Pod Save America - The Search for an Exciting Moderate

Episode Date: July 26, 2026

What does a positive vision for the center-left look like? Can moderation still excite the Democratic base? Matt Yglesias, who writes the Slow Boring newsletter and hosts The Argument podcast, talks to Jon about his vision for the Democratic Party and why he believes more Democrats need to embrace heterodoxy. The two discuss how the policy debate could play out in the upcoming presidential primary, the role charisma and attention-getting play in politics, and which Democrats are best positioned to win in 2028.For a transcript of this episode, email [e-mail]

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Favro. On today's show, writer and founder of the slow-boring newsletter, Matt Iglesias. We've had a lot of people on the show make the case for why the Democratic Party should move to the left, and a lot of progressive candidates who represent that direction. We've also had plenty of people, including us, critique the Democratic establishment. We haven't really had someone on, at least in a while, make a full-throated case for a center-left politics that emphasizes moderation. I know that probably sounds exciting and not at all annoying to many of you. Matt recently wrote a piece titled How the Center Left Can Come Back in 2028. That's based in part on a series of critical, tough questions that Nate Silver recently posed to the center left. I found both Nate's questions and Matt's response really useful in understanding where folks like Matt are coming from and what they're looking for from the party in 2028 and beyond.

I also had plenty of questions of my own, so I invited Matt on to see if he had to have. some answers. And he did. We talked about how important issue positions are in a presidential primary, the role of charisma and the ability to get attention, why Democrats have lost in recent elections, and who on the current bench might be able to win in 2028. It was a great conversation, and we will get to it in a moment. Before we do, please consider becoming a paying subscriber to Friends of the Pod. Subscribers unlock ad-free episodes of all their favorite crooked pods, including Pod Save America, all our great subscriber-only newsletters, and exclusive of subscriber-only podcasts like Pod Save America only friends and Polar Coaster with Dan

Pfeiffer. Plus, becoming a subscriber is the best way to support your favorite pro-democracy independent media company. Head on over to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe. Matt, welcome to Podsafe of America. Really good to be here. So I wanted to talk about the factional debate within the Democratic Party over how to actually win some national elections and thought, who better to do that with than the online

left's favorite pundit who can faithfully. represent the views of the Neo-Lib Schill faction. And I think a good place to start is with your recent piece about how the center left can come back in 2028, where your one big answer is that the center left needs a 2028 presidential primary campaign that articulates its critique of the status quo. Before we get to the critique itself, why a presidential campaign? You know, I think something we see in politics is that political parties are really defined by their presidential campaigns and by their leadership. Everybody, I mean, you, me, people with all different kinds of ideological viewpoints are frustrated about where Democrats are at now and they, like, want them to be

clearer and have a better message. But realistically, there's just like not that much that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries can do. You're hurting cats on Capitol Hill. It's presidential campaigns. Donald Trump comes in. He wins a nomination. It's a nomination. It's a totally redefines what the Republican Party is about, you know, for good and for ill. And that's what's going to happen in 28, right? There's going to be a contest. Somebody is going to win it. That person will be the leader. What Democrats stand for is going to be, you know, largely whatever it is, that person stands for. And until then, you know, you try to have good candidates in the key races. You hope they win. Everyone's going to have some who they like more than others. But it's,

it's like it's going to be a mess. Yeah, I thought about that after the, 20, 25 off-year elections when everyone had this like Goldilocks view of it where they're like, well, you know, you had some more center-left moderate candidates winning in some places, and Mamdani wins in New York. And so it's all great. We don't have to fight that much. It's like, well, yeah, it's easier to do in a midterm or set of off-year elections than a presidential election.

That's where the rubber hits the road. So you make clear that this center-left critique is a critique of what you call the Clinton-Biden, Harris Schumer status quo. How would you describe that status quo and what is your critique of it? Sure. You know, so I think there's been some pretty dramatic leftward moves in the Democratic Party since Barack Obama's second term. And this has not been like the left, quote unquote, Bernie Sanders, his people taking the party over. It's been establishment stewardship. but they've shifted on a lot of different things. Some of the minor, some of them big,

I mean, I think a notable one that I read about in the piece is education policy, where without really like a huge, rancorous debate about it, ideas about performance pay for teachers, ideas about supporting high-performing charter schools, that, you know, the Obama White House had championed, and it was controversial at the time inside the party, just sort of went in the other direction.

And then we had, you know, a lot of discussion about this around COVID and school closures and different things there. But, you know, Democrats had an identity as a party of reform of the public sector that has sort of gone away in that regard. Democrats have also, you know, shifted a lot on immigration over the past 10 to 15 years, right? There's been all this stuff about asylum that came up during the Biden presidency just wasn't really an issue that, like, people were thinking that much about during the Obama presidency. There was this kind of very specific focus on trying to get a path to citizenship for people who've been here for a long time. New things came up. Democrats have

gone through a number of cycles around crime and criminal justice reform since that time, but have been sort of seen in some circles as very soft on crime. I think left-wing Democrats have started to see that this is a problem. Everyone has sort of walked back defunding police, things like that since then. But there's been this kind of, and then on economic policy, there's been a shift. Again, it was a shift in the Biden administration to these kind of much more Elizabeth Warren-like positions about, you know, the role of business, its relationship to the state. It used to be kind of a view that, you know, Democrats were a party that was going to make rich people pay higher taxes. And that was going to be a non-starter for a lot of rich people in the country. But for people who could stand that,

say, you know what, I'm going to pay more under the Democrats, I'm going to contribute to the common will, I'm going to help the poor, whatever. You know, I'm still going to be treated respectfully as if business is a laudable thing to do with your career. And there's been shifts on both sides of that, a much more contentious relationship between the Democratic Party and the technology industry, but really the Democratic Party in the business world, right large. So I take your point that the party has definitely shifted leftward on a number of issues. And I can just speak from experience because oftentimes when this gets debated, I can remember when I was in the White House or on the Obama campaign. And we did race to the top. And we talked

about teacher pay. And we talked about immigration in the context of we're a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws. And now people on the right just like play back Obama. clips from 2008 where he's talking about border security. So I get that. How do we know people's negative view of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party's sort of losing some elections, some big ones, is due primarily to specific issue positions and not a number of other factors. You know, general perception of elitism, corruption, weakness, however you define it. right? There's a whole bunch of different potential factors in these losses. You know, I think all this stuff is in the mix, obviously, and to an extent it connects to people.

Searchlight Institute did a really interesting series of polls about corruption. You know, people are very concerned about corruption. They think the political establishment is very corrupt. But they asked, like, do you consider X, Y, and Z thing corrupt? And, you know, it was like trading on insider stock information, definitely corrupt. But people also said it was corrupt when politicians, do things to sort of curry favor with social elites that aren't what the public wants, right? So that's like a very expansive view of corruption where like if you're afraid of getting canceled

or something, so you're doing this, you know, that could be corrupt in some people's eyes. You also might see that as weak. You know, I don't think you want to be weak. I think, again, to the point of why presidential campaigns matter, moderate members of Congress are almost all people who are representing districts that Donald Trump won. I think those people are, in some ways, the Democrats' MVP's, but they are not MVP's when it comes to, like, big partisan controversies. Because that's just, that's not how you hold down a red house seat. You kind of like duck those fights.

And that does look weak to people who are in the base, and that's not what they want, right? In a presidential campaign, you can do what Donald Trump. did on Medicare and Social Security. You can do what President Obama did on education issues, which is you can reposition to the center on select things while also being like a strong voice for your party and its side on certain kinds of key issues. But you know, I do think that issues matter to people. Like, it's not a coincidence that in 2012 Democrats had all these great ads lambasting Mitt Romney's Medicare plan. And then Donald Trump comes along and he's like, I'm not going to do that Medicare plan.

Right. Now, you know, 90% of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 vote for Hillary in 2016. But the people who were persuaded by those Medicare ads, now they got a Republican who's like, you know what, I'm not going to do that. So, you know, you go around the country, right? Like, not that many people are swing voters. It's a small population. But I think there are people there, right, who are looking at, you know, these questions

about who should play on women's sports teams. And they really do care about that issue. And it upsets them that Democrats have the position that they don't agree with. And that's a different, I mean, that was not an issue that we talked about, really, 10, 15 years ago. But I remember in 2008 when that campaign was happening, and Obama and all Democrats everywhere said that marriage is between a man and a woman. And that's not what I believed.

And I know lots of the younger people who worked on those campaigns. That's not what they believed. I don't know what the principles themselves believe privately. But I think everyone kind of understood at that point in time that it was going to be the job of someone else to, like, persuade the voters, that our more forward-thinking progressive view was correct, and that the politicians were going to, you know, try to get to yes with the electorate,

that it was tough enough to be opposing these constitutional amendments and other kinds of things that would have completely closed the door on equality. And so some of what's happened, is I think just a less of a pragmatic spirit, that Trump is so terrible. It makes people feel like, well, if he can get away with so much, like, we should be able to get away

with undisciplined behavior. But that's just, like, that's not really how it works. You know, it's like, if he's really terrible, we need to take this really seriously. Pod Save America is brought you by Helix. Boy, asleep important. It's so important. Older you get, the more you realize the wisdom of it.

that. That's right. And Helix knows how to help there. Yeah. Because they have the most comfortable best mattresses. I love my Helix mattress. Don Lux. Don Lux. Don Lux. It's great. How do you know which mattress is right for you? Take the Helix sleep quiz and it will match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs. They have over 20 mattress models so you can find the perfect model for you. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the U.S. The Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer-first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress so you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges. Plus, Helix offers 120-night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty.

Emily's parents live in Maine. We were just there for a week, and they needed to upgrade their mattresses because they were very old in their house. And so got some Helix mattresses, and boy, did everyone sleep well. We were just the kids. We were so happy with the Helix mattresses. And Helix was just, they were great. You know, they just shipped them right there, out of the box, boom, mattresses. Go to helixleep.com slash cricket for 27% offsitewide. This offer is exclusive to our listeners. That's Helixleep.com slash cricket for 27% off site wide.

Helixleep.com slash cricket. Pod Save America is brought to you by Acorns. Today's budget is what it is, but tomorrow, that's up to you. Acorns is designed to help you effortlessly grow your savings and their potential screen shows you exactly what your money can do over time. Acorns is easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money, even if all you've got a spare change.

Acorn grows with you. Whether you're just starting out or thinking about settling down, ACORN supports your big and small goals across every life stage. The ACORN's potential screen shows you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time. Plus, you can quickly adjust how much you're investing every day, week, or a month to make sure you're building towards your goals. Acorn is all in one.

No more finance apps cluttering up your phone. With ACORN's, you can invest, save, and give your money a chance to grow in one trusted place. I was over at a friend's house having dinner with the family. And their son had his bar mitzvah. And he was like, I want to learn, he's wanted to learn how to invest. He's thinking about how to do that. And he was learning about how the compound interest would really help him if he starts

in such a young age. So I think he's going to do great, you know? You're getting, but the point is, dear listener, you're getting beat by a 13-year-old. Don't let yourself get beat by that by a 13-year-olds. Sign up now, and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. to Acorns.com slash crooked or download the Acorns app to get started.

Paid non-client endorsement, compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns, tier two compensation provided, potential subject to various factors such as customers' accounts, age, and investment settings, does not include Acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors, LLC, and SEC registered investment advisor, view important disclosures at Acorns.com slash Crooked.

It is true that, you know, a majority of voters, especially voters in the states we need to win, routinely tell pollsters, including, especially in the most recent New York Times polls, that the Democratic Party is too far left. And more people think, at least in the New York Times poll, more people think the Democratic Party is too far left than they think the Republican Party is too far right. Not great. Not great. though importantly in all six of the states where they polled the six Senate states that are pick up opportunities for Democrats voters were less likely to describe the Democratic candidate as too far left than they were the Democratic Party itself do you attribute that to specific moderate positions taken by Mary Peltola Josh Turk, Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, James Tellerico because

and I don't know about all of their positions on everything. thing, but it doesn't seem like, at least, you know, I know enough, like Sherrod's been around long enough. It doesn't seem like they have moderated on any of the issues where you might think the Democrats need to moderate on. Well, it's a little of both, right? So Taurik and Paltola have both sort of said that they want to support their state's oil and gas industries, you know, which would be a very hot take in National Democratic Party politics. I think it's kind of a no-brainer or in Alaska and Texas. And, you know, that's good.

We're just all kind of getting to a place of pragmatism on stuff like that. Roy Cooper, you know, he's been in statewide office in North Carolina for a long, long, long time, has a distinctive relationship with the voters there. I think they see him as moderate, at least, because he's held office for a long time. There's this Republican supermajority in the legislature, so we don't really know, like, what it is he would have done if he was empowered. Josh Turrick in Iowa, you know, he really, um, had a hard fought primary. Elizabeth Warren and others were supporting his opponent. He held and

represented an Obama to Trump, you know, switching district in the state legislature there. I don't know anything about Iowa. I've never been there. I don't like to represent myself as an expert. But it did seem like it was the more moderate choice in a contested primary. You know, Jared Brown is, I think, the interesting one. I mean, I'm old enough to remember in 2006 when he was like, this progressive dream candidate who would emerge. And like that was a different era in Ohio, right? Like everything was very different back then. You know, he, in Obama's first term, he really clashed with the White House over some energy stuff, really did the steel industry, things like that. In Biden's term, he was much more kind of a good soldier, got along with everybody,

maybe not the best idea in a state that Trump won by six points. So I don't know, you know, you know exactly where he's going to come down there. Some of it, though, is that, you know, when you have a specific individual candidate, they can try to communicate who they are rather than being like a caricature, right? And so that is always the power of individual candidates, particularly individual candidates who unlike late stage Joe Biden can like actually speak and engage with people. Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

Because I do think that the focus on position, and issue positions, which I do think voters care about. I would not dismiss that. But it is one of many factors because a lot of the people you just talked about, it seems like they have an image of being more moderate, partly because of vibes that they put off, because of their bio, because of who they are, how they communicate. I mean, Roy Cooper is an interesting one too,

because he ran for governor and won that race, partly the bathroom bill in North Carolina at the time. Now we're talking about trans issues around sports teams and gender affirming care, but back then it was a bathroom bill and he was able to win in 2016. It was a pretty tough year, despite being very vocal on that issue at the time. And you do wonder then is the reason that Roy Cooper is doing so well and people think he's more moderate is, is it other factors aside from the actual positions he's taken? Well, you know, I think that there's a, there's a both end to this, right? So, you know, Governor Cooper was always sort of positioned himself as a champion of economic growth in North Carolina and of sort of modernization and bringing business in. There's this whole kind of, you know, New South tradition that Bill Clinton was part of, that he's part of, that Andy Bashir is part of. The bathroom bill controversy at the time that that was raging, right? It was related to that. Part of the case he was making was, you know, this is going to hurt us in our convention. business. It's going to hurt us in attracting financial services jobs from New York, things like that.

And this is where, you know, there's issue positions, there's vibes, there's communications, and it sort of comes together because if you can explain what you're doing in a way that connects to things that your constituents care about, that's much better than if you're kind of duck in cover all the time, right? Like, can you engage? Can you convey some kind of emphasis? and complexity around these issues. People don't like to be... Everybody votes for politicians who they agree with about some stuff

and disagree with about other stuff. If they feel like, well, this is a political party that wants to like cancel me over our disagreements versus that can respect the idea of differences of opinion but thinks that all things considered,

you know, my health care plan is really important. Right? Those are not different issue positions, but it's a little bit more than just vibes. Like I think we saw, but before, before Grant Plattner exited the race under a cloud of scandal, you know, we were putting to the test, the idea that it's sort of a pure vibes candidacy could sort of transform the demographic structure of the electorate. And I think the polls were saying that that wasn't working, that he was going to beat Susan Collins until scandals took him down. But this is a state that Kamala won. It's a state that Biden won.

it's a state that Hillary won. He was winning based on educated people in coastal towns. Kind of same old, same old, because his issue positions were actually very, very standard, even though he had this really interesting persona. I think we both met. He was very charismatic in person, like a cool guy, then maybe not so cool. But, you know, ultimately, if you're going to persuade people who haven't been voting for you, to vote for you, you've got to give them something, right?

like some reason to think that you're different. And this is the case with so many of these races is that there's so many different variables that it's hard to pin something down because it's like, I realize that the left wants to believe that Graham Platner and his race could have like, you know,

won him a bunch of non-college educated white voters and sort of pick that lock that Democrats have been trying to pick for the last 20 years. I never really thought that was the case, but I did think that his charisma was a big factor there. I saw you write a couple times that one of the reasons he might have been seen as not as left as the Democratic Party as a whole is because of his position on guns. But then I was like, do that many people in Maine really knew, do they all know what his position on guns was?

Because he didn't talk about it a lot. It wasn't like a big part of his campaign. And I do, I wonder if his style and charisma may have made up for some of the, either, well, in his case, both the scandals, the early, the scandals early on and the, you know, the further left issue positions like Medicare for all, abolish ICE and, and his positions on Israel. Like, I wonder if his persona helped with his perception. Well, I guess part of the point I was trying to make in my 2028 piece is that,

the things that the establishment and the kind of more progressive people have been arguing about are actually mostly not the issues that it seems like swing voters disagree with Democrats about. So like on Israel, the mass public has become quite skeptical of the U.S. Israel relationship. Obviously, that's a very fraught issue. And there's like always somebody wants you go further, you know, no matter what position you take. But there's like big room in the public eye for revisiting. where Democrats have been on that. Medicare for all, you know, we've been talking about for 10 years.

Like, polling on that is all over the map, depending on what you ask. But people have pretty progressive ideas about health care. You know, like the voters believe that if people get sick, they should be able to see the doctor. And so, you know, you can kind of go places on that. At the same time, you know, something I wrote about is kind of like racial targeting of programs is quite unpopular with white people in particular who, you know, want programs to benefit them rather than other people, which is pretty easy to understand not really something the left and the establishment disagree about.

Again, interestingly, Obama in 2008 on the campaign trail, you know, made some real waves by suggesting that he wanted to revisit some of that and questioned, you know, do his daughters need special advantage over a low-income, white kids, right? That'd be a very hot take to put forward. It was a hot take when he did it. Obviously, he had some personal qualities that gave him a little bit more space on those kind of things. But those are statements that make people think, huh, you know, maybe I need to give a new look to somebody who's out there. And I think you're right. You know, Platner didn't really talk much about the guns thing. We don't know how that would have gone as a general election, right? But,

you know, different things pop at different kinds of times. but I do think that successful politicians usually put something on the table to make you think, oh, this guy's different. Like, that's fresh. That's new. And charisma is like how you make that pop. But it still matters what the content is. Because if what we see is like, oh, that's different.

That's an idea I've never heard before. And I hate it. Like, that's not good, right? Like, you don't want to get attention for terrible ideas that everyone hates. The empathy point you made earlier, and I wonder if you read Brian Boylert's piece today where he sort of wrote about this as well as like the sort of the need to show empathy of a democratic politician to show empathy can kind of sort of bridge some of these divides and these disagreements between factions and the party. The Obama thing made me think. So yeah, he would go out and talk about like maybe what we really need is class-based affirmative action and not just race-based affirmative action. And then he would also make the point that when people said, okay, well, then race doesn't matter.

It's all about class. He would say, well, no. I mean, you know, I'm biracial, but when I hail a cab and the cab keeps going, it's, I'm black to that cab. Absolutely. You know, and I do wonder if it is a question of Democrats or a lot of the Democratic candidates we've seen not quite having the skills to explain their positioning and also explain it in a way where people who may be against the position they take can at least. least understand where they're coming from and because the politician showed some empathy for their position as well as the position of the people that that politician landed on their same beliefs. Yeah. And I mean, I think this is a, you know, this is where I think the substance of the positions

and the communications methods sort of come together, right? And so, you know, both Biden and Harris and Clinton for all sort of different reasons, but none of them were really kind of like sit down and gab at length kind of politicians who made you feel like they could explain in sort of some level of nuance what it was they really thought about these different kinds of issues and that hurts you right because like this is a big diverse country you end up with two political parties two candidates down there you're trying to assemble a somewhat messy coalition and there's going to have to be some like fuzzing of these issues there's going to have to be some outreach to the middle, but you've got to get people on the left on board. I mean, look at this

primary happening in Michigan, right? It's very bitter. Somebody's going to win, somebody's going to lose. They're going to need to get the people who voted for the other person to come vote for them, which is going to mean whoever wins that is going to have to re-describe whatever it is they were saying about Israel or whatever else in a way that is at least acceptable to the other person's voters. And like, that's hard, right? I mean, that's the the real art of politics. I, as a journalist, I observe that this occurs and that the good politicians do it. But I do feel like there has been a, I remember when Harris was campaigning with Liz Cheney. And there was a lot of like people from the left were like, this is terrible,

like how can you work with Liz Cheney? And then conversely, Harris wasn't like moving toward Liz Cheney's positions at all on any kind of issues. Right. And so I, I, I, I think that wound up being a real kind of like dead zone version of like trying to see more moderate but not actually making anybody like her better but raising these different kinds of questions. And it was just challenging, I think, for for her to convey to people exactly what she was trying to say about this. Like, why should somebody who was more conservative than Kamala Harris?

vote for her anyway. Because that's clearly what that was meant to convey, right? Like, that was the purpose of them being up on stage. But it's like, it's a hard argument to make. I mean, I don't have a big difficulty making the case to say like Trump, like he's corrupt, January 6th. But like also, I just don't agree with him. Like he's cutting health care. He's doing tax cuts for the rich. Like, these aren't things that I agree with. But she wanted to make a pitch to people like my father-in-law, who's like pretty conservative, but also really doesn't like Trump, you know, and he, I think he voted for Harris at the end of the day and then he votes for Greg Abbott down ballot. But there's all these people out there who are conflicted. And you do have to come up with some way to build a bridge to them that also, you know, conveys to progressives that like, if Democrats win the election, progressive public policy is going to happen. So you're running the presidential campaign of your dream Democrat. who's willing to emphasize moderation.

Yeah. What moderate stances are you telling them to emphasize where the Democratic Party's position is most out of step with, even its own voters, on high salience issues, right? Which are issues voters rate as most important to them, or just issues that are going to come up in the campaign. I mean, we just talked about sort of affirmative action. Supreme Court has now ruled on using race as a factor in college admissions.

doesn't seem like that is going to be a hot button issue in 2028. And so you could argue that just purely on a political level, moderating on that in a sort of a loud way. Probably out. Yeah. Yeah. And also can feel a little inauthentic and opportunistic. Absolutely.

You know, so what do you think are the big ones? So, you know, I think there's like a few different buckets here. But immigration is a big one, right? because people are, there's a big backlash against what ICE has been doing. All Democrats are going to give voice to that, et cetera, et cetera. But this continues to be one of Donald Trump's strong issue areas. And you see that in polling of even Democrats, there's real concern about reopening sort of the gates to people seeking asylum. Now, this is not where, like, I am at personally.

I'm like quite left on immigration, but I can see the numbers here, right? And you need to convey to people both that there's going to be a meaningful recalibration from what Trump is doing, but also that like we have heard what people were saying during the Biden administration and are not going to rerun that experience. I think that's like a big one. I think some of these trans issues are not that salient with the public, but they get brought up a lot by Republicans. You have to be prepared to answer questions about them.

And I think you have to be prepared to go into some level of nuance because you want to convey like real empathy, real support for people's rights. But also to understand, I think that like there is a set of sex segregated spaces where most Americans want, you know, biology is defined by chromosomes to be the controlling factor there. I think you have to at least throw a bone to the median voter on this kind of topic when you're addressing it. And then I think there's this set of things, education is I think the most prominent of them. But can you show people that Democrats understand that voters support the social safety net, voters support public services, voters support taxing the wealthy,

but also voters like want to see change and reform. in the state, in the government, that when Doge was first rolled out, people were really excited about it, right? And it like, it all went to shit. But the idea of, like, I am willing to take on the stakeholders inside their bureaucracy and do something good. Like, that means a lot to people in terms of, like, what are their doubts about Democratic Party governance? You know, when people live in the Midwest and they think about California or New York, right, they think maybe a nice place to live, if you're, like incredibly wealthy, but they don't think what they've really got there is like an incredible balance of taxes and quality public services, right? It's like the weather is amazing in California. The culture and nightlife in New York is fantastic. But people look at those higher taxes and they're like, well, what are you getting for that money, right? And people who live in those states, like you're in California, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's like California's amazing. But none of the Californians are now are like the thing that is amazing about California is that

the high levels of taxes that I pay is like really paying off in my day-to-day life, right? And like we know that between ourselves. And, you know, that is something that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, I think, both tried to give voice to, even as they tried to give health care, EITC, other things to help the needy. Pod Save America is brought to you by Our Place. Our Place makes beautiful, high-performance kitchenware designed to make home cooking simpler and more enjoyable. Everything is designed to be multifunctional, so you're not crowding your kitchen with pans and appliances that can only perform one task. Since day one, Our Place's cookware has been made without forever chemicals, and it's always third-party tested to meet global safety standards.

The Wonder Oven Pro is an 8-in-1 air-friar toaster oven that preheats 60% faster than a traditional oven and cooks up to 40% faster, so meals actually happen quicker. It air fries, roasts, bakes, toasts, reheats, proofs, dehydrates, and broils all in one compact footprint. And every cooking surface is made without forever chemicals. It's especially great for quick meals, reheating leftovers, crisping things up, or nights when you don't want to turn on the full oven. I'm getting one of these wonder pro. I'm getting one of these wonder oven pros. It's on the way. Wow.

I'm going to use it because I need an air friar. I don't have an air friar. I have just a toaster oven. Oh. I just have a toaster oven like an idiot. Just you wait. Just like a dunce. Like a dummy.

I'm going to get this Wonder Oven Pro. I think you can make potatoes in it. I've seen on the internet potatoes. How about that? In the air friar. Baked? No, not baked. You're going to make some fries.

Crispe them up, you know? Upgrade your kitchen with Our Place today. Visit from our place.com slash cricket and use code crooked for 10% offsite wide. That's F-R-O-M-O-U-R-P-L-A-C-E dot com slash C-R-O-O-K-E-D and use code crooked for 10% off site wide. With a 100-day trial, you can try it completely risk-free. Pod Save America is brought you by ZipRecruiter. It would be nice if there was a way to offload some of the, you know, daily tasks that can be a bit boring sometimes. And so I'm always looking for ways to do that, you know? And we all have time-saving hacks for everyday life. But if you're

a business owner, how can you save time hiring with ZipRecruiter? There you go. ZipRecruiter has new powerful matching technology that quickly lets you see the most interested, qualified candidates first. So you can save time by meeting the right people faster. Candidates can also tell you in their own words why they're interested in your job. No wonder ZipRecruiter is the number one rated hiring site based on G2. We've used ZipperHooder here at crooked to hire people, and it's made a huge difference. It simplifies the process. Helps you find great people and everything about having a company is about having the right people. Everything else is secondary to that. You're surrounded by a bunch of people and morons. You're not going to have a great day at work.

No, you're not. I don't care. I don't care how good your product is. You may have a good product. No, you're not. Not for long. Now with these morons. Go get yourself some ZipRecruiter. You got to get some zipper recruiter to fix up your widgets. You know? You know? Anyway, ZipRecruiter, save time and meet great candidates sooner. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter, get a qualified candidate within the first day. Try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash crooked. That ZipRecruiter.com slash crooked. Meet your match on ZipRecruiter.

Part of the challenge we're landing on here is that nuance and sort of thoughtful explanations don't. First of all, people aren't as good at giving them. Sure. And so there's a skill level with politicians that we talked about. And even if you are skilled, there's just the ability to get that message out, right? And so people see ICE abuses. And, you know, you've got people even like Bill Crystal now every time there's an ICE story is tweeting abolish ICE, abolish ICE, right? And I get it because you feel this absolute fury and frustration for what they're doing.

And look, I could make an argument that, yes, ICE is relatively a relatively new organization. and that we could put immigration enforcement back at, you know, some parts of it at DHS and DOJ, and we could do the bureaucratic chart and everything. And I am someone who's comfortable saying, yes, we still need immigration enforcement, obviously. But if you just say abolish ICE, of course, abolish immigration and custom enforcement makes a lot of people think, oh, well, then you don't want immigration enforcement anymore when the reality is like, if I was a Democratic president, And I was heading into office after this. Yeah, I would fire most of the people in ICE because I think they've hired a bunch of

unqualified psychopaths. I would still want immigration enforcement somehow, but it takes a while to explain all of that, you know? Absolutely. And I just wonder how that plays out in a Democratic presidential primary. Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, yes, nuance is hard. On the other hand, I don't think it's actually that hard to say. we need to totally revamp how ice works or even abolish it, whatever, but we need a secure border.

James Telerico had this line and he's like, we've got to have like a door with a beautiful welcome that and also a lock, right? That's like a good, you know, metaphor, right? So he's smart, but it's not impossible to come up with these kind of formulas. But I actually think is a little bit harder, you know, for people who are down ballot and maybe even for presidential candidates is not. navigating the kind of interest group minefield, you know, where there's a lot of stakeholders who have very specific things that they want you to say. And politicians get these kind of memos from their staffs, you know, that are like, don't say this, do say that, don't say this, do you say that, right? And they're really nervous, right? They're trying to navigate in this

really precise way. Like, I don't want to lose this endorsement. I don't want to, you know, get scored down on something else like this. And it makes it hard for them to talk like people. Like we all know Democrats in our lives who are much more nuanced, I think, than the members of Congress who we see on our televisions. And it's because they're not under the same kind of pressure and the same kind of scrutiny to sort of talk in like a relaxed, somewhat normal way about things. But it takes courage. I mean, this is Why, again, I mean, I look to presidential campaigns more to change things because the reality facing anyone who wants to run for president is you're probably going to lose, right?

Like, it's just, it's hard. It's hard to win. And I think a lot of the best presidential candidates are people who started off as real underdogs, right? I mean, again, that's something that Trump and Obama have in common, right? It took a certain amount of courage to even launch those campaigns and to work on them and to do it. that last three times Democrats have kind of had this sort of like overdog nominee who was like handed down by the weight of the past. And that's not great because people who are taking that path just their incentive is toward being cautious all the time. So then you come across as a really

cautious, really calculating person rather than somebody who was like, I'm going to take my shot, you know, and I'm going to speak from the heart. And no politician is ever like truly authentic, truly, truly speaking from the heart. But there is a difference between someone who's like, I'm going to go for it. And someone who's like, well, this is coming my way, so I'm going to not fuck it up. At one point, you write that a center-left candidate

who is, quote, charismatic and skilled at contemporary social media can talk above the groups directly to voters. Totally agree. But you mentioned Obama is sort of coming up as an underdog and getting attention and everyone else has sort of been handed down. Like, how many Democratic politicians can you name in the last decade

who've been able to command national attention with a message of disciplined moderation? Well, I know. I mean, you know, most of the people who've come up and have commanded attention have been very left-wing. You know, and I think that's a big part of the reason why the whole discourse keeps getting sort of dragged to the left. Younger people are just more left-wing, you know,

and particularly within the Democratic Party. So you have your AOCs, you have your MAMDONIs, and these are the people who've shown real flair for communication skills. I think you have also seen from both of them, you know, impulses toward AOC had this whole bit about like how we need to deregulate sunscreen, essentially, right? And Mbdauny has some like small business kind of thing and stuff that he's doing that impresses people.

So this stuff can work for different kinds of politicians, with different kinds of ethoses. Also, you know, branding, I think, actually is not what matters most. I mean, Obama in 2008, I think, was understood as the progressive sort of choice in that primary, primarily because of Iraq, you know, which was really, really important to people at that time. So you look back and you say, well, he was actually the one who was like taking on teachers' unions. He was the one who actually had more support from sort of like Wall Street and finance. He was the preferred candidate of a lot of the Red State members of Congress at that time.

He tacked to the center on affirmative action, all these other kinds of things. But at the time, like, progressives really liked him because he was the one who said, like, this war is really fucked up. And, you know, that is the advantage of taking a position that is vindicated by time. You know, it's, like, always good to have, like, good judgment on the substance of questions. And so I think anyone, including people who are sort of understood today to be progressive, could also move to the center on these kind of issues that we've been talking about. Because when I talk to really left-wing people about, like, what are they fired up about? It's like not actually the things that the public has the biggest doubts for Democrats about. I think if you want to be a Medicare for all candidate, there's like real problems of program design that,

sort of need to confront, but it's not a political problem in the way that the sense that you want to open the borders is. You know, Abolish ICE, maybe not a slogan I would advise people to go with, but if you can convey the idea that abolishing ICE doesn't mean reopening to millions of new asylum seekers, like, that could be totally fine. Maybe it's easier, actually, to moderate on aspects of immigration if you have this left-wing slogan rather than if you're coming at it backwards. Like, I'm not totally sure, you know, how that that needle needs to be threaded ultimately. I just think it's that you have to give voters some level of reassurance about their biggest doubts about Democrats, especially if, you know, you're going to say, we're going to have a whole new approach to Israel. We're going to,

we're going to take on the vested interests in the health care system. Like, you're not going to pull that off while also alienating, you know, 60% of the population around cultural issues, right? Like if you want to say we're going to like have this populist anchor, then I think you just have to follow the logic of that in like a compelling way and say, look, if you can agree with me that healthcare should be a right rather than a privilege, like I want you on my team. Like I'm not going to take away your plastic straw, right? Like because we're focused on the health care thing versus this sort of laundry list politics where it's like, you know, I got this for the health care, I got this for the child care.

I've got this on the plastic straws. I've got this on the immigration. I got this on the asylum. This on criminal justice. Like, that's a hard way to do politics. I am intrigued by your advice on candidates offering policy plans, which is, don't do that. Less. Less.

Right. So, like, you know, you're asked, how do you get to universal health care? And you say, it depends on the composition of Congress. What are you going to do about the deficit? We need to tax rich people and cut wasteful spending, but then not a lot of more detail. I mean, the answers, those answers certainly have the virtue of being true. Of course, this all depends on Congress and all kinds of other circumstances that you can't predict in the heat of a campaign. In a campaign, as the primary goes on with the imaginary candidate we're talking about here,

is it possible to dodge questions and attacks from your opponents about having no plans? And it does seem like that was part of, like Kamala Harris's vagueness was part of sort of the negative coverage she received. Yeah, so one thing is like with all this plan stuff, I'm trying to hold myself accountable a little bit because I was part of a wave of young at the time journalists who were really like, we got to see plans from these presidential candidates. And in retrospect, it's like I wonder why we were so demanding of that because that's not how the government works. Right. And like we all know that. And so there's this kind of, there was this faux sophistication coming from me and from some of my colleagues, but I mean, specifically from me as well, to be demanding all this detail

from people. And I think that if you can give real answers that make sense, that both journalists and voters will understand, actually, that, like, the micro details of tax policy are written by Congress and that the directionality of tax policy is like a numbers game, right? Like, if we have a teeny, tiny majority, it's going to be hard to do very much. But if a big majority, we'll do a lot, and you try to say what kinds of things you want to do. You know, with Harris, right, I mean, she was in this weird position where she was the vice president for an incumbent administration. She was saying, I mean, I remember the first time when she was doing a little rally, and she said, like, we're not going back. And I was like, yeah, you know, like, I love that line,

Right. Because people really wanted both change, but also not Donald Trump. Right. And so she seemed to convey that. But then she got the question like, well, in what way is this change by not Donald Trump? And she didn't have a great answer. The great thing about being a Democrat running when a Republican is president is that you don't have that same complicated question. Right. Right.

It's like change that's not Donald Trump is just like, yeah, elected Democrat. right? And then people do want to know something like what does that mean? What are you going to do? How are you going to govern differently? And I'm not saying that you should dodge that question. I mean, again, implicit in all of this is that like, yeah, like rich people's taxes will go up. We're going to spend more money on subsidizing people's health care. We're going to, however we characterize what we're doing with ICE, it's like fewer people are going to be getting arrested in the interior of American cities. And then hopefully we can also say, but there's going to be a very secure border. You know, we're going to keep fighting crime. We're going to make crime even lower than it is now. You know, something like that. But do we really need to have this like 17-point plan like we had in the 2020 primary? Again, thinking about 2008, right, there were all these articles written about different candidates' health care plans and like Obama's plan didn't have a mandate. Right.

And then he won the primary and then he won the election. And then Congress did want to do the mandate. So the mandate happened. But then in like the rule writing at HSS, it got watered down a little bit. Then there was like unrelated implementation problems. But then actually it was going pretty well. And like people liked Obamacare. But then the mandate got repealed.

And then that maybe it didn't. It's like so tedious. And in retrospect, I mean, it sure it must have been a huge pain in your ass. And it was in mine. Like why did we spend so much time talking about this? The challenge here is a reason that these policy plans are developed, in the context of a primary is to be used as a political cudgel against your opponents because you're running in a primary. And the truth is, most of you have the same general position on most of

the same issues. And you want to differentiate yourself from the other primary candidates. And so you put out a plan that is bolder and more ambitious, which is either it's more expensive or probably harder to achieve than the other candidates so that you can get on the debate stage. And brag about that. And then, you know, I think it happened in an even more annoying way than the mandate in 2020 when, I don't know how many of those debates ended up being just a conversation, not even a conversation, just a debate about Medicare for All and whose Medicare for All plan was the best when then Joe Biden won and what did he, like barely expanded anything? Yeah, but I mean, I gave some subsidies and that was about it. That is what?

one where I think it is important to remind people that, like, Joe Biden won that primary, right, after that huge shit show that actually his message of like, I'm just going to beat Donald Trump was like pretty compelling, actually, to Democratic primary voters. And he is not the single most like silver-tonged person in the universe, certainly not a master of vertical video or whatever else it is. So I do think that there's like ways for younger politicians to tap into some of what worked for him there, right, in terms of like keeping the focus on like, what do Democrats really care about? And it's beating Trump. It's not just beating Trump, right?

I think Democrats care a lot about health care. And I think Democrats are quite exercised about some of the cruelty of these immigration enforcement actions. And if you can hit those three buttons in some kind of way and convince people that you're going to take action on those issues, you're. Like, you could be, I think, conceivably pretty flexible on some other things if people believed that it was in pursuit of accomplishing these important goals. The Biden thing is interesting, though, because I think I don't see a lot of evidence that Biden ended up winning that primary because he staked out more moderate positions than the rest of the field. And in many ways, he sort of chased them on some of these issues.

He, I think, half raised his hands on, raised his hand on decriminalizing the border on that one. And I think that he probably, what helped him is he had universal name ID. He was Barack Obama's vice president. And so he sort of had a bit of an Obama halo. And then it was, there was no one else left by the time it was just he and Bernie, right? Well, and he did really well in the head-to-head matchup polling against. Trump, right? I mean, that, you know, people, Democrats these days, you know, read the New York Times when Nate Cohn tells them that like Elizabeth Warren is really unpopular and people like Joe Biden.

Like, that made a big difference. It did. Yeah, he just goes back to my, the challenge I keep thinking about is like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, because she was just, you know, installed last minute. These are all people that their name ID came from virtue of them being political dynasties or someone else's vice president or and the incentives to become nationally known and get attention I feel like point towards language that is bolder, more ambitious, geared towards conflict, sometimes hyperbolic. And I'm trying to picture the the, um, the case. candidate who practices discipline moderation, who sort of breaks out in these, like, you know, I think about like an Andy Bashir, right? Like, amazing track record, electoral record in Kentucky. And still,

like, a pretty mainstream Democrat, not like super conservative, but like, I'm trying to picture Andy Bashir, and I've, you know, I've seen him give some interviews. I've interviewed him myself, like really breaking out in a crowded primary with a message that's going to capture people. And that, that's the, I feel like we have a lot of center left candidates who make. be electorally viable, but are not very good at getting attention. And then we have a lot of progressive candidates who are very good at getting attention and may not be electorally viable in swing states, you know? So, right. So, you know, some of this, like, yes, right?

Part of the deal with someone like Governor Rashir is that he's very disciplined, which I think is good for him winning elections in Kentucky, but it also denudes him of a certain amount of pizzazz, right? They could potentially be out there. Like, one of the things that I think was interesting about Platner wasn't just like the positions that he took, but that he seemed very like anything might happen in this interview, right? And that kind of kinetic energy is unusual in experienced politicians because the way you kind of get to be almost a presidential contender is usually by being like quite controlled, you know,

and like come and you climb the state party ladder, and you make the right kind of people like you. And then suddenly you find yourself in a crowded presidential primary field and like the challenge is to break through. And it's like a totally different kind of challenge, right? And I think somebody like Ruben Gallego, who has through many twists and turns in his career, found himself as kind of like a moderate swing state senator.

But just a couple of years ago was like the progressive challenger to Kristen Cinema. and before that was like the young guy in the state legislature who was trying to muscle Ed Pestor out of a house seat, right? And he has a little bit more of the looseness that kind of gets you attention, but is unusual in all kinds of politicians. We're seeing it more with left-wing politicians because they've been challenging incumbents, right? Only like a slightly crazy person runs against an entrenched house incumbent. Most of the people who do that lose, but a couple of them win. And then you're aOC, right?

Because you took on this sort of suicide run primary. You don't see as many people like that in the moderate lane, but I think it's possible, right? Because it's about trying to be interesting and like trying to break through. And it is also about having the right issue positions. You know, I mean, so many people who are, who care about electoral pragmatism, I think really like Josh Shapiro. Right? because he's doing incredibly well in the critical swing state. And I think that's really important.

It's also true that, you know, when he, like, speaks from the heart in a way that is moderate and compelling and makes you think, like, okay, like, this guy's for real, he tends to be talking about the Israel issue in a way that, like, it's just public opinion is not on his side, you know? And, like, that's a tough one. You can't win by being moderate on something where everything's going the other way. Now, that being said, like, he has done some stuff in the state that is heterodox on energy. He's done stuff in the state that is heterodox on education.

I think maybe if he talked more about those things, that, you know, delivers the same kind of electoral pragmatism, but also actually connects more with things that Democrats themselves have mixed feelings about, you know, about like, how are these systems operating? Are we shaking them up? are we governing well in our blue states, these kinds of things. But there's no getting around the fact that politics is hard. Pod Save America is brought to you by Sundays. Is your dog a picky eater?

It's surprisingly stressful. You wish they could tell you the problem. Maybe if they could, your dog would say they know the difference between processed brown pellets and real food. I think my dog would say that. Sundays starts with 80% plus all natural meats and then add superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. And Sundays just launched a. brand new fish recipe. It's made with 80% whole and minced fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp

source from American rivers for a naturally rich flavor. In fact, did you know that many dogs naturally prefer fish flavors? So Sunday's fish recipe is especially great for picky eaters. And they're getting those damn carp out of the water. Get the carp out. Invasive carp, source from our own rivers. Plus, it's packed with these carps do. They're crazy. Oh, I know. This is an issue in Barack Obama's Senate office back in 2005. Right, because he's Asian carp. Crazy. It's an Illinois thing. Plus, it's a packed with omega-3 fatty acids that help support healthy skin, shiny coats, joints, and brain function. It's complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages. Leo loves Sundays for Dogs.

We just took him to Maine, and so it was very easy to travel with Sundays for Dogs. Just pour in the bowl. And then he, like, ran right to the bowl and was very excited, as he always is, because he's a picky eater. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for Dogs.com slash cricket and get 50% off your first order, or you can use Code Cricket at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for Dogs.com slash crooked, Sundaysforogs.com slash crooked, or use code Crooked at checkout. Josh Shapiro is another one where it's like,

it's, the center left theory is, there's often a lot of like this candidate is so great on paper. And look at their electoral track record. And, you know, Josh Shapiro is going to have a fantastic story to tell about that in a very, very important state. And look at how he's navigated the coalitions

and approval rating. that kind of stuff. And then it's not, it's not just like, I don't want to say it's a lack of charisma, but it's what is the story that you're telling about why you're running and why you're different from everyone else? And is that story cohesive and compelling versus cherry-picking issues where you can say, see, this is why I'm different than the National Democratic Party and a little more moderate. And the thing that you hate about the National Democratic Party is not the thing that you are going to hate about me, which can, again, really risks sounding like you read a polling memo.

Yeah, although it also depends what people in our line of work decide that we are interested in. Right? Like a very large share of media professionals live in New York City. And they personally are very interested in left-wing reformist politics in New York City where they live. And so things that happen in that vein. get a lot of coverage. I don't think that's, it's not like wrong for people to be very passionate

about politics in the city that they live in. I wish more people actually cared about the politics of the city within it. But it's distortionary in terms of like our understanding of national politics and like what's it all about, right? And something that, you know, I try to do that I think everybody has to try to do is exercise some disarmament,

and responsibility for ourselves that the most important races coming up in November are in Ohio, they're in Iowa, they're in Texas, Alaska, North Carolina. I have some personal connection to Texas through my wife's family. I have some personal connection to Maine where I am physically present right now. I don't have any connection to Iowa and Ohio. But like I care a lot about the future of the country. So it's incumbent on me to like learn to care about these states, right? Rob Sand is clearly doing something in Iowa that is compelling to people who used to vote for Democrats and stopped voting for Democrats.

And they like Rob Sand. And so I'm trying to like I'm trying to get it, you know, like he's pretty charismatic. You know, he's an interesting guy. Yeah. It conveys that there's something different about him. But it's not targeted at me. You know, and like, that's why he's running in Iowa. Like, that's what's good about it.

I will say, you're right that everyone needs to take responsibility for, in the media and the professional class, like, for what they emphasize and what they talk about. I will speak as someone who runs a media company who, like, we try to have everyone on. Yeah. And a lot of this is the attention that the person ends up commanding with audiences, right? Like, we've talked to Mamdani a bunch of times. very popular, right? Not just with our audience, but like those clips travel

beyond our audience, right? And we will have, you know, Kate Connolly, who's in a much more important to the future of the country district to win when she's in town. And who knows, maybe it'll also be an incredibly viral clip, but our experience

has been a lot of these candidates were in really important races that we ended up talking to like, it doesn't go anywhere because people are like, well, I don't really want to, I'm not as excited, about that. Oh, absolutely. And that's not going to stop us from doing it. We'll keep doing it. But eventually you want, and especially you want this as a candidate on a campaign, you want your message to reach the low information voters. And unfortunately, the stuff that gets to the low information

voters to people who don't pay as close attention to all this has to be stuff that goes viral, you know? And that's the trick. And this is, I mean, a huge frustration that I have with a lot of the more moderate Democrats is that they, don't even want to try a lot of the time, right? That their attitude is, look, nationalizing things is bad for me. I do better if there's kind of less of a giant media glare on me. What I want to do is be well enough known among super high attention people that I can raise money. And then I want to talk to my local television station about my local issues. And I get why people come to that conclusion. And I think it's the advice that they're getting from the D-Triple-C, from the D-S-CC,

and it works within the kind of four walls of what it's designed to achieve. But then all these same people also come around to me, and they're like, oh, my God, I'm so frustrated. People think the only Democrats in the country are AOC and Mamdani. And it's like, well, because they do the interviews, right? And like, they'll go on your show. They'll go on Fox. They'll, you know, and some of it is like you can be more devil may care in a safe district. And it's a little bit of a loaded playing field. But also, you know, life's not fair as we, they tell us not to tell our 11 year old bat.

You're not supposed to raise kids with that message anymore. But like, I think it's an important point fundamentally. It's like it is harder to be in a swing district. Yep. It just is. You know, the playing field is loaded against you. But like, you've got to. try, right? You've got to try to be interesting. You've got to try to say, look, you know,

if you look at Vincenta Gonzalez and Marie-Lisi Camp Perez and Don Davis and Kate Connolly and Tom Swazi, that there actually is something that we all have in common. We're not all just like local people who are focused on our issues here, right? That like they, because they actually like, they hang out together in D.C. They have common staff, Common consultants, common fundraisers. Like there's a group of moderate Democrats, but they need to give some voice to like, what do we think? Who are we? Why are we the good people?

And I give incredible credit to Bernie Sanders, who has been tireless about trying to promote politicians who he likes. And I hear so many other Democrats, and they're mad that Bernie is promoting these people and that the people who they like aren't getting promoted. but it's like, well, who's going to promote them other than you? Yeah, that's what actually that bothers me a lot is that they they look at the insurgent candidates on the left and sort of the progressive outsiders with like umbrage. That's like the main feeling like, how dare you? And my candidate works really hard and has been just doing, you know, this is sort of like

the Haley-Seevian stuff has gotten better, I think, the argument that people are making for her. But originally it was like, well, she's been there just working hard. and give her credit for being there and working hard. And it's like, okay, I'm sure that's true if you know her, but like voters don't know that. And so they're going to need a different kind of story there. Well, and also I know so many Democrats who want her to win this primary, but who don't want to fly to Michigan and campaign with her

because it'll be embarrassing if they stand with her and she loses. But it'll be embarrassing to Bernie if Abdul loses. And like, he doesn't, he has. He's doing the work, right? And there's no alternative to that in politics. And that's like part of my message to the more moderate Democrats out there is like, don't just give up hope, but also don't just assume that we can keep endlessly staving off the left and, you know, pulling more rabbits out of the hat.

Like somebody's got to run a campaign. Somebody's got to make the case. You've got to actually like articulate some daring positions on the issues. And if people yell at you, you have to explain why they're wrong. And like you've got to go on crooked and you've probably got to go on Hassan Piker and, you know, do some interviews from people who don't agree with you and stand your ground. And that's because that's how it's always been. You know, there's no, there's no like magic trick. Look, I know people have said it's not the issue that lost for the election, but the ad that Kamala Harris dealt with.

about gender affirming care for undocumented immigrant prisoners. And, you know, the campaign was like, oh, we tested all the responses, and the responses didn't do anything. And so we decided, like, not to talk about it at all. And I just, I don't think that may be true in terms of testing the ads, but I think the candidate has to be able to tell a story about why they supported that, why they've changed their mind, if they have changed their mind. that is acceptable to voters, right?

Like, I don't think ducking these issues or just trying to hide from them is, it is not an effective strategy on a presidential campaign level. Like some of the, I remember Jonathan Martin wrote a piece a while back was like, Democrats aren't focusing at all on maybe some of the most important Senate races,

like they don't get national attention, like Roy Cooper or, and I was like, well, Roy Cooper probably doesn't want a lot of attention on his race because he has enough money. He has raised quite a bit money. He's ahead. And so what does Roy Cooper care if we're all talking about Roy Cooper's race? He probably doesn't. Probably rather us not. But you can't do that in a presidential primary. And the challenge is you're going to get a bunch of moderates in the presidential primary that

don't know how to sort of make that argument and get that level of attention. Though the one person I've been thinking about this whole time and I thought about when I read your piece for the first time is ROM. Like, ROM will be this person, right? Yeah. I mean, ROM is, I think, doing the right stuff. You know, he is getting attention to himself. People know his name, et cetera. You know, if I could puppet master everything, I would say, look, is like a retread from the Obama White House, from the Clinton White House, who is ambassador to Japan who, if he does gain some traction in the primary, we're going to be relitigating Lockwood McDonald. Like, that's not, like, I would love for Rahm to take a step back and to mentor somebody else.

Yeah. You know what I mean? Because clearly there is a demand for fresh faces and new voices. And like we can all, everybody can see that, right? And, you know, this is part of why I'm excited about Josh Turek and James Telerico. It's like these are younger politicians. They are not part of the old kind of mess. I think they are kind of media savvy and no stuff.

And they're not from the left wing of the party. They're just also not handed down by the establishment, right? And like, this can be done. But to an extent, some of the people, the Rama manuals of the world, need to make room for other people and promote them or help them rather than saying, look, the same cohort that was telling you in 2016, like, don't listen to Bernie. we know how to win, and then they didn't win. And now we're 10 years into that, and it's not a healthy dynamic. Last question on this. So who do you like in 28 as a potential candidate who could carry this message?

Sure. You know, what I tell people is like, we know the universe of statewide elected officials in the critical swing states, right? It's Kelly and Gallego in Arizona. It's Whitmer in Michigan. It's Shapiro in Pennsylvania. there's some of you like Tony Evers is too old. Katie Hobbs seems like I kind of like her, but it seems like she totally refuses to do press of any kind.

Like someone who's not going to run, John Federman is like not going to be a leading contender, I think we could say. But like we know this universe of candidates. And the question is which of them is going to try to go beyond? Like you were saying, right, they're going to stand up and think of like, I know how to win in the swing states.

You should vote for me. This is the most practical thing to do. I kind of agree with that. It's also just not that compelling. Right. And so who's going to say, I know how to win in the swing states. And the way I did it is that I said,

and then you've got to say the thing. You know what I mean? Like you have to actually go say something. And something that I have noticed is that a lot of these people depending on what audience they're talking to, they sometimes want to undersell the amount of ideological heterodoxy that they've displayed in their campaigns.

Because the easiest way to raise money if you're running for re-election in Kentucky is to kind of tell, like, liberal donors in coastal cities. Like, I'm a magician. You know, I just, like, won in Kentucky because I've got a cool accent. But, like, Andy Bashir rejected a Sierra Club endorsement. and he got the United Mine Workers

who have stopped endorsing Democrats in national politics to endorse him. And that's because, like, he has a position on the use of coal that, like, I don't really agree with, but that people in Kentucky do agree with. And that's like, that's the truth about how Andy Bashir wins votes in Kentucky

that other people don't have. I don't think you could sell that to a national democratic primary elector because it's like Kentucky is too right way, right? it's too far. But there's stuff you can say in the Midwest or in Arizona or in Georgia. But like you got to give people the real talk about like what did you say? Raphael Warnock.

What did you say, John Alsop, to the local audiences in Georgia and say it to a national audience. And a lot of the time, you know, you'll find with these people, it's border security, it's some kind of political reform. and it is some effort to indicate that you're not like woke, like whatever it is exactly that that means to people. But I think something like, you know, you are not going to be so obsessed with identity politics that you can't just like help everybody on their own terms, right?

And that's the message Obama used, it's the message Bill Clinton used. I think we kind of like know what the like unifying, this is a diverse country, but we're all in it together. I mean, you're a brilliant speechwriter. You know how to do these things. But only certain people can sell it because politics is hard. Oh, hope we find one soon.

Matt Iglesias, thank you so much for joining Pod Save America. This is a great conversation. Thank you. Thanks to Matt Aglacius for coming on. Tommy Lovett and I will be back in your feed on Tuesday. 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 Groat, Ben Heffcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Kirill Pellev, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single.

Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.