Welcome to Plaids Ape America, I'm John Favreau. On today's show, writer and founder of the slow boring newsletter, Madglesis. We've got a lot of people on the show make the case for why the Democratic Party should move to the left, and a lot of progressive candidates who represent that direction. We've also had plenty of people, including us, critique the Democratic establishment. We haven't really had someone on, at least in a while, make a full-froaded case for a center-left politics that emphasizes moderation.
I know that probably sounds exciting, and not at all annoying to many of you. Matt recently wrote a piece titled, How the Center Left Can Come Back in 2028, that's based in part on a series of critical, tough questions that Nate Silver recently posed to the center-left. I found both Nate's questions and Matt's response really useful in understanding where folks like Matt are coming from and what they're looking for from the party in 2028 and beyond. I also had plenty of questions on my own, so I invited Matt on to see if he had some answers. And he did.
We talked about how important issue positions are in a presidential primary, the role of charisma, and the ability to get attention, why Democrats have lost in recent elections, and who on the current bench might be able to win in 2028. It was a great conversation, and we will get to it in a moment before we do. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Friends of the Pod, subscribers unlock ad-free episodes of all their favorite cricket pods, including Pod Safe America, all our great subscriber-only newsletters, and exclusive subscriber-only podcasts like Pod Safe America, Only Friends, and Polar Coaster with Dan Fyfer. Plus becoming a subscriber is the best way to support your favorite pro-democracy, independent media company. Head on over to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe.
Matt, welcome to Pod Safe America. Really good to be here. So I want to talk about the factional debate within the Democratic Party over how to actually win some national elections and thought, who better to do that with than the online left's favorite pundit who can faithfully represent the views of the Neo-lib shill faction. And I think a good place to start is with your recent piece about how the center-left can come back in 2028, where one big answer is that the center-left needs a 2028 presidential primary campaign that articulates its critique of the status quo. Before we get to the critique itself, why a presidential campaign?
You know, I think something we see in politics is that political parties are really defined by their presidential campaigns and by their leadership. Everybody, I mean, you, me, people with all different kinds of ideological viewpoints aren't frustrated about where Democrats are at now, and they'd like want them to be clearer and have a better message. But realistically, there's just like not that much the Chuck Schumer and her Kim Jeffries can do. You're hurting cats on Capitol Hill. It's presidential campaigns.
Donald Trump comes in, he wins the nomination. It totally redefines what the Republican Party is about, you know, for good and for ill. And that's what's gonna happen in 28, right? There's gonna be a contest, somebody is gonna win it, that person will be the leader. What Democrats stand for is gonna be, you know, largely whatever it is that person stands for.
And until then, you know, you try to have good candidates in the key races, you hope they win, everyone's gonna have some who they're like more than others, but it's like it's gonna be a mess. Yeah, I thought about that after the 20, 25 off-year elections when everyone had this like Goldilocks view of it where they're like, well, you know, you had some more center-left moderate candidates winning in some places and I'm Donny wins in New York. So it's all great, we don't have to fight that much. It's like, well, yeah, it's easier to do in a midterm or set of off your elections than a presidential election. That's where the rubber hits the road.
So you make clear that this center-left critique is a critique of what you call the Clinton Biden-Harris-Shoomer status quo. How would you describe that status quo and what is your critique of it? Sure, you know, so I think there's been some pretty dramatic leftward moves in the Democratic Party since Barack Obama's second term. And this has not been like the left, to quote unquote Bernie Sanders, his people taking the party over. It's been an establishment stewardship, but they've shifted on a lot of different things.
Some of them minor, some of them big. I mean, I think a notable one that I read about in peace is education policy, where without really like a huge rank or as debate about it, ideas about performance pay for teachers, ideas about supporting high performing charter schools that, you know, Obama White House had championed and it was controversial at the time and said the party just sort of went in the other direction. And then we had, you know, a lot of discussion about this around COVID and school closures and different things there, but Democrats had an identity as a party of reform of the public sector that has sort of gone away in that regard. Democrats have also, you know, shifted a lot on immigration over the past 10 to 15 years, right?
There's been all this stuff about asylum that came up during the Biden presidency, just wasn't really an issue that like people were thinking that much about during the Obama presidency. There was this kind of very specific focus on trying to get a path to citizenship where people have been here for a long time, new things came up, Democrats have, you know, gone through a number of cycles around crime and criminal justice reform since that time, but have been sort of seen in some circles, is very soft on crime. I think left wing Democrats have started to see that this is a problem. Everyone has sort of walked back defunding police, things like that since then. But there's been this kind of, and then on economic policy, there's been a shift, again, it was a shift in the Biden administration to these kind of much more Elizabeth Warren-like positions about the role of business, its relationship to the state.
It used to be kind of a view that, you know, Democrats were a party that was gonna make rich people pay higher taxes, and that was gonna be a non-starter for a lot of rich people in the country. But for people who could stand that, who could say, you know what, I'm gonna pay more under the Democrats, I'm gonna contribute to the common will, I'm gonna help the poor, whatever, you know, I'm still gonna be treated like respectfully as if business is a laudable thing to do with your career. And there's been shifts on both sides of that, much more contentious relationship between the Democratic Party and the technology industry, but really the Democratic Party and the business world were at large. So I take your point that the party has definitely shifted leftward on a number of issues, and I can just speak from experience because oftentimes when this gets debated, I can remember when I was in the White House or on the Obama campaign, and we did Race to the Top, and we talked about teacher pay, and we talked about immigration in the context of we're a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws, and now people on the right just like play back Obama clips from 2008 where he's talking about border security.
So I get that. How do we know people's negative view of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party's sort of losing some elections, some big ones, is due primarily to specific issue positions and not a number of other factors? General perception of elitism, corruption, weakness, however you define it, right? There's a whole bunch of different potential factors in these losses. I think all this stuff is in the mix, obviously, and to an extent it connects to people.
It starts at institute, it'll really interesting series of polls about corruption. People are very concerned about corruption. They think the political establishment is very corrupt, and they ask like, do you consider X, Y, and Z thing corrupt? And it was like trading on insider stock information, definitely corrupt. But people also said it was corrupt when politicians do things to sort of curry favor with social elites that aren't what the public wants, right?
So that's like a very expansive view of corruption, where like if you're afraid of getting canceled or something, so you're doing this, that could be corrupt in some people's eyes. You also might see that as weak. I don't think you want to be weak. I think again, to the point of why presidential campaigns matter, moderate members of Congress are almost all people who are representing districts, the Donald Trump one. I think those people are in some ways, the Democrats MVPs, but they are not MVPs when it comes to big partisan controversies, because that's not how you hold down a red house seat.
You kind of like duck those fights, and that does look weak to people who are in the base, and that's not what they want, right? In a presidential campaign, you can do what Donald Trump did on Medicare and Social Security, you can do what President Obama did on education issues, which is you can reposition to the center on select things, while also being like a strong voice for your party and its side on certain kinds of key issues. But you know, I do think that issues matter to people. Like it's not a coincidence that in 2012, Democrats had all these great ads, lambasting Mitt Romney's Medicare plan, and then Donald Trump comes along and he's like, I'm not gonna do that Medicare plan, right? Now, 90% of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 vote for Hillary in 2016, but the people who were persuaded by those Medicare ads, now they got a Republican who's like, you know what, I'm not gonna do that.
So you go around the country, right? Like not that many people are swing voters. It's a small population, but I think there are people there, who are looking at these questions about who should plan women's sports teams, and they really do care about that issue. And it upsets them that Democrats have the position that they don't agree with. And that's a different, I mean, that was not an issue that we talked about really 10, 15 years ago.
But I remember in 2008, when that campaign was happening and Obama and all Democrats everywhere said that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that's not what I believed, and I know lots of the younger people who worked on those campaigns, that's not what they believed. I don't know what the principles themselves believe privately, but I think everyone kind of understood at that point in time, that it was gonna be the job of someone else to like persuade the voters that our more forward thinking progressive view was correct, and that the politicians were gonna try to get to yes with the electorate, that it was tough enough to be opposing these constitutional amendments and other kinds of things that would have completely closed the door on equality. And so some of what's happened is I think just a less of a pragmatic spirit, that Trump is so terrible.
It makes people feel like, well, if he can get away with so much, like we should be able to get away with undisciplined behavior. But that's just, like, that's not really how it works. You know, it's like, if he's really terrible, we need to take this really seriously. Pied Dave America is brought to you by Helix. Boy, you sleep important.
It's so important. Older you get, the more you realize the wisdom of that. That's right. And Helix knows how to help there. Yeah.
Because they have the most comfortable best mattresses. I love my Helix mattresses. Don Lux. That's incredible. Great.
How do you know which mattress is right for you? You take the Helix Sleep Quiz, and it will match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs. They have over 20 mattress models, so you can find the perfect model for you. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the US. The Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk free, customer first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress, so you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges.
Plus, Helix offers 120 night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. And these parents live in Maine. We're just there for a week. And they needed to upgrade their mattresses in their very old house. And so, got some Helix mattresses.
And boy, did everyone sleep well. Everyone was just the kids. Great. We were so happy with the Helix mattresses. And Helix was just there.
They were great. They just shipped him right there out of the box. Boom, mattresses. Go to Helix Sleep.com slash cricket for 27% off site wide. This offer is exclusive to our listeners.
That's Helix Sleep.com slash cricket for 27% off site wide. Helix Sleep.com slash cricket. Pied Dave America is brought to you by Acorns. Today's budget is what it is. But tomorrow, that's up to you.
Acorns is designed to help you effortlessly grow your savings and their potential screen shows you exactly what your money can do over time. Acorns is easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money, even if all you've got a spare change. Acorn grows with you. Whether you're just starting out or thinking about settling down, Acorns supports your big and small goals across every life stage.
The Acorns potential screen shows you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time. Plus, you can quickly adjust how much you're investing every day, week or month to make sure you're building towards your goals. Acorn is on one, no more finance apps cluttering up your phone. With Acorns, you can invest, save, and give your money a chance to grow in one trusted place. I was over at a friend's house.
I didn't have a family. And their son had his bar mitzvah. And he was like, I want to learn. He's wanted to learn how to invest. He's thinking about how to do that.
And he was learning about how the compound interest would really help him if he starts at such a young age. So I think he's going to do great. You can, by the point, as a dear listener, you can beat by a 13-year-old. Don't let yourself get beat by that by 13-year-olds. Sign up now, and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment.
Join the over 14 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com slash crooked or download the Acorns app to get started. Pay non-client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Here, two compensation provided. Potential subject to various factors such as customer's accounts, age, and investment settings does not include Acorns fees.
Results do not predict or represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns advisors, LLC, and SEC Register Investment Advisor, the important disclosure is acorns.com slash crooked. It is true that a majority of voters, especially voters in the states, we need to win, routinely tell pollsters, including especially in the most recent New York Times polls, that the Democratic Party is too far left.
And more people think, at least in the New York Times poll, more people think the Democratic Party is too far left than they think the Republican Party is too far right. Not great. Though, importantly, in all six of the states where they polled, the six Senate states that are picked up opportunities for Democrats, voters were less likely to describe the Democratic candidate as too far left than they were the Democratic Party itself. Do you attribute that to specific, moderate positions taken by Mary Peltola, Josh Turic, Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, James Telerico? Because, and I don't know about all of their positions on everything, but it doesn't seem like, at least, you know, I know enough that like, Sherrod's been around long enough.
It doesn't seem like they have moderated on any of the issues where you might think the Democrats need to moderate. Well, it's a little bit, right? So, Turic and Peltola have both sort of said that they want to support their state's oil and gas industries, which would be a very hot take in national Democratic Party politics. I think it's kind of a no-brainer in Alaska and Texas. And that's good.
We're just all kind of getting to a place of pragmatism and stuff like that. Roy Cooper, he's been in state white office in North Carolina for a long, long, long time, has a distinctive relationship with the voters there. I think they see him as moderate at least, because he's held office for a long time. There's this Republican super majority in the legislature. So we don't really know what it is he would have done if he was empowered.
Josh Turic in Iowa, he really had a hard fought primary. Elizabeth Warren and others were supporting his opponent. He held and represented an Obama to Trump switching district in the state legislature there. I don't know anything about Iowa. I don't like to represent myself as an expert, but it did seem like it was the more moderate choice in a contested primary.
You know, a chair ground is, I think, the interesting one. I mean, I'm old enough to remember in 2006 when he was like this progressive dream candidate. We emerged and that was a different era in Ohio. Like everything was very different back then. You know, Obama's first term, he really clashed with the White House over some energy stuff, related to the steel industry, things like that.
In Biden's term, he was much more kind of a good soldier. Got along with everybody, maybe not the best idea in a state that Trump won by six points. So I don't know exactly where he's going to come down there. Some of it though, is that when you have a specific individual candidate, they can try to communicate who they are, rather than being like a caricature. And so that is always the power of individual candidates, particularly individual candidates who, unlike late stage Joe Biden, can actually speak and engage with people.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Because I do think that the focus on positions and issue positions, which I do think voters care about, I would not dismiss that. But it is one of many factors. Because a lot of people you just talked about, it seems like they have an image of being more moderate, partly because of vibes that they put off, because of their bio, because of who they are, how they communicate. I mean, Roy Cooper is an interesting one too, because he ran for governor and won that race, partly the bathroom bill in North Carolina at the time.
Now we're talking about trans issues around sports teams and gender-affirming care. Back then, it was a bathroom bill, and he was able to win in 2016. Yeah. It was a pretty tough year, despite being very vocal on that issue at the time. And you do wonder then, is the reason that Roy Cooper's doing so well and people think he's more moderate, is that other factors aside from the actual positions he's taken?
Well, I think that there's a both-hand to this, right? So Governor Cooper was always positioned himself as a champion of economic growth in North Carolina, and of modernization and bringing business in. There's this whole kind of new South tradition that Bill Clinton was part of, that he's part of it, and he was shears part of. The bathroom bill controversy at the time that that was raging, right? He was related to that.
Part of the case he was making was, this is gonna hurt us in our convention business. It's gonna hurt us in attracting financial services jobs from New York, things like that. And this is where there's issue positions, there's vibes, there's communications, and it sort of comes together, because if you can explain what you're doing in a way that connects the things that your constituents care about, that's much better than if you're kind of duck and cover all the time, right? Like, can you engage? Can you convey some kind of empathy and complexity around these issues?
People don't like to be everybody votes for politicians who they agree with about some stuff and disagree with about other stuff. If they feel like, well, this is a political party that wants to cancel me over our disagreements, versus that can respect the idea of differences of opinion, but things that all things considered, my healthcare plan is really important, right? Those are not different issue positions, but it's a little bit more than just vibes. I think we saw, but before we were in a platinum exit at the race under a cloud of scandal, we were putting to the test the idea that just sort of a pure vibes candidacy could sort of transform the demographic structure of the electorate.
And I think the polls were saying that that wasn't working, that he was gonna beat Susan Collins until scandals took him down, but this is state that Kamala won, it's a state that Biden won, it's a state that Hillary won. He was winning based on educated people in coastal towns, kind of same old, same old, because his issue positions were actually very, very standard, even though he had this really interesting persona, I think he's very charismatic in person, like a cool guy, then maybe not so cool, but ultimately, if you're gonna persuade people who haven't been voting for you, to vote for you, you've gotta give them something, right? Some reason to think that you're different. And this is the case with so many of these races, is that there's so many different variables that it's hard to pin something down, because it's like, I realize that the left wants to believe that Graham Plattner and his race could have won him a bunch of non-college-educated white voters and sort of picked that lock that Democrats have been trying to pick for the last 20 years.
I never really thought that was the case, but I did think that his charisma was a big factor there. I saw you write a couple of times that one of the reasons he might've been seen as not as left as the Democratic Party as a whole is because of his position on guns. But then I was like, did that many people in Maine really knew, did they all know what his position on guns was? Because he didn't talk about it a lot. It was like a big part of his campaign.
And I do, I wonder if his style and charisma may have made up for some of the, either, well, in his case, both the scandals early on and the, you know, the further left issue positions like Medicare for all, abolish ICE and his position on Israel. Like I wonder if his persona helped with his perception. Well, I guess part of the point I was trying to make in my 20, 20, 20, eight piece is that the things that the establishment and the kind of more progressive people have been arguing about are actually mostly not the issues that it seems like swing voters disagree with Democrats about, right? So like on Israel, the mass public has become quite skeptical of the US-Israel relationship.
Obviously that's a very fraught issue. And there's like always somebody who wants to go further, you know, no matter what position you take. But there's like big room in the public eye for revisiting where Democrats have been on that. Medicare for all, you know, we've been talking about for 10 years, like polling on that is all over the map depending on what you ask. But people have pretty progressive ideas about healthcare.
You know, like the voters believe that if people get sick, they should be able to see the doctor. And so, you know, you can kind of go places on that. At the same time, you know, something I wrote about is kind of like racial targeting of programs is quite unpopular with white people in particular, who, you know, want programs to benefit them rather than other people, which is pretty easy to understand, not really something the left in the establishment disagree about. Again, so interestingly, Obama in 2008 on the campaign trail, you know, made some real waves by suggesting that he wanted to revisit some of that and questioned, you know, to his daughters need special advantage over low-income white kids, right?
That'd be a very hot take to put forward. It was a hot take when he did it. Obviously, he had some personal qualities that gave him a little bit more space on those kind of things. But those are statements that make people think, huh, you know, maybe I need to give a new look to somebody who's out there. I think you're right, you know, Plattner didn't really talk much about the guns thing.
We don't know how that would have gone as a general election, right? But, you know, different things pop at different kinds of times. But I do think that successful politicians usually put something on the table to make you think, oh, this guy is different, like that's fresh, that's new. And charisma is like how you make that pop, but it still matters what the content is. Because if what we see is like, oh, that's different, that's an idea I've never heard before, and I hate it.
Like that's not good, right? Like, you don't want to get attention for terrible ideas that everyone hates. The empathy point you made earlier, and I wonder if you read Brian Voitler's piece today where he sort of wrote about this as well as like the sort of the need to show empathy or democratic politician to show empathy can kind of sort of bridge some of these divides and these disagreements between factions and the party. The Obama thing made me think, so yeah, he would go out and talk about like maybe what we really use class based affirmative action and not just race based affirmative action. And then he would also make the point that when people say, well, then race doesn't matter until about class, he would say, well, no, I mean, I'm biracial, but when I hail a cab and the cab keeps going, I'm black to that cab.
Absolutely. And I do wonder if it is a question of Democrats, or a lot of the Democratic candidates we've seen, not quite having the skills to explain their positioning and also explain it in a way where people who may be against the position they take can at least understand where they're coming from and because the politician showed some empathy for their position as well as the position of the people that that politician landed on, their same beliefs. Yeah, and I mean, I think this is a, this is where I think the substance of the positions and the communications methods sort of come together. And so both Biden and Harris and Clinton for all sort of different reasons, but none of them were really kind of like sit down and gab at length kind of politicians who made you feel like they could explain in sort of some level of nuance what it was.
They really thought about these different kinds of issues. And that hurts you, right? Because like this is a big diverse country. You end up with two political parties, two candidates down there. You're trying to assemble a somewhat messy coalition.
And there's going to have to be some like buzzing of these issues, there's going to have to be some outreach to the middle, but you've got to get people on the left on board. I mean, look at this up, probably happening in Michigan, right? It's very bitter. Somebody's going to win. Somebody's going to lose.
They're going to need to get the people who voted for the other person to come vote for them, which is going to mean whoever wins that is going to have to re-describe whatever it is they were saying about Israel or whatever else in a way that is at least acceptable to the other person's voters. And like, that's hard, right? I mean, that's the real art of politics. I as a journalist, I observe that this occurs and that the good politicians do it. But I do feel like there has been a, I remember when Harris was campaigning with Liz Cheney and there was a lot of people from the left where like, this is terrible, like, how can you work with Liz Cheney?
And then conversely, Harris wasn't moving toward Liz Cheney's positions. At all, when I was there. Right. And so I think that wound up being a real kind of like dead zone version of like trying to see more moderate, but not actually making anybody like her better, but raising these different kinds of questions. And it was just challenging, I think, for her to convey to people exactly what she was trying to say about this.
Like, why should somebody who was more conservative than Kamala Harris vote for her anyway? Because that's clearly what that was meant to convey, right? Like, that was the purpose of them being up on stage. But it's like, it's a hard argument to make. I mean, I don't have a big difficulty making the case to say like Trump, like he's corrupt, January 6.
But like, also I just don't agree with him. Like, he's cutting healthcare, he's doing tax cuts for the rich. Like, these aren't things that I agree with. But she wanted to make a pitch to people like my father-in-law who's like, pretty conservative, but also really doesn't like Trump. You know, and he, I think he voted for Harris at the end of the day and then he votes for Greg Abbott down ballot.
But there's all these people out there who are conflicted. And you do have to come up with some way to build a ridge to them that also, you know, conveys to progressives that like, if Democrats win the election, progressive public policy is going to happen. So you're running the presidential campaign of your dream Democrat who's willing to emphasize moderation. What moderate stances are you telling them to emphasize where the Democratic Party's position is most out of step with even its own voters on high salience issues, right? Which are issues voters rate as most important to them.
Or just issues that are going to come up in the campaign. I mean, we just talked about affirmative action. Supreme Court has now ruled on using race as a factor in college admissions. Doesn't seem like that is going to be a hotpot in issue in 2028. And so you could argue that just purely on a political level, moderating on that in a sort of a loud way.
Probably out. Yeah, and also can feel a little inauthentic and opportunistic. Absolutely. You know, so what do you think are the big ones? So, you know, I think there's like a few different buckets here.
But immigration is a big one, right? Because people are, there's a big backlash against what ICE has been doing. All Democrats are going to give voice to that, et cetera, et cetera. But this continues to be one of Donald Trump's strong issue areas. And you see that in polling of even Democrats, there's real concern about reopening sort of the gates to people seeking asylum.
Now, this is not where, like, I am at, personally. I'm like quite left on immigration, but I can see the numbers here, right? And you need to convey to people both that there's going to be a meaningful recalibration from what Trump is doing, but also that, like, we have heard what people were saying during the Biden administration and are not going to rerun that experience. I think that's like a big one. I think some of these trans issues are not that salient with the public, but they get brought up a lot by Republicans.
They have to be prepared to answer questions about them. And I think you have to be prepared to go into some level of nuance, because you want to convey, like, real empathy, real support for people's rights. But also to understand, I think, that, like, there is a set of sex-segregated spaces where most Americans want, you know, biology is defined by chromosomes to be the controlling factor there. I think you have to at least throw a bone to the median voter on this kind of topic. When you're addressing it.
And then I think there's this set of things, education, as I think the most prominent of them. But can you show people that Democrats understand, that, like, voters support the social safety net, voters support public services, voters support taxing the wealthy, but also voters, like, want to see change and reform in the state, in the government. That when Doge was first rolled out, people were really excited about it, right? And it, like, it all went to shit. But the idea of, like, I am willing to take on the stakeholders inside the bureaucracy and do something good, like, that means a lot to people in terms of, like, what are their doubts about Democratic Party governance?
You know, when people live in the Midwest and they think about California and New York, right, they think maybe a nice place to live, if you're, like, incredibly wealthy. But they don't think what they've really got there is, like, an incredible balance of taxes and quality public services, right? It's like, the weather is amazing in California. The culture and nightlife in New York is fantastic. But people look at those higher taxes, and they're like, well, what are you getting for that money, right?
And people who live in those states, like, you're in California, right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's like, California's amazing. But none of the Californians are now, are like, the thing that is amazing about California is that the high levels of taxes that I pay is, like, really paying off in my day-to-day life, right? And like, we know that between ourselves.
And, you know, that is something that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, I think, both, tried to give voice to, even as they tried to give health care, EITC, other things, to help the needy. Pots of America is brought to you by OurPlace. OurPlace makes beautiful high-performance kitchen where you're designed to make home cooking simpler and more enjoyable. Everything is designed to be multifunctional, so you're not crowding your kitchen with pans and appliances that can only perform one task. Since day one, OurPlace's cookware has been made without forever chemicals, and it's always third-party tested to meet global safety standards.
The Wonder Oven Pro is an eight-in-one air fryer toaster oven that preheats 60% faster than a traditional oven and cooks up to 40% faster, so meals actually happen quicker. It air fries, roasts, bakes, toasts, reheats, proofs, dehydrates, and broils all in one compact footprint that every cooking surface is made without forever chemicals. It's especially great for quick meals, reheating leftovers, crisping things up, or nights when you don't want to turn on the full oven. I'm getting one of these Wonder Pros. I'm getting one of these Wonder Oven Pros.
It's on the way. I'm going to use it. I'm going to use it because I'm an air fryer. I don't have an air fryer. I was just a toaster oven.
I just have a toaster oven like an idiot. Just you wait. Just like a dunce. A dummy. It's Wonder Oven Pro.
I think you can make potatoes in it. I have to do it on the internet to taste us. How about that? In the air fryer. Bakes.
No, not bad. You're going to make some fries. Chris, I'm up. You know? Upgrade your kitchen with our place today.
Visit from ourplace.com.com and use code CRKID for 10% off site wide. That's FROM. O-U-R-P-L-A-C-E.com. slash CRO-O-K-E-D and use code CRKID for 10% off site wide. With 100-Day Trial, you can try it completely.
Risk-free. Pots of America is brought to you by Zipper cruder. It would be nice if there was a way to offload some of the daily tasks that could be a bit boring sometimes. And so I'm always looking for ways to do that. And we all have time-saving hacks for everyday life.
But if you're a business owner, how can you save time hiring with Zipper cruder? There you go. Zipper cruder has new powerful magic technology that quickly lets you see the most interested qualified candidates first. So you can save time by meeting the right people faster. Candidates can also tell you in their own words why they're interested in your job.
No wonder Zipper cruder is the number one rate of hiring site based on G2. We've used Zipper cruder here at Crooked to hire people. And it's made a huge difference to everybody's helps you find great people and everything about having a company is about having the right people. Everything else is secondary to that. It's right about a bunch of sh** and morons.
You're not going to have a great day at work. I don't care. I don't care how good your product is. You mean great? I don't have a good product.
No, you're not. Not for long. Not with these morons. Go get yourself some Zipper cruder. You got to get some Zipper cruder.
Fix up your widgets. You know? Anyway, Zipper cruder. Save time and meet great candidates sooner. Four out of five employers who post on Zipper cruder get qualified candidate.
We've been the first day. Try it for free at zippercruder.com. Go to zippercruder.com. Go to Zipper cruder.com. Go to Zipper cruder.
Me? Your mansions. Mmm. Part of the challenge we're landing on here is that nuance and sort of thoughtful explanations don't. First of all, people aren't as good at giving them.
Sure. And so there's a skill level of politicians that we talked about. And even if you are skilled, there's just the ability to get that message out. Right? And so people see ICE abuses and you know, you've got people even like Bill Crystal now every time there's an ICE story is tweeting abolish ICE, right?
And I get it because you feel this absolute fury and the frustration for what they're doing. And look, I could make an argument that yes, ICE is relatively a relatively new organization and that we could put immigration enforcement back at, you know, some parts of a DHS and DOJ and we could do the bureaucratic everything. And I'm someone who's comfortable saying, yes, we still need immigration enforcement, obviously. But if you just say abolish ICE, of course, abolish immigration and custom enforcement makes a lot of people think, oh, well, then you don't want immigration enforcement anymore. When the reality is like, if I was a Democratic president, I'd go and I was heading into office after this.
Yeah, I would fire most of the people in ICE because I think they've hired a bunch of unqualified psychopaths. I would still want immigration enforcement somehow. But it takes a while to explain all of that, you know? Absolutely. And I just wonder how that I wonder how that plays out in a Democratic presidential primary.
Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, yes, nuance is hard. On the other hand, I don't think it's actually that hard to say. We need to totally revamp how ICE works or even abolish it, whatever. But we need a secure border. Jim Stalarico had this line and he's like, we've got to have like a door with a beautiful welcome back and also a lot, right?
That's like a good metaphor, right? So he's smart, but it's not impossible to come up with these kind of formulas. But I actually think it's a little bit harder for people who are down ballot and maybe even for presidential candidates is navigating the kind of interest group minefield, where there's a lot of stakeholders who have very specific things that they want you to say. And politicians get these kind of memos from their staffs. They're like, don't say this, do say that, don't say this, do say that, right?
And they're really nervous, right? They're trying to navigate in this really precise way. Like, I don't want to lose this endorsement. I don't want to get scored down, something else like this. And it makes it hard for them to talk like people.
We all know Democrats in our lives who are much more nuanced, I think, than the members of Congress who we see on our televisions. And it's because they're not under the same kind of pressure and the same kind of scrutiny to sort of talk in a relaxed, somewhat normal way about things. But it takes courage. I mean, this is why, again, I look to presidential campaigns more to change things because the reality facing anyone who wants to win for president is you're probably going to lose. Right?
It's just hard. It's hard to win. And I think a lot of the best presidential candidates are people who started off as real underdogs, right? I mean, again, that's something that Trump and Obama haven't come and took a certain amount of courage to even launch those campaigns and to work on them and to do it. The last three times Democrats have had this sort of like overdog nominee who was handed down by the weight of the past.
And that's not great because people who are taking that path just they're incentive is toward being cautious all the time. So then you come across as a really cautious, really calculating person rather than somebody who is like, I'm going to take my shot. I'm going to speak from the heart. And no politician is ever truly authentic, truly, truly speaking from the heart. But there is a difference between someone who's like, I'm going to go for it.
And someone who's like, well, this is coming my way, so I'm going to not fuck it up. At one point, you write that a center left candidate who is, quote, charismatic and skilled at contemporary social media can talk above the groups, directly to voters. Totally agree. But you mentioned Obama is coming up as an underdog and getting attention. And everyone else has sort of been handed down.
How many Democratic politicians can you name in the last decade who've been able to command national attention with a message of disciplined moderation? Well, I know. I mean, most of the people who've come up and have commanded attention have been very left wing. You know, and I think that's a big part of the reason why the whole discourse keeps getting sort of dragged to the left. Younger people are just more left wing, particularly within the Democratic Party.
So you have your AOCs, you have your Mambani's. And these are the people who've shown real flair for communication skills. I think you have also seen from both of them, Impulse's toward AOC had this whole bit about how we need to deregulate sunscreen, essentially. And Mambani has some small business kind of thing and stuff that he's doing that impresses people. So this stuff can work for different kinds of politicians with different kinds of ethos.
Also branding, I think, actually is not what matters most. I mean, Obama in 2008, I think, was understood as the progressive sort of choice in that primary, primarily because of Iraq, which was really, really important to people at that time. So you look back and you say, well, he was actually the one who was taking on teachers unions. He was the one who actually had more support from Wall Street and finance. He was the preferred candidate of a lot of the Red State members of Congress at that time.
He tacked up the center on affirmative action, all these other kinds of things. But at the time, progressives really liked him because he was the one who said this war is really fucked up. And that is the advantage of taking a position that is vindicated by time. It's always good to have good judgment on the substance of questions. And so I think anyone, including people who are sort of understood today to be progressive, could also move to the center on these kind of issues that we've been talking about.
Because when I talk to really left-wing people, I'm like, what are they fired up about? It's not actually the things that the public has the biggest doubts for Democrats about. I think we want to be a Medicare for all candidate. There's real problems of program design that you sort of need to confront. But it's not a political problem in the way that the sense that you want to open the borders is.
Abolish ICE, maybe not a slogan I would advise people to go with. But if you can convey the idea that abolishing ICE doesn't mean reopening to millions of new asylum seekers, that could be totally fine. Maybe it's easier, actually, to moderate an aspect of immigration if you have this left-wing slogan rather than if you're coming out of a password. I'm not totally sure how that needle needs to be threaded, ultimately. I just think that you have to give voters some level of reassurance about their biggest doubts, about Democrats, especially if you're going to say we're going to have a whole new approach to Israel.
We're going to take on the vested interests in the health care system. You're not going to pull that off while also alienating 60% of the population around cultural issues. If you want to say we're going to have this populist anchor, then I think you just have to follow the logic of that in a compelling way and say, look, if you can agree with me, that health care should be a right rather than a privilege, I want you on my team. I'm not going to take away your plastic straw, because we're focused on the health care thing, versus this laundry list politics where it's like, I got this for the health care. I got this for the child care.
I got this on the plastic straws. I got this on the immigration. I got this on the asylum. This on criminal justice. That's a hard way to do politics.
I am intrigued by your advice on candidate offering policy plans, which is don't do that. Less. Less, right. So you're asked, how do you get to universal health care? And you say, it depends on the composition of Congress.
What are you going to do about the deficit? We need to text rich people and cut wasteful spending, but then not a lot more detail. I mean, those answers certainly have the virtue of being true. But of course, this all depends on Congress and all kinds of other circumstances that you can't predict in the UK. In a campaign, as the primary goes on with the imaginary candidate we're talking about here, is it possible to dodge questions and attacks from your opponents about having no plans?
And it does seem like that was part of like Kamala Harris's vagueness was part of the negative coverage she received. Yeah. So one thing is, with all this planned stuff, I'm trying to hold myself accountable a little bit because I was part of a wave of young at the time journalists who were really like, we got to see plans from these presidential candidates. And in retrospect, it's like, I wonder why we were so demanding of that, because that's not how the government works. And we all know that.
And so there was this faux sophistication coming from me and from some of my colleagues, but specifically from me as well, to be demanding all this detail from people. And I think that if you can give real answers that make sense, that both journalists and voters will understand, actually, that the micro details of text policy are written by Congress and that the directionality of text policy is like a numbers game. Like if we have a teeny tiny majority, it's going to be hard to do very much. But if a big majority will do a lot, and you try to say what kinds of things you want to do. With Harris, she was in this weird position, where she was the vice president for an incumbent administration.
She was saying, I remember the first time when she was doing a little rally. And she said, we're not going back. And I was like, yeah, I love that line. Because people really wanted both change, but also not Donald Trump. And so she seemed to convey that.
But then she got the question, like, well, in what way? Is this change but not Donald Trump? And she didn't have a great answer. The great thing about being a Democrat running when a Republican is president is that you don't have that same complicated question. It's like change that's not Donald Trump is just like, yeah, elected Democrat.
And then people do want to know something. What does that mean? What are you going to do? And I'm not saying that you should dodge that question. I mean, again, implicit in all of this is that, yeah, like rich people's taxes will go up.
We're going to spend more money on subsidizing people's health care. We're going to, however we characterize what we're doing with ICE, it's like fewer people are going to be getting arrested in the interior of American cities. And then hopefully we can also say, but there's going to be a very secure border. We're going to keep fighting crime. We're going to make crime even lower than it is now, something like that.
But do we really need to have this 17-point plan, like we had in the 2020 primary? Again, thinking about about 2008, there were all these articles written about different candidates, health care plans, and Obama's plan didn't have a mandate. Right. And then he won the primary, and then he won the election. And then Congress did want to do the mandate.
So the mandate happened. But then, in the rule writing, in HSS, it got watered down a little bit. Then there was unrelated implementation problems. But then actually it was going pretty well. And people liked Obamacare.
But then the mandate got repealed. And then that maybe didn't. It's so tedious. And in retrospect, I mean, in terms of it's been a huge pain in your ass. And it wasn't mine.
Like, why do we spend so much time talking about this? The challenge here is, is that a reason that these policy plans are developed if the context of a primary is to be used as a political cudgel against your opponents, because you're running in a primary. And the truth is, most of you have the same general position on most of the same issues. And you want to differentiate yourself from the other primary candidates. And so you put out a plan that is bolder and more ambitious, which is either it's more expensive or probably harder to achieve than the other candidates, so that you can get on the debate stage and brag about that.
And then I think it happened in an even more annoying way than the mandate in 2020, when I don't know how many of those debates ended up being just a conversation, not even a conversation, just a debate about Medicare for all. And who's Medicare for all plan was the best when then Joe Biden won? And you barely expanded anything? Yeah, but I mean, I did some subsidies. That is one where I think it is important to remind people that Joe Biden won that primary, right?
After that huge shit show, then actually his message of like, I'm just going to beat Donald Trump, was like pretty compelling, actually, to Democratic primary voters. And he is not the single most like silver-tongued person in the universe, certainly not a master of vertical video or whatever else it is. So I do think that there's like ways for younger politicians to tap into some of what worked for him there, right? In terms of like keeping the focus, I'm like, what do Democrats really care about? And it's beating Trump, it's not just beating Trump, right?
I think Democrats care a lot about healthcare. And I think Democrats are quite exercised about some of the cruelty of these immigration enforcement actions. And if you can hit those three buttons in some kind of way and convince people that you're going to take action on those issues, like you could be, I think, conceivably pretty flexible on some other things if people believed that it was in pursuit of accomplishing these important goals. The Biden thing is interesting though, because I think I don't see a lot of evidence that Biden ended up winning that primary, because he staked out more moderate positions than the rest of the field. In many ways, he sort of chased them on some of these issues.
He, I think, half raised his hands on, raised his hand on decriminalizing the border on that one. And I think that he probably, what helped him is he had universal name ID. He was Barack Obama's vice president. And so he sort of had a bit of Obama-Halo. And then there was no one else left by the time it was just, he and Bernie, right?
And so. Well, he did really well in the head to head match up polling. Yes. People, Democrats these days, read the New York Times when Nate Cone tells them that Elizabeth Warren is really unpopular and people like Joe Biden. Like, that made a big difference in the right.
It did. Yeah, he just goes back to the challenge I keep thinking about it is Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, because she was just installed last minute. These are all people that their name ID came from, virtue of them being political dynasties or someone else's vice president or, and the incentives to become nationally known and get attention. I feel like point towards language that is bolder, more ambitious, geared towards conflict, sometimes hyperbolic. And I'm trying to picture the candidate who practices discipline moderation, who sort of breaks out in these, like I think about like an Andy Beshear, right?
Like, amazing track record, electoral record in Kentucky. And still like a pretty mainstream Democrat, not like super conservative, but like, I'm trying to picture Andy Beshear, and I've seen him give some interviews, I've interviewed myself, like really breaking out in a crowded primary with a message that's going to capture people. And that's the, I feel like we have a lot of center left candidates who may be electorally viable, but are not very good at getting attention. And then we have a lot of progressive candidates who are very good at getting attention, and may not be electorally viable in swing states, you know? So, right, so, you know, some of this like, yes, right?
Part of the deal with someone like Governor Beshear is that he's very disciplined, which I think is good for him winning elections in Kentucky, but it also denudes him of a certain amount of pizzazz, right? They could potentially be out there. Like, one of the things that I think was interesting about Plattner wasn't just like the positions that he took, but that he seemed very, like anything might happen in this interview, right? And that kind of kinetic energy is unusual in experienced politicians, because the way you kind of get to be almost a presidential contender is usually by being like quite controlled, you know? And like, calm, and you climb the state party ladder, you make the right kind of people like you, and then suddenly you find yourself in a crowded presidential primary field, and like the challenges to break through.
And it's like a totally different kind of challenge, right? And I think somebody like, like Ruben Guego, who has, through many twists and turns in his career, found himself as kind of like a moderate swing state senator, but just a couple of years ago was like a progressive challenger to Chris and cinema, and before that was like the young guy in the state legislature who was trying to muscle a pesto or a out of a house seat, right? And he has a little bit more of the looseness that kind of gets you attention, but is unusual in all kinds of politicians. We're seeing it more with left-wing politicians, because they've been challenging incumbents, right? Only like a slightly crazy person runs against an entrenched house incumbent.
Most of the people who do that lose, but a couple of them win. And then your AOC, right? Because you took on this sort of suicide-run primary. You don't see as many people like that in the moderate lane, but I think it's possible, right? Because it's about trying to be interesting and like trying to break through.
And it is also about having the right issue positions. I mean, so many people who care about electoral pragmatism, I think really like Josh Shapiro, right? Because he's doing incredibly well in the critical swing state. And I think that's really important. It's also true that when he speaks from the heart in a way that is moderate and compelling and makes you think like, OK, this guy's for real, he tends to be talking about the Israel issue in a way that is just public opinion is not on his side.
And that's a tough one. Like, you can't win by being moderate on something where everything's going the other way. Now, that being said, like, he has done some stuff in the state that is heterodox on energy. He's done stuff in the state that is heterodox on education. I think maybe if he talked more about those things, that can deliver us the same kind of electoral pragmatism, but also actually connects more with things that Democrats themselves have mixed feelings about.
You know, about like, how are these systems operating? Are we shaking them up? Are we governing well in our blue states? These kinds of things. But there's no getting around the fact that politics is hard.
Potts of America is brought to you by Sundays. Is your dog a picky eater? It's surprisingly stressful. You wish they could tell you the problem. Maybe if they could, your dog would say they know the difference between process brown pellets and real food.
I think my dog would say that. Sunday starts with 80% plus all natural meats, and then adds superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries, no fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. And Sunday's just launched a brand new fish recipe. It's made with 80% whole and minced fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp sourced from American rivers for a naturally rich flavor. In fact, did you know that many dogs naturally prefer fish flavors?
So Sunday's fish recipe is especially great for picky eaters. And again, those damn carp out of the water. Get the carp out. Invasive carp sourced from our own rivers. Plus it's packed with these carpets.
Did they? They're crazy. Oh, I know, this was an issue in Barack Obama's Senate office back in 2005. It's like, is he's Asian carp crazy? Yeah, that was an Illinois thing.
Plus it's packed with omega-3 fatty acids that help support healthy skin, shiny coats, joints, and brain function. It's complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages. Leo loves Sundays for dogs. We just took him to Maine. And so it was very easy to travel with Sundays for dogs, just poured in the bowl.
And then he ran right to the bowl. And was very excited, as he always is, because he's a picky eater. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundaysfordogg.com slash cricket and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code cricket to check out that 50% off your first order at Sundaysfordogg.com slash cricket, Sundaysfordogg.com slash cricket, or use code crooked at checkout.
Introducing the new RedTag.ca app. Search, compare, and book vacations, flights, hotels, experiences, and more. Now on the go. Your next trip starts here. Download the app today at redtag.ca slash app.
Redtag.ca. Travel, Made Easy. Early Black Friday has arrived at BJ's wholesale club. That means early access, early prices, early bragging rights. Toy brands you love like Disney, Hot Wheels, and VTech at prices you'll adore.
Plus, save up to 30% off home and seasonal decor. So get holiday ready with some early holiday magic at BJ's. You're home for the holidays. Visit BJ's.com slash Black Friday and save through November 15th. BJ's.
Home of the Save. Josh Appear is another one where it's like, the center left theory is, there's often a lot of like, this candidate is so great on paper. And look at their electoral track record. And Josh Appear is going to have a fantastic story to tell about that in a very, very important state. And look at how he's navigated the coalitions and approval rating, all that kind of stuff.
And then it's not, it's not just like, I don't want to say it's a lack of charisma, but it's what is the story that you're telling about why you're running and why you're different from everyone else. And it is that story cohesive and compelling versus cherry picking issues where you can say see this is why I'm different than the National Democratic Party and a little more moderate. And the thing that you hate about the National Democratic Party is not the thing that you are going to hate about me, which can again, really risk sounding like you read a polling memo. Yeah. Although it also depends what people in our line of work decide that we are interested in it, right?
Like a very large share of media professionals live in New York City. And they personally are very interested in left wing reformist politics in New York City where they live. So things that happen in that vein get a lot of coverage. I don't think that's, it's not like wrong for people to be very passionate about politics and the city that they live in. I wish more people actually cared about the politics and the city within the event, but it's distortionary in terms of like our understanding of national politics and like what's it all about, right?
And something that, you know, I try to do that I think everybody has to try to do is exercise some discipline and responsibility for ourselves that the most important races coming up in November are in Ohio, they're in Iowa, they're in Texas, Alaska, North Carolina. I have some personal connection to Texas, through my wife's family, I have some personal connection to Maine, where I am physically present right now. I don't have any connection to Iowa and Ohio, but like I care a lot about the future of the country. So it's incumbent on me to like learn to care about these states, right? Rob Sand is clearly doing something in Iowa that is compelling to people who used to vote for Democrats and stopped voting for Democrats.
And they're like Rob Sand. And so I'm trying to, like I'm trying to get it, you know, like, because he's pretty charismatic. You know, he's an interesting guy. Yeah. He's that there's something different about him, but it's not targeted at me, you know, and like that's why he's running in Iowa.
Like that's what's good about it. I will say you're right that everyone needs to take responsibility in the media in the professional class, like for what they emphasize and what they talk about. I will speak as someone who runs a media company who like we try to have everyone on. Yeah. And a lot of this is the attention that the person ends up commanding with audiences, right?
Like we've talked about a bunch of times, very popular, right? Not just with our audience, but like those clips travel beyond our audience, right? And we will have, you know, Kay Connolly, who's in a much more important to the future of the country, a district to win when she's in town. And who knows? Maybe it'll also be an incredibly viral clip, but our experience has been a lot of these candidates were in really important races that we ended up talking to.
Like it doesn't go anywhere because people are like, well, I don't really want to, I'm not as excited about that. Oh, absolutely. And that's not going to stop us from doing it. We'll keep doing it. But eventually you want, and especially you want this as a candidate on a campaign, you want your message to reach the low information voters.
And unfortunately the stuff that gets to the low information voters, people who don't pay his close attention to all this has to be stuff that goes viral, you know? And that's the trick. I guess it's a huge frustration that I have with a lot of more moderate Democrats is that they don't even want to try a lot of time, right? Their attitude is, look, nationalizing things is bad for me. I do better if there's kind of less of a giant media glare on me.
What I want to do is be well enough known among super high attention people that I can raise money. And then I want to talk to my local television station about my local issues. And I get why people come to that conclusion. And I think it's the advice that they're getting from the DCCC, from the DSCC. And it works within the four walls of what it's designed to achieve.
But then all these same people also come around to me and they're like, oh my God, I'm so frustrated. People think the only Democrats in the country are AOC and Mamganee. And it's like, well, because they do the interviews, right? And they'll go on your show, they'll go on Fox. And some of it is like, you can be more devil-made care in a safe district.
And it's a little bit of a loaded playing field. But also, life's not fair, as we tell us not to tell our living world that. You're not supposed to waste kids with that message anymore. But I think it's an important point fundamentally. It's like, it is harder to be in a swing district.
It just is. The playing field is loaded against you. But you've got to try. You've got to try to be interesting. You've got to try to say, look, if you look at Vicente Gonzalez and Riggles again, Perez and Don Davis and Kate Connolly and Tom Swazie, that there actually is something that we all have in common.
We're not all just local people who are focused on our issues here. Because they actually hang out together in DC. They have common staff, common consultants, common fundraisers. There's a group of moderate Democrats, but they need to give some voice to like, what do we think? Who are we?
Why are we the good people? And I give incredible credit to Bernie Sanders, who has been tireless about trying to promote politicians who he likes. And I hear so many other Democrats and they're mad that Bernie is promoting these people and that the people who they like aren't getting promoted. But it's like, well, who's going to promote them other than you? Yeah, that's what actually bothers me a lot is that they look at the insurgent candidates on the left and the progressive outsiders with like, umbridge.
That's the main feeling of like, how dare you? And my candidate works really hard and has been just doing, you know, this is sort of like, the Hayley-Seaton stuff has gotten better, I think, the argument that people are making for her. But originally it was like, well, she's been there just working hard and give her credit for being there and working hard. And it's like, okay, I'm sure that's true if you know her, but like voters don't know that. And so they're going to need a different kind of story there.
Well, and also I know so many Democrats who want her to win this primary, but who don't want to fly to Michigan and campaign with her because it'll be embarrassing if they stand with her and she loses, but it'll be embarrassing to Bernie if Abdul loses. And like he doesn't, he has to get, you know, he's doing the work, right? And there's no, there's no alternative to that in politics. And that's like part of my message to the more moderate Democrats out there is like, don't just give up hope, but also don't just assume that we can keep endlessly staving off the left and you know, pulling more rabbits out of the hat. Like somebody's got to run a campaign, somebody's got to make the case.
You've got to actually like articulate some daring positions on the issues. And if people yell at you, you have to explain why they're wrong. Like you got to go on Crooked and you probably got to go on Hassan Piker and you know, do some interviews of people who don't agree with you and stand your ground. And that's because that's how it's always been. You know, there's no, there's no like magic trick.
Look, I know people said it's not that the issue that lost for the election, but the ad that Kamala Harris dealt with about gender-affirming care for undocumented immigrant prisoners. And you know, the campaign was like, oh, we tested all the responses and the responses didn't do anything. And so we decided like not to talk about it at all. And I just, I don't think that may be true in terms of testing the ads, but I think the candidate has to be able to tell a story about why they supported that, why they've changed their mind, if they have changed their mind, that is acceptable to voters, right? Like I don't think ducking these issues or just trying to hide from them is it is not a effective strategy on a presidential campaign level.
Like some of the, I remember Jonathan Martin wrote a piece of Wileback was like, Democrats aren't focusing at all on maybe some of the most important Senate races, like they don't get national attention like Roy Cooper or, and it's like, well, Roy Cooper probably doesn't want a lot of attention on his race because he has enough money. He has raised quite a bit of money. He's ahead. And so what does Roy Cooper care for all talking about Roy Cooper's race? He probably does it.
But you can't do that in a presidential primary. And the challenges you're going to get a bunch of moderates in the presidential primary that don't know how to sort of make that argument and get that level of attention. But the one person I've been thinking about this whole time, and I thought about when I read your piece for the first time is Ron. Like Ron will be this person, right? Yeah, I mean, I mean, Ron is, I think doing the right stuff.
You know, he is getting attention to himself, people know his name, et cetera. You know, if I could puppet master everything, I would say, look, is like a retread from the Obama White House, from the Clinton White House, who was ambassador to Japan, who if he does gain some traction in the primary, we're going to be relitigating like on McDonald's. That's not like I would love for Ron to take a step back and to mentor somebody else. You know what I mean? Because clearly there is a demand for fresh faces and new voices.
And like we can all everybody can see that, right? And you know, this is part of why I'm excited about Josh Turic and James Tallarico. It's like these are younger politicians. They are not part of the old kind of mess. I think they are kind of media savvy and no stuff.
And they're not from the left wing of the party. They're just also not handed down by the establishment, right? And like this can be done. But to an extent, some of the people around the manuals of the world need to make room for other people and promote them or help them rather than saying look the same cohort that was telling you in 2016, like don't listen to Bernie. We know how to win and then they didn't win.
And now we're 10 years into that and it's not a healthy dynamic. Last question on this. So who do you like in 28 as a potential candidate who could carry this message? Sure. When I tell people it's like we know the universe of statewide elected officials in the critical swing states, right?
It's Kelly and Diego in Arizona, it's Whitmore in Michigan, it's Shapiro in Pennsylvania. There's some like Tony Evers is too old. Katie Hobbes seems like, I kind of like her, but it seems like she totally refuses to do press of any kind. Like somebody who's not going to run, John Federman is like not going to be a leading contender. I think we could say.
But we know this universe of candidates. And the question is which of them is going to try to go beyond? Like you were saying, right, they're going to stand up and think like, I know how to win in the swing states, you should vote for me. This is the most practical thing to do. I kind of agree with that.
It's also just not that compelling, right? And so who's going to say, I know how to win in the swing states. And the way I did it is that I said, and then you've got to say the thing, you know, like, like you have to actually go say something. And something that I have noticed is that a lot of these people, depending on what audience they're talking to, these centers want to undersell the amount of ideological heterodoxy that they've displayed in their campaigns because the easiest way to raise money if you're running for reelection in Kentucky is to kind of tell like liberal donors in coastal cities. Like I'm a magician.
You know, I just like one in Kentucky because I've got a cool accent. But like Andy Beshear rejected a Sierra club endorsement. And he got the United Mine workers who have stopped endorsing Democrats and national politics to endorse him. And that's because like he has a position on the use of coal that like, I don't really agree with. But the people in Kentucky do agree with.
And that's like, that's the truth about Andy Beshear wins votes in Kentucky that other people don't have. I don't think you could sell that to a national democratic primary electorate because it's like Kentucky is too right way, right? It's too far. But there's stuff you can say in the Midwest or in Arizona or in Georgia, but like you got to give people the real talk about like, what did you say? We're not going to do that.
What did you say? Don Asaf to the local audiences in Georgia and say it to a national audience. And a lot of the time, you know, you'll find these people it's border security, it's some kind of political reform. And it is some effort to indicate that you're not like woke, like whatever it is exactly that that means to people. But I think something like, you know, you are not going to be so obsessed with identity politics that you can't just like help everybody on their own terms, right?
And that's the message Obama uses the message Bill Clinton used. I think we kind of like know what they're like unifying. This is a diverse country, but we're all in it together. I mean, you're, you know, a really, you know, speech writer, like, you know how to do these things, but only certain people can sell it because politics is hard. Hope we find one soon.
Mad of Glaseous. Thank you so much for joining Pauseous America. This was a great conversation. Thank you. Thanks to Mad of Glaseous for coming on.
Tommy Lovett and I will be back in your feed on Tuesday. Pauseous America is a critical media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin. We're going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do.
Subscribe to Pauseous America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3 at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.