B (1:29)

Or listen wherever you get your podcasts.

C (1:54)

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Back when I worked for Barack Obama on his campaigns and in the White House, whenever we faced a political crisis, when things felt like they were falling apart all around us, President Obama would call a strategy meeting. They would last all day. Sometimes they're at his house, sometimes they were at a nearby office. But every single time, they would last hours and hours. We get the whole gang together to try to figure out what went wrong and how we could fix it. We didn't answer every question, but we always left the meeting with a plan. The conversations around the table focused my mind had made me smarter. And even as I have celebrated Democratic victories and touted Trump's declining poll numbers in recent weeks, I have had the sinking suspicion that too many people in my party are whistling past the graveyard. Trump's blunders are masking the political crisis the Democratic Party is in. To figure out how to get out of it, I wanted to have one of those strategic conversations like the ones I used to have in the Obama days. And there was no better person to have that conversation with than David plouffe. He was Obama's campaign manager in 2008, his top political advisor in the White House during the reelection, my boss in both of those occasions, and was senior advisor to Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign. David is one of the smartest and most strategic people in Democratic politics, and I wanted to sit down with him and talk about these issues. David Plouffe, welcome back to Pot Save America.

B (3:06)

Always good to be with you, Dan. Go Sixers. All right.

C (3:09)

Exactly. Go Sixers. All right. So you wrote an op ed in the New York Times which got a lot of attention, pissed off some powerful people, and I recommend everyone read it. But I just want to give people a flavor of it because it's going to guide our conversation today. Here's what you write. Right now, Democrats have no credible path to sustaining control of the Senate and the White House. After the adjustments to the electoral college map that most likely come with the next census, the Democratic presidential nominee could win all the states won by Kamala Harris. The plus the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and still fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. The point of your op ed is the Democratic Party is in crisis. What caused you to take these thoughts to the New York Times?

B (3:52)

Well, Dan, and for me, I mean, I spent a lot of time on the specifics, but the spirit of it is more important to me than any specifics, which is when you think about the Supreme Court, we could have two, three retirements over the next decade. I think that the view that somehow once Trump leaves the scene, everything will return to normal. I think it's going to get worse after Trump, not better. The only antidote really is sustained Democratic control of all chambers, but particularly the president and the White House. I'm sorry, the White House and the Senate. And when you look at just how few states were competitive in, in a presidential race or the Senate, the math is just unrelenting. And what also guides my thinking on this is the Republican Party right now is, is dreadful. They are despised by the American people. The only entity maybe more despised is the Democratic Party. So when your opponent is in the shitter, that's the time to kind of get out of the shitter you're in and really give voters a sense of, oh, there's new people and there's new ideas and they seem different and they're willing to admit their mistakes. There's clearly a huge opening here for us to rebuild our brand, our electoral performance. But if we don't do that, by the way, one thing I think about, you and I both lived through Merrick Garland. Let's say we win the White House but we don't have the Senate. Is there any guarantee, like if Thomas or Alito, something were to happen to them, they retired, that we could confirm a Supreme Court justice? I wouldn't take that bet to the bank.

C (5:21)

I would assume not.

B (5:22)

It's not right. So you can either complain about it, which we should do, or say, how do we make sure something like that doesn't happen so that more elections than not, we have a chance to be 50 plus in the Senate and hold the presidency for an extended period of time. And I think if we do those things, we're probably going to like where we are in the House as well.

C (5:41)

So I think it's worth just dialing in a little bit on the Electoral College point. We have talked about the Senate. We'll talk about the Senate some more in this conversation with Electoral College as we sit here today. And these are all estimates, but we have a pretty good sense of where things are headed. The most likely scenario is California and New York lose somewhere to be combined six to seven votes, and Texas and Florida gain somewhere six to seven votes, which means that the map that we almost won with in 2016 we did win with in 2020. We came close to winning in 2024. Those are all off the table. You would have to win with a map that looked like Obama 2012. You really have to be competitive either in a whole swath of states in which we're not competitive, or you have to be able to win Florida or Texas or both. Otherwise there's just no really credible path to getting there on a regular basis.

B (6:28)

Absolutely.

C (6:29)

Is that right?

B (6:30)

I mean, we. The blue wall doesn't get you there anymore, even with that second Congressional District of Nebraska, which, by the way, I assume they're going to change or try to again. So, yeah, I mean, we have to, you know, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, all critical. We have to keep trying to figure out how to get more competitive in Florida eventually, you know, break their back in Texas. But we've got to be more competitive in more places. And you saw in 24, you know, Nevada and Arizona weren't that close. Georgia a little more competitive. So the notion that somehow after 20, like Arizona and Nevada are going to be states that we win more often than not, I don't think is true. We're gonna have to really fight to make that true. So we've got to put more targets on the board, and that should scare everybody that we could have a great electoral performance in 2032, as we thought in this last decade, and fall short. So we've got to put more states in play. That's just a reality. And I believe we have the opportunity to, because I think some of the gains Trump made with non college voters, particularly of color, you see them fleeing him, doesn't mean we're going to get him back, but they're open to that. I think we've got the ability to do better in some rural communities, not by a lot, but by a few points. Clearly, Kamala Harris actually showed real strength with some college educated, older white voters. So I think we've got the ability to do that. But it's not something we can say it should happen. It has to happen. It has to happen, or we're going to have neither the Senate or the White House for the next decade. And it's not going to be like Mitt Romney in charge. It's going to be a more skillful, more palatable, but super scary version of Trump.

C (8:12)

And I think it's like there is this paradox we're all living in, which is the 2026 midterms look pretty good right now, not as good as they did in 2018, but the house certainly is a map that is very winnable. The Senate map, while hard, looks better than it's looked in a long time. We have good candidates running in places and we have paths to get to 50 votes there, which seemed impossible a year ago. As you mentioned, the polls are pretty clear that Trump's dropped a lot. And the New York Times poll that came out earlier this week said very explicitly that Trump's numbers with the coalition that powered him in victory in 2024, young voters, particularly young men, Latino voters, working class, non white voters. Trump's numbers with those groups now look exactly like they did in 2020 when he lost, not like when he won in 2024. And that's all great news, but at the same time, we're looking at this problem where even in world, we are capped at like 53 Senate seats, if we're lucky, because we only have one. There's only one Republican in a blue seat. It's only two Republicans in a purple seat, if you count four. If you count North Carolina state, we haven't won since 2008. We have a low ceiling there. And then you look at 2028, you could see a world where you could say a generic good Democrat can win the White House against the unpopular vice president to an unpopular president. You can see that path. But then that person's gonna come in and have to win much bigger. Normally, as we know, your first president election, you get to a number, and your second, you get reelected with a smaller number. And that smaller number is not going to work in 2032. And so the paradox here is things look good in the short term. In the long term, we have some pretty big changes we have to make in our party to have what you argue, which is sustainable control, to actually stamp out maga. This isn't ignoring all the problems Republicans have. It's that, that it's not. When you're fighting against something that looks like the MAGA movement, you can't just swap power every four years. We've seen how damaging that could be. We are in this crisis mode, but it doesn't feel that way in the moment. But when you take a step back, the party really has a ton of work to it, which is why I think your op ed's important and probably pissed off some people. But let's begin with the party brand. Where we are right now, the Democratic Party brand is in the toilet. It's at around the lowest level it's been in history. And that's concerning for a lot of reasons. But one reason is typically politics is seesaw. One side goes down, the other one goes up. Trump has come down. We have not gone up. What's your theory as to what's happened to the Democratic Party? Because for the most of the 21st century, other than right after. Right. Like after 9, 11, the Democratic Party has been more popular than the Republican Party. How do we get here?

B (10:49)

Yeah, so just a second. On some of what you just said, I mean, the Times poll is interesting. I mean, Trump obviously doesn't like it. He's threatening to sue them on based on the poll. But if you look at all of his numbers, and by the way, I think one of the tasks for 26 is one, make every Republican running for office own all the downside. In a way, I think Trump historically has Been stronger than a lot of his candidates. Right now, I worry the opposite. You got to make these guys and women pay full price. But secondly, for us, yeah, 26 could be good. But given what you just said, we don't have a Senate race to lose or a House race we can waste. Like, we can't afford it. We've seen they, by nominating a bunch of knuckleheads through the years, have lost Senate races they should have won. We can't do that. So we have to maximize 26 as well. Like, you're a big basketball fan. Like, Michael Jordan never went into the halftime locker room when they're up 6 happy. Like, why the fuck aren't we up 12? Like, I think we need more of that mentality. So. But that time spoil was disconcerting because you think maybe the generic ballot should be seven, eight, nine points, and it wasn't. And if it's that high, by the way, we can definitely win the House with some margin, but also win the Senate in this tough environment, which I think should be the goal, I think, with the brand. I think, first of all, there's still a hangover from Biden, both him running and I think people's view that he mishandled the economy and the border. You know, he did a lot of great things, obviously, but right now, voters are penalizing him. And I think the Democratic Party, I think, kind of stood by and let that happen. I think there's a sense from voters, I'm just reporting what great researchers show us when they talk to voters, that we weren't as maniacally focused on lifting wages and helping people who are living their lives right now as opposed to we had. I think people thought we were a little more ideologically focused. There's no doubt that there was a sense from some voters that we are more focused on social issues, as important as they are, than the economy. And I think that we haven't had at the national level for some time, kind of the exciting candidate. Joe Biden won. Thank goodness Hillary ran a strong race, Kamala did. But we haven't had the Obama, Clinton, Trump astride our party, which becomes an avenue for people, I think, to come over to you. So I think the other thing, I think Mamdani is interesting. You've watched him closely, as have I. This is another thing. I mean, I've seen focus groups where voters kind of say, listen, the Democrats seem like the taxes we pay, they just kind of think it's their money to spend. They don't accept any criticism of Government. They think all the answers are government. And you and I know a lot of the answers are. But what Mondame shows is even a social Democrat can blow the whistle on government when it's doing dumb things. And I wrote about this some in the op ed. I think Obama did a lot of this with some of our efforts. Clinton did. It's really important for us as the believers in government to be the first one say, hey, when a program's not working or there's fraud, we're going to blow the whistle on it. We're not going to reflexively defend the other thing. I'd point out I don't think we've walked the walk. I mean, we criticize them for being anti Democratic, for being autocracy friendly, for not having any norms. But when we have a guy in Illinois retire from the House and he slides in at the 11th hour, his preferred choice to replace him, the leadership says, well, we're not going to criticize him. Even the delegate from the US Virgin Islands who got talking points from Jeffrey Epstein, we rally around. So I think I get on the one hand there's a view that the Republicans never criticize each other, which I actually don't agree with. I think they criticize, but like, if we truly want to tell people we've changed, that we are going to defend them, that we're not going to defend any corruption, we've got to be willing to call it out in our own ranks, in my view. And we have some fresh faces out there. I think Talarico is running a really interesting race. Obviously Dana Osborne's back in and I think is doing really well in a tough place. So ultimately the solution to this is new leaders, new candidates, and ultimately who our nominee is in 28 will determine so much, not just about that election, but the next decade. We really have to get that right, someone who's a great vote getter and can win by enough, as you said, to give us a margin in the Senate. So I think all you have to do is listen to voters and they talk about what's wrong with the Democratic Party. You get an earful. Now the good news is they say, just as, you know, negative things about the Republicans, but they're in charge. So this is my concern is I think there was a little bit of after 22, we had a better election than people thought.

C (15:14)

Hugely after 22, it's like the great.

B (15:16)

Sin of the party, it was carrying forward. It was really because of Dobbs. I think we could have a very good 26. But that doesn't mean we've healed any of our wounds. And to me, the tragedy would be if, you know, maybe we have a good 26, maybe as you said, we even win the White House in 28. But it's because we are the least worst option as opposed to some voters saying, actually, yeah, I'm kind of done with maga. And this Democratic Party or these Democratic candidates, they seem a little bit different, what they're talking about. I think we clearly have to refresh our economic agenda centered around non college workers. Those are also the jobs probably least at risk with AI in the near term until Musk gets all his optimist robots everywhere. So I think that, anyway, the way I always thought you and I went through the war together in 2012, and one of the things we'd say is even though it was a tough economy, and I think for most of 11, most observers thought we'd lose. Every time we did focus groups with swing voters, people were still interested in what Obama had to say. Their ears were open. And I think for a lot of voters right now, they've closed their ears because they just don't believe in what we're saying. They need to hear new things, more compelling things, more honest things, more things connected to their lives. And if they do that, given the weakness of the Republicans, I think we can really profit from it.

C (16:33)

In your piece, and this is the part that pissed off some people, got some members angry at you, you argued that Democrats running for office should call for new leadership in the House and the Senate. Do you think Democrats really should ditch Jeffries and Schumer in the lot?

B (16:47)

Well, listen, as you know, after the election, it's an inside game. And I would imagine both of those gentlemen will have, you know, the inside track to leadership if we win back the House and our Senate. But that doesn't mean that a candidate. The way I always think about this, Dan, is if you're in a room of 150 people in Central Iowa, okay, or in suburban Arizona, and a House candidate or a Senate candidate's talking to a group of voters and you say, listen, I'm running against Trump, I think what they're doing is harmful to the economy, to our country. There's a bunch of institutions that aren't delivering for people. But I also think my party has to change. Like, people are going to be nodding their heads, right? So I would just say this. Nancy Pelosi, who's one of the greatest leaders in the history of America, was always very free and open with candidates, you say what you have to say to win, even if they were critical of her. And, you know, these positions aren't about any one person. You know, there's an existential thing hanging over us that we have to at least win one of these chambers. I would argue two, given some of the structural things we talked about. So I think there'll be candidates out there that already are, you know, challenging leadership. I would suspect at the end of the day, if we're successful electorally, the current leaders will, you know, ultimately be the successful candidates. I don't know if other people will run or not. As you know, that's still an inside game. But I guess my point is, Dan, we need candidates to just let it rip and kind of burn all the houses down, because that's what voters want to hear.

A (18:16)

Positive America is brought to you by Acorns. For a long time, I just put my money under the mattress because I've never taken an economics class. But then now there's Acorns. So many of us only focus on where our money is. Today, Acorns is the the financial wellness app that cares about where your money is going tomorrow. Acorns is a smart way to give your money a chance to grow. It's easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money. Even if all you've got is spare change. Acorns grows with you. Whether you're just starting out or thinking about settling down, Acorns supports your big and small goals across every life stage. The Acorns potential screen shows you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time. Plus, you can quickly adjust how much you're investing every day, week or month to make sure you're building towards your goals. Acorns is all in one. No more finance apps cluttering up your phone. With Acorns, you can invest, save, and give your money a chance to grow in one trusted place. It's easy. You can start with just some spare change. If you have more than that, you can do more than that. Either way, you're gonna wanna watch your money grow. Because if you're not using Acorns and you're just sort of letting your money sit in the, in a, in a checking account somewhere.

C (19:18)

Yeah. Or, you know, worse or something.

A (19:21)

Yeah. Then you're just, you're just losing out on money. Sign up now and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus. Join the over 14 million all time customers who've already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com crooked or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns tier 2 compensation provided potential subject to various factors such as customers accounts, age and investment settings does not include acorns fees. Results do not predict or represent the performance of any ACORNS portfolio. Investment results will vary. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors, LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. View important disclosures@acorns.com Cricket Pod Save America is brought to you by Strawberry Me. You know that feeling when a new year starts and you tell yourself, okay, this is the year work is going to be great. And then two weeks later, you're already burned out again. Ooh, so they can read my mind. Yeah, we've been there. If work left you drained last year, today's sponsor, Strawberry Me, can help you change that. Strawberry is career coaching that gets to the real source of your burnout. Whether it's too much on your plate, no boundaries, a tough manager, or just feeling totally disconnected from the work you do, a coach helps you figure out what's draining you, build habits that protect your energy, redesign your day to day so it feels sustainable, and create a plan so burnout doesn't come back by March. It's not therapy, but honestly, it's like therapy for your career. I've got this co host, no boundaries.

C (20:36)

No boundaries.

A (20:37)

No boundaries at all. And here's the good part. You can get matched with a coach who fits your personality and goals in just a few minutes. Sessions are flexible, private, and made for real people with real jobs, not the fantasy version of you that always has it together.

C (20:49)

I love that. I love that version of me.

A (20:51)

That's such a good version. I love that idea of me. If you're listening to this thinking, yup, I'm burned out. Let this be your new year reset. Go to Strawberry Me Crooked and try your first coaching session for 50% off. That's strawberry Me Crooked.

C (21:08)

You're exactly right that if the Democrats take the House, Hakeem Jeffries is going to get reelected and probably should, Right? That's your job. Your job is to win the majority. You want the majority. That's great. You know, I don't know what will happen with Schumer. You know, that's probably like maybe a tougher bill there. I do think the candidates who run on this is really important. The candidates who run on, I'm going to vote for someone else. Have to actually vote for someone else. When they get there, because otherwise you are making like, then you're just, you're playing the game and you're going to look ridiculous. But you actually have to follow through on it because there's a bunch of people. Platner said he's not voting for Schumer, Malik McMurra, and I think maybe I know Malik Morrow, maybe Abdul Al said others have said they won't support Schumer. There are some people saying that. But then you actually got to, you got to, you can't then come here to a photo op a Schumer in the vote for him.

B (21:52)

Yeah, but you know, there'll be a process and, you know, you know, maybe multiple votes. We'll see who emerges. But I guess I think, you know, the most important thing in an election is to meet voters where they are, to understand where they are, their concerns. And, and I think that they're very concerned about Trump and maga, the economy. They're very concerned about, you know, Greenland. They're very concerned about a whole host of things, the ICE raids. But, you know, they're not sure that we're the remedy. And I think candidates ought to understand that.

C (22:21)

One of the things you'll hear from when people like you and I have this conversation in the Sabbath, social policy America, all the time we talk about the problems with the Democratic Party or argue that Democrats should run against the Democratic Party. You'll hear from people in the party, and you probably heard this after your op ed, that one of the reasons the Democratic Party brand is down is that the people who are most critical the Democratic Party are Democrats. Do you have any response to that?

B (22:45)

Well, Dan, I think, you know, people like you and I are kind of mostly irrelevant. It's what the Democratic Party voters are saying. You know, they, it's the general public. So swing voters, for sure, you know, express strong concern, but also Democrats. So at the end of the day, I just think we have to be honest and I think our strongest candidates historically, you look at Barack Obama, you look at Bill Clinton, you look at John F. Kennedy on their side, Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, these people who built electoral coalitions were pretty clear about while they were running against Republicans and running against problems in the country, they also wanted to change things about their own party. And I think it's hard to argue that we don't have some form of market failure. If you use that in a political context, which is voters right now, for the most part have two choices. That's it. They're dissatisfied with both choices. So what if you strengthen your hand so they're slightly less dissatisfied with you while your opponent's still stuck in the gutter. So I just think that's not healthy. And by the way, I think that's largely a social media, very online discussion. I don't think that's what real people out in the country are talking about. You know, if they actually support the Democratic Party, they want it to be as strong as possible, not to convince ourselves somehow we're stronger than we actually are.

C (24:08)

I want to get to 28 in the long term here in a second, but let's stick on 26 because that's sort of the wolf closest to the door here. In your piece, you argue that we have to make Republicans own all of Trump's problems. I think there is a bit of an internal debate, I'm having it within myself, too, about whether as a party we are too focused on Trump as opposed to Republicans, because you can see this in the Wall Street Journal poll that came out about a week ago. Trump's numbers are in the toilet on every issue. Right. He's barely above water on border security and everything else underwater. But then when you ask people who do they trust more on inflation, economy, immigration, et cetera, a generic Republican in Congress or generic Democrat in Congress, they pick Republicans by pretty large margins. And so I think we have this dilemma, which is there is a short term turnout advantage to making our race be about like that will get our people fired up, that will get donations from grassroots donations, but it does have some medium and long term consequences for the fact that the guy's never on the ballot again. How are you thinking about that question?

B (25:11)

Well, I'm glad you singled out some of those generic matchup questions with issues because it should scare the living daylights out of us.

C (25:18)

That's why the generic ballot's five, not eight. Right?

B (25:20)

Not eight. Right. So I think that if you think about an incumbent House Republican or even a Republican running in an open seat, or certainly Collins and Cruz and Ricketts, I think the task between now and November is to make them own factories, closing people, losing healthcare. Starting in the beginning of February, a bunch of people who signed up on the exchanges aren't going to go through because it costs so much, because the Republicans make them own that, make them own the tariffs and what that's done. So I think that the way I think you'd bring Trump in, that is maybe to say they've not stood up to Trump or they've supported Trump. But the most important thing is to make them own it. So if I had to say, how do you spend $10 or 10 minutes? I'd spend seven or eight of those dollars or minutes making the case against that Republican elected official or candidate separate, apart from Trump, that they own this. So that I think, you know how these races are. 26. Even if we win back the House, you know, there could be 8, 10, 12 seats we don't win by 1,000 or 2,000 votes. If we don't win back the Senate, it could be close. So making them pay full price. So those swing voters who go into the booth say, this person is not separate from Trump. And here's the other reason this is important, Dan. By the summer and certainly by the fall, all of these candidates are going to be lying and talking about where they stood up to Trump or where they disagreed with Trump. And the more that we lay that concrete now and through the course of the campaign, it'll be harder for them to do that. So I'm concerned that some of these Republican candidates who are on the more skillful side of things will convince some of these voters, well, that's all Trump. My guy or my woman tried to basically stop him or had a different idea.

C (27:07)

Does it affect your calculus at all that the Senate battleground is taking place almost entirely in states Trump won and the House battleground, as much as we'd like to think that this is this favorable territory for us, they're only, I think it has four seats where they have Republicans in districts like Kamala Harris won. There's not that many in districts that Trump won by five. Like the true. There's been like a narrow 2024 GOP like majority and an actual, you know, real majority in the House. You have to win Trump plus seven, plus eight, plus 10 seats. And that. That affect how you think about it, or is the dissatisfaction with Trump among independents and this 7, you know, 3 to 7% slice of 2024 Trump voters, enough to put those districts in play that you can run against Trump?

B (27:49)

There's no. I don't think so. I mean, I think particularly in those Trump 10, Trump 12 districts, Trump 8. You know, you've got to put the Republican incumbent on trial and they have to own. You know, your energy costs are up, your health care costs are up. This big factory closed. You know, your paycheck's not going further, further. I think you've got. They're the ones on the ballot, not Trump. And so I think you have to make it about them. And your point about these districts and the Senate is really important. Like this is hostile territory. So even though we have a very good environment, this is another reason I'm very focused on how do we maximize every vote with repair and refresh and reform of the Democratic offering. Because we're going into some deeply hostile places that we may be able to win just because Trump's so unpopular, people's economic concerns are so profound. But nobody should underestimate the degree of difficulty here. This is going to be really, really hard to win. But to your point where you could actually maybe get into the mid-220s or high 220s in the house, you're going to be winning a bunch of places that are pretty red.

C (28:55)

And I mean, this also goes to the party brand question about why over the course of the next period here, people have to fundamentally have a fundamentally different view of who Democrats are. Because otherwise we're renting these seats for two years in the House, maybe four years if we can make it through the presidential year. And these are one term senators, right? This is a, if let's say Mary Peltola is lucky enough to get through in a tough race in Alaska or James Talarico or someone else can win in Texas or Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio, is they're winning because they are running in the right year with the right political environment. And the next time they are up, it's going to be in a presidential election year and look very different in 32. And so you actually have to be able to keep these seats, not rent them. And that requires not winning on a sort of a black swan event of just the one year of inflation, Trump being unpopular, chaos in the streets and you win. And so it's just like it really hammers the point that you're winning despite the brand in 26, you have to win again in 32 for these senators or 28, 30 for the House members. The brand has to look very different to people. It has to look different palatable in these states, right?

B (30:07)

Or you're right, you're renting and you give it right back. And 32, I mean, it's, I think sometimes people think it's crazy to think beyond the next election, but we haven't done enough of that, which is what's the big thing here at play, right? And that's in terms of investing infrastructure, but also understanding. So all you're trying to do is win the Senate. But you, you to your point, you've got to look down the road because let's say we win a bunch of these places, Ohio, Alaska, I mean, from, from your lips to God's ears, that would be amazing. But then 32, let's say we win the White House in 28. So, you know, you have a Democrat running for reelection. Tough map presidential year turnout, super hard. So that's the test, I think, is can we get to the point where year after year, cycle after cycle, we feel that we have a 50% chance at least to win? And right now I think you'd say, of course not. I mean, we need to take it, you know, we need to be gifted, you know, political tailwinds. And I just don't think that that is going to save the country when we look at the threat. I mean, I, you know, you think about the court, like, it's not maybe it's not likely. It's also not crazy. Like we could have an 81 court by like 2040 if we don't have sustained political party 8 1. And that's almost like, Katie, shut the door time.

C (31:23)

Yeah. As you think about the strategy for this cycle, and I've had this debate with people in the House leadership, I can't tell if they agree with me or not, but do you think the party needs their version of Contract for America or something? The six for six from 2006, a policy agenda of here are the things that we are going to try to do if we win or that we stand for if we win. Do we actually need a positive agenda or is that giving the argument against which you hear from a lot of people and a lot of people at high levels of power. Party is Trump is failing. He is losing. By putting our own agenda out there, we're giving them a target and making it more of a choice than a referendum. And we really want it to be a referendum. What do you think?

B (32:08)

Well, it's interesting. So much of this originates back to the 94 race in the Contract with America. What people forget is heading into the election, the Contract for America was a very minor part of that election. But as you know, when you win election, you got to tell the story about why you won't. So I think we ought to also be grounded in the fact that 94, those results, which were historic at the time, we've had landslides since, was not about the Contract with America. And so now what's interesting is, I guess as I think about this question, the most important people to answer the question are the candidates running in tough House and Senate races. And my suspicion is they would rather not have a national Republican versus National Democratic campaign, in part because Trump and the Republicans are unpopular Democratic brands unpopular. I can be something different. I don't want to be tied to the party. So to the extent the House and Senate leadership are thinking about this, I would be in dialogue, not with my colleagues in the caucus rooms. I would be talking to the vulnerable candidates in House and Senate races and get their view. My guess is they would say it's not helpful. I think I'll do better kind of flying my own flag than being tied at all to a national Democratic Party flag. But that's my view. It's a tough call.

C (33:24)

Yeah. So my mind is not made up on it. I think the counter argument is one, if you're running in a very red seat, you should run against it. That's also helpful is no one has any idea what we stand for. We live in this massive communications vacuum. I mean, if you talk to voters, ask them when the last time they saw a Democrat who was not AOC or Mamdani or maybe Bernie speak and not there's any problem with them speaking, I think that's great. But just very few of them actually break through. Many of them couldn't pick Schumer or Jefferson of a lineup. It's just that the communications asymmetry is so big is one. And so having something that they're putting throwaway behind a message about something we stand for. I'm not saying that you should put Medicare for All in here, but an idea of, you know, maybe you could, I don't know. But just the ideas that you would have is like a handful of affordability ideas and some reform ideas. Like this is the part where I think probably get the most pushback from the leadership is I think the huge error. I think there's three sins that have put us in this place of our own doing. Some of the reason why the party brands in the toilet is circumstance of being present at the wrong time during COVID and during sort of the when people are ready to get out of COVID but could not yet get out fast enough. And then inflation. But it's Biden running again, right? And then everything that came with Biden's inability to unwillingness to communicate basically throughout his entire presidency in a way that voters actually heard. The second is misreading the 2020 election to think it meant that people that Biden's victory was a validation of institution norms in the pre Trump political system. When it was just like it was not that at all. It was more rejection of the system than anything else. And that People hate the political system and we became defenders of the political system in a very dangerous way. And the third one is misreading the 2022 midterms as we're talking about as a validation of where Democrats were, as opposed to like a blip in time on the second one. I do think that one thing the party has to do, maybe this is what the good candidates will do, which is also fine, is actually, and part of this is running against the party that gets into that. But also it's how do you get money out of politics, how do you get lobbyists out of politics, how do you deal with corporate power in politics? The most basic thing we can't get, we have failed to do for years now, stop members of Congress from trading stocks, like that sort of stuff could be part of an agenda that actually helps. Now, obviously my mind is still not made up here, but I think it is like that dilemma is do you leave a vacuum for the other side to define or do you have a ready made answer for what you would actually do, Which I know is hard because you can't do any of the things if you win and they have the White House. Right? That is the challenge.

B (36:18)

Well, I don't know if this is right. I mean, maybe it doesn't have to be, you know, a comprehensive agenda that, that tackles and tickles every issue. Maybe it's, no, it shouldn't be. Maybe it's on corruption and may. So our House and Senate candidates, most of who have compelling ideas around this, you know, can say, I've talked to the House and Senate leadership and they say, yeah, if we win back day one, banning stocks, crypto, you know, you know, no lobbying, like, oh, this is a place by the way, where I think voters also, they don't trust somehow that we're going to be different because we've defended a lot of this stuff. I think on sort of anti corruption stuff, you can't go far enough. And I think our candidates for the most part will go very far on this. This is where it would be helpful if they can say, no, no, it's not pie in the sky, there's going to be a vote. So, you know, it could be, maybe it's not, you know, our agenda on economy, on health care, on education, on immigration, on corruption maybe, but if not, there may be pieces of that that are helpful to the candidates that don't cause them problems.

C (37:17)

The hard part with the corruption stuff, because this is another battle I've been having with people for basically since 2020 because I've always believed that corruption is an important part of the story we should be telling. But then you talk to pollsters and they'll show you voters either don't care about as much as you think they do, or more importantly, don't trust Democrats that do anything about it. And this is a place, and we'll talk about this a little bit when we get to 28, but this is a place where biography, the message and the messenger do it. I would imagine Mamdani can come across as a reform oriented candidate because he's seen as an outsider to the system. AOC could your typical. Maybe Platner could, maybe some of these other candidates could. But the establishment Democratic politician is not going to be trusted to all of a sudden start caring about members of Congress leaving to become lobbyists and then coming back using their four privileges to come back and twist arms like that. Is that, that's, that is part of the. I guess that is part of the challenge. You need the right candidates to be able to.

B (38:12)

Well, an outsider candidate though. See, I mean, I think that, and I don't think it should be based on Trump. You can say, listen, we've seen a bunch of corruption, but you know, this predates Trump. It's Republicans and Democrats and so Democrats too.

C (38:23)

Yeah.

B (38:23)

And I think what, what it is is it goes beyond just do people think that's important to them? And I agree it's not important as how far their paycheck's going. But it also says this is an outsider. This is someone who's willing to challenge our own party, the status quo. So there's a credentialing thing. I agree. Someone who's a longtime House member running for the Senate is not going to be as credible as someone who's basically a frustrated citizen saying they've had enough and they're going to be basically a tribune for people on, on, on that issue.

C (38:52)

And I've mentioned Platinum a couple times only because you could do. There are other candidates too, but he's just sort of become the prototypical outsider Democratic candidate. Dan Osborne, who is not actually a Democrat but is another example like that. And there are a bunch of people, a bunch of House member, you know, House candidates who fit that, you know.

B (39:09)

Yes.

C (39:09)

You know, the people running who, the woman running and the fire, the fire general or fire military officer who's running in South Carolina 1, you get a whole bunch of ones like that. But like those are the sorts of candidates. All right, let's pivot to 28, because in the long term here, but before we get to 28, because I know this will be but just so we must suffer a little bit, I want to go back to 24 a little bit because I think there are some less. I've always found this is a benefit of being working in Democratic politics before Obama is I always learned more from the races I lost. So I had a lot of opportunities to learn more than the ones you win, because when you win, you think everything you did was correct. And when you lose, I think you actually picture it. And so you and I, we talked on this podcast a couple of weeks after the election. My brain had not yet processed it. I can't imagine yours had either, coming right off that campaign for 100 days, however long you were there. But now with the passage of time, are there things when you look back at that race, and I don't mean the things that I think were beyond the campaign's control, Biden's decision to run the short campaign or even and I say this because she wrote about in her book Kamala Harris's own unwillingness to separate from Biden in the sort of dramatic way a lot of voters want to do. Are there things like from the campaign strategic execution, messaging playbook. You look at that, you say, I wish we'd done that differently or not that it would have been decisive, but that now that you've seen how it played out, that makes you sort of question maybe how you thought about politics or how we should do things differently going forward.

B (40:44)

Well, I think it always sounds defensive to start here, but I do want to start here, which is because I've thought a lot about this. I know you have. Could we have won the race? And I don't think even if a bunch of decisions had been done differently by Combell, I'm not sure it could. As close as it was, it was still a lot of votes and the atmosphere was terrible for a Democratic nominee. If Joe Biden got out not in 24, in 23, and we'd had a full primary, I think whoever came out of that race would still have been the underdog, given the fact that on election day, 50% plus in every battleground state gave Trump a positive approval in the economy, and that's what mattered to voters, I'm not sure, but they would have been fully formed. They would have, I think, had an easier way of showing where they would have disagreed with Biden. You know, as you know, on presidential campaign, you know, you want to get your biography fully in there and you've got your Economic and your health care and your contrast. And that was all condensed. So I'm not sure, by the way, whether it was Kamala or someone else who came out of that primary. I still think you probably would have given Trump the advantage, given all the atmosphere, for sure.

C (41:50)

I 100% agree with that.

B (41:52)

I think that's the thing that would have made a difference. So I'm not sure there's anything decisive. I mean, I look back, you know, after the first debate, which was such a big moment for Harris, we said, we want to debate again. I think we should have said, we'll see you in two weeks on Fox. He might still not have debated, but we should have been more aggressive about having another big moment or two. You know, she worked at McDonald's. He didn't. He had the McDonald's amendment. We didn't. I certainly regret that. You know, we do live in that kind of world where interesting moments and visuals, even if they're kind of substanceless, but they can be symbolic matter. But the big thing for me is we could have used another moment or two, but I'm not sure at the end of the day, just given the headwinds there. And I think that's why when we spent time with voters, it's hard sometimes, I think, for Democrats to understand this. The threat of Trump's return is so real to us. And voters were like, I'm not that really worried about him. I mean, first of all, the economy was better when he was president. All these Democrats are talking about, democracy's a threat, but we still have democracy. And you'd say, well, Trump, January 6th, and Trump, well, he left. And I was a little surprised with those young voters. They'd say, and you guys didn't even have a contest. Like, for me, it might have seemed inside baseball that, okay, Biden left Harris. They're like, fuck you guys. Don't lecture us. So I think that there was just a bunch of stuff even beyond inflation and concern. But, yeah, I think there's some things. I think that there was a great team working on social media, on TikTok, on YouTube and Instagram. But I think it's fair to say that it just comes more naturally to Trump. And I think that's. By the way, those are mediums, not message, not messenger, to your point, not who the candidate is. That's still more important than how you get the message out. But I think we will be very well served in 28 if our presidential nominee is someone who wakes up every day and thinks about the campaign. Through the prism of TikTok, Instagram, Reels, YouTube, maybe a little Reddit. By the way, that's hardly anybody in our party right now.

A (44:03)

Pod Save America is brought to you by Helix. We love Helix mattresses. I got two in my house, my son has one and we have one in the guest bedroom and we get rave reviews from everyone who's ever slept on it. It's super, super comfy. I've slept on it myself. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand, tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Helix offers a variety of mattresses designed to fit your sleep needs. How will you know which Helix mattress works best for you and your body? Take the Helix Sleep Quiz. It matches you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences, making it easy to find a mattress that suits your sleep needs. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand, tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Like I said, Helix will deliver your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the us The Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk free customer first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress. You can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges. They even offer a 120 night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. So go to helixsleep.com crooked for 20% off site wide. That's helixsleep.com crooked for twenty percent off site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you helixsleep.com Crooked pods of America is brought to you by Mint Mobile. The holidays are long over, but you might still be feeling like you've got a big spending hangover. The drinks, the holiday food, the gifts, it all adds up. Luckily, Mint Mobile is here to help you cut back on overspending on wireless this January with 50% off unlimited premium wireless. Mint Mobile's end of year sale is still going on, but only until the end of the month. Cut out big wirelesses, bloated plans and unnecessary monthly charges with 50% off 3, 6 or 12 months of unlimited. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. You've probably heard us talk about Nina's experience with Mint Mobile. It's now been over a year since she made the switch and she still couldn't be happier with the service, the data, speeds and most of all, the affordable price. This January, quit overspending on Wireless with 50% off unlimited premium wireless plans start at $15 a month at mintmobile.com crooked that's mintmobile.com crooked limited time offer upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan required, which is $15 a month equivalent taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only over 50 gigabytes. May slow when network is busy. Capable device required availability speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.

C (46:37)

I want to get to that for sure because I think this goes back to both the leadership question to the House, the House and Senate leadership question, because one of the things you hear about them is you hear one of the criticisms you get of Jefferies and Schumer is that they're not great communicators. Right. That they're not natural. They're not, you know, they can be I think they could be fine at times, but they are not. When you're listing the great communicators on our party, you're never putting them on the list. Now, I think that this is indicative of the way politics has changed because you worked for Dick Gephardt when he was the House minority leader. I worked for Tom Dasch and was a Senate minority leader. They're both, I would say, with all due respect, them fine communicators give a good speech. Fine. But not if you're listing the best communicators in the party at the time, they weren't at the top of the list. I guess politics become much more performance now. Right. Which you think about those if you were picking a new leader would communicate like, we'll get to President Ken in a sec. But for a leader, would you think that their ability to communicate is as important as their ability to hold the caucus together or count votes or something like. Because Nancy Pelosi, greatest speaker of all time, that was like she did not spend a lot of time communicating publicly. She did most of her work behind the scenes.

B (47:46)

It's a great question. Yeah. The jobs change. Now, I think Daschle and Gephardt were both examples, though maybe they weren't at the top of the list of great historical communicators, but they were pretty good and they could go anywhere and talk to anyone. Right. I don't think that's the case right now. I still think at the end of the day, the most important thing is to be an exquisite leader, to know where your votes are, to be able to cut good deals or not good deals and stand and fight. Pelosi, again is the best example of this. So I don't think you should choose a leader. I wouldn't put communication skills at the top of the list because it's become a lot more important that it just has. And so even if it's not you to think about communications first to think about, okay, how are we going to get our message out? How do the people who we need to persuade in election, how are they living their lives and are we reaching them? Yes, ideally we'd have leadership in Washington that was both skilled backroom negotiators, took care of their members, had backbone of steel, and were good communicators. I don't think what will work is like the Madison Cawthorn approach, which is you're just a good communicator and you suck at the actual job, but you have to pay more attention to that. And even if it's not you as the prime communicator, you need to think a lot about that. So it has changed a lot. But at the end of the day, I think it's less about the specific people than I think. Just back to this question about should candidates call for new leadership? I just think there's a hunger out there for massive change and it's 360 degree change. And I think the candidates who embrace that will probably be the most successful. But again, back to your question of, you know, let's say the Democrats decide to have an agenda. Maybe it's every issue, maybe it's just a couple of issues. You know, how are you going to communicate that? Who's going to communicate that? How loud are you going to be like, these are really important questions. So I think there's, as you know, you've spent a lot more time thinking about this than I have. Every week it gets harder to reach audience. So, and I think that, you know, it again starts with messenger and message. Without that it's bullshit. But if you're not delivering message, and this is hard, Listen, you and I came up in politics where if you had something to say about healthcare or the economy or corruption or foreign policy, it'd be like, well, let's put the policy together and where are we going to give a speech and who are we going to give the exclusive interview to and what press conference? And what's crazy is all that should be at the bottom of the pile now. Now it's like, what's my TikTok play? What's my reel? You know, what's my visual representation of that? You know, which influencers am I talking to? And that for people who've come up in a different era, that's like rewiring of the brain. And I'm not sure most people can do it, you know, and this is another reason why we need younger candidates. Why do we need younger candidates? Well, one politically, I think would be helpful to us, but they also understand how people are living their lives in terms of communication. So from a political campaign angle, it's just going to be much more native and much more genuine and you're going to wake up every day seeing the world through that. I also think substantively, you know, if you're 80 years old, it's almost impossible to know how a 22 year old person is living, wants to live, what their dreams are like. And so Rahm Emanuel's call, like to have everybody, you know, can't be served after 75, you know, to me makes a lot of sense, you know, and I know there's exceptions to that. Pelosi, you know, I mean, yeah, she's 80, whatever, and you know, no one can hang with her. So I get that you would be losing some of that, But I think generally that's right, both politically, but also substantively.

C (51:18)

As you look at the communication thing is interesting because I'm assuming that electability is going to be a huge driving conversation in the 28 primary. Obviously everyone's afraid to lose for a good reason. Right. The stakes are so fucking high for the country, for the world, that you want to get it right now. Anyone who thinks they have any idea what actually makes someone electable in this day and age has no idea what they're talking about after everything that's happened. Yeah, we should have some humility, right? I always say that the prototypical when we came out of the 2004 election, the candidate, every day you go to any collection of Democratic operatives or donor thing and like, how do we can't lose again. How do we win in 08? We need a governor or a senator from a red state. I work for Evan Bayer. I work for a senator from a red state. And I mean, this blows people's minds. Now we tell them that Mark Warner, who has just recently been elected governor of Virginia at the time was the toast of the town. He's who everyone was trying to get in with. He decided not to run ultimately, but. So we all believe that, right? Everyone believed the conventional wisdom was white male, Democrat from a red state. We ended up nominating Barack Hussein Obama from the south side of Chicago via Indonesia and Hawaii. And then he went to largest Electoral.

B (52:38)

Landslide from the secret Al Qaeda.

C (52:39)

Yeah, all of that, it's going to change, but I think electability will be top of mind. It's why Biden won the 2020 primary. I think in that question of electability, it's not just what state are you from, what is your bio? How does it look on paper? It's can you actually communicate? Can you go into all the hostile places and deliver your message? Can you hang and have a cultural conversation on podcasts that resonate with young voters? Do you have a capacity to get your message out? Are you, to your point, digitally native? Do you actually understand how the medium works, which that does benefit, like that's a big part of the conversation. As you look at this 28 field right now, I'm not asking you to pick a candidate. Do you see candidates who have that capacity to actually get the message out? Because even though they're not going against Trump, it's still a media environment that tilts very far right. It's much easier for Republican get their message out. By the time we get to 28, they're going to control most of the major media outlets in this country. Several networks, pro Trump billionaires cover the Washington Post. And every single social media platform of consequence will be owned by a pro Trump billionaire from Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok. So do you see anyone out there who you think is showing the chops to do that?

B (54:01)

Well, first of all, yeah, the ecosystem is completely unbalanced and they just have command and control from television to radio to blogs to most importantly, social media that drive narrative, we don't have that. Listen, I would, you know, Twitter, obviously Musk's, you know, that's a toxic wasteland. That's less a business and more of an ideological mission. I still think, you know, despite the, the foot playing that's happened, you know, whether it's YouTube or TikTok or Instagram, those are businesses. Right. And I think Democrats can use them. I don't think there's going to be dial turning there to suppress us, but we need to maximize it. So listen, this is less about 28. And I just want before we have no idea what the Democratic Party primary voters are going to be looking for in 1Q28. No idea. And we have even less of an idea about what general election swing voters will be looking at in the fall of 28. So I think you're right. And that may be very different iterations of that political lifetimes between now and then. You know, obviously Newsom, someone I Think who's showing real aggression around social media. I think, you know, Steve, you know, Andy Bashir has been all over podcasts, has his own, you know, you know, I think a lot of the governors are leveraging the platforms in smart ways. I think everybody can learn from Donny in terms of how he's driving message, not as a candidate, but now as a mayor like Dan Lurie. The same thing. By the way. I don't think this is good for our country. But if you're an elected official now, particularly an executive, you know, it's all day long storytelling, you just have to do that. I don't think that's good, by the way. And I think we should audition our presidents much differently than we have and certainly will this time. Which is who's the best performer, but that's what we have. The biography is important, their ideas are important. The timing, do they fit? The timing is important. I don't want to say it's all about performance, but that performance is really important. Which, as you know, having worked in the White House on the really dark days and moments, how you perform is less important than the decisions you make. We don't really audition for that, sadly, but I think that. So I see some Democrats and the good thing is it seems like a lot of people are experimenting. But we have to get to the point where our standard bearer and most of our candidates, they just wake up every day in the world. They think about how am I going to drive a message, how am I going to make my opponent pay for something. It's not about a speech, it's not about an interview, it's about, you know, this multi platform approach. And as you know, they all need some distinction in how you deal with them. And this is why I think the most important people in campaigns going forward are going to be, you know, 22, 23, 24, 25 year old creators who understand these platforms inside and out and they should be given real seats at the decision making table in my view.

C (56:41)

As I look at this field, I can see and I like a lot of these people politically and personally.

B (56:48)

Me too.

C (56:48)

We've been around long enough, we know a bunch of them now. They have a lot of them on the show. I see lots of people who could win in a good political environment in 2028. I think that's an, I really do believe that's a nomination you're going to want to have. Given Trump's unpopularity, the process by which they're going to end up with JD Vance as her nominee who is quite dangerous, but also I think has plenty of flaws and is not wearing well with voters like there are these the Sarah Longwell put out some focus group results today which showed that the only thing that Gen Z Men wanted less than JD Vance was for the United States to invade Greenland. He has Trump's MAGA beliefs, but not the charisma that helps unite the charisma. But still it's going to be a danger. But so I can see lots of people who can win that race. What I'm struggling with is to truly succeed, to actually defeat maga, to not just hand the White House back and forth, is you have to change the political alignment. You need a transformative candidate. Now, the primaries tell us a lot. The people you think are going to be great, like on the Republican side, Ron DeSantis in this election, Scott Walker 2012 can blow up in their face. We've seen that on our side over the years. People who look great on paper barely make it out the starting gates. But it's hard to see the candidate who can truly achieve. A lot of what you're talking about is an outsider. And there's not an obvious outsider in this mix, right? They're all everyone. If you go through the list of expected candidates, none of these people have announced, but we all expect they'll run. Newsom, Pritzker, Witmer, Shapiro, Bashir. I'm sure I'm forgetting others, but lots. Mark Kelly said he's thinking of running now. These are all established Gallegos. These are all establishment Democratic politicians. And I believe our strongest candidate who truly would have a chance to reset the party, reset the political alignment for a generation in this country who could do for the Democrats what Obama did for the Democrats or what Trump has done for the Republicans has to be an outsider. Am I pining away for something that can't happen here? What do you think?

B (59:06)

Well, that's a great question, Dan. Are you thinking a particular outsider or two, by the way, or no?

C (59:12)

I mean, look, I think I don't have a good answer to this right from the people, and I don't agree with this one per se, but a lot of people on the right, on the center right of the party, they throw Mark Cuban's name out there because that's sort of like our Trump version, only in the sense that he's a businessman who's very good with the media and is a reality TV star. The other one you hear more from the resistance left is would Jon Stewart run Right. So I don't Have a good answer for that. I mean, honestly, I'm not arguing for this per se, but the politician within our party who has the best biography to run for president and the best communication skills is aoc, Right? She is an outsider bartender, and she can communicate with the best of them. I don't think she's. I have no indication she's actually thinking of running. But, like, if you were saying, like, what is our version of. Obama was elected official, but he'd been elected official such a short period of time that he wasn't defined by that. You know, it's like we just. I don't see that person. So I'm like, keeping my eyes open for who that could be because people weren't talking about Obama. Actually, people were talking a lot about Obama at This point in 2006, you know, the relevant point in the cycle, but they weren't seriously thinking he was not thinking he was going to run. Like, who were they? Like, is there someone out there that we're not thinking of who could get in the mix?

B (60:26)

Well, so, first of all, I mean, my hope is that we have some of the Cubans and Storts running in part because I hope this primary is big and messy and tough and hard. Because I think if our nominee has to survive the toughest obstacle course possible, that person will be stronger. And it might even be someone who you'd say on paper, you don't think has the kind of reach to really expand the electorate in our coalition. Maybe if they survive that primary, oftentimes the people who win, they don't just come out whole, they come out strengthened by the primary.

C (61:00)

I think they got to keep putting Obama did right.

B (61:03)

So I think just by the way, the flip side is people who look like tigers on paper, like Desantis, like John Glenn, like Walker, you know, they get chewed up in their political graveyard. So it works both ways. So I think we should have outsiders run. You know, listen, I don't know what AOC is going to do, and I understand the conventional wisdom would be, well, you know, she would get demolished in a general election. I'm not so sure about that. I mean, she's an outsider. And by the way, talent matters. Talent, talent. Again, back to, like I sound like super luxury old person. Like, I wish we elected presidents based on their talent to run the Situation Room and, like, work with Congress, but we don't. So the ability to communicate, inspire, reach, handle crisis in your campaign is so important. She's clearly got that. I would say, you know, based on prior election history. And by the way, that doesn't mean anything in a presidential election necessarily. But like, you know, Bashir has overperformed a lot. Shapiro's overperformed, all those Michigan candidates have overperformed. Gallego overperformed. So there's some people in those races, in those states who showed the ability to outperform the sort of Democratic average. That doesn't mean that translates to a general election, because I think in a general election, yeah, profile, background matters, but it's really that talent. I mean, you've looked a lot at this. You can't overstate it enough. These elections are decided by people who pay little to no attention to politics. They don't seek out information. You got to find them. And the way you find them is through compelling moments and genuine moments. Some of them plan, most of them not. And so that's what we need in our nominee is someone, yes, who can obviously secure the nomination, build confidence in the party, build a great organization, have the financial resources, but has that athletic ability to capture people's attention whose attention doesn't want to be captured. And the primary in part is for that. And so you're right. On paper, I don't think we got a bunch of people. The other thing, Dan, is I'd be surprised you and I are political veterans, that there won't be two or three people that run that you and I would not name right now. And I hope that's true. I hope that's true. I agree very much with you.

A (63:26)

This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all in one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Create a professional website to showcase your offerings and attract clients. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award winning website templates with options for every use and category. Squarespace domains make it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all inclusive price. No hidden fees or add ons required. Every Squarespace domain comes with advanced privacy and security tools included to ensure your domain remains online and protected. Make smarter business decisions with Squarespace's intuitive built in analytics tools. Review website traffic, learn where to focus engagement and track revenue from bookings, invoices or product sales. All from one place. Squarespace provides everything you need to bring more of your dream to life. Whether that means building a website or adding a professional email Service. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial and when you're ready to Launch, go to squarespace.com crooked to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com crooked well, the holidays have.

B (64:39)

Come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy see terms.

C (65:11)

So talent, electability, communications dictate who wins the primary. The other thing that dictates the prim the calendar. Right now in our minds it has always been thus that we would go Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. That would be it. That's how we've done it. There is currently no calendar. For the first time ever, there was nothing to operate. Biden changed it to South Carolina first, then didn't have a primary. Do you have a view on what the calendar should be?

B (65:40)

I have some thoughts about the principles. Now. I think there's been 12 states, right. That have basically submitted an application. So you should ignore the other 38. It is these 12 that will make up the early states. So my principles are the past shouldn't matter. History shouldn't matter. Relationships shouldn't matter. Given the existential nature of what's in front of us, we should have a calendar that we think gives us the best opportunity to produce the strongest nominee to win the president presidency. So that would mean to me, I would make sure that the first four are all battleground states. You and I know the value. Why do I want to do that? You get exposure in those states, you build up an organization in those states. But also the nominee gets comfortable in those states. So other than if Kamala Harris runs, none of these candidates know much about these states. By the way, how much better of a general election candidate was Barack Obama having spent all that time in Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada? He knew the people, he knew the reporters, he knew the media markets like he knew the economy. So with all due respect to you and I have deep love for Iowa and for South Carolina, I would not have a Non battleground state. And the good thing is you've got Georgia and North Carolina both want to be battleground early. So does Arizona and Nevada, so does Michigan Northeast. Our home state, Delaware actually demographically would be a great place to start, actually. But I think New Hampshire probably is the other one in that region. And I would probably start relatively small to big so that you give candidates the opportunity to compete in a state that's not overwhelming in size or expense. I also think you should give a lot of thought to what comes after the first four, because it may be we have a political athlete who emerges, who wipes the floor with everybody like Trump did back in 16, and they're going to be the nominee after the first four. In a way the calendar wouldn't matter there other than it helps you for the general election. So I think the calendar choice should be how does it help you win the general election? How do you put together a good test for the candidates? But then what comes right after is important. Like I would make sure New York's relatively early, if you can do that. Like why New York? New York's a tough place to compete and you want to put people through their paces. You know, Texas, some of these places that we want to reach. But the most important thing for the DNC Rules Committee is these first four. So for me, as hard as it is sometimes, we should not worry at all what's happened before, who's done what, who has relationships, what is the most ruthlessly non emotional, surgical thing we can do. And the other thing about it is it's not a one way door. If we want to Change it in 32, we change it in 32. Because the roster of battleground states almost certainly will change, as it always historically has done. I would go all battleground states early. They're already going to make sure there's geographic diversity. But you know, those are all states.

C (68:31)

And ethnic diversity.

B (68:32)

Right, and ethnic diversity. So that's my view of it. And you know, again, somebody who just has momentum, who kind of overwhelms the field, they'll win regardless of the calendar. But if we have, you know, if we ever. The other thing I'd say is South Carolina, historically, other than in 24 when we didn't have a contest, has been the gateway to the nomination. And other than, I think 04 when Edwards won, because he was kind of, you know, North Carolina guy, local.

C (69:01)

Yeah.

B (69:01)

And why is that? Because once you come out of the early states, you know, the candidate who wins the plurality of the African American vote is going to be our nominee. So I still think having a Southern state as that last one into the rest of the nomination process is important. Now, in my view, it would be Georgia or North Carolina, but we'll see. I mean, I think that that's important. So that, to me, is another rule of principle. But to me, the inviolate thing is you just gotta put blinders on. Don't worry about what's happened. You know, New Hampshire's always had this. South Carolina, like, what's the right thing to do to produce the strongest Democratic nominee to advantage that person. So we have the best chance not just to win the presidency in 28, as important as that is, but to do it with some margin. So we begin to build this electoral coalition that can be sustainable and ultimately extinguish the MAGA threat.

C (69:55)

To me, I 100% agree. The best idea I'd ever heard was from Kevin Shiki, Bloomberg sky, which was you would just take the four closest states from the previous election and do them. So in this case, it would be Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona.

B (70:13)

That violates the geographic thing, but that's a fine idea, right?

C (70:16)

I mean, the basic principle here is battle is organizing in the primary will help you in the general. And because of changes in the electoral College map since 2012, Iowa and South Carolina are not battleground states anymore. And so they should be. We should be able to get to places where we can compete in either of them. But like, I remember, like, being, you know, obviously I spent a lot of time in Iowa in 2008. We had the best organizers in the Democratic Party were in Iowa organizing that state with an inch of its life. Every voter, every community, we knew who they were. You could get it. I was there in 2020 doing podcasts and covering the caucuses. And then when I flew out the next morning, a bunch of those organizers were on my flight to go to the next state. And they were never going to return, though. They were going to close those offices and they were going to leave. And so to spend all of the millions of dollars and all this time and money and energy to organize a state that you never return to seems like just a waste of resources. So getting those battleground states makes a ton of sense to me.

B (71:19)

Yeah. And again, I think the voters, whoever as our nominee, will have competed in those states spent a lot of time doing social media interviews, running ads, so you get a head start on your definition. But also, I'll just repeat this candidate thing. Even though our presidential campaigns have become more national, even though we have an electoral College. Your comfort and skill and understanding of these places that will determine the presidency are important. And if you've spent a bunch of time in there, you know, you're a governor or senator or an outsider, you know, in your state, you don't know these states, but if you've spent a lot of time campaigning there, you'll be a better candidate. And so that's another, I think, principle in terms of why it ought to just be battleground states first four. And again, that doesn't have to be something that's a generation. We can change it if we need to as battleground states change.

C (72:10)

The last thing I want to get to is 1. In your op ed, one of the things you brought up was the Democrats need to talk about AI. The day is a huge issue. We need a position on AI. You had ChatGPT write a political ad about AI that was actually quite good. I tried to get another AI tool to do the actual visuals of the ad. Not so good. So maybe the writers of political ads are in grave danger. Maybe the actual cinematographers are okay for the short term.

B (72:38)

Another cycle anyway.

C (72:39)

Yeah, at least maybe. I mean, these things are moving so fast. You might be able to keep your job through 26, 28, you might be fucked. But AI is the most important technological, economic, cultural, psychological, social issue of our time. My view is in. The party has been bizarrely quiet on it with some exceptions. Republicans have actually been much more vocal and been Republican Congress particularly been more vocal critics of Trump's. The Trump's David Sachs, let him cook policy of no regulation. But to the extent we have, you know, the extent the Democrats are talking about, it's mostly people who are doing like bans on data centers. Where do you think the party comes down on here? Do you have a view of what that messaging or policy position should be?

B (73:25)

Well, first of all, I just find it bizarre because I would even say, yeah, David Sachs and the Trump administration, but generally we're not having a debate about the thing that's going to have the biggest impact on the country for decades. Like it's insanity. And I think voters express that. They're like, this seems like it's just happening to us. By the way, they feel like social media happened to them. They didn't have any say in it. Now this is even bigger and it's happening to them. So listen, AI is here, everyone's using it. There's a lot of benefits in terms of healthcare, hopefully in education, all sorts of of things. So it's Not a pro AI, anti AI. I just think given that the Trump administration, a lot of Republicans, it's basically a green flag, no questions asked. And by the way, Elon Musk, who's probably the most prominent outside Republican now, is out there saying there will be no jobs. Working will be optional, everyone can plant flowers and what a great life that will be. People are like, fuck you. It's not realistic. So I think that Democrats should say, listen, we need to beat China. We want to be the leader. We've always benefited from leading technological revolutions and change. We want to do that here. We just want to have the right kind of rules and transparency and the right kind of discussions about what kind of economic transition. How do we have to think about changing our education system so people aren't spending hundreds of thousand dollars for degrees that are unemployable. So I just think we need to lift our voice now. It doesn't have to be against AI, it needs to be. We need to have the right discussion about regulation, around transparency, about the adjustments we need to make, but also make the Republicans pay a price for asking none of those questions. Because I think voters, you know, I see this in research, I'm sure you see this in research. You know, they're getting more and more concerned at a time, by the way, where they're already economically worried. So they think things are going poorly. And now they got this weighing over them. You see with a lot of parents of school age kids, they're worried their kids aren't learning, that they're not going to learn deeply, that they're too reliant on AI. We have the mental health crisis. So I think for us, I think candidates should lean into it and say, if I'm elected, I'm going to put a lot of thought to how we handle this. Not in a way that hurts us competitively, still allows us to flourish, but this could kill lots of jobs. This is changing education, by the way. This is changing how people, you know, deal. We already have what half of men under 30 have never asked a woman on a date. More and more of them are going to have relationships with chatbots. Like, this is big stuff. So to me, there's an opening for leadership that's very much connected to the economy you want to build. And I think, you know, I'm not saying it's going to be the leading issue in 26. I think it will be an issue. I think by 28 it could be the dominant issue or one of them. And this is a place where JD Vance and we in particular is deeply exposed and I think could really pay a price by 28 if people sense is this has happened way too fast. No one's asking the right questions. I see the devastation all around me. Nobody's thinking about me and my family and my kids. And if we have Democrats at least raising some of those questions, hopefully they have a lot of good answers, but at least willing to raise some of those questions, I think we will politically profit from it.

C (76:33)

Yeah, it's really, it's quite challenging because it's very different than when social media was starting when Obama was running where those companies were viewed quite positively by the public as something different. For all the skeptics that they had of Wall street or big oil or Big Pharma or big Tobacco or all the bigs, there was a sense that these companies run by these new younger people were something different or better. And so Obama benefited a lot from being seen as the tech candidate. Right. That's not the same now. Right. It is very, it's much, it's a much more complicated relationship. This tech is just in a lot of voters views just like a segment of business that they're quite skeptical of and think is fucking them over. And so you got. But you also don't want to be like I think our best candidate is going to be seem like they understand the future.

B (77:27)

Yes.

C (77:28)

And we have lost some of that like in the post Obama years as Democrats.

B (77:34)

And so.

C (77:34)

And so how do you sort of navigate that between, you know, the anti tech view but also being seen like you understand the benefits but you're also very aware and willing to stand up to these companies to protect people from them. I guess is the sort of. You've got to lean into the benefits.

B (77:49)

Both in terms of AI and robotics. Right. If no one dies in car crashes anymore, that'd be like the biggest public health benefit in the history of our country. Right. Robotics can probably play a role around, you know, senior care and things. But like so I think yes, positives. But, but let's think about this. I mean the dominant debate when you listen to you know, Altman and Musk and even like people like Sachs is well, don't worry if all the wealth goes to the big companies. They don't even dispute it. Yeah, they'll give it back. So I'm a Democratic candidate. I would say in a room. Does anybody believe also by the way, they're like the meritocracy party. You know, Americans are about hard work and drive. Basically what they're saying is you won't have to work anymore. The truth is some Americans don't want to work. A lot of people want to work. They get a lot of value and dignity out of it. It really fills them up. And so I think they're really vulnerable here. And part of it is just putting the words back. Does anybody believe that all the wealth from AI should go to 5 people? People say no. Well, the people who are in charge now are saying that basically, yeah, it may all go to them, but don't worry, they're going to give it back in a dividend and you'll all get your piece and everything will be okay. Like, it's ridiculous. And so I think there's a big opening there. I think the skill to your point will be to not seem like you're a troglodyte, that you have your head focused on the future. You want to make sure that the benefits of this are widely shared. And like healthcare is a great example of that. But, you know, we need to be careful about this in terms of, of what adjustments we have to make and also call bullshit on some of this economic model stuff that just does not withstand any scrutiny at all.

C (79:32)

Yeah. And then also you're going to need what is truly unsustainable is to be let AI do whatever it wants. But also we're going to eliminate all of our green energy so that we are just like burning the planet. You need a comprehensive. I know this seems hard in this meeting environment, but you need a comprehensive strategy with nuance to actually do it. I think people, from the research I've seen, people are both hopeful and skeptical and you got to kind of be able to fit right in that category. They're very concerned about impacts on their energy bill, for sure, impacts on their community from these giant data centers being built, but also see some benefits in some way, shape or form if it can make their life easier. So we need an actual policy. And if the Republicans have no policy, I think where the Republican governors have been better than us is they've been very critical of and focused on the effect on kids. Yes, right. And we've just. Not that we're not focused on it, we're just silent about it. Like we, like we're just. The party just seems to not have a lot to say about it. Maybe there are lots of individual candidates saying individual things, but it's just not being heard by people because we don't have the. It's not the most important people in the party doing it. We don't have presidential candidates doing it. We don't have the megaphone to get it out, but I think it feels to a lot of voters and you see this show up, is that we don't have anything to say about it. And that's a problem.

B (80:48)

I agree. We got to fill that gap in a smart way.

C (80:52)

All right, David Plouffe, I will let you go. This has been fun and illuminating and alarming. As always. Good to talk to you and we'll.

B (80:58)

Have you back on the show. That's how our discussions always go, Pfeiffer.

C (81:01)

Always have for almost 20 years now.

B (81:05)

See ya.

C (81:05)

Before we go, some quick housekeeping Friends of the Prod subscribers should check out the brand new episode of my show, Polar Coaster. In our most recent episode, we broke down Trump's abysmal polling on Greenland and we looked at the emerging Democratic primaries in the key states that are going to decide the Senate majority, in addition to breaking down the latest polls in news and politics. In every episode I answer questions from our Friends of the Pod subscribers. You know, there are questions about individual races around the country too. My takes on reality TV and everything in between. There are so many reasons to become a friend of the pod, from ad free episodes of your favorite podcast to additional content to an amazing Discord server. But I'll give you one more your subscription is the best way to support Crooked Media as we try to build a progressive media response to Fox News and all of the other right wing media that is threatening our democracy and bending truth in this country. To subscribe, go to crooked.com friends thanks to David Plouff for joining us. John John Tommy will be back in your feed on Tuesday with another podcast.

A (82:11)

If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Ilick Frank and Saul Rubin. Our Associate producer is Farah Safar. Austin Fisher is our Senior producer. Reed Churlin is our Executive Editor. Adrian Hill is our head of News and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kantor is our Sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt de Groat is our Head of production. Naomi Sengel is our Executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team. Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Kiril Pelaviev, David Toles and Ryan Young. Our production staff is pretty proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

B (83:12)

As a contractor, I don't pay for materials I don't use, so why would I pay for stuff I don't need in my mobile plan? That's why my biz plan from Verizon Business is so perfect. Now I can choose exactly what I want and I only pay for what.

A (83:24)

I need right now with my biz plan. Get our best price as low as $25 a line.

C (83:29)

Visit verizon.combusiness to get started today.

A (83:32)

New lines only. Price per month with 5 plus lines. Includes auto pay and paper free billing and promotional discounts, taxes, fees, economic adjustment charge applicable.

C (83:37)

Add ons prices and term supply guarantee.

A (83:38)

Applies to base monthly rate and stated discounts only. Add on prices. Additional offers in March 31, 2026. Rover makes it easy to book pet care whenever you need it. Connect with trusted pet sitters in the Rover app today. Get $10 off your first Rover booking with code Rover PET10. Additional terms and conditions apply. Rover Loving pet care in your neighborhood.