The Dispatch Podcast - 'Democrats Should Stop Gaslighting Us' | Interview: Tim Miller

Episode Date: July 9, 2024

Steve is joined by The Bulwark's Tim Miller to briefly rehash their disagreement from March and discuss the backlash Miller has received since calling for Biden to step down. The Agenda: —Not interested in circling the wagon —The spin isn’t working —The American People Should Demand Better —Trump and Biden are “categorically” different —Biden’s “MAGA” response —Who would Tim pick instead of Biden? —Credibility in opinion journalism Show Notes: —Tim Miller’s interview on his book, Why We Did It —“The Dispatch and the Bulwark walk into a bar…” —The Bulwark: “Stephen Hayes: Grading Biden” —Tim Miller: “The Bidens Need to Have a Talk” —Tim Miller: “Dear Dems: The Gaslighting Isn’t Helping Matters” —Reagan and Mondale’s 1984 debate —“It’s Democrats’ Turn to Make the Hard Decision” —The Bulwark: “Jon Lovett: Unprecedented Times” —Miss South Carolina answers a question The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Steve Hayes, joined today by Tim Miller. You know Tim as a writer for the Bullwork, coach of the Bullwark podcast. He's been on Dispatch Podcasts regularly over the years, I think it's fair to say. And we always enjoy talking to Tim getting his perspective. Tim has been, if any of you are online, and for your sanity, I hope most of you aren't online as either Tim or I, but if you've been observing what's been taking place online, with respect to Tim, over the past, what now 11 days since the Trump Biden debate, it has been a spectacle. And I think that's probably as good a place to start as anywhere, Tim. Welcome. We're glad to have you. Hey, man, it's good to be back. It's good to be back.

And hopefully, you know, I think the last time I was on was out with you, actually, is with Jamie. And he forced me to defend woke schooling as well as Joe Biden's Israel policy right off the top. So, you know, hopefully we can be on a little bit more sturdy ground with the listeners on this. I mean, we, yeah, the last time you and I talked, it was on the Bowork podcast. And you had me on to grill me over the disc back editorial, which we will definitely get back to. I think that's a conversation worth continuing. But let's, no, it was friendly. It's always, is always friendly.

Let me start with, with the debate and what's happened since. So the debate takes place. Everybody, I think, recognizes Joe Biden, a disastrous performance. And the implications, I mean, literally five, ten minutes after the debate ended, I was talking to Democrats who were concerned and talking about replacing Joe Biden. Five to ten minutes into the debate for me. Well, that's right, right. I mean, I think that is really what.

What happened? So you came out. You were critical of Joe Biden, I would say, panicked about what the debate performance meant for Biden's viability. You made that clear. You spoke about it in sort of blunt ways. And for so many of the people who had sort of come to know and love Tim Miller, the former Republican flack, you were frustrating them. You were disappointing them. What did you say? about the debate, and what was the response like? Yeah, well, I didn't say anything about the debate that I don't think was obvious to anybody with eyes and ears. I think the initial article I wrote after the debate was that Joe and Jill need to have a talk about what to do moving forward. And, you know, that talk, in my view, initially,

should probably lead to him stepping aside from the race. If not that, it should have led to him dramatically changing the way, he's been campaigning to date to demonstrate that that debate was out of character. You know, whether he's capable of that, I don't think any of us know. I think it's fair to say maybe he's not. But to me, if he's going to stay in, that was what he needed to do. And then a couple of days later, I wrote about a message to the Democrats to stop gaslighting us

about what was happening with Joe Biden, about how we'd been, there'd been eight years of people lecturing, including us, by the way, never Trumpers, including the Bull War, about gaslighting and about the Trumpian lies and how that is corrosive to democracy and just the amount of lying that was happening from the Biden team, frankly, but also the people around him about the problems facing his candidacy,

about his fitness, just on a whole wide range of things, like they were spreading absurd lies to try to, you know, circle the wagons around him. And my view is I don't want to circle. I'm not interested in circling the wagons. Like, I'm not a wagon circler. So I was a wagon circler.

I wouldn't be in this, in the place that I'm in. And so, yeah, I don't know. I mean, there has been a very vocal pushback. Yeah. I think that there's some similarities, maybe some differences with what my experience was in 2016, right? Which is when I spoke out against Trump, as soon as Jeff, for people I don't know,

just very briefly, as soon as Jeb dropped out, A couple of days later, I was hired to be the spokesperson for a group that was at the time called Our Principles Pack, which was a bunch of conservative donors who were funding an effort to stop Trump that was kind of neutral in whether it was Cruz or Rubio or Kasek, though I think we knew Kasek couldn't win. And so I was the voice of that. And so there were some similarities, obviously, a lot of a vocal contingent online of people who were smearing me and being very cruel and hateful. you know, a defense from the people that I was criticizing that, you know, was, you know, absurd on its face. A lot of the Trump world defenses of themselves, obviously, were that. So I think there are some similarities. There might be some differences. I think we'll see kind of how this plays out. We're having this conversation as things are, as there's an active conversation happening.

I'm noticing that, you know, there's a lot of Democrats that agree with me. I hear from a lot of Democrats us privately, say what you want about, and we'll get into this, say what you want about MSNBC and some others, like, there's a, there's a mixed views, you know, is everybody saying exactly what I would want them to say, no, right? But so it's possible that there's some antimondies that are different than what we saw on the mega side. I think that there's some evidence of that early. But, you know, that's basically the takeaway is that, you know, the feedback from the

loudest people online has been very viscerally negative. and personally negative in weird ways. And I think the response from the Biden campaign has in a lot of ways been, you know, BS, a lot of BSing. Well, let's focus there, I think. I mean, the online stuff I've seen some of it. It's ugly. It's really ridiculous and you shouldn't have to deal with it.

I would just say, I'm fine. Like, whatever. Who gives the fuck? But, you know, I know that you got, you know, David French, your old colleague went through a lot of the shit. I guess this is part of the game when you get in it. So I'm fine. I just, I don't want anybody to feel like I'm, you know, playing a violin.

What was me? Like, it's, it's bull, I, you know, F these people kind of, but also, you know, it's not exactly like, you know, I'm not, I'm not in war. I'm not over, you know, in Ukraine. I'm not in Kiev getting bombed. No, of course. And I appreciate your approach to that. I mean, I don't think it's part of the game.

I think part of the problem is, you know, we've gotten to the point where we have these disagreements for people express opinions in, in your case on the debate, observable reality. and you're somehow savaged in attack, not just attack personally, which those of us have been doing this for a while and come to expect, but really deep personal stuff that I think is bullshit and shouldn't be part of the game.

So I appreciate your attitude about it, but no, it really does suck. But let's talk about the professional Democrats and the Biden campaign in particular because, you know, this will be no surprise at all to dispatch podcast listeners. people saw what they saw in the debate. There's no denying what happened there. And instead of sort of a recognition of that reality, which we did see from some Democrats, and I think courageous

Democrats who spoke out publicly, was the sense that it didn't matter or maybe it wasn't as bad as we thought. I mean, that was certainly, I was in the spin room that night. The Democratic, the Biden surrogates showed up 15, 20 minutes late. Then they each gave a series of very carefully orchestrated sort of talking points that really didn't defend Biden much, but just attacked Trump. But then we saw from the campaign this sort of like, hey, it might have been a bad night. Kamala Harris said he had a slow start. You know, he did this event where we read from the prompter in North Carolina the next day.

And, you know, if you believed the spin, everything was just fine then. And this was all, look, it was obvious nonsense. You sort of talked about it being obvious nonsense. And I think this led to your piece about gaslighting. You had a number of prominent Democratic officials, Biden campaign officials, who said, in effect, there's nothing wrong. Everything is fine. One bad night. Maybe they didn't say there's nothing wrong.

And they all said it was a bad debate. I don't think there are any Baghdad mobs out there being like Joe Biden nailed it. Fair. So, I mean, that's one baby step. Yeah, the tiniest of bars. Tiniest of bars. Okay. So they settle on this one bad night talking point.

And we don't even need to talk about how stupid that is. It is, I did go, just for my own edification, I went back and rewatched Reagan 84, the first debate, you know, just before I wrote the article, because I was like, okay, you know, because there was some people saying that, right? That it was, you know, you were already seeing some signs of Reagan slipping in 84. I was a baby when that happened so I did not see that live and so I rewatched it and you know Reagan is halting in that debate at times

and you can see that he's not he's not the Reagan you know at point to hawk whatever you know it's not it's not Pete Reagan but he's also sharp you know I mean like he's pulling out quotes from Lincoln at various times and he's giving very nuanced answers

in a lot of places there's just no comparison between that and Biden's debate. The Biden debate was closer to Miss South Carolina, you know, talking about the Iraq than it was to Ronald Reagan in 1984. I know it was horrific. We will put that in the show notes. Okay.

You couldn't even talk. That's an elder millennial cultural reference. I'm proud that I got it then. Yeah. So anyway, that part was horrible. And so that's been, it's silly. The right thing to do in the situation, if you're going to stick with him, say, is come out and tell everybody that, yeah, like, Joe Biden let us down.

Joe Biden's saying, I let everybody down. I need to do better. This election is too important. I'm going to do this, that, and the other thing to prove to you and earn this trust back, right? Like, that's the thing you say. Right. Not fingerpoint, not just obfuscate and fingerpoint. And, you know, if you really do believe as I do, and as the Democrats claim they do,

that this is the threat in this election is extremely great, then you have to treat it, like, such you have to treat it seriously yeah and i i didn't feel like the spin was treating the disaster even remotely anything anything even approaching as seriously as a call for and then and then we can get into this but the most recent spin and the thing that i think is the most insulting and pernicious because i think it's the thing that's most likely to work um is just this notion that this is an elite phenomenon you know this is only this is only these guys hayes and miller and their new orleans in Wisconsin Bedwetting podcasters, right?

Yeah, and the bed wedding podcast is the hand ringers. It's the rich, I think Biden literally said it. I don't care about what millionaires think this morning, I'm morning, Joe. And like, this is all just so dumb. So to a point that it's like not even worth probably for your listeners even stating it,

but it is worth just saying clearly that no, the opposite is true, right? Like there were grassroots concerns, maybe not grass, man grassroots is the wrong word. there were regular Americans were concerned about Joe Biden long before the debate.

You know, showing up in every poll was showing up at every focus group that my colleague Sarah Longwell does with voters without prompting. It, you know, and then it was driving every conversation, I'm sure everybody had. It wasn't just ranking Democrats

that were texting me 10 minutes into the debate about the debate. It was my buddies from college who don't even like politics, you know, who like had flipped it on and, you know, I'm the person that they text about things. Like, what the fuck is it, right?

So, like, that whole notion that, you know, it's condescending elite white liberals, you know, trying to take this from real Americans and black voters and union voters and working class voters who are sticking with Biden. Like, it's just, like, that's just not true. Like, that's just false. No, and it's an incredible, I mean, you know, that you wonder where the spin comes from. I mean, Joe Scarborough, who's famously been a Biden chill, I think I can just say that he's been a Biden chill. you know, a few months back said,

F you, if you don't think this is the best Biden has ever been. And F you, if you are raising questions about his cognitive abilities, this is the best Biden ever. And then after the debate, there was a moment where Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, said, hey, this is a disaster. I mean, he sounded a little bit like Tim Miller. Like, this was really bad. This is bad and this isn't going to work.

And then, you know, yesterday Joe Scarborough is on Twitter saying, you know, Biden is now in this. position where he can attack the elites, the media elites, the Democratic elites, and all this. And then Biden went on Scarborough today and attacked the elites. I mean, it very much feels like sort of the Trump, Fox, and Friends moments of days past. Yeah. I mean, as we'll get to in the podcast, I just, there are limits to the comparisons, obviously, of Trump and Biden. But the dial in, I did feel like I was a little bit in a time.

yeah yeah this morning waking up to the dial and call kind of a rambling you know stream of consciousness talk from the candidates defending himself against the you know these shadowy figures it out to get him unnamed they a lot of day morning joe on morning joe like the the gathering place of elites you know the whole thing did didn't have a little bit there was a little ground hug day element yeah so so let me I want to take a quick detour and go back to the conversation that we did have in March on the Bullwark podcast and the editorial that we published at the time. It won't surprise you that I think the reasons that we published that editorial at the dispatch in March, which was basically at the end of the nominating process, we sort of talked amongst ourselves and said, look, this is a bad outcome. And one of our concerns was what you're going to have was people retreat to their partisan corners now that it was clear that Joe Biden, Biden was going to be the Democratic nominee, Donald Trump was the Republican nominee, and people

were going to be saying things and writing things and reporting things that didn't reflect reality because it was time to be partisan all over again. And so we wrote that in an editorial, one of just four we had published at the time, and said, you know, Donald Trump is a unique threat to the republic, manifestly unfit to be president. But Joe Biden isn't the answer. And we spent a lot of time talking about Joe Biden's age and cognitive decline. You took strenuous exception to that. I think it's fair to say that. I know you don't, you don't need me to invite you to correct my characterization of it, but I will anyway to be polite. I still take strenuous objection to it, but we can hash it out. We should. I think that the, the ground from which

I stand on my strenuous objection might be a little bit shakier today than it was when I'm here to understand better why you still strenuously object to this but for our troubles for having published this editorial that said hey we think Donald Trump's awful we said he was a disaster

it was very clear that we weren't making a comparison between the two but said Joe Biden is not the answer and he's in cognitive decline we didn't like a lot of his policies So he's not the answer either. The podcast you had me on, I didn't see this until, of course, after the podcast was published, you said that, this is Dexley's The Bullwark. It says Tim Stakes takes strong exception to that position, arguing it's a danger to democracy.

Now, I said that or that was like what that was in the YouTube comment section. No, that was on the write up of the Bullwork podcast. Yeah, that's fine. I didn't comment on the description. You're welcome to throw your, your colleagues. colleagues under the bus if you don't think that's right. I just want to make sure. I just want to see if I'm defending my own quote there. I just doesn't sound, but yeah, okay. So the obvious question to you is, you know, from my perspective, a lot of the things we wrote in that early March

editorial. And the reason we wrote it in some respects is because we anticipated maybe not this kind of debate disaster, but something like this, because it was clear, I think, that Joe Biden was not a fit to be president. I'd be interested to hear where you still defend that that was a bad editorial, and we'll post the editorial in the show notes, of course, and why you think the argument's on shake your ground. Yeah, maybe dangerous as a little bit hyperbole. But I would say this. When it comes to Donald Trump, I think that one thing that we both agree on is that like the threat, the democratic threat. I don't think that is overstated. The threat to the fundamentals of our democracy of a second Trump term is real. Like, does that mean he's

going to become a dictator? You know, we can go around and around. Like, you know, I don't know. I'm not, I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing the, you know, the most extreme version of that case. But what I'm saying is I don't, I think he gets back in there. And, you know, we saw what happened last time when he lost the last election. I don't think that anybody can with any sort of confidence say that

he's definitely going to leave without a fight next time. You could say maybe he'll leave without a fight, maybe he'll be, he'll leave and I'll try to fight, but he's so incompetent and I have more trusted inter-institution. There are a lot of gradations of that argument, right? But like, I don't think anybody can say he certainly is going to leave without

a fight. I'm where you are and my bigger concern is the stuff he does. before he has to leave. Like, what he's, what he's campaigning on today is, you know, call what you want, quasi authoritarianism, whatever. It's not, like, he's not pretending that he's not going to do the stuff that he's doing. He's talking about making, you know, Michael Flynn, a top official, Cash Patel could be somebody who runs the CIA.

I mean, this is, it's scary stuff. Yeah, it's scary stuff. Right. Okay. And we do agree with that. I noticed in the, in the, you defend your classical liberal worldview in the editorial. And nothing that Donald Trump is proposing is classically. liberal for sure so um so in that regard i think that he is he is clearly going to be the republican

he is a republican nominee there's not even any discussion on the republican side about what to do about him and there was a limp primary effort that nobody of any prominence supported within the republican institution uh to to defeat him and as such in a month and a half the democrats are going to nominate somebody and like that person is going to be the only person that can prevent trump 2.0 and all the scary stuff we just laid out. Is that person going to be perfect? Is it going to be my preferred, have my preferred policy agenda?

No. Is that person going to leave in 2028? Yeah. Like, yeah, they're going to leave in 2020. We know that. We don't have to have any worries about this. Maybe some of the listeners will disagree about my next sentence, but is that person going to target their political foes

and direct the Department of Justice to go after them? I think we know the answer to that is no. So to me, like the question when it came to Joe Biden and his failings and the issues with Joe Biden as compared to Trump were it was a difference in kind, right? You can have problems with both candidates, that's fine. But they were a category difference, the nature, the seriousness of the problems. I thought some of the things that you laid out on the demerits for Joe Biden in that point were like a little silly as compared to the demerits that Donald Trump.

Well, that's because you're a squish right now and, you know, It is because I'm a script. It is because I was Chris Ryan on your conservative. That's fine. And so, like, to me, I look to the Joe Biden administration. I'm like, I wasn't a shill for it. My listeners are my Marcus will know. They can list the things I didn't like.

I didn't like the student loan deal. I didn't like Afghanistan. I don't really like the way that he handled Hunter Biden's out of wedlock kid. So on policy and personal matters, I have issues with Joe Biden. I'm not afraid to talk about. But I thought he was fine. I think he's been fine. And we've gone through a series of presidents where, like, as kind of,

compared to Donald Trump, as compared to, you know, I've had more agreements with George Bush. If we went through a tick list, but when you look at the worst things, the worst choices, I think George Bush had some worse demerits than Joe Biden has. So I think he's been fine. I think the idea of, like, trying to create an equivalency between those two threats

was something that I strenuously disagreed with, and I continue strongly disagree with. But I don't think we did that. I mean, we don't need to react that. I don't think we created an equivalency. But this order to say, let's throw up our hands and say, these are both bad, we deserve better. I guess that's true. But then eventually you get to a point where it's like, okay, but then what?

And my strong message to the people of Wisconsin, at least, if you want to throw up your hands and you live in Virginia, maybe not Virginia. Virginia might be a swing state now. If you live in Massachusetts and you want to throw up your hands and, you know, write in Steve Hayes, good on you. If you live in Wisconsin, my strong suggestion is that there's a clear. preferable option. So, like, that is where I strongly objected. Now we get to the, to the issue with Biden in the debate. And I think that there's some weaknesses there, particularly on the, on the democracy question, one thing is that really frustrates me about my new allies on the quote-unquote pro-democracy side is this notion that, like, the argument is, okay, we'll put, that's just circle the wagons

around Joe Biden. He'll get back in there, and he'll have good people around him. He'll have better people around him than Trump. I agree with that sentence, but that's not really a, pro-democracy sentence that we're going to put somebody in and have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats around them that'll really be running the show and they'll be fine. And so if that's the choice that I'm presented with, a clearly diminished candidate, you know, who is clearly not going to be able to effectively do the job at age 86, surrounded by smart and competent people that I'm not going to agree with on every policy, but like that generally are center-left and pro and pro, you know, whatever,

American norms, then I'll vote for that. But I don't want to, we shouldn't be on our high horse about it. Wagon fingers on about democracy while doing it. Right. And I think that's still clearly preferable to Trump, but, you know, it's a, it's a shakier case. That's what I'm saying. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an

online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health question. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ETHOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. it may vary. Your point right now, if I understand it correctly, is, hey, we're in this moment

where we don't, well, that's not the choice. But there's actually something to do, so make the case. I mean, that's, that, am I correct in understanding that that's your point now? Yes. Joe, Joe Biden has not been officially nominated. So, of course, he would have to choose it. There's a counter pro-democracy argument that's like, well, Democratic voters chose him and so taking it from, and that's not like I don't I'm not really arguing for taking it from him I'm arguing that I think that if Joe Biden cares about this country and thinks that the threat of Trump is as great as he has said it is and if he's not capable of making a coherent case against Donald Trump

then he should do what he initially said he was going to do and be a transitional president that patches the torch to somebody else and and we can have a democratic small D system where you know you go to the the delegates at the convention and it's how presidents were picked in this country for a long time. It's going to be a change from modern era. It's not the most democratic way to pick a candidate, but it's not shadowy back rooms either.

And there is a chance to do that right now. And that, to me, clearly seems like the best solution for the Democratic Party, for our democracy, for our country, across every variable except for Joe Biden's personal interest. And that is, again, with the caveat that assuming he can't do it, like, okay, if he could, if he was, if he was capable, I would feel differently, but there just hasn't been a ton of evidence of that presented in the 11 days. Yeah, I mean, I think you're being polite there. Look, if he's at 11 days, we know, we know how you mop up after a disastrous performance like the one that he had and you make them available everywhere all the time and you change the story. And they haven't done that at all. I mean, he's made a few phone calls and he's done scripted performances and he did a call. and to Joe Scarborough, who had given him the talking points that Biden used on the call. And they provided questions to radio hosts to ask Biden the questions that the campaign wanted.

I mean, this is, it's a joke. This is a joke. And even in the face of all that, I would add on top of that, he still doesn't have a message. Like, there's no message. Right. You know, that's the other thing with some of my more Democratic friends, like the people that are mad at me online or even some of the more good faith people have sent me a message. It's like, okay, like, what do you want? Like, what are you going to, what's it going to take for you to get on board?

I'm like, okay, well, for starters, in addition, or not for starters, because in addition to demonstrating that he could do it, I also don't think it's too much to ask that he has a message about why he should be president for four more years and not Donald Trump. He doesn't have one. He didn't present one at the debate. He didn't present one with George Stephanopoulos, and he didn't present one this morning with Morning Show.

He is a pretty compelling case for why he should still be the nominee. He presents a pretty force, like he presents quite a forceful argument against the pundits that he doesn't like. But the argument against Trump has been, I think, lacking. To the extent, I want to get into the politics of this a little bit later, I want to take a detour here into the media stuff. But to the extent that he does present that case, it's a case that, as our Nick Cotogio wrote tonight,

is reminiscent of Trump. It's the I alone can do it case. I mean, he did basically say that to Stephanopoulos. Like, who else is going to get NATO together? Who else can do this? Who else can do that? And that is like stupefying selfishness and self-indulgence. That honestly doesn't surprise me, but I know does surprise a lot of people who are more pro-Biden than I was.

Yeah. Can I be in the middle on that? I guess I'm somewhat surprised. The politician's going to be a politician. I don't know. I did. I've been disappointed with the way that Biden has reacted to it. And not just that he hasn't done what Tim Miller said and got out of the race, but just again, the way that he's talked about.

Yeah. About, you know, the debate and what happened in his obligation and the focus on himself rather than, it's really about Joe Biden, right? And like, running for president is never really about you. It's like it's about the country. And I would like a, I'd like more focus on that. And, you know, if, you know, if you have this huge responsibility and you let everybody down, then that's like you got to earn their trust back. It's about them. Well, that's the problem with his argument, right? I mean, he spent five years telling us it was about the country and it was about preventing this existential threat to take the White House again.

And then you find out, actually, you just think it's about you. It's not really at all about the country. And that is, I mean, I think that has to leave people crestfallen. Yeah, it does. And there's an uglier element to it a little bit, too, within the Kamala side of things. And, like, that's something that's been the most frustrating for me.

Among the names have been called is, like, I'm racist, I'm not listening to black voters. And I'm over here going, I'm the one that thinks Kamala would be a stronger bet. I don't know that maybe Kamala would be the best bet, But I don't know. I think that Kamala can at least deliver a compelling message. I've got the idea of having a prosecutor versus a felon

would be a much clearer contrast than we have right now. The idea of, I'm sure this will chap some of the pro-life listeners, heartliners' view, but the idea of having a woman fighting for individual freedoms versus an old white man trying to take them away, that's a good contrast, just talking about this politically speaking. So could she win?

I don't know. I mean, their challenges are everywhere, but to me, I think it's very obvious that Biden himself and the people around him don't trust her. Yeah. Maybe there's a good reason for that. You know, again, I don't know Kamala personally. So I guess that maybe there's a reason for that, but that's not just identity politics. But, you know, that is another kind of element about all this. It's like leaning on, well, working, you know, regular Americans want me.

And that's like, okay, well, I don't know. I mean, there are a lot of, I think that there are a lot of potential Democratic nominees and a lot of potential Republican nominees that we didn't get Nikki Haley, et cetera, who could have kept the NATO alliance together. I mean, I give Joe Biden a lot of props for doing it and because there's, sure, his opponent wouldn't do it. And so there are certainly other politicians that wouldn't have done it and wouldn't have been a stalwart, was Zelensky.

But the idea that it's just him is pretty simple. Yeah, it's preposterous. So let's take this detour if we can. You had a really interesting conversation on your podcast with John Lovett, former speechwriter for President Obama, somebody who's part of the crooked media crew, about this whole moment. And the crooked media people have been, I think, pretty blunt about Biden's condition, about his performance.

Now, some people, there's sort of this famous rivalry or tension between team Obama and team Biden. I think some people have shrugged off what they've said and done because they're very obviously team Obama. I know team Biden people have said that privately, sort of ignore these guys. They're for the Obama. I think they've said it publicly about Axelrod. I don't know if they've, I don't know if they said it publicly about that's probably right. But I think that's who there was a statement that the campaign put out about bedwetting podcasters, or self-important podcasters.

Yeah. I was pretty clear that that's who they were talking about. Maybe they were talking about you. Um, but the, I'll let the pod guys have it. We'll never know. We'll ask, you know, we'll ask Rob Flaherty in a later date. That's right. Who he had in mind. So you had John Lovidon and you, you had a conversation about all of this. And there was a lot of interesting parts of the conversation. One part 10, 15 minutes in where you talked about the truth and you talked to being a team player and the obligation to tell the truth. So why not just do that now? Why not just pod save happy talk, you know? Yeah. Grampy's doing great. You know, he landed that one good line about the handicap, about Trump's handicap, and now he can't carry a bag. That was pretty good.

This is always the challenge in the run-up to an election talking about a candidate you want to win but have concerns about, right? When are you supposed to be just a team player who parrots what they're saying? And when do you talk openly about your concerns? I think one of the lessons of Trump winning in 2016 is that for fear of hurting the campaign we wanted to win, we weren't honest about our anxieties and we were too sanguine about the fact that the Clinton campaign would pull it out. In this case, I think that, like, that debate performance was shocking enough to make us all say, despite the fact that obviously it would be better for Biden if Biden is the candidate for us to all be saying it was an anomaly. It wasn't that bad. It's about the policies, not the messenger. It's about the stakes, not the odds, whatever. Like, obviously, I think that would be better. But there are moments where you say, hold on a second, we should be honest about what we saw because it might be the case that it is worth in this moment to make a change. And the only way we will come to a point where Joe Biden decides to make that change is if people right now are being honest about how they react.

to the debate and their concerns about the implications for the electorate of what we saw. So, I mean, I find that, I find that exchange interesting on about 500 different levels. We could probably go three hours about it. But I guess my, the main thing I took from that, and let's be very clear about sort of where crooked media lives and what it does in the sort of media landscape, what where the bulwark lives, I think is slightly different than where the, certainly different than crooked media, different than where the dispatch lives, and then where the dispatch lives. But I was sort of stunned to hear him admit, like, hey, the debate was so bad, it shocked us

into being honest. How did you react to that? I mean, did that strike you the same way? Yeah. Well, I can see how that would strike you like that. I guess I would just, I'll start by saying this. Of course, the whole podcast, love it's pretty vulnerable. And, like, we made the joke about how, like, oh, they're Obama guys and Biden guys, and, like, there's this rivalry and who the hell knows what's in anyone's subconscious.

But I do think that Leavitt was pretty vulnerable throughout the conversation and just kind of an open wound a little bit, like discussing pretty candidly his feelings. And I give him credit for that. I think there's something to be said for that. You know, they, what they're doing over there, to your point about the different things with the media. And they literally have a vertical that's called Vote Save America. Well, like, they go out and knock on doors and help candidates. Like, it's not a huge activist component to what they do. They're not pretending to be other ones.

They're not hiding the ball. And I think that's part of honesty, right? Like, being, like, I think it would be dishonest for them to, like, you know, do this thing where they're like, we're straight shooters, you know. And then, right? I mean, I think it in some ways, going back to Fox, picking on Fox a little bit, just like, we're fair and balance. Right. Like, that was always bullshit. Like, you know, there's something to be said for, we're not fair and balance.

Like, we are rooting for the Democrats. We're also not a House organ of the DNC, but we're, you know, we support Democratic candidates by and large. So, like, that's what they do. And, you know, on balance, I think given all the various options out there, I think it's good to have people out there doing that. And I would feel the same way if it was like a pro-center-right outlet that was doing that same thing.

And so, you know, I think these are tough calls sometimes when you're in that, when you're in that framework, right? Like, what do you, like, how do you talk about this? Like, might we lose listeners? You know, might we lose access? Might we lose people getting interviews, you know, doing interviews with us? And I'm sure it's something that you thought about. Obviously, you ended up doing the clear-eyed thing. But, like, the Fox Fund Pundit people thought about that. I'm going through it right now with MS. I'm like, you know, so they keep. book in me, which is great. But, you know, who know? Like, might that change sometime? I don't know.

I don't think so. I'm not trying to apply anything about MSNBC, but I'd just say, like, all those thoughts go through your head when you're an opinion, you're not, you know, like, we're in journalism, quote unquote journalism, but like, this is opinion journalism. You're giving your opinion, right? Like, that's what this is. And when there are ramifications of that, there are

political ramifications, you know, I think clearly people that are in opinion. Right? Like, if he has these opinions, and he's withholding them so that his team wins. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, it seems to me that is, and again, I was up front that they're different.

I'm up front that you guys are different, but like, that strikes me as hugely problematic when you look at the crisis of trust in journalism and media in general today, in information purveyors, like, I don't know, I would hear that and be like, oh, man, I wonder if he's withholding information. I mean, I'm not here to do PR for this guy. vet our ups and downs. No, no, we'll get to you doing PR for you. Yeah, but I would just say, I'll say this, though.

You know, they, they criticize the Obama administration a lot on Israel Gaza, on the opposite side of what your outlet and our outlet has done, right? So it's not just in this instance. I think it's a lot grayer than you late, like out. I would say it like this. Like, during the Haley Trump primary, like, you know, if you are, like, if you're judging, like, are we going to hit Haley on this? Like she says something, it's like a little gray, you know,

it's like not that great, or it's like somebody pitches you a Haleyopo thing and it's some cheap thing for when she in South Carolina. It's like, are you going to run it? I don't know. Like, maybe not, right? Like, is that a lie by omission? I don't know. Right?

Like, I guess my point is, I think as long as when I try to do it the podcast, I just said this on today's podcast, by the way, is that my whole goal is, I am not saying anything to you that I'm not saying on my text chain. I think that is a good goal to have, right? eat, and I think that as long as I'm doing that, I'm going to feel good that I'm within my integrity. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying every single thing that crosses my mind. Right. You know what I mean? And so it's like, but are those editorial, I guess the question I have is, are those editorial judgments or are those political judgments? Right. And which one

matters more. And I, and I guess what I'm saying in a world of opinion journalism, sometimes there's an overlap. I just think pretending like there's not an overlap, like deciding what to right about deciding what to cover is a judgment right like um you know again i uh are there if there things that you know the biden administration did you know is or the biden campaign was doing you know that i was like oh man i don't i don't know i don't really agree with that one like am i going to talk about it maybe i will like i'm not saying i definitely wouldn't but it might be a lower priority than if trump said something that i didn't like right it's like we're i just are trying to be honest like we're all trying to make judgments

and I think that as long as your listeners or readers know where you're coming from I think that's better than than kind of gaslighting people or lying to people or trying to pull the wool over people's eyes or trying to whatever so anyway I hear what you're saying I think that it's a

correct just one more sentence I do think it's a correct criticism of those guys and maybe me I wouldn't say us at the board because Bill Crystal's been fucking banging this drum relentlessly from since November 22, but maybe me personally, it's a fair criticism to say, like, did I talk about Biden's age concerns as much as I thought about them? I don't know. Maybe not, right? Like,

did I mention, did I say that I had concerns about them? Yes, like, absolutely, right? Like, did we hash this out? Yes. But, you know, and so I think that sometimes, like, in moments like this, that's how I interpreted what Leavitt was saying, was that like, you know, I was, This shocked me into saying, like, I really need to say out loud, all the things that I was like, kind of thinking, but like, wasn't really, there wasn't like really a good opportunity to say it or I wasn't sure there wasn't an inflection point to say it. So anyway, that's not a defense of them, really. That's just how I kind of interpreted. Like, no, I mean, I'm really interested. And I think it's, it's one of the reasons. I mean, I didn't listen to the, to your interview with Lovett until today when I was driving back from, from D.C. and we had scheduled this several days in advance. So there were other reasons I wanted to engage on. all of this with you, but I thought that was a particularly interesting moment that shed additional light, you know, not in your voice, but on something that we got a little bit hung up on on the podcast I did with you all, where we talked about, we specifically talked about this. One of the reasons we published the editorial we did was to say, hey, we're going into this

moment now where it's clear that the nominees are who they are, or looks like the nominees are who they are, where you're going to start hearing people who are saying things about their nominee that aren't true or they're covering for them or their shilling for them or whatever. And the phrase you use was Gild the Lilly. And you said, like, I'm just basically not that troubled in the context of a battle against Donald Trump, not that trouble if people gilded the lily a little bit with Joe Biden. That does sound like me. I love that phrase, Gild the Lilley.

I was like, dangerous, whatever the other quote was, I was like, I think that was the producer's phrase, but Gild the Lilly does sound like me, yeah. Well, and look, I mean, you know, just being excessively sort of transparent and blunt. Like, that's not what we're doing. I don't think that's what we're doing at the dispatch. We're taking a different approach. But I will say, I'm open to the possibility that in 20 years, when you and I are really old and we're clanking glasses and looking back on this moment, you know, either because we've

escaped some prison or, you know, we've moved overseas or we still have the freedom to do that, that I might say, you know, probably the better move was to be more sort of activist or more political about this than we're being. And I guess that's sort of what I'm trying to figure out is like what judgments are political? Like, is it acceptable to make a political judgment because you're so afraid of Trump to gild the lily or do... And you don't feel like you gilded the lily one time for Nikki Haley during that primary? You didn't gild the lily one time and one. one comment or one article? I find that hard to believe. I mean, I really don't. I mean,

I was pretty tough on Nick Healy. I've been pretty tough on Nick Haley all the way through. I think she's a very complicated person. The number of times I cited the Tim Alberta piece about Nikki Haley is hugely problematic. I will say there were certainly times I did it when I was at Fox, right? There were times when I, in sort of that partisan moment where you're in, involved in the conversation or you're, you know, you're doing a panel and, you know, you take far more exception to something that the people on quote unquote your side or the other side have done than your side. But I think that's part of the problem with our media at the time is everybody seems to be picking aside. And you have people, again, the Pod Save America guys are

blunt about what they're doing, hey, we're on the side, we're activists, we're trying to get people to vote, we're signing people up, we're doing all this. But like, does that make people trust media less? Yeah. If you're a regular consumer of the Ponset of America stuff, do you stop and say, like, man, I don't trust them anymore. They've told me that they're not going to always level with me. Yeah. I don't know. I guess I just speak to myself for this one. And I do hope that I think people, like, I'm like a fucking, I'm like a vein. I don't know. I don't know. I can not, I think I'm not telling you what I think. I just,

I'm very emotional. I'm a roller coaster. And so I tell people what I really think. And so I think that there's difference between being honest about your perspective and picking sides, right? And I do think sometimes it's hard to find out where that line is, but I think about it a lot. That's why I'm asking you. Yeah. That's why I'm asking you because you're not doing it right now, right?

Right. Like, there came a point where you were just like, hey, enough. Like, I'm not doing this. This is crazy. Here's a, let me ask you, maybe let me phrase it this way. when you got to that point for you, did you get to that point with Biden? Because you thought, like,

I cannot morally make an argument about this guy being fit and competent and, you know, the things that you'd like to say. Or was it, holy shit, this guy's going to lose. I need to reflect that reality and make that argument. Yeah. I kind of, yeah, kind of neither. I really felt like I just have to be fully honest about what I think, like about what I think about things and he was just so bad and I feel like I'd lose

all credit and I didn't I didn't fucking take off one jersey to and no you said another one yeah I did it and so some people there are people that credit will say well you do well you know this is why this this stuff gets all a little murky but I wrote in the in the book I had a whole section on team players and how corrupting it is to be a team player I was like I'm not going to do that that said at the end of the day somebody wins and somebody loses some politics Right. And if I think, if I want to be true to my stated opinions and my real beliefs about the threat of Donald Trump, well, then, like, sure, I have a side in who, and whether Donald Trump wins or loses, right? I want Donald Trump to lose. I don't think that anybody that possibly listens to me could think that I want, like, that could be confused about that. To me, and frankly, I think that, and just again, my role in opinion journalism, which is different than, like, like being a reporter is like, I actually think I have more credibility by saying, you know what, I think that Joe Biden f***ed up the Afghanistan withdrawal. I think that the student loan

decision was an imperial presidency and the types of that I hate. And I think he's a little bit too old, which is what I was saying before, before the debate, right? And I say all that and I judge clearly that he's still better than Donald Trump, right? Like, to me, I feel like it gives me more credibility to do that. But I think it does give you more credibility. I mean, I think this is why you have more credibility than the people who are, you know, who you said are gaslighting us, right? Like, they're just pretending that this isn't the case. So to me, it's that. I mean, I, it also, I would be lying if I didn't, and if I didn't say to you, like, also, I think Joe Biden made it a few, like, one standard deviation more likely that Donald Trump is the president again with his

performance. And it's staying in the race. And so I, I, I think that that is dangerous and bad, and I'm worried about that, like, on an actual strategic level, too. I, like, and I would give that strategic advice to people in the Democratic Party that called me and wanted it, but, you know, I'd say that. So, I mean, that's, that's like my view at all this. And I was, you know, in a lot of ways I was hoping we get the question about the Bullwark, which is like, okay, well, let's say Joe Biden won, right?

Like, then what happens? Like, do you guys have a purpose? And I'm like, yeah. Like, I think that we would have a perspective and something important to say about where the Democratic Party goes after Joe Biden and where the Republican Party goes after another Donald Trump loss. So again, I don't think that's a team jersey,

but we'll have a perspective. And if those rate and, you know, if in 2028, it gets down to, I don't know, Elon Omar versus Josh Shapiro and Tucker versus whatever, Dan Crenshaw, like, yeah, I'll have an opinion. I'll have a clear, I'll have a jersey in those two primaries. I'll have a Dan Crenshaw and, you know, whatever, whoever I said, Josh Shapiro jersey on.

Like, you know what I mean? Like, so I think, so you got to navigate all that. And I think pretending, like, I don't think that it's any better to pretend like we don't have a perspective, I guess is what I'm saying. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new

Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Well, let's finish the final couple of minutes

here, back on politics and back on the Biden combo question. Because I think that really is an important question. At this point, you have some, we can break this down to a number of different camps, but I would say that you have, broadly speaking, the pro-Biden camp, the Biden should stay. To the end camp, right? He's got to be it. It's got to be it. It's got to be. I don't know. I should maybe have not used that phrase. A little on the nose, the Biden deadenders. A little on a little on. Yeah, probably not.

But you have the Biden till the end, folks, and then you have the people who are, you know, I'd say either open to it not being Joe Biden to some major disruption. And the people who are very strongly feel that sort of, it shouldn't be Joe Biden. And in that second group, the sort of open to alternatives from Biden,

there's a sort of subcategories of people are just pro-comola and people are anti-comla. And I'm interested in pushing on the Kamala question. It seems to me, I'll just float this and you can react to it or tell me if you think I'm crazy. If you're the, I mean, and it's sort of hilarious that, you know, you've got this, you know, we're both conservatives, whatever, we're not Democrats, right? And we're going to give health advice to the Democrats here.

But it seems to me that if you're going to blow all this up and if Joe Biden is not going to be the nominee, it is a fool's. errand to insist that Kamala Harris be his replacement because she's next in line, because she's the current VP, because he picked her, you know, for any kinds of identity politics reasons. It's crazy to make the argument that she needs to be next. Given her performance in the Democratic primaries, given her current popularity ratings, given the likelihood that she would prevail relative to other Democratic candidates. If you're a Democrat, And you really believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat.

Why settle for somebody like Kamala who's not the best candidate? And I think wouldn't be part of the best take. Yeah. My colleague Sarah Long will put it this way. It's like, if you're literally going to die, who would you want to ride with in this election against Trump? And it's kind of like, it's hard to think that anybody would answer that question by saying either Biden or Kamala. I'm open to the position that by opening it up at a convention that by opening it up at a convention because of the identity politics stuff which I think is kind of silly you just it potentially becomes such a cluster right that like a clean handoff is preferable to that even if the candidate that came out of an open convention was preferable. to Kamala, just because of, you know, hurt feelings and all this.

I don't really agree with that argument, per se. To be honest, I think that Kamala would benefit from an open process. I think it would be a lot of pressure to get this handoff right now. And, you know, I think we've seen a strong, just, again, grading just like as a figure skating judge. We saw us much stronger Kamala back when she, when the pressure was a little lower, right? And I think that there's been a little bit of, you know, She has a little bit of the yips, I think, in her interviews sometimes.

And so dumping this huge pressure on her, like, maybe having an open process where there's some forums and, you know, you can kind of get your sea legs a little bit. I don't know. Like, to me, I think it probably ends up being her anyway, not certainly, in an open process. And that would potentially help, like her stronger. So, I don't know. I mean, I think that to me, as I said at the beginning, she's not the ideal nominee, I don't think, just based purely on political. performance. Who knows that she would have won an open primary or not.

I think she probably would have been the favorite in an open primary though. But I'm not quite as bearish on her as like the most bearish that like think, you know, that thinks she's a total lightweight or whatever. I have... How do you get a run? If you're advising her, she calls you in. Biden goes away.

Kamala's among the people, among the contenders and she calls you in and says, Tim, how do I handle the argument? that I was a big part of the problem, that I covered this up, along with the Biden White House, with the Biden campaign,

he'd lunch with him every week. I saw him up close more than many other people did. It's now clear, not just given the leaks, I think given sort of the way that we've looked back on his earlier performances, that he wasn't with it.

Yeah, I don't, I mean, I think that the cover-up argument only really has legs if there's a real cover-up, like he has Parkinson's or something. I don't know, this idea that he's been on a slow decline and people weren't fully candid. Obviously, I think the Trump campaign

and people in conservative media will use that line of attack on her. To me, I don't know that that lands. And I think that probably their preferred attack is going to be DEI president. And I think that will kind of overshadow the cover-up attacks a little bit. So I don't know.

If I'm her, look, I would go and keep the same, I mean, well, with one addition, I'll give the same advice. I'll give to Joe Biden, if he called me, which is, go rip the cover off the ball. Like, go be a prosecutor. Like, Donald Trump has so many flaws, so many vulnerabilities. Focus on them.

Go out there and make a strong case about the threats and remind people what they don't like about Donald Trump. And in addition to that with Kamala, I'd say go out there and demonstrate that you have the chops for this. Do a couple of forums. Go sit down with Margaret Brennan and talk about foreign policy. I've listened. I'll just say this.

I've listened to Kamala talk about foreign policy. and I do not I think that she's taken that part of the job very seriously and I think that I don't think that she it would be as whatever the word is progressive liberal or as people think like I think that she's been you know the team that is around her is like decently you know at least liberal internationalist maybe maybe they're out in Steve Hayes mode you know but like yeah grading out a curve you're grading out a curve man I think you'd be surprised That's all I'm saying. On the foreign policy stuff, I think you'd be surprised.

That's all. I'm sure I'm grading on a curve. I mean, again, the alternative is somebody that literally wants to give Ukraine to Russia. Right. And his favorite foreign leaders are the worst, of the four worst foreign leaders. And so, you know, and I don't know anything. So, yeah, sure. Yeah, I'm grading on a curve.

But I think that I think she would be graded on a curve. I would add that. Again, you asked me, I'm back in political advice note. I think she'd be graded on the curve. I think that if she went out there and demonstrated the minimal amount of chops and created a minimum amount of excitement, I think it'd be they'd be in a better place than they are right now. Better place than they are right now, but not in the best place. If you were picking, if it were up to you and you could pick the Democratic ticket, who do you pick?

I just think it's very, I just think it'd be very tempting on blue and on Twitter, a clip of me saying this already is already out there so they can reclip it. call me a sexist again or whatever. I think it would be very tempting to say there is a governor of Pennsylvania that just won by double digits. There's a governor of Michigan that just won by double digits.

And if the two of them win their own states, you just got to win one more state and we're through this fucking Trump catastrophe. That's pretty compelling pitch to me. Obviously, Josh Spears. Wait, why does that make you sexist? And racist and like, because you're going to skip over Kamala?

and you're going to go to Josh Shapiro and Gretchen or whatever and it's like I don't know they've pulled this video of me and I don't understand what real voters want anyway I don't I don't who cares

my point is I mean Josh Shapiro's politics are closer to mind than Gretchen's right so if I'm if Tim's waving a magic wand if I'm waging magic mind I'd make Jared Polis the president but if I'm waving a realistic magic wand I'd make I'd have Shapiro be the top of the ticket

I don't think that's a realistic ask you know so I think that of the realistic option like a Whitmer Shapiro ticket, I think they're a favorite. I think they're the favorite. And they're not certainly going to be Trump, right? We saw with Ronda Santis that sometimes things look good on paper that don't turn out and, you know, who the hell knows,

what happens, Josh Shapiro being Jewish could create some problems potentially. Any path is fraught with risk. But to me, I just like look at the board and it's like, man, all you've got to do is win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and then either Arizona and Wisconsin, and you're through this thing. And if you're going to go through the trouble of, you know, opening everything up, that's got to be a pretty appealing. I think it could be a blowout.

I think it would be a blowout. I don't even think, honestly, at that point, if you had some ticket like that, that we would necessarily be counting the same three states. Like, we would be looking at the same blue wall. I mean, I think they'd have that advantage. Yeah, look, I mean, if people have been pretty consistent in polling for the past two years about the presidential selection, it's they don't want Trump and they don't want Biden. broadly speaking, the country doesn't like this matchup, right? There was this NBC poll I've cited it on here a bunch of times, April, I think, of 2023, maybe.

It's like 95% of the country said, look, we don't want this matchup. Now, you're going to have some people who laps it back into sort of their regular partisan living space and, you know, you have people who make allowances. But like, I think if it's not Trump or is not Biden, the likelihood that somebody who's not Trump or not Biden does pretty well. The other person would win. It's pretty high. I've been begging pollsters in my life,

so you guys got some pollster friends over there to just for kicks, throw Haley Biden in a poll right now because I feel like, I feel like it'd be a Reagan landslide. Yeah, no, I think that's true. I'm not sure if that's true in reverse quite, because I think that the Republican, the MAGA base is as stronger with Trump

than Biden's bases at the moment. But yeah, I agree. I mean, probably, probably if you had, two fresh-faced people in their 50s and they didn't do anything stupid. They probably would win a, you know, pretty pretty. Yeah, I got, okay, this is really the last point, but I got into a conversation with somebody today about, about the, you know, the, the conversations that people were having around no labels, you know, sort of pre-new year and then post-new year, and it wasn't going to work, and it would be a spoiler ticket, but you stop now and you think if we, if Biden doesn't

leave, I think he's, I still think he's going to, going to have to quit the race. But if he doesn't leave. And you end up having, you know, a race between somebody who's done what Trump's done, and somebody who's in the condition that Biden is in. And you had a viable, like, semi-serious no labels ticket, given everything. It'd be a lot more interesting than people thought back in the day, in part because people don't want to vote for you. I don't know. This is where, this is what, where we may be part ways. I just, maybe I'm going to be let down again and again. my new tenuous friends on the Democratic side

but those antibodies that I mentioned at the beginning like there is like there is a big contingency in the Democratic Party of rational people it's maybe not a majority of the party but it's a significant minority that I just want

somebody that is going to govern the country well somewhere in the broad middle and like that that's those are the people that were bouncing around from Pete to Amy to Biden in the primaries last time and that like have supported and so those people I think

would go to the third party, right? Like that you're talking about and then I think that there's some independence and I think that there's some percentage. Haley voters Trump has a stranglehold on the on the Republican voters and so I just don't know if you can't crack hold on the base.

You got no, the base is the whole party. No. It's not. No. No, that's crazy. Two-thirds of the Republican Party was either for somebody other than Trump or willing to consider somebody other than Trump. Which time? It was true. In Iowa polling, it was true in national polling. I mean, he tried

a coup and he didn't, he only lost Vermont. I mean, come on, Steve. It's just like this is, like, if you just look at the numbers, again, I don't mean a stranglehold, like, they would never leave them there in a cult. Like, maybe 30% are in the cult. But, like, 80% of the Republicans, at least, I think, are in a three-way race.

are voting for Trump, unless the third-party person is, like, unbelievably charismatic or is able to, you know, carve off some cultural conservatives in various ways. Like, anybody that people are throwing around there, any of these, like, fiscally conservative and socially moderate, like, dream candidates, like, none of the fucking Republicans are voting for that person.

Like, 10% maybe are voting for that person. And so if you can't crack, you know, if you can't get into like a quarter or a third of both parties, you're not viable. And I just, I don't, anyway, that's why I still just don't think it was possible for that reason. I'm not suggesting a No Label's candidate would be president in January of 2025. I think it would have been, if you have Biden the way that people think of Biden today against Trump, the way that people think of Trump today, the No Label's candidate would have been a lot

more disruptive, and No Labels to take it would have been a lot more disruptive. Steve. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to be the turn in your punch bowl. People like him. For sure, I think that people like Trump. I don't think it's as many as you think it is. I think there's a core base that loves him and would do anything. There's a bigger group of Republicans that are just acting like partisan Republicans. And then there's a quarter of the Republican Party doesn't like a quarter. Yeah. Yeah. They'll vote for him even if they, some of them will vote for him even if they don't like him. But I wish. I wish your lips to God's here, Steve. You know, you're pulling to back me out. You always are. You always are a little. little more hopeful than me on this stuff. There's polling to bag me. I mean, you know, I'm always saying one. Well, with that, Tim, we're going to, we're going to end it. Thank you for as long as you have. This is longer than I, uh, that I promised you at the outset. But I appreciate you, um, letting me subject you to a, uh, a friendly grilling, just as you

subjected me to a friendly grilling, Lori. And I suspect that this won't be the last time. Steve, my time is yours. I'm always willing to hash this out. I wish, I wish that we're living in less interesting times. we didn't have so much to talk about because we could have done a couple more hours probably. Yeah, no, I took our dispatch interns to lunch today and we talked about all of this and, you know, sort of concerns for the fate of the Republic.

But if you can look at it in purely journalistic terms, like, is there ever a better time to be a journalist than to cover this crazy thing now? I mean, we are literally on the West Wing. For years, everybody's like, stop with your West Wing fantasy politics. Like, this is literally a beep slash West Wing plot. Like, we are living it.

We are not our. arguing about whether people are paying NATO enough. Important topic, happy to talk about that. But it's fucking crazy. We're living. So I'm happy to hash it out with you. Yeah, just to be clear, I would gladly trade more confidence in the future of the Republic for less interesting times.

But it's nothing. It's not interesting. And we appreciate you coming on and sharing your thoughts with us. Thanks, brother. Thank you.