Can you change your sex by a mere act of the will? In a woke world that believes Ellen Page not only is now a man but was ALWAYS a man, is there any hope for us? Senator Ted Cruz joins Michael—or is it Michelle?—Knowles to discuss the sad state of our society as two major conservatives are tossed off Twitter for “dead naming” Page. Transing the culture will certainly backfire for Democrats in November, so what seats exactly should Republicans be keeping an eye on? Plus, our resident legal expert concludes his analysis of the latest (and greatest) Supreme Court term by breaking down the opinion that dealt a major blow to the deep state.
--
Diversify your savings and get up to $1,500 of free silver today with American Hartford Gold: text CACTUS to 6-5-5-3-2.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Supreme Court has concluded it's absolutely magnificent term with a major blow to the deep state. So now we are in the dog days of summer and we are looking ahead, looking ahead to the midterm elections. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode A Verdict with Ted Cruz is brought to you by American Hartford Goal. Now, the new inflation numbers are out, and I think we can all agree they are incredibly depressing. The price of gas is way up, the price of housing is up, the US national debt is way way way up. And unfortunately, given the way that our current administration prints money and spends money, experts don't see this going away, this inflation going away anytime soon. So how do you protect your money, your savings, your retirement from inflation. Well, when times are turbulence, Americans like you turn to physical gold and silver, and American Hartford Gold can show you how to hedge your hard earned savings against inflation by diversifying a portion of your portfolio into physical gold and silver. It's really easy to get started. All it takes is a short phone call and they will have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door. Or if you prefer inside your four oh one K or your IRA. They make it easy. If you call them right now, then they will give you up to fifteen hundred dollars of free silver on your first order. So don't wait, call them right now. Call eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three. Or if you prefer texting, you can text the word cactus to six five five three two. Again, the phone number is eight five five seven six eight one eight eight three, or text the word cactus to six five five three two. Welcome back to Verdicts with Ted Cruz. I am Michael Knowles, so pleased to be joined by the Senator who is on vacation, but there is no vacation when it comes to verdict So a Senator, thank you for jumping off the beach for a few moments to join us on the show. Well, happy fourth of July, and it's great to celebrate our nation's birth and independent and it's great to do that with the family at the beach, but sometimes you got to come back and address major issues that have come up. One of them is we've covered so much of this Supreme Court term, which seems to me certainly the greatest Supreme Court term in my lifetime, perhaps in American history. With the overruling of Row, you had the major win for Second Amendment rights, major win for religious liberty, major win for education freedom, and now in West Virginia versus EPA, a major blow for the administrative state. But this case, probably more than any of the others, is pretty complex. I don't know all the nuances of it, and I've really tried to dig into it. The case does not overrule what is called Chevron deference, which is a major source of power for the administrative state, but it does beef up the Major Questions doctrine, which is to protect the power of the people to make their voices heard against the administrative agencies of the executive What does this case do so, cutting to the bottom line, I think this case is an important victory A for democracy, for actually having control of policy, b in the democratically elected branches of government, and B for jobs and our ability to pay our bills. So what this concerned was under the Obama administration, they rolled out what they called their Clean Power Plan, and it was the EPA. It was a massive power grab to essentially shut down coal fired power plants across the country, and force a transition to natural gas and wind and solar. And to do so, the EPA itself admitted that its plan, the Obama EPA, would cost billions of dollars in the economy, would destroy tens of thousands of jobs, this was their own estimate, and would drive up everyone's cost of energy. So that that was the Obama administration's big present to America. Now, the plan has been litigated ever since the Obama administration. Under Trump, they rescinded the rule. Under Biden, they rescinded the decision. In other words, they potentially teed it up again. Just when we've got five dollar gasoline and electricity prices going through the roof. The Biden EPA was threatening to put yet more regulatory burdens driving up the cost of energy. And what the Supreme Court did has struck it down. It was a six three decision. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. And what Chief Justice Roberts relied on, as you mentioned it there, it's called the Major Questions doctrine. The Major Questions doctrine essentially says that if there is a regulatory decision that is a big deal that has big consequences, economically, politically, that Congress has to have been very clear in giving the agency the authority to do it, that the Court is not going to read in some vague, ambiguous language. In this case, the Obama EPA was relying on language that had been on the books for decades, had never been applied to have such a massive power grab. And the Supreme Court said, look, if if you're looking at a regulation that is going to have a massive economic impact, you can do that. But Congress has to be really clear that it wants to give the agency that authority that we're not going to read in just through vague and ambiguous language. And I think that that's an important decision. One of the things the Court relied on quite a bit is the fact that that Congress had repeatedly debated cap and trade, had debated putting a tax on carbon, had debated a lot of these policies, and had rejected it over and over and over again. And the Court said, look, if Congress, when they try to vote on it, can't decide this is a good idea, we're not going to read into ambiguous language the ability for the agency to just circumvent Congress. So this is a big win for the conservative who wanted to deal the conservatives who have for a long time wanted to deal a blow against the administrative state and against the EPA in particular. We're Goodness takes the epas the villain and ghostbusters. They've been in our cross here is for a very long time. But it doesn't seem to go all the way that many libertarians and conservatives have wanted the Court to go, which is to overrule Chevron deference at which comes out of a Supreme Court decision that gives a lot of authority to the agencies to regulate themselves. Is that right? That's right? And look, I think it's entirely possible that this Court will overrule Chevron Deference in a subsequent case. The Court didn't need to go there in this case because the Major Questions Doctrine resolved the matter and resolved it actively, and so it was unnecessary to consider Chevron deference and decide it on that basis. You know what I would say? So a legislative proposal that I've long been in a proponent of is something called the Rains Act, and I'm a co sponsor the Rains Act. The Rains Act provides that any regulation that imposes an economic cost of one hundred million dollars or more requires an updown vote from Congress before going into effect, and the Rains Act hasn't passed. I have fought hard to try to get it passed, and we haven't gotten it done yet. I tried very hard with the Trump administration for them to make it a priority, and the Trump White House that it just wasn't a priority for them. I think it would have been the most significant regulatory reform we could do to create an environment where jobs are plentiful. This Supreme Court decision is a step in that direction because it is saying the way they laid out the major questions doctrine, they said, if it has a big economic impact. Now, they didn't quantify what a big economic impact was. And here the Obama administration's own estimate is that they were destroying tens of thousands of jobs, so that they were readily admitting that they were they were having a big, big economic impact. But this decision I think is positive for limiting executive power absent congressional authorization, and I think that's that's important for part of the reason why you see regulations that are really harmful to the to jobs and businesses coming from the executive branch is because bureacrats are unaccountable. They don't have to face the people. And there's a power to having elected officials vote on it, because look, if you're a member of Congress, it's not an easy vote to cast a vote to destroy tens of thousands of jobs. You tend to have the people whose jobs you're destroying get really ticked off at you and show up at town halls and yell at you. And so there's a reason even Democrats at look, some of the crazies don't mind voting that way, but even Democrats get nervous about directly voting to destroy a lot of jobs. That democratic accountability, I think is good for economic freedom because if you have people who vote for it, it lets the voters in the next election step up and throw the bums out. Now, you mentioned crazy Democrats, and this brings up a completely unrelated issue, only related in the sense that unaccountable people are passing lots of insane regulations right now. But I do have to get your take on it, because it has somehow come to dominate a lot of the political conversation over the past few days Jordan Peterson and Dave Ruben. You're just thrown off of Twitter. They've been suspended Jordan for making a comment and then Dave for reposting is comment. And the comment, WHI is that Ellen Page the actress? Is Ellen Page the actress? That was essentially the comment Jordan referred to Ellen Page, who's the girl from Juno who now identifies as a man and calls herself Elliott. He just called her Ellen and didn't disparage her really in anyway, just pointed out that you had gone through this gender transition and use the female pronounces. He was thrown off for that. Dave was then thrown off the internet for that. Have we really descended this far where if you call a celebrity, very well known woman by the name that she was known by for most of her career, that you can now be thrown out of the public square with basically no way to fight back. Look, it is true insanity and the woke rules are changing so fast you need a guide to reference it. So apparently you're not allowed to say the words Ellen Page. Are you allowed to say the words Ellen Page age? With reference to when Ellen was going by Ellen and starring in movies with the names Ellen Page on them. Are you allowed to say that? Are you allowed to say that Bruce Jenner was on the cover of Wheaties or was that Caitlyn Jenner? And we didn't know it even though it had the words Bruce Jenner printed on the cover on the outside of the Wheati's box, there's a level of you know, the term Orwellian gets tossed around a lot, but it really is big, big tech trying to erase we're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia. Anyone who says to the contrary shall be disappeared. Now, look, if Ellen or Elliot or whoever wants to go by whatever name they want to go, fine, let go by whatever name you want. That that's but to say no one is allowed to say anything different. It's the opposite of liberty. It's totalitarian. Is I think Ellen or Elliott or whatever name tomorrow you want to go by Moon Unit, I don't care, Like, call yourself whatever you want, that's fine, But nobody has the right to silence others and to see Twitter just so casually flicked Jordan Peterson off Twitter, so casually flicked Dave Rubin off Twitter. I think is one of the reasons we've talked about it a lot. I very much hope Elon Musk goes through with this purchase. I think it may be the most important development for free speech in decades, and hopefully if and when Musk buys Twitter, this sort of garbage will stop, because it is idiocy. There's a kind of irony here too, because before Allen started identifying as Elliott, she was gay, married to a woman to a woman who identifies as a lesbian. This was after same sex marriage became a cultural phenomenon, but sort of before transgenderism became a cultural phenomenon. And it occurred to me that to affirm Ellen, who now goes by Elliot's gender identity, is to deny her lesbian partners sexual orientation. I'm trying to see if I can keep that straight, which is to say, we cannot simultaneously affirm so many contradictory things. And you mentioned it's Oceania being at war with East Asia. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. The rules are changing so constantly. I think what is really scary for Americans who aren't keeping up and who don't really care. What Ellen Page does is that you can be ostracized, You can be censored and removed from the town square because Twitter and Google and Facebook, those are the town square now for simply saying the thing that every single person believed until about five minutes ago. If Twitter now holds that you cannot call a woman who identifies as a man a woman, well, then effectively are aren't they prohibiting any disagreement with transgenderism? The vast majority of Americans who I suspect do not go along with a radical transgender kind of worldview. Does that mean that now the people who control the public square, the flow of ninety percent of information around the Internet, Google, Facebook, and Twitter, we're just not allowed to express our opinions. Look, that's exactly what it means that they want to silence dissent. You know. I will say back in twenty sixteen, I actually had a person who identified herself to me as Ellen Page confront me an Iowan. So I was at the Iowa State Fair. I was actually cooking pork chops at the Iowa State Fair, and this young woman walked up to me and began questioning me on I don't remember exactly. It was gay marriage, gay lesbian issues. I had no idea who she was, but that conversation with her, it was filmed and put out there, and at the time she had later identified herself as actors Ellen Page. I am I allowed to say that. That's what she told her name was when she was questioning me, and that's what she said online. Maybe I was being questioned by Elliott. I didn't know it like it. There is a level of this gets pitched and it's like through the looking that glass where they say this is all about I guess the phrase is dead name him. You know, you don't have a right to control what other people say. You know, if Michael you want to go by Michelle, knock yourself out. But but you don't have the right. You know. It's like the old phrase, my freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. You have all the liberty you want to say what you want, but that doesn't extend to silencing someone else saying something that you don't like. And today's left doesn't believe that. Part of it is they're rules on things like like gender, and I don't know how many one hundred and fifty seven genders. I can't keep up with the latest, the latest, fantastical distinctions. Their rules make so little sense that I think they realize they must silence anyone questioning them because they can't defend them on the merits. And that does fundamentally reflect and acknowledging a weakness on their part. It also does seem to go along with the broad broader leftist ethos, which is a rejection of the past. Actually, if you read some of the literature around the phenomenon of dead naming, this phrase only cropped up about ten years ago on the Internet to refer to the names that people have gone by their whole lives until they decide to identify as the opposite sex. A lot of the literature around that will discuss it as a rejection of the past. It didn't happen. Ellen was never Ellen. Ellen was always Elliott. Your Oceani was always at war with East Asia. As you say, well, and let me ask you a question. Let me ask a question on this, Michael. And this is this is where you're you're good at Theoretical navel gazing is the current theory of transgenderism. Let's take it that Ellen was always Elliott. And if that's the case, that does that imply that there actually is objective truth that Ellen was in fact Elliott. And isn't that in contradiction with the other left wing tenant that you can change whatever the hell you are right now, you can become a woman, a man, and a chipmunk, all in the course of this podcast, Like is their objective truth or not? And what I don't know is do the leftist activist do they distinguish like, dude, are they willing to say, well, Ellen may have been a woman in twenty sixteen when she introduced herself as Ellen and said she was a woman, but now she's a man? Or do they maintain that what is today was yesterday too and she didn't change anything? And how do you tell the difference? Is there like a guide some people say they change and some didn't like what's the what is the reasoning behind this? The current view held by the people who promote this kind of ideology is that Ellen is now and always was Elliott, even when she was in that movie about being pregnant and possibly having an abortion, when she was in Juno, even then she was really a man. But what if Elliott believes that she was Ellen? Then like like, is she allowed or he allowed? Well, this I think is the key. Is that an acceptable? This is the key because you know on Wikipedia, if you look at Ellen Page or Bruce Jenner or any really prominent person who identifies as transgender, the way that that person will be described will always be with the pronouns that they are now using, including going back to the very moment of birth. But your question is such an important one because you're saying, well, what decides if Ellen wakes up tomorrow and says I'm Ellen again, I'm as she again, and people have done that plenty of times, then is she is she again? And I think that's the case. I think what this ultimately comes down to is not that there is objective truth. For the obviously there is objective truth. But I don't think the contention of the left and the transgender ideology is that there is objective truth. I think what it comes down to is the primacy of the will. Whatever Ellen says is true, even if what Ellen says contradicts what Allen said yesterday. And so politics devolves from a reasoned debate that you constantly hear conservatives and old school liberals lamenting the loss of reasoned civil dialogue. Well that has to go away. If politics really only comes down to my will versus your will, and my interest versus your interest, well then we can't talk to each other. Then then we really can't even communicate. It's just all a bunch of sounds and pronouns and new noises that don't really have any coherence to them. Well unless they're connect to divorce, and you will be fired, you will be silenced, you will be blocked, you will be canceled if you don't comply with what I demand. And that's the call of the left, you know, on these names. I also all it's also seems to me that the names are intentionally provocative. You know, there are plenty of names that are androgynous and ambiguous. I don't know Taylor, Skylar Madison, you know. But when it comes down to this question of someone who's obviously a woman going by I don't know, Hank or something that seems a little little crazy as well. And I think this issue keeps getting so much play in large part because ordinary people who are not engaging in all this kind of ideological naval gazing who are not very online or marching with the radical leftists in the streets, who are just kind of conducting their ordinary lives. They're looking at this and they're saying, I know this is obviously wrong. Well, I will say, so, I'm on a plane an awful lot, and so I download lots and lots of shows, streaming shows, and one of the shows that I've watched on Netflix is something called Umbrella Academy about these students who have sort of superhero type powers. And for the first two seasons, Umbrella Academy starred Ellen Page and the third season, which I just finished watching it now, stars Elliot Page. And what's interesting is the character in the Netflix series has the same transition that Ellen slash Elliot has had, and in fact, the beginning of season three, the character is a woman, although the credits say it's Elliott Page playing a woman, and then the character decides that she is a heat And part of how Hollywood does this is every single person immediately just this is reality and and and it was an interesting example because when I started watching season three, I was kind of curious how they were going to handle this issue, and so they made the character completely mirror what the actor was going through as well, which which I just thought was an interesting wrinkle. It's a total failure of imagination, it seems. Also, it seems that it used to be that acting was when you pretended to be someone that you were not. Now we're told that unless you're gay, you can't play a gay character, unless you're this specific sub race of a group of p you can't play a person of that group unless you know what. Whatever happened to playing pretend, whatever happened to the imagination that that seems to be out the window right now, Michael, That's exactly right. The concept of acting has has just gone away. I mean now in order to play Michael Knowles, one must be a Catholic conservative attack Sicilian, and nobody other than Michael Knowles can play up Michael Knowles. That's right, and the whole concept of acting has gone. You know, there's a there's a famous story of when Sir Lawrence Olivier was doing a movie along with Dustin Hoffman, and you know, Hoffman is famously a method actor, and in the scene he was required to be very, very tired, so he stayed up all night and he was exhausted, and for some reason there was a problem shooting and they weren't able to fill in the scene, and Hoffman got upset and uh and and and you know, I was like, look, I stayed up all night. I was like getting ready, now we're not going to shoot the scene. And Sir Lawrence Olivier uh famously quipped to him, he said, my dear boy, why don't you try right right? And then the sort of meta's story on top of that, Uh, did you ever see the movie Hook? Yeah? Oh years ago, but yes, you know, it's a great movie with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman and Robin Williams plays a grown up Peter Pan and Dustin Hoffman plays Captain Hook. And apparently while they were filming Hook, Robin Williams would make fun of of of Hoffman and he would, you know, he'd make the voice of a parrot and he go, caw, try acting, try acting, And apparently there is no acting anymore. No, no acting is over. I do want to clarify for people too, if you do want to play me, not just any Italian will do not. I don't want any northern Itali. It's got to be from the town in Sicily where my family comes from. That's how particular we're we're going to get now that you know they say that politics is show business for ugly people, and speaking of particularity, I want to get Ninian. Thank you, Michael. I take that personally, so thank you very much, with notable exceptions of course, of course obviously for the people on this podcast. But you know, when we're looking ahead to the midterms, we got a whole lot of seats, we got all of those hundreds of congressional seats, We've got a whole bunch of Senate seats up to say nothing about the state houses. So since you're much more focused on the ground, on the nitty gritty, know the players very closely. What should conservatives be looking at, where should we be looking what races should we be focused on, and how by what margin are we going to win? So I'm very optimistic for November. I think it is going to be an historic victory. I think the chances of our taking the House are are approaching one hundred percent. I think it is virtually a certainty that will take the House. I think the real question is how big of a margin? And I think the chances are good that will take the Senate. I'd probably handicap the Senate at sixty five thirty five on the House side. Some of the reason why I'm so optimistic, let me give you just some of the specific data, because the two best predictors for elections historically have been the generic congressional ballot, which is just asking people in the upcoming congressional election, do you intend to vote Republican or Democrats, So without a name of a candidate that is measured every year, that's a very good predictor for what's going to happen in November. And then the presidential approval or disapproval. And consistently those two together had been very good predictors. So if you look at you look at for example, twenty ten, which was an historic year. In that election, the generic ballot was Republican plus nine point four, so it was really strong generic ballot. Presidential approval was actually not too bad, it was point five, so it was just the disapproval was just slightly above approval, and we ended up picking up sixty three seats, getting to a majority of two hundred and forty two seats. Likewise, twenty fourteen, the generic was our plus two point four. Presidential approval was ten point four, and we got to two hundred and forty seven seats. Now, if you look at where we are today in twenty twenty two, the generic congressional is R plus three point three, So that means by a three point three percent people say they're going to vote Republican instead of Democrat. That's better than it was in twenty fourteen, although not as good as it was in twenty ten. But the presidential approval is minus eleven point five, which is by far the worst, much much worse than twenty ten, much much worse than twenty fourteen. Let me give you another stat that is a very interesting predictor, which is the enthusiasm gap. If you ask voters, are you very excited to vote in November, it's a really good predictor of what's going to happen. And if you go back and look at it. In two thousand and six, Democrats who were very interested in voting in November sixty nine percent, Republicans fifty six percent. So the Democrats had a thirteen percentage advantage on enthusiasm. They picked up thirty seats twenty ten Democrats who were very interested was forty nine percent, Republicans was sixty six percent, So Republicans had a seventeen percent advantage. We picked up sixty three twenty fourteen, the differential was eleven percent. We picked up thirteen seats. Twenty eighteen, the differential Democrats who were interested was sixty six percent, Republicans fifty seven. So Democrats had a nine point advantage and enthusiasm. They picked up forty seats. And then if you go and look to March of twenty twenty two, Democrats fifty percent of very interested in voting. In November, Republicans sixty seven percent, so we've got a seventeen percent advantage. All of that is suggesting that we could see a Republican victory in the House with potentially a pickup anywhere from thirty to sixty seats. I think that's the spread that's in play, which is a whole lot of seats. What we're seeing is congressional seats that are say a D plus six or a D plus eight are right now polling tie. If you look at Virginia, Virginia last year, as you know, elected Glenn Younkin. Biden won Virginia by ten points, So Virginia was a D plus ten and an election day last year it went Republican. If we're winning D plus ten congressional seats, we're looking at sixty plus pickups in the House. So I think it's going to be a big, big deal, And I think how the Senate is too. So there are far too many congressional House seats to track. In terms of the Senate races, You've got some big celebrity candidates. Jdevans has made a huge splash in Ohio. The yours is already a celebrity and has been for a long time in Pennsylvania. What are the races that we should really be looking at, whether because they're bellweathers, you know, they're they're gonna tell us which way the winds are blowing, or just because they're so crucial for Republicans to pick. Sure, So the reason the Senate is far less certain than the House is that we don't have a great map this year. So Republicans are defending more vulnerable seats than Democrats are. And that just as luck of the draw of who happens to be up, because in the Senate only the third of the senators are up. Every two years. If you look at Republican pickup opportunities, the fourmost natural are Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Georgia and Arizona have historically been read states. Just a couple of years ago, they had both had two two Republican senators. Now both Georgia and Arizona have two Democrats senators. In Georgia, you've got Herschel Walker running um. I think I think Walker's got a good shot at winning that race. I think Georgia is still fundamentally a red state. Uh the special elections or the runoff elections that that happened in in twenty twenty one, Republican turnout was depressed. It was right after the election. I was on the ground. I saw it that that that our base was demoralized and didn't show up in that special election. And if if your guys stay home and the other guys show up, that's that's a recipe for losing. So I think Georgia is a real pickup opportunity. Arizona is a real pickup opportunity. That's got a messy primary right now. There's several candidates slugging it out in that primary, so it's not clear who the Republican nominee is going to be. Mark Kelly is the incumbent Democrat, and he is. He's formidable, He's an astronaut um. His temperament seems moderate. I do think Kelly has been really, really hurt by Kirsten Cinema, the other Democrat senator from Arizona, because Cinema, on a number of issues, most notably the filibuster, has stood up to party leadership and has has tacked a more moderate course, and it's made Kelly. It's revealed him. His voting record is in many ways indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders, and I think that even though he cultivates a persona being a moderate, his voting record now does not match up with that. I think Arizona we got a good pickup opportunity Nevada. Adam Laxalt won the primary. I endorsed Adam, I campaigned with him. I think Adam is a great pickup opportunity if I were. In fact, I think Nevada Adam is the most likely Republican pickup this cycle because I think he's done a good job of unifying the party. I think he's running a good campaign. I think we're gonna win. In Nevada. New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan is on the ballot. Her she's underwater. Her disapproval is greater than her approval. I think she's vulnerable. It's not clear who the Republican is going to be and if we're going to have a strong candidate. I hope we do. If we have a strong candidate, I think New Hampshire is winnable, but we've got to get someone who is able to raise the money and be competitive. If the governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sinunu, had run, I think he would have won easily. He decided not to run, and so New Hampshire is a state where we just got to wait and see if we're going to have a candidate that can be competitive. Those are the four best pickup opportunities. There are other pickup opportunities that are more of a long shot. Colorado Michael Bennett I think is vulnerable. He doesn't have great name idee, he hasn't accomplished much of anything in the Senate. Colorado is a bluish state that in a really good year could conceivably go red. So I think Colorado is a possible pickup Washington State. Right now, the polling in Washington State is showing the Republican within just a couple of points of Patty Murray, the incumbent Democrat. I'll give you a long shot. Vermont. So Pat Lahey is retiring. Pat Lahe is actually the only Democrat in the history of Vermont elected to the Senate, which is really quite remarkable. The other senator is Bernie Sanders. Is not a Democrat. He's a socialist, right, He's not a member of the Democrat party. You know, there's a former US attorney running in Vermont, a woman who I think is in a really good year, has a shot at that race. So there are, depending on how good a year there is, there are four natural pickup opportunities, and then I think several more. Now, where are we on defense? We're on defense number one in Pennsylvania, as you noted, So Pat Toomey is the incumbent, he's a Republican, he's retiring. Doctor Oz is the Republican nominee. I think doctor Oz can win. Uh. He just went through a tough primary. But between him and Dave McCormick, who was another very strong candidate, but I'm optimistic that that that Oz's numbers are not terrific right now, but he just came out of the primary. I'm optimistic that's a winnable seat, but we need to hold Pennsylvania. UM. Wisconsin, Ron Johnson is the incumbent Republican. He probably is faces the greatest threat for any incumbent Republican. Wisconsin's a historically purple state. I think Ron will win this year. UM. I was just out in Milwaukee and and supporting him in campaigning for him. I think he'll win this year, but history history teaches that race is likely to be close. UM. You mentioned Ohio. Rob Portman, a Republican, is retiring. Jade Vance's the nominee. I think I think Jade will win that race. But Ohio has certainly historically been a swing seat. Uh. Missouri, You've got Roy Blunt who's retiring. There, You've got a crowdy and messy primary. The candidate I've supported, Eric Schmidt, who's the attorney general, I think is the strongest conservative that can win. But whether that race is competitive will depend on what happens in the primary. One of the candidates in the primary, Eric Gryten's the former governor resigned in scandal. I think if Gryton's wins the primary, you'll see Democrats invest a lot of money in Missouri. I think they'll think that that's a seat they can steal. If Gryton's wins the nomination. You know another state that could get bumpy as Alaska. So Alaska, you've got Lisa Murkowski, who's the incumbent, She's the Republican. Donald Trump has endorsed against her, he's campaigning against her. Alaska also has a weird system of voting of ranked choice voting, where you vote for multiple candidates and then you eliminate the lowest vote and reallocate those votes. So I don't know what will happen there. But anytime you have Republicans divided, in this case, you got Trump on one side and the incumbent Republican on the other, it's messy. And you know, when I got to the Senate ten years ago, Alaska had a Democrat, Mark Baggett in it. I mean, Alaska is in a Senate race. It's more purple than you might think. So I think we will probably hold on to Alaska, but it's not impossible. That we lose that state. So put all of that together, put it in the blender. My guests, right now, if the election were today, we'd win something like fifty three seats altogether. But I think the plus minus is anywhere from forty nine if things just go spectacularly bad to fifty six if they go phenomenally and we win some seats like like a Vermont or a Washington state. If it's that good a year, we could get up in the fifty five fifty six range. So then you're if you're looking at retaking the House, and especially if you're also looking at retaking the Senate, then you're setting the stage for two years of stopping Biden, slowing down Biden. It's hard to slow down Biden. Biden's pretty slow as it is right now. But you you you stop the administration, and then you look ahead to twenty twenty four. Is there is there anything that you're seeing right now that you think in twenty twenty two will help to determine the shape of the twenty twenty four field. Oh? Sure, Number one. I think it's important that we win in twenty two. But then when we had majorities, we got to do something with it, and you know, that's just the beginning of the battle to win the majorities. And if we get to January twenty twenty three with majorities in both houses, if Republican leadership decides to play a prevent defense and do nothing and be risk averse, which is often leadership's instinct, I think that will demoralize a lot of voters. If you elect a bunch of squishes, you can't just go blaming leadership when they push squishy policies. The leadership is one trying to herd cats, but but two, they are taking cues from their members. You know, they're they're trying to operate levers of power within the confines of reality. So I love this idea. You got to go out there, You got to go elect the most right, viable candidates, and then you're going to have a much better shot of encouraging leadership to actually stand up and fight. Now, there is much more to talk about, Senator, before you return to your lovely family vacation that we have rudely interrupted. There's a lot more to talk about on the cloakroom with our friend Liz Wheeler. Hi, Senator, Hi is it Michelle. I've been waiting in the wings, and I just overheard that that perhaps you're identifying as Michelle. Now, okay, well I just want to so I was told I just want to be the one to note that this is breaking national news. We have a great topic that we're going to talk about on the Cloakroom today. We are going to talk the about a very highly reported piece of the dabb's decision. This is, of course, Justice Clarence Thomas, who said, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Albergefell. So we're going to talk about these cases and whether they should be overturned, and if they were to be overturned, how that would be done. You can join us on the Cloakroom. It's on Verdict plus. Go to Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash plus. If you use my promo code, which is of course Cloakroom, you can get your first month free on your annual subscription. It is Verdict with Ted Cruise dot Com slash Plus. I cannot wait. You were looking at the Clarence Thomas Nashville Fan Club over here, President and chairman. Can't wait to hear that discussion of why we need to get rid of substantive due process. All right, that's enough for me. I'm out of here. I'm Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.