Air Date: 6–17-2026

Today we trace a pattern that repeated across half a dozen states this primary season: working-class candidates running on the cost of living beat the opponents party leadership hand-picked and funded. It looks like ordinary election news, but it's more pieces of a larger shift already underway; away from a politics of left against right and toward a new era of the elite vs working people.

Full Show Notes

Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

Today we trace a pattern that repeated across half a dozen states this primary season: working-class candidates running on the cost of living beat the opponents party leadership hand-picked and funded. It looks like ordinary election news, but it's more pieces of a larger shift already underway; away from a politics of left against right and toward a new era of the elite vs working people.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today include

All In with Chris Hayes

The Rational National

More Perfect Union

Breaking Points

and Slate

Then, in the additional, Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more in 4 sections;

Section A, READING THE PRIMARY MAP

Section B, THE PLATNER RECKONING

Section C, THE TEXAS SENATE FIGHT

And Section D, DEFENDING THE VOTE & THE LONG VIEW

And now, on to the show.

Trump's war and the resulting Trump economy are terrible politically for Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Last night in Maine was a great example. Leading up to the primary, you may have seen, there was a lot of hand-wringing, reasonable concern about the Democratic Senate candidate, Grand Platner, especially in the national media.

Platner, of course, not a perfect candidate. He's got more baggage than a lot of Democrats would prefer. But he has what voters clearly think is a strong message. He's centered his campaign around a narrative of personal redemption and progressive populism, as well as a posture of ironclad resistance towards the Trump administration.

And all of this is taking, uh, place against a backdrop of what's going on in the country and the world and the state of Maine, where the material conditions aren't great. Donald Trump's big ugly bill has been a nightmare for rural communities. I mean, Republicans knew it would be. They did it anyway.

Hospitals in Maine are closing left and right. His reckless war with Iran, plus his tariffs, have made everything more expensive, especially the price of gas, which is up dramatically from this time a year ago. And Mainers, specifically rural Mainers in the northern part of the state, they have to drive a lot.

Pretty spread out place. Last night, the confluence of all that paid off for Grand Platner. After effectively running the state's incumbent Democratic governor, who was recruited by Chuck Schumer to be in this race, out of the race, Platner won an overwhelming victory in the Senate primary. Right now, he's sitting at about 72% of the total vote, which is significant, right?

There's a lot of talk. We were talking about it last night, people looking to see was there some sort of breakdown in his support? Were people abandoning ship after the last few weeks of his campaign? But here's one statistic. He earned more raw votes than the last Democratic challenger to Republican Susan Collins got in her primary.

When all is said and done, he will likely have a larger margin of victory as well against a much better-known and better-funded opponent. Now, of course, the general election race against Susan Collins will be very tough. She is a shrewd, formidable campaigner, decades in public office in Maine, a history of over-performing in that blue state.

But the committee in charge of electing Republicans in the Senate has been clear-eyed that it thinks Platner has a real shot at winning. They wrote in a memo today, "It is a fatal mistake to assume Platner is too damaged to win." And sure, some of that is definitely fear-mongering to the base to help fundraise and to donors as well, big donors, but Republicans really are worried about Platner's victory

Is there a magic number in the scandal opera that would make you stop?

Would it do with, would it have to do with Nazis, or putting upon women, perhaps underage women, but definitely women, not your wife of two years? Would it be that you're lying about, that you're insulting heroes, that you're not... He's not even fit to lick their combat boots. So I'd ask the Democrats, is power really worth that to you?

Yeah, watch that thug that's, uh, that's up in Maine. He's a thug.

Yeah.

And they're trying to make excuses for him. I mean, he's worse than any human being that's ever run for office probably. I don't know him. I don't wanna say bad, but I, I just... Look, I mean, nobody's ever had a record like that. And you'll have Schumer, he goes crazy over this or that or Epstein.

Epstein, Epstein. This guy. Why aren't they talking about him? He said, "Well, we don't know." But this guy's got a rap sheet. I've never seen anything like it. He's a thug. I know thugs. I had to deal with thugs. I built a lot of buildings. I dealt with the toughest people on Earth. I dealt with worse than thugs.

This guy's a thug. He's a low-level thug, and he's running for, to be a senator. Can you imagine if the Republicans had him?

Oh my God. I

wonder if we had him, John, Joe? We

wouldn't let it happen. Well,

I think, I really believe it. If it, if it meant losing the Senate, you would not let that happen. He's like a pig.

I watched him, uh, a couple of times. He's like a pig. That's what he reminds me of. You know, I come up with good names for people. I don't wanna stick him with that one, although I think pigs would be very upset about it.

There is so much there. I mean, the idea when he, when he says, when he turns, he says, "Can you imagine if we had him in the Senate?"

Like, that guy Donald Trump, remember, went down and campaigned for Roy Moore when Roy Moore was running for Senate. And, um, well, there's also Donald Trump. I mean, that guy, the one who was talking, right? Uh, look, we all know the score here. The idea of Donald Trump weighing in on someone's character is laughable.

I mean, if there's anyone who's a candidate to be the worst person to run for public office in our lives, for me it's Donald Trump. I could spend, well, probably the rest of the year reciting his character flaws. He's a proud serial philanderer. He's a, a guy who a porn star testified under oath had an affair with her while his wife Melania was at home with their newborn child.

He was convicted of multiple felonies for covering it up fraudulently. He denies it, of course. You can decide whether it's true. His first wife accused him of raping her. When he denied it, she tweaked her complaint by saying, quote, "I felt violated." E. Jean Carroll came forward to say Donald Trump raped her in a department store dressing room.

Trump called her a liar, and then she sued him for defamation when he called her a liar, and after a full trial, she won that trial. He bragged about groping women on a hot mic. He called women pigs and dogs. He says something execrable or disgusting or bigoted every single day. Oh, and today, The New York Times report on the freak-out behind the scenes of this administration over Trump's lengthy relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, whose jet Trump flew on at least eight times.

The guy that he wrote the birthday card to, although Trump says he didn't. We'll have more on that in a bit. But nothing, honestly nothing could be a bigger gift to Democrats right now in that race than making this race a referendum on Donald Trump's character. Except with one exception, which is making it a referendum on Trump's economy.

Gas prices are through the roof, and you think it's bad now, give it a month. Because experts are warning that supplies are dwindling, and despite what all the push notifications would ge- lead you to believe, and we get them it seemingly every day, that there's a deal around the corner, it sure doesn't look like there's a deal coming to end the war.

We're four months into this, hasn't worked before, so it does not seem like the Strait of Hormuz is gonna reopen any time soon. In fact, the Iranian, uh, uh, government announcing tonight that any ships will be fired upon if they try to cross. And the gas prices, of course, are causing a massive spike in inflation, as we saw today with the release of the latest consumer price index numbers from May.

Look at this chart of the CPI from New York Times. It tells a pretty clear story, right? The big spike in prices around 2021 and 2022 when the post-COVID supply shocks came together and Russia invaded Ukraine, and those were due to factors entirely outside of Joe Biden's control. Like, he couldn't stop Putin from invading Ukraine.

But then they peaked, and they moved in the right direction at the end of Biden's term. And then what happened? That line shooting up right at the end, that is entirely unilaterally caused by one man and one man only, Donald Trump. I cannot say it enough. Most things that happen in an economy under the president are not just solely the president's fault.

This is the rarest of exceptions. It's entirely on Trump. The irony being that Trump campaigned on lowering your prices on day one. It's the reason he became president. But in between naps, and getting booed at basketball games, and pool renovations, and ballroom blueprints, he's managed to make everything more expensive.

First, by, again, unilaterally, solely himself, implementing his illegal tariffs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and then starting a war of choice alongside Israel against Iran. And get this, those rising gas prices alone have effectively wiped out any real wage gains, meaning any growth in wages in real terms since Trump became president are now gone.

Trump, though, says everything's fine because we're just gonna take the oil, I guess.

Are you concerned, Mr. President, about the latest inflation number which came out this morning? Could that be a detriment-

No,

I love it ... to Republicans who are trying to hold onto the House? The

numbers are great. You know what I really love?

I love the inflation. You know why? Why? Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now, something you didn't know. Do you know we've been taking out millions of barrels of oil? Nobody knows it. You know who doesn't know about it? Iran until right now. We took out the other night 22 ships, late at night with no lights, 'cause they don't have any radar, 'cause we blasted the crap out of it.

We took out-

Okay, three things. First of all, as the Times reports, the secret mission to get, uh, oil through the strait was actually widely disclosed. Number two, the total amount that they say they got out through the strait was 100 million barrels. You know what that's equal to? One day's worth of global oil consumption.

And three, "I love the inflation." I love the inflation. I love the inflation. That is Donald Trump's message to voters ahead of November. That is why Republicans are worried about Graham Platner, and they're worried about Roy Cooper in North Carolina, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Mary Peltola in Alaska, and James Talarico in Texas.

There's one outstanding contested primary in Michigan Senate race, and there will be a nominee there soon. And Democrats feel as though they have the wind at their back because the material conditions in this country are not great right now. And not just the material conditions, people don't like the president, and they don't like the economy, and they don't like the direction the country's headed.

And this election is taking place in that context with the president telling voters he loves inflation.

Let me start here with Sam Forsteg. This is a primary that he won in Montana.

And again, Bernie backed candidate here. This is a former smokejumper, somebody, a firefighter who parachutes into forest fires. You can't get more out there and interesting than that. I mean, we're talking about an incredibly brave individual deciding to fight for his community at a political level now.

And as New York Times writes here, "Forsteg's candidacy will test a liberal theory," which is a left-wing theory, but regardless, "a theory that left-leaning politicians running in Republican strongholds can do better in general elections than moderates have done historically." So we're gonna see what happens in this race in the fall, but this gets to my theory that Bernie Sanders absolutely would have won the general election in 2016 had he won the Democratic primary.

The issue with candidates like Bernie Sanders, like a Sam Forsteg, like a Graham Plattner, I believe has always been the primary. Because traditionally in Democratic primaries, who votes in those? Heavy Democratic Party diehards, the kinds of people that watch MSNBC, CNN, read New York Times, read The Washington Post, and get a view of the political world that is very status quo, very traditional, and never challenges corporate power.

It's a much smaller percentage of people that vote in a primary than vote in a general election. And candidates like a Bernie Sanders appeal to a much wider base than just Democratic Party voters. So in a general election, you would both, of course, get the Democratic voter, because they're not gonna vote for Donald Trump.

So a, a Bernie Sanders would get that vote, but they'll also get a larger percentage of the independent and even some Republican voters because of the wide appeal that candidates like Bernie Sanders has. So look, we're gonna see if this theory, uh, plays out. I truly believe that all, if not, or most if not all of these more left-leaning Democrats that are backed by Bernie Sanders and other progressive groups or other progressive, um, politicians are going to win their general elections against Republicans regardless of the state, whether it's, you know, Montana, whether it's Maine, whether it's, uh, California, whatever it is.

I truly believe almost all of them, if not all of them, are going to win because of this unique time we are in where people are finally waking up, that the status quo has not worked for them. In combination, of course, with the fact that Donald Trump and Republicans are so deeply hated. That's also, of course, going to, uh, boost a lot of these Democrats as well.

Let me get to a, uh, quick clip here. This is from Sam Forstegg so you get a good idea of what this guy's about.

When that siren goes off, you go, because fire moves quick. Right now, the richest people in this country are trying to burn it all down so they can buy it all up. I'm Sam Forstegg, smokejumper, union leader, son of a nurse and public school teacher, and I'm proud to have the support of Bernie Sanders, Montana unions, and local leaders across the state.

I'm running for Congress because I'm done pretending the rich and powerful are gonna take care of us. We take care of us. That's why I approve this message.

Sam Forstegg looks like a great candidate. Hope he wins in the fall. Let's now get to the next Bernie-backed candidate that won their primary, and that is Randy Villegas, winning in California in a runoff with, uh, Valadao, the Republican, at the top of that list.

So l- this, this is a perfect example of how things have shifted because the person that Villegas was essentially running against was the... another Democrat, Assembly Member Yasmeen Baines. We are talking about the DCCC-backed candidate, the candidate that had all the money, the candidate that was also backed by pro-Israel groups, losing to this Bernie-backed progressive in Randy Villegas.

So the results here with the Republican getting 40% of the vote, and essentially the Democrat vote splitting between Villegas and Yasmeen Baines. So we're gonna see what happens in the fall if, uh, these votes do indeed coalesce around Villegas and, uh, beat out Valadao. We don't know yet, but it's worth pointing out that, um, yes, Yasmeen Baines, backed by a pro-Israel group, spent half a million dollars to back her.

Half a million in a, just a, a small California runoff. Like, absolutely ridiculous. This line, though, I find hilarious from Politico. "Villegas' victory hands Republicans their preferred opponent." This, to me, is so insane. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they can beat center, center-right Democrats, the pro-corporate, pro-IPAC candidates.

Rep- Republicans repeatedly beat them, I would argue, because those Democrats suppressed an actual vote that would come out for them if they weren't so pro-corporate. But here- The implication here is that Vargas, because he's further left, more progressive, actually a working-class fighter, he is somehow a- the preferred candidate to Republicans, even though Republicans have not been able to prove that they can beat true working-class candidates.

So again, it's this perception of the world, this per- perception of the political world where, oh, this person, this Democrat here, let's say they're in the center. This Republican is, uh... They're on the right. So if you have a Democrat over here, they have somehow less of a chance because they have to be closer to the Republican to win.

That's ridiculous. Why would a Republican voter choose to vote for the Democrat when they could just vote for the Republican? That's why you need to have an actual real choice in a general election where the Democrat truly stands out as, uh, as somebody who is different than the traditional pro-corporate, pro, at this point, fascist, uh, Republican.

So again, these theories are... These old theories are, are ridiculous. They're, they're done. We're gonna see what happens in the fall. Let me get to, uh, bringing this up. I mean, I covered this race, um, last week, I believe it was. Um, Adam Hama- Hamawi, a doctor who served in Gaza, wins the New Jersey primary. This is also a Bernie-backed candidate.

I did a whole video on that here. You can go check him out. Incredibly impressive individual. Again, this is somebody the Democratic Party, as I wrote here, should be embracing. You had somebody who risked their life to go to Gaza to, to save other lives as a, as a surgeon, and we barely know this man's name.

He should be propped up as an example of what you want the Democratic Party to be. But of course, leadership of the Democratic Party is not interested in that right now, which is why you have to get all these people out and, uh, put some, some new life in there. Another individual here, Analilia Mejia, winning.

This is back in, in, in February. She, she won the, the big, um, surprising victory in a, uh, Democratic primary in a, in a, um... It was a, a special election. But, uh, again, uh, I... By the way, I'm showing the Fox News headline here because they, they, they're one of the only ones that put all of the issues in the, the subheading here because they think it hurts the candidate.

So this is somebody who is, yes, backed by Sanders and AOC. That's a positive thing. Also ran on Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and a $25 minimum wage, as if these are supposed to be offensive things that we don't like. Like, I it's just... It's so silly. But all the money, um, I should say, a ton of money, was also poured into this race, but this was a, a very bizarre one because- AIPAC saw Tom Malinowski as the threat, even though this guy, pro-Israel dude.

But because he was a lit- a tiny bit critical of sending weapons to Israel without any sort of checks, AIPAC spent against him because they never saw Mejia as any kind of threat, so they didn't think she'd be any factor. So they spend against him as a way to support, uh, uh, Tahisha Way, who got truly destroyed as the pro-AIPAC candidate outright.

But ended up just helping Analilia Mejia, the one who was the most critical of Israel. So it truly is amazing. Like, they spent $2.3 million to try to sink Malinowski, ended up just helping the better candidate in the race. So good on them, I suppose. But again, another Bernie Sanders-backed candidate winning that race.

Here's another one, this one in Montana. Brian Poindexter winning, and this guy also has a very interesting, uh, uh, uh, background. But, um, winning the, uh, Ohio House, uh, District 7 primary race with 37% of the vote. Let me play for you a bit of, uh, his story as well.

We have to fundamentally change who has power in our country.

I'm Brian Poindexter. I'm a dad, I'm a union ironworker, I'm a Browns fan, I'm a Brook Park City Council member, and I'm running for Congress to end this corruption. I am asking you to join me because this might be our last and only shot to get things back on track, to tell the billionaires where to shove it, and to finally fight for working people.

I'm Brian Poindexter, and I approve this ad.

Once again, another true working-class candidate backed by Bernie Sanders, someone who actually represents their community, winning the primary against any kind of corporate-backed, uh, Harvard-endorsed type candidate where they're typically cookie-cutter, staged, say all the same things.

Here's somebody who actually speaks like a real person and has a real message. It makes a difference. As, uh, Politico writes here, "The senator," speaking of Bernie Sanders, "support has been instrumental in powering unknown candidates to major wins this cycle, a demonstration of just how much political influence the 84-year-old progressive leader still commands."

far from the black suburbs of Atlanta is much Trumpier country, and the idea of AOC isn't as enthusiastically received.

There are some really extreme liberal views out there.

Before they met her, I asked folks what they knew about AOC's politics.

Just from an overall view, very fringe left.

I'm probably a lot more conservative than she is.

How are your politics evolving,

and-

They're evolving. I'm not real impressed with the politics on either side.

We first met Beverly Morris and her husband Jeff last year when they showed us how the construction of a 2.5 million square foot Meta data center is contaminating their drinking water, a charge which Meta denies.

This is my cold water pressure in the kitchen.

So you can

see the sediment from the data center.

And this is what's in all the pipes too. They should be responsible for that, not us.

When we were here last year with them uh Meta was still building this data center, but now it's operational

I worry about using the water for everything.

Yeah. I don't use the water for, um, cooking anymore. Mm. I did for a while, you know. I thought, "Oh, you know, I've got to use it." Right. I wouldn't drink it. I haven't drank the water here in-

I mean, it should be- ... years. I mean, this is my view, but it should be a right for you to be able to turn on your tap and drink what comes out of it.

The Morrises aren't alone. Other residents also came to us with stories of their contaminated water.

This is the sediment that it's picking up. The cold water pressure everywhere is pretty bad. You cannot take a shower and wash dishes, or take a shower and fill up the horses' water. You just can't. Mm.

Our refrigerator broke.

Our HVAC- Mm-hmm ... broke. We have issues with the pool. So anything that's water-related, we have, uh, issues with. And this is the filters from the, uh, the filtration system after we pull it out, so.

And you used to change those filters once a year, or-

Yeah.

And

typical people are probably six months to a year.

Yeah.

And now you're doing it once a month? Yeah. But you feel stuck, right? You feel like you can't, even if you wanted to move, you can't.

No, not and be able to get the value that we've put into our home.

Um, well, let's keep going down the line here, Connie.

Our fight is in Coweta County. We just had a large parcel of land rezoned for a data center, but we don't know who it is yet that's coming.

Mm.

And I'm Tina. Uh, I live in Oxford, Georgia, and it's the Amazon data center. Mm.

We're not just fighting Facebook or Amazon or any of these data centers. That's not who we're fighting. We're fighting the entire institution that allows it.

They think people aren't paying attention. They'll go sniffing around, jiggling every door handle, to see what county they can push these things through on.

It is necessary. I understand the need for it, but the manner in which they're going about it is not only wrong, it, it doesn't even make sense.

I don't blame Amazon. I don't blame those businesses. Mm-hmm. I blame our government. Mm-hmm. That's who's supposed to be taking care of me. Mm-hmm. My commissioner should've been looking after our community.

Mm-hmm. Our governor should be looking after our state. Mm-hmm. Like, it goes up. A business is a business, and it's about- Mm ... making business, and they, they don't care what they're doing to people. Right. They don't, and that's a shame, but they're greedy and they don't care. That's just the way it

is, yeah.

We appreciate you- Mm

taking the time to come hear about it, because until someone at a national level, uh, gets really serious about it-

Mm-hmm ...

nothing's gonna happen.

Mm-hmm. We should be starting congressional investigations on the effect on these, um, and figuring out with, with precision how we protect our water supplies- How we protect your power bills and, and water bills, um, and keep people from getting sick.

50 miles away from the Morrises, a group of residents successfully pushed for a moratorium on a 95 acre data center project.

Now wait a minute. Where do I know you from? You-

I'm a congresswoman from New York.

Oh. Come here. Hey, you're my girl, you know. Oh, thank you. That's Sydney.

We organized because we know what we want in our community and they did not anticipate that when they had the board of commissioner meeting that hundreds of us were gonna show up.

They couldn't deny us. They had to stop and say, "Wait a minute."

Across the country, more than 50 local data center moratoriums have already been enacted, with dozens more proposed or under consideration across the US. But this patchwork approach has left a lot of communities vulnerable.

We're in a neighborhood that's in unincorporated Clayton County.

Mm-hmm. But just over the fence line is the city limits of Forest Park. Wow. And that is where the facility is being built.

Wow, okay. All right. So the county has a moratorium-

Yes ...

but the city does not?

Correct.

Wow. And so the city, even though the city's inside the county- Correct ... it's not covered. Hoo-wee. Yes.

All right, talk about a loophole.

Yes.

For now, the local fight continues.

The community has said, "We want walkability in our neighborhoods. We want clean air. We want clean water, but we have to keep fighting." It's like a, a, a continual fight. It's like w- we're, we're surrounded by piranhas- Mm-hmm ... you know, that just keep trying to pick at us, but we just keep fighting.

In March 2026, AOC and Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation at the federal level called the AI Data Center Moratorium Act. It's both a response to growing opposition to these facilities, but also about the need to establish a nationwide policy about their construction.

Our responsibility is to take care of people, and that is what we're here to do today.

What you're proposing is a national moratorium.

Yes. And it's-

So-

You know, it's not the same thing as a, as an outright ban. Mm-hmm. But it's saying, we need to meet some basic protections for people. Yes. We need some guarantees- Right ... on your water, on the air that you breathe. We need to make sure that the jobs that stand to be wiped out, uh, that there's a plan for that and we're not just leaving people, you know, out to dry, and we need to just have some really basic common sense protections for people.

The bill would require a building moratorium until the federal government passes laws mitigating job losses, preventing utility rate hikes, and establishing environmental protections, among other things. The question is whether this is enough to persuade conservative voters to support someone far across the political aisle.

Do you think that people here could get behind someone like AOC and her ideas

for AI and, and data centers?

I think they would get behind anyone who was going to fight for their rights to clean water and to live their life without dealing with this.

Now the tide on this is starting to turn, the politics on this, because everyday people are starting to catch on to what's going on.

She may be on the left, but on the data center issue, seems more centered and, uh, genuinely concerned about- People, and, uh, that's refreshing to hear

How do you wrap your head around addressing this at the national level?

We need to put people first, and we need those protections to be ironclad and guaranteed before we can have a conversation about what does and doesn't get constructed.

Do you think that this is an issue that could maybe pull our country together?

I don't know if it's gonna pull our government all together. It's pulling the people together. If there's a chance that anything can be done, I feel like she is, is gonna be the one to do it.

Days later, AOC showed Beverly's water samples to an EPA water official testifying before her committee.

I have a jar right here. The only difference between the clean water and this was that data center. I have another one as well. This is what the drinking water now looks like next to that data center, and I think both of us can agree that neither one of these things are drinkable.

So as soon as I get back to the office, I will, I will be looking into exactly what you've just talked about.

Okay. Because anywhere, um, whether it is, whether, whatever type of construction it is, it is a priority to ensure that water quality standards established by EPA- Mm-hmm ... um, are being met.

There are a lot of people with a lot of money who don't wanna see this thing slow down. They're like, "The train's moving fast.

We can't afford to stop. Doesn't matter. We'll figure it out later"

I've been in a lot of political fights that have seemed insurmountable before that we've won.

One, two, three. No data center. No data center.

I just don't believe in impossible. I just think that, you know, if you think something's impossible, it's just, that's, that's an imagination problem

Pennsylvania State Representative Chris Rabb. He is the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District. Welcome, sir, and congratulations.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, of course. We followed your election with interest.

Um, you had a lot of powerful forces going against you, a lot of interesting things that happened there. What do you think is the message that your, um, pretty, you know, clear-cut, fairly overwhelming victory in this primary sends to the party?

Yeah, it was a, a stunning, uh, defeat of entrenched politics here in, in Philadelphia, in the bluest congressional district in the entire nation, where we had not had an open seat, no incumbent on the ballot, uh, first time in 35 years, against a political class that was united against, uh, this progressive.

Uh, and it was a 15-point win, and I think it, it's a resounding affirmation that organized people beat organized money every time.

And you seem to be taking a very, I don't know that it's a novel approach, but you've gone out of your way to go and campaign for other candidates, both incumbents who you support, like Summer Lee, who you're likely to serve with in Congress, others who, you know, are, um, challenging incumbents and are running sort of upstart campaigns across the country.

Why has that been important to you? What role do you feel like you are serving and that you wanna serve?

Well, to be clear, I'm a movement candidate, and that means the movement has allowed me, um, to, um, have a collective victory, and that means that whatever political capital, whatever momentum I have, um, as the presumptive, uh, next member of Congress for the city of Philadelphia, means I gotta pay it forward.

And I... And it's also in my best interest. I wanna come in with the largest, boldest progressive class of, of members, um, in US history. So the only way you can do that is by showing up for others who are viable, substantive candidates. And I'm, I'm really excited about our, not just taking back the House. I mean, there's a big difference between having a Democratic majority and having a party that knows how to lead, uh, in the belly of the beast and in the most adverse times i- in modern history.

Those are two different things, um, on the Venn diagram of, of national politics. So I wanna make sure that we have a critical subset of Democrats who are gonna vote, uh, uh, uh- In furtherance of shared prosperity and, uh, fighting fascism and taxing the ultra wealthy, um, and having structural changes that the base is demanding, but corporate Democrats, uh, refuse to, uh, acknowledge or commit to.

You were critical of, uh, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, uh, which became a cam- campaign issue actually for you. One of your opponents had some pretty interesting things to say about that. But I'm just curious, since you have won the Democratic nomination, just so people know, Pennsylvania's third congressional district is one of the most Democratic in the entire country, so very much expected that you will be sworn in with the next, uh, class of members of Congress.

How has the party responded to your victory? Have you had any outreach from, um, you know, the, the sort of establishment leaders of the Democratic Party?

Oh, absolutely. They've all reached out to me, um, quickly, and I, I, I appreciate that outreach. I... We gotta build relationships. We gotta figure out how we can work together.

But I would, I would push back a little bit. I wouldn't even say I was critical of Hakeem Jeffries per se, but it's just when someone tries to, you know, say, "Will you support him?" My answer is, um, what does any candidate for, um, majority leader, for Speaker of the House, um, how are they g- how is their leadership gonna resonate with how I got elected to office and who else is running?

I don't know who's running. Um, so you know, I think that's important. This, it's not about the individual. It's about who seeks that position to what end, and that has to be aligned with, um, the electorate and the constituents I seek to represent, um, on January 3rd. Um, but I also know that, um, it's a body of 435.

You need 218 votes to get anything done, and we have- Mm-hmm ... to figure out what we can agree on and the things we can't agree on, how those of us who are left, um, of the party to move the party forward, and those are things that have to happen simultaneously.

So you'd say you're not a no on Hakeem Jeffries' potential speaker, but you're a we'll see?

Yeah, I mean, I, I, I I need to know who's running, right? I mean, the reality is he could be the only one on the ballot, right? So it's, it's a non-issue there. But that's not, to me, that is not as important as how we hold whomever is running and whoever wins to account, and that's not based on my personal preferences or, uh, it's based on how I got elected.

If, if Those leaders work for the members. The members put them in those positions of power. How do we hold them to account, and how do they express their willingness to do the things that a larger subset of, of Democrats in Congress want? And, you know, that is gonna be a back, back and forth. You know, we also have to understand too that for the folks we may not prefer in leadership or in office at all, but who are going to be there serving in whatever capacity, for those of us who are there with them, our responsibility between election cycles is holding our own colleagues to account and moving them, um, towards the moral center, not the political center.

Um- Mm-hmm ... and that is something that, um, people should want their, uh, newly elected incumbents to do because listen, we have a clear villain here. Um, you know, it's, it's Trump, it's MAGA extremism, it's fascism, it's late-stage capitalism. It's any number of things. Um, but w- we can't make our colleagues the enemy.

They may be not on the same page with us, but it's our responsibility to make them, um, do better, and we have seen some progress when f- we have, um, not myself quite yet, but, uh, others in Congress get some of their colleagues to stop taking AIPAC money. That's a win, and we need to- Mm-hmm ... um, respect that, and we also need to understand that that comes with certain risks for the people who have been funded by folks we don't believe they should be funded by, which also means we need to support them if they're truly, um, understanding of why that dynamic is so problematic.

I wanted to get you to weigh in on what's going on right now with Grand Platner up in Maine because I do think it has some important fissures here in terms of the direction of the Democratic Party. You know, his ideological program and yours not i- exactly the same, but you're more or less in the same lane and have, you know, similar views of the world and certainly, you know, have been clear-cut, clear-throated opponents of, uh, genocide, of AIPAC funding and, and the influence of the Israel lobby.

He has faced a number of allegations, some of which he's, you know, acknowledged that he had a very rough go of it after serving in the military, that he had a drinking problem, he has PTSD, um, that he engaged in toxic behavior in relationships, other aspects of which he's completely denied. There was an allegation from a Republican political operative that he had grabbed her by the shoulders forcefully, that he had yanked her by the hand out of a cab, that he had put her arm behind her back and pushed her inside of a room.

Again, she says this occurred. He denies it, and The New York Times was unable to, um, confirm it. I wonder what you make of the allegations and also what has been seen as extreme scrutiny into his life that doesn't seem to be matched with a level of scrutiny into others who do not challenge the oligarchy and do not challenge, you know, AIPAC and the status quo on Israel as aggressively as he does.

Yeah. You know, this is, uh, this is challenging for me because, um, I've felt that, um, uh, f- folks who have been identified as hardscrabbled, populist, left-of-center white guys get far more leeway than folks like me, Black progressives. Um, and that's a double standard that is largely based on race, and I think that's a conversation we need to have.

If I had some, um, uh, problematic tattoo that related to white folk, I don't think I would be, um, viable, uh, even in, in a majority Black, uh, uh, district because I think, uh, the money would not be there for me to run the campaign I needed. I think there's a clear double standard, um, that the left have to, has to talk about as it relates to our racial politics and what is acceptable.

Um, and you know, I, I also have PTSD. I have actual PTSD. Um, and I also have political PTSD because in this state, um, we elected, um, uh, a fake populist in Fetterman. And- Mm-hmm ... um, when I feel Fetterman vibes, I get very, very nervous. I don't know Platner. I've not followed his race closely. I've had a ha- you know, a, a grueling 10-month campaign I'm just coming out of.

Um, so now I'm, I'm really seeing what's on the landscape of opportunity in, in the House and the Senate. But I, I do think we need to hold space for folks, uh, with genuine grievances, and we need to have a process, um, for those folks who are, are expressing legitimate concerns about the behaviors and choices of candidates, but to do so in a way that is, um, uh, in the spirit of restorative justice as opposed to, uh, the spirit of, uh, the politics of personal destruction.

And I think, um That is something that is really, really necessary because what we don't wanna do is to silence or erase the voices of people who have f- felt real harm, particularly women. Mm-hmm. Um, but we also have to make sure that we do not feel that there's a, a class of candidate that has to be perfect.

There are no perfect candidates, and we also have to make sure that those candidates acknowledge their faults, everyone has them, and how we work through them. So if he said, "I have a..." You know, it's... I understand when someone says, "I made a bad choice as a young man, and I was struggling with addiction," and that sort of thing.

We need to hold space for that. Mm-hmm. But you also may have intervening years or decades where you did not do any further introspection about what you've done so that you can feel a sense of atonement, um, that other people can value as legitimate long before you ever considered public office. We can hold those two truths at the same time.

Are you convinced Democrats are going to pull out a win in the Senate? Like, retake the majority? Well, Inshallah. Uh, you know, that is a, that is a profoundly non-committal answer, 'cause when your, your- you'd ask your parents something, you'd be like, "Hey, can, uh, can I spend the night over at my friend's house?"

They'd be like, "Inshallah." Like, Inshallah, yes. Inshallah, no. I'm like, Inshallah. Um, let me, let me explain how we do. If we are willing to embrace a message that is crisp on the fact that people are sick and tired of living in, in America where they cannot afford the basic means of a dignified life, sending their kids to schools that are underfunded, watching as their healthcare premiums rise, only to watch as their deductibles go up when they actually want to use their healthcare.

If we're willing to actually name the folks who are misappropriating our tax dollars, sending it abroad to drop bombs on other people's countries instead of investing it here, if we're willing to actually get forward on a message that we can take to everyone, uh, convincingly, then I think we will win. I think we will win the House, I think we will win the Senate, and more importantly, I think we can govern with authority, both holding the Trump administration accountable, and more importantly, solving problems for the American public.

Sounds like you're saying that Democrats haven't done that. Well, clearly we have not. I mean, I, I mean, I just, I'm just saying that, like, when, when you are more focused on a message that is going to appease a donor, whether it is a corporate donor who happens to benefit on public policy you know to be corrupted, or it is a special interest like AIPAC who wants to continue to send our money abroad to drop bombs on other people's children, to backstop genocide, to backstop apartheid, to backstop war we shouldn't be funding, yeah, I'm so, I'm sorry, but, like, it's hard to, to, to, to convince people on that message.

So running against Trump is not enough if you cannot provide a very clear, uh, contrast to what you would do differently. We have a clear message if we're willing to embrace it. The problem is too often Democrats just don't. Let me introduce you a little bit. You are one of the people running to make this Senate takeover happen, but first you're going to have to win a primary over the summer.

You're in this three-way race to represent Michigan. You're running against, um, State Senator Mallory McMorrow, who we've had on the show a couple times, also a US Representative Haley Stevens. Um, I look at your platform, which, as you've said, is very specific. It's talking about abolishing ICE. It's talking about introducing Medicare for all.

Um, I think it's fair to say you're decidedly to the left of your competitors. Fair? Well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna reframe this in two ways. Number one- Huh ... I'm not racing against anybody. Mm. I'm trying to build a relationship with the people of the state of Michigan, built on 10 years of public service at this point, where they know who I am and what I'm gonna fight for.

Well, you're gonna have to defeat a couple people to, to represent them, right? True, but it's not about defeating those folks. I mean, let, let's just be clear about it. It's not like we're, we're, like, wrestling or racing. We are trying to build a relationship with the people of the state of Michigan such that those people choose to put their, uh, vote in us, right?

So I, I'm less worried about the others and more worried about the 10 million people in my state. And then the other thing I'll just say is I think we've got this tired approach to thinking about public policy, policy and politics, which is, like, left versus right, which whichever political scientist created that and then foisted it upon us, like, may they go back and recant because it does not work.

M- most voters don't ask themselves, "Where do I sit on the left-right spectrum? I think I sit right here in the middle." Most voters have very different opinions about different issues. I hear so much doctor in you. Like, I, like, so I covered I covered health for a really long time and, like, thoughtful doctors will talk to you about how we shouldn't talk about a war on cancer, right?

It's not about a battle. It's not about defeating. It's not about... It's like, that's not the game. I hear you talking about this race the same way. Like, we're not talking about a battle. We're talking about relationships. Yeah. I mean, old habits die hard, I guess, but, like- Huh ... I just, I just think at the end of the day, people are asking, like, "Is my life gonna be better because this person out, is out there fighting for me?"

And I'm out there as someone who I guess, yes, trained as a doctor because I wanted to be that person that people felt comfortable and confident in when they had profound pain in their lives going to and saying, "Hey, together we can forge purpose out of this pain." But you're running in a state that elected Donald Trump twice, so it's a- Yeah, and it also voted for Biden, and then before it elected Donald Trump, it, it, it, it, it nominated Bernie Sanders.

True. So I, I just think that Michigan voters aren't... Like, we're pinging back and forth because we don't like all our, all our alternatives. And so, you know, if you really step back and ask yourself, is it because Michiganders are trying to find their alignment on a left-right spectrum that, like, we created and foisted upon them, or is it because people are deeply frustrated with the circumstances of their lives and are constantly looking for another option but can't find one they really like?

And I'm trying to be one they really like. You ran for governor of Michigan back in 2018. Gretchen Whitmer defeated you in the primary. Back then, folks were comparing you to Barack Obama. This time around, people are talking about, about you as the Michigan Mamdani. Do you get sick of these comparisons? I am who I am.

I, I'm not- ... Barack Obama. I'm not Zoran Mamdani. I'm Abdul. I was born and raised in the state of Michigan. I was raised by my immigrant, uh, father who immigrated to this country to build cars from Egypt, and my stepmom, Jackie, who's a Daughter of the American Revolution. I am as Michigan as it gets. I went to the University of Michigan.

Uh, I have made my life here. I'm raising my daughters here. I, I love this state, and I want Michiganders to know why I love this place, what I want to fight for, and how I wanna take Michigan values to DC to fight for them. So, you know, I, the comparisons are gonna keep coming. I guess that's on you to make, but, like- Well, I disagree with that comparison, uh, because I think- Oh, thank you

I think, well, I think stylistically you're different. I think, you know... I was watching the documentary that was made about your gubernatorial run back in 2018, and, um, I kind of think you have more edge than Mamdani or Obama. Y- there's a scene where, um, you talk about being sick of people kinda counting you out.

I've always believed that you're never good enough, and the reason you're never good enough is 'cause the world never lets you be good enough when you look like me Like, there's a moment where I think every person of color has that. You're like, "They'll never accept you." And at some point you're like, "Well, then fuck 'em," right?

Like, I'm gonna, I'm gonna figure out how to get in there, and when I do, it's either gonna be because I blasted the door down, broke it down, I got myself in there, but when I do, right, we're gonna, we're gonna make sure that we open up for everybody else. I just cannot imagine, uh, Mamdani or Obama letting a camera capture them say that.

They are smiling all the time. Fair? Look, I, I, I was the captain of my high school football, wrestling, and lacrosse teams. I'm the kind of person who... Look, I, I'm, I, I bullied bullies my whole life. My name is Abdul. I started kindergarten in a place where there were no other Abduls, and for most of my life I've been the only Abdul in a room.

And my whole approach is this: I want us to come together to build together what we need and deserve together, but if you're gonna bully other people in the room or try to bully me, I'ma hit you right back twice as hard. Like, that's just how I work, and I think Democrats need a little bit more of that.

We talk about fighting, but most Democrats don't know what a fight looks like. I mean, your deputy campaign manager back in 2018 was quoted at the time saying progressives like you were essentially running against two warring crime families, the crime families being the Democrats and the GOP. Is that still how you'd put it?

Well, I just say this. If you're gonna take money from the same old corporations and special interests who corrupt our politics to generate a bipartisan consensus that tells us that the best we can do with our money is send it to corporations to subsidize them to create, quote-unquote, jobs that never really quite stay here, if you're gonna tell me that the best use of my tax dollars is to go drop bombs on other people's children when I look at the, the, the, the schools in our community and say, "I don't know that that's worthy of all of our children," then yeah, I disagree with you and I think you're, you're, uh, engaged in a level of a legalized system of corruption that has not served the American public.

Like, I, I'm a Democrat because I want Democrats to be better. Um, I believe deeply that we can be, and I think this is a moment for us. So not, not a crime family. Not a crime family. Well, no. I mean, at the end of the day, like, you know, you, you can be that one person in the family who be like, "Y'all, we could build a legitimate business.

We actually could win the right way." I'm trying to be that guy.

We've just heard clips starting with

All In with Chris Hayes covering Graham Plattner's dominant Maine Senate primary win, and making the case that Trump's war with Iran and rising gas prices are becoming a serious liability for Republicans heading into November.

The Rational National pointed to Sanders-backed primary wins across multiple states as evidence that working-class progressives draw wider general-election support than the centrist, pro-corporate candidates the Democratic establishment tends to prefer.

More Perfect Union documented AOC's outreach to conservative Georgia voters harmed by data center construction, and showed how clean water concerns are pulling everyday people together across political lines.

Breaking Points featured Pennsylvania's Chris Rabb declining to defend Graham Plattner, citing "Fetterman vibes" and calling out a racial double standard in how the left vets populist candidates.

And Slate argued that Michigan and the Senate are winnable for Democrats, but only if the party stops chasing donor money and starts speaking clearly to people's economic struggles.

And those were just the top takes, there's lots more in the deeper dives sections,

But first, speaking of eras coming to an end, I'm just reminding you of the sad news about our new show, SOLVED! that we had to put on indefinite hiatus due to sudden economic instability and ad dollars drying up.

Right now, I'm doing some thoughtful panicking, rethinking everything about the show like reimagining our entire social media strategy from the ground up, building a paid marketing strategy, rethinking what our members-only content looks and sounds like, and maybe even planning on launching a newsletter version of our curated research and my commentaries. That last one would be a big change so let me know now if you'd be interested in that.

_But, starting with low-hanging fruit, we're relaunching our listener feedback voice message segment that people frequently said was their favorite part of the show. Momentum is building slowly but what I've been saying is that if you're thinking of possibly leaving us a voice message, don't ask yourself whether what you have to say is worthy. Just remember that people love hearing from each other, and that every voice message sent is effectively a vote for others to do the same.

Also, on occasion, we used to get messages from people who really needed to be heard and could use some advice from fellow listeners. We got a message from Trevor recently and if you have any words of encouragement for him, I hope you'll share.

  there's no escaping the culture. When you're born here, it's everywhere around you, the colonialism, the patriarchy. If you're not a part of it, if you're different from it, you're odd, and you won't be, uh, uh, perceived as friendly or perceived as someone worth being friends with. This loneliness epidemic hits everybody.

But, um, as a man who is thirty-seven living in Utah and trying to learn or rather unlearn all of the destructive lessons I learned from the American culture growing up, um, I find myself in a position where Women want you to act a certain way. There are masculine ideals that are still perceived as idyllic.

Um, and if you, if you go against the grain, then you're no longer a, a, a match worth, um, pursuing. So for me, in this loneliness epidemic, I, uh, uh, don't really see a good way out. Frankly, I'm just waiting until the end.

If you have some thoughts for Trevor, please leave a message by tapping the link in the show notes. I'll give mine first.

The first correction is to clarify that there is no such thing as women wanting something as a single category of people. Some women want some things, and other women want other things. It may feel like the culture in Utah is monolithic but I assure you that there are exceptions.

Next, one of the major lessons I've learned about The Internet over the past 20 years is that it excels at helping people who feel like outcasts meet other people who feel exactly the same way, regardless of the particular niche they find themselves in. And what that means is that there's always someone out there looking for people like you to connect with.

So, if I were writing a dating profile today, looking to attract someone who I felt like I would get along with, I would basically write "working to unlearn the patriarchy" in the headline. The trick to remember when dealing with niche interests is that the more it repels the majority of people, the more strongly it will attract the minority it appeals to.

Besides, there's a dating world disaster right now in the culture that's actually running the other way. As men become more conservative and women become more progressive, women are giving up on dating because they can't find enough people in the dating pool who are trying to unlearn the patriarchy.

It's a dynamic that's bad for society, but one of the side effects is that progressive men are actually in a particularly good position because so many men are effectively excluding themselves from the dating pool by becoming grotesquely conservative and patriarchal, repelling women in the process.

Admittedly, the numbers in Utah probably aren't as favorable, but the general principle still stands.

Again, if you have any words of wisdom to share with Trevor, please hit that link in the show notes to record a voice message, or you can email me directly and I can pass your message on.

One last thing, thanks to everyone who is a member or has made one-time donations recently while we’ve been going through our financial troubles.

And if you haven’t signed up yet but are thinking about it, essentially every dollar we can spare right now beyond basic costs will be going toward finding new listeners.

So, if you get value out of the show - and think others would too! - and want to get it delivered ad-free to the new, members-only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at bestoftheleft.com/support - there's a link in the show notes - through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcasts app.

As for today's topic,

American politics doesn't just change hands between the parties. A couple of times a century, it shifts in a much more fundamental way. The two big examples from the last century are the New Deal era ushered in by FDR and the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan.

These shifts were bigger than a change in party, because the new paradigms were eventually accepted by both sides, regardless of who introduced them. FDR was a Democrat, but the Republican Dwight Eisenhower kept the principles of the New Deal rather than fight them. Reagan was the Republican who ushered in neoliberalism, but the next Democratic president, Bill Clinton, accepted the framework and declared that the era of big government was over.

Looking backward, we tend to focus on the larger-than-life figures at the center of these era-defining moments. What matters more for understanding the future is what conditions have to exist for a pivot like this to happen, because it's never just about the president in power. Political orders of this kind don't change spontaneously or appear out of nothing. They're born out of the dying of the era before them.

After the laissez-faire economics of the early twentieth century fueled ruinous inequality in the Roaring Twenties and then the devastating crash into the Great Depression, the old order was entirely discredited. FDR rode the wave of discontent and the demand for massive change, and his administration turned it into the New Deal.

Then the New Deal establishment ran into the stagflation of the seventies and had no answer for it. Discontent with the old order grew until our politics was ripe for something new and dramatically different. Reagan stepped into the gap and a new era modeled on his politics began.

We're living in another of these transitional moments now. Trump's mismanagement of the economy and of global affairs shouldn't be seen as the thing that triggered the problems with the old order. That goes back to the Great Recession of 2008.

Progressives had already been pointing out for decades that the neoliberal order wasn't delivering what we needed; Universal health care, wages that rose along with our productivity, and the higher union density needed for real political power for regular people. What it was delivering for was the stock market and the wealthy. 2008 was when the cracks really started to show, when everyday people saw what happens when there's no safety net to weather an economic emergency.

When a market economy stops delivering for people, the hunger for change that arises is real and rooted in material reality, and it goes looking for an outlet for its discontent. The same hunger in the 1930s, after the Depression, built the New Deal here but it also drove some countries to fascism.

Today we're again struggling over which direction to go now that neoliberalism has been discredited. Trump came to power running against the old system on a counterfeit platform, anti-elitist and populist in its rhetoric and paired with naked racism. He never had any intention of delivering on his economic promises for regular people. Only the racism made it into policy while he got to work implementing an oligarchy, cutting funding for the poor and giving tax cuts to the rich.

Which means the hunger for a politics that actually delivers for people is still there. It hasn't been fed, because Trump was never going to follow through on anything that would cure what actually ails people. The proof of that hunger is already in. Even with his cult of personality and a full right-wing media machine behind him, his approval numbers are still terrible. Even some of his own supporters are realizing they're not getting what they'd hoped for.

So our political problems didn't begin with Trump and the turmoil was inevitable once the neoliberal era had run its course. It was always going to end, and the only real question was who would be there to define what came next. If you knew what to look for, you could have seen the birth pangs of this populist demand building for the better part of twenty years.

In the wake of the Great Recession, people called on Obama to make an example of the bankers. Instead, he defended them from the pitchforks. A few years later, Occupy Wall Street showed up in all its disorganized glory to force the country to notice the wealth inequality that was bound to tear us apart. In 2016, Bernie Sanders thought he was running a quiet campaign against Hillary Clinton, just to force her to answer questions nobody else would raise. He was as surprised as anyone when the groundswell of support made him a real contender.

There's been plenty of condemnation of establishment Democrats over the past decade for not seeing the paradigm shift coming, and for actively blocking it. I've certainly been part of that criticism myself. But I've come to understand that their inability to recognize the end of an era, and the demand for something entirely new, is mostly about how and when their political consciousness was formed.

That's something all of us deal with. It's possible to swim against the current, but for most people, going with the flow is what feels natural.

The old guard of Democrats in power today had two lessons drilled into them in their formative years. The first was the Cold War and the propaganda that came with it, demonizing anything with the faintest whiff of socialism. The second was the political reality of Democrats being wiped out as the New Deal era ended and the Reagan coalition rose, keeping them out of the White House for twelve years.

Out of that came the so-called New Democrats, who pulled the party toward markets and deregulation. With Bill Clinton leading in that new direction, they finally won the White House back. The lesson they took was that socialism is always to be shunned, the left flank of the party always marginalized, and that capitulating to the free-market ideology of the Reaganites is the only path to victory. That wasn't an irrational conclusion. That's how these eras work. The problem comes when you hold on to those conclusions for so long that they stop being true.

This kind of pivot is hard for anyone recognize, much less make themselves, which is exactly why we need to spell it out. And I don't think I'm any different. I just don't have the same baggage because I came into my own political awareness after the Cold War and after the Carter era imploded as the New Deal order ended. When I first started hearing about the need for universal health care and taxes on the wealthy, it struck me as plain common sense, not as something to fear the way an earlier generation had been trained to.

What everyone needs to understand today is that the rupture in our politics runs from top to bottom much more than left to right. That's what gave Trump his opening to run as a Republican while claiming to speak for working people, something that party had hardly pretended to do before. There was a real chunk of voters who picked Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and then voted Trump in the general, because what they wanted most was an outsider who said he'd fight for regular people. What those voters didn't understand is that Bernie meant it, and Trump was always full of shit.

And don't think that I'm just calling on old guard Democrats to get on board with the new paradigm. It's actually already happening. Robert Reich was ahead of the pack, he ran the Labor Department for Bill Clinton, and as far back as 2016 he understood that the real divide had stopped being left against right and had become the establishment against everyone else. Now the centrists are starting to come along. David Brooks, who in 2020 wrote the column "No, Not Sanders, Not Ever," went on a podcast after the last election and said maybe Bernie was right, that the system needs disrupting. James Carville, the strategist who helped put Bill Clinton in the White House, still disparages people like Bernie Sanders and AOC, and yet he's been quietly adopting their populist message anyway. That's what a shifting era looks like, when even the opponents of the forerunners end up adopting their frame.

The laissez-faire economics of the early twentieth century put money over people, and it led to a rupture that forced a choice between fascism, cheered on by the America First crowd here at home, and the democratic socialism of FDR's New Deal. The neoliberalism of the Reagan and Thatcher era was a rehash of the same dynamic and it has predictably arrived at the same place. A system that puts money and markets over the needs of people inevitably generates enough discontent that people become willing to consider extreme measures again. So here we are, choosing between fascism and democratic socialism.

To paraphrase an old saying; the old world is dying, the new world struggles to be born, and now is the time of monsters.

Going back to the pre-Trump status quo feels like the safe bet for those who lived through the last transition between eras but it's the most dangerous move we could make right now because what felt like safe normalcy for the past four decades was actually the fertile ground in which fascism was again able to grow. Trying to go back would only strengthen those pushing for authoritarianism.

We're not the first generation to struggle through a paradigm shift without knowing exactly what's on the other side of it, and we won't be the last, but the winds of change have already blowing for more than a decade and now the only way out is through.

And now, we'll continue to dive deeper on 4 topics today. First up;

Section A, READING THE PRIMARY MAP

Followed by Section B, THE PLATNER RECKONING

Section C, THE TEXAS SENATE FIGHT

And Section D, DEFENDING THE VOTE & THE LONG VIEW

there were six states that had primaries spanning, uh, New Jersey on the East Coast all the way out to California and the West Coast. And, uh, a big thing that we have been seeing in the midterms so far this year is this sort of anti-incumbent, anti-Washington-based backlash.

In a lot of cases, that hasn't actually looked like incumbents losing, but it's people, uh, getting a lot of the share of the vote that haven't raised a lot of money or don't have campaign websites, but they're just not the incumbent. There's one interesting race I want to start off with, and that's the South Dakota governor's primary on the Republican side.

It was a four-way race between the incumbent governor, the one House of Representatives member that represents the whole state, the State House speaker, and a car salesman, Toby Dodan. And the car salesman actually finished first, ahead of the incumbent governor. That goes to a runoff. And, uh- Whoa ... you, you can't really read too much into that there, uh, because there is a runoff.

But it just goes to show you that, you know, primary elections are pretty fascinating. And that also brings me to the Iowa governor's race, where on the Republican side, there were five people running to, uh, replace the outgoing governor, Kim Reynolds. Last Friday, President Trump endorsed Randy Feenstra.

He's a congressman from Northwest Iowa. And Feenstra lost narrowly to Zach Lane. And this is the first time that Trump has actually had one of his major picks lose in this election cycle. Uh, Lane positioned himself as an outsider, and Iowa first, and, uh, had the backing of the Make America Healthy Again kind of wing of the party.

Even touted support from the restaurant Steak 'n Shake. And he narrowly beat Feenstra, and, uh, that kind of has big reverberations for what is already expected to be a close governor's race in Iowa in the fall.

So I mean, the thing to note about, like, Trump's endorsements, first of all, this one was a late one from what I understand.

And two, like, he's mostly been backing candidates that pretty much look like they were gonna win. But this one was a late one. And yeah, like, Feenstra had probably the most name recognition, but if you look at the polls, he backed someone who was losing support over time. Like, the polling looked like Feenstra was going to lose, which I thought it was interesting that he was backing a candidate that was, like, not going in the right direction.

So I... It was one of those weird situations where I think Trump went against his own instincts and he backed someone who was kind of losing juice well, like, right before the election took place. But in general, Trump, like, has a good batting record right now because he's been picking people who have been favored to win.

Steven, do you agree with that, this is not really a sign of Trump's influence in the Republican Party waning, and more a sign of just the specific race or the specific candidate?

Yeah, I think that's a safe assertion to make because, uh, looking at the corpus of Trump endorsements in 2026, he has been picking people way earlier in the cycle than he has historically.

He has been picking, uh, safer people, you know, incumbents that don't really have challengers or things. And in the open races like this, uh, elsewhere in the country, Trump has played kingmaker and in some cases offered things like ambassadorships to people to drop out to clear the field for his choice.

And so this was a one-off in a few senses, and, uh, I spent some time reporting in Iowa, and, uh, the sense on the ground there, too, is that Iowa is a unique case because it is a state that has felt the impact of the Trump administration policies the hardest. We're talking about the war in Iran that's led to rising fertilizer prices, you know, tariffs and things like that.

So if there were to be a state where Republicans might have some different thoughts than Trump on what the future of their party is, it would be Iowa.

Got it. Well, speaking of Iowa, we did a pod about that state and how Democrats are trying to win there and in other rural states earlier this week. But I'm curious, is there anything you saw there, Ashley, that, that was interesting?

I mean, the Democratic Party for the Senate seat there, which is one of the seats that Democrats are hoping to flip. I think this might be one of their more bullish goals, but it, it does seem to be possibly in the mix for them. So Democratic voters, when they were voting in that primary, were probably thinking about this, like, "Who is going to possibly help Democrats flip this Senate seat in what is a pretty conservative state," right?

Mm-hmm. So, uh, the race was between State Rep Josh Turek, um, this is a Paralympian. He won a couple gold medals, and the House seat that he has in the Iowa House is one that has a lot of Trump voters. Like, that seat went for Trump. So, like, his pitch to voters was like, "I can win in sort of red places." Mm-hmm.

"This is why I could be a better, more electable candidate." And then there was a younger, more progressive candidate, uh, State Senator Zach Wahls. He was born in 1991, very young candidate. Um, most notably, I think it's kinda funny, like, I'm a Millennial, so I remember this, like, viral clip of him as, like, a young man talking about gay marriage during the Obama years.

It was... And he was talking about his gay moms. Anyways, you could, anyone could look that up. It was, like, a very viral moment. Um, anyways, but voters decided on Turek. They decided, um, to not pick Zach Wahls, who, by the way, uh, was explicitly anti-establishment, which is a strategy because Democratic voters are saying they are very unhappy with the leadership in their party.

But ultimately, Turek won because voters there were like, "In terms of electability, we think someone who has proven to win, uh, with Republican voters might be the better bet if we wanna flip this seat."

And Turek also had a lot of money behind him- Yeah ... uh, including money from the establishment, from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Uh, the group VoteVets spent a lot of money supporting his campaign, even though Turek himself is not a veteran. And it's yet another example of this split of the Democratic Party and what Democratic voters in Democratic areas think the direction of their party should be versus what Democrats in, uh, purple-ish, red-ish areas seem to think.

Well, moving then from a sort of red state to maybe one of the most blue states that we have, California also held primaries. We do not yet have complete results there, but Ashley, what are we seeing so far?

Yeah. So just some backgrounder on California. They have a kind of weird primary system. They have nonpartisan primaries.

Just a couple states have them, so for those who don't know how that works, it's basically all candidates, regardless of party, are on the ballot, and that ballot is before voters regardless of party. So everyone's on the same ballot. All voters get to weigh in. And as of now, in the California governor's race, which is probably the most closely watched race, the Republican is ahead, uh, Steve Hilton, and he is slightly ahead of, uh, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, as well as Tom Steyer, um, who is also a Democrat.

And there's a similar dynamic at play with the Los Angeles mayor's race, where there are three people kind of in the mix for the top two spots, uh, with, uh, incumbent Mayor Karen Bass in the lead. You have Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star, who is currently in second, but, uh, as more votes are being counted and those votes are probably more Democratic, there's a third candidate who's a Democrat who could end up taking the second spot.

Same with these House races. Uh, in the aftermath of California's redistricting, you have a few high-level takeaways of older incumbent Democrats that faced younger primary challengers on the backs of generational change. Those incumbents are all making it to the general election, and in some cases, the challengers are not.

You also have, uh, some Republicans who were drawn into less favorable districts that are, uh, trying to eke it out into the general election, and there will still be time for all of the votes to be counted. But, uh, you know, so far, those are some of the top-level takeaways from the results we do have.

Got it.

I do wanna drill down a little bit on the vote counting process, which is still going on here on Thursday, a couple days after the election President Trump posted online multiple times about this. He said, quote, "Democrats are trying to steal the governor of California primary and the mayor of Los Angeles primary away from two great Republican candidates.

Here we go again with very late and massive numbers of mail-in ballots." End quote. This sounds really familiar, Ashley- Mm-hmm ... in terms of President Trump talking about mail ballots, talking about California elections. Can you explain what's going on here?

Yeah. This is a piece of misinformation that Trump has touted since 2020.

This is called the red mirage, and for folks who paid attention to 2020 and 2024, this is not unfamiliar to you. Basically, California is a vote-by-mail state, meaning a l- a lot of voters get a mail-in ballot, uh, whether they ask for it or not, and vote that way. And they have a pretty long window to return that ballot, so as long as it's postmarked by election day, if it gets to officials a week after election day, they can still be counted.

And so because Republicans tend to vote in person, those votes get counted first, which is why it looks like Steve Hilton is ahead in a state that is very blue. But there are still lots and lots of mail-in ballots making their way to local officials right now. And so over time, you're gonna see that number, uh, for the Democratic candidates go up.

I mean, also because this is a crowded primary with lots of Democrats in it, those Democratic votes are, like, split between a bunch of people, whereas there was one Trump-backed Republican candidate, so a lot of Republicans are gonna be voting for the same candidates. And so Trump is making the case that Steve Hilton has more votes than other candidates, but that is just not how this works.

And also, we have until June 9th local officials are gonna be counting ballots, so there's still a lot of time. And as we know, people are procrastinators. It happens very often that big batches of ballots come in sort of late.

Iowa is in play because we are a state that has really bottomed out. We are dead last for economic growth. I mean, 50th out of all 50 states. We are 48th for personal income growth. We are one of two states already in economic decline.

Uh, we're basically dead last for every single healthcare metric, OBGYNs, uh, rural hospital quality, mental health providers, mental health supports. We're a state that we've closed 250 more healthcare clinics than we've opened in the last 15 years. Uh, we're the only state with a growing cancer rate, second highest rates behind only Kentucky.

And now we're leading the nation in farm foreclosures because of the Trump tariffs. Then you add that into the fact that there's no power of incumbency. This is the first time since 1968, uh, you've got an open Senate seat together with an open governor's race- Yeah ... and two open congressional races. And this is a, a state in Iowa where in Trump's first midterm we won three of the four congressional races.

We are three points away from winning all four. Uh, you know, the state that, uh, twice voted for Obama, three times for Trump. We have more Obama-Trump counties than any other state in the union. And in our last midterm 2022, which was not a good year for Democrats, we were only 1.5% away from having three of our six statewide officials being Democrats.

So that means your average Iowa voter went to the polls and voted for three Rs and three Ds. Yeah. Uh, you add that into as well, uh, you've got great candidates, uh, like myself, and I think our gubernatorial candidate, Rob Sand, with proven results of being able to win in red areas and win over independents and moderate Republicans.

And then lastly, I would say you look at what they've done with federal policy, what people like Ashley Hinson have voted for, 110,000 Iowans to lose their healthcare, thousands more to lose their food assistance just to give tax breaks to billionaires. Uh, 119,000 Iowans seeing their healthcare premiums double or triple.

Hinson voted four times in favor of the tariffs, which have decimated our rural communities and led us to leading the nation in farm foreclosures. And, uh, she's somebody that is a multimillionaire, that's 10 times more wealthy in her time in DC in only six years, initially didn't support a, a ban on, on members of Congress owning and trading stock.

She has not looked out for Iowa and Iowans, and, uh, Iowans are ready for change in a real way. And so what differentiates Iowa from a raft of other states that, that also have, um, poor metrics? I mean, we look at the South, for example. Uh, a, a state like Mississippi is ranked either 49th or 50th in almost every metric there is.

There's full Republican control, and yet that state very often continues to just vote Republicans in statewide. And so, and so I think a lot of people kind of just get used to the fact that once there is kind of some prescribed political affiliation in a state, it, it stays that way regardless of the outcomes.

And so why is Iowa different from these other states that have poor metrics but keep electing Republicans regardless? Two reasons. I, I would say again, uh, we have completely hit the bottom, and I think oftentimes you really have to hit the bottom. A state like Kansas, for example, where you finally hit the bottom and people are willing to wake up.

I also would say that, uh, you know, the Trump tariffs, uh, have really hurt Iowa the most. Even this war in Iran. Yeah. Uh, y- you... I mean, we are upside down on commodities prices. You go into these rural communities and you talk to farmers, the word that we hear the most is betrayal. Uh, Trump administration gives $20 billion to Argentina.

Meanwhile, our Iowa soybean farmers are upside down. Uh, you look at, uh, the war in Iran. Iowa's paying a huge price for this conflict. We've already had three Iowans lose their life. We're spending a billion dollars a day, uh, over there, and, uh, meanwhile, we're closing schools and hospitals here in Iowa And, and, and then, uh, what we were already were having issues with were input prices because we've done nothing to address vertical integration and what we're seeing with monopolies on input prices, then the, the, the war in Iran is making it even more difficult, uh, for, for farmers to be able to afford fertilizer.

And, uh, so th- these are issues that, like, really, really, really affect Iowans. And then lastly, I, I just think that, you know, Iowa hasn't fundamentally shifted. We're, we're, we're an older state. Uh, we're a state that at our essence, I mean, we're the third state to legalize gay marriage, one of the, the very first states to, uh, to desegregate our schools.

We're, we're, we're a state that, you know, in Trump's last midterm had three of the four congressional races being Democrats. 30 years had Senator Harkin, the father of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I think we have a long history of, of electing the better candidates, and, and so we're not one of these deeply red states.

Yeah. Uh, we have a long history of being, uh, a, a blue state, a purple state, and at times a red state, and that's why I say, uh, we're not a red state. We're a common sense state that has masqueraded more red, and Iowans are ready for change now in a real way. In your conversations with voters, I'm, I'm particularly con- uh, interested in conversations that you've had with, with lifelong Republicans or Independents, people who wouldn't normally, uh, vote for Democrats.

Has there been any, any instances, anecdotal though they may be, that kind of serve as a good microcosm for the broader environment? Yeah, lots of them. Uh, the, I am the Democrat that represents the reddest district that was won on election day. Um, and so the two communities that I represent, uh, Carter Lake, Trump won by 18 points.

In my hometown and community of Council Bluffs, he won by 10 points. I was able to win my district, uh, by nearly six points, and I won that every single- by every single day going out, rain or shine, hot or cold, and dragging my wheelchair upstairs- Yeah ... to have conversations with people. And I would go there and, and I would hear over and over and over people telling me, uh, "You know, I, I can't afford, uh, my grocery prices.

I can't afford to keep gas in the tank, and I don't feel like people in Washington, uh, feel, uh, this issue or, or are looking out for me." And I would tell them, "Look, I'm, I'm one of you. I understand what you're feeling economically. I'm someone that, uh, comes from a, a family where we went to the Goodwill, we shared clothes, had the wrong color lunch tickets, went to the free summer lunch programs, gone through enormous amount of, of healthcare adversity, 21 surgeries before I was 12 years old.

Say, I want to go up here, not for the prestige and position, but because we need more folks that are actually gonna go up there and work for the working class, for the middle class that's being hollowed out." And I would hear over and over and over from Republicans, they would say, "I'm not gonna vote for every single Democrat, uh, but I like your version of Democrat, this Democrat that is focusing on cost, corruption, on kitchen table issues."

And, uh, and that's our way forward. I fundamentally believe it in a state like Iowa. It is on common sense prairie populism. A- and, and that's what I want to dig into here. What is it that you actually want to achieve in Washington? What would you like to see, um, Democrats make their priority once they get there?

I mean, we've spent a lot of time talking about the viability of a Democrat being able to win in this environment, but, but once you're there, I mean, the ability for people to continue voting for you relies upon you actually holding true to your promises. We're seeing that happen in kind of the opposite way right now, where Trump came into office promising to lower costs and protect healthcare and bring down inflation and release the Epstein files and really have an America First agenda.

He's done the polar opposite. He's cut healthcare, cut food assistance, r- r- uh, sent the cost of everything surging thanks to his trade war, engaged in a war that he swore he would never engage in, and that's raised the price of gas for everybody around the country, and of course, there's a, a, a systematic cover-up of those same Epstein files.

So people can clearly see that those promises aren't being, uh, aren't, aren't being, uh, uh, met. But what is it that you want to do once you get to Washington? I wanna fight for a livable wage. I wanna, I wanna raise the minimum wage. First bill I wanna sponsor is a, a dignity in work. That's gonna be to, to raise the minimum wage federally.

Here in Iowa, it's 7.25. We can recognize that's not a livable wage. Second would be to do away with 14(c) certificates. That's the ability for a for-profit business to pay someone just due to a dis- uh, disability a subminimum wage, and also to bring collective bargaining rights back to every single one of our workers.

I wanna fight to get private equity out of housing because I think that's the only way we can achieve the American dream. Average age of a first time home buyer now in this country is 41 years old. There's no way that you or I or anyone in the middle class can certainly compete with BlackRock and Vanguard and- Yeah

and, and Wall Street. I wanna fight to get pr- private, uh, equity out of, uh, healthcare. I wanna fight to make sure that doctors are deciding care, not insurance companies. I wanna fight... I believe that healthcare is a human right, so I wanna fight for a public option, uh, to be in place for people. I wanna fight for our public schools, to address our cancer rates here in Iowa, to make sure that we've got drinkable water, uh, but also to address the corruption that we're seeing in DC.

Uh, I want to see fundamental campaign finance reform because I say we can have oligarchy or we can have democracy, uh, but we cannot have both, and what we have right now is we have outsized influence from billionaires and large corporations that are paying off the, our, our politicians and buying off our elections.

And I wanna fight to pass the Disclose Act to make sure that every dollar that's donated to a campaign, to a PAC, to a super PAC, is accounted for, and also do everything we can to overturn Citizens United, but then also fight to make sure we've got ethics reforms, both to members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

I'm in favor of term limits, banning of members of Congress and their family from owning and trading stocks, and I would like to mandate every single member of Congress has to host at least one annual town hall, uh, to be accountable to their constituents. I think if we focus on these issues, the issues that apply to 3.2 million Iowans, cost, corruption, kitchen table issues, that's the way forward in a state like Iowa.

The last time Kentucky elected a Democrat to the US Senate was in 1992.

What makes you think Democrats can flip this seat?

Well, this race is one of the most flippable races in the country, and it's not because of party. It's because people are hurting. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we're all getting screwed, and we're looking for leaders who see us, who care about our humanity, and have a vision to deliver for us.

I've shown that over the years. I've built coalitions from the hood to the hollow, and that's why I've been leading in the polls in this primary. Prayerfully, that's why we're gonna win tonight, and it's why we're going to take this seat back for working people.

Well, a- as you know, Amy McGrath is giving you a real run for your money.

She has a strong showing right now in the polls. What makes you think you can best her tonight?

Well, working people are tired of a big money status quo that ignores their needs, that tells them that real change isn't possible. We're looking for leaders who see us, who come from the challenges we face, and have a vision to meet our needs.

I've built those coalitions, and I've shown by leading with love, by building community, that we can inspire people who voted for Trump. We can inspire people who've never voted before. That's why I've been leading in the polls, and it's also why we're ready to win. These No Kings demonstrations we've seen across Kentucky, they're not just Democrats.

They're lifelong Republicans. Everyone's fed up, and they're standing with me because this is our moment to win.

You know, you're talking about building coalitions. Let me follow you up, up with you on that point because you're running on a progressive platform, including Medicare for All, universal childcare.

You've been a vocal supporter of the Green New Deal. Are those winning positions in a state that President Trump won by 30-plus points?

Absolutely. And when you look at the map, a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump voted for Bernie Sanders. A lot of people who have stood up over the years crying out have just been ignored.

Medicare for All, policies to make sure we actually end generational poverty are popular in Kentucky because we've been one of the poorest states in the country, and we're sick of it. I'm a Type 1 diabetic. I've had to ration my insulin. Hmm. My insulin doesn't care about my party registration. We need leaders that can meet the moment, and that's what I've shown.

Even saying that if you're, uh, working across the aisle, for instance, I've stood up with, to, uh, folks like Congressman Thomas Massie to say that, "If you're going to fight for Kentucky, you're gonna find a partner in me." We need that now more than ever, and, and I'm honored to help tell the story about regular people fighting back.

I do wanna talk to you about the number one issue for voters, what you're talking about, quite frankly, the economy. I'm gonna put up some numbers for you. Voters clearly frustrated with President Trump and Republicans on the economy, but Democrats are not doing much better. Why do you think that is, and what do you think you can realistically do to turn it around?

Well, the fact of the matter is, we need change and we need it yesterday. And what we're seeing across the country is a lot of regular voices that are calling out. We, you can call it affordability, call it what you want. We have been suffering, and if we can find money for endless war for Donald Trump, we can find money to make sure our children have food to eat, that we have the healthcare we need in the wealthiest country in the world.

I'm running a campaign that is not built on excuses. It's built on the power of regular people coming together to bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice. We need real leadership, bold leadership right now, and by replacing Mitch McConnell with a fighter- Yeah ... for regular people, we can do just that.

You know, you've called for President Trump to be impeached. If you were elected to the Senate, how much of a priority would that be for you? 'Cause I've spoken to some Democrats who say it is time to move on from those types of fights.

Well, I speak the truth, and the truth of the matter is we need leaders who care about us, who won't sell us out, who will lift up our needs, and will deliver for us.

So if the President of the United States is violating the Constitution, we call that out. But my priority isn't just about tearing down the president, it's about lifting up all people. That's what this moment requires, and that's why we're inspiring so many people to get out to vote, to organize, to make democracy real.

That's what we need right here at home. I'm delivering that in Kentucky, and that's why we're gonna win.

Next, Section B, THE PLATNER RECKONING

I'm still gonna vote for Graham because if his wife Amy can Can, uh, get over it and still stay married to him, then I think as a voter, I should be able to get over it and still vote for him. She doesn't always vote the way I like, but I call her the lesser of two evils.

Uh, I hate to say it, but the other side is, uh, there's a, a lot of negative things coming out that I wouldn't want in a dog catcher in my town. Alex Seitz-Wald is deputy editor of The Mid-Coast Villager and a former senior national political reporter for NBC News. Alex, it's great to see you. Thanks for having me.

So as you well know, the Democratic Senate candidate, Grand Platner, he built this early lead leaning into this story of him as an oyster farmer, uh, his personal story as a combat veteran. He ran this insurgent outsider campaign, but his candidacy has been dogged by controversy from scrutiny over this tattoo that he has that was linked to Nazi imagery, to allegations from former girlfriends about his behavior more recently.

A former campaign staffer publicly argued he's unfit for office. How are Democratic voters in Maine weighing those concerns against what many see as a potential, underscore the word potential, opportunity to flip a Senate seat? Well, this latest round of controversies involving his relationships with ex-girlfriends and also sexting other women early in his marriage, uh, have definitely hit a little bit differently.

These are, of course, not the first scandals that Platner has dealt with, but while supporters brush past the ones in the fall about his old Reddit posts and his tattoo, kind of viewed it as bona fides, that he's a real working person with a checkered past. This latest allegation has divided Democrats.

There are some, largely women, who find it very, uh, disappointing, concerning, heartbroken, as one voter put it. And then there's also people, more diehard supporters, who view it as kind of part of a, an establishment attack on an outsider candidate. But what I have not heard is any Democrats or people who had previously been supporting Platner who now say they're gonna switch over to Susan Collins.

Uh, instead, what I'm hearing a lot of is, is like w- we heard from one voter who said she's sickened that she has to vote for Grand Platner, but she will in November because Maine Democrats have been trying to oust Susan Collins for years. Uh, they've run more conventional candidates in the past and lost.

She's a powerhouse who should not be underestimated, and I think they're more willing to kind of take a risk and try something, anything different to get rid of her, given the stakes for the Supreme Court and everything else. And whatever happens, we can't say that Maine voters didn't know. There was just a new poll out that showed 90% of both primary and general election voters are aware of these allegations.

It's a state with very high voter turnout. People are engaged, so they are making a conscious decision, uh, about Grand Platner And there are Democrats who believe that Senator Collins is more vulnerable in this cycle than she's ever been previously. What, if anything, will tonight's results tell you about whether that assumption is actually true?

Yeah, I mean, that's the big question 'cause Democrats feel a bit like Lucy with the football with Susan Collins, and there's this perception of a sort of silent Susan majority out there. But in the primary, uh, results, I'm gonna be looking at Platner's margin. And at this point, if you're voting for anybody other than Platner in the primary, you're really doing it to send a message as a protest.

So whatever percentage of votes are not for Platner, because there's no other real candidate in the race, those are voters that, uh, Platner's gonna have to go after and bring back into the fold. Uh, and I'm also watching the results in the other elections, the, for governor, for Congress, which will tell us a bit about the mood of the electorate overall in Maine, regardless of the Platner specifics.

And in Washington, there are prominent Democrats who are supporting Platner, and they say that voters care more about economic issues than they do about any one man's personal conduct. Interestingly, that's an argument that many Republicans have made about Donald Trump. Mm. I mean, what does that say about where the Democratic Party is right now?

Yeah, I actually had a Platner supporter tell me that going through this whole, uh, experience has made him understand Trump voters for the first time because a lot of Platner voters feel like they are being misunderstood, misrepresented, uh, by the national press. And I think, uh, we're also just looking at a more transactional electorate.

They care about the, the policies, the vote. They, they care more about the letter next to the person's name than the name of the person, uh, i- itself. Because, you know, Collins is exactly the type of political figure that Maine has elected for years, temperamentally moderate, bipartisan, civil. This has been the mold for decades.

Platner obviously completely breaks that mold, a very different style of politician, but it's a very anti-incumbent mood out there. People are upset, and, uh, they might be willing to take a big chance on this unknown outsider. Final question, Alex. You know, Maine has a distinctive political culture that doesn't fit nicely into national narratives.

Once the results come in, what are the pundits likely to get wrong? I think the biggest thing is the assumption that Susan Collins is easily beatable. Uh, it's a blue state. People assume that because we haven't voted for a Republican president since 1988, it should be easy, but that's just not the case.

Collins has won again and again. In 2020, when Joe Biden won Maine, Collins won by nine percentage points against a uncontroversial, well-qualified Democrat who spent twice as much money as her. Alex Lightswald, deputy editor of The Mid-Coast Villager.

as someone who has been following the Platner campaign really since that first day when that first video was released and was very cautiously enthusiastic perhaps about him, who then after the initial revelations in October, uh, of the Reddit post and the, uh, the tattoo became quite skeptical.

Um, it was after then that I actually met up with Graham, and we had a conversation, and over the course of the probably last several months, we've had a series of, uh, conversations and observations. And I think what's interesting about this race and about Graham is that, um, in Maine f- I would say a lot of people have a very different perspective of him than what the national media is showing.

Um, I think that despite his controversies, he is really speaking to the people of Maine at this moment. Um, as I've, uh, been writing, and I wrote recently, uh, it is estimated that one in two Mainers are struggling to make ends meet. Um, nationally, I think people think of Maine as this, you know, it, it's nicknamed Vacationland, so people think that everybody here is probably quite prosperous, and actually, uh, that's the opposite.

It's a, it's a rural state. It's a state that, uh, doesn't have a lot of resources. It's a state where, honestly, it is not uncommon for people to work two or three jobs, uh, seasonal jobs. And so I think that, you know, one of the reasons people have continued to support Platner despite these controversies is because for the first time in a long time, he makes people feel heard.

Um, I only recently heard him speak to an audience. Um, my- because my interactions with him had been primarily one-on-one, um, I had heard about how he- when he speaks to a crowd, uh, but I have to say it was really interesting to experience, uh, hearing him and seeing, more importantly, the audience, how enthusiastic they were.

At the same time, um, I live on Peaks Island, Maine. It's a predominantly very white little, uh, enclave island here. Um, we have a few folks of color, and it's a, you know, community that people would probably think of, of as fairly prosperous, and yet he was really connecting with them. Um, I think as a person, he is absolutely complicated and messy.

There is no, no getting around that. He's a very, uh, complicated, messy individual who, uh, I think if these were more normal times, I think the campaign would've tanked probably several scandals ago. Uh, but I think that given the current reality of the country we're running in with the folks running in it, uh, people are feeling a little bit more generous in forgiving, uh, his personal situations.

Let's hear Graham Platner speaking, uh, last night in Portland

We need to return to the politics of dreaming big. Whoo. Because the challenges we face today, we can no longer afford to play around in the margins. We've been doing that, and it has failed us. We need universal healthcare in this country, Medicare for All

We need universal childcare

We need a public education system that provides high quality education to every young American from kindergarten all the way through higher ed and trade schools. And we need a foreign policy that prioritizes international institutions and international law over the wellbeing of corporate interests.

So that's Graham Platner speaking last night in Portland. If you can talk about, um, the, uh, the allegations of several women who he dated, one of them being, um, a Republican operative. I mean, she says it herself. She runs, uh, Ladies for Kavanaugh, now the Supreme Court justice. The significance of this and what the allegations are, and those who say it's not enough to say he suffers from PTSD.

Certainly Ro Khanna talked about the damages of war, and K- Platner himself talks about what it means that war is violence, and how veterans have suffered, but that you have to take responsibility for how you act afterwards.

Yes. Yes, you do. Um, like many folks, I, you know, I read the piece in The New York Times a few minutes after it dropped, and, uh, I will say I really struggled initially with what I was reading. Um, I think for me, I believe in restorative justice. The nature of the work that I do just, uh, within the, the world of anti-racism work, uh, allows for restorative justice.

And so life is not an either, either/or, it's more of a both/and, and really asking for myself, do we believe, do I believe that people even deserve a second chance? Um, first and foremost, these are serious allegations. Uh, I don't think ... There's no excuse for the harm that he caused these women. I think that if I were to say one thing, I would love to hear him speak more about ways in which, um, he can make amends to the women he's harmed.

Uh, he needs to be held accountable to those women. At the same time, we find ourselves in this very, very awkward situation in the state of Maine, and really in the state of the country. Uh, 18 months into this second term of Trump, we have watched our country turn upside down in ways that we have never imagined.

And so we find ourselves with, in the case of the Maine Senate race, uh, we have a candidate who most certainly inspires people. Uh, I know when I went to his, uh, public event here on Peaks, I was, I, I saw young folks of color who had taken the ferry over just to hear him speak. Um, we also, uh, and I'm sorry, I just completely lost my thought there.

Um, I think that we have to reckon with the reality of war and violence. Um, I was thinking about this morning, knowing that, you know, this would probably be a part of the conversation. In some ways, I see Platner as sort of the result of this country, um, that we send people to war, they come back, and then we don't do a lot for those people.

But more than that, when we talk about violence, in this case, there was personal violence, but then we also have state violence. We have someone who went to war. Suffering from the effects of state violence who has now inflicted violence upon folks personally. And so it really becomes a very messy situation in terms of how do we reckon with that?

Uh, how do we figure out how to go forward? I think, I think in this moment what's hardest for people to gather and to, to understand, and it most certainly is something that I've struggled with given everything that we've seen going on in this country, um, is the fact that historically we've expected our politicians, we've held them to a certain standard.

We've expected certain behavior. Um, and I would say, you know, in the years since Trump, all of that has been turned upside down. I think over on the left we've held ourselves to a standard that we don't wanna be anything like those folks, and so here we have this person who is a messy walking contradiction.

On the one hand, he has values in terms of what he's putting out there that speaks to us, but his personal life is messy. Um, so it's one of those what do we do? And in this moment I ask myself, do we discard him? Um, I know your previous guest spoke a lot of, to, um, his opponent, Janet Mills, who suspended her campaign and is now, you know, last week m- reminded us all that she is still on the ballot.

And I know as a Mainer, as a Mainer of color, uh, I don't see her track record as being quite as rosy as somebody on a national level might. Um, just a couple of things I wanted to mention. Just recently she vetoed LD, uh, 1911 this year, which was the clean slate law, which really would have given folks with a criminal background in certain cases a second chance.

Uh, there was also the other veto that she did, V- uh, LD 307, which would have placed a moratorium on state and local governments issuing permits for data centers. As we know, data, the conversation of data centers is really big across the country. Um, those two vetoes alone for many, many Maine voters, uh, really were a turnoff.

So a- again, the national perspective on Janet Mills versus the reality on the ground are two different things, and I think for many people, Maine voters, that's left people really conflicted. I mean, we do have two other candidates, a write-in candidate, who of course isn't on the ballot but has been campaigning really hard, and then we have one other, uh, gentleman on the ballot, David Costello, uh, who many people just don't know who he is.

Um, so Mainers find themselves in a really tough situation in terms of this is a person who is saying the things that we want to hear, and at the same time we're hearing these allegations in their personal life that are pretty disturbing. Um, I can say that when it came down to my deciding whether or not I wanted to support him, um, I knew was if there was any criminal ac- you know, allegations, that was not something I was gonna do.

I'm still not comfortable with what I've heard. Uh, at the same time, um, it feels like While we can say is it an excuse, the PTSD from the war, it is also a reality that many people returning from war do face.

if we're gonna win the Senate, we're gonna have to win some tough states. Iowa is one of them. And as you said, like it's not too long ago, we were winning Iowa. You know, I worked on the Obama campaign, we won Iowa. Uh- Mm-hmm ... and I think we won pretty decently that year, the first year, and I think we might have even won it in 2012 as well.

Uh, so this is where we are now. Um, we also have a, a governor's race shaping up here. Uh, Rob Sand, the state auditor, I've known him since I was in college, uh, I know you know him pretty well, is gonna be running against this guy. And it's like, so this was a-- you know, Trump had a handpicked candidate Who lost, which is int- interesting of it, of itself.

And then I'm like, "Oh, okay, that's fascinating." But then I'm reading this tweet from Tim Miller where he says, "Years ago, white nationalist Steve King gets censured for his views by the party and defeated in a primary by Randy Feenstra. Feenstra is a clean-cut Christian conservative. Tonight, Feenstra may lose his governor's primary..."

He did, "To a no-name MAGA weirdo powered by an endorsement from Steve King." So lots to unpack here. By the way, Steve King's the guy who beat our friend, uh, JD Scholten. Um, JD ran really strong races, very tough territory, uh, that I, I actually organized some of that area, Wright County and Fort Dodge area, for Obama.

So it looks like, yes, Trump's handpicked candidate lost, but he lost to somebody who's even more ultra-right racist. So I'm not sure there's much to applaud there.

Yeah. I mean, I... There's not a lot of room over there- ... uh, on the right. You really... I mean, uh, you probably had to turn sideways to fit through that little crack there.

So, uh, yeah, and just another mark of how far the party has gone. Um, and we've got a candidate and governor, uh, who has been really putting in the work for a long time in Rob Sand, and he did not waste any time helping to define this race. Uh, here's him, I think from yesterday.

To the majority of GOP primary voters who voted for someone other than Zach Lane, I agree with you.

His lies about his past and the fact that he still more or less lives in Kansas means that he's not the best choice in this race. He claims to be an outsider, but he has spent his whole career working for politicians and dark money groups. He claims he's gonna take on big polluters, but he did the political bidding of nitrate polluters who are squeezing every penny out of Iowa farmers for a decade.

He says he's gonna be Iowa first, but records show he spends more time in Kansas than he does here, and he admits he'd have to fully move here from Kansas if he gets elected. The phrase was, "If I get elected, I'll spend as much time as humanly possible in Iowa." Most of us just live here.

It's

really different

the candidate from Kansas. Does this, does this sound familiar? Um-

Yeah. That's funny, man.

I know you actually lived in Kansas, in Missouri. You were just, were born in Kansas, but it's- Yeah, yeah ... a funny echo.

No, yeah, I wasn't like, "Uh, you know, if you elect me, I'll move there." Um- It's a great video by Rob, and what Rob is, for those who aren't familiar with Rob, what Rob has done really well is as state auditor, uh, he's just...

He's done a great job, and he's made sure everybody knows about it, and he's been, just like that video, the way he's, you know, pretty, uh, charismatic and, uh, a good storyteller, like, he's told the story of the work of the auditor's office really well. And a part of the reason he's in such a strong position and why he didn't really have any primary opposition is because, uh, folks know him there.

And there, you know, I think there's a fair amount of Republicans who are like, "Well, you know, that Rob Sand guy's all right." And if you think about it, auditor is a great position from which to run for governor as a Democrat. Um, you know, Claire McCaskill, before she was a US senator, was the state auditor.

Um, and it's because y- you just spend all your time burnishing your credentials, uh, as a fiscal hawk, as somebody who will take care of the people's money, and Rob's done a really good job of that. And prior to that, he was a prosecutor, um, who, to, to some acclaim, uh, in, in Iowa. So I think he's in a really good position.

Yeah, I have a good buddy over there who actually was a prosecutor from Iowa, and I was talking to him not too long ago, and he told me that Rob was using the auditor's office to push a populist message, too.

Oh,

absolutely. You know, going after, like, uh, corporate cheats and things like that. It reminds me of this guy, William Winter, uh, who was the, uh, tax collector in Mississippi, ran for tax collector under the, uh, the platform of one issue, which is he was gonna abolish the tax collector's office.

He runs for tax collector, abolishes the tax collector's office, and then becomes governor, and he was- The last truly transformative Democratic governor of Mississippi and a, a real hero to a lot of people there, he just passed away a couple years ago. He was a great guy. Um, he's got a contemporary of Bill Clinton, but like a very different kind of guy.

Like-

Interesting ...

uh, way, way more sort of buttoned up. He was followed by Haley Barbour eventually, who's more Bill Clinton than, maybe more Bill Clinton than Bill Clinton is. Okay. So okay, that is Iowa. Uh, it's just exciting to have a state on the map. It's like I, I actually met a guy running for, um, Jonathan Christ Tompkins the other day.

Uh, I, I've known him for years, but he, he's running for Alaska governor. We should have him on at some point. He's amazing. Uh-

Sure ...

we got him and our sen- senate candidate in, in Alaska, um, who's really compelling as well. So we've got some of these states on the map. Uh, now one state that, you know, we should c- we should carry in, in every possible way is California.

Um, man, it's hard to analyze California. I, I almost suggested we have our friend Adisu, who's been on TV all week, um, uh, break it all down for us. But it seems like it's Becerra heading to the runoff.

Yeah.

With an outside chance that Steyer could make up the ground, but probably not. Is that essentially where we are?

I guess I, as a guy from Missouri, have, have been having trouble, um, summoning a great deal of interest in this. Yeah. But I understand that the country is... Look, it's like one of the biggest economies in the world, and no matter what, uh, if you're a Democrat, I guess you should care because the governor of California is gonna be somebody with an outsized influence on the country and the party.

Um, and Uh, I don't wanna... I'm, I'm, I'm not trying to make, I'm not trying to make enemies or lose friends. But- ... um, what I would say is, from my perspective, if you just look at, and I don't live in California, don't vote in California, don't pay taxes in California, so I will be looking at this solely through the perspective of who do I wanna elevate to a platform where they can speak, you know, on behalf of the party by nes- by necessity of being the governor of California, whether that elevates them to something else or not.

It's just a platform. I would err toward Becerra over Steyer on that, uh, having not really ever spent much time around Becerra, but having spent some time around Steyer. Um, how d- is that diplomatic the way I did that?

There are other Democrats, many other Democrats in Maine who Schumer and the DSCC could have gone to recruit, uh, but they didn't.

They went all in on Janet Mills. Janet Mills' campaign basically failed to fundraise effectively enough and failed to gain real traction against Platner, who people found very exciting. Okay, so I wanna start by saying, as of now, there is not an alternative. Like, uh, if, if somebody has got some other great candidate that they wanna put up, well, then we can discuss it as Platner or this person.

But that's not happening because so far primary voters, Democratic primary, uh, voters, when they've been polled in Maine, have been saying that they want this guy, and they seem to still be saying that, uh, i- in the wake of, of the controversies. The controversies including his tattoos, his past, uh, you know, awful things he's said on the internet, um, and, uh, and now this, uh, texting thing.

Ri- Am I missing anything?

Um, yeah, the Reddit, the texting. Yeah, I mean, there's other things. Like, I'll get into a couple other things, but I think those are the big ones. Um, yeah, they're all kind of like an accumulation of trying to piece together the guy's background, but I don't wanna preview, like, my sort of anxiety- Okay

about the situation. Yeah, yeah.

So what I would say about this is the reality of this is your candidate, is A. B, I think that voters are, are more willing to forgive past transgressions than we give them credit for, particularly than we give them credit for on the Democratic side. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna say a little about that, and then I'm gonna say what I think is the counterargument to that and respond to it, and then it'll be your turn.

The- There's a reason that when you talk to people who are politically engaged but have never run for office, one of the most common things they will say when you ask them if they ever thought about running for office or when you talk to them about, you know, running for office, they, often people say, "Oh, man, you know, I, I could never run because I've had, like, experiences in my life and I've lived the kind of life..."

Like, it is w- a, a throw-off thing that people say all the time, that, you know, "With my background, I could never run because of this or that. I'd get..." You know? And that is because it is far more common To have lived a life that will not look perfect upon examination than it is to have lived a life that would look perfect upon examination.

And that is what I think we are seeing with people being so quick to, uh, look past these things with Platner, because I think they look at it and one, they say, look, this is... I think rightfully they say, this is a guy who we sent to war four times, and that has an effect on a person. And now that person's been through therapy and made changes in their life, and it, it...

Like, for me personally, not at all difficult to believe that he's a totally different person than he has been in the past. And that doesn't mean that, uh, you get therapy and then, and then all of, you know, it all changes at once. Like, I believe it's a journey and he's probably still changing and getting better, and I think that's true for all of us.

And I think people are really willing to accept that, and I think an unwillingness to accept that in our candidates has probably caused us to miss out on some pretty effective messengers and good candidates who are actually good people who have made mistakes in the past, uh, as candidates. That's the first thought that I have.

The second thought, um, that I have about this is that people are going to say, "Okay, yeah, but, um, you know, he's not been, uh, all that, you know, forthcoming about this or that." Um, and to that I say, uh, yeah, because that stuff's embarrassing. Like, most people would be, like, not in a hurry to disclose embarrassing things, which again, I think makes him a little more of a normal person.

Um, and, and so h- I... You know, look, yeah, maybe there's more stuff that's gonna come out and it's gonna be disqualifying, but for me, thus far, like particularly this last thing, I don't think anybody is in any position to judge a, a couple who says, "This is a thing we dealt with in our marriage, and we're... and it's been dealt with."

Because, like, how many marriages have not dealt with stuff? I just, it, it, I... To me, it's not relevant. Um, but you know, it is to other people, I understand.

I think from, you know, from my perspective, first of all, stipulated that if I were living in Maine, whoever the Democratic nominee is is who I would vote for, unless that person turns out to be a true psycho.

Like, there was that situation in Texas where the woman was, like, saying she wanted to build concentration camps or something, and I'm like, yeah, that's one I would sit out. Yeah, no, no, no. Uh, I would not vote for her. So within reason, like- You know, unless this guy t- you know, we learn that he's a secret, you know, serial killer or something, I would vote for him over Susan Collins, who's been enabling some really bad stuff.

And w- we'll show a clip from Tim Miller in a second where he makes that argument. That being said, um, I do have a lot of anxiety about him. Uh, and for people who support him, like I know everybody thinks any criticism of him is some kind of an endorsement of Susan Collins. I'm sorry. Like, you don't listen to this podcast for me to just, you know, like do a h- a 60-minute ad for Democrats.

Like, we're having a conversation here about what I truly believe about this candidate who was just on this podcast.

And so here's my problem. Um, I'm not sure he was honest with us two weeks ago, uh, and I'll, and I'll, I'll kinda come back around to that.

Um, and I think that there's this sense that, uh, that authenticity is how somebody dresses or whether they curse a lot or whatever, but I actually think authenticity starts with looking peoples in, people in the eyes, especially voters, and being honest. And that, that allows for what you said, which is being honest about the mistakes that you've made and all of that, and I think the clock starts when you run for office.

Uh, and that the minute you start lying while you're running for office, then you're not authentic anymore, you're just a liar. Uh, and I don't know whether Graham Plattner is a liar. Um, I certainly have a lot of questions, and he is too new on the scene and has a lot of things that, that require us to trust his explanation of things.

And there was, like, an example where we asked him about the tattoo, and again, like, there, I am perfectly willing to accept somebody who got a tattoo that they regret getting rid of it. What I said, what I thought at the time, and then you and I talked about again last week, and that I've been sitting with since, is that there was this moment where I asked him about, or said a listener asked him about, um, the Campaign manager, I think it was, right?

I can't remember the exact detail, but it was the campaign manager had said that he had confided in her that he knew about it, and that there was some other Reddit posts that he was in the middle of, or somebody else mentioned that they knew what it was. Plus common sense and the timing of when he got rid of it, where I'm just like, "You're asking me to believe you and your explanation for this."

Which again, I, I don't even care about the thing as much if you've changed your mind and grown as a human being, right? But I need an explanation that I can take home with me to be like, "I feel comfortable with this." Um, and it's just a lot to ask when there's a lot of other things that show that you might have some character deficits that are not that far away, right?

We're not talking about when you were 25. We're talking about in the past few years, and you are running for office for the people of Maine and for this country, 'cause you're a US senator, you're voting policy for all of us, and you conducted an exercise within your campaign where you knew your vulnerabilities.

You gave multiple interviews after that where you were asked if there was more stuff to come out, and you said no multiple times. And now you're asking me to trust you when now we know this has come out, uh, since you knew about it, so you lied in those interviews about whether there were more things to come out.

Like it would take like a pretty slick lawyer to be like, "That's not something that would've been a scandal. Come on." Like, like that... So, so now I'm wondering what else is gonna come out. I'm also wondering like, what am I hanging my hat on to say that this guy has the integrity, uh, to make me trust every other explanation about his background?

And once again, I will vote for him over Susan Collins. I'm just worried about, uh, running against a person like Susan Collins who overperforms every year, um, and who's running against somebody who, uh, and I said this to you, uh, offline, uh, which is I s- my impression after that interview is like I'm worried that he doesn't like take direction from people around him.

I was getting that vibe. He needs to have people who tell him the truth around him, and he needs to get his shit together in this campaign so that he's telling a consistent story that's an honest story about his background. And I am willing to accept anybody's growth. I'm an educator. Anybody who says, "I did this thing wrong," it could be a DUI, it could be cheating on your wife, it could be getting the wrong tattoo, it could be speaking a certain way about other soldiers, it could be s- like any, it could, almost anything, I'm willing to accept people to grow from.

I just haven't been able to piece together all of his explanations in a way where I'm like, "I understand this guy." And it's not for my vote. I don't live in Maine. And I, if I did, I would vote for him anyway in the general election. I'm just worried about other people who are looking at this and being like, "I need to make heads or tails of who this guy is," and I'm concerned about it

We're gonna start out talking Graham Platner a little bit because he's a great framing tool for everything I wanna get off my chest.

I wanna be really clear, I'm gonna say that a lot in this video. I don't like this dude. He feels like a seasonal villain from a prestige political drama like House of Cards or Scandal or something. I'm not saying he's a Nazi, but he's at least, like, Hydra, or Order of the Cyclops for those of you that watched Watchmen all those years ago.

He just is that guy, and it's incredibly obvious to anyone who isn't some of y'all. And this isn't just taking issue with his military service. I don't have a purity politic toward anything, really, if you know me, but definitely not ex-military people on the left. I am anti-American military. Like, I don't wanna misconstrue that.

But there are also Black Panthers who were ex-military. The American military spends billions of dollars marketing and propagandizing young people across this country, so I try to hold a nuanced position for how that works. But I wouldn't apply this to Platner. Four tours and Blackwater and a Nazi tattoo is a lot, and I know that's not a hot take.

I know even more moderate folks would agree with that, so I have to wonder why and how is Platner being pushed so hard by the establishment and the online left in general? Platner is the latest project out of the Fight Agency. The Fight Agency is a political consultancy that was started by some ex-Bernie Sanders, ex-John Fetterman folks.

And in recent years, they've been behind the success of Zuhram Mamdani, as well as people like Dan Osborne, Bob Brooks, et cetera. And aside from Zuhram Mamdani, you kinda see what's happening here. All we're missing is Hank Hill. Like, the main mostly valid argument that I will give about Platner is that he's one of the few folks amongst the Democrats that vows to pull military support from Israel.

Not a single taxpayer dollar should be spent on arming and defending a country that commits a genocide.

And that is extremely important for Palestinian liberation, but I do have to ask, why are we being asked to not just tolerate Platner for that reason, but to see him almost as the future of the Democratic Party and maybe even the left?

Why has he become the darling of the online predominantly white left in this timeframe? Why did the Fight Agency scout him in the first place? It's because the Fight Agency knows that this image of white American exceptionalism, and especially masculinity, is still highly valued amongst the white masses.

He's doing a reskin of the Marlboro Man, or better yet, like Don Draper, Joel Miller from The Last of Us. Literally, he looks like Walter White. And I want you to remember, all of these characters were villains, and historically, it's always straight white men that fail to realize that fact about those characters.

And when you're not a straight white male, you always take note of those types of fans. They may not be the worst people in the world, but they're people to observe. But the left falling for the same trick like this is not surprising when you realize that white leftists in America have never consistently had a halfway decently developed racial analysis, and this is just a historical pattern at this point.

Again, shout out to a book I've been reading from Bryan Quobah, Hubert Harrison: The Forbidden Genius of Black Radicalism. Hubert Harrison was a lesser-known Black socialist who worked and wrote in the same eras as Booker T. Washington, Du Bois, and Garvey, and was to the left of all of them during that time, in- including Du Bois.

But in this, he also found himself confounded by the challenge of organizing with white socialists, who at the time could not see past their anti-Blackness to form effective solidarity and build a functional coalition. And this pattern has never stopped repeating, which is illustrated by this excerpt from Eugene Debs that's in the book.

"In capitalism, the Negro question is a grave one, and will grow more threatening as the contradictions and complications of capitalist society multiply," Debs allowed. "But this need not worry us. Let them settle the Negro question in their way if they can. We have nothing to do with it, for that is their fight."

Debs here exemplified the way in which even radical white people who called for a working class revolution against capitalism could simultaneously distance themselves from the specific challenges facing the most oppressed segment of the working class. I'm bringing this up because I wanna show that this is an infinite loop at this point.

White leftists with little to no racial analytical frame can't help but censor their sensibilities, even in the face of obvious red flags or clearly better options if they don't appeal to their aesthetics and need to censor themselves. Why have we centered Graham Platner when we have Chris Rabb, who, from what I understand, is the furthest left candidate the Democrats have ever had in any political race?

And he low-key still fits the gruff leftist daddy kink that so many of y'all seem to like. Another face that I haven't seen on my feed at all and I had to get from somebody else is Charles Booker. Booker has as progressive an agenda as you can have in mainstream politics, and is in a very vulnerable red state that could use a lot more attention and support from the online left And it's not there.

Booker's not just anti sending weapons to Israel, he's Medicare for all, he's for universal basic income, stopping data centers, decriminalizing poverty, and reparations. It's everything you can want from a mainstream politician, but he's invisible compared to Platner. I don't follow elections much unless it's local, but I have seen Platner's face a million times more than either Rob or Booker.

Rob did spend some time with Hasan. Booker, he's got nothing as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, Platner has tons of interviews, Majority Report, Mehdi Hasan, New York Times. Why is this happening? Why is that viable? From my perspective and experience, a lot of white leftists understand that it's bad to be racist, but they don't actually understand why racism is bad or how it works.

The absence of a critical understanding of how whiteness works is why a lot of them fall for the same trick over and over, to the point where the fight agency clearly has this type built out just for y'all. If you wanna vote for Platner as an odious candidate that will help end military support to Israel, go ahead, but it should be treated as a tainted compromise for the sake of a free Palestine, not a vision for the future of the left.

He should not be in our faces as much as he is. He should not have the defenders that he has that I know will show up in his comment section. He should be the online left's sneaky link that you never seen the light of day and never talk about in public, and the fact that so many white leftists don't feel this is sadly par for the course.

The red flags that he has don't bother some of y'all because those red flags have never been weaponized against you But when you're someone who's historically been targeted by this archetype, you pay attention to those patterns. You don't compromise with that. For reasons I won't get into, I've had to spend the last few weeks arguing that normalizing Nazi terminology but wokely is bad, and that no one on the left should be doing it.

And I've had some, not many, not many, I wanna be clear, but plenty of white leftists try to argue that nobody cares about Nazis, as if a couple of Nazis didn't just shoot up a mosque in San Diego just a few weeks ago, or the fact that that exact type of Nazi terrorism happens, like, every six to 18 months in America.

And it's impossible to remain in community or struggle with people who don't seem to mind that, who always put themselves first, especially when the struggle isn't about them in the first place. And after half a decade online, I'm tired of seeing this pattern and repeating these same complaints. But the problem is that this entire space has always catered to a specific type of white guy online, and that's what it was built for and what it always probably will be.

See, BreadTube emerged as a venue to rehabilitate right-wing edgelords into leftist progressives, all after the rise of the alt-right. It has always had an extremely high tolerance for what Graham Plattner is, 'cause he just like them for real.

Ron Kovic, played by Tom Cruise in Born on the Fourth of July is Oliver Stone film, but it's based on his book.

He was a veteran who was... who writes in his book how much he was brainwashed into being an American exceptionalist, and that's why he went to the Vietnam War. He comes back from the Vietnam War, um, disabled. He can't walk anymore, and he gets treated terribly by the veterans hospital, and then he becomes this anti-war protester who was even leading protests against the Iraq War.

So this is like the archetype of a veteran who goes in with good intent- good intentions, becomes disillusioned through combat, and then dedicates his life to something more positive. Graham Platter is literally not that, but that is how he's being characterized by leftist media. Like, he is a guy who just got caught up in the military, came out and became some sort of anti-war crusader, and it's just...

it's such bullshit in terms of... I can talk about this a bit later of why it's bullshit, but in terms of his Reddit account comes out. He obviously has a Nazi tattoo. I mean, I'm not even g- I'm not even getting too hung up on that point because I do think it's bad, but there's so much other shit he's done, and then on his Reddit account, he posts a lot about enjoying combat, enjoying the Iraq War, wanting...

Like, he literally wrote on Reddit in 2010, "I can't wait to go to Afghanistan." And then he went to Afghanistan, then he becomes a Blackwater mercenary, and he's 34, 35 when he finishes all of this. So I think he's 42 now. So that's, uh, from the ages of 18 to 35, he went to Iraq and Afghanistan like five times, um, non-stop, and then comes out of that and has a bit of like, um, a infatuation with maybe socialist violence because he joins, he joins a socialist writer association.

This is like five years ago, and then in like 2024, he tries to get into politics, right? So the context of him being a career mercenary versus the context of him being portrayed as some sort of anti-war working class, uh, person who was caught up in the system, who never hurt anyone, it's just like completely at odds with each other.

But what I want to ask you as someone who obviously, you know, you, you are Am- you are, you are like fully American. Like you were born in America, weren't you?

Yeah.

Okay. So you were raised in America. So if you want to tell me from your perspective, like especially as someone who's a leftist as well, how, how deep is the military indoctrination like throughout your life that you could be a leftist and not be horrified by what this guy has done?

Can you like explain to me like how US like general society, like how is there so many leftists right now not seeing what this guy did as bad?

I can speak for myself personally, 'cause I have, like as I told you, quite a few issues with Plattner. When I think about seeing military brainwashing, um, around me in America, it's for the longest time, it's just completely unchallenged and ubiquitous in terms of we view troops as having sacrificed.

Even liberals view troops as having sacrificed for the greater good. Coming home, the focus is entirely on the needs of the veterans to get, you know, healthcare and, and, um, benefits. Uh, and when it comes to There, I mean, there's just no moral question whatsoever. I-- Maybe an illustrative example from something recently.

I have a friend who I recently found out, uh, does IT, um, systems for naval ships in San Diego. Um, and he's not, he's not in the military, but he's a subcontractor, or he's a contractor. Um, and I found this out right around the time that that girls' school in Iran had been bombed, and it was destroyed with a Tomahawk missile, which was fired from a US naval ship that had, I think, come from San Diego, or it was-- come from somewhere around where he could've been working on.

And-

Yeah ...

I kind of had to confront him and be like, "So you know about this. Do, do you or, like, does anyone that's a part of what you guys are doing, like, think about the morality of that? Or, like, the, the, you know, about what happened and your potential role in it?" And it was just, I mean, it was no.

Obviously, it was like this didn't e-- It was like I, I'm the first person to have asked him this question. And- Yeah ... that's, that's I guess maybe a more active role. That's someone that's directly a part of it and still not even thinking about it, and so maybe subject to more pressures. But, like, from a voter's perspective, like, when people make the argument that the average American is gonna see it as a benefit if someone's a mari-- like a, a veteran, they're gonna see it as like a, "Yeah, I guess they sacrificed for us," even if they are, you know, like a Plotner.

Uh, it's not really... People, uh, left, the left seems to view that as, like, a, a mass appeal, broad appeal sort of character trait. Like, he's a veteran. Americans generally really fuck with the military. Even if they're not pro-war, they still fuck with, like, veterans' rights and stuff 'cause they know, you know, I don't know how they're portrayed in media and movies, and I guess in the context of, like, the Vietnam War or something, where there was a, a large effort from within America to, you know, try and protest it, given that it was direct relatives of so many people.

But, like, now, I mean, seeing what's happening with Plotner is it is a little bit insane because it's this, it's, it's like the left media people you would expect, you would expect to be challenging him on this, um, on this history are just totally willing to overlook it. Is it... I, I don't really have an answer to your question other than I guess, um- elected, electability, like, like a, a, a, some kind of a benefit to the, you know- Yeah

to the appeal of a working class, like aesthetic leftist without looking too deep into what actually happened. You can just kind of drop them in the, in the, in the archetype, in the character, and that seems to work. And, and I don't know. I mean, the way I see... Like I, I just think the average American doesn't care and isn't going-- and is gonna think you're a little crazy if you, if you tell them like, um, like they know war is bad and stuff, and most people don't agree with the Iraq war.

But if you tell them your uncle went there and killed people, they're like, "He was just doing his duty." And it's still like that- Yeah ... for most of the country, it feels like, which is, you know, i-in contrast with something like, I don't know, people's views on, um, a current conflict or on Israel. People are aware of how like morally and materially fucked up these things are.

But when it comes to, yeah, military service, it's just not, that's just not a part of it

So a, a couple things. Um, I obviously take your point, like for example, if you're looking at it in terms of just politics on its own, do people in the Maine Senate race prefer a veteran? Okay, whatever. But that, that's the thing that I don't understand as well.

It's gone so beyond this is the lesser of two evils, like get this guy in because the other person's so bad. It's gone so beyond that where like I saw Emma Vigeland, she was saying Catlett should be president, and also most presidents are senators, so you're not just getting people like, "Oh, it's just Maine.

You... How, what, you care about Maine so much? Like why do you give a shit about Maine?" It's not about that. It's he becomes a senator, he's set up for the next 40 years for a pretty juicy political career, especially if people like him. And it's like you're playing this role in propagandizing him. And also what I don't understand is he doesn't have a political record beyond serving in the military.

It's like he does not have that political record. It's like Zohran Mamdani, I just saw a tweet randomly the other day of some account, it just came up from like 2021, someone talking about him on left-wing media. He has that track record 'cause he was in the New York Assembly, so even if you have problems with him or whatever, like problems with him being a nepo, he has that record of being good politically and he's proven it.

Like I don't agree with everything he's done since he's become mayor, but it's like I understand why people trust him. With Graydon Catlett, it's like he hasn't done anything. And, and how, how do you- All he likes is

killing. That's all we know

about him. All he likes is, all he likes is killing. Bludgeon.

And this is what I don't understand is, is like whe- since when do leftists not care about someone's character? So like I said, if he was Ron Kovic, like a Ron Kovic-like figure, someone who was not drafted, 'cause that doesn't happen really, but if he volunteered for the Iraq War and even did two tours or whatever, Ron Kovic did two tours of Vietnam, and then he comes out disillusioned at like 20 years old, that is so, so different to what he is.

Like so different. He... Because people, when I criticize him, they, I f- and I, I saw this the other day, someone actually tweeted this to me like, "Oh, are people... You know, he went into the military and got disillusioned." He di- he didn't get disillusioned. He, he joined Blackwater in 2018. I was making YouTube videos about why Iraq was bad in like 2018.

It's like this is no excu- this is no excuse. He was 34 years old, and this is why I find it so gross, and this is another question I wanna ask you, right? So like you were saying, you know someone who works as a subcontractor and that Iran stuff happened. If you said to someone right now in the American left, if I ask Emma Vigeland, Mehdi Hasan or just Hasan, "Would you vote for someone who dropped the bomb on that school if they suddenly said they were socialist 20 years later?

Would you vote for them?" And I, and I would say most people would immediately be like, "Fuck no." The Iraq War was 10 times worse than what's happening to Iran right now. I'm not saying what's happening to Iran isn't terrible, but the Iraq War was like US soldiers going into people's homes and murdering them, right?

And they killed like nearly like the, the aftermath of the conflict when you, when all is said and done with the rise of ISIS and stuff, it's like a million people were killed because of the US, right? Graham Plattner not only did that once, he did it three times. He served in some of the worst battles. He, he did two more tours after he was a machine gunner in Fallujah.

They poisoned Fallujah, so people born today have birth defects from that battle because of all the depleted uranium shells that the tanks were using, right? So it's like I- obviously Americans don't know that, but you, you'd think it's for leftists. Like I'm a British person who's 30 years old, right? A lot of these leftists whitewashing Plattner, they're like 10 years older than me.

So not only do they remember the Iraq War, they remember it properly. I remember it as a kid, but I wasn't an adult. Like they're like 18, 19, 20 when you're like a student activist, a lot of these people would be like against the Iraq War. And now they're here saying, "Not only is it not bad he did this, it's actually a good thing he's a veteran."

And it's just insane because here, here's the thing I'll say about Iran. If Graham Plattner was a dual Israeli citizen who fought in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2014, no matter what he said or did afterwards, would the American left forgive him? Would, would they ever forgive him? And, and everyone in the chat knows, and I'm sure you know, no way in hell.

Hassan was saying Zionists shouldn't even be dog catchers. So you can't trust a Zionist to be a dog catcher right now. Let's say you can't trust Bernie Sanders to be a dog catcher. But at the same time, I can trust someone who like murdered people for 20, like not 20 years, like 15 years, and, and apparently that's like you were saying, he hasn't done anything else.

He just likes killing. So it's like that's his political record, killing.

Now, Section C, THE TEXAS SENATE FIGHT

let's get right into the contours of this race, starting with Paxton's, uh, victory speech, where he previewed his line of attack

This campaign is not about red versus blue. It's about so much more. My opponent is the most extreme radical the Democrats have ever nominated. He's even running a vegan campaign, whatever that is.

He goes by a few names that you may all have heard of. Some people know him as Tofu Talarico. Some people call him Six Gender Jimmy. I've even heard some people call him James Talarico. And others refer to him simply as Low T Talarico. But no matter what you call him, let me tell

you this You are listening to the Texas Attorney General, now the projected Republican candidate in the Texas Senate-

James Talarico is a radical agenda item running for the United States Senate.

He's a threat to our safety, our freedom- That's very, very Trumpy. He's trying to run the Trump playbook. Uh, at least Trump picks a nickname, man. I mean... Have

you seen, have you seen the ads that they're put up, they put up already on this? Um-

No.

So I think like the mental space I'm bringing to this is like the after election 2024 mental energy where you're like, okay, like the instinct when they put up, when, when Trump goes to McDonald's or they put up the Charlemagne ad on the trans stuff is to be like, oh, this is foolish.

But I think, uh, the more appropriate way to handle this is to take it seriously and then go through it and say, okay, audience members, there's a lot in Texas, but then a lot of people who are just out there fighting the good fight is to kind of dissect these and talk about what's a real risk versus what's completely taken out of context.

And s- although still a risk is, uh, e- more easily dispensable, uh, to be dispensed with. Um, before we move on though, there was one interesting moment of this rally, uh, before we start to dissect these, uh, claims where there's this common theme amongst Republicans I'm seeing where they're talking about taking the country back.

Uh, here's GOP representative Brandon Gill.

So back, aren't we? And you know what that means? That means that we are finally going to take our country back, aren't we?

It goes without saying they have the presidency, they have the US Senate, they have the House of Representatives, they have the Supreme Court, they have a super majority in the legislature in the very state he's standing in, a- as well as the governor's mansion, and the lieutenant governor, and the attorney general.

Uh, but they're... Jason, they're taking the country back.

So some, some political movements are only comfortable working from the minority and work, and, and feeling like they're on the outside. And there's a, like, a local analogy to this that I can remember. Um, about a decade ago here in Kansas City, there was a guy, his name's Mark Funkhouser, and he was the, uh, city auditor, and he ran for...

I guess it was over a decade ago now. He ran for, um, mayor, and nice guy, uh, was very much an auditor. Like, he could, he was really good at pointing out what wasn't working. And it turned out, once he became mayor, he wasn't much of a manager, and he really struggled. But one, one thing I remember very distinctly is in interviews, he would constantly talk about the they.

"They are doing this. They are doing that. This is why he's mayor." Right. "And what needs to change is this." And people would be like, "But you're the mayor now." And, and what happened was he turned out not to be very effective at governing and was actually the first mayor of Kansas City to fail to get reelected in, like, a generation.

And, and it, I think about that a lot when I think about, you know, the Trump brand of Republican and how they govern. 'Cause they, they run saying, "All these people are screwing you, and we've gotta, you know, we've gotta stand up to the people screwing you," and then they get into a position of power, and they keep saying, "All these people are screwing you," and so they never do any actual governing.

Right. Uh, well, uh, there's a lot of reasons why they need to sort of in- invent, uh, an establishment that's running this country, uh, because they do have some pretty significant liabilities that we'll get to. Um, but, you know, sticking with Talarico for a second, um, he's addressed some of these claims. You know, if you go look at the ads that they're playing, they're, they're piecing together a bunch of different things.

A claim he made about immigration where he said he wanted to be a welcome mat, and they cut out the part where he said, um, "And a locked door," or something. There was like some com- like combination where he was basically saying, "For the criminals, we don't want you here, but there are other people we wanna welcome," within context is something I totally agree with, and I imagine most voters would agree with.

Um, they had this claim about trans, uh, where he was asked in a, in an a- in an interview about, um, what is the... I forget the exact question. It was something like, what's the, you know, the, um, like who are, what, w- what do you, what's most top of mind or something like that, and he named, uh, trans, uh, children. Uh, and cut from it was the fact that he was talking about how in the, the day before, there, a bunch of trans, uh, children visited him in his office, and there was some kind of legislation going through, which like context, right?

Maybe like still out of step with some Texas voters, but what they're trying to do is put a parade of things to make him seem weird, right? Uh, the vegan claim strangely is somehow top of list here, that somehow, you know, not eating animal products is the claim. So he, uh, just addressed this recently. This is what he had to say.

We, we have seen the, the, the beginnings of Republicans try to figure out how they can attack you in this race. Right. One of, one of those, uh, talking points they landed on was that, was that you're a vegan. Um, can, can I just have your, your th- your reaction to, to, to that? Because I have seen, uh, a non-zero number of photos of you eating barbecue down in Texas.

That's right. Yeah, I, our campaign basically runs on barbecue these days. Yeah. And if, if all they have is lying about me being a vegan, uh, I feel pretty good about our chances in November. I think it also just shows the, the extent to which they will go to distract from this disastrous economy. I mean, with the way the price of beef is going up, we all may be forced to be vegans at some point.

Uh, so I'm gonna keep focusing on, on lowering costs. I'm gonna keep focusing on, on putting working people first, taking on this corruption so that we can unrig this economy. I think that's what Texans want. They're kind of tired of, of these, of these, uh, games in our politics, uh, the mudslinging and the, the nicknames and the trolling and the owning.

But none of this is gonna lower our costs. None of this is gonna increase our pay. None of this is gonna cut our taxes. And so I think what we're doing in this campaign is bringing people together across all these divisions, standing up to the silliness in our politics, standing up to the corruption in our political system so that we can actually start delivering for Texans.

Yeah. I saw another one, m- maybe this quote was in the outline, where he says, you know, "I've been eating barbecue since before Paxton's first indictment."

I know. That is a good line. Uh, you could see what the Republicans are trying to do, though. Like, they're trying to- Oh, yeah ... make this guy as different, and as somebody who cares a lot about animal rights, and at various points has been a vegan and a vegetarian in my life, uh, it pains me that this is a political attack, but I get it.

I get what they're trying to do. Uh- They- You know, and, and I think- There's- Oh, sorry.

Oh, uh, there's two things they're trying to do. Me- as somebody who, you know, ran for Senate in a red state, uh, it, I mean, like, it is weird, and I may have said this to James when he was on the show, it's weird watching his campaign unfold, because it feels, it's like one gun ad away from-

feeling like I'm watching myself, you know, 10 years ago. And b- the way he's caught fire, and people, you know, and he's caught people's imagination, and he's, he talks differently. He's a liberal, but he's able to communicate with cons- all that stuff that people are saying about him, obviously I see a lot of similarities in it, and I've told James that.

So I'm very familiar with why they attack the way they do, right? And the way that, the way they're attacking him is meant to do two things, one much less than the other. The much lesser thing, the much lesser version of the vegan attack is just, look, we, this is a beef state, and so, you know, to get, you know, people in the beef industry upset.

But, like, most of those people aren't voting for Talarico anyway. Really, what they're doing, the central idea behind their message is this guy wouldn't fit in in your neighborhood. He's not- Yeah ... like us. And, you know, when they were running ads against me on, uh, you know, because I was in favor of gun safety measures, I never really felt like they were trying to convince that many gun owners that I was gonna take their guns away, because I don't think many of them believed I, I wanted to, or at least didn't believe I would have the votes to make that happen, right?

But what they, what those ads were really meant to do just like these ads they're running against James, is to say he, not only is he not like you, he wouldn't like you.

Yeah.

He's the kind of person who if you and he met, he would judge you.

Right.

And so w- what my gun ad and other things I did in that campaign did, is it said, it just said, "You and I don't agree on everything, but we're the same."

Right. And, and that's, that's the challenge now for the Talarico campaign, is to make sure that their response to these things is not to m- and they're doing a pretty good job so far, but is not to meet these things where they seem to be, but meet them where they truly are, which is for every response to be one that is very clearly, like- You and I are the same, and I understand you and like you, and want to fight for you

Ken Paxton obviously crushed in the primary after Trump endorsed him this Tuesday. GOP voters, as we said before- ... are literal cattle. Like, they will just go wherever Trump tells them to go. They are the Aristotelian idea of a natural slave.

They are just predisposed to- Yes. ... to acting like this, dude. There's no getting away from it. It is, it is so funny- ... that, like, John Cornyn was the, like, better pick when it comes to the Republicans. Yeah. And they, they still went with Ken Paxton. They still went with Ken Protect Pedophiles Paxton. Dude. They still went with Ken- Yes

Sodomy Laws Paxton. Oh, my God. And, and John Cornyn had, like, a couple of weeks ago posted this, dude. They were both trying to win Trump's favor, right? Of course. They were both like, John Cornyn was even entertaining, like, "Yeah, maybe I will wanna get rid of the filibuster if you endorse me, Trump." Like, that, like...

And, and at one point, John Cornyn posts this picture on Twitter of him reading The Art of the Deal. Bro, they're just dancing. Yeah. They're just dancing for him. They're jestermaxing. Yes. Oh, my God. Yes. No, so that, and that's what I mean when I say GOP voters are literal cattle. There's no real, like, difference voting-wise between these two guys, but Trump said, "Go vote for this guy," and they went and voted for that guy.

It, it's so funny how it's like, yeah, that happens. And, like, candidates, like, when they're trying to curry favor with Trump, they'll do crazy things, and it, it's, it's much like the, uh, the White House press briefing room. You remember when they brought influencers in there? Mm-hmm. And they would just get up there and ask questions like, "Oh, President Trump's dick too big and his swag is way too hard."

Yeah. "Why do the Democrats suck so bad?" That's, like, what these Senate candidates do. Yeah. Getting on twitter.com and reading The Art of the Deal, performatively reading The Art of the Deal to curry favor with the president is insane, John. Yeah, no, it is. It's insane, and that's probably the type of behavior that makes you lose to a guy like Ken Paxton, a cheat on my wife at the Kentucky Derby Ken Paxton.

Yeah. No, losing to Ken Paxton is just, it's just fucking crazy, dude. So all the recent polling between Talarico and Paxton has Talarico up, like, five to seven points- In Texas only ... for the gen- for the general election in Texas, but we should not be tricked into contentedness here. This is true. Because it's, one, it's Texas.

Yep. And again, the Texas, Texas voters, evil. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Texas voters cannot be trusted. We, we, we've, we've been fooled by the Blexit streams before. Yes. And I, I'm not gonna take it this time. But also, we do need to take a look at what the actual attacks on Talarico are before we can commit to believing in Blexit this year.

Okay. So I wanna take a look at what Ken Paxt- Again, the c- the campaign for the general just started, right? The, the runoff primary just happened. Paxton just finally got settled into the general election race. Talarico now knows who he's running against. And so Paxton got to make his opening argument against Talarico after he won that primary, and I wanna take a look at this clip from Ken Paxton's, uh, Twitter account, I believe.

It's about a minute and a half, and it sort of previews what all of the attacks about Talarico are gonna be. Okay. And I do have to say Brace yourself because I didn't know Ken Paxton sounded like this. Wait, oh my, I don't think I've ever heard him. It, it dawned on me when I heard this clip, like, "Oh, I've never heard him speak," and I wish I hadn't.

Wait. Oh, okay. All right. We're- Here we go. My opponent is the most extreme radical the Democrats have ever nominated. He's even running a vegan campaign, whatever that is. Oh my God.

He goes by a few names that you may all have heard of. Some people know him as Tofu Talarico. Some people call him Six Gender Jimmy. I love this. Back off. I've even heard some people call him James Talarico. That's kind of awesome actually. And others refer to him simply as Low T Talarico. But no matter what you call him, let me tell you this.

James Talarico is a threat to everything we hold dear, dear in this state and in this country. He's a threat to our security and our safety. He wants open borders, and even said a, said a welcome mat should be at our southern border Incredibly vague. He's a threat to our children. Dude, spit it out. Like, he can't even read the cue cards.

He wants boys in girls sports. Does- Gender mutilation surgery performed on kids. Ew. And when asked what he loved outside of his family f- and friends, you heard what Brandon Gill said, his first answer was trans ch- trans kids. He can't get it out. That's weird, and that's a radical guy. I've never seen a less passionate speech before.

Yeah. I've never seen s- not since Ron DeSantis have I seen a GOP c- somebody who's running for office in the GOP have that little charisma. Oh, yeah. And I did not know he sounded like that. I'll get to the content in a little bit. I'm k- frankly floored- Mm-hmm ... by h- the lack of motion that Ken Paxton has. Oh, yeah, no.

For a guy that's as goofy as him, who's done as many things as him, who's arguably Texas' most corrupt man- Yeah ... to go out there and frankly sound like a dork is insane. Yeah. No, you, you gotta put him in the same category as Ron DeSantis and Haley Stevens of people who need a personality transplant. Yeah.

Oh, my God, 100%. Like, he, he belongs right there with them. And, like, I feel like that's an entirely fair attack to say, "This guy sounds like a dork and a nerd," when the attacks on Talarico are transgender Talarico, low T Talarico. Yeah. No, that's the thing, is, like, Ken Paxton's only attack on Talarico is like, "Look at this gay trans guy, am I right?"

Exactly. Look at this gay... J- Jimmy Six Genders over here says that you can't be a Christian if you fuck with big oil. Yeah. And it's like, ag- yeah, like you said, like, Ken Paxton, one of the most corrupt men in US politics, and he's competing with the Trump administration, by the way. Yes. Uh, he was impeached by his own party for corruption in the Texas legislature a few years ago.

He recently gave a softball plea deal to a guy who literally admitted to sexually abusing a young boy. He cheated on his wife with a Christian influencer at the Kentucky Derby, which- Oh, my God ... most Texas thing I've ever heard, by the way. Yes. And he said he would enforce sodomy laws if Lawrence v. Texas was overturned, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

This guy is just evil. No, he's, he's the worst. He's just evil. And I, I gotta pull up this tweet that I saw that I thought was just perfect. This is from @factpost on Twitter. It says, "As attorney general, Ken Paxton sued schools that didn't display the Ten Commandments inside their classrooms. Some of the Commandments include, 'Thou shall not commit adultery.'

Paxton allegedly had multiple extramarital affairs." Yes. "Thou shall not steal." P- Paxton was indicted for felony securities fraud and impeached for misusing public resources. I believe that's what the Texas Republicans- Yeah ... in the Texas State House impeached him over. And, "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Paxton was impeached for making false statements in official records. Oh, that's what he was impeached for. Yeah. And, like, c- come on, man. And if there was a commandment that there probably should be about, "Thou shall not help pedophiles out"- ... he did that, too. Yes. Like, what are we talking about? Like, completely unprompted, too.

Totally unnecessary. Just let this guy walk. All while he's, like, moving like that. Yeah. All while that's how he public speaks. Yeah. I, and I, I- Holy shit ... I was reading, uh, an article from the Texas Tribune, which will be linked below if you guys wanna go and read it, uh, essentially laying out, like, exactly what happened here.

Because naturally, cases of sexual abuse, especially against kids, they're very complicated. Yeah. It takes a lot of, like, effort from the state to actually put together a case, 'cause oftentimes it's just one te- testimony versus another, right? Well, this guy had, like, as, as a part of the trial beforehand, he had essentially admitted that he did it.

Oh. And then the, the state attorney general comes in, um, which is Ken Paxton, right, in Texas. Yeah. At least somebody from his office comes in, and they say, "Yeah, we'll give this guy one day in jail." And the Republican judge, the Republican judge is like, "What the fuck is the meaning of this?" What? What? What?

Like, what could possibly be the wisdom in this? And so he ended up getting 60 days after the judge was like, asked the, the victim's mother, like, "Is this what you want?" And she was like, "No." You- So, like, 60 days is already a sweetheart deal. They were offering one day. Dude, you don't even need to push Republicans.

They'll just protect pedophiles. Yes. You don't even need to push them to do it. Donald Trump will protect Jeffrey Epstein. Ken Paxton will protect this guy. Birds of a feather, dude. Like, holy shit, dude. Cut from the same cloth. The Republicans are the party of pedophiles- Yes ... at this point. Oh, my God. That's the guys that they...

And you know Trump endorsing Paxton, birds of a feather right here. Precisely. It's all making sense. Precisely. Pedophiles stick together. Trump in the Sen- or Ken Paxton in the Senate certainly would not vote to release the Epstein files. This is an ally. Yep. These are the allies President Trump needs in his corner to stop the evil, evil Democrats from, uh, exposing the, the lies surrounding the Epstein class, which is good, not bad.

That, that would probably be, like, a more compelling argument to take to the voters than, like, "This guy's gay," right? Yes. Like, I- I'll protect Trump from- Trump's the other- ... from going to jail. I don't know. Like, you, you cannot, you cannot be Ken Paxton and get on the mic after you win your runoff election- Yeah

and say Uh, hey, hey, uh, the, the low-T Talarico- ... over here is, um... Uh, what was that? Oh, uh, uh, it's Jimmy Six Genders. And he's like the... Talarico, like, quite frankly, is the most normal guy ever. Yes. Like, obviously he does, like, the woke preacher thing- He's just like- ... but, like, that's the shtick ... a Christian guy.

Yeah. Like, he's a, he's a pr- uh, what is he, a preacher or a priest or... Is it different? I think he was a teacher and he's like a, uh, I don't know Whatever it is, he's a Bible guy. He, he's a Bible guy who says Bible things and go out there and spits... He evangelizes- Yeah ... much like you all should do for the show.

Uh, he gets out there, he talks about the Bible, and he does it in, like, a woke way, I guess. Yeah. Like, I, I do enjoy the he's-the-only-real-Christian shtick, and it, it, like... How does it not land when he's going out here and saying, "God loves everybody"? Uh-huh. "God wants everybody to be treated with kindness." Um, uh, I think the way that he's, like, excused, if I'm gonna put in quotes, the, uh, God-is-non-binary comments, is he's like, "God transcends what ma- what, like, humans can think of," and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That's just biblically accurate, dog. That's just biblically accurate. I'm sorry. And then you contrast that, you contrast scripture, you contrast a guy who knows his stuff, with Ken Paxton saying, "God fucks with big oil." "God, God wants- Yeah, yeah ... a pipeline." Which, which politician is using religion for their own ends?

God wanted Line 5, or whatever it was. It's like, it's like a caricature of Texas politics. God is in bed with the Shell Corporation and BP, and they wanna make a lot of money, guys. Yeah, no, if, if God didn't want us to use oil, why'd he put so much of it in the ground? Something they'd probably say. Well, 'cause he didn't put the dinosaurs there, 'cause that's not real.

He put the oil there. Exactly. And we pretend it's from dinosaurs, but it's from God to give me money. Yeah. I want money, you guys.

Comedy is illegal again. It's true. It's true. And you know what? It's a sad state of affairs because Trump got elected to make comedy legal. Yeah. Elon Musk, on stage, "Legalize comedy." Legalize comedy. And then he jumps up and does an X, and we can't have that anymore. It- L- we- uh, Trump got elected to bring prices down, prices high.

Yeah. Trump got elected for low gas prices, gas prices high. And Trump got elected to make funny funny again, and funny's not funny anymore apparently. The, the only legal comedy you can do is if you're punching down at, like, trans people or- Yes ... immigrants or something like that. But the moment that somebody else makes fun of the conservatives, suddenly it's illegal, and potentially cause for political violence.

It's true. It's true. We've been looking, we've been looking- ... far and wide- Yeah ... for all of the heated rhetoric that the Democrats are spewing. And guys, I think Katie Miller found it. Yeah. And you know, I- I- I'm sort of a proponent of not making viral tweets, uh, news. Yes. I- I- I don't think if somebody gets a viral tweet it should show up on the news.

R- like, it's really never that deep. Yeah. But this time it actually did, and we're talking about a tweet from the @Democrats account. And you might think, "Whoa, they did something fiery?" No. The, the @Democrats account actually did something? Well, the thing that they actually did here was comment under a post from Stephen Miller about, I believe, the, the Texas Senate primary- It's about James Talarico

or the, the, the general election race that's coming up, with Talarico and, uh, Ken Paxton. And we'll talk about that race a little bit later. But, um, Stephen Miller said some dumb shit about him, like, being trans or gay or whatever. Yep, he's like our first trans, like, guy to run for Senate or some bullshit.

And, and the Democrats official Twitter account just said, "Shut up you ugly fuck." Huge. whi- which is, like, that... Yeah. It, it, it- You know what I mean? ... it's kinda funny, but it's not, like, that funny. It's one of those tweets that you scroll past and you go... Exactly. Like, it's- Exactly ... it's just there. It's not this scathing critique, it's not anything crazy.

But you wouldn't believe what his wife had to say. Yeah, his wife had... What his wife had to say, and what Fox News had to say about this tweet specifically. So let's go ahead and take a listen at, again, this tweet being covered as news on Fox News. Crazy. Your husband came under attack today, uh, when he said, like, the Democrats are, you know, perhaps gonna nominate their first transgender Senate candidate, talking about, uh, Talarico.

And they responded by just, uh, you know, basically saying, "Shut up you ugly-" F word essentially. Any word for the Democrats, their little Twitter account? This is the same violent political rhetoric- ... that is leading people to shooting up, whether it be the White House- Dude, bro ... Correspondents' Dinner or President Trump in Butler.

But what it remains to be seen is this is an anonymous account, and it is run actually by a sad, liberal woman named Paulina. Not very anonymous. Not very anonymous. Which is why Pew says 50% of liberal women at some time have identified that they have a mental health disorder, and she is certainly one of them.

Hmm. What a sad state for the pathetic Democrat party. Katie, bro- Wow ... I can tell you're reading the cue cards. Yeah. I can tell you're trying to get through that cue card really hard. If you're gonna go out there and present yourself as a podcaster and pretend that you have a real podcast- Uh-huh ... not a fake podcast because you got AstroTurf because your husband's, like, deputy chief advisor to Donald Trump or whatever- Yep, yep, yep, yep

you need to at least go out there and, like, be able to deliver a talking point. But what, what, what, what gets me about this clip beyond just the how stupid it is that this is the news, is that nobody is interested in this. Mm-hmm. There's another guy on screen who doesn't say anything, and Laura Ingraham- Yeah

of The Ingraham Angle is just sitting there like, "Fucking whatever, man." 'Cause it's a non-story, dude. Who fucking cares about this? Also, what's the logic? If you call my husband ugly, someone will try to kill him? Exactly. Like, come on now. Like, so- We have to lie and say he's beautiful? Like, what, what are we talking about?

This shit is so stupid. And the fact that conservatives freak the fuck out any time you are slightly mean to them to me is a lesson that we need to be way meaner to these people. Oh, abso- absolutely. They cannot handle being insulted. Especially because, like, this is in the context of the Texas Senate race, which we'll talk more about near the end of the episode.

Yeah. But it's like as soon as Ken Paxton won that primary, everybody took to Twitter to start calling James Talarico transgender- Yes ... to start saying crazy things, to start throwing, like, gay accusations out at him just because of how he looks or whatever, which he just looks like a normal guy. He's just a regular guy.

And yet we can't call Stephen Miller ugly- When it's objective truth ... without that leading to political violence apparently. Yeah. This is, this is another reason why every time, like, an atte- something like the White House Correspondents' Dinner happens or Butler, Pennsylvania happens and people like Lester Holt go and ask Joe Biden or other Democrats what, what they think they're responsible for when it comes to their fiery rhetoric, it's stupid and bullshit and should never be taken seriously.

Yeah. Because there is no fiery rhetoric. If calling Stephen Miller ugly is the fiery rhetoric from the Democrats, that is unacceptable. Lock me up. Yeah. Lock me up. No, I, I, I truly don't understand what the logic is here. This is more of a stretch than the ballroom narrative. Absolutely. Like, "Oh, the shooting wouldn't have happened if we had a ballroom, and if you don't give them a ballroom, you want them to get shot."

Like, this, this is way worse. Like, calling somebody ugly is a call to political violence? Yep. Are you serious? Yep. And it's also funny that, like, Stephen Miller, Stephen Miller, ugly guy Stephen Miller- Yeah ... pretends to, like, be this- Inside and out ... like... Inside and out. Pretends to be this big, like, macho conservative alpha guy- Mm-hmm

'cause they all do and they all look weird, and he has his wife go on the news to defend him. Like, come on. Yeah. Like, that's hilarious. Yeah. If you're accepting his worldview- His podcaster wife ... you gotta think that's goofy. No, it is, it is extremely goofy. I don't know why this made the news, but I mean, I guess fucking shout out at the Democrats for making them squeal like this.

No, for real. That, that's funny at least. I- it's one thing when guys like us see a funny tweet and we make it the news, because we don't do the news, we do a podcast. Yes. But when Laura Ingraham and Fox News and whatever organizations try to pretend that they're serious go out and say this, it's... I- I- how is this not radicalizing?

Yeah, no, how can I take any of this seriously, dude? You can't. It, this is... It's totally meaningless bullshit. And once again, man, the fact that they freak out this much over a simple retort should teach all of us to be a lot meaner to these fucking conservatives. Because they truly cannot handle it. They will freak out over a tweet.

Yes. Over just a tweet that, like, okay, sure, got a crazy ratio, but you can just move on. And it's like so- sometimes they freak out about tweets, and I gotta be like, "Oh, I condemn political violence," or whatever. They just called him ugly. Yeah. It was just an ad hom. They just called... It's just an ad hom. Just an ad hom.

It's just a middle school attack. You know what? Yeah. At first when Laura Ingraham read out that tweet on the air, because I didn't see the tweet first, I saw this clip first. At first when she read it out and she said the F word, I was like, "Oh, shit, the Democrats dropped the F slur?" And I thought they were going a little dark woke with it.

And I was like, "Oh- That would be crazy ... goddamn, that's insane." But no, it's not even that. It's just the most regular middle school insult- Yeah ... that they wanna get out here and complain about. And I have to pretend that these are, like, alpha males. Mm-hmm. That conservatism is about being this, like, macho person.

We're not offended by anything. Comedy's legal. Yeah. What are we doing? Yeah, man, I, I... That shit, it's dumb. It's dumb.

And Finally, Section D, DEFENDING THE VOTE & THE LONG VIEW

You might have noticed the big lie is back, although truthfully, it never went away. Just five years after the violent Capitol insurrection, MAGA is pushing another equal parts deranged and idiotic election conspiracy the- theory, this time centered on California

That's

how they count the votes in California You know why they're doing that?

Because they're cheating on the election.

There's... What? Do you have evidence-

They're- ...

to

support that? All I have to

do is look. They are still counting the votes. Do you trust this election? Uh, that seems pretty shady to me.

I think California is playing around with this.

But what evidence is there to prove that there was this rigged?

I, I, look,

I don't... Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream, it is impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here.

No. No, no, no. No one, not everyone knows it instinctively, 'cause there's nothing wrong here with the California primary. They're counting the votes.

They're counting the votes, by the way, as our own Jacob Soboroff has shown, in a room w- with glass panels so you can watch them do it. It's not fraud. The case Republicans are making, it's impossible to prove, so trust your instincts, is manifestly preposterous, absurd. But again, so was Trump's big lie in 2020 and 2021, right?

I mean, it's essentially identical, and look what happened. Look what that led to on January 6th. And this case looks f- to me like it is setting the table to invalidate midterm results in November if Republicans perform as badly as expected. Yesterday, Trump's first assistant US attorney for central California went on Glenn Beck's podcast of all places to promise investigations and charges for voter fraud in the state's primary, while also asking listeners to offer evidence of voter fraud, because of course, he doesn't actually have any.

Carol Leonnig is a senior investigative reporter with Amazon Now, co-author of Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department, a timely book, as we discuss this. She joins me now. Good to have you here.

Great to be here, Chris.

So let's just, I mean, first I just wanna sort of set for the table that there is, again, w- w- we don't have, like, universal windows into everything that has happened this election, but there is zero evidence whatsoever.

This is entirely jenka. I also just wanna say up front that, like, it doesn't make any sense as an election conspiracy theory. It was clearly the case that Karen Bass wanted to run against a Republican, Spencer Pratt, in a city that is, like, 75% Democratic, as opposed to a far more threatening challenger, Also, how did they rig it to lock out the Republicans from the mayoral but not from the state, right?

Like, none of this makes sense. What is the role that the Justice Department is now playing in this?

Well, I wanna say, let me tell you all the ways, let me count the ways in which the Department of Justice is breaking its own rules going back for a long, long time. Number one, an acting or de facto US attorney, as Bill Assali is in Ca- in the Central District of California, doesn't announce he's gonna investigate potential voter fraud.

There were strong rules that you don't say you're elect- you're, you're investigating that unless you come up with the evidence and you bring the charges. Because, in America, we used to not want to sow distrust in voting- Right ... unless we had the goods. But instead, this person's gonna go on Glenn Beck and say, "Uh, we're gonna investigate," and then ask people, number two interesting norm buster, ask people for evidence.

That's also something Department of Justice officials and FBI agents don't do, crowdsource- ... evidence. Um, that's- On

the internet ...

that's super strange. Third thing in which we are counting the ways that these are a violation of either DART- Department of Justice rules, prosecutor manuals, and norms about protecting our democracy, and that is that the acting, again, de facto US attorney, um, says he promises there's likely gonna be charges.

Who, who does that? I, I, I have to- How

can you do that? Well- I mean, you, th- you- it's not like you... There have to be facts and a crime. You can't say that before you've actually figured it out.

Well, when I heard and then reread with my own eyes the transcript from The Glenn Beck Show, um, it just reminded me, as your setup so beautifully described, May of 2020, when Donald Trump is hearing that he's tanking in the polls, that he looks like a shambolic president who can't handle the pandemic, his acting...

Um, forgive me, his attorney general, Bill Barr, says- Yeah ... "I'm getting a bad feeling. I think you're gonna lose this election if you don't do something different," Donald Trump starts talking about how all this way we, we count votes, all the way ballots are stored, some are mailed in, it's likely to be fraud.

"I'm worrying about fraud." And that drum beat begins as soon as he knows- Yeah ... he's in the basement-

Yeah ...

in terms of popularity.

I, I wanna play, uh, just to give a, a taste of, uh, the, this is the sort of first assistant US attorney who's sort of acting as US attorney, uh, again, because they love actings and they love the Vacancy Reform Act and no one ever gets confirmed and everyone's getting shoved in what position.

Uh, Bill Assali, here he is on Glenn Beck, just to give people a, a, a taste of what it sounded like. Take a listen

I will just say it will be election fraud charges in the, in the next, I, I hate to put timelines on things, but one to two months, I believe. We need, we need the, uh, some of these results to be certified so we can, uh, you know, prove some of the allegations.

But we will be charging some people. What we need right now are witnesses. If you saw someone collecting ballots in a suspicious way or doing something odd with ballots, we wanna know about that. A-

a- a- again, I mean, I, you, you've pointed out that this is just w- no one that we have ever covered in our careers or lives has talked like this from the, from that perch, right?

I mean, that's a fair thing to say.

It's a totally fair thing to say. It, it's strange on the three elements, i- i- that I, that are gross violations. There are many, many others. Right. We won't go into all of them tonight. But, you know, Chris, I'm so glad you're focusing a lens on this because it is part of a broader thing going inside, on inside the Trump administration that I'm hearing from sources, both investigators and administration officials who are disturbed by this.

And that broader plot is anybody who wants to please the king starts parroting that there's fraud. Right. "I'm gonna open an investigation of fraud." Right. "There's likely fraud." Um, this is, forgive me, I just am spilling my- ... my tea over here. Um- So acting US attorneys or de facto ones or ones who want to get the job permanently or, for example, our acting attorney general, uh, begin announcing, "I think there's fraud."

W-

we should also say, 'cause I started with January 6th, is that one of the crucial parts of the January 6th plot that didn't end up happening was an effort to essentially install a Trump loyalist in the Department of Justice to issue a letter from the Department of Justice announcing with the official seal of the Department of Justice and imprimatur that there was suspicion of fraud in Georgia and other states.

They were gonna send them out to a bunch of states saying, "You are hereby s- just don't... Your, your, your results are essentially not real." And it came this close to them sending it out, and it would have m- wildly changed things- Totally ... if it weren't for people, insiders in his department who said, "Hell no," after, "Over our dead bodies."

There were nine, count 'em, nine top senior Department of Justice officials who swarmed on a Sunday night to the Oval Office to convince Donald Trump they'd all resign- Yes ... and a passel more would. And it- And

that it would blow up in his face, so it's not worth doing. He didn't back off because he thought they were right and he was wrong, it was just that it would be too bad.

The deputy attorney general said to the person you're referencing, Jeff Clark- Yeah ... um, "You know, we're not gonna do this. Everyone's gonna resign if we do this, and you should go back to what you actually know, which is, um- Learn the law ... if there's an oil spill-

Yeah ...

we'll call you."

Yeah, exactly. So just a reminder that they tried this play.

They didn't have the people in position to be able to pull it off from the head of DOJ. This time around, as we see, it, y- you really gotta think about what that looks like with this personnel, particularly as we see, uh, what's happening in California.

Last week saw Angelinos vote in a mayoral primary that saw incumbent Mayor Karen Bass face off against city council member Nithya Raman and Spencer Pratt, a reality television star. I have to be honest, I have no idea what reality show he was on, what his persona was. I know none of that. I'm totally tuned out of that stuff.

But I do know that he is a reality television star of some note. Bass, the incumbent, is very much a citrus Democrat. Raman, who is a left-leaning member of the city council and who has made her stance improving the housing situation in Los Angeles, very much stands for the left end of the spectrum in the race.

And Pratt was the standard bearer for conservatives, for Republicans in particular. And it was because of that standard bearer position in his own kind of bombastic campaign that Pratt generated quite a bit of enthusiasm for his campaign among online conservatives. So much so that there is a real feeling among online conservatives, among people who read publications like the Free Press, for example, that Pratt was on the path to an electoral upset, that he was gonna take home the gold, or at the very least go into the runoff and then put a strong challenge towards Karen Bass for the mayorship.

After the polls closed last Tuesday, it sort of looked like that's what was happening. Karen Bass got the most votes, I believe 31 or 32%, heading off to the runoff, but Pratt got the second place spot, and it did look like he was heading on to the runoff. But California counts ballots very slow. They have mail-in voting, they have in-person voting, they have absentee voting, and they take their time to count ballots.

I think this is a problem. They should count ballots much faster, but it is a known fact of California politics. They take a minute. And for the past week, votes have been trickling in. They've been counting the votes, and as they've counted the votes, as they've counted the votes... I'm gonna say that again.

As they've counted the votes that were already cast, Pratt has fallen behind and Raman has come ahead. And with the last drop of ballots over the last 24, 48 hours or so, what it looks like is that, in fact, Pratt isn't gonna make the runoff, that he has dropped to the third place spot and thus out of the race, and the runoff will be between Karen Bass and Nithya Raman.

Congratulations to both campaigns. Now, if you're a normal person, you look at this and you say, "Hey, democracy in action." And that's because you understand conceptually that even though we talk about candidates being ahead or behind, after the ballots have already been cast, someone won. We don't know who that person is, but with the ballots being cast, there is a winner, and we have to count to figure out who that winner is And in a real critical sense, no one surges ahead and no one falls behind because it's not an active thing happening.

It's static. The decisions have already been made. The choices have already been made. The cake has already been baked. The process of counting votes is just us seeing what the cake is gonna look like. But if you are a Republican, and specifically a Republican in the age of Trump, you may be possessed of the idea that vote counting is some kind of dynamic process, and that if you're ahead, right, if you're ahead in the initial count, this is some kind of ultimate sign that you're gonna win in the end.

You don't really understand that votes are still being counted, and as long as there are votes to be counted, the election hasn't ended. Nor do you understand that your particular suppositions about what you think people ought to have done have no bearing on what people did do. You may think that you are entitled to win, but if not enough people voted for you, then you weren't, I suppose.

This is all to say that as the ballots have come in and Pratt has fallen behind, Republicans have began floating the specter of voter fraud once again. I'm not saying it's rigged. I'm saying it stinks to high heaven, and everybody knows that. Let's, let's, let's remove the appearance of impropriety. Let's have...

What a, what a, what a concept. Let's have votes on an election the day of the election. That's what- Identified. We had the Voting Rights Act. It was all, it was all about access, making sure that people were not denied access. There was a second element to it, which was election integrity, making sure that once everybody has access, that their vote actually counts, that it's not being diluted by illegal voting or shenanigans and the like.

So people can just dig through garbage cans, find ballots- Yeah ... and send them in apparently forever after an election is over. It's not okay. It's gotta come to an end, and people need to go to jail. We even have President Trump in an interview on Meet the Press get pushback on these claims of voter fraud and then storm out, storm out of the interview because he didn't wanna hear it.

President- You one-sided, crooked network. So let's call it quits 'cause I've had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good

time. Mr. President, let's please... I traveled all the way to Wisconsin. I've, I've sat in the rain with you. I traveled all... I know. I traveled all the way to Wisconsin. I've sat in the rain with you for an hour, on and off in the rain, and I've given you enough time. You ought to straighten out your press because you know what?

Mr. President. A country can never be great- We traveled all- ... with a dishonest press. Listen, we traveled all the way to Wisconsin for this interview

As an aside, that guy is not looking good these days. He looks like a Halloween mask of Donald Trump. It's crazy stuff. Anyway, the claim of voter fraud is simply that Pratt fell behind, and how could Pratt fall behind? He was obviously gonna win. And if he's falling behind, that must mean there must be some nefarious force at work.

But no, there's no nefarious force at work. The ballots are just being counted, that's all. They're counting the votes. And as you count the votes, and in a city that is overwhelmingly Democratic, it stands to reason that the conservative Republican candidate for mayor is gonna fall behind. That doesn't seem all that remarkable.

It seems almost anodyne. It's not that the game was rigged, it's just that you lost it. But we live in a moment, in an age where when Republicans lose elections, their immediate, their immediate response is to say that the game was rigged. So there was no way that they could legitimately lose. Now, I know I began this video talking somewhat about the mechanics of elections, talking somewhat about how counting the ballots isn't some kind of dynamic process, and that if you're falling behind, it's not because something nefarious has happened, someone's adding new ballots.

It's because they're actually getting to all the ballots that have been cast, and in a lot of those ballots, you weren't the choice. And as we count them, it changes the picture. The race was already run, and now you're seeing that you're far behind. But I think that focusing on the mechanics, which is to say adopting the idea that Republicans are simply mistaken, and if they were educated about the way elections work, they wouldn't embrace voter fraud, misses what's happening with these claims of voter fraud, which aren't ultimately about whether or not there is actually fraud, or rather, fraud here does not mean some kind of illegal activity when it comes to voting Fraud here means that the wrong people voted.

It is more a statement of who ought to be allowed to participate in the electoral process than it is about the mechanics of that process. I take you back to November and December of 2020 to the president's effort to stop the steal, to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the fact that he focused in on a handful of cities, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee.

Those were the places where he believed that the voter fraud had occurred. Now, it's true that those are cities in states that if they flipped would have given Trump the electorate, but the states are quite big. There are lots of different places. He focused on a particular handful of cities, and what distinguishes Atlanta and Detroit and Milwaukee, and Philadelphia is the other one, from other cities in these swing states?

Well, these are not just some of the largest cities, but they're predominantly or majority Black cities. In fact, in the cultural imagination, they are Black cities, regardless of what their demographics might be. When Trump was going on about voter fraud in Detroit or voter fraud in Atlanta or voter fraud in Milwaukee, he wasn't really going on about some fraudulent processes.

What he was actually saying is that those people don't have the right to determine the election, that those people should not count, and if you remove those people from the equation, then I won, that I'm the legitimate winner. And although Trump is always accusing people of fraud, he has never accepted a loss as legitimate.

Even in 2016, he insisted that Hillary Clinton's popular vote win was illegitimate, the product of illegals voting. He has never accepted a loss of any kind. They're all illegitimate. So what's so special about this particular declaration in 2020? I maintain that you have to understand these declarations of fraud in the context of Trump's highly racialized vision of American citizenship.

You have to understand him in the context of his birtherism in 2010 and 2011 when he accused Barack Obama of not being a legitimate citizen of the United States. You have to understand him in the context of his effort to unravel birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, and his view that the children of some people should not be allowed to become citizens of the United States.

You have to consider all of this in the context of his current administration's efforts to unravel DEI and effectively resegregate large parts of the American workforce, whether that's the military, whether that's the corporate world, whether that's elite universities. When he talks about fraud, he is not talking about fraud.

He is talking about the fact that people of different races and different backgrounds share some measure of political equality, and thus their votes count just as much as the votes of people like him and his people and his supporters. And that he finds intolerable. And it's that vision of fraud that I would argue actually is the one operating in Republican politics right now.

what's even more concerning to me is how much this election interference plan is hiding in plain sight with little or no pushback, because he can't do this alone. He needs help from his ever loyal contingent in Congress, and for the most part, they are in lockstep with Trump.

And that was more than evident when the MAGA Congress started to plot a strategy to get more money to ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, for purposes that we're gonna touch on a little bit later. Now, their plan was to use a tactic called reconciliation, which allows legislation to bypass the filibuster, provided it has significant fiscal impact on federal spending.

Now, this was an unprecedented power grab because the funding bill was intended to provide routine annual appropriations, and that's a measure that is usually passed with bipartisan support. Which brings me to an interesting encounter we had on Capitol Hill with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, who didn't seem to want to answer our question when we asked why ICE and CBP need an additional $70 billion in funding.

But his reluctance is also revealing. Let's take a listen to what happened.

Fuck that

up. Congressman, why does ICE need an additional $75 billion? Why is that funding? How do you justify that to the American people who now are suffering with high gas prices and things like that? Why does ICE need more money?

Well, that's the cost of

funding the department. Are you for abolishing ICE? I'm

not, I'm just asking the question. They already have $140 billion. Well,

you understand that that is the, the-

I'm not for or against anything,

I'm just- You understand that's the appropriated amount, right? Yes. That's been appropriated.

Of course, but I'm asking

the question- So the reason additional funds...

That's the base budget for ICE and CBP, right? Mm-hmm. You understand that? I

do.

Okay. So the additional funds that came through the working families tax cut bill were to increase border security. Why? Because Joe Biden let in 10 and a half million people into the country. Mm-hmm. So we-

Okay, Stephen- Yeah ... just, uh, for the record, are you for abolishing ICE?

Because you didn't answer the congressman's question.

Yeah, I'm for abolishing politicians to be able to answer a question with a question and evade answering the question- ... I ask. I'm for abolishing that. But, you know, one thing I want to just say before we move on is that his sort of argument that that's the appropriate amount for ICE is actually wildly inaccurate.

Mm-hmm. You know, I look back into the ICE funding and what ICE and CBP have been spending, roughly $8 to $10 billion a year. They already have $140 billion. This is not an appropriate amount for anything. That's an absolute freaking lie. You know- Mm-hmm ... ICE and CBP do not need that much money. This is excess cash, taxpayer cash, your taxpayer dollars that are- Yes

simply being spent without accountability. I think there's a reason for that we'll talk about in a second, but really, he was just FOS on that. Okay? And I just want to point that out because it really was infuriating. I couldn't really... I was trying to get his answer, but I couldn't sit there and get into an argument with him about, you know, what he was saying was actually, uh, patently false.

You know, personally, when a politician answers a question with a question- Mm-hmm ... in my opinion, that is a sign they don't have an answer, or they have an answer they don't want the public to know.

And he definitely didn't have an answer at this point, so-

Yeah ...

good point, Taya.

Thank you. But the, I mean, the question you were asking was not insignificant.

I mean- Right ... in fact, it was a really big piece of the puzzle led us to think that the threats to the midterm elections are widely underestimated. Now, the crux of the matter is funding. Now, w- what you asked is why Republicans want to give ICE, Customs, and Border Patrol another $70 billion. And what makes this so unusual is that the big beautiful bill dropped roughly $140 billion on both agencies just last year.

But with ICE and CBP spending at best $20 billion annually, it begs the question, why so much? What is it really for? And Stephen, you have a theory about this. Mm-hmm. Tell me about it.

Well, I think the thing you have to think about is that they are moving towards a more autocratic form of government.

Hmm.

Autocracies and democracies have different incentives, basically, different incentive systems. You know, technically speaking, a democracy wants to award beneficial policy for constituents. So, you know, you, to get elected, you got to do stuff that people like, right? Autocracies don't work that way. They need to punish people- Hmm

that s- who, who might push back. They need to crush dissent, and that's through a system of incentivization of punishment. And so in my opinion, this money, which can, I guess, when you add up $210 billion for a law enforcement agency, is about constructing a great American punishment regime to- Hmm ... prepare Americans for a more autocratic government.

Uh, you know, th- this money is... You know, when I looked into the records and tried to figure out how much money does ICE and CBP still have on the books, it's really hard to figure out 'cause the federal government really isn't oriented towards reporting on multi-fiscal year cycles about how much money they have.

But I looked, I found at least $73 billion that had been unallocated so far, and that's after they've already built all these warehouses, these prisons- Mm ... where they're incarcerating people. So they literally have what would be for those agencies unlimited funding, and unlimited funding for, um, law enforcement gives you a way to institute punishment throughout all levels of governance.

I mean, those detention centers can be used to detain people for a variety of reasons. They've already detained Americans. That's right. They'll detain more. Um, you know, having an unlimited amount of money to swarm, uh, you know, CPB and swarm, um, ICE into cities gives you this ability to do what Trump did in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

And when these elections come, and when Trump is trying to say, "Hey, they weren't fair," they're gonna need these guys And women to come into cities and to try to disrupt the people who will be pushing back or to seize ballot box. I really think this excess money is insulating both institutions, and that's for a reason, to create a punishment regime that will be reflective of the autocratic values that the Trump administration is espousing through their policy choices.

You know what, Stephen? You did the classic thing every reporter should do, and actually anyone watching should do, which is follow the money. Mm. You follow the money, you figure out what's really going on. So let me just ask you a question about this. I was thinking back to the first time it really hit home with us that something was- Mm

afoot Right ... with regard to democracy during the shutdown last year. So last year, Democrats wanted to extend the Obamacare tax credits and Republicans refused, but what struck me at the time was how the majority party approached the entire conflict. They simply shut down Congress. Yeah. They simply stopped town halls and talking to their constituents.

No debate, no work, just silence. And of course, all that was just to deny people healthcare, and that seems like a pretty anti-democratic strategy. So how does it play into that theme you're talking about, about the punishment regime theme? What do you think?

Well, the thing is, if you shut it down, you're kind of punishing people 'cause you're- Mm

taking away the deliberative legislative body that's supposed to represent their interests, where you are supposed to hash these things out and figure out how to get people healthcare. So what you're saying is, "We don't care." Mm. "You don't have healthcare, you're being punished. We're gonna punish you by not doing anything and showing you that we don't have to do anything, and disengaging from our constituents."

And so I think it's a big part of that. I mean, a functioning legislative body should be an accountability mechanism to make sure things like ICE and CBP don't get out of control. But now when they shut it down and turn it into this, you know, absolute desert, uh, desert of, of democracy- Mm ... well, then you don't have a limit...

legislative body to represent you. Without representation, you know, you're done. I mean, what people don't understand, and I think you've talked about this really, really well, is that democracy is a culture that infiltrates- Mm ... all levels of government, governance. When you change that to a punishment regime, to an autocratic culture, everything changes.

Mm. You know, your, your ability as a constituent and to vote and to have some, some impact and some say in how you live diminishes quite quickly, and I think that's what we're seeing here.

You know, Stephen, that's an really, really good point, and you touched on constituents actually having a voice. Right.

And this, this is something we caught at a press conference where that idea that you're touching on right there was absolutely front and center. Yeah. Now, it was an announcement by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Summer Lee to announce a bill that would shut down super PACs. Now, super PACs are, of course, the campaign behemoths that can spend unlimited amounts of money- Basically to buy elections.

Super PACs are like the corporate love child of Citizens United, that famous decision that allowed corporations to also spend unlimited amounts on electing people to subject us, the working class, to the extractive tendencies of our current economy. Now, this union between them was so fruitful that it gave birth to political organizations with unlimited spending power and an insatiable appetite for television ads, digital marketing, robocalls, and anyone who's willing to rent out a swing state's airwaves.

Now, Sanders and Lee basically want to undo all that with a limit on how much super PACs can raise. Their bill would limit contributions to $5,000 per individual or corporation, essentially disabling the super PAC system that allowed Elon Musk to dump $280 million, over a quarter of a billion dollars, into President Trump's campaign, which resulted in the mess that we're currently living with.

But I asked Senator Sanders a question, and he had an interesting answer. Let's take a listen, and you can react on the other side.

I don't want people to think this is just another issue. You know, what someone said is right, it is the most important issue. If you are, if we are the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare at all, why is that?

You think it may have something to do with the power of the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies who spend zillions of dollars making sure we don't move to a Medicare-for-all system? Do you think the fact that we have a starvation minimum wage has something to do with the fact that a lot of these corporations and business people don't want to pay their workers a living wage, don't want workers to join unions?

So the point here, this is not another issue. This is an issue that touches every bloody issue facing working people in this country.

Okay, Stephen- Mm-hmm. I really want to hear your thoughts here. Is Senator Sanders, like, connecting the right dots?

Yeah, absolutely. Because money, cash, power adulterates democracy.

Mm. And the way you adulterate it is to be able to deliver, to allow people who have the concentrated wealth to throw it all into the election. Now, the whole idea of campaign laws is to limit influence of one individual or corporation, right? You can only donate so much, no matter how rich you are. Now, with super PACs, you can put everything you have into it if you want, and that gives you disproportionate power, and that creates an inequality basis for elections.

So absolutely. And I, and I want to point out one thing. You know, you were the one who asked the question that set off that answer, and I think it's really vitally important because Sanders is connecting the dots. You can't afford housing? Look at the super PAC. Mm. You can't afford healthcare? Super PACs.

Yes. All these super PACs create disproportionate influence for the smallest number of people possible. It turns an election into really a choice of the oligarchy to decide who's going to be in power and what policies they will implement. So it was a great answer, and it's absolutely spot on.

There was a time in recent American politics when candidates openly critical of Israel would have had virtually no chance of winning an election due to the enormous influence of the powerful pro-Israel lobby within the party. Now, as public opinion has turned sharply against Israel over its ongoing war crimes, the Democratic Party establishment is facing an unprecedented wave of challenges from the left.

For instance, in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed is running against the party establishment's preferred candidate, Representative Haley Stevens. El-Sayed is a Sanders-backed Medicare for All-supporting doctor and public health expert. He literally wrote the book on the subject. El-Sayed, too, openly calls Israel's actions genocide and campaigned alongside the socialist streamer Hasan Piker.

The move to campaign with Piker was incredibly controversial in the press and has effectively become a proxy battle over Israel within the Democratic Party. So much so that pro-Israel Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey even introduced a House resolution condemning Piker by name, apparently a top priority for Democratic leadership at the moment.

And yet, El-Sayed's poll numbers have only increased since then, and he's now tied for the lead with State Senator Mallory McMorrow, who recently faced backlash over deleted social media posts trashing the Midwest and yearning for California. Current Affairs first discussed Abdul El-Sayed in 2018, when I suggested he might be the ideal candidate to lead the left insurgency in the Democratic Party.

In his gubernatorial race that year, El-Sayed was defeated, but times have changed, and it may be that Michigan Democrats are finally ready for El-Sayed's unapologetically progressive politics. And just a side note, if elected, El-Sayed would be the first former Current Affairs writer to serve in the Senate, which would really be a mark of changing times.

The Intercept notes that the primary map is only getting more challenging for centrist Democrats around the country. Good. It's about time. The New York Times observes that Platner's ascension quickly became a powerful signal that the Democratic base has grown impatient with the party's establishment and is eager to embrace a generation of new leaders.

I've talked somewhat incessantly before in the pages of Current Affairs about New York City's socialist mayor, Zaran Mamdani, who also managed to defeat the well-funded party establishment, even as all kinds of Islamophobic smears were thrown at him. Mamdani's victory was highly improbable, but demonstrated that even the scions of powerful political dynasties like Andrew Cuomo are in fact vulnerable when the left gets organized behind someone charismatic, competent, and hardworking.

Of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's run for Congress was an early harbinger of this trend. She managed to overthrow one of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives. Shaokut Chakrabarti's run to replace Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco against a pro-Israel legislator will be another important test of which way the political winds are blowing.

There are other exciting candidates too, including Cori Bush, Claire Valdez, Darielisa Chevalier, and Peggy Flanagan. A lot is at stake here. If Platner, and should he win the primary, El-Sayed, don't win the general election, it will be treated as evidence that leftists are unelectable. El-Sayed's opponents have already pointed to polling showing he fares less well against Republican Mike Rogers than his opponents do.

But El-Sayed has predicted that he can beat Rogers by seven points if given a shot. Now, having personally seen myself how good El-Sayed is on the stump, I don't think that's as outlandish as it may sound. And if he pulled it off, it would totally shatter the conventional wisdom that while Mamdani might win in New York City, a milquetoast centrist is necessary in swing states.

On the other hand, if Platner and El-Sayed won primaries and then lost their general elections, the centrist argument would have new life breathed into it. I do think the establishment seems moribund, though, in some cases literally so. Veteran Democratic ex-congressman Barney Frank appeared on CNN from his deathbed to warn that the party is going too far left Progressives, he said, have embraced an agenda that goes beyond what's politically acceptable.

Having the argument be made by someone clearly in the last months of his life does not do much to counteract the impression that the left wing of the party represents its future. The 2028 election is still a looming problem. Polling still shows Kamala Harris is the Democratic favorite, even though Harris's last campaign was a total catastrophe that ended in a shameful, avoidable defeat.

The field for 2028 is currently weak, and there's no obvious leftist candidate. But things can change fast. Mamdani's rise, after all, was sudden and improbable. And if Platner and El-Sayed end up in the Senate, the conventional wisdom about electability will have been dealt such a shattering blow that it may make a lot more people seem like potential presidential candidates.

How about a labor leader, for instance? It would also help, of course, if the Democratic Party released its internal autopsy of Kamala Harris's campaign, which supposedly contains research into what mistakes were made. So far, DNC Chair Ken Martin has reneged on his promise to release the report. But I suspect he's done so because he knows that the contents actually vindicate leftist arguments that Harris' stance on Gaza and her refusal to break with the unpopular Biden helped seal her doom.

Martin's clear desperation about the report, you can witness him being grilled by one of the Pod Save America hosts, who are no leftists themselves, seems to me to be yet further evidence that the party's centrists are on the defense. How far can this go? Could we see the older generation of corporate Democrats thrown out of office with a massive wave of pro-labor, pro-Palestinian, pro-Medicare for All candidates inspired by Bernie Sanders?

Well, I hope so, is what I've wanted to see personally ever since Sanders' second crushing defeat. I do think it's clear that something is changing. Public opinion on Israel has undergone a real shift. Platner would simply not have been a viable candidate 10 years ago, and this year he quickly achieved such dominance that his opponent didn't even finish out the race.

I would encourage fellow leftists to internalize the realization that we are no longer in the world of 2016, where the party establishment seems like an immovable force that will inevitably mobilize and quash any uprising. Exciting new things are possible, and we must seize our opportunity.

Wanna make sure that we s- take a second here to talk about what actually happens if Democrats win. Like, what can they do? In the midterms? And what should they do? In the midterms. To be specific here, we've got a question from somebody in the audience who asks, "If the Democrats take control of Congress, will they pursue a much wished for retribution campaign?

Is the desire for airtime in the elected official class and the now performative nature of politics too much to overcome this outcome? How do we avoid that trap?" Meaning, is this gonna be another cycle of retribution, or does there need to be some kind of accountability to prevent this from happening again?

I mean, what, what I think is you can see a pattern that's already taking place, and, uh, what I expect is that if the Democrats take control of the House, they will hold hearings, and they will try to delve into this unbelievable corruption that we're all seeing. And I think we will then see something of a constitutional crisis because I think the White House will completely stonewall Congress.

They won't come to the hearings. They won't, they won't- Essentially the Pam Bondi technique ... they simply will just say, "No, we're not playing." And, and I think that is gonna come- And then, and then what happens? How, how does that work? I g- only have gotten that far. It's just a mess. It's gonna be a crisis. I mean, Susan, I'm curious in particular about impeachment.

There are a lot of people who will be wondering if that's coming up after a potential midterm. You know, it's interesting. I mean, if, to, from my perspective, historically speaking, what happened in the first Trump term was that we sort of proved Pretty much conclusively that impeachment is a dead letter, that it no longer functions in the way that the founders of the Constitution envisioned, which was as a check on the executive.

Because they were operating and writing this in essentially a pre-partisan time, a pre-party time, they envisioned the idea that the branches of government would act in the interest of that branch of government rather than that party loyalty would be more important. And as a practical sense, even if Democrats exceed the predictions, and none of us are predictors here, but even if Democrats exceed the predictions for this November, you know, at the moment they're favored to win the House, although relatively narrowly.

I think there are very few people who believe it will be one of those, you know, 48 seat, 60 seat pickups. But, you know- And the Senate, no chance at all ... right now, uh, Democrats are favored to win the House. It is a stretch, a big stretch for them to win the Senate, in part because there are flawed candidates, not just in Maine, but, you know, there's a very divisive Democratic primary in Michigan, for example, which is a must, uh, win seat for Democrats this fall.

So let's just say they win one or both of the houses. Nobody thinks that there are the votes to convict Donald Trump of almost anything in the US Senate, and that means, in many ways, that impeachment is a dead letter. Do I think Democrats might pursue it anyways because there will be some terrible scandal?

Yes, I think we have to consider that it's not only possible, but even likely because the outrages are so vast. And just one minor point on that, we're having this conversation this week where although the Senate did not pass this Democratic measure today to bar the $1.8 billion quote, "slush fund."

Nonetheless, you know, the Trump administration has said they're not gonna move forward with it, leaving intact probably what would've been the biggest scandal of any of our lifetimes in any president anyways, and no one's even talking about it, which is that Donald Trump has negotiated with his own government to give him essentially lifetime immunity from taxes.

Hmm. Uh, and this to me is a classic Donald Trump technique here, right? So he's confused us with so many, the smokescreen of so many scandals. And the reason I mention that is, like, that's an impeachable offense. Right. I mean, you know, there's so many of them, and I, I think it's very reasonable to expect that some scandal will come up that Democrats will feel they need to pursue even though they know they don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.

In some ways, a lot of these corruption scandals are confusing to people. They have to do with crypto and sovereign wealth funds. And, and, and in a way, you know, we've talked about this on the show, but people want something really concrete, and that is a hard thing to find. I wanna talk, sort of looking a little over the horizon.

David, you know, uh, we, we ran a big piece in the magazine recently on the subject of Barack Obama, and really what the piece was asking was it was trying to get at this question of there is a hunger among Democrats for somebody, maybe it's not Obama, but for somebody to emerge from the pack f- to sort of step into our lives and be able to articulate what this country wants.

And, you know, you've written about Obama for years, and I'm curious if you look at the conditions now, is it possible for somebody like that to emerge again, somebody who even in technical terms, you know, a Democrat who could win Iowa, for instance? Or have, has the moment shifted so much that we should be looking for something else?

Well, I think O- Obama nostalgia as such Which Obama resists and also encourages. Mm. It, um, is futile. He can't be president again. Uh, nostalgia is not a politics. And his talents are, I think what people yearn for. Mm. His integrity and, and his, his bearing in the world, which contrasts so radically with, uh, Trump's, is what people yearn for, especially in, in a reasonable way.

You can argue about how he spends his post-presidency. Should he be spending it more, in more idealistic ways or less in commercial ways? Uh, he would argue that if he, he's talking all the time, uh, he becomes just a commentator, he becomes a kind of higher version of Jon Stewart. Okay, whatever. You can argue with that.

That, that, that's a trivial argument. What's, what's obviously necessary is, is someone or s- some people of, of talent and integrity to emerge to confront the problems that we face today. Mm. They aren't the same exact ones as in 2008. In fact, as, as positively as I think about so many aspects of, of, of Obama, he also missed certain things.

You know, he would gesture toward radical wealth and radical income inequality, but you could easily argue that he didn't address them adequately. Certainly, people on the progressive left would, you know, have no patience for Obama nostalgia, and that's a primary reason for that. Uh, ditto on foreign policy, you could, you could make those arguments.

But what, what's plainly necessary is people who've kind of worked out their personal dramas- Mm ... who are ready to hold high office, who have things to say with clarity and connection, and know how to use modern technology and communication means to do so. And when you look around and you look at these various races...

You know, in the state of Ohio, you've got a guy who's struggling. I don't know if he's, can even win his Senate seat back. And, but does speak- Sherrod Brown, right ... Right, who does speak with a certain populist, gravelly connection. But that's the past. You know, this is why for a lot of young people, Mamdani and AOC connect, and it's not all because of particular positions.

It's because of a sense of modernity and an awareness of how things have changed, and they, they are addressing them When you look out, Susan Jane, do you see anybody in this race? And this is, doesn't have to be about a specific candidate, but I'm curious about if there is a, an energy out there that gives you confidence, bringing us around to where we started today, that says, "Okay, yes, some of this corruption stuff is hard for people to understand," but it is a cumulative fact that they will eventually say enough is enough.

Do you look at any of these races and say, "Okay, I see the, the sign of something that gives me Confidence. You know, actually, I've been thinking a lot in listening to this conversation to what Jane brought up, which is Minnesota. You know, I think it's from civil society- Yeah ... uh, that the real power in American politics has to come.

I, I absolutely agree with David's point that I think in Washington, as you know, I always make this point, that I think we overstate the role of ideology in candidates and in politics. Uh, and you know, 'cause people in Washington, they come, they're policy wonks, and, you know, if you have a hammer, then everything's a nail.

Um, it's the energy. It's the, you know, the, the axis of American politics, it's not just right left. It's also inside outside. Yeah. And the, the energy, the visceral pain that we're hearing from so many people in our society right now, it's not being effectively channeled in the context of our two-party system.

And we've seen the consequences of right-wing rage for 10 years, and it is destroying a lot of what a lot of people hold dear. It is, it is a destructive force in our politics. But that rage is not contained to the right, you know? And I think about, you know, my son who's graduating from college next week, and these kids don't know if they're gonna have jobs.

There's a sense that the disruptions in our life are not about Trump so much. They're, they're thinking about more basic, fundamental things, not only radical inequality, but the idea that actually the ladder is being pulled up in our society, and we're leaving behind a whole new generation of kids.

That's a kind of visceral rage and anger that I think is coming from the grassroots. I think it is gonna be channeled. It's gonna be more apparent over time in your sort of post-Trump world on the left and in the center, and not just the politics of rage on the right. I don't know what it means exactly, but I don't see the candidate out there who's emerging to speak to that for Democrats yet in a, in a authentic and powerful way that is also an electable way in 2028.

That's going to be it for today.

As always, keep the comments coming in.

You can record - and re-record - a voice message by tapping the link in the show notes,

You can reach us on Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01,

or simply email me to [email protected]

The additional sections of the show included clips from;

The NPR Politics Podcast

Brian Tyler Cohen News

Majority 54

Meet The Press NOW

Current Affairs

The PBS NewsHour

Democracy Now!

FD Signifier

The Kavernacle and Noah Samsen

Head in the Office

All In with Chris Hayes

Takes™ by Jamelle Bouie

The Real News Network

and The Political Scene

Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening, thanks to Deon and Erin for their production work for the show, thanks to Amanda for all of her work behind the scenes, thanks to our editors and thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member, purchasing gift memberships, or making one-time donations.

You'll find the link to support us in the show notes along with links to join our Patreon and Discord communities for free where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on all the social media platforms as I prepare to relaunch our social media strategy because I will need to recruit you to help boost our signal to as many new people as possible!

So coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington, DC, my name is Jay! And this has been the Best of the Left podcast, coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show, from bestoftheleft.com.