The Opinions - Graham Platner and the Rise of the ‘Dirtbag’ Democrat

Episode Date: June 6, 2026

On Tuesday, Graham Platner could become the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine. That has many in his party worried. This week on “The Opinions,” the political writer Michelle Cottle and the columnists David French and Jamelle Bouie discuss the controversial Platner, what his rise can tell us about the role of morality and authenticity in American politics today and how President Trump’s terrible poll numbers are motivating some in Congress to start pushing back. Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail]. This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Video editing by Kristen Williamson and Ben Wright. The postproduction manager is Mike Puretz. Original music by Carole Sabouraud and Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Video is Jonah M. Kessel. The deputy director of Opinion Shows is Alison Bruzek. The director of Opinion Shows is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Aaron Retica. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You know, I have an electric car and a charging station at home that's connected to my solar panels. The charging station is connected to your solar panels. Yeah. I don't really pay for fuel anymore. You are ready for the zombie apocalypse. They're knifing each other at the gas pump. Jamel will be like, later. I'm Michelle Cottle.

I cover national politics for New York Times opinion. And this week, I'm here with the usual suspects. My fabulous colleagues and columnists, David French, and Jamel, Bowie. Guys, how's it going? Hey, Michelle. Hello, hello. Hello, hello. All right, this week I want us to talk about Graham Platner, the headline-grabbing Democratic Senate candidate at the center of Tuesday's main primary elections. What does his rise say about where Dems are placing their bets on the future leadership of the party? And bigger picture, what is the role of morality? and authenticity in politics today.

But first, I want to talk about the Republicans in Congress, which is one of I know everybody's favorite topics on the show. They're starting to show a wee bit of spine. This past week, the House voted for a resolution demanding that Trump withdraw forces from Iran to make this possible four Republicans had to cross the aisle and join with Democrats.

Now, two weeks ago after Trump announced his $1.8 billion political slush fund. There was also serious pushback from his own party. Why are we seeing this pulse now? And what do you think it means going forward? David? Yeah, it's a great question. I would say there's a couple of things happening. One is, I think it's actually true that, believe it or not, Trump is getting even more brazen. So when you're talking about the slush fund, for example, we had a good time talking about that as is this one of the most monarchical things that he's done? You know, he subverted Congress. He subverted the judiciary. It was a remarkable power grab, just a breathtaking act of corruption. And so I do think there is a difference in degree in some of what

Trump has been doing, also launching a war without preparing the American people, without going to Congress. I mean, you're going to chip away. And then also, I actually think this internal purge that Trump has been mounting is backfiring on him, at least in the short term. So, you know, he's gotten rid of Senator Cassidy. He's gotten rid of Cornyn. He's gotten gone down to the state legislative level and intervene to endorse primary candidates at the state level. And I'm not sure that it's actually doing what he wants it to do because he's obviously seriously alienated the Republicans in the state level. And I'm not sure that it's actually doing. Senate and a number of Republicans can see the polling just like everyone else and see the results

of elections before the midterms, between the general election and the midterms. So all of these things together are adding up to not what would you call normal political accountability, because normal political accountability, we'd be far down the road to impeaching Trump. But it's an opening to some form of political accountability. Jamel? How are you feeling about it? I see all of this is very much downstream the fact that the president's, I wouldn't say, in a polling collapse, but it's clearly very unpopular and trending downward. The most recent New York Times, Sienna poll had him at 37%.

And the disapproval numbers are all in the high 50s and the low 60s. And those are just terrible numbers. And I think Republican Congress people are approaching the situation where, you know, primary season just about over, and they'll have to deal with the general electorate. And it is a general electorate, not even will be, it is a general electorate that is quite unhappy with the state of things across all the big issues that Trump was elected to deal with, mainly inflation and the cost of living. And so I just think this is Republican lawmakers beginning to recognize it like, yeah, they have to actually run in elections and Trump is not

going to be on the ballot. Well, this does. remind me of when I talked to Thomas Massey, who was one of the four Republicans who excited with Democrats this week on the war vote. When I talked to him back in January about all this, he predicted that once the midterm primary elections were passed, that more of his Republican colleagues would feel comfortable stepping forward and showing a little life. And in part, it was just a question of timing, in addition to being wildly unpopular, the president is the lame duck. People are starting to realize in Congress that they may have ambitions to continue on beyond this guy who clearly cares nothing for the party and has no intention of doing anything

other than his pet projects. It also does help that, you know, if you're talking about the members that he has targeted specifically, Tom Tillis, who's already, you know, was already on his way out. because of clashes with Trump, has been pretty harsh about Trump's attempt to stick Bill Polte in as the director of national intelligence wildly unqualified. And also, you know, they're starting to see a little bit of the limits of Trump's political power. His candidate for governor went down in Iowa this week. And of course, I should clarify, we're taping on Thursday. So by Saturday, it may have all gone sideways again. But for now at least, it looks like, oh, my God, you know, alert the media.

The Republican Congress is at least breathing. And with that, let's just forget about Republicans altogether and go on to the chaos of Democrats in Maine. So, Graham Platner. We've talked about Graham Plattener a little bit. What his pros and cons are, David, I know you have very strong feelings on this. But first, I want Jamel to kind of walk us through how we wound up here. I mean, Jamel, you want to unpack his rise and his appeal in the Democratic political world of late? So last year, prior to last year, as this main Senate race was approaching, the DSCC, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was trying to recruit incumbent governor, Janet Mills, to be.

the kind of party endorsed nominee for the seats, Mills, you know, incumbent governor, one statewide, seems, you know, basically well-matched for Susan Collins, the incumbent Republican senator, except for the fact that Mills is in our late 70s. And so there's this very, there's strong uneasiness with the attempt to get Mills in just because the public seems to be, have grown quite tired of elder, politicians to put it. You're trying to be so gentle about this whole thing. You're trying to avoid those old ageist complaints for the militiaship, I'm sure.

Yes. But it is the case that especially in the wake of Biden, there's a lot more reticence about older candidates. Last year, there was another effort to find a different alternative, sort of a candidate who might embody some of the economic populism and whatnot that has gained a lot of currency in democratic politics. And my understanding is that Platner is a recruit amongst, you know, a group of democratic consultants and the like who were looking for someone who would, who would have that kind of aesthetic, but also seem to have the, at least political talent to be able to

carry a Senate race. He is an oyster farmer and has this, you know, this not quite blue-collar background. He comes from a relatively privileged background, but he's served in the Marines, serving the Army, and this was the guy that they found to try to, you know, as I would describe it, maybe like pilot an approach, sort of like use this as an attempt to see. of a different kind of approach to candidate recruitment might be successful. And last summer, Platter did sort of take off amongst Democratic primary voters in Maine, in part because I think he's just young. He'll be the youngest person in the race, in part because he speaks to a lot of the frustrations.

I think a lot of voters feel. He's in this funny way, very reminiscent of like a median voter. he kind of like he looks like sounds like just sort of like a guy and he just happens to be running for the senate and he was very vocally opposed to the Israeli war in Gaza. He condemned it as a genocide early on and that is a really important issue for Democratic primary voters. But the thing about kind of recruiting just a guy to run is that you don't necessarily know everything. about his background. And so there's been kind of a steady stream of revelation, scandals, that range from being, I would say, quite serious, which is the question of his tattoo,

to things that are not great, but I think for a lot of voters no longer disqualifying. So the most recent one that I've saw is his sort of texting with other women, not his wife, which 10 years ago, 15 years ago, candidacy destroying scandal. Did you say texting? Because as I understand it, it was sexting. Point still stands. A decade ago, candidacy destroying scandal. These days, I think.

With Trump in the White House and the family values party having gone all in with, you know, caddishmen. Okay, okay, so what? There's also this question of, you know, he's still polling quite well against Susan Collins, and there's a real, you know, desperation to beat Susan Collins. So I think there's two points I'm going to make here. The first is that there's probably more to drop about Platner. There's earlier in the year or late last year there was stuff about his internet conduct,

things he posted on Reddit in particular. And this is to the second point, which is that it is precisely because his whole political persona is just kind of a guy, there's an extent to which unless these scandals or these revelations that are going to call them tip into actual illegality or something, you know, extremely unethical, I'm actually pretty confident to whether all of them, because they are they are the kind of scandal that reinforces the political persona. You know what I mean? All right, David, I wanted you to jump in here because I know

you have some fairly harsh views about some of Platteners. Some of Platler's behavior or history. You want to get a little bit into that? Yeah, you know, the guy is waving red flags everywhere. It's like he's waving flags, abort, abort, no, don't do this. Because it's not just that he has a number of scandals. The nature of them and the way that he's responded to them raises the possibility that this is just not, let's just be, that he's not the kind of person you would want in the United States Senate to put it mildly. So, you know, here you have a guy who's had an SS tattoo. So it's not just Nazi. It's sort of super Nazi involving a unit that one of its

jobs was guarding concentration camps. This is the insignia of the unit. And you're not buying that he didn't know. No, the guy's a history buff. The story has been he's gone through a tough time. He didn't know exactly what he was doing. He's come out of the tough time. He's better now. And then we get the sexting scandal. Well, the sexting scandal takes place after he's married. relatively recently. He had a profile on a very, an app or a, that's known, I think, called Kick that is known to be extremely, it's a home. Let's just say it's not the home of the best people in America, Michelle. And he has this sort of, you know, profile. He's not wearing clothes. He's just wearing a towel. And he's taking the mirror picture. And guess what he's conveniently covering up

in the mirror selfie? You've got it, the Nazi tattoo. And so, You know, you're, you just, you look at this stuff and I know and I hear the word authenticity. Well, he's authentic. Okay. Let me say I get, here's what I get about the authenticity point. We've all seen people who are like, you know, political bot 9,000 that just sort of walk out there and they deliver talking points and they've got the right gestures. And everyone's just sick of that. sick of it. But authenticity by itself isn't a virtue. You can go into prison, and there's a lot of

authenticity in prison. You could be authentically horrible. You could be authentically horrible. So I would prize of virtues over authenticity. And you're going to walk into this. And as Jamel said, you cannot open social media without the rumor mill of just you wait, just you. you wait. There is more to come. There is more to come. And I'm getting this feeling that a lot of Democrats are walking pretty far out on a limb that is going to just get chopped right out from under them as more comes out about this guy. Yeah, I know they're really nervous. So the question I've always had is, if this is what we know, what do we not know? Because it's, you know, it's not like this stuff tends to hit all at once. And I mean, maybe I'm wrong with that campaign doesn't seem the kind to go

ahead and drop everything early so that you can get it over with. They're going to let it drip, drip, drip. But I do think that this whole authenticity thing, and let me just say, the whole authenticity thing, aside from Platner, has always driven me crazy. Because what it is clear is it's not that people want somebody who's authentic. They want somebody who's kind of charming and folksy or whatever. If you're authentically awkward, they have no use for you. If you are authentically anything except a, you can fake if you're a professional, then they are. So I just, I have no, no kind of sympathy for that to the degree that it allows you to embrace complete jackasses or horrible people. Not that I'm saying he is. I'm just saying that that whole excuse drives me

nuts. And I get your point about robots and things like that. But voters don't want authentic. They want authentically charming and folksy and looks regular guyy. They want someone who can perform a certain kind of, I'm going to sound like an academic here, perform like a certain kind of legible authenticity, right? Something that authentic capital A refers to a set of traits that are politically advantageous. And if you can perform them well, then you get labeled authentic, right? So as per your point, Michelle, like if you are authentically kind of a patrician, that is, like say Mitt Romney, authentic patrician, that's sort of a hard thing to get past. That reads to voters as being sort of like awkward and robotic, even if it's not,

even if he's just a guy being who he is. And that's why you see candidates doing all kinds of often very silly things, you know, at state fairs at all kinds of places, to try to perform this, meet on stick parade, yeah. This particular kind of authenticity. And I wanted to say real quick that setting aside the questions of authenticity and ethical behavior from Mr. Platner, I do think that if I were a Democratic Party insider, the thing that would make me worry is the fact that they haven't really ceased up early on. Like the time to drop all of these scandals was last summer.

Just get it over with. Just get it all out there. So how do we feel more broadly about the fact that his team reportedly knew about this, the sexting history at least months ago, chose to keep pushing forward? Is that concerning? or do you, as you've noted, with the morality question, Trump has basically blown that up. When we talk about leadership and character, that's almost laughable these days, when I would like be talking to people, for instance, one of David's favorite candidates. Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate candidate now in Texas, when I would mention his long string of personal, I don't, how do we even, how to even put this gently to general?

degeneracy, you would get laughs. I mean, people would be like, oh, that doesn't matter anymore. Like, look at Trump. Yeah. So have we reached, have we reached the point where that sort of thing just doesn't factor in? And is it even, I mean, you know, honestly, is it even fair to compare Platner to somebody like Paxton or Trump? I don't think it's fair. And I say that because so far what we've learned about Plattenor is that like, for lack of a better term, he's kind of a dirtbag. He's just kind of like kind of a dirtbaggy kind of guy. You mean that in the nicest way possible? I mean in the nicest way possible.

That's that's versus Trump who, you know, wasn't. just like kind of a reprehensible person, but like actively engaged in, like, harming other people in his private life, right? And I'd say the same for Paxton, not just sort of like a slimy guy, but a guy who, who sort of modus operandi as a human being is to try to dominate the people around him in really ugly ways. So I think Platterner is more on the Federman continuum than he is on the Trump continuum, which is just sort of like, kind of dirtbaggy. Okay, so I want to drill down just a little bit more. As you guys probably know, our colleague Ross Dauthet recently wrote about the subjective view of morality and politics these days.

He was comparing Platner or contrasting him with someone, you know, like the Democrats Senate pick in Texas, James Talleyco. Seminarian, you know, very kind of straight-laced. As Ross sees it, sometimes voters view. the, quote, sinner as more reassuring because they think that his vices are doubling as the promise that he won't be too fanatical or self-righteous. So in politics, have sins and shortcomings to some degree become a political asset in some cases. You know, I kind of had the opposite instinct that actually the vice that you're seeing in politicians is an appeal precisely because it demonstrates that they are fanatical, that in other words, they are not

restrained by the norms and the rules. And in a moment of extreme negative polarization, at a time when there is an enormous amount of raw hatred, the presence of this vice says, and broadcast to partisan voters, I have no walls. I have no rules. And you can see this sort of mirrored in the talk around Platner, because you keep hearing, I want a fighter. I want a fighter. And I think if Talariko loses, and let's be clear, I mean, the odds are against him. I think there's a lot of sort of this burst of optimism. But the reminder is that Texas is the Lucy with the football for Democrats, and it has been for some time. He's got an enormous sort of structural deficit to overcome. Not to say that he can't do it, but it's a tough

race. But I guarantee you if he loses, if he loses one of the knocks against him. He's not and will be, well, he wasn't a fighter. Well, what do they mean by that? I guarantee you that Talariko will campaign his heart out, that his staff will exert themselves to the limit of their endurance to try to win this race. But he will not be a fighter because he's not cruel. He's not belligerent.

He is leading and leaning into the race in a way that is trying to emphasize sort of, even if you disagree with me, I'm going to treat you with decency. And that is not fighting right now. That's not fighting. And that's why I think that the platinum situation is dangerous. Obviously, he's not Donald Trump.

I mean, no one is. He is the gateway drug to Trumpism. Because if he wins, let's put it this way, if he wins and Tala Rico loses, the cry across the land in that Democratic consultant class will be, find me more platiners. We need more platiners. These are the guys who know how to win. And where have I heard this before? Where have I heard this before?

And so I do think that we're at this really interesting moment where in my question, and I do think we're in this thermostatic reaction against Trump. Yeah. But it's not clear to me yet the exact nature of it is the thermostatic reaction against Trump and for decency, or is the thermostatic reaction against Trump and to pull? pummel and to pummel the other side. And I think that that's going to be, I don't know how we're going to go. And I think that this, who wins, who loses, who overperforms, who underperforms, and the midterms is going to be an indicator of all of this.

The extent to which how Plattern and Taurico in particular do this year, I do think it's going to shape how Democratic consultants go about doing. the recruitment thinking about the candidates they want to try to find. I know my frustration about any kind of conclusion drawn from electoral performance is that this year, it's clear, as David was suggesting, that the most important factor is just how unpopular Trump is. And so it's almost, I wouldn't say the candidates are immaterial. Like, you can have candidates to, like, fit their states, fit their districts. But I'm not sure how many lessons you can draw, but people are going to want to draw the lessons, in part because I think Plattenor, in particular,

and this is a point I meant to get to earlier, is not just a candidate, but I think he's like a position in like an intra-democratic party factional battle, right? It stands with how you view the kinds of people that Democrats tend to recruit

to run for office. Should they be, you know, polished with the right credentials, you know, in that code's sort of the thing, or should there be a bit of a looser and more open approach to candidate recruit? And so there are all these things sort of tied up in Platner that I think don't actually have that much to do with Grand Platner and have much more to do with these factional battles that are happening, right?

Have a lot to do with the particular constellation of consultants who are behind Platner and who are looking for perhaps like a greater say in the direction of Democratic Party strategy. And so that's, I mean, to me, that's one of the interesting things about this entire dynamic about, you know, observing the arguments about Platterner online. is that everything feels like a proxy fight and not so much dealing with like the particular candidate in the particular race and their particular circumstance. Yeah, that makes me kind of mental with the overlearning of lessons. So like when Janet Mills suspended her campaign was everybody was like, oh my God, this proves that, you know, Chuck Schumer was hideous in his, you know, recruiting and that whatever. I'm sorry, Janet Mills is 78 years old. She would have been the oldest freshman senator ever. That enough was a problem for her beyond whatever kind of issues.

But if you look at who else Schumer has recruited, you've got Mary Peltola in Alaska and Sherrodin, Ohio, and Roy Cooper in North Carolina. And Josh Turrug just won in Iowa, which was a race that was basically internally, heavily about whether or not you supported Chuck Schumer. So I just not that Chuck is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. Nobody's going to go there. And in my position is that it may be time for him to publicly come up with a succession plan. But just the overlearning from one race makes me mental on these things. So just, you know, Maine is not the only show in town with this primary season. We're seeing this whole range of options for new leadership in the party.

Jamel, give us your basic take on how the party should be trying to expand. I mean, you can break it down any way you like. But like, are we talking about more moderates? Are we talking to how much should we be paying attention to anti-establishment disruptors, that sort of thing? I mean, when you look at the landscape of candidates this cycle, I'm not sure you can draw an actual through line between any of them, right? So, or even since Trump got into office.

So obviously last year, you had, you know, Apical Spamberger, a centrist Democrat, Cheryl in New Jersey, who is kind of just like a center-left Democrat. Zeranamandhi identifies with the Democratic Socialists. When you look at Tala Rico, he seems to be sort of like a standard Texas liberal in terms of his views. We're not looking at a situation, right, where it's like, oh, look, the moderates are doing so much better than the progressives or the progressives is doing so much better than the moderates. A lot of it, again, as I said earlier, shaped by the overall national environment,

Trump is very unpopular. And if you seem like a basically capable, reasonable person, voters are going to give you a hearing right now. My sense of when you're thinking about how to stits together a large political coalition, majority coalition, you have to have something that, like, your party believes. in. And it has to be broad enough that it can include a lot of people, and specific enough that it's distinctive. So I think the classic example of American political history is the Republican Party in the 1850s, which was anti-slavery. That's what it was. There was no particular litmus test

centered around this. I think this is kind of the next point. To be anti-slavery in the 1850s could mean that you were an abolitionist. It could mean that you were a free soiler, meaning that you just didn't want slavery to expand, but otherwise didn't really care where it was. It could mean that you didn't even care about that all that much, and you didn't like black people all that much. You just didn't like the fact that all the southern slaveholders controlled the government, right? It meant a lot of different things.

And the hat trick of that iteration of the Republican Party is that they were basically sort of like, yeah, sure, okay, whatever it wants to mean to you, it can mean to you. But as long as we can agree on this one thing that we're against slavery, we can figure out the details later. And I kind of think that's something like that is important. I think Democrats, and have all, I'll say they struggle with this now, have always struggled with this by virtue of fact that the Democratic Party has always been from its very inception, this kind of stits together brokerage party of lots of different groups. But I think we're in an age where a political party that will succeed and that can bring people over that can expand the tent as language goes is one that can kind of voice some kind of broad principle that again that's big enough that can include a lot of people. People can make of it what they want, but still specific enough that it's identifiable, right? that like if you believe this, then this is the party that you ought to support versus how I think

Democrats often go when it comes to trying to appeal to people, which is to say, hey, listen, I'm totally inoffensive, you know, I don't trigger anything you dislike, so you should vote for me. Oh, don't use that word. You know, what am I just coming from, looking at it from the outside, I'm struck by something our colleague Ezra Klein said in a podcast not long ago, where I think it was something along the lines of it's easier to imagine the end of the republic than a Democrat winning a Senate seat in Arkansas. And which is, you know, one of those, as they say, tough but fair assessments. And the question is, when I hear things like, what does the Democratic Party need to do when, to win, one of my first questions is where?

Where? So if you're talking about in Arkansas where the Democratic Party has been in retreat for very long time, you have Republican supermajorities, you have extreme difficulty breaking through, well, if I'm the Democrats, there's going to be a degree of, say, moderation or ideological malleability that's going to be necessary that would be political suicide if you're running in a Brooklyn congressional district. And there's just going to be, there's just going to have to be a comfort with that stitched together coalition. And I think, actually one of the problems that emerged for the Democrats is they were starting to move away from that very stitched together coalition towards a much more narrow ideological litmus test. And just as Jamel

was saying, the one thing, the one test, if you wanted to be a Republican in 1860, was you had to have some, at least some degree of discomfort with slavery. The test in 2024 was far less virtuous. It was, can you put on the red hat? Are you pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine? Doesn't matter. Pro-Ukraine, anti-Ukraine. Doesn't matter. Pro-life, pro-choice, doesn't matter. Can you put on the red hat? And anyone who could put on the red hat was welcome into this constituency. The Democrats could use a bit more of that, I'd have to say, this ability to say, hey, you know, I disagree with you on X or Y or Z. welcome to the party, my friend, because you agree with me on ABC, D, and E. Oh, yeah, they don't really do that.

So I think it's exactly the opposite situation of what Jamel is talking about with the Civil War era Republicans. It is the Democratic Party isn't great for like big shared values that they talk about. But they got a just ton of litmus tests. And if you mess up those, you're in a heap of trouble. So by the time, the next presidential election rolls around, they are going to need to have. a better message about who they are and what they stand for, which, okay, Jamel, we're going to, we're going to bring this back again to the kind of future vision and leadership. You recently wrote about what a democratic response to Project 2025 would look like, you know,

and by that, the Heritage Foundation's conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration. So you are exploring the question of not just how to rebuild. American democracy, but the importance of choosing leadership that can do that. So who are the leaders that you think would be good to help execute a so-called project 2029 vision of what America could be? I honestly do not have an answer to this. Like, I really don't. Really?

That's depressing, actually. That's sort of sad, right? You know, part of what I was writing was relating to what I just said a little earlier, was that I think the thing that Project 2025 was truly successful at was actually sort of like communicating a broad vision of what they want the country to be. And I think Democrats have a lot of policies they hope to, you know, pass. But I don't think they have a broad vision of what they want the country to be, what they think the Constitution is.

not sort of what they think it allows them to do, but like what values they think it instantiates. I'll say that, I want to go to something David said a little earlier, and something you said too, Michelle, like I am also anti-litmus test. I just don't think it's very politically useful. When I think of, you know, the importance of principle, it very much is actually not about a litmus test because people understand principles in all kinds of different ways. But I do think that it is important to be able to articulate kind of just a set of principles and values. values and not kind of vague ones about, oh, you know, we all want security and that kind of thing. But it's something that is substantive, right? That, you know, if I think about my own values, right, like I am an egalitarian and I believe

very deeply in the promise of like a multiracial democracy where all people are welcome in this country to participate in self-governance. That's what I believe in. and are there Democrats who talk like that, right, who can say, this is what I believe in, this is what I want the country to be. And if you also want the country to be like this, you should vote for me. How are we going to fit that on a hat, Jamel? We can disagree about all kinds of issues, right?

This isn't about issues. We can disagree about the proper role of, you know, the level of taxation. We can disagree about even tough ones, like abortion. but what do you want the country to be? And it's fully stipulated. What do I know? I've never run an election. No, no, no, but I'm saying.

Like, I'm serious about the hat thing. You've got to figure out of a way. This is your mission. You've got to figure out of it. Boil that down so that it can be sold on the campaign trial. Because you know, politics is no place for nuance. But if you can come up, if you can come up with a way to take your vision and come up with a bumper sticker, you probably, you probably, you probably rule the world. A hat, a bumper sticker.

A pin. You know, whatever. What are the challenges on that is that you've got a kind of bifurcated electorate because you've got a lot of people in the electorate who are really focused very much on the kitchen table issues. You know, I want lower prices. I want no crime. You've got a whole other part of the electorate that it's not that they're not focused on that, but they recognize that we are in an extraordinary time, just an extraordinary time where what is being fought over isn't just. what's the best policy for reducing the price of eggs. But what's being fought over is the nature of the American experiment itself. And so if I was thinking of, you know, what is a political party I would be

drawn to? I would be drawn to one that is the party of the American creed that is, you know, that all men are created equal. We're endowed by a creator with an alienable rights. Among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I want to be on that party. And the reason why I doubled down on it is because that is on the right in particular is a very live argument. Is this a creedal nation or is this a nation that is rooted in a different in your identity, your racial identity, your religious identity? And so that is a very much of a big battle on the right. And it's about liberalism, small L, liberalism itself. But I don't, you know, I'm not naive. I know that putting that something like that out is like millions of people would be like, what?

Your challenge then, again, is still you have to tie that to how it will make life better for the people who don't have time to think about big picture issues and are trying to put eggs on the table. So again, if you can figure that one out, I will come, I will come run both your campaigns. I mean, Shemel Bowie, David French, 2028. Okay, we're going to end with that. move on to everyone's favorite recommendations. All right, got anything to get us into summer mood, David? Oh, so we're going to, this is going to be published on Saturday, so we're still going to be in the middle of my recommendation is,

if you are not an NBA basketball fan, if you've not watched the finals, you need to be watching the finals. Okay, so two things are happening at once. Number one, you have the emergence of potentially a generational talent, perhaps could be not just the greatest basketball player of all time, but one of the most unique athletes of all time in Victor Wimbunyama, just an incredibly compelling figure on and off the court. And then on the other side, you have the New York Knicks who are on just this incredible run that hasn't been seen for a long time and by some measures in basketball ever.

But here's what's so fun about it. I'm enjoying the Knicks because I'm enjoying Knicks fans. They're losing their minds. It's so true. It is hilarious. I mean, just the level of hysteria is just so fun to watch. In this moment, like, we're just, it's like you feel like life kind of beat you down. Just being around a group of people who are in the middle of just this most exquisite joy is so much fun.

So, tune in. I'm all about the joy. Jamel. I don't have any sports recommendations, but it's, It's summer movie season, summer black cluster season, and I have a little ritual where the one thing that I do watch every summer is the entire Mission Impossible series. Oh, dear God. Oh. It's what's eight movies at this point?

And they're all, they're all terrific. So I would highly recommend picking up a film in the Mission Impossible series and giving it a spin. And if there's any one of these, you should watch on like a big Tee. with a nice sound system, this mission impossible fallout. That movie is incredible. It's in the theater. It's sort of like a theater-shaking film. It came out when my wife was pregnant with her first child,

and we went like a couple days before my wife gave birth. And we were kind of almost hoping that the movie would like cause jostle something. Jostle something. It didn't, but it was a great time. So that's my recommendation. Okay, I probably have the stamina for two of these, But other than that, that sounds like a very big commitment, but I will take your recs and watch a couple of these. So I want to go in a musical direction and invite people to check out Stephen Wilson, Jr.

It's kind of country indie rock with a kind of big dollop of grunge in it, which I know sounds weird, but it's fabulous. And the best way I know to describe his voice is he just sounds, it's haunted. and that really kind of fits with my mood a lot of the times these days. So Stephen Wilson, Jr., check it out. And with that, I want to sneak in, before we go, I need to sneak in an extra in-house wreck of sorts. And by that, I want to urge everyone out there to check out Popcast, which is the New York Times' now weekly Pop Culture Video Podcast and Chat Show. So the hosts are John Caramanica and Joe Coscarelli, and they are our culture critic and culture reporters.

And on Thursdays, you can watch or just listen to them as they sit down in chat with like the hottest musicians, actors, internet celebrities, cultural influencers. You know, you can get everybody from ASAP Rocky to Anne Hathaway. I think they have a recent episode out where they sit down with Olivia Rodriguez ahead of her new album coming out. Check it out, New York Times.com slash popcast. Or you can go to YouTube.com slash podcast. I highly recommend. It's great fun. And with that, we're going to land this plane. Guys, thank you. As always, we've solved the world's problems. And I hope the rest of

your week is fantastic. Let's do it again. Yeah. Problem solved. All solved. We're done. That's what we do here. We solve the problem. We're here to offer answers and slogans for hats.