Offline with Jon Favreau - Bigger Tent, Bigger Majority

Episode Date: October 24, 2026

Adam Jentleson, Democratic strategist and author of Supermajority: How Democrats Can Build Lasting Power, joins Offline to debate what Democrats will gain and lose as they run candidates who don’t fit neatly into one ideological box. He and Jon dicuss what the midterm campaigns teach us about political heterodoxy, what Democrats can learn from Obama about entertaining opposing viewpoints, and how to disagree about the party’s future without losing the ability to work together.Hate listening to ads? Become a Friend of the Pod subscriber for ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, Lovett or Leave It, Runaway Country, Offline with Jon Favreau, and more—plus exclusive content, including bonus episodes of Pod Save America. Subscribe now at crooked.com/friends, on Apple Podcasts, or through the Pod Save America YouTube channel.You can request a transcript by emailing [e-mail]. Include the podcast name, episode title, and air date. Please allow 48 hours for delivery.

Part of the thing that we've done wrong as a party is insist that our candidates hold rigidly left-wing views across all issues. James Taurico, Mary Peltola, Josh Turrick, those are just a few examples of candidates who've embraced heterodoxy. They've decided to run campaigns that actually reflect the states they're trying to win. That is what makes people think, hey, this person thinks for themselves. We are looking for someone who can put MAGA to bed. We want a candidate who can win in states that Democrats have previously written off. a candidate who can build the broadest possible base of power, because that's what we're going to need to actually enact the big change.

What do you say to those activists and organizers about always having to settle for their issues being pushed to the side because they are not the issues that gain majority support in these red states that we need? Those are the kinds of cost benefits to calculations that we just have to make, you know. And I think even Democrats who take a moderate position on those iterations of trans, issues, strongly believe in civil rights protections for trans Americans and adults across the board. What is the role of the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians in helping to move public opinion and not just reflect it? If you get too far out from where the American people are,

you lose them entirely and you invite backlash that can wipe out everything that you've achieved and everything that you care about. Imagine this. And take a lot of it. 10 days, a blue tsunami crashes into red America. Democrats capture a bigger than expected majority in the House. They flip the Senate with winds in places like Texas, Alaska, even Kansas. Libs are livin out like it's 08. And pretty soon, a parade of strategists, activists, and influencers declare that the results have revealed the path to the White House in 28, exactly what each one of us believed all

along. More moderates, more progressives, more populists, fresh faces, experience. leaders, fighters, unifiers, basically whatever validates our own ideology, policy preferences, or podcast takes. And if the polls are all wrong and Democrats have a bad night, worse mood, unbearable discourse, but pretty much the same conclusions, which is why I want to register this podcast take before the election. Let's give voters the chance to change our minds, because knowing who won is not the same as understanding why they did. Let's say James Tala Rico wins Texas after running a populist campaign where he embraced more moderate positions

on fossil fuels and trans athletes? Is that a victory for populism? Moderation? Or the strategy of running against Ken Paxton? What if Abdul Al-Said wins the Senate race in Michigan but runs behind Jocelyn Benson in the governor's race? Is that because of the positions he took, the attacks he faced, the campaign he ran, or something else entirely? Elections aren't controlled experiments. To understand the results, we need to know who turned out, who switched sides, and what matter to them. Exit polls can offer clues. Focus groups and interviews can help explain how voters think and possibly cause you to lose faith in the human experiment, but it's worth trying to understand. Not just because political junkies like me, and maybe you, live for the post-game analysis,

but because, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, we are just a few weeks away from the beginning of the 28 presidential primary. That's right. Winter is coming. In a midterm, Democrats can run different candidates in different places with different political views. In a presidential election, we only get to choose one. And after losing twice to Donald Trump, nothing is more important than getting that right. We know the kinds of voters who decide presidential elections, people who might vote for the other party or not vote at all. We can ask them what they think about the Democrats running for president? Who do they find appealing? Who have they already ruled out? Whose politics match their own? Who might get them off the couch to go vote or even better convince their friends to join them?

A more progressive candidate who packs arenas and inspires a grassroots movement might bring new voters to the polls, or they might excite people who are already going to vote for a Democrat. A more moderate candidate who promises to win independence and some Republicans might persuade them, or they might just sound like what political professionals imagine swing voters want. Impressive resumes don't always survive contact with the campaign trail. Attention doesn't always generate support. Look, I know the counterargument because I've lived it. Back in 2007, how many people thought the most electable candidate was the first-term senator from the south side of Chicago named Barack Hussein Obama? Fair enough. But Obama didn't ask Democrats to forget about electability. He asked them to rethink what electability

meant. He argued that new and infrequent voters, independence and disaffected Republicans, would be more willing to vote for the candidate most likely to change Washington, bring the country together, and show the judgment to oppose dumb wars. His win in Iowa gave Democrats a reason to believe he could actually do it. The lesson here isn't to nominate whoever looks safest on paper or who promises the biggest movement. It's to ask every candidate to make a convincing case for how they can win and then give us evidence to back it up. Our own judgments absolutely matter here. We just shouldn't confuse our instincts with evidence.

Unfortunately, our feeds can make one feel a lot like the other. A viral clip can make a candidate look like the one we've been waiting for or someone we'd never vote for. The algorithm hits us with the best arguments from people we agree with and the worst from people we don't. And the more we inhale this stuff, the easier it is to forget that the people on our screens aren't representative of the country we're trying to understand. And campaigns have every incentive to make this problem worse. Comments are stripped of context. Arguments are flattened.

Every disagreement becomes a test of character. Every favorable poll becomes gospel. And every bad one becomes proof that polling is broken. And there's another cost. Eventually, the nominee will need the support of millions of people who preferred someone else. It's hard enough to build a coalition of people who disagree. It's even harder when we spent the last year convincing ourselves that everyone else is either an idiot, a fraud, or a sellout, which doesn't mean we should stop arguing or pretend our differences

don't matter. It doesn't even mean we have to be nice to each other. But there's a difference between scrutinizing a candidate's arguments and treating every person who finds those arguments persuasive as beyond redemption. Those of us with microphones have a responsibility here too. Are we asking questions that might change our minds? or just looking for proof that we were right all along. I know what I want from this election.

I'm much less certain I already know everything Democrats should learn from it. This election won't settle the argument, but I do hope it leads to a better one. My guest this week is Adam Jensen, a Democratic strategist, former senior aide to Harry Reid, an author of Super Majority,

How Democrats Can Build Lasting Power. I've known Adam since we worked together on John Kerry's campaign 10,000 years ago in 2004. His book argues that Democrats can win much bigger by making room for candidates whose views don't fit neatly into one ideological box. I wanted to talk to him about what this year's campaign can tell us about that argument,

what he thinks Democrats should learn from Obama, and how to disagree about the party's future without losing the ability to work together. And of course, what would actually change his mind? Here's our conversation. Adam Jenselsohn, welcome to offline. Thanks, man. It's great to be here.

Good to see you. So when people hear this, we will be 10 days from the midterms. You have been arguing for the last few years and in your great book, Supermajority, the Democrats need a bigger coalition and more room for heterodox candidates defined as people whose views don't fit neatly into one ideological box, which is most voters. Looking at this year's campaigns, how much heterodox? Do you see out there? And who were some of the best examples? I see a lot of heterodoxy, and I'm really excited about it. I mean, I think, you know, we're going into this midterm with the prospect of winning Democratic seats in states like Kansas, Texas, and Alaska. You know, and to me, the reason that's possible is because candidates running in those states have embraced this idea of heterodoxy.

So, you know, I think James Tauer Rico, Mary Peltola, Josh Turek, you know, those are just a few examples of, of candidates who've embraced heterodoxy. And, you know, what's important for people to understand is, you know, these are dedicated liberals. These are hardcore Democrats, but they've decided to run campaigns that actually reflect the states they're trying to win. So in the case of someone like James Tolariko, you know, he has made no bones about the fact that he embraces the fossil fuel industry. You cannot run a campaign and try to win a statewide race in a state like Texas. You know, if you're trying to say the fossil fuel industry is purely evil, right? Same thing with Mary Peltola.

You know, in Iowa, Josh Turek has made a very strong point of saying he's strong on border security. So, you know, the reason we are poised to reap the kind of gains that we might see a couple weeks from now on election day, I think, is because Democrats have embraced this strategy. Before we know who wins, it's always a good to ask now, like, what for you would count as evidence that Democrats are building a broader coalition rather than just benefiting from? voters being angry at Trump? Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of the proof in the pudding will come after the midterms. I think, you know, there's going to be this period between these midterm elections in 2028 where we decide what the important lessons are that we take from the midterm elections. And so for me, you know, so it is quite possible that a lot of the benefits that we're seeing

in the midterms are just generated by people's antipathy towards Trump. I think, you know, our ability to capitalize on that, depends on running heterodox candidates in some of these, you know, deep red states where we previously were not able to win. To me, the evidence will be, do we take those lessons and process them into 28? Do we say, hey, listen, as we go into the 2028 nomination process, we're not just going to look for candidates who can eke out the narrowest victory against MAGA. We are looking for someone who can put MAGA to bed. We want a candidate who can win, you know, in states that Democrats have previously written off. We want a candidate who can build the broadest possible base of power

because that's what we're going to need to actually enact the big change that, you know, I think we need to do to defeat MAGA entirely. But that will be the evidence to me is do we take the lessons out of this midterm and say, you know, we don't just want to eke out narrow majorities. We're done with that. We're done with this narrow polarization. We want to dominate not just the next election, but the next generation and usher in a new era of democratic dominance. I was thinking about this, like, how to take lessons away from the midterms, right? And trying to separate out, like, what caused a victory is always tricky. But, like, let's take James Tilarico, you talked about Texas.

So Talariko has a pretty standard liberal voting record in the Texas House, in the Texas legislature. And but as you said, he has, you know, he's moderate. in this race on, he talks about, you know, his support for fossil fuels and all of the above energy strategy. He has talked about, he's moderated on youth participation, trans youth participation in sports. He has also run a campaign that is very populist, like sort of railing against, you know, corruption and greed and billionaires. And he's also running against Ken Paxton. So it's like, how do you know which, whether it was the moderation, whether it's, if he wins, is it a win for moderation? Is it a win for populism? Is it a win for people who get to run against Ken Paxton?

Yeah. I mean, look, I think everything that you just described was will probably end up being a necessary ingredient in winning a state like Texas, you know, in any year. But, you know, flip that back around, like, you know, his positioning on those critical issues is one of the necessary ingredients, right? So the populism is a necessary ingredient. Having a weak opponent was necessary. You know, running on the back of a national wave of massive disapproval of Trump is also necessary. But, you know, we've seen all of those ingredients sort of go into a race before. We saw it in 2018 with Beto O'Rourke. What I think is going to hopefully put Talarigo over the top is that one extra ingredient of the heterodoxy of this, you know, issue positioning that actually reflects the state of Texas without conceding anything on his deep liberal values, you know, he's reflecting the state he's trying to win. So I think, you know, it's sort of this necessary but not sufficient quality where, you know, all those other factors are also important. You know, and I know we're going to have a great debate after the election about, you know, which, which thing was it? And my argument is, it's all of them together. But one of the things that makes 2026 different from previous cycles over

the last decade or so is that for the first time and a long time, Democrats are adding in that ingredient of heterodoxy, and that is what is making us so competitive in states like Texas. So I just want to give people an idea of sort of the theory behind heterodoxy and like what heterodoxy looks like. I mean, a few people might remember, if you're nerds like us, a few election cycles ago, you know, there was a big debate about popularism, which was associated mostly with Democratic strategist David Shore, which is basically, you know, emphasize popular positions, stop making unpopular positions central to your identity.

But you also write that like trying to copy voters exact mix of opinions is a bit of a fool's errand. Like how does your argument about heterodoxy differ from just a candidate looking and saying, all right, what are the most popular positions I can take on every issues? Those are my positions and now I'm going to go wrong. Right. heterodoxy is authenticity. Like that's another way to understand it. because very few people in America, and especially very few people among the voters who decide elections, which tend to be working class people, very few of them hold orthodox positions straight down the line on every issue.

And that's true whether you're a conservative or a liberal. So, you know, part of the thing that we've done wrong as a party is insist that our candidates hold rigidly left-wing views across all issues. And, you know, what we're doing when we do that is, them of their authenticity. We are imposing on them originally left-wing worldview. And, you know, when voters hear a candidate take the left-wing position on every single issue, that doesn't sound authentic to them, you know, and it doesn't reflect the way that they form their own worldviews. Like, part of the reason heterodoxy works is that this is just how most people think. Most voters, you know, don't form their worldviews by adhering strictly to one ideology or the other. They take

a little from column A, a little from column B, and pride themselves on being independent-minded thinkers. So one of the things that heterodoxy does is it allows you to convey that authenticity because you can say, hey, listen, I'm a Democrat. I'm a Democrat for a lot of very important reasons. These are core beliefs that I hold and core principles that I will adhere to and things that I will govern on. But, you know, there's a few issues where I diverge from my party, where I don't follow the party line. And so, you know, to me it matters less what those issues are that you diverge from the party on. And it matters more that somewhere in your worldview, you've got, you know, two, three, four issues where you differ from your party. And, you know, that is what makes people think,

hey, this person thinks for themselves. This person has an independent mind. Maybe they're a little bit of a maverick, you know. And that's what conveys authenticity to voters, right? And because it, it jive. with the way they view the world. So, you know, I think there's some hot-button issues that, you know, tend to be the ones that get litigated in these campaigns. But to me, it's actually not important to be heterodox on those specific issues. It's just important to be heterodox in general, right? You can take your pick of where you diverge from the party, you know, preferably they are issues that are, you know, going to generate some media coverage. But, you know, it doesn't have to be the same ones that we're sort of litigating again and again in these debates. The important thing is to show voters that

you think for yourself, that you're independent-minded, and that you're not afraid to break with your party on a few issues. So are you mainly asking Democrats to recruit candidates who already disagree with the party on certain issues? Or are you asking politicians to reconsider their positions? Or just asking them to speak more openly about disagreements that they already have? All of the above. Sorry, sorry to take the easy way. No, that's, that's, you know, no, I mean, look, if you, if you've been in public life for a long time, you know, and you, and you, and you sort of fell into the trap of, you know, sort of going, going to the left on every single issue, I think I would sit, you know, sit down with you and say, you know, is that really what you believe? Aren't there a few issues where you, you know, have an independent thought where you diverge from your party, you know, and if so, maybe you should articulate that and explain your thought process, you know, I think we've seen examples recently of politicians who've said, hey, you know, listen, things got a little crazy during woke one. Like, you know, that's certainly true for me. Like, you know, but I've had some

time to think about it and I've, I've changed my worldview. I don't think, I don't think voters penalize people from, for shifting their views as long as you're sort of thoughtful about your process, you know, and you explain why, you know, but yeah, as you look for new candidates and the thing about running in these deep red states is these are often states where, you know, you are sort of working from scratch. You don't have a lot of all serrans. You don't have a lot of candidates who are, you know, already holding elected office. So, you know, you really, you really, kind of can sort of seek out people who hold, you know, deep liberal convictions, but also have a few points of disagreement with the party. And so as we do seek to recruit in these red states where I think

we can be expanding our power, you know, we should seek out those people who are, you know, who are core liberals. They're going to vote with Democratic agenda, you know, 70, 80 percent issues, but there are a few issues where they diverge. And those are the kind of people I think we should be targeting as we look to recruits, you know, in cycles to come. It does seem like in your telling of this, that the, authenticity, that just saying what you actually believe is more important than the position you hold itself. And so, like, if say you are a Democrat in a red state and you want to run, and you genuinely are liberal and probably to the left of the state on maybe not every issue,

but on a host of issues that, again, may not be in line with the electorate where you're trying to run. What would you advise a candidate to do in that situation? Would you advise a candidate to think about moderating their position, which would not necessarily be authentic to them? Or would you advise them to say, hey, this is what I believe. And I know it's not exactly what you believe. And, but here's where we agree on some other issue. Like, how would you navigate that? Yeah, I mean, the first thing I would say is just like, you know, think, think deeply. Like, Are there issues where you truly diverge? You know, are you deeply religiously conservative, perhaps?

You know, are there, you know, issues about, you know, school choice or, you know, one of the things we found in our polling recently that was really interesting is that an issue that breaks through very strongly to voters that conveys heterodoxy is being against social promotion in schools, right? Being against the idea that kids should just continue to get, you know, passed up to the next grade, even if they're failing the test. And that's really interesting to me because it, you know, this is not an issue that would pop in anybody's, you know, poll about what are the top issues, you know, deciding your vote. It's certainly not something that's, you know, dominating the debate right

now. But I think what it does is that it taps into this idea of fairness for people, right? People, I think, you know, tend to think that Democrats are sort of like, you know, everybody gets a trophy, squishes on school promotion. And, you know, even if kids are failing the test, they should be promoted. it turns out that if you say, no, I actually firmly believe that if kids are not meeting academic standards, they should not be promoted to the next grade. And that breaks through to voters and conveys to them that you are heterodox. So I think, I, you know, genuinely believe that it's pretty rare to find a person where there isn't at least one or two or three of those issues where, you know, they're willing to break from the party line or at least break from sort of the public perception of Democrats. And so I would sort of, you know, sit down with them and say, look, it might not be, you know, the issues that were used to litigating.

It might not be transports. It might not be immigration. It might not be climate change. But there's got to be something in your makeup and the way you view the world where you're a little bit independent-minded. And if they're not, you know, I might say that they're probably not the right person to win a red state. And I just want to point that out, which is that, you know, we're not talking here about, you know, who should run in Massachusetts or Connecticut, you know, or Maryland. Like, what I'm describing is how we make inroads into red states. And I think generally, as we think about recruitment and candidates, we really want to invest

resources behind, we should really look to those candidates who, again, you know, hold deeply liberal principles, but have at least a few points of view where they differ from the party writ large. So I think the red states is an important point there. And probably should have even started there. But like, you end the book with a target of, you know, 370 electoral votes, roughly 60 Senate seats. This is why it's called supermajority. Can you talk about like, A, why you think Democrats need a super majority and be like why it's

so important and why it's so difficult with the map the way it is? Because I do think in this election, I keep hearing people be like, oh, well, you know, Texas, it would be nice to win Texas. But we always say that and it's so hard and it's so big. and it's like a really costly to to compete there. And I'm like, look, if we, everyone's like, oh, this is a tough map. Yeah, no, I know it's a tough map, but like the map doesn't get any easier than this. Right.

And like, it's always, the way we are now, the way our coalitions are, it's always going to be this tough. 28 is going to be a tough map for the Senate. 30, 30, like, just keep going, you know. And yes, we can talk about getting rid of the filibuster, which, you know, I know, I know we were on that. but like even then you still need to win some of these red states that Trump has won three times and or two or three times sometimes by double digits, right? I mean, you know what's a tough map? America.

Like it's a big country. It's a diverse country. It's an ideologically diverse country. Like, you know, this is a country where people have a wide range of views and, you know, that's just the nature of the country we live in. It's part of what makes us, you know, such a beautiful and amazing country. But the reason we need to be able to expand into states like Texas is that, you know, I think there is broad agreement across all factions of the Democratic Party that if and when we regain power, the answer to putting down the MAGA coalition permanently is to go big. It's to go big on policy, you know, is to go big on structural reforms like eliminating the filibuster, like court reform, like, you know, statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.

and to show the American people that our vision of governance is the better version. And, you know, I'm here to tell you that you're not going to be able to go big unless you win big. And, you know, John, you and I have lived through what it's like to, you know, be in a trifecta, you know, and to hold the levers of power. And we know that on any given issue, you're going to need insurance. You're going to need the ability to lose a few votes here or lose a few votes there. And I say that even as somebody who passionately believes we should get rid of the filibuster. That was what my first book was about. So, you know, and not only are you going to need, you know, a lot of seats and big margins in Congress

to pass all of the ambitious policies that we all want to see and pass the structural reforms we all want to see and confirm all of the liberal justices that we all want to see, you're also going to need those big margins to hold power. part of what makes change work is that it sticks, right? And what we saw under Biden was that he came into power with extremely narrow margins. And they did an admirable job of pushing through a really ambitious policy agenda, you know, but always by one vote or two votes here in the Senate in the House. And it didn't stick. You know, they immediately lost control of the House in the first midterm, Democrats did, which, you know, immediately eliminated their ability to pass new legislation.

And, you know, Biden's narrow margin in the electoral college meant he went into 2024 on the, on the defensive and vulnerable. So, you know, and then, you know, what happened, Republicans won back power. They rolled back most of Biden's agenda and all of the great things that he passed, you know, are hanging by a threat if they exist at all, and many of them don't exist. So, you know, what we need to do is build a durable base of power that will allow us to enact the big change we all want to see and then also maintain that power so that we can make it stick. And there's all sorts of, you know, weedy reasons for that that I get into in the book that we can talk about here. But it's like, you know, you pass big ambitious legislation. Well, you've got a conservative

Supreme Court waiting in the wings to strike it down. You're also going to need, you know, to pass court reform and replace all those justices so that they don't strike it down. And that just takes time. So, you know, if we come into power in 2029 and our majorities in Congress are hanging by a handful of seats, you know, and we pass a bunch of stuff, but then we lose power in the 2030 midterms, I think it's a good chance that all the things that we pass won't stick. They won't be durable, and they'll immediately get rolled back. So I'm urging people to think about a broader vision here and say, you know, it is worth the sort of, you know, cost-benefit tradeoffs of saying, I will accept an Adam Hamilton in Kansas who, you know, might be a little

bit further to the right than me on an issue like transports, you know, for the broader benefit of having a Democrat hold that seat because Adam Hamilton is going to vote for universal health care. He's going to vote to raise taxes on the world. You know, he's going to vote to expand the social safety net. And, you know, that is going to allow Democrats to enact this ambitious agenda and have the margins to protect against the pendulum swinging back, which, you know, kind of inevitably does in American politics. Offline is brought to you by Wild Grain.

Cozy season is here, which means cool. temperatures, warm ovens, and the perfect time to enjoy fresh baked breads and seasonal treats at home. Wild grain delivers sourdough bread, seasonal pastries, and French butter made with simple, recognizable ingredients by small independent bakeries. All delivered to your door and ready to bake straight from frozen in 25 minutes or less. These are not your typical sad grocery store breads and pastries. Customize your box with classic gluten-free vegan or protein options and skip or cancel any time. And right now, Wild grain is celebrating carbs giving, their biggest of the year with their best offer of the year.

Everyone loves wild grain here at the office. Tommy raves about the croissants. Peter, who's a fantastic cook, made chocolate chip cookies from Wild Grain right here in the Cricket Office. They were easy to bake, and huge hit with the staff, I can attest. If you're ready for warm bakery quality food at home this cozy season, I definitely recommend giving Wild Grain a try. And for carbs giving Wild Grain's biggest sale of the year,

you can get $40 off your first box plus free croissants for life. That's the best offer you'll hear from me all year. Visit wildgrain.com slash offline 40 to get $40 off your first box and free croissants for life or use promo code offline 40 at checkout. Again, that's wildgrain.com slash offline 40 or use offline 40 at checkout. Offline is brought to you by Quince. Great fall style comes down to easy, reliable pieces you reach for every day, a go-to sweater, well-fitting pants, or a favorite tea.

Quince creates high-quality staples that take the work out of getting dressed. Quince crafts timeless high-quality wardrobe essentials like organic cotton, marino wool, and 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters starting at $60, delivering luxury, softness, and quality without the luxury price markup. And when the temperature starts a drop, Quince makes it easy to build on those everyday staples with premium-down jackets and classic wool outerwear. Versatile layers designed to keep you warm and comfortable all season long.

Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than so. similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you're paying for high quality, not brand markup. Love Quince. Got some great sneakers from Quince over the summer. Also has some nice polos from there and did get one of those Mongolian cashmere sweaters, and it was finally cool enough this week to wear one. It was very comfy. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to Quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. And when Quince asks, where you heard about them, let him know it was offline.

It's the best way to support the show. So let's talk about the last time that we had a super majority, or at least had large majorities in Congress when Obama was president in 2008. You describe Obama as the strongest modern example of the kind of politics you're advocating. So he, you know, he was able to excite progressives while still winning over a lot of people who disagreed with them on a lot of issues. I'm obviously biased here, so I'll let you talk about it. But what do you think he understood about building that coalition that Democrats forgot along the way?

I think what he understood is that, you know, this is part of what makes America beautiful. And I think that came across, you know, that this diversity of viewpoints is not a downside. It is part of what makes us who we are. And, you know, I remember being a young staff. in 2008 when he was running in the primary. And I think this came across most clearly in the speech that he gave about race and racial relations in America that was provoked by, you know, footage of his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, that came to light during the primary.

And the Reverend Wright was saying, you know, America deserved 9-11 and things of that nature. You know, I don't have to tell you. Time is a flat circle. I think you're familiar with that speech, yeah. But, you know, it's funny. I talked to some of the people I work with, and this is like ancient history to them. So, you know, it's worth sort of setting the scene. And this was an incredibly fraught topic and an incredibly fraught place for him to be having

to sort of like, you know, narrate the history of American race relations and where he saw the vision of the future going in the middle of a hotly contested primary against Hillary Clinton, you know, with Republicans breathing down his neck and the general election approaching. And, you know, what was striking to me about that speech was he said, you know, he didn't condemn anybody. He said, you know, I understand the viewpoints of all folks involved in this debate. I even understand where Reverend Wright was coming from, given, you know, given his perspective, you know, but he said, you know, this is, you know, who we are as a nation is we appreciate this diversity of points of view, but we tried to strive for better and we tried to do better than that and we try to move forward. And I think, you know, to me, that's something that we've lost in our current discourse. We are so eager to cancel people or to reject them or to condemn them for having points of view that we disagree with. And, you know, it seemed to me like, you know, President Obama, when he met someone who he had points of disagreement with, instead of wanting to condemn them, his reflex was to understand them and to understand where they're coming from and invite them into his coalition and invite them to be a part of the big tent. And, you know, that to me, is the lesson we can take away.

Like, obviously, there are core principles. There are things we want to do, you know, that are part of who defined who we are as Democrats, but we should tolerate, you know, a broader diversity of views as we build out that big tent. And, you know, that is what was so inspiring to me about Obama's vision. And I think, you know, the key lesson that we can take away as we try to replicate that. And, you know, in a 2026 version and build, you know, a modern big tent. That speech is such an interesting example because,

you know, as you said, so he acknowledges in the speech black anger and the anger that came from Reverend Wright in the words that we heard. And he also acknowledges like white resentment, white working class resentment about affirmative action, which is not something you could imagine a lot of Democrats acknowledging. He doesn't excuse it. He acknowledges it, which, you know, I have a few questions that. One, I always wondered, well, if Obama could do that because he's possibly became the first black president and was at the time running to be the first black president and has this biracial background. And so perhaps his identity allowed him and history allowed him to say that in a way that other candidates might not be able to say. The other question I have is, if you look at his affirmative action policy, who's still in favor of a vote.

affirmative action. He didn't, he didn't break from the party on affirmative action, but he was very clear that he understands the resentment of someone. And he used to say this, I mean, he was, he was for affirmative action, but he would regularly say that, you know, he probably is more favorable towards a class-based affirmative action because he thinks, you know, I think you I remember him saying, like, I don't think Malia and Sasha should have more of an advantage than a poor white kid, you know, in West Virginia who's trying to go to college because Malia and Sasha have all the advantages of their wealth as well. And so he did say that, but like it's an example where the policy was the same, the positions was the same. But the way he talked about it showed sort of an empathy for the other side that I think is rare today. And I just wonder if you think that's enough or that you actually need to change the policy position as well.

Yeah, I mean, I think it depends on where you're running is what I would say, you know, whether it's enough. Like if you're running in a deep red state, you know, you might need to not just, you know, recognize the fairness questions, but also shift your policy. But, but, you know, I think it is very instructive to note that what he tapped into was this, you know, vein of fairness. that ran through all these issues. And I talk in the book a fair amount about, you know, the issue of resentment and racial resentment. And the distinction between, you know, what political scientists and sociologists call just world resentment

and, you know, outright racial resentment or, you know, let's just call it racism. And where Democrats and liberals go astray is when we put those two things together and just write them off as the same thing. right? And the distinction to me is, you know, look, there's a bunch of racists in the world, you know, just say they're bad people, whatever, we don't want them in our coalition, you know, but there's also a whole other group of people who have, you know, legitimate questions about are my taxpayer dollars going to people who actually deserve the benefits they're getting?

What are those people doing to earn the benefits? Are they working? Are they, you know, qualifying in different ways, you know, where, where do they land on the poverty threshold? And, you know, if you explain to them, why, often they'll say, okay, you know, I understand. Like, that's good. A good example of this is Social Security, where, you know, historically, and this is backed up by reams of polyscience sociological evidence, historically social security, you know, does not generate the same levels of resentment, whether it's racial or just world, as other welfare programs. And that's because people have a clean understanding of why everybody gets the benefits that they're earning, right? They know that everybody paid into the program and that because they paid in, they get something later. And a lot of

people are satisfied with that explanation. And they don't care what the race or gender or creed of the people getting the benefits are because these are people who just, you know, strongly believe in meritocracy and they believe in fairness. And they say, look, I don't care who you are or what you look like. You know, as long as you work for the benefit, you earned it, I'm good with that. And I think, you know, what Obama understood was that you can sort of cleave off those people from the outright racists if you say to them, your concerns are not illegitimate. Those are fair questions, and I will do my best to answer them, and I will not treat you, you know, as if you're racist just for asking the question. And I think you see that today in issues like with trans sports, right, where it's like, look,

a lot of people just have questions and they just want to know, you know, is it really fair, you know, for this to happen? Or what are the criteria by which we're going to judge? And, you know, and then there's a bunch of people who are just transphobic, right? But, you know, if we just tell people that simply by asking the question or raising these legitimate issues, you are transphobic, we are going to push them into the arms of the outright transphobic people. And Obama understood that you can draw line there and you can invite those people, the people with real concerns into your coalition, just by, you know, refusing to condemn them and honestly answering their questions to the best of your ability. And look, they might not actually agree with your position. Like you said, you know, he didn't shift his position on affirmative action. He just treated the questions as if they're

fair and he addressed them. And that caused a lot of people who had those questions, say, listen, I still, I personally might still oppose affirmative action, but I agree with you on a lot other stuff and you treated me with respect and answered my question here and didn't treat it as as an illegitimate question or call me a racist for asking it. And so, you know, on that basis, I'm going to vote for you. And I think that's what we can take away here is saying, listen, let's answer people's questions. Let's treat these as legitimate. Even if we don't shift our positions, you know, let's not just chase these people out of our coalition simply because they have these concerns and are asking these questions. Now, in some ways, Obama is also a challenge to your argument

because we built the super majority, past major legislation, specifically the Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, and then lost the House two years later. What did Democrats fail to build or fail to do with the power that we had that the next Democratic president needs to get right? Yeah. I think about this a lot. You know, I mean, we were there. The world, you know, was our oyster.

We had, you know, all this potential. I remember I start the book out by talking about being on the mall, you know, gazing out at this massive crowd that gathered for Obama's inauguration. It really feel like we'd crack the code, you know. And look, you know, we accomplished a lot. And I think, I think in a lot of ways, you know, that's something that gets lost in the debate. The change that wasn't acted was massive and improved the lives of millions of people. But, you know, one thing that I think hamstrung us a little bit at that time. was that there was still this belief that bipartisanship was possible. And, you know, look, it may still be possible, you know, but that it was something that you should pursue aggressively and was sort of the Better Business Bureau, you know, a good housekeeping seal of approval on legislation. And it's understandable that we pursued that.

Back in the day, I was just talking about this today with somebody, you know, on the Affordable Care Act on the issue of health care, you had Republicans like Warren Hatch, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snow, who had dedicated their lives to the cause of health care, you know, who had authored legislation that closely resembled the Affordable Care Act, you know, and so it was not unreasonable to think that those Republicans might be willing to deal with us and, you know, contribute and join on and vote for the health care for the Affordable Care Act. You know, on the other side, you had Mitch McConnell, whipping aggressively to whip all those people into line. And it was a real fight. You know, I mean, I think it's hard in retrospect, you know, now knowing everything that we know that unfolded after that to understand that in 2009, this prospect was very, very real of bipartisanship. And that McConnell, you know, it was not a foregone conclusion at all that he would succeed in whipping those people into line, you know, and people were having daily conversations with these senators. There was, you know, hearings going on where they were participating and offering feedback on legislation. Like, this was a real prospect.

But obviously, that's not how it worked out. McConnell won that fight. you know, whipped everybody into line and we had to pass health care on party land votes. But that was a year, right? We spent a year chasing that prospect of bipartisanship on health care. You know, that informed my own view on the filibuster and lots of other things about structural reform. And so I think, you know, if Democrats are lucky enough to have a trifecta in 2029, you know, they should just roll and just come into office with a head of steam and an aggressive policy agenda and the structural reforms to back it up and just do everything they can to pass it as quickly as possible.

Obviously, they're always willing to have a conversation with the Republicans. I'm always going to invite them in, but we shouldn't let that be, you know, a precondition for passing legislation. And I think, you know, knowing what we know now about what Mitch McConnell was able to do, I think we all probably would have made a different decision and said, let's just, you know, let's just go and do this on Democratic votes. You know, maybe let's do some filibuster reform if you have to. You know, this is my sort of fantasy land, you know, retelling of that period. But, you know, whether that was possible at that time or not, I think that's what we should take away and say, listen, we are going to be elected by the American people to enact this agenda. We have a mandate.

Let's just roll. If Republicans want to get on board, they're welcome to, we'll always have a door open. But we are going to enact the mandate that the American people elect us on and, you know, just absolutely not let anything stop us. Well, the other challenge, though, is that we, this is the flip side of the challenge with heterodoxy is we had a very heterodox coalition. Like our super majority, you know, everyone thinks that we have like 60 votes forever and we just didn't do enough with it. But like we had 60 votes for a very limited amount of time. We don't have to get into why, but we just did. There wasn't not that many days on the calendar where we had 60 votes.

But that those 60 votes in the Senate included some red state Democrats that like for people who don't remember back then, like make Joe Manchin look liberal. Yeah. You know, and like we won't, we won't. Joe Manchin was not, it was not the problem. No, right, which is hard to know. Lincoln and Ben Nelson and, you know, Max Marcus, yeah. Very, very conservative Democrats. Now, if we get 54, 55, 56 seats, 57 seats over not just this cycle, but next cycle to 26 and 28 in the Senate, those red state centers will not be as conservative as the ones we had in 2009. But you do have the challenge of like, like, do people know what it's going to be like? to have a Senate with Mary Paltola and maybe Adam Hamilton or, you know, if things really go well,

Annie Andrews or Scott. Like, there's a lot of people in pretty deep red states that if they become senators, like, yes, they have six years. So it's better than the House when you have two years and run free election. But like they, like, how do you keep a, how do you, and this is for, you know, you spent time with Senator Reid in the Senate. Like, how do you keep a big fractious caucus together with candidates who are very heterodox and had to be so to win their seat. Yeah, I mean, it starts with deciding early on what your big,

broad goals are, right? And pick goals that everybody is going to get behind. I think about it like Tetris, right? Because there are so many issues that are really core to who we are as Democrats that you can get them all aligned on, right? So everybody you just name, you know, Mary Peltola, Scott Hamilton, Adam Hamilton, you know, Josh Turek, Warren Cooper, you know, every single one of them wants to expand, wants to enact universal health care, right? They don't want to do it through single payer, but they want every single American to have access to affordable health care and to never fall into bankruptcy because they have a health problem. You know, every single one of them wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, both as a matter of fairness and to pay

for all these ambitious things we want to do, right? You know, they want to expand the social safety net. They want to, you know, achieve better education for our kids. So, you know, there are four or five issues at least where they are locked in with the broader Democratic coalition. And I think it also happens that those issues are the ones that voters care the most about, you know, just start with health care. Like that is our best issue. It is the one we went on most reliably.

And it is the one that can cause the most positive change in people's lives. So, you know, let's lock in there. And then I think as you do the policy, you know, you will find that they have different points of view of how they want to do it. Like you probably won't be able to enact a single payer system. You might have to go through a public option to achieve universal health care, you know. But you will still get to the broader goal of universal health care, even though you're doing it through means that are a little bit more heterodox. You know, as we at Searchlight, you know, we think a lot about how to expand the social safety net. And so, you know, if you want to say to the American people, you know, we have a cradle of the grave system of social safety, you know, no matter what stage you find yourself in, no matter what circumstances is in, you will never fall below a certain threshold. You'll always be able to put food on the table. You always have a roof over your head, you know, but maybe that's, we do that in a policy design that is more reflective of the social security model where we say, you know, you are contributing to this program, you're working for it. You know, there are things that you're doing to make this.

earned in the eyes of a broader coalition of Americans. So, you know, instead of this being a simple handout or people getting something for free, we are engaging with, you know, conservative and libertarian ideas of contributory responsibility, personal responsibility, and designing the policy that way, right? So I think you can sort of get to the same ends that Democrats of all factions broadly agree on by adopting some heterodoxy in your policy design that will get you the votes of Mary Peltola and Adam Hamilton and Josh Turek, you know, that may not be sort of the exact policy design that the folks on the left would want, but achieves the same goal. So, you know, there will be compromises along the way, but not necessarily compromises when it

comes to that core goal that we want to achieve as Democrats and that are the things that, you know, distinguish us from Republicans at the end of the day. Offline is brought you by FreshBooks. Whether you just launched your service business or you've been at it for years, the money side has a way of pulling you from the work you actually love doing. FreshBooks changes that. FreshBooks makes the financials of your service-based business easy. Log your hours, send a branded invoice, get paid, and know your numbers instead of chasing them. Money in, money out, all in one place. No more juggling one app for clients, another for billing, plus a pile of spreadsheets and emails. FreshBooks is designed

for how small business owners think about money, not how an accountant does. You don't need a financial background to use FreshBooks. It's simple on purpose. Most owners are up and running in minutes, not days. And if you need help, a real person is available on every plan. FreshBooks has been trusted by service businesses for over 20 years, helping over 500,000 owners and solopreneurs run their businesses confidently. Right now, my listeners can get FreshBooks for less than $3 a month for your first four months. That's 90% off. Head to FreshBooks.com slash podcast to get started. That's 90% off under $3 a month for four months at freshbooks.com slash podcast. Hey everyone.

My name is Elijah Cohn, and I've been a producer here at Cricket Media for a decade. I love making our shows with the smart, creative people who work here and hearing from all of you who listen every week. But the thing that I'm proudest of is that video we made of Yvette Ramoswami grunting while hitting baseballs. No, wait, sorry. The thing I'm proudest of is the work we do through Vote Save America. See, we don't want our shows to only leave you feeling anxious about the state of the world. We want to give you something you can actually do about it. Just this year, our listeners have raised millions of dollars and filled thousands of volunteer shifts to help candidates and causes in the 2026 midterms.

And we have no plans to slow down as we head into 2028. As far as I know, there's no other media company that does what Cricket does. We make entertaining, thoughtful content that brings people into politics, and then we give them a direct way to get involved. And if you believe in that mission, one of the best ways to support us is by becoming a paid subscriber. Your subscription helps us keep making the shows you love and build you. a media company that doesn't just talk about politics, but helps people change them. And if the mission sounds great, but you feel like you need some sweet subscriber benefits to get you over the finish line, we've got you covered. Subscribers get ad-free shows, plus excellent exclusive podcast, newsletters, and much much more.

So thank you for listening and supporting what we do. Head to crooked.com slash friends today to learn more and become a subscriber. Now, there's two arguments you'll get from folks on the left. And one is, and you've said that after 2016, you know, you became more open to the argument that moving left could generate grassroots energy, bring different people into the electorate, right? So that's the first big argument is, okay, when you're talking about winning red states by moderating on certain positions, not all, but some to be more in line with what people in that state believe. but why are we trying to win over these more moderate voters when if you have someone who's energizing and inspiring enough, you can sort of just bring all these voters into the electorate who are either low propensity voters or people who haven't voted before and, you know, maybe they're more progressive and younger. And if you can do that, then you can sort of reshape the electorate and you don't have to be moderating your position all the time. But then you reconsider that belief.

So what evidence made you reconsider that belief that you had after 2016? I mean, you know, the evidence was that the electorate just didn't change as rapidly as people thought it was, right? I mean, even today, the white non-collegiate share of the electorate is close to, you know, 70% or the white share of the electorate is close to 70% of the vote. And the, you know, working class, non-college share is, you know, over 60%. So, you know, I think what Obama understood was that you always needed to maintain a strong foundation among white working class voters and that you could build on that. Because it's just a math problem. Because there's just a math problem. Just a math problem.

There's just too many of them, right? And, you know, Obama won in 2008, and he had the strongest performance among white working class voters of any candidates since Bill Clinton. So, you know, you can't discount that. And we just got kind of carried away at that time. I got carried away, thinking that you could just ignore the concerns of those voters because, you know, the other shares of the electorate were growing so fast that all you had to do was appeal to them. There was also, you know, there was a miscalculation in thinking that the way to energize, you know, black and Hispanic and other voters was by running far to the left. And I think we

ran into the harsh reality that that's not actually true and that a lot of working class voters of all races hold, you know, somewhat culturally conservative. views on a lot of issues. So, you know, there was sort of a real, a rude awakening there. And, you know, it's not pleasant in some ways. You know, it brings you back into reality. It's a cold bucket of water over the head to say, you know, a lot of the American voters don't think the way that we think and we can't force them to. But I think there's another approach that says, hey, listen, you know, this is what makes our country so dynamic and so beautiful. that there is this diversity views and the challenge is not to beat people over the head with our

ideology. The challenge is to craft a coalition by, you know, doing this difficult work of saying, how can we continue to remain true to our principles and drive aggressively towards the big, ambitious change we want to see while also bringing in people who don't agree with us on all issues? And it's a much more subtle, you know, a much more refined approach to politics. And And, you know, I think part of this for me is like this has happened, consists, you know, on a parallel track with me just sort of, you know, getting older and having kids and sort of, you know, experiencing life in a broader array of experiences. And, you know, I think it's sort of a maturing for us as a party and as a sort of advocacy community to say, you know, we should seek to bring people in and not chase them away, even as we don't give up on these big goals that we have. So then the other argument is, okay, so that is what people believe right now, but public opinion isn't static. And if you are, you know, if you're someone who is really looking to make sure that there is this basic social safety net at every stage of life, as you said, then we want people to have, knock on below a certain threshold and health care that's there for you and et cetera, like, then this is, this is for you.

right, like, you know, that you can have this heterodoxy and getting a super majority in passing this. But if you're someone who, it matters to you that trans people in this country are treated just the same as everyone else, that they have equal rights and equal protections, or if you're someone who's like, I truly believe that if we continue to produce fossil fuels, like, we are just warming the climate to beyond what's going to be safe. And you really care about climate change. Like, what do you say to those activists and organizers about, you know, always having to settle for their issues being pushed to the side because they are not the issues that gain majority support in these red states that we need? I mean, I think, you know, I would press a little bit on that and say, you know, they probably have other issues too, you know. And so, you know, health care is also probably an issue for them, you know. know, tax fairness, you know, making our tax code more progressive and making sure that rich people

and big corporations are paying their fair share probably also an issue. You know, I think there's there's a lot of issues that people believe in. You know, me personally and, you know, us at Searchlight, you know, my sort of, the one area where I'm at an absolutist is on having no lipist tests, right? And I think that, you know, I call that Big Ten absolutism. It's like, you know, the only thing that should be a litmus test is having no litmus tests. And, you know, look, if you if you run down the roster of issues and you say, you know, I don't, I don't disagree with, or I do disagree with Democrats, you know, on health care, on climate change, on taxes, then you're probably a Republican, right?

But if you say, you know, some of these candidates are too moderate for my taste on trans issues, but I definitely agree with them on health care. I definitely agree with them on tax fairness. I definitely agree with them on raising the social safety net. Then you are probably a Democrat. And those are the kinds of cost benefits, the calculations that we just have to make. And I think one of the things we're seeing in America today is that trans Americans are much worse off under Republicans than they would have been under a Democrat. And the reason for that is that even Democrats who might diverge on the,

on issues like kids participation in sports or medical procedures for kids. Even Democrats who take a moderate position on those iterations of trans issues strongly believe in civil rights protections for trans Americans and adults across the board, right? This is something we found in our polling where, you know, when it comes to adults, you have, you know, vast majorities of Americans who agree. 67% of Americans say, you know, protect trans people from, discrimination in all walks of life, protect their access to health care, you know, protect them

against discrimination in the workplace, in the military, et cetera. You know, where you lose some people is on issues that are involving kids. And that is a bright line distinction between Democrats and Republicans, right? Democrats, all Democrats believe in protecting trans people's civil rights. Some Democrats, you know, have questions when it comes to issues involving kids. Republicans don't believe in protecting trans-American civil rights at all. And so those are the kinds of distinctions that you have to keep in mind to say, you know, and the other thing I would say is like, look, if Adam Hamilton, you know, or Josh Turrick or James Tullerico get elected to the Senate, you know, you have a handful of people who don't agree on issues of sports and kids. But still, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus, you know, is there on every iteration of this issue. So I guess the question is, though, like, so what is the role of the Democratic Party and Democratic politicians in helping to.

move public opinion and not just reflect it, right? Because like, let's say under the hopeful scenario that a lot of voters are like, yeah, actually, I'm further to the left than this Democratic politician on crime or trans issues or what's going to happen with immigrants and asylum laws. You know, I don't want to just use trans issues because everyone seems to use that, you know, but like a whole host of issues. But they say, you know what, even though I'm to the left of the Democratic politicians on that, I'm going to give them their, I'm going to give them my vote.

because I believe that we need this majority because I care about a whole bunch of other issues as well and they're way better than Republicans. But like, what do I get from that vote in terms of leaders who are going to, even if they're not going to vote all the ways I want them to vote, at least try to push the public debate and move public opinion toward my direction.

Yeah. My favorite quote on this comes from Sarah McBride who said, in an interview, you know, addressing this question directly, you know, of when do you follow public opinion and when do you lead it? She said, you can be out in front of public opinion, but you have to stay within arms reach. And I think that's a really pivotal distinction, right? You can lead out. I deeply believe public opinion is valuable. I mean, you know, we've seen this throughout history that part of the responsibility of leaders is to shape public opinion. But the problem is,

If you get too far out from where the American people are, you lose them entirely and you invite backlash that, you know, isn't just inconvenient. It can wipe out everything that you've achieved and everything that you care about. And so the incredibly difficult challenge of leadership is to pick issues where you want to lead the American people, but do so methodically. And, you know, getting back to what we talked about, about having compassion for. people is, you know, not treating the American people as wrong or retrobait because they're not where you want them to be, but saying, I will lead you to where I want you to go, but I will do so with empathy and compassion and understanding, even as I try to push you forward, right? And, you know, look, down to the nuts and bolts of politics, I think you probably got to pick a handful of

issues where you want to do that. I talk a lot about building capital versus spending capital, you know, And I think, you know, this is a finite resource. You build political capital. And I strongly believe that you build it in order to spend it. But you got to pick where you're going to spend it. And then you also have to keep thinking about where are you going to build capital back. You know, I think a lot about the Emancipation Proclamation, not to, you know, go heavy here. But like, you know, Abraham Lincoln had activists demanding that he enacted all through 1863.

And he waited until the union enacted, you know, accomplished a series of military victories. in order to enact it, right? He knew he didn't have the political capital to enact it. An activist were saying, oh, you know, announce it and that will build capital for you. And he's like, no, that's definitely not going to build capital for me. But I am willing to build the capital through other means and then spend it on this thing that I think is really important. And, you know, so it was the string of union military victories that allowed him to feel comfortable moving forward with the proclamation. And I think that's, you know, that's important. So, you know, part of what I think, we got caught up in on the left and Democrats in general was convincing ourselves that every left-wing

ideal was popular and that you were never spending political capital and you were always only building it because we could find a poll somewhere that showed you that it was at 60% or whatever. And I think what we need to do going forward is say, listen, you know, we're going to actually recognize that there are a few issues where we are out of step with the American people. We're going to say to ourselves, those are issues where we want to lead the American people towards our position, but we're going to take a smart, strategic, and methodical view towards how we do that. We're going to treat the American people with empathy and compassion, and we're going to sort of get them to move forward by leading them and staying within arm's reach of them all throughout the process, as Sarah McBride so eloquently

put. So we don't need to handicap the 2028 field, but I do think it's a harder test of your argument than a midterm, right? Because, like, in some ways, heterodoxy in a midterm is, you know, is easier just because there's a whole bunch of different states. And so you can get an Abdul running in Michigan and the James Tellerico in Texas and a Mary Biltola in Alaska. And in a presidential race, we only get one. What is what does heterodoxy look like to you in the primary that's coming, which is going to be fun for everyone? Yeah.

I mean, I think it looks like treating these questions of fairness as legitimate, right? It looks like seeking to build a bigger, broader coalition rather than seeking to condemn people for their views. And look, there will always be attention there, right? You know, at a certain point, you build a coalition so broad that it just falls apart. But I think we're so far away from that right now as Democrats that we've got a long way to go, you know, airing in the direction of bigness and broadness that, you know, we'll know when we get there, but we've got a lot to do.

So, you know, I was really struck. Look, I'm not picking favorites. I am, I've, you know, we've all been through competitive primaries, and every time I swear I'm going to not pick favorites because, you know, you get in debates, you lose friends, all that sort of stuff. But, but I, so don't take this as an endorsement. It's certainly not. I think we've got an incredible field of talent.

I want to see how they all perform. But I was really struck watching a clip the other day of John Ossoff in his debate against Mike Rogers. I mean you're going to say that. I swear to God, not endorse. But it was just, it encapsulated so succinctly that I can't help but, I can't help but it up where, you know, he, at the point he was trying to make, the reason the clip went viral was that he was like basically accusing Mike Collins of being a Nazi and saying, you know, he'd pick up a billy club if this was, you know, Selma. But he started the answer out by just sort of casually

endorsing voter ID, you know, and then quickly pivoted to calling Mike Collins a racist essentially, right? And that to me was such a, you know, a succinct encapsulation of heterodoxy, where, where the endorsement of voter ID is part of why Assoff is connecting so strongly with such a broad range of voters in Georgia. But then, you know, pivoting to his attack on Mike Collins is part of why the base is so excited about him. I found that interesting too. And this has always been my voter ID is a perfect issue on this. Because so what is the liberal left critique of voter ID is not everyone has a license. Not everyone can get an ID.

people if you're poorer rural people folks in rural areas right like it's just you just you don't you don't get it it's harder to get right and my thought about that has always been like that is a very fair critique and i would never want someone to not be able to vote just because they are more disadvantaged that they don't have an id but if you put the onus on the government to ensure that every single american no matter who you are where you come from where you live has an idea either on your, we all have phones now, either on your phone, there is a policy that you can, that you can create that ensures access to an ID for every single American, matter who you are, and then also say, okay, then we're going to, then we're going to require it. Like, and then you take that away, you know, right, because the principle underlying it isn't wrong, you know,

like you should, you should, you should have to prove in some way that you're eligible to vote, you know, order to vote. You know, I think about this with work requirements a lot, right? Where it's like the idea that you should, you know, if you are able by, you know, and able to work, you know, in, and you're applying for government benefits, you know, you should do that. And liberals and Democrats agree with that across the board. The reason that we often end up opposing the policy in practice is that they put the onus on the person. Right. Right. And so if you're out of work and you're struggling and you're stretched economically, like you have to fill out all this insane paperwork, you know, Annie Lowry's written

about this with the time tax, right? On the show talking about it. Yeah. Yeah, it's impossible, right? And so that's and so people who are deserved the benefits don't get them. But what if the onus was reversed? You know, what if what if the onus was on the government to, you know, do all the work for you. And the assumption was that you are, you know, that you're looking for work as you're getting these benefits. You reverse the onus. And then you, you are able to endorse the principle as Democrats that liberals and the American people broadly agree on, you know, but not get caught up in this, you know, in this positioning where you are forced to sort of oppose a principle that you kind of agree with because of the way it's implemented, right? And so, you know, there are lots of

things that we can do to fix that, you know, implementation side. But I think that shouldn't stop us from recognizing that there are principles of fairness underlying some of these policies. And that's why a lot of Americans believe in it. As we head towards this primary, this 28 primary, like, what would you change about how campaigns, activists, people like you and me, to conduct these arguments? Like, not just how like politely we phrase them, but like, What do you think would make the actual debate where there's serious disagreement more useful? I think assuming good faith in people who have disagreements about policy and understanding that we can accept a broad range of viewpoints on policy and not, you know, try to assume the worst

about each other. I think that, you know, we've gotten caught up in this rush to sort of question people's motives in a way that I think is deeply unhelpful. both because it sort of quickly elevates, you know, reasonable disagreements to an emotional level that I think is not necessary. And, you know, there's a social media plays a role on that. And, you know, that's well out of my bailiwick. But I also think it's the right approach, as we think about the American elector more broadly, to say, I can accept that someone has a different point of view than mine, even on an issue I care passionately about, but instead of letting that define our relationship or letting that define the debate, I'm going to seek out the common ground

and I'm going to find those areas of agreement. Now, look, you might find that you just don't agree with them on anything. And in that case, they might be a Republican or a conservative, right? Yeah. But probably, you know, with a broader range of people than you might expect, you're going to find areas of agreement where they're economically populist, you know, they believe that climate change is real, they want to fight it, even as you might disagree with them on a few issues here and there, even things that you believe in passionately. So I think, you know, trying to, it sounds almost naive to say, but I'm going to say it anyway, trying to get back to a spirit of understanding and empathy and good faith disagreement would do wonders for us politically,

but I also think it would be a good thing for us as human beings as well. Yeah, yeah. What's one criticism of your argument that you've taken especially seriously or that has caused you to, I don't know, reconsider a previous view that you've had? I think, you know, the idea that in order to be heterodox, you have to aim lower is something I take extremely seriously. And, you know, I think that part of the reason I like the philosophy is that I don't think you have to concede on ambition of goals. But, you know, I do think the right way to get there is to build on what's come before. I think there's a strong impulse that I find myself drawn to of saying, you know, tear it all down, replace it with something new. And, you know, there's a whole host of policy

reasons why I don't think that's smart. There's a lot of institutional wisdom that's built up in these policies that we can, you know, seize on. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, you know, capitalize on him. But I also think it's respectful to what's come before. And we stand on the shoulders of giants. Generations of liberals and activists have fought to get to where we are. And there are good reasons for why they built what they did. And I think, you know, respecting that, even as we recognize that we want to go further and we want to go bigger and want to do better is attention that I do find myself sometimes drawn towards the life. like, you know, burn it all down and replace something new.

But at the end of the day, I sort of do come down on, let's just keep building and let's push and let's be really ambitious about what we want to achieve. But there's a lot of generational wisdom in what's come before that I think we can learn from and build on. Adam Jeltsin, the book is Super Majority. Go pick it up. It's a great read and it'll make you think. So thanks for coming out.

Thanks, man. Thanks for having me. Offline with John Fulner. Favreau is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Emma Ilic Frank, and Anisha Banergy. Our team includes Dilan-Villeva, Mia Kelman, Charlotte Landis, Eric Schute, Rachel Gaieski and Will Jones with support from Adrian Hill and Matt DeGrope. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

Hey everyone. My name is Elijah Cohn, and I've been a producer here at Cricket Media for a decade. I love making our shows with the smart, creative people who work here and hearing from all of you who listen every week. But the thing that I'm proudest of is that video we made of Yvette Ramoswami grunting while hitting baseballs. No, wait, sorry. The thing I'm proudest of is the work we do through Vote Save America. See, we don't want our shows to only leave you feeling anxious about the state of the world. We want to give you something you can actually do about it. Just this year,

our listeners have raised millions of dollars and filled thousands of volunteer shifts to help candidates and causes in the 26 midterms, and we have no plans to slow down as we head into 2028. As far as I know, there's no other media company that does what Cricket does. We make entertaining, thoughtful content that brings people into politics, and then we give them a direct way to get involved. And if you believe in that mission, one of the best ways to support us is by becoming a paid subscriber. Your subscription helps us keep making the shows you love and building a media company that doesn't just talk about politics, but helps people change them. And if the mission sounds great, but you feel like you need some sweet subscriber benefits to get you over the finish line,

we've got you covered. Subscribers get ad-free shows, plus excellent exclusive podcast, newsletters, and much much more. So thank you for listening and supporting what we do. Head to crooked.com slash friends today to learn more and become a subscriber.