Welcome to party politics, where we prepare you for your next political conversation.

I'm Jeronimo Cortina.

And I'm Brandon Rottinghaus.

We're political science professors here at the University of Houston.

Big week this week.

Yet again.

Here we are.

It's another shutdown.

Jeronimo!

Another one.

Give me details about how this is going down.

It's not going well.

Not surprising.

Okay.

So basically, the whole thing's still in pass.

There's no middle ground to get into an agreement.

And as the Democrats want ICE to wear cameras, the issue of the face masks, how to identify them, so on and I.D.

requirments, yes.

Yes.

Republicans, on the other hand, said like, no, we cannot do that.

Then, CBP and ICE officials says we don't have money to buy more than, 10,000 cameras.

Apparently they only have 3,000 and they have 13,000, ICE, agents.

Yeah.

So they don't have money.

So Democrats, then ask, but we just gave you like 75 million, billion.

The Big, beautiful bill has got a huge bump for.

Yeah, the DHS.

Like, where is it?

Like, what happened to that mone So these cameras are cheap.

just going to Amazon like Amazon Prime Day, like, pick them up.

Exactly.

Give me 5000.

Yeah, give me 5000 of these.

Yea So that's where we are.

So no one knows what's going to happen.

And then obviously, they're pushing for a two week continuing resolution.

Yeah.

So, DHS and especially FEMA, TSA and the Coast Guard are not affected by this potential shutdown.

Yeah.

This is a shutdown that will have less pain than a normal full scale shutdown because of the way that the budgeting works for DHS.

So that basically TSA screeners won't miss paychecks until March.

You've got billions of dollars remaining in FEMA's bank account.

So they can fund disaster issues if they need to.

About 40% of funding for ICE, is untouched by this lapse because they're like their essential employees.

So there are a lot of things that basically are kind of baked into the budget cake that won't be affected immediately, but in the longer term, this could be a problem.

Do you think this is an issue that Donald Trump basically put in the Republican's lap and said, you fix it without the possibility of this being a solution that could come about in an election year?

I mean, I don't know, someone needs to fix it.

I think that if the president intervenes more directly, yeah, then he's going to own it.

Well, true.

And honestly, two, we know from a lot of scholarship that when presidents get involved in the legislative process, it makes it much more polarizing.

Right.

That's exactly the opposite.

That's needed in this case.

Exactly.

That's a good point.

Well, yeah, this divide is definitely problematic.

I mean, the negotiations were ongoing, I think in good faith.

The Democrats basically said not not heck no, but no right like so they're still kind of figuring o like exactly what that's going to look like.

And I think that that can be a pathway to some kind of a continuing resolution, which frankly, everybody wants.

So there's going to be some compromise here.

But, how long it lasts, you know, we don't know.

But like we said, there's a bit of a cushion here where it's possible.

Who comes out better?

At the end of this.

I mean, Republicans don't want to get jammed on this issue, which, frankly, I think the president has put them in this tough spot.

Yeah, they know they can win on immigration issues, especially being tougher on immigration.

But how tough is the line?

That's the problem they're facing.

Yeah.

Like they've gone far enough.

And I think in some cases too far for a lot of voters who say, you know, you have to pull back.

So the Democrats are in a slightly better position here, I think, than they even were in the last shutdown, which, as you recall, was, feels like a million years ago.

But, it wasn't that long ago.

Right.

The issue, I think, is when you're thinking about, first of all, immigration.

Yes.

I think the general public agrees that ICE has gone too far, on the one hand.

Then on the other hand, I think that the big problem for, Republicans is that the normal asks from the Democrats, not like abolish ICE, because that's never going to happen are things that everyone can say okay.

Yeah, that seems reasonable.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Right.

And especially the way that they're framing it is like every single police department in the country does this.

Yeah.

So why they're not doing that.

Yeah that's a good point.

So that's a main issue.

And there we are.

Yeah there we are.

So we'll see how that plays out.

We'll watch that as it unfolds.

Yep.

Slowly as usual of course.

But let's talk about international issues because the president has made all kinds of claims this week.

First of all, he's fighting with the Swiss who are like the nicest people on the planet.

Yes.

He said that potentially China might try to shut down Canadian hockey.

I tell you this, my friend, there are only two things Canadians love.

That's beer and hockey.

Don't mess with their hockey.

And the maple syrup.

Maple syrup.

A distant third, but still precious.

Yeah.

Okay.

Fair enough.

And then to start, the president basically is going to take a hit here in Congress, where the House is set to rebuke him and his signature economic policy on tariffs.

This is interesting because, like Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, has fought to try to keep the line here and has failed.

Basically, you've got three members of the Republican Party because of a very small majority have been able to cross and vote with Democrats to have a resolution saying that the Canadian tariffs that President Trump put into place were unneeded.

And that's obviously a political blow for the president.

But also, it is a kind of indication that there's a kind of lame duck status sitting in.

Right?

Quack, quack.

Here comes the lame duck.

And for a long time, President Trump felt like impenetrable on this.

And then, you know, the Republicans lined up behind him on everything.

But now I think you're seeing a bit of a different, kind of tactic here.

But Mike Johnson is also unable to kind of control the house.

Right?

Speakers typically have a lot of top down power.

In this case, he's losing not a lot of votes, but enough that it's essentially going to cut against the president's economic agenda.

So how do you think this is going to play out in the general scheme of the discussion about how the economy is going to affect the midterms?

Well, the economy is going to have a huge effect, and it's going to be the effect, right, is going to be, the most important topic in which voters, basically base their, voting decision.

And the and the issue is that the promises that President Trump made in the campaign were very clear, very loud and very simple.

Yeah.

So it was not like we're going to reduce the super deficit crumbtop, whatever.

No.

Right.

Like reading from an economics textbook about supply and demand.

Yeah.

The elasticity of, you know.

I would love to see him go in that direction.

Sure.

Let's hear it.

So it's what we've been talking, no, in this program is just, you know, yeah.

When you go to the supermarket, prices are going to go down immediately.

And that has not happened.

Simply put, yeah.

The kind of pocketbooks it really what people are thinking about.

Right.

This is a pocketbook election.

And right.

The fact that you are seeing economic reports that the tariffs are costing people, households about $1,000 is a blow.

That plus it's hard to get insurance.

That plus the rising cost of taxation in some places, including Texas.

Certainly the Leg is trying to get on top of that.

Plus you've got rising prices.

Like you say, eggs and beef are still pretty high.

These are all things that are putting pressure on Americans, and it's a challenge for a white House to try to talk their way out of it.

And now you've got Republicans crossing over to say, we think you're doing this wrong.

So all of this together, I think, is a real blow.

Well, Because they need to be reelected.

Right?

And they say, well, she might be sinking.

Let's jump ship.

They hear her quacking.

Duck, is what I'm saying.

Exactly.

Like they think the president has basically kind of run his course.

Right.

And certainly after the midterms you're going to see his support fall off greatly.

And when you compare the economy with this administration and where we were in the last administration.

Yeah.

President Biden and President Trump are in the same position.

Yeah.

The macro economy, aka the Wall Street, the whatever was doing fantastic, right?

Yeah.

But then the pocketbook, the kitchen table economics.

Yeah.

Not so great.

And that's what happened in that, in the last, year, year and a half of the Biden administration.

So, Yes.

No, it's repeating itself in a way that I think Republicans are starting to pressure, you know, see the pressure and starting to panic, even if, like, small things like the president promised to be the crypto president and crypto is gone, don't even look at your crypto.

I don't have crypto.

You know what?

You're smart.

You're a lot uh, you don't want to have any.

Do you?

You don't wanna to have any.

I mean, I tried to buy it, but I couldn't understand how.

Well, that's perfect, because, if you held it, you.

It's like half the value that it was.

And so for most people, it doesn't make a huge difference.

But there are some people who are invested in this.

And he promised to make this better, and it isn't getting better.

So I think that the kind of bloom is off the rose on a lot of these economic stories.

And what's more, the Democrats are kind of empowered now.

Now that this is going to pass, it's going to give them the opportunity to talk about all the other tariffs and all the other places the president is putting tariffs on, and just basically hammer the president with these resolutions, forcing Republicans to take hard votes and then ultimately really gumming up the works in the House because the more of these resolutions they have to work through, and the more Mike Johnson has to kind of whip votes to make sure that they don't lose, that the more it's likely that it's going to jam up things and minimize the ability for them to pass much of anything else.

So it is a kind of conundrum here for the white House.

But they're really doing this in a kind of unforced error sort of way.

Right?

You know that I'm a tennis fan, and the worst thing you can do is an unforced error.

It's a mistake you make on your own, okay?

In a situation where you could have hit something different or done a better job, right?

Right.

Unforced error is exactly what's happening.

So the president basically this week said that he was putting additional emergency sanctions on Switzerland because he didn't like the tone of the way that the Switzerland president was talking to him.

This is undercutting his issue when it comes to whether or not there needs to be an emergency, and what that emergency dictates, right.

The tone of a foreign leader in the discussion is not an emergency.

And so the Supreme Court still has to decide whether this is a sufficient and reasonable emergency power.

And realistically, or the president is undercutting his own legal argument on this.

So it's becoming a real conundrum.

Plus these posts, Geronimo like he's basically threatening Canada that says if you do this trade deal with China, then you're going to have, the fallout that's going to include the loss of hockey that the Chinese will stop hockey in Canada.

And that means no more Stanley Cup, which of course affects the U.S, too.

What's going on?

I don't think that they would stop hockey.

I can't imagine.

Of course they wouldn't like.

Oh, okay.

I mean.

It's how could you even make that claim?

That's the whole kind of question mark.

Right.

Okay.

Next.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No.

Exactly.

Yeah.

That's like that's what I mean is like the Republicans are I'm sure just frustrated by this.

Like, oh yeah, they could there are issues they can.

Win when they see the midterm in a couple of months.

Yes.

And they don't see any real advance.

And you cannot make the same argument and promises over and over and over and say, this is great.

This is working fantastic, etc., etc., etc.. Yeah.

Well, Republicans that may be more, on the ground saying like, nope.

It is not.

totally.

And let's bring it to Texas and talk about that very issue, because Donald Trump is still not endorsed in the Texas Senate race.

He probably won't, it sounds like, before the primary runoff.

And so we'll see how that plays out.

But let's get into some of those details.

Let's talk about Jasmine Crockett first.

There's been a lot of discussion this week in person and online, especially online, about like who's a better candidate.

But people mostly from outside of Texas like making comments about who I think a better candidate is.

So that's become very, contentious inside the Democratic Party.

And so a lot of people look at this and say, like, a lot of these people are running a kind of protection racket.

Basically, they're saying, I'll be on your team.

I'll support you virtually through my social media account.

If you pay me money.

And so there's this kind of new information world where advertising is not like on a digital scale or on television, but rather through these influencers who've gotten, you know, millions of followers.

And so that is really a kind of stunning, revelation.

And so a lot of what's happening is ginned up by this discussion.

So then the question is sort of how to best reach them.

And they're taking different tacks.

So Jasmine Crockett has an ad out this week that people accuse her of using AI exclusively.

That is not using real Texas voters.

It's using like, you know, I write and they know this in part because they say that there's like a stamp on it, like a digital stamp that Google uses to, basically indicate that these things are credible.

Okay.

The ad spending is increasing.

Not surprisingly, we're just a few days away from early voting and then a few weeks from the primary itself.

Jasmine Crockett lagging behind $1.5 million.

She's buying broadcast in big media, big metros.

James Talarico, though, is spending a lot more $12 million.

Plus his super PAC is now spending more than John Cornyn in Texas.

So what do you make of the ad war that's coming down and of Jasmine Crockett's use of AI that she says is, well, she didn't say it was an AI, but she didn't.

She did say it was like human created.

So, you know, it's still part of the, you know, normal advertising.

I mean, it was, cartoon animals.

Yeah.

You know, did you like it?

I mean, I think it's, it is one of these issues, right?

You have the AI.

Are you going to use AI or not?

I right.

And yes, at the end over, commercial or out of whatever, you see that she's joined with, you know, hundreds of people, right?

That I, I don't know, in the media world if, how do you coordinate the, so etc., etc., etc.. So, I mean, I think it's, it's, a new way and I think it tracks with, Crockett's personality in the sense that she's going to go to the edge.

Right?

So I think, you know, that's, that's what it is.

And when you contrast that with that, ad.

Yeah, it's night and day.

Right.

So I think they're playing, their own way or their own credentials, presenting themselves to the public like, this is what you're going to get.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah.

They have very different style.

Yes.

The ads are all good, I think.

And they're definitely targeted towards particular groups.

And so that's I think the whole point, the fact that she only has one, I think for a lot of people is the issue.

Also this week it was reported that she doesn't have a real campaign manager.

They don't have like any kind of real like campaign structure.

The ad by obviously, like I said, is pretty modest.

So there's a concern that maybe like the campaign isn't being well run in a way, it doesn't matter because she has Trump juice, right?

She can bite command an audience, and she can get media coverage without having to pay for it.

So that's a real plus, frankly, in any kind of race.

So in some sense it doesn't matter.

But at the same time, you're gonna have to run a pretty good race in Texas to beat on Republican, no matter whom it is.

So that's in a definitely be in that.

And if you think about this in the global sense, Senate Republicans are far outweighs where Democrats have race.

Senate Republicans have got about $370 million in the bank, and Democrats have got about 130 million.

All of this is big money.

But the fact that the Republicans have got three times the money means that they're going to be able to essentially hammer whoever the nominee is.

Yeah, they're going to have to spend that money, though, right.

And that's definitely taking money away from other places that might have to do.

We've talked about this a lot.

Yeah.

But John Cornyn is doing his part to raise money.

He always has.

He and his allies are planning on spending about $10 million in the next four weeks.

They're hoping to make the run off.

They probably will.

But there's still some chance that Wesley Hunt could kind of creep into that second spot.

So big money.

John, like we said last week, was raised about it.

Got about $50 million in his account.

The Republicans are spending about $65 million on this race.

So there's a lot at stake here for Republicans.

Yeah.

If Crockett wins and Paxton wins, it's going to be like a wall to wall ads in in Texas.

So.

Well, yeah.

Because pretty.

Busy.

It's the amount of money you're spending is money that you may not have during the general election.

Yeah, totally.

So all those things matter.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

So we'll see.

We'll see how it goes.

Yeah.

But also, you know, Wesley Hunt is, probably creeping up just enough that there's worry in the, the Paxton and Cornyn camp.

So Ken Paxton, with just about a few weeks to go before the primary, is spending about $3 million, and from outside money to try to take down Wesley Hunt, they launched a new set of ads that claim that, he's voted with AOC, which sometimes happens because there's a lot of votes that are unanimous.

Everyone votes, so it doesn't matter.

But obviously in Texas, voting with AOC is like voting with the devil.

And, you know, he's missed a lot of votes for reasons that he's definitely explained, but that Republicans are worried about.

So do you think that Wesley Hunt can creep in to that third, second spot from number three?

I mean, yes, I know, yeah.

And maybe, maybe so the issue here is that these three candidates have very different, Republican primary constituencies.

Right?

So Wesley Hunt is going towards a very different part of the electorate than I think, for example, Cornyn or than Paxton.

So the way that they're dividing that is interesting, and again, is how many of your supporters I can take to my side.

Yeah.

And he's chipping away that support one way or the other.

Yeah.

Or your supporters, you know just stay at home.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Wow.

Yeah.

Don't worry.

About it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We'll take care of this one.

So I think that's the interesting part.

Yeah.

So if he can creep out.

Well yes.

Because the issue here is that you have a battle against three different fronts or two different fronts for each candidate.

Yeah.

So you shoot over there, then the other side, then the side and the other side and see what happens.

Yeah.

You paid attention during Ken Burns is revolution, right?

Like how warfare works is very similar to the way campaigns work, because you do have to shore up your flank and make sure you don't lose that.

And that's what Paxton's doing.

Right.

Like consolidate that conservative vote, consolidate the anti Cornyn vote and then go forward.

I think that's probably what's going to happen.

But you still see Wesley Hunt kind of creeping around.

So this is going to be maybe tighter for that second runoff spot than we think.

So we'll see those plays out.

Let's talk about some more practical issues on the ground.

And that's about how unions function in Texas.

This week we had dueling unions endorsing candidates for governor.

Greg Abbott, has eight different Houston area unions that supported him.

And Union Hosa got the vote.

Of support of the Texas AfL-CIO.

They're both saying they're the candidate that's going to be the better candidate for unions.

What do you make of this?

You know, it's you know, it's all talk.

I mean, if they'll I mean, I think it's it when you mention unions, people think that unions is a, a homogeneous.

Yeah, move, like they're all going to vote the same way.

And labor is not right like that.

Oh, and I think this is very clear.

You have, you know, very important unions endorsing Abbott, the pipefitters local, the Teamsters.

But then you have if if a AfL-CIO endorsing, you know, horse.

So it's just that battle.

Right.

And there is this alignment that you see, with the national, I guess the national leaders of, of these unions, right.

When the Teamsters, for example, endorsed President Trump.

So I think that that's, going to be very important again.

Yeah.

The big question is how many of your members you can get out of.

All right.

Afco, a AfL-CIO is larger in size than some of these local unions.

Right.

And it's statewide.

Yeah.

That's true.

So this is, to me, the battle for Texas.

If you can win the kind of working class vote, then you can certainly put a coalition together that's successful.

We saw this in Senate District nine.

We talked about this last week.

Right.

That's a successful kind of arrangement where Democrats can do well.

The problem is that the percentage of people unionized in Texas has been dropping since the 1950s.

Right?

Texas became a right to work state in 1947.

And since then, basically, union rates have dropped, right.

They've dropped all over the country in part because of these kinds of laws.

But you definitely see, I think a really small percentage, like like 4% in Texas are unionized compared to even like 9% nationally.

So there's really low percentage now that number is growing in Texas, but it's not growing fast enough.

The Democrats can count on that the way that they did in the 19, you know, kind of 20 is all the way through the 50s.

And then it started to drop.

So that's a coalition Democrats would really like to have back.

So the support from the AfL-CIO for any host is a good sign for them.

The support for Greg Abbott here locally is not a good sign.

And I think that contested battle is going to be a big question here when it comes to kind of who's going to be better off to represent union.

Let's talk about some legal cases.

I know this is your favorite thing to talk about as a budding attorney.

And, you know, sometimes speculating about the legal side of things.

Let's, kick this into your court.

While you're, Around ammo.

Esquire.

Yeah.

I want to go to law school just to have, like, I don't even know this.

Just to say it.

Yeah.

And just, you know, kind of.

Scream like a little ring.

I think you look good.

Yeah.

I think you have to get one of these now.

Okay, I'm going to bring next.

Next, Next show.

I'll bring that.

Pinky.

Pinky.

Okay, I like it.

I open up a law firm.

Yeah.

Yes.

I'm excited about this because then you can tell us more about what's happening here in this case.

All right.

This week, a federal district court struck down Senate Bill 13 from 2021.

This is a law that restricts state investment in financial firms deemed to be boycotting the fossil fuel industry.

The ruling was that it's unconstitutional.

Specifically, it was factually overbroad.

Essentially, it violated the First and 14th Amendment.

That is, that these groups that, you know, are restricted or how they can invest money, were having their rights limited.

So the fact that there's not kind of a real business purpose here was the reason that the judge indicated this was to obscure.

What do you make of the finding here?

Well, I mean, I think it's interesting because this has very important implications for what is the, environmental and social governance, the.

ESG.

The ESG of, these corporations.

Right.

And also how Texas regulate these institutions.

So once again, is, we entering these very substantive issue, you in the sense of are we really working on these capitalist market economy in which these corporations have and have a duty right to maximize the profits of their stakeholders?

And if the state hold is one thing based on these or not, invest in that.

Well, that's a big job.

I mean, I'm like, yeah.

They're they're the one.

That's the.

Point.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And that's the concern here.

And you know, certainly public pensions now are going to be more rooted towards the financial considerations instead of these.

All right.

Extra political considerations.

And it puts it these anti ESG laws in Texas especially on shakier legal grounds.

So we'll definitely see this fight out.

So we'll know you know how that shakes given that this will be appealed.

But it definitely has some effects on the rest of legislation that has other kinds of connections to this ESG laws for instance.

Right.

Like, anti-Israel.

Last thing to talk about is while we were watching the Super Bowl, an old clip of Gene woo was making its rounds on social media.

People were getting mad about the things that he said, but it turns out he actually didn't say what they say that he said.

So this is a clip of, interview that he gave.

The basically talked about how Democrats need to come together and unify on things.

It was perceived then to be a sort of sense of how there's this anti-white and is going to be this kind of conflict with respect to race, because he says that basically some people, you know, here in Texas share the same oppressor.

What do you make of the outcome on this?

It became very heated, including one of the candidates for attorney general saying that Gene should be naturalized.

Yeah, I mean.

That can't happen, by the way.

Now, AG can do that.

So yeah, right.

That's one thing.

But what do you make of the politics of this?

I mean, once again, is everything these people are side about politically, polarized.

And one side says outrageous things and that side doesn't say anything.

But when the other side says outrageous things, that side doesn't say anything.

But the other side is like, this is terrible.

We should do these XYZ.

So everyone is looking at politics and what's going on with their own set of sunglasses.

And misinformation is rampant, right?

Yeah.

Like this.

Obviously he didn't say what they say.

He said.

But you see the little caption, it looks like he does.

So the outrage machine is definitely in full effect.

I mean, we're an election still.

We expect.

But I think there's a problem here where it could turn off voters who otherwise might want to participate in this.

And, you know, it's a detriment potentially to Republicans who see this and say, yeah, this is this is, you know, kind of where we are.

And Democrats say, Yeah.

And on that note, it's very important to check your sources.

I'm Karen Cortina.

And I'm brand writing.

How's the conversation keeps up next week.