Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - The Canada Trade War Could Hand Democrats A Senate Majority (ft. Abdul El-Sayed)

Episode Date: September 23, 2026

Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov start with the biggest headlines of the day, starting with the Canada trade war, which is now having direct consequences for Republicans in the Senate races that will decide chamber control. As Vice President JD Vance stumps in red districts, Kalshi currently puts the odds of Democrats sweeping both the House and Senate at 61%. The $111 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger has cleared its last major hurdle, with the company and a coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta reaching a settlement on the antitrust lawsuit that had held up the deal. CEO David Ellison plans to close within approximately two weeks. Was this outcome inevitable — and what does it mean for media consolidation?  Then, Scott and Jess are joined by Abdul El-Sayed, who is running to become Michigan's next U.S. Senator, bringing years of public health experience including leading the Detroit Health Department and serving as director of Wayne County's Department of Health, Human & Veterans Services. They’ll touch on how the Canada trade war is hitting Michigan voters in their wallets and what Mike Rogers is getting wrong on trade. Plus, why he's campaigning with Kamala Harris when other Democrats in difficult races are keeping their distance — and what role he thinks Harris should play in the party right now. Finally. his position on Israel and Gaza, how he talks to Jewish voters who have concerns about his stance, and whether he will sign a petition from a coalition of Michigan rabbis and Jewish leaders outlining five "nonnegotiables" on Jewish safety and sovereignty. I Disagree by Jessica Tarlov is out now!Order it here: https://sites.prh.com/idisagree For ad-free episodes, exclusive livestreams, and to connect with Scott, Jessica, and the Raging Moderates community, join us at ProfG+ on Substack: https://ragingmoderates.profgmedia.com/ Get The Monday Rage newsletter: https://profgmedia.com/s/monday-rage/ Follow Raging Moderates on IG, Tiktok, and Facebook: https://www.instagram.com/ragingmoderatespod/ https://www.tiktok.com/@ragingmoderates https://www.facebook.com/ragingmoderates Follow Jessica Tarlov on Instagram, Substack, and Bluesky: https://instagram.com/jessicatarlov https://substack.com/@jessietarlov https://bsky.app/profile/jessicatarlov.bsky.social Follow Scott on Instagram, Substack, and Bluesky: https://instagram.com/profgalloway https://substack.com/@profgalloway https://bsky.app/profile/profgalloway.com Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RagingModerates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats, according to consumer advocate.org. You get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the U.S. in Canada, with claims paid back in as a little as two days.

Go to fetchpet.com slash save right now. for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com slash save. Support for the show comes from CoreWeave. Everywhere you look, AI is expanding what we thought was possible and at the center of it all is CoreWeave. Medical research and diagnosis, education, complex visual effects for movies, science and technology breakthroughs. CoreWeave powers AI pioneers around the world with purpose-built tech, building what's never been built before. Corweave is the essential cloud for AI. Ready for anything, ready for AI. To learn more about how CoreWeave powers the world's best AI, go to coreweave.com slash ready for anything.

Support for this show comes from Harvey AI. The future of law is agenic, not just tools that assist, but AI agents that navigate complex matters. That's why Harvey created agents that can do the work from end to end. They build a plan, pull from secure data sources, run subagents in parallel and draft the work product ready for your review. So you delegate the work and on the judgment. Trusted by more than 60% of the AMLaw 100 and leading Fortune 500 legal teams, Harvey is the AI operating system designed specifically for legal work. Harvey, AI, tailored for law.

Learn more at harvey.a.i. Dr. Martin Luther King said this thing, and I think about it a lot. He said, if your coalition is not uncomfortable, it's not big enough. And I just think we have to be in the business of building sometimes uncomfortable coalitions. And look, I think we got to also get really good at having conversations about the things we disagree about agreeably. And I'm hoping that we can demonstrate that moving forward. We don't have to fight World War III over all of our differences, even if they're big, broad, sometimes painful, deeply painful differences. But I do think that democracy is the technology, age-old technology about how we figure out how to disfigure,

agree peacefully. And we've, as a Democratic Party, have to demonstrate how, how democracy can work to bring us together around the things we all understand, we agree on. Welcome raging moderates. I'm Sky Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarlovak. Later in the episode, we'll be joined by Abdul al-Sayed to talk about his pivotal Senate race in Michigan one Democrats will need if they want to take back the Senate. But before we get into it, please make sure to subscribe to raging moderates. It's the best way to support the show and help us. reach new audiences. All right, let's bust into it. Let's check in on Trump's trade war with Canada because it could have real consequences for Republicans in some Senate races that will decide

control of the chamber. The fight is hitting industries including agriculture, auto steel, and manufacturing, and Republican states, including Michigan and Maine, are already facing pressure from voters over the economic impact. And in all of this turmoil, Calshan markets currently has the Democratic chance of sweeping the House and the Senate in November at 61%. I can't get over this, Jess. Just wow, has the momentum. I wish the election were tomorrow. What are your thoughts?

I, too, wish the election were tomorrow. A lot can happen in, what do we have, 42 days. But it does feel like the tide has turned against the Republicans on mass. There was a while where it was just more of a Donald Trump problem, and it wasn't trickling down as far down ballot. And it does feel like there's been some pretty significant movement in the last couple of weeks. The trade war with Canada is certainly part of that. But I really think that it's the war in Iran that is weighing on people's minds. CNN had a new poll out this morning over two-thirds disapproval. Katelyn Collins tried to ask President Trump about it. this morning and he was pissed off that CNN still had access to the UN. He was like, I thought I banned you guys, but they're still allowed to cover because of the UN, which is a good thing. More transparency is always a bonus. But two big moves in the last day or so, Mike Rogers and Ashley Henson, so pivotal races, Michigan and Iowa on the Republican side posting that Donald Trump

has got to end the war in Iran. And this is a lot of. has been, especially Ashley Hinson, very much behind the president and what he wants to do or what he's going to accomplish there in Iran, Mike Rogers. The last couple of weeks have been slightly more tepid, but this is a real line in the sand. Like, we got to get out of there if you think that we're going to be able to win any of these elections. And, you know, Michigan is a pickup opportunity for the Republicans. And I think that they were to not necessarily a large degree, but were licking their lips at having Abdul al-Sayed on the ballot versus a more moderate candidate like a Haley-Stevens or even Mallory McMorrow when she was still in the race. And he's been polling much stronger

than certainly the first few weeks after he won the nomination. I just, I never want to feel sympathetic to the White House, but you have calls from both the left, Senator Murphy. A lot of people on the left, just get out. Just leave. We should have never been. their leave. This was a mistake of epic proportions leave. And you have Republican consultants telling the president for the sake of the midterms, you have to get out. The issue, the question I would have is the IRGC isn't going to let America out. So in other words, does Senator Murphy and the president's consultants, are they fine with just ceding the straight of hormones to, or the IRGC, or the IRGC can back the Houthis to cut supply lines in Saudi Arabia.

Basically, they're saying, okay, you won, you now have control of the region. I mean, there's no, this truly is a definition of a quagmire because, okay, just get out. Well, I'm not sure, can he just get out at this point? And wouldn't it be worse for him? If all of it, if he says, okay, we're out, right? I've cut bait. And then the IRGC is now charging, you know, is now control of the straight. and every day is charging tolls to any Western ship that goes through or blocking it or not blocking it.

In my view, that would be worse for the midterms. I mean, granted, you break it, you bought it. But to think that it's just a really easy option just to get out right now, it feels to me a bit naive. Well, I think what they're doing is just signaling to the voters that they're opposed to it. And I don't know if the White House tacitly agreed to this plan, you know, the Nancy Pelosi, model of politics, which is I'll come and campaign with you if you want me to or run against me and call me the devil if that's what you need. But all we got to do is win. Donald Trump does not seem like somebody who would authorize people to call him the devil or oppose any of his

central policies. But obviously someone is advising these candidates in these big time marquee races, that if they don't create some distance between themselves and the policies of this administration, they are going to get completely obliterated. And when you look at the way the numbers are moving in Iowa, where there are a number of congressional seats up for grabs that we are running fantastic candidates in and that Rob Sand is consistently polling eight, ten points ahead of the Republican, and you're talking about Iowa and that he may give an important lift to Josh Turk there, who is a very good candidate. And I would say Ashley Hinson is as well on the Republican side. You know that there is a five alarm fire going on right now with them. So I think it's more like

Trump's not going to do anything. They're going to continue to tread water. But if we don't signal that we've got a pulse to these voters, it's going to be tsunami territory. I hate to give minority leader Schumer any credit here. But whoever, I don't know who's in charge of candidates. quality, it feels like just full stop, the Democrats have done a better job with candidate quality than the Republicans. Would you agree with that? Totally. You know, there was a question, obviously, about Graham Platner, who was not Chuck Schumer's choice. He's out. Troy Jackson is not as exciting to people, but it seems like he is getting the job done. And there's a big pro-Publica investigation out today with some sordid behavior from Susan Collins, not in a sexy way,

not a Lauren Bobert story. Oh, the FBI and a corruption squad, certainly like Susan Collins. Yeah. So ProPublic is out with this story where she helps steer millions in federal defense contracts to Navitek, who CEO illegally funneled thousands of dollars to her campaign. The FBI was going to launch a probe and was Ian Collins and other lawmakers, and then Trump gutted the unit. Surprise, surprise. So that is going to become a featured story, obviously, in the main race.

But candidate quality otherwise, Chuck Schumer has had enormous wins. I mean, Mary Potola in Alaska, she's up six in the latest bipartisan poll with Tony Fabrizio on it. So the president's pollster is putting that out into the ether. Roy Cooper is just next level, great. Michael Watley is a terrible candidate on the Republican side, but Cooper is enormously good. Josh Purrick. Talk about Baxter. Is that good candidate quality? I'm trying to think he's got a win for worse.

It's like, I can't imagine it is so hard as a Republican to lose in Texas, and I think Paxton's going to pull it off. Well, did you see that John Cornyn and George W. Bush are having a fundraiser for every other Republican candidate but Ken Paxton, and they're doing it in Dallas. Yeah. They're like, come and give me money, and I will send it everywhere else but here. I don't want to get too optimistic about it. It's still Texas.

But that feels like as big of a shot across Ken Paxton's bow. as you could possibly imagine, that there are plenty of Republicans who are not going to fall in line for him. So yes, Chuck Schumer, I give you maybe not so many flowers, but I give you one beautiful big rose. Credit words, credits, too, right?

Like The Bachelor. Yeah. There we go. I like it. I have absolutely no inability to understand references to the Bachelor. I've never seen it, and I will, I'm committed. You just give a rose to the people you like.

Support for the show comes from Honest. Parents want the very best for life's most delicate skin. That's why Honest holds every product to their highest standard, the Honest Standard. From Honest, clean-conscious wipes to bath and body essentials and diapers, everything Honest makes is designed for the delicate details that matter most. Because when caring for a baby comes with so many little decisions, you need products you can trust.

Your peace of mind starts with Honest. Shop Honest on Amazon, Walmart, and Target. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odo comes in, an all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all-in-one powerful platform.

No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at Odu.com slash Vox. That's ODOO.com slash Vox. You're listening to DeepGrimFlux TTS. Different voices. Same model, all ready to speak. Flux TTS is a streaming text-to-speech model built for voice agents.

Flux reads the room. It holds context across the conversation, turn after turn. With consistent tone, interruption handling, and plenty of personality. So your agents keep it flowing and customers can just keep talking. Try DeepGram Flux TTS free now until September 12th. Visit D. deepgram.com slash keep talking. Terms apply. All right, let's move on. Paramount's $11 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery has cleared its last major hurdle,

is the company and coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta, reached a settlement on Monday in the antitrust lawsuit that had held the deal up. CEO David Ellison, backed by his father, Larry, now plan to close the deal within about two weeks. Jess, is this a surprise? What do you think the state attorney's general accomplished Not a surprise. It was a matter of time. You know, the Ellisons are saying that they have addressed the state's attorney generals concerns and the WGA. The big concession or the big new, shiny part of this deal is that there's going to be this board to oversee independence with CNN and CBS. You know, everyone was concerned about the Ellisons who are quite right-leaning and affiliated with Trump. in the administration very closely. The thing is that the journalists who will be on this overseeing board are going to be appointed by Paramount. So as far as I understand it, the only criteria that they have to meet is that they've been a journalist for over 10 years.

So, you know, how does it get enforced? What does it actually look like? I imagine, since this was going to happen, that this is better than not having a board like that. But those who are opposed to this merger and Jane Fonda had a statement about how she's glad that Ted Turner isn't alive to see this, frankly. But those in opposition, you know, say that it's still going to do the bad stuff that it was before and you're going to have enormous amounts of job cuts and that Hollywood is still very much at risk, even if they paramount or the Ellisons via this merger, are still promising to make enormous investments. and that they just wanted to be a reinvigorated industry and another golden age. I think this was Rob Bontas taxing the American or California public and American public as he made an extended, expensive, peric-clicsotic announcement that he's running for governor. I think this is just total populist bullshit. There is absolutely no antitrust law that would prevent or economic reasoning that would present this or prohibit this murder.

These are two companies that are medium-sized, trying to bulk up against much larger meta-alphabet, Amazon. And had these companies not been allowed to merge, Paramount would have died, or CBS would have turned into a distressed asset sale, sold off for parts. And Warner Brothers probably would have been fine because they have so much great IP. But this just made sense. In addition, job loss is not illegal. That's called capitalism. Companies merge all. I was on the board of a Yellow Pages company,

and we used to go buy another Yellow Pages company, lay off everyone with the salespeople, and live to fight another day. And that may sound upsetting, but that, if you can't fire people, then you can't hire them. This editorial board is just so fucking ridiculous. You want to talk about the weakest sauce in history. It reminds me when the WGA said negotiated as part of their agreement

after they put riders out of business for seven months with absolutely no upside whatsoever, they got an agreement that the studios would have to discuss AI with them before using it. Okay, we're going to use AI discussion over. When I was on the board of the New York Times, and by the way, I'll bring that up a lot because I think it makes me sound more impressive. It's very fancy. 175 years, Jess.

They've been around 175 years. Yeah. Anyways, they have this 15-person board. And just as I'm praising the Times, let me be critical. the Salzburgers have sold their shares. They own less than 1% and they control it. And they get 10 board seats and the common that people own the other 99% get five. So basically the board is just an advisory board.

And then over Thanksgiving dinner, the Salzberger decide every major decision. And the rest of us are just like barking at them, hoping they'll listen to us. We had way more power than this editorial board is going to have. This is literally going to be, oh, that's interesting. we'll buy you lunch. Michael Smirconnish will come in and talk. And these meetings are going to be so ridiculous, symbolic, and meaningless. And also the notion they agreed not to sell their two lots, that's pure socialism. Companies can buy and sell assets as they see fit. And in an agreement to produce more films, that's like if JP Morgan and goldman merged and saying, okay, you've got to

build more ATMs, or, you know, Bonta tried to position the acquisition as this Godzilla-like figure, but, okay, we have to make more films around Godzilla. This was a waste of resources. This was pure regulatory theater, and I think it reflects poorly on the AG in the state of politics right now. I understand the left's desire to say, well, if you're going to play politics with media, will play politics. But be clear, other than delay and obfuscation, which probably was not good for Warner Brothers or Paramount or the employees there who have been like a bird in midair flapping its wings with no direction. This was a waste of time, a waste of energy, makes both firms weaker, such that Rob Bonta could announce he's running it for governor. This was total regulatory bullshit.

This was a hostage negotiation when there was no threat to the hospital. hostage. These guys, Bonta did not have a legal leg to stand on. Any closing thoughts before we move on? What do you make of the Gavin Newsom of it all? Because I feel like this is going to affect his future. It's going to be a big part of the conversation around 2028. And if he, you know, I guess he's waiting to hear what's up with Kamala. But let's assume that he's running for president. This feels like the kind of thing that the left will go after him about in the primary. I don't know what his stance on the merger was. What did he say? Did he stay out of it or did he have a viewpoint on it? It varied. He was seen as being like tacitly pro. And a lot of that was about

saving the industry. And there were big heavyweight liberals that were pro in this like Brian Lord and Ari Emanuel, you know, and there was that anxiety, and I understand why, when Paramount said, okay, we'll just go to Georgia, right? Like, this is easy. That's actually happening in a lot of ways. Having been in L.A. for the last few days, I was struck by how many people that I met were talking about jobs that they had in Georgia or how much better the work situation is in Nashville was a big one and also in Atlanta. So you have to preserve jobs for your students. date, right? That's close to your number one, if not your number one, most important job. But I feel like this is going to be a haunting thing, especially if there are a bunch of progressives up there on the stage. Yeah. So, I mean, if I were advising the governor's campaign, if he decides to run for president, one, I would go on offense and say one of the reasons we've progressed from being the fifth largest economy in the world past Japan to the fourth largest economy in the world is we.

unlike the Trump administration, have embraced and believed in capitalism. And capitalism is full-body contact violence that includes mergers. Sometimes it includes layoffs and sometimes it includes growth. And we expect, according to the economists and the courts themselves, that this was not going to create a monopoly. And this is a standard part of the economic process. And our entertainment industry is hugely valuable. It's still an enormously important part of the economy. I, Governor Newsom, supersized our tax credits to be more competitive with economies that we're buying business. People would rather film here. But we have to let these companies cook. They're good at what they do, best media companies in the world. And these guys needed to bulk up against other great

companies who've decided to be in California, including meta and YouTube. So I'm a capitalist. I've embraced capitalism. That's why my economy is the fourth biggest in the world. Let them cook, you know, this, there was no evidence that this was going to be a monopoly. If I were him, I'd go a touch Friedman and a touch capitalist, because all the people bitching at him about saying, oh, it's going to hurt jobs and the Ellisons are evil, all those people are going to vote for the Democrat anyways. So I think he needs to go a little bit sister soldier on this and be a full-blown blue-blooded capitalist. Who knows? Your thoughts? No, I think that's going to be his only option, frankly, and he's going to be doing most of his work trying to muscle out folks more in the center

and a lot of governors that are going to be running on things like creating jobs and balancing budgets, like, you know, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. So, you know, I think it works well there. I just, you know, it always gets ugly when it's the intra-tent fighting. So whatever an AOC or a Rokana, for instance, you know, I'm sure they'll be fighting about the billionaire tax and things like that. to imagine this would be part of it. But NetNet, it was also just a train that you couldn't stop. And at a certain point, I think you try to get whatever concessions or at least virtue

signal towards the things that you want people to know that you actually care about. And this board, editorial board, is a bit of a joke. But they didn't have much choice. And it'll be interesting to see how the Ellisons behave under a new administration, you know, what that looks like. or even in the lame duck part of the presidency. I don't think it's going to be, journalists, in my view, are really precious.

And I understand the importance, but they're, I think the Ellison's like money more than they like Republican politics. It's one thing for them to fuck with 60 minutes, which economically is meaningless, and in my view, has just been slowly but surely losing relevance for a long time.

CNN is still a cash gusher. and Ellison, dad is personally on the hook for $50 billion. I don't think he's going to fuck with CNN for political reasons at this point. I think these guys like money more than they like politics. I think they're capitalists at the end of the day. Do they lean right? Absolutely. I think the kid is actually, I've heard, leans left.

I don't see the threat to democracy and progressive politics. my co-host my other sister wife is basically said she can't work for the Ellisons and I've said to her, I don't think it's going to be that bad. Maybe I'm naive but I think that CNN is too important for them to do anything.

CNN has a positioning as center left. It works for them to make good money despite having a lower, a smaller audience. I think they make more money than Fox because nobody with any money watches Fox. I'm sure you're going to disagree with. that. Yeah, I am. We make a lot more money, I believe. Oh, wait, hold on. Okay, so I just want to say. So, so as always, Jess is absolutely right. Fox News 3.3 billion, CNN at 1.8 billion. So 80% larger.

CNN has been shrinking from 2.2 billion in 2021 to around 1.8. And Fox is up 5%. So CNN is shrinking. Fox is up. I'm trying to save Grace here and show that per viewer, CNN, makes more money. But at the end of the day, you're absolutely right. Fox makes 80% more money. What's 80% amongst friends? What's 80%? Same, same. You're splitting hairs, Jess. Yeah. All right. Should we move on to our interview? Yeah, I'm so excited. Support for the show comes from Delta Airlines. Every athlete at the top of her game knows that greatness isn't just a destination. It's a grueling, lifelong journey. It's built on early mornings, silent sacrifices, and an unwavering drive to outclimed the achievements of yesterday. That is the journey of a WNBA athlete, and Delta is there every step

of the way. Delta is proud to host these competitors, providing charter flights for every WNBA team, to elevate their travel experience and champion equity on every leg of their trip. Keep climbing with Delta Airlines, the official airline of the WNBA. Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the U.S. gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats, according to consumer advocate.org. You get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the U.S. in Canada, with claims paid back in as a little as two days. Go to fetchpet.com slash save right now for your free quote.

That's fetchpet.com slash save. So like any good millennial, I have a love-hate relationship with Gen Z. It's the phenomenon rattling millennials. They just look at you. They want something bigger themselves. Lifestyles is a priority. Motivation is being inspired. But regardless of how you feel about Gen Z, it's undefat.

It's undeniable that they're changing national politics. Generation Z is increasingly showing less loyalty to traditional political parties. Many now more likely to identify as independent. So what is going on with the kids? I think the biggest misconception about Gen Z's politics right now is that all of a sudden they're all socialists. That is just not the case. They are embracing candidates who are offering new bold ideas in the absence of those ideas from establishment Democrats. This week on America actually, Gen Z researches.

Rachel Janfaza joins us to separate Gen Z fact versus fiction. It's not rocket science. And I keep saying, like, young voters aren't that complicated after all. It's pretty simple. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast. All right. Joining us today is Democratic Senate nominee from Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed.

Abdul, it's so good to have you here. Thanks for taking the time to be with us. It's an honor to be with you. I feel like Scott, the last time you and I had a conversation was probably COVID-era. And Jessica, I think we haven't had a conversation except for, I feel like we've had many conversations through our, apparently our mutual buddy Jesse Waters now. So there's that. Yes, we have the strangest of parisocial relationships that run through him directly. We're Jesse's two liberal friends. Isn't that great?

We can sit on either side of him and destroy his life. There you go. He calls us left and lefter. Left, yeah. You're left or left, though. Yeah. That's probably true. Let's get to it. We only have you for a few minutes here. You're running one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country and a state with economy, the auto industry, immigration, Gaza, and the relationship with Canada are all deeply personal issues for voters. And you're coming into this general election after a pretty bruising primary and after a campaign that's already put questions about the future of the Democratic Party out there. So a new poll has you leading at 47% against Mike Rogers and Kalshi has the odds of you winning at 69%. We're going to start here is an issue. hitting Michigander, specifically Canada.

Now, affordability is central to your campaign. And let's jump to letter M or N here and assume that a lot of people in Michigan and a lot of the people on this podcast are listening probably believe that tariffs are a bad thing. And bad for America, bad for, shrinks our market, increases our prices, especially bad for Michigan. If elected to the Senate, what would you do to try and address the tariffs problem and more broadly affordability. Well, you know, step it all the way back.

This is a president right now who has tried to take extraordinary power. He thinks of himself as both the executive branch of government and also the legislative branch. And part of that is because Republicans have had a control of the legislative branch and they've willingly given it over to him. And so we need to take that power back. And the power to levy tariffs is a power that sits with Congress. And so I think retaking that power is number one. I'll also say this. I'm actually really quite skeptical of full free trade. I just understand that tariffs are like chemotherapy. If you take the idea that NAFTA and TPP were cancers on the American

economy, they hemorrhaged key great jobs that Michiganers had been able to rely on for years, you don't just give the patient all the chemo all at the same time because you have a vanity war against the tumor. That's what Donald Trump is doing. Instead, what you do is you're very, very thoughtful and directed about how you use that tool. So I think there's a smart use of tariffs, and it's to protect fast-growing, high manufacturing capacity jobs. Like, I threw down in the gauntlet and said, I'd like to see Detroit make a $25,000, 300-mile EV. We're going to continue to be the world's leaders in internal combustion engines. Great. That's when my dad came to this country to design. But also, we should be the world's leader in EV, too. And so what does that look like? What is the

the kind of industrial policy that includes the right mix of subsidies and investments and tariffs to be able to allow us to continue to be the world's leader. So that's the next step, right? It's, yes, tearing back these ridiculous, aimless tariffs, but it's also saying, all right, what's the smart use of these to actually start doing the things that tariffs are supposed to do? Scott, you're a business professor. You've forgotten more about this stuff than I know, but you and I both agree that there is a way to use these kinds of tools if you're smart about it. It's like taking a hammer and trying to nail in a screw, which doesn't work. So what does it look like to use a screwdriver or to use a hammer where it gets to nail?

So assuming that we have the success we're hoping for in the House and the Senate and we're able to roll back would have already been deemed illegal, these tariffs which make no economic sense. More structurally, a long term, how do you think as a senator you'd want to approach and what structural changes would you champion to make things? more affordable? Is it antitrust? Is it opening up global trade? How do we bring inflation down and create structural solutions to an affordability crisis in America? Yeah. So let's break the problem down into a couple parts. Our inflation crisis, inflation, as you well know, is when there's too much money chasing too few goods. Our economy has gotten less productive than it needs to be in large part

because it's ossified around a few very large corporations who we expect to drive all of our economic growth. So if we're serious about taking this problem on, we need the combination of, A, a really smart, small business-oriented economic development approach. B, really, really smart industrial policy, like the kind I laid out, where we make some really smart investments

in high job growth opportunities, and then we back them up with subsidies to help grow those industries and create jobs, and tariffs that protect those industries as they grow. And then it's unions to make sure that the gains aren't just realized by big corporations, but instead are realized by everyday working people. I believe in capitalism, but I understand that right now we don't live in capitalism. We live in corporatism.

And that corporatism has allowed really, really big corporations to dominate the economic space, crowding out a lot of would-be competitors that bring prices down and also offer more choice in different markets. and those corporations have been able to jump the shark, so to speak, by buying off politicians to make sure that they can use that power to cement their place in our markets. I just want to get back to normal capitalism. And normal capitalism is you make some smart investments, you make sure that those investments are not blocking out any would-be competitors because that's what makes our economy so dynamic.

And you make sure that the gains aren't just hoarded at the very top, but they're split apart evenly. Well, I want to talk to you about your campaign partner for later in the day. But before we get to that, I wanted to touch on what's going on with Mike Rogers, vis-a-vis the trade war with Canada and the war in Iran more broadly. He has been backpedaling very, very quickly, now out, you know, with statements saying that we've got to end the war in Iran. He also did a turnaround on data centers when he saw that the Michigan voters just weren't having it. I'm curious as to if you think that something did shift in the last week or two that prompted him to do this and how you're going to be able to continue to tie these positions to him as we go into the last 40 days of this campaign. Well, his poll number shifted.

He's realizing that he's deeply underwater because he's tied himself to the most disastrously corrupt politician in American history, Donald Trump. And he's realizing that he's kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Donald Trump says jump and he says how high. Donald Trump says tariffs against Canada. He says how high? Donald Trump says, we're going to continue to do this war in Iran.

He said, okay, for how long? And he's realizing now that we're paying $5 in gas, $6.80 in diesel, which we all pay for at the grocery store because diesel's what gets it trucked to the grocery store. He's realizing that this has become a disaster for him. Now, look, my point about him has always been that he's corrupt and he's craven and he's cowardly. And this is exactly what you're seeing. He took $5 million from corporations to run his previous campaigns for Congress, a million alone from prescription drug companies.

And now that the poll numbers are shifted, he's just about facing, which shows you that he's craven, right? This is a guy who does not actually care about basic principle, is not considering what his principles are. Instead, he's going to follow Donald Trump because he understands that his only path to power is because Trump said, okay. And now that he's looking at 42 days left, without the ability to course correct, he's flip-flopping on everything. Data centers flip-flops,

the war in Iran flip-flops. Watch, the tariffs is going to come tomorrow. He's going to flip-flop. And so what people are starting to see from him is, yeah, this is a guy whose only interest is his own power. He will say and do anything that it takes to get there. And let's just step back. We all watched this Mike Rogers when Donald Trump was rising to power in 2015, 2016, talk about how Donald Trump does not represent his values. And then now he tells us he's running for office because Donald Trump called him and told him to do it. There is no principle there. And I think Michiganers are sick and tired of seeing that kind of politics. Because guess what? If he wins, he's going to turn around and do exactly what every Republican senator has done, which is

kowtow to Trump, hand over his power to him and let Trump continue to lead us down these disastrous paths that we pay thousands of dollars for simply because of Trump's vanity. So excellent tying of Mike Rogers to Donald Trump. And that evidence is very clear. But but you are tying yourself to somebody from our side of the aisle who had a big position, the former vice president, Kamala Harris. You're going out on the campaign trail with her at a time when lots of other people running in high-profile races have said, no, thank you. And gone as far as Rob Sand saying that we need new leadership. How did you make the decision to campaign with her?

What are you hoping to get out of this? And is this about shoring up more of the black support in Michigan for your campaign? So Jessica, I'll just tell you this. My job is to build a winning coalition. And that coalition is broad, as has been famously hashed and rehashed. I've engaged a whole lot of different perspectives on our party to come and build that broad coalition. Just because you campaign with somebody doesn't mean that you agree with them on everything that they say. And I, you know, you guys famously host a pod called Raging Moderates.

You know, I, most folks would say, well, Abdul has different takes on a lot of the issues than you do. Great, but I'm having a conversation with you to have a conversation with the people who pay attention to you. In the same point, right, I agree with Vice President Harris on a lot of things. The issue that we're going to be talking about today, maternal and infant mortality disparities, black babies shouldn't die at two times the rate of white babies. Black moms shouldn't die at three to four times the rate of white moms. We all agree on that, and we want great ideas that we can enact in Congress to take that on. When it comes to Gaza, I have been very, very clear about my position.

I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. I do not think we should continue to subsidize unconditionally foreign governments. That includes Israel, but also includes my family's native Egypt. I don't think we should be selling weapons to folks who use them to do the worst things, including genocide or apartheid. And I've just been very, very clear about that. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with the vice president on everything or she has to agree with me on everything

to come together around the many, many, many things we agree on. Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy. You should have clean air, clean water. Baby shouldn't die in infancy. We can and must protect the right to vote. People shouldn't have to pay so much for gas and groceries. The war in Iran is ridiculous. So I just think that sometimes we make a lot in our party

about the differences between us. And I think to build a broad coalition, you have to be able to really focus on the things we agree. And look, we hashed out our differences in this primary. I took $32 million on the chin from APAC, $70 million total from corporate PACs, and even the Democratic Party. But our job now is to come together and recognize that this race is about winning the U.S. Senate to take back power to hold Donald Trump accountable and get to the business of getting money out of politics, putting money in your pocket, and passing Medicare for all. I hope our tent can be as big and full as you think so. It's an optimistic look. Dr. Martin Luther King said this thing, and I think about it a lot.

He said, if your coalition is not uncomfortable, it's not big enough. And I just think we have to be in the business of building sometimes uncomfortable coalitions. And look, I think we've got to also get really good at having conversations about the things we disagree about agreeably. And I'm hoping that we can demonstrate that moving forward. We don't have to fight World War III over all of our differences, even if they're big, broad, sometimes painful, deeply painful differences. But I do think that democracy is the technology, age-old technology, about how we figure out

how to disagree peacefully. And we've, as a Democratic Party, have to demonstrate how democracy can work to bring us together around the things we all understand we agree on. No argument from me. So, Abdul, I was going to talk about health care and I'll come back to it,

but under the ostracist it's uncomfortable, do you think the war in Gaza qualifies as a genocide? Do you think the government of Israel is committing a genocide? I do, and I've been clear about why. Genocide is both outcome and intense. And when you have foreign ministers declaring intent and then the outcome is tens of thousands of children who have been killed, I would call that a genocide. Now, let me be clear about this. I understand that my use of that word can peak a lot of really uncomfortable traumas for folks. But I also have studied my

history. When you look at the world's greatest, worst genocide, right, in history, the greatest crime committed on people that is in memorable history, the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Coming out of that horrific crime, the word genocide was created to explain what that was. But the whole point of creating that word isn't that you have to wait until the crime is that big again to be able to use it.

Otherwise, it loses its power. Its power is in naming a thing before it gets that big so we could do something about it. And I think it's just really important for us to be able to name what has happened so we could do something about it. And I think you and I probably both agree on the end outcome that we'd all like to see.

I pray for a world where a Jewish child and a Palestinian child growing up in the Holy Land can look forward at their future and know that their future is not going to be curtailed by violence. That's an outcome I think we all ought to be committed to. But the question we have to ask ourselves

is how do we get there? And the challenge right now is too often our debate is about a quote, quote, two state solution in a time where every president has said, therefore, two state solution, but our government is aiding, arming, and abetting, the very people who are trying to foreclose on the possibility of the second state. It's incoherent on its own terms. So what does it look like for us to face down the current incoherence, the current unwillingness to actually ask whether or not what we're doing is getting us to the outcome we really want and start thinking outside the box because we get so caught up in the past that we forget that there's still a future we have to play for.

And if you look at your kids in the eye and you ask what matters most, I think it's being able to make sense out of the past to actually address the future. And that's what I'm hoping we can do. That's going to have some uncomfortable conversations. It's going to mean building uncomfortable coalitions. But no conversation about getting to peace

happens without getting to justice. And no justice happens until people are willing to come together. Talk about what happens in frank terms. agree where we can agree, but also decide that we're going to work together to get where we want to go. And I'd love to see a world where Jewish Israelis and Palestinians come together on equal terms to build out a future where all of their kids no longer have to worry about being killed at the hands of one another. I agree with you. It's important. We have thoughtful civil discussions. You and I have had really productive conversations around health care before. As a Jew, I find it entirely unfair and not

accurate to describe what's happening in Israel as a genocide. My understanding of the definition of a genocide is the purposeful extermination of the people based on the religion, their ethnicity, or their nationality. Going from 15 million to 9 million in Europe of Jews was a genocide, 40%. Wiping out 70% of the Tutsi population, that was a genocide. The third of the Cambodian population, that was a genocide. Three percent of the Ghazan population has been killed. And, you know, Typically, a genocide doesn't involve shipping in polio vaccines or 2,500 calories a day or dropping leaflets or leaving voicemails telling civilians to vacate an area where they have been purposely embedded in military targets.

Do you understand why Jews such as myself find your description of what's happening in Israel and in Gaza as a genocide as disqualifying? So I understand why that you would make the argument, but let me just also push back. when people use dehumanizing language against the people, when they bomb their hospitals and their schools, when they attempt to displace them from where they are with the argument that, well, they're all Arabs, these other people speak the same language,

they might as well just be shipped over there. That seems to me to be deliberate targeting. So, you know, I would ask you, do you understand why somebody who's been thinking about this question, looking at it, connecting the dots between the language, that is used and the outcomes that were created would then label it that way. You know, I just, I think the big question for me is, in some respects, people don't want to use the word because of the moral implication of what ought to be done following it.

But the question to me is, could we put the same effort into preventing it from having happened in the first place? And I think the whole world, and you look at the images of, I'm just thinking about an image that I saw, of these two girls, one of them, they're, they're, they're, they're, baking in the heat, clearly their parents are gone. It's an older girl who's about the age of my older daughter and a younger girl who's about the age of my younger daughter. And the older girl is fanning the younger girl. And I don't know how we as humans allow ourselves to do that systematically over the course of years to another people. And then we want to quibble about the words

that we use to call it that thing. Like the moral imperative for action was in seeing the images that we saw. And I think for a lot of folks, we look at that and say, well, you know, there's this, what is the purpose of a Palestinian child in the way that the world has organized itself except for to go through that? And if we think that every Palestinian child deserves the right to live in dignity and deserves a good future, then what does it require us to do? And I think that word has meaning and should be used because it speaks to the moral imperative of action to prevent that. The word does have meaning. And when you use the term genocide, I think it connotes a notion that whoever's committing

this genocide is guilty of something so horrific that it justifies potentially a genocide against them. And that it might be horrific. It might be horrific. It might be a war crime. It might be wrong. But when you use the word genocide, one, I think there's absolutely no factual support for that term that qualifies for that term.

and two, it creates a level of hostility towards Jews in this city where the diaspora feels vulnerable because I am part and supportive of an organization that is committing genocide. And, Scott, I'm going to point to a couple of things. You know, you and I have had a number of really great conversations. I think you and I probably think very similarly on a number of issues. We do. Obviously, this one is one on which we disagree, but, Yep. A, do we have to wait until more people get killed? Like, how many people do we say is enough to then call it a genocide?

because the whole point of calling it that is to stop it from happening in the first place. So it's somewhat self-defeating in its own logic. Second, the calling something a genocide does not justify a genocide. Like, you can't say that because one group committed a genocide, that a genocide ought to be justified against them. That is, you know, that is not the argument anyone's making. I think everybody would agree that nobody should be in the business of killing Jewish people because they're Jewish. that is a terrible thing. In fact, we built our whole system of international law because of the

systematic murder of Jewish people. I just want us to follow that system of international law and do the things we need to do. And then finally, on the factual justification, neither you nor I are scholars on genocide. I leave it to scholars on genocide in Israel itself who've called this a genocide. So it's not just my use of the term. It is the use of the term for people who have made their life's work about technically allocating that word in the circumstances in which it's used with great care in Israel. And so I'm just saying that, you know, I think there is this leap to saying, well, if you call it a genocide, then you must be justifying reprisal. I'm not. I'm not justifying reprisal. I am trying to say that we need to intervene to stop these terrible things from happening.

I'm not calling on systematic annihilation of anyone. If anything, I'm calling on the systematic upkeep of people's lives everywhere for everyone. And that's the point that I keep trying to make. The money, you know, and look, I'm not running to be a leader in that region. I'm running to be senator for Michigan. And in Michigan, we've got a lot of people who don't have the things we need, which adds an almost insult to the injury because that's money that could have been used to be spent to do good things here at home. And so I'm not calling for anyone to be hurt. I'm calling for everyone to be safe. And I think it's important for us when we see the systematic annihilation of a people to call that out and do the things that we need to do to prevent that.

But you are seeing Democrats, including traditionally pro-Israel Democrats, voting against aid to go over there, like Alyssa Slokin, who will hopefully be your co-Senator and John Ossoff, you know, a big reversal in that vote, Mark Kelly's of the world. So that memo has been gotten. You will get no argument from anyone on this podcast or really anyone that we come across, certainly in left or center-left leaning circles, that Bibi Netanyahu is a pernicious threat to his own people to the region, that he's got to go. Hopefully the elections bear that out and that what's going on in the West Bank is absolutely unacceptable. But when you talk about the genocide in Gaza and your comments do not discuss October 7th,

and they do not involve calling out Hamas, who plays an integral role in keeping the people of Gaza oppressed, used kids and innocence as human shields, for instance, you know, set up camp below some of those schools and hospitals that you rightly pointed out that innocence died there, but that there were terrorists hanging out there as well. It makes people who might even be able to get over the idea of using a word that they don't agree with, because there are a lot of Jews in Michigan, and we speak to them all the time who desperately want to vote for you. Because you believe in 99% of the same things that they do.

You believe in getting everyone affordable, decent health care and a woman's right to choose and policies that uplift the most vulnerable amongst us. That's what being a Democrat means. And when you see this non-negotiable pledge, which was created by groups of rabbis and Jewish leaders, basically just asking, I think, for the bare minimum, Jewish safety, Jewish sovereignty in Israel, that it will stay a Jewish state and that you will talk about it as such and you won't sign on to that.

It says to people who can get there for you, who, again, no one wants Mike Rogers. Certainly no one on this podcast and no one that we're talking to. But they want to hear a more nuanced perspective that acknowledges what happened in Israel and what Hamas is doing and that you will fight for. their protections as well and certainly as hard as you would fight for any Palestinian child, because that's what we all want. But Jessica, here's the challenge, right, that I often have. Look, when it comes to the question of Jewish safety, that to me, like you said, is non-negotiable. That's not what's on the table right now.

You know, in some respects, I took very seriously some of the feedback I got after the attack on Temple Israel, that I was trying to offer context for something. the context was not helpful, that there were kids who were attacked on that day, and that needs to be condemned on its own terms. I said hurt people, hurt people, and people took great offense to that. Now, we're talking about the systematic annihilation

of tens of thousands of kids, and you're telling me, in effect, well, hurt people, hurt people. We can condemn what Hamas did on October 7th, and we can condemn a genocide that took place thereafter. And we can do those in two different terms. But to tell me that I cannot condemn a genocide, unless I also condemn the actions of October 7th, somebody else would pick that up and say, yeah, but then what about the systematic occupation and

apartheid perpetrated? And we could play that game forever. I don't want to do that. I want us to be honest about what needs to happen. And let's be clear, for too long, the question of interest is not actually what's happening over there. It's what's happening with our policy in the United States. We run cover for the state of Israel. We don't fund Hamas. We run cover for them at the ICC, we run cover for them at the ICJ, we run cover for them at the United Nations. We pay into their military. We sell them weaponry that they use to do these worst things, $2.8 billion in 2,000 pound bombs just now. Why?

Like to what end? And explain to me why that makes sense as an American policymaker. So yes, I just think that we need to have this conversation on the terms in which it needs to be had. Tens of thousands of kids were killed. and there is no ever justification for killing children. Not ever. And that's exactly the point. And that's why I apologize.

Not ever. Okay. And I appreciate that you made that apology. I am not saying that this is about a what aboutism or that we've got to go to this and you can just play this game of dominoes. What I'm telling you is that there are people who are not going to be able to pull the lever, check the box, however they're voting for you, unless you demonstrate to them that you understand. their concerns. This is about morals and values and ethics, and it is also about winning elections.

And there is a group of people that are asking you, I think, for a very bare minimum acknowledgement of their concerns. They're not even saying, stop saying genocide. And Jessica, I'll tell you, like, when it comes to that, I've been having a number of really great conversations, behind closed tours and in public.

When it comes to the safety of the Jewish community here in Michigan, when it comes to the safety of Jews anywhere, I am focused. on protecting Jewish safety. But I also believe that the safety of Palestinians is equally important. And too often when we have this conversation, there's this Bessam Yusuf, who is a comedian, right?

I can't sign off on all the things he said, but I heard him say this thing one time and it really struck me. He said, you know, what's the purpose of a Palestinian child except for to die? Because that's all you ever hear them doing. And I think we should reflect on that. Because oftentimes when this conversation has had, it's had under the premise. that any attempt to advocate for the right of that child to live their life peacefully must automatically come at the cost of a Jewish child.

I don't believe that to be the case. I don't think you do either. And so I just think it's important for us to get to a level of public policy where we ask what would we do if we treated every child like they were our child? And I think we would be treating this situation fantastically differently. It's not hard for me to say that the kidnapping and murder of innocent people was wrong. Of course it was. But why are we unwilling to call what happened to tens of thousands of kids by money that

should be spent on our kids? Why are we unwilling to use the term that would we be using a lot more easily in a different circumstance? And look, I believe in principle. And I want people to know exactly where I think and how I think. And you'll know, right, I'm deeply consistent if nothing else. I'm going to have the conversation in audiences that agree with me or don't agree with me, I'm going to say the thing I believe. And when I've had conversations with my Jewish

sisters and brothers here in Michigan, I've told them, where we agree, I'm going to be honest, direct, and specific. And where we disagree, I'm going to be honest, direct, and specific. And you might disagree with me. And that might mean you might not vote for me. That's okay. But I'm unwilling to bend my principle around what I believe. And I think we believe in the same principles. The question is ultimately how we apply them and if we apply them evenly. Got it. Well, appreciate your candor. I just wanted to distill it down to, and you talked about the need to, for Democrats to agree to disagree, I think that what you believe is a genocidal action on the part of the IDF resulting in horrific death of children.

I won't speak for the Jewish community. I laid the death, the horrific death of those children at the feet of a terrorist organization that performed what I feel as a real brutal act of terror. and I would describe those horrific deaths as collateral damage along the lines of every other historical war, maybe even less so than what, you know, we, 2,300 Americans die, excuse me, 2,800 Americans die, 9-11, we go on to kill 400,000 people, 2,200 service people in Pearl Harbor, we go on to kill a million and a half Japanese. It really does come down to the word for me. I just don't think that's an accurate representation of the word. and justifies an unnecessary downward spiral of more hate and ultimately more violence. I'll give you the last word, Abdul. Well, I appreciate your perspective and hearing your perspective.

Obviously, this is an issue on which we disagree. Just those two examples that you pointed out, I think most of us would point to those examples and say that shouldn't have had to happen. We shouldn't have done that. And same story, right? We shouldn't have done that. What I want folks to hear me in saying is, I come at this issue from a position of a principle. I want every child to live the life that is unencumbered by the violence that came before

them. That's what we're trying to build. And the question is, if we started with that premise and we took it as certain that each of these lives, a Palestinian child's life, a Jewish-Israeli's child's lives, that that life was worth the same. What would we do and how would we behave? And I just, I think we should start from that premise. What does it take to get there? All of that is to say, you know, we are going to have disagreements in our party. We are. But on 80% of those questions that animate what it is we believe about the world, that democracy is the best way to solve our differences, that we deserve clean air, clean water, good schools, good health care, child care, an economy that works for people. We agree on those things. There are going to be points of disagreement, but also just say this.

I think that point that we go back to about the uncomfortable coalition, sometimes those coalitions are real uncomfortable. But again, I think there's a space. here where we start to ask, where do we move forward? Because the thing about a vote, and this is what I want us to really think about. A vote is not about the past. A vote is about the future. And where do we want to go in the future? And that's what I'm really hoping to build together. It's been a really, really engaging conversation. I really, really appreciate you having me. And I hope that what folks that understand with me is like, I say the same thing to everybody. And I'm willing to hash out differences. is the reason I was willing to go on with Jesse.

You know, I'm not like, I'm going to stay on my ground. But with people with whom I share so much more, I hope that you can come to see it my way. And I'm sure you hope that I can come to see it yours. But if we don't have the conversation, that's when things fall apart, especially when there's 80% of things we could talk about that we agree on. Well, I'm definitely an enormous advocate for talking to people that you disagree with.

You do it very well. Thank you. You do too. I just, the stance that I was coming to this conversation with is, I mean, you're doing a good job, you know, you're running a great campaign. But just to express the concerns that I'm hearing from folks who really want to be part of your campaign and excited for what it'll be like when you are hopefully a U.S. Senator. I hope I can earn their support. And I hope that on the things we disagree on, we can continue to have the conversation. And, you know, my job is to serve everyone.

And whether they vote for me, they didn't vote for me, they hate me, they love me, they're indifferent about me, don't even know I exist. Like, that's the job. And I hope folks understand. Look, I've been trying to do that work my whole life. I'm a doctor who rebuilt health departments. All of my work, it's funny, because I've been pulled into this international advocacy because of principle, but all my work has been about trying to get health care here in America.

And I rebuilt a health department, led another one, wrote a book on health care. That's what I do. We're going to have to have you back on to talk about health. health care. And I, it's a shame because I do find your views on health care illuminating and really productive. Abdul El-Syad is the Democratic Senate nominee from Michigan. Stay safe on the trail. Abdul, very much appreciate the open and honest dialogue. Good to have you. Thank you. I appreciate you guys having me. I'm grateful for your time. I'm grateful for your advocacy. And looking forward to the next conversation about Medicare for

All. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odo comes in, an all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all-in-one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one universal. system. Try for free today at odu.com slash vox. That's odio.com slash box.