The Daily Beast Podcast - Do Yourself a Favor and Watch This Underrated Movie About Donald Trump

Episode Date: January 3, 2025

“The Apprentice” is one of 2024’s best films, and didn’t get as much credit as it deserved, according to the co-hosts of The New Abnormal. Then, a conversation with Steven Monacelli of the Texas Observer about his investigation into the identities behind four anonymous neo-Nazi accounts on X. Plus! Paola Ramos, the author of “Defectors: The Rise of the Latino Far Right and What It Means For America” joins the program to discuss the Democratic Party's post-election struggles and the challenges of reconnecting with disillusioned young voters and communities of color. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears.

What a great show we have for you today. Steve Monticelli of the Texas Observer reveals the identities behind four anonymous neo-Nazi accounts on X, formerly Twitter, and the alarming influence they've gained under Elon Musk's leadership. Then, Paulo Ramos, the author of Defectors, The Rise of the Latino Far Right, and What It Means for America, joins to discuss the Democratic Party's post-election struggles and the challenges of reconnecting with disillusioned young voters and communities of color. But first, let's have some fun.

So as is new abnormal holiday tradition, what we like to do around here is ask you some questions to let the listeners get to know you guys a little better. Okay. Last year, we asked, who will have the biggest impact on American history? Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, our RFK Jr., and we all kind of laughed. Would we like to do some reflection?

I can still laugh at Ralph Nader. Yeah. All I can say is fuck Jill Stein. And, um, wow, what a comeback in RFK Jr. Well, which one are you marrying and which one are you killing? Oh, Jesus. Oh, Jesus. No.

I'm opting out in that situation. I abstain. I'm abstaining. I enter the conversation for kill when that's the choice. Mm-hmm. I'm trying to remember what I said last. year. I suspect maybe I said Nader because he really did have back in the day a huge effect. We agreed that his impact of safety protocols really would be it. But, uh, yeah, it's definitely not

Stein. I mean, well, you know, she's gone back to her groundhog day of, uh, you know, Palestine means nothing to her now that the election's over. Mm-hmm. And RFK, I mean, I guess it's, uh, TBD, just how much damage he's going to do. Yep. It ain't going to be none. Unless he doesn't get through somehow. Yeah, maybe. It's possible. What was a journalistic outlet you guys constantly loved this year?

So we saw a big rise in this past year in sort of, I guess you'd call them, worker-owned platforms. Things like Defector kind of pioneered this to a large extent. But in the past year, just a whole bunch of them popped up. There's aftermath doing video games, journalism. There's 404 media, which is doing unbelievable. There's Hellgate, New York City, which has become like an absolutely vital resource for knowing what's going on in New York, in politics, culture, and so many other things. That's my pick.

Yeah, and there's a couple. I know I'm blanking on a couple others, but they're really, it's been really, really good to see. I mean, it's just, you know, yes, you have to pay for them because they're owned and operated by the journalists who write there. But, you know, for 20 bucks a year or whatever it is, I mean, you're really getting, you're getting really good journalism. You're not getting ownership that, like we've seen with the LA Times and the Washington Post. You know, you're just getting, you're getting really good writers doing really good work. And it's been, it's been really nice to see. It's a shame that it's, you know, we've had to go this way because legacy media has let us down in so many ways.

But it's also, it's great. And I'm happy that these organizations have been able to do this. Oh, Flaming Hydra. That's another one. I will say that for particularly for international coverage that I have really enjoyed is Medi Hassan Zateo. I think that the people that he has brought on to that platform as contributors and the work that he was doing since he left MSNBC, I have really appreciated.

So I'll say that. What was one of your favorite moments of the new abnormal this year? Oh my God. I have consistently enjoyed some different interviews. Both of you have done with people from the lever. I find a lot of their story angles very, very interesting. Yeah, I do like the folks over there. Yeah, definitely.

I really enjoyed talking to Douglas Rushkoff because he's a guy who has been around for a pretty long time. He was sort of one of the original cyberpunks, I guess you would call them. and, you know, hung out with people like William Gibson and Robert Anton Wilson and all and and and a lot of people who really, you know, when tech first started its rise along, a long, long, long time ago, you know, had much more of a utopian mindset than our current tech pros who have switched it to a dystopian mindset. And so it was just really interesting to talk to him. about about what's changed and why all these tech guys suck so much now. But he's just a super interesting guy. God, there's just, honestly, there are a lot of them whose interviews like I have really enjoyed. I think my interview with Anat Shanker Osario on messaging, on Dem messaging, the way that she's able to break down messaging and what she recommended for Democrats, which of course they did not do,

was really good speaking with Dr. Ginnwright, the author of The Four Pivots, Reimagining Justice, reimagining ourselves. That was a really great conversation. That book I have like outlined a million times over. Kelly Carter Jackson, who wrote another really incredible book on Black Resistance called We Refused a Forceful History of Black Resistance, which was also incredible. And then of course, just speaking with the two of you every week. Like, you know, just knowing that I'm not on this spinning rock of bullshit alone. Oh. I do want to add, talking to Bishop William Barber was an absolute honor,

truly one of the great civil rights and theological leaders of my generation. And then also, yeah, I think just listening to and learning from Danielle has really been, You know, I can't even quantify what that has meant. I'd like you to try, though. Well, I certainly can't quantify it monetarily if that was what you were thinking. All right. That's my cue to go to the next question. Be honest.

How much of The Apprentice have you ever watched? I don't think I've ever watched it. I think I've only ever seen clips. None. I have watched only clips, but I did watch the movie, and I will tell you, I think it's one of the best movies of the year. Yeah, it's on my list to see. Not only are the performance is great, but what it shows you about Trump's personality is a lot of things that are understated a lot.

And it is, I would literally go as far as to say as it's a masterwork. Wow. Yet again, one of those movies that I think about it nearly every day and it's been months. Oh, okay. All right. That was a good endorsement. Yeah, Jeremy Strong also, not shocking at all, one of the greatest acting performances from one of our greatest actors.

Mm-hmm. All right. You ready for the hardest one? Mm-hmm. I'm blaming Shabas for this one in advance. Say one nice thing about Donald Trump. I can go first. Oh, okay.

What? I'm rooting for you against Derek Adams. Mm-hmm. Okay. Not on immigration, though, because you're on the same side now. Yeah, for sure. I would say it's that he's closer to one to end of life than the other. wondering if that's getting past the lawyers.

I mean, it's a statement of fact. Yes, yes. It's a statement of fact. Oh, you know, I'll say this. It's not technically nice, but that he came out recently and said that he is not going to be like paying attention to the trans community, which I wanted to take as like you're removing the target from their backs. That it was good for your campaign, but now that you're elected, you're moving on.

So I hope that that is the case. All right. So Tim Scott famously did not get a place in Trump's cabinet yet, at least when the day we're recording this. What do you think Tim Scott could do to get Trump to love him back? I mean, he already orchestrated like a fake marriage. So like, what else could he do? I have an idea. Reverse Rachel Dahl as all.

That's what I was going to say. Oh, wow. Some kind of depigmentation type thing. Mm-hmm. The sad thing is, I believe he would. Yep. If you could completely abolish one governor and agency or institution, which one would it be? We're going Doge here, y'all.

We're the new Doge. Mm-hmm. It's not Vivek, Elon, Romswamy. It is Moody Levy Cannon. We're auditioning for the next Democratic president to take over. Department of Homeland Security. Mm-hmm. I was going to say the Pentagon, so yeah.

Space Force would be second. Oh, yeah, that's a good one. Space Force can definitely fuck off. What would you two say is a good thing to read to get us through the next four years? The thing that I have told people to read every year for the past, oh, I don't know, nine years, which would be Octavia Butler's parable of the sower and parable of the talents. And I would, as always say, the Bible. Oh, my God.

This guy, this guy. I'm going to do my cop-out answer and say a transcript of Adam Curtis's documentary hyper-normalization, because it explains what's going on better than anything else. Okay. I guess if you want a serious answer. I'll take one. I would say Ombardo Echo wrote an essay a while back called Erfascism, and it's a very, very good. The subtitle is Eternal Fascism.

14 ways of looking at a black shirt. And it's a really, really good look into the fascist mindset. And, you know, I think he breaks it down into, God, it's been a while since I read it. I think it's 14 elements of fascism. And it's a really, really smart and compelling essay. What is a political figure you think people should be more afraid of? Oh, the combination of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.

Peter Thiel is my answer. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, I mean, I would just, I would basically say the tech bros, I think some of whom I mentioned earlier, Mark Entrice and David Sachs, all those guys that have, are now going to be part of this administration somehow, and they are among the worst people on the planet. So I would just say the tech bro. All right. We have one last one. What's making you happy in the world right now? Why would you ask this question? So that shame is something the pace to the end of this or near Christmas so people don't turn it off. Right. And it has to be something in the world, like not in your personal life, right?

Oh, no, no. It can be anything you want it to be. You feel free to go wherever you'd like. I was going to do my personal life. Okay. Go do your personal life because you did something very wonderful this year. I am a newlywed and my wife and two dogs make me. very, very happy.

Oh. I love that. I'm just going to go personal. Because what keeps me, what makes me happy are I have a wonderful family, an amazing girlfriend. And because of my girlfriend, a step dog, my step for a baby, Pierre makes me very, very happy. Okay, we're done. Happy New Year, everyone. Happy New Year, everyone.

The Texas Observer recently published an investigative report that revealed the names behind four previously anonymous Neo-Nazi X accounts. Here with the details is one of the journalists who broke the story, Texas Observer, Special Investigative correspondent, and publisher of the non-profit literary publication Protein magazine, Steve Monticelli. Steve, thanks so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Andy. So what led you and your co-byline E, if that is a word? Tristan Lee to look into this in the first place. Tristan and I both have an interest in researching and reporting on the far right.

And we've reported on a couple different articles before, both of which identified neo-Nazis or far-right white nationalists of different stripes. And in this particular instance, you know, we had gotten sort of a suggestion, a tip-off to take a look at some different accounts that had been growing, quite significantly in the past year and a half. These accounts post pretty regularly things that I think we could fairly describe as pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler, at the very least, anti-Semitic, or direct references to white supremacist or neo-Nazi tropes like the 14 words and blood and soil. So like most good stories, you know, we were basically provisive. the suggestion a tip off to take a look at these accounts and see what we might be able to find about

them talk a little bit before we get into these guys specifically talk about the rise of nazi and other hate accounts on ex and musk took it over and killed twitter because it really has grown hasn't it right well so i think that's the the background context that you know really got us interested in identifying some of these accounts and the background context is pretty clear. So according to X's own transparency report from 2024, there's been a massive drop-off in moderation of accounts on the platform for hateful content or hate speech. It's quite significant. So since 2021, it dropped from one million accounts moderated for hate in that year to only 2,361 in 2024.

And over the same time period, there's been a dramatic rise in the number of accounts, as well as the followings of these accounts that regularly promote neo-Nazi content. So I think earlier in 2024, earlier this year, NBC did a big report on a large number of Neo-Nazi accounts that had received blue checks or, you know, were verified accounts that were posting pretty hateful content. And so, you know, the four counts that we looked at for this article have seen their followings grow, you know, logarithmically, pretty significantly in the past year and a half. In some instances, they went from having a few thousand to over 200,000 followers. All right. So let's talk about these four guys in particular.

Who are they, and what is it about their accounts that makes it a big deal that they have now been unmasked? Regrettably, all four of these guys are millennials. Going to have to apologize on behalf of millennials. Uh-huh. Accepted. Yeah, we've got these guys posting kind of cringe neo-Nazi stuff well into their 40s in at least one instance. They're spread out. Three of them currently are in Texas.

One works for the Navy in Indian Head. Maryland, where they, incidentally, they manufacture explosive ordinance there. Of the three that were in Texas, one was a marketing professional. One worked at J.P. Morgan Chase until very recently. And another actually only started spending time in Texas after I contacted them for comment, which I found to be interesting. That person is a former engineer, worked for some aerospace companies, and apparently is now retired according to their tweets. Does it make you a little nervous that one guy is now in Texas after you reported on him? I would say it's not my first time reporting on neo-Nazis who are in my neck of the woods.

So not particularly, but I always am sure to take precautions whenever. I report on things like this because I can't say that I've gotten some threats and a small amount of digital harassment in response to this story. Yeah, no, I would imagine. All right, so let's talk about Robert Thorne, I think, is the guy. name. He's the one that you mentioned worked for J.P. Morgan Chase, and you noted that he worked for J.P. Morgan Chase until recently, and that part is because of your efforts, isn't it? I think we could fairly say that J.P. Morgan Chase has no tolerance for hate, and so subsequently they fired him, I think,

in response to our reporting. But I would somewhat take a qualm with the idea that it was my efforts, or Tristan Lee's efforts that resulted in his person getting fired because ultimately it was their own Twitter posts, ex-posts that was the deciding factor and why they were let go. But yes, I can also say that J.P. Morgan Chase was unaware that one of their vice presidents in Plano, Texas, happened to be posting pro-Nazi content on their ex-page, including such gems as, quote, I'm a neo-Nazi. So I think it's fair to say that he's a pretty clear-cut case, self-described, and is not shy, at least when he has a pseudonym. He's not shy about his beliefs. Yeah, no, it doesn't get any less shy than that, I suppose.

And you mentioned another guy who worked for the Navy in Maryland. That was at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. What was his deal? So, yeah, John Provenzano, he's 30 years old, had a background in working for construction and engineering companies. We had gotten a tip while we were reporting on him that he was working for the Navy at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland, which we also learned is a place where I previously mentioned. They manufacture explosive ordinance for the Navy. What I can say is that the Navy was hesitant to directly confirm that Mr. Provenzano was their employee, a civilian employee, I might add, due to various privacy regulations. and there's a particular law that prevents them from disclosing, you know, certain personnel

information until after someone has left that position. And so, you know, we got to think about as good of a confirmation as we could get, which involved them noting that these allegations are under investigation and that they did have records in response to one of our public records requests about this person, but they could not release them due to the privacy regulations. Out of these four guys, three of them were followed by a United States congressman, were they not? That is correct. Yes, three of them were followed by a United States congressman. Now, we can't necessarily draw too many conclusions from the fact that someone follows someone on Twitter or X, whatever you want to call it.

But it is an odd thing for a particular congressman to follow all three of these accounts. And to me, what it signifies really, in addition to some other examples that we noted in the article, that these accounts that posts, you know, neo-Nazi content, sometimes more explicitly, sometimes less explicitly or a little more tongue-in-cheek, are increasingly getting attention from, you know, maybe you could call them mainstream conservative types. And I think this is in part a function of how the platform works and that they're being algorithmically suggested to, you know, entire audiences of people. And whenever their posts go viral, they sort of break containment and,

start to reach more and more people. And so this is not to say that, you know, this guy who works for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Chuck DeVore, it's not that he believes the same things as one of the accounts that he retweeted. He retweeted a pretty benign post about 9-11. But what it does mean is that, you know, these kind of mainstream conservatives could inadvertently be radicalizing their audiences or exposing their audiences to, you know, incredibly radical content, particularly hateful content.

Yeah, for sure. And just to put a point on it, Thomas Massey is the congressman who was following three of these four neo-Nazi accounts. Elon Musk himself has interacted with some of these accounts, hasn't he? Yes. Two of the accounts that we reported on, Elon Musk interacted with. One was a typical Elon Musk response, laughing, crying emoji. That was in response to a pretty ridiculous post about a relatively insane community note. You know, one of those things people can append to posts if enough people vote on it, suggesting that Vice President Kamala Harris was the quote unquote main hoe of TV host Montel Williams in the past. So, you know, Elon Musk thought that was apparently really hilarious. And the person who had posted that, you know,

is someone who's posted the 14 words before, which is a white supremacist, a slogan. And Another instance, Musk responded to another account which was complaining about an actual open neo-Nazi being banned from Twitter. And Elon Musk was sort of acting in his customer service mode that he has often, you know, sort of served in this role in response to large accounts that have blue checks that also often tend to be right-wing or far-right. So it's not to say that Elon Musk directly agreed with this guy, but for whatever reason, he felt compelled. to respond to his complaints directly. Meanwhile, you know, I've been banned and brought back from being banned on X and, you know, had a lot of interesting interactions with the platform and have asked the company for requests for comment on things, and I've never gotten a response from the man. Yeah. Did these guys know each other online? They've all interacted with each other, basically.

We don't want to draw too many conclusions from those interactions, but it does appear that, you know, three of the four all participated in a particular space, you know, a Twitter space or X-space where they all use voice chat to talk about basically Holocaust denial. You know, they are a part of this broader ecosystem of far-right accounts that tend to interact with each other, retweet each other and promote each other's content. Is this the space that was called JQ 101? Yes, that's the one I'm referring to. And so, JQ is something that a number of these accounts have posted about, which is, it's an abbreviation for the quote-unquote Jewish question, which is basically a very anti-Semitic way of discussing, you know, what historically is associated with the final

solution, which is what the Nazis promoted as the answer to the quote-unquote Jewish question, which really deals with, you know, how do we, quote-unquote, deal with or associate with or what's our relationship to a minority Jewish population, which was a question that was fervently demated among racist nationalists, you know, over 100 years ago. Can you talk a little more about the kinds of things that these guys posted? I saw, you know, one of the ones you linked to from one of these accounts was basically a post saying, did the good guys really win World War II or are we presently living in the dystopian future that they tried to prevent in the past?

What do you think? Right. There's kind of a spectrum of things that these guys post. On the one end, it's sort of tongue in cheek, coded language, perhaps the use of phrases that may not apparently be associated with neo-Nazism or white supremacism if you aren't familiar with their history, but if you dig into them, they are. And so an example of that being the 14 words or the phrases, blood and soil, or these sort of benign discussions of historical figures like, Oswald Mosley, who was a British fascist whose wedding was attended by high-ranking members of the Nazi party. On the extreme end, it is, you know, straight up pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler statements, self-describing as a Nazi or as a national socialist, very virulent anti-Semitic posts, really heinous, you know, sort of conspiracy theory type stuff, the spread of swastikas, Seekyll, Holocaust denial, all that sort of stuff. And these accounts, depending on which account we're talking about or what time of day, we'll post sort of towards one side of the spectrum or the other.

And we link pretty heavily to all of these sort of archived examples in our article. Here's an example of one of them. Quote, this video has almost every Holocaust fact you need to know, in less than 90 seconds, and then there's a video. The archived version of this post actually has a community note attached to it that says, quote, this is blatant Holocaust denial, and the widely available evidence just proves essentially all of the claims in this video. This post in particular was viewed over 540,000 times.

So it's not that these are tiny accounts that are kind of screaming into the void. These are accounts that are getting pretty significant reach. Collectively, they had over 400,000 followers, I think maybe even over 500,000. And their posts would, in many instances, reach millions of youth. So we're not exaggerating in any sense when we describe these accounts as either neo-Nazis or white nationalists. And in almost every instance, they're either self-identifying or whenever someone describes them in this way. They sort of proudly react to it and use that as a provocation to get more attention. I was quite moved by something that one of these guys, Michael Graamer, who uses the charming screen name, 9 MMSM,

where he does say that he's a white nationalist and likes to discuss the Jewish question, but he insists that he's not a fascist, neo-Nazi, or white supremacist. And I found this quite moving, Stephen. Well, you know, it's so interesting, right? The word games that people play and the sort of lack of sincerity, I guess, is the way that I would put it. And that goes back to Jean-Paul Sartre, like, the idea that you're not dealing with people who are being really honest or sincere when it comes to some of this stuff. Because deep down, I think they have to know that it's wrong. But, you know, this guy in particular, he says outright, you know, he would prefer a national socialism or fascism to our current.

democratic system. So if that doesn't make you a neo-Nazi, at the very least, it makes you a neo-Nazi sympathizer. Right. Oh my God. Steve, it's always, I don't want to say fun to talk to you, because the subjects are always disgusting, but it's always educational to talk to you. And I appreciate you coming on and check out Steve's work at Texas Observer. And thanks again for being here, man. Yeah, it's always like a really twisted pleasure to speak with you about this stuff. So thanks, Andy. Folks, I am so very happy to welcome back to the new abnormal, the author of the book, Defectors, The Rise of the Latino Far Right, and what it means for America as well as an MSNBC contributor

and analyst Paola Ramos. Friend, we have been through the ringer in the last couple of weeks following the election and the election results that kind of sent, I think, Democrats into a tailspin. And as we are seeing, there is the obviousness of how Democrats are organizing their ranking members in the House that going with younger, progressive, women of color, not the vibe. They're going to stay the course. What do you make of the decisions that Democrats have been making post-elect? are they reading the room? They're not. No.

I mean, look, I think to me, it feels like a party that's in the midst of this very deep existential identity crisis. No, it's as if they're like still trying to hold on to this old guard while knowing that they have to change. But they're trying to to figure out who they are and going back to a version of them that that is simply not the future. Right. And I think what you just laid out is precisely that, right? like understanding that someone like AOC, that is a reflection of so many young, progressive people of color, I think there's a recognition that she is the future, but I think they're trying to fight themselves on that. And to me, what's been so concerning is kind of like the language

that they've been using in the last week since the election, almost the language that sounds like Republicans and like Trump, no, this idea that like we lost because of people like AOC or we lost because of the trans folks. We lost because of the trans folks. We lost because of we care too much about immigration. We lost because we paid too much attention to what young people were seeing about Gaza. And that really concerns me. Because the moment that you start to point fingers and the moment that the party feels that they are entitled to value and who is worthy enough or not to be part of this tent,

that really, really, really concerns me a lot. You know, and I've been saying this a lot is that Democrats have been chasing Republicans as Republicans become increasingly extreme. as MAGA moves themselves off of a cliff, what used to be considered centrist Democrats I now look to as moderate Republicans. Because if you continue to move your ideology to the right in order to chase

whoever you think that you can pick up, then you are moving outside of your values. Our values are supposed to be about creating a tent that is inclusive of everybody. And so to that point, Why do you think following every loss that Democrats, instead of looking to their progressive base and saying, are we representative of what they need and what is popular, that they continue to chase voters that don't want to be a part of their tent? Danielle, how many times have you asked this question? I mean, I don't know.

For years. No, literally for years. Yeah. And so I think even the basic values, like I think if you put the party in one room, including some progressives, and you ask everyone, like, what do we stand for? I don't think you're going to get a clear answer. And I think that's where, you know, there's some lessons to be learned from Trump, right? They know exactly what they're for because they know exactly what they're against. And there is such moral clarity on their side around this is who we are for.

and this is who we are against. And they may not be in agreement as a party because they're not, but they're aligned. They're so aligned. No, they know what the end goal is. They know who's part of that tent. And everyone has sort of their own pathway to get to that goal, but they know what the goal is. And I think if you ask sort of Democrats, like, what are those values? Like, do you believe that like undocumented immigrants that have been here for over 16 years,

which is the average? Like, do they deserve to stay? We're going to get different answers, right? Like, do we believe in the human rights of everyone that's in Gaza and in the Middle East? We're going to get different answers. Like, do you believe? Like, so forth. And so I think, I think honestly, that's why I may not have the best answers for you right now

because I do see a party that is completely trying to figure itself out. And perhaps even there's like two versions of that party. And that's a really uncomfortable sort of situation to be in. No, but I think this idea that it's united, that it's sort of finding itself now, I don't think that's where that's where we're at. There's a sense of belonging that Maga created for all of these people that feel as if, in some instance or another, have been left behind by the progress that this country has made, even though for some of us, it may feel incremental. For them, in some instances, it feels like overnight. 20 years ago, we were not talking about pronouns.

20 years ago, we were very strictly inside of the binary. That's just one example. And so while I still look at the makeup of CEOs in this country being largely overwhelmingly white men, it doesn't feel like that when you're turning on your television and now you're seeing the demographic shift in your living room. And so I wonder, you know, when you just said maybe it looks like I'll put words in here about two different parties. What do you mean by that? I mean, I think this idea that when we think of this party and we put us in a room, And you ask folks to raise their hand when you say, who represents you, I think there's going to be a 50-50 split.

No, because I think to your point, I think we're now sort of facing two different theories of change. I think you and I are of the belief that you can't win the future without people of color. And not only that, right, that people of color have to lead that movement. And that looks very different. And then I think if you ask other people in the party, they will go back to the same theory of change that makes you ask, this question every single election, which is why is the party sort of opting to please white voters time and time again, where it is black women that lead this party to success, that are the only loyal voters in this party. And I fear, I worry that in two years you will be asking the same

question. And so I think unless there's like a very clear emergence of a leader, of a progressive leader that really sticks by that more clarity, I have. I don't know because I think, look, I think part of the reason we are where we are is truly because of that deep, deep, deep disillusionment that so many people and young people and progressives were feeling on the ground. And I felt this until the very, very last day. Like, I was in Arizona those last few hours before the election and talking to, you know, like Latino voters, progressive voters that did vote for Obama back in the day and that voted for Joe Biden, but that were hanging on to sort of this idea of immigration relief for. so many years and they just weren't believing it anymore. And while they knew very clearly, right, that Trump was sort of instilling fear and resentment. And those are feelings that people hold on to. Like, the question that I had was like, what inspiration were those folks holding

onto? You know, all those mixed status families that I was sort of interviewed. Like, what were they holding on to? Because unless that inspiration is greater than fear, like, people don't win elections. You only win, right, against Trump is if you're able to inspire a movement that is able to defeat that really contagious and toxic fear, anger, and resentment that you and I have constantly talked about on there together. And they didn't have that. And to your point, because there's a lot of pain, there's a lot of disillusionment, there's a lot of sort of frustration with a system, and people are struggling. And so unless the party is brave enough or a faction of the party is brave enough to give people what they need, I fear that we'll keep sort of like

spiraling in the same conversation of like, what are our values and who's representing us. What also was interesting following the results of the election is that all over cable news, you had predominantly white anchors saying that Democrats should not have ran a woman and should not have ran a woman of color. And do we not need to go back to what people are quote unquote comfortable with? And I also lift up the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris and Tim Walls ran a campaign in 107 days. It was 107 days long. It was the biggest sprint that we've ever seen in modern history to election day.

And while we want to pick apart, what do you think that was missing in terms of the inspiration? Because I was at the DNC like you were. We were at convention and the energy felt different. So what wasn't able to translate to the masses outside of that arena? The thing is, when I'm in those spaces, right? And that's that's sort of what I'm sort of processing. No, when you and I are at the DNC or when we turn on our MSNBC, I still have to remind myself that this is a bubble.

We are still in a bubble. And so I think for me, the important exercise of 2025 is really forcing myself to leave that bubble in understanding of what you and I were feeling at the DNC, you know, that's sort of the joy and that inspiration. Like, were people miles and miles and miles away from that, you know, DNC, like feeling that? And unfortunately, the answer was no. And it has nothing to do with the messenger, right? I think that the vice president was an incredible messenger. But I also think that she was up against. And I mean, you've talked about this so many times, right? Like she was, she was up against, I think, this existential question that you and I are sort of talking

about, right? Which is like, did she have the tools and was she allowed to sort of carve out her own message that was distinct enough from President Biden's. And it's likely that she was not, right? Because of the bureaucracy and the politics and the times and so forth. But I think the exercise is what would have happened? What would have happened if she would have had, you know, her own campaign and the time to instill the message that she wanted? And I say this because when I was in Arizona, one of the things I kept coming up with immigrant rights groups was, was this sort of two sides of the vice president. I don't know, this idea that, like, yes, they believed her and they were going to vote for her. But then there was always, but they're like, but I wish she would lean more on her, like, immigrant story, no.

But I wish she would, you know, she wouldn't be so fixated on like out-trumping Trump at the border. But I wish that she would. And again, I don't know the in and outs of the campaign, but I can only imagine that were she given the space, no, and the time and the care that someone like her deserved, I bet you some of those like Arizona Latino voters would have. felt the type of inspiration, no, that they were sort of like yearning for in that moment. And again, it's, I think it's because like, we all saw it. You know, she was sort of like boxed in, no, this like incredible story, like, kind of like perfectly like boxed in.

And it's like, what happens if she could have just like stepped out of that? And we don't, we won't know. Yeah, we won't know. But, you know, something that you did know, because your book came out right on time. Unfortunately. Right. Yeah. But you had clearly known, you know, as you were writing.

defectors as you were talking to to Latinos on the ground that there was a trend developing. There was a pattern developing inside of this Latino far right movement that we saw, you know, credible peel off. There was still a majority that voted for Democrats. When we're talking about elections being run, one, razor thin with a handful of votes, the peel off that happened of Latinos to MAGA. really mattered. So talk to us about what you think Democrats missed and what they weren't paying attention to that clearly Donald Trump was. Yeah. I mean, even just for context to for everyone that's

listening, right, it's what we're talking about this idea that the exit polls were pointing to Donald Trump receiving anywhere between 40 to 45 percent of the Latino vote, 45 percent. So this means that Donald Trump right now, if these exit polls are, you know, are somewhat correct, which, of course, we always have to sort of, you know, down and we'll wait a couple of months. But we're talking about Donald Trump becoming the presidential Republican candidate that has been able to tap the largest share of Latino voters. And the last person that came as close as that was someone like George W. Bush that received 40 percent.

But when we think about the difference between them, George W. Bush got at least 40 percent of the Latino vote. But his message was the complete opposite. He ran on a, again, I'm not here to bet George Bush at all, but I'm here to sort of explain the evolution of where we are. Now, he won almost 40% of the vote, George Hillary Bush, with his very pro-immigrant message. He wanted to be the Republican candidate that would pass comprehensive immigration reform. And here we have a Donald Trump that ran on the complete opposite, that in 2024, they understood that Latinos were not immune to the anti-immigrant

rhetoric and the transphobic rhetoric and the anger and the fear. And that, the moment that they realized that they started taking this anti-immigrant message beyond Miami-Dade County in the Rio Grande Valley. We started hearing it in the Bronx and in Queens and in Phoenix and in Vegas and in the Central Valley. And it was simply that that very simple idea, know, that there were a significant amount of Latinos that had either become so Americanized or assimilated or, and I always stress this, or had the urge to do so, which is equally important, the urge to sort of conform, no, and feel American that they bet on this idea that. that that segment of Latinas could also sort of buy into the nativism and the xenophobia and that anti-immigrant sentiment. And it worked. And we can spend like hours talking about like the root causes of it. I think honestly it's it's a very simple exercise for Democrats, right? The idea that we were ever immune to those sort of tenets of Trumpism is absurd. And if you believe that, it's simply because

then we don't do a good enough job at really understanding all those. sort of history and the weights of colonialism and the racial baggage and the political trauma. We don't do a good enough job by talking about all of that weight manifests in American politics. And I think that's kind of the version of the story that we saw right now. A comfortable Latino electorate that was okay exposing sort of those more like uncomfortable like truths. Let me ask you this. How do we move forward in creating a large tent without flattening?

the people inside and making them all the same with all of the same desires and hopes and possibilities for the future in knowing that we have differences and those differences are real. I mean, look, that's a million dollar question. I mean, look, I think when I, at least, obviously I spent, I spent so much time thinking about obsessing about particularly now, now this idea of like Latinos and really going back to kind of, I think, what you're pointing to, which is this questioning if there is still, like collectively, what's that electorate holding onto? What does that solidarity look like today? And is it strong enough to even point to this idea that there still does exist one Latina community or have we approached a time in history

where perhaps it is way too fragmented to think of us as one? And again, as a good journalist, I'm posing questions back to you. I'm not going to, I'm going to pivot. But I, I'm, still am of the belief. Purely, if I'm like closing my eyes and I'm thinking of Latinas, I'm of the believe that that like origin immigrant story, which is the story of people that someone in our families, our descendants, came to this country for the very same reason. And that very same reason is to have a little bit more rights here and liberties and opportunities and those that we left behind. And if we're able to sort of hold onto that sentiment, which I do believe many Latinas, and of course people of color hold onto deeply, that's something we can work with.

Because everything else that I named, you can unlearn, no? I can go to the Bronx and tell someone why they're feeling this sort of, like, resentment towards black people. And I can tell them that it's about the sort of way that we have been trained to think about, like, you know, anti-blackness and colorism in Latin America. And those are things that we can unlearn, no? I can unlearn many things. But if I'm able to sort of, like, do that while also, like, tapping into that original, like, identity that I think unites many Latinos and, in this country, particularly at a time, Danielle, when we're about to face mass deportations in this very ugly side of Republicans, then I think there's an entry point there to, you know,

to bring people back to Democrat. And going back to, and I'm talking too much, but going back to this idea that you pose of like Republicans are good at creating this sense of belonging, I think we may be facing potentially as we sort of start seeing family separation and ice around our corners. We may have an opportunity if we do it right to bring people back. You know, this, you can belong here. No, your full self. Here you won't be sort of racially profiled, no?

And I don't know. Yeah. More questions and answers. More questions and answers. But it's the truth. We'll have to leave it there for now. But the beauty is, is there are opportunities inside every obstacle that is presented. And I think that if we choose to look at them, if we choose to see what went wrong, but what can be iterated on with open eyes and open posture, like we can get.

somewhere. So my friend, we will have to continue this conversation as we move into this new regime. But I appreciate you so very much. And folks, the book is Defectors, the rise of the Latino far right and what it means for America. Paola, thank you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you having. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of The New Abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts.

If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.