Transkrip penuh untuk The Next Two Years

to ask you a follow-up question. 00:06:21 Speaker 3: Sure. 00:06:21 Speaker 2: I'm going to ask a quick follow-up question, then we'll break, and then we'll talk to Scott and Quincy. And the follow-up question is, I'm not getting into the sort of, not line items, but the individual items and how they could be affected. But I will ask this, and I'll ask you to speculate. Why did Trump and colleagues not challenge the election results this time? 00:06:45 Speaker 3: I think because it was so overwhelming. You know, he made some, I guess, I think I read that he had a social media tweet today, or I guess social media, on Trump's social, I think it was, about Alaska, because they're still counting some of the ballots there. But, you know, it was so overwhelming that I think that there was just no way he could have been, you know, he... the courts kind of, especially the Supreme Court, you know, right on the election eve with the 20,000 ballots he wanted to kind of sequester there in California, they, you know, the courts did not approve any of it. So I think that at that point, they just let it go. And, you know, we'll see. You know, it was just so overwhelming. I don't think he really could have even tried to at this point. 00:07:34 Speaker 2: All right. 00:07:34 Speaker 3: Which is, I think, the best case scenario for the Democrats. And I think, you know, for the country in that way, because there hasn't been not the sense of regardless of who you support, but just the idea, you know, none of the data show any real election fraud in any significant way. And, you know, I think these things just end up undermining confidence in our elections. And I think, you know, we have a pretty good election system. 00:07:59 Speaker 2: All right. So we'll break and we'll talk to Scott and Quincy, and then we'll continue with our guest. All during that, Adam Silver. professor of political science at Emanuel College here on WBZ. 00:08:12 Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio. 00:08:17 Speaker 2: We continue talking about the elections and what effect this blue wave may have on the current administration's ability to forward their agenda for the next couple of years. Our guest is Adam Silver. a professor of political science at Emanuel College. We do have Scott and Quincy, and, of course, callers take priority. Then we'll have Bill in Pennsylvania, so Scott and Quincy, as promised, first. You can kind of address the same question that our guest Adam Silver is addressing, or you can get a little bit off to the side, but, you know, not too much. Hey, Scott. 00:08:54 Speaker 4: Yes, great show, interesting show. You know, I'm sure you would both agree that Donald Trump got everything he deserved in this election, everything he worked so hard to set up. And, you know, he really was the best friend for the Democratic side in the entire election process. 00:09:17 Speaker 5: What do you think? Sure, yeah. 00:09:22 Speaker 2: Agreed. I mean, he wanted to be considered on the ballot, and he was, and he got his answer. But that doesn't really address our question. How do you think the big win will affect the administration's ability to forward their agenda in the next couple of years? 00:09:39 Speaker 5: Well, honestly, it will throw a monkey wrench into a lot of things. My biggest fear is that One of the things that Trump did effectively was close down the southern border and plug the gaps that were just letting in. migrants pour into the country unchecked. And even though there are some people who just love that, it's really not good for our society. And, you know, Massachusetts really came out a winner when he got the southern border shut down. So our shelter system just didn't keep filling up and filling up and filling up. 00:10:23 Speaker 2: All right. I appreciate that, Carl. Thank you. 00:10:27 Speaker 4: I mean, what's your guess say? 00:10:28 Speaker 2: Well, we'll find out right now. So we'll go ahead and answer the question there. What does your guess say? Give him a little bit and then we'll go to Bill in Pennsylvania. So, Adam, Silver, what do you say? 00:10:42 Speaker 3: Sure. And thank you for the question. And I think, you know, Scott raised a good point about the election in the sense that you know, the president put himself on the ballot. He really said, make sure, you know, act like I'm on the ballot, all these types of things. And I think a lot of voters respond that way. And I do want to preface, and I think, you know, we're still very, only a few days out from the election, and we're going to know a lot more in the coming weeks and months about why people voted the way they did and how they voted. The New York Times has a lot of data on these trends right now, according to their new voter trend approach, but we'll know a lot more over time. Anecdotally and through exit polls, we can see now that a lot of people were fed up with the current administration and the party. But to what your caller said and Scott said, I think it's really important to recognize that this is not necessarily a vote for the Democrats and their policies per se. But a lot of repudiation of the president and what the policies and, you know, some of the polling indicating that, you know, the affordability obviously is a big issue. But corruption was something that voters were concerned about. Threat to democracy, you know, impact of the war, all these types of things. And, you know, so, you know, so I think it's important to recognize that, you know, the Democrats have to, you know, recognize that. It's not necessarily they're voting for them as opposed to voting for the president. And what this may mean going forward into the next term, Democrats have to act. They have a great opportunity in front of them, and they need to seize that opportunity by advancing policy. that the voters want. Now, what this means for the president, what he's going to want to do, he could do a lot through executive

order, which he has done because Congress hasn't really done much this last term at all. The 119th Congress was not really productive in any way. Um, they passed the, his initial bill, that one big, beautiful bill, uh, early in his presidency. But other than that, there really hasn't been much going on. And so, um, they need to, the president has been doing a lot of these things, you know, laterally, which has been a trend in presence as of late in, in, um, and you know, when dealing with Congress, it hasn't really been, not just this president, the previous presidents, we've seen increase in executive orders, um, and, um, and unilateral action. So I can expand upon that a little bit more, but I want to make sure that your guests have the opportunity to speak. 00:13:10 Speaker 2: We can get to what the Democrats need to do to keep, to not squander this opportunity. Uh, after we talk to Bill in Pennsylvania. Hi, Bill. You're on WBZ. 00:13:21 Speaker 6: Thanks for taking my call, Bradley. I wanted to ask your guest now if he can explain, see if I'm right on this. So the president can veto anything that comes across his desk up there. So if he vetoes it, that means that the Senate, it goes back to the Senate, they're going to have to get at least $ 66 million senators to sign on to it to override the veto? 00:13:48 Speaker 3: Yeah, so the Senate and the House, too. Both chambers have to override it that way. 00:13:55 Speaker 6: Okay, so I think Trump will stick to his guns on certain things, one of them being the war in Iran, but I think he's willing to do some more negotiating on the war in Ukraine and maybe You know, one good thing that besides the other guest was mentioned about the southern border being closed. The other thing that he did, you know, it's like he told the Europeans, he said, listen, this is this Ukraine thing is in your backyard. You need to step up. And, you know, he's been fighting with NATO forever about them paying their fair share. And I think he's just going to lay that whole Ukrainian thing on the Europeans. And he did make him start paying for the ammunition that we were giving him. But I don't see this— as long as he has that veto, I don't think he's going to compromise a whole lot on a whole lot of domestic stuff. 00:14:59 Speaker 2: Bill, let me ask you this. You said that you believe that he will hold steady on the Iran war. And what makes you say that? Because it was— never popular he's like the only modern war that was not popular at all ever even in the beginning and there's no clear reason for it and there's no clear way to get out of it why would he stick with it it's because that's that is what partly caused gas prices and inflation and caused the downfall caused the blue wave why would he stick with that. 00:15:35 Speaker 6: Well a couple points Bradley okay During the four years of Biden, okay, prices went up about 22%. Under this president, Trump, okay, in the last two years, the prices have gone up about 4%.

Yeah, that's where you... These are the things that. 00:15:54 Speaker 2: Can I ask you where you get those numbers? Because they seem suspect to me. Maybe you... You. 00:16:01 Speaker 6: Can ask Nate, but listen, the reason why he's going to stick to the... to the Iran thing is because he believes it, and like I believe it. I do not want anybody in the world, okay, that wants to have Armageddon tomorrow, okay, that wants Armageddon to have any nuclear weapons at all. 00:16:24 Speaker 3: That's why. 00:16:25 Speaker 6: And just like, Bradley, if we look back at Korea, okay, North Korea, everybody, they're never going to get nukes. They're never going to get nukes. And then under Obama, okay, he just bent over backwards, and they ended up doing all the testing and everything. And the next thing we know, we turn around and go, oh, geez, North Korea has nukes. North Korea is North Korea. We're talking about people that want to destroy the world if they get nukes. And I think that, you know, I think that a good— he' ll stick to that for sure, okay? 00:17:01 Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Hey, Adam, thoughts on Bill's thoughts? 00:17:10 Speaker 3: Sure. I want to thank Bill for the call from Pennsylvania. I know that they just had some big elections there, and I think their state legislature is changing party there. So I think that state's going to be all Democratic now as well. And I think one of the things we can think about, obviously, is also the changes in the state legislatures and the state governments, what that might mean going forward. But, you know, as far as foreign policy is concerned, you know, the president does have a great deal of, well, not a great deal, but has been given more latitude. Presidents over time have been given more latitude in their national affairs. And, you know, I think there are voices within the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle that want a more, I'd say, oppositional stance towards Russia than the president has been has been acting lately and may want to support Ukraine. What that looks like, what they're able to do, I mean, they did pass a sanctions bill that the president has decided to alter his perspective on it and maybe go against the intent of that bill and using the language in there to seem to go against what their intent is. And now the Congress can pass more legislation if they want to and try to force the issue. But, you know, I was at a talk earlier this evening with two former ambassadors or diplomats from the United States, and this issue came up about the Iran war. And if, you know, Congress can pass legislation to try to end this war, but the president can continue to prosecute it. Congress never declared war here, right? And, you know, since the War Powers Act of 1973, that it was intended to wane in, the ability of presidents to engage in foreign theater and wars, the Congress has been loath to or reluctant to kind of put pressure on the administration in certain ways to do so. They've never rescinded funding, for example, once troops have already been committed. So it could be a standoff between the two, the executive branch and the legislative branch in this way about ending this war that folks, you know, Democrats want to end. And the question is, what does that look like? How do you end this war? What if you're going to do that? What does it look like and how are you going to do it? So I think there are questions to be had here on, you know, for those who want to end the war, who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Republicans who want to do so and those who support the president. to continue prosecuting this war. So Congress can take certain action regarding funding and passing legislation and oversight, But the president also, and like presidents before him, and I think this president has, you know, has really amassed more presidential power than previous presidents, you know, can also push back in a certain way. And we'll see what the appetite is to where they want to take it. All right. 00:20:08 Speaker 2: By the way, I did check on the inflation during the Biden administration. And, to Bill's credit, cumulatively, it's important to understand that over the four years, cumulatively, I see 21%. And Bill said 22%. So that's, as long as Bill's clear that he meant cumulatively over the four years, that that's pretty accurate, 21%. I did not have a chance to research the, what, how over a couple of years the Trump inflation was, but at least you got that one quite right, Bill. So we'll continue. We're kind of at the halfway point in our discussion of how the blue wave will affect the Trump administration's ability to forward their agenda after this on WBZ. 00:21:02 Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio. 00:21:06 Speaker 2: That's right. Bradley Jay in for Dan tonight. We're talking a little bit about politics. It's a huge thing. It kind of transcends the usual political conversations. The election was so big and it's going to make so much difference. I'm curious as to how you feel about how the results of the election may affect the Trump administration's ability to forward their agenda. And I do have one bit of information, an additional bit of information about regarding Bill from Pennsylvania's assertion that under Biden, cumulative inflation under Biden was 22%, 21%. It's pretty right. And also, compared to that, I'm not an expert, but I'm looking at the Senate Banking Committee's Committee on Banking. Say the cumulative price increase, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking and Housing and Urban Affairs, Trumpflation tracker, the cumulative inflation has risen 5.2% since December 24, which is surprisingly low for me to see. The breakdown is gasoline up 43.7%, average household paying roughly $ 7. 58 more. Healthcare up 14.6%. So somewhere things must not have been going up very much, but I just wanted to give credit to Bill for being pretty largely

correct, unless I'm misreading all this. Adam, any further comments on that? 00:22:44 Speaker 3: I mean, I don't have the data in front of me, but I think when you look at some of these issues relating to inflation and how we view the economy, political science studies have illustrated that One's partisan affiliation and ideological affiliation impacts how one views the economy or how they view the president's handling the economy. So you look at the Biden economy. The Biden economy was actually, by the time he left office, he had inflation under control and the economy was doing pretty well. Um, and obviously some Democrats, not a lot, actually not a lot of the population kind of recognize that because of the prices, right? Prices were increasing. So the foundation, the fundamentals of the economy were pretty strong. If I know correctly, I'm not an economist. Um, then you look at here, some of the, some of the foundational aspects of this economy in the 26th election, um, under Trump are still seen pretty strong, but inflation and affordability are these raising issues, right? And the Trump administration and the Republicans got punished for it, right? Just as the voters punished the Democrats in 24, they punished the Republicans in 26. So, you know, I just want, that's all I have to really say on that. I don't know the numbers in that regard, but I think when you look at, you know, food and volatility and gas, if you strip that out, you know, it might not necessarily be, you know, inflation might not necessarily be the same. 00:24:11 Speaker 2: Okay, going back to what I believe it was Scott that raised the idea of veto and that you needed to surpass two-thirds of both House and Senate. Are there any of the things going on that you think could override a veto? Are there anything that Trump might not be able to veto finally or make a veto stick? 00:24:42 Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think, you know, OK, so when they think about what the Democrats want to do, what they can do when they come in there, you know, Hakeem Jeffries, who might be the incoming speaker, although there's some pushback, you know, more progressive circles in the Democratic Party for him to step down. Similarly with Chuck Schumer should, you know, you want to become the majority leader again. You know, there's some folks who are running for office that say that they might not want him to be the leader. But I think each one of those folks is going to reach out to the people and they'll try to figure that out as best as they possibly can. But in their opening speeches the other night or what they had to say, they wanted to focus on affordability. They're saying that they heard the American people and their focus is on passing legislation or adopting legislation that speaks to that now. What that looks like, you know, more specifically could change or could alter over time. You know, I think some of the more progressive wing of the party might want to focus on Medicare for all and

some of these other things. But I think initially what they're going to do is try to reverse some of these cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that impacted rural health care, as well as issues relating to, you know, the Obamacare premiums. and food stamps. I think they also might try to raise the minimum wage. Now, by looking to go through these bills right away, you might have to force Republicans to take votes on these things or force the president to veto these things. Now, if you look at South Carolina, for example, I think 14 counties flipped from Republican to Democrat in that state that helped Dr. Annie Andrews defeat Darlene Graham, six of those counties were rural, right? And that's where rural health care, you know, health care issues were undercut. So I think, you know, from the Republicans, that perspective, too, you know, it's about speaking to constituents who had been supportive of them in the past and wanting to address these things. So maybe... You know, you work out a deal there where it doesn't get to the point where the president vetoes it. Or if you do, maybe you try to push back and see and see what you could do there. Similarly, you know, maybe they'll do something really into regulation of AI. Maybe they'll do something in the regulation of data centers. Maybe they'll do something in the regulation of stock trading by members of Congress in that regard. Some of these things, but the Democrats need to illustrate to the voters that they are doing something, that they're taking something seriously. Now, Republicans, when they come in, Jim Jordan, who is the representative from Ohio, he's the chair of the Judiciary Committee right now. He will be in the minority. Mike Johnson, the current speaker, says he's not going to run for leadership. So Steve Scalise, also a representative from Louisiana, who is the majority leader right now, he, Scalise and Johnson, Jordan have both said that they want to run for a minority leader. Going forward, Jim Jordan, in a dear colleague letter to his conference, asking for their vote and indicating they want to run, said that they should be more, if I recall correctly, be more aggressive or in their opposition to the Democrats, right? 00:27:51 Speaker 5: Okay. 00:27:51 Speaker 3: So what does that mean going forward about how the Democrats want to operate now? They'll have a pretty large majority in the House. So they'll see what they could do in relation to the Republican opposition and maybe pass legislation without, you know, they can pass legislation without Republican votes if necessary. So, you know, whether or not they'll be able to override a veto or not, should the president choose to do something like that, we'll see how it plays out. Frances Lee, she's a political scientist. She wrote this theory or came up with this theory called the insecure majorities, which I think is really a good way to understand Congress. And she argues in, you know, in part in the sense that because the majority has shifted so much back and forth between in the House and the Senate, between each party, that impacts the decision making process and the willingness of the minority party to work with the majority party on legislation. So part of the theory is that with the minority party being with the understanding that they can retake the majority in two years time and that you know, there's less of an incentive for them to want to compromise and work with the majority party on legislation, thinking that they'll come back into it. And then it relates to messaging and how they want to frame these things. So it'll be interesting to see how these things play out between the two parties, as well as how the Democrats try to manage their coalition between moderates and progressives as far as how they want to push legislation. 00:29:23 Speaker 2: Okay. One thing that seems to me that they Democrats have to do if they want to hold on to power is address immigration. They cannot be viewed as the open border party. Would you agree with that? And how can you give me an idea of a sensible immigration policy that might work for them that would both take the fire out of the right and not really offend the base? 00:29:53 Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's an interesting point, right? Because You know, I think with some of the voters, you know, who want to support more stringent immigration policy, they opposed the way this administration was going about it, right? You can have a more stringent immigration policy while still respecting the humanity of the individuals, right? And I think the sheer inhumanity of the way ICE and some of these folks have been prosecuting this policy has really shocked a lot of the American voters to the point that they started seeing Democrats more favorably on immigration. My thought on that is that maybe they could possibly resurrect the immigration bill that had come together towards the end of the Biden administration. You had Senator as soon as the majority leader, you had an agreed upon bill, um, that was in the works and president Trump. Well, at the time he's, he's candidate Trump. He scuttled that he was saying that, you know, that the Republicans should run on it and the campaign he advised and he pushed Republican members of Congress not to support this legislation. So I'm wondering now, to your point, whether that's something that could be resurrected and see if they want to push that through at this point in time, considering that, you know, it's two years now. But we'll see. Maybe, you know, we'll see if the Trump administration is willing to play along with that. We'll see if Republican members of Congress want to go along with that. 00:31:21 Speaker 2: And no matter what the Democrats actually do about an immigration policy, they have to be way better on messaging because they allowed themselves to be painted as the even during a time when they may not have actually been the complete open border party, they allowed themselves

to get painted that way. We're going to go to Ken and Carolyn coming up right after this break, and we'll continue with our guest, political science professor Adam Silver, in a moment on WBZ. 00:31:48 Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio. 00:31:53 Speaker 2: Bradley J for Dan. We continue talking about how the election results may influence politics. The Trump administration's ability to carry out their agenda, and I have like seven minutes and three callers, so we're going to have to be concise on both ways. And we continue with Adam Silver, our guest as well. So Ken in Waltham is first. 00:32:13 Speaker 5: Hi, Ken. 00:32:14 Speaker 3: Hey, hi, Brian. 00:32:15 Speaker 2: Hi. 00:32:17 Speaker 3: Hi. 00:32:17 Speaker 7: First, I wanted to, you know, Bill from Pennsylvania said that North Korea developed the bomb under Obama, but their first successful nuclear test was in 2006. The other thing, what I think is most interesting, perhaps, though, is, you know, are the Republicans at a point now where they have been so behind Trump on everything, and now maybe they're realizing that that's kind of a risky proposition? I mean, how many Republicans are out because of Trump? I mean, a number of incumbents lost, obviously, two days ago, and then you have Thomas Massey and Bill Cassidy and Cornyn and all these Republicans who were ousted in the primary because Trump didn't back them. And here we have Massey. There are reports today that he's preparing impeachment paperwork on Hegseth. And is that a trial, right? And I think Trump isn't going to fight these results because I think he recognizes the Republican Party or the Republican Congress. People are blaming him. 00:33:32 Speaker 2: Interesting. All right. I'm out of time. I want to get a response from Adam. Thanks so much. Great call, Ken. Anything to share on that, Adam? 00:33:43 Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you for the call, Ken. It's really interesting to think about what the Republicans may or may not do because, like, after– after 2020 and, you know, January 6th, people are like, oh, are the Republicans going to finally, you know, say that Trump is toxic in the sense that they, you know, that he led them down the wrong path type of thing and break with them or not. But he's coming back. Thomas Massey is an interesting story, right? Because, yeah, I think I read that, too, that he's going to try to force an impeachment vote on Hegseth. And there are some Republicans, you know, an additional Republican. I mean, obviously, Nazi's leaving at the end of this. of his term, you know, who might be in favor of impeaching him. And we'll see. I mean, just reading that, Hegs says he seems pretty defiant, which is, you know, his character in that sense. And Trump said the president said that he's supportive of him. But then you read that he's kind of asking people around about him. So we'll see. 00:34:40 Speaker 2: My unprofessional opinion says that since the Iran war was so unpopular and really a large cause of the bloodbath took place, that they may throw Hegseth under the bus as a scapegoat. 00:34:52 Speaker 3: Yeah. Could I just add something to that, though? I totally hear that. And one thing that's interesting, though, so Marsha Blackburn, she's a senator from Tennessee. She just got elected governor of Tennessee, and she's going to be the first female governor of that state. Her seat's going to be open. And the question is, Hegseth, his residence is in Tennessee. So there could be some speculation that, you know, to get rid of all the headache of him being secretary of defense, maybe nominate him or put him in that position. I mean, I'm just throwing it out there. You never know. 00:35:27 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very interesting. That one right there is worth the price of admission. We go to Caroline in Brookline. Hi, Caroline. You're on WBZ. 00:35:36 Speaker 5: Hi. 00:35:37 Speaker 4: Hi, Bradley. 00:35:38 Speaker 8: I guess I'll have to be real quick, as you suggested. My question is, I have no trust in our media, unfortunately, after what happened during the Biden administration, where we had a really cognitively impaired person in the office. Do you find that as a political science professor, what do you think the media will do with this new tsunami, and will they continue to hide information? any issues or problems that may occur. 00:36:08 Speaker 2: Good question, Adam. 00:36:10 Speaker 3: You mean with the president? Do you mean like with the president or? 00:36:13 Speaker 8: In Massachusetts, it's the state and federal level. 00:36:21 Speaker 2: So when you say problems, do you mean mental incompetence type of problems? 00:36:25 Speaker 8: I'm saying that they don't investigate at all democratic issues for the most part. And if it takes George Clooney to bring to our attention that there's something wrong with our president, what is that saying about the journalistic integrity of the United States media? 00:36:47 Speaker 2: Okay. Adam? 00:36:50 Speaker 3: I do recall, you know, I hear that in the sense that They weren't as explicit about what was going on with the Biden administration or Joe Biden in that sense of his president with his decline. I know his aides were hiding him a lot, you know, protecting him a lot in certain ways as it's come about since. I do receive, you know, I think last week there was a front page article in The New York Times. describing the president, this current president's speech patterns and how age may be catching up with him or his cognitive decline in a way. So I think you see some of that. I think you see the Times running with that story about the Senate race in Alaska with the Patola campaign. So, you know, you know, I think the media is not perfect. I think that in some cases, whether they, you know, are how they choose to make certain decisions can be challenging. But I think at the end of the day, you know, you can either, you know, be critical, a critical consumer of the news and the media and try to consult many different news sources to try to get the story that you want. Now, if you are a progressive, consult progressive as well as conservative, as well as moderate sources. And similarly, if you're coming from the other side of the spectrum, I think you need to get it all to get a full picture. 00:38:08 Speaker 2: Caroline, thank you for the thoughtful question. Thank you very much, and goodbye. Rick in Concord, you came in late, and unfortunately, we don't have time. I only have one minute left, and I'm going to use a portion of that minute to thank our excellent guest, excuse me, Adam Silver, who is a professor of political science at Emanuel College in Boston. Wonderful job. Thank you so much. It was great talking with you, and you seem to do very well with the the listeners and the callers. So I hope you'll come back. Wonderful, wonderful job. 00:38:41 Speaker 3: Well, thank you for having me. And I hope you have, I hope to have, hope you have me back. 00:38:45 Speaker 2: Okay. I have 45 seconds to chat a little bit about open, open lines ish for the 11 o'clock hour. I like that. It gives everybody freedom to chat. One thing I want to talk about is the winner of the voice of Logan airport contest. I love that guy. I thought I had very little hope that I would enjoy who they chose, but I love him. Also, a lot of leaves on the ground, and it's going to get wet. Very dangerous. I was involved in a super serious accident, and I'm going to give you the detailed account of that in the next hour. Plus, open lines on WBZ Newsradio 1030.