The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3630 - Redistricting Fight a Clue to Politics After Trump? w/ Astead Herndon

Episode Date: April 24, 2026

It's Casual Friday on The Majority Report On today's program: Donald Trump doesn't want to give a timeline for the war in Iran. "We we're in Vietnam 18 years...I've been doing this for six weeks" Pete Hegseth continues to whine about the lack of support from Europe for the U.S.'s pointless war. The State Department releases an official statement that states that the U.S. engaged in a war with Iran at the "request of Israel". Astead Herndon, editorial director at Vox, joins the program to discuss his new podcast, America, Actually, and recap the week's news. In the Fun Half: RFK, Jr. is caught manipulating medical studies during a senate hearing by a fellow Republican. RFK, Jr.'s data manipulation is never exemplified better than by his suggesting that trump has lowered drug prices by 600%. Dave Rubin is devastated by Virginia voting to gerrymander their state. Jillian Michaels issues an open call to people from the left to come on to her podcast for a debate and Sam accepts. Michael Knowles goes on a racist rant inspired by Ramy Youssef appearing alongside Elmo for Arabic heritage month. Somehow Knowles' impression of Elmo is far more offensive than his islamophobia. Donal Trump hosts a press conference where he claims to have had more people at his 2016 inauguration than attended Martin Luther King, Jr's March on Washington. After his rant he falls asleep for the rest of the press conference. All that and more.   To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: WILD GRAIN: Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/MAJORITY to start your subscription. SUNSET LAKE CBD: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.

Hey folks, today's episode is brought to you by one of my favorite sponsors, Sunset Lake Sabadeh.com. Sunset Lake Sebeday grows, harvest, and ships. All of its craft Seba Day products directly from its farm in northern Vermont, straight to your door. Skip the lines, skip the middlemen, get it direct from Sunsetlakesebade.com. They feel strongly that Sabaday should not be a luxury. they are a vertically integrated farm that aims to provide affordable sabade products for everyone. And like I say, they do so by cutting out the middlemen or middle ladies or middle envious.

It doesn't matter. Everybody's cut out except for you and the farm. If you order over $75, sunsetlake sabaday.com, we'll ship it to you for free. they never use pesticides they only use sustainable farming practices it is all sungrown hemp and not only do they have great products like smokeables and tinctures and

gummies some gummies would teheds say but also they have things like fudge and coffee they have lotions and solves all with sungrown direct from the farmer Sebad Day. Also, they are movement partners. They have given thousands of dollars

the things like carcelsor reform, refugee resettlement, planned parenthood, all sorts of different great things you support. Strike relief funds. Just an all-round great company and an all-round great product. And look at this. If you use the code

left is best, you get 20% off all of it. Sunsetlake sabade.com. Go there now. And speaking of now, it's time for the show. That means Monday is casual Monday.

Tuesday, casual Tuesday. Wednesday, casual hump day. Thursday, casual thursday. That's what we call it. And Friday, casual Shabbat. The majority. Report with Sam Cedar. It is Friday.

April 24th, 2006. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, a stead herndt, Vox editorial director and host of the new podcast, actually.

Also on the program today, Trump's disapproval highest of his second term. Meanwhile, the DOJ targets 384 Americans for denaturalization. This, while Trump to expand refugee program for white South Africans, DOJ drops criminal investigation of Jerome Powell clearing the way, for Tom Tillis to allow Kevin Warsh. Warsh? Confirmation. Warsh.

Trump says Israel, Lebanon sees fire extended by three weeks. Pentagon floating, kicking Spain out of NATO over its Iran war opposition. Adios, liberals. White House eliminates mandatory requirements for the presidential record. Act and keeping. Pentagon fires, Stars and Stripes Ombudsman for

wokeness. And as expected, a state court freezes that Virginia redistricting measure that was approved just days ago, appeal headed

to the Virginia Supreme Court. DOJ arrest special ops soldier involved with the Maduro kidnapping over his polymarket bet that Maduro would soon be removed. CDC block study showing COVID shots cut hospital visits because, of course they did.

Trump's gold card visa, the million dollar one, granted to only one person so far, and rumors suggest that person is Nikki Minaj. all this and more on today's majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is casual Friday. Casual Friday. Yes, it is both Emma and I wearing collarless shirts today. Absolutely. It's the crewneck crew.

Yes. I hated as soon as I said it. Well, all right. It was just a laundry day for me, and so I don't have my collared shirt. that's that. All right. There's been, you know, various reports about the situation with our war against Iran. Here's Donald Trump yesterday in the White House, giving a sense of how things are going.

How long are you willing to wait until you get a unified response? Don't rush me, Jeff. But you know, guys like you, you want to say, oh, so we're in Vietnam, like, for 18 years. We were in Iraq for many, many years. We're in for all the, I don't like to say World War II because that was a biggie. But we were four and a half, almost five years in World War II. We were in the Korean War for seven years. I've been doing this for six weeks.

I've been doing it. The military is totally defeated. They're outside of the little. wise guy ships. I call them the wise guy ships, the little boats that they have running around with guns in them. We'll take them out too when we see him.

Don't rush me. I'm a perfectionist. Don't you get it. Meanwhile, the Met the opera in New York City was,

had secured $200 million. from the Saudis, but they can't afford now to give that money to the Met because they're so concerned about what's happening with their ability to export oil. There are reports that we may end up bailing out countries in that region. The UAE in particular, Trump basically confirmed that where he said, you know, talked about how they were a great ally to us, in part because they were giving Trump a bunch of good goodies and they threatened according to the Wall Street Journal to start trading in Chinese Yuan instead of the U.S. dollar, which would be catastrophic.

Just give me some time. I'm going to be able to crater the entire world economy, but I can't do it overnight. With this excursion, not the war that I'm comparing to all the other wars from before. Unless they have those men in black style like lasers that can wipe your memory free from ever seen a drone come over the Persian Gulf and into your luxury apartment towers? I don't think we can make it up with the bailout, like what the damage that's been done in the past few months.

And this is, people shouldn't understand. This is just the beginning. And we talked about earlier in the week of jet fuel shortages in Europe. And airlines like Liftonza canceling thousands of flights because the jet fuel shortage has hit them. The economist writes, two days ago, 50 days into the Iran War, the world has lost 550 million barrels of Gulf crude,

nearly 2% of last year's global output. Every month, Hormuz stays closed. The world misses out on 7 million tons of liquefied natural gas, worth 2% of the world's annual supply. By April 20th, the last oil tankers to cross Hormuz before the war began, reached their destinations in Malaysia and California, there is no buffer left to protect the world from a supply shock at a time of the year where demand from holiday drivers starts to pick up. To gauge how close the

world is to energy catastrophe, the economist has collected a dashboard of indicators. It shows grave harm has already been done. Worse, without a reopening, a cost could, or triggering events that cause the fuel system to seize up. A reopening of the straight now would just avoid calamity, but some additional pain is already inevitable. I mean, we're going to start to see this in food shocks as we get to spring of next year, maybe even earlier. And we are arguably, at least in for the, in,

terms of the world, weeks maybe a month or away from severe fuel shortages across the globe. And there's only so much market manipulation Trump can do when there's literal physical commodity shortages. Exactly. Yeah. It's going to hit in some weeks, months, and it's going to be really, really impactful. And we're watching inflation now at three and a half percent. Donald Trump cleared the way.

today by ending that investigation on Jerome Powell to get his guy in who is so independent that he cannot state in public who won the 2020 election. And so just to give you a sense, this guy is going to come in there with a mandate from Trump to cut interest rates. And so by this time, by the end of the year, I would imagine inflation is just going to be a real problem. Here is Pete Hegesith, the self-anointed Secretary of War, complaining about Europe, not in getting involved here.

Meanwhile, reports that the Pentagon, like I said, is threatening to kick Spain out of NATO because they won't allow military aircraft to fly over Spain. It's also worth saying, this should not be America's fight alone. We barely use the Strait of Hormuz as a country. Our energy doesn't flow through there, and we have plenty of energy. Just look at the new global Congo line, headed to Texas, a beautiful picture. Europe and Asia have benefited from our protection for decades, but the time for free riding is over.

America and the free world deserve allies who are capable, who are loyal, and you understand that being an ally is not a one-way street. It's a two-way street. Thank you. He's arguing with his wife. You know what? It really feels like his AI, his AI member subscription ran out. So he had to write this one himself. Right.

I have to fill this word count. He's on 3.5 instead of 4 or whatever. Don't be mistaken. This ain't a three-way street. It's certainly not a four-way street. It's a two-way one. Just a reminder, America is not in this alone. In fact, according to our own State Department, do we have that?

Number one, yeah. We not only are not in this alone. It wasn't even our idea. We're doing it at the behest of the state that we are, either we are the state of their client state or supposedly their hours. This was, I don't, I don't know what to make of this. It was released by the State Department in the past a day. On February 28th, the United States Armed Forces launched Operation Epic Fury with a set of clear

objectives to, I don't know why they had to put that D in, destroy Iranian offensive missiles. The D is in like brackets. Because it was capitalized in the original and they're sticklers. Oh, yes. Well, I can appreciate bracketing in sentence structure, whatever. But it's because of the true social accated. If they quoted him, they'd have to put 456. Yeah.

Yes, exactly. Yeah. To or they just drop the D in the original time. Destroy Iranian offensive missiles. Destroy Iranian missile. missile production destroy Iran's Navy and other security infrastructure. And finally to ensure that Iran, quote, will never have a nuclear weapon. Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran.

As with the United States is explained in multiple letters to the UN Security Council, including most recently on March 10th, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally. as well as in the exercise of the U.S. own inherent right of self-defense as an afterthought. I mean, one, so it looks like Israel requested it. And I don't know if you heard the news that Benjamin Netanyahu received a cancer diagnosis. So it could have been a make-a-wish situation.

It's like he didn't know if he was going to live or die. And he's always wanted this one war. It's been his one thing. Mine would be, I don't know, going to the Super Bowl when the Giants are playing. John Cena flies at Tel Aviv, it is like, we got your war. But Nenegno may have faked us out because it looks like he's going to survive, unfortunately. Well, they say that most men die with prostate cancer, not from it. But we'll see.

Also, I find it hard to believe that you would go to that Super Bowl because you'd be so afraid of causing them to lose. That's a good point. We'll leave it to the cowboys. We're going to take a break in a moment. Ested Herndon is here. He is the Vox editorial director and host of the new podcast, America, actually. First, a word from our sponsor, one of our most delicious sponsors.

This episode of the Majority Report brought to you by Wild Grain. What is Wild Grain? it is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas. I am telling you, this stuff is amazing. Unlike many store-bought options, wild grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce in a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly, enricher in nutrients and antioxidants. There's no preservatives.

There's no shortcuts, except for you, because you don't have to do all. the mixing and buying all the ingredients, all you got to do is pop it into the onion, the onion, the oven and pop it into the oven and all of them bake in 25 minutes or less. There is no thawing required. All their boxes are fully customizable. They got a variety box. They got a gluten-free box. They got a vegan box and they have a new protein box. I am telling you this stuff is amazing. They have quassants. They have chocolate quassons. They have chocolate quassons. They have ham and cheese, I guess the sort of croissants. But I've had pumpkin biscuits.

I've had amazing, some of the most amazing chocolate chip cookies I've had. And loaves of bread, sourdough. They have homemade pastas. Everything is delicious. I've used it. I mean, I've served them just to Saul on the weekend as a special treat. Maybe he gets his cookie at night. But also, I've mentioned this before, after Saul's bar mitz,

we had a brunch for out-of-town family members. They come over, they're like, did you just, did you bake bread and quissons? And I was like, oh, yes, sir. I mean, I did. Amazing stuff. Really delicious. Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don't just take my word for it.

They have over 40,000 five-star reviews. they have been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row for a limited time Wild Grain offering you $30 off your first box. And you're ready for this plus free croissant for life. And you go to wildgrain.com slash majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box and free croissant for life when you visit wildgrain.com slash majority where you can use promo code majority at checkout. out. We will put all that information in the podcast and YouTube description.

Quick break, when we come back, Ested Herndon will be with us, Vox editorial director and host of the new podcast, America, actually. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland, on the majority report. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the program. Ested Herndon is the Vox editorial director and a host of the new podcast, America, actually. instead. Welcome back to the program. Tell us about America actually. Yeah, it's good back to be. It's good to be back here. Our hope is to do something that looks kind of beyond Trump. You know, I was thinking kind of how we're marching towards elections. It's going to be an open primary for the first time in a couple decades.

And so I wanted to follow up on what we did about elections, kind of seeing things from the bottom up. But I was like also thinking about how much he's blocked out the sun. And I think some of the seeds of chance, that are going to define both 2026 and 2028 are going to be based beyond that. And so our hope is to kind of fall, our hope is to see that. So we're looking at immigration. We're looking kind of in changes in both parties. And our hope is to kind of identify the groups that are going to lead. I think two parties have to ask fundamental questions about themselves,

things that weren't answered in the presidential election of 2020, which was all kind of sucked up by the Trump emergency. So that's our hope is to start asking those things. and, you know, every Saturday. But you also kind of began doing that in 2024. Your reporting indicated that the economy was going to be really the main driver of that election or determining factor and that the Democrats were really slow on that front. For people that may not be familiar, just talk about what you reported on in 2024.

And maybe you can toot your own horn about what you saw coming and what others didn't. Yeah, I mean, our goal in 24 was really to ask, like, how did we lead to this kind of double haters' election? Like a kind of party and establishment that had nominated candidates that the clear sign in polling, the clearest sign in our kind of anecdotal work was that folks didn't want it. And so we were looking at that gap and where kind of that was emerging. And so in doing a lot of that, we were seeing the places that I think Democrats were talking over and now kind of know of that stuff. When we were checking in with voters, particularly in 2022, 2023, there was legitimate anger about an inflation crisis folks felt was unseen.

There was anger about southern border for folks felt was overrun. We would feel things about Biden, the kind of uncertainty or kind of shock that he was thinking about re-election, even though there was a kind of certainty in my like, kind of D.C. and CNN like, and so we were seeing a lot of that. And one of the things we report on, I think we talked about, was how the price inflation, you know, the kind of way that they were talking about by denominics at the time was not reflected by anyone on the ground. You know, the job numbers were still in that pre-revision stage. And I think we were kind of telling a story to ourselves that was kind of ridiculous to folks who were experiencing month-to-month pain. And so we were talking to people, we were in Cleveland, we were hearing a lot of that stuff about the need for folks to focus on raising minimum wage. They were wondering where Democrats were on kind of basic promises, like a $15 minimum wage. And that stuff came, I think, to be seen more clearly as Trump was able to seize on it.

And so that's really what the run-up was about was, I think, not necessarily trying to predict DR, Trump winning, Biden winning, Harris and all that, but really trying to find, like, how the unity among DRN independent was. really about what was clearly a disconnected establishment, what was clearly a broken, felt like an election that was a manifestation of broken system. And so hearing those voices really made that the clearest for us. It would be fascinating if there was a way to get like a autopsy from the Democratic Party. Like if they could go in, you know, obviously not enough. Like if there was just some way that had a mechanism. If only. You mentioned immigration. And this is sort of like the immigration is i think one of the more interesting um issues at least in terms of the way that the american public has sort of like bounced back and forth over the past

i mean really over the past 10 years but even prior to that but i mean this happened in in in trump's first term too like it it became immigration went from one sort of like a public opinion yeah to another one and then back and now back again. And you just did an interview with a couple of folks this week on that question. Pulling out from just sort of like, you know, exactly what they're seeing and accepting the premise that we've seen like these radical swiss. Like someone's like, we want this and then we get it. And we're like, wait, no, we didn't want that.

Yeah. Right. I mean, what is? A, what is your sense of why that goes back and forth? And B, then let's talk about more of the substance of immigration in and of itself. Yeah. I mean, I think that we have to separate it and we see this in numbers. We see this when we talk to folks about border security versus kind of interior enforcement.

And I think that part of the reason you see that pendulum swinging is because Trump was able to roll those things into one. And what we see is people appreciating some sense or measure of border, quote, unquote, security. Like, this is some of the work we were just talking about is whether that is in a southern border state like Arizona or even in other places, like the scenes folks were getting from the El Paso's in 2021 were universally disliked, right? And so that's distinct from seeing, wanting to see the kind of like dramatic Stephen Miller version of enforcement. And I think that was never connected to things like Trump's promise of mass deportations. But what I do think is, you know, he articulated kind of a clear thumb on issue. And I think that plays on obviously stereotypes. And I think all of those other identity questions that are real.

But the reality is when he has been in office, there's been a clear rejection of kind of, you know, 3,000 arrests a day in the Stephen Miller version of that. what we saw in Minnesota or Chicago or Los Angeles, there's been that kind of mass organization. And so we saw that even in the reporting we were doing too. It's like, to your point, nothing has driven in Gallup polling or others kind of the desire for more immigration now than what Donald Trump has done. And so we've seen that reverse already. But I still don't think that means, you know, there's a desire to the return of the worst

scenes I think of 2021 or such, but I think that's separating the question of interior versus border secure well but but here here's the thing i find fascinating right is that like ninety five percent of the country has absolutely no like has no real interaction with the border in that way i mean to the extent that actually the number's probably actually uh lower because we we have a big border with canada and and you know when people talk about the border they're not really talking about the Canadian border, right? I mean, for the most part, like, you know, we got problems in New Hampshire. We got problems in Vermont and Maine and in Minnesota because what in Michigan, because of

the way that we've been treating the Canadian, Canadians in the Canadian border. So it seems to me that like it is simply like, can we really even glean? Like when we say that people don't like the scene, when they say don't like the scenes of the border in 2021. Obviously, a lot of that was like sort of like pent up demand because of COVID and this and that. But it really, to me, it just sounds like this is demagoguery bait. And, and then the question becomes like, Democrats just sort of sit back. For sure. And this came up in your interview. They're so timid that they never fill the vacuum. And so demagoguery has like the entire playing field for itself. Think about how much Donald Trump blamed on the quote-unquote border from fentanyl to like to every

single impact in folks' lives, right? And so I do think that the absence of an affirmative vision from Democrats has been the kind of the reason there hasn't been a counterbalance to that question. I remember in 2019 covering that primary and there was a plan for everything except the question of what to do both on legal and illegal illegal immigration. And so I do think that there could be a version of something that that doesn't allow Donald Trump to take up that space in the same way. But you're right, that there hasn't really been embraced. I mean, we just interviewed Senator Ruben Gallego, Arizona, and he was saying, you know, we asked them about like half of Americans at this point are saying they won ice abolished.

You know, he called that ridiculous. But he was still articulating a version of reform that seems kind of disconnected from the ice that we've seen. And so I don't know. Or his vote on the Lake and Riley Act. Yeah. Or the vote on. which we asked them about. And I'm like, aren't you voting now? Aren't you now saying you're seeking to reform something you recently empowered, right? Like, I think that shows the tension that's at the heart of a democratic strategy that's tried to get both sides on this quote unquote immigration question. And what do you think that's a function of in terms of like there is, there are, it seems to me that there are silos within our politics that Democrats are terrified of.

For sure. Like, I don't know if we've had a secretary of defense nominated by a Democratic president. I'm trying to think who wasn't a Republican in ages. I mean, maybe during by, but I mean, it's, it's sort of stunning. I mean, they work from the, you know, I've seen this kind of repeatedly throughout these presidential cycles. They work from the premise of winning over the, quote, the centrist, the modern. it, the kind of imagined centrist, and then hope kind of other folks will come along. And so that requires some negotiation, requires the Liz Cheney scenes we've seen in 2024.

And they haven't really seen a clear electoral result from that. Some of the work I've really liked from what we were doing and run up some of the, I think I want us to make sure we continue. But that centrist, right, like, when we're talking about people who don't vote, even people who define themselves as independent, they're not, they don't live in the third-way version of, like, in between right and left. Like there's a disconnect from system broadly. We heard these people who,

you know, these were people who wouldn't, wouldn't vote for Joe Mansion, right? Like, and so, like, there was this, there was this way that you can see how D.C. talks about someone who doesn't like either party, but that's not how that person actually lives.

That's not how that person comes to politics. And a lot of those people, you know, I think we're just... You need more private partnerships. That's one of the things. I'm just waiting for. The answer to that is not in the cancellation of Assam, right? And so I'm like, that doesn't feel to me.

So that showing that gap is also, I think, part of that work. It's an imagined center or an imagine middle that is completely disconnected from the actual center. Like, they want to manifest the suburban Republican strategy where every, where both Republicans and Democrats are competing for a upper middle class. highly educated person, although the Republicans had success, however, fleeting with a new coalition. But that's the center that the blob or the DC envisions. The real center right now is reflected in what Hassan is saying about Israel. Like the center consensus on this issue about not wanting to extend ourselves overseas

and to have this money come back home to invest in this country. That is the center of the country right now. And neither party is reflecting that. I saw this in like the reporting about Mamdani's race last year, that there was a way that talking about affordability, you know, talking about even like, you know, the issues more specific to New York. People would disconnect from his advocacy about Palestinians and advocacy around specifically.

And I'm like, those are connected issues. That gains you credibility. That gains you. And that's a gateway for people believing that you're willing to, to be honest about affordability. or follow through on a belief set. And so those are ways that I think sometimes we act as if these things exist in silos. And I'm like when something's at 80% like that, right?

Like when something among Democrats is a consensus about genocide, then that means that they're looking for you to reflect that language as a basic moral question, as a basic way of understanding credibility. And so I think that's really important to think about when we like talk about sometimes, I think particularly in my world, we'll say, well, foreign policy only exists in this silo. I'm like that, that assumes something not being a gateway moral accountability. And I've seen that on the trail. And so I think they're not understanding that in the Michigan.

They're not understanding that for a Glenn Platner in Maine. Those things have become a kind of, and I think that will be manifested in these primaries we're seeing for. I mean, it's sort of, it's sort of stunning that they don't get that concept. I mean, it's like the first thing you learn in media training is the circle of trust. And so like, you know, you may not be voting for a senator because of whether the sun is shining. But if they get out in the middle of the day and they say the sun's not there, folks, that's the moon. People are going to be like, wait a second. I can't trust this guy on other things because it just he doesn't, he thinks it's the moon.

And I'm like, it's not serving us to act like these things exist in silos. And so I'm like, that part is really clear when I think you live in the work that's most people feel about basic, like their disconnected policies. They're only tuning in on a couple of moments. And then you're like, and then you're the one who looks like the sun isn't shining. So I feel like a lot of these politicians, or at least I kind of think if we live in kind of day-to-day polling, sometimes that's not clearly reflected because it's asking folks to prioritize one thing over another.

And so, yeah, the economy will be most forward. But I'm like, why do they trust someone like Mamdani to follow through on his economic agenda, that's a connected issue. And also when people are asked in polling what their number one issue is, you can also just like perhaps intellectually they'll say the economy. And I think that yes, that's what drives things. But the fact of the matter is that they could have a different kind of, as you say, belief system or they could have credibility that's they assigned to a politician that can be garnered in other ways. And so identifying a villain, I think, is a big part of that because you look like a fighter.

So there's the issue of Israel. But even how we can talk about immigration again, Trump identified villains. And it was the immigrants that were making your life harder. I think, Sam, you mentioned this in your debate with Ezra Klein about abundance. And the Democrats are like, well, the villain is Trump, I guess, maybe. but what Mamdani and that Platner and whatever Abdul Al Sayette are talking about are, the billionaires are the villain. I think that that's clear.

I mean, to me, it was always a fundamental tension of the Biden premise, right? Was that Trump was an aberration. He genuinely believed that. He genuinely believed that the Republican Party. Obama did too, right? In 2010, the favorites will break. The Republicans would have the wake up that. There was a, that it was going to break.

The fever was going to break. And so I think the only thing that has at least come to clarity after maybe 24 only is that this is a, this is a, this is a, we're in a new fundamental page turn, a new chapter. And I think that's what kind of even Democrats are wrestling with too is that the story of aberration, I don't think, I don't think holes. I think that and, and it took too long for that to, for that to, for that to. to really settle in. I think the Biden era to me was shocking how much that still was a fundamental driver of a lot of actions. I still contend that the Biden presidency was lost when he invited instead of following the American Rescue Act with build back better, you let the Republicans come in and essentially dick around for two or three months. Give us a proposal. That didn't work.

So let cinema and Portman come in. And then by then you're, you, you, you, are mired and build back better gets destroyed. Do you think, two things, do you think it's changing for the Democrats, do you think part of that is just simply generational change, not necessarily, not necessarily always as defined by age, but in terms of like a new crop, I mean, I have some real ideological problems with Hakeem Jeffries. And, but the effort in Virginia, for instance, like, you know, you know, The attitude of we're finally going to bring,

we're not bringing the butter knife to the gunfight anymore. That seems to have changed across, largely across the board for a different generation of Democrats. Like even if I don't agree with them ideologically, they understand partisanship. They understand that Republicans are fundamentally different than, you know, just like you say, an aberration. Yeah, I was going to, I was going to mention. I'm like, there has been a radicalization, though, of baseline Democrat in the, I think in the 2024 result. That has been, I think, has really forced new form of action.

I think they're demanding power to be leveraged more directly, right? Like, think about that kind of voter, the Democratic, the average Democratic voter. Voter median, right? Like, you have Mikey Sherrill saying that she's going to declare a state of emergency to bring down electricity prices, right? Like that is not just a right-left shift. That is, I think, a broader Democratic Party that's been demanded or pushed to exert power in a more direct fashion. And so, yeah, when I'm like, when the Republicans were kind of starting the redistricting efforts, I'm like, if you would have said that Democrats would have rallied in the way that came clear in California or has become clear in Virginia, I think I was really skeptical of that too.

So I'm like, that is a new version of like even willing to use the levers in front of them. It's just come at, I think, a cost because by the time that has been realized, Donald Trump's been breaking down so many of the levers from a national. I mean, that's a decades-old problem. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's here. They recognize it. Yeah, it's going to be interesting.

I think the way that that's going to play out in my mind is, when Democrats take the House and possibly the Senate, the investigations, I think there's going to be a lot of investigations in Supreme Court and the ethics there. And the question is, based upon, like, you know, we go back and we,

you know, I didn't particularly care from Merrick Garland, but he was not even given a hearing because they were 10 months out. The real question is, we're going to see like some type of Supreme Court reform that sort of, sort of meets the moment. That is a big question for me. I think this is a big, I think this is a question that is in that, that's going to manifest itself in the primary that will go beyond just

like the typical left, right questions. I think we're focusing on now. I think everyone will be asked to a higher standard of like structural reform, of like, what are your kind of big picture questions about power and, and about corruption? And I think about reinvigorating norms that Trump has collapse. And so I think that that kind of demand for a little bit of political creativity is also going to be an interesting thing for next year, because I don't think

the kind of same solutions feel even applicable. And so to your point about whether, you know, if Congress is doing a bunch of investigations, if there's a demand for Supreme Court reform, like that I think that's a new type of litmus test that we weren't necessarily asking

or that we haven't necessarily seen the candidates break on yet. But we'll, I think those questions will come in the 2027. And let's look at the Republicans for a moment. Because it's, you know, for a long time, like you said, the Democrats let, in my estimation, the Democrats let the Republicans completely off the hook by saying that Donald Trump is uniquely different from Republicans. I mean, that was, you know, Harris's whole play with Lynn Cheney.

She was, you know, she was basically saying like, He's the change agent. Where the establishment? And then all of a sudden was like, oh, wait, do we say that? What do you think is happening with the Republicans right now? Yeah, I mean, Iran, I think, has legitimately scrambled. You know, we were talking about swing voters earlier. I think that you could see the new swing voter as a kind of working class minority

or a young person who I don't think sees itself on an ideological spectrum. And I think for a lot of those questions, there is an America first premise that Donald Trump really sold them on that is beyond your typical Republican base who might be sticking with them, right, in the sheer partisanship within. His actions, and I think particularly starting a regime change war in Iran, something I heard this whole, like, whole set motivated and kind of like define. I'm like the reason a lot of people thought Donald Trump was in the traditional establishment is because they told themselves he would not do exactly. what they have done. I mean, he ran his first campaign. Yeah, as I'm like, I heard no forever wars. I heard them.

Of Iran. They have rationalized so much with Trump out of the premise of no forever wars. And so I do think that is a legitimate break that we're seeing manifested in some polling. He's at his lowest approval rating for strongest approval, even among some Republicans. And so I think J.D. Vance and all those folks have a little bit of an issue of carrying an administration that does not follow through on that. I think that's a reason we see some. some of these leaks that he's making clear he might try to be on the other side.

I think that he, you know, I think that it empowers people like from the outside. They're kind of even a Marco Rubio or someone who maybe doesn't, you know, doesn't tie it directly to Trump in this fashion. And so I think that they have to answer. This is part of the reason I like, you know, the premise of our kind of show looking beyond him is how much does interventionism, how much are they committed to America first beyond the call of Trump's personality? I feel like are the seeds that we're just seeing among them because he's been so flagrantly,

I think, violating the premise of his second term, even on things like Epstein. And so I think it's forced that base to wrestle with that violation that they were rationalizing for way too long. I saw Naomi Klein, just maybe this adds to what you're about to ask him on, it was a clip on Instagram, but her kind of describing how we shouldn't, we should be careful not to look at Republican fracturing from the perspective of influencers, whether it's Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Green, but that there are fractures that can be significantly exploited, but they may not be the ones that are the result of the incentives of the influencer economy. And, and so I don't know what that is exactly, but I don't also think that we should kind of use. You know,

perhaps a Trump 1.0 framework to look at MAGA and say, though, they're never moving because the numbers don't show that. Yeah, yeah. I guess I'm making a distinction between the Republican base and the MAGA coalition. And I'm like, I think Donald Trump, part of his unique coalition is not, it's not, I don't think the influencers are the only representatives of that. But I'm saying is a type of, is both that kind of working class minority who voted for him, who broke for him in bigger numbers in the last election.

and also would say a younger type of voter. And I would just say people who are attracted to a Trump brand of Republicans, that's not your traditional base. Now, Iran, I think, messes with that group a lot more than it messes with your base Republican. And so I don't think that a JD Vance or someone is having a problem among your traditional Republican primary voter, right? Or has that big of an issue. But I do think is fracturing, though, is.

is the kind of broader group that Trump brought in. So the margins, really? Yeah, the margin. We're talking about the margins that. That break from him is clear in independence. That break from him is clear kind of across the board. It's what's driving him down past to 30%. But does that mean that J.D. Vance can't win a Republican primary in the next year?

No, because I do think that that traditional Republican base is not. is someone who wrote Marjorie Taylor Greenoff the second she disagreed with Trump and will never bring her back. Right. I mean, I wonder how much of it is Iran per se and just sort of the idea of like, wait a second, you were supposed to be different.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's all the above, right? It's Iran. It's tariffs. It's the way Iran's driving gas prices. It's the refusal to release Epstein and the fact that he was seen to be someone who was outside of the rich club. And I think now he seems very much firmly in a kind of icky world, right? I'm like, people told themselves

that Donald Trump was going to save them from the QAnani version of the world. Not that he was going to be the person who blocked the vows from coming out. I think it's all the above has been a break from a premise that brought those marginal voters in. But all I'm saying is, like, that was the, that was his ability

to bring those folks in as part of the reason he changed the Republican Party. And it's been part of the reason he's been able to reshape it. And so that's the question. going forward is like how much of those folks remain in a party without Donald Trump at the center. That's interesting. And just in terms of like, I mean, I'm trying to like compare. And again, to a certain extent, this is more, I don't want to say D.C., but it's more like, you know, for the 10% of people

who really follow politics online. And like, the the sort of drama, if you will, or the dynamics that influence the people who are otherwise in a bubble, I think to a certain extent. Like, I'm comparing like the whole heritage implosion and, you know, that was centered around Tucker Carlson and Fuentes versus like the almost manufactured controversy around Hassan Piker that McMurrow, I think really in many ways, you know, it's always been floating around,

but I think she brought it to the fore because she thought it would in some way help her with Sayyid, who's like, I don't know, I wouldn't want to say surging, but definitely growing in popularity in Michigan. I definitely think when people ask, why does this stuff matter? I go back to 2022 and 2023 when the kind of insider versions of national parties help create the conditions for Trump Biden rematch.

And sometimes I think by the time that most regular people tune in, a lot of these conversations have already shaped the forces that give them the disconnect that they feel. And so the reason I try to tell people that some of this stuff matters is like is it's not because I would love to care about it. It is because it simply, you know, I know, I sometimes empathize with like my friends and like all those other folks who by the time you look at the debate stage and you're looking at your options and you're wondering, why do I have these options?

Right. It's because of this, you know? Right. It's because of all this. because of the litmus test that folks tried to create the year before. It's because of who got donor money and who didn't. It's because of who party establishments slightly favor and who can run TV ads, right? Like, it's all of those forces that help shape the question of your options.

Because I do think I understand the folks who for the first time are tuning in when they have to, right? And that's the majority of people. And so like that, and that's why I think it's important to lay out. And it's important to ask those questions now. It's because I've seen the ways it, it, it, it, the impact on people is really perplexing. You know, they're like, how did we get? Yeah. Well, it's also why it's also why it was so egregious to box out debate about Biden and his.

Yeah, all of those things. Yeah, like, like if we're talking about how both parties really institutionally are fundamentally undemocratic. The Republicans are fascistic, obviously, and the Democrats are internally undemocratic and unresponsive to their base. But the Wright simulates responsiveness. The Epstein stunt with Chia Wright chicken, whatever, I mean, it blew up in their face because they're so incompetent. But they were going on podcast to garner votes to say, this is a thing you want. We're going to give that to you. I mean, even the no worse thing. Look at how cynical that was. They didn't believe anything. They believed the

opposite, but they said what they needed to say to get into power. And Democrats are like, we're not going to even say what we need to say to get into power. In fact, we might, we almost would rather lose by maintaining our institution than do simulated democratic responsiveness. Yeah, I mean, the Trump version of Republicans has been working. from the premise of like institutional like breakdown right like and and I think that gave them a big advantage in the last election because they're not pitching you a version of the status quo at least and they are working from an understanding that I think most people have that this ain't working you know and so I think they weren't Democrats and no I remember making this point ahead of 24 I'm like

much more impactful than save democracy, would have been improved democracy, would have been less than we get it. But this is why we're going to make government more responsive. This is our competing vision to his version, which is Project 2025 scariness, right? And so I think that, like, there was a, there was instinctive and understandable reaction

to saying, okay, the safe bet against a kind of scary, fascistic government is to say, like, no change, right? Like, is to pitch the widest net possible, and that's to hold our norms together. But again, I think, you know, I used to do debate. Trump on the first argument, which is like the norms aren't working, you know, and that no one believes them anymore. And so what they were pitching wasn't even in that language. Yeah, I remember Ben Rhodes had a piece in the Washington Post, I think it was, right

after the election, which is like you're going around saying, um, uh, we're, uh, for democracy and people are going, oh, you mean the thing that's like,

screwed us over? Yeah. And, and, and then of course, again, that, that's my point about the change agent.

Trump, not only was Trump trying to situate himself as a change agent for a situation for an institutional breakdown, but you had Harris going around also arguing that point by going around with Cheney and saying, you know, where are the establishment? And how do you like us?

And that wasn't where that started. Like I remember, one thing I remember is in that switch moment at the DNC, part of that optimism was based in the hope that she would then lean in to change agent. That she would then lean into recognizing, you know, Palestinians, you know, that she would lean in, that there was a window of opportunity, that there, we would get a kind of page turn, not just in, you know, identity and not just in representation, but in like an actual, you know, what those values are supposed to me, you know?

Like, and so, you know, one of the things I, like, find is like a bummer of this work. It's like, you can see it there, you know, but then all of these forces, and I think sometimes people's just inability to lead is or, or, you know, or fear. of failure or whatever it is, like, doesn't cause that to come out. Because I'd actually, you know, it's not like I don't think, like, do I think that the kind of Kamala Harris, who I covered for years, probably does have a different posture on Gaza than Joe Biden? Probably.

Yes. Right? Like, I would think probably. Yes. But I'm like, does, is that, is that something that I think that the candidate, that version of candidate express clearly for voter? No. No. Yeah, I agree totally.

So I'm like, I was in North Carolina two weeks before election in the suburb where a person was said she refused like this law-clown Democrat refusing the vote for them over the exact same thing. So I'm like, it's not a hypothetical swing voter. Like those are people I met. And so I just think that pretending that there was no causal relationship there or that the window of hope wasn't about the idea of change agent has been like crazy. to me because that was the that was the that was the that was the window i would love if there was some way to have an autopsy to find out yeah yeah there we're like that's the one way they can get away with it is because we all know we all yes we all know and and and and and the reports that uh you know

when it was coming back from canvassers that gaza was an issue uh the harris campaign saying but we're no longer accepting that uh in our we just don't have we just we've taken away off option D or whatever it is. You just can't report that anymore. So it goes away. Do you think, lastly, do you think that like in that situation? Because I agree with you. I think like, you know, Phil Gordon as her foreign policy advisor was sort of like a clue.

But you know, you can't expect your voters to be like. We really. We did so many. You got to know who's Bill Gordon. Yeah. We did so many Phil Gordon segments on the show trying to convince. people that there was a chance that she'd be better and it's like who are we breaking through to yeah nobody's can understand but yeah i think like but but her problems also expand were were were there that was

indicative of other problems she had in terms of like the economic message and whatnot and do you think that's a function of like is that why you need someone who's who is in fact owns a certain owns their ideology so that the people surrounding them are not sort of like available to sort of take that. It really is a corporate mentality, which is like, keep your head down. We're all making money in some fashion. And that's the way to do it. No, this is something I feel like I've come to believe more so as after the last eight years of kind of doing this is like it is, I've come to the realization of like, like, so,

you have to have some version of insulation from that pressure, some some willingness to say, this is what I believe and this is what I don't. Like, I always go back to telling people's story about a voter. I remember meeting in Iowa who was torn between Bernie and Bloomberg. And I'm like, you know, there are people out there in the world who just want someone who they think they know what they believe, right? Like, and so those things can be in such conflict if that is clear to you.

But that's not going to be clear to you if you are calibrating just advice from advice, from advisors day to day, right? If you're waiting for the next focus poll as the premise of where you start. And so I think that like that is something that is certainly like a corporate quality and I think having a kind of clear lane helps that. I think it's a kind of lawyerly quality.

I've come to think that there's just like too many lawyers. Yes. And that like in general, they just move like that. But the whole party's filled with freaking lawyers. I mean, that's the problem. If you just have like a different type of Constitution. Some people don't move like that. Like, even like a, like someone like a war knock or someone like, I'm like, you can have different ways of communicating that doesn't come from that kind of lawyerly, um, whiplash, which some of which I think it just affected a Democratic party that became all together to bureaucratic, all together to academic. Like, and I think some of that is ideological. Like some of, but some of that is just process to and an obsession. I feel like that's Clintonism.

Like, and I'm talking, you know, Bill Clintonism. You know, when he brought in Dick Morris, that was the ultimate, like, how am I going to maneuver? I'm abandoning any pretense of anything other than being consultant-driven. Instead, Herndon, the podcast is America actually. We'll put a link to that. And, of course, you're over at the Vox. Really appreciate your time today. No, I appreciate y'all.

Thank you for having me. Thanks so much. All right, folks. We're going to take a break. That's it for the first half of the program. And we'll head into the fun half on a Friday. What do you think about that? I'm excited about it.

Keep really coming off as excited by you're going to calm down. We're going to try and calm Emma down. In the meantime, join the majority report. It is your support that makes this show possible. When you become a member, you get, not only you get the free show, free of commercials, but you also get to IMS in the fun half. Maybe we'll take some phone calls today, too.

Join the Majority Report.com. Also, just coffee.com. Fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. Get 10% off. And you can buy the majority report blend. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Leckon Media Universe? Yeah, kind of a related conversation coming up.

on the new Jacobin show today at 3 o'clock Eastern time. Our Democrats moving right, where we have Neum Meyer talking about from socialist perspective, the Democrats movement won both the voters who are not moving right. And then that pesky new Democrats' DLC folks still kind of lingering around in a party well beyond its sell-by date. So check that out. And also Oliver Larkin, who's, Going up against, I think, is Moskowitz down in Florida.

And also his cats in the background, which is very cute. But he's the first nationally endorsed DSA candidate for Congress. It'd be a great upset down there in Florida. And so, yeah, great to talk to all over. Scroll up so I can show this nice thumbnail. I love the aesthetic of the thumbnails. David Griscom's work. Whoa.

Well done. It's nice looking. It is. Real graphics. so graphic design is our passion see in the fun half three months from now six months from now nine months from now and I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now

and I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now but I think around 18 months out we're going to look back and go like wow what what is that going on it's nuts Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. The majority. Emma, welcome to the program.

Hey. Fun hat. Matt. Who? Fun hack. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. No me keen.

You did it. Fun hat. Let's go Brandon. Let's go Brandon. Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint. Everyone, I'm just a random guy.

It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No, I'm sorry. Women's... Stop talking. a second. Let me finish. Where is this coming from, dude?

But dude, you want to smoke this? Seven, eight? Yes. Yes? I think it is you. Who is you? Single freaking day. What's on your mind?

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm going to go to fly. Libertarians. They're so stupid, though. Common sense says, of course. Gobbled e-gook. We fucking nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21?

Challenge men. I'm positively quivering. We've not. 96, I want to say. 857. 210. 35. 501.

One half. Three eight. 9-11 for it. $3,400. $1,900. $6. $5.4. $3 trillion sold.

It's a zero-sum game. Actually, you're making me think less. But let me say this. Poop. You're going to call it satire. Sam goes to satire. On top of it all? My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do.

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. Folks. Out, obviously. Yeah, sundown guns out. Don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question.

Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it. I do love that. Got to jump. I got to be quick. I get a jump. We're already late, and the guy's being a dick.

So screw him. Sent to a gulaw? Outrage. Like, what is wrong with you? Love you. Love you. Bye-bye.