Tangle - PREVIEW - The Friday Edition: If I were running for president in 2028…

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

My 10-point platform.If I were running for president (I never would, but thank you to those so confident in me you’ve suggested it), I would go after the middle band of American politics.I would do this not because I think centrist policies always produce the best outcomes (though they often do) or because all my political views always land in the center (they don’t). Instead, I would try to appeal to the middle band because I think they are underrepresented in today’s politics, and the right candidate with the right framing of moderate politics could win in a landslide. But most importantly, I think their priorities are often sensible and fair.Ad-free podcasts are here!To unlock the rest of this episode and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!our piece on Tylenol and autism You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, I'm putting something out there. I am going to share with you what I would do if I were running for president in 2028. Okay, first of all, I'm not running for president. I never would. Mostly because I'm not delusional.

I'm not sick in the head, which I think you have to be to run for president respectfully. But, you know, I have gotten this push from readers before. Sometimes when I write a really good piece or take a miss. ground on something. I get all these emails. Like, you got to run for president. And I'm like, no, never. I won't ever do that. But I love you guys. So thank you for the confidence. I'm also not qualified. I'm just some idiot with a keyboard. So please don't vote for people like me to be president. Now, if I were running for president, I would do something a little different than the last few presidential candidates I think have done. I would go after the middle band of the American populace.

I would do this not because I think centrist policies always produce the best outcomes, though they do sometimes, or because all my political views always land in the center. They don't, and as many of you know who've been listening for a while, I have political views that are sometimes radical depending on the issue. Instead, I would try to appeal to the middle band because I think they are, A, really underrepresented in today's politics, and B, I think the right candidate with the right framing of moderate middle-of-the-road politics could win in a landslide. Most importantly, I think the priorities of the middle band of the American voter

are often sensible and fair. This might not seem like a hot take, but this viewpoint today is surprisingly uncommon. In many elections, and especially in primaries, being more extreme is electorally advantageous. That explains why a lot of our politics have been getting so much more extreme. On top of that, the electorate seems to increase. favor change in each election cycle. President Barack Obama was a change candidate and won largely by presenting himself as a challenge to the status quo. Trump introduced a coarser and more frank politics that also promised change and disruption. He was a response to the sleepwalking out of touch and

failed political norms of the past few decades. Biden won in 2020, I think largely because of COVID-19 and the president's handling of a once-in-a-lifetime globally disruptive event. The change was, I'm not the other guy. Yet in 2008, change might constitute a return to the middle. The response to the current administration could come from either the left or right, but it could just as easily come from the center. This third option would be a politics not of partisan rancor, but of moderation, and in this current climate, it could read as refreshing and extreme in its own right.

If a leading candidate could hold the good ideas of each side and the best of their ethos simultaneously, that leader, in my view, would be extremely successful, and better yet, could pull us back from the brink. Some data back this up. For instance, a 2024 Gallup poll on U.S. Party affiliation shows that the share of self-identified independence continues to grow. Forty-three percent of Americans describe themselves as independent. That's compared to just 28 percent each who answer Republican or Democrat. Of course, we know that most people who self-identify as independent often have a party preference, but the description alone is a strong signal about how many Americans view their own politics and how appealing a more moderate, less party-forward political campaign can be.

So, over the last few days, I started thinking about how I'd construct a more moderate presidential campaign if I actually had to. I sat down and considered the large middle band of American politics as I see it today, and I wrote down a 10-point platform that I think would appeal to a huge swath of American voters. I don't think this plan is particularly Republican or Democratic in nature. Rather, I think it could appeal to chunks of both parties' bases. And crucially, I think it'd be especially attractive to the self-identified independence and a whole range of other voters who right now don't even show up to vote. As I looked over the 10-point plan, I realized that some of the points were intentionally broad, as campaign promises often are. So I also tried to include at least one

concrete example of how each point might manifest in a policy sense to clarify the goals that I'm speaking of. So without further ado, here it is my 10-point plan. Again, just a reminder, these are not my views. This is not how I would construct my party platform in a vacuum, but it's how if I had to run for president as a moderate, I would do it. Number one. Pursue an affordability agenda at the intersection of abundance and deregulation. The abundance movement on the left shares many of the same objectives as the deregulation movement that the right has embraced for decades. An obvious huge middle ground of consensus exists around reducing zoning laws, streamlining environmental reviews, embracing and all the above energy approach, continuing to use oil and natural gas.

but also developing wind, solar, and nuclear, and cutting red tape that has prevented us from expanding the housing and energy sectors that we desperately need to revitalize. Number two, defend the disenfranchise and oppose cruelty, but also reject the enforcement of ultra-progressive cultural and social norms. This is probably the stickiest area,

but I think a party platform could build a grab-bag of policies that actually strikes a balance and offers compromises across the board. For instance, on LGBTQ issues, the federal government could lock in protections by codifying Bostock into law, ensuring that nobody is ever fired or discriminated against for being gay, lesbian, or transgender. At the same time, policymakers could raise the threshold for gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers for minors with strong oversight of medical facilities that provide treatment to kids, while also allowing states and private businesses to determine how

they want to cover transition care for the minuscule proportion of adults who need it. In all of this, my party platform would push Americans to be decent and kind, but make space for carve-outs on free speech and religious liberty grounds so people don't face punishment for refusing to use preferred pronouns, but also so people aren't barred from discussing or using them. We'll be right back after this quick break. Number three, support the work of the police and the military, but also impose unapologetic accountability for bad actors. This is straightforward to me. The vast majority of cops are good,

and many neighborhoods would benefit from more policing. But the police should have oversight, too. Zero tolerance policies for police abuses and mistreatment of people paired with a culture of respect and obedience toward law enforcement could appeal to a broad swath of voters. Likewise, continuing to honor our troops while striving for the most moral army in the history of the world feels like an appealing cultural middle ground. Number four. Embrace a policy of soft American power that has a militarily isolationist disposition. This platform would support the funding of groups like USAID and happily give away a tiny fraction of American wealth to feed the poor and desperate across the globe.

It would embrace President Trump's demand for NATO and European allies to meet the alliance's contributory demands to protect their own borders, but avoid at all costs, incursions and extrajudicial killings as we're seeing in Venezuela. Number five, intense border security and zero tolerance for people here illegally committing crimes, but also a simpler path for legal immigration that welcomes newcomers who want to American, embrace pluralism, and support our values of freedom and democracy. What lives at the intersection of President Trump and President Biden's border policy? Roughly, I think it's something like this.

Lower rates of border crossings due to the deterrent effect of unauthorized migrants who aren't asylum seekers knowing that they'll be caught and deported. Internally, law enforcement would focus on arresting and deporting anyone here illegally that has committed a crime and also expand the immigration judicial system so we can process everyone with a fair and timely hearing. And then, and then, crucially, we have a large increase in the availability of temporary work visas to allow laborers to come here legally on the books for seasonal and temporary work. I've laid out some of these plans in a past piece on how I'd solve the border crisis. You can find that on our website if you want.

Hey, everybody. This is John, executive producer for Tangle. We hope you enjoy enjoyed this preview of our latest episode. If you are not currently a newsletter subscriber or a premium podcast subscriber, and you are enjoying this content and would like to finish it, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription, or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or a bundled subscription, which gets you both the podcast and the newsletter, and unlocks the rest of this episode, as well as ad-free daily podcasts, more Friday editions, Sunday editions, bonus content, interviews, and so much more.

Most importantly, we just want to say thank you so much for your support. We're working hard to bring you much more content and more offering, so stay tuned. I will join you again for the daily podcast. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by John Law.

Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editor's Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and John Law. And to learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reedtangle.com. Thank you.