Pod Save America - Phones and Blame Fly at the DNC

Episode Date: July 28, 2026

A slew of new reporting details big problems at the DNC, from deepening financial woes to leaks, paranoia, and an allegation that Chairman Ken Martin threw his phone at a staffer. Jon, Tommy, and Lovett react to the disarray inside the Democratic Party, debate whether it's possible  to replace Martin before the midterms, and discuss how the DNC's new 2028 primary calendar, which starts with  South Carolina, could shape the race for president. They check in on the Michigan Senate race, the latest in Trump's continued back-and-forth with Iran, and his pitiful performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Then, Ben Wikler, former chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, stops by the new studio to talk to Jon about his new book "This Is the Plan" and what Democrats can do to restructure and protect American democracy.For a transcript of this episode, email [e-mail]

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. July means vacations, long weekends, and beach days. While you're out having fun, you want peace of mind that comes with knowing your home is protected. That's why, yeah. Sounds of affirmation. All right. Is that okay? Yeah, no, it's really good.

Simply Safe protects you. It covers your exterior blind spots. It's here you have the strongest first line of defense when your attention is maybe elsewhere. With Simply Safe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. It's more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors. indoor and outdoor cameras, 24-7 professional monitoring. The have guided setup is simple, and there is no drilling required, unless you request it.

So you can install and arm your system in under an hour. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring plans start around $1 a dollar per day. Our CEO recently had a Simple Save system installed in her home. Installation was kick and easy, and the system was up and running in no time. It has worked smoothly since day one. It gives the family total peace of mind to see who's dropping by or you can easily chat with visitors to the camera, even when you're away.

We partnered with SimplySafe to offer an exclusive discount to our listeners. Right now, you can get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com slash crooked. That's half off at simplysafe.com slash crooked. There is no safe like SimplySafe. This summer America celebrated its 250th birthday. But if you actually sit down and read the Declaration of Independence, you'll notice something wild. Buried right near the end is a brutal rant about, and this is a direct quote, merciless Indian savages. As it turns out, relations with Native nations weren't just a footnote in the American Revolution.

they were central to it. Think about the Boston Tea Party. The colonists literally disguised themselves as Native Americans. Later, the country's very first attempt that a government collapsed, largely because it couldn't handle the sheer power and sovereignty of Native nations. First America is hosted by journalist Rebecca Nagel, who hosted Crooked's excellent This Land podcast, along with leading Native historians.

It completely reframes how our democracy was actually built, which feels pretty relevant in our current political moment. Find First America wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Favre. I'm John Lovett. Tommy Vitor. New studio.

Looking good, guys. And if you're listening to this only, this is the moment that you're going to want to watch us on YouTube and subscribe to the Pod Save America YouTube channel because we have a brand new studio here. It's awesome. All right. All right. All right. On today's show, we're going to talk about the Democrats' new 2028 primary calendar, which puts South Carolina first and has already set off a debate about who that helps. We'll also talk about one Democratic leader who seems beyond help, DNC chair Ken Martin,

the subject of not one, not two, but three leak-filled stories about the party's financial crisis. Then we'll cover Trump's trip to Michigan in the big Senate race there, as well as the latest with the Iran war. And the biggest bombing of the weekend, the president's performance at the rescheduled White House correspondence dinner. Finally, Ben Wickler stopped by the studio to talk about the DNC drama, the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary drama, and his brand new drama-free book, This is the plan. All right, guys. Let's start with the biggest news from over the weekend that will impact the outcome of the

2008 presidential election. We have a new primary calendar. It's here. On Friday, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to make South Carolina the first primary state on January 22nd, 2028. It will tentatively be followed by Nevada on February 1st, New Hampshire a week after that, New Mexico a week after that, Michigan the next week. And finally, Virginia on February 29th, before a bunch of other states vote in early March on Super Tuesday.

The new calendar still has to be approved by the full DNC, which will meet next month. But there's already one potential stumbling block. New Hampshire has a law that requires the state to go at least one week earlier than any other state primary. The DNC's proposed solution is for the New Hampshire Democratic Party to fund and hold its own primary that's separate from the official state primary. but it doesn't sound like New Hampshire Democratic leaders are on board with that plan just yet. Or Republican leaders. Or Republican leaders, right.

There's also been some grumbling from a few progressive activists. No. They're putting stuff. I say a few because Axis is like, progressives upset with South Carolina, and then it's like a jacobin op-ed and like one comment from Hassan Piker. But there's a few progressives. That really all it was.

Yes, it was because I did my diligence. I started reading and I'm like, okay, this headline is great. Anyway, there's been some grumbling. that putting South Carolina first gives an advantage to more moderate establishment candidates, but we'll get into all of this. Before we get into what we think about the proposed calendar, do you guys want to talk about why this is such a big deal and how much you think the early state calendar matters? I'm just nostalgic for when we were in Iowa rigging the caucus for Buttigieg. And this didn't work. This is the thanks we get. Yeah, we probably shouldn't have rigged it for him

to only be revealed like four or five days later. That was real. But anyway, so much for Iowa. It's not a misstep. Yeah, Iowa's gone. I mean, I think the early state calendar in its totality just could not be more important. It's the whole ballgame. From the Obama perspective, like Obama's not the nominee if he doesn't win Iowa because it gave us huge momentum and it made people over the country believe that he could win, but also it taught us how to organize.

And we put in place those organizing practices in all the future caucus states and mopped up delegates against Hillary Clinton as we went forward. So kept paying out dividends during that long, drawn out awful primary process. The order will also determine, you know, what policy areas get highlighted. Like, for example, Iowa being first meant that we talked about ethanol, probably far too much for far too long. Now we may never talk about it again. It may not be as big of an issue. We now have New Mexico with southern border state.

We'll see if immigration is more salient this time around. In Michigan, we'll probably hear about autos and unions in Virginia. Maybe Doge is an issue again, right? You have a lot of government employees in northern Virginia. It also gives more power to different demographics and, you know, types of voters, older voters, white voters, black voters, right? So that's a bit of a big part of the conversation that we'll get into in a minute. But I do think, like, figuring this out is essential, and it really does help and harm specific candidates. So I'm a counterpoint. I don't know that I agree with that.

So I think you're right. The schedule in early 2008 was very important, in part because Iowa's was perfect for Barack Obama to prove that despite being a black candidate, he could put together a coalition of white voters that were hyper-engaged and built a great organization on the ground. Had Hillary not had a surprising win in New Hampshire, it probably would have been over sooner, but that allowed the race to go back and forth. What's interesting is the way the race ultimately goes back and forth, it was told as a momentum and narrative, but in reality, it was often more about the demographics of the voters in each state kind of ricoishing back and forth as like the fundamental dynamics of the race

didn't shift. On the other side, you have Joe Biden becoming the nominee he loses in Iowa. He loses in New Hampshire, but he says, wait for South Carolina. He's able to overcome those early losses because they had set expectations. And he comes out of South Carolina, so much momentum that he's able to clean up on Super Tuesday and become the nominee. So I do think it's important. To me, what I think is the most important is where the actual swing states fall in the schedule, right, where Michigan is, for example. But sometimes I think we get into this idea of the order of states mattering when in reality it's partly about the order, but also about managing expectations and how campaigns fare over the the next few contests. It can win,

but I don't know if it's like a as different. But such as order, it's new states too. I mean, like let's say if it was instead of South Carolina and Nevada, New Hampshire, it was Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona. Like that's sort of what I'm getting. Yeah, yeah. Having these new states in there will just change the issues and demographics. Yeah, there's two factors here. There's order and then there's states. Right. You know, I do think I think you can make an argument that order doesn't matter as much as everyone thinks it does. I think that the which states, the composition of the state's in the early window is hugely important. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The totality of them. And especially now that there are five, I think you, you're probably going to have a slower

momentum build over time. But if you have five states in the early window before Super Tuesday, and the two last states are very big states like Michigan and Virginia, both of which are also going to be competitive states in the general election, especially Michigan, you are going to know a lot by the time Super Tuesday rolls around about who can put together a campaign that could win almost any demographic group in any region of the country. And like I find it hard unless now we Democrats award delegates in each of these states proportionally unlike Republicans do a lot of winner take all states. So they might, who knows, they might change that for 28 as well and their side. So you could see a situation Super Tuesday and beyond where it's like an Obama and Hillary

fighting out a delegate battle. But I tend to think that having five states go and that many states and that many votes in that period of time is going to pretty much tell you who's the company by the time you get to Super Tuesday. Right. But we'll say. Right. They all like by the time you get through those early states, you've been in whiter states,

you've been in Latino states, you've been the state with a bigger African American population. by the time you get to Michigan, you have some like sort of prominent urban areas that have been strongholds for Democrats. You've gotten a good sense of the entire picture. Could you achieve that same thing if you did swap in a Texas in Oklahoma? Texas is a big Hispanic population. It's also a border state. Oklahoma is a very white electorate, right? Might bring out more hyper-engaged Democrats in the same way that say like an Iowa would in the past, whatever. I think the part of the reason South Carolina was able to play such a big role in 2020 is Biden said explicitly wait for South Carolina. You can't become a Democrat you will not be it will not be a democratic president who doesn't have strong

support among African Americans and then he wins so handily in that state that kind of proves that case and he kind of is able to march onto the nomination after yeah in terms of how much it matters though like you got to imagine every single campaign and waiting uh is after Friday's announcement is like now finally starting to plan their strategy I mean like it is everything for a campaign knowing oh god states go first in an in order it's like every decision is made around Where you travel, what operatives you hire, like. And also there were people who are talking about waiting until after the midterms to figure this out.

I was like, what are you talking about? You can't possibly do that. Yeah, when I saw that some of the progressives were like sort of, and I had the same thing. It's like, well, who's actually upset about this? But you know, oh, South Carolina is a boon to more moderate candidates. Well, that's sort of about what you're saying about the African American electorate, not being as part of the left as some, like the more sort of the wider part of the

of the Democratic base. But now for the first time, you might have, instead of candidates spending six months in, you know, ecru white Iowa, you're going to have people spending months and months and months in South Carolina. And it's like, well, that's a great opportunity for the left to prove that they can appeal beyond their sort of online and sort of more less diverse audience. With Iowa and New Hampshire finally being dethroned as the first two contests, how do you guys think that changes the race and strategy of these campaigns? Well, it's just we're pointing at that both states actually have laws on the books. mandating their place in the order. The Iowa law says the caucus just has to be held at least eight days before any other primary or caucus. Iowa officials currently want to punt on that fight until after the midterms for whatever reason,

but we'll see what they do. I kind of don't think they're going to fight it. New Hampshire is going to go down swinging, in part because you have a Republican governor who is not going to agree to move it, I don't think, the day of the primary. So then they're going to be asked to pay for a party-funded primary. And if they don't, I mean, there's real consequences. I mean, if a state party refuses to abide by the rules, the penalties are now they lose all their delegates at the 2028 convention. That's up from losing 50% of your delegates.

And they have to pay a $270,000 fine and lose DNC membership voting rights until the fine is paid off. So that's pretty serious for them. And there's penalties for the candidates. Even worse for the candidates. You lose all your delegates from the entire early state nominating window and you're prohibited from participating in DNC rule. Like debates, I mean. So New Hampshire is going to put on a party. run a separate party run primary or else they are just going to take themselves out of the early

state window altogether. Those are the only two options because no one's going to deal with these penalties, the state of New Hampshire, the candidates. And so I think what they're all grumbling about right now and what I saw like Kathy Sullivan, who was a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman, because I had asked about this on Twitter and she replied, she's like, look, we have, we're trying to spend money to elect two members of Congress in 2026 and a senator, to two house members and a senator, and now we're going to need all this money to put on a primary. Like, that is a big undertaking. So I'm sure maybe some of this will be bargaining to try to get some money from the DNC, which we'll get to, just to put on the primary. But that is a big, it's,

you know, it's a big deal. There's a possibility if New Hampshire bows out because they don't have the money and they don't want to do this. The only other northeastern state that applied that would slide into that slot is Delaware, which is kind of interesting. Do you guys like where the DNC landed on this group of states in this particular order? I would have liked more swing states, but look, I am not maybe, like, I just, I have so much PTSD from 2007, 2008, where the calendar was treated as being this very, very important thing, when in reality the experience of working for Hillary Clinton in that period was she would always do well enough that she could justify going to the next contest, but not so well as to change the

dynamics of the race. And to me, I'm glad, like, I'm glad Michigan's there. I think it is actually good that you no longer have this situation where the first two contests that draw so much attention in time for so long are these very white places that don't reflect the broader Democratic electorate. But beyond that, I do think, like, in the end, part of the strategy is where you compete, but also part of it is just how you tell a story about where and when you're going to do best. So I look, I'm sad to see Iowa go because I know all the downsides of caucuses. We've talked about them. But there is, it forces you to invest in organizing.

It forces you, it incentivizes a nicer brand of politics because you want to be your opponent's second choice for reasons we don't have to get into. So I think that we'll be missing that. I actually, I reached out to a bunch of people who worked in politics just to like get their opinions on what they'd seen. And the responses range from, it's good and I like it. It's impossible to know yet because of New Hampshire to this is going to boom around boomerang back on us.

be a disaster. What was the argument for that? That it's just going to be messy. New Hampshire is going to screw everything up. Once we get to northern Virginia, you're going to have, like, D.C., you know, media market spend people like making a big determination and it will just kind of be a mess and who the hell knows about what New Mexico will do, whatever, like, just one person's opinion. I feel my personal take was I feel like the DNC and the RBC did a pretty good job of navigating a very challenging process. I don't think the New Hampshire piece is solved in any way share or form. I think we're whistling past the graveyard on that and it's something that's going to have to give there. What do you think is going to get? What do you mean? I just, I think New Hampshire is

going to fuck around. They don't have the money to pay for this party run process and the Republican governor is not going to move the state. So I just, I don't know what's going to happen here. I think can you end up with a primary where just the, the candidates don't participate, right? I mean, Joe Biden won New Hampshire with a right in and the head to delegates didn't, right? Like, it was like that. No, but that's it's either they find the money to put on the primary or they're out. There's no other out. You know what I'm saying?

Like that's and it's just, it's going to be up to them to figure out if they can get the money. Or you have the DNC threats work. No major candidates actually go there, but their super PACs muck around in New Hampshire and stage right in effort so they can show strength and they get new cycles at it. Right. So there's all these weird ways that they could kind of mess around the thing. So who knows? On South Carolina, I mean, I think South Carolina being first, I agree with you.

Like South Carolina first isn't like a massive change. I think it's a reflection that black voters are the base of the party. They're half of the primary electorate there. I think the talk of what you always hear from South Carolina people is we have the track record of actually picking the nominee with who we vote for. And like, that's true. But that's because they went the field was winnowed. And then it gets South Carolina.

So they voted for, you know, South Carolina voters picked Obama, Clinton and Biden. My guess is South Carolina will now just kind of be the winnower. It will be the filter function that Iowa and New Hampshire were. I do agree. It's a real bummer that it's just, it's not a Balogrand state. Like you do all this organizing in these early states, and then the candidates never go back to them. Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that.

And look, the reason that is is because the laws are already in the books. And if you look for other states with heavy populations of black voters to go first, you have to find a state with a Democratic trifectus so they can move the primary date, and it's a whole mess. So I sort of feel the same moves about South Carolina. But I think they did, I think for South Carolina going first, they did a really good job of then balancing out the rest of the calendar because you have, I mean, they have diversity, all kinds of diversity, right?

Racial diversity, geographic diversity, ideological diversity. I also like that the first four states are small states. And so the kind of retail campaigning that you got in Iowa and New Hampshire, and this will be true if Delaware takes New Hampshire spot, you get, so you'll have South Carolina, which is a relatively small state. Nevada, same thing. New Mexico, which is brand new to this process, which is pretty small as well. I just don't know what to think of that one yet. It's New Mexico is interesting. So you have in that state, New Mexico's overall voting eligible population is 45% Hispanic. That is the largest percentage of any state in the country. They also

have a significant Native American population. 11% right. Yes, that's the first time that we have an early state with a pretty significant Native American population. Like you said, it's a border state, which I think is great. We have a Democratic trifect there, so they should be able to move that, no problem. It is more non-college, the voters there than some of the other states, which I also think is helpful because you're going to want to prove that you can win non-college voters and not just highly college-educated voters. Like you get in New Hampshire. What is the different function than, like in their theory, that Nevada plays versus New Mexico's? Matta also has a big Latino population. It is compared to other states, a lower percentage of college voters

also has Las Vegas, which is a huge important center for unions, right? Is that like, what is the different? Like, what is the, what is the other than just this is how it shook out. And we, I'm glad I liked having Nevada early when we were there. That was one of the last trips we took before COVID. Look, I was on record of saying this last time, but boy, am I happy, we'll be spending a lot of time in Nevada. We'll have no choice. We're just going to have to go. Sorry. But what is the, what is in there? What is the theory of the different role in New Mexico versus Nevada plays New Mexico is a border state? Yeah and I don't even know if there's a theory of being different. What I took it as is Nevada and South Carolina were battling for first and,

you know, that South Carolina party chair was like, well, if Nevada goes first, what does that say to black voters that they don't matter as much? And I think you pointed this out to me love it. So does that mean the reverse is true then? The Latino voters don't make. And so now by having two states with significant Latino populations and Nevada also has a significant black population as well, not as much South Carolina, but it does. Then you get, then you basically have two states in the early window that have pretty heavy Latino populations. I'll make another case for this now that I think about it. South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, these are states that are not that cold in November, December, January. That is a very good. That is cool. That's what we want. Good for us.

It's just going to be New Hampshire and I guess Michigan. Right. And we'll be cold too. It's going to be very cool. What do you guys make of the, like, that South Carolina disadvantages progressives, I think it's probably right. I mean, the South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is older, more moderate than Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada. About 40% of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were college graduates. About half identified as liberal, which is less than earlier contest. This is, I think, 2020 exopoles. They're more likely to be working class, more likely to go to church once a week. Older. Biden won South Carolina in 2020, because he won with black voters, but he did especially well with black voters over 60. He and Bernie actually tied with black voters under 30. So I do think it's

likely to be demographically set up to be more moderate. Like, as we were saying before, like, if you're saying that you think South Carolina is a way to put a roadblock in front of progressives, you are saying that a black electorate is a roadblock in front of progressive. Now, I think the point that would be made in response is, as Tommy said, a generational thing, not a demographic thing. But of course, it's both. And we have seen like, you know, you see this in Michigan playing out that one of Abdul's challenges is trying to kind of build support

in the black community. And I feel like this is an opportunity for the left if they want to start building a bigger coalition that can win in contest like this, right? Like, because South Carolina, that is where Bernie goes down in 2020. Like if that's, that is, that is, That is the test. And it may not happen in this election. You're right. It may be harder because of this.

But also at the same time, even if South Carolina was third, fourth, or fifth, this test was always there. The candidate that wins black voters is going to be the nominee. Well, this is where I think that the order matters may be less, or at least can cut both ways. Because let's say South Carolina does advantage more moderate candidates. Well, then, you know, so a fifth of South Carolina primary voters described themselves as very liberal, which is relatively low. and then you go to Nevada, and a third of voters there describe themselves as very liberal. So, like, if you're a progressive lefty candidate and you don't do well in South Carolina, you hang on and you go to Nevada, you go to New Hampshire or Delaware, you go to, you try, you know, like, so there's basically there's a state on the map in that early window for any kind of ideological flavor or, you know, a different kind of voter that you can.

get. So I don't worry as much about that. I wouldn't worry if I was a progressive candidate or if I was an establishment candidate on like the order in that way. One under discussed change though is Nevada going from a caucus state to a primary state, which I think is likely to disadvantage progressives potentially because there's, you know, some progressives tend to organize well in these caucus states and unions tend to do better than unions tend to do really well in caucus states. Which is interesting to see how that kind of cuts. I don't know yet. Oh yeah. The fact that there's no caucuses means it's disadvantage I mean, that's, yeah, progressives do better in caucuses for sure. But even without the caucus, Nevada will have like a more liberal primary election in South Carolina.

Dan made an argument in his Saturday message box that South Carolina going first massively advantages Kamala Harris. What did you guys think about that? So I saw that and I thought, huh, that's interesting from Dan. And then I went back and looked at the South Carolina polling from before Kamala ended her campaign. And she drops out in the end of 2019 before any votes are cast. But in the closing weeks of the year, there were polls that had her somewhere between, say, five to 12 percent. I think she sort of was like ticking down a bit as we got closer.

And so, I don't know. I was like maybe that's true, right? But part of the reason she ended her campaign when she did is she just wasn't gaining traction even in a state like South Carolina. Yeah. What do you think, Tommy? I think, you know, basically the argument is that black voters are half the electorate in South Carolina, that Kamala Harris has the most support from black voters by far in polls. She has 69% favorability with black voters plus 42. You're right that like her presidential run in 2020 did not end well in South Carolina or any state, but that was just a bad campaign that didn't end well for her. And I think four years of being VP probably changed the last. lot of things. I think certainly, look, does it make her the frontrunner? Yes. But being the frontrunner's

double-edged sword because the early states are not necessarily about winning all the early states, it's about expectations management and exceeding expectations in the early states. And when you're the early on frontrunner and everyone assumes you're going to romp in South Carolina for the following reasons that puts a big old bullseye on your back and the media looks for better, more interesting stories to tell for them. That's what I thought. And it's like as soon as South Carolina's over, now you've got four other states for that month, including two very big ones at the end. And does anyone think that the media, like, no matter how good of a campaign she's running,

is going to be like, yeah, it's the Kamala Harris frontrunner story all through February. Like, that's just not going to happen. So it goes from like, oh, wow, South Carolina advantages Kamala Harris to Kamala Harris is the only candidate that has a state if she loses, it's over. Right? That's definitely true. Well, and the other thing we haven't talked about is if Westmore, we're going to be. runs or Raphael Warnock, like she's not the only black candidate that might run for president.

And then you could have black candidates splitting votes. You could have. And then, you know, it's interesting. Like the two things that you need to know before we're starting to think about how the race is going to go and plan your strategies the campaign. One is the early state calendar, which is now locked. Two is the composition of the field. You need to know who's running, who's going to split what vote, how they're going to like that part we don't know yet. But like there is a situation too where if it's just Kamala Harris, if she's the only black candidate running and she's doing really well with black voters in South Carolina, then because the state is more moderate overall and you have a bunch of white moderates running aside from Kamala Harris,

then they're all splitting a vote and then maybe the progressive candidate or two does even better. So that's just an example. We have no idea. Yeah. Yeah. I do think like, you know, some of the kind of like Pete Buttigieg, who has historically had a really hard time with black voters, like it's probably now at a disadvantage. Bernie Sanders, were he to run again, was probably a bit of a disadvantage for the reasons we just discussed. A lot of the conventional wisdom is also that AOC came out of this new primary process helped because she does well with Latinos and with labor. We'll see if she runs.

We'll see if that's true. But I'm mostly with you guys that a lot of the early attempts to kind of, you know, handicap this race are just silly. We don't know what it's going to look like. Yeah, exactly. Ron Brownstein, who digs into these demographics and does them better than most, he said that the, The one through line for all of the states is the candidate who's going to be able to do best with black voters and white college educated voters as well is probably going to do the best. Because aside from Nevada and New Mexico, you don't have a lot of states with non-college,

big non-college populations. And he was like, you know, last candidate to have done that to bring that coalition together is Barack Obama. Right. It's the white lives and the black Democrats. So we'll see. Pod Save America is brought you by Magic Spoon. We love Magic Spoon. It says here to mention the macros.

But you know what? I don't deal in macros. I deal in delicious flavors. High protein, low-carb cereal. Magic Spoon treats are crispy, airy, protein-packed snack bars or 12 grams of protein, seven grams of fiber, zero grams of added sugar, two, three neck carbs, and certified GF. They're perfect for tossing in your bag, keeping the card, grabbing between meetings, or crushing when a sweet craving hits at night.

Flavors include marshmallow, chocolate peanut butter. double chocolate and more, very nostalgic, very dessert-coated. But without loading you up on sugar, I love Magic Spoon. For a time, there was only peanut butter and chocolate, and I had to do chemistry myself. I did make a little compound pharmacy for breakfast, but now you can get chocolate peanut butter all there together. Magic Spoon is easy to find. Just look for Magic Spoon at your local grocery store, and they just rolled out treats nationwide at 7-Eleven. And if you haven't tried them yet, check out Magic Spoon's new protein pastries, a high-protein low-sugar take on the classic toaster pastries you grew up with.

You get $5 off your next order, including the protein pastry. which is great because I'm so sick of sticking a slice of turkey in my pop tarts. It doesn't taste good. So go to magicspoon.com slash crooked. That's magic spoon.com slash crooked for $5 off. This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success.

Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform, whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences. Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need with intuitive drag-and-drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects, on-brand AI content, and more ways to list what you offer.

No experience required. Every dream needs a domain. Squarespace domains makes it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price, no hidden fees or add-ons required. Every Squarespace domain comes with. advanced privacy and security tools included to ensure your domain remains online and protected. Plus, Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life. Whether that means building a website or adding a professional email service,

don't wait to claim your name, invest in your dream domain today. Head to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, go to Squarespace.com slash crooked to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's Squarespace.com slash crooked. Speaking of the DNC, seems like Ken Martin had a bad Sunday. The New York Times notice and the bulwark all ran stories about what the Times calls the troubled, broke Democratic Party. The Times story was certainly the newsiest and most damning for Martin. It includes a story about him throwing his phone at the desk of a junior staffer,

which resulted in a formal HR complaint, and another where Martin freaked out on a call about the party's finances because he thought his staff was planning a coup. And they were like, no, we're just talking about the money. Wow. No coup. Sounds like just the usual lower leave at prep meeting to me. But the real meat of the story is the party's financial struggles under Martin, which are quite real. We already knew that the DNC is $2 million in debt after taking out a $15 million loan and more than $100 million behind the RNC in fundraising. But apparently the situation is so bad that the DNC is asking vendors not to invoice them until after the midterms.

And for the first time, the DNC will not be transferring any money to the House and Senate committees to help them win the midterms. According to the Times, quote, party officials are now reckoning with the fact that they must begin to repay $1.66 million of the loans principle per month starting in January. Otherwise, it's pretty nice building, but shame is something where to happen to it. What did you guys make of these stories? Did anything in them make you more worried than you already were? Can I just read a great entry in one of my favorite parts of an insider story like this, which is a leak about leaks? Quote, it pisses me off when I see leaks out of this building, Mr. Martin said, according to four people who had heard the remarks adding, no more.

You know that's the exact kind of leak that a reporter is like, wow, this is going to be so good for the story. No more. It's just a brutal thing. Leaks about leaks. I love it. It's tough. So I reached out some of the DNC staff, Ken Martin's defenders. I can offer that perspective.

I don't know if you guys want to start with reflections on the story. No, no, you can, we'll reflect after your. Okay. So what they would say is. Woodward and Bernstein over here. We're just in Bursina Vito over here. Let's hear, man. Thank you for doing the work.

I'm grateful to it. Yeah, I'll make one phone call. You have Woodward in this building. So they would point out that through June of 2026, the DNC raised more money than the DNC did in the entire 2017-2018 cycle. They love that talking about. A comparable period, yeah, when Democrats did not hold the White House. They also argue they had more cash on hand than the DNC did in 2019. So their argument is basically the media narrative is that this is like some historic disaster when in fact like there's recent precedent that they're actually been proved upon.

They would also say like let's look at the investments or we're making. The DNC gave $100,000 to the Mississippi Democratic Party right before a special election that broke a Republican super majority. Obviously a good thing. The DNC gave money to South Carolina. Now for the first time in 50 years, South Carolina recruited a candidate to run in every state house race, statewide race and congressional race. So there's sort of a talking point where in Ken's substack about this where he's like, we've 90% of the races, we've overperformed or won. I think that's taking credit for the political environments and people being mad at Donald Trump.

But, you know, it's evidence, right? It's results matter. Now, I also talked to some people who worked in the DNC in that period, that 27, 2018 period for Tom Perez. And they'll say the thing you have to remember is that everyone hated the DNC in 2017 because they blame them for Hillary losing and they blame them for Bernie getting screwed. So money wasn't really coming in the door. And WikiLeaks. That was posed week.

Yes. Yes. They walked into the building with $17 million in debt. The major fundraising team had been laid off. So they were at a standing start. And at least $30 million of Ken's fundraising total was Kamala Harris raising money to retire her own debt. So I think those people would also concede like, yeah, that 2017, 2018 period, fundraising wasn't good.

But comparing to the not good period is still bad. Also, they still, in that election, did transfer money to the House and Senate committees, which they're not going to do this year. Well, it's also, hey, in this game that we're losing, we actually have more goals than the previous team. So, well, you're not playing against the DNC from 2018. You're playing against the Republicans in 2026. So the last point I think I'd just make in response to the Ken, too, is like, okay, you're telling us you've raised all this money, but you're still $2 million in debt. Like that suggests mismanagement and miss spending. You know what I mean? It's like a double,

the talking point is a double edge story. Yeah, that's my feeling about it, which is like, Before sort of diving into all these stories, like, oh, there's a massive fundraising problem at the DNC for being outraised by a huge amount. And then you read the defense. It's like, wow, actually, you know, we're out of power, but the fundraising is actually comparable, if not better. Okay. And where'd all the money go out?

And then the test is, if you really are going to say that we've been, it's not a fundraising issue, we've been using the money to kind of build infrastructure. Well, then it's incumbent upon you to show. how that's going to benefit Democrats in the midterms and beyond. And then you think, well, hold on. That was the strategy where so right now, Democratic candidates have been outraising Republican candidates. The Republican House Committee and the Republican Senate Committee are outraising, not to the same degree as the DNC, but are outraising the candidate committees. And the RNC has over $100 million more on hand than the DNC does. Now, before the Supreme Court ruled that,

the parties could spend at the same lower rate as candidates. There's an argument to say, you know what, the DNC should raise money, get it out the door for building infrastructure, focus fundraising for the candidates, those candidates can then buy ads at a cheaper rate than the parties. But that advantage is now gone. That doesn't exist anymore. And so they have more money in their super PACs. Their candidate committees have more money and the RNC has more money.

And all of that is just puts the Republicans at a huge. advantage for buying ads over the Democrats. And so then you say, well, that is the stat, like, regardless of what money went out the door, like, that is the situation right now. So what do you do to get out of the hole? The answer isn't to point to how much worse it could have been or how much different it is. Like, we are behind. How do you close that gap? Yeah. And doesn't seem like there's any answers on that from the, from the DNC. And it's not like they are sort of denying any of the stories. He didn't throw the phone.

It slid next to someone else who didn't own the phone. Rufus Gifford, who we all know Rufus. He was on the Obama campaign. He was the finance director of the DNC. He was the phone near you. He worked there for eight years.

He wrote the substack today. He loves the place. He worked. He was the finance director on Obama's reelect, on Biden's reelect. So he's been around for a long time. He didn't have a dog in the fight on Ken versus Ben or anything else. But he said in his substack post, the DNC is spiraling towards irrelevance and that Ken Martin is a good man with good intentions, but simply not meeting this critical moment and his chairmanship is beyond saving.

Wait until that email goes out where he says to everybody coming to that big DNC meeting, one slice of pizza per person. That's all we can do right now. No second slices at this meeting. I was just we cannot afford it. I once worked on a campaign where our paycheck, were delayed until the next year to make the FEC report look better. So we had more cash on hand. And by the way, it didn't suggest a healthy campaign. The things were going well. But then a reporter called and asked one of our spokespeople

if staff had been asked to delay their paychecks to make our FEC report look better. And this flak said no because we had just been told that we would not be getting paid over Christmas. We were not asked. So, yeah, that was memory lane. I mean, I think the question that was like, what can be done about this? we're all in this situation together. We all, you know, like, we all need the DNC to be successful and the Democratic Party to be successful. You know, there is a scenario we were talking to someone where once we have a nominee, the nominee of the party installs their person to the DNC and,

you know, tries to go around Ken and raises all the money. But, you know, between now and getting a nominee, we need to figure, like, the party needs to figure something out on, like, how to raise the money that we're going to need, especially with the Supreme Court decision, as you said, Love it, where now the Democratic National Committee, it's going to be really, really important for them to have a ton of money before there's even a nominee. This is a crisis. You know, like this is the terrible fundraising and the autopsy report and the interview with you. This is all compounded into a crisis of confidence with DNC leadership. And it is just not going to improve. And it's time to make a change, I think. And I think Chuck Schumer and Hockey and Jeffries need to go to

Ken Martin and say, we got to do something different here. And they need to get someone else in there that just has confidence of big donors, of parties, et cetera. And yeah, like, we just can't overstate how important this Supreme Court ruling is in terms of erasing the Democratic Party advantage that we used to have because small dollars would flow to our candidates who would get preferential rates on ad buys. And then you'd have Republican super PACs having to spend 10 times the same amount for the same ad. Now that advantage is gone. Yep. And we are that just makes a hole even deeper. And so like if I'm Chuck Schumer, like you're trying to win a Senate majority. If you're Hakeem Jeffries, you're trying to become speaker. This is existential for you. Well, I mean, beyond those two,

because for them, it's like, you know, the midterms are in a couple of months. That ship has sailed. Every Democrat running for president, every one of these campaigns is in their interest to like act together on this to like all go to these committees. I don't think it should be sailed for the midterms. I think you could get a new person in tomorrow who could bring like a bunch of big donors to send a message and raise $100 million in like a couple weeks. I really like think. Although I think on that though, the only reason I say that is because if yes, but then why not just send the money right to the DSEC and the DCC? There's no need to give the DNC money before the midterms. Sure. This again, like I'm taking Ken's work. Like I read your long stop stack. But if you look at

like the like what his claim is, then there's actually is a fair amount of money coming in. And so what I don't understand is like there's a sort of like hand drinking. oh, there's nothing we can do before November, if there's this little amount of money on hand, but like what's something like 8.6 million is coming in every month at the lead, like, why can't there be a change in priorities where you kind of do, do say from this point forward,

we are going to be devoting these resources towards winning in November, and this is the amount that's going to be directed towards this, as opposed to whatever kind of the longer term kind of money that's going out the door per month is. Like, that's what I don't, that's what I came away, I was confused by. There's a vicious cycle. and, you know, Wickler was, as usual, very generous and kind of didn't want to shut over Ken Martin. But, you know, when there are stories like these, it just deepens the problem because now who's going to want to give money to the DNC after reading stories like this, right? Like, and so it's a vicious cycle.

I did think one more funny moment from the New York Times story is he's like, he's got this staff meeting and he's trying to like buck everyone up. And he says, my success is your success. So the weaker I am, the weaker all of you are. Which is true. It's just a weird thing to say to your staff. Yeah. This seems so inspiring. I don't know if that's the best pipe talk I've ever heard.

Yeah. I think it's a get through. Like, the other thing, too, is any, like, if you're a presidential candidate starting next year and they're like, well, what do you think of Ken Martin? You would just like, you know, the president will choose a new DNC chair, right? Like, we will have a better, you know, they're all going to say they're going to choosing your DNC share. So it's just like, let's move that up a little. Let's get this, get through the mentor and swap this guy out. Yeah. Yeah, it's just like when we swapped Kamala for

Biden, I think the DNC raised like a billion dollars in a hundred days. There's a lot they could do. It's true. If we were to make a change. I think, you know, in Ken's substack, he says, we must communicate and organize year round. Well, one of the things that we learned in this New York Times story is that after the POTS of America interview, Ken has only done like one local TV hit. So I'm not But those people in Erie got a... An iryful. Now, it is primarily a fundraising job, right? We don't expect him out doing, to be out doing message events.

But Rufus Skifford, then his substack made the point that when the DNC chair does a lot of TV, that gets shared, that gets seen by donors. It makes them want to donate and be involved and kind of like keeps you in the mix. And then also you have, like, the DNC's got a lot of great staff. And they must feel beyond demoralized. And they're supposed to be doing things like year-round, you know, research and comms and digital. on Republicans. They're doing mobilization. They have this big, like, creator program. You know, the RBC, the Rules Committee just did a really good job on the calendar. And you need more hype

reels for Ken. Can we get? And it's just like creators. I just feel bad for this team of people, not just because the phones are flying, but because like you feel like your work is getting denigrated in the news all the time and you don't have the leadership you need. And you know it's important. And like, it must be frustrating not to be able to fix it. just because the phones are flying. Pod Save America is brought you by Haya. We're only beginning to understand the impact of ultra-processed foods on our health and especially on the health of our kids.

That's exactly why Haya exists to give parents a real solution in a market flooded with kids' vitamins that prioritize candy-like appeal over actual nutrition. Some children's vitamins on the market today contain up to 7 grams of sugar per serving and are stuffed with artificial additives and petroleum-based dyes. Haya took the opposite approach. Zero sugar, zero gummy additives, just clean nutrition. Hyatt created a powerful chewable vitamin that packs a blend of 12 organic fruits and vegetables

plus 15 essential vitamins and minerals into every dose. Designed for kids two and up, Haya shipped straight to your door. You get this awesome reusable bottle with your first order, and they send refills every month. As you know, Charlie Favro is the huge fan of Haya vitamins, and he was telling me that he just solved

the halting problem. Oh, the halting problem. A famous by Alan Turing, I believe, in 1930s? Yeah, I think it's related to girdle's work. Oh. I think. I don't know. The girdle's incompleteness therems? Is it an arrow? He solved those two. He said he figured it out.

Wow, he fired the arrow through all those axes. That's so amazing. That's how he could reveal to Penelope that he was down to clown, I guess. All because he took high vitamins, which tastes delicious, by the way. They're great. And here's something every parent needs to hear. If getting your kids eat their vegetables feels impossible, high as new kids daily greens plus superfoods is a total game changer.

It's a greens powder designed specifically for kids that are packed with 55 plus whole food source ingredients, just mix one scoop with milk or a milk alternative and watch them actually enjoy something that's secretly fueling their green. growing bodies. We worked out a special deal with Haya for their best-selling children's vitamins received 50% off your first order to claim this deal. You must go to HiaHelp.com slash crooked. This deal is not available on their regular website. Hia Health, H-I-Y-A-H-E-A-H-E-A-L-T-H-H-E-A-L-T-H-T-H-C-T-H-O-C-T-H-E-A-L-T-H-E-L-T-H-E-L-MRU-E-RICH. To Grow into Healthy America is brought to you by NutraFul.

Summer calendars are filling up fast. Weddings, Concerts, Sports Events, Backyard Barbecues. It feels like every weekend has something going on. And when you're out seeing people and making memories, confidence in your appearance is nice to have in your back pocket. Adding Nutraful to your daily routine is a step in the right direction. Neutrful is the number one. dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Nutraful's hair growth supplements are peer-reviewed,

NSF certified for sport and clinically tested. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach. Nutriful offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages like postpartum or menopause, plus your individual lifestyle factors, such as a plant-based diet so you can get support that's actually right for you. I'm on it, Tommy. It's great. Is it good? Yeah, I'm like a lion now. You look great. I'm like a lion now. It's happened to me. Your hair looks fantastic. I do red light therapy. I do neutrofo. I do everything else. Hell yeah. And it's working. The neutroful. Here's how you get the neutralful. You order online. No prescription is needed with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. Plus, with a neutralful subscription, you can save up to 20% and get added perks like free headspace membership if you've been looking for an excuse to take the plunge on meditation. It's nice bonus. Let your hair become one less thing taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding on your head in just three to six months.

with Nutraful. Sinking my hair, taking out of space in the drain. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, I do. For limited time, Nutraful is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you visit Nutraful.com and enter the promo code Crooked. That's Nutraful.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code Crooked. So Michigan's in the early state lineup because it remains one of the most critical swing states and this fall Senate race there is going to be one of the most hotly contested. The primary already is hotly contested. Trump would there on Monday to tour a GM facility and appear alongside Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee for Senate who will face off against either Abdul Al-Said or Haley Stevens,

though neither were mentioned during Trump's speech. He did, however, go hard at the DSA wing of the party. They're siding with the radical left communists taking over the party. They want, in other words, the normal socialists who can destroy a country too. They're not going fast. of communism is the greatest threat to our country in history, including even World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or 9-11. I mean, this is a serious threat. In that order, World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, 9-11. What does that mean? I was like the normal socialist, then he caught him, and he said, he's like, the normal socialists who could also destroy the country normally. Yeah, you've got to not forget that. That's important to hit, too. What was that Cold War fever dream

nonsense? Very weird. I was kind of surprised that Trump held back from me. mentioning the Senate race. What do you guys think that's about? I think he's suddenly a stickler for the hatch act. It was an official event. Yeah, I don't, I don't know. And neither did Mike Rogers. Like, are they, I thought they would be, I thought he would hit Abdul. I thought it was a whole. Well, I mean, Abdul wants a fight with Trump right now, right? Presumably Democrats would love to watch Abdul be in a fight with Trump right now. So maybe the idea would be if you, if you pick this fight, you're going to take attention into the race. And, uh, but they kind of want Abdul to come out of the thing. So I don't know. Well, that, that's the thing, right? Like, you, what,

you'll hear from haley steven's supporters that the republicans want to face the duel because they think he's weaker if that were so you think you would think they would elevate him in this moment right before the primary it's weird that they didn't i don't know why i mean it could just be because trump is dumb and forgot his name and like you know it's supposed to do it a communist record and there is some evidence too that that they do want that because mike rogers was like there was a recording of mike rogers on a call with donors saying like i think if it's a duel we're in good shape um and so you know there is evidence for that, but they remarkably disciplined from from Donald Trump there. Or maybe it wasn't disciplined. Maybe you just forgot. Maybe he doesn't care. Right. Or is there any,

is there any argument that Trump and Rogers think if they publicly pick a fight with Abdul, it helps Haley Stevens? Is there any, can you make that argument? Like that's why, I mean, Rogers has a behind the scenes and the kind of kind of to try to be like, I'm excited about Abdul, which is a perfect thing to help Haley Stevens. It's not a public fight. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. They also might be thinking that if Haley Stevens wins, You know, they want to, they want to label them both as communists. Right. They don't want to do the Brian Kemp treatment.

Yeah, right. If Haley Stevens wins, they're not going to be like, oh, we really wanted to, you know, like they're going to act like she's as left wing as possible. Right. That's what they do. Meanwhile, Abdul, who, as you know, we're all supporting in the race, was quoted in playbook on Monday morning telling donors on a private call. A lot of these private calls, these zooms, you got to get these zooms.

They're not that private. No, kidding. So he was telling donors on a private call that all the money and political power being used against him makes him look like David against Goliath, presumably meaning both Haley Stevens and APEC and how if he wins, he'll have a massive platform and will start primarying Senate moderates, including John Fetterman. What did you guys think of his assessment of things? I mean, like I say this would love for Abdul, but I thought it was not good. You know, like my first argument would be you got to win the general election first and then talk about

this stuff. Like you're spiking the football in the 30-yard line. Let's win the primary. Let's win the general. Then you can maybe talk about 2028 if you want. Also, I'm sure what happened was he was trying to pump up donors and supporters, but you have to know this stuff is going to leak. It always leaks. And the ogre comment is getting taken out of context, like people are suggesting. He said, sorry, I didn't mention that. He said, this will help me put an ogre on a pike. Right, which is about John Fetterman. People are suggesting he was comparing Haley Stevens to an ogre. It does not sound like he was doing that in any way, but also don't call John Fetterman an ogre. You know, it's not helpful. I think it kind of plays into this belief among a lot of Democrats

that the left wing of the party is far more focused on going after moderate Democrats than Republicans. I too find John Federman very frustrating on a lot of issues, but he's an elected Democrat senator in a swing state. Let's beat the Republicans first and talk about that. And I think my other just like big picture comment for Abdul is take every sentence where you say I and replace it with we. This campaign is not about you and what you're going to do in 28 or whatever. It's about the movement. It's about what we are going to do to make people's lives better, the issues we're going to elevate, like, the way you're going to fight for Michigan. I just think it was, it was not good. Yeah, this is the second interview, or this is the second sort of, the first was an interview. This was leaked

recording. But the second time we've gotten sort of this sort of tone for me, that semaphore interview, I think was that at a similar level of like, I don't know, I'd say like hostility and kind of grandiosity to it. But also, it's punditry. And, as a rule if you're a candidate and you're doing punitry that is a mistake that is if you think of all the great gaps always with the donors with the donors with the donors with the donors is the worst that is that's where that's where mitt romney says 52 percent Barack obama says bitter guns and religion like that like Hillary I think deplorable was the class was that was a fundraiser yeah yeah so so it's a common trap

that you're sort of like analyzing the electorate and if you're doing that as a candidate by the way which is something he understands in his interviews where he's actually very like he did an interview with uh uh dasha burns and even she was like my god you're on message throughout this uh entire thing but kind of lets loose one i think he thinks he's in private the other part of it too though is like it's got to be frustrating because you're campaigning against haley stevens who's getting all this attention for having this ah shucks pure michigan thing and then apacs dropping like 30 million dollars on their head they're like put a sort of salad in in his fucking hands uh we'll see we'll see what the I think for progressive candidates that tend to do well have a sunnier disposition.

There is, they do express anger, of course, but there's a sunnier disposition. And what Abdul has nailed is the liberal patriotism. And we saw that when the protester, Jake Lang, like, you know, interrupted one of his events. And he talked in the, basically they shouted him out with the USA Chan and Abdul gave the speech. So he's got, he's got that part down. but you can't be also, you have to look, you have to be happy all the time and not be,

and not be hostile to your opponents. I think that's the key. I was like, there's something deeper, and this is not about Abdul. There is a like, a bad faith critique from the left that takes, I think,

what is largely a true argument about the influence of money and politics. And by the way, it's just for saying, like, what's happening in Michigan is fucking crazy. This is the biggest outside spend by APEC ever.

It's 30, maybe on any Senate race ever. as in a primary, all being dumped on his head. Like, that is what is on television. And the ad, like, there's two ads that are going around that are, like, that are just like, like, really manipulative to, like, say that, like, a duel is bad for women, right? Taking some quotes out of context. But at the same time, like, when Whitmer endorses Haley Stevens, it's because she's bought

and sold, right? And, like, I don't believe Gretchen Whitmer is bought and sold. And I don't think most Democrats in Michigan believe Gretchen Whitmer is, like, bought and sold. No. She backed Haley Stevens. because she probably thinks, Hey, Stephen's has a better chance of winning. That's it. And it doesn't help you probably to attack in pretty personal terms of very popular Democrat

in the state you were trying to represent. And my guess, you know, there's probably some old bad blood there from 2018 when they ran against each other. But so when Abdul is... You just got to eat shit. That's the whole... That's running for out. And so, like, when Abdul is asked in that interview about, like, whether he identifies

as a socialist, he says, I don't identify. Like, what... And he actually won't answer where he disagrees with Bernie and AOC. And he says, like, I just don't identify as a socialist. I appreciate some version of I appreciate capitalism. I'm sorry, I'm just going to be a nuanced guy. I'm a nuanced guy, right? But that nuance doesn't, like, especially I get why in the heat of a primary, but like,

you know, when like you say the root of our housing problem is corporate money, when the root of this problem is corporate money, it's just like I get why it works on the stump. I get why it's a valuable way of simplifying what's happening. But I think it starts to feel, I don't know, like turning this race into like a black in white mannequin struggle, which is what comes off in these private conversations. Yeah. So Trump also used the Michigan appearance to provide an update on his on again, off again, war in Iran, which suddenly appears to be off again after Trump threatened a massive attack last week. The U.S. officials told reporters that the shrinking supply of air defense systems was at least

partly responsible for the pause, which Trump, of course, blamed on Biden. We also find out this weekend that the four service members who recently died in the Iran war are no longer listed in the Pentagon's casualty count for the Iran war. Instead, the Pentagon moved the tally of their deaths to a new section, generically called overseas operations casualties. They also updated the number of injuries to over 600. Here's what Trump had to say about the war on the flight to Michigan and at his event there. Well, Iran took a beating over the last 14 days and they asked us very nicely, please stop. Let's meet. And that's what we are right now. do what happens.

When the fuel comes down, which it did for a little while, then they didn't behave and I had to go back and now they're behaving again. You know, it's like playing a banjo. Is it like playing a banjo? In what way is the Iran War like playing a banjo? I think I know what that is. Tell me. I think that what he is thinking of is the song that goes back and forth from the film

deliverance. Butabum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum in the film deliverance. I know, I know that. That is what I think. I'm still struggling with why that. It's a back and forth. Who's going to squeal like a pig in this one? I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think it's us.

Fuck. That sucks. I don't know. Tommy, what do you think? What's, what's going on right now? I mean, we're losing the war. The straight of Hormuz was once uncontested and now it's contested. And I think in the long run, Iran geographic, you guys have met him noticed on a map.

That's where it is, is the Strait of Hormuz. I feel like they have the upper. hand there. The New York Times reported that American intelligence agencies believe that Iran's new supreme leader, Mushita Bahamanei, is far more interested than his father in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Gee, I wonder why. So that's good. That's not what J.D. Vance said. I thought that they were becoming friends. Yeah, the father had sworn off nukes. There was a fatwa against them. Obviously, people questioned that, but many analysts thought it was a genuine sentiment, and now there's quite an argument for getting a nuclear weapon. I think the long-term impact of the war, as is, is

like just it's going to be sporadic economic disruption for a very long time, potentially. And that increases the likelihood of U.S. service members getting killed or wounded. The same goes for civilians in Iran, by the way, and anyone living in the Gulf, you know, in a base where the Iranians are firing at. I mean, people are getting killed all the time. It is led. There's just growing instability. I mean, you're now noticing like the Houthis rebels are getting involved in the war where before they had not. There's these reports that the Saudis or the Amarades are directly engaging with Iran and firing missiles or, you know, bombs into their territory. So it's just the war is metastasizing and growing. It's wildly expensive. You know, we have

Hex-F and others going to Congress and they want a $1.5 trillion dollar Pentagon budget next year. I mean, that's insane. And the munitions issue is a really big long-term problem that you can't fix. Like there's all these interceptor missiles. There's the FAD system. There's the Patriot stockpile that's down by half. There's all these air-to-air missiles that are running low. There's the T. Lamb or Tomahawks that would be like, there's all these war games of a U.S. War with China where you run out of Tomahawk missiles in like a week with the full stockpile. And now we're way down on those. And in many cases, these cost millions and millions of dollars each. And they can take as long as 2030 to replenish them. So it just feels like everything he's done has sort of made our posture weaker,

both in the Gulf and vis-a-vis China, which Trump ran on telling us was the big geostrategic problem going forward. And now one of the political problems of any war, which is U.S. service members dying and being injured, now they're handling that by just deciding to do some creative accounting where they hide the deaths from us for as long as they can or the injuries, or then now they're listing them as overseas operations casualties is despicable. Yeah, it really is. the like the options of well he can escalate right it's actually it sort of mirrors what happens in our domestic politics where um trump has trump has to like threaten greater and greater chaos for the markets to take him seriously uh and so the markets have to respond more forcefully

in order to get him to back off whatever the latest threat is be it tariffs or some other economic policy that would be destructive going after the fed uh and so now he has has to threaten this new, every single, you know, this is going to be an escalation unlike anything we've ever seen. It's going to make the early stage of the war look like a fireworks show, uh, because he has to, because the only, he has to ratchet up the threat because, uh, that's, I guess all he has in terms of trying to get some control over, over Iran and get them to, to sort of relent on the strait of our moves. So that's one dangerous path. Uh, the other is some kind of increasing sanctions, economic crackdown, right? Like, to sort of try to,

to squeeze Iran that way. And then finally it's like just saying we did it. But even that option, which is I think something we're like, oh, well, he should just declare victory and walk away. That's not really available anymore because that Iran will continue to control the straight of her moves. The fake outcome where he says we got a better deal than Obama had, even if it's worse, is not available anymore because we've been so thoroughly sort of bodied by their ability

to control the strait. I think this, the way they changed the reporting of casualties is all about trying to get around the War Powers Act by saying, oh, the old war ended and this is a new war, I think. But it also sounds like they weren't really updating casualties in a timely manner and in the standard way. Like there were reporters kind of watching the website where this is reported out and seeing it kind of bump around last week, go up and down. They're like, what is happening?

Even now the numbers aren't all in agreement. Yeah. We don't have a, we don't have like a straightforward answer. The total of the two conflicts, Operation Epic Fury, and then whatever they're calling overseas operations, now 18 dead, 624 wounded. And so they've also, they've really not been very transparent about what those, the wounded number means. They're like, oh, it's mostly minor concussions that they went back to work. But, you know, traumatic brain injuries from, you know, a ballistic missile exploding near you.

That's a big deal. And it also, it's part and parcel to the Pentagon covering up the cost of the war, just not being transparent. Like I have friends who are still in the military or people who are overseas will be like, you know, they're shutting down. You can no longer take photos on some of these bases because they're just so destroyed that they're basically rendered unusable. People have to be evacuated from some of these places. Wow. The cost of bases just being like, you know, inoperable for many years to come now has not really been like fully calculated. You have heads going in front of the Senate and saying this war costs $35 billion, but we need $80 billion right now.

in an emergency and then you're like, well, why? Don't you already have 80 billion in cash? And he's like, no, no, no. I've already decided what that's going for. And we have to do this because Biden spent all of our money on woke. And it's like, that may work on a Fox News hit. What the fuck are you talking about? How much does woke cost?

All right, speaking of bombs on Friday, the White House Correspondents Association held its rescheduled dinner after a gunman interrupted the event back in April. It was a smaller venue with a smaller crowd and more security. But Trump basically gave the speech he'd originally planned on giving. And boy, did he crush it. The other day, a senator I knew, got a text of great guy from his wife. And she said, when you get home, I want to have you immediately come up the stairs and make love to me. And he said, I can't do both.

You know what the other words? Can't go up the stairs and make love. Does anybody get that way? I thought that was actually pretty good. That was actually the only thing I thought was good in this whole freaking stupid speech that they wrote. That was the only good one and that went down with not exactly great laughter. I think, you know, in other words, you can't go up the stairs. One more time.

So we're looking for term limits. Does anybody understand this stuff? We will have... Sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings you'll ever made. Fighting, I would say, I could mention the governor of Chicago, but I'm going to mention instead, Jerry Nadler. And they're fighting for a big piece of cheesecake, big fat piece of cheesecake.

Who the hell wrote that line? Barack Hussein Obama hosted it. Do you know who that is? And he hit me hard. And I have watched this clip thousands of times. They keep playing it because they think that was evening I decided to run for president. It was not.

He actually showed a picture of the White House with a big Trump on top. Like I put a sign. And you know, I'm sort of doing that when you think about it, right? Now, we have all said previously that Trump can be genuinely funny. That was so bad that I almost started feeling sorry for Donald Trump, which has never happened. But like, that was incredibly painful, especially the sex up the stairs joke when he goes.

And then he's like, oh, that was one of the better jokes. And then one more time he's like, because it's like the third explanation of the joke. Did you see that he stole that joke too? Yeah, from Brad Paisley. Brad Paisley lyric? Well, it's a classic Borsh Belt joke, and it could have worked. The reason it didn't work is we've done many of these speeches. You're trying to get, it's a, you're doing stand-up, 10, 15 minutes.

He was up there for an hour. An hour. An hour. And by the time he gets to that light-hearted joke about senators being old, he's described how much he hates half the people in the room called Don Lemon Dunn. He said, Adam Schiff has an ugly fat head. He hates Colbert, compared Caitlin Collins to Dylan Mulvaney, calls Josh Dossy, unhirable. Right after he won a Pulitzer. Right. He's like, anyway, anyway, boy, your senators

are old these days. Right. So of course, by the time you get to that part, like they've been sitting there for 45 minutes, it's brutal. He's never read the speech. This is the other thing. It's like, you've got to, I know he thinks that he's a genius and can just go off script or whatever. You got to practice a speech like that. Can you imagine Trump like practicing jokes? No, I can't. He had like one good Barry Weiss joke. He had a couple like well-structured jokes that he- Even the Barry Waste joke, which was good, he didn't, like, he didn't deliver it well. Like, he could have delivered it in a funnier way. But also, I think it was in the prepared remarks.

There's like a portion of his stump about Gavin Newsom in California that he seemed to be reading off the teleprompter. And so, like, he says horrible things about Elon Omar. Like, he just goes into his sort of vicious and cruel, mean-spirited ripping. And so the whole, like, he doesn't, he pokes a little bit of fun at himself here and there. But, like, of course, there's not going to be people laughing. It's deeply uncomfortable to be in an event that's supposed to be lighthearted. And you just, like, go for the juggier like you would at a rally. It's just like, you're not built for this because you're such a fucking asshole.

You're not the comedy seller at 11 p.m. You're in front of the most oversensitive proof of people you can find and you're being so. By the way, didn't Jerry Nadler, like, hit the GLP ones a couple years ago? And he's a ton of weight, too. Yeah, yeah. The riffing made no sense. And he did that he, when he talked about Pritzker, the governor of Chicago, he mentioned that as well too he's like he's actually looking better he's looking better he's just the dick is really the

problem but it started kind of magnanimous because like he did this whole bit at the top about how like the last dinner was bad and celebrated the you know the cops who kept everybody safe and said how that they had the you know they wouldn't let the the show get canceled because that lets the shooter win and then we just went into this tirade and when you looked at the all the cuts to the audience when you watched the whole thing, it was like, it's just silent. And also, I know there's a room full of journalists. They don't like Trump. But like all of his administration, all of his people were there, no one was laughing. Yeah, just like the funniest thing was when he got the laugh there and said, I thought that was the best joke of the bunch. Yeah, the whole thing was very ugly, right? Because

he's going up to Caitlin Collins and all these journalists in this really personal and sort of obviously misogynist way. And then you have like the the reporters on the day as kind of like trying to of like laugh and the whole thing was ugly and so then you have like new york times reporters like peter baker being like we should rethink this dinner which is they're on their high horse about the fucking dinner because they haven't gone forever and are glad for that decision to their credit yeah to their credit yeah it's like what did anyone expect from him was he going to learn this time obviously this is who he is and what he was going to say by the like he says once he had two jokes about katelyn collins one was uh suggesting she looked like dillan milvaney which you just said but then also being like

Caitlin Collins never smiles. He says that to her all the time at press conferences. Every time she asks him a tough question, he's like, what's your problem? Your pretty girl smile. He's a sexist old man. And he doesn't do that as part of a comedy bit. It's part of his like stump deflection routine for hard questions. Like he's just a shithead.

Yeah, he's a shithead. Might be time to retire. The dinner sucks. The correspondent's dinner. Now that we've moved it to the former Trump Hotel, now the Waldorf Astoria, smaller set it. He made a hard pitch for the ballroom being. When we knocked down the arch and we sort of get the gold leaf off the White House and we

restore independence of the Department of Justice, at the bottom of that list, we can decide what we want to do with what happened to the White House correspondent center. High class problem. For sure. High class problem. The remaining rump state of media. Didn't stick around for the mentalist, I have to say. I didn't catch the O's.

Didn't yet. He did give, he did do the joke, which was, if you're such a mentalist, how come you didn't know the shooting was coming? Yeah, the joke everyone made the night of the shooting. Yeah. Ritz off all his worst joke. Is it still funny a couple months later? No?

It worked for me. It worked for me. All right. When we come back, Ben Wickler. Potsave America is brought to you by Chime. Summer adds up fast. A trip here, dinner there, a couple concerts to visit to an amusement park. It might have you wondering if you're getting the most out of your money.

That's where Chime comes in. Chime is changing the way people bank. They're not like traditional banks. They'll have to gatekeep the best rewards to pile on hidden fees unless you have a massive balance. Chime offers the most rewarding fee-free banking. All with no overdraft fees, no monthly fees, no minimum balance fees. You get 5% cash back on ChimeCard in a category of your choice like gas or groceries, all while building credit through regular everyday spending. No credit check required. You can also grow your money faster with the savings rate that's

nine times the national average. And if you're ever in a pinch, SpotMe lets you overdraft up to $200 fee free. Join the millions who are already banking fee free with America's number one choice for banking. Head to chime.com slash crooked. That is chime.com slash crooked. Sign up now. It only takes a few minutes. Chime is a fintech, not a bank, banking services, and Chime card provided by Chim's bank partners, qualifying direct deposits required, terms and limits apply. Go to chime.com slash disclosures for details. Ben Withler, welcome back to the show. It's great to be with you. Congrats on the new studio. Thank you. It's pretty nice. Pretty sweet. Pretty fancy. All right. So I want to get to the book, but first I have to take advantage of the entirely coincidental, but highly opportune timing of you being

here and ask about the messy gubernatorial primary in your beloved state and the messy leadership situation at the DNC, which you ran to be chair of. I know you well. You are far too wise and generous to shit on Ken Martin. I've got that covered. But I really want your honest thoughts on the DNC's financial situation. Ken's argument is that a party is not a savings account that he chose to spend early on organizers and technology and state party infrastructure. And that's also like more or less your argument, the argument you make in the book. But of course, the party is now two million dollars in debt while the RNC is sitting on 128.5 million dollars in cash. So do you buy his defense that that's just the cost of investing early? So I agree that you should invest early. And the

goal, what you want is to be able to do both. You want to be able to be able to. both have the money to invest in places that it'll take years to be able to build the power to win statewide, but there's state legislative races everywhere where we can win. And you also want to have the ability to invest in the places where elections are closest and highest stakes, and then you tip those over the top. And I think the challenge right now is there's not quite enough money to do either. The other thing that's new in this moment is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows parties to invest in unlimited support for federal. candidates. Wisconsin had a version of that that was started under Scott Walker. We call it the

Scott Walker loophole. And it is the way that we beat Elon Musk and, you know, who outspent us dramatically is that the Democratic Party of Wisconsin was able to raise money and then transfer it to our candidate who got a lower rate for TV ads than the Super PAC ads that Elon Musk was funding in our state. We also had a, you know, better message, better candidate and didn't have Elon Musk hanging around our neck. But the, and huge grassroots organizing, talk about that in the book. But right now that means that national committees could do a ton more if they have the money to be able to do it to support candidates in the places, especially for candidates who don't have huge fundraising abilities on their own, but who have totally winnable seats and who, if they have the funds

to get their message out, can win in places that are maybe, you know, off the national radar. So this is a time when having more funds at the DNC, having more funds at the other national committees makes an enormous difference. And I, I, what I want is, you know, for Ken and for the DNC to be as successful as possible. I think there's a huge opportunity in this election, including in a lot of places right now where Republicans aren't investing and don't realize how mad voters are. So if I wave the magic wand, there's a flood of money that comes in and we're able to invest in winning, sometimes in squeakers in a whole bunch of places that expand the map and safeguard the future of American democracy. Well, yeah. So to what you just said,

I mean, you raised and spent $63 million in 2024 for the Wisconsin Democrat. party? That sounds right. Which is a little more than the entire Democratic National Committee has raised so far in 2026. Is the honest answer here that spending early only works, if you can also raise, then the raising is the failure here? I mean, I think there's a lot of puzzle pieces here. I think that right now there's a kind of like vicious circle where there's negative news cycles that then make it hard to go out and say this is a good time to invest. And I think that starts changing when people see, oh yeah, if I donate here, it's going to have a big impact on making things better and winning elections. And I think that's, you know, maybe that change starts right here in the pod, John. Maybe,

whatever it is. Like, we can't, as long as we're in circular firing squad mode and not, you know, pointing to, to where we need to, like, throw our shoulders against the wheel to save the country, it's very hard to get out of that cycle. And also, like, the election is 99 days away. There's a huge opportunity to like flood the zone in the places where elections are likely to be tightest and where a push can make the difference. And I will add that that is not just House and Senate races, like at all levels. There's going to be state legislative contest that had enormous significance. One thing in a, I think the New York Times story was about the DNC helping Mississippi break the Republican supermajority at the state level. That I love. Like that

it was a $100,000 investment played a role. And I'm sure there are a ton of other people involved as well. But breaking Republican supermajorities in deep red states can have an enormous impact on the future of things like redistricting. So part of the argument of my book and my kind of life's work at this moment in the Democratic Party is look at the whole map of how power is built and wielded in this country. The right keeps using its power to rig everything so that only a handful of people can write the rules for all of us. But if you can unrig the system, often at the state and local level, those races are often much less expensive and have huge up-ballot consequences. And I think it is good to think as a party about how to fight at all those levels at once. In the interest of fixing things, what would you do

about the money situation if you were in Ken's position right now? I would, which I'm sure Ken is also working on, I try to raise more money so that you have more money to invest in the various things. And that, to me, the biggest thing is being able to lay out if you invest, here is how we're going to be able to win more fights that folks care about. There's often, when people think about the corrupting influence of money in politics, which, you know, you only have to look at the news to see the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yeah. But very often it's about policies that particular candidates or elected officials hold. Parties are not where people who want to change policy.

It's not where they give, especially when there's not a Democratic president. What parties do is they help create infrastructure for victories or losses. And so the way to raise money for the Democratic Party. is fundamentally to instill trust, to demonstrate the results that come from those investments. And for all the kind of debate about the 50-state strategy, I think one of the things that is really helpful is when you see what's being done in particular states with those investments that actually generates electoral victory. And then it makes you enthusiastic about investing. And I think there's a lot of stories like that that I would love to see more of and hear more

about. I think about some of the state parties that are doing amazing work, like North Carolina, there's this huge focus on local organizing that's going to affect things like the state Supreme Court race. And the country is not thinking about the North Carolina State Supreme Court. But the only reason Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House right now is because Republicans won a state Supreme Court race there in 2020 by 401 votes, one-one votes, one-hundredth of one percent of all the votes cast in the state. And that put in place a Chief Justice who drove the gerrymandering that gave the national Republicans, their House majority at this moment.

There's a Supreme Court race there this November. Anita Earle is up for re-election. If she wins, they could win a majority. Democrats could win a majority by 2028, and that could lead to the de-jerrymandering of that state and, you know, affect the future of American democracy. And those are the kinds of things that state parties specialize in. And supporting state parties to do that kind of work has a huge effect.

I, you know, I'm personal to my own state of Wisconsin, which we can all agree is the best state. But it's also a place where our state party has been deeply involved in state legislative races, mayoral races, state Supreme Court elections this fall. We have a chance to win both chambers of the state legislature. And across the country, most people, I regret to admit, are not thinking about the Wisconsin state legislative battle of 2026. But that fight could dictator-proof Wisconsin before 2008. We were the closest state in the country to having the election overturned after 2020. We know Trump is going to try to pull something next time he is in danger of losing power.

You lock down democracy at the state level, or rather unrigged democracy at the state level, that is the best way to defend national elections going forward. And those are the kinds of races that, you know, have supporting state parties right now and the DNC is doing a lot of supporting state parties can have a huge effect on. So I look at the, you know, it is very painful to read the stories that are unfolding. Everyone experiences that. I'm sure everyone within the DNC is, you know, not thrilled about the stories unfolding. But there are giant opportunities that are right there where a small investment can make a huge

outside's impact because Donald Trump's eye of star on is. not on those races, but we can put our eye on the ball and we can win and we can fight. Yeah, I think I think what I'm most worried about is, like the DNC doesn't play the biggest role in the midterms regardless, right? The other party committees do and the state parties do. Certainly play a big role in the 2028 race. And especially with that Supreme Court decision now, we'll play a big role because people can donate now much more to the DNC and that can help the campaign directly.

And the stories are awful to read. No one wants that. We all want the Democratic Party to be successful and the DNC to be successful. I think what strikes me is that because they're coming from inside the DNC and the DNC members, it makes me think that those are people who also don't want bad press, but are at this point like I'd rather talk and have the bad stories and try to fix the situation than continue to see this unfold. and I just saw today, Rufus Gifford, I'm sure you know, Rufus, who finance director of the DNC,

has been finance director, worked there for eight years, loves the place. Eno has said today that the DNC is, quote, spiraling towards irrelevance and said that Ken is a good man with good intentions, but simply not meeting this critical moment. Do you agree? I am the guy who lost the election for DNC chair, and I'm the last person you want to be armchair quarterback. I, like, Ken beat me by out organizing me in the DNC race and, you know, building. trust with voters over years with the same, you know, kind of strategy that he and I both think is

really critical to winning elections at every level. So I, you know, I don't want to be in the middle of this. I hear you. Not running for D. and sincere myself. Like I, my goal is to spread a message to a much wider number of people about what everyone can do. I have a chapter in my book about the Democratic Party with the title, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to, something many, you know, people feel at various moments at all levels. And the argument that I make is that the Democratic Party, however you feel about it, it actually has a door that is wide open, shockingly open. It is easier to join the Democratic Party in whatever state people live in

than to join the benevolent order of the Elks or like any of the old 19th, 20th century social, civic organizations. There's not some set of boxes that you have to check. You can get involved and then you can revitalize the party where you are. You can turn it into a vessel for organizing and fighting. And I talk to people who are like running for county party chair all across the country who are mad about the way things are going right now. And then they realize, hey, if I get a bunch of people together and we get involved, we can just like take over around here. And then we can start working to flip the city councils and we can win judicial races.

We can flip state legislative seats. There are so many blue states where there are people in offices that are not using them to have the biggest impact that they could. And there are so many places in red states where there's very little Democratic Party organization. but if you build enough power, you can push through and you can make huge change. And then in purple states, it is shocking how few votes wind up tipping the entire thing. So if anyone who's frustrated about the Democratic Party right now,

become the Democratic Party and build the kind of party that you want to be part of, like it is right there. And it is a, it's a vessel for organizing that unlike everything else, it exists everywhere in every county, in every community. And if we can make it stronger and we can make it stronger and we can make it a body that fights for things that benefit everyone,

then I think it has a huge change on the whole future of the country. Your book is excellent. It is tailor-made for our audience, so I hope everyone buys it. It's called This Is the Plan. Give us the Cliff's Note version of what the plan is. Sure. So the plan starts with you, not just you, John, but you, the reader, viewer, listener. And the thing that each of us can do,

I have a chapter called Unleashed Your Superpower, which is about both the kind of art and science and practice of organizing, of getting people together to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. So I dig into how to have the biggest effect with your volunteer hours, if you can chip in money, the kinds of stuff that makes the biggest difference. And then I map out, drawing on the story of how we unrigged our state legislative maps in Wisconsin, which is this huge multi-year fight that took a bunch of different offices. I trace out what we can do nationwide to unrig our system, which right now pretty clearly is a system where a handful of far-right

billionaires write the rules for everyone else to enrich themselves at all of our expense. So how do we do that? Step one, in 2026, let's absolutely fight for House and Senate majorities, but the states are the most critical battlefield. Because especially if we win Democratic trifectas in the battleground states, A, you can pass laws in those states that prevent Trump from being able to steal the 2028 election. Elections are run by the states. So this is, you know, if you have people who refuse to play along with coup attempts, it makes

all the difference in the world. You can also defame the electoral college. this law called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is a long, nerdy name for an amazing bill that has been passed already in 18 states. The Nipvick. That's what I call it. I came up with a way to pronounce the unpronounceable acronym. That's great because every time I say it, I've never said the acronym, and I'm always like, it's the National Compact, something, voter. It rhymes with lipstick. Nipvick. We got to spread Nipvick across the country. If we, if no other thing happens, if we all be able to find a way to stay Nipvick, then I will not be satisfied

with the impact of the book, but I'll be happy. So that is a bill that if we pass it through the states where Democrats can win trifectas in 2026, you can make it so that whoever wins the national popular vote wins the presidential election because states decide where they put their electoral college votes. It is very, very close to actually happening. Basically, so it's a, it's like a backdoor way of eliminating the electoral college because the Constitution gives states the power, the ultimate power to decide how they assign their electors. So the state legislature, can decide we're going to assign our electors to the winner of the national popular vote. And then that way you could kind of go around the electoral college.

That's exactly it. So I was actually talking to Heather Cox Richardson, a great historian about this. And she was pointing out to me that originally, overwhelmingly, states gave their electoral college votes on a proportional basis, the way that like Nebraska and Maine still do. And then a few states realized, starting with Thomas Jefferson and Virginia, that if he made his state go for whoever won the majority, winner take all, that that would give them an advantage. So then every state kind of went to that system. The only way to get back to a proportional system is if all, is if enough states decide to jump together. So this is what's special about this law is that it

only takes effect when enough states have passed the law to choose the next president, which means that it's not like you're going to throw away your vote or dilute your power until the moment when everyone holds hands jumps together and then all 270 plus electoral college votes of states that have passed this law, go to whoever wins the national popular vote. And then it transforms this country. Like we end the era of swing states and safe states. Every person's ballot counts the same. The fight for voting rights laws in every state suddenly affect the whole national picture.

It would be complicated and messy, but also glorious. And I want it so bad. I love it. I've thought about it for a while now. And I've been keeping track of how close we're getting to like the. So close. Yeah. We're pretty close now.

Are you worried about the legal challenges or whether it survives legal challenges? because there's a few, there's a few arguments, legal arguments about why it might be tricky to pull off. And one of the more practical ones is that, like, it wouldn't get challenged until, like, in the midst of an election. So it has provisions in it about, like, how to be able to withdraw from it and so forth. You know, it's been, like, scrutinized in a whole bunch of different ways. And I think it's, it looks legally sound to me. I'm not a lawyer myself. I will say, even if it is completely legally legit, I'd say that this Supreme Court might find some basis in which to strike it down. So that goes.

to another thing I argue for in the book. There you go. So, you know, step one, we win the states. We start moving NIPVIC through the state, through more state legislatures. We need 48 more electoral college votes to be able to put it into effect. So when trifectives in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, New Hampshire, boom, more than enough electoral college votes. Great.

Let's add Alaska while we're at it. Yeah. But then 2028 comes along. And we existentially have to win, presidency, House, and U.S. Senate. And I think ideally we win a majority of the House delegations in a majority of states so that if Trump once again tries to mess with the Electoral College, if it's still in place in the way that it is right now, and the election goes to a vote in the House of House delegations that the election is not overturned through another coup attempts, which... How close are we to a majority of House delegations? Far. We are far. Right now, Republicans have 30 House delegation majorities. Okay.

And we have two election cycles to be able to change that. And so that is totally doable. And it's far. It's not crazy far. It's not crazy. Yeah. And there are enough states where we, where we could absolutely be able to win. It means organizing in places like Alaska where Trump won by 14 percentage points, but is now

hideously unpopular. And Mary Paltolla could win the Senate race. We could win the House race. We could win the governorship there. We could have multi-party coalitions in the legislature. Like Iowa, we could win a majority of the House seats as well as the governorship, the Attorney General's race, the U.S. Senate race. Like there are there are ways that we can flip house delegation majorities that also by the way make life better for people in those states and win U.S. Senate majorities.

So big map, big battlefield, lots to do. And my argument to people is work where you are to improve policies, you know, build, organize locally. And then choose some places, maybe one place where elections are really close. It could be adopting a house district. It could be deciding to, you know, adopt a state legislative chamber and pour yourself, get a group of friends together, pour yourself. to making a difference in that place too. This is Boat Save America's Adopt-A-State project. There you go.

Pioneering in this regard. If you do that for a couple hours a month, then, you know, add up enough months and you can have a gigantic impact, especially if you, you know, find a way to make it fun with your friends, maybe involving alcohol or, you know, some kind of beverage. Like, there's lots of ways to do this. They can feel really good when you win. This is one of the reasons I think we have so many volunteers in Wisconsin is we've found we lean into so many different fights.

People have the experience of being part of winning something, often, coming very close over and over. And it feels incredible to like stay up late, watch the returns come in and realize that you help make the difference in a nail bite or election that changes everything. Best feeling in the world. Best feeling. If you're a political nerd. Yeah.

Even if you're not, it'll make it'll be a pretty good thing. It'll turn you into political news. Landslides are great. Like, love those too. But the like if we're winning landslides, then our map's not big enough. You know what I mean? Like there's so many places where one more push can get us over the edge and let's do those places too.

So 28. We win the federal trifecta. We get through whatever coup attempt it is that Donald Trump tries to pull. And we thank goodness that we elected pro-democracy mayors and governors and attorneys general who fought back against whatever Trump's shenanigans turned out to be. We have a new president. They do an inaugural address. It's a great speech. They have an even bigger crowd than Trump's 2016 inaugural.

We're thrilled. And then, and this is a big, and then we have to actually abolish the filibuster and pass fundamental democracy reform to. to unrig the American system of government. And that is, I go sort of level by level of the American political system in the book and who's working on it, where you need to win to be able to change it. But my argument that all kind of rolls up to the plan and this is the plan is that we have to add states to unbalance the U.S. Senate. We have to reform the U.S. Supreme Court.

I think term limits is the most interesting option. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that Congress doesn't have the power to do that, then it certainly has the power to expand the number of justices. So there's another option there too. Right. We have to have some combination of a national gerrymandering ban and doubling the size of the house. I'm really interested in proportional representation for U.S. House members with multi-member districts.

These are ideas that a lot of people don't know about right now. I've read about them in the book. There's like lots of countries that do this. I mean, American history, these things have happened before. But this system right now where we've got it of the Voting Rights Act, where we can have the country completely rigged after each census and even in between the census. so most House districts, voters have no real say, where Republicans have a structural advantage in the U.S. Senate plus a filibuster that only blocks things the Democrats might want to do, essentially, it allows tax cuts for rich people and confirmation of Supreme Court justices. And then this imperial presidency, chosen through the Electoral College, that Congress can't act to do anything about because of the filibuster.

And the courts won't do anything because they have a hammerlock in the U.S. Supreme Court. It just doesn't work. It doesn't work to have a country that has a huge diversity of views in which our structures are built to ratchet things just to the right. And so what we've experienced this century is more than any other time in American history, a series of change elections where people are fed up and they vote for change. And when Republicans come, they're like, not that like that. The Republicans screw everything up.

And when Democrats come in, a whole bunch of the stuff that they campaign on, they can't do because the system is set up to block it. The U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down. the Senate filibuster blocks it. And so a lot of people feel, and I think rightly, that the economic system is not working for them, that like basic things, like being able to get healthcare or child care, they vote for people who say that they're going to deliver it, and then it doesn't come through. And if you ask yourself why that is, it is generally not that Democrats have a failure of nerve to, you know, to vote for the thing they want. The House passes these

things over and over again. It's because we have a system that is rigged against delivering for regular people. And so this is the plan maps out the plan to change that in a way that we've changed how the government functions over and over throughout history. And then about a half century ago, we stopped. We stopped the amendment in the constitution. We stopped adding states. We stopped changing how senators are elected. We stopped changing the size of the House. We stopped changing the size of the Supreme Court. All those things used to change regularly. And we've been stuck in this kind of failure mode where the change that people are vote for, organized for, cry out for, never comes. And I think it is

to change the delivery vehicle for change itself and restore the vision of the best traditions of our country and the best moments in the founding of this country, which is a system of government that actually adapts to be able to respond to the crises and needs of the time where the right of the people, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, to make their government actually work is made real. So I don't know if people realize or remember, because now it was all of five years ago, how close we were in 21 to getting rid of the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. It was just Mansion and Cinema. We're the only Democrats not willing to remove the filibuster.

They're both gone. Yeah. Cinema was replaced with Gallego, who certainly in favor of that. Yep. So we basically need a 51 vote majority. And hopefully if we elect some of these new senators and some of these tough states, they'll be there as well. you bring up the 2030 then becomes a pretty important year, not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but it's part of the plan, because we do all these things in 28.

One part of your plan is for Democrats to survive the 2030 backlash. We know there's always a backlash after there's a trifecta. There was in 2010. There could be in 2030 if this all comes to pass. And I wonder what you think about, because you're right, and you have this stat in the book that there have been more sort of change elections, like party switching power in the last however many years than there have been like all throughout history. It was like the last couple decades. Since 2000, we've had more changeovers in the White House, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate than any other

time in history. And I wonder, like, is there, sometimes I wonder this too. Is there evidence that delivering actual change, tangible change that improves people's lives makes them satisfied enough to not vote for change again, considering that, you know, Biden passed quite a bit in his first couple years. He passed the stimulus checks, aside from those, the climate investments, everything that was in the build back better bill. That was more long-term investments. Do you think that in addition to those democracy reforms in 28 Democrats need to pass legislation that, like, improves people's lives. Absolutely. Absolutely. Within those first two years. Yes. That's the whole thing. So I want to

respond kind of at three levels. Sure. All right. Level one. At the micro level, something that I think people forget and very little discussion of is that when Biden came in, the emergency measures to deal with the COVID pandemic, the expanded unemployment insurance, the child care tax credit, there was a set of things that dramatically increased the kind of disposable income for especially like the bottom third economically of the country. And it was incredibly popular at that time. And then it all went away. And so even though it is true that like wages grew from the bottom up in the in the in the Biden economy for a ton of Americans, especially the people who we were having the toughest luck in the economy, they they got a bunch of help and then suddenly

the carpet was yanked out from under them. And at the same time as prices were rising. So their experience was that their their wages, their income went down at the same time as prices were going up. And those are the exact voters who went for Trump for the first time in either of our lives. People earning less than $50,000 a year voted Republican in the 2024 presidential election. So I actually think we sort of have a counter example, like we have an example for ourselves of if people are experiencing material pain, then they will vote for change. That part we know. That part we know. We kind of saw that, right? And around the world, in every country, the governing party wound up losing ground in developed democracies in 2024,

as I as I write. And prices, inflation, cost of living was the biggest issue everywhere. But we actually were doing something serious about it. And then we stopped. And there was some policy design choices in there that I, you know, I think we should rethink how we think about that stuff in the future. So that's kind of micro level. The second level is the, I was once talking to a administration official who said, when you propose a policy, it's popular. When it's being passed, it's unpopular. When it's being implemented, it's unpopular.

But when the other side drives to take it away, it becomes popular again. And the affordable. ASEA, perfect example, right? And, you know, the battle, like a bunch of different policies that have been good for people, this quality. And to me, the goal of politics, you win in order to be able to like pass policies that make people's lives better. So it is, you know, it might not be that there's an immediate policy reward and especially policies that take a while to actually like implement and get them going. It might be that you're kind of creating something that the other side can't take away that

creates an enduring benefit for people. And I think that the ACA has proven to be an enormous help for Democrats. 2018, Republicans tried to take it away. And it was the number one. an issue. And once again, Republicans cutting Medicaid spending that was, you know, expanded through the ACA, it is an explosive issue that helps Democrats right now. So I do think that there's, even if it takes a couple cycles, I do think there's like a pretty clear path that you can draw towards if you do stuff to help people, then the party that tries to scrap it takes a price. And if we are the party that keeps doing the good things, then the Republicans trying to scrap it have a price. But the last thing, there's this, like a very macro level, this concept in political signs of political orders, which

is essentially what's not controversial in a period of time is the thing that tells you the most about that period. So after the New Deal, Eisenhower came in and he did not try to rip up the New Deal. The political order for decades was that the New Deal programs and the sort of set of economic guarantees, those were beyond politics. Through Reagan. Through Reagan, exactly. And then it came the neoliberal order. And Reagan and Reagan did union busting and deregulation and a bunch of stuff that is, you know, still raging through American politics. And a lot of that stuff wasn't contested. Both parties were kind of fighting on that terrain.

The really big goal is to build a new political order. And I think what we want is a political order for the future where which party, you know, wins might change hands, but that certain things are actually built in. To me, things that start with ensuring that nobody is like going broke because they get sick or nobody is unable to afford a place to live. There's an economic guarantees. And then the second, well, there's three things I want. One is, like, make the economy actually work for working people. And I think union rights and, you know, and the way our social insurance

programs work are two critical elements of that. There's a bunch of others. The second thing is some rights and freedoms that, like, need to be guaranteed and protected by the federal government that are absolutely under assault right now in a way that has been, you know, shocking. They're trying to repeal the civil rights movement and, you know, and so much else. And it's like any group that has achieved freedom and equality in this country as being targeted by this administration. And a lot of this stuff was nonpartisan, low-stakes stuff that both parties agreed in at different moments. There were, you know, bipartisan majorities, well, the public is still a bipartisan majority

for reproductive freedom. There was a period, you remember when Republicans attacked trans people in North Carolina and it was like a giant uproar? This idea that attacking trans people is this great popular regis shoot for Republicans doesn't need to be that way. The public is not always naturally inflamed about, you know, whether gender identity should be a political battlefield. I'd like to get to a world where everyone's humanity is something that we can, like a starting point. And the third one is democracy itself, which is for most of, you know, there are periods when the fight over this basic question of whether

we'll have majority rule in this country isn't really up for grabs every election. And one reason why we keep telling ourselves that the next election is the most important election of our lifetimes is because we keep having this question of whether it will be the last free election that America ever has. I'd like to get a little bit away from the precipice. And that leaves tons of stuff that we can contest. And I think a natural access that makes sense is the kind of like, what is, you know, this kind of size of government, role, government, and public life. There's lots of different issues that divide most Republicans from most Democrats that we can argue over. And I think having competitive pressure pushes both parties to try to figure out how to

govern more effectively. I think excellence in public service and government is produced more when they're electoral stakes and you might lose power if you don't do a good job. All those things are good. But building a political order where this kind of like, you don't feel as though the ground might crack open beneath you and swallow. Not every election is like a mannequin struggle. Yeah, I would like to turn down the stakes a little bit. And, you know, you can, you can, you can I don't know if it would be helpful for the political podcasting business if fine. Yeah, I'll take that. I'll take this right.

I'll take it. Speaking of high stakes, I know that you're staying neutral in the primary in Wisconsin in the governor's race until the bitter end. I know you're not neutral in wanting a Democratic governor in that state who will be responsible for, among other things, certifying the presidential result in 2028. Is that a reason for primary voters in Wisconsin to think about electability differently this year than they normally would. I think that Wisconsin voters think about electability a lot.

We have over and over experienced, you know, what happens when we lose. It does not be good. We've had that Wisconsin, I argue in the book, Wisconsin is like a mini version of what the country is going through right now because we had our authoritarian breakthrough came when Scott Walker won in 2010 and then tried to rig our political system and, you know, defund schools and public services and smash unions, all this stuff, the same way Donald Trump has done on a national level now. So we have experienced our own state level, you know, authoritarian moment, the same way lots of states in the south have continued to experience it.

And I think there's a big debate about, you know, what is electable right now, who's going to vote, how do you energize people? And then this like tradeoff of like, what do you get when you win? What is the issue that animates you? All that is like legitimate grounds for having a debate and for people making the different arguments. Wisconsin has this great tradition I write about in the book. is the birthplace of the progressive movement, capital P progressive movement. And one of the reforms of the progressive movement that started in Wisconsin swept the nation is direct primaries to choose your nominee,

where the people decide who the nominee will be. And the party, when the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which I used to chair, I'm an advisor to the new chair, Devin Remmermerichers, I think doing a killer job, very hard job. One of the party's core commitments in our Constitution is that the party itself doesn't put its thumb on the scale, even if elected officials and public, you know, citizens and groups and unions and everybody does their, different endorsements, the party is neutral in the primary so that voters can decide who they want their nominee to be. And then the party can play a role of saying to everybody, hey, like,

even though that was tough and messy and complicated, we're going to like put that behind us. We're going to unite. And we're going to do everything we can to chew through concrete and win the general election. And that is my own role in this fight. And that's what I invite everyone to do. You feel confident that no matter who wins the primary, that, I mean, you know, these candidates personally, do you think that all of them, like, could definitely beat Tom Tiffany? I think that there's a path with each of these candidates. And I think that what that path looks like is actually a little different with the different candidates. And they are building the coalitions around them based on their approach to campaigning and their arguments they're making, the positions that

they have and their own stories. And the thing that would cause us to lose is if we lose the nerve to say that we can win, if Democrats decide the day after the primary that, oh, well, I guess we're not going to win, then they will not win. But if they say, you know what, this is a state where over and over 13 times since 2000, we've had elections that come down to one percentage point or less, and donating that extra buck, like knocking on that extra door, calling that extra friend could be the thing that tips the entire state. If we bring that kind of will to the race, I think that any of the candidates can beat Tom Tiffany and Wisconsin can be a thriving democracy for the future. Last question. What is your thought process like?

as you consider potentially running in the state that you love in Wisconsin? Well, I love the living shit out of my state. I just think Wisconsin is the greatest state. And I will think about what I do in the future and the future. I think my just obsession right now is to make sure that Wisconsin not only wins the governorship, but as I've mentioned, the state legislative chambers in November. and those will come probably down to a couple hundred votes in a few different communities around the state. Like it has been the work of years to unrig our state legislative maps to get to this point where we have a shot at winning majorities in both legislative chambers.

And next year it could be a blooming of democracy and workers' rights and ability of folks to get health care, all this stuff, if we can win the trifecta in Wisconsin in the next 99 days. So I have this book. I want to spread the gospel of like rolling up. Bruce Lee was getting involved. I want to make sure that people see the kind of hope that we've experienced in my state by building this kind of permanent campaign on a year-round basis. I want more places to do that. And then I'm going to just throw myself into with everything I've got into the fight in my state. And then I'll figure out what's next. Well, I've said this on the pod when you're not here, that as a Democrat and a citizen,

I wanted you to be DNC chair because I think it would have been good for the party and good for the country. As your friend, sort of glad you're not. because it's such a terrible job, no matter who has it. But when it comes to running for office in Wisconsin, as a citizen of Democrat and your friend, I would love you to see you to run one of these days. So think about it. Honored by the sentiment.

We need more Ben Wickler in America. Let's zero on what all of us can do right now. That is my message. This is the plan. This is the plan. He's on message. Throw ourselves into the fight. Ben Wickler.

Thanks so much. Thanks so much, Dan. That's our show for today. Thanks to Ben Wicker for coming on. Dan and I will be back with a new episode on Friday. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari, with Reed Jirlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill.

Our team includes Matt De Groot, Ben Heffcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Peloviv, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.