The Bulwark Podcast - Morris Katz: Tax the Billionaires

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

The starting kit for a unified Democratic Party with the biggest, broadest tent should be calling out the billionaire class that is sabotaging our political system, our healthcare system, and driving up costs. Katz, the young media strategist who helped propel Mamdani to his historic win, says it's not enough for Dems to campaign on just hating Trump. Instead, they should take on Trump for breaking his promises about helping working people and being a peace president. Plus, Talarico's winning message in Texas, the risks of a horseshoe alliance between MAGA and the populist left, the algorithmic pipeline that feeds antisemitism, and Platner's appeal in Maine. Morris Katz joins Tim Miller.show notesTickets for our LIVE show in Austin on March 19: TheBulwark.com/Events.

Hello and welcome to the Bullard podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome to the show. He was the lead media strategist for Zoron Moundani's campaign for mayor. He's based on the Democratic Strategy Firm Fight Agency, where he's worked with other populist upstarts like Graham Platner and Dan Osborne. He used to lie about his age, but now he's comfortable telling people that he's 26 and a half years old. Morris Cats.

What's up, Morris? Nice to be here, Tim. And I'm two months until my birthday. So we're well into three quarters, ran. Yeah, 26. Three quarters. Yeah. Oh, wow, good for you.

Congratulations. I'm very happy for you. I hope I get invited to the party. We've got a bunch to talk about the Texas Senate primaries. We've got to talk about Graham and Zoron. But for people who aren't familiar with your lore, where did you come from? Like, how did a 26 and three quarters year old man end up as Zoron's wingman at the White House? Pretty randomly.

I grew up in Lower Manhattan. Both my parents are kind of in the arts or arts adjacent. I always thought that I was going to be a TV writer, screenwriter, a playwright like my father. And then was writing about kind of a variety of things and had written this profile about a woman who was running for office in North Carolina. I'd always liked politics, but it was kind of like a hobby following it the way. I followed the New York Knicks or something, but I never dreamed of being on the bench with the Knicks. And the candidate reached out to me afterwards and was like, this really captured my, voice and campaign vision, would you ever think about coming and working for me?

And it was during COVID, I was like... How did she find it? Did you post it? I was like writing a number of different things. I'd reached out to her because it seemed like an interesting story. And as soon as she read it, she was like, this is great. Which I guess is an interesting, like, avenue to get hired places to write glowing profiles about people. And I'd be like, can I have a job? But then went to North Carolina and, like, you really informed the part that I think you'd appreciate of it.

is we did this 100-county, 100-day tour that kind of inform my entire political identity in some ways. Of, like, you know, in hindsight, I was such an idiot. Of we, you know, kind of pushing the can of like, we should be talking about the Green New Deal and UBI. And, you know, we're in all these rural counties in North Carolina, 80, 20, Trump counties. And you see, like, you say, like, some of this language in people's eyes, you know, class over there, like, checked out. And by the end of the 100 County tour, we kind of tweaked a lot of that. So it was what I would argue is equally progressive or populist, but more in the lane that we as a party should be. If it would be like, we need to take on Duke energy because there should not be one energy monopoly ruling this city.

We're all North Carolina deserves better than a go-fund me health care system and a dollar store economy. We need a rural new deal because we should have universal broadband and post offices should have banking. So, you know, this kind of populism that actually would resonate and you'd see people's head shape. and standing up and clapping. And so that was kind of my formative experience. But while I was there, I started making videos and ads because I knew how because I worked on sets throughout my childhood and high school years and some of college years. And so then other people started hitting me up being like, hey, who made this video?

I was like, I did. And then one thing led to another. Then a colleague, Tommy McDonald hired me and was like, hey, you're starting to do some progressive stuff. I do a lot of progressive stuff. And I'm trying to win the 51st Senate seat in John Thetterman. Do you want to come work with me and do those things together? And I was like, hell, hell, yeah.

We're going to get back to Federman in a minute, too. I did do some research. I used to be an op-o man that North Carolina house race. It's important to have a good origin story. And I love that for you. Thank you. You did lose that like 63 to 30, though. I mean, you got really, but know why?

We were up in a poll three weeks out. And then APEC spent $3 million in the final three weeks of that race. $3 million. I'm not sure that, I mean, there's some powerful ads out there. made some powerful ads, but I don't know if a 33-point swing from a super PAC ad, I don't know. We can go back and relive what happened in that race. So you end up meeting Zerun. I kind of figured you guys were like old buddies.

You hang out a lot. Morris is everywhere with Zeran, but that's not true. He asked you to come onto the campaign, or how'd that happen? He asked to get a cup of coffee. We were introduced by a mutual friend, Jeff Simpson. I remember kind of being skeptical of like, oh, can a 33-year-old Muslim socialist become the next mayor of New York City?

And within five minutes, I was like, this guy can become the ex-Mayor of New York City without a doubt. You've talked to him. He's got like, you either have it or you don't. And I think, like, people don't like to talk about that side of politics, but it's true. And he has it.

You know, a lot of people, I think, particularly for offices like mayor, it's kind of like, oh, I'm running for this office because this is an office that's open. And he had such a distinct analysis of how this office could be used to address an affordability crisis. And it was just like, you know, sometimes in those first meetings, you ask you candidate, why are you running? And you get like, well, you know, blah, blah. And it was just.

This happened to me with Scott Walker. It sounds like the inverse of my meeting was Scott Walker when he was governor of Wisconsin. I was like, why do you want to be president? And he gave me like a UW LaCross College Republican stump speech. And I was like, wait a minute. And then at the end of it, he's like, aren't you supposed to help me with that? I was like, I'm 27. Hey, no, you can't.

That's a shit on 27-year-olds, though. I know, but you're running for president. Yeah. Okay. So you and Zoran, he has it, you become pals. I start running the long-shot campaign or being the ad guy for it. You're supposed to be on last week, I should say, but you snubbed me for Donald Trump. Because we had scheduled you to be here the day that Zoron was going to Trump, see Trump, and you wanted, you just wanted to hang out again.

It was your second time at the White House with Zon? I thought why hang out with a rhino when I can hang out with a real Republican who never backed away from what they believed in? That's fair. Or a pop to somebody that you have some populist affinities for. We're going to get to that in a second. What was it like? I mean, you go twice. It's got to be strange.

You know, the entire experience with the mayor has been surreal. And you find yourself in a lot of positions you never imagine being in. And I think, you know, and this one was, you know, the mayor's chief of staff, L and the mayor. and President's chief staff and the president in the Oval talking through the kind of, you know, details of some of the stuff that's been laid out. It's crazy to see, and I think I'm still processing it anyways, the way which so much of the kind of political universe, I think, does now revolve around the mayor of New York in a way that he's someone who no one knew who he was a year ago and it, you know,

constantly feels like a fever dream. What was the plan for Trump the first time? The second time, I assume you kind of had your sea legs a little bit. I kind of knew what you're going to get into. But like the first time, Trump does these things where he bring, and you saw it having a poor Gretchen Whitmer. You know, she's there in the Oval Office to try to get a, I forget, now it's been a while.

I think it was a military base, you know, for Michigan. And next thing, you know, Trump's doing an executive order, you know, talking about how he wants Chris Krebs to be put in jail and she's hiding behind a vanilla folder. Like, you don't know what's going to happen, right? Like, he's all right, like he's all right, could have gone in there and Trump could have said that he's sending the troops into Queens, you know, probably not Queens, so sometimes saying the troops into Harlem, you know,

to find the Dominican, whatever, you know. And how did you kind of plot that out, how to navigate that? I think one thing, like, surprises people continuously about the mayor is, and I think this is the kind of thing, like, you would agree with or else where it's like, his job is to tangibly improve the lives of New Yorkers. And he's, like, pretty relentlessly focused on that. And so I think there's like, you know, if you strip everything else away, it's like Donald Trump is the president of the United States. We don't have control over that at this moment.

We fuck that up when we had the chance. And so the president of the United States has an incredible ability to improve or decrease the quality of life for New Yorkers. And it like, you know, I think in the kind of public portion of that meeting, you saw the mayor relentlessly pivot back to what can we find in common to address the affordability crisis in New York to improve the quality of life for New Yorkers, to keep New Yorker. are safe. And that was not dissimilar to if you heard any of the private conversations. It was like, we're not going there to change Donald Trump's politics. We're not going there to, you know, argue about all the very public areas of disagreement. It's, we're going there because you're the mayor of New York. And your job is to make life better for New Yorkers. Yeah. I mean, that obviously worked out. And luckily, as you mentioned, he's got it. He's charming.

There had to have been some red lines, though, right? Like, I mean, what if Trump, I know. if Trump was out there, you know, talking about how Haitians are eating dogs and cats, you know, in Harlem, I have to assume that Zoron's response to that wasn't going to be. Well, that's possible, sir, but I'm really just looking forward to lower to making housing and rent more affordable for the dog eating Haitians, right? Like, that wasn't going to be the answer. No, yeah, that would not have been the scripted response. Now, I think, like, again, like, this is even being clear in the public parts where it's like,

there's a lot of room for, I'm going to be like, Mr. President and I disagree. with that in every front, I think it's offensive. I think it's racist. I don't accept talking about my constituents like that. I'm here to talk about how we can build more housing, how we can lower the cost of groceries, how we can address the affordability crisis we both ran on. I think what's made the mayor's coalition so large is this pretty simple premise and Donald Trump is the most extreme example of it, but we can disagree on a lot of different things, but that shouldn't preclude us from focusing on areas of potential agreement. And that's like the fun. fundamental nature of coalition building.

When you're in there the second time, Trump does like to ask random people that he likes for their opinions on things. Did Zoran get or you get quizzed about the Iran war? Because you were there right before. Iran did not come up. Iran didn't come up. Was Marko wasn't around? You didn't chat with him.

Yeah, it was all focused on New York. There was the Colombian young woman that had been detained that Zoran had talked to President Trump about, you know, the ice had stormed into a Columbia dorm. and detained her. And there are a couple other people that he mentioned. She got released. There was some chatter on social media that you brought the picture of her because she was pretty good looking and that Trump maybe gave her amnesty because of that.

Is that what happened? The only printout brought was of the daily news covers. Who came up with the daily news? Did you do the daily news cover? That was that was the mayor. I always say like people always like, you know, oh, like you're strategy. I'm like, it's like coaching Michael Jordan. You know, like, that's not to say, like, Phil Jackson's not a great coach or anything, but it's like Michael Jordan's getting 35 a game no matter what.

You're comparing yourself to the Zen Master now? You're comparing yourself to the Zen Master? Wait till you see my Montana ranch and what I do when I take over the New York next one I'm 70. So no, so it wasn't her hotness. It was Zoran just compelled him that he should. The compelling argument of our shared humanity, Timothy. Wow. I'm not sure if I believe about that.

Here's my concern about the meeting. Can I offer this to you? Here's my concern about how he handled it. Because I agree with everything you said in the micro, right? He's the mayor of New York, and he's got an obligation to his constituents, including that young woman. And thank God she's out. And, you know, hopefully you can make things more affordable for people in New York. Like that said, he also is like an avatar now for this kind of left politics.

And I worry that there is like a horseshoe alliance against just regular liberals that gets formed where Zoran and Trump are kind of chumming it up and, you know, younger people in particular who like don't like the establishment and don't like the Democratic Party and don't, you know, think that liberals are incompetent, are like, hey, look at these guys. You know, they're both outsiders fighting, fighting the corporate establishment. And that in some way, it kind of, I don't know, like provides some cover for Trump and for MAGA folks. Does that, do you guys think about that. So worry about you at all. I think it's obviously like a valid like personally my part is like I don't fully disagree with the analysis. Like I think I think the president oftentimes is not delivering on any of

those things that he ran on. But I do think like in general the kind of what you're defining here is like the liberal wing or the neoliberal wing of the party has been like totally ineffective and has failed a lot of people. And I think showing you know, I think like when we talk about like the swing voter or a persuadable voter, it's oftentimes still framed and like, we're talking about like the suburban mom who had voted for Romney, then voted for Hillary. And it's like, if we've seen anything, we've seen that like, that's not a sustainable electoral coalition. And that the actual, like, swing voters are a lot of the people who, you know, you're referencing here, who frankly are already there on Trump, on the president. Like the mayor going and doing some, you know,

creating some big scene or isn't going to then suddenly make them dislike the president. That's where they are, but I think the mayor going and showing, hey, Democrats can talk about affordability too. Democrats can be concerned about an affordability crisis. Democrats can roll up their sleeves and get to work and want to get things done and engage and meet them on platforms where they are. Actually, like, opens a door to craft to maybe the Democratic Party is redeemable. Maybe there's some Democrats I'm willing to vote for and kind of, you know, creates a lane of communication that doesn't exist otherwise. And I think, like, the horseshoe exists for voters. And it's a question of whether our politicians are ever going to meet them there as well.

I don't know. I guess I just said this when it happened. If you have an alternate universe, a bizarre world, where Hakeem goes to the Oval Office and smiles with Trump. And at the end of that, the outgrowth of it is, hey, we've got 12,000 new houses that are being built. I think that a lot of the left populist anti-establishment types would be like, fuck you, Hakeem. Like, screw this.

Like, that's like, you went and met with the facts. And you got 12,000 houses out of it, the corporate shills, you know? And so I maybe that's just, you know, the nice part about working for Michael Jordan. I think that's fair. But I also think like, there's a reality of their positions where it's like the mayor is not in charge of negotiating the budget for the U.S. federal government or something. You know, it's like, this is the area where there's room for collaboration and it kind of is under his job description. I also think there's a, you know, a sense of the mayor going with purpose. And I think a lot of times the thing that's felt frustrating about democratic leadership

and its engagement with Trump is like, I can't even articulate back to you what the plan is. And it's like agree with it or disagree with it. You can articulate back to me. Like the mayor went in with an agenda to get someone released with an agenda to get an agreement on housing. And sometimes you watch those like with the war like Democrats put out the, you know, I think it leaked.

It was like in 36 hours, emergency virtual. caucus meeting. And like, that's not the world we live in anymore. How is there not an immediate emergence of your hogs? How is there not, like, I think it's the incoherence that sometimes draws the year. Here's one example of that where I'll agree with you. This was yesterday Chuck Schumer talking about the war itself. Look, no one wants a nuclear war. No one wants a nuclear Israel, but we certainly don't want an endless war, plain and simple. What did I say? Oh, no, got it.

Let me say that again. No one wants an endless war, but we certainly don't want a nuclear Iran. That's for sure. So there you go. Chuck's point there is that he has the gaffe about nuclear Israel, which is kind of like the kids. It has to be in the running for, yeah, Freudian slip of the monk easily. And then he says no one wants an endless war, which to me is like the, wrong construct for this if you're a Democrat on the hell right now because I don't think any

Democrats like won a one day war with Iran they didn't want to go in at all and so it like feels like he's like leaving the door open for him I kind of speaks to your point about what was like someone had a discrete task and it's like what is he even asking for here the message is very muddled I've been shocked by the degree that a lot of Democrats have focused in on the lack of congressional intervention or approval when on the verge of starting a war and being like my issue with this war is I didn't have the opportunity to vote for it is crazy and even like the people who are just like how come you know Congress needs to vote on this now it's like how is how would you vote you're not even saying in your tweets and your statements or in your cable news hits how you'd

vote and is indicative of this like total blob mentality where there's just such a like broken see mind thing of like the real outrage here is that we haven't weighed in on the war and it's like how could you be so far removed from what anyone's thinking and I think also you have like and you know I think like you're seeing what you're seeing with like Barry Weiss at CBS or something is just you know that the drumbeat of war and seeing a party that seems totally incapable of understanding maybe it's our obligation to be making the arguments against this war even where people are already naturally trending, but it's like there's this kind of waiting to see where the polling is going to come down thing that I think is just so insane. It's like, no, it's the easiest argument to make.

It's the morally necessary argument to make. Just make it. And instead you get this like Chuck Schumer. We shouldn't have a nuclear Israel. We shouldn't have a nuclear Iran. We shouldn't have endless. It's like what like, no, the presidents ran on delivering an era of peace and affordability. And instead, costs are going up and he's dragging us back into the Middle East. It's a slam dunk political message. And whatever, like, whatever the opposite of coaching Michael Jordan is is what it feels like watching Chuck Schumer, where it's like an open layup and he's just missing and missing and, you know, bobbling the ball around. I keep saying this because I'm like, maybe it'll help break through to the Democrats that listen to me or watching Nicole Wallace.

It's like, I used to be, I'm a neocon. Like, I want freedom for the Iranian people. And I'm even like, this is crazy. This is crazy. It's just just no war for Iran. John Bolton was like, hey. No war. Like they don't have a plan. It was a horrendous idea. They shouldn't be doing it. It's a betrayal of his voters. It's going to make things more expensive. No. No. Yeah. It is the easiest possible message every single person agrees on except for a handful of the most powerful Democrats in the country.

The other element to all of this to the Chuck Schumer gaffe about how we don't want a nuclear Israel is the question of Israel, which obviously was. strangely central in the New York mayor's race. My podcast contributed to that a little bit. When I asked Iran about globalizing the defada, we'll get back to that in a second. But, you know, I thought one of his best answers in the debate was when they were asking about who's going to visit Israel and everybody else was like,

I will and so on. And it was like, I'm just going to stay in New York. I'm not planning any trips. But how did you, you're Jewish and like, you know, kind of navigate like that becoming so central to this race, where like Zoran's strong position on the war, on the Gaza war, ends up making this, you know, kind of a New York mayor's race that's like partly about what's happening in New York, but partly about like these other issues. Like, how did you guys navigate that? I think the part to me that was both, I think, telling and frustrating at times is, you know, the mayor, when asked about the stuff, was always honest and direct with where he is in his position and has a long record of being outspoken on this issue. But like, we held zero press conferences being. like, know what we want to do today. We want to talk about, we running for mayor of New York City,

want to talk about what's happening in Gaza. Or we want to talk about it. Like, he'd be asked about it. He'd comment, you know, there are things he'd call it on social media that were clear. But it was really like the Cuomo campaign and some of the other kind of, you know, mainstream media and others that were obsessed with this issue. And I think it then became this kind of circular effect where I'd hear from people in my life would be like, all Zoron's talking about this. Israel. And it's like, no, no, he's having a press conference on fast and free buses. And he's getting six questions about Israel. And Andrew Cuomo is sending three press releases a day about Israel. That debate moment to me was like indicative of the campaign in its entirety, where it's like,

you have like Andrew Cuomo a handful of people kind of screaming from the rooftops, well, this guy is calling it a genocide. And then you have like the voters of New York kind of being like, well, yeah, it seems like a genocide. And also, why are you talking about it so much? And it's like a little, you know, it's like, I feel like it's the reverse where people were like, well, Zoran just can't shut the fuck up about Israel. And it's like, no, no, Andrew Cuomo can shut the fuck up about Israel because there's this disconnect with like the, you know, it's all you're hearing from like the donor class and from powerful special interests. And it's actually like, I think where the, you know, there are a handful of voters who have very strong feelings on both sides.

I think what the average voter is is like, why do my politicians seem like a little incoherent when they're talking about this? And why are they talking about it so much? it feels fake. The way that it did connect to New York is a local issue is like concerns about anti-Semitism. Like there were anti-Semitic attacks in New York, there have been an uptick in that recently for a while. I've read some of the other interviews you did where you talked about how you had like family members that were like worried about this and you know finger wagging you about Zoron's perceived role in that. Like how did you guys process that? Like what did you feel like your responsibility was around like the question of?

of not what was happening in Israel, but like anti-Semitic threats in the city? I think, and I continue to believe, like, not only is, obviously, is the mayor like a hundred thousand percent committed to combating anti-Semitism as aggressively and openly as possible, but also that he's someone who's uniquely able to do it and that, you know, he has credibility because of his universal ability to call out hate and bigotry and human rights violations. and so there's no more credible messenger on these things than that. And I think, you know, and he'll say this, is that there's sometimes, I think,

in the kind of social media clip era, there's a obligation to say everything all the time sometimes. You know, it's like there'll be a clip where he's asked about something, and in the clip he's responding to the question. And then people are like, well, you didn't say Hamas is a terrorist organization. And so he says, you know, he said it a million times. He didn't say it in that one clip, but then that clip circulating,

and it creates this kind of hysteria on the kind of, of personal front, it's just, it's a deeply frustrating experience, kind of getting in these interactions around like, this is someone who I know, this is someone who I love, this is someone who, I know there is, you know, not a bad bone in his body who so deeply thinks about these things and cares about these things and feels these things. Yet you're telling me, because you saw like some kind of chopped up clip on social media, who he is, is a little grading at times. But you guys are aware, I mean, look, this has been any campaign more aware of the social media, like obligations and opportunities and you guys and I in some ways I would point this out in your defense

a lot of times like he was obviously conscious of posting condemnations when there were anti-semitic acts in New York and like look there are bad things that happen in New York to people of every race and you know religious background every day like it's a big fucking city lots of bad stuff happens so he can't post a tweet every time something bad happens to somebody but like it seemed like he was conscious of that, which was important. Absolutely. What I mean by the social media thing is merely like the nature of algorithms. We post those.

Like I would have the conversations with people and they'd be like, why didn't he condemn ABC? And I'm like, he did. And I'd pull up the statements, but it's like their algorithms aren't feeding them that. Their algorithm they're feeding them a video of him. And it's like, you know, the kind of construction of breakthrough into some of those bubbles. Here's something I worry about the algorithm. I'm wondering your perspective. I feel like a little bit as a Catholic, this feels like fake.

You know, as a cradle Catholic, it feels like why am I, you know, imputing this concern onto you rather than you just doing it. But you have, you have like a, your family has a fake Jewish crest. You have a fake Jewish crest tattoo. Yeah. Do you show us? It's not a Nazi tattoo. There's no skull.

No, fake Jewish curse. It is, yeah, a cat's family crest because Jews could have crests too. You understand it. I like the algorithmic thing that I worry. about as I see it is and it's kind of related to the horseshoe conversation about Zonar going to the White House is that there are a lot of left folks who had legit obviously outrage and anger and sadness about what was happening in Gaza and so they're consuming a lot of social media about that the images from Gaza or advocates or commentators talking about how bad it was and then all

the sudden in their social media algorithm like they started to get Candace Owens and and Nick Fuentes and Stu Peters, you know, because they were saying similar things about Gaza, but then they also are actual anti-Semites, actual right-wing hate longers. And like you see people, like I have friends of friends who have like gone down this pipeline from I'm very concerned about Gaza to now I think that like the Epstein files showed that grape soda was a code for child sex trafficking and that the Mossad killed Charlie Kirk. And like that's like a real pipeline. And I just wonder if you felt like you guys have like some at least obligation to try to be a dam in that pipeline and at least talk about that kind of stuff more just for that reason.

Yeah, absolutely. I think like to me it's what's dangerous. My biggest pet peeve, like as a Jew, is the very deliberate lane of messaging that makes no distinction between Zionism and Judaism. it makes that a lot easier. You know, if you're one of those people and you're scrolling and then you're scrolling, you see 80% of Democratic politicians, whatever, saying things like, it's anti-Semitic to say it's a genocide. And then you're suddenly, you're someone who's there who believes of genocide.

You're like, all right, well, then call me and anti-Sem, you know, like, it opens this door a little bit. When there's this, there's, if you're critical of Israel, you're critical of the Jewish people. And if you want to support the Jewish people, you need to be in, you know, lockstep with Israel, I think creates the permission structure for that. And so I think there's an obligation of the kind of anti-interventionist pro-Palestine left, you know, to constantly be articulating the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism because we need that to exist and to be clear. And so there's an obligation there.

But I also think there's an obligation like what I'd say to Chuck Schumer, if he was on this call with us, which would be a good thought we should do that at some point. Yeah, the three of us would be like, you say you care so deeply about Israel's safety and Israel's right to exist, you are putting it at risk by conflating all these different things, by pretending that there's not a massive distinction between Netanyahu and between a democratic vision of what government should look like

or between the Jewish people and Israel. I agree with the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I also think this. I can't see what's in random people's heart on social media, certainly when they're not showing me their face and it's just, you know, whatever, like a random anime avatar. But sometimes when I'm looking in my replies and people are saying the word Zionist, it doesn't seem like it's really just a critique of BB Netanyahu.

You sometimes see Zionists thrown around a little willy-nilly and with a malice that I can understand that might make people a little uncomfortable. My feeling on it sometimes is not all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism certainly at moments manifest as anti-Zionism. Right. And I think like, you know, there should be. room to condemn it where it is such. One more thing on Zoran, then I'll get to national stuff. I've been noticing something about Zoran that he's been doing some stuff that I like. And I don't want to get you into too much trouble.

I have a list of a few things. Supported Kathy Hokel over Delgado, kind of an intra-family fight. Some of the working families party, people have been mad at them. He didn't go to their protest of Hocal. He's stranded up to a couple trade unions even a couple times. homeless camps are being swept. We're doing some abundancy stuff. We talked about that.

Me and him on this podcast. He's doing some abundancy stuff. He kept Tish. I keep seeing him do some things that are like pretty pragmatic and I don't want to say it almost technocratic centristy at times, sometimes, a few things. My theory of the case is because he was so strong on economic populism on Gaza, he has a lot more room to maneuver on this type of stuff than if it was somebody else. I'm wondering what you think of that assessment.

I think a lot of it's also just the nature of an executive position where, like, it's not, you know, Congress where you're just getting to pick what handful of bills you're in a sponsor or something. There's the day-to-day realities of governing and leading a city. And I think, like, reality of centrist is what you're saying. I agree with that. That's true. Like, Bradley Tusk at some point said in the general election, he was like, you know, when you talk to him, he seems like a technocratic socialist. And, like, those with more leftist roots would say, like,

like it's sewer socialism. And then it gets one in the same things we're talking about. I called him a libertarian socialism the other day when he was defending my right to have a snowball fight. So we saw that was a great clip. And my second favorite clip to you telling Hakeem Jeffries to rip the Band-Aid off. But what makes him a uniquely good leader is the belief not just in like big government, but that for us to have big government, we need to have excellent government. And like it's not just about the kind of willy-nilly expansion of social services, but it's about every single day government firing on all cylinders and like, you know, paving the bump over the Williamsburg Bridge, delivering more housing at a faster rate, all these different, like how can, you know, all the kind of plowing stuff around the storms, how can there be a government of excellence every single day and that that can lead us to a place where we're no longer a party or a country that's being apologetic about the world government plays because government's excellent and it's helping people's lives.

And I think, like, I mean, you know, Governor Hokel to, like, I think the partnership there is a good example of, like, you know, what the big tent party can look like. Where it's like, they don't need to agree on everything. They agree on building more housing. They agree on delivering universal child care. They agree on keeping New Yorkers safe. They want to take on the affordability crisis. Like, that's who, that's, you know, who we should be. Yeah.

I should have mentioned, we're even streamlining environmental review for housings. I mean, you know, all of a sudden, I'm getting, I'm getting a thrill up my leg. All right, let's do some national politics. Texas primary last night. James Telerico wins a little more handily than I think people expected. And that primary over Jasmine Crockett, I saw it posts that you posted about that, talking about how this is a win for top-bottom politics, which is an interesting term of phrase. I saw your pause there, and I was like, let's see if we get through this tweet without interruption.

I mean, that's just not probably. I don't know. Well, here's a good thing. I think that there are too many gays running social media accounts for Democrats. Do you agree with that? I can't speak to the exact numbers on that. You can't speak to that. I think they're just, we love the gays, but sometimes I don't know why every

675-year-old Democrat is tweeting like, yes, queen, RuPaul memes. Okay, like I just, I think that we need authenticity in our communication. I do agree with that. Anyway, obviously you guys don't have, in Tala Rico, didn't have a gay running this because I think that they might have tried to rebrand it a little bit. That said, talk to me about why you. were drawn by the Tala Rico campaign and his message. Now I'm just like so focused on not talking about top first bottom politics that I can.

I don't even have any other thoughts. Again, like the, you know, I think a lot about the big tent thing. And I think it's oftentimes used in like the worst possible way. You know, if people were like, oh, big tent politics, that's why we need, you know, to elevate Joe Manchin and why we need to elevate Kirsten Gillibrand. And like, I'm interested in the tent. Like I think James Tarrico is indicative of, you know, he talks about these issues very differently then a grand platinum or then Azoramontani or then the, you know, Dan Osborne or something.

But he has the same hypothesis, which is the fundamental issue in our country right now is a consolidation of power and wealth at the very top, and everyone else is being screwed. And I think if you're someone who has that theory of what's going wrong, which resonates with everyone. Everyone's feeling it. Everyone's thinking it. Polls say it, focus groups say it, anytime you talk to any human being, they're feeling it. And if we're able to start there, anything's possible. who I think brought a unique lens to that and a unique theory of it. And I think it was like a good primary in terms of indicative of this just like,

are we just going to be the like fuck Donald Trump party or are we going to have a fundamental theory of change in power? And thank God that side won one out. Fuck Donald Trump is appealing. What grade would you give the Jasmine Crockett campaign? I think it was the second worst Democratic campaign of like the Trump era. Luckily for her Cal Cunningham. except the creepiest sex that I've ever seen.

Or not even creepiest. They just were like the lamest. If it was a dick pick, he would have won. Yeah. If you're going to get caught sending sex to somebody that's not your wife, like at least have some swag. And that was not top bottom politics. No, it was.

It was bottom politics. So, yeah, no, Jasmine had no message for people. She had no message for Trump voters. I think that there is a way to do a fuck Trump campaign that would probably not work that well in 2020. they'd work fine in 2026, which is that Trump betrayed you. Trump betrayed you. Trump sucks.

Like Trump said that he was going to care about the forgotten man and working people, but all he's done instead is build himself a new ballroom and give himself random trophies and, like, decide he wants to overthrow foreign governments. Like, that's not what you signed up for. He sucks. You should vote for me instead. We're going to actually care about you. Right.

Like, that's a message. But like, Jasmine didn't seem able to articulate that. Okay. I think even that message, though, still has that kind of starting analysis of like, people went to Trump because they were frustrated with an economy that wasn't working for them. And instead, he's doing this other shit that's not delivering on that. And it kind of starts from that point. It felt like the, you know, Rocky campaign, like, I think it's indicative of like a certain

block of kind of liberal component of the party. It's all of the second half of what you said without the first. You know, it's like, we hate Trump because he's doing them. He's building a ballroom and he's giving himself trophies. And we hate Trump because he says a dumb thing. And it's like, no, no. we hate Trump because he betrayed, you know, like, you can't do the second part without the first part. The thing that Tala Rico has working for him so far, we'll see how well this lasts for the general.

I'll talk about that in a second, but he was on the right side of what I'm calling the Kamala conundrum. And the Kamala conundrum was this, which is that people like me, not me, particularly, because I was very happy to vote for Kamala. Couldn't have been more happy to vote for Kamala. But the voters who come from a more kind of whatever, capitalist center-left background, center or even center-right background, they looked at Kamala and saw California liberal. And the progressive folks that come, you know, from your ideological perspective, looked at her and saw a centrist corporate chill, right? So, like, she was in the sour spot. And I think that Telarico has found the right positioning, which is that lefty people look at them and say, well, not exactly, not the Bernie of my dream. but he at least seems to get it.

And centrist people look at him and say, well, you know, he's maybe a little too left on some stuff, but like he, you know, he at least speaks to my concerns, right? And how do you, like, being on the opposite side of me of this, of navigating this paradox,

like, how do you tell your candidates to try to navigate that? Well, I think, like, and I think you're self-aware on this, obviously, like, you are the myth of the voter that people think that they're chasing and they're like four of you. You know, it's like,

if we can reach that Tim Miller voter. Well, and we've already switched. This is the other thing I keep telling Democrats, by the way, and they call me. I'm like, sorry, my people, there was a trait. Like, it happened already. Like, the version of me that is an actual voter lives in the Atlanta suburbs. They voted for Evan McMullen in 2016. Then they voted for Lucy McGrath, Ben Osloff and Warnock and Biden and Kamala.

They're Democrats already. You don't need to talk to them anymore. They've traded. My people have already been, have already switched over. There were more than four of us, but like, it's already happened. So now you've got to find a new type of work. No, I think, like, that's like, the like, Mumdani-Platon-Talryko coalition,

for lack of a different way of putting it, I think is you get like the populism that speaks to the left and also speaks to kind of harder to ideologically define, you know, not super politically engaged, but like working class voters who are just like, yeah, I'm mad that costs are going up. I'm mad that politicians don't seem to give a shit. You don't seem like a politician.

You seem like you understand that I'm, angry and you kind of get that larger appeal. And then also you get like even the more kind of, you know, moderate conservative, where there's a real kind of change element to it. You're not a part of this establishment that's frustrating. You know, like the kind of moderate or independent thing, I think it's like, that's not coming from a place of I just want someone right down the middle. I just want someone who's like really cozy in a Wall Street room. It's coming from a place of like, I fucking hate both parties. And the more you can feel like someone who's not a part of both parties, you open that lane or not being born out of that party establishment. I think

Tarrico does that. I think Graham does that. I think Zon does that. That's the kind of way to hold that longer coalition together instead of like making sure we're fully locking down the Tim Miller voter. Thank you. I appreciate the compliment about my self-awareness. I am self-aware that Democrats shouldn't try to appeal to me. I worry about your people's self-awareness a little bit on one element, which is how well left populism works in red states when also paired with lefty social values across the board. And the Tala Rico thing, for example, I'm optimistic. Can Paxton wins?

It's possibly he can win in Texas. People making jokes about the god as non-binary thing. I think that's kind of silly. I don't know that anybody really cares how much about, you know, I think the people who are very committed to God having a penis were not really getable voters for Democrats. don't think anyway. But I also saw a clip of him doing a sermon recently where he's talking about the importance of making sure we have abortion protections for trans people. And I'm just like, I don't want to ban anybody. I'm not for the Texas abortion bounty law or any of the stuff,

but like I don't know that it's actually true and that there's any evidence that just being a left-wing populism works in Red America if you also are down-the-line part of the cultural left elite. And I'm wondering what you think about that. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. And I think I get like straw-man in this sometimes by the like Iglesiases of the world. And I think to me, it's the left-wing populism and the way we're talking about the economic stuff is not the end-all-be-all. It's just a starting place for viability. and everything else should be flexible off of the specific place you're running and off of the electorate you have and the communities you're in. And, you know, if you're starting from a place of billionaires are bad, billionaires are fucking over our political system.

Big pharma is driving up to cost of health care. Big ag is fucking us on our grocery costs. We need to take on corporations. We need to tax the rich. Like, then I think, you know, that's kind of the starter kit that you should be able to be flexible out of. That should be the kind of unifying tent of the party. And then everything else is localized and you should meet voters where they are and not talk about things that are losing issues and, you know, treat it with grace and not sound like a coastal elite.

You should sound like wherever the fuck you're running from. Why don't any of those people exist, though? I guess it's like my issue. It's hard for me to think of an example. Like to me, it's like every populist candidate in the fight, your group of Avengers there with Osborne and Platner. Zoron, as I'm talking to New York, but you get on the list and like they're all just like down the line. Their positions on cultural issues are indistinguishable from the positions on cultural issues of any 55 year old MSNBC watching Ivy League graduate boomer.

Like there isn't a really good example of like lefty populace who also are like, man, I'm really, you know, I also really support cops. I really care a lot about the border. And you ran the ads with Osborne about the border, but when I interviewed him, it's not done, he doesn't seem that passionate about it. Well, that's like, I mean, you know, Grand Planner is a gun owner. Like, we're, he's a gun owner. Does he, does he have any different policy views on guns, though, than Hillary?

I think so. I don't think so. I'd have to do a deep dive on that 2016 on with her platform. But I think so. And I think, like, well, you know, there are a lot of examples that we'll see over the course of, you know, We're still early in the cycle. Okay. But I think there's also, in addition to, I think you're right that there does have to be some policy distinctions in some places.

I also think there's an element of like, how much are you talking about what? And I see like, you know, I think like, even with the mayor, I think people took the wrong lesson in some ways. But now people are like, I'm adding on affordability as the sit after the fourth comma in my catchphrase. And it's like, no, the whole thing is that he was saying this is my thing. And then that creates a permission structure to be like, okay, I don't agree with him on this, but he's saying he's sold. focused on this. And I think like when you're going around campaigning nonstop and all these different things, if you have a clear rationale for running, like the reason Kamla to me was so vulnerable to the, you know, Trump's for you, she's for they, them attack is because no one knew

who the fuck she was for. And if she actually had a credible thing that she was for, I think it bounces off of you differently. Then yeah, sure, that's the best articulation I've heard of who she's for. I couldn't be more with you on like a lot of the established Democrats now, like just use the word affordability as an amulet. And like, sometimes they even like read the show notes. They're just like, you know, we're talking about affordability a lot now. I'm here to talk about affordability. And like the thing that Zoran did this so good was like, he talked about like a real

human term. Like, you know, there's the cab driver I was talking to. You know, I mean, he was good at humanizing that. Sometimes though he would, he would talk about, you know, the beauty of collectivism. Was that you? Did you do that one? It was a team effort on the speech that was, I don't think that has been misinterpreted from what it was intended to mean. Hmm.

The beauty of collectivism. Or what was it? That wasn't exactly. The warmth. The warmth of collectivism. The warmth. You added the warmth. It's our version of top bottom politics.

Yeah. The warmth of collectivism. I guess it was a little bit better than Romney's. You didn't build that. I don't know. It's not that great for me. Yeah. I guess I hear you, man.

Look, focusing on affordability and making it central is true. I guess my point is, like, the easy thing to do is demonstrate that you're separate from the corporate democratic establishment that wants to do, you know, capital gains, tax cuts. Nobody's for that. Like, the only people that are making that case are, like, D.C. lobbyists. And, like, so it's simple to say, okay, I'm against the democratic establishment that, you know, cares too much about corporate. interest. It's harder to be like, I'm against the democratic establishment that, you know,

cared, you know, that has, you know, you just name the issue, you know, on any of these hot button issues that people in Red America are not happy about, whether it would, whether it's cops or immigration or LGBT or whatever, you know, that's, that's harder because you get shit when you separate from the Democratic establishment on that. I feel like there's a middle ground here for some races where it's not saying like, you know, where the, you know, you. example of just being like, yeah, I think fucking eight-year-olds should be able to play in whatever league they want. I trust communities to make their own decisions about that. I also think it's fucking pathetic that we have a lot of politicians in Mosh and D.C.

who spend more on both sides of the aisle who spend more time talking about this issue than they do talking about how to bring down the cost of groceries. Like that to me is a good, easy middle ground. Maybe that'll work. Maybe that'll work. Sure. But does that work if you're sitting down for two? This was like, I think part of these people like Kamla should have gone on Rogan. And I was like Kamala couldn't have gone on Rogan.

Because Rogan would have spent 40 minutes with her on trans. Is that fair? Like, no, I don't think that's fair. But, like, I think what you just laid out is definitely workable in a D plus eight house race this year, R plus eight house race this year, right? Because, like, Trump is unpopular. The economy sucks. And Democrats are going to be able to get away with running campaigns that are just focused

on affordability and Trump sucking in a lot of places because people are mad. So great. But, like, longer term, how do Democrats win in Iowa and Ohio? and Montana again, I think you have to be able to have answers for some of these cultural questions that aren't just, I don't want to talk about that. I'd rather talk about grocery bills. I don't disagree with that, with those places long term. Again, like, I think the way we've talked about a big tent party, and there has been room for some of that, you know, maybe not as much grace online, but there's been room for some of that. But it's like, we have a big tent party united by, you can say whatever the fuck you want on any issue, as long as APEC likes you. And as long as like, the handful of the biggest donors to the most powerful. powerful I use like you. Yeah. And I think we just flip the bat.

And so it's as long as you fucking are willing to take on the billionaire class and corporations, you should find the message that you know your community. You should find the message that works for your community. We're already going along. And I have some really fun rapid fire question. So we just got to do Graham really quick. Are you nervous that it's risky? Here's my issue with Graham, right?

It's like a 79 year old lady's risky too. You know, and like if Graham was running in that Iowa Senate race or Kansas, like he would be the darling of this podcast. Because I'd be like, finally the Democrats are trying something different in one of these red states. Like, it's a very important race. And, you know, it didn't seem like you guys really knew all of the baggage that he had on various things. I'm just wondering whether you're worried that your model candidate here for a populist left might. really harm us if Susan Collins is able to take advantage of that in the fall. To me, there's not a bigger risk than Janet Mills, where it is just like, we're talking about

someone who would be the oldest freshman senator in the history of the United States Senate. We're talking to someone who has the worst components of Sarah Gideon and Joe Biden combined. I'll trip everything else way to talk about what kind of campaign would you want to run against Susan Collins. You want to run a campaign that she's fucking been there forever. She's a political creature. Life has gotten worse. Well, she's been impacted. power. It's time for, you know, new leadership. It's time for someone who's going to take on the entrenched political powers that be. And in Janet Mills, you have someone who inherently cannot make any of those arguments. And to me, like, Graham, you know, I think it's a little,

like, don't take my word for it. Look at what's happening in Maine. And I think, like, he's up 30 plus points on the incumbent governor. Like, that's, the voters are telling us who they like. If Janet Mills is so electable, why does no one fucking want to vote for her? Like, that's the, like, a ridiculous component of everyone's like, well, Janet Mills, let's say that. It's like, no one's voting for Janet Mills. People who should be her base of supporters are uninterested. And meanwhile, Graham's in like towns that Trump with a thousand people that Trump won by 80 points, having hundreds of people come out. And I think there's, you know, voters are resonating with him in a way that is, I think, incredibly, incredibly rare and unique. And I think he has the ability

because of his politics and because of his life story to just go directly at Susan Collins in a way that's kind of the ideal matchup. I made pretty much that same pitch yesterday besides ideal matchup. So I agree with you. But just in the spirit of let's explore this together, I want to offer a tweet that I saw about Graham just to hear what you guys would say about that. They wrote this. Graham accidentally got a Nazi tattoo, accidentally took friendly photos with a guy in a

Nazi shirt, accidentally reposted Stu Peters, who's right-wing, white nationalist, basically, and accidentally sat for an interview with a guy who spread it anti-smitten conspiracy theories he's a long time fan of. That's a little concerning. What was your reaction to that be? I think like Gavin Newsom did interviews with Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. I don't think for whatever my criticisms are of Gavin Newsom, I don't think Gavin Newsom's like a secret far right operative. You know, I think there's on the kind of interview outreach component, I think we're talking about, you know, a combination of people, you know, he does dozens of interviews a week. The goal is to reach every single person as much as possible. And that's not to say the

maybe there should be more selective processes of who interviews what. But I think it's also like a lot of the same people who are like, Kamla should have gone on Rogan. Also can't believe Graham Platner sat down with this. It's like, pick, pick a lane. I'm fine with whatever your fucking lane is, but have some consistency on do we have an obligation to go everywhere and talk to everyone and reach people who are leaving the party en masse?

Or do we not? And then I think on the tattoo, you know, Graham's talked about ad nauseum. And it's like, I think that to me the most kind of, the two most compelling things that I think I can share on this. that have not been, you know, talked about, you know, ad nauseum on social media. Are one shooting the launch video, I'm Jewish. I have a star David Tattoo right here. Like, I saw Graham Platner change shirts eight times during the launch video, like, feet away from him.

Both good looking guy. And also, I don't think he'd be, I think so. I also don't think he'd be doing that. If you're too strong and beautiful. Sure. I don't think he would have been doing that in front of his Jewish senior advisor if he was aware it was a Nazi tattoo. You also talk to anyone in the military and they're like everyone's got different skull and crossbones tattoos. It's like all the signs of military stuff.

And I've had that conversation with dozens and dozens of vets at this point. And I think, you know, so it's like he's running a campaign that's not a DSCC campaign where he's not like locked in a windowless basement doing call time. He's doing gazillion interviews. is he's meeting voters every single day. And so when he's doing 10,000 things a day, cherry picking a few select things through a specific lens is like, you know, you can do that with any campaign anytime. I agree with that. So that was, I was representing other people's concerns about Graham. I'm going to represent mine now.

You know him actually. So this comes from a genuine place. I'm just a little concerned that he's, that it's fake. You know, he's not actually really like a working class guy. I mean, kind of, but like he's down. I forget who called him downwardly mobile old money, which I thought was kind of funny. He comes from money, like, really. He volunteered to go to war.

He wasn't, like, sometimes he talks about like he was drafted, like he chose to. He's talked about it like that. He kind of talks about both ways. He's like, oyster farm is, isn't that his mom's restaurant? He went to GW. I went to GW, you know, not a bastion of working class folks. And he did it on the GI Bill. So, like, he came out of nowhere.

I think for people that, like, just don't know him. And, like, you see some of this stuff. You wonder, like, is this a pose, right? Like, is this not authentic? What would you say to that? Like, I've spent a lot of time at Graham's house. I've spent a lot of time with Graham's family. I think he's incredibly and, like, unwaveringly authentic.

Some of those things are he's also someone who, like, has, like, really struggled financially at times in his life. He's someone who did spend, you know, a decade overseas. He's someone who, you know, before he decided to run for Senate, it was like trying to figure out how to start a family and live a life in the community he loved making $60,000 a year running an oyster farm. Like I think it's, you know, like fully honest in what he says. I mean, it's, you know, we're not like telling a glass castle story here or something.

But in the story of like growing up in a rural community, having nights where you're anxious about financial realities and having spent a lot of time in incredibly tough positions and service the country are all like incredibly real and authentic. And I think, you know, he lives four houses down from where he grew up in Sullivan, Maine. Like, there's just a deep, deep kind of authentic mainness to him. We've spent a lot of time together and he's always the exact same grand planner. Like the gram in a video answering a question at a town hall to a Republican is the same gram. You're getting it like, you know, midnight over a beer shooting the shit. Okay. I don't, I didn't really like his trying to answer on one of the podcast.

We'll talk about that another day. We can work through that. We can grow. To the rapid fire questions. Speaking of podcasts, people are not supposed to do, the rumor on the street was that you told the staff that Zoran should not do my podcast because I was too risky and that they didn't listen to you. Is that accurate?

Is that accurate? I thought it was bad timing for doing your podcast. As a big, Tim, you know, week one, you were going to get buried in all the other stuff. I wanted, like, Tim Miller to be the kind of central piece of a, component of the tent. Kind of turned out like that a little bit. Should I feel bad? I kind of feel like I made Zoran cry, not on the podcast, but the fallout from the globalized

antiphata question led to a press conference where he got, where he kind of cried. And so I would say you should feel like no guilt. And it should be 100% on the Islamophobia of Andrew Cuomo and his campaign. Got it. Okay. So we don't need to hug it out. No, I mean, you're welcome to hug it out. But.

Okay. I like to hug. We mentioned Federman earlier. I wasn't going to give you too much a problem for this, but you did work for John Federman 2022 as here at the bulwark, the base of the Connor Lamb campaign, we were pretty devastated that he lost that primary. And given what's happened- It was close. It was so close.

Given what has happened since then it was a little closer than the North Carolina House primary. You were talking about earlier. But given what's happened since, I was wondering if you just want to take this opportunity to speak to the Bullwark audience and to Connor himself because he's probably a listener and just offer your apology form? Do you want to sign the Connor Lamb apology form? Not signing. Not signing. I think, I think for whatever the judgeants may be about Fetterman, write about Conor Lamb. All this now, Conor Lam's, this economic, populist, quote- tweeting AOC, shit, I'm not, I'm not buying it. I am not buying it. I think there are a lot

of incredible politicians across Pennsylvania, and Conor-Lam is not one of them. Come on. I think you're being stubborn. Don't be a stubborn mule, Morris. We would be in better shape right now if Connor Lamb was in the Senate, would we not? Would we not? Look, everyone's like, oh, you guys sold this tale of Conorland, this generational talent. Meanwhile, under Cristillusio, it's not even a swing seat anymore. It's like off the map. Chriseluzio's great. I can compliment Christa Lucio. Okay, why can't you just say it's true? Connor Lamb would be a good senator. John Federman is a shit shitty senator. We both love Kathy Hokkel. We both love Kathy Hokkel. Wow. Okay. Boy, I wasn't going to.

Sorry, I wasn't going to ask this question, but now I have to. Famously, your grandfather said he's slept with 4,000 women. Now that you're a minor celebrity, are you going to try to pass him? Just to, I could, my grandfather slept with 4,000. Oh, are you going to try to compete? I know, but are you trying to compete. Do you see that as an aspirational thing at all? You know, between all the podcast interviews, there hasn't been, there hasn't been the time.

But let's let's see how the Senate map goes. Not a hard no on that. Not a hard no. I'm a settle down man. You're a settled down man. That's cute. All right. Maybe we can find somebody for you on this podcast.

So, you know, nice girls, 25 and a half. 26 and three quarters, temporary. Yeah. How can we be such buddies? I guess you don't think that Conor Lamb, for whatever reasons, transformation is authentic. In an effort to show you why mine is, I wanted to close with a story that made me the most Morris-pilled of any story I've read recently.

To see this, the richest Americans saw their net worth soar 120% from 2017 to 2025. And the top 1% of the country now control 55 trillion in assets more than U.S. and China combined. I feel like we can just all hold hands and just say, let's take more money. like painful taxation for the top 0.1% of the country. And we can all unite with that together, right? For everybody from Zoran to, I don't know, John Bell Edwards, the broadest possible. I love John Bell Edwards.

That's a good. Yeah, I mean, it's hard to talk about it without immediately sounding like Bernie, but he's right about it where it's like, this isn't radical. Like the idea that with the wealth that we're seeing consolidate at such a rapid pace, maybe we should just like take a little bit of that to help everyone else feels like the most sane, reasonable we should all agree on this thing. And even like so many of the kind of democratic contenders for 2028 or stuff, you hear them talk about taxation of the wealthy now. And it's like always a little their queasy around it.

Run the tape on like Obama, 2012 or, you know, it's like Obama was campaigning off of the wealthiest paying a little bit more. And even talking about the wealthiest in a far broader way than Bernie or the mayor or whoever talking about it now. I do know why, but it's deeply, deeply concerning that while that's happening, you're also seeing both parties kind of back away from taxing the rich in certain ways. But that's the Tim Miller-Maris-Cats coalition is going to bring it back. Here's our kumbaya moment. We are going to cut environmental red tape to build more houses and we're going to tax the fuck out of the rich. And all the rest will deal with later.

Does that sound good? Hell yeah. All right, baby. That's Morris Katz. I appreciate you coming on the show. I'm a little butt-hurt, honestly, that you snubbed. me for Trump, but we're going to get over. Do you have anybody's phone number now?

Are you, Caroline, like texting buddies? Not you've been there twice or? No, we have not. We've not gotten it. Maybe DMs. DMS. Right. I appreciate you.

We'll do it again in a couple months. Maybe after the main primary. We'll see how it goes. To celebrate the Grand Platner win? Yeah, we'll do it. Before we, what's your main Senate primary prediction? Down to the number, down to the margin. In the primary?

Yeah. I think that he's going to beat her like 70, 30. I think he's really going to crush it. Love it. Love it. That said, three more months. So hopefully nothing. We'll see.

We'll see. Big caveat. Assuming current information on ground. So we'll see. Anyway, that's Morris Katz, buddy. We'll see you all soon. Everybody else will be back tomorrow. With somebody who's a little bit more of a capitalist, probably.

We'll see you all then. Peace. Thanks, Tim. The Bullwark podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.