The Bulwark Podcast - Charles Duhigg: What MAGA Can Teach Democrats

Episode Date: February 24, 2026

Apart from all the lies MAGA is forced to say in defense of Donald Trump, the movement is actually better at political organizing than Democrats. So while the Dems can pull off the massive No Kings rallies, the protests are just one day and the energy can fizzle away. But MAGA is really focused on turning out the vote so they can win. And they got the idea from the big tent campaign tactics that Obama deployed in 2008 and 2012. Plus, some advice on how Dem candidates can turn their communications into a superpower—like stop proposing solutions when voters are mad and just want to vent.The New Yorker’s Charles Duhigg joins Tim Miller.show notes Charles's piece, "What MAGA Can Teach Democrats About Organizing—and Infighting" Charles's book, "Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection" Tickets are now on sale for our LIVE shows in Dallas on March 18 and in Austin on March 19. TheBulwark.com/Events. To get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to NakedWines.com/THEBULWARK and use code THEBULWARK for both the code AND PASSWORD. Get 20% off when you go to trustandwill.com/BULWARK

Hello and welcome to the Bullwark podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. Okay, here's the deal. Today is the State of the Union, as you guys know. I hate the State of the Union. Hate it. I hated it even when I liked the President just fine. It's antiquated.

It's stupid. It's all the puffery. It's all the reasons why I left D.C. But, you know, I got a job to do. I'm going to suffer for y'all. It is my Lenton obligation. So here's our content plan for the State of the Union. I'm going to give myself and you a brief respite from the speech.

fund to trade this morning. So we have a very fun off the news guest. I've been wanting to bring in for a while. We're going to get to him in a second. Over on TNL with Sarah and JVL, we're going to cover everything news politics campaigns besides the speech. So you can go get your campaign fix on the next level feed. And then tonight, it's only way I can tolerate it. I'm going to be mystery science theater through the speech on YouTube. So you can come hang out with me on YouTube. And then after we have a very special guest coming. He's a very good talker. And so hopefully that will ease the pain of having to have watched Donald Trump for three hours or however long he's going to go. And then, you know, if you're hearing this on Wednesday morning, you can get the State of the Union reaction stuff over on the bulwark takes feed.

So that's the schedule. It's a content marathon. I'm your humble servant. Soke it all in. Today's show, we've got a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter at The New Yorker. His latest book, I'm like a year and a half ago now, that book is called Super Communicators. it's Charles Deweig. How you doing? How you doing, man? Good. How are you? Thanks for having me on. And I'm looking forward to the Mystery Science Theater

3, 3,000 state of the union of tonight. If I had to watch it anyway, why would I sit on the couch and subject my husband to it? You know? Exactly. You might as well have two robots with you. And you guys can just make comments this whole time. He can watch whatever, Housewives, and I can sit here with you all and snipe at him. And that seems at least borderline tolerable. I want to get to the book. And I think there are a lot of lessons in super communicators for all of us, for what the mission is here ostensibly, which is persuading people to the benefits of liberal democracy. But you also have some lessons, some political lessons in your latest New York article, which was headlined, what MAGA can teach Dems about organizing. And I have to tell you this. I'm just coming clean.

Yeah. I didn't even know you wrote it because I did not like the graphic. No shade to the artist. Okay. But I hated it because this graphic, many people may even. I've seen on social media because this article went viral, it's all of the blue fingers pointing at each other and all of the red fingers pointing at blue. And I feel like this is a little bit of a misnomer because there's a lot of red fingers pointed at each other as well. Absolutely. Yeah. So as

as you always can do in these sort of situations, it's an oversimplification. And so I was embittered by that. And so I didn't click on the article. I finally clicked on it, I don't know, yesterday or Sunday. And the text is amazing. So, you know, don't judge a book by its cover. as you say. There are a lot of important insights in there. So talk to us about why you decided to write this. It's a little bit off of, you know, your normal beat. What was the genesis of it? It's true. I mean, the basic question I was asking is, you know, if on the left we're so dismissive of MAGA and we say like they have their ideas are illegitimate. They are, they are beholden to this guy who's completely mercurial. If that's true, why have they been so successful? Right. Like, what is the science behind the growth of MAGA? And I think it's important to create a distinction between Donald Trump and MAGA because I think that distinction exists at this point. He was the progenitor, the biggest cheerleader of MAGA. But MAGA now has its own life outside of Donald Trump. And what's happened is that it's been picked up by political groups like Ralph Reed's new organization, the former ahead of the Christian Coalition, which is called the Faith and Freedom Coalition, by Turning Point USA.

By groups like that have really picked up MAGA, the mantle of it. And what's interesting is, unlike Donald Trump, they bring a very different approach to how to make MAGA viral, how to make it sticky, how to get people interested in it, which is to say, we're a huge open tent. As long as you're willing to put on the red hat, as long as you're willing to say that the president's the greatest guy on earth, Trump should be president right now, then you're welcome in, whether you're gay or straight, whether you care about immigration or you don't care about immigration, whether you're pro-life or pro-choice. And that strategy has been incredibly effective at making some of these groups almost without anyone noticing some of the most powerful groups in the United States when it comes to electoral politics. Yeah, one thing I like to say about Trump in that red hat is if I, this afternoon I'm doing an MS now hit with Katie Turr. If I was on the show and I brought a MAGA hat as a prop and I said, you know what, I've been so impressed by what the president has done over the last couple of weeks on. I don't even know what you'd compliment him on. A strong response to the Supreme Court overturning his tariffs.

I love the 15% tariff. I want a bomber on desperately. I'm on board. Probably that night on true social, Trump would be posting. Tim Miller was such an idiot. I've seen him for many years. He was such a loser. But even Tim Miller gets it, right?

Like he would be immediately. It would just be like that. Like, that's all you have to do. He would embrace you. right? Like I'm so glad Tim Miller finally saw the error of his ways. It wouldn't be quite that eloquent. But you're exactly right. The article begins with a really, I think, insightful metaphor about how the MAGA Republicans, I think we should say, versus the Democrats organize. And you talk about two groups that those of us elder millennials were very familiar with growing up, dare versus mad and why one succeeded where the other failed.

Talk about that metaphor a little bit. Sure, absolutely. And for anyone who doesn't remember, Dare is this drug education program that they used to do in the schools. And Matt is Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They both emerged at about the same time in the early 1980s.

And when Dare emerged, it was like the immediate darling, right? Like companies would line up to support it. It spread all over the nation in like a year. President Ronald Reagan declared Dare Day at one point. It was a huge, huge success. from the start. And what Dare was really good at is what's known as mobilization. They were really good at getting tens of thousands, millions of people, millions of school kids out of their

classes into an auditorium to hear a lecture about how bad drugs are. They could mobilize all over the country. And when it comes to building a social movement, mobilization is part of it. Mad, on the other hand, Mad, Mothers Against Dr. Dr. Driving had a different approach, in part because it was so chaotic and the central office really didn't know what it was doing. They kept on firing a shit show, actually. Yeah, it was a total shit show. It was a total shit show. And so what they did is they turned to all these local mad coordinators, these people who just volunteered to start mad chapters. And they said, okay, do whatever you want, right? Like learn to become a leader in your own community and take over running mad and expanding it. That's another aspect of how to organize a social movement.

That's known as organizing. Right. And in organizing, what you're doing is you're trying to push down leadership as far as possible to the local level. You're trying to train people to become leaders, to become advocates so that there is no need for central coordination as there was with dare. You don't have to coordinate things because all of these independent cells, these independent agents are out there figuring out what works best on their own. So we have these two components of social movements that are roth really important, mobilizing getting people into the streets, organizing, building a infrastructure that teaches people how to be leaders. What's important though is that this one, organizing, is much more important than mobilizing. Dare, as anyone who's

been paying attention knows, basically was a fad. It sort of exploded in popularity, and then it turned out that if you went to a Dare education program, you were more likely to do drugs. The program just kind of disappeared. I learned about huffing. I learned about huffing from DARE in fifth grade. I was like, wait a minute, I can I can party with the stuff underneath my parents sink. Yeah, exactly. All I need is a paper bag. Yeah. That's exactly. That's exactly. that's exactly what happened. I was like, where would I've learned about huffing if it wasn't for dare telling me about the dangers of huffing? Matt, on the other hand, has become one of the most successful social movements in America.

And if we look at politics today, what we see is that the Dems are really good at mobilizing, right? Look at the No Kings marches. Look at the Women's Day protest. They can get millions of people into the streets overnight. And that's really, really impressive. But MAGA is really good at organizing. And that's much less visible. It's much less high profile.

But what they've done is they've created tens of thousands of local leaders, these little cells that exist to get out the vote on election day. And organizing beats mobilizing every day of the week. Because the truth of the matter is, when you go to that No Kings Day rally and you feel so good to be in a huge crowd, afterwards you go home. And you didn't get the names of anyone who is there. You didn't make any new friends. You don't set up a meeting, a plan to meet the next week in order to figure out how to continue the

effort. It feels good, but it doesn't create change. And that's what we need to learn from MAGA. I don't want any of the folks that are doing the No Kings Organizing to get mad at me. It's like, we do. We have our little group. But I think that there's some differences I want to explore. What made you think about the mad versus dare comparison? It's an interesting parallel. So I'm, I'm Gen X. And I was trying, I was like, as I was reporting this, I was trying to figure out like, how to explain the difference here? And I just went back to like, I've always had this question. Like, everyone looked down their nose at Mad and Dare was so popular. And today, Matt is successful and Dare isn't. I was just curious, like, why? And so I started doing

reporting and it turned out to be a great way to explain this. The thing that resonated with the Mad example to me was, as you mentioned, it's such a shit show, just like Mac is, like the top. It doesn't seem organized, right? And then on the other hand, there's a lot of lip service on the left organizing. And there is some work to be done. I don't mean to demean anyone, right? But like, you know, it's like organizing is important principle, right? Like, Obama was a community organizer, right? Like, this was, you know, something that there's a huge value in. And yet, like, there's some limits to the type of organizing that is done. And the best example, I always hate to hand it to him, but you have to hand it to a turning point on this, right? And the way that Turning Point does organizing is very different from how the Democrats do are organizing. Like, they have all these local chapters. A lot of them are very different than other ones. One example you gave that I thought was really important. was that some of these local chapters are like actually disgusting, right? And are doing actively, like, racist and offensive things in order to get attention. Some of them are kind of earnest and Christian, right?

Some of them are like debate clubs kind of on campus. So you're exposing to a lot of different people. Most of all of them are organized around kind of a social element of like, let's have fun. And the result ends up being a pretty motley crew when you go to the big turning point USA conferences, no doubt. I always noticed when I went to the America Fest thing, it was interesting. On Friday night, they would have a revival tent where some people would go to do Christian service. And then there was the fingering to put bars where other people would go and get hammered and hook up. And like both of those things were happening together, but they were all doing what they found to be nutritious.

So anyway, talk about that. Yeah, no, you're exactly right. This inclusion is a really important. And it's funny that you mentioned Obama as an organizer. are because if you look back to the Obama campaign, the first campaign and the second campaign, which was revolutionary in how they used volunteers. They got more volunteers to do more outreach than any campaign in history. And the reason why was because they were very big tent. I don't know if you remember, but they said if you encounter a voter who's racist, they use the N-word or they say

something racist, don't disagree with them. Simply say, I totally understand that. I understand that you feel that, but let me tell you about on economics how Obama feels, right? It was a big tent in terms of are on the war or on other things, right? And so what's happened since then, I think, is that within the left, there has become a lot of litmus tests that serve either for virtue signaling or serve for trying to mobilize

and show unity around the issues that the left cares about. But those litmus tests have the effect of excluding many ambivalent members, right? Many swing voters. It basically says, look, if you're pro-life, there's really no place for you in the Democratic Party. And it says if you don't believe in immigration reform, if you don't believe in trans rights,

then this is not a party that's welcoming to you. Contrast that with Turning Point USA and Faith and Freedom Coalition, where they basically say like, you know what? Actually, and in fact, Charlie Kirk has said this from the stage. When people come up and they say, you know what, I'm gay, Charlie Kirk says, I just want you know, I don't approve of your lifestyle. but if you and I agree on immigration, then you're welcome here. This is the movement for you.

Now, there's problems there, right? You can very easily dilute the values. Yeah, it's not a 100% tense, right? Like if you want your lifestyle to be validated, you feel unwelcome there. So it's not as if everybody feels welcome. But I've been to Turning Point USA. I talk to the gays against groomers or whatever group. There are certain types that don't mind that he says that.

That's absolutely true. And more importantly, it's kind of a signaling. Right? Because Charlie Kirk isn't actually trying to convert the gay kid who's coming up and talking to the mic. What he's trying to do is he's trying to signal to the rest of the crowd. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with me 100%. There's a place for you here. A leftist who gets up at a turning point meeting is not going to be convertible. But what you can do is you can welcome that person as a signal to everyone else who's more ambivalent, who's more in the center that this is a place for you. Talk about the crank example. Because I think this is important too, right about the, I forget what it was. It was the, a turning point group against affirmative action or whatever example you use, right? That like, a lot of times we're paying with Broadbush and there are different examples to all this stuff. Like, you know, Charlie ends up advancing a lot of crankish and racist type stuff on his podcast too. But the stuff that would even feel a little more too extreme for like the leaders to say, you know, rather than ostracizing those people, like they had groups that they just sort of allowed to run wild and bring in people that. that wouldn't have gone to maybe a traditional college Republican event

because it would have felt too buttoned up. Absolutely too boring. They made it really fun, right? And it's important to note at Turning Point USA, if you ask to become a student leader to start a chapter, the first thing that the organization asks you to do is to read a book about the Obama campaign called Groundbreakers about how Obama organized so many volunteers

and use the same playbook just on the other end of the spectrum. There's a copy of the Dean campaign. We should say Democrats used to know how to do this. The D campaign was very heterodox. Very, very much. And you're exactly right. So in a couple of places, what Turning Point would do is they, its local group would sponsor what's known as an affirmative action bake sale,

where they would base the price of the baked good on the color of your skin. So whites who came up had to pay more than black students who came up to buy something. Now, what's amazing is that instead of Turning Point saying, you shouldn't do that. That's too disrespectful. Turning Point actually advertised that in its manual that it gives to students. It uses that as an example of what students might want to do to get attention. And the reason why it works is it's kind of fun, right?

I mean, it's terrible. The values behind it are terrible. But if you're a college student walking across a campus and you see this thing that says affirmative action bake sale and you go over and you ask them, what's going on? And they're like, well, we don't think affirmative action makes any sense in education. So why would we do it in a bake sale? Suddenly you're having this dialogue and it's kind of interesting and it's fun. and it seems very anti-authoritarian,

which is a college student, really appeals to me. You've been to Turning Point USA rallies. You know what they're like. They are fun. They are just a good time. And part of that is because people are disagreeing with each other. They're arguing with each other and they're having debates. And it's fun to watch people debate with each other.

It's fun to cheer for your side. Yeah. Now compare that to like, no Kings Day. Somebody starts trying to debate at No Kings Day. They're going to get shouted down immediately. It's not about. Yeah. It's not about debate.

It's about unity. You guys in the Northeast are deep into winter. Been hearing about a nor'easter, maybe another Noreaster. A lot of anger at the groundhog on my social media feed. And what are you going to turn to on these cold nights when you can't get out? Probably a nice glass of red wine, right? And one way to find a good one is with our podcast sponsor, Naked Wines. Naked Wines is a wine club that directly connects you to the world's best independent winemakers.

You can get world-class wine delivered straight to your door. use our code the bulwark for the code and password at nakedwines.com and get $100 off your first order that's six bottles of wine for just $39.99. The nice part is you know, you can try different stuff. That's what I like to do. Different varieties. See what you like. Mix it up.

$3999.99. It's cheap. People come over to the house. They want to open up a bottle. You have something sitting around. You know, they can have a glass. You can have a glass or a weed web, whatever works for you. That's nice.

It's just nice to have on hand. And our friends at Naked Wines make it very easy. Get the best wine at the best price with Naked Wines. Now is the time to join the Naked Wines community. Head to Nakedwines.com slash the Bullwork. Click enter voucher and put in my code, The Bullwark, for both the code and password. And you get $100 off your first order.

That's six bottles for only $39.99 with shipping included. That's $100 off your first six bottles at Nakedwines.com slash the bulwark. use the code and password of the bulwark for six bottles of wine for $39.99. There's another element to this that I think that can be attributed to politics, and there's what I've started to call the Kamala conundrum or the Kamala paradox, and it was not, I don't know that it's really her fault, but it's kind of related to this type of communication style, I think. I want to throw it at you, which is that at the end of the campaigns,

like progressives, like left progressives, and populists, broadly call like Joe Rogan-type audience, like they thought Kamala was like a corporate establishment moderate. Okay. And a lot of my people, corporate establishment moderates, like were concerned she was a California progressive, right? And she was a leftist. And I think that that is an outgrowth of like this phenomenon that you're talking about,

that like Democrats were not allowing, you know, Absolutely. Different nodes to talk about different things. Because for Obama, it was the opposite. When Obama ran in 2008, there were a lot of left groups for whom they thought, this guy's one of us because he's against the Iraq War. He was a community organizer. And then there are a lot of centrist type people who said, this guy might be one of us.

He's doing that there's no red states. There's no blue states. We're all the United States. Right. Like, Trump is like that, too. Right. In politics, to succeed, you want your audience to grab hold to the air. areas where you agree with them.

And I think that this, like what you're hitting on in this mad versus dare comparison, I kind of explains why some national Democrats now are stuck in this sour spot. Absolutely. And I think a lot of it is authenticity, right? I don't think anyone came away from the Kamala Harris campaign feeling like this is the most authentic candidate we've ever had, who speaks her mind without thinking about the ramifications of the words coming out of her mouth. on Donald Trump for whatever his faults, he seems authentic, right?

He does not couch his positions to pander to the crowd. He speaks whatever seems to be at the top of his mind, which sometimes is nonsense. He's an authentic lie. Yeah, and the people that listen to him think, like, yeah, sure, he's lying, but he seems like he seems like he's telling me what he really thinks. That's performance. Exactly. That's performance.

It's performance. And this authenticity, though, is really important. You mentioned before the graphic on that article that sometimes the red hands are pointing at each other. And it made me think of that, of the recent turning point meeting where the national meeting where J.D. Vance and Rubio were on stage and Tucker Carlson was criticizing them and Vance criticized Tucker Carlson. Ben Shapiro criticized Tucker Carlson. And everyone on the left was like, oh, finally, finally they're attacking each other. Finally, the coalition is coming apart. But I saw it completely differently. Those attacks were evidence to the crowd and to Republicans that they have a big

enough party that they can criticize each other, that they are comfortable airing their differences and being authentic about where they disagree with one another without actually saying, now we're going to break apart, now we're going to go do our own thing, now we're going to factionalize. This ability to disagree in public is really, really important to creating that sense of authenticity. And what's interesting is if you look at Obama, and most importantly, if you look at Bill Clinton, that's what they did really well, right? Everyone remembers the Bill Clinton's sister soldier moment when he comes out and he creates. criticizes Sister Soldier for giving bad advice to black youths.

And that was an important moment because it showed that Bill Clinton was being independent. He was being authentic. And he alienated some of his base in doing so. But it was an important moment for the campaign. We need more of that. We need that authenticity. And I think we're going to see that on the stage for 2028. People blanch at this example.

People bristle because they're like, oh, you centrist always want a sister soldier moment. But here's the thing about the sister soldier moment that's so, Clinton was so cunning and good. It was like, there's no policy substance to it, really. No. He wasn't making a concession to the right or to the evangelical right where, you know, he does eventually. When he ends of triangulating, he ends up making some legitimate concessions all. But in that, in the campaign moment, all it was was signaling. He was just signaling to some to some people in the century like, hey, I'm not scary, right?

Like, we have some common ground on something that's in the culture. then that's like a low stakes sacrifice, right? Particularly if you're on the left, even if you're on the left of him, you'd rather him be making that sacrifice on that, like a rhetorical point than on social policy issue, right? That actually affects black Americans, right? I think you're exactly right. So one of the things that we know about communication, and this comes from super communicators,

is that as humans, if you think about it, as humans, communication is our superpower, right? It's the thing that, like, sets us apart from every other species. And so as a result, our brain has evolved to be very, very good at communication. And part of that evolution is that we have this almost hair trigger sensitivity to inauthenticity. Now, that doesn't mean it works all the time, right? Con men can take advantage to people. But if you're at a party and someone asks you, where do you go on vacation, you know within like 10 seconds that they don't care where you went on vacation? They just want to tell you where they went on vacation.

They want to tell you all about the yacht that they, right? We are really good at detecting a day. in authenticity. And there's a reason for this. It's because back in a state of nature, back when we lived in villages, if someone came to town and they presented themselves as trustworthy and they weren't actually trustworthy, they represented the biggest threat to our survival possible because we might let our guards down. So as a result, our brain is constantly trying to determine, can I trust this person? Do they believe what they're saying? And there are ways, and Bill Clinton's a perfect example of this, of appearing authentic when you're not really that authentic.

But for most of us and for most politicians who aren't as talented as Bill Clinton, we have to genuinely be authentic about some things. And that means that even if we disagree with our supporters, if we make our disagreement plain and we stand for what we believe in and we explain it, they actually like us more because they believe that we're authentic. So explain what Trump's tricks are on this, because obviously everyone listening to this podcast knows he's not actually authentic. He is the con man that comes to the village that you talk about.

he is successful at that. What do you attribute it to? All the time on TV. Is there a specific talent or trick that he uses? So here's the thing. He is a con man, but he's pretty consistent in his conmanship, right? Like, he basically says,

if you're for me, I like you, and if you're against me, I hate you. Like, the thing is that we don't believe any of his political stances. We don't believe that he's really pro-life. We don't believe that he's, like, really for the sanctity of marriage or that he actually has read the Bible.

But when he's saying that stuff, and anyone who's gotten to a Trump rally knows this, that when he says that stuff, what he's actually saying is he's signaling the same way Bill Clinton signaled. He's saying, look, I believe you need to hear this and I want your support. So I'm going to say what you want me to say. And you don't believe it and I don't believe it. But you know what's consistent is that I'm out for me. And if you look at Donald Trump, there has been a consistency to his ideology, which is I want what's best for Trump and scream. the consequences. And there is some authenticity there. Authentically fake, right? When he's angry at someone,

I believe he is genuinely angry at that person. I don't think he's performing that anger. In fact, I've seen him be angry at things that don't make any sense to be angry at. And you've also seen him what he feels like he knows he has to perform. Like, look at the Zoron thing. He like, just the other day. He kind of, like, he threw some line about how he's not doing a good job with the side. I forget what it was. But then

he's like, but he's a good guy. He's a handsome guy. what I mean? Like he can't, he's not that good at that, actually. If you watch him speak, and I'll bet you we're going to see that tonight on the state of the union, at a rally, it's really apparent. He says these things that whenever he's reading from the teleprompter and he, he doesn't believe it. You kind of know he doesn't believe it. Like, he doesn't even try and sell it that hard. He says like, oh, every once in a while, he'll talk as if he, it's not him. It'll talk as if somebody, like, he'll break the fourth wall sometimes. Absolutely. The speech will be going on and he'll read a line and he'll, and he'll do like, is that right? Is that the worst?

Or do I hate this the worst? He does that, yeah. I think that's incredibly powerful because what he's actually saying is he's saying like, look, I know that I have to play the game. You know we have to play the game. But don't believe me when I play the game. I'm going to tell you what I really care about. And then I'm going to say the other stuff that gets lip service.

Right. It's incredibly powerful. Let's talk about something that nobody except my mother likes to talk about. What happens when you die? Because unfortunately, it's going to happen to all of us. But you can be prepared with trust and Will, online estate planning. With trust and will, there are a couple of issues that somebody like me bumps into that

maybe this resonates with you. Number one, I don't like paperwork. Life is too short for paperwork. And I start to get the feeling in my chest of annoyance as soon as I start to do it. Number two, unlike my mother, death is not my favorite topic. I am Peter Panning. I am here in a flat bill baseball cap. And so you would think that this would not be a good product for me.

you're wrong because it's super easy. You can create an estate plan in as little as 30 minutes and then you feel good afterwards. So, you know, if you're like me, turn to trust and will. Trustable products are attorney designed, state specific, and customized to your needs. Trust and will has bank level encryption and secure sharing features to your most important documents and details. Stay protected and accessible. Don't wait until it's too late. Protect your loved ones today, tomorrow, and beyond with trust and will, the most trusted name and online estate planning.

go to trust and will.com slash bulwark to get 20% off. That's trust and will.com slash bulwark to get your 20% off. Trust and will.com slash bulwark. I don't get them to super communicators, but do you have, is there tangible advice like beyond what we've already talked about about, as I mentioned? Like, I think that there are a lot of people out there going to the no king's protest that want to do what you're suggesting. Absolutely. And are struggling to figure out how, right? Yeah.

And the advice I like to give to folks who. listen to this show, because they're listening and hearing about all these national problems all the time. And so, like, they want to help do their part to help solve them. But it's hard. Like, we had an election. New American people fucked up. Or it's going to be, you know, one, you know, one indivisible group on the north shore of New Orleans is like not going to be able to, you know, save the democracy, right? But you can do stuff in your community, right? Like, you can create these small nodes that kind of build. And I try to encourage you to focus on that. So do you have any advice from kind of your research on this? And you're exactly right. Look,

the indivisible group in New Orleans probably won't change what's going to happen, you know, later this year in midterms. But if they start working, they could change what happens in 2028. They could certainly change what happens in elections after 2028. This is a long-term strategy. And it's about building this local support. And there are groups that are doing this. There's a group called Down Home North Carolina, another one called Hoosier, who's your action? So when you look at what's happening in Minnesota, right, One of the reasons that's been so successful is because there's a group named Isaiah that's been organizing for over a decade there. And they're a big tent group.

They bring in people from East Africa, child care centers, farmers, college students. It's a big tent. And one of the things that they say, the organizer actually told me this, the person I used to run it, is that they don't take a position on things like abortion or trans rights. What they care about is they care about the issues that matter to their members. Things like, can I get Narcan for my relative who's on open? When it's too cold or too hot, how do I get to a safety center that will take care of me? It was that building, that long-term local organizing that made what happened recently against ice so successful.

I'd also say differentiate. I mean, like another lesson for, and I know you agree with this, just another lesson for me about TPSA. Why is TPSA successful? Because I lived through this, right? The college Republicans were not popular, right? No. When I was in college and right after I was in.

college, like the group seemed lame. It did not seem fun. They were very top down. You know, it was a group for people who were either like Christian ideologues or who wanted to work in politics. And there was a lot of stupid internal politics that cared more about looking in than communicating out, right? Like, this was it. Yeah. And TPA USA comes around and they have basically the same positions, right? But they're differentiated from this unpopular thing. That's exactly. And I do think there's a lesson there for Democrats right now. Like the Democratic brand kind of sucks. And a job for some Democrats in D.C. to fix. But like in the local level, like, you can create groups in your community that, like, are basically democratic, like have essentially democratic positions,

but are differentiated in the brand or the focus or the energy, right? And, and I think that that's, would be smart. No one in history has ever said, I'm going to that college Republican meeting tonight, because I want to find someone to hook up with. Right. That's, that, those words have never, on the other hand, when I talk to people, TPSA, when I talk to TPSA, like half the people I talk to were like, yeah, Actually, I joined because there were all these hot girls there, and I didn't really know how to talk to girls and I wanted to talk to them. Right? Like, TPA USA made conservatism sexy.

That's the hardest thing on the face of the planet. And if you're a college student, nothing gets you more motivated than going to something where you might get, you might get lucky. I'm going to have to have Will Slam around next week. We're going to spend an entire episode shitting on TPPUSA, because there's a lot not to like. There's a lot not to like.

There's a lot not to like. We're not talking about any of the ideology. We're talking about learning from the tactics. We're just talking about strategy. All right. I want to talk about the book, Super Communicators. Well, just for folks who aren't familiar with the book, just give the little reader's digest version. So we are living through this golden age of understanding communication because of advances in neural imaging and data collection for the first time we really understand what's happening inside people's brains when they communicate. And what we've discovered is that one of the big mistakes we make when we're having a conversation is that we think we know what that conversation is about.

Right. Like I'm talking to you about politics or I'm talking to you about where to go on vacation next week or you're talking to your husband about where to go to dinner. But when researchers look inside people's brains as they talk, what they find is that people are having all kinds of different conversations all at once. And in general, these conversations, they tend to fall into one of these three buckets. There's these practical conversations where we're making plans together or we're solving problems together.

And then there's emotional conversations where I tell you what I'm feeling, but I don't want you to solve my feelings. I want you to empathize. And then there's social conversations, which are a lot of politics conversations are this, where we're talking about identities, we're talking about what we think of other people, what matters to us as values. And what researchers have found is that if we're not having the same kind of conversation at the same moment, we cannot fully hear each other.

And so one of the big arguments of super communicators is there is a science to how we communicate. There are skills that we can learn to become better communicators. And when we learn those skills, it teaches us how to match each other better, have the same kind of conversation. And ultimately, even if we disagree with each other, we will feel more connected to each other as a result. It's hardwired into our brains. The emotional versus practical is a standard spousal disconnect. You know, when a husband would complain about something happening on his job, you know, at work. And like, I immediately go into crisis communications mode.

You know, it's like, okay, I can solve this, all right? And I find that not just with him, but like this is a constant mistake that I make because I immediately go to practical solutions. And a lot of folks just aren't really looking for that. They're just looking for, you know, somebody to connect with them on the thing that is annoying them. That's exactly. And in fact, they want empathy. They don't want your solution. They want your empathy.

And when I come home and I start complaining about my day, my wife will often say to me, do you want me to help you figure out how to solve this or do you just need to vent and get it off your chest? In other words, do you want to have a practical conversation or an emotional conversation? And actually, I love when she asked that. Like, it shows that she actually is like thinking about me. And I usually say like, no, I just need a vent. This is just so annoying. Or probably sometimes you haven't even thought about it.

You are just venting. That makes you think about it for a second. You're like, do I want a solution to this? Or do I want to, yeah. You're exactly right. And that's really, really important. So we are all super communicators at one moment or another. But there are some people who are consistent super communicators who can connect with anyone.

And one of the things that they do is they think about communication just a little bit more than the average person. There's other things they do. They ask more questions. They try and match each other people better. But simply thinking about communication seems to be the first and most important step to becoming a super communicator. And when my wife asks that question, when you reflect that like, oh, I probably shouldn't try and solve my husband's problems, you probably just need an event. What you're doing is you're thinking about conversation. You're investing in meta-conversation. And what we know is that that makes every single discussion. better. I want to do a little bit more of the life advice side of this, but I think this particular

example is applicable to the Democrats. This will be my last wrapping the Democrats on the knuckles of the podcast, but this gap between the emotional and the practical is something that you see a lot. It's the classic like white paper politics complaint about the Democrats, where it's like, hey, you know, people are concerned about affordability. This affordability is the timely one right now, where it's like you're already seeing this, where some Democrats think, okay, I'm going to say the word affordability,

and then I'm going to rattle off four things that we can do, you know, that'll make people's life. Exactly. And by the way, that's a good instinct. People should want solutions to the problems. But a lot of times folks listening,

like aren't really looking to hear about the four point plan. And back to Bill Clinton. Like, this is something that Bill Clinton was good at, you know, the classic, I feel your pain. So anyway,

talk about that gap and being intentional about it. Absolutely. I think it's really a stupid. the distinction you're drawing here, because people do want to hear that plan, but before they hear that plan, they want you to match them. They want you to have an emotional conversation. I was talking to someone who runs Hoosier Action, which is a group that coordinates and organizes rural voters. And one of the things she said is she said, you know, we have candidates come and talk to our groups. And when Democrats come out, someone will tell this heartbreaking story

about their kid overdosing on fentanyl and the room is just in tears. And the Democrat, the The first thing they always say is, let me tell you how I'm going to try and solve that. Here's the bill that I want to introduce into Congress. Because if I can introduce this, it'll help your son. And that just doesn't resonate. Now, when the Republicans come out, what the Republicans say is they say, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry for you. You know, I know exactly what you're going through because my brother-in-law, he overdosed on fentanyl.

I feel what you are feeling. But more often, they say, I'm fucking pissed about this, too. And you know, who's to blame is the Mexicans. That's right, right. I'm really pissed off. And here's the person we can be pissed at, right? Whether it's true or not. What they're doing is they're matching the person that is speaking emotionally.

And then they're saying, look, I'm so sorry this happened to you. I'm super pissed off. Can I tell you what I'm going to do about this, right? Can we move from an emotional to a practical conversation together? Republicans know how to do this so much better than Dems do right now. And part of it is because it comes from a religious tradition. We see more religious Republicans than others. You go into an evangelical church.

Most of the sermon is not about what Jesus says we should do about our life. Most of the sermon is about understanding the feelings of lust, understanding the feelings of temptation, understanding the feelings of anger or greed or envy. It's an emotional experience in an evangelical church. That's why people are drawn to it. This is Jesse Jackson who died recently. I was talking about this with Abby Philip. He was really good at that. He was really good at that also came from a church background.

Absolutely. makes sense. Yeah. That's why one of my, when Democratic candidates call me, like, what advice do you have? And I'm like, I, you know, I lost a lot of campaigns, so I've limited advice. But, like, the one thing I would say, at least for this moment, because I do know the audience is, like, there's so much to be mad about right now. People are mad. So, like, whatever you're mad about, just be mad. Like, just be mad with people on that topic. And that, that is, I think, what you're talking about as far as, like, matching. And that gets back to this authenticity, right? to like, like, if you're pissed off and I let you know that I'm pissed off too, and like,

having a solution doesn't change that I'm pissed off because I'm super frustrated. Right. Like, that feels authentic. Particularly in Congress. You hear this lot from people in focus groups. So like, I want my congressperson to be mad with me. I want my mayor to fix my street hole. Right.

You know, I want my congressman to be mad. Right. I want to see my emotions reflected. Because many of our emotions now are national emotions, right? We're getting angry or we're getting hopeful about national issues. And so I think we want our national politicians to be reflecting that. So one of the things that I mentioned super communicators do really well is that they tend to ask more questions than the average person. In fact, they tend to ask about 10 to 20 times as many questions as the average person.

And some of those questions are basically just invitations. Like, oh, would you think a last night's movie or like, what did you think about that? Like, there are invitations to the conversation. But some of the questions are what are known within psychology as deep questions. They're questions that ask us about our values or beliefs or experiences without necessarily seeming to ask about that. A great example of this is if you meet someone who's a doctor, instead of asking, oh, what hospital do you work at? You can ask them, oh, what made you decide to become a physician? Right?

That second question, it seems as innocuous as the first question. But what it's really doing is it's inviting that person to talk about who they are, about what they value. If you look at what Republicans are doing right now, they ask deep questions all the question. the time. And again, for anyone who hasn't been to a Donald Trump rally, it's worth going to, because even from the stage, he asks deep questions and he doesn't provide answers. He'll say things like, I wonder why they're, I wonder why they're so mean to me. Why do you think that they're so upset? Like, what do you think's going on there? Right. That's actually kind of a deep question. Like, what do you think of the other side? What do you think are the emotions that they're feeling?

What explains them? As Democrats, we feel like as leaders, people come to us for solutions and come to us for answers, but sometimes the most powerful thing we can do is to give voice to the right question, even if we don't know what the answer is. And I think there's a lot of value there. You say it's learnable. It's a big part about the book. People who are listening to this, we feel like they're not, they don't communicate as well in their life, whether it'd be work or family, et cetera. I'm not as sure about that after reading it. So pitch me on that. Oh, absolutely. The skills of super communicators are learnable. So if you talk to the best communicators. Let's take Bill Clinton as an example. And you ask them, have you always been a good

in communication? They inevitably say no. They say things like, you know, in high school, I had real trouble making friends. So I really had to study how kids talk to each other. Or in the case of Bill Clinton, my parents got divorced and it was awful. And I had to be the peacemaker between my parents who are warring with each other. No one is born a great communicator. We learn to become great communicators by just practicing these skills. And what happens is there's a handful of skills, matching each other on the kind of conversation you're having, asking deep questions. Another one we haven't talked about is proving that you're listening. So this thing known as looping for understanding where you show the person that you're listening, you prove to them

that you're paying attention. Those are all things that we can practice. And the book explains how to practice them. And what we know, you know, my previous book was the power of habit about how we build the habits within our psyche. One of the things that we know about communication habits is that communication skills become habits very, very quickly. If you practice, you practice, something like asking deep questions, the third or fourth day you do it, it's going to feel automatic. You're going to quit noticing that you're even doing it. And when we look at a great communicator, what we're really looking at is someone who's just thought about that skill a little bit more, has practiced it a little bit more until it feels automatic. And as a result, it seems

very authentic because it doesn't seem like they're trying to do something artificial. They're doing what comes to them habitually. Can't you tell when people are just trying really hard at it, though, it's not real. A politician I like a lot, and I wrote this an article, and I say this with love, and he knows that, so I can just say it as Jared Polis, who's the governor of Colorado, he'll tell you that he's, he was not a good communicator, he was awkward, and he's like, he's like, he was in college when he was 15 or something. I don't have a month from memory, right? So it's like the social communication, and he's practiced, and so he has improved, I think, it's better, but I kind of can tell he's using your tricks when he's talking to me.

and eventually does that like rub people the wrong way, I guess. Not if he's doing authentically. So like the question is, is he trying to pull one over on you? Like is he trying to pretend like he's the smoothest guy on earth and that like, no. No. What he's doing is he's saying like, you know what? I'm kind of awkward.

I'm kind of like a weird, a weird guy. But you are important enough to me that I'm going to do this thing that feels a little uncomfortable having metpolis and also a fan of his. Like I actually see that. You know, let's use another example, Gavin Newsom. So Gavin Newsome, when you. you meet Gavin Newsom one-on-one, he does not pretend to be someone besides who he is. You know that

Gavin Newsom is there to talk to you because he wants your vote, that if you say something, he's going to have listened to it. He really is there to tell you a story about himself, right? He comes off as slick. He never tries to be anything besides this person that he is. And the authenticity of that actually gives him credence. Right. Think about, you know, he still slicks his hair back. Like he's someone from the 1990s or 1980s. At any point, he could have Stop using gel in his hair, but he didn't because that's who he is. He doesn't present to be anyone else. So when he does turn to you and he says, look, I care about the same thing you care about,

tell me about your problem or tell me or I'm dyslexic and I know how hard it is for you to have kids who have special needs, you believe him because he hasn't been pandering to you the whole time. His inauthenticity is authentic. And that matters. as you mentioned, one of the elements of this is this matching, trying to match other parts of the type of conversation that they're having. And it's something that I think about hosting the show is that occasionally I overmatch, right? Like rather than having the type of conversation I want to have, if it's a very practical person,

I have to be conscious of, okay, like, can we nudge this person towards a more emotional conversation? Because overmatching then feels inauthentic and feels apple polishing, et cetera. And I just want to give you one, like, extreme example of this. Anybody who started to use these LMs, like Claude or ChatGBT, VT, they try to match you really hard, but they're computers and they fail. Oh, yeah. So talk about that line between, like, trying to get on the level of the person you're talking to versus coming off as, you know, whatever. So there's an important component of matching, which is not only am I trying to match you, I have to be invited. you to match me as well. It has to be a quid pro quo. It has to be a back and forth.

Right. And so I think it's fine if you're talking to someone really practical and you're asking this practical questions and say, look, you know, this all makes sense to me on a practical level, but there's some real emotions that I'm feeling right now. And I'm wondering what you're feeling because I know that these emotions are legitimate, at least for me. Right. When we announce our intention to move from one kind of conversation, what I'm doing in that case is I'm inviting you to join me. I don't put you in control the conversation the whole time. This is a back and forth. This is a quid pro quo. And that's actually one of the reasons why these LLMs, you know, there's all these articles about people falling in love with chatbots and

having relationships. If you look at the data, the relationship only lasts a couple of months. And it's because the chatbot never tries to invite you to match them. It only tries to match you. It's not a back and forth. It's them pandering to you. And we know what pandering feels like. So I think in those conversations, when we're having, and here's a great example, sometimes you go to a party and you get into that state where you're asking other person question after question after question and they're not asking you any questions in return. Here's what I do. I stop the conversation. I say, look, I've been asking you so many questions. I'm sure you have a ton of questions for me.

Let me give you a chance to ask me some questions. Does that work? Yeah, it works every single time. And what you'll find is that those people actually do have questions. They're just not good at asking questions. They need permission. They need an invitation to question you about something. It works every single time.

Because what I'm really doing there is I'm saying, this has to be a quid pro quo. I'm doing all the work and you aren't. And if they don't respond to it, then you can walk away from the conversation. Right? You know that this conversation's going nowhere. There's all these stories of Joe Biden telling like the same story over and over and over again to a group of reporters. and the stories are good. They're real stories.

I'm sure that Biden means them. But the fact that he's not paying any attention to who's in front of him, he's not asking for their feedback in the slightest about whether they already heard this story, whether they want to hear it again, that's what makes them seem inauthentic. That's what really turns reporters against him. So that makes me sympathetic to him

because my least favorite thing to do is when I start telling a story to somebody and realize halfway through that I've already told the story to him, I feel so embarrassed. I know, I know, but that's okay because that's authentic. If you stop and you say like, wait, have I already told you this story? Like, it actually shows that other person. Like, I care about you in this conversation.

Yeah, this isn't just about me. Spouten off. All right, I have another advice question for you. So I go into the Pierce Morgan show on the internet. Have you seen this? His news show. No, I haven't watched this show. No.

Okay. It's like he'll have on four clowns usually. It'll be like two right wing people. and then somebody that's like so far left that they are, you know, or kind of like a patsy, like a left wing person that's like not really that's smart. And then it'll be me. And so it'll be like, talk about what Trump did. And, you know, sometimes I do it just because I like to vent and I need to get,

I need to get the yelling out of my system. But other times I agree to do it because I feel like the topic is one where maybe people could be persuaded. You know, I was doing it a lot after the pretty and good shootings because I'm like, I think even a lot of Trump voters are against this. And so if I go into this space, maybe I can communicate in a way that resonates with a couple of people that are listening to it. Absolutely. I think I've mixed success on that as my self-report card.

What would your advice be to somebody like me going into those settings? So this has actually been studied a lot. In a polarized setting, how do we represent our side? And what researchers have found is that the number one thing that gets other people ready to listen to you, is to acknowledge the weaknesses on your side. So think for a moment, if you're talking to someone who's pro-life and they start the conversation by saying, look, I believe abortion is murder. Now, that being said, I want you to know, like, some of the people in this movement are nuts,

right? And I totally understand that in cases of rape, like, this is a complicated question. We have to, like, get into the details. At that point, what this person has said is some of the criticisms in your head about my side, some of them are legitimate. And I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, but I'm agreeing that a conversation is warranted. At that point, you trust that person so much more.

You're willing to listen to them so much more. And I mentioned this thing proving you are listening. The other tactic that works really, really well, and this happens in conversations, is simply repeating what the person told you and asking you if you got it right, right? Saying like, okay, here's what I hear you saying. Tim, you believe X and Y and Z,

am I hearing you correctly? When I do that, you can either say, no, you didn't understand me, or you say, yeah, I think you got what I'm trying to argue. And then I say, I don't agree with everything you said, but I think what you said has integrity to it. Let me tell you how I think about this now. If I prove to you that I am listening to you, you become something like 14 times more likely to listen to me in return. So that's, I think going on a Pierce Morgan show is a, is fantastic. And I think particularly if you go on the show and you say, Pierce, those guys on the other side, they're a little bit nuts, but they said two things that actually I think are right. But let me explain to you why the rest of it's wrong. That is so much more effective.

So me shouting, shut up, Brian, when the guy's name is Brandon, that's probably not right. That's not the right thing to do. It turns out. It's probably. Screaming him and calling the wrong name. Is that not the best move? That it has less effectiveness. All right.

Some of the commenters liked it. It's true. It's true. And in that case, you're not true. I don't know if I want anyone over, though. Okay. Well, we're going to keep working on that. You know, you've written this book now. You've been on the tour. It's been a year. Anything that people come up to you and say, hey, this was a tool that I didn't, that I actually, that I employed. And it was really helpful. So the overarching thing that I think I carried away from my reporting was there was this study called the people are probably familiar with it, the Harvard study of adult development,

where they tried to figure out what makes you like healthy and happy and successful when you're, reach 65 years old. And they looked at all kinds of things, like what diet you eat, how often you exercise, where you live, if you get married, if you stay married. They found that the only thing that really correlated with long-term success and happiness and longevity at age 65 is having at least a handful of close relationships at age 45. Because if you have a handful of close relationships at age 45, you're probably going to continue them. The most, the best thing you can do for yourself, the best thing you can do for this nation is to maintain close relationships, even if you've fallen out of contact with someone. There's someone you haven't talked to in two or three years and you've been

putting off calling them and saying, hey, let's catch up because you think the first five minutes is going to be awkward. And they are going to be awkward because you forgot their wife's name and you can't remember how many kids they have, right? But that's okay because if you call them up and you say, like, hey, like, I'd just love to catch up with you. And there's all this stuff that is going to feel dumb for me to ask, but I just want to ask about it. The next 45, minutes is going to be one of the best conversations you've had in the last week. And you are going to feel so good. You're going to feel so much happier. The more that we invest in our relationships with other people, the more that we invest in relationships with our neighbors, even if they put different

lawn signs on their lawn, the more that we build connections, the more successful this country is going to be. Because throughout history, our proudest moments are not when everyone agreed with each other. They are when people disagreed with each other, but we were able to figure out how to live alongside each other peacefully that brought us the American Revolution and the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. These are really important moments. I think this is especially true in person. I'm such an advocate for in person, you know, rather even do the phone call. Absolutely. Like one thing, an example of life is, especially if you're the type of person that is on business trips or whatever, I think about this. And I'm like, I'm in a city and I haven't seen somebody in seven years.

and you're like, it's just going to annoy them to want to go have a coffee or a drink with me. Opposite. It's great. Those are the best conversations. Somebody I haven't talked to in like 10 years. I happen to be in their town and we go have a drink. It's always great and enriching. And by the way, if they're not having a drink with you, they're just sitting at home watching another boring TV show.

Yeah. Like, no. And if they are busy, if they don't want to have a drink, they'll just say, oh, man, I'd love to, but I have to watch this TV show tonight. Next time, I've got to wash my hair. Right. Exactly. Yeah. No, it's, it's well worth doing.

All right. Do you have any criticisms for me? Any notes as I, uh, in my communications? No, you're fantastic. This is not a compliment fish. You've got to give me, uh, you got to give me a note. Okay. Okay. Let me think.

Um, I mean, I love the show. I like love what you do with the show. You know, I do, I will say, and, and this isn't true of just your show. This is, I think, true of the, of the shows that I listen to in the political spectrum that aren't far left. I do wish that there were more people who were genuinely enthusiastic about Trump who are given the space in a non-judgmental area to talk about why they're enthusiastic about Trump. I think it's a really interesting psychology. This is my self-critique as well. I don't think it's the audience's critique. I think that a big portion of the audience doesn't want to hear that, but that's fine,

but I want to do that. It's fucking hard. It's hard. It's hard. It's not hard to have the conversation. It's hard to get them to come on. Absolutely. It's hard to get people to come on that are comfortable enough that they aren't that they will do what you just said about how oh i'm going to acknowledge these two things or you know everybody gets their armor up and they feel like if they come on the show they have to defend their side 100 percent yeah and i don't want to have anybody on the show that's gonna lie like and that's true on the left i've cut left people off the show because i'm like you're just you're spinning and like there are plenty of shows to go on where you can spin for your side that's fine that's i don't i'm not against that in principle it's just that that's not what

i'm doing and so it's hard to find people i'm working on it i'm working on it i might have one coming on soon. Oh, good. It is harder than you think. I loved Ezra Klein and Ben Shapiro pot. I'll just say up here. I'm trying to get Ben to come on. I thought it was very interesting.

It was maddening at some points, but like, you know, you can glean some insights from it. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, part of it is because Donald Trump forces his people to lie to defend him. And this is one of the, we talked about the things that can be learned from mega. And this is, I think, a fatal flaw about any cult. Right. It's like he makes them lie to be in.

they're in good standing, but you know, about whatever it is, the election or anything. Absolutely. And so that makes it hard for people to stay in good standing and come here and be authentic. And that's tough. I completely agree. And you're right. Like in this, particularly in this time, it is really, really hard to have those conversations. That being said, when we set aside our concerns about platforming someone that we don't

agree with completely and we give them the space to make their argument and then we say, listen, I disagree. I think two things you said made sense to me. The rest of it I think is absolute nonsense and BS. Let me explain why. Those conversations are really important. Those conversations are the ones that help the people in the middle, to help the people who have made up their mind say, you know what? Now I understand this isn't about which team you're on. It's about what you believe and where you are on the spectrum. That's really powerful. That's when we win. That's when everyone wins. Thank you for the time, brother. Thank you for giving me a break from state to the union punditry.

No, absolutely. Absolutely. This is so much fun. So one thing is we're watching tonight, it'll be really interesting to see how much, when Trump seems like he's speaking authentically and when Trump seems like he's giving lip service. Because his followers, the people who love him, they are very attuned to that. And I think that folks on the left should be as well. Well, keep an eye out for that. It's Charles Deweig.

His book is called Super Communicators, The New Yorker article, What Maga can teach Dems about organizing. Appreciate you very much. Thank you. Everybody else will be live tonight if you want to suffer through it with me. Come check it out on YouTube or otherwise. We'll be back tomorrow with one of our faves. We'll see you all day. This podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.