In short
The episode discusses (1) why Democrats’ 2024 election “autopsy” hasn’t been released, (2) how campaign branding and YouTube-style authenticity affect elections, (3) what to do when hit with attack ads (including a trans ad), (4) Gaza’s impact on enthusiasm, and (5) a California primary strategy where a Democratic incumbent appears to help a Republican advance.
Guest
Rob Flaherty, a senior official who worked on the 2020 Biden, 2024 Biden, and 2024 Kamala Harris campaigns; he wrote “Here’s What I Told the DNC Autopsy” in The Bulwark. He argues tactics don’t equal a brand; Democrats needed an economically populist primary challenger to break from an unpopular Biden administration. He claims Gaza visuals became a moral issue that dampened enthusiasm beyond polls, describing a “rotting fish” effect. He says YouTube is effectively TV-based, long-form conversation, and candidates must clear a “free-form interview” authenticity bar.
Notable examples
Lena Khan/antitrust messaging confusion; the “they/them” Trump trans ad; “Bidenomics is working” clips; and Musk’s “10,000 lasers in space” election claims (discussed as possibly hacking/data/analysis rather than literal lasers). Later, Mai Vang (running in CA-7) explains Doris Matsui’s “red box” coded messaging to super PACs to run ads/mailers supporting a Republican in the June jungle primary to knock Vang out.
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Chapters
Tap a time to open that second in VODemocratic National Committee Autopsy Discussion
2:10 to 6:40
A conversation with Rob Flaherty about the DNC autopsy and reactions from Democrats.
“So you can read his piece in the bulwark.”
Analyzing the 2024 Election Brand
6:40 to 11:10
Insights on the importance of brand and tactics in the 2024 election.
“I think if Biden stays in and gets primaried, voters were behind Biden at that particular time.”
YouTube's Role in Political Campaigns
11:10 to 14:01
Discussion on the significance of YouTube and the challenges for campaigns.
“But again, I think we sort of found ourselves in this position where there was a lot of equities pushing on the campaign.”
Preparation for the Interview with Kamala Harris
14:01 to 15:33
Learn about the discussions and logistics behind preparing for the Kamala Harris interview on Joe Rogan's podcast.
“And, you know, pretty much agreed to, you know, no holds barred.”
The Challenge of Authenticity in Politics
15:34 to 17:46
Explore the evolving expectations for political candidates in engaging with the public through free-form interviews.
“because she might be okay in five minutes on MSNBC or CNN or even Fox, like a little pushback here and there.”
Dissecting the Controversial Trans Ad
17:47 to 19:55
Delve into the implications and strategies behind the trans ad targeting Kamala Harris and its reception.
“And I think it's going to be a factor in, you know, who wins in 2028.”
Addressing Public Sentiment and Credibility Issues
19:56 to 22:34
Understand the fundamental credibility concerns that arise from political stances on controversial issues.
“So I think she would probably say, yes, you're right.”
Gaza Influence on Political Campaigns
22:35 to 24:58
Examine how the Gaza conflict has shaped perceptions and enthusiasm towards candidates during the election cycle.
“I think that this is obviously a tricky issue.”
The Duality of Support and Criticism
24:59 to 28:00
Discuss the complexities of supporting political leaders while grappling with their positions on contentious issues.
“Rahm Emanuel, of all people, is raising doubts about funding the Iron Dome.”
Impact of Campaign Tactics on 2024
28:00 to 29:00
Learn how campaign strategies failed to resonate with voters leading up to the 2024 election.
“The tactics of the campaign, you know, sort of moved people on particular issues but didn't actually move people on how they were going to vote.”
Show all 25 chapters
Looking Ahead to 2028: Economic Populism
29:00 to 30:28
Explore the potential political landscape for the 2028 election, focusing on economic populism.
“What's your elevator pitch to candidates and campaigns who are looking at 28?”
Elon Musk's Space Lasers Controversy
33:05 to 37:55
Delve into Ashley Sinclair's claims about Elon Musk and the implications of his alleged data usage in elections.
“And in October, Elon tells me that he is ready to release his, in his words, anomaly in the Matrix.”
Ashley Sinclair's Insights on MAGA Media
37:55 to 42:00
Discuss Ashley Sinclair's insights on the new MAGA media landscape and her connection to Elon Musk.
“What even, like, I'm at a loss for words, like what Elon Musk might have act like, what is his anomaly in the matrix actually, uh, in a concrete way?”
Transition to Guest Introduction
42:00 to 42:36
The hosts prepare for the guest interview.
“So I think we're going to continue to find out more.”
Unusual Campaign Dynamics in California
45:12 to 46:09
Discussion on the unusual election strategy involving a Republican candidate.
“You just had two kind of big wins for progressives in Pennsylvania, Chris Rabb in Philadelphia, and then Bob Brooks up in the Lehigh Valley.”
Mai Vang's Campaign and Political Landscape
46:09 to 50:29
Mai Vang discusses her campaign against Doris Matsui and the political environment.
“I did too, and I just forgot to tweet about it.”
Voter Concerns and Policy Differences
50:29 to 54:07
Vang highlights voter frustrations and contrasts her policies with Matsui's.
“I have families and loved ones that wake up every morning afraid of they're going to be separated by ICE.”
Stance on Foreign Policy and ICE
54:07 to 56:00
Mai Vang shares her views on foreign policy and immigration enforcement.
“My position on that is that we should not be spending our tax dollar, defensive or offensive, because they are committing a genocide and human rights violation.”
Addressing Immigration Issues
56:00 to 56:50
Learn about the urgent need for reform in the U.S. immigration system.
“And she's often been late and ineffective to the issue.”
Regulating AI: A Call for Oversight
56:50 to 57:55
Explore the importance of government regulation on AI technology.
“But we also like Congress also needs to increase funding and staffing for a federal agency.”
The Wealth Tax Debate
57:55 to 59:35
Discuss the implications of implementing a wealth tax in California.
“So we shouldn't allow AI and that one and the one percent and billionaires and a very small handful of rich people to decide, you know, the future of AI.”
Mai Vang's Personal Story
59:35 to 1:02:25
Discover how Mai Vang's background as a daughter of Hmong refugees shaped her political views.
“I was born and raised here, but my parents came here as refugees.”
Political Awakening Through Education
1:02:25 to 1:05:40
Understand the moment that influenced Mai Vang's political consciousness in college.
“And then when I came back to Sacramento, I looked around, Ryan, and realized that not a lot had changed, that so many of our underserved communities were lacking resources.”
The Impact of U.S. Policies on Hmong People
1:05:40 to 1:07:45
Learn about the historical context of U.S. involvement with the Hmong during the Vietnam War.
“And I had called him because I had to do a paper in my sociology class.”
Mai Vang's Congressional Ambitions
1:07:45 to 1:08:49
Examine Mai Vang's aspirations to become the first Hmong woman in Congress.
“And when we win, I would be the first Hmong ever in Congress.”
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.
0:30you get your podcast. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and Friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
1:29Well, then you gotta. Listen to Soccer Moms on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
2:02We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com.
2:09The Democratic National Committee autopsy that they claim to have performed has yet to be published. But Rob Flaherty, a top official with both the 2020 Biden campaign, the 2024 Biden campaign, and then the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign, is with us here to discuss the kind of interview that he gave with the autopsy crew and also how he would write it if he were the main author of this report. So you can read his piece in the bulwark. It's titled, Here's What I Told the DNC Autopsy. And I really do think it's worth reading because, Rob, I think you tried hard to say, like, look, I don't want to come off as being too defensive here.
2:53We lost. The goal is to win. We didn't do that. So therefore we failed. Um, here are the decisions we made. Here's why we made them and take what you want from it because we need to learn, uh, lessons from that. Um, what's been the reaction? And then we'll go through a bunch of different sections of it. What's been the reaction from Democrats since this kind of went viral among the operative set? Yeah. You know what? I have to be honest and thanks for having me by the way. Um, it has been a surprisingly constructive conversation, which I think has been heartening. There have been folks who have disagreed with my takes.
3:29That is totally fair. And I think they've offered constructive feedback. Also, I think speaks to why I think the party can handle an autopsy discussion. Like people, I think came to this in pretty good faith, which I appreciate it. No, that is a good point. And before we get into the thing, do you have a theory? So the theory that they're kind of floating now for why we haven't seen the autopsy is that it's really poorly done and it's embarrassing, which is kind of funny as an excuse. Then do a better job, maybe. Hire somebody to, I don't know, run it through ChatGPT and tell them to clean it up or something.
4:09It doesn't sound credible to me as an excuse. What is your theory for why we have not seen this document? And how do I get my hands on it? How do you get your hands on it? So that is basically my understanding, is that the final product was not up to snuff. Like a friend of Ken Martin's or something? More or less. The guy who was doing it, he was doing it as a volunteer, sort of outside of his consulting hours. It was sort of done not at the quality you would expect. I think, you know, it is... Do we know how much Democrats spent on this too bad to release report? I don't know how much was spent.
4:46I need an audit of it. Yeah, seriously. I think that it is worth them taking the time to do it and do it well if that is the case. But to my understanding, that is what it was. Something I'd have a chat GPT summary is like what came out. But anyway, I think they're just trying to hold their breath and do well in November and hope everybody forgets about it. But let's put up D2 to start. So at the top, you write, my biggest lesson from the 2024 election is that tactics don't add up to a brand. And a brand is the most important thing in politics today. Without a brand that people genuinely feel is connected to your candidates' deeply held beliefs, your tactics will add up to nothing.
5:25It's clear in retrospect that what Democrats needed for our damaged brand in 24 was a primary in which a real, well-funded candidate running an economically populist campaign could have teed off against the Biden administration. Even that wouldn't have been a sure bet, but, quote, a primary and a one-week shotgun primary, 107 days out from the election, are not the same. Once we were in it, we were always playing around the edges. You also talk about the role that the unfolding genocide in Gaza played, and we'll get to that toward the end of this for people who are wondering if we're going to talk about that.
6:03But so on this point, I thought that was really interesting. It's like, obviously, this isn't up to you, whether or not there's a primary, whether or not Democrats nominate an economic populist who's running against Biden. But I think for our viewers, it would be it's got to be interesting to hear somebody from your world come here and say, yeah, you guys are probably right tactically. Like forget putting us forget the substance and what's better for the world. But like, so tell us why you think tactically, even from your position within the party, an economic populist running against Biden would have been more successful.
6:42Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Here's the thing. I think if Biden stays in and gets primaried, voters were behind Biden at that particular time. And so that was sort of one of the things that made it challenging. I think if Biden decides not to run. Although once he had to debate. Well, yes, I mean, that changed the trajectory of the race. But I think once he, if he had decided not to run, you know, the administration was very unpopular. And the advantage of a primary would have been that someone not attached to the administration could have sort of honestly critiqued the administration without being tied to it in the same way.
7:18I think that was one of the main things that dragged Harris down was, you know, she was part of an administration that was horribly unpopular. And there was really no easy way to distance herself from that. And so I think probably that is the only, you know, the best shot we would have had. And so one thing I thought was missing, and maybe I didn't quite spot it in the piece, was a look at why. So let's back it up. Yeah. So why was the brand as bad as it was is the overlying question. And from our perspective, as we were covering this campaign, we were watching as the most kind of popular elements of the Biden administration, which were kind of his pro labor record and the kind of antitrust record.
8:05And, you know, Lena Khan going after powerful companies and saying this is the reason why you're paying more and we need to go after these companies. And then meanwhile, you'd have people like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban going on air and saying, no, actually, she's not even going to hire Lena Kahn. These people are crazy. And so then you wind up with without that populist brand. So it's one thing that she's stuck. She can't really run against Biden on anything that the Biden administration has done that she wants to disagree with. But these were things that the Biden administration did that people liked.
8:43The only time she ran against Biden, it seemed like, was to kind of cut Lena Kahn and her folks off at the knees. So how do you think that played into the campaign? So I think as a general measure, you know, voters were super economically concerned in this election. You know, a significant amount of the media we spent was on sort of economic policy writ large. I mean, that is sort of the advertising. But I think there was something about the overall sort of brand of the campaign, the sort of like je ne sais quoi that it added up to that didn't really click for people and didn't make that believable.
9:21and you know whether that was about Lena Khan or anything in particular or breaking up monopolies or any of that you know I think there was sort of a sense of people couldn't quite tell what the campaign was about and I think we had a lot of different places like if Kamala's going onto the stump and saying these companies are ripping you off we're going to break them up we're going to prosecute them doesn't that give her and I'm here with Lena Khan I don't you know I don't necessarily know that like sort of campaigning with specific administration officials like that, you know, would have been particularly helpful.
9:57But I do think there is a general, from my lens, a sense looking backwards that, you know, people were feeling economically populist. And so, you know, the more that the campaign would have been focused on that, the better off we would have been. But there were a lot of reasons in a short period that, you know, we didn't end up going in that direction and, you know, internal debates and things like that. But, you know, ultimately, I think if you look backwards, that was one of the reasons the brand was a little all over the place and hard to reach. There was this moment where for a few days she was using that kind of populist language.
10:30And then Cuban and Hoffman push back and they drop it. What's it like inside the campaign? Like how do the like you see Mark Cuban on TV or you see Reid Hoffman complaining? like just internally how does that how does that filter into decision making where she's changing her language you know it's hard for me to say like that you know on that specific feedback loop i don't know that i was part of it um uh so you know i don't i don't have a total lens on like what the osmosis is on on all that certainly um you know there was a broad pushback when more populous language was used. There was broad pushback when less populous language was used.
11:08And, you know, I think all of that gets taken in and gets taken on board. But again, I think we sort of found ourselves in this position where there was a lot of equities pushing on the campaign. And I think we sort of went down a lot of different rabbit holes and, you know, found ourselves sort of adding up to not quite the whole of the sum of our parts. Right. You made an interesting YouTube comment, which kind of dovetails with the whole Joe Rogan controversy, which you were part of. And we put up D3 here. You wrote, the whole country is on YouTube and uses it in ways that feel completely out of alignment with how I use it, which brings us to that whole Rogan thing.
11:49I somewhat infamously was involved in the Rogan negotiations. We agonized for a long time over doing it. I was in favor of doing it, but it was a close call. I didn't think it was going to be a clean interview. In fact, I thought the best case scenario would be a draw, but we just needed an attention event, which in my mind made it worth doing. Actually, I should have you reading these since this is your... Yeah, I'll do that. You can get the audio book. Yeah. So on the first point, before we get to Rogan, that YouTube is interesting as somebody who lives in it now. Yeah. What did you describe and what is the kind of gap between the way that kind of professional Washington Democratic campaigns understand YouTube and the way that it's actually exists in the world now.
12:31Yeah, 100%. Well, first of all, the vast majority of YouTube is watched on television sets. Yeah, which is crazy. Which is crazy. People might not know that. That is not how I use it. But that may be how you at home are using it. Hello, on your TV. More than half of our audience, according to our data, watches it on television. And so that is thing one. And I think that people in campaigns often miss that it's television for people. and so the kinds of programming, the kinds of content is long form and conversation, all those kinds of things. And also its dominance. 80 % of the country goes there at least once a week.
13:04I mean, it is the place where I think the election is going to happen in 2028, and so it's really important. From a campaign perspective, that impacts where you go and do interviews, the people you talk to, those kinds of things, but also how you do your own content. And as you guys know, building a YouTube channel is very hard, and it doesn't come easy. He takes a lot of time. And so, you know, it's a challenge for campaigns, but I think it is really going to be a core battleground for political campaigns going forward. And so the channels that have built audiences like Rogan, for instance, who's gone in a kind of different direction last year, year and a half or so.
13:42That was a big thing. And you were directly involved with this this question. And so, yeah, why did you think it would be slightly a good idea? And what were the counter arguments? And walk people through why it ended up not happening. So we landed on wanting to do the show. Right. And talked to his team quite a bit. And, you know, pretty much agreed to, you know, no holds barred. We had some time limits in place, but, you know, because we had a schedule and things like that. How long? I forget what we said. But he said something like, we only wanted an hour. And I think we said we did not ever, we didn't say that.
14:25So I think we had discussed a longer engagement. Because he normally does three to four. Yeah. And I think it was probably shorter than he normally does, but longer than he said that we were asking for, if I recall correctly. And look, you know, I think the reason why was, you know, I think the vice president wanted to talk to the audience. but also we just, I mean, I say this in the piece, I think we started to really lose the race when we lost the attention war with Donald Trump. We needed something that would shake it up. But I think it was going to be a challenging interview. I mean, Rogan is not easy.
14:56And he'll ask questions that you're not used to getting. And you have to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. And a lot of political figures, that's a hard thing. And so, you know, I figured if we did the show, you know, he would get a couple of marks on the vice president. I thought the vice president might get a couple of marks on him. But, you know, it was a sort of team discussion, and we netted out on wanting to do it. But the logistics just sort of didn't work out. The idea that all attention is net good I think is an interesting one. Because I remember thinking at the time if I were you guys and Kamala Harris was my candidate, I would actually not tell her to do Joe Rogan.
15:37Yeah. because she might be okay in five minutes on MSNBC or CNN or even Fox, like a little pushback here and there. But like she didn't strike me as somebody that for an hour, an hour and a half is going to kind of win over the audience because that's just not the style that she's kind of come up in. But I think, and I'm curious for your take on this, I think it has created a kind of obstacle course or litmus test of sorts for candidates That is actually a good thing, that the new kind of bar that you have to clear to be a national candidate is can you sit down for 90 minutes in a free-form interview and come across as a normal person?
16:23Yeah. And I think Bernie did really well with that in 2016 and beyond, even though he just says the same thing, millionaires and billionaires. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's charming because he's been saying it for 50 years. I think AOC could do it. Yeah. Because she lives in that kind of, you know, she calls audibles all the time. She's like, she's not that scripted. Ro Khanna does it all the time. He goes to these places. Buttigieg could probably do it. But like, Newsom can do it. But I can imagine that some others couldn't. Like, do you agree? Is that the new bar to entry into national politics, is that you have to actually be able to sit down?
17:07I agree. I think that's downstream from something that is really the important thing, which is everyone is consuming tons of content produced by people who are really close to that production of the content. And so they're used to super authentic stuff. They know Ryan Grimm. They know where you think. And they know where you stand. And you believe what you're saying. And so you're up against all of that. And so when you show up and you're a politician and you're like, here are my three talking points, like people, the bullshit-o-meter has gotten higher. And so one of the indicators of that is, yeah, can that person have like a real conversation that doesn't sound like they're reciting the party line over and over and over again?
17:46And so I think that is an indicator and has moved people in that direction. And I think it's going to be a factor in, you know, who wins in 2028. Yeah. So let's talk in Emily's honor. We'll talk about the famous trans ad that she's with them, not with you. Actually, let's play it first and then get into your take on it. Yeah. He murdered a father of three, sentenced to life in prison. Kamala Harris pushed to use tax dollars to pay for his sex change.
18:17Emily Jashinsky:I made sure that they changed the policy so that every transgender inmate would have access. It sounds insane because it is insane. Kamala was the first to help pay for a prisoner's sex change. The power that I had, I used it in a way that was about pushing for the movement, frankly, and the agenda. Kamala's agenda is they, them, not you. I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message. And so you say two interesting things on this. One, you say that contrary to kind of popular opinion that actually wasn't the most devastating ad, The most devastating one was where they just kept playing clips of Kamala Harris saying, quote, Bidenomics is working.
18:55And it didn't match up with how people felt. But then I want to. So what you write about this one, you say a there was a debate about how to respond. You said a literal rebuttal would have been a loser. I absolutely stand by this decision. Look at the 2025 elections in Virginia where Republicans made trans issues the core of their advertising strategy. It failed because voters didn't find it relevant. The Trump camp's trans ad, quote, worked at getting attention because it was shocking, not because it was effective on its own. Its real power came from its implied storyline, which in the digital era is more critical than ever.
19:30The lesson when you get hit with an attack ad like this, ask not what claim it's making, but rather what brand it's building. The best response isn't to relitigate the fight. It's to fight harder on the underlying issue that voters actually care about. So let me try to channel Emily since she's not Yeah, yeah, yeah Couldn't be here Do your Emily impression And what I think she would say is Okay, maybe that's all true But also You are wrong on the issue 80 to 90 % of the public Disagrees with you when it comes to particularly the sports question And they don't even believe that you believe what you're saying And so then it goes to a fundamental credibility gap between you.
20:15So I think she would probably say, yes, you're right. Like it's a distraction from the overall economic issues, but that doesn't mean that you're not totally wrong on the question itself. And as long as you cling to your position, that is this 80, 20, 90, 10, Republicans are going to keep hammering you on it. So I take the point. I think that there's a couple of things. One, um, this ad was, you know, not the only thing that was on rotation in the same at the same time so the they them ad is running against an immigration track that they're running that is running against an economic track that they're running and the through line in all of that is kamala harris is focused on all kinds of wacky stuff and not the stuff that you actually care about and so that's like actually what people are hearing in real time and so if you go in and make a counter ad about that issue you are just raising that issue um when uh the thing people are actually saying is Kamala Harris doesn't actually care about the stuff I care about.
21:14And so we tested, like we made spots that rebutted it directly. You know, it was a Trump era policy. No, the vice president doesn't think that or whatever. But none of that worked as well in groups and testing as just talking about the economy, because that sort of grounded it in, all right, she does, she's focused on things that actually matter to me. And so this idea of having a firefight on an 80-20 issue where we were always going to be coming from behind when we could have just talked about the thing that was actually the problem. That to me is why I think the response to the trans ad, to the extent that we responded, was the correct one.
21:50And I stand by, you know, it was funny, James Blair, who's, you know, Trump's sort of political maestro, after the Virginia election said basically a version of what I said there, which is Republicans talking about this issue, even if it's an 80-20. Makes them look weird. Makes them look weird. Makes them look a little out of place. Spanberger did more directly to dispatch the issue. But, you know, that clip is on the Harris clip is on tape. There's not much you can do to get rid of it. So, you know, the best thing to do is to pivot to the issue people care about. And maybe there's two separate questions.
22:24Like once it's fall of 2024. Yeah. You're already kind of locked into a position. So at that point, you either defend the position or you just don't talk about it. Yeah. Do you think and generally, Emily, again, that Democrats need to change their position on this so that they're not locked into an 80-20, 90-10 firefight? fight. Yeah. I think that this is obviously a tricky issue. The big thing is when you think about transgender people generally, the American people are not for taking rights away from transgender people. I mean, Democrats have won on this issue. It's ancient wisdom, but Roy Cooper was governor of North Carolina on this issue.
23:02The bathroom fight. On the bathroom fight. Mike Pence becomes vice president because he's so popular in Indiana because of a bathroom bill. And so - It is interesting. The bathroom is good turf, I think, for Democrats. Because people are like, of course, if you identify as a woman, use the women's room. Yeah. But the high school and college sports - Yeah. It ends up not being good turf. Yeah. It's the only place that - Well, maybe child surgeries and stuff like that. Yeah, there's a - There's a bigger issue there. Democrats are losing on that, too. And I think that, A, this is like not - I don't think Democrats really campaign on this issue very much.
23:33It sort of gets put on them. But the broader thing is like, yes, those are very unpopular things. They are edge cases. I think it is okay for Democrats to take heterodox stands on this stuff. But overall, the thing that I also don't think, you know, I think that sometimes people read this as, you know, we should totally run away from transgender people and all that stuff. And I just don't think that's where the American public is. Got it. All right. So on Gaza, we put up D4. You write here, given the Biden administration's position, Gaza was an impossible issue to communicate around. Protesters drove coverage away from campaign events.
24:09Digital creators or even supporters were afraid to say anything nice about Biden because their comment sections would get rocked. For many voters watching the horrific, painful footage out of Gaza, it became a moral question when we didn't have a good answer for. In ways that may not be reflected in a poll, it meaningfully reduced enthusiasm. As one person from the campaign told me, we spent the entire election with a giant, rotting fish around our necks. This was one of the places where Biden era, not his age, mind you, but his political era, led him to misread the politics. His frustration with Netanyahu was well covered and spilled out into the public.
24:41But Biden just misread the nation's support for Israel as an endless fixed object and missed how much the ongoing visuals were seeping into the public consciousness. You're seeing the politics move today. Senators who would never have considered it in years, in years past, are now signing on to the Sanders resolution to block offensive military aid to Israel. Rahm Emanuel, of all people, is raising doubts about funding the Iron Dome. But we were seeing this emerge on the ground during the campaign. My hot take is that the eventual Democratic nominee in 2028 will support conditions on aid to Israel in one way or another.
Read the full transcript
25:13And this section of your piece is important just from a news perspective, because there was a dispute where there were reports that the autopsy did include basically a section about this. and basically saying this. Then there were some claims to the contrary. You ran digital. You were very high up in the campaign. If you told the autopsy folks this in the meeting, it clearly is then reflected in the autopsy itself, whether we've seen it or not. So did you tell them this directly in your conversations? I don't remember if I told them this directly in the conversation. I don't remember enough to say.
25:54I don't think that there's any smoking gun in there about the impact of Gaza on the election. I know that they had the conversation with activists. I think my understanding is the guy sort of was like, of course, it's, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've got it kind of like being polite. So I don't know what was in there. And I don't know if what I - The way to find out would be to release it. Exactly, we'll find out. Again, I don't think, I think there are a lot of people who want to hear somebody say Gaza was the reason. And I don't think it is the reason, But I think it is a factor in a reduced enthusiasm for the vice president and obviously for Biden before that.
26:33And I remember from my own perspective, too. And it wasn't because of the comment section. I think it was more of the kind of just moral question. I was really supportive of a lot of things that, like I said earlier, he was doing on antitrust or on labor and sometimes on trade. But I would probably, I would mute my praise. Because I'd be like, he's also, on a daily basis, slaughtering and participating in the slaughter of children. Sizable numbers of children every single day. Like a child, like every hour or so for a year. And so it did make it very hard to be like, this was a great NLRB ruling.
27:17And we should all celebrate it. even though it's good NLRB rolling. So was that something you noticed intuitively, or did you have interactions with kind of influencers and other surrogates who you were trying to get to go rah-rah, and they're like, you know what? So walk us through, how did you come to this conclusion, which I agree with. I'm just curious how you came to it also. So I think it's two things. This is the thing. If you actually look at the polling, the polling said that Gaza was not a top issue. But there's just a – one of the things I think is a theme of the entire piece for me is that there's just some stuff that, like, lives outside of numbers, right?
27:57The tactics of the campaign – Genocide might be one. Well, right. Yeah. The tactics of the campaign, you know, sort of moved people on particular issues but didn't actually move people on how they were going to vote. And so one of these things is, you know, there's, I think this is a thing that probably dampened enthusiasm well beyond, you know, what would show up in a poll. And it was stuff like that, you know, creators who would be willing to be supportive would say, well, it's just sort of not safe territory to do it because I'm going to get criticized. Right. Or, you know, would themselves be critical of President Biden's position on it.
28:36And so it did. I think it had a material impact in a way that I think was difficult to measure, but was sort of passes a smell test on, you know, obviously was there. And so to sum up, because we've got to run, it sounds like an outsider, anti-establishment populist who's willing to be critical of Israel, from your perspective, would have done better in 2024. what does that mean for 2028? What's your elevator pitch to candidates and campaigns who are looking at 28? So I think a couple of things on this. One, I don't think we can overestimate just how pissed off the American people are. And they are mad about the status quo.
29:21Democrats are benefiting from Donald Trump being on the wrong side of this right now, but that's not a permanent thing. and I think that a winning 28-28 campaign is going to look a little economically populist. I think you are seeing that the politics of a number of different issues are pushing people in that direction, particularly AI, I think is going to be one of the driving issues of 2028. And then, yeah, I think a huge factor in the Democratic primary is going to be this conversation around Israel. I mentioned Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel is talking about conditioning aid to Israel. Unbanned?
29:56Like, no more aid? Yeah, like, I mean, which sort of tells you that, you know, there's a... Middle name is Israel. Yeah. Literally. I didn't know that. So, you know, I think that that's going to be a factor. But I do think economic populism and big, you know, policies and then delivery on the other side are going to be really important. And now Rob has his own YouTube channel, by the way. So you're figuring out it's called Nobody Knows Anything. And so you can find a Nobody Knows Anything show. So help Rob out, bring him into the YouTube world. But much appreciated. Thank you for being here. Thanks, Ryan.
30:31Thanks, everybody. Hey, it's us, the Jonas Brothers. And guess what? We have some big news. What's the news, Nate? Huge news. We created our own podcast called Hey Jonas. We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We're the first people to do podcasts. Pretty, yeah, pretty wide range of podcasts. We're starting a trend. But this one's extra special. So how did we actually come up with the name Hey Jonas, guys? I honestly don't remember. I think it was on a call about what we should call it. Well, we were thinking I'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band before Jonas Brothers.
31:09This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes. I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing, a bit for the podcast, where people could call in and say, Hey Jonas. And then I wrote down on my little notepad, Hey Jonas, and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys. Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier.
31:44This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Here's something that should not be as complicated as it is. Getting a racist statue removed. And here's something that should be a whole lot easier than it is. Getting a new one put up in its place. As long as there's a politics of race in America, at.
32:17There's going to be a politics of remembering the Civil War. To get to school, I had to go down Robert E. Lee Boulevard. To get to the grocery store, I had to go down Jefferson Davis Parkway. If you're a historian and you leave out half of what the history is, you're not doing your job. I'm Akilah Hughes, and Rebel Spirit Season 2 goes deep on both of those things. The fights, the politics, the people who won, and my personal campaign to add something to the Kentucky Statehouse that's actually worth the wall space. We are more than our bodies. We contain In essence, we contain spirit. How do you represent that?
32:50Emily Jashinsky:They are just fueling a fire that is really catching. You'll see what I mean. Listen to Rebel Spirit Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Elon Musk's former girlfriend, Ashley Sinclair, launched some rather provocative accusations recently. Let's take a listen. And then October rolls around. And in October, Elon tells me that he is ready to release his, in his words, anomaly in the Matrix. And I am like, oh, like, who's that? And he says that he has 10 ,000 lasers in space referring to his satellites. I say, because I am, like, rather uncomfortable and I know the gravity of what he's trying to tell me right now, I say, wow, finally a focus on the Jewish vote.
33:57Emily Jashinsky:He keeps going and he says, you know, this is not something on, this is not a piece that they'll see on the chessboard. And I straight up tell him. I say, I would ask more, but I really don't want to be deposed. to which he says, very wise. Shortly after that, you know, he's involved with America PAC and all of this other stuff. And he's sending me some internal data from America PAC, real-time Delta vote metrics. And I am just like, how the fuck do you have this sort of data? You don't get this from door knocking. Then to have arguably the most powerful man in the world who is sending me things about, you know, using his space technology in the election.
34:54Emily Jashinsky:I should also say that I have all of this backed up with many people with explicit instructions should anything happen to me. All right, Emily. So we've we've reviewed actually and obtained some of these text messages and what Ashley Sinclair is is claiming Musk claimed is true. And I say that quite deliberately because there's a difference between Musk making a claim and Musk's claim being true. However, what he says matters. And her reference to depositions, I think, is is telling. But yeah, so he wrote to her, tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the Matrix. This is not something on the chessboard.
35:35So they will be quite surprised, quote, lasers from space. And then she does tell her joke, referencing kind of a Marjorie Taylor Greene thing. Finally, a focus on the Jewish vote. And he adds, I have over 10 ,000 lasers in space right now. And she does, in fact, then reply, I would ask more questions, but will keep myself from getting deposed. and Musk responds wise with the laughing guy. And then she says something like, if your space lasers seriously end up being the anomaly in the matrix that takes back America, I will be convinced that God is maximizing the simulation. So this conversation did happen in early October while Musk was campaigning with Trump and Butler when they went back to the scene of the attempted assassination.
36:27And I think what's really important here is that Rogan has also talked about this, right? Where he said Musk left the election night gathering in Mar-a-Lago very early saying, we've got the data, like it's over, he won. And Trump, and this is, I think, very important. Historically, Trump believed that Musk had done something interesting. He didn't know exactly what he didn't know. I don't I don't know if he knew how shady it was, if it was straight up rigging or if it was some type of whiz bang thing that Trump can't understand. But Trump believed that Musk had something secret and magic going on there.
37:11These space lasers like that, you know. And and I think that that had something to do then with Trump inviting him in and making him co-president for the first several months. So that's why I think his claim there is so is so noteworthy, because whether or not you believe it as a rational viewer, Trump believed it. and Trump acted on it.
37:38Emily Jashinsky:Those are interesting dots to connect. I'm curious what you make of what he could have. Like, what could we be talking about here? Because his claim, like you're saying, it's a claim to, you know, someone who he's romantically trying to impress and whatever else. What even, like, I'm at a loss for words, like what Elon Musk might have act like, what is his anomaly in the matrix actually, uh, in a concrete way? What could this technology be? What could this data harvesting be? Um, I have no idea. Right. I mean, at worst than what Trump might have assumed is a straight up hacking of voting machines.
38:24Like in this whole, you know, every accusation is a confession type of situation. You know, I think Trump spent the last four years marinating in these ideas about voting machines getting hacked and Hugo Chavez, you know, coming in and manipulating the 2020 vote, even though he's dead, so that Biden would beat Trump. You know, he may at this point, you know, be convinced of that himself. So if he thinks that Democrats are doing it, he'd be like, oh, wow, I've got my own guy who can do it. There's that. Or there's like, you know, he's got some, you know, data is extraordinarily powerful as a campaign tool.
39:06So maybe all he means is that he's got some way where he's breaking election laws and with the way he's like accessing voter data and merging it with other maybe publicly available but difficult to find data and then analyzing it in a way that is helping him and then doing this giant lottery and paying people to go out and register people to vote. You know, maybe he means it's that and a more kind of benign kind of lawbreaking than the straight up hacking. We don't know. The fact that Ashley Sinclair immediately thought depositions are coming suggests that there probably should be some. Like we should.
39:47This is something we should. These are these are questions that ought to be answered, I would think.
39:53Emily Jashinsky:Well, Musk seemed to agree that depositions could be coming when he responded with what the laughing face emoji? Wise? Yeah, wise, wise. Yes. Don't ask. Don't ask any more questions. But yeah. Is it just Musk trying to impress Ashley Sinclair? For those who don't know, like they end up having what one baby together and then there's there's some agreement that they have. They've had a falling out. Ashley was recently on Crystal Kyle and Friends where she talked about this also what is this new genre where people are like doing makeup and talking to the camera should we like adopt that here you think I was just going to say you're already on TikTok so it's perfect I'll film it for you or it could be a selfie but when Ryan spends 10 seconds making sure that his face isn't shiny that will be the Ryan Groom get ready with me.
40:51Emily Jashinsky:I blinded people today. But yes, this is how Ashley Sinclair has chosen to spill all of these consequential inside details that she learned as part of the... I mean, she wasn't really part of the conventional conservative movement that's more like... Some people derisively refer to it as Con Inc. That's more established, and it's a lot of the groups that have been around. like William F. Buckley, but she was part of this kind of new MAGA conservative world and has explained about influencers and astroturfing that she saw kind of up close. You have to take some of it, I think, with a grain of salt.
41:32Emily Jashinsky:There's the virality incentive, but also I think she knows that some of this could end up in court. So she's probably speaking with some judiciousness and kind of explaining, peeling back the curtain on how the new MAGA media world operates. And then also, because she was so close to Elon Musk for a brief period of time, a little bit about how he operates. And again, with some really consequential information. Yeah, I think with Ashley Sinclair, they thought they had an NPC. Turns out they didn't. So I think we're going to continue to find out more. But up next, Mae Vong will be joining us, and Emily will be departing.
42:13Great to see you this morning, and have a good trip back to D.C.
42:17Emily Jashinsky:Thanks.
42:37extra special. So how did we actually come up with the name Hey Jonas, guys? I honestly don't remember. I think it was on a call about what we should call it. Well, we were thinking I'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band before Jonas Brothers. This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes. I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing, a bit for the podcast where people could call in and say, Hey Jonas. And then I wrote down on my little notepad Hey Jonas and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys.
43:11Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy. Not quite. On Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
43:49Here's something that should not be as complicated as it is. Getting a racist statue removed. And here's something that should be a whole lot easier than it is. Getting a new one put up in its place. As long as there's a politics of race in America, at. There's going to be a politics of remembering the Civil War. To get to school, I had to go down Robert E. Lee Boulevard. To get to the grocery store, I had to go down Jefferson Davis Parkway. If you're a historian and you leave out half of what the history is, you're not doing your job. I'm Akilah Hughes, and Rebel Spirit Season 2 goes deep on both of those things.
44:21The fights, the politics, the people who won, and my personal campaign to add something to the Kentucky Statehouse that's actually worth the wall space. We are more than our bodies. We contain essence. We contain spirit. How do you represent that?
44:36Emily Jashinsky:They are just fueling a fire that is really catching. You'll see what I mean. Listen to Rebel Spirit Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Joining us now is Mai Vang, who is running in California's 7th Congressional District, which encompasses Sacramento, California. Mai, thank you so much for joining us here. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. It's great to be on here today. Good morning to everyone. Yeah, no, it's an exciting day in Democratic politics. You just had two kind of big wins for progressives in Pennsylvania, Chris Rabb in Philadelphia, and then Bob Brooks up in the Lehigh Valley.
45:23But California has such an interesting system with these top two that it ends up producing all sorts of bizarre kind of game theory going on in these races. And so I wanted to start with this really bizarre development that we're seeing where it seems like your opponent, incumbent Doris Matsui, is trying to push into the general election a Republican. And I think people will be very confused when they first hear that. They'll be like, wait a minute. A Democrat is trying to get a Republican elected into the primary? What on earth is going on here? We can put up this first element up on the screen.
46:12So Andrew Solyner spotted this. I did too, and I just forgot to tweet about it. So the way that campaigns signal to super PACs legally. So they're not allowed to coordinate with a super PAC. But what they can do is on their website, they can put language that anybody in the public can read, but it's clearly aimed directly at a super PAC. So this says what voters need to know. Zachariah Wooden, this is the Republican. Wooden has a record of serving the community. This is what voters need to know, according to Doris Matsui. Fighting to advance Trump's policies as endorsed by major GOP groups like the Republican Party of Sacramento, Republican Party of San Joaquin, Reform California, and Carl Demio.
46:59And then it goes into real kind of details about what it says Republican, Republican-leading NPP, likely primary voters, and that's no party preference, need to see, read, and see on the go that Zachariah Wooden is the strongest Republican in the June 2nd primary. Right. There's a lot of coded language going on there. So city councilwoman, can you can you walk normal people through some of this coded language? So what does it mean, first of all, to say that, quote, voters need to see, read and see on the go? What is what is she trying to say there? Yeah, well, first, let me just say, you know, this is one of the reasons why I'm running, you know, established politicians like Doris Matsui, who's been in office for 21 years.
47:49Actually, her and her husband, it's a dynasty. They've been in office for almost 47 years, almost half a century, would rather see a Republican in power than pass the torch to the next generation. Right. And what you're seeing in that on her website, or they call it a red box, is basically directing her corporate donors and her supporters to run mailers, to increase name ID among the Republicans, and basically to turn out the vote for Republicans. in hopes that she would knock me out in the June primaries. In California, we have this thing called Jungle Primary, and it's the top two vote-getters that actually advance to the November election.
48:30And we are seeing polls where we are literally neck-to-neck and that she's losing the Democratic and the declined-to-state base because people are really fed up and tired of the establishment. And she knows this. Her political apparatus that's around her knows this. And so they're trying a different strategy to see if they can knock us out of top two. Yeah. And also, I can help decode for people to see read and see on the go, as my understanding means, see means basically television ads. Read means mailers. Mailers. And see on the go means, I think, mobile, basically. Mobile, yeah. Digital ads.
49:10So they're being very specific. So this is Doris Matsouya, a Democratic incumbent, telling her, as you said, major corporate backers, the super PACs, please take out television, digital and mail ads for a Republican so that I don't have to compete with my Democratic opponent in the general election. So let's talk about why. Why doesn't she want to compete with you? What are you running on that would be such a significant difference from the Matsui dynasty? Yeah, I would say, you know, a big part of this is because voters across Congressional District 7, but I would say voters across our country is incredibly tired of established politicians that created the conditions for what we have today.
49:55You know, I'm entering the space as a community organizer, someone who grew up here in South Sacramento, and I don't have the luxury of waiting on the sideline. There's this unspoken rule. I am a local elected. I'm on the city council. Before I was on the city council, I was a community organizer. But among local electeds, there's this unspoken rule that you don't do what my thing is doing. You wait your turn and you don't take on an incumbent. Right. And I wasn't even waiting my turn. Didn't even think that I would be running for Congress one day. But I understand the day to day struggles of our working families.
50:25I am married to a son of Mexican immigrants. I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. I have families and loved ones that wake up every morning afraid of they're going to be separated by ICE. I have family and loved ones and so many residents in our region that's struggling to get by to pay their mortgage, to put food on the table, to fill up their gas tank. And it's so important that we have elected leaders in the halls of Congress that understand the day-to-day struggles of our working families. The difference also between me and my opponent, the incumbent, is I don't take any corporate PAC money.
50:58And as I've been saying, when you're funded by a corporate, when your campaign is funded by a corporate credit card, you have debt to pay. You won't move with a sense of urgency on Medicare for all. You won't move with a sense of urgency to close detention centers that are separating family and loved ones. And you won't move with a sense of urgency to stop endless wars. The congresswoman hasn't signed on to legislation to block bombs. And under her leadership, ICE budget has tripled under her leadership. And so the district itself, what are the main issues economically? I know Sacramento is, you know, California is overall compared to the rest of the country a pretty wealthy state.
51:41Sacramento has always struggled. So what are you pitching to the people of Sacramento that's going to kind of boost them up? Thanks. So Congressional District 7, just for those that's listening for the first time in terms of what that district is, it is Sacramento, but it also now encompasses, after Prop 50, encompasses rural areas too, El Dorado, Placerville, and a little bit of the Central Valley, Lodi and Gulf in San Joaquin County. And I would say to you, Ryan, you know, affordability is still a huge issue for so many of our working families across the congressional district. I hear about how hard is it for our families to basically put food on the table to fill up their gas tank.
52:26And I know that so many of our working families right now, their premiums are going up. And so affordability is still a huge issue. But on the campaign trail for the past seven months, what I've been hearing is that we got to get money out of politics. that so many of these congressional seats are bought by corporate PACs or by AIPAC. And so they want to see someone independent, someone going in there fighting for the people. And I have a track record of that as someone that's a community organizer. Our campaign doesn't take any corporate PAC. And when I get to the halls of Congress, I want to be fighting for the people that I represent.
52:56And as you mentioned, AIPAC has endorsed Matsui over the years, has donated heavily to her campaign. She hasn't signed on to the Block the Bombs Act. I'm curious how far you go on that question. AOC and even J Street recently said that the U.S. should not be subsidizing any weapons for Israel, offensive or defensive. And if they want weapons, they can buy themselves. themselves, where do you come down on that question? Because others have gone even further and said, no, they should actually be sanctioned. And as long as they are engaged in human rights abuses, we should not be selling them weapons, period, even if they're paying for them.
53:39Yeah. I mean, my position is, you know, I'm the only candidate in this race that have called what has happened a genocide. Even before I made the decision to run for Congress, I led the effort for a ceasefire resolution in the city of Sacramento. And there are there are Palestinian families right here in our region that have lost entire generation of their family because of this genocide. And you're absolutely right. The congresswoman has taken money from APEC and she has consistently voted for more and more of our tax dollars to buy weapons for Israel. My position on that is that we should not be spending our tax dollar, defensive or offensive, because they are committing a genocide and human rights violation.
54:14So that is my position. And a big part of this is also because I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. My parents came over here because of war. And I understand the generational trauma that that war has on families, the displacement and the harm that that caused for so many lives. And so for me, Gaza is a test of our moral clarity and courage in this moment. And what would it take to get to a place where, so yesterday, for instance, there were reports that the International Criminal Court had issued an arrest warrant for Itamar Ben-Gavir. Ben-Gavir responded by demanding the ethnic cleansing of another village in the West Bank.
55:02Where do you stand on sanctions for officials like that? Yeah, I think I support boycotting, divestment and sanctions. Absolutely. That's always been my position. Now, immigration is also a huge issue in your race, as I understand it. Where do you come down on the question of what ICE is doing, whether ICE should continue as an agency? And if it shouldn't, what should immigration enforcement look like? Yeah, thanks for that question. I fundamentally believe that we should abolish ICE. I don't think you could reform an agency that is killing U.S. citizens, killing people on the street. You can't reform an agency that pulls people over based on the color of their skin, the language that they speak, where they work.
55:54And it is corrupt and immoral. And the congresswoman, my opponent, has taken money from ICE contractors and people with huge contracts to help set up ICE detention centers. And she's often been late and ineffective to the issue. And we do really need bold and courageous leadership in this moment to dismantle this immoral agency. And look, I always share ICE didn't exist before 2003 and it was under INS. For me, at the end of the day, ICE is really not about enforcement, but it's about terrorizing our black or brown, our immigrant and refugee communities. I think what we need to do as a government is to invest in robust, nimble and strategic administrative state.
56:34That includes our immigration system, right? Establishing an accessible pathway to legal status for our TPS recipients, our DREAMers. I have family members who are DACA. And I think that we have to really moderate, we have to, you know, make sure that we have a pathway for them. But we also like Congress also needs to increase funding and staffing for a federal agency. We've got to modernize our immigration courts with digital case systems, reduce visa, asylum processing, backlogs. And the last piece is we have to end all inhumane deportation and detention programs. So we have babies and families being separated from their parents.
57:13And that shouldn't be happening in the United States. We need to be closing all these detention centers. that's literally profiting. These detention centers are profiting from these detentions. What about on the question of the AI data center moratorium that Bernie Sanders has proposed? And then in general, what do you see the federal government's role in regulating AI and AI safety? Yeah, I support the AI data monitoring that Bernie and AOC has put forth. I often share you know, when I'm trying to explain AI, even to like my elders, I share with them, you know, just like we don't expect the oil industry or tobacco or alcohol industry to regulate.
57:59So we shouldn't allow AI and that one and the one percent and billionaires and a very small handful of rich people to decide, you know, the future of AI. It should we should put a moratorium on it and we should make sure that we have safeguards. And so that is my position. And what about on the wealth tax. I know California is putting forward this kind of 5 % one-time tax. Ro Khanna has got a primary challenger because he supports it. Where are you on that? And more generally, what can we do about income and wealth inequality when it comes to tax policy? Yeah, I actually support the wealth tax that's on the ballot measure.
58:40I think it's incredibly important that we make sure that the billionaires pay their fair share. And I think there's several things we could do. One, we could fund it through by closing corporate tax loopholes and raising tax on billionaires, on the large corporations. That's always been my position. I think no one ever just becomes a billionaire. They become a billionaire by the working class families. And it's incredibly important that they pay their fair share. And can you talk a little bit about a little more about your your background and how your how your family got here? Because I think it is I think it always is interesting to have people in Congress who whose families have been on the other side of the American gun.
59:25You know, how did so how did your how does how does your family get here and how has that kind of shaped your politics? Thanks. Thanks for asking that question. Well, you know, I didn't come into politics through a dynasty like my opponent or through money. I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. I was born and raised here, but my parents came here as refugees. I am the proud daughter of Hmong refugees. I'm the oldest of 16 children in my family, the first to go to college. But for those that may not know about the Hmong people, during the Vietnam War, the United States, The CIA recruited the Hmong to fight in guerrilla warfare to stop the supply, the weapon supply through the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
1:00:05And the Hmong people were mountain people. We knew that region better than anyone else. And so the United States recruited the Hmong people to fight in the secret war of Laos during the Vietnam War. And as you all know, that was a war that the United States should have not engaged in. And when they withdrew their troops, there was persecution and genocide of our people because we allied with the United States. And I often share that our people fought for democracy before we even stepped foot onto this country. Over 40 ,000 villagers and Hmong soldiers, ages 10 and up, because they actually recruited young boys ages 10 and up, to fight in the secret war of Laos.
1:00:44That's an undercount, actually. We know that the number is much higher than that. My parents were actually the villagers that were impacted. And Laos is one of the most bombed country in the world. My parents fled the war, was in the jungle for about six to eight months, crossed the Minkong River and then made it to Thailand to seek refuge. And then they came to the United States and they settled here in Sacramento. And my grandparents didn't have any formal education. They were just villagers. And so they rented land in Elk Grove, which is in Congressional District 7. And they they grew vegetables and they were farmers under the farmer's market at the farmer's market under the freeway.
1:01:25This very big, popular farmer's market in Sacramento. You just say the farmer's market under the freeway in downtown. People know exactly what farmer's market that is. But growing up, I remember just helping my grandma and grandpa sell fruits and vegetables. And then my parents came here as teenagers, went through our public school system. but didn't graduate high school because they couldn't speak English. And so they went to alternative school to get their GED. And then I went through a public school system, grew up on food stamps. And my high school teacher told me that if I went to college, it was going to be my one to get out of poverty.
1:02:00And so I left because of poverty. But poverty is also the reason why I came back home. I went to UCLA for college. And after I graduated from UCLA, I realized that, you know, what good is it to have two masters from UCLA or from a public university, one of the top public university, when your family and your community is still struggling. And so I came back home to help mom and dad pay the bills, take care of my siblings. And then when I came back to Sacramento, I looked around, Ryan, and realized that not a lot had changed, that so many of our underserved communities were lacking resources. And so I had learned about organizing community activism when I was in college.
1:02:42I worked for Apollo, the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, did some organizing voter education outreach for the Obama campaign in L.A. when I was a grad student and took those skills and started just building here in South Sacramento and started an organization called HIP, Hmong Innovating Politics. We're a grassroots organization at that time. We were a scrappy organizer with money in our shoebox underneath someone's bed. But we became this political force in Sacramento, organizing our parents to fight for their students' education. Fast forward, I'm on the city council now, always fighting for our families and our communities.
1:03:20And yes, it's no secret that I am the progressive on the city council. But we've been able to get a lot of work done, securing millions for so many communities, passing the first ever Sacramento Children's Fund ballot initiative. And I never thought that I would be here today. Ryan, if you told me on May 20th, because today is May 20th, in 2025, that I would be running for Congress, I probably wouldn't believe you. The decision to run for Congress didn't happen until the fall of last year. And a big part of that was my anger and frustration at the lack of responsiveness and fight from our Congresswoman.
1:03:56And, you know, I don't take running against an incumbent lightly. I always knew it was going to be an uphill battle, but I don't have the luxury of waiting on the sidelines while our democracy is on fire and our families are living in fear. And I want to be able to look back on this moment, tell all my nieces and nephews and my two boys that when Trump was in office, I did everything I could to protect their future. This last thing for you. Was there anything that kind of flipped you from kind of normal person in the world going from, you know, you know, poor working class? Then you go to college that flipped you into and politicized you.
1:04:36Was there was there a moment where you're like, yeah, I need what? And what was that? it was i was sitting in my sociology class and i read one line about the moong people and ryan you know when growing up in sacramento um i really growing up in sacramento as a daughter refugee i really internalized poverty um i was that good obedient moong daughter i cooked i cleaned i took care of my siblings but i never understood why my family was poor um and it wasn't until i went to college that i read one line about the moong people that we were recruited by the United States defying the secret war of laws.
1:05:12And everything clicked for me of like displacement, why I grew up in poverty. And that was the moment that I realized that oftentimes the system is fixed for the wealthy and not for all of us. It's not the reason why we have the outcomes that we have today. And that was the beginning of my political awakening. I remember going back home that day to my dorm and calling my father and I'm translating from Hmong to English. And I had called him because I had to do a paper in my sociology class. And I asked him, I said, Dad, did you know we were involved in the Vietnam War? And he said, yes. And I asked him, I said, how come you never told me?
1:05:52And he said to me, well, you never asked. In some ways, when I reflect back on our conversation, I think my father and my mother really wanted me just to focus on school. And they didn't want to talk about the war. They They didn't want to be re-traumatized. And they just wanted their kids to go to college and, you know, find a good job and become self-sufficient. But reading about my people was that political awakening and recognizing just U.S. imperialism and the injustice that we have in this country among so many people. And so that was the first chapter of my political awakening, really. And as I'm sure you know this too, Henry Kissinger, one of the architects of that specific policy, one of his famous quotes is, it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.
1:06:40And it goes to the way that the United States often finds people who have their own particular interests, which happen in the moment, to align with the United States. the Hmong people, of course, over a long period of time, oppressed by the Laotian government, hostile to various Vietnamese factions, whether they were communist or non-communist. And so the U.S. is able to then come in and kind of exploit those sentiments and say, arm them, get them moving. And they feel like, oh, this is our shot at our own liberation. But as Henry Kissinger himself will tell you, that alliance is fatal. The United States has an extremely consistent practice of betraying those people after they're no longer useful.
1:07:37It would be interesting if you can actually win to have somebody in Congress who understands that in a visceral way. Yeah. And when we win, I would be the first Hmong ever in Congress. I don't believe we've ever had a Hmong person in Congress. And so I know that our community is incredibly excited about the campaign. And we're excited, too. But I'm running, you know, some folks have said, Mai, you'd be the first Hmong congresswoman. And I said, actually, I'm running to try to address the first month's rent. But yes, I am also Hmong and apologetically Hmong as well and incredibly proud to be Hmong American.
1:08:20And the only other person that maybe has that visceral understanding, of course, in Congress is Ilhan Omar. And she's the, correct me if I'm wrong, supporter of your campaign. We're also hoping to lock in that endorsement. Not supporter of your campaign, but she's been a supporter of you. she's said nice things about you but it would be you know it's difficult for an incumbent to endorse against another incumbent so we'll see if that happens but we know that she's said kind things about your previous work Mai Vang thank you so much for joining us you know really appreciate it thank you so much thank you so much for having me on you got it all right that'll do it for us today I'll actually He'll be back tomorrow with Sagar for a bro show.
1:09:08So don't miss that. See you then.
1:09:26Hey, guys. It's us, the Jonas Brothers. I'm Joe. I'm Kevin. And I'm Nick. And guess what? We created our own podcast called Hey Jonas. We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We're the first people to do podcasts. We get to ask other people questions because we're sick and tired of being asked questions. Well, sick and tired is a strong way to put it, but, you know. Tired and sick. Tired and sick. Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy.
1:09:58Not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, and on my new podcast, How Hard Can It Be?, I call on my Gen X squad from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate midlife's most fantastic BS.
1:10:35Unfiltered conversations from night sweats to fupas to scheduling sex. Wait, what sex? Is it just me or does every woman my age want to look at Pinterest instead of having sex sometimes? They say we can't polish a turd, but we're sure going to try. So let's get blunt with laughs, tears or tears of laughter. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.
From the publisher
Ryan and Emily discuss Kamala official reveals details on why they lost to Trump, Elon ex GF reveals texts about the 2024 election, Dem Congresswoman caught boosting Republican.
Rob Flaherty: https://www.nobodyknows.wtf/
Mai Vang: https://www.maiforus.com/
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
