Ed Case & Jeff Hurd

0:00Welcome to Seas fire, where we look to bridge the divide in American politics. I'm Dasha Burns, Politico Playbook co-author and joining me now from Capitol Hill to guests who have agreed to keep the conversation civil even when they disagree. Hawaii Democratic Congressman Ed Case and Colorado Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd. Thank you both so much for joining the program. Great to be with you, Dasha. All right, I do want to start with something that is very on theme here at Seas fire, which is you are both part of the problem solvers caucus. I'll start with you, Congressman Hurd. Why did you feel it was important to become a part of this group? Well, the problem solvers is a group of Republicans and Democrats that are committed to finding effective solutions to the most pressing problems in America. One of the things I've learned in Congress is a lot of problems that we have are not Republican

1:03problems or Democratic problems, they're American problems. In my constituents, expect results. And oftentimes the best way to forge public policies when you have Republicans and Democrats coming together to advance policy solutions that are durable and lasting. And almost all the time those solutions come through bipartisan cooperation and the problem solvers is a group of committed Republicans and committed Democrats. And I'm just attracted to getting stuff done for my district and you do that by working with colleagues both on your side and across the aisle who are similarly minded. So glad to be a part of that group. And Ed Case from Hawaii is a great example of one of those Democrats that's terrific to work with. Yeah, Congressman Case, what about you? First of all, back to you, Jeff, you've been an outstanding partner, a outstanding member of the problem solvers. Look, I think most of us that come to Congress just want to solve our problems. We want to face up to our challenges and solve our problems. We're not into yelling and screaming and swearing and pretending that our challenges are somehow insurmountable and that there's such a deep divide that we can never solve them. And the reality of legislating, truly legislating, is our job is to solve problems.

2:09Our job is to overcome denial and anger and get into the actual solving of national issues. And the problem solvers is at the center of that and has been for a while. And it came together for that purpose because many of us on the on the R&D side were frustrated with the with the political dynamic. We were frustrated with the dialogue and we were frustrated with the divide. And so the problem solvers was was created seven, eight years ago with some very specific guidelines that allow us to function in a very safe place to talk about very difficult issues and to try to come up with solutions where we can and then to go out there and advocate. We're about 40 some odd strong at this point evenly divided between R&Ds. We must be and we have worked on some of the toughest stuff that is out there. We were central to the to the to the to the landmark historic infrastructure bills of some years ago. We're at the center of immigration. We have worked actively and get in deficit reform, which is very tough stuff, social security

3:15reform, etc. That's why I'm here to try to contribute to that. Gentlemen, Congress just began a seven week recess. Talk about solving problems. Are you satisfied with the level of problem solving that's been accomplished before everyone has left town? This is speaking from my perspective, representing my district, I'm never going to be satisfied. There's always more that we can be doing to address the challenges that we face and working across the aisle is one of the ways that we can do that. Certainly, I know folks have pressing concerns and being at home for the campaign side. My perspective is I'm going to be able to also be in my district meeting my constituents, telling them about some of the work that we've done here, but also some of the challenges that we have and some of the initiatives that I don't think get a lot of attention, like what Congressman Kays and I are working on with their respective gerrymandering reform. I am happy to get back to my district and talk to my constituents and show them, hey, I know if you just watch Cable TV, it's shouting heads, yelling at other people.

4:17Here's an example of something that we're doing in Congress that's meaningful. There's a lot of stuff that Congressman Kays and I know that if he's anything like me and I know he is, there's some stuff that you do here that's really frustrating, but there's other things that you do that are really meaningful in this initiative and all of the issues that Congressman Kays just ticked off are important to me as well. And gerrymandering reform is a big one and this is one of the topics that, in a regard of the sort of the calendar is I can't control it, I can't control it. Regardless of the calendar is here, we have an opportunity to come home and let our constituents know the good work that we're doing that they might not always see on television. Congressman Kays, I saw a bit of a slight smile from you there when I asked about the recess. What do you think? Oh no, it wasn't a slight smile. I said no, I'm not satisfied with the level of our problem solving. We have major challenges facing us. We all know what the challenges are. The economy, affordability, certainly gerrymandering, which Jeff and I have worked very hard on with our problem solvers. I mentioned that deficit earlier. I can go right down the list foreign policy.

5:17There are many, many challenges. And Congress is here to solve our country's problems and that's what our job is. And so as Jeff and I think Jeff said it well, I'm never satisfied with the time and the effort in Congress because there are so many of these challenges. But understandably, people have to go home and they have to connect with their constituents as I'm going to do as well here. And we all have to get reelected every two years. And so this is a time to go home and talk with our constituents and make sure we're reconnected and obviously to ask them to be able to continue for another two years and to be able to face those challenges and solve those problems. Congressman, you're a freshman. I'm curious to get your assessment. What has surprised you about Congress? What encourages you? What discourages you as you near the end of your first term? My biggest surprise is the number of Republicans and Democrats that are committed to doing the right thing that are here for good reasons. Certainly there are a number of members that are less committed to that and are more interested

6:20in pursuing their personal interests and getting on television and raising money by throwing rhetorical bombs. There is a solid and decent number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are committed to doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the incentives in our system don't always incent us to work in the ways that are most effective here in Congress. But that's probably been the biggest surprise for me are the number of people that I'd never heard of them. And I'm fairly, it was fairly connected to politics, but I wouldn't be able to recognize most of the people that I see as the most serious problem solvers here. That's probably been the biggest surprise for me. I will tell you also how important relationships are is something that has hit home to me. It is very hard for, if Ed Case comes to me and says, hey, Jeff, there is an issue in why that matters. I have a good relationship with him. I like him. It's hard for me to say no. And obviously we're not going to agree on everything. And I'm sure Ed would say the same thing for me.

7:22But having somebody that you like to work with and that you want to try to solve a problem with is really, really important. So, anyway, there's a lot of good people here and relationships really matter. Those are the two big things that I've taken away so far in Congress. Your relationship has brought you to a lot of work on on Jerry Mandering, which you both just mentioned. As part of the problem solvers caucus, you two co lead the Jerry Mandering working group and you unveiled your bipartisan reforms this week. Let's take a listen to some of that. This scourge of mid decade redistricting is relatively new. And it's something that we need to stop. It's not good. It's not good for our country or for our political system. That's why Congressman Case are introducing the problem solvers, transparent redistricting under stable timelines act, the trust act, to end mid decade redistricting and establish a clear nationwide rule that maps are drawn once a decade following census. What we're trying to do here is to go after four ingredients.

8:23Number one, when are congressional maps drawn? Number two, how are they drawn? Number three, who gets to draw them? And number four, how do we resolve disputes? Those are all ingredients of the issue. And today, in this particular bill, the trust act, we are trying to get after when we draw maps. I genuinely think this is one of the most important issues in our modern politics. And what I constantly hear from both Democrats and Republicans is redistricting this mid decade redistricting is terrible for democracy, but the other guys are doing it. So we have to do it too. And everyone feels like this is just inevitable race to the bottom. Congressman Case, how likely is it that anything will actually move here? I think the voters out there are disgusted with hyperpartisan gerrymanders. I think people are going to go home and they're going to equal over again.

9:26That gerrymandering is bad. It's pretty obvious. We all agree on it. I think that most Americans agree that gerrymandering to start with is a bad thing where you actually design congressional, and let's just be really, really clear here, because there's often some confusion here. What we are talking about are the congressional maps for US House of Representatives districts. We're not talking about state legislative districts, and we're not talking, obviously, about the US Senate because they have the whole state. We're talking about how each state is allocated in a congressional district. So the United States House of Representatives is what we're talking about. And gerrymandering where essentially the politicians try to pick their voters to their advantage, resulting in very, very weird maps, very disconnected maps, has always been a problem. What has made it very worse in these days is that it's just so hyperpartisan now, and modern technology allows for such incredible distinctions in terms of how you draw those maps for distinct

10:30political purpose. And then add on top of that, that we are now in, as you already put it, a series of descending wars over that, where we are basically into every single cycle redistricting. And that causes multiple problems. But at the top level, the problem is that it's corrosive to democracy, it disillusions voters, it disenfranchises voters, and it is not conducive to the workings of the United States House of Representatives, because it actually destroys problem solving. And it actually results in a predominance of more extreme positions that are not really interested in problem solving, and the detriment of really districts that are competitive, where you actually will see the solving of problems in our country through debate, and through the problem solvers and other groups sitting down and trying to figure them out. But Congressman, her given it is actually the politicians that are also behind this. What kind of response are you getting from your colleagues on both sides of the aisle

11:33here? Certainly, I think there is a large majority of our members of Congress that are unhappy with it. I'll tell you with even the members that are in districts or in states that are being redistricted themselves for their own advantage, they will tell you that they're not happy about it. I will also say Ed had a great point. This gets the issue of corruption, trust in government, voters choosing politicians, not politicians choosing their voters. It also gets to the issue of how we can be effective legislators. There is no way that I could be as effective a legislator. I don't know what my constituents are going to be in two years. And getting to know them and understand the issues and understanding the cities and in parts of my district, I'm not going to be able to do a good job of that. If in two years, I'm going to be representing a completely different part of the district or running in a completely different part of the district. And so it's also fundamentally not fair to the voters in that sense as well as that their member of Congress is not going to be able to serve them well when the boundaries are constantly changing. We're getting close to the end of the, we're in 2026, there's only, you know, as we're

12:36getting close to the next census, I'm optimistic that as we get closer the chances of us getting this bill across the finish line are only going to get higher. We're going to keep pushing it in the problem solvers caucus and I will tell you the support for it is broader than what you might necessarily think of if you just look at the headlines. I want to talk about another issue that we are seeing increasingly both on the campaign trail on Capitol Hill, the White House is dealing with it and Americans at large are kind of freaking out over it right now. And that is, of course, artificial intelligence and the debate over what to do with AI, who should take action, what that should look like. I sat down with Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy for my podcast, The Conversation. Here's what he told me about it. Who should be setting the guardrails? Should it be just the AI companies themselves? No, I should be Congress. OK. Now, by the way, it has to be dynamic. It may also be the courts. It may also be the courts. I think there's a big role for government regulation here. Absolutely. And by the way, that's certainly with precedent. Anything that is this transformative, the American people need to weigh in on and the American

13:40people express their thoughts and anxieties and hopes and aspirations through representative government. Congressman, her, do you agree with Senator Cassidy there that Congress should take a big role in this? I would say, Dasha, AI has an extraordinary potential to improve productivity, scientific research, scientific advances, medicine, national security, energy, all those parts of American life. But it also presents legitimate questions that I think my constituents and most members of Congress constituents are concerned about privacy issues, fraud, cybersecurity, national security issues, intellectual property, workforce disruption. These are issues that don't stop at state lines. And it's a national economic security issue. And so for that reason, I think Congress should take these issues seriously. But we shouldn't assume that every single problem requires the same regulatory response. I definitely support identifying specific risks and determining whether the law that we

14:40have addresses them before they're creating entirely new broad regulatory structures. But certainly this is something that I think implicates interstate Congress. And Congress should be taking a very careful look at it. And this discussion needs to be one that's bipartisan. What Congressmen case, I see you nodding there, do you agree with Congressman Hurd? I do very much. Let's start with some basics here. Artificial intelligence is here to stay. It's not going away. It is going to shape our future. One way or the other, artificial intelligence is going to be central, far more central to our lives for better end worse in the coming days, years, and decades. And so the debate about, let's put artificial intelligence back in some bottle and put it up on a shelf, is comparable to saying industrial revolution can't happen except in the AI situation. It's actually broader in terms of impact and far more accelerated. And as Reppard said, it's across the board. I happen to spend most of my time in Congress in national defense.

15:42And artificial intelligence is critical to national defense. And our adversaries are definitely pursuing artificial intelligence. And that's going to shape national defense. And so there's a whole range of issues where this is a reality. And there's tremendous opportunity, but tremendous risk also. And there is nobody else really that is going to be able to fashion the proper levels of balancing of various interests of facilitating development and realization of opportunity well addressing risk. Then Congress. Like ever since General змana has such administrative but happens in third American joiners on us. There's really no other institution that can do that. So the question is not whether we should do it, but how we should do it. And we have certainly dragged our feet on it until we're at. The point that we have seen in the in the national debate just this month which was some of the risks being very obvious.

16:42And so this is incumbent, we can't leave it exclusively to the state. So they can't be one standard for one state in one state or another state. an international standard because these risks don't even care about state lines. They don't even care about country lines. They're international. And so that should be our goal. And Congress has to turn to this. So that's the reality. Well, President Trump thinks it's actually on him to set the direction here. He recently wrote on true social that the only control or guardrails that AI needs is a strong and smart, high IQ parentheses. President and the USA has that in spades. Congressman heard, what do you make of the president statement there and him coming out and calling anything bad about AI, a hoax this week? Well, I think Congress has an independent responsibility to examine these questions. Exactly like Congressman Case had to say, we should absolutely listen to the administration. We should be listening to technology companies, researchers, national security professionals.

17:44Our consumers, others affected by the technology, our constituents. But ultimately, at the end of the day, we need to see what laws are needed. If there are existing laws that are adequate, we should absolutely use them. But where there are identifiable gaps that raise serious harms, Congress should determine whether legislation that's appropriately tailored is necessary. And we should work hard to implement it. I don't think we should begin from either extreme, you know, that the government should regulate every single thing or that Congress should simply ignore legitimate risks. The right, I think, path is somewhere in the middle. Yeah, to that point, Congressman Case, you've got the president saying no guardrails and you've got someone like Senator Bernie Sanders saying, we need to pause, we need a more rhetorium. Do you think Senator Sanders is wrong? Do you think the president is wrong or is it to Congressman Hertz point somewhere in the middle? Well, I do live and work in the middle. And so I don't gravitate towards the extreme statements on either side, other than that

18:46they frame the overall issue. So they're valuable. I don't deny it. That has to be part of the national debate. Should we allow AI to develop and go out there unfettered? No, I do not believe we should. Should we shut AI down? No, I do not believe we should. Nor do I think that we can. And so the answer is an inclusive, difficult, but full discussion that requires the best of us really. I requires us to kind of rise above, you know, individual, parochial interest or the interest of any one company or constituency and decide on one, really one of the most momentous decisions that our country, our world are going to make in a generation. But how do we capture the opportunities of AI except and go with the inevitability of

19:46it and yet control risks on international scale? That's a multifaceted issue. Frankly, it's perfect for the problem solvers, I think we should actually get into this record, which we already have. Well, the weight of the world is on your shoulders, gentlemen, at the problem solvers goggles. Let's talk quickly about the midterms because we are getting so close here. This New York Times, CNAPOL has now found that 49% of likely voters prefer a candidate that wants to provide a check on Trump. Well, 26% prefer a candidate that supports Trump and 21% said it doesn't matter. Last week at the Republican midterm convention, President Trump once again asked voters to treat the election as though he is on the ballot. I'm not on the ticket. You have to pretend. I'm not on the ticket. You got to do me a big, the biggest favor you've ever done me. You've got to do this for me. You've got to pretend I'm on the ticket. I'm on the ticket. I'm on the ticket.

20:47He's on the ticket. Pretend I'm on the ticket. Congressman Hurr, given the polling number as you just saw and the president's popularity or lack thereof right now, is he putting Republicans like yourself in a bind when he says, I'm on the ballot. Well, look, I think I try not to spend too much time predicting the election outcomes and I can only speak intelligently on my race in my district. There are 435 individual house races and voters in each district are going to make their own decision. But is that kind of message helpful for you personally? Well, when it comes to me, my constituencies, I think I've demonstrated independence and unwillingness to where I agree with the president and with the administration's priorities. I've been with him, but where I disagree, for example, on tariffs, I was the one Republican that lost the president's endorsement for a while, the cycle because of my vote on tariffs. When it comes to predicting, permitting certainty, when it comes to extending the Affordable Care Act, by the way, it's something else that the problem solvers did, the Affordable

21:47Care Act enhanced premium tax credits. That's a problem solvers issue that we addressed. I think the voters in my district say, hey, here's a representative that represents his district. He delivers results. He fights for his district where he agrees with the president. We see that. He's representing our district, but he's not afraid to stand up and show independence as well. Congressman Case, you know, a lot of Democrats are trying to make this election about the president a referendum on Trump. Is that enough? Do Democrats need to do more to build an affirmative vision and party platform for voters? First of all, the answer to your question is yes, that is exactly what Democrats have to do. But I start with a premise, which is the president is correct whether he has to be on a ticket or not. It's going to be on the ticket. This is going to be a referendum on president Trump. I think what's on people's minds is not only whether they agree or disagree with the president, not only whether they believe that the president has delivered on their top concerns, for

22:50example, affordability and the state of the economy and jobs, but you put it exactly right. Whether there should be an independent check and balance in Congress. And I think that that's a legitimate question for voters to ask is, do we need in this time and with this presidency checks and balances in Congress, whether those people, as Jeff already talked about, are are capable of checking and balancing this president or D's? And so I think that's going to absolutely be what influences this election the most. And I think that your second point, which is the Democrats need more, absolutely, because the reason that Democrats have not prevailed in some of these elections, or frankly, I think Democrats should have prevailed, is because all they did, all we did, was to say how bad the other side was without offering our own alternative. And that forced many voters, including those in the middle who make the decisions on these

23:53elections, who is president, who is a member of Congress, that forced them to a very bad choice. I don't like the person that the Democrats say I don't like, but I'm not sure that I've heard a good alternative. And so I've got to make a bad choice here. And I think that that was the answer to President Trump's second election. So I hope my Democrats learned that lesson and learned how to talk to the voters that are going to decide whether Democrats do prevail in the midterms. Congressman Casey also, you recently fended off a primary challenge from a progressive candidate. I'm curious to get your perspective on this debate about the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive wins that we've seen across these various races. Where do you think this party is headed? And how should the party at large handle these factions, particularly folks in the DSA and the progressive left? Well, I think it's going to be a very difficult, it is a very difficult discussion inside the Democratic Party right now between a moderate mainstream view of politics and a far more

24:57extreme view of politics. And by the way, we're not alone. I mean, the Republican Party has the same discussion going on inside the Republican Party. So I would almost characterize this in a different way. I would say that if you look at the voters of this country on a bell curve, right, where the peak of that bell in the middle is really the moderate middle of the country, whether you want to call them Rs, D's, I's or anything else. And then you've got kind of the far right and the far left. Is that, and I think you can tell from my discussion that I consider myself to be in that moderate middle problem solving part of the country, which party is going to be able to develop a mandate to govern in that way, well, incorporating in some way, shape or form those people that do have a different view inside their party. And so this is a, I think the party should be a big tent party and bring those folks in because I've heard different perspectives from Democrats on this. Well, the alternative is that the party can perfectly represent some of the constituencies

26:01within the party and be a beautiful minority party. And I'm not particularly interested in that. So yes, this party needs to make that a combination. In my case, in my district, the voters took a look and said, yeah, that's what we want. But that, you know, that's a central issue that is going to turn this election. That central issue will turn this election, which way do voters think? Which party has demonstrated that they represent the mainstream of voters in this country that want their problem solved rather than talk about issues that they don't think are particularly relevant? That's true in US Senate races across our country. That's true in US House races across that country. And it is a prelude to the presidential race in just two years. Yeah, Congressman heard Republicans have dealt with this as well. How are you seeing what's happening in the Democratic Party and what does that mean for Republicans, both in the midterms and going forward?

27:04Well, listen, I think having healthy parties that have their certain disagreements, but having, you know, when you're in the minority, loyal opposition, but being able to understand and share a perspective on what the problems are that we are trying to address in this country is really important. And so as I look at it from the outside and look at the Democratic Party, it's similar to how I look at my own party. We need to make sure that we are appealing to voters, that we're not just appealing to the most fringe elements of our parties, but that we're trying to connect with people on the things that matter. What I tell people in my district is I need the votes of people that only agree with me on seven out of 10 issues or eight out of 10 issues and just demanding perfection and purity is not from my perspective the right way to appeal to people. We need to be thoughtful and pragmatic. I describe myself as conservative, but also pragmatic. And one of the reasons that problem solvers works is actually in the name of it, we identify problems specifically and then we can solve them.

28:07And oftentimes that brings together Republicans that are more conservative, Republicans that are in the middle and Democrats that are more conservative, Democrats that are more Democrats that are on the left. And if we can define these problems narrowly, we can solve them. And that's the sort of perspective that I want to have within the Democratic Party, even though we're trying to win races, I want to make sure that we hold our majority but part of the way that we do that is by being a healthy party within the Republican Party, appealing to voters, solving problems and building trust in government. Yeah, plus we are in this very interesting sort of horseshoe theory moment of politics. Were you seeing, you're seeing folks like Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon at the same event talking about AI and somewhat similar terms. So a lot of interesting overlap these days. Gentlemen, that is all the time we have. Thank you so much for being here. Hawaii Democratic Congressman Ed Case and Colorado Republican Congressman Jeff Heard. Thank you both for joining me. Great to be with you. Thank you very much. As we mentioned earlier in this show, the debate over how to regulate artificial intelligence has heated up in recent weeks with lawmakers and tech leaders debating how to keep the

29:11technology's development from moving faster than safety measures. That brings us to this week's C-SPAN flashback where we dig into the video archives. What are the early and most prominent voices to raise concerns about AI with Elon Musk? Here he is in 2017 speaking at the National Governors Association summer meeting. AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization. I think there's a role for regulators. That's very important. And I'm against over regulation for sure. But I think we better get on that with AI, a front out. I really think we need government regulation here just to ensure the public good is served. Because you've got companies that are racing that kind of have to race to build AI or they're going to be made uncompetitive. When it's cool and working with it and the regulators convinced that it's safe to proceed, then you can go. But otherwise, slow down.

30:13But you need the regulators to do that for all the teams in the game. Otherwise, the shareholders will be saying, hey, why aren't you developing AI faster? Because your competitor is. Nearly a decade later, the debate Musk warned about has now moved from the future to the present. And while he still advocates for government-imposed guardrails on advanced AI, he is also building his own advanced AI models. To discuss the policy debate over artificial intelligence and other top political stories of the week, I've got two pros from both sides of the aisle. Democratic strategist Moe Elaythe, former senior spokesman for the Senator Hillary Clinton, plus a former DNC communications director. And Republican strategist Ashley Davis, she's a former special assistant to the Homeland Security Director and former Deputy Director of Management and Administration, both during the George W. Bush administration. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you. All right. Let's get started on AI.

31:15That flashback is so wild to watch so much has happened since then. Does either party have a clear plan for AI, Ashley? Well, I don't think anyone's going to have a real plan until after November. There's so much. When this issue pulls so well in regards to 86% of the country are afraid of AI. I mean, the issue pulls poorly, but it's no, but it will. For especially Democrats aren't. People are making things clear. People are making their voices heard here. Absolutely. And also then just add the data centers as part of that conversation. But so you have a lot of finger pointing. You have a lot of 100 Democrats, I think, this week at least, signed a letter asking the speaker not to adjourn until he passed some sort of AI framework. Was it a mistake for Johnson to send folks home early? There's no way that would have ever happened. So no, I think that he sent people home because he didn't want to vote on some of the votes that were going to come up. But I mean, what concerns me about these companies that are calling for regulation is,

32:16I government moves too slow. I mean, I think that state governments will definitely start taking advantage of this. And remember in the spring when the president didn't wanted preemption over states of any AI regulation, I think after no, but I think it's out the window. So I think you'll see a lot of activity. And we'll see if the federal government can get their act in place, you know, going into the next year, but at least tech companies want it until they see what's going to be on the table, especially if Democrats are in control, it's going to be much different. And that's not even a political statement. It's just, you know, it's going to be much different than Republicans putting in some sort of guard, bro. Yeah. And Mo, you've got Democrats really started to come out front on this. President Obama called for Democrats, especially looking toward 28 to find a lane here. What do you make of how the Democratic Party is coalescing? Well, I think Democrats understand this is an issue that freaks the public out. And so they better get out ahead of it.

33:16And we see it and pull after pull after pull. I can't think of an issue in recent years where you saw that rapid movement. And bipartisan. And bipartisan. I mean, you guys, I do want to really quickly play this, this, some of the sound for you from an AI event that brought Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon. Bernie and Bannon together. Take a listen. When you are racing towards a cliff, you don't just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes. When the future of humanity is at stake, we need binding international safety rules, not voluntary standards from the industry. I think Senator Sanders did a very good job of summarizing the risk. Obviously, he and I have a quite different opinion of the President of the United States, but we're trying to raise above partisanship. The common sense of the American people have always made the right decision.

34:20The revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II. This is the great fourth turning and this is the issue before us. And they want you to be dumb about it. They want you to be afraid of it. We're not going to be afraid. We're going to take this on. Well, what do you make of these strange bedfellows? No, it makes sense. And I actually agree with what Bannon said there is, you know, when you go through a period of mass economic transformation, like when we went from the agrarian to the industrial era, right? Wow. We see, but anytime we go through, it creates these parallel populist movements. And AI is creating that right now, populism on the left, populism on the right. And the reason you see such, I think, solid bipartisan support amongst the voting public is because they don't really see the upside of AI yet in their daily lives. Most people kind of use it as just a glorified Google search engine.

35:20But they are hearing and seeing and feeling all of the downside. And it's not just the doomsday stuff. It's economic displacement. People, you know, AI taking people's jobs, its privacy issues, its healthcare insurance companies letting AI decide your claim. Its companies letting AI screen your resume. We're taking humans out of the equation and people don't like that. So what are the biggest arguments for accelerating and for keeping pace is China and beating China. This new new age space race. I talked to Senator Ted Cruz about this recently. Take a listen to what he told me. I think there needs to be government regulation there. There needs to be guardrails that prevent those kind of risks. Are guardrails enough though? I mean, there are, there are, there's a bipartisan cohort voices right now. Republicans and Democrats saying, whoa, we need to pause. We need to really slow this thing down.

36:22Here's the problem we can't. That is an impossible endeavor because you know who's not pausing? China. They are not going to stop. If you look at where the US, so if AI is going to kill us, it should be USA, I'm not Chinese AI. Listen, I've actually joked that if, and this is somewhat tongue and cheek, but it's not entirely. If they're going to be killer robots, I'd rather they'd be American killer robots than not Chinese killer robots. And what I mean by that is the Chinese are putting no guardrails. They're going full speed ahead. Most tech leaders estimate the United States is about six months ahead. We're not a year ahead. We're about six months ahead. We could have government step in and just shut down the AI industry in America. And you know what would happen? China would catch up in six months and so are ahead. And we wouldn't have the tools to defend ourselves. Ashley, which, what kind of killer robots are you afraid? We'll need there. And I hope we don't get to that point. But his point is, and I don't even think we're six months ahead anymore because we've already had all of these pauses on even our data centers.

37:26So that's not even just AI. That's also all of our phones that we don't have on the table right now, but all of our phones. So as he's back. But I just, there has to be somewhere in the middle and I don't, I'm not convinced the federal government can give guardrails that are going to be quick enough. And so the companies do need to step up. I mean, when, come on, we've all been in this town long enough. How long do you think it will take them to pass AI regulation? No, that's 100% right. I mean, we've been sounding the alarm bell over social media for over a decade and they can't get their eye together against children. Right? So I think that's, that's totally a fair point. The problem is it has to because we have seen more than 100 state laws passed around the country on AI. And so we're putting together this patchwork. And when the state laws aren't in sync, like that's just no way to govern this like global technology that lives in the clouds. So the federal government is going to have to step in.

38:27I'm maybe a little bit more bullish than some on the idea of that international cooperation might actually be possible. You know, China freaked out recently because an AI was trying to hack into, I think it was wechat or one of the state control, right? It is regulating AI. It's not letting their AI go rogue. Josh Shapiro actually came out this way. You know, Governor Pennsylvania, most likely, 2028 candidate, he came out today with kind of his roadmap going back to these 2028 candidates. I'm going to report on it on my Facebook. Oh, you did? Okay, that's probably where I read it. No, but Josh is a friend. I like him a lot, the governor. And he talked about the China coordination as well. And you see with the president of China coming next week, like they're now starting to put together side meetings around AI. Do we have to coordinate with China on this? Probably. I think it's too big of an issue. Yeah. Let's talk about the midterms because this is obviously looming over midterm races,

39:30but there's so much going on on the campaign trail right now. It's hard to keep track. There's a New New York Times, Ciena Pol, out this week that found 51% of voters would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate compared to 43% for the Republican candidate. Ashley, how troubling are these numbers? And is there time for Republicans to turn that around? Well, 8% is better than like 14, which I heard last week. So no, it's bad. We have a bad situation right now. I think that this is what happens when you don't have divided government. I'm a big fan of divided government. So, and the one party owns everything. Republicans own everything. And so many people are going to come out to selection because they're going to vote against the president, whether or not they're voting for the candidate they want. And so there's no doubt in my mind sitting right here. It's going to, I don't think we lose the house by these 25 people or whatever, but I do think we lose the house 10 and under. What about the Senate?

40:31I'm not there yet because I am still pretty bullish on New Hampshire and Michigan, but I do think that there's going to be a situation where North Carolina is now going to be blue potentially. And then you have Democrat states like Michigan or New Hampshire that will be red and then Alaska may be blue. And then you have some of these other states, Iowa, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, and we'll talk about that. We'll get there. But are Democrats feeling a wave coming on? It's a little strong, but I do think they feel the wind at our backs and that we're in a really good position. I think most people feel pretty good about the house. I'm with you. I don't think it's going to be like a 40, 50 seat thing. Well, I mean, me justricting has really good numbers. Yeah. Yeah. And the Senate, I'm hearing more people feeling bullish about the Senate, though not overly optimistic, right? And we'll say every time the president goes out there and says, pretend I'm on the ballot,

41:32another Democrat wants to cut a campaign ad featuring him say that because you're right. So many people, this is a president who has historically low approval numbers on inflation. His approval rating on inflation is lower than Jimmy Carter's was. So let him go out there and make it about himself. It only helps Democrats in a lot of those states you just mentioned. But I also, as we were talking before we started here, the pulling is so off on Trump in general and always has been like the question is the reason he's won in the past, at least when he's on the ballot, is because all these voters come out that support him that don't pull. I don't know if that will help or not because I don't know if that's really going to matter this time because he's not. Right. And we didn't lose, we gained in the Senate and lost the house. But there's another part of the scene, a New York Times scene, a poll that found that 49% of likely voters also prefer a candidate that wants to provide a check on Trump.

42:32And in the wake of that, we're seeing ads like this one. That's a president. Some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far in July 50% of the 50,000 people that were detained had no criminal record. Be careful what your advisors are telling you about immigration policy. The same Hispanics who help you get to the White House in 2024 feel be treated today. You can be for immigration, what Lincoln was for slavery and Reagan was for communism. I'm not talking about giving them amnesty. I'm talking about giving them a dignified light in this promised land. I am Marie Isle virus, ours are and I approve this message. This is a Republican candidate, a Republican representative in Florida, in a district Ashley that should be safe. What do you make of what she's doing here? She's been doing this, I would say, the last year, not this much. But she, I think, I mean, listen, her constituency has so many Cubans, Cuban Americans that this is something that really is impactful for them. And they were, they did go to Trump in 24.

43:35Yes. So I think this is, I think she's actually probably hearing every day when she comes home that these people, that her constituents are scared. They're scared about having to leave. And I think it resonates with her and she, this is what I think is going to happen more and more and more after the election, as you see Republicans, not about ads, but splitting from trying to talk against them. Vice President JD Vance went on a podcast this week and just, just listen to it and we'll talk on the other side. There is a lot of good that we've done over the past 18 months. We cut taxes bigly, we cut taxes on overtime, social security and tips. Those are tax cuts for middle American workers, not just for the elites in Washington and New York City. We've had an amazing success with the border with immigration. We pursued H1B reform that prioritizes American workers over foreign nationals. There's a lot of good that's been done, but there's a lot of work left to do. Don't give power to the people who cause the problems that we're fixing.

44:36Give us another chance or give us another couple of years to continue to work on the amazing things that we've been doing for the past two years. So Mo, my feed has been full of Democrats picking up on them and give us another chance, part of that interview, or a couple more years. What do you guys make of what the Vice President is doing there? One thing I didn't hear in his tick list was cost of living, right? And that still is what resonates the most with voters. People think things are worse today than they were two years ago. Telling them, look how amazing we have been and give us a chance. Democrats have made that mistake before. We have. And they clearly didn't, and they capitalized on it two years ago and they haven't learned the lesson from it. Ashley, give us another chance. Give us two years. Yeah, that's tough. Tough. But I think that, I actually think House and Senate members do understand. I think it's the administration that's not actually talking about the affordability issue

45:39at all. And because if you see Speaker Johnson, I mean, he's just begging for us to be talking about some of these issues. But also the thing that I think is very interesting I heard today is that JD's going to, the Vice President's going to Iowa and Ashley Henson isn't campaigning with them. So that, that tells me something too. And I will. The Republican Senate candidate there, I'm not sure. Yeah. And so that's kind of interesting to me. There's also been reporting that Republicans are going, growing frustrated to your point with the White House's economic strategy, the Hill rights. Republicans are clashing over how to improve their weak polling numbers on the economy, less than two months before election day. Fearing that voter anger over high costs could sink GOP candidates in November. The boldest proposal, the President's pledge to give every U.S. adult $5,000 if Republicans win the midterm election has drawn already strong pushback from Republicans across the political spectrum. Five K and cash is that going to win Republicans in midterms, Ashley? No, but I think that I've been saying this since he announced it doesn't matter.

46:40It's that not all of us that hear about this every day and understand the complexities of getting something like that passed. The everyday American heard, I may get $5,000. And that's what Trump was doing. I mean, we know he's the brilliant messenger, whether you agree with the messaging or not, it doesn't matter. But he knows my brother said to me, he doesn't pay one bit of attention to politics. I'll go vote for these people and he's a Democrat. No. I'm hearing the opposite from voters out there when I look at focus groups and see the research. I'm seeing people say this is a gimmick. They don't mean it. And by the way, that 5K I've already spent on higher gas prices and higher grocery prices. So unless you end your war in Iran and unless you end this folly with tariffs and the trade war with Canada, in order to bring the prices down, this is just a gimmick. And I think voters are sophisticated enough to see that.

47:42Let's talk about Maine for a moment because incumbent Republicans, Susan Collins, just picked up a pretty notable endorsement from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat turned independent. Take a listen. Susan Collins of the Senate, you're losing the soul of the Senate. Basically, a person you can talk to wants to do the right thing all the time. Okay. Now, I've said, all she doesn't do this, let's speak up. Susan is always in there, always in the trenches. And when you need someone to work with, I call Susan, I call Lisa, I got Mark Warner, I got different people I can sit down with all the time and talk to. And those are the people I always did. And I'm going to do everything I can to help. So how much impact could the former senators endorsement have here, Moe? Are you worried? Uh, slim to none, I think. I'm worried about Maine, but not because of Joe Manchin, right? Like Susan Collins is a tough candidate and Democrats didn't do themselves favor with all of the messiness with the primary. Having said that is still a very competitive right. This is a change election, first and foremost.

48:43To have Joe Manchin weigh in, I'm not sure reads the room, right? People aren't listening to the former, you know, uh, Senator from West Virginia, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, but they need and want something fresh and different. They want someone who is going to stand up to Donald Trump. We see this and pull after poll and state after state. That's what's going to drive this. Susan Collins may very well win that race, um, but it's not going to be because of messages like that. Ashley? I, I, I, I think that Susan Collins will win or not based on Susan Collins and she tries very hard as we all know to take care of her constituents. I feel the same way as I feel about celebrities, no one's going to the poll and voting because Katie Perry endorse me. Right, right. I mean, it just doesn't, it doesn't move the needle. They want to know has this person taken care of me? Or am I tired of the same old, same old and want something different? All right, let's go south to Texas where there's been a pretty big money flip here.

49:48The New York Times writes a flood of outside money suddenly arrived over the last two weeks to help Mr. Paxton. This gives Mr. Paxton and Republican allies a five to one spending advantage over Mr. Taloriko and Democratic allies according to ad impact for months. The Democratic side had possessed a clear spending advantage. Okay, two, two things at play here. One, how big a deal is the money in helping Paxton too? What does this big flood of money say about what's going on in Texas? I think there's going to be $200 million at least spent by Elon alone in Texas. Isn't that crazy? No, it bothers me not about this race. I'm like, we could solve so many world hunger problems with the amount of money. I mean, why do Republicans need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Texas? Well, because we have a really bad candidate. I don't think we would be in the same situation if we had corn on. So, I mean, that's just the facts. But I also think there's going to be plenty of money for Taloriko too. It's a money game at this point.

50:50And really, it has to be a get out the vote on both sides, which is what obviously Elon's concentrating on. But I don't think money is... We have a billion dollars to spend on the Republican side between all of our different... between Maga, Inc., the R&C, SLF, you know, Senate leadership fund, and Elon. Well, are you worried about that's left cash? Sure. But one thing we've seen in recent cycles is that money is not the end all be all that it once was. Right? Like, you want it. You want to have it. But we've seen plenty of cases where the underfunded candidate goes on to win because of just the atmospheric, the environment. Look, these are two very, very different candidates. Paxen is historically bad, right? He's not just a bad candidate. He's historically bad. And that's why Democrats are in this race. And it's not just that one, right? The Democratic nominee for governor is neck and neck with the incumbent.

51:56Yeah, let's take a look at some of this polling here. Tight race in the Senate race, but are a Rekona, Mar, Texas poll. Out Thursday shows Talleriko with a six point advantage. And then that same poll shows a Democratic State Representative, Gina and a Joe Sa leading Republican incumbent governor, Greg Abbott, by four points. I mean, who knows if polling has been questionable in the last several years. But just the fact that we're seeing these numbers at all. The fact that we're talking about it, the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on both sides in Texas, of all places, tells you that at least some of this is real. And I think that's true. And I think you're right that the money going in on the Republican side is going to be about turnout. But at least there. But the one thing I think history has shown us over the past decade is that Donald Trump's popularity is not necessarily transferable. When he's not on the ballot, it doesn't necessarily transfer down ballot.

52:56His unpopularity absolutely is transferable. And that helps Talleriko and it hurt Paxon. Really quickly before I let you guys go, I do want to talk about, um, 2028 a little bit and Governor Gavin Newsom did this interview while fly fishing with CNN's Jake Tapper and in it he made some news because he said that he wouldn't run in 2028 if Kamala Harris decided to run. Mo, what do you make of the fly fishing and the Harris of it all? Um, I mean, I'm the Harris thing. How many times have we heard Candidate say, no, I'm not running. And then they end up running, right? We'll see. We'll see what he does and when he does it. Do you think that was genuine? Do you think that was like an operative, Gavin the operative move or what? Maybe and maybe he means it now. But one thing about Kamala Harris that she's made very clear is that she's in no rush. And she doesn't need to be because she's got an organization, she's got name ID. Everyone else is going to be itching to go. There may come a time when she hasn't made up her mind or hasn't announced a decision

53:57that he's got to decide, go, no, go. And he decides to go. Um, we'll see when it comes to running for president, you never rule out what people may or may not do. I think the fly fishing was smart. Like it was just a more low key version of Gavin Newsom than we had seen. Well, a lot of comments on my feed about the technique, which I'm not qualified. I'm not qualified to. Neither am I. But like just it was one of the more like, I don't know, human, the, the, no, well, not even cute. Just calm conversations. I've seen him engaged in and he could probably stand to have some of that as opposed to sort of the in your face, Gavin Newsom, we're used to seeing actually what a republicans for the last two years. He's the Trump fighter. Yeah. I mean, what are republicans thinking as they watch Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris? Uh, I think they, I don't think those two are on the radar, like some of the other candidates. I mean, obviously they're on the radar, but it's really hard to run from California, and especially Gavin Newsom being a former governor.

54:59Like I, I, from a campaign perspective, you would love to run against some of his things that he did in California. But I think there's many other candidates for me. And I'll say this and no one believes me, my scariest candidate is AOC because she will bring out people. No, what do you make of that? Um, I've heard republicans say that. I've heard republicans say there's no one they'd rather run against. No, I fear too. And I'm like, she brings excitement. We don't know. We don't know who's going to be good and who's not until we actually start seeing them campaign. Remember, at this point, four years ago, Ron DeSantis was, you know, on the cover of every magazine. I remember when Mark Warner was on the cover of every magazine back in 2006 until Barack Obama got it. You just don't know how these folks are going to be. And remember Nikki just stepped, kept micking away at everybody until she was last. I stopped making predictions on this stuff. Well, I can just say as a political reporter, I am champing at the bit here. Um, all right. That is all the time we have. The republicans, just Ashley Davis and democratic strategist Moe Lately. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you.

56:00Thanks. Let's close this week's program with our ceasefire moment of the week, highlighting what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans. Former Illinois Republican congressman Ray LaHood and current Illinois Democratic congresswoman Nikki Budzinski sat down to discuss bipartisan cooperation and how building relationships across the aisle can help get things done. Here's some of what they had to say. You have to be intentional in Washington. I think about finding the opportunities where you can break bread together. Um, but one of the challenges in addition to what the secretary mentioned is we don't spend as much time in Washington as I think we want to. But it is still very much in my belief. It is a relationship business. And I think bipartisanship is something that you can't just use it as a slogan. You have to really be intentional and work out. And I try to do that. I try to find the places where, um, we can break bread together still together. And I tell you that something, uh, when I served in Congress, Ram was serving in Congress

57:02from Chicago. I'm from Peoria, Central Illinois. Uh, and he and I intentionally to picking up on what Nikki said. Once a quarter, four times a year, he would invite seven or eight Democrats. I would invite seven or eight Republicans. We'd go to a restaurant called the Monaco on the Senate side on Capitol Hill and we'd have dinner. Those relationships were built and continued even beyond Congress intentionally trying to reach out to people on the other side to figure out how do we solve these problems? For both Lehood and Budzinski, the message was pretty simple. By partisanship doesn't just happen. It takes intention and effort. And sometimes it starts with dinner at the same table. That's all the time we have for this episode. Peace Fire is also available as a podcast, kindness in all the usual places. I'm Dasha Burns and remember whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.