Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Ethos and what Ethos does is it helps you
Speaker 1: find life insurance. Let me tell you why life insurance
Speaker 1: bailed me out. My father died when I was sixteen.
Speaker 1: We didn't have a lot of money when it happened,
Speaker 1: and we were in a pretty tough financial spot after
Speaker 1: it happened. I'm an only child. Suddenly my mother's single,
Speaker 1: single mother. She had a job, suddenly lost a job,
Speaker 1: looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know,
Speaker 1: my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation,
Speaker 1: but he did make one purchase. He bought a life
Speaker 1: insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it
Speaker 1: was enough when we found it. And when I say
Speaker 1: we found it, meaning we went through his desk and
Speaker 1: we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's
Speaker 1: anything here. And it helped us out at a time
Speaker 1: that we really needed it. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: it's important that if you can, especially if you have
Speaker 1: young children, if you can get life insurance, you should
Speaker 1: get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen.
Speaker 1: It is an extra bit of security, something you can
Speaker 1: leave and help out at a time when you're not
Speaker 1: you're not there to help. So what does Ethos do well.
Speaker 1: Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds,
Speaker 1: you can apply in minutes, and you can get same
Speaker 1: day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's
Speaker 1: no medical exam, you just answer a few simple health
Speaker 1: questions online. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty
Speaker 1: dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from
Speaker 1: their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to
Speaker 1: get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your
Speaker 1: free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck That is
Speaker 1: e t hos dot com slash chuck. Application times may
Speaker 1: vary and rates may vary well. As the calendar goes,
Speaker 1: it means primary season is really sort of truly going
Speaker 1: to kick off. We got a taste, we have a
Speaker 1: little taste of primary season in Texas and in Illinois
Speaker 1: with these March primaries, but they were in very much
Speaker 1: sort of like really important preseason games that counted certainly.
Speaker 1: But now the true primary scene. It's beginning pretty much
Speaker 1: every Tuesday in May, every Tuesday in June, a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks off in July, and then every Tuesday in August.
Speaker 1: I mean basically primary season. The heart of it kicks
Speaker 1: off with May. And look, there's interesting primary divides on
Speaker 1: both sides of the aisle it is. You know, we
Speaker 1: can talk a lot about Thomas Massey. I think the
Speaker 1: acceptance that the president is a lame duck becomes more
Speaker 1: widespread in mainstream if his side loses that primary. So
Speaker 1: I think it's a very distinctive primary. But we've also
Speaker 1: seen on the Senate side, in particular, on the Democratic
Speaker 1: side sort of I don't know what to call the
Speaker 1: non progressive swing of the Democratic Party these days. Is
Speaker 1: it center laughed, is it pro business? Is it I
Speaker 1: think it all depends on what they want to be
Speaker 1: called versus what their opponents might be called. You might
Speaker 1: want to say it's the pragmatic wing. Whatever you want
Speaker 1: to view it probably really says about your own subjectivity,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm sensitive and what I call it,
Speaker 1: I'm trying not to give any sort of waiting language
Speaker 1: to what it is. But we have this sort of
Speaker 1: progressive versus non progressive battles in Maine, Michigan, Iowa. That
Speaker 1: could be definitionial and to me serve as a preview
Speaker 1: of what's going to happen inside the party for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. Well, one of the people that I think
Speaker 1: maybe the person and I think has their finger on
Speaker 1: the pulse of this is my friend Adam Green. You
Speaker 1: may know him from the p Triple C, the Progressive
Speaker 1: Change Committee, but he's a democratic strategist and certainly is
Speaker 1: pretty active and progressive politics. And I don't know whether
Speaker 1: he's going to take this as a compliment or derision.
Speaker 1: So Adam, here it comes. You're a pragmatic progressive, meaning
Speaker 1: I do think your north star is winning. You certainly
Speaker 1: want to win with a progressive agenda, but I feel
Speaker 1: like you've got you would be you would call yourself
Speaker 1: more pragmatic, but let me let you define yourself.
Speaker 2: Well, first, thank you. Great to be talking with you
Speaker 2: as always, And I don't take that as insult at all.
Speaker 2: And you know, when you said is the opposite of
Speaker 2: progressive pragmatic, My first thought is it's pretty pragmatic to
Speaker 2: run on a winning message, and these days, as we.
Speaker 1: Go, find a winning message right and go be right.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think we can go deep on this.
Speaker 2: But you mentioned some of the key races we're looking at,
Speaker 2: whether it's Grand Platin or in Maine, we're supporting Abdul
Speaker 2: alsaiat in Michigan there's a couple of good candidates there.
Speaker 2: We also endorse James tel Rico against Jasmcrockett in Texas,
Speaker 2: which I would hold out as another one that stands
Speaker 2: for this question of one, are we just an anti
Speaker 2: Trump party or do we have a vision? And if
Speaker 2: we have a vision, are we willing to tell a
Speaker 2: story about power, name villain or just kind of have
Speaker 2: a mushy message about fighting for everyone, which I think
Speaker 2: motivates nobody to the polls. So let's let's go a
Speaker 2: little deeper. But I take it as a compliment, so
Speaker 2: thank you.
Speaker 1: So look, where would you say the progressive wing of
Speaker 1: the party is right now? Do you still view it
Speaker 1: as a sendant? And you know you just name checked
Speaker 1: a couple of races, But what does success look like
Speaker 1: for the progressive agenda regardless of whether Democrats win back
Speaker 1: the House in the Senate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great question, and you know I can
Speaker 2: define our mission for the year really in one sentence,
Speaker 2: which is show in twenty twenty six swing races, particularly
Speaker 2: swing Senate races, that bold inspiring economic populism is a
Speaker 2: winner as a priming of presential primary voters for twenty seven,
Speaker 2: twenties twenty eight. You know, we want we saw in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty a lot of people that told us as
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren supporters, oh I love Elizabeth Warren. If I
Speaker 2: put anyone in the White House, that would be her,
Speaker 2: but I can't vote for her kish she can't win.
Speaker 2: Heard that too much also with Bernie and we just
Speaker 2: need to solve this division between head and heart and
Speaker 2: let people who were inspired to feel like it's okay
Speaker 2: to be inspired. So as we see gymnasiums full of
Speaker 2: five hundred and six hundred people in the main coming
Speaker 2: out in the most rural areas to see Graham Platner,
Speaker 2: and those people are getting inspired. You know, we want
Speaker 2: future primary voters to not feel like they have to
Speaker 2: trim their own sales if they get inspired by someone
Speaker 2: like Platiner or tell Rico abdul Side.
Speaker 1: So what do you think that's ear played Platinners? Why
Speaker 1: does a Graham Platiner seem like it gets more traction
Speaker 1: than Elizabeth Warren with the left.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's multiple facets of that, you know. I actually
Speaker 2: think he's an amazing storyteller. You watch him speak, he's
Speaker 2: actually not giving a laundry list of policies. He is
Speaker 2: telling a story about power, and supporting details in his
Speaker 2: story happen to be policies. Right, He'll say, pretty much,
Speaker 2: you're getting screwed to these forces in society. The billionaires,
Speaker 2: the corporations, the rigged politics are working against you at
Speaker 2: every level. You know, I fought for our country. I'm
Speaker 2: an oyster farmer. I know how broken this system is.
Speaker 2: I'm going to fight it. And by the way, we'll
Speaker 2: have things like medicare for all. Right, It's not I
Speaker 2: have a plan for that. Frankly, it is you're getting screwed.
Speaker 2: I have a story. And unlike Trump, who also says
Speaker 2: you're getting screwed, I have a story. He's not blaming immigrants.
Speaker 2: He's blaming billionaires, corporate power, and a rigged political system itself.
Speaker 2: It's I think it's really that simple, you know. I
Speaker 2: think others would have a gender and race analysis, which
Speaker 2: or at least gender gender analysis in this case, which
Speaker 2: is probably fair. I do think that there's a lot
Speaker 2: of skittishness, including among some very progressive women I talk
Speaker 2: to about you know, are we ready to nominly a
Speaker 2: woman yet again? And it's really heartbreaking to hear that sometimes.
Speaker 2: So maybe there's a comfort with all right, Well, if
Speaker 2: you have this veteran who looks the part and can
Speaker 2: tell a story and feels good, maybe it's safer to
Speaker 2: go there. You know, that's a that's a fair question.
Speaker 1: Also, well, it is interesting that is it just a
Speaker 1: coincidence that the progressives you're championing this year all or
Speaker 1: sort of what I would call strong, you know, want
Speaker 1: to give out the sense of being a strong masculine figure.
Speaker 1: I'd put ad I'll say it in that yeah column.
Speaker 2: If you're saying he is pretty jacked, you're right, he's
Speaker 2: I think that's fair.
Speaker 1: I didn't miss arm day. Yeah, he doesn't miss harm
Speaker 1: day very.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, no, I think again, I don't know if
Speaker 2: that's necessary, but it's certainly a plus point for a
Speaker 2: lot of people to make them feel comfortable being inspired.
Speaker 2: So it's working for us in those swing states, you know,
Speaker 2: Marie losing Campez is an interesting person. She was a swing,
Speaker 2: very swing area in Washington, rural Washington State. I don't
Speaker 2: agree with our everything, but she is also a very
Speaker 2: robust champion for things like cracking down on monopolies and
Speaker 2: selling our politics. And I don't think you have to
Speaker 2: have just masculinity to appeal to working class voters. But again,
Speaker 2: starting with the premise that there were scared electability voters
Speaker 2: who felt guilty voting for the person that inspired them
Speaker 2: last time, I think twenty twenty six is a valuable
Speaker 2: opportunity to do the trick and swing state system.
Speaker 1: I'm intrigued that you singled out MGP. I'm intrigued by
Speaker 1: her myself on the independent front a little bit. And
Speaker 1: you know, I you know, my whole obsession these days
Speaker 1: with with sort of re re defining what the center
Speaker 1: means in American politics. The center isn't an ideological place.
Speaker 1: You know, when people describe themselves as moderate more nine
Speaker 1: times out of ten, it's in temperament less than it
Speaker 1: is in policy, meaning you know that they want you know,
Speaker 1: they they may have progressive leanings but they're an incrementalist
Speaker 1: about it. Or they may even have conservative leanings, but
Speaker 1: they're an incrementalist about it. They're like, look, we want
Speaker 1: to we want to directionally move there, but we don't
Speaker 1: want to race to that. And because it does feel
Speaker 1: like this, and I'm speaking, I'll speak for myself that
Speaker 1: sometimes you race ahead and you have to take You
Speaker 1: may think you've just left three steps forward, but actually
Speaker 1: the backlash you end up going two steps back. You
Speaker 1: make some progress, but it looks it sometimes can be
Speaker 1: misleading that you've made progress because you leapt forward and
Speaker 1: then step back. Your baseline is better, but you haven't
Speaker 1: gotten there. Well, just can I just yeah, go ahead
Speaker 1: and push back on it. I'm curious what's your reaction
Speaker 1: to my premise about the center these days?
Speaker 2: Yeah, first, let me wreck that's narrow point me at
Speaker 2: the end, then go back to the big one. I
Speaker 2: totally agree with you that we have to bring people
Speaker 2: along for the ride. I think actually Zorn Mam Donnie
Speaker 2: is doing a fantastic job in New York. I believe
Speaker 2: his approval is twenty points higher today than it was
Speaker 2: when he was sworn in, And that says to me
Speaker 2: that he's doing a go accommodation of boldness and pragmatism.
Speaker 2: Pothhole politics and aspirational politics, and he's not going too
Speaker 2: far ahead. So completely agree with the premise that we
Speaker 2: can't get ahead of ourselves. I would push back on
Speaker 2: the current definition of those who call themselves moderate. And
Speaker 2: I got to tell you, I see most of politics
Speaker 2: these days less about left versus right, and more about
Speaker 2: inside versus outside creatures of what is preceded as a
Speaker 2: broken political system and broken economic system versus those who
Speaker 2: want to shake it up. And when you wear those lenses,
Speaker 2: you see moderates often as people who want more change
Speaker 2: and think that both parties are corrupt and not actually
Speaker 2: advocate for people like them. I think that as we
Speaker 2: see you know, unaffiliated numbers rise, those are people who
Speaker 2: are just mad at the system.
Speaker 1: And they're not centrists. This is what I reject. They
Speaker 1: may be moderate in temperament and that's why, but they
Speaker 1: are not centrist in that. Hey, they are trying to
Speaker 1: split the difference on marginal tax rates. That's not what
Speaker 1: they're advocating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let's go back to Grand Platner. Would you
Speaker 2: consider him temperamentally moderate?
Speaker 1: Hm? No, okay, right, not at all.
Speaker 2: That may moderates are attracted to him specifically because he
Speaker 2: doesn't feel like a creature of the system, right, But
Speaker 2: he's advocating really bold, power, dynamic change. So is James
Speaker 2: tallerco Maybe you think he is temperamentally moderate in how
Speaker 2: he speaks, but the stuff he's saying on the campaign trail,
Speaker 2: you know, he's asked, you know, what are you do
Speaker 2: about welfare? You know, welfare queens. He's like, you know,
Speaker 2: the real welfare queens are the corporations that don't pay
Speaker 2: their taxes. Then he's asked, are you declaring class war?
Speaker 2: He's like, you know who's been declaring class war? Billionaires
Speaker 2: on us for the last fifty years. It's time to
Speaker 2: fight back. Is that temperamentally moderate? I don't know. But
Speaker 2: it's beautiful and it's inspiring people. So I just don't
Speaker 2: know that they want incremental change. I agree with your
Speaker 2: premise we have to bring the public along with us. Well,
Speaker 2: I think the public starts off there with anything that
Speaker 2: shows distrust of a broken economic and political system and
Speaker 2: someone who has the credibility to say I will be
Speaker 2: a change agent.
Speaker 1: Let me throw this at you another way. Do you
Speaker 1: think do you think both major parties right now are
Speaker 1: indestructible or could what I'm watching in the UK where
Speaker 1: both major parties are on the verge of becoming minor
Speaker 1: parties the election we're hell today that both would be
Speaker 1: there'd be a new Conservative Party and a new Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: There'd be a need you know that that would rise
Speaker 1: up above the Tories and Labor. How vulnerable we have
Speaker 1: structural differences in obviously our system. How vulnerable do you
Speaker 1: think both parties are to collapse at some point? Because
Speaker 1: I look at this right when you do the seesaw
Speaker 1: where voters are simply rejecting your agenda each time they're
Speaker 1: not advocating. They have not voted for anything since Obama
Speaker 1: twenty twelve. It's been a consistent I don't want that,
Speaker 1: So I'll try this. Well, I don't want that. I'm
Speaker 1: going to try this. At what point does this does
Speaker 1: the does one of the two parties or both collapse
Speaker 1: on the weight of not at some point? Like I
Speaker 1: look at the Democratic Party brand this year. They're going
Speaker 1: to have a huge mid year and their brand might
Speaker 1: actually be still underwater the entire time, which is a
Speaker 1: unique thing to pull off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're totally right to put your finger
Speaker 2: on this. You know, my opinion. Both parties have collapsed reputationally,
Speaker 2: but as you said, structurally, it's kind of propping up.
Speaker 1: They control battle access and is while they If they
Speaker 1: didn't have battle access control, I think neither party would
Speaker 1: be a major party today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's absolutely true. If we had the British system right,
Speaker 2: they would collapse. So, you know, I think that's the
Speaker 2: biggest thing allowing them to hang on. You know, there
Speaker 2: are some people I'll give a shout out to a
Speaker 2: guy named Danny Cantor who helped form the Working Families
Speaker 2: Party in New York, which had its own ballot line.
Speaker 2: Also got named Adam Rubin, who's working on proportional representation.
Speaker 2: And I do think that as the parties do collapse,
Speaker 2: it will happen locally first where rules are changed to
Speaker 2: allow first things like rank choice voting, but then having
Speaker 2: just get walking like multi member districts where you have
Speaker 2: proportional representation one part he gets a third of the vote,
Speaker 2: they get in, there's three seats, they get one of
Speaker 2: the seats. They don't lose all three seats because they
Speaker 2: like got a third and all three smaller elections. There's
Speaker 2: little reforms like that that are actually passing locally and
Speaker 2: in states that I think are a harbinger of what's
Speaker 2: to come. You know, one thing I've recommended to some
Speaker 2: of them is, you know, how do you get around
Speaker 2: the problem of politicians who know what the right thing
Speaker 2: to do is but want to cling onto their own
Speaker 2: political power. And I think that we should be comfortable
Speaker 2: with with adding a time element where you know what,
Speaker 2: starting in eight years, we will have more open ballot
Speaker 2: access or proportional representation, and that way the current politicians
Speaker 2: get out of their system and they know that it's
Speaker 2: not a culgetable being used against them. But or we
Speaker 2: can spend eight years, you know, back to pragmatic or
Speaker 2: it could spend eight years losing and just have nothing
Speaker 2: in the in the reform you know, realm pass And
Speaker 2: you know I mentioned that to some reformers and they're like, oh,
Speaker 2: we haven't thought about that before, and it's like, to me,
Speaker 2: so obvious. Actually, I'll tell you one one other story.
Speaker 2: You know, someone in Bernie World in twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: happened to mention to me as in the side as
Speaker 2: he was pushing for a fifteen dollar minimum wage, that
Speaker 2: you know what Joe Manchin supports a twelve dollar minimum wage,
Speaker 2: and you know what, Bernie Sanders has a five year
Speaker 2: phase in where it takes three years to even get
Speaker 2: the twelve dollars. Maybe we should just agree with Joe
Speaker 2: Manchin and then have three years to worry about the
Speaker 2: last three bucks. Right and months later, I actually asked
Speaker 2: Joe Manchin's people did they ever come to you at
Speaker 2: that And the answer was no. But to me, that
Speaker 2: would have been such a great example of just.
Speaker 1: Saying, now, this gets it to what I talk about,
Speaker 1: which is, you know, look, you know, this feels like
Speaker 1: one of those situations. And I think the biggest problem
Speaker 1: both parties have is they have interest groups who if
Speaker 1: they don't get one hundred percent of what they want,
Speaker 1: they won't find allies that are eighty percent there like
Speaker 1: what you just described.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean in this case, I don't think it was.
Speaker 2: I don't think Bernie Sanders feels pressure from anyone, let
Speaker 2: alone an individual interest group. I just think that was
Speaker 2: probably just a communications you know, it was really an
Speaker 2: aside in a conversation more than an active strategy. But
Speaker 2: to me, that's an example of oh, well, we're now
Speaker 2: what five years later we would have a twelve dollar
Speaker 2: minimum wage today if that deal had been cut, and
Speaker 2: meanwhile we're still technically fighting about the minimum wage. So
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, to your democracy point, I think we
Speaker 2: should introduce a time element into it as a way
Speaker 2: of you know, Supreme Court justices, Okay, we'll start term
Speaker 2: limits in ten years. I hate that, but you know what,
Speaker 2: it's better if we did ten years ago. It would
Speaker 2: have been great now. Right, So we just have to,
Speaker 2: you know, be pragmatic and you know, play a long
Speaker 2: game a little bit. Assuming we still have a country
Speaker 2: in ten years.
Speaker 1: Well, by the way, we've done that for years whenever
Speaker 1: they've So let's say you institute term limits. Let's say
Speaker 1: you've decided he institute term limits for your governorship. Well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't the current governor. It doesn't impact them. They
Speaker 1: get two more terms and then it would impact them. Right.
Speaker 1: There's always some like this is not a new it's
Speaker 1: we've done similar things before, but we don't think about
Speaker 1: it in the terms of the way you just framed it.
Speaker 2: Sure, we're saying the same thing, but I'm not sure
Speaker 2: it's the default. Yes, I feel like it's kind of
Speaker 2: the exemption more than the rule. Right now, and I
Speaker 2: almost say that for those who are thinking seriously about reform,
Speaker 2: we have to just add the time element to get
Speaker 2: over the structural barrier that you're putting your finger on,
Speaker 2: which is people you know or parties want to cling
Speaker 2: to their current power.
Speaker 1: Democrats win the House in the Senate and Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: and not came Jeffries that remain the leaders of the
Speaker 1: party for the next two years. Is that a successful
Speaker 1: midterm or not.
Speaker 2: It's a successful midterm, but it doesn't put the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party on a path, on the best path to a
Speaker 2: successful twenty twenty eight. Our organization has called for Chuck
Speaker 2: Schumer to step aside, and I think the pragmatic version
Speaker 2: of that is you just shouldn't run for leadership next year.
Speaker 2: And I would actually argue that now is the time
Speaker 2: to press that case. I've talked to some people in
Speaker 2: the Senate.
Speaker 1: World they can pledge. Now is that the idea.
Speaker 2: How to try to smoke Yeah, smoke amount now. The
Speaker 2: reason is, if you think back to the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two election, we could have an exact repeat with Chuck
Speaker 2: Schumer of what happened with Joe Biden, where yes Democrats overperformed,
Speaker 2: but it wasn't a validation of Joe Biden, and if
Speaker 2: Democrats win the Senate, it is not a validation of
Speaker 2: Struck Schumer. But you know, if he's just handed a
Speaker 2: Senate majority and there's been no real challenge, he will
Speaker 2: cling on. So it has to be a case that's
Speaker 2: pushed before the election in order to be successful or
Speaker 2: to have maximum success in my opinion. And I will
Speaker 2: say we have at least four states where credible Senate
Speaker 2: candidates have called on him to belong to Beta leader
Speaker 2: and a victory in the Illinois Senate primary where the
Speaker 2: candidate who called for that one. So I think grand
Speaker 2: Platner's another, There's another in Michigan, other Iowa, and we'll
Speaker 2: see how that plays out.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first baked from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisanal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronoun ounce and
Speaker 1: a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier
Speaker 1: on your belly. Little gut health there right and richer
Speaker 1: in nutrients and oxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts.
Speaker 1: The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to
Speaker 1: their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a
Speaker 1: vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell
Speaker 1: you I have done the gluten free box. I have
Speaker 1: done it a second time. I have also used the code,
Speaker 1: the todcast code. If you use the promo code podcast
Speaker 1: at check out, you get thirty dollars off. I've already
Speaker 1: used it as a gift to somebody else who loves
Speaker 1: this bread. It is hard to find good gluten free bread.
Speaker 1: It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions.
Speaker 1: I really dig this. There is nothing like having an
Speaker 1: artesian bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill.
Speaker 1: Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy
Speaker 1: some comforting homemade meals with Wild Grain. I obviously highly
Speaker 1: recommend it. It is worth giving Wild Green try. Right now,
Speaker 1: Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box,
Speaker 1: plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go
Speaker 1: to wildgrain dot com slash toodcast to start your subscription today.
Speaker 1: That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants
Speaker 1: for life when you visit wildgrain dot com, slash podcast,
Speaker 1: or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This
Speaker 1: is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Speaker 1: If Schumer slates win primaries and win generals, I could argue, well,
Speaker 1: he's earned it. You know, if it's the Schumer candidates,
Speaker 1: if Haley Stevens is a Senator in Michigan, and if
Speaker 1: Janet Mills is a Senator in Maine, and if Josh
Speaker 1: Turik is a Senator in Iowa, and Mary Patello and
Speaker 1: Roy Cooper, it's pretty hard to make the case against him. Correct.
Speaker 2: Yep, I can see.
Speaker 1: Why if Democrats win the Senate with Mallory McMahon, Josh Walls,
Speaker 1: Graham plattin still Roy Cooper and Mary Ptello? Is that
Speaker 1: to you a message that said, hey, Democratic primary voters
Speaker 1: had a chance to speak between Schumer candidates and non
Speaker 1: Schumer candidates, and when't given a choice, they took the
Speaker 1: non Schumer candidate.
Speaker 2: It absolutely paints that picture, and even one step higher,
Speaker 2: it sends a signal of the direction that the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party is going well. I mentioned creatures of the political inside.
Speaker 2: Who is that more than Chuck Schumer. I mean I
Speaker 2: was elated when he beat Aldamato in nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 2: I thought he was a very good political strategist for
Speaker 2: the two thousand and two thousand and four midterms.
Speaker 1: Give it, he deserves his gold watch. I mean I
Speaker 1: say that not trying to even be dismissive. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: he was really good at this until he wasn't. And
Speaker 1: by the way, that happens to a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Max Scherzer's fastball was amazing until it wasn't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to take nothing against his legacy in
Speaker 2: the past. He is not a wartime general. For now
Speaker 2: and his time again, he deserves ride out on a sunset,
Speaker 2: And sadly he has denied Janet Mills that opportunity. You know,
Speaker 2: we did a poll that showed her behind the incumbent governor,
Speaker 2: behind an oyster farmer by twenty points in the primary.
Speaker 2: Other poles show him up thirty points. It's actually a
Speaker 2: growing lead, and he has more room. He starts off
Speaker 2: even and has more room to grow against using Collins.
Speaker 2: That says something about both the type of politics that
Speaker 2: we need to have our finger on the pulse of
Speaker 2: for twenty twenty eight and something about truction res judgment.
Speaker 2: I mean the fact that he went to a seventy
Speaker 2: seven year old governor and robbed her of her retirement
Speaker 2: and recruit her run really is emblematic of the strategy
Speaker 2: he's used. Let's name them with Ted Strickland in Ohio,
Speaker 2: dusting off an old horse and having them lose Evan
Speaker 2: buy in Indiana, Oh Shoein' No, do.
Speaker 1: You feel this way about shared Brett.
Speaker 2: Let's come back to a second kind of you ask,
Speaker 2: but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Okay, you know you're right.
Speaker 2: So we have Indiana, we have even even Russ's uh
Speaker 2: Russ Fengeld, who I like in Wisconsin, didn't do the
Speaker 2: trick like dusting off old war horses is not a
Speaker 2: tried and choose strategy. The reason I'm if he on
Speaker 2: Ohio is I kind of think Ohio is a is
Speaker 2: a lost cause no matter what, and if anybody's gonna
Speaker 2: win it, okay, probably Sheriff Brown. He's kind of singular,
Speaker 2: so I'm okay giving him a try. I haven't heard
Speaker 2: a stronger nomination. He's not edging out some rising star
Speaker 2: progressive that I'm aware of. Right, it's not like Cincinni
Speaker 2: mayor Why.
Speaker 1: Are you so da so what you think there's a
Speaker 1: better shot in Iowa than it is Ohio.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do. Listen, I'm talking to Chuck Todd. So
Speaker 2: if you tell me I'm wrong, I actually will believe you.
Speaker 1: Well, look, I just it's very interesting to me. I
Speaker 1: think Vivick Ramaswami is about a week of a Republican
Speaker 1: nominee for governor as Republicans could have found. I think
Speaker 1: he's so. I think that in John Houston is an
Speaker 1: appointed senator. I just I just think the Ohio tickets
Speaker 1: super weak. And I think that doesn't mean that doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: And you know, but this is it's still a light
Speaker 1: red state. It ain't a dark red state.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it if you tell me that's true, and
Speaker 2: that that therefore that if somebody who is an unknown
Speaker 2: but has shake up the system outside of progressive credentials
Speaker 2: ran for US Senate this year, they have a chance
Speaker 2: of winning, then I'd probably you know.
Speaker 1: Be partial to for them over as shared bren Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing against Sharon Brown. I just don't
Speaker 2: I don't believe in this strategy. The reason I'm high
Speaker 2: in Iowa is you know, in twenty was it eighteen,
Speaker 2: we won three out of four house races in Iowa.
Speaker 2: Like Iowa is I think over index as a red
Speaker 2: state and in swing years we win, we win big.
Speaker 2: So why wouldn't we have a shot this cycle? And
Speaker 2: there's no share of you know, I guess the analogy
Speaker 2: here would be if Tom Harkin came out of retirement
Speaker 2: and wanted to run against that.
Speaker 1: Actually, the more realistic case would be Tom vill Sack, right, like,
Speaker 1: who's more about the same generation as Shared Brown?
Speaker 2: Yeah that's fair, Okay, So it's all hypothetical. Tom Belsak,
Speaker 2: I would never get behind U because I think he's
Speaker 2: like a corporate tool and who gives that you know,
Speaker 2: he actually screws over a little little guy Farmers and
Speaker 2: gives him the big agg I think he would actually
Speaker 2: get crushed in Iowa. But I know his reputation is
Speaker 2: that he's.
Speaker 1: As sort of a rural democrat who at least knows
Speaker 1: how to talk speak yeah, and speak that language, or
Speaker 1: perceived to speak that language. I know, I get the
Speaker 1: I understand the criticism you're coming at on that one.
Speaker 2: Just to complete your point, though, so Grand Planner could
Speaker 2: defeat Chuck Shoan, whose candidate if Zach Wall's winnings fifty
Speaker 2: fifth right now in Iowa, that's another demerit Michigan. We
Speaker 2: kind of get two bites at the apple again. We
Speaker 2: support abdul el Sayad, I think, for my purpose of
Speaker 2: liberating the minds of future presidential primary voters, a guy
Speaker 2: named m Duel who sports Medicare for All, winning Michigan
Speaker 2: in addition to a lista slock and winning Michigan sends
Speaker 2: a picture that there's multiple ways of being like totally
Speaker 2: successful in swinging areas. And then don't forget that Chuck
Speaker 2: Schumer supported Colin Allred again in Texas. That tell Rico
Speaker 2: had to put himself out there, and eventually some things
Speaker 2: happened that ended up aligning Schumer with Tallerico against Jatsmak Crockett.
Speaker 2: But that was not his instinct. He was willing to
Speaker 2: trot off an old losing horse and do it again
Speaker 2: even though he's younger. So I think, I think that
Speaker 2: we will have a string of Tuckshower losses in primaries
Speaker 2: and it will send something, say, a larger signal about
Speaker 2: the direction of the party being economic populist and shake
Speaker 2: up the system.
Speaker 1: What's your Do you acknowledge the risk that if you
Speaker 1: get your wish in Michigan and he comes up short
Speaker 1: because it's a bridge too far for some folks, what
Speaker 1: does that do? Do you think that is a ding
Speaker 1: on progressivism or do you think that's going to be
Speaker 1: would you chalk it up to Islamophobia?
Speaker 2: I do acknowledge the risk, certainly with the optics and
Speaker 2: the chatter that happens at the election. The elect the
Speaker 2: conventional wisdom that forms the best analog would be Mendela
Speaker 2: Barnes in Wisconsin, who we supported for a US Senate
Speaker 2: race just a couple of years ago. He won the nomination,
Speaker 2: he was lieutenant governor. He ended up losing by one
Speaker 2: point in the general election. Now there are a lot
Speaker 2: of grief and around that, with the Democratic Centurial Campaign
Speaker 2: Committee and the various super PACs pulling their money out
Speaker 2: of Wisconsin in a way that gave him no air
Speaker 2: cover in the weeks after he got the nomination, in
Speaker 2: a way that allowed Republicans that define him, that had
Speaker 2: our side dark on TV for you know, just a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks before the election before eventually catching up
Speaker 2: the final couple weeks. And you know, in my mind,
Speaker 2: we took the ding, but it wasn't a fair or
Speaker 2: a clean example. They weren't all in for their candidate
Speaker 2: the way that they would be for an Alyssa Stockin
Speaker 2: or something like that. So I do think that if
Speaker 2: we win the nominations, I will be looking at does
Speaker 2: the infrastructure get the back of the Democratic candidate in
Speaker 2: the same way that they would expect us to get
Speaker 2: the back of Amery Patola in Alaska and an undermine her?
Speaker 2: And if so and we lose, well that that would
Speaker 2: really be bad for our narrative. I will admit that.
Speaker 2: But if they undercut our person who's the general election nominee,
Speaker 2: you know, I think that's more a pox on their
Speaker 2: house strategically than ours.
Speaker 1: Let's talk both Nebraska and Montana the same race to
Speaker 1: you or are they different? How different are they Montana? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I throw Montana in there because we're likely to have
Speaker 1: a very strong independent who is going to be trying
Speaker 1: to put pressure on Democrats to take a knee the
Speaker 1: way Democrats are agreeing to take a kne in Nebraska.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I keep hearing murmurs out of Montana, and
Speaker 2: I'm excited to learn more about it. Honestly, haven't dug
Speaker 2: into the what's the candidate's name again?
Speaker 1: In Seth Bodner. He's a military veteran, I mean military veteran,
Speaker 1: never has been part testers on his testers endorsed him,
Speaker 1: and he just basically testers coming at it alla Nebraska
Speaker 1: that hey, the Democratic brand is just too badly damaged
Speaker 1: in Montana to succeed and you need to be You
Speaker 1: needed an independence to get believable again in Montana for
Speaker 1: for a message. That's whether it's you know, you want
Speaker 1: to call it progressive or populous, but that the Democratic
Speaker 1: brand takes away from it. That's that's why Tester's endorsing
Speaker 1: the guy. I'm just sort of flow following sort of
Speaker 1: his logic there a I'm curious with you that I
Speaker 1: assume that means something to you if John Tester is involved, right.
Speaker 2: It does so. First, the instigumer what we were talking
Speaker 2: about ten minutes ago, The Democratic brand generally is shot
Speaker 2: in red states.
Speaker 1: It's more especially western Mississippi, right Like, it's really there's
Speaker 1: a lot of what i'd call prairie populous states and
Speaker 1: midwestern populous states that the Democratic brand has just been
Speaker 1: too defined by the coasts. And we can say it's
Speaker 1: fair or unfair. I'm sure some of the branding's unfair.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. Perception is reality, and it is it
Speaker 1: is concentrated in places where Democrats used to win North Dakota,
Speaker 1: South Dakota, Nebraska. I mean in this century, multiple you know,
Speaker 1: boat states where both senators were Democrats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so just a reminder, you're talking to someone who
Speaker 2: helped elect one of the last Democrats in that Dakota
Speaker 2: is Tim Johnson. Back in that time when we had
Speaker 2: four Dakota senators and all it was all prairie populism.
Speaker 2: It was all you know, appealing to people who could
Speaker 2: be wooed to out Republican. But we're willing to stand
Speaker 2: up for economic populist in his case, fighting for family
Speaker 2: farmers in a really serious way. You know, you say
Speaker 2: defined by the coasts. I also think it's defined by
Speaker 2: weak party leadership that would rather stuck up to corporate
Speaker 2: donors than fight for little guy family farmers. And doesn't actually,
Speaker 2: you know, if Graham Plattner was Instructioner's position, my guess
Speaker 2: is the Democratic Party brand would have a chance to
Speaker 2: be more popular in the Prairie States more than it
Speaker 2: does now. So you know, lack of credit where lack
Speaker 2: of credit is due, it's not just like elite people
Speaker 2: in New York and California intrunctioners from New York, so
Speaker 2: Montana is also you know. I love John Tester. I
Speaker 2: think he is over index as being a centrist, where
Speaker 2: he was right there with Elizabeth Moarn working to make
Speaker 2: sure that Larry Summers was not going to be the
Speaker 2: feed chair working for real corporate accountability for Wall Street.
Speaker 2: If he was there now, it would be for crypto.
Speaker 2: I think he is a very salt of the earth
Speaker 2: guy who when it comes to economic issues in particular,
Speaker 2: is a vibe an economic populist and Iffre I tend
Speaker 2: to trust his judgment certainly on policies.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, if economic popular when it
Speaker 1: comes to the priorities of the P triple C, not
Speaker 1: necessarily Adam Green, but if the P triple C, and
Speaker 1: you've got a guy like Tester is a great example
Speaker 1: of this, who's definitely with most of the progressive movement
Speaker 1: on the economic side of things, but isn't always there
Speaker 1: in some of the cultural stuff right, and some of
Speaker 1: that that he's in a different spot versus somebody who's
Speaker 1: maybe better on the cultural stuff but not as good
Speaker 1: in the economics. What matters more to you, What matters
Speaker 1: more to the P Triple C.
Speaker 2: So we are an economic populist organization who also believes
Speaker 2: that economic focusing on economics and doing it with an
Speaker 2: economic populis spent. Having a hero and a villain is
Speaker 2: the smartest political move for Democrats. But where we are
Speaker 2: different from some others in the ecosystem right now, I'll
Speaker 2: just name Adam Jennilsen, and the welcome back folks is
Speaker 2: that they actively want to recruit people who are pro
Speaker 2: life or who throw parts at the coalition under the bus.
Speaker 2: I believe that there is that we make our achilles
Speaker 2: heel smaller on cultural issues if we are culturally aligned
Speaker 2: with working class people, which Kamala Harris was not. So
Speaker 2: she had a giant, she had an Achilles' body, right,
Speaker 2: They them ad just worked better with her because she
Speaker 2: did not have the shield of being seen as culturally
Speaker 2: in tune with working class people. I mean, there was
Speaker 2: Donald Trump at the McDonald's and she never did anything
Speaker 2: like that, and therefore it's sanchra candidacy. So you know,
Speaker 2: you know, if you asked Bernie Sanders, what do you
Speaker 2: think about trans bathrooms, he'd probably say, I don't give
Speaker 2: a damn about the bathroom. I'm trying to raise wage
Speaker 2: to Adam.
Speaker 1: I just had somebody who was a bit critical of
Speaker 1: Bernie's sort of what they believe that in this progressive
Speaker 1: it's for a future interview that will be on here,
Speaker 1: who was critical that Bernie underrates the reproductive right now
Speaker 1: tissue and consistently does.
Speaker 2: So, I'm curious about what underrates means.
Speaker 1: So it's not as important to him. He'll he'll you
Speaker 1: know that he'll support a pro life economic populace and
Speaker 1: have no problem doing it. And you know that does
Speaker 1: create tension in the reproductive rights world.
Speaker 2: That's I would love to talk to that person and
Speaker 2: ask them, do you actually believe that Democrats should be
Speaker 2: putting out there as their banner issue reproductive rights in
Speaker 2: order to win and protect reproductive rights right now? I'm
Speaker 2: not saying our side is not popular there. I just
Speaker 2: think we have the ability to build a durable super
Speaker 2: majority if we are in tune with working class voters
Speaker 2: that we have lost to Charlotte, who's pretending to represent
Speaker 2: those people.
Speaker 1: I mean the fact is history shows it, right. I
Speaker 1: look at FDR and I look at Obama, right, the
Speaker 1: two largest Democratic and I guess you could throw an
Speaker 1: LBJ in sixty four. You look at the three largest
Speaker 1: Democratic victories, okay, in sort of the modern era, and
Speaker 1: they were united on economics, not united on culture. I
Speaker 1: mean that has been that was true of FTRS coalition,
Speaker 1: and it's one of the criticisms that you hear sometimes, Hey,
Speaker 1: it wasn't as in tune on racial issues that it
Speaker 1: should have been. And by the way, the answer is yes, okay, right,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama wasn't as in tune on some cultural issues
Speaker 1: right away? Sure, yes, right, But you know what Barack
Speaker 1: Obama did get sixty sentences, right, you know at LBJ
Speaker 1: gott in sixty four enough Senate seats to pass the
Speaker 1: civil right Secs in voting right sacks sixty five did
Speaker 1: it with there. So I'm basically making your argument for
Speaker 1: you here that you need if you want, if you
Speaker 1: want a Hungarian style repudiation, you're going to have to
Speaker 1: compromise in some parts of your coalition.
Speaker 2: So I want to be really clear on this at
Speaker 2: least what our perspective is, it is not fine people
Speaker 2: will who intend to throw parts of the colistion under
Speaker 2: the bus.
Speaker 1: You're not looking for being able to poke these entities
Speaker 1: in the eye.
Speaker 2: Correct, you said not do that? Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you don't want to You're not there. You're not
Speaker 1: intentionally looking for pro life democrats for instance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and John Fetderman is the essence of
Speaker 2: literally like trying to put people in the eye, right, taunting,
Speaker 2: taunting people who probably voted for him. It's more. Let
Speaker 2: us give you a couple quick examples. So one I
Speaker 2: talked to a you know, really red swing state democrat
Speaker 2: last cycle who is like, I want to go and
Speaker 2: defend people's rights in Washington, DC, but the way me
Speaker 2: to get there is to focus on economics. Right. That's
Speaker 2: a political pragmatism right there.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Two examples from Congress Jared Golden and Angie Craig. Jared
Speaker 2: Golden is retiring, he won a Trump district multiple times.
Speaker 2: I don't gree with him and everything. I strongly gree
Speaker 2: with him on most economic things, unions, taxing millionaires, anti corruption.
Speaker 1: I spent all the time with him recently. That dude
Speaker 1: is exhausted. I mean when you have to go through
Speaker 1: the four campaigns he went through. I mean I think
Speaker 1: sometimes people think, acam, he's not running again. It's like
Speaker 1: what if I told you the first campaign cost eighteen million,
Speaker 1: the second was twenty six million, the third was thirty
Speaker 1: seven million, in the fourth with forty six million, And
Speaker 1: it's the largest media market, is banger, Right, You're just like,
Speaker 1: you know, I understand why he's exhausted.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So he he had a moment. The very first
Speaker 2: vote I believe of this new Congress after twenty twenty
Speaker 2: four elections was a transsports bill. Yeah, and he had
Speaker 2: a decision. And he's not out there on cultural issues, right,
Speaker 2: that's not his thing. But he voted with other Democrats
Speaker 2: against the Trump Mike Johnson transports bill. And his rationale was,
Speaker 2: this will give Trump new powers to defund main schools.
Speaker 2: I support main schools. Why would I want to give
Speaker 2: Trump that power. He put out a statement one time
Speaker 2: and went on with his life. He wasn't right just
Speaker 2: thump me about it. He wasn't doing ads about it.
Speaker 2: He wasn't new press conferences about it. So to me,
Speaker 2: it's about point of emphasis. He got to yes, he
Speaker 2: didn't throw that part of the colature under the bus,
Speaker 2: but he's not leading with it in rural main right
Speaker 2: anti krag at a similar example in Minnesota, a very
Speaker 2: arcane reason that she put out once and went on
Speaker 2: with her life. So I want to say that they
Speaker 2: do that in every issue. You know, they both vote
Speaker 2: voted for kind of the Lincoln Riley Act, which is
Speaker 2: about that has not aged well for Democrats who voted
Speaker 2: for it, which is like an anti immigrant kind of thing.
Speaker 2: But I think that's a template for how Democrats can
Speaker 2: proceed in tricky environments. Try to get to yes. Try
Speaker 2: to get to yes. Sometimes you won't, at least try.
Speaker 2: Don't come into the fight being like my starting off
Speaker 2: point is to throw the colation under the bus and
Speaker 2: then go hard on economics and earn trust by being
Speaker 2: a believable messager, being culturally aligned with working class people.
Speaker 2: And then occasionally if you vote in a way that
Speaker 2: they hear about, they forgive you more because you're culturally
Speaker 2: aligned with that on economics. That's how I would put it.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Soul, So if you love that end of the day, unwined,
Speaker 1: but hate hangover. Soul's out of Office is for you.
Speaker 1: These sparkling THCHC drinks and gummies give you the same
Speaker 1: relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and
Speaker 1: without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes
Speaker 1: feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
Speaker 1: delicious hemp derived THCHC and CBD products designed to boost
Speaker 1: your mood and help you unwind. Their best selling out
Speaker 1: of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz,
Speaker 1: boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five
Speaker 1: different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe.
Speaker 1: So also has a variety of products specifically designed to
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's rest, including their top
Speaker 1: selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep.
Speaker 2: Look.
Speaker 1: I have made no secret I am a believer in
Speaker 1: this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not
Speaker 1: partake in alcohol. For the most part, I think this
Speaker 1: stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less
Speaker 1: addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I
Speaker 1: love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and
Speaker 1: you know after work. That's what this is, So no
Speaker 1: hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan,
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Sold today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order. Go to getsoul dot com
Speaker 1: and use the word toodcast. That's get sold dot com
Speaker 1: promo code podcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I
Speaker 1: too am a customer. What do you hope your progressive
Speaker 1: candidates fight for? When you know, I believe that January
Speaker 1: is as important as November in this respect. You know
Speaker 1: who the leadership is and what the rules are, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at sort of the rule
Speaker 1: you know part of Mike Johnson's problem is that he
Speaker 1: doesn't control the rules, right, He isn't control that. He
Speaker 1: basically is a speaker in name only. He just is
Speaker 1: there to execute the trumpend and if he ever veered
Speaker 1: off course, they'd find somebody else, right, Like they've already
Speaker 1: proven this right. He's there because they decided they're not
Speaker 1: going to have any speaker that tries to at all
Speaker 1: worry about that institution over and above, do you want
Speaker 1: to see progressives put some shackles on leadership the way
Speaker 1: the chip Roy wing of the Republican Party has done
Speaker 1: with leadership in the House. On the right, I.
Speaker 2: Probably wouldn't use the word shackles, but I do stare.
Speaker 2: I understand exerting leverage and making sure that we have
Speaker 2: rules that maintain progressive leverage, particularly when progresses represent the run.
Speaker 1: So what does that look like? What give me some
Speaker 1: pragmatic ways you want to make sure leadership doesn't get
Speaker 1: to just run rough shot over the progressive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's funny. During White House Correspondence weekend, I ran
Speaker 2: to someone who works for House Leadership who I don't
Speaker 2: know why they told me this, but they were like,
Speaker 2: as we have all of these discharge petitions that are
Speaker 2: getting votes on the floor, like the Epstein boat and
Speaker 2: other things that are on deck, including stock trading and
Speaker 2: stuff like that, we are thinking about how that would
Speaker 2: affect us if we're in leadership. And I'm kind of like,
Speaker 2: let the discharge petitions fly right Like.
Speaker 1: No that personally, I'm I'm there's a group of people
Speaker 1: who would like to lower the threshold of a discharge
Speaker 1: petition instead of to eighteen, just simply fifty from each
Speaker 1: party and you've got to do it. That's would mean
Speaker 1: a minimum of one hundred as long as you have
Speaker 1: fifty in each party or that that force is a discharge.
Speaker 2: You know, I hadn't heard that, you know, you know,
Speaker 2: only one hundred and fifty signatures, not to eighteen. You know,
Speaker 2: that wouldn't just be the Progressive caucus, that would be
Speaker 2: a majority. But anything like that, I mean, I would
Speaker 2: actually argue to the House leadership folks that that would
Speaker 2: liberate them in some respects where they don't have to
Speaker 2: have the fingerprints on everything that gets a vote.
Speaker 1: Right, You're actually right, like in kind of looking at
Speaker 1: it is, oh my god, we're going to get jammed
Speaker 1: by this, this and this. It's sort of like, hey,
Speaker 1: the House is the people's house, and you know what,
Speaker 1: you are going to get all sorts of stuff that
Speaker 1: gets introduced because we're the people's house, all right, And
Speaker 1: if it's good enough, we'll let the Senate decide, and
Speaker 1: if it's got a big vote, Senate won't can't ignore it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very few politicians to cling on to power will
Speaker 2: believe that. M But that's the kind of thing that sure,
Speaker 2: any of those things that puts more hands more power
Speaker 2: in the hands of those who are finger on the pulse.
Speaker 2: Sounds good to me. You know, there's a question, do
Speaker 2: we try to get rid of the filbuster now? I
Speaker 2: I you know, my default will be yes, you know,
Speaker 2: especially if we have a democratic majority, Like don't like
Speaker 2: they're giving people process reasons for not delivering on your
Speaker 2: promises or even trying to deliver. Is the kind of
Speaker 2: thing that ruins faith in both parties and turns people
Speaker 2: to independent, our moderate and hating Democrats. Right, It's the
Speaker 2: kind of thing that will make all of our candidates
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight or you know who win the
Speaker 2: nomination twenty twenty seven less credible if we just campaigned
Speaker 2: on something and then don't even try because we don't
Speaker 2: have sixty votes. Right, Wait, one last thing. The filibuster
Speaker 2: also hurts Democrats in the sense of we have to
Speaker 2: cobble so many things into this wonky reconciliation bill that
Speaker 2: we actually get credit for almost none other things. The
Speaker 2: things that are super majority popular, get put in the
Speaker 2: bill on week one, while we're still debating in week fifty,
Speaker 2: and people forgot about it. You know, if you remember
Speaker 2: the Clanton years, just to go back, like I don't
Speaker 2: you'd know better than me, Like what the filibuster? How
Speaker 2: much it was invoked then? But I remember that there
Speaker 2: were these week long sagas where he was trying to
Speaker 2: get to fifty or fifty plus one votes with Al Gore,
Speaker 2: and it was just like, I've got forty two, I've
Speaker 2: got forty three right, the gun bill, right, the gun right,
Speaker 2: and then the crime bill, the tax bill that passed
Speaker 2: by like by one vote to race axes on the rich.
Speaker 2: It wasn't sixty votes, it was fifty one. So so
Speaker 2: there was describe ourselves of getting credit for the things
Speaker 2: we do by having only one bite at the apple.
Speaker 2: We have to cram or everything into a bill where
Speaker 2: no message gets out. So for the Senate, that's why,
Speaker 2: just politically speaking, getting with the philibuster would be a
Speaker 2: game changer for Democrats, rebuilding the reservoir of trust that
Speaker 2: we should have when we try to do stuff.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the anxiety, the sort of
Speaker 1: the Mike Lee right angling to get rid of the
Speaker 1: filibuster And can you imagine common cause a coalition of
Speaker 1: the of senators getting together going all right? Mike Lee,
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. I know, Jock,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean? I consider here that that
Speaker 1: more realistic than I think, or is that still probably
Speaker 1: a little pie in this guy.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you when he when they ask for
Speaker 2: the philibusters to be gone, what is their rationale?
Speaker 1: What do they say, Oh, that's interesting that they shouldn't
Speaker 1: need sixty votes. I think they don't really have a
Speaker 1: good the rationalitis simply, hey, we won the election, why
Speaker 1: shouldn't we get our agenda right? Which is very similar
Speaker 1: to what we heard after twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean if they still have that position post
Speaker 2: losing the majority, if they lose the majority.
Speaker 1: Well that's what we all learn is that neither party
Speaker 1: ever has that position when they're out of power.
Speaker 2: Right, So again, maybe it's the phili usher will be
Speaker 2: gone in four years, so we don't know who controls
Speaker 2: the set in four years. But maybe that's again inserting
Speaker 2: time back into the mix might be the way of
Speaker 2: us study that kind of thing. But you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of agenda items, you know, our government relations entity
Speaker 2: called P Street, the Progressive alternative to K Street, has
Speaker 2: been working with a lot of Republicans and a lot
Speaker 2: of you know, quote unquote moderate Democrats on a bill
Speaker 2: to take on insider stock trading in Congress, and the
Speaker 2: Republicans will offered a very weak t version wouldn't actually
Speaker 2: solve the problem. But that's the kind of thing where
Speaker 2: you actually have anti corruption forces on the left and right,
Speaker 2: but then when we actually look at them with the
Speaker 2: inside outside classes, it makes more sense. It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is an inside versus outside like literally insider trading
Speaker 2: versus those who hate corruption our politics. These kind of issues,
Speaker 2: I think are the things that could get whether it's
Speaker 2: house side process rules or filibuster rules dismantled, if we
Speaker 2: can kind of marry the wonky process argument with anitarian,
Speaker 2: easily digestible anti corruption kind of theme.
Speaker 1: You know, in fairness to both parties that are trying
Speaker 1: to deal with the stock trading issue. And I think
Speaker 1: some of it is serious and I think some of
Speaker 1: it is performative, right, But it's it's easy to say
Speaker 1: to get rid of it, but how you do it,
Speaker 1: it's not easy. You know, do spouses, you know, should
Speaker 1: they be involved in it? What about siblings? What about
Speaker 1: adult children? Obviously not minor children, but what about adult children?
Speaker 1: And is that really fair? To them. What did they do? Right?
Speaker 1: You know, it is in fairness to these Now, look,
Speaker 1: you chose to become a member of Congress, so you know,
Speaker 1: welcome to you. You know, you know this is very popular.
Speaker 1: This has got to be done. So just come up
Speaker 1: with a way. I mean, you know, I guess we
Speaker 1: could have essentially a new blind trust committee where they
Speaker 1: just hire financial advisors who do nothing but manage congressional
Speaker 1: stock portfolios. You know, the second you win an election,
Speaker 1: boom automatically. You know, this committee now oversees your stock portfolio.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but I do think this is I get
Speaker 1: the sense that details are more difficult than we fully appreciate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, I've had many conversations about these details.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the easy stuff first. So the core
Speaker 2: of any stock proposal is you cannot own individual stocks.
Speaker 2: You can have index funds, and your fortunes can be
Speaker 2: you know, rise and fall with a stock market, but
Speaker 2: you will not benefit by going to war and Iran.
Speaker 2: You know, the critique of blind trusts is they're not
Speaker 2: really blind, like you know where holdings are going in.
Speaker 1: So you would just basically say, look, you get to
Speaker 1: do the S and P five hundred or treasury funds.
Speaker 1: You pick something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, and then there's super wonky stuff like oh
Speaker 2: do I have to sell my stuff? What's the tax implications?
Speaker 2: Is like, we can deal with that. There are ways that, right,
Speaker 2: there's no doubt.
Speaker 1: If you totally divest, then you do have tax implication.
Speaker 2: Right, but you can also like, okay, so you can
Speaker 2: tackle those over five years or you know, there's ways
Speaker 2: of addressing if that's the final concern. The spouse. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the spouse has to account. I haven't really heard kids
Speaker 2: in the mix, but spouse would be good enough. But
Speaker 2: you can't have giant loopholes where your spouse can do
Speaker 2: insider stock trating just can't be it. There's a couple
Speaker 2: of things just like that that you know. Generally, the
Speaker 2: people who push back hardest are not good government advocates
Speaker 2: who are trying to get it right. It's people that
Speaker 2: have massive fortunes in the stock market or whose spouse
Speaker 2: has a massive fortune and they are worried about their
Speaker 2: own stuff. And again, maybe we pass it now and
Speaker 2: it kicks in in six years, and no senator, you know,
Speaker 2: any senator who runs again will know what rules are
Speaker 2: running under I'm sympathetic to the argument of my wife
Speaker 2: or my husband didn't know when I ran two years
Speaker 2: ago that they'd have to divest their whole stop.
Speaker 1: So it's like, you know what after the next turn? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Now I think that's an interesting So let's spast forward
Speaker 1: to January of twenty seven. Yeah, Democrats win win both
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate. Where should Democrats work with Trump?
Speaker 2: That's a great way framing the question. You know, he's
Speaker 2: not an anti corruption guy, but you know, whether it
Speaker 2: was the Tea Party back in the day or MAGA,
Speaker 2: there's a distrust of the system and anything that I
Speaker 2: think Josh Holly is oftentimes just good spokesperson for that
Speaker 2: roots out credit card companies that want to rip you off,
Speaker 2: just you know, the rigging of the rules that various
Speaker 2: monopolies want to do. Jadvance has actually been an interesting ally,
Speaker 2: at least in his Senate life, on anti monopoly issues.
Speaker 2: Those are things where they would actually impact the cost
Speaker 2: for consumers, like in pockets affordability, but with an anti
Speaker 2: corruption and hold the bad Apple corporations accountable kind of
Speaker 2: lens that That's why I would recommend that they lean into.
Speaker 1: Look I think this is a very precarious. It's a
Speaker 1: good problem that Democrats might have if it happens. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know, the question is you're going to run
Speaker 1: against Trump, and Democrats' victories will be because they're going
Speaker 1: to be a check on Trump. And that's why that
Speaker 1: this is likely to be a successful midterm right, especially
Speaker 1: why we call it the sixtion. You know, there's sort
Speaker 1: of an exhaustion and people just want to check and
Speaker 1: yet if you want to do anything, you're going to
Speaker 1: still need his signature on bills. Right, So well, there's
Speaker 1: it's sort of like how do you walk that line
Speaker 1: when you're going to have some people like take my
Speaker 1: friend George Conway, and I say this. I admire that
Speaker 1: he is saying up front, you elect me, and my
Speaker 1: mandate is to impeach the guy. I'm not making any
Speaker 1: I'm not dancing around that issue, right most everybody else
Speaker 1: dances around it. He goes, No, I'm there, I'm running.
Speaker 1: I got two terms. That's all I'm going to do,
Speaker 1: and this is what I'm going to do, Okay, because
Speaker 1: I think this is the best way to restore rule
Speaker 1: of law. Can we don't have to agree with his tactics.
Speaker 1: It's what he's telling voters. What I always liked is
Speaker 1: just tell the voters what deal you want to make
Speaker 1: with them, and they you know, and if they vote
Speaker 1: for you, it means they want to make that deal.
Speaker 1: Now it's up to you to do it. But I
Speaker 1: think this is going to make for a really challenging
Speaker 1: spring of twenty seven because you're going to have these
Speaker 1: cross currents. You're going to have presidential candidates out there
Speaker 1: running hard on Trump, some of them harder than others.
Speaker 1: You're going to have and then you'll have you know,
Speaker 1: if anybody works with Trump, there might be criticism of
Speaker 1: that because it plays better. I just think that I
Speaker 1: look at what happened to Abigail s Bamberg. Right, one
Speaker 1: wins with this incredible brand of moderation of above partisanship,
Speaker 1: and then she comes right in and the opening acts
Speaker 1: are very partisan. You may think it's very successful, but
Speaker 1: it's very partisan. She took a heat politically. It's recoverable. Right,
Speaker 1: It's early, and one would argue, right, the old Mario
Speaker 1: Cuomo saying is, you know you campaign in poetry and
Speaker 1: government and pros, and you know prose has come sometimes
Speaker 1: quite cold right, and type brutal, quite harsh. Right. I
Speaker 1: just find this first three months more precarious for the
Speaker 1: party than maybe people realize. Again if everything that they
Speaker 1: hope happens happens.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, the way you find the question before,
Speaker 2: which I think was a good question, is you know,
Speaker 2: where should they work with Trump? I think it's a
Speaker 2: little bit different from a separate question, which is what
Speaker 2: should their priority posture be, including towards Trump? Okay, I
Speaker 2: kind of feel like one step above the rare places
Speaker 2: where they will work with Trump is, you know, get
Speaker 2: caught trying to do things that are popular in bold
Speaker 2: and if you pass things in the House, and you
Speaker 2: passings in the Senate and Trump is the problem. Now
Speaker 2: we are sending.
Speaker 1: You've drawn a picture, yeah price, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I feel like that has to be the priority.
Speaker 2: If this, if the starting point is where can we
Speaker 2: work with Trump? You eradicate eighty ninety percent of the good,
Speaker 2: popular ideas that you would want to run on in
Speaker 2: the interest of going behind closed doors and trying to
Speaker 2: cut a probably bad deal with Trump. Right, if you
Speaker 2: start with we're going to get caught trying if he
Speaker 2: wants to be on the thirty side of a seventy
Speaker 2: thirty proposition. Let him do that make Republicans even less popular.
Speaker 2: If he wants to work with us and cut a deal,
Speaker 2: we'll accept a down payment and bring the election, you know,
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty eight election, you know, into focus in
Speaker 2: terms of going for the full kahuna, like, you know,
Speaker 2: let's push for a public option. Now he'll probably stay
Speaker 2: none of that, but at least we're talking about something
Speaker 2: at challenges insurance companies that are very unpopular. Right, But
Speaker 2: if we start off with would he ever support a
Speaker 2: public option? And you look at his donors and it's like, well, no,
Speaker 2: now we want to talk about anything but the small
Speaker 2: all of us boar things with healthcare, that makes no sense, right.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a growing movement to have publicly manufactured pharma,
Speaker 2: particularly for generic drugs, but also just like a competitor
Speaker 2: to the big pharma companies and use public muscle to
Speaker 2: do that. It's really popular when you pull it. I
Speaker 2: don't think we're gonna pass.
Speaker 1: But you know I wouldn't fully roll out Trump's interest
Speaker 1: in something like that. You're not wrong to be thinking
Speaker 1: about it. It's like, well, maybe pass it and see
Speaker 1: what he thinks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's the thing. Like maybe that day Pharma
Speaker 2: pisses him off and he's like, you know what, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna go right, and so maybe maybe you know, broken
Speaker 2: clock right twice, two accidental bills that are Bowlhill, he'll
Speaker 2: sign apart from the smaller down payments. But we just
Speaker 2: can't go into that moment thinking we're gonna from our sales.
Speaker 2: I honestly be shocked if even Keem, Jeffries or Schumer yeah,
Speaker 2: started with that position, because that would be.
Speaker 1: You know, and I get that. I you know, I
Speaker 1: look at this and it's sort of like because I
Speaker 1: think it, and this to me gets at the why
Speaker 1: I'm a little skeptical of those that consider themselves presidential
Speaker 1: candidates who are dining out on the resistance messaging that's
Speaker 1: working well for now versus how much do you think
Speaker 1: resistance messaging should be leaned into going into twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight or how much it should you know, it's like
Speaker 1: how much energy should be about the post Trump era
Speaker 1: versus putting a check on Trump right twenty six. I
Speaker 1: get it, it's a check on Trump. I think it's
Speaker 1: a bigger it's a larger debate about how much should
Speaker 1: be check on Trump versus and resistance messaging versus turning
Speaker 1: the page messaging.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you mentioned the UK before. I was just
Speaker 2: in the UK a couple weeks ago talking to people
Speaker 2: on the ground there, and one of the things that
Speaker 2: they put their finger on, which I think is accurate
Speaker 2: and is a potential warning to us, is Keer Starmer's
Speaker 2: only message was I'm not conservatives and there unpopular electo me.
Speaker 2: His mandate was fulfilled minute number one, and then he
Speaker 2: had nothing.
Speaker 1: You know what you just described. You just described that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden presidency. I always thought this was Biden's biggest problem,
Speaker 1: that ultimately the one thing people voted for him to do,
Speaker 1: he accomplished on election day. Yeah, and they didn't actually
Speaker 1: want him to do much more than just eradicate that.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and then well then you know, maybe do something.
Speaker 1: But I don't know, right, And unfortunately he didn't really
Speaker 1: campaign on a vision beyond I won't be him.
Speaker 2: Yes, I will do something I really don't want to do,
Speaker 2: which is make the case for Joe Biden. But at
Speaker 2: least he on paper campaigned on big, big, ambitious ideas,
Speaker 2: particularly because of COVID. He was the rare person who's
Speaker 2: like funding for a bunch of stuff went higher in
Speaker 2: the general than the primary, which is usually the reverse.
Speaker 2: That's true, it's because COVID happens. So at least now,
Speaker 2: I think to your point, I don't think that most
Speaker 2: people going to the polls were thinking about his build
Speaker 2: Back Better agenda. They were thinking about Trump versus not Trump.
Speaker 2: But at least he tried. Kere Stormer didn't even try.
Speaker 2: Like his manifesto, that's what he call it, there is
Speaker 2: like do nothing. We're just not them, right, I really
Speaker 2: do worry. Like the part of the that we supported
Speaker 2: tel Rico is, you know, I like Das mccrockett over personally,
Speaker 2: she's a good you know Team Blue versus Team Red,
Speaker 2: spar you know Spark, you know Jouster, but she was
Speaker 2: not offering an acadomic vision. Tell Rico was. And I
Speaker 2: really believe that we will do better off this election
Speaker 2: cycle if, of course we're anti Trump, but we also
Speaker 2: are trying to appeal to people's you know, working class lives.
Speaker 2: And this is the muscle memory time. We have to
Speaker 2: prove to ourselves that we can do it now because
Speaker 2: twenty twenty seven. You know it's gonna be weeks after
Speaker 2: this election that people are announcing for president, and if
Speaker 2: all we've done is train ourselves to a.
Speaker 1: Week, it might be hours after that week. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling we will have three candidates in the race
Speaker 1: before the Friday is before all the counting is in
Speaker 1: in California. How long it always takes to do the
Speaker 1: California accounts, right, Yeah, I imagine we'll have three active candidates.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that we'll use the momentum, especially if Democrats win,
Speaker 1: like they're going to want, you know, they're going to
Speaker 1: want to try to ride a financial wave. You know
Speaker 1: that that would come with it.
Speaker 2: Interesting, So ah, you Calci fans out there, I.
Speaker 1: Know how she yeah, but you know, we haven't.
Speaker 2: Touched on it yet. But you know, the tension I
Speaker 2: feel with the presidential race right now is this instinct
Speaker 2: that we're living in an outsider moment and looking at
Speaker 2: our bench and liking some people on the bench, but
Speaker 2: feeling like so many of them feel.
Speaker 1: All feels it all feels re tready, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: you know, It's funny. My wife and I talk about
Speaker 1: this and she's like, where's you know, where's the compelling outsider?
Speaker 1: And you know, part of it is we're all so
Speaker 1: anxious to find that that even those that would have
Speaker 1: been seen as outsiders in a previous era have already
Speaker 1: started to, you know, make the run, right, have already
Speaker 1: started to make noise in their own way, whether it's
Speaker 1: Andy Basheer, Joshapiro, Alyssa Slaka, whatever, I mean, I could.
Speaker 1: You know, I get that you may not be happy
Speaker 1: about some of those, but my point is is that
Speaker 1: there isn't like, I can't think of any candidate that
Speaker 1: I've heard floated that I'm like, well, I'm curious what
Speaker 1: that's going to look like. I feel like I know
Speaker 1: already exactly. Oh, they're gonna run this way, They're gonna
Speaker 1: run this way, They're gonna run this way, and it
Speaker 1: feels familiar. It's twenty twenty. It's a twenty nineteen field
Speaker 1: all over again, just with different names.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I think the one exception is AOC in
Speaker 2: terms of like I think she's if.
Speaker 1: She runs, yeah, I don't know if she like she
Speaker 1: I don't view, I don't see she doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: it seems that she's if she were running, well, I
Speaker 1: don't know. She'd be out there a little bit more.
Speaker 1: But she doesn't look like she's running to me. But
Speaker 1: maybe she doesn't have to do it. I have to
Speaker 1: lean in the way others do.
Speaker 2: We'll see. But you know, if she ran, she still
Speaker 2: has her outside her cred I think some people would
Speaker 2: think that she's less leftable because of that, But I
Speaker 2: don't think it's arguable that she's that. She's not a
Speaker 2: creature of the political system. She's an outsider.
Speaker 1: I subscribe to the Jonathan Roush theory, which is you
Speaker 1: do get a sell by date, like when you appear,
Speaker 1: and you need to make a move in your first
Speaker 1: ten years in the system. And she's twenty twenty eight
Speaker 1: becomes the ten year anniversary of her election in twenty eighteen, right,
Speaker 1: so you know it is about time for her to
Speaker 1: take the next step. Whatever that step is, could be Senate,
Speaker 1: could be.
Speaker 2: President's sound of political advice. I'll run two names by you.
Speaker 2: I am not endorsing them, but I allow my mind
Speaker 2: to go there. So when is Stephen Colbert, right, somebody
Speaker 2: you know he just got you know he now is
Speaker 2: an avatar for anti media consolidation, something that I believe
Speaker 2: you might know something about, you know, trust in media.
Speaker 1: I'm more intrigued by the Colbert idea all the time
Speaker 1: because I look, I think it's pretty clear that performance matters. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and communication skills. This is now true of every fortune
Speaker 1: five hundred company. If you don't have the leader of
Speaker 1: your company can't communicate, you're not going to be a
Speaker 1: I don't care how good you are behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: you're going to be an unsuccessful leader. Period. You have
Speaker 1: to be able to communicate. Now, So it's a it's
Speaker 1: it's a primary skill, no longer a nice to have skill.
Speaker 2: I completely agree, and just to side down on that.
Speaker 2: You know, when the medicalasius of the world criticize the
Speaker 2: better parts of Biden's agenda like hiving Lena Khan, bust
Speaker 2: up monopolies, and they're like, oh, so we lost the
Speaker 2: next election, so why try that again, my first thought
Speaker 2: is he didn't communicate anything he was doing. He couldn't.
Speaker 1: He never campaigned on anything. I mean, I you know,
Speaker 1: to me, the Biden presidency is the presidency that didn't
Speaker 1: happen because he never sold his agenda. He never traveled
Speaker 1: the country, he never you know, because I guess he
Speaker 1: couldn't write. I mean, look, we all realized that he
Speaker 1: didn't do this. We don't know if his agenda was
Speaker 1: popular or not. He didn't even try to sell it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, back to Zran, I means Iran takes
Speaker 2: time every day to do something on social media and
Speaker 2: tell a story. Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So sometimes I think he's too much on social media.
Speaker 1: But I understand. I understand why he does it. It's
Speaker 1: part of who he is. It's his brand. And if
Speaker 1: we stopped doing it, there'd be some people going, oh,
Speaker 1: you've gone mainstream. You don't need this anymore, so right,
Speaker 1: like it would be a problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So Colbert is masterful at that. But you know,
Speaker 2: he's not a Matthew mcconick. Hey, he's not just an actor.
Speaker 2: And I think that with the Colbert rapport, we actually
Speaker 2: saw a fairly.
Speaker 1: You No, I agree, there's substance there.
Speaker 2: I agree, right, So, yeah, I'm not endorsing, but I'm curious,
Speaker 2: and I'm willing to go there.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm with you there, I'm Colbert curious. I'll
Speaker 1: give you that.
Speaker 2: Colbert curious. Can we can we point that hashtag? Right now?
Speaker 1: Look, Colbert curious? Right, yeah, and hey, he's got South Carolina.
Speaker 1: Nothing like having a little early state, small advantage, even
Speaker 1: if it's a small one.
Speaker 2: Fascinating. Yep, good point. Yeah. The other person who I
Speaker 2: don't know personally, but I just throw out there as
Speaker 2: a hypothetical, like a Sean Fain, the UAW president, right,
Speaker 2: and somebody who you know a third of his members
Speaker 2: wrote for Trump. He is mister picket line. Again, I
Speaker 2: don't know him enough to be like, oh I love
Speaker 2: this guy, but on a vibes level, I could see
Speaker 2: someone like a union president being the right fit for
Speaker 2: this moment. I feel more comfortable if I knew that
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren would be their chiefest staff and they'd actually
Speaker 2: do the competency stuff right. But you know, again, I
Speaker 2: allow my mind to go there just because I feel
Speaker 2: like this is an outsider moment.
Speaker 1: And we can I agree. I've been looking for, you know,
Speaker 1: one of these fired generals, fired admirals, and just trying
Speaker 1: to learn more about them. It wouldn't surprise me if
Speaker 1: one of them, you know, with somebody, and look, I
Speaker 1: don't think we just know, right, some of them sometimes
Speaker 1: you have to meet them and you're like, you don't
Speaker 1: you have to let them know, you know, you actually
Speaker 1: would make a really good candidate. Have you ever thought
Speaker 1: about it? Type of thing? Let me throw a different
Speaker 1: question at you. That's the same idea because normally, you know,
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, Beto o' rourke's near victory made him
Speaker 1: a presidential candidate. Who of the twenty twenty six victors
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side, could you see who you think
Speaker 1: that their victory? Yeah? You know what it ought to
Speaker 1: translate to kicking the tires on presidential.
Speaker 2: I think the obvious one is James Tilrico. I mean
Speaker 2: if he certainly, if he wins.
Speaker 1: It's an eye opener. So everybody goes, oh, oh, what's
Speaker 1: that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you know I would still put grand Platner there.
Speaker 2: I know that, you know they're Democrats to have opinions
Speaker 2: about that. But let's see what you can do. Let's
Speaker 2: see how he perseveres through some of the attacks. And
Speaker 2: you know, it's interesting you put it as his near victory,
Speaker 2: because if I'm arguing against myself, like the biggest reason
Speaker 2: that someone like James Telrico would not run for president
Speaker 2: is if they win and they're setting up a Senate
Speaker 2: office and they're skinning No, that's.
Speaker 1: The irony is that Bato was able to do it
Speaker 1: because he didn't win, right, And but to me, that's
Speaker 1: a weird it's weird to well the one. So it's
Speaker 1: like Pete Boodaget, you know, same thing, right, you know,
Speaker 1: he lost d n C chair, but let's let's see
Speaker 1: it does for president.
Speaker 2: Right. So there's the there's that political question, but I'm
Speaker 2: actually raising a separate logistical question, which.
Speaker 1: Is, oh, I think it is hard to immediately win
Speaker 1: and then turn right around and run.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's very difficult, and especially you know, I
Speaker 1: I sit here, I watch Wes Moore continue to pledge
Speaker 1: to serve that he's not running. He's serving four years,
Speaker 1: and yet he shows up to every early state thing.
Speaker 1: He shows up to all the You're like, I know,
Speaker 1: you think, hey, Bill Clinton got away with this, other
Speaker 1: Barack Obama got away with this. But I think we're
Speaker 1: in a different trust period. I think we're going to
Speaker 1: roll our eyes if you do the politician lie, if
Speaker 1: you get my drift meaning the politician white lie. Well,
Speaker 1: you know everybody kind of knew it was a winking
Speaker 1: and nod. Well, we're kind of tired of the wincoln
Speaker 1: and a nod politician.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's right.
Speaker 2: So maybe those who announced days after the election are
Speaker 2: actually the most credible.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I I Butler and Jamal Simons, you know, have a
Speaker 2: podcast focused just on the presdential race, and when I
Speaker 2: talked to them, they raised an idea of Tolerico for
Speaker 2: vice president, which I found intriguing because that would actually
Speaker 2: give him the year to get his d legs and
Speaker 2: then he oops in a year later and there's no
Speaker 2: real downside. He's not giving up.
Speaker 1: That was kind of jd vance, you know, wins in
Speaker 1: the mid term and ends up on the ticket within
Speaker 1: two years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the tempolate, So we'll see. I kind of
Speaker 2: wish the timing was off a little bit different a
Speaker 2: little bit, but we all where we are. Well.
Speaker 1: Look candidates that I think about on that score, and
Speaker 1: I'm curious. I'll throw them out at you. Mally McMorrow
Speaker 1: she interests me because she sort of forced her way
Speaker 1: on stage right her own viral moments. She's a good communicator.
Speaker 1: If she becomes the Goldilocks candidate, right, she's figured out
Speaker 1: how to unite this coalition. She intrigues me. Swing State
Speaker 1: Rob sand a victory there in Iowa. He's running on
Speaker 1: a different type. He's very anti corruption. It's a it's
Speaker 1: it's certainly it's a different you know, it's not going
Speaker 1: to fit cleanly in anybody's bucket. Yeah, but he's interesting
Speaker 1: to me potentially on that score.
Speaker 2: They're both interesting. I like them both as people, and
Speaker 2: I hope Rob wins Mallory gets an noomation. I hope
Speaker 2: she wins. I really don't think that anything short of
Speaker 2: having a systemic critique and a willingness to kind of
Speaker 2: summon up the rage and be again the shake up
Speaker 2: the system candidate is is the way it is the
Speaker 2: way to go. You know. Rob stand has almost a
Speaker 2: technocratic way of being bipartisan an anti corruption. He could
Speaker 2: do it in part because Iowa they have read the rules.
Speaker 2: I mean, they pretty much defanked him of power like
Speaker 2: he was the one.
Speaker 1: So he had no choice. He had to He had
Speaker 1: to do this the way he's done it. Right. He
Speaker 1: almost has to do it forcing media attention, forcing sort
Speaker 1: of gimmicks, frankly, to to make it hard to say
Speaker 1: no to some of his anti corruption.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just for your listeners, and he's a state auditor.
Speaker 2: The only Democrats state wide official, and they've pretty much
Speaker 2: robbed him of his ability to audit right, So now
Speaker 2: he just has to use the bully pulpit to shine
Speaker 2: the spotlight on things that are corrupt. And that's good.
Speaker 2: I'm glad he's doing that. I don't think that that
Speaker 2: addresses you know, we have AI, we have Crypto, we
Speaker 2: have things changing in society, and we need someone who
Speaker 2: is willing to tell a story. That's why again and
Speaker 2: come back to tell Rico, Platner Abdul. They tell a
Speaker 2: story about power in America and the forces that are
Speaker 2: rigged against everyday people in America. And they can apply
Speaker 2: that critique to healthcare or your banking, or your schools
Speaker 2: or your housing. It is one critique across issues. It's
Speaker 2: not an issue. And I just think that has to
Speaker 2: be the future if we're going to be credible and
Speaker 2: be able to speak to so many people so many
Speaker 2: parts of.
Speaker 1: The country, Adam, and we may not agree on every
Speaker 1: single fix, but I think you're one hundred percent right
Speaker 1: that this is systemic. This is I think both parties.
Speaker 1: You know, in a perfect world, we'd get rid of
Speaker 1: both of them and get to a four party system
Speaker 1: of some form because it's failing the public. Right. It's
Speaker 1: sort of like, what would what would what would animate
Speaker 1: the American public better if they could find is I
Speaker 1: always say the problem with the two parties. It's like
Speaker 1: imagine going into a T shirt store and finding out
Speaker 1: the two choices were extra large and extra small, right,
Speaker 1: and you're like, well, I can't find the shirt that
Speaker 1: fits me. And I think today's two political parties. I
Speaker 1: think more people would say it doesn't fit me than
Speaker 1: it does. Right. That's, you know, one of the questions
Speaker 1: we're not asking. You know, we've got a lot of
Speaker 1: people under the age of forty whose knee jerk decision
Speaker 1: is to register as no party or independent. And we
Speaker 1: spend all this time going, okay, but if you had
Speaker 1: to choose, which side do you choose? It's the wrong
Speaker 1: question to ask these voters. It's the right question to
Speaker 1: ask these voters if you're simply trying to win an election.
Speaker 1: I get that. It's the wrong question if you're trying
Speaker 1: to represent those voters, which is here's the question. I
Speaker 1: want to know, what keeps you from red string with
Speaker 1: the party that you hold your nose and vote for
Speaker 1: each time. That's the question we've not spent enough time
Speaker 1: asking and certainly I don't have we don't have the
Speaker 1: answers because we haven't asked them.
Speaker 2: Those questions about huh, well put.
Speaker 1: Man. I always learn a lot from you, mister Green.
Speaker 1: What's your favorite primary in May? What's the big thing
Speaker 1: that what you'll feel good if things in May happen? Where?
Speaker 1: Like where? Where? What's your what's your sort of current
Speaker 1: early early primary state obsession?
Speaker 2: Yeah, my obsession is more June and in Maine. I
Speaker 2: am interested in Pennsylvania primaries. We endorsed Chris Rapp recently,
Speaker 2: who's running in a swing there. But you know, we
Speaker 2: might get involved with something. The California is also right
Speaker 2: around the corner, right.
Speaker 1: Right, Oh, yeah, it's June. But yeah, yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: that first Tuesday in June. What's your uh, what's your preference?
Speaker 1: Styre Porter?
Speaker 2: Wow, Chuck Todd, I thought we were finishing up. We
Speaker 2: you know, we've engaged both campaigns in recent weeks and
Speaker 2: currently our postures do what we can to facilitate a
Speaker 2: race to the top on economic populism, you know we are.
Speaker 2: We coined the phrase the Elizabeth Warren wing. She endorsed
Speaker 2: Katie Porter. We've support her many times.
Speaker 1: She didn't endorse Katie Porter this time, did she?
Speaker 2: I think she she did? She did?
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, I gotta get credit.
Speaker 2: I got to get credit to Tom Styer. He is
Speaker 2: out there making a systemic case and talking about billionaire power.
Speaker 2: The one thing that I want people to keep in
Speaker 2: mind with him is that he should not stand for
Speaker 2: the proposition that you have to be a billionaire in
Speaker 2: order to be non bought. Right, AOC raises the most money.
Speaker 1: That bothers that bothers you a little bit. That that's
Speaker 1: his messaging.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not not that that's his message. I do
Speaker 2: hope that he chooses his words carefully. But more I
Speaker 2: hope that people's impression is not, oh, billionaires could be unbought,
Speaker 2: but nobody else should make that case. I think that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean my concern is that's what the you know, Oh,
Speaker 1: all right, they're getting their billionaires. The let's going to
Speaker 1: get their billionaires. What about the rest of us, you know,
Speaker 1: and who don't have a billionaire looking out for us?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we'll see. But again, AOC raises the most money
Speaker 2: of anybody in Congress, and that's because people trust her.
Speaker 2: Right now, everybody if you're exceptional by definition. Everybody can't
Speaker 2: be exceptional, right, But you know Maxwell Frost right, because
Speaker 2: are there's a lot of people that have people power
Speaker 2: behind them. That's my preferred way of being unbought. So
Speaker 2: this is my way of punting on that question and saying,
Speaker 2: I hope that they both keep.
Speaker 1: Leaving the puts. We'll see I hear the punt, mister Green.
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure, sir. I hope you're well, you look
Speaker 1: you
Speaker 2: And thanks for everybody