嘉宾访谈·中文精读

参议员费特曼与麦考密克:两党合作、华盛顿金钱政治、数据中心与格雷厄姆·普拉特纳

Senators John Fetterman and Dave McCormick: Bipartisanship, Money in DC, Datacenters, Graham Platner

宾州两位参议员与主持人讨论两党合作、参议院阻挠议事规则、财富集中、数据中心与 AI 对蓝领经济的影响,以及金钱政治如何扭曲选举。

官方音频00:00 / --:--

本期章节点时间可跳到音频对应位置

  1. 0:00宾州参议员费特曼与麦考密克做客节目
  2. 0:332026 年的两党合作与拒绝极端主义
  3. 6:37参议院史上最低支持率、阻挠议事规则之争与部落主义
  4. 13:33修复美国的财富集中问题
  5. 19:51格雷厄姆·普拉特纳、极端主义为何赢下初选及其未来影响
  6. 28:12AI 与能源如何助推宾州蓝领繁荣,暗钱资助虚假信息
  7. 41:05政治中的疯狂金钱规模与修复失灵体系
中文精读由 AI 基于原始节目改写,非官方翻译,可能存在偏差或错误;观点归属与表述以原音频与官方文稿为准。说明

宾夕法尼亚19张选举人票,一块缩小版的美国版图。费城和匹兹堡压倒性偏蓝,广大乡村一片红,谁想把州赢下来,就必须把这两块拼在一起。

费特曼把这套本事归功于姿态:两党都想翻盘,他和麦考密克都做到了,因为他们拒绝了一部分极端立场。

我甚至觉得,这可能是人类历史上最关键的节点。这么多变化同时发生,AI当然是核心,但真正的问题是它在影响什么,生命科学、国防、能源。剧烈的变化制造焦虑,焦虑把人推向极化和极端。(戴夫·麦考密克)

麦考密克摆出一个能说明问题的数字。当时全国性工会都背书了卡玛拉·哈里斯(Kamala Harris)和民主党候选人鲍勃·凯西(Bob Casey),但电工、管工、蒸汽工这些基层会员里,三分之二把票投给了他。同一批人,也投给了费特曼。2024年宾州黑人选民的投票率,是过去三十年里最高的一次。

这批人被麦考密克称作工作家庭联盟。他的判断是,谁在宾州拿下这个联盟,谁大致就拿下了2028年的全国。

参议院支持率跌到历史最低,锅该谁背

杰森·卡拉卡尼斯没给两位参议员留面子。他一上来就列账:参议院支持率处于历史最低,拜登之后的总统支持率也是史上最低,联邦债务40万亿美元,开支还在加码,通胀在涨。除了这个房间里的人,也就是社会最上面那10%,没人觉得方向是对的。

美国民众以为我们现在该活在一个黄金时代,但他们没看到。(杰森·卡拉卡尼斯)

费特曼没有回避通胀,但他换了归因。最近这波通胀主要由能源价格驱动,而能源价格高,是因为总统决定对伊朗施压。他强调自己是唯一支持这件事的民主党人。

每一个竞选总统的民主党人都说过,绝不能让伊朗拿到核武器。现在有了让他们负责的机会,我为什么反对?五美元一加仑当然没人觉得好,但如果你放任伊朗拥核,五美元一加仑到时候会显得很可爱。(约翰·费特曼)

他把这层逻辑推得更远。如果民主党的核心动力变成比担心伊朗拥核更讨厌特朗普,后果不止在中东,会在整个全球格局上。他也自嘲了本党的运作方式:特朗普哪怕宣布支持冰淇淋圣代,我们也会讨厌它、投票反对它。费特曼在这里提到了「TDS」,也就是所谓特朗普精神错乱综合征。

阻挠议事:民主党当年想废掉,现在拼命保住

查马斯把话题引向阻挠议事(filibuster),参议院里最关键的程序性护城河。他提到费特曼曾表态支持废掉它。

费特曼的回答很干脆,没有给自己留台阶。

整个民主党,包括我自己,在阻挠议事这件事上错得离谱。2020年我那个周期,每个民主党人都说要废掉它。谢天谢地当时有曼钦、有西内玛挡住了,历史已经证明了他们的智慧。到了2025年,我们爱死它了。因为只有它逼着两党不得不坐下来谈。(约翰·费特曼)

他说,如果参议院变成众议院的小号版本,凡事多数决,后果会非常严重。他愿意把捍卫阻挠议事当成立场上的最后一座山。核心逻辑是:它保护的是少数党的权利,而少数党是谁,会随着时间来回换。

麦考密克从商人视角做了补充。他承认这套程序慢得让人抓狂,做了25年生意的人最难忍这种节奏,但它确实制造了必须达成共识的推力。他自称不打折扣的保守派,投票按保守派的方式投,同时手上有最多的两党合作法案,两件事并行不悖。

在他看来,大事情已经做成了不少:能源议程、边境管控、芬太尼流入被截断。宾州去年有四千人死于芬太尼相关,今年下降了六成,全国数据类似。他唯一承认真正无解的顽疾是债务和赤字,而这跟阻挠议事无关,是两党极化和谁愿意碰难题谁就倒霉共同造成的。

中位收入5.2万美元,和那家从2000人缩到100人的工厂

杰森把问题拉回他真正关心的:K型经济里,下半截的人为什么不满意两党。

麦考密克承认这是巨大且在恶化的问题。他给了一个数字:宾州的中位收入是每年5.2万美元。

这些人在AI的恐惧之前,已经走过一遍这条路了。当年一群聪明的富人告诉他们,答案叫全球化。结果是什么?我老家那家雇了两千人的工厂,被掏空到只剩一百人。(戴夫·麦考密克)

他说,过去十年是人类历史上拥有资产的人最好的十年。问题不在资产本身,在于没有上进的路。

他给出的方案有两条:一是投资美国账户,给下一代造机会;二是《工作家庭减税法案》里的择校条款,每人每年1700美元。他强调这套设计的重点是把钱从政府手里拿出来,用激励机制和个人的选择来分配,而不是政府来指定。

弗里德伯格在这里插了一个更根本的质疑。他说,他每次去华盛顿都很不快乐,因为国会山上几乎没人认同一个经验事实:政府花得越多、介入市场越深,市场就越低效、越贵,普通人获得财富和价值创造的门槛就越高。政府少花一点、少买一点、少管一点,东西会更便宜、更容易得到,人的经济流动性反而更强。而这套逻辑,似乎跟两党的主流观点正好相反。

费特曼的回应绕回政府停摆。他提到两次停摆、累计超过120天,连最基本的事情都谈不拢,而让政府保持开门本就是参议员的核心职责。至于自己,他说他骄傲地是个资本家,资本主义是唯一被证明能抬高全人类生活水准的制度,而他所在的党现在有拒绝死掉的好主意在流行。

他对AI的立场是这期里最鲜明的:他不认为AI是灾祸,他反对把AI说成癌症或祸害。

如果我要投票说AI全是灾难、全是危险、全是坏处,那我就是在撒谎。这是美国该造的东西。它可能来自我们,也可能来自中国,你站哪边?(约翰·费特曼)

他还顺手批评了党内的一种操作:把矛头对准贝索斯这样的私人公民。不要点名私人公民。他们创造了工作。如果你自己从没创造过一份工作,就别去批评那些真正改变了我们经济的人。

胸口有纳粹纹身的人,为什么能在民调里领先

弗里德伯格抛出的问题最尖锐。格雷厄姆·普拉特纳(Graham Platner),胸口有一个字面意义上的纳粹纹身,民调却在往上走。如果这样的人能赢,接下来会发生什么?

费特曼没有用委婉的说法。

我小时候,谁身上有纳粹纹身,你大概可以叫他纳粹同情者。昨天我们又发现他跟多达十几个女人发色情短信,党内有些人还在问,这有什么大不了的。他几年前还把在阿富汗跟塔利班交火的美国士兵叫做「蠢货,不配活着」。谁会这么说?谁躲在键盘后面这么狠?他形容美国军队是「绝对的垃圾」,而这样的人是个有竞争力的候选人。(约翰·费特曼)

他给出的解释是:这是对极化的反弹。这样的说法换了任何一个正常年份,早就出局了。

麦考密克把问题拆成两层。一层是左翼向社会主义、马克思主义这些坏主意的迁移;另一层是反犹主义的抬头。他判断蔓延程度的一个指标是:连查克·舒默(Chuck Schumer)、伊丽莎白·沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)这些主流民主党人,现在都跑到缅因州去为这类候选人助选了。

如果这类候选人赢了,就等于对这种思维方式的可存活性盖了章。那对美国是非常不健康的。(戴夫·麦考密克)

他补了一句带反讽的观察:作为共和党人,最希望看到的其实是一个强大的民主党,用好的想法来制衡自己,而现在这件事正在消失。

费特曼把话题接到以色列上,说那是他所在党的一次深刻背叛:赢下这些选举的很多人,标志性立场就是反以色列,有的已经是赤裸裸的反犹主义。这正是他和本党渐行渐远的地方。

查马斯在这里提了一个正面样本:宾州州长乔什·夏皮罗(Josh Shapiro)做得好,对一个突出的犹太裔政治人物是好事,说明反犹主义在美国比舆论呈现的要收敛,也说明共识仍然存在。

杰森试图把这套仇恨言论的源头追到特朗普当年说麦凯恩不算战争英雄,因为他被俘虏了,说那是话术的起点,现在大家都在比谁更狠。萨克斯当场回击,说这是把缅因州一个挂着纳粹符号的民主党候选人,硬算到特朗普头上。费特曼夹在中间说,这就是电视节目现场。这场插话本身也说明,主持群对归因并没有共识。

萨克斯随后问了费特曼一个很实在的问题:你在民主党里这么独立,伯尼·桑德斯那一翼活动力强、声音大,你会不会担心自己在初选里被拉下马?

一个席位、一份工作,不值得我用说谎去保住。他们因为我支持以色列生气,那就来吧;因为我觉得关闭政府是错的生气,也可以;因为我拒绝称某人是纳粹、是法西斯,也欢迎。按党派投票,我93%的时候跟民主党站在一起。如果民主党把我踢出去,那是在攻击一个93%听话的忠诚党员。(约翰·费特曼)

关于他要换党的猜测流传很广。他说自己永远不会这么做,因为就算换了,他的票也不会变。他还点破了本党竞选的实际运作:很多广告和邮件就是围绕特朗普的怒火,靠情绪续命,而推动这套话术的人,往往来自那些绝对安全的深蓝州。

数据中心不是灾祸:宾州的蓝领繁荣,和一场被操纵的信息战

查马斯让麦考密克讲了一个后台的故事:每周到底有多少人找他。答案是大约十万次联系,信件、邮件、电话。每两周他做一次公开的电话会,大约一万人进来,数据中心是越来越频繁的话题。

这个州最近发生的事,用麦考密克的说法是重生。去年七月,他和妻子迪娜在宾州办了一场能源与创新峰会,现场承诺的投资额是920亿美元。能源公司的CEO、AI公司的CEO、全球投资人、州长夏皮罗、总统、内阁都到了场。他反复强调一句话:赢在AI是一场团队比赛,得把所有玩家都摆上桌。

他举了一个具体项目。荷马城,一座正在从煤转天然气的电厂,4.4吉瓦的电力,其中3.4吉瓦直接进一个数据中心园区,1吉瓦回到电网,希望能把电价压下来。

反对声在变大。麦考密克说,这里面有大量错误信息,而错误信息很大程度上由中国和外部势力推动;另一部分是真实的困惑和理解不足。他的结论是,社区需要一份更清楚的契约:一个数据中心进来,会带来多少电、怎么用水、给税基贡献多少、修哪些学校和基础设施,得一次性说明白。

杰森插了一个现实问题:电价这部分,是不是人们唯一真正在意的?麦考密克说不是。电价的问题一旦说清,反对者会立刻转移到下一件事:水。然后是学校会不会挤、路会不会堵。这四个问题需要一次性答完,分开应付只会被逐个击破。

他拉出了上一次的类比:压裂。当年同样的剧本,甲烷会毁掉地下水源,别放在我家后院。十五年后,宾州人因为拿到了巨额土地权益金而改变态度,如今大约80%的人支持压裂。他给了一组背景:如果宾州是一个国家,它的天然气储量全球排第四;作为美国的一个州,它的能源产量全国第二。

费特曼接了一句特别干脆的话:能源就是国家安全。没有能源安全,国家安全就是空话。他反对给数据中心设禁令,把它叫中国优先的政策。

如果我所在的党推动数据中心禁令,你觉得中国会不高兴吗?你想要把这场竞赛让给中国,那就让吧。这是二选一:你需要美国来造这套底盘,还是让中国来造?(约翰·费特曼)

萨克斯补了一个从峰会上观察到的细节,也是这期里信息量最高的一段数据。去年那场峰会最让他意外的是参与者的构成:不只是软件公司,还有硬件、制造、机器人、能源、核电、压裂,最特别的是行业工会到场了。他看到的是建筑业的繁荣,此后数十万个建筑岗位被创造出来,建筑工人工资涨了25%到30%。他问,这种现实有没有让数据中心在宾州更受欢迎?

麦考密克的回答更具体。过去十五六个月落地的项目不只是能源和数据中心,还有美国钢铁的新一代工厂、礼来在宾州建的新厂、韩华在费城造船厂的项目,它们来的一部分原因就是数据中心和能源项目在侧。他说自己最近花了很多时间跟行业工会待在一起,现在宾州最稳的工作之一,是一个有经验的焊工或电工。这些人不到二十岁或二十出头就开始受训,在工地上一年挣超过10万美元,而项目方根本招不够人。

他把数据中心的经济账拆成四层:建造数据中心和配套能源设施,一次就要五到一万人进场;运营数据中心,需要几百人;每三到四年硬件升级一次,又要几百到几千人;再加上配套的餐饮、酒店。卡车协会的估算是,数据中心里每创造一个岗位,外围就带出大约两个物流岗位。伯威克,就在他读高中的地方旁边,正在建一个数据中心。

他的问题很直接:如果一个镇决定不要,那替代方案是什么?宾州已经流失人口二十年,留不住年轻人。他宁愿把它看成一次重生,前提是先把错误信息破掉。

弗里德伯格追问,为什么民主党这么难接受这些摆在眼前的事实:一边有充足的就业和产值数据,另一边关于AI会消灭白领工作的说法其实没有经验证据。麦考密克的回答有两层:一是AI这个大概念被和数据中心这个小概念搅在了一起,两者被当成一回事;二是这不只是民主党的问题,极左和极右现在正在合流,一起反数据中心。杰森在半路上和萨克斯争了一句用词:他不接受就业末日被贴到自己身上,坚持用就业位移这个词,旧岗位在消失,需要新岗位被创造出来填补。

5亿美元的竞选,和一个显得便宜的旧纪录

杰森把最后一个问题指向政治献金。他列出索罗斯,也列出我们的朋友,说巨额资金流向政治,感觉钱多到不像话。他问,为了让数据中心这类议题不被特殊利益绑架,钱是不是必须从政治里出来。

麦考密克的回答很诚实,也很不政治正确:如果他列一份修复美国要做的五件事,这件事进不了前五。但他同意,从理念上他想把钱从政治里赶出去。他给了自己那场竞选的数字:总额约5亿美元,他这边筹了2亿,对手那边花了3亿。

费特曼的数字更能说明速度。他说自己在2022年的那场是旧纪录,总共约3亿美元。现在已经显得很便宜了。等到2026年,再等到2028年,今天这些数字会看起来像零花钱。

两人最后落在一个共同点上:这些钱里有一大块,花的目的就是摧毁对手的声誉。

为了摧毁我和他的名誉,总共花了三亿美元。想想这三亿美元能为宾州、为普通人做多少事。「你很差劲,我也很差劲」,这就是美国政治的荒谬。(约翰·费特曼)

他补了另一个结构性原因:初选机制本身在筛选极端。初选里最活跃、最会造势的一小群人,决定了谁能出线,也决定了最终候选人长什么样。他提到扩大初选参与是可能的方向之一。

查马斯收尾时说,两位参议员都极度理性、讲道理,也是真正为美国着想的人。

两位参议员把两个党各自的问题都摆到了台面上:民主党在AI、能源、以色列上的转向,共和党在财政纪律上的无力。能同时承认这两件事的参议员,在美国政治里不多了。

  • 判断一个摇摆州的政治风向,看工作家庭联盟,别只看两党基本盘。在宾州这类州,谁同时握住电工、管工这些行业工会的基层票,谁就赢。
  • 如果你在推AI、能源或数据中心项目,社区真正关心的顺序是电价、水、学校、交通。这四个问题要在第一次沟通时就一起给出答复,分开应付只会被逐个击破。
  • 反数据中心的力量已经在极左和极右之间合流,短期内不会退。评估一个地区的项目风险时,把外部信息战算进去,别只看本地民意。
  • 美国中位收入5.2万美元的那一半人,是未来几年政策和投资绕不开的变量。任何只服务于有资产者增值的逻辑,都在透支资本主义本身的合法性,麦考密克自己也是这么说的。
  • 阻挠议事短期内不会废。现在被共和党和一部分民主党共同维护,任何押注多数决时代到来的判断都偏早。
  • 政治献金会继续膨胀:5亿美元一场的参议院竞选,到2028年会显得便宜。别指望短期内出现结构性改革,把资源和判断建立在现值上。
文稿来自 All-In 官网(allin.com)发布的官方 Transcript,说话人按官网分轨数据标注,个别段落可能张冠李戴。
Speaker 1 (00:00:00): Now a look at the state of Pennsylvania. It's one of the most important states in this presidential race. Both the Pennsylvania senators, democrat John Fetterman and republican Dave McCormick voted in favor of the bill. John Fetterman (00:00:13): In this situation, we both agree that shutting our government down is wrong for our commonwealth and for our nation. Dave McCormick (00:00:20): So we're looking for ways to find common ground. And when we disagree, we we disagree. But, when we can agree, we agree. John Fetterman (00:00:27): Our votes are about country over party at this point. Dave McCormick (00:00:29): Well, we're trying to set a good example because we have lots of disagreements, but we trust each other, we like one another, and we look for ways to work together. I Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:40): thought the best way to kick this off was to actually give both of you a few moments to just say what's on your mind. And so I think in the rules of parliamentary decorum, senator Fenerdem, as a senior sitting senator from Pennsylvania, maybe you can start. John Fetterman (00:00:54): I'm I'm proud to call senator McCormick a good friend, and now things are very more polarized, and now I refuse to engage in the kinds of extremism. And, you know, we're gonna fight together for Pennsylvania and for our nation right now, and we're gonna continue to have conversations like this, you know, whether in Pennsylvania or here across. So so we have to find a better way forward through a lot of the circumstances. Dave McCormick (00:01:33): Dave? Yeah. I think, I mean, one of the benefits of being in a place like Pennsylvania is that voters expect us really to find ways to work together. And if you put this moment in perspective, I think it's probably the most consequential moment in all of our lifetimes. And in fact, I think it might be the most consequential moment in humankind, which is a big statement. So much change is happening. It's artificial intelligence, of course, but it's really how that's affecting everything, life sciences, defense, energy. It's a moment of enormous change. And that change creates a lot of anxiety that lends itself to polarization and extremes. And so if there was ever a time where it's more important to find ways to work together, it's now. And so we've found ways to work together on everything from energy policy to fentanyl, the fentanyl crisis, to antisemitism in Pennsylvania and across the country, to drone technology, and these are issues that are of such consequence that you can't get there by just being with your team. You have to be able to find common ground, and we've really looked for ways to do that. John Fetterman (00:02:47): Yeah, think he could confirm. Pennsylvania keeps you honest now, and now I'd like to remind everybody that we are the only two people in our respective cycles that flip seats. You know, that's really, you know, both parties want that. They we want to flip seats. It's like, you know, we we've done that because I think we've rejected the extreme kinds of views and now it's better to work together for for Pennsylvania or for our country for right now. And AI is really, really important And and it will sometimes will put me at odds where the direction that the Democratic Party seems to be moving in that now. So now, moratorium for data centers, for me, that's a China first kinds of policy for that. I'm going to continue to push back that. I'm not going to describe that as a scourge. I'm going to describe that as an incredible new opportunity. And now, you know, my friend, he he organized an incredible symposium in Western Pennsylvania that brought AI together and energy, and that's two parts of things Pennsylvania really brings to the table in this very, very important conversation. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:58): I think that we're at this point now where, is it fair to say as goes Pennsylvania, as goes the rest of the country, in the sense that if if you can find common ground in the state on these very thorny issues, maybe the rest of the country can find ground, and the vice versa is also true. If you guys can't find resolution, what are the odds that California and West Virginia making it up find resolution? So what is it like a day in the life in the US senate trying to find these compromises? Because from our perspective outside in, a lot of the time it just seems like nothing is happening. Dave? Dave McCormick (00:04:34): Yeah. I think if you step back, you would I know we look very similar, but we have many similar backgrounds. David Sacks (00:04:43): We do? Dave McCormick (00:04:44): Have Wait, what's the difference? We have similar backgrounds in the sense that we both grew up in rural Pennsylvania and had similar, you know, similar childhoods. And John went into public service. I left, went to West Point, went to the military, but we both came back from those those rural backgrounds. But what's interesting in Pennsylvania, it's 19 electoral votes, and it's a microcosm of the country. You have these two big urban centers, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which are mostly Democrats. You have these rural areas that are mostly red, mostly Republican, and you got to build a coalition across those to win. So ironically, a lot of the same people that voted for Senator Fetterman voted for me and voted for President Trump, and that's the coalition you have to build. And in particular, it is a working families coalition. So the thing that's ironic is that even though all the national unions would have endorsed Kamala Harris and Bob Casey, my opponent, the rank and file, two thirds of the rank and file, the electricians, the pipe fitters, the steam fitters voted for me. Same with him, they voted for him. So we actually, even though we have a lot of differences in our parties, we have come together around that coalition. And that coalition includes a very significant Latino turnout, a very significant African American turnout, the highest African American turnout in 2024 in the last thirty years. And so that coalition, I think, is up for grabs. Who wins that coalition in Pennsylvania and who wins it in the country, I think will dictate the future to a large degree in 2028 and beyond. And so, that's what we're working on together because we're trying to build that coalition to do good things together in Pennsylvania. Jason Calacanis (00:06:37): The senate is at an all time low in terms of approval rating. We have the lowest approval rating of a president in history after Biden, who was extremely low rated. You guys can't control the debt. The American populace believed we'd be in a golden age right now. They're not seeing it. Inflation is soaring. The president seems to be running amok, has no check-in the house. And you guys are responsible Tell Chamath Palihapitiya (00:07:04): us what you really think. Dave McCormick (00:07:05): Other that, Mrs. Lincoln. Jason Calacanis (00:07:07): Well, and $40,000,000,000,000 in debt and you're spending more than ever. So, the American people I think are extremely frustrated with both parties. It's great to see you guys come together. But what are you going to do to bring back some balance between the branches of the government? Because this does not seem to be going in the right direction for anybody but the people in this room, which is to say the top 10% of our society. John Fetterman (00:07:34): Well, I mean, for me, if you you referenced inflation is soaring. Well, just just recently, that's primarily driven by energy prices right now. Now, why are those energy prices high? Well, because the president decided to hold Iran accountable. And now, I'm the only Democrat that actually agrees with that. That was not that was not a radical idea for a Democrat. Every single person running for president as a democrat said, we must never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and now we have the opportunity to hold them accountable. Why? That's why I continue to vote and against these war powers act now too. So for inflation, yes, now, absolutely no one thinks $5 a gallon is is great, but if you allow Iran to become nuclear, you know, that's gonna seem quaint, you know, if $5 a gallon holding it up too. So what's driving this economic conversation overall right now? So for me, I think what's most important now, turn everything as a partisan thing, and that's the danger where if we despise Trump more than we are concerned about Iran becoming a nuclear power, that will have profound implications for not just in that region, but also for a global stage for right now. That's the difficulty moving forward now. I've said this in the podcast of, you know, for All In. I, you know, who's the leader's party? I'm like, that's tedious a 100%. You know, our party is defined by the opposition of whatever he comes out for. I've said that he Trump comes out for ice cream and lazy sundaes. We're we're we're going to hate that shit, you know, and we're going to vote it down. Now, all have we all have a bandwidth and we all have a platform. You know, I feel like you have to discriminate. I don't care about the ballroom. If you want to build it, sure. Great. I was there for the the White House correspondent dinner, and I saw how dangerous that was for for our leadership. John Fetterman (00:09:47): But I don't care about the reflecting pool. But now we can't stop talking about all this other kind of So we can really focus on thing that's more important when now it's become all just distracted by the small, small ball game. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:10:01): Dave, is there a path to resolution? I mean, like, you guys are going to be forced to confront the filibuster, which is this critical bulwark that sort of leaves some sort of attempt at finding common ground out there, but there's a lot of pressure to end it. I think senator Fetterman, you said you'd be supportive of ending the filibuster. Is that where we're going, to just total tribalism? John Fetterman (00:10:23): Yeah. Let's talk about the filibuster. Let's talk about that. The entire Democratic Party including myself, we were so wrong about the filibuster. In my cycle in 2020, every single Democrat identified we have to we have to eliminate the filibuster. Seems like it made sense now. And thank God thank God we had people that stood there whether it's senator Manchin or senator Sinema, you know, history has vindicated their wisdom to do that thing. And now Democrats, we all wanted to get rid of it in '22. And 2025, we fucking love it. And now, it now it forces people to work together with both sides. Now, if you turn the Senate into a smaller version of the House and majority rules, now that would have profound, profound implications for now. So, now someone that would the first person to announce, hey, I was so wrong about that, that's one of the kinds of hill I would die on now to defend the filibuster, how important it is to the Senate, but also set it for the minority rights whoever that happens to be in that time, you know, that's what's so critical, what the filibuster is to governance here. Dave McCormick (00:11:39): I would say, first of all, Congress, but lots of institutions right now have very low public approval, very low trust. That's a huge problem. It's across all areas, church, public officials, business in many cases. So, we've got to rebuild trust in our institutions, and one of the ways you do that is through your own personal conduct. So, one of the things we can do is try to set the example. If you look at my voting and his voting, I'm an unapologetic conservative, I vote as a conservative. At the same time, that doesn't mean you can't work together. So we look for every opportunity for bipartisan legislation. So I've got more bipartisan legislation than anybody. We've collaborated on dozens of things together because you can do both. And the filibuster, I mean, it is frustrating as a business person. I was in business for twenty five years. So frustrating the pace of how slowly things move, but I do think it creates the requirement, the impetus to get things done. And I would disagree with you. I think a lot of big things have been done. I think if you look at the energy agenda, we can't win the AI race without energy, and we made huge progress in energy. I'm hoping we're going get permitting reform, which would be the biggest economic lever we could possibly get done over the next six months or the next two and a half years. We've closed the border, we've stopped the flow of fentanyl. We had four thousand people who died in Pennsylvania in the last year, the Biden administration at sixteen hundred. This year, it's down sixty percent, those same statistics nationally. And then there's huge intractable problems like the debt and the deficit, which are existential that we're not dealing with. And that's not a product so much of the filibuster, not the filibuster. That's a product of the polarization of our country and both sides taking advantage of anybody willing to look at a problem in a hard Jason Calacanis (00:13:33): My question was though about the bottom half of the country in the K shaped economy we're in and how it's not working and you guys are phenomenally unpopular with that group of Americans. So is there Dave McCormick (00:13:45): a way to be You're talking about wealth concentration? Jason Calacanis (00:13:48): Yeah, wealth concentration, the bottom half is not happy with No, no. On both sides. Dave McCormick (00:13:54): No, it's a huge Nope, it's a huge problem. And I don't think I listened carefully last night. I I just want to tell you that is a huge, huge problem that's growing. The median income in Pennsylvania is $52,000 a year. When you guys say AI or AI anxiety, I mean, these these folks, they've been down this road once before when a bunch of smart rich people said we got the answer, it's called globalization. And what happened in my hometown is there was a mill of 2,000 people that got gutted. It's now 100 people. So there's enormous anxiety, but it's because there's no path to getting ahead. And everybody in this room, the last ten years has been the greatest ten years in the history of humanity for those who have assets. Jason Calacanis (00:14:36): So, do you have a plan? Dave McCormick (00:14:37): Yeah, well, got to be What Chamath Palihapitiya (00:14:38): is it? Dave McCormick (00:14:39): There's got to be a number of plans. Well, do you have a plan? Because it's not just going to be me, it's going to be us. Because right now, listen, am a beneficiary of capitalism. I have been wildly fortunate because of capitalism, but we going to lose capitalism unless we find a combination of ways to address it. So what are the ways? The Invest America Counts is a perfect way, right, where you are building opportunity for the next generation. The school choice provision in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, $1,700, everybody in this room can give $1,700 every year, billions of dollars that are going to go into school choice for making sure everybody has equality of opportunity. If you don't do that at maximum scale, and this moment leaves the majority of Americans behind, we're not going to be able to get anything done. Jason Calacanis (00:15:31): Spend more money on programs. Dave McCormick (00:15:33): Yes, spend more money, but not spend more money, spend more money in giving people opportunities. So the reason those two accounts are great, it takes it out of the government, circumvents the government, it's based on incentives and choice by people that have wealth. It's sort of Andrew Carnegie brought to present day, take that wealth, put it in the hands of those who will benefit from it, but it's your choice. It's not dictated by the government. I think that's going to have to be part of the answer. David Friedberg (00:16:02): Does anyone in Congress subscribe to the notion that I think is rooted in, you know, empiricism that the more we spend, the harder it is for people to have economic mobility? You know, and I think that there's a simplified notion that government has to play a role in driving people's progress. And the truth is, the more government intervenes in markets, the more inefficient and the more expensive those markets get. And therefore, the more inaccessible wealth and value creation is for any individual. And the freer the market, the less the government intervenes, the less the government is spending, the less the government is buying, the better things get for people, generally speaking. This is and and it seems to me every time I visit DC, I leave profoundly unhappy because I meet with people in congress and this is a notion that seems to be diametrically opposed to their viewpoints that everything is about doing more for people. Government needs to do more on both sides of the aisle versus if the government did less, things would get more affordable, things would get more accessible, and people would have greater economic mobility. John Fetterman (00:17:09): Well, I mean, you know, talk about the government. Now, we had not just one, we had two shutdowns. Both were historic in terms of their length. No. We couldn't just agree on very basic things, and now we've shut the government down collectively for over a hundred and twenty days or whatever now. So then that's one of the thing as a Democrat, I refuse to engage in that thing. If that's a core responsibility as a senator, keep our government open and for the love of God, find a way to agree enough to keep things open and put things in risk and make our country less less safe. You know, I'm proud to be a capitalist and now capitalism is the the one system that has proven to raise life's standard of humans across the globe, you know that. And now people in my party, you know, now we're having bad ideas refuse to die. And now we're talking about socialism and communists right now. We have we have candidates now that I'm I am a communist these things. And it's like, that seems interesting. Now, what's your point now? Talk to anyone that's had to live under those kinds of regime. Now, they're all absolute capitalists right now, and that's that's absolutely the fact that the market will has fixed a lot of these kinds of problems, you know, and I'm not terrified by AI. Am I concerned about it? A 100% right now. And with now, Mythos and other concerns about mass hacking and now weaponizing it that way. Now, that's coming and now I think that should belong to America. You know that, you know, America should build that chassis and now that's why if we turn my party into where AI is the scourge or the cancer, now I refuse to reject that because it's going to transform the world. Now, it can come from us or it can come from China whose side are you going to be in and a lot of the people that oppose that, now a lot of that opposition is funded by a lot of these groups that are aligned with CCP. So that's part of the danger right now. So that's the dangerous time right now, and like Democrats now in my party, oh, the problems are billionaires. Oh, but we love the billionaires that fund our kinds of views and our views and that too. I'd target people, you know, people call out Bezos or whatever. John Fetterman (00:19:34): It's like you don't don't do that. Don't call out private citizens, identify them the problem. You know, they create jobs. If you've never created a job, don't criticize people that that have really changed our our economy for the better, honestly. David Friedberg (00:19:50): Why is Graham Platner doing so well in the polls? This is a candidate that has a literal Nazi tattoo on his chest. John Fetterman (00:19:58): Yeah. Yeah. David Friedberg (00:19:59): I know. What is what is history tells us comes next if he wins? If a candidate like that can win, what does that tell us? John Fetterman (00:20:06): Yeah. Well, when I was a kid, if someone had a Nazi tattoo, you probably could call them a Nazi sympathizer, you know? And someone now, and now just yesterday, we discovered that he was sexting with up to a dozen women and now Democrats now some are saying, well, what's the big problem? You know, that's you know, they're constantly just ignoring a lot of these things. And now this is a guy that just a couple of use a couple years ago described an American soldier in a firefight with the Taliban. Dumb mother that doesn't deserve to live. That's his words. Who does that? Who lurks on there? And, you know, he's really a tough guy behind a keyboard and I can't, you know, explain other than that it's a backlash to how partisan things are. Someone like that should have been in this race right now. Here we are, you know, a guy that was text sexting to up to a dozen women, he's getting a swallow all on and now we're kind of just, Oh, what's the big deal? Why not confront that and just didn't call that out? And that's the danger if now, these kinds of views. Could you imagine? Could you imagine if either one of us described an American soldier as a dumb mother that deserves to lie or he described the our army as as absolute trash. Absolute trash. He described the American army as absolute trash. And and that's a viable candidate now and that's that's a bizarre place to live right now as a democrat. David Friedberg (00:21:49): You know? Wins, If what happens to this? What what does that tell us about where we're headed? Dave McCormick (00:21:53): Well, look at what I mean, what's happening there is I mean, there's there's problems on both parties, but certainly what you've seen on the left is two things. I think it's indisputable. One is a migration to these terrible ideas of socialism and Marxism and so forth. But in addition to that, this really rise of antisemitism and hatred and the tell here of how pervasive it is, is the people who are now campaigning in Maine, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth these are mainstream Democrats that have now lurched so far to the left. And I think I think this is gonna be if if those candidates win and that becomes validation of the viability of that stream of thinking in the Democratic party, I think it's horribly unhealthy for America. Ironically, the best thing we want if we're Republicans is a strong Democratic Party that keeps us honest and keeps us in check with good ideas. And and that's not happening. And as I said, we have problems on both sides, but I think that lurch to the left is really frightening, a frightening thing. John Fetterman (00:23:00): Well, and then let's say, and you just, you know, brought up Israel. You know, that's a profound betrayal for my party on on Israel and not to. You know, the people that are winning a lot of these elections, you know, you know, one of their signature view is anti anti Israel and borderline just, you know, raw anti Semitism and from a lot of these candidates now too. And that's that's exactly where where we are. And now that has isolated me and the party and just calling that what that is. I mean, that's dangerous and now that's where one of the things that we happen to agree on. That's the right side of history for me and that's Chamath Palihapitiya (00:23:43): I mean, maybe one of the best things that can happen is Shapiro continues to do well in Pennsylvania. Irrespective of which party you align with, a prominent Jew winning in Pennsylvania, running that state well is a very good sign actually for the rest of the country that there is common ground and that anti Semitism is much more in check than the perception The bureau Jason Calacanis (00:24:02): we had also Chamath Palihapitiya (00:24:03): No, I think Josh is fantastic. Jason Calacanis (00:24:05): Yeah. And he has a lot of disagreements about us maybe going into this war and maybe being egged into doing it. And by the way, Federman, if you're look or Freeberg, if you're looking for the source of why people feel comfortable saying these terrible things, you can look no further than Trump and what he said about McCain being a war hero. That started this actually, this rhetoric. And now everybody wants to one up it. He said he's not a war hero and he got captured. That's where this started. Sachs? David Sacks (00:24:40): Oh, please. You're trying to blame Trump for the fact that a democratic candidate in Maine has a swastika type John Fetterman (00:24:47): of No. Jason Calacanis (00:24:47): Rhetoric. No. The rhetoric. Started Alright. Start with Trump. John Fetterman (00:24:50): We're in Jason Calacanis (00:24:50): TVS land. Needs David Sacks (00:24:52): to We're in TBS land but fortunately we're not interviewing you, J. Cal. Let me ask Senator Fetterman a question. So, I appreciate your common sense views on AI, on capitalism, on all the things we're talking about And I think that people in Pennsylvania appreciate it. I think you're very popular there. But I'm curious, do you ever get worried that you might get primaried in the Democratic Party when when you come up? Because, I mean, the Bernie Sanders wing is powerful, they have a lot of activists, they're very noisy. I mean, do you ever I mean, I appreciate your maverick streak and your independence, but do you how do you think about that risk? John Fetterman (00:25:35): Well, a seat or a job is not I'm always gonna be I'm gonna be honest and I'm always gonna have, you know, my votes or my opinions are gonna be what I happen to believe is is true. You know, it's not a seat worth trying to maintain if I'm gonna lie or to pretend that things aren't absolutely true. Yeah, absolutely. I can be be primaried and there are some Democrats that are are angry at me. If they're angry at me for supporting Israel, yeah, they have at it. If they're angry at me that I think it's wrong to shut down the government, that's fine. If if they're angry at me because I I refuse to call him a Nazi or a fascist or a piece of shit, I'll never do that. You can hold me on that too. But what's really strange in that the truth is somebody that votes like a 93% is democratic line. And if I change my party, there was a lot of palace intrigue that I'm going to change the party and I'm never going to do that. And if I did, I could change, you know, I could announce right now. I am changing it right now. My votes aren't going to change. My views, excuse me, I wouldn't vote any differently, things I happen to believe. And if Democrats run me out of the party, they will be attacking a committed Democrat that votes your line 93% of the time because we're in a unique time right now that I think things are more important than trying to I I know what pays the bills as a Democrat now. Literally, campaigns are based on Trump. Literally, in their campaign commercials. Yes. And in their emails and outrage. You know, it's constant rage bait. I refuse to engage in that and I'm going to be an example of what I think is entirely appropriate. And a lot of the conversations are driven by people that represent very, you know, safe blue states. Now, like that's why Pennsylvania keeps people honest here. And people are going to remember in '28, Oh yeah. Oh, I want to be bipartisan. John Fetterman (00:27:45): I want to get along. You know, like people don't believe you. You know, like they remember what they've said and how people behave. So, that's where I'm at. So, yeah, I could be primary, but what's more important to be the truthful, what I think are important values and remind people that the things we used to believe in, you know, I think Seth, Chamath Palihapitiya (00:28:11): I wanna just move to just domestic policy and economics for a second. Dave, you said this incredible story in the green room, which maybe you can start off with, which is the quantum of people that reach out to you every week to mostly complain about various companies, but just use that as an insight maybe to talk about AI because that's a huge part of your state, it's also a huge part of the American economy and maybe compare it to what happened with shale and oil because there's a lot of commonalities. I think it's quite interesting. Dave McCormick (00:28:45): Yeah, I don't know if he gets the same amount, but on an average week, we have 14,000,000 people in Pennsylvania almost, on an average week, I'll get something like a 100,000 outreaches to me, letters, emails, phone calls across different issues. And you can almost see when the activists are mobilizing groups to come in and make the case on certain things. And I do a call every two weeks, it's sort of an open mic where you get about 10,000 people that show up, and the number of data center calls, data centers have become a much bigger and pervasive thing. And just to put this in perspective, David was there. Dina and I hosted an energy and innovation summit in Pennsylvania last July. We had $92,000,000,000 of investment committed. We had the energy CEOs, the AI CEOs, big investors, global investors. We had Senator Fetterman came, Governor Shapiro came, the president came, the cabinet came. It was amazing. That's, by the way, that's what you need. Winning is a team sport and winning in AI is a team sport, and you need all those players at the table. And so it was real success. And since then, there's been enormous investments made in Pennsylvania. I visited one just the other week, Homer City, 4.4 gigawatts of power from a coal plant that's being transitioned to natural gas. 3.4 gigs is going to go into a data center complex, a gigawatts going back on the grid to hopefully bring down energy prices. So this is happening across Pennsylvania, but the opposition is growing and it's clear. Jason Calacanis (00:30:21): Is there any organic part to this? Because it's very hard to understand what's happening when you have these kinds of dark forces, dark pools of That's that's that's like, I don't want to have this in my backyard for X, Dave McCormick (00:30:34): Y and Z. There's enormous misinformation. And I think that misinformation is largely being driven by China and outside forces. And then there's just legitimate not understanding, not knowing. Okay. And we need to do a much better job of making sure that the outlines of what these data centers mean to communities is clear. Frankly, there needs to be a much clearer covenant of what it means. If you're going to have a data center in your community and you're a township supervisor, here's what you know. They're going bring more energy than they're going to use. They're going to protect their water with closed loop. They're going to give this much to the tax base. They're going to build schools or infrastructure, whatever going to build. Jason Calacanis (00:31:14): Isn't that first part the only thing that matters in people's minds? I just don't want my energy to build go up. Dave McCormick (00:31:19): No, because as soon as you get through that, they move to the next thing, which is water. And then the schools are going to be crowded and there's like, so The schools are going to be crowded. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:28): Yeah, they don't Because there'll be new jobs. Dave McCormick (00:31:30): No, because it'll be new people and they're making the connection to the tax base, the roads are going be crowded. So there's a whole comprehensive case that needs to be made. And Chamath was making the point, we went through this before, John and I both lived through this with fracking. Huge campaign against, huge misinformation, lack of understanding, and fifteen years later, I'd say there's pretty broad based support John Fetterman (00:31:54): for Yeah, no, yeah, there's unlimited money. I mean, you know, they they someone finds some b roll kind of a comment and they put $10,000,000 behind it and they can they can turn you into the most extreme kinds of things. It's ironically, you know, originally people try to convince people that I'm a socialist and now people are like, now I'm MAGA or whatever. I'm like, No, I'm just I haven't changed. Views are And, the you know, I would tell people energy is national security. Look at what's happening in, you know, Europe and other parts now. If you don't have energy security, then your national security is in danger. Now, AI is coming and what he's done, he created this amazing symposium to remind people that, you know, we need both. We need energy and Pennsylvania produces a lot of that. And now also, AI is coming, otherwise we'd still be using this spinny Jenny or whatever that's called. So, why do we talk about data centers? Because people, forces are describing them as a scourge or a cancer that's going to bankrupt you or destroy your community. Now, why do we have that right now? Because this is something that's going to transform our society. You know, absolutely there could be a downside, but overall it's going to be much more productive and that's going to create new opportunities. Now, I refuse to become a party of Luddites. And now that's, you know, like honest. If I had to vote now, claim that that's all cancer, it's danger, and it's all downside, then I'd be lying. And that's why I'm saying, Republican or Democrat, you know, that's a fact. These things are very, very important and that's why I'm going Chamath Palihapitiya (00:33:43): Can to just double click on this thing when you compare it to shale? So, in shale, I'm going to assume that when shale was escalating in importance, the pushback were from corporate interests that would have economically lost out. That's what I'm guessing. Dave McCormick (00:34:01): Environmentalist. Environmentalist. Yeah, environmental. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:34:04): But it seems like in AI we're dealing with foreign state actors. Yep. Is that fair? Is it as reductively simple as that? Dave McCormick (00:34:11): Well, if you go to those two parts, one was the campaign of misinformation and the other is a lack of understanding. There's much more of a campaign of misinformation from outside forces this time around. But but what happened in in the, you know, in in the case of shale, methane destroys the water table. You know, don't want these in our backyards. What happened, of course, was these enormous royalties for the farmers. We're the fourth largest natural gas reserves in the world. If we were a country, Pennsylvania would be number four. This is the economic engine for our state. Our state is the second largest energy producer in the country, so this unlocks everything for Pennsylvania, and as those jobs started to be created, so you saw the economic benefit, the misinformation about the methane and the water table became clear. Slowly and much too long, fifteen years later, we're now in a place where I bet 80% of people would have support fracking. John Fetterman (00:35:08): Last night event, you know, you described that we have six to eight months ahead of China. Right? Is that right? David Sacks (00:35:17): Yeah. John Fetterman (00:35:17): Yeah. Okay. So now, you know, my party is driving for a moratorium for data centers. They're like, I mean, do you think China doesn't love that? You know, again, that's why there are parts behind some of the driving this view. You want to give that race to China, it's coming. It's the choice. Do you want America to build that chassis or do you want the Chinese to do that? You know, yeah, you know, data centers can make some things with Chamath Palihapitiya (00:35:48): at some some the core of that, John, is what you said earlier which is it starts with TDS and then it goes with give China AI. John Fetterman (00:35:56): Is that I would say this, vote me out. If you think it's okay to give China a benefit to win the AI race, Vote me out. You know? And, you know, but it's like Dave McCormick (00:36:09): Your favorite person in the audience, my wife is clapping for you. David Sacks (00:36:11): Oh, yeah. No. That's exactly She says he he the way I see it. I mean, that's exactly the way I see it as well. So, we have great bipartisan agreement here. So Dave, I was at your summit last year, the Energy and Innovation Summit where you announced $90,000,000,000 of new investments. The thing I was struck by was how broad based the representation was at that summit. You not only had software companies, you had hardware companies, you had manufacturing, you had robotics, you had energy, nuclear, fracking and then most interestingly is that you had the trades there. And that's when a light bulb went on for me that, oh, this is a blue collar boom because this is a construction boom and blue collar workers are really going to benefit, and the trades who represented there spoke to that. And since then, we've had hundreds of thousands of new jobs, construction jobs created and 25 to 30% wage increases for construction workers. And so I'm curious, does that help make the cause more popular in Pennsylvania? Are those trades, are the unions still on board with this, or have the politics of that changed at all over the past Dave McCormick (00:37:22): It's a great question and it's been extraordinary. So, just in the last fifteen, sixteen months, and these are related by the way, it's not just energy projects and data centers, it's US Steel and a new next generation mill, it's Eli Lilly building a new plant, it's Hanwha in the Philadelphia Shipyard. But they're coming in part because of the data centers and the energy projects. So I've spent a lot of time with the trades lately. The most secure job in Pennsylvania right now is a secure welder. I mean, is a seasoned welder rep. An electrician. An electrician. Honestly, these folks are coming out, they're getting the training, they're in their late teens, early twenties, they're making more than $100 a year in these sites and they can't build, they can't hire quick enough, They can't find enough people to meet the demand. And you know, data centers, I mean, I've looked closely at it, there's one coming in Berwick, Pennsylvania right next to where I went to high school. You know, the way to think about it is there's sort of four buckets of economic activity that comes, jobs that come. There's, of course, the deals that come with them, but there's the thousands of jobs to build the data centers and the energy that goes side by side. So these are five, ten thousand folks on the site. Then there's the hundreds of people to run the data centers. Then of course, every three to four years, the hardware and everything in the data centers gets upgraded, brings in hundreds, sometimes thousands of jobs. There's the energy that's going side by side. Then there's the restaurants, the hotels. I met with the trucking association the other day. They guess that it's about two logistics jobs for every one job in a data center. These things are economic engines. So once you get that covenant straight, people are willing to make the decision. And if a township supervisor or a county commissioner, no senator is going to tell them to do this. This has to come from the ground up in terms of making the decision. But once they decide to do that, it's a huge engine for their communities. If they decide not to do it, my point is, okay, where's your plan? Dave McCormick (00:39:28): What is the plan? In Pennsylvania, we've been losing people for twenty years. We can't get our kids to stay. This is like a rebirth. It's amazing what's happening, but we got to break through the misinformation and Jason Calacanis (00:39:40): Rebert, do you have a final question? If not David Friedberg (00:39:42): Well, mean, I think on this point, why do you think it's so difficult for the Democrats to embrace the facts on the ground because you have an empirical story to share about job creation, value creation, and there's no empiricism on the other side that there's job displacement or job loss in the white collar jobs, which is generally part Two of the Dave McCormick (00:40:03): things. I would say the notion of AI broadly is getting munged with the notion of data centers in a narrow thing. Data centers, of course, are an enormous component of this, but two things are unrelated. Second, I don't think it's just Democrats. Like, I mean, we have No, Jason Calacanis (00:40:20): the America First movement now in this horseshoe Dave McCormick (00:40:23): exactly aligned with We have the far left and the far right Converging on an anti David Sacks (00:40:29): data Well, even have some besties who occasionally buy into the jobs apocalypse. Jason Calacanis (00:40:34): No, no. I'm jobless. Don't ever misrepresent me, Saks. I will call you out every time. I just believe there'll be jobless. You could also use the word job mobility. David Sacks (00:40:44): Well, I think Jason Calacanis (00:40:45): I'll let finish my sentence, please. Yeah. I'm speaking. Job displacement is occurring and that new jobs need to be created to fill that in. And I think that's the blind spot of the people who have Trump dedication syndrome is that they will never actually do anything that would modestly criticize the president. And that's part of the challenge. I want to have a little bit about the amount of money being donated by special interest. Do we need to get money out of politics? Because that seems to be the root of a lot of these problems is that billionaires can give 50,000,000, a 100,000,000, 200,000,000 whether it's Soros or friends of ours. It feels like there's way too much money in politics. Does that have to change for this type of issue, you know, data centers, etcetera and special interest? And how do we can we ever get there? Dave McCormick (00:41:36): Yeah. Well, I would say of the five things I would do to fix America right now, that wouldn't be in the top five. But yes, conceptually, I'd like to get money out of politics. There was my race was $500,000,000. We raised 200,000,000 on my side, 300,000,000 on the on the the opposition side. We we couldn't keep John Fetterman (00:41:55): I was I was record before in '22. We raised, you know, and my race was $3.03 30,000,000. Now that's quaint. Till '26, wait till '28. This is going to look like quaint. That's the thing, Dave McCormick (00:42:13): know, collecting Either we need to get money out or this group needs to be donating a lot more to both Yeah, of John Fetterman (00:42:17): or get of the primary process too, you know, and now open to other people. And now these primaries, they identify the extreme kinds of views and put out someone, you know, and that's part of it now too. Collectively, 300,000,000 were spent to to describe to destroy our reputations. Think what $300,000,000 could do for Pennsylvania or for people. That was spent to destroy reputations. You know, you're terrible. I am terrible. That's the absurdity of the American politics. Right. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:42:56): On on that note, I actually wanna say both of you are incredibly rational and reasonable and incredible Americans. So I just wanna thank you. Senator Svetterman and McCormick very much appreciate Thanks, Dave McCormick (00:43:08): guys.

本集资源与出处