Pod Save America - Trump's Revenge Leads to Republican Revolt

Episode Date: May 22, 2026

So much for Trump's iron grip on the party. Just days after Thomas Massie's defeat, Republicans in the Senate and House begin to buck Trump on his top priorities: ballroom funding, the taxpayer-funded slush fund for his allies, and the war in Iran. Could it be that his surprise endorsement of Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in the Texas Senate primary didn't help matters? Faced with mounting leaks, the DNC finally releases its 2024 autopsy — an incoherent, error-riddled mess that Chairman Ken Martin admits was a failure from the start. The New York Times releases new polling data on what Democrats think the party needs to do to win in 2028. Then, California gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan talks to Tommy about the race and his record as mayor of San Jose.

Pod Save America is brought to you by SimpliSafe. Everything's more expensive in 2026, but peace of mind shouldn't be. SimplySafe starts at about a dollar a day without a long-term contract. There's a reason they were named Best Home Security System of 2026. It actually works for regular people, not just the elites, Tommy. SimplySafe is for regular folks, like John Lovett. That's right. Salt of the Earth folks. Set one up himself if I'm mistaken. Ordinary Americans like John Lovett. That's right. Set it up himself, no drilling. With SimplySafe, you can customize your system to fit your needs, then it ships fast directly to your door. The app guided setup is simple and there's no drilling required.

He was very lonely at that time. It's true. He said a dry spell. He's setting up the Simpliceave and then he was done for the day. What were you saying about the drilling? No drilling required. So you can install and arm your system in under an hour. SimpliSafe is more than just a security camera.

It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras and 24-7 professional monitoring. It's backed by SimpliFave's 24-7 professional monitoring. who dispatch emergency help when you need it. Over 5 million people value and trust SimplySafe with their home security every day. Right now, our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring

and your first month is free. Just visit Simplysafe.com slash cricket. That's half off at Simplysafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Fabra. I'm Dan Fifer. On today's show, we're going to talk about

how Donald Trump's revenge tour is backfiring in a way that just about everybody could have predicted. With everything from his ballroom funding to his insurrectionist slush fund, now in jeopardy, we'll also talk about how Trump may have made things even worse for his party, with his endorsement of Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in Texas.

And then just to prove that Republicans aren't the only one stepping on rakes, we'll talk about the long-awaited release of the 2024 DNC autopsy, and whether Ken Martin's job as DNC chair is in jeopardy. We'll also talk about new results from this week's New York Times poll, focused on what Democratic voters want from the Democratic Party.

Then you'll hear Tommy's interview with California gubernatorial candidate Matt Mayhan. And finally, we'll explore the question none of us thought we'd have to ask. Is Donald Trump going to skip his son's wedding? Tune in to find out. Before we start, go ahead and subscribe to Friends of the Pod. Become a cricket subscriber if you haven't already. Because you get ad-free episodes of all of these pods that you, you love and listen to. You get access to all of our excellent substack newsletter. You get access

to subscriber-only podcasts that you're missing out on. If you're not a subscriber like Dan's Polarcoaster podcast where he dives deep into polls and Pod Save America only friends, our extra secret episode of Pod Save America that we do every other week. So check it out. And you also get to support pro-democracy independent media. In this case, us, Crooked Media. So cricket.com slash friends. Go subscribe today. All right, let's get to the news. It seems like just yesterday, because it was, that the White House warned us to never again doubt Donald Trump's political power. And certain journalists proclaimed an incredible few weeks for the president's political operation.

This is all because Trump's handpicked primary challengers defeated Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey. Well, 24 hours later, here's a text from a Republican senator to Punch Bowl News. quote, our majority is melting down before our eyes. So what happened? What happened? Well, the Senate was supposed to be voting on Trump's bill to fund ICE, but then he also demanded $1 billion for his ballroom, and he announced that he's stealing $2 billion from taxpayers so that he can potentially hand out cash payments to January 6th rioters who almost killed police

officers and basically anyone else he thinks has been mistreated by the justice system. Neither of these things sat very well with some Republicans, including people like Bill Cassidy, whose career Trump just ended. And after a reportedly tense meeting about the insurrection of slush fund with acting attorney general Todd Blanche, where some Republicans proposed restrictions on the slush fund, Senate Majority Leader John Thune canceled the vote entirely and told everyone to go home until June. Here's Blanche and J.D. Vance earlier in the week, refusing to rule out taxpayer-funded payouts for violent insurrectionists. You know who never ever gets an ounce of sympathy when it comes to that disproportionate sentencing is people who voted for Donald Trump and participated in the

January 6th protest. Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund? Well, as it makes plain, anybody is that- Just let me. Just let me. know if they're eligible for the fund. As was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply. You're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent. There is no judge. Any independent authority? An independent, what does that mean an independent authority?

What does that mean? It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who is the president's former personal attorney. That would be somebody who would be independent. I'm the acting attorney general, okay? The fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer is just a fact that I'm a fact. act, but I'm the acting attorney general. So don't say the president's former personal lawyer will do something.

The acting attorney general will do something. Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney. And that's the whole problem. That's the good shit right there. It's the good shit. What a fucking whiner. So after Senate Republicans were in revolts and the majority was melting down, Trump was asked about it in the Oval on Thursday.

Here's what he said. Are you losing control on the Senate? Senator Republicans. I don't know. I really don't know. I can tell you, I only do what's right. I don't need money for the ballroom. You know, I'm making a gift of the ballroom.

This is the biggest misreporting that I've ever seen. Okay. We'll dig into that in a little bit. An incredible week for Trump's political operation, Dan. It's an incredible. Incredible. Truly. Unbelievable.

Let's start with the Slesh Fund. You and I talked about this on last Friday's episode, and we talked about how. how Trump potentially settling the IRS lawsuit by personally pocketing billions in taxpayer dollars was maybe the worst political move we could imagine. And then they did the slush fund right as we were finishing the recording. So we only briefly got to talk about it. What do you think?

What do you think about the political move of instead of Trump just pocketing the cash, deciding to put it in a fund with no accountability? whatsoever so they can secretly pay out whoever they'd like. Look, these brilliant fucking geniuses in the Trump political team, the same ones who spent $20 million to defeat a Republican congressman in a district that Trump won by 35 points, really figured this one out. So instead of giving billions of dollars to one criminal, they're going to give $1.776 billion, which is so clever, to an untold number of criminals, many of who

committed violent offenses assaulting the Capitol and assaulting police officers. Yeah. It's a, it is, it is a move so bad that even Republican senators can figure out that it's bad politically. Just so, I mean, part of this is it's such a politically bad move that I've been shocked by it. I've been laughing about it because how could you be so stupid? It's fun watching the Republicans freak out about this and everything fall apart.

But NPR did a story about it where, um, they started going through some of the potential January 6th convicted felons or people who were going to be on trial until Trump pardoned him to talk about how this would play out. This guy, Jake Lang, he admitted to using a bat to attack police. He was on trial for assault when Trump pardoned him. He's now a white power activist who's on video saying the N-word and giving Nazi salutes. When NPR called to confirm that he plans to apply for a payout, out, which he did. He confirmed it.

He answered the phone, Jake Lang's office, America's newest billionaire. And he said that the message, he told NPR that the message Trump was sending what the fund is, and this is a quote from the insurrectionist who beat police officers with a bat, quote, if you do the right thing in the face of evil, you will be rewarded for your bravery and patriotism. That's what's happening there. That's what's happening. another January 6th rioter, Andrew Paul Johnson, is currently serving a life sentence in prison

for sexually abusing two children who he tried to keep quiet by promising them, quote, my Trump bucks that he expected to get as part of a restitution fund. And then that exchange we watched between Van Hollen and Blanche, Van Hollen was asking about that case

and asking Blanche to rule out that that fucking guy could apply for a payout from the slush fund. And you heard Blanche like he just, he won't rule it out. I mean, it's pretty clear what happened here is Trump wanted his money. I think he,

someone was able to convince him that him directly taking the money was probably a bridge too far politically. And plus he's made so many other billions from so many other crooked schemes that he could take a pass on this one. But he obviously wasn't going to let it go. And they were facing this deadline because if they did, because there was a court and post deadline. So right the day before the court and post.

deadline, they hatched together a poorly thought out plan that they thought would appeal to Trump, right? It's not as bad as Trump getting the money, although that is actually debatable, but would, you know, it would still fit with his need for revenge. And it's like perfect Trump. Like these people, these are my people. I'm going to help my people. I'm going to hook up my people. And they didn't think through any of the consequences. They just assumed every Republican would be for it. And they, as you said, they stepped on a rake. Like an very obvious, very clear, very politically damaging rate, but they did it because they're kind of morons. And there's no oversight, no accountability over this fund whatsoever. We may never know who they pay,

how much they pay them, who applies, who gets accepted into this fucking slush fund, who gets denied, none of that because Trump picks the people on the board, except for one gets appointed by Congress who, you know, he can find a lackey in Congress to give him whoever he wants. Trump can fire them at any time. The report is not required to be released to the public in any way, shape, or form. So the whole thing is just a fucking scam. And it seems like it's, I mean, I guess two January 6 police officers filed a lawsuit to try to stop this. But there are going to be, I guess that's the best case they can make for standing, right?

Because they were police officers harmed in this. But the challenge is to have, like, who has standing to sue on this? And the fact that it is a, it is legal because Congress passed a law to give the Justice Department basically an unlimited fund for restitution in the event that people sue the U.S. government. And then the Justice Department would have to pay it out, which is like, yeah, of course, right. If someone sues the federal government and they win, the federal government has to get the money from somewhere to pay them out. But I don't think anyone envisioned that the fund would be used in this way. Nope, just driving a corrupt truck through another giant loophole in our system.

Here's a statement on the fund. So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops. Utterly stupid, morally wrong. Take your pick. Guess who that came from, Dan? I know the answer, so I'm supposed to pretend like I don't. Was that a resistance Democrat? Was that someone on MS now?

Was that a, was that on Wednesday's episode of Only Friends with you and Tommy? It was. Subscribe now. Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell. Well, Mitch, the reason we're in this place, by the way, is because of you. Yep. You would just have had the courage that Mike Pence had.

Could have convicted him after January 6th and then none of these riders would be getting any money. How likely do you think it is that Congress will impose some kind of restrictions on the slush fund? Legislation was introduced today, Thursday, to ban the entire. slush fund, not restrictions, just ban it. That was introduced by Democrat Tom Swazi in the House and Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, who's in a swing district in Pennsylvania and who Trump just threatened yesterday with a primary challenge in response to a question he didn't like from Fitzpatrick's fiance, Fox News reporter Jackie Heinrich.

Well, it's really clever of Trump to threaten a primary challenge on Wednesday when the primary was Tuesday. Which is also, it's notable that all of a sudden, Brian Fitzpatrick has found his courage the day after his primary. Yeah. Do you think, I mean, I know that we were like not scheduled to talk about this, but on that note, like, I do wonder if a lot, like, we're suddenly going to see an outbreak of courage among Republicans now that most of the primaries have passed. It's going to mean, interesting political calculus. Like someone like Fitzpatrick who is in, he might be the most vulnerable Republican in the country. Um, or definitely he is,

one of the top couple. He's, he is up there. Um, we got some people who have been redistricted out of existence, but of the people who remain in their previous district, he's quite vulnerable. And, but there is this challenge for Republicans, which is on one hand, Trump attacking you would seem favorable. Like, just hit, if I was Fitzpatrick, I would think in that district, I think about taking

the footage of Trump saying the votes against all the time and put it in an ad. Don't go to mind it. But in most, but in most, But the challenge is they also need Republican turnout. And if Trump is trashing you, are that people going to turn out for you? And that's the real question. Yeah, that is a good point. Well, so then what do you think about getting restrictions on this slush fund?

Because it does seem like they're going for restrictions in this ICE funding bill, which is reconciliation, which means that you would only need, you know, 51 votes in the Senate. There's two things happening here. One is, as we mentioned, the Republicans recognize this is terrible politics and they don't want to vote for it. And they know how bad it is. They feel the same way about the ballroom, which we're talking about in a second. The other thing is happening in the Senate is these people are just pissed at Trump. Like, he took out Tom Tillis and, you know, Tom Tillis retired rather than face a primary challenge. But Roy Cooper is much more likely the next senator of North Carolina because he's running against an anonymous RNC chair that, uh,

Trump installed as the nominee. They took out Bill Cassidy. He just endorsed, as we'll talk about, just endorsed against John Cornyn, the number two person in the Senate for Republicans. And so he's basically taking out their people. And so they're both pissed like on this personal level that he keeps taking out their friends. But they're also, he's making, in almost all of these cases, he's making it less likely

they keep the majority. And so I think they're starting to get restive here and are looking for some place to show that they have some measure of spine. Now, are the restrictions that are going to be? put in be, you know, likely be pretty weak. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's that that's the case. But I would be surprised. I would be surprised. And I, no one's ever made a lot of money betting on congressional Republicans to do something brave. But I would be surprised if this bill passed without some measure of something that at least is a putative fig leave of restriction on this slush fund.

The challenge here is I don't think they get any, they're not going to get any Democratic votes for it, right? Even though, even though Democrats would want to ban this, if, it goes in the ICE funding bill, the restrictions, Democrats aren't going to vote for the ICE Well, you'll get it on the amendment in the voterama to put it in. Oh, so Democrats can get it in there and then just not vote again. Okay. I just way outstripped my expertise on Senate budget procedure, but I think that's right. I think that's good enough. That's good enough for this episode. Today's show is sponsored by Strawberry.Me. You think about switching jobs?

Maybe. Ask yourself these questions. Am I growing or just repeating the same experience over and over again? Okay, ladder. It's a tough question to ask when we're doing this. Do I feel energized by my work, obviously, or am I constantly drained and counting the hours until it's over? Can I do both? Do I know what my next career move should be, or am I just hoping something better shows up?

I mean, I definitely don't know that. Yeah, that's a hard one. Am I going to stay here for another year? Will I be proud of my progress or regret staying comfortable? I'm not comfortable. Interesting. These are tough questions. Who said we were comfortable?

If you think it might be time for a change, you should talk to a career coach through Strawberry, dot me. The coaches work with you one-on-one to understand your strengths, identify your gaps, and build a clear roadmap towards a career you're actually excited about because the bigger risk isn't making the wrong move, staying stuck without a plan. Take control of your future at strawberry. dot me slash crooked. Go today and get 50% off your first coaching session. That's strawberry. Dot me slash crooked. Positive America is brought to you by Helix. We love helix mattresses. I think all three of us have one, at least one. I now have many in those. They're very, very

comfortable. Everybody raves about it. Kids love it. I think my in-laws have one. I've done a lot of Helix mattresses. No complaints yet. In fact, plenty of compliments. And they just mail it to your house. Yeah, it's crazy. And you take a sleep quiz and you figure out what the right Helix mattress for you is, and it's fantastic. Helix makes buying a mattress easy. You take the Helix sleep quiz, as I just said, and it will match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs. Free shipping and seamless delivery. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the U.S. The Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer-first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress. So you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges.

Plus, Helix offers a 120-night sleep trial in limited lifetime warranty. You think anyone does like 190 nights and they send that mattress back? That would suck. It would be funny. It would be a funny bit. I mean, look, we're not saying that you can do that, but it is 120-night sleep trial. That's right. That's very true.

How is your slip-in an upgrade? Well, it's way more comfortable than the old one. And everyone who, they sleep in our guest room and our two boys, they're always like, I love my Helix mattress. It's so comfy. I had the best night of sleep. Damn right. Go to Helixleep.com slash cricket for 27% offsitewide.

That's Helixleep.com slash cricket for 27% off site wide. This offer is exclusive to our listeners. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you Helixleep.com slash crooked. Next up, the billion dollars Trump wants for his ballroom. when she then just said he doesn't need. On Saturday, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the money couldn't be included in the ICE funding bill because it doesn't comply with the Senate's budget rules. Trump then demanded that Republicans fire the parliamentarian,

but Republicans decided to remove the funding instead of the parliamentarian, admitting that they didn't have the votes anyway, probably because enough of them realized that asking taxpayers to fork over a billion dollars for a ballroom no one asked for is fucking crazy. Trump, meanwhile, took reporters on a tour of the construction site this week, which is, you know, that's his passion. And he defended the project as a military necessity. And he said that the roof would be a drone port that protects all of Washington. Does he think it's, is there's like an iron dome over the White House now in Washington because of the, because that's what the ballroom is?

He also announced how many stories deep the bunker would be, which is probably not a piece of information. You just want to hand out to the public? No, no. Is the ballroom in jeopardy? Like, does Trump, Trump then said he doesn't need the money. It seems like he wanted the money pretty badly, which is why he told them to fire the parliamentarian and is getting really pissed about this.

Is he going to find a way to just steal the money from taxpayers like he's been doing now with this slush fund for insurrectionists or maybe he just extorts more rich people with business before the government to just give donations? Yeah, it's hard to say. Once again, it seems that no one in Congress wants to vote for a billion dollars for a ballroom. And they're going to, as Trump has tried to do it to do it. Well, it's not really for the ballroom.

The ballroom's paid for by all the rich people who were buying access in terms in exchange for the ballroom. But it's the security, the necessary security underneath the ballroom that is the cost a billion dollars. It's too late for that. It's the one billion dollar ballroom. That's all everyone understands it. an actual impressive Democratic messaging victory in this day and age. So we should applaud that.

Maybe Elon Musk, fresh off the SpaceX IPO, comes in and gives a billion dollars to build the rest of it. But I don't know how they're going to get. It doesn't seem like they're going to be able to get money out of Congress for this this year. No one wants to do this this close to the election. Maybe they can throw something into an end of the year deal after the election. I don't know, but it seems hard. And I don't think that I think that the reason they asked for Congress,

ask Congress for the money in the first place is they can't necessary they can't use private donations to fund like yeah I assume that's the case security yeah but then that says in something before we did I was gonna say I mean who did we let do we let Michael Dell pay our troops once like do you see the news that he also said he doesn't need congressional approval to build his 250 foot uh arc I have to say I've tried really hard to... Arech? We calling it an arch or an arc? Arch. I think it's an arch.

Arch. And it's an arch in French. I'm thinking of like the arc day... Yeah. Sorry. The fuck it is. We got arches. We got ballrooms. We got Katari jets. We got... I don't know. I've lost track. We got new Kennedy centers. We have new marble armrests at the Kennedy Center, right?

We have new marble armrests. We spend some time and energy on that. New helipad. We got a new helipad coming. The drone port. I've tried really hard to not focus on the arch. as you call it on the arch. It just seems, I mean, it seems crazy.

I don't know. I finally today, because we were doing this on the podcast, I finally looked at where the arch was going to be. It's in Virginia. It's across the river. But it also like, the New York Times did a good,

like, sort of AI rendering of what the views would be like. And it kind of just like, it blocks the view of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. It's like bigger than anything else in Washington. Yeah, it's stupid. I mean, yeah, if I was a, I was a D.C. resident, I'd be fucking annoyed, but.

Well, like, no one's asking for it. No one wants it. Don't forget the reflecting pool. Yeah, we are also. Yeah, we are repainting the reflecting pool. Once again, a taxpayer dollars, I believe. It's just, it really is. It's just, he is obsessed with home renovation projects.

Like, this is, like, that is his true passion. He could not be bothered with, he, like, stealing money, revenge. An interior design. It's like the most cartoonish version of corruption by like an aging dictator. He's just stealing money, you know, smash and grab anywhere he can. He's just putting gold everywhere, ensconced in his fucking DC home that he's turning into fucking Versailles on the Potomac. You know, pardoning all of his friends, punishing all of his enemies, doing nothing else, decomposing before our eyes. It's just like

It's not great. It's fucking bleak man. One more vote Trump's having trouble with in part because he ended the careers of Republicans whose support he needs, a measure that would force him to end the war in Iran. On Tuesday, the Senate finally voted to take up the war powers

resolution with newly defeated Senator Bill Cassidy flipping to vote in favor. The resolution now moves to the House where retiring Maine Democrat Jared Golden says he now plans to flip his vote in favor as well. And all this comes as Iran is reviewing the latest U.S. peace proposal, which Trump says he'll give them a few days to do. He also said that the U.S. and Iran are, quote, right on the borderline between war and peace,

and that he's, quote, in no hurry to make a deal as the price of gas inches towards $5 a gallon. What do you make of the latest developments in Iran and the shift of Republicans now being in favor of the war powers resolution? Just the cycle, it's every week. We wake up on Monday. There is a either a true social or an Axios post with multiple sirens that tells us that we're on the verge of a deal. We are right there. They're circling around it. That reality lasts like five hours.

Then we are on the verge of war. Trump is right. We really are on the verge of both. Then we are making war plans. We're threatening to bomb people. We're ending civilizations. And then at the moment right before the bombing is set to begin, things get tacoed. and we are back to stalemate.

And it's just we've been on rinse and repeat of this cycle for weeks now. I will say that each, with each new draft of the peace proposal, um, looks less like peace and more like a meaningless extension of a ceasefire. Yeah. Yeah. The latest one is, the latest one is just like,

this will be like a memo that gives 30 days for peace negotiations, but like nothing happens within those, like the straight doesn't open in those 30 days. It's basically just, where we are right now, but a more formal ceasefire for another 30 days. Well, what have they been doing for the last 30 days? I know. What's different?

I don't even understand what the point of the memo is. Like, theoretically, people are talking somewhere, right? People are talking somewhere. People are talking somewhere. Well, and it seems like the Iranians, of course, have every incentive to continue to kick the ball down the road without having to give anything up because they don't want to get bombed again because Trump keeps inching closer to resuming just hostilities. and Beebe is reportedly pushing him towards that as well.

Apparently there was like a tense call between Trump and Netanyahu where Trump was like, give peace a chance. And Netanyahu obviously was like, no, let's bomb the shit out of them. And so, yeah, like, would I be shocked if this time we actually get some kind of a deal this weekend? No, but I would be shocked if it was actually a meaningful peace deal that ended the hostilities and actually permanent. What do you think is more likely this weekend? We take a step towards peace, and I'm not a bit, not peace, but even like some agreement on a memory or something. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Or we invade Cuba. Oh. I think Cuba's highly more likely. Oh, I think peace. I mean, not peace. Can I just say the memo? Yeah, I say memo. I say memo over Cuba.

But Cuba, who knows? When we're doing rapid response three hours after this, uh, the rap response to the middle of its wedding about the Cuba invasion. Yeah, I will not be doing rapid response there. Tommy has to do, but he's got to speak to the people. Well, you know what? We'll be at the bar. We can wave to Tommy. What are we having, Mojito? All right.

One other rake Trump stepped on this week that we got to talk about. You mentioned this. The president has endorsed scandal plagued Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn and the Texas Senate primary runoff, much to the delight of Democrats in dismay of Senate Republicans. Trump called Cornyn, quote, a good man, but said that he wasn't there for him when he needed him, when times were tough.

And then he dubbed Paxton a true MAGA warrior who would presumably vote for all the ballroom funding and insurrectionist payouts that Trump asked for. And the SAVE Act. That's the big one. The SAVE Act, right. We remember the SAVE Act we talked about forever and then that's just, that's dead. Yeah, I guess Ken Paxton would revive it in the next Congress. Runoff is Tuesday. What do you make of Trump's decision? Insane.

A truly insane decision. It's in the immediate aftermath, let's just go back. in time a couple months to the Texas primary, which honestly feels like 10 years ago. But Cornyn did better than anyone expected. The assumption was that Trump said he was going to make an endorsement. Everyone assumed he was going to endorse Corny. If Trump had done that, Paxton would have probably had to drop out. His campaign would have dried up.

And Cornyn would be the nominee. Instead, he invaded Iran instead of focusing on this, dithered for a long time, could have just stayed silent. and then endorsed Ken Paxton with a week to go, almost ensuring that Ken Paxton will be the nominee. Ken Paxton is, by every measure, less electable than John Cornyn. We've seen this in the polling. There is a slice of Republicans who will vote for Cornyn over Tala Rico, but will vote for Tala Rico over Paxton.

And just like he is so, like, this is the example. He's so focused on vengeance that he decided to go after John. Cornyn. We already just talked about the the consequences in the Senate. And just even more practically, like this day, I think the, I think the Cook political report moved this

to lean Republican. They said they will if they will. They will. They will if, if Paxton is the nominee. But so they probably still have advantages here. But the NRC, all the super PACs are going to have to spend

ungodly amounts of money in this race to to just win a state that seat they should have already won. All because Trump just could not help himself. Could you make a political argument? I realize it wouldn't be a good one. It's not one that I favor. That it's possible John Cornyn would be a weaker candidate

that Ken Paxson because the Trump, like the hardcore MAGA base would be pissed and maybe stay home if Cornyn was the nominee. And so you would sort of, and you need turnout in a midterm. Like is that, is that a thing? Maybe we would have made that argument of Cornyn. We may make that argument of Cornyn wins the primary on Tuesday. So stay tuned. Hey, that's not what we do here, Dan.

That's not what we do here. I think that argument is hard to support. I mean, look, if you, all the polling shows that Talley Rico does better against Paxton than Cornyn, but only by a point or two in some of this polling, which in Texas could be everything, of course, probably would be everything. He's not winning by more than a point or two, FYI. Right, right, right. But I thought that the delta between the two in the polling would be bigger than it has been. Now, there haven't been that many polls, but, you know. And there's also, uh, in these polls, there's, you know, like 10 to 12% undecided.

And we have to look and see who makes up that undecided, but then if you are in Texas, I just, I think that it's just, it's like, let's not overcomplicate this. Ken Paxton is a man who is an absolute crook, a serial adults or a fucking lunat, tick and he's terrible at raising money. His own staff called the FBI on him. That to me is my, that's my favorite thing. He's like, how many people have their own staff called the FBI on him? And no one here, right?

Nice. Checking. They're all right now left. But Paxton is such a perfect foil for Tel Rico. This nice, thoughtful guy who can talk about his religion, is faithful. Like, they're the exact opposite of each other. And that it really helps Tellerico in a way that is it's not just Republican Democrats, like a good person and a bad person. And that is going to help Tellerico.

We can pretend like Cornyn because he sucks as a politician and isn't very good on the stump. And it's kind of a he puts on a cowboy hat every year for an ad and it looks fucking ridiculous in it. It looks like it's basically photoshopped on his head. But Paxton, running against Paxton is way better for Teller Rico than Corny. Yeah. I mean, you make the argument that Cornon basically is generic Republican. in a ballot and Paxton is less is is is more vulnerable than a generic Republican because he again is committed bribery and corruption and adult.

But think about how close Beto came to beating. Yeah. This is what I'm talking about this on OnlyFriends, which I was like there's there's like three factors here, right? It's three questions for does, does Tala Rika win? Do you think the overall national environment is bluer than it was in 2018? Do you think Tala RICO is a better candidate than Betta? and then do you think Paxton is a worse candidate than Ted Cruz?

I think on all three measures, this is better for Tellerico than it was for Beto. And Beto came within three points. Yeah, I think that's probably right. But now, those last three points, that is a long, fucking mile across in Texas. I also said that that's where I came down. I'm like, and he could do better than Beto and still lose, like, just a little. But, you know, I think he's a special candidate. I have for a long time.

I know you do too. And, like, I think, you know, everyone should. If anyone can do it. It is James Tellerico right now in this environment against Ken Paxton. Yeah. This episode is brought to you by the Obama Foundation. Democracy doesn't defend itself. It needs people willing to fight for it.

That's why the Obama Foundation is committed to training the next generation of leaders, building communities, and strengthening our democracy. This summer, the Obama Presidential Center opens as a global hub for change, providing emerging leaders with the tools and resources they need to make a real difference in their communities, our country, and our world. But none of that happens without you with these leaders. needs support now and your donation makes that possible. Years from now, when you look back on this moment in history, you'll want to say you stepped off the sidelines. So don't wait. Join the movement

for change. Donate to the Obama Foundation at Obama.org slash pod. All right, Dan, some breaking news this morning on the 2024 DNC autopsy. Ken Martin finally agreed to release the full text of the report which CNN published after the uproar that followed his interview with us a few weeks ago. This is from Martin's statement, quote, I didn't want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize. He also said, quote, it does not meet my standards and it won't meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word. Well, I agree with him there. The 192-page report is riddled with inaccuracies, at times incoherent.

Ultimately, incomplete, the section headlined conclusion comes with an annotation that says, this section was not provided by the author. Still, it's all you need to know. There's also no mention of Biden's decision to run again, his age, Gaza, inflation. Dan, do you have some thoughts you'd like to share? I feel like I've said plenty on this. You'll have more to say, I hope. This is so fittingly stupid.

Like, this is what we suspect all along, which is Ken Martin hired the wrong person to do the report. The wrong person did a terrible job. Instead of starting the report over or saying that Ken Martin just started lying, couldn't stop lying and just got himself into this incredible hole. And then he doesn't get points for transparency here. because that CNN got some parts they were able to get from some sources, parts of the report. And once the CNN had that, then the DNC made the decision, which was the right decision, to release the rest of it. Like, it's so, it's, it cannot have been handled more poorly.

Just every part of it. So I'm going to go through a couple things here. One, this is just a management disaster. This was supposed to be a huge priority for Ken Martin. He hired someone to work for free who no one in the Democratic Party would have picked for this role. There was no actual process set up. There was clearly no monitoring of the process or oversight or anyone working on or tracking what was happening because when he got, he was shocked when he got the report. Well, why weren't you getting in or weren't their calls every week?

Why wasn't someone on your staff in charge of doing this? Why wasn't there a committee of people? I can think of dozens upon dozens of very, very qualified, very, very smart Democrats who would have volunteered to be part of this process, to do it right. And I know this because there have been a bunch of other autopsies that have come out where they've gotten really, really smart people to do it and completed the work. Someone that we know reached out to me and said, we wrote a 700 page postmortem on the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign, and it was done in January the election was in November. And so,

like, that's just, it's just an absolute management disaster. The second piece is the lying. Like, the biggest piece of me. The lying is so crazy. And I go back to the interview with you,

which is, and you talk about this when we did the interview, we talked about this, I just want everyone to fully understand. We did not seek out Ken Martin for the purpose of talking to him about the autopsy. We had no interest in talking to Ken Martin about the autopsy.

he complained to you about tweets sent by someone who's not you. Nope, yep, Ben Rhodes tweet. Ben Rhodes tweet kicked it off. And then he came up to you at the Grindr Party. Yep, sure did. And expressed it to admit. You can talk about how he expressed it. And so the response was that he would come on the podcast to discuss it.

He like sought out the opportunity to do it to continue to push the lie. because the argument that they were made, Ken and Martin had two points in this about the autopsy. It's done. It was helpful. It is informed our playbook. He said the word playbook 10,000 times I'd interview. And we can't release it because it would be a distraction and divide the party before

the election. The last part is, yes, it would be a distraction. But the main reason not to release it is it was embarrassing to Ken Martin or not to come clean with why you. didn't you, you weren't releasing us because it would be embarrassing to Ken Martin, not because it'd be bad for the party. Yeah. Yeah. It's, and it is, if it was just the autopsy, and this was like, just one incident here, that would be one thing. But the fact that it goes to trust issues and credibility, and as Ken says in his statement, we need to be able to trust the

Democratic Party and people need to be able to trust us again. It is indicative of a larger issue that he has had since taking this role as chairman at the DNC. And look no further than the April fundraising reports that came out the same day today that say, once again, the Democratic National Committee has negative $3 million in the bank when you account for the debts that they owe. And the Republican National Committee has $124 million in the bank. And then when you look at the fundraising of the RNC versus the DNC, the RNC has raised many, many, many, many, many more times the amount of money as the DNC. But when you look at the fundraising between the DCC and the Republican congressional campaign committee, when you, the two House committees, you know,

the Republicans have outraised Democrats by little, but not as much as RNC versus DNC. Same thing with the Senate committees. So it's not a Democratic. party-wide problem, fundraising problem. It's a DNC problem. And one of the reasons why the DNC is not able to raise money. And Ken Martin has disputed this, but many, many of the owners have said otherwise is the autopsy. Because the autopsy has bred, just frustration the DNC didn't do it, questions of trust about Ken Martin. What are we giving our money for or for not getting it? And this is, I mean, bury the lead here, but this is why I think Ken Martin should step down. I think this is a bridge too far. He cannot repair the trust

here. He's not, everything we've seen here is he's not the right person for the job. I'm sorry, that seems like a harsh thing to say, but it is clear. He has an impossible job being even under, we have worked with many, many DNC chairs. Even under the best circumstances, the job sucks ass. It is really, really hard. No one has ever seen a successful DNC chair. People are hammered for it. But the thing is, is that Ken Martin is now the distraction that he did not, he was trying to

avoid. And because you're the distraction, then you should go, like he said it, like he says in his post, my job is winning elections. Well, the best thing for the Democrats to win elections is to have a fresh start at the DNC, both now and in 2028 where the trusted issue matters so much more because the DNC is going to run the presidential primary. They're going to pick, they're going to set up the debates. They're going to pick the calendar, which is a huge thing.

They're going to make decisions about how delegates are allocated. They're going to deal with states to try to jump the. calendar. All of this matters. And when people don't trust the DNC, as happened in 2016, when all of the emails came out as part of the Russian hacks of DNC emails that showed that people at the DNC were favoring Hillary over Bernie, people didn't trust the DNC. They didn't trust the process. They thought it was rigged. And it hurt. It hurt in the general election. We need people to trust the process. And I say that as a Sixers fan. But we need people to trust the process. Well, and what he has opened up to now is,

Any candidate who runs for president in 2028 who complains about unfairness at the DNC, whether those accusations are fair or not, accurate or not, like, no one's going to believe Ken Martin because he has this credibility issue, right? And same thing with the excuses on the money, right? He did a whole thing with me in the interview about like, you know, we're actually fine and we're investing in state parties and you need to spend and all this kind of stuff. But like, I don't know. Can I believe that now? I don't know. He, He had this other lie for a long, long time and tried to hide it, tried to cover up this report. So, yeah, I guess after it was released today, there was a call for DNC members, a private call, just for all the DNC members, and talked to some people who are on the call.

And he basically just read the statement that he gave CNN, essentially, and apologized again. and then also said that Paul Rivera, who he put in charge of this report, is no longer helping out at the DNC because part of the CNN story said that even after he fucked up the autopsy, Paul Rivera was still walking around the DNC, like demoralizing staffers just by his presence because they all knew that he had fucked up so badly. So he said that Paul Rivera is no longer working. And then no questions on the call. No questions from many of the DNC members after this.

I also got something from someone at the DNC saying that, a lot of the outlets are mistaken and saying that there's no pathway to removal for Ken, that it's actually just a simple majority vote of the DNC. So that's interesting. And there's at least one congressman, Representative Mark Visi, said that it's time for Ken Martin to go. So I don't know. I mean, I tend to think, do you think his job is safe? Do you think he'll resign?

Like, it seems like a tall order, but I don't know. I mean, I hope he would be willing to look at the reality situation and recognize that because the mistakes that he made that the best thing for the party would be two step down. I don't think he's going to do that. We're in this mess because he was trying to protect himself, not the party. So hard to see. I mean, you know, is the, are we really going to take the, even if it's easy, it's an extraordinary step to remove the DNC chairs. They're going to do that five months before the midterms. I'd be surprised. Right. And then you need. But I think if it does that before that. It's a real question before the 2028 calendar is set as to,

whether we have to do something different here. Also, the other problem is no one seems to want the job. So you need someone else who would want the job. You need someone else who, you need the donors to say that if someone else takes the job, then the money will start flowing again and they'll start donating, right? Because you don't want a new chair to still be stuck at the same problem financially. And it does, you know, people have been complaining. This is a distraction, distraction.

Like it does at some point eat up a lot of time and energy, you know, as we're getting close to the midterms. but the challenges after the midterms happen, if they are as expected and things go well, again, you can hear the DNC taking credit for it in advance, and they will have nothing to do with the victory. Again, if things don't go well, it's still not the DNC's fault. They just don't have that much to do with midterm elections at all. But as soon as the midterms are over,

we're fucking into the presidential primary. And people are going to start putting their campaigns together, and you're going to need the calendars and all the stuff that you were just talking about. And so I don't know. It's fucking mess. Fucking mess. It's so stupid. And we're not digging into the actual autopsy because it's a joke.

Like, I was just like, it's not worth talking about anything in it because it's not endorsed by the DNC or anyone else. It's just like Paul Rivera's ramblings that are the basis of him talking to just some people involved with the 2024 campaign who aren't even most of the senior people on the campaign. Yeah, there's been a lot, I would say to people who were interested in what happened. there's been a lot of actual autopsies from outside groups. Way to Win has one. Catalyst has their report.

We talked about Rob Flaherty's bulwark piece the other day. There's one from, I think the strategic victory fund, if I'm saying that correctly, has one. There's actually some pretty good, pretty exhaustive work about what happened in 2024 that people want, they should go look at. But looking at this version is not worth doing. Because you could look for it. I would say read the executive summary, but that was also not provided. Right, right. All right, well, you think he'll come back on the pod?

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe you guys will meet up again at next year's Grander Party. Fingers crossed. Maybe there'll be alcohol this time. All right. Speaking of Democrats, being unhappy with Democrats, the New York Times released new results

from their latest poll that we talked about on Tuesday. This installment is focused on Democrats and independents who say they're planning to support Democratic candidates in the fall. Overall, more than half of these votes, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party. More than half also said the party should move to the center rather than move to the left in order to win the 2008 presidential election. But when asked that question about specific issues, the results were more varied.

On economic issues, 36% said move to the left, pretty competitive with the 42% who said move to the center. And on health care, 45% of Democratic voters want to move to the left compared to just 27% who said move to the center. and 26% who said don't move in either direction. Healthcare was the issue where the biggest percentage of voters thought the Democratic Party should move to the left. And then I would say economy was next.

And then when you get to issues like crime, I think, was the top issue where the most, the highest percentage of Democrats said that the party should move to the right, or at least move to the center, sorry. And then immigration. And actually, you know, we can talk about this too, but. trans issues was not as there weren't as many people and this would go against sort of the prevailing narrative but there weren't as many Democrats who wanted the party to move to the center on trans issues as there were on crime and immigration is still the top two.

So what did you make of this novel line of questioning in the poll which they did ask voters like how do you personally feel about the direction of the party on these issues and what direction do you think the party should move in and then they asked which direction you think the party should move to win. So they did both. But the move to win, basically, asking voters to be pundits is a new one. Yeah, I generally hate that idea. Like, it's always, it's just, it's just, I'm much rather more, much more interested in what voters actually think.

Because you would like to believe that that's what informs voting behavior. But I will say that this is a very interesting finding. One, it just proves that among Democrats, the narrative that Democrats lost because we were too far of the left, too woke, too liberal, has taken hold among Democrats. The, you know, plurality of Democrats believe that, at least on a core set of issues. And so it's just, it's like, that's an interesting data point that that has, you know, there was this battle after the election. Were we two moderate or two left?

And at least for the people responding this poll, it was clearly the problem was we were too left, not left enough. And the other reason why I think this is somewhat informative is electability is become the preeminent issue in Democratic politics. You know, it was a huge issue in the Texas Senate primary. It was a huge issue in the main Senate primary before Janet Mills dropped out. It's a giant issue in the Iowa primary that happened a couple weeks. And it's a big issue in the Michigan Senate primary. that is in August. And so it's interesting to know what voters think

makes someone electable or in this case may make them think someone is less electable. You know, looking at the numbers, it is... Did you dive into the cross tabs? The cross tabs are not that, they're not that surprising. I figured you did, but I did too. Yeah. I'm ready to nerd out about some cross tabs at people.

Some real nuggets, but it's sort of, it's what you... The findings are kind of across the board. What would be interesting would be if there was one group who really thought they should move to the left, but really just kind of across the board people or not move to the right or whatever it is, but everyone kind of all feels the same way, just in varying degrees.

The college split on these issues is notable to me. Yeah. That non-college voters tend to want the party to move towards the center, and college voters want the party to move to the left. And then it splits on racial and education lines in a very interesting way, which is non-college black voters and non-college Latino voters, along with non-college white voters, very much want the party to move to the center. And really the only demographic group that most wants the party to move to the left is white college grads. Also some black and Hispanic college grads, but it's just a larger chunk of the electorate is white.

And more with younger people. It all skews younger in all of these. Yeah. And particularly on issues, again, against the prevailing narrative, on issues of immigration and crime. Yeah. You see. Wait.

That you see black and Latino, non-college, Democratic voters say they want the party to move to the center. Oh, yes. Yes. I mean, that is the, I guess, I felt like we were past that prevailing narrative or that even that narrative is kind of, but I guess, I guess, it depends on where you're getting your news these days. Right.

Yeah. Just wait until we get to the next primary. Yeah. I mean, and it's like, obviously electability is going to hang over the 2028 primary in a massive way. And so this, this will inform that. I think the health care one is very interesting. On economic issues, it's only a six point spread, which I think is also notable. And then what I felt also interesting is that there is, they ask people, they asked Democrats

if they thought the economic system in the country was. generally unfair to most Americans, 88% yes. Only 11% said fair to most Americans. And whether the political and economic system needs to be changed. So 63% said major changes. 20% said torn down completely. And 15% said minor or minor changes and 1% said no changes. Who that person is, which Democrat thinks that has no changes I'd be interested in.

But I think there is this paradox here, which is you have people saying we think the party should move right on certain issues. But there is an appetite in it for big, bold ideas on the economy and health care. And like people want real change. And so nibbling around the edges is not going to be sufficient, both in the Democratic primary and the general. People want to see that you understand the scale of the problems affecting their lives, the ways in which the system is broken and corrupt. And you have big ideas. So the sort of, you know, not to pick on Kamala Harris's economic team. team, but, like, this is what not to do is we're going to offer tax credits for a first-time homebuyers.

It's a good policy theoretically, but it just seems small compared to what people actually want. Building more houses would be a better policy. Well, that would be a better, that would be a better policy. You can do both. Yeah, you can do both. But, yeah, I mean, there was a line in here in the in the write-up of the piece of the poll, which was, and when presented with two opposing economic visions, more than two-thirds of Democratic supporters. now we're 65, 66%, said they favored a candidate who would go after corporate monopolies and price gouging, while just 30% preferred a candidate who promised to lower prices by

easing housing regulations and expanding energy production. Now, you know, some of this isn't wording, that doesn't sound very exciting to ease housing regulations and expand energy production. But just to give people a baseline, because I thought this was interesting. So they asked, like, where do you, how do you think about the party? Is it too far left? Is it too far right? Or is it not too far either way?

55% said not too far either way. 20% said two left, 17% said two right. So right there, you're a candidate trying to win the party's nomination. You got like a little more than half of the electorate that you're trying to get who thinks the party is ideologically good where it is right now. And then you've got almost similar percentages on either side. So that is a tough thing to navigate. I also thought the delta between when they asked people,

where would you personally like to see the party move? And to win where would you like to see the party move was actually not that different. So 28% said they personally like to see the party move to the left. And 25% said that to win the party should move to the left. And then 47% said they personally want it to move to the center. And 52% said to win. said to win they want to move their center. So you do have a percentage of people who are saying, oh, personally, I want the party to be more left, but to win it should move to the center.

But not a ton. The delta wasn't as big as I thought it would be. Well, it's, I mean, for the reasons we talked about for many years, which is the media and Democrat is a, is a voter that didn't go to college. And it's more moderate than most people listen to this podcast. and we are personally, and that's the party that nominated Joe Biden in 2020. And that remains true. I think these questions are a little confusing in how they're ordered. But it is just notable that 55% are generally okay with the direction of the party is. Now, how many of those 55% can name what the direction of the party actually fucking is right now?

Well, I was just going to say, the other thing that stands out in some of the questions that they asked is, and we always talk about this, but it's a good reminder for everyone. is how, like, those of you listening to this podcast, you are so different than, like, 70% of the rest of the electorate in that you pay closer attention to politics and know more about what's going on in politics day to day than most of the people who will show up and vote in elections. So they asked about Schumer. And Schumer's approval rating in this poll among just Democrats and independents that they're going to vote Democrat is, 26% in favor, 31% opposed. And you're like, well, that's kind of low.

35% never heard of Chuck Schumer. Joe Rogan, 11% approved, 48% disapprove. The rest never heard of Joe Rogan. Nick Fuentes, what is it? 9% approve? I didn't even see Fuentes in there. Yeah, Fuentes is in the cross tabs. They asked, I guess, just for fun, have you heard, maybe Ezra got this question.

Have you heard of the abundance movement? 91% of people that they pulled, all of whom, again, all these people said they're going to vote in the midterms. 91% never heard of the abundance movement. So it's just, it's a good, a good reminder that people who are even in democratic, even in midterms, right, which is a more engaged electorate. Even midterm voters are just not paying as much attention to all the shit that we talk about every week. These are registered voters, right? Yeah, but registered voters who said they're going to vote in the midterm. The Israel numbers, crazy. Only 20% favor more aid to Israel. Seventy-four percent do not.

15% sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians and 60% Palestinians over Israelis. The highest group of support for Israel of any demographic is 65 plus, unsurprising there. Even that group, 65 plus, only 27% so that they have more sympathy for Israel. Israel and the Palestinians. That is just a, just a massive shift on that issue. Yep. You can thank Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and BB Netanyahu for that. Yeah, that is true. And then, and then 49% favor socialism, 22% no socialism, and then the rest had no opinion. Every age group of Democrats has a favorable opinion. So they don't support socialism. They

have a favorable opinion of it. That's, thank you. That is important, yeah. That may be a distinction with a lot of difference in the ads that will be run, but I think it does matter on what people say. But yeah, even voters over 65, if I remember correctly, Democrats over 65, by more narrow margin, have a favorable view of socialism. Oh, last one I wanted to ask you about. 49% of voters said it was important to choose leaders with a fresh approach. 48% want to choose leaders with proven experience. It's a real.

And guess which, guess what young people wanted? experience. Yeah. By like a lot more than other age groups. It was a sort of life- I think that this one is, I think this is a confusing question. And I don't think it says exactly what you think it says.

I think the backdrop for this is our reality TV show president, who has no real experience in his fucking up left and right every single day. And so I think the better, the question that will be more interesting as we think about the 2020, 28 Democratic primaries. Do you want someone who is a part of the establishment or against the establishment? I think that's a – because everyone is – everyone who's running is going to have some answer on experience. It's just what experience means.

Like we saw this in 2008. Like everyone can define experience the way they do, and then you either sell it or you don't. Because if you don't – no one wants someone with insufficient experience. That is true. That is true. While we're on this topic, there's a bit of a mess brewing in the Democratic primary in Texas's redrawn 35th district. where Sheriff's Deputy Johnny Garcia is now in a runoff with a sex therapist named Maureen Galindo, who has posted wildly anti-Semitic comments online,

including calling Judaism the synagogue of Satan and promising to turn an iced detention center into, quote, a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers, adding, quote, it will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists. Disgusting. A mysterious super PAC called Lead Left, which was formed earlier this month and whose website initially linked to the Republican platform

Win Red has now spent about $600,000 to boost Galindo. Demeline's super PACs have now just about match that spending to defeat Galindo and everyone from James Telerico to Hakeem Jeffries to AOC has condemned her.

What do you make of this? It's a mess. It's an absolute mess. I mean, good for everyone for speaking up in trying to defeat this person. the Republicans are pretty devious in what they're doing. They're going to do this in multiple places around the country. They've already tried to do it in a couple states, including Pennsylvania.

I mean, we have, we have been involved in Democratic groups have been involved in primaries before. So this is not beyond the bounds of what's acceptable or what's appropriate. But add us to the list of people condemning her and hoping she does not win. Yeah. And if you are in that district, if you're a voter in that district, if you know voters in that district, like tell them to go vote for Johnny Garcia. She got more votes in the primary. I know. I know. That's what that's what, that's what, we're all worried about. This is on Tuesday. So this is the runoff. And she got more votes than him

the first time around. And so, you know, I think I can't even begin. The most generous explanation is that people who voted for her did not know about all the comments and all the positions. I hope. And that maybe, and that she obviously had a lot of money and spending behind her. So her name ID was better than Johnny Garcia. So he needs better name ID. Maybe this, controversy getting kicked up will help sort of focus people and people in that 35th district will we'll we'll hear about this and be like oh that's crazy we've got to vote for johnny garcia but anyway we should um everyone should get the word out because um this isn't just someone who's like crazy lefty this is like uh fucking concentration camps for zionists are you fucking kidding me like it's

awful and Republicans of course are so fucking cynical and having a field day with this and being like oh democrats democrats are the ones voting for the anti-semites and the and the people who want to put Jews in camps, not Republicans. And meanwhile, of course, not saying anything about the fact that there's this, like, mysterious super PAC linked to the Republican group Win Red that is spending on this race, which is just crazy. So, Johnny Garcia, go check it out. All right, one last topic today.

There are two very notable weddings taking place this Memorial Day weekend. As we've said, one is our own John Lovett and Ari Schwartz, which we're all very excited to attend. The other is Donald Trump Jr. and Palm Beach socialite Bettina Anderson, which Donald Trump's senior is maybe skipping? Let's listen to what he said in the Oval. Are you having your son's money this weekend, by the way? He'd like me to go, but it's going to be just a small little private affair, and I'm going to try and make it. I'm in the midst. I said, you know, this is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things.

that's one I can't win on. If I do attend, I get killed. If I don't attend, I get killed. What? I'm still, I saw this this morning. It is 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I am still stunned by this. I mean, we have joked for many, many years about how Donald Trump does not love his children

and they act this way because he does not love them and he can barely identify them. And it really did no parenting. This kind of proves the point. Yeah, just generational trauma, just in action. We're just watching. it unfolds right in that clip. Also, you know what? Donald Trump's

famous for skipping festivities and any kind of leisure activity because he likes to be focused on the nation's business. He's well known for that. No one would kill him for going to his son's wedding. Like that's one free, like he does a lot of dumb shit. He's going to USC finance.

He's playing golf. This would free pass for this one. It's in the Bahamas, I guess. where he can't like Air Force One can go go to the Bahamas He can go anywhere yeah Can go anywhere They could bring a fucking

I bet he's just piss It's not at Maralago Because he wanted to charge his son That is I can't even imagine I can't imagine I can't imagine my dad was the president I hope he doesn't go And also not like

He also wasn't even Would have even been different If he was like Oh I'm so like I can't make it You know like he was definitive And he had the excuse But he did the worst of all worlds

Which is just be like I'm gonna try to make it But I don't know I don't know. It's not good timing. Also, it's about me. It's about me. Yeah, not good timing for me. Yeah. Not good timing for me. It's really, it's your fault. I'm not coming to your wedding, son. Good stuff.

Anyway, anyway, congrats to John Jr. Congress of John Jr. And John Love it. And John Love it. Just cut from the same cloth. When we come back, California gubernatorial candidate, Matt Mayan. Pod Save America is brought to you by a Nutraful. Real change comes through the small, healthy habits you do,

every day that quietly add up to big improvements. That's the idea behind Nutrafol. It's built around a simple, consistent approach to hair health that works from within and delivers visible results over time, not overnight. Nutrifol is the number one dermatologist's recommended hair growth supplement brand, and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Nutriful's hair growth supplements are peer-reviewed, NSF certified for sport, and clinically tested. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach. Nutraful offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages like postpartum or menopause and lifestyle factors such as a plant-based diet so you get personalized support that's right for you.

Adding neuterful to your daily routine is easy. Order online, no prescription needed with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. This whole, their pitch of results over time, not overnight, I think that makes a lot of sense because remember the other options for this sort of thing or one day you'd just be totally bald and the next day the commercial has a guy like jet skiing with a full head of hair in a sick mullet. There's that, or there's just, you're standing outside at a press conference

and it's a little warm and suddenly you got the new hair dripping down your face. His head just melted. Good old days. I know. Let your hair become one less thing, taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger,

faster-going hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, Nutraful is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you visit Nutraful.com.

Enter the promo code Crooked. That's Nutraful.com. spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code crooked. My guest today is the mayor of San Jose. He's running to be the next governor of the great state of California. That man, great to see you. Thanks for having me. Thank you for coming into the Crooked Media Grand offices.

What do you think? It's beautiful. I love the art. Yeah, I'm really digging for compliments today. All right, let's cut to the chase. So I've got a motley crowded field of candidates in this race. Election Day is fast approaching. People are already voting.

I got my ballot at the house. I'm an undecided voter. I want to talk to you about it in a bit. Why are you the best candidate to lead this state? Well, thanks for having me on. I think I'm the best candidate to lead the state because I'm the only Democrat in the race who has a track record of challenging the establishment within my own party to make our government deliver for people. And at a time when we've got an authoritarian president who is trying to take the country in a very dangerous direction, we need Democrats who can govern and make people's lives better. The way we win in the long run is proving that we can implement policies that make people's neighborhoods safer and cleaner, their schools better, make housing more affordable. If we're delivering bad outcomes and people are dissatisfied with our leadership, it becomes very hard to fight for democracy and get people to care about climate change and many of the

kind of longer term goals that we have. So I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but just, you know, we're in L.A. we have this mayoral race happening that's kind of goofy, I'm sure you've seen. We got Karen Bastian coming to the Democrat, just got a challenge from the left from Nithia Raman, and then a challenge from a washed up reality TV participant, I don't even want to call him a star, Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, and I think has channeled very understandable anger about the response into a surprisingly effective campaign. And he's like tapped into this rage at the government, rage at the system, but I think it was bubbling below the surface for a lot of

people and like not just, you know, people who are feeling like the economic pinch, like a lot of rich, powerful people in the city are like pro-prat now. Are you hearing that anger on the campaign trail? And if so, how do Democrats address it and speak to it like when we're in charge of everything here and have been for a while? I am hearing that frustration and in some cases outright anger. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. When I ran for mayor of San Jose, which is the third largest city in the state, I was hearing deep frustration with the most basic things. There's crime in my neighborhood, sprawling tent encampments or schools are failing. I can't afford the rent.

I mean, the stuff that really keeps people up at night and affects them in their daily lives. And I realized very quickly when I was out knocking on doors and talking to people that we have to own those shortcomings and offer people change that is pragmatic and response. I believe we are almost continuously in a change election mode because government today is failing to get the basics right. In San Jose, I focused on things that are very simple but have an outsized impact, speeding up permitting, creating a neighborhood quality of life unit within our police department, building basic dignified interim housing. And when it's available, requiring people come indoors, partnering with our county to get more people into. drug treatment. By focusing on very basic issues that people see and feel every single day that you sadly see go viral on next door and everywhere else, we've increased trust in City Hall by 40% in my time as mayor. And I think that's the playbook. It'll look different in different cities and

different states. But again, I go back to this core premise that we have to be outcome focused. We have to look at the outcomes that matter most to voters. And they're pretty clear. They're telling us it's how it's cost of living. It's quality of schools. It's public safety issues. It's very basic issues. Now it's the cost of gas. And yeah, we could spend all of our time arguing how much of the cost of gas is Trump's war? A lot of it versus a lot of it. Yeah, the last, what, dollar and a half, $2, something like that is thanks to Donald Trump. But the $1.50 before that is largely our own policy decisions. And we need to be honest about that. I've argued that the gas tax in California has become the most regressive tax that affects. people living in the kinds of communities I grew up in. I grew up in a small farming town on the

central coast, people who can't afford an EV, Californians who are driving farther because they live in rural communities or out in the suburbs and they're commuting every day. And we should keep it, but we should right size it. In fact, I would convert it into a flat fee that makes sure EV owners are paying their fair share. That would be fair. You'd provide some relief to people. And you'd show that the Democratic Party is still fighting for working people and trying to make a real impact in their daily lives. Let me be annoying and ask a process question. We'll get geek out a little bit.

So you got into the race pretty late. It was a crowded field. But now you've been running for a couple months. And there was a poll out earlier this week that had you at 4% of the vote. How do you turn things around if that poll is accurate between now and election day when it's what, a month out, less? Less. I mean, look, there's a lot of fluidity in the polls.

We also recently had a poll that showed us at 10%. I'd be, look, when it's a low turnout race, and voters are holding onto their ballots, it means there's a lot of uncertainty and therefore variability in terms of what can happen. I believe people are listening. They're not thrilled with the choices that they perceive to be the frontrunners today

because they have some very legitimate concerns about Tom Steyer and Javier Bissera and certainly Steve Hilton. And I'm offering an alternative that is resonant with those who have heard it. What we see in our data is when people have seen our ads and heard our message, we go above 20% and we're in the top two. So my focus is on communicating directly with voters through every possible channel, including thank you very much. You know, this opportunity today.

I want to talk to people about what we've done to get housing under construction, to make San Jose the safest big city in the country, to reduce homelessness faster than any other city in the state of California, and offer a different view of how. we make Sacramento work for them. I mean, we have to own, as Democrats, the fact, in the last six years, we have increased spending in Sacramento by 75%. That's $150 billion per year more than we had six years ago. And none of the outcomes that people care most about have gotten better. That is a systemic breakdown. And that's why I'm trying to offer very concrete solutions. Fund Prop 36, expand treatment capacity, do high dosage tutoring when children are falling behind. to make sure every child's on grade level for reading by the end of third grade.

These are things that work that we have not done largely because of special interest capture in Sacramento. We don't build condos in the state of California anymore because the trial lawyers like the fees they collect from using construction defect laws to sue builders of condos. So the city of Miami builds more condos every year than the entire state of California. Why does that matter? That's the most accessible form of home ownership for young people. And we wonder why people are getting priced out of our state.

So I'm running against the special interest capture in Sacramento and the status quo. I've done that as the mayor of a large city. And it's worked. We've delivered meaningful outcomes. I want to ask you more about homeownership and young people in the state. Just one more sort of process thing, which is like, look, I'm literally an undecided voter in this race. In part because, as you know, we have this stupid fucking jungle primary system here where there's a runoff. There's a first round in June 2nd.

The top two candidates go to the runoff. So that leads to strategic voting, right? There was all this anxiety about Democrats splitting the vote to Republicans ascending. And then we have a de facto Republican governor. That probably won't happen now because Chad seems to touch cuckoo. And Trump has chosen the British short king is his guy in California. Shocking. What's going on there?

I don't know. Fox. But then there's people like me who are just like overthinking it, right? Because I have candidates that appeal to my heart. And I worry, though, that if they can't win, then maybe I'm doing. a harm reduction vote because I have candidates that I think are bad and I want to vote for someone to displace them. Why do we have this dumb system? I hate it. Well, I hope I'm speaking to your heart. Well, we'll find out. We got 15 more minutes. Yeah, you let me know at the end. Look, I don't think

people should overthink it. It is almost statistically impossible for two Republicans to get through. There are not that many Republican votes in the state of California. Donald Trump is not on the ballot, which means turnout will be lower than it would otherwise be. Bianco is hanging in there with his third of the Republican Party, but not any more than that. And I just, I think it's more likely we'll have two Democrats than we will have two Republicans by far.

It's just not going to happen. So I think people should vote for the Democrat who they believe will do the best job. Can we get rid of this process at some point, though? The voters can. They can. It's annoying. No one likes this.

Who is this for? Well, the theory, I do want to try to articulate it because look, they're tradeoffs. Partisan primaries also tend to drive candidates to the extreme. Agreed. And so I don't know that there's a, I've heard another interesting alternative, which is, I know this is going to sound crazy, but I was intrigued when someone pitched me on this the other day, having the top three or four candidates advance and then in the final, the second round, do rank choice voting. I would do rank choice for sure.

Yeah. Yeah. solves the problem. If you, if you winnow the field from 62, which is literally what we have on our ballot today, which isn't saying. Clicking someone named Barack Obama, I believe. Yeah. Yeah, good move on his. Well played, sir. Yeah. If you narrow it to say the top four, then you're almost certain to have ideological and partisan variety. And then because it would then, theoretically, if you did rank choice, you would then optimize for whoever's kind of the best overall choice. So I'd be interested in something like that. I worry if you go back to a partisan

primary, you get the most extreme Republican, the most extreme Democrat. It's all decided in the primary. And that's, by the way, looking at the other side, that's how you ended up with the Ted Cruz in Texas. He got 5% of the vote. But because it was enough to make him the top candidate in a hyperpartisan Republican primary in a red state, he became the de facto senator for years to come. Well, he has a very appealing human being. So I can see that magnitude. For that 5%, drew that 5%. You have come out against this proposed one-time billionaires tax, a 5% wealth tax on billionaires in California. This could be on the ballot this fall. Why?

What's your opposition to this plan? Yeah. So it's not because I don't think billionaires shouldn't be paying more. I mean, look, I think there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code. We should close. I'll give you one example. Today, very wealthy people can borrow against their stock. options or other assets that they have not yet paid capital gains on and then deploy, use those

dollars as a way of funding their lifestyles, their investments, and then never having to pay capital gains. That's a loophole. We should close that. Actually, I give you one more. Elon Musk, if you were to die today, would pass his stock onto his heirs, 500 billion or whatever it is, and it would automatically get repriced at market rate, meaning they, even if they turned around and sold it the next day would never pay capital gains on it. Fundamentally unfair. So there are a whole bunch of things in the tax code I would fix. I also think with automation, capital gains will probably need to go up so that we can lower income tax on those who are working for a living. But when it comes to this wealth tax, the concern I have is it's going to

punish the middle class in California. We've seen about a trillion dollars of capital flight from the state already. And this is right in line with what we've seen in every other place that's tried a wealth tax. A trillion dollars in wealth asset value, right? Not taxation. Correct. A trillion dollars worth of wealth of assets that people hold that no longer reside within the state of California because their owner now has a primary residence in another state. Like Reno or something. Yeah, Nevada, Florida, Texas, whatever. And that's what we've seen. So there are 14 European countries that have tried wealth taxes at the national level, not even the provincial or state level. And what they have generally rolled them back or had to significantly modify

them for a couple of reasons. One, they have seen the overall tax base shrink as they've had capital flight, people with very high net worths moving their assets and their primary residence out of the country or out of the state. The other is to assess people's wealth is not a trivial thing. You actually need to have an army of assessors go out and go through people's belongings and figure out what all these things worth and value them and then tax them. And there's a lot of distortionary effects. I just, I just think it's likely to backfire. It's like to be very costly. And ultimately, I think it's the middle class that's going to be left holding the bag. Because there will just be less revenue, you think. So like everyone. And that's not just me.

The legislative analyst office, the independent, you know, policy shop in Sacramento says that we've probably already taken $10 billion a year off of our future revenues based on the capital that's already left the state. Right. But if we could recoup that with this one-time tax, I mean, there's estimates that it could bring in up to $100 billion. I mean, it's hard to pencil out the math, right? Because we just don't know how many people will leave. I also feel like there's this concern. We're talking about like 200 people, right? Like 200 billionaires in California. If they all left the state, do they all really have that much income that gets taxed? Like Jeff Bezos famously pays himself $80,000 or something.

and has since 1998, but all of his wealth is in often unrealized gains in Amazon stock, right, which is not getting tax no matter what happens. It's like, how do we get at that money? Well, that's why I point to those other two reforms that I think make a lot more sense. One is, if he's borrowing against those unrealized gains, there should be a cutoff, at which point it's considered realized, and you can't just endlessly borrow against your unrealized assets. I think that's a way smarter way to do it. that's less distortionary. And I would, I mean, really ideally, that would be a federal policy.

Yeah. The other is inheritance. The best wealth tax is a one-time inheritance tax when you pass things on. And if you don't want to actually force people to sell assets because it's a family business or a farm, that's fine. But don't rebate the value of it at market rate at the moment the person dies. Leave the original cost basis so that when your errors sell, they pay capital gains. That seems only fair. Yes, and there's so many carve-outs for farms and like tens of millions of dollars is already exempted from the wealth tax.

It's insane that we are not focusing more on that. So you're the mayor of a city at the heart of the American tech industry in the past life. You worked in the tech industry. Americans, I think, increasingly have a negative view of a lot of tech companies, right? I mean, as recently as 2015, Pew found that 71% of Americans thought technology companies had a positive effect on the country by 2019. was down to 50%. Now you're seeing like AI explode onto the scene. People are worried about the data centers. There's polling that finds an increasing number of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI. You've got people getting booed for mentioning AI at college commencement this past

weekend. What would you say to voters who are furious at Silicon Valley because, you know, certain, you know, tech CEOs got fabulously wealthy while they did not. The news media got hollowed out. they feel like harms were done by social media. And now it just feels like the same companies, the same people, they're getting to run it back with AI, which we're all told is this unbelievably powerful, like, step change new thing. And I don't trust those people. I don't trust Elon or Mark Zuckerberg or Sam Altman to be in charge of it. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's a very real fear.

And I understand it. And on some level, I share it. I have little kids. I don't want them on social media or AI. I've argued that, and as governor, I would fight for policies that require parental consent for using social media, ban cell phones in public schools. I've actually got experience with regulating technology because as a mayor, our city is procuring and using technology and constantly thinking about the tradeoffs. New tools can give us new capabilities to improve things. We've sped up our public buses.

We've improved language translation in our meetings. We're identifying potholes proactively. We've done a number of things that are making government more responsive and efficient, which is great. That's really cool stuff. On the other hand, people's fears around privacy, manipulation of elections and just misinformation more broadly, job loss, environmental destruction are all very legitimate. And that's why we created something called the Gov AI Coalition. San Jose was the founding member of a platform that, helps over 900 public agencies navigate technology adoption. And it's all about the ethical and responsible use of AI. So we use license plate readers, but we don't allow facial recognition. We don't sell data to third parties. We don't even share it with the federal government because we don't trust how they will use it. We delete it every 30 days. On the other hand, it's helped us solve murders and kidnappings and rapes and all kinds of horrible crimes. So striking that balance of how do we harness the value of tools? And I think we want to continue to be a state that is innovative and that is at the cutting edge. But we have to regulate and protect people from these

changes. Data centers, you mentioned, I believe, and this should be a national standard, but certainly for California, any new data center needs to pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require, the full cost of energy. They should be required to use the cleanest energy. Their investment should help facilitate the clean energy future that we all want. They should have to use recycled water. So I think that we can raise the bar. Some people want to pause on building those. Is that too far from now?

And that's kind of my point. You have this sort of much more laissez-faire approach on the right that is sort of like, oh, you know, business is good. Capitalism is always good. And let's just have this sort of unbridled capitalism and see what happens. I reject that. The David Sachs approach, we're laissez-faire until Silicon Valley Bank is going to collapse. and then we're screaming for corporate welfare.

Yeah, exactly. So I reject that mindset and approach. I also think, though, that there is a more extreme version within my party that wants to just hit the brakes. And I think, I just believe we were better served, and I think historically we have been better served by regulating, managing, shaping technological change, but having the authority to do that,

then just saying no and having it happened elsewhere. And I think there's a balance to strike there. I put out an AI accountability plan that's all about striking that balance. It's about investing in workforce development, putting strict guardrails on the way that children interact with technology, accountability for data centers and robotics companies. We need to have an AI shared prosperity fund that is paying, that is taking tax revenue from these hyperscalers, these big tech companies, and paying for the upskillers. and re-skilling we need to make sure that people are prepared for the jobs of the future. And look, if it gets really dire, we haven't seen this yet. But we should have a plan B if job loss increases, we're going to have to talk about things like a UBI. We need to have a whole other set of tools, a totally different safety net if this plays out in a way that some of us fear.

What's your AI drug of choice? You a Grock guy, Claude, chat GPT. What are we using this? go between Claude and chat and, yeah, chat GPD mostly. Although I end up by default on Gemini a lot just because of the browser. Yeah, but then it's always wrong. You know, you're just getting bullshit from that thing. Yeah, I'm a Claude guy these days.

Yeah, I was using ChatGBT, GBT, and then Sam Malman did something shitty. When he swooped in, it was like, I'll take your Pentagon contract to build the autonomous killer robots. I was like, I'm out. Then you went to Claude. See you, buddy. Yeah, who's just, I know, secretly building the autonomous killer robots. Who knows?

So you raised a bunch of money from folks in the tech. World CEOs at Google, Dropbox, Snapchat, Twitch, I think some prominent venture capitalists. What's your response to people who worry, look, when you take all that money, there are strings and it could make you beholden to the tech industry. Yeah, I mean, look, it's a very fair question. And my response is, one, I've regulated tech and as an elected official over the last six years, I have never done one thing to benefit the biggest employers in Silicon Valley over the people of San Jose. And I sure as heck, I'm not going to do that in Sacramento. I'm actually running against special interest capture in Sacramento, and I'm not going to replace

one set of interests with another. I have been very willing and have consistently put restrictions on how we use technology, how we interface with tech companies. I think the honest reason that there are tech employees, tech leaders, investors, et cetera, who have contributed to the campaign is I lead the largest city in Silicon Valley, and they've seen that we have led the state in reducing crime, reducing homelessness, building housing, fixing our problems. And I think people are drawn to results in competent leadership. And I'm just better known in the Bay Area where we have a number of tech companies. But it's why I'm spending so much time traveling around the state, getting to know people in other places and really making the case for good government. But I put out a

very clear AI accountability plan that is based on everything I've done in San Jose over the last six years and is where I am on these issues. And I put that out transparently for everyone from voters to my donors to see it. And if donors don't like it, they can find another candidate. One donor name that surprised me was a guy named Joe Lonsdale. He's a co-founder of Palantier, big Republican mega donor. He's like a big Elon stand. He gave a million to Elon's like pro-Trump super PAC maxed out to you. What's up with that guy? He seems a little crazy. I don't know.

You'd have to ask him. I mean, I have probably thousands of donors. He's not like someone you knew back in the day when he was a Palantir or something. No, I know he's from the Bay Area. And I, yeah, I don't know. I'd look, he's just an aggressive tweeter. We've come, we've crossed paths. That's why I've, you guys have been tweeting at each other?

You know, look, we all have our weaknesses and that's one of mine. It does feel like, though, like the, there was a time, look, I was in the Obama administration and like the kind of 08 through 2013 phase. of like the there's a lot of excitement around tech there's a lot of cooperation between the administration and tech industry probably too much to our you know discredit in the obama world now it seems like a lot of the tech industry guys are like gloves are off fuck this we're battling regulation right like indreason horowitz according to new york times is made more than 150 million 115 million dollars worth of disclosed federal contributions to candidates or

entities working on the upcoming midterms. That's like 50 mil for like an AI pack, another 47 million for crypto super PAC. Like does that worry you? Does that discuss to you that like this one VC firm can dump 100 million to advocate for like its, you know, book of portfolio companies? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm worried about concentrated power in politics in all forms. The, the biggest donors and tech now is becoming one of the largest industries or donor bases in the country of any industry. You've had oil and gas. In the state of California, it is worth noting there are other groups as well, from public sector unions to trial lawyers who spend a tremendous amount of money. Sometimes for things I agree with that I think are generally good for society, sometimes for

narrower interests that are not always good for society. I actually got involved in the way I ended up in tech was building tools for grassroots organizing the early petitions, like the change.org tools, early fundraisers, go fund me, these kinds of early tools to try to basically help people organize at a grassroots level and make the system more accountable to the people than to the donors. I've always been worried about the influence of concentrated money and power in our politics. So it does worry me. I do think, though, that the Democratic Party has to also recognize there's a split within the party right now. And we have also driven away many people who are, have started companies.

And I'm just talking about in tech. I mean, generally speaking, as I go around the state, just set tech aside when I go talk to people in agriculture, in Hollywood, in manufacturing, in a wide range of industries. the regulatory burden in California is a real issue. And I think we become very dismissive of it as oh, deregulation is a Republican thing. That's just because they want more profit. I don't think that's the case. I mean, we broke the housing market by over-regulating it in California. That's, I mean, making, building more housing, creating room for new people for future generations, making housing more affordable is actually a very progressive aim. I totally agree. But I feel like we're just so far from over-regulating,

like social media companies. I mean, Australia is banning accounts for kids under 16, right? I mean, we're just, we're doing nothing. Right. And that's part of my proposal is actually to, to require at least parental consent up to 16. So yeah, I think that's, I think that's fair. But I, but I do think we, we risk losing natural allies of the party if our answer to every problem is another regulation, and other tax. And I think, look, within tech, maybe it's appropriate. The regulatory environment is not very mature at this point, but there are plenty of other industries like housing and agriculture where you could argue we're punishing, we're actually restricting economic opportunity and pushing people out of state. You've criticized Governor Gavin Newsom for kind of focusing too much

on trolling Donald Trump. I think you said he made a quote, blind leap into meme land. Gavin and Trump have kind of a Ross and Rachel, will they won't, frenemies, you know, antagonistic thing going. It's probably unique to them, right? They're big, larger than life people. But Trump and the conservative media, they love to beat up on California, right? Fox News all day is like some video

of something that happened on the street. So I don't think that Trump attacks end when Gavin is gone. How would you manage that relationship differently than him? Or continuity, whatever? I mean, the way I think about it is there's a set of things that are just red lines for me and for the state of California. We're going to fight to protect our vulnerable neighbors.

We're going to push back on ice. We're going to fight to protect constitutional freedoms. We're going to fight for our fair share of federal funding. There are a number of areas where, unfortunately, we are going to have to fight fire with fire, as Governor Newsom has said. And in San Jose, I've led us to sue the Trump administration multiple times. We've used our budget to backfill cuts. We're funding legal services for immigrant neighbors who are at risk of deportation. We've banned ICE's use of masks and their use of public property.

So I will use every tool in the toolbox, legal, budgetary, bully pulpit, whatever tools we have to fight back. I do, though, want to go back to the place I started, which is I also. think that we've got to take ownership of our shortcomings and start solving highly visible and visceral problems that affect people every day. I mean, this may sound superficial, but when people drive around Los Angeles and see the state of the freeways and see thousands of people living outside in misery and tents and trash and fires and graffiti, it just undermines our credibility. It undermines trust in government. It makes it that much harder to stand for something different that people can believe in.

And I'm not pretending that the Republicans have got it all right. They've got plenty of problems. And red states have plenty of problems. We do a better job in many ways at being economically inclusive and certainly more welcoming socially and politically. But I just, I think we've got to also fix our fundamental problems, starting with the high cost of housing.

And until we grapple with that, I don't think we're going to be a very effective resistance. Yeah. My last question for you is about housing, which is in California, we have something called Prop 13. I'm sure you know about it, listeners nationally don't. It was passed in the late 70s. Younger Californians mostly hate it because it means that new homebuyers pay much higher property taxes on like the identical house

to someone who bought it 40 years earlier. You can correct me if I'm getting the details. I'm short-handed this. It creates this general unfairness and it can lock up housing supply because if you're a senior, you're not going to downsize if that means you're going to pay a much higher property tax. Right. You want to lock in that privileged tax rate. Over time, Prop 13 is gutted revenue for California's public schools and like smart kind of wonky people I know almost literally will blame it for like all of California's problems. There are a number of books to that. Yes. And so like sadly, it feels politically impossible to repeal the thing because high propensity to vote seniors like it because it keeps their property taxes low.

So like what do we do here? How do we bring some fairness to property tax collection? Yeah. Unfreeze the housing market with this anchor around our neck. Yeah. How many hours do you? have. Yeah. I mean, look, Thursday. Yeah. I think one is just across the board, our housing issues come down to a lack of supply. So we need to build more housing. And that will slow down the rate at which the value of housing goes up, which will help moderate property tax increases. The reason Prop 13 was passed was property

tax increases were happening so fast that people were literally getting pushed out of their homes because they couldn't keep pace with the rising cost. So it doesn't freeze it, but it caps it at a one and a half percent increase per year, which you could argue is too low. Maybe to properly have a more functioning market, it should be higher, right? That's a debate you could have. I think there are some pragmatic things that could be politically feasible. One is we should enable older residents to take their property tax benefit with them if they downsize so that we can free up that housing stock. So if you're an older couple or you're living alone and you've got four bedrooms and a suburban neighborhood somewhere, if we could incentivize you to capture that benefit and continue to have

low property taxes by moving into a condo by the beach, like great. We should allow for that flexibility and fluidity in the market. Another thing that could be done is you could say, well, having property taxes go up more than one and a half percent per year could price people out, but what if some of that actually accrued over time and then was assessed at the time that you sold the home? And so that way you're not getting hit each year with a larger, larger property tax bill that you can't afford when you're raising kids or whatever else you're doing. But when you eventually sell the house, presumably the house has appreciated. That's why your property taxes are going up. That thing gets paid back in. But I would also

just note, I think Prop 13 reform is about fairness and distortions in the market. I think it's a mistake for Democrats to make it a big revenue generator because the truth is, while it did reduce revenues to the state and to school districts, after it passed, we went and found a bunch of other sources of revenue. We created an income tax. We tax capital gains. We tax businesses. We tax everything. So our overall tax burden is the second highest or third high, depending on you measure it, third highest in the country. I've noticed, yeah. Yeah. So you're experiencing it. We found other ways to tax. You're right. We could talk about it. forever. But you've got a lot of things to do. Where can people find your campaign if they want to

get involved, support you, knock doors, donate, whatever. Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. I appreciate all the great questions. And my website is Mahan, M-A-H-A-N for California.com. You can find me on social media. If you have any follow-up questions to this interview, shoot me an email. Otherwise, hope to see folks out there. Excellent. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for coming in. Thanks for having me. That's our show for today. Thanks to Matt Mayhem for stopping by. Alex will be back on the feed on Sunday

with a conversation with our buddy Norm Eisen about the slush fund and all of Trump's other self-dealing. Check it out. Everyone else, have a good weekend. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari,

with Reed Jirlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Heffcoat, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Pellevieve, David Tolls, Mia Kellman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the writer's Guild of America East.