1112: How Dems Can Defeat MAGA Once and For All

21:39They're very concerned about, you know, Greenland. They're very concerned about a whole host of things, the ICE raids. But, you know, they're not sure that we're the remedy. And I think candidates ought to understand that. One of the things you'll hear from when people like you and I have this conversation in the Sabbath, so it's a Paz, save America all the time, we talk about the problems with the Democratic Party or argue that Democrats should run against the Democratic Party. You'll hear from people in the party, and you probably heard this after your op-ed, that one of the reasons the Democratic Party brand is down is that the people who are most critical of the Democratic Party are Democrats.

22:13Do you have any response to that? Well, Dan, I think people like you and I are kind of mostly irrelevant. It's what the Democratic Party voters are saying. You know, it's the general public. So swing voters for sure, you know, express strong concern, but also Democrats. So at the end of the day, I just think we have to be honest. And I think our strongest candidates historically, you look at Barack Obama, you look at Bill Clinton, you look at John F. Kennedy, you know, on their side, Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, these people who build electoral coalitions, you know, were pretty clear about while they were running against Republicans and running against problems in the country, they also wanted to change things about their own party.

22:59And, you know, I think it's hard to argue that we don't have some form of market failure if you use that in a political context, which is voters right now, for the most part, have two choices. That's it. They're dissatisfied with both choices. So what if you strengthen your hand so they're slightly less dissatisfied with you while your opponent still stuck in the gutter. So I just think that's not healthy. And by the way, I think that's largely a social media, very online discussion. I don't think that's what real people out in the country are talking about. If they actually support the Democratic Party, they want it to be as strong as possible, not to convince ourselves somehow we're stronger than we actually are.

23:37I want to get to 28 in the long term here in a second, but let's stick on 26, because that's sort of the wolf closest to the door here. In your piece, you argue that we have to make Republicans own all of Trump's problems. I think there's a bit of an internal debate, and I'm having it within myself too, about whether as a party, we are too focused on Trump as opposed to Republicans. Because you can see this in the Wall Street Journal poll that came out about a week ago. Trump's numbers are in the toilet on every issue, right? He's barely above water on border security and everything else underwater.

24:08But then when you ask people who do they trust more on inflation, economy, immigration, et cetera. A generic Republican in Congress or generic Democrat in Congress, they pick Republicans by pretty large margins. And so I think we have this dilemma, which is there is a short-term turnout advantage to making our race be about Trump. Like that will get our people fired up. That will get donations from grassroots donations. But it does have some medium and long-term consequences for the fact that the guy's never on the ballot again. How are you thinking about that question? Well, I'm glad you singled out some of those generic matchup questions with issues because it should scare the living daylights out of us.

24:48That's why the generic ballot's five, not eight, right? Not eight, right. So I think that if you think about an incumbent House Republican or even a Republican running in an open seat, or certainly Collins and Cruz and Ricketts, I think the task between now November is to make them own factories closing, people losing health care. Like, you know, starting in the beginning of February, a bunch of people who signed up on the exchanges aren't going to go through with it because it costs so much because the Republicans make them own that, make them own the tariffs and what that's done. So I think that, you know, the way I think you bring Trump in that is maybe to say they've not stood up to Trump or they've supported Trump.

25:28But the most important thing is to make them own it. So if I had to, you know, say, how do you spend$10 or 10 minutes, you know, I'd spend seven or eight of those dollars or minutes making the case against that Republican elected official or candidate separate apart from Trump, that they own this, you know, so that I think, you know, you know how these races are 26. Even if we win back the House, you know, there could be eight, 10, 12 seats. We don't win by a thousand or 2000 votes. If we don't win back the Senate, it could be close. So making them pay full price. So those swing voters who go into the booth say, this person is not separate from Trump.

26:07And here's the other reason this is important, Dan. By the summer and certainly by the fall, all of these candidates are going to be lying and talking about where they stood up to Trump or where they disagreed with Trump. And the more that we lay that concrete now and through the course of the campaign, it'll be harder for them to do that. So I'm concerned that some of these, you know, Republican candidates who are on the more skillful side of things will convince some of these voters, well, that's all Trump. My guy or my woman tried to basically stop him or had a different idea. Does it affect your calculus at all that the Senate battleground is taking place almost entirely in states Trump won?

26:43And the House battleground, as much as we'd like to think that this is this favorable territory for us, there are only, I think it has four seats that have Republicans in districts that Kamala Harris won. There's not that many in districts that Trump won by five. There's been a narrow 2024 GOP-like majority and an actual real majority in the House. You have to win Trump plus seven, plus eight, plus 10 seats. Does that affect how you think about it? Or is the dissatisfaction with Trump among independents and this three to 7 % slice of 2024 Trump voters enough to put those districts in play that you can run against Trump there?

27:19No, I don't think so. I mean, I think particularly in those Trump 10, Trump 12 districts, Trump 8, you know, you've got to put the Republican incumbent on trial and they have to own, you know, your energy costs are up, your health care costs are up, this big factory closed, you know, your paycheck's not going further, further than off. I think you've got it. They're the ones on the ballot, not Trump. And so I think you have to make it about them. And your point about these districts and the Senate is really important. Like, this is hostile territory. So even though we have a very good environment, this is another reason I'm very focused on how do we maximize every vote, you know, with repair and refresh and reform of the Democratic offering, because we're going into some deeply hostile places that we may be able to win just because Trump's so unpopular, people's economic concerns are so profound.

28:09But nobody should underestimate the degree of difficulty here. This is going to be really, really hard. to win, but to your point, where you could actually maybe get into the mid-220s or high 220s in the House, you're going to be winning a bunch of places that are pretty red. And I mean, this also goes to the party brand question about why over the course of the next period here, people have to have a fundamentally different view of who Democrats are, because otherwise we're renting these seats for two years in the House, maybe four years if we can make it through the presidential year. And these are one-term senators, right?

28:43This is a – let's say Mary Peltola is lucky enough to get through in a tough race in Alaska or James Tallarico or someone else can win in Texas or Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio. They're winning because they are running in the right year with the right political environment. And the next time they are up, it's going to be in a presidential election year and look very different in 32. And so you actually have to be able to keep these seats, not rent them. And that requires like not winning on a sort of a black swan event of just the one year of, you know, inflation, Trump being unpopular, chaos in the streets, and you win.

29:17And so it's just like it really hammers the point that like you're winning despite the brand in 26. You have to win again in 32 for these senators or 28, 30 for the House members. The brand has to look very different to people. It has to be palatable in these states. Right. Or you're right. You're running and you give it right back in 32. I mean, I think sometimes people think it's crazy to think beyond the next election, but we haven't done enough of that, which is what's the big thing here at play, right? And that's in terms of investing, infrastructure, but also understanding. So all you're trying to do is win the Senate.

29:54But to your point, you've got to look down the road because let's say we win a bunch of these places, Ohio, Alaska. I mean, from your lips to God's ears, that would be amazing. But then 32, let's say we win the White House in 28. So you have a Democrat running for re-election, tough map, presidential year turnout, super hard. So that's the test, I think, is can we get to the point where year after year, cycle after cycle, we feel that we have a 50 percent chance at least to win. And right now, I think you'd say, of course not. I mean, we need to take it. You know, we need to be gifted, you know, political tailwinds.

30:32And I just don't think that that is going to save the country when we look at the threat. I mean, I you know, you think about the court, like it's not, maybe it's not likely. It's also not crazy. Like we could have an 8-1 court by like 2040 if we don't have sustained political party, 8-1. And that's almost like Katie shut the door time. Yeah. As you think about the strategy for this cycle, and I've had this debate with people in the House leadership, I can't tell if they agree with me or not, but do you think the party needs their version of Contracts for America or something that, you know, the six for six in 2006, like a policy agenda of here are the things that we are going to try to do if we win or that we, you know, that we stand for if we win.

31:21Like, do we actually need a positive agenda or is that giving the argument against, which you hear from a lot of people and a lot of people at high levels of power, our party is Trump is failing, he is losing. By putting our own agenda out there, we're giving them a target and making it more of a choice than a referendum. And we really want it to be a referendum. What do you think? Well, it's interesting. So much of this originates back to the 94 race in the contract with America, what people forget is heading into the election, the contract for America was a very minor part of that election. But as you know, when you win an election, you've got to tell the story about why you won.

31:51So I think we ought to also be grounded in the fact that 94, those results, which were historic at the time, we've had landslide since, was not about the contract with America. And so now what's interesting is, I guess, As I think about this question, the most important people to answer the question are the candidates running in tough House and Senate races. And my suspicion is they would rather not have a national Republican versus national Democratic campaign, in part because Trump and the Republicans are unpopular, Democratic brands unpopular. I can be something different. I don't want to be tied to the party.

32:29So, you know, to the extent the House and Senate leadership are thinking about this, I would be in dialogue not with my colleagues in the caucus rooms. I would be talking to the vulnerable candidates in House and Senate races and get their view. My guess is they would say it's not helpful. I think I'll do better kind of flying my own flag than being tied at all to a National Democratic Party flag. But that's my view. It's a tough call. Yeah. So my mind is not made up on it. I think the counterargument is, one, if you're running in a very red seat, you should run against it. like that's also helpful, is no one has any idea what we stand for.

33:06We live in this massive communications vacuum. I mean, if you talk to voters, like ask them when the last time they saw a Democrat who was not AOC or Mamdani or maybe Bernie speak. And not that there's any problem with them speaking. I think that's great. But just very few of them actually break through. Many of them couldn't pick Schumer or Jefferson out of a lineup. It's just that like the communications asymmetry is so big is one. The other – and so having something that they're putting throw weight behind a message about something we stand for – I'm not saying that you should put Medicare for all in here, but an idea of – maybe you could.

33:41I don't know. But just the ideas that you would have is like a handful of affordability ideas and some reform ideas. This is the part where I think probably get the most pushback from the leadership is I I think the huge error – I think there's three sins that have put us in this place of our own doing. Some of the reason why the party brands in the toilet is circumstance of being present at the wrong time during COVID and during sort of the – when people are ready to get out of COVID but could not yet get out fast enough and then inflation. But it's Biden running again, right? And then everything that came with Biden's inability and unwillingness to communicate basically throughout his entire presidency in a way that voters actually heard.

34:28The second is misreading the 2020 election to think it meant that people – that Biden's victory was a validation of institution norms in the pre-Trump political system when it was just like – it was much more – it was not that at all. It was more rejection of the system than anything else in that people hate the political system, and we became defenders of the political system in a very dangerous way. And the third one is misreading the 2022 midterms, as we're talking about, as a validation of where Democrats were as opposed to like a blip in time. On the second one, I do think that one thing the party has to do – maybe this is what the good candidates will do, which is also fine – is actually – and part of this is running against the party.

35:11Like that gets into that. But also it's how do you get money out of politics? How do you get lobbyists out of politics? How do you deal with corporate power in politics? Like the most basic thing we can't get, we have failed to do for years now, members of Congress trading stocks. Like that sort of stuff could be part of an agenda that actually helps. So I, obviously my mind is still not made up here, but I think it is like that's, that dilemma is, do you leave a vacuum for the other side to define or do you give your, or do you have, have a, like a ready-made answer for what you would actually do?

35:43Which I know is hard because you can't do any of the things if you win and they have the White House, right? That is the challenge. Well, and one, I don't know if this is right. I mean, maybe it doesn't have to be, you know, a comprehensive agenda that, that tackles and tickles every issue. Maybe it's. No, it shouldn't be. Maybe it's on corruption. And so our House and Senate candidates, most of who have compelling ideas around this, you know, can say, I've talked to the House and Senate leadership and they say, yeah, if we went back day one, banning stocks, crypto, you know, you know, no lobbying.

36:14Like, oh, this is a place, by the way, where I think voters also they don't trust somehow that we're going to be different because we've defended a lot of this stuff. Like I think on sort of anti-corruption stuff, you can't go far enough. And I think our candidates, for the most part, will go very far on this. This is where it would be helpful if they can say, no, no, it's not pie in the sky. There's going to be a vote. So it could be maybe it's not our agenda on economy, on health care, on education, on immigration, on corruption. Maybe. But if not, there may be pieces of that that are helpful to the candidates that don't cause them problems.

36:47The hard part with the corruption stuff, because this is another battle I've been having with people for basically since 2020, because I've always believed that corruption is an important part of the story we should be telling. But then you talk to pollsters and they'll show you voters either don't care about it as much as you think they do, or more importantly, don't trust Democrats to do anything about it. And this is a place, and we'll talk about this a little bit when we get to 28, but this is a place where biography, the message of the messenger do it. I would imagine, Mamdani can come across as a reform-oriented candidate because he's seen as an outsider to the system.

37:22AOC could, your typical, you know, maybe Plattner could, maybe some of these other candidates could, but the establishment democratic politician is not going to be trusted to all of a sudden start caring about, you know, members of Congress leaving to become lobbyists, right? And then coming back, using their four privileges to come back and twist arms. Like, like that is, that's, that is part of the, I guess that is part of the challenge. You need the right candidate to be able to pull that off. Well, an outsider candidate though, see, I mean, I think that, and I don't think it should be based on Trump.

37:47You can say, listen, we've seen a bunch of corruption, but this predates Trump, it's Republicans and Democrats. It's Democrats too, yeah. And I think what it is, is it goes beyond just do people think that's important to them? And I agree it's not important as how far their paycheck's going. But it also says this is an outsider. This is someone who's willing to challenge our own party, the status quo. So there's a credentialing thing. I agree. Someone who's a longtime House member running for the Senate is not going to be as credible as someone who's basically a frustrated citizen saying they've had enough and they're going to be basically a tribune for people on that issue.

38:22And I've mentioned Platten here a couple of times only because there are other candidates too, but he's just sort of become the prototypical outsider Democratic candidate. Dan Osborne, who is not actually a Democrat, but is another example like that. And there are a bunch of people, a bunch of House members, House candidates who fit that, you know, the people running, the woman running, the fire general or fire military officer who's running in South Carolina. You get a whole bunch of ones like that. But those are the sorts of candidates. All right, let's pivot to 28 in the long term here. But before we get to 28, because I know this will be – but just so we must suffer a little bit.

38:57I want to go back to 24 a little bit because I think there are some less – I've always found this is a benefit of being – working in democratic politics before Obama is I always learned more from the races I lost. So I had a lot of opportunities to learn, you know, and more than the ones you win, because when you win, you think everything you did was correct. And when you lose, you think you actually picture it. And so you and I, we talked on this podcast, you know, a couple of weeks after the election. My brain had not yet processed it. I can't imagine yours had either coming right off that campaign for 100 days, however long you were there.

39:31But now with the passage of time, are there things when you look back at that race? And I don't mean the things that I think were beyond the campaign's control, like the amount of – like Biden's decision to run, the short campaign, or even – and I say this because she wrote about in her book – Kamala Harris's own unwillingness to separate from Biden in the sort of dramatic way a lot of voters want to do. Are there things like from the campaign strategic execution messaging playbook you look at that you say, I wish we'd done that differently? Or not that it would have been decisive, but that like now that you've seen how it played out, that makes you sort of question maybe how you've thought about politics or how we should do things differently going forward?

40:14Well, I think, you know, it always sounds defensive to start here, but I do want to start here, which is because, you know, I've thought a lot about this. I know you have like, could we have won the race? And I don't think even if a bunch of decisions had been done differently by Kamala, I'm not sure it could. As close as it was, it was still a lot of votes. And the atmosphere was terrible for a Democratic nominee. If Joe Biden got out not in 24, in 23, and we'd have a full primary, I think whoever came out of that race would still have been the underdog, given the fact that on Election Day, 50 percent plus in every battleground state gave Trump a positive approval in the economy.

40:53And that's what mattered to voters. I'm not sure, but they would have been fully formed. They would have, I think, had an easier way of showing where they would have disagreed with Biden. You know, as you know, on presidential campaign, you know, you want to get your biography fully in there and you've got your economic and your health care and your contrast, you know, and that was all condensed. So I'm not sure, by the way, whether it was Kamala or someone else who came out of that primary, I still think you probably would have given Trump the advantage, given all the atmosphere. For sure. I 100 % agree with that.

41:22I think that's the thing that would have made a difference. So I'm not sure there's anything decisive. I mean, I look back, you know, after the first debate, which was such a big moment for Harris, we said we want to debate again. I think we should have said, we'll see you in two weeks on Fox. He might still not have debated, but we should have been more aggressive about having another big moment or two. You know, she worked at McDonald's. He didn't. He had the McDonald's Amendment. We didn't. I certainly regret that. You know, understand we do live in that kind of world where interesting moments and visuals, even if they're kind of substanceless, but they can be symbolic matter.

41:56But the big thing for me is we could have used another moment or two, but I'm not sure at the end of the day, just given the headwinds there. And I think, you know, that's why when we spent time with voters, you know, it's hard sometimes, I think, for Democrats to understand this. like the threat of Trump's return is so real to us. And voters were like, I'm not that really worried about him. I mean, first of all, the economy was better when he was president. All these Democrats are talking about democracy is a threat, but we still have democracy. And you'd say, well, Trump, January 6th, and Trump, well, he left.

42:33And I was a little surprised with those young voters. They'd say, and you guys didn't even have a contest. Like for me, it might have seemed inside baseball that, OK, Biden left Harris. They're like, fuck you guys. Don't lecture us. So I think that there was just a bunch of stuff even beyond inflation and concern. But, yeah, I think there's some things. I think that, you know, there was a great team, you know, working on social media, on TikTok, on YouTube and Instagram. But I think it's fair to say that it just comes more naturally to Trump. And I think that's, by the way, those are mediums, not message, not messenger to your point, not who the candidate is.

43:08That's still more important than how you get to message out. But I think we will be very well served in 28 of our presidential nominee is someone who wakes up every day and thinks about the campaign through the president of TikTok, Instagram, Yields, YouTube, maybe a little Reddit. By the way, that's hardly anybody in our party right now.

43:32Pod Save America is brought to you by Helix. We love Helix mattresses. I got two in my house. My son has one. And we have one in the guest bedroom. And we get rave reviews from everyone who's ever slept on it. It's super, super comfy. I've slept on it myself. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand. Tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired, Helix offers a variety of mattresses designed to fit your sleep needs. How will you know which Helix mattress works best for you and your body? Take the Helix Sleep Quiz. It matches you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences, making it easy to find a mattress that suits your sleep needs.

44:05Helix is the most awarded mattress brand tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Like I said, Helix will deliver your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the U.S. The Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer-first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress. You can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges. They even offer a 120-night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. So go to helixsleep.com slash crooked for 20 % off site-wide. That's helixsleep.com slash crooked for 20 % off site-wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you helixsleep.com slash crooked.

44:43Pods of America is brought to you by Mint Mobile. The holidays are long over, but you might still be feeling like you've got a big spending hangover. The drinks, the holiday food, the gifts, it all adds up. Luckily, Mint Mobile is here to help you cut back on overspending on wireless this January with 50 % off unlimited premium wireless. Mint Mobile's end-of-year sale is still going on, but only until the end of the month. Cut out big wirelesses, bloated plans, and unnecessary monthly charges with 50 % off, 3, 6, or 12 months of unlimited. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network.

45:16Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. You've probably heard us talk about Nina's experience with Mint Mobile. It's now been over a year since she made the switch and she still couldn't be happier with the service, the data speeds, and most of all, the affordable price. This January, quit overspending on wireless with 50 % off unlimited premium wireless. Plans start at$15 a month at mintmobile.com. That's mintmobile.com. slash crooked. Limited time offer. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for 12-month plan required, which is$15 a month equivalent.

45:52Taxes and fees extra, initial plan term only. Over 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Capable device required. Availability speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.

46:06I want to get to that for sure because I think this goes back to both the leadership question to the House and Senate leadership question, because one of the things you hear about them is you hear one of the criticisms you get of Jeffries and Schumer is that they're not great communicators, right? That they're not natural. They're not, you know, they can be, I think they can be fine at times, but it's like, it's not, they are not, when you're listing the great communicators in a party, you're never putting them on the list. Now, I think that this is indicative of the way politics has changed, because you worked for Dick Eppart when he was the House minority leader.

46:38I worked for Tom Dasher who was the Senate minority leader. They're both, I would say, with all due respect to them, fine communicators. Give a good speech, fine, but not if you're listing the best communicators in the party at the time, they probably weren't at the top of the list. I guess politics have become much more performance now, right? When you think about those, if you were picking a new leader, would communicate, we'll get to President Kahn of the SEC, but for a leader, would you think that their ability to communicate is as important as their ability to hold the caucus together or count votes or something like that?

47:07Because Nancy Pelosi, greatest speaker of all time. That was like, she did not spend a lot of time communicating publicly. She did most of her work behind the scenes, you know? It's a great question. Yeah, the jobs changed. Now, I think Dashiell and Gephardt were both examples, though. Maybe they weren't at the top of the list of great historical communicators, but they were pretty good and they could go anywhere and talk to anyone, right? I don't think that's the case right now. I still think at the end of the day, the most important thing is to be an exquisite leader, to know where your votes are, to be able to cut good deals or not good deals and stand and fight.

47:41Pelosi, again, is the best example of this. So I don't think you should choose a leader. I wouldn't put communication skills at the top of the list because it's become a lot more important, though. It just has. And so even if it's not you to think about communications first, to think about, OK, how are we going to get our message out? How do the people who we need to persuade in the election, how are they living their lives and are we reaching them? So yes, ideally, we'd have leadership in Washington that was both skilled backroom negotiators, took care of their members, had backbone of steel, and were good communicators.

48:16I don't think what will work is like the Madison Cawthorn approach, which is you're just a good communicator and you suck at the actual job. But you have to pay more attention to that. And even if it's not you as the prime communicator, you need to think a lot about that. So it has changed a lot. But at the end of the day, I think it's less about the specific people than I think just back to this question about should candidates call for new leadership. I just think there's a hunger out there for massive change. And it's 360 degree change. And I think the candidates who embrace that will probably be the most successful.

48:49But again, back to your question of, you know, let's say the Democrats decide to have an agenda. Maybe it's every issue. Maybe it's just a couple of issues. You know, how are you going to communicate that? Who's going to communicate that? How loud are you going to be? Like, these are really important questions. So I think there's, as you know, you've spent a lot more time thinking about this than I have. Every week it gets harder to reach audience. So and I think that, you know, it again starts with messenger and message. Without that, it's bullshit. But if you're not delivering message and this is hard, listen, you and I came up in politics where if you had something to say about health care or the economy or corruption or foreign policy would be like, well, let's put the policy together.

49:31And where are we going to give a speech? And who are we going to give the exclusive interview to? And what press conference? And what's crazy is all that should be at the bottom of the pile now. It's like, what's my TikTok play? What's my reel? What's my visual representation of that? Which influencers am I talking to? And that, for people who've come up in a different era, that's like rewiring of the brain. And I'm not sure most people can do it. And this is another reason why we need younger candidates. Why do we need younger candidates? Well, one, politically, I think would be helpful to us.

50:04But they also understand how people are living their lives in terms of communication. So from a political campaign angle, it's just going to be much more native and much more genuine. And you're going to wake up every day seeing the world through that. I also think substantively, if you're 80 years old, it's almost impossible to know how a 22-year-old person is living, wants to live what their dreams are. Like, and so Rahm Emanuel's call, like, to have everybody, you know, can't be served after 75, you know, to me makes a lot of sense, you know? And I know there's exceptions to that. Pelosi, you know, I mean, she's 80, whatever, and, you know, no one can hang with her.

50:40So I get that you would be losing some of that, but I think generally that's right, both politically, but also substantively. As you look at – the communication thing is interesting because I'm assuming that electability is going to be a huge driving conversation in the 28th primary. Obviously, everyone's afraid to lose. They want – for good reason, right? The stakes are so fucking high for the country, for the world that you want to get it right. Now, anyone who thinks they have any idea what actually makes someone electable in this day and age, she has no idea what they're talking about. Particularly as far out.

51:15After everything that's happened. Yeah, we should have some humility, right? Like I always say that the prototypical – when we came out of the 2004 election, the candidate – you go to any collection of Democratic operatives or donor thing. I'm like, how do – we can't lose again. How do we win in 08? We need a governor or a senator from a red state. I work for Evan Bayh. I work for a senator from a red state. And I mean, like this blows people's minds now. We tell them that Mark Warner, who has just recently been elected governor of Virginia at the time, was the toast of the town. He's who everyone was trying to get in with.

51:52He decided not to run ultimately. But so we all believe that, right? Everyone believed the conventional wisdom was a white male Democrat from a red state. We ended up nominating Barack Hussein Obama from the south side of Chicago via Indonesia and Hawaii. And then he wins the largest electoral landslide. Don't forget the Madrasa and the secret Al-Qaeda. Yeah, all of that. It's going to change. But what I think electability will be top of mind, it's why Biden won the 2020 primary. I think in that question of electability, it's not just, what state are you from? What is your bio? How does it look on paper?

52:25It's can you actually communicate? Can you go into all the hostile places and deliver your message? Can you hang and have a cultural conversation on podcasts that resonate with young voters? Can you – do you have a, like, capacity to get your message out? Are you, to your point, like, digitally native? Do you actually understand how the medium works, which that does benefit you? Like, that's a big part of the conversation. As you look at this 28 field right now, I'm not asking you to pick a candidate. Do you see candidates who have that capacity to actually get the message out? Because even if they're not going against Trump, it's still a media environment that tilts very far right.

53:09It's much easier for Republicans to get their message out. By the time we get to 28, they're going to control most of the major media outlets in this country, several networks, pro-Trump billionaires cover the Washington Post, and every single social media platform of consequence will be owned by a pro-Trump billionaire from Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok. So do you see anyone out there who you think is showing the chops to do that? Well, first of all, yeah, the ecosystem is completely unbalanced and they just have command and control from television to radio to blogs to, most importantly, social media that drive narrative.

53:44We don't have that. Listen, I would, you know, Twitter obviously, Musk's, you know, that's a toxic wasteland. It's less a business and more of an ideological mission. I still think, you know, despite the foot playing that's happened, you know, whether it's YouTube or TikTok or Instagram, those are businesses. Right. And I think Democrats can use them. I don't think there's going to be a dial turning there to suppress us, but we need to maximize it. So listen, this is less about 28. And I just went before. We have no idea what the Democratic Party primary voters are going to be looking for in the first quarter of 28.

54:20No idea. And we have even less of an idea about what general election swing voters will be looking at in the fall of 28. So I think you're right. And that may be very different iterations of that political lifetimes between now and then. And, you know, obviously Newsom, someone I think who's shown real aggression around social media. I think, you know, Steve, you know, Andy Beshear has been all over podcasts, has his own, you know. You know, I think a lot of the governors are leveraging the platforms in smart ways. I think everybody can learn from Omdani in terms of how he's driving message, not as a candidate, but now as a mayor.

54:54Like Dan Lurie, the same thing. By the way, I don't think this is good for our country. But if you're an elected official now, particularly an executive, you know, it's all day long storytelling. You just have to do that. I don't think that's good, by the way. And I think we should audition our presidents much differently than we have and certainly will this time, which is who's the best performer. But that's what we have. The biography is important. Their ideas are important. The timing. Do they fit the timing is important. I don't want to say it's all about performance. But that performance is really important, which is, you know, having worked in the White House on the really dark days and moments, how you perform is less important than the decisions you make.

55:29We don't really audition for that, sadly. But I think that so I see some Democrats. And the good thing is it seems like a lot of people are experimenting. But we have to get to the point where our standard bearer and most of our candidates, they just wake up every day in the world they think about. How am I going to drive a message? How am I going to make my opponent pay for something? It's not about a speech. It's not about an interview. It's about this multi-platform approach. And as you know, they all need some distinction in how you deal with them. And this is why I think the most important people in campaigns going forward are going to be 22, 23, 24, 25-year-old creators who understand these platforms inside and out.

56:07And they should be given real seats at the decision-making table, in my view. As I look at this field, I can see, and I like a lot of these people politically and personally. Yeah, me too. We've been around long enough. We know a bunch of them now. They have a lot of them been on the show. I see lots of people who could win in a good political environment in 2028. I really do believe that's a nomination you're going to want to have. Given Trump's unpopularity, the process by which they're going to end up with J.D. Vance as their nominee, who is quite dangerous but also I think has plenty of flaws and is not wearing well with voters.

56:45Like there are these – Sarah Longwell put out some focus group results today which showed that the only thing that Gen Z men wanted less than J.D. Vance was for the United States to invade Greenland. Like he does not – he has Trump's MAGA beliefs but not the charisma that helps unite the charisma. But, you know, still it's going to be a – it's a danger. So I can see lots of people who can win that race. what I'm struggling with is to truly succeed, to actually defeat maggots and not just hand the white house back and forth is you have to change the political alignment. You need a transformative candidate.

57:25Now the primaries tell us a lot, the people you think are going to be great, like on the Republican side, Ron DeSantis in this election, Scott Walker 2012 can blow up in their face. We've seen that on our side over the years, people who look great on paper, you know, barely make it out of the starting gates, but I don't, it's hard to see like the candidate who, can truly achieve a lot of what you're talking about is an outsider. And there's not an obvious outsider in this mix, right? They're all, everyone, if you go through the list of expected candidates, now these people have announced, but we all expect they'll run.

57:58Newsom, Pritzker, Whitmer, Shapiro, Bashir, you know, I'm sure I'm forgetting others, but lots of, you know, Mark Kelly said he's thinking of running now. These are all established, Gallego, These are all establishment Democratic politicians. Like, and I believe our strongest candidate who truly would have a chance to reset the party, reset the political alignment for a generation in this country, who could do for the Democrats what Obama did for the Democrats or what Trump has done for the Republicans, has to be an outsider. Like, am I pining away for something that can't happen here? What do you think?

58:36Well, that's a great question, Dan. are you thinking a particular outsider or two by the way or no i mean i look i think i mean i don't have a good answer to this right from the people i don't agree with this one per se but a lot of people on the right on the center right of the party like they throw mark cuban's name out there because he's that's sort of like our trump version only in the sense that he's a businessman who's very good with the media uh and is a reality tv star you know the other one you hear well you know more from the like resistance left is with john stewart run yeah right but so i don't have i don't have a good answer for that.

59:08I mean, honestly, I'm not arguing for this per se, but the politician within our party who has the best biography to run for president and the best communication skills is AOC, right? She is an outsider, bartender, and she can communicate with the best of them. I don't think she's like, I have no indication he's actually thinking of running. But like, if you were saying like, what is our version of Obama was elected official, but he'd been elected official such a short period of time that he wasn't defined by that. You know, it's like, Like we just – I don't see that person. So I'm like keeping my eyes open for who that can be because people weren't talking about Obama actually.

59:44People were talking a lot about Obama at this point in 2006, the relevant point in the cycle. But they weren't seriously thinking – he was not thinking he was going to run. Like who – like is there someone out there that we're not thinking of who could get in the mix? Well, so first of all, I mean my hope is that we have some of the Cubans and Stortz run in part because I hope this primary is big. and messy and tough and hard. Because I think if our nominee has to survive the toughest obstacle course possible, that person will be stronger. And it might even be someone who you'd say on paper, you don't think has the kind of reach to really expand the electorate in our coalition.

1:00:23Maybe if they survive that primary, oftentimes the people who win, they don't just come out whole, they come out strengthened by the primary. I think Trump did. They got a cape put on it, basically. Obama did, right? Right. So I think just by the way, the flip side is people who look like tigers on paper, like DeSantis, like John Glenn, like Walker. You know, they get chewed up in their political graveyard. So it works both ways. So I think we should have outsiders run. You know, listen, I don't know what AOC is going to do. And I understand the conventional wisdom would be, well, you know, she would get demolished in a general election.

1:00:54I'm not so sure about that. I mean, she's an outsider. And by the way, talent matters. Talent. talent. Again, back to like, I sound like a super luxury old person. Like, I wish we elected presidents based on their talent to run the situation room and like work with Congress, but we don't. So the ability to communicate, inspire, reach, handle crisis in your campaign is so important. She's clearly got that. I would say, you know, based on prior election history, and by the way, that doesn't mean anything in a presidential election necessarily. But like, you know, Bashir has overperformed a lot. Shapiro's overperformed.

1:01:32All those Michigan candidates have overperformed. Gallego overperformed. So there's some people in those races, in those states who showed the ability to outperform the sort of Democratic average. That doesn't mean that translates to a general election, because I think in a general election, yeah, profile background matters, but it's really that talent. I mean, you know you've looked a lot at this I just you can't overstate it enough these elections are decided by people who pay little to no attention to politics they don't seek out information you got to find them and the way you find them is through compelling moments and genuine moments some of them plan most of them not and so that's what we need in our nominee is someone yes who can who can obviously secure the nomination build confidence in the party build a great organization have the financial resources, but has that athletic ability to capture people's attention whose attention doesn't want to be captured.

1:02:29And the primary and part is for that. And so you're right on paper. I don't think we've got a bunch of people. The other thing, Dan, is I'd be surprised, you and I are political veterans, that there won't be two or three people that run that you and I would not name right now. And I hope that's true. I hope that's true. I agree very much with you.

1:02:56This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Create a professional website to showcase your offerings and attract clients. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and awarded

1:03:32We'll see you next time.

1:03:51Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life, whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, go to squarespace.com slash crooked to save 10 % off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com slash crooked.

1:04:11So talent, electability, communications dictate who wins the primary. The other thing that dictates the primary is the calendar. Right now, in our minds, because it has always been thus, that we would go Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. That would be it. That's how we've done it. There is currently no calendar. For the first time ever, there was nothing to operate. Biden changed it to South Carolina first, then didn't have a primary. Do you have a view on what the calendar should be? I have some thoughts about the principles. Now, I think there's been 12 states, right, that have basically submitted an application.

1:04:51So you should ignore the other 38. It is these 12 that will make up the early states. So my principles are the past shouldn't matter. History shouldn't matter. Relationships shouldn't matter. Given the existential nature of what's in front of us, we should have a calendar that we think gives us the best opportunity to produce the strongest nominee to win the presidency. So that would mean to me, I would make sure that the first four are all battleground states. You and I know the value. Why do I want to do that? You get exposure in those states. You build up an organization in those states. But also the nominee gets comfortable in those states.

1:05:26So other than if Kamala Harris runs, none of these candidates know much about these states. By the way, how much better of a general election candidate was Barack Obama, having spent all that time in Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada? He knew the people. He knew the reporters. He knew the media markets like he knew the economy. So with all due respect to, you know, you and I have deep love for Iowa and for South Carolina. I would not have a non-battleground state. And the good thing is you've got, you know, Georgia, North Carolina both want to be battleground early. So does Arizona and Nevada. So does Michigan.

1:06:00Northeast, our home state, Delaware, actually demographically would be a great place to start, actually. But I think New Hampshire probably is the other one in that region. And I would probably start relatively small to big so that you give candidates the opportunity to compete in a state that's not overwhelming in size or expense. I also think you should give a lot of thought to what comes after the first four, because it may be we have a political athlete who emerges, who wipes the floor with everybody like Trump did back in 16, and they're going to be the nominee after the first four. And in a way, the calendar wouldn't matter there other than it helps you for the general election.

1:06:32So I think the calendar choice should be, how does it help you win the general election? How do you put together a good test for the candidates? But then what comes right after is important. Like, I would make sure New York's relatively early if you can do that. Like, why New York? New York's a tough place to compete. And you want to put people through their paces. You know, Texas, some of these places that we want to reach. But the most important thing for the DNC Rules Committee is these first four. So for me, as hard as it is sometimes, we should not worry at all what's happened before, who's done what, who has relationships, what is the most ruthlessly non-emotional surgical thing we can do.

1:07:10And the other thing about it is it's not a one-way door. If we want to change it in 32, we change it in 32 because the roster of battleground states almost certainly will change as it always historically has done. So I would go all battleground states early. They're already going to make sure there's geographic diversity. But, you know, those are all states. And ethnic diversity, right. And ethnic diversity. So that's my view of it. And, you know, again, somebody who just has momentum, who kind of overwhelms the field, they'll win regardless of the calendar. But if we have, you know, if we have – the other thing I'd say is South Carolina historically, other than in 24 when we didn't have a contest, has been the gateway to the nomination.

1:07:55And other than I think 04 when Edwards won because he was kind of, you know, North Carolina guy. Local, yeah. And why is that? Because once you come out of the early states, you know, the candidate who wins the plurality of the African-American vote is going to be our nominee. So I still think having a southern state is that last one into the rest of the nomination process is important. Now, in my view, it would be Georgia or North Carolina. But but we'll see. I mean, I think that that's important. So that to me is another rule of principle. But to me, the inviolate thing is you just got to put blinders on.

1:08:30Don't worry about what's happened. You know, New Hampshire's always had this, South Carolina. Like, what's the right thing to do to produce the strongest Democratic nominee to advantage that person so we have the best chance not just to win the presidency in 28, as important as that is, but to do it with some margin so we begin to build this electoral coalition that can be sustainable and ultimately extinguish the MAGA threat? Yeah, that to me, I 100 % agree. The best idea I'd ever heard was from Kevin Sheiky, Bloomberg Sky, which was you would just take the four closest states from the previous election and do them.

1:09:07So in this case, it would be Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, right? Arizona, whatever. That violates the geographic thing, but that's a fine idea, right? I mean – But the basic principle here is – organizing in the primary will help you in the general. And because of changes in the electoral college map since 2012, Iowa and South Carolina are not battleground states anymore. And so they should be. We should be able to get to places where we can compete in either of them. But I remember being – obviously, I spent a lot of time in Iowa in 2008. We had the best organizers in the Democratic Party were in Iowa organizing that state with an inch of its life, right?

1:09:47Every voter, every community, we knew who they were. You could get it. I was there in 2020 doing podcasts and covering the caucuses. And then when I left the next morning, a bunch of those organizers were on my flight to go to the next state, and they were never going to return. They were going to close those offices, and they were going to leave. And so to spend all millions of dollars and all this time and money and energy to organize a state that you never return to seems like just a waste of resources. So getting in those battleground states makes like a ton of sense to me. Yeah. And again, I think the voters, whoever is our nominee, will have competed in those states, spent a lot of time doing social media interviews, running ads.

1:10:28So you get a head start on your definition. But also, I'll just repeat this candidate thing. Even though our presidential campaigns have become more national, even though we have an electoral college, your comfort and skill and understanding of these places that will determine the presidency are important. And if you've spent a bunch of time in there, you know, you're a governor or senator or an outsider, you know, in your state, you don't know these states. But if you've spent a lot of time campaigning there, you'll be a better candidate. And so that's another, I think, principle in terms of why it ought to just be battleground states.

1:11:02first four. And again, that doesn't have to be something that's a generation. We can change it if we need to as battleground states change. The last thing I want to get to is in your op-ed, one of the things you brought up was the Democrats need to talk about AI. That AI is a huge issue. We need a position on AI. You had ChatGPT write a political ad about AI that was actually quite good. I tried to get another AI tool to do the actual visuals of the ad. Not so good. So maybe the writers of political ads are in grave danger. Maybe the actual cinematographers are okay for the short term. They have another cycle anyway.

1:11:39Yeah. Yeah. At least maybe – I mean, these things are moving so fast, you might be able to keep your job through 26. 28, you might be fucked. But AI is the most important technological, economic, cultural, psychological, social issue of our time. My view is in the party has been bizarrely quiet on it with some exceptions. Republicans have actually been much more vocal and been Republican government specifically, have been more vocal critics of Trump's, the Trump's David Sachs, let him cook policy of no regulation. But to the extent we have, you know, the extent the Democrats are talking about, it's mostly people who are doing like bans on data centers.

1:12:19Where do you think the party comes down on here? Do you have a view of what that messaging or policy position should be? Well, first of all, I just find it bizarre because I would even say, yeah, David Sachs and the Trump administration. but generally we're not having a debate about the thing that's going to have the biggest impact on the country for decades. Like it's insanity. And I think voters express that. They're like, this seems like it's just happening to us. By the way, they feel like social media happened to them. They didn't have any say in it. Now this is even bigger and it's happened to them.

1:12:47So listen, AI is here. Everyone's using it. There's a lot of benefits in terms of healthcare, hopefully in education, all sorts of things. So it's not a pro AI, anti AI. I just think given that the Trump administration, a lot of Republicans, it's basically a green flag, no questions asked. And by the way, you know, Elon Musk, who's probably the most prominent outside Republican now, is out there saying there will be no jobs. Working will be optional. Everyone can like plant flowers. And what a great life that will be like. People are like, fuck you. Like, it's not realistic. So I think that we're Democrats should say, listen, we need to be China.

1:13:24We want to be the leader. We've always benefited from leading technological revolutions and change. We want to do that here. We just want to have the right kind of rules and transparency and the right kind of discussions about what kind of economic transition, how do we have to think about changing our education system so people aren't spending hundreds of thousand dollars for degrees that are unemployable. So I just think we need to lift our voice now. It doesn't have to be against AI. It needs to be, we need to have the right discussion about regulation, around transparency, about the adjustments we need to make, but also make the Republicans pay a price for asking none of those questions.

1:14:00Because I think voters, you know, I see this in research. I'm sure you see this in research. You know, they're getting more and more concerned at a time, by the way, where they're already economically worried. So they think things are going poorly. And now they got this weighing over them. You see with a lot of parents of school-aged kids, you know, they're worried their kids aren't learning, that they're not going to learn deeply, that they're too reliant on AI. We have the mental health crisis. So I think for us, I think candidates should lean into it and say, if I'm elected, I'm going to put a lot of thought to how we handle this, not in a way that like hurts us competitively, still allows us to flourish.

1:14:38But, you know, this could kill lots of jobs. This is changing education. By the way, this is changing how people, you know, deal. We already have what, half of men under 30 have never asked a woman on a date. More and more of them are going to have relationships with chatbots. Like this is big stuff. So to me, there's an opening for leadership that's very much connected to the economy you want to build. And I think, you know, I'm not saying it's going to be the leading issue in 26. I think it will be an issue. I think by 28, it could be the dominant issue of one of them. And this is a place where J.D.

1:15:08Vance in particular is deeply exposed and I think could really pay a price by 28 if people's sense is this has happened way too fast. No one's asking the right questions. I see the devastation all around me. Nobody's thinking about me and my family and my kids. And if we have Democrats at least raising some of those questions, hopefully they have a lot of good answers, but at least willing to raise some of those questions, I think we will politically profit from it. Yeah, it's really, it's quite challenging because it's very different than when social media was starting when Obama was running, where those companies were viewed quite positively by the public as something different.

1:15:47For all the skeptics that they had of Wall Street or Big Oil or Big Pharma or Big Tobacco or all the bigs, there was a sense that these companies run by these new younger people were something different or better. And so Obama benefited a lot from being seen as the tech candidate. That's not the same now. It's a much more complicated relationship. Tech is just, in a lot of voters' views, just like a segment of business that they're quite skeptical of and think is fucking them over. And so you got – but you also don't want to be – like I think our best candidate is going to be – seem like they understand the future.

1:16:27Yes. And we have lost some of that like in the post-Obama years as Democrats. No question. And so how do you sort of navigate that between the anti-tech view, but also being seen like you understand the benefits, but you're also very aware and willing to stand up to these companies to protect people from them, I guess, is the sort of territory we're trying to scope out. It's both in terms of AI and robotics, right? If no one dies in car crashes anymore, that'd be like the biggest public health benefit in the history of our country, right? Robotics can probably play a role around, you know, senior care and things.

1:17:02But like, so I think, yes, positives. But let's think about this. I mean, the dominant debate when you listen to, you know, Altman and Musk and even like people like Sachs is, well, don't worry if all the wealth goes to the big companies. They don't even dispute it. Yeah. They'll give it back. So I'm a Democratic candidate, I would say, in a room. Does anybody believe? Also, by the way, they're like the meritocracy party. You know, Americans are about hard work and drive. Basically, what they're saying is you won't have to work anymore. The truth is some Americans don't want to work. A lot of people want to work.

1:17:37They get a lot of value and dignity out of it. It really fills them up. And so I think they're really vulnerable here. And part of it is just putting the words back. Does anybody believe that all the wealth from AI should go to five people? People say, no. Well, the people who are in charge now are saying that basically, yeah, it may all go to them, but don't worry. They're going to give it back in a dividend and you'll all get your piece and everything will be OK. Like, it's ridiculous. And so I think there's a big opening there. I think the skill, to your point, will be to not seem like you're a troglodyte, that you have your head focused on the future.

1:18:14You want to make sure that the benefits of this are widely shared and like health care is a great example of that. But we need to be careful about this in terms of what adjustments we have to make and also call bullshit on some of this economic model stuff that just does not withstand any scrutiny at all. Yeah. And then also you're going to need, like what is truly unsustainable is to be, let AI do whatever it wants, but also we're going to eliminate all of our green energy so that we're just like burning the planet. You need to I know this seems hard in this media environment, but you need a comprehensive strategy with nuance to actually do it.

1:18:52And I think people – like from the research I've seen, people are both hopeful and skeptical, and you've got to kind of be able to fit right in that category. Like they have – they're very concerned about impacts on their energy bill for sure, impacts on their community from these giant data centers being built, but also see some benefits in some way, shape, or form that can make their life easier. So like we need an actual policy. policy. And if the Republicans have no policy, I think where the Republican governors have been better than us is they've been very critical of and focused on the effect on kids.

1:19:26And not that we're not focused on it, we're just silent about it. The party just seems to not have a lot to say about it. There are lots of individual candidates saying individual things, but it's just not being heard by people because it's not the most important people in the party doing it. We don't have presidential candidates doing it. We don't have the megaphone to get it out. But I think it feels to a lot of others and you see this show up is that we don't have anything to say about it. And that's a problem. I agree. We've got to fill that gap in a smart way. All right, David Plouffe, I will let you go.

1:19:54This has been fun and illuminating and alarming as always. Good to talk to you. We'll have you back on the podcast soon. That's how our discussions always go, Pfeiffer. Always have for almost 20 years now. See ya. Before we go, some quick housekeeping. Friends of the Pod subscribers should check out the brand new episode of my show, Polar coaster. In our most recent episode, we broke down Trump's abysmal polling on Greenland, and we looked at the emerging Democratic primaries in the key states that are going to decide the Senate majority. In addition to breaking down the latest polls in news and politics, in every episode, I answer questions from our friends of the pod subscribers.

1:20:32You know, there are questions about individual races around the country, too. My takes on reality TV and everything in between. There's so many reasons to become a friend of the pod, from ad-free episodes of your favorite podcasts to additional content to our amazing Discord server, but I'll give you one more. Your subscription is the best way to support Crooked Media as we try to build a progressive media response to Fox News and all of the other right-wing media that is threatening our democracy and bending truth in this country. To subscribe, go to crooked.com slash friends. Thanks to David Plough for joining us.

1:21:07John, John, Tommy will be back in your feet on Tuesday with another podcast. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to crooked.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review. That helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illick Frank, and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor.

1:21:37Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Carol Pellaviv, David Tolles, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

1:22:09so