Pod Save America - The Democratic Party's Civil War

Episode Date: July 19, 2026

Amanda Litman, president and co-founder of Run for Something, joins Dan to talk about what the spate of divisive of primaries means for Democrats and how progressives should be feeling heading into the midterms. They dive into the recruitment and vetting crisis that led to Graham Platner dropping out of the Maine Senate race, what comes next in the fight to unseat Susan Collins, and the increasingly contentious Michigan Senate primary between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed.Want to listen to Pod Save America without the ads? Become a subscriber on Apple Podcasts, Supercast, YouTube, or Substack.For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail].

Hey, did you hear? Watermelon is back at booster juice all summer long. Nice. I love the watermelon explosion. And the watermelon wave. Yep. They even got a new watermelon assaye bowl this year. The one in a melon bowl. And what does that sound like? Like that. Booster juice. Canadian born. Blending since 1999. Welcome to Pottsaving America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. You're about to hear a great cover. I just had with Amanda Libman, co-founder and president have run for something, an organization

that has recruited more than 250,000 people to run for office since it's founding in 2017, and she's the author of when we're in charge, the next generation's guide to leadership. I invited Amanda on because I wanted to hear her perspective on where Democrats are heading into the 26 midterms, how the fight between establishment and insurgent candidates is playing out in racism across the country, especially in a heated Democratic primary in Michigan, and where the party goes from here. I also asked her about how grand platiner's decision to drop out of the main Senate race could impact Democrats' chances of taking back the Senate and what she thinks as someone who has worked with thousands of candidates about the recruitment and vetting process that led him to jump into the race. It was a great

conversation and we'll get to it in a minute. But before we do, if you want more analysis heading into the midterms, consider subscribing to my newsletter of the message box where I pull back from day-to-day punitry to offer deeper analysis on the trends affecting our politics. Go to Crooked.com slash yes we, Dan, for a 20% discount on your subscription. And as always, consider becoming a paying subscriber to Friends of the Pod where you'll get this episode and many more ad-free, which now includes ad-free episodes of Alex Wagner's phenomenal runaway country, head to Crooked.com slash friends to subscribe today. All right, here's Amanda Litman.

Amanda Litman, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thanks for having me, Dan. I wanted to have you on for so many reasons. I want to talk about the midterms. I want to talk about the battle within the Democratic Party between the insurgents and the establishment, the left, the right, et cetera. But I feel like the best place to start, maybe the worst place to start with this conversation, is main a topic we've talked a lot about. Now, I don't think we need to go through

our own personal histories with Graham Platner or who we liked or when we liked them. We've all done that I went deep with Alex Wagner on last week's pod. You've written about this. You've talked about it. You've tweeted about it. I want your perspective as someone who has worked with thousands of candidates about how we ended up in the situation. And I want to begin with a candidate recruitment process. Dana Morath and Leanne Fan, two progressive activists who have done a very aggressive media tour about their plans for recruiting Grand Platner. They went looking for a candidate in Maine. They looked through FEC records. They looked for a lobster man. Then they looked for an oyster farmer. Then they saw a video of Grand Platner.

They went with met with them, convinced them to run for office. This has come under a withering critique from lots of people. What did they do right? What did they do wrong? What's your take on this recruitment process? And we'll get to the vetting after this because that's a different topic. but related, obviously. What did they do right? They looked for someone new. I think that's good. I think we should open the door

to as many new voices as possible. We should expand our idea of what a good candidate looks like. That's the end of the list of things they did right. What they did wrong is you cannot play Kingmaker, and you really cannot play MADLibs with candidate recruitment. You cannot look at a state like Maine or any district and say, you know what, we need X kind of occupation,

Y demographic, Z type of politics. going to make this person into a candidate. One, we have no idea who the fuck can win. We have no idea. But two, it leaves open so much space for it to feel like a puppet master is creating the candidate as opposed to the candidate coming up organically. It is possible that he, like notwithstanding all of his other personal stuff, that he might have come up through and, you know, seen an ad run for something or gone to a main Democratic Party event and said, you know, what, maybe I, maybe I do see myself here. And then gone through the kind of rigorous, thoughtful process you need before you actually get on the ballot. That maybe could have been so.

But they did not do that. They said, we're going to make this man into a senator. And they tried to puppet master it into being. That will backfire any number of ways. I obviously agree with all of that. The, like people have to want to run for office. You have to start with that, right? Which is, and we'll talk a lot about run for something in the course of this conversation, but people find you because they want to run for something. Yes. And I think. I think it's really important to say that running for office sucks. Like it is miserable. It is hard. You are your life is going to be under a microscope. You need to want to do it anyway. We should not convince people to run. We should open the door to them and then if they say yes, help them walk through it.

We shouldn't push them through it. So that's one aspect of this, right, trying to take someone who doesn't want to profit and get them to run for it. Or is you never thought about it, right? It's one thing to you've kind of thought about it for a while. You're, you know, maybe you want to do it. Maybe you don't. You're weighing considerations and then people try to convince them to do it. The party committees do that all the time. That's how Janet Mills ended up in this race, which is she didn't really want to run for office. And I guess she just had to run. So Schumer would stop calling her. Yes. But there's another element of this, too, that has gotten a lot of attention, which is they went looking for a very specific type of person. Now, this to me doesn't seem that different from what the D-T

C or other organizations do, right? They, you know, they look at a district. They look at the political environment, they say these are the kinds of people who should run, who would be good candidates in this district or in this political environment. In the 2006 cycle, the D-T-TRAC in Arama Mania went out, recruited a whole bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to run for office, you know, an environment where people very anti-war very upset with Rock, won a lot of races that way. D. Chbill C, this cycle has looked at, in the past we've looked at prosecutors, sheriffs, still veterans, you know, fired federal workers or a group here. Is there anything wrong with thinking about like the kind of profession that would be the right

people? Like it's like I understand the idea from these people's perspective, which is we want a working class candidate in Maine, right? And we can like there's all kinds of conversations about what whether a group partner was actually working class, but let's just put that aside for a second. And what is a great job in Maine to be a working that is like says I am Maine in their original conception was lobster rent. Like let's get someone who fishes for lobsters.

Is there anything wrong with that approach, that sort of casting call approach to it? I think it assumes that we know who can win, which sometimes we'll make a good guess. But like, you can come up with dozens of examples of people who would never have been asked to run. Barack Obama being another, like a top of the list. Who would have asked the one-term state senator, two-term state senator, con law professor to run for higher office? No one. Who would have asked someone like Lauren Underwood, a nurse who was a black woman and a majority white district to run for office? Who would have asked AOC?

Who would have asked, you know, Ayanna Presley? These leaders who are truly amazing public figures in our party who you probably wouldn't have picked if you were going to start from scratch, but who because they care, because they had problems they want to solve, and the offices that they saw gave them power to solve it decided to get in the fight. So I think it is so risk-averse, and we are at a moment where our party can't afford to be risk-averse. Yeah, and I want to talk about how the platinum thing affects

our risk aversion in a second. But let's pivot to the vetting because there's never been so much talk about vetting in history. And in part, once again, because Marath and Fan did these interviews where they almost giddily admitted to barely vetting Platner. How do you think about the process of candidate vetting? It obviously did not work here. But like what is a, what can one reasonably expect to find out? And like what were the failure points here? So I'll say, Rodin for something has endorsed more than 4,000 candidates over the last. 10 years. I believe we've had to rescind fewer than a dozen of those endorsements in the last decade. It's a pretty good track record. And for those incidences, there have been things that have come up

after the campaign has already started. Now, part of us, we work on the local level. The stakes are a little bit different there. But also, we do deep background checks. We do social media scraps. We ask local operatives. We dig deeper. We also ask candidates, and this I think is the most important part that Platner would have failed here. What are we going to find? Like, what is the oppo report on you? What is the opposition going to say? If your worst secrets are on the front page of the newspaper, what's that headline going to read and how are you going to feel about it?

I think for us, and this is true of our most vetting reports, what the candidate says in their own, like, self-oppo is the nut to crack. And it doesn't seem like Platner was going to be honest about those things. Maybe he didn't think they were flags in the first place or he didn't remember them, whatever it might be for some of them. I think that is where, like, it really matters that people want to do this so that they can be very open and honest with the teams and voters, more importantly, about what they're going to find.

Yeah, I really have been struggling with this because, as you say, the process, you know, and it's different levels, right? What you guys would do for a state Senate candidates is different than what theoretically should happen in a high-profile Senate race, and that is light years apart from what would happen in a presidential race. Which is why you don't pluck people from obscurity to run for Senate. Right. Right. And who don't want to, right? Like that is the thing. And so in, if you look at the Platner thing, like there's, there is the social media posts. Now, a good vetting should have found that because CNN found it. And I don't know whether he told them that he had been doing a lot of Reddit posting in an earlier stage of life. I imagine that that would have been something that would have been easier to say than some of the other things have happened. That should have been found. The tattoo is an interesting one. I've thought about this a lot. Like, what is the, um, I don't know that in any can I questionnaire is, well, there will be now, I guess.

Do you have any Nazi-like tattoos? Do you have any problematic tattoos? Let me, like, disrobe so I can examine your tattoos. His nasty tattoos not showing up in a Lexis nexus or Google search about his history or public record search. But if you had talked to lots of people around them, some of them might have said, because this is one of the reason why you talk to people is they want to help their friends and family do this right and not get embarrassed. So they will often tell you things like, you know, just one thing. I would ask him about is there's this kind of weird tattoo, you know, that like that could have come up. But like, you also see how that falls through the cracks in a traditional, particularly

if you believe, which I am now very skeptical of, that he did not know until that it was Nazi related until the end. Now, I don't believe that he got it to be a Nazi, but I don't think he's been truthful about when he found out. I do think like it is worth thinking about what are the things good vetting would have found and what are the things that we never could have known. Yeah, the Reddit post stuff should have been found. for sure. And then you get to his relationships with women. I mean, I can't believe we're having to have this conversation about this, but the quote-unquote consensual sexting that went on was discovered in the vetting process. His wife did what she was supposed to do, which is she told the campaign.

She had the exact question that you raised. She answered with there was this. And the campaign made a decision not to deal with it in any way shape or form or not to proactively disclose it. you know, that came back to bite them. And then the other stuff, like the toxic nature of those relationships, the sexual assault allegation are things that a campaign can only find out if the candidate tells them. If the candidate is unwilling to tell them, they may never know because it just doesn't show up in that. Now, once again, in a presidential level vetting or a VP level vetting, the campaign

would have gone out and talked to all the ex-girlfriends. I don't know that that's a reasonable expectation for a Senate race, but a partner is a failure of vetting on one end, but the things that ended his campaign is a failure of character on his part to be willing to tell them to the campaign, right? I'm not trying to defend Maraf and fan, but it's just, I've gotten so many questions about vetting in this process. I think it's just worth to help people understand, like, what is reasonable. And they failed miserably, but ultimately the failure was also planners. I think that's right. And I think his failure, to be honest with them, even about some of the things, should have been the red flag for the people talking to him.

Yes. Yes. Yes, that's exactly right. There were clearly red flags that in their interactions with him that should have raised more questions that led to more vetting. So in my conversations with, you know, listeners to this show, Democrats out there, there's a fair amount of defeatism about Maine post-Platon. The sense that we had this golden opportunity, everything went wrong, wrong candidate, wrong approach from the DSEC to kind of clear the field. So we ended up with this choice between a flawed candidate and a candidate who, you know, who didn't really want to run and couldn't beat that flawed candidate. How are you feeling about the race going forward? And we're recording this on Thursday a couple of hours before the first debate that the main

Democratic Party is holding for the nomination to replace Platner. I think the main Democratic Party so far has done a pretty good job of setting up a process that people feel like they can be a part of. Because I think that was the real danger was like the party would just pick somebody and then like force it down voters' throats, for lack of a better term, or done their choice, their menu. They seem to have set up a process that gives people a voice. And it seems like all of the candidates who are jumping in, at least have some amount of run through the ringer, whether they ran for governor, they ran for Congress, they're public businessmen. There's like, there's not as many nobodies.

I am still cautiously optimistic. I mean, Maine is a state that voted for Kamala. Susan Collins is deeply unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. There does seem to be like a deep frustration with Susan Collins among. mainers, it's not a foregone conclusion that it's a non-starter. I am curious to see how quickly whoever takes the nomination can raise money and what Platner does with his money and his infrastructure and how much he really engages with the potential nominee or if he, as his dropout

video seem to indicate, harbors a lot of ill will towards this process. Yeah, like his money is incredibly useful. Now, he can only give a small amount of it to the nominee, but he could theoretically give it all to the DSEC of the DNC and the DNC, can then, now thank you to the Roberts Court, use that money in a fully coordinated fashion to spend it and unlimitedly on behalf of the nominee. You know, I feel, and maybe this is just cope on my part, I, and this is going to depend on how the process plays out. But if the process plays out like I hope it will, which is, I agree, the main Democratic Party is doing so far a great job.

Ideally, you'd have another primary. everyone get a vote. That is not obviously logistically feasible on this very tight timeline. This is certainly better than just the party committee voting on one person behind closed doors. This is at least people, it'll happen. There'll be a couple debates. It'll happen. But this convention will be very interesting. Lots of people will watch it. People will get a test. This is kind of what might have helped us better into that in 2024. If other people had wanted to run against Kamala, they didn't. So we never had that process. But there's like a testing ground here where you'll get to see.

if some of these people, you know, it's not exactly like a primary campaign, but it's as close as we're going to get. So I think that's good. I think we are, if the process plays out and we end up with a candidate without a Nazi tattoo or a bunch of other things, we're in a better position than we probably would have been had we ended up with either Platner or Mills, Platner in this, like in this state. It was Platterner before the sexual assault like an allegation, just Platner as he was on primary day, or Mills is the nominee. Like I think we actually have a chance at this rate. could, God forbid, be about Susan Collins, which is what you wanted to be? Because in that Times poll, that we're an even platinum, after all the stuff was going on,

was still winning by two points, by, I think it's an 11-point margin, people in Maine want the Democrats to control the Senate. So if you can actually just make this race about a vote for Susan Collins as a vote to let Donald Trump control the Senate, put Supreme Court justices on, do all these bad things. Like, you have a real shot. If you can just have a generic Democrat who is a, like, generic Democrat is the right one. You need a talented generic Democrat, right? Someone who can just isn't flawed, can campaign well, but allows the focus to be on the candidate, on Susan Collins, not their own personal foibles like that.

But that seems like in some ways are like a decent shot. I still think we have a very real shot to win this race. I really do. I do too. And I think the candidate who takes this nomination forward sort of has an indicator of where voters are now, like can really speak to the anger that, you know, Platterner for all of his fuckups. and there are many. Like, he caught fire. Something like 1% of Maine was volunteering for his campaign.

He spoke to the anger and the frustration that people feel. He put forward some real, like, clarity of positions. And the nominee who moves forward should be able to tap into that, even if they weren't able to capture it in the primary themselves. You know, I got served a TikTok video, a Platner, because, you know, obviously nothing on TikTok is connected to the calendar. So it actually was posted weeks and weeks ago. And it's Plattenor talking about how we have to stop making this between left and right.

And we got to point fingers up, not down. That's not pointing each other. It's about the billionaires. So like that is a legitimately good message that someone else could also have. And it also is a reminder of it does remind you because I think some of the discourse is, you know, it's all because, you know, Potsie America's taking a lot of slings and arrows over this. But it's all because these dumb podcasts or the other people like Plotter's, like Platner that he wanted. People forget he actually got 70% of the vote in the primary and

blew the doors off the two-term incumbent governor. Like he was doing something. He was the wrong vessel, but he was doing something that people of Maine very much wanted. And they were all very well aware of everything up until this last, until the sexual assault delegation, very aware of his things. And they still wanted him. And that's, there's something in there that Democrats have to take from that. And I would add, because I have also taken some heat here. And I, I share the frustration of like, this was at no point ever a clearly moral right or wrong. Because at every point up until he dropped out, it was either him or Susan Collins and a Trump-chalked Supreme Court. Like, those were the choices. Which is better for women?

Graham Platner in the United States Senate or Trump Supreme Court justices. Ah, you know, like it was bad. It was all bad. And I am so glad that he ultimately did the right thing and stepped aside. and I am glad that we get a chance so that those are not our only two choices. What do you think about outside of Maine? And we'll talk about some of the other races coming in the House and Senate map. But you know, you and I have both argued, you've done this very eloquently, that Democrats need to be willing to take bigger risk. We have to change the way we're doing things.

We have to change the way we communicate, the way we campaign, the kind of candidates we think about, that the way the establishment is doing things has been not as effective as we would like a debate. it does in the Platner debate prior to the most recent stuff but even through up into the Reddit post and the Nazi tattoo was a little bit of a proxy for this battle between it's in some ways it's between the left in the middle but in some ways it's also between people who want real change and people who want less change within the party and it does like my worry with this is and I'm going to get to Michigan because I think these things are tied. together in some ways. But it, like, I worry that people take this as a argument against taking risks, against

candidates, and widen the aperture on the kinds of candidates that were open to, because Platner was in it was obviously a very unique candidate with a unique background, but he blew up in our face. So therefore, ergo, the conclusion is we got to be more traditional. Like, what's your take on that? Are you seeing that to? I find that to be such an empty argument because it's not like Janet Mills was the right choice either. She was the establishment's call. She was Schumer's pick. Schumer cleared the field for her as we have seen Notice and others do very in-depth reporting on.

Like, they kicked, they got candidates to leave that race so that Janet Mills would run for the United States in it. And then they begged and pleaded her to get in. And then not only do they leave her hanging out to dry when she was stopped being able to raise money. But it is telling that she's not throwing her hat in the ring to win the nomination now. She doesn't want to do this. She is not the path forward. So to say that this proves that the establishment always gets a right and the new people always get it wrong. No, this is villains on all sides here. Everyone got this wrong.

Yeah. I think it's exactly right. And I just, like, I just, I don't want people to think that this means that outsider candidates. You need the right outsider candidates, but we shouldn't have outsider candidates. And the conversation around this is so, like, stupid, basically. Because the thing people keep saying, like, you have Federman and you have Platner. And I'm just like, Federman was a prominent mayor for years and years and years. And then he was lieutenant governor.

He was not, like, he dresses like an outsider. He has some, prior to his most recent ideological shift. But he was a progressive Democrat who endorsed Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. and I mean he was campaigned he was a mayor in 2008 campaigning with Obama and so this idea that it's just no one wants to have the real conversation about this and like just that this is either either this is all about Platner or there's a specific type of candidate you want and that can be on both sides of this right like everyone's got to reckon with with what you know with the reality here but this I just we we need so we need outsider candidates they don't have to be grand Platner they should be better than Grand Platner. planter, our insider candidates should be better than Eric Swalwell. Yep. And Andrew Cuomo, like this. I mean, that was when it was like, well, the establishment does a good job betting. Do we? Do we? Do we have proof of that? I just, I do think that like some of the emotion around this race both comes to the stakes of it where people like obviously, if we do not win Maine or a state like it, we will not

hold the Senate, it will be devastating for generations. And the sense that, especially for people who really believed in him, it's a sense of betrayal of grief of like, I thought I, I, I, I thought I, I had a politician I could get excited about, and he disappointed me and broke my heart. And so I have some amount of empathy for the high feelings on all sides of this, but also the task now is to win and to make sure we don't make this mistake again. Pod Save America is brought to you by Act Blue. If you've been listening to the pod, you already know the stakes. Act Blue is the platform that's been powering Democratic campaigns for over two decades,

giving candidates up and down the ballot the tools they need to fundraise, organize, build websites, and win. and this year they've launched an organizing platform built specifically for the people doing the work, Act Blue Field Tools. Winning elections doesn't start in October. It happens now. Act Blue Field Tools mobilizes volunteer energy at scale

by bringing texting, phone banking, and canvassing into one platform, already powering over 350,000 volunteers across all 50 states. Act Blue handles the logistics so your team can focus on what actually moves voters, meaningful, real conversations. Act Blue never sells your data or personal information so you can stay focused on what matters most, donating, organizing, and helping Democrats win.

This November, the elections could come down to just a few hundred votes. The work that wins those races starts this summer, and it starts with you. Get started at actblue.com slash crooked. Positive America is brought to you by fast-growing trees. Fast-growing trees is America's largest online nursery, with thousands of trees and plants for every space and climate, and they make it easy to get plants that actually work for your yard, delivered right to your door.

Fast-growing trees has shipping plants down to a literal science. Every plant is hand-picked and carefully inspected, and their packaging is designed specifically to keep them secure in transit so they don't get damage. They even have a lab where they test the best packaging material to protect against cold, heat, humidity, and much more. So when your plants arrive, they look like you just bought them at the local nursery. Plus, every order is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee. So in the off chance, you do have any issues with your delivery. You are covered.

We have tons of fast-growing trees. Plants here at the office, they look great. They showed up looking perfect. They give you advice on the layout and what will do well in the climate in your area. They tell you how to keep them alive and healthy, which for a lot of us is the hard part. All the soil remained in place. You know, there's no big mess when they opened the box. So highly recommend it.

Right now, they have great deals on summer planting essentials and listeners get an additional 20% off your first order with the code crooked at checkout. That's 20% off at fastgrowingtrees.com with the code crooked. Terms and conditions apply. All right. Let's pivot to your hometown of New York City, which has been ground zero for the rise of Democratic Socialism. and beginning first with Bamdani and then the races that happened in the New York primary,

two incumbents were unseated and two DSA candidates, one races, one unseating a long-term incumbent, one winning an open seat. And then in Colorado, where we had a 30-year Democrat incumbent in Diana to get unseated by a Democratic socialist. What do you make of the rise of democratic socialism? Is this something that is this about? socialism? Is it about the fact that these are all districts that Kamala Harris won by more than 50 points? What's your take on what's happening here? I think voters are hungry for someone offering

them a solution to their problems, especially young people who cannot afford to buy a house, cannot afford child care, or stuck with student loan debt, feel like they have no agency in their lives. They are looking to gambling or crypto or whatever it is, because at the very least, that feels like something you might have some control over. They are pissed. They are frustrated with the status quo. and DSA candidates are saying, here's a solution. They're offering an alternative. The establishment or the center or the old guard could also do the same. And I think it is telling to me that they are not putting forward like a vision for what else could be possible.

You know, the fact that Mamdani was able to speak to the, not just the anxiety that people feel about their economic situation, but also like how they feel about what their life might hold. Like it wasn't just afford to live. It was afford to dream. It was afford to be able to imagine a better future for yourself. I think also DSA has built some organizing muscle in a lot of these places, which should not be underrated. And their candidates are selling something. That matters. If you look at the polling, there is just absolutely no question that socialism has grown in favor with Democratic voters over the last many years here.

In the New York Times-Syana poll, every single demographic, every single age court cohort of Democrats, a plurality of Democrats. a plurality of Democrats have a favorable opinion of socialism. Interestingly enough, I find this to be so fascinating. The group with the highest approval rating of or highest favorability rate of socialism is not 18 to 29-year-olds. It's 30 to 44. That's millennials, baby. Yes.

And who you know, I was telling this with Fever, I think, but it does make sense. If you are of an age where you came of age in the Great Recession, like you really have been through the ringer in a way that. is where capitalism has really fucked you, like, at every turn. And you're also at the age where you want to be buying a house. And you either can't afford to do it or it's more expensive. You can. You have kids.

Like, you're at it. But socialism has grown in favor. And capitalism has lost support across the board with everyone in recent years, also understandably. So I think there is something to, like, it was easy to dismiss Mom Dani as a generational talent. Just like that guy could have been Democratic Socialist. He could have, whatever. He could, he was so good. He's so good. But these other candidates are, they're good, but it's not generational talent that's winning. And so they are, people want big change. And the left is more comfortable offering big change than the center. It doesn't mean there can't be a moderate version of something

that addresses in a compelling, understandable, credible way, the cost of health care, housing, food, whatever else, like, you can do that, just have been unwilling to do it. And there is just something in, there's a passion in how that is different with a, not every, but with a lot of leftist for center candidates that comes through, that reads as authenticity, and that you'll fight for them, right? Like, I was struck, I remember there's a clip from the Diana to get. Mila Kiroz debate, where Diana DeGette is making an argument about a public option, which in a different era, that was a position too liberal for the Democratic Senate and the Obama era when Obama was trying to do it. And it's like a, you know, she's sort of living

in the world of the legislatively possible. And Kierrez makes this very passionate argument for Medicare, the morality behind Medicare for all and why it's the right thing to do. And it's just like the difference there, part of it is generational. Part of it is, inside or outside of, but part of it also is that's an easier argument to make in the moment. Now, we can talk about how hard it is to make maybe in a general election, but in the moment, there's just they're offering something that is different. Now, do you, there is real concern among even well-meaning, I think, people in the establishment, the people who are trying to win the House and the Senate, that this rise of Democrats, and I should say, thus far,

Democrats have not nominated any DSA candidates in races that aren't guaranteed democratic races. So we're not in a situation where a bunch of these candidates are knocking off more, you know, they're not knocking off, they're not running, they're not winning a nomination in a district where they would be

very, very far to the left of the district that's happening in the blue districts in the country, which is probably how the primary process is supposed to work. But, you know, you do have an upcoming race with Democratic Socialists in Wisconsin, running for governor. But I think a lot of Democrats have this fear that this could cost us the House and the Senate, either by DSA candidates winning primaries where they are to the left of the district or just being tarnishing the already tarnished brand of the Democrats. What's your take?

The Democratic brand can't get much worse. What do we do in here, guys? But we're going to try. I'll tell you that. You know, I do think that, just to speak to that particular point, where like, if a candidate can't comfortably say, you know what, I don't agree with my future. on XYZ issue, but I look forward to working together to find a way to bring everyone affordable health care. Like, you're not a good politician. You don't have to agree with all of your colleagues and everything. You can respectfully dismiss them and look forward to working together. To the point of, like, how are I thinking about the bigger picture here, you know, these candidates,

where they're running and winning, they are getting people excited. Shouldn't we want people to be excited about this process? Like these DSA meetings like them or not, and like, I'm not a DSA member. That's not where I sit ideologically, but I look at those meetings and there's young people showing up. They are volunteering. They are donating. They are participating in very boring conversations about process. That is what building a political party looks like. We should want that and we should try to make the broader Democratic Party a place where that is possible. Now, I will say, run for something last year had nearly over the last 18 months, I've had about 100,000 people raised their hands to run for office. That is more than we had in the entirety of Trump's first term. the thing that we have heard different over this year and the last than we didn't hear in Trump 1.0

was frustration with the Democratic Party was people explicitly saying I am running for office because they are not going to fight for me they have not delivered for me they do not see me they do not care about me so the DSA is giving those people a home the Democratic Party like you know big D could do the same yeah I mean it's there's no question you know I'm not overly worried about I mean they called Barack Obama socialist and there were no they called Joe Biden is socialist. Like, what are we doing here? We could elect no DSA candidates, and they would call swing state Democratic member candidates socialists. Like that would happen. I mean, you know this from all the races run is you would

need candidates who are ideologically fit their district. These DSA candidates obviously fit their district. The voters said that. That's what they declared. And, you know, in Bulls that maybe, you know, so far, like, there have been some non-DSA candidates who have won some primaries that some people believe. were against, you know, I'm thinking about Maine 2, Randy Villegas, where like the establishment had a view on who was the best candidate to win, the more progressive candidate won. We'll find out in a few months who was right.

Actually, I take the back. We'll never find out who was right because it's always a counterfactual. We don't know what the other person would have won. The DSA thing is I think it's become a little bit like the Platner thing, where it's become a proxy for something else, It's the easiest boogeyman for some of the center groups to say, to fight something else or something broader. Because Democrats are becoming more liberal. That is true on almost every issue.

It is true that the number of Democrats who describe themselves as very liberal has gone of significantly since Trump was elected. The number, how Democrats feel about a whole bunch of issues, particularly Israel, which we'll get to, has changed dramatically. And so, but that's not like that, that is controlled. to the rise of DSA, but it's not because of the rise of DSA. I also struggle a lot with, like, what is the, who is the target for that argument that, like, DSA candidate shouldn't win these races? Like, I'm a New York City voter. Are you telling me that I should pick my mayor based on who might cause tarnish to the Democratic

Party brand as a mythical voter in Wisconsin? Like, what an insane thing to suppose or to suggest? I really, I struggle with this because it assumes, much like the left assumes that there is some secret cabal in charge who can, you know, control. how elections are run or can control what candidates say, if anybody was in charge, do you think this is how it would go? Yes. Yes, yes. It is voters making their voices heard on who they want to represent them,

and we should be grateful that they are participating and that there are candidates that get them excited to show up. We should learn from that. There are exceptions. I am someone who generally believe. Like, I am, I've gotten more progressive in my personal views as I've gotten older. I've also live in California now, so maybe those two things are related. Sure.

But I still, you know, I grew up working on races in red states and red districts. Like that's my background. So I'm very cognizant that you need people who meet their district and that you're going to need candidates who are often to the right of the median Democrat nationally to win in some of this. Especially we want to expand the Senate map. We want to get back to a place where we can win Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, you know, places in the south. We have to do that. But I think, and there is a, and I think more Democrats should generally. be aware of the challenges, like just how, you know, how the Republican bias in the Senate

map, the Republican bias in the electoral college and the reality of winning these districts. And you can't, you're like what exists in your bubble is not what exists in out there in a lot of places we have to win. Having said that, I think one of the great mistakes of the people making that argument is that they never offer, it's always to tear down. a it's we're anti-d-sa, we're anti-Zoron, like Zoron getting elected was like this is the third way argument. Doron getting elected to be like the end of the world, especially when the other option was. Cuomo.

Cuomo. I would just say there's a great irony between the most vehemently anti-Platon people being the most vehemently pro-Quomo people, just as a point. I mean, just to like really hammer this home, if you were so afraid of DSA, there was a multitude of other options in that primate you could have galvanized around. Even right now, and I'm sure we'll talk about Michigan in a moment. Like, if you are so afraid of Abdul-Sal-Aid, there was other options besides Haley Stevens, who they are currently having to spend $53 million to try and get over the finish line. It didn't have to be her. Mallory McMorrow, who you and I both know and supported and, like, a run for something along, was right there.

Now, I'm actually glad that she did not get the establishment support. I think that would have tarnished her campaign further. But putting aside for that for a moment, you have to put something forward. We talk, I mean, this is literally run for something. You have to have a vision, a solution. You have to talk to the problems that people are experiencing because voters are actually not progressive or conservative or moderate or centrist. They have problems that they want solved.

And they want politicians who will do that so that they don't have to care anymore. The center could pose that. They could put forward candidates who do that. It is so telling and frustrating that instead they choose to punch left. And also, they are punching left instead of possibly creating space for Republicans to come in, for other Democrats to come in? Like, they are doing the thing that drives me crazy, which is yelling at the enemy who can hear them,

as opposed to yelling at the enemy who can solve their problems. Pod Save America is brought to you by AG1. Summer is always a perfect time to unwind to throw your schedule out the window and prioritize adventure. With AG1, that doesn't have to mean letting your health fall by the wayside. AG1 is a daily health drink with a multivitium pre-im probiotic superfoods and antioxidants. The easy delivery system means you get high-quality, nutritional support every single day,

no matter where or when you start your morning. AG1 helps to maintain energy, support gut health, and support immune health. The next gen formula delivers 75 ingredients clinically shown to support gut health, fill common nutrition gaps, and improve keen nutrient levels within three months. When you're traveling, it's great to throw something like AG1 into your bag. So you know that, like, you're in your hotel. Maybe you're getting something quick on your way out the door. Maybe you're like eating like at the airport, whatever.

And if you have it with you, you know that like no matter how badly you're going to eat on the road or maybe you want to eat badly in the road because you're going to Texas or something. You're just going to barbecue the whole fucking time. bring AG1 with you. I love it. I had something this morning. Visit drinkag1.com slash crooked to get a free AG1 travel case with seven free AG1 travel packs

in your welcome kit with your first AG1 subscription order while supplies last. That's drinkag1.com slash crooked. Hey, did you hear? Watermelon is back at booster juice all summer long. Nice. I love the watermelon explosion.

And the watermelon wave. Yep. They even got a new watermelon. watermelon assaye bowl this year. The one in a melon bowl. And what does that sound like? Mmm. Like that.

Booster juice. Canadian born. Blending since 1999. All right. Let's go to Michigan, which is the race that is supplanted Maine as the center of the Democratic Party Civil War. We haven't talked about it a ton on this show, in part because Abdul worked for Crooked, did a hat podcast for Crooked. John John and Tommy have supported his campaign. I supported Malik M.

where it's the one race where we actually had actually supported candidates. It just had both had actually like donated money to primary candidates. Like that's not something that happened with Platner or anything like that. Just this is one where they knew Abdul. I know Abdul. I like Abdul. I know Mallory. I thought I think Mallory's great. So I wanted to support Mallory.

But so this race is now down. Mallory dropped out a couple weeks ago. It's now down to Haley Stevens, a moderate establishment back Congresswoman. and Abdul Saeed is, but it's become the center of the Democratic Party Civil War. There is just the amount of attention it's getting, particularly online from the most online democratic activists and pundits, is huge. It is really established, it's everything, right? It's establishment versus outsider.

It's Bernie versus establishment, I guess, or Senate leadership. It's anti-Israel versus A-PAC, all of the above. Do you have a take on this race? I think it is a preview of the 2028 presidential primary that makes me want to throw my phone into the sea. I know. It's just, I think it's interesting. It's hard. I don't envy Michiganders who have to make this choice.

And I really hope that whoever wins this primary can build, like build some bridges, men, some fences. Because I think it's getting people really, really, really angry in a way that will be hard to fix. It reminds me a lot of the 2016 presidential memory where it just feels very similar and no matter who wins they're going to have to work very hard. It's a long road back to you. Yes. Yes. I struggle with several things in this race, which is my original beef in Maine was the DSCC endorsing Janet Mills. Like I was kind of interested in Platonor, but main thing was like, let's just let the people Maine decide, and I was very concerned. I thought, I've talked about this many times, but I just thought the Mills decision was sort of a political mistake. I thought the decision to back Haley Stevens

over Mallory and Abdul, I thought was also a crazy decision. I thought you should stay out of it. But where we are now is this has become a lot about a quote unquote electability. And the argument of the Stevens people and Stevens campaign fairly directly is that Abdul's, cannot win or is at least much less likely to win than Haley Stevens. What's your take on electability in this context? We have no idea. And I think the establishment, quote, quote, has lost all credibility on that argument. They thought Joe Biden could win another term.

Like, they don't have the proof points anymore to make the case that they know what voters want. Like, can Haley Stevens win? I don't know. It seems like they've had to spend a lot of money to get her through the Democratic primary if she does eke this out. She's out spending Abdul, what, 10 to 1? It's not even. And it's 90% 99% of that money or 90% of that money is from not the Haley-Steven.

They actually went, Haley-Stevenman. They actually went up with their first ad today as we're recording this. A-PAC has spent tens of millions of dollars, I think north of $30 million at least on Haley-Stevens' behalf. And then you have some other super PACs. it I the thing of that there's many things that anger me about this and like it's very possible I you can make a case that Haley Stevens as a quote unquote moderate and who will certainly appear more moderate if she wins a primary against Abdul like that is one of the things when you come off looking quite moderate when you win a primary against a progressive because you're positioned in that moderate place may be more electable I don't know that like you. You could make that case. It's possible.

You can make the case that because Abdul is to the left, Michigan is the quintessential swing state. Now Trump's won and two of the last three elections. It's a 50-50 state. We assume it's probably three to four, you know, five, maybe five points to the left this time. At the generic ballot looks the way we think it does. That, you know, a candidate that far of the left, you know, if you look at political science research, is less,

likely to win like that. Like you can make that case too. But as your point is, no one knows. The thing that angers me about the Abdul electability question is no one is willing to just say what they mean by it. It is like is your argument that he's too far left. In what positions is it he's too far left on? Is it his position on Israel?

The polling would suggest that. He's right where the American people are. He's right there. The, is it Medicare for all? Now, it is popular. Now, if you did like Medicare for all can become much less popular over time if it's advertising. It's right. Like that could potentially be vulnerable.

But no one wants to say that because the Democratic base is very understandably supports Medicare for all. Is it because he campaign with Asan Piker? Maybe. Like do you want to make that argument? Like in the data for progress May poll, only 20% of Democratic primary voters knew who Osn Piper was. But you could put it in ads. You can put what Hassan said.

You don't have to know who he is. Is it because his name is Abdul al-Said? Is that what the reason is? No one wants to, like, that's the subtext of a lot of this, and no one wants, but no one will actually say that. And that, I always say it comes with this from a very personal view because that was always the argument, you know, then when you say he hasn't been vetted, he hasn't been vetted, he hasn't been vetted.

That's what they said about Barack Hussein Obama, too, often right after they called him Barack Hussein Obama. And, like, I don't know who's more electable. I just wish people would just be honest about what they actually think about why he's less like more electable. Haley Stevens did flip a Republican district in 2018. She performed exactly like a generic Democrat in 2024. I think I use the split ticket wins of replacement rating, but I think she's like at point. She's like point.

But basically the same. Like it's not a proven winner. And like it's to your point is we don't know. And I don't want to defend Haley Stevens here because I do not think she is the right candidate for this moment in any number of ways, but I will say a lot of the criticism of her about being unelectable or like being a bad candidate. Yes. It's so sexist.

100%. It's so, so sexist. And like we should, we should also say that because this is going to be a challenge, especially as women keep running, which they will. Like, it is very hard in this modern information ecosystem for women to run because you have to be telegenic. You have to speak a certain way. You have to sound a certain way.

Where do you perform your authenticity as a woman? Like if she did some of the videos or even if Mao, had done some of the videos that Abdul has done, they would have been mocked endlessly. It never would have been on the table. So she is not the right candidate for this moment, I think, for any number of reasons, but the criticism of her has been deeply sexist. There's this video that's been circulating that has gotten, I think, 10 million views of her. And she's at an organizing rally, and she is in a very emphatic Michigan accent is talking about

how she's going to fight from Michigan. And that, like, that's become, like, that's become a thing. But my guess is most people see that and have no reaction to it. You know, it's a road online thing. And, you know, the, well, obviously, I have biased series of support of Mallory. But Mallory made some of those videos that, uh, are, are not dissimilar to the ones that Abdul's made and that torn to smithereens. Yeah.

On the internet, for sure. Like whether it had actual voter would have no idea, but it's just absolutely. And so, like, that's why this one is. so complicated. And it's, and then sitting over top of it is Israel and Gaza, where Abdul has been incredibly outspoken, has the post aid Israel, is called it genocide. Haley Stevens has, you know, been a big, has been supported by APEC. When she won her primary in 2022, she was a, she got a ton of funding from APEC. APAC, as I said, spent all this money in here. There is, how do you think about Apex's role in this and the role Israel's

playing. Let's start with Michigan. Then I'm going to expand it out to everything else. When this campaign is all said and done, it seems like 80% of the funding, at least, of her campaign, at least while it's on-air funding TV ads, is going to be paid for by one specific interest group. I don't know that I've ever seen them before. I've seen Super PACs put a lot of money in races. Like in the Iowa primary, Josh Turrick got a whole bunch of money from vote vets. That money really seemed to have come from the DSEs, from the Senate majority. super PAC world. And it's like a mix of different in different groups.

But here you have one specific group with a specific policy agenda spending this much money on a candidate. Have you ever seen anything like this before? It seems concerning. The only thing that maybe comes close is the way that AI was spending money in the New York congressional races. Yeah. But even that.

It's Alex Boris. Yeah. But even that was like not to the same extent. And I saw some really interesting polling in particular about the Michigan Democratic primary voters. APEC has a net negative 46 favorite. ability rating. Seventy-eight percent of Michigan Democratic primary voters said they'd be less likely to vote for a Senate candidate backed by APAC. 86 percent, they'd be less likely to vote for a

candidate who supports continued funding for Israel's war in Gaza. This is toxic for them. I think it's telling that most of their ads do not talk about Israel. They do not have about Gaza. Never. Never mentioned. This is both a question of policy, but it's also a question of morals. I think we have seen now that the way that candidates engage on what's happening in Gaza has become a moral litmus test of do you have the sense of conscience to call what's happening a genocide and to want to push policy away from enabling it. We just saw the vote earlier this week where House Democrats, a record number of them, including a number of sorts. Like, I did not expect Nancy Pelosi to vote to caught up eight Israel. Catherine Clark, the whip. Yes. Yeah. Like things are changing and they are good because that is

where voters are. Voters see this as a crisis of conscience, and they know that they want their leaders to push back. I also think that the way that APEC is spending in this speaks to the larger, very negative feelings people have about the role of money in politics. And it has become the ultimate boogeyman for, you know, someone is trying to buy the election and drown out your votes. Not great. Back on Michigan for a second. One question I have is, is AAC going to support Haley Stevenson the general against Mike Rodgers? Because right now, she has, she has raised, she has struggled to raise money. You know, you have James Telerico raising, you know, record numbers.

You have John Osloff raising record numbers. Abdul raised, I think, more than $4 million this last quarter. There are Democratic candidates who are raising lots of money. Haley Stevens has struggled to raise grassroots money, which really matters because big dollar Democratic donations are down in this. So you have more people willing to give five, 10, $50, $100. bucks and fewer people are willing to write $7,000 per couple maxed out checks. And so if you can't raise grassroots money and APAC is not going to, maybe they will be there,

but it's, I just, is she better than Mike Rogers for them? I don't know. But that's like, that's a question. And like, obviously, if she's nominee, the Senate super PACs, 10 Democratic Super PACs can supplement. But that's money is coming out of somewhere else. That's money that's not going to Iowa or Alaska or Texas or somewhere else. I think it's a really good question. And I also think APEC has shown not the smartest of strategies.

No. They've elected a lot of anti-Israel Democrats. Yeah. And like even if you think beyond this, they have not created space for a political home for people who maybe aren't as far left as where DSA is, but also aren't where APAC is in a way that they're not thinking beyond the next three months. And I think it is really dangerous for the future of our democracy. many ways because of how much money they're able to spend and how how threatening it has become.

The vote of the House, it is, I don't know, many people may not have been tracking this over the years, but the idea that 100 Democrats would vote, the idea that 10 Democrats would vote against aid to Israel, the idea that Nancy Pelosi and the member of the House leadership would vote against aid to Israel is, would have been impossible to imagine. Impossible. You maybe get one, Thomas Massey and the Democratic equivalent of Thomas Massey or a Randolph, like the idea that people would do this in mass is impossible to imagine. it does speak, and this is the downside of Apex and the Israeli government's allegiance, sort of alliance with Republicans in most cases, is if Democrats take the majority,

how would a speaker, Hakeem Jeffries, even be able to get, like, it seems like that's the end of the ball game. Like, I don't know how you could even bring that bill forward. I do not envy his job. Yes, there's very challenging. I do think, like, one of the things that the broader activist movement needs to really, think about it as like how do you welcome these newcomers in how do you you know better late to the party than not coming to this party at all when it comes to this issue like the point of persuasion is to

get people to agree with you and I do think there is still some stickiness around like well you didn't say genocide early enough you didn't you know you didn't like call it out two years ago it's like if I do it now that's that is better than never and that is the point of this work and so I do want to like just plant that seed of as we keep growing this co-lawing coalition, like how do we make sure it feels like one that can continue in a way that is welcoming? The way this issue is going to hang on the 2028 Democratic primary and the amount of people who are going to come maybe lately to be against funding or to call to genocide or all those things is going. It's just, I mentioned this to Favre last week or two weeks ago, that we were one

year away from what's likely the first Democratic primary debate. Yep. I want to die. It's like so horrifying. No, lie doubt and never get up. I know, I know. Hey, Dan Tiberski here. I'm a podcast host, a journalist, and now with my newest project, the author of my own manifesto. Well, it's a manifesto about manifestos.

My search for inspiration in a world that feels more infuriating, more out of its freaking mind with each passing hour. Manifestos are a call to action, an artful scream. They capture our anger and they try to do something with it. This is my attempt to take the manifesto back from mass shooters and nihilists and return it to its rightful place with the warriors, the visionaries, the regular folks with just the right amount of crazy. I compare notes with radicals, secessionists, internet trolls out for a laugh and punk singers screaming their guts out, all trying to turn their anger into the world they want to see. Listen to Manifesto wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of Manifesto early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts.

Hey, did you hear? Watermelon is back at Booster Juice all summer long. Nice. I love the watermelon explosion. And the watermelon wave. Yep. They even got a new watermelon asai'i bowl this year. The one in a melon bowl.

And what does that sound like? Mmm. Like that. Booster Juice. Canadian born. Blending since 19. 99. I want to talk about Run for Something, right?

I want to talk about because it run for something is which you started after Trump won in 2016. It is always the example I use of how really smart, committed people can make real change about ever asking anyone for permission to do so. You've had a tremendous impact over the last, I mean, you've never been doing this for a long time. We are year eight. Nine and a half. It'll be 10 years in January. Just it'll because it'll also be, I mean, you started an organization and it got thousands of people to run. I started a podcast, you know, to each their own, I guess, because we're on year nine of Poseid American now.

At, you hit it at this earlier, but I want to put a finer point on it. After Trump won, this time, there were much digital ink was spilled around the idea that the resistance was dead. And there was some anecdotal evidence for that. was no women's march. You saw, you know, no one had protests as a new brunch signs out. There was less protesting. No one rushed to the airports when the next version of the Muslim ban was signed. But run for something was a bit different. Like you just had a different experience after Trump won. Talk to me a little bit about the enthusiasm you've seen. So right after Trump won, we started seeing thousands of people raise their hands to run for office. 18 months later, it's over 100,000

people who signed up to run for office since then, more than we had in the, since 2024, more than we had in the entire day of Trump's first term, as I said earlier. Last year, we had, I think, a 60% win rate on election day. We had a night where we elected both a DSA-affiliated candidate to the Atlanta City Council and a former Republican who left the party after January 6th to a rural county commission in Pennsylvania. We have built the tent that is tight on values and flexible on policy and has now elected more than just about 1,700 young people across 49 states plus D.C., including many that are now

running for higher office, like James Tala Rico, like Mallory McBorrow, but also like Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, like Sarah McBride in Delaware, and so many others who are, I think, the future of the Democratic Party. And that's not ideologically, like, pure however you want to define it. It is people who love their communities, who want to solve problems, who want to speak to their neighbors, and who are willing to do so in a way that is authentic and genuine and connected and fun. And it makes me so hopeful and excited at a moment where, like, most of the Democratic Party does not. But I really do believe, like, we are on the brink of a tipping point where the party is going to be more run for something alum than not. It is going to be more leaders who look like our folks than not.

And that's a good thing, I think. For sure. It's what's encouraging about it is we our party is a gerentocracy. There are so many reasons for this. You know, it is, you know, we went, you know, Democrats often pick the next person in line and then Obama skipped the line. And then we went back to the back of the line. Then we went further back of the line with Hillary and Biden. And then we also had the 2010 elections, which gutted like a big chunk of the party because we lost so many seats.

in the post in the in the redistricting after and then first in 2010 in that election and then in there so many of our state legislative candidates and state legislative state legislators were redistricting out in that redistricting and then we lost again and we just like we lost a lot of the middle and so you guys have helped bring up the like we missed a middle generation and now we have a younger generation coming up are there some particular candidates this cycle that you're excited about that people should know about oh there's so many um katelyn dray is running for iowa state senate. She won a special election in 2025. She broke the Iowa Republican supermajority. She flipped a seat. Trump had carried by 10 points. She is now defending that seat this November.

So excited about her. Julia Salinas, who is running for Texas State House. This is like probably the genuine toss-up in the Texas House District. He's the grandson of migrant farm workers. He came from behind in a three-way March primary and then won the May runoff by 11 points against a more establishment-backed candidate. This is in the Rio Grande Valley. It's in a seat that Trump carried by just, I think, like a point in a half in 2024. So exciting. Chris Thomas in Pennsylvania State Senate. He is a former public school teacher. He's a volunteer firefighter. He's up against a first-term Republican senator. We're trying to flip that chamber there. So he is phenomenal. Michael Ferguson, who's running for Florida State House in Broward County, he's an active duty

Air Force Judge Advocate. He was served as one of the youngest special trial councils in Air Force History. He's an attorney. This is the only legislative district in Broward County, which is very Democratic, that is still held by Republicans. So it is a top target to pick up in the Florida State House. You know, I could go on and on and on. We have hundreds of candidates up this year. The value of 100,000, as you said. It's going to be good, guys. It's going to be good. So the party went, we did a lot of thinking after Trump won in 2016. One of the things that sort of everyone came, you know, to the too late conclusion was, is the Democrats did not pay enough attention to down-ballot races. I do really to think that that focus shifted in the first Trump

era. You know, obviously there's you guys. There was sister district that, you know, swing left, indivisible. Everyone is like really, you know, working hard to win on these races. Lots of focus on Secretary of States and in governor's races in the wake of January 6th and trying to protect election integrity. Do you feel like there is? is the party apparatus, the donor world, the activist world, the people with platforms are, have maintained that focus in Trump 2.0 or have we lost a little bit because we're sort of obsessed with Trump again? We have lost a little bit. I would say in particular, the donor world. And I will be very honest, like everyone who's not running for House or Senate this year that

can't, like if you're not a House or Senate candidate, you are probably struggling. I remember something we're doing okay, but we have had to be really careful stewards. of our resources. And just to put a really fine point on this, you know, run for something's budget is $8 million a year, just about. The Republican counterpart to run for something is called the Leadership Institute. It has been around for 30 some odd years. It has a $50 million a year annual budget. I think I could have candidate recruitment offices in every state and be doing year-round recruitment. Like, I cannot imagine what I would do with $50 million a year. It is the kind of abundance mindset around we can do it all that the Democratic Party just does not seem to operate from.

So is that a scarcity of people want to write those checks or those just checks go into the wrong place? A little bit of call of a, little bit of call up a. So some of it is like we don't have enough rich people or you know, our grassroots donors are very excited about some of the Senate races and not as excited about some of the infrastructure because it's not as flashy and not as exciting. and really big checks still go to places that run TV ads or, you know, this right now, it's like creator stuff. And that's not to say that's not important, but that stuff ceases to exist after election day. Run for something and so many of other partners on the ground who are doing this real locally driven work that happens. Like candidate recruitment for 2026 happened in 2025.

The recruitment that we are doing now for, say, the Louisiana and Mississippi state legislative races, which are going to be critical because of how they've redistricted these states and blow. up the Voting Rights Act. That recruitment happens now. So if you are not funding things year round and sustaining this work with multi-year giving, multi-month giving, it is impossible to do in the way that is the most effective and efficient. You know, it's just so fascinating because I spent a lot of time over the last nine years now, I guess, talking to donors about, like my big thing has always been investing in media infrastructure, right? That we need to do medium and long-term investments in content creation media, pro-democracy media.

You know, I have my newsletter, QuirkCa has all these things. But just beyond our stuff, just generally, Republicans have investing the stuff for like as we don't. And you're talking to very smart people who have made a lot of money in their life, making good investments. And it's just, I've never been able to figure out why when you talk to them about investments that pay out over time. is less appealing than the short-term one-time use of money on largely television ads.

Like, think about how much money was spent. Like, you want your $50 million dollars. Your $50 million could be found in two weeks of Super Pack ads. Yep. 100%. If I think about it too much, I won't get out of bed in the morning. I'm saying, I know, I want you to be able to continue to get out of bed. You have a very important job and you have children, so I think it's important that you get out of bed.

but I want anyone listening who has those sort of resources to think about even if you could get, let's say you could double from 8 to 16 or get to half of that 50. It's just one, truly one week of television ads in Texas is my entire budget. Is your entire budget, right? And to get to the beginning of the conversation, we talked about like candidate recruitment is stage zero of winning an election. If you want better TV ads, if you want the megaphone that were. building around media and creators to have something good to amplify.

Like, it starts with getting really good people to run in as many places as possible. We work in all 50 states. We also have a long-term vision for what we think the battlegrounds could be and might be in 2030 and 2032. We're doing intensive recruitment in these places. We're providing candidates with the skills and tools they need to win their races. Like, why don't I have $50 million? I don't know.

Ask the billionaires. I do know that the work is working, that there's such demand. for our work and that I am so proud of what we have built. And I think it's going to keep paying off because the nice thing about candidate recruitment in particular is when one person wins that like against the odds race. And when one person makes history, dozens and dozens or hundreds or thousands more like them say, you know what, maybe I can do this too. That is very hopeful place to end this.

But before I let you go, just in case we have a billionaire or someone who maybe works from one of these AI companies going public who's about to be a billionaire and they would like to help you get to your well-deserved $50 million budget. Where can they give you money? Run for something.net. You can look at, look us up. You can also find any of our other entities. And I should say, if any of your listeners want to run for office, it is probably too late for 26. It is definitely not too early for 2027 or 28. You can go to run for what.com. You can look up where you might want to run. Amanda Lipman, always great to talk to you. I always leave these conversations smarter and

a little bit more optimistic. So this is great. Thanks for having me, Dan. Thanks to Amanda Lipman for coming on. John, John and Tommy will be back in your feed on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. Pads of America is a Cricket 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 DeGroat, Ben Heffcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Palaviv, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.