Pod Save America - Trump (Literally) Destroys White House

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

President Trump demolishes the White House’s East Wing to make room for his ostentatious 90,000 square foot ballroom. Jon, Dan, and Alex Wagner — host of Crooked Media’s newest podcast “Runaway Country” — react to the the demolition and the latest news, including Trump’s demand that the Justice Department pay him $230 million in taxpayer money, his pardon of a crypto CEO convicted of failing to report terrorist organizations who used his platform to launder money, and the latest from 2025’s most important elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. Then, Tommy is joined by the Pipeline Fund’s Denise Feriozzi to talk about building a deeper Democratic bench and why it’s so important for people to run for local office.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. The political landscape is getting pretty scary out there. Whether you're in politics or not, you probably want your home to be a place where you can have some basic peace of mind. John Lovett set up Simply Safe all by himself, and, you know, he's been feeling pretty safe. And it's very easy to use, easy to set up. And Simply Save Smart cameras detect threats while they're still outside your home and alert real security agents. This is the game changer. The agents take action while the intruder is still outside.

They confront the intruder, letting them know they're being watched on camera. and that police are on their way, and even sounding a loud siren and triggering a spotlight if needed. This is how you stop a crime before it starts. That's real security. Other systems have cameras the late you talk to intruders, but they require you to see the alert yourself, simply saves monitoring agents, have your back and talk to intruders even if they aren't there. There are no long-term contracts or hidden fees. You can cancel any time. It's named the best home security system by U.S. News and World Report for five years running. 60-day money-back guarantee, so you can try it and see the difference for yourself. Right now, our listeners can

say 50% on a SimplySafe home security system at Simplysafe.com slash crooked. That's simplysafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimplySafe. America. I'm John Favro. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. And I'm Alex Wagner. On today's show, we're going to talk Trump's demand that the Justice Department pay him $230 million, handing over the keys to our elections to election deniers, the demolition of the East Wing. The latest with Graham Platner in Maine and all the elections coming up in less than two weeks. Then you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Denise Ferriosi from the Pipeline Fund about building a deeper Democratic bench and why it's so important for people to run for local office. But first, Alex, welcome back to the show. Oh, guys, I'm thrilled. Now, contractually, Dan, is supposed to be in the same room with me, so I'll have to talk to HR about that. Well, you didn't come to. If you had come to the West Coast, then we could have done that.

Yeah, okay. All right. Well, you know, we're working on some Kings. I would love to have both of you sitting around this table with me. We would love to be. We would love to be. I'm happy to be here because it's a big day for me. Huge day.

As a cousin to the crooked family. Tell us all about it. You have your new podcast, Runaway Country. Yes, Runaway Country is live. The first episode is actually. For people who have missed my shameless and unending promotion of it, I'll just give you a little, like, taste. It is all about hearing from people who are at the center of these big headline stories that in many ways have become abstract because they're so damn many of them. And this week we are talking to an immigration court judge who was recently fired because Trump is firing all the people that know about immigration law and who has had firsthand experience dealing with ICE agents in her courtroom and outside her courtroom has had to adjudicate right.

wrenching cases as sobbing and screaming is heard through the walls on the other side, has a had a case log of thousands of cases. There, I think, are only 600 of these judges left. They have to deal with 3.8 million immigration cases. And it's really a story from, you know, a human firsthand perspective about the, you know, what Trump is trying to do to our system of due process. So we have Judge Anam Petit, who's our, you know, person giving us, that visceral emotional storytelling and then some really high quality analysis from the great Andrew Weissman, who is himself a target of Trump as a former member of the Department of Justice and talks a lot about kind of what we can expect in terms of rule of law and its erosion in the Trump years. It's a very good conversation. I'm proud of it. I hope everybody likes it and you'll leave angry, but maybe inspired to try and do something about it. I absolutely love the first episode. I loved the idea for the podcast and knew that you would crush it, but when I listened to the first episode, it reminded me that, especially in the second Trump administration,

there's just so much news, so many headlines. And to me, what's broken through and really made me angriest and inspired me are these, like, individual stories of people who've been affected by what's happening, because I think they can get lost in just the discussion of the headlines and sitting down and listening to the judge speak and what she's gone through, what she went through, what's happening in a lot of these courtrooms. It was just, it was fascinating and raging. And it did, it did inspire me to keep going. Well, and also maybe I think we just need some storytelling to help us understand the moment, right? It's just like it's all so, it's become kind of abstract. That's for those of us lucky enough not to be affected directly by, you know,

family members getting snatched off the street or losing their health insurance or whatever the issue is. But I think it's really important. I know I have a lot of friends who are like, I don't even know how to parse it. I don't know how to think about it. And I think one way is just on the human level. So that's Runaway Country, guys. New episodes of Runaway Country drop every Thursday on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast. So go ahead right now. Go subscribe while you're listening to this. So you don't miss an episode. You'll thank us later. We're excited, Alex. Thanks, buddies. All right. Let's get to the news. People are paying higher prices. Trump's tariffs, inflation's on the rise, unemployment's on the rise.

Health insurance is about to get a lot more expensive for millions, and we are recording this on day 23 of a government shutdown that has left hundreds of thousands of people out of work, many who won't get their jobs back because the White House has decided to use the shutdown as an excuse to just fire people. But good news, thanks to the presidency, Donald Trump has never been richer. and now he's demanding that taxpayers cut him a personal check for $230 million. The New York Times reports that Trump filed complaints against the federal government for investigating his many alleged crimes.

And now the federal government run by Donald Trump is likely to settle those claims in Donald Trump's favor, surprise, to the tune of up to $230 million paid for by all of us. Trump was asked about this novel arrangement in the Oval this week. Here he is. I don't know what the numbers. I don't even talk to them about it.

All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I'm not looking for money. I'd give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity. With the country, it's interesting because I'm the one that makes a decision, right? And, you know, that decision

would have to go across my desk. And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. But I was damaged very greatly. And any money that I would get, I would give to charity. It's awfully strange to be making a decision where I pay myself. And yet I will go ahead and do it anyway. But rest assured, I'm sure he will be giving it to a charity that all the American taxpayers probably support, right?

Mind-boggling corruption here. We haven't even gotten to Trump's pardon of the crypto-terrorist financier who made his family rich. We'll get there. But I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, how the hell can Trump just raid the treasure? like this? Dan? Well, technically he can't. I know this word's going to feel very 2017,

but do you remember emoluments? No, I know. Oh, boy. Old school, early, early seasons. I know, but there was a lot of... Hatch act. I mean, hatch act is no longer. And as we will point out on this podcast many times,

Trump is immune from the Hatch Act. But in Malium, like, there was a lot of discussion in 2017 about foreign, governments buying hotel rooms at the Trump, at the recently departed Trump Hotel as a way to put money in Trump's pocket. That worked as a way the courts did not happen. There is another emoluments clause, which is very specific to domestic emoluments, which says that President of the United States cannot receive money beyond his salary, as designated by Congress, from the federal government or the

state government. This would be a very clear and obvious violation of that. So that is one. Second, I mean, this is, he's going to try to do it. Well, the Supreme Court would have to twist itself in some relatively unprecedented knots to let him keep this money. They might do that. They might not. But just the process by which this happens is unbelievable because the specific department addresses manual says that any award, any sort of reparations award like this

of more than $4 million must be approved by either the associate attorney general or the deputy attorney general. The associate attorney general is a man who is a favorite lawyer of Trump allies and defended a lot of them through all of these cases. and the deputy attorney general is Trump's personal attorney. So it seems pretty cool. So it seems like he's got a good chance. It seems like he's put the right people in place.

Alex, what did you make of this story? Well, okay, a couple things. One is like if you're one of the stooges that Trump's installed at the Department of Justice, I feel like basically everything you're doing at this point, you know sort of secretly in the back of your head might be unconstitutional, could actually get you indicted, but you're just gunning for a pardon. So if you're Todd Blanche, you're like, you know, I'm in already. So I can't risk not getting the pardon.

So I'm all in. If I'm in for a penny, I'm in for a pound. That's a bad incentive structure. I'm just going to stay for people who are the nation's top law enforcement officials. The other piece is I think people should understand why Trump is even able to do this. The law exists for Americans who are, oh, I don't know, unlawfully detained by ICE. They are the victims of uses of excessive force from federal law enforcement officers. And, you know, there are stories, like gutting stories of people who are, I mean, you can imagine in this season of ice snatching and detention, people who are American citizens who are, you know, pepper sprayed by ice, whose cars are destroyed by ice, whose lives are in some ways traumatized by ice, who then try and use this law to seek some kind of reparations.

It is very hard to get any money from the federal government because you were wronged. And the idea that Donald Trump is going to try and get $250 million from the American taxpayer, which, by the way, John, he suggested, I believe today, may go to pay for the new 90,000 square foot ballroom at the White House. Yes. Great use of taxpayer funds is just it is appalling even for Donald Trump, right? It's a mashup of like the two worst things he's done this week that he could be suing the Justice Department to pay for a fascist monstrosity attached to the White House. residents. I mean, it's just, and, and the, and the, you know, the asymmetry of who's getting, who could get the money and who doesn't get the money is decidedly un-American. I will say, I believe, and I'm not an expert in this, he can get the money, he can get the payout, and we won't know until the end of the year when the sort of receipts are tallied effectively and the DOJ has to report out. Yeah. It's numbers. It can be a, it can be basically a secret settlement when it actually happens.

They could theoretically also defer the payment until after his presidency to get around the emoluments clause. Right. The Times did a follow-up story actually talking about sort of the double standard here. And they mentioned George Redis, who's the Iraq war veteran from out here in California, who Iced detained for three days. I've talked about him, Tim Miller interviewed him on Bullwork. There's a horrifying story, just taken away from his family for three days, and for no reason, never charged. with anything and he has filed one of these claims and has not heard at all back from the government and if no one gets back to him within six months he can sue under the federal

tort reform act but there is this loophole there where federal agents and federal officers have like pretty broad latitude and discretion to act sort of like in the line of duty here and it's like it's basically like immunity and which is why so many so few people get these claims heard. But Donald Trump's going to get it. He's not going to get it heard. He's just going to just settle it because he's in charge of the government. And his former defense lawyers are running the Department of Justice. It's crazy. It's the, it's the worst example of corruption yet, I think. Well, it does bring to mind, like, why even bother with the, like, you know, the, like, why even pretend that this is anything other than stealing

from the government? Like, Andrew Weissman told me on the podcast this week, like, why not just go for Fort Knox? Just, like, go in there and take. some gold bars, right? Like, that's basically what's happening here. Yeah, that'll be, that'll be year six. As I mentioned, Trump isn't the only convicted criminal profiting off his connections. Cheng Peng Zhao, also known as CZ, the founder of Binance Crypto Exchange, he'd been convicted of failing to report financial transactions from terrorist organizations like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS that were using Binance to launder money. Then, Binance made a multi-billion dollar deal with the Trump family crypto company, CZ tweeted that he wouldn't mind

a pardon. And now it looks like CZ and Binance are going to be back in business. Win for Binance, win for the terrorist money launderers. Most importantly, a win for Donald Trump. He was asked about this by Caitlin Collins of CNN at the White House today. Let's listen. Can you explain why you chose to pardon him and did it have anything to do with his involvement in your family's, the founder of Binance. He has an involvement in your own family's crypto business. A lot of people say that he wasn't guilty of anything.

He served four months in jail and they say that he was not guilty of anything, that what he did, well, you don't know much about crypto. You know nothing about, you know nothing about nothing. You have fake news. But I've been told a lot of support. He had a lot of support.

And they said that what he did is not even a crime. It wasn't a crime. That he was persecuted by the Biden administration and so I gave him a pardon at the request of a lot of very good people do you think a lot of those good people were Eric, Don Jr.,

Hamas, ISIS like what not a crime, not a crime allowing your crypto company to be a crypto exchange to be a to double as a money laundering operation for al-Qaeda

ISIS and Hamas. Not a crime? I mean When you go back and read the files on this and the evidence, it was just, they, like, they were explicitly trying to hide evidence. I mean, it's like, they're obviously guilty here. This has two challenges, like, we can get to the corruption of it a second, but it's going to CZ and is going to in finance will be back in the United States and is going to end the Department

of Justice monitoring of the program almost certainly. And then there's a separate monitoring agreement where the Treasury Department, the people do terrorist financing there, are monitoring how Binance does its activities. That does not end on its own. from this part, but all it requires is Scott Bessett to just say it can end. And so they're like fully back-in-business. He's such a stand-up guy, though, right? Scott Bessett, yeah, yeah, I would trust it.

He's the bulwark, he'll stand in there. Do we do we not care about terrorist financing anymore? I thought, I thought we were going after Antifa and not just the violent Antifa soldiers in the streets, but all of their, all of the groups funding them. Right? I thought that was a big, big part of the Trump Vance agenda here. No, Alex? The Antifa stuff is just so they can tap your phone, John. That's true. Yeah, well. Which I should even joke about because, yeah.

You know, a quarter of the FBI agents who used to deal with cyber crimes, counterterrorism, they've been moved over to immigration enforcement. Like, you talk about the disassembly of the national security infrastructure, and it has been conducted weirdly in the shadows. I mean, even though it's clear what's happening, there hasn't been paid nearly enough attention. This is just another plank in all of that. I mean, like, we're now making it much easier for terrorists to launder money

and fund terrorist operations, like on all levels. At the same time, the reason Trump is doing this is because, what is it, World Liberty Financial, his crypto company, has been grossly enriched by CZ and Co. And, like, you know, we talk about what it's going to, going to look like if and when Trump ever leaves the White House. He's going to be, you know, at least on paper, a very rich man because he has established a full-blown kleptocracy. I mean, that is all this is. Like, you cannot look at the, you know, corporations that are

funding the destruction of the East Wing and the pardoning of these crypto bros and as anything other than just personal enrichment of the DOJ suit. I mean, all of it's just so that he can get rich. It is full-blown kleptocracy at this point. I mean, the fact pattern here is stunning, right, which is World Libya Financial debuts this new coin called USD1. Binance then gets a $2 billion investment that they want paid for in USD1 coins. So that's a giant boost for World Libya Financial and this new coin. Much of the growth in the USD1 coin has also come from its presence on a trading platform called PancakeSwap, which is administered by Binance. CZ tweets out that like any felon, he would welcome a pardon.

CZ then hires one of Donald Trump Jr.'s best friends as his lobbyist, CZ gets the pardon. It's not complicated. No, you don't have to know anything about crypto to understand exactly what happens. Give billions of dollars to Trump's family. Get a pardon. Yeah. Have some connections. Reach out to the right people.

Have enough money. You can commit any crime you want. And yet, if the government treats you poorly, if it abuses you, if it breaks the law to hurt you, then you are screwed. Or if you're on a boat in the Caribbean or in the Pacific. Do not be on boats. Don't be on a boat. Don't be on a boat.

It's not just about how long you sleep, it's about how well. And surprise, science tells us temperature plays a big role. That's where chili pad by sleep me comes in. The luxury temperature regulating mattress topper that keeps you perfectly cool even when the heat's on full blast. Because quality sleep shouldn't depend on the thermostat fights happening in your bedroom or your chaotic schedule the next day. Chili pad isn't just about cooling. It's precision temperature control for better sleep and recovery. Set your ideal sleep temperature anywhere from 55 to 115 degrees and get deeper sleep, better recovery, and improve. improved sleep scores. Plus, it's smart, like nerdy smart. You can schedule your bed temp to change while you sleep, start at room temp, cool it down when you hit deep sleep, then gently warm up to wake up naturally. And if you've ever had a passive aggressive pillow fight over the thermostat, good news. Dual zone control. One side cool, one side warm, piece in the bedroom at last.

I've had chili pad by Sleep Me, and boy, it's so nice. Cools the core. It really just cools the whole bed down. And then suddenly you're like, oh, I can't sleep with that, this thing. It's so good. Visit www. Sleep.me slash Crooked to get 20% off your ChiliPad with code Crooked. That's up to $540 off.

That's www.S-L-E-P.m-E-S-R-O-O-K-E-D, free shipping, free returns, and a 30-night trial so you can test it out, dream big, and wake up better. ChiliPad, sleep cooler, recover faster, perform better. Now, you might be thinking all this corruption might make voters. pretty angry, and they may take that out on the president and his party in future elections. Unfortunately, the president has thought of that, too. Here's another time story from this week, quote, election officials from nearly all 50 states gathered on a call last month with the Homeland Security Department's point person on election integrity, and quote, many of them left alarmed because the official, who is

a kooky election denier activist named Heather Honey, talked about rigged voting machines favoring Democrats on this call. During a call with election denier activists in March, right before Honey was appointed, she said that in future elections, Trump could declare a national emergency based on his team's investigation of the 2020 election that would then allow the White House to force new election rules and mandates on states and local governments. Trump himself alluded to this in the Oval this week. Here he is. We can never let what happened in the 2020 the election happen again. We just can't let that happen.

And so the way we go, I know Cash is working on it, everybody's working on it, and certainly Tulsi's working on it. We can't let that happen again to our country. Look at what's happened. So what do you think Cash and Tulsi are working on, guys? Dan, you think the intelligence director and the FBI director, they're working on, they're working on what do they have to do with our elections? This whole story is so bizarre in so many ways.

There's like the very clear real problem or immediate problem that long before Donald Trump was making up stories about stolen elections, there were people trying to interfere in our elections, particularly foreign governments. And that's why these jobs exist to try to stop that from happening. We know that Russia, Iran, China have tried to hack into things, interfere with elections. They're going to do that again. And now instead of having actual professionals in the jobs designed to stop them, we have a bunch of fucking moral.

who believe the dumbest conspiracy theories alive. So that's like a real threat. That like that is bigger than whatever it is they can do. Now, this person's idea that Trump can declare a national emergency and seize elections is not, that is not a thing. That's not a thing that can happen. That's not a power he has. The elections are very clearly administered by states, right? They don't have to listen to the federal government on these things and they can't change the rules.

They can't suspend the election. That is not something that Trump has the power to do, whether he declares a national emergency or not. The thing that is alarming here, and this is where the Cash Patel piece comes in, is in a world in which the Democrats take the House narrowly or take the Senate narrowly, you can see them with the help of the FBI and the DOJ and the DHS trumping up, pun intended, investigate, you know, claims of voter fraud and investigations. Like he wanted to seize the voting machines in 2020. His Homeland Secretary would not let him back then. His Homeland Security Secretary will definitely let him this time. and that's where like he can't cancel election he can't stop the elections but he has great power to cast doubt on them and mess with the counting of the votes yeah Alex I heard Andrew Weissman talked to you about this on in runaway country in the episode about his fear that the DOJ would could actually seize the voting machines which seems to me like seems like that should go through court before they get to seize the voting machines no is aileen cannon busy I don't know I mean like I think there's two things to talk about one is the the 2026 midterms. And already we know that there's going to be, I mean, with the redistricting

shenanigans, which is to flip into term for what Trump is trying to do, they're already trying to steal that election. But, you know, when you see the presence of National Guard troops, when you see Trump already laying the groundwork for saying, you know, this is a national emergency. We need to send in security. Like, you can see a world in which he tries to fuck with blue cities and states on election day and depress the vote. You can absolutely see ahead of 2028, with early and mail-in voting. That's already in the list of demands that these psychos that are now installed in the Trump administration to oversee election integrity. That's already something they're asking for. What's so surprising to me in the reporting on this is that after the 2024 election, rather than lay down arms and be like, oh, look, Donald Trump got reelected. Like maybe the system isn't broken. They're newly emboldened to make a set of asks of this president. They're installed in positions of power. And they're working behind. the scenes to do what they can. I mean, the time suggests that there could be some kind of federal intrusion into state election results. I'm with Dan. I think it's like a little early to panic

about that happening. But I don't think anything's off the table. Given where we are, I mean, the brazenness of his immigration dragnets and his lawlessness of the ICE officers and the National Guard troops trying to foment literally a civil war between states. Is it like that far of a stretch to see him doing something on election day in a blue city or blue state? I don't think so. And as if we've learned from 2020, it's like once you put the point, you cannot put the toothpaste back of the tube. Once the poison is out in the air and people believe that something wrong has something wicked has happened in a certain precinct, you know, it becomes very difficult to convince people otherwise. And delegitimizing those who are elected to the House. I mean, they're not seating people who were duly elected, right?

Because it's advantageous to Democrats. Like, anything's on the table. And people should know Heather Honey's name, right? Like we need to inform ourselves about the people who are, I think, soon going to become the tip of the spear for Trump in and around elections because we all know Rudy Giuliani. We remember Cleita Mitchell, but there's another wave. There's like Gen 2.0 and they have power and they're at work right now trying to undermine our right to vote. Yeah, I think my first reaction when I read this or I saw the headlines with the story and then some other stories about like, Trump appointing 2020 election deniers to look back at the 2020 election and do yet another investigation.

I was like, oh, maybe this is just a bunch of cooks trying to fight the last war. And Trump just wants to put out some report that says, oh, it was rigged in 2020. And that's just going to be, you know, he's going to make him happy. But this piece, it really gets to the challenge here. And what's really scary is that they are looking ahead to future elections. This is not just about relitigating 2020. this is about 2026, 2028, and beyond. And that's why people, I think, have to really pay attention to it.

I will say, Trump and his goons aren't treating the White House as a rental these days. Every president puts their own stamp on the historic building and plenty have made renovations during their tenure. Nothing in our lifetimes has come close to what Trump is doing, demolishing the entire East Wing of the White House to make room for a new 90,000 square foot, 300 million dollar ballroom that nobody needs and nobody asked for. Like most of Trump's construction projects, he sold this one to people by lying about its costs, its footprint, how disruptive it will be. Let's listen to how Trump's explanation has, shall we say, evolved over time. It won't interfere with the current building.

It won't be near it, but not touching it and pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of. It's my favorite place. I love it. You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction to the back. You hear that sound? Oh, that's music to my ears. I love that sound. Other people don't like it. I love it, Josh. I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.

For those of you just listening, that last clip is just a jackhammer going, while the last remains of the East Wing are demolished. It's gone now. It's, it is now the East Wing is gone of the White House. You guys have both spent time in the White House, particularly the East Wing. Initial reactions? Dan? I am so mad about this.

You're really? Okay. I am interesting. I mean, it's just like it's obviously not, I'm not saying that it's the, I'm unbiased in it. Like, we worked in the White House. We spent time there. It's a very special place, right? It's not Trump's house.

not the president's house, the people's house. The presidents get to rented for four years. And if they're lucky, they get to extend that lease for another four years. And as you know, it is something you, like, when you're in that house, where you're the president or a staffer or even a visitor, you take, like, you understand the history of it. You take it so seriously. Like, my wife worked in the East Wing when she worked the first lady, she was telling me this morning about how when they had to move things around for events, you get the White House curator to come. They put on white gloves because the stuff is so historic. I mean, it's like a very serious thing. And to just destroy it for literally no reason to build what is inevitably going to be a tacky, massive ballroom

that no one but Trump wanted. And he's definitely going to put his name on it. Like, you know, he looks at the Truman balcony every day and says, it's going to be the Trump ballroom. There's going to be a plaque there. I look forward to the next Democratic president taking that plaque down, but to just destroy it. And it says something about, not that we need a reminder, but it says something about his

view of everything. He doesn't care about anything that came before him. He doesn't care about anything that came after him. he doesn't view this as the people's house he doesn't view this as his role in history it's just about him in that moment and if he can do this right think about all the other things he could do right these he like he Caroline Levin was asked today about why Trump couldn't just uh raise the Jefferson memorial and put something else up and she kind of implied he could if he wanted to yeah he can do he can do whatever he wants yeah it's i think it's really sad it's like there is

just something about just destroying a national historic landmark for no fucking reason that should that makes obviously me as someone who, in all of us who have a connection to it, angry, but it should make everyone angry. Alex, what do you think? I mean, these fuckers are the ones that are putting Confederate statues back up in the name of history. Yeah, that's a good point. Good point. What?

Like, flag-waving patriotism, preservation of history. And you're just tearing down the entire East Wing of the White House to build a corporate event space to entertain Lockheed Martin executives or, I don't know, have like Mooney-style mass weddings. I have no idea. Like, but it doesn't even matter, right? Like, it's everything Dan said. This is a monument to ego. This is his Versailles.

This is monarchical behavior. This is maybe going to be funded ultimately by the American taxpayer. I mean, it's so absolutely fucking disgusting. But the way I think of it is and the way I've been sort of trying to, like, dig in and, like, manage my feelings of distress around this. It's like everybody's got to stop thinking about the Trump administration in terms of election cycles. Like in the same way that they tried to contextualize these renovations by saying, well, Calvin Coolidge, we did the attic and Barack Obama put a basketball court in and Nixon put a bowling alley. We need to think of Trump in terms of history. And the institutions he's destroying are going to take decades to rebuild.

Everybody's got to dig the fuck in and buckle up because nothing is going to be repaired by like next year. And honestly, we need to start thinking about politics like that, too. It's like it does it. It's a long-term investment. And he's trying to change the course of American history. and it's going to take a powerful citizen-led, hopefully with the Democrats on board movement, to undo the damage he is doing right now. And, like, you don't need a better example than what he's doing to the East Wing. It's like, okay, this is some history right here.

Like, it's going to take time to rebuild this and undo it and dig in. You know, it's not going to take time, though, demolishing the Trump ballroom next time the next time there's a Democratic president. Well, it's going to be made of, like, you know, drywall and, like, fake gold leaf. So, yeah. It's just going to do a toxic dump site. I talked about this on Tim Miller's on the bulwark pod with Tim Miller this week. And we were talking about Jonathan Van Las, JVL, has been on a tear about this. And he's like, I want every Democratic candidate for president to be like, you know, one of the first days in office, I will bulldoze this.

And I was joking about it. Tim and I were both joking about it. The more I read it, it's like, I still don't think it's, like, top priority for any Democrat running for president. But, yeah, I'd do it. I'd bulldoze that shit. You're going to be in the seat of the bulldozer, just like, you and Charlie. I'm not going to spend a lot of, I'm not going to spend a lot of time campaigning on it or running a whole bunch of ads about it. But yeah, I'm fucking doing it for sure.

The plaques, not just the plaque coming off that says it's the Trump ballroom. No, the whole ballroom's coming down. Just bulldozed. done. I read JVL's rebuttal to your ridicule of him, and it's quite compelling, I would say. He makes a very strong point that you don't need political capital for this, right? It's not like you're doing the ballroom destruction and passing Medicare for all. You can do both. I will say the reason that it did not, it's not like, it hasn't made me as angry as some of the other stories is it is destroying historic monument and it is doing it. He's doing it unnecessarily. and he's acting like a king, like all that. But there's so many people being, like, hurt right now.

Like, I said this to Tim. There's like, if you, you can, he can demolish the entire White House, just raise the whole thing to the ground if he takes ice off the street. Right. And there's been so much focus on it. And I get why there's been so much focus on it because it's an image. And boy, when you see that, someone just took a, like a, this was on Twitter, an aerial image because they were landing at DCA of the White House.

And so it was like the first image of, of the, from afar, the White House, the West Wing, and now just nothing. And you see that image, and you're like, holy shit. That, that breaks through. That definitely breaks through. What's the polling on this, Dan? Is that your next question, John? Well, you can, I mean, I didn't mean to insert myself.

I love a good conversation like this, so it doesn't seem as well. I just, I just know Dan has the polling now. I don't actually, honestly, didn't have it memorized because it was in the question, so. It's, it is a. Sorry. It's okay. Now you've exposed me as a fraud. I'm just supposed to be just rolling out.

I think like retweeting your polling post. Like, okay, whatever. I thought you knew it, my man. Sorry. Yeah, just get yourself a chat GPT. You don't need Dan. It's 50 bucks a month. Message box is $7 a month.

Chat she's $20 a month. It's quite a deal. Take that $13 to the bank, people. UGov. YouGov, 53% of Americans are against the destruction of the East Wing. Which is what's happened. Or I think the question was the ballroom. There's two questions.

There's the ballroom and there's the east room. Yeah. And the destruction of the east wing is even worse. Yes, yes. People are, they are, they don't want a ballroom. They don't think it's a great use of time, energy, resources right now. But they really don't think the president should bulldoze the fucking White House. Yeah, that's definitely.

Because I think when I first heard the ballroom, I was like, oh, that's so Trump. That's so fucking annoying. How much is that going to cost? And I thought it was just going to be, like, tacked on. to like the end of the east wing there. Like, I just had a different vision. Who knew that the whole fucking e-swing was coming down? I mean, you had that vision because he told you that.

He told you it would not affect the facade of the White House. So, you know how they used to like put those tents up that would be for like big state standards? I assume they were just going to kind of build out that way. That's sort of what I thought too. I mean, it's truly, I've been going through this my wife all day. She's very upset about this. They bulldozed her office, right? They built the first, they were Michelle Obama's office.

the like all those melania trump's office metaphor for a marriage yeah and it's like another immigrant that the federal government has come after yeah it's really i mean it's like it's like you're right in a world of like ice raids and national guard and people losing their health insurance like this building and the memories that a lot of people have in it not just people who work there people have visited there it's obviously second to that but it's just it's like a sad thing so apparently um you you know, Trump keeps saying that the taxpayers are not going to fund Mar-a-Lago on the Potomac, but, you know, he's just going to finance it with other money. And I guess that's true because there's a bunch of corporate donors that are financing this thing.

Alex, you were talking about this earlier? What's the... Sitting in one of their houses right now. Comcast, thank you. Who's on the list? Who's on the list here? Who's financing this thing? You know, it's interesting because there are people and their big corporations, none of them are going to surprise. you maybe necessarily, but the ones who have explicitly committed money to the Ballroom

Project itself are Lockheed Martin and, I believe, Booz Allen Hamilton, and I believe Google has also pledged $5 million or more for the White House Ballroom Project. But then you have, we have record of other companies, including Apple, Comcast, Coinbase, T-Mobile, the Adelson family, now surprise there. Microsoft, Amazon, meta, and meta platforms, and the Winklevi. The Winklevi. Howard Lutnik also giving money. This ties to this easy thing, which is like a highly disproportionate number of crypto companies and crypto people.

The Winklevai are crypto entrepreneurs who would become very close to the Trumps. And Trump likes them a lot because they're from central casting as far as what he thinks crypto bro should look like. But yeah, I mean, it's like the inaugural slush fund. It's like, here's a way for us to curry favor with someone who's powerful in front of whom we have business interests, because I don't think Sundar Pichai really is that excited to have a space to entertain fellow CEOs, but here, such is the reality in which we live. I would like to see some kind of color of change campaign to have citizens contact these

corporations and say, are you really for the destruction of this East Wing? Are you really for the building of a monstrous 90,000 square foot ballroom, shame on you? Are you, are you, you know, paying for the destruction of our living history because fuck off if you are it is uh it is pretty fucking outrageous it's also like a bunch of the richest companies in the world um who are doing just you know between booze allen and fucking the a i people it's just it is it's like a kind of thing that if a if a liberal said this a couple years ago they would be like mocked as a cringy resistance person that the that Trump's going to bulldoze the White House and a new ballroom's going to be constructed with the help of all

of his corporate oligarchs. Like, it's fucking ridiculous. It's happening. I would also like to see some account, like there's no process by which that money is accounted for, right? This is not a publicly, like there's no, it's not like there's an FEC report. So these companies have given $300 million. How do we know where that money goes? How do we know how it's spent? Isn't it? The park service somehow has a tab. There's like a, there is a, actually a wing of the government that is dedicated to taking in the money that I think is in turn managed by the National Park Service. I could be wrong. But there is some receptacle for this specifically earmarked money. So someone somewhere has a ledger. But all this, all these privately funded White House things are all slush funds where like when you, they're privately funded, like the inauguration was the redecorating funds or slash they're, you never really, they don't have, like we have transparency in sense. We know companies that have done this and individuals who've done it, but there's not any sense of how the money is spent. It's not all. audited in any way, shape, or form. Maybe a Democratic majority can do that if we get one, if Heather Honey doesn't stop us.

Bookkeeping is not their passion, hint. No. No, they have the same approach to bookkeeping as Jason Bateman had in Ozark. Nice Ozark, ref. Yes, thank you. Thank you, thank you. One Democrat who's going through his own renovation project, Maine Senate candidate, Graham Platner. How's that for a segue?

That is perfect. That's pretty good. Did you just make that up on the spot? You know, I'm not going to take credit for that one. I'll take credit for it when I do it, but I'm not doing that one to read. Or maybe it was Saul. I don't know. Sorry, someone did.

Someone did on our team. In our Tuesday episode, Tommy asked Plattner about a tattoo on his chest of a Totenkov, which now we all know, the skull and crossbones image used by the Nazi SS. Platner said he wasn't aware of what it meant when he got it in Croatia as a drunk 23-year-old Marine. On Wednesday, after a bit of online chatter, Platner revealed that he got the text. He's also dealing with the followout from his many, many Reddit posts, including several homophobic slurs and jokes that were reported by The Advocate, which Plattner apologized for and said were indefensible in an interview with the outlet. Platner did speak to a Pack Town Hall in a Gunquit Main this week and got some good news

from a UNH poll that was in the field between October 16th and 21st. So after many of the Reddit post came out, but before the Nazi tattoo story, the poll shows that Maine Democrats favor Platner over Governor Janet Mills by a whopping 58 to 24%. Mills's overall approval rating with Mainers has also taken a dive since the last UNH poll in August. She's gone from a plus four net approval to a minus 12 disapproval with only 35% of independence and 2% of Republicans approving. Alex, we've all talked quite a bit about this story. Some people probably think more than enough that they never want to hear it again. What are your thoughts?

I will say this about Graham Platter. I think if there's one residual effect of the Trump administration or the Trump years, it is that politicians can own their mistakes. And they can be, I think it is a good thing when people in politics admit that they have erred and that they are human. And I'm not saying that to excuse homophobia or potentially racist tattoos. or anti-Semitic tattoos or whatever, I just think it is a good development. If people feel like they can own their past, they can apologize for it,

they can let the voters decide whether the apology is sufficient, but that we don't pretend that people have lived their lives from, you know, the day they were born, hoping to gain office and that they have had experiences and they've made mistakes

and they've lived lives because ultimately I think it serves us as a public to have people who have been in the world and have learned things and have evolved. And I'm, again, not making excuses for Graham Platner. But I think it is a good thing for us politically to not be so afraid of our past. So I think the way he's approached the sort of scandal here by going out there and talking to people and talking to Tommy and saying like, this is, you know, I regret this. I did this, but this was me and it made me who I am today is like, that's a good thing.

And I don't know that that kind of that kind of mea culpa would have happened. happened before Trump, where it's like nothing, you can do anything. But no, I think that you can be honestly who you are. And voters will maybe try not, they'll understand that. And maybe it's not going to be a death now for your campaign. So that part is good. You know, I don't know. Dan and I kind of disagree on this. I don't know. I think Janet, I guess I think that I understand the concerns about absolutely being knighted by Chuck Schumer and chosen by the establishment. to be the candidate and why that is distasteful. And it is fundamentally anti-democratic. I also think that there is a real difference between someone who's been in the Senate for like six terms and someone who just happens to be old still wants to fight, has stood up to Donald Trump, said to him in the White House to his face, I'll see you in court. Like that's a different kind of fighter than some of the aged, albeit wonderful public servants we see in the upper chamber. And I don't think we should, you know, I don't think it's necessarily fair to put her in the same box. as, for example, Dick Durbin.

Okay, not that he's a bad person. And, like, last but not least, I just am a little bit with Jonathan Martin on this when it's like Democrats do get very enthralled with anti-establishment outsiders who are very charismatic and, you know, I'm thinking of Beto O'Rourke in his potty mouth. And, you know, like, I do worry a little bit that he's such, he is, he's good. He's a good, you know, like, he's got a lot to recommend him. but I do worry about whether this is actually someone who's going to win the weird-ass state of Maine. It's a weird state. A wonderful state. No disrespect Mainers.

Dan, before you're going to, I'm going to just read you just a quote from what Alex was just referencing our friend Jonathan Martin's Politico column. And then I'm just going to let you cook on this. You should not do that. Alex and I are going to set a timer. We'll give you. We need to play me off like the Oscars. Just let him have the rest of the show. So J-Mart says the Democrats need to stop, quote,

swooning over, quote, political outsider or mostly new-name candidates who rely on online video and lean, quote, heavily on compelling biography or powerful oratory, which caused, quote, out-of-state liberal hobbyists to fall in love and donate, and for journalists to, quote, rush to profile the latest heartthrob before inevitable disappointment when the candidate loses or well becomes John Fetterman. obviously a lot to respond to there, Dan.

Okay. We like Jonathan Martin. We've known him for a very long time. I think he is a very astute observer of politics. I don't understand a word he wrote this piece. Okay. Should we repeat it? Should we have Don reread it?

Yeah, I mean, I understand the, like I understand the syllables. I understand the individual words. I just don't understand the point, I guess, is the way I'd say it. So first, the idea that Democrats are constantly falling in love with these crazy outsider candidates who can't win elections is belied by the fact that our last three nominees were Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and then Kamala Harris, who may have been exciting or may not have been, but we didn't have a primary to find out because she was handpicked and no one ran against her. And in many of those races, there were exciting grassroots, progressive candidates who

ran and lost Democrats did not pick those people. So that's one. Two, the examples that Jonathan and also now Alex have cited. I dispute because Beto O'Rourke was an exciting candidate. He did have a potty mouth. He also did better in Texas than any Democrat in a couple of decades and came very close to winning that race. And there is no, I don't think anyone can credibly argue that there was some safe Texas establishment figure who would have done better than Beto did in that race. The other one that Jonathan Martin's cites is Stacey Abrams. Exciting, got lots of money from out of state. people were really excited about her very inspiring candidate. She came closer to winning the Georgia governorship than any other Democrat in a very long time. And because of the race she won,

Democrats won the Senate seats of John Osloff and Raphael Warnock and Biden won the state in 2020. And so it's not like once again we put all of our money in hopes in this losing candidate when there was his winning candidate. Amy McGrath, different story. She is someone who raised a ton of money online because everyone wanted to beat Mitch McConnell. I think in part because Senate Democrats, the DSEC and Chuck Schumer perpetuated this fiction that McConnell was beatable in order to raise more money for the effort to elect Democrats across the country, Rick kind of bilked donors out of their money. But once again, there was no other can't.

We didn't pick Amy McGrath over some other candidate who would have done a better job to win. In fact, a few years later, when Charles Booker ran against Rand Paul in that same seat, this very exciting progressive candidate, he did just as well as she did, if not a little bit better. And then the last thing I would say, and then let's take the Federman thing. Everyone keeps saying this thing like, didn't you guys learn your lessons from Federman? As if Federman was some unknown person and everyone just fell in love with his hoodies and tattoos and shaved head.

John Federman was the two-term lieutenant governor of the state. He had been a very prominent mayor for almost a decade at that point. He was the mayor of Braddock who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. He was not unknown by anyone. He was very well known. Now he changed all of his positions after he got in his attitude once he got in office. But that is not the same. That says nothing about grand platinum any of these other candidates.

Last point on this, and they have one more thing to respond to Alex on, and then I'll be done, I promise. The main thing that bothers me about J. Mart's piece, not Alex. J. Mart's piece is that is the entire, and a lot of the actual anti-platiner discussion since the posts and the tattoo came about. Is this idea that candidates who excite voters are doing some sort of parlor trick, that it's like they're just, they're tricking people into liking them. And the attitude from the establishment and some of the media folks is like, you fucking Robs, how did you fall for that trick again? You got all excited about this candidate when you should have just taken the boring candidate we tried to shove down your throats.

Instead of, like, sometimes the grassroots will like a candidate who maybe isn't the best one and maybe Grand Platner is not the best one, but he may not be. But sometimes they will like a candidate who is the best one. Like, I don't know, Barack Obama, because that same attitude was what we heard every single day on that campaign. Oh, look at Obama. his rallies and his celebrities, but what you really got to do is support Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, one of these other, you know, long-term politicians, don't do the newcomer.

And when that, when people, instead of dismissing the candidates who get people excited and the voters who get excited by the candidates, the establishment try to figure out why they're getting excited and maybe learn some of those lessons and apply them to their candidates. Maybe Janet, so last point here, I promise. Maybe Janet Mills will be an exciting candidate. Like she may be. We don't know. Maybe she is a better candidate than Grand Platner, particularly after all these revelations.

I don't know the answer to that, right? I do not know the answer to that. And I don't think anyone else does either. And that's really been my main beef about everyone declaring that he's a worse candidate than her. No one knows because there's a lot of arguments that would show that a two-term establishment governor who is 77 and will be in her mid-80s at the end of her first term and is the second least popular governor in America may not be the best candidate either. And so we should just let the voters in Maine figure it out.

Okay, I'm done. I'll stop now. It's funny that you mentioned Obama there because, you know, there's people have been talking quite a bit online. People have a lot of feelings about everything over this last week. There's a lot of people like, are these guys working for Platner? And I'm like, it is, it's less about Platner. I think our reaction is because of like what we experienced on the Obama campaign. I would call it obvious psychology. And I almost started laughing when I almost started laughing when I was.

I was reading the quotes from J. Mart's piece, but it was like swooning over political outsider or mostly new name, heavily on compelling biography or powerful oratory. Like, all of that stuff was said about Barack Obama. And it wasn't just, and now people will look back at people who, you know, you think, oh, well, Barack Obama left as, you know, he was, he was perceived as this establishment Democrat who, you know, sort of united the party and all different factions liked him. When he was, when we were running against Hillary Clinton, it was like, this guy has no experience. His name is pretty foreign. What has he ever done? He's a communist. Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers. Like, there were some people thought that he was like, there's no way this

guy can win. And his tattoos. Don't forget about those. Which we haven't even, which he got away with, which still no one knows about the. And his homophobic. In the homophobic, yeah, right. All the stuff he did. So it's just like, but it is just to say that I, I, I'm talking to Chris Hayes, your colleague Chris Hayes for offline this weekend. And we were just talking about Chris's piece in the New York Times about attention and what's required to get attention in politics today. And his point is on the list of when you're recruiting a Democratic candidate, what's most important right now, and for a long time,

what's most important to the DSEC, to the DCC, to the DCC, to the National Democratic Party, is can you raise money? And then, like, what is your resume? What is your bio? And, like, do your politics fit with the state or the district that you're right? And are you safe? Are you safe? And are you safe, right?

And then way down on the list and sometimes sneered at is, can you really connect with voters? Are you like a compelling speaker? Do you know how to capture attention in a very competitive attention environment right now? And like, can you inspire people? And that is seen as like just, it's like something that warms people's hearts or I don't know, like to take another 2007 example that sends the thrill up Chris Matthew's legs. And it's like, That is not why I care about someone who's a really good speaker. I care about that because I think it actually helps them win and be competitive in a really tough race.

And I think that's even more true now in this information environment than it's ever been. And I just worry, again, Graham Platner aside, that like the party has not prioritized candidates, regardless of whether they're on the left, center left, wherever, who can really connect and inspire people. And I just think that that is a, I think that is, I worry most about that than anything else. That's a real problem with the DSEC. I think because in, like, you can, we can have the same argument about who the most electable candidate in Michigan is between Abdul C. Nali McMorra and Haley Stevens. Once again, I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think anyone else says either. The D.S.C. thinks they know the answer. They think the answer is Haley Stevens. And there is absolutely no question, whatever else you think about Hayley Stevens, that she is not as good a communicator as Abdul and Mallory, who are excellent communicators and have theories of the case about how you get attention in this state. and age. She is a like very capable, very typical politician in how she communicates. And so it's clearly not the top of their list. I was like, I just want to stipulate like what my actual position here is. I do, I just want to say this again because everyone's like the like everyone's

pro platinum, pro planner. I have, I have liked Glarant Plano. I've been impressed by what he's done. I truly have no idea if he's a better candidate than Janet Mills. Same. I really do not. And whoever wins that nomination, I will obviously will support them. I will donate to them, all of that. I, my big issue is that people who assume that the outsider candidate is less electable than the insider canon, I think, do not fully have fully appreciated the changes in American politics over the last 10 years. I'm definitely not. I just, be clear, I don't write under the student named Jonathan Martin for a boyico, just in case

anybody was, like, worried about that. I would say there's no chance you two would be confused for each other. Well, you never know. It's a weird time in America. I would never argue that the outsider is doomed. by any stretch of the imagination. And, guys, I understand that the Obama candidacy in 2008 was like, I know. I lived through it too, and I understand that it was, you know, the trepidation and the concern

about his candidacy was very real. But I think that this is something a little bit different, right? I don't think it's the same as that. I think the guy does have baggage. He's had to explain a lot early on and, you know, with constituencies that are important. I think, as I said at the beginning, I think he's done a very admirable job. of that. I think if the I think we're falling into to your point, Dan, about the establishment and how fucked it is and like, fuck that. What we've learned is also it doesn't actually matter

what the establishment wants, right? Like Trump wasn't who the establishment wanted. He was who the people wanted. So like on a certain level, it's like, congratulations Chuck Schumer for convincing a 77 year old to run for one term in the Senate. Like that's the feat. But like whether your, you know, manipulation or even whether the DSCC funding matter, like, yeah, money matters. But I also feel like money will cut. Like, if you're an exciting candidate and people feel like you're going to win, I do think like we are in a day and age where if you are in the culture, if your message is resonating, if you are making an imprint on the election landscape, like, you're going to get the money. And I do think you don't necessarily have to have the framework of the establishment behind you to become the nominee. So like, I guess it's in that way, I'm not as outraged by like Schumer's attempt to meddle in all of this because ultimately I'm not sure that it's actually that much of a thumb on the scale. And I can be wrong. I don't think you're wrong. I think a candidate like Grand Platner, who, I mean, he raised more money than in a similar period of time than Janet Mills did with the help of Chuck Schumer.

It's a little bit different in Michigan where you have Haley Stevens showing up at DSEC finance retreats, which Janice Mills will be able to either. But I suspect that if Grant Platter survives this period and continues to thrive in this race, he will raise enough grassroots money in a state as small as Maine to compete. There's no question about that. What bothers me even more than just the, it's not just the intervention, is what it says about their understanding of politics and the lack of humility about what we know about electability in a post-Trump era that bothers me because it says something disturbing about how

the people at the top actually have interpreted the 2024 results and how they see politics because they're just running the same play they've run every year every time as long as I've been around politics and things have changed a lot recently the government's still shut down though that's you know what and kudos of them they've done they have done a very good job throughout this shutdown by the way I'm not here to defend Chuck Schumer just also just also just not so yeah Alex takes the the Schumer position and Dan loves the tattoo is what we are that is what I'm coming away with and you were dealing with you're dealing with latent Obama era trauma guys there's a big couch for all of you oh my gosh for all of you

good stuff well fortunately we have till June to keep talking about this part yes Dan's just gonna stay here and talk about this race till then Positive America is brought to you by Nutrafol. You've probably seen a million ads for hair growth products and thought, sure, like that actually works. Nutrifol isn't like the rest of the products out there. Nutriful is a physician formulated, clinically tested, and dermatologists recommend it. Nutrifol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand,

trusted by over one and a half million people. You can feel great about what you're putting into your body since Nutraful hair growth supplements are backed by peer review studies and NSF content certified, the gold standard and third-party certification for supplements. While many supplements rely solely on ingredient studies, Nutraful clinically tests final formulations to ensure their efficacy using a variety of hair measurement tools, like hair counts and pull tests to assess growth, quality, shedding, and texture.

Adding neuterful into your daily routine is simple. Purchase online, no prescription required. Automated deliveries and free shipping keep you on track. Plus, with a Nutraful subscription, you can save up to 20%. Build access to free one-on-one nutropathic doctor consults to support you on your hair growth journey and a headspace meditation membership is included. See Thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair and less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful.

For a limited time, NutraFol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping when you go to NutraFol.com and enter the promo code Crooked. Find out why NutraFol is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at NutraFol.com, N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com. promo code crooked. That's NutraFull.com promo code crooked. Let's talk about some critical races that are actually happening soon, is in a week from Tuesday. I saw that in this, I was like, a week from Tuesday? Are we that close?

Oh, let's start with the 2025 faceoff. Everyone's talking about the Georgia Public Service Commission. I'm only partly kidding. If you live in Georgia and you don't want to pay higher electricity bills, make sure to get out and vote. This is an important race. It has a lot of ramifications in Georgia. Same for you all in Pennsylvania, in the Supreme Court race. is there. Republican megadoner Jeff Yass is trying to buy the state's high court. Do not let him go out and vote. Same with all you

Californians in Prop 50. Vote yes on Prop 50. I voted today. I had a couple people text to me and they're like, is it yes? Is it no? What's the good one? And I was like, yeah, proposition. It's tough. The language is annoying. I get that. It's yes on 50. I got to get my ballot. I don't know where it is. It's supposed to be at my house somewhere. Anyway, that's my problem. Interesting. I filled by not today.

I know. Where could John Favro's ballot be? It's in Heather Honey's pocket right now. Exactly. They send the California State of Secretary of State sends a very helpful text to your phone. It's on the way. It says you can track your ballot. So I got all that.

I just can't find it. All right. If you don't live in those states, but you have friends and family that do, just give them a reminder. Someone in Georgia, Pennsylvania here in California. Send them to Votesave America.com. Whatever you need to do. Meanwhile, in New York City, polling shows that Zoran Mamdani is in good shape against Andrew Cuomo. But who knows?

Cuomo did land the coveted. Eric Adams' endorsement on Thursday after a contentious final debate between Cuomo, Mamdani, and Curtis Sliwa on Wednesday night. Both Mamdani and Cuomo were out there hammering away the next morning on the platforms where they connect best, Mamdani on the hugely popular flagrant podcast, and Andrew Cuomo on an obscure local radio show. Let's listen to the two approaches. I also think this idea that, like, New Yorkers are going to flee because of a 2% increase,

it's like, I've been everywhere else. You're not going anywhere. Bill Ackman's not going nowhere. He's going to be in the Hampton's all fucking summer. There's only one place to write those tweets. That's it. New York City. Every character you want.

AC goes out in July. In Miami. You're sweating writing tweets. There's no way. He's spending more money against me than I would even tax him. Every day it's like a million dollars. It's like a million dollars. I'm like, I don't even want that.

You're going above and beyond. Any given morning is a crisis. And people's lives are at state. God forbid another 9-11. Can you imagine Mondami in the seat? I could. He'd be cheering. It's another problem.

Well, that's lovely. Let's start with our New York City correspondent, Alex Wagner. I hate New York City. Sorry. I just like barf to all that. Come on out. Come on to tell you. I'm ready.

We've got a bunch of nimbies trying to prevent affordable housing from being built. Cool. I'm there. There. Okay. Mom, Doni's a, like, generational talent. Amazing. No matter what happens, this guy's, like, first of all, he, to the discussion we're

having earlier, like, it's just fucking great. It's a shot in the arm for Democrats and progressives to see someone who can so beautifully master the culture and is, like, a great talker and who's, you know, not just a great talker, but has substantive new, bold ideas, right? Yay, yay, yay. Checkmark, check mark, check mark. But New York isn't all like bros. It's not all. I mean, I do worry that anecdotally, there are some quiet Cuomo voters who are like in the, in the mid, I'm just saying this because I think, especially after the 2024 election. What happened there? Yeah. I'll tell you later. I'm not saying that Cuomo is a shoe in, but I would not be surprised if the race is tighter than it appears to be. right now. There is, you know, New York City is a diverse city and it is a city that is incredibly tough and there is still, like there are people I know that admire Mom Donnie and think he's

amazing but are genuinely worried about his ability to manage the bureaucracy and fight with Albany and Cuomo was really, was really good at denying New York City funding when he was the governor. But in the inverse, like Trump never paid his taxes, but certainly like he knew how to game the system that way. So why not install him as the head of the federal government in the same way like Cuomo will be able to, you know, again, I'm not supporting a Cuomo candidacy. I'm just suggesting that I think that there are people in this city and they may not be from, you know, the sort of very online audience that Mom Donnie is speaking so convincingly to or even the college educated audience. But I do think that there is a subset of New Yorkers who aren't maybe getting pulled or

maybe not being as vocal that are going to, that could find comfort in Cuomo. And so I guess the only thing I would say, in this moment is just like cautious optimism that Mom Dani is going to be the next mayor because I think it might be a little bit tighter than people suspect. That's all I'm going to say. I could be proven wrong and it could be a landslide and then everyone will

laugh at me but they're going to do that no matter what. But if not, boy, do we have a clip. Totally. I mean, he is like running through the tape here, Mdani. He is not and he is doing as many interviews as he can. He's He went pretty hard at Cuomo during the debate.

He is not acting like someone who is 10 points up. And I think that is a good way to run a race. Even if you are 10 points up or 15 points up to run like your 10 points behind, I think that's always great. And he's doing a lot of, I feel like in these last couple weeks, sort of easing the concerns of the people that you might be talking about, right? Which is like, I'm going to keep the police commissioner and I'm going to, like, he's. Well, I think that that's a different.

I almost think that that's like the wealthier New Yorkers who have been. reluctant to give him money. You know, he's been tacking more towards the center, at least rhetorically, in terms of not raising alarms around his socialist agenda and also issues like Gaza and Israel. Like, there's, he's definitely trying to play to a larger audience. But I think there's a more, I mean, in the same way that we saw New York, Trump gained in certain areas of the city, right? Blue collar parts of the city. And I don't know that anything Mom Donnie is doing right now is is something that's even coming across their radar. I think it's going to be maybe as simple as we remember Cuomo.

Cuomo can manage the city. You know what I mean? I think it's just kind of a basic calculation based on name and recognition that is, you know, but I agree. Mamdani's not acting like he's 10 points ahead. It's going to be interesting to see how Mondani does in those precincts that shifted to Trump. Like, do they just vote for a Republican?

Is, like, was it really affordability and inflation and cost of living that drove of them to support Trump. And if that's the case, now maybe it's going to be apples to oranges comparison because the turnout is going to be so different. But it's like that'll be something I'll look at on election night. Next door in New Jersey, Congresswoman Mikey Cheryl appears to be up about five points against former state rep Jack Chitorelli. Reminder that in the last cycle, Phil Murphy won by only three points, but the polls had him winning by more. And of course, in 2024, the state swung 10 points to the right. In fact, Kamala Harris won New Jersey with a smaller vote share than Donald Trump got in Arizona. Dan, has this race been more

competitive than you expected? No, I think it's about as competitive I expected. I mean, it was obviously been a shift in New Jersey that is as indicated by the 2021 results. It's not just a 2024 Biden border inflation bump. I think it says something real has happened there. And this is what makes this race so much different than Virginia is we live in the state of perpetual change elections, and Mikey Cheryl is replacing a two-term Democratic governor, and it's always hard to be three terms of the same party. And, you know, she, like, there's been a lot of concern about her candidacy among Democratic circles. There's been, like, 15 stories and axios about panic about this race. And part of it is that she has made a couple of mistakes and interviews, one about

her, she struggled to, like, name what her top priority would be, another one where she was on the Breakfast Club and she failed to respond accurately to a very unfair and very inaccurate attack about millions of dollars made stock trading that have been like weaponized in ads that are very, especially the one from the Breakfast Club that's very reminiscent of the infamous trans ad from 2024, so that made people nervous. But this was always going to be a close race. It seems like it's a close race. And we have to hope these polls are accurate, I guess. Yeah. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger's up about seven points, maybe more, outside the margin of error. But again, who knows?

Virginia also has lieutenant governor and attorney general races that are very tight. The Democratic Attorney General candidate, Jay Jones, is tied with his opponent after a scandal over disturbing texts with a Republican colleague from a few years ago where he endorsed political violence. He's since apologized. National Republicans have been all over this trying to get Spanberger to fully denounce him. Alex, the delta between the governor and lieutenant governor races and the AG race certainly suggests that these Joan texts could really matter.

What do you think? I just, I guess I can't get over. It's just like, yes, the texts were bad. But like this is a week when like Trump's nominee for the Office of Special Counsel, Paul and Gracia, admitted last year that he had Nazi tendencies. It's just like, to me, the false, political of violence not something anybody should endorse, except that the president of the United States pardoned all the January 6 rioters who were guilty of political violence. It's just very hard for me to even like accept that like the scandal is as big as it is in Virginia

and that the National Republican Party is trying to make a big deal of this. Like it's so reprehensible on so many levels given where their party actually is. But yeah, I mean, listen, I think Abigail Spanberger, I've covered Abigail Spanberger since she was first running for the house. She's an incredibly competent candidate. She absolutely gets it. But what was the question? No, just about the text. which I like I I tuned in when it when it first broke and I do think that there's some first of all it's like you're texting a Republican colleague and you are pretty you're endorsing political violence and then you're like yeah maybe maybe and they're like you're talking about the person's children and it's like yeah well maybe sometimes bad things have to happen to someone to change their mind I mean I was like that is some some psycho shit it's bad no no it's very bad I'm not saying it's not bad to your earlier point about Platner though.

Like, you know, he apologized. I think the apology wasn't quite as, it could have been better maybe, but he apologized, which is, to your other point. Jones. Okay. Yeah. Because first he was like, this is a, he like tried to blame the Republican and then they had the more text and then he, then the apology was more fulsome.

It was one of those things. But to your earlier point, no one's, no one's apologizing on the Republican side. Exactly. And it's so much worse. Yeah, we're Nazis in the group chat and it's cool. That's just, that's the world we live in. The Times had an interesting story about how a big part of the message for both Spanberger and Cheryl is tying their opponents to Trump and how there's some unease in the strategist class about missing an opportunity to present a more positive vision.

Dan, what do you think? Is this something you worry about or is this just a story? I have a meta concern that the party is continuing to run the same playbook since 2017, which is anti-Trump, Trump, anti-Trump, and presuming that Constitution still stands, and I'd like to believe that it does, we are done running against Trump. So in the, like, we need a message about Republicans, because if you look at, and this says something both about Republicans and Democrats, but if you look at Trump's approval rating on all the key issues, inflation, immigration, crime, health care, et cetera, it's all underwater. But then when you ask them who they trust more

generic Republicans or generic Democrats on almost all but our core issues like health care and climate change, they trust Republicans more than Democrats. And that's in part because Trump has operated separate from the party in a lot of our response. And that's been to his great political advantage because it's made it hard to tag him with a lot of the, you know, very fair attacks. We've done Republicans over the years about like, kind of social security, Medicare, and abortion and things like that. But now it's helping the Republicans because it's insulating that from some of his worst transgressions. Now, having said all of that, I think in a off-year election where you're trying to generate turnout among a depressed Democratic base, I think this is a totally

fine and probably good and effective strategy. I mean, they're like, they didn't just pick this off the board. They have tested and that's clearly the most effective. So I understand what they're doing here, but I think we have a broader conversation as a party that we should have on this podcast on a different day without a thousand pieces of news, which will maybe happen one day, about the right approach, how to balance anti-Trump first, anti-Republican and positive Democratic messaging. Alex, what do you think? I think we have to silo dance thoughts about Maine if we want to be able to get to the substantive conversation. Okay, June 3rd,

2026, we will do this. Is that the day after? I think that's the day after the primary. Oh, the primaries on my birthday? Is it? Maybe I, maybe I have. Oh, man. Talk about your Obama trauma coming to roost.

Oh, my God. It's the psychology is just at the surface, guys. I don't know. It's hard for me to get, I don't, I mean, I hated that story, actually. I was just like a fuck barf. I don't want to, like, I don't. Like, I don't care.

Like, just. Yeah, I guess. If that's what's going to work, it's just he's doing so many bad things. And you can argue that every Democrat in the country is actually a bulwark against, I mean, every elected Democrat is a bulwark against Trump. And what he's doing is affecting people at the local and state level. So why not make it national? I don't, I truly don't know. I don't have, like I just, I completely agree with Dan that the party has to figure out what it stands for and what issues it's going to own.

I think part of the problem, and I've said this before, I'll say it again, is a. Democratic Party is the pro-democracy party. It is a big fucking tent. And right now it's largely a leaderless tent. There's just no person. There's no figurehead that can actually coalesce everybody into having that family conversation. And so I think it's going to be a while. It might have to wait until after your birthday, John. Unbelievable. I think if you are a running for governor, obviously it's good to run on a positive vision because presumably you can do things as guest governor um i think that most people when they vote in the midterms are going to be like what you just said which is trump's doing a whole bunch of bad things um

democrats can't really promise to do a whole bunch right they can they have subpoena they'll have subpoena power right they can't do any other trump legislation they can't do much more beyond that so you might not you might you might as well not over promise anyway and i think most people who are going to vote in the midterms are thinking okay this is a check on trump and the republicans or it's not, or we like what they're doing, right? So I think that that's a different situation. I think once you start looking towards 2028, yes, of course. We need to have a conversation about what we're for and inspire people to actually come vote for something and not just again something.

It's a very, it's a conundrum because you can't be a check, be seen as a viable check on power if you are not seen as standing for something and being strong. So you're probably going to have to do the difference between a tiny, slim, barely eke it out Democratic majority in a, a blue wave is a significant improvement in the brand. People have to believe people, even people who don't love Democrats have to believe that we are a credible, strong, realistic check on Trump's power. And they don't believe that right now. Can I just say, I know, like they did shut down the government, which remains shut down. I'm not saying it's a fair criticism. No, no, I'm just putting it out there that they are standing firm on the issue of health care. And it is like an important issue. It is resonant with the American public. And that is maybe the beginning.

of the party trying to find its legs on an issue that really matters. Finally, we have to take a minute to discuss the most bizarre moment so far in the 2025 elections, which is saying a lot, Tuesday night's debate between Virginia lieutenant governor candidate John Reed and Democrat Gazala Hashmi on Tuesday night. It was a standard political debate with one major twist. Here's a clip from an ad that Reid released right after. John Reed showed up for a debate. Gazala Hashmi didn't.

So John debated her. AI clone instead because even a robot version of Gazala has more candor encouraged than the real one. Yes, yes. The entire debate was between John Reed and an AI version of Gazala Hashmi.

It included fact checks, it included sources. He even asked himself, he had the AI moderator asked himself some tough questions. What? Stop this train I want to get off. I just feel like we'll look back in, like, 2032 and be like, remember when that was novel?

Yeah. Or maybe we'll look back at it, like we look back on the hologram of Jessica Yellen in the situation room. I do miss those holograms. Or John Edwards campaigning in Second Life. Oh, my God. I don't even know. I don't even remember that. You don't remember?

Okay. The real ones remember. Tommy will probably know. Tommy will. This is post Tommy. shed he'll remember us I mean it does raise the question should we just have AI as governing the country

like we're headed we're headed wrap yeah yeah the ballroom's going to transition into an AI data center and all the CEOs are going to be there that tried to pay for it and they're just going to and then they're just going to sort of whatever they do program the AI to just run the country and kill us all I don't know

I'm like Trump talking about AI what are they talking about the AID? It's a big thing. Everyone's talking about the AI. You don't understand Bitcoin. Anyway, we're fucked. But get out there and tell your friends to vote. Votesate America.com. Because the comebacks...

We're not fucked till it's over. The comeback starts a week from Tuesday. That's when the comeback starts. They're going to go get out there and get some votes out. And go subscribe to Runaway Country. When we come back, you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Denise Farozy from the Pipeline Fund. Before we get to that, CrookedCon. two weeks from today

as you may have heard there are a ton of new speakers added to the November 7th lineup Lena Khan Adam Mockler Tim Miller Primala Jayaapal Jen Saki Simone Sanders Townsend

we just posted the full CricketCon schedule if you're joining us in DC on November 7th head to CricketCon dot com to start planning your day

at CricketCon and if you haven't made up your mind about coming now is your chance the three of us are all hosting panels minds on

Democratic messaging Dan's is about Graham Platner Dan's is about what the Dan's is about polling So there you go You get all the polling stuff Alex is about what Democrats

Would do with the majority If we win it back next year It's featuring three AI versions Of Janet Mills What about Chuck Schumer? I was going to say No, it's actually going to be Alyssa Slok and Brian Schatz

And Pramilla Jaiapal Great panel None of those names are Mills or Schumer Or flatter That's a great panel There are limited tickets left make sure to take a look at the full schedule at CricketCon.com and be sure to grab

tickets if you haven't. Really putting the FOMO and promo here. POTSave America is brought to you by Article. We love Article Furniture here, Crooked. We have a whole bunch in the office. It's super comfortable. I got some patio furniture that's article. It's very affordable.

It ships very quickly. And it looks great. It looks great. makes it effortless to create a stylish, long-lasting home at an unbeatable price with a curated range of mid-century modern, coastal, and sandy-inspired pieces. Article products are designed to shine on their own or pair seamlessly with nearly any other article product. This thoughtful design approach makes it incredibly easy to mix and match, helping you create a space that feels cohesive and stylish. Every item is chosen for its craftsmanship, design, and lasting value. Article

carefully curates its collection, selecting only high-quality, meaningful, and enduring pieces. Article offers fast, affordable shipping across the U.S. and Canada with options for professional assembly if you prefer a hands-off experience. Have a question or need help with your design choices. Article's customer care team is available seven days a week, offering knowledgeable support and even free interior design services to help you get your home just right. With Articles, 30-day satisfaction guarantee,

you can shop with confidence, knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. This piece of mind ensures you can invest in your home without hesitation. Articles offering our listeners, $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit article.com slash cricket, and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout.

That's article.com slash cricket for $50 off, your first purchase of $100 or more. My guest today is the head of the pipeline fund, an organization that recruits, trains, supports the next generation of leaders in the Democratic Party. Denise Ferriosi, welcome to POTSafe America. Thanks for having me. It's so great to be here.

It's great to finally meet you. I've heard a lot about you and the great work you guys are doing. So for listeners who have not heard of the pipeline fund before, Can you just explain what you guys do and how it came to be? Yeah, sure, absolutely. So, you know, the pipeline fund, I think probably those of us who have worked in politics for any number of years have long lamented the lack of a bench and the Democratic Party. I know since I've been doing this work, it's something I've heard over and over. So really, it was an idea kind of after the 2016 elections when we saw a huge number of folks.

for the first time, in a long time, looking at running for office as like a real outlet for change and like wanting to figure out how to do that. And there were all these new groups popping up, you know, like run for something and other organizations. And so we started asking the question, like, how can we use this moment to finally work on building a real bench? Like, how can we make sure that this kind of 2018 cycle is not a flash in the pan, but something that we can continue. And so that's how the pipeline fund came to be. We basically looked around and said, gosh, now we have this enthusiasm for running. We have all these great organizations, right? Young people are being recruited and supported by run for something. And women by Emily's List and

emerge. And, you know, there's a long list of groups that do this kind of work. And it's not just national groups. It's groups in the states as well. And so we thought, well, what really is missing is how do we actually connect all of that work strategically to make sure that we're getting as many great leaders running in as many districts as possible this cycle and beyond. And so that's what we do. We kind of serve as a space to make sure that, you know, the national groups are working with groups on the ground in key states to make sure we're recruiting great leaders from their communities into the most important places in this moment. And just essentially make sure all that work is scaled strategically so that we have a bench for now and in the future.

And you guys are focused on creating individual state-based organizations, right? Why is that? Yeah, that's a great question. You know, we are, we really believe that in order to get someone to run for office, right, which let's be honest, it's not 2017, 2018. It's a different environment, right? And it can be really challenging in what was a normal environment to run for office. but you just add the elements that we're seeing today with, you know, political violence, safety,

not to mention like time. People have to have jobs and then they run for office, which can be a full-time job in itself. So we really think that folks on the ground need to be there to work with people to identify them, to convince them that they can and should run for office, to help them plan for that. And then to be there, right, when they do run, to help them, you know, find something. staff and navigate the complexities of a campaign. And then also, when you become a first time elected official, kind of support them in that new role, because it's really different from campaigning. I don't need to tell you that. So we really think that the way to make sure that we have

a bench for the future is to have folks on the ground who are doing this work year in and year out. Like, we are recruiting now for 26 and frankly for 28, too. And then to be a center of gravity so that they can once they've got a great person on the line, call those national groups and say, hey, Emily's list, we really need your help. We've got a great woman, but she needs a finance director or she needs to be trained. And so that's kind of the way that we're going to do this, make it sustainable, make sure that we're being really smart because recruiting someone in Texas is different than recruiting someone in Wisconsin where I live. And the folks on the ground know those distinctions, right? Yeah. Well, that was actually exactly what I want to ask you.

state like California where I am or in Wisconsin where you are, there are tons of Democrats who are elected officials in the state that you can lean on. There's local parties. There's basic infrastructure. Wisconsin's got a famously excellent Democratic Party. But there are red states out there that are just kind of barren for the Democratic Party. Like there's no infrastructure, there's no muscle memory, there's no institutional knowledge or, you know, people who can help you like identify the person in the community in Nebraska that is a big progressive that would like to run, but maybe hasn't gotten that push. How do you build a pipeline in a deep red state to both source those candidates and then also kind of steer them to run in their right races and then support them as they go?

Yeah. It's a great question. And honestly, one that we're like navigating right now because we are on the ground in 14 states, but we are actually working with, you know, stakeholders and folks on the ground in another 21 states to build kind of pipeline organizations that, do this year-round work. And you can imagine you don't get to that number of states without working in really kind of deep red states. You mentioned Nebraska, where we are working with folks to start a new organization. And it's really interesting in these states where there's just not a lot of infrastructure and there hasn't been investment. Folks on the ground know, like, the way to start that is actually by starting with developing leaders, right? We need people to

run campaigns. We need people to consider running for office. And we need to help build like the leadership of of operatives across the state. And so, you know, that's, that's honestly where I think a lot of folks are starting right now is we recognize we can't just play in a set of, you know, eight to 10 swing states. We've got to think bigger. And we are working with people in those red states to say, okay, where do we want to start? What are the unique dynamics of your state? You may not be in spitting distance of flipping a state legislature, but we can work on really key county seats and school boards, which are everywhere, and kind of show what it looks like to have good leaders who are not these kind of right-wing extremists governing as a way to build.

So that's what we're doing right now. And it's actually really exciting. Yeah, I mean, well, can you tell us a success story? Like, is there an individual? or a state where things are going really well that kind of tells that broader story. Oh, my gosh. There's so many. I have to say, it's hard to pick, right? It's like your kids. You can't say which one is your favorite.

But let me try. I'll give you one, a new state that we're working in that I think is probably top of mind for everyone at this time in the cycle. You know, Virginia is a place, right? Every off year we're all talking about Virginia because of their state ledge and governor's race. You know, they also have, you know, a strong party and great folks on the ground. But we did start a new group there because they recognized that there needed to be more state and local infrastructure. And so we helped launch a group called Build the Bench in January of this year.

And they worked with partners across the ecosystem to recruit candidates to run in all 100 House of Delegate seats. And these are amazing candidates. Like, there are majority women. There are lots of women in color. But there's also, like, farmers, small business owners, teachers. And so we're really excited about what that looks like when you are kind of running, you know, in different places across the common, you know, across the Commonwealth. So that's one. But Virginia, everybody knows.

The other one that I always like to highlight because people don't think of it as a success story typically on our side of the aisle. And that's Florida. We work with an awesome organization called the Florida Pipeline Project. And back in 2022, they launched this school board protection project to fight back against Moms for Liberty. And also Governor DeSantis, who has been super engaged in these local school board races. And it took a while. They got folks to run. But in 2024, we had 80% of their candidates win their races at the school board level.

That's remarkable. It's wild. And no one knows about it, right? So I think that's the thing. It's about finding these places where you can have local success and where those implications are real for people on the ground. And it's just a great example of where, boy, you peel off a fraction of the money that gets dumped into TV ads in the last two weeks of an election to do this long-term organizing and you've had

this massive impact. Yeah. I mean, like if for no other reason, I like to tell folks, it's a cheap date, right? I mean, you can put a little bit of money and have a huge impact. I mean, the investment that we helped make with partners on the ground in Florida to win all those races was a million dollars. Like, that's, you know, and I know. Nothing. In a Florida Senate race.

That's a lot of money for politics where we spend billions of dollars on federal races. It's nothing. Yeah, no, the Georgia Senate race is going to be a half a billion dollar race. Like a million dollars in Florida gets you nothing. Right. Right. Statewide. And even in a congressional.

So, you know, I mean, I think that's the like, that's the big message here is like, we, as a party, we have to stop only focusing on these big federal races. Now, I am never going to try to convince someone to not focus on winning back the house in 2026. We have to do that. And we also, if we moved a small fraction of the money that is spent on those races down to the state and local level, we could literally win tens of thousands of races in 2026. And that's not only now, but that's for like the future of who's running for Congress in a couple of years. And, you know, our friends over at Votesave America have been running this pilot program where we've been telling our audience that lives in Arizona, North Carolina, in Texas, in particular,

to go to Votesaveamerica.com slash run if you want to sign up to run for office in those states. And we have, I think, 2,500 people have already signed up and taken that initial step. Now, some of those people will wash out and they'll learn more and they'll decide this is not for me, but that's still a lot of people. 700 of them are from Texas. We've got people in, you know, towns as small as 4,000 people deciding to run. The average age is 38, which is pretty exciting when you think about kind of the gerontocracy challenges the Democratic Party has been facing recently.

And the most remarkable thing I learned from our team over at Votesave America was that 70% of the people that have signed up to run for office have never done anything with Votesave America before. I sort of thought you would see this ladder of engagement that's like, I'm text banking, I'm phone banking, I'm knocking on doors, now I'm running, 70% we're just like, you know what, I'm taking the plunge, now is the moment for me, which speaks to the power of asking and then having some infrastructure to support those people. Because it's one thing to say, run for office, you can do it. But if you just kind of jump in with no one there to help you, it's unlikely to go

as well. Yeah. No, I mean, we are so excited about this. And I also think we're really excited to partner with Vote Save America on this like state-based approach, right? I think there are a lot of efforts that have been launched that are just kind of more broad national efforts. And those are great. And I am a wholehearted supporter of that. But it's really hard to do this state work. And I give you all a lot of credit for trying it with us. And it's working. It's really exciting. You know, those people that you mentioned in Texas, our partners on the ground at Annie's List are literally, they have organizers, like, just calling through and talking to these people one-on-one about what they care about, how that matches up with a potential office that's available

or a good opportunity in their area. And then, like, really kind of talking through what that looks like and what it means, sending them to trainings, connecting with our national partners at NDTC and run for something for additional resources. It's really exciting, you know, and I think in this moment, it's also really exciting. to see people stepping up in this way. Yeah, I mean, like in 2017, when you're talking about kind of founding the pipeline fund, I mean, there was all this energy, there's all these organizations sprouting up.

There were random podcasts sprouting up, you know, like they felt like a moment when we all felt like engaged and inspired. And that's been missing a bit, at least in terms of the protests or the visible effort. So it's great to know that all this work is happening behind the scenes. Again, Votesaveamerica.com slash run if you want to get involved in the filing deadlines for North Carolina and Texas are in December. or so sooner rather than later. Is there a Republican version of you guys that's out organizing us? Like, what's the competition like on the other side? What's the process, as far as you know?

Yeah. No, we did a lot of research actually on this when we first started to say, like, what are we up against? And it's really different. The truth is they have a lot fewer, much larger and better funded organizations. So you think about, you know, the like Coke Network, but really there's this group called the Leadership Institute, of course, there's, you know, turning point. There's all of these organizations. But there are, I mean, I would say compared to our dozens of organizations, there's like four or five leading ones. And they're all like funded to the tune of like, you know, 25 to 50 million a year, whereas our side is, you know, we're lucky on our side for these national groups to have $10 million a year. And so I think the other really big difference is they've just been doing this for a

really long time. Like they haven't just discovered this work. They've been really committed to state and local work for a long time. And they don't, they, they, they continue to do it every cycle, regardless of who's in the White House, who's in control of the Senate. And so I think, you know, we are up against, you know, a side that is playing the long game. And we know that. We've seen that. That's not just about pipeline and leadership development and state and local offices. It's what they do. I mean, so I think it's incumbent on us to really think about how we can play the long game and not, you know, give up and really like start to focus a little bit more of our resources and time on these state and local offices. Yeah. Final question for you. I mean, how can people

listening get in touch with you guys if they're thinking about running if this sounds exciting to them or if they just want to support the organization in some other way? Like can they donate or what's the process? Yeah, absolutely. Look, we are we are at Pipeline. Fund. You can go there. You can donate if you are willing. And again, a little goes a long way when it comes to these state and local offices. I mean, school board races can be won by like, you know, five votes and for $20,000. So definitely donating. And if you're interested in running, go to our website, look at our state map. We can connect you to national and state partners who can help you every step of the way. And we need more folks. Because guess what?

There are, I think it's almost 100,000 offices on the ballot in 2026 alone. Jesus. That's a lot of races. Yeah. And we will not win any of them if we don't run candidates. So that is the key. Denise, thank you so much for the work you're doing. Thanks for joining the show.

It was great talking to you. Thank you. Thanks for having me. That's our show for today. Thanks to Denise Ferriosi for coming on. And thanks to Alex for being with us. Everyone, make sure you subscribe to run. country wherever you get your podcast. Tommy Lovett and I will be back with a new show on

Tuesday. Bye, everyone. Hi, guys. That was beautiful. We did it. We did it, guys. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Ilic Frank, and Saul Rubin.

Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reid Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seiglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant.

Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Heffcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Peloviv, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.