Today, Explained - Hasan Piker’s challenge to the center

Episode Date: August 15, 2026

Democrats have been duking it out all summer. He’s at the center of it all. This show was edited by Kasia Broussalian, fact checked by Esther Gim, mixed by Shannon Mahoney, video edited by Christopher Snyder, and hosted by Astead Herndon. Hasan Piker at the Vancouver Convention Centre in Vancouver, Canada in 2026. Photo By Florencia Tan Jun/Web Summit via Sportsfile via Getty Images. You can also watch this episode on youtube.com/vox. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Now, we've been talking about the civil war happening in the Democratic Party all summer. In New York City. The politics of the past ends today. In Michigan. Listen, man, if you can't say the name, it's Abdulrahman. Keep the name out your damn mouth. And most recently, in Wisconsin. You know, I always say that every day is a good day.

In Wisconsin, it is a very good day. And I know what you're saying. We've heard this story before. Moderns versus progressives. the DSA versus the establishment. But after Francesca Hong's loss in Wisconsin, it seems we should talk about this at least one more time because the map is telling us a mixed story.

Some wins for the left, some wins for the center, and a big open question about what happens in the general election. Democrats say they welcome a big ten party for progressives and for moderates. But does the left agree? What we want is a clear agenda, a clear vision for a better future. We're going to ask Twitch streamer Hassan Piker this week on America Actually.

Let's begin. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start, Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound

from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download it today.

Support for this show comes from Odu. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu, it's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.

So why not you? Try Odu for free at Odu.com. That's ODOO.com. So the most prominent progressive Democrats share at least one thing in common. Hassan Piker's stream. Sauramam Dhani, AOC, Bernie Sanders, even midterms candidates like Darya Liza Avila Chavale in New York City, or Abdul El-Sayed and Francesca Hong out in the Midwest. they've all talked to Hassan Piker.

And that has infuriated some establishment Democrats who argued that Pikers' past controversial statements, anti-Israel commentary, and just general broiness, are toxic to everyday voters. We first talked to Piker back in June and explored some of the drama that seems to surround him. But that was back when the Democratic primaries were yet to be decided.

So this time, I wanted to ask Piker about more than just the primaries. How does he plan to conduct himself in a general election? And do results like Michigan prove that his politics is popular? Or do results like Wisconsin show that he's a liability? Here's our conversation. Hassan Piker is with this unofficial mouthpiece of the left. And controversial lightning rod for the center.

How are you? Both good and bad. I imagine this is some of the reaction to Wisconsin. The last two weeks have produced mixed results for left-wing candidates. A big win in Michigan. and a win this week in Minnesota for Peggy Flanagan, but a loss for Francesca Hong, which was a surprise in Wisconsin.

What have been your takeaways from the last set of results? I think ground game is phenomenal. There's a lot of excitement on the platform. There's a lot of excitement for the first time for change candidates. It's still a very good environment to be in if you are a socialist. The establishment does have a lot of juice still for sure. And when they can, you know, put together a similar strategy to what happened in 2020 against Bernie Sanders with Joe Biden, especially in a place like Wisconsin where Tony Evers is like very clearly still a very popular governor. They were able to elevate David Crowley's campaign who actually had dropped out and consolidated support behind Rodriguez initially.

And he had to drop out because he was only performing at like 6%. Yeah, the consolidation was swift and it was complete. I mean, you're comparing it to 2020 in which the establishment lined up behind Joe Biden and kind of nixed that Bernie Sanders campaign in a blink of an eye. I guess for you, I just want to start with the emotion. Like, I imagine you were surprised at the result. I never underestimate my opponents, whether they be Republicans or whether they be establishment Democrats. You know, you have to always operate as though you're down 10 points. I don't believe in the notion that we are going to win easy victories at the end of the day.

There are a lot of people. There are a lot of powerful interests at play here. There are a lot of people in positions of power that don't want to lose their seats. So they're going to fight like hell. So we have to also fight like hell. We have to fight extra hard as a matter of fact. Because we're almost always outspent, right? I want to ask about some of the takeaways that at least media is taking from this.

I got an alert right before we started talking from the New York Times that said, a Democratic Socialist lost in Wisconsin shows the movement surging wave might crash before rippling out from big cities. Is that wrong? Oh, I love that. Look, people are going to have their opinions. I'll just say it like this. Abdul El-Said's one-point victory margin showed that the Democratic Socialist aligned

movement or the progressive movement was was in tatters. It was obviously a failure. And now David Crowley's less than one point victory proves that the centrist bulwark is still here. And then the Democratic Socialist movement is dying. It kind of feels like it's wishcasting for the most part from a lot of people who maybe want to go back to the way things used to be. My assessment on this is definitely a little bit different. I think at the end of the day, these are insurgencies, right? These are insurgent candidacies. We're talking about no name recognition for a state legislator that was entirely propped up by local Wisconsin DSA chapters. I mean, these people, they didn't have a lot of money necessarily and they were able to defy the odds. And they continued

defying the odds all the way into the end. The idea that the polls showed that Francesco was a clear frontrunner and was running away with this race, he's utterly irrelevant, especially if you were to look at this with a broader perspective, like thinking about where Democratic Socialists of America have gotten to in the last two years. I mean, I remember how I felt in 2024, you know, in the aftermath of the DNC about about where the American socialist movement was as opposed to where it is now. We are clearly a force to be reckoned with. And that's precisely the reason why a lot of people are paying close attention to what's going on.

and I'll say it like this. The fact that the Hong campaign did not have any major progressive national endorsements and that I was like their top surrogate. There was no Bernie Sanders endorsement. There was no AOC endorsement. That did make the Hong campaign unique on that from. Yeah.

And I, well, not necessarily. I think there were a couple other races that I was also involved in that, you know, my candidates lost, right? I mean, Shoycott Chakra Barthi was another great example of this. It wasn't a statewide race. And obviously, there's always, clear local differences that, you know, play a formative role in how these races turn out.

But in our experience, we've looked back at this data. There's a, there's an endorsement tracker. There's a couple different endorsement trackers out there. And it's like, they'll put my endorsement up there and they'll put like AOC and Bernie Sanders. And it's very clear that like the best likelihood of success usually comes from a consolidation of national progressive forces, whether it be like outside expenditures coming from, you know, Justice Democrats or things like that. And, you know, with the Francesca Hahn campaign, I think it's a testament to their success. It's a testament to how popular the platform is in general. And one thing I will have to stress here is the salience of the electability narrative.

I think that's still a real motivator for a lot of people. Yeah, I hear that. I guess one question I wanted to ask out of these results, though, is both L. El-Syad's campaign and Hong's campaign, they're better among middle-class voters, I should say, than the data would tell us among working-class voters. Considering how central working-class and kind of bottom-up issues are to the DSA message, why has it not produced results that actually get it more working-class votes? Because that does seem to be something we've learned over the last three, four weeks.

Yeah, I think that we have to dramatically reconstruct how we understand what it means to be working class in this country. I think a lot of people will cast aside. And you might agree with what I'm about to say here. But we have to do away with this fantastical notion that the working class is one specific thing. I think for the longest time, people have thought about this, this, you know, hard hat wearing coal miner as the true working class, oftentimes white as well. And the working class is unbelievably diverse in this country. And it's also a lot more college educated than people actually give it credit for. I think partially this is because like, yeah, if you look back to the 90s as opposed to right now, yes, if you had a college education, you were upwardly mobile, you were

probably a professional managerial class individual that was going to be able to retire at a reasonable age. You were doing fairly well. It was a guarantee for getting a job, a good job, right? That's not the case in America any longer. There are a lot more people who have a college degree who are downwardly mobile, who are having a very tough time in the current job market, who do not own a home. And it's seemingly less likely than before that they will ever be able to, you know, own a or purchase a home. And that is the actual working class. It's much broader, right? We've seen in Zoron's race and in Abdul's race, there's this massive middle class of working class folks that constantly get cast aside as not. As, as not,

not being a true representation of the American working class when I think, like, no, that is the true representation. That is a big component of it. Now, the other side of the story, of course, is just like with Andrew Cuomo, Haley Stevens, won with the wealthiest voters. The wealthiest and the poorest voters. Yeah. The wealthiest voters and the poorest voters.

And I find that, I mean, there is no immediate answer to that question. I think that's the, that is a real issue. to try and have more of an impact and to be able to speak to not the wealthiest voters necessarily, but the poorest voters because these policies are policies that target them and seek to alleviate some of their concerns, some of their immediate material struggles. I think we just have more work to do in that regard. Ultimately, a lot of people, I think especially in that category of the poorest voters, they're unbelievably busy.

And perhaps some of them, like the rest of the Democratic primary electorate, is a defensive voter. The electability narrative is very important for them. Like they're locked in on what MS now is saying is the best possible choice. Or to say it in a more good faith way, they're locked in on what Donald Trump is doing. And maybe the people who most clearly respond to that sometimes can be centrist or establish. or particularly when they're putting that message in front of you on television. Yeah, no, the reason why I say it like that is you're absolutely right about the Trump thing, by the way, 100%, but like we are worried about that as well.

It's not like it's not like someone like myself is saying like, I don't care about Donald Trump. I don't care if the Democrats lose. I don't care if the Democrats don't maintain a Senate majority as long as I get my message across. Like, that's ridiculous. That's never been my concern. Like, I do care. That is precisely the reason why I wanted Kamala Harris to make.

different choices when she was campaigning. Like from my worldview, and I think we're going to be able to prove this in at least certain races, like, this is good policy and good politics, right? Instead, I'm sure you've, you know, you've traveled a country. So I'm sure you've probably had this similar mind-boggling experience where someone, especially in the primaries, will come up to you and say, you know, I really liked, you know, insert left insurgent candidate. I really like their policies. I but I just simply don't think other people will vote for them. So I had to vote for this other person.

Playing punting in your head is a huge Democratic primary base activity. But favorite pastime of theirs. Yes. Yeah, we like to call it Pundit Brain. A lot of Democrats, I think, have Pundit Brain. That's why I keep saying like, oh, it's MS now. It's CNN. These people are terrified of Donald Trump winning, just like we are.

They're terrified of Trumpism. We are as well. Right. and they're actually more in line with our agenda, and they're a part of this, but they just haven't, they haven't, I guess, bought into the idea that this could be one way to more effectively destroy Trumpism in this country, effectively destroy any kind of stranglehold the Republicans have. There's a lot in that, and I want to pull out some of it, but I want to go back to the question I just asked.

I mean, I think it's important to acknowledge what you said. The definition of working class is certainly changing over the years. And I think that's important. But to the point about the poorest voters, you all have confidence, as you have laid out, that the policies are ones that suit those people. But we're not seeing the translation in votes, particularly in the primary so far. Is there something about the DSA message that misses people who didn't go to college? I think people are very cynical.

If you're working a gig economy job, you've just been destroyed, right? you've been destroyed by your circumstances. So I think there's an element of like not daring to dream as well for a lot of these voters where they're just like yeah I think this guy's just selling me something that could be part of it, right?

I just don't think that the average American has any confidence in their government. So that's why I always stress the importance of good governance and its associations with democratic socialism, even at the municipal level, even when it comes to constituent services, because we have a lot of work to do to make sure that people trust their government again. Support for this show comes from Odu.

Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odu. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, economy. commerce and more. And the best part, O-DU replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try O-D-O-4-3

at O-D-O-D-O-com. That's O-D-O-O-O-O-D-com. Megan Rapino here. This week on Why Are You Like This, I got to sit down with legendary Minnesota-Links coach Cheryl Reeve in Chicago during All-Star weekend. We get into her personal style of activism. how she supports her players as people, and why she proudly considers herself a dyke. Then we learn if she's more of a mommy, daddy, or baby. Check out the latest episode of Why Are You Like This, wherever you get your podcast and on YouTube.

Hello, everyone, it's Sean. And Noel. And we want to take a moment to talk to you about why we make this show. We make this show because we genuinely want to help you understand what's happening in Savoad. And why it's happening, the context. We think that this is very valuable. And Vox members,

help us keep making this show and they get access to some perks. Let's listen, Sean. First, ad-free listening on Today Explained and all Vox podcasts, people love the ad-free listening. We love the ad-free listening. Unlimited reading at Vox.com.

People love unlimited reading. Exclusive newsletters? People love newsletters, right? It's like the new club. Box.com slash members to join Thank you. I wanted to come back to electability because you mentioned it. It has been something that, you know, the establishment has successfully wielded over the last several years.

And one of the arguments they make about these progressive candidates is that their association with you makes them unelectable. Candidates like Abdul El-Sayed and Mamdani, they sound like you on Israel maybe or taxing the rich. But they don't sound like you when it comes to being complimentary about communism or Mao's, a dog, who we talked about in our last. conversation. Is Wisconsin not evidence that some of those statements may have an electoral cost? Is Wisconsin not evidence that maybe you're a drag on electability? No, I don't think so. Or at least the campaigns don't seem to think so. And a big part of that is because these close races are regarded as like, you know, upset victories for either party or either faction of the part because polling was just completely out of whack.

It's an expectation game more than you think. Yeah, I think that's a big part of it. And it's ironic because like I never represent that level of confidence until it's done. You know, I'm always very, very nervous until the victory is announced, right? Until the last vote is counted. And yet there is definitely an expectation game there. And when those expectations are subvered in either direction, that becomes the driving media narrative. I think the fact that the Abdul race was so close meant that, you know, the fact that I was able to bring in the under 45 crowd early on and fundraise and in key moments probably helped a lot in driving them across the finish line.

I hear what you're saying. You're saying like, you know, there's evidence of you helping those candidates, particularly maybe young, young people. And you don't think that the results in their close. shows some need for like, you know, the big piker step back or or or or or something like that. Yeah. And and I've explained this a million times over, which no one seems to care about. But like, I don't actually appreciate doing the, the, the, the, well, the rallies are fun. But the reality of the matters from a pure content perspective, if I'm looking at it from like a,

like a commentator. I mean, I, I have far bigger viewership. I make more money sitting at home, you know? Like, I'm doing this specifically because I do think it helps. And I want people to participate in electoral democracy in much more meaningful ways because I am a firm and committed believer that regardless of where my politics are, regardless of what my worldview looks like, I think in the interim, like, well, first of all, democracy is good.

But also in the interim, I think it's important for us to participate in it. of casting it aside. One thing that I always say is it's the age-old notion that if your vote didn't matter, the Republicans wouldn't stop you so aggressively, right? And this goes for not only the black vote, but just, you know, all voters in general, and especially working class voters, if your vote was utterly irrelevant, if this machine was going to churn out whatever results it wants to, then they wouldn't spend this much time and this much effort trying to make sure that you don't go out and vote. And yeah, I think that's been a motivating message.

But your point is also to agitate. As you told us, the last time you were with us, I saw your speech to the College Democrats of America in July 2026. And I also saw that you wore an outfit reminiscent of the former Chinese communist dictator, which sparked some controversy. You got your suit on today.

But those things will find themselves in Republican attack ads and have angered some Democrats. I'm asking about actions like that. Do those things make it harder for Democrats to win in November? No, it's entirely dependent on how they use this opportunity. I think it's a really, it's ironically a good opportunity, right? Because that's precisely what happened with Abdul Seda's race as well,

but Abdul was so good, just like Zoran was and just like Zoran still is, at reframing that moment in the spotlight to turn that into a moment where you can deliver your policy platform. The reality of the matter is, these things are immaterial. Like, I know that people try to turn them into like major points of manufactured outrage and controversy, but I saw the response to the suit that it was arranged as Zhongshan suit. It's not just Mao Zedong, obviously. But you know what you're doing.

You know, you know good and well what you do. I do. And I really love that suit, by the way. I mean, it's tailored. I got it tailored in Shanghai from the family that actually invented the Zhangxian. Jean Chans suit, like it's a, it has significance for me. But the way that people were looking at that, the way that, you know, Facebook boomers were responding to the Fox News comment on that, that news hit was, was very reflective of where

Americans are broadly, where the bases broadly, where they, they almost hargantone it back to the Obama-Tansu. There was a lot of like Obama-Tansu comparisons, but they were like, the president's a pedophile. Who cares what this one random guy is, is, is, wearing as a suit. And I think most voters are there. But having said that on the other side of it, voters will respond to what they're seeing in the media. So if they're constantly seeing this, there will be as much as there's backlash to the negative coverage all the time from the base that go, okay, enough. Like, we don't care about this guy. Who cares? Talk to us about the real issues. There will definitely be a lot of people who are concerned with it. But I don't believe that that

concern is going to cause people to stay home. But the question is not really whether they stay home or does that motivate them to vote for the other candidate? Does that motivate them to vote for Stevens? That motivate them to vote for Crowley? No, I don't think that that is what, you know, that's what allowed Haley Stevens to perform

as well as she did, especially in comparison to the Gresh and Gresh and Whitmer endorsement and Gary Peters's endorsement. Other things matter more. Of course. Of course they mattered a lot more. So it's always a calculation, right? it's always a calculation for the campaigns. They poll me in these districts.

It's not like these guys are, you know, out in the water, totally blind, where they're like, this is a song guy. This is an intentional choice around the audience. I think it's pretty clear that progressives think they have a bottom-up message that works, and it's clear that they find candidates like Janet Mills or Haley Stevens, inherently kind of ill-fitting for that because of their policies. But seems less clear to me with someone like Barack Obama, one of the more popular politicians in the party, if not the most popular politician in the country on the Democratic side.

But you don't hear progressives talk about Obamaism with much love. Even El-Said was quite critical of how Obama used this time and office. So I wanted to use that as a proxy for this larger kind of debate about the Democrats' direction. Do you think Barack Obama is a good model for the Democrats to follow? Are you talking about Barack Obama on the campaign trail? Or are you talking about Barack Obama, the the administrator, the president. Give me a quick answer on the both and how you see those differently. Okay, Barack Obama, the campaigner is fantastic. I mean, that's, you know, hope and change.

It was literally the model that I think DSA candidates are somewhat abiding by right now without even recognizing it. And I know that's going to be very problematic of me to say, people are going to get very mad at me because they only think about Obama, the competent president, right? Obama, the 2008 bailout, Obama with drone strikes and all those associations. Obama with deportations. Like, all of those are big leftist critiques. Yeah. And I would never bring up those critiques because I love Barack Hussein Obama because

I really want him to start endorsing DSA candidates. And that would do really well for his legacy overall, I think. You know, I, so. But what are the parts of Obama, the administrator that you do think the left is breaking from? No, absolutely. I think that Obama had the popular mandate. The last time any president has had a popular mandate was Barack Obama. And I think there is a, there are a good deal of people who feel like that was squandered to a certain degree. And I think it was a uphill battle with a lot of internal division and a lot of corporate influence as well. Like that is my most charitable interpretation of events is a guy who like actually understands the situation and did at times stick his neck.

What's the uncharitable version of the Obama reading? The uncharitable version? I'm not going to say anything bad about my man and Obama. He has a great three-pointer. He's so handsome. He has so much aura. And I always think about how good it would be if Barack Obama started dumping for left-candidates. Then let me move on with the rest of my time.

I want to ask you about a couple things that Nairantan told us earlier in the week. She says she is committed to a big tent. That vote blue no matter who is something that she believes in. matter what? I wanted to ask, do you share that same commitment? Broadly. Yeah, I think so. I mean, there are, you know, it's obviously if you're asking me about like John Federman, it's like, you know, there are people who don't fall into that, that big tent Democratic Party narrative. So I've always been a big advocate of, of whipping votes and like punishing naysayers. I mean, this was a big point that I brought up during the Biden administration

about like punishing Kirsten's cinema, punishing Joe Manchin. Like I don't think that I don't think Democrats do that all the time. And I don't think that Democrats are also as invested. Establishment Democrats are as invested in the vote blue no matter who paradigm because it's no longer working as effectively as it used to. Because, you know, sometimes you have insurgents that win. And the reason why I say this is because I'm much more favorable to Crowley in the aftermath of Hong's defeat than Nira has been.

towards Abdul al-Sayed. And that's the Senate majority. You're much more charitable to the establishment candidates. The new thing, the establishment voices are charitable to the progressives. One million percent. I guess I hear you. I'm saying, Neeratand says El-Sahed wins. He campaigned with Asam Pikers.

She didn't necessarily love it. But she's going to support him in the general because beating Republicans is what's most important. Would you support a Democratic nominee for president that was, you know, a wash of APEC money or who didn't support Medicare for all? but Shady Vance is on the other side. You're going to say that this is a cop out, but I'm going to deliver the same line

that I delivered to CNN as well. Not going to be a problem. Why? It's like asking me, because it's the equivalence of, from my position, asking if I would support a Democratic primary, a candidate that wins,

that is like super pro-Israel and a Washington A-PAC money, is like asking, will we have a pro-second amendment, pro-gun rights, and anti-abortion. I don't know about that. You know, like, I definitely think the sentiment shift on Israel's been real,

but the red lines are not clear across the base. It's not like there's a universal agreement about not selling defensive weapons. There might be a universal agreement that Israel did some bad stuff in Gaza, but it doesn't seem like there is a clarity on the question of solutions. I guess I'm asking, like, it seems possible that the next Democratic nominee is maybe more middle of the road than even some of the midterms candidates we saw. The salience of the electability argument is chipped away every single day, or rather it's being now weaponized more effectively against the establishment because it is the correct argument. The Bernie would have won, like the Bernie would have won narrative from 2016 has unironically been channeled by a lot, at least in my experience, this is anecdotal, by a lot of people who are older voters who are now coming to terms with that, with that reality.

that left populism isn't this like scary thing that's electability poison. It's actually quite the opposite. And the more we prove that in the general, the easier this is going to be for us. And especially when it comes to Israel, like I said, I think the Israel issue, there's nuances to the Israel issue as well. But having said that, I think broadly, any kind of like sympathetic approach to Israel in 2028 will be electoral poison. You won't be able to make it out of the Democratic primary. So it's not even a concern for me at all. Does this confidence hold if El-Sayed doesn't win the general? Yeah, 100%.

But I don't think that's going to be an issue either. The story of the summer has been the Democratic Civil War. Now that the most important primaries are over, what do you think is the result? You call it the truth? A truce in what regard? I mean, I won't have for Adam Schiff. Okay?

Like, that's my senator. Like, what are we doing? You know, this is, that's why it's so funny when, you know, I have these different forces. You know, there are people to my left who say, I'm a sheepdog for the D.N. I, you know, I'm a, I'm a collaborator with the enemy. But the broadest message that I hear from mainstream outlets that are having these consultants

on is that like, we are an aberration. We are not a part of this movement. We've never been a part of this movement. It's like, we haven't stopped being a part of this movement. What is this movement? Is it the brand of the Democratic Party? Or is it what the voters actually want? What we want is for the voters' desires to be expressed.

What we want is a clear agenda, a clear vision for a better future. And let me tell you something, okay? After my experience, hands on with some of these campaigns all around the country, I have begun to realize something. I'm ready for this. A big part of the reason why the Democrats never have a bold vision or an agenda is because they have the easiest time. hitting the electability argument of the primary and then the harm reduction argument in the general.

Yeah. I hear you. And I think that was best demonstrated by James Carvel's, you know, now pivotal New York Times op-ed, where he said, like, punish the voters, basically. Put the voters see what it looks like when Republicans are in charge. That was a big part of the reason why we actually were able to seize on this moment and be like, no, see, they're telling you, like, they're telling you they're going to roll over and die. And that's the reason why Chuck Schumer's popularity is in the gutter. That's the reason why Hakeem Jeffries is not nationally popular either. And that's because people wanted more. People wanted the Democrats to fight back. They wanted Democrats to represent them. And they lost confidence in the party.

And I want to untangle what you just said. Like what the argument you're making is, and I think it's a true one, honestly, is that establishment moderate Democrats over the last couple years, or maybe even longer, have basically run the same playbook. throughout these elections. And it works. It works successfully. In the primaries, it's about the scary left and how unelectable they are. And then the general, it's, hey, we're better than these Republicans.

And at no point, to your argument, is that really an argument for what they will provide people? At no point is that an argument that centers voters and their concerns. And it has been clear, and I honestly think Neri even spoke to this, that there is a struggle independently for the moderate establishment lane to speak to the reasons of why Trumpism exists in the first place. Yeah. And they have no answer for this. And yet we have had an answer for this even before Trumpism became a thing. And that's my argument. We've had the same exact answer since the 90s. We've had the same exact answer since the ironic third way neoliberal pivot under Bill Clinton, welfare reform, NAFTA. Like, it's not an accident that the, you know,

the broadest base of the white working class. especially left the Democratic Party in droves over the course of those years. Part of that is because labor unions were gutted and destroyed, manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas. We used to have an industry in this country. And the workers, the industrial workers would also go and participate in local politics in very meaningful ways. They'd have...

It's that line from the wire. We used to build things here, you know? Yeah. And that's not like... That's not a crazy argument. It's ironic because I feel like, you know, Trumpism in some respects, even down to the white nativist anti-immigrant agenda is, is hearkening back to like the 90s Democratic Party. It's very interesting that they, you know, present this like totally new right populist

message. But, you know, down to the trade protectionism and even like the aggressive posture against migration patterns, you're looking at like a 90s Democrat. Yeah. The positioning is why. that is supposed to be populace and sort of sounds like where Democrats used to be. Hassan, thank you for joining us and we'll see you again soon. All right. Thank you for having me.

So after talking with Piker again, it's clear that there's not much daylight between moderates and progressives on the question of the big tent. Near Attendin says she'll vote blue no matter who. And Hassan says the same thing. Everyone's in agreement, at least for now. But it's also clear that the left still has an electability burden. The establishment's playbook in Wisconsin worked, and Piker knows that and is adjusting. But my biggest takeaway from a year of Democratic Civil War?

Well, it's a mess. The landscape is still undecided, and both sides, moderates and progressives have a lot of reasons to feel confident heading into the 2008 presidential primary. So after a year of midterms primary battles, the fight continues, and in some ways, it's really just beginning. because the true direction for Democrats probably won't be decided in earnest until that presidential primary kicks off. America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in politics or culture. And you can also watch these episodes on the Vox YouTube channel.

Just go to YouTube.com slash Vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they make our work possible. Go to Vox.com slash members to join. That's Vox.com slash members to join. This show was edited by Kasha Brasolian, fact checked by Esther Gim, and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor, and Kuhnui is our senior art director. Our executive producer is Christina Vallis, and our theme music is by Breakmaster Cylinder.

Additional support for Miranda, David Tadashore, and Nisha Chittal. I'm Estad Horton, and this is America Outer. actually.