The Bulwark Podcast - Neera Tanden: How to Win

Episode Date: August 26, 2026

The only likely way to end the nightmare of Trump—and Republicans supporting him no matter how much he ruins the country—is for Democrats to win in Republican-leaning states and congressional districts. That means giving moderates the grace to compete for people who voted for Trump. Likewise, moderates also need to recognize that the left will be swing voters in key races this election cycle. Plus: the online brawl over Hasan Piker, Scott Jennings’ desperate campaign to be the new White House press secretary, Trump is widening his attack on the First Amendment to research institutions, and Rob Sand is breaking the candidate mold in Iowa.Epic poster and Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden joins Tim Miller.show notes: The Center for American Progress website 'Take' on the CIA director's trip to Moscow (with Weiss & Polymeropoulos) Neera's busy Twitter feed Jonathan Martin's interview with gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand

Bullard Daily. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome back to the show, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. She has domestic policy advisor to Biden. She also served in both the Obama and Clinton administrations. She's in her pearls, which I appreciate, and I have not yet seen her post on X.com so far, which is a little different from how you seem to be spending your days lately. It's near a tandem. Nice to be with you.

So good to be with you. Welcome back. Oh, yeah, it's always going to be. It's going to be fun. Sounds great. You're getting sued by the White House and you are tweeting a lot. So we're going to get to both of those things. So you might be getting sued. They're threatening to see you. We're going to get to those. But first, we had some news last night in South Carolina. Darlene Graham, Lindsay's sister, who apparently knows nothing and doesn't read the news, was nominated by the Republican Party to be the senator from that state for a six-year term. It's pretty crazy. And she beat. Ralph Norman is relatively close. Norman had been like one of the key instigators of the insurrection, so not exactly a moderate, but then he did endorse Nikki Haley and that got Trump's eye. Trump spent a bunch of money in that race. In some ways, I find Darlene Graham to be kind of the perfect MAGA senator, but what was your reaction to the result last night?

Did you find her to be the perfect MAGA senator because she seemed to be almost proud of not knowing anything about foreign policy or like what the job of Senator would be? Well, because she's an empty vessel for Trump. I just think they should make her Senate majority leader. Like, John Thune is not representative of the caucus. Okay, John Thune likes to pretend like he has views on things. You know, occasionally he like pretends like he wants to distance himself for Trump, but he never actually does it. Like, Darling and Graham will just do whatever Mr. Trump says.

That's what Trump wants in a senator. That's what Maga voters want in a senator. And so I just think that she should lead the call, a total no-nothing, Trump sycophant should be the Senate majority leader, I would think. Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably more reflective of where the caucus is. I mean, honestly, it shows the natural extension. Every single vote they've taken, every way that they're lost up with so much of the cuckoo crazy. That's the natural flow here.

I don't think it's easy to win in South Carolina for a Democrat, but I think, you know, hopefully this gives a little bit more to any Andrews who's challenging her. Yeah, I was intrigued. Laxia Jane, who is, you know, not like a kind of lib hype data analyst. He does some stuff with our friends of the argument. And, you know, he pointed out that Lindsay Graham actually underperformed the median Republican often in South Carolina because he sort of was in the sour spot where some MAGA people didn't think that he was MAGA enough because of immigration. And then some moderate thought he sucked up to Trump too much.

And so he'd usually kind of underperform a little bit. And he was saying that if Darlene performed like Lindsay did and the wave for Democrats was about what they predicted to be right now, that Annie Anders would only lose by three. I don't know that the Democrats should be like really invest in huge amounts of money in a hopeless South Carolina race. But I thought that it was interesting. Nancy LeCore is kind of a moderate.

Great candidate. Yeah, she's running in that in Nancy Mace's old district. I think this could really help her. Because you can just imagine, Trump was booed at Ralph Norman's concession speech last night. Yeah, I saw it. And you can imagine people like not being excited to vote for Darlene. It could, you know, tamp down turnout. And really, I think, helped Nancy LeCore in that first district.

And who knows, I don't know, maybe any Andrews. What do you think? I mean, this goes to a broader issue, which we might get into later, which is that was actually happening in America today, which is really hard for people to see this. but there are people who voted for Trump three times. They voted for in 2016 and 2020 and 2024, you know, like working class people, particularly working class women who are like getting off the Trump train. And I think you see that in some group of Republicans voting for Tala Rico in Texas. And I think Darlene Graham puts a lot of pressure on those Republicans who are not so jazzed up about Donald Trump these days.

And they could not vote at all, which would be a big problem for the Republicans. I mean, hopefully they would consider voting for any Andrews. But I think there's a real opportunity around the country here. And I think the challenge for Trump is that he obviously had to get Graham over the finish line. But she also, I think, pressures a lot of non-Maga Republicans. And that's like a really important distinction that they're madly Republicans who are kind of lockstep. when there's still the majority of the Republican Party, but there's a sliver of FIFA,

you're old compatriots, per se, who are not mega-Republicans, who raise questions about Trump and who actually can vote for a rational Democrat. Yeah, I think that's right. And, you know, I do think there'll be turnout issues for Republicans in some of these places. And then, like you said,

I think depending on the types of candidates, we will get into this a minute. But Nancy LeCore is like that type of candidate. She is not a lefty ideal law. You can't like, you know, stereotype her as some kind of like woke socialist or whatever. She, you know, worked in the- Military leader. Yeah, right.

Moderate. Good candidate. That's good for that district. Matches the district. It would be a great upgrade from Nancy Mace. It would be a nice Nancy upgrade from Nancy to Nancy. And like that is a seat that I've been flagging for a while that I just think that people are now coming around to the fact to that, okay, well, you know, maybe not the South Carolina Senate race,

we'll see how bad things get for Trump. But like some of these seats that are Trump 10, 11, 12, you know, that Nancy Mays didn't even have an election, really. I mean, like Nancy Mason's election wasn't that competitive in 2024. And now that seat could be gone. Yes, exactly. I mean, I think this is what's interesting about the map expanding over the last, really in August.

You've seen more and more races come on sort of the board. Adam Hamilton running in Kansas. great candidate is running very, very competitive race. I have no idea what to take about, what to learn from polls. But independent polls have shown that it's a close race. And, you know, I think there is kind of given all these elections in the past, there are a lot of Democrats were like, I'm not getting my hopes up about Republican crossover after all of these elections with Trump.

But we are seeing some real evidence of it. And I will say it's not just polls. You were seeing in special elections, Democrats winning districts that have been plus 10, plus 15, plus 16 Republican districts. Trump won by that much in this race just in Pennsylvania the last week, which was a general end up being a special election. So there are a lot of people who are crossing over. or just a big problem for them is a lot of Republicans are staying home. And, I mean, I think a central issue here is not to put up candidates that Republicans are compelled to come out and vote against. I'm going to have some more map talk at the end, but I want to talk about your lawsuit.

So essentially what's happening is Trump's personal lawyer threatened a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the Center for American Progress. Interesting, it was not over something that you said, which is surprised. I would have lost that bat. I would have thought if Cap got sued by the Trump administration, it would have been. been a near, you know, issue, but it wasn't. Yeah, it wasn't in this case. You guys had Cap put out a report about the National Guard, concluded that these deployments had little effect on violent crime rates. It cost taxpayers 1.7 billion. And that hurt Trump's feelings. And so he's suing you. What is that, is that the gist? Yeah, that's pretty much the gist. Essentially, saw the author of the report

to Jenner Hall, who did a great job with this report. Trump saw him on C-SPAN. I didn't realize he had time for C-SPAN viewing. Really? That's really what happened? It's like, you look at his social media post, his two-week social post of this from two weeks ago, and it really does seem like he watched Chandler all on C-SPAN. Because the report came out like a month and a half ago, and Chandler was on C-SPAN, and Trump is ranting to C-SPAN, and he didn't like the report.

So either the human printer showed him the C-SPAN clip. Yes. Or maybe he got mad at five. one day and like at the club at Maralago he's sitting there eating his well done hamburger before the golf course or after and they he told them to put on C-SPAN instead. Those are the only two theories I have. Yes. I mean it's weird. I don't really think of him as watching like Washington Journal every morning but but he somehow saw this Chandler talk about the report and I do want to say you know he attacked us

Early that week, that Friday, August 14th, he was planned, you know, he did a big campaign in NASA County in New York, basically attacking Democrats on crime, talking about the National Guard deployment. So I do think he thinks this report is a problem for him, and that's why he's attacking us. Now, you know, I mean, the report goes through through models and analyzes violent crime, gun crime, homicide rates, the rate of violent crime reduction. in the cities with deployments versus without two cities that didn't have deployments. It's really a factual analysis of how despite spending, you know, as much as $1.7 billion on this, on National Guard deployments, we don't have evidence that they are actually reducing crime. And, you know, there's a Reuters story just recently about how in D.C. And National Guard have been involved in less 1% or less than 1% of actual, you know, arrests.

So, and Pierre has a story out that, you know, talking to National Guard in D.C. saying that they don't think they're doing anything, and it's basically a political ploy. So, you know, I mean, I don't think he likes the fact that we are calling out that this could be, you know, real waste of a lot of money. Yeah, and these people's lives, you know, like they have lives in their home states. You know, it's back to school time, right? It's like, you know, some of they have other jobs.

you know, who is parenting? Like, there are a lot of like real human considerations for these guys just to walk. And I was in D.C., I was blown away when I was in D.C. recently. It's like they're circling, DuPont Circle. It's kind of walking around the park. They're like these guys in like a military Humvee outside of La Droit Park. I was like, what is the point of this?

Exactly. I mean, that is an issue we raised. And we basically asked the question, which is if it's not actually having an impact on crime rates, then why are, why is he spending this money? And just, you know, it's $1.7 billion. It's a lot of money. And you could actually actually feed people with that or give them health care or not take away so many people's health care. You know, that's like real, real money. Feeding people and giving health care is important. It also really salts the vibes in the French quarter. I think they're finally leaving the French quarter. But it's like, we don't need

dudes in military gear like walking around Bourbon Street. You know, this is, we're trying to enjoy ourselves here. Yeah. I can say it's so great for tourism to have National Guard troops to blade in your next to your local favorite tavern. Yeah. You know, I just want to have my purple drink, Lafiance. I don't need a guy in a military fatigues and a gun looking at me while I'm trying to have a purple drink. Like, we joke about it, but I do just want to sit for one second on like everything with Trump. It's like there's part of it that's idiocry and farce. And it's part of it that's really

malicious that came in allegedly, you know, talking about free speech and they had this, these, you know, they speak outrage over Biden, you know, ways in which the Biden administration was concerned about misinformation on social media and they thought that was a infringement on free speech. And now they come in and time and again, they're trying to bully media outlets, activists, like people exercising their free speech rights. And it's not precedented, you know, and I do feel like there's be more outrage about it. Just to say what this really is in my mind is, first of all, it's an escalation from, like, attacking media outlets to a research institution. Of course, I will say we're ideological.

You know, we're not, we're progressive. We're center left. But the report itself is all based on data and analysis. And it's really the cornerstone of what research institutions are. I mean, we are looking at a federal government policy and analyzing its impact. if that's subject to a $5 billion defamation suit or if that's not basically protecting speech, it's really hard to know what would be. I mean, and what is also kind of extraordinary about this is we have a criticism of a Trump

administration policy and his personal lawyer is arguing that is defamation against him, which is like kind of insane to think that saying his policies don't work is defamation against the president. If that's allowed to stand, it's hard to know what could be offered in, like, the public discourse on federal policy. It would be hard to imagine anything that was, that isn't basically the narrative of the Trump administration surviving critique. So, obviously, it's kind of a cuckoo situation, but I do think there's a very serious issue here, which is I'm really trying to bully organizations and get them to self-censor. I think this is a whole part of what they do, which is it's obviously we are going to stand

up and we believe that this is a bullying tactic in the Center for American Progress, 100% stands by the report and we'll kind of, you know, fight tooth and nail against this bullying tactic. But other organizations, you know, we'll think twice about what they say about the president and worry about this. And that is part of their goal. Is this worth the hassle? Yeah, so it's worth the hassle.

She would just not, you know, maybe we shouldn't mention their name or each talk about a government policy and not have it really be about Trump. And that is like what their goal is. And as I said to my team, you know, I think one of the tactics of this administration is to use fear to get people to self-censor. And we're not going to do that. So, and I think it's also important for us to role model like not giving into bullies. And so it's unpleasant. I will say it's not a pleasant thing to deal with. But I think it's important.

You got to meet with all the lawyers. Yeah. You go through this, you know, when there's various threats. And it's like it's not from the personal lawyer of the president. It's expensive. Other at every think tank is, is that well capitalized, right? Yeah. No, no.

I mean, no, we're going to end up paying. I mean, we're paying money for this. I mean, we have insurance and other things, but insurance will uncover everything. So cap is putting out resources because of this attack. So, but like, the choice between standing up and paying something versus, you know, taking, taking our report down as, like, not a close call for us. Yeah, he picked the wrong person on the playground to try to bully on this one.

You know, I feel like it was a mistake strategically, but I appreciate that you guys are fighting it. Speaking of their propaganda efforts, I thought this just before, you know, we got into kind of democratic, you know, back and forth within the Democratic Party, we might just, we might have a little pallet cleanser before we start that section of the podcast. Because there is some crazy propaganda that is happening out there from somebody that you've had some back and forth withs on CNN. And that is Scott Jennings. He's currently on auditioning to be the press secretary for some reason, which is interesting. I was skeptical of this at first because it's like he could make a lot more money on the outside and, you know, it's less busy and whatever.

but he seems to really want to be the press secretary based on incredible reporting. And here he was in his radio. Because when you're press secretary, you're on TV a lot. You're probably on TV even more. I did like the back and forth. Three and him and Caitlin, where he's like, Caitlin, you wouldn't be excited to get to work with me every day? And Caitlin's like, Scott, I see you all the time. And he's like, you get to see me more.

Caitlin was like, I think I see you plenty. Anyway, here he was in his radio show, new goatee, new GLP1, Like the shirt is a little baggy. And he's talking about the situation in Iran. I want to play that one. And I believe this announcement may confirm something that many in our political class refuse to acknowledge. The United States has won the war against Iran. Wars are won when one side achieves its strategic objectives and the other loses the ability to achieve its own.

With the American flag and everything, like this could be a spoof movie. if you saw this in a spoof movie, you'd be like, okay, okay, sure. But like that is real. Like, he's doing North Korea propaganda behind a fake American flag backdrop, talking about how we won in Iran. What? Yeah, I have to say, I have had the great, the great, um, displeasure. Displeasure to be on a news night, Abby Phillips show was got.

And, you know, I think the. The thing that drives Scott Jennings is defending Donald Trump at all costs. He will pervert any fact, create any fiction, draw any insane picture to rationalize, justify, excuse the president of the United States, which makes him actually a perfect candidate for press secretary. To me, Scott Jennings has been like auditioning to be the next press secretary for the last year and a half. And as someone who's definitely sparred with Scott Jennings, he's like, or the first time

I did Evie Phillips, I happened to criticize him about his wild outrage and anger about the Tesla protest while kind of excusing the January 6th thing. And I swear to God, he was going to call me a bitch on TV. But help himself back. It was really angry. And so since then, we haven't been particularly close in the green room or anything. But my take on him is, you know, he is out for fame, book sales. He loves traveling around the country.

Makes him really happy to talk to the White House on the phone. And so he'll be excited. You know, I'm not surprised at all that he's being seriously considered. Have a little dignity, though. honestly honestly and everybody you've had to spin nera everyone said to spit

we've all been in the game before not me anymore I get to do radical candor I'm a podcaster but I used to be a flack you have to spend I said go on and be like we have won the war in Iran I mean it's it's Baghdad Bob style

I've been on the show with him for months now I mean I'm not on as much as he is but I've been on since the Iran war every week I am on saying, look what's happening. We are losing the war. And he will say, no, we are winning the war.

So it is obviously an added dramatic effect to have the full North Korea flag waving back. But it's not different than what he's been saying for months. And, you know, I mean, what is interesting is to be serious, we are coming up. August 28th will be the six-month anniversary of this war where people like, Scott Jennings and everyone else has been saying we are winning this war and we are obviously not winning this war. So they have been lying to the American people for months about a war. And I think that's reprehensible, but not unexpected from Scott Jennings. I watch an old clip of him from May or March, who I don't know where he's talking about, oh, come on.

That this is going to be over soon, give us a little bit more time. Like, here we are coming up on Labor Day. This is an unconfirmed report. I don't usually like to share these, but I think it's interesting. interesting because, you know, there's stuff being bandied around about this. The CIA director, Ratcliffe, went to Moscow. My guy, Michael Weiss and Mark Polymeropolis, if you guys have missed this, they're doing a series for us now on YouTube.

So people can check that out. And they kind of batted around the various reasons why Ratcliffe could have gone there. But one report we have is that he was essentially asking Moscow to press Iran and to reopening the Strait of Hormuz because of, you know, the issues to the oil market and basically threatening Russia and saying, we're going to put the sanctions back on that Trump took off because he liked you. And like, you might think you liked you. But we're going to put the sanctions back on if you don't pressure Iran on the Strait of Hormuz.

And Russia said no. So I don't like, regardless of like if that is true, you know, like a humiliating if true, I guess. But like the fact that we are here and that it could be, right? Like that like I think one boat went through the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. I haven't seen the Tuesday's numbers. But like that's where we're at six months in. Yeah. I mean, with or without this Russia story, you know, let's just step back and say, the Iranians are dictating terms on the Strait of Hormuz today.

They are dictating terms to Donald Trump on how to seize hostilities. If you had said to me a year ago or eight months ago that somehow Donald Trump would manage to strengthen a long. the Iranian regime, I would have said that's really hard to imagine. But here we are. And the United States is in a war in Iran. Just as a reminder, Donald Trump decided to kind of do this war on his own. And we are all paying for it. We're paying more for gas. We're paying more for a whole range of things. Things are pretty expensive. And he is at the point where he is sort of begging other countries to ally with us against Iran, to put pressure on Iran. And you know, it's also, it's happening. or European allies, we're like, hey, you're on your own.

Other countries are like, hey, you're on your own. Because this guy told them to kind of screw off over the last year and a half. So you look around the world, and I mean, it sounds insane, but somehow Iran is a more sympathetic actor around the world. That's insane. They're a terrible regime, horrible regime. But he's screwed this up so badly that we don't have an open, Strait of Hermuse. Gas prices are pretty high. And he can't make a deal. This is my analysis. I said

before, but the real reason why he can't make a deal, because it will be clear that he's lost as soon as he makes that deal. Like, we are losing this war. It's just a question of the finality of that, how clear the loss will be. And, you know, contrary Scott Jennings, you are in a situation where the Iranians I have control of the straight of her moves, then we are losing this war. Deep breath. Now we get to the section I have titled, Bones to Pick with Nira.

Okay, here we go. Look, one reason why we love each other is because we're both posters at heart. You know, we both just want to express our views. And I was your number of defender when those just cowardly Republican senators were like, Nero was mean to me on Twitter.

I can't confirm her. We're mad at Nia. Doesn't it seem funny now, like given everything that's ever like everywhere, that Trump has said about everybody? This happened. This was something that happened. Republican centers were whining a bit nearest. It was too mean to them on Twitter.

I did say that Susan Collins was the worst and I stand by that. And I think vindicated by time. So that was six years ago. Your Twitter energy, though, lately has been a little bit off of Susan Collins for my taste. I counted this morning 15 tweets about Hassan Piker since. Sunday. You and Ryan Grimm seem like Peter Twinkwich posted this, that I do think it's kind of charming that Ryan Grim and Neurotand and don't block each other and keep lashing of each other's throats every day. You rarely see that manner of A-grade Wagyu beef anymore. I don't really. I

want to say, I think I respond. I'm not the one tweeting at Ryan most of the time. I would say the same thing to Ryan if he was on. I'm sorry. This is not, no, no, no, I'm just No imbalance. A lot of attacking the left right now from you on the Twitter account when we have a big challenge ahead of us in November. And so what's talk to me about that? Yes, I think this is a really important thing to discuss. So I actually appreciate the opportunity to talk about this because I want to make a distinction. And I've said this publicly.

I said this to New York Times like a month or two ago, which is where DSA candidates win in blue cities. Like that's a healthy thing for a party. It's okay for a Democratic broad tent to have very liberal candidates and very liberal parts of the country. And when people complain about this, I say to them, there are like some really cuckoo members in, like, mega parts of the country. And, you know, like it's a big tent and we should be growing up. My concern, and it's a genuine concern, is that Hassan Piker is noxious to the brand of the Democratic Party in swing states and swing districts. And I'm always for a big tent, but big tents have tent poles. And tent pole for me is we should be against racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia,

Islamophobia, anti-Semitism. You and I have talked in the past past Senate races and how some of them have implicated some of those issues. And I just, I try to be consistent and say, I don't think it's great to do those things at a moral level. And then to be honest about it, I also think it's a time. terrible political strategy. Now, I know a lot of Democrats were like, Trump is so terrible. Why can't we be as terrible? Like, we need our own people. That's not my position. No, I know it's not your position. I'm talking about strategy. Yeah. I'm talking about strategy. Like, Abdul won. 15 tweets about about Piker this week feels like a lot. Like Abdul one. And he's got, I've got things that I could

depict Abdul about, but like he's not campaigning with the sign anymore. Like that was in the past. And again, I, so like, why? Why? keep talking about it. It's like not that helpful. Oh, I see what I said. I was, I feel like I have tried to be clear that it's good. It's a good thing that he's moved off of biker. And I've said multiple times I would support Abdul Sate. I think this is a good step. A lot of people looked at a statement and said, oh, it's not enough. Abdul Sates can't statement. It's not enough. I think this is a good step. You know, you can't like it's good. When people do stuff you want them to do, that's great.

But I'll tweet less if you'd like. No. I like. you're tweeting, I just, I'm just trying to get like an 80-20. I also want to hear your real thoughts, right? Like, look, I've said this before too. Like, this is all, there's balance in all things. You know, I think at some level, you don't have to comment on this since you're in the White House.

Like, we could have used a few more people talking about how we have concerns about Biden's electability, going ahead to 2024. Like, sometimes when you circle the wagons too much, you actually do self-harm, right? And so I agree with that, like flagging issues within the coalition and flagging things that people are doing that are hurting the chances of victory. like I'm for all that. What I'm not for is just like fight to the death

between like the factions and the party and having that be the main focus. And like I am seeing a little bit of that. Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I guess what I'd say is like, you know, I do back and forth to this. I'll just be really honest.

You know, why do I need to talk about any of this? I just get yelled out a lot. You can see I get yelled at a lot. But I do have people come up to me and say you are scared of like maybe an online mob or something and say it's really important that your voice is out there standing up for things like it's wrong to have any anti-Semitism or any Islamophobia or any of these issues. And so, you know, I think part of the challenge is that now there'll be a counter narrative saying anyone who criticizes them is they're fighting

has some think are more than Republicans, which is like I really think genuinely we should all focus on defeating Mike Rogers. And I thought it was a good step that I'll say it took, the step he took, and it's a good thing to focus on. And this is an area where I will also come to your defense. People complain about this. I was like, Nira's been in the fucking trenches fighting this guy for 10 years. A lot of people who had Nira's job in the Obama White House or equivalent moved to Seattle or San Francisco did very well for themselves in the private sector while the country burned. So I have nothing but love for you on that. One other is a strategic point that I do understand.

Yeah, but this is a fair debate. I just think that like, look, sometimes I feel like both sides have little blinders on this, both sides within the Democratic faction, which is like, this is a Madaglacius point about Syed that I totally agree with. It is like really important right now for Abdul to be focused on reaching out to Alyssa Slotkin voters who are moderate, people that voted for Alyssa Slotkin when she won in 24 when Kamala lost and saying to them, hey, I am closer to you. your interest, goals, needs, desires,

than Mike Rogers for this reason, right? Like, that's important for him to do. 100%. 100%. So I know we agree with that. And it's important for the moderates to also do the same. And this is my issue about Piker. And like the Piker thing is kind of a stand.

And for this point, if, you know, people have personal issues with him. I get it. He said some things that I obviously find, you know, wrong. But I think that modestly to signal to the Bernie Trump voters who are going to be also important swing voters. in this cycle. You mentioned in the beginning, like, hey, I hear you about the wars, by the way.

You know what? Like, maybe we were a little bit, you know, maybe we went along a little bit too much with these kind of wars that both parties supported. I hear you about corporate influence, you know? And, like, I think we need to be more aggressive and fighting corporate influence in our elections. And so sometimes I just,

I feel like I see more energy from the moderate faction talking about why the lefties are bad than I do see them saying, hey, I disagree with you on some things, but I hear you on these other things. And I'm actually going to fight for that too. So I'll go even further than this is what you're saying. Okay. Great.

I think where the left is really right is that things are really bad in the country. So I think where, you know, you have moderates kind of talking about incrementalism and the left talking about more radical change, I think that's going to actually push people towards the left because, you know, they are, the left is right that it's insane that we do have a trillionaire dictating election outcomes by the level of spending he's doing. And like, that is oligarchy. And they are right. I mean, the fundamental analysis that things are really broken in the country is actually

very right. And I actually think center left people or, you know, kind of normies. you know, it's our job to compete on ideas. That's why I don't think it makes sense to launch a campaign against DSA or the things. I think the thing is, like, if you think DSA is wrong, offer better ideas. Like, I spend a lot of my time thinking about how it is a big problem that the bottom, you know, 60, 65, maybe 70% of Americans are really stuck. You know, like we have less upward mobility. Their incomes have not kept up.

would cost, like, that is a legitimate and accurate fight. And I do think there are big issues around affordability that actually unite moderates in the middle and left. And the left is really right about a lot of issues. So I'm not like fighting off like the left per se. My concern genuinely is how to win. I mean, you know this as well as I do. Post-2030 Democrats have to win in states, the blue wall is not enough. They have to start, you know, they have to win in states like Iowa or Ohio or, you know, places like that, North Carolina, for sure. And so to me, I think the real question in front of us is how do you build a big enough tent? And then how do you ensure that you're doing that in a way where you embrace like your base in the left or who has a broad, the broad tent in the Democratic Party without doing things.

that alienate, like, kind of Republicans who can come on border independence. And I think Bernie Sanders is a great example of that. Yeah. That's my point about both sides. Like, I do think that lefties have some crazy candidates who do who say things that alienate moderate voters. I also just, this is just anecdotal. But in my social life, I just, I don't think that, you know, because obviously more people

that I talk to are more aligned with more moderate or center candidates. And I don't think that they have just internalized how much they have an alienated, getable votes. voters, like, particularly on, you know, our relationship with Israel and the wars in the Middle East, but also on, like, corporate capture and stuff like that. And, like, it just works both ways, right? Like, it just does. And I think that, like, unfortunately, you know, in Georgia, and so in Georgia, the coalition is probably big enough to, you know, now because of the way things go, to win with kind of black voters and never Trump, college educated, never Trumpers in the Atlanta suburbs. Like,

that's a big enough coalition to win Georgia. But to win in these states like Iowa and Ohio, like, you got to go back to the Obama Trump. Bernie voters. And that's a different cattle of fish. Yeah, but I mean, let's be honest about this. Okay. I mean, there's like a lot of data behind us. And I think we should be really, really like genuinely honest. And I think so that group of people, let's not look backwards. Let's look forward. Donald Trump is losing people who voted from as we talked about. People voted from three times. That group of people that he's losing. now and you're probably because of this war tend to be working class white voters,

predominantly women. Hey, guys are still hanging on, but the women, there are a lot of women who have questions about Trump. Those voters are economically populous. They don't think the political system works very well. They do think both political parties kind of are corrupt. And I think there are many ways that they are like kind of. of Sanders' crime. And that's like really, that's important. Listen, they are very moderate on crime

and immigration and on some cultural issues as well. And so that's why you see a Rod Sand in the Tala Rico take some of the positions they have. And my only plea to everyone is to give like grace to candidates running in states like Iowa, Texas, Ohio, Alaska to take on issues for really more security-related issues that are going to be very different and don't call them sellouts and jerks for doing it. And now I'm going to outflank you because I think that's right. And I think that right now what I'm seeing from a lot of Democratic candidates is, is it's easy and comfortable within the coalition to say, hey, we should be more economically populist right now because everybody supports that. Like you said, even moderate support it. So they don't get in much trouble for saying that,

really. Maybe even with some donors, but like for the most part, they don't get much trouble for that. and then they like kind of do this kind of vague lip service to like you know we also should move to the middle on immigration or crime or like be responsive you know we want to keep people safe but there's nothing like when you then when you ask them about where their policies are different from Harris policies or whoever there's nothing there and you know what I mean and it's like this is going to require a little bit of like meeting people in the middle on some of those issues particularly around crime and immigrant and then I mean I'm like John Lennon open borders. on immigration. So in both of these issues, this is an admission against interest. I'm not really that economically populace, even though I am painful taxation on the rich I'm fine for. Now, I've come around on that.

Bernie's won me over. I've met too many rich people. But I also, like, am pretty liberal on immigration, extremely liberal on immigration. But, like, you just have to be real. Yeah, I mean, and I will say, like, CAP has put forward papers and ideas on immigration. And those ideas on immigration would secure the border,

reform asylum, which is a key component to securing the border, but also expand legal immigration, give people a path to citizenship. And my whole, our whole argument about this is we can tell the country, you don't have to have this, like, terrorizing ICE organization to secure the border. And that's like a position that most people have. But you do have to tell people particularly in these states, how you're going to secure the border. We also put forward a crime plan that is focused on what's reduced crime coming back to our topic.

What is reduced crime in cities like Baltimore. And that is, you know, prevention, but it's also additional police and detectives and also, you know, ensuring that you're having swift punishments for lawbreakers. And so, you know, I mean, but I also think those were just conversations like working across people are pretty moderate on those issues. And I don't think, you know, and I guess I'd say, um, I would hope that there's a big tent for everybody and for candidates in more conservative-leaning states to be able to take those positions and then candidates in very liberal cities

to be able to take their positions. Oh, you mentioned Rob Sand. I want to talk about him in particular. He was in a town hall. There's this video going viral. Did you see this? Talking about how to treat his opponent, Zach Lane. This is, Rob Sand is doing some things

that are totally outside of the conversation at all. And I want to bring this up because like the way that he is veering is not on this kind of moderate leftist. Yeah, this is very important. He's just like doing things very differently. And so I want to just give two examples of that. These are not policy issues at all. It's just he's sounding totally different.

I want to play one video of him in a town hall talking about his opponent. Who's awful? Politics is oftentimes pretty stupid. I think that we can acknowledge that me and my opponent are human beings. and that everyone who runs for office should be willing to do that? Because it's important. All right. Now, I still think that I'm the better choice, and I'll tell you why.

But I'm not going to do it without asking you first to keep in mind that this is a debate between two human beings. We don't need to demonize people. We don't need to lie about them either. That is going against the conventional wisdom in Dem circles that are like, we need to go lower. Michelle Obama was wrong. And I don't know. I watched Rob Sand give a. speech to a Democratic audience where he was talking a lot about his, you know,

dad's Republican friend and how they wait for coffee and how Republicans have good ideas. And like, look, this is state Trump won by 11 or 12. And he's modeling like how to like really signal to people, like not pay lip service, like really signal like, no, like you can be comfortable with me if you voted for Trump. Yeah. I mean, this is a really crucial element of all of this, which is I think sometimes it was side with effect that in order to have a Democratic Senate

or to win these the House back, you actually have to compete for people who voted for Trump. And how do you do that? I mean, there's issues that are a part of that, but there's also what kind of message you're sending in general. And like, I think

people should really study Rob Sands race because in everything he does, he's trying to communicate that he would be a governor for everybody, not just one fact, one side, one party, he'd be a governor for everybody. And look, I am a hard fighter, like on the fighter fold dynamic, kind of definitely in the fighting. But I also recognize that we're not running you for Senate in Iowa. Everyone's got a role to fly. Okay. But also,

I also like, I would like my personal views, I would like this nightmare of Trump to be over. And the only way I can figure out how to make it over is to have people win in kind of, Republican leaning states. So Republicans wonder, like, what they are doing. And maybe that won't happen either. But it's better than just sitting here, going in 50, 50 elections and, like, looking at this, like, general degradation of our country. Here's something else, Rob Sand did yesterday.

Jay Martin, our friend Jonathan Martin, interviewed him. Oh, I was, this is the part that you were going to start with. Yeah, I'm going here. Whatever you think about these answers, he doesn't sound like a politician. Here's Jonathan Martin. Would you want to have Joe Biden here campaign for you? Sand. No.

Can he even do that right now? J-Mart. How about Kamala Harris? No thanks. Let's move on. We need some new leadership. J-Mart. You don't think Harris should run in 2028.

Sand. No. J-Mart. Who do you think is good for 2028? And he goes off to say, I'm focused on this race. And here are the things that really matter, future, et cetera.

Whatever you think about those answers, those are real answers, not politician answers. Radical candor Right Yeah I mean to me I think this is like an important lesson

For all of us Like are we all going to give grace To Rob Santa To say like To say what he needs to say Or say what he believes Or say you know like I just think that's I'm going to give him grace to do that

You know like I think it's like really important That he wins that race And I think he believes everything he's saying And I think it's right I do think the way he just says yes or no is really important. You know? Like, I think people are done with politicians speak. Rob San 48, Zach Lane, 44 in the poll out this morning.

Zach is the sex toy magnate that lives in Kansas. And I saw a video of him the other day talking about how he's concerned about the call to prayer in Michigan. So it's a Kansas candidate that's invested in Cochrings who's campaigning in Iowa about people praying in Michigan. Those are your birds? Do you disagree with any of them? Are any of them wrong? No, I don't. I don't disagree with any of them that I'm just saying for anything.

That's pretty crazy. I'm just saying a lot of, we spend a lot of time clutching our pearls over here. Me and you're talking about things we're concerned. We do have some kooky candidates on our side, but it's like, we don't got anything like that. It's so interesting because like I criticize Republicans all the time. And then people are like, you don't criticize Republicans enough. And I was like, look, not you. you don't do that. That's all the people say that to me. And I was like, the real problem in the Republican

party is that they go along with, you know, kind of ruining the country. So that's really bad. And they should stop doing that. Sam Stein has forced me to ask you one last question. Are you ready for it? Oh, God. I'm not going to answer any Sam Stein. Okay. I just have a policy against that. And you're right, probably. You can answer this. What do you think about how Ken Martin is doing? Do I, I, I feel like I'm so good at pre-butting that I'm not going to answer this question. Okay. Sam's follow-up question to you, would you consider taking his role if asked? If asked.

No. Is that a Sherman-esque denial? I 100% Sherman-esque denial. And I don't think people who claim to like me should want me to take that job. That is something that we agree on 100%. Okay. Anything else you need to get off your chest? Anybody you want to yell about?

Anything that Kappa is doing? that you want people to nail about? Oh, yes, yes. Well, I would say you were grateful for all the support against her lawsuit. It is expensive. So go to our website, Center for American Progress at Americanprogress. At Americanprogress.org and check out all the things we're doing. And I will say we have a lot of ideas on how to lower costs for Americans.

And I'm really grateful of all the leaders across the country who are using those ideas to govern and also, you know, in some of their races. The corruption tracker that you're doing is also. really useful and something that I turn to a lot. And I actually feel now I'm chastising myself now because I should have, we should have brought this up before we got to, before we got to, you know, Michigan Senate discourse because, I mean, that is related to affordability. Yeah. Democrats got to talk about both this, Amosov's doing, sans, doing others are doing. Like the people that are doing really well are doing a really good job, Tel RICO of like tying those two issues together. Yeah. And I think a really important thing to remember about corruption.

or the $1.7 billion national guard deployments is it's really important for us to remind people. These are the choices the president's making. He's like finding $100 billion for the Iran war while he's cutting people's healthcare. He's spending $1.7 billion on National Guard deployments while he's cutting snap payments and like basically food payments for people hungry. That is the kind of choices that we're dealing with. and why change is so necessary? We'll leave it there.

It's near a tanned and we'll see you on X.com and we'll have you back on, I don't know, probably before the midterms, all right? Okay, great. Thanks for having me. I'll see you then. Everybody else, we'll be back here tomorrow for another edition of the pod. See you all then. Peace.

The Bullwark Daily is brought to you thanks for the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Ansley Skipper, and with video editing by Dante DeChico and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.