Pod Save America - “Killing it on the economy.”

Episode Date: May 6, 2019

The President coddles Putin on future election sabotage, the White House says they’re killing it on the economy, Nancy Pelosi believes Democrats need to own the center-left, and the electability debate rages in America and Westeros. Then digital strategist Tara McGowan talks to Tommy about which candidates are spending most on digital ads and why that’s so important.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, you'll hear Tommy's interview with digital strategist Tara McGowan, who's been keeping close tabs on how Trump and all the Democratic candidates are spending on digital ads and why it's important. But first, we're going to talk about Trump's long phone call with Vladimir Putin, the recent strong jobs numbers, Nancy Pelosi's 2020 strategy, and the debate over electability in the Democratic primary and Westeros. Yeah, exactly right. We should say Lovett's on the road.

Yeah. But he'll be joining you and Dan on Thursday. That's right, he will. Look forward to that. And he's just finishing up his Texas tour. You can hear the Houston episode of Lover Leave It that features Emily Heller, former NFL great and current podcast star Arian Foster, and Mercedes Fulbright from the Center for Popular Democracy. I really like Arian Foster.

When we talked to him in Houston, he and I spent 20 minutes talking about, like, Cosmos and shows we liked about science and astrology on Netflix. He's a great guy. He's a great guy. Hell of a running back, too. That's right. All right, let's get to the news. On Friday, Donald Trump initiated a telephone call with the man who sabotaged our presidential election, Vladimir Putin,

but did not say a word to him about that attack or any future attempts to interfere with our elections. Trump tweeted that they, quote, discussed trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, nuclear arms control, and even the Russia hoax. Very productive talk. control and even the russia hoax very productive talk in an interview on sunday secretary of state mike pompeo had an explanation for why election interference wasn't covered during the 60 plus minute call quote sometimes conversations just aren't long enough to include every issue uh tommy you buy that one i do that sound like a good explanation to you i do not i mean also the russian readout said it was a 90-minute call. So that does seem like some time.

Now, calls... That's a lot of time on the phone. Who talks to someone for 90 minutes on the phone? Well, calls with Putin are a pain in the ass. One, he gives long speeches, long diatribes about the legacy of Western intervention and this place and that place. And then our president is a bumbling idiot who gives long speeches about Fox and Friends and whatever, and then it all has to get translated. So they both need translators. That could, yes, that's right. Coherency translator.

Who doesn't speak English, neither does Trump. Exactly. So that is a mundane reason that could account for why it would take a long time. But either way, like, hey, you know, the head of the CIA, I'm sorry, the head of the FBI is flashing warning lights saying that these guys are going to interfere in the 2020 elections. Kirstjen Nielsen, the former DHS secretary, was told not to raise it with Donald Trump, but she was so worried about it that she was pulling together her own cabinet meetings to talk about the subject. So it's a huge problem.

Sometimes I like to play, let's pretend what it would be like if we had a normal president. Sometimes I like to play let's pretend what it would be like if we had a normal president. Okay. So if we had a normal president and Russia has already sabotaged our election in 2016, but you don't necessarily want to escalate tensions with Russia at this point, right? You don't want to like start a new war. Like we wouldn't want Obama to get on the phone with Putin and start screaming at him and making all these threats. But how do you deal with an ongoing threat like Russia, which is clearly targeting, has targeted our elections in the past, is going to target it again in the future,

is going to target not just our elections, but our infrastructure with cyber attacks? What do you say if you're the president? What can you do that's short of escalating tensions, but also lets them know that you mean business? Well, I mean, I think what you say is probably less important than what you're doing. So I do think you have to let them know that we're watching what you're doing and we will take steps to respond as a way to try to deter them. And so back in the day, in 2016, Obama put together a bunch of sanctions. We kicked a bunch of Russian spies out of a fake consulate. You know, there were a bunch of steps taken to create a cost for this activity. In the interim period from then until now, when Donald Trump has been

president, what he should have done was bolster our cyber infrastructure. He should have given the National Security Agency more authorities to deter Russian aggression. We know that he didn't because Mike Rogers admitted during congressional testimony that Trump hadn't authorized any new authorities. And you send a strong message that we are watching you. We know what you did. If you do it again, we will respond in a significant fashion. That might be through sanctions at the UN Security Council, unilateral sanctions. It might be a covert action program. Cyber attacks of our own. Right. I'm not saying that that's a good response because, you know, there's not many rules of the road there and

things can get dicey real quick when it comes to cyber attacks. But you want to let them know that this is not acceptable. And to accept Putin at his word that they didn't do this again and again and again makes him feel like there will be no cost. Well, I was going to say, what kind of signal do you think Trump's words and actions are sending to Putin? Whether or not Trump intends to send the signal, right? Like whether you believe, you know, that Trump feels somehow like Putin has leverage over him and he has to do what Putin say, or that Trump's just a bumbling idiot who, you know, wants to be friendly to Putin because he has an affinity for authoritarians or because he knows that if he's not friendly to Putin, that somehow it delegitimizes his election.

Whatever you may think, what are the signals getting sent to Putin by Trump not really coming down hard on this? I mean, I think before this call, after this call, Putin probably views the 2016 election interference as the most successful propaganda, info, espionage operation in the history of the Russian government, because he got the guy he wanted elected president. He divided our nation, and we remain as divided over the issue today as we were then, right? We're still fighting about the Mueller report. We're talking about impeaching Trump, bottling about tying him down. So, you know, I don't know that Putin is particularly deterrable through words right now. It would

have to be pretty strong consequences. I mean, what do you think Democrats should be saying and doing about the fact that, you know, Russia intends to interfere again? Or at least according to the FBI, according to the CIA, according to all of our intelligence, it seems like Russian attempts to interfere in our election to target our infrastructure with cyber attacks is ongoing. Like, how much of it, do we make this a big deal? I think so. I mean, I think we should be holding hearings and they should call Nielsen to testify and get her to confirm or deny on the record

that she was told by the White House Chief of Staff not to raise these issues with the President of the United States. If that's true, that is a dereliction of duty by the President. It's a national security crisis. And we need some accounting of what has been done, what steps have been taken to protect us in the 2020 election before it's too late, right? I think we need to lay the groundwork. And people understand this is a big ass problem. Yeah, it seems like we should have a bunch of hearings. I mean, Chris Wray, the FBI director said just the

other week on Russian sabotage, quote, we are very much viewing 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020. Yeah. That's fucking scary. Right. I mean, look, buried in the Mueller report was the fact that someone in a county in Florida clicked on a phishing email that gave Russian agents access to that county's election information, you know, digital infrastructure. digital infrastructure. Lucky for us, we have this stupid, antiquated, county-by-county, state-by-state system that's such a mess that you can't penetrate one computer and get a hold of the whole thing. But that is a warning sign. They're going to try this again. And we know that they're going to try this again or that they're continuing to try this because in

2018, the Treasury Department levied sanctions on Russia because they were trying to target not only our elections infrastructure, but other infrastructure, energy, nuclear, water, aviation, manufacturing. I mean, it's sometimes I think hard to get people in this country to understand what a big deal the social media campaign the Russians ran was, the hacking, stuff like that. Hacking into election machines and hacking some of our infrastructure, you know, potentially being able to cause a blackout, stuff like that. That seems like people will get that a little bit more than they get just like, oh, my mind

was convinced because of a Facebook ad. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, I think that they're likely to probe all kinds of U.S. computer systems, all kinds of infrastructure, not necessarily to do something about it. But World War III will start with a massive cyber attack that will take down the internet, that will take down power structures, that will God knows what. And people should just know that because we've seen it in Ukraine. We saw it in Libya. I mean, this is the way of the

world now. And so that's not to be- And we don't have a president who has shown any willingness or ability to protect us from that. No. And look, not to be alarmist, right? Because you do have a bunch of hawks sitting in the White House who don't want our country attacked. You have an entire military and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all this infrastructure designed to protect the United States. But senior level attention from the president of the United States focuses the U.S. government on a problem like nothing else. And when you're not allowed to raise the issue with him, that's a real problem. Yeah. And I do think this needs to be a bigger part of the Democrats' message, and especially, I think, the Democratic candidates, too.

Because, you know, Charlie Pierce wrote in Esquire, like, why aren't we seeing this president as a national security crisis? I agree. And it is. And I think, you know, usually Republicans are the party that like say, oh, we'll protect you and stuff like that. But there's a case to make, I think, on national security, particularly around Russian interference and foreign sabotage, that Donald Trump is not up to the job for protecting this country. No, look, he's not. I mean, every foreign policy effort he's undertaken has failed so far. I think, you know, Seth Moulton got in the race because he

wants to make a national security argument against President Trump. I think that's an interesting strategy. And it could, you know, it could wear well over time. But it's also the place where the president has the most flexibility and leeway to do whatever he or she wants. So, you know, I don't think voters are ever going to vote on national security judgment writ large, per se. I think you need an event like the Iraq War to really focus people on these issues, but it should be part of our case. Yeah. So in addition to Russia,

Trump and Putin also talked about Venezuela. Trump told us that Putin, quote, is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela other than he'd like to see something positive happen. Then on Sunday, Russia's foreign minister met with his Venezuelan counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who's scheduled to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday, has urged the United States to back off what he described as, quote, an irresponsible plan to force out Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Tommy, what is the extent of Russia's involvement in Venezuela?

And why would Trump just repeat spin from Putin that contradicts his own secretary of state and government? The latter question I don't have an answer for. And we will never have an answer why. He just believes Putin, his word on any issue. Right. Remember when Putin told him that the North Koreans didn't actually have like an ICBM capability. And he's like, oh, yeah, well, I believe him, not my CIA director. Why?

I don't get it. The worst case scenario is that somehow Putin's got something on him. The best case scenario is he's just fucking gullible. That's right. So the Russians have extensive economic interests in Venezuela. For the last decade or so, in exchange for loans or bailouts, the Russians have given them a bunch of cash in exchange for portions of Venezuelan oil fields or big pieces of Sitco, their national oil company.

And then in exchange, also the Russians have sold the Venezuelans guns and tanks and planes. They do joint military exercises. So I assume the Russians are really rightfully worried that a new regime would default on some of those loans and that they'd be left up Schitt's Creek. default on some of those loans and that they'd be left up Schitt's Creek. Now, I do think that the, you know, I've reached out to some smarter people than me before the show to take their pulse on this. And I do think that the military factor in terms of Russia's presence in Venezuela is exaggerated. It might be 100, 200 so-called security types. But I mean, we learned in Syria that a small but dedicated Russian intelligence or military presence can really tip the balance of a fight against an insurgency. So it's something we should worry about. The other thing they really do is they help them evade sanctions,

and they help Maduro fight diplomatic efforts to isolate or pressure him. So once again, Trump not really getting it. Well, but also, but like on top of that, you know, we know that the Russians, uh, have this huge interest, but whenever they want to criticize someone, uh, for the role they play in destabilizing Venezuela, they turn and they slap the Cubans around. Right. And part of that is because the cuban president is is larger i mean there are the administration says there's 20 000 intelligence or military personnel again people i talk to think that's probably exaggerated a lot

of them are likely to be doctors or social service types but there's certainly a significant cuban presence that the trump administration is constantly shadowboxing although once he gets on the phone with putin someone who has real influence and, you know, you could work with Putin, say, to negotiate Maduro's exit, or you could work with the Cubans to negotiate an exit for Maduro. They just won't do that kind of diplomacy with the people that matter. Shit show. Finally, last foreign policy questions before we move on. How big of a deal is North Korea firing off a test missile on Saturday? And why did Trump then tweet about Kim Jong-un quote, he knows that I am with him

and does not want to break his promise to me. He's so weird. So I don't obviously have access to intelligence anymore so I don't know exactly what kind of missile it was. But I reached out to some different smart people and

their take was think Al Capone. This is a brick coming through your play glass window with a note that says pay up, or next time it's going to be a bomb coming through your window. So Kim never promised to freeze short-range missile tests, but if this was a ballistic missile, it would still be outlawed under the UN Security Council. Regardless, it does feel like he is slowly but surely ratcheting up the pressure on Trump because when they walked away from the Hanoi summit, Kim didn't get what he wanted, which was sanctions relief,

which he had promised to his people. So, you know, he's going to lash out, I suspect, until he gets some sort of movement there or another round of talks or whatever it is. But the thing that was remarkable to me is over the weekend, I think it was Pompeo was on one of the Sunday shows. Oh, yeah. And he was asked about the test. And he basically said, you know, it was a short range weapon. So it's not a huge deal. Well, it's a huge deal if you live in Seoul, or if you live in Japan,

or you're one of the 28,500 U.S. service members in the region or in South Korea proper. So, you know, they clearly don't want to deal with the fact that diplomacy so far has failed and they don't seem to have any plan for how to deal with it. Right. And look, we've said this before. North Korea is an extremely tough challenge for any president, whether it was, you know, a dumbass Republican president like Donald Trump or a smarter Democratic president. But it is clear that Kim believes what Putin believes, which is that Trump is someone who you can push around and he's gullible and he will believe anything you say because he is horny for a deal all the time. Right. And we're and we're a godawful ally if the Secretary of State goes on TV and says, well, the only thing we really care about

is ICBMs launched in North Korea that could hit the U.S. We should care about our allies in the region who we have security deals with. The other thing I just want to say about Venezuela before we move on is 3.5 million Venezuelans are estimated to have left the country. Now, Marco Rubio, Lieutenant Marco Rubio, private Marco Rubio, floated the idea of

giving those Venezuelans TPS, or temporary protected status. That is a very good idea. That would allow them to come to the United States to seek asylum, have certain protections. When John Bolton was asked about that proposal, about TPS, on another Sunday show, he basically ducked the question. So to me, that gives up the game. They don't give a shit about the Venezuelan people. This whole thing is about jockeying with the Russians and jockeying with the Cubans for, you know, moving political pawns around the global board. They're talking about the Monroe Doctrine and all these like stupid, neocolonial sounding theories of the case.

I mean, there are people suffering. There are people starving. There are people in no medical care. And this administration won't do anything to help them. Yeah, they want to break shit in other countries, but because they're all xenophobes, they want to close our borders to the refugees that their foreign policy creates.

It's pretty clear that that seems... Yeah, they want to float the idea of a military intervention. They want to go have big meetings in the tank, which is where the Joint Chiefs of Staff meet and have the most sensitive conversations they have. But, you know, no one in Venezuela actually wants a military intervention, at least not the majority of the people that oppose Maduro. Whew. Okay. Good times. All right. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate has fallen to 3.6%, the lowest level we've seen in half a century. This comes after the Commerce Department's April report that the economy beat expectations

by growing more than 3% in the first quarter of the year. White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow recently celebrated the news by recording a video where he twice said that the Trump administration is, quote, killing it on the economy, something that he finds, quote, totally awesome. Tommy, how well is the economy doing and does Trump deserve any credit?

Just first of all, I know we have a lot of uh technologically savvy smart listeners out there could someone please just remix it with something yeah there wasn't enough remixes of that i don't care what the beat is maybe use tiktok like whatever it takes just he also sounded like a qvc spokesman so i think you could have like a number on the bottom of the screen like act now call now we're killing it He's such a goober and he can't shake the like 1980s style blue shirt with the white collar who thinks that looks cool I can boiler room. Yeah, I could get a reservation at Dorsey a buddy. Um, I think that Democrats need to focus more on Anecdotal stories we hear from factory workers and waiters and farmers who feel like they are working harder and longer than ever before, but they're not making more money. So when unemployment is this low, wages are supposed to go up, but that's not happening nearly fast enough. And, you know,

again, anecdotally, last year, a record number of US workers went on strike. The BLS said 485,000 workers were involved in work stoppages in 2018. That is not because unions are particularly strong these days either, right? It's because people are deeply frustrated about how this economy is working for them. So I just think like, we probably should look past what the Wall Street Journal is writing about and just talk to people in Lordstown, Ohio, where the GM plants are closing and people don't know what the hell they're going to do. Those are the people the Democratic Party was designed to help. Those are the policies we care about.

And let's figure out what they need and work backwards. I think the best, most charitable thing you can say about Donald Trump and the economy is that he has not so far fucked up the recovery and then expansion that began under Barack Obama. And then you could say if you really wanted to give them credit that the tax cuts that they passed may have temporarily boosted gdp because of you know it gave businesses more cash temporary that's a temporary boost but you can also say that at a time where the economy's roaring where where unemployment is low, where GDP is going well, there's 40% of Americans who couldn't pay for a $400 emergency expense, as Kamala Harris

always says. Or, you know, as Bernie Sanders was saying about this the other day, he was like, think of the people making $9, $10 an hour, and they're barely putting food on the table, or the people who are working two or three jobs, right? Like, as you said, wages have inched up, wages have not kept up with productivity, which means that people are actually working a lot harder, and they're not making more money for it. And so they're working their asses off, and they can barely afford to live. And I think, like, Trump has a good approval rating on the economy, right? Like people are, you know, 60% of people say, oh, yeah, the economy is good and Trump's good on this issue or whatever it is.

But in a recent poll, only about 40% of Americans believe that Trump is fighting for people like them. There's on his side. And the on your side fighting for people like you rating is tracking almost exactly with his approval rating. That's interesting. And then the other thing I thought was interesting is in that same poll, 60% of Americans think the way that broad economic statistics get reported on the news are not reflective of the economic reality that the average American faces, which is exactly what you were just saying about the headlines. Like, I think Democrats, when it comes to the economy, should be running against Trump, the Republican Party, and the happy headlines in the financial press. Every time there's some, yeah, the stock

market's doing well. Rich people have never been doing better, right? Like, all these businesses took the tax cut and they stashed it away. They did buybacks. They gave CEOs more money. But you're not doing any better. At the time that the economy's doing better than it's ever been, if you're still struggling to make ends meet,

what the fuck is wrong with the economy? I think it should be central to the Democratic Party. I agree. I mean, every president gets credit or blame for the things that happened on his or her watch. So it just it's how it goes, fairly or unfairly. I agree with you, though, that I do not believe that the Trump tax cut is somehow the reason that the economy has been improving for the past decade. As everyone predicted, almost all of that tax cut went to companies to buy back their own stock, which means there are fewer shares outstanding. So the price of the stock goes up. That is fantastic.

If you own a million shares of said company, it means nothing to you if you don't own any shares or if you only own a few or if they're in your 401k. Right. So this was a tax cut by business and for business. And I'm like, I would love to see Democrats like Sherrod Brown has this pitch perfect, no surprise. He's talking about factory workers in Ohio who are losing their jobs, who don't give a damn about what the Fed's projections look like or what GDP is. And I think, you know, I talked to Tara about this later. We need to develop and deliver that message today to those individuals on Facebook, on Instagram, on banner ads, on websites. We can start talking to these people right now

about how Trump has let them down. And I think Elizabeth Warren has nailed this message. Bernie Sanders gets this message right. Absolutely. I sometimes worry a little bit that when we talk about how Democrats should be focusing on an economic message and inequality and talking about factory workers, you know, there's some people who think, well, this is about trying to get those, you know, white non-college educated workers back. It partly is, but it's also about like, look at African-American unemployment, look at wages for Latinos, for young people, unemployment for young people, the long-term unemployment rate. Like there are a lot of constituencies that vote for Democrats who are not doing well under this economy. The only Democratic constituency that's doing well is, like, the college-educated post-grads that, you know, are in the media

and that you see as pundits and stuff like that. But most people in the party, most people that vote for Democrats or have voted for Democrats in the past are still struggling. That's right. I mean, look, there's been a bunch of big pieces on this Lordstown GM plant, which was closed because they stopped making a specific car and now people are trying to get relocated or figure out what to do with their lives. I mean, that is not a whole bunch of white Trump voters. They're white, they're black, they're Latino. And fundamentally,

at its core, the Democratic Party has to believe in helping those people and then do everything in your power to deliver on that promise. So yeah, of course we have to help them. Yeah. One way that Trump could still screw up this economic recovery is through his trade wars. Over the weekend, he threatened China with more tariffs as negotiators prepared for high-stakes talks taking place this week. Trump's tariffs have already hit the agriculture industry, caused the price of certain consumer goods to rise. Tommy, should this be a part of the message as well? Yeah. I mean, look, he is making an argument

that we need to put a 25% tariff on cars or auto parts for national security reasons. You can't convince me that that's not disrupting the manufacturing or the way these plants are run. Absolutely. It's ridiculous. The trade war is ridiculous. It's hurting farmers.

It's hurting regular people. No one knows why he's doing it. No one can explain it. Stock market's down today because he's like tweeting random shit at China. Like this, this is the way he could fuck up this recovery. Or at the very least, fuck it up in places like, you know, where there's a heavy agricultural industry, where there's people who are trying to buy consumer goods, where the prices are up and stuff like that. So like it's not as spread out evenly throughout the country, some of the pain of these trade wars,

but it is certainly hitting certain parts of this country very hard. That's absolutely right. Okay, let's turn to 2020. In an interview with the New York Times, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she's worried President Trump will refuse to accept the results of the next election if it's too close. Here's a nugget from the piece, which is reported by Glenn Thrush.

Quote, we have to inoculate against that. We have to be prepared for that, Ms. Pelosi said during an interview with the Capitol on Wednesday, as she discussed her concern that Mr. Trump would not give up power voluntarily if he lost reelection by a slim margin next year. Ms. Pelosi, the de facto head of the Democratic Party until a presidential nominee is selected in 2020, offered Democrats her, quote, cold-blooded plan for decisively ridding themselves of Mr. Trump. Do not get dragged into a protracted impeachment bid

that will ultimately get crushed in the Republican-controlled Senate, and do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far to the left. Quote, own the center-left, own the mainstream, Ms. Pelosi said. Quote, our passions were for health care, bigger paychecks, cleaner government, a simple message, she said. So let's take these two things separately, because will Trump give up power voluntarily and how Democrats should beat him has sort of been conflated in this story, and they

shouldn't be. Yeah, I feel like worrying about whether or not Trump will give up power if we beat him has sort of been conflated in this story and they shouldn't be. Yeah. I feel like worrying about whether or not Trump will give up power if we beat him is like maximum securities ownership group worrying about how he will look in the winner's circle at the Kentucky Derby before the race has been run. Right. Like let's just beat the fucker and then work on the rest later. I was going to say, I think it's scary as hell that we're in a situation where the speaker of the house is talking about the margin of victory we need to have over the president in order for him to peacefully give up power. I know. That's very scary in itself.

But I think all Democrats would agree. Like, do you think we should beat Trump by a slim margin or a big margin? We want to beat him by as much as possible. Everyone agrees on that. We worked ourselves into a lather about this in 2016, that he wouldn't concede when he lost. And then he won. And then he complains about not winning the popular vote, pretends that millions of immigrants voted illegally. Right. I mean, so like, who cares what he's going to say? Well, and he's going to make those complaints if the Democratic nominee beats him by

1% in a couple electoral votes or 10% in 100 electoral votes. Of course he's going to do this either way. Let's win. All right. So then the question is, what do you think of her cold-blooded, her quote-unquote cold-blooded plan, which is don't get dragged into impeachment, own the center-left, own the mainstream? You know, look, I think that might be a great plan to protect the new majority that she's got in the House. I'm not sure that it's going to exactly track with whatever presidential candidate's strategy that emerges from this primary. Yeah. I also don't.

She, I think, is conflating that suddenly going through impeachment would be somehow ideologically like lurching to the left which i don't necessarily think it is like this goes back to my i mean we've talked about this a million times already but um i do think the democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time i do think that democrats in the house can go through an impeachment proceeding can focus the country's attention on trump's crimes and misdeeds which may help them in beating him in 2020, while the Democratic presidential candidates are out there talking about exactly what you and I just talked about, which is the fact that this economy is only working for Trump's rich and powerful friends and not a lot of other people. I don't see those as mutually exclusive.

So right now, the Hill is trying to get former Trump officials like Don McGahn to testify. They're trying to get Bob Mueller to come in and testify. And the Trump administration is throwing down and saying we will block either of those men from testifying at all costs, which I assume means that will extend out to any other administration officials that we try to subpoena or call. I do think Trump's obstinance there could help Pelosi lay the groundwork for an impeachment proceeding down the road. Because if you're not going to allow for basic oversight to dig into what a lot of people view as an impeachment roadmap, that is obviously totally unacceptable.

Now, I'm still very much of the belief that we should begin Watergate committee style hearings and not call them impeachment in an effort to bring to life and bring on TV all the things that were in that 448 page report that no one's read and just continue to hammer this on Trump. I'd love to see Don McGahn testify. I'd love to see his chief of staff. I'd love to see Bob Mueller. You know, that said, I don't think that none of these individuals is likely to give us a silver bullet testimony. Bob Mueller in particular, we've been talking about this with some friends over the weekend. He is like the most buttoned up

by the book person on the planet. He sent a mildly sternly worded letter and Mueller watchers called it the second harshest thing he's ever written in public life, which would be like the nicest tweet you and I have sent in the last six months. So, you know, like I'd love to see all this happen,

but I just want us to, you know, stretch this out, phase it, collect more information and do damage to Trump politically by bringing these stories to TV. Yeah. And just, just to test this out, imagine if you are a Conor Lamb or an Antonio Delgado or Lauren Underwood, right? You're in one of these districts. You only won by a slim margin. It's a district that Republicans have won forever. Some of them are Obama-Trump districts. And we're in the middle of impeachment proceedings, and it's getting close to 2020, and you're running again.

Reporter asks you an event. What are you going to do about the fact that Democrats are just out there trying to impeach Trump? And that could be politically damaging to you. And if you're that candidate, you say, I've been to a hundred town halls. All I've been talking about is healthcare. At the same time, I support holding the president accountable because no person is above the law. And the independent special counsel said that he obstructed justice. So I'm glad the House Democrats are

doing. What I'm doing is going around this district and making sure that everyone has healthcare, that we don't elect Republicans again, because they're going to take away the ACA. around this district and making sure that everyone has health care, that we don't elect Republicans again because they're going to take away the ACA. Like, is that hard? No, that's not hard. Here's my fear. My fear is, you know, impeachment proceedings start. There's a vote in the House.

We probably lose some Democrats who vote against impeachment. Then it goes to the Senate. We lose there. We lose overwhelmingly. Joe fucking Manchin probably doesn't vote to impeach. And then Trump runs around the country and says, Bob Mueller, Bob Mueller says no collusion, no obstruction. And the Democrats and Republicans both agreed that what I did was not an impeachable offense. This is a witch hunt, blah, blah, blah.

In the interim, they are doing all the investigating of the investigation itself. How did it start? Which they'll do in Ukraine. Right. But I'm just saying, like, I don't I still don't see an end game for this that is particularly positive. So that's why I'm very much in the don't call it impeachment. Do Watergate hearings, Watergate style hearings and try to get all the information and make news. Yeah, I think he's going to say all of those things you just said, no matter what, whether there's impeachment or not.

Yeah, but I just want to avoid the Democrats voting not to impeach. I think that would be incredibly damaging. I just voting not. Oh, the Democrats voting not to impeach. I think that would be incredibly damaging. I just don't. Voting not. Oh, some Democrats voting not to impeach. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know either way. Like, I think, again, and this is this goes to your Watergate style hearings thing. I think Trump is going to say what Trump is going to say. He's going to investigate the investigators. He's going to say that he's investigating the investigators. He's going to say he's been exonerated no matter what. investigating the investigators, he's going to say he's been exonerated no matter what. If the eyes of the nation are trained on impeachment hearings or Watergate style hearings or whatever they may be, then it's up to people to make up their own minds.

Do you believe Donald Trump or do you believe what Robert Mueller and a whole bunch of other witnesses testified in front of the country? Just the Watergate committee over several months brought forward 37 witnesses, 3,000 pages of testimony. They did what, in my view, would essentially be what we'd expect to see out of an impeachment hearing without a vote at the end that is almost undoubtedly going to go against us. But they went to impeachment, obviously. Right, because they had the smoking gun of the tapes that they were able to get. Right. Well, our problem is we have the smoking gun of the Mueller report.

Of the tweets. tapes that they were able to get. Right. Well, our problem is we have the smoking gun of the Mueller report. Of the tweets. Well, I mean, look, 400 prosecutors, Democrats and Republicans, signed a letter today saying that this president would be indicted on obstruction of justice if he were not for the DOJ. I know all the arguments for

why it's factually and morally the right thing to do. What I'm looking for is a political... I think it's politically the right thing to do. I think it's the politically right thing to do. That's my argument. There was a poll out of early states today that even early state voters aren't necessarily sold on impeachment. Oh, they're not there yet. Of course not, because we haven't had the hearings. Once you have the hearings and it's an impeachment proceeding, it's going to work.

I just think we banked so much on the Mueller report moving people. And then we'd be banking a lot on the hearings. And I'm wondering, like Pelosi seems to be, if there's a middle ground that would baby step us up to that line. And I think there is. I think the problem is the Trump administration is not going to play along with the middle ground. Yeah, and look, that's a big problem.

And that's where you need to use the threat of subpoenas. You need to use the threat of maybe impeach Bill Barr. I mean, there's a whole bunch of steps that I'd be in favor of. I think they're going to force them into impeachment. Yeah, that might happen. And I think that's actually an advantageous place to be as a Democrat. Yeah. All right, let's talk about the candidates. Now that Joe Biden has entered the race as the frontrunner, we are once again embroiled in a

great debate about electability. And here's why. A recent Quinnipiac poll gives Biden a 26 point lead over his nearest rival, 38% for him to 12% for Elizabeth Warren. What is driving this lead? Well, only 23% of Democrats in that poll say that Biden has the best policy ideas, but 56% say he has the best chance of winning. A new CNN poll also shows Biden and Bernie Sanders with six point leads against Donald Trump, Beto O'Rourke with a 10 point lead against Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete with smaller leads. The candidates themselves are starting to talk about electability, with Harris telling the NAACP in Detroit on Sunday that, quote, conversations by pundits about electability that suggest certain voters will only vote for certain candidates are, quote,

short-sighted, wrong, and meant to put Americans in, quote, simplistic boxes. Tommy, is she right? There's some truth to that argument. I do think, you know, the best way to make an electability case is to show, not tell, and to win support, to do well in key early states, win a primary, win a caucus, whatever, obviously. We're a long way from here to there. And all these candidates are going to need to make a case for why they're the most electable. I have to imagine that a lot of the Biden appeal and electability is just the sense of familiarity. You know, like the guy's been around for 30 years. He's been the vice president to one of the most popular presidents in democratic

history, right? I mean, they will take shots at him and that may diminish over time. But I do think that familiarity is going to be really powerful. Yeah. Look, we've talked about electability before and we've said that, you know, don't focus so much on electability because, you know, Donald Trump was elected president and Barack Obama was elected president and no people thought that they were electable. Right. I think it's important to say it's not that electability doesn't matter. It does matter in a way and i understand why it matters to a lot of voters because we just elected fucking donald trump president united states and it feels like a national emergency and as people are looking

to 2020 most voters most democratic voters are thinking to themselves i just fucking want someone who can win right and you can't blame them for thinking that. That's how I feel. Right. The problem with electability is it's nearly impossible to measure. And it's not just impossible to measure. It changes so frequently, and it changes over the course of the race. So Hillary Clinton, and then we have the history, the track record. Hillary Clinton was seen as the most electable candidate in 2016 and 2008.

Didn't win either time. Romney was most electable in 2012. McCain was most electable candidate in 2016 and 2008. Didn't win either time. Romney was most electable in 2012. McCain was most electable in 2008. John Kerry was most electable in 2004. They all lost. Yeah. So, so far, every Democratic candidate for the last decade or so who people have said, I think that's the most electable candidate, has gone on to lose when the candidates that they didn't think were as electable,

Barack Obama and Donald Trump, end up winning. Yeah, we should just be clear that the word electability is ill-defined, if not meaningless. Yeah. Because what will elect a candidate changes over time, from year to year. I guarantee you that the Democratic Party darling would be Seth Moulton, an Iraq war veteran, young, dynamic, who could go against Bush and fight on national security grounds. The landscape has changed dramatically since then. We're not talking about Iraq every single day. We're barely talking about it. So, you know, that I think I think in a vacuum when voters don't have a lot of information about a candidate. Electability is often linked to race.

It's linked to gender. Absolutely. It's linked to ideology, right? So a white moderate man has traditionally been seen as electable. And it's also in Biden's case, who has, you know, all three of those other things, it's linked to familiarity. Absolutely. So right now people see, you know, Joe Biden, and he supposedly is able to get back some of these white working class voters that we lost in 2016 and everyone knows him. And look, and it's not just like he has high approval ratings and people are backing him who are white, but he's also got incredibly high ratings in the African-American community as well. But again, all of this, I think, is linked to familiarity. The question is, if you're another candidate and you know that people care about electability, how do you show electability? How do you make that case? Because I do think it's a mistake. If other candidates just complain about electability and complain

about pundits talking about electability, I don't think that's going to really move the needle. I think you actually have to sort of redefine what electability is to be favorable towards your own qualities and your own traits. Yeah. Let's be clear, electability is not. It's not decided on the set of Morning Joe, right? It is a term that's not just ill-defined. It's not decided on Pod Save America. That's damn right it isn't, because we fucked that up royally in 2016. It's also, you know, in addition to being ill-defined, it's a loaded term that you, as you said, is part racism, is part sexism. But the irony of that is that Barack Obama, in part because he was African-American, could get historic levels of African-American turnout, which made him more electable. So I think, like, I don't know what to tell people listening besides just try your best not to think about it. The way that candidates can show that they're electable is build a big grassroots base in the early states.

Right? When Barack Obama walked into the Harkin Steak Fry in September of whenever that was, 2007, with hundreds if not thousands of people behind him, and we had a literal drum line with the ISIS Tourette's. Like people looked up and said, holy shit, this guy is building a grassroots army. He can organize. There's a huge infrastructure behind him. He's going to win. Well, and that's what it takes. And that's where it started, right? And when that happened, polls showed that Clinton, people believe that Hillary Clinton

was the more electable candidate than Barack Obama, right? And then he starts doing that at the steak fry, and then he keeps... And then, when we won the Iowa caucus, and how did we win the Iowa caucus? By bringing in young people, non-voters, more African Americans that had ever caucused before in history, some independents and Republicans. It didn't fall neatly along these ideological demographic lines that we all talk about. He won by bringing in some Republicans and young people and African Americans and expanded the electorate. Once he won that Iowa caucus, suddenly polls showed that people believe that Barack Obama was the more electable candidate than Hillary Clinton.

In particular, African American voters in South Carolina who were worried that it was just too soon, that white people wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. I think a lot of South Carolina voters saw white voters caucus for Obama in Iowa and thought, holy shit, this guy could do it. Now, 100 percent in the middle, we got our asses handed to us by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Right. But black voters gave Hillary Clinton a huge margin in South Carolina before the actual primary because they just didn't think that Barack Obama was elected. I mean, and look, or they didn't know him. And had enormous critical endorsements from people like John Lewis. That's right.

That's right. No, so I do. And I think when we talk about electability, the other thing to think about is, you know, one, it,

a lot of this flows from what happened in 2016. And so if you believe that the only reason that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 is because she lost some of these non-college white voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, then you think to yourself, okay, the way we win in 2020 is to win those voters back. But, and you know, we dug into this in the wilderness a lot, that isn't the only reason that she lost. There were cities where African American turnout wasn't quite as high. There were, as Cornell Belcher said in the last pod, there were 4 million Obama voters, 4 million plus Obama voters who voted for Obama in 8 and 12

who didn't then vote for Donald Trump who stayed home in 2016. So those voters seem very gettable by a Democrat if they stayed home. And so the other factor in electability is who can actually excite and inspire people to come out to vote who might otherwise stay home who didn't stay home in 2016. And I do think ultimately it's a mix. In 2018, look at Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. She wins Michigan back after Hillary Clinton loses it in 2016. How does she win?

Well, turnout in the cities among African Americans went up, but also she won back some of the non-college educated white voters. It is both. And I think you need to figure out which of these candidates is going to be able to, yes, win over some independents, yes, maybe even win over some disaffected Republicans, but also at the same time excite the base of the Democratic Party, get young people out to vote, get people of color out to vote, and get new voters out to vote. And if you can find a candidate that can do both of those things, then I think you're in a strong position. That's absolutely right. Look, you should do whatever you need to do to vet and learn about and pick your candidate and watch him or her and see

how well they're doing. But then turn off the podcasts, whether it's us or FiveThirtyEight, and realize that states like Florida, we hemorrhaged votes this past cycle. Andrew Gillum should be the governor. And why was that? Because we didn't do what we needed to do in Miami, for example. So we need to start organizing now to make sure we're prepared to turn people out in those states now. That's why we're working with this amazing group, Organizing Corps, to raise money to train a whole bunch of kids who are between their junior and senior year in college, get them a bunch of reps knocking on doors,

signing up voters, so that when there's a general election candidate and they have to scale from 300 field organizers to 3,800, they're doing it with well-organized, well-trained, ready-to-go people. That's the shit we can do today to win this election. Stressing about the crosstabs, well, we're going to do it here because we love doing we're gonna do it here and look and i

can move we can do both and mainly i want to talk about it because um now the candidates are dealing with themselves right and like and kamala giving a speech about that you know bernie sanders bernie sanders has been making an electability argument in this race which is interesting too he's been showing polls like in those three states and in the states of the blue wall you know sanders was outperforming trump so he's talked about that elizabeth warren was asked the other day about electability and she said what we've been saying which is no one thought that donald trump was electable or brock obama was electable and it's very early right now you know so all of them are going to make their case on electability but i do think you're right that showing showing electability is better than just talking about it. Yeah, absolutely.

Look, it's an important conversation. We should debate it. We should vet these candidates because God help us. We need to win this election. But also, if you wake up and you're anxious and you're sweating this, know that there are things you can do today to make whoever the candidate is more electable by helping them build infrastructure and organize in key swing states. Easier to knock on a door and ask someone for their vote than to predict what other voters might do. Yeah, or move to Canada if Trump gets reelected. That's right.

All right, when we come back, we will have Tommy's interview with Tara McGowan. On the line from Washington, D.C. is Tara McGowan, the founder and CEO of Acronym, a progressive digital strategy company. Tara, thank you for joining the show. Thanks so much for having me, Tommy. Excited to be on. So I wake up every morning and have like probably 400 separate text chains with former Obama people, as I imagine you do, too. We just make each other anxious about a variety of things.

One is, you know, the fact that presidents usually get reelected. The other is the discordant, jumbled Democratic field. And then a frequent topic of conversation is the lack of digital spending and infrastructure from Democrats. And given what Trump has been doing and you are an expert on this. So I wanted to bring you onto the pod to make everyone else anxious, too, because we could actually do something about this one. We can, and we need to. And I never thought that I would become an expert in how Donald Trump is investing to maintain power of the White House.

It's really an unfortunate turn of events, generally. Well, so let's give it a look. What's the lay of the White House. It's really an unfortunate turn of events. Well, so let's give it a look. What's the lay of the land? Like what is what is Trump spent in terms of digital ads and digital spending in recent, let's say, six, 10 months, whatever you want, however you want to scope it? Yeah, since the midterms last November, Trump's campaign has already spent over $8.5 million on Facebook and Google alone to reach voters. Those are the platforms that we can track because they're providing reporting on their own right now. So that's a significant amount of money.

And they have committed, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, who used to be his digital director, Brad Parscale, who used to be his digital director, has committed to spending at least $2 million a month from here on out on digital to reach voters. So when you compare that to what Democrats running for office and Democratic campaigns and committees are spending, you know, the top spender on the Democratic side is just over a million dollars in that same amount of time. So the discrepancy is huge. Yeah. You have written about the particular challenge we're seeing in Florida and Trump's efforts, Republican efforts, really, to reach Latinx voters in Florida. Can you explain what you're seeing and why it makes you worried? in Florida. Can you explain what you're seeing and why it makes you worried?

Sure. So Donald Trump's campaign is not only spending online to build a list of supporters or expand his supporter base or fundraise, which are really common and effective ways of reaching people online to build their campaigns. But what the campaign is doing that's particularly worrisome is that they are targeting very specific voting blocks that are critical for their success in 2020 in the reelection. And Florida is one example. They have invested heavily in Florida to drive very specific narratives among certain voters. Cuban-Americans in the state with messaging and advertisements specific to the Trump administration's aggressive position on what's happening in Venezuela right now. So they're really defining this issue to build support among these voters that they need to essentially lock in to be able to win that state in 2020. And they're doing it right now.

They're not waiting for a traditional general election timeline. They're talking to these voters, and they're delivering these messages day in and day out. And they're doing it in a number of different places with a number of different messages in this way. Yeah, always great when Florida politics drive terrible foreign policy decision making. But I digress. Yeah, it is. It's a problem. But it's, you know, it's really scary because they are shoring up votes now.

They're really running a general election campaign. And, of course, on the Democratic side, we're just getting into the heat of a really crowded and exciting primary. Yeah, they're pushing on an open door right now. Have they gotten better at using Facebook or Google in the past three years? I mean, there was a lot of talk shortly after 2016 about how the Trump campaign allowed Facebook staffers to embed with them to make their ad buys more efficient. I mean, are you seeing improvement or evolution? Or is it just the same stuff? Yeah, one thing to correct there in sort of that storyline is that the Hillary Clinton campaign and organizations like Priorities, where I ran

the digital program in 2016, were all offered the same level of support from Facebook, from their ad sales team to be able to help run programs. I do think that the Trump campaign, in the sense they were an underdog, right, they had really nothing to lose, did throw a lot more at the wall and took a lot more risks and invested differently than traditional campaigns have, especially when it comes to investing in digital and platforms like Facebook. And I think that the more experience you have working on these platforms, especially because they change on their own whim for a number of different reasons, the more effective your programs that you run are going to be.

I think that one thing, though, that's important to note is that a smart strategy when it comes to messaging and messaging specific to audiences you're trying to speak to about issues they care about is a smart strategy regardless of where you meet them, as long as you're meeting them where they get their information. Right. of money on Facebook with ads that don't really relate to your audience or that are just, you know, trying to get you to donate dollars. You need to really think about meeting people where they are with the issues that matter most to them. And I think that's where the Trump campaign really took a really smart tactical approach and continues to do that.

They are talking to voters about the issues they care about, whether you're, you know, a Venezuelan that's now living in Florida, and you can vote there and you care about what's happening in your home country. And you're being told by the president that he's doing something about it. That's really powerful. Yeah. So you talked about how you did work for priorities last cycle. I mean, if you had $40 million right now and an ad company making digital ads for you, what would you be doing? And how would you want to soften Trump up as we go into 2020? It's a great question. So at Acronym, the organization I started after 2016, we do run digital media and organizing programs. So we do the same kind of work that the Trump campaign does. The major difference is that we have run into so many barriers in terms of trying to fundraise and be able to actually run these types of programs at scale,

because it's still a new model. And it's very disruptive compared to how most campaigns and programs have been run for many years. If we were to have $40 million right now, I would put a program together that reached very specific audiences of voters in states that are critical, given their placement on the electoral map, to really start to engage people about how the Trump administration has, you know, you know, hurt them when it comes to the economy and the, you know, be able to actually inform voters about what's happening in terms of the Mueller report and the allegations against the members of the administration and the president to be able to break down how layoffs that have been caused by their tax reform have impacted families in key states. Like the information is all there.

The impact of this administration on so many people's lives in this country is factual and exists. But we aren't telling that story right now to voters. And so we're essentially losing ground with them because the Trump campaign is telling a very different story on their terms. I guess that would be my follow up question, which is, are there any groups out there sort of following that kind of strategy with any sort of significant ad buys? Yeah. I mean, not right now. We can track all of the spending from the committees and the PACs and the organizations on the left. And I think they're all I mean, there's there's sort of two different challenges here.

One is is resources. I think that the Democratic side has been slow to evolve our strategy for reaching voters and for communication generally. The way that people communicate and where they get their information and how has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. And the approach to running campaigns and really communicating and informing voters on the Democratic side has been very, very slow to change. So I think that's one challenge. I do think that there are some organizations, including Acronym, that are taking a different and more modern approach to this work. But it's been really difficult to raise the resources to be able to do this. You know, we have this primary right now. So a lot of the energy and money in the Democratic Party is going towards that contest. And it's a really, really important contest and debate.

But the thing that keeps me up at night is that we are losing so much ground in really defining the 2020 election on our terms, regardless of who our nominee is. Yeah. I mean, look, that that literally keeps me up at night, too. The other thing that worries me a lot is, you know, Brad Parscale is not someone who any of us had heard of before 2016. But it's interesting and notable that Trump took his digital director and made him his campaign manager. And on the Democratic side, you tend to see these sort of all powerful TV ad making general consultants that still pour tons of money into traditional TV ads because in part, let's be honest, they get paid with percentages of those ad pies in many cases. So I worry about all the inertia that might prevent Democrats from, you know, looking at a campaign in 2020 and making the obvious, obvious decision that digital spending is a better way to reach people, a better way to target people. And it's a more efficient ad dollar buying, right? That's absolutely right.

And there's the conventional wisdom that we're up against. And then there's, of course, the special interests, the folks that have made their living off of television ads and television buys who are smart strategists and they're trusted. But they have been averse for the most part to adapt to a changing media landscape. And the information marketplace, the way that exists right now, it's distributed. It's not controlled. marketplace the way that exists right now, it's distributed. It's not controlled. So whereas television used to be the only vehicle to reach a large audience in a short period of time with a message, now everyone self-selects and they're getting their news and information on their Facebook news feeds and on Instagram and on apps on their phones. And so if we're not also reaching people with the information they need about this election

and the stakes there in those places, we are doing voters a huge disservice. And we're not competing with the information that the other side is providing them. Yeah, the other lesson learned for me in the 2016 cycle was, you know, I think we all saw outlets like InfoWars or Breitbart or The Federalist, and we mocked them rightly because their content is garbage, or dismiss them as irrelevant, as opposed to, say, a Washington Post clip or The New York Times. But when you look back at sort of the nodes of communication of things that really moved around the internet because of Facebook, for example, or Twitter, it was those fringy outlets. And I saw you recently wrote about

how an outlet I'd never heard of before called the Epoch Times, which is a sort of made up pro Trump site literally spent more money on Facebook ads than some of the presidential campaigns and that they're pumping conspiracy stories about Biden and Ukraine into the Facebook ecosystem. I mean, we've talked a lot about Russian interference, and rightly so, but I worry about the ability to make up a news outlet, put $500,000 in Facebook ads behind it, and drive a made-up narrative like this. I mean, what do we do about that? Well, there's a few things. Unfortunately, there are so many properties like the Epoch Times that exist at the local and national level and that that are that are taking advantage of this, right, that they're they're writing narratives that are strategic for the the candidates and political issues that they

endorse and then and then reaching very specific voters with those messages. I am very much a proponent of not leaving sort of that vacuum to them in terms of the information space. I don't think that, you know, I think that false information and misinformation needs to be shut down. And there is a huge, I mean, that is really on the platforms, but also on readers and users who consume this information for the time being until we really have regulation. But the other piece of this is, I don't think that Democrats need to peddle misinformation to win these debates and these contests.

And so what we just need to do is start actually reaching people in these spaces with our own fact-based information about the stakes of these elections. And so I would really love to see more media companies and properties, even like Crooked and Pod Save America, that are really, you know, unafraid to talk about the issues and provide information to people who are hungry for it,

that can help them also feel very informed about the choices they make for voting. I don't think that we are going to see the elimination of properties like the Epoch Times anytime soon. I think we're going to continue to see them invest more heavily on platforms like Facebook. And, you know, this is something Republicans have been doing for a really long time in terms of owned media infrastructure, everything from Fox News to Breitbart to local political sites like the big league that broke the North End story back in January in Virginia. What we need to do is be really vigilant about monitoring them. But I also think that we need to be building our own media infrastructure. I think that that is fact based and that is providing this information that isn't reliant on short-term advertising dollars. I think that model's broken.

And, you know, corporate brands have learned that lesson. And, you know, everybody is a content producer now. And so it would benefit the Democratic Party greatly if we were also investing in media and owned content streams beyond just relying on the earned media filter bubble. Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I think we're likely to see a proliferation of Epoch Times-like outlets, not a shortage of them. And, you know, groups like Sleeping Giants and Media Matters have done incredible work calling out advertisers that are spending on Breitbart to at least let them know or spending on Fox News to try to peel away some of those ad dollars. But ultimately,

you know, if you're some outlet that's backed by a Republican billionaire as part of a broad disinformation campaign, there's not a whole hell of a lot Democrats can do to shut that down unless you have access to that individual. No. And it's so interesting to me because advertising dollars and campaigns has always been really triggered by competitive reporting on how much the other side is spending on television to reach voters. So you don't want to get outspent because it means your message gets drowned out. And yet now we have access finally to competitive spending on digital platforms, but we're not really seeing a deepening of investment on the democratic side, even though the information is right in front of us in black and white. And that's what I hope changes in the

very, very, very near term, because we've already given up the field the past six months. Yeah, I agree. So there's the traditional, there's the advertising spending that we just talked about, but there's also newer technological tools to organize or register voters or what have you. How do you feel about how Democrats are doing in developing and using those kinds of tools to mobilize the grassroots? Yeah, I mean, it is an exciting time on sort of the political school marketplace side of things. A lot of folks came up with new tools and technology to empower people to organize themselves in their communities after 2016.

The biggest challenge, though, we found at Acronym, we do a lot of training and capacity building, too, for campaigns and progressive organizations, is that if you don't have a buy-in for evolving your strategy at the very senior level of a campaign to embed these tools into your work. So for instance, you know, peer-to-peer texting is a really big new tool. And, you know, everybody, all of your listeners who get all these text messages from campaigns or organizations are sort of the audience that is getting hit with this. It's an amazing piece of technology to be

able to reach people, you know, where they really are engaging on their mobile devices. And yet, if you don't have a strategy that allows for organizers to leverage those tools as part of their day-to-day programs, they're not going to be adopted. So my big fear is that, you know, you build it, they don't come. If we don't change how we run campaigns and how we think about organizing in a digital age that we live in now, and we still rely on calling landlines and just knocking on doors and not weaving in tools like peer-to-peer texting into organizing teams, then we're not really going to adopt this new behavior and maximize their potential. So I think there's a lot of opportunity when it comes to these new tools. But I think we really do need to shift our way of thinking about how we run campaigns and maximize volunteer capacity and time.

So we're really reaching more people where they are more effectively. Yeah, I totally agree. And I'm glad to see that there are new incubators and accelerators like Higher Ground Labs that are trying to develop exactly this kind of political technology for these campaigns. But you're right that if the campaigns don't understand that they need to use them and use them significantly with significant dollars behind that usage, I don't know that it will do enough, right? That's exactly right. They'll invest in one tool because they've been told it's great. They'll think of it as a silver bullet because maybe that's how it's been sold. And then they don't see a return quickly because they haven't created a strategy around that tool, and then they'll never use it again. We really do need to infuse digital tools and technology and best practices into everything a campaign does so we can run modern campaigns.

And that's a huge culture shift, and it's been very, very difficult and slow-moving, but I am confident that this primary race, we will see entirely new models of campaigning. I think we already are that will hopefully accelerate that shift. That's good news. So we'll try to end on a positive note. I mean, what do you see out there that makes you excited or hopeful? And who is doing digital organizing or using digital advertising buys well right now in the presidential

field? Yeah, there's a ton to be really excited and optimistic about, especially in the primary race that we're seeing right now. So we've unfortunately lost some of our great members of our team at Acronym to presidentials recently, but we're really excited about it because we're all kind of, we're, we're all former campaigners and campaigners at heart. And it is,

it is the best way to really kind of innovate, um, in this space. And so actually our organizing director, Greta Karnes just started as a mayor Pete's national organizing director a few weeks ago. Um, which is really exciting because we really do believe in sort of the

elimination of the word digital from campaigns. It's an adjective, right? It can mean the internet or technology or social media. So we really want to see just digital talent and tools embedded into everything. And so I've been really excited to see that with Mayor Pete's campaign in particular. They don't have a digital team or department. They're really just infusing it in everything they do. I think that we've seen a ton of increase in investment in digital to reach voters from Kamala Harris's campaign, Elizabeth Warren's campaign. Obviously, Bernie Sanders' campaign has been rolling out new tools and continues to invest heavily in driving their narrative online. So I think this is a really exciting time. I do think that digital savvy

and investing in digital to reach supporters is a competitive advantage right now. So I think, I believe strongly that whoever wins the nomination will do so in large part because of their ability to really organize and maximize digital tools and platforms to their advantage. Yeah, I agree. And I hope every one of these candidates or at least their teams is calling you to ask for advice. But if they don't do that, if they don't have your number, you and the team at Acronym write an amazing newsletter that really gets into the weeds on this in a fascinating way that's been very helpful for me. How can people find that newsletter and sign up if they want to follow this stuff more closely? Sure. So it's called For What It's Worth. It comes out every Friday, and you can sign up at anotheracronym.org backslash F-W-I-W.

All right. Which stands for For What what it's worth. Excellent. Tara, thank you for, I don't know, I think you probably raised my blood pressure, but you know, we got to do it now, right? We can't whistle past the graveyard here and then wake up in 2020 and figure out and say, what happened? We got to start working on this stuff. I am confident that we can. And I think the more people that understand this, the better. And I'm really grateful for you giving me some time to talk about it. Well, I'm grateful to you.

Thank you so much, Tommy. Thank you for making me smarter. Everyone should check out your newsletter. And Tara, thank you again for joining the pot. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon. Thanks to Tara McGowan for joining us today and uh speaking of electability arguments how about game of thrones last now spoilers spoiler alert here we are going to talk

very slowly for you people out there to turn off the pod if you're driving and you're not paying attention because it's just us droning on, pay attention and turn off the fucking podcast. Turn off the podcast because we're going to talk about Thrones. I don't want your tweets. Thrones. Thrones. Okay.

Last night. So there were clear, there was less violence. There was less fighting. But I thought it was great. I like the interpersonal stuff. I like the rivalries developing. Very soapy.

It's very soapy. It is. I feel like I know where this might be headed. And I think people are going to be pissed off. Interesting. Interesting. Are you backing off your democracy is going to win? No, that's why I think, I still think it's headed there,

and I think that's not going to be satisfying to a lot of people. I don't know if our friend Daenerys is going to come out on top here. I think that's an easy one, but I think that's not. She needs a hand that's going to play dirty. You know what I mean? She needs a Jacob Wall. She needs a post-lobotomy Lee Atwater like that kid to really help her get through this. I think back to my favorite line of Game of Thrones and one that they promoted a lot, so it's clearly important to the showrunners in the show, when she talks about breaking

the wheel. And I do think that Game of Thrones at the end of this show is going to break the wheel but i no longer think that danny is going to be the one to break the wheel because her her belief in this it's a very political show right and they're getting back to politics which is the the best part of game of thrones um her belief is and she said this in last night's episode she's like um you know i'm here to get rid of tyrants and i think getting rid of tyrants is a good thing but in the process of getting rid of tyrants like what makes her the benevolent ruler as she's fucking roasting people with her dragons she's kind of tyrant light can we just can we just be clear about one thing brand sucks i'm so sick of that fucker just staring at people and randomly chirping everyone She's kind of tyrant light. Can we just be clear about one thing? Bran sucks.

I'm so sick of that fucker just staring at people and randomly chirping everyone with annoying, you know-it-all-y insights. Like, hey, man, you clearly know what happened in all of history and what's going to happen in the future. Can you fill your friends in? Can you fill your relatives in? Well, so apparently this is – I looked this up because I am a dork. He can see the past and the present he has vague visions of the future but he doesn't know the future as well i mean that's still pretty damn good we could probably be harnessing that ability also can you guys how hard is it for a dragon to duck a fucking arrow i mean pay attention like you don't

see the 14 boats whipping arrows at you can't you take a right or a left they're not cruise missiles the uh the dragons have not had the best navigation um i do overrate it clearly they have been setting up that one or more of these dragons um is killed with the crossbow for a couple seasons ago yeah when when kai burn was down in the in King's Landing and showed the crossbow to Cersei. You knew that was going to come up.

But my bigger problem was when they go to plead with Cersei at the end there and the dragon's just sitting back there and there's fucking ten crossbows.

Pick your dragon up. Pick up your dragon and fly away. Fly away. We don't need to all line up. We don't need this dramatic shot. And also,

why did Cersei not just waste those fuckers? I't know i don't know so that was that was hard to believe she's diabolical she is diabolical i love watching her face you just see the evil coursing through it but here's what i'm here's what i think people i i think that somehow and i don't know how like we're gonna return to bran being integral to the end of the show at some i hope so i kind of hope so. I want to know where the night change history was. If there's no other Bran shit, then I'm going to join the critics in saying this was bad. But I feel like we're going to get some more Bran at some point.

More explanations. I'm just happy that I could actually see the screen this time. I was not one of those people complaining. I still think watching the torches go out one by one was one of the coolest shots I've ever seen in any TV show. But it was great to be able to see their faces when various started talking making an argument for john's electability over denaris's deterion we were both watching together and we're both like oh that's going to be a thing that's going to be a lot of political takes yeah look i i get that the views are uh offensive and

misogynistic but it's it a terrible, misogynistic show. He literally even said, I think it could bring all the lords together of Westeros. Basically, I think that Jon could get the white working class vote. Yeah, the white walker class vote, yeah. It was a lot. But I thought it was a good episode. Great episode. What else happened that was fun?

Poor Arya. Can't we just let her find love? And Arya, I thought you were going to say poor ghost. Oh, yeah. You just abandoned your dog? What's wrong with you, dude? Held Leo close after that one. Yeah.

Okay. That was tough to handle. Real cool. I feel like we have to see ghost again, too, or else I'm going to be pretty pissed. Ghost is going to be like... He's going to come in at the end and just maul Cersei. That would be great. That would be a great ending. Real cool. I feel like we have to see Ghost again too or else I'm going to be pretty pissed. Ghost is going to be like... He's going to come in at the end and just maul Cersei. That would be great.

That would be a great ending. Great ending. All right. That's our Game of Thrones. We're just doing Game of Thrones recaps now. Yeah. You know, look,

we know where the culture's heading and we're going to ride that dragon like Jon Snow. All right, everyone. We'll see you Thursday. Have a good one. Bye.