• Rick Perry on the Texas Primary, Psychedelics, and His Debate 'Oops'
    Feb 19 2026
    Subscribe to GD POLITICS wherever you listen to podcasts. The video version of this interview is available here.My favorite interviews with politicians happen when they’ve run their last race and can reflect candidly on their time in office and the complexities of politics and the world. Today you’re going to hear such an interview with former governor of Texas and former secretary of energy Rick Perry.We begin by talking about the heated Senate primary in Texas. The former governor has thrown his support behind incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and doesn’t shy away from criticisms of Attorney General Ken Paxton or the Democratic side.We then turn to a more personal topic: Perry’s experience with the psychoactive drug ibogaine and his advocacy for its use in treating things like addiction, PTSD, brain trauma, and cognitive decline. It may seem like a counterintuitive position for a social conservative, and we get into that.We end by talking about the moment during the 2012 GOP primary debate when Perry forgot the name of one of the agencies he intended to shutter as president — the Department of Energy. It became something of a viral moment at the time, but in this interview we talk about what was going on in his personal life, which he describes as the most difficult six months of his life.Below are some excerpts, edited for clarity, from our conversation, which took place on Wednesday, February 18.Perry’s Opposition To Ken Paxton In Texas’s Senate RaceGov. Rick Perry: I tell people the Bible’s kind of like a checklist that a pilot would use. I was a pilot in the United States Air Force. So they pounded into us: use the checklist, use the checklist. That will save your life, that will save the people’s lives who are in your airplane. The point is, the Bible is that checklist.So if the Republican Party is gonna be the party of Judeo-Christian values, then having someone who basically has flaunted those rules and regulations, whether it’s standing up in front of God and saying, I will be faithful to you until death do us part, which he obviously failed at, whether it’s eight senior members of his staff, I’m talking about Paxton here, who stood up and said, this guy has broken the laws of the state of Texas and the federal government and we can’t work for you anymore. I mean, that is a damning indictment. Eight of the people, eight of the people who you hired at your senior level.…Perry: I think this is about Texas and what is the Republican primary voter going to decide about the direction that they want the Republican party to be and a reflection of what they want the Republican party to be.Galen Druke: And if Paxton does win in that case, what message does that send? Like, if this is about the future of the Texas Republican Party and Paxton wins, what does that tell you?Perry: Well, from my perspective, I don’t think it’s a good message. I think the idea that the character doesn’t count, I mean, if you want that to be your bumper sticker, good luck.Whether A Paxton Win Could Imperil Republicans’ Hold On TexasPerry: This has been going on for 25 years, since my first run for a full term for governor in 2002. The media was all frothing at the mouth of, you know, ‘We’re going to get the state back into Democrat hands, because they had this little dalliance with this Bush guy. Now he’s gone. And, you know, Perry’s kind of an accidental governor anyway. He just kind of slipped in there as lieutenant governor and then Bush went on to be the president. And so we got Tony Sanchez who’s running, who’s a multi-billionaire or multi-millionaire business guy, oil and gas guy, and he’s going to self-fund, put 80 to a hundred million dollars in it. And we’ll get the state back. We’ve historically been a Democrat state and we’re going to get back to it.’Every election cycle. We hear that every election cycle. That’s true for this one. I’d be very surprised, stunned, even a better word, if the Democrats were able to win a statewide elected position, unless we pick a massively flawed candidate, which potentially could happen here. But my instinct is that it’s not going to happen. John Cornyn will be our nominee and whether they pick a flawed individual as Jasmine Crockett or a flawed individual like Talarico, the Republicans will win.On James Talarico’s Christian FaithDruke: You talked about your Bible study and the importance of the Judeo-Christian faith guiding you in politics as well. Talarico has leaned pretty heavily into his Christian faith in his political appeals. He’s a pastor in training. Do you think there’s anything admirable about Talarico’s approach in that regard?Perry: I would say that he needs to walk into that room where that mirror is and really ask whether or not he can profess a faith in Christianity and support abortions.Druke: And is that really the main sort of sticking point for you?Perry: You asked me, you asked me what my ...
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 1 min
  • Is It Time To Freak Out About AI?
    Feb 16 2026

    Heads up: We have a live show scheduled for Wednesday, March 4 at the Comedy Cellar in New York City! After a rowdy live 2028 Democratic primary draft last month, Nate Silver, Clare Malone, and I will tackle the Republican side of the ledger. Grab tickets here!

    If you’ve been enjoying your long weekend, I apologize for the potentially panic-inducing content of today’s episode.

    We seem to be in something of freakout moment over artificial intelligence. In particular, several viral posts have been making the rounds on social media from people who work in AI warning about what’s coming.

    Mrinank Sharma, an AI safety researcher at Anthropic, quit last week and published a letter saying the “world is in peril” and that we need to wise up.

    Zoe Hitzig, an economist at OpenAI, also quit and wrote a New York Times op-ed criticizing how ChatGPT is implementing ads, suggesting the company could use people’s private motivations to manipulate them.

    Matt Shumer, the CEO of an AI startup, wrote a viral post on Twitter called “Something Big Is Happening,” comparing this moment in AI to what February 2020 felt like for COVID.

    As far as markets are concerned, software stocks have fallen 15 to 30 percent over the past month in reaction to new AI developments in coding.

    On today’s episode, I talk to John Burn-Murdoch, a columnist and chief data reporter at the Financial Times. He’s been using data to track AI’s effects on the world so far, particularly when it comes to work.

    Also, in case AI panic isn’t enough for one episode, John’s been doing a lot of work tracking democratic backsliding in the U.S. and around the world. So, fittingly for Presidents’ Day, we get into his research on that, and ask whether these two sources of anxiety — AI and democratic backsliding — might be connected in some way.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    56 mins
  • Epstein Fallout, The Shutdown Fight, And Gallup's Goodbye
    Feb 12 2026
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

    The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.

    Also, heads up: We have a live show scheduled for Wednesday, March 4 at the Comedy Cellar in New York City! After a rowdy live 2028 Democratic presidential primary draft last month, Nate Silver, Clare Malone, and I will tackle the Republican side of the ledger. You can get tickets here.

    We’ve got a lot to talk about! In fact, I think this is our first-ever emergency edition of “Good Data, Bad Data, or Not Data.” Gallup announced this week that, after 88 years in the field, it will stop tracking Americans’ approval and disapproval of presidents. Its final approval rating for President Trump was just 36 percent.

    Gallup may no longer be asking how Americans feel about the president, but plenty of pollsters still are and that will be useful for two topics we’re discussing today: the showdown over Department of Homeland Security funding and the political fallout from the Epstein files.

    We’ve also got election news to check in on. The Democratic primary in New Jersey’s 11th District has become a microcosm of Democratic Party drama. A little-known progressive organizer won the primary after an AIPAC-backed group spent $2 million attacking a moderate, pro-Israel former congressman. Yes, you read that correctly.

    Susan Collins also formalized her bid for a sixth term in the Senate this week, which means another chance for us to talk about the 2026 race for control of the chamber. Plus, friend of the pod Mary Radcliffe did a deep dive into whether support for Trump is crashing among young men. She’s with me to discuss it all, along with Washington Post senior data scientist Lenny Bronner.

    Show More Show Less
    21 mins
  • The Texas Senate Primaries Get Messy
    Feb 9 2026

    Heads up: We have a live show scheduled for Wednesday, March 4 at the Comedy Cellar in New York City! Nate Silver, Clare Malone, and I will share our reactions from the Texas primaries and much more. You can get tickets here.

    Primary season is starting with a bang in just three weeks. Texans will decide which Democrat and Republican they’d like to see face off in a potentially competitive Senate election this fall.

    Arkansas and North Carolina will also head to the polls on March 3, but few contests across the country compare to the matchups in Texas. On the Democratic side, the race is primarily between state Rep. James Talarico and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett. On the Republican side, it’s incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, and U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt.

    Both primaries feature some similarities: a better-funded, more mild-mannered establishment favorite on one side — Talarico and Cornyn — and a more bombastic presence known for riling up the base on the other — Crockett and Paxton. Of course, there are plenty of differences, too, which we’ll get into. For one, the Republican primary appears likely to head to a runoff.

    All of this comes shortly after a special state Senate election in historically Republican Tarrant County resulted in a 30-percentage-point swing to the left. Democrat Taylor Rehmet won by 14 points in a district Trump carried by 17. That gives Democrats some hope in their pursuit of winning a Senate race in Texas for the first time since 1988, though there’s plenty of disagreement within the party over what that path might look like.

    Today, we take a look at both Senate primaries in Texas, as well as the broader political environment in the state at a time when one of Republicans’ biggest success stories — gains with Latino voters — looks seriously imperiled. With me to do that is Patrick Svitek, a political reporter who has long covered Texas at The Texas Tribune and the Houston Chronicle and most recently covered national politics at The Washington Post.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    38 mins
  • How Trump Could Interfere With The 2026 Midterms
    Feb 5 2026
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

    The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.

    On Monday’s episode we began to set the table for the 2026 midterms. Today we acknowledge that there’s something of a bull threatening all the fine china we’ve just laid out. Pardon the strained metaphor.

    Put bluntly, the 2026 midterms will be the first nationwide federal election with Trump as president since 2020, when he pushed to overturn the results. Some recent developments have already caused a tea cup or two to wobble. I promise I’m done with the metaphor now.

    This week, on Dan Bongino’s podcast, Trump suggested that Republicans move to nationalize elections in 15 unnamed states and later reiterated his push from behind the Resolute Desk at a bill signing ceremony. Last week, in an unusual move, the FBI raided a Fulton County elections office, seizing 2020 ballots and other voting records.

    In the background of all of this, starting last year, the Department of Justice began requesting full voter rolls with private voter information from states, in an apparent attempt to create a national voter file.

    Trump has also issued executive orders attempting to change the elections process nationally, including that all ballots be received by the time polls close on Election Day and that Americans show government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship when they register to vote. For what it’s worth, he has also quipped about canceling the election, something he can’t do, and about ending mail voting.

    Concerned about losses at the midterms, state Republicans, at Trump’s request, have already pursued mid-decade gerrymandering to try to buttress their majority. Trump’s latest comments about nationalizing elections came after a Democrat won a state Senate seat in Tarrant County, Texas, by over-performing Trump’s win in 2024 by 30 percentage points.

    It doesn’t take a detective to put these pieces together. A president who has a record of only accepting election results when he wins is concerned about Republican losses at the midterms. He has told Republicans himself that he doesn’t want the ensuing consequences, which would be Democratic investigations into his administration. In an attempt to prevent that, Trump may sow doubt in the results in 2026 or try more serious interventions.

    Today we dig into what that could look like and detail the ways American elections are designed to be resilient. After all, it’s not one bull in one china shop. There are more than 9,000 jurisdictions administering elections nationwide and no matter what Trump says, the constitution charges the states with running elections.

    With me to discuss it all is Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor at Votebeat, and Jessica Huseman, editorial director of Votebeat. Votebeat is a nonprofit newsroom that covers voting and election administration.

    Show More Show Less
    26 mins
  • The Early Math Of The 2026 Midterms
    Feb 2 2026

    This is our start-of-the-year, table-setting episode for the 2026 midterms. A flood of January news pushed it back, but the clock is now ticking. The primaries begin in just four weeks.

    Republicans begin with control of the House by the slimmest of margins. To flip the chamber, Democrats would need to gain five seats. Republicans have a safer margin in the Senate, where Democrats would need to gain four seats, but in much redder territory than in the House.

    In polls that ask Americans if they prefer Democrats or Republicans to control Congress, Democrats lead by five percentage points on average. When it comes to the president’s approval rating, Trump is at net -14, a rating that puts him just slightly below where Biden was at this point in his own historically unpopular presidency.

    High-quality polling from the New York Times also shows that President Trump has given up his gains and then some with the voters who powered his popular vote victory in 2024 — a group that tended to be younger, lower propensity and less white than Republicans’ past coalitions.

    History is clear about the challenges for Republicans. The incumbent party has lost seats in the House in 20 of the last 22 midterms elections, with an average loss of 32 seats.

    With me to set the table are two friends of the pod: Jacob Rubashkin, deputy editor of Inside Elections and Leah Askarinam, elections reporter at the Associate Press.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 1 min
  • A 2028 Democratic Primary Draft (Live!)
    Jan 29 2026
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.gdpolitics.com

    The full episode is available to paid subscribers. Once you become a paid subscriber, you can connect your account to your preferred podcast player here.

    Democrats are gearing up to turn the page on the Trump presidency and some 2028 hopefuls will likely announce their intentions by year’s end. At least a half-dozen candidates are, for all intents and purposes, already running.

    Will California Gov. Gavin Newsom be able to ride the wave of his current support for the next two years or is he cresting now? Will voter outrage and a consolidation of the left flank of the party power New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the head of the pack or will a moderate prevail? And who is even likely to run in the first place?

    In a live 2028 Democratic primary draft at the Comedy Cellar in New York City, Nate Silver, Clare Malone and I debated those questions and many more. (Make sure to reply in the comments with who had the best roster!)

    As a heads up, we began the night on a more somber note, discussing Alex Pretti’s killing in Minneapolis and whether it is likely to serve as a turning point in our current political moment. As we moved to the draft, we got a little competitive and plenty silly. This is the second Democratic primary draft we’ve done on the GD POLITICS podcast. If you’d like to look back at our previous picks, you can do that here.

    Show More Show Less
    31 mins
  • Is Alex Pretti's Killing A Turning Point?
    Jan 26 2026

    Call this something of an emergency podcast. I’d planned on airing an episode setting the table for the 2026 midterms today. We’re going to save that for another day, because on Saturday a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37 year-old Veterans Affairs hospital ICU nurse.

    It’s the second killing by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis in less than three weeks — the first being Renee Good, a 37 year-old mother, who was shot while impeding traffic as part of a protest.

    We’ll get into some of the details of what happened on Saturday, but I think it’s fair to say the public, many lawmakers, and even some Republicans have lost patience with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

    In both killings in Minneapolis, the Trump administration rushed to brand Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists and fabricated events despite the shootings being visible in multiple videos. While there was plenty of pushback among Democrats, Independents and the press in the case of Good, this time a handful of Republicans, including the NRA, have joined that pushback as well.

    As listeners well know, it’s going to take a minute before we can fully understand the impact of this weekend on American politics, but we’ll share what we know at this moment. With me to do that is head of research at FiftyPlusOne, Mary Radcliffe, and managing editor at Votebeat, Nathaniel Rakich.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.gdpolitics.com/subscribe
    Show More Show Less
    47 mins