Speaker 1: Olga Paz America. I'm Dan Pfeifer. You're about to hear
Speaker 1: a great conversation I just had with Amanda Liibman, co
Speaker 1: founder and president of Run for Something, an organization that
Speaker 1: has recruited more than two hundred and fifty thousand people
Speaker 1: to run for office since it's founding in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: and she's the author of When We're in Charge, the
Speaker 1: Next Generation's Guide to Leadership. I invited Amanda on because
Speaker 1: I wanted to hear her perspective on where Democrats are
Speaker 1: heading into the twenty twenty six midterms, how the fight
Speaker 1: between establishment and insurgent candidates is playing out in races
Speaker 1: across the country, especially in a heated Democratic primary in Michigan,
Speaker 1: and where the party goes from here. I also asked
Speaker 1: her about how grand Platnir's desician to drop out of
Speaker 1: the main Senate race could impact Democrats' chances of taking
Speaker 1: back the Senate, and what she thinks, as someone who
Speaker 1: has worked with thousands of candidates, about the recruitment inventing
Speaker 1: process that led him to jump into the race. It
Speaker 1: was a great conversation and we'll get to it in
Speaker 1: a minute, but before we do, If you want more
Speaker 1: analysis heading into the midterms, consider subscribing to my newsletter
Speaker 1: of the Message Box, where I pull back from day
Speaker 1: to day punditry to offer deeper analysis on the trends
Speaker 1: affecting our politics. Go to crookad dot com FLUS Yes
Speaker 1: we Dan for a twenty percent disc on your subscription,
Speaker 1: and as always, considered becoming a paying subscriber to Friends
Speaker 1: of the Pod, where you'll get this episode in many
Speaker 1: more ad free, which now includes ad free episodes of
Speaker 1: Alex Wagner's phenomenal Runaway Country. Head to crooked dot com
Speaker 1: slash friends to subscribe today. All right, here's Amanda Libman.
Speaker 1: Amanda Lipman, Welcome back to Potsave America.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me Dan.
Speaker 1: I wanted to have you on for so many reasons.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the midterms. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about the battle within the Democratic Party between the
Speaker 1: insurgents and the establishment, the left, the right, etc. But
Speaker 1: I feel like the best place to start and maybe
Speaker 1: the worst place to start with this conversation is main
Speaker 1: a topic we've talked a lot about now. I don't
Speaker 1: think we need to go through our own personal histories
Speaker 1: with Graham Plattner or who we liked, we like them,
Speaker 1: We've all we've all done that. I went deep with
Speaker 1: Alex Wagner on last week's pot. You've written about this,
Speaker 1: you've talked about and you've tweeted about it. I want
Speaker 1: your perspective, as someone who has worked with thousands of candidates,
Speaker 1: about how we ended up in this situation, and I
Speaker 1: want only begin with a candidate recruitment process. Dana Morath
Speaker 1: and Leeann Fann, two progressive activists who have done a
Speaker 1: very did a very aggresive media tour about their about
Speaker 1: their plans for recruiting Grand Platner. They went looking for
Speaker 1: a candidate in Maine. They looked through FEC records. They
Speaker 1: look for a lobsterman. Then they looked for an oyster farmer.
Speaker 1: They looked at then they saw a video of Grand Platiner.
Speaker 1: They went with, met with them, convinced them to run
Speaker 1: for office. This has come under a withering critique for
Speaker 1: lots of people. What did they do right? What did
Speaker 1: they do wrong? What's your take on this recruitment process?
Speaker 1: And we'll get to the vetting after this, because that's
Speaker 1: that's a different topic, but related obviously, what did they
Speaker 1: do right?
Speaker 2: They looked for someone new. I think that's good. I
Speaker 2: think we should open the door to as many new
Speaker 2: voices as possible. We should expand our idea of what
Speaker 2: a good candidate looks like. That's the end of the
Speaker 2: list of things they did right. What they think what
Speaker 2: they did wrong is you cannot play king maker, and
Speaker 2: you really cannot play mad libs with candidate recruitment. You
Speaker 2: cannot look at a state like Maine or any district
Speaker 2: and say, you know what, we need X kind of occupation, Y, demographic,
Speaker 2: Z type of politics. We're going to make this person
Speaker 2: into a candidate. One, we have no idea who the
Speaker 2: fucking win, We have no idea. But two, it is
Speaker 2: leaves open so much space for it to feel like
Speaker 2: a puppet master is creating the candidate, as opposed to
Speaker 2: the candidate coming up organically. It is possible that he, like,
Speaker 2: notwithstanding all of his other personal stuff that he might
Speaker 2: have come up through and you know, seeen an ad
Speaker 2: and run for something, or gone to a main Democratic
Speaker 2: party event and said you know what, maybe maybe I
Speaker 2: do see myself here and then gone through the kind
Speaker 2: of rigorous, thoughtful process you need before you actually get
Speaker 2: on the ballot that maybe could have been so, but
Speaker 2: they did not do that. They said, we're going to
Speaker 2: make this man into a senator, and they tried to
Speaker 2: pop a master it into being that will backfire any
Speaker 2: number of ways.
Speaker 1: I obviously agree with all of that. The like people
Speaker 1: have to want to run for office, you have to
Speaker 1: start with that, right, which is and we'll talk a
Speaker 1: lot about run for something in the course of the conversation,
Speaker 1: but people find you because they want to run for something.
Speaker 2: Yes, And I think it's I just I think it's
Speaker 2: really important to say that running for office sucks like,
Speaker 2: it is miserable, It is hard, you are your life
Speaker 2: is going to be under a microscope. You need to
Speaker 2: want to do it. Anyway, we should not convince people
Speaker 2: to run. We should open the door to them and
Speaker 2: then if they say, guess, help them walk through it.
Speaker 2: We shouldn't push them through it.
Speaker 1: So that's one aspect of this, right, trying to take
Speaker 1: someone who doesn't want to profress and get them run
Speaker 1: for it or rays never thought about it, right, It's
Speaker 1: one thing to you've kind of thought about it for
Speaker 1: a while, you're you know, maybe you want to do it,
Speaker 1: maybe you don't. Your weigh in considerations and then people
Speaker 1: try to convince them to do it. The party committees
Speaker 1: do that all the time. That's how she had at
Speaker 1: Mills ended up in this race, which is she didn't
Speaker 1: really want want to run for office, and I guess
Speaker 1: you would stop calling her yes. But there's another element
Speaker 1: of this too that has got a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: which is they went looking for a very specific type
Speaker 1: of person. Now, this to me doesn't seem that different
Speaker 1: from what the D Triple C or other organizations do,
Speaker 1: right They just you know, they look at a district,
Speaker 1: they look at the political environment, they say, these are
Speaker 1: the kinds of people who should run, who would be
Speaker 1: good candidates in this district or in this political environment.
Speaker 1: In the two thousand and six cycle, Democrat the D
Speaker 1: Trible C in a Roma Manu whe Out recruited a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to run for office.
Speaker 1: You know, an environment where people very anti warrior upside
Speaker 1: with Rock won a lot of races that way. D
Speaker 1: Trible C. This cycle has looked at you know, in
Speaker 1: the past, we've looked at prosecutor sheriffs, still veterans, you know,
Speaker 1: fired federal workers or a group here? Is there anything
Speaker 1: wrong with thinking about like the kind of profession that
Speaker 1: would be the right people Like it's like, I understand
Speaker 1: the idea from these peoples perpective, which is we want
Speaker 1: a working class candidate in me, right, we can like
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of conversations about what whether grip Putet
Speaker 1: was actually working class, but let's just put that aside
Speaker 1: for a second. And what is a great job in
Speaker 1: Maine to be a working that is like says I
Speaker 1: am Maine in their original conception was lobster nt Like,
Speaker 1: let's get someone who fishes for lobsters? Is there anything
Speaker 1: wrong with that approach, that sort of casting call approach
Speaker 1: to it?
Speaker 2: I think it assumes that we know who can win,
Speaker 2: which sometimes will make a good guess. But like, you
Speaker 2: can come up with dozens of examples of people who
Speaker 2: would never have been asked to run. Barack Obama being
Speaker 2: another like a top of the list who would have
Speaker 2: asked the one term state senator, two terms state senator,
Speaker 2: con law professor to run for our office. No one
Speaker 2: who would have asked someone like Lauren Underwood, a nurse
Speaker 2: who was a black woman in a majority white district,
Speaker 2: to run for office. Who would have asked AOC, who
Speaker 2: would have asked you know, Ayana Presley. These leaders who
Speaker 2: are truly amazing public like figures in our party, who
Speaker 2: you probably wouldn't have picked if you were going to
Speaker 2: start from scratch, but who because they care, because they
Speaker 2: had problems they want to solve, and the offices that
Speaker 2: they saw gave them power to solve it, decided to
Speaker 2: get in the fight. So I think it is so
Speaker 2: risk averse and we are at a moment where our
Speaker 2: party can't afford to be risk averse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I want to talk about how the platter
Speaker 1: thing affects our risk a version in a second. But
Speaker 1: let's pivot to the vetting, because there's never been so
Speaker 1: much talk about vetting in history, and in part once
Speaker 1: again because Marath and Fan did these interviews where they
Speaker 1: almost giddily admitted to barely vetting Platner, how do you
Speaker 1: think about the process of candidate vetting? And obviously did
Speaker 1: not work here, but like what is a what can
Speaker 1: one reasonably expect to find out? And like what were
Speaker 1: the failure points here?
Speaker 2: So I say, Run for Something has endorsed more than
Speaker 2: four thousand candidates over the last ten years. I believe
Speaker 2: we've had to riscend fewer than a dozen of those
Speaker 2: endorsements in the last decade. Pretty good track record. And
Speaker 2: for those incidents is have been things that have come up,
Speaker 2: like after the campaign has already started. Now part of
Speaker 2: us we work on the local level. The stakes are
Speaker 2: a little bit different there. But also we do deep
Speaker 2: background checks, we do social media scraps, we ask local operatives,
Speaker 2: we dig deeper. We also ask candidates and this I
Speaker 2: think is the most important part that Platner would have
Speaker 2: failed here. What are we going to find? Like is
Speaker 2: what is the OPO report on you? What is the
Speaker 2: opposition going to say? If your worst secrets are on
Speaker 2: the front page of the newspaper, what's that headline going
Speaker 2: to read? And how are you going to feel about it?
Speaker 2: I think for us, and this is true of our
Speaker 2: most betting reports, what the candidate says in their own
Speaker 2: like self OPO is the nut to crack. And it
Speaker 2: doesn't seem like Platner was going to be honest about
Speaker 2: those things. Maybe he didn't think they were flags in
Speaker 2: the first place, or he didn't remember them, whatever it
Speaker 2: might be. For some of them, I think that is
Speaker 2: where it really matters that people want to do this
Speaker 2: so that they can be very open and honest with
Speaker 2: the teams and voters more importantly about what they're going
Speaker 2: to find.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really have been struggling with this because, as
Speaker 1: you say, the process, you know, and it's different levels, right,
Speaker 1: what you guys would do for state senate candidates, different
Speaker 1: than what theoretically should have happened in a high profile
Speaker 1: senate race. And that is light years apart from what
Speaker 1: would happen in a presidential.
Speaker 2: Race, which is why you don't pluck people from obscurity
Speaker 2: to run for senate.
Speaker 1: Right right, and who don't want to write like that
Speaker 1: is the thing. And but if you look at the
Speaker 1: platinum thing, like there's there is the social media post. Now,
Speaker 1: a good vetting should have found that, because CNN found it.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether he told them that he had
Speaker 1: been doing it's been doing a lot of Reddit posting
Speaker 1: in an earlier station's life. I imagined that would have
Speaker 1: been something that would have been easier to say than
Speaker 1: some of the other things have happened that should have
Speaker 1: been found. The tattoo is an interesting one. I've thought
Speaker 1: about this a lot like what is the like I
Speaker 1: don't know that in any Canic questionnaires. Well there will be.
Speaker 1: Now I guess, do you do you have any Nazi
Speaker 1: like tattoos? Do you have any problematic tattoos? Let be
Speaker 1: ex like dys robes where I can examine your tattoos.
Speaker 1: His taed nasti tattoos not showing up in a Bux's
Speaker 1: nexus or a Google search about his history or public
Speaker 1: record search. But if you would talk to lots of
Speaker 1: people around them, some of them might have said, because
Speaker 1: this is one of the reason why you talk to
Speaker 1: people is they want to help their friends and family
Speaker 1: do this right and not get embarrassed. So they will
Speaker 1: often tell you things like, you know, just one thing
Speaker 1: I would ask him about is there's this kind of
Speaker 1: weird tattoo you know that like that could have come up,
Speaker 1: but like you also see how that falls through the
Speaker 1: cracks in a traditional particularly if you believe, which I
Speaker 1: am now very skeptical of, that he did not know
Speaker 1: until that it was Nazi related until the end. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that he got it to be a Nazi,
Speaker 1: but I don't think he's been truthful about when he
Speaker 1: found out.
Speaker 2: I do think like it is worth thinking about what
Speaker 2: are the things good vetting would have found and what
Speaker 2: are the things that we never could have known.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Reddit post stuff should have been found, Yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure. And then you get to his relationships with women.
Speaker 1: The I mean, I can't even have it to have
Speaker 1: this conversation about this, but the quote unquote consensual sexting
Speaker 1: that went on was discovered in the vetting process. His
Speaker 1: wife did what she was supposed to do, which is
Speaker 1: she told the campaign the exact question that you raised.
Speaker 1: She answered with, there was this, and the campaign made
Speaker 1: a decision not to deal with it in any way,
Speaker 1: shape or form, or not to proactively disclose it. You
Speaker 1: know that that cannect to bite them. And then the
Speaker 1: other stuff, like the tossic nature of those relationships, the
Speaker 1: sexual assault allegation are things that a campaign can only
Speaker 1: find out if the candidate tells them. If the candidate
Speaker 1: is unwilling to tell them, they may never know because
Speaker 1: it's just it doesn't show up in that Now. Once again,
Speaker 1: in a presidential level vetting or VP level vetting, the
Speaker 1: campaign would have gone out and talked to all the
Speaker 1: ex girl friends. I don't know that that's a reasonable
Speaker 1: expectation for a Senate race. But Planner is a failure
Speaker 1: of vetting on one end. But the things that ended
Speaker 1: as campaign is a failure of character on his part
Speaker 1: to be willing to tell them to the campaign right.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to thank Marafin fan, but it just
Speaker 1: I've gotten so many questions about vetting in this process.
Speaker 1: I think it's just worth to help people understand, like
Speaker 1: what is reasonable. And they failed miserably, but ultimately the
Speaker 1: failure was also Platner's.
Speaker 2: I think that's right, and I think his failure to
Speaker 2: be honest with them, even about some of the things
Speaker 2: should have been the red flag to that people talking
Speaker 2: to him.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, that's exactly right. There were clearly red flags
Speaker 1: that in their interactions with him that should have raised
Speaker 1: more questions that led to more vetting. So in my
Speaker 1: conversations with you know, listeners of the show Democrats out there,
Speaker 1: there's a fair amount of defeatism about Maine post Platner,
Speaker 1: the sense that we had this gold opportunity, everything went wrong,
Speaker 1: wrong candidate, wrong approach from the d SEC to kind
Speaker 1: of clear the field. So we ended up with this
Speaker 1: choice between a flawed candidate and a candidate who didn't
Speaker 1: really want to run and couldn't beat that flawed candidate.
Speaker 1: How are you feeling about the race going forward? And
Speaker 1: we're recording this on Thursday, a couple of hours before
Speaker 1: the first debate that the Main Democratic Party is holding
Speaker 1: for the nomination to replace Platner.
Speaker 2: I think the Main Democratic Party so far has done
Speaker 2: a pretty good job of setting up a process that
Speaker 2: people feel like they can be a part of, because
Speaker 2: I think that was the real danger was like the
Speaker 2: party would just pick somebody and then like force it
Speaker 2: down voters' throats for lack of a better term or
Speaker 2: than their choice their menu. They seem to have set
Speaker 2: up a process that gives people a voice, and it
Speaker 2: seems like all of the candidates who are jumping in
Speaker 2: at least have some amount of run through the ringer,
Speaker 2: whether they ran for governor, they ran for Congress, they're
Speaker 2: public businessmen. Like there's not not as many nobodies. I
Speaker 2: am still cautiously optimistic. I mean, Maine is a state
Speaker 2: that voted for Kamala Susan Collins is deeply unpopular. Trump
Speaker 2: is even more unpopular. There does seem to be like
Speaker 2: a deep frustration with Susan Collins among mayners. It's not
Speaker 2: a foregone conclusion that it's a non starter. I am
Speaker 2: curious to see how quickly whoever takes the nomination can
Speaker 2: raise money, and what Platner does with his money and
Speaker 2: his infrastructure, and how much he really engages with the
Speaker 2: potential nominee or if he as his dropout video seem
Speaker 2: to indicate, Harbor's a lot of ill will towards this process.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like his money is incredibly useful. Now he can
Speaker 1: only give a small amount of it to the nominee,
Speaker 1: but he could theoretically give it all to the d
Speaker 1: SEC of the DNC, and the DNC could then, now
Speaker 1: thank you to the Roberts Court, use that money in
Speaker 1: an un in a fully coordinated fashion to spend it
Speaker 1: unlimitedly on behalf of the nominee. You know, I feel
Speaker 1: and maybe this is just cope on my part. I
Speaker 1: and this is going depend how the process plays out.
Speaker 1: But if the process plays out like I hope it will,
Speaker 1: which is I agree the main Democratic Party is doing
Speaker 1: so far a great job, Ideally you'd have another primary
Speaker 1: eyone going to vote that is not obviously logistically feasible
Speaker 1: on this very tight timeline. This is certainly better than
Speaker 1: just the party committee voting on one person behind closed doors.
Speaker 1: This is at least people. It'll happen, and there'll be
Speaker 1: a couple of debates, it'll happen, but this convention will
Speaker 1: be very interesting. Lots of people will watch it. The
Speaker 1: people will get a test. This is kind of what
Speaker 1: might have helped us better in twenty twenty four if
Speaker 1: other people had wanted to run against Kamala. They didn't,
Speaker 1: so we'd never had that process. But there's like a
Speaker 1: testing ground here where you'll get to see if some
Speaker 1: of these people. You know, it's not exactly like a
Speaker 1: primary campaign, but it's as close as we're going to get.
Speaker 1: So I think that's good. I think we are if
Speaker 1: this process plays out and we end up with a
Speaker 1: candidate without a Nazi tattoo or a bunch of other things,
Speaker 1: we're in a better position than we probably would have
Speaker 1: been had we ended up with either Platiner or Mills.
Speaker 1: Platner in this like in this state, if Platner before
Speaker 1: the sexu assault like a allegation, just Platner as he
Speaker 1: was on primary day, or Mills is the nominee, like
Speaker 1: I think we actually have a chance that this race could,
Speaker 1: god forbid, be about Susan Collins, which is what you
Speaker 1: want it to be, because in that Times poll that
Speaker 1: we're an even platner after all this stuff was going on,
Speaker 1: was still winning by two points by I think it's
Speaker 1: an eleven point margin. People in Maine want the Democrats
Speaker 1: control the Senate. So if you can actually just make
Speaker 1: this race about a vote for Sustan Collins is a
Speaker 1: vote to let Donald Trump control the Senate, put Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices on and do all these bad things, like,
Speaker 1: you have a real shot. And you can just have
Speaker 1: a generic Democrat who is a like not generic cammer
Speaker 1: is the right word. You need a talented generic Democrat, right,
Speaker 1: someone who can just isn't flawed, can campaign well, but
Speaker 1: allows the focus to be on the candidate on Susan Collins,
Speaker 1: not their own personal foibles like that. That's it seems
Speaker 1: like a in some ways are like a decent shot.
Speaker 1: I still think we have a very real shot to
Speaker 1: win this race. I really do.
Speaker 2: I do too, And I think the candidate who takes
Speaker 2: this nomination forward sort of has an indicator of where
Speaker 2: voters are now, like can really speak to the anger
Speaker 2: that you know, Platner for all of his fuck ups,
Speaker 2: and there are many like he caught fire. Something like
Speaker 2: one percent of Maine was volunteering for his campaign. That
Speaker 2: he spoke to the anger and the frustration that people feel.
Speaker 2: He put forward some real like clarity of positions, and
Speaker 2: the nominee who moves forward should be able to tap
Speaker 2: into that, even if they don't weren't able to capture
Speaker 2: it in the primary themselves.
Speaker 1: You know, I got served a TikTok video a platinar
Speaker 1: because you know, obviously nothing on TikTok is connected to
Speaker 1: the calendar, so it actually was posted weeks and weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and it's Platiner talking about how we have to stop
Speaker 1: making this between left and right, and we got a
Speaker 1: point fingers up, not down. That's not pointing each other.
Speaker 1: It's about the billionaire. So like that is a legitimately
Speaker 1: good message that someone else could also have, and it
Speaker 1: also is a reminder of it does remind you because
Speaker 1: I think some of the discourse is, you know, it's
Speaker 1: all because you know, Pozzi American's taken a lot of
Speaker 1: SLINKs and narrows over this, But it's all because these
Speaker 1: dumb podcasts with other people like Platinir that he wanted
Speaker 1: and people forget he actually got seventy percent of the
Speaker 1: vote in the primary and blew the doors off the
Speaker 1: two term incumbent governor. Like he was doing something he
Speaker 1: was he was the wrong vessel, but he was doing
Speaker 1: something that people have made very much wanted, and they
Speaker 1: were all very well aware of everything up until this
Speaker 1: last until the sexual salt Delegation's very aware of his things,
Speaker 1: and they still wanted him. And that's there's something in
Speaker 1: there that Democrats have.
Speaker 2: To take from that ad because I have also taken
Speaker 2: some heat here and I share the frustration of like
Speaker 2: this was at no point ever a clearly moral right
Speaker 2: or wrong, because at every point up until he dropped out,
Speaker 2: it was either him or Susan Collins and a Trump
Speaker 2: Chalk Supreme Court, Like those were the choices. Which is
Speaker 2: better for women, Graham Platner in the United States Senate
Speaker 2: or Trump Supreme Court justices? Ah, you know, Like it
Speaker 2: was bad, It was all bad. And I am so
Speaker 2: glad that he ultimately did the right thing and stepped aside.
Speaker 2: And I am glad that we get a chance so
Speaker 2: that those are not our only two choices.
Speaker 1: What do you think about outside of May And we'll
Speaker 1: talk about some of the other races coming in the
Speaker 1: House and Senate map. But you know, you and I
Speaker 1: have both argued, You've done this very eloquently, that Democrats
Speaker 1: need to be a willing to take bigger risks. We
Speaker 1: have to change the way we're doing things. We have
Speaker 1: to change the way we communicate, the way we campaign,
Speaker 1: the kind of candidates we think about, that the way
Speaker 1: the establishment is doing things has been not as effectives
Speaker 1: who we would like it to be. It does in
Speaker 1: the Platiner debate prior to the most recent stuff, but
Speaker 1: even threw up into the Reddit post and the Nazi
Speaker 1: tattoo was a little bit of a proxy for this
Speaker 1: battle between It's in some ways it's between the left
Speaker 1: in the middle, but in some ways it's also between
Speaker 1: people who want real change in people who want less
Speaker 1: change within the party. And it does, like my worry
Speaker 1: with this is and we're I'm gonna get to Michigan
Speaker 1: because I think these things are tied together in some ways,
Speaker 1: but it like I worry that people take this as
Speaker 1: a argument against taking risks against candidates and wide in
Speaker 1: the aperture and the kinds of candidates that we're open to.
Speaker 1: Because Platner was in it was obviously a very unique
Speaker 1: candidate with a unique background, but he blew up in
Speaker 1: our face. So therefore, ergo the conclusion is we got
Speaker 1: to be more traditional, Like, what's your take on that
Speaker 1: you've seeing that too?
Speaker 2: I find that to be such a an empty argument,
Speaker 2: because it's not like Janet Mills was the right choice either.
Speaker 2: She was the establishment's call. She was Schumer's pick. Schumer
Speaker 2: cleared the field for her, as we have seen notice
Speaker 2: and others do very in depth reporting on, like they
Speaker 2: kick they got candidates to leave that race so that
Speaker 2: Janet Mills would run for the United States Senate, and
Speaker 2: then they begged and pleaded her to get in, and
Speaker 2: then not only did they leave her hanging out to
Speaker 2: dry when she was stop being able to raise money.
Speaker 2: But it is telling that she's not throwing her hat
Speaker 2: in the ring to win the nomination now. She doesn't
Speaker 2: want to do this. She is not the path forward.
Speaker 2: So like to say that this proves that the establishment
Speaker 2: always gets it right and the new people always get
Speaker 2: it wrong. No, this is villains on all sides here.
Speaker 2: Everyone got this wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's exactly right, and I just like,
Speaker 1: I just I don't want people to think that this
Speaker 1: means that outsider candidates you need. The right outside of
Speaker 1: candis but outside we shouldn't have outsideer candidates, you know.
Speaker 1: And the conversation around this is so like stupid basically
Speaker 1: because the thing people keep saying, like you have Fetterman
Speaker 1: and you have Platner, And I'm just like, Fetterman was
Speaker 1: a prominent mayor for years and years years, yeah, and
Speaker 1: then he was lieutenant governor. He was not like he
Speaker 1: dresses like an outsider. He has some prior to his
Speaker 1: most recent ideological shift, but he was a progressive Democrat
Speaker 1: who endorsed Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. And I mean
Speaker 1: he was campaigning, he was a mayor in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, campaigning with Obama. And so this idea that
Speaker 1: it's just no one wants to have the real conversation
Speaker 1: about this, and like just that this is either either
Speaker 1: this is all about Platinner or there's a specific type
Speaker 1: of candidate you want, and that can be on both
Speaker 1: sides of this, right, Like everyone's got to reckon with
Speaker 1: with what you know, with the reality here. But this,
Speaker 1: I just we we need so we need outsider candidates.
Speaker 1: They don't have to be grand platinner. They should be
Speaker 1: better than grand planner or insider candidate should better than
Speaker 1: Eric Swawall yep, and Andrew Cuomo like this.
Speaker 2: I mean that was when it was like, well, the
Speaker 2: establishment does a good job. Do we we have proof
Speaker 2: of that? I just I do think that, like some
Speaker 2: of the emotion around this race both comes to the
Speaker 2: stakes of it, where people like, obviously, if we do
Speaker 2: not win Maine or a state like it, we will
Speaker 2: not hold the Senate. It will be devastating for generations,
Speaker 2: and the sense that, especially for people who really believed
Speaker 2: in him, it's a sense of betrayal, of grief of
Speaker 2: like I thought I had a politician I could get
Speaker 2: excited about, and he disappointed me and broke my heart.
Speaker 2: And so I have some amount of empathy for the
Speaker 2: high feelings on all sides of this, but also the
Speaker 2: task now is to win and to make sure we
Speaker 2: don't make this mistake again.
Speaker 3: Pod Save America is brought to you by Act Blue.
Speaker 3: If you've been listening to the pod, you already know
Speaker 3: the stakes. Act Blue is the platform that's been powering
Speaker 3: democratic campaigns for over two decades, giving candidates up and
Speaker 3: down the ballot the tools they need to fundraise, organize,
Speaker 3: build websites and win. And this year they've launched an
Speaker 3: organizing platform built specifically for the people doing the work.
Speaker 3: Act blue Field Tools. Winning elections doesn't start in October.
Speaker 3: It happens now. Act blue Field Tools mobilizes volunteer energy
Speaker 3: at scale by bringing texting, phone banking, and canvassing into
Speaker 3: one platform. Already powering over three hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 3: volunteers across all fifty states. Act blue handles the logistics
Speaker 3: so your team can focus on what actually moves voters, meaningful,
Speaker 3: real conversations. Actlue never sells your data or personal information,
Speaker 3: so you can stay focused on what matters most, donating, organizing,
Speaker 3: and helping democrats win. This November, the elections could come
Speaker 3: down to just a few hundred votes. The work that
Speaker 3: wins those races starts this summer, and it starts with you.
Speaker 3: Get started at ActBlue dot com slash Crooked Positive America
Speaker 3: is brought to you by Fast Growing Trees. Fast Growing
Speaker 3: Trees is America's largest online nursery with thousands of trees
Speaker 3: and plants for every space and climate, and they make
Speaker 3: it easy to get plants that actually work for your.
Speaker 4: Yard delivered right to your door. Fast Growing Trees has
Speaker 4: shipping plants down to a literal science. Every plant is
Speaker 4: handpicked and carefully inspected, and their packaging is designed specifically
Speaker 4: to keep them secure in transit so they don't get damaged.
Speaker 4: They even have a lab where they test the best
Speaker 4: packaging material to protect against cold, heat, humidity, and much
Speaker 4: more so, when your plants arrive they look like you
Speaker 4: just bought them at the local nursery. Plus, every order
Speaker 4: is backed by They're Alive and Thrive guarantee, so in
Speaker 4: the off chance you do have any issues with your delivery,
Speaker 4: you are covered. We have tons of Fast Growing Trees
Speaker 4: plants here at the office. They look great. They showed
Speaker 4: up looking perfect. They give you advice on the layout
Speaker 4: and what will do well in the climate in your area.
Speaker 4: They tell you how to keep them alive and healthy,
Speaker 4: which for a lot of us is the hard part.
Speaker 4: All the soil remained in place. You know there's no
Speaker 4: big mess when they open the box, so highly recommend
Speaker 4: it right now. They have great deals on summer planting
Speaker 4: essentials and listeners get an additional twenty percent off your
Speaker 4: first order with the code crooked at checkout. That's twenty
Speaker 4: percent off at Fast Growing trees dot Com with the
Speaker 4: code crooked. Terms and conditions apply.
Speaker 1: All right, let's pivot to your hometown of New York City,
Speaker 1: which has been ground zero for the rise of democratic socialism,
Speaker 1: and beginning first with them Nani, and then the races
Speaker 1: that happen in the New York primary. Two incumbents were
Speaker 1: inceded and two DSA candidates one races, one in seating
Speaker 1: a long term incumbent, one winning an open seat. These
Speaker 1: are and then in Colorado where we had a thirty
Speaker 1: year democratic incumbent in Diana to get unseated by a
Speaker 1: Democratic socialist. What do you make of the rise of
Speaker 1: democratic socialism? Is this something that is this about socialism?
Speaker 1: Is it about the fact that these are all districts
Speaker 1: that Kama Harris won by more than fifty points. What's
Speaker 1: your take on what's happening here?
Speaker 2: I think voters are hungry for someone offering them a
Speaker 2: solution to their problems, especially young people who cannot afford
Speaker 2: to buy a house, cannot afford childcare or stuff with
Speaker 2: student loan debt, feel like they have no agency in
Speaker 2: their lives. They are looking too gambling or crypto or
Speaker 2: whatever it is, because at the very least that feels
Speaker 2: like something you might have some control over. They are pissed,
Speaker 2: they are frustrated with this status quo, and DSA candidates
Speaker 2: are saying, here's a solution. They're offering an alternative. Establishment
Speaker 2: or the center or the old guard could also do
Speaker 2: the same, and I think it is telling to me
Speaker 2: that they are not putting forward like a vision for
Speaker 2: what else could be possible. You know the fact that
Speaker 2: Mamdanie was able to speak to the not just the
Speaker 2: anxiety that people fail about their economic situation, but also
Speaker 2: like how they feel about what their life might hold
Speaker 2: like it wasn't just afford to live, it was afford
Speaker 2: to dream. It was afford to to be able to
Speaker 2: imagine a better future for yourself. I think also DSA
Speaker 2: has built some organizing muscle in a lot of these
Speaker 2: places which should not be underrated, and their candidates are
Speaker 2: selling something that matters.
Speaker 1: If you look at the polling, there is just absolutely
Speaker 1: no question that socialism has grown in favor with Democratic
Speaker 1: voters over the last many years here in the New
Speaker 1: York Times, Sianopol every single demographic, every single age court
Speaker 1: cowort of democrats, a parality of democrats have a favorable
Speaker 1: opinion of socialism. Interestingly enough, I find this to be
Speaker 1: so fascinating. They group with the high approval rating of
Speaker 1: or if high stave ability ate of socialism is not
Speaker 1: eighteen to twenty nine year olds, it's thirty to forty
Speaker 1: four as millennials. Maybe, yes, Andrew, you know, I remember
Speaker 1: I was telling this with ever I think, but it
Speaker 1: does make sense if you are of an age where
Speaker 1: you came of age in the Great Recession, like you
Speaker 1: really have been through the Ringer in a way, that
Speaker 1: is where capitalism has really fucked you, like at every turn.
Speaker 1: And you're also at the age where you want to
Speaker 1: be buying a house and you either can't afford to
Speaker 1: do it or a more expensive you can. You have kids,
Speaker 1: like you're at it. But socialism has grown in favor
Speaker 1: in capitalism has lost a lot support across the board
Speaker 1: with everyone in recent years also understandably so I think
Speaker 1: there is something too, like it was easy to dismiss
Speaker 1: mom Donnie as a generational talent, just like that guy
Speaker 1: could have. He could have been democratic socialist, he could
Speaker 1: have whatever he could. He was so good, he's so good.
Speaker 1: But these other candidates are They're good, but there's it's
Speaker 1: not generational talent that's winning, and so that they are
Speaker 1: people want big change and the left is more comfortable
Speaker 1: offering big change than the center. It doesn't mean there
Speaker 1: can't be a moderate version of something that addresses in
Speaker 1: a compelling, understandable, credible way the cost of healthcare, housing, food,
Speaker 1: whatever else. Like you can do that just have been
Speaker 1: unwilling to do it. And there is just something in
Speaker 1: there's a passion in how that is different with all
Speaker 1: not every but with a lot of leftists, for center candidates,
Speaker 1: that comes through that reads his authenticity and that you'll
Speaker 1: fight for them right, And like I was struck. I
Speaker 1: remember there's a clip from the Diana to Get melac
Speaker 1: Hero's debate where Diana de get is making an argument
Speaker 1: about a public option, which in a different era, I
Speaker 1: mean that that was a that was a mission too
Speaker 1: liberal for the Democratic Senate and the and the Obama
Speaker 1: era error when Obama's trying to do it, and it's
Speaker 1: like a you know, she's sort of living in the
Speaker 1: world of legislatively possible, and Kiros makes this very passionate
Speaker 1: argument for medica, the morality behind Medicare for all and
Speaker 1: why it's the right thing to do. And it's just
Speaker 1: like the difference there. Part of it is generational, part
Speaker 1: of it is inside or outside of part of it
Speaker 1: also is that's an easier argument to make in the moment.
Speaker 1: Now we can talk about how hard it is to
Speaker 1: make maybe in a general election, but in the moment,
Speaker 1: there's just they're offering something that is different. Now, do
Speaker 1: you There is real concern among even well meaning I
Speaker 1: think people in the establishment, the people who are trying
Speaker 1: to win the House in the Senate, that this rise
Speaker 1: of demo. And I should say, thus far, Democrats have
Speaker 1: not nominated any any DSA candidates in races that were
Speaker 1: that aren't guaranteed democratic racist. So it's not we're not
Speaker 1: in a situation where a bunch of these candidates are
Speaker 1: knocking off more. You know, they're not knocking off, they're
Speaker 1: not running, they're not winning a nomination in a district
Speaker 1: where they would be very very far to the left
Speaker 1: of the district. That's happening in the polistictions of the country,
Speaker 1: which is probably how the primary process is supposed to work.
Speaker 1: But you know, you do have an upcoming race with
Speaker 1: the Democratic Socialists in Wisconsin running for governor. But I
Speaker 1: think a lot of them guns have this fear that
Speaker 1: this could cost us the House in the Senate, either
Speaker 1: by d sakn A's winning primaries where they are to
Speaker 1: the left of the district, or the just being tarnishing
Speaker 1: the already tarnished brand of the Democrats. What's your take?
Speaker 2: The Democratic brand can't get much worse. What are we
Speaker 2: doing here, guys?
Speaker 1: We're going to try. I'll tell you that, you know,
Speaker 1: I do think.
Speaker 2: That just to speak to that particular point where like
Speaker 2: if a candidate can't comfortably say, you know what, I
Speaker 2: don't agree with my future colleague on X y Z issue,
Speaker 2: but I look forward to working together to find a
Speaker 2: way to bring everyone affordable healthcare. Like you're not a
Speaker 2: good politician. You don't have to agree with all of
Speaker 2: your colleagues and everything. You can respectfully dismiss them and
Speaker 2: look forward to working together. To the point of like,
Speaker 2: how are I thinking about the bigger picture here? You know,
Speaker 2: these candidates where they're run and winning, they are getting
Speaker 2: people excited shouldn't we want people to be excited about
Speaker 2: this process. Like these DSA meetings like them or not.
Speaker 2: And like I'm not a DSA member, That's not where
Speaker 2: I sit ideologically, But I look at those meetings and
Speaker 2: there's young people showing up, they are volunteering, they are donating,
Speaker 2: they are participating in very boring conversations about process. Like
Speaker 2: that is what building a political party looks like. We
Speaker 2: should want that and we should try to make the
Speaker 2: broader Democratic Party a place where that is possible. Now,
Speaker 2: I will say run for something. Last year had nearly
Speaker 2: over the last eighteen months, if had about one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand people raise their hands to run for office. That
Speaker 2: is more than we had in the entirety of Trump's
Speaker 2: first term. The thing that we have heard different over
Speaker 2: this year and the last than we didn't hear in
Speaker 2: Trump one point zero was frustration with the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: was people explicitly saying I am running for office because
Speaker 2: they are not going to fight for me. They have
Speaker 2: not delivered for me, They do not see me, they
Speaker 2: do not care about me. So the DSA is giving
Speaker 2: those people a home the Democratic Party, like you know
Speaker 2: Big D could do the same.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's there's no question, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not overly worried about. I mean they called Barack Obama
Speaker 1: socialists and there were no they called.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden as socialists. What are we doing here?
Speaker 1: Well, we could elect no DSA candidates and they would
Speaker 1: call swing state Democratic member candidates socialists like that? Would
Speaker 1: that would happen? I mean, you know this from all
Speaker 1: the races run is you would need candidates who are
Speaker 1: ideologically fit their district. These DSA candidates obviously fit their
Speaker 1: district that the voter said that, that's what they declared.
Speaker 1: And and you know in wolves that maybe you know
Speaker 1: in so far there have been some non DSA candidates
Speaker 1: who have won some primaries that some people believe we're against,
Speaker 1: you know you I'm thinking about Maine two Randy Via
Speaker 1: guess were like they were not they the establishment had
Speaker 1: a view on who was the best candidate to win,
Speaker 1: the more progressive candidate one. We'll find out in a
Speaker 1: few months who was right. Well, actually, I take the back,
Speaker 1: We'll never find out who was right because it's always
Speaker 1: a counterfactual. We don't know what the other person would
Speaker 1: have won. The DSA thing is I think, uh it's
Speaker 1: become it's a little bit like the Platiner thing, where
Speaker 1: it's become a proxy for something else where. It's it's
Speaker 1: the easiest boogeyman for some of the center groups to
Speaker 1: say to fight something else or something broader because Democrats
Speaker 1: are becoming more liberal. Like that that is true on
Speaker 1: almost every issue. It is true that with the number
Speaker 1: of Democrats who describe the thisselves as very liberal has
Speaker 1: gone up significantly since Trump was elected. The number how
Speaker 1: Democrats feel about a whole bunch of issues, particularly Israel,
Speaker 1: which we'll get to, has changed dramatically and so but
Speaker 1: that's not like that that is contributed to the rise
Speaker 1: of DSA, But it's not because of the rights of DSA.
Speaker 2: I also struggle a lot with like what is the
Speaker 2: who's the target for that argument that like DSA Candida
Speaker 2: shouldn't win these races. Like I'm a New York City voter.
Speaker 2: Are you telling me that I should pick my mayor
Speaker 2: based on who might cause tarnished to the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: brand as a mythical voter in Wisconsin? Like what an
Speaker 2: insane thing to suppose or to suggest, Yes, I really
Speaker 2: I struggle with this because there it assumes much like
Speaker 2: the left assumes that there is some secret cabal in charge,
Speaker 2: who can you control how elections are run or can
Speaker 2: control what candidates say if anybody was in charge. Do
Speaker 2: you think this is how it would go?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 1: Like yes, yes.
Speaker 2: It is voters making their voices heard on who they
Speaker 2: want to represent them, and we should be grateful that
Speaker 2: they are participating and that there are candidates that get
Speaker 2: them excited to show up. We should learn from that.
Speaker 1: I there are exceptions. I am someone who generally believe
Speaker 1: like I am, I've gotten more progressive in my personal
Speaker 1: abuse as I've gotten older. I've also live in California now,
Speaker 1: so maybe those two things are related. Sure, but I
Speaker 1: still you know, I grew up working on races in
Speaker 1: red states and red districts like that. It's my background.
Speaker 1: So I'm very cognizant that you need people who meet
Speaker 1: their district and that you're going to need candidates who
Speaker 1: are often to the right of the media and Democrat
Speaker 1: nationally to win in some of the especially we want
Speaker 1: to expand the Senate map. We want to get back
Speaker 1: to a place where we can win Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotah's,
Speaker 1: you know, places in the South, we have to do that.
Speaker 1: But I think and there was, and I think more
Speaker 1: Democrats should generally be aware of the challenges, like just
Speaker 1: how you know how the Republican bias and the Senate map,
Speaker 1: the Republican bias and the electoral College and the reality
Speaker 1: of winning these districts and you can't. You're like, what
Speaker 1: exists in your bubble is not what exists in out
Speaker 1: there in a lot of places, we have to win.
Speaker 1: Having said that, I think one of the great mistakes
Speaker 1: of the people making that argument is that they never
Speaker 1: offer it's always to tear down A. It's we're anti DSA,
Speaker 1: we're anti Zoron, Like Zoron getting elected was like this
Speaker 1: is the third way argument Duran get elected to be
Speaker 1: like the end of the world, especially when the other
Speaker 1: option was just I would I would just say there's
Speaker 1: a great irony between the most vehemently anti Platinam people
Speaker 1: being the most vehemently pro Cuomo people.
Speaker 2: This is the point, I mean, just to like really
Speaker 2: hammer this. If you were so afraid of DSA, there
Speaker 2: was a multitude of other options in that primate, you
Speaker 2: could have galvanized around even right now, and I'm sure
Speaker 2: we'll talk about Michigan in a moment like if you
Speaker 2: are so afraid of Abduel's aid, there was other options
Speaker 2: besides Haley Stevens, who they are currently having to spend
Speaker 2: fifty three million dollars to try and get over the
Speaker 2: finish line.
Speaker 5: It didn't have to be her.
Speaker 2: Malory mcmore, who you and I both know and supported
Speaker 2: and like a run Versusthinglam was right there. Now. I'm
Speaker 2: actually glad that she did not get the establishment support.
Speaker 2: I think that would have tarnished her campaign further. But
Speaker 2: putting aside of that, for a moment, you have to
Speaker 2: put something forward. We talked, I mean this is literally
Speaker 2: run for something. You have to have a vision, a solution.
Speaker 2: You have to talk to the problems that people are experiencing.
Speaker 2: Because voters are actually not proaggressive or conservative or moderate
Speaker 2: or centrist. They have problems they want solved, and they
Speaker 2: want politicians who will do that so that they don't
Speaker 2: have to care anymore. The Center could pose, could pose
Speaker 2: that they could put forward candidates who do that. It
Speaker 2: is so telling and frustrating that instead they choose to
Speaker 2: punch left there and also they are punching left instead
Speaker 2: of possibly creating space for Republicans to come in for
Speaker 2: other Democrats to come in like they are doing the
Speaker 2: thing that drives me crazy, which is yelling at the
Speaker 2: enemy who can hear them, as opposed to yelling at
Speaker 2: the enemy who can solve their problems.
Speaker 3: Pod Save America is brought to you by ag One.
Speaker 3: Summer is always a perfect time to unwind, to throw
Speaker 3: your schedule out the window, and prioritize adventure. With ag one,
Speaker 3: that doesn't have to mean letting your health fall by
Speaker 3: the wayside. Ag one is a daily health drink with
Speaker 3: a multibidem pre and probiotics, superfoods, and antioxidants. The easy
Speaker 3: delivery system means you get high quality nutritional support every
Speaker 3: single day, no matter where or when you start your morning.
Speaker 3: Ag one helps to maintain energy, support gut health, and
Speaker 3: support immune health. The next gen formula delivers seventy five
Speaker 3: ingredients clinically shown to support gut health, fill common nutrition gaps,
Speaker 3: and improve key nutrient levels within three months. When you're traveling,
Speaker 3: it's great to throw something like ag one into your
Speaker 3: bag so you know that you know you're in your hotel,
Speaker 3: maybe you're getting something quick on your way out the door.
Speaker 3: Maybe you're like eating like at.
Speaker 4: The air whatever.
Speaker 3: And if you have it with you, you know that, like,
Speaker 3: no matter how badly you're gonna eat on the road,
Speaker 3: or maybe you want eat badly in the road because
Speaker 3: you're going to Texas or something, you're just gonna barbecue
Speaker 3: the whole time. Bring ag one with you. I love it.
Speaker 4: I had some this morning.
Speaker 3: Visit drink ag one dot com slash Cricket. You get
Speaker 3: a free ag one travel case with seven free ag
Speaker 3: one travel packs, and you're welcome git with your first
Speaker 3: ag one subscription order while supplies last. That's drink ag
Speaker 3: one dot com slash Crooked.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go to Michigan, which is the race
Speaker 1: that has supplanted Maine in the is the center of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party civil war. We haven't talked about it
Speaker 1: a ton on this show, in part because Abdul worked
Speaker 1: for Cricket, did a head podcast for Crooked John. John
Speaker 1: and Tommy have supported his campaign. I supported Malanmorrow. It's
Speaker 1: the one race where we actually had actually supported candidate
Speaker 1: well it just had both had actually like donated money
Speaker 1: to primary candidate's Like that's not something that happened with
Speaker 1: Platner or anything like that. Just this is one where
Speaker 1: they knew Abdul. I know Abdul, I like Abduel. I
Speaker 1: know Mallory. I thought, I think Mallory's great, so I
Speaker 1: wanted to support Mallory. But so this race is now down.
Speaker 1: Mallory dropped out a couple weeks ago. It's now down
Speaker 1: to Hailey Stevens, a moderate establishment back congresswoman, and Abdul
Speaker 1: say it is. But it has become the center of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party civil war. There is just the amount
Speaker 1: of attention it's getting, particularly online from the most act
Speaker 1: the most online Democratic activist and pundits, is huge. It
Speaker 1: is really established. It's it's everything right, It's establishment versus outsider.
Speaker 1: It's Bernie versus establishment, I guess, or Senate leadership. It's
Speaker 1: anti Israel versus a pack all of the above. What
Speaker 1: do you have a take on this race?
Speaker 2: I think it is a preview of the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight presidential primary. It makes me want to throw my
Speaker 2: phone into the sea. I know, it's just I think
Speaker 2: it's it's interesting, it's hard. I don't envy michigan ors
Speaker 2: who have to make this choice, and I really hope
Speaker 2: that whoever wins this primary can build like build some bridges,
Speaker 2: men some and fences, because I think it's getting people really,
Speaker 2: really really angry in a way that will be hard
Speaker 2: to fix.
Speaker 1: It reminds me a lot of the twenty sixteen memory,
Speaker 1: where it just feels very similar and no matter who wins,
Speaker 1: it's gonna have they're gonna have to work very hard.
Speaker 1: It's a long road back to d yes. I struggle
Speaker 1: with several things in this race. Which is my original
Speaker 1: beef in Maine was the d SEC endorsing Janet Mills,
Speaker 1: Like I was kind of interested in Platnir, but main
Speaker 1: thing was like, let's just the people main decide, like,
Speaker 1: and I was very concersed. I thought, I've talked about
Speaker 1: the many times. I just thought the Mills decision was
Speaker 1: a sort of a political mistake. I thought the decision
Speaker 1: to back Hyley Stevens over Mallory and Abdul I thought
Speaker 1: was also a crazy decision. I thought, just you should
Speaker 1: stay out of it. But where we are are now
Speaker 1: is this has become a lot about a quote unquote electability,
Speaker 1: and the argument of the Stevens people and Stephens Stevens
Speaker 1: campaign fairly directly is that Abdul cannot win or is
Speaker 1: at least much less likely to win than Hailey Stevens.
Speaker 1: What's your take on electability in this context.
Speaker 2: We have no idea, and I think the establishment quote
Speaker 2: unquote has lost all credibility on that argument. They thought
Speaker 2: they thought Joe Biden could win another germ, Like, they
Speaker 2: don't have the proof points anymore to make the case
Speaker 2: that they know what voters want, Like can Hailey Stevens win?
Speaker 2: I don't know. Seems like they've had to spend a
Speaker 2: lot of money to gather through the Democratic primary. If
Speaker 2: she does eke this out, she's out spending abdul what
Speaker 2: ten to one. It's it's not even and.
Speaker 1: It's nine percent of that money or not ninety percent
Speaker 1: of that money is from not the Heiley Stevens. I mean,
Speaker 1: they actually what Hailey Stevens ga Wine up with their
Speaker 1: first ad today as we're recording this, APAK has spent
Speaker 1: tens of millions of dollars. I think north of thirty
Speaker 1: million dollars at least on Hailey Stevens's behalf, and then
Speaker 1: you have some other superpacks. It the thing that there's
Speaker 1: so many things that anger me about this, and like
Speaker 1: it's very possible you can make a case that Hailey
Speaker 1: stevens as a quote unquote moderate and who will certainly
Speaker 1: appear more moderate if she wins a primary against Abdul,
Speaker 1: Like that is one of the things when you come
Speaker 1: off looking quite moderate when you win a primary against
Speaker 1: state progressive because you're positioned in that modern place, maybe
Speaker 1: more electable. I don't know that, Like you can make
Speaker 1: that case. It's it's possible you can make the case
Speaker 1: that because Abdul is to the left of you know,
Speaker 1: Michigan is the quintessential swing state. Now Trump's one to two.
Speaker 1: The lesser elections, it's a fifty to fifty state, we
Speaker 1: assume it's probably three to four, you know, five maybe
Speaker 1: five points to the left this time with the g
Speaker 1: Arcboult looks the way we think it does that you know,
Speaker 1: a candidate that far the left, you know, if you
Speaker 1: look at political science research, is less likely to win
Speaker 1: like that. Like, you can make that case too, but
Speaker 1: less You're your point is no one knows. The thing
Speaker 1: that angers me about the Abdual electability question is no
Speaker 1: one is willing to just say what they mean by it.
Speaker 1: It is, like, is your argument that he's too far
Speaker 1: left in what positions is it he's too far left
Speaker 1: on is it his position in Israel? The polling would suggest.
Speaker 2: That right where the American people is right.
Speaker 1: There the is it medicare for all now popular? It
Speaker 1: is popular now if you if you did like Metacare
Speaker 1: for all can become much less popular over time. If
Speaker 1: if it's advertising against right like that, that could be
Speaker 1: potentially be a vulnerable But no one wants to say
Speaker 1: that because the Democratic base is very understandably supports medicare
Speaker 1: for all? Is it because he campaign with a s
Speaker 1: on Piker maybe, like you want to make that argument,
Speaker 1: Like in the in the data for Progress me May poll,
Speaker 1: only twenty percent of Democratic primary voters knew her a
Speaker 1: Suntpiker was. But you can put it. You can put
Speaker 1: it in ads, you can put what Hassan said, You
Speaker 1: don't have to know who he is. Is it because
Speaker 1: his name is Abdullah al said? Is that? What it is?
Speaker 3: That?
Speaker 1: What the reason is? No one wants to like that's
Speaker 1: the subtext of a lot of this, and no one
Speaker 1: wants but no one will actually say that, And that
Speaker 1: I would say, coming this from a very personal view,
Speaker 1: because that was always the argument. You know, then when
Speaker 1: you say he has some in veted. He hasn't been veted.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been vetted. That's what they said about brock
Speaker 1: Custain Obama too often, right after they called him broacastin Obama,
Speaker 1: and like, I don't know who's more electable. I always
Speaker 1: wish people would just be honest about what they actually
Speaker 1: think about why he's less more electable. Hailey Stevens did
Speaker 1: flip a Republican district in twenty eighteen. She performed exactly
Speaker 1: like a generic Democrat in twenty twenty four. I think
Speaker 1: I use the split ticket wins of a replacement rating,
Speaker 1: but I think she's like at point she's a like
Speaker 1: point three, I think better than everyone, but basically the same,
Speaker 1: like it's not a proven winner, and like it's to
Speaker 1: your point, as we don't.
Speaker 2: And I don't want to defend Hailey Stevens Sarah because
Speaker 2: I do not think she is the right candidate for
Speaker 2: this moment in any number of ways. But I will
Speaker 2: say a lot of the criticism of her about being
Speaker 2: unelectable or like being a bad candidate. Yes, is so sexist,
Speaker 2: one hundred so so sexist, and like we should we
Speaker 2: should also say that because this is going to be
Speaker 2: a challenge, especially as women keep running, which they will like.
Speaker 2: It is very hard in this modern information ecosystem for
Speaker 2: women to run because you have to be telegenic, you
Speaker 2: have to speak a certain way, you have to sound
Speaker 2: a certain way. Where do you perform your authenticity as
Speaker 2: a woman, Like if she did some of the videos,
Speaker 2: or even if Mallory had done some of the videos
Speaker 2: that Abdul has done, they would have been mocked endlessly.
Speaker 2: It never would have been on the table. So she
Speaker 2: is not the right candidate for this moment, I think
Speaker 2: for any number of reasons. But the criticism of her
Speaker 2: has been deeply sexist.
Speaker 1: There's this video that was circulating that has been got
Speaker 1: that has gotten I think ten million views of her,
Speaker 1: and she's at an organizing rally and she is in
Speaker 1: a very emphatic Michigan accent, is talking about how she's
Speaker 1: gonna fight for Michigan and that like that is like
Speaker 1: that's become like this become a thing. But my guess
Speaker 1: is most people see that and have no reaction to it.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a rot online thing, and you know
Speaker 1: the actually I have Bias series and supported Mallory. But
Speaker 1: Mallory made some of those videos that uh theres are
Speaker 1: are not dissimilar to the ones that abduels.
Speaker 5: May have torn to smithereens yeah on the internet for sure,
Speaker 5: like whether it ow at actual trip but I have
Speaker 5: no idea, but was just absolutely and so like that's
Speaker 5: why this one is so.
Speaker 1: Complicated and it's and then sitting here on top of
Speaker 1: it is Israel and Gaza, where Abdul has been incredibly
Speaker 1: outspoken as oupposed eight israel Is called it genocide. Hailey
Speaker 1: Stevens has been, you know, been a big has been
Speaker 1: supported by APAC. She when she won her primary in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, she was a She got a ton
Speaker 1: of funding from APAC. APAC has I said, spent all
Speaker 1: this money and here there is how do you think
Speaker 1: about APAX role in this in the role Israel's playing.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Michigan that I'm gonna expand it out
Speaker 1: to everything else when this campaign is all said and done.
Speaker 1: It seems like eighty percent of the funding at least
Speaker 1: of her campaign, at least while was on air funding
Speaker 1: tv ads is going to be paid for by one
Speaker 1: specific interest group. I don't know that I've ever seen
Speaker 1: them before. I've seen super PACs put a lot of
Speaker 1: money in races, Like in the Iowa primary, Josh Turk
Speaker 1: got a whole bunch of money from vote vets. That
Speaker 1: money really seemed to have come from the ds, from
Speaker 1: the Senate majority super pac world. And it's like a
Speaker 1: mix of different different grips. But here you have one
Speaker 1: specific group with a specific policy agenda spending this much
Speaker 1: more of candidate. I have you ever seen anything like
Speaker 1: this before? It seems concerning it.
Speaker 2: The only thing that maybe comes close is the way
Speaker 2: that AI was spending money in the New York congressional races. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but even that was like not to the same extent.
Speaker 2: And I saw really interesting polling in particular about the
Speaker 2: Michigan Democratic primary voters. Apak has a net negative forty
Speaker 2: six favorability rating. Seventy eight percent of Michigan Democratic primary
Speaker 2: voters said they'd be less likely to vote for a
Speaker 2: Senate candidate backed by Apak eighty six percent they'd be
Speaker 2: less likely to vote for a candidate who supports continued
Speaker 2: funding for Israel's war in Gaza. This is toxic for them.
Speaker 2: I think it's telling that most of their ads do
Speaker 2: not talk about ISRAELI.
Speaker 1: Never never mentioned.
Speaker 2: It's yeah, this is a both a question of policy,
Speaker 2: but it's also a question of morals. I think we
Speaker 2: have seen now that the way that candidates engage on
Speaker 2: what's happening at Gaza has become a moral litmus test
Speaker 2: of do you have the sense of conscience to call
Speaker 2: what's happening a genocide and to want to push policy
Speaker 2: away from enabling it. We just saw the vote earlier
Speaker 2: this week where House Democrats a record number of them,
Speaker 2: including a number of sorts like I did not expect
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi WHI yes, yeah, like things are and they
Speaker 2: are good because that is where voters are. Voters see
Speaker 2: this as a crisis of conscience, and they know that
Speaker 2: they want their leaders to push back. I also think
Speaker 2: that the way that APAC is spending in this speaks
Speaker 2: to the larger, very negative feelings people have about the
Speaker 2: role of money in politics, and it has become the
Speaker 2: ultimate boogeyman for you know, someone is trying to buy
Speaker 2: the election and drown out your voice. Not great.
Speaker 1: Back on Michigan for a second. One question I have
Speaker 1: is is APAC going to support Hailey Stevens in the
Speaker 1: general against Mike Rogers, Because right now she is, she
Speaker 1: has raised, she has struggled to raise money. You know,
Speaker 1: you have James Tallerico raising you know, record numbers, you
Speaker 1: have John ASoft raising record numbers. Have duel raised I
Speaker 1: think one of the four million dollars this last quarter.
Speaker 1: Again they're Democratic Cannists are raised lots of money. Hailey
Speaker 1: Stevens has struggled to raise grassroots money, which really matters
Speaker 1: because big dollar Democratic donations are down in the Would
Speaker 1: you have more people willing to give ten fifty hundred
Speaker 1: bucks in fear of people willing to write seven thousand
Speaker 1: dollars per couple maxed out checks? And so if you
Speaker 1: can't raise grassroots money and a pack is not going
Speaker 1: to maybe they will be there. But it's I just
Speaker 1: is she better than Mike Rogers for them? I don't know,
Speaker 1: but that like, that's a question. And obviously if she's nominee,
Speaker 1: the Senate super PACs, the ten Democrats superpacs can supplement.
Speaker 1: But that's money's coming out of somewhere else. That's money
Speaker 1: that's not going to Iowa or Alaska or Texas or
Speaker 1: somewhere else.
Speaker 2: I think it's a really good question. And I also
Speaker 2: think APAC has shown not the smartest of strategies.
Speaker 1: They've elected a lot of anti Israel Democrats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and like, even if you think beyond this, they
Speaker 2: have not created space for a political home for people
Speaker 2: who maybe aren't as far left as where DSA is,
Speaker 2: but also aren't where a pack is in a way
Speaker 2: that they're not thinking beyond the next three months. And
Speaker 2: I think it is really dangerous for the future of
Speaker 2: our democracy in many ways because of how much money
Speaker 2: they're able to spend and how threatening it has become.
Speaker 1: The vote of the House, it is proud of many
Speaker 1: people may not been tracking this over the years, but
Speaker 1: the idea that one hundred Democrats would vote, the idea
Speaker 1: that ten Democrats would vote against eight to Israel, the
Speaker 1: idea that Nancy Pelosi and the Member of the House
Speaker 1: Leaderhi would vote against eight to Israel is would have
Speaker 1: been impossible to imagine. Impossible. You maybe get one Thomas
Speaker 1: Massey and what the democratic quival was, Thomas Massy or
Speaker 1: a rampall, Like the idea that people would do this
Speaker 1: in masses impossible imagine? It does speak. And this is
Speaker 1: the downside of APEX in the Israeli governments. Allegiance sort
Speaker 1: of alliance with Republicans in most cases is if Democrats
Speaker 1: take the majority, how would a speaker keep Jefferies even
Speaker 1: be able to get like it seems like that's the
Speaker 1: end of the ball game. Like I don't know how
Speaker 1: you can even bring that bill forward.
Speaker 2: I do not envy his job.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's change.
Speaker 2: I do think like one of the things that the
Speaker 2: broader activist movement needs to really think about is like,
Speaker 2: how do you welcome these newcomers in how do you
Speaker 2: you know better late to the party than not coming
Speaker 2: to this party at all? When it comes to this issue,
Speaker 2: the point of persuasion is to get people to agree
Speaker 2: with you. And I do you think there is still
Speaker 2: some stickiness around, like well, you wouldn't say genocide early enough?
Speaker 2: You didn't you know, you didn't like call it out
Speaker 2: two years ago. It's like if I do it now,
Speaker 2: that's that is better than never, And that is the
Speaker 2: point of this work. And so I do want to
Speaker 2: like just plant that seat of as we keep growing
Speaker 2: this coalition, like how do we make sure it feels
Speaker 2: like one that can continue in a way that is welcoming.
Speaker 1: The way this issue is going to hang out. The
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight Democratic primary, and the amount of people
Speaker 1: who were going to come maybe lately to be against
Speaker 1: funding or to college Jenisa, all those things is going.
Speaker 1: It's just I just mentioned this to Favrell last week
Speaker 1: or two weeks ago, that we were one year away
Speaker 1: from the what's likely the first Democratic primary debate. Yep,
Speaker 1: so horrifying.
Speaker 2: No lie down and never get up.
Speaker 1: I know, I know.
Speaker 6: Hey Dan Tabirski here, I'm a podcast host, a journalist,
Speaker 6: and now with my newest project, the author of my
Speaker 6: own manifesto. Well, it's a manifesto about manifestos, my search
Speaker 6: for inspiration and a world that feels more infuriating, more
Speaker 6: out of its freaking mind with each passing hour. Manifestos
Speaker 6: are a call to action, an artful scream. They capture
Speaker 6: our anger and they try to do something with it.
Speaker 6: This is my attempt to take the manifesto back from
Speaker 6: mass shooters and nihilists, then return it to its rightful
Speaker 6: place with the warriors, the visionaries, the regular folks with
Speaker 6: just the right amount of crazy. I compare notes with radicals, secessionists,
Speaker 6: Internet rolls out for a laugh, and punk singers screaming
Speaker 6: their guts out, all trying to turn their anger into
Speaker 6: the world they want to see. Listen to Manifesto wherever
Speaker 6: you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes
Speaker 6: of Manifesto early and ad free right now join Audible
Speaker 6: and the Audible app, or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about run for Something right, and
Speaker 1: we talk about because it Run for Something, which you
Speaker 1: started after Trump one in twenty sixteen. It is always
Speaker 1: the example I use of how really smart, committed people
Speaker 1: can make real change without ever asking anyone for permission
Speaker 1: to do so. You've had a tremendous impact over the
Speaker 1: last I mean, you've never been doing this for a
Speaker 1: long time.
Speaker 2: We are year eight, nine and a half, maybe ten
Speaker 2: years in January.
Speaker 1: Just it'll because it'll also be I mean, you started
Speaker 1: an organization and we've got thousands of people to run.
Speaker 1: I started a podcast, you know, Teach the Throne. I
Speaker 1: guess because because we're on year nine of patse American
Speaker 1: now at so you hit it at this earlier, but
Speaker 1: I want to put a finer point on it. After
Speaker 1: Trump won this time, there were much digital ink was
Speaker 1: spilled around the idea that the resistance was dead, and
Speaker 1: so there was some anecdotal evidence for that. There was
Speaker 1: no women's march. There was you know, you saw you know,
Speaker 1: you know, no one had protest as a new brunch
Speaker 1: signs out. There was less protesting. No one rushed to
Speaker 1: the airports when the next version of the Muslim band
Speaker 1: was signed. But run for something was a bit different,
Speaker 1: Like you just had a different experience after Trump won.
Speaker 1: Talked to me a little bit about the enthusiasm you've seen.
Speaker 2: So right after Trump one, we started seeing thousands of
Speaker 2: people raise their hands to run for office. Eighteen months later,
Speaker 2: it's over one hundred thousand people who signed up to
Speaker 2: run for office since then, more than we had in
Speaker 2: the since twenty twenty four, more than we had in
Speaker 2: the entirety of Trump's first term. As I said earlier
Speaker 2: last year, we had I think a sixty percent win rate.
Speaker 2: On election day, we had a night where we elected
Speaker 2: both a DSA affiliated candidate to the Atlanta City Council
Speaker 2: and a former Republican who left the party after January
Speaker 2: sixth to a rural county commission in Pennsylvania. We have
Speaker 2: built the tent that is tight on values and flexible
Speaker 2: on policy, and has now elected more than just about
Speaker 2: seventeen hundred young people across forty nine states plus DC,
Speaker 2: including many that are now running for higher office, like
Speaker 2: James Tallerico, like Mallory mcmurrow, but also like Francesca hang
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin, like Sarah McBride in Delaware, and so many
Speaker 2: others who are I think the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: And that's not ideologically like pure however you want to
Speaker 2: find it. It is people who love their communities, who
Speaker 2: want to solve problems, who want to speak to their neighbors,
Speaker 2: and who are willing to do so in a way
Speaker 2: that is authentic and genuine and connected and fun. And
Speaker 2: it makes me so hopeful and excited at a moment
Speaker 2: where like most of the Democratic Party does not. But
Speaker 2: I really do believe we are on the brink of
Speaker 2: a tipping point where the party is going to be
Speaker 2: more run for something alone than not. It is going
Speaker 2: to be more leaders who look like our folks than not.
Speaker 2: And that's a good thing, I think for sure.
Speaker 1: It's what's encouraging about it is we are party as gerontocracy,
Speaker 1: you know, and there are so many reasons for this.
Speaker 1: You know, it is you know, we went you know
Speaker 1: Democrats often picked the next person in line, and then
Speaker 1: Obama skipped the line, and then we went back to
Speaker 1: the back of the line, and then went further back
Speaker 1: of the line with Hillary and Biden. And and then
Speaker 1: we also had the twenty ten elections, which gutted like
Speaker 1: a big chunk of the party because we lost so
Speaker 1: many seats in the posts in the in the redistrict
Speaker 1: day after and then first and twenty ten in that election,
Speaker 1: and then and there are so many of our state
Speaker 1: legislative candidates and state legislative state legislators were redistricted out
Speaker 1: in that redistricting, and then we lost again and we
Speaker 1: were just like, we lost a lot of the middle
Speaker 1: and so you guys have helped bring up the like
Speaker 1: we missed a middle generation and now we have a
Speaker 1: younger generation coming up. Are there some particular candidates this
Speaker 1: cycle that you were excited about that people should know about?
Speaker 2: Oh, there's so many. Caitlin is running for Iowa State Senate.
Speaker 2: She won a special election in twenty twenty five. She
Speaker 2: broke the Iowa Republican supermajority. She flipped the seat Trump
Speaker 2: had carried by ten points. She is now defending that
Speaker 2: seat this November. So excited about her. Julia Salinas, who's
Speaker 2: running for Texas State House. This is like probably the
Speaker 2: genuine toss up in the Texas House district. He's the
Speaker 2: grandson of migrant farm workers. He came from behind in
Speaker 2: a three way March primary and then one then may
Speaker 2: run off by eleven points against a more establishment backed candidate.
Speaker 2: This is in the Rio Grande Valley. It's in a
Speaker 2: seat that Trump carried by Jess I think like a
Speaker 2: point and a half in twenty twenty four. So exciting.
Speaker 2: Chris Thomas in Pennsylvania State Senate. He is a former
Speaker 2: public school teacher. He's a volunteer firefighter. He's up against
Speaker 2: a first term Republican senator. We're trying to flip that
Speaker 2: chamber there, so he is phenomenal. Michael Ferguson who's running
Speaker 2: for Florida State House in Broward County. He's an active
Speaker 2: duty Air Force judge advocate. Was served as one of
Speaker 2: the youngest special trial councils in Air Force history. He's
Speaker 2: an attorney. This is the only legislative district in Broward County,
Speaker 2: which is very democratic, that is still held by Republicans.
Speaker 2: So it is a top target to pick up in
Speaker 2: the Florida State House. You know, I could go on
Speaker 2: and on. We have hundreds of candidates up this yere
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand. As you said, it's going to be good, guys,
Speaker 2: it's going to be good.
Speaker 1: So the party with we did a lot of thinking
Speaker 1: after Trump one in twenty sixteen. One of the things
Speaker 1: that sort of everyone came, you know to the two
Speaker 1: late conclusion was is the Democrats did not pay enough
Speaker 1: attention to down ballot racist I do really to think
Speaker 1: that that focus shifted in the first Trump era. The
Speaker 1: you know, obviously there's you guys, there was sister district
Speaker 1: that you know swing left individual everyone is like, really,
Speaker 1: you know, working hard to win on these races, lots
Speaker 1: of focus on Secretary of States and uh in governor's
Speaker 1: races in the way of January sixth, and trying to
Speaker 1: protect election integrity. Do you feel like there is the
Speaker 1: party apparatus, the donor world, the activist world, the people
Speaker 1: with platforms are have maintained that focus and Trump two
Speaker 1: point zero or if we lost a little bit because
Speaker 1: we're sort of obsessed with Trump again, we have.
Speaker 2: Lost a little bit, I would say in particular the
Speaker 2: donor world. And I will be very honest, like everyone
Speaker 2: who's not running for a House or Senate this year,
Speaker 2: that can't Like, if you're not a House or Senate candidate,
Speaker 2: you are probably struggling, like grown for something. We're doing okay,
Speaker 2: but we have had to be really careful stewards of
Speaker 2: our resources and like, just to put a really fine
Speaker 2: point on this, you know, Run for Something's budget is
Speaker 2: eight million dollars a year. Just about the Republican counterpart
Speaker 2: to run for Something. It's called the Leadership Institut. It
Speaker 2: has been around for thirty some odd years. It has
Speaker 2: a fifty million dollar a year annual budget. I think
Speaker 2: I could have candidate recruitment offices in every state and
Speaker 2: be doing year round recruit Like, I cannot imagine what
Speaker 2: I would do with fifty million dollars a year. It
Speaker 2: is the kind of abundance mindset around we can do
Speaker 2: it all that the Democratic Party just does not seem
Speaker 2: to operate from.
Speaker 1: So is that a scarcity of people want to write
Speaker 1: those checks? Or are those just checks going to the
Speaker 1: wrong place?
Speaker 2: A little bit of cave, a little bit of colbe
Speaker 2: So some of it is like we don't have enough
Speaker 2: rich people or you know, our grassroots donors are very
Speaker 2: excited about some of the Senate races and not as
Speaker 2: excited about some of the infrastructure because it's not as
Speaker 2: flashy and not as exciting, and really big checks still
Speaker 2: go to places that run tv ads or you know
Speaker 2: this right now, it's like creator stuff. And that's not
Speaker 2: to say that's not important, but that stuff ceases to
Speaker 2: exist after election day. Run for something, and so many
Speaker 2: of other our partners on the ground, we're doing this
Speaker 2: real locally driven work that happens like candidate recruitment for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six happened in twenty twenty five. The recruitment
Speaker 2: that we are doing now for say the Louisiana and
Speaker 2: Mississippi state legislative races, which are going to be critical
Speaker 2: because of how they've redistricted these states and blowing up
Speaker 2: the Voting Rights Act. That recruitment happens now. So if
Speaker 2: you are not funding things year round and sustaining this
Speaker 2: work with multi year giving, multi month giving, it is
Speaker 2: impossible to do in the way that it is the
Speaker 2: most effective and efficient.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just so fascinating because I spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time over the last nine years now, I
Speaker 1: guess talking to donors about like, my big thing has
Speaker 1: always been investing in media infrastructure, right that we need
Speaker 1: to do law, medium and long term investments in content creation, media, protomocracy, media,
Speaker 1: you know my newsletter, Criquetts, you know, correct, it's all
Speaker 1: these things, but just beyond our stuff. Just generally Republicans
Speaker 1: have investing in stuff for a la ads. We don't.
Speaker 1: And you're talking to very smart people who have made
Speaker 1: a lot of money in their life making good investments,
Speaker 1: And it's just I've never been able to figure out
Speaker 1: why when you talk to them about investments that pay
Speaker 1: out over time is less appealing than the short term,
Speaker 1: one time use of money on largely television ads, like
Speaker 1: think about how much money was spent, Like you want
Speaker 1: your fifty million dollars, Your fifty million dollars can be
Speaker 1: found in two weeks of superPAC ads.
Speaker 2: Yep, if I think about it too much, I will
Speaker 2: I won't get out of bed in the morning.
Speaker 1: Oh I want to, I'm saying, I know, I don't want.
Speaker 1: I want you to be able to continue get out
Speaker 1: of bed. You have a very poorn job and you
Speaker 1: have children, so I think it's important that you get
Speaker 1: out of bed. But I want anyone listening who has
Speaker 1: those sort of resources to think about even if you
Speaker 1: could get let's say you could double from eight to sixteen,
Speaker 1: or get to half of that fifty, it's just one
Speaker 1: truly one week of television ads in Texas.
Speaker 2: Is my entire budget?
Speaker 1: Is your entire budget?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: And you know, to get to the beginning of the
Speaker 2: conversation we talked about, like, candidate recruitment is stage zero
Speaker 2: of winning an election. If you want better TV ads,
Speaker 2: if you want the megaphone that we're building around media
Speaker 2: and creators to have something good to amplify, like it
Speaker 2: starts with getting really good people to run in as
Speaker 2: many places as possible. We work in all fifty states.
Speaker 2: We also have a long term vision for what we
Speaker 2: think the attle grounds could be and might be in
Speaker 2: twenty thirty and twenty thirty two. We're doing intensive recruitment
Speaker 2: in these places. We're providing candidates with the skills and
Speaker 2: tools they need to win their races. Like why don't
Speaker 2: why don't I have fifty million dollars? I don't know
Speaker 2: ask the billionaires. I do know that the work is working,
Speaker 2: that there's such demand for our work and that I
Speaker 2: am so proud of what we have built, and I
Speaker 2: think it's going to keep paying off. Because the nice
Speaker 2: thing about candidate recruitment in particular is when one person
Speaker 2: wins that like against the odds race, and when one
Speaker 2: person makes history, dozens and dozens or hundreds or thousands
Speaker 2: more like them say you know what, maybe I can
Speaker 2: do this too.
Speaker 1: That is very hopeful place to add this. But before
Speaker 1: I let you go, just in case we have a
Speaker 1: billionaire or someone who maybe works one of these AI
Speaker 1: companies going public, who's about to be a billionaire, and
Speaker 1: they would like to help you get to your well
Speaker 1: deserved fifty million dollar budget. Where can they give you money?
Speaker 2: Run for something? Dot net you can look out look
Speaker 2: us up. You can also find any of our other entities.
Speaker 2: And I should say, if any of your listener want
Speaker 2: to run for office, it is probably too late for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. It is definitely not too early for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty seven or twenty twenty eight. You can go
Speaker 2: to run for what. Dot night you can look up
Speaker 2: where you might want to run.
Speaker 1: Amanda Littman always great to talk to you. I always
Speaker 1: leave these conversations smarter and a little bit more optimistic.
Speaker 1: So this is great.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Dan, Thanks.
Speaker 1: To Amada Lipman for coming on. John, John and Tommy
Speaker 1: will be backing your Feet on Tuesday. By everyone.
Speaker 4: Positive America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is
Speaker 4: produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Ruben, McKenna Roberts, and Faris Afari,
Speaker 4: with Ree Jerlin, Elijah Cohne and Adrian Hill. Our team
Speaker 4: includes Matt de Grote, Ben Hepcot, Jordan Kanter, Charlotte Landis
Speaker 4: Kirol pel Avieve, David Toles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and
Speaker 4: Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with the Writers
Speaker 4: Guild of America East