Welcome to Party Politics, where we prepare you for your next political conversation.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina, political science professor at the University of Houston.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor also here at the University of Houston.

normal week.

Right?

basically pretty average.

We've got a former president on trial.

We've got a crisis in the Middle East.

Speaker Johnson is struggling to keep his job.

what else is new, right?

nothing like, basically, it's within the confidence interval.

Yeah, exactly.

Of normality, which is odd to say, but so true.

But look, we're here to help.

Right.

Exactly.

Role is to sort through all these things and just sort of pinpoint why it's important, because there's too much going on for people to catch up with.

We're going to try to help.

Let's start talking about Speaker Johnson.

Obviously, he's been in jeopardy since the very moment that he resumed office and took that big gavel.

Yep.

But it's becoming more challenging for him because, he's got now two members of his own caucus who have said that they plan to essentially vote against him should the moment come.

Maybe it's a threat.

Maybe it's a harbinger of bad things to come.

Like, what do you think?

Well, that's how it started last time.

So, so so, you know, it's one of those situations now.

Thomas Massie of Kentucky said that he's prepared to second Marjorie Taylor Greene's, from Georgia's motion to vacate.

So yeah, you know, it's there.

There's talks.

And those are becoming more and more accelerated.

And the margins are really small.

Right.

So that you've got missing members for resignations and, you know, special elections.

And so the number is actually pretty small now.

So that it could be that he's in real jeopardy.

But Massie stands up in the middle of like the caucus meeting and says, you know, it doesn't matter what you say because you're not going to be speaker for that long, which is the rudest way possible of doing this, right.

But this is just the norm for politics.

But, you know, this is something that's like Elon Musk style.

Like one day you wake up and there's an email, it says, you're fired, right?

Which happened to all kinds of people in Austin this week and across, across his whole, company.

It's just not the way of things.

And though it seems to be a kind of normal political outcome now, he says he's not resigning.

Do you think he should?

Do you think there's somebody better who can take over?

I don't know who because, you know, remember last time they try 11,000 billion times and suddenly, you know, Speaker Johnson is selected, right?

But the new thing here is that Democrats are prepared to help Johnson survive.

Yeah.

What do you make of that?

well, I don't know, because if they do that, he might survive.

But then it's going to create more kills within that particular wing of the, conference in the House.

What's stunning to me is that the the caucus seems to be willing to lose, but govern purer than to win.

And I think that's a real split inside that party.

And it makes total sense, because we know from political science research that the Republican Party essentially is organized thematically different than the Democratic Party.

Yeah, they're organized based upon this bright line, clarity of ideology.

You're you're on the side or you're not.

And so they're willing to take a loss on.

Oh, yes.

Just to be able to govern pure.

That's odd because, you know, most of the time parties want to win.

And that's how you, you know, sustain yourself going into the 2024 elections.

This is really a challenge.

Right.

So this is not good news for them, right?

I mean, let's be clear.

I mean he might not lose his seat.

It could be that this is a bluff or maybe just doesn't go anywhere.

And frankly, I think a lot of Republicans are just tired of having this in that part of the conversation.

But the fact that this is happening again so soon into his speakership and so close to 2024, it is really not a good sign for how they're going to try to govern.

No.

Well, absolutely not.

And the issue is that there is no governing, so there's no governing.

And if he stays, there's not going to be any more governing because he might get help from Democrats.

Democrats are going to take control of their agenda one way or the other.

Yeah.

And then, you know, people, the ideologues in the Republican Party that it, you know, it, it perfectly aligns with the theory of the responsible political party model, right?

They're very clear.

And those signaling what they're going to doing, what they're not going to do.

So also the public, the American voter can, you know, basically decide is, do I want people that are going to be doing this thing?

Maybe some say, yes, absolutely, 100%.

It has to be that because they're just representatives of our constituents.

But then on the other hand, right, he's like, well, yeah, but nothing is getting done.

No, no that's okay.

What are we voting for?

Yeah.

I just had a terrible flashback to graduate school.

Sorry, I blanked out for a second.

Like, yeah.

I know.

We're talking about responsive party government, but that's exactly it.

And that's what they're trying to enforce.

Right.

So another of the complications and honestly, some of the reason why there's this flux in terms of Johnson's job is that he has introduced a quartet of bills that are designed individually to try to get the.

Party.

To try to get some kind of a sort of momentum legislatively, the Senate passed all of these one big block, but that's something that's hard for the House, because there are different constituencies who hate different parts of each of it.

So the bills include separate legislation to provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan.

A fourth bill is going to have the various things that are thrown into it, literally kitchen sink style, like a Repeal Act, which would allow for the U.S. to sell seized Russian, Soviet or sovereign assets are a slip of the tongue, not Soviet.

Russia in the 1980s.

Overnight.

It's always the 1980s in my head.

they're going to put in this also a ban on TikTok, which the House already passed, but they want to bundle it together.

So there's just a lot of churn here.

and as you said, we don't know what's going to happen as of the time.

We're kind of recording this.

We still have a text of the bill.

We don't know kind of what the whip count looks like.

Yep.

Just lots of chaos.

The speaker may need help just to get the rule established.

So this is a piece of political science nerdery where in order to sort of legislatively debate something, they have to have a set of rules about how the debate is.

So the Rules Committee, which is run by the speaker, gets to decide.

The problem is that there are members of the Rules Committee on the Republican side who don't want to vote with the speaker on.

AKA: Thomas Massie.

Like like the aforementioned Thomas Massie, who just called you out in the speaker meeting.

so obviously this is a problem.

The white House says they're taking a wait and see approach.

Of course.

Why?

Which is and there's nothing else.

Right?

I mean, and for the wait.

And see, you rise for now.

But yeah.

And for Democrats, you know, they can take that same stance that they took, in the previous, mini, just, you know, coop, whatever.

And it was just sit back, laugh, enjoy the ride and just watch the massive.

You make a good question.

I think that, like, McCarthy is sitting back laughing, saying, you know what?

I told you all of this, but the Democrats, are they doing enough to really turn the screws on Republicans on this?

Are they making enough political hay of this, or are they kind of strategically sitting out?

We know the white House does this.

There's a lot of scholarship on sort of the white House, you know, effectively backing off on legislation because to involve themselves would polarize everything.

So are they doing this in a wise way or are they missing an opportunity here?

Well, I don't know.

the behavior of the Republican conference can be seen sometimes very random.

and as you say, there's going to be people on one side of the issue, then people on the other side, then people in the middle, then people that forgot that that were in session.

There's a vote today.

So so I mean, it basically depends.

Right?

Right.

but I think that, you know, the approach is like, hey, like you're driving almost down the cliff.

It's like, all right, let's see what happens.

Don't get in their way.

Right.

Them because it hurts them.

Helps you.

Yeah.

No, that's a good point.

although, of course the bills are important.

And getting this money to the allies is something Democrats want to see, especially the white House wants to see.

you know, we won't get into all the details about this, but there is increased aggression in the Middle East.

You have an attack from Iran against Israel.

Israel has to respond.

Then the allies, including the US, have to protect Israel on that or to defend Israel on that.

There were dozens of drone strikes, which seems like a like a like a movie, like an action movie or something.

But they were mostly thwarted by Iranian defense forces and U.S. forces in assistance.

But this is a controversy that's becoming more complicated for President Biden.

They wanted to avoid a regional war, but they might have won.

And what you don't want is to have that going into an election year.

So how they manages will be really critical in the next couple of weeks.

Well, absolutely.

Because, you know, the impact of having a regional war can be rally around the flank, probably around Biden, but it cannot be because then you have these, you know, after thoughts of Afghanistan and say, no, not again.

And if things go even a little bit wrong, oh, yeah, there's no more rally, in fact.

Yeah, I.

Know.

So I don't think that Iran has the appetite to start a war, but the statements done by their delegation at the UN was like, okay, for us these matters is done, is like, you hit us hard, then we slap back at you and say, okay, we call it even and that's it, because they know that they're going to lose, right?

Yeah.

and, and, you know, I think that the mistakes that were made in Afghanistan are going to be made again.

so I think that also for Israelis like, you know, we're still debating, we're still debating because also, it's not in the best interest of Israel to get into a, you know, big regional conflict.

Not now.

Yeah.

I mean, things are still in flux, all kinds of different ways.

I wonder about the rally effect, too.

Actually, there's significant evidence the last couple of years that although we're used to seeing around the fact that the scholarship suggests that it doesn't happen like it used to, it's not even like a Covid bump where there's a kind of protectionist element to the, you know, kind of role of the government in this doesn't give a president Obama didn't give Biden a bump when it happened, when the vaccines were released.

So I'm not sure that it matters.

And that's a problem for all presidents in the future.

Yeah.

Not being able to rely on the kind of reality to give them this boost.

So in effect, I think that this kind of conflict might be a net negative.

but let's talk about what else is going on.

And it also involves presidents, but in this case a former president.

And that's former president's first criminal trial.

this is made a bunch of headlines.

We don't have to break this news.

Obviously, he's facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, which is the problem.

This story is basically that he's alleged to have given hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels, with whom he was alleged to have an affair, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

the president former president denies these charges and the relationships.

but it certainly is the case that, his fixer, who was the one who delivered the money, did go to jail for related charges.

can they prove this?

what will effect will it have?

What will Democrats say?

Will Trump be quiet?

Can he keep a lid on it as he's legally now required.

To do well?

I mean, he has so far a bit there have been some.

On a scale.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I think he has been on, 2 or 3. the judge has told him, you know, many times that he needs to keep it quiet.

And he needs to be at a zero.

Right.

Exactly.

And that's that's it.

Now we have seven jurors.

we need 11 more.

and it seems that, you know, it's moving fast.

Right?

On Wednesday, they're going to have a break on Wednesdays.

So that means that, former President Trump can go back to the campaign trail on Wednesday, but they want to start, by next week.

if possible, they want to do it, you know, let's get it on a Monday.

It's a.

Great point.

I mean, if it's like a six week trial, that's a significant chunk of kind of early summer where they want to set the groundwork for, like picking a vice president and making sure they get their troops rallied.

I think that it's a question.

I have a question for you, but I also want to just mention that there's a real concern that this trial will be a problem, not just for Trump, who we know is, to some degree, Teflon, a lot of these things by Teflon Don.

Right.

And we've talked all about how scandals don't matter as much as they used to.

But what about Republicans down ballot.

They are challenging Democrats and significant, races across the country.

I talk about this in the context of Texas and the money being raised here, which is the sort of, you know, big story for the week.

But the question for Republicans is, is this trial hurting Trump?

So let me ask you this question.

If you're Donald Trump and you have a day off to go campaign, where do you go?

Oof, I don't know.

The casino like someplace with a stiff drinks.

No, probably.

I mean, it's a tough question, right?

Because, you know, there's going to be also an effect, like, you know, in general, on average, the average American voter is not, like, very enthused to say, well, if he if the trial starts and he gets convicted, it's like.

Parsing all of these.

Yeah, awful scenarios for the nominee.

Right?

Right.

He's like, yeah, I don't know.

Okay.

If he is sentenced to jail, you know, like a year, whatever it is, he's like, well, I don't know.

I don't think that he's going to go to jail or anything like that.

Very unlikely.

is a first time offender, right?

Yeah, very for sure.

Yeah.

But, you know, if he gets convicted, he's like, oh, is he going to we be wearing a ankle monitor or something like that, you know.

Is he.

Stay away from orange.

People.

People stay you know might be and say what does that mean though.

Does that mean that they're going to vote for Joe Biden?

Probably not.

But probably they're going to sit out.

It's a really good question.

And that is a potential problem and also is a potential good thing for our, for Kennedy.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Who who's making some movements, right.

State by state.

I actually think you're interesting and make a good point about the kind of, as usual, I think you mentioned it.

It's so obvious that you're making good points, but that Trump and the kind of uncertainty about what's next in terms of the criminal issues, if a conviction comes, means that there's a kind of Pandora's box of all kinds of other things people may worry will happen next.

So that in and of itself, I think may be a problem.

Even if, like you said, I don't think it's going to mean jail time for him politically in the near term, probably not that much of a change, but they have to strategize kind of where they're going to go.

just one quick final note, and that is that apparently the former president was nodding off during some of the trial, which, you know, he's required to be there and sit there all day.

And it's boring.

And yet so people have a tendency to, you know, you know, nod off a little bit.

But, you know, as Chris Haynes pointed this out, like, if you're calling your opponent Sleepy Joe, you basically have one job, right?

Stay awake.

Right.

So Trump said on Social Truth, that he was praying and so he wasn't sleeping.

Oh, so maybe both are true.

Or, you know, maybe one of the other is true.

But I feel like that this is kind of elongating some of the negatives that are true about him and could be a problem for him.

Oh yeah.

Absolutely.

That being in the spotlight and that's the story can create some issues.

but let's talk about the big story we're going to talk about for the week.

And that's about Texas because we talk a lot about taxes on Party Politics where I am Brandon, this is Jeronimo.

big week fundraising wise for the two Senate campaign candidates.

the Cruz camp pulled in about $7 million.

They've got about 7 million on hand.

Colin Allred, the challenger, was a member of the US House from Dallas.

pulled in about $10 million, and he's got about $10 million on hand.

But what's interesting, though, is that Allred has raised nearly $28 million, since the launch of the campaign.

And he has outraised O'Rourke, who was a prodigious fundraiser in 2018. some degree kind of setting a pace for what might be a very, very expensive Senate race.

So what do you think is the likelihood that this money is going to matter?

In the grand scheme of things.

It matters, right?

Money matters, especially in modern, political campaigns.

And one of the most important issues is, you know, the combination of the candidates.

Yeah.

In terms of what he wants and how he's going to pursue.

Yeah.

So going back to these responsible party model, right.

He has to have a clear a clear stance on many issues that are going to polarize and differentiate him from Senator Cruz.

Yeah.

If he's able to do that then the the money has a very important impact.

If he's not able to do that, then money is going to have a less significant impact.

That's a great point.

So to me, the secret sauce in winning Texas includes the following element.

Over the course of the last a decade and a half, where Republicans have been dominant and Democrats have tried to make challenges, there's been some times where they have been closer than others.

When they're closer, it's because there's been a lot of money, right?

So you have to have money.

That's a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

You also be have to be likable, but you can't be too well known.

If you're too well known, then it means that you're effectively going to be predefined by the Cruz camp.

Gotcha.

that's hard in a world where everything is nationally polarized, right?

There's no Texas Democrats anymore, right?

We're all just they're all national Democrats.

And so the problem for Allred is that he's going to have to defend everything that all of the national Democrats do, even if he's not always in lockstep with them.

He's got to have a big issue.

In 2018, it was health care.

In 2024, will it be abortion?

We've talked about this last week.

Maybe that's the big issue that rallies people.

And that's exactly the other thing he needs is just to rally the people.

the fact that Ted Cruz is less disliked now than he was in 2018 is probably a symptom of the fact that people forget, and the fact that you have such a different electorate, right?

You've got about 2 million new registered voters in the state that is this, like, the size of a state of Mississippi.

This is an entirely new electorate that doesn't know exactly who Ted Cruz is.

They have a vague idea, but they do remember that he's fighting with Big Bird or Luke Skywalker.

Right?

All they remember is that last time he talked last week, he was talking about bipartisanship and all the bipartisan stuff he did.

Will that narrative hold and can Collin Allred define himself before they define him?

Well, I think and that and I think that's where the money comes into play.

If he's able to take that money and bring back, you know, what he just said about what people may or may not dislike about Senator Cruz.

Right.

And basically do the switcheroo here and be able to define it, because, as you said, it's a new electorate.

Yeah.

Right.

So you also have a chance, and a possibility to also define your opponent.

So he's not only for the for the Cruz campaign, it's also for the outreach campaign to trying to define it and introduce him to these new electorate.

Yeah.

So there I think that, you know, the floor is even for both candidates in DC 22.

Good point.

And money matters.

Money does matter.

Yeah.

No.

And it's the money that's really critical because 2022 was a disaster for Democrats.

Turnout among urban areas was down and percentage wise down.

Turn among in rural areas was about the same, but the percentage was much higher.

It's a rallying thing.

And if the Democrats don't rally in these big cities and Allred can't get them to kind of crossover, then it's going to be over before it starts.

But the big context here is that the Senate Democrats nationally are spending a lot of money to defend a bunch of seats.

They have to defend seats, in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, presidential swing states.

But they've been very swingy right back and forth.

I think they're going to lose West Virginia.

I don't think they're going to try to run.

I mean, place that, sure.

But also in those states, they have gotten a lot of money and they have fund fundraise.

Republicans by a lot.

Yes, yes.

And so this means Texas is one of those sort of pickup seats that maybe there's some interest in doing.

But of course, it's a money thing and money is finite, right?

At least for me.

I mean, I know you're like crazy rich, but like, obviously from all this podcasting money, like Ted Cruz, but which I want to talk about too.

But obviously the money matters, right?

Yeah.

but I want to ask you about this, though.

Right.

So part of the story about the money is that Ted Cruz is facing an FEC challenge about how money is distributed from his podcast.

So the story is basically that, I Heart Media has sent, more than half $1 million to Ted Cruz's super PAC, or rather to say a super PAC backing Ted Cruz, not his, because they're not technically allowed to coordinate, but they back him.

So the money effectively is used to back him.

that's a lot of money.

And what the complaint suggests is that this is not legal.

what this kind of response is basically that technically, Ted Cruz is not raising money for the super PAC, which would be illegal.

He's simply earning money for it because then the revenue from it goes to the super PAC, which then helps him politically.

It may not matter, but it could be that if the FEC says no, then it's going to be a problem for him, right?

Oh, absolutely.

But once again, you know, it's in nowadays is, you know, a witch hunt or this or that, etc., etc., etc..

Right?

These bureaucrats are trying to limit how much I can talk to you.

So I mean, I don't know, I mean, I don't know, but I mean, if it's not, you know, legal.

Well, it is not legal.

Right.

And the FCC and also, you know, eventually a court will decide if that is the case or not.

So they'll decide that, like after the election, probably literally.

So.

So we'll see.

The money is important.

And obviously that's going to be one thing we have to watch because as the Senate race heats up, that's going to be one thing.

Yeah.

Kind of gives us a sense of whether Colin Allred is really kind of a nationally competitive candidate against somebody like Ted Cruz.

but let's talk about Texas because that's something we do a lot here.

Dan Patrick this week released his interim charges for the Texas Senate.

you call it homework.

I think that's a great way to put it.

Lots of stuff on the list.

Affordable housing, fighting anti-Semitism.

And one of the big things I think that's interesting is that he has asked for lawmakers to study how to potentially eliminate property taxes in the state of Texas.

that is important because it's a huge Republican talking point and because as Axios came out this week and reported, property taxes in Texas have gone up between 26% and 28% between 19 and 2023.

That's a lot.

The average amount that people pay is about $1,000 more than other states.

This is a huge issue, but of course, eliminating it would be even huger of an issue.

All of the local property taxes go to local things.

So schools mostly, but also hospital districts, community colleges, a lot of stuff.

That's about $71 billion.

Now, just in comparison, all the general revenue money from like all the sales tax that you pay for, all the cool stuff you buy, like all the motor fuels tax for all the gas you buy, all that stuff, that all goes into general revenue, which is 61 billion.

So cutting property taxes would be a real sticking point.

Not bad.

Dan Patrick's kind of push back saying I didn't say we're going to eliminate it.

We just want to study it.

It's going to be a real challenge to try to eliminate this.

but my guess is and the reason we're talking about this is because Dan Patrick, I think, will have an outsized role in terms of what the legislature does, not just the Senate but also white House.

Given how the parameters fall in on this.

We've talked about this before.

So what he wants his largely going to be what the legislature collectively does.

Right.

So that's my favorite.

Anything else strike you as interesting on the interim charges?

Well, obviously there are also, you know, in terms of location, they're trying to find ways to boost early readiness in reading and math, which is good.

I think it's it's like the state needs it, absolutely, 100%.

And the issues when you compound all these things are issues that are going to affect the state not only in 2025, right, but are going to affect them in the next decades.

Right?

Texas is a state where we don't have income tax.

Yeah.

But when you compare states that have lower property taxes and an income tax on average, you know, Texas and other states, we pay the same thing.

And in some cases, those states that have have income tax, property tax, pay less than what we pay in property taxes.

Right.

So are we going to have an income tax.

Absolutely.

No.

There's no way.

it's Actually unconstitutional to do that.

There you go.

The state.

Yeah.

So we're not going to have that right.

So the issue is okay fine.

How do we eliminate property tax.

Right.

But then the policy implication is how are we going to fund these other things.

Where's that revenue going to come from?

Yes.

Yeah.

So that is important question you're going to eliminate.

You can increase it, you can decrease it etc.

etc..

But we need to have schools.

Yeah.

Like, well it's not going to be gambling because he's no on that.

It's probably not going to be legalize marijuana because he's actually even included here in the story about wanting to allow.

Yeah Delta eight and nine.

So but you're right.

Actually the report came out this week, from Texas 2036, that suggested that 55% of Texas students are below grade level in math on STAR tests.

Yeah.

So something's got to be done.

And my guess is that's motivating a lot of this.

Speaking of math, let's talk real quick about that very last point.

And that's about Judge Hidalgo here in Harris County.

She's arguing we should change the way that the county does.

Contracting.

She argues that there's just a lot of missing money.

And this is true for the bond election right now.

So a couple of years ago, to the tune of two plus billion dollars, she cites a recent report from the Harris County Auditor's office that says that there's not enough of a paper trail about who's requesting what different contracts.

Here at Party Politics.

We can smell good government.

We love it, she brought out the whiteboard.

Right to do it like a storyboard of this.

but obviously shade has been thrown here.

She's not taking money from these developers and these contractors.

So it's going to be a kind of, I think, a real fight on commissioners court.

But it's going to be a, very difficult fight.

But, you know, I mean, if it's transparency, perfect.

I mean, Harris County residents, need to know where that money's going.

Yeah.

And and it's very simple.

And I think, you know, she's making a point, and now, you know, she basically throw the ball to commissioners court and say like, well, let's see if you don't want to do it.

that means that you're part of the problem.

So and this becomes in, in, in a way that she's asserting herself and her political control.

Right.

That has been, to a certain extent weakened in commissioners court.

Right.

Especially, given that the Metro coalitions are there and she's, you know, perhaps trying to assert more control over the political process of Harris County.

Interesting.

But we'll see.

You know, that's something that we're going to talk more, especially in our next week podcast.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina and I'm Brandon Rottinghaus.

The conversation keeps up next week.