← Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
5/20/26: Kamala Official Reveals 2024 Loss, Elon's Ex On 2024 Election Space Lasers, Dem Caught Boosting Republican
01:02:49
Loading summary
Transcript169 lines
- [00:00]
Rob Flaherty
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human during Memorial Day at Lowe's Shop Household must haves for less. Save $80 on a Char Broil Performance Series 4 Burner Grill to chef up something special plus get up to 45% off. Select major appliances to keep things fresh. Our best lineup is here at Lowes Lowes. We help you Save valid through 527 while supplies last. Selection varies by location. See Lowes.com for details.
- [00:29]
Ryan Grim
Visit your nearby Lowe's.
- [00:36]
Podcast Announcer
Now streaming on Paramount Beth and Rip are back in Dutton Ranch.
- [00:41]
Mai Vang
This life here is gonna work, isn't it?
- [00:44]
Rob Flaherty
We'll make it work. Starring Kelly Riley Legacy is a beautiful
- [00:49]
Mai Vang
thing, but only if it survives.
- [00:50]
Emily
Cole Hauser let's go to work.
- [00:52]
Podcast Announcer
Ed Harris family is the only thing worth fighting for. And Annette Benning I can make this
- [00:57]
Emily
a lot harder for all y' all and peace will have to wait.
- [01:00]
Podcast Announcer
Dutton Ranch new series now streaming on Paramount Boss Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures hey
- [02:06]
Emily
guys, Sagar and Krystal here.
- [02:07]
Ryan Grim
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
- [02:14]
Rob Flaherty
This is the only place where you
- [02:15]
Emily
can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
- [02:20]
Ryan Grim
So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
- [02:31]
Rob Flaherty
We need your help to build the
- [02:32]
Emily
future of independent news media, and we
- [02:34]
Rob Flaherty
hope to see you@breakingpoints.com
- [02:39]
Emily
the Democratic National Committee autopsy that they claim to have performed has yet to be published. But Rob Flaherty, a top official with both the 2020 Biden campaign, the 2024 Biden campaign, and then the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign, is with us here to discuss the kind of interview that he gave with the autopsy crew and also how he would write it if he were the main author of this report. So you can read his piece in the Bulwark. It's titled here's what I Told the DNC Autopsy. And I really do think it's worth reading because, Rob, I think you tried hard to say, like, look, I'm not. I don't want to come off as being too defensive here. We lost. The goal is to win. We didn't do that. So therefore, we failed. Here are the decisions we made. Here's why we made them. Take what you want from it, because we need to learn lessons from that. What's been the reaction? And then we'll go through a bunch of different sections of it. What's been the reaction from Democrats since this kind of went viral among the operative set.
- [03:48]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, you know what? I have to be honest, and thanks for having me, by the way. It has been a surprisingly constructive conversation, which I think has been heartening. There have been folks who have disagreed with my takes that is totally fair, and I think they've offered constructive feedback. It also, I think, speaks to why I think the party can handle an autopsy discussion.
- [04:05]
Emily
Yeah.
- [04:05]
Rob Flaherty
Like, people, I think, came to this in pretty good faith, which I appreciated.
- [04:09]
Emily
No, that is a good point. And before we get into the thing, do you have a theory? So the theory that they're kind of floating now for why we haven't seen the autopsy is that it's really poorly done and it's embarrassing, which is kind of funny as an excuse. Yeah. Like, then do a better job. Maybe like hire somebody to, like, I don't know, run it through ChatGPT and tell them to clean it up or something. I mean, it doesn't sound credible to me as an excuse. What is your theory for why we have not seen this document? And how do I get my hands on it?
- [04:48]
Rob Flaherty
How do you get your hands on it? So that is basically my understanding is that the final product was not up
- [04:54]
Emily
to snuff, not A friend of Ken
- [04:55]
Rob Flaherty
Martin's or something more or less the guy who was doing it. He was doing it as a volunteer sort of outside of his consulting hours. It was sort of done not at the quality you would expect. I think, you know, it is.
- [05:07]
Emily
Do we know how much Democrats spent on this? Too bad to release support?
- [05:13]
Rob Flaherty
I don't know. They, I don't know how much was spent.
- [05:16]
Emily
Audit of it.
- [05:16]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, I seriously, I, you know, I, I think that it is worth them taking the time to do it and do it well if that is the case and you know, but to my understanding that is what it was some something I'd have a chat. GPT summary is like what came out.
- [05:29]
Emily
So anyway, I think they're just trying to hold their breath and do well in November and hope everybody forgets about it. So but let's put up D2 to start. So at the top you write, my biggest lesson from the 2024 election is that tactics don't add up to a brand. And a brand is the most important thing in politics today. Without a brand that people genuinely feel is connected to your candidate's deeply held beliefs, your tactics will add up to nothing. It's clear in retrospect that what Democrats needed for our Damaged brand in 24 was a primary in which a real well funded candidate really running an economically populist campaign could have teed off against the Biden administration. Even that wouldn't have been a sure bet. But quote, a primary and a one week shotgun primary 107 days out from the election are not the same. Once we were in it, we were always playing around the edges. You also talk about the role that the unfolding genocide in Gaza played. And we'll get to that toward the end of this for people who are wondering if we're gonna talk about that. But so on this point I thought that was really interesting. And it's like, obviously this isn't up to you whether or not there's a primary, whether or not Democrats nominate an economic populist who's running against Biden. But I think for our viewers it would be, it's gotta be interesting to hear somebody from your world come here and say, yeah, you guys are probably right. Tactically, like forget putting us, forget the substance and what's better for the world. But like, so tell us why you think tactically, even from your position within the party, an economic populist running against Biden would have been more successful.
- [07:11]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Here's the thing. I think if Biden stays in and gets primaried. Voters were behind Biden at that particular time. And so that was sort of one of the things that made it challenging. I think if Biden decides not to
- [07:22]
Emily
run, you know, although once he had to debate.
- [07:25]
Rob Flaherty
Well, yes, I mean, that should have changed the trajectory of the race. But I think once he. If had he had decided not to run, the administration was very unpopular, and the advantage of a primary would have been that someone not attached to the administration could have sort of honestly critiqued the administration without being tied to it in the same way. I think that was one of the main things that dragged Harris down was, you know, she was part of an administration that was horribly unpopular, and there was really no easy way to distance herself from that. And so I think probably that is the only. The best shot we would have had.
- [08:01]
Emily
And so one. One thing I thought was missing, and maybe I didn't quite spot it in the piece, was a look at why the. So let's back it up. Like, so why was the brand as bad as it was is the overlying question. And from our perspective, as we were covering this campaign, we were watching as the most kind of popular elements of the Biden administration, which were kind of his pro labor record and the kind of antitrust record, and, you know, Lina Khan going after powerful companies and saying, this is the reason why you're paying more and we need to go after these companies. And then meanwhile, you'd have people like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban going on air and saying, no, actually, she's not even gonna hire Lina Khan. These people are crazy. And so then you wind up with. Without that populist brand. So it's one thing, yeah, she's stuck. She can't really run against Biden on anything the Biden administration has done that she wants to disagree with. But these were things that the Biden administration did that people liked. The only time she ran against Biden, it seemed like, was to kind of cut Lina Khan and her folks off at the knees. So how do you think that played into the campaign?
- [09:25]
Rob Flaherty
So, I think as a general measure, you know, voters were super economically concerned in this election. And, you know, a significant amount of the media we spent was on sort of economic policy writ large. I mean, that is sort of the advertising. But I think there was something about the overall sort of brand of the campaign, the sort of like, je ne sais quoi that it added up to, that didn't really click for people and didn't make that believable. And, you know, whether that was about Lina Khan or anything in particular, or breaking up monopolies or any of that. You know, I think there was sort of a sense of people couldn't quite tell what the campaign was about, but is partly different places.
- [10:04]
Emily
Like, if Kamala's going to. Onto the stump and saying, these companies are ripping you off, we're gonna break them up, we're gonna prosecute them, doesn't that give her. And I'm here with Lina Khan.
- [10:18]
Rob Flaherty
I don't necessarily know that sort of campaigning with specific administration officials like that would have been particularly helpful. But I do think there is a general, from my lens, a sense looking backwards, that people were feeling economically populist. And so the more that the campaign would have been focused on that, the better off we would have been. But there were a lot of reasons in a short period that we didn't end up going in that direction, and internal debates and things like that. But ultimately, I think if you look backwards, that was one of the reasons the brand was a little all over the place and hard to reach.
- [10:55]
Emily
There was this moment where for a few days, she was using that kind of populist language. And then Cuban and Hoffman push back and they drop it. What's it like inside the campaign? Like, how do the. Like you see Mark Cuban on TV or you see Reid Hoffman complaining, like, just internally. How does that. How does that filter into decision making where she's changing her language?
- [11:19]
Rob Flaherty
You know, it's hard for me to say like that. You know, on that specific feedback loop, I don't know that I was part of it. So, you know, I don't. I don't have a total lens on what the osmosis is on all of that. Certainly there was broad pushback when more populous language was used. There was broad pushback when less populous language was used. And I think all of that gets taken in and gets taken on board. But again, I think we sort of found ourselves in this position where there were just a lot of equities pushing on the campaign. And we sort of went down a lot of different rabbit holes and found ourselves sort of adding up to not quite the whole of the sum of our parts.
- [11:58]
Emily
Right. You made an interesting YouTube comment which kind of dovetails with the whole Joe Rogan controversy, which you were part of. We can put up D3 here. You wrote the whole country is on YouTube and uses it in ways that feel completely out of alignment with how I use it. Which brings us to that whole Rogan thing. I, somewhat infamously, was involved in the Rogan negotiations. We agonized for a long time overdoing it. I was in favor of doing it, but it was a close call. I didn't think it was going to be a clean interview. In fact, I thought the best case scenario would be a draw. But we just needed an attention event which in my mind made it worth doing. Actually, I should have you reading these since this is your.
- [12:38]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, I'll do that. You can get the audiobook.
- [12:40]
Emily
Yeah. So on the first point, before we get to Rogan, that YouTube is interesting as somebody who lives in it now.
- [12:46]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [12:49]
Emily
What did you describe and what is the kind of gap between the way that kind of professional Washington democratic campaigns understand YouTube and the way that it's actually exists in the world now?
- [13:00]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, 100%. Well, first of all, the vast majority of YouTube is watched on television sets.
- [13:04]
Emily
Yeah. Which is crazy.
- [13:05]
Rob Flaherty
Which is crazy.
- [13:06]
Emily
People might not know that that is
- [13:07]
Rob Flaherty
not how I use it, but that may be how you at home are using it.
- [13:09]
Ryan Grim
Hello.
- [13:10]
Rob Flaherty
On YouTube. More than that.
- [13:12]
Emily
More than half of our audience, according to our data, watches it on television.
- [13:15]
Rob Flaherty
And that's. And so that is thing one. And I think that people in campaigns often miss that. It's television for people. And so the kinds of programming, the kinds of content it is, long form and conversation, all those kinds of things. And also its dominance. 80% of the country goes there at least once a week. I mean, it is the place where I think the election is going to happen in 2028. And so it's really important from a campaign perspective that impacts where you go and do interviews, the people you talk to, those kinds of things, but also how you do your own content. And as you guys know, building a YouTube channel is very hard and it doesn't come easy, takes a lot of time. And so, you know, it's a challenge for campaigns, but I think it is really going to be a core battleground for political campaigns going forward.
- [14:01]
Emily
And so the channels that have built audiences, like Rogan, for instance, who's gone in a kind of different direction the last year, year and a half or so, that was a big thing. And you were directly involved with this question. So why did you think it would be slightly a good idea and what were the counterarguments and walk people through why it ended up not happening.
- [14:31]
Rob Flaherty
So we landed on wanting to do the show and talked to his team quite a bit and pretty much agreed to, you know, no holds barred. We had some time limits in place, but, you know, because we had a schedule and things. How long I forget what we said, but he said something like, we only wanted an hour. And I think we had not. We said we did not ever. We didn't say that. So I think we had discussed a
- [14:56]
Emily
longer engagement because he normally does three to four.
- [14:58]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah. And I think it was probably shorter than he normally does, but longer than he said that we were asking for, if I recall correctly. And look, I think the reason why was I thinking the vice president wanted to talk to the audience. But also, we just. I mean, I say this in the piece. I think we started to really lose the race when we lost the attention war with Donald Trump, and we needed something that would shake it up. But I think it was gonna be a challenging interview. I mean, Rogan is not easy. And he'll ask questions that you're not used to getting. And you have to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. And a lot of political figures. That's a hard thing. And so I figured if we did the show, he would. He would get a couple of marks on the vice president. I thought the vice president might get a couple of marks on him. But it was a sort of team discussion, and we netted out on wanting to do it, but the logistics just sort of didn't work out.
- [15:51]
Emily
The idea that all attention is net good, I think is an interesting one, because I remember thinking at the time, if I were you guys and Kamala Harris was my candidate, I would actually not tell her to do Joe Rogan.
- [16:06]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [16:07]
Emily
Because she might be okay in five minutes on MSNBC or CNN or even Fox, like, a little pushback here and there. But, like, she didn't strike me as somebody that for an hour, an hour and a half is going to kind of win over the audience, because that's just not the style that she's kind of come up in. But I think I'm curious for your take on this. I think it has created a kind of obstacle course or litmus test of sorts for candidates that is actually a good thing that the new kind of bar that you have to clear to be a national candidate is, can you sit down for 90 minutes in a free form interview and come across as a normal person? Yeah. And I think, like, I think Bernie did really well with that, 2016 and beyond, even though he just says the same thing. Millionaires and billionaires.
- [17:02]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [17:02]
Emily
But it's charming because you're saying it for 50 years.
- [17:05]
Rob Flaherty
Exactly.
- [17:05]
Emily
I think AOC could do it.
- [17:07]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [17:08]
Emily
She's. Because she lives in that kind of. You know, she calls audibles all the time. She's like, yeah, she's not. She's not that scripted. Ro Khanna does it all the time. He goes. Goes to these places. Buttigieg could probably do it.
- [17:22]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [17:23]
Emily
But, like, Newsom can do it, but I can imagine that some others couldn't. Do you agree? Is that, like, the new. Is that the new bar to entry into national politics is that you have to actually be able to sit down?
- [17:37]
Rob Flaherty
I agree. I think that's downstream from something that is really the important thing, which is, like, everyone is consuming tons of content produced by people who are really close to that production of the content. And so they're used to super authentic stuff. Right. They know Ryan Grim. They know where you think, and they know where you stand and that you believe what you're saying. And so you're up against all of that. And so when you show up and you're a politician and you're like, here are my three talking points, the bullshitometer has gotten higher. And so one of the indicators of that is, yeah, can that person have, like, a real conversation that doesn't sound like they're reciting the party line over and over and over again? And so I think that is an indicator and has moved people in that direction, and I think it's going to be a factor in, you know, who WINS In. In 2028.
- [18:24]
Emily
Yeah. So let's talk in Emily's honor. We'll talk about the famous trans ad that she's with them, not with you. Actually. Let's. Let's play it first and then. And then get into your take on it. Yeah.
- [18:39]
Mai Vang
He murdered a father of three sentenced
- [18:42]
Ad Voice
to life in prison. Kamala Harris pushed to use tax dollars to pay for his sex change.
- [18:47]
Mai Vang
I made sure that they changed the
- [18:48]
Emily
policy so that every transgender inmate would have access.
- [18:52]
Ad Voice
It sounds insane, because it is insane. Kamala was the first to help pay for a prisoner's sex change.
- [18:58]
Emily
The power that I had, I used
- [19:00]
Ryan Grim
it in a way that was about
- [19:01]
Mai Vang
pushing for the movement, frankly.
- [19:03]
Emily
And the agenda.
- [19:04]
Mai Vang
Kamala's agenda is they them, not you.
- [19:07]
Podcast Announcer
I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message.
- [19:10]
Emily
And so you. You say two interesting things on this one. You say that contrary to kind of popular opinion, that actually wasn't the most devastating ad. The most devastating one was where they just kept playing clips of Kamala Harris saying, quote, bidenomics is working, and it didn't match up with how people felt. But then I want to. So what you write about this one, you say there was a debate about how to respond. You said a Literal rebuttal would have been a loser. I absolutely stand by this decision. Look at the 2025 elections in Virginia where Republicans made trans issues the core of their advertising strategy. It failed because voters didn't find it relevant. The Trump camp's trans ad quote worked at getting attention because it was shocking, not because it was effective on its own. Its real power came from its implied storyline, which in the digital era is more critical than ever. The lesson, when you get hit with an attack ad like this, ask not what claim it's making, but rather what brand it's building. The best response isn't to re litigate the fight, it's to fight harder on the underlying issue that voters actually care about. So let me try to channel Emily since she's not couldn't be here, do your Emily impression. And what I think she would say is, okay, maybe that's all true, but also, you are wrong on the issue. 80 to 90% of the public disagrees with you when it comes to particularly the sports question. And they don't even believe that you believe what you're saying. And so then it goes to a fundamental credibility gap between you. So I think she would probably say, yes, you're right. Like it's a distraction from the overall economic issues. But that doesn't mean that you're not totally wrong on the question itself. And as long as you cling to your position, that is this 80, 20, 90, 10 Republicans are gonna keep hammering you on it.
- [21:04]
Rob Flaherty
So I take the point, I think that there's a couple of things. One, this ad was not the only thing that was on rotation at the same time. So the they them ad is running against an immigration track that they're running, that is running against an economic track that they're running. And the through line in all of that is Kamala Harris is focused on all kinds of wacky stuff and not the stuff that you actually care about. And so that's like actually what people are hearing in real time. And so if you go in and make a counter ad about that issue, you are just raising that issue when the thing people are actually saying is Kamala Harris doesn't actually care about the stuff I care about. And so we tested like, we made spots that rebutted it directly. You know, it was a Trump era policy. No, the vice president doesn't think that or whatever. But none of that worked as well in groups and testing as just talking about the economy, because that sort of grounded it in. All right, she's focused on things that actually matter. To me. And so this idea of having a firefight on an 8020 issue, where we were always going to be coming from behind when we could have just talked about the thing that was actually the problem. That to me is why I think the response to the trans ad, to the extent that we responded was the correct one. And I stand by it was funny. James Blair, who's Trump's sort of political maestro after the Virginia election, said basically a version of what I said there, which is Republicans talking about this issue, even if it's an 80 20, makes them look weird. Makes them look weird. Makes them look a little out of place. Spanberger did more directly to dispatch the issue. But you know, that clip is on. The Harris clip is on tape. There's not much you can do to
- [22:47]
Emily
get rid of it.
- [22:48]
Rob Flaherty
So the best thing to do is to pivot to the issue people care about.
- [22:51]
Emily
And maybe there's two separate questions. Like once it's fall of 2024, you're already kind of locked into a position. So at that point you either defend the position or you just don't talk about it. Yeah. Do you think, and jailing Emily again, that Democrats need to change their position on this so that they're not locked into an 80, 20, 90, 10 firefight?
- [23:14]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, I think that like this is a, this is obviously a tricky issue. The big thing is like when you think about transgender people generally, like the American people are not for taking rights away from transgender people. I mean, Democrats have won on this issue. It's ancient wisdom. But Roy Cooper was governor of North Carolina on this issue.
- [23:31]
Emily
The bathroom fight.
- [23:32]
Rob Flaherty
On the bathroom fight, Mike Pence becomes vice president cuz he's so popular in Indiana because of a bathroom bill.
- [23:40]
Emily
And so it is interesting. The bathroom is good turf, I think for Democrats because people are like, of course, if you identify as a woman, use the women's room.
- [23:48]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah.
- [23:49]
Emily
But the like high school and college sports. Yeah. It ends up not being good turf. It's like the only place that, well, maybe child surgeries.
- [23:56]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah. There's trickier issues there. And I think that a. This is like not. I don't think Democrats really campaign on this issue very much. It sort of gets put on them. But like the broader thing is like, yes, those are very unpopular things. There are edge cases. I think it is okay for Democrats to take heterodox stands on this stuff. But overall the thing that I also don't think, you know, I think that sometimes people read this as, you know, we should totally run away from transgender people. And all that stuff. And I just don't think that's where the American public is.
- [24:23]
Guest Commentator
Got it?
- [24:23]
Emily
All right, so on. On Gaza, we put up D4, you write here. Given the Biden administration's position, Gaza was an impossible issue to communicate around. Protesters drove coverage away from campaign events. Digital creators, or even supporters were afraid to say anything nice about Biden because their comment sections would get rocked. For many voters watching the horrific, painful footage out of Gaza, it became a moral question, one we didn't have a good answer for. In ways that may not be reflected in a poll, it meaningfully reduced enthusiasm. As one person from the campaign told me, we spent the entire election with a giant rotting fish around our necks. This was one of the places where Biden era, not his age, mind you, but his political era, led him to misread the politics. His frustration with Netanyahu was well covered and spilled out into the public. But Biden just misread the nation's support for Israel as an endless, fixed object and missed how much the ongoing visuals were seeping into the public consciousness. You're seeing the politics move today. Senators who would never have considered it in years, in years past are now signing on to the Sanders resolution to block offensive military aid to Israel. Rahm Emanuel, of all people, is raising doubts about funding the Iron Dome. But we were seeing this emerge on the ground during the campaign. My hot take is that the eventual Democratic nominee in 2028 will support conditions on aid to Israel in one way or another. And this section of your piece is important just from a news perspective, because there was a dispute where there were reports that the autopsy did include basically a section about this and basically saying this. Then there were some claims to the contrary. You ran digital. You were very high up in the campaign. Like, if you told the autopsy folks this in the meeting, it clearly is then reflected in the autopsy itself, whether we've seen it or not. So did you tell them this directly in your conversations?
- [26:17]
Rob Flaherty
I don't remember if I told them this directly in the conversation. I don't remember enough to say. I don't think that there's any smoking gun in there about the impact of Gaza on the election. I know that they had the conversation with activists. I think my understanding is the guy sort of was like, of course, yeah, yeah, we've got it. Kind of like being polite. So I don't know what was in there, and I don't know if what
- [26:42]
Emily
I find out would be.
- [26:43]
Rob Flaherty
Exactly, we'll find out. You know, again, I don't think I think there are a lot of people who want to hear somebody say Gaza was the reason. And I don't think it is the reason, but I think it is a factor in a reduced enthusiasm for the vice president and obviously for Biden before that.
- [27:02]
Emily
And I remember from my own perspective too, and it wasn't because of the comment section. I think it was more of the kind of just moral question. I was really supportive of a lot of things that like I said earlier, he was doing on antitrust or on labor on sometimes on trade, you know. But I would probably, I would mute my praise because I'd be like, he's also on a daily basis slaughtering and participating in the slaughter of children. Sizable numbers of children every single day, like a child, like every hour or so for a year. And so it did make it very hard to be like, this was a great NLRB ruling and we should all celebrate it, even though it's good NLRB ruling. So was that something you noticed intuitively or did you like, did you have interactions with kind of influencers and other surrogates who you were trying to get to go, rah, rah. And they're like, you know what? So walk us through like how, how did you come to this conclusion? Which I agree with. I'm just curious how you came to it also.
- [28:11]
Rob Flaherty
So I think it's two things. Like, here's, this is the thing, if you actually look at the polling, the polling said that Gaza was not a top issue. But I, there's just a, one of the things I think is a theme of the entire piece for me is that there's just some stuff that like is out lives outside of numbers. Right. The tactics of the campaign, genocide might be one. Well, yeah, the tactics of the campaign sort of moved people on particular issues, but didn't actually move people on how they were going to vote. And so one of these things is, I think this was a thing that probably dampened enthusiasm well beyond what would show up in a poll. And it was stuff like that. Creators who would be supportive would say, well, it's just sort of not safe territory to do it because I'm going to get criticized. Or would themselves be critical of President Biden's position on it. And so it did. I think it had a material impact in a way that I think was difficult to measure, but was sort of passes a smell test on obviously was there.
- [29:16]
Emily
And so to sum up, because we got to run, it sounds like an outsider anti establishment populist who's willing to be critical of Israel, from your perspective, would have done better in 2024. What does that mean for 2028? Like, where do you, what, what's your elevator pitch to candidates and campaigns who are looking at 28?
- [29:42]
Rob Flaherty
So I think a couple of things on this one. I don't think we can overestimate just how pissed off the American people are and they are mad about the status quo. Democrats are benefiting from Donald Trump being on the wrong side of this right now, but that's not a permanent thing. And I think that a winning 28, 28 campaign is going to look a little economically populist. I think you are seeing that the politics of a number of different issues are pushing people in that direction. Particularly AI, I think is going to be one of the driving issues of 2028. And then, yeah, I think a huge factor in the Democratic primary is going to be this conversation around Israel. I mentioned Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel is talking about conditioning aid to Israel.
- [30:26]
Emily
Like no more aid.
- [30:27]
Rob Flaherty
Yeah, like, I mean, which sort of tells you that, you know, there's a,
- [30:30]
Emily
there's a middle name is Israel. Yeah, yeah.
- [30:32]
Rob Flaherty
Literally. I didn't know that. So, you know, I think that that's going to be a factor. But I do think economic populism and big, you know, policies and then delivery on the other side are going to be really important.
- [30:44]
Emily
And now Rob has his own YouTube channel, by the way. So you're figuring out it's called nobody Knows Anything and you can find it Nobody Knows Anything show. So help Rob out, bring him into the, into the YouTube world. But much appreciated. Thank you for being here.
- [31:00]
Rob Flaherty
Thanks, Ryan. Thanks everybody.
- [31:03]
Podcast Announcer
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers, growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures this
- [32:04]
Jacob Goldstein
is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive and when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting. All linked and talking to each other. Check out odoo@odoo.com that's o d o
- [32:46]
Ad Voice
o.com fatigued mood changes, skin shifts. Labs say everything's normal. You're not alone. Most estrogen or progesterone topical and oral treatments only work about 20%. Oestra from InterBalance is a prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream for menopause and perimenopause relief. Vaginal HRT like Oestra offers better absorption, effective symptom relief, fewer side effects. Stop juggling multiple products. Feel balanced again. Visit innerbalance.com, feel like yourself again.
- [33:16]
Emily
That's innerbalance.com Elon Musk's former girlfriend, Ashley Sinclair, launched some rather provocative accusations recently. Let's take a listen.
- [33:28]
Ashley Sinclair
And then October rolls around. And in October, Elon tells me that he is ready to release his, in his words, Anomaly in the Matrix. And I am like, oh like who's that? And he says that he has 10,000 lasers in space, referring to his satellites. I say, because I am like rather uncomfortable and I know the gravity of what he's trying to tell me right now. I say, wow, finally a focus on the Jewish vote. He keeps going and he says, you know, this is not something on. This is not a piece that they'll see on the chessboard. And I I straight up tell him, I say I would ask more but I really don't want to be deposed. To which he says, very wise. Shortly after that, you know, he's involved with America Pack and all of this other stuff and he's sending me some internal data from America Pack Real time Delta Vote metrics. And I am just like, how the do you have this sort of data? You don't get this from door knocking then. To have arguably the most powerful man in the world who is sending me things about, you know, using his space technology in the election. I should also say that I have all of this backed up with many people with explicit instructions should anything happen to me.
- [35:16]
Guest Commentator
Okay.
- [35:18]
Emily
All right, Emily. So we've reviewed, actually and obtained some of these text messages and what Ashley Sinclair is claiming Musk claimed is true. And I say that quite deliberately because there's a difference between Musk making a claim and Musk's claim being true. However, what he says matters and her reference to depositions I think is telling. But yeah, so he wrote to her, tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix. This is not something on the chessboard. So they will be quite surprised. Quote, lasers from space. And then she does tell her joke referencing kind of a Marjorie Taylor Greene thing, finally, a focus on the Jewish vote. And he adds, I have over 10,000 lasers in space right now. And she does in fact then reply, I would ask more questions, but will keep myself from getting deposed. And Musk responds wise with the laughing guy. And then she says something like, if your space lasers seriously end up being the anomaly in the matrix that takes back America, I will be convinced that God is maximizing the simulation. So this conversation did happen in early October while Musk was campaigning with Trump and Butler when they went back to the scene of the attempted assassination. I think what's really important here is that Rogan has also talked about this, right, where he said Musk left the election night gathering in Mar a Lago very early, saying, we've got the data like, it's over, he won. And Trump, and this is, I think, very important historically, Trump believed that Musk had done something interesting. He didn't know exactly what he didn't know. I don't know if he knew how shady it was, if it was straight up rigging, or if it was some type of whiz bang thing that Trump can't understand. But Trump believed that Musk had something secret and magic going on there, these space lasers like that. And I think that that had something to do then with Trump inviting him in and making him co president for the first several months. So that's why I think his claim there is so noteworthy. Because whether or not you believe it as a rational viewer, Trump believed it and Trump acted on it.
- [37:53]
Guest Commentator
Those are interesting dots to connect. Curious what you make of what he could have. Like, what could we be talking about here? Because his claim, like you're saying It's a claim to, you know, someone who he's romantically trying to impress and whatever else. What even like, I'm at a loss for words like what Elon Musk might have act like, what is his anomaly in the matrix actually, in a concrete way, what could this technology be? What could this data harvesting be? I have no idea.
- [38:32]
Emily
Right. I mean, at worst, and what Trump may have assumed is a straight up hacking of voting machines. Like in this whole, you know, every accusation is a confession type of situation. You know, I think Trump spent the last four years marinating in these, in ideas about voting machines getting hacked and Hugo Chavez, you know, coming in and manipulating the 2020 vote even though he's dead, so that Biden would beat Trump. You know, he, he may at this point, you know, be convinced of that himself. So if he thinks the Democrats are doing it, he, he'd be like, oh, wow, I've got my own guy who can do it. There's that or, or there's like, you know, he's got some, you know, data is extraordinarily powerful as a campaign tool. So maybe he, maybe all he means is that he's got some way that, where he's breaking election laws and with the way he's like accessing voter data and merging it with other, maybe publicly available but difficult to find data and then analyzing it in a way that is helping him and then doing this giant lottery and paying people to go out and register people to vote. You know, maybe he means it's that and it a more kind of benign kind of law breaking than the straight up hacking. We don't know. The fact that Ashley Sinclair immediately thought depositions are coming suggests that there probably should be some. Like, we should. This is something we should. These are, these are questions that ought to be answered, I would think.
- [40:09]
Guest Commentator
Well, Musk seemed to agree that depositions could be coming when he responded with what the laughing face emoji. Wise.
- [40:16]
Emily
Yeah, wise. Wise, yes. Don't ask any more questions. But yeah. Is it just Musk trying to impress Ashley Sinclair for those who don't know, like, they end up having what, one baby together? And then there's a, there's some agreement that they have, They've had a falling out. Ashley was recently on Crystal Kyle and Friends where she talked about this also. What is this new genre where people are doing makeup and talking about the
- [40:47]
Guest Commentator
get ready with me genre?
- [40:48]
Emily
It's like, should we adopt that here, you think?
- [40:52]
Guest Commentator
I was just gonna say. I was just gonna say. Cause you're already on TikTok. So it's perfect. I'll film it for you. Or it could be a selfie, but when Ryan spends 10 seconds making sure that his face isn't shiny, that will be the Ryan groom. Get ready with me.
- [41:06]
Emily
GWR blinded people today.
- [41:09]
Guest Commentator
But yes, this is how Ashley Sinclair has has chosen to spill all of these like consequential inside details about or that she learned as part of the I mean it's not she wasn't really part of the conventional conservative movement. That's more like some people derisively refer to it as Con Inc. That's more established and it's a lot of the groups that have been around since like William F. Buckley. But she was part of this kind of new MAGA conservative and has explained about influencers and astroturfing that she saw kind of up close. You have to take some of it, I think with a grain of salt. There's the virality incentive. But also I think she knows that some of this could end up in court. So she's probably speaking with some judiciousness and kind of explaining peeling back the curtain on how the new MAGA media world operates. And then also because she was so close to Elon Musk for a brief period of time, a little bit about how he operates. And again with some really consequential information.
- [42:13]
Emily
Yeah, I think with Ashley Sinclair they thought they had an npc. Turns out they didn't.
- [42:18]
Guest Commentator
Yeah.
- [42:19]
Emily
So I think we're going to continue to find out more. But up next, Mei Vong will be joining us and Emily will be departing. Great to see you this morning and have a good trip back to dc.
- [42:32]
Guest Commentator
Thanks.
- [42:33]
Podcast Announcer
Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures this
- [43:34]
Jacob Goldstein
is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at o d o o.com that's o d o o.com dealing
- [44:07]
Ad Voice
with fatigue, mood changes or skin shifts. Labs keep coming back Normal meat Oestra from Inner Balance all in one doctor prescribed prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream designed for menopause and perimenopause relief. Oestra combines two hormones for relief in one simple treatment, replacing the five or six products many women juggle just one drop 10 seconds a day. Take the quick two minute quiz online. To order Oestra today, visit innerbalance.com to feel like yourself again.
- [44:35]
Emily
That's innerbalance.com joining us now is Mai Vang, who is running in California's 7th congressional district, which encompasses Sacramento, California. Mai, thank you so much for joining us here.
- [44:51]
Mai Vang
Yeah, thank you so much for having me. It's great to be on here today. Good morning to everyone.
- [44:56]
Emily
Yeah, no, I think exciting day in Democratic politics. You just had two kind of big wins for progressives in Pennsylvania, Chris Raab in Philadelphia, and then Bob Brooks up in the Lehigh Valley. But California has such a interesting system with these top two that it ends up producing all sorts of bizarre kind of game theory going on in these races. And so I wanted to start with this really bizarre development that we're seeing where it seems like your opponent, incumbent Doris Matsui, is trying to push into the general election a Republican, which and I think people will be very confused when they first hear that. They'd be like wait a minute, a Democrat is trying to get a Republican elected to off off or into the primary. What on earth is is going on here? But we can put up this first element up on the screen. So Andrew Solander spotted this. I did too. And I just forgot to tweet about it. So the way that campaigns signal to super PACs legally so they're not allowed to coordinate with a super pac. But what they can do is on their website, they can put language that anybody in the public can read, but it's clearly aimed directly at a super pac. So this says what voters need to know. Zachariah Wooden, this is the Republican Wooden has a record of serving the community. This is what voters need to know. According to Doris Matsui, fighting to advance Trump's policies and is endorsed by major GOP groups like the Republican Party of Sacramento, Republican Party of San Joaquin, reform California and Carl DeMeo. And then it goes into real kind of details about what it says. Republican, Republican leading npp, likely primary voters. Nuts. No party preference. Need to see, read and see on the go that Zachariah Wooden is the strongest Republican in the June 2 primary. So there's a lot of coded language going on there. So City councilwoman, can you walk normal people through some of this coded language? So what does it mean, first of all, to say that, quote, voters need to see, read and see on the go. Like, what, what is she trying to say there?
- [47:27]
Mai Vang
Yeah. Well, first let me just say, you know, this is one of the reasons why I'm running. You know, established politicians like Doris Matsui, who's been in office for 21 years, actually, her and her husband, it's a dynasty. They've been in office for almost 47 years, almost half a century, would rather see a Republican empire than pass the torch to the next generation. Right. And what you're seeing in that, in that, on her, on her website, or they call it Redbox, is basically directing her corporate don and her supporters to run mailers to increase name ID among the Republicans and basically to turn out the vote for Republicans in hopes that she would knock me out in the June primaries. In California, we have this thing called jungle primary, and it's the top two vote getters that actually advance to the November election. And we are seeing polls where we are literally neck to neck and that she's losing the Democratic and the declined state base because people are really fed up and tired of the establishment. And she knows this. Her political apparatus that's around her knows this. And so they're trying a different strategy to see if they can knock us out of top two.
- [48:41]
Emily
Yeah. And also I can help decode for people too. See, read and see on the go, as my understanding means. See means basically television ads, read means mailers, mailers. And see on the go means, I think, mobile, basically.
- [48:56]
Mai Vang
Mobile, yeah. Digital ads.
- [48:58]
Emily
So they're being very specific. So she. This is Doris Matui a Democratic incumbent telling her, as you said, major corporate backers, the super pacs, please take out television, digital and mail ads for a Republican so that I don't have to compete with my Democratic opponent in the general election. So let's talk about why. Why doesn't she want to compete with you? What are you running on that would be such a significant difference from the Matsui dynasty.
- [49:31]
Mai Vang
Yeah, I would say a big part of this is because voters across Congressional District 7. But I would say voters across our country is incredibly tired of established politicians that created the conditions for what we have today. I'm entering the space as a community organizer, someone who grew up here in South Sacramento. And I don't have the luxury of waiting on the sideline. There's this unspoken rule. I am a local elected, I'm on the city council and before I was on city council I was a community organizer. But among local elected sister, there's this unspoken rule that you don't do what my vang is doing. You wait your turn and you don't take on an incumbent. Right. And I wasn't even waiting my turn. Didn't even think that I would be running for Congress one day. But I understand the day to day struggles of our working families. I am married to a son of Mexican immigrants. I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. I have families and loved ones that wake up every morning afraid if they're going to be separated by ice. I have family and loved ones and so many residents in our region that's struggling to get by, to pay their mortgage, to put food on the table, to fill up their gas tank. And it's so important that we have elected leaders in the halls of Congress that understand the day to day struggles of our working families. The difference also between me and the my opponent, the incumbent is I don't take any corporate PAC money. And as I've been saying, when you're funded by a corporate, when your campaign is funded by a corporate credit card, you have debt to pay, you won't move with a sense of urgency on Medicare for all. You won't move with a sense of urgency to close detention centers that are separating family and loved ones. And you won't move with a sense of urgency to stop endless wars. The congresswoman hasn't signed on to legislation to block bombs. And under her leadership, ICE budget has tripled under her leadership.
- [51:14]
Emily
And so the district itself, what are the main issues economically? I know Sacramento is, you know, California is, you know, overall compared to the rest of the country, a Pretty wealthy, a pretty wealthy state. Sacramento has always struggled. So what are you pitching, you know, to the people of Sacramento that's going to kind of boost them up?
- [51:39]
Mai Vang
Thanks. So Congressional District 7, just for those that's listening for the first time in terms of what that district is, it is Sacramento, but it also now encompasses, after Prop 50, encompasses, rural areas to El Dorado, Placerville in the Central, a little bit of the Central Valley, Lodi and Gulf in San Joaquin County. And I would say to you, Ryan, you know, affordability is still a huge issue for so many of our working families across the Congressional district. I hear about how hard is it for our families to basically put food on the table to fill up their gas tank. And I know that so many of our working families right now, their premiums are going up. And so affordability is still a huge issue. But on the campaign trail for the past seven months, what I've been hearing is that we gotta get money out of politics, that so many of these congressional seats are bought by corporate PACs or by AIPAC. And so they want to see someone independent, someone going in there fighting for the people. And I have a track record of that as someone that's a community organizer. Our campaign doesn't take any corporate pac. And when I get to the halls of Congress, I want to be fighting for the people that I represent.
- [52:45]
Emily
And as you mentioned, AIPAC has endorsed Matsui over the years, has donated heavily to her campaign. She hasn't signed on to the Block the Bombs Act. I'm curious how far you go on that question. AOC and even J Street recently said that the US should not be subsidizing any weapons for Israel, offensive or defensive. And if they want weapons, they can buy themselves. Where do you come down on that question? Because others have gone even further and said, no, they should actually be sanctioned. And as long as they are engaged in human rights abuses, we should not be selling them weapons, period. Even if they're paying for them.
- [53:27]
Mai Vang
Yeah. I mean, my position is I'm the only candidate in this race that have called what has happened a genocide. Even before I made the decision to run for Congress, I led the effort for a ceasefire resolution in the the city of Sacramento. And there are Palestinian families right here in our region that have lost entire generation of their family because of this genocide. And you're absolutely right. The congresswoman has taken money from aipac and she has consistently voted for more and more of our tax dollars to buy weapons for Israel. My position on that is that we should not be spending our tax dollar defensive or offensive because they are committing a genocide and human rights violation. And so that is my position. And a big part of this is also because I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. My parents came over here because of war. And I understand the generational trauma that that war has on families, the displacement and the harm that that caused for so many lives. And so for me, Gaza is a test of our moral clarity and courage in this moment.
- [54:26]
Emily
And what would it take to get to a place where. So yesterday, for instance, there were reports that the International Criminal Court had issued an arrest warrant for Itamar Ben gvir. Ben GVIR responded by demanding the ethnic cleansing of another village in the West Bank. Where do you stand on sanctions for officials like that?
- [54:55]
Mai Vang
Yeah, I think I support boycotting divestment and sanctions. Absolutely. That's always been my position.
- [55:04]
Emily
Now, immigration is also a huge issue in your race, as I understand it. Where do you come down on the question of what ICE is doing, whether ICE should continue as an agency, and if it shouldn't, what should immigration enforcement look like?
- [55:23]
Mai Vang
Yeah, thanks for that question. I fundamentally believe that we should abolish ice. I don't think you could reform an agency that is killing U.S. citizens, killing people on the street. You can't reform an agency that pulls people over based on the color of their skin, the language that they speak, where they work, and it is corrupt and immoral. And the congresswoman, my opponent has taken money from ICE contractors and people with huge contracts to help set up ICE detention centers. And she's often been late to and ineffective to the issue. And we do really need bold and courageous leadership in this moment to dismantle this immoral agency. And look, I always share, ICE didn't exist before 2003 and it was under INS. For me, at the end of the day, ICE is really not about enforcement, but it's about terrorizing our black or brown, our immigrant and refugee communities. I think what we need to do as a government is to invest in robust, nimble and strategic administrative state that includes our immigration system. Right. Establishing an accessible pathway to legal status for our TPS recipients, our dreamers. I have family members who are our daca. And I think that we have to really, we have to, you know, make sure that we have a pathway for them. But we also, like Congress, also needs to increase funding and staffing for federal agency. We gotta modernize our immigration courts with digital case systems, reduce visa asylum process backlogs. And the last piece is we have to end all inhumane deportation and detention programs and we have babies and families being separated from their parents. And that shouldn't be happening in the United States. We need to be closing all these detention centers. That's literally profiting. These detention centers are profiting from these detentions.
- [57:12]
Emily
What about on the question of the AI data center moratorium that Bernie Sanders has as proposed and then in general, how would you, how do you see, what do you see the federal government's role in kind of regulating AI and AI safety?
- [57:27]
Mai Vang
Yeah, I support the, the AI data monitoring monitorium that Bernie and AOC has put forth. I often share, you know, when I'm trying to explain AI even to like my elders, I share with them. You know, just like we don't expect the oil industry or tobacco or alcohol industry to regulate itself. We shouldn't allow AI and that one and the 1% and billionaires and a very small handful of rich people to decide, you know, the future of AI. It should, we should put a moratorium on it and we should make sure that we have safeguards. And so that is my position.
- [58:03]
Emily
And what about on the wealth tax? I know California is putting forward this kind of 5%, one time tax. Ro Khanna's got a primary challenger because he, he supports it. Where are you on that and more, more generally, what can we do about income and wealth inequality when it comes to tax policy?
- [58:23]
Mai Vang
Yeah, I actually support the wealth tax on the ballot. That's on the ballot measure. I think it's incredibly important that we make sure that the, the billionaires pay their fair share. And I think, I think there's, there's several things we can do. One, we could fund it through by closing corporate tax lo loopholes and raising tax on billionaires. I'm in large corporations. That's always been my position. I think no one ever just becomes a billionaires. They become a billionaire by the working class families. And it's incredibly important that they pay their fair share.
- [58:54]
Emily
And can you talk a little bit about, a little more about your background and how your family got here? Because I think it always is interesting to have people in Congress who, whose families have been on the kind of other side of the American gun. So how does your family get here and how has that kind of shaped your politics?
- [59:20]
Mai Vang
Thanks, thanks for asking that question. Well, you know, I didn't come into politics through a dynasty like my opponent or through money. I am a daughter of Hmong refugees. I was born and raised here, but my parents came here as refugees. I am the proud daughter of Hmong refugees. I'm the oldest of 16 children in my family, the first to go to college. But for those that may not know about the Hmong people, during the Vietnam War, the United States, the CIA, recruited the Hmong to fight in guerrilla warfare to stop the supply the weapon supply through the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And the Hmong people were mountain people, and we knew that region better than anyone else. And so the United States recruited the Hmong people to fight in the secret war of Laos during the Vietnam War. And as you all know, that was a war that the United States should have not engaged in. And when they withdrew their troops, there was persecution and genocide of our people because we allied with the United States. And I often share that. You know, our people fought for democracy before we even stepped foot onto this country. Over 40,000 villagers and Hmong soldiers ages 10 and up, because they actually recruited young boys ages 10 and up to fight in the secret war of Laos. That's an undercount. Actually. We know that the number is much higher than that. My parents were actually the villagers that were impacted. And Laos is one most bomb country in the world. My parents fled the war, was in the jungle for about six to eight months, crossed the Mekong river, and then made it to Thailand to seek refuge. And then they came to the United States, and they settled here in Sacramento. And my grandparents didn't have any formal education. They were just villagers. And so they rented land in Elk Grove, which is in Congressional District 7, and they grew vegetables, and they were farmers under the farmer's market at the Farmer's. The freeway, this very big, popular farmer's market in Sacramento, you just say the farmers market under the freeway in downtown. People know exactly what farmer's market that is. But growing up, I remember just helping my grandma and grandpa sell fruits and vegetables. And then my parents came here as teenagers, went through our public school system, but didn't graduate high school because they couldn't speak English. And so they went to alternative school to get their ged. And then I went through a public school system, grew up on food stamps. And my high school teacher told me that if I went to college, it was going to be my one ticket out of poverty. And so I left because of poverty. But poverty is also the reason why I came back home. I went to UCLA for college. And after I graduated from ucla, I realized that, you know, what good is it to have two masters from UCLA from a public university, one of the top public universities, when your family and your community is still struggling? And so I came back Home to help mom and dad pay the bills, take care of my siblings. And then when I came back to Sacramento, I looked around Ryan, and realized that not a lot had changed, that so many of our underserved communities were lacking resources. And so I had learned about organizing community activism. When I was in college, I worked for Apollo, the Asian Pacific American labor alliance, did some organizing, voter education outreach for the Obama campaign in LA when I was a grad student and took those skills and started just building here in South Sacramento and started an organization called Hip Hmong Innovating Politics. We're a grassroots organization. At that time we were scrappy organizer with money in our shoebox underneath someone's bed. But we became this political force in Sacramento, organizing our parents to fight for their students education. Fast forward. I'm on the city council now, always fighting for our families and our communities. And yes, it's no secret that I am the progressive on the city council. But we've been able to get a lot of work done securing millions for so many communities, passing the first ever Sacramento Children's Fund ballot initiative. And I never thought that I would would be here today, Ryan, if you told me on May 20, because today's May 20 in 2025 that I would be running for Congress, I probably wouldn't believe you. The decision to run for Congress didn't happen until the fall of and a big part of that was my anger and frustration at the lack of responsiveness and fight from our congresswoman. And you know, I don't take running against an incumbent lightly. I always knew it was going to be an uphill battle. But I don't have the luxury of waiting on the sidelines while our democracy is on fire and our families are living in fear. And I want to be able to look back on this moment, tell all my nieces and nephews and my two boys that when Trump was in office, I did everything I could to protect their future.
- [64:09]
Emily
Just last thing for you, was there anything that kind of flipped you from kind of normal person in the world going from, you know, poor working class, then you go to college that flipped you into and politicized you? Was there a moment where you're like, I need what? And what was that?
- [64:29]
Mai Vang
It was I was sitting in my sociology class and I read one line about the Hmong people. And Ryan, you know, growing up in Sacramento, I really growing up in Sacramento as a daughter refugee, I really internalized poverty. I was that good, obedient Hmong daughter. I cooked, I cleaned, I took care of my siblings. But I never understood why my family was poor. And it wasn't until I went to college that I read one line about the Hmong people that we were recruited by the United States to fight in the secret war of Laos. And everything clicked for me of like displacement, why I grew up in poverty. And that was the moment that I realized that oftentimes the system is fixed for the wealthy and not for all of us. It's not the reason why we have the outcomes that we have today. And that was the beginning of my political awakening. I remember going back home that day to my dorm and calling my father and I'm translating from Hmong to English. And I had called him because I had to do a paper in my sociology class. And I asked him, I said, dad, did you know we were involved in the Vietnam War? And he said yes. And I asked him, I said, how come you never told me? And he said to me, well, you never asked. In some ways, when I reflect back on our conversation, I think my father and my mother really wanted me just to focus on school. And they didn't want to talk about the war, they didn't want to be re traumatized and they just wanted their kids to go to college and find a good job and become self sufficient. But reading about my people was that political awakening and recognizing just US imperialism and the injustice that we have in this country among so many people. And so that was the first chapter of my political awakening really.
- [66:16]
Emily
And as I'm sure you know this too, you know Henry Kissinger, one of the architects of that specific policy, one of his famous quotes, it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal. And it goes to the way that the United States often finds people who have their own particular interests, which happen in the moment to align with the United States. The Hmong people, of course, over a long period of time, oppressed by that Laotian government, hostile to various Vietnamese factions, whether they were communist or non communist. And so the US is able to then come in and kind of exploit those sentiments and say, arm them, get them moving. And they feel like, oh, this is our shot at our own liberation. But as Henry Kissinger himself will tell you, that alliance is fake. The United States has an extremely consistent practice of betraying those people after they're no longer useful. So I think it'd be interesting if you can actually win to have somebody in Congress who understands that in a visceral way.
- [67:34]
Mai Vang
Yeah. And when we win, I would be the first Hmong ever in Congress. I don't believe we've ever had a Hmong person in Congress. And so, so I know that our community is incredibly excited about the campaign and we're excited, too. But I'm running, you know, some folks have said, mai, you're to be the first Hmong congresswoman. And I said, actually, I'm running to try to address the first month's rent. But yes, I am also Hmong, unapologetically Hmong as well, and incredibly proud to be Hmong American.
- [68:08]
Emily
And the only other person that maybe has that visceral understanding, of course, in Congress, is Ilhan Omar. And she's the, correct me if I'm wrong, she's the supporter of your campaign.
- [68:18]
Mai Vang
We're also hoping to lock in that endorsement.
- [68:22]
Emily
Not supporter of your campaign. She's been a supporter of you. She's said nice things about you. But it would be, it's difficult for an incumbent to endorse against another incumbent. So we'll see if, we'll see if that happens.
- [68:37]
Mai Vang
Yes, yes.
- [68:38]
Emily
But we know that she said kind things, things about your previous work. Mai Vang, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.
- [68:46]
Mai Vang
Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me on.
- [68:49]
Emily
You got it. All right, that'll do it for us today. I'll actually be back tomorrow with Sagar for a bro show, so don't miss that. See you then.
- [69:14]
Jacob Goldstein
This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive. And when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting, all linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at O D O o dot com. That's O D O o dot com
- [69:58]
Ad Voice
dealing with fatigue, mood changes or skin shifts. Labs keep coming back normal. Meet Oestra from Inner balance all in one. Dr. Prescribed prescription strength bioidentical hormone cream designed for menopause and perimenopause relief. Oestra combines two hormones for relief in one simple treatment. Replacing the five or six products, many women juggle just one drop, 10 seconds a day. Take the quick two minute quiz online. To order Oestra today, visit innerbalance.com to feel like yourself again.
- [70:27]
Ryan Grim
That's innerbalance.com this is Bethany Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel. Most dog food is marketing, not nutrition. That is why Biggie and Smalls eat just food for dogs. Real 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize. And yes, I do see the difference. Better digestion, healthier skin, more energy. Dogs that feel better. My babies, if you've been on the fence about switching, stop overthinking it. What's more important than your furry babies and their health? Go to justfoodfordogs.com right now and get 50% off your first box. No code needed. Just try it.
- [71:05]
Rob Flaherty
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.