save myself again. Yeah. Yeah. And I save myself a big pizza. Okay, thank you. Why don't you answer Stephanie's question now? Yeah. Okay, so well, before I do, I want to address a comment she made. And that was McCullough's self-infliction on his loss. Exactly. Okay, thank you, Tim. Yes, go ahead. And if I may, you know, I'm sorry, but we see it time and time again. And I'm really was reminded of the Hillary Clinton campaign against Donald Trump. It's always easier to say what you're against versus what you're for. And that's a fundamental flaw in politics. And then when you're running for office, if if McCullough said, this is what I'm for. And these specific things that are bread and butter issues at the table of each, each person in Virginia, I bet he could have won. But what did he do? He tried the old Clinton approach of tying his opponent to Donald Trump. And again, it's not what I'm for, but it's what I'm against and what he is, you know, tied to. And that's a bad strategy for election and for winning an election. And I think that's had a big part of it. And then, of course, he shot his mouth, mouth off about how parents are not really involved in what their children learn in school. And that was a gap that he could not run. It's not what you say. It's what they heard. And not only what they heard, but what they weren't going to forget. So he tied himself into it. And the result is he lost by a couple, couple points. Yeah, he did, he did self-inslect. And, and certainly we are, we are concerned because, as Jay says, real or imagined or accepted. I mean, I'm, I'm a four year, five year Virginia teacher. Okay. There is none of this going on there. And over on cable and on the media, it's all says all the time in the sentences. The Virginia does not teach critical race. Well, okay, perfect. And why did McCullough say, name one school, high school, name one junior high school, name an elementary, name a community college where this is a core structure that's currently being taught in this state. But you know what, he didn't do that. They're not even doing it in college. It's okay. Yeah. So here's again, the Democrats not being able to listen effectively to what their opponents saying about them, not able to paint around the definitions they're being painted into, and not refuting and standing up in debate to say, why are you lying? Why are you taking mis, half truths, non-truths, misinformation, and treating it to the public that it's truth, because it's not, but the Democrats don't know how to do that because it's beneath them. What is it? Is it that or what is it? Because defund the police had a life. Perfect example. Perfect example. Go on without anybody putting the hammer down on that. And they just let it, once you're defined by your opponent, it's so much harder to get out of the definition. So you have to attack the definition, right? The first time you hear it or the second time you hear it, you have to get on it and get on it quick, because as you are defined, so you shall be thought of. Very good point. And this all emanated from the West Coast, right? Northwest Coast there. So that was where something should have happened because right then it was in a category that might have been assailed and dismissible, but no, and they let it live. So the same thing with, so McAuliffe's loss is questionable. I mean, if he hadn't made those mistakes anyway, it's done and he lost. He lost the election. But it's a lesson for Democrats moving forward as we have one year till the midterms is to learn the lessons of standing up for your principles, what you're going to get done, and not be painted in a corner by the Republicans. And they can do part of it, but they're not doing all of it. And they really do have to focus on not being defined as something they're not. I want to make another proposal, by the way, also for a large-sized pizza. I can't eat on a pizza. Getting a little leery of these bets. I will bet you that the Democrats will not contest that election. They will not file any lawsuits. They will not claim improprieties or voting irregularities of any kind. That's my position. And I'll give you odds on that. Are you talking about the midterm? I'm talking about Virginia. No, they're not going to do it because, you know, I'm sorry, but the Democrats are playing as if it was 1975 and an election's election and when you lose, you lose graciously. To that point, I agree that you don't stoop to their level of being poor sore losers and have to contest every race. My God, they're contesting states that they won in. They won by 20 points, 30 points in some of these states, and they want to recount from the 2020 election. Right. And the thing is with the 2020 election, it is only Trump, the ex-president, who lost. Most of the other people, I guess I shouldn't say only they're probably worse some reps. No, I'm talking about the states he won in. They want to recount. No, he's going because he's, yes, he's gotten off the rocker here. Okay. But Paul Kruthman has said something on one of the cable shows. I think it was Ari Meltzer, but he says in light of your comments that if you're not terrified of America to come in four or five years, you just don't get it because he says exactly Jay's point that the enablers of evil people are in control in both parties now. And the callers, his terms in the GOP have gone full authoritarian because people, and it works because people will take the path of least resistance. He sees that people will go along with this in order not to be bothered by it. And he, he sees this is the case in both parties. So is that something that is Paul Kruthman reflecting what you're seeing out there, Tim? Yeah. Yes, exactly. And it's, I call it complacency. I call it wishful thinking. I call it things will work out for the best or optimistic thinking. And again, when you're in a battle, don't wishful think, you don't fight. And this is a battle and it starts today. You can't just say, well, we'll get, we'll worry about the midterms when it comes. No, the midterms are going on right now. It happened on election night. It happened before election night. And that is, you know, the strategy should the Democrats be, let's just not, you know, lamb based Donald Trump and tie everyone to Donald Trump. Let's tell the voters, even Republican voters that might vote for us, of what we're going to do to improve their lives and how we're going to address the problems that they perceive as a real and ever present problem in their lives and fix things, be a party of solutions, not finger pointing at Donald Trump and hoping that wins the day for you because it won't, it won't win. All right. So shifting the point of view, let's take another look at the Virginia gubernatorial race that the Democrats lost. What is it that is revealed in that race that may show or does show that there is a path to win in the air of the influence of, you know, who the ex-president? What is there? Did we see that there was a path before, but now this man who won it, he found a path through that got a win in spite of everything, and he managed to handle the ex-presidents participation, which didn't, which he toned down from his, you know, race, his shouting and bullying to very little participation in the campaign conversation. So what do you think about what happened there? What did young young can show us? Is it a waning influence? The question is really, is it a waning influence of Trump even for the Republicans to win? Is he, is he not a factor as strongly as he has been? James, this is for you, I think. No, I was hoping you would take that. I was hoping you take it. I want to add this based on the conversation so far. You know, this, this isn't a war that's starting today. This is a war that started a long time ago. And I think it's like a tipping point kind of thing. Because once you get in your bubble, you're likely to stay in your bubble. The remarkable thing is when people cross over from bubble to bubble, you know, and that is remarkable in, in the state of Virginia, because some people crossed over from Democrat to Republican. That's extraordinary in our world, but most of them don't. Most of them stay where they are. But here's the point. If they stay where they are, and they keep hearing this, this, the litany of this rhetoric all day long, and the criticisms and the anger, what happens is they get fatigued. They get fatigued and they're not as likely to make an effort or even write a check. They're tired of this. And I think that's probably more the case in the Democrat side of things. I'm tired of getting 500 emails a day, all asking for money and not really adding anything to the public conversation about it. And they're written so badly and they're repeated and they're colorful. I see color, you know, delete. And so I think that's, you know, more and more. You see these really beautiful HTML, you know, multicolor ads, but they're going nowhere and they make people tired. I almost think that Vladimir Putin is sending me them, or at least some of them, to get me discouraged and tired. So this fatigue is a thing that plays and I think we have to account for that. The United States is really tired of this business. The other thing is, the other thing going forward, I think that what we can learn from Junkin is that, you know, you win these days not by embracing Trump or repeating Trump's lingo, but by sending dog whistles that, yeah, in a crunch, you know, Trump has some good points. And you're not rejecting him. You're not necessarily, you're certainly not criticizing him. You're not extolling his virtue, but you're leaving open the possibility that later on you will support him. And that's enough. And that not only brings in the Republicans, because your adversary, your Democratic adversary, not going to say any of that, but it brings in some Democrats who, you know, may be a little bit open to following what you're saying. It's not so bad. I can't remember the bad things he did in those four years, because I have him. I have political amnesia. I can't remember those things, right? Then I'm into fatigue and I'm up for a change now. And maybe Trump offers things that are better than Biden because he seems to be stumbling on so many issues. So I think Junkin teaches us you can be a Trumper, but you don't have to shout it to the rooftop. All you have to do, as you said, Stephanie, what I have to do is show that you're, you know, you're not really adverse to him. And some things are okay that he did. And you have other issues that you're not going to engage in criticism here. You're going to try to come up with some kind of positive statement of policy. He had good advice. He had good advice better than his adversary in terms of what to say and how to cast it to the populace, to the electorate in Virginia. And I think what we can learn is that we're going to see other candidates who do the same thing as Junkin around the country. And in the congressional elections in 2022, they're going to be hard to figure out. You have to look twice. You have to look at their voting record from before. You have to see all the things they've done. Some of them will be hard to figure out. Well, Jay, a question is why are inexperienced, no-nothing people like Junkin, so apt to win in Republican politics? I mean, what do we have here? We have an equity. This is a financial manager. He hasn't been in the schools. He hasn't done any policy. Because it doesn't matter, Stephanie. You know that what did I see in yesterday's paper? Seven people who were in the insurrection, no question about it, are running for office in the United States in this election, coming this election. Seven of them who were insurrection. It's a new approach. You run for insurrection. I mean, you're running the insurrection. And then you run for office. I don't think that people, because a lot of people don't care that they have no experience or even bad experience. They don't care. What counts is the rhetoric during the campaign. And that's what we learned from Junkin. It's the rhetoric during the campaign. And as Tim said, once you establish your identity in the campaign and you define your adversary's, your opponent's identity in the campaign, then the bubbles start working. So it's very important to define that carefully on every issue. I think a lot of people who run for office don't know that, but the Republicans seem to know it. And they also know to answer your question, it doesn't matter what I did before. It's what I say now. Well, I am appalled at that as a citizen, that people are not called out for their credentials and their match to the position of authority and service that they're running for. Well, how does this compute? You send somebody? Well, it computes as a dog whistle. To an extent, I go to the trouble and I find out that the federal was involved in the insurrection. That may be a positive for a lot of people. It's a dog whistle message. You're falling into that old Sarah Palin thing. I represent Joe's six pack and you represent the elitists that really are out of touch with the American people. And so by extolling your credentials, you're playing in the Republicans hands of elitism. And that's something that Democrats don't know how to defend against, and they didn't do it in 2020 for sure. And, you know, that goes on. I agree. I agree. Exactly. I agree with that. It's exactly fine. And so you fall into the other guy's definition. That's why the Republicans have got to step up to coming up with dealing with these issues and this language and the lexicon and why this doesn't make sense. I got to tell you, I remember a lot of Democrats that really detested Donald Trump, his words, his actions, his demeanor, his personality, but they liked some of the things he was saying about get tough with China, get tough on immigration and the border control, get tough on, you know, preserving Second Amendment rights. Those were moderate Democrats, conservative Democrats that liked that. What they did is they rejected Donald Trump because of his aberrant behavior and his, you know, his narcissism and his horrible ways of implementing policy. But the policy itself initially was really quite attractive for some Democrats. And all the Republicans have to do is hit those wedge issues and communicate them in non-offensive ways. And more importantly, say, we're compassionate Republicans, we'll implement them in compassionate ways. And by gosh, you'll get Democrats to go over that side. Yeah. And it's really a matter of doing it subtly, as you said. All you have to do is suggest subtly that you're against gun control. And, you know, you'll have a lot of people vote for you. But if you stand up there and pound on Donald Trump all day, people are really tired of hearing that. Even though it is right, even though you agree with it, you're tired of it. By the way, gun control came up in Congress for some debate in the Senate, I think, last couple of days, and they don't want to talk about it. They don't want to debate it. There is no gun control. You are defining the challenge, Jay, for the Democratic Party. And they got to get on the stick about this. So while we're kind of on, we have a little bit more time here. Let's see what you all think about the president's legislative strategy for his bills. Okay. So now I mean some deep thought here on what is it that Biden is doing as a strategic approach to his legislative goal. Is this a simple story of start as high as possible for as much money as you dare mention, so that you've got the most room to allow major compromise to any extent? What is he doing to, if you believe that he is doing something? I do. I don't see that with the ex-president, but with this man, I do see that there's something in there going on. So Tim, can you comment? Well, yeah, I can comment because it was a bad strategy because once the progressives get a number in their hat, in their mind, they don't want to come down on it. They already felt that they had an $8 trillion package and they were gracious enough to whittle it down to $3.5 trillion. And they thought they had some kind of agreement with the moderate Democrats on that number. And now, I mean, I'm sorry, it was a fairyland strategy to think that you're going to introduce a $3.5 trillion package and it wasn't going to get whittled down and you wouldn't have objections to it. But again, that's the fairyland strategy that progressive Democrats seem to want to follow. They're in candy land. So by asking for a lot and knowing it's going to come down was a very bad strategy if that was Joe Biden's strategy because the progressives do not want to let go. They don't want to come down on those numbers. Now isn't Biden, he's balancing Bernie and those congressional progressives. In light of how he's trying, he's doing something strategic here. I don't know why you seem to assume that Biden is in charge of what happens in the Democratic Party in Congress. It isn't so. He's got this philosophy of hands-off. He doesn't want to force his attorney general who doesn't really like doing things to do stuff. He doesn't like to dictate positions. He thinks that's what Trump did and he doesn't want to do that. Interesting that he's a highly experienced naive person. And there's a naive Tay there. He's saying, I don't want to force these guys. They have to do what they have to do. And if they want to have an argument under the blanket in Congress and talk about the progressives and Bernie versus the moderates and hold us all up for weeks, months, then that's that thing. I'm not going to get involved. That's wrong. He's the leader of the Democratic Party. He should be hands-on all this. He should be bending and breaking elbows to get this done. And he has not done that and is not doing it. He's the state. Naive day. You're evoking an LBJ approach, right? Because that's the law. Indeed, I am. Okay. Joe Biden is acting like a senator, not the president of the United States. And I'll say right now, I think the best presidents are governors of a state versus senators. I just don't think senators have enough chops as far as how things work in the real world as far as administration, running on a state. Now you're running a country. And Joe Biden is just a perpetual senator. And he needs to come to the real world realization that he's not a senator anymore. All right. We're down to just 30 seconds each. So let's have some last round here of a 30-second statement about where we're going after this election. Is there going to be a shift? Is there going to be work done on the Democrats' campaign dialogue? Is there going to be a change? Will they use what's happened as a way to learn to do it better? If they let the Lincoln Project folks guide them, advise them, do advertisements for them? There will be a shift. If they keep on the path they are, and things will work out for the best, and we'll take the high road. And of course, the GOP always takes the low road. And when they go low, we go high. If they keep onto that crap, they're as good as lost for the 2022 midterm election. And there'll be ramifications, even worse, for 2024. Jay, you like the Lincoln Project? I think it's already lost. I think the outrageous things the Republicans have done was a phase. Okay. Now we're in a phase where they're, they learn from Junkin, they're more subtle, and they're on a roll. And it won't be able to see it as clearly. And people will migrate from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party and not vice versa. I think the Republicans are playing it very smart. It's like they're listening to our shows, you know what I mean? And they understand these things better. And as we get closer, I think you're going to see more sophisticated strategies out of them. And we're not going to see any significant increase in the sophistication of the Democratic strategies or leadership. And I'm really, really, really sorry to say that. But I think as time goes by, we're either going to have a dead heat in 2022 or more likely we're going to lose the Senate and the House. And that does not portend very well for 2024. Very sad note, which I think we could pump that up next round. Let's just watch things and see what we can do to pump that up because not everybody agrees that it's that gloom and doom, Halloween now has passed. But this is a low time and we are wrapping it up. And we have discussed, you know, what aspects are in play for the 22 midterms as far as the campaign efficacy is going to go forward and get us some good candidates. And we're also very grateful for the discussion participants. That's Jay Fiedel and I'm Tim Appichella for being the guest panels today. And I'm Stephanie. So Dalton, your host for politics for the people. And we'll see you next Thursday at the same white standard time. Mahalo everybody. Aloha.