Tomorrow - 118: Jamelle Bouie is Doing Some Heavy Lifting

Episode Date: May 25, 2018

On this edition of Tomorrow, Josh and Ryan are joined by Slate's Chief Political Correspondent and CBS News Analyst Jamelle Bouie to discuss public policy, the upcoming midterm elections, and Bernie 2020. Though before we get to those important, meaty topics, we've also gotta discuss Spider-Gwen, pansexuality, Sailor Socialism, and sell-out culture. (Please, please help us sell-out.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey and welcome to Tomorrow, I'm your host Josh Woods of Poleski. Today on the podcast, we discuss Chip Witches, Bernie 2020 in Black Cat. I don't want to waste one minute. Let's get right into this. Okay, it's another week. We're back. Hi, Ryan Hullahan is here of course, still here. So we're gonna do quick news because we have a really good interview coming up

with Jamal Bowie from Slate. But I wanna talk about some news, Ryan, what's going on in the world? Let me with some, let's discuss some of the important items in this very busy week. Well, Comcast is throwing a pile of cash at Fox to purchase them instead of Disney, which could anything be more

depressing than corporations buying each other. I'm kind of trying to remember what all of these people do, like at this point. I mean, I'm sort of, I feel like I have this fatigue with major entertainment companies where they all make something I know. Do you think that NBC Universal, which also owns Comcast Time Warner cable, should then also own Fox? It's like, no. People keep rooting for Disney to buy things because they're like, then they could be in the parks. And it's like, okay, but we're talking about like one corporation owning all of pop culture.

It's not good. I think there is, I mean, consolidation is, I mean, I'm like a grand statement here, you know. Just like everything in modern culture, like cell out culture has become the dominant culture. Like, it's no longer cool to resist selling out is. No, it's cool to get verified on Instagram and then sell flat tummy tea. That's cool, it's cool.

Like, in the, not to be an old guy, but there was a time when it was deemed uncool to be part of a massive corporation, to be part old guy, but there was a time when it was deemed uncool to be part of a massive corporation, to be part of like a big corporate monster, to be like an artist that is on the way. The Duwon brothers. Like when Nirvana signed to fucking Gaffin or whatever, people were like, oh my God. It's over.

Yeah, right. But like, which is, by the way, some of it's true and some of it isn't. Yeah. It is true that historically things get like kind get squashed and ruined by major corporations. I think they major corporations have gotten better at letting artists do their thing. To the point about this, it's like a kind of vague swallowing of one company by another company. I think there is danger in too much consolidation.

Of course. I think. is danger in too much consolidation. Of course. I think, but I think. Look at the cable industry. But you see, that's where, that's the inner side. It's like if they were just making entertainment, if they were just like, we make movies in TV and it's distributed by whoever, right?

But that's not the case. We're talking about companies that control massive distribution channels as well, right? Like I have time-worn or cable, and then what's gonna happen if all the characters that appear on my shows are owned by, it's just like, what was the Net Nutri-Out of you? You lost being, with the Net Nutri-Out of you?

I was being rolled back by the piece of shit who runs the FCC at GIPI, and he is truly a human, walking human pile of garbage, or whatever, not human, non-human pile of garbage. Anyhow, the combination of that kind of stuff pile of garbage, whatever, not human, non-human pile of garbage. Anyhow, the combination of that kind of stuff plus these companies swallowing each other up does paint a really dim and awful picture for not only for the type of creativity that's going to come out of them potentially, but also for new creators to break through in

a space where they have increasingly limited visibility, which is exactly how these companies want to be. Exactly how the music business thrived in its heyday, 50, 60, 70s, 80s, by 90s, by being monolithic entities that controlled the production, the distribution, and the choosing of who would be the success of the system. Yeah, do we want to do the system? Because Andy will talk a lot about diversity, but films are not more getting more diverse.

Creators are not getting more diverse. I think films are getting more diverse. LGBTQ characters appearing in major releases is that a massive, a very low, a fast and furious one of the most successful film series of all time, very diverse. But look at the Marvel character lineup.

I mean, people flip out because they're like, well, we've got Black Panther. It's like there are no queer people. I like the fact that there are no women of color. It's crazy. Also, they're like Black Panther. It's like, okay, and I understand Black Panther is a real character, but it's like,

you're like, well, we've got this, the Black character is like literally Black Panther. It's like, there could be other characters that are people of color that are not, anyhow. But look at like commercial directors, TV directors, there's nobody of color doing any of that. I will say, I agree with you. I'm not like commercial directors TV directors. There's nobody of color doing any of that I will say I agree with you. I will say also just side note. I mean, I don't if you talk about black Panther at all Yeah, very good film. You finally thought yes, I finally saw it and I just want to say it's a good movie

You know, I know I just you know switching gears go Disney. Yeah Well, you know my feeling on the whole on the whole Marvel thing is yeah I only want to see them succeed because I want to see DC fail because those movies fucking suck and are a disaster and are depressing to me. But yeah, Black Panther, I'm like, not even in the same vicinity as any of the other Avengers movies.

It's like a completely different story with, I mean, it's a totally, it's like a movie. But that's why I like, let's can't wait for Captain Marvel. Let's get up, of gay guy up, up there and let's see a different take on this movie. I want to see like a, you know, I want to see a Kamala Khan rise up and be.

Are there no gay, of this Marvels? Oh, there's a ton in the comics, but like you're never going to see that on screen. I'm a film. Nope. Nobody. Trying to think of anybody. Deadpool, which isn't in the Avengers, is its own thing.

Deadpool's pansexual. Deadpool's pansexual. That's, or like omnisexual or whatever he is. That's all that you get. So I feel like the danger there is like, Deadpool's gonna play that shit for laughs, which is problematic. I feel like based on what I know of the

Deadpool character. And the entire movie is like, is always motivated by like, dead or dying women. So, not that queer. Well, yeah. Um, I've, there's some gay X-Men, right? Uh, in the comics, not knowing the comic. In the movies. No. I gotta say, I've been reading. This is such a total offshoot. But like, Zelda has gotten really into comic books. Like she, she, cool girl, she discovered Spider-Man, like from somebody at school or whatever. She's four.

Okay. And now she's like, she heard of comic books and she's like, Laura told her that I had a bunch of old Spider-Man comics, which I do, like from the 80s. And I've started reading her like these one-off from like the Secret Wars era of Spider-Man, which is when I kind of got her Spider-Man. Yeah, and they're so fucking weird. I mean, they're so much crazy. First off, they're super soap opera. Like, the one that I'm reading her right now is all about like Peter Parker's relationships.

Like, he's dating Black Cat, I guess it's her name. And they're having all this relationship drama because like, he's trying to be like, make her good and not be a villain. And she's like, but I liked breaking the rules. She's like, but I love Spidey. Everything that's the subtext with Batman and Catwoman is the text with black cat.

Spider, yeah. It's like, it's like, you know, Zelda's always said not getting all of it, but she's like, like, I read her, it breakfast. Get her spider Gwen. I love that. We're gonna go to the comic store this weekend

and we're gonna get some, I'm gonna see if there's some more, like, younger kids. Get back girl, get like all that good. So, we're gonna get some, I'm gonna see if there's some more like younger kids comers. Get back girl, get like all that good. So, we're gonna crack that shit open and I'm excited. I'm excited. But like it's cool, like comic books are fucking, the old comic books are like,

comic books are awesome. Comic books are awesome. Comic books are awesome and they're like actively unawesome. Like I'm not knocking, you know, I think the commercialization and the kind of broadening of these characters and their storylines is like, whatever, it's fine.

They're never going to touch. I mean, it's like, it's pulp entertainment for people. It's like, if they want. But like, you know, fast and furious is just another of Enders, right? It's just the same idea. It's like a band of super heroic people doing crazy shit together.

You know, shooting cars out of planes onto helicopter. I mean, ultimately everything is soap opera, and then you put a football game behind it, and you call it sports. Everything is a comic book. Anyhow, the comic books are so much different than the comic book movies. There's so much more so in the role.

That's why I hate it. And weird and interesting and like deep and thoughtful. You know, they're so good. Yeah, anyhow. Okay, what else? One more news item. Okay, well, the families of the Sandy Hook victims are filing a defamation suit against Alex Jones,

which chef's kid. I want to see him for every dime. You know his defense already, I already know is gonna be like, I'm a performance artist. And this is my, I'm Marina Abramajones. See, I read some of the stuff around this and I have to say, I think they've got a pretty, I mean, their case seems pretty interesting to me,

pretty, not I'm not gonna be salt, because I'm not a lawyer or judge, despite wearing black robes always. Well, you can't be like, I do a news show, and I'm the only person telling you real news, everybody else is fake news, these people aren't really victims, their actors, and then be like, I don't legally, what do you mean?

It's a performance, okay, it's parody. This is the onion. The whole thing is a joke. It's about swaiboys. It's a big. It's a big joke. It's a big joke. Swaiboy.

The whole thing is a big joke that Alex Jones is playing on the parents of murdered children. And it's just a hilarious joke that he's having. He's so fun. He's like, you know what would be fucking hilarious as in my ad, if I'm like Ellen Prank. If I take people who've literally had their baby's bodies riddled with bullets, if I take those people and tell the world that they're liars

and they never had kids and that their kids weren't really murdered, that would be fucking hilarious. I'm gonna die. I mean, die. I hope Alex Jones fucking goes to jail. Yeah, great. The greatest thing that can happen will be Alex Jones goes to fucking prison

because he is a piece of shit. I'm going to jail. I can think of few people who are. You would cry the entire time. I can truly think of more, I can, sorry, I cannot think of too many people who are more odious than Alex Jones and what Alex Jones represents.

And I just wanna say that the fucking in cells and gamer gators and bright parts and the alt-right and conspiracy theorists and pizegate people and who's Mike Surnavitch and all these fucks and they are all fuckers. Are all together in this like infamy, in this bullshit. And I say, I have to say every one of them is a criminal in some way.

Every one of them is a, is truly like, against humanity in a meaningful way. And I hope they all fucking burn in one way or another. My new strategy and it does work. I have used it. I learned from Sailor Socialism, from that little clip that from Alex Jones' show. Did you see that with the girl in the Sailor suit?

That's, yeah, she's an actress. She's amazing. She literally, I just saw her in somebody's Instagram, no me fry who I think is coming on the show. I just saw that I was like, this girl looks so familiar. She's incredible. Yeah, she's a compelling presence.

So what is her thing? She's like, well, her whole thing was like in the clip, she was just like, you people have worms in your brains. This is so stupid. And my new reaction to all of this is just like you're being very silly Yeah, I'm like laughing at them because they want you to take them seriously So the best strategy you can take is like stop it. You're fucking crazy Her name the actress's name is not a insult you just like our grossing nobody wants to fuck you. It's fine You just like are gross and nobody wants to fuck you. It's fine.

The Aasha and Necrosov is her name, which is a name. She's a star. I guess she's Russian. She's a star and learn that name. It's so funny you bring that up. I've heard a Marvel movie. Cause I was just looking to Instagram and I'm like, wait, why does this person look so familiar?

And then I was like, oh, it's this video. Yeah. And yeah, she's wearing a Sailor Moon outfit. Yeah, that's cool. I mean, that must be cool to be able to pull that off. I'm sorry, like, however, it happens that you're like in a Sailor Moon outfit and getting interviewed by the followers. Holding your iced coffee from the bottom. Like, sorry, however it happens that you're in a sailor, moon outfit and getting interview by the end of the world. Holding your iced coffee from the bottom.

Like sniffing it. I don't know how you get into that situation in life, but I just one time would love to be in a scenario like that. You're not the ridiculous one. The ridiculous one is the person with the microphone. I'm dressed like Gyle from Street Fighter. And eating it. And I run up to you.

I'm eating a chocolate, I'm eating a ice cream sandwich. One of the ice cream sandwiches with the chocolate chip cookies. I think they're called chip witches. I'm in a, I'm dressed like Gyle, okay? Does there be no Gyle? You got a silly, like you got a really cool haircut. It's like a blonde, flat top of super exaggerated. He was in the military.

And I say to you, if a war comes up, Hillary Clinton. No, like what's a guy, prison planet, the prison planet guy comes up to me. John Paul Barley or whatever it is. John Barley's not gonna say whatever it is. Yeah, he comes up and he's like, how can you stand for Obama or something?

And then I'm just like, here, have a chipwitch. You're so silly. Why are we doing this? So do you wanna go play Super Street Fighter II turbo? Cause like, why aren't we just doing that, John Paul Barlow or whatever's name? Where's the fucking guys name, prison plan? I know it was a prison plan.

Prison plan. I know there's like, don't learn that name. All I know about prison plan is there have been several depressing times when like prison plan had tweeted outline articles because he thought that they were somehow like a positive. As I think we're like, we're like, oh, Facebook, Facebook is like penalizing like, you know, conservative sites.

And he's like, this is an average. We're like, no, this rules, these sites are stock. We're like, this is good. These sites are very bad. Did you read the link? It's like info wars. It's like info wars is being penalized. It's like, he's like, how dare they? I's like info wars. It's like info wars is being penalized. It's like, he's like, how dare they?

I'm like, we're like, yes, this is great. You guys fucking blow. How dare he take such a great title to prison planet? Could have been a great graphic novel. That's what we're living in right now, man. Just read the biggest secret by David Ike. Prison planning. One of the best.

I should get David Ike on this podcast to talk about. David Ike is like, David Ike is like David Ike is like Ike. David Ike is like Alex Jones is daddy. He's like his fucking master. That's his that Alex Jones. It genuinely flex when David Ike walks in the room. That's his fucking Bible. Yeah. He's fucking Zine.

Like me and Rose. It's like me and Rosie Adam. Yeah. When David Ike is in the room, Alex Jones fucking starts to sweat and get sexually excited. Boom. Okay. The loser's.

That's a good idea. All right, anyhow, we should, now that we've got it on these two very important and totally normal news topics, we should take a break and get to the real news. And then we'll be back with Jamal Bowie and we're gonna have a very interesting conversation about the future of America. What happens if you play monopoly with real money?

We've got to pay the price. I know who wants us in this completely reinvented game of an office. What does space sound like? What happens when you overwork yourself? Do you believe that work-related stress has increased? It reflects the fact of how little value we place on the well-being of human beings. The Outline World Dispatch Every Monday through Thursday, we bring you a new story on the theme of power, culture, or the future.

And picked from theoutline.com. Find us an Apple podcast, Google Play, Spotify, your Amazon Alexa Flash briefing, or wherever you download your podcasts. Also, you can say, okay Google, play me the news, and we're right there. Oh my God, yeah! Make your mornings a little weirder. My guest today is Slate's Chief Political Correspondent and an analyst for CBS News. I'm of course talking about Jamal Bowie. Jamal, thank you for being here.

Thank you for having me. I mean, we were talking about this just before we started. It's a busy time, if you're talking about politics, that it's a busy time to... Now, this is where recording this on Thursday, Trump has just announced, has put out this letter, this bizarre letter, about not going to meet with Kim Jong-un in North Korea, or have this sort of North Korean meeting,

or whatever. And, you know, one of the things that... And then there's a lot of things going on in the political landscape, but every, you know, with Trump, like we've, now I think we've gotten into this mode of feeling a constant state of sort of outrage and panic and like concern.

Here's my question for you because you're kind of, you're in the midst of this every day What how seriously should I take anything how seriously should a person take anything that happens During this presidency like like is this career thing? I know we talked about this you're not a career expert, but like is this career thing a big deal or is it not meaningful? So it's all important in a big deal, the Korea stuff. I mean, it's not just that there are suddenly 50,000 Americans, maybe a little less than that in South Korea,

and that the North Korean military still has a lot of artillery, aimed at Seoul, South Korea, and that the odds of conflict do actually fluctuate between sometimes being kind of high, sometimes being kind of low, and it's exacerbating any of that, it's actually legitimately dangerous. So that's all very important. It's important right that part of why this is even happening likely has less to do with Trump, or as far as the potential of a meeting, has less to do with Trump and more to do with Trump or as far as the potential of a meeting has less to do with Trump and more to do with the South Korean president Moon Jae-in, as I believe his name, who was elected on a platform

of normalizing relations with North Korea and is part of a larger movement within South Korean society to begin to move to earth with North Korea. So that's all very important. Right. This current thing of Trump, you know, saying we're not there's not going to be a meeting and then kind of going into his bluster, I don't, you know, I don't know how seriously we should take that. I don't know how the South Koreans and North Koreans are reading that. I don't know how the Chinese are reading that. I think part of the problem of this presidency

is that it's hard to know which presidential rhetoric holds any meaning in which of it is just kind of, you know, verbal trash, nonsense, thrown into the air, which is a real problem because sort of a good chunk of the power of the presidency, the reason why past presidents have chosen their words very carefully in every forum is a presidential rhetoric holds meaning it sends signals, it carries weight in the world. And that's just not the case right now. And so because it's not the case, and because it's hard to kind of distinguish between which

president or rhetoric from Trump carries, meaning in which it doesn't, in which you can safely ignore, I have a hard time kind of evaluating whether something like this, like how seriously anyone should take something like this. Right. Because the feeling is like, you know, on the one hand, I read the news and I said to myself, oh boy, well, like I bet Trump's now gearing up to get some for some kind of, you know, military plan related to an earth career. Like we're in the early stages of we're in the first act of some kind of like bad play where you know this is the the the the the

the way that we move towards some bullshit war which i feel like he's been gesturing towards since before he became president he's got john boltin who is uh... his he's a national security right he's right national security visor john boltin is unbelievably hawkish uh... anti-career like war mongering

asshole and so you know he's got him whispering is here i think uh... the new director of the cia has has similar uh... mike montares seems to have similar feelings or at least not positive super positive feelings about north korean maybe i'm wrong there but any of the one that i'm like oh boy we're gonna go to war in a few months right right is the is the midterms heat up potentially. Like, we're gonna, Trump's gonna be like, we have to go to war with North Korea.

Then on the other hand, I like, what I think is this is just like everything, so many things that Trump does, which is he needs to be the center of attention. And this is like, you know, a good way to, a good way to be the center of attention is to show what a big, tough man you are by canceling a meeting that you have that you've talked about because you're doing

some like strong man shit. And so I feel like we're living in a perpetual state of that. I guess for you, you're covering this stuff all the time. Obviously, you're not necessarily focused on Korea, but so far this year and what however many months has been of this presidency has felt like a nonstop roller coaster ride. And at some point, you just turned it out.

Is that what you have to do? Should I just stop paying attention to what Trump does? It's definitely the case that I tune out some stuff. So I tend to tune out all but sort of the most really significant news around all the scandals and investigations. Like otherwise it's just impossible to follow and there's so much of it.

So someone gets indicted, right? Then like I'll tune in to figure out what's going on, but otherwise I kind of just believe it in the background. The same goes with lots of staff shuffling and and and try to hold like more gossipy aspects of coverage of the Trump White House. I just I have to tune that out because a it's not terribly relevant to my particular beat since that it is and it's just it's just overwhelming and I I can easily understand how a normal regular person would get overwhelmed with all of this.

I frequently have to tell my mom, right, that like she's just stop watching the news, because it's just going to make her upset. And it's a constant coverage of the circus. And that's just not particularly helpful. A, for understanding anything that's happening. And B, just for your general mental well-being. Right. Yeah, I mean, I think that the problem becomes in is like, and I do want to talk because you wrote about Stacey Abrams, and I want to talk about what's going on with elections

that are upcoming in America, but like, which is a very important place to focus. If you are anti-Trump and you're like, I gotta put a stop to what's happening with the GOP and their sort of, you know, this overarching unchecked power. The midterms and upcoming elections and all shapes and sizes are of great interest. But so it's like, my concern is like, I tune so much of this out or one tune so much of this out

that you're not paying attention to the places that it really matters. And you get apathetic and you stop caring and this is how we end up with Trump, basically. It's like, you just go, you know what? Fuck all these politicians, I'm not gonna pay attention to it. And it's like, I just, not that you have, you know, sort of wellness advice for how to like navigate this.

But, you know, it's like, it is one of those things is like, you know, what are like, you know, what are the, you know, where are the places that are actually like the most important stories happening right now? Like, what are the things that are gonna change the face of where we are headed as a country? Because I feel like I need to know where I should focus my attention.

You know, is this, you know, is Abrams like a story we need to follow? Because this is gonna to change the, I mean, obviously it's going to change the face of certain things in a big way if she wins. But, unless we can talk about that a little bit, but like where are the places to look right now that you feel like are the most important?

And let me get started with Stacey Abrams and talk a little bit about that. Can you sort of, for people who don't know, can you set the stage a little bit for who she is and why that name is going to be significant? Sure, and I can jump from there to the larger question. So Stacey Abrams for some years, she's relatively young. She's, I think she's 44.

She's in her mid-40s. She was the House Minority Leader in the Georgia House for Representatives. She's a Democrat. She's African American woman. I want to say she made one of the few African American women to hold that position in the Georgia legislature. And for the past like 10 years or so, she's been engaged in this really dedicated effort to register and mobilize black and Latino

voters in Georgia. Georgia is actually one of the fastest growing states in the country, but has a pretty rapidly diversifying population. African Americans are 30% of the fastest growing states in the country, it has a pretty rapidly diversifying population. African Americans are 30% of the population. That's an actual increase from recent years. Almost like a quarter million black Americans have migrated to Georgia over the past six years, seven years, and then it's taking a lot of immigration. So it's a state that is in flux in a lot of ways.

And Abrams' goal has been to turn those demographic shifts into actual, um, into actual sort of political gain for Democrats. And there's like a larger, interesting history about the Democratic Party in Georgia. The short version is that like most Southern states, the Democratic Party there up until really the mid 90s was the party of Southern White, and it was a somewhat conservative party. The partisan shift that begins nationally in the 60s takes like completes itself in the 90s, most Southern white, Georgia whites become Republicans, and then the Democratic Party, and they the Democratic Party in the state became kind of a ramparty outside of a heavy black part

to the state. And now sort of the demographic shift has made the state much more competitive than it used to be. And that's sort of trying to capitalize on an apron to the goal. So she's, she's a breading for governor. She won the group in a tutorial primary against against it so happens another woman named Stacey. And it's sort of hard to say how she's gonna fare. It's still a heavy lift for

any Democrat and it will likely be heavy lift for a black woman running for the top job in the state. She you, it's for saying that she is the first black woman to hold a major party group in a total nomination and she wins should be the first black woman to govern a state period much less be elected to govern a state And so that's historically significant and and all of that But in terms of kind of forecasting and her odds, hard to say, very difficult to say. Right. What's I think, the broader implications here, what's important here, is that it's sort of a test of a proposition, which is, can you win elections

through this mobilization strategy as a democrat Republicans totally can when you win or when your coalition is mostly white people and disproportionately affluent white people Those are people who turn out the vote those are people who have Kind of the social capital that allows them to really participate in the wide range of political activity. And so you can kind of target those people and win elections pretty easily. Democrats have a broader coalition that's largely interest-based. It includes black Americans,

Hispanic, Asian Americans, lower income rights, college educated rights, so lots of different people, lots of different interests. And that typically is meant to win statewide, and especially in a less hospitable state, you have to aim for the middle kind of aim for a very broad message of inclusion. And what Abrams is arguing for is that if you really work to organize and mobilize in register and do all that, then you don't need as many of those white moderates, you don't need as many white conservatives to win. Who knows? I have no idea whether this is going to work, but it's interesting.

If it does work, then it kind of establishes a path forward for other Democrats in similar situations in similarly composed states. The last thing I'll add here is just that one aspect of all of this is that it's still pretty unusual for state Democratic parties to run black candidates, statewide, it's still unusual for the national party to throw the resources behind black candidates. And the reason for that is kind of the long belief that black candidates cannot, like, just cannot reach whites in the middle, that they're perceived as too liberal, too sort of sectarian, or which is a nice way of saying, like, too black.

And it's, that's been the obstacle. But the experience of Obama, the experience of candidates like, or lawmakers like Cory Booker and New Jersey and Kamala Harris in California I suggest that maybe that conventional wisdom is wrong also to develop Patrick and Massachusetts Maybe that conventional wisdom is wrong and that it's possible that black candidates can actually do the job of both mobilizing voters of color, which is kind of just a must-do for Democratic candidates, but also offer kind

of inclusive, colorblind messages that don't alienate whites. They can kind of walk that line that white candidates have had a hard time walking in the past 10 years or so. Right. So, there's a lot of sort of like, Abrams in the being sort of like a test case for a lot of different things happening in the larger Democratic Party, which is what makes the race so interesting to watch.

So as a follow up to that, from a messaging standpoint, the Democrats in the midterms have been focusing like broadly on Washington corruption and it's been where they've been hammering and trying to like get their own platform out there. I, from like, Trump as a reality TV star, and from the standpoint of someone like that,

it's to his benefit to have lots of different scandals and problems and people complaining because he can keep moving forward to the next and not be held accountable. And then people end up making decisions based on the vibe they get from a candidate rather than, or this is my sense of it, rather than like a hard and fast, that he someone did something wrong,

there was some like specific thing we're pinning to him. Do you think it would be wise for the Democrats to come together and say like, we're gonna hammer home one or two talking points about Trump that's stick and continue to hammer them home through the daily scandals, through the Russia stuff, and if it's not the Russia stuff, and actually discuss Trump and say on the campaign trails,

like Trump is an example of X problem, and I will solve X problem that will be communicated to people like the economy or some universal issue that instead of these, I mean, I feel like the Democrats are choosing between broadly not mentioning Trump and saying, isn't Washington so bad, I'll fix it, or getting myered in the daily, he tweeted this, and he used this word. And then he said this slur and then he stumbled over here and then North Korea. Like what from a camp, like what are you seeing as like

the most successful campaign messaging strategy? Yeah, this is, this is really interesting because there's, so for my kind of, my attention to that natural democratic leaders and then where it can, it's first I can tell, like most Democrats are talking about like, you know, what are called kitchen table issues, right? Healthcare, the economy, gas prices, that's the appeal they're making. If they're Republican or not, are not actually helping your pocketbook to try and take your health care,

they've cut taxes, they've suffered at all, to rich people, and you should vote for us because of that. And that hasn't been unsuccessful, right? Like in Alabama, in the Alabama Special Election last December, that was Doug Jones' message. And it was successful. In Virginia last November, that was basically the unified message of the party from Ralph Northam up top who campaign on expanding Medicaid to state house candidates who ran very concrete, unpro improve transportation, I'll improve schools,

kind of campaigns. And if you kind of look across the landscape of special elections, that's generally been the approach. Kind of the potential downside of that, of not, of kind of deliberately ignoring the scandal in my corruption, or at least not having like a message around it, is that it seeds the territory to Republicans who are going to just downplay it or even suggest as they are now that it's a grand conspiracy cooked up by, you know, the dreaded Barack

Obama. So it's either grand conspiracy or from the media, the media is going to cover it sort of in a piecemeal way. There's the media is not going to have any overarching narrative about all of this. It's going to say this happened and this happened and this happened and this happened. Let's talk about it. If no one is talking, if no one, if no prominent Democrats are talking about the corruption in Washington, tying it to the broader Trump agenda, treating it as sort of a piece with the tax cuts and with the health care, the health care deregulation. I've no one's talking about it in those terms and voters aren't going to hear in those

terms. And I think there's a real danger of it muddying the waters or post from Republicans, then working, right? But there's no one really pushing back on that. And so voters made up concluding that maybe this is just kind of a circus and it doesn't really matter all that much. Are there other voters who have historically voted Democrat, or even let's say moderate or centrist Republicans who are not looking at what's going on

in within Trump's presidency and his inner circle and even outer circles and saying, this is a crazy state for our country to be in and it feels unhealthy. I mean, I'm just curious, like, I don't know, and I don't know how often you're talking to say the average voter, and I don't know how often you're talking to, say, the average voter, and I don't even know what the fuck at the average voter is actually, but is it not, does it, I feel, it feels pronounced to me, like we're living in a completely psychotic bipolar, like, man.

That anecdotally, my parents look at the news and they say, like, it's so much, half of it's not true, I don't know. But does it, I don't want to shake the boat. Are your parents Democrats? My mom is, and she just is is like the news is too much. I don't know. I'll look at it when the election comes around.

My dad is like a centrist Republican and he's just like, I don't, he's the same way. And he gets a little defensive over the daily bullshit but he doesn't think about the law. But he vote for Trump again. I don't know, but I know that it's a possibility which is what's scary to me because- I mean, shouldn't, that's too much.

I guess Jim Mell what I'm saying is, is'm saying is, is it not overt to most people do you feel like that there is a major problem in the GOP right now? Well, I don't think it is at all. I mean, I don't think it is, I don't think it's not immediately obvious if you're not sort of, if you haven't been paying attention closely and like kind of really I mean, I mean if you're basically if you're not a professional political writer paying close attention to this It's not immediately obvious that the problem here is the Republican Party has gone off the rails and even if you are It's still a challenge to get like mainstream political reporters to frame things in those terms.

If you're an ordinary person who is a cynical or skeptical about Washington or government in general, I actually don't know if it's clear that there's anything crazy going on. I know for a fact that many voters, especially independent or so, but then up at independent, this kind of take for granted that Washington is like, you know, horribly corrupt. And so, you know, part of the challenge of covering this and trying to, and this is like setting aside both Democrats have to do, but simply trying to explain things to people,

is you first have to break through a bunch of kind of, what are essentially missed about how Washington works. So there's lots of, certainly lots of, I call petty graft. There's plenty of sort of self-interest and all that kind of thing, but kind of bribes, pay for play, obvious self-dealing. That stuff actually is really unusual. You don't really see it. Most people who are doing work in Washington

may be unscrupulous, and I would say most people are unscrupulous, and many people may be unscrupulous, many people may be extremely self-interested, but no one is stupid enough to do that. And people do have a sense of professional ethics and wouldn't go that route. And so when you say to someone a regular person, the Trump is very corrupt, you have to do a lot of work to kind of like connect that and show what that actually means. And that's given the volume of everything happening, that's hard to do. On the same token, it's also true that I'm not sure either media or the opposition party

does enough to emphasize the import of some of what's happening. So back during the Obama years, Republican politicians and conservative media were able to turn literally anything into a scandal. And maybe it didn't last for very long, but they were able to move public opinion to make people think there was something going on because the public's theoristic for deciding whether something's worth paying attention to is one side of the coin screaming about it. If they are, then maybe there's something up.

If they aren't, then maybe there's nothing. And here, we have a case where the President's former National Security Advisor was indicted in an FBI investigation. Multiple high ranking campaign officials were indicted in an FBI investigation. The FBI is still investigating the Trump campaign administration, and you'd be hard pressed to hear anyone really screaming about that, screaming about the fact that one of the highest ranking security officials in the federal government was indicted on criminal charges by the FBI. Right. And so I do think there's an extent here to which people have taken the public's, the

fact that the public is hard to budge and taken up to mean that the public cannot be budged and I just don't think that's true. Does it need a catchy name like the Tea Party or T-Pot Dome or other tea really? Then Gazi, does it need somebody to tell that story in a digestible, easy to understand, catchier way? Because I feel like I listen to Trumpcast and I read the news every day. I feel like I educated on topics. I tune into the gap fest.

I feel like I have a thing, but to explain it would give me, I take about a half an hour, and I feel like I know all the information, you know? Right, does it need? Does that digestible? You're saying does it need like a something gate? It means not necessarily that, but like a polish, like a little, like a- Because people that talk here, people that talk about like, you know,

Trump's like using the spy gate thing now, which is like, I'm sorry, are we, so, I mean, I don't wanna, I don't wanna insult all of America, but are we so dumb that we can't grasp the badness of what is happening around Trump without giving it a catchy name? Yes. Is that, is that true?

I'm not sure. I mean, it's so, like, I don't know, because on one hand it seems that people really do get that from just terrible, right? Like as approval ratings are very bad, people don't like him, they think he is dishonest, they think he can't really handle the job. Any time over the last year in change voters have we had a chance to vote for not a Republican, they have done exactly that. I mean, even with sort of the generic ballot polling and the Congressional race getting

tighter, there's a lot of indications on the ground that there's still a lot of anti-Trump energy and that the broad public is still very dissatisfied with this presidency. On the other hand, the polls are tightening, and it's not obvious that Democrats are going to win a majority in the House. It's hard to say Trump's approval rating is ticked up somewhat. It's gone from 40% to 41% to 42%. Not great, but that's improvement. Part of me thinks, honestly, part of me thinks that the solution to this isn't so much having a catchy slogan But just being willing to in addition to talking about health care and jobs and all that to really be on your hair on fire about this

From the opposition and to and to treat the mere existence of a president Trump as like a crisis for the country Which it is. Right. It just seems crazy to me because like I feel like I'm inundated with this and I'm like in constant sort of, I'm waiting for that. I mean, if Mueller, if Mueller brings like an indictment against Trump, I mean, I don't know if that's even something that we think is possible or not, does that, is that the thing that triggers this?

Like does that change things? I mean, is there any indication that that something like that would move the needle? I think it would. I mean, I think if, you know, I'm not sure the president can be indicted. I think there's a legit debate about that. If I had to take a judgment,

I'd probably say if the president can't be indicted, that fundamentally these are all political questions to be left to the political system. But that said, if something like that would happen, if there is a definitive proof of really gross and troubling activity. If more members of the Trump campaign got indicted, like if Don Jr. got indicted, which actually doesn't sound crazy to me, please, it'd be very funny.

I mean, if nothing else would be very funny. I mean, I would find it a good ass and else sketch out of that. Yeah, I mean, so you think something like that, if there was something more concrete that that would actually move the needle for a lot of Americans. Yes more concrete that that would actually move the needle for a lot of Americans. Yes, I also think I would move the needle for a lot of Americans. And somehow it's gotten lost in all the mess recently.

The thing that actually began, Trump began his presidency unpopular, but the thing that really pushed his popularity down into the 30s for most of last year was that effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I mean, if the Republican Congress and Trump gets behind something that unpopular again, that will turn the needle, right? Yeah, I mean, that's interesting. The Affordable Care Act stuff is to me is like, I think there are so many pieces that have been shipped away at and yet like,

where the repercussions are of that have yet to be fully felt, right? Am I crazy? Like, where is that being seen, surfaced or felt? Like, how do people get a sense of the visceral nature of those changes to the laws in this country? I think if you are like a middle-class citizen not even white necessarily just like white or black Asian American it's not probably not immediately obvious what the changes are to the country, although

they're certainly there. I think if you are an immigrant, if you're an Hispanic immigrant in particular, if you exist anywhere on the margins of society, then the impact is very much felt, right? That for example, in immigration, ICE raids are real. This drive to make more people vulnerable to deportation is real and it does have a real effect on people's lives. I think one thing, one significant thing that I think isn't as hyperfile is that with just a Republican in the White House, not even Trump necessarily, just a Republican in

the White House, all the little schemes states want to play in terms of reducing benefits, implementing work requirement or drug testing, stuff that requires often requires a federal waiver to go forward with. They think they're happening. And so if you are, if you were a beneficiary of Medicaid and all of a sudden now your state has a work requirement, that will affect you. If you are a beneficiary of temporary aid from needy families, that will affect you. If you are a beneficiary of temporary aid from needy families, and under Trump, your state has the go ahead to making sharp cuts to the program that will affect you. So there are a lot of people who don't necessarily vote, who are on the margins of society, who are disproportionately black and brown, but not exclusively, who are feeling, I think,

hurt from the state administration. In ways that they'll say were predictable in 2016 and just weren't really talked about very much. But because it is a bit more ordinary, it isn't so much in your face like the creative stuff, but it's happening and it's there. Right, and to those voters who aren't having been voting come out. I mean, we obviously saw in the Roy Moore Doug Jones race in Alabama I mean a big narrative there was I mean it was really the black vote that changed the dynamic of that race

I mean at least from what I understand what I've read are there are there disenfranchised people who have typically not voted that are now coming out And we'll be out in this in these midterms and in the next in the next few years, do you think? That's hard to say. I mean, it's hard to say because getting non-voters to become voters is a real heavy lift. Voting, this is a cliche, but voting is a habit. When you start doing it, you tend to continue doing it.

And on the other side, non-voting is a habit. What you start doing, you tend to continue doing it. And on the other side, non-voting is a habit. If you don't really do it, then you're probably not going to do it in the future. And so, in Alabama, there was this really heavy effort from civil service groups, from churches, to sorority, to fraternities, to get people registered and to get them to the polls, doing by any means, possible, right? Like, if you need to, or ride, we'll give you a ride. If you need to get ID, we'll help you get ID, the whole nine yards.

So that will have to happen to begin to convert non-voters to voters. On the sort of on the Democratic Party left, or even sure the left left, that's having Democratic Party, there's a real conviction that offering sort of an expansive economic vision will motivate some people to go. And I wouldn't discount that either. Part of the problem there is that people have to believe that you're going to do it. But if you can credibly convince people that you are going to do everything you can to improve their lot in life, the Mac can get people motivated to vote. There are a lot of different non-voters out there

and different groups of them are receptive to different kinds of messages. I do think it's clear though that just the fact of people disliking Trump provides a lot of energy, and it will turn people out. I think the fact that Democrats are running candidates basically at every race where there's an open seat, and certainly many races where they're in incumbents, the fact of having Democrats on the ballot everywhere actually turns people out, because it creates the sense that their vote actually matters and that they can make a choice here. Yeah, so, you know, it'll, it'll, it'll, we'll see, right? Like, it's, it's hard to say midterm elections are weird too because they're both national and not national. Well, also it's gonna, you know, we'll see how it turns out.

But these ones seem, these ones seem higher stakes and typical, I mean, then midterms. I mean, this to me is, it feels like the midterm is going to be the kind of like, we're going to get a sense of whether or not the impact that we maybe some of us feel Trump has. I mean, to your point, the greatest advertisement for voting in the world is like, if you are a person who sees the effects of Trump or feels the effects of Trump If you are a person of color in this country if you are you know a member of the LGBTQ community Like there are so many people to me that I feel like that Would now see this very I mean if you actually give a shit about other people in this country

You know if you're just a person who cares about other people, you know You're looking at this and going like wow, this is the biggest advertisement ever for voting. And I think that I don't know what it would take beyond somebody like Trump at this point. Like honestly, if Trump doesn't get you out to vote, if you're a Democrat. Even Caitlin Jenner, who supported Donald Trump recently said, like, I can't support him, please don't vote for him.

Or support any candidates. Like, and I think at risk groups have to be, if you weren't woken up to like woken up, if you weren't awake to like the fact that you need to go vote immediately, and like you can't just sit out and hope like, well, I live in a blue state or whatever, like to just get activated and do something,

I don't know. Yeah, I feel like if you're in a way to go. I feel like if you're one of those swing states in 2016, you know, you're sitting there going, wow, I should have fucking voted. Yeah. Right, I mean, at this point, you gotta be thinking like,

that was a mistake to sit it out. Even if you don't like the candidate because the alternative seems much worse. So really quickly, I know you don't have all the dead, but I want two things I wanna talk about. One is this NFL thing, which you told me about when before we started that I wanna talk about it a little bit, because I think it speaks to this larger feeling of drama that exists, of things that are like where I'm trying to weigh importance.

So, explain this, like the owners of NFL teams got together and have now made a new rule. And can you tell me what the new rule is for the NFL players? Yeah, so the owners of the NFL team got together and said, kind of a response to Colin Capronix silent protest during the National Anthem and other players joining in. And then in response to President Trump kind of attacking the NFL and the players over this, that NFL, if a, that during the pregame ceremony, which is from the National Anthem, is performed, players have to stand. They cannot kneel.

If they want to kneel, they have to be in the locker room. They cannot come out. Teams that do not follow this rule will be fine. I don't know exactly what the fine is, but I'm sure it will be substantive. And this is the hope is that this will both curb the protests and get Trump off of the NFL's back. So it's like, how important is this? If you had to choose between paying attention to this and paying attention to say, you know, effort to restart Obamacare

appeal, I would say pay attention to the Obamacare stuff. But in terms of the nonsense that happens, I do think this is somewhat significant in that it is sort of a direct attack on free expression and political speech. It is an example of Trump's very authoritarian instincts. It is an example of Trump's cultivated contempt for famous black people. So, it's meaningful and it's important in terms of illustrating some of the broader thematic things happening during this period. But if I had to say to someone, what should you pay attention to, I'm not sure I would say this. Having said that though, you know, I actually didn't, like I first heard about the news, that was working on something else. When my mother-in-law was like, did you see it? Did you see this?

And my mother-in-law watches football, doesn't pay a ton of attention to politics. And so it's also true that different thing to reach different people. And so I'm not going to discount to something like this, which may seem marginal, but for some folks, maybe they think that really energizes them. Right. I mean, I think it's one of this to me is one of those cultural moments where you're like, what the, it's like the good people on both side stuff, you know, it's like the, where you're like, okay, you know, sometimes you kind of forget, Trump is like, I mean, maybe you don't,

maybe Ryan, maybe you don't, but once in a while, you're like, oh, like things seem sort of like the calm down, and you're not actively thinking that Trump is like this, like a historic racist. I mean like like truly has like run his businesses or racist has ran his campaign as a racist who's running the country as a racist. And and you sort of like forget about it, but here's like an example like your point about you know his his open disdain for for people of color. I mean of you know certainly successful people of color athletes.

I mean, this is a good reminder of what Trump's presidency is actually like in a microcosm, right? It is like the persecution, the meaningless persecution over really what is like free speech. It's a narcissist thing. You know, and he's a racist and a narcissist, right? And so, yeah, so I do,

it's like, is it important in the grand scheme of things? I get like, maybe not. Because I don't think we're gonna lose freedom of speech in this country. I don't think the NFL is the, is the, you know, I don't think that's the kind of like, the place where freedom of speech will ultimately be tested. But, you know, whether you, whether you get fine, because like, you get fine, you might, they might kneel anyhow. I mean, if I was a player, I'd kneel, I would kneel so fucking much,

my knees would explode, okay? I'd be kneeling non-stop, I wouldn't even play, I just kneel, but like that's me. And I also am not a really a sports person, so maybe that's not, you can't play football kneeling the whole time, but the point is, like, freedom of speech is not gonna end with the NFL's like owners agreement

that they're gonna, you know, whatever people are gonna get fined or whatever, but like, I do think it is, I do think it is a good reminder, and I think we need, the problem is there's so many reminders now, it's hard to necessarily pinpoint which one is that significant. I feel like the NFL one at least has captured

a very important moment of what protest, what protest, the repercussions of protest, I guess, and how protest should look, which is it pisses off the president enough that he has to angrily tweet about it. Which I guess is not a high watermark at this point, because he kind of angrily tweets about everything. But okay, so really quickly, before I let you go, one is this is gonna be like, you don't have, I mean, maybe you can't make this prediction,

but do you think we will see significant, this is just, I just need to ask, cause I feel like there are only, you know, there's a handful of people I could ask this question to. Do you think we will see a significant swing in the makeup of our government in this midterm. Like does this feel like there's going to be a sea change moment to you?

What does your gut say? My gut says yes. Like, if this is a thing, if I'm looking at all the numbers, I would say, flippa coin, right? Like, if you're going to extrapolate like the demshare of the house based off of the current generic ballot and the president's popularity, you would guesstimate something like 23 to 25 seats swing. Democrats need 24 seats. And so it's like, ah, you know, it could, you know, maybe, but having covered a couple of these special elections, having been on the ground, I live in Virginia and not in northern Virginia

and seeing the level of anti-trap energy around here makes me think that I'm missing something, that the numbers aren't picking up something that's happening on the ground. And for that reason, I'm willing to say that Democrats could win it. It reminds me actually of 2016 that there was something happening on the ground, the numbers just didn't catch. You say about, you know, but on the other side. Yeah, I would say that I would I would guess

That they just may end up picking up the house right And that would be Is that enough to move towards impeachment? Remind me again like what we would actually need Right, so the house initiates impeachment and then you have to two thirds majority It's to support the resolution and then it goes to the Senate, which then tries all of this. And peace been not gonna happen now, I think. What's significant, and you asked earlier, or suggested earlier that this election really matters,

right now there is effectively no oversight of the Trump administration. Democrats winning a majority means Democrats have subpoena power on key committees. It means they can really inaugurate serious investigations and do real oversight. So here's the thing, in the best possible scenario for Democrats in which they win Congress outright, have a house in the Senate, that isn't just oversight power in both chambers, that means you've stopped

the congressional agenda of the Trump administration, you've stopped judicial nominations, you've stopped, or confirmation, you stopped the confirmation to agencies, you basically have like stopped the entire administration in its tracks right then and there. And while there's still of course agency and bureaucratic things Trump administration can do, this so far this administration has not been as adapted using those powers as the Obama administration, the most of the Bush administration was. So there's a real chance if again if Dems have kind of the best possible outcome and that the Trump administration effectively ends in January 2019, and we just, you know,

wait out the rest. I think that should be the message for anybody campaigning. It's like we can just end the Trump candidacy, sorry, the Trump presidency on this date, if you vote for me. I feel like that would get people out in droves. Like, when you saying that, made me feel legitimately giddy. You know? Like, I felt saying that made me feel legitimately giddy. You know?

Like, I felt like a surge of excitement that like maybe life could be different than it has been for the last year or, you know, in a half or whatever or two years or three. I mean, however long it's been, as we've had to like live with Trump, you know? Right, and maybe that is the message for the fall. That like, if you want this to end to end, if you. That if you want this to end, if you want, at least most of this to end, the only option to have is a vote for a Democrat. Right.

Or I mean, I assume there'll be some plays where independence are viable, but maybe not. Is there anywhere where an independence viable? This is the midterm. No, it's just, it's Democrat or bus. Right. That's the answer.

And then there's like then there's a you know this is like a whole other podcast that we don't have to get into but like there's that whole the infighting of the democrats and whether or not they can square there you know what what apparently are like you know extremely progressive you know almost socialist leanings with like what we consider to be the sort of more centrist, safe sort of, Neil Liban-Trapin-Chapo. Yeah, yeah, right, Neil Liban-Chapo, right?

I guess if we wanna draw lines, which I don't really wanna draw those lines because I feel like I don't love either one of them as a person who identifies as a Democrat. But I mean, that in fighting, do you see that it's being a big blocker? I mean, not, again, I don't wanna, I mean, I know that's like a longer topic, but do you think, that in fighting, do you see that as being a big blocker? I mean, not again, I don't want to, I mean, I know that's like a longer topic,

but do you think the Democratic in fighting is real or is it much more creation of like inside baseball, beltway press? I think that, I think it's a bit overplayed. I mean, there are real divisions with them in Democratic Party. Those divisions, some of those divisions are long ideology. But if you look at sort of the broad sweep of things, most Democrats, rank and file and lawmakers are largely on the same page where they differ, the distinctions aren't as sharp as they appear to be.

And I think at the very least, everyone's united against Trump. And so, yeah, if there will be conflict about agenda setting and how to approach particular issues, and that all will be there. But this isn't a situation like 2009, where you did have a substantial number of Democrats who weren't as conservative as Republicans. I think people have to understand that the gap between the most conservative Democrat and Congress, the most liberal Republican, is still very large. The most conservative Democrat, if they became Republican, and the most liberal Republican,

if they became a Democrat, would be a right-wing Democrat. So the partisan gap is still much larger than any intra-party gap. But even then, the intra-party gap is much narrower than it was 10 years ago. I thought in 2016, and I think now the B gaps are overstated. In that sort of, in that B, you know, B, the differences are more stylistic, are more stylistic and less ideological than they appear to be. Although there are, I don't want to minimize,

there are ideological differences, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren are very different politicians with very different issue priorities. But in terms of thinking in opposition, I don't think that divisions are going to matter all that much. Yeah. Come to 2020, and that's a whole different story. I mean, but we're not, Bernie's not running again, right? I mean, there's not a Bernie in 2020 2020 is there There's a think political scientists like to say and I'll I'll echo it here repeated here, which is that Politicians both run for and run in right and so there are steps you take if you are thinking about a bid and then there's actually taking the bid

Right now I think Bernie Sanders is running for 2020, whether he actually runs in 2020 is a separate question. I don't know. But he's certainly doing everything you one would do if one were running for president. Okay, let me ask you a question that. And I think I'm just gonna, this maybe will be the final question.

It's, I think it's a pretty good one. Would Bernie have won? Oh. It's a final question. I think it's a pretty good one. What Bernie have won? It's a hard question. I mean, it's a genuinely hard question that I think kind of depends on your priors about the election. If you think that Hillary Clinton lost, so here's your options. If you think that Hillary Clinton lost because of external factors like James Comey and Russia hacking, which is to say that Hillary Clinton would have performed like a generic Democrat, because that's the most of the, like, that Comey letter probably shaved like a point off of her total, which she would have gotten 49% 49 points, something which is basically what the forecast expect is for a Democrat. Then what you're saying is that there's a good chance of Bernie would have won, because

he wouldn't have had that baggage, right? So if you think that she, she all would have had a career in that. If you think Clinton would have performed like a generic Democrat. Oh, like sure. If she's like John Kerry Right, but yeah, it's like it's the forecast projected that the collected forecast projected that given the presence of president Obama's approval rating and the city be economy a Democrat would win something like 49% of two party vote if the Komi letter stated point off of Clinton total, then she would have won 49% of the

two party vote. And under those circumstances, she probably would have won, which means she would have performed my Kajanari, which means Bernie likely would have performed my Kajanari Democrat, given how K-National campaigns really flatten candidates and sort of like avatars of their respective parties. So you know, he probably would have won. Yeah. The same goes if you think Clinton lost because she did not have effective strategies for states like Wisconsin, so and so forth. If it's a tactical consideration, then there's a pretty good chance that Sanders by virtue of likely focusing on those states and those kind of issues might have won too.

If you think that Trump should win by default, right, like because content likely, but if you think Trump reconfigured the partisan landscape of the United States by running kind of as an explicit racist and mobilizing voters for whom that matters. Then it's a different question, then I don't know. I don't know if Bernie would have won. Right, but there's no evidence that actually supports that, right? That there is some like sleeping voter base that he energized.

I mean, how different was his turnout than Mitt Romney's? Oh, I mean there's totally evidence. I mean like because if that didn't happen, if that didn't happen, then you have a hard time explaining the report like to just be his ability to lose lots of white voters, college-shakated Republican voting or sort of right-leaning independence and then winning, still winning the same percentage, or roughly the same person as the white voters, a patch of Republican candidates, just geographically distributed in much more advantageous way. There's like real evidence that part of what happened in 2016 is that by being explicitly right, so that

if you can think of the American electorate, let me rewind. Libertarians say that they're like the missing middle and American politics, that people who are socially liberal and economically conservative, that's bullshit, they're very few libertarians numerically. The actual missing middle and American politics are people who love government and don't like black people and don't like immigrants. They really like Medicare, they really like Social Security, they want more government help in the economy, but you don't want it to go to brown people.

And for a long time, because no one was offering, because the, don't like black and brown people, appeals were also coming from the party that was like don't like government either, those voters voted for Democrats because they like government so much that they were willing to tolerate all the brown people. But what Trump ran on basically was, I will protect Medicare and Social Security,

I'll give you stuff, and I'll also stick it to brown people and kind of it's a sweet spot. And so if you look at like breakdown, issue breakdowns of Obama and the Trump voters, but you have more or less are those voters, culturally conservative, economically liberal, and Trump motivated them, mobilized them in states like Florida and states like Pennsylvania. And that helped him win the election. And so if that's true, then maybe Bernie wins because he's able to out bid Trump and establish a clear distinction.

Part of a Trump is able to do with Clinton is muddy the waters on the economy. So she was like, I want a half trillion dollars and infrastructure, she was like, well, I want a trillion dollars and stuff like that. Maybe Bernie would have been able to better clearly define the lines. But it's, I think that's an open question. I think if you think that's what was happening with the electric, it doesn't open question whether Bernie would have won. Right. I don't know. Well, and here we are back to square one

with the Woodburnie of one question. No one can really say for sure. And maybe we'll find out in 2020, I guess, is a now a possibility that I have to reckon with. I mean, Bernie will be very old in 2020, right? Like, he's, he's a Trump sage. Yeah, hope he, maybe like 79 maybe. I have no idea how old Bernie's hand is.

I'm fine, it's fucking nuts. We don't need an 80 year old person running the country. We need a, we somebody with, we need a youngster, we need a younger person. Like that's so insane to me. Like I don't, I don't want an 80 year old running almost anything. I'll be honest, maybe that's ageous,

but I just feel like, I would if it was Jane Fonda. Just retire, just retire, man. I don't know. He knows fine like I guess Bernie would be an improvement over Trump. I guess if I got he would be you know like and I like her full no I like I like a lot of what Bernie had to say I think Bernie's got some problems as well though I mean you know you look at some of his you know he's he's voting record gun stuff I mean you look at you know I would say like you he has ability to reach out to people of color, to communities of color, has not been queer people.

Yeah, has not been particularly, and he has this all-hull of their podcasts in Jibal, you need to go. And so do we. So listen, I just want to say this was fascinating. This was an amazing and interesting conversation. I'd like to have another one, particularly as we get closer or maybe through the midterm. So I'd love to have you come back on. And I really appreciate you taking the time.

So thank you so much for joining us today. Hey, thank you, and I'd love to be back on. And you've got, sorry, and really quickly, you've got a podcast. What are the details? Tell us the details of your, because you do, is it a weekly? Is it bi-weekly?

Is it monthly? Sure, slate, we have the Trumpcast podcast, which is sort of our, I think insane attempt to keep up with all Trump news. There are three hosts, Jacob Weisberg, Virginia Heffordon, and myself. It is a three times weekly podcast, one at a time host. Oh my god. Yeah.

They're pretty short, like 25, 30 minutes a pop. And I'm one of the hosts. My episodes are much more focused on public policy. So if you want to hear me talk about Scott Pruitt or immigration, what's that my episode if you want to hear about Russia and all that stuff and the investigations then Jacob Virginia have you covered. Yeah and you just did a great episode about with I forget the writer's name but on the Mother Jones piece on Scott Pruitt. That's right. Which is very good and informative and you should listen to it.

And also, I didn't realize this, but you have this Trump, this like Trump tweet person. It's like a Trump impersonator. Of the baths. Which was very, which was very, John D. D. Domenico. Yeah, when I heard it, I was like, what is going on right now?

This is like very confusing and a little bit troubling. It's like you guys are Charlie D. Angels and John D. Domenico is coming. It's coming. But, But, it's really good. And, okay, really quickly speed round. I swear I was like, okay, we're running out of time. But I gotta know, I listened to a podcast where you talked about Star Trek

and you said you're a fan of the next generation. And before you go, can you name your favorite next generation episode? Episod? Yeah. I don't remember the name of the episode, but it's the first board two-parter where Picard becomes assimilated into the board. Oh, I don't remember the name of the episode, but it's the two part, the first board two part, where we're, the card becomes assimilated into the board. Yeah, that is an amazing story arc.

Very good choice. Jim, now thank you again for joining us and we hope to have you back soon. Thank you. Oh, in a quick note, I am out next week traveling, doing very important business, person business as I am want to do. And so we'll be rerunning a classic episode of Tomorrow, which will be a blast from the past. And when you hear it, you're gonna be like,

oh my God, I remember when this happened. I was a little kid. I was in elementary school. This podcast came on and it changed my life. So get ready for that. And then I'll be back. They'll be back after us in a new step. Well that is our show for this week, but we'll be back next week with more tomorrow. And as always, I wish you and your family the very best, though I've just been told

that your family has been acquired by Disney, and they are going to put them in the park.