Ever Onward Podcast

How Trump Won: Election Insights & Future of U.S. Politics with Todd Cranney | Ever Onward - Ep. 47

• Ahlquist. • Season 1 • Episode 47

Share episode

In this special edition episode of Ever Onward, host Tommy Ahlquist sits down with seasoned political strategist Todd Cranney for an in-depth breakdown of the historic Trump vs. Kamala race.

Before the full episode with Todd, we share our "Ahlquist Update" with Tonn Petersen, Ahlquist's Chief Development Officer, that sets the record straight on Boise’s downtown ICCU building project. Tonn addresses recent misinformation shared by the Idaho Statesman, clarifying that Ahlquist followed all proper procedures. With his legal expertise, Tonn walks us through the careful process of converting multifamily units into condos—a move that aligns with local residents’ preferences and highlights Ahlquist’s commitment to Boise’s community needs.

Todd breaks down the final days leading up to Election Day, uncovering key strategies and moments that helped secure Trump’s victory. With appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience both Trump and J.D. Vance reached new audiences, but the campaign’s approach ran much deeper, carefully navigating the impacts of misinformation and leveraging targeted voter outreach in pivotal regions.

Todd sheds light on the Republican Party’s opportunities for realignment after Trump, particularly in engaging Latino voters and appealing to Independents. He also examines recent Senate and House races, noting the importance of fielding candidates who resonate with the electorate in increasingly competitive districts.

Turning to Idaho’s unique political landscape, Todd provides a detailed analysis of the recent Prop 1 defeat, challenges facing the Democratic Party in a predominantly Republican state, and the possibilities open primaries or ranked-choice voting could bring. Todd also discusses the strategic moves both parties must consider in the shifting political terrain.

This episode offers a thorough and thoughtful overview of where American and Idaho politics stand today and what may lie ahead, making it essential listening for anyone interested in the future of U.S. politics. Whether you’re a political junkie or just curious about the forces steering our nation, this episode is a must-listen.

Follow Ahlquist on Social Media:

LinkedIn: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/ahlquist/⁠⁠⁠

Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/ahlquistdev/

TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@ahlquistdev

X (Twitter): ⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/ahlquistdev

Meta (Facebook): ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/ahlquistdev/

Youtube: https://youtube.com/@ahlquistdev?si=ejOXPKRqQjtsdVFE


Speaker 1:

It's November 6th, yesterday was the big election and today we have a special podcast. On our Ever Onward podcast we have Todd Cranny. He's the founder of Riverwood Strategies here in Boise, longtime political strategist nationally. Good friend, can't wait to catch up with him and find out his thoughts on yesterday. Ton, thanks for coming on the update again. Absolutely Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2:

We've had a heck of a week, buddy. It's been, it's only been a week, it feels like a month yeah.

Speaker 1:

I mean, we're clipping along, enjoying life and then all of a sudden, the Statesman writes an article about our downtown building and Unbelievable.

Speaker 2:

It's actually unbelievable. It is yeah.

Speaker 1:

So I mean I don't want to get on here and just like, but I want to use this opportunity to just talk about it. Like it's disturbing in today's world that someone can just write something that doesn't have facts or or stuff to it. So we're doing our downtown ICCU building. Yeah, Um, we're in the middle of, uh, you know, we've got a residential tower, we got an office tower, we're trying to convert it from a multifamily to, uh, condos, which we did a market study. That history by and we did a market study and like boom, like boom, this, this right, this is the way to go. So in january we go into the city of boise and you thank the good lord ton that you are meaning 10 months ago, 10 months ago. But what I love about you is you come from a legal background litigator yep, extraordinary. Then you come here and like, so you take, you got all these notes and all the meetings and you're doing all the things just the way it's supposed to be done.

Speaker 2:

Well, you document everything, you document everything and basically tell us briefly the story yeah, I mean in a nutshell, it's, it's, it's disappointing, right, because we document the approvals that we've gotten to go from 100 units down to just 69 units. That's it. I think about it like the exterior. The building doesn't change, nothing changes except for you lose 30 units.

Speaker 1:

And the planning director tells you this is better for us, it's better for the city, it's better for the neighbors. You're done, you don't need to do anything.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, you know, documented for several months in different meetings. And of course, look, it's not the city of Boise's fault that he left right, he leaves town, he leaves in.

Speaker 1:

March yeah, you go meet with him when he leaves and says hey, I just want to make sure we're good. New guy comes in.

Speaker 2:

And then somehow the email to the statesman is we haven't put in an application yet. Yeah, we haven't put in an application yet. And and you know not to get too deep in the philosophy of it, but I'm reading this book and Carl Bernstein, of course, the famous American journalist who helped uncover Watergate. He said the duty of a journalist is to report truth.

Speaker 1:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

And truth is not found in opinion. He said truth is found in the evidence, and in this case I mean that's a direct quote. In this case, you just think about it and look, the city's great, the city's working with us. But for the Idaho statesman to report something that you know, it doesn't appear that they're even seeking for truth. They're just writing an opinion.

Speaker 1:

And then you got neighbors which are just out. You know they didn't want the height of the building from the beginning. They're mad, they're upset, they're watching everything, they complain about lots of things and listen, we're good at we're trying to be good neighbors at all times, why wouldn't we? Anyway, I wanted to get on to just say, hey, this was not right. And that's our update this week.

Speaker 2:

That's our update, but we'll work through it with everything. The irony of it all is the neighbors are getting exactly what they wanted. At the end of the day, it's exactly what they testified and wanted.

Speaker 1:

That's what they wanted. And, man, I love the quote Dude. I love the quote Dude, I love the fact that you're just spitting fire man.

Speaker 2:

Well, we try to document, we try to do our homework, and it's nice when others do the same, plus publicly.

Speaker 1:

I want to just tell you thanks. We've been burning it at both ends and couldn't do it without you, buddy.

Speaker 3:

Thanks for coming on today.

Speaker 1:

Thanks, tommy, thanks for everything, todd Cranny what's up? Thanks for coming on.

Speaker 3:

Good to be here again. I'm surprised you invited me back. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 1:

You're the smartest. First of all, you get sick of me texting you because for those you've been on here before we'll do your intro. But you're like, I don't know anyone else in Idaho and this is not hyperbole I don't know anyone else that worked on presidential campaigns nationally, all these places that we only know in theory from watching the maps on TV. You've been to most of those places. You lived the life that we just all we watched it on TV. You did it right. So you worked on several national campaigns and so I text you all the time saying hey, what's going to happen, what's going to happen. And the last time I text you was at 5 PM yesterday. I know it was at five because I was meeting my daughter at five to help her go into the polls. I just wanted to make sure she just wanted, didn't want to be alone, and so I met Chloe there and I was on my way and I'm like what's going to happen? And you're like man, if anyone tells you they know what's going to happen, they're lying.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I did say that and everyone now knows what was going to happen. I mean, if you would have asked me a week ago, I would have told you. I thought what happened last night was going to happen. But over the last week or so, like it just really looked like the race was tightening and there was a lot of things happening that was, you know, were concerning to me in terms of what was going to actually happen, and so I'm not going to lie. The last couple of days particularly, I was like, oh you know, if you put a gun to my head, I would definitely still stick with Trump winning, but I was really nervous, kind of, because they got a little bit off message, in my view. Um, over the final week he had.

Speaker 1:

I mean, he had a horrible week he did, but I mean he lights himself on fire, and and then I think that's why, that's why it was so unknown, because that last week was so bad yeah, and I think that just goes back to what I should have.

Speaker 3:

You know, I was thinking this in my mind. I should have just stuck in my mind, with my, what my gut was already telling me, because I've said this before it didn't really matter what Trump was saying, like the cake was baked there, it was already baked in. So what was really important was what was happening on the paid media in each of these swing states, and they were totally on message there and this is the best run campaign. I said this last time and I stand by it.

Speaker 1:

It's the best run campaign Third time and you've told me since the beginning he's got true pros Absolutely and he's mostly listening to them.

Speaker 3:

And he mostly listens to them. I mean he's going to do what he's going to do and that's what's made him successful. You can't argue with it. In a lot of ways. Some people will, obviously for other reasons. Time he's listened and he's followed a script and again, I think a lot of was baked in and they were very on message with their paid media very on message, like when we do these things, I don't know what you're gonna answer first of all, yeah, okay you never know what I'm gonna answer with me, right?

Speaker 1:

I don't like I've always been with it but but I, but I, I truly do think over, like in my life, like you're the smartest political guy I know. So let me ask you some questions. You need to meet more people, but that's not true. But you look at what happened and I don't know how to answer this question. For me, as a Republican, thinking of our country and thinking of the things that matter to me, matter to my family, matter to us here in Idaho, the same things are true for me over the last decade, right.

Speaker 1:

And then you had what was supposed to be the red wave two years ago, which was a disaster. Yep, it was a disaster, like it was going to be a red wave and the whole country's feeling this way and it's going in the wrong direction, and it just didn't happen. So I was, I like going into this election. I'm like, well, those facts are the same, like the border stuff, the I mean, it was all the same stuff that was going on. Why was it different this time? Was it so? Here's my question. That's a long preamble Was it? Was it? Was it that the country embraced kind of what he stood for and policies? And hey, let's, the average day working American across all demographics is behind Trump, or was it that she was so bad?

Speaker 3:

Well, I think it's a combination of things. To be quite frank with you. First of all, I think that last night really reaffirmed our country is center right and you see it in the policies. I just think that you know, for all the talk about how crazy the far right is of the Republican Party, which the mainstream media, which I think is not correct, because they're not really mainstream.

Speaker 1:

I think they're destroyed after this, don't you think?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, well, they should be, because, at the end of the day, again they highlight everything that goes wrong with whatever happens on the far right. What they don't talk about is what's going on on the far left and the policies of the far left that I think were. If you saw it last night, they were repudiated and Trump ran against those policies. And again, I think part of what's going on here is that, if you think about 16, 20 and 24 and 16, it was about Trump versus Hillary. Hillary was not well liked, trump was a surprise. 20 was a challenge for Trump because he was, I think, at that point, honestly, things were going well and I think everyone then started focusing on some ancillary things about maybe his style and what he says and COVID and all these other sorts of things. And so Biden wins.

Speaker 3:

Well, guess what this time happened in 2024? Everyone's pretty focused on the main event, which is the economy, inflation, which really has hurt a lot of people, and you saw it. And you saw it with him over-performing with minorities. I mean again his numbers with again he didn't win them, but his coalition he built with improvement of black voters, with Latino voters. He won Latino men. There's some argument there, but he either won them or was close to winning them, which has never happened. And so those improvements are all happening.

Speaker 3:

Because, if you think about the issue that they care about, what do they care about? They care about the economy, inflation particularly, which has hurt everyone. They're worse off than they were four years ago. They care about the border and again I want to be really clear here. Everyone talks about immigration. It's not immigration, it's the border, securing the border. They care about that. I mean, all voters do, and you see that particularly across the board. And then they care about crime. So again I go back to Trump. Had the right message and again, this time around, they didn't care about his sideshow stuff. They don't really care what they care about. Again, voters generally vote their self-interest and the most self-interest thing they could do was vote for Donald Trump. And again, this country, in my view, is still fundamentally center-right and one of the stories that's not told is let's go into these issues of the liberal progressive left. They do not represent swing voters in a Wisconsinisconsin michigan, etc.

Speaker 1:

Got crazy was the media. Yeah, I mean, like when I saw on sunday oprah like saying this will be the, if you don't vote for, uh, the democrats, this will be the last election you may ever vote in. Yeah, I mean the hyperbole and the stuff out of it was and it didn't work, and it doesn't work, it didn't work't work. Do you think there's ever a return to journalism, as we thought? Or is it just because they're just so bought into the money behind them that it just doesn't matter, or what is it?

Speaker 3:

Well, I think it's a combination of the media that's going on right now. First of all, the media is so bifurcated now that it doesn't exist anymore. It is so bifurcated now that it doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the mainstream, whatever they call them Again, they're not mainstream. They're not mainstream at all. They're liberal media. People can say whatever they want.

Speaker 3:

Trump had it right Fake news, it is fake news. There's again. You got to be careful here. There are some really good journalists who do very good work, but it takes a lot of work for someone like you and I to sort through who really is giving you facts, who's giving their opinion, and the separation between editorial content and reporting content. It's just a fine line. And so now the challenge we have is it's just bifurcated. There's so many other sources and you saw Trump use that to his advantage at the end. Podcasts are a big deal now. There's just so many other ways to reach voters through media channels than ever before, and trump was really smart at how he did that, and he particularly targeted younger men and black men younger and he did a great job of how he did that and how he communicated in some of those larger form like a joe rogan interview. If you watch their donald trump, if you listen to him, do that.

Speaker 1:

That's when it's like, oh, you listen to one of these rallies, I'm not so sure that's just me talking, but you listen to him on Joe Rogan and I will tell you he did a great job, more powerful. So I'm longtime Rogan listener, right, and love the format. Thought the president's was good. I thought JD Vance on Rogan was. I thought he was yeah, Just because I've never heard him in a long format. And when you get in a long format and you actually get what's in someone's head and their heart and you get a more of a who is this guy and it was great.

Speaker 3:

And you think about JD Vance and what the mainstream media did to him as soon as he became the VP nominee is like they just, they just the whole couch thing, they just take things and put it out Again.

Speaker 3:

I'm not saying there's fair criticism, but again, the reality of it, like you said, is that that's what the new modern media and opportunities out there Now there's a flip side of that, because part of the challenge running into the media environment we live in now is there are also people out there who are putting out information and they're just trying to make money off you. They want more clicks and more likes, they want more whatever, and they're making a ton of money off you and they're not really giving you any sort of factual information. In my view. So there's two sides of the coin there. But again, the main street piece, they've completely killed themselves and again, I think the challenge.

Speaker 3:

I think trump and his team did a great job. They understood that. They understood how to get around that and some of the thing you know trump's philosophy really is. You know it really is no publicity is bad publicity, like if he's in the news and he's in the conversation and he can't live without it in some ways, which is part of his strength and his weaknesses. Because if he, if he would have just stayed away. Take vance, for example vance, in the debate, prosecuted an amazing case that I thought I actually listened to and I'm like man, this sounds like a real presidential debate, versus what I listened to when I watched the other presidential debate. And that's what I would say about Trump is, if Trump would have done what Vance did in the debate, then I think Trump would have won.

Speaker 1:

This thing would have been put away a lot sooner. I mean, I don't know how many times I sit there listening to him and I just say say one thing, Say one like just one thing, presidential, or one thing that reaches out to middle.

Speaker 3:

America, and that's one of the 30-second ads that they had. That's what they did. They made it very clear about were you better off four years ago or now, and it was very succinct and they did a good job on that.

Speaker 1:

So I want to get because of time, I want to make sure we hit all of this. I want to get back to Idaho too. So the other thing that happened last night is at about 11 o'clock, I'm like, oh man, the Senate like and it wasn't until about then when they started going through the maps and what was going to happen and just how impressive the demographics were of of who who was voting and how they were voting I thought we're going to win, we're going to like the Republicans are going to take the Senate in a big way. That is significant. And then I don't know officially, I've been, I've been doing stuff all day. I don't know officially, I've been doing stuff all day. I don't know, is the House?

Speaker 3:

declared no, not yet. The House is still going to take a couple of days, although there's more optimism that the House is going to stay Republican Very tight margins there. But again, that would be the trifecta. I was very confident in the Senate. Now I've been doing a lot of Senate work.

Speaker 1:

I know For people listening. For years you've been very involved in the Senate, the Senate fund, the PAC that goes around and really targets races and the House as well.

Speaker 3:

I'm not this cycle but multiple cycles before. But the Senate I've been pretty confident about for quite some time Now, thanks to Trump and the surge here at the end of the red wave, we've seen some places that we didn't think would, we thought could get there. But we're going to require Trump getting there and so ultimately that's it's kind of a bummer because we're almost there. I mean we felt very confident we'd win back Montana and West Virginia, ohio we felt decent about and we did pull that one off. I think my worry was all the upper Midwest states were all kind of in play michigan, pennsylvania and wisconsin. It looks like we're going to win pennsylvania, but I'm not sure we're going to get there in michigan and michigan and the hubby race, the hubby race is really close, it's within.

Speaker 3:

A point, and that's wisconsin.

Speaker 1:

He's a great guy. He's great, he's a great, yeah, and that's and that was.

Speaker 3:

We're just a little more margin.

Speaker 1:

Great candidates right.

Speaker 3:

Great candidates. We had three great candidates in the upper Midwest. Tim Sheehy was a great candidate I'm not, you know. Bernie Marino maybe a little different conversation but Trump pulled him through there and that was what we always figured would happen. He was going to win Ohio pretty big. And then, you know, we're still waiting to see what happens with Sam Brown in Nevada. I mean, Nevada is really tight. Trump won that big. Trump could pull Sam Brown along there.

Speaker 3:

It's too close to call. It'll be a couple of days, I think, before we know there. But right now we're at 53. They haven't called Pennsylvania yet, but I'm very confident we're going to get Pennsylvania. So the real question is are we going to get 54? I don't think we're going to get there in Michigan and Wisconsin, unfortunately, which is really a sad thing because they'd be two great senators and it would give your margins better.

Speaker 3:

But the margins matter. I mean 53 to 54 is a big deal. I think the House is going to be close. It's going to be a five, six seat deal, but I'm more confident now than it was a couple of days ago that we're going to hold the House, but it's going to be close. So we'll see how it goes. I also think, though, the nice thing about that is it's been hard for the house to get anything done with that sort of margin, so you're like, oh, can I get anything done? Well, I think, with Trump being president, they can probably get some things done, because I don't think there's going to be as many people eager to buck Trump as they were in the past.

Speaker 1:

So one of the things that is really hard in the world we live in is I've got lots of friends and family that are Democrats and they're. You know, this is not a. I mean, today is a sad day for a lot of people. For sure, you look at the thing, it's still. We're very divided as a country 50-50. And although the polarization of Donald Trump, his personality, his you know just stuff right, it's just there, policy-wise, I mean conservative, republican policy, is. I am what I am and I just I love policy. I love you.

Speaker 1:

Look at our biggest issues, which I do think are immigration, I think tax policy, I think the national debt, I think entitlements, I think of really big things. Here's the question Now that we, when, when, when Trump came in the first time, there was this Republican kind of establishment or established policy wing of policy wonks that were like dying to get someone in office after so much Democrat control to do Republican policy in the nation and I think that was there Is that apparatus exist anymore in the country? What happens now that you do control the executive branch and the House? What happens now that you do control the executive branch and the House. Do you see that? There Is that apparatus gone?

Speaker 3:

Well, that's a good question. I mean, I don't know for sure. I think there is enough there because there's enough institutional memory. I think Idaho is going to play a huge role in that, and that's going to be Senator Crapo, who's going to be the chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the most powerful committee on the Hill.

Speaker 1:

You think of Idaho with Crapo and Risch.

Speaker 3:

And then Risch is going to be chair of Foreign Relations, and then you're going to have, you know, congressman Simpson is one of the senior appropriators, and then Russ Fulcher. Congressman Fulcher is higher up on the Energy Committee, so they've got a lot going on.

Speaker 1:

Can you hit on this? Can you hit on this? I think for a lot of us that don't pay attention too much. We are in a great position as a state, an influential position because of their tenure and because of who they are and their respect back there.

Speaker 3:

But there's really a few big committees back there and Idaho will lead two of them. They will. They're going to lead finance, which touches everything from taxes to the spend side, as you name it, and then foreign relations is going to be Senator Risch. I'm pretty sure he's going to take back over as chairman of that. And then, you know, appropriations-wise, on the House side, congressman Simpson is the senior appropriator over the EPA and other interior pieces that are very important to Idaho. He's been very important to the INL and all these other things. He's done a ton of things. So all three of these guys and then Congressman Fulcher's now had enough time back there, where he's built some great relationships and he's made a lot of progress, and he serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is a very influential committee, and I think he's also on Resources, which is a very big deal at Idaho.

Speaker 3:

They all have a great relationship with Trump, particularly Senator Crapo and Senator Risch, but also Congressman Simpson and Congressman Fulcher. And so, again, I think what's going to happen here is people are going to respond to Trump quite a bit more than even when he came in. But you know, if it was like last time, trump also listened pretty well and he had some pretty good guys like I think you know who's the Treasury Secretary, who's going to be kind of his cabinet posts. They were really good and they worked really well with guys like Senator Crapo, like Senator Risch, and listened and worked really well. I think you're going to see that Because again, he comes in with a huge mandate and I think he comes in with a mandate to get some things done and I think one of the biggest priorities is an extension of his biggest piece of work that he did for us, which is the tax cuts and that's a long conversation for a different day, but it's a big deal.

Speaker 1:

I also think JD Vance, being a senator, understanding the legislative process being there is going to be very helpful.

Speaker 3:

I think it helps a lot and he also has a lot of relationships a little bit with more of the you know the more right piece of the puzzle. So that helps. I think that helps build those relationships and brings everyone together a little bit better. I hope.

Speaker 1:

Okay, can we come back to Idaho? Yeah, yeah, so you, you know, one of the things that you've told me for a year now is the whole prop. One thing the Democrats taking over the Republican elections through this ballot initiative was really stupid, and that like almost word for word. What you said, said with a little more color, a little more energy.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I mean I'll be diplomatic here. You don't need to be diplomatic. No, this is one where this was very much not. Why do you need to be diplomatic? Well, I mean, I've had Klein involved in this, but I mean, what I would say is that I there's no surprise here, like none. I think that the margin was a little bit surprising, although I knew.

Speaker 1:

So before we let's level, set this right, prop one was voter initiative, ballot initiative. Got on the ballot to basically open the primaries and do rate choice voting, which is that's where all the controversy came in.

Speaker 3:

That's where the problem became a really big problem, which which was which?

Speaker 1:

you, which you told them from day one which was predictable. Yes, like like from day one, second one don't do this. Yes, your point was yeah, range was pointing is a really stupid idea, and having this being led by Democrats taking over is not a good idea. I'll say it if you don't want to say it.

Speaker 3:

Well, my point was that I don't care agnostic to the policy. You can argue whether you like RCV or not. It was going to get killed and it did. So I was right. Politically I like the open primary piece and that's a different conversation in my view. But the problem is they put it together and it got killed, and it got killed handily, and my view. But the problem is they put it together and it got killed and it got killed handily. And I think you should give I think there's a lot of big props here to go to Speaker Moyle, who helped lead the charge and knocking it down. And again, the biggest concerns that I've heard from everyone is all about the RCV piece. There's really not a lot of concern about the open primary piece, which I think has a lot of merit and I think voters would think it's got a lot of merit. But it all came down to the RCV piece which, again very predictable, knew that was going to happen.

Speaker 1:

Didn't take a rocket scientist to say that by the way I'm trying to make you a rocket scientist. You're telling me you didn't need to be that smart, it wasn't, but what I love about it is from the very first call you made to me.

Speaker 3:

I don't know when, it was a year and a half. Of credit goes to Speaker Moyle, a lot of credit goes to Frank VanderSloot. They led the charge, they knocked it down. It was very predictable. I think there were a lot of people that were eagerly worried about certain things and I just think again, it's done and it got smoked, and it got smoked very well. It's a Republican state. I mean I just don't, I don't, you know the math's, the math. I mean people have to understand that it's very hard. I mean it's very hard to lead a coalition, to win a race in a Republican state from the center, from the left, and no criticism to anyone. But it should have been common sense to people and I just think people it's not criticism.

Speaker 3:

It's common sense, yeah, and I, well, and I think, ultimately, what it, what it boils down to is, again, people wanted to use their heart instead of their head, and wanted what they wanted instead of what they what was going to actually happen. And so I you know my job every once in a while I hear a little Bill Cranny, my job is not to.

Speaker 3:

My job as a political consultant is to give you advice and tell you the facts. And then you got to make decisions and people do what they want. But again, I don't think this was. This was not a big shocker by any stretch of the imagination. It's unfortunate, in my view, because I think there could have been an opportunity on the open primary piece, which is very simple to understand and voters could have really liked, even Republican voters but it all was drowned out because it all became about RCV and whether you like it or you don't like it, or whether you think it's the greatest policy in the world, you don't. It wasn't going anywhere and everyone knew that and anyone again with common sense knew that Awesome.

Speaker 3:

So legislative races legislative races were actually really great for Republicans. I think, and again, I think prop one inadvertently, but although I think Trump really drove the turnout there, because people were really excited to go out and get out and vote for Trump and that also really doomed Prop 1's chances, which was again very predictable. But I think across the rest of the board Republicans had made some really big gains. So Cody Galloway won the Senate seat back there. I think Cody's great.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, she's fantastic and so she's going to. She took, and that's a net seat gain.

Speaker 1:

That was not an easy race for her. No, not at all. Not at all. Again, I think one of the things that we talk a lot about is you need a good candidate, Yep, and we need people that are critical thinkers, that are good candidates that work hard. But are smart, understand issues, and she was a fantastic candidate.

Speaker 3:

Well, the other thing is I think this is a very important note we don't know this yet because Lori, likely, is ahead right now- how close is that race? Very close and I don't know yet I mean Blaine County still hasn't fully.

Speaker 1:

I really like Likely.

Speaker 3:

And Likely's gate, but it hasn't fully come in. She's ahead right now, but there's a big chunk of vote in Blaine. She could still lose barely, but we'll see. Hopefully, in my view she wins. My view she wins. If she wins, the democrats in the state will only have, will have only one state senator outside of the boise area, which is james rottke, in pocatello one. They'll have two in sun and still in sun valley if laurie doesn't win. So if you're democrats like that's another point I made when they talked about this they're all worried about they want rcv, they want to. That's not their problem. Okay, they got problems. Their. Their problem is again, like I said earlier, downtown.

Speaker 1:

Boise, I think, from the beginning, focus on your problem, which is how do you strengthen your party?

Speaker 3:

Yeah, and my advice to them not trying to want to give Democrats advice, but what I've told them before is you're not going to win Oakley, idaho, with a bunch of North End Democrats, and that's fine if that's what North End of Boise wants, but they got to figure out if they want to be a party that can actually win in this state down the road. Their problem is very simple, which is numbers. There's so many Republicans, it doesn't matter, but over time the independent number is going to, and this is another reason why the open primary discussion is an important discussion in the long term. That's why I've thought about this is that that independent number's gonna keep growing. And so at some point in Idaho not today, but 10 years from now and I'm thinking 10, 15, 20 years from now, not today, okay, today we're good. Republicans are gonna be in control for quite some time. For the next few years, no problem. But 10, 15 years from now, the state continues to grow. The independent number will grow. Republicans are going to have to attract independence to independents and not just far-right Republicans in primaries, and so, again, democrats have this problem, though there's not enough of them.

Speaker 3:

So first of all, they've got to pray for another 10 years of demographic growth to help them more than anything.

Speaker 3:

But even after that, if they're going to have a chance of electing someone statewide no offense to Mary McLean, but there's no chance she could ever run statewide in this state and win. So they need to go find some new Cecil Anderses and they need to go find some new John Evanses, who have actually been. Well, where do you do that? You do not find that by pushing and, by the way, the primary system that they have is the same as ours. They elect the most progressive liberal, mostly, not always. There's some good Democrats. I don't want to cascade everyone be very clear but they're electing a lot of very liberal Democrats who no way could they ever be ready to run statewide and have any sort of chance to compete in this state, because they're never going to appeal to anyone in Oakley, idaho. So they've got to start using their head here and it isn't just about changing the system of RCV to game it. They've got to start thinking about okay, hey, how do we recruit some candidates and some policies that matter?

Speaker 1:

instead of everything else. I mean just sitting here listening to you. It's like it's so interesting that neither side listens to each other. It's just because that makes so much sense.

Speaker 3:

The problem is both extremes. You know, we got the tail wagging the dog way too much, and if they don't listen they're going to lose some track. Now, again, the policies of the left. They got to really start rethinking this sort of stuff. I mean, that's to me the question they got to ask themselves.

Speaker 1:

So I haven't, I, I, I did some channel surfing last night just to listen to what, what was coming back and I got to tell you there were a few people that were saying, hey, we got to really relook at what we're doing. And then there's a bunch of people that are like doubling down on the same.

Speaker 3:

No, yeah, so so and that's pretty typical. That's pretty typical um, well, the other yeah, well we got a few more minutes, okay, good well, I think the other thing I would like I said, the other thing I'd point out is like, if they're gonna, I'm gonna give democrats advice. But what I would say about last night is, in all fairness to kamala harris, she really had a millstone wrapped around her neck and it was Joe Biden.

Speaker 1:

But she didn't pull it off. And she didn't I mean, don't you think the times that she was point-blank asked what would you do differently? She should have Not one thing.

Speaker 3:

Well, she's a terrible candidate. That's a separate conversation. But I totally agree, if I would have been the Democrats, what what they should have done was they should have taken a beat, they should have had a mini primary and they should have put a fresh face up to give themselves some sort of a chance. But they went the easy route and then Biden actually kind of pushed them that way by anointing Harris and then for a while that worked. But at the end of the day that was always why I felt good that Trump was going to win, because she had a ceiling, a hard ceiling she was never going to get through, because she could never separate herself from Biden on the economy, on the border, on any of these issues, and if he stayed on those issues, like Trump's campaign did on paid media, he was going to win.

Speaker 3:

But there are other issues that are underlying that I think are really important and I don't mean to be mean about this, but the reality is some of these transgender issues that are right there they're going through here, like, again, girls, you know, boys playing girls, sports and stuff like that. You know, I heard this candidate say this and it was Tim Sheehy actually, and I loved what he said. Who's the new senator in Montana? He said boys are boys, girls are girls, and that's the way it is. Look, some of this stuff in my view on the left is they're out of touch with the center right, they're not out of touch on the abortion issue. That could. That's what. That's what actually flipped. 2022 was the abortion issue. But this time around again, go to these places like trump's gonna win nevada, he's gonna win arizona. Both of them passed abortion, abortion initiatives, and you got to be careful, these initiatives, because they say different things. So I mean there doesn't mean they're just opening up abortion, but but they're, they're providing the exception, exactly.

Speaker 3:

They're listening they're less yes, they're less restrictive, less restricted and and you go across the board missouri did as well, and so that that's what I'm saying is like.

Speaker 1:

Again, you thought the abortion thing would be the whole thing in the world, but again, again there's some of these cultural issues I think democrats are out of touch with reality on in my view, and maybe that's my personal point Let me ask a follow-up question to this, because if you look at polling which I know you look at I mean that's what you live by right is the numbers right? Don't tell yourself a lie. Yeah, you've got to look at the data You've got to look at the numbers.

Speaker 1:

I think the data has told them a lot.

Speaker 3:

Some of these issues and you're seeing it with, by the way, you know where you're seeing this and the only reason I'm bringing the transgender thing, which I know is sensitive and I have a greater respect. I understand their situations and specifics. You've got to really look at it. But when you go inside of this thing, you know where it's really showing up. It's showing up with black voters. It's showing up with Latino voters. It's showing up again with, obviously, where he does really well, which is downscale voters, and downscale is a term we use for you know, a little less educated, you know lower income, you know blue collar is a better way, probably, to describe it Again.

Speaker 3:

That's where America still is and the left is over here trying to, in my view and this is a separate conversation, not a political analysis trying to reprogram things in a way. That's stupid. But any way you look at it, it's a losing electoral strategy for them and it plays out when you go into the upper Midwest big time. It plays out in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but it plays out in Arizona and in Nevada with Latino voters and with black voters. They're not buying into this either. They're not buying into it.

Speaker 1:

So both extremes are not helping their causes. If there was one thing if I were a Democrat, this morning I would be really worried, because I think part of the party is just tone deaf on what you just said. They are, and if you're a Republican you're saying, hey, maybe we can make this tent bigger.

Speaker 1:

Maybe there are people that are starting to look at are people that are starting to look at and maybe the people that were left behind, that were the old blue dog democrats and the people that you know. These people that felt that, have felt left by the party they have. The democrats have become more of the elitist liberal kind of thing and you've got all these people saying, well, hey, who's who's representing me and that's who, that's who?

Speaker 3:

the republican party because of donald trump, because it's resonating with and that, that, and I think you hit it right on the on the head. I mean, ultimately, that's what's really happening here. There's a real alignment going on within the party and and again, the interesting thing too about the parties is both extremes are much more aligned on certain issues.

Speaker 1:

They're more populist. We talk about this all the time.

Speaker 3:

So, but look at it, what you just said there is absolutely right. There's a realignment going on and no question is that people really felt like Trump is fighting for them, he represents them. And look, trump is one of the most masterful politicians you've ever seen. He's an entertainer, he understands our culture, he understands our modern media mix, he understands better than most politicians and he does things that a normal politician cannot do and never will be able to do.

Speaker 1:

But I would put on top of that he's got a work ethic.

Speaker 3:

He works hard, and a drive.

Speaker 1:

It is a resilience, it is a drive, it is a fight, it is a dog mentality.

Speaker 3:

That is just yeah, and this is what I'd say too. His final thing is that the right has a lot of things to work on too. And don't get me wrong, I understand the criticisms there, and there's things that say, and there's flat out people that are extreme on certain issues, and I don't disagree with that at all. But there's an opportunity here Latino voters are the real alignment of the whole thing in the future, if we can figure out this immigration thing. Secure the border, but figure out immigration correctly, which, by the way, ag wants and a lot of people do need, because it's well, that's then.

Speaker 1:

The irony of all immigration policy is that Republicans need it more as much as anybody, and it's the probably one of the easiest things that we could have ever fixed. You go back to Mitt Romney's first hundred day document and read that.

Speaker 3:

But that's the thing I think is lost a little bit in that issue, not to go off on it. But is Trump isn't saying I don't think he's anti-immigration? At all We've got to secure the border. It's like common sense it's step one of the whole thing. But what I'm saying there politically is that's where realignment can happen. If the Republican Party can figure out its rhetoric on this issue, they could dominate elections for quite some time post-Trump, because they're going to have to figure out a plan post-Trump, because Trump is a unique thing.

Speaker 3:

You're going to have to be careful to try to recreate that.

Speaker 1:

Hey, thanks for hopping on. Yeah, it's great to be with you. Love you, brother. Yeah, I love you.

Speaker 3:

Thanks brother, Thanks man, See you.