Bulwark Takes - How Dems Can Stop Being Boring and WIN

Episode Date: May 1, 2025

Lauren Egan chats with Rob Flaherty, former Biden/Harris Deputy Campaign Manager, to break down the White House's media blind spots, missed chances, and why Democrats still struggle to connect.

Don't miss the biggest Maytag sale of the year at Lowe's. You'll find the Maytag appliances you need, when you need them, at a great price. Plus, when you buy two select laundry appliances, you'll get up to a $100 bonus via instant rebate. Shop Maytag at Lowe's. We help. You save. Offer valid through 531. See store for pricing and offer details. Advertise savings on all major Maytag appliances through Maytag.com and participating retailers. Prices may vary. Additional terms and conditions apply. What's up, guys? It's Lauren Egan here at The Bulwark. I have Rob Flaherty here with me today. He has a pretty long resume in Democratic

politics, but you might know his name most recently because he was the digital director in the Biden White House before he moved over to the Biden campaign to be a deputy campaign manager. Of course, that turned into the Harris campaign. Rob, how's it going? It's going great. Thanks for having me, Lauren. And hi, everybody. Yeah, thanks for being here. So I asked you to come and chat with us because you have an op-ed in the New York Times this week, and it's titled, If You're a Voter Reading This, This Essay Is Not About You. So give us the quick summary of this piece and what you're trying to argue in here. Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, look, I think if you look at why Democrats lost the election in 2024, there was a split between

voters who pay attention, who Democrats are really good at communicating with through the traditional institutions of media, through a battle over facts, through a style that takes into account the values of our institutions and democracy and all of those things. And voters who don't pay attention, who feel the system isn't working for them, who feel burned by politics and in a world of infinite media choices, don't need to hear the news, don't sort of need to hear about politics in their day to day. They aren't seeking it out. But that doesn't mean they're not getting information about politics. They're getting information from their friends, their family, from social media, from all the above. And so in order to successfully reach those voters, you know, we need to adapt to a whole new style of tactics. We need to adapt to a bunch of stuff that we tried in 24, but didn't do enough of things that the party has struggled with subsequently. But we also have to think about our style.

I mean, at some fundamental level, these voters think we're full of shit and think that maybe we make a bunch of promises, but we never deliver, that the party is weak. And the shortest way to do that is to pick fights, drive conflict, drive attention, drive reach, and then ultimately have that drive votes. And so, you know, in many ways, this is less a conversation about, you know, what issue sets do you need to pick and more? How do you get in front of these voters? How do you show that you really believe what you are saying? And how do you drive attention? Because that is ultimately the way that you reach these folks who are not normally paying attention to us.

So I just want to start off by addressing a bit of the elephant in the room. I totally agree with a lot of what you're arguing and writing in this piece. But why wasn't that a lot that that logic then applied to the Biden situation? Because I think everything that you write to me makes it even more apparent that like, maybe Biden should have never run for reelection in the first place and that he wasn't the right candidate or the person for this moment. Well, I think part of the challenge is, you know, it's it's this is a struggle for pretty much any major Democratic candidate right now. You know, I think this is like a stylistic adjustment that a lot of Democratic candidates need to make. And, you know, I think you're seeing a lot of folks try to get their reps in right now and and do better in better in this sort of lane. But it's a challenge for a lot of people. You know, in the case of the sort of the president, I think there's a lot of stuff that we had the

president do to try to get in front of these voters. But it is sort of a fundamental challenge for him as it was for a lot of folks, because, you know, I think the sort of style of politics of the whole party is sort of not oriented towards, you know, this sort of style of communicating. And so it's, you know, the other sort of part of this, too, is like, I think this is a thing that the campaign identified. I mean, at the beginning of the campaign, we maybe talked about it of, you know, we called them persuade to participate voters at the time, which was the sort of fundamental challenge for the campaign, which was, even at the beginning, there was sort of a sort of a disaffected group of Democrats that both campaigns were going after. And, and so this is sort of a thing that we worked at, you know, all throughout, I think, you know, there were certainly things that the campaign should have done better on both in both the Biden era and the Harris era. And there were things the campaign did well in the Biden era and the Harris era to reach these folks. But, you know, this is like a party wide effort that, you know, I think is going to, you know, need to focus on reaching these folks. There's a version of this where I think Democrats

convince themselves that they can get their own version of these online platforms or someone who can communicate really well on these platforms. And that's that that's like a silver bullet. But I think that there's another argument that can be made that Democrats don't just need a Pete Buttigieg who can, you know, go on a podcast and chat for three hours, but they need someone who can, you know, moderate on various issues that matter to voters that has credibility in that moderation on these issues. Do you think that the like moderation component is part of this at all? You know, to me, it's less about moderation or being progressive or any of that stuff. And it's more about sort of, um, does it seem like you really believe what the heck you're saying? Right. And so like, you know, I think like

the authenticity thing that, yeah, we keep talking about. Yeah. And, you know, I think a lot of these voters give Bernie Sanders a lot of credit for believing what he says, even if they disagree with him. And so, you know, like famously, I worked for Hillary Clinton, you know what I mean? Like, I'm not, I am not a Bernie guy. But I think that is a thing that like people give him credit on. And so I think, you know, moderation, not moderation, I think ultimately, the most important thing is like, doesn't seem like you're real and that your beliefs are strongly held. You know, I think that the party overall needs to sort of, look, we need more voters. That's the fundamental problem. And so, you know, however you sort of build a candidate, a campaign, a movement that invites more people in and has a bigger tent, that is the most important thing. And I think there's a lot of different ways that you can pull that off,

you know, irrespective of your sort of positioning. Yeah. And the bigger tent component is interesting because, you know, you talk about going on, you know, to more like non-traditional type platforms. And obviously, like with Rogan, that was a big thing with Bernie going on there. And is that a place that Democrats should go given things that he says about trans issues? Do you think it's like the whole party kind of needs to relearn how to operate in this media environment so that you don't have sort of like activists online, like, you know, coming at you for, for doing something, going on a podcast like Rogan that might not sort

of fit into this narrow box of how hardcore Democrats view themselves. The fundamental thing is, you know, I always say there are no broadcasts anymore. There's just narrowcasts. And so you have to go around collecting narrowcasts. I mean, that's that is the basic gist. And in the same way that, you know, campaigns traditionally go to different DMAs to reach folks in local media, we have to think about audiences that way. A small media engagement that reaches a certain audience is a valuable use of a candidate's time. And there's a lot of audiences you need to talk to and places you need to go with people who may not agree with you on everything. I mean, that is just sort of the fundamental thing. And so, you know, to me, there's no voter

that the party can afford to write off. You know, there's there is we are in a place where, you know, we are writing off states we used to win. I mean, that means we need to expand the tent. That means we need to expand the number of people we're talking to. And that does mean going to podcasts or media appearances or radio shows or town halls with organizations, with people who might disagree with us. Because I think that the willingness to hear people out and engage with people we disagree with is how you win over people who don't agree with us. And in a world where there just aren't enough people to support a democratic coalition in a presidential right now, like you need, we need to do that. Yeah, that kind of reminds me a bit of the, obviously, we've been talking a lot about Elon

Musk recently, but it reminds me of the White House event that I think was in the summer of 2021. It was the electric vehicle event that Biden had at the White House where he invited a bunch of EV companies. Notoriously, Elon Musk was not invited to this, which we know now from reporting really offended him. He was pretty upset about it. This whole conversation, does that make you rethink the decision to not invite someone like Musk to the White House for that type of event? If you need a big tent, you know, the decision, I think, to not invite him was largely a disagree about Tesla's labor practices. But if you're trying to create a bigger tent, if you want to bring people like Musk or people that follow Musk and like Musk, those kinds of potential voters into the fold,

then maybe don't stiff arm one of like the biggest social media posters in the world. Like if you could do that over again, do you think you do invite someone like Musk to an event like that? I don't know. I mean, I wasn't, you know, this wasn't, that wasn't my project. I don't know. I mean, I think there's a difference between going and reaching people and inviting a, you know, red pilled billionaire to the White House. You know, you know, I don't. He wasn't quite as red pilled at the time, I will say. But yes, it has since escalated, as we've all seen. I think we knew where Elon was going. So I don't necessarily draw an equivalent on that end.

But I think going to platforms and places where people have differing opinions is a good thing. Uh, but, um, you know, highlighting, uh, uh, people who, um, you know, whose views you don't agree with is not necessarily a thing you have to do. So then what do you think of Gavin Newsom's podcast? And, you know, I think, uh, he's highlighted some people that, um, fall into the red pill must category. Yeah, look, I, I, you know, I think it is. I don't know that I am very long on politicians having their own podcasts. I would say that I would generally advise that it is better to go to other people's platforms and to have your own because the people who are going to go to yours are generally are generally the people who are interested in hearing from you now that being said more content is more content that's a good thing and uh uh and however you're going to do it uh is good you know i don't

really even take issue with having guests on that you disagree with i mean from both a from both that how do you get people to listen to a podcast perspective i mean that's like 101 stuff but uh uh but like you know you do have to have those sort of conversations um you know i will say uh uh you like you you also probably should not be a pod like if you're you're a politician not who's on a podcast your job is to be uh uh is to win the argument and not be sort of a passive podcast host. And that's sort of the trap that I think you sort of find yourself in if you're in these positions. But on balance, it's an interesting idea, but I don't know that it's the tactic I would recommend. Yeah, that's interesting because I think one of the questions or one of the things that I didn't understand about the Newsom question, and it kind of goes into this conversation too about like, should Democratic donors fund some more progressive media platforms?

If the whole goal is to reach apolitical voters or like what you're calling these opt-out voters, is that really a good use of resources? Isn't it just that like Democrats need to show up to these spaces that like aren't actually political places? Like Arogan and Theo Vaughn, you know, those are the obvious examples that people keep using. But do you think it's a good sort of how are you thinking about what donors should spend money on in terms of creating different kinds of platforms. Is that really like a good use of, of resources or an effective use of resources?

Yeah. Look, I think there's like a couple of things here. I it's, it's sort of like a two-step, which is, you know, the,

the right has spent years and years and years, um, uh, building up a, uh, a desire and appetite, a demand for alternative media, right? Because they don't, their voters, their audience don't trust the mainstream press. So they go, okay, well, I want the Daily Wire,

and I want these sort of online publications because they can. And so the right sort of backed themselves into a position where they built this sort of thriving ecosystem in the space where a lot of voters who don't trust the system are now. Um, and so, you know, to that end, um, you know, you are seeing a lot of, you know, there's a desire online, uh, for alternative center left and left media and sort of, you know, um, uh, I don't know, resistance media. I mean, you know, the bulwark. Hello, we're here on the bulwark YouTube. Someone called us non non cringe resistance media. So I'm gonna go with that. Take non cringe resistance. That's right. And so, you know, to me, you kind of have to do both things. The advantage of what this is for the right is they've got this big ecosystem that then sort of pushes up against the other parts of the Internet and the other sort of parts, the other subcultures of the Internet.

And then they've also gone through those places. Right. They've done everybody talks about the manosphere. Fine. But they're also doing health and wellness. They're doing parenting. They're in all these other sort of corners of the universe and so if i'm a donor and i'm funding stuff i think the most important thing is to fund both a healthy sort of anti-trump ecosystem anti you know pro-democracy pro-social trust um you know sort of pro-left pro-democrat whatever media system uh ecosystem uh But then you also have to think about how are we funding the pipelines into, you know, those other cultural spaces.

You know, the reality is a lot of these folks need to, like, we need to, like, it's not currently super profitable to be a liberal on the internet. And that is like a problem. And, but there are, we need to give people the room to sort of experiment to exist there to try the stuff that's going to, you know, build an audience. And, and that's going to take some backing and the right, you know, it's not like the right, this just happened. I mean, this was a funded, capitalized exercise that then became profitable over time. And so, you know, there's just got to be, there's just got to be more of that. Yeah. I mean, this question about how Democrats regain cultural relevance is so interesting

and it's such a big question. Like, what does that even look like? Is that like, you know, building more relationships with influencers or does it have to be like more organic than than that? Yeah. I mean, there's the technical stuff, right? There's, you know, you've got to, you know, reach people, show up in places, you know, be authentic, like all the stuff whatever um i do think there's like a fundamental problem about the fact that uh we became the staunch defenders of the institution versus the improvers of the institution which like that's not like i'm not like that's gonna make you culturally cool because that's like a kind of a wonky answer but like so cool yeah super cool to be the but like there is this element

of like it's become counter-cultural in a moment of counter-culture to be conservative and like in a moment where people hate institutions where the the traditional institutions of society are falling away and distrusted that um the conservatism became the thing you are, that is rebellious and fun. And, um, that is the thing that I think is, is really missing is, um, you know, sort of the party, the left, um, uh, it became less fun. It became less interesting. And it was, you know, progressive without being inclusive in many ways. And, and so that I think is one of the big is the big sort of issue. You know, we need to seem like a movement that you want to be a part of, that wants you to be a part of it. And that takes like a level of irreverence, that takes a level of acknowledging where the system

is failing people, you know, and not falling into the America is already great trap. All of those things, I think are, you know, it's a branding exercise, as much as it is a technical exercise. Make Democrats cool again. I guess that's the mission. Yes. Nothing says we're cool that I have to say make Democrats cool again. Nothing says I'm so cool than saying make Democrats cool again. Yeah, that'll be a real wedding message for you guys. I'm curious then, you know, your experience working for Biden and just everything that happened over the past 18 months, if that's influenced how important you feel like it is for Democrats to be effective communicators and sort of like whoever emerges from this moment,

whoever kind of is the nominee in 2028, whatever that looks like, that like fundamentally one of the most important things to prioritize is this authenticity and this ability to communicate in all different spaces. Because I don't think that's a skill that like every democratic leader that's out there right now actually really has. So how are you thinking about the need to prioritize that? Yeah. I mean, look, I think it is a skill issue and a prioritization issue. I think that we have an issue across the board where, well, it's not even an issue across the board. I guess it's more that I think one of the, I always say it's like, you know, objects in the mirror are close when they appear. I think everyone has sort of a warped perception of the way the world consumes information because everything is hyper-personalized, right?

And so everyone lives in their own little media bubbles. And so because of that, it's really easy to think that what you are seeing on the internet is what everyone else is seeing, what you are seeing on TV, how you are consuming media. I do think there is a fundamental thing that leaders who don't live in it cannot really understand it. Right. You can't teach YouTube to someone who doesn't watch YouTube. You can't teach TikTok to people who don't watch TikTok. And so I do think there's like an element of, you know, like political leaders being native to this stuff being really, really important. So that sounds like it's an age thing in a way. Well, I think it's a generational thing, but it's also like a style. Like, you know, there are older politicians who are good at this. It's just sort of like, it is an adaptable thing. You can learn it. Um,

but, uh, but yeah, I mean, like there is an element of, of, um, uh, if it's not, if it's not a thing that you are constantly living in, you're never going to prioritize it in the same way. And so that is just a fundamental challenge. And then, you know, I do think there's sort of like a, the way we have drilled political figures for a really long time is, you know, run out the clock, give your talking points, repeat your points, go back to your base answer, all that stuff.

And like, there is just a, that doesn't work in these kinds of formats. You have to be able to have like a real conversation and like engage with questions on the substance and the merits. That is like a whole that is like a different kind of media training. That is like a completely different kind of you know, we definitely, you know, this calls for a series of folks who are more versed in the media of the moment to be given positions of authority in both staff level and principal level. But then also we've got to like, you know, sort of put our sort of retrain, rethink the way that we put our political figures out there and

how do we get them ready for this? It seems like there's been a bit of a reemergence of Biden, Harris world folks in the past few days are not the only Biden alum that's written in New York Times op-ed recently. Biden wrote something for USA Today this week about the Pope. Why do you think we're starting to hear from more Biden folks now? And do you think that, you know, there's sort of going to be a bit of a reemergence from some of the folks from this last election in the coming days? You know, I can't speak for other folks. You know, I this is sort of a thing I've been thinking about for a while and I've been working with the Times on it for for a little bit. And, you know, the timing was now.

You know, I think there's a lot of important lessons that we learned in this election that are worth sharing out and worth having a conversation about. Um, so, you know, um, uh, I think, um, you know, that's why, why I wrote it and, you know, a lot of other folks speak for themselves. You are going to absolutely hate that I'm bringing up this email that you wrote during the campaign, but you sent out a fundraising email poking fun at self-important podcasters and, you know, hindsight's 2020. Now that we know what we know about the media landscape. I'm curious if you regret using any of those words in that email. Well, I think, look, I tensions were high at the time. I day, it was a strongly worded email. But the broader point was at the time, you know, the pathway forward was to rally our

base and rally our people. And, you know, that's what we were trying to do at the moment. I have lots of respect for those self-important podcasters. Thank you. We appreciate your respect for the podcast industry here at The Bulwark. Thank you. Well, Rob, this was a super, super interesting op-ed. I really encourage our listeners to go and give it a read. And I hope you come back because I know you've got lots of thoughts about the future of the Democratic Party and how you'll navigate this brave new world of online media. So thanks for doing this and come back anytime.

Awesome. Thanks for having me, Lauren.