Episode 25: Dan Schnur on Trump and the Political Dilemmas of Harris and Newsom.

What if strategic risks could reshape the political future? In this episode of KabaTalks, we welcome Dan Schnur, a veteran political strategist, to unpack the  dynamics of the latest presidential election. With Kamala Harris facing the challenge of a lifetime by running her campaign in just 107 days, and Donald Trump pulling off an impressive voter mobilization feat, we dissect the strategic gambles taken by both. Our conversation reveals that the election's outcome wasn't dictated by a single factor but a convergence of calculated moves and unexpected shifts. 

Our exploration doesn't stop there. Presidential appointments and pardons often stir heated debates, and we dive headfirst into the controversies surrounding presidential powers. From analyzing the strategic appointments that emphasize loyalty to the contentious pardons issued by Joe Biden and potentially Donald Trump, we debate the ethical lines and the political costs involved. We ponder over Biden's decision to pardon his son, Hunter, and the political ramifications that accompany such a move, contrasting it with Trump's narratives around the January 6th Capitol riot. 

Shifting our focus to California, we explore the future political landscape for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party as a whole. What strategies should they employ to maintain unity amid growing ideological divides? As California's complex dynamics unfold, we consider the potential political maneuvers of Gavin Newsom and the challenges both parties face in engaging with voters. Our episode concludes with some light-hearted speculation about holiday surprises for political figures, ensuring a blend of sharp analysis and enjoyable camaraderie throughout our discussion. Join us for a thought-provoking and spirited conversation as Dan's perspective is one to be respected.

Chapter Summaries
(00:00) Political Analysis With Dan Schnur
Kamala Harris's time constraints and Trump's mobilization of low-propensity voters influenced the recent presidential election, discussed by the Kabateck brothers and Dan Schnur.

(10:59) Presidential Appointments and Pardons
Campaign ads and presidential appointments reflect the importance of loyalty and its impact on future governance.

(17:53) Presidential Pardons
Presidential pardons, including Biden's for his son and Trump's for Capitol rioters, raise ethical and political questions about loyalty and public trust.

(22:36) Fate of Kamala Harris
Sibling dynamics, presidential pardons, California politics, Kamala Harris's potential roles, National Democratic Party's need to retool.

(28:41) Democratic Party's Path and Political Optics
Democratic Party's tension between progressive and centrist members, strategic choices, Newsom's actions, and governors' balancing act.

(35:00) California Political Landscape and Societal Challenges
California's political landscape, challenges for Democrats and Republicans, internal party dynamics, and cultural influences on politics.

(47:21) Holiday Surprises for Political Figures
Joe Biden's retirement, Gavin Newsom's primary travel, and Matt Gaetz's potential podcast are discussed with camaraderie.

If you enjoy hearing what we have to say, albeit somewhat irreverent and rarely do we agree, please subscribe or follow and us and leave a comment. We would love to hear from you.
To learn more about John Kabateck's firm visit Kabateck Strategies
To learn more about Brian's firm visit KBK Law

Transcript

Brian Kabateck: [00:00:00] Hey, welcome back everybody to Kabatalks, this is Brian Kabateck, I'm the slightly left of center brother. 

John Kabateck: This is John Kabateck, I am the slightly right of center brother. I am right, and Brian is sometimes just misled. It's misinformed. 

Brian Kabateck: That's nice, that's nice. I was going to say you're slightly right of Attila the Hun, but that's okay.

John Kabateck: Well, I'm right, you're just misled. But I love you, I do. Not much. Welcome, everybody. We have a great guest today, a very special friend, an encore, returning wonderful friend of ours and, uh, to the Kabatalks experience, and that is Dan Schnur. Brian and I have both known Dan for many, many years. I had the pleasure of working with him back, way back when my hair was brown in, uh, Governor Pete Wilson's administration.

Dan has been involved in more than three or four presidential elections as a senior communications and strategist on the political front and a number of gubernatorial elections and campaigns. Dan has been a professor at UC Berkeley's Institute of [00:01:00] Governmental Studies. He is also the founder of the USCLA Times Statewide Political Poll and he's also a Phaidon, Phaidon, Phaidon, a professor and the head of.

Uh, their government affairs institute at USC, if I'm not mistaken. Are you 

Brian Kabateck: reading that, John? Are you reading 

John Kabateck: it? No, I'm not. This is from the heart, Brian. This is from the heart. This is my great infinite knowledge of the wonderful Dan Schnurr. I would never read anything. Well, 

Brian Kabateck: I'm very certainly happy to have you with us, Dan, today, and, uh, a man who is knowledgeable about all things political.

Unfortunately, there's really nothing for us to talk about politically these days. It's pretty quiet. Nothing's happened recently in politics. California nationally. So we can talk about the Dodgers or USC football and how unhappy USC and UCLA probably are for joining the big 10. 

Dan Schnur: I would happily start with the big 10 guys, but whatever, wherever you want to go on, thank you so much for having me.

Brian Kabateck: Yeah, I mean, I watched that SCUCLA game where John and I are all USC alumni, and that was the game I called the race to the bottom. So let's just look [00:02:00] at 

John Kabateck: that. Dan, great to have you. Great to have you. You know, let's, if you're good with this, let's start race to the top. Let's talk about the presidential election if you, if you'd be so inclined and kind to talk about that.

Love your, your thoughts about this. What is this phenomenon known as Donald J. Trump winning the election? How do you that explained and what did parties do right? What did the parties do wrong? 

Thank you guys so much for having me. I love the podcast. You guys are smart and funny and funnier Well, I see you both taking it as a compliment and getting ready to just talk about how the other one isn't so that works 

John Kabateck: I'm cat skills funny.

I'm cat skills funny Dan 

Are you old enough to know the caps? This is my question, but okay. Um, I, I feel like both campaigns took a huge gamble in this election. Harris gamble was the more obvious one. She gambled, really without a choice, that you could develop and run an effective presidential campaign in [00:03:00] 107 days.

And normally, when someone runs for president, they do it for a year, or two, or four, or when they're Gavin Newsom, they do it for 50 years before they actually run. But Harris's gamble, and we can come back to this in a minute if you like, obviously didn't pay off. That simply wasn't enough time for her to get to know the American public, and more importantly for the American public to get to know her.

The Trump gamble was, he and his advisors believed that they could motivate a group of low propensity voters, a group of young men, without college diplomas, young working class men who did not generally participate in politics to turn out in unprecedented numbers. And we can talk about why that succeeded, but their gamble paid off.

They both rolled the dice. Harris gamble didn't work. Trump's did, and now he's the president elect. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, I think you're right, Dan, about a couple things. First of all, I think it was, there was little choice. I mean, I certainly heard from my friends on the right, if they're still my friends, That, that, [00:04:00] you know, it was a bad decision for the Dems, that I've heard all the conspiracy theories, that they knew that Biden wasn't gonna run a year earlier, and this was all a set up to try to put her in there, which I disagree with.

I think, you know, it is what it is, and I'll take it at today's value. I think one of the debates that my brother and I have had has been, John has said consistently voters didn't connect with Kamala. And I've said, first of all, she did run, or they did run, a pretty good campaign in 107 days. They did not lose by a massive landslides like some people lead us to believe but you can't blame this loss or the win in my humble opinion on any one specific factor.

There are so many things at work here that caused what happened to happen. Thoughts? 

Dan Schnur: I think that's right. I mean an election is an amalgamation of dozens if not hundreds of individual factors and you're right oversimplifying it is. dangerous. I'm just picking out two things that I think had an unusually large impact, [00:05:00] and I'd offer one thought to your point about Harris.

I don't think, in retrospect, that she could have won in 107 days, and we can talk, if you like, about Biden's decision and the timing of it, but I would say this, that for all of Kamala Harris's skills as a political figure, and we've all watched her since she was a deputy district attorney in San Francisco, she's really good at a lot of things.

But she's also one of the most cautious politicians I've ever seen in my entire life. And her associates say as an attorney, she's learned how to speak very precisely and very carefully. And so Brian, I'll defer to you on that qualification. But my feeling, looking back at this race, is that while Harris could not have won with such a small window of opportunity, I feel like a more aggressive campaigner, excuse me, a more aggressive communicator and a more forthright communicator could have taken advantage of that very abbreviated window [00:06:00] in a way that Harris could not.

And that's not a criticism of her, everyone's good at some things, no one's good at everything, but that in a caution just made her almost uniquely misplaced. For such a short timeline, 

John Kabateck: Dan, I'd like to ask this, the one thing Brian and I have also talked about is the fact that she was tied to an administration that frankly, and not just my opinion, the opinion of obviously millions of voters was not doing them right these past four years, right?

The economy, crime, our national stage. There are many who feel that way. So I have not disagreed with Brian that there was a short window for her to run. But I guess the question for you is, had it been an outsider, had it been somebody like the, a Democrat equivalent of like a Nikki Haley that was basically able to say, look, I'm not tied to Joe Biden.

I'm not associated with this administration. I want, I want to see change of things. Could that have boded well and better? Because I just don't think that Kamala or the Biden administration did Americans right these past four years. And that was a referendum, [00:07:00] you know, hundreds of days or not. 

Dan Schnur: Well, and public opinion polls back you up on that, John.

You know, Biden's approval ratings are very, very low. And there's a reasonable argument to be had about whether that's deserved or not. But whether or not it's deserved, it is the fact. And so I think your point is a, is a smart one. Harris, by virtue of his being his vice president, would have had a more difficult time differentiating herself from Trump.

But I guess I'm talking about something slightly different. Not just her standing in the administration, but who she is as an individual and as a political leader made it harder for her to distance herself than even a member of Biden's administration could have been able to. I'll give you guys one example.

The Friday night after the election, we had our daughter and her fiance over for dinner and they were just distraught. And so we told them, we can either talk about the election if you're not, or we can talk about nothing relating to the election. And we lasted for about an hour talking about the rest of the And our future son in law pointed [00:08:00] to the Trump ad in which they used a clip from The View in which Harris was asked is there anything you could do, would have done differently than Biden.

And she said, nothing comes to mind. So these are two ardent Democrats. Brian, they make you look like a fascist by comparison. These are hardcore progressives. They make Bernie Sanders look conservative by comparison. So they're very, very upset. And I asked them, I said, if Harris had won, do you think that she would have governed much in the way that Biden had?

Or would she have gone off in a different direction? And these two really smart, politically engaged, intelligent people disagreed 180 degrees. Which to me tells me that Harris, an incredibly intelligent woman, but such a cautious communicator, was not able to articulate to the American people whether she would have been another helping of Biden or not.

Which means she ended up getting the worst of both worlds. 

Brian Kabateck: You know, it's interesting. I would unpack a couple of things there Dan. One is, first of all, that ad was [00:09:00] effective, but I've said before on this podcast and my, and our eight listeners have probably heard me say it is that I thought the best, most effective campaign ad, maybe in a generation was the trans ad, which finished with the line of Kamala Harris is for them, they, them.

Donald Trump is for you. And I thought that was an incredibly effective ad because it tapped into the middle America distrust of the far left. So, that, that's one point. The other point I wanted to make, maybe if nothing else, just to prove how knowledgeable I am of California politics, is that many people forget, but this is apropos of what you were saying earlier about her as a campaigner, She barely won the AG race, barely beating my friend Steve Cooley, who was the DA of LA, who for whatever reason couldn't carry LA.

So, you know, apropos of what you're saying about her being a, uh, potentially weak campaigner or having a [00:10:00] difficulty having a voice, Or cautious, I think, as you said. I think that bears noting that that's sort of been her political career. 

I couldn't agree with you more, Brian. Um, on the, on the second point, I would say if you went back to her very first weeks as San Francisco District Attorney, when she did not call for the death penalty for the San Francisco cop killer, in excoriated her.

My own feeling, and there's no way to know this, is that Harris, who ran a very aggressive campaign for DA way back in that day, she was so burned by taking the risk of not applying the death penalty in that cop killer case. I think it taught her that the best way to succeed politically is to be cautious.

And in a lot of ways, that's worked to her benefit. But in a 107 day campaign, You just simply can't rely on caution. And again, I do believe a more aggressive communicator might have been able to take advantage of that window. [00:11:00] Brian, quickly, to your first point about the most effective ad of the campaign, not only do I agree with you that that was the most effective ad run, but so does the Harris campaign.

And her senior advisors have talked about the effect that that had on their, on her candidacy. And they didn't have 

Brian Kabateck: a response to it. I understood that they tested a response, it didn't test well, and so they, they just deep sixed it. 

Dan Schnur: I've been told that they tested multiple responses to it, and that Bill Clinton, among others, is begging them to respond.

Say, better to have a okay, not perfect response than none at all. But, the fact that they did not respond to that convinced a lot of swing voters, and this goes to my other point, they started that ad with Charlamagne Tha God, expressing his astonishment. about Harris's past position on that issue. And you think about working class young men, young men without a college degree, not just white young men, but black and Latino young men.

They moved away from the Democrats in droves. on [00:12:00] economic and on cultural issues. 

John Kabateck: Hey, mind if I, uh, a little related, but unrelated like to bring up and that's the presidential appointments, the president elects appointments, Brian, and I've talked about this a little bit before Dan, and this is more, maybe a kind of a speed dating question for you.

It's kind of maybe one, two or three kind of bullet off the top of your head. Ones that you think actually. Have some good promise and potential and ones that you think are going to be, uh, conversely, you know, lightning rods that could get gummed up. I think some of those may be obvious already, but just your thoughts on ones that you think could bode well for progress and ones that you think are, you know, Oh Lord, we just got to keep a close eye.

Dan Schnur: Yeah. I quickly offer you this. I think there are three types of Trump appointees to date. There are loyalists. There are revolutionaries. And the reassurers. The reassurers, let's start there, are Marco Rubio, Scott Besant, Mike Waltz. These are people who are designed to tell Wall Street, and to some extent tell the foreign markets, [00:13:00] and the global marketplace, Hey, we're okay.

We're gonna, we're gonna stay calm, we're gonna do reasonable things. The revolutionaries, yeah, RFK Jr., Kash Patel, uh, Tulsi Gabbard. Hegseth and others, they are designed to send not only a very strong message, but to fundamentally change the way the areas of government are currently conducted. And then the rest of them are the loyalists, people who've given a lot of money to him over the years, and who he's giving either cabinet or ambassadorial positions.

But I think you'd agree those first two categories are the most important. 

John Kabateck: And 

Dan Schnur: depending on the issue, which those two groups. is dominant, will tell us a lot about how the Trump presidency is going to, going to proceed. If Scott Besant's voice, Wall Street lifer, is the preeminent voice on economic issues, well then tariffs will be used as a lever, not as a hammer.

If Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard [00:14:00] have their way in their offices, then you will see absolute destruction of their segments of government. The question is, you know, he set up these three different camps, Of the two most prominent ones, we'll find out differently on every issue who he listens to. And we won't know that until the time comes.

Brian Kabateck: I just don't think you can be surprised. And and people on, you know, my side of the aisle, sometimes they're reacting and they're saying, oh, my God, look at these appointments. I just don't think you can be surprised. He's pretty much telegraphed what he was gonna do, who he was gonna put in there. He wasn't going to make the mistakes he made his first term with people who, you know, Vehemently disagreed with them and fled and I think one thing you can say about every single person in each category You've just mentioned is to some degree.

They're all loyalists. They've all kissed the ring. They all are on team Donald 

John Kabateck: Welcome to the world of appointments coming from somebody who's worked in appointments both sides of the aisle Brian. That's both sides of the aisle And I always laugh, [00:15:00] Dan, when I see, Brian and I have both laughed at this, whenever the L.

A. Times, one of Brian's favorite publications, and mine, has written a story or there's some sort of big bombastic story about, you know, Governor Newsom, Governor Brown, Governor Wilson, Governor Duke Magian making these appointments of friends who are political supporters. Wow. Big shocker. So I guess I'm a little, I take that with a big grain of salt because I think that can be said for both sides.

Dan Schnur: I think that's right. It's very commonplace, but where I think Brian is going, if I understood right, is a little bit different. Because when Trump was first elected back in 2016, he appointed a lot of more conventional Washington voices. And he found out, much to his displeasure, that they were not invested in his agenda at all.

So where I do take Brian's analysis at face value, not disagreeing with yours, John, is Trump is putting a much greater premium on loyalty now than he did. Eight years ago and some of those, you know, the rubios of the world are reassurers. They're [00:16:00] more Normal picks but there's a lot more that's a good point in this cabinet Because of the premium he's put on loyalty based on what he learned in his first term 

Brian Kabateck: That's that's exactly where I was going john and I know that when you were chief deputy appointment secretary under wilson You guys appointed people who are qualified.

They may have been People who were loyalists or friendly or, you know, friends of the administration, no surprise there, but they were also qualified. And I also think that your governor was willing to listen to two sides of an argument from his appointees. Whereas if the first Trump, first term of Trump, you know, plays out in the second term, he's got his point of view and everybody else is wrong.

Dan Schnur: Well, and of course, who, you know, who agrees with him and who doesn't is going to differ issue to issue. He is setting up his own version of a team of rivals inside the administration between those reassurers and those revolutionaries. So he will always have someone on his side, but there's going to be plenty of disappointed cabinet members and plenty of [00:17:00] Once along the way to 

John Kabateck: kind of the third leg and then we can move on from presidential But I'd love to ask one more thing that Brent we've talked a little bit about in the past and that is presidential pardons You know Dan you've been the chair of the California Fair political practices commission that the political watchdog and ethics agency for California But you also understand this being in an inside and outside of the government side of things What are your thoughts about presidential pardons?

We talked about this with regards to Hunter Biden You know, Brian threw out an interesting idea, which was, you know, perhaps Biden ought to, uh, also pardon Trump. Are presidential pardons a good thing in general? Do you think that, that they're ethical? Is there a place for them? Or do you think most voters want them out the door?

Dan Schnur: Most voters do want them out the door. We've learned from polling. Of course, when those polls are taken immediately after Hunter Biden or a Mark Rich pardon, It becomes that much more motivating for voters. Look, the founders had the right idea. The chief executive should have the wherewithal to give [00:18:00] someone some forgiveness for a crime they've committed in the past.

But the abuse of the power in both parties in recent years continues to get worse and worse. And This is not an area of expertise for me. I neither done appointments nor am I a lawyer. So I'm at a disadvantage to both cab attacks here, but I think while maintaining the ability, but finding some way of reining it in, I think is necessary and I'm not picking on Biden here because Trump did it in his last term and he'll do a lot of it on January 20th on his first day in office.

So did Obama. So did Bush. So did Clinton. And going back, but I would say this, I think totally aside from the legal questions, I think Biden, much more than other outgoing presidents, did himself a tremendous political disservice. By pardoning Hunter, and they may not matter as a father who cares about his son.

He may have decided consciously that he was willing to [00:19:00] take a political hit in order to do what he felt was the right thing for his son. But I had believed as recently as a month ago. That Biden would go down in history very much the way a Truman or an Eisenhower or George HW Bush did someone who is not thought of particularly highly upon leaving office, but as time passed his statue would grow.

And I think both the timing of Biden's decision not to run for reelection not having made that decision sooner, and the punter of the pardon of hunt of hunter is going to make that reclamation harder for him than it was for the other former president so I mentioned. 

Brian Kabateck: I don't know. I think that he did what a father would do under the circumstances when he has somebody coming into office who has Repeatedly referred to the biden crime family as something that is hanging out there and he wants to protect his family I don't know and if trump comes into office and keeps his word and we have every reason to believe he will and he pardons You know 900 people who stormed the capitol on january 6th Is that going to [00:20:00] wash out Biden did with Hunter?

I mean, are people going to look at that and go, gosh, you know, that's pretty extreme. 

Dan Schnur: Well, Biden, even though he's clearly declined over the last year or so, if not before, is a smart man. And I can't imagine he wasn't aware of and wasn't told of the political consequences of pardoning Hunter, especially having been so insistent that he wouldn't for such a long time.

And so it's entirely possible he recognized the political consequences and decided that was a worthwhile trade off to bring some comfort to his only surviving son. I think, 

John Kabateck: I think the thing that, go ahead, I'm sorry, Dan. Analyze the 

outcome without condemning a father for making that decision. 

John Kabateck: The three words Brian used, keep his word, you know, even with the January six books is, is that's the difference, you know, I think even if he does that, he kept his word, I think where I said it on, on a recent cabot talk with Brian is that I actually held Joe Biden to a higher level in terms of integrity, kind of old school, Dan, you know, kind of the [00:21:00] old Pete Wilson, even John Burton, Willie Brown, George W.

Bush kind of keeping their word, right? Being smooth, being honest and saying X and doing X. I kind of held him to that and I think that's where the difference is. Donald Trump, if he pardons a number of these other folks that he said he would, he kept his, will have kept his word. I think where people were Uh, we're holding Biden to a higher standard, and where a lot of us, including me, were disappointed, was that he said, uh, that wasn't gonna happen, and then it happened.

And so it's a betray of trust, I think. But maybe that's turnside baseball. And my 

Brian Kabateck: response to you when you said that last time, John, was, who gives a fuck? I mean, the guy's done, he's out of office, it doesn't really make any difference. The problem I have with when you're saying that Trump's gonna keep his word with these 900 people, I agree with you, he is gonna keep his word.

But I think that people in this country are going to be outraged when they see that. Now, would that move the needle in two years? I don't know. But I'm outraged when I hear that. These people are clearly, unequivocally criminals. [00:22:00] Who stormed the Capitol and it's not like he kept his word. So he's a good man.

Let's applaud Donald Trump for keeping his word and freeing 900 people. It disgusts me. And it should, you know what, Brian, 

John Kabateck: honestly, it's disgusts me when a, when a chief executive of our country says, I'm not going to do it and tells the American people, I'm not going 

Brian Kabateck: to do it, but I'm asking you, does it disgust you that he would let 900 people who are clearly criminals out of jail, 

John Kabateck: it depends on It depends on 

Brian Kabateck: with you once again, you want to throw something out there as a red herring.

I'll agree with you. Hello kettle. Hello kettle. I have 

a question. Well, you guys were growing up. Did your parents have to separate you frequently? Oh 

Brian Kabateck: yeah. 

John Kabateck: Brian just threw me in the trunk. It's okay. 

Brian Kabateck: I'm almost seven years older than I could beat 13. 

John Kabateck: Yeah, you could probably got 

Brian Kabateck: bigger than me probably got taller.

But 

Dan Schnur: I will say this as someone who's slightly to the right of Brian and slightly to the left of John [00:23:00] I think there's plenty to criticize on both presidents when it comes to pardons. 

Brian Kabateck: Yeah. 

Dan Schnur: I can't defend either one and would harshly criticize both. 

John Kabateck: Hey, Dan, thank you. I think some great presidential discussion, important ones, and great perspective as usual.

I'd love to move it a little bit here home to California. One other issue that everybody's kind of asking is, uh, does Kamala run or does she not? 

Dan Schnur: Yeah, good, good topic. Yeah. Yeah. Have you guys in a previous episode talked about the Richard Nixon parallel? Yes. Okay. So we don't know. So we can skip past that.

I don't think Kamala Harris runs for governor. Uh, I don't have any way of knowing. I don't have any insight into her, but unless you were convinced that it would, the field would clear for her, which I'm not convinced of. I think a highly contested race against other Democrats is not something She'd be particularly eager to take on, and I think if only for the reasons relating to her legacy, [00:24:00] if she does not run for office again, even though Democrats are disappointed in her campaign, she'll be remembered in a very admirable way, a very heightened admiration, as someone who stepped in under difficult circumstances and did her best to fight for the party and fight for the cause.

If she runs for governor in 2026 and loses to another Democrat, I think that tremendously diminishes the way she's remembered. And as a very cautious politician, unless she can be assured the field will be cleared for her, I don't think she takes that risk. So I think her team will do very, very aggressive work.

reconnaissance to try to figure out who they can talk out and who they can't. But unless it's a cakewalk for her, just her against a Republican. I don't think she takes the risk. What do 

Brian Kabateck: you both think? That's pretty insightful. The risk aspect I didn't think about before. I remember my friend, former, uh, speaker of the assembly, John Perez once said to me, he said, politician only has two losses in them.[00:25:00] 

And that would be your second loss, you know, but on the other hand, where would she go now? I will say it once again, and this is completely on the record. I am happy to make her an offer to join our firm as a mid level associate. I'm willing to pay her a little bit of a signing bonus and a bump. Um, she lives in Brentwood.

Dan Schnur: Another Richard Nixon parallel. He joined the law firm after losing the presidential campaign. 

Brian Kabateck: Adam Stuckey, I think he joined. 

John Kabateck: And I was going to offer an NFIB sales rep position to Matt Gates, but I'm not sure if he'd accept. 

Dan Schnur: I think she's more likely to end up at University of California than either of your places, guys.

No offense. 

Brian Kabateck: Interesting. Like as a chancellor? 

Dan Schnur: Nah, probably as a, uh, probably as a lecturer. 

Brian Kabateck: Well, you know, maybe that's a good place to bide her time. I don't know. I mean, where does she go though, Dan? If she, if she doesn't run for governor of California, where does she go? 

Dan Schnur: That's a great question. I, and I don't know the answer to that.

There's not going to be a [00:26:00] Senate seat open again in any of our lifetimes. So that's not going to happen. If her team is not able to clear the field for her for governor, I could see her at least potentially not running for elected office again. Maybe, now, I think it's either, it's either governor or nothing.

Brian Kabateck: Yeah, and I think she's, frankly, I think she's dead on arrival if she ran for president in four years and, you know, I think that Gavin Newsom isn't going to win. I don't think he could, I mean, don't tell him that, he'd be very hurt. But I don't think he has a chance of winning, um, presidential nomination.

John Kabateck: Well, is it, is Dan, is it entirely possible that, uh, you know, there are some kind of backroom discussions between Newsom and Harris, uh, and their teams kind of a, uh, you show me yours. I'll show you mine. And now I do mean political. Well, I kicked it outta, I do mean, I know that's a bad visual of my mind. I meant political donor sheets and grassroots sheets.

Is it possible that they are kind of sharing with each other? The rules of people that they've been their supporters as well [00:27:00] as frankly the Harris team, even having lost, especially having lost kind of saying, here's what you don't do a Newsom as it comes to the next. 

Dan Schnur: They've already done this. As you know, back in 2016, they decided that one would run for Senate, one would run, one would run for governor.

So they've already had conversations like that as part of their past. Now they're not particularly close as we, as you both know. Um, but I would say this, that John, whether Gavin Newsom runs for president or not. I think it's unlikely that Harris does. It's marginally more likely that she runs if he doesn't.

But there were, what, there were 24 Democratic candidates for president at one point in the 2020 field. I suspect it'll be double by 20, in 2028. And so whether there are 40 or 41 potential opponents to her, I think either way it's unlikely that she runs for president again. 

Brian Kabateck: Let's start with the National Democratic Party.

And I want to focus, come back and focus again on California in a minute, but how would you recommend the National Democratic Party [00:28:00] retool? Well, 

Dan Schnur: look, I'm a centrist. So of course I see the world through that window. Often when parties lose elections that they don't anticipate losing, they go back to their base because those are the people who stick around.

I think that would be a very bad mistake for the Democratic Party. I think a Democratic party that is populist but centrist, a, a Sherrod Brown, John Fetterman, younger Joe Biden type party, is much better positioned to come back than one that does revert to, uh, to its base on the left. I think that's a tough sell.

The party, as you know, Brian, did that in 2020. A lot of progressives held their nose. And said, I love Warren, I love Sanders, but I'm going to suck it up and vote for Biden because we have to beat Trump. That was an unusual set of circumstances. And I do believe that a party's progressive wing that has felt That it's been held in abeyance for a long time now is poised to come back [00:29:00] And I don't think that's the best path for a democratic 

Brian Kabateck: resurgence Oh, I I think would be a huge mistake, you know And i'm not a i'm not a huge bernie sanders fan and bernie sanders had a great comment after the election He said the democratic party has lost its touch with working class america The only difference between me and bernie is how you get that back I mean, I think he thinks you go further left you become more progressive And I disagree.

I think you have to distance yourselves from far left rhetoric of the party. You have to get back to what we're trying to do is protect families, protect working class people, make sure that unions are strong, that they have a voice when corporations are making a lot of money. I mean, look at what happened this last few weeks and this program will probably air in the future.

So there'll be new developments, but the, the, the murder of the United healthcare CEO. You see people out there, they're angry at an insurance company, right? And this kind of angst and frustration that [00:30:00] people have about corporations, in my humble opinion, isn't gonna get better under a Trump administration.

And the Dems could tap into that, but I worry, and I agree with you, I worry they're gonna go further left. They're gonna try to appease the the progressive I 

Dan Schnur: tell my students, brilliant young people who believe that nothing in the world happened that mattered before 2016. I tell them that the Democratic Party has been here before.

And I said, in the early 1990s, the party lost three consecutive presidential elections, one with more than 500 electoral votes and Bill Clinton and a group of Republicans. of smart party leaders move the party to the center that to me that is the best path back But I do understand progressives are feeling very restive right now after several election cycles Of feeling like they've been left at the curb.

John Kabateck: This whole Trump proofing special session, which I know Brian wants to turn into [00:31:00] a drinking game every time I bring up the special session. It's on my mind and it's frustrating to me for a couple reasons. It's political theater that even left leaning columnists have said is not necessary. to actually convene.

But again, and in, and in fairness to Newsom, Trump does a lot on the optics front as well. So, you know, political optics and political theater, but also, you know, it may not, it may seem like budget dust, Dan, but there's 35 million that I think is ridiculous that we are even looking to allocate. And I feel very undemocratically and Brian and I disagree on this a lot, but I, I wanted your thoughts about this Trump proofing, you know, especially after the day after the election.

Um, with, you know, Newsom saying, look, I'm extending an olive branch. We want to work well with this administration. And then, and then boom, this, the state, the curtains open up. 

Dan Schnur: Well, I guess a couple of thoughts. If I were advising Gavin Newsom, which for the record, I am not, and the worst thing that people could say about what he's doing right [00:32:00] now is that he's acting politically.

I don't think I'd be all that upset. You're exactly right. Donald Trump acts politically and performatively. So does every politician, at least most of the good ones. So let's agree there is no substantive reason to call a special session. There's absolutely nothing that could have been accomplished, even if they'd passed a bill, which by the way, they did not.

Even if they had passed legislation, there's absolutely nothing they could have done in the first week of December that they couldn't have done in the first week of January. They just wouldn't have gotten quite as much coverage in the Washington Post and on MSNBC. But you know what? Newsom's a politician, and whether he runs for president, that's what politicians do.

So smart political move. What's challenging for Newsom, and we saw this after his call for a special session when he took his trip to the Central Valley, is he realizes a lot of people who voted for him two years ago, voted for Donald Trump, and are now registering disapproval at the way that Newsom is governing.

So you're watching Newsom, and to be fair to him, a lot of Democratic governors [00:33:00] across the country, Walking this very awkward line on one hand making a clue that they're going to stand up to trump But also not sort of automatically knee jerk pushing back at him the way they did in 2016 and 2017 You see the governor of new jersey.

You see the governor of michigan You see plenty of other democratic governors saying we're going to look for ways to work with him on some things 

John Kabateck: But 

Dan Schnur: we're going to fight him on others. They feel like they have to achieve a balancing act. That wasn't the case in 2017 The resistance seems a lot more, um, conflicted now than it did then.

Brian, is that fair? 

Brian Kabateck: Yeah. I look at it. I, my brother and I had a big debate about this in our last podcast about this. And I don't disagree with anything either. If you've said about this special session, my point was and continues to be that California has a responsibility to its voters, which overwhelmingly voted for Kamala.

which gave 200, 000 [00:34:00] more votes to Steve Garvey than Donald Trump to protect the things that Californians believe are precious and important to Californians. Environmental issues, LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, things like that. And the disagreement I have with John was We don't wait for January 20th, much like an abused spouse doesn't wait for her husband to come home from the bar drunk again to take some action.

And I think that's where John and I really disagree. I think John thinks we should sit back, relax. And enjoy the flight and see what happens when Donald Trump comes in office. And I think that would be cool. I'm just saying 

John Kabateck: cross that bridge. I'm just saying we cross that bridge. The money's, the money's there.

God knows our state. Gotta be ready, man. God knows our politicians in Sacramento. He's at the 

Brian Kabateck: bar, he's drunk with his buddies again, and he's on his way home to beat you. 

Dan Schnur: Yeah. I would simply say this, that given a state budget that's well over 200 billion, setting aside 25 million for lawsuits is not that big a deal.[00:35:00] 

Like I said, if the worst thing you can say about Newsom is that he's pulled a political stunt, well that's not such harsh criticism for a politician. But Brian, I agree with most of what you said, except for your mean words about my friend John. I agree with most of what you said, and my guess is Gavin Newsom does too.

Because Gavin's a very savvy, Gavin Newsom's a very savvy politician. But, what Newsom understands is a very savvy politician. Is that trump won? Yeah, eight or nine counties that he didn't win in california four years ago He achieved a double digit improvement of his vote in san francisco And what newsom understands and I think you do too Is that while pushing back on all the issues you mentioned is a political necessity for him Is he has to find a way to talk to those disaffected voters who turn to trump?

He has to find a way to talk to them not instead of fighting with the incoming president But in addition to it, finding ways to make it clear to [00:36:00] them that he's not opposing Trump on everything. And that's going to be a hard line to walk. So that 

Brian Kabateck: kind of segues to the next question is what is the California Democratic Party do at this point?

Does it change? Does it retool? 

Dan Schnur: I'll let, uh, I'll let, I'll let John rebut me on this one. I don't think the California Democratic Party needs to do anything at all until there's a legitimate California Republican Party. And so if the California Democratic Party wanted to, uh, serve the people of California well, they would listen to their inland members, they would listen to the members they have who do address the concerns of the working class, and they leave the coastal Dems in the backseat for the time being.

But the honest truth is, it doesn't matter. They could run a hard left Democratic Party, they could run a center left Democratic Party. Either way, the California Republican Party, they would Has many, many more steps to take before it can become, can become competitive. My former student, [00:37:00] James Gallagher is doing a great job.

He's won a few, he won a few seats back in last month's election, but until California Republicans are ready to fundamentally, or I would say to recognize that they are fundamentally out of step with the state, the Democrats can do whatever they want and they'll continue to achieve, uh, to maintain huge majorities.

I don't say that as a good thing, but just as a fact of life 

Brian Kabateck: before we move on to the california Republican party one comment I'd have on that is I think the battle these days in the california democratic party is between The left and the moderates. 

Dan Schnur: Yeah, I always like to say that there's the california is a two party state They're just both democratic parties.

Brian Kabateck: That's very funny 

Dan Schnur: There's a coastal and an inland democratic party and I think republicans over the long haul Could form an alliance with that inland democratic party But it's hard to see that happening in two or four or even six years. 

Brian Kabateck: Reminds me of a conversation I had with the governor of the state of Hawaii, who's a friend of mine, and he said he'll look around their state legislature, [00:38:00] which is almost exclusively Democrat, and he'll look at the Democrats and go Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Republican, Republican, Democrat, Democrat, even though they're all Democrats.

John, let's turn to the California Republican Party. What are your thoughts about what Dan said about your party? 

John Kabateck: Not a lot of disagreement there. You know, actually, as we're talking about, I actually think that the Democrats, frankly, I want to talk about that for one minute. They actually, I think they have had a bit of a wake up call.

I mean, I think we saw in the week following the election, Dan, Brian, I think we saw Gavin Newsom. Making his way to those counties and those communities where Trump did, you know, remarkably better, you know, he didn't win as you said, Dan, but he did better and Newsom's been kind of making his way around the state, trying to ingratiate himself to those communities.

So I think they're doing. Some of that. And other than that, I do think this is where I get critical of my own party. I think that, you know, we still, I still hear from Republican policymakers who are pretty moderate who say, Look, we need to make sure the party is getting us out there into those communities of [00:39:00] color, disadvantaged people in need.

And, and, and I think right now they are riding a little bit of a wave. After November 5th, where they saw some numbers increase, they should be leveraging that, hopefully they are, and they should be getting more folks out there to meet with those folks. And so, I'm more, I didn't have a lot to disagree with, Dan, on the, uh, what you just said.

I actually think the Republicans need to, you know, seize this opportunity to get, to show that, you know, we're never going to get completely red in California, but they should be seizing the opportunity to get us a deeper purple. 

Dan Schnur: And I give James and his team. A lot of credit because they have looked for those opportunities on criminal justice issues, on affordable housing issues.

It's just a long path back and it's tough to walk that path back from the legislature. I would draw a line, and John, since you and I have convinced each other how right we are, I would add just one twist, which is to, I would draw a distinction between a governor's political approach and a legislature's political approach in either [00:40:00] party.

Newsom does understand. The losses that the Democrats faced this year. He does understand that Trump's vote went up. He does understand that there were a lot of voters who once supported him, who are now looking at the direction. It's not clear to me that his legislative caucuses understand that. And that's for the simple reason.

It's the same with Republicans. If most of your caucus represents a safe district, you don't have any incentive and you don't have any incentive to worry about the rest of the state. 

Brian Kabateck: So Dan, let's let's finish. This has been a lot of fun. I'll just ask you an open ended question. Is there anything you want to share about what's going to happen in 2025?

John Kabateck: Yeah, 

Dan Schnur: I have, I have a concern and I'd really be eager to hear your guys thoughts on this. And this goes beyond the political. You know, there's the old saying, culture eats politics for breakfast. And I try to make it clear to my students that politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's a reflection of society and culture.

So we talked earlier about how Trump's victory was keyed. by these working class young men. [00:41:00] This frustration and anger and resentment caused them to, uh, to turn in a different direction. And to turn out and vote in a way that they hadn't before. And, I look at this, and if you look at the gender gap that has developed, In our society, particularly among younger people.

Young women are much more likely to go to college than young men, and they're much more likely to graduate from college than young men. Young women now have higher earning potential, as both of you see, in their 20s and 30s than young men, as a result. The social pathologies among young men, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide attempts and successes, are all much higher among young men than young women.

And to me, that gender gap, particularly among Gen Z, was one of the driving forces behind the election. But it causes me great concern beyond politics, societally and culturally, which is, I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should not have been doing what we could to lift up [00:42:00] women and other underrepresented communities in the years past.

But I look now at this generation of young men. And we have to do something to bring them back. They turned to Donald Trump because they felt he was listening to them. And it's easy to make light of, but by going to UFC events, and by going on Rogan and on the Nelk Boys, and by telling them, I understand you're frustrated, I understand you're upset, it's not your fault.

The same way that Bernie Sanders appeals to that disaffection on the left, Trump also says, I got your back, I'm on your side. And these young men responded to it. So my question, regardless of the political outcome, is aside from talking to them on Joe Rogan, exactly what do we do to address what I think is a brewing societal 

Brian Kabateck: crisis?

And worthy of almost an entire show. I mean, we could get into higher education, into people being forced to go to get university degrees, which are worthless. They're not all worthless, but some of them are. And I think that one [00:43:00] thing, when you were listing off the reasons why they like Donald Trump, one thing I would add to that list is they see him as a disruptor.

They want disruption because they feel like it isn't a level playing field anymore. And I would go as sort of my last comment on this, before we get into a little fun stuff is. I also think you have to look at my demographic, perhaps yours and John's, too, but I think I'm a little older than both you guys.

These guys that I went to high school with, predominantly, you know, WASP y guys who believe that America has left them behind, that they thought that they were gonna be given America on a silver platter, they were gonna do better than their parents, and most of them didn't. They're also disaffected. So that's the the two bookends I see.

Both male, right? 

Dan Schnur: Yeah, I I think that's I think that's exactly right. Mm hmm. And I will tell you, although that gap is much greater among non college educated voters, I see it in my classes at SC and at Cal and at Pepperdine. [00:44:00] And whatever it is starts a long time before high school. And I don't think we know what it is.

John Kabateck: Republicans appealing to college age women. That's a question I wanted to ask because, you know, my son's 23, and I think what I hear from him is there is a bit of a gender gap. You know, his buddies, his male buddies, were all Trump guys, or they're at least right center. But, you know, Not a lot of that on, on the female side.

And I mean, I'm thinking a lot could be argued from Trump's, you know, allegations of the past or just the, you know, people asserting him as a, a misogynist. But is it, is there ever going to be hope for the Republicans to court the college age female votes? 

Dan Schnur: There are exceptions. I have one former student who, uh, works for Joni Ernst, another one who just took a job with Ashley Hinson, so they're, they're around.

But the gender gap that was predicted in this presidential election did not occur, at least not to the degree that many people were predicting, except among Gen Z. [00:45:00] And I would say that for the strong majority of not just college age young women, but college attending young women, the Republicans aren't even a viable option.

at this point. And while women of their parents and their grandparents generation did vote for Trump in slightly higher numbers than they had four years ago, among 18 to 29 year olds, the gap was even larger between young men and young women. A lot of that's about reproductive rights. Not, not all of it.

You're right, John. Some of it is Trump himself, but a lot of it is broader politically and philosophically. So This, this emerging generation of young women is overly democratic and what we know from looking at past history is that when a young person votes for the same party for president in their first three elections, they're almost certain to stay with that party for the rest of their life.

And, you know, Republican, Republicans can find those votes in other places, of course. Um, but at a certain point they're either going to have to [00:46:00] figure out a way to talk to these young women Or figure out how to get to majorities without them 

Brian Kabateck: Yeah, so dan let's uh, I think we could dedicate an entire show to very topic.

I find it incredibly fascinating I'm a trustee at lmu and deal with the young people there, but let's save that for another time I want to wrap up with a little fun today with john's permission here I want to ask you What you would give or what you would suggest, not that you would give it, but what you would suggest would be a great holiday Christmas present for, let's start with Donald Trump.

Dan Schnur: Oh, wow. I was reading an article just before we came on this morning saying that Donald Trump has been named Time Magazine's Man of the Year. And as a two term president, time has given him that honor and I suspect that is better than any Christmas gift that any of us could come up with for the president elect.

That's the best I got. Okay, same 

Brian Kabateck: question but with respect to Kavala. [00:47:00] And let's just be fair. Let's disqualify the notion of a job of either working for me or John. I know that would be huge. And, and not, 

John Kabateck: not a, not a professorship opportunity, uh, at USC or Berkeley. 

Dan Schnur: Somehow Katie Porter and Antonio Vita Rigosa deciding that they weren't going to run for governor, so she can.

Brian Kabateck: Excellent. Joe Biden. 

Dan Schnur: I want him to have peace. I want him to know what I 

Brian Kabateck: say. That's funny. He said, 

Dan Schnur: regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him, he's been in public service. For over a half a century, he deserves at least a few years. Without the burdens of public office to enjoy his life with his children and his grandchildren.

John Kabateck: I think a nice week long vacation at the Catskills with John Kabashmaltz. What do you think, Brian? 

Brian Kabateck: I, I don't know, John. I, I, I think you were born 50 years too late. You would have been a big hit in the Catskills back then. I'm 

John Kabateck: telling you. 

Brian Kabateck: How about, uh, how about Gavin? A little holiday, a little something 

Dan Schnur: under the tree for [00:48:00] Gavin.

A little something under the tree for Gavin. I used to be able to say, a plane ticket to Des Moines or to Manchester. But given the way, Brian, your party keeps monkeying with the primary calendar, I would, I guess it would be a plane ticket to South Carolina, is that right? But, let him get to the early primary states as quickly as he can.

Brian Kabateck: And finally, a little holiday surprise for Matt Gaetz. 

Dan Schnur: A talk show or a podcast that draws almost as large of an audience as you guys do. 

Brian Kabateck: It'd be tough 

Dan Schnur: for 

Brian Kabateck: him. 

John Kabateck: Nine people. I mean, yes, 

Brian Kabateck: the demographic of that, of that talk show, um, audience. John, final comments, thoughts? 

John Kabateck: I think, Dan, it's just been a blast.

Brian? Always fun. This is great. Learned a lot. Had some good laughs and realized how very different Brian and I are. But we do have some, some commonalities. But Dan, you've been awesome. Just great to get your insight, get a good glimpse of what's to come. And we're just super grateful that you took the time to be with us again.

Dan Schnur: Guys, I'm [00:49:00] flattered that you asked me to join you. I had a great time once again. Thank you so much. 

John Kabateck: You have a good one. We're 

Dan Schnur: out. 

John Kabateck: All right. We're out.