No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Democrats see silver lining amid Trump's GOP takeover

Episode Date: January 5, 2025

Mike Johnson’s semi-successful Speaker election cements Trump's takeover of the GOP. Brian interviews Senator Adam Schiff about the prospect of Trump retaliating against him and other members of the January 6 Committee and the Senate’s plan for facilitating independent media. And former Pete Buttigieg adviser Lis Smith joins to discuss how Democrats can win in red states.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today we're going to talk about Mike Johnson's semi-successful speaker election and what it means about the House and its relationship to Trump. And I've got two interviews this week. I speak with Senator Adam Schiff about the prospect of Trump retaliating against him and other members of the January 6th committee and the Senate's plan for facilitating independent media. And I'm joined by former Pete Buttigieg senior advisor, Liz Smith, that discuss how Democrats can win in red states.

I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. After one really long, really drawn-out round, Mike Johnson managed to cobble together enough support to reach the 218 vote threshold to retain his grip on the speaker's gavel. This happened after there were three defections that included Thomas Massey, Ralph Norman, and Keith self, only for Trump to call Norman and self, ultimately getting them to rescind their votes for the other Republicans

and change them to Johnson. And let's be clear, Trump needed Johnson to win. He endorsed the guy, which doesn't come without a problem. price, that endorsement meant that Johnson would promote Trump's agenda without presenting himself as an obstacle to his worst impulses, that he would be a malleable little foot soldier, which is exactly what Trump needs. In exchange, he gets Trump's green light, his endorsement, which means that the rest of the GOP falls in line. And when those three Republicans dared step out of line, maybe they want their 15 seconds of attention, all it takes is a phone call from Trump and

maybe the threat of a primary challenge funded by his human credit card, Elon Musk, and suddenly they fall right back in line. And the reason that this is so striking is because, let's not forget, this is the same GOP that just two years ago needed 15 rounds to elect a speaker. For this party of arsonous and chaos agents to offer barely any dissent this time around goes to show the extent to which they have contracted every ounce of their autonomy over to Trump. The legislative branch is supposed to serve as a check to the executive branch, not an extension of it. And yet, because they are so afraid of the guy, they've opted instead to just cowtow to Trump at every turn.

And the irony of that is that they're only going to confer more power to him by doing that, meaning they're even more susceptible to his threats in the future. It's just this vicious cycle that goes over and over thanks to the Republicans themselves. But at this point, the power transfer is effectively complete. There is no check on Trump's power as far as what are supposed to be

the co-equal branches of government are concerned. Granted, there may be a silver lining for Democrats here because Trump, left to his own devices, will go too far. Like, that is a certainty if ever there was one. Trump being too extreme is an inevitability. He would actually be well served by having a check on his excesses. But he won't have that. He'll be surrounded instead by yes men and sycophants.

And when he goes too far, which again, he will, then there will be a backlash. And remember, Republicans have majorities everywhere, meaning there are no Democrats to point to or pin the blame on. Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican White House. They now have the responsibility of managing the megalomaniac who leads their party, while also having sole ownership of their promises to fix the economy, bring cost down, make housing and grocery prices less expensive, keep the stock market high, bring down rent,

all the things they claim that they would do once the Democrats were out of power. They've got carte blanche now, nobody else to blame. Nobody's standing in their way. They promised Americans the world, now it's time to deliver. Next up are my interviews with Adam Schiff and Liz Smith. No Lies brought to you by Armoura Colostrum. I've been hearing about Armour Calastrum for a while now. I figured it was some health fad,

but then I saw thousands of people were reporting transformational health benefits, leaving five-star reviews and life-changing stories. So I looked into it. Here's the deal. Armour Colostrum fortifies gut health. It combats bloating, makes you feel lighter. Probiotics are often touted as a gut health solution,

but they only address one part of the four-part gut wall, and most products on the market are dead before they even reach your gut. Armour Colostrum naturally fortifies your entire gut wall system, optimizing your microbiome and strengthening the gut wall architecture, which guards against irritants that can trigger symptoms like bloating and constipation. It also strengthens immunity, optimizing your whole body microbiome and strengthening your immune barriers along the mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut, urinary, and reproductive tract to guard against unwelcome particles

for your strongest immune health. And that's just scratching the surface. Now, we've worked out a special offer for you. Receive 15% off your first order. go to tryarmor.com slash BTC or enter BTC to get 15% off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A.com slash B-T-C. I'm joined now by Senator Adam Schiff. Senator, thanks so much for taking the time.

Great to be with you again. Congratulations on officially being sworn in as a U.S. Senator from the state of California. Thank you. I'm really excited to bring in the work and to represent this incredible state. Well, you go from representing me. in my House district to now representing me in the U.S. Senate, so happy to continue having you represent me here. Before we jump into the work of the Senate as we proceed into this 119th, Congress here, I do want to get your reaction to some news that just broke minutes before we recorded,

and that was news that Donald Trump will be sentenced in New York on January 10th, although the judge has made it clear that he won't be sentenced to a period of incarceration. Can I have your immediate reaction to that? My immediate reaction is that this is a good thing for the rule of law and for justice. That finally there is one case and who would have imagined this would be that case where justice will be served, where the president has been convicted, he will be sentenced. My feeling all along in terms of the sentence should be that he should be sentenced to whatever someone of like offense would be sentenced. Neither more nor less. That appears to be what Judge Merchan is doing, but the case shouldn't be made to go away. I thought it was also possible

that the case could be essentially stayed until he leaves office. That was another option to sentence him after leaves office, but in no circumstances did I think that the case should simply be made to go away. And in fact, I thought the special counsel was wrong and the Department of Justice was wrong to dismiss the cases against him, even if their view is you can't prosecute a sitting president, then you postponed for the proceedings until he's out of office. But by dismissing those cases, it kind of creates a presumption that even though they could be resurrected after he leaves office, the status quo is more likely to be the case, which is that he escapes justice. So, glad to see what's happening in New York. Okay, so the next fight that you're headed for here in the

U.S. Senate is these confirmation battles for Trump's cabinet. What are your thoughts on which nominations may succeed, which ones may fail, and which ones are you particularly focused on? Which ones, in your opinion, pose the greatest risk? Well, I was appointed to the Judiciary Committee, so I'll be particularly interested and involved in the confirmation hearings of Pam Bondi, the nominee for Attorney General, and Cash Patel, the nominee for the FBI director. Let me start with Patel. Patel is an easy call. He is so horribly unqualified for this position. He's basically an internet troll, but also, you know, made his bones during the Trump administration

by being the greatest sycophant the president could find. And you could rise very quickly, very high in the ranks, as he demonstrated by simply saying yes to whatever Trump wants to do, no matter what line it crosses. He's someone who said he wants to close down FBI headquarters on day one and open up a museum to the deep state. He's that kind of person. So this is not someone in the wake of a terrorist attack that claim the lives of more than a dozen Americans

that you want running the FBI, not a serious pick. Do I think he'll be confirmed or rejected? You know, it's possible that any of these people could get confirmed. It will really depend on whether Republican senators, some number of them decide that these people are just too unqualified for them to swallow So Pambondi, this was somebody who pushed the big lie in Pennsylvania, claimed four years ago that Trump won what he lost.

And so I'm going to want to know, is she going to continue to push the big lie? She's also talked about prosecuting the prosecutors like Jack Smith. Is she going to abuse the Justice Department that way to go after political enemies? So I'm reserving judgment, final judgment on her, but I have deep concerns. And, you know, the other, which I have a deep interest in among many of these nominees is Tulsi Gabbard. Having been the chair of the Intel Committee in the House, I know how important it is to have people in leadership in the intel agencies who have experience with the intel agencies and the intelligence gathering process. She has zero none. She's also very prone to conspiratorial thinking as echoed Kremlin talking points.

cozyed up to Bashar al-Assad, a dictator gassing his own people. This is not, I think, someone you want to see whispering into the ear of the president when they're making national security decisions. So profound questions about her, too. Well, I know that you've been in the Senate for all of five minutes now, but is there any indication as to whether your Republican colleagues in the Senate have an appetite to confirm some of these more extreme picks, like, for example, Cash Patel.

I certainly hope so, but I'm reserving judgment about that because, you know, my experience is over, and this is a hard-earned experience over the last decade, you'll have many Republican members of the House and Senate who will privately raise significant concerns, objections to what the president's doing or who he's nominating, but when push comes to shove, when they have to be public, when they have to vote,

it can be a very different matter. So the honest answer is I really don't know. I hope that they will reject the most extreme of these nominees. And I hope more than that, that if the president threatens recess appointments, that is, if he can't get his people confirmed and tries to appoint them during a recess, that they will stand up and oppose that abuse of the process as well. Can we talk about the FBI a little bit as it stands right now? what would it mean if the independence of the FBI was undone in deference to an FBI that's there basically to answer to the executive as opposed to the independent statute that it maintains right now? What it would mean to have an FBI director who is essentially a political hack is they could go after the president's enemies. They could open investigations of people for no reason with no evidence.

they could potentially pressure prosecutors to move forward with charges without an adequate basis. Now, I have faith in the court system that those cases ultimately get thrown out. I have faith in the jury system, but they could really turn people's lives upside down in the process. And, of course, merely opening an investigation against someone, even if it's without merit, that can create a cloud over that person. And I'm sure one way they, you know, may be contemplating going after their enemies is to open unwarranted investigations, make the fact of the investigation public and attempt to smear people. Now, part of the kind of evil genius of what we have seen of the former president is he is pretty well gaslit the public by claiming that this is what Joe Biden did to him. when the prosecutions of Donald Trump were well-founded, you know, the Mar-Lago case, for example, boxes and boxes of documents at that, you know, public private resort, many of them highly classified obstructing that investigation.

Those are clear violations of law, as was this attempt to incite a violent attack on the Capitol and interfere with the transfer of power. but, you know, Trump, I think, has at least persuaded his base that those prosecutions were merely political and therefore, you know, he can initiate political prosecutions of his adversaries. So he's, you know, sort of laid the foundation by the false claims against Joe Biden to politicize the Justice Department for the first time.

Well, in terms of his promises to retaliate against his enemies, as chief among them are members of the January 6th committee. You sat on that committee, as did Liz Cheney, Jamie Raskin, Benny Thompson. What's your response, I guess, to now this increased prospect of Trump seeking retaliation against you and your colleagues? Well, we have this kind of Allison Wonderland potential where he is promising to pardon the January 6th attackers.

So these violent insurrectionists, the people that beat police officers and gouged and it bears sprayed them, give them pardons, pardon the criminals, and go after the people that were holding him accountable. Go after those of us that served on the January 6th committee, brought in those witnesses, did the public hearings, and, you know, shed a strong light of public scrutiny on what went into that very dark day in our history. Something, frankly, I'm trying to continue to do. I've invited Daniel Hodges, one of the officers, he was the officer, being crushed in that revolving door. in January 6th. He's going to be my guest on January 6th for the upcoming joint session of Congress, given the important role he played in protecting all of us that day. And I want to

make sure that both he is acknowledged with a hero that he is, that he gets to witness that this time it will be a peaceful transfer of power, but also the people are reminded of the reality of that day and how horrible it was, that what was not a peaceful, tourist visit as the former president has tried to reinvent that part of history. So we are in that Alice in Wonderland world again, where the attackers may be pardoned, those upholding the law may be persecuted. Do you have any worry personally about your legal exposure in this upside down world that will be the second Trump term? You don't have to take the president all too literally, when he threatens to go after his animacy, he has certainly tried to do so

in the past, but, you know, time will tell whether he follows through on this, whether he follows through with it to the degree that he's threatened to do so. He's called for jailing me and jailing Liz Cheney and jailing others. So, yes, you know, we have to think about it. This is, after all, someone who is going to be present again, someone who a lot of the guardrails, frankly, have come down that would protect the public. We, you know, saw in the first Trump administration, there were some people of independence and stature in the beginning. People like Secretary Mattis at the Defense Department, that might be, you know, Pete Hexeth now. People like Christopher Ray, the director of the FBI, could be replaced by Cash Patel. You know, those people who

served some of them in that first administration provided important guardrails. Most of them were driven out and replaced with people of no stature who were driven out and replaced by utter sycophants. He would like to start with the utter sycophants in the second term. So some of the guardrails have come down. So we have fewer protections now than we did then. I mean, you say that, but at the same time, aren't you protected by virtue of the Constitution's speech and debate clause anyway? Like, doesn't it seem a little silly to be having this conversation, given the fact that the Constitution clearly states that you, that, that, that you can conduct your business in Congress without having to worry about criminal prosecution?

You know, yes and no. Yes, when the president threatens to persecute or prosecute people over January 6th, we're protected by the speech and debate clause. But that doesn't mean they couldn't initiate an investigation. Doesn't mean they couldn't seek an indictment. It does mean that ultimately that gets thrown out, but not until you've gone to a lot of, you know, effort, expense to defend yourself. The other thing that they could do in abusing the Justice Department is go after senators or House members or others for things unrelated to their official duties. So, your taxes or make up other, you know, phony reasons to go after you and then argue that you wouldn't be protected by speech and debate.

Now, moving to a little bit of a different topic here, kind of the one that we're involved in right now, how are the Senate Democrats looking at the role of independent media as we kind of head toward this new media environment where clearly there is waning interest in legacy media, waning interest in mainstream media? This was dubbed the podcast election. So among you and your colleagues in the Senate at the very least, how are you looking at the role that independent media is going to play moving forward. Very differently that I think before the election and probably much to our detriment

that we didn't adequately consider this, work on this, focus on this before the election. And that is, you know, we have to realize that people are getting their information in different ways than they used to. And thankfully, we have got wonderful folks like yourself pushing out good fact-based information to people. But look, back in the day,

people got their news from three broadcast stations, NBC, ABC, CBS. And then, you know, a few decades later, they got it from cable news. Now most people get their information online. And we have to make sure that we're communicating to people through the channels in which they're receiving information and not relying so much on the legacy media. So I think that's an important, a hard-learn lesson for Democrats. Now, we still have to figure out even beyond that,

How do we compete with this incredible right-wing ecosystem that is comprised of Fox News, conservative radio, Newsmax, O-A-N, etc? They have their, you know, podcasting component as well, but their amplification is so much more powerful than on the progressive side. There's a lot of focus on this. There's going to have to be. We're going to have to build up a way to respond to that. But we're also going to have to figure out how do we break through these information silos so that we can be talking to the same people and talking in a way that they will hear what we have to say.

Yeah, I think the stat was something like 91% of people who aren't high information news voters broke for Donald Trump in the 2024 election. So that goes to show that when people aren't exposed to good, accurate information, or in that case, really any news or information. Those are the people who are right for the taking for Trump and Republicans. Let's finish off with this, and this is something that's close to home for both you and I, and that is California's entertainment industry. Gavin Newsom proposed a $750 million annual film tax credit. That would be roughly double what was offered before. As you know, I'm sure, the film industry in L.A. has been decimated,

and that's been to the benefit of places like Atlanta, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, Albuquerque, New Mexico, really a lot of the rest of the country has benefited from the fall of LA's film industry. So can you speak on whether you believe these increased tax incentives will pass, whether they should pass, and how you view the state of the entertainment industry more broadly? Well, they should pass. I hope they will pass. And even more than that, I'm focused on trying to do something very similar at the federal level. I think we need a federal tax credit as well, because, you know, we're seeing production not only leave Los Angeles and leave California for these other states, but we're seeing it leave the country.

You know, major motion pictures, which can be, you know, a massive budget and massive economic boost. You know, they're going to London. They're going to Australia. They're going to many other parts of the world, much to our economic detriment. And if California wants to be competitive with the other states, we're going to have to do what Gavin Newsom. is doing, so I strongly support it. And if the United States wants to be competitive and retain this incredible, creative, wonderful industry that I love so much, we're going to have to compete with other countries that are offering very generous tax incentives to woo away production. You know, Brian, as you were saying, and being my house constituent, now my Senate constituent,

I've had the good fortune to represent so many people in the industry in my house district over the last couple decades, and I've seen over that time so many of my neighbors essentially move out of their homes or be not present in their homes because they're filming in Canada or they're filming in Georgia or they're filming in Louisiana or in New York. They used to be year-round in Los Angeles, and now they can't afford to do that. I want those constituents back, and I want that industry back and healthy. So I'm strongly supporting. of those efforts. Well, I appreciate that. That seems like a good place to leave off. Congratulations, again, I'm being sworn in as California's newest U.S. Senator. Adam Schiff, thanks so much for taking

the time. Great to be with you. This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Look, not going to lie, it's been a long year, and unfortunately, 2025 doesn't seem like it's going to be better from a politics perspective. But that doesn't mean that it can't be better as far as your mental health is concerned. I am a huge, huge advocate for therapy. I know more people who do therapy than who don't, and I myself am one. For me, it's a matter of being able to talk through issues that, A, I don't want to burden my friends with, and B, do it with somebody who's actually qualified to help. And trust me, that part makes a big difference.

BetterHelp is fully online, meaning it's more convenient and more affordable, and it serves 5 million people and counting. There's also a diverse network of 20,000 credential therapists with a wide range of specialties, so you'll find who you need. Write your story with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash no lie to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelpHELP.com slash no lie. Now we've got longtime Democratic strategist and former senior advisor to Pete Buttigieg.

Liz Smith. Liz, thanks so much for taking the time. Good to be back here with you, Brian. So you've worked, as I said, with Pete, but you've also advised a number of red state Democrats, which is why I was really looking forward to having this conversation in this moment, where inherently we're going to need Democrats to win in red areas. Democrats, red areas have really become the majority of the country at this point. So as part of this election postmortem, knowing that the Democratic Party, which is normally about as nimble

as a cruise ship, has to make changes here moving forward. What is the top piece of advice that you would give? So when it comes to red states, yeah. And so let me just run through, you know, at the beginning of my career, I worked in South Dakota. I worked in Ohio. I worked in Missouri. And then I worked in purple states like Virginia as well, did gubernatorial campaign in Kentucky. So I really have worked in a lot of red states. And then this cycle, I did work with a lot of the House Democrats who won in Trump districts. So from there, in 2004 to 2024, I do think I've learned a lot. And the top advice that I would give to them is that there's no one way to be a Democrat.

You know, sometimes in Democratic politics, and especially right now, and really for the last, I would say, eight years, it's really felt like the National Party has sort of pushed the National Party and the groups aligned with it. I've pushed a one-size-fits-all thing. Democrats have to check every box in the political purity test to sort of count as Democrat. And that just doesn't fly. That's not going to help Democrats win in red states. And so I think I really encourage candidates to be heterodox, not to feel the need to take every national democratic position. to meet voters where they are, you know, the candidates who overperformed the cycle were candidates who ran with tough messages on things like the border and public safety, who were willing to break with Biden on those things. And I think another important piece is to know who you are, have your vision, and not just be anti-Republican or anti-Trump. That is a trap that a lot of Democrats fell into this cycle. and if we're going to win going forward and especially win in red states, we need to give people

a reason to turn out for Democrats and not just against Republicans. Right. And I think that's such smart advice. And inherently we're going to have to do that because Trump isn't even on the ballot heading forward to 2028. So if your whole brand is predicated on anti-Trumpism and you're running against the guy who isn't running, then what does your party really stand for moving forward? You had mentioned that the brand has become nationalized. And I completely agree with that, but we're also in a nationalized media environment where there is less local news, there is less, you know, fewer local reporters. And so how do you combat that with, okay, so you have the nationalization of the democratic brand. How do you, if the media is focused on more

national social, I mean, even, even Trump didn't bother going to certain places in deference to going to California and New York, knowing full well that the media environment is nationalized. And so sacrificing his appearances in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania because he knew he would get more press from these national shows from going on Joe Rogan and some of these other big podcasts and going to these, you know, splashy events

like the one in Madison Square Garden. And so doesn't, aren't those things in conflict with each other where you need Democrats to kind of run away from the national brand of the Democratic Party, but then also you have a media environment that expressly focuses on the nationalization of politics? politics. Wow. Okay. First of all, I mean, I could spend like two hours answering that. There is so much in there. So let me try, okay, let me just try to take it piece by piece. The most

important thing, so when I'm saying Democrats need to, in red states need to establish their own brand, you know, that's talking about a race-by-race perspective. But I think the most important thing the Democrats should be working on right now is fixing the Democratic Party brand. It is not sustainable for us to only succeed when we can run against the Democratic brand. We won't have majorities if that's the case, and we certainly won't have permanent or sustainable majorities, if that's the case. So we need to fix the Democratic brand. And what a else a Democratic brand, again, you know, don't get me started, but I think this election cycle, we were seen too much as defenders of the status quo. We clearly have a problem

with working class voters, you know, whether they're white, Asian American, black, Latino, across the board. I think the only group Democrats really did better with this cycle were white college-educated voters and maybe college-educated voters generally. So I think we really, really need to fix the Democratic brand so that our success doesn't depend on just running against it. And I do think that that will require a lot of people in the party coming together, elected officials at all levels. People at the staff level, some of these convening groups and saying, you know, guys, like what we have been doing didn't work. And let's start putting out some of those more common sense voices, the people who can, you know, appeal to people

across the political spectrum, people who are a little bit more politically heterodox. Now, okay, to your question about the media environment and all that, you know what's funny to me is I remember in the campaign, a lot of Democrats and people on Harris' campaign are criticizing Trump for doing the MSG rally. And it sort of showed that they don't really get how the media environment works today. You know, whether you're in Madison, Wisconsin, in that media market or MSG, if you're making news at MSG, the people in Madison, Wisconsin are going to hear about it. They're going to hear what you have to say. Some of that was good for Trump. A lot of it was bad. I can think of one comedian he probably wishes hadn't been there.

But yeah, the nationalization of the media is an issue. And it's something candidates will have to have to deal with. But candidates have got to be clear if when the national brand and the nationalization of the Democratic Party hurts them, they've got to be very clear about where they disagree and not let things like, you know, in 2022, for instance, like deep on the police fester. And when people in our party, people on the far left, say dumb things, make sure that you go out and make clear to voters that you are with them, not with, not with the extremes. And we've got to be more confident in being able to do that.

And we've got to be able to give people backup when they do that and not just like let them be piled on on social media and feel timid in the future about being willing to differentiate themselves from the extremes. Yeah, there is a sense that if somebody says something that doesn't comport perfectly within the narrow guidelines, the maximalist guidelines that are set forth by, you know, to be a member of good standing in the Democratic Party that, that, A, they're either going to be too afraid to say it or B, they know that if they do, they're just going to get completely pummeled for it. And so, and so you're right. They're not only running against their opponent. They're also running against the Democratic Party. And like, the Democratic Party

should be a boon for them. It should be a resource for them. It should be, it should offer them some backup, not something, not another opponent to have to fight against in these races. But with that, with that said here, what is then the model for a winning red state campaign? Because look, I get that Ilhan Omar isn't going to go into Ohio and win, right? But at the same time, you had somebody like Tim Ryan who didn't win in Ohio. He was, I think, what we would consider a model candidate for that state. You had Sherrod Brown who didn't win in Ohio. You know, we lost races with these moderate Democrats who,

were, again, model candidates in Montana, for example. So who's done it correctly and what needs to be replicated? Well, what's interesting to me about Ohio? And, you know, as I mentioned earlier, I worked in Ohio in 2010, which was tough year. But the guy was working for Governor Ted Strickman had a pretty good year, all things considered, only lost by two points when most of the Democrats in that region were losing by double digits. But what was interesting about the Ohio example was, you know, Tim Ryan ran a pretty, you know, moderate campaign in 2022. Jared Brown had more of a statewide brand, ran more of a populist, a little more left campaign in 2024. And they got the almost same, they lost by almost the same margin. Like,

I think it was different of like 0.5% or something like that. And that tells me that this really is a brand problem because they ran two very different types of campaigns had two different, very different profiles. I mean, yeah, both have been in the elected office for a long time, but Sherrod had a statewide profile. Tim didn't. So that tells me that it's a brand problem and that we need to fix it from the top down. Now, okay, let's look at the candidates who overperformed some of the House candidates, right? You had the top overperformer was Pat Ryan in the Hudson Valley. Then you had Jared Golden in Maine, Marie was in Camp Perez in South East Washington, Tom Swazi in suburban Long Island, Angie Craig, who has a partially rural district in Minnesota. What do these candidates have in common superficially? Not that much. You know, you've got a West Point grad. You've got a 20-year politician who'd been a mayor and all these things. You've got an auto shop owner. You've got a former Marine who never even voted until 2012.

But what all these people had in common is, you know, sort of what I talked about before is, one, they were good fits for their district, and all their districts are very different. So what plays in suburban Long Island is going to be different from what plays in southwest Washington. Two, they all had a backbone and were willing to go against the party on things like immigration, on things like, you know, what they see as maybe onerous government regulation. And three, they didn't make their campaigns too much about Trump. They had their own thing.

They were in touch with their voters and could go out. And, you know, Jared Golden could talk about, could talk to fishermen about issues. Marie Gluzenkamp Perez could talk about right to repair. Tom Swazi, you know, talked a lot about the border because, you know, with Governor Abbott, shipping all these migrants up here, places like Long Island have become, you know, their own border states. And so I think you've really got a candidate quality matters, being willing to break with the party matters, meeting voters where they are matters. And so there's no one-size-fits-all thing. And with the Senate candidate to one, I would say same thing. They had interesting profiles.

They were willing to break with party orthodoxy on certain issues, and they met voters where they are. So would you recommend then, I mean, when we talk about the Democratic brand, that's like this amorphous thing. And so what would be, what would be, I guess, a practical solution moving forward so that it doesn't feel like we just have to keep running against Democrats. Like, what would you say if you had every single person in a room right now and, you know, in the Democratic Party from strategists to the politicians themselves to the candidates themselves, what would you say to them so that it doesn't feel like Democrats, against my earlier point, have to constantly run against not only the Republican opponents, but also this amorphous blob that is the Democratic brands? Like, we shouldn't have two opponents in every election cycle. Messengers matter. You know, candidate quality matters. The message matters.

You know, that's another problem is that the candidates, as I mentioned, do overperform. All had really, really clear messages. And I don't think this is all Conlon Harris's fault or her campaign's fault. They only had 100 dates. But, you know, by the end, like, did you really know what her message was? Was it, like, Trump is Hitler? Was it she's a tough on crime prosecutor? Was it about the opportunity economy?

It wasn't really clear. So I think we had a messenger, we sometimes have a messenger problem. We sometimes have a message problem. And we also have a, you know, medium problem. I feel like Democrats really fell behind this cycle in terms of getting our message out. That was really clear in the contrast with Trump versus Harris.

We saw, you know, Trump is running a campaign fit for 2024, and Harris is running a campaign fit for 2008. So, like, you asked a very big, broad question there. I think, you know, those are three things that I would address. Another thing I would say is let's really, really work to elevate the next generation of, like, common sense, Democrats, the people who have the broadest appeal, and make sure that they're getting out there and they're, you know, the face of the party and not just, you know, the loudest, most extreme voices and not, you know, sometimes the over 80 leaders in our party.

I do think you're right about, about Democrats running a campaign for, you know, 10, 15 years ago. The fact that she, that Kamala Harris's campaign forwent a bunch of appearances on independent media shows in deference to, okay, let's make sure that we don't do what Hillary Clinton did and miss a single campaign event in O'Clair, Wisconsin or Milwaukee or Madison goes to show that while Trump rightly recognized that, okay, this media environment is completely nationalized. And I don't have to go to Wisconsin to be able to reach Wisconsin voters. I got to actually go to Madison Square Garden in New York because that's the only thing that's going to break through in this news cycle. And so it's kind of like he recognized

that to actually reach those voters in these swing states, you got to get out of the swing states because that's the only way you're going to break through and make some actual actual news here. We can spend all the time of the world crafting perfect messenger, the perfect candidates to deliver them. But how do you compete then with a messaging apparatus like the one that they have on the right that really dwarfs everything that we have on the left? Like we've watched as just this past election cycle, right-wing media made. gender reassignment surgeries for trans inmates, the issue of the campaign, notwithstanding the fact that it literally wasn't an issue in this campaign. It was a position that Kamala Harris took in 2019.

She had since disavowed it or moved away from it, and yet it still became the issue, especially among swing voters who eventually opted to vote for Trump. So isn't the issue of the media more broadly really more important than the messengers themselves? Yeah. How we work the media is really important. what I'm just going to quibble with one thing you said on that is you know part of the problem is like she shouldn't have said it in the first place um and we shouldn't as democrats I was in that primary when I worked for Pete Buttigieg and you know you get all these questionaries you participate in all these forums you're being asked to take positions on things that like no voters ask for there's like no voter constituency for gender reassignment surgery for undocumented immigrants in detention like why why do these are special interests I believe that was an ACLU questionnaire. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay, so explain why these special interest groups pose these edge case questions in the first place. They want to be relevant is one, two, they're single issue groups and they're staffed by people who are single issue staffers.

And their whole thing is, let's move the Overton window. And if we move it, then it'll get more progress. But then they don't understand that it ends up having this big backlash. Like, I was on the road with Pete and Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. Not a a single voter ever asked, do you support gender reassignment surgery for prisoners, right? They didn't ask, do you want to do voting rights for convicted murderers? They just didn't. But like groups were coming and asking us to do this. And then there are candidates in the race who, you know, they're not getting any oxygen. They're not getting attention. So they're like, okay, let me go take the most inflammatory extreme position. That will maybe win me over this group.

This will get me some attention. So it's not all in the groups. It's on the candidates as well. You know, some of them just do this because that's, you know, the only one. way that they're going to be relevant. But isn't there some acknowledgement by, like, these are, these are, these are advocacy groups at the end of the day. They're clearly asking these questions because they think that, well, they want to get these people, these politicians on record so that they can then hold them to account to, to advocate for the groups that they represent.

But isn't there any acknowledgement that when you put these candidates on record for these extreme or edge case positions that all it does, in effect, is give fodder to the other side to keep our politicians, our candidates out of office and therefore prevent them from helping the very people that those special interest groups purport to want to help.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. How dare you be reasonable, Brian? How dare you? This is politics. No reason allowed. I think maybe now that sort of view is starting to sink in, seep in. And, you know, we'll see. We're only a few years away from the next set of primaries and all that, presidential primaries, and we're only a couple

years away from the invisible primary starting. So we will have a sense pretty soon whether everyone, both candidates and groups, learn their lessons from 2020. But to your question about the media ecosystem, yes, like Democrats need to do a better job of building up our ecosystem. They do have, they've got an incredible network of, you know, online assets, like places like the daily wire, free beacon, daily caller that I think are really helpful for them when they want to dump up or get a narrative out there. And then, you know, as you know, there's a pipeline from those to right-wing podcast. There's a pipeline from those to Fox News. And, you know, oftentimes things that end up there then bleed over to the mainstream media. And we just don't

have that on our side. We also just don't have as built out a content ecosystem. You know, you are sort of a rarity on our side. You know, it's funny. I was meeting with the U.S. senator a couple of weeks ago in Washington, D.C., and he rattled off all the, you know, podcasters on the right. And he's like, who do we have on our side? Brian Tyler Cohen. I can't name anyone else. And that's a compliment to you that you've established this brand, but we need more Brian Tyler Collins. And how do we do that? You know, on the staff level, on a candidate, elected official level, we need to prioritize, you know, more shows like yours. Because the reality is that the table news, traditional mainstream media is dying.

And so if we don't communicate more where people are, if we don't build up these ecosystems more, we're going to be paying the price for that for, you know, many years to come. I guess that that leads to this question is that Democrats spent, what, $2 billion in this past election cycle, Democrats raised like $2 billion alone. I'm sure they spent even more than that. But where did that, where did that money go? And in your opinion, where should money go moving forward? forward um because by the way there are a lot of people who who donated and and saw saw kind of

you know look if a candidate if a candidate on the democratic side is going to request money and then we see what happens when that money is actually spent there's really not a whole lot of incentive for people to donate their hard-earned money in the future and so something's got to give and so in your opinion yeah again where did the money go and where should it go um so where a lot of it TV ads. A lot of it went to, you know, field operations, you know, digital ads as well. And my thing about this is Peter Hamby, who I know you spoke with recently, had a column about this. And he said that in Democratic circles, we like over-betishize, bettishize, I said that right, data and don't prioritize like candidate quality message and got instincts enough. And I think

that that's very, very true. Like, you can run all the ads in the world. But if the message in them isn't good, then, like, you're not going to win. You can knock on as many doors 10 times in a row as you want, but you're not going to win if you don't have a candidate and a message that's selling well. So, you know, where would I spend it? Not necessarily on those things. I'm curious. What about you? Where do you think Democrats should have spent it?

Well, so Stephanie Valencia runs a. a Spanish media network and she spoke to the guys at Potsave America a few years back and basically just talked about how Democrats had raised millions and millions of dollars in the South Florida market and, you know, for ads that go in one ear and out the other in election, during election time and Democrats notoriously perform worse and worse in Florida to the point where it went from a blue state to a purple state to now as pretty much as close to a red state as you can as you can imagine unfortunately. But Republicans came in and spent like $350,000 on buying up one of the last politically neutral radio stations.

And so they understand that it's not necessarily just, Democrats' problem is thinking that politics only exists between September and November of an election year. And Republicans rightly recognize that it's about building up an infrastructure that's going to be working not just on, November, first, second, third, and fourth, but the other 361 days per year. And so they bought up one of these last remaining radio stations in South Florida. And now they're able to, look, for lack of a better phrase, proselytize the entire year, while Democrats will burn, you know, hundreds of times that amount of money on ads that, again, don't have any discernible impact because throughout the rest of the year, people are getting their, they're building up their

political ideologies, creating their crafting their political ideologies, through. through what they hear, not just in October and November, but in January and February and March of off-year election cycles. And so I think we have to stop like dumping millions and billions with a B of dollars into these ads that are not like, look, I don't know. I don't look at the data, but I do know what, you know, what people say that watch my YouTube channel all year round and listen to my podcast all year round what they have to say and how their how their worldview is created. And it's not through some one-off ad or even that they see one, two, three, four times during the Super Bowl or whatever it is. It's going to be through people that they listen

to all year round from these trusted voices. And so I do think that Democrats would be better served by taking not some of the billions of dollars, but just like maybe a couple of million. Like, this is pocket change for what we would raise throughout in a regular election cycle in the year 2024, take some of this money and build up, build up creators, build up independent media, build up people who are actually going to talk to folks. And it doesn't have to be politics first. It could be politics adjacent or just culture. Like, politics is downstream of culture anyway. But a lot of the people that the right has invested in are not politics first. Their culture first and their political ideologies are informed by, by.

by right wing politics, but people don't tune in to them for that. But like, they become trusted voices for folks on, on the right. And then when it comes election time, or are they going to listen to some random ad that they saw air three times on CBS during some sports event? Or are they going to listen to the guy who they've spent fucking hours and hours and out, like thousands of hours of their last year building up their worldview from? Because I think it's going to be the latter. I totally. Oh, my God.

Well, you're really on one there. And I agree with everything you say. I think there are two things there. Yes. So we need to build up that ecosystem more. We need to be more present there. You know, the point you made about not just showing up on election years, I think is really important. You know, like, for instance, like someone like Pete Buttigieg.

He's been on your show how often. And he didn't, he doesn't just show up on your show, you know, October of 2024. He was on multiple times when he was Secretary of Transportation so that he could build a relationship with you, build. and more importantly, build a relationship with your audience so that they get it. Like, oh, hey, I like this guy. He's smart. He's fun. He's willing to chop it up. He'll come on even when he doesn't eat anything. It's not transactional. And we need to do a better job of that. But I think outside and just reach out to the to like sort of our ideologically aligned media, we need to do a better job of just

breaking out into the newer independent alternative media. And this is a place. where we saw, you know, Donald Trump sort of eat our lunch, right? And what I don't get is, for four years, Joe Biden was president, Kamala Harris was vice president. They could have been doing interviews on Rogan or with Theobon or on flagrant, you know, and I get it. Sometimes it's a little edgy, but they weren't doing that. And the only time that they were maybe going to show up was Kamala Harris, like two weeks

before the election. Right. And by then people, by then people have. built their political ideologies already. I mean, how many, how many truly undecided voters were there by by October of 2024? Right. And so, you know, it says to me a few things. I think one of the reason why they weren't going on is like, who are these people, right? Like, there is this sort of old stale view in democratic politics that if something's like not on TV or not in the New York Times, it doesn't matter. They're like, what's a podcast? Does anyone listen to this? Joe Rogan, what did

this guy who's like, you know, hosted fear factor. I'm supposed to go talk with him. Yeah, you are. Like, sorry, that's a new gatekeeper. So that's one. And like two is that sometimes Democrats de-platform ourselves in the name of purity. It's like, we can't go on Rogan because he's said some offensive stuff about the trans community or, you know, we can't go on Theobon show because he's, you know, spread some conspiracies about vaccines. And, you know, we don't need to agree with everything.

everyone says. And again, these purity tests make our party so much, so much smaller. And we should, even if we disagree with these people on some issues, we should still go on and use it as an opportunity to talk to their audiences. But a third thing that I think is really, really important is, like, we need candidates who can go on there and, you know, like, be good. Don't be, like, one piece of advice I gave to Pete in 2020 was, like, Don't be boring. And so if you're going on a podcast, like, and you just go on and deliver scripted talking points, you're not going to win over. What's the point?

And if you listen to Trump's interviews, you know, with some of the people I mentioned, like the flagrant guys or Rogan or Theo Bonn, you know, a lot of it wasn't on politics. A lot of it was, you know, talking about his family, you know, talking about telling funny stories about his sons or talking about his brothers struggle with, you know, addiction. talking about sports, you know, telling funny anecdotes. And it wasn't about ticking through policy priorities. But then when you saw Kamala Harris going to call her daddy, it really, really was policy focused. And it felt like not authentic to the medium. And it felt very transactional.

Like, I'm only here to, I don't need you to get to know me. I'm not going to tell you anything about myself. I'm just going to tell you about the policies. And then you have to go out for me. And that's just not how it works. And like nowadays, they're a podcast like, for like every interest and anyone can sort of go

or podcast shows or whatever you want to come and like if you know if maybe you don't know a ton of sports so don't go on with like Bill Simmons or something but then go on a parenting podcast go on if you maybe you're really into The Bachelorette

go on a reality TV show podcast there are so many different places where people consume news and you have these like very strong parisocial relationships with hosts and we should make sure that we understand all these different mediums, but also have people who can go on

and, you know, sort of crush that format. And it does, Trump is sort of an exception because he's like not a normal politician. But generally, I do think that that sort of tilts toward younger next generation politicians. I mean, next generation, I think in the Democratic Party means like under the age of 60 these days. But you get my point. Yeah, no, totally. And I think that we make ourselves feel better by saying like, okay, he went on Rogan and we'll cherry pick some clip where he says something fucking completely, completely inane and we'll say, oh, look, it was a disaster. But the reality is that the people who are listening to him for three and a half hours

on Joe Rogan's show, like, they're going to breeze by that one moment that we've told ourselves was the nail in the coffin for him. And he does derive more benefit, A, from going on there and spending the other 99, percent of the interview where he did fine enough, you know, that they at least have the opportunity to hear him. But more importantly, the fact is that only he went on there. And so that ground is seated to Republicans. They're only going to hear one perspective anyway. I mean, I know that you were instrumental in making sure that Pete went on these right-wing shows. And like, look, there's a problem in the Democratic Party where we often, at least in the past, I think

we're getting better at it now, but we didn't want to legitimize these platforms. But like, we're us not going on right wing media doesn't de-legitimize them because first of all more people are watching right-wing media than left-wing media but more importantly all we're doing is seeding ground to them and letting them dictate the entire conversation without any input from democrats and so which is worse validating a platform that by the way is already validated anyway that gets millions of views and listens anyway or or at least going on and having the opportunity to, you know, have a say in things and maybe be able to pick off a few viewers who are going to be open-minded enough to say, okay, look, I, you know, I wouldn't have heard

this perspective otherwise, but now that I've heard Pete say X, Y, and Z, I'm, you know, like, I'm open to him. I'm open to the Democratic Party. I'm open to hearing what these people have to say. So that was the first thing. Look, if people don't hear from us, if people don't hear directly from us, all they're going to know about us is what the Bratling says about. And, and I just generally think it is way harder to hate up close. It's harder to hate someone if you take, if they take the time to go on your favorite show, show respect to the host, show respect to the audience, have a normal conversation. And we, that's something we've got to get better at. You look at how Elon Musk treats Pete. And it's because Pete engaged with him and he like a, like, I think

it was like three weeks back. Like he responded to him on Twitter. They had a phone call. And, and Elon is way more deferential to Pete, way more respectful of Pete than anybody else because Pete's willing to go into these spaces and actually interface with people on the right. And I think that we do have to get better on that. One thing that you said that I wanted to touch on, you said you've, you touched on the point that I've made a lot, which is that Democrats view that if we don't go on legacy media networks, that it's not legitimate. And I think that's so right. Like there is an air of like, of like, okay, we can't break news. We can't. We We can't do interviews on anything that's not like 60 minutes or like sit down with somebody

who's not like George Stephanopoulos and if we do that it's not legit. Like when I was a kid, I used to watch professional wrestling and sometimes, and there was like a few main wrestling, like this was WWF, before it was WWUF, and there were the main televised nights. It was like Thursday Night Raw or no, Thursday night Smackdown, Monday Night Raw. and like these were the big televised events but oftentimes like when I was living in New Jersey I'd go to the city for like a Tuesday or a Wednesday event

and they weren't televised and sometimes they would have something happen where like a belt was transferred from from one wrestler to the next and I'm thinking to myself even as a kid like it's K-Fabe right it's like you all know everybody knows it's fake but it's a collective suspended suspended belief that like that okay we all have to pretend that what's happening is real

that's how wrestling works but even when I would see, when I would see the belt get transferred, I'm like, this can't happen because it's not on TV. And then something would happen and the belt would go back and like, you know, it was all part of the story. But I knew nothing can really happen unless it was on Thursday night Smackdown or Monday Night Raw. And that's where it feels like the Democratic Party does right now, that they save all the news for, for like real legacy media, real mainstream media. They save all of the juicy interviews for real legacy mainstream media. And the right doesn't do that. Like, when was the last time you saw any right-wing politician break news by giving it to, like, CBS.

They go on the Daily Wire. They go to Tucker Carlson. They go to Breitbart. They go to their own. They go to Fox. They go to O-A-N and Newsmax. And that's where they make their announcements. That's where they make their policy positions.

That's where they give their exclusive interviews. And that's why they've been able to build up right-wing media to the degree that the left hasn't, because we, we are operating under this assumption that unless it's behind the glossy veneer of legacy media, then it's not legitimate. Yeah, and let me go. Let me actually break out of politics for a little bit, because there's a, I think, a really interesting case study recently

is Timothy Shalomey, is it Timothy Shalemay, whatever, how we pronounce it, was doing a promo for his new movie about Bob Dylan. And, you know, generally when you do movie promo, it's like you go on the late night shows, you go on, I don't know, some network morning shows, maybe you go on the view, you talk to People magazine, you know, and do that sort of junket. But how he was really able to break through was, you know, you saw him on college Game Day Live, so next to Pat McAfee.

And I don't think his movie was maybe mentioned once. He went on with Theo Vaughn and had a very wide-ranging conversation about everything from like soccer to Bernie Sanders. He went on, you know, TikTok with Brittany Brodsky. He did an interview with Nardwar, who's like sort of this. iconic gonzo music entertainment interviewer and um those are the interviews that broke through that broke through a lot more than whatever he said on stephen pobert and jimmy fallon um and it goes to show you that this is something you have to explain a lot to politicians is that well one it doesn't

really apply here because these are people who have big audiences but like sometimes it's a medium matters less than the message and like what you say what i say to you now Brian Tyler Cohen will probably get more views than if I were saying it right now in MSNBC, but for CNN, definitely CNN, but the, if I say something really interesting to you here or something really interesting to a, you know, very non-traditional person, it'll break through. You know, the media matters less than the message. And that's something that really has to get through to candidates, but it also needs to get through to candidates.

And if you want to reach people, the people we need to reach most are the people who are completely tuned out of political news. And how we do that is, is sort of getting out of our echo chamber, sort of getting out of the MSM and going to places that are maybe a little bit more uncomfortable, a little bit more non-tradicial and, you know, where there is a little bit of a, you know, screw-up potential. But that's the sort of media that breaks through these days because it seems less canned, less scripted, and less boring. Yeah, completely agree. You also said something that I think that I want to just hearken back to because I think it was perfect. And you said that by not going on right-wing outlets,

usually people say, like, we don't want to de-platform them, but you said that that's a way to de-platform ourselves. And I think that's exactly right, because the fact is, as I mentioned before, they're already platformed. And not only have the platforms, but they've got millions of views, and not only do they have millions of views,

but they've got more fucking views than we have on the left. So deep-platforming disabuse ourselves of this notion that we are platforming anybody by virtue of deigning to appear on these networks. They've got the audience already. that ship has sailed. But I do think that you're completely right in that the only people that it's hurting is that by virtue of not going on these networks, yes, because they might have said something at some point in the past. Look, everybody's got shit. Everybody's got skeletons

in their closet. Their audience is listening to them. And this is not about imposing purity test and saying that we are only going to talk to people who again are like aligned perfectly for every public statement they've made in their entire lives aligned perfectly with with with every stated policy position of the Democratic Party you know if we're going to be a that's a that's lonely on the top of that mountain so I think that we need to just find if if the goal of politics is not to and I've said this before not to not to find a partner not to find some spiritual leader but just to elect politicians to get into power so that they could help the people that

they claim they want to help. Our only goal has to be to reach an audience wherever we can find it. And yes, everybody's going to have some baggage. Every host is going to have some baggage. Every host is going to have said something that doesn't perfectly comport with some stated policy position of the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter. We are not in search of perfection here. We are just trying to win elections so that we can help as many people as possible. And that's it. And I think that if we have that mentality moving forward, it's going to help us a lot more than the position that we're in right now. Yeah, but you'd be surprised. I mean, you know, with Pete, I think he was doing the podcast election thing before it was cool. He was going everywhere before

it was cool. But I still remember, man, like obviously with going on Fox News, we got all the hate from media matters, whatever. I mean, that's how they make their money as attacking Fox News. So I get that. But then, you know, people were like, he can't go on Bill Mars show. Gilmar said something Islamophobic 10 years ago, okay? That's a massive, massive, massive audience, and it's a very ideological diverse. Like, you want to reach that audience. They got mad because I, you know, I got them on barstool. Like, I'm a big barstool listener.

I like that. And they're like, oh, my God, the El Presidente is, he's a homophobic, sexist. He says all this. And it's like, guys, come down. He's on with like PFT commentary. They're just like making a couple jokes before the debate. Yeah. And it was something that we had to contend with, and sometimes even internally among staff, they'd be like, why is he going on this? Why is he going on that? And we do need to change, I think, some of the staff culture as well. And really try to help build up staff who understand that, like, we got to win. And you got to, that politics isn't about purity. It's really about finding people who connect with voters. And by the way, I'm a barstool fan, too. I consume their content. I know that their content skews right wing. I want Medicare for all. And the green news.

deal. Like, it is, like, you have to understand how, how, like, how people actually, like, how the vast majority of this country works. And it's not by imposing purity tests. It's not by by listening to something that they said 10 years ago and saying, oh, that's it. Like, that people are going to watch stuff that's entertaining. And, and we have to recognize that that's, that's how people operate in this country. And if we want to win, we have to, we have to be more willing to, you know, find people where they are. Let's finish off with this. Uh, this is, this is the. This is the. the will age poorly section of the show, but I'm curious who you think as we, you know,

for no reason other than I think we're masochists, who you think the next generation of democratic leadership is going to be? I'm not asking you who like necessarily who you think is going to be running for president in 2028, but like kind of. I mean, we do feel like a ship without a captain right now. I mean, the last Democrat who left off. office, a complete winner, was Barack Obama all the way back in, you know, 2016, 2017. Since then, Joe Biden's brand is severely damaged. Kamala Harris's brand is severely damaged. And so moving forward, who is the leader of the Democratic Party kind of as it stands right now?

I don't think there is going to be one, and I don't think we necessarily need one. I think we need a bigger, broader bench of voices who are out there who represent the spectrum of the Democratic Party. and you know so I throw out some names before of members of the house that I think are really impressive obviously I'm a and and again next generation is really really really really important like we've been telling people to wait their turn for so long that the people we told to wait their turn are now like in their 60s right and so we so we can't do that anymore I mean it's funny like we did we did we did we did apply I'm the biggest Jamie Raskin fan in the world he's he's in the 60s and and granted I you know I would if there is any altar at which I would genuflect to anybody, it's Jamie Raskin, I think

everybody in my audience knows that. But like, it is true that we make people wait their turns to the point where like, okay, you know, the people with the biggest megaphones in the party are septuagenarians and octogenarians. Yeah. So I definitely look to that. I mentioned some people before who I think are really interesting and voices that we should try to elevate. Obviously, I'm a big fan of Pete Buttigieg's. I think he should be in the conversation. I love Josh Shapiro. I love his lieutenant governor,

Austin Davis in Pennsylvania. I think people like Ruben Gallego, you know, he ran a really interesting, really aggressive campaign in Arizona. He really gets it. He broke with a national party on a number of things, and I think is an interesting messenger for us and someone we should try to emulate more.

I don't know. You know, there's so many. And this game, every time I play it, then people are like, oh, why don't you mention this person? Why do you mention this person? The point is that we have a lot of talent. And I think one thing I've learned in politics is like if it had been this time seven years ago, I wouldn't have yet. A day later, eight years ago, I mean, I started working for Pete on December 31st, 2016. But like, if we'd had this conversation, you know, eight years ago, I never would have said,

the name Pete Buttigieg. And even if I had said it, you would have been like, who? Like, are you kidding me? And so I think we've got to be more imaginative and think beyond the people we see on the Sunday shows and seeing the New York Times and say, okay, well, who's maybe around the corner? And that is why generally, like, I've tried to now work with, you know, more of these next generation people.

And, you know, people like a Mallory McMorough or Austin Davis in Pennsylvania and, like, people like Marie Blues and Campera and Wash and Pat Ryan in New York, et cetera, et cetera, because that's what we need to do. So more important than any name or, you know, any certain profile, what I'd say is like, let's look around the corner, let's be open to it and let's like not committed like just having one leader. Let's try to have like an awesome, awesome bench of leaders that we can like sort of plug and play to get out there to get out the best version of the Democratic message to different audiences. I think that's perfect advice. And Liz, thank you so much for the work you do in the trenches where it's definitely not easy to be a democratic strategist

these days, but hopefully it'll get easier moving forward as we figure out some way to improve our brand here. So Liz Smith, thanks again for taking the time. Yep, thanks for having me, Brian. Thanks again, Senator Schiff and Liz. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen

on all of my other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more.