The Massive Shift in the 2028 Presidential Race

Summary

---

Podcast Summary:

Next Up with Mark Halperin
Episode: The Massive Shift in the 2028 Presidential Race
Date: July 7, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this far-reaching and fast-paced episode, Mark Halperin analyzes the dramatic changes shaping the Democratic presidential field for 2028, unveiling his latest “8 for 28” nominee rankings. He explores the growing power of the progressive wing, rising questions about the roles of “outsider” candidates, and how party divisions are impacting the national political and media landscape. Halperin is joined by conservative commentator Erick Erickson and Democratic strategist Melissa DeRosa for a deep dive into the Maine Senate race's latest scandal and what it reveals about party leadership—and dysfunction—across the board.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Unveiling “8 for 28”: Halperin’s Democratic Nominee Rankings

• Halperin’s July List:

  1. Gavin Newsom
  2. Pete Buttigieg
  3. Bernie Sanders
  4. Gov. Josh Shapiro
  5. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
  6. Kamala Harris
  7. John Ossoff
  8. Ro Khanna

• Factors in Ranking:

  • Likelihood to run, not just electability.
  • Importance of candidate identity (age, ideology, religion).
  • Uncertainty over primary schedule, potential for dramatic changes month-to-month.
  • “I factor in likelihood that the person will run. So Wes Moore … I don’t think Wes Moore is going to run in the end. Same with Mark Kelly.” (04:10)

• Noteworthy Movement:

  • Newsom remains #1, but Halperin doubts he will run.
  • Buttigieg rises to #2; Sanders leaps to #3.
  • Kamala Harris drops from #3 to #6.
  • New inclusion of AOC and Ro Khanna, reflecting a more “progressive” list than in previous months.
  • Jewish candidates considered but ranked cautiously due to party dynamics over Israel.

• Progressive Ascendancy:

  • “I have three progressive candidates on the list … the progressive wing of the party is ascendant.” (04:54)
  • “The toughest thing to do is to stop a socialist from being the nominee. But the second toughest thing is to become the nominee as a socialist.” (05:23)

Memorable Quote

“He’s the leader of the socialist movement… Even though he’s kind of played down the prospect of running, I really do believe his strength is big.” — Mark Halperin on Bernie Sanders, (06:14)

---

2. Is It Sanders’ Moment—or Someone Else’s?

• On Bernie’s Strengths and Weaknesses:
  • Age is his major liability—but “he doesn’t look as old, doesn’t act as old as his age.”
  • Sanders’ robust recent appearances cited as evidence (quotes from his June rally at 06:40).
  • “I say, tell me his second biggest weakness for winning the nomination. I don’t know what it is...” (06:08)
• If Not Bernie...
  • AOC or Khanna as possible successors, but considered less likely due to experience and leadership status.

Notable Audio Moments

Bernie Sanders at Rally:
“You want to run for office … you say, I’m going to stand up for the working class… the billionaires and their super PACs will spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat you. That is not democracy, ladies and gentlemen.” (06:49)

---

3. The Progressive Wave and Party Fractures

• Expansion of Progressive Influence:
  • Electoral victories in Colorado and New York are shifting perceptions.
  • Establishment candidates are “weaker than they’ve ever been, progressives are stronger.”
  • Democratic candidates feel compelled to “cater to the progressive wing.”
• Party Identity Crisis:
  • “Tens of millions of you, including Donald Trump, oppose socialism. The Republicans will use the nomination of socialist candidates, calling them communists, to try to define the entire Democratic Party.” (18:57)
  • Democratic officials privately fear being defined as pro-socialist or anti-Israel but aren’t openly challenging the left.

Notable Quote

“They’re accepting a definition of the Democratic Party in 2026 that’s going to bleed into 2028.” — Mark Halperin (20:01)

---

4. Voice from the Center: Reluctance to Draw “Red Lines”

Gov. Josh Shapiro’s Comments (on CNN)

• When asked about a controversial socialist candidate:

“She’s not someone, you know, who seemingly I would agree with on many things... She ran on the Democratic ticket, I guess, as a socialist. Her voters in that district determined that she was the one they wanted representing her… I think what our party has to go through that will be very healthy… is to have a battle over what we believe in.” (21:13-21:32)

• Halperin’s Assessment:
  • Shapiro uses “battle,” hints at future debate—but for now, is “giving them a pass.”

Gov. Andy Beshear’s Comments

• On the rise of socialism:

“The Democratic base isn’t necessarily moving one direction or another. They’re just desperate for help… There’s a through-line between the socialists who are winning and the more moderates who are winning.” (22:05)

• Halperin’s verdict:
  • No establishment Democrat is putting a “stake in the ground” against socialism right now.

---

5. AOC Pushes Back Against “Panic”

“You will create a self-fulfilling prophecy by deciding who these young women are before you’ve met them… If you are already panicking... you are creating the antagonistic dynamic that we do not need. These are two young, talented, intelligent women that got elected against all odds, against millions of dollars. Perhaps there is something we can learn from them.” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Jen Psaki (24:54)

• Halperin:
  • Agrees with her on “learning from” outsiders, but warns the party’s identity is being defined by the positions of its most left-wing members.

---

6. Outsider Energy—But At What Cost?

• Summary:
  • The Democratic field is “more outsider than socialist,” but for a candidate to win, they must channel the anti-establishment sentiment.
  • “Within both parties ... establishment is out, anti-establishment is in, outsider is in, insider is out.” (26:45)
  • Halperin says if things continue, Bernie Sanders could move to his #1 spot, given his anti-establishment profile.

---

7. The Maine Senate Race Scandal: Halperin, Erickson & DeRosa

Why Did Democrats Turn on Platner So Quickly? (32:10-34:39)

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • “I don’t understand… they had me at Nazi tattoo.”
  • “Why this thing was the thing that really caused everyone to flip… a rape allegation is something that cannot go ignored.”

• Erick Erickson:

  • “I think it’s Fox News is why… a very credible poll in Maine has Platner behind Collins.”
  • As soon as polling shifted, party elites coordinated to push Platner out.
  • “If the race had not shifted, if Platner was still ahead, I don’t know that we would be where we are right now.”

On Platner’s Viability

• DeRosa:
  • “He was becoming a liability for the party nationally… Everyone had to, you know, anywhere you go, the reporter sticks the microphone in your face. You’ve got to now wear whatever this is.”
  • Both DeRosa and Erickson argue more allegations will appear, making his position untenable.

On Establishment Control

• DeRosa:
  • “I can’t imagine that there aren’t conversations that are going on right now between Schumer and Gillibrand and the main Democratic Party.” (37:10)
  • Influence is likely, but open “control” would backlash amid the anti-establishment mood.

On Senate Control Prospects

• Both guests are skeptical Democrats can net four seats without Maine, looking to North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas as long shots.

On Accountability & Party Leadership

• DeRosa:
  • “The Democratic Party is in shambles right now. There is no leadership whatsoever…” (42:44)
  • “Bernie Sanders, who is not even a registered Democrat, is the de facto head of the party. There is this cult like environment right now with the DSA and the far fringe that is sort of filling a vacuum.”

---

8. The Media’s Performance—and Failures

• Halperin:
  • Criticizes professional failures in covering Biden’s health, efforts to block Trump, and the New York Times’ handling of sexual assault stories.
• Erickson:
  • “We need a free and fair press. And frankly, I think the reason our republic has gotten to the point it has politically is because we don’t have a press anymore that is free and fair…” (48:18)
• DeRosa:
  • Recalls when the NYT had a public editor: “They got rid of the only accountability they had in house, which should tell you everything you need to know…”
  • “The way that they cover this—if it was Donald Trump, if it was … any big Republican, wouldn’t matter who—they would have slaughtered them…” (49:43)

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “The toughest thing to do is to stop a socialist from being the nominee. The second toughest thing is to become the nominee as a socialist.” — Mark Halperin (05:23)

• “You’re creating the antagonistic dynamic that we do not need... Perhaps there is something we can learn from them.” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (24:54)

• “The Democratic Party is in shambles right now. There is no leadership whatsoever…” — Melissa DeRosa (42:44)

• “We don’t really have a press anymore that is free and fair… they decide to be ideologically captured.” — Erick Erickson (48:18)

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• 8 for 28 Unveiling & Methodology – 00:02–11:00
• Sanders, the Progressive Surge, and 'Old is Okay’ – 05:00–07:49
• Jewish Candidates, Israel, and the Party Divide – 11:00–17:00
• Progressive Victories & Party Panic – 18:56–26:00
• Shapiro, Beshear, and the Search for Moderation – 21:13–22:05
• AOC’s Advice to the Establishment – 24:54–25:49
• Maine Senate Race Deep Dive (with DeRosa and Erickson) – 32:10–54:45
• Media Critique & Accountability Concerns – 47:07–53:03

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers an unflinching look at the unsettled state of the Democratic Party—as told through Halperin’s snapshot rankings and a roundtable on the Maine Senate crisis. The rise of the progressive/“outsider” wing, establishment hesitation, unresolved divisions over Israel and socialism, and media missteps all portend a turbulent run-up to 2028. Both parties, guests agree, are defined less by a cohesive center than by battles for the soul of the base—leaving more questions than answers for listeners and voters alike.

---

For listeners seeking a pulse on 2028 and the massive party shifts still underway, Halperin and guests offer a trenchant—and at times, biting—diagnosis of American politics at the midpoint of the decade.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Everybody. Welcome into NextUp with me Mark Halpern, your host of NextUp, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform Two Way. And glad to have you here. Big news week, big exciting program for you. First, wishing everybody had a great holiday despite what happened to the US team in the World cup celebrating the 250th birthday of America. And hope you had a pleasant time and a safe time with your family and friends. Joining us in the program today, two of the sharpest political minds I know, Erik Erickson, host, the Erik Erickson show, who's a two Way contributor and author of a Great substack, will be here and Democratic strategist, regular on two ways. Well, Melissa DeRosa, we're going to talk about the main Senate race and what's going on there with Graham Platner, what it means for the Democrats, for the Republicans, for control of the Senate and for the media. They'll be here in just a bit. But before that, as always, at the beginning of every month, I bring you my brand new 8 for 28 installment. These are the rankings of the most likely Democratic presidential nominees. We'll now gonna tell you about July. A lot of big changes. And boy, I've been doing so much reporting on this with Democrats and some Republicans, but mostly Democrats about what's going on and normal caveats. This is just about winning the nomination. This is not about the general election. Who's the most likely to be nominated. I factor in likelihood that the person will run. So Westmore is I think he's been on the list maybe once. I don't think Westmore is going to run in the end. Same with Mark Kelly. People tell me all the time, oh, they're really exciting candidates if they would run. But I don't think they will. Now, there are people on my list who may not run or who I'm not sure will run, but that's a big factor. Another caveat is we still don't know the schedule of how people are going to be nominated, where the early primaries are going to be. We got some sense of things, but they've not finalized it. And that will, that will affect the rankings for sure. But where we are now is super important. And what I'm going to talk about today, besides the rankings for July is something really important to think about, which is using the status of the presidential field, who's up, who's down, but also what they're talking about, where they're traveling, what conflicts and controversies are swirling around them as a prism to understand the state of the Democratic Party, the state of our politics, the state of the country. That's why when people tell me it's too early to talk about this, but it's too early to be definitive, I can't tell you my list is going to be the same in a month or five months. It certainly won't be. But what I can tell you is, and this has been my whole career, the best prism, or maybe not the best, although I think it is, but one of the best prisms to understand America, our politics, our hopes, dreams and aspirations, is to look at people who want to be president, what's up with them. And so I'm going to talk about that as well. I'm going to talk about how the rankings give us insight into where we are as a country. But first, let's just talk about the rankings. Here they are unveiling here for the first time, 8 for, 28 for July, and a lot of big changes in terms of who's on the list in movement. Gavin Newsom remains at number one. He's been number one every month, even though you guys know I have a strong sense he won't run in the end. Pete Buttigieg moves up to number two. Bernie Sanders moves up to number three, Governor Shapiro, who's had that two slot for most of the time, down to number four, Kamala or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on back on the list at number five, Kamala Harris, way down on the list at number six, John Ossoff, a little bit down at seven and Ro Khanna, who's been on the list once or twice before, back on the list at number eight. Now you look at this list overall, what are the sort of slots I think about first of all, and we'll talk more about this, is is Jewish candidates between prospective candidates who are Jewish. I still talk to a lot of people who say it cannot be a Jewish candidate, that the mood of the party base is so angry about Israel that it won't be a Jewish candidate. And yet Bernie Sanders is Jewish, but he's not Jewish, if you know what I mean. So he's a little bit of a wild card. But Josh Shapiro and John Osof are both Jewish. Not on my list. Jewish candidates include Rahm Emanuel and Governor Pritzker. Take them off the list for now. But still, two Jewish candidates, prospective candidates on here and then progressives. This is probably the biggest change this week. Some people think I'm overreacting. I don't. I have three progressive candidates on the list, three Candidates, maybe from. You call it the Mondame wing of the Democratic Party, whatever you want to call it. Sanders number three, super controversial. I even have him on the list at all, given his age. Then Jon Ossoff, sorry, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ro Khanna. Three candidates on the list who are from that wing of the party. Why do I do that? I do that because I really do think the socialist wing, the progressive wing of the party, is ascendant. And as you've heard me say before, Sanders would have been the nominee in 16 had he not been cheated out of it. He would have been the nominee in 20 if the establishment hadn't mobilized. I really do believe that that wing of the party is. Is going to be nominated. There's a. There's an old saying in baseball. I forget who said it. The toughest thing in sports, all sports is, is hitting a baseball. It's the toughest thing. And then they say the second toughest thing is stopping somebody from hitting the ball. Okay? I believe right now, in democratic politics, presidential politics, the toughest thing to do is to stop a socialist from being the nominee. But the second toughest thing to do is to become the nominee as a socialist. And that's why I've got Bernie Sanders in number three, rising. I really do believe Bernie Sanders has a great chance to be the nominee. The biggest, the biggest barrier is his age, okay? But he is the leader of the socialist movement. He's an experienced presidential candidate. And even though he's kind of played down the prospect of running, I really do believe his strength is, is. Is. Is big, is that I ask people all the time who tell me, take Sanders off the list. He's too old. I say, tell me his second biggest weakness for winning the nomination. I don't know what it is. He'll raise money. He's got name id. He's strong in the early states. He knows how to run for president. Now people tell me he's old. And, and I don't, I don't, I don't. I don't ignore the calendar. But what I know about Bernie Sanders is that he. That he doesn't look as old, doesn't act as old as his age. Okay, here's Bernie Sanders. This is from. At a rally in June. This is going to be S5. You tell me if this guy seems to have mental acuity and strength, physical and mental strength to run for president. S5, please. You want to run for office? You want to run for local office? You want to run for State office. You want to run for Congress and you get involved in a campaign, you say, I'm going to stand up for the working class of this country and you run a good campaign, you know what happens to you? The billionaires and their super PACs will spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat you. That is not democracy, ladies and gentlemen. That's an 84 year old man last month. And I watch a lot of Bernie Sanders events. He is robust and so all other things being equal, would it be better if he were younger? Of course. But he's not. And here's another piece of video. This is from just literally a day later on social media. This is a Bernie Sanders video that he posted at 6. Please. Thank you all for joining me

[B]

in

[A]

the midst of these really crazy times in our country. I wanted to say a few words about the political situation as I see it, as I think all of you know, our political revolution, our grassroots movement, was never, ever about electing one person to become President of the United States. Not Bernie Sanders, not anybody else. So I think the three biggest questions right now in this, in this field is this question of whether socialists will be nominated and if it's not Sanders again, I've got, I've got Ocasio, Cortez and Kana on there. They're just not in his category. They don't have his experience. They're not the leaders of the movement. And I don't think she's going to run. So the Bernie question to me is huge. And again, I talk to people in the establishment all the time and they tell me a Bernie will never run. I just, I think they're, they're out of touch with, with where the party is. And I think they're right again, all other things being equal, you wouldn't want somebody that old. But I just don't think they're, I just don't think they're, I just don't think they understand the power he has over tens of millions of people in this country. Quickly show you June's list. Just to give you some idea of where we were. Kamala Harris, I had her at number three. I've dropped her way down. Rahm Emanuel's, another Jewish candidate, Pritzker. So last month I had. Half the candidates were Jews, if you count, if you count Sanders and, and I didn't have either AOC or, or Ro Khanna on there. Go back to the July list. So the big number one big question is, is Sanders going to run? Am I right that the vacuum will be Big and he'll run. And. And the related question is, okay, if it's not Sanders, is it AOC or Conor, or is there a fourth socialist candidate who can run super progressive? We don't want to call them socialist. Maybe that's question one. Question two is Harris. Is Kamala Harris gonna run again? I talked to some of my sources say definitely I've dropped her way down. She was number three, dropped her down to six. I tend to think there's. There's kind of three options. She doesn't run. She runs and she does well. She runs and she does poorly. I think she runs and does poorly and doesn't run. Averages adds up to way more than 50 here of the, of the pie chart. So that's why I've dropped her down to six. But that's a big question because if she runs, she takes up a lot of space with grassroots fundraising, with media attention and with black voters and female black voters. So that's question number two. And then number three is one I already raised, which is Jewish voters. Okay, how big a deal? Or Jewish candidates, rather. How big a deal will Israel and questions of, of support for Israel. How big a deal will that be? I talked to people months ago when I was doing reporting for 8 for 28 who said it's dominant. That's why there can't be a Jewish candidate who can be nominated. And that's why every candidate is going to have to pander to the anti Israeli sentiment if they want to be the nominee. That Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were paralyzed in the White House over this issue and ended up alienating everybody. Didn't do enough to inspire the anti Israeli part of the Democratic Party, but also didn't do enough to support Israel, kind of in the no man's land in between. What a lot of people said to me this month when I was doing my reporting was you need a placeholder on there. You need a progressive placeholder because it's not going to be Bernie, AOC or Khana. You need an outsider, someone not from politics. As a placeholder on there, you need a stronger establishment candidate. As a placeholder, ladies and gentlemen, I don't do placeholders in 8 for 28. I need real flesh and blood names. I get why people think there should be placeholders. As weak as this field is, and as. And as a relatively low belief I have that any of these folks are going to grow into a better candidate than they appear to be today. Could happen, but I don't think so. I believe the Field is maybe not just these eight. Newsom, Buttigieg, Sanders, Shapiro, Casio, Cortez, Harris, Ossof and Kana. But I believe that some combination of these eight will run and will be the dominant figures in the contest. I don't believe in the placeholder theory. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. All right, I want to talk after we take a quick break about the role that the rise the progressive movement is playing in the party. I, I, I have, I, I'm trying not to overreact to the victories of progressive candidates in Colorado and New York last week. The, the ascendancy of the progressive views on Israel, on, on economics. I'm trying not to overreact to it. But I have no doubt that the establishment is weaker than it's ever been, that the progressives are stronger than they've been in the, in the, in this modern era. And I have no doubt that, that the establishment candidates recognize that they have to cater to the, to the, to the progressive wing. How do I know that or how do I think that so strongly? I think that's so strongly because of what's happened in the last few weeks as the establishment candidates have dealt with the election denomination of socialists. Okay, so we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to look at how candidates who know better, who don't agree with socialism and don't agree with pro Hamas points of view, how they've been handling the rise of socialism in the party. That's next up. So life insurance, we all know we need it, but we keep putting it off because it feels complicated, expensive and like something that can wait. I'm telling you now, stop waiting, take care of it. Today with selectquote in just 15 minutes, high quality coverage can be secured to fit any life and any budget. Here's what makes Selectquote different. Their licensed insurance agents work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trusted carriers to find the right coverage at the absolute lowest price. Unlike other brokers who push policies that pay them the most, Select Quote agents actually shop around. With nearly 40 years of experience and over 2 million families helped, this is expertise that you can trust. Even with health issues like high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the very best rate. And for those in good health, same day coverage is available with no medical exam required. Don't delay the peace of mind you need select quote. They shop, you save, get the right life insurance for you for less at selectquote.com, again, go to selectquote.com mark today to get started. Across the country, UnitedHealth Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the good acre provide 45,000 meals and lower A1C in the twin Cities and helping hello Family doulas deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg. Because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn [e-mail] commitment. All right, welcome back. Next up is the prism. I think to understand what's going on with the Democratic Party and the country, tens of millions of you, including Donald Trump, oppose socialism. The Republicans will use the nomination of socialist candidates, calling them communists, to try to define the entire Democratic Party. And if you talk privately to Democratic elected officials who are not socialists and donors and strategists, they're really scared by this. They try to pretend they aren't, but they're really scared by it. They're scared by it because they don't want the party to be defined as socialist, as pro Hamas or anti Israel. But that's where the energy of the party is. That is where the energy in the party. And so since the election of the nomination of these Democrats, I've been reading a lot and talking to a lot of people and asking the question, where is the Democratic Party right now for 26 for the midterms and then for 28 for the presidential? And how powerful is the pro open border, pro woke, pro dei, anti pro Hamas, anti Israel, pro socialist economics? How powerful is that wing? It was, it was the liberal wing was very powerful in the 1980s when Democrats lost to Ronald Reagan, who won in two landslides in 80 and 84. And then Bill Clinton came in and said, we're not going to win another election after Dukakis lost to Bush 41. We're not going to win another election unless we bring the party back to the center. And a candidate of uncommon strength and skill and understanding of the mood of the country and his party was able to win the Democratic nomination, saying, I'm for the death penalty, I'm for welfare reform, I'm for right to work, I'm for free trade, all of which were antithetical to Democratic Party. A candidate today like that would have to say, I'm against socialism, I'm against open borders, I'm against hostility to Israel. These are, these are, these are positions far I'm against. I'm against trans athletes playing in women's sports. I'm against the socialist takeover of the economy. I'm against government funded health care and elimination of the private market in health care. These are positions now far to the left of the ones Bill Clinton stood up for. Up stood up against. And yet those are the positions of many people in the Democratic Party today, including some people who've been nominated. So here's, here's what Andrew Sullivan, a very smart guy, wrote this week in his newsletter. All of which suggests to me that the Democrats are exactly where they were in 2024 and have no inclination to change. Maybe a Clinton or Obama like candidate can alter that. Maybe what liberal tendencies remain in the left will push back against the suffocating moral clarity. But all I see is fanaticism and a reboot, a reboot of the full 2020 Monty, open borders, DEI boys and girls showers, hatred of Israel, hostility to the police, queer revolt and tolerance of crime. Andrew Sullivan, I believe is exactly right there. That is the danger. Democrats can do well in the midterms without taking this on. And I think what we're seeing from these Democratic candidates now who are thinking of running for president, they're trying to keep the peace for now, but the danger is they're defining themselves in the public mind and they're coddling the progressives. They're coddling the socialists in a way that maybe they think they can bide their time and take them on later. And maybe they can, but they're accepting a definition of the Democratic Party in 2026 that's going to bleed somewhat into 2028. And if the socialists win, because they're not, they're not taken on now by the Democrats, the Republicans will take them on, but they're not taking on Democrats, it's going to embolden them. Remember, if you're a socialist or a super progressive, you haven't had a chance to see a fair vote cast for your candidate for president since in over a decade. In 2016, you say I social said I'm for Bernie Sanders. And then the Democratic establishment, the DNC rigged the system against so Sanders couldn't beat Clinton. And then in 2020, you're socialist, you want to vote for Bernie Sanders and have him have a chance to win. And Barack Obama and Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar close ranks around Joe Biden. Joe Biden wins even though Bernie Sanders, if they hadn't done that, would have swept on Super Tuesday and likely been the nominee. And then in 2024 Biden is an incumbent. Nothing he can do. No one will run against him. He steps aside. They hand it to Kamala Harris, another establishment figure, who, by the way, is reaching out to the progressives in a big way. So this last week, I did a lot of reporting with my colleagues. We looked at, and I talked to folks and say, who in the party is standing up to the socialists? Who's standing up to all these positions that Andrew Sullivan warns will define the Democratic Party? And the candidate most likely to do it, I thought, would be Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. He's running for election in a purple state. He's a. He's a pretty moderate guy. He's not a guy who, who's a socialist. Here's what Governor Shapiro said on CNN when he was asked about this woman, Chevalier, who's the Democratic nominee, beat a House incumbent in New York City. Here's what he was asked when he. About her past controversial statements. Anti Israel, pro Hamas, anti police, anti prison, et cetera, et cetera. Here's Governor Shapiro on CNN. S1, please. And she's not someone, you know, who seemingly I would agree with on many things or that we share similar values. She ran on the Democratic ticket, I guess, as a socialist. Her voters in that district determined that she was the one they wanted representing her. What does that tell you about your party? I think what our party has to

[B]

go through that will be very healthy

[A]

and something we've not really done since the 1992 election cycle, is to have a battle over what we believe in. Now, look, he downplayed her views. He's, you know, he said, I don't agree. I would not agree with them. But that, that's not, that's not putting a stake in the sand against socialism. He did use the word battle, more than one of my sources said. To me, battle's a key word. He's forecasting that he's going to battle this out over ideas when the time comes, and maybe that'll happen. But in the meantime, as I said, he's given. He's given them a pass. Okay. Same with everyone else we surveyed. Believe it or not, the use of battle by Governor Shapiro is probably the biggest stake in the ground we could find from any of these Democrats. When asked about the socialist views of some of these folks, here's what Governor Beshear, he's, he's one of the more moderate Democrats thinking of running from Kentucky. Here's what Governor Shapir said, Governor Bashir said about all this rise of socialism in his party. S4, please. The Democratic base isn't necessarily moving one direction or another. They're just desperate for help. And I think that's the same as the Republican base and others. They're looking for somebody that'll help address a system that feels rigged. They're working hard, they're playing by the rules, but they're not getting ahead. All the prices go up, utility bills and the rest, but your pay stays about the same, the cost of health insurance and coverage increasing. I believe that people are winning from across the spectrum when they give voice to these concerns and do it passionately. So, not a denunciation of socialism. Basically saying there's a through line between the socialists who are winning and the more moderates who are winning. They care about economics, they care about cost of living. No denunciation of socialism or abolishing prisons or abolishing police, or abolishing ICE or open borders. Again, I get the inclination towards unity, but this is, this is playing with fire, ladies and gentlemen. This is, this is not again putting a stake in the ground and saying we are not a socialist party. And some of the people I talked to this week are worried about that. Some of the Democrats are worried. They say this, this shows the dominance that the left has over the Democrats. You see this in Chuck Schumer, you see this in Hakeem Jeffries, and you see it amongst all these folks who are thinking of running for president. They simply are afraid. They simply are afraid. And that's why they get, they get pandered to, they get catered to. There's no one standing up to them within the party. And then the people who are sympathetic to this point of view are scolding the establishment for not being nice enough to or understanding enough of these democratic socialist candidates. Here's a woman who endorsed some socialists and in some of these races and is riding high. This is AOC talking to Jen Psaki on Ms. Now as seven please.

[C]

But I actually think the more important advice that I would give would be to my incumbent colleagues, which is you will create a self fulfilling prophecy by deciding who these young women are before you've met them. And if you are already panicking and sending little messages in your group chats about how these people need to be reined in and tamped down and shown their place, you are creating the antagonistic dynamic that we do not need. These are two young, talented, intelligent women that got elected against all odds, against millions of dollars. Perhaps there is something we can learn from them.

[A]

Never agreed with AOC Moore. What you can learn from These folks is the mood in the party. It's more outside outsider than it is socialist. I believe it's more anti establishment than it is socialist. It's more anti Epstein class, anti income inequality than it is socialist. But the high profile people who are winning like AOC also have very far left wing positions on economics and social issues and national security, on policing, on trans etc that are defining the party. I will now track obsessively every month what are the socialists say and what are the establishment people who want to be president say about them? People like Andy Bashir, Rahm Emanuel, Governor Shapiro. I would argue even, even Gavin Newsom don't know about Kamala Harris at this point because she's reaching out to the socialists. I would argue that all of them know how dangerous this is for the Democratic Party. And I would argue that because none of them are experienced presidential candidates and all of them know they have to go through the left to win the nomination to some extent they're all going to be challenged. They're all going to be challenged over the next few months as they campaign in the midterms and then after the midterms as they think about whether to run. How do you deal with socialists in your midst? How do you balance the need to pander to the left with the reality of doing what you think is right for yourself, for a potential presidency, for trying to win a general election? The state of the comments made by these establishment candidates, these anti socialist candidates about the socialists in their midst tells you that within the Democratic Party, this is where the dominance is. And within both parties, because you see this in the Republican Party too, establishment is out, anti establishment is in, outsider is in, insider is out. I can't tell you who the Democratic nominee is going to be. I gave you my, my rankings of the most likely. But I can tell you old may be okay for Bernie Sanders, but what Bernie Sanders is, and the reason why, if things stay on this trajectory, I'll probably move him to number one is he's against the establishment, he's against the status quo, he's against business as usual, and he's for specific things to address income inequality and health care insecurity. And that is who the Democrats will nominate in 2028. Someone who has a vision for those things. Maybe not a socialist, but to beat someone with a vision on those things is going to require a different kind of vision. All right. I'm curious to know what you think of the rankings as well as what you think of my theory of the case. Send me an email. Let me know what you think about my 8 for 28. I'd love to know. You can send it to nextupevilcaremedia.com let me know. Send me your thoughts and you might get chosen for our next segment. 8 for 28 Hate Again. That's next [e-mail] and we'll let you know which, which, which of you we pick. Thank you for that. All right, a quick break. And when we come back, next up, Eric Erickson and Melissa DeRosa join us to talk about what's going on in Maine. That's next up. So there's a question that comes up on the show no matter what we're covering the parties, the media, Washington. And it's always the same question, who's actually looking out for you and who's just looking out for themselves? I want to apply that same question to something a lot of you are dealing with right now, your Medicare coverage. If you're on Medicare, you've probably had people call you promising something better. And you're right to be skeptical. The truth is most people in the Medicare space get paid more to put you in certain plans. That's just how the incentives work. So the question isn't whether someone's selling you something, it's whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about Chapter. They're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide to and they're honest. They're not paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, at your prescriptions, your priorities, and show you a plan that actually fits. If you're already on the right plan, they'll tell you that. But if not, they'll help you make the switch. No cost, no pressure. They'll review your options in under 20 minutes. Call my friends at Chapter right now at 262-454-0503. Again, call Chapter 262454,0503. Across the country, UnitedHealth Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the good acre provide 45,000 meals and lower A1C in the twin Cities and helping hello Family doulas deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg. Because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn [e-mail] commitment. All right, next up and joining me now, Eric Erickson hosts the nationally syndicated radio program Erik Erickson show on every weekday noon to 3 Eastern Time. Eric is also the author of a great must read substack, Erik Erickson, show notes and a two way contributor. And also Melissa DeRosa, a Democratic strategist who you see regularly on, amongst other places, two way, former top aide to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. So glad you guys are both here on this Platner Day. You both, early on, even though you come from different parties, were quite clear about your view of Platner both as a human being and as a Democratic nominee for Senate. About 100,000 questions I want to ask you, but I want to start with this. Why did so many Democrats, whether establishment figures like Chuck Schumer or the progressive organizations who were backing Platner, why did this accusation turn them all in less than 24 hours against him, whereas they were willing to, on one level or another, ignore the previous allegations? Melissa, start with you.

[C]

Well, I, first of all, this allegation is rape, right? So this is a real bombshell allegation. But as Eric and I and I've said it on your platform and other places have said, you know, they had me at Nazi tattoo. I don't understand, like how we couldn't see, given all of the issues with this guy's character, from the Nazi tattoo to mocking a soldier, US Soldier who was shot by the Taliban, to writing in a Reddit post that women who are raped should take some personal responsibility to on and on and on. Why this thing was the thing that really caused everyone to flip. Obviously, the timeline that we've only got a week now to replace him if he is to drop out forced everyone to move quickly. But you know, a rape allegation is something that cannot go ignored.

[A]

Okay, so I, I'm not minimizing this allegation. But Melissa, you, you said an answer to my question. Basically, you don't understand it. I don't. Eric, understand how they ignored the others. I understand the deadline, but they seem to have made peace with themselves. And the polls show Platner is even with Colin. So why did they suddenly flip and, and that I'll ask it a different way. And again, I really don't know the answer. I'm so curious what you two think. They, they, if you look back at how they explained their continued support, a lot of them said, well, he's changed. Maybe he did some things I didn't like, but now he's changed or they downplayed the allegations or in some cases they said they believed his, his excuses are his denial. So why is it, is it, is it that it's is an allegation of rape or is it the deadline? Why did all of them switch with the exception of at this hour of Bernie Sanders in one in one news cycle?

[B]

I think it's Fox News is why. Because they just released a very credible poll in Maine that has Platner behind Collins, which is an unheard of thing in Maine for credible pollster to find. And until the polling shifted pretty decisively with a major credible pollster, they were willing to do this. You do also now have the victim coming forward with a compelling interview. But here's the thing as well is how coordinated it was. I mean, Jake Tapper had an interview with the victim in Maine. Clearly there was some level of coordination behind the scenes with PR people to make this happen at the end, to build the steam to push him out of the race before the deadline. But it all comes to a head after the first major poll from Fox News shows that she has the race has shifted in Maine. If the race had not shifted, if Platner was still ahead, I don't know that we would be where we are right now.

[A]

Okay, I don't deny that that could be the explanation, but that's a pretty cynical explanation that the only reason that they changed was because he was blind. Melissa, I'm not saying you're being cynical, but your judgment about them is that they're that cynical.

[B]

Yeah, I, yeah, that is my judgment of them. But also this is the beginning of the assault allegations. It's not the end of the assault. There are others trickling out there. And so they do know that other stuff is coming. So the momentum building, the Fox News poll shifting, it all collided at the perfect opportunity right before the deadline for them to try to force him out of the race. And again, I think it was Steven Duffield, one of the Republicans on Twitter pointed out that you don't just see a story from Politico come out. Time with a CNN interview in Maine. All of these things coming to a head together without some behind the scenes level of coordination among senior Democrats to push him out.

[A]

We did a wash. She did a Washington Post interview too, but she only buttresses your case. Melissa, Inside the Platner campaign. They've got till Monday to get out. Two questions for you. Ask them one at a time. If you were there, would you do a poll to see and if you got a poll back that showed even in the wake of the allegations the race was tied, could you take that to Democrats and say don't give up

[C]

on us or no, no, no, he can't sustain this. And to Eric's point, you know, we've all been hearing rumblings behind the scenes that this was coming, something like this was coming and that this is not going to be the last allegation. And he's becoming a liability, not just in Maine, which at this point we should basically write off because I don't see Susan Collins losing. And even if we swap someone now, which I think will happen, I think the damage is done and I think everything is going to look so cynical and behind the scenes picking of the candidate and we're in uncharted territory in terms of how they do this and it's all just going to look so bad and that the time frame is so short. This is like Kamala Harris, you know, Biden, Trump all over again. And so, but he was becoming a liability for the party nationally. I mean, everyone had to, you know, anywhere you go, the reporter sticks the microphone in your face. You've got to now wear whatever this is. There's going to be debates that happen. And so I think that, you know, this comes out, everyone believes there's going to be more. And it's like, that's it, we're done. We're not, we're not doing this anymore.

[A]

Melissa, could national Democrats like Senator Schumer control or try to influence who Maine Democrats the Maine Democratic Party picks as a replacement? Or is that they gotta be hands off in this age of anti establishment?

[C]

I can't imagine that there aren't conversations that are going on right now between Schumer and Gillibrand and the main Democratic Party. So I think that there's certainly going to be engagement. I don't think that this is going to be totally hands off regardless of what they say. Now the level to which they can direct is a different story story. But I think that they certainly will have input and that there will be engagement.

[A]

Eric, on, on the morning meeting, we looked at video of the three of the top candidates who were talked about as replacements. If Platner steps aside, none of them are, are anywhere near his level of charisma. Obviously they don't also, at least as far as we know yet, have his level of baggage. Are you as bullish on Susan Collins chances of being reelected pending a decision as, as, as Melissa seems to be?

[B]

No, not, not necessarily. I mean, events change things. God knows what Donald Trump is going to do between now and November and Susan Collins will be the incumbent tied to his party. But it does depend on who the Democrats pick. I think they do understand that the problem is, as I understand it, the Platner campaign wants to try to use their leverage and him getting off the ballot to try to shape who that candidate could be. And if it's someone that the Platner campaign is perceived as blessing, which might be likely to happen, given he doesn't have to get off the ballot unless he wants to, that's just more anchors to the Democrats in, In Maine.

[A]

Yeah. Regardless of what elites have done, and I'm talking about both the progressive elites and, and the establishment elites, voters in Maine up until now, in every poll that's done, even. Even though they're, as you pointed out, a poll showing him slightly behind, they've largely stuck by him. I did a focus group of Mainers a few weeks ago, and their attitude was, yeah, we don't like this stuff, but just like a lot of people don't like stuff about Donald Trump and they still support him over the alternative. What was appealing about Platner was his message. Right? People didn't like this negative stuff. At least. At least most voters probably didn't. But they saw a guy who was a fighter. And I wonder if, if, if he just resolves to fight. I know, Melissa, you think there's zero chance, but if he just resolves to fight, doesn't he have a chance to salvage his reputation and his life the way Bill Clinton did, the way Donald Trump did, as opposed to. If he quits, he's unlikely to ever have a career in public life, and he's unlikely to have a career in a lot of polite society. Isn't that the lesson, Melissa, of Trump and Clinton?

[C]

I mean, Trump and Clinton. Look, I think that Platner has already been abandoned by everyone, and I think that polling is a lagging indicator. And I think that we were starting to see the shift. I think we were going to continue to see the deterioration of the public support. And he's going to make a choice right now about how much he and his wife can take, because the lights get pretty bright and, you know, people are people. At the end of the day, a lot of people, and I have. I went through a version of this. Right? I mean, nowhere near this. And a lot of what Cuomo dealt with was total bullshit, in my view. And if you read my book, you'll. You'll understand why. But at the end of the day, people are people, and there's only so much you can take. And how much can he take? How much can his family take? How much can his parents take? If this is not the you know, there's one way to end the bleeding, which is to step aside and try to, you know, deal with now trying to pick up the pieces of your life versus hanging around and waiting for more shoes to drop. And how do you endure that? And this is a guy who I think, you know, there's many more shoes to drop. So I don't think that staying in the race is an option for him in terms of like Donald Trump had years and years built up with people who supported him. He had a deep, you know, a deep reservoir of support nationally. Same thing with Bill Clinton. This is not the case for a guy that's been on the scene for seven seconds. I mean, the DSA and their supporters in the Bernie people are cult like, I give that to you. But who is this guy, really? And so I think you're gonna see him drop like a stone in the polls. If there's another poll that comes out in a week, 10 days, if he's still around, which I don't think he will be. And I don't think this is going to get better for him.

[A]

Eric, are you at all troubled by the Platner people saying he's gotten no due process? Does that trouble you?

[B]

No, that doesn't trouble me at all. This is the way campaigns work. And this is a guy who has been a serial liar about his biography, about the things he said in the past. Even the Totcom tattoo that he has. He originally admitted it was his. We know from the Reddit threads before COVID admitted. Then he changed the story and said he had no idea. He is pathological in these issues. And this is not a legal process. There is no due process. This is a guy on the campaign trail who fabricated a story about his background, who fabricated a story about his beliefs, who fabricated an image to be a working class man when he's not. And the house of cards is collapsing on him. You don't get due process when you build up your own house of cards. And it collapses.

[A]

I'm so proud of Melissa and Yemassi and Kevin and. Yeah, and who am I missing? And Jaime, Democrats who appear on Two Way, all of whom have spoken clearly for weeks or months in some cases about Platner. And I just go back to all these Democrats who circled the wagons and after he won the primary, came to Washington, Schumer and Gillibrand, who didn't support him in the primary, said, you know, we're all for him. Is there any, is there any prospect list of a reckoning for that? I'M not saying they should all be forced out of office over it, but is that the kind of thing Democrats would privately discuss and say, you know what, we got to do stuff that follow our North Star and not be so political?

[C]

Look, the Democratic Party is in shambles right now. There is no leadership whatsoever. I've said this on your show. It's the classic where are my people going? I must know so I can lead them. Bernie Sanders, who is not even a registered Democrat, is the de facto head of the party. There is this cult like environment right now with the DSA and the far fringe that is sort of filling a vacuum. But yes, there needs to be a reckoning. Do I think there will be one? No. I think that we got here because of the lack of leadership and we're going to stay here because of the lack of leadership. And we're just right now trying to put one foot in front of the other and get day to day. You would think with Donald Trump, you would think with the history behind, you know, that what typically happens in midterm elections in terms of what the party in the White House ends up with vis a vision, the House, we should be in a much better position. We're coming off the Iran war that was so wildly unpopular. Gas prices going up, inflation and interest rates haven't been cut. People are unhappy, all of these things. Democrats should be in a position to walk away with it in huge margins. And we just can't stop stealing defeat from the jaws of victory. And you know all those people that you named Gillibrand, Schumer, these are the people who offed Al Franken and Cuomo for total nonsense. And then you're watching them stand by this guy who the character issues again. I go back to Nazi tattoo to say, you know, all of the things that got us here. So they lack total credibility. The party has no credibility whatsoever anymore in terms of, you know, strategic application of standards and how we're going to judge people. And now we're going to go through this process that feels a lot like 2024. So whoever they end up with in Maine, I don't think it's going to have any, any shot at any real genuine enthusiasm in the, in the next four months. And again, Democrats have to wear this nationally the same way we have to wear Hasan Piker who said America deserved 9, 11, the same way we've got to wear anti Semitism and all these other things, which is not the Democratic Party. I have literally spent a lifetime working

[A]

on behalf of Eric. You've got same thing on the left and on the right you've got these candidates like Platner, like Chevalier in New York. I'd say not a candidate, but like Steve Bannon, who, who have really powerful ideas that. That strike the populist chord that's so powerful now on the left and the right. And they often seem to come with areas of their past that get scrutinized to the point that it clearly diminishes their effectiveness. Maybe not to zero, but what is it? Is it. Is it because the establishment and the media come after them? Is it because there's some linkage between being an outsider and saying outrageous things? Just imagine a parallel universe where Platinum was everything that the Mainers like about Platner and none of the baggage. My goodness, people would be talking about him as a potential president. What is it? Why does this happen that these people on the left and the right get such scrutiny in large.

[B]

It's not the establishment. People like to say that the establishment bogeyman. As someone who's been pretty anti establishment through my career, it's not the establishment. The problem is a lot of the people who vet these candidates and elevate these candidates lack discernment for the character of the candidates. They get so enamored by the words of the candidate. They don't look for the background and they excuse them. I mean, we've had the interviews within the Wall Street Journal of the folks who vetted Platner, and none of these things came up because they chose not to do the digging. They hate the establishment. And if you go against the establishment, you got to remember the establishment are the professionals and you've got to up your A game. And we now have a series of candidates who can get elected in districts that are drawn for highly partisan reasons for Democrats or Republicans, but they just don't translate on the national scale or even the statewide scale. We'll see without said in Michigan whether or not he can translate or the Republican opposition fires up for him. And it is again largely because they put their passion for the cause ahead of the due diligence on digging into the background of the candidate to make sure they have the right guy. They're placated by the words. But Melissa, if it makes you feel any better, at least you're not going to have any candidate this year have to run an ad saying they're not a witch.

[A]

At least not so far. We got some primaries left. I want to talk about the media. I just. I just am so embarrassed about my profession. Yes, still no, no accountability on attempting to cover up Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline. Still no accountability on, on the, the attempts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. I could go through. Those are some of the big ones. And now this New York Times writes a story that, that I just, I can't see as anything but an attempted catch and kill. Even though they published the story, they had embedded in the story a woman who happened to be a Republican saying that Platner assaulted her and imprisoned her. And, and wasn't the lead of the story was buried in the story. And, and, and now you've got today that woman writing on social media all kind of chronicle of her, her, her, her version of her interaction with the paper. It's embarrassing if, if it's true, it's embarrassing how they handled the story. Eric, I'll start with you. Shouldn't ours, shouldn't an institution as powerful as the New York Times have someone hold them accountable for their role in this? Shouldn't there be a way that that happens in our society?

[B]

They should. The problem is that most of the accountability watchdog groups are far more upset with Fox News and cover Fox News, the Brian Stelters and Oliver Darcy's of the World and the Columbia Journalism Review. They obsess about right wing media and tend to give their own side a passion, which is why these things are happening more and more. I mean, we need a free and fair press. And frankly, I think the reason our republic has gotten to the point it has politically is because we don't really have a press anymore that is free and fair. They're captured by their biases and they've embraced their biases so much to the exclusion of the fair vantage point of the other side, which is a real problem, particularly for a group like the New York Times that seems to have engaged in as much audience capture as the partisan press has and it destroys their credibility to the point that people go looking for alternatives. And if you want to see why there's a rise in conspiracy theorism and alternatives towards anti Semitism and the like, it's because the free and fair press abandoned their mission and decided to be ideologically captured.

[A]

Melissa, I'm sure the Platners would say that the New York Times has been like a jackal and has gone after them really hard. I'm sure they would say that. But I also know that the way the New York Times has covered this story is nothing like they would have covered it if this were a Republican in a targeted Senate race. So how Would you appraise the job the Times has done covering Graham Platner and these controversies and what their motives have been?

[C]

So just for your audience, because I don't know if people remember, you know, we're old these days. The New York Times used to have a public editor. They fired her.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

So there used to be, I mean, I used to get so angry at some of their coverage and there was at least someone at the paper I could appeal to and I would send an email and put together all the facts and make the case for wise story. Story was biased. And sometimes you would get lucky and she would pay attention to you and she would write and they fired her. They got rid of the own, the only accountability they had in house, which should tell you everything you need to know about the New York Times and its credibility and whether or not they want to be criticized or have anyone look at anything there through a critical lens. To your point, I couldn't agree more. This looks like a total catch and kill operation. They are basically a wholly owned Obsidian subsidiary of the far left in this country. And they are a huge part of the problem as to why nobody trusts the media anymore. They cater in kowtow to the people who subscribe to them. And I think they get a little bit lost in the fact that most of their subscribers exist because of puzzles and recipes and not because of their actual journalism anymore. Because that's the hard reality and the hard truth for the New York Times. But the way that they cover this, if it was Donald Trump, if it was pick any, any big Republican wouldn't matter who, they would have slaughtered them. And it would have been one story on the front page followed by another story on the front page and a drumbeat that they would create and editorials and opinion columns that would run alongside it to chase them out of town. And not only did they cover this up, but they then had their, you know, in house, MeToo reporter go on television and essentially give the guy a clean bill of health.

[A]

Amazing. I wonder what she, what she's going to say in her next appearance about Platner. You know, I just, I'll frame it this way. This woman, the woman, Lindsay, who's, who's, who was the on the record source in the original Time story. She's at the time and today is tweeting about her interactions with them. Imagine, I mean, this is a, a, a female alleged victim who feels the New York Times wronged her. Imagine the uproar if, if, if, if, if she were, if she were a Democrat and she were writing to the National Review about how they had wronged her. I mean, the, the, this, the Times should, the Times readers should be in an uproar over this. They should be saying, how could, how could the Times have mistreated a source like this? And yet I, I don't hear, I don't hear a thing except in a few quarters.

[C]

It's gotten so political, Mark, like, and that's the thing. It's, if it's, it's, everything's an echo chamber if you want, if subscribe to that news organization. And the New York Times is the

[A]

same as I understand. But there must be some female reporters, maybe some male ones too, but some female reporters at the New York Times who read this and say, man, did we really do this right? Did we, did we mistreat this person who, who trusted us, who we went to and said, we'll tell your story fairly well? There must be some employees who think that.

[C]

And think about the fact that they fired Bennett from being the head of the editorial page when they ran that Tom Cotton op ed because they ran a point of view that some of the woke children in the newsroom didn't agree with, even though that's the whole point is supposed to be of an editorial page.

[A]

Made them feel, made them feel unsafe. They said, okay, all this is interesting, but what matters, it sort of ultimately is Senate control. That's why, that's why we're so interested in this race and, and Democrats have to net 4. I continue to believe that Georgia and Michigan and New Hampshire could, could be, could be losses for them. But let's say they hold them all. They stopped in that four. Eric, if you take, if you take Maine off the table, if you say if Melissa's right and Democrats can't win Maine, how did Democrats net four Senate seats to take the majority?

[B]

North Carolina is one, but you still got three. And I just don't see the path, I don't see it happening in Alaska or Iowa. I don't think the Talarico wins in Texas. I don't know where the path is. Even Ohio, there was some original polling that looked like Sherrod Brown could get back in and that polling has shifted away from him. I just don't see the path for the Democrats. I know I never did even with Maine, but this makes it even less likely.

[A]

Melissa, how do you get to four without Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and what, Alaska? Yeah.

[C]

Is that crazy?

[A]

I mean, because they have their ranked choice voting, maybe it's not crazy. I still don't understand why the popular incumbent would lose. But, but Alaska. But then is it, is it Iowa or Texas?

[C]

I think it would have to, I think it would have to be Iowa because I think, I mean, I would love to think a Democrat could win Texas, but what has it been, 30 years? What, 1992? I think the last time it's statewide. So I just find it hard to believe, given Talarico's past statements on things like God being non binary that, that Texans are going to end up electing him. So I think it would have to be Iowa.

[A]

Yeah. Although if you believe the public polling that has come out since they, they hit Talarico, they didn't knock him out. All the, all that stuff that quotes, you would have thought any single one of them would have made him unelectable. He's still in it, in, in the public polls and, and I'm told in the private polls. But there's more to come. I'm grateful to you both. Thank you for being here and feel fortunate whenever I can talk to you, particularly about a topic like this. In today's world, finding solutions that deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem rare. Sewer Sentry is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs, and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result is improved performance, reduced operating expenses, and long term savings for the taxpayer. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, and stronger protection of natural resources and technologies that can reduce vibrio contamination in waterways. Fiscal conservatives value cost control, efficiency, and a solid return on investment. Sewer Sentry delivers on all those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and protecting budgets. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both with systems that are faster to install, cheaper to operate, and better for overall infrastructure performance. Sewer Sentry helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, conserves energy, safeguards waterways, reduces contamination and protects public health, then everyone benefits. Sewer Sentry Faster, Cheaper, better. For more information on all this, go to www.sewercentry.com. thanks to Melissa and Eric. That's it for today's program. Back on Thursday with the brand new Episode Episode. Subscribe to NextUp on YouTube wherever you get your podcast so you always know what's coming next up.