Hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan react to the latest midterm results, starting with Scott Colom's victory over Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, which made him the first Black senator elected in the state since Reconstruction. They discuss his refusal to take corporate PAC money, a campaign ad they praise, and Hyde-Smith's election-night remarks about Kamala Harris, which the hosts describe as racially charged.
The conversation then turns to the fight over affordability within the Democratic Party, the divide between progressives and centrists, Zohran Mamdani's New York campaign, and the debate over Hakeem Jeffries becoming House speaker. Listeners also hear the hosts criticize Democratic leaders over failed votes and PAC money, and Jeffries' record on Israel, which they argue should face closer scrutiny.
In this episode Angie Sullivan, Jennifer Welch
The transcript of this episode on Mississippi's Senate race and Democratic affordability debates was made with the technology behind HappyScribe's AI note taker.
Ads in this audio differ from the text. Tap the sentence you're hearing to follow along.
Synced: the text now follows the audio.
Good morning. The blue nomi continues to rage on, and now we have entered the "salt in the wound" phase of it. Uh, we can gladly report that Mississippi has a Democratic senator— they absolutely made history last night—pop this up. Breaking news: Scott Colom, a Democrat, defeated Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, Republican of Mississippi, in a close race. According to the Associated Press, his win makes him the first Black senator elected in the state since Reconstruction.
And some points here: he did not take corporate PAC money and made a point of doing that. And so, as we head to build this map for 2028, to have a major, major, major supermajority so that we can put in some roadblocks to fascism with bad actors that can lurk in where we don't have guardrails, it's important to note that a candidate in Mississippi can go against what the party recommends you do, which is take corporate PAC money, bend the knee, etc.
And he didn't do this, and he won.
A couple of things about this race. Mississippi: Donald Trump carried that by 23 points in 2024. Think about that fact. And now we have a Black senator from the state of Mississippi in 2026. That's two year— within two years, you're seeing a shift like that amongst the voters. Another interesting fact is that the Senate Majority PAC did give Senator Colom, Senator-elect Colom, $2.2 million, which shows in a tight race the value of that kind of money.
If you want to bring up Angie Nixon and her plight, I mean, it just shows the value. That $2.2 million goes a long way in the state of Mississippi. It was a tight race, and it raises the question again: what could have happened with Angie Nixon had they done the same thing with her campaign?
And let's just take a look. This was really probably one of the best political ads of the entire midterms. And this is Scott Colom's ad, and I just think it's— no, no, it's— play the clip.
Price of beef continuing to go up.
You know, you have so many proteins to choose from.
Pick another protein? Shit. I'd rather pick another senator instead.
Pick another protein? She done lost her damn mind. I'd rather pick another senator.
Pick another protein? What the—
Pick another senator instead.
It's just so good. It's so good because this is the message that Republicans have been giving people, whether it's the elites or the politicians: don't have as much Starbucks, don't have an expensive lunch, that it's your fault that we're so rich and we don't pay taxes and we haven't done anything to help wage inequality. You are the one that needs to make the sacrifice. And he just spells it out so simply, and I love that. Pick another protein? Shit.
With the baseline in the background. But I mean, I remember seeing that ad for the first time thinking, that's genius. I mean, everybody loves that ad. And then just his message. The more you hear him speak in his common language, very folksy, just the way he resonates with people in the state of Mississippi, I mean, he's going to be a fantastic addition to the Senate. And just what a breath of fresh air to see him.
And most importantly, this is a person who didn't bend the knee to lobbyists and PACs that then he would have to service before he services the people of Mississippi. And the woman that he beats, she takes all of that PAC money. So she's not servicing the people of Mississippi. She's servicing these fat cats, elites, before she ever gets there. And that's why you see states like Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, West Virginia that are always bottom 10 states because they don't elect people that get in there and fight for them.
And this woman, Cindy Hyde-Smith, here's what she said on election night. I'm going to play it, and then I want us to talk about it. Play the clip.
Blocked Scott Colom from being a federal judge, and you blocked him from being a U.S. senator. And Kamala Harris learned a lesson that we may not quite enjoy her company in Mississippi. I think she learned that.
All right. So kudos for Kamala for going down there to help rally the vote. This is a big tent coalition win, this victory, and that she went down there and helped him and rallied with him. Kudos to her for that. I just— when I hear that woman stand there, this Cindy Hyde-Smith, and say she blocked him from being a federal judge, and she blocked him from being a senator, and Kamala Harris isn't welcome here, it just sounds racist to me. It just has these racist undertones in it, in my opinion.
I agree. And what she was referencing, the first part of that clip, is that President Biden had nominated him to be a federal judge, and she was a senator, obviously, and she blocked his nomination. So she was taking pride in that. And then I believe on election night she got a little trigger happy. She wanted to think that she was going to win the race, and so she was telling the voters that, and you blocked him from being a senator. And then turn about is fair play. Now look at the picture here. Look at all the counties that came in.
And she finally conceded yesterday, to her credit, and it was somewhat of a gracious concession. But to your point, I agree. You hear her talk and the rhetoric, and it just spews a little bit of that South racism that all those folks down there are just tired of hearing, I'm sure.
I think it's just this signaling, I blocked him, and then Kamala is not welcome down here. Well, what do those two people have in common?
Yeah.
And, you know, you and I have lived in white communities, and we know— and Oklahoma is not technically the South, but culturally it very much is Southern. And that type of signaling that she's doing there is to say, we're not going to allow this. We're not going to allow these Black people do this. It's just my opinion. And I think if people were really honest about it, they would acknowledge that. But let's move along to what is happening in the House of Representatives. Obviously, we are elated about the blue nomi and how many blue seats are getting there.
But within our party, we have corporate Dems, progressive Dems. We have Dems that are going to go into Congress and fight for the people. And then we have Dems that are going to go in there, say one thing to the people, and then have backdoor meetings with the corporations. And the big issue that everybody agrees upon is affordability. And then the disingenuous component of this is you have corporate Dems saying, we need to talk about affordability, we need to talk about affordability. But to truly be honest about affordability, you have to diagnose why things are unaffordable.
And that's where progressive politics get ushered in. They're unaffordable because politicians have allowed corporations to not pay taxes, have not demanded better wages and unions and benefits for their employees. And that's where the progressive part gets in. So be cautious, listener, when you hear some Democrats say, oh, affordability, affordability, but Centrist won, and this is a Centrist thing. You cannot talk about affordability without diagnosing the moderate status quo positions that allowed this economy to run amok to where it's not capitalism anymore.
This is taxpayer-funded. Let the corporations suck off the taxpayer tip economy. That's what this is. So Ayana Pressley, she is a Democrat from Massachusetts, and she posted this yesterday. Pop this up. She says, do you agree we need to show that this agenda has strong support? Sign our petition at ayanapressley.com/agenda. And she says, our Democratic majority should advance Medicare for all, expand abortion rights, stop data centers, and abolish ICE.
Obviously, all of these things are incredibly popular, and kudos to her for putting all of this out there because you cannot solve the affordability crisis without adopting progressive politics as the solution.
And it seems like she's dipping her toes in this speaker race a little bit by circulating that, which I think we both embrace. We welcome that. But she's impressive. And you're right. You can't talk about some of these issues without the progressive part of the party bringing those up because they're tied so much to the economy, the messages. And so she's attacking it straight on, like the status center issues. I mean, and we're facing some of that in Oklahoma and a lot of the states are across the country, and they're very unpopular.
And so it's the policies of these corporations that have so much power with the government, and they're not regulated. And all of that messaging is tied together, which is tied to a lot of these progressive policies that we want to see change. And so I think she's shedding light on that, that, hey, just because you're progressive doesn't mean you're not fighting for the policies that the party wants. In fact, it's just the opposite, really. And to label it moderate, I think it's just unfair. I think it hurts the brand of the party by trying to talk about the party in factions instead of just the Democratic Party, because all these issues are intertwined.
Let's talk about what was the impetus of this affordability thing. The impetus of affordability is this: a guy who was polling at 1% in New York City called Zoran Mamdani took on the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the oligarchs, massive, massive hedge funds, all of the money you can imagine. And he was laser-focused on one word: affordability. We need to make New York City affordable to all New Yorkers. And the Centrists and the moderates, it was, you know, just a lot, a lot of pushing Zoran down.
They were trying to run Andrew Cuomo. Zoran had to beat Andrew Cuomo twice is how much that was rejected. And then all of a sudden you hear everybody saying, we're going to deliver on affordability. They had to give him his flowers because he was right. But where they fail and where they're intellectually dishonest in this is in talking about affordability. You have to ask, why are things not affordable anymore? And they're not affordable anymore because both parties have prioritized servicing corporations because the corporations pay them and put money in their war chest to win more elections.
This is the era of prostitution politics. The way out of the affordability crisis is through progressive ideas, an FDR-style coalition where we are taking on what helps the most people in this country, the people at the bottom of the food chain. When we lift them up, then we start solving the affordability crisis. The people that pay, that are buying off Democratic politicians and Republican politicians are the same people that are saying, you know, hey, don't go eat a sandwich that's $20.
Don't go to Starbucks, you know, three times a week. You can't have nice things, but we can. We know you're, you know, poor asses in TSA line in the back row in the middle seat next to two people snoring and farting. We're on a PJ, but listen up, you lazy MFers. It's Centrist politics or, you know, tough titties. So we need to really shift the Overton window on this. And as I look at this whole issue of Hakeem for speaker, there's a lot of issues with it.
It's awesome to have a first, a first Black speaker of the House. I'm all for that. But if you look at the things that Hakeem Jeffries has voted for in these last two years and go look at these, go look at the vote for vote for vote. And we're just at this point right now where we have watched American citizens get killed in the streets. We're watching the president grift, steal, start wars, kill innocent people, rip off Venezuela, just immoral degeneracy out the wazoo. We have to have uncompromised leaders that are going to get in there and fight for the American people.
And so will Hakeem probably end up getting the gavel? Probably. But where I stand morally right now, I have to say we deserve better. We deserve better leaders that take all of this money and tell us we can't criticize a foreign government. Come on. I mean, come on. So that's why there is a push online for Congresswoman Pressley, which I think is a fight worthy of having. This woman takes on everybody with brass balls and conviction and clarity.
And most importantly, she is incorruptible. And that's the kind of speaker of the House that we need. And the Democrats just keep, after we won this big blue nomi, we know they bungled the Hegseth thing. You know, I mean, it's just like, show up for your job and fucking vote out a war criminal. I mean, it's like the easiest vote of your career. They bungled that. And now there's another Democratic legislative failure yesterday. Pop this up. Democrats fail to call for a recorded vote and GOP passes its bill that cuts veteran disability benefits and forces veterans to pay more to use VA home loan benefits on Veterans Day.
This is the type of thing that would ideally be paid attention to and handled by party leadership. In this case, that would be leader Hakeem Jeffries and whip Katherine Clark. This is less than 24 hours after they failed to whip members on a vote to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which failed by a 210-204 vote margin with 11 absent Democratic members. That tweet is from a friend of the show, Julian Androni.
And this, to me, is just, this is such a missed opportunity. This is what we've been saying on this show forever. It is a lie that Republicans say they care about veterans, support the troops. It's a lie. I'm just, this kind of shit is just unacceptable. This is what I mean. We deserve better politicians. Our veterans deserve better politicians than this fucking impotent leadership.
Any other job you have where you show up in the first two days of work, you fail as miserably as they have at this, you lose that job. You just get fired. And this should be no different. It seems like with all these people, it's the elephant in the room that they want to gloss right past and they want to go into this speech about, well, I'm here to deliver for the American people. And the American people, you know, they give these kind of speeches and don't address the issue. The issue is you're given large sums of monies by these PACs and super PACs.
And because of that, your decision-making is compromised and not in line with the will of the voters. That's the core issue. Talk about that. Talk about all this money you took and how you're going to be willing to vote against the interest of those people that gave you that money if it comes to the best interest of your party. Say those things. Have those conversations. At least if we're going to be stuck with him, at least make him come out and own the money that he took, how he's willing to set aside his desire or interest to vote for that particular cause and vote for the American people and the will of his constituents and have an honest conversation about it instead of just having this elephant in the room everywhere we go that all these people take APAC money and all of them are pro-Israel and we're in this war with Israel and we don't approve the funding, the continued funding of this illegal war and have that conversation about what are you willing to do about that and make his ass answer and not give those tiptoe, sidestep bullshit answers that he gives every time you hear him speak.
I mean, it's just so frustrating.
I completely agree. If you look at Jeffries' votes regarding Israel, regarding this very dangerous and insidious approach that very bad actors want to say, if you criticize the government of Israel, you're criticizing all Jewish people, which puts American Jews in danger. It is a sleight of hand. It is so intellectually dishonest and it's absolutely dangerous.
And if you look at Hakeem's votes for that type of stuff and you look at his alignment and all of these votes that I'm talking about are within the last two years during an act of genocide where IDF soldiers are killing civilians on purpose and have guns, snipers aimed at little kids. I think just this week, a 14-year-old boy was shot, Palestinian boy was shot for throwing stones.
And the government of Israel called the kid a terrorist and gunned him down, a 14-year-old. And we just have to have moral clarity on this issue. We cannot be, oh, we're this beacon of democracy. We stand for universal human rights. Oh, but we also aid in a bed, a terror state that lies to people and kills little kids and innocent civilians. And it's not about Jewish people. There are just as I know more personally Christian Zionists than I do Jewish Zionists.
So this is not a Jewish thing. This is this state government, the state of Israel and their government are very bad actors on the world stage. They should be condemned. Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. If he were to go to Europe right now, he would be met with bracelets and hauled off to the Hague. And so we cannot, I agree with you. It's an elephant in the room that is just always right in the room. And he needs to answer for it. Are you going to continue to take APAC money? Are you going to continue to deny American citizens, American college students their right to protest and their constitutional American right to say, I oppose this government?
I know that that hurts some people's feelings, but it doesn't kill people. What you all are for actually kills people. And so we just need leadership on this. We need leadership.
And I would agree. He needs to go on the record on some of these issues and quit tiptoeing around it because he just plays both sides of it. And it's just so painfully obvious. So if we're going to be stuck with him, and we can't say that for sure right now, but if we are, then we need moral clarity on some of these issues to where you're going to have to say how you feel because you can't go in and give us red meat on certain issues that don't affect Israel and then come back and vote in their favor on certain things. And that's what he'll try to do if he's not cornered and pinned down on some of these issues.
He'll say the right things about certain issues or causes and then turn around and, you know, fund the war or continue, you know, some of these policies that were just anti that the voters are just simply against. And so let's hold his feet to the fire.
All right. That is all we have for this episode. Make sure you're subscribed to this channel if you're on YouTube. Become a member if you'd like for extra content. Join us on Substack. If you are a listener, make sure you're subscribed wherever you get your podcasts and order my New York Times bestselling book, Not Today: Fascists. And we will be back later with more news.
The blue wave continues rolling in.
Get Jennifer’s new book Not Today, Fascists, join our Substack, shop our merch, and more by clicking here: https://linktr.ee/ivehaditpodcast
Follow Us:
I've Had It Podcast: @Ivehaditpodcast
Jennifer Welch: @mizzwelch
Josh Welch: @joshwelch_
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices