The Most Influential Issue Shaking Up Elections

Summary

Podcast Summary: Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode: The Most Influential Issue Shaking Up Elections
Date: July 16, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin
Guests: Tad Devine, Emily Jashinsky
Length: ~73 min (summary covers key content, ads & intros omitted)

---

Overview

This episode of Next Up with Mark Halperin delves into the seismic changes Israel policy is causing within American political parties—particularly the Democratic Party. Halperin dissects the generational, ideological, and pragmatic rifts that have emerged in both parties over aid to Israel, using this watershed moment in Congress as a launchpad for deeper analysis. Other episode highlights include a detailed interview with Tad Devine, Democratic strategist and author of How the Democrats Screwed Bernie (unpacking the party’s historic resistance to insurgents like Bernie Sanders), and a lively conversation with Emily Jashinsky, host of The After Party, on topics ranging from J.D. Vance’s divisiveness to the generational impact of social media on politics.

---

Key Segments, Insights & Memorable Moments

The Israel Watershed: Defining American Political Divides

[00:02 - 21:56]

The Congressional Vote: A Party Split on Israel

• Context: Rep. Thomas Massie's bill to cut off U.S. aid to Israel saw only Massie supporting his own measure among Republicans, while Democrats split evenly.
• Notable Democratic "Yes" Votes: Included Nancy Pelosi (former Speaker), AOC, Greg Casar, and Lauren Underwood.
• Significance: Halperin stresses the vote's historic nature:

  "Both sides are calling this a watershed...Supporting the US-Israel relationship is quickly becoming a minority view among Congressional Democrats." (Josh Gottheimer, 05:38)

Why the Split?

• Driving factors:
  • Reaction to the Israel-Gaza war and disillusionment with PM Netanyahu
  • Broader reevaluation of U.S. foreign aid
  • A generational reassessment of Israel’s role (esp. among under-30 voters)
• Amy Siskind’s warning tweet:

  “You are going to take down our party...and our chances of winning back the White House in 2028.” (05:54)

The Ro Khanna Dilemma

• Clip described ([08:04 - 10:09]): Ro Khanna struggles to answer if Palestinians had a right to attack Israeli military bases on Oct 7, a question which 10 years ago “would have been answered effortlessly.”
• Halperin observes:

  “Leaders...are either flipping [sides]...to a position that really bothers pro-Israel folks...yet Ro Khanna couldn't answer that simple question.” (09:14)

Rahm Emanuel’s Take

• Rahm Emanuel: “Israel does not have a problem in the Democratic Party. Israel has a problem in America and very specifically a generational problem under 30.” (10:15)
• Halperin adds: “This is not just a Democratic problem...it is a problem with younger people and it is a problem...including the vice president.”

The J.D. Vance Paradigm

• Vance’s Interview with Joe Rogan:
  • Criticizes influence operations from Israeli government elements
  • Halperin notes:

    “No previous vice president would have said [this]...It's another indication...of how much things have changed.” (12:47)

  • Vance claims moderation:

    “I’m like the reasonable moderate.” (20:19)

The Search for Reasonable Moderates

“What we need is people who are reasonable moderates on this issue...The pro-Israel voices should and will be at the table. The pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas voices will be at the table. But what we need is a conversation led by people like JD Vance and Rahm Emanuel...” (20:58)

• Halperin admits:

  "I underestimated this issue several months ago...Now I see just how emotional this is, just how powerful it is..." (21:38)

---

Tad Devine: How the Democrats Screwed Bernie

[22:04 - 38:21]

The 2016 Insurgency—And The System Built to Stop It

• Book Title: Halperin jokingly notes the title is "catchy," but finds the real story is the party ‘screwing’ its own voters, not just Bernie Sanders.
• Devine’s Core Argument:

  “As long as we have nominating processes like this, we're not going to get candidates who are the best candidate to win the election...The Democratic National Committee...was controlling the committee.” (23:56-26:57)

Inside Baseball, Real Consequences

• Key “Screws”:
  • DNC debate schedule designed to benefit Clinton
  • Manipulation of party apparatus—voter files, fundraising agreements, superdelegates

    “They were effectively shutting down our campaign in the middle of December as we were on the move.” (28:28)

• Press Complicity:

  “The press was complicit...that's part of the unfairness that held him back.” (32:38)

• Could Bernie Still Win?:

  “I just don't think they're going to go for somebody who could be 95 at the end of his second term...But the message is as powerful or more powerful within the Democratic Party...as anything anybody else is saying.” (33:49)

The Progressive Succession

• Who can carry the Bernie torch?
  • “AOC could do it...if I were advising her, I'd say, become a senator or governor first.” (36:05)
  • Ro Khanna as viable and credible

Is the Party More Open Now?

• Devine on the establishment:

  “I think it has certainly weakened, without a doubt...people want change and they're demanding change.” (37:08)

---

Remembering Lindsey Graham: Personal Adversity & Political Legacy

[41:48 - 50:39]

• Lindsey Graham on loss:

  “What do people do without family?...Life is fragile, and you can't take a whole lot for granted.” (45:53-47:44)

• ‘Three Amigos’ Origin:

  “They were born of pain...That bond—see, John [McCain], he’d been a contrarian in his own party...I was John’s wingman...the three amigos basically were a traveling roadshow...” (48:54-50:39)

• Halperin’s note: Graham was remembered for both crossing the aisle and becoming close to Trump—“what an extraordinary human feat to overcome that kind of adversity.”

---

Emily Jashinsky: J.D. Vance’s Rorschach Effect, DSA’s Permanence, & the Generational Chasm

[53:20 - 72:41]

Vance: Loved & Loathed

• On the right, a split:

  “Some people really dig Rubio and don't dig Vance. Typically, men over 90 don't like you, but men in their 80s love you. That's pretty consistent demographically.” (56:44)

• Jashinsky’s theory:

  “He comes across...as though he's trying really hard to seem cool and relaxed...there's almost a desperation in him to be liked...But Trump does see something in Vance for sure.” (56:50, 57:57)

Vance-Rogan Interview—The Highs, The Lows

• Highlights:
  • “He was most fluent...Epstein conspiracy theories and UFO conversations...excellent…on AI and labor.” (58:15)
• Low points:
  • “When Rogan was pressing him on the Iran war...he has to basically speak for the White House. So that was...very tough.” (59:28, 59:49)

The Rise of Democratic Socialists

• Jashinsky:

  "No, this is the future...The politics being offered by the people who don’t want socialists to win elections are so unattractive...even people who don’t like socialism are siding with the socialists.” (61:20)

• Key appeal buckets:

  1. Economics (affordability, housing, jobs)
  2. Social issues
  3. Anti-status quo
  4. (Added by Jashinsky) Foreign policy, esp. Israel “litmus test” (63:44-63:53)

Foreign Policy Litmus Test

“Foreign policy—particularly the Israel litmus test—has been crucial for activists in the primaries.” (63:53)

Generational Divide & Social Media’s Impact

• Halperin probes the “generational identity” of Zoomers and Gen Alpha:

  “We are way more polarized by generation...if you grew up in a tablet generation versus a TikTok generation...it really is just different.” (68:17 - 69:11)

• Social media’s role:

  “It democratized...conversations about Israel, the political establishment, about our institutions...plants a lot of seeds of distrust and doubt. I think it has polarized people really intensely.” (70:01) “Screen time up, time with friends down...That’s a huge social, psychological change.” (71:33)

• Halperin’s tongue-in-cheek conclusion:

  “We got to ban [social media]...these kids should be nowhere near social media till they’re thirty.” (70:53)

---

Memorable Quotes

• Josh Gottheimer:

  “Supporting the US-Israel relationship is quickly becoming a minority view among Congressional Democrats. A shockingly seismic shift...” (05:38)

• Amy Siskind:

  “You are going to take down our party...and our chances of winning back the White House in 2028.” (05:54)

• Rahm Emanuel:

  “Israel does not have a problem in the Democratic Party. Israel has a problem in America and very specifically a generational problem under 30.” (10:15)

• J.D. Vance:

  “I’m like the reasonable moderate...The reasonable moderate.” (20:19)

• Tad Devine:

  “They were effectively shutting down our campaign in the middle of December as we were on the move.” (28:28)

• Emily Jashinsky:

  “Even people who don’t like socialism are siding with the socialists...because opponents haven’t learned to counter them in ways that are attractive.” (61:20)

• Lindsey Graham:

  “Life is fragile, and you can't take a whole lot for granted.” (46:44)

---

Timestamps & Structure

• 00:02 – 21:56: Israel/US Policy as Election Flashpoint
• 22:04 – 38:21: Tad Devine Interview: Democratic Party, Bernie’s Campaigns
• 41:48 – 50:39: Lindsey Graham Remembrance
• 53:20 – 72:41: Emily Jashinsky: J.D. Vance, Generational Politics, Socialism

---

Tone & Style

• Conversational and deeply analytical, with Halperin’s signature mix of urgency, wryness, and exasperation.
• Guests (Tad Devine and Emily Jashinsky) are frank, thoughtful, often incisive.
• Episode moves between hard political analysis, behind-the-scenes storytelling, and speculative future-casting.

---

Takeaways

• Israel and US Policy: The torch of party-defining controversy has passed to positions on Israel, fracturing the Democrats and putting pressure on Republican unity.
• Generational divide: The politics of Israel, socialism, and anti-establishment sentiment are being rewritten by younger generations whose digital lives shape—and polarize—their views.
• Party power structures: The episode draws clear lines from 2016’s “screwed” insurgency to current intra-party rifts, highlighting both how little and how much has changed.
• Looking Forward: Both parties are pressured to adapt rapidly—or risk being overtaken by grassroots energy they can’t control.

---

Suggested Listening

• For audience members interested in the weeds of party politics, generational change, or the evolving US-Israel relationship, this episode is a must-hear.
• For those concerned about the future of democracy, the country’s political machinery, or media coverage of these issues, the episode raises urgent, nonpartisan questions.

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Mark Halpert]

Welcome to NextUp, everybody. I'm Mark Halpert. Thank you for being part of the program, being a true and loyal nexter. I am the editor in chief of Live interactive video platform two way, your host here to all things NextUp. Great program for you today, a variety of topics, some happier than others. Two smart political minds will be with us. First, Tad Divine, author of a new book called how the Democrats Screwed Bernie. It's about the 2016 campaign. You've heard me talk about it before. The lessons that the country and the party need to learn about how the Democratic Party in 2016 and then also in 2020 stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders on behalf of the establishment candidates in order to keep his movement down. And paradoxically, ironically, and some would say poetically, his movements only grown stronger. Tad will be here to explain what he saw as one of the top officials in that campaign. And then my friend and colleague here at MK Media, Emily Jasinski, will be here. She's the host of the After Party with Emily Kycinski. We're going to talk about some mysteries that she's going to help me solve, like about J.D. vance and young people. All that coming up in a little bit. Also, some work from my past. My interview with Lindsey Graham will play out for you in a little bit from about a decade ago about how he dealt with the loss of his parents. But first, my reported monologue on a topic I continue to report on how Israel has become such a defining issue within both parties, but primarily within the Democratic Party. That was put in sharp relief this week when Mr. Massi of Kentucky, a Republican, put forward a bill that would have cut off aid to Israel. And he's the only Republican who voted for his own bill. Every other Republican voted. Now, the Democratics in the House were split down the middle. Here's you can see the vote totals here. Half the Democrats voted yes. Half the Democrats voted no. Amongst those voting to cut off aid to Israel were the number two Democrat in the House, Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker, and aoc. This divides both parties, but it's an issue the Democratic Party's dealing with. But it's also an issue that Israel is going to have to deal with and Israel supporters in the United States are going to have to deal with. I can't tell you how often I hear that this week after the vote. I heard the hours after the vote from American supporters of Israel, including some members of Congress who are crestfallen by this. Both sides, both the people who voted to cut off aid, Israel and those who support that position and those who think it's a horrible vote, both sides are calling this a watershed. So my reported monologue for you now on why this is happening and the significance of it. First, here's a couple of House Democrats who voted to cut off aid to Israel and their explanation about this moment. Here's Greg caesar. This is S11.

[Emily Jasinski]

Please think about this just for a moment.

[Mark Halpert]

Starting today, a majority of Democrats in this building refused to vote to send

[Emily Jasinski]

billions of dollars in weapons to the Israeli military.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah. Young congressman from Texas who clearly is proud about the fact that half the Democrats voted to cut off aid. Here's another member of Congress. This is Lauren Underwood explaining why she voted that way as well.

[Emily Jasinski]

One issue facing the Democratic Caucus this

[Mark Halpert]

week is a piece of legislation by

[Emily Jasinski]

Thomas Massie on Israel cutting off funding. $3 billion worth of aid to Israel.

[Mark Halpert]

Where do you stand on that? I'll be voting for it.

[Emily Jasinski]

How come?

[Mark Halpert]

Well, because the Israelis are out of control.

[Emily Jasinski]

Lebanon, Gaza.

[Mark Halpert]

There's no reason for us to continue to make these investments at this time. Now, she's from Illinois. These two representatives, part of half the Democrats in the House, including Nancy Pelosi, including aoc, who said. Some of them said, like Nancy Pelosi, well, the amendment was flawed. It wasn't a perfect piece of legislation. But they all felt they need to send a signal. Okay, now, part of this is about Israel. Now about Benjamin Netanyahu, now about what's happened in Israel recently with Gaza. Right. But part of it is broader than that. Part of it is. Is a. Is a broader view of foreign policy and American aid. But part of it is a belief that the relationship with Israel has to change. And for those supporters of Israel, this is a. This is a watershed. As I said, this is a huge moment. Here's a quote from Josh Gottheimer. He's a congressman from New Jersey, voted very much against this piece of legislation. Josh Gottheimer is probably amongst the most pro Israel members of Congress. Here's what he said in the New York Times. Supporting the US Israel relationship is quickly becoming a minority view among Congressional Democrats. A shockingly seismic shift in a brief period of time, and it has happened quickly. Here's the view of Amy Siskind. She's a. She's a writer and a pro Israel person on the left. Here's. Here's her tweet. I'll read it to you. It's long, but it really does capture the view of a lot of people in her party who oppose this piece. Of legislation. What a politically astute move by Thomas Massie for bringing this anti Israel vote up in the House because he is a conservative Republican with blind ambition and 2028 aspirations and he knows this issue will split the Democratic Party in half, which it literally did. Republicans voted unanimously against it and Democrats were split in half. Ro Khanna, who's a congressman from California, more about him in a moment, who morphs himself with the ease of J.D. vance and his equally blind ambition, was all too happy to comply and go along and to put Democrats on the record. I hope and pray that Bibi loses in the election later this year because Lord help us as this is still an issue ahead of 2028. It will be that wedge that will split our party in half and if a normal Republican runs like a Rubio, we will lose the Presidency. Mark my words. Those of you who are seemingly in this fever dream, who have made this your number one issue in litmus test, take note. You are going to take down our party with you and our chances of winning back the White House in 2028. That seems perhaps premature, maybe cataclysmic to some, but I hear that from so many Democrats who aren't as open about their fears as Amy Siskind is, because this issue really has become the hottest of hot buttons. We've seen how much this has tied Democrats in knots, we've seen how divided it's made the party, and we've seen how afraid Democrats who might want to run for president are of the pro Palestinian, in some cases pro Hamas wing of their party. The group aipac, which has been the big supporter of Israel, is on the run. They've become a hot button and an anvil around supporters of Israel. Ro Khanna went to Israel and was in a confrontation with the Israeli military forces and settlers there. You've probably heard about that on the news. He has become the face, the poster child of Democratic politicians who previously were friendly to Israel, now very hostile to Israel, adopting the description of what Israel's done in Gaza, calling it genocide. Ro Khanna went on drop site news and talked to reporters there, including a guy named Jeremy Skekhill, about whether he would condemn those who would kill Israeli soldiers. I guarantee you that 10 years ago ro Khanna would have answered that question effortlessly. Watch this exchange, which has gotten wide currency amongst lots of people, including pro Israel folks, as Ro Khanna struggles in this interview to answer what is no longer a simple question, apparently. S1 Please military bases in the Gaza envelope Did the Qassam Brigades in Sara Al Quds have a right to kill Israeli soldiers?

[Lindsey Graham]

Yes OR no?

[Mark Halpert]

On October 7, did Palestinians have a right to attack Israeli military bases in the Gaza envelope?

[Lindsey Graham]

Yes or no?

[Mark Halpert]

I mean, I think October 7th attack was a terrorist attack.

[Emily Jasinski]

So I don't.

[Mark Halpert]

Was it a terrorist attack when the first targets that were hit on the morning of October 7th were multiple military bases? Did Palestinian forces have a right to attack those military bases? I am not for violent violence in any way. I mean, I am for making sure that we end the operation. Do they have a right to do it? Congressman? Do they have a right to attack Israeli soldiers? I'm not going to say that Hamas had a right to attack Israeli soldiers or kill Israelis. I don't think that advances peace or advances Palestinian statehood. The fact that he struggled to answer that question. Did Hamas have the right to kill Israeli soldiers? So many people, as I said, have pointed out to me the struggle there. Leaders of the Democratic Party who are pro Israel are either flipping like Nancy Pelosi again. She downplayed her vote by saying the amendment was flawed. But they're flipping to a position that really bothers pro Israel folks. Nancy Pelosi, who's been such a staunch ally of Israel, who has been surrounded in her career, including fundraising by pro Jewish Americans, Nancy Pelosi and Ro Khanna have both moved. And yet Ro Khanna couldn't. And yet Ro Khanna couldn't answer that simple question. Here's Rahm Emanuel, who went to Israel and gave a speech that was at times supportive as Israel and at times critical of Israel. Here he is as an interview after that widely discussed speech, talking about his own view of where things stand and the kind of problem Israel has. This is S3, please than I do

[Emily Jasinski]

that there's a different conversation within the Democratic Party about whether Israel should be

[Mark Halpert]

allowed to buy weapons, even defensive weapons.

[Tad Devine]

What do you make of that? I want this to get across. Israel does not have a problem in the Democratic Party. Israel has a problem in America and very specifically a generational problem under 30. Are you the most acceptable thing pro

[Emily Jasinski]

Israel acceptable in the Democratic Party today?

[Tad Devine]

Well, look, I consider myself pro American, but there's been a change in some elements of the party. And it's a change because what's happened and how things have played out have changed. I don't support the Democratic socialists. I don't support people that believe in open borders. And I also don't support people that

[Mark Halpert]

we're celebrating on October 8th. So Rahm Manuel's a very smart guy and he's Right. This is, this is not just a Democratic problem, although make no mistake, Israel has a big problem with the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party in large part has a big problem with Israel, but it is a problem with younger people and it is a problem with the strain of all of America, including the vice president. J.D. vance has been one of the leading voices when, when Republicans say, well, all our problems with Israel are with podcasters and bloggers and people on social media. Israel's got a problem with J.D. vance. J.D. vance, in an interview with Joe Rogan this week, said a number of things that no previous vice president would have said. In fact, Kamala Harris did wouldn't say these things in the presidential campaign. And it hurt her quite a bit. It hurt her quite a bit with the wing of her party whose views of Israel have changed, as Josh Guy said so quickly and so dramatically. Okay, a lot of this is about, as I said, Netanyahu, a lot of this is about Gaza. But some of it for the members of the Democratic Party who voted the way they did with Nancy Pelosi, some of this for people in the Republican Party who feel the way J.D. vance does is about Israel's sustained influence in the United States. Like many countries, Israel has influence in the United States. Israel gets aid from the United States. Like many countries. I urge you to listen to the totality of what JD Vance said in his interview with with Rogan about Israel. Listen to the whole thing. It's interesting, but this is not out of context what I'm about to show you. This is J.D. vance saying things about Israel which Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, no, a previous American vice president or president would have said. And it's another indication, along with the vote in the House of how much things have changed. This is JD Vance this week with Joe Rogan. But there are some people within their system we know beyond a shadow of a doubt who are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely. But I definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal. And you know, there was again, there's this Time article that came out yesterday. A friend sent it to me. It's like, worth reading because it lists a bunch of people who have quite literally been paid by a former Trump campaign person who was himself paid by certain elements within the Israeli government. And those people are attacking me viciously for quite literally trying to accomplish the negotiation objective that the president set for the country what bothers me is actually when Americans allow, meaning American leadership allows that influence to affect their judgment and to affect what they are advocating for. Again, I'm not saying he's right or wrong. Factually. There's, there's, there's support for some of the things he's saying. But you see now in Rahm EMANUEL and in J.D. vance, Rahm Emanuel, longtime supporter of Israel, but, but as he'll tell you, a critic of Bibi Netanyahu from the past, you see a change in, in where this debate is in America, okay? In both parties, there's an audience that's loud and angry and, and visible that wants the relationship with Israel to change and believes it has to change. Now, some people say maybe this will cool after Netanyahu is out of office and he might be out of office this year. But other people I've talked to this week say, no, this is bigger than Bibi Netanyahu. And, and it's become, it's become a fetish for folks. Now. I will say this, this is such an emotional issue. I have people in my life so pro Israel that this period with young people and with members of Congress, it's amongst the most painful things they've seen in the national town square. And then I have people in my life who say this is wonderful because the relationship with Israel has been so dysfunctional. Vance said something else to Rogan that I think is also extraordinary and I think speaks to where this conversation should go. I don't know that it will. Here's JD Vance, I think being accurate and it could apply equally to rahm Emanuel. Here's J.D. vance talking about where he thinks he should be seen as standing on Israel. S. Six please. I'm like, people don't realize this. I'm actually in this. You know, there's this massive pro Israel, anti Israel debate in the United States of America. I'm like the reasonable moderate. The reasonable moderate. And you know what? It's the truest thing he said in the interview because he is, he is like Rahm Emanuel and like some other people in both parties. He recognizes there's no position that's going to lead us to a better place and a stronger alliance with Israel. That's either the APAC position, the traditional position of with Israel no matter what. And there's no progress to be made in the position on the other side against Israel no matter what. The United States and Israel need to be allies. There needs to be a military to military relationship of some sort. There needs to be a cultural and economic relationship. But what we need to have a productive discussion that isn't just this red hot votes in Congress rhetoric on social media, the kind of interview we saw Ro Khanna do. What we need is people who are reasonable moderates on this issue. They're not the only voices who should be at the table. The pro Israel voices should and will be at the table. The pro Palestinian, pro Hamas voices will be at the table. But what we need is a conversation led by people like JD Vance and Rahm Emanuel who are positing the existence of a reasonable moderate position here, who are positing an understanding of the way it was and the way some people want it to be. This story is, I acknowledge I underestimated this issue several months ago when people told me this would be the dominant issue in the Democratic nomination fight in 28, this would be a huge general election issue, that the Republican nominee for president would also be under pressure to take a different position. I didn't believe it. And now I probably overcorrected. Now I see just how emotional this is, just how powerful it is, crystallized by that vote in the House, crystallized by that exchange with Ro Khanna, crystallized by the reaction to Rahm Emanuel's speech in Israel and crystallized by the words the vice president of the United States making an open accusation about Israel, that there are forces within the Israeli government, Israeli society, who don't want the war to end and are using their influence to try to keep the war going. That's an extraordinary claim for anyone of influence to make, even more so from the vice president of the United States. I'm going to keep reporting on this story because it is not going away. I've learned my lesson. Let me know what you think. Is the vice president, is he in the right place on this issue? Is there room in this debate for so called reasonable moderates? Let me know what you think. Send me an [e-mail] that's nextupevilmaycaremedia.com and let me know what you think. All right. Quick break now. And when we come back, Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, really all star Democratic strategist, hall of famer, who's worked for a lot of establishment Democratic candidates who ran for president, Senate and governor and all sorts of things. He then connected with Bernie Sanders and then helped run his 2016 presidential campaign. And he's now written a new book, how the Democrats Screwed Bernie, A great insider and outsider perspective on the Democratic Party's past, present and future with author and Democratic strategist Tad Devine. Tad Devine is next up. In today's world, finding solutions that deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem pretty uncommon. Sewer Sentry Environmental Technologies 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 taxpayers. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, stronger protection of natural resources, and technologies that can reduce vibrio contamination in waterways. For fiscal conservatives, the list is different, valuing cost control, efficiency, and a solid return on investment. Sewer Sentry Environmental Technologies delivers on all of 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 structural performance. Sewer Sentry Environmental technologies helps communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation can save money, conserve energy, safeguard waterways, reduce contamination, and protect public health, then everybody benefits. Sewer Century Environmental Technologies Faster, Cheaper, Better. For more information about all of that, go to www.sewer sentry.com again www.sewer century.com all right, next up and joining me now, Tad Divine, longtime Democratic strategist, has played the senior levels of Democratic politics for decades and then got connected to Bernie Sanders, first for some of his Vermont race, but then at the presidential campaign, historic presidential campaign in 2016. You've heard me say this before. If the Democratic establishment had not mobilized in ways both hardball and impro, I think Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee in 2016 and in 2020. And all the attention on Donald Trump has kept us as a country and the Democrats as a party from talking through both how Bernie Sanders was screwed and the implications of it for the country and the party. And as if by magic, Tad Divine has materialized with this new book. It's called how the Democrats Screwed Bernie, which is the phrase I've been using before I knew Tad wrote the book. And we're going to talk about what happened in 2016 and its implications for the party and the country. Tad, welcome in. Congratulations on the book.

[Tad Devine]

Thank you, Mark. Great to be with you.

[Mark Halpert]

I just think that, you know, there's so much focus in the last decade on the question of stolen elections and the elites and whether the will of the people is being reflected in our elections. And yet my colleagues seem wholly uninterested in what happened in both 2016 and 2020 to Bernie Sanders and and the only Quibble I'd make with your excellent book is it's really how the. How the Democrats screwed their own voters more. More than how they screwed Senator Sanders.

[Tad Devine]

Well, I agree with that. I mean, that's not quite as catchy a title, I guess. The publisher, you know, who actually came up with that title, I, when I. We went through about 50 titles, the people I worked with on the book, my editor, writer, other people, and they all fell short of the. Of the title the publisher himself came up with, you know, which was how the Democrats Screwed Bernie. And init proffered that to me. I said, I can't do it. It sounds too much like Trump. I just can't be associated with him in any way. But as we went through title after title, most of them long and, you know, just not getting to the point, I said, well, maybe this is the right way to explain it, because as I wrote the book, I realized that's what it was about. And I, and I thought it summed it up.

[Mark Halpert]

Well, we have today the rise of the Bernie wing of the party. And I've argued now for a couple months that part of that rises. If you were a young person who voted in 2016 and you wanted Bernie Sanders to be your nominee and your president, you basically haven't had an election that was on, that was on the up and up in your Life, because in 2016, as your book lays out, we'll talk about it, it was stolen from him. In 2020, the establishment mobilized yet again to keep him from the nomination. And then in 24, we had an incumbent, Biden Harris. So the paradox to me is even as Bernie's wing of the party has become ascendant, you've had three straight presidential elections where it hasn't. It hadn't been possible to have that expressed through the will of the voters.

[Tad Devine]

Yeah, I agree. And, and the thing that concerns me most is as long as we have nominating process, president, or even in some of our state, you know, process some running for the Senate, running for the House, something like that, or mayor, you know, as long as we have that in our system, we're not going to get candidates who are the best candidate to win the election. Okay, that should be the, you know, the object of what we're trying to do. We need to win, to govern, to get our ideas in front of people, to lead them into law. So, you know, I want the Democratic Party to understand that and to understand that, yeah, we've made some reforms and Bernie, you know, took the lead on this in terms of taking the vote away from the superdelegates on the first ballot. But, you know, they'll be around for a second ballot if they're there. And we also, I think, as a party, need to step back and say, what is the best way to nominate someone? In my view, the best way to is to have contests that mirror the general election. The general election allows everybody who's registered to vote to participate in the process. If we have a primary process like we did in 2016 in places like Wisconsin, in Michigan and New Hampshire, where independent voters early in the process make a choice of what side they want to go to and who they want to support, I think we will have much stronger candidates in the general election than if we limit the participation, which the Democratic Party did in so many places in 2016.

[Mark Halpert]

It's hard to go through the full narrative of the heart of how the Democratic establishment, primarily, but not exclusively, the Democratic Party itself, in the Clinton campaign screwed Bernie Sanders and his voters. We're going to outline it in a moment, but I think what's important, folks, is most political books don't teach you anything. Whether you know about politics or you don't. Tad's book does very similar to Bob Schrom, your longtime partner. Tad's book, like Bob's book, if you want to understand how politics actually works in a compelling way and in an informative way, that alone is worth reading the book. You'll learn how our politics works, how campaigns work, how presidential politics work. So that's one reason to read it. But the other reason is we all have to understand whether you love Bernie or you don't like Bernie, you have to understand what we're dealing with in this country. In both parties, the establishment wants to keep its power. Big money, big media, major candidates who are part of the establishment, people who want to keep doing politics the way it's been done in the past, all those people would like to keep insurgent candidates from Winning. Extraordinary. In 2016, the Republicans nominated someone who beat the establishment. And, and Bernie didn't. And, and, and there are lots of reasons for that, Tad, but one reason that you lay out in the book is the Republican establishment didn't mobilize to stop Trump, in part because there wasn't a character like the Clintons who had the hold on the party. How did the Clintons collaborate with the Democratic Party to screw Bernie and to screw the progressive wing of the party? What were the main things they did to screw and to steal the nomination from him?

[Tad Devine]

Well, first of all, they took over the Democratic National Committee, okay? This is supposed to be a neutral party that, you know, administers the process fairly amongst all the candidates who qualify to run. And from the beginning, they were controlling the committee. For example, the debates. When the debates were announced, you know, in the fall of 2015, I got a call from a top official. The DNC said, we're going to announce a debate schedule. There's four debates. You know, one of them was on the Saturday night before Christmas, you know, and. And, you know, when Obama ran against Hillary eight years before, there were many more debates, you know, and it was. It was, you know, much more of an open process. And, you know, I sort of knew when I got that call in. Fifteen minutes later, they put out the debate schedule that the fix was in. But 15 minutes after that, when Hillary Clinton went on Twitter and said, I accept the debate schedule, there it was for everybody, for the whole world to see. And, you know, that debate schedule, really, as we found out later, when the, you know, emails were released through WikiLeaks, you know, was controlled by the Clinton campaign, they laid it out to the dnc, the DNC administered it, and other things of that nature happen as well. Later in the campaign, after the first debate was held, really in mid December, when Bernie was gaining. And you know what it's like, Mark, because you were there on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire. You could feel it. You could see what was happening. We started to move a lot with voters with Bernie in the summer with his campaigning. And then in November, when we went on tv, we gave them three months of TV in Iowa, New Hampshire. We didn't answer it. We went on in November. We started to move. Now, mid December, we're moving. Every. Our polls tell us we're moving. The public polling said we're moving. And what does the DNC do? There is an incident, okay, involving the voter files. Now, these voter files are really important to campaigns. These are the names and numbers of everybody in each state who votes. And this is what we use in the campaign, not only to organize voters in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where every voter is touched in one way by one or more campaigns, but also, in the case of our campaign, it was the main tool for our fundraising, because our fundraising was grassroots fundraising as well. The Democratic National Committee decided that we had breached the firewall and gone through this firewall, which is imposed by the party, so that each campaign can now look at the other campaign's voter files. You know, and, in fact, what had happened was this firewall was Supposed to be controlled by the van, they call it. The company that administers this that, you know, was, you know, in the DNC was in charge of that. But two months later, when Bernie's zeroing in, they decide to seize on this to take away our access to the voter files. And they were effectively shutting down our campaign in the middle of December as we were on the move. You know, so. So those instances, the debate schedule, the other stuff, the fundraising agreements, there's a litany of things that went on that basically allowed the Clinton campaign to take over the apparatus of the party and, and control it in a way they never should have.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah. So a few things. First of all, these are, you might say these are inside baseball things. Who cares about the debate schedule? Who cares about the access to files? The point is, and as you said through WikiLeaks, these are glimpses of two examples where the Clintons use their power over the DNC to try to affect the outcome. Power Bernie did not have. Now, some would say, well, why didn't you guys play the same hardball? The answer is, because the DNC was, as you say, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clintons. These are the examples we know about. There's also the superdelegates. There's also their manipulation of the media. There's tons of things they. We know they did, and I guarantee you Tad knows this. You know this as well. Other things will never know they did because they didn't put it in an email that got linked, leaked by WikiLeaks. What does this say about Bernie's movement? That it could be suppressed? Does it say that the you all didn't play the game as well? Or does it say that the establishment was just powerful enough to stop him? What's the verdict that history should render from your book about the ultimate reason this happened?

[Tad Devine]

I think it was because the deck was so stacked in 2016 that there's no way we could have gotten around it. I mean, if the rule that is in place right now for superdelegates, for example, had not been in place the entire message of Hillary's campaign. I know she talked about issues, but effectively her message was, you know, I'm going to win inevitability.

[Mark Halpert]

Right.

[Tad Devine]

Message that they delivered constantly, all the time, and, you know, and that that message would have been much harder for them to deliver. And by the way, it wasn't just the Clintons, you know, in Nevada, where we were by the Clinton's campaign put out a poll a month before saying she was 25 points ahead in Nevada. Why did they do that? Well, because inevitability was their message. And as we moved in against her in Alvara and the horse race closed in the days before Harry Reid, who I liked very much, it was a good guy. He's not with us anymore, you know, basically and said he was neutral, but he moved in and he moved that thing as hard as he could towards her at the end. And don't take my word for it. John Ralston wrote a piece in USA Today the weekend after the Nevada caucuses where he spelled out in detail how Harry Reid moved to steal the caucus for Hillary because he understood, Reid understood that the inevitability message would have been sunk if he, she lost Iowa, if you lost New Hampshire and then Nevada, and that could have affected what happened later.

[Mark Halpert]

Why do people in my business. Because you deal with, you've dealt with reporters for decades. Normally you think reporters like an underdog. The reporters certainly didn't like Hillary much. Why was so much of the coverage in 2016 anti Bernie? Why was, why, why were the Clintons able to place opposition research so easily against Bernie? Why did the press not support at least an open contest, let alone favoring Hillary Clinton?

[Tad Devine]

I think because there was a consensus among much of the press that her nomination was fed out complex. You know, she was the strongest non incumbent candidate for the nomination, I think maybe ever. Okay, maybe. I mean, somewhere in history there's an example, but not in my history, which goes back now over 40 years in the Democratic Party. You know, I think they just said, listen, this is somebody who we're going to be dealing with probably as president, so let's go along for the ride and that, you know, and I really think that happened and it rose particularly at important times during the campaign and beat back Bernie on a number of fronts, including, you know, our effort, for example, to connect him with the African American community and in other ways that I think we could have moved forward. So I think the press was complicit and not everybody in the press, but many in the press and many organizations in the press. And I think, you know, that's part of the unfairness that held him back.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, let's say just accept my hypothetical. Bernie can convince the Democratic electorate that he's got the health and mental acuity to be president in 2026, 2028. Let's just assume through fight, medical disclosure, et cetera. How strong a candidate would he be for the nomination?

[Tad Devine]

Well, listen, I don't think, you know, he will be a strong candidate Even if he goes out and does, you know, 100 push ups or, you know, runs around the, you know, I mean, has the greatest medical exam that anybody has. I mean, he's 84 years old now. He turns 85 in September. He'll be 87 in 2028. He'll be 95 when he finishes his second term. I just think, you know, we've had, you know, a president and Joe Biden who the country figured out was too old to be president. We have a president today of Donald Trump who I think the country is figuring out is not only too old but is too awful in every single way to be president, you know, and I just don't think they're going to go for somebody who could be 95 at the end of his second term. Now, having said that, I do want to say that I think the message that he delivered in 2016, that same message that America has a rigged economy held in place by a corrupt system of campaign finance, is as powerful or more powerful within the Democratic Party and I think within the broader electorate than anything anybody else is saying.

[Mark Halpert]

So if Bernie can't drive that message, who can?

[Tad Devine]

Well, I think a lot of people can. You know, you know, Barack Obama was a state senator at this point in time, you know, in before the 2008 election. You know, I mean, let me, sorry to interrupt, but let me, I saw Telomerico this morning on TV and I thought he looked pretty good.

[Mark Halpert]

You know, let me, let me ask you a different way. Could an anti establishment candidate who put all of Bernie's issues at the center of his or her campaign, including saying the establishment of both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate special interests and the campaign finance system keeps you from having good schools and good clean water, et cetera. Who could do that message and beat the establishment of real people who might run?

[Tad Devine]

Well, first, it's somebody that we don't know because they're running for a high office and they haven't been elected yet in the name of them. So that's candidate number one. Let's call them the Obama stand in. Okay, who's a state senator or a state representative who may get elected governor or senator and they may be in place. Are there others who can do it? Yes, I think there are. I mean, I think Ro Khanna, who I know and I think is a very smart guy and solid person, I think he has the capacity to, not only to deliver that message, but to build the kind of broad coalition of people of different races.

[Mark Halpert]

Could AOC do it?

[Tad Devine]

I think AOC could do it. I mean, if I were advising her, I would say, listen, become a senator or governor first and then run for president. You don't have to wait a long time after you do that, because I think it's important for somebody like her, she's young, to demonstrate that she has the capacity to serve in that high office before becoming president. That threshold of credibility for the presidency is the highest one in our politics. So. But. But does she have the talent to do it? Does she have the smarts to do it? Yes, absolutely. I think she can do it, and I think there could be others. Some people seem to be coming towards that message very quickly. And, you know, anyone who can deliver it, I think with clarity, with confidence, and, you know, with an understanding of. Of how to relate to people and be the kind of candidate who connects with them, they could deliver it, and I think they could win with it.

[Mark Halpert]

Right. All right, so you think on the demand, on the supply side, it's there. In terms of the message, it's, as you said, probably stronger public sentiment than in 2016. Is the establishment of the party as strong as it was in 2016, or is that weakened? And so it would be easier for an insurgent like Bernie to win this time?

[Tad Devine]

I think it has certainly weakened, without a doubt. We saw what happened in Maine with the incumbent governor got blown out by a guy who nobody knew just months before. We saw it in New York City, where incumbents were defeated by candidates who no one knew, you know, a month or two before the election. We're seeing it, you know, across America, that people want change and they're demanding change. And I think, yes, I think the establishment has been put on its, you know, back heel by this movement for change. And also, you know, the superdelegates who really control the outcome. I mean, with Hillary, there are 800 superdelegates, and she had almost every one of them. That's 50% of what you need. You only need half to get the nomination. So that's 40% of what you need for a nomination. She had it before the voting started. You know, it was a ridiculous process.

[Mark Halpert]

And those rules have now been changed, so they're not as powerful, although they're still there.

[Tad Devine]

As powerful is the right way to describe it.

[Mark Halpert]

All right, ladies and gentlemen, Tad's book, available now, how the Democrats Screwed Bernie. It's a great piece of writing, it's a great piece of history, and it's an important piece of history to understand where we are now in America and where the Democratic Party is and trying to decide what kind of party it wants to be and doesn't want to be a party of the past and the status quo and special interest, or does it want to be something different? Tad, thank you. Congratulations again on the book.

[Tad Devine]

Thank you, Mark. Great to be with you.

[Mark Halpert]

Go buy now how the Democrats Screwed Bernie. It's on sale everywhere and it will tell you about an important moment in our recent history that's still extremely relevant right now. Next up, Senator Lindsey Graham passed away and everybody's interested in learning more about him, which is great. I had a conversation with him back in 2015 about his parents and their death when he was a young man, as well as how he got connected to John McCain and Joe Lieberman. It's a great conversation. I'd forgotten I'd had it, honestly, until somebody sent it to me right after this. Next up, my conversation from a decade ago with the late Senator Lindsey Graham. That's next up. A lot of what we do here is look at the story that's underneath the story story, the story that some people might miss. And let's now talk about something many of you are dealing with right now that's very similar, which is your Medicare coverage. If you're 64 years or older, you might be missing something. Check your Medicare plan, because two plans with the exact same coverage can often carry wildly different prices, and nobody's going to point that out to you automatically. You can overpay for the same thing and you'll never know it unless someone helps you and goes looking for something better. Chapter does the looking for you. They're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. They'll take a look at your doctors, at your prescriptions, at all your preferences, and then they'll find the plan that's the best fit for you. And chapter advisors, they aren't paid to steer you to any certain plan just to help you find the best one. If you're on the best plan now, they'll tell you that. But if not, they will help you switch. Folks who switched with Chapter last year saved an average of, get this $1,100. That's real money, of course. So give my friends over a chapter a call. Find out what your statement isn't telling you. It's a free resource for this audience and they'll review your option in under 20 minutes. Go right now to the phone and pick it up. Call 262-454-0503. Call my friends at chapter at 262-454-0503 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 doll thousand 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 yeah, maxing is so maxing right now bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack double stack double stack spicy chick sandwich. Seriously. Just $5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere. The new Spicy Chicken Max Wallet Friendly Max Tasty only at Carl's Jr available for a limited time at participating restaurants. Tax unincluded, not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount. Next up, a look back at the life and legacy of the late South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who died unexpected, unexpectedly. Many people in Washington, around the country, around the world mourning this extraordinary person, including someone who went from political enemy to close personal and political friend, President Trump.

[Lindsey Graham]

Some people you don't appreciate until they're not here, right?

[Tad Devine]

And you just saw all the quality that he had. He got things done.

[Mark Halpert]

He could even deal with Democrats. If I needed a Democrat, I could go to Lindsey and Lindsey would take

[Emily Jasinski]

him out and whine them and diner

[Tad Devine]

say I got them for you, right? There aren't too many people could do

[Mark Halpert]

that, David, and I know it very well. But a lot of people in my life knew Senator Graham and reporters and people in politics, and I knew him a little bit. I'd interviewed him over the years. I spent a lot of time with him when he was helping John McCain run for president, and then when he himself was running for president. People were really surprised that Lindsey Graham in 2015 decided to run for president. He eventually ended his campaign without much success and had conflict with Donald Trump, who famously revealed Senator Graham's mobile phone number at a rally. His presidential campaign was not a great success, but I enjoyed getting to spend some time with him in that context. In 2015, when I was working back at Bloomberg News, I had an opportunity to interview him and I decided rather than ask about the policies and all the things that I'd heard him asked about so many times before, to talk to him about his family with Whom he was quite close and with whom he dealt with an extraordinary amount of heartbreak and where he learned, as he says in the interview, life is fragile. Senator Graham lost both his parents when he was young. Very close, close apart. Here's a look back at part of my conversation with Senator Graham about dealing with loss. To start with, is your parents dying when you were 21 or so, just a few months apart? Lesson just a little over a year apart. Just first talk about your mother, who died of Hodgkin's disease. What was that like? How long was she sick for?

[Lindsey Graham]

Diagnosed in the fall of 75, died in June of 76.

[Mark Halpert]

So when she was diagnosed, how did she tell you and your sister?

[Lindsey Graham]

Well, I remember I was back home from, you know, neither one of my parents finished high school, so I'm at the University of South Carolina, 1975. You know, I convinced myself I wouldn't get kicked out of school. I went in 1973 as a freshman to college. I remember when my parents dropped me off, my sister was holding my leg. This is the longest night of my life. We're a close family. The first thing about me, I was unconditionally loved. My parents were older. My dad was in his late 40s when I was born, in his mid-50s when my sister was born. So they focused on me. I was an only child for a while, but I remember watching the liquor store. He had taken my mom to the doctor. She had been sick, and nothing was happening. And we finally changed doctors. And he pulled up, you know, just really disheveled. And he came in and he was just crying. And he said, your mom's not going to make it. And I think they told him that she was in the lesson stage of Hodgkin, Stage four.

[Mark Halpert]

How did the family spend then, the rest of her time?

[Lindsey Graham]

Well, she was a fighter. I guess what I get from my mom is her determination. She was quiet. She, you know, she was social enough, but she was very quiet, dedicated to the family. Every year, she'd set some money aside. Each month for Christmas, she'd open up a little savings account, and every month she'd put some money in there to make sure we'd have a good Christmas. She doted on us. She was very, very attentive. Mother. And she fought. Man, I tell you, she wanted to live so bad. She got sick, like I say, sometime in the fall of 75 and going through chemotherapy. And when you got a family member who's in a bad way, you want to will them. Well, I mean, you don't want to give up. God knows she didn't want to give up Easter. That Easter. In 76, she had her best Easter. She was feeling good, and she cooked dinner for the first time in a long time.

[Mark Halpert]

So just the four of you other family there?

[Lindsey Graham]

Yeah, there was some family at first, but in the evening was just us sitting there on the couch. And I remember saying, well, boy, I gave you a good dinner, didn't I? Said, yes, ma', am, you did. And, you know, so we thought maybe, you know, maybe we're gonna be the 1% here. And by June, she was gone.

[Mark Halpert]

What were her friends, final days like? Did you spend time with her?

[Lindsey Graham]

They were tough. Yeah. My dad was in one hospital. He'd had some prostate problems, and she was in another. And if it wasn't for family, I mean, what do people do without family? I had aunt and uncle. My sister's, you know, 12 years old. So I'm going back and forth from one hospital to the other, but had aunt and uncles in both hospitals. I mean, I was just so lucky. I just think that what do people do without family?

[Mark Halpert]

Close to his family, and losing his mom, and you can see how hard that hit him. Well, things got tougher for him because shortly after that, his father passed away as well. They had to move on with a tough life and take care of his sister, who's now his replacement in the United States Senate. More of my conversation with Senator Graham, period of months after she had passed and your father was still alive, what was that like for the.

[Lindsey Graham]

For the three of you? Well, that was. You know, he's 67, and she was 52. So you always thought mom would outlive him? Well, life's just not that way. I've learned life is fragile, and you can't take a whole lot for granted. So I'm going back to school. I try to get in law school. I don't make it. I've got an Air Force ROTC commitment. I'm thinking about getting the Air Force out of the Air Force. I said, no, we'll work with them. So I went to graduate school for a year, and I'd come home every weekend. You know, they were intent. My dad was. You know, he came down when I got commissioned with my sister to put my lieutenant bars on when I graduated. But I started graduate school in the fall, trying to, you know, get my grades up, my LSAT numbers up, so I can get in law school. And early in September, he died.

[Mark Halpert]

And how was. How did he do without her?

[Lindsey Graham]

It was Terrible. But, you know, he had two kids. I mean, he just. And he said, you know, don't be an old man with a young kids. And, you know, he understood what was going to happen. And it was tough.

[Mark Halpert]

Extraordinary life after that, of course, went on to serve in the military as a Jag and then become an influential member of Congress, first in the House and then in the Senate. What, what a extraordinary human feat to overcome that kind of adversity. And now, of course, his senator replacing him in the Senate, well remembered, of course, for his later years as an ally of President Trump. But probably the most notable period of his professional life for a lot of people in Washington and around the world was his association with the so called Three Amigos. Able to work across the aisle up through his time in the Senate, but most prominently with Joe Lieberman, the Democrat from Connecticut, and his fellow Republican and close friend, John McCain. The Three Amigos had a legendary friendship, often in the halls of Congress, but also as they traveled around the world. Here's Senator Graham talking about the origins and practice of the Three Amigos. Amigos, yeah, absolutely. For a number of years. You, John McCain, who of course still serves with you, and Joe Lieberman, who was there. Talk about the start. How did the Three Amigos, how were they born?

[Lindsey Graham]

Well, pain. They were born of pain. So John McCain's sort of a Republican maverick. Joe Lieberman had been the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, lost the election about 500 votes in Florida. So along comes Iraq. The thing about Joe Lieberman, and I think any politician can learn from, is he didn't want the job too much. He was progressive by any reasonable definition. But when it came to radical Islam and the war, he understood that we had to get Iraq. Right. And he was willing to stand by Bush, who had made tons of mistakes, and he was going to adjust his strategy. He was going to go all in the surge, and Joe wouldn't give an inch. He stood by the president. He was one, I think, the only Democratic vote to keep us from pulling the plug. And that bond, see, John, you know, he'd been a contrarian in his own party. Joe Lieberman became sort of the outcast, I guess, on national security. And I was John Wingman in 2000 and 2008. And just from that bond of where people wanted not to lose a war that we thought we couldn't afford to lose, it came from there.

[Mark Halpert]

So what are the activities of the Three Amigos?

[Lindsey Graham]

Mostly me going around saying what they meant to say. No, we went everywhere together. We busted our but to go to Iraq to try to find out what's working and what's not. The one thing I can tell any senator travel. If you care about national security, there's no substitute for being on the ground. I've been to Afghanistan about 22 or 23 times. 14 or 15 in Iraq would go a lot. And you could see it get worse and you could see it get better. So the three amigos basically were a traveling roadshow. We were going all over the region trying to find out what was working and what was not.

[Mark Halpert]

Extraordinary guy. Privileged to sit down with him for that conversation. I did two other interviews with him that I'm still looking for. And when I find him, I'll publish them some way. Maybe here, maybe on social. We'll see. Thoughts and prayers, of course, go out to his family and his loved ones as they continue to deal with his loss. And of course to his sister who is simultaneously grieving and embarking on several months of serving in the United States Senate in his absence. We'll be right back. Next up, Emily Jasinski hosted the after party with Emily Jasinski. Emily is next up. So go ahead and think about the last 30 bucks you spent on something like a streaming subscription you don't watch or a lunch you've already forgotten. That's $30 and it's gone forever. Acre gold lets you turn that so called lost money into something way better. Physical. 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan, your balance builds and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. Real gold in your hand at your house. And over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for you collectors out there, this is really cool. They just dropped the limited edition hot wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. Strictly capped. And once they're gone, they're history. Go on the website and check them out and while you're there, claim your free entry to the speed club sweepstakes. There they're giving away a 1 gram Hot Wheels gold bar plus a massive grand prize. This is really cool. A 10 gram 24 karat Hot Wheels bar. That's gold. Both come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. Start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com mark again, go to getacregold.com mark. Start subscribing today. 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, everybody, Next up and joining me now, Emily Jashinsky, host of the After Party with Emily Jashinski. The party never ends. Wherever Emily is, it's akin to Donald Trump and Air Force One. Whatever plane he's on is called Air Force One. Wherever Lamley is live Mondays and Wednesdays at 9pm Eastern Time, and then on all your favorite streaming platforms is a Lifetime party. Emily, welcome.

[Emily Jasinski]

Thanks for having me, Mark. I guess next up is a party this morning.

[Tad Devine]

Yeah. What?

[Mark Halpert]

Exactly. Right. Like Wolf Blitzer in the Situation room. What kind of party favors have you given out lately on the show?

[Emily Jasinski]

You know, it's a great question. Now I'm realizing, because you're asking that I've never once given out a party favor.

[Tad Devine]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

See, polite. You should, like during COVID you should email everybody like a box of sake and let them light up during the show because I know you, you prefer your, your guests soused.

[Emily Jasinski]

Yeah. I mean, who doesn't? But I just have coffee this morning. But that's a good idea. Now I feel like I'm falling behind.

[Mark Halpert]

All right. Well, thank you for being here. I want to talk about one of my topics of fascination, the vice president of the United States, the ultimate human Rorschach test. I got people in my life who love him and he goes on Rogan for three hours and they're like, see why he's so awesome? And then I have people in my life who say, I watched 10 minutes of it. I had to turn it off because he's such a. A phony, smarmy phony. What explains the divergent views regarding this singular man?

[Emily Jasinski]

You know, that's a really good question. I went on Real Clear Politics last night and realized it's even a bigger gap than I thought between Vance right now and Rubio in 2028 polling. Just as the Rorschach test question about public opinion on him.

[Mark Halpert]

Sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to clarify. Do you have the same experience I do, that some people love him and some people. People don't?

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, yes, but mostly on the right. Yeah. You know what I mean?

[Mark Halpert]

Just talk.

[Emily Jasinski]

Okay.

[Mark Halpert]

Everybody, everybody on the left hates him because he's associated with Donald Trump. I'm talking about people in conservative circles. Some love him, some can't stand him.

[Emily Jasinski]

Yeah. And, you know, we were actually talking about this on After Party last night, because I looked at the 2028 testing and 2028 polling, and he's up on Marco by like 20 points right now, which could mean a lot of different things. But it was a little bit of a wake up call, because if you go on Axe, it's so polarized between love Vance and hate Vance. And I wonder if that extends more broadly to the electorate, because, Mark, one thing I always think of with Vance is that Donald Trump is, if he knows anything, he knows the kind of telegenic qualities and the maybe cinematic qualities that make a vice president useful to him. And there's a reason he went with Vance in 2024. And I have a feeling that Trump's sense of where like, sort of average voters are is probably a bit different than what we see in the X, a pundit bubble.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah. You know, you say he went with Vance for a reason or recall that part of why he didn't go with Rubio was the residency issue. They both lived in Florida, and under the Constitution, you can't get both candidates, can't get the electoral votes of that state. And in a close election, that could produce kind of a catastrophe. I don't know if Rubio, if Rubio had been from Wisconsin, I think he may well have picked Rubio. So it's not, not clear to me that that was kind of a dispositive insight into who Donald Trump at the time thought was stronger. And since then, of course, he's widely reported, he muses all the time, or at least did about Rubio versus Vance. And he hears what I hear. I know because I talk to people who've talked to him about it. Some people really dig Rubio and don't dig Vance. Typically, though, like, like by demographic, typically, like men over 90 don't like you, but men, men in their 80s love you. And that's pretty consistent. Demographically. You could talk to a Republican who demographically identical, same age, same affiliation, same feelings about Trump, and some of them won't like JD and some of them will. And that's what's so confounding to me.

[Emily Jasinski]

Yeah, it is interesting. And I think it's, you know, for all of the foreign policy questions, those are there. Those have been hanging over J.D. vance for a long time. I think also he comes across sometimes as though he's trying really hard to seem cool and relaxed, like he's still not. And partially I think this is to his credit. He's still not a comfortable kind of retail politician. And I think that kind of gives people this vibe that he's trying really hard, that there's almost a desperation in him to be liked and to be affirmed. And I think that probably is off putting for some people. But I will say also, even if, because you know this as well as I do, Trump is quizzing people on whether they think Vance or Rubio should be his successor when they come into the Oval Office these days, even if that's happening, I still don't think Donald Trump would put, you know, an untalented politician or somebody who isn't telegenic as his vice president. So he sees something in Vance for sure, and there is something there. That's where I think probably the people who are polarized in favor of Vance pick up on. But they also tend to believe he understands the future of the Republican Party in a way that's different from Rubio or Nikki Haley. So it's polarized along those lines, of course, too.

[Mark Halpert]

Did you watch the all nearly three hours of the Rogan interview?

[Emily Jasinski]

Every single minute of it.

[Mark Halpert]

Look, I didn't make it quite the end, but I saw most of it. What would you say? You could cite a specific moments or just a sort of general vibe. What was the high point for you from Vance's point of view? Where was he at his best and where would you say the low point was?

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, he's really good at having these conversations, I think because he listens to podcasts. Clearly he pays attention to podcasts. He says he's been off X since Lent. I don't know that I totally believe that. I think he's probably at least getting sense to him, lurking on. Yeah, right. Yes, exactly. But he was most fluent. I don't think this will surprise people. It was amazing to see how fluent he is in Epstein conspiracy theories and UFO conversations. And I don't say that to be pejorative or dismissive. He's actually going really deep with Rogan in this conversation about what UFOs could be. Rogan pushes him on the demon thing. And this all sounds very crazy, but for the political talents that'll be required in 2028, you have him just there like chopping it up, pushing back on Rogan, going super deep on Epstein and on UFOs. And also he was excellent from my perspective at least on AI and labor. You could tell that he's also very fluent in the way those conversations are happening at the highest level now. Low points, obviously, when Rogan was pressing him on the Iran war, and that's already where he's getting the most criticism. Just within the hours that the episode was dropped, that was already what he was getting the most criticism on. Over. So that was pretty brutal. It's still continuing to be pretty brutal for Vance, who has to answer these

[Mark Halpert]

questions on that issue. A very tough issue. He's got, he's got to. He's defends the President. He also has to defend from the neocons who think he's too squishy and from the, from the isolationists, I'll call them that he's too complicit. So he's really on that issue, at least as I've seen it. He's being hit from all sides. It's not just from one side, right?

[Emily Jasinski]

No, not at all. He's like in this position where he's trying to bridge both of those polarized ideological factions of the Republican Party. And so nobody is going to be happy with him. And he has to represent the President's perspective on all of this, not his own, which is very different. In a three hour podcast format like that is a very difficult experience for any politician where he's like, he has to keep both of those sides happy. He has to keep the President happy. He has to basically speak for the White House. So that was, I think, predictably, very tough for the Vice President.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, all this stuff with the socialist candidates, I'm switching topics now with no, with no transition. All these socialists, a lot of them have things they've said that are controversial or things they've done that are a problem. Like Platner, but like this lady in, in New York City, Chevalier, she's got a lot of controversial positions. But I think that a lot of these things distract from the debate about socialism because they've got these policy positions. And I keep saying, imagine the universe where Platner had never been on Reddit, had never been accused of sexually assaulting anybody, had a legitimate oyster farm rather than just selling stuff to his mom. Imagine what the debate would be like. So is the rise of the Democratic socialists and socialism in general, is it a sideshow? Is it just kind of like an insider political story, or is it saying something deeper about the Democratic Party in the country?

[Emily Jasinski]

No, this is the future. And Vice President Vance waited on this and Rogan yesterday as well. He's clearly, clearly paying very close attention to it and believes that Republicans aren't offering the correct counterbalance to the rise of DSA type candidates. And I think that diagnosis is accurate because the reason you saw with Zoram Hamdani, so many people said they don't support socialism, but then they voted for Zohra Momdani in the election last year. And that's what should really concern establishment Democrats and what should really concern Republicans because that, what that tells you is that the politics being offered by the people who don't want socialists to win elections are so unattractive to voters that even people who don't like socialism are siding with the socialists. And that to me is a big statement. That to me is why the DSA politics, whether we're talking about the DSA as a formal organization or more the, the tone, tenor and policy agenda that they're setting for the Democratic Party now, that's they're here to stay, I think precisely because of that, because their opponents have not learned how to counter them in ways that are attractive to voters. It's like lesser than 2 evil politics or lesser of 2 evil politics for many, many voters right now. And they're going to go with the lesser of two evils in many cases being the person who says the status quo is broken. And here's my big picture solution to fix it. Now, as that experiment runs in places like New York City, maybe that'll be less effective. But for now it's very effective.

[Mark Halpert]

Brilliantly said. Let me, let me just crudely break down how I'm thinking about it now and see what you think. There's kind of three buckets that I think about that these people are offering up and I agree with you that Republicans are necessary. Slurry County One is the economics. Just saying if you can't afford a home, if you can't afford to go to college, if you're not making enough money right now to make ends meet, we have an economic plan and that Republicans right now, the housing bill just passed, but the president himself wouldn't refuse to sign it because he said it wasn't that big a deal. So that's one bucket is economics, another bucket is, is social issues. You know, very progressive views on social issues. And then the third is just as you said, just kind of anti status quo. Just, just we're, we're against what, what exists now, like Donald Trump in 2016. We're going to blow the whole thing up. What, what is the appeal all three of those. Is it more, is it more just the economics? What is it that, that anyone who wants to understand where the electorate is needs to Counter.

[Emily Jasinski]

I would add a fourth bucket just in terms of Democratic primaries.

[Mark Halpert]

I didn't budget. Didn't budget for a fourth bucket.

[Emily Jasinski]

Shoot. Okay.

[Mark Halpert]

All right, now go ahead. We'll, we'll find it.

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, this, this won't be surprising to you, but I would just say, having interviewed many of these candidates, that the question of foreign policy, and some of them have refer to it as like imperialism or colonialism. But the question of foreign policy, particularly of the Israel litmus test, has been crucial to them in the primaries. Being able to leapfrog over because the Democratic Party's grassroots type, like organizing type of activists, those people are really interested in the litmus test. I think it's less important to general election voters. But in a primary, that's the type of litmus test, you pass it or you don't pass it and the energy can shift dramatically based on it. So I, I think that's not true.

[Mark Halpert]

And on that issue, talking about the vice president, he sounded like he could have been a DSA candidate when he talked about Israel. I mean, not in the totality. You know, he said, I think, I think that's the sort of smartest thing he said about Israel. Was in with Rogan, was, I'm in the sensible center on this. I'm not, I'm not as anti Israel as some people, but I'm also, you know, got some skepticism about them. But then when he, when he talked, when he made these accusations against the Israeli government, saying they don't really want, they don't, you know, some elements of it don't want the peace deal, he, he's expressing ideas that no incumbent vice president of either party in my lifetime could possibly say. And yet, and yet, and yet he was.

[Emily Jasinski]

And we saw, for example, Kamala Harris wouldn't say it. Now she's of course, in conversation with some of these DSA candidates, per reporting, but Kamala Harris wouldn't come even close to where J.D. vance is. That's a great point. And on top of that, you, with J.D. vance, you're hearing something that's much closer to a DSA type candidate on this question than it is to Lindsey, Lindsey Graham, for example, or it would be to, I mean, Thom Tillis or any establishment Republican senator. So, yeah, it's, I think, a pretty good glimpse into the future of how anti establishment political movements on the left and the right are going on foreign policy. That our first glimpse into that was 2016, obviously. But it's getting more and more powerful. To your point, even Kamala Harris, to JD Vance I think that's a pretty clear sign of how quickly this is moving.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, if you think about the media, again, I'm transitioning with no transition. 2016. Russia, Russia, Russia. And then, and then before the 2020 election, but into the Biden term, just a massive failure on, on Biden's acuity and then just the constant ingrained liberal bias that we see in all these places. Is there any improvement? Is there any consciousness raising? Is there? They got Donald Trump elected twice, ironically, the last thing in the world they wanted. As you, as you consume dominant media, as I call it this year, do you see anything we say, well, okay, that place is trying to fix themselves up a little bit or it's all just the same?

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, no, I mean, I think there's been an improvement in the New York Times on some of these cultural issues and on their willingness to, to push for different editorials, at least on the editorial side, to push for different voices to be included. But you know, particularly I think of their coverage on the trans medicine for children conversation. They have really been willing to go and do investigative reporting that's uncomfortable, I guarantee you for many of the people inside the building on that. So I'll give them a little bit of credit. I think overall the story or the picture is still pretty dismal. Trusted media tied right now for a record low according to Gallup, which is insane. Ten years after the host of Celebrity Apprentice defeated the former Secretary of State. And nobody said it would happen. But I do see small improvements. I just wonder how long lasting they'll be because audience capture as we kind of niche IFY is going to be a big force in the future too.

[Mark Halpert]

I'm working on a new project for two. It hasn't been fully announced yet, although we've hinted at it talking to different generations and, and you're, you're my only bridge to young people. So while you're here, we hear young people a lot speak in a way that my generation would never speak. They say, well, my generation feels blah, blah, blah like they're the voice of their generation in this incredibly self conscious way. What is up with people in their 20s, early 30s? How do they relate to their generation? Are they proud of it? Are they frustrated? How would you characterize you youngsters?

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, I think this is a great question because my explanation for this is that the rate of change has gotten so quick or has just accelerated so that we are way more polarized by generation. So my brother is four years younger than me and he basically had a totally different Childhood because of technology, because of smartphones loaded with social media. And I think the way that people are starting to identify more as millennials or zoomers or Gen Alpha is, is partially because it identifies you with an in group that had a similar experience that other people can't possibly understand. Because if you grew up in a tablet generation generation versus a TikTok generation versus whatever the heck is going to come next, it really is just different. So that's my explanation.

[Mark Halpert]

All right, let's see you using you. It's a great explanation conceptually, but I need to drill down with you, like, what's different tablet versus TikTok. I mean, does that really change the entire orientation of how someone views their experience in America?

[Emily Jasinski]

I think TikTok totally changed everything because of the way that it created the short form videos. It changed Instagram, it changed Facebook, and it changed our experience with politics. Now X has short form video scrolling, YouTube has shorts. So I think TikTok, if you grew up in a generation where TikTok was predominant, it's very different than like my generation, where we didn't even have. This sounds so quaint to you, Mark, but we didn't even have algorithmically curated news feeds. It was a literal timestamp feed. You could get to the bottom of it.

[Mark Halpert]

I understand, I understand, and I'm not minimizing its impact on people, but how would you characterize what that does to your brother's worldview as compared to yours? Does it make him a shorter attention span? Maybe. But what's the, what's the generational identity that derives from being part of an algorithmically served short form video life?

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, he's lucky he's not on social media at all. But I work with a lot of students, so I've seen what they do. And it is like a democratized and for better or worse, democratize some of these conversations, for example, about Israel, about the political establishment, about our institutions in ways that, like, these questions are all percolating in your head. Even if you don't believe the crazy thing that the person on TikTok said, It gets into your head and I think it plants a lot of seeds of, of distrust and doubt. I think it has polarized people really intensely and I think it has all of these, it's created all these micro celebrities and products and those sorts of things that you or I even don't have any idea what it is. Like. They're extremely popular, a major celebrity with Gen Alpha, and I would have zero idea who the person is. So it's little ways, but I think they add up to kind of a big picture that's very different.

[Mark Halpert]

I have to say, Emily, you've given me an epiphany because I've never before developed in my head an opinion about whether young people should be barred from social media as, as some, some have advocated in some countries have done. I've never, I've always just sort of passively said, well, there probably be some upside to it, but it would be impractical. And, you know, all the reasons not to do it. You've now made me decide just based on describing what you just did, we got to ban them. These kids should be nowhere near social media till they're 30. I just, it's a bad idea because the, the algorithm is poison. The algorithm is just, it's just, it's going to make the, turn them into a bunch of things we don't want them to be.

[Emily Jasinski]

Well, and we've also seen screen time go dramatically up and time spent with friends go dramatically down. And that has happened more precipitously with every passing like five years. And so I do think that's a huge, like, physical change. It's a huge social, psychological change. And it's happening in these, these chunks again that I think it's like why people are more identifying with their generation because it's an experience that's, it's different.

[Mark Halpert]

You know how I avoid that friend problem? I tell kids the screen is your friend.

[Emily Jasinski]

Yes.

[Mark Halpert]

If the screen is your friend, you can, it's a twofer. You can spend time with your screen and also with your friend.

[Emily Jasinski]

And you can watch Next up with Mark Halperin.

[Mark Halpert]

You can. Or after Party. Emily, thank you. Love having you on. Thank you for sharing all your wisdom, generational and otherwise. Everybody. If you've never checked out Emily's show, I feel sort of bad for you. It's not quite pity, but it verges on pity and it's certainly strong concern. Emily's program, the Afterparty with Emily Jaczinski. Mondays and Wednesdays, 9:00pm Eastern Time. Live. Nothing better than live. And then you can watch in all your favorite streaming platforms, audio, video, etc. Emily, thank you. Great to see you.

[Emily Jasinski]

Appreciate you, Mark.

[Mark Halpert]

All right, that's it for today's program. We're back next Tuesday, another brand new episode. Hope everybody has a wonderful weekend. Share the program over the weekend with your friends, family. Even your enemies are entitled to hear that discussion with Emily. Subscribe to NextUp on YouTube wherever you get your podcasts. Be a Nexter proud, true, strong. So you always know what's coming. Next up.

[Tad Devine]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

Maxing is so maxing right now, bro. Get ready for spicy chicken maxing because Carl's Jr. Is saving you big with a 5.99 maxed out double stack. Double stack Double stack spicy chicken sandwich. Seriously, just 5.99 double stack spicy chicken. This is unreal value in the bromosphere. The new spicy chicken Max wallet friendly, Max tasty only at Carl's Jr available for limited time at participating restaurants. Tax unincluded, not valid for use within a combo or a combination with any other offered discount.