Fetterman, McCormick Defend Filibuster as AI Infrastructure Drives PA Boom

AI基础设施带动宾州繁荣，Fetterman与McCormick捍卫阻挠议事规则 两位议员坚称，美国资本主义的生存取决于利用民间激励性税收抵免和AI基础设施的快速增长，以抗衡中国的技术主导地位，并重振受冲击的蓝领社区。 在一次罕见的跨党派团结展示中，民主党参议员John Fetterman与共和党参议员Dave McCormick探讨了彼此的个人友谊，以及将跨党派治理置于政治部落主义之上的共同承诺。他们概述了宾夕法尼亚州崛起为庞大能源与AI基础设施枢纽的前景，强调向天然气和数据中心的转型正在推动蓝领就业大幅繁荣，并显著提升技术工人的工资。在探讨通胀、财富不平等以及针对美国技术进步的敌对外国虚假信息等全美焦虑的同时，两位参议员极力捍卫参议院的阻挠议事（filibuster）制度，认为这是迫使政治妥协和保护少数派权利的必要工具。 宾夕法尼亚州参议员John Fetterman和Dave McCormick展现出罕见的跨党派合作典范，尽管政治分歧深刻，仍强调国家利益高于党派利益。 (0:00) 人工智能的飞速发展代表着一场巨大变革，既引发了深层的社会焦虑，也助长了政治极端化。 (0:33) Fetterman强烈反对技术暂停令，认为限制数据中心无异于损害国家利益的“中国优先”政策。 (0:33) 2024年的政治格局见证了阵营重组，基层工会工人大量跨越党派界限，转而支持Trump和McCormick等候选人。 (0:33) Fetterman认为，通货膨胀主要是由高能源价格驱动的，而这一高价源于向伊朗问责并阻止其获得核武器的政策抉择。 (0:33)

Pennsylvania Senators John Fetterman and Dave McCormick argue that bipartisan cooperation is vital to maintaining American technological dominance, securing critical energy infrastructure, and reviving working-class communities. Across party lines, both lawmakers defend institutional guardrails like the Senate filibuster, advocate for domestic AI and energy development, and warn against rising political extremism and uncontrolled campaign spending. Preserving Legislative Norms and Cross-Party Compromise (16:58) Despite sharp policy differences, Fetterman and McCormick recently voted together on a federal spending bill to prevent a government shutdown, arguing that shutdowns harm the nation and Commonwealth after past standoffs collectively closed government operations for more than 120 days. Fetterman reversed his previous stance against the Senate filibuster, calling it a 'hill I would die on' and crediting former Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for protecting minority rights and preventing the Senate from deteriorating into a hyper-partisan chamber. McCormick, drawing on a 25-year business career, acknowledged the Senate's slow pace but agreed that the 60-vote threshold forces durable compromise. He highlighted recent bipartisan achievements, including energy legislation, prospective permitting reforms, and border initiatives that helped lower Pennsylvania fentanyl deaths by 60%, falling from 4,000 in the final year of the Biden administration to 1,600. However, McCormick warned that existential issues like the $40 trillion national debt remain stalled by polarization. The Blue-Collar AI and Energy Expansion (28:11) The senators frame Pennsylvania as the primary industrial anchor for the artificial intelligence revolution, noting that if it were an independent country, the state would hold the world's fourth-largest natural gas reserves while currently ranking as the second-largest energy producer in the United States. A state Energy and Innovation Summit convened political, labor, and technology leaders, securing roughly $90 billion to $92 billion in capital commitments. Concrete initiatives include repowering the 4.4-gigawatt Homer City coal plant to natural gas, dedicating 3.4 gigawatts directly to a data center campus while routing 1 gigawatt back to the civilian power grid. McCormick and Fetterman emphasize that data center ecosystems trigger a four-part economic engine comprising multi-thousand-worker construction phases, ongoing operational roles, complete hardware overhauls every three to four years, and broad secondary service growth. Data center builds routinely employ 5,000 to 10,000 construction workers, and the regional trucking association estimates two logistics positions are created for every direct data center job. This surge has yielded 25% to 30% wage increases for local construction trades, enabling welders and electricians in their late teens and early twenties to earn six-figure salaries. Geopolitical AI Stakes and Disinformation Tactics (34:07) Addressing local pushback against data center projects, the senators argue that domestic moratoriums directly endanger national security while the United States holds an estimated six- to eight-month lead over China in AI development. Fetterman characterized calls to halt data infrastructure as a 'China-first' stance, while McCormick claimed that outside adversaries, specifically China, are actively amplifying domestic disinformation to delay American tech development. The lawmakers noted that initial public anxieties regarding electricity rates, water usage, and traffic mirror the intense resistance that faced hydraulic fracturing 15 years earlier. They pointed out that shale extraction faced fierce opposition before widespread economic benefits and royalties persuaded the public, with Pennsylvania fracking support eventually climbing to roughly 80%. To address legitimate resident concerns, they urge developers and township supervisors to establish binding covenants guaranteeing that consumer power bills remain protected. Political Extremism and Escalating Campaign Costs (39:40) The senators identified a political 'horseshoe' where far-left environmental factions and far-right populist wings unite against technological expansion and industrial progress. Fetterman condemned reflexive opposition and media-driven 'rage bait,' stressing that while he votes with the Democratic platform 93% of the time, he refuses to embrace socialist or Marxist factions, defend anti-Semitism, or demonize political opponents. Both lawmakers also expressed dismay over the mainstream viability of fringe candidates, pointing to Maine candidate Graham Platner's survival despite having a Nazi tattoo, explicit message leaks, and derogatory remarks calling the U.S. Army 'absolute trash.' Turning to structural governance failures, the senators criticized the primary system for incentivizing ideological polarization and lamented astronomical campaign costs. McCormick noted that his recent senatorial contest exceeded $500 million in total expenditure, with $300 million spent by opposition groups to run negative character attacks. Fetterman recalled his 2022 race costing between $300 million and $330 million, warning that the funneling of hundreds of millions of dollars into mutual reputational destruction diverts immense resources away from public investment. The lawmakers assert that America's economic resilience depends on protecting legislative checks and aggressively expanding domestic energy and computing capacity. However, they observe that systemic election spending, primary incentives that favor ideological extremes, and manufactured local resistance continue to threaten the durable coalitions required to sustain national competitiveness.

来自宾夕法尼亚州的民主党参议员John Fetterman与共和党参议员Dave McCormick展现了跨党派合作立场，主张将国家利益置于党派分歧之上。两位议员共同呼吁抵制极端政治撕裂，并将宾州丰富的能源储备与人工智能基础设施建设深度绑定，视其为确保美国对华地缘竞争优势与重振蓝领经济的核心引擎。 超越党派藩篱的务实治理与制度维系 Fetterman与McCormick共同强调，避免联邦政府停摆是议员对国家和选民的基本责任。两人回顾联邦政府历史上累计超过120天的停摆教训，均投票支持关键支出法案以维系政府运转。Fetterman承认，自己与民主党过去反对参议院“阻挠议事”（filibuster）机制是完全错误的，独立派参议员坚守该机制的远见已获历史验证；他视阻挠议事为必须捍卫的底线，因其能保护少数派权利并倒逼两党妥协，防止参议院沦为高度极化的众议院版本。McCormick也认为该规则为达成实质折中提供了动力，并指出两党在边境治理等议题上的务实合作已取得成效，例如宾州芬太尼致死人数已从拜登政府最后一年的4,000人下降60%至1,600人。 两位参议员指出，宾夕法尼亚州作为一个拥有19张选举人票的摇摆微缩模型，迫使政治人物必须跳出意识形态极端，团结跨越城乡的广泛选民联盟。在2024年大选中，尽管全国性工会高层背书民主党候选人，但包括电工、管道工在内的蓝领工人中有三分之二选择支持McCormick，延续了此前支持Fetterman和Donald Trump的跨党派蓝领联盟。Fetterman同时批评党内将一切议题化为“逢特朗普必反”（TDS）的激进筹款手法与愤怒操弄，表明即便自己93%的投票立场与民主党一致，也绝不为保住席位而在极左议程或涉以立场上妥协。 AI基础设施与能源驱动的宾州经济重振 (28:11) McCormick与Fetterman将人工智能基础设施与宾州的能源优势视为扭转该州20年人口流失的重大契机。若作为一个独立国家，宾州的天然气储量位居全球第四，目前其能源产量在全美各州中排名第二；经过15年的发展，当地公众对水力压裂技术的支持率已攀升至约80%。去年7月在宾州举办的能源与创新峰会达成了920亿美元的投资承诺，其中包括将拥有4.4吉瓦发电能力的Homer City燃煤电厂改造为天然气发电设施，其中3.4吉瓦电力将专供新建的数据中心综合体，剩余1吉瓦则回流公共电网以降低居民用电成本。 数据中心建设正在宾州引发新一轮“蓝领繁荣”，涵盖了从施工、运维到每3至4年硬件全面迭代的四阶段经济周期，卡车运输协会估计每个直接数据中心岗位能衍生约2个物流与交通岗位。目前当地熟练焊工和电工的年薪已超过10万美元，建筑工人工资增长了25%至30%，并吸引了US Steel新一代钢厂、Eli Lilly新厂以及韩华集团对费城造船厂的重大工业投资。针对地方选民对电价、水资源及交通拥堵的担忧，议员主张地方政府与开发商建立明确契约，并直指极左环保团体与极右势力的联手阻挠形成了反对科技基建的“政治马蹄铁现象”。 技术霸权地缘竞争与对华安全考量 (18:28) 在人工智能发展战略上，两位议员均将算力与数据中心建设上升至中美大国竞争的生存高度。引述此前活动披露的数据，美国在AI领域对中国仅保持微弱的6至8个月领先优势。Fetterman强烈反对党内部份派系提出的数据中心暂停令，直斥此举是实质上的“中国优先”政策，等同于在核心技术竞赛中主动向对手让步，并坚称如果选民支持让中国赢得AI竞赛，大可将他投票免职。 议员们进一步警示，围绕数据中心和AI基础设施的国内公众恐慌正受到外部势力的推波助澜。与15年前由本土环保人士主导的反水力压裂抗议不同，当前的许多反AI游说与虚假信息宣传背后存在与中国共产党结盟的境外利益集团资助，旨在延缓美国关键科技底座的成盘落地。Fetterman坚称美国必须亲自打造这一基础底座，同时谴责针对科技领军人物的民粹式攻击，认为从未创造过就业的政客不应虚伪地抨击诸如Jeff Bezos等从根本上升级了美国经济的私人创业者。 资本主义底线、左翼极化与选战资金恶疾 (39:40) 面对国内贫富分化和K型经济焦虑，McCormick以家乡工厂雇员由2,000人骤降至100人的全球化创伤为例，警告若不通过私营部门激励化解不平等，美国将面临失去资本主义制度的风险，为此他提出了“投资美国”账户以及包含1,700美元税收抵免以扩大学校选择权的家庭税收减免法案。Fetterman则公开捍卫资本主义是全球唯一被证明能提高人类生活水准的制度，严厉抨击党内候选人公开拥抱马克思主义或自称共产主义者的极左偏向，指出极左思潮蔓延与反犹太主义抬头正在侵蚀民主党的立党根基。 两位议员同时对美国现代政治中恶性膨胀的竞选资金与初选制度表达了深切忧虑。当前的初选机制倾向于筛选并放大最极端的观点，使得政治人物陷入无休止的人身攻击。McCormick透露其最近的参议员选战总花费高达惊人的5亿美元（己方筹集2亿美元，对手阵营花费3亿美元），而Fetterman在2022年耗资3亿至3.3亿美元的选战相比之下已显“轻微”。其中对手阵营单单用于抹黑个人声誉的负面广告开销就达到3亿美元，议员们感叹这暴露出数亿美元资源被白白耗费在互相攻击上，而未能切实用于投资和建设地方社区。 本期对谈展现了摇摆州温和派力量在能源转型、AI科技竞赛及两党妥协上的共识，但两位议员也坦言，面对40万亿美元的巨额国债、日益扭曲的亿级政治献金生态以及根深蒂固的党派对立，华盛顿的体制性僵局和深层财政危机在短期内依然缺乏两党共同推进的实质性解法。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客《All-In Podcast》于 2026 年 6 月 27 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介显示，宾夕法尼亚州两位跨党派联邦参议员约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）与戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）共同做客节目，深入探讨了跨党派合作、阻挠议事制度（Filibuster）、K 型经济、初选极端化、AI 与能源驱动的蓝领繁荣以及华盛顿金钱政治等关键议题。 ## TL;DR 节目围绕两位各自成功实现“翻转席位”的宾州参议员展开，深入剖析了在极端撕裂的政治环境下坚持跨党派合作与务实主义的现实路径。费特曼公开反思并坚定支持保留参议院阻挠议事制度，强调能源安全与阻止伊朗拥核是高于党派站队的核心命题，并力挺 AI 基础设施以应对中美战略博弈。麦考密克结合自己在商界和选战中的切身经历，阐述了能源与算力融合如何为宾州蓝领创造历史性的就业繁荣，呼吁以市场化赋能机制弥合 K 型财富鸿沟。双方还共同痛斥了初选制度对极左与极右极端候选人的纵容，并揭露了单场参议员竞选耗资高达 5 亿美元的金钱政治荒谬现实。 ## Atmosphere & style 对谈整体洋溢着一种在当下撕裂政坛中极其罕见的坦诚、务实与惺惺相惜之感，两位政治光谱迥异的参议员打破派系藩篱，展现出极高的思想契合与个人友谊。现场节奏张弛有度，主持人群体与嘉宾之间既有针对前沿科技、地缘博弈的严肃拷问，也有调侃政坛“小球博弈”与政治病态时的辛辣幽默。听众能真切感受到一股来自摇摆州基层工薪视角的务实清流，以及政治人物在面对数亿竞选黑金与极端部落主义时由衷的愤慨与历史担当。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=0s) 宾夕法尼亚州两位联邦参议员约翰·费特曼与戴夫·麦考密克展现跨党派同盟，聚焦能源、打击芬太尼及 AI 算力基建合作，共同反对政府关门。 - [10:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=625s) 费特曼公开反思并改变过去立场，明确表态将誓死捍卫参议院 60 票门槛的阻挠议事制度（Filibuster），以防两院众议院化与微弱多数极端执政。 - [36:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2171s) 麦考密克披露宾州能源峰会达成 920 亿美元投资意向；AI 数据中心与能源重工正引发蓝领工薪繁荣，电工与焊工薪资大涨 25% 至 30%，年薪频破 10 万美元。 - [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2464s) 美参议院竞选资金恶性膨胀，麦考密克 2024 年选战总耗资高达 5 亿美元，两党初选机制沦为迎合极端派和互相抹黑的烧钱机器。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=0s) 费特曼与麦考密克虽政见相左，但一致秉持“国家利益高于党派利益”，在能源政策、芬太尼危机及无人机技术等领域深度协作。 - [02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=167s) 宾州选民是全美政治缩影，尽管全国工会高层偏向建制派，基层三分之二的管道工和电工等蓝领工人打破背书，转向支持麦考密克、费特曼或特朗普。 - [06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=397s) 费特曼批评党内陷入盲目反特朗普的“特朗普狂热症”（TDS），呼吁在伊朗拥核等重大国家安全战略上保持清醒，反对因小失大。 - [10:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=625s) 费特曼承认民主党过去试图废除阻挠议事制度是严重误判，保留 60 票门槛是迫使两党沟通妥协、维护长期立法稳定的最后防线。 - [14:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=876s) 麦考密克认为解决 K 型经济与资产鸿沟不能依赖政府福利膨胀，而应通过教育券税收优惠和私人投资账户等市场机制赋能底层。 - [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=962s) 费特曼公开表态自己是坚定的资本主义者，痛批党内社会主义论调，坚决反对将民营企业家与亿万富翁全盘妖魔化。 - [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1230s) 两党初选制度受网络激进言论与极端捐款者绑架，导致道德破产或发表辱军言论的极端候选人频频上位，挤压温和务实派空间。 - [25:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1535s) 费特曼拒绝为了保住席位而迎合极左怒火，表示绝不会退党，其 93% 的投票记录依然忠于民主党立场，但拒绝贩售政治愤怒。 - [30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1859s) 地方对数据中心的抵触呈现连锁演变：从担忧电费账单暴涨，转移到水资源消耗与学校交通拥堵，背后夹杂着虚假宣传与邻避效应。 - [32:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1977s) 费特曼强调 AI 基础设施要么由美国主导建设，要么由中国掌控，坚决反对极左翼提出的数据中心建设冻结令，直指该提议等同于‘中国优先’。 - [36:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2171s) 麦考密克拆解数据中心带来的四大经济引擎：建设期工程用工、长期常驻运维、3至4年的定期硬件迭代升级，以及 1:2 的周边物流服务外溢。 - [39:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2380s) 政治上呈现“马蹄铁现象”，极左环保主义与极右极端民粹在反对数据中心与技术基建上出现合流，形成反科技的新型叙事阻力。 - [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2464s) 金钱政治失控严重腐蚀公共治理，数亿美元资金没有投入基建或民生，而是全被超级政治行动委员会（Super PAC）用于恶意人身攻击广告。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=0s) 宾州跨党派合作的开端与历史性技术转折点 节目开场展现了宾夕法尼亚州两位联邦参议员——民主党人约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）与共和党人戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）罕见的跨党派同盟姿态。在国会面临停摆危机时，两人双双投票支持避免政府关门，一致认为关闭政府既不利于宾州，也不利于整个国家。他们坦言彼此之间存在大量政见分歧，但在当前极端撕裂的政治环境下，双方选择互相信任、拒绝极端主义，坚持“国家利益高于党派利益（country over party）”。作为资深参议员，费特曼率先强调自己很荣幸能视麦考密克为好友，并决心在严峻的现实面前共同为宾州和国家寻找更好的前行之路。 麦考密克随即补充道，宾夕法尼亚州的选民天然期待代表他们的官员能够携手合作。从历史维度来看，当前不仅是所有人有生之年、甚至可能是“全人类历史上最具决定性的时刻”。以人工智能（AI）为核心的技术爆发，正对生命科学、国防和能源等方方面面带来翻天覆地的剧变。剧烈的变革往往伴随着大众的焦虑，进而滑向两极分化和极端主义。麦考密克指出，正因如此，跨党派合作比以往任何时候都更加迫切。目前两位参议员已经在能源政策、芬太尼危机、全美及宾州内部的打击反犹主义行动，以及无人机技术等极其重大的议题上展开深入合作。 - **跨党派合作重点领域**：能源政策（Energy Policy）、芬太尼危机（Fentanyl Crisis）、打击反犹太主义（Anti-Semitism）、无人机技术（Drone Technology）。 - **核心执政哲学**：在分歧处保留意见，在共识处紧密合作，拒绝被党派部落主义绑架。 --- ### [02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=167s) 翻转席位的共同经验、蓝领工薪联盟与 AI 能源布局 费特曼指出，宾夕法尼亚州是一个“能让人保持清醒与诚实”的地方。他特别提醒听众，他和麦考密克是各自参选周期中全美仅有的成功实现“翻转席位（flipped seats）”的两位参议员。他们之所以能胜选，关键就在于双双摒弃了党内极端立场。在 AI 与能源议题上，费特曼甚至不惜公开与民主党主流拉开距离：他坚决反对在数据中心建设上设立暂停令（moratorium），直言这种做法无异于“中国优先（China-first）政策”；数据中心绝非祸害，而是极其重大的时代机遇。他还高度赞扬麦考密克在宾夕法尼亚州西部举办的将 AI 与能源深度融合的高规格研讨会，认为能源与算力正是宾州能够为全美关键战略对话贡献的核心王牌。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 宾夕法尼亚州选民联盟与选举结构 accDescr: 展示宾州蓝红选民分布及跨党派蓝领工薪阶层联盟的构成要素 subgraph Geography["宾州政治地理结构 (19张选举人票)"] Urban["两大城市中心: 费城 & 匹兹堡<br/>(偏民主党/蓝区)"] Rural["广阔乡村与工矿区<br/>(偏共和党/红区)"] end subgraph Coalition["胜选核心: 跨党派工薪家庭联盟"] RankAndFile["工会一线产业工人<br/>(电工、管道工、蒸汽管道工)"] MinorityTurnout["少数族裔选民崛起<br/>(创30年新高的非裔投票率 & 拉美裔)"] end Geography --> Coalition Coalition --> Outcome["造就 Fetterman 与 McCormick 的翻转胜利<br/>(决胜2028及全美未来的关键力量)"] ``` 麦考密克对此深表认同，并戏谑两人虽然长相相似，但成长背景确实如出一辙——均出身宾州乡村，随后费特曼投身公共服务，麦考密克则就读西点军校并入伍服役。麦考密克深入剖析了宾州作为拥有 19 张选举人票的“全美缩影”属性：民主党主导费城与匹兹堡，共和党主导乡村腹地，要赢得选举就必须建立跨阵营联盟。奇妙的是，许多将票投给费特曼的选民，同样把票投给了麦考密克和特朗普。这一现象在蓝领工薪阶层中尤为突出：尽管全国性工会高层背书了卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）和鲍勃·凯西（Bob Casey），但电工、管道工、蒸汽管道工等基层一线工人中，有整整三分之二将选票投给了麦考密克和特朗普，费特曼同样赢得了该群体的大力支持。结合 2024 年创下 30 年来新高的非裔投票率和亮眼的拉美裔选民参与，麦考密克断言，谁能赢得这支工薪家庭联盟，谁就能在很大程度上决定 2028 年大选乃至美国的未来。 - **选举格局数据**：宾州拥有 19 张选举人票；2024 年非裔选民投票率创下过去 30 年来最高纪录。 - **工会基层走向**：约三分之二的一线蓝领工人（如管道工、蒸汽管道工、电工）打破全国工会高层的背书指引，投票支持共和党或跨党派温和力量。 - **产业立场**：费特曼明确将数据中心视作经济机遇，反对民主党内部分人呼吁的建设冻结令，将其定性为“中国优先”的倒退政策。 --- ### [06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=397s) 通胀危机、对伊强硬立场与“特朗普狂热症”的党派内耗 面对主持人关于国会民调跌入历史冰点、联邦债务突破 40 万亿美元、通胀高企且政府权力缺乏有效制衡的尖锐质询，费特曼给出了直率回应。针对通胀飙升问题，他分析指出当前物价主要受能源成本推高，而高油价的根源在于总统决定向伊朗追责并施压。费特曼指出自己是民主党内唯一完全赞同这一做法的人，但事实上这本不该是激进立场——所有曾竞选总统的民主党人都曾表态决不能允许伊朗制造出核武器。费特曼多次对限制总统军事权力的《战争权力法案》（War Powers Act）投下反对票，他警告道：虽然没人喜欢每加仑 5 美元的汽油，但一旦让伊朗彻底拥核，引发全球地缘灾难，回过头看 5 美元油价将显得多么“微不足道”。 费特曼进一步痛批当下政坛“把一切问题党派化”的严重病态。他直言民主党现在被全盘反特朗普的情绪严重绑架，形成了 100% 的“特朗普狂热症（Trump Derangement Syndrome, TDS）”： > “如果特朗普站出来表态支持冰淇淋和悠闲周日，我们党保准立刻跳出来痛恨这倒霉玩意儿，并且全力投票把它给否了。” 他认为每个人在有限的平台和注意力带宽下应当分清主次，不该把精力浪费在白宫要不要建宴会厅、修不修倒影池这类细枝末节的“小球博弈（small ball game）”上，而忽视了真正危及国家安全的重大命题。 随后主持人顺势抛出制度性核心死结：当极端撕裂愈演愈烈，能够迫使两党寻求妥协的最后防线——参议院“阻挠议事（Filibuster）”机制，正面临被废除的巨大压力；而费特曼此前曾表态支持废除阻挠议事，这是否会导致美国政治走向彻底的部落主义。麦考密克与费特曼随即展开了关于阻挠议事存废的正面探讨。 - **财政与通胀背景**：全美联邦债务突破 40 万亿美元，高能源价格成为家庭生活成本危机的核心推手。 - **地缘与核安全立场**：费特曼坚决反对削弱对伊施压政策，明确反对《战争权力法案》的相关限制案，强调阻止伊朗拥核的优先级高于短期能源价格波动。 - **政治核心指控**：抨击党内以“反特朗普”为唯一风向标的极端思维（TDS），呼吁国会重回务实大局，摒弃琐碎的政治作秀。 ### [10:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=625s) 费特曼的“悔悟”：为何必须誓死捍卫阻挠议事制度（Filibuster） 约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）毫不避讳地谈起自己在阻挠议事制度（Filibuster）问题上的立场转变，直言包括他自己在内的整个民主党此前都大错特错。在 2020 年乃至 2022 年的竞选周期中，几乎每一位民主党人都宣称必须废除参议院的阻挠议事规则，在当时看来这似乎顺理成章。然而到了 2025 年，形势彻底逆转，费特曼由衷感叹：“谢天谢地，当时有人顶住了压力”，无论是乔·曼钦（Joe Manchin）还是柯尔斯滕·西内马（Kyrsten Sinema），历史已经证明了他们当初坚守底线的远见。 费特曼坦言，很多民主党人在 2022 年时叫嚣着废除阻挠议事，而到了 2025 年身处少数党或面临政治博弈时，才意识到这项制度的可贵并重新爱上了它。阻挠议事制度的本质在于迫使参议院两党必须坐下来协商妥协；如果废除它，参议院就会沦为众议院的缩小版，完全由简单多数任意支配，这将对国家治理产生极其深远且危险的影响。费特曼表示，自己愿意公开承认过去的错误，捍卫阻挠议事制度如今已成为他“誓死捍卫的阵地”（the hill I would die on），因为这不仅维系着参议院作为审慎立法机构的特质，更保障了无论哪一方轮流坐庄时少数派的基本权利。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 阻挠议事制度的作用机制对比 accDescr: 对比废除阻挠议事制度与保留阻挠议事制度对参议院生态的不同影响 subgraph 简单多数制下的风险 A["废除阻挠议事制度"] --> B["参议院众议院化"] B --> C["微弱多数党强推极端议案"] C --> D["党派恶斗与政策剧烈反复"] end subgraph 现行阻挠议事制度的防护 E["保留阻挠议事制度 (60票门槛)"] --> F["保障少数派权利"] F --> G["倒逼跨党派妥协沟通"] G --> H["维护长期立法稳定"] end ``` ### [11:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=700s) 麦考密克谈制度信任危机、两党协作与 K 型经济困局 戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）接过话茬，指出不仅是国会，如今美国社会各领域的公共机构——包括教会、政府官员乃至商业机构——都面临着公众极低的信任度和支持率。重建公众对国家机构的信任必须从政治人物自身的操守做起。麦考密克强调自己是一名“无可指摘的保守派”（unapologetic conservative），投票记录始终忠于保守主义理念，但这并不妨碍他与对立党派合作。事实上，他在国会推动了大量的跨党派立法，与费特曼共同合作了数十项法案，证明坚守原则与跨党派合作并不冲突。 作为在商业界打拼了 25 年的前高管，麦考密克坦言国会缓慢的行事节奏令人抓狂，但他认同阻挠议事制度为两党达成实质性成果创造了必要动力。他列举了近期取得的重大进展，包括在能源议程上的推进——因为“没有充足的能源供应，美国根本赢不了 AI 竞赛”；麦考密克期望在未来半年或两年半内促成跨党派的审批制度改革（permitting reform），将其视为当前最有力的经济杠杆。此外，边境管控的收紧直接压制了芬太尼的走私入境：宾夕法尼亚州的芬太尼死亡人数已从拜登政府最后一年的 4,000 人锐减至今年的 1,600 人，降幅达 60%，全国范围也呈现相同趋势。然而，面对债务与财政赤字等攸关国家生存的结构性顽疾，由于社会极化严重且两党政客竞相打压任何敢于正视硬问题的同行，华盛顿始终束手无策。 - 宾夕法尼亚州因芬太尼死亡的人数从每年 4,000 人下降至 1,600 人，同比下降 60%。 - 能源审批改革被麦考密克定性为未来 6 至 30 个月内推动美国经济发展的最关键抓手。 ### [14:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=876s) 拯救资本主义：资产鸿沟、非政府主导的赋能与学券税收优惠 主持人将话题切向美国社会底层 50% 人群所面临的“K 型经济”陷阱以及不断加剧的财富集中，指出这部分群体对两党政客都极度不满。麦考密克对此深表赞同，指出宾夕法尼亚州的家庭收入中位数仅为 52,000 美元。当科技精英们大谈“AI 焦虑”时，基层蓝领早已在数十年前的全球化浪潮中被伤害过一次——当时一帮腰缠万贯的聪明人信誓旦旦地称“全球化是终极解药”，结果麦考密克家乡拥有 2,000 名员工的工厂被掏空，如今仅剩 100 人苟延残喘。在过去十年中，资产阶级迎来了人类历史上最辉煌的财富盛宴，但底层民众却完全看不到上升通道。 麦考密克直言自己是资本主义的最大受益者，但他发出严厉警告：“如果我们找不到解决阶层割裂的办法，我们将彻底失去资本主义。”针对主持人群体追问的具体方案，他主张不能靠政府盲目砸钱搞福利项目，而要靠市场机制和激励方案为下一代铺路： - **Invest America 投资账户**：绕过政府官僚机构，通过私人财富激励手段为底层年轻一代建立长期的资产累积与机会通道。 - **《工薪家庭税收减免法案》（Working Families Tax Cut Act）中的教育选择权条款**：允许每个富裕纳税人每年捐赠 1,700 美元用于教育券，将数百亿美元的市场化资金引入教育选择权，保障机会均等。 - 借鉴现代版安德鲁·卡内基（Andrew Carnegie）模式，由创造财富者自主决策回馈社会，而非由联邦政府直接指定分配，以此重塑阶层流动性。 ### [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=962s) 政府干预与自由市场：政府停摆反思与 AI 中美博弈 播客联合主持人戴维·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）提出实证经济学观点：政府支出越大、干预越多，市场效率越低、物价越贵，普通人的经济流动性反而越艰难；国会两党总是执迷于“政府需要做得更多”，但自由市场机制才是真正降低生活成本、促进财富积累的途径。费特曼对政府机构运作失灵表达了同样的愤慨，指出国会此前经历了两次历史性的长期政府停摆，累计瘫痪超过 120 天，连最基本的预算都无法达成共识。费特曼直言作为参议员，保持政府运转是不可推卸的底线责任，无休止的停摆不仅动摇国本，更削弱了国家安全。 针对党内思潮，费特曼旗帜鲜明地宣称：“我为自己是一个资本主义者感到自豪。”他痛斥民主党内顽固不化的极左坏主意，直指那些公开自称社会主义甚至共产主义的候选人荒谬绝伦。费特曼直言，任何真正生活在共产政权下的人最终都会渴望资本主义，因为事实证明唯有市场力量才能有效提高全球人类的生活水平。在技术议题上，费特曼表示虽然警惕大规模黑客攻击和恶意武器化，但他绝不认同将 AI 视作“社会毒瘤或癌症”的极左论调。他斩钉截铁地强调，全球 AI 的底层架构“必须由美国来建造，它要么诞生于美国，要么由中国掌控，你究竟站在哪一边？”费特曼进一步揭露，美国国内阻碍 AI 发展的许多激进反对声音，背后都有与中国共产党利益结盟的团体资助。同时，他猛烈抨击党内将亿万富翁全盘妖魔化的虚伪行径——一边攻击杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）等创造海量就业的民营企业家，一边又对支持本党立场的金主笑脸相迎。费特曼告诫道：“如果你一辈子没创造过任何一个就业岗位，就别妄加指责那些切切实实改变美国经济的创造者。” ### [19:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1191s) 极端主义候选人的崛起：政治部落化与道德底线的坍塌 话题随后切入更具争议性的政治生态。主持人提问，为何像格雷厄姆·普拉特纳（Graham Platner）这样胸口纹有纳粹纹身的激进候选人，不仅没有被选民抛弃，反而在民调中名列前茅？这到底折射出美国当代政治怎样的危险信号？ 费特曼语带讽刺地回应，在他成长的年代，一个人身上如果纹着纳粹标志，毫无疑问会被直接定性为纳粹同情者，这在当时是绝对无法逾越的政治红线。然而在当下的极端政治环境中，底线荡然无存：就在此前一天，媒体刚刚曝光普拉特纳同时与多达十几名女性发送露骨色情短信的丑闻，但民主党内竟然还有人若无其事地为其辩护，反问“这有什么大不了的”。费特曼痛斥这种为了党派部落利益而选择性失明、不断包庇道德破产者的政治怪相，认为这种漠视事实与常理的政治氛围正在严重腐蚀美国民主体制的根基。 ### [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1230s) 极端言论、初选制度与民主党内的意识形态转向 约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）对初选和网络政治文化中抬头的极端言论表达了强烈震惊。他提到一名候选人不久前在网络上针对与塔利班作战的美军士兵发表极其恶毒的言论，公然称其为“不配活着的蠢货”，并辱骂美军是“彻头彻尾的垃圾”（absolute trash）。费特曼直言，这种在键盘后逞凶、私信骚扰多达十几名女性的人居然能成为初选中具有竞争力的有力候选人，暴露出两党政治极端化引发的反弹危机。他强调，如果换作在场的任何一位官员说出贬低士兵、侮辱军队的话，早就政治前途尽毁，而如今左翼却对这种言论熟视无睹，这让作为民主党人的他感到不可思议。 戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）对此表示赞同，指出这反映了当下民主党左翼的两大不可否认的严重趋势：一是全面滑向社会主义与马克思主义的错误理念；二是反犹主义和仇恨情绪的急速蔓延。麦考密克特别点出，像查克·舒默（Chuck Schumer）和伊丽莎白·沃伦（Elizabeth Warren）这样的主流民主党重量级人物竟然也跑到缅因州为极端候选人站台，证明党内建制派为了选票正向极左翼大幅倾斜。他直言，一个健康的美国需要一个强大、理性的民主党来制衡共和党，但若极端思潮在初选中持续获胜并被奉为主流，对整个国家的政治健康将是一场灾难。 费特曼随即谈及以色列议题，直言民主党在以色列问题上的转向是对传统原则的“深刻背叛”（profound betrayal）。党内崛起的一批新兴候选人公开持反以色列立场，言论甚至直逼赤裸裸的反犹主义，而他本人因为坚持支持以色列在党内遭到孤立。主持人大卫·萨克斯（David Sacks）和杰森·卡拉卡尼斯（Jason Calacanis）则提到宾夕法尼亚州州长乔希·夏皮罗（Josh Shapiro），认为一位犹太裔州长在宾州治理得当且深受两党选民认可，恰恰说明普通民众依然存在广泛的共识与理性，反犹情绪并非不可遏制。 期间，杰森（Jason Calacanis）试图将这种政治辞令的恶化归咎于唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump），称正是特朗普当年攻击约翰·麦凯恩（John McCain）“算不上战争英雄，因为他被俘了”打开了潘多拉魔盒，才引发了如今人人竞相突破底线的恶性循环。萨克斯当场反驳，嘲讽杰森陷入了“特朗普综合征”（TDS，Trump Derangement Syndrome），因为这根本无法解释为何民主党候选人身上会出现纳粹万字符（swastika）文身等极端行径。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 政治极端化与初选困境 accDescr: 展现网络极端言论与初选机制如何推动两党政客走向极化与对立 subgraph Polarization ["初选极端化机制"] A["网络激进言论 / 键盘侠文化"] --> B["初选受激进基本盘与捐款绑架"] B --> C["极端观点候选人脱颖而出"] end subgraph Impact ["党派与治理冲击"] C --> D["传统温和派议员遭党内孤立"] C --> E["两党合作空间被全面挤压"] end ``` --- ### [25:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1535s) 费特曼回应初选挑战风险：“绝不靠兜售愤怒换取选票” 萨克斯将话题引向费特曼的政治前途，赞赏他在人工智能、资本主义等问题上的常识立场以及独立特行的“独行侠”（maverick）风格，但同时也提出疑问：面对党内伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）一派势力庞大、声量极高的激进活动人士，费特曼是否担忧在未来的党内初选中遭到强力挑战（primaried）？ 费特曼明确回应，自己绝不会为了保住参议员的席位或工作而出卖原则、违心说谎。他坦承党内确实有许多激进选民对他怒不可遏，但他毫无惧色： - 如果有人因为他坚定支持以色列而愤怒，请便； - 如果有人因为他反对联邦政府关门而愤怒，没关系； - 如果有人因为他拒绝将政治对手打成“纳粹”或“法西斯”而愤怒，他依然绝不会改口。 费特曼指出，尽管外界关于他可能退党或转换党派的宫廷秘闻传得沸沸扬扬，但他绝不会退党。更具讽刺意味的是，他的实际投票记录有高达 93% 依然严格遵循民主党立场；如果激进派试图将他驱逐出党，他们攻击的实际上是一位忠诚且极具赢面的民主党人。他严厉抨击当下民主党的竞选生态已经沦为依靠“愤怒诱饵”（rage bait）来维持生计——政客们通过在竞选广告和募捐邮件中疯狂渲染特朗普的威胁来掠夺政治现金。费特曼表示，自己代表的是选情胶着的宾夕法尼亚州，正是宾州选民的务实让政客保持清醒，而在深蓝安全选区的高调极左政客们迟早会在 2028 年大选中被看穿真面目。 --- ### [28:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1693s) 宾州算力与能源繁荣：数据中心扩张与背后的舆论阻力 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）将讨论转向国内经济政策，请麦考密克分享宾州正在发生的人工智能与能源结合的超级浪潮，并对比当年的页岩气开采繁荣。麦考密克透露了一个惊人的民情数据：宾州拥有近 1,400 万人口，他的参议员办公室平均每周会收到约 10 万起各类公众诉求（包括信件、电子邮件和电话），每两周举办的公开电话连线也会吸引上万人参与。近期，关于数据中心建设的反对与争议正成为呼声最密集的议题。 麦考密克回顾了此前他与妻子迪娜·鲍威尔（Dina Powell）在宾州牵头主办的能源与创新峰会。该峰会展现了顶级的两党与产业协同机制，现场达成了高达 920 亿美元的投资承诺，汇集了全球能源巨头 CEO、AI 企业家、顶级投资人，并得到了费特曼参议员、夏皮罗州长乃至总统与内阁成员的全力支持。他强调，“赢得 AI 竞争是一项团队运动”，宾州正在重演页岩气时代的繁荣景象。例如在霍默城（Homer City），一座装机容量为 4.4 吉瓦（GW）的传统煤电厂正改造转型为天然气发电，其中 3.4 吉瓦的充沛电力将直供大型数据中心园区，另有 1 吉瓦电力反哺公共电网以拉低居民电价。 然而，伴随超级项目落地的是日益高涨的民间阻力。查马斯询问这究竟是源于当地居民自发的“邻避效应”（NIMBY），还是受暗黑资金和境外势力操纵。麦考密克分析指出，目前的反对声浪背后既有大量由中国等外部势力故意散播的虚假信息在推波助澜，也有当地社区对辐射、耗能和环境缺乏真实认知的担忧。他强调，政府与科技企业必须建立更清晰透明的利益共享契约，向公众讲清楚数据中心对地方经济与电网的长远价值。 ### [30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1859s) 地方阻力与虚假信息：数据中心与水力压裂的历史重演 当数据中心计划落地地方社区时，乡镇管理者（Township Supervisor）和普通居民往往会经历一连串顾虑。起初人们最担心的是电费飙升（"我只是不想让自己的电费账单上涨"），但即便承诺了引入额外电力供应、使用闭式循环保护水资源、增加税收以及修建学校和配套基础设施，阻力依然不会消失。一旦电费问题得到解答，反对声音立刻转向水资源消耗；接着又转向担忧大量新居民涌入导致学校拥挤、道路堵塞，而普通人往往无法将这些人口流入与地方税基的扩大直接联系起来。因此，推动这类项目需要建立起一整套全面且具说服力的论证。 戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）指出，他和约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）在宾夕法尼亚州都曾亲历过水力压裂（Fracking）技术推广时的遭遇——当时同样充斥着铺天盖地的反对活动、虚假信息与公众认知缺失。然而经过了漫长的15年，页岩气开发如今在宾州已经赢得了广泛的民意支持。 费特曼对此深有共鸣，他吐槽当下的政治舆论环境充斥着无上限的政治献金：反对势力只要从历史素材（B-roll）中截取一两句零碎言论，砸下 1,000 万美元进行广告轰炸，就能把一个人抹黑成最极端的存在。费特曼讽刺道，早先有人极力想证明他是一个“社会主义者”，而现在又有人指责他是“MAGA”（特朗普支持者），但他自己的核心立场从来没有改变。费特曼强调，“能源就是国家安全”（"Energy is national security"），欧洲当前的能源危机就是前车之鉴。失去了能源安全，国家安全必然岌岌可危。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 数据中心落地地方社区的公众阻力链条 accDescr: 展示地方居民从最初担忧电费上涨，到转移至水资源、学校和交通拥堵等连锁疑虑的过程。 subgraph Concerns ["居民层层疑虑链条"] A["最初担忧：电费账单暴涨"] --> B["次生担忧：水资源消耗与生态"] B --> C["公共设施：学校拥挤与交通瘫痪"] end subgraph Reality ["项目实际带来的综合效益"] D["自建或引入新增电力"] E["闭式循环（Closed Loop）水保护"] F["大幅扩充地方税基与基建投资"] end D -.->|化解| A E -.->|化解| B F -.->|抵消负担| C ``` --- ### [32:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1977s) 拒绝做卢德派：AI 竞争与中美地缘博弈 谈及数据中心在当下的遭遇，费特曼直言不讳地指出，社会上某些势力正将数据中心妖魔化为“毁灭社区、使人破产的毒瘤或祸害”（"a scourge or a cancer"）。但现实是，AI 正在深刻变革人类社会。尽管技术发展必然伴随着潜在风险，但整体而言它将带来巨大的生产力飞跃与崭新机遇。费特曼断言自己绝不会加入“卢德派”（现代反对技术进步的人群）的行列：“如果我现在必须投票并宣称这一切都是毒瘤、危险且毫无益处，那我就是在撒谎。”无论是共和党还是民主党，认识到技术与能源的关键价值都是不容回避的事实。 查马斯（Chamath Palihapitiya）随后就页岩气与 AI 的对比进行了追问：当年页岩气受到的抵制，主要来自经济利益受损的传统能源利益集团还是环保主义者？麦考密克纠正说，当年绝大多数的反对声浪其实源于环保主义阵营。然而查马斯指出，在 AI 领域，美国如今面对的则是来自外国敌对势力的认知战与虚假信息。麦考密克对此表示赞同，强调外部势力煽动的虚假宣传远超以往。 麦考密克回顾了宾州的页岩气历程：早期充斥着“甲烷泄漏破坏地下水位”、“不要建在我家后院（NIMBY）”等恐慌宣传；但随着农场主获得丰厚的技术版税、全州经济引擎被彻底激活，真相逐渐显现。宾州不仅是全美第二大能源生产州，如果将其视为独立国家，其天然气储量更是高居全球第四。正是实体工作岗位的落地打破了谎言，15年后的今天，宾州已有大约 80% 的民众支持水力压裂。 费特曼随后将议题拔高至地缘战略竞争。他提到前一天活动中有人分析，美国目前在 AI 领域仅领先中国大约 6 到 8 个月。然而民主党内部却有人在极力推动对数据中心实施建设冻结（Moratorium）。费特曼警告，中国最乐见美国自缚手脚：“摆在眼前的抉择是：你希望由美国来打造这一底层底盘，还是拱手让给中国人？”他甚至直接向选民放话：“如果你觉得拱手把 AI 竞赛的胜利送给中国是没问题的，那就把我选下去吧（'vote me out'）。”这番硬核表态赢得了全场喝彩。 - **宾夕法尼亚州能源实力**：全美第二大能源生产州；天然气探明储量若按国家排名位列全球第四。 - **公众接受度跨度**：水力压裂技术从最初遭遇全面恐慌与抵制，到如今在宾州获得近 80% 的民意支持，历时整整 15 年。 - **中美 AI 竞赛窗口**：现场讨论指出美国当前对中国的 AI 领先优势仅有 6 至 8 个月左右。 --- ### [36:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2171s) 蓝领阶层的繁荣：焊工、电工与四重经济增长引擎 戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）提及去年麦考密克主办的“能源与创新峰会”（Energy and Innovation Summit）。在该峰会上，麦考密克宣布了高达 900 亿美元的新投资计划。萨克斯当时最大的感触在于参会阵容的极其广泛——不仅有软件、硬件、智能制造、机器人公司，还有核电和页岩气巨头，更引人注目的是各大工会（The trades）的全面参与。这让萨克斯意识到，AI 与能源基础设施的扩张本质上是一场“蓝领繁荣”（Blue-collar Boom），是一场实打实的基建狂潮，建筑工人不仅获得了数十万个新就业岗位，薪资涨幅更达到了 25% 至 30%。 麦考密克证实，过去 15 到 16 个月里宾州发生的变化是超乎寻常的。这种繁荣不仅局限于数据中心和能源电站，还产生了强烈的产业联动效应：美国钢铁公司（US Steel）在此建设新一代钢厂、礼来制药（Eli Lilly）投资新生产基地、韩华集团（Hanwha）接手费城造船厂，这些制造业巨头的落户很大程度上正是看中了当地丰富的数据中心和充沛的能源项目。 麦考密克感叹道，目前在宾夕法尼亚州，职业保障最高、最吃香的工作就是“经验丰富的焊工和电工”。许多年轻人甚至不到二十岁或刚满二十出头，完成技能培训后进入这些重大工程现场，年薪便迅速突破 10 万美元，而且各大承包商目前根本招不到足够的人手来满足工程需求。 针对数据中心对区域经济的长期拉动，麦考密克以宾州伯威克（Berwick，紧邻其高中母校所在地）正在规划的项目为例，拆解了数据中心带来的“四大经济动力引擎”： 1. **建设阶段就业**：建造数据中心及配套能源设施需要数千名工人，高峰期施工现场通常汇聚 5,000 至 10,000 名工程技术人员。 2. **长期运营维护**：数据中心落成后需要数百名常驻专业工程及运维人员保障运转。 3. **周期性硬件升级**：每隔 3 到 4 年，数据中心的服务器与硬件架构就需要全面迭代升级，届时又会定期带来数百乃至数千个高技术工种需求。 4. **周边外溢与物流乘数**：涵盖餐饮、酒店等本地服务业，以及庞大的物流需求。宾州卡车运输协会估计，数据中心每产生 1 个直接岗位，就会在周边派生出约 2 个物流相关岗位。 麦考密克强调，任何联邦参议员都无权强迫地方去做决定，这种发展契约必须由乡镇管理者和县委员自下而上自主达成。但如果地方选择拒绝，他也向反对者发问：“你们的替代方案是什么？”过去 20 年间宾夕法尼亚州一直在面临人口流失、留不住年轻一代的困境，而当前能源与 AI 驱动的建设狂潮是一场真正的“产业重生”，前提是必须打破针对新技术的虚假信息。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 数据中心衍生的四大经济引擎 accDescr: 展现从施工建设、运营维护、定期硬件迭代到物流服务外溢的四重经济收益。 subgraph Direct ["直接项目引擎"] E1["1. 施工建设期<br/>5,000-10,000 名现场工人"] E2["2. 长期日常运维<br/>数百名常驻核心人员"] E3["3. 硬件定期升级<br/>每3-4年数百至数千技工"] end subgraph Indirect ["辐射带动引擎"] E4["4. 外溢效应与物流<br/>餐饮/住宿 + 1:2物流配套岗位"] end Direct --> Indirect ``` --- ### [39:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2380s) 政治“马蹄铁”陷阱：极左与极右对反科技叙事的合流 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）提出了一个直切痛点的问题：既然眼前的就业增长、财富创造有着如此确凿的客观数据支撑，而另一边所谓“技术导致白领大面积失业”的末日论又缺乏实证，为什么民主党内部在接纳这些客观事实时依然如此艰难？ 费特曼指出，这里面存在两个核心误区：第一，大众往往将广义的“AI 概念”与具体基础设施层面的“数据中心”混为一谈，两者虽有密切联系，但在经济与就业形态上是完全不同的维度；第二，这种阻力并不仅仅局限在民主党内部。 对话随即引向了美国政治中的“马蹄铁理论”（Horseshoe Theory）：极左翼环保意识形态与“美国优先”（America First）极右翼极端派在反对新技术、阻击数据中心上展现出了惊人的一致与合流。甚至在 All-In 播客的主持人团队内部，萨克斯等人也打趣某些 Bestie 成员偶尔也会掉入“就业末日论”（Jobs Apocalypse）的悲观情绪中，引发了现场一阵轻松但针锋相对的插话。针对技术与能源基础设施的抵触，正在超越传统的两党派系壁垒，演变成一场交织着保守主义、民粹主义与技术恐惧的复杂博弈。 ### [40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2440s) 技术变革下的岗位替代与政治盲区 在关于技术变革与劳动力市场的争论中，嘉宾们就就业前景展开了直接交锋。当有发言者坚信技术最终总会催生新的就业机会，并有人插话建议将其表述为“工作流动性”（job mobility）时，另一位发言者打断并坚持要完整表达自己的观点。他强调，现实中“工作岗位被替代（job displacement）正在切实发生”，社会必须主动创造全新的岗位来填补这些空缺。与此同时，他尖锐地指出了党派狂热者的盲区，批评那些患有“特朗普狂热综合征”（Trump dedication syndrome）的人存在严重的思维盲点——他们永远无法对前总统提出哪怕一丝一毫温和的批评，而这种不愿正视现实挑战的态度，正是当前解决前沿技术冲击与经济难题时面临的重大阻碍。 ### [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2464s) 政治献金的恶性膨胀与初选制度的荒谬代价 节目随后转向了美国政治运转中最昂贵的现实难题：特殊利益集团的政治献金与金钱政治（Money in politics）。主持人指出，无论是乔治·索罗斯（George Soros）还是硅谷圈内的亿万富豪，动辄为选战砸入 5000 万、1 亿乃至 2 亿美元的巨资，这种金钱泛滥不仅深刻影响着数据中心等产业基础设施的博弈，更是一系列治理困局的核心根源。戴夫·麦考密克（Dave McCormick）对此坦言，如果列出修复当下美国的五大优先事项，解决政治献金甚至排不进前五名，但从理念层面他完全赞同应该把金钱赶出政治。他以自己刚刚经历的参议院选战为例，透露整场竞选总花费竟高达惊人的 5 亿美元：“我们自己筹了 2 亿美元，而反对派阵营砸了 3 亿美元，我们根本跟不上那种烧钱节奏。” 约翰·费特曼（John Fetterman）随即接过了话茬，指出竞选资金的膨胀已经彻底失控。他在 2022 年竞选参议员时总共耗资 3 亿至 3.3 亿美元，在当时创下了历史最高纪录，然而到了麦考密克的这场选战，昔日的纪录瞬间显得“古朴而微不足道”（quaint）；照此趋势发展，到了 2026 年或 2028 年，如今的 5 亿规模也将沦为小儿科。费特曼进一步抨击了现行的两党初选机制，直言初选往往只会挑选并放大最极端的意识形态，而全美汇聚而来的数亿美元最终全部沦为了互相抹黑的弹药。 费特曼感慨道，这数以亿计的资金如果真正投入到宾夕法尼亚州的公共建设或改善普通民众的生活中，本可以带来不可估量的改变，然而它们却全被挥霍在铺天盖地的攻击性广告上，只为了摧毁候选人的声誉，“你很糟糕，我也很糟糕——这就是美国政治荒唐透顶的地方”。在对话的尾声，主持人们向费特曼和麦考密克致以由衷的赞赏，称赞两位跨党派参议员在极化时代展现出了难能可贵、极度理性且务实的姿态，全期播客在真诚的致谢声与片尾音乐中圆满结束。 - **宾夕法尼亚州参议员选战资金对比**： - **2022年选战（费特曼）**：总计消耗约 3 亿至 3.3 亿美元，刷新当时的历史纪录。 - **2024年选战（麦考密克）**：总花费飙升至 5 亿美元，其中麦考密克阵营筹得 2 亿美元，对手阵营花费 3 亿美元。 - **初选机制与金钱异化**：现行初选制度极易催生迎合极端立场的候选人，庞大的超级政治行动委员会（Super PAC）与富豪献金导致数亿美元被单方面用于摧毁对手声誉的负面竞选。 ## Notable quotes > [06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=397s) 如果特朗普站出来表态支持冰淇淋和悠闲周日，我们党保准立刻跳出来痛恨这倒霉玩意儿，并且全力投票把它给否了。 — 约翰·费特曼 > [11:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=700s) 没有充足的能源供应，美国根本赢不了 AI 竞赛 — 戴夫·麦考密克 > [14:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=876s) 如果我们找不到解决阶层割裂的办法，我们将彻底失去资本主义。 — 戴夫·麦考密克 > [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=962s) 我为自己是一个资本主义者感到自豪。 — 约翰·费特曼 > [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=962s) 必须由美国来建造，它要么诞生于美国，要么由中国掌控，你究竟站在哪一边？ — 约翰·费特曼 > [16:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=962s) 如果你一辈子没创造过任何一个就业岗位，就别妄加指责那些切切实实改变美国经济的创造者。 — 约翰·费特曼 > [25:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1535s) 绝不靠兜售愤怒换取选票 — 约翰·费特曼 > [28:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1693s) 赢得 AI 竞争是一项团队运动 — 戴夫·麦考密克 > [30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1859s) 能源就是国家安全 — 约翰·费特曼 > [32:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=1977s) 如果你觉得拱手把 AI 竞赛的胜利送给中国是没问题的，那就把我选下去吧 — 约翰·费特曼 > [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2464s) 我们自己筹了 2 亿美元，而反对派阵营砸了 3 亿美元，我们根本跟不上那种烧钱节奏。 — 戴夫·麦考密克 > [41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro&t=2464s) 你很糟糕，我也很糟糕——这就是美国政治荒唐透顶的地方 — 约翰·费特曼 ## Mentioned 约翰·费特曼 (John Fetterman), 戴夫·麦考密克 (Dave McCormick), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 鲍勃·凯西 (Bob Casey), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 乔·曼钦 (Joe Manchin), 柯尔斯滕·西内马 (Kyrsten Sinema), 戴维·弗里德伯格 (David Friedberg), 杰夫·贝佐斯 (Jeff Bezos), 格雷厄姆·普拉特纳 (Graham Platner), 查克·舒默 (Chuck Schumer), 伊丽莎白·沃伦 (Elizabeth Warren), 乔希·夏皮罗 (Josh Shapiro), 大卫·萨克斯 (David Sacks), 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 (Jason Calacanis), 约翰·麦凯恩 (John McCain), 伯尼·桑德斯 (Bernie Sanders), 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚 (Chamath Palihapitiya), 迪娜·鲍威尔 (Dina Powell), 美国钢铁公司 (US Steel), 礼来制药 (Eli Lilly), 韩华集团 (Hanwha), 乔治·索罗斯 (George Soros), 宾夕法尼亚州 (Pennsylvania), 霍默城 (Homer City), 伯威克 (Berwick), 《战争权力法案》 (War Powers Act), 《工薪家庭税收减免法案》 (Working Families Tax Cut Act), Invest America, 阻挠议事 (Filibuster), 水力压裂 (Fracking) ## Video description (0:00) PA Senators Fetterman and McCormick join the Besties (0:33) How Bipartisanship Actually Works in 2025 (6:38) Why the Filibuster Is the Last Line of Defense Against Total Tribalism (13:50) The K-Shaped Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb and Both Parties Know It (19:55) When Extremism Wins Primaries: What It Means for the Future of American Politics (28:38) AI and Energy Are Creating a Blue Collar Boom and Pennsylvania Is Proof (39:00) Getting Money Out of Politics and Whether Bipartisanship Can Survive 2028 Follow Senator Fetterman: https://x.com/SenFettermanPA Follow Senator McCormick: https://x.com/SenMcCormickPA Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y28p0jqPro)

[6:37] 约翰·费特曼: 如果特朗普站出来表态支持冰淇淋和悠闲周日，我们党保准立刻跳出来痛恨这倒霉玩意儿，并且全力投票把它给否了。 [11:40] 戴夫·麦考密克: 没有充足的能源供应，美国根本赢不了 AI 竞赛 [14:36] 戴夫·麦考密克: 如果我们找不到解决阶层割裂的办法，我们将彻底失去资本主义。 [16:02] 约翰·费特曼: 我为自己是一个资本主义者感到自豪。 [16:02] 约翰·费特曼: 必须由美国来建造，它要么诞生于美国，要么由中国掌控，你究竟站在哪一边？ [16:02] 约翰·费特曼: 如果你一辈子没创造过任何一个就业岗位，就别妄加指责那些切切实实改变美国经济的创造者。 [25:35] 约翰·费特曼: 绝不靠兜售愤怒换取选票 [28:13] 戴夫·麦考密克: 赢得 AI 竞争是一项团队运动 [30:59] 约翰·费特曼: 能源就是国家安全 [32:57] 约翰·费特曼: 如果你觉得拱手把 AI 竞赛的胜利送给中国是没问题的，那就把我选下去吧 [41:04] 戴夫·麦考密克: 我们自己筹了 2 亿美元，而反对派阵营砸了 3 亿美元，我们根本跟不上那种烧钱节奏。 [41:04] 约翰·费特曼: 你很糟糕，我也很糟糕——这就是美国政治荒唐透顶的地方

country over party at this point Dave McCormick: probably the most consequential moment in all of our lifetimes John Fetterman: China-first Dave McCormick: Tell us what you really think other than that, Mrs. Lincoln John Fetterman: seem quaint John Fetterman: Trump comes out for ice cream and lazy Sundays, we're going to hate that [ __ ] and we're going to vote it down. John Fetterman: The entire Democratic party, including myself, we were so wrong about the filibuster. John Fetterman: hill I would die on Dave McCormick: we are going to lose capitalism [16:58] bad ideas refuse to die [18:28] scourge or the cancer [19:51] Graham Platiner: dumb motherfucker that doesn't deserve to live [19:51] Graham Platiner: absolute trash [23:43] John Fetterman: constant rage bait [34:07] not in our backyards [34:07] do you want America to to to build that chassis or do you want the Chinese to do that? [35:50] vote me out. If you think it's okay to give China a benefit to win the AI race, vote me out. [39:40] you're terrible, I am terrible

[0:00] Now, a look at the state of [0:01] Pennsylvania. It's one of the most [0:02] important states in this presidential [0:04] race. [music] [0:07] >> Both Pennsylvania senators, Democrat [0:09] John Federman and Republican Dave [0:11] McCormack, [music] voted in favor of the [0:12] bill. [0:13] >> In this situation, we both agree that [0:15] shutting our government down is wrong [0:17] for our commonwealth and [music] for our [0:19] nation. [0:20] >> So, we're looking for ways to find [0:21] common ground. And when we disagree, we [0:24] we disagree. [music] [0:25] But when we can agree, we agree. Our [0:27] votes are about country over party at [0:29] this point. [0:30] >> Well, we're trying to set [music] a good [0:31] example because we have lots of [0:32] disagreements, but we trust each other. [0:35] We like one another, and we look for [0:36] ways to work [music] together. [0:40] >> I thought the best way to kick this off [0:42] was to actually give both of you a few [0:44] moments to just say what's on your mind. [0:46] And so, I think in the rules of [0:48] parliamentary decorum, Senator Federum, [0:50] as a senior sitting senator from [0:52] Pennsylvania, maybe you can start. I'm [0:54] I'm proud that to call Senator McCormack [0:58] a a a good friend. Uh and now things are [1:02] very more polarized and now I refuse to [1:06] uh engage in the kinds of extremism. And [1:10] you know, we're going to fight together [1:12] for Pennsylvania and for our nation [1:14] right now. And we're going to continue [1:16] to have conversations like this, you [1:18] know, whether in Pennsylvania or here [1:20] across. So um so we uh we have to find a [1:25] better way forward through a lot of the [1:27] circumstances. [1:32] >> Yeah, Dave. [1:33] >> Yeah, I think um I mean one of the the [1:35] the benefits of being in a place like [1:38] Pennsylvania is that uh the the voters [1:41] expect us really to find ways to work [1:43] together. And if you put this moment in [1:45] perspective, [1:47] I think it's probably the most [1:48] consequential moment in all of our [1:50] lifetimes. And in fact, I think it might [1:52] be the most consequential moment in [1:53] humankind, which is which is a big [1:55] statement. So much change is happening. [1:57] It's artificial intelligence, of course, [1:59] but it's it's really how that's [2:00] affecting everything, life, sciences, [2:02] defense, energy. It's it's a moment of [2:05] enormous change. And that that change [2:08] creates a lot of anxiety that lends [2:10] itself to polarization and extremes. And [2:14] so if there was ever a time where it's [2:16] more important to find ways to work [2:18] together, it it's now. And so we've [2:21] found ways to work together on [2:22] everything from uh energy policy to [2:26] fentanyl, the fentanyl crisis to [2:28] anti-semitism [2:30] uh in Pennsylvania and across the [2:32] country to drone technology. And and [2:35] these are issues that are of such [2:37] consequence that uh you can't get there [2:40] by just being with your team. You have [2:42] to be able to find common ground. And uh [2:45] we we've really looked for ways to do [2:46] that. [2:47] >> Yeah. I I I think he could confirm uh [2:50] Pennsylvania keeps you honest now. And [2:53] now I'd like to remind everybody that we [2:56] are the only two people in our [2:58] respective cycles that flipped seats. [3:01] You know, that's really, you know, both [3:03] parties want that. they we want to flip [3:05] seats. It's like, well, you know, we [3:07] we've done that because I think we've [3:09] rejected the extreme kinds of views and [3:12] now it's better to work together for for [3:15] Pennsylvania or for our country for [3:17] right now and AI is really really [3:19] important and and that will sometimes [3:21] will put me at odds where the direction [3:23] that the Democratic party seems to be [3:25] moving in that now. So now uh moratorum [3:29] for data centers I for me that's a China [3:32] first kinds of policy for that. I'm [3:35] going to continue to push back that. I'm [3:37] not going to describe that as a scourge. [3:40] I'm going to describe that as an [3:41] incredible new opportunity. And now you [3:44] know my friend he he organized an [3:46] incredible symposium in western [3:48] Pennsylvania that brought AI together [3:51] and energy. And that's two parts of [3:53] things Pennsylvania really brings to the [3:55] table in this very very important [3:57] conversation. [3:58] >> I think that we're at this point now [4:00] where is it fair to say as goes [4:03] Pennsylvania as goes the rest of the [4:05] country in the sense that if if you can [4:06] find common ground in the state on these [4:09] very thorny issues, maybe the rest of [4:11] the country can find ground. And the [4:13] vice versa is also true. If you guys [4:15] can't find resolution, what are the odds [4:17] that California and West Virginia making [4:19] it up find resolution? So what is it [4:22] like a day in the life in the US Senate [4:25] trying to find these compromises because [4:27] from our perspective outside in a lot of [4:30] the time it just seems like nothing is [4:31] happening. [4:34] >> Dave. [4:34] >> Yeah. I think um if you step back you [4:37] would we we I know we look very similar [4:40] but uh we we have uh we have many [4:42] similar background. [4:43] >> Yeah. We have what's the difference? We [4:45] have similar backgrounds uh in the sense [4:48] we both grew up in rural Pennsylvania [4:50] and uh had similar you know similar [4:52] childhoods and uh John went into public [4:54] service. I uh I left went to West Point [4:57] went to the military but we both came [4:59] back from those those rural backgrounds. [5:01] But what's interesting in Pennsylvania [5:03] is 19 electoral votes and the it's a [5:06] microcosm of the country. You have these [5:08] two big urban centers Philadelphia and [5:10] Pittsburgh which are mostly Democrats. [5:12] you have these these rural areas that [5:15] are mostly uh red, mostly Republican, [5:18] and you got to build a coalition across [5:20] those to win. So, ironically, a lot of [5:22] the same people that voted for uh [5:24] Senator Federman voted for me and um and [5:27] and voted for President Trump and and [5:30] that's the coalition you have to build. [5:32] And the in particular, it is a working [5:36] uh families coalition. So the thing [5:39] that's uh ironic is that even though all [5:41] the uh all the national unions would [5:45] have vote would have endorsed Kla Harris [5:47] and uh Bob Casey my opponent the rank [5:50] and file twothirds of the rank and file [5:51] the electricians the pipe fitters the [5:53] steam fitters voted for me same with him [5:56] they voted for him so it we actually [5:58] even though we have a lot of differences [6:01] in our parties we have come together [6:04] around that coalition and that coalition [6:07] includes includes a very significant [6:08] Latino turnout, uh, a very significant [6:11] African-American turnout, the highest [6:13] African-American turnout in 2024 in the [6:16] last 30 years. And so, uh, that [6:18] coalition, I think, is up for grabs. Who [6:21] wins that coalition in Pennsylvania and [6:23] who wins it in the country, I think, [6:25] will dictate the future to a large [6:28] degree in 2028 and beyond. And so that's [6:31] what we're working on together because [6:33] we're trying to build that coalition to [6:35] do good things together in Pennsylvania. [6:37] >> The uh Senate is at an all-time low in [6:41] terms of approval rating. We have the [6:43] lowest approval rating of a president in [6:45] history after Biden who is extremely low [6:48] rated. You guys can't control the debt. [6:51] The American populace believed we'd be [6:53] in a golden age right now. They're not [6:55] seeing it. Inflation is soaring. The [6:57] president seems to be running a muck. [6:59] has no check in the house and you guys [7:03] are responsible. [7:04] >> Tell us tell us what you really think [7:05] other than other than that, Mrs. [7:07] Lincoln. [7:07] >> Well, and $40 trillion dollars in debt [7:10] and you're spending more than ever. So, [7:12] the American people, I think, are [7:14] extremely frustrated with both parties. [7:16] It's great to see you guys come [7:17] together. Um but what are you going to [7:20] do to bring back some balance between [7:24] the branches of the government because [7:26] this does not seem to be going in um the [7:29] right direction for anybody but the [7:30] people in this room which is to say the [7:32] top 10% of our society. [7:35] >> Well I mean for me if you you referenced [7:37] inflation is soaring. Well just just [7:40] recently that's p primarily driven by [7:42] energy prices right now. Now why are [7:44] those energy prices high? Well, because [7:47] the president decided to hold Iran [7:50] accountable. And now [7:53] I'm the only Democrat that actually [7:55] agrees with that. That was not that was [7:58] not a radical idea for a Democrats. [8:01] Every single person running for [8:03] president as a Democrat said we must [8:05] never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear [8:08] bomb. And now we have the opportunity to [8:10] hold them accountable. Why? That's why I [8:12] continue to vote and against these war [8:15] powers act now too. So for inflation, [8:18] yes, now absolutely no one thinks $5 a [8:21] gallon is is great. But if you allow [8:24] Iran to become nuclear, you know, that's [8:27] going to seem quaint, you know, if $5 a [8:30] gallon holding it up to so what's [8:32] driving this economic conversation o [8:35] overall right now. So for me I think [8:38] what's most important now uh turn [8:41] everything as a partisan thing and [8:45] that's the danger where if we despise [8:50] Trump more than we are concerned about [8:53] Iran becoming a nuclear power that will [8:56] have profound implications for not just [8:58] in that region but al for a global stage [9:02] for right now that's the difficulty [9:05] moving forward Now, I've said this in [9:08] the podcast of, you know, for allin I, [9:11] you know, who's the leader's party? I'm [9:13] like, that's TDS 100%. You know, our [9:16] party is defined by the opposition of [9:19] whatever he comes out for. I've said he [9:22] Trump comes out for ice cream and lazy [9:24] Sundays, we're we we're going to hate [9:26] that [ __ ] [laughter] [9:27] you know, and we're going to vote it [9:29] down. Now, we all have [laughter] we all [9:32] have a bandwidth and we all have a [9:34] platform, you know. I feel like you have [9:36] to discriminate. I don't care about the [9:38] ballroom. If you want to build it, sure, [9:40] great. I was there for the the White [9:42] House correspondent dinner and I saw how [9:44] dangerous that was for for our [9:46] leadership. But I don't care about the [9:48] reflecting pool. But now we can't stop [9:50] talking about all this other kind of so [9:52] we can really focus on thing that's more [9:54] important when now it's become all just [9:58] distract distracted by the small small [10:00] ball game. [10:02] >> Dave, is there a path to resolution? I [10:03] mean, like, you're you guys are going to [10:06] be forced to confront the filibuster, [10:08] which is this critical bull work that [10:10] sort of leaves [10:11] some sort of attempt at finding common [10:14] ground out there, but there's a lot of [10:16] pressure to end it. I think Senator [10:17] Fenerman, you said you'd be supportive [10:19] of ending the filibuster. Is that where [10:21] we're going to just total tribalism? [10:23] >> Yeah, let's talk about the filibuster. [10:25] Let's talk about that. [10:27] The entire Democratic party, including [10:29] myself, we were so wrong about the [10:31] filibuster. In my cycle in 2020, every [10:34] single Democrat identified we have to we [10:37] have to eliminate the filibuster. Seems [10:40] like it made sense now. And thank God, [10:43] thank God we had people that stood uh [10:45] there, whether it's Senator Mansion or [10:48] Senator Cinema, you know, history has [10:50] vindicated their wisdom to do that [10:52] thing. And now Democrats, we all wanted [10:54] to get rid of it in 22 and 2025. We love [10:58] it. And now it now it reforces people to [11:02] work together with both sides. Now if [11:04] you turn the Senate into a smaller [11:07] version of the House and majority [11:10] majority [11:11] now, that would have profound profound [11:14] implications for now. So now someone [11:17] that be the first person to announce, [11:19] hey, I was so wrong about that. Uh [11:21] that's one of the kinds of hill I would [11:23] die on now to defend the filibuster. How [11:26] important it is to the Senate, but also [11:28] Senate for the minority rights, whoever [11:31] that happens to be in in that time. You [11:34] know, that's what's so critical what the [11:36] filibuster is to governance here. [11:40] >> I would say um first of all, uh [11:42] Congress, but lots of institutions right [11:44] now have very low public approval, very [11:47] low trust. That that's a huge problem. [11:49] It's across it's across all areas to [11:52] church uh uh public officials, business [11:56] uh in many cases. So we've got to [11:58] rebuild trust in our institutions and [12:00] one of the ways you do that is through [12:01] your own personal conduct. So one of the [12:04] things we can do is try to set the [12:05] example. Uh if you look at my voting and [12:07] his voting, I I have I'm an unapologetic [12:10] conservative. I vote as a conservative. [12:12] At the same time, that doesn't mean you [12:14] can't work together. So, we look for [12:16] every opportunity for bipartisan [12:18] legislation. So, I've got more [12:20] bipartisan legislation than anybody. [12:22] We've collaborated on dozens of things [12:24] together because you can do both. And [12:27] the filibuster, I mean, it is [12:28] frustrating as a business person. I was [12:30] in business for 25 years. So frustrating [12:32] the way the pace of of how slowly things [12:35] move. But I do think it creates the [12:39] requirement, the impetus to get things [12:41] done. And I would disagree with you. I [12:43] think a lot of big things have been [12:44] done. I look if you look at the energy [12:46] agenda, we can't win the AI race without [12:49] energy and uh we made huge progress on [12:52] energy. I'm hoping we're going to get [12:53] permitting reform, which would be the [12:55] biggest economic lever we could possibly [12:57] get done over the next 6 months or the [13:00] next two and a half years. Um we've [13:02] closed the border. We've stopped the [13:03] flow of fentanyl. We had 4,000 people [13:04] who died in Pennsylvania in the last [13:06] year of the Biden administration at [13:08] 1,600. This year it's down 60%. Those [13:11] same statistics nationally. And then [13:13] there's huge intractable problems like [13:15] the debt and the deficit which are [13:17] existential that we're not dealing with. [13:19] And that's not a product so much of the [13:21] filibuster, not the filibuster. That's a [13:24] product of the polarization of our [13:26] country and both sides taking advantage [13:29] of anybody willing to to to look at a [13:32] problem in a in a hard way. My my [13:34] question was though about the bottom [13:36] half of the company country in the [13:38] K-shaped economy we're in and how it's [13:40] not working and you guys are [13:41] phenomenally unpopular with that group [13:44] of Americans. So is there a way to make [13:46] >> wealth concentration? [13:48] >> Yeah, wealth concentration. The bottom [13:50] half is not happy with no sides. [13:54] >> No, it's a huge No, it's a huge problem [13:56] and I don't I don't think I listened [13:58] carefully last night. I mean, I I just [14:00] want to tell you, uh, that is a huge [14:02] huge problem that's growing. The median [14:05] income in Pennsylvania is $52,000 a [14:07] year. When you guys say AI or AI [14:09] anxiety, I I mean, these these folks, [14:11] they've been down this road once before [14:13] when a bunch of smart rich people said, [14:15] "We got the answer. It's called [14:16] globalization." And what happened in my [14:18] hometown is there was a mill of 2,000 [14:20] people that got gutted. It's now 100 [14:22] people. So, there's enormous anxiety, [14:24] but it's because there's no path to [14:27] getting ahead. and everybody in this [14:28] room. Um, the last 10 years has been the [14:31] greatest 10 years in the history of [14:33] humanity for those who have assets. [14:36] >> So, do you have a plan? [14:37] >> Yeah. Well, there's there's got to be [14:39] there's got to be a number of plans. [14:40] Well, do you have a plan? Because it's [14:42] not just going to be me. It's going to [14:43] be us because right now I'm listen, I'm [14:46] a I am a beneficiary of of capitalism. I [14:49] have been wildly fortunate because of [14:51] capitalism. But we are we are going to [14:54] lose capitalism unless we find a [14:56] combination of a ways to address this. [14:58] So what are the ways? The invest America [15:00] counts is a perfect way, right? Where [15:02] you are building opportunity for the [15:04] next generation. The um the school [15:06] choice uh provision in the working [15:09] families tax cut act. $1,700. Everybody [15:12] in this room can give $1,700 every year. [15:15] billions of dollars that are going to go [15:17] into uh school choice for for making [15:20] sure everybody has equality of [15:22] opportunity. If you don't do that at [15:24] maximum scale and this moment leaves the [15:28] majority of Americans behind, we're not [15:30] going to be able to get anything done. [15:31] >> Spend more money on programs. [15:33] >> Yeah. Spend more money, but not not [15:35] spend more spend more money in giving [15:37] people opportunity. So, the reason those [15:40] two accounts are great, it takes it out [15:42] of the government, circumvents the [15:43] government, it's based on incentives and [15:46] choice by people that have wealth, um, [15:49] it's, uh, it's sort of Andrew Carnegie [15:52] uh, brought to present day. Take that [15:54] wealth, put it in the hands of those who [15:56] will benefit from it, but it's your [15:57] choice. It's not decked dictated by the [15:59] government. I think that's going to have [16:01] to be part of the answer. Does anyone in [16:02] Congress subscribe to the notion [16:06] that I think is rooted in, [16:09] you know, empiricism that the more we [16:12] spend, the harder it is for people to [16:14] have economic mobility, you know, and I [16:16] think that there's a a simplified notion [16:18] that government has to play a role in [16:20] driving people's progress. And the truth [16:22] is the more government intervenes in [16:24] markets, the more inefficient and the [16:26] more expensive those markets get. And [16:28] therefore the more inaccessible wealth [16:30] and value creation is for any individual [16:33] and the freer the market the less the [16:35] government intervenes the less the [16:36] government is spending the less the [16:37] government is buying the better things [16:40] get for people generally speaking does [16:42] is and it seems to me every time I visit [16:44] DC I leave profoundly unhappy because I [16:47] meet with people in Congress and this is [16:49] a notion that seems to be diametrically [16:52] opposed to their viewpoints that [16:54] everything is about doing more for [16:56] people government needs to do more on [16:58] both sides of the aisle versus if the [17:00] government did less things would get [17:02] more affordable, things would get more [17:04] accessible and people would have greater [17:06] economic mobility. [17:09] >> Well, I mean, you know, talk about the [17:11] the the government now. We had not just [17:14] one, we had two shutdowns. Both were [17:17] historic in terms of their length. Now, [17:20] we couldn't just agree on very basic [17:22] things. And now we've shut the [17:24] government down collectively for over uh [17:28] 120 days or whatever. Now then that's [17:30] one of the thing as a Democrat I refuse [17:32] to engage in that thing. If that's a [17:34] core responsibility as a senator keep [17:37] our government open and for the love of [17:38] God find a way to agree enough to keep [17:41] things open and put things in risk and [17:43] make our country less less safe. You [17:46] know, I'm proud to be a capitalist and [17:48] now capitalism is the the one system [17:51] that has proven to raise life standard [17:55] of humans across the globe. You know, [17:58] and now people in my party now now we're [18:01] having bad ideas refuse to die and now [18:04] we're talking about socialism and and [18:06] communists right now. We have we have [18:09] candidates now that I'm I am a [18:11] communist. These things and it's like [18:13] that seems interesting. You know what's [18:15] your point now? Talk to anyone that's [18:17] had to live under those kinds of regime. [18:19] Now they're all absolute capitalists [18:21] right now and that's that's absolutely [18:23] the fact that the market wool has fixed [18:26] a lot of these kinds of problems you [18:28] know and I'm not terrified by AI. Am I [18:31] concerned about it 100%. right right now [18:34] and with now mythos and other concerns [18:36] about mass hacking and weaponizing it [18:40] that way you know that's coming and now [18:43] I think that should belong to America [18:46] you know that you know we America should [18:47] build that chassis and now that's why if [18:50] we turn my party into we're AI is the [18:54] scourge or the cancer now I refuse to [18:57] reject that because it's going to [18:58] transform the world now it can come from [19:00] us or it can come from China whose side [19:03] are you going to be in? And a lot of the [19:05] people that oppose that now, a lot of [19:07] that opposition is funded by a lot of [19:09] these groups that are aligned with CCP. [19:12] So that's part of the danger right now. [19:15] So that's the dangerous time right now [19:18] and like Democrats now my party. Oh, the [19:23] problems are billionaires. Oh, but we [19:25] love the billionaires that fund, you [19:26] know, our kinds of views and our views [19:28] and that too. I know target people, you [19:31] know, people, you know, call out Bezos [19:34] or whatever. It's like you don't don't [19:35] do that. Don't call out private [19:37] citizens, identify them the problem. You [19:40] know, they are create jobs. If you've [19:43] never created a job, don't criticize [19:45] people that that have really changed our [19:47] our economy for the better. Honestly, [19:51] >> why is Graham Platiner doing so well in [19:53] the polls? This is a candidate that has [19:55] a literal Nazi tattoo on his chest. [19:58] Yeah. Yeah. [19:59] >> And what does what does history tells us [20:01] comes next? If he wins, [20:03] >> if a candidate like that can win, what [20:05] does that tell us? [20:06] >> Yeah. Well, when I when I was a kid, if [20:08] someone had a Nazi tattoo, you probably [20:10] could call them a Nazi sympathizer, you [20:13] know, and someone now uh and now just [20:16] yesterday we discovered that he was [20:18] sexing with up to a dozen women. And now [20:21] Democrats now some saying, "Well, what's [20:23] the big problem?" you know, that's, you [20:25] know, they're constantly just ignoring a [20:27] lot of these things. Um, and now this is [20:30] a guy that just a couple years, a couple [20:33] years ago, uh, described, uh, an [20:36] American soldier in a firefight with the [20:38] Taliban. Uh, dumb motherucker that [20:41] doesn't deserve to live. That's his [20:43] words. Who does that? Who lurks on [20:45] there? And, you know, he's really a [20:47] tough guy behind a keyboard. And I [20:50] can't, you know, explain other than that [20:52] it's a backlash to to how partisan [20:55] things are. Someone like that should [20:57] have been uh in this race right now. So [21:02] here we are, you know, a guy that was [21:05] texting to up to a dozen women, you [21:08] know, he's getting his swall on and now [21:11] we're now we're [laughter] kind of just, [21:12] oh, what's the big deal? uh why not [21:15] confront that and just and call that out [21:18] and that's that's the danger if now um [21:23] these kinds of views uh could you [21:26] imagine could you imagine if either one [21:28] of us described an American soldier as a [21:31] dumb mother that deserves to lie or he [21:33] described the our army as as absolute [21:37] trash absolute trash he described [21:40] American army as absolute trash um and [21:43] and that's a viable candidate now and [21:45] that's that's a bizarre place to live [21:47] right now as a Democrat. You know, [21:49] >> if he wins, what happens to this? What [21:51] what does that tell us about where we're [21:52] headed? [21:53] >> Well, look at what I mean, what's [21:54] happening there is I mean, there's [21:56] there's problems on both parties, but [21:57] certainly what you've seen on the left [22:00] is two things. I think it's [22:01] indisputable. One is a a migration to [22:04] these terrible ideas of socialism and [22:06] Marxism and so forth. But in addition to [22:08] that, this really rise of anti-semitism [22:11] and hatred and that and the the tell [22:13] here of how pervasive it is is the [22:16] people who are now campaigning in Maine, [22:19] Chuck Schumer, [22:21] uh, Elizabeth, these are mainstream [22:24] Democrats that have now lurched so far [22:26] to the left. And I think um I think this [22:29] is going to be if if those candidates [22:31] win and that becomes validation of the [22:35] viability of that stream of thinking in [22:38] the Democratic party, I think it's in [22:40] horribly unhealthy for America. Uh [22:43] ironically, the best thing we want if [22:45] we're Republicans is a strong Democratic [22:48] party that keeps us honest and keeps us [22:50] in check with good ideas. And uh and [22:53] that's not happening. And uh as I said, [22:55] we have problems on both sides. But I [22:56] think that lurch to the left is really [22:59] frightening a frightening thing. [23:01] >> Well, and then let's and you just, you [23:02] know, brought up Israel. You know, [23:04] that's a profound betrayal for my party [23:06] on on Israel or not. So, you know, the [23:09] people that are winning a lot of these [23:10] elections, you know, you know, one of [23:12] their signature view is anti- [23:14] anti-Israel and borderline just, you [23:18] know, raw anti-semitism in from a lot of [23:20] these candidates now, too. And that's [23:24] that's exactly where where we are. Um [23:27] and now that has isolated me and the [23:30] party and just calling that what that [23:31] is. I mean that that's that's dangerous [23:35] and now uh that that's where one of the [23:38] things that we happen to agree on. Uh [23:39] that's the right [snorts] side of [23:41] history uh for me. And that's a [23:43] >> I mean maybe one of the best things that [23:44] can happen is Shapiro continues to do [23:46] well in Pennsylvania irrespective of [23:48] which party you align with a prominent [23:50] Jew winning in Pennsylvania running that [23:53] state well is a very good sign actually [23:56] for the rest of the country that there's [23:58] common ground and that anti-semitism is [24:01] much more in check than the perception [24:02] >> hero we had also [24:04] >> I think Josh is fantastic [24:05] >> yeah and he you know has a lot of [24:07] disagreements about us maybe uh going [24:11] into this for and you know maybe being [24:15] egged into doing it. Uh and and by the [24:18] way Federman um if you're look or [24:21] Freeberg if you're looking for the [24:22] source of why people feel comfortable [24:25] saying these terrible things you can [24:26] look no further than Trump and what he [24:28] said about McCain being a war hero that [24:30] started this actually this rhetoric and [24:32] now everybody wants to one up it. He [24:35] said he's not a war hero and he got [24:37] captured. That's where this started. [24:39] Sax. Oh, please. [24:41] >> You're trying to blame Trump for the [24:44] fact that a Democratic candidate in [24:45] Maine has a swastika tattoo. [24:47] >> The rhetoric. No, the rhetoric. It [24:49] started Start with Trump. We're in TDS [24:51] and he needs to [24:52] >> We're in TDS land, but fortunately, [24:54] we're not interviewing you, JCAL. [24:56] [laughter] Let me ask uh Senator [24:58] Federman a question. So, I appreciate [25:01] your common sense views on AI, on [25:04] capitalism, on all the things we're [25:06] talking about, and I think that uh the [25:11] people in Pennsylvania appreciate it. I [25:13] think you're very popular there. But I'm [25:15] curious, do you ever get worried that [25:17] you might get primared in the Democratic [25:19] party when when you come up? Because I [25:21] mean, the Bernie Sanders wing is [25:23] powerful. They have a lot of activists. [25:25] They're very noisy. I mean, do you ever [25:28] I mean, I appreciate your maverick [25:30] streak and your independence, but do you [25:32] how do you think about that risk? [25:35] >> Well, a seat or a job is is not [25:40] I'm always going to be I'm going to be [25:42] honest and I'm always going to have uh [25:45] you know, my votes or my opinions are [25:47] going to be what I happen to believe is [25:48] is true. You know, uh it's not a seat [25:51] worth trying to maintain if I'm going to [25:53] lie or to pretend that things aren't [25:54] absolutely true. Yeah, absolutely. I can [25:56] be be primar and there are some [25:58] Democrats that are they're angry at me. [26:00] If they're angry at me for supporting [26:02] Israel, hey, they have at it. If they're [26:04] angry at me that I think it's wrong to [26:06] shut down the government, that's fine. [26:08] Uh if if they're angry at me because I I [26:11] refuse to call him a Nazi or a fascist [26:13] or a piece of I'll never do that. You [26:15] can hold me in that, too. But what's [26:18] really strange in that the truth is [26:20] somebody that votes like a 93% as [26:22] Democratic line and if I change my party [26:26] there was a lot of palace intrigue that [26:28] I'm going to change the party and I'm [26:30] I'm never going to do that and if I did [26:32] I could change you know I could announce [26:34] right now I am changing it right now my [26:36] votes aren't going to change my views [26:38] excuse thing uh I wouldn't vote any [26:41] differently things I happen to believe [26:43] and and if if Democrats run me out of [26:47] the party. They will be attacking a [26:51] committed Democrat that votes your line [26:54] 93% of the time because we're in an [26:57] unique time right now that I think [26:59] things are more important than trying to [27:01] I I know what pays the bills as a [27:04] Democrat now. Literally what campaigns [27:08] are based on Trump literally in their [27:12] campaign commercials. Yes. and in their [27:14] emails and outrage. You know, it's [27:17] constant rage bait. I I refuse to engage [27:20] in that. And I'm going to be the an [27:23] example of what I think is entirely [27:25] appropriate and and a lot of the [27:28] conversations are driven by people that [27:30] represent very, you know, safe blue [27:32] state states. Now, oh, like that's why [27:36] Pennsylvania keeps people honest here. [27:39] And people are going to remember in 28. [27:43] Oh yeah. Oh, I want to be bipartisan. I [27:45] want to get along. You know, like people [27:48] don't believe you, you know, like they [27:50] remember what what they've said and how [27:51] people behave. Uh so that's where I'm [27:54] at. So yeah, I could be primar. But [27:57] what's more important to be uh be [28:01] truthful what I think are important [28:04] values and remind people that the things [28:06] we used to believe in you know I I think [28:11] >> I want to I want to I want to just move [28:13] to just domestic policy and economics [28:15] for a second Dave you you me you said [28:17] this incredible story in the green room [28:21] which maybe you can start off with which [28:22] is the quantum of people that reach out [28:26] to you every week to mostly complain [28:29] about various companies, but just use [28:31] that as an insight maybe to talk about [28:34] AI because that's a huge part of your [28:37] state. It's also a huge part of the [28:38] American economy. And maybe compare it [28:41] to what happened with shale and oil [28:42] because there's a lot of commonalities. [28:44] I think it's quite interesting. [28:45] >> Yeah, it's uh I don't know if he gets [28:47] the same amount, but on an average week, [28:50] we have 14 million people in [28:51] Pennsylvania almost. On an average week, [28:53] I'll get something like a hundred,000 [28:55] outreaches to me, uh, letters, emails, [28:58] phone calls across different issues. And [29:02] you can almost see when the activists [29:04] are mobilizing groups to come come and [29:07] and make the case on certain things. And [29:10] I do a call every two weeks. It's an [29:11] sort of an open mic where you get about [29:13] 10,000 people to show up. and the the [29:16] number of data center calls, data [29:19] centers have become uh a much bigger and [29:22] per pervasive thing. And just to put [29:23] this in perspective, David David was [29:25] there. Uh Dena and I hosted an energy [29:28] and innovation summit in Pennsylvania [29:30] last July. We had $92 billion of [29:33] investment committed. We had the energy [29:35] CEOs, the AI CEOs, big investors, global [29:38] investors. We had uh Senator Federman [29:40] came, Governor Shapiro came, the [29:42] president came, the cabinet came. was [29:44] amazing and that's by by the way that's [29:46] what you need. Winning is a team sport [29:49] and winning in AI is a team sport and [29:51] you need all those players at the table. [29:53] Um and so it was it was a real success [29:55] and since then there's been enormous [29:57] investments made in Pennsylvania. I [29:59] visited uh one just the other week, [30:01] Homer City. 4.4 gawatt of power from a [30:04] coal plant that's being transitional to [30:07] natural gas. 3.4 gigs is going to go [30:09] into a data center complex. a a [30:12] gigawatts going back on the grid to [30:14] hopefully bring down energy prices. So, [30:16] this is this is happening across [30:17] Pennsylvania, but the opposition is [30:20] growing and it's clear. [30:21] >> Is there any organic part to this? Like [30:23] is cuz it's very hard to understand [30:26] what's happening when you have these [30:27] kind of dark forces, dark pools of [30:29] money. [30:30] >> I can't is there a legitimate like I [30:32] don't want to have this in my backyard [30:33] for XY. There's enormous misinformation [30:37] >> and I think that misinformation is [30:39] largely being driven by China and [30:41] outside forces and then there's just [30:43] legitimate [30:45] >> not not understanding not knowing and we [30:48] need to do a much better job of making [30:50] sure that the outlines of what these [30:52] data centers mean to communities is [30:54] clear and and and frankly there needs to [30:56] be a much clearer covenant of what it [30:58] means. If you're going to have a data [30:59] center in your community, you're a [31:00] township supervisor, here's what you [31:03] know. Um, you're going to they're going [31:04] to bring more energy they're going to [31:05] use. They're going to protect their [31:07] water with closed loop. Um, they're [31:09] going to give this much to the tax base. [31:11] They're going to build schools or [31:12] infrastructure, whatever going to build. [31:14] >> Isn't that first part the only thing [31:15] that matters in people's minds? I just [31:17] don't want my energy to build go up. [31:19] >> No. Um, because as soon as you get [31:21] through that, they move to the next [31:22] thing which is water. And then the the [31:24] schools are going to be crowded and [31:26] there's like So [31:27] >> the schools are going to be crowded [31:28] because there'll be new jobs. No, [31:30] because we new people and they don't [31:31] they're not making the connection to the [31:33] tax base. The roads are going to be [31:34] crowded. So there's a whole [31:36] comprehensive case that needs to be made [31:38] and u what uh Jamath was making the [31:41] point we went through this before John [31:43] and I went both lived through this with [31:44] fracking huge campaign against huge [31:48] misinformation lack of understanding and [31:51] 15 years later I'd say there's pretty [31:53] broad-based support [31:54] >> for no yeah there's unlimited money I [31:57] mean you know they they someone finds [31:59] some B-roll kind of a comment and they [32:02] put $10 million behind it and they [32:05] they can turn you into the most extreme [32:07] kinds of things. It's ironically, you [32:09] know, originally people try to convince [32:12] people that I'm a socialist and now [32:14] people are like now I'm MAGA or [32:16] whatever. I'm like, no, I'm just I [32:17] haven't changed. My views are my views [32:19] are are are the the same. And you know, [32:22] I would tell people energy is national [32:25] security. Look at what's happening in, [32:28] you know, in in Europe and other parts. [32:30] Now if you don't have energy security [32:32] then your your national security is in [32:34] danger. Now AI is coming and and what [32:38] what he's done he created this amazing [32:41] symposium to remind people that the you [32:43] know we need both. We need energy and [32:47] Pennsylvania produces a lot of that and [32:50] now also AI is coming otherwise we'd [32:53] still be using this spinny Jenny or [32:55] whatever that's called you know. So it [32:57] why do we talk about data centers? [33:00] Because people forces are describing [33:02] them as a scourge or a cancer that's [33:05] going to bankrupt you or destroy your [33:07] community. Uh why do we have that right [33:10] now? Because this is something that's [33:12] going to transform our society. Um there [33:14] you know absolutely there could be a [33:16] downside but overall it's going to be [33:18] much more productive and that's going to [33:20] create new opportunities. Now I refuse [33:24] to become a party of of lites. Uh you [33:26] know that's you know like honest if I [33:30] had to vote now claim that that's all [33:32] cancer it's danger and it's all downside [33:35] then I'd be lying and that's why I'm [33:36] saying Republican or Democrat you know [33:38] that's a fact. These things are very [33:41] very important and that's why I'm going [33:43] to [33:43] >> Can I just Can I just double click on [33:44] this thing when you compare it to Shale? [33:46] So [33:48] in shale, I'm going to assume that when [33:50] shale was escalating in importance, [33:54] the push back were from corporate [33:56] interests that would have economically [33:59] lost out. That's what I'm guessing. The [34:01] majority [34:01] >> environmentalist. [34:02] >> Environmentalist. [34:03] >> Yeah, environmental. [34:04] >> But it seems like in AI we're dealing [34:05] with foreign state actors. [34:07] >> Yeah. [34:07] >> Is that fair? Is that is that is it as [34:09] reductively simple as that? Well, if you [34:12] go to those two parts, one was the the [34:14] campaign of misinformation and the other [34:16] is a lack of understanding, there's much [34:18] more of a campaign of misinformation [34:20] from outside forces this time around. Uh [34:23] but but what happened in in the you know [34:26] in in the case of shale methane destroys [34:29] the water table, you know, don't want [34:31] these in our backyards. What happened of [34:33] course was these enormous royalties for [34:34] the farmers. Um we're we're the fourth [34:37] largest natural gas reserves in the [34:39] world. But if we were a country, [34:41] Pennsylvania would be number four. This [34:43] is the economic engine for our state. [34:45] Our state is the second largest energy [34:47] producer in the country. So this unlocks [34:50] everything for Pennsylvania. And as [34:52] those jobs started to be created, so you [34:56] saw the economic benefit, the [34:57] misinformation about the methane and the [34:59] water table became clear slowly and much [35:02] too long, 15 years later, we're now at a [35:05] place where I bet 80% of the people [35:07] would have support fracking. last night [35:09] event you know you described that we [35:11] have six to eight months uh ahead of [35:15] China right is that right yeah okay so [35:18] now you know you know you know my party [35:20] is driving for a moratorium for data [35:22] centers like I mean do you think China [35:26] doesn't love that you know again that's [35:28] why they're there they're parts behind [35:30] some of driving this this view you want [35:33] to give that race to China it's coming [35:37] it's the choice do you want America to [35:39] to to build that chassis or do you want [35:41] the Chinese to do that? You know, like [35:44] yeah, you know, data centers can make [35:46] some things with some uh [35:48] >> and at the core of that, John, is what [35:50] you said earlier, which is it starts [35:52] with TDS and then it goes with give [35:55] China AI. Is that [35:56] >> I would say this, vote me out. If you [35:59] think it's okay to give China a benefit [36:02] to win the AI race, vote me out, you [36:05] know, and you know, but it's it's like [36:08] so [36:09] >> your favorite person in the audience. My [36:10] wife is clapping for you. [36:11] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's exactly [36:14] your favorite. I mean, that's exactly [36:16] the way I see it as well. So, um, we [36:19] have great bipartisan agreement here. So [36:21] Dave, I was at your summit last year, [36:24] the energy and innovation summit, where [36:26] you announced $90 billion of new [36:27] investments. The thing I was struck by [36:30] was how broad-based the representation [36:32] was at that summit. You only had [36:34] software companies, you had hardware [36:36] companies, you had manufacturing, you [36:38] had robotics, you had energy, nuclear [36:40] fracking, and then most interestingly is [36:44] that you had the trades there. And [36:46] that's when a light bulb went on for me [36:48] that oh this is a bluecollar boom [36:51] because con this is a construction boom [36:53] and blueco collar workers are really [36:55] going to benefit and the trades who [36:57] represented there spoke to that and [36:59] since then we've had hundreds of of [37:01] thousands of new jobs construction jobs [37:04] created and 25 to 30% wage increases for [37:08] construction workers and so I'm curious [37:10] does that help make the cause more [37:13] popular in Pennsylvania? Are those [37:16] trades are the unions still on board [37:18] with this or have the politics of that [37:21] changed at all over the past year? [37:22] >> Um, it's a great question and it's it's [37:24] been extraordinary. So, just in the last [37:26] 15 16 months and this these are related [37:29] by the way. It's not just energy [37:32] projects and data centers. It's US Steel [37:34] and a new next generation mill. It's Eli [37:37] Liy building a new plant. It's Hanwa and [37:39] the Philadelphia shipyard. But they're [37:40] coming in part because of the data [37:42] centers and the energy projects and um [37:45] and so I've spent a lot of time with the [37:46] trades lately. The most secure job in [37:48] Pennsylvania right now is a secure [37:49] welder. I mean is a seasoned welder [37:52] >> an electrician. [37:53] >> An electrician. These these honestly [37:55] these these folks are coming out. [37:56] They're getting the training. They're in [37:57] their late teens, early 20s. They're [38:00] making more than 100 grand a year in [38:02] these sites and they can't they can't [38:05] build they can't hire quick enough. uh [38:08] they can't find enough people to meet [38:10] the demand and uh you know these the the [38:13] data centers I mean I've looked closely [38:14] at that there's one you know coming in [38:16] Burwick Pennsylvania right next to where [38:18] my uh where I went to high school you [38:20] know the the way to think about it is [38:22] there sort of four buckets of economic [38:25] activity that comes jobs that come [38:26] there's of course the deals that come [38:28] with them but there's the thousands of [38:30] jobs to build the data centers and the [38:32] energy that goes side by side so these [38:35] are 5 10000 uh folks on the site [38:38] Then there's the hundreds of people to [38:40] run the data centers. Then of course [38:42] every 3 to four years the the hardware [38:45] and everything in the data centers gets [38:46] upgraded which brings in hundreds [38:48] sometimes thousands of jobs. There's the [38:50] energy that's going side by side. Then [38:52] there's the restaurants, the hotels. I [38:54] met with the the trucking association [38:56] the other day. They they uh guess that [38:58] it's about two logistics jobs for every [39:01] one job in a data center. These things [39:04] are economic engines. So once you get [39:07] that covenant straight, people are [39:09] willing to make the decision. And if [39:11] they're if a township supervisor, a [39:13] county commissioner, no senator is going [39:14] to tell them to do this. This has to [39:16] come from the ground up in terms of [39:18] making the decision. But once they [39:20] decide to do that, it's a huge uh engine [39:23] for their communities. If they decide [39:24] not to do it, my point is, okay, where's [39:28] where's your plan? What is the plan? In [39:30] Pennsylvania, we've been losing people [39:31] for 20 years. We can't get our kids to [39:33] stay. This is like a rebirth. It's [39:36] amazing what's happening, but we got to [39:38] break through the misinformation. [39:40] >> Freeberg, do you have a final question? [39:41] If not, [39:42] >> well, I mean, I think on this point, [39:45] why do you think it's so difficult for [39:47] the Democrats to embrace the facts on [39:50] the ground? because you have an [39:52] empirical story to share about job [39:54] creation, value creation and there's no [39:57] empiricism on the other side that [39:58] there's job displacement or job loss in [40:00] the white collar jobs which is generally [40:02] part of [40:03] >> two things I would say the notion of AI [40:05] broadly [40:07] is getting munched with the notion of [40:09] data centers in a narrow thing data [40:11] centers of course are an enormous [40:13] component of this but those two those [40:15] two things are unrelated second I I I [40:17] don't think it's just democrats like I [40:19] mean we have [40:20] >> no the America first movement is now in [40:22] the horseshoe exactly aligned with the [40:25] >> we have we have the the the far left and [40:27] the far right [40:28] >> converging on an anti [40:30] >> we even have some besties who [40:32] occasionally buy into the jobs [40:33] apocalypse. So, [40:34] >> no, no, I'm I'm I'm I I'm job. No, never [40:38] misrepresent me, Sax. I will call you [40:40] out every time. I'm I just believe [40:41] there'll be jobs. [40:42] >> You could also use the word job [40:43] mobility. [40:44] >> Well, I think I'll let finish my [40:45] sentence, please. [40:46] >> I'm speaking job displacement is [40:48] occurring and that new jobs need to be [40:51] created to fill that in. And I think [40:52] that's the blind spot of the people who [40:55] have Trump dedication syndrome is that [40:57] they will never actually do anything [40:59] that would modestly criticize the [41:01] president. And that's part of the [41:02] challenge. I want to have a last just [41:04] >> just about the amount of money being [41:07] donated by special interests. Do we need [41:10] to get money out of politics? Because [41:12] that seems to be the root of a lot of [41:14] these problems is that you know [41:16] billionaires can give 50 million 50 [41:19] million 100 million 200 million whether [41:21] it's Soros or friends of ours. It feels [41:24] like there's way too much money in [41:25] politics. Does that have to change for [41:28] this type of issue uh you know around [41:32] data centers etc. and special interest [41:34] and and how do we can we ever get there? [41:36] >> Yeah. Well, I I would I would say of the [41:39] five things I would do to fix America [41:40] right now, that wouldn't be in the top [41:42] five. But yes, conceptually, I'd like to [41:44] get money out of politics. There was my [41:46] race [clears throat] was $500 million. [41:48] >> We raised 200 million on my side, 300 [41:52] million on the on the the opposition [41:53] side. We we couldn't keep up. [41:56] >> I was I was record before in 22. we [41:58] raised, you know, and and know my race [42:01] was 300 330 million and and now that's [42:06] quaint. Wait till 26, wait till 28. This [42:10] is going to look like quaint and that's [42:12] the thing, you know, collect [42:14] >> we need to get money out or this group [42:15] needs to be donating a lot more to both [42:17] >> or get get [laughter] rid get rid of the [42:19] primary p process too, you know, and and [42:23] now open to other people. And now these [42:26] primaries, they identify the extreme [42:29] kinds of views and put out someone, you [42:32] know, and and that's part of it now, [42:34] too. Collectively, $300 million were [42:36] spent to to describe to destroy our [42:40] reputations. Think what $300 million [42:43] could do for Pennsylvania or for people [42:46] that was spent to destroy reputations. [42:49] You know, you're terrible. I am [42:51] terrible. Uh that's the absurdity of the [42:54] American politics, right? [42:56] >> On on that note, I actually want to say [42:58] both of you are incredibly rational and [43:00] reasonable and incredible American. So I [43:02] just want to thank you Senators Federman [43:04] and McCormack. Very much appreciate [43:09] [music] [43:15] [music]