Michael Knowles

I don't think that's the case.

And I do think that if you push too hard in one direction, which is why I'm using the example of this redistricting, if you push far enough in one direction, people tend to snap back very, very far in the other direction as well.

And so Abigail Spanberger is getting away with this right now, but I'm not sure she's going to get away with it for long.

I mean, her approval ratings are really, really bad in Virginia.

And I agree with this.

Matt, I love that you opened that up.

That's an extraordinarily high risk, high reward

scenario.

I think that typically speaking, when Democrats gain unified control of government and use it to ratchet down whatever they want, you end up with California or New York.

And so I think that your first argument is the better argument, which is that they're going to use it anyway, so you may as well use it.

I think that if we're going to get into the situation where they control, basically, it's no longer a matter of preemptive pragmatism.

It's a matter of principle to nuke the filibuster.

Then I'm looking for a limiting principle.

I'm looking for like, what should Republicans not do

if it means forwarding their objectives.

If the president just decides unilaterally to ignore Congress and pretend it doesn't exist and just starts using the military to enforce his will, because obviously if Democrats gain control of the government, they're going to be able to use not only the formal, but the informal institutions of power.

If the idea is that we're out of power, even when we're in power, then I don't know what the limiting principle is.

And then I think you're talking about legitimately the end of the American experiment in total.

I just love the introduction that Matt made here.

Yeah, for sure.