How Dems Can Defeat MAGA Once and For All

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security.

Every night, it's the same routine.

Doom Scroll, lock up, stare at the ceiling,

thinking about all the ways the world can go wrong.

The one place you do not want chaos is in your house.

That's why you need Simply Safe to keep your home

and family safe.

Old school security is like Congress.

Lots of noise after something bad happens.

Simply Safe is proactive.

They're active color to outdoor monitoring

uses AI and real people to watch for problems

outside your home in real time.

If somebody's lurking around, agents can see it,

talk to you the camera and call the cops if they need to.

So Simply Safe stops crimes before they start.

I said, I have a Simply Safe system is incredibly easy

to set up and it gives you peace in mind when you're away.

The monitoring was really reliable.

The customer's support was great.

And it's good to protect your home.

And you know, I recommend it.

You're covered inside and out.

Cameras and monitoring outside sensors

and 24-7 protection inside.

They've been protecting five million Americans

for over 20 years in US News and World Report

has named them best home security system,

five years in a row.

No long-term contracts, no nonsense.

Get 50% off any new system at simplysafe.com slash crooked.

That's simplysafe.com slash crooked.

There's no safe, like Simply Safe.

Welcome to Pots of America, I'm Dan Fiverr.

Back when I worked for Barack Obama on his campaigns

into the White House, whenever we faced the political crisis

when things felt like they were falling apart all around us.

President Obama would call a strategy meeting.

They would last all day.

Sometimes they were at his house.

Sometimes they were at a nearby office.

But every single time they would last hours and hours

and we could the whole gang together

to try to figure out what went wrong and how it could fix it.

We didn't answer every question.

We always left the meeting with a plan.

The conversations around the table,

focused my mind, it made me smarter.

And even as I have celebrated democratic victories

and touted Trump's declining poll numbers in recent weeks,

I have had the sinking suspicion

that too many people in my party

are whistling past the graveyard.

Trump's blunders are masking the political crisis

the democratic party is in.

To figure out how to get out of it,

I wanted to have one of those strategic conversations

like the ones I used to have in the Obama days.

And there was no better person

to have that conversation with than David Plough.

He was a Obama's campaign manager in 2008.

His top political advisor in the White House

during the re-election, my boss in both of those occasions,

and was senior advisor to Kamala Harris

during the 2024 campaign.

David is one of the smartest and most strategic people

in democratic politics.

And I wanted to sit down with him

and talk about these issues.

David Plough, welcome back to Potsade America.

Always good to be with you, Dan.

Go Sixers.

Exactly, go Sixers.

All right, so you wrote an op-ed in the New York Times

which got a lot of attention,

pissed off some powerful people.

And I recommend everyone read it,

but I just want to give people a flavor of it

because it's going to guide our conversation today.

Here's what you write.

Right now, Democrats have no credible path

to sustaining control of the Senate and the White House.

After the adjustments to the electoral college map

that most likely come with the next census,

the Democratic presidential nominee

could win all the states won by Kamala Harris,

plus the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania,

and Wisconsin.

And still fall short of the 270 electoral votes

needed to win.

The point of your op-ed is that the Democratic party

is in crisis.

What caused you to take these slots to the New York Times?

Well, Dan, and for me, I mean,

I spent a lot of time on the specifics,

but the spirit of it is more important to me

than any specifics, which is when you think about the Supreme Court,

we could have two, three retirements over the next decade.

I think that the view that somehow once Trump leaves the scene,

everything will return to normal.

I think it's going to be worse after Trump, not better.

The only antidote really is to stay in Democratic control

of all chambers, but particularly the president in the White House.

And I'm sorry, the White House in the Senate.

And when you look at just how few states were competitive,

in a presidential race or the Senate,

the math is just unrelenting.

And what also guides my thinking on this

is the Republican party right now is dreadful.

They are despised by the American people.

The only entity maybe more despises the Democratic party.

So when your opponent is in the shitter,

that's the time to kind of get out of the shitter you're in.

And really give voters a sense of others new people

and there's new ideas and they seem different

and they're willing to admit their mistakes.

There's clearly a huge opening here for us to rebuild

our brand or electoral performance.

But if we don't do that,

by the way, one thing I think about,

you and I both live through Merrick Garland.

Let's say we win the White House,

but we don't have the Senate.

Is there any guarantee like if Thomas or Alito

something were to happen to them and they retired

that we could confirm a Supreme Court justice?

I wouldn't take that bet to the bank.

I would assume that's not right.

So you can either complain about it, which we should do

or say, how do we make sure something like that doesn't happen?

So that more elections than not,

we have a chance to be 50 plus in the Senate

and hold the presidency for an extended period of time.

And I think if we do those things,

we're probably gonna like where we are in the House as well.

So I think it's worth just dialing in a little bit

on the electoral college point.

We've talked about the Senate.

We'll talk about the Senate some more

in this conversation with electoral college

as we sit here today.

And these are all estimates,

but we have a pretty good sense where things are headed.

The most likely scenario is California, New York,

lose somewhere that will be combined six to seven votes

and Texas and Florida gain somewhere six to seven votes.

Which means that the map that we almost won with in 2016,

we did win with in 2020,

we came close to winning in 2024.

Those are all off the table.

You would have to win with the map that looked

like Obama 2012, you really have to be competitive

either in a whole swath of states

or in which we're not competitive.

Or you have to be able to win Florida or Texas or both.

Otherwise, there's just no really credible path

to getting there on a regular basis.

Absolutely.

Is that right?

I mean, the blue wall doesn't get you there anymore.

Even with that second congressional district of Nebraska,

which by the way, I assume they're gonna change

or try to again.

So yeah, I mean, we have to, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada,

all critical, we have to keep trying to figure out

how to get more competitive in Florida.

Eventually break their back in Texas.

But we've got to be more competitive in more places

and you saw in 24, Nevada and Arizona weren't that close.

Georgia a little more competitive.

So the notion that somehow after 20,

like Arizona and Nevada are going to be states

that we win more often than not,

I don't think it's true or enough to really fight

to make that true.

So we've got to put more targets on the board.

And that should scare everybody

that we could have a great electoral performance

in 2032 as we thought in this last decade and fall short.

So we've got to put more states in play.

That's just the reality.

And I believe we have the opportunity to,

because I think some of the gains Trump made

with non-college voters, particularly of color,

you see them fleeing him.

Doesn't mean we're gonna get them back,

but they're open to that.

I think we've got the ability to do better

in some rural communities, not by a lot,

but by a few points.

Clearly, Kamala Harris actually showed real strength

with some college educated older white voters.

So I think we've got the ability to do that,

but it's not something we can say it should happen.

It has to happen.

It has to happen.

Or we're gonna have neither the Senate

or the White House for the next decade.

And it's not gonna be like Mitt Romney in charge.

It's gonna be a more skillful, more palatable,

but super scary version of Trump.

And I think it's like,

there is this paradox we're living in,

which is the 2026 midterms look pretty good right now,

not as good as they were in 2018,

but the House certainly is a map that is very winnable.

The Senate map, while hard looks better

than it's looked in a long time,

we have good candidates running in places,

we have some paths to get to 50 votes there,

which seemed impossible a year ago.

As you mentioned, the polls are pretty clear

that Trump's dropped a lot.

And the New York Times poll that came out earlier this week

said very explicitly that Trump's numbers

with the coalition that powered in the victory in 2024.

Young voters, strictly young men, Latino voters,

working class, non-white voters.

Trump's numbers with those groups now look exactly

like they did in 2020 when he lost,

not like when he won in 2024.

And that's all great news.

But the same time we're looking at this problem

where even in today's world,

we are capped at like 53 Senate seats if we're lucky,

because we only have one,

there's only one Republican at a blue seat,

it's only two Republicans at a purple seat.

If you count four, if you count North Carolina,

a state we haven't once is 2008,

you know, it's just,

it's just there's a very, we have a low ceiling there.

And then you look at 2028,

like you could see a world where you could say,

a generic good Democrat can win the White House

against the unpopular vice president

to an unpopular president.

Like you can see that path.

But then that person's gonna come in

and have to win with a much bigger,

normally, as we know, your first president election,

you get to a number and your second one,

you get reelected with a smaller number.

And that smaller number is not gonna work at 2032.

And so the paradox here is,

things look good in the short term.

In the long term, we have some pretty big changes

we have to make in our party to be,

to have what you argue,

which is sustainable control to actually stamp out MAGA.

Like this isn't ignoring all the problems

your Republicans have,

it's that it's not when you're fighting against

something that looks like the MAGA movement,

you can't just swap power every four years,

we've seen how damaging that could be.

And so we are sort of in this like crisis mode,

but it's a,

does it feel that way in the moment?

But when you take a step back,

the party really has a ton of work to do,

which is why I think Europe is important

and probably kind of pissed off some people.

But let's begin with the party brand, right?

Where we are right now,

the Democratic Party brand is in the toilet.

It's at a round at lowest level, it's been in history.

And that's concerning for a lot of reasons,

but one reason is typically politics is seesaw.

One side goes down, the other one goes up.

Trump has come down, we have not gone up.

What's your theory as to what's happened

to the Democratic Party brand?

Because for the most of the 21st century,

other than right after 9-11,

the Democratic Party has been more proper

than the Republican Party.

How do we get here?

Yeah, so just a second on some of what you just said,

I mean, the Times poll is interesting.

I mean, Trump obviously doesn't like it,

he's threatening to sue them based on the poll.

But if you look at all of his numbers,

and by the way, I think one of the tasks for 26 is,

one, make every Republican running for office

own all the downside.

In a way, I think Trump historically

has been stronger than a lot of his candidates.

Right now, I worry the opposite.

You got to make these guys and women pay full price.

But secondly, for us, yeah, 26 could be good.

But given what you just said,

we don't have a Senate race to lose

or a house race we can waste, like we can't afford it.

We've seen they, by nominating a bunch

of knuckleheads through the years,

have lost Senate races they should have won.

We can't do that.

So we have to maximize 26 as well,

like you're a big basketball fan,

like Michael Jordan never went into the halftime locker room

when they're up six happy,

like why the fuck aren't we up 12?

Like I think we need more of that mentality.

So, but that time's supposed disconcerting

because you think maybe the generic ballot

should be seven, eight, nine points and it wasn't.

And if it's that high, by the way,

we can definitely win the House with some margin,

but also win the Senate in this tough environment,

which I think should be the goal.

I think with the brand, I think first of all,

they're still hanging over from Biden,

both him running and I think people's view

that he mishandled the economy and the border.

You know, he did a lot of great things obviously,

but right now voters are penalizing them.

And I think the Democratic Party,

I think kind of stood by and let that happen.

I think there's a sense from voters,

I'm just reporting what, you know,

great researchers show us when they talk to voters

that we weren't as as maniacally focused

on lifting wages and helping people

who are living their lives right now

as opposed to we had, I think people thought

we were a little more ideologically focused.

There's no doubt that there was a sense from some voters

that we are more focused on social issues

as important as they are than the economy.

And, you know, I think that we haven't had,

you know, at the national level,

you know, for some time kind of the exciting candidate,

you know, Joe Biden won, thank goodness,

Hillary ran a strong race, Kamala did,

but we haven't had the Obama Clinton Trump stride our party,

which becomes an avenue for people I think to come over to you.

So I think, the other thing I think, you know,

Mamdani's interesting, you've watched him closely as a guy.

This is another thing, I mean, I've seen focus groups

where voters kind of say, listen,

the Democrats seem like the taxes we pay,

they just kind of think it's their money to spend,

they don't accept any criticism of government,

they think all the answers are government.

And we, you and I know a lot of the answers are,

but what Mamdani shows is even a social Democrat

can blow the whistle on government

when it's doing dumb things.

And I wrote about this some in the op-ed,

I think Obama did a lot of this with some of our efforts,

Clinton did, it's really important for us

as the believers in government to be the first one say,

hey, when a program's not working or there's fraud,

we're gonna blow the whistle on it,

we're not gonna reflexively defend.

The other thing I'd point out,

I don't think we've walked the walk.

I mean, we criticize them for being anti-democratic,

for being autocracy friendly,

for not having any norms,

but you know, when we have a guy in Illinois retire

from the house and he slides in at the 11th hour

or his preferred, you know, choice to replace them.

You know, the leadership says,

well, we're not gonna criticize them.

You know, even the delegate from the US Virgin Islands

who got, you know, talking points from Jeffrey Epstein,

we rally around.

So I think I get on the one hand,

there's a view that the Republicans never criticize each other,

which I actually don't agree with.

I think they criticize.

But like if we truly wanna tell people we've changed

that we are gonna defend them,

that we're not gonna defend any corruption,

we've gotta be willing to call it out

in our own ranks in my view.

And we have some fresh faces out there.

I think Tallahuree goes running a really interesting race.

Obviously, Dana Osborne's back in

and I think is doing really well in a tough place.

So ultimately the solution to this is new leaders,

new candidates and ultimately who our nominee is

and 28 will determine so much,

not just about that election, but the next decade,

we really have to get that right.

Someone who's a great vote getter

and can win by enough, as you said,

to give us a margin in the Senate.

So I think all you have to do is listen to voters

and they talk about what's wrong with the Democratic party.

You get an earful.

Now the good news is, they say just as negative things

about the Republicans, but they're in charge.

So this is my concern is,

I think there was a little bit of after 22,

we had a better election than people thought.

A hugely after 22, and it's like the great sin

of the party.

It's not very true.

It was really cause of dobs.

I think we could have a very good 26,

but that doesn't mean we've healed any of our wounds.

And to me, the tragedy would be if,

maybe we have a good 26,

maybe as you said, we even win the White House in 28,

but it's because we are the least worst option.

As opposed to some voters saying,

actually, yeah, I've kind of done with MAGA,

and you know, this Democratic party

or these Democratic candidates,

they seem a little bit different.

What they're talking about,

I think we clearly have to refresh our economic agenda,

Senator around non-college workers.

Those are also the jobs probably leased it,

risk with AI in the near-term until Musk

gets all his optimist robots everywhere.

So I think that, anyway, the way I always thought,

you and I went through the war together in 2012,

and one of the things we'd say is,

even though it's a tough economy,

and I think for most of 11,

most observers thought we'd lose.

Every time we did focus groups with swing voters,

people were still interested in what Obama had to say.

Their ears were open.

And I think for a lot of voters right now,

they've closed their ears,

because they just don't believe in what we're saying.

They need to hear new things, more compelling things,

more honest things, more things connected to their lives.

And if they do that,

given the weakness of the Republicans,

I think we can really profit from it.

In your piece, and this is the part that pissed off

to be able to got some members angry at you,

you argued that Democrats, it's running for office,

should call for a new leadership in the House in the Senate.

Do you think Democrats really should ditch

Jeffries and Schumer in a lot?

Well, listen, as you know,

after the election, it's an inside game,

and I would imagine both of those gentlemen

will have the inside track to leadership

of who went back to the House in the Senate.

But that doesn't mean that a candidate,

the way I always think about this, Dan,

is if you're in a room of 150 people in Central Iowa,

or in suburban Arizona,

and a House candidate or a Senate candidate

is talking to a group of voters.

And you say, listen, I'm running against Trump.

I think what they're doing is harmful to the economy,

to our country.

There's a bunch of institutions

that aren't delivering for people.

But I also think my party has to change,

like people are gonna be nodding their heads, right?

So I would just say this, Nancy Pelosi,

who's one of the greatest leaders in the history of America,

was always very free and open with candidates.

You say what you have to say to win,

even if they were critical of her.

And you know, these positions aren't about any one person.

You know, there's an existential thing hanging over us

that we have to at least win one of these chambers.

I would argue too, given some of the structural things

we talked about.

So I think there'll be candidates out there

who already are, you know, challenging leadership.

I would suspect at the end of the day

if we're successful, electorally,

the current leaders will, you know,

ultimately be the successful candidates.

I don't know if other people will run or not

as you know, that's still an inside game.

But I guess my point is, Dan,

we need candidates to just let it rip

and kind of burn all the houses down,

because that's what voters want to hear.

Pasev America is brought to you by Acorns.

For a long time, I just put my money under the mattress

because I've never taken an economics class.

But then now there's Acorns.

So many of us only focus on where our money is today.

Acorns is the financial wellness app

that cares about where your money is going tomorrow.

Acorns is a smart way to give your money a chance to grow.

It's easy.

You can sell it.

You can sell it.

You can sell it.

You can sell it.

You can sell it.

You can sell it.

It's easy.

You can sign up in minutes

and start automatically investing your spare money,

even if all you've got is spare change.

Acorns grows with you,

whether you're just starting out

or thinking about settling down.

Acorns supports your big and small goals

across every life stage.

The Acorns potential screen shows you the power

of compounding and how your money could grow over time.

Plus, you can quickly adjust how much you're investing

every day, week or month

to make sure you're building towards your goals.

Acorns is all in one.

No more finance apps,

cluttering up your phone

with Acorns you can invest safe

and give your money a chance to grow in one.

Trusted place.

It's easy.

You can start with just some spare change.

You have more than that.

You can do more than that.

Either way,

you're going to want to watch your money grow

because if you're not using Acorns

and you're just going to sort of

letting your money sit in a

in a check-in account somewhere.

Yeah.

Or, you know,

or cash or something.

Yeah.

Then you're just losing out on money.

Sign up now and Acorns

will boost your new account

with a $5 bonus.

Join the over 14 million all-time customers

who've already saved and invested

over $27 billion with Acorns

had to Acorns.com slash cricket

or download the Acorns app to get started.

Paid non-client endorsement compensation

provides incentive to positively promote Acorns

to your two compensation provided.

Potential subject to various factors

that just customers accounts

age and investment settings

does not include Acorns fees,

results do not predict or represent the performance

of any Acorns portfolio investment results

will vary investing in involves risk.

Acorns advisors LLC

and SEC registered investment advisor

view important disclosures

at Acorns.com slash cricket.

Pots of America

is brought to you by strawberry.me.

You know that feeling

when a new year starts

and you tell yourself,

okay, this is the year work is going to be great.

And then two weeks later,

you're already burned out again.

Ooh, so I think you can read my mind.

Yeah, we've been there.

If work left you drained last year,

today's sponsor strawberry.me can help you change that.

Strawberry is career coaching.

It gets to the real source of your burnout.

Whether it's too much on your plate,

no boundaries, a tough manager,

or just feeling totally disconnected from the work you do.

A coach helps you figure out

what's draining you,

build habits that protect your energy,

redesign your day-to-day

so it feels sustainable and create a plan

so burnout doesn't come back by March.

It's not therapy,

but honestly,

it's like therapy for your career.

I've got this co-host.

No boundaries.

No boundaries at all.

No boundaries at all.

And here's the good part.

You can get matched

with a coach who fits your personality

and goals in just a few minutes.

Sessions are flexible private

and made for real people with real jobs.

Not the fantasy version of you

that always has it together.

I love that version.

It's a great version.

I love that idea of me.

If you're listening to this thinking,

yep, I'm burned out.

Let this be your new year reset.

Go to strawberry.me-slash-cricket

and try your first coaching session for 50% off.

That's strawberry.me-slash-cricket.

You're very exactly right,

that if the Democrats take the house,

they keep Jeffries is going to get reelected

and probably should, right?

That's your job.

Your job is with the majority.

You want the majority.

That's great.

You know, I don't know what will happen with Schumer.

That's probably like a maybe a tougher build there.

I do think the candidates who run on,

this is really important.

The candidates who run on,

I'm going to vote for someone else.

I have to actually vote for someone else when they get there,

because otherwise you're just,

like then you're just,

you're playing the game,

and you're going to look ridiculous,

but you actually have to follow through it.

Because there's a bunch of people,

Platner said he's not voting for Schumer,

Malik Moura,

and I think maybe,

I know Malik Moura,

maybe Abdul Al Sayed,

others have said they won't support Schumer.

There are some people saying that,

but then you actually got to,

you can't think of him here

to put him up with Schumer in the vote for him.

But, you know, there'll be a process.

And, you know,

maybe multiple votes will see who emerges.

But I guess I think, you know,

the most important thing in an election

is to meet voters where they are,

to understand where they are,

their concerns.

And I think that they're very concerned about Trump and Magga,

the economy,

they'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,

and this happens to also potsy America all the time,

when 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.

Do you have any response to that?

Well, Dan, I think, you know, 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

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 built electoral coalitions,

you know, we're 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.

And, 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 disatisfied with both choices.

So what if you strengthen your hand,

so there are 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 in the country

are talking about.

You know, 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.

I 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.

You know, in your piece,

you argue the Democrat that we have to make Republicans

own all of Trump's problems.

I think there is a bit of an internal debate.

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 under water.

But 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 guys never on the ballot again.

What are you thinking about that question?

Well, I'm glad you singled out some of those generic

match-up questions with issues,

just scare the living daylights out of us.

So that's why the generic ballots five, not eight, right?

Right. Right.

So I think that if you think about an incumbent House Republican

or even a Republican running in an open seat

or certainly, you know, Collins and Cruz and Ricketts,

I think the task between now and 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 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.

But 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, 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 1,000 or 2,000 votes.

If we don't win back the Senate, it could be close.

So making them full pay full price.

So those swing voters who go into the booth say,

this person is not separate from Trump.

And 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.

You know, my guy or my woman tried to try 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 state's Trump one?

And the House battleground, as much as we like to think

that this is his favorite territory for us,

they're only thinking as four seats

that they have Republicans and districts

that come on the Harris one.

There's not that many in districts that Trump won by five.

Like the true, there's been like a narrow 2024 GOP,

like majority in an actual, you know, real majority in the House.

You have to win Trump plus seven plus eight plus ten seats.

Does that affect how you think about it?

Or is it dissatisfaction with Trump among independents

and this seven, you know, three to seven percent slice

of 24 Trump voters enough to put those districts in play

that you can run against Trump there?

No, I don't think so.

I mean, I think particularly in those Trump 10,

Trump 12 districts, Trump eight,

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 healthcare costs are up.

This big factory closed, you know,

your paycheck's not going further further off.

I think you've got, 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 impopular,

people's economic concerns are so profound,

but 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 to 20s or high to 20s in the house,

you're going to be winning a bunch of places that are pretty red.

And I mean, this is also goes to the party brand question

about why over the course of the next period here,

people have to fundamentally have a fundamentally different view

of who Democrats are because otherwise we're renting these seats

for two years in the house, you know, maybe four years

if we can make it through the presidential year.

And these are one-term senators, right?

This is a, let's say Mary Peltola is lucky enough

to get through in a tough race in Alaska

or James Teleriko or someone else can win in Texas

or Sherrod Brownwoods in Ohio is they're winning

because they are running in the right year

with the right political environment.

Next time they are up, it's going to be

in a presidential election year and look very different.

And so in 32.

And so you guys are going to have to be able to keep these seats

not rent them and that requires not winning

on a sort of a black swan event of just the one year

of inflation, Trump being unpopular, chaos in the streets,

and you win.

And so it's just like, it really hammers the point

that 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 pre of 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 sugar play, right?

And that's in terms of investing, infrastructure,

but also understanding.

So all you're trying to do is win the Senate.

But 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 reelection, 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% 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.

And 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 eight one court by like 2040

if we don't have to look for party.

Eight one.

And that's almost a 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 a,

their version of contracts for America or something,

you know, the six for six from 2006,

like a policy agenda,

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.

Like do we actually need a policy agenda or is that giving,

the argument against which you're from a lot of people

and a lot of people at a high levels of power 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 election,

you got to tell the story about why you won.

So 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 sense,

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.

So, you know, to the extent that the House and Senate

leadership are thinking about this,

I would be in dialogue not with my colleagues in the caucus rooms.

Yes.

I would be talking to the vulnerable candidates,

you know, 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 fly 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 I, like my mind,

is not made up on it.

I think the counter argument 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,

whether we 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's,

or maybe Bernie speak.

Like, and not 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 have a lineup.

It's just that, like, the communications asymmetry is so big,

is one.

The other, and so having something that,

you know, they're putting throw-away behind a message

about something we stand for.

Like, I'm not saying that you should put, like,

Medicare for all in here or any,

but like an idea of, you know, maybe you could,

I don't know, but just the ideas that you would have,

it's like a handful of affordability ideas,

and some reform ideas.

Like, this is the part where I think,

probably get the most pushback from the leadershipness.

I think the huge error, you know,

there's two, 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.

Right.

During COVID and during sort of the,

when people are ready to get out of the COVID,

but could not yet get off-ass enough and then inflation.

But it's Biden running again, right?

And then everything that came with Biden's inability to,

an unwillingness to communicate basically

throughout his entire presidency in a way that the photo's actually heard.

The second is misreading the 2020 election

to think it meant that people,

Biden's victory was a validation of institution norms,

norms in the pre-Trump political system

when it was just like,

it was much more, it was not that at all.

It was just, it was more rejection of the system

than anything else,

and 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 were 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 this is part of this is running against the party,

like 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 been failed to do for years now,

stock members have kind of some trading stocks.

Like that sort of stuff could be part of an agenda that actually helps.

I was in my mind, it's still not made up here,

but I think it is,

like that dilemma is,

do you leave a vacuum for the other side to define,

or do you have like a ready-made answer

for what you would actually do?

Which 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 a comprehensive agenda

that tackles and tickles every issue.

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, we win back.

Day one, banning stocks, crypto, you know,

no lobbying, like, 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, you know, it could be maybe it's not, you know,

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.

And the 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 get up, you talk to pollsters,

and they'll show you voters either don't care about

as much as you think they do,

or more importantly, don't trust General Crafts

to do anything about it.

And this is a place, and we'll talk about this a little bit

when we get this 28,

but this is a place where our biography,

the message and the messenger do it's like,

like I would imagine,

Mamdani can come across as a reform-oriented candidate

because he is an outsider to the system,

AOC could, your typical, you know, maybe Platner could,

maybe some of these other candidates could,

but the establishment Democratic politician

is not going to be trusted

to all the 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, that is part of the challenge.

I guess that is part of the challenge.

You need the right candidate to be able to move on.

Well, an outsider candidate, don't see.

I mean, I think that,

and I don't think it should be based on Trump.

You can say, listen,

we've seen a bunch of corruption,

but, you know, this predates Trump,

it's Republicans and Democrats,

and so...

That's true, 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 the 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 long time,

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.

And I've mentioned planting her 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.

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 five military officer

who's running in South Carolina one.

You get a whole bunch of ones like that,

but those are the sorts of candidates.

All right, let's pivot to 28,

because in the long term here.

But before we get to 28,

because I know this week,

but just so we must suffer a little bit,

I want to go back to 24 a little bit,

because I think there are some less

it, you know, just,

I've always found this is a benefit

of being working Democratic politics before Obama,

is I always learn 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 do is 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

and I can't imagine yours had either coming

right off that campaign

for a hundred days

wherever long you were there.

But now, at 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 buying a decision to run,

the short campaign,

or even,

and I say this because she wrote about in her book,

Kamala Harris' 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's 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 thought about politics

or how we should do things differently going forward?

Well, 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 knew 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 at 24 in 23,

and we'd had 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% plus in every battleground state

gave Trump a positive approval in the economy,

and that's what mattered to voters.

I'm not sure,

but they would have been more 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.

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.

100% agree with that.

I think that's the thing

that would have made a difference.

So I'm not sure there's anything to emphasize.

If I mean, I look back,

you know,

after the first debate,

which was such a big moment for Harris,

we said we wanted 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 in McDonald's.

He didn't.

He had the McDonald's moment.

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.

But 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 really really worried about him.

I mean,

first of all, the economy was better when he was president.

All these Democrats

are talking about democracies at threat,

but we saw the democracy.

And you'd say,

well, Trump January 6th and Trump,

well, he left.

And 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,

okay, 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.

That'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

and someone who wakes up every day

and thinks about the campaign

through the president of TikTok,

Instagram yields,

YouTube, maybe a little red.

By the way,

that's hardly anybody in our party right now.

Potsy of 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-ardwarded mattress brand.

Tested and reviewed by experts

like Forbes and Wired.

Helix offers a variety of options

with the new ones.

like Forbes and Wired. He looks offers a variety of mattresses designed to fit your sleep needs.

How will you know which? He looks 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.

He looks as 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 US.

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 helixleap.com slash crooked for 20% off-site wide. That's helixleap.com slash crooked for

20% off-site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you helixleap.com slash crooked.

Pods in America is brought to 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 wireless's 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. Use 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 Mint Mobile.com slash crooked. That's Mint Mobile.com slash

limited time offer up front payment of $45 for $3, $90 for $6 or $180 for $12 a month plan

required, which is $15 a month equivalent. Taxes 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 Mint Mobile.com. I want to get to that for sure because I think this goes back to

with the leadership question to the House of Senate leadership question because one of the things

you hear about them is one of the criticisms you get of Jeffries and Schumer is that they're not

great communicators, right? That they're not natural community. They're not, I think they can

be fine at times, but it's not they are not. When you're listing the great communicators on 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 work for Dick Eppart when he was the House Minority Leader.

I work for Tom Dashing as a Senate Minority Leader. They're both, I would say, with all due respect

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, they were on top of the list. It's, I guess, politics

have become much more performance now, right? Like what you think about those, if you were picking

a new leader, would communicate, like, we'll get to President of Canada in a second, but for

leaders, like, would you think that their ability to communicate is as important as their

ability to hold the caucus together or count votes or something? Because Nancy Pelosi,

greatest speaker of all time, that was, like, she's not spent a lot of time communicating

publicly. She had most of her work behind the scenes, you know? It's a great question.

You have the job change. Now, I think Dashing Eppart 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 in

fight Pelosi 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, okay, how are we going to get our message out? How do the people who we need to

persuade an 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. I don't think

what work is like the Madison caught on a 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. But again, back to your question of let's say the Democrats decide to have an

agenda. Maybe it's every issue, maybe it's just a couple of issues. How are you going to communicate

that? Who's going to communicate that? How loud are you going to be? These are really important

questions. So I think there's, as you know, you've spent a lot more time thinking about this

and I have. Every week it gets harder to reach audience. And I think that it, again,

starts with messenger and message. Without that, it's bullshit. But if you're not delivering

message and listen, sorry, 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 policies, be like, well, let's put the

policy together. Where are we going to give us 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 real? You know, what's my visual representation

of that? You know, 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.

You know, and this is another reason why we need younger Canada. Why do we need younger

candidates? Well, one, politically, I think would be helpful to us. But 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, you know, if you're 80 years old,

it's almost impossible to know how a 22-year-old person is living once to live what their dreams are.

Like, and so, Ram and the annuals 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. So 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 28 primary. Obviously, you know,

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. And now anyone who thinks they have

any idea what actually makes someone electable in this day and age has no idea what they're talking

about. Particularly as far after everything that's happened. Yeah, we should have some humility,

right? Like, are we say that the prototypical in when we came out the 2004 election,

the candidate every that you go to any collection, democratic operatives or donor thing,

I'm like, how do we can't lose again? How do we win in08? We need a governor or a senator from

a red state. I work for Evan Byer, I work for a senator from Evan for a red state. And I mean,

like this blows people's minds now. We found that Mark Warner, who has just recently been elected

governor of Virginia at the time, was the toast of the town. He said everyone was trying to get in

with. He decided not to run ultimately. But so we all believe that, right? Everyone believed

the conventional wisdom was that we like white male democrat from a red state. We ended up nominating

Brock Hussein Obama from the South Side of Chicago via Indonesia. And why? And then he went

at the middle of the electoral dance like a secret. Yeah, it's going to change. But when I think

electability will be top of mind, it's wide-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? It's can you actually communicate? Can you go into all the 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 a capacity to get your message out? Are you to your point

like digitally native? Do you actually understand how the media works, which that does benefit here?

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? It's much easier for people to get their message out.

By the time we get to 28, they were 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 billionaires from Instagram, Facebook, Twitter,

TikTok. So like, 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 or radio to blogs to most importantly social media that drive narrative.

We don't have that. Listen, I would, you know, Twitter obviously musks, you know, that's a toxic

wasteland that's less of 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

dial turning there to suppress us, but we need to maximize it. So listen, this is less about 28.

And I just one before we have no idea what the Democratic Party primary voter is going to be

looking for in the first quarter of 28. No 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

made me very different iterations of that political light times between now and then. You know,

obviously Newsom, someone I think you've shown real aggression around social media. I think, you

know, Steve, you know, Andy Bashir 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 mom Donnie in terms of how he's driving message, not as a candidate,

but now as a mayor, like Dan Lurry, 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 biographies 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. We 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, you know, this multi-plot of more 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, you know, 22, 23, 24, 25-year-old

creators who understand these platforms inside and out, and 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, you know, we've been around long enough, we know a bunch of them

now. They've a lot of it on the show. I see lots of people who could win in a good political

environment in 2028. Like, I think that's, and 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

JD Vance, as a nominee, who is quite dangerous, but also, I think has plenty of flaws and is not

wearing wall of photos. Like, there are these, the, Sarah Longwell put out some focus group results

today, which showed that the only thing that Gen Z men wanted less than JD Vance was for the

United States to invade Greenland. He does not, he has, he has Trump's mag and beliefs, but not

the charisma that helps you to have a charisma. But, you know, still, it's going to be a,

it's a danger. But 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. Now, the primaries tell

us a lot that people you think are going to be great. Like, on the rubble inside, Rhonda Sanchez

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 all 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, not as people have announced, but we all expect

they'll run. Newsom, Pritzker, Whitmer, Shapiro, Mischier, you know, I'm sure I'm forgetting

others, but lots, you know, Mark Kelly said he's thinking of running out. These are all established

gay, gay, these are all establishment democratic politicians. Like, and I believe our strongest candidate

to 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 a moment of 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? Well, that's a great question, Dan. Um,

are you thinking of particular outsider or two, by the way, or? No, I mean, I think 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 threw

more Cubans in the name out there because he's that sort of like our Trump version, only in the

sense that he's a businessman who's very good with the media and is a reality TV star. You know,

the other one you hear, well, you know, more from the like resistance leftist with John Stewart

run, right? And so I don't have the, I don't have a good answer for that. I 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 has an

outsider, just bartender, and she can communicate with the best of them. I don't think she's, I'm like,

I have no indication, she'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 officials such a short

period of time that he wasn't defined by that, you know, it's like, we just, I don't, I don't see

that person something like keeping my eyes open for who that can be because people weren't talking

about Obama actually, people were talking about a lot about Obama at this point in 2006, you know,

the real point in the cycle, but they weren't seriously thinking he was not thinking he was going to

run. Like, is there someone out there that we're not thinking of who can get in the mix?

Well, so first of all, I mean, my hope is that we have some of the Cubans in storage 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 you'd say on paper, you don't think has to kind of reach to really expand the electorate

in our coalition. Maybe if they survive that primary, you know, oftentimes the people who win,

they don't just come out whole, they come out strengthened by the primary. I think they got to

keep put a bomb, right? So I think just it, 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 our 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 her general election. I'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 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 is overperformed a lot,

Shapiro's overperformed, all those Michigan candidates have overformed Gaiego 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. And 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.

This 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 award-winning website templates with options

for every use and category. Squarespace domains make it easy to find the best name for your

business at one fair, all-inclusive price, no hidden fees, or add-ons required. Every Squarespace

domain comes with advanced privacy and security tools included to ensure your domain remains

online and protected. Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built-in

analytics tools, reviewed website traffic, learn where to focus engagement, and track revenue

from bookings, invoices, or product sales, all from one place. Squarespace 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 a domain

that's squarespace.com slash crooked.

So talent, electability, communications, dictate who wins the primary. The other thing that dictates

the primary is the calendar. Right now, you know, in our minds, we, because it's always been thus

that we would go, I have a new ham sure, 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,

I think there's been 12 states, right, that have basically submitted an application. So 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. Relationship 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 presidency. So that would mean to me, I would make sure that

the first four 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. So 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 and North Carolina both want to be battleground

early. So does Arizona and Nevada. So does Michigan. Northeast, 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. So 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. So, 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? And 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 is 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.

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 ever, 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. And other than I think of for when Edward's one, because he was kind of,

you know, North Carolina guy. 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 boat 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 we'll see. I mean, I think that that's important. So that to me is another rule of principle.

But to me, the invalid thing is you just got to put blinders on. Don'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 advance 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 extinguished the

mega threat. Yeah, that to me, I honestly agree that this, the best idea I'd ever heard was from

Kevin Shiki Bloomberg Sky, which was you would just take the four closest states from the

previous election and do them in the, you know, so in this case, it would be Wisconsin, Michigan,

Pennsylvania, right, Arizona, whatever that violates my geographic thing, but that's a fine idea,

right? Yeah. But the basic principle here is battle is you have the 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 place where we can be in either of them. But like I remember,

like being, you know, obviously I spent a lot of time in Iowa 2008, we had, you know,

the best organizers in the Democratic Party were in Iowa, organizing that state with an inch

of its life, right? Every voter, every community, you know, we knew who they were, you could get it.

In, I was there in 20, in 20, you know, doing podcasts and covering the, the caucuses,

and then when I let them fill out 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, though they were in a close those

offices they were going to leave. And so to spend all millions of dollars and all this time and,

and money and energy to organize a state that you never return to seems like just a waste of

resource. So getting those battleground states makes like a ton of sense to me.

Yeah. And, and again, I think the, the voters, whoever is our nominee will have competed in those

states, spent a lot of time doing social media interviews, running ads. So you get a head start on

your definition, but also I'll just repeat this candidate thing. Even though our, 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 a senator or an outsider, you know,

in your state, you don't know these states. But if you spend 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,

it ought to just be battleground states first for. 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 one in your bed, one of the things you brought up was the

democracy to talk about AI the day is a huge issue. We need a position on AI. You had

Chatsubt right 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, the writers of political ads

are in grave danger. Maybe the, the actual cinematographers are okay for the short term.

Another cycle. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. At least, you know, 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 been more vocal critics of Trump's, the Trump's David

Sacks, let him cook policy of no regulation. But to the extent we have, you know, they said

the Democrats are about, it's mostly people who are doing like bands on data centers.

Where 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 Sacks and the Trump administration. But General, 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 in

sanity. 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 than it's happening to them. So listen, AI's here. Everyone's using it.

There's a lot of benefits in terms of healthcare, hopefully, and 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. We 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 they're unemployable. Like, 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. Because 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 thoughts on how we handle this. Not in a way that like hurts us

competitively. Still allows us to flourish, but 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 JD Vance in particular is deeply exposed.

And I think could really pay a price by 28. If people 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 we'll raise some of those questions. I think

we will politically profit from it. Yeah, it's really it's it's it's quite challenging because it's

very different than when social media was starting when Obama was running, right? Where like those

companies were viewed quite positively by the public as something different like for all the

steps that they had of Wall Street or big oil or big pharma or big tobacco or all the bigs,

right? They like there's a sense that these country 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, right? That's not the same now, right? It is very it's much it's a much more

complicated relationship. This tech is just a lot of view voters view just like a segment of

business that they're quite skeptical of and think it's 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. Yes. And so like and we have lost some of that of like in the post Obama years.

No questions. And so and so how do you sort of navigate that between you know 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 it's the sort of you've done a

lot to the benefits 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 Karen things. But like so I think yes positives

but 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 Sax's is well don't worry if all the wealth goes to the big

companies they don't even dispute it. 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 based 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 they 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 to 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 I 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 peace and everything will be okay. 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 you want to make sure that the benefits

of this are widely shared and like health care is a great example of that but you know 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.

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 have to like you need a comprehensive strategy with nuance to actually do it.

I think people like from the research I've seen people are both hopeful and skeptical and you

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 you know see some benefits in some way shape or form if it can make their life

easier so like we need it we need an actual policy and if we are if there are problems have no

policy I think they're where the Republican governors have been better than us is they've been

very critical of and focused on the effect on kids. Yes right and we've just not that we're not

focused on we're just silent about it like we like we're just the party just seems to not have a lot

to say but maybe there are lots of individual candidates saying individual things but it's just not

being heard by people because we don't have the it's not the most important people in the party doing

it we're not presidential candidates doing it we don't have the megaphone to get it out but it's

it feel I think it feels to a lot of us and you see the 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 guy.

All right David Plough I will let you go this has been fun and illuminating and alarming as always

good to talk to you. That's how our discussions always go fight for. Always have for almost 20 years now.

See you. Before we go some quick housekeeping friends of the prod 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

you know we do questions about individual races around the country too my takes on reality TV

and everything in between there's some reasons to come our friend of the pod from ad free episodes

of your favorite podcast to additional content to an amazing discord server that 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 David Plough for

joining us John John Tommy will be back in your feed 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 supercasts sub stack youtube or apple podcasts also please

consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at crooked

pod save america is a crooked media production our producers are David Toledo Emma illic frank and

Saul Rubin our associate producer is Farah Safari Austin Fisher is our senior producer

Reed Churland is our executive editor Adrian 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

Seglon and Charlotte Landis Matt DeGroat is our head of production Naomi Sengal is our executive

assistant thanks to our digital team Elijah Cohn Hayley Jones Ben Hefcoat Mia Kellman Carol

Pelevi David Tolls and Ryan Young our production staff is proudly unionized with the writer's

guild of america feast